H A I G d e b a t e

[Muerrisch]

This is a serious attempt at a means for laying foundations for a non-confrontational and constructive debate on Field Marshal Earl Haig of Bemersyde.

Simply this: given the amazing amount of prejudice in pro- and anti- Haig camps both among historians and Pals , what do we think is a necessary and sufficient list of books/ publications to have read and digested before coming to any conclusion.

I think that DH's personality and his performance are inextricably intertwined, and do not suggest two lists!

So, how about this for starters from one who is slightly pro-Haig but not rabid [and who has lurched further towards that position].

Death's men, Winter. [anti Haig],

Haig as military commander, Marshall-Cornwall [a staff officer's view, pro],

Haig Diaries, Sheffield and Bourne [gently pro Haig, bulging with facts],

Call to Arms, Messenger [essential background],

Old Soldiers Never Die, Richards [the view from down below],

The War the Infantry Knew, Dunn. [another view, this time battalion level],

The Smoke and the Fire, Terraine. [debunking with facts, pro-Haig],

Mud, Blood and Poppycock, Corrigan [for its content and not style!],

Tommy, Holmes [neutral, lots of facts],

Leadership and War, Terraine [pro, lots of facts],

General Jack's Diary, ed Terraine [another battalion view],

Blindfold and Alone, Corns etc [the treatment of thse sentenced to death],

Lions led by Donkeys, Clark [sorry if I have title wrong, my copy has been borrowed, seemingly permanently!], [anti],

Haig's Command, Winter,

F-M Earl Haig, Warner [reasonably balanced],

Development of the British Army, Dunlop

Nation in Arms, Beckett etc [facts, facts, facts]

Haig, the educated soldier [author escapes me]

not to mention the Official Histories.

I have deliberately left gaps: a certain Australian [more than a little anti-] springs to mind. I leave to others to point up his most 'anti' works, to balance my list.

So, how about adding to the list, the purpose of which is to educate debate rather than fan prejudice or controversy? If my list is a little selective it is because I prefer the works of more recent historians, given the modern access to information denied those who wrote earlier.

[ATM]

The man I knew - By Mrs Haig.

[Guest]

Not anti- but I would say that Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory is essential background reading.

[Steven Broomfield]

A lot of the work of people such as Simkins, Sheffield & Todman, and Griffith is essential too - not so much for Haig the man, but as background to the technology of the war, and the way that the British Armies developed.

My contention in the other thread on Haig's reputation currently running is that Haig was the manager - in modern terms, CEO - of a huge organisation which learned as it grew: the authors mentioned above are amongst those who delineate that development.

"British Fighting Methods" edited by Paddy Griffith

"Command and Control on the Western Front" Sheffield & Todman

"Kitchener's Army" by Simkins

are all excellent descriptions of what Haig's tools were.

[PhilB]

The problem for me is that after reading a selection of books about Haig and the war he fought, one still has to assess him against the standard of the hypothetical ideal C in C, and to see how closely he approaches it. Then one has to ask oneself how close to the ideal is it reasonable for us to expect a C in C to have been. If the two match - he`s good! Unfortunately, for me, these are almost impossible assessments to make. I admit I`m reduced to "seat of the pants" stuff! Phil B

[Michael]

I would add

Command on the Western Front: The Military Career of Sir Henry Rawlinson - Prior and Wilson [Relationship between DH and HR. Critical of DH's interference in planning and HR's inability to stand up to him]

Mick

[Terry_Reeves]

Prior and Wilson's book, interesting as it is, is about DH's relationship with one of his army commanders, and does not reflect the whole business of high command in France and Flanders.

Terry Reeves

[Muerrisch]

Quote of a review:

John Laffin, British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One (1988)

There are two ways of writing history. One is to read and research, surveying the available literature and ideas, coming to a weighed conclusion on the burden of evidence. The other is to approach the subject with an idea in mind, and then to look for facts which prove the case. The former may be the way of the purist; the latter is probably the way of most students. It is certainly the way of Butchers and Bunglers.

Most historians at least make a show of being dispassionate and detached. Laffin does not even try.

Better put this one down as tending to an extreme position. I have not read it all through, but borrowed it from library and found it too shrill, deafening even.. ..

Gather he disliked Haig. Fair do's. Laffin sold a lot of books, but not to me. Takes all sorts.

[Muerrisch]

The man I knew - By Mrs Haig.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Written from a totally biased viewpoint, and not by an historian, and a long long time ago. I have only read a resume. [sorry cannot do accents acute, grave or circumflex on this gadget]. Probably the total opposite of the Laffin/Winter/Clark axis. Neither extremes are likely to persuade reasonable Pals.

