> From: "Larry A. Grant" <grant.198@osu.edu>
> Date: November 12, 2008 6:06:08 PM EST
> To: "Scott Hendrix" <hendsn1@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Haig would have let Germany win


(Editor's Note:  I have observed that H-WAR appears to work its way
through a cycle of topics - so now that we have refought Vietnam,
again;  it appear that it is time to begin refighting the Great War.
Have at it folks.  SNH)
>
>
> An interesting review (UK TimesOnLine) of a new Douglas Haig
> biography that claims Haig “was pushing for a peace that would have
> left Germany as the real winner of the war.”
>
> Dr J. P. Harris, a lecturer at Sandhurst, argues that Haig misread
> the strength of the German armies, leading him to advocate a
> compromise peace. ‘“He wanted to offer the Germans very, very, easy
> ceasefire terms in late 1918.” This would apparently have left
> Germany armed and in possession of its territorial gains in Eastern
> Europe.” This would have been a serious defeat for Britain because
> it would have also left “Germany as the hegemonic power on the
> Continent…,” something Britain had never permitted in her history.
>
> Without reading the biography, Haig's attitude sounds to me to be
> similar to Marshal Foch's and, in stark contrast to Pershing's,
> reflects the sentiment of two leaders who were tired of war and
> ready to accept a less-than-perfect outcome to end the killing.
> It's not clear to me whose view was more realistic at the time.
>
> Pershing believed that the best outcome to the war, in keeping with
> received American military tradition, was nothing short of the
> defeat and humiliation of the German Army. Because of that belief,
> Americans kept fighting right up to the final minute, causing and
> receiving casualties that could have no influence, given the Allies
> attitudes, on the final outcome.
>
> The last paragraph: “Terry Charman, senior historian at the
> Imperial War Museum…added: “We tend to forget that it was the
> British armies that won the First World War in the field, not the
> Americans or the French or the Belgians and if we blame Haig for
> the disasters we must credit him for the victories too.””
>
> The provincialism of this quote is breathtaking. How would the
> British ever have continued the war without American resources? In
> an industrial age, does anyone really believe that boots on the
> ground are the only or even necessarily the most significant
> contributor to victory?
>
> L.A. Grant
> Naval historian, A.G. (amateur grade)
>


-----
For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/
To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war
-----

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS