Does General Haig Deserve To Be Remembered As ‘The Butcher Of The Somme’?
On the 28th of July 1914 Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia as revenge for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and several other things, but the assassination was the trigger. By the 4th of August all the major European powers were at war, the Triple Entente; France, Britain and Russia and the Triple Alliance; Germany, Austria and Italy. The war on the western front had reached stalemate in November 1914 and trenches stretched hundreds of miles across east France. Generals worked hard on many new strategies to break the deadlock. One of these generals was the British General Haig. In 1916 Haig wanted to perform an attack on the Germans which would defeat them once and for all. He planned a seven day shell bombardment on the German trenches. Then send infantry to capture the remains of their trenches. And finally send a charge of cavalry through those trenches to the free land on the other side. Of course, this proved to be easier said than done. It may have been an imaginative plan but the Prime Minister at the time, David Lloyd George, when on to say in 1935 that ‘He was incapable of planning vast campaigns on the scale demanded on so immense a battlefield.’ Implying this plan of Haig’s was naïve verging on stupid. Lloyd George’s quote however was based on the common knowledge of the time: that the plan had failed. But should Haig have foreseen the devastation his attack would cause or was this just hidden by his arrogance?
The Term Paper on Schlieffen Plan War German Front
The Schlieffen Plan is commonly - though misleading y - identified with the German western offensive at the start of the First World War in August 1914, which began as a campaign of rapid movement but ended in deadlock and trench warfare. The plan is generally seen as a desperate gamble almost certain to fail, and its recklessness is counted as part of Germany's war guilt - the plan held out the ...
So what did happen? Well, the Germans were expecting an attack, therefore were as prepared as they could be. They put up extra barbed wire and dug deep shelters beneath their trenches. When the British guns started firing the Germans simply went into their shelters and when they stopped, they quickly went up to their machine gun posts. Where all they had to do was point their guns at the rows of approaching soldiers. If they were still walking the British soldiers had to find a way through the barbed wire, where thousands more men were shot trying to find a way through. But Haig did not want to stop the battle; he admitted their lack of progress in a report saying: ‘It is true that the amount of ground we have gained is not great.’ But went on to say: ‘A considerable portion of the German soldiers are now practically beaten men’ clearly in his head if they kept pushing then the Germans would eventually surrender. Every time the British attacked the Germans counter attacked and forced them to retreat. This went on for 140 days. The longer the fighting went on, the worse the conditions became. Shellfire churned up the land into a sea of mud. When the autumn rains came the mud dissolved into slime metres deep in places. We should empathise with the thousands of soldiers who died every day in the trenches and also the ones who did this day after day wading through the corpses and maggots under strict orders of Haig. By November the British made their final great attack, which this time was successful! They managed to capture the village of Beaumont Hamel and take thousands of German prisoners. Haig must have been somewhat relieved. However the terribly unfortunate weather conditions forced Haig to call off the battle. One can’t help but wonder, if the weather hadn’t been as it was, and the British soldiers had ‘won’ as it were, would people’s opinions of Haig been different?
Haig and his few loyal supporters, for example A Lieutenant in the Yorkshire Light Infantry who wrote a letter to the Daily Express saying: ‘During the first half of the war, our leadership was flawless – perfect. There was an obvious genius for pure general ship which has made Sir Douglas Haig fit to rank with any general of past or modern times.’ This may be a primary source but the newspaper may have twisted his words to fit a particular article or just to make an interesting story. Anyway Haig and his few loyal supporters might say that the British did win the Battle of the Somme backing this up with the proof that the Germans had lost approximately 680,000 men and had retreated 10 kilometres from their trenches. One of the German generals admitted later that this broke the heart of the German Army. “We were completely exhausted”, he wrote, “if the war lasted, our defeat seemed certain.” Also the British had helped to save Verdun by keeping a million German soldiers occupied on the Somme. However the opposing argument and what many agreed with is that whoever ‘won’ Britain still lost thousands of men, leaving families, workplaces and the country grieving. 420,000 British soldiers and 200,000 French soldiers had been killed, almost as many as the Germans when added together.
The Essay on Paul Revere British Soldiers Minutemen
Dr. Joseph Warren learned of the British plans and sent Paul Revere to alert John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Paul Revere promised to warn them when the British soldiers started to march. Since he wasn't sure that he would be able to get out of Boston with the message, he made plans to alert people by putting lanterns in the Old North Church steeple. He would light one lantern if the British were ...
