Reputation

[PhilB]

THIS IS NOT A HAIG GOOD/BAD THREAD!

If the majority of people have the same opinion of Haig, what is the main source for that opinion. Is it:-

1/ Popular writers

2/ Historians

3/ Soldiers`or families` tales passed down or

4/ Objective opinions reached by reading?

Or is there some other mechanism that moulds public opinion? Phil B

[Chris Best]

Dear Strange Handle

If the majority of people have the same opinion of Haig, what is the main source for that opinion

I suspect the poison/spin in these instances starts at the political level (Lloyd-George and Churchill) who were both critical of Haig (and others) and probably had the benefit of 'unattributable briefings' to the press and later were more overt in their criticisms in their own memoirs. Further credence was given by respected academics (Liddell Hart et al). Returning Tommies picked up the spin directly or indirectly from the popular public domain, related their own 'worm's eye view' of events, and their perception of the life of the gilded staff and eventually the 'donkey', 'butcher' 'bungler' terminology came into public acceptance.

Note, I said 'eventually'. It is my understanding that, during the early post war years, Haig was held in high regard by returned soldiery. Perhaps cynicism crept in with the Great Depression etc and the recognition that they'd failed to benefit from the spoils of war.

Yep, I'm convinced it's the politicians covering their own derrieres. First rule, if a politician's lips are moving, he's lying.

Chris

[armourersergeant]

I would say that the two men most responsible would be lloyd-George and Basil Liddell Hart. From these two came the most 'attacks' on Haigs competenance and ability.

This in turn I believe would lead others to apportion blame for all the casualties that were suffered.

As for the soldiers blaming Haig, i have not read that much to apportion this but i guess, either they did not or only did when they were able to see the overall picture, once they were outside the ball. Very difficult to see whats happening whilst you are in it.

Liddell Hart obviously felt he was correct in his writing, where as Lloyd-George was, in my opinion, just covering his ****.

I wonder how history would judge Haig if John Terraine had been first and Liddell Hart was the later historian?

regards

Arm.

[truthergw]

I should think that Clarke's "Donkeys" had an important part to play in moulding public opinion post war. It was written for an uncritical audience in a fairly sensationalist way. Most members of the general public would not be in a position to judge his statements in the same way as members of this forum. I know that it was the first book I read on the Great War and got me interested in what had actually happened to my Grandads. My opinions have altered several times since then but it took a lot of reading.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Note, I said 'eventually'.  It is my understanding that, during the early post war years, Haig was held in high regard by returned soldiery.  Perhaps cynicism crept in with the Great Depression etc and the recognition that they'd failed to benefit from the spoils of war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This comment is often put forward to suggest those old soldiers that had experienced the trenches held Haig the War Leader in high esteem but as a matter of interest what is your evidence for this?

The reason I ask is that from my own reading I have found that Haig was a far too distant figure for Tommy Atkins to make much comment about and from the little that was said the most positive comment I have found was that Haig had a strong jaw. Neither have I found much positive comment said about tactics, strategy etc by the former soldiers made Post War.

From my reading/findings I have formed the opinion that Haig was given respect Post War because of a combination of his position and the social order of things. On the other hand I have come across several comments from subalterns - that may have been more informed of the battle tactics etc - that were extremely critical of Haig and his Command.

[AndyHollinger]

One thing we must all remember is the commander shares both blame and adulation. It is Haig's statue in London and his name all over books criticizing him both from above (LG) and below - professional military historians. There may soon be a history of the interpretation of Haig as is done about Lee.

I am convinced that men/women in positions of authority are judged and praised beyond the measure of the facts - I think the term "History will judge" is also a misnomer because it is two different worlds that judge ... the "knowledgable one" of experts, historians and enthusiasts and the common one - the general public's understanding. It is rare that they're the same or even intersect.

Personally, I think the casualty figures did the most of the reputation. With WWII so comparatively "clean" and the victory more complete ... the popular assumption is that Haig must have messed up somewhere.

[Muerrisch]

With WWII so comparatively "clean" and the victory more complete ... the popular assumption is that Haig must have messed up somewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hoi Hoi !!!!!!!!

An American viewpoint! Ask the Russians if WW II was comparatively clean.

And how was victory more complete? In both cases Germany ended up occupied. That only happens if the armed forces are defeated. Stuffed, even. Certainly Haig and his army could walk away with heads high: the politicians then made a mess, which they did not do after WW II.

We usually agree, but these are extreme opinions, and not facts.

I am only an amateur historian, but I don't believe everything a trained Historian tells me, because my training and career was in science.

