Lectures on First World War

[Conall]

Haig proponents maintain that he was "Great Captain" equal to Wellington and Marlborough - honestly, the only way that could be described as "balanced" is to accept that latter two were then greatly overrated...but I doubt such a notion would go over well with the British...

 

Perhaps you could provide some quotes rating Haig as a "Great Captain" equivalent to Marlborough & Wellington. I think beyond the pages of Terraine & Corrigan you are going to struggle. It seems to me that either you haven't read Sheffield, Holmes, Wilson, Strachan, Simpkins, Griffith, Bourne etc or you are somewhat dishonestly setting up something of a strawman. How well does that notion go over with you?

[Guest aevans]

Tony,

 

Even by your standards this is pretty feeble and puerile.

 

I didn't realize I had any standards. After all, I'm "vapid", i.e. an airhead.

 

Your comments about the pathos in Holmes' piece...

American historians routinely disclaim the pathos inherrent in our Civil War primary sources and admonish the reader to concentrate on whatever facts can be gleaned from them. Why can't British historians do the same with WW I? Heck, they have a perfect example in Robert Graves, who was greatly ambivalent about the war and derided pathos from either side of any argument regarding it. (Of course, I understand Graves may not be taken as an example by a lot of the stiffer types, because he committed the unforgiveable sin of sending up a lot of Helenophile and Romanophile sacred cows in his Claudius books. )

 

But to be specific, here's a good example of what I'm talking about, that doesn't even reference a primary source, rather taking a ridiculously romantic excursion into poetry to emphasize what might otherwise have been a simple factual point:

 

"Loos was a worse day for Scotland than Flodden: ‘When shivered was fair Scotland’s spear, and broken was her shield.’"

 

Puh-lease.

 

I think you've either misread the lecture or are being deliberately contrarian.

 

I'm never deliberately contrarian. And how would you define misreading the lecture? That I don't subscribe to your interpretation of it?

 

Furthermore I would support the point that Bill makes in that the British historiography is such that the combination of Lloyd-George's disingenuous politicking (to hide his own flaws), the influence of the wartime poets and the revisionist anti-war historians (such that they were) of the 1960s & 70s have dominated the historical record in the UK.

Why would anybody disagree with this? It's simple fact, not some breathtakingly new insight.

 

As such the work of more contemporary historians, as listed above, merely addresses the balance rather veering towards a jingoistic and excessively chauvinist British reinterpretation of WW1.

 

If the subject lectures are any guide, one must believe that British historiography defines "balance" as swinging from one extreme to the other.

 

Finally I would note that it is undeniable that it was the Commonwealth armies which were primarily responsible for defeating the German Army in 1918 and explaining that requires a careful refutation of the commonly held received wisdoms of the 1960s & 70s.

 

Undeniable? By Jingo!

 

It's arguable that the Commonwealt contribution was significant, but so were the American, French and minor allies. No faction could have done it alone.

Edited April 15, 2008 by aevans

[Ken Estes]

....

 

I do note that this WW1 revisionism, or rehabilitation, however you want to put it, seems to concentrate on almost solely on Haig. Few, for example, seem to be willing to make similar case for Joffre, whose achievments as a commander were broadly equal to Haig. I've never seen even French posters, on any forum or newsgroup, to make a case that Joffre was in fact a great commander limited by circumstances and politicians. Admittably I'm not familiar with French military historians, so perhaps there is indeed a similar body of pro-Joffre literature as exists on Haig and I have just missed it.

Well I dunno. John Terraine was not even born by WW1, what would he know...?

 

I would not bother with opinions of French [or other] posters on web pages, if one is serious about history. However, Joffre receives excellent treatment, showing his strengths and weaknesses in the essential book just out in English [rarely done on the French] by Robert A. Doughty, Pyrrhic Victory: French Strategy and Operations in the Great War Belknap Press (2008) in paper, (2005) hardbound.

