paul guthrie Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Winter is the only serious source for this and his Haig's Command is a smear from start to finish so consider the source. The accusation is really beyond the pale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 I posted a few months back showing what a good looking young man Haig was. May I hasten to add that I compared him to Errol Flynn, not Rock Hudson! It`s also fair to point out that marrying later in life was the done thing for officers in those days. Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin astill Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 I suppose it all depends on what you mean by homosexual. I understand (though I'm not a student of psychology) that some psychos say that there is a bit of the homosexual in all of us. I have no problems about homosexuals, but I am deeply suspicious of homophobes - methinks they protest........ Edwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick H Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 . I understand (though I'm not a student of psychology) that some psychos say that there is a bit of the homosexual in all of us. Edwin If thats true and what with my feminine side I am now one confused of upminster Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Winter alleges without quoting a source that Sir Evelyn Wood 'was certainly attracted by the striking physique and blue eyes' of Haig. He then claims that 'a combination of professional zeal, bachelor status and a handsome appearance linked most of the young men whose careers [Kitchener] favoured,' this time giving a source, Contemporary Personalities by Lord Birkenhead. Winter's allegations of homosexuality against these 2 men are somewhat oblique but he openly states, again without source, that Lord Esher was 'promiscuously homosexual.' All these quotes are on p. 32. On the next page, Winter says that 'the frisson of homosexuality attaching to each of his patrons gave ammunition to jealous rivals, all the more because of a strong dislike of women which he made little effort to conceal. As a middle-aged bachelor, Haig realized that he was in a potentially embarrassing position and his marriage must be seen in this context. With his tour of duty in India moving towards its end in 1905, Haig dealt with the conundrum by meeting a suitable wife, making a proposal of marriage - all within seventy-two hours.' The evidence of Haig's homosexuality seems very vague. Even if he were gay, so what? Is Winter suggesting that Haig's sexuality was linked to what Winter believes to be his incompetence as a commander? How would Alexander the Great & Julius Caesar fit into this argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 subalterns may not marry captains may marry majors should marry colonels must marry Old army truism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Maier Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Haig's sexuality would have had no bearing on his qualities but given the mores and the law of the period, together with the constant company of men, it could have had a great effect on his peace of mind and stability. So it is a reasonable question to ask, and not one involving sterotyping or opprobium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuartd Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Well, if all the above is anything to go by then the evidence that Haig was gay seems highly improbable. Besides, being 'fancied' by any of his previous superiors in no way makes him gay! What is it anyway with people trying to show that the 'greats' of history were actually gay. Wasn't there another trashy book on Hitler recently claiming that he was gay? Clearly his tastes weren't what one might call 'conventional', but highly unlikely to be gay. Same goes for Haig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 If you are seeking to understand a man and his place in history, then consideration of his sexuality is, I think, perfectly legitimate. It's certainly one motivating force among many others - but not necessarily a dominant one. I don't think that anyone is automatically besmirched by a suggestion that they may be homosexual - far from it. Such a detail will not indicate anything about the human worth of the individual but may shed some light on his or her actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joan and Terry Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Does it really matter either way,if you are around in 1914 yes it did matter,people were put in prison,their lives made a misery.If you go further back in time thousands of years it was accepted in many countries that were far more civilized than the Britons in fact being homosexual was encouraged.i.e. Greece-Rome-Sparta,(I bet no one made silly school boy remarks to them)I have read where Alexandra The Great was a homosexual,seek and ye shall find,I would think the list of Great leaders who had leanings towards members of their own sex is quite a long one. I am certainly not a Haig fan,but I have never thought he was anything but a normal hetrosexual,why was the question raised in the first place,as I said right at the start,does it matter? Joan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike10764 Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 To be fair- I read ATM' s post and did see it for what it was, not an attack on Haig- just a question as to why others had in books. I think they are the ones who should be a little ashamed, not the poster of this topic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAAAEd Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Where is cannibalism in the Royal Navy when you need it? Oye! Leave the RN out of this one. Too many bad jokes on this score as it is. Now, and although not WW1 specifically although he did gain renown leading the Rainbow Division in France, I give you one Douglas MacArthur who's sexuality has been called into question, with his wife allegedly embarrassing him in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAAAEd Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Haig's sexuality would have had no bearing on his qualities but given the mores and the law of the period, together with the constant company of men, it could have had a great effect on his peace of mind and stability. So it is a reasonable question to ask, and not one involving sterotyping or opprobium. I agree. A persons sexuality must be assessed under the mores of their day in as much as secret lives can distort a persons behaviour in a manner which could be to the detriment of their service and/or country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitush Posted 13 December , 2006 Share Posted 13 December , 2006 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Dec 12 2006, 03:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It`s also fair to point out that marrying later in life was the done thing for officers in those days. Phil B Marrying in later life was a fairly frequent thing for all males in the higher echelons of Victorian society, not just officers. I rather think that it was also common throughout society at that time (certainly in terms of the age difference between spouses, but I've not got the will to research it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 13 December , 2006 Share Posted 13 December , 2006 Marrying in later life was a fairly frequent thing for all males in the higher echelons of Victorian society, not just officers. I rather think that it was also common throughout