Military Wiki
Field Marshal The Right Honourable
The Earl Haig
Field Marshal Douglas Haig
Nickname "Master of the Field"[1]
"the Butcher of the Somme"[2] or
'Butcher' Haig.[3]
Born (1861-06-19)June 19, 1861
Died January 29, 1928(1928-01-29) (aged 66)
Place of birth Charlotte Square, Edinburgh
Place of death London
Allegiance  United Kingdom
Service/branch  British Army
Years of service 1884–1920
Rank Field Marshal (1917)
Battles/wars Mahdist War
Second Boer War
First World War
Awards Knight of the Order of the Thistle (1917)
Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (1915)
Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (1913)
Companion of the Order of the Bath (1901)
Member of the Order of Merit (1919)
Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (1916)
Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (1909)
Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire (1911)

Field Marshal Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig of Bemersyde, KT, GCB, OM, GCVO, KCIE, ADC, (19 June 1861 – 29 January 1928) was a British senior officer during World War I. He commanded the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) from 1915 to the end of the war. He was commander during the Battle of the Somme, the battle with one of the highest casualties in British military history, the Third Battle of Ypres, and the Hundred Days Offensive, which led to the armistice in 1918.[4][5][6]

Although a popular commander during the immediate post-war years,[7] with his funeral becoming a day of national mourning, Haig has since the 1960s become an object of criticism for his leadership during the First World War. Some called him "Butcher Haig" for the two million British casualties under his command, and regard him as representing the very concept of class-based incompetent commanders, stating that he was unable to grasp modern tactics and technologies.[7][8]

However, Major-General Sir John Davidson, one of Haig's biographers, praised Haig's leadership[9] and since the 1980s some historians have argued that the public hatred[6] in which Haig's name had come to be held failed to recognise the adoption of new tactics and technologies by forces under his command,[10] or the important role played by the British forces in the Allied victory of 1918,[4][5] and that the high casualties suffered were a function of the tactical and strategic realities of the time.[11]

Early life

As a Hussar at age 23 in 1885

Haig was born in Charlotte Square, Edinburgh - he was not an aristocrat by birth, or even landed gentry.[12] His father John Haig - an irascible alcoholic - was middle class ("in trade"), and as head of the family's successful Haig & Haig whisky distillery had an income of £10,000 per year. His mother (Rachel) was from a gentry family fallen on straitened circumstances.[13] Haig attended Clifton College. Both Haig’s parents died by the time he was eighteen.[14]

After a tour of the United States with his brother, Haig, unusually for a British officer at that time, attended university, studying Political Economy, Ancient History and French Literature at Brasenose College, Oxford, 1880–1883. He devoted much of his time to socialising - he was a member of the Bullingdon Club - and equestrian sports. He was one of the best young horsemen at Oxford and quickly found his way into the University polo team.[15] Although he passed his exams (a requirement for university applicants to Sandhurst), he was not eligible for a degree as he had missed a term's residence due to sickness, and if he had stayed for longer he would have been above the then age limit (23) to begin officer training in the Royal Military College in Sandhurst, which he entered in January 1884. Because he had been to university Haig was considerably older than most of his class at Sandhurst, and was Senior Under-Officer, was awarded the Anson Sword and passed out first in the order of merit.[16] He was commissioned as a lieutenant into the 7th (Queen's Own) Hussars on 7 February 1885.[17]


Junior officer

Haig played polo for England on a tour of the USA (August 1886 - he stayed a polo enthusiast all his life. Upon the reorganization of the Hurlingham Polo Committee in May 1914, Haig was elected Chairman, and he worthily filled that office until 1922, together with that of President of the Army Polo Committee. He was also the Founder of the Indian Polo Association.)[18][19] then saw overseas service in India (sent out November 1886), where he was appointed the regiment's adjutant in 1888.[20] He was something of a disciplinarian,[21] but also impressed his superiors by his skill at sorting out paperwork and analysing recent training exercises. He was promoted to captain on 23 January 1891.[22]

Haig left India in November 1892 to prepare for the entrance exam for the Staff College, Camberley, which he sat in June 1893. Although he was placed in the top 28 candidates (the number of places awarded by exam) he was not awarded a place as he had narrowly failed the compulsory mathematics paper. He concealed this failure for the rest of his life[23] and later (circa 1910) recommended dropping the mathematics paper as a requirement.[24] The Adjutant-General Sir Redvers Buller refused to award Haig one of the four nominated places, citing his colour blindness, despite Haig having his eyesight rechecked by a German oculist and despite Haig’s glowing testimonials from various senior officers, some of them lobbied by Haig and his sister. Haig's colour blindness would probably not have been an issue if he had passed the mathematics paper and it appears Buller wanted an excuse to give a place to an infantry officer.[25]

Haig returned briefly to India (taking time on his way to write a 40-page report on French cavalry manoeuvres in Touraine) as second-in-command of the squadron which he had himself commanded in 1892, then returned to the UK as ADC to Sir Keith Fraser, Inspector General of Cavalry.[26] Fraser was one of those who had lobbied for Haig to enter Staff College, and he was finally nominated in late 1894, a common practice in the day for promising candidates. While waiting to take up his place, he travelled to Germany to report on cavalry manoeuvres there, and also served as staff officer to Colonel John French (whom he had met in November 1891 whilst French was Commanding Officer of the 19th Hussars) on manoeuvres. The careers of French and Haig were to be entwined for the next twenty-five years, and Haig helped French write the cavalry drillbook, published 1896.[12]

As at Sandhurst, Haig worked hard at Camberley (which he entered early in 1896), and was not popular with his peer group – they chose Allenby as Master of the Drag Hunt, despite Haig being the better rider.[27] Haig impressed the Chief Instructor, Lt-Col G.F.R. Henderson, and completed the course, leaving in 1897. Some writers (e.g. Travers 1987) have criticised Camberley for its old-fashioned curriculum, which especially influenced Haig, as he was an absorber of doctrine rather than an original thinker. Haig was taught that victory must come from defeating the main enemy army in battle, and that as in Napoleonic warfare, attrition (the “wearing out fight”) was merely a prelude to the commitment of reserves for a decisive battlefield victory; traces of this thought can be seen at Loos and the Somme. Great emphasis was placed on morale and mobility, and on Murat's cavalry pursuit after Napoleon’s Jena campaign of 1806. Although the American Civil War was studied, the emphasis was on Stonewall Jackson’s mobile campaign in the Shenandoah Valley, rather than on the more attritional nature of that war.[28]

