Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig (19 June 1861 – 29 January 1928) was a senior commander in the First World War (WWI), and perhaps one of the most notable figures in British Military history. Although he served as the commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) from 1915 to the end of the war – which was one of the greatest victories in Britain’s military history – the involvement during the Battle of the Somme, lead him to become one of the most criticized Commanders in the WWI. The Battle of the Somme is the battle with one of the highest casualties in Britain military history, alongside with the highest single casualties in the whole history of British military.
General Haig was the commander of the BEF in the battle.
Some of the British regard the man who led Britain’s biggest-ever army to one of the most important victories to Britain as a national hero. However since the 1960s, some people started to call Haig “Butcher Haig” or “butcher of the Somme” who simply didn’t care how many soldiers were killed to accomplish an objective that could be far more less than a battle should be. Nevertheless, does General Haig deserve to be remembered as ‘the butcher of the Somme’? This essay will mainly focus on the reasons of why and why not Haig deserve the nickname ‘butcher Haig’ or ‘butcher of the Somme’, and will make a conclusion of does Haig may or may not be accused wrongly after all.
The Battle of the Somme is arguably one of the most horrible battles in the world, and certainly one of the most horrible battles in Britain military history. On the first day of the battle the British had suffered nearly sixty thousand casualties, while by the end of the battle the number had raised to four hundred and twenty thousand m...
... middle of paper ...
... show how those weapons we make can totally destruct us. Four hundred and two thousand lives – enough to blame someone as a butcher, but as a leader to an important victory in Britain military history, Haig really does not deserve the title ‘the butcher of the Somme’. As well as S. Warburton, writing in an article in the history magazine, Hindsight, which takes a fresh look at historical issues (1998) says: ‘Blaming Haig the individual for the failings of the British war effort is putting too much of a burden of guilt on one man. Haig was the product of his time, of his upbringing, education, and training and previous military experience. One argument goes that he was, ultimately, victorious and, even if he had been replaced would there have been anyone better for the job? Even on the Somme a German officer called the battlefield 'the muddy grave of the German army'.
“The war correspondent is responsible for most of the ideas of battle which the public possesses … I can’t write that it occurred if I know that it did not, even if by painting it that way I can rouse the blood and make the pulse beat faster – and undoubtedly these men here deserve that people’s pulses shall beat for them. But War Correspondents have so habitually exaggerated the heroism of battles that people don’t realise that real actions are heroic.”
When the war broke out in August 1914, the highly regarded Currie was commanded of an infantry brigade. Currie fought with exceptional composure at Ypres in 1915 where his 2nd Brigade made a remarkable stand against the poison gas. Having impressed his superiors, Currie was promoted to command the “crack” 1st Canadian
To set the stage for this battle, we must first understand what the British were thinking at the time. The British had not ...
Battles such as Vimy Ridge, the Second Battle of Passchendaele and the Battle of the Somme were some of the worst battles that the world can find Canadian's. Our northern nation had boasted over 600,000 soldiers to the battlefields whilst also providing vital manufacturing facilities and training soldiers from across the world. The strong imperial bond between Canada and the 'Motherland' was an important factor in Canada's decision to participate wholeheartedly in World War I, and influenced many in their decision to join the army. Most Canadians felt a strong connection to the British Emp...
In this essay I will explain the battle between Germany and Britain, discuss how important winning this battle was, what Britain had that the Germans did not have, and what could have happened if Britain would have lost. It is known cleverly as “the Battle of Britain”.
