Why Was Haig Important In Ww1

The different interpretations I will discuss are John Terraine’s, Alan Clarke’s and Lloyd George’s. These views of Haig may have changed over time due to the political affiliation of the historian, the time period that the historian wrote in and general bias.

The soldier-writer Charles Carrington said, “The Somme battle raised the morale of the British Army. Although we did not win a decisive victory there was what matters most,a definite and growing sense of superiority, man to man…We were quite sure we had got the German beat.” (M.Brown ,”Somme where in France”,History today,July 2006,Vol. 56 Issue 7,pp22-4)

Another source which supports the interpretation that British generals were incompetent is source B1. John Laffin worked as a tour guide in Australia. His parents both served witht he Australians in Gallipoli and France as nursing cops. Even though he didn’t have a history degree, he was a military historian who earned his living taking people on battlefield tours. He researched the war from the soldier’s viewpoint and wrote a successful history book titled “British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One” – a very emotive polemic title - which released to the public in 2003. The book aims to expose the guilt of ‘uncaring and stupid’ generals. The passage from the book says that Haig and other stupid generals must be blamed for ‘wilful blunders and wicked butchery’ and that there can never be forgiveness for their ‘sheer incompetence’. This source lacks reliability as it has been written in confidence with other sources he has researched online. Laffin only presents one side of the argument and doesn’t discuss the situation in Verdun. The passage of the book was written in 2003 – 80 years later from World War 1. However, his job as a tour guide in battlefields gives him an advantage over other historians. This source is supported by other historians (B8 an B1) and soldiers (B2). This interpretation is contradicted by sources like (B14).

The British launched The Battle of the Somme to achieve two objectives. The first and most important goal was to relieve pressure on the French Army at Verdun, and the second was to inflict as heavy a loss as possible on the German Armies. The Battle of the Somme had to be fought to save the French Army from the crucifixion of Verdun. The head of the French Army, General Fock, and some leading British commanders did not believe this battle would help, but political masters in London and Paris supported the campaign. For many years The Battle of the Somme received much criticism for the way the battle was fought based on the number of casualties.

The British High Command were less enthusiastic about machine gun technology, supposedly considering the weapon too "unsporting", and they lagged behind the Germans in adopting the weapon. In 1915 the Machine Gun Corps was formed to train and provide sufficient heavy machine gun teams. To match demand, production of the Vickers machine gun was contracted to firms in the USA. By 1917, every company in the British forces was also equipped with four light Lewis machine guns, which significantly enhanced their

These machines we're made because trench warfare was slow and unpredictable, because of sneak attacks, just waiting for time to shoot seemed very slow too them. Tanks we're able to drag barbed wire away with an grappling hook or also to flatten barbed wire so that the soldiers couldn't cross it. The first tanks we're difficult to maneuver mostly because of thick mud and uneven grounds of the Western Front. The tanks we're also hot and very small as well as cramped. The idea for the tanks came from studying farm

The first day of the battle of the Somme was a dreadful scene but a victory for the Germans.According to Document B: George Coppard (British soldier) ,it states that ,” Hundreds of dead,many of the British 37th Brigade..Quite as many died on the enemy wire as on the ground,like a fish caught in the net...The Germans faith in the wire had paid off.” This evidence shows that a lot of the British army had died due to the German’s barbed wire and as a result is was an horrendous scene to look at.Also written in Document C: Ottis Lais(German soldier),it states that,”As the destructive British shell rushed towards our artillery which was firing courageously..the british keep charging forward...Despite the fact that hundreds are already lying dead

