Does General Haig Deserve to be remembered as 'the butcher of the Somme?'

Sean Coffey

3046

Does General Haig Deserve to be remembered as ‘the butcher of the Somme?’

On the 28th of July 1914 Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in revenge of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. By the 4th of August all the major European powers were at war, the Triple Entente; France, Britain and Russia and the Triple Alliance; Germany, Austria and Italy. The war on the western front had reached stalemate in November 1914 and trenches stretched 100’s of miles across east France. Generals worked hard on many new strategies to break the deadlock. One of these generals was the British General Haig. He is one of the most controversial generals of the war. He was given command of the battle of the Somme, the bloodiest battle of the war. The battle lasted from 1st of July to the 18th of November and a strip of land about 25km long and 6km wide had been taken. But these small gains cost the British 420,000 casualties, the French 200,000 and the Germans 500,000. After the battle Haig was heavily criticised by politicians, soldiers and the media. Private P. Smith, writing in his diary said ‘It was pure bloody murder. Douglas Haig should have been hung, drawn and quartered for what he did on the Somme.’ It was from the newspapers that he gained the title ‘The Butcher of the Somme’. However was this fair? Haig had previously warned politicians of the possibility of high casualties to win the war. Haig also believed that he Somme was a success. The main objective of the battle, to save Verdun had been accomplished. And many of Germany’s best troops had been killed so the Somme was not a complete failure. But was it worth the countless allied casualties?

This is a preview of the whole essay

The battle of the Somme was the bloodiest battle of the war. But does Haig deserve to be remembered as a butcher because of this battle? Many were of the opinion that Haig was a bad tactician. Haig’s tactics were to start with a huge artillery bombardment which would devastate the German positions and shred the enemy barbed wire. The British troops would carry trench repair equipment so that they could better defend the captured positions. The main part of this plan was the artillery being able to destroy the German defences. However Haig seriously overestimated the ability of the artillery. The Germans had been in control of the Somme for a long time and had been busy building heavy defences. During the bombardment the Germans had retreated into their dug outs, remaining almost completely unharmed, and came out when the attack began. To make things worse the wire was almost impossible to penetrate and the shelling had made it worse in many cases. On the first day alone there were 20,000 casualties. Source 1b is a diary entry from a private who fought at the battle of the Somme. He would have a good first hand experience of the flaws of the tactics being used in the battle. Although he doesn’t know the whole story he was a witness of the battle, on the front lines. However he would have lost many comrades and friends and would be extremely bitter. But Source 1a agrees with 1b. Fred Pearson was a private who fought on the western front, although not specifically in the battle of the Somme. Commenting in a newspaper in 1966 he says’ the biggest murderer of the lot was Haig.’ Other things he says also agree with my own knowledge. He did stay away from the front line. But he does admit he is bitter. This is also 50 years after the battle. Not only may his memory have faded over time but his opinion may have been influenced by the opinion of others. Haig should have learned from these statistics and changed his tactics. He did not. This led to devastating losses and was primarily Haig’s fault. Lloyd George said in 1935 ‘Haig was a second-rate Commander in unparalleled and unforeseen circumstances… he was incapable of planning vast campaigns on the scale demanded on so immense a battlefield’. This opinion is quite credible because Lloyd George was the prime minister of Britain during the war and would know Haig very well. It also agrees with sources 1a and b. However this was written in his ‘War Memoirs’ and could be biased to sell more books. Others say that the generals, and Haig in particular just saw soldiers as expendable and many soldiers lost faith in them. Source 8, written by John Laffin in his history book British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One. He makes the point that the British generals, including Haig ‘… knew what they were doing.’ However just from the name of the book it’s obvious that it is a biased book. Laffin looked at the war entirely from the soldier’s standpoint which gives an interesting but very one sided account of the war. But the immense amount of casualties is undeniable. The list of dead in source 3 shows the amount that died in the Somme just from the Sheffield Pals Battalion. Most of these were on the first day. But does this actually place blame on Haig. It doesn’t anywhere say that Haig was to blame for these deaths. Also it would be useful to know how many people were in the Sheffield Pals Battalion to better judge the amount of casualties.

But not everyone agreed with this. Many people believe that Haig was just a man who was doing his job and doing it well. The main objective of the battle was to save the French from the battle of Verdun. Not only did he do that but he killed many of the best German soldiers. Source 10 shows part of a report sent by Haig to the British cabinet. This is very useful for seeing Haig’s thoughts on the battle. However it isn’t very reliable because Haig would be trying to put a good spin on the battle for the politician’s support. Also many people say that Haig was out of touch with what was really happening at the front lines, and this could be a reason for his positive report. Other people say Haig, just like all the generals in the war were put in an impossible situation of breaking through impenetrable defences with very few losses and Haig did no worse than any other general in the war on either side. Source 12 is an article from a newspaper published in 1998. The source is a secondary source so it is quite reliable as it has reliable information about all participants in the war. The information about casualties agrees with my own knowledge. France casualties were 1,300,000 and Germany’s were 1,700,000 compared to only 700,000 of Britain. However the Daily Mail is a conservative paper aimed at the middle classes. Even soldiers believed that Haig was a great general. Alfred Duff Cooper, a soldier in the grenadier guards, speaks extremely highly of General Haig. It isn’t mentioned if he fought at the front lines at all although it is very likely. But Cooper was a family friend of the Haig’s and was invited to write his biography by family. Haig’s family would have had some input into the book and Cooper certainly wouldn’t have written badly of him. Haig’s family would have made sure he didn’t. However he also says that Haig did his job and broke the German lines and that cant be denied whether you think Haig was a butcher or not.

There will always be people who think that Haig was a terrible general and person, and those who think that he was someone who did the best that could be done in the situation. Haig seriously overestimated the effectiveness of the artillery and was very slow to adapt to new tactics. He also should have ended the battle after the initial devastating casualties. However Haig was tasked with winning the war and any breakthrough would have cost huge casualties. Many other generals in the war faced similar problems. It is understandable to see why people believe that Haig was a butcher. The amount of losses was the worst in all British military history. France had double the casualties of Britain, and Germany even more. But I believe that Haig did his job and although it came with huge losses it was a sacrifice that was necessary to win the war and was definitely a big factor in the German defeat.

Word count: 1,421