• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Field Marshall Haig: 'The Butcher of the Somme?'

Extracts from this document...


Field Marshall Haig: 'The Butcher of the Somme?' Lucy Bawn How far does source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men? In February 1916, the Germans began an attack on France around Verdun, if they were to capture Verdun, Paris would consequently be open to attack. By July, 700 000 men were dead. In order to relieve the pressure on Verdun, Haig decided to have a major attack on Germany. This was the Battle of the Somme, which began on 1st July 1916. Source a, written in June 1916 by General Douglas Haig, suggests that Haig has intentions of sacrificing his men for the winning of war. He asserts that that 'the nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists'. This extract does not suggest that he has left any exception for those whom disagree with his view. Haig's paragraph also declares that 'no amount of skill, however good . . . no superiority of arms or ammunition, however great, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of lives of men's lives'. This statement does out forward that did not care about the lives of his men, but Haig's strategy was that it is every Generals job to win wars not to save lives. Source b evokes a different side of Haig. He wrote 'the men are in splendid spirits. The barbed wire has never cut so well. Al commanders are full of confidence'. The extract suggests that Haig cared about his men, and also that he was unaware of the activities on the front line. From previous references, the commanders were very nervous and disagreed with Haig's plans and preparations. Also the barbed wire was cut poorly as the bombs lifted it up and dropped it, usually in a worse state than before. Haig may have believed what he wrote, as communication was very poor so the information could have been days late. ...read more.


It gave western powers confidence'. Source F is against what sources G and H propose. This source was from a recent book called 'British Butchers and Bunglers of World War'. Source F describes Haig to be 'as stubborn as a donkey'. His strategy was that 'if he could kill more Germans than Germany could kill British that he would at sometime would win the war'. This principal was described to be 'appalling' and 'slaughter'. The Somme was also described as 'criminal negligence'. The extract claims that he knew of the low succession rate and even so he sent the men to their deaths. As you can see, the sources G and H show a very different opinion of Haig compared to F. The sources G and H have a very positive view about Haig, explaining that the death of thousands of men were to show Haig's bravery, determination and shown the great belief he had in his plans. They also claim that many men were influenced by Haig, and believed in his plan despite they might have to lose their life. Source F suggests that Haig was an appalling and falling General. It suggests that Haigs actions were to blame for all the deaths caused in the Somme and that he was unthinking. It suggests that every had this opinion of Haig. The sources G and H do not prove that source F is incorrect as source F is from a recent book, of which the authors would have had a wider range of information that the two slightly older sources, G and H. As they have a very different view, it is hard to say for definite which is correct, though source G is an old source published in 1930's and source H will be bias as its written by a British General. Why do you think sources I and J differ about the Battle of the Somme? ...read more.


It denies any success of the Somme, and praises the Americans entering otherwise Britain would have lost stalemate. All of these show many different views to Haig's plans, the minority being negative towards him. In many of the sources he is blamed for the death of the men by either being uncaring enough not to attend the front line (source E), being so stubborn that he can not take criticism despite realising the deaths of all the men (source F) and that theses two sources clearly show that he is not fit to be a General with these characteristics. The fact that he does not attend the front line through his own fault, means that he is careless about the men; the least he could do is attend once. Other sources such as J, D, C and A also have a negative opinion of Haig and his plan. These blame him of the deaths for being uncaring and incompetent. Despite there being negative sources, there are also positive ones, such as Source H which claims that the Somme as successful as Haig created British moral as well as decreasing the German's spirits. Other source's suggest that Haig is caring, such as in Source B, by the way he writes about his men: 'troops are full of confidence'. The positive attitude is also shown in source I, written by Lloyd George, though he changes his opinion a few years after the war in source J. This may have been the case for all the positive sources if they were to have all the information available to us now or without a bias view. My overall conclusion is that Haig was uncaring about his men, as he shown on his attendance to the front line and acted stubbornly without giving any consideration to other opinions. Though I understand that the determination from Haig to win the war was great and this was seen to be successful by having high moral. I feel Haig cared about winning the war, and not about his men. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Britain 1905-1951 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Britain 1905-1951 essays

  1. General Haig - Butcher or Hero?

    Also, there is the fact that they do not know for sure whether their statements are true. He says 'I'm very bitter' and gives negative comments on his post-war rewards (or lack of). Even more ambiguous, source 4 (a prime example of censorship)

  2. Haig, Butcher of the Somme

    Haig decided that whilst the loss of life was huge this was necessary in order to win the war, which he accepted had become a war of attrition. The technique was criticised by many and is a key reason he is remembered as the butcher of the Somme.

  1. Was Field Marshal General Sir Douglas Haig a hero, or the butcher of the ...

    Haig did not see the bad side to death. He believed that everyone was fighting for god, and that they would go to heaven if they died. But what he failed to realise was that his soldiers did not mostly share this view. Also, an aim of the Battle of the Somme was to create a diversion for the French, from Verdun.

  2. Does General Haig deserve to be remembered as the Butcher of the Somme?

    He mentions that the generals changed themselves according to the changes of the war but did not make anything of it. However, this may not be a valid interpretation because it is only one opinion and only a few generals were looked at.

  1. How Far was Haig responsible for the failings of the British War effort on ...

    Haig was very inflexible, he refused to change his tactics, and this led to several thousand needless deaths. After the first day of slaughter Rawlinson, Haig's assistant, recommended the attack be called off but Haig refused and used the same tactics yet again on the second day.

  2. Haig and the other British generals were incompetent leaders. How valid is this interpretation ...

    Haig argued that they created the conditions for the victories of 1918 by wearing down the strength and morale of the German army. Therefore, ?There was an obvious genius for pure generalship which has made General Haig fit to rank with any general of past or modern times.? This source was written by Basil Liddel Hart.

  1. Some people have the view that British generals like Haig were incompetent leaders. How ...

    about his war-time experiences is very ironic because he didn?t fight during the war and didn?t know about the other conditions that the soldiers had to live through e.g. trench foot. The source is also limited because it is evident that the source was intended to portray a certain message;

  2. Some people have the view that British generals like Haig were incompetent leaders. How ...

    Haig did not have a relationship with the soldiers as he was never near the frontline. From reading sources written by soldiers, I gather that Haig was not the type of general to be encouraging or interact with the soldiers, and maybe that is why he wasn?t hesitant in sending thousands of men to battle.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work