HAIG FELLOW'S ADDRESS

The following address was delivered by Dr Diana M Henderson, Haig Fellow 1998, at the Fourth Annual Lunch on 29 January 1998 Earl Haig,

Members of the Fellowship, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is with a considerable sense of humility that I stand to address you today in this historic year, 80 years on from the Armistice and 70 years on from the death of the Field Marshal.

In truth, he would probably not have thought much of a woman commanding officer, especially in the all important area of logistics, and he certainly would have wondered at the contortions that we have to get up to to conduct our business in this modern army, not as soldiers but as 'peacekeepers' in Northern Ireland and in Bosnia. My meagre efforts have however given me a privileged insight and have set me in awe of the magnitude of his achievements and the achievements of the soldiers he led. While we are a lifetime apart, and we come from a different time and a different place, I find him to be a fascinating man whose courage, warmth, strength, professionalism and personal fortitude have too often been swept aside by an unbalanced and often ill informed bandwagon of criticism.

It is indeed some of these issues that I would like to explore today. Unfashionable though they may be, it is I suggest, time that they were addressed, because elements of these issues have extraordinary modepr parallels from which there is a lot to learn. My confidential reports have often said 'this officer prefers the straightforward approach', and I will run true to form.

What has clearly been forgotten is that this man was a human being, with human frailties and weak¬nesses as well as strengths and abilities, who for four long years shouldered a burden of unbearable responsibility and who little thought that in the 80 years that have followed his every pencil mark would be the subject of scrutiny and usually criti¬cism. Who amongst us would, and indeed could, have born that burden? Who amongst us would and could have done better?

What is often forgotten is that this was a victori¬ous commander. Rightly or wrongly, and I would like to think rightly, he won, and in that context, what we seem to consistently fail to grasp is that when you prosecute modern war in a developed country against a determined enemy mistakes will be made along the path to winning. No commander has ever been exempt from such mistakes.

Here however the argument is complex, for it is entangled in the 20th century British phenomenon of reticence to back a winner and particularly a win¬ning soldier. In his reply to his Laureation address at Edinburgh University in 1919 Douglas Haig con¬cluded, "We have won", but as Wellington was to comment on the subject of victory, "there is no greater tragedy in the world than victory - except defeat".

Overlaid on this is the whole complex issue of national mourning, national grief and national celebration.

It is too easy to forget that the grief of the moth¬ers and widows, fathers and children, was also the grief of the Field Marshal himself. This was a man who came from a close knit and professional Army who held his men in high respect. He knew large numbers of them personally and they all belonged to a very special club of the pre-1914 British Army. The loss of that Army by Christmas 1914 and the loss of many of his close personal friends was very real to Haig as a person.

As he rode east towards the battle down the Menin road in the gathering gloom on 31st October 1914, with shelling all around and the sounds of bat¬tle ever closer, all the reports speak of this man as a model of calmness. The situation was indeed des¬perate, the 1st (Guards) Brigade had been reduced to less than 1000 men, the BEF was outnumbered 6 to 1, the Germans had mounted a determined attack along the axis of the Menin road and Gheluvelt had fallen. There were no reserves.

Douglas Haig was then told of the losses caused by the shelling of Hooge chateau. Six staff officers dead, Munro badly shaken, Lomax mortally wound¬ed. As friends, over the next six months, he was to lose FitzClarence, Capper and many others.

No man could be unaffected by these events and little work has been done by either the British or the German historians to try to understand the emotion¬al concept of what the Germans called 'Kindermord bei Ypren', The Massacre of the Innocents at Ypres. Haig has been much criticised for his prosecution of the war in the Salient, but there is little understand¬ing of the legacy left by the ghosts of two great armies, that meant, that in their honour and memory, the ground itself became a shrine and neither side would give up an inch to the other. Haig, and a few others who were survivors of those terrible days between 31st October and 11th November 1914, knew those ghosts intimately.

When we train, when we practice our battle tech¬niques in this extraordinary modern army, when we write with history conveniently in the past, and the result of the conflict declared, it is sometimes difficult to appreciate what it was like to be there.

It must be remembered that Haig of course not only had to deal with the enemy, he also had to deal with the politicians, with the French, with the volatile political and social situation, with problems of supply and manufacture, and with considerable greed and ambition of those around him. It addition, and probably most important of all, he did not know the outcome.

The politicians appear to have been particularly adept at ensuring that the war was prosecuted by others, with lavish attention paid to offloading blame and as much attention to ensuring that they took the kudos.

John Terraine has commented: 'Lloyd George, overwhelmingly victorious in his "coupon election", pursued his antagonism [towards Haig] without charity; indeed, with the persistence of a tribal feud, he continued it beyond the grave'.