Sudan War, 1898

In early January Haig was picked by Evelyn Wood (now Adjutant-General) as one of three recent staff college graduates requested by Kitchener for the Sudan Campaign.[29] He may have been picked to keep an eye on Kitchener, as Wood invited him to write to him frankly and in confidence (Haig needed little encouragement to (privately) criticise his superiors - he was especially critical of Kitchener’s dictatorial habits).[30] Kitchener’s force was Anglo-Egyptian, and Haig was required to formally join the Egyptian Army, most of whose officers were British. The plan had been for him to train and take command of an Egyptian cavalry squadron, but this did not happen as Kitchener did not want a command reshuffle with combat imminent.[31] Unlike many British officers, Haig believed that the Egyptians could make good soldiers if properly trained and led.[32] Still without a formal position but accompanying the cavalry, Haig saw his first action in a skirmish south of Atbara (21 March), and in his report to Wood commented on the lack of British machine guns – despite persistent mythology that he did not appreciate machine guns, Haig had in fact made a special trip to Enfield to study the Maxim Gun, and throughout the campaign commented on its worth.[33] Four days later he was made staff officer of brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Broadwood’s cavalry brigade. Haig distinguished himself at his second action, the Battle of Nukheila (6 April) – where he supervised the redeployment of squadrons to protect the rear and then launch a flank attack, as Broadwood was busy in the front line. He was present at the Battle of Atbara (8 April), after which he criticised Kitchener for launching a frontal attack without taking the Dervishes in flank as well.[34] After Atbara Kitchener was given reinforcements and Haig received a squadron of his own, which he commanded at Omdurman (in reserve during the battle, then on a flank march into the town afterwards). He was promoted to brevet major on 15 November 1898.[35]

Boer War, 1899–1902

Haig returned to UK, hoping for a position at the War Office, but was instead appointed (May 1899) brigade major to the 1st Cavalry Brigade at Aldershot.[36] Haig had recently lent £2,500 (in a formal contract with interest) to the Brigade Commander John French to cover his losses from South African mining speculations, so that French, regarded as a talented cavalry commander, did not have to resign his commission.[37] Haig was promoted to the substantive rank of major on 26 June 1899.[38]

Haig was soon appointed Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General (September 1899)[39] and then Assistant Adjutant General (i.e. chief staff officer) of French’s brigade-sized force as it was sent off to the Boer War.[40] He took part in French’s first battle, Elandslaagte (18 October, near Ladysmith). French and Haig were ordered to leave Ladysmith as the four-month siege began, to take charge of the new Cavalry Division arriving from Britain - the two men escaped on the last train to leave Ladysmith (2 November 1899), lying down as it passed through enemy fire.[41] As in the Sudan, Haig continued to be sceptical of the importance of artillery, basing his opinions on interviews with enemy prisoners.[42] After Major-General French’s Colesberg Operations to protect Cape Colony, Roberts, newly arrived as Commander-in-Chief, appointed his protégé Colonel the Earl of Errol, over French’s protests, to the job of Assistant Adjutant General of the Cavalry Division, with Haig, who had been promised the job (and the local rank of lieutenant-colonel), as his deputy. Cavalry played a leading role in this stage of the war, including the relief of Kimberley (15 February 1900), which featured a spectacular British cavalry charge at Klip Drift. Haig was briefly (21 February 1900) given command of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade, then made AAG to the Cavalry Division at last after Errol was moved to a different job. French's Division took part in the capture of Bloemfontein (13 March 1900) and then Pretoria (5 June 1900). Haig privately criticised Roberts for losses to horses (exhaustion and lack of feeding) and men (typhoid) and thought him a “silly old man”.[43]

After Roberts had won the conventional war, Kitchener was left in charge of fighting the Boers, who had taken to guerrilla warfare. The Cavalry Division was disbanded (November 1900) and French, with Haig still his chief of staff, was put in charge of an all-arms force policing the Johannesburg area, later trying to capture the Boer leader de Wet around Bloemfontein. In January 1901 Haig was given a column of 2,500 men with the local rank of brigadier-general, patrolling Cape Colony, and chasing Commandant Kritzinger. As was standard policy at that time, Haig’s actions included burning farms (homesteads, crops and livestock included) as part of the well known British scorched earth policy as well as rounding up Boer women and children into concentration camps.[44] Throughout the war Haig’s sister Henrietta had been lobbying Evelyn Wood for her brother to have command of a cavalry regiment of his own when the war was over. French, probably not wanting to part with a valuable assistant, recommended Herbert Lawrence for the vacant command of the 17th Lancers, but Roberts, now Commander-in-Chief in the UK, overruled him and gave it to Haig (May 1901). Lawrence left the army in disgust at being passed over, although he later returned and was chief of staff to the BEF in 1918. As the 17th Lancers were in South Africa at the time Haig was able to combine that command with that of his own column.[45]

As the war drew to a close Haig had to locate and escort the Boer leader Jan Christiaan Smuts to the peace negotiations at Vereeninging. Haig was mentioned in despatches four times for his service in South Africa, and appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) in November 1900.[46] He was also promoted to the substantive rank of lieutenant colonel on 17 July 1901.[47]

Inspector-General of Cavalry, India

Haig, now reverting to his substantive rank of lieutenant-colonel, continued as the commanding officer of the 17th Lancers until 1903. The regiment was supposed to stay in South Africa but in the end returned home sooner than planned. Haig was appointed Inspector-General of Cavalry in India[48] (he would have preferred command of the cavalry brigade at Aldershot, where French was now GOC), but had first to spend a year on garrison duty at Edinburgh until the previous incumbent completed his term. Haig was appointed Aide-de-Camp to King Edward VII in 1902, remaining in this position until 1904.[49]

