Historians

[IanB58]

watching UK History's programme on Haig on Friday I was as usual amazed by the polarity of views. Now normally I realise that this is what makes good television but it was clear there will never be agreement between the "academics".

I don't want to revitalise the Haig good or bad argument but it struck me that because of this divide it some times gets in the way of rationale debate.

However I suspect sometimes that not having rationale debate is what drives forums like this.

So to be provocative like the 2nd World War the Russians won the 1st World War for the Allies (even though they were defeated themselves) because of the casualties they caused and the German troops they kept busy meant the British and French survived long enough to win eventual victory.

Discuss

[Steve_McGarry]

Ian.

I also watched the Haig program. What I found interesting was the point made by one of the interviewee's. That Haig was a very religious man, so sending men to their deaths was, (in his eyes) not such a terrible thing because they were going to a better place. "to another room" I think the quote was. This explains alot about Haig I think.

The point about Russia probably true but would Britain have continued to gobble up future treasures for the Empire in the near east had Russia not been there to occupy the Germans. What would have happened had the Germans decided to take on the French and British first ! They would not have moved into Poland so they would not have had to have a large occupying force there... more troops in the west !