Perhaps things are no different today. Haig's dif¬ficulty was that he had to compromise on many fronts, and unlike Montgomery in the Second World War, he did not have the luxury of a Churchill; although often Montgomery did not regard Churchill as a luxury!

* * *

THERE IS IN THE FIELD MARSHAL'S STORY A PARADOX. When Douglas Haig died on the 29th of January 1928 the majority of the nation considered that they had lost a victorious commander and a national hero. When his body arrived at Waverley station a few days later, thousands thronged the streets and the city came to a standstill. Many were in tears.

How then did we reach this situation of apparently unreasoned criticism and derision? There were a number of factors:

The politicians I have mentioned.

Not surprisingly the press also played their part particularly a number of articles by the News Chronicle. An article for example appeared on 25th March 1935. 'Why has not Haig been recognised as one of England's greatest Generals? Why as a national figure, did he count far less than Lord Roberts whose wars were a picnic by comparison? The answer may be given in one word -Passchendaele.'

In addition the press in Canada and Australia were not slow to take up the cry often for political reasons and usually irrationally.

Few at the time or subsequently have made any attempt to take into account the post war trauma, on a National scale, particularly in the analysis of post war writings, the official history and the actions and motives of Douglas Haig himself. In respect of those actions and motives, there are slim references to the Scottish aspect of Haig's character, which I believe to be an important and under-appreciated area.

At the time a further factor was the post war depression and the disgraceful treatment of returning soldiers who felt that their sacrifice and that of their comrades was betrayed in the land fit for heroes. Apparently they had suffered and died needlessly. They however mistook the cause of their plight. Haig had delivered the victory, he was to play no part in the implementation of the peace.

In the surge of pacifism and indeed sentimental-ism the poets also took no account of the broader dynamics of an Army and its leadership in a modern major European War. In addition the fashionable research of the 1960s, 70s and 80s did more than a disservice to Haig, it did a serious disservice to scholarship, and set against the backdrop of highly charged times, of tragic personal recriminations, and of changing literary styles, it simply is not good enough to interpret the minutiae as scandal, intrigue and elaborate plots. Of course, scandal, intrigue and elaborate plots do sell a lot of books!

As I have said mistakes were made, but they must be looked at in perspective. This is more difficult than can be appreciated. The British Official History, written by Sir James Edmonds, can now not be rewritten, but it deserves to be critically exam¬ined. It is my opinion that if the Curragh Incident had not occurred and if that history had been written by a man such as Sir Spencer Ewart, the official written legacy that has been left to us, and its inter¬pretation, might well have been very different.

Certainly the enemy played no part in vilifying the Field Marshal. In a German paper entitled Great Commanders of The World War it is recorded,

'The circumstance that Haig never could act really independently but always had to make his decisions subject to conditions imposed upon him, is no reason to deny him the position of a Commander in Chief. What is more important is whether his actions were conducted with strategic ability, firm will, strength of character, acceptance of responsibility and political insight. Haig possessed all these qualities and used them in "harmonious combination", as Clausewitz requires of a great commander. By means of these powers he saved France in 1916 and 1917, and pre-eminently on that historic day, the 26th of March 1918... in the last three years of the war Haig contributed the most to prevent a German victory. Thus he really remained "master of the field"'.

Few who criticise today from the comfort of an armchair, without the weight of responsibility, with¬out having to make the decisions and knowing the outcome, can begin to appreciate the contribution of this great man. Few mention his humility and his thoughtfulness in presenting, for example, on the day of the Victory parade a copy of his Dispatches to the unjustifiably disgraced Richard Haldane, in which he had written, 'To the greatest Secretary of State for War England ever had'.

In my own family Douglas Haig will be remem¬bered as the modest man in a tweed coat who used to closely examine the 'chitty' lists of passengers on the night sleeper train between Scotland and London. When he recognised a name it would be recorded and as the train drew out of Waverley station there would be a tap on the door, a bottle of whisky and a long night of conversation and reminiscences.

Few mention his tireless work to prevent conflict amongst ex-servicemen, to achieve justice on their behalf and to establish his lasting and living memo¬rial, The Royal British Legion Scotland and The Royal British Legion. We are not here to make excu¬ses but it is these omissions we are here to redress.

It is the tragedy of our age that we prosecute costly and destructive wars. We then try to find excuses for so doing, we contrive to apportion blame and finally we apologise. Quite correctly, considerable sympathy is provided to the casualties of battle; perhaps it is time we attended to the casualties of history.

My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you this toast:

To a patient, honourable and unconquerable servant of his people -Field Marshal Lord Haig, 'The Chief, Sir Douglas, DH.