Haig and the Battle of the Somme Coursework

a. Source A and B were both written by Field Marshal Haig. However,

despite having the same author, source A discusses the matter of casualties
greatly whereas source B does not even mention them, even though huge
casualties were inflicted at the Battle of the Somme. Does this show that Haig
did not actually care about his soldiers?

Source A was written in 1916. Therefore, the upcoming Battle of the Somme
would have definitely been upon Haig’s mind; he must surely have known at
this point that with such a huge offensive planned the casualties were going to
be high. Haig may have been trying to excuse himself for the accusations he
knew would be fired at him. However, Haig might truly have believed that the
deaths were inevitable and that more lives would be lost in the future if he left
the French to be defeated at Verdun. The fact that the Germans also suffered
heavy casualties too lends more evidence to the deaths being inevitable.
Furthermore, Haig had been planning the attack for months so he obviously
believed that he had decided upon the best plan available at the time; Haig
was also a very religious man and he believed that the men who died were
making a worthy sacrifice. In is eyes, the casualties were not viewed as
horrifically as many other people but this does not necessarily mean he did
not care about them. Overall, from just looking at source, there is not enough
evidence to the idea that Haig did not care about his soldiers lives as it is not
stupid fro one to think that he actually believed what he wrote.

The two extracts in Source B were written by Haig to his superiors the day
before and on the Battle of the Somme. This source is very positive and the
fact Haig does not even mention any casualties, despite there being 57,000
on the first day, definitely gives the impression that Haig did not care about
any of his soldiers deaths and in turn this makes it seem more likely that he
did not care about the casualties when he wrote source A. However, Haig had
a very good reason for his optimism and confidence displayed in this source
because it was written to his superiors. He would have undoubtedly wanted to
impress them, especially as this was his first major battle, so he would have
been putting his reputation as a commander at risk if he mentioned the
casualties suffered. Therefore, source B is not useful in showing if Haig did
not care about casualties as he had many good reasons to refrain from
mentioning them in the extracts in source B.

In conclusion, there is not enough evidence from either source A or B to justify

source A proving that Haig did not care about the lives of his men. From
looking just at the sources, without any other information, it could be
concluded that Haig did not care about his men, however, when the context
and purpose of these sources are scrutinized it seems as if the are many
counter-arguments and valid reasons why Haig would write as if he did not
care about the deaths of his loyal soldiers.

b. The writers of both sources B and C were both directly involved with the
Battle of the Somme but they show very different viewpoints. Therefore, it is

Jonathan Manning 11B

important to know which source is more reliable and trustworthy so a historian
can decide which source gives a better impression of the actual events.

Source B was written by Haig on the day before the attack and on the day of
the attack. As he commanded the whole battle, Haig would have had huge
amounts of information available to him, so in theory he would have had a
very good idea of how the battle was going, although batter on a larger scale.
However, preceding the attack, Haig was in fact given a lot of false
information by his generals so his first extract looses some of its reliability.
Furthermore, Haig rarely visited the front line and became known as one of
the “chateau generals”; the repercussions of this were that Haig did not have
an accurate idea of the personal attitudes and conditions of his soldiers. None
of his generals wanted to displease him by contradicting this perfect image of
soldiers enthusiastic in the face of battle. The source was written at the exact
time of the Battle of the Somme so it would most likely represent Haig’s true
feelings as his views have been recorded whilst being experienced. The
source was a report written by Haig to his superiors, so, he may well have
exaggerated to please them, especially if the battle was in fact going as badly
as Private George Coppard thought “Hundreds of dead strung out”. This
makes the source less reliable as the source might show inaccurate
information and conflicts with many other sources. There is more evidence to
show that Haig may be trying to look after himself in the sources as it contains
a lot of emotive language, “splendid”, “successful” and “confidence”, which are
clearly persuading the reader to believe the battle is going well. Despite all of
this, it is still hard to believe that a man as religious as Haig would conjure up
such a difference between George Coppard’s reality and his. Finally, although
Haig’s first extract is quite severely contradicted by other sources, the second
extract does correlate more with other sources; for example Haig’s view that
the battle was a success is supported by “I gave the Western Powers
confidence.” in source G.