society at that time (certainly in terms of the age difference between spouses, but I've not got the will to research it). And furthermore, marrying women who we would now think of as girls. Victorian "morality" was NOT what we, or any politician who has espoused it of late, would like it to have been - the cult of the little girl, for starters, and the age of consent. So I think it is dangerous to view matters of a sexual nature from a modern perspective without reading up on the subject first. Ronald Pearsall's book "The Worm in the Bud" would be your first call for researching this - and a rollicking read in many places too. While I can see that it may have had an effect on him if true, if the original book referred to is the hatchet job that has been suggested, I think that probably puts the suggestion into the appropriate context. The author cannot berate Haig for losing the war (and I suspect that there has yet to be a Haig-hater who has really gotten round the hurdle that he was in charge still on 11.11.18), so has found a new angle to snipe at him. Just my penn'orth Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 13 December , 2006 Share Posted 13 December , 2006 You realize don't you ... that for all time, now ... we'll all be there when one googles Haig Homosexual and high schoolers will cite us on their ill thought-out bibliographies about why Haig was a homosexual or at least the subject was highly debated ... In a newer post a poster actually put a disclaimer on DLG and DH's relationship "assuming they weren't gay" ... see what we've done?! I move that the debate continue on to whether or not he bit his nails or persisted in blaming others for his SBD *****. Those two subjects has as much bearing to Haig or the War as the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATM Posted 13 December , 2006 Author Share Posted 13 December , 2006 Well the debate is not meant to be whether he was a homosexual or not, but why it is even mentioned by critics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Soul Posted 13 December , 2006 Share Posted 13 December , 2006 ................. but why it is even mentioned by critics. Insert the word Antipodean between 'by' and 'critics' and it will go a long way towards answering your question. One day the chips will fall from their shoulders. Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATM Posted 13 December , 2006 Author Share Posted 13 December , 2006 I had noticed that in regard to the two links. However I have read it in a couple of other sources somewhere. Some were articles in British newspapers so its not just those down under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 14 December , 2006 Share Posted 14 December , 2006 Denis Winter's book was researched in the Australian archives but he is British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 14 December , 2006 Share Posted 14 December , 2006 You realize don't you ... that for all time, now ... we'll all be there when one googles Haig Homosexual and high schoolers will cite us on their ill thought-out bibliographies about why Haig was a homosexual or at least the subject was highly debated ... In a newer post a poster actually put a disclaimer on DLG and DH's relationship "assuming they weren't gay" ... see what we've done?! I move that the debate continue on to whether or not he bit his nails or persisted in blaming others for his SBD *****. Those two subjects has as much bearing to Haig or the War as the above. Sir, you go too far. There is little or no evidence regarding Haig and SBDFs. Some unexplained dizziness, nausea, fainting and even a few deaths around the dinner table were not attributable to Haig personally. I seem to remember reading something about it on a wall one Winter in Australia, when I was doing research. There is [there is bound to be] a school of thought that believes the war could have been won in 1916 were it not for the miasma, mephitic or otherwise, that disrupted planning for the Somme. The later pattern gas-masks were first tested at GHQ, under active service conditions. All this and more can be read if one Googles Haig SBDF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tintin1689 Posted 14 December , 2006 Share Posted 14 December , 2006 There is fairly good evidence Lord Kitchener was straight - but the important thing was he beat the Mahdi and the Boers (among many other acheivments - but those two certainly gave the Empire its pennies worth) I would n't trust Lord Birkenhead's opinion on anything you could n't independently verify - he was a notorious trouble causer. Making snidey comments about officers in the Egyptian Army would be right up his street. The only high ranking officer I have seen any real evidence for gayness in was Rawlinson and that was from the Germans at the time (who were obviously not un-biased). They even named his lover (a trooper in a lancer regiment). Every time I go in our local library I am looking for the book that quotes them (which itself is a sensationalist paperback privately published) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Bennitt Posted 14 December , 2006 Share Posted 14 December , 2006 In a newer post a poster actually put a disclaimer on DLG and DH's relationship "assuming they weren't gay" ... see what we've done?! Guilty, m'lud. Couldn't resist it. I assume, however, that the proportion of homosexuals in the pre-War army was less than in British society as a whole. The mathematical odds are against the C-in-C being that way inclined, if nothing else. And to me, his behaviour doesn't fit the accepted pattern: homosexuals are supposed to be a good deal less belligerent than the norm. Remember the story of the very gay Lytton Strachey, who when asked by a conscription tribunal what he would do it he saw a German about to rape his sister, replied, "I would attempt to interpose myself between them." cheers Martin B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 14 December , 2006 Share Posted 14 December , 2006 Sir, you go too far. There is little or no evidence regarding Haig and SBDFs. Some unexplained dizziness, nausea, fainting and even a few deaths around the dinner table were not attributable to Haig personally. I seem to remember reading something about it on a wall one Winter in Australia, when I was doing research. There is [there is bound to be] a school of thought that believes the war could have been won in 1916 were it not for the miasma, mephitic or otherwise, that disrupted planning for the Somme. The later pattern gas-masks were first tested at GHQ, under active service conditions. All this and more can be read if one Googles Haig SBDF. LOL Now we've done it. I can see the Termpaper now ... Staff destruction caused by lima beans and brussel spouts ... fiber (fibre) in the General Staff diet - the real killer at the Somme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Brown Posted 14 December , 2006 Share Posted 14 December , 2006 I don't think Haig's name appeared in the Black Book held in the "cabinet of a certain German Prince". The alleged list of "degenerates" was cited in a libel action between Robbie Ross and Pemberton Billing. The trial was presided over by Mr Justice Darling; you couldn't make this up. The whole madness appears in Nice's "Myths of the Great War", I think, and in a book called "Wilde's Last Stand". Tabloid press, unscrupulous MPs, unsustainable allegations...it would never happen today! By the way, this thread is cheering up a dull day in the office no end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now