Guest lemon trench Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 In this month's BBC History magazine, there is an article that states that Gary Sheffield has been given a grant/bursary to take sabbatical leave to write a new book on Haig based on existing and recently discovered personal papers of the C-in-C. Just thought I would share this with the pals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 Does it say what the new info/papers are. I was aware that Both he and Dr John Bourne were working on the Haig Diaries which Dr Bourne has said will be different to those published forty or so years ago. Regards Arm. Ps you do realise we already have a shortened name on the site we call Trench and as such if you do not sign your name at the bottom we will start shortening you to 'Lemon'.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 Thank you. So Gary Sheffield is to be the potential counter-counter-revisionist. [to any pals who don't immediately understand this crack, use 'search' please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 the Haig Diaries which Dr Bourne has said will be different to those published forty or so years ago. do you mean to say Haig kept an alternative series of diaries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesmessenger Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 The published edition edited by Robert Blake in the early 1950s was an expurgated version. The full diaries, which are held at the National Archives, Kew are considerably more lengthy and contain much that fifty years ago would have been regarded as highly sensitive. As I understand it, Bourne and Sheffield are working on the Kew diaries. Charles M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank_East Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 My BBC contact in the pub last night wispered to me "This will be the first time Haig's papers will be examined from the original handwritten manuscripts". I noticed that he appeared to be reading it from some well concealed notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 the Haig Diaries which Dr Bourne has said will be different to those published forty or so years ago. do you mean to say Haig kept an alternative series of diaries? LB, Charles has it right, the original book about the diaries was written whilst 'restrictions' were relevant and did not cover much that was controversal. many quote weather and good day etc I am lead to beleive (have not read it myself), from what Dr Bourne has said. This version will try to get at the 'meaty' topics. As regards the two copies of diaries I beleive the conscencious is that he tidied up the diaries after the war, thus implying he added not took away from the diaries and did not change what was writtten ( try hard to believe this but something tells me i would really tidy up) Regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 It will be interesting to see what Sheffield and Bourne report. I think the problem with any diary or record written by Haig was that it was written with emphasis to show him in a favourable light and not necessarily record the complete truth or his true thoughts. He must have considered that any of his writing were a potential measure for how he would go down in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 Exactly Jon, this is the problem I have with this as a true record of fact. Human nature would have to dictate that you would alter some aspects. It would have to be a General like Frederick Maurice for me to believe that he had not altered it in some way. Haig as I am aware did not stop from being devious to get results, why should this be any different. Dr Bourne seems to believe in the truth of it and I shall judge it when I have read it. regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 Exactly Jon, this is the problem I have with this as a true record of fact. Human nature would have to dictate that you would alter some aspects. It would have to be a General like Frederick Maurice for me to believe that he had not altered it in some way. Haig as I am aware did not stop from being devious to get results, why should this be any different. Dr Bourne seems to believe in the truth of it and I shall judge it when I have read it. regards Arm. Arm ... Your words have made me reflect on my previous position and forced me to change my mind. Haig was an upstanding member of the Establishment, deeply religous, and maintained the highest integrity at all times - I am sure the weight of evidence from his unexpurgated diary will exonerate him from the words of his dissenters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 ?????????????????(sarcasim) Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 Arm ... Im just not prepared to agree with you. You should know that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 Jon, Are we not in agreement this time that we both seem to find it hard to beleive that Haig did not after the war alter his diaries without making himself look better. Or have i had one whisky too many, or perhaps to less, and my mind is not quiet taking this in correctly? Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 6 February , 2004 Share Posted 6 February , 2004 Without wanting to "hog" the thread ... it appears we were in agreement so I took the honourable decision to change my mind in order we could maintain our status quo. As you well know if you said that wall over there was black, I would be duty bound to say it was white. By the way my next reading material will be on Verdun and Jutland. Do you have any views on aspects of either that we could discuss off forum? 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