Haig can also be considered as the Butcher of the Somme, as seen in source 3. The source is a page from the list of dead and wounded on the first day of battle. It shows a name of soldiers who died and that most deaths were on the 01/07/1916 which was the first day of the Battle of the Somme. This source tells me that if that many soldiers were killed and injured on the first day, then how many soldiers would have died during the battle of Somme. This also gives me an idea that Haig didn’t have a clue about what he was getting Britain into. This source also shows me that Germans were stronger than Britain. British soldiers lost there lives just as they stepped into it. The purpose of this source is to show how many soldiers died and got injured at the beginning of the Somme. This source is not reliable because it does not say when it was established and by who or where it’s from. This is a valid interpretation as it interprets Haig being the butcher of the Somme because of the number of British soldiers killed on the first day of the battle. This source is talking negatively about Haig.
Haig can also be considered as the Butcher of the Somme as shown in source 7. This source shows Haig didn’t take planning seriously and that not everyone trusted Haig’s planning. The purpose of this source is show that Haig is not a serious person. The origin of this source is from the BBC series ‘Blackadder’ in the 1990’s. This source shows me that Haig hadn’t put all his best into the battle of Somme; he just sat and saw what was going on and did nothing much. He didn’t try his best to do what he could for Britain and he knew he could do better. Also Haig was not experienced in the trench welfare. This source however is not reliable because it might have been just a comedy sketch as it is a comedy series. However this is a valid interpretation as this source does interpret Haig being the butcher of the Somme. This source is talking negatively about Haig.
John Laffin writing in his history book ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of WW1’ in 2003 states that Haig should be blamed because he knew what he was doing. Haig saw the German trenches and the barbed wire and knew that Germans were stronger, but he didn’t take that into consideration. Haig kept sending British soldiers over the top and that’s the reason of Britain loosing too many soldiers. As a commander Haig should have taken this into consideration and come up with a solution and a better one than the Germans. The purpose of this source is to inform people of Haig’s mistakes. This source is reliable because John Laffin researches about the war and then took people on battlefield field tours. This source is a valid interpretation as it interprets Haig being the butcher of the Somme; however I need to take into account that the author is using the benefit of hindsight to produce this source, so some information might be misleading.
However some people argue that Haig was only doing his job. Source 10 is one example, it is written by a Lieutenant in Yorkshire light infantry writing a letter to Daily Express in 1916. He stated that during the first half of the war ‘There was an obvious genius for pure general ship.’ This quote shows me that Haig did have good leadership skills; also Haig was successful in the previous war which was the Boer war. This is a valid interpretation as it interprets Haig doing his job very well because he was a good leader. This source is positive towards Haig as it tells me he was a great leader who had superb leadership skills. The purpose of this source is to show that Haig was a good leader. However this is not reliable because the Lieutenant may be defending Haig, so this source can be taken as a biased and a personal viewpoint.
Another example of Haig just doing his job is stated in source 13. It is written by Duff Cooper a soldier during the war writing in his biography of Douglas Haig. This source tells us that Haig inspired confidence amongst his soldiers and that Haig believed German trench line could be broken and it was broken. Duff wrote that in history it would be hard to find a better man than Haig. This source clearly shows me that Haig was an encouragement to his soldiers. This is a valid interpretation as it interpreters Haig doing his job as a general because he believed in German lines being broken and they were. This source is not reliable because Alfred Duff is a family friend of Haig so it may be bias, also this can be a personal viewpoint. This source is telling me that Haig was not the butcher of the Somme.
Furthermore, there is more evidence of Haig just doing his job. Source 14 tells me that Haig was a well known man as people were crowding around to greet him and welcome him when he came back from France. This source tells me that Haig was a well known man and some Britain’s were proud of what Haig done for Britain. It shows me that people saw Haig as a hero. It shows me that Haig had a lot of support from Britons as they believed in him. This source is reliable because it was from 1919 which was just 3 years after the Battle of Somme. This source tells us that Haig was seen as hero to some Britain’s and he had a lot of respect as a general and he was rewarded for his work because people were proud of him. This source is a photograph of a crowd welcoming back Haig; it was taken on the 12th of April 1919. This source is a valid interpretation as it shows me that Haig had a lot of support and it wasn’t his fault, because if it was nobody would have come to greet him and welcome him back. This source is talking positively about Haig.
Lastly another example of Haig doing his job is shown in source 15. It was written be S.Warburton in a magazine article called ‘Hindsight’ in 1998.He stated that putting all the blame on Haig was not fair because trench warfare was a new type of war and not many generals were confident with it and Haig was a product of his time in the 20th century. He did what he could and did it well and Britain is proud of him. He had good leadership skills and was well experienced with a lot of determination. Haig has proved to be successful in previous war such as the Bore war. Haig did what he could and what he thought was the best for his country. Many men did loose there lives but that was for the country and in return Haig was victorious as he was successful. Haig was under constant pressure from the British government. This source is reliable because the whole idea of a hindsight magazine is to inform historians on past events in history so it is unlikely to have false facts. The author has used past sources to come up with this one. However this can just be S.warburton’s point of view. This source shows me that the German officers called the battle a ‘muddy grave.’ This is a valid interpretation as it interprets Haig doing his job as a general due to him not making all the decisions because he was not that high in the hierarchy. Also Haig did what he could and did well for the country. This source is positive towards Haig as it is showing us that Haig was simply doing his job.
Overall I think Haig was only trying to do his job. As a general who was successful in previous wars, and he did his best to make sure that the Anglo French were successful in defeating the Germans. We must take in consideration that Haig was not experienced in the trench welfare so it was a new experience for him. Also people can’t complain about the deaths because when soldiers signed up for the war they were doing it to help their country therefore this shows us that they were willing to give there lives away. On the other hand as a historian I have taken into consideration those soldiers were also not experienced in the trench welfare. Furthermore Haig did afterward open up a charity because he felt for those soldiers who lost there life so he wanted to make up for it. As a historian I understand that Haig did lose all those life’s however everyone makes mistakes and at the end of the day he did make up for it and he did win the war against the German, you also have to take into account that the Germans did put on a good fight. So in my opinion Haig was only doing his job. I have used sources provided to produce this interpretation.