Source C depicts a far different battle to Haig. Private George Coppard

obviously was part of the army, so he had first hand knowledge of how life
was like in the trenches and actually participating in the fighting, however, he
would not have had information concerning the whole battle available to him.
The source was written years after the battle so, during that time, Coppard
may have had time to reflect on the War, therefore changing his views, or
have started to forget some aspects of the Battle of the Somme. Either way,
Coppard may have told his story differently from the true events, making the
source less accurate and so less reliable. The source is taken from an
interview George Coppard was involved in. The fact that it is an interview,
lessons the reliability of the source; the interviewer may have asked
provocative questions to gain a certain response and Coppard may not have
been able to reflect enough on what he would say, meaning that the source
might not have turned out how he had intended. The interviews purpose
would have been to inform about the war but also give an interesting, maybe
shocking, opinion about it. Therefore, the source probably includes a lot of
facts but it may have been exaggerated to improve the entertainment value of
the interview. The simile “like wreckage washed p on a high water mark”
clearly shows that Coppard has inserted his own opinion into the source and

Jonathan Manning 11B

is putting his point across strongly; this lessons the source’s reliability as it
may make the events seem worse than the were in reality. This source is
certainly supported by evidence in its favour. “he sill sent men to their deaths”
(source F) shows another view coinciding with Coppard’s; the number of dead
was far to big. Furthermore, it seems less likely that Coppard’s view on the
battle is too biased as there are so many others which agree with him making
the source more reliable.

In conclusion, I believe both sources are fairly reliable and both have their
uses, however, I believe George Coppard’s source is the most reliable. Field
Marshal Haig’s information was incorrect to begin with but the source has
been made even more unreliable as he probably turned the source to favour
himself as he was trying to impress his superiors. Despite this, it does have
some use in showing the success of the battle on a large scale; this part of
the source is backed up by others so it can be deemed as reliable. Although
time and interview format could have distorted the accuracy of source C and
therefore its reliability, it is backed up by many other sources and this makes it
seem a lot more trustworthy. In addition, there was less Coppard could do
mould the source to his own purposes and it is hard to exaggerate an already
horrific event. Finally, source C is slightly more trustworthy than source B.

c. Sources D and E both have relevance to Haig and the Battle of the
Somme. In source D an underlying criticism of Haig’s tactics is shown by
“giant effort to move his [Haig] drinks cabinet six inches”. This is linked to the
Battle of the Somme because the allies had only taken an area about 25 by
6km in size after the battle; in contrast to this relatively small achievement, the
British had bombarded the Germans non stop for a week and the allies
suffered around 620,000 casualties. The source also gives evidence
concerning the casualties and attitude of the soldiers. “Are we all going to get
killed? Yes.” depicts how the soldiers believed it to be certain death “going
over the top” and the number of casualties shows this was very nearly true.
Furthermore, although the character’s personalities might have been sculpted
for comic use, an attitude held by some of the soldiers can be seen; they were
very pessimistic and did not have faith in their generals. This was a view that
developed about Haig, especially after the Somme. Source E’s main theme is
that the generals in WW1 did not visit the front lines enough so they did not
have a good idea of what the conditions were actually like. These generals
became known as chateau generals referring to the splendour they lived in.
This is relevant to the Somme because many people criticized General Haig
for not visiting the front line often enough so he did not actually have a good
enough idea of what trench warfare was like. Soldiers complained that the
battle would have gone a lot better if Haig had better information; Private
George Coppard referenced to the German defences not being destroyed in
“Any Tommy could have told them that shell fire lifts wire up and drops it
down”. In terms of reliability, both sources are doubtful as their purpose is to
entertain an audience; events may have been exaggerated or manipulated for
comic purposes. However, both of the sources are fairly accurate as I know
from my own knowledge that the ideas they portray are correct so they are
useful for historical purposes. Source D was produced in the 1980’s, a time
where there was still a lot of hate for Haig, but despite this is was written

Jonathan Manning 11B

carefully on historical facts so the source can still be regarded as reliable and
therefore useful. In conclusion, both sources contain valuable evidence about
Haig and the Battle of the Somme, particularly about how Haig used the
wrong tactics in the battle and was just throwing lives away. The sources give
a good insight by having conflicting viewpoints so the historian can come to
an unbiased conclusion.

d. Source F portrays are very different image of Haig to sources G and H but
does this mean that source F is completely wrong.