Captain Grumpy sniffs controversy. Troll alert, even.

[Clive Maier]

... I suspect the poison/spin in these instances starts at the political level (Lloyd-George and Churchill) who were both critical of Haig (and others) ...

... Yep, I'm convinced it's the politicians covering their own derrieres.  First rule, if a politician's lips are moving, he's lying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very senior soldiers, sailors and airmen are themselves politicians.

[AndyHollinger]

With WWII so comparatively "clean" and the victory more complete ... the popular assumption is that Haig must have messed up somewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hoi Hoi !!!!!!!!

An American viewpoint! Ask the Russians if WW II was comparatively clean.

And how was victory more complete? In both cases Germany ended up occupied. That only happens if the armed forces are defeated. Stuffed, even. Certainly Haig and his army could walk away with heads high: the politicians then made a mess, which they did not do after WW II.

We usually agree, but these are extreme opinions, and not facts.

I am only an amateur historian, but I don't believe everything a trained Historian tells me, because my training and career was in science.

Captain Grumpy sniffs controversy. Troll alert, even.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No troll alert here ... Germany was occupied at the end of WWI - by who? They gave up parts of it ... but it was not the complete victory that WWII was (with no roof on a blg in Berlin. Russian victory was much different, but it's messier ... but I doubt those thinking about the Eastern Front are those making Haig's reputation ...

[andigger]

... Germany was occupied at the end of WWI - by who? 

France, UK, and US.... what about the Belgians, though, did they send a contingent as a mud-in-your-eye gesture?

Andy

[PhilB]

At a slight tangent, could anyone point me to a source of reading on how exactly Haig was selected as CinC? Who were the selecting body? What "other influence" was there? What might the job description have been?! Phil B

[AndyHollinger]

France, UK, and US.... what about the Belgians, though, did they send a contingent as a mud-in-your-eye gesture?

Andy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm missing something here ... there were US, UK and French troops occupying Germany after WWI? No, not Alsas or the Rhineland which was demilitarized ... but Bavaria to Prussia occupation? Maybe I woke up in the wrong universe but I don't think so ... what am I missing?

[Old Tom]

Hello,

A quote from a modern historian may add something to this debate.

Gary Sheffield ‘Haig and his generals may not have been the best team the British army has ever produced, but they were pretty good and did their best with what they had in a war whose like had never been contemplated’. May I add the same might be said of the French and Germans.

Old Tom

[Muerrisch]

Andy: when in a hole, stop digging!

The difference is cosmetic: a German occupation of Kent and Sussex after the Gt War, with no British Army or Navy or RAF to protect the remainder, would have been as complete as may be. The Kaiser, visiting his troops in Dover, might just pop up to London to have a look-see, and who could have stopped him?

I believe that the Allies had no appetite to occupy all Germany in 1919, and no option in 1945, given the rattling down of the Iron Curtain.

And any airy dismissal of Russian casualties in WW II when comparing "Cleanness" of the wars is, well, frankly isolationist, seen from this side of the pond.

[Chris Best]

Jonathan

This comment is often put forward to suggest those old soldiers that had experienced the trenches held Haig the War Leader in high esteem but as a matter of interest what is your evidence for this?

Too late for me to go scrabbling around for this but I'm almost certain that it's a comment made by a number of speakers in the BBC's 1964 The Great War series. Admittedly, a small cohort.

I guess the relatively speedy erection of statues commemorating Haig might also be considered testimony to popular support (contrast with the time lapse before Bomber Harris was commemorated).

If this thread's still active when I find the quote (written or oral) I'll post it.

Chris

[Chris Best]

Clive

Very senior soldiers, sailors and airmen are themselves politicians.

Yes they are/were - Galtieri, Pinochet, Franco, Napoleon.

Slightly flippant, sorry. Am I not right, though, in saying that, except for Cromwell and Wellington, no senior military officer has risen to the highest office of state in Britain. It's simply not British.

Sure, senior British military personnel are politically astute, adept and aware (is that tautologous, or simply alliterate?), particularly nowadays (consider General Mike Jackson's reaction to General Wesley Clark's order to eject the Russians from the airfield in Kosovo). But they are soldiers. They follow political direction at the strategic level, they may advise on its direction, but they do not create it.

Some dead Prussian said that war is politics by other means (or something like that). Politicians make war, soldiers execute it.

Chris

[Muerrisch]

Quote: Some dead Prussian said that war is politics by other means (or something like that). Politicians make war, soldiers execute it.

................................................................................

.......................................

You wouldn't like to work a bit harder on your quotations, would you?

Some dead Prussian!

