Reputation

[PhilB]

The only difference between a trained historian is that they get paid to do it. Arm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By "trained", I assume you mean "professional", Arm. Does this indicate a basic difference in the motivations of amateur & pro historians when one has much more monetary considerations/professional reputation/opinion of others to consider while the other is a simple seeker after truth (whatever that may be)?

Does a history training enable you to assess military doings any more than any other training? I wonder! Phil B

[armourersergeant]

By "trained", I assume you mean "professional", Arm. Does this indicate a basic difference in the motivations of amateur & pro historians when one has much more monetary considerations/professional reputation/opinion of others to consider while the other is a simple seeker after truth (whatever that may be)?

Does a history training enable you to assess military doings any more than any other training? I wonder!    Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phil,

I used the word 'trained' as it was the one that was quoted but yes proffessional is a better word to use.

I dont think money is the issue. I was trying to show that as history is the involvement of sources, facts and thoughts/interpretation, then we can all have a take on this. Where as a plumber requires a skill of hand etc.

I just think that there may be some who would call themselves proffessional that have rather amateur opinions on the subject.

What defines a competent/professional historian, one that gets paid or one that shows a reasoned and thought out explination of the subject?

I have seen many well thought and put arguments on this forum that were from what would generally becalled 'amateur' historians.

regards

Arm.

[AndyHollinger]

Phil,

I used the word 'trained' as it was the one that was quoted but yes proffessional is a better word to use.

I dont think money is the issue. I was trying to show that as history is the involvement of sources, facts and thoughts/interpretation, then we can all have a take on this. Where as a plumber requires a skill of hand etc.

I just think that there may be some who would call themselves proffessional that have rather amateur opinions on the subject.

What defines a competent/professional historian, one that gets paid or one that shows a reasoned and thought out explination of the subject?

I have seen many well thought and put arguments on this forum that were from what would generally becalled 'amateur' historians.

regards

Arm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It depends on who you ask. A Professional Historian to the Acedemic community (sorry if I spelled this wrong because I always spell acedemic wrong) is someone who has completed a PhD from a recognised university. They have both learned and demonstrated that they've learned the craft as well as some very nifty handshakes. Having gone through MOST of this (ABD) I can tell you that it is quite a gruelling process.

To their eyes people who haven't gone through this just are not historians ... they're histroy buffs who know a lot but haven't learned the craft (art or science) depending on who you talk to.

It doesn't take a PhD to publish nor be considered by the masses as a historian. Take Bruce Catton the man who made the ACW during the 50s ... he's a journalist. Many history books are done by journalists, etc.

So, if you're an elitist and what somebody who actaully has historical training on how to make history then look for those little letters at the back of their name .... a lot of this boils down to who has spent a good deal of time becoming an expert on maybe a microscopic piece of time and who has mastered the available literature and how has sanity left at the end of this process to actually synthesize soemthing out of this study. To THEIR view the rest just tell a good and maybe footnoted story. A lot of it comes from knowing the literature ...

But ... as in all things ... we trust who we trust, we argue with those we don't and we blend the pieces of what we believe into to what we already believe ...

[Robert Dunlop]

Returning briefly to the original question, I was interested to note the following source of discontent in Haig's diary entry of 8 August, 1916:

"The King... spoke a great deal about a paper which Winston Churchill had written and given to the Cabinet, criticising the operations in France and arriving at the conclusion that nothing had been achieved!... He [the King] also said that Viscount French had been very nasty and that he was 'the most jealous man he had ever come across'.

I said that these were trifles and that we must not allow them to divert our thoughts from our main objective, namely 'beating the Germans'! I also suspect that Winston's head is gone from taking drugs

The King also said that much harm was being done at home by the generals who had been sent back as useless from France. They formed a regular 'Cabal' and abused everything that was done"

...thereby providing ammunition to Churchill and LG no doubt.