Source F is an extract from a recent book. Books are normally well

researched, so, although source F was written a long time after the events it
concerns, the information is most likely accurate and therefore useful. Despite
not knowing who the author is, they clearly wrote the book to express an
opinion, shown by the heavy usage of emotive language, so they may have
retained some information which contradicts their points or they may have
exaggerated points which support their opinion; this, along with the source not
containing many facts, as it is congested with biased opinions, makes the
source less reliable and in consequence less useful. However, I know from
my own knowledge that there are a significant number of people who share
this view, which makes the opinion of the author more valid. Furthermore,
other sources share the opinion to a lesser extent such as “Are we all going to
get killed? Yes.” from source D shows; as the source is supported by some
others it increases the validity of the argument. However, sources G and H do
contradict source F, saying that the Battle of the Somme was in fact a great
success for Haig, and this of source decreases the reliability of the source F.

Source G is from the German official history of the First World War which was
written in the 1930’s. There would probably have been a lot of information
available to write this book on and plenty of sources included too which
increase its reliability and usefulness because it would in theory have a mix of
views, preventing a biased history of the War; being an official history would
provide the author much more information and recorded facts to work with,
increasing the accuracy and usefulness of the source. Also, it was written
fairly recently after the end of the First World War, making it more reliable
because the information it includes is less likely to have been corrupted over
time. However, I know from my own knowledge that at this time in German
history the German population was still very resentful about the loss of World
War One and even felt humiliated. Therefore, it is unlikely that the author
would want to resurface these feelings in their book as it would surely put off
people from buying it: there could be no hiding the defeat of Germany but it
would sound far better if it was not the Germans fault in any way and just the
brilliance of the Allies. This is especially relevant to the extract in source G
where Battle of the some is described as a huge success for the Allies.
Although the author may have held this motive, the book would surely have
been written to inform and it is most likely the source is fairly accurate and
reliable as it is difficult to stray from the truth in a factual book. The source is
written fairly plainly even though it does make moderate use of adjectives and
does show points from both sides of the argument, making it seem less likely
that the author has intentionally selected certain information or is trying to

Jonathan Manning 11B

portray one sort of opinion, which increases the reliability and usefulness of
the source. In addition, the source is backed up by others like source I; “the
tide has now definitely turned in our [the Allies] favour” which makes it more
reliable and therefore useful. Overall, this source is very reliable which makes
it useful for proving whether source F is right or not because if source G is
very accurate then it makes source F less true as they contradict.

Source H was written by a British general in 1973. As a general, the writer

would have lot of information available concerning the Battle of the Somme
and its aftermath. Furthermore, he probably knew General Haig on a personal
level but they were not so close that his feelings of Haig would be twisted by
friendship, making the writer of this source a good reference for Haig’s
personality rather than a frontline soldier’s opinion who never saw him. This is
particularly useful concerning parts of this source and raises the reliability of
these sections which describe Haig’s character. Although the source was
written quite a long time after the war, the events are described fairly vividly in
consideration which lessons any feelings that time marred this writer’s
memory. The source seems to be biased towards Haig as it primarily praises
him and the emotive language and elaboration of points only emphasises this.
This bias makes the source less reliable and therefore less useful. Finally, the
source is backed by source G which also depicts the overall success of the
Somme and this is emphasised by the fact that G is written by the losing side.
In conclusion, although not to such an extent as source, source H is fairly
reliable and consequently quite useful in deciding whether source F is wrong.

It is incorrect to say that source F is completely wrong as, after all, it is entirely
based upon opinion which cannot be seen as totally false, however, it is
possible to come to a conclusion that the views in source F are mostly
inaccurate and invalid. Sources G and H are more reliable than source F so it
is more logical to trust their facts and opinions more than the opinions
expressed in source F. Standing alone, source H does not seem so much
more reliable than source F that the latter’s opinion can be disregarded.
However, if combined with source G, source H’s reliability increases
dramatically because they correlate strongly. Therefore, as sources G and H
contradict source F but are more reliable it is fair to say that source F is more
likely to be wrong than sources G and H as they are more likely to be
accurate. In conclusion, source F shows a valid argument if just the casualties
from the battle are looked at but if the whole picture is looked at, including the
long term effects of the Battle of the Somme as sources G and H do, the
views in source F are not right but not entirely wrong.

e. Sources I and J are both written by Lloyd George, but they present entirely
opposite views. Why is this?

