‘Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of ‘em dead.’ This is a line from a poem by Siegfried Sassoon, a Captain of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers on the western front. Source 4 (the poem) clearly defines Haig as a butcher by its constant referral to his incompetence, for example he is called an ‘incompetent swine’ also the lines often comment on the deaths of the battle being Haig’s fault including the deaths of the characters introduced in the poem hereby Showing him as a butcher for causing their deaths. This poem can be seen as trustworthy as Sassoon fought on the western front; he clearly disagreed with Haig and the war as he threw away the Military cross which he had been awarded for bravery. Others say that it is not worthy of trust as there is no proof he was at the Somme and the poem may have been written for the audiences benefit and not to show his own opinions.
David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister during the First World War, wrote about Haig in his war memoirs published in 1935. He described Haig as a ‘second rate commander’ and said ‘He was not endowed with any of the elements of imagination and vision.’ This implies Haig to have been terrible at his job and overall completely useless and so not able to lead an army without mistake and deaths coming as a result. This source is credible as it was written by the Prime Minister at the time that would have had an overall view of the war. Unfortunately Lloyd George was known to have a great dislike for Haig which was shown when going behind Haig’s back he tried to hand over control of the army to the French. This distrust greatly affects the reliability, as this source was written after Haig’s death Lloyd George could have been trying to push the blame onto his arch-enemy Haig.
Historian John Laffin wrote in his book, British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One published 2003, ‘Haig and other British generals must be blamed… for wilful blunders and wicked butchery.’ This obviously reflects the author’s opinion of Haig which is that of dislike, Laffin believes Haig to be a stupid murderer to whom ‘There can never be forgiveness.’ This is a trustworthy source as John Laffin is a historian who has greatly researched into World War One, taking evidence from all the sources not just one. But he is a historian who researches mainly from the soldier’s point of view not a strategic one.
The other side of the argument is that Haig was not a Butcher just a ill-fated general who did all he could for the war and the soldiers themselves. One source that supports this view is source eight written by Historian John Terraine in his study of the Somme, The Smoke and the fire published 1980. He says ‘The truth is that those… generals rose to challenge after challenge.’ This shows Haig not to be a butcher but a hardworking general who as I have said rose to the challenges thrown at him. This is a reliable source as the historian who wrote it researched a lot into the First World War in particular the Somme and Haig. However each historian has their own opinion and finds particular evidence that backs up that so they may only select certain evidence rather than looking at it as a whole.
‘The generals were no worse than that of any other combatant nation’ wrote historian John Keegan for an article in the Daily Mail in 1998. This is comparing the British generals to others of the same time and stating that they did not do better but neither did they do worse than them showing Haig not to be a butcher but a successful general of the time. This is a reliable source as it was written by a researched historian. On the other hand it was written for a paper who would only have published it if they thought it was something that would interest their readers and so this may not be his views but the ones other people wanted to believe.
Source fourteen is different from the others as it is not text but a photograph taken on the 12th April 1919. The text that is there reads ‘a spontaneous welcome from the crowd at Victoria: Sir Douglas Haig’s car leaving the station.’ This is not a trustworthy source as it does not show that the people in it are certainly cheering for Haig, they could be cheering for anything, historian John Laffin said ‘they would have cheered for Charlie Chaplin they were just happy that the war was over’. But it is a good source as it is a photograph so the person taking it could not change what he saw unless it had all been set up. This means the views of Haig expressed in it are unbiased and they do not only show one persons viewpoint but many opinions.
‘Very successful attack this morning… all went like clockwork…’ This is a sample from Sir Douglas Haig’s reports written on the 1st July 1916. Clearly from this Haig himself believed the Somme’s morning offensive had been successful. Haig himself wrote this so it his own opinion, not what others believe he thought. It was written during the battle so everything was happening at this precise moment in time, which can be a good and bad thing. It is good as it reflects Haig’s opinion at the time which would not have been changed by time. But Haig at this point may not have known the full extent of the horror of the Somme, and as most believe was struggling with his informants who were inclined to give Haig a positive spin on the events occurring. Another bad thing is that this was written by Haig himself who would of course adopt a position which would support him in the best way possible.
Having looked at the evidence for both sides of the argument as to whether or not Haig was a butcher, I think that each side makes valid points. I think people believe Haig was a butcher as so many died during the battle of the Somme for so little gain. The plan for attack was that of Haig and General Sir Henry Rawlinson, tracing the whole incident back to Haig. Many are angry as Haig was never at the battle but was sitting comfortably 50 kilometres behind the front line safe from danger and basing all his strategies and opinions on information told to him by incompetent advisers. However those who say Haig was just a general doing his job think so as from a overall viewpoint he did learn from his mistakes, embrace new technology and do his best for the soldiers. Diary exerts from soldiers and generals, people who were there, reports and tables of dead and wounded have all helped people reach their own conclusions on Haig. In my own opinion I think Haig was not a butcher but an ill-advised general who has had both time and common opinion against him. I believe he did not purposefully sacrifice all those people instead he wanted to do the best he could for them. At the time no one new how to fight this kind of war. His informants did not tell him the whole truth and most of his methods were outdated. Haig can not be solely blamed for the tragedy that was the battle of the Somme many contributed yet fate has left them free from blame. I believe it is unfair to call Haig the butcher of the Somme as he was as much a victim as anybody else.
