Part of a report written in December 1916, sent by Haig to the British Cabinet
about the aftermath of the Battle of the Somme
To a degree, Haig was correct. There is evidence that the German soldiers were disheartened by the Battle of the Somme. Also although they did not give ground at the time – when the battle had finished the German commanders pulled back to a more easily-defendable position: ‘the Hindenburg Line’.
It can be argued that, although not defeated at the Battle of the Somme, the Germans from that moment on knew they could not win the war.
“He was a painstaking professional soldier with a sound intelligence of secondary quality. He had the courage and stubbornness of his race. But he did not possess the necessary breadth of vision or imagination to plan a great campaign against some of the ablest generals of the war. I never met a man in a high position who seemed to me so utterly devoid of imagination.” Lloyd George, War Memoirs (1928)
As an executive commander there has hardly been a finer defensive general; in contrast, among those who have gained fame as offensive generals none perhaps have made worse errors… His mind was dominated by the instinct of method, where he failed was in the instinct of surprise – originality of conception, fertility of resource, receptivity in ideas. In his qualities and defects he was the very embodiment of the national character and the army tradition. Liddell Hart, Reputations (1928)
General Douglas Haig, battle orders issued just before the Battle of the Somme (May 1916)
The First, Second, and Third Armies will take steps to deceive the enemy as to the real front of attack, to wear him out, and reduce his fighting efficiency both during the three days prior to the assault and during the subsequent operations. Preparations for deceiving the enemy should be made without delay. This will be effected by means of -
(a) Preliminary preparations such as advancing our trenches and saps, construction of dummy assembling trenches, gun emplacements, etc.
(b) Wire cutting at intervals along the entire front with a view to inducing the enemy to man his defences and causing fatigue.
(c) Gas discharges, where possible, at selected places along the whole British front, accompanied by a discharge of smoke, with a view to causing the enemy to wear his gas helmets and inducing fatigue and causing casualties.
(d) Artillery barrages on important communications with a view to rendering reinforcements, relief, and supply difficult.
(e) Bombardment of rest billets by night.
(f) Intermittent smoke discharges by day, accompanied by shrapnel fire on the enemy's front defences with a view to inflicting loss.
(g) Raids by night, of the strength of a company and upwards, on an extensive scale, into the enemy's front system of defences. These to be prepared by intense artillery and trench-mortar bombardments.
What Ideas of Field Marshall Haig does Blackadder give?
Field Marshall Haig is also ‘playing’ with soldiers on a map preparing his plan for tomorrow. Even though this could be seen as being organized I believe it’s far from it. Haig is being very unrealistic as he begins to just sweep up soldiers and throw them over his shoulder just getting rid of them as if it is possible to just do that and there is no consequences to his actions. When Haig does this it he shows a lack of consideration to the soldiers, as if they were pawns in a game of chess rather than human beings. This also shows how Haig expects a large amount of death which would not normally be included in a plan but tried to be avoided.
Field Marshall Haig is portrayed in this scene as a very stubborn man. This is proven from the quote “not a man to change his mind”. This portrays him as an unapproachable man or maybe pointless to approach him as if he won’t acknowledge what you are really saying as what he says must always be correct.
However this could also be said to be a positive point about him as it makes him determined and shows he really knows what he’s doing and even a good leader. On the other hand, he could know what he was doing was wrong, but continue anyway because he doesn’t what to be proven wrong, as he was entirely obstinate.
He was also just sitting in his little chalet constructing his plan when he wasn’t even going to the battle himself. This is best summed up by the quote from blackadder himself “yet another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin”. This shows that they don’t think that he cares about the soldiers but just wants to win no matter what. However to lighten the atmosphere Lieutenant George is very naïve of this but he probably wouldn’t be in real life, but as Blackadder is suppose to be a comedy they have to release tension.
In conclusion Blackadder gives the impression that Haig is naive of the consequences of anything and that he doesn’t care about who dies in the process of his victory. He is also very stubborn and would ignore better suggestions than his if they were given to him.
In which ways do sources two and three disagree?
The two sources differ on three main points: perspective, whether the German forces surrendered or not and if the troops were really in high spirits and full of confidence or not.
The biggest difference is the perspective; to Haig deaths are just statistics or figures but to Coppard they are real people and possibly even friends. This really defrenciates between Haig who is just the commander (source 2), and Coppard who actually fought in the war (source 3).
This may be part of the reason as to why he says the war is going better than Coppard does. Both of the opening three words in each source sum up how different there opinions are. Haig opens with ‘very successful attack’, in contrast Coppard, perhaps a more reliable source, opens with ‘Hundreds of dead’.