Haig's war service had earned him belated but rapid promotion: having been a captain until the relatively advanced age of thirty-seven, by 1904 he had become the youngest major-general in the British Army at that time. He was present at the Rawalpindi Parade 1905 to honour the Prince and Princess of Wales' visit to India. At this time a great deal of the energies of the most senior British generals were taken up with the question of whether cavalry should still be trained to charge with sword and lance (the view of French and Haig) as well as using horses for mobility then fighting dismounted with firearms. Lord Roberts, now Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, warned Kitchener (now Commander-in-Chief, India) to be “very firm with Haig ” on this issue (in the event Kitchener was soon distracted, from 1904, by his quarrel with the Viceroy Lord Curzon, who eventually resigned), and wrote that Haig was a “clever, able fellow” who had great influence over Sir John French.[50]

Marriage and children

On leave from India, Haig married Dorothy Maud Vivian (1879—1939) on 11 July 1905 after a whirlwind courtship (she had spotted him for the first time when he was playing polo at Hurlingham two years earlier). She was a daughter of Hussey Crespigny Vivian and Louisa Duff.[51]

The couple had four children:[51]

  • Alexandra Henrietta Louisa Haig[52] (9 March 1907—1997); First married to Rear-Admiral Clarence Dinsmore Howard-Johnston, by whom she had had three children. She secondly married in 1954 historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who created Baron Dacre of Glanton.
  • Victoria Doris Rachel Haig (7 November 1908—1993)
  • George Alexander Eugene Douglas Haig (15 March 1918—10 July 2009)
  • Lady Irene Violet Freesia Janet Augustia Haig (7 October 1919—2001); wife of Gavin Astor

Haig had used his leave in 1905 to lobby for a job at the War Office, but the proposal was rejected by Arnold-Forster (Secretary of State for War) as too blatantly relying on royal influence.[53]

War Office

The Boer War had exposed Britain’s lack of a general staff and modern reserve army. In the new Liberal Government (December 1905), Richard Haldane, Secretary of State for War, implemented the Esher recommendations accepted in principle by the outgoing Conservative government. In August 1906 Haig was appointed Director of Military Training on the General Staff at the War Office.[54] Haldane later wrote that Haig had “a first rate general staff mind” and “gave invaluable advice”[55] Haig in turn would later dedicate a volume of his despatches to Haldane, who by then had been hounded out of office for alleged pro-German sympathies in 1915. Although both men later claimed that the reforms had been to prepare Britain for continental war, they did not create a continental-sized army and it would be truer to say that they created a small professional army within a budget, with conscription politically impossible despite Lord Roberts’ campaigning.[56]

The reforms reorganised the militia, yeomanry and volunteers into the new Territorial Army. Haig was intolerant of what he regarded as old-fashioned opinion and not good at negotiating with strangers.[57] The militia (actually older than the regular army, with many socially important officers) were the last to agree, and had to be turned into a Special Reserve by Act of Parliament. Haig had wanted a reserve of 900,000 men, but Haldane settled for a more realistic 300,000.[58]

Haig’s skills at administration and organising training and inspections were better employed in setting up an Expeditionary Force of 120,000 men (6 infantry divisions and 1 cavalry - the force which would be deployed to France in 1914) in 1907. As an intimate of Haldane Haig was able to ensure high priority for cavalry, less for artillery, contrary to the advice of Lord Roberts (now retired as Commander-in-Chief) whose views were no longer very welcome because his campaign for conscription had made life hard for Haldane. Haig’s records of his time supervising artillery exercises show little interest in technical matters (aim, range, accuracy etc.).[59]

In November 1907 Haig was moved sideways to Director of Staff Duties.[60] He required commanders to take the staff officers assigned to them (rather than choose their own by patronage) and also assigned staff officers to the new Territorial Army. He supervised publication of “Field Service Regulations”, which was later very useful in expanding the BEF in WW1, although it still stressed the importance of cavalry charging with sword and lance as well as fighting dismounted. At this time he was also completing a separate work, “Cavalry Studies” (on which topic Haig’s admiring biographer James Marshall-Cornwall later wrote that he was “not … among the prophets”[61]), and devoting much time to cavalry exercises.[62] He was also involved in setting up the Imperial General Staff (larger colonies were to have local sections of the General Staff, with trained staff officers), for which his work was praised by Haldane.[63]

Chief of Staff, India

By 1909 it seemed likely to Haldane and Haig that an Anglo-German War loomed and Haig was at first reluctant to accept appointment as Chief of the General Staff in India.[64] He passed the Director of Staff Duties job to his loyal follower Brigadier-General Kiggell (later Chief of Staff BEF), to whom he wrote with “advice” every fortnight. Haig, who had been knighted for his work at the War Office, was promoted to lieutenant-general in November 1910.[65] In India he had hoped to develop the Indian General Staff as part of the greater Imperial General Staff, and to organise despatch of Indian troops to a future European War (his plan for mobilising the Indian army to send to Europe in the event of war was vetoed by Viceroy Lord Hardinge - in the event only a single Indian Corps would serve briefly on the Western Front, although Indian troops were used in the Middle East), but the Indian Army was too chaotic to allow success at either.[66]


Haig left India in December 1911, and took up an appointment as GOC Aldershot Command (1st & 2nd Divisions and 1st Cavalry Brigade) in March 1912.[67]

In the Army Manoeuvres of 1912 he was decisively beaten by Sir James Grierson despite having the odds in his favour, because of Grierson's superior use of air reconnaissance. At dinner afterwards Haig abandoned his prepared text, and although he wrote that his remarks were “well received” Charteris recorded that they were “unintelligible and unbearably dull” and that the visiting dignitaries fell asleep. Haig’s poor public speaking skills aside, the manoeuvres were thought to have shown the reformed army efficient.[68]

World War I


Outbreak of War

Map of the Western Front in 1914.

