Hussey said, “they said it would take 4 months but instead took 4 years.” I think this is as Haig did not adjust his plan for the first 140 days so it struggled to get in full swing. During these 140 days 66,000 men were injured and 20,000 of which died. Also as Wilson said “ his missions were too big plus he dug his trenches too wide and too deep” so took even longer to commit to the fight itself.
Haig knew people would lose their lives each day and each plan. He knew the number of casualties would build up each day as he sent the men over the top. Haig was determined so despite bad weather carried on with the campaign. I think is another very good reason Haig should be called a donkey. In my opinion I think he should have pulled back, as the bad weather wasn’t going to help the men to see but make it worse, so the men could have just well shot themselves as when they went out there any range of things could have happened, they could have drowned in a puddle or impaled themselves upon the barbed wire or even just have been shot clear dead. I think Haig was so determined to win that he didn’t consider the amount of men he was losing to the Germans.
Laffin said, “he didn’t understand technology.” So this implies he never used it to his advantage whereas Wilson said, “he liked technology.” But Haig must have liked technology despite what Laffin said as on the first day the tank was on order Haig order 1100 tanks.
Haig also was a good commander after making his mistakes as he started to realise you should think small. So instead Haig made his targets from big to small attacks. This made the war easier to win. As they could take the Germans section by section. Also after many lessons Haig got many artillery supplies when it was at its best which was 1918.
The amount of lose of life wasn’t just down to Haig entirely on his own it was also the lack of technology. Also Haig kept the same plan as the people who were at the front line kept reporting to Haig that one more pushes and they’d break through so Haig did as they said but the problem was they kept saying so eventually he decided to change his plan. Haig when he was young and at military school was told never to retreat no mater what so this could be a reason why Haig kept his campaign going even through times of bad weather conditions.
Later the British army came under the control of the French so Haig had to do as they commanded him and his men to do. So if they told Haig to retreat he would have to retreat.
Haig eventually learnt that to win you needed lots of artillery and weapons. Plus high technology and the army needed to be professional. So Haig eventually made a flexible army.
Later on the people and the government wanted to fire Haig but couldn’t as there was no one to replace him. So luckily he managed to keep his job and eventually made us win the war.
I think the most important point overall for the comment to be unfair would be my first one, despite the fact that Haig’s tactics cost many lives he was the one who lead us to win the greatest military victory recorded. I think this as otherwise if he hadn’t we wouldn’t be speaking English or may not even exist and live in the free world we do today. But my most important overall reason for the statement to be fair would be that he knew that his plan day after day would make many men injured or killed. I think this, as he never changed his plan for the first 140-145 days within which 66,000 men were injured 20,000 of which were killed. My answer to the question I can not decide as it could be fair and unfair. It depends on the way you look at it. So I looked at both sides as I could not chose between the two. So YES and NO. (Both)
By Daniel Shand, 9w2 9PF (930 words)