 

As I said earlier, none of this stuff is done overnight. Historians work at times over a period of a generation to come to grips with essential materials and make the analyses, interpretations and finally judgments to produce new material in the form of a book, lecture or article. For the most part, they are not a bunch of venal, grasping, self-serving academics trying to slip into tenure positions in the Ivory Tower as alluded to in the previous [edit] page of this thread. Many of us TNetters who have spent days and days searching through materials in the PRO, Natl Archives, or national libraries know perfectly well how much labor results in perilously little findings.

 

As for AEvans, I suspect he is "Just Tony being Tony," as his former signature line attested. I do not recall him ever referring in positive terms to academics or intellectuals or those who work at it, and most of their products. Still, one sees a lot of praise from TNetters on the latest books, provided they are in the proper field and do not assault their political proclivities.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Ken Estes

[Guest aevans]

As for AEvans, I suspect he is "Just Tony being Tony," as his former signature line attested. I do not recall him ever referring in positive terms to academics or intellectuals or those who work at it, and most of their products.

 

Hmmm...I guess my repeated recommendations of academic authors like Archer Jones, Charles B. MacDonald, Murray & Millett, and Gudmundson totally escaped your notice. What I object to is a certain type of academic arrogance that assumes that it is infallible and superior. One may note that the above authors are rarely if ever accused of that kind of behavior.

 

Still, one sees a lot of praise from TNetters on the latest books, provided they are in the proper field and do not assault their political proclivities.

 

Yes, one does. I'm glad that at least one other person here sees that as a phenomenon worthy of criticism.

[Yama]

Perhaps you could provide some quotes rating Haig as a "Great Captain" equivalent to Marlborough & Wellington. I think beyond the pages of Terraine & Corrigan you are going to struggle.

 

Perhaps. Of course, Terraine's work was "remarkably impartial" according to link in the opening post of this thread...so where is the pendulum again?

 

It's same thing as say, Battle of Kursk. Some people studied German casualty reports and found out that they did not lose anywhere as many tanks as Soviets had claimed. So far all good, but immediately came the "revolutionary" conclusions that Battle of Kursk was in fact a victory for Germans and had not Hitler cancelled the operation, it would have resulted in a stunning German triumph. Hello, revisionism, meet Common Sense...no, wait...guess not.

[BillB]

As I understand, Haig-bashing in Britain began well before 1960s. Lloyd George was of course the most prominent one - of course one may question his motives but he was a former Prime Minister, nevertheless. And I don't think people like Liddell Hart, Montgomery, etc. could be characterized as "...revisionists driven not by sound, objective academic research and scholarship, but by an adherence to the then-current zeitgeist and the concommitant shift toward individualism and anti-Establishmentism in British society...".

 

No, Lloyd George was a corrupt liar with a penchant for meddling in military matters for political ends, while Liddell Hart and Montgomery were rampant self-publicists. So none of them can be characterised as objective or basing their opinions on sound research either, can they? But if you want to totally miss and/or avoid the point I was making in order to set up straw man arguments to rehash the same tired old stuff that's been done to death here and elsewhere, don't let me stop you.

 

I do note that this WW1 revisionism, or rehabilitation, however you want to put it, seems to concentrate on almost solely on Haig. Few, for example, seem to be willing to make similar case for Joffre, whose achievments as a commander were broadly equal to Haig. I've never seen even French posters, on any forum or newsgroup, to make a case that Joffre was in fact a great commander limited by circumstances and politicians. Admittably I'm not familiar with French military historians, so perhaps there is indeed a similar body of pro-Joffre literature as exists on Haig and I have just missed it.

Well I dunno. John Terraine was not even born by WW1, what would he know...?

Ref the first bit, I beg to differ. You need to do a bit more reading, I think. The countering of the partial and inaccurate version of WW1 propagated so successfully by the 1960s revisionists goes a lot wider than that. I'm by no means an expert but I'm aware of studies on who volunteered and why, the formation of teh New Army, development of tactics, operational art, chemical warfare and lots more. Discussing the pros, cons and character flaws of leading commanders is but one part of that ongoing puzzle, and not even the most important. As for the rest, see my comment about rehashes and straw men above.