During the Curragh Mutiny (March 1914) Haig urged caution on his chief of staff John Gough, whose brother Hubert Gough (then a cavalry brigadier, later GOC Fifth Army in WW1) was threatening to resign rather than coerce Ulstermen into a semi-independent Ireland. Haig stressed that the army’s duty was to keep the peace and urged his officers not to dabble in politics. Sir John French was forced to resign as CIGS after having made the error of putting in writing a promise that officers would not be required to coerce Ulster; Haig respected Gough’s principled stance but felt French had allowed himself to be used as a political tool by Asquith.[69]

Upon the outbreak of war in August 1914, Haig helped organize the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), commanded by Field Marshal Sir John French. As planned, Haig's Aldershot command was formed into I Corps, giving him command of half of the BEF. In a letter to Haldane (4 August) Haig predicted that the war would last for months if not years and begged Haldane to return to the War Office (Asquith had been holding the job since the resignation of Seeley during the Curragh Affair - it was given to Kitchener), and delay sending the BEF to France until the Territorial Army had been mobilised and incorporated.[70]

Haig attended the War Council (5 August), at which it was decided that it was too dangerous to mobilise forward at Maubeuge, as British mobilisation was running three days behind that of France and Germany (i.e. the BEF might be overrun by the Germans as it formed up). There were no other contingency plans - Haig and Kitchener proposed that the BEF would be better positioned to counter-attack in Amiens. Sir John French (who was keen to fight as he had been advised by Henry Wilson that the war would be brief, who had confidence in Belgium's many fortresses, and who appeared to think that the Dutch were already in the war on the Allied side – they would in fact remain neutral throughout) suggested landing at Antwerp, which was vetoed by Churchill as the Royal Navy could not guarantee safe passage. A critical biographer writes that Haig was “more clear-sighted than many of his colleagues”.[71]

In his much-criticised memoirs, “1914”, French later claimed that Haig had wanted to postpone sending the BEF, which may be partly true in view of what he had written to Haldane the day before. Haig was so angry at this claim that he asked Cabinet Secretary Maurice Hankey to correct French’s “inaccuracies”. However Haig also rewrote his diary from this period, possibly to show himself in a better light and French in a poor one. The original manuscript diary for early August does not survive, but there is no positive evidence that it was actually destroyed, and it has been pointed out that it is just as likely that the typed version was prepared from dictation or notes now lost.[72] Hankey’s notes of the meeting record that Haig suggested delaying or sending smaller forces, but was willing to send forces if France in was danger of defeat or if the French wanted them (which they did), and that Haig predicted that the war would last several years, and that an army of a million men, trained by officers and NCOs withdrawn from the BEF, would be needed.[71]

Haig was appointed Aide-de-Camp to King George V in 1914.[73] During a royal inspection of Aldershot (11 August), Haig told the King that he had "grave doubts" about the evenness of French’s temper and military knowledge. He later claimed that these doubts had gone back to the Boer War, but there appears to have been an element of later embellishment about this: Haig had in fact praised French in the Boer War (he had criticised Kitchener, Roberts and others) and had welcomed his appointment as CIGS in 1911.[74]

Mons to the Marne

Haig crossed over to Le Havre.[75] The BEF landed in France on 14 August and advanced into Belgium, where French took up positions on the left of General Lanrezac's French Fifth Army at Charleroi. Haig was irritated by Sir John French (influenced by Henry Wilson into putting his faith in a French thrust up from the Ardennes) who was only concerned with the three German corps in front of the BEF at Mons and who ignored intelligence reports of German forces streaming westwards from Brussels, threatening an encirclement from the British left. Although II Corps fought off the German attack at Mons on 23 August (the first British encounter with the Germans) the BEF was forced to withdraw after Lanzerac ordered a retreat exposing their right flank as well.[76]

The retreats of I and II Corps had to be conducted separately because of the Mormal Forest. Both corps were supposed to meet at Le Cateau but I Corps under Haig were stopped at Landrecies, leaving a large gap between the two corps. Haig's reactions to his corps' skirmish with German forces at Landrecies (during which Haig led his staff into the street, revolvers drawn, promising to "sell our lives dearly") caused him to send an exaggerated report to French, which caused French to panic. The following day 26 August, Horace Smith-Dorrien's II Corps engaged the enemy in the Battle of Le Cateau, which was unsupported by Haig. This battle slowed the German army's advance. However, a critical biographer writes that too much has been made of the "moment of panic" at Landrecies, and that the 200 mile retreat, over a period of 13 days, is a tribute to the “steady and competent leadership” of both Haig and Smith-Dorrien.[77]

On 25 August the French commander Joseph Joffre ordered his forces to retreat to the Marne, which compelled the BEF to further withdraw. Haig was irritated by the high-handed behaviour of the French, seizing roads which they had promised for British use and refusing to promise to cover the British right flank. He complained privately of French unreliability and lack of fighting competence, a complaint which he would keep up for the next four years. He wrote to his wife that he wished the British were operating independently from Antwerp, a proposal which he had rejected as “reckless” when Sir John French had made it at the War Council on 4 August.[78]

The retreat caused Sir John French to question the competence of his Allies resulting in further indecision and led to his decision to withdraw the BEF south of the Seine. On 1 September Lord Kitchener intervened by personally visiting French and ordering him to re-enter the battle and coordinate with Joffre's forces. The battle to defend Paris began on 5 September and became known as the first Battle of the Marne. Haig had wanted to rest his Corps but was happy to resume the offensive when ordered. He drove on his subordinates, including Ivor Maxse, when he thought them lacking in "fighting spirit". Although Sir John French praised Haig’s leadership of his Corps, Haig was privately contemptuous of French’s overconfidence prior to Mons, and excessive caution thereafter.[79]

