The Good Soldier

[Old Tom]

Hello,

I have just finished reading this excellent book and am surprised that I can find no mention of it here; I expect that's my lack of skill. To my mind, this book does just what it says on the cover and I can do no better than quote (or paraphrase) a few comments -DH emerges as neither devil nor archangel - examines DH's record with a fresh eye - very readable. Previously I have read Terraine's ,'The Educated Soldier' and dabbled with Winter's 'Haigs Command'. This one increased my appreciation of DH by having a sizable section on his backround before joining the army and also his work on behalf of ex-soldiers after the war.

I would somewhat tentatively take issue with the authors treatment of the fate of the 5th Army under General Gough in early 1918 in that he has overlooked the transition for the BEF from an attack to a defence mode and insufficiently acknowledges the extension of the British line and the lack of time to prepare a defence in depth.

However the book clearly portrays clearly a senior officer of the period a Victorian with firm ideas of duty, resposibility and authority. Little, not surprisingly, is said of other generals, although there is a quotefrom the work of Winston Churchill suggesting that DH was the finest soldier of this fateful age, the auther qualifies this with 'perhaps this was not saying much'

Old Tom

[squirrel]

Have read this book also and found it a good read and thought provoking in places although there was little fresh or new

with regard to Haig - a good overall "picture" of the man though IMHO.

[truthergw]

I thought this one had been reviewed. I read it and liked it. I thought it took a fairly neutral stance and could be recommended for anyone as a basis to looking at Haig's career. As far as V Army in '18 is concerned I think he gave the ' official' view and I don't think one could expect much more without courting unwanted controversy.

[David Filsell]

I think that the previous two posts have got it about right about this book. Despite its popularity it has little new to say I feel. But the new Harris book looks at Haig's performance in command in some detail, its worth reading the summaries to each chapter alone. Like or loathe it - Harris advances the debate - if in some cases arguably extremely harshly.

[Old Tom]

Hello,

I must be easily pleased. Have just got a copy of Harris's; it's next on the reading list.

Old Tom

[squirrel]

Nearly finished the Harris book - good read and lots of detail even if the chapters are a bit "breathless" as you read them. All the reviews say that this is a balance book but I agree with David, while he does "advance the debate"it is done, in some instances, harshly.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Like or loathe it - Harris advances the debate

I will fundamentally disagree with you on that one, David. Harris regresses the debate through his slavish reliance for his citations and inspiration for his conclusions on secondary sources - in particular G. J. De Groot's 20-year-old biography, supplemented by critically unqualified references from Liddell Hart and - God help us - Denis Winter amongst others. Harris replicates De Groot's technique of prefacing or appending every unavoidable acknowledgement of Haig's achievements with a negative or disparagingly subjective comment which is more often than not at odds with the impression which would be given to an impartial reader by the passage to which it relates. But although I disagree with his conclusions I acknowledge that at least De Groot's interpretation of Haig was his own and built upon his own original research. Harris is a blatant example of the school of historiography which starts from an opinion and then goes on to shape facts to support that opinion through the selective use of secondary sources.

This is a well-written book which may deceive the unwary as to its shoddy and derivative heart. It is assuredly not "the definitive biography of Field Marshal Douglas Haig" which the dustjacket blurb asserts. That is a conclusion which neither the academic credentials of the author nor the publishing imprint of Cambridge can disguise

[David Filsell]

George

Perhaps I should have said re-opens the debate. Whilst I am not fully in agreement with you, it's a long time since I read de Groote. I met Harris early in his writing of the book and although I agree with your statement about use of sources, many secondary, much of it it is far more recent than either LH or the Winter of our discontent) based on modern scholarship. However I do think it unlikely that much, if any, more primary material is available on Haig than is already known, or will be found. I do not know if Gary Sheffield's (forthcoming?) book, which I understand is similar in concept - ie Haig's role as a commander, will move things forward.

I do know that Harris did not start with the objective of putting the man down. ( I should add that the brief acknowledgement I recieved from him in the book relates to the loan of FSPB's and he did not in the event use any of my research on October 19`14 and Haig's role as a Corps Commander) My discussions with infact him started when I spoke to a group about his suberb actions as a Corps Comander on October 30th 1914 when the Germans broke through at Zandvoorde - arguable a more dangerous rupture - certainly wider - than that which took place at Ghuluevelt the following day.

His conclusions are of course arguable. But I still think it a worthwhile read in regard to Haig's performance - although I too disdagree with quite a few of his conclusions. After all Haig dids command the army which, as John Terrain was fond of pointing out, beat the main enemy on the main battlefield - like Marlborough and Wellington.

Best regards

David

david

I will fundamentally disagree with you on that one, David. Harris regresses the debate through his slavish reliance for his citations and inspiration for his conclusions on secondary sources - in particular G. J. De Groot's 20-year-old biography, supplemented by critically unqualified references from Liddell Hart and - God help us - Denis Winter amongst others. Harris replicates De Groot's technique of prefacing or appending every unavoidable acknowledgement of Haig's achievements with a negative or disparagingly subjective comment which is more often than not at odds with the impression which would be given to an impartial reader by the passage to which it relates. But although I disagree with his conclusions I acknowledge that at least De Groot's interpretation of Haig was his own and built upon his own original research. Harris is a blatant example of the school of historiography which starts from an opinion and then goes on to shape facts to support that opinion through the selective use of secondary sources.

This is a well-written book which may deceive the unwary as to its shoddy and derivative heart. It is assuredly not "the definitive biography of Field Marshal Douglas Haig" which the dustjacket blurb asserts. That is a conclusion which neither the academic credentials of the author nor the publishing imprint of Cambridge can disguise

[Pete1052]

Which biography of Haig would be the best to recommend to someone?

[truthergw]

Which biography of Haig would be the best to recommend to someone?

A very vexed question Pete and there have been several attempts on the forum. Personally, being a person of low moral fibre, I would dodge by recommending in the first place that one read as many as one can. If boxed in, nailed down and forced to be specific, I would recommend 3 books. The Duff-Cooper official biography to show how his contemporaries viewed him at the time of his death. Haig, The Educated Soldier, by John Terraine. An attempt at a balanced view at a time when the bandwagon was rolling steadily in the direction of the butchers and bunglers. Lastly, the nearest we got to an autobiography. His Diaries. The version edited by Bourne & Sheffield concentrate on the military events. This is a window into how the man thought and his reasons at the time for the most important decisions, as he saw them. A comment on the Diaries. There are thousands of pages of diaries, letters etc deposited in the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh. Open for study by interested scholars. The two versions of the Diary which have been published are a small fraction of this material. His first editor, Blake covered a wider span of Haig's family affairs etc than the later one.