The Road to a Revisionist Damascus

[phil andrade]

Judged by the simple but all important criterion of whether he was successful or not, Haig was indeed one of the most pre-eminent of all British generals, arguably the greatest if assessed in terms of numbers commanded and fought against.

He was a dull personality, apparently, and strikingly inarticulate in his face to face encounters, although his writing is concise and powerful. This should not matter, but it does rather count against him in an age of mass armies when a dash of charisma can make a huge difference. His reputation for remoteness and aloofness might have been assuaged if he had been able and willing to court a more populist appeal. That he did not do so is perhaps to his credit.

We need our heroes and villains, and it's understandable that Haig has attracted opprobrium, especially in the 1960's, when the fashionable repudiation of established values held sway over popular culture: the fiftieth anniversary of The Great War was bound to attract a frenzy of Haig bashing and Donkeyism. What better example of social heirarchy and Imperialist warfare than a calculating professional soldier sending millions of unknown warriors to face death and mutilation in a horrific, futile and tragic war?

A groslly unfair but very compelling image. Grant and Zhukov notwithstanding, no one else fits the bill like poor old Dougie.

Phil.

[Guest]

I have just started studying this brilliant thread. I found this article in the Spectator Archives ( a fantastic resource) by John Terraine. I'm not sure it adds anything new to this thread, but the date seems very early for such a view? 7/11/1958 Haig's Year

Mike

[bacon]

A great thread/topic, interesting reading.

But I am fascinated by the "but we won" flawed analysis.

I cant see anywhere that Haig won the military side of the engagement. Germany's economic collapse rather than military defeat ensured the likelihood of round two being just a matter of time.

Its like saying the fighter won the first round so therefore won the fight (when there were more rounds to come).

The great war was just the first round...and it is entirely because that round was not successfully handled that round two eventually had to be played out.

World war one and world war two are inextricably linked and there needs to be a leap in not looking at either of them in isolation.

[salesie]

A great thread/topic, interesting reading.

But I am fascinated by the "but we won" flawed analysis.

I cant see anywhere that Haig won the military side of the engagement. Germany's economic collapse rather than military defeat ensured the likelihood of round two being just a matter of time.

Its like saying the fighter won the first round so therefore won the fight (when there were more rounds to come).

The great war was just the first round...and it is entirely because that round was not successfully handled that round two eventually had to be played out.

World war one and world war two are inextricably linked and there needs to be a leap in not looking at either of them in isolation.

Foch, without the benefit of your modern hindsight, would seem to have agreed with you - in 1919 he stated that "this is not peace but merely a truce that will last but twenty years".

However, nothing in history should be viewed as completely inevitable - looking back, we only see what happened but other choices at vital points were available i.e. the allied governments, heartily sick of war in the 20s & 30's, chose appeasement - that particular choice could well have been different. Then we have the choice that said we will accept a defeated German Army's appeal for an armistice. The German military ran Germany so make no mistake, they were on the point of total defeat in the field - otherwise they would not even have asked for an armistice let alone accepted one on any terms (don't fall for the seriously flawed "stab in the back" theory, the military were the de-facto rulers of Germany and were totally blind to the strategic military/economic/political/social realities of their actions). The allies could have chosen to invade Germany in 1918/19, a la WWII, but by 1918 the allied governments were heartily sick of war and, understandably, chose to give Germany a second chance, a draconian one, but a chance nonetheless. Of course, Germany did not learn the lessons of their glaring strategic failures in WWI and chose to make exactly the same mistakes all over again. Nothing was inevitable, it was down to choices.

I also see other shallow areas in your post. Economic collapse did not exist in a vacuum, the enormous military pressure applied by the allies played a vital role in forcing Germany's economic collapse - the two factors go hand in hand.

Cheers-salesie.

[bacon]

Sorry salesie but Im sorry you see my view as shallow. In fact, the could haves, the maybes, the choose to.... you adhere to are just too flaccid a point of view for me. The fact is that that there were two rounds to the same essential conflict. Thats what i am saying. It may have come in various forms but Germany was not defeated on the battlefield from 1914-1918. They may have been worn down and progressively losing by 1918 but thats NOT the same thing as a military defeat. If you wish to see what a battlefield defeat looks like in an industrialised war then you can comfortably find that in ww2.

I dont see anywhere where this happened in ww1 and therein lies the seeds of a continuence of the same essential conflict. The same lines connect both events inextricably.

[salesie]

It's a simplistic view to say that WWII was an inevitable consequence of WWI. True, seeds were sown in 1918/19 but seeds need a number of conditions in order to grow to full bloom, and those conditions only come into play after the seeds are planted. The important conditions in this instance came post-WWI, in the 1920s and 30s - I gave a couple of examples in my previous post (there are many others), examples of choices; these are not what-if examples but highlight a universal truth, a universal truth that says nothing is inevitable in either the future or the past. When studying history, it is only hindsight that gives the illusion of inevitability, only hindsight that gives the smoke and mirrors of clear and unambiguous linkages.

I do know the difference between the end of both world wars, that's why I said in my previous post, "The allies could have chosen to invade Germany in 1918/19, a la WWII, but by 1918 the allied governments were heartily sick of war and, understandably, chose to give Germany a second chance, a draconian one, but a chance nonetheless. Of course, Germany did not learn the lessons of their glaring strategic failures in WWI and chose to make exactly the same mistakes all over again."

This point seems to have gone completely over your head.

Cheers-salesie.

[bacon]

Salsie, you seem focused on the word "inevitable".Yes your points have completely gone over my head because they are a debate that i am not presently discussing. If i may kindly point out that you are debating with yourself on these matters of "inevitability". I think thats your issue and self argument so im going to let you stick with that self imposed argument.

I am saying that the conflicts are utterly linked, the pattern of how they are linked belongs to history, not theories about what ifs. Hindsight is not some ugly back room card game. It actually offers an extraordinarily powerful insight and allows us to brush aside the many colours and fogs that blur a more clear understanding of events. It removes us from the emotions and politics of the time and helps us to respect the balance of history and events over time. Hindsight is not a dirty word Salsie.

As to your later comments:

"Germany a second chance, a draconian one, but a chance nonetheless. Of course, Germany did not learn the lessons of their glaring strategic failures in WWI and chose to make exactly the same mistakes all over again."

This parochial and limited statement is not an educated analysis, greater balance and the benefit of historical hindsight is required.

[salesie]

Salsie, you seem focused on the word "inevitable".Yes your points have completely gone over my head because they are a debate that i am not presently discussing. If i may kindly point out that you are debating with yourself on these matters of "inevitability". I think thats your issue and self argument so im going to let you stick with that self imposed argument.

I am saying that the conflicts are utterly linked, the pattern of how they are linked belongs to history, not theories about what ifs. Hindsight is not some ugly back room card game. It actually offers an extraordinarily powerful insight and allows us to brush aside the many colours and fogs that blur a more clear understanding of events. It removes us from the emotions and politics of the time and helps us to respect the balance of history and events over time. Hindsight is not a dirty word Salsie.

As to your later comments:

"Germany a second chance, a draconian one, but a chance nonetheless. Of course, Germany did not learn the lessons of their glaring strategic failures in WWI and chose to make exactly the same mistakes all over again."

This parochial and limited statement is not an educated analysis, greater balance and the benefit of historical hindsight is required.

Sorry, when you said, "The great war was just the first round...and it is entirely because that round was not successfully handled that round two eventually had to be played out." I actually thought that you meant it. Silly me.

Cheers-salesie.