First Ypres

On 15 October, later than proposed after two weeks of friction between British and French generals, Haig’s I Corps was moved to Ypres in Flanders as part of the “Race to the Sea”.[80] In the belief that the German northern flank was weak, Haig was ordered to march on Ghent, Bruges and Courtrai in western Belgium, but the new German Chief of Staff Falkenhayn was trying to do the exact opposite, and roll up the Allied northern flank. Haig's Corps marched headlong into a thrust westward by fresh German forces, and the result was the First Battle of Ypres. German forces, equipped with 250 heavy guns (a large number for this early stage in the war), outnumbered Haig’s Corps by two to one, and came close to success. At one point Haig mounted his white horse to encourage his men who were retreating around Gheluvelt, although in the event the town had just been recaptured by a single battalion of the Worcesters before Haig’s ride.[81] Haig cemented his reputation at this battle, and Ypres remained a symbolic piece of ground in later years. Haig was also influenced by the fact that the Germans had called off their offensive when they were on the verge of success, and he drew the lesson that attacks needed to be kept up so long as there was any chance of success.[82]

After a fortnight of intense fighting Haig’s I Corps had been reduced from 18,000 men to just under 3,000 effectives by 12 November.[83] After six days of bickering between British and French generals I Corps was relieved by French troops, Haig being very suspicious of the pro-French sympathies of Henry Wilson.[84] Following the success of the First Battle of Ypres, French, who had been ordered by his doctor to rest to relieve the strain on his heart, recommended Haig for immediate promotion to full general. Haig travelled to London on French's behalf (23 November) to consult Kitchener about the plan to expand the BEF and reorganise it into two armies.[85]

At this point it was thought that the war would soon end once the Germans were defeated by the Russians at Lodz (in the event, they were not), and the difficulties of attacking on the Western Front were not yet appreciated. A failed attack by Smith-Dorrien’s II Corps on Messines-Wytschaete (14–15 December) was blamed on poor GHQ staffwork, and on 18 December Haig met French, who said he wanted to sack the BEF chief of staff Murray, whose performance had been unsatisfactory throughout the campaign, and promote his deputy Henry Wilson. Haig thought that Wilson, besides being too pro-French, had “no military knowledge” and recommended Quarter-Master General “Wully” Robertson for the vacancy. This was also the view of Lord Kitchener, so Robertson received the promotion.[86] Haig received promotion to full general on 16 November 1914.[87]


Spring Offensives

Like French, Haig wanted to push along the North Sea Coast to Ostend and Zeebrugge, but Joffre did not want the British acting so independently.[88]

Germany had recently sent 8 infantry divisions to the Eastern Front (as well as 12 newly raised divisions), reducing their net strength in the west from 106 divisions at the time of First Ypres to 98, so French and Joffre, thinking that the war would be won by the summer, agreed that a French offensive in Artois and Champagne should be accompanied by a British offensive at Neuve Chapelle – French entrusted Haig with this, as he trusted him more than Smith-Dorrien after the latter’s failure at Messines in December. At Neuve Chapelle Haig wanted a quick bombardment, his subordinate Rawlinson (GOC IV Corps) a longer and more methodical one. Shortage of shells meant that only a thirty-five-minute bombardment was possible, but the small front of the attack gave it the concentration to succeed. Haig displayed great interest in the potential of aircraft - he met with Major Trenchard of the Royal Flying Corps (16 Feb) to organise photographic air reconnaissance, and a full map of German lines was obtained; aircraft were also beginning to be used for artillery spotting – signalling to British batteries by Morse - observing enemy troop movements, and bombing German rear areas.[89] Four British divisions attacked on 10 March, and penetrated to a depth of 1,500 metres, but no further progress was made on subsequent days as the Germans were able to bring in reinforcements. Casualties were around 12,000 on each side.[90] The Official History later claimed that Neuve Chapelle was to show the French the attacking ability of British troops (this was true of all the 1915 offensives) and was the first time German line had been broken.[91]

Whilst Rawlinson felt that the offensive should have been halted after the first day, Haig felt that reserves should have been committed quicker, and on Rawlinson’s suggestion came close to sacking Major-General Joey Davies (GOC 8th Division) until it emerged that the latter had been holding back on Rawlinson’s orders – Haig then gave Rawlinson a severe reprimand although he thought him too valuable to sack. This may have made Rawlinson reluctant to stand up to Haig thereafter.[92]

French and Joffre still expected victory by July. Whilst the Germans attacked Smith-Dorrien at the Second Battle of Ypres (April), new Allied offensives were planned by the French at Vimy and by Haig at Aubers Ridge (9 May). It was believed on the British side that the lessons of Neuve Chapelle had been learned – reserves were ready to exploit and mortars were ready to support attackers who had advanced beyond artillery cover - and that this time success would be complete not partial. However, the attack was less successful than Neuve Chapelle as the forty-minute bombardment (only 516 field guns and 121 heavy guns[93]) was over a wider front and against stronger defences – Haig was still focussed on winning a decisive victory by capturing key ground rather than amassing firepower to inflict maximum damage on the Germans.[94]

Renewed attacks (Festubert, 15–25 May - only intended as a diversion[95]) gained 1,000 metres over a front of 4,000 metres, with 16,000 British casualties to around 6,600 German. Sir John French was satisfied that the attacks had served to take pressure off the French at the latter’s request, but Haig still felt that German reserves were being exhausted, bringing victory nearer.[96]

Lack of shells at these offensives was – along with Admiral Fisher’s resignation over the failed Dardanelles attack - one of the causes of the fall of the Liberal Government (19 May). Haig did not approve of the Northcliffe press attacks on Kitchener, whom he thought a powerful military voice against the folly of civilians like Churchill (despite the fact the Kitchener had played a role in planning the Gallipoli expedition and was an opponent of the strong General Staff which Haig wanted to see). French had been leaking information about the shell shortage to Repington of “The Times”, whom Haig detested and which he likened to “carrying on with a whore” (possibly a deliberately chosen analogy in view of French’s womanising[97]), as well as to the Conservative leaders, and to Lloyd George who now became Minister of Munitions in the new coalition government, and Haig was asked by Clive Wigram (one of the King’s press staff) to smooth relations between French and Kitchener. At Robertson’s suggestion Haig received Kitchener at his HQ (8 July – despite French’s attempt to block the meeting), where they shared their concerns about French. The two men met again in London (14 July), whilst Haig was receiving his GCB (awarded on French’s recommendation after Neuve Chapelle) from the King, who also complained to him about French. Over lunch with the King and Kitchener Haig remarked that the best time to sack French would have been after the retreat to the Marne – it was agreed that the men would correspond in confidence, and in response to the King’s joke that this was inviting Haig to “sneak” like a schoolboy, Kitchener replied that “we are past schoolboy’s age”.[98]

