Some people found Haig to be so irresponsible; they get a laugh out of his portrayal as a butcher. In the 1990s, a BBC TV comedy series called Blackladder, mocked the war planners by showing Haig and the generals as fools and executioners. Haig’s loss of soldiers in the Battlefield were portrayed on the screen as him ‘sweep[ing] model soldiers in the dustbin’ or ‘throw[ing] them over his shoulder’ as if he doesn’t care. It was shown in the 90’s, so the interpretation that Haig was a butcher would have been passed down to many generations and told many times. Therefore this source isn’t so much reliable, because not only do they ridicule the war generals but by doing so they take the solemnity out of the situation in an attempt to make good television. Additionally the comedians of the show, Ben Elton and Richard Curtis are both left wing. For socialists to be critical of Haig is no surprise. It further suggests why they came to this interpretation that Haig was thoughtless.
Other left wing socialists have reached similar conclusions through research. A.J.P.Taylor, along with the rest of Britain, never expected such an intense war. The past wars had been so easy, they felt their ‘idealisms [got] perished on the Somme.’ Taylor speaks of admiration in this history book in 1963, thinking soldiers were ‘brave’ and in their defence they were ‘helpless’. This source is fairly reliable because this historian has the benefit of hindsight and research. However he goes on to describe the generals as being ‘obstinate’. This persons natures as a left wing historian is against war. Attitudes pro equality and against capitalism certainly influenced his interpretation of Haig who was conversely an upper class General.
The negative views on General Haig were not only held by people in the home front. Fred Pearson, a private on the Western Front, commented on Haig in a local newspaper in 1966. He stated that Haig was ‘the biggest murderer of lot’. He goes onto explain Haig’s ignorance: of not having to suffer from living in cramped smelly conditions; getting feasted on at night like the soldiers, because he never ‘knew what a trench was like’. This source was written for people to read and believe that Haig is not worthy to be ‘an Earl’ or have ‘£100,000’ reward given to him. To some extent it’s fair to suggest this for surely you would have to get closer then ‘50 kilometres’ to understand the intensity of the situation. Additionally because this is a primary source and this private is expressing his view from direct encounters with the general, it is therefore reliable. However, this private admits to being ‘very bitter’, possibly suggesting he had his own feud with the general that overshadowed his opinions and led to this interpretation of him.
The Battle of the Somme relieved the French of pressure and was ultimately won by the Allied. As a result many people thought Haig did not deserve to be remembered as the ‘butcher of the Somme’ and that he was a general just doing his job. One of whom was a lieutenant, who understood the ‘flawless’ way the first part of the war was fought. He wrote in a letter to the daily express on 21st of December, the year of the Battle, that there ‘was an obvious genius for pure general ship.’ This shows the admiration, he had towards Haig. Haig acted professionally and confidentally causing this lieutenant to think of him as ‘perfect’. It’s difficult to say how this interpretation of Haig was reached. This lieutenant had no reason but to dislike the general for being ‘gassed on the Somme’ and invalided back to Britain. Instead he doesn’t allow his bad encounters to dominate his opinion on General Haig’s actions. Moreover, this Lieutenant chooses to remain anonymous, so it’s not as though he was looking for any glory or recognition for writing this letter. Furthermore because is a primary source it proves reliability.
Sir Douglas Haig was not only battling the Somme but also against the interpretations people were developing of him. In December the year of the Battle, Haig’s report states ‘the German casualties have been greater than ours’. This is somewhat an ambiguous statement. It can mean Haig was trying to help himself feel better for the lives he lost, or, that he was so proud to be able to boast this achievement. He humbly agrees that ‘the amount of ground gained is not great’. But then follows it by saying ‘that’s nothing’; as if to say the aim of this Battle was not so much to do with gaining the land but to prove his ‘ability to force the enemy out of strong defensive positions’. However, although this is a primary source is still suggests unreliability as Haig himself sent it. And he wouldn’t wish himself to be labelled the ‘butcher of the Somme.’ Thus it’s bias.
Those who were personally acquainted with the General also believed he didn’t deserve to be remembered as a butcher. Alfred Copper wrote in his biography of Sir Douglas, that he was a ‘giant’ ‘in moral stature’, because ‘he believed from the first that the German line could be broken and it was’. Consequently he was victorious in his plan. And although ‘it maybe easy in history to find a more brilliant man, but it would be hard to find a better one’. This means Haig was the best man for the job; his way was the only way possible at the time, No one could have done it better. On the other hand, because Copper’s later establishment of right wing status by becoming a conservative MP; suggests favouritism towards dictatorship Haig. This interpretation was inevitably also reached by him being a friend of Haig’s family. It is expected that he supports the General’s actions. This further contributes unreliability of this source.
Haig designation of the job and the way he accomplished what was planned as a result of the battle, satisfied many people. S.Warburton asked in an article for a history magazine in 1988, ‘Would there have been anyone better for the job?’ He further goes on to say, ‘Haig was the product of his time’, for he had ‘previous military experience’, and was tremendously qualified for being the General. Although this is a secondary source, meaning it wasn’t taken directly from the era. It is still reliable because this historian has the benefit of hindsight and research. While the interpretation of Haig as butcher got passed on and eventually became broad. Warburton’s alternative interpretation of Haig, by taking a ‘fresh look’ at the issue, of Haig allows us to assume he is a revisionist historian.
To conclude, General Sir Douglas Haig was determined to win the Battle of the Somme. The title ‘butcher of the Somme’ was given to him for the lives he lost during that Battle. Not only did this lead to this nickname but also a feeling of a fundamental defeat for many people. Those who believed he didn’t care for the soldiers, that he was looking for the glory, and the money that came with winning the war, and therefore he was a butcher; were most noticeably due to individual and political reasons, such as a Private or a Socialist. In his defence; he was advised to carry out the Big Push. On the other hand he was supposedly the best man for the job, so why would such a man need to listen to anyone’s advice? He had been ‘the product’ of his ‘education’ and therefore should know what he was doing. However, these interpretations were fuelled only through the publication of Lloyd George’s book. War Memoirs was written 15 years after the war, with the intention to glorify the former Prime Minister’s reputation as a war leader, possibly by relegating the other war leaders. Surely this shows the butcher allegations for Haig to be invalid no matter the casualties. Even so, being under so much pressure from the British government it was impossible for a man to not make a mistake, he was only human. Those who supported the General’s actions were most noticeably personal acquaintances, such as the Lieutenant and the family friend. Revisionist historians, though it’s what their occupation entitles also supported the General. It is agreeable that a high number of soldiers were lost; the Germans were well prepared and took shelter in the dugouts. If they hadn’t of been so crafty, Haig would not have been remembered in such ways and the infamous nickname would have been replaced with something much more glorious. So in many ways, Haig is not the butcher: the Germans were. Inexorably, Haig had used the best methods possible in the 1916s, and his plan did work in the end. Surely this shows Haig to be a good leader. He brought a new experience to Britain: the fighting in No Man’s Land, living in trenches; a Battle of stalemate. His tactics eventually relieved pressure on the French at Verdun, like they set out to do initially, but also turned the aspiring young Kitchener’s at war, into men.
