Haig: incompetent or imaginative commander in chief of Britain s Expeditionary Force? Introduction This lesson plan is part of a number providing activities to support schools attending The Great, a series of 12 panel discussions featuring high profile historians and broadcasters covering First World War topics. This can be run as a whole lesson or individual activities can be run as shorter sessions. Completing some or all of these activities in advance will enable the students to formulate questions and feel confident to deliver their thoughts during the debate. Objectives To consider evidence for different interpretations of Haig s effectiveness as commander in chief of Britain s Expeditionary Force during the First World War To formulate questions to ask at The Great Key learning outcomes Students will gain an understanding of the key debate surrounding Haig s reputation to provide a contextual understanding of the topic area prior to the debate. Suggested timings 30 minutes Resources needed Copies of Source Sheet (one per student) Interactive whiteboard 1
Activity steps Starter (5 minutes) 1. Begin by explaining to the students that they will be attending a debate on the topic referenced on page one and they will be encouraged to ask questions. 2. Show the students a picture of the statue of Earl Haig in Whitehall (e.g. like the one top right). Encourage them to develop their own questions about this image. 3. Explain who the statue depicts and tell the students that it was commissioned by Parliament in 1928 and unveiled in 1937. Ask the students what this might tell us about the man. Main activity (15 minutes) 1. If the students are not familiar with Haig, give them this brief profile. Douglas Haig was born in Edinburgh in 1861. He studied at Oxford University before joining the Royal Military Academy. Haig served as a cavalry officer before taking part in the Sudan campaign and the Boer War. He became the commander of the British Expeditionary Force in 1915. In 1916, Haig attempted to break the stalemate on the Western Front and relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun by ordering the Somme offensive. The British army suffered 60,000 casualties on the first day. The following year, Haig ordered the Third Battle of Ypres, which resulted in many more casualties but also weakened the German army. The French and British allied forces, led by the French commander Ferdinand Foch and supported by Haig, eventually defeated the German army in 1918. Haig helped to set up the Royal British Legion and helped to raise funds. He died in 1928. 2. Give the students the key interpretations to be debated, for example: On the centenary of the Battle of the Somme, people still hold strong opinions about the commander Douglas Haig. Interpretation A: Haig was a callous commander. He was an incompetent donkey who did not take care of his soldiers, the lions. He sat in safety behind the lines while sending his troops to walk across No Man s Land against machine guns and barbed wire. Haig s men, who only obeyed because otherwise they would be shot for desertion, resented him. Interpretation B: Haig was a misunderstood commander. He did a remarkable job while facing tremendous challenges. He had to create a huge army from ordinary civilians in a short space of time. He also had to learn new tactics and use new weapons as they became available. Haig took as much care of his men as he could and relations between officers and men were good. 2
3. Hand out the Sources Sheet, which gives the students a selection of short sources containing varied interpretations of Haig s leadership over the Battle of the Somme, such as those provided on page two. Ask the students to complete some or all of the following activities. a) Decide whether each source supports interpretation A or B. If the students think sources could support both interpretations, ask them to select precisely which elements of the sources apply to each interpretation. If time allows, the students could research additional sources for the different interpretations. b) Consider the origin, purpose, values and limitations of key sources. For example, students could select the three they feel are most important or you could assign each student a source and ask them to present their ideas to the class. How do these considerations help us to evaluate the source and its contribution to an interpretation? c) Compare and contrast the account of the first day of battle given by Haig (source 7) and Walter Hutchinson (source 2). What do these two different views tell us about Haig's effectiveness as a commander? Conclusion (10 minutes) Discuss with the students what questions the sources raise about Haig s effectiveness. Ask each student to write at least three questions they could ask the panellists at the debate to help them form their own opinions. Taking this topic further a) Researching panellists Ask the students to research the panellists who will be taking part in the debate and begin thinking about questions they may wish to ask them. Tell them that their questions do not necessarily have to relate directly to the debate topic as they will have the opportunity at the end of the debate to speak with panellists further. Professor Gary Sheffield University of Wolverhampton, panellist Professor Robin Prior University of Adelaide, panellist Professor Stephen Badsey University of Wolverhampton, panellist 3