Haig had long thought French petty, jealous, unbalanced (“like a bottle of soda water … incapable of thinking … and coming to a reasoned decision”[99]), overly quick to meddle in party politics and easily manipulated by Henry Wilson, and was increasingly irritated by French’s changes of orders and mercurial changes of mood as to the length of the war, which French now expected to last into 1916.[100] Haig still thought Germany might collapse by November, although at the same time he was sending a memo to the War Office recommending that the BEF, now numbering 25 divisions, be equipped with the maximum number of heavy guns ready for a huge decisive battle, 36 divisions strong, in 1916.[101]


The war was not going well – besides the failure at Cape Helles (landing 25 April), Bulgaria had joined the Central Powers (Serbia was soon overrun) and Italian attacks on the Isonzo had made negligible progress. Allied attacks in the west were needed to take pressure off the Russians, who were being flung out of Poland (Fall of Warsaw, 5 August). The original plan was to attack in July. At Joffre’s insistence the offensive was planned next to the French Tenth Army at Loos.[102]

Haig inspected the Loos area (24 June) and expressed dissatisfaction with the ground (slag heaps and pit head towers which made good observation points for the Germans). French later did the same and agreed. French and Haig would have preferred to renew the attack at Aubers Ridge. Joffre was not pleased and called another conference (11 July) to urge a British attack on Loos.[103] Haig pushed for Aubers Ridge again (22 July) - French at first agreed until dissuaded by Foch (29 July), who felt that only a British attack at Loos would pull in enough German reserves to allow the French to take Vimy Ridge. French wrote to Joffre saying he was willing to go along with these plans for the sake of Anglo-French cooperation, but then wrote to Joffre again (10 August) suggesting an artillery bombardment with only limited British infantry attacks. This was not what Joffre wanted. Kitchener, who had been invited to tour the French army (16–19 August) listened sympathetically to Joffre’s suggestion that in future Joffre should set the size, dates and objectives of British offensives, although he only agreed for the Loos attack for the moment. Kitchener met with Haig first and then with French. It is unclear exactly why Kitchener and then Haig agreed to go along with Joffre’s wishes - possibly the disastrous plight of the Russians, but it may be that a promise that poison gas could be used may have persuaded Haig. Having got their own way, the French then postponed the attack as they picked new attacking ground in Champagne and arranged for extra shelling at Vimy, in both cases because of the very reasons – German-held villages and other obstructions – to which the British generals had objected.[104]

Only 850 guns (110 of them heavy) were available, too few for concentrated bombardment over a frontage far wider than at Neuve Chapelle (in 1915 the Germans had 10,500 guns of which 3,350 were heavy, whilst the British had only around 1,500, not to mention the shortage of ammunition[105]). There was also argument over the placement of the reserve (Haking’s XI Corps – 21st and 24th Divisions – both inexperienced new Army Divisions) which Haig wanted close to the front. Despite not originally wanting the offensive, Haig had persuaded himself that decisive victory was possible, and it may be that French wanted to keep control of the reserve to stop them being thrown into battle needlessly.[106] French tried in vain to forbid Haig to discuss his plans with Kitchener (on the grounds that Kitchener might leak them to politicians). Battle began (25 September) after Haig personally ordered the release of chlorine gas (he had an aide, Alan Fletcher, light a cigarette to test the wind).[107]

The attack failed in the north (Hohenzollern Redoubt) but broke through the German first line in the centre (Loos & Hill 70). The reserves, tired after night marches (to reach the front in secrecy), were not available until 2 pm, but were thrown into battle without success on the second day, although it’s not clear that they would actually have accomplished much if available on the first day as Haig wanted.[108]

Haig replaces French

The reserves now became a stick with which to beat French, who by now was talking of making peace before “England was ruined”. Haig wrote a detailed letter to Kitchener (29 Sep) claiming “complete” (sic) success on the first day and complaining that the reserves had not been placed as close to the front as agreed (this turned out to be untrue) and that French had not released control of them when requested (in fact he had done so, but delays in communications and traffic control as they moved up to the front through other formations had meant that they were not available until 2 pm). French protested that time for the commitment of reserves had been on the second day; when told of this by Robertson (2 Oct) Haig thought this evidence of French’s “unreasoning brain”. Haig strengthened his case by reports that captured enemy officers had been astonished at the British failure to exploit the attack, and by complaining about the government’s foot-dragging at introducing conscription, and commitment of troops to sideshows like Salonika and Suvla Bay (6 August), at a time when the Germans were calling up their 1918 Class early.[109]

The failure of Loos was being openly debated in the British press. Kitchener demanded a full formal report (6 October) and Lord Haldane (former Cabinet Minister) was sent to France to interview French and Haig.[110] French in turn demanded a full report from Haig, in particular his claim to have penetrated the German lines (16 Oct). Haig claimed in his diary that a proposal that he be sent to report on the Gallipoli bridgehead was shelved because of the imminence of French’s removal. Lord Stamfordham, the King’s Secretary, telephoned Robertson to ask his opinion of French, and Robertson conferred with Haig – who was pushing for Robertson to be appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff – before giving his opinion. The King also discussed the matter with Haig over dinner on a visit to the front (24 October) - Haig again told him that French should have been sacked in August 1914. Four days later the King, whilst inspecting troops, was injured when thrown by one of Haig’s horses and had to be evacuated to England on a stretcher, which caused Haig some embarrassment. By now French was reduced to having his orders releasing the reserves published in “The Times” (2 November), along with an article by Repington blaming Haig. Haig demanded a correction of French’s "inaccuracies" about the availability of the reserve, whereupon French ordered Haig to cease all correspondence on this matter, although he offered to let Haig see the covering letter he was sending to London in his report, but French's fate was sealed by now. Haig met with the Prime Minister Asquith (23 November) and Bonar Law (Conservative Leader) the next day. By now rumours were rife that French was to be sacked - another reason given for sacking him was that his shortcomings would become more pronounced with the continuing expansion of the BEF, which would number 60 divisions within two years.[111] Matters had been delayed as Kitchener was away on an inspection tour of the Mediterranean and French was sick in bed. Kitchener returned to London (3 Dec) and at a meeting with Haig that day told him that he was to recommend to Asquith that Haig replace French.[112]

