However the causes of these tactical errors are more worrying. Haig had very little information about the German front line and defences including information about the depth of the German wire, their concrete lined bunkers or machine gun positions. This lack of intelligence meant his plans for the advance were fatally flawed.
Although it soon became obvious that Haig’s technique was losing the army thousands of men, Haig refused to alter his plans continuing with the same tactics for several months, only retreating when the harsh winter conditions forced him to withdraw. 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.
The historian John Laffin puts forward in his book, quoted in source 8, that Haig and other British generals were not just making mistakes, but were committing ‘wilful blunders and wicked butchery’ for which ‘there can never be forgiveness’. As a historian he should have analysed many different sources regarding the Somme offensive and should be free from bias, unless perhaps previous generations of his family died fighting.
Another major reason for Haig being considered a butcher by the British public, were the opinions of other vocal people.
Many soldiers were critical of Haig because they saw their friends being killed and saw Haig as ‘almost 50km behind the line’. For example Fred Pearson, a private during the war described Haig as ‘The biggest murderer of the lot’ in Source 1a. The soldiers were also angry that, despite the lack of progress at the Somme, after the war he was made an Earl and given £100,000 (Source 1a), whereas they got nothing despite injuries and loss of friends and relatives. This view of Haig was spread quickly, due to the vast number of soldiers involved in the Somme offensive. The soldiers were however very biased, seeing many of their friends die on the battlefields.
The prime minister during the war, Lloyd George, later blamed the outcome of the Somme on Haig. His comments such as ‘Haig was a second rate commander’ (Source 2) were widely published and spread by the soldiers and relatives who felt similarly. As past Prime Minister his views would have been accepted by many as the definitive truth. However, Lloyd George was clearly biased, wanting to defend his actions.
Another major influence on the British public would have been the newspaper cartoonists. This would have been seen by a vast percentage of the population, at a time when TV was not invented. To keep the public interested they would usually mock somebody, in the case of Source 6, Haig for keeping out of the fighting, behind the lines.
I find this argument to be fair; Haig’s fatally flawed tactics certainly brought many people to their deaths. However, Haig felt this would be the only way to win the war for the Allied forces. However, John Laffin suggests it was not just Haig, but the ‘other British generals’ must be blamed’ as well. This seems to me that giving Haig alone the title of ‘Butcher’ is slightly unfair.
Interpretation 2 - Haig was not a Butcher
Those who believe Haig was not a butcher cite the opinion of the British public immediately after the war. Source 14, a newspaper cutting, shows a picture of crowds thronging around Haig’s car on his return from France, captioned ’A spontaneous welcome’. Whilst the media was probably censored by the government the photo’s meaning is very clear and could not easily be faked. This means it is a reliable source. The crowd’s appreciative attitude towards Haig’s campaigns led to him being granted £100,000, a sum worth far more at the time (1919) which shows Haig was not viewed as a butcher by the British public.
After retirement he devoted the rest of his life to the welfare of ex-soldiers and set up the poppy appeal which still helps injured soldiers and their families today. This is not the behaviour you would expect from a soldier murdering ‘butcher’.
There were heavy losses, but Haig warned of this beforehand and the government did not object. When it became clear that little progress was being made David Lloyd George did not remove Haig from his position. This suggests British high command was satisfied with his tactics and the results.
Another strong argument is that Haig was no worse (or better) than any other World War I generals - of all countries. A recent article in the Daily Mail by historian John Keegan (source 11) states that the ‘generals faced an insoluble problem: how to break a strong front of trenches, barbed wire, machine guns and artillery with the weak instrument of human flesh’.
Another historian, John Terraine, described in his book how the ‘generals rose to challenge after challenge’ adapting ‘to constant change with astonishing success’ (source 8). There is no doubt that the trench warfare was unlike anything that the generals had come across before. These historians should be unbiased, having researched the battle.
In addition, the British troops continued to follow Haig as a leader in sharp contrast to the French troops who mutinied as a result of poor leadership.
Finally is the argument that the Somme offensive was actually ultimately successful. Heavy losses occurred, but the key objective of relieving pressure on the French border town of Verdun further north was achieved.
Haig himself argued at the time the attack was ‘Very successful’ and ‘going very well for us’ with the ‘troops in wonderful spirits and full of confidence’. Of course this argument is incredibly biased coming from Haig himself however must have had some truth in as an official report. (Source 11)
Another key quotation is a German officer on the Somme who in source 15 is quoted as calling the battlefield ‘the muddy grave of the German army’. This certainly suggests the battle was not going well for the Germans, backing up Haig’s statement that ‘the German casualties have been greater than ours’ (source 9). Given that the entire first world war, not just the Somme, was ultimately a war of attrition, the Somme could well have been a large factor in the overall allied victory.
Whilst I find individual parts of this argument fairly convincing, it does concern me that it all seems fairly contradictory with several separate unrelated arguments. In addition, I find it hard to believe the suggestions that the attack went very well after hearing the evidence from the other argument.
Conclusion
The argument for Haig being a butcher is strong. Fatal tactical errors, including failing to anticipate the effects of the artillery bombardment, provide a strong case even before looking at the causes of these mistakes. Haig failed to collect intelligence regarding his enemy, making assumptions based on past experience in completely different conditions. Furthermore Haig refused to abandon his techniques and adapt, preferring to continue a war of attrition, resulting in tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of unnecessary deaths. The large number of soldiers, the view of the Prime Minister and the attitudes of the cartoonists towards Haig influenced the British public’s view of Haig.
On the other side of the argument, it is clear that the public were very supportive of Haig, who later went on to help many ex-soldiers with the poppy appeal. It is also true that Haig warned of the heavy losses and the government at the time did not raise any concerns regarding this. Haig also coped with constant change, certainly no worse than any other general during the First World War. Furthermore the battle was a success and the Germans were disappointed with the outcome.
Clearly different people have come up with some very different conclusions. The ‘Haig is a Butcher’ argument is very emotive and gave many people someone to blame for their suffering and bitterness regarding the war. It would have carried very easily through the media; in contrast to the far less headline grabbing story that Haig was merely doing as well as he could. When the various sources I looked at were written, perhaps less information and an only biased arguments were available. Other writers have paid more attention to some evidence than to other evidence. This meant the source writers came up with different opinions of Haig.
I find it very hard to tell what the truth about Haig is. The various sources I have seen contradict each other, sometimes within the same interpretation. However, my overall opinion is that Haig was not a butcher. This is because whilst he made many mistakes he did want casualties; he did his job as well as he knew how given the constant major technological advances in warfare that were taking place. The term butcher implies Haig intentionally slaughtered soldiers and there is no evidence to support that.