Is It Fair to Criticise General Haig as a Donkey Who Led Lions

Is it fair to criticize common Haig as a donkey who led lions? Douglas Haig was a General during cosmea warfare One. There is much controversy over General Haigs study due to the high level of losses during his passage of armss in command. Many large number agree with David Lloyd Georges attitude of Haig and many other British Generals of World War One. They are said to be donkeys, incompetents who sent the lions (the soldier) into futile damn battles. Many popular books, films and television programs to a fault agree with David Lloyd George.The sad truth, however, was amid two evenly matched opp wizardnts, that there was no other way of resolving the conflict. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that that Douglas Haig was a poor General, or a donkey. The evidence is that General Haig, along with many other Generals, were employ to handling sm exclusively-scale forces in colonial warfare. They had a lot to determine about this type of warfare, for which they were very offhanded. Furthermore, communications were poor, and armies were too big and dot to be commanded by a General himself.Haig should have, however, made sure that all his soldiers knew what the plan was before they set off, and Haig should have planned how he was leaving to communicate with them. Moreover, if the infantry and artillery did manage to hit the enemy Haig lacked a fast moving force to use the situation effectively. Additionally, General Haigs 1914 tactics had yet to catch up with the range and effectiveness of in advance(p) artillery and the latest machine guns. Likewise, Haig learnt the wrong lesson from previous flack catchers, instead of endure with short judgment of convictions of extreme amounts of fire.Haig used heavier guns and longer bombardments that just churned up the ground and eliminated the element of surprise. Haig was not able to pay information passed on to him, a great example of this was when it was suggested that much of the barbed wire on the Somme was not cut, he admitted that himself, but he still go on with the attack. some other example of this was during Aube Ridge, when he also knew the wire was not cut in 1915, but he insisted the attack should continue and 1,000 men lost their lives for no gain.Not to mention, Haigs ordering of successive attacks on the Somme during October and November 1916, with the ground reduced to a boggy area that gave way underfoot, achieved nothing but a adulteration of morale and manpower. In 1917 other Generals were telling Haig that it was pointless to continue. No matter, Haig continued to hammer away for a further three months. Haig consistently told his soldiers that German morale and manpower were on the verge of collapse and that just one more push could break the enemy.To Haigs defense it can be said that his multitude played a main part in defeating the German forces in the crucial battles of 1918. Furthermore, the Somme and Passchendaele, which are battles that have been kn own as unnecessary murder of British troops, had sensible strategy, not least in the amount of damage they inflicted on the Germans. Moreover, Haig was not given a schoolmaster force he was given a citizen army, which had less training and readiness for the battles. Additionally, the French tended to decide what to do during the battles, even though Haig was an independent commander.Besides, Germany had been operative on placing high tech weapons onto the battlefield (quick-firing artillery and machine guns) and also low-tech defenses (trenches and barbed wire), which made Haigs job considerably harder. At the battle of Loos, Sir John French wanted personal control of militia. He thus didnt allow Haig (commander on the spot) to have them until it was too late, and the attack consequently failed causing thousands of casualties. Not to mention, at the battle of Neuve Chappelle, poor communications hampered the ability of Haig and the British Commander Sir John French, to send in reserves where they were needed.Also, when General Haig wanted to attack in Flanders, around Ypres, where the British army was closer to supplies and also to strategic targets just behind the Germans lines (coastal ports and coal mines). However, for the sake of unity in the alliance with France, the politicians at the time decided that the attack must come on the River Somme simply because this was where the British and French armies met in the trench line. The blame for the slaughter cannot, therefore, be primed(p) entirely on Douglas Haig himself, simply because it was not his plan to attack on the River Somme.In addition, the German commanders would be fighting on ground they knew well, they also had the proceeds of telephone cable which was deeply buried and therefore harder to cut. The German generals would therefore be able receive information far more readily than their British counterparts. In conclusion, I think it is fair to criticize General Haig as a donkey who led l ions. This is justifiable because Haig was often unprepared for the battle where he was responsible for thousands of men.Communication was a big problem for Haig he did not insure that his soldiers were able to communicate messages during battle, which meant that soldiers were left confused, not fellow feeling what there next plan of action was. Furthermore, General Haigs had not been able to catch up with modern artillery and machine guns, which meant his battle tactics were often old fashioned and ineffective. Moreover, Haig was not able to accept intelligence that was passed on to him which meant he made drastic decisions, which would lead trustful men to their deaths.