Haig himself had a big effect on his military decisions. He was a stubborn man, “silent, humourless and reserved.” He stuck rigidly to battle plans regardless of the facts. Haig often received poor information about his battles so this could be an alternative reason. His attitude towards soldiers was as though they weren’t actually humans but were just slaves serving him. He always comments on the soldiers’ moral during Source E. “the men are in splendid spirits” “Our troops are in wonderful spirits and are full of confidence.” This may well be written because of his unending optimism. This may also be due to the poor information received however we may not be able to take source E as reliable as although written by Haig himself, it may have been for publication rather than personal accounts.
Haig himself was a successful commander as he won the war so cannot be described as unsuccessful. We can see from Source G that he thought that he would win the war “Haig promised not to press the attack if it became clear that he could not attain his objectives by continuing the offensive.” His unending optimism and his stubbornness may have been the reason that he won the war, as any other general would have ended the attack if in the same position. A lot of people in recent times have criticised this method of attrition. There may well have been an alternative attack option however these people who criticise don’t actually know which attack method would have been better therefore Haig was at the time correct. We cannot however say that he was the best man for the job as another man may well have done a better job than Haig himself achieved.
Regarding Haig’s battle plans, we have to look at whether attrition was the best method of attack. At the time no other methods were advised however it can be argued that Haig should have used modern technology to its full potential. He still thought that the cavalry was the key element to victory in aspects of breaking the defensive line. Of course this did not work which proves that his methods are slightly old fashioned. His intelligence can also be questioned because of this point and he is described to have an “inability to recognise defeat” which can be added to questioning his intelligence.
We must also consider Haig’s relationship with the Prime Minister, Lloyd George. Source G, an extract from the memoirs of Lloyd George, tells us a considerable amount about their relationship. We can observe from this source that even George himself thought they were “Blunderers”. His only justification being that “Haig promised not to press the attack if it became clear he could not attain his objectives by continuing the offensive”. Although in theory during some points of the war, surely it appeared as though he would not have been able to obtain his objectives, such as during the Somme.
There are many controversial views of Haig, for and against his success. This makes it hard to make a final conclusion about the issue in hand. His character had a lot to do with his decisions in the war so the failures could be blamed on him. We also have to take into account the fact that he was successful and won the war. The consequences for carrying on the attack are seen in Source H, “the abandonment of Verdun to its fate and the breakdown of co-operation with the French.” This would have almost definitely meant a huge blow to the war efforts and would most probably meant defeat. This justifies Haig’s decision to press on with the attack. We can also look at the factor that Haig could not grasp modern methods, which meant that the battles could have been won quickly with minimal casualties and efficient success. Source K gives a very balanced and valid conclusion on the subject. “Blaming Haig the individual for the failings of the British war effort is putting too much of a burden of guilt on one man.” I agree with this statement and come to my conclusion that I disagree with the issue in question and conclude that no, there is not sufficient evidence in just these sources to justify the view point however it can be said that the evidence here gives a reasonably good argument for the statement.
