Haig was in charge of the British Army from 1915-1918; he led thousands of men to their deaths in the battle of the Somme earning him the nickname butcher of the Somme. The Battle of the Somme took place between 1st July and 18th November 1916, on the first day alone 20,000 British soldiers lost their lives. Critics of Haig often described the British army as ‘lions led by donkeys’ meaning that the brave soldiers were being led by fools. This essay will evaluate whether Haig deserved his nickname.
• A good general is often described as someone who leads an army to victory with as few scarifies as possible. Haig did not achieve this, in the battle of the Somme; he gained only around 15km of land and at a cost of 60,000 men. This shows that
…show more content…
If he had not done this we would possibly not have won the war. Also he did his best under the difficult circumstances, for example, the Germans’ defensive weapons were a lot better than the British attacking weapons which meant it was hard to break down the defences without a huge loss of men, this proves Haig had no choice but to let several soldiers die. Also he is not to blame because his diaries show that at the end of the first day he had no idea how terrible the battle had been, this justifies him continuing to attack as behind the lines he did not have any clue as to how it was going and it would not have been practical for him to approach the front lines and risked being killed when he had an army to command. General Haig was not the butcher of the Somme because he was the leading founder of the British Legion Poppy Appeal. He is called the butcher because it is believed that he had no regard for the lives of his soldiers. If he didn't care about human lives then why would he help create a charity with the sole intention of providing welfare for people that have or are serving Britain in wars? Therefore he is not the butcher of the
“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
Sajer’s depiction of professionalism in the Wehrmacht is perhaps the most likely place where mainstream thought concerning war comports with its actual practice. Sajer notes that even in the twilight of World War II when his unit,
I will also discuss how the young, naive soldiers arrived at war, not knowing what warfare entailed. They were shocked by the conditions and the casualties. I will also discuss the bravery shown by the ANZACS in the most dangerous conditions. I will conclude with my reasons for why the Gallipoli campaign holds such value and importance in Australian history and ideology. Australian men were very keen to get involved in the war because they felt that it was their duty and if they didn’t go to war it would make them look cowardly.
Lewis, R. (n.d.). The Home Front - World War 2. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from www.anzacday.org.au: http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/homefront/overview.html
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 judgement of Haig cannot be reached without an understanding of his context. Haig, in society today, is most commonly viewed as a foolish “butcher” who failed to grasp the basics of the battlefield and proceeded to sacrifice Britain’s ‘flower of youth’. But to blindly accept this perspective is to misunderstand the complexities surrounding interpretations of Haig. We must realise that the First World War was one of inherent contradictions: a war with unexpected 20th Century technology, a war of attrition rather than the traditional 19th Century one of movement. Commanders, including Haig, struggled with the advent of modern warfare. This inflexibility is one of the traditionalists’ main lines of argument – move this into a paragraph on the mini-debate of inflexibility, but then I’m unsure where the following paragraph fits, because it i...
...rned the essential plans that a leader would need to lead him troops. He also had the morale and spirits to keep the troops ready to fight for the freedom they wanted, as well as his ability to command such troops in placement and tactics.
Military Leadership is always an important factor in wars. Good commanders will accomplish the goals of their side while inferior generals will only hinder performance and fail their leader. However, not all great generals are victorious. Victories depend heavily on the availability of resources. Leadership does not relate to the supplies one has to draw from, but instead the personal traits of the man himself. General Robert E. Lee is a prime example of an excellent general whose brilliance was impeded by the Confederate’s lack of resources. General Ulysses S. Grant’s genius is rebuffed when compared to that of Lee’s.
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.”
Field, Frank. British and French Operations of the First World War. Cambridge (England); New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
...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”.
Standing in a crowd of hundreds, anxious about what is to come—combat; waiting for a man whose reputation greatly precedes him…the man who will lead you into battle—into a nightmare. As he took the microphone and declared, “you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight.” These words are those of General George Patton…and he has your attention. Inspirational and blunt are just a couple of the many terms used to describe General Patton. General Patton was also a visionary in employment of combat forces; in fact, he was an expert on the subject. The manner in which he led his troops was in itself visionary. Despite his military prowess and formidable leadership, General Patton was humble in leadership and intellect. These three attributes will demonstrate that he was above all, a visionary and ethical leader.
O’Neill, William L. World War II A Student Companion. 1 ed. William H. Chafe. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.