Robert

[Petroc]

Again, returning to an earlier point with regard to the notion of 'dirty' and 'clean' wars, a distinction which, perhaps, involves questions of justification and morality. This issue has a particularly British resonance about it, in part selfish and in part an entirely natural reaction to perceived or real threats to national independance, sovereignty and the 'island mentality'. I have no doubt that the British troops who survived the war had a general indifference to Haig and his cohorts, which by definition means a lack of antipathy or hatred, but am equally sure that, as members of a distinct clan of men who had experienced war at first hand, they would be quick to defend any vehement attacks on the reputations of their former leaders. By doing so, they would be questioning their own involvement and lives, a justifiable exercise but one which, in a post-war era increasingly typified by a rejection of militaristic values, denied the recognition so many sought. No doubt fuelled by LG, Liddell Hart (and JFC Fuller too?), and the celebrated talents of a literary minority, Britain has seen, and continues to see, the Great War as a national tragedy of unparalleled suffering. This attitude, of course, ignores the losses of other belligerant nations, but it does not pretend to be concerned with these losses and therefore demonstrates a perverse honesty. Again, notwithstanding the suffering of the Russians, Poles and ethnic groups in WW2, the British view of 1939-45 is that it was a 'clean' war; losses were less than in 14-18, the media ensured there were more populist and visible heroic figures (real or imagined), like 'monty' and Winston, the direct threat to the UK was far greater, and the violence of the invader created a much more potent, and enduring, image of a Just War. Unfortunately, constant comparrison with WW2 and the power of the 'disillusionment' school of thought has meant that the former conflict is looked upon a war of national survival and liberation, whereas WW1 is simply a vast exercise in imperialist idiocy.

By the way, in connection with the argument over 'amateur' and 'professional' historians, I think you'll find there are remarkably fewer professionals than seems to be the case; quite simply, history doesn't pay that well.........

[PhilB]

I have no doubt that the British troops who survived the war had a general indifference to Haig and his cohorts,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not my experience, Petroc, having talked to a few dozen of them back in the 60s and 70s! Phil B

[carninyj]

am not sure when the occupation did come to an end... need a little more time to figure that one out.

I understand the occupation as you do, Andy.

Stresemann gets most credit for securing the withdrawal of the occupying troops:

Following the Locarno Pact, the Allies had left Zone 1 around Cologne by December 1925.

As part of the Young Plan negotiations of 1929, the Allies agreed to end their occupation of Germany early. One month after Stresemann's death (Oct. 1929), Zone 2 was evacuated.

The final zone was evacuated in June 1930. Zones 2 and 3 were located where you said Andy.

That said, I am confused by this map. Were the 4 zones seen here just temporary? Can anyone explain it? Would the disappearance of the US zone be because Congress didn't ratify the Treaty of Versailles, the US opting for isolationism?

Regards

Carninyj

[Petroc]

Not my experience, Petroc, having talked to a few dozen of them back in the 60s and 70s!  Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phil,

apologies, I bow to your greater knowledge and experience here; I am indeed unfortunate not to have been able to speak to any veterans myself, and so based my rather rash judgement on some (possibly selective!) reading. Given what you know, would you say that there was a general consensus of opinion amongst those you interviewed, or were viewpoints spread according to the direct experiences, former rank, social standing and type of unit of the survivors?

[PhilB]

Given what you know, would you say that there was a general consensus of opinion amongst those you interviewed, or were viewpoints spread according to the direct experiences, former rank, social standing and type of unit of the survivors?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mine tended to be all the same class - working class ex-infantrymen, including some dozen ex-Accrington Pals. There was a consensus - that Haig should have been hung! Phil B

[Robert Dunlop]

Phil

Did anyone ever give the impression, or state explicitly, that the fault may have been with the brigade or divisional commander, or the CRA? Or was Haig the sole focus?

Robert

[PhilB]

Haig was the only one mentioned by name. Not surprising, really, as they probably heard little of the subordinate commanders. I suspect they thought the buck stopped with Haig! Phil B

[enoch beard]

Mine tended to be all the same class - working class ex-infantrymen, including some dozen ex-Accrington Pals. There was a consensus - that Haig should have been hung! Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the few family members who i met who served in the 1st w.w. were of the same opinion!

enoch

[Robert Dunlop]

Do we have any idea what proportion of ex-soldiers expressed such a view immediately after de-mobilization?

Robert

[spike10764]

I think the phrase "The buck stopped with Haig" is the important one here. The buck does and always will stop with those at the top. The politicians skill is to weasel out of it, such is the nature of politics. Military leaders tend not to be accomplished at politics( or not trusted if they are-eg Henry Wilson).

I do think sometimes it's hard for a historian producing a book to go against the national trend. Who are you going to sell your book to?

