Trevor Wilson, a famous historian, blamed Haig for the failing at the Somme from day one. Wilson believed that the plan devised by Haig and Rawlinson was doomed to fail and never had a chance on hell of succeeding. The original plan, devised by Rawlinson, was to bombard the German trenches for seven days, in hope that at the end of the seven days, all the German soldiers would be dead or so shell shocked that they would be unable to defend themselves and the trenches would be destroyed. Rawlinson was said to of told Haig that ‘not even a rat would be alive.
’ After destroying the German line, the Allied forces were to walk across no mans land, in a indestructible straight line, and seize the German trenches. Haig did question Rawlinson’s ‘straight line’ plan, unsure that it would work, but did nothing about his uncertainties and allowed Rawlinson to continue with his plan. Haig then decided to double the width of the straight line from nine miles to eighteen miles, even though he was uncertain that the ‘straight line’ plan would even be successful. By doubling the width Haig was effectively halving the impact. Once again Haig was trying to achieve the impossible. If you double the amount of land you are covering, you need to double the amount of men you are using. It was Haig's job to check every decision his generals made, and if Haig thought that Rawlinson had made a mistake with the plan he should have taken him up on it and made sure that the error was corrected, instead of just leaving Rawlinson to get on with it, and allowing him to continue with his plan. To then take an even higher risk, by trying to cover more land, on a plan that he wasn’t even certain was going to work was ‘absolutely criminal’ according to Trevor Wilson. So therefore, according to Trevor Wilson, Haig was to blame for the failings on the Western Front due to him not devising a good enough plan and allowing Rawlinson to carry on with a plan that he didn’t think was going to work.
Many Historians would also argue that Haig was largely responsible for the failings on the Western Front due to his optimism. An example of Haig's optimism is the battle of Passchendaele. The battle of Passchendaele was the third battle of Ypres and it took place between July and November 1917. Haig was enthusiastic about Passchendaele due to his success at Messines in June 1917. Haig was convinced that the he was close to breaking the German line, when in fact he was just being too optimistic and they were in getting no further to breaking the German line. Haig should have realised that they were not going to break the German line and should have ordered the fighting to stop a lot sooner then he did. The battle of Passchendaele caused over 310,000 casualties for the British army, this number could have been reduced if Haig had not have been so optimistic about the battle and instead of continuing with the battle, he should have faced reality.
Another example of Haig listening to Rawlinson too much and allowing Rawlinson to make mistakes, is when Rawlinson told Haig that they were about to break the German line. In the October they will still fighting even though they were getting no where and should have stopped long ago. Rawlinson new that Haig was under a lot of pressure and so in an attempt to relieve that pressure Rawlinson told Haig that they were closer to breaking the German line then they actually were. Haig listened to Rawlinson, not questioning him, and ordered the British army to carry on fighting. Haig should have made sure that Rawlinson’s information was correct and he should not just have relied on Rawlinson, he sold have found out the information himself.
If Haig had double checked that Rawlinson was giving him the right information then he would have discovered that Rawlinson was wrong, that they weren’t about to break the German line, Haig would have stopped the fighting a lot earlier and not as many men would have lost there lives. Therefore once again due to Haig trusting in Rawlinson too much and not checking that he was receiving the right information some historian would argue that he was largely to blame for the failings on the Western Front as it was his responsibility to know what was going on and he should have checked the information he was being.
Haig was an expert in cavalry and involved cavalry in his war tactics as often as possible. However many historians would argue that cavalry was too old fashioned and that Haig needed to use modern weapons such as the tank to win the war. The problem was however that Haig did not understand modern weapons and many historians would also argue that he did not like them. Alan Clarke thought that Haig did not use weapons often enough and when he did he didn’t use them properly as he didn’t understand how to use them to his full advantage. This automatically gave the Germans an advantage as they did understand how to use modern weapons and how to use them well, and cavalry was not match for the modern weapons. Therefore many historians would argue that Haig was to blame for the failings on the Western Front as he was to old fashioned and refused to believe that warfare had advanced and that cavalry was not longer the strongest form of attack. Many historians would argue that if Haig hadn’t of been so arrogant about modern weapons and if he had allowed experts to help him make decisions on how to use the weapons he would have been a lot more successful on the Western Front and they would have been able to break the German line and take more land.
Another argument that leads people to believe that Haig was largely to blame for the failings on the Western Front is that he relied on God too much, and allowed his religion to get in the way of many of his decision. Haig believed he had been chosen by God to lead the British army to victory and that God was working through him. Many historians believe that due to this Haig made many risky decisions believing that God was on his side so he could not fail. This meant that once again in many cases Haig was too optimistic and left many things to chance believing God would lead him to victory. Haig was responsible for too many soldiers loves to leave things to chance and maybe if Haig had not believed he was doing the work of God he would have been more careful and not as many men would have died. Therefore Haig was largely responsible for the failings on the Western Front as he relied on God too much leading him to make risking decisions causing men to lose their lives.
