One of the worst battles in World War 1 was the Battle of The Somme. In the spring of 1916, the Germans launched a huge attack on the French fortress of Verdun. The French defended the fortress for 5 months, which resulted in heavy losses. The British planned to help by launching an attack further North by the river Somme which was meant to draw the German troops away from Verdun. In the Somme, 20,000 men died and around 60,000 injured on the first day alone. Another mistake was that they spent 6 months planning and insisted that the troops should walk across no man’s land. This meant that they lost the Battle of The Somme by 3 minutes. However, if they were ordered to charge, they would’ve been on the German Front position before the Germans could reassemble. Overall, the Somme wipped men’s enthusiasm away, as said in Source B8, “the enthusiastic volunteers were enthusiastic no longer”. Following the Somme, they then ordered more attacks and consequently lost 420,000 men and advanced 15 km at furthest point. The Battle of Loos, 1915, cost 60,000 lives and the Battle of Passchendaele, 1917, lost 40,000 men as many of them drowned in a sea of mud. The soldiers then lost faith in their leaders and only had loyalty to those they were fighting with, “they had lost faith in their cause, in their leaders, in everything except loyalty to their fighting comrades”. Also, Haig lived 50km behind the Front Line, so he had no grasp of the reality of war so had no compassion towards the soliders so the war “went on for its own sake, as a contest of endurance”. For many people, the Battle of the Somme was the battle which symbolised the horrors of warfare in WW1; the battle had a marked effect on the overall casualty figures and seemed to epitomise the futility of trench warfare as nearly 60,000 men were lost on the first day alone. Therefore, “the Somme set the picture by which future generations saw the First World War, brave, helpless soliders; blundering, obstinate. generals; nothing achieved.” People started to think that the war was endless, “After the Somme, men decided that the war would go on forever.” This was because the generals kept using the same tactics that weren’t working and the casualties were rising. This source was written by A.J.P Taylor, an academic historian, commenting on the First World War generals in a specialist history book. Therefore, his interpretation is that the British were ‘lions led by donkeys’ and it is valid as he would’ve thorougly researched for his book and it is a secondary source, written in 1963, meaning he has the benefit of hindsight. The purpose of this source would have been to make money from his book. However, he comes from a pacifist family, so he has a dislike of war and killing. He also attended a Quaker school as a way of protesting against the war l and his parents vocally opposed WW1. This would affect the validity of the source as he is against war and violence and comes from a family who openly protested against the war, therefore this source is likely to be biased and he’s unlikely to show a positive opinions about the generals. This source has a valid interpretation of the generals in World War One as he is an academic historian who has written many books which are thoroughly researched, however, his upbringing and background could have a big affect on his interpretations of the generals which affects the overall validity of the source.
During World War One, Haig was called a ‘butcher’ as he said that ‘the nation must be taught to bear heavy losses’. He showed no remorse or sympathy to those who had died in horrendous battles, like the Somme, and continued to order attacks after heavy losses. Haig also lived 50km behind the Front Line, so he had no grasp of reality. Therefore, he was ‘a second-rate Commander in unparalled and unforeseen cirumstances’. When planning their next attacks, the soldiers were encouraged to use their imagination. Acres of dusty ground were lined with tape to represent the ternches and were assulted and ‘captured’ with tape. They also had to imagine wearing full gear and carrying wire and bombs and rehersals were carried out in silence as a drill. This gave troops no sense of battle and an impression that the assault would be easy. “We were surprised to see them walking, we had never seen that before. The officers went in front. I noticed one of them walking calmly, carrying a walking stick. When we started to fire…They went down in their hundreds.” As said in source B4, “He was not endowned with any of the element of imagination and vision.” Because of how he was potrayed by the media and because he said that losing one tenth of Britain’s men wasn’t a big price to pay, people didn’t see him as a leader who had the right personality to be a good general. After the Somme, volunteers lost their enthusiasm and saw no purpose in the war - Haig didn’t have the leadership skills to change this. “He certainly had none of that personal magnetism which has enabled great leaders of men to inspire multitides with courage, faith and a spirit of sacrifice.” He was also ‘incapable of planning vast campaigns on the scale demanded on so immense a battlefield.” This was shown in the planning for the Somme when the British planned to help the French by launching an attack further North by the River Somme which was meant to draw the German troops away from Verdun - this was planned by Haig. 6 months were spent planning and 20,000 men died and 60,000 injured on the first day. They lost the battle by 3 minutes but if they were ordered to charge, they would’ve been on the German Front before the German’s could reassemble. This source was written by David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister during the First World War. He was writing in a book about his war-time experiences, War Memoris written in 1935, therefore it is a primary source and he has the interpretation that the British were ‘lions led by donkeys’. Lloyd George was as surprised as everyone else by the outbreak of the war and in July 1914, he made a speech about advocating “economy”, saying that Britain’s relations woth Germany were the best they had been in many years. He insisted that Britain would keep out of the impending war and he seemed likely to resign if Britain intervened. He reaimed in office as Chancellor of Exchequer for the first year of the war and gained a ‘heroic’ repution fo his work as Minister of Munitions, 1915-16. Lloyd George often found himself coming into conflict with , whom he did not trust. In particular, Lloyd George found the cost in human terms of Haig's battles to be reprehensible. He took the responsibility of arms production away form the generals and gained respect for improving administrative capabilities and increasing outputs. In June 1916, Lloyd George suceeded Lord Kitchener as Secretary of State for War. Being Prime Minister, Secretary of State for War and Minister of Munitions, he would’ve had access to enclosed information.
