Originally Posted by
Giz
Yeah, Terraine is a bit of a Haig apologist (to the extent that the "average Brit" who thinks he was an incompetent butcher is misinformed and he was a professional soldier who compares decently against other nations WW1 generals or other British generals of the 20th century. He doesn't make him out to be one of the great commanders of history, just a competent professional who operated in difficult circumstances).
Thanks for the book recommendation - I'll take a look!
In the world of WW1 texts there needed to be a Terraine to act as a counterpoint to the (then) standard texts, eg Liddel-Hart. But he does over-egg it a bit. His 1918 one (To Win a War?) is great, but...he defends Haig's cavalry obsession beyond the point (IMO) that would be reasonable. He downplays the usefulness of tanks in exploitation, which is fair enough to some extent, however he provides the full story of Musical Box...which sort of mucks up that one a bit. And the examples of cavalry exploitation really don't boost his argument.
Originally Posted by
Hubert Cumberdale
I like that. Haig apologetic. A deft little poisoning of the well.
The description of the book is even better
Sounds perfectly unbiased to me!
Just ordered both books.
Travers does a better job of straddling the two camps. He does what Giz talks about above and provides the background to the whole shebang. Haig comes across as a very professional soldier, and not without imagination. He was not the anti-tank commander others have attempted to show him as, for example.