"The Killing Ground": Question regarding it.

[Justin Moretti]

With regards to Haig, does this book exonerate, mitigate, militate or damn?

Certainly there is not the positive spin that one gets from works by Robin Niellands ("The Great War Generals of the Western Front") or John Terraine (most!), and Travers is never shy of pointing out Haig's personal or professional defects, but on the other hand it isn't the one-eyed diatribe one gets from Laffin, Dixon or Winter.

I get the idea that Travers is trying to say "Yes, Haig's military conduct was sometimes disastrous, and his personal intrigues were sometimes less than noble, but professionally he was the product of his society, his army and his instructors, and he couldn't have fought the war any other way - give him a break." But am I right?

I don't want to reopen the "Was Haig competent or not?" argument! I simply want to know how I should be approaching the book on my next re-read.

[kaisersoffensive]

With regards to Haig, does this book exonerate, mitigate, militate or damn?

I don't want to reopen the "Was Haig competent or not?" argument! I simply want to know how I should be approaching the book on my next re-read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Playing the Devils Advocate here.

As with all things in life...without preconceived ideas,open minded and without

prejudice.

If only!.....

[ceebee]

I get the idea that Travers is trying to say "Yes, Haig's military conduct was sometimes disastrous, and his personal intrigues were sometimes less than noble, but professionally he was the product of his society, his army and his instructors, and he couldn't have fought the war any other way - give him a break." But am I right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From my reading, Travers sets up the foundation for his argument in the initial chapters. Two statements stand out for me. In the introduction Travers states:

For example, Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigms suggests that learning and problem solving will continue to take place within a paradigm or set of ideas until a problem cannot be solved, at which time some (younger) individuals will switch to a new set of ideas. But until that moment, every effort is made to solve problems within the framework of the original paradigm or set of ideas. This can explain the tendency among most senior officers to call for more and more men and more and more ammunition when British offensives on the Western Front did not work out. They sought to solve the problem within the existing framework of ideas, while younger officers were thinking of different way of doing things.

The second statement is in the chapter titled "The System at Work". Travers says:

In summary, the system, operating in a transitional army, was at fault, and in this matter the army was really a faithful reflection of Edwardian society. This conclusion leads to another point, namely, that historians should perhaps pay more attention to the concept of the army and its activities as a "system" rather than focusing on individuals. This should serve to divert attention away from the faults and merits of individual Commanders-in-Chief, which has hitherto largely characterised First World War historiography.

From where I sit, Travers puts some scholarly depth to the debate. His book provides answers to many of the questions I have about what we now consider to be absurd military practices and sheer incompetence. Should we feel comfortable in exonerating those in command? Some may, but I find it very difficult to do so.

Chris

[armourersergeant]

From my experience of reading the book i got the impression he lulls you into a faulse security in that he implies he's on Haig's side so that when he finds some 'dirt' you believe it all the more and thus he dents Haigs reputation.

that said it does ask some good questions. well worth a read but needs some follow research on certain areas to get a balanced view.

regards

Arm.

[mahross]

Justin

The ethos I get from Travers book is that, unlike the diatribes we got from the like of Laffin and Clark, the British Army did develop significantly in during the Great War but that it did this inspite of rather than because of the influence of Haig and the GHQ.

Ross

[andigger]

If there is "scholarly depth " as Chris suggests it would seem that the author's bias could be justified. As with all books though it would seem that it would need to be balanced with other perspectives to get a complete image.

Andy