There were/are many different interpretations of Haig’s role in the battle of the Somme. One was that he never even fought or took part in the battle, as Fred Pearson, a private on the Western Front said: ‘He lived almost 50 kilometres behind the line and that’s about as near as he got. I don’t think he knew what a trench was like.’ This source is quite reliable because it came from someone who had been on the western front but the ‘I don’t think’ part makes you immediately question his certainty also he may be exaggerating as he wrote it for a newspaper. Also in source 6, a cartoon from the British satirical magazine Punch showed the major-general addressing a solider:
Major-General “I want you to understand that there is a difference between a rehearsal and the real thing. There are three essential differences: first, the absence of the enemy. Now what is the second difference?”
Soldier “The absence of the General, Sir.”
This also implies people believed that Haig was never there. Secondly, people thought that Douglas Haig was either just plain stupid and unfit to be a General with such power or pure evil. ‘He was incapable of planning vast campaigns on the scale demanded on so immense a battlefield’ a quote from David Lloyd George’s War Memoirs suggesting Haig’s incapability. Also John Laffin, writing in his history book, British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One (2003) said: ‘However stupid they might have been, however much they were the product of a system which obstructed enterprise, they knew what they were doing.’ So Laffin said he was stupid but also suggests that Haig knew of the consequences but continued anyway like only an evil, twisted man could. This was wrote in 2003 so is not very reliable also the title of Laffin’s book tells us that it is only going to make Haig seem this way therefore is biased. And finally the controversial opinion that Haig did what was right for Queen and country. Alfred Duff Cooper wrote Haig’s biography and said: ‘Haig believed from the first that the German line could be broken and it was. In moral stature, Haig was a giant’, however this source is extremely biased therefore unreliable, because Cooper was a family friend of the Haigs and of course he and the Haig family wanted to make the general appear as good as possible. S. Warburton, writing in an article in the history magazine, Hindsight, which takes a fresh look at historical issues (1998) said: ‘One argument goes that he was, ultimately, victorious and, even if he had been replaced would there have been anyone better for the job?’ clearly Warburton had considered the evidence but the newspaper he is writing for obviously encourages their historians/journalists to fish around for unique theories which can verge on silly. Finally in source 14, the photograph shows crowds welcoming Haig home from France, showing that at the time he had gained respect and supporters.
The Term Paper on American Revolutionary War General
The American Revolution was the course by which numerous American colonies became an autonomous nation. It involved novel ideas grounded on republicanism and needed success in a long battle with Britain. Following the fighting that raged for nearly a year, the United States declared independence in 1776, as an autonomous country and established a coalition with France that leveled the naval and ...
Many people viewed Haig as the Butcher of the Somme because so many people died in the Battle and Haig was the one to declare it, inevitably holding him responsible for those deaths. Firstly, P. Smith, a private in the 1st Border regiment fighting on the Somme, writing in his diary (July 1916) wrote: ‘It was pure bloody murder. Douglas Haig should have been hung, drawn and quartered for what he did on the Somme. The cream of British manhood was shattered in less than six hours’ this is a primary source, it doesn’t tell us anything new about Haig but it does tell us that Smith has a strong opinion that Haig was evil and deserved the title of The Butcher Of The Somme, it appears to me that it was written with a lot of anger and hate-clearly Smith wasn’t considering the other arguments, this is the only negative aspect about the source. Secondly, A.J.P.Taylor, a socialist historian, writing in a specialist history book, The First World War, (1963) wrote: ‘Idealism perished on the Somme. The enthusiastic volunteers were enthusiastic no longer. They had lost faith in their cause, in their leaders, in everything except loyalty to their fighting comrades. The war ceased to have any purpose; it went on for its own sake, as a contest of endurance.
The Essay on Wage War United Nations People
Christina Blackmon Prenger Paper No. 4 Draft No. 1 Questioning U. S. Moral Authority to Wage War against Iraq Maggie Gallagher has evidently stated her thoughts and influence on the arguments she has faced regarding the United States having the right to morally wage war against another country that has such an apparent rancor for our own country, such as Iraq. There have been many anti-war ...
The Somme set the picture by which future generations saw the First World War: brave, helpless soldiers; blundering, obstinate generals; nothing achieved. After the Somme men decided that the war would go on for ever.’ This is a secondary source but Taylor is a historian who has obviously looked at all the evidence and other sources and his conclusion in this extract tells us not about Haig in particular but about Generals obligations as well as about the War atmosphere, which I wouldn’t believe he knew anything about because he wasn’t there but the book is called the First World War so possibly it was written to make it seem as dramatic as possible, in order to make the book interesting and stand out, of course! In my opinion this is an understandable analysis yet lacks proof of his knowingness of the events which were to come.
