In the final analysis it is clear from the evidence that source E is more reliable than source D (ii) because it gives a more representative picture of the events.
- Do you think Haig deserves his bad reputation as a war leader?
Broadly speaking Haig deserves the description of being a poor war leader. However it must be remembered that Haig was put under enormous pressure to be victorious quickly in the war. Also he was forced to cooperate with the War Cabinet discussion, that he did not want to cooperate with. Also he governed his own forces along with the coalitions forces, this is a great task in its self.
Haig had many shortcomings as a leader; he was often referred to as a donkey, because of his stubborn characteristics. Source D (II) is a telegram from Lloyd George, to Haig, saying how the war Cabinet has confidence in him. Yet this source is not reliable as Lloyd George often announced his lack of confidence in Haig. This source illustrates how inadequate his leadership was, as the war Cabinet found they had to lie to him about his achievements in his offensive, as an incentive for him to finally win the war. Haig himself illustrates this, when he says in his diary, ‘ War cabinet asked many questions, all tending to show that each was more pessimistic than the last’. This insinuates that, actually the War Cabinet had no Faith in him.
"Good morning, good morning!" the General said,
When we met him last week on the way to the line.
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
"He's a cheery old card" grunted Harry to Jack,
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
But he did for them both with his plan of attack.
This verse shows the opinion of Haig that vast amounts of Britons had of the field Marshall. But how did he acquire this harsh opinion of him. Haig stuck to the same strategy throughout the war. This plan was derived at the battle of Neurve Chapelle; he followed this meticulous plan throughout the war. His plan used as much prior intelligence as possible; this was a fault because the intelligence was prior not up to date, so it left room for mistakes. His plan was to start with an artillery bombardment, he hoped this would demoralize the opposition’s machine gunners. His plans were so meticulous that it did not allow for the confusion of war and this lead to mistakes, that lead to a hard and dangerous crossing of no mans land. This was not what he predicted. He thought his men would be able to cross the land safely, and that the artillery fire would cut the barbed wire, but this was a hopeful prediction, as it left men stranded in front of enemy fire trying to wade their ways through uncut barbed wire. This was why his plan of a mass infantry attack often failed. General Hackett wrote of the Battle of Loos"...Then twelve battalions, 10,000 men, on a clear morning, in columns, advanced up a gentle slope towards the enemy's trenches. The wire behind which these lay was still unbroken. The British advance met with a storm of machine gun fire. Incredulous, ... the Germans mowed the attackers down, until, three and half-hours later, the remnants staggered away... having lost 385 officers and 7,681 men. The Germans as they watched the survivors leave, stopped firing in compassion. Their casualties at the same time had been nil.”
Due to the meticulous nature of his plans, there were no provisions ready for such mistakes. So this gave the enemy time to regroup. Haig avoided taking the advice of his generals. Even his most aggressive general, general Gough advised him not to persist his current offensive, but did not heed his advice, source B states ‘I informed the commanding in chief that success was not possible’. In fact Haig often humiliated his generals in front of their troops. This ‘brow beating’ taken from a historian would have diminished the confidence of the troops in their command and the belittling of the generals would reduce their confidence. These poor leadership qualities gave Haig his reputation. If you consider Napoleon, one of the greatest generals of all time rarely publicly humiliate his officers, in fact he told them that each of them were in charge to spur them on. Haig approach was the complete opposite. This “brow beating” lead to his beginning to question his tactics and leadership, these disagreements were emphasized when General Elliot refused to march at Passchendaele, this was because of the terrible weather, but Haig persisted in his advances in the terrible weather conditions. This is illustrated in source C, where it depicts people struggling in knee high mud. This source is corroborated by source D (I); this states ‘conditions, mud, cold, rain…’
However, Haig had a number of positive attributes as a leader. Haig was an intelligent leader, many historians believe he won the war. Haig was very skilled with aerial surveillance and interrogation. He obtained an abundance of information to set out his meticulous plans. Haig’s army was abundantly supplied in the field; the wounded evacuated with speed and well cared for. He used entirely new weapons technologies, chemical, aerial and armoured. Above all Haig maintained the faith and loyalty of his subordinates; "the figure of Haig looms ever larger as that of the man who foresaw more accurately than most, who endured longer than most and who inspired most confidence amongst his fellows," extract from his biography. Haig army was well prepared and well equipped. Source E is a secondary source that gives a positive description of Haig’s forces ‘our enemies were well-prepared, greater in number and brave’. This was due to Haig’s leadership. Every German advance after 1917 came to a standstill; this is another example of Haig’s leadership.
