Y8 History - Was-Douglas-Haig-really-the-Butcher-of-the-Somme PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes...

Description

5. Does Haig really deserve his reputation as the ‘Butcher of the Somme’?

1|P age

Contents Page

The Battle of the Somme – An Outline of the Battle - 3

Arguments and Evidence Haig was the Butcher of the Somme – 4

Arguments and Evidence Haig was not the Butcher of the Somme - 6

How has Haig’s reputation changed over time? - 8

How to integrate sources into your essay - 10

Things that affect a source’s reliability - 11

Suggested essay structure – 12

Acknowledgements - 13

2|P age

The Battle of the Somme - An Outline of the Battle The Battle of the Somme started on 1st July 1916 and raged for 141 days. It was intended to be ‘the Big Push’ by the Allies which would finally break the stalemate. Ultimately, one million soldiers, from all sides, ended up dead or wounded. The Somme’s first day is infamous. Nearly 20,000 British soldiers were killed and a further 40,000 were wounded. This clearly was not supposed to happen, so what went wrong? The plan for the offensive involved a huge artillery bombardment followed up by 100,000 Allied soldiers going ‘over the top’ (right). The bombardment was intended to destroy German trenches, cut the barbed wire in no man’s land, and kill German soldiers. In total, the Allies used 1,700,000 shells in the pre-battle bombardment, which was so loud could be heard in parts of England. Once the shelling stopped, the Allies would move in to finish off any survivors and take control of the German trenches. The plan did not go smoothly. The shells selected were inadequate and left large sections of wire uncut. Moreover, the German trenches were superior to those of the Allies, and many included reinforced sections underground. Here German troops took shelter from the shelling and then retook their positions in the trenches when the Allies tried to advance. The German machine guns mowed down British troops like lambs to the slaughter. The battle kept going until November, when deteriorating weather conditions forced both sides to dig in once more. In total, the Allies only gained seven miles. Bapaume, a first week objective, remained in German hands by the end of the battle. The human cost was shocking. The Allies sustained almost 624,000 casualties – 420,000 of them British. Figures for German losses vary, but estimates range between 500,000 and 680,000. One German officer called the Somme the ‘muddy grave of the German field army’. Realising that Germany could not win the war on the Western Front led to the use of unrestricted submarine warfare, which itself brought America into the war on the side of the Allies in 1917. The British army was better trained and more experienced as a consequence of the Somme. By the end of the battle, the British had developed the creeping barrage. Indeed, some historians have said that the battle was a necessary precondition to Allied victory in 1918. Valid though that may be, it can be little solace to those who lost their loved ones in the one of the bloodiest battles in human history. Infamous – Famous for the wrong reasons

Deteriorating – getting worse

Creeping barrage - a tactic where artillery was fired just ahead of advancing infantry, a barrage which would constantly shift - or creep - forward directly ahead of the attacking troops. Necessary precondition – something that has to happen before another thing can happen Solace – Comfort

Arguments that Haig was a ‘butcher’ There are three main criticisms levelled at Douglas Haig and his leadership at the Battle of the Somme. These are: 1. He was ignorant of the conditions on the battlefield 2. He sent men to their deaths for no reason 3. He did not adapt fast enough to modern warfare Below are a range of sources which can be used as evidence to support one, or sometimes more, of the above arguments. Source A: Douglas Haig, writing to British newspaper editors in 1916, before the battle began: “The nation must be taught to bear losses. No amount of skill on the part of the higher commanders, no training, however good, on the part of officers and men, no superiority, however great, of arms and ammunition, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men's lives... We must be prepared to accept great losses in future without flinching whenever and wherever it becomes necessary to sacrifice men in order to gain some important advantage or to foil the enemy's endeavours to gain one.” Source B: Douglas Haig, writing in his diary on 30 June 1916, the day before the battle began. “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, nor the artillery preparation so thorough. All the commanders are full of confidence.” Source C: An extract of a report written by Haig on the first day of the attack “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.” Source D: An interview with Private George Coppard (left), a British soldier who survived the Battle of the Somme “Hundreds of dead were strung out [on barbed wire]… quite as many died on the enemy wire as on the ground… It was clear that there were no gaps in the wire at the time of the attack. The Germans had been reinforcing the war for months. It was so thick that daylight could barely be seen through it. How did the planners imagine that Tommies [British soldiers] would get through the wire?”