This might show how either Haig does not see such vast loss of soldiers as an unsuccessful attack; or Haig even though he might believe entirely that they are not doing very well he can’t say it, he can’t say the truth. Perhaps he is hoping that if he continues to state that everything is ok then it will be and he will get the results he needs, which is very naïve of him.
Not only do the sources differ on opinion whether it was going well or not. They also disagree as to whether the Germans actually surrendered or not which could be seen as a basic fact. Although Haig may be saying that the Germans are surrendering when there not as the readers won’t know any better but plainly think that the plan is working. As that is what his report is designed for, to make the readers have faith in his plan. Coppard then questions Haig’s plan ‘How did the planners imagine the Tommie’s would get through the wire?’ and ‘Any Tommie could have told them’ This could suggest both how little thought went into the plan as it is just universal knowledge that ‘shell fire lifts wire up and drops it down’ or that Haig’s plan was never realistically going to happen but perhaps Haig is too stubborn to change it. Haig informs us that the Germans are ‘surrendering freely’ and ‘short of men’ which is a distinction between Coppards comment ‘reinforcing for months’ suggesting that there are too many so many German troops that they must have been reinforcing for a long time to get that many soldiers which is clearly inconsistent to ‘short of men’.
Coppard seems to have little faith in the plan and the leaders of it (Haig) working, and the Germans surrendering. However Haig tells us ‘troops are in wonderful spirits and full of confidence’. The fact that the troops not only are concerned about the plan but thing that it is very wrong and they are expecting die ‘imagine Tommie’s get through the wire’ this shows that he doesn’t really think it is even possible to shows how little confidence they have.
3) Source 4 and 5
These sources enlighten us to the battle being both a waste of time and lives; of good people. They also inform us of how Haig’s plan was very unrealistic and he is perhaps responsible for the mass death of over nineteen thousand soldiers in just one day. This suggests his label of ‘butcher’ is justified.
This waste of time and people is documented in both sources. The suggestion in these sources is that there was virtually no chance of the survival of these troops in the Battle of the Somme. This is most enforced in Lansdowne source by his question, ‘Can we afford to go on paying the same sort of price for the same sort of gain?’ This shows how little progress they are making and how heavily they are paying in the form of soldiers dying. Churchill’s source then confirms the futility of the battle with, ’nor are we making for any point of military importance’ and ‘terrible killing of our troops, and we have not gained in a months fighting as much ground as we were supposed to in first two hours’. This also suggests that Haig didn’t know what he was doing and had very unrealistic plans as clearly two hours and months are a very different concept of time.
Lansdowne suggests that they are losing the ‘best of the male’ generation and questions if they ‘can afford to’, showing he believes that Britain could not ‘afford’ such butchery and it shouldn’t be tolerated.
4) Was Haig a Butcher?
Finally I must come to a conclusion as to whether Haig is a ‘butcher’ or not depending on the sources and my own knowledge of him.
Haig had very difficult circumstances, as he had too much pressure on him from everyone and too many peoples’ lives in his hands. I don’t think he dealt with this very well; I do appreciate that this would be hard to do but that is a main part of his job as a commander and maybe it was the wrong decision to appoint him as commander.
With all this pressure Haig focused on his aim to win too much and then couldn’t see any of the consequences that also might come out of it. It is often said his methods were wrong, however ‘attrition was the method all sides used’ and therefore could not also be used by him if he were to achieve British aims, that is, to break stalemate. Furthermore there seems to be no logical alternative method.
However as it is documented in Blackadder, not only had he a ‘ghastly plan’, where he already knew that many would die, neither did he care about any of his soldiers and probably didn’t even think of an alternative plan, as he was too stubborn to ever change his mind. The fact that deaths were fitted into his plan and were not tried to be avoided could suggest the inhumanity of a butcher.
Churchill and Lansdowne are both very important, respected people so if they suggest he was a butcher, which they do, it is probably true. They believed that the plan was faulty. However I believe that he knew his plan would lead to a mass death rate but Haig, being very insensitive and focusing on his aim to win, didn’t care.
He could also be called a Butcher because he tricked his soldiers into a false sense of security with no idea that they were being fitted in Haig’s plan to die and that Haig didn’t think there was a high chance of them surviving.
I believe that British people would have obviously desired victory but not at any means necessary, so therefore they wouldn’t have wanted so many lives to be taken. So by killing all those people just for victory is very butcher like.