The battle of the Somme, intended to end the war that year, had ambitious objectives, it was significant for failing to achieve almost all of these. One of these was Beaumont Hamel, a fortified village behind the German lines. The Battle plan called for the village to be taken on the first day. The fact that the village was not taken until the very end of the battle on the 13th of November, illustrates how much the plan failed. Demonstrating the level to which the plan failed Private Anthony Stacey reports that this was a death trap for our boys as the enemy just set the sights of their machine guns on the gaps in the barbed wire and fired . Another objective, Serre, was not taken at all. In fact, the British staff were so unaware of modern weapons, that they had cavalry ready to attack after the infantry broke through. This is significant as it shows how inexperienced the British army was when it came to trench warfare. Had the staff understood the trench tactics better, they would not have

The Battle of the Somme epitomizes the harsh realities of trench warfare for the Allies and represents the negligent battle planning and technological advancements that are associated with the stalemate of World War One. Trench warfare was common across the Western Front, with similar strategies being employed by both opposing sides. Sir Douglas Haig, one of the British coordinators for the Somme offensive is blamed with an offensive strategy destined for failure. The British offensive, an utter failure, resulted in a stalemate, which was common throughout World War One. The British development of the tank, while it eventually ended the horrendous stalemate, was ineffectively used during the Somme.

In “The Face of Battle,” John Keegan analyzed the experiences of the individuals involved in the battles of the Somme and Waterloo; he thoroughly examined the advancements of industrialization in warfare and battle strategy between 1815 and 1916. The industrialization of modern warfare during the battle of the Somme, while progressive, was very much still in its experimental stages. While the inventions during this time period were later evolved into much more useful products, it seems as though the organized warfare in Waterloo was much more effective; the soldier’s mediocre training for the Somme was obvious in the chaotic events that occurred. While each battle was disastrous in their own ways, industrialization certainly improved means of warfare and the experience that the soldiers had.

After the high number of deaths in the Somme offensive, Arthur Currie, a senior Canadian officer, and British general, Julian Byng, wanted to ensure victory by rehearsing everything. As Currie states, “Thorough preparation must lead to success. Neglect nothing.” As a result, positions and roles were meticulously reviewed, men specialized their weapons, and new aerial photos created improved maps. Everything was timed perfectly to the

Having proposed that military history has been failing in its duty, Keegan then continues to demonstrate how it should be done. The battles of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme are the main interests of the book; these battles took place centuries apart and all involved British armies. He examines, in detail, which aspects of war changed or remain constant between the three battles. Keegan brilliantly and

Keegan chooses the three well documented campaigns of Agincourt in 1415, Waterloo in 1815, and Somme in 1916 to answer the question of his thesis: To find out how men who are faced with the threat of single-missile and multiple-missile

The battle of the Somme was the battle fought in World War 1. The battle of the Somme began when the French army required help from the British army to help fight the battle, Battle of Verdun, against the Germans. Britain went to the River Somme which distracted Germany so the German army divided in order to fight the Battle of the Somme and the Battle of Verdun at the same time. The battle of the Somme was fought by the British Empire against the German Empire. The British Empire was led by General Douglas Haig. General Douglas Haig was the senior officer and he led the western front from the late 1915 until the end of the war. General Douglas Haig served as the commander of the British Army for 3 years (1918-1921). Sadly 10 years after the war Haig passed away. The phrase ‘butcher of the Somme’ was given to General Douglas Haig. The phrase is given to General Douglas Haig as many people believe that he was responsible for the deaths of many innocent soldiers. The phrase ‘butcher of the Somme’ means how many soldiers died during the battle of the Somme due to the tactics General Douglas Haig used. Is General Douglas Haig a hero or butcher?

The First World War witnessed an appalling number of casualties. Due partly to this fact, some historians, developed the perception that commanders on both sides dependence on only one disastrous approach to breaking the stalemate. These historians attributed the loss of life to the reliance on soldiers charging across no-man’s land only to be mowed down by enemy machineguns. The accuracy of this, however, is fallacious since a variety of tactics existed on both sides. The main reason for battlefield success and eventual victory came from the transformation of battlefield tactics; nevertheless, moral played a major role by greatly affecting the development of new tactics and the final outcome of the war.