John Keegan, a modern military historian Essay Example

John Keegan, a modern military historian Paper Field Marshal Haig was the most important person during World War One. There are many different views on his competence, character and leadership qualities of both past and present leading up to his victory in 1918. Despite being victorious, there are many flaws and events of which Haig was at fault for during the war. On one hand you have the incompetent, criminal, immoral donkey view of Haig supported by historians such as John Laffin, and on the other you have a competent, man of his time, innovative resourceful supported by historians such as Garry Sheffield and John Keegan. Ultimately I will prove which view is most accurate; using the sources and my own knowledge I will provide sufficient evidence to support John Keegans suggestion that Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier. On the subject of Haigs performance in the Battle of the Somme, Keegans views seem to be somewhat limited. Other historians such as John Laffin argue that Haig should be seen as an incompetent and inflexible. His initial bombardment tactics were flawed, in that the Germans were easily managed to attack the British troops. There was insufficient barrage, attacking on too wide and deep a front. We will write a custom essay sample on John Keegan, a modern military historian specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on John Keegan, a modern military historian specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on John Keegan, a modern military historian specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer He displayed obstinacy in adhering to fixed plans regardless of the facts, even at the price of destroying his own armies. This is shown in source D. Source D is a view of Haig in the form of a cartoon entitled Your Country needs me, from General Haigs Private War; The cartoon suggests to us that Haig was arrogant, and this is almost certainly true in that he failed to adapt to changed conditions of attack, for example when the initial bombardment at the Somme failed he continued with the same tactics best epitomizing his inexperience and arrogance. However the usefulness of this source is unconvincing- it is only the view of one person, the cartoonist, and not of the general public. There is however some powerful evidence to support the view of Keegan, in particular sources K and H. Source K an article by S. Warburton, published in Hindsight:GCSE Modern History Review in April 1998 says that Haig was the best man for the job at the time. Haig was the product of his time, of his upbringing, education, and training and previous military experience. In perspective, the criticism Haig receives seems harsh and unjustified because the British casualties were the same as the Germans and French. Source H, shows us that Haigs perseverance in continuing the battle of the Somme, despite the heavy losses proved to be the correct option. Source H, from the official biography Haig, by Duff Cooper says, To have refused to fight then and there would have meant the abandonment of Verdun to its fate and the breakdown of co-operation with the French. However the sources accuracy and reliability is dubious because Cooper was asked by Haigs family to write it, so hes bound to put Haig in a good light. Having said that, it can also be argued that perhaps Haig shouldnt have continued with a full blooded attack. Source E is a diary of the events in the battle written by Haig himself. On 1st July 1916 he reports that the battle was going to plan on the first day of battle, the battle is going very well for us and already the Germans are surrending freely. In stark contrast the first day of the Somme was the complete opposite- it was a disaster. In fact the whole of the Somme was a disaster- Haig gained so little territory that, after the battle he had only just about gained the amount of land that he had planned on the first day. Showing us that he was over confident, naive and extremely optimistic. In relation to the source itself, the reports were written by General Haig himself, so he was bound to say all went well, to make himself look good; this source is very unreliable and is of no use to any historian as it is factually incorrect amongst other things. Overall on the issue I would say that although Haigs perseverance in continuing the battle of the Somme, the manner in which he did portrays him as an incompetent, criminal, immoral donkey. Despite the British, French and German Casualties being the same, I think the amount of men who died in the battle could have decreased a lot if Haig had adjusted his tactics and not been so over confident; for that reason I think the phrase Butcher of the Somme is justified to some extent. Therefore Keegans case is somewhat mostly naive and inaccurate, although there is some evidence that proves otherwise; the things Haig did wrong in the battle far outweigh suggestions that he was an efficient and highly skilled leader who did much to lead Britain to victory. On the subject of Haigs communications in relation to politicians, generals and soldiers, Keegans view appears to be correct to some extent. He was under extreme pressure to win the war quickly, by his political masters, by a vociferous med ia, and by the determination of the British Public, there was no path to victory on offer and he was rushed into action on many occasions. One must take into consideration