4|P age

Source E: Written by Lieutenant J. A. Raws in August 1916 in a letter to his family. “My tunic is rotten with other men’s blood and partly spattered with a friend’s brains… The horror was indescribable… I want to tell you on record that I honestly believe that Goldie (a mate) and many others were murdered through the stupidity of those in authority.” Source F: From a book written by Gerard De Groot (right), an historian, in 1988. “While Haig slept in a cosy bed in a quiet country chateau and dined on the best food available, his men lived in muddy, noisy trenches sharing their bully beef and biscuits with big bloated rats. It apparently did not bother Haig that his war was so much more comfortable than that of the men he commanded.” Source G: A personal memoir written by Winston Churchill MP (left) in August 1916. “I view with the utmost pain this terrible killing of our troops. We have not gained in a month’s fighting as much ground as we were expected to gain in the first two hours. We have not advanced two miles.” Source H: From the war memoirs (below right) of David Lloyd George, published in the 1930s. Lloyd George despised Haig. “It is not too much to say that when the Great War broke out our Generals had the most important lessons to learn. They knew nothing…about the actual fighting under modern conditions. Haig ordered many bloody battles in this war. He only took part in two. He never even saw the ground on which his greatest battles were fought, either before or during the fight.” Source I: An extract from the Official History of Australia in the War by C. E. W. Bean “Far from the German loss being the greater, the British army was being worn down – numerically – twice as fast… A general who wears down 180,000 of his enemy by expending 400,000 men has something to answer for.” Source J: A popular song, sung by British soldiers in the trenches “Forward Joe Soap’s Army, marching without fear With our own commander, safely in the rear. He boats and strikes from morn till night and thinks he’s very brave, But the men who really do the job are dead and in their grave.” Source K: A letter to a newspaper by J. Gleason, a British citizen. How many attacks against German machine-guns, cannon and barbed wire did it take before it was realised that trench warfare had failed to defeat the enemy? 5|P age

Arguments that Haig was NOT a butcher There are also people who defend Haig’s leadership. They make different arguments, are outlined below: 1. In war, there will always be heavy losses, but Haig’s job was to win the war – something he ultimately achieved 2. Haig was a product of his time – as were his tactics – and he improved his tactics due to his experiences of the battle 3. He did care for his men Below are a range of sources which can be used as evidence to support one, or sometimes more, of the above arguments. Source L: From a book called Field Marshal Haig (right), written by the historian Philip Warner in 1991 “If the criterion of a successful general is to win wars, Haig must be judged a success. The cost of victory was appalling, but Haig’s military methods were in line with the ideas of the time, when attrition was the method all sides used to achieve victory. [His critics] criticise the cost of the way he did it [win the war] without offering alternative methods.” Source M: Haig’s explanation of his tactics, written just after the war in 1919. “In the course of the struggle, losses are bound to be heavy on both sides, for in this the price of victory is paid. There is no way of avoiding this… but our total losses in this war have been no larger than were to be expected… We attacked whenever possible because…a defensive attitude can never bring [victory] about.” Source N: A letter to a newspaper from Paul McFarlane, a British citizen “Britons are fond of vilifying Field Marshal Haig for his “war of attrition” on the Western Front and some individual blunders can be laid to his charge but no general or politician of any nation involved had a better idea.” Source O: A letter to a newspaper from Kevin Dacre, a British citizen “The two campaigns for which he [Haig] is most often vilified, those of the Somme and Passchendaele, were instigated as a consequence of the needs of the French.” Source P: From the memoirs of the General Ludendorff (left), a German general in World War One “As a result of the Somme fighting we were completely exhausted on the Western Front. If the battle had lasted, our defeated seemed inevitable.”

