From Sources D and E, I think Field Marshal Douglas Haig thought that the first of the Battle of the Somme would be a hard battle and a large death toll, but he thought his forces were ready to fight. He knew that the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) would have a large number of casualties. Before the battle he wrote, “…the nation must be prepared to see a heavy casualty lists,” but he did not know how many would die. After the first day of the Somme, nearly 20,000 British soldiers were killed, most of them in their twenties. Pal Battalions were wiped out, villages and towns all over the empire lost a whole generation of young men. The Germans had a large, well trained and well equipped army. Britain had a small inexperienced army, at the Battle of the Somme and throughout the war. Haig did expect to do well as when the British and French troops attacked they would overwhelm the Germans and therefore push the Germans back. However the French attacked at speed and left the British behind and therefore did not work to a full effect. Also the defense had a superior advantage between 1914 and 1917. A combination of high tech weapons, quick firing artillery and machine guns and low tech defenses, trenches and barbed wire made an attacker’s job daunting. The troops may well have been well informed about the operation, but when it has been changed then the plans are no longer useful to the soldiers. The artillery had pounded the German lines for seven whole days before the attack, to weaken the defenses, but there was no surprise to the Germans where the attack was coming from and that there was going to be a big offence. Haig wrote “… the barbed wire has never been so well cut.” But when the men went over the top they faced machine gun fire and tangled barbed wire, Haig’s prediction didn’t come true. They were no where near as it was a complete disaster, more men were killed than he expected, and this battle was the worst in British casualties in British army history. He changed his plans, instead of holding gained positions but kept attacking for 100 days and kept repeating the same failed attacks of frontal attacks by infantry.
- Study Source F and G
To what extent does source G support source F? Explain your answer fully. (6)
The extent that source G supports source F is a lot because when Douglas Haig told the “…men that the barbed wire was never so well cut.” He lied, he didn’t know whether the barbed wire was cut or even if there was any barbed wire, because he never visited the western front. Source G is a cartoon from Punch Magazine “There are two essential differences….1. The absence of the enemy…. 2. The absence of the general.” If Field Marshal Haig never visited the front how did he know if there was any? This was because his Generals were bringing back information which was not true and they just told him the information they thought he wanted to know, because they were scared of him. So he bombarded the German lines for 5-7 days only to find that the barbed wire was in a worse tangle than before. However if Haig knew about the trenches by visiting them or his generals telling the honest trueth , he might not of sent large amounts of soldiers to their deaths. George Coppard visited the western front on July 2nd 1916, before writing his book “With a machine gun to Cambria”, in 1919. From an extract he wrote “… hundreds of dead…strung out…on enemy wire…no gaps in the wire at time of attack.” From the headline in question 1, they were “our boys” on the barbed wire, if the British public heard about this disaster there would be a nervous atmosphere in Britain and the public might well start to doubt Haig and his general’s competence. Men were being sent over the top to get through “dense” barbed wire that the Germans must have been reinforcing it for months. If Haig’s officers felt safe in telling him the truth that the artillery fire couldn’t pound such wire to pieces making it possible to get through, then maybe a different offensive may have been used. Any Tommy could have told any of the commanders that shell fire just lifts wire up and drops it down often in a worse tangle than before. The generals were incapable of anything more imaginative than repeating the same failed assaults by infantry. However I don’t think Haig is to blame for this because if his officers were less threatened by his presence he might of changed his plans and if you continually shell and bombard the main part of the trench and not behind the trenches there would be more impact so even if the tommies did get across no mans land they would be held up by the barbed wire but not the machine gum fire as they would have been destroyed by the bombardment, and would not of been shot down and not as many deaths.