Its a toss up between Machiavelli and Clausewitz, answers on a postacard to reach me by ................

[Chris_Baker]

At a slight tangent, could anyone point me to a source of reading on how exactly Haig was selected as CinC? Who were the selecting body? What "other influence" was there? What might the job description have been?!  Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll try to determine this exactly, but I believe that this was from a formal viewpoint a decision of the Army Council, advised by the War Committee of the Cabinet.

"Other influences" were those who had the ear of those who had to make the formal appointment, not least of which were King George V and the Lords Esher and Haldane.

Haig's orders were in the form of an instruction from the Secretary of State for War - Lord Kitchener - on 28 December (nine days after Haig was appointed CinC). In the first paragraph it said that the role of the BEF was "to support and co-operate with the French and Belgian Armies against our common enemies. The special task laid upon you is to assist the French and Belgian Governments in driving the German Armies from French and Belgian territory..."". In other words, there was no question of standing on the defensive, but to work in coalition in offensive.

[Dragon]

You wouldn't like to work a bit harder on your quotations, would you?

Some dead Prussian!

Its a toss up between Machiavelli and Clausewitz,

It was Clausewitz.

War is continuation of politics by...

Gwyn

[PhilB]

In other words, there was no question of standing on the defensive, but to work in coalition in offensive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Chris. A recent thread established that attrition was the chosen strategy, so did his instructions change or were they just ignored? Phil B

[AndyHollinger]

Andy: when in a hole, stop digging! 

The difference is cosmetic:  a German occupation of Kent and Sussex after the Gt War, with no British Army or Navy or RAF to protect the remainder, would have been as complete as may be.  The Kaiser, visiting his troops in Dover, might just pop up to London to have a look-see, and who could have stopped him?

I believe that the Allies had no appetite to occupy all Germany in 1919, and no option in 1945, given the rattling down of the Iron Curtain.

And any airy dismissal of Russian casualties in WW II when comparing "Cleanness" of the wars is, well, frankly isolationist, seen from this side of the pond.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't think I'm in a hole here ...

In terms of popular conception or even a historical study of postwar Germany has no meaningful allied occupation - certainly the uprisings and wrangling of the new gov't were not influenced by Allied troops in the streets of any major city. With Germany thrashing about - even among the German populace about how they didn't lose the war militarily shows that the victory was different.

As to Russian WWII casualties and the appearence of a clean war - it took years for us to really grasp the impact and, frankly, to the people who started the Haig Donkey thing, I doubt it was considered. To Americans and the English speaking peoples WWII was cleaner and more complete.

[Chris_Baker]

I don't see that attrition is incompatible with being in an offensive posture... ?

[PhilB]

Perhaps not, technically, but possibly not what was in mind when the instructions were framed? Phil B

[andigger]

I am not an expert on the occupation, but these are some of the facts I have been able to compile.... mostly from Margaret MacMillian's Paris 1919 and JM Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace.

Foch and France insisted on occupying the Rhineland and the bridgeheads in order to enforce the peace settlement. It also gave France and the Allies a jumping off point should the peace 'negotiations' fail and the war restart. There was also a carrot and stick approached used. As long as Germany fulfilled its Treaty obligations - reparations in cash and kind, France would withdraw its troops on a scheduled basis over 15 years. I am not sure when the occupation did come to an end... need a little more time to figure that one out.

There were three identified zones which divided the Rhineland- North - Cologne evacuated in 5 years, middle around Koblenz evacuated in 10 years, and the south around Mainz evacuated in 15 years. If Germany defaulted there would be no evacuation, and that was at France's descretion to determine.

I found no reference to troops other than the French who took part, though I stand to be corrected on this.

Regarding the meaningfulness of the occupation, I can only offer these snippets to MacMillian's and Keynes arguments -

MacMillian argues that all of Germany did not experience the occupation and such as Andy H suggests, there was very little impact and control that they could exert on the revolution spreading across the country.

Keynes argues that as part of the wider Allied strategy to strangle Germany with debt, forcing the Germans to pay the cost of the occupation was just another straw that would break the Weimar back. Also it was easy fodder for those such as Hitler to point to the occupation forces as part of the embarassment of the stab in the back.

I am sure there are other pals who can add to my very cursory attempt here....

Andy

[armourersergeant]

I am only an amateur historian, but I don't believe everything a trained Historian tells me, because my training and career was in science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only difference between a trained historian is that they get paid to do it. Unlike other professions were we can not apply a ounce of ability we can all be historians.In some of the books i have read i can say that paid historians are not always correct and often amateur in there analysis.

I am a historian, not amateur, just not well read

regards

Arm.