[ATM]

Mrs Haig bias? Surely not.

[armourersergeant]

Haig, the educated soldier [author escapes me]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John Terraine, please tell me you didnt really forget the author

Arm

[roy litchfield]

Should we add "The Life of Lieut.General Sir James Moncrieff Grierson KCB, CVO, CMG, ADC" with a foreward by Earl Haig, published in 1923.

Perhaps a stronger heart.....?

Best wishes Roy

[Greenwoodman]

Here is a bibliography of books dealing directly with Haig. They are all of differing standards, some written by those pro-Haig, some by the antis. Yet all imho have something to offer. I own copies of the majority, but do not claim to have read them all. I do have nodding acquaintance with them, and would suggest that a complete reading of them would be a basis on which to build a fully informed opinion on Haig.

Boraston, J. H. "Sir Douglas Haig’s Dispatches" 1919 London J. M. Dent

Dewar, George A. B. "Sir Douglas Haig's Command - Vol 1 & 2" 1922 London Constable

Arthur, George "Lord Haig" 1928 London Heinemann

Charteris, Brig. - General John "Field - Marshal Earl Haig" 1929 London Cassell

Secrett, Sergt. T. "Twenty-Five Years with Earl Haig" 1929 London Jarrolds

Cooper, Duff "Haig 2 Vols" 1935 London Faber & Faber

Haig, The Countess "A Scottish Tour" 1935 Edinburgh The Moray House

Haig, The Countess "The Man I Knew" 1936 London Moray

Blake,R(ed) "The Private Papers Of Douglas Haig 1914-19" 1952 London Eyre & Spottiswoode

Davidson, Maj-Gen Sir J. "Haig Master Of The Field" 1953 London Nevill

Terraine, John "Douglas Haig: The Educated Soldier" 1963 London Hutchison

Duncan, G.S. Douglas Haig "As I Knew Him" 1966 London George Allen

Marshall-Cornwall, James "Haig, As Military Commander" 1973 London Batsford

Sixsmith, E. K. G. "Douglas Haig" 1976 London Weidenfield & Nicholson

De Groot "Douglas Haig 1861-1928" 1988 London Unwin

Warner, Philip "Field Marshal Earl Haig" 1991 London The Bodley Head

Winter, Denis "Haig's Command" 1991 London Viking

Bond, Brian & Nigel Cave "Haig: A Reappraisal 70 years on" 1999 Barnsley Leo Cooper

Haig, The Earl "My Father’s Son" 2000 Barnsley Leo Cooper

Sheffield, Gary and John Bourne "Douglas Haig: War Diary and Letters 1914-1918" 2005 London Weidenfield & Nicholson

[squirrel]

Judging by the foregoing I have about 2 years of uninterrupted reading to do before I am able to express an opinion about Haugh.

[Muerrisch]

not only that, but spend a fortune, too.

[squirrel]

My wife thinks I already have and she hasn't seen what's on order for future deliveries yet!

[Charles Fair]

I would also add the historiographical survey: "The First World War and British Miltary History" ed. Brian Bond 1991

particularly the chapters

- Frocks and Brasshats - Ian Beckett (covers Lloyd George et al in the battle of the memoirs)

- The Reputation of Sir Douglas Haig - Keith Simpson

- Bunking and debunking: the controversies of the 1960s - Alex Danchev

[Charles Fair]

There are numerous other essays of which the following is the tip of the iceberg:

Hussey, John "Haig's Ride up the Menin Road at First Ypres on 31st October 1914: Did He Invent the Whole Story?"

Bulletin Military Historical Society, 1995 Aug pp. 20-29

A detailed refutation of allegations made by Denis Winter in "Haig's Command a Reassessment"

The collection "Facing Armageddon", 1996 has a couple of relevant essays:

Vandiver, Frank "Haig and Pershing"

Wilson, Trevor and Prior, Robin "British Decision-making 1917: Lloyd-George, the Generals and Passchendaele"

Terraine, John "British Military Leadership in the First World War" in the collection "Home Fires and Foreign Fields", 1985

French, David, "Sir Douglas Haig's Reputation, 1918-28: A Note", Hstorical Journal, 1985

Philpott, William J, "The Great Landing: Haig's Plan to Invade Belgium from the Sea in 1917", Imperial War Museum Review, 1995

Travers, Timothy HE, "The Hidden Army: Structural Problems in the British Officer Corps, 1900-1918", Journal of Contemporary History, 1982

Travers, Timothy HE, "A Particular Style of Command: Haig and GHQ, 1916-18", Journal of Strategic Studies, 1987