 

[edited to add this bit]

 

Well I dunno. John Terraine was not even born by WW1, what would he know...?

 

That has got to be one of the dumbest comments it has yet been my misfortune to read. And I thought you'd plumbed the depths by quoting Hitler.

 

BillB

[BillB]

Yes, Bill. Of course, Bill.

 

All repeat after Saint Bill: By Jingo, by Jingo, by Jingo...

Yap yap yap yap. I've got nothing worth saying but I'll carry on anyway, just because I can. Yap yap yap yap.

 

BillB

[BillB]

Perhaps. Of course, Terraine's work was "remarkably impartial" according to link in the opening post of this thread...so where is the pendulum again?

 

It's same thing as say, Battle of Kursk. Some people studied German casualty reports and found out that they did not lose anywhere as many tanks as Soviets had claimed. So far all good, but immediately came the "revolutionary" conclusions that Battle of Kursk was in fact a victory for Germans and had not Hitler cancelled the operation, it would have resulted in a stunning German triumph. Hello, revisionism, meet Common Sense...no, wait...guess not.

No Yama, it is nothing like the battle of Kursk. You'd do a lot better if you stayed on topic and addressed what other people actually say, rather than setting up straw men and daft comparisons to drag things off into irrelevance.

 

BillB

[RETAC21]

Moving to more productive grounds, what books would the Tnetters versed in WW1 now? Ken has already brought up one that he wouldn't err if he throws a copy in his bag next time he hits Las Rozas...

[Guest aevans]

Yap yap yap yap. Bill wouldn't know irony if it bit him in the ass. Yap yap yap yap.

 

BillB

 

There, fixed it for you.

Edited April 15, 2008 by aevans

[Colin Williams]

No, Lloyd George was a corrupt liar with a penchant for meddling in military matters for political ends,

 

True enough, and his memoirs in particular are a nasty hit job. OTOH he was Prime Minister, and unless Great Britain was going to set up a military dictatorship equivalent to Hindenburg and Ludendorf, the Prime Minister had a responsibility to meddle in military matters that involved sending hundreds of thousands of citizens to their deaths. The disastrous Lloyd George-Haig relationship was mostly Lloyd George's fault, but Haig was far from blameless. I think Prior and Wilson are right in their belief that Lloyd George should have either found a way to work with Haig or fired him.

[Yama]

No, Lloyd George was a corrupt liar with a penchant for meddling in military matters for political ends, while Liddell Hart and Montgomery were rampant self-publicists. So none of them can be characterised as objective or basing their opinions on sound research either, can they? But if you want to totally miss and/or avoid the point I was making in order to set up straw man arguments to rehash the same tired old stuff that's been done to death here and elsewhere, don't let me stop you.

 

But of course. Anyone who criticizes Haig must be categorically rejected as a source and cannot POSSIBLY have been objective.

 

It is understandable that those who worship Haig as a hero like to think that his bad reputation is all leftist conspiracy. Alas, the facts do not seem to bear it out.

 

Mind you, I do not really understand what, for example, in AJP Taylors writing so offends those who defend Haig (except perhaps his sarcastic tone, which was noted). He did not hold Haig in high esteem, it is plainly obvious, but he also flat out said that he thinks he was as good or better in his job than most of his contemporaries. So what is exactly wrong in that picture? Isn't that pretty much same point "serious and objective researchers" (at least those who don't promote Haig as second coming of Wellington) have been making all along?

 

Ref the first bit, I beg to differ. You need to do a bit more reading, I think. The countering of the partial and inaccurate version of WW1 propagated so successfully by the 1960s revisionists goes a lot wider than that.