the role John Charteris played in the battle of the Somme. He fed wrong and inaccurate information to Haig. General Haig allowing him to do so time and time again inevitable had all the blame put on him. However, Haig abortive attitude towards General Rawlinson is perhaps ultimately his greatest downfall. Keegan is not supported by the weight of evidence in source Ei, Haig understands and notifies the idea that there will be a lot of deaths during the battle and tells the British population to accept any losses with indulgence. No superiority of arms and ammunition, however great, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of mens lives. Haig in due course contradicts himself in this understanding; when original tactics incorporated by Haig were failing, (by taking as much ground as possible moving the artillery so that the guns and shells could defend the ground taken) he refused to accept Rawlinsons plans to adapt to a bite and hold stra tegy- adding insult to injury as they say, this tactic was used later on in the war and it proved a great success. This in return suggests that Haig was ignorant and very dismissive of other Generals plans; his arrogance led him to believe that his tactics were the best. As shown in source F, stem from his belief that he had been chosen by God to serve his country. Presenting to us that he was over confident and optimistic, in spite of the amount of men lost as he constantly sent thousands of men to war and to their deaths, having no real effect. Notwithstanding Haigs obvious mistakes during battles, the view that he was incompetent and an immoral donkey is groundless and dubious. Evidence suggesting otherwise is best revealed in source C. Earl Haig, the son of Field Marshal Haig says that Haig should be credited for his victories, after all victory in the war was the main aim, and that views that he was the butcher of the Somme have only come about in modern times. the victories he achieved in the First World War which brought the war to an end. This is true and supportive of Keegans view because Haig is the most successful war general in the history of Britain. Earl Haigs opinion that Haigs is portrayal as a callous, uncaring man has only come about of recent times is also correct. Using my own knowledge, when Haig died, 100,000 troops shot at his coffin whilst 30,000 followed him to his burial. Therefore Keegans case is largely proper and correct; the evidence suggests that Haig shared a good relationship with his troops and that views that he was the butcher of the Somme are harsh and seemingly unjustified. Although the source must be questioned as it was written by Earl Haig, Generals Haig son, so he is bound to write good things about his father. Overall, the idea that Haig was the butcher is true to some extent. His failure to listen to General Rawlinson and allow John Charteris to make mistake after mistake is his biggest downfall. Had he listened to Rawlinson, the battle of the Somme could have been less disastrous in that fewer men would probably have been lost. However, in spite of this amongst other things sources, in source G, David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain at the time says My only justification is that Haig promised not to press the attack if it became clear that he could not attain his objectives by continuing the offensive. Showing that Lloyd-George did trust Haig, despite both men holding grudges against one another. Ultimately, Haig did share good relationships and shows commitment to the war effort, despite claims he was the butcher of the Somme. In perspective, qualms about his relationship with other generals are improper because he learned form his mistakes, and won many battles throughout 1917 to 1918. His aim was to win the war, and he did. Haig is extensively regarded as being a technophobe during the war years. Although he was loyal and devoted to using traditional cavalry during the war, despite being a failure on many occasions, labeling him a technophobe is unsubstantiated, fallacious and unwarranted. He was an enthusiastic supporter of air power and introduced tanks to the war together with modern artillery- used to great effect. Artillery became much bigger and was more accurate, technologically the British were far more sophisticated than the Germans. It is the way in which Haig incorporated this advances into his tactics that undermine his demise. Source J underlines Haigs involvement in technology. A war veteran recalls a meeting with Haig in 1915, Germans started shelling Haig went round and asked me questions, and then even talked about camouflage from the air. This source is very reliable as the person quoted actually fought in the war and therefore Keegans case is largely supported in terms of technology. Having evaluated Haigs performance on a variety of key issues and over the whole period of his command, my overall conclusion is that Haig was the right man for the job during the war. Many historians argue that he sent troops to their deaths, but in actual fact, there were fewer deaths in the British army than in the French or Germans. He made a number of serious errors, but he managed to learn from his mistakes. However Sir Douglas Haigs job was to win the war, and despite the countless amount of deaths, he did. Therefore, Keegans view is to be frank, correct, although it does have it limitations and drawbacks, the successes Haig masterminded in the war far outweigh the losses.