For both Haig and his armies, the battles of 1916/18 were a painful and bloody learning process but by 1918, some historians argue, both Commander and troops were highly effective resulting in victory. “So far during war, our leadership has been flawless - perfect.” Haig and his subordinate generals learned from experience - how to fight the war in a new style, with effective co-operation artillery, tanks, aircraft and infantry - the principle of ‘bite and hold’. From August 8th, 1918, The British Army won a series of victories unmatched in our military history. Today, they are forgotten by almost all but military historians, while the earlier bloodbaths are remembered. All of Haig’s offensives need to be seen in this context. Battles earlier in the war, such as the Somme in 1916, saw heavy loss of life but were also strategic successes for the Allies as it forced the Germans to end their offensive at Verdun. They also achieved some slight territorial gains by advancing 15 kilometres into German territory. 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. He was writing in a letter to the Daily Express on 21st December, 1916, so it’s a primary source. He would’ve written the letter to share his experiences of World War One and what he thought of the Generals. On the outbreak of WW1 in August 1914, Liddel Hart volunteered for the British Army, where he became in officer int he King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry and served with the regiment on the Western Front. His Front Line experience was relatively brief, although he was gassed on the Somme and invalided back to Britain. He was transferred to be Adjutant to Volunteer units in Stoud and Cambridge, where he was in charge of training new units and wrote several booklets on infantry drill and training.
The British generals of the First World War were not a homogenous group. They preformed a variety of functions and roles and they did so to differing degress of effectiveness. A few were incompetent, most were not, all were operating under incredible pressure and when we look closer, we are not influenced by the prejudice and propaganda. “As we read the history of the Great War and the mists created by prejudice, propaganda and false witness began to scatter”. During the War, many people interpretated Haig as a ‘butcher’ who was willing to slaughter millions of men for victory. However, after the war and the victories of 1918, people began to view Haig as a competent leader who learnt from his mistakes and did the best that he could at that point of time. “The figure of Haig looms ever larger as that of the general who foresaw more accurately than most”. For both Haig and his armies, the battles of 1916/17 were a painful and bloody learning process but it proclaimed Haig’s perserverance towards the war. In April 1915, the Germans used a new weapon gas. It had a terrible effect on the soliders as it ate away their lungs and attacked their eyes. Soldiers who were lightly gassed would probably never recover while others were blinded for life or died a slow painful death. Soon both sides had gas bombs and carried gas masks as part of their equiptment. Although this new innovation failed, it’s an example of Haig and his generals perseverance throughout the war as they went on to accept some technological innovations on the battle field, e.g. tanks were used by Haig in the Somme. Although the tanks coud be unreliable, they terrified the Germans, at the Battle of Cambrai in 1917, tanks broke through the German trenches and pushed them back nearly eight kilometres. As the war progressed and the generals figured out how best to utilise them, tanks proved themselves to be a weapon of the future. This is a good example of Haig’s perseverance during the war as he endured longer than most’ and he inspired confidence from his soliders, ‘who inspired confidence amongst his soldiers’. During the war, the British generals also tried new tactics such as the creeping barrage. After the Somme the British and their allies were developing new tactics combining artillery, infantry, air power and tanks. On September 29th 1918, after a 56-hour-long-bombardment, the progress made in developing their tactics meant that they were able to breach the so-called Hindenburg Line, the final line of German denfenses on the Western Front in WW1. The Allies could use the vulnerabilities in the line to their advantage. Because of Haig’s leadership and competence during the war, Australian and US troops could attack the heavily fortified town of Bellicourt with tank, aircraft and artillery support. Therefore, “In moral strucutre, Haig was a giant” as his persistance during the war meant that he above all of the other generals and ahead of the Germans when it came to tactics. “Haig believed from the first that the German line could be broken and it was.” Although he did make mistakes during the war, he learnt with them and progressed as a general as the war went on. It would’ve been hard for Haig to have done any better than he did during the war as nobody else had experience