supports the opinion that Haig was an incompetent leader because it explains he was unable to adapt to the new type of warfare and weaponry. Haig was a specialist in cavalry warfare and thought machine guns were overrated. This source tells us that Haig was unable to adapt to the situation because he did not plan ahead. He was so confident with this original plan that he never thought of having a backup plan if something went wrong. Haig was the type of general that specialised in quick attacks and was not prepared for such a long term battle. We know that Haig was under a lot of pressure from the British public, especially politicians, however it doesn’t mention that Haig was forced to attack in a certain way; we have to consider that this war is not like any other war that has happened; it was the first time that artillery had been used. Therefore Haig was put in a position that when he ordered the soldiers to attack, he simply used the same methods that had won him battles when fighting with cavalry. Haig during the war also had some disputes with Lloyd George, which may have tainted Lloyd’s opinion. By 1955 different evidence had come to light about what had gone on in the war. In this source Lloyd George is defending and deflecting his own fault to the Somme and placing the blame on Haig, supporting the view that he is an incompetent leader.
Many people argue that the generals were unprepared for the battle and were unorganised; therefore the general’s failure to have an organised plan is the reason for the high mortality rate. Haig’s tactics were based on personal grudge rather than sound military judgements. This view is shown and supported in source B5, the statistics show us a small section of the death count on the first day from privates with the last name of ‘B’. It only gives us 27 soldiers that died with the last name beginning with ‘B’ this suggests that the majority of people died on the 1st day of the Somme. It also suggests that the generals were unprepared and planning was unorganised and not thought through. We can infer that this percentage of death was not the same everyday. Inferring that high ranking soldiers were kept back from the front line.
Many historians believe that Haig was selfish and stubborn for not changing his tactics and allowing the war to proceed purely for the endurance of the soldiers and his own personal gain. Source B8 shows and supports the fact that Haig’s stubbornness was partly to blame for his incompetent leading. It is written by an extremely world reunion historian who is incredibly respected. His histories are based on expensive and extensive research. His abilities to understanding and conveying historic events are very accurate. However he is a socialist historian who is anti established and anti war so this source is slightly tinted as his personal feelings are going to be slightly bias, in this source he explains that the soldiers were brave for sacrificing their life’s to the foolishness of the generals. He describes the soldiers as brave, helpless men; As opposed to the obstinate generals. Again highlighting the famous quote “lambs leading the lions”. The generals offered no inspiration or encouragement, so the soldier’s only loyalty was to the other privates. He explains that the war went on far longer than it needed to. Possibly because generals like Haig were too stubborn and were not willing to change their tactics. They wanted to use methods that had won them previous battle’s to win this war. Suggesting that Haig was selfish, willing to lose a significant amount of men because of his blind confidence that his tactics and plan would work. This source is extremely supportive as we know that because Haig was un willing to change his tactics thousands of men died. Therefore this source supports the view that Haig was an incompetent leader.
Although many people saw Haig as an incompetent leader, there were many people that thought it was unfair to blame only Haig as a war so big could not just be down the fault of one person, after all they did win the war. This view is supported in source 12, it is the first source that supports the view that Haig was not an incompetent leader. It is written by a respected historian who is known for his factual and detailed research. This source is written in the main feature of the paper remembering the end of the war so we can trust that it is reliable. He is acknowledging that a certain culture started after the war was over. There were many films, plays and stories written about the war which altered people’s thoughts and opinions on the generals. Some people were happy and wanted to celebrate that the war was over, but others needed someone to blame for their sons, fathers, brothers or friends dying, to gain some kind of closure from the significant amounts of deaths. This source tries to defend Haig and explains that all generals were the same; it was unfair to single Haig out. He says of course the generals made mistakes; he tries to explain that it wasn’t the general’s fault but rather that it was the new type of warfare that the general’s struggled to adapt to and they were forced to make decisions they never had to make in a war before. Although this source is useful in telling us that the generals had to make difficult decisions, it doesn’t tell us what these decisions were or why they caused so many people to think that the generals were incompetent. He also tries to make the point that the soldiers must have supported Haig as they followed Haig’s orders- however we know that this is not the case because soldiers took orders from whoever was in command with no choice. He explains that Haig was under extreme pressure from the British public wanting the soldiers to push through the front line, therefore Haig obviously proceeded to give extreme and harsh orders that he thought would do this. However the orders and decisions he made were to win the war, he was not thinking about the deaths. This source explains that to blame one man was not right and unfair. This source tries to make us empathise with Haig and appreciate the pressures he was going through. It was the wars fault not the generals. This source supports that Haig was competent generals who had to make decisions and did so well considering the unfamiliar situation he was in.