6|P age

Source Q: A summary of the argument of Douglas Haig and the First World War by J.P. Harris (2008) taken from a review by Mark Connelly in The Journal of Modern History (September 2010) Harris notes that Haig “presided over a sequence of victories in 1918 almost unprecedented in the annals of the British army.” Harris also contextualizes Haig’s “strengths and weaknesses… against the wider backdrop of contemporary British military thinking and the difficulties of…Haig’s work overload. At one and the same time, he was expected to deal with the politicians and commanders of all the [Allies]… and directly oversee military operations in his theatre, a workload made all the harder by Haig’s limited grip on grand strategy… Haig is neither hero nor demon but a hard-working, earnest and ambitious man. Dedicated to his job and self-image, Haig did his duty to the best of his limited abilities in immensely trying circumstances.” Source R: From BBC.com, describing Haig’s post-war work with the British Legion. After the war, he toured Britain and the Empire raising money for it. “On his return home after the war, Field Marshal Haig became the Founder President of the newly formed British Legion. The Legion’s purpose was then – as it remains today – to give practical help to all men and women who served in the Forces in time of need, and to their widows and dependents.” Source S: A photo of Haig’s funeral procession in 1928.

7|P age

A Timeline of Haig’s Reputation over Time1 There has long been a difference between popular and academic opinions on Douglas Haig. Academics tend to be more sympathetic, although they do nonetheless acknowledge his flaws. The general public, however, generally believe Haig was a donkey leading lions. Below, we can track how Haig’s reputation has changed over time. 1914-18 – During WWI, there was fierce opposition to Haig. Prime Minister David Lloyd George (right) hated him and Churchill tried to get him sacked. The official historian of the war, James Edmonds, labelled Haig “stupid”. 1918 – At the end of the war Haig’s reputation recovered as the nation tried to see the huge loss of life not as tragedy, but as a Christ-like act of redeeming sacrifice. Haig sent notes and edited extracts of his diaries to people he knew to be writing a history of the war, trying to influence their interpretations. As a result, many of the historical works of this time placed Haig in a positive light. 1927-33 – Views towards the war shifted during this period. There was a surge in popularity for poets like Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen (left), both of whom depicted the horrors of war in their work, as did books like Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves. Ordinary soldiers were cast as the victims of callous (uncaring) generals. Basil Liddell Hart’s The Real War attacked Haig for putting soldiers through hell and for being ignorant of the conditions of the battlefield. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister during the war, also published his memoirs between 1933 and 1936. He savaged Haig as “a second rate commander” who repeated the same strategy expecting different results. 1960s – Haig’s reputation suffered even more during the sixties. In 1961, Alan Clark published The Donkeys (right), which argued soldiers were great men of courage who were ultimately let down by incompetent generals. Having read this book, Joan Littlewood wrote a musical, Oh What a Lovely War!, that further reinforced the idea of stupid and uncaring leaders. Haig’s reputation was at an alltime low. Although it got relatively little attention at the time, John Terriane published Douglas Haig, the Educated Soldier in 1963, which sought to defend Haig. He wrote: “The charge [accusation] that Haig was

1

This section is largely adapted from “Polychronicon: Douglas Haig: donkey or scapegoat?” published in Teaching History 117

8|P age

careless about the lives of his soldiers, or that he was out of touch with the realities of war, cannot survive inspection of [the] documents that bear his signature.” 1980s – Whilst Terraine’s book (left) in the 1960s failed to change many minds, Tim Travers in 1987 wrote an important book called The Killing Ground which attempted to put Haig in his proper historical context. He argued that Haig was too slow to learn the new lessons of modern warfare, but that his policy of attrition (wearing down the enemy) did eventually lead to victory. Modern historians have tended to present a more balanced view of Haig, acknowledging both his flaw, but also his strengths. Late 1980s-present Academic scholarship has struggled to compete with the view presented in shows like Blackadder Goes Forth (right), which first aired on the BBC in 1989. It caricatured the generals as stupid and helped entrench the view of the generals as donkeys. There is perhaps no greater influence on public opinion of Haig than this show.