in warfare and the only ones who did were the Americans who were initially opposed to the war. Therefore, “It may be easy in history to find a more brilliant man, but it would be hard to find a better one.” This source was written by Alfred Duff Cooper, a soldier in the Grenadier Guards during the war. He was writing in his biography of Sir Douglas Haig. This source would’ve been written to justify Haig’s actions during the War and present him in a better light after his death, so it’s very unlikely to put any blame on Haig or write badly about him, especially as he was asked to write his biography by family. This is also a primary source as he has a first hand experience of war. He would have this interpretation because, as a family friend, he would have had access to more information. He was educated at Eton and Oxford and, following Oxford, he entered the Foreign Service and then joined the Grenadier Guards in 1917. He served with distinction as a lieutentant in the campaigns of 1918. His service in WW1 was highlighted by the ITV programme “The Great War: The People’s Story” and his correspondence was one of those selected to be dramatised. When returning to the Forgein Service, he became principal private secetary to two ministers and played a significant role in the Eygptian and Turkish crises of the early 1920s, before winning a seat in Parliament as a Conservative for Oldham in 1924. He also became Financial Secretary to the War Office in January 1928 before losing his seat in the 1929 before returning in 1931. He completed the biography on Haig during this period. Therefore, his intepretation of Haig would be valid as he would’ve had access to additional information and it would’ve been well researched, however, he was a friend of the family so would’ve been unlikely to speak badly about Haig and his involvement with the war office at the time of writing the book could’ve affected his interpretation of how Haig’s leadership affected the economy and this would have affected the overall validity of the source.
David Lloyd George’s view that Haig was ‘brilliant to the top of his Amry boots’ sums up the attitude of most people towards Haig and the other generals during WW1. They were interpretated as ‘donkeys’: ‘ruddy cheeked, bristling-moustached, heavy-jawed’, who were ’frequently inarticulate’ and ‘incompetent leaders’ who sent the ‘lions’ to their deaths in fruitless battles. Many popular films, television programmes and books imitate this belief of the generals. However, one indisputable fact is that Britain and her Allies won the War, and, more importantly, Haig and his army played the leading role in defeating the German forces in the battles of 1918. The generals ‘rose to challenge after challenge’ despite the interpretations being made of them. They shown this through their victory at the Somme and the other battles. the aims of the Somme were to relieve the French Army fighting at Verden and to weaken the Germans. However, the Allies were unable to break the German lines. Teh first day was a disaster for the British as they lost 60,000 on the first day alone but Haig agreed to continue the attack. The British attempted to press their advance and over the next two weeks they made a series of small attacks on the German line to prepare for another large-scale attack. Although the British suffered heavy casualties at the Battle of the Somme, the Germans had lost around 450,000 men during the battle. The German general Ludendorff said, ‘We had heavy losses in men and materials. As a result of the Somme we were completely exhausted on the Western Front.’ The Somme provided the French at Verdun with relief, so that they could launch a counter attack by December 1916 as the Germans had been pushed back. Althoug there was a tremendous amount of casualties, Britain and its allies won the won and their perseverance and the ability to rise to every challenge they faced shown that they were able to adapt ‘themselves to constant change with astonishing success.’ Many weapons were introduced throughout the war, such as machiene guns, artillery, poison gas and tanks which shows that they ‘absorbed weapon after weapon into their battle-systems’. However, many people forget that although the generals didn’t actively particpate in the war as they were behind the Front Line, their crucial decisions and adaptations to new challenges, weapons and tactics meant that Britain were able to win the war, ‘But no one cares to make a legend out of that’. This source was written by John Terraine, a British military historian and TV screenwritter, writing in his study of the Battle of the Somme, “The Smoke and the Fire”, written in 1980, so it is a secondary source with the benefit of hindsight. He is best known as the lead screenwriter for the 1960s BBC documentary ‘The Great War’ and for his defense of British General Haig. He published 16 books, most of them dealing with aspects of European wars of the 20th century. Terraine was the founder and president of the Western Front Association from 1980, when he wrote the book, to 1997.