Also many people believe that another reason for the significant number of deaths was because Haig was never at the frontline and therefore he had to rely on communications of other generals or officers rather than see the battle himself and make his own visual choices on what he was witnessing. Haig did not have a relationship with the soldiers as he was never near the frontline. From reading sources written by soldiers, I gather that Haig was not the type of general to be encouraging or interact with the soldiers, and maybe that is why he wasn’t hesitant in sending thousands of men to battle. These views are shown and supported in source 13, it is extremely useful to us as it is a personal account from Haig’s diary. It gives us a clear idea of what Haig’s attitude and thoughts were before the attack. We know that on the 1st day 60,000 had been injured and killed. Source 13B also tells us that the solders had been told that the German lines had been bombarded with artillery therefore it would be an easy win and effortless to get through to the front line. This is why Haig explains that the soldiers were in such high spirits. However again we know that the men were not in good spirits, 50% of them were either missing, dead, or dying. Haig explains that the soldiers are talking saying that he has planned everything perfectly. However he is not talking to real soldiers in the trenches, he is talking to officers who have more respect for Haig. Also we know Haig’s plan was “so instructed” it meant that there was no flexibility. If something went wrong there was no adaptation plans, the soldiers had no further orders given if things didn’t go according to plan. The aim of the artillery was to rip the barbwire and kill the trenches. Haig says that the barbwire was “perfectly cut” However resent research shows us that the 6 day bombardment made the wire worse. This tells us that he was given false information. We know that it was the worst day in warfare history so the entire report was completely false. This also tells us that the communication must have been down. The reports were wrong and Haig was simply too far away, he wasn’t near the front line and so he couldn’t see what was going on, that they were actually losing the battle. Haig wasn’t lying about any of this information, he genuinely thought they were winning and they were going to break through the German lines. Haig is being fed wrong information so he would do what any other general would do if they thought they were near victory which is why he is sent more men in.
At the time Haig was put in a very negative light after the war. People of higher power used Haig as an escape goat and this seemed to offer a feeling of relief. People were able to take their anger and hurt out on someone, giving them a sense of closure. Many people think Haig was a very competent leader and it was unfair to blame the loss of lives on just one person. This view is shown and supported in Source 14. It was written by a friend of Haig’s family, Alfred Cooper. He is a military soldier and has been asked by the family to write a biography about Haig. Obviously the family would want Haig to be written in a positive light after his death, respecting and praising his time spent devoted to military life. Alfred explains that Haig was given an unfair trial and that the public shouldn’t believe everything they read in the media. The war was too complex and people like Lloyd George the Prime Minister at the time used propaganda to avert the blame from them, place it on Haig and make him look like an Incompetent leader. Alfred reminds us that given the unique circumstances of the new type of warfare Haig was able to adapt exceptionally well as he was also one of the first generals to use tanks in the war. Although this source has some issues of the reliability in the fact it was written for a book about the positive things in Haig’s life and written by a friend who obviously respected Haig’s decisions in the war, it highlights the point that are over looked. People who were superior to Haig like George Lloyd were able to manipulate the public with propaganda. Therefore influencing them that Haig was to blame even though this source shows clear points that Haig was in fact a competent leader.
All the sources give valid reasons that British generals like Haig were incompetent leaders and were not. However I think sources 11, 12, 13, and 14 all give me compelling statements that confirm the interpretation that Haig was not an incompetent leader thus, after analysing all 8 sources I believe that Haig was not an incompetent leader. I think that he was put in a unique situation that no other general had ever been in. It was the first war that introduced artillery and tanks. The war was far too complex for anyone to criticise and understand the strain and pressure Haig was in. Of course Haig made mistakes as would anyone. I think he did have a huge lack of planning and organization; he was blinded with the victory of previous battles. This is why I think he was convinced that his original plan of attack and the use of cavalry would instantly break the British troops through the German lines. Although I think Haig did have a huge role to play in the horrendous death count, I believe that Haig was targeted by the media and the British public for the person to blame. I think people felt relief when knowing they had a person to hate and blame for the death of the soldiers and if anyone was to blame the evidence pointed to Haig.