- Study Source H and I
Which source is more useful as evidence about what it was like for the soldiers attacking across No-Mans-Land on the first day of the Battle of the Somme? Explain your answer fully. (7)
Both source H and source I are both useful as evidence about what it was like for the soldiers attacking over no-mans-land on the first day of the Somme but I think Source H is a more useful source as evidence. Source H informs us of a soldiers account from what happened as his Pal Battalion went over the top onto no-mans-land. However Source I shows us images from the trenches but nothing showing no-mans-land on the first day of the Somme. The documentary which was shown in the cinemas later in 1916. The government or war officials could have altered the movie, to show how well “our boys” are doing and showing all the good parts of the war. From the figures of deaths from the first day of the Somme, nearly 20,000 soldiers were killed, but none of the still images show the horror of the first day. One shows a man carrying another through a trench, maybe to show how our patriotic heroes are coping rescuing the injured or wounded and to show that the soldiers were not giving in. Another shows a group of men walking across no-mans-land, this could and couldn’t be real because incoming machine gum fire would be killing them, as they went towards them. This also could be a real assault but on a less important and less protected territory. It could also be to boost the men/soldiers morale and keep the public confident that the generals were winning the war. Source H is a first hand account of what it was actually like. Although it was written in an interview in 1971, but in 1916 William Slater was a member of the Bradford Pal Battalion that went over the top, on the first day of the Somme. “…nothing seemed to happen to us at first…” that would have been where the machine guns were being sent back up at their posts after the bombardment. “…in the midst of a storm of machine gun bullets and I saw men beginning to twirl…fall…kind of curious ways….” As soon as the machine guns started to fire, the soldiers were being forced to twisted and twirl because of the sheer force of the bullet entering the body. This is more useful than evidence than source I because William Slater was part of a squad that went over the top, he cannot change or alter his memories or what he saw because he was there. Unlike the images, because it was a documentary shown to the British Public, the government may of changed, altered or deleted the real footage, and images to release pressure of the generals and the government, but also keeping the horror of the first day of the Battle of the Somme hidden from the British public so they didn’t lack faith and assurance that Douglas Haig and his generals and officers were not incapable and incompetent.
- Study Sources J and K
To what extent do these sources prove that the Battle of the Somme was a failure for the British and the French (7)
Source J and source K do and do not prove that the Battle of the Somme was a failure to the British and French. Mainly from source K it tells us how many British, French and German troops were killed or seriously wounded from 1914-1918. The first is from “The war in outline” by Basil Liddell that was published in the 1920’s. “British and French losses 614,000 : German losses 440,000”, to me this suggests that the author of this book was a German, because if Germany had lost less men than both British and French forces then Germany should of won the war, so it maybe false information. The second is written by Sir Charles Osman, written in 1927. He suggests that the “British and French losses were the same as the Germans at 560,000”. If this was true then the Battle of the Somme would have continued because if you had the same amount of deaths then there would be a continuous stalemate between the two enormous enemies. These two books I think are being too generous on the German losses, and secondly both of the books managed to get completely different sets of figures. The third book “The official history of the Great War”, published by the British government (1938 edition). It reads “British and French losses 623,907 and German losses 680,000.” To me these figures seem reasonable; Germany had lost the war and therefore should have the higher number of deaths. However how did the government find out the German losses, because the German government wouldn’t have given their exact number of deaths to the British. Also the difference between the figures 623,907 (British and French) 680,000 (German) is nearly 60,000 men. So the government may of altered, changed the British losses to a lower figure and to make the German losses a larger number. Source J was written by the German general Ludendorff in 1919. “…when Somme began the entente….tremendous superiority on land…air." This tells us that the British and French combined forces were more superior to the Germans on land and in the air. “The entente…worked…further and further towards German lines.” The entente during the whole Battle of the Somme they only gained 7 kilometers, but it was enough to inflict heavy losses to the German soldiers and material. Showing the entente superiority. “…as a result…Somme fighting…exhausted on western front…war lasted our defeat seemed inevitable.” This phrase tells me two things, one if Douglas Haig had not changed his plans to attack for 100 days then the British troops wouldn’t of exhausted the German soldiers and the war could of changed completely and if the British kept on attacking then the defeat of the Germans was inevitable, but in this process he still sent many men to their deaths. Secondly General Ludendorff thought that the British and French had superiority on land and in the air, but this couldn’t be true as the British and French were held at a stalemate with the Germans until the Americans joined the war then the British, French and Americans started to advance. This seems to prove that the Battle of the Somme was not s failure because, the entente defeated the Germans, relieve pressure of Verdun, prove that the British and French had superiority over the Germans, but in the process managed to loss 560,000-623,907 British and French troops. Many of the British were young men in there twenties that may well of been betrayed by the incompetence of there officers.