However before we completely blame Haig for the failings on the Western Front we must look at the other views and opinions about him shown by historians such as Sheffield and Terraine in his favour. It was not Haig’s fault that he was from a wealthy background, and there is no proof or evidence to suggest that he thought any less of the lower class then he did of the upper class. At the time the majority of commanders and men in authority in the army were from upper class backgrounds and probably went to a similar military school as Haig, he was therefore no different to the other commanders in the British army and therefore you can not blame his background for the failings of the Western Front, as he was no different to any other commander at the time.
Although Haig didn’t know much about trench warfare, neither did any one else at the time. Trench warfare was new to everyone, and all Haig could do was learn quickly and try his hardest to adjust to the new way of war. In Haig’s defence many historian would argue that he did learn quickly and ensured he didn’t make the same mistake twice. For example on the first day of the Somme, 1st July, Haig ordered his army to attack at 7:30am.This proved to be a mistake, as the enemy could see the Allies coming clearly and were able to shoot them down with ease. From this Haig realised that, strategically, this was a bad time to attack and on the 14th July Haig ordered his attack at 3:25am, when it was dark and his soldiers could not be seen very easily by the enemy. This shows that Haig learnt from his mistakes and ensured they didn’t happen again making his army for successful and efficient.
A further argument we must consider in Haig’s defence is that he did not come up with infamous ‘straight line’ plan, Rawlinson did. Haig did express his concerns about this plan and advised Rawlinson to reconsider, but Rawlinson was reluctant to change is strategy and was determined that it would work. Haig had to allow the people around him to make decisions and allow the experts to get on with their jobs. If Haig had insisted on Rawlinson changing his tactics then he would have formed a bad relationship with him, which would not have been a good idea on day one of a six month battle.
Historians such as Gary Sheffield would argue that although Haig was a cavalry man, he did accept the fact the modern weapons were needed to win the war. Many historians have said that Haig did not like tanks, “the tank is not the weapon that will win the war”, and however Sheffield would argue that this was simply not true. Haig ordered a thousand tanks as soon as he was able to and used them when ever he had the opportunity. Haig just believed that tanks alone weren’t enough to win the war, which was true. Haig was old fashioned, but he was not ignorant to modern weapons, in fact others would argue that he very open minded about them and was more then happy to try them out. Therefore Haig wasn’t responsible for the failings on the Western Front due to his ignorance of modern weapons as he did in fact use modern weapons and he never said that he didn’t like them he simply express his opinion that they were not the wonder weapon they were made out to be and that they alone could not win the war, which was indeed true.
One of the key problems with the Somme was the chosen location, which many people blame on Haig. However Haig did not in fact chose the location the French general, general Jaffre did. Haig had to respect the French decisions as he was on their territory and many of the men fighting were French. Haig wanted to fight at Ypres, as it made more strategic sense. If Haig had been allowed to choose the location of the battle then maybe they would have been more successful and not as many soldiers would have died. Consequently you can therefore not blame Haig for the failings on the Western Front due to the location as he had no say in that decision and maybe if he had the Allies would have been more successful.
Another point we must remember is that Haig turned the British army into a strong, experienced and a well respected army. All though there were many failures on the Western Front, we must also remember the great achievements the Allies managed to achieve during their time there. They managed to break the Hindenburg line, which was renowned for being a strong and ‘indestructible’. The Allies also managed to take back lots of land such as Beaumont Hamel, which had great sentimental value for the French and lifted the moral of the French soldiers.
Haig’s army also respected Haig and looked up to him, if he was a bad leader he would not of had their respect and they would have spoken badly about him as oppose to praising him, “Haig was a strong courageous leader” a soldier under the command of Haig. Therefore Haig was responsible for many of the successes on the Western Front, not just the failures meaning he can not be completely blamed for the failings on the Western Front.
A further argument in Haig's defence is that all though he made mistakes at first, he did learn from these mistakes later on. An example of Haig learning from his mistakes is timing. The first battle took place at 7.30 am. This was clearly a bad idea because it meant that the Germans could clearly see the Allies coming, making them an easy target to shoot down. Haig realised that planning an attack at that time was not a good idea so, on the 14th of July he planned his attack for 3.25 am, when it was still dark, making it harder for the Germans to see the Allies, therefore making the attack more successful. Also Haig never repeated the 'straight line' tactic, realising that that was what largely caused such high casualty numbers on the first day. A further clear example of Haig learning from his mistakes is the 13th of July 1916. Almost everything to do with this battle was different from the one on the 1st of July. Haig never claimed to be perfect and was always inevitably going to make mistakes. All a good commander could do in that situation is to ensure that they didn't repeat the same mistake twice, which Haig clearly attempted to do.
To conclude although many failings of the Somme can be blamed on Haig there also many arguments to prove that these failings were not solely Haig’s fault. In order for an army to be successful all aspects of it have to be strong, the soldiers, the weapons, the commanders and the intelligence. This makes it exceptionally difficult to pin point one particular persons for the failings on the Western Front as there are so many aspects to the army. Also there are many different views on whether the Western Front was a failure or not, so therefore if not everyone views the battle as a failure how can you point out why it was a failure? Whoever had Haig’s job was going to have a difficult time and was going to be criticized. I feel that Haig was partly to blame for the failings on the Western Front however I don’t think it is fair just to blame Haig for the failings as there are many more factors that can be questioned.
