Why might Haig not deserve th nickname butcher of the somme?

Answer 1

This is my history essay I did ages ago, so bear with me if there are a few mistakes!:

Field Marshall Haig: Butcher Of The Somme?

In 1916, the British began to worry that Germany had the upper hand of the war, and also at the time were anxious for the French, as many casualties were returning from Verdun. From previous battle victories, the British put Field Marshall Douglas Haig in charge of one of the biggest planned battles in the First World War: The Battle of the Somme. Along with a few other higher rank generals, Douglas Haig planed the detailed attack on the German front line, with the aim of relieving the pressure on the French at Verdun. This was through flying planes over enemy lines to identify what the Germans were plotting, by dropping bombs on the German fortressed villages, ammunition depots and front-line bunkers, and by finally sending the British troops walking across No-Man's land to the German trenches, where the soldiers would attack the survivors and therefore gain control over the German front-line. However, though sounding like a very well thought out plan, it was a disaster-in many ways, such as low cloud proved difficult for the British spotter planes to see through, the barbed-wire lining the German trenches was not cut, and secret dug-outs made by the Germans housed many rescued soldiers from the bombing, so the British were unknowingly outnumbered. Due to this, Douglas Haig earned the reputation as 'Butcher of the Somme'. But was this a fair title given to a man who was judged by the 21st century?

Defence:

'Douglas Haig was a brave and intelligent man, for he was educated at Oxford University and later attended Sand Hurst Military School. He wasn't stupid, and therefore must have known what he was doing when he planned the battle. He was a loving family man, adored his wife and children, and even visited the sick and wounded men behind the front lines. This proved that he wasn't a heartless man at all, and that he couldn't have sent all those soldiers to their deaths without good reason. He was also noble and straight-forward, a man who wasn't afraid to speak the truth, for in his diary, he wrote: 'the nation must be taught to bear losses'. Arguably, this is a reliable source, as it is claimed to come directly from Haig's war-time diary. Haig was always confident that his weapons were 'up-to-date' and 'deadly' and regularly checked the construction of the artillery. Some allege he was a 'technophobe', afraid almost to use modern technology, and afraid of change to the kind of arms he was used to. But this would be wrong, for also in his diary, he wrote about his assessment of some of the trench mortars: 'I inspected some trench mortars, about 2 feet long, with a moveable support near the muzzle to alter the elevation'. He was proud of the design and confident that it would strive amongst the latest technologies involved in the war. Many people believe that Haig was the only man responsible for the battle's bloody outcome. This was not the case however, as right from the early preparation for battle, he was closely assisted by General Rawlinson, who was the same rank as Haig, and who therefore should have bore some of the blame for the death of so many British soldiers (figures stood at 60,000 casualties and 30,000 deaths on the first day).

The day before the battle, Haig wrote in his diary that 'the men were in splendid spirits', for he had told them that the barbed-wire had been cut successfully, and that the German trenches had been reduced to nothing more than rubble and mud. This information later proved to be massively important, and unfortunately for Haig inaccurate, as the barbed-wire had not been cut, nor the trenches greatly destroyed. This means that Haig was given false information, the night before the battle and conclusively means that whoever told him it was 'all clear' should accept as much of the responsibility as Haig did. From 'Dropping the donkey epithet', it tells us that: 'The fact that Haig did not destroy the original manuscript diary undermines the notation of a sinister conspiracy'. This quote is saying that Haig didn't get rid of his original diary, which proves he had nothing to hide. This source is fairly reliable; however, the text it came from is mainly bias towards Haig's defence. In the final year of the war, Haig made friends with Supreme Commander Foch, and it was said that 'Haig's drive and vision were of vital importance in the critical last hundred days of the war.

All the highlighted sources are officially from Haig's diary. These can therefore be reliably judged, however, the fact that Haig did not originally destroy his diary meant that this wife, Lady Haig, re-typed his diary for him. This could mean that she was bias towards her husband, and that she could have in fact twisted his words, in order to make him look like a brave man. However, another factor of the sources given in Haig's defence, was that they were all given either as opinions, quotes from people who were close to him and liked him, or were from Haig's diary himself.'

Answer 2

Well he does not deserve it because the British just wanted to place the blame on someone at the point they were losing so they don't get the blame thrown at them.