Life of Douglas Haig

[PhilB]

In the acknowledgements for his Preparatory Prologue - Douglas Haig, Diaries and Letters, , Douglas Scott mentions this Life of Haig by Walter Reid, due 2006. Anyone come across it? Phil B

[Take on me]

I think that it can be found for sale on Amazon. Its full title is, I beleive Douglas Haig, The Architect of Victory. I might be wrong but I do not think that this will be a 'Lions led by Donkeys' thesis.

Jon

[PhilB]

Yes, Amazon offer it for pre-order. Here is the editorial review.

Book Description

Douglas Haig's popular image is an unenviable one. For the last fifty years he has invariably been seen as a callous butcher, fighting battles at the Somme and Passchendaele without intelligence or imagination and unconcerned by his losses. The reputation is undeserved and at odds with the historical record. In fact, Haig masterminded a Britishled victory over a continental opponent on a scale that has never been matched before or since. Whereas Wellington commanded forces at Waterloo in which the British were only a minority, in the final stages of the war, Haig controlled a vast British Army, which had grown from a mere six divisions to sixty over the course of the war. The British Army in France in 1918 compromised nearly three million men - only a third less than the population of London, then the largest city in Europe.Contrary to myth, Haig was not a cavalry-obsessed, blinkered conservative, as satirized in Oh! What a Lovely War and Blackadder Goes Forth. Fascinated by technology, he pressed for the use of tanks, enthusiastically embraced air power, and encouraged the use of new techniques involving artillery and machine-guns. Above all, he presided over a change in infantry tactics from almost total reliance on the rifle towards all-arms, multi-weapons techniques that formed the basis of British army tactics until the 1970s. Prior re-evaluations of Haig's achievements have largely been limited to monographs and specialist writings. Walter Reid has written the first biography of Haig that takes into account modern military scholarship, giving a more rounded picture of the private man than has previously been available. What emerges is a picture of a comprehensible human being, not necessarily particularly likeable, but honorably ambitious, able and intelligent, and the man more than any other responsible for delivering victory in 1918.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Take on me]

It looks quite interesting although I am not sure that we will find a great deal of new information.

Jon

[Jonathan Saunders]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Oct 17 2006, 05:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is the editorial review...

The review doesnt strike me that this will be a book offerring a balanced view.

[Greenwoodman]

Published by Birlinn and available now. I've got it on order from Amazon, but delivery will be a little while they tell me. When I've read it (some time in 2017, August I think, judging by the unread list) I'll let you know what I think.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I bought a copy of Architect of Victory: Douglas Haig by Walter Reid yesterday. First impression is of a well produced book in the physical sense. Second impression from a reading of the introductory chapter Butcher and Bungler or Architect of Victory? is that there is little evidence of the biased approach suggested in earlier posts on this thread. What we have here, I think, is a book whose time has come - and which finally returns Haig to the realms of rational and contextual discussion, rescuing him from years on the battlefield of the polemical 'Lions & Donkey's' debate. As the author writes, after describing the 1937 unveiling of the Haig statue in Whitehall: 'What prompts the writing of this book is the profundity of the change in the mood of the times, and in how the nation regarded Haig, which had taken place by the time that the [Whitehall] statue was the subject of press reports 61 years later, on the eightieth anniversary the Armistice.' Quoting a not uncritical appraisal of Haig in a 1935 review by Winston Churchill of Duff Cooper's Haig biography, Reid notes: 'However, Churchill qualified these views with a critical proviso, whose time has come: "But these truisms will not be accepted by history as exhaustive."' In other words, Reid's is the first work which produces an assessment of Haig based upon a hard and critical look at the historiographical record of both the pro- and the anti-Haig camps and correlates, as far as possible, these polar views with the empirical evidence. For instance, those who've suggested that this book will be biased in Haig's favour might be interested to learn that, whilst saluting his strengths as an historian, Reid also writes of Haig's best known champion, John Terraine, that 'some of his judgements must be read with caution, particularly his acceptance of Haig's post-war argument that victory was won in 1918 directly out of the battles of the earlier years of the war and that they, for their part, were all designed to achieve the result that 1918 delivered.' Concluding that Terraine's style was 'slightly overstated, sometimes intimidating and occasionally aggressive,' Reid nonetheless admits that he [Terraine] was 'persuasive, and inspired a generation of writers, who accepted his thesis even if they did not agree with every detail of his argument.'

