Sir Douglas Haig was born on the 19th June 1861. The Field Marshal was very highly ranked in the duration of The Great War. Haig was a British soldier and a senior Commander of The British Expeditionary Force from the year of 1915. General Haig is notorious for commanding the Battle Of The Somme and also renowned for the third battle of Ypres and various other victories leading to The Triple Entente’s victory of WW1. After the war, Haig was made an Earl and also received gratified thanks from both Houses of Parliament. So, If General Haig was such a renowned role model and congratulated for aiding greatly to the victory of the cold war, why on earth did some people refer to him as a ‘Butcher’? During the early stages of the war, it was classed as ‘Stale Mate’ - hence the beginning of the trenches. WW1 was revolved around Static Warfare. This resulted in many deaths and injuries gaining little land each time. People believe that the countless death tolls from battles is mainly down to Sir Douglas Haig thus creating the name ’Butcher’. But what is the truth? Where the deaths just an unfortunate aspect of the war or could the high numbers have been less? Many historians and common wealth citizens believe General Haig saw the soldiers as pawns, metaphorically speaking, in his own route to personal glory. Haig allegedly had no pity for the high death count and devoted his care only in winning the war to make himself a ’hero’. This is evident in The Battle Of The Somme. The battle initially began on the 1st of July with a five day bombardment of the enemy trenches. General Haig believed it would jeopardise the Germans giving the British and French divisions an advantage when the soldiers went ‘over the top’. What Haig had not count... ... middle of paper ... ... potent reason for me believing this is Haig was well aware of the merciless deaths in both the Battle of the Somme and the Battle of Neuve Chappelle which were occurring and the failing tactics yet did nothing to stop this. The General stubbornly stuck to his plan so if they won the battle, he could claim it was under his lead they were successful thus helping him on his way to his own personal Glory. General Haig also blamed Sir John French for the poor reserve and lack of ammo whereas he was in lead of the battle and should have considered these aspects before he allowed his men to fight in the battles. This emphasises the point he saw the soldiers not as men, but as pawns which held less significance than himself and his pride. I also believe the power which was given to him would of not been possible if he had a lack of useful connections to people with power.
“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.”
demonstating his carelessness over casualtiles, Passchendaele proved Currie’s concern for he preservation fo the lives of the men under his command; indeed, Currie’s actons throughout th war stand as strong evidence of his desire, and ability, to win battles only at the least possible cost. A lot of Canadians, veterans and conscripts alike, had little regard for General Currie. Passchendaele convinced many of them that victory was his old consideration.
tells us that Haig believed that it was the only way to win. I feel
After each confrontation where casualties occurred Chamberlain was sure to visit with each individual soldier or group of soldiers and be certain they didnt need the attention of a doctor. He also took time to get to know his men and build relationships with them. Through this act Chamberlain gained more respect, even, than Lee because his soldiers not only knew who they were fighting for, but also knew that if they died fighting for him they would die in honor under the command of a caring and passionate man. To be a good soldier you must love the army. But to be a good officer you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love. This is a very hard thing to do. ~Robert E. Lee (The Killer Angels Pg. 191)
To set the stage for this battle, we must first understand what the British were thinking at the time. The British had not ...
"I am a good enough Canadian to believe, if my experience justifies me in believing, that Canadians are best served by Canadians." Sir Arthur Currie. This statement Sir Arthur Currie, Major General for the Canadians at Vimy Ridge, could not describe any better why the Canadians were so successful at Vimy Ridge. Thought to have been a near impossible task to take Vimy Ridge as both the French and British had tried and failed miserably with substantial losses the Canadians were now tasked with taking this Ridge. The Ridge overlooking the Douai plain was essentially the “Hinge of the German line” as quoted by John Stephen. Losing this high ground would leave the Germans positions in the region exposed to the Allies, destabilizing the entire area. In the end the impossible was made possible and the Canadians captured the ridge and won the first major victory in the war. The reason for their success came from not only their strategies and preparedness but also uniting together for the very first time in the war as Canadians.
The war consisted of the French and British armies taking on the German empire. The war had over 60,000 casualties the first day, with a mass number 1.5 million deaths at the end of the war. Seeing the inside of the war from Philip Gibbs perspective really gave us a more emotional connection to the story due to the vivid and graphic scene, he set up for us such as the ending when he quotes “They were silent, grave-eyed men who marched through the streets of French and Belgian towns to be entrained for the Somme front, for they had forebodings of the fate before them. Excerpt From: “Sources of World History.” iBooks.. .
At the beginning of the war, the preconceptions of each side show exactly why Britain was destined for failure. On the American team,
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
arguing the case that Haig was a fool who cost the lives of too many
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?
These soldiers lacked passion for the war. They didn't feel heroic because they did not hate the French nor the British. Therefore they lacked zeal to fight the war and did not fit the title of hero, they clung on to their life at all times.
From the very first battle at Harfleur Branagh's low opinion of war is shown. When we first see the fighting, it is dusk and the sky is further darkened by smoke, instantly creating a morbid feeling. Combined with the muddy and wet terrain, the cheerless soldiers and the overbearing size of the castle which they hope to achieve, it is clear not only that the English army must fight against all the odds to win, but that even the conditions are detrimental to the English cause.The scene where Bardolph, Nym and Pistol are backing away from the battle to save themselves is an important inclusion to the film. Had Branagh intended the film to be a glorification of war, this small scene could have easily been removed. However, he chose to keep it in his film because it actually assists the message which he attempts to convey. This scene, although still clearly comical, as Shakespeare intended it to be, it implies that not all soldiers are valiant and brave and that war is so terrible that soldiers are willing to desert their friends and fellow countrymen because of the hideous nature of war.After the battle of Harfluer is won by the English and they begin to make their way towards Agincourt, Branagh seizes the opportunity to show the viewer the 'victorious' army.
In both fiction and reality, people and characters are subjected to external factors that affect how they think, act, and behave. As such they often have personas unbeknownst to others through mere observation. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut and The Wars by Timothy Findley both utilize characters that display inconsistent personalities in public contrasted to how they act in private. Especially in wartime, humans are pushed to their limit and more than often emerged disfigured physically and mentally. Through observing the public and private lives demonstrated by the characters of The Wars and Slaughterhouse-Five, all that they held private is lost or publicized through war, ultimately resulting in their loss of purpose or identity.