‘Does General Douglas Haig deserve his reputation as the “Butcher of the Somme?” as a plentiful amount of historians criticise him for why multitudinous soldiers died during the battle of the Somme, essentially due to his poor battle plan, but alongside every event there is two sides to what has happened. The battle of the Somme arose because the British and French armies were required to relive German pressure off the French town of Verdun as well as gaining an expansion of territory. Haig was chosen
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
Defining Field Marshal General Sir Douglas Haig Haig was a technical innovator; Haig was an old fashioned fool. Haig was a brilliant strategist; Haig was ignorant. Haig was a great man; Haig was hardly a man. Haig was easily the best man for the job; Haig was obviously the only man left for the job. All these views are shared by different people about Haig, in my essay I will put forward my views about Haig and justifications by referring to the facts. Douglas Haig was born on June 19th 1861
"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
Blaming Haig for the Slaughter of the Somme 1. Source A is a balanced source. It is from a book called Field Marshal Haig, which was written by the historian Philip Warner in 1991 makes this source Secondary Evidence because it was written some time after the war. It contains both pro Haig and also anti Haig parts. Here are some of the pro Haig points, "If the criterion of a successful general is to win wars, Haig must be judged a success". This statement praises General Haig in the way
Terrorism and Morality by Haig Khatchadourian In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism
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
Zealand, Canada, India,etc. Leaders of the Somme Offensive: Sir Douglas Haig (1861-1928) Haig’s name is usually associated with the attack he lead on Somme due to its controversies of the amount of soldiers that died for such little gain. He led the 1st corps of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to France. He was a well experienced war general that was criticized on his war
suggests that Haig was an 'efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War'. Is there sufficient evidence in Sources C to L to support this interpretation? There are those that believe Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig was 'the Butcher of the Somme', those who would agree with John Keegan's opinion of Haig and those who see arguments for both views. Sources D, F, G and J do not support Keegan's interpretation of Haig. Source D is a
only for the scale of casualties, but also for the mud. Ypres was the principal town within a salient (or bulge) in the British lines and the site of two previous battles: First Ypres (October-November 1914) and Second Ypres (April-May 1915). Haig had long wanted a British offensive in Flanders and, following a warning that the German blockade would soon cripple the British war effort, wanted to reach the Belgian coast to destroy the German submarine bases there. On top of this, the possibility
Field Marshall Haig Sir Douglas Haig replaced Sir John French as commander of the British army. He faced many problems from the state French had left the army in. He faced the task of planning battles and training his army. His tactics were first put to the test at the Battle of the Somme in 1916 and the casualties began to rise into unacceptable numbers. The British army put their faith into Haig because of his reputation as a great leader. He had had past success' during the Boer War
Field Marshal sir Douglas Haig as The Butcher Of The Somme Sir Douglas Haig was appointed Field Marshal of the British Army in 1915, as no progress had been made since 1914, when the First World War began. Trench warfare was introduced for the first time. Much of the nature of the fighting taking place in the First World War was alien to Haig and his Generals, a cavalry man who served with distinction during the second Boer War. In February 1916 the Germans attacked Verdun again, the
Haig As a Leader I think Haig was a bad leader who made many critical mistakes during the battle of Passchendaele. From looking at the sources I can see many bad views of Haig as a war leader, although some good views can also be detected. In source A it is evident that Haig always ensured that his army was well equipped by asking the War Cabinet for more ammunition. I also know that Haig was
Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig In this oral assessment I am going to talk about Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig, Haig was a war leader in the First World War who led the army on few occasions. One of his most memorable battles was the battle of the Somme; in this battle the allies suffered over 2 million causalities and over 500,000 deaths. We may have won the battle and the war, but at a huge cost. In this assessment I am going to try arguing the case that Haig was a fool who cost the lives
Somme but they are written by the same person which was Lloyd George. The two sources however were very different from each other. Source I was written by Lloyd George on the 21st of September 1916 when he visited the battlefield with Sir Douglas Haig. It says that Lloyd George was the secretary for the War at this time of the Somme he was the war leader from 1906-1916. Source J is very negative about the Battle of the Somme when compared to Source I. This was written in the 1930’s; he could
LIEUTENANT--GENERAL SIR ARTHUR CURRIE (A brief account of the battle of Passchendaele) Lieutenant-General Sir Arthur Currie was the most capable soldier that Canada has produced. Certainly, he did not look like the great soldier he had become. A very tall man, at six-foot-four, he was also somewhat overweight. Through his successes as the Commander of the Canadian Corps, he knew how to delegate authority and stand by the decisions of his subordinates. Currie, however, was not a professional soldier
Haig as a Successful Commander Field Marshal Douglas Haig was one of the most controversial people of the Great War. While he brought eventual victory, he is accused of being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of young men during 1916 and beyond. I will begin by looking at source C and the opinions of the fighting man on Haig. Fred Pearson was an infantryman that fought under Haig, and so might not have ever met him. His thoughts on Haig are in an angry, annoyed tone, saying
of Laos felt and blamed on this event was created by large swarms of giant Asian honeybees (Encyclopedia Britannica) In 1981 United States Secretary of State Alexander Haig openly accused the Soviet Union of supplying this toxin to Communists found in Vietnam and or Laos. The Soviet Union denied these allegations. Secretary Haig had physical evidence from several places in Southeast Asia analyzed and reviled the possibility of three different mycotoxins. (Jonathan B. Tucker) So which do you believe
which gave him unparalleled control over events, but also to his great personal popularity with the army. · One of Napoleon's own generals explained this popularity by saying that it "was by familiarities that the Emperor made his soldiers adore him, but it was a means available to only to a commander whom frequent victories had made illustrious; any other general would have injured his reputation by it". · By the use of theatrical and emotional language in his bulletins and Orders of the
undergoing a transition toward a multi-party democracy. Burma’s influential intelligence chief, General Khin Nyunt, has warned that “such a transition cannot be done in haste or in a haphazard manner. The world is full of examples where hasty transition from one system to another led to unrest, instability and even failed states” . However, this linguistic charade is not consistently maintained. Burma’s generals have made disturbing pronouncements that overtly envision a highly compromised, paternalistic