Whilst on the one hand he is dismissive of the polemical exaggerations of Haig critics such as John Laffin, on the 'revisionist' school of Haig scholars in general Reid also retains a refreshing scepticism: 'The revisionists are frustrated by the fact that what they all share as a self-evident truth is not accepted by the general public [........] In their frustration, the revisionists sometime go too far. Some see Haig as a 'Great Captain', which he was not: he was rather a great administrator. Some attribute to him too intimate a part in the technical revolution of 1915-18. He was of course not involved in the detail. Similarly, it is illogical to say that, "having been blamed for being a technophobe, Haig is surely entitled to credit for the changes that took place". What Haig did do, and what he is not recognised as having done, was to invigorate and inspire the greatest application of science and technology to warfare that military history had known. Some revisionists exaggerate the scale and nature of Haig's achievement by investing the First World War with the moral quality of a contest between the liberal democracies and "the first of three major challenges mounted by idealogical enemies during the twentieth century". They go too far, but the idea of the First World War as an 'unnecessary war' - except perhaps for the Central Powers - has been exploded, and Britain could not have stood aside in 1914 [........] My position is not a straightforward endorsement of that of the revisionists. Although they are much better informed than Haig's detractors, they exaggerate his virtues (perhaps because they are aware of the burden of proof that has been imposed on them) almost as much as the critics exaggerate his failings. It does not follow that because Haig is not as bad as the critics represented him, he will be without fault in all military respects. He certainly had singular flaws, or at least quirks of character. The most significant, from a military respect, was a capacity to be carried away by excesses of optimism which blinded him from time to time to reality [........] That he presided over the greatest victory that has been won essentially by a British feat of arms does not make him the greatest general that Britain has produced. And the war the Entente Powers fought was not what some of the revisionists assert it to be. France fought to defend her soil, and Britain fought because it was not in her interest that the Continental landmass should be dominated by any one power. From the point of view of humanity and democracy it was well that the Entente and not the Central Powers were the victors, but it should be remembered, in view of what Haig, and indeed most of his countrymen, said and believed, that Britain did not go to war essentially to defend liberal values [.............] My conclusions will, I think, be clear, but not, I hope, obtrusive. It is for readers to make their own assessment of Haig's stature. He himself always said that he did not care what people said about him, as long as it was based on the facts.'

This important book makes a virtue of presenting the facts dispassionately - a point which in itself is a refreshing development in the Haig historiography! Finally, the illustrations are well chosen and reflect the care evident in the text to present a balanced view: a magnificently martial equestrian photograph of Haig in the Great Victory March of 1919 is juxtaposed with a still of the well-known scene from Oh! What a Lovely War where John Mills' Haig literally leapfrogs over his old comrade Sir John French to command of the British Armies in France. And the colourised jacket photograph of Haig on a visit to the troops alongside two grinning tin-hatted and gas-caped Tommies is striking. Recommended. Oh yes, although jacket is priced at £25 Waterstone's till scanners ring it up at £20; don't know if this is a fault or not, but certainly no discount shows up on the receipt and the book wasn't stickered '£5 off'.

Ciao,

GAC

[armourersergeant]

If I am getting my man correctly, he started as an anti Haig chap a few years ago to being a pro Haig chap. Does not mean it will be a good or bad book because of it however.

I beleive that Gary Sheffeild is also writing a book on Haig, not at publishing stage yet though.

regards

Arm

[Jonathan Saunders]

What we need is a balanced study of Haig, lets hope this is it, although that certainly was not the indication I personally took from the Editorial Review.

That said, it has just risen up my list of "wants" but i think I might still wait and read the reviews of other pals first. I can think of a well known historian who portrays himself as neutral and balanced on Haig, but is anything but.

[Take on me]

That said, it has just risen up my list of "wants" but i think I might still wait and read the reviews of other pals first. I can think of a well known historian who portrays himself as neutral and balanced on Haig, but is anything but.

I do not know it is entirely possible to have a 'balanced' view of an individual such as Douglas Haig, some will always maintain that the cost was too high while others will claim that he did what was neccessary. Maybe it is simply that the entire subjects of generalship, war and in particular the First World War are far too controversial for any individual not to fall into one side of the academic camp. This book certainly looks very interesting, however I think that I might wait until the paperback edition.

Jon

[Jonathan Saunders]

£16.50 on Amazon for those interested.

[Jonathan Saunders]

That said, it has just risen up my list of "wants" but i think I might still wait and read the reviews of other pals first.

Well I acted against my own advice and paid my £16.50 to Amazon and here it is.

First impression is that it is a whopping book but when you open to the first page you realise the font is pretty large, so to my mind this is a little book for £25 but sometimes small is better so I utilised my "quality" test.

I looked in the index for Gommecourt - nothing, so tried looking up 46 and 56 Div. Nothing. A bit disappointing for me personally as I feel a criticism of how Haig employed the faint at Gommecourt would give me some confidence in the rest of the book, bearing in mind we know the conclusion is "Architect of Victory".

Still, early days yet. I'll give it a good look through tonight and add it to the list of "must read next" books but I no longer feel this is the book to pin our hopes on for a balanced biography of Haig.