 

So Remarque, Montgomery, Fuller et al. - men who experienced WW1 firsthand - were "1960s revisionists"? At best(/worst), it seems like the cynical view of the war became popularized, and as often happens, in popularization, things are simplified and aggravated so that they are easier to sell to common folk.

[Colin Williams]

On a slightly different note, does anyone think the future King Charles III could put out a message like this? (bold parts mine)

 

King George V's message to the soldiers of the BEF, August 12, 1914 -

 

"You are leaving home to fight for the safety and honour of my Empire. Belgium, whose country we are pledged to defend, has been attacked and France is about to be invaded by the same powerful foe. I have implicit confidence in you my soldiers. Duty is your watchword, and I know your duty will be nobly done. I shall follow your every movement with deepest interest and mark with eager satisfaction your daily progress, indeed your welfare will never be absent from my thoughts. I pray God to bless you and guard you and bring you back victorious."

 

 

Nothing like the last vestiges of feudalism!

[Conall]

I didn't realize I had any standards. After all, I'm "vapid", i.e. an airhead.

 

On the basis of your reply it's hard to argue with you... I meant the standard of your argument, in that generally while you may be argumentative you usually make an effort to support your case rather than immediately resort to ad hominem attacks. I've read your posts for a number of years and it would appear, in my humble judgement at least, that the signal to noise ratio is deteriorating.

 

American historians routinely disclaim the pathos inherrent in our Civil War primary sources and admonish the reader to concentrate on whatever facts can be gleaned from them. Why can't British historians do the same with WW I? Heck, they have a perfect example in Robert Graves, who was greatly ambivalent about the war and derided pathos from either side of any argument regarding it. (Of course, I understand Graves may not be taken as an example by a lot of the stiffer types, because he committed the unforgiveable sin of sending up a lot of Helenophile and Romanophile sacred cows in his Claudius books. )

 

But to be specific, here's a good example of what I'm talking about, that doesn't even reference a primary source, rather taking a ridiculously romantic excursion into poetry to emphasize what might otherwise have been a simple factual point:

 

"Loos was a worse day for Scotland than Flodden: ‘When shivered was fair Scotland’s spear, and broken was her shield.’"

 

Puh-lease.

 

Actually I think the use of the quotation from Walter Scott is quite reasonable in the context; first Holmes is giving a lecture in Scotland and is tailoring his material to the audience and secondly he is alluding through poetry to a national (in the sense of Scotland rather than the UK) disaster which neatly leads him into the comment regarding qualitative rather than quantative loss (Scott's line is referring to the heavy casualties suffered by the Scottish aristocracy). As an additional bonus it also subtely concentrates the audience's mind on how poetry depicts war - dramatically and with an excess of pathos, something which is more than a little germane to the subject he is addressing. If I was being generous I would suppose that you missed that that rather than deliberately chose to ignore it...

 

I'm never deliberately contrarian. And how would you define misreading the lecture? That I don't subscribe to your interpretation of it?

 

Misreading was a play on Hilary's recent episode of misspeaking; I thought you, as an educated American, might appreciate that. As to not subscribing to my interpretation I wouldn't expect anything less of you, Tony. And let's not get all post-modern about this with respect to the relative validity of the recipient as opposed to the author's interpretation, it will only get messy and end in tears.

 

If the subject lectures are any guide, one must believe that British historiography defines "balance" as swinging from one extreme to the other.

I would define balance in a historiographical sense as returning to a point where all sources are considered objectively and weighted according to their merits rather than by starting with an inherently anti-war, class driven bias and is a historiography which accepts a range of views rather than demanding acceptance of a rigid orthodoxy. I suspect that from your perspective, not having been exposed to a British education or the British media, that it is difficult to comprehend just how all-pervasive the "Lions led by donkeys" historical school had become in the UK.

 

Undeniable? By Jingo!

 

It's arguable that the Commonwealt contribution was significant, but so were the American, French and minor allies. No faction could have done it alone.