In the history of modern western civilization, there have been few incidents of war, famine, and other calamities that severely affected the modern European society. The First World War was one such incident which served as a reflection of modern European society in its industrial age, altering mankind’s perception of war into catastrophic levels of carnage and violence. As a transition to modern warfare, the experiences of the Great War were entirely new and unfamiliar. In this anomalous environment, a range of first hand accounts have emerged, detailing the events and experiences of the authors. For instance, both the works of Ernst Junger and Erich Maria Remarque emphasize the frightening and inhumane nature of war to some degree – more explicit in Jünger’s than in Remarque’s – but the sense of glorification, heroism, and nationalism in Jünger’s The Storm of Steel is absent in Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front. Instead, they are replaced by psychological damage caused by the war – the internalization of loss and pain, coupled with a sense of helplessness and disconnectedness with the past and the future. As such, the accounts of Jünger and Remarque reveal the similar experiences of extreme violence and danger of World War I shared by soldiers but draw from their experiences differing ideologies and perception of war.
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. (Bull) (American Naval Officer who led vigorous campaigns during World War II, 1882-1959)
To illustrate, according to Churchill, it indicates the worst side of World War I as how it was the most damaging and cruel war of humanity because it was global and wounded most people. Moreover, it confused the thought of how the war started, who was responsible for the war, and how it ended up, and no one still got a right answer, but the previous war was not cruel that kill most of the people around the world. It was well known who started the war and whose fault it was. Also, Generals in WWI were not participating directly with their soldiers and were sitting far from the wars with having information through telephones. Therefore, they had less effects on their soldiers, and the armies did not get encouragement from their Generals as in the previous wars had, such as the physical battle of Hannibal and Caesar, Turenne and Marlborough, Frederick and Napoleon. Another point of view in the essay is that Generals as Napoleon have hard work to do in order to attack a place. For instance, they should organize their armies, have better tactics and plans, know how to defeat themselves, know the right time of attacking, and make big decisions. Hence, it is the deal of thousands of men’ life including the General himself in the previous wars, but the World War I was only the armies and citizens as well were the victims, so Generals were disappearing. That’s why
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 depended 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 because both the German’s and Allies developed and used a variety of tactics during the war. The main reason for battlefield success and eventual victory by the Allies 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.
"A general who wears down 180,000 of the enemy by expending 400,000 men...has something to answer for." This idea from military historian C.E.W Bean is the main line of argument from traditionalist historians. They represent General Douglas Haig, British Commander-in-Chief of the BEF from 1915 to the end of the war in 1918, in a critical, damning light: a hopelessly incompetent general with a willingness to sacrifice the men of Britain for a few metres of muddy ground. On the converse of this interpretation is a revisionist perspective of Haig as a caring ‘architect of victory’, bringing long-term achievements with his perceptive strategies. With an examination of these two seemingly polemic perspectives and primary evidence, judgement, albeit a complex and multifaceted one, can be reached on both these smaller debates and of Douglas Haig’s role in World War One: villain or vanquisher?
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 weapons control their fears, fix their wounds, and face their death. In his words he is seeking “to catch a glimpse of the face of battle.”
"War Memories: Plotting the Battle of Britain." Letter. 9 Dec. 2003. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. BBC WW2 People's War.
...ings by then, whose memories, fears, and enthusiasms should not be remembered." Thus, unlike the title suggests, this remarkable war memoir is not about one soldier. Instead it refers to the entire German army who were defeated by the Allies. Although the German cause was very controversial, these gentlemen bravely fought for their country. Many men died, many were mutilated, and many more had to forever live with the atrocities they encountered. At war's end, however, they were merely "forgotten" for their failure of success. And although The Forgotten Soldier is an astonishing account of the horrors of infantry warfare, it serves a much greater purpose. It allows the historian to glance into the German experience and realize they too were young men fighting because their nation called upon them, and they deserve to be remembered for such a courageous act.
To write this book the author, John Toland, had to devote 15 years researching different stories from all sides of the war. He studied war memoirs, interviewed war veterans, and read military documents. While doing this he focused on both the allied and axis forces to truly understand both sides of the story and be able to write such a descriptive and accurate piece of work. This research was used in the book to describe the unlikely victory of the Americans over the Germans during the “Battle of the Bulge”.
O’Neill, William L. World War II A Student Companion. 1 ed. William H. Chafe. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.