On the other hand, some might argue that Haig doesn’t deserve to be remembered as the Butcher of the Somme because he did manage to break through the German trenches, kill thousands of them and play a large part in Britain’s success. Also, he didn’t know of the consequences, this may have made him stupid but it also means that he didn’t do it intentionally, and a butcher is aware of his actions and consequences, so maybe this term is unfair. Firstly, from an article by military historian John Keegan published in The Daily Mail (7th November 1998): ‘The belief that the generals were responsible for the holocaust quickly took root and has spread. There is a large literature of condemnation, including the scripts of plays − Oh What a Lovely War! − And films.
The British generals were no worse than those of any other combatant nation. All Great War generals faced an insoluble problem; how to break a strong front of trenches, barbed wire, machine-guns and artillery with the weak instrument of human flesh.
Blame Haig as we will, his soldiers proved ready to follow him to the end. They did so because the national will to sustain the war effort remained strong.
The Term Paper on World War Forces Germans German
America Vs. The Soviets: Who Really America Vs. The Soviets: Who Really Won The War World War two officially started in September 3 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. The Western Democracies of Britain and France allied and declared war on Germany when Poland was attacked. This was the immediate cause of the war. Britain and France formed an appeasement policy with Hitler not to take over any more ...
Britain was a different society at the time, a nation that was patriotic to a degree unimaginable today. The humblest Briton took pride in his country’s possession of the history’s greatest empire. Haig was, as he himself believed with religious intensity, actually doing the people’s will in continuing to direct the war. We should remember that this November when we commemorate their suffering.’ This is a secondary source and as it says at the end was wrote obviously because a time of grieving was upon the nation, ‘this November when we commemorate their suffering’, so I think this was wrote in a positive tone praising all generals and soldiers so there was no uproar as it would have shown disrespect and been impolite. It gives us new information on the weapons the Germans used on the front and about Haig’s religious beliefs, Keegan may have been a historian, a military historian even but this extract is untrustworthy as it seems to be quite soppy and naive. Finally, from the reports of Sir Douglas Haig, (30th June / 1st July 1916): ‘The men are in splendid spirits. Several have said that they have never before been so instructed and informed of the nature of the operation before them.
The barbed wire has never been so well cut, not the artillery preparation so thorough. All the commanders are full of confidence. Very successful attack this morning… All went like clockwork… The battle is going very well for us and already the Germans are surrendering freely. The enemy is so short of men that he is collecting them from all parts of the line. Our troops are in wonderful spirits and full of confidence.’ This is a valid source for finding out about Haig because it is by him, we can learn that he was either extremely good at his job therefore proud to report their successes or was lying through his teeth. If the second analysis is true we cannot trust this source at all but suppose the first were to be true we can learn that the British troops were strong, happy and confident and the Germans were near defeat. But it may have just been written to assure/impress the British Government (most of which disliked Haig (especially the PM)).
I think that this view of Haig is an extremely forgiving one, but the unavoidable fact is he killed all those people!
The Essay on Million Years Galapagos People Germans
In both books I have read: John Stienbeck's "The Moon Is Down" and Kurt Vonnegut's "Galapagos," the main characters are escape great danger. Both stories describe how tough times can get and how the characters have to fight just to survive and make it through each day. In "The Moon is Down," for the people who inhabit the small Norwegian town, the struggle begins when they are invaded during WWII. ...
In conclusion therefore, I think that the interpretation that Haig was just doing his job is more valid, because the evidence provided tells me that Haig was scared-as he never fought-and maybe stupid as the plan seemed naïve, because the Germans knew what was going on all the time. So he didn’t do it intentionally and he did kill many Germans and who knows what would have happened if he didn’t chose to take these influential actions? I think Haig was called a butcher mainly by those who suffered greatly from the battle i.e. the Government and families. So we must emphasise with them, he was also called this because he killed so many people like they were clay birds and he was in the end responsible. I think Haig was just doing his job because he had to give orders whether they were the right ones or not to provide the soldiers with confidence and belief in the plan. Obviously the men had faith in him as a Lieutenant in the Yorkshire Light Infantry once said: ‘our leadership was flawless – perfect.’
People, historians in particular, may come to these conclusions about Haig because of the primary evidence, I think their end analysis after looking at pretty much the same evidence depends on however forgiving the man is. However, there isn’t much solid evidence to prove that Haig was a cold-blooded, murdering butcher, just endless opinions. With the exception of source 3, this shows the list of dead and wounded suffered by the Sheffield Pals Battalion on the first day of the Somme. The Sheffield Pals suffered 548 casualties on the first day of the battle. So that is one of the reasons why I came to the conclusion that Haig was just doing his job, I wouldn’t base my analysis on evidence rooted from hatred of the only person the people could find to blame for their losses. So to conclude the conclusion: Haig was just doing his job as a General. The End.