It is only more recently that impressions such as "Donkeys" has been challenged. Basically yer pays yer money and takes yer pick.

I'm never sure there was an easy surefire option to the role of C in C in the Great War, so I try to keep an open mind about it.

[armourersergeant]

I have often wondered if just after the war the rank and file had a regard for Haig but later adopted a different attitude. Be it from a wider knowledge of what happened through publications or be it from the bad press heaped on Haig that 'forced' many to adopt a different stance, so as not to seem like 'sheep'

Was the writing of say Liddell Hart written in such a way to imply ( read very little i am afraid) "I was there I know what happened" etc and thus i must be right.

For even he changed his mind some time after the wars end, i beleive. In what is one of the best uses of hindsight i have ever seen.

I wonder if Haig thought in 1923, I wish i had not done that, or perhaps i should have stopped then?

regards

Arm.

[andigger]

Thanks for the map Carninyj. It brings up a few more questions... or at least observations. What are the brown areas around the bridgeheads on the east bank? Demilitarized areas perhaps? Also, why is the Belgian sector only tangential to Belgium itself? I wonder if the Dutch had concerns about possible Belgian designs on the Maastrict Strip since it would have been surrounded by Belgian troops. My own thought is that the French would have been more than eager to take over the US sector rather than let the Germans self administer ir.

Andy

[AndyHollinger]

Thanks for the map ... and I guess there was an occupation of sorts, but not one of major proportions.

As for the troops opinion of Haig ... the manner in which they were interviewed would be significant. Troops love to complain and blame and the manner in which a question is asked would be important here. Also, depending on when the question was asked, the "Senselessness of the war" mood from the civilian group could have already made these men feel their buddies died in vain ...

[truthergw]

WARNING The following, is pure opinion without a shred of hard evidence.

The Great War had numerous effects on post-war society. The idea that a certain class would naturally have the ability to lead the 'lower' classes successfully, was shown to be false. Men like Haig who were 'born to lead' had demonstrably failed on numerous occasions. This must have led to a feeling of having been let down. Massive casualties on an unparalleled scale cried out for a scapegoat. Add to that the tragedy of the Depression of 20s and 30s which struck hardest at the men who had been promised a ' Land fit for heroes'. The feeling that they had been sacrificed for the gain of others would be very hard to resist. It would be very easy to fall in with the belief that 'They' didn't give a damn about 'us' and that would include Generals and Fieldmarshalls with their massive gratuities and gifts from a grateful country.

I'm off to Vimy Ridge soon where I hope to find an unoccupied bunker.

[PhilB]

The feeling that they had been sacrificed for the gain of others would be very hard to resist. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you imply that they would or wouldn`t be justified in that feeling? Phil B

[Ozzie]

I don't know how many of you have read the well respected CEW Bean's History, but with regard to Haig you may find this link interesting. The subject of this thread starts page 942.

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories...chapters/25.pdf

[PhilB]

Thanks for the link, Ozzie. Not much one can add to that? Phil B

[truthergw]

Do you imply that they would or wouldn`t be justified in that feeling? Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was trying hard not to force my feelings on to what the men and women of the time might be thinking. I was pointing out that they might feel that they had been unfairly treated.

[PhilB]

As I said, I spoke to the veterans in the late 60s and 70s. They would have been aged 70+. I don`t know whether their immediate post war feelings would have been different from their feelings 40 years on. I find it hard to imagine that, having survived years of trench warfare and seen suffering and slaughter on a huge scale, they would have been any better disposed to their leaders. Phil B

[truthergw]

I don't know how many of you have read the well respected CEW Bean's History, but with regard to Haig you may find this link interesting. The subject of this thread starts page 942.

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories...chapters/25.pdf

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the link. The last couple of pages are worth a few books by other authors.

[andigger]

I guess there was an occupation of sorts, but not one of major proportions. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to be contrary Andy, but I think the occupation was significant, both for the French and the Germans. Of course it is a very different occupation than post WWII, but it played a significant role in the post war economic and patriotic situation in Germany. For France it was also an important stickat the German Empire to have occupation forces on their otherwise soverign territory. There were also significant economic repriasals that France got from the occupation - in cash and kind.

This post has caused me to break open Keynes again, but I would recommed it as a good read to understand reparations and the peace settlement. The book reads easier than the title might suggest.

Andy