7. Since the end of World War 1 much has been written about Haig, including soldiers stories and poems, newspaper articles, history books, films, T.V documentaries and even T.V comedies. Some of these offer very different interpretations of Haig’s ability as a commander. Using the sources provided and your own knowledge of Haig, explain whether you think he was a good or bad commander. (10)
Since the end of World War 1 much has been written about Haig including soldier’s stories and poems, newspaper articles, history books, films, T.V documentaries, and even T.V comedies. Some of those offer very different interpretations of Haig’s ability as a commander. Before Haig became a commander and chief of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) during the First World War. He was sent to India with his regiment, he experience active action in Sudan (1898) and the Boer War (1899-1902). This must have been where his obsession with the cavalry began because unlike World War 1 there were no firing machine guns and barbed wire and because he never visited the front he tried slotting his cavalry charge in where ever he could. He worked through the ranks and in 1914 obtained the rank of Lieutenant General and was given command of the BEF at Mons, and he was praised for the Ypres campaign. Haig was under extreme pressure from the French to produce a diversion from Verdun. Haig is probably most famous for the Battle of the Somme, he sent many men to a bloody death. He was meant to destroy the machine gun posts and the barbed wire with 7 days of heavy bombardment to get the advancing the British soldiers through easily but that’s not what happened they just hide the men in deep bunkers below the ground and the men were mown down when they set up after the bombardment had finished. The attack at the Somme was supposed to be a surprise to the Germans but the 7 day bombardment gave that away. His generals lacked the confidence in Haig to tell him exactly what was going on in the western front. He never visited the front, so he needed his officers to be his eyes and ears, but their lack of confidence in Haig because the appearance he came over as a dreadful, horrible person and that could have been his downfall. No-ones denies that the BEF had a “bloody learning curve” and the “generals made mistakes that had catastrophic consequences.” Douglas Haig thought that killing more Germans than losing British troops was the way to win the war, a war of attrition, which resulted in enormous numbers of casualties. The French wanted to stay on the defensive and wanted to wait for the Americans to arrive before an attack. Haig was frustrated by this and he was determined to beat the Germans in a purely British offensive. At the Third Battle of Ypres, Haig failed to reach his objectives again but succeeded in weakening the Germans. “From 1915-1918 the BEF learned in the hardest possible way, hot to fight a modern high-intensity war against an extremely tough opponent.” Before 1914 the British Army was a small, professional force but by 1916 it had expanded due to civilian volunteers. Too much criticism has been put on Haig, we know he made lots of stupid errors but he and his generals were use to handling small scale forces, and were also unprepared for the new type of war as well as the soldiers. If Haig had called off the Somme, he would off thrown away his advantage as the Germans tried to counter the new treat. The French were under pressure at Verdun the reality of coalition warfare helps explain why Haig never haltered the Somme after the “disastrous” first day, and he couldn’t pull out on the second day leaving France, Britain’s most powerful ally to be slaughter. From 1914-1917 the advantage lay with the defense, Haig was stupid to keep attacking the German lines at Somme for 100 days, and even if the artillery did managed to punch a hole in the German lines, the lacked a fast moving force to take advantage of the situation. This would of where Haig’s cavalry would have been useful but they were little use in the trenches of the Western Front. “Generals of World War One were faced with a tactical dilemma unique in military history.” Lloyd George the priminster of Britain during the first world war and believed that the defeat of the German army would come from the east with Russia. Unlike Haig he thought the defeat of Germany would be in the west. By 1918, much had changed, the BEF put into practice the lessons learned so painfully and such heavy losses over the previous four years. Both commanders and soldiers had learnt in the hardest possible way how the fight a high-intensity modern war. I think Haig was not a good or a bad commander, he made a lot of stupid mistakes but he made vast improvements from 1917-1918, and “by 1918 he turned an army of band clerks, shop assistants, business men and miners into a formidable fighting force.” Also Haig cannot be critisised for the Somme completely because his officers gave him changed information about the enemy, the trenches, and in general the Somme. So he was going by what his officers were telling him the truth. The first world war may have been a disaster in some ways but the commanders and soldiers had to cope with a unique problem which neither Napoleon or Wellington had to deal with before and World War Two after. Throughout my essay I have discussed a few sources and used my own knowledge to show you why I believe that Field Marshal Haig was neither a good or bad commander and with conditions which no other military force has succeeded in defeating a tough enemy and changing inexperienced civilians into a well trained fighting force.