In conclusion his negative points outweigh his positive, from this his reputation is just and deserved, as a bad war leader. This is mainly because he ordered advances in bad weather condition; he also lost many lives for minimal gain.
- Every source except source D (II) supports the statement made by Lloyd George that Passchendaele was a ‘senseless campaign’. For a plethora of reasons: Haig ordered advances in terrible weather conditions; he made minimal gains in terms of territory; lastly main the reason for abundance of loss of human life.
Source A supports Lloyd George’s statement that Passchendaele was a senseless campaign. The diaries are personal, so they can subsequently be biased and subjective. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss his new offensive. Even in his own diary Haig struggled to mask that the war cabinet were not in favor with his offensive ‘war cabinet asked me questions all tending to show that each of them was more pessimistic than the other’. This shows that not just Lloyd George had a lack in confidence in Haig. This is supported in source B where General Gough states ‘ I informed the commanding officer in chief that success was not possible’.
Source B supports Lloyd George’s statement that Passchendaele was a senseless campaign. Inspight, the fact that general Gough was present at the battle, he still produced this source 14 years after the events. This makes the source secondary. Therefore this source may suffer from inaccuracies like memory loss or deliberate omissions; these omissions may because he would not have wanted publish anything that would make him look incompetent. General Gough supports Lloyd George’s statement, ‘ I informed the commanding officer in chief that success was not possible’ this is espoused by Source C where there are men finding it hard to get through knee high mud.
Source C is a Primary source as it was taken in august 1st 1917. It depicts men wading though knee high deep mud. However photos can be staged, but this source is corroborated by source D (I) ‘conditions, mud, cold, rain and lack of shelter’. This supports Lloyd George’s opinion.
Source D (I) supports Lloyd George’s statement that Passchendaele was a senseless campaign. It is a secondary source as it was written after the war; even the New Zealand officer was present at the time of the war. This states that Haig did not know the condition, and they overestimate how ‘played out’ the Germans were. It also refers to the bad weather condition, ‘conditions, mud, cold, rain and lack of shelter’. This source is corroborated by source C, as it depicts men wading through knee high mud. This proves that the weather conditions were inhospitable and appalling for troop movements, this made it a senseless campaign.
Source D (ii) does not help us with the debate because it is a piece of propaganda, designed to boost Haig confidence. This is because source D (ii) is an official telegram from Lloyd George to Field Marshall Haig. This means it would have been sent to encourage Haig, as shown in ‘the War Cabinet would like to congratulate you’. This would of put a added pressure on Haig. Also the source is flawed in the statement that Lloyd George states ‘state again my confidence in your leadership’. This is contradicted by the personal memoirs that Lloyd George had saying he had no confidence in Haig’s leadership, he says Passchendaele was a ‘senseless campaign’. The memoirs can be trusted more than the letter because they are personal and he would not lie to himself. This is why Source D (ii) does not help us with this debate.
Source E supports Lloyd George’s statement that Passchendaele was a senseless campaign. This is a secondary source by an unknown officer. Than nature of source E is to comment on German history and to promote national pride. Though the nature of the source is to evoke national pride, the source gives a fair and positive description of the British forces; ‘our enemies were well-prepared, greater in number and brave.’ Also the source has no reason to encourage or animate people in a war situation. Furthermore the source is from 1920s; thus the historian would have been able to research on the events thoroughly. Finally it also gives a fair description of the German loses ‘losses had been so high’. It supports Lloyd George’s statement because the source comments on the ‘bad weather’ its back up by source D (I), ‘conditions, mud, cold, rain and lack of shelter’.
In conclusion, every source except source D (II) supports the statement made by Lloyd George that Passchendaele was a ‘senseless campaign’. For a plethora of reasons: Haig ordered advances in terrible weather conditions; he made minimal gains in terms of territory; lastly this was the reason for abundance in loss in human life.