 

Undeniable may be a little absolute, I agree but it's a good starting point for an internet based polemical argument. Let me ask you, who do you think was primarily responsible for the defeat of the German Army in France in 1918 and why? I will be interested to see your answer (try to avoid the trite answer of assigning responsibility to Ludendorff). Feel free to indulge in any jingoism necessary...

[Conall]

Perhaps. Of course, Terraine's work was "remarkably impartial" according to link in the opening post of this thread...so where is the pendulum again?

 

It's same thing as say, Battle of Kursk. Some people studied German casualty reports and found out that they did not lose anywhere as many tanks as Soviets had claimed. So far all good, but immediately came the "revolutionary" conclusions that Battle of Kursk was in fact a victory for Germans and had not Hitler cancelled the operation, it would have resulted in a stunning German triumph. Hello, revisionism, meet Common Sense...no, wait...guess not.

 

So that's a no then, apparently neither can you provide any material to support your argument nor are you willing to instead preferring to shift the argument to a thoroughly irrelevant and banal analogy. Based on your Kursk argument you do, however, appear to have quite a talent for going from the specific (Nipe & Fedorwicz publishing nazi hagiographies) to the general in one easy move. Best of luck with your quest for common sense...

 

Terraine's work did, at least, try to make use of a wide range of sources and where possible use contemporary accounts rather than the generalisations and inaccuracies of Clark. As for the other historians you quote - Montgomery, Liddell Hart and A J P Taylor - their most notable feature was their egotism and propensity to ignore the primary sources when it did not suit their arguments. I would echo the comments of others and suggest that you read a little more widely perhaps.

[Yama]

Terraine's work did, at least, try to make use of a wide range of sources and where possible use contemporary accounts rather than the generalisations and inaccuracies of Clark. As for the other historians you quote - Montgomery, Liddell Hart and A J P Taylor - their most notable feature was their egotism and propensity to ignore the primary sources when it did not suit their arguments. I would echo the comments of others and suggest that you read a little more widely perhaps.

 

See my reply to BillB. It's awfully convenient to dismiss all the critics by various labels, isn't it?

[Yama]

Undeniable may be a little absolute, I agree but it's a good starting point for an internet based polemical argument. Let me ask you, who do you think was primarily responsible for the defeat of the German Army in France in 1918 and why?

 

Foch?

[philgollin]

See my reply to BillB. It's awfully convenient to dismiss all the critics by various labels, isn't it?

 

Not trying to come between you and Connall, but that is (as I said above) the problem with some of the revisionist historians. Their works are quoted time, and time, again, despite having flaws. The effort involved is out of all proportion.

 

If one merely quotes one author off against another you end up in a battle of attrition.

 

Some boards (of all sorts) have these sort of disputes on a regular basis (often about the same pairs, or sets of authors). Some have had so much of the dispute that if a certain author or dispute about such an author is raised then the moderator, or majority, will try to stop the discussion before it begins.

 

Merely saying "my author is right" and hence your attck on him is misguided/simplistic/jingoistic/or whatever is just the beginning of a slide downhill. IF people want to defnd (or attack) a specific author they should either do so specifically or keep it to generally accepted areas of concern.

 

I AM NOT SUPERIOR about this - there are several naval authors the quoting of whom who can be like waving a red rag in front of a bull (Correlli Barnett on RN, Clay Blair on the Atlantic War STRATEGY, etc.....) -

 

That is not to say that any of those revisionist (or more modern historians, maybe "post-revisionist" ?) don't have research or theories that aren't worth a look, but thay shouldn't be quoted without at least knowing IF they have some sort of agenda or bias. (Again, we all have biases).

 

.

Edited April 16, 2008 by philgollin

[capt_starlight]

You need to do a bit more reading, I think. The countering of the partial and inaccurate version of WW1 propagated so successfully by the 1960s revisionists goes a lot wider than that.

It never harms to read widely.