Firstly, the sources were written about 15 years apart. The sources could be
so different because: Lloyd George’s view could have changed, but this is
unlikely as the point of a memoir, referring to the source being taken from
Lloyd George’s War Memoirs, is to narrate events more truthfully without any
previous restrictions; it seems improbable that Lloyd George genuinely meant
what he wrote in source I because he would have known of the huge number

Jonathan Manning 11B

of casualties after two months of fighting and of the relative territorial failure of
the Battle of the Somme. Lloyd George may not have wanted to express a
negative opinion of the War in 1916 when he was still seeking to become
prime minister because he would have looked a lot less attractive a candidate
to the public if he acted pessimistically towards the success of the war.
Furthermore, linking with the previous point, Haig’s popularity in the war years
dropped dramatically over time as more information was uncovered about the
way he had commanded the battle, so, due to his career aspirations, Lloyd
George would have felt that he could express his true feelings about Haig only
after the public also began to agree with him, which they did in the 1930’s.

In conclusion, I believe Lloyd George’s view did not change over time but he
was unable to show his true feelings until after his political career.

f. There is a chasm of difference between the opinions expressed across all

ten sources but overall the sources cover the whole spectrum of views about
Haig and the Battle of the Somme. However, is it possible to use the sources
as evidence to support the statement “Haig was an uncaring general who
sacrificed the lives of his men for no good reason” or be used as evidence
against it?

The main argument which supports the view that Haig was the”Butcher of the
Somme” is the huge number of casualties suffered under his command. The
Allies lost 620,000 soldiers at the Battle of the Somme compared to
Germany’s 500,000 casualties and 19,000 British troops died on the first day
alone. Therefore, it seems incomprehensible that Haig continued the battle for
three months especially after it was clear that no decisive breakthrough would
be made despite thousands of lives were being lost in the process; even
Haig’s deputy Rawlinson felt that the battle should be called off due to the
devastating events of the first day of battle but Haig insisted that it should
continue. Source C supports this, saying “Hundreds of dead were strung out
on the barbed wire” which shows just how little impact on the enemy these
soldiers must have had if they didn’t even make it past the barbed wire.
Therefore, it does seem as if Haig did not care about the lives of his soldiers.
However, Haig is supported by other evidence in his favour: it was realised
early on that the War would not be over quickly and would come down to a
war of attrition. In this kind of war it was clear that many lives would be lost in
any case and only a slow wearing down of the enemy would be successful;
the Battle of the Somme did have some successes in the long run regarding
the war of attrition. Sources G and H support this view. G says “A great part of
the best, most experienced and most reliable [German] officers and men were
no longer in their places.” and source H says “Germany’s spirit of resistance
was broken”. These sources portray how the Somme was in fact very
instrumental in the success of the War even if the effects were not seen
straight away. Maybe Haig had this insight and that is why he continued the
battle despite the heavy casualties. Furthermore, the battle gave the surviving
Allied soldiers valuable experience in trench warfare which would help them
win future battles. Finally, I know from my own knowledge that Haig was an
extremely religious man; he saw the deaths of his soldiers as worthy
sacrifices for their God and country rather than a gruesome end to their lives.

Jonathan Manning 11B

This does not mean that Haig showed no remorse for his soldier’s deaths but
he did not think they were as terrible as others did.

