The reason behind this hatred lay in Haig’s tactics during the Battle of the Somme, which was intended to take pressure off the French at Verdun and wear down the German army. He was a commander in 1900, in the Boer War, and so his tactics were simply to send wave upon wave of troops, claiming that “success in battle depends mainly on grit and determination”. This eventually resulted in 450,000 British men dead for a maximum advance of twelve kilometres. This, understandably, caused unrest both at the front line and at home. A similar situation occurred two years later at Passchendaele, in which he continued to throw troops forward long after his target was no longer tactically viable.
Source D tries to see reasons behind Haig’s tactics, and is made up of opinions on the man. From looking at Haig’s own journal and other sources, this source seems reliable. It talks about that perhaps “his greatest failing was his constant, misplaced optimism.” From Haig’s journal, he commented that “the men are in splendid spirits…full of confidence” the day before, saying also that “the wire has never been so well cut”, which is simply untrue. The wire had not been cut, and hundreds of men were slaughtered on it.
On the first day of the battle, in which almost 20,000 people died (the biggest casualties on one day that the British army has ever seen), he said that it all “went like clockwork” and that the troops are in “wonderful spirits and full of confidence” In fact, that day has been said by modern historians to have “left a scar on the British people forever”. The writer of Source D, a modern historian, states his opinion that it was “probably this inability to recognize defeat that led to his continuing attacks on the Somme”, an opinion that I am inclined to agree with after looking at Haig’s own comments.
Source E, written by a modern historian, tries to give a balanced approach to Haig. It states that “if the test of a successful general is whether or not he wins wars, then Haig must be judged a success.” It is certainly true that Haig commanded many successful advances at Amiens, Albert, and sent help to block the final real German offensive at Marne. It is undisputed that his victories led to the final allied breakthrough and the end of the war. Therefore, it could be judged that despite the hatred of his men and despite his bizarre optimism and Stone Age tactics, he still won us the war. However, Source E’s final point says that “although some people criticise the cost of his methods, they do not offer other methods.” This is very debatable. There are several things Haig could have done to reduce the mass loss of life. Firstly, and most obviously, he could have removed the bombardment. It made the wire worse, churned up no-man’s land making it impossible to walk through, and warned the Germans of the attack. This point was proven in 1918 at Amiens: this attack was not began by bombardment, and so was astoundingly successful (to begin with). Some have also suggested that he should have simply stopped the attack; the Germans advance had already been halted. He could have also used similar tactics that the Germans used at Verdun – instead of masses of men going over the top, small amounts of well armed, well trained men would pick open weak points in the line.
So, in conclusion, it is possible to support the opening statement from the sources – although it is also quite possible to judge the opposite.