9|P age

Embedding Sources into your Essay To write a good essay, you need to use a variety of evidence (sources) in your essay. A really excellent essay will evaluate the reliability of some of the evidence to help determine their overall judgement on the question. Fictional Example Below is a fictional title and two fictional sources about a fictional historical character and then some examples of how you might embed those sources into a paragraph. “Does General John Roberts deserve to be remembered as the Butcher of Swindland?” Fictional Source 1: A diary entry by General John Roberts on 30 June, 1890, the day before the Battle of Swindland began. “The men have never been in better spirits. I visited them today for an inspection and they beamed with pride at the role they are about to play in this glorious British victory. I myself am proud of our preparations: tomorrow should be hard, but our planning will see us emerge as winners. I know war better than any man.” Fictional Source 2: A soldier who fought in the Battle of Swindland writing to his wife back in Britain in mid-July 1890, roughly two weeks into the battle. “My love, I dare not describe the horrors I have seen these past two weeks. We left our camp to be met on the battlefield with a force so overwhelming in size – and so much better organised than us – that there was simply no way we would be met with anything but defeat. The men are fighting like lions – but our generals are idiots, ignorant of what is happening out here.” Integrating and evaluating evidence – Model Paragraph To embed evidence effectively into your essay, you simply need to pick a short quote from a source that supports your point. For example: “One of the reasons General John Roberts does deserve his nickname is becaus e he did not know what was happening on the battlefield. One soldier who fought in the battle stated that the generals were “ignorant of what is happening out here”. This suggests that he did not know what conditions were like on the battlefield, something a general should definitely know. Moreover, in his diary on the night before the battle began, Roberts wrote that he predicted a “glorious British victory ”. However, the soldier who actually fought in the battle says the enemy were “so overwhelming in size…there was simply no way we would be met with anything but defeat”. The contrast in these two accounts highlights why Roberts deserves his nickname: he believed it was going to be a straightforward victory, but that is probably because he did not really know what was happening on the frontlines. Furthermore, the soldier’s evidence is more reliable because, unlike Roberts, he is actually writing having experienced the Battle of Swindland.” 10 | P a g e

Things that affect a source’s reliability Below are some things to think about: Purpose – Why did the author write this? Was it to defend their reputation? Was it to blame someone else for their mistakes? Are they trying to mock something/someone? Audience – Who is the intended audience? If it is written in a diary, it may well be more honest than a speech because it was only intended to be read by the author. By contrast, a speech may set out to persuade the audience of a particular point of view and therefore may exaggerate things Context – Does what the source is saying match or contradict your knowledge of the wider context? If one person’s account corroborates (supports) another’s, then it may be more likely to be accurate Medium – Think about the medium of the source. If it’s a cartoon, it will likely exaggerate certain things. It also won’t contain as much detail as, say, a history book. Access to Information – Does the author have access to all the information? An historian in 2008, for example, will have access to far more facts than an historian writing in 1919. Similarly, if someone is writing the day before a battle, they do not have access to facts about how that actual battle will actually turn out. Another way of doing source analysis Another way of analysis sources is by examining its provenance. Provenance means who wrote the source, when they wrote it and why. These things can help you analyse a source more carefully. Take, for instance, David Lloyd George. He hated Douglas Haig, so any source from him about Haig needs to be treated with caution. Useful phrases for making inferences The source… …suggests …emphasises …evidences …highlights …illustrates …indicates …implies

11 | P a g e

Useful language for evaluating a source This weakens the reliability of the source This strengthens the reliability of the source This undermines the source This source is corroborated (supported) by… This source is challenged by… This makes the source more convincing because… This makes the source less convincing because…

Suggested Essay Structure Essay Title: “Does Douglas Haig deserve to be remembered as the Butcher of the Somme?”

Introduction: -

Give some context about the Battle of th...