Haig was also criticised for his choice of tactics in the Battle of the Somme
and how it was commanded. If Haig used poor, inexcusable tactics then it
could be argued that he did not care about his men because he did not put
more effort into constructing a better plan. Firstly, the power of the week long
artillery bombardment which preceded the battle was severely overestimated.
This was partly Haig’s fault but some things were out of his control. The
bombardment had very little effect on the enemy as their dug outs were deep
underground and fortified with concrete and, as George Coppard in source C
says “Who told them that artillery fire would pound such wire to pieces?”, the
30 metre wide band of barbed wire was hardly damaged. General Haig should
have had the foresight to anticipate such events but he could not have
prepared for the fact that many of the shells supplied for the artillery were
either too weak to cause any damage or duds which redeems him to some
extent. In addition, Haig also made mistakes by ordering his infantry to carry
trench repair kits which slowed them down sufficiently for the Germans to set
up their machine guns and mow the Allies down. Source D supports this view
of almost certain death for the Allied soldier, as Blackadder says “You mean
are we all going to get killed? Yes.” Haig was also criticised for not changing
his tactics: the future Prime Minister David Lloyd George describes Haig’s
obsession with cavalry charges, saying “I expressed my doubts to General
Haig as to whether cavalry could ever operate successfully on affront bristling
for miles with barbed wire and machine guns.” Overall, it seems as if Haig
simply did not care about his soldiers if the battle tactics were so poorly
planned, however, some of the criticisms of Haig are not entirely fair. While
initially planning the Battle of the Somme Haig had wanted the battle to take
place further north; here, the Allies would have been in a better position as at
the Somme the Germans were on an area of high ground where they had a
defensive advantage over the Allies. Haig used tanks for the first time during
the Battle of the Somme showing that he was looking for new weapons and
not just limiting himself to cavalry charges. Furthermore, although only a small
piece of land, 25km by 6 km, was taken the French were relieved at Verdun,
having been close to breaking point, and the Allies had gained a confidence
boost and valuable experience while the Germans had lost many experienced
soldiers. Finally, Haig did show particular tactical prowess nearer the end of
the war when he refined his tactics to make some of the largest territorial
gains through the Hindenburg line, one of Germany’s most heavily defended
areas. Therefore, it seems as if Haig was not as incompetent as he was made
out to be. To summarise, it seems that Haig did care about his soldiers and
did not sacrifice them for no good reason because although he did make
some tactical mistakes at the Battle of the Somme, he was doing what he
thought would be best in the long term. He was under huge pressure from the
French at Verdun and knew that the War would be a war of attrition.
Consequently, this meant that thousands of lives would have to be lost if the
War was going to be won; this view is supported by source A where Haig
writes “No amount of skill on the higher part of the commanders, no training,
however, good on the part of the officers and men, no superiority of arms and
ammunition, however great, will enable victories to be won without the

Jonathan Manning 11B

sacrifice of men’s lives.” This summarises Haig’s view showing that he did
care about the lives of his men but genuinely believed there was nothing else
he could do. He is also praised in source H which actually describes Haig as
being extremely brave as he had “the moral courage” to bear the blame for
the inevitably high casualties.

All the British generals, not just Haig, were criticized for being “Chateau
Generals”, so called because they lived in relative splendour whereas the
soldiers lived in horrific conditions in the trenches which could be used as
evidence for Haig not caring about his men. In addition, Haig’s seemingly
illogical tactics could be explained because he did not actually visit the
battlefield. This extract from source D, “Any Tommy could have told them that
shell fire lifts up wire and drops it down”, shows that if the generals had the
knowledge of their soldiers then their battle tactics could have been a lot
better. Conversely, this argument also works in Haig’s favour: as he did not
know how bad conditions were because he never visited the front lines, he
had no obligation to do anything about them. Furthermore, as he was being
provided with wrong information, shown in source B by “The men are in
splendid spirits”, Haig actually thought his soldiers were happy and therefore,
he would have no need to be concerned for them. The “chateau generals”
excused themselves by saying they needed an overview of the battle; this is a
fair point as the generals’ job was to command the battle and this would not
be so effective on the frontline. Overall, it cannot be said that because Haig
was a “chateau general” (supported by source E which mocks these generals)
he did not care about is troops because there is a lot of evidence supporting
this style of command despite its faults.

The main arguments supporting the statement “Haig was an uncaring general
who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason” are the fact that
Haig continued the battle of the Somme even after it was clear the casualty
lists would be horrendous, his tactics for the battle seemed rushed and
simplistic as if he did not care how many lives were lost and he did not visit
the front line or improve conditions for his soldiers. These points could be
argued as some of the sources do support them and they are clearly
summarised in the passionate source F: “Haig was as stubborn as a donkey
and as unthinking as a donkey”. However, despite the strong support in favour
of the statement, many of the sources oppose it. I think the most important of
these sources is H as it completely contradicts source F. Haig is seen in an
entirely different light here as he is in fact described as a hero of the war for
managing to bear responsibility for the deaths of all those soldiers. Therefore,
I cannot agree with the statement as there is sufficient evidence which shows
that Haig did the best job he could and achieved a great tactical victory of the
war. However, I feel that there is some truth in all the sources and so a
different conclusion should be made. On a humanitarian level the Somme was
a complete failure as so many lives were lost but this is true in any war but
overall, the Battle of the Somme was a huge military success which gave the
Allies a huge advantage going into the second half of the War.

Jonathan Manning 11B