General Douglas Haig

Authors Avatar

Declan Archer

GENERAL DOUGLAS HAIG

Douglas Haig, a wealthy Scot and a good friend of George V was also a famous General who led Britain to Victory in the First World War.  In the past 85 years historians have portrayed him in many different ways as being both good and bad.  Sources C to L vary widely in support of the historian John Keegan’s interpretation, which is ‘General Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War.’  I will now examine and evaluate all the sources in order to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the above statement is correct.

Having examined the first of these sources, source C; I noticed that it is one of the most balanced sources. The source begins by praising General Haig, referring to him as ‘One of the Great Men of the Twentieth Century’.  We also learn that the soldiers seemed satisfied with him as a leader - ‘when the old soldiers were alive I never heard a word of criticism from them’.

The writer of this source does accept that only now, through the passing of time, people are criticising him.  ‘In more recent time more pour scorn on my father’.  This is due to the initial relief of the war now being over and people are looking into exactly what happened in more depth in the hope of finding an answer as to why such a large number of men died.  Despite this quote I do believe this source supports Keegan’s statement.  This source cannot really be deemed reliable due to it being written by Earl Haig, son of Sir Douglas Haig.  It could therefore be biased, as Earl Haig is indebted to his father, for amongst other things, his title.  The phrases ‘It was high time my father was given credit’ leads me to believe that they had a close friendly relationship and wanted to praise one another.

Source F is another balanced source that points out both the positive and negative qualities of Haig.  The writer, a ‘Modern Historian’ talks about Haig as having ‘great self confidence’ and being ‘ambitious’.  The historian does also mention that Haig believed he had been ‘chosen by God’ which is correct as he believed he had been sent on a mission from God and had tremendous self-belief.  This was unfortunately, not a good thing as it undermined confidence towards Haig as a leader.  Haig is said to be ‘unable to recognise defeat’ which is true although he wanted the attack to go the same way as it did at Neuve-Chapelle, where initial progress was rapid, quickly breaking through a section of the German line taking just four hours to secure the village.  He believed if he could continue the attack in this way he would eventually break the German front line.  Haig also believed in self-sacrifice that may have been why he sent thousands of men over the top continuously, to their deaths, where on the first day alone at the battle of the Somme 20,000 men died.   Yet Haig did not even consider trying a different approach.  He insisted on bombarding the enemy trenches with heavy artillery and continued to send men over the top.

Join now!

I think that source F has more assumptions against Keegan’s interpretation overall than there are to support it.  I would also say that this source is reliable, being written by a British historian for “Great Battles of World War I’ a book which specialises in the battles of World War I and would gain nothing from lying or has any reason to be biased.

Source J, a ‘German tribute to Sir D. Haig’ is very supportive of Haig.  The writer of the newspaper writes ‘Haig is one of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay