Haig: Butcher or Scapegoat?

I'm sure the really awfully cushy situation he found himself in 10 miles behind the British lines in French manor houses was really awful. Imagine the hardships he faced! The man oversaw the single worst day in British military history; to date. 57,000 - 60,000 men wounded missing or killed. He sent waves of horses over the top; the man was stuck in the Boer War where he made another hash of things.
he wasn't faced with ideal circumstances but how many generals are?

If you want to continue this I will gladly but on another thread / PM because I don't want to derail this.

What is your opinion of Field Marshal Douglas Haig, the man who commanded British troops for most of WW1?


The thing about Haig is that you must think about the time he was in. When Haig joined the army in 1884, soldiers were still trained to fight standing in straight lines, giving volley fire and the concept of camouflage had yet to be introduced (or even really invented as we see it now). Contrast this to when Haig left in 1920; Soldiers were taught all-arms fighting, used light and heavy machine guns, used artillery support, had radios and learnt fire and manoeuvre combat alongside tanks and aircraft - you can see how much had changed.

He left the army having developed many tactics that are still in use today. He used combined arms operations to great effect at places like The Battle of Cambrai. He had developed and used the 'Bite and Hold' tactic on Messines ridge (among others), and he was one of the youngest Major-Generals in British military history.

The Somme offensive - for which he is most heavily criticized - was originally meant to be a 'Bite and Hold' operation. However, due to the French pushing more and more men and equipment into Verdun he was forced to extend the operation. The Somme actually made the Germans seriously consider suing for peace (Crown Prince Rupprech of Bavaria pushed for this as German records show).

The Somme was actually against Haig's wishes - he was effectively ordered to do it by Lloyd-George. He originally wanted a (much more likely to succeed) offensive against the ports in Flanders rather than a massive offensive. With the odds stacked against him at the Somme he did very well, although he should be criticised for continuing to push the operation after the first week or so (the casualties taken on the first day of the Somme affect British military thinking to this day).

Haig's Corps, I Corps, arguably turned the German advance at Mons in 1914 and gave the allies time to re-group and prepare for war - a crucial turning point early in the war which could otherwise have led to the fall of France.

It is a common misconception that Haig had no idea of conditions at the front as his HQ was several miles behind the lines. This is untrue. In letters to his wife and to his Corps commanders he describes the front line incredibly accurately. Furthermore, he positioned his HQ so that he could get a clear view of the entire line, rather than being stuck in one area.

Furthermore you must consider the size of WW1 operations. The largest force the UK had sent overseas before was no more than about 500,000; the largest force under a direct command of a single general was about 250,000. The most Haig had ever commanded was about 25,000 in pre-war exercises. In WW1 Haig commanded 2 million soldiers increasing to 5 million as time went on. The fact is, Haig had to learn as he went along as the was simply nothing remotely like WW1 for him to learn from. Massed Tanks, for example, were an experiment. Cambrai proved that they were not a war-winning weapon by themselves. They had very limited endurance and broke down frequently.

He is also criticised for being disparaging of new technology, but when you consider that the petrol engine was very unreliable at the time and unable to cross ground at any speed or - in the case of cross-country travel - often couldn't move at all, you can see why he believed horsed cavalry was the better option. After-all, they could move faster than any mechanised unit. Furthermore, the machine gun was notorious for jamming on its users, and in one of Haig's earlier campaigns, had become the focus of newspaper anger (rather typically from the Daily Mail) after reports surfaced of broken machine guns resulting in British troops being killed.

In the end, Haig developed a combined-arms tactical system of tanks, artillery, air reconnaissance, battlefield communications and flexible small-unit infantry organisation that broke the trench stalemate. It led to the victory of the Hundred Days campaign in the summer of 1918 - arguably the greatest British military victory of all time, and Haig was in command of it.

Cheers for creating the thread; but would you like to put your own ideas down because this is a simple C + P

Kinda derailing the issue no? I think it was a good post. I'd love to see any replies you might have because this is an interesting debate

Whilst I don't deny watching Blackadder; I have studied the First World War on multiple occasions, last term being the lastest when I did part of my History degree on it. I further plan on doing my dissertation on the First World War; so please don't assume how my views are formed, he was a butcher.

It shows very little understanding of the situation he was in to claim that he was some unthinking murderer who joyfully sent men to die.

I'm not saying Haig was an Alexander the Great, but Haig certainly wasn't the worst general this country has produced.

Considering the challanges and limitations he faced, I find it very hard to condem the man.

I'm sure the really awfully cushy situation he found himself in 10 miles behind the British lines in French manor houses was really awful. Imagine the hardships he faced! The man oversaw the single worst day in British military history; to date. 57,000 - 60,000 men wounded missing or killed. He sent waves of horses over the top; the man was stuck in the Boer War where he made another hash of things.
he wasn't faced with ideal circumstances but how many generals are?

Although to the outside it may look like I'm derailing it; we've just moved from another thread to this new one to avoid just that. This is what I've said so far by myself. I was hoping of a continuation of this not just a C + P of a past essay.

But you must accept that he was on some pretty damn severe limitations, being forced to launch a battle much sooner than you wanted without the support you thought you would have, without the equipment you wanted and with armament that in many cases failed are pretty strong limitations to put any general under. I think men with the greatest talent would struggle to fight a battle like this and pull success out of it.

firstly the British knew they were going to have to fight in december 1915. The meeting of the entente at Chantilly called for a mass attack on the German positions with the British taking the lead. They knew for 6/7 months they were going to have to act. The actions at verdun were unexpected; but they started 5 months before the first day of the Somme.

As for logistics, 2,500,000 shells were fired and even if only between 2/3 - 3/4 were active that's still a hell of a lot of shells to bombard a weak line. You've got to note that the german and british lines at the somme had only ever been used until the somme offensive as training lines for raw recruits; they weren't seen as heavily fortified and defended trenches; they were learner trenches.

Even after reports of mass slaughter with the men who left at 0 hour men were still ordered over the top. the first world war is the only battle in modern times where the generals couldn't communicate effectively with the troops. If better communications were in place; or the generals on the battlefield then obvious mistakes like this would have been avoided.

Eh? You sure about that? I thought the Germans had built some very well fortified positions, many of the British shells were also shrapnel rounds not high explosive so did practically nothing to these entrenched positions. From wiki but it has a reference so what the hell. The German Army, on the defence, held the high ground and were aware of the intended attack; they had been practically unmolested since October 1914, which had allowed the time needed to construct extensive trench lines and deep shellproof bunkers.

I'm not trying to absolve him of all blame but it does seem that his reputation was partially undeserved, your last bit even acknowledges that due to the state of equipment at the time communication was difficult, something Haig could do nothing about.

Aren't there completely contrasting views regarding his participation in the Battle of the Somme? Read some places he was responsible for the deaths, then some other sources say he was under pressure from Joseph Joffre and so had to do it. Can someone clear this up?

My point is that if I wanted to read an essay on why haig wasn't a butcher I'd have done so. This thread was designed for a debate not C+P of essays :/

God you're making a right mountain out of a mole hill. If you want to debate, then debate his post, regardless of it's source. The fact that it's from an essay doesn't invalidate it's content. I didn't realise that it was TSR policy that every post has to be 100% original.

much the same; why get involved. If you've got something to add to the OP then post in this thread; if not, good bye.

Hypocrisy, thy name is crocker. What exactly has your bitchy ramblings regarding apparent copy and paste jobs and your delusional belief that you trump the Oxford English dictionary added to this thread? Practice what you preach and either debate the OP or piss off, and until you do I reserve the right to 'get involved'.

Although Haig was lionised in the 1920s as the man who won WWI, I've always thought the key thing has been his lack of support amongst his junior officers, who in turn went on to be military leaders in WWII. As far as I am aware, neither Montgomery, nor Alexander nor Alanbrooke defended his reputation.

Most WW2 commanders were only lieutenants, captains and majors during the Great War, (althought many got higher temporay promotions.) I think the best people to critic Haig would be his immediate subordinates, his generals; Rawlinson, Plumer, Allenby, Horne, Gough etc.
Having said that, I haven't the foggiest regarding what these generals thought of Haig.