 

Terraine first came to real prominence as I understood it over the BBC Great War series (released in 1964). As I understand it, it was the first "blossoming" of the anti "Lions Lead by Donkeys" school and lead others into the field of the Great War hitherto dominated by Graves and Liddell Hart.

 

I'm by no means an expert but I'm aware of studies on who volunteered and why, the formation of teh (sic) New Army,

 

For this I would offer:

Call to Arms: The British Army, 1914–18. By Charles Messenger. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005. ISBN 0-297-85695-7 (superb!)

Holmes' Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front (another superb volume)

Mccrae's Battalion: The Story of the 16th Royal Scots by Jack Alexander (on Scots footballers battalion mainly from Heart of Midlothian)(the best that I have read to date on the raising of a Pals Battalion)

 

development of tactics, operational art,

 

Might I offer here books by Paddy Griffiths as a good starting point followed by those of Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson on Rawlinson (Command on the Western Front), The Somme and Passchendaele : the untold story. There is of course, the seminal Fire-Power, British Army Weapons and Theories of War, 1904-1945. Dominick Graham and Shelford Bidwell.

 

chemical warfare

 

Might I offer here Albert Palazzo, Seeking victory on the Western Front: the British army and chemical warfare in World War I, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 2000, 239pp

 

and lots more. Discussing the pros, cons and character flaws of leading commanders is but one part of that ongoing puzzle, and not even the most important.

 

Know of a decent work on Plumer and Gough ? Without any papers from Plumer it has been hard to right a decent evaluation of him. Harrington at least knew him but that can, of course, be a disadvantage while I am unsure of Powell's work. As for Gough, I am unaware of any overall evaluation.

[BillB]

There, fixed it for you.

Bless. Did that make your ego feel better?

 

BillB

[BillB]

It never harms to read widely.

 

Terraine first came to real prominence as I understood it over the BBC Great War series (released in 1964). As I understand it, it was the first "blossoming" of the anti "Lions Lead by Donkeys" school and lead others into the field of the Great War hitherto dominated by Graves and Liddell Hart.

For this I would offer:

Call to Arms: The British Army, 1914–18. By Charles Messenger. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005. ISBN 0-297-85695-7 (superb!)

Holmes' Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front (another superb volume)

Mccrae's Battalion: The Story of the 16th Royal Scots by Jack Alexander (on Scots footballers battalion mainly from Heart of Midlothian)(the best that I have read to date on the raising of a Pals Battalion)

 

Might I offer here books by Paddy Griffiths as a good starting point followed by those of Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson on Rawlinson (Command on the Western Front), The Somme and Passchendaele : the untold story. There is of course, the seminal Fire-Power, British Army Weapons and Theories of War, 1904-1945. Dominick Graham and Shelford Bidwell.

Might I offer here Albert Palazzo, Seeking victory on the Western Front: the British army and chemical warfare in World War I, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 2000, 239pp

Know of a decent work on Plumer and Gough ? Without any papers from Plumer it has been hard to right a decent evaluation of him. Harrington at least knew him but that can, of course, be a disadvantage while I am unsure of Powell's work. As for Gough, I am unaware of any overall evaluation.

Thanks for that, Starlight, but I wasn't trawling for suggestions. I have copies of almost all the works you mention on my shelves, and for the raising of the New Army I think you've missed a couple: Peter Simkins Kitchener's Army: The Raising of the New Armies 1914-1916 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), and John Jackson Private 12768: Memoir of a Tommy (Glos: Tempus, 2005). Agree about Terraine's importance and sorry I don't know of anything about stuff on Plumer and Gough. Despite Yama's unfounded assumption to the contrary, I'm not really big on individual commander studies as I don't think they are as important to the overall topic as they are painted.

 

BillB

[BillB]

But of course. Anyone who criticizes Haig must be categorically rejected as a source and cannot POSSIBLY have been objective.

 

It is understandable that those who worship Haig as a hero like to think that his bad reputation is all leftist conspiracy. Alas, the facts do not seem to bear it out.

