PhilB Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 An esteemed member (of a cantankerous nature) made this statement on a current thread:- "Haig's duty was neither to be straight, AC/DC or queer: it was to win the war." Whilst nobody would argue that his sexuality was a function of his duty, I do wonder about the latter part. Was it as simple as that - just to win? Or were there caveats and riders that modified that duty? Was he directed to win, full stop, or to win provided that.....? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 From DL-G to DH "You are to defeat the German Army on the western front within resources" No..... I don't think it was quite as simple an order as that, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 I pray in aid Field Marshal Slim, Defeat into Victory: "Defeat is bitter. Bitter to the common soldier, but trebly bitter to his general. The soldier may comfort himself with the thought that, whatever the result, he has done his duty faithjfully and steadfastly, but his commander has failed in his duty if he has not won victory-for that is his duty. He has no other comparable to it". and John Terraine: "No one questions the Duke of Marlborough's claim to be considered a 'great captain' - despite the fearful losses of Malplaquet. The Duke of Wellington, in Spain and at Waterloo, presided over scenes of awful carnage - bad enough at Waterloo to bring tears to his eyes". Here's to Haig and his soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 To win was the only possible overiding aim for DH. The more "conditions" you place upon winning the less likely you are to achieve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithfazzani Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 As everyone knows reading or understanding history through modern eyes has and always is difficult. A society such as ours has for good or ill has to an extent lost the idea of "team" winning. See our success or lack of it at team games etc. Haig and his contemporaries would have seen the idea of nation as "team" and that winning at all costs was what it was about. Losing some of the team would not in the end prevent the team winning. It seems v strange and sometimes horrific to us viewed from where we are but there are modern examples in the world of big business which seem to have reatined the same ruthless streak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 I think it went beyond Duty. For leaders such as he, I believe it boarders on a command from God. It was his purpose in life. Duty is not a high or strong enough word. From the glimpses I've gained here of his diary and from what I know, his faith in God kept him steadfast and purposeful. It was eyes above that kept him from being swallowed (as we are 90 years later0 by the scenes below. As is my style - I compare his self-confidence to that of Lee. Both perservered ... one to defeat and one to victory - but both waded through incredible slaughter and hardship to take their struggle to the end. So, if duty means the esssense of your being - yes, it was his duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 I think everything has to be equitable to a degree. Also as we know from modern day sporting events - admittedly a poor comparison - it isnt always the fact that you won but more importantly how you won, that determines how you are perceived. I guess thats why Nelson remains a national hero whilst Haig is remembered in the general consciousness as the butcher and the bungler (despite the hard work by many to restore Haig's reputation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOMMESOLDIER Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Hi All, Yes I believe that his duty was to win. To quote Churchill in the next terrible war ''to win, to win at all costs no matter what the price may be''. If you get too hung up about casualties you end up in a mess, as Montgomery did in operation Goodwood. Sorry to quote WW2 but thought they were relevant ! Cheers Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Kitchener's instructions to Haig are quoted here: Whether you regard these as instructions to 'win' will depend on your point of view, I guess. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOMMESOLDIER Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Thanks Robert. Very interesting. Cheers Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Smith Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 To win was the only possible overiding aim for DH. The more "conditions" you place upon winning the less likely you are to achieve it. Is the above not the reason that 'our boys' are in such deep s*** in Iraq and Afganistan now? Trying to do a job with one hand tied by politicians and the other holding duff equipment Sorry wandering off the topic a tad but I agree with Suirrel on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.29d4195f801e5a5004f52840449366a7.jpg)
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