Haig’s appointment as Commander-in-Chief BEF was announced on 10 December, and almost simultaneously Robertson became Chief of the Imperial General Staff in London, reporting directly to the Cabinet rather than to the War Secretary – Haig and Robertson hoped that this would be the start of a new and more professional management of the war. Monro was promoted to GOC First Army in Haig’s place, not Rawlinson whom Haig would have preferred, and for reasons of seniority Haig was forced to accept the weak-willed Lancelot Kiggell, not Butler, as chief of staff BEF in succession to Robertson.[113] Haig and French, who seemed ill and short of breath, had a final handover meeting (18 Dec, the day before the formal change of command) at which Haig agreed that Churchill – recently resigned from the Cabinet and vetoed from command of a brigade – should be given command of a battalion.[114]


Prelude to the Somme

For the first time (2 January) Haig attended church service with George Duncan, who was to have great influence over him. Haig saw himself as God’s servant and was keen to have clergymen sent out whose sermons would remind the men that the war dead were martyrs in a just cause.[115]

Robertson and Kitchener (who thought that a major offensive starting in March could bring decisive victory by August and peace by November) both wanted to concentrate on the Western Front, unlike many in the Cabinet who wanted more effort at Salonika or in Mesopotamia. Haig and Robertson were aware that Britain would have to take on more of the offensive burden as France was beginning to run out of men (and perhaps could not last more than another year at the same level of effort), but thought that the Germans might retreat in the west to shorten their line so they could concentrate on beating the Russians, who unlike France and Britain might accept a compromise peace. Haig thought that the Germans had already had plenty of “wearing out” and that a decisive victory was possible in 1916, and urged Robertson (9 Jan) to recruit more cavalry. Haig's preference was to regain control of the Belgian coast by attacking in Flanders to bring the coast and the naval bases at Bruges, Zeebrugge and Ostend (a view also held by the Cabinet and Admiralty since 1914)[116] into Allied hands and where the Germans would also suffer great loss if they were reluctant to retreat there.[117]

Lloyd George visited Haig at GHQ, and afterwards wrote to Haig to say that he had been impressed by his “grip” and by the “trained thought of a great soldier”. Subsequent relations between the two men were not to be so cordial. Haig thought Lloyd George “shifty and unreliable”.[118]

Haig and Kiggell met Joffre and his chief of staff de Castelnau at Chantilly (14 February). Haig thought that politicians and the public might misunderstand a long period of attrition and thought that only a fortnight of “wearing out”, not three months as Joffre had originally wanted, would be needed before the decisive offensive. Arguments continued over the British taking over a longer section of line from the French.[119] Haig had thought that the German troops reported near Verdun were a feint prior to an attack on the British - in fact the Verdun Offensive began on 21 February.[120]

Haig now decided that Verdun had "worn down" the Germans enough and that a decisive victory was possible at once. The Cabinet were less optimistic. Kitchener (like Haig’s subordinate Rawlinson) was also somewhat doubtful and would have preferred smaller and purely attritional attacks, but sided with Robertson in telling the Cabinet that the Somme offensive should go ahead. Haig attended a Cabinet meeting in London (15 April) – the politicians were more concerned with the political crisis over the introduction of conscription, which could potentially have brought down the government – and Haig recorded that Asquith attended the meeting dressed for golf and clearly keen to get away for the weekend.[121]

Memorandum from Haig to the Adjutant General, Lieutenant General Sir Nevil Macready, asking his opinion on possible dates for launching the Somme offensive, 22 May 1916

The French had already insisted on an Anglo-French attack at the Somme where British and French troops were adjacent to one another, to relieve the pressure on the French Army at Verdun, although the French component of the attack was gradually scaled back as reinforcements had to be sent to Verdun. Haig wanted to delay until 15 August to allow for more training and more artillery to be available. When told of this Joffre shouted at Haig that “the French Army would cease to exist” and had to be calmed down with “liberal doses of 1840 brandy”. The British refused to agree to French demands for a joint Anglo-French offensive from the Salonika bridgehead. Eventually – perhaps influenced by reports of French troop disturbances at Verdun – Haig agreed to attack on 29 June (later put back until 1 July). This was just in time, as it later turned out that Petain (commander at Verdun) was warning the French government that the “game was up” unless the British attacked.[122]

The government – concerned at the volume of shipping space being used for fodder - wanted to cut the number of cavalry divisions. Haig opposed this, believing that cavalry would still be needed to exploit the imminent victory. The Cabinet were in fact mistaken, as most of the fodder was for the horses, donkeys and mules which the BEF still used to move supplies and heavy equipment. Discussing this matter with the King, who thought the war would last until the end of 1917, Haig told him that Germany would collapse by the end of 1916.[123] This round of planning ended with a sharp exchange of letters with the Cabinet - Haig rebuked them for interfering in military matters and declared that “I am responsible for the efficiency of the Armies in France”. Lloyd George thought Haig’s letter “perfectly insolent” and that the government “had the right to investigate any matter connected with the war that they pleased”.[124]

Stretcher bearers recovering wounded during the Battle of Thiepval Ridge, September 1916. Photo by Ernest Brooks.