 

Mind you, I do not really understand what, for example, in AJP Taylors writing so offends those who defend Haig (except perhaps his sarcastic tone, which was noted). He did not hold Haig in high esteem, it is plainly obvious, but he also flat out said that he thinks he was as good or better in his job than most of his contemporaries. So what is exactly wrong in that picture? Isn't that pretty much same point "serious and objective researchers" (at least those who don't promote Haig as second coming of Wellington) have been making all along?

 

I never really understood your reputation around here as something of a troll Yama. Until now. It is obviously connected to your insistence on putting words and motivations into other peoples posts and pulling discussions off topic onto ground of your choosing. I am not and have never been a champion of Haig or indeed any other high level WW1 commander of any nationality, and hereby challenge you to produce any specific evidence to support your clear and repeated assertions to the contrary. Personally I find the topic rather sterile, not least because it almost invariably leads to puerile pissing matches of the kind you are trying to turn this thread into.

 

You, however, appear to have an unhealthy obsession with Haig, given that you invariably introduce him into any discussion of anything remotely connected to WW1. This thread is a case in point - Haig did not appear until you started your irrelevant prattlings, and he is only marginally relavant to the topic I was actually talking about. I have no idea why you are unhealthily obsessed with Haig and frankly I'm not interested so I'd appreciate it is you would refrain from trying to draw me into your odd and rather distasteful Haig-connected fetish.

 

So Remarque, Montgomery, Fuller et al. - men who experienced WW1 firsthand - were "1960s revisionists"? At best(/worst), it seems like the cynical view of the war became popularized, and as often happens, in popularization, things are simplified and aggravated so that they are easier to sell to common folk.

And there you go again, deliberately misrepresenting what I said AND demonstrating that you have not really grasped what I was talking about before you barged in with your ill informed and irrelevant assertions and straw men. As with your Haig fetish, I'd be grateful if you went and bothered someone else with your irrelevant and one sided "discussion".

 

BillB

[Yama]

I never really understood your reputation around here as something of a troll Yama. Until now. It is obviously connected to your insistence on putting words and motivations into other peoples posts and pulling discussions off topic onto ground of your choosing. I am not and have never been a champion of Haig or indeed any other high level WW1 commander of any nationality, and hereby challenge you to produce any specific evidence to support your clear and repeated assertions to the contrary. Personally I find the topic rather sterile, not least because it almost invariably leads to puerile pissing matches of the kind you are trying to turn this thread into.

 

OK, you're not Haig champion, fair enough. I applaud you for your good job fooling me in that respect.

 

You, however, appear to have an unhealthy obsession with Haig, given that you invariably introduce him into any discussion of anything remotely connected to WW1. This thread is a case in point - Haig did not appear until you started your irrelevant prattlings, and he is only marginally relavant to the topic I was actually talking about. I have no idea why you are unhealthily obsessed with Haig and frankly I'm not interested so I'd appreciate it is you would refrain from trying to draw me into your odd and rather distasteful Haig-connected fetish.

 

Then I guess you don't mind if I issue a challenge of my own - please produce evidence of "unhealthy obsession of Haig" who as I recall I have hardly mentioned save discussion there was last year (which btw. was not started by me). As for this thread - Haig is a central character in "Lions led by donkeys" myth and he appeared pretty prominently in the articles linked in first post so please tell me how he is irrelevant to discussion? I took enormous variety of how he is perceived depending from writer as an example of problem I often see in historical revisionism. I stand by my assertion that first article linked smells of glorification of British Army and its leadership in WW1. Second one seems bit more balanced.

 

I continue not to understand why do you keep labelling pre-1960s critics of British military leadership in WW1 as "irrelevant to discussion". Of course I was not around in 1960s United Kingdom to observe what exactly influenced public perception of WW1, but clearly, "Lions led by donkeys" myth was not something invented on ad hoc basis by contemporary Leftist writers, as was your assertion.