Prior, Robin and Wilson, Trevor have a Review of Denis Winter "Haig's Command: A Reassessment", Journal of the Australian War Memorial, 1993 Oct

Danchev, Alex "Haig Revisited" Journal of the RUSI, 1990 a review article/critique of Terraine's "The Educated Soldier"

Wiest, Andrew A, "Haig, Gough and Passchendaele" in "Leadership and Command: The Anglo-American Military Experience since 1861" ed, Sheffield, Gary D, pub Brassey's 1997

Vandiver, Frank "Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig and Passchendaele" in the collection "Passchendaele in Perspective", 1997

Hussey, John "The Case Against Haig, Mr Denis Winter's Evidence" Stand To! 1992

there are several other articles in ST

[Guest fred dagg]

This is a serious attempt at a means for laying foundations for a non-confrontational and constructive debate on Field Marshal Earl Haig of Bemersyde.

Simply this: given the amazing amount of prejudice in pro- and anti- Haig camps both among historians and Pals , what do we think is a necessary and sufficient list of books/ publications to have read and digested before coming to any conclusion.

I

So, how about adding to the list, the purpose of which is to educate debate rather than fan prejudice or controversy?  If my list is a little selective it is because I prefer the works of more recent historians, given the modern access to information denied those who wrote earlier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a distinct possibility that John Laffin did not expend much money on the purchase of the works by the esteemed originator of this particular topic.

The ground-rules for an educated and well-balanced debate are clearly laid out in the above extracts.

Educated is not synomonous with agreement with an instigator.

Another suggestion for meaningful education is "Oh What a Lovely War"

[Guest fred dagg]

This is a serious attempt at a means for laying foundations for a non-confrontational and constructive debate on Field Marshal Earl Haig of Bemersyde.

I have deliberately left gaps: a certain Australian [more than a little anti-] springs to mind.  I leave to others to point up his most 'anti' works, to balance my list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Might we ask why, or does that preclude non-confrontational and constructive debate.

Are all Australians excluded?

[Michael]

Charles

Where can you get your hands on the journals (without buying them!)?

Mick

[Muerrisch]

I left out John Laffin because I know so little of his work, having read so little of it. I do not make the point that it is rubbish, but I gather his opinions are considered extreme. I leave it to others, better read, to point to his more relevant works: relevant to our opinions of Haig, that is.

Except re. sport, I am rabidly pro-Australians and Australia ..... my passport bears repeat evidence of that.

[Charles Fair]

Where can you get your hands on the journals (without buying them!)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A decent university library or uni history department will certainly have some of these (Jnl Contemp Hist for example). The copyright libraries like the UL at Cambridge have everything.

I think it is also possible to order one off copies of journal articles from the British Library.

[Clive Maier]

Like a commission of enquiry, the consolidated reading list seems designed to lose the issue in the long grass. By the time we have reached the last book we will have forgotten the first. We will have forgotten the question too, if indeed we are still able to care. Perhaps that is appropriate because there is unlikely ever to be a definitive answer. Sentiment will continue to swing like a slow and stately pendulum from Haig ‘bad’ to Haig ‘good’ and back again.

One thing I am never clear about is whether in such debates the name Haig is intended to mean simply the man himself or to symbolise the entire British direction of the war. I believe I have seen both styles in use but are they congruent? I doubt it.

One thing seems clear. In a colossal and chaotic system such as the Great War, the ability of any one person - however highly placed - to alter anything radically is very limited. The thing has such a gravitational pull there is little one can do but orbit.

If Haig’s performance tended towards ‘good’, which is where the pendulum now seems to be, I find myself wondering just how awful ‘bad’ would have been. ‘Bad’ could have included defeat but not surely after the USA entered the war with more troops than could be attritioned away. So would a ‘bad’ performance from someone else – barring of course utter military incompetence – have left us with a war looking much different from the one we know. Again I doubt it.

I think the answer is that the character of the war was largely preordained when decades of militaristic nationalism practised by many countries and largely subscribed to by those who were to die, merged with industrialisation. The tragedy is that it is impossible to feel that the immense toll of death and distress was in anything like a just cause.

[shinglma]

The tragedy is that it is impossible to feel that the immense toll of death and distress was in anything like a just cause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why?

I guess it depends on ones definition of 'just' but the troops on either side seem to have

believed that this was a just war.

Today we tend to view the First World War through a filter of the Second World War (and the view that the latter was a moral crusade against Fascism - which of course it was not). WW1 seems in comparison to be inexplicable.

However there were stong politcal and strategic reasons which engaged all countries in WW1 - all could claim at the time the justice of their cause.

I'm not sure that in this case the benefit of hindsight is any great benefit at all...

Kind regards

Mike S