b) Links to contemporary issues Relate the debate to a current issue, such as this: Should memorials to controversial historical figures be removed from universities? This was the headline in the Times Higher Education on August 13, 2015. Since then a number of prominent statues and memorials have been removed from places of prominence. Ask the students to consider: Do you agree with these decisions? Should anything be done about Haig s statue in Whitehall? What are the advantages and disadvantages of re-evaluating controversial historical figures some time after the event? How does considering these issues enable us to be better historians? c) Post-debate activity Discuss with the students what they thought about the debate. What did they learn that was new? Was there anything they disagreed with? Are there any areas they would like to research further? Follow up the debate by asking the students to do one of the following activities. 1. Make a short podcast to evaluate the role of Haig in the Battle of the Somme 2. Ask the students to create a design for a new memorial of Haig, representing their own view of him 3. Run a debate about Haig s role in the war, using the format of The Great 4
Appendix: reading and further research If the students wish to do extra research outside of the Sources Sheet, please see additional sources and references below. Academic articles Bond, B. Haig's Command; & Field-Marshal Auchinleck (book review published in History Today Volume 21 Issue 3, March 1971) Terraine, J. The Texture of the Somme, 1916 (published in History Today Volume 26 Issue 9, September 1976) Wilkinson, R. Lloyd George and the Generals (published in History Review Issue 61, September 2008) Book list Bond, B. and Cave, N. Haig: A Re-appraisal 80 Years on (Pen and Sword Books, 2009) Clark, A. The Donkeys (Pimlico, 2006) Gary, S. The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army (Aurum Press, 2012) Documentaries Battle of the Somme (British Film produced in 1916), extract available courtesy of the Imperial War Museum http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar Battle of the Somme (BBC, 2012) Websites Lions led by donkeys? National Archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g4/ Douglas Haig: National Army Museum http://www.nam.ac.uk/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/britains-greatest-general/douglas-haig Has history misjudged the generals of World War One? Sheffield, G., BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zq2y87h 5
Sources sheet Source 1: Geographical necessity Map of Western Front in February 1916 showing German attack on French forts around Verdun (5 months and 700,000 French soldiers killed) The Battle of Verdun took place on the hills north of Verdun-sur- Meuse (north-eastern France) between the French and German armies. The German army wanted to capture the Côtes de Meuse (Meuse Heights), so it could then gain control of Verdun. Using a number of different tactics, the German army inflicted heavy losses on the French army. Source 2: Diary extract from Walter Hutchinson, stretcher bearer at the Battle of the Somme (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/08/military. uknews4) Saturday July 1 We hadn't gone far up the trench before we came across three of our own lads lying dead. Their heads been badly damaged by a shell We had to go scrambling over the poor fellows in and out, in and out. It was one of the awful sights I had ever witnessed and at this point our own lads was coming out wounded as we was following them in As soon as we got on the road we saw an awful sight, for there was wounded men by hundreds coming from the line... then the order came down, dump everything and fix bayonets, you have got to fight for it lads. We obeyed the order like men... I know we had had a lot of lads wounded and I had not seen anything of Charley my pal since... the morning. Source 3: Political expedience Source 4: New types of warfare and technology Requests from British and French governments for decisive British action on the Somme After the war, Sir William Robertson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, explained this strategy: The necessity of relieving pressure on the French Army at Verdun remains, and is more urgent than ever. This is, therefore, the first objective to be obtained by the combined British and French offensive. The second objective is to inflict as heavy losses as possible upon the German armies. Source 5: Haig s Letter to the editors of the main British newspapers, May 1916. Realistic or uncaring? The lessons the people of England need to learn are patience, self-sacrifice and confidence The aim is the destruction of German militarism. Three years of war and the loss of one-tenth of the manhood of the nation is not too great a price to pay in such great a cause. Trench / war of attrition / machine-gun The theory of attrition: eventually you would grind down your enemy and they would have to yield. Private H. Jeary, Queen's Royal West Surrey Regmt. As far as the eye could see was a mass of black mud with shell holes filled with water. Source 6: Contemporary politician Lord Lansdowne (ex-cabinet minister, 29th Nov 1916) We are slowly but surely killing off the population of these islands. Can we afford to go on paying the same sort of price for the same sort of gain? Source 7: Haig s explanation after the first day Source 8: Statistics (1st July 1916) Very successful attack this morning All went like clockwork The battle is going very well for us and already the Germans are surrendering. Battle ran: July November 1916 British losses: 420,000 incl. 60,000 on the first day French losses: 200,000 German losses: 500,000 Land gained: Allied forces had advanced along a 30-mile strip that was seven miles deep at its maximum. Source 9: 20th-century historian Source 10: Recent historiography Warner, P. (1991) Field Marshal Haig If the criterion of a successful general is to win wars, Haig must be judged a success. The cost of victory was appalling, but Haig s military methods were in line with ides of the time, when attrition was the method all sides used to achieve victory. Mead, G. The Good Soldier: The Biography of Douglas Haig (Paperback pub. 2014) Britain's unskilled citizen army of 1916 was transformed, under Haig's stewardship, into a highly effective and modern all-arms force.