[BillB]

OK, you're not Haig champion, fair enough. I applaud you for your good job fooling me in that respect.

 

OK, hows about you provide some evidence to show how you were allegedly fooled then. Or do you lack the minerals in addition to being a world class master of strawman erection, misrepresentation and now evasion?

 

Then I guess you don't mind if I issue a challenge of my own - please produce evidence of "unhealthy obsession of Haig" who as I recall I have hardly mentioned save discussion there was last year (which btw. was not started by me). As for this thread - Haig is a central character in "Lions led by donkeys" myth and he appeared pretty prominently in the articles linked in first post so please tell me how he is irrelevant to discussion? I took enormous variety of how he is perceived depending from writer as an example of problem I often see in historical revisionism. I stand by my assertion that first article linked smells of glorification of British Army and its leadership in WW1. Second one seems bit more balanced.

First, I didn't say that Haig was irrelevant to the discussion, I said he was only marginally relevant to the point I was making. The two are not the same, altho you appear to be having some difficulty grasping the fact. The salient thrust of the current *British* popular view of WW1 is that it was a pointless, needless and futile conflict carried out by dupes too stupid to realise that they were being exploited by marginally less stupid political and more especially military leaders. Haig occupies only a supporting role in that view, not the central one as you seem to think. Regarding evidence of your unhealthy obsession with Haig, you have reinforced it with this post, it is clear from the way you weighed in with it as the central plank of your "contribution", and it was also clear in the discussion last year you refer to. You may not have started it but you certainly had plenty to say about Haig rather than anything else IIRC; I suspect that your erroneous characterisation of me as a "Haig champion" goes back to then, when ISTR pointing out some flaws in your Haig bashing. It might be a novel concept for you, but someone pointing out rather obvious flaws in your pronouncements does not automatically mean they are diametrically opposed to your POV. Ref the last bit, you can stand by what you like, but to characterise Holmes as glorifying the BA in this context exposes the underlying problem here, which is your ignorance of how things are viewed in the UK - which was what I was talking about, remember. As Conall has pointed out, unless you live and have studied in the UK you can have no real grasp of how pervasive the 1960s revisionist view of WW1 is in spite of c.40 years of academic research to the contrary. The fact that an avowedly and deliberately revisionist TV "comedy" Blackadder Goes Forth is being used as a tool to teach WW1 to secondary school pupils looking to qualify for university ought to illustrate the point, but apparently not.

 

I continue not to understand why do you keep labelling pre-1960s critics of British military leadership in WW1 as "irrelevant to discussion". Of course I was not around in 1960s United Kingdom to observe what exactly influenced public perception of WW1, but clearly, "Lions led by donkeys" myth was not something invented on ad hoc basis by contemporary Leftist writers, as was your assertion.

 

And I continue not to understand how you think pre-1960 critics of British military leadership in WW1 has anything much to do with a point discussing how the work of axe-grinding revisionists in the late 1950s and 1960s has shaped the current popular British view of WW1. That view may well have been around earlier, indeed it can be traced back to British pacifist thinkling and writings in the 1920s, but it only came to widespread prominence in *Britain* from the early 1960s thanks to the efforts of revisionist historians, pacifist playwrights and anti-establishment thinkers. WW1 was not the only target of this impulse, it can be seen in the critical attitude of the 1968 film Charge of the Light Brigade (originally written by John Osborne of Look Back in Anger fame) for example, or the rise of social realist film making pioneered by Ken Loach with Cathy Come Home in 1966, and is clearly apparent in most war films made in Britian in the 1960s. The thing you seem to be unaware of is that this topic is as much about British cultural development as military history. Consequently, I was not making an assertion but stating a matter of established historical fact, which you would know it if your grasp of the historiography were half as firm as you infer.

 

BillB

[Guest aevans]

Bless. Did that make your ego feel better?

 

BillB

 

It's not about my ego, Bill.