From 1 July to 18 November 1916, Haig directed the British portion of a major Anglo-French offensive, the British offensive at the Somme. The French insisted that Haig continue the offensive on the Somme and their insistence continued throughout the duration of the battle, even after the French went on the offensive at Verdun in October 1916. Although too much shrapnel was used in the bombardment, Haig was not entirely to blame for this: as early as Jan 1915 Haig had been impressed by evidence of the effectiveness of High Explosive shells and had demanded as many of them as possible from van Donop (Head of Ordnance in the UK).[125]


Portrait of Haig at General Headquarters, France, by Sir William Orpen, May 1917

On 1 January 1917, Haig was made a field marshal.[126] The King (George V) wrote him a handwritten note ending: "I hope you will look upon this as a New Year's gift from myself and the country".[127]

However, Lloyd George, who had become Prime Minister in December 1916, infuriated Haig and Robertson by placing Britain's forces under the command of the new French Commander-in-Chief Robert Nivelle at a stormy conference at Calais. The failure of the Nivelle Offensive in April 1917 (which Haig had been required to support with a British offensive by Allenby's Third Army at Arras), and subsequent French mutiny and political crisis, discredited Lloyd George's plans for Anglo-French co-operation for the time being. During the second half of 1917 Haig conducted another major offensive at Passchendaele (the 3rd Battle of Ypres). Haig hoped to break through and liberate the North Sea coast of Belgium from which German U-Boats were operating. The British Admiralty led by Jellicoe believed that the U-Boat threat could jeopardise Britain's ability to continue fighting into 1918. Another objective was to commit German resources to Belgian Flanders, away from the Aisne sector in France, where the French mutiny had been worst, in order to give the French Army time to recover.[128] In addition to his two immediate objectives, Haig was also worried that the Russian Revolution would result in Russia and Germany making peace and forming an alliance. If this happened the million or so German troops located on the Eastern Front would be transferred to the west by late 1917 or early 1918. This would have certainly motivated him in his eagerness to secure a decisive victory.[129]

Unfortunately, like the Somme Offensive the previous year, Passchendaele resulted in huge casualties for very little territorial gain, although at the same time inflicting enormous losses on the Germans, which contributed to their ultimate defeat. When he asked the Canadian Corps commander Arthur Currie to capture Passchendaele Ridge during the final month of the battle, Currie flatly replied "It's suicidal. I will not waste 16,000 good soldiers on such a hopeless objective".[130]


By the end of 1917 Lloyd George felt able to begin to assert his authority over the generals (at the end of the year he would also secure the dismissal of the other service chief, First Sea Lord Admiral Jellicoe). Over the objections of Haig and Robertson an inter-Allied Supreme War Council was set up. En route to a meeting in Paris to discuss this (1 November) Lloyd George told Wilson, Smuts and Hankey that he was toying with the idea of sending Haig to command the British and French forces in Italy.[131] At the meeting (4 November) Lloyd George accused Haig of encouraging press attacks on him. Haig was making similar complaints about Lloyd George, whom he privately compared to the Germans accusing the Allies of atrocities of which they were themselves guilty. Haig volunteered to write to J.A.Spender, pro-Asquith editor of the “Westminster Gazette”, but Lloyd George begged him not to. Haig wrote “I gave LG a good talking-to on several of the questions that he raised, and felt I got the best of the arguments”, a view which does not reflect the later reputations of Haig and Lloyd George.[131]

At the Versailles meeting where the Supreme War Council was inaugurated (11 November), Lloyd George attributed the success of the Central Powers to unity and scoffed at recent Allied “victories”, saying he wished “it had not been necessary to win so many of them”. His speech angered several leading politicians - Carson repudiated it and Derby assured Haig of his backing. Haig thought that Lloyd George’s political position was weak and he would not last another six weeks[132] (this was a false prediction – although Lloyd George did not have full freedom of action in a coalition government, his personal drive and appeal to certain sections of the public made him indispensable as Prime Minister). Haig and Petain objected to a common command, arguing that coalitions work better when one power is dominant, which was no longer the case now that British military power had increased relative to that of France.[133]

Lloyd George finally had his wish to send British forces to Italy after the Italian defeat at Caporetto in November. Plumer was moved to Italy with 5 divisions and heavy artillery, which made renewal of the Ypres offensive impossible.[134] Haig knew that manpower was now scarce both in the BEF and at home, and wrote to Robertson (28 October) that an offensive at Cambrai would stem the flow of reinforcements to Italy;[135] Robertson delayed the despatch of 2 divisions.[136]

Plans for a III Corps attack at Cambrai had been proposed as far back as May. Haig had informed the War Office (5 June) that “events have proved the utility of Tanks”,[137] and had initially (18 July) approved preparations as a deception measure from Third Ypres, and approved the operation more formally (13 October) as First Passchendaele was in swing. The plan was to trap enemy troops between the River Sensee and Canal du Nord, with the cavalry to seize the St Quentin Canal crossings, then exploit north-east. The first day objective was the high ground around Bourlon Wood, and Haig was to review progress after 48 hours.[138]

Byng’s Third Army attacked at Cambrai (6.20 am on 20 November) with 6 infantry & 5 cavalry divisions, 1,000 guns (using a surprise predicted barrage rather than a preliminary bombardment) and 9 tank battalions containing 496 tanks (325 combat, 98 support) on unbroken ground. The area was held by only 2 German divisions over.[137] On the first day they penetrated to 5 miles on a 6-mile frontage, with only 4,000 casualties, limited on the first day by blown bridges and the shortness of the November day. The 51st (Highland) Division was held up at Flesquieres Village, which fell the following day. Haig's intelligence chief Brigadier-General Charteris told him that the Germans would not be able to reinforce for 48 hours, and James Marshall-Cornwall, then a junior intelligence officer, later an admiring biographer of Haig, alleged that Charteris refused to have reported fresh German divisions shown on the situation map as he did not want to weaken Haig’s resolution.[139]

Haig visited the battlefield himself (21 November), inspecting the fighting at Bourlon Wood through his binoculars. He thought the attacks “feeble and uncoordinated” and was disappointed at the lack of grip by corps and division commanders, and encountering 1st Cavalry Division which had been ordered to fall back, he resisted the temptation to countermand the order. At around 9 pm he decided to continue the attack on Bourlon Wood, a decision which has been much criticised but which made good military sense at the time and was supported by Byng, although the political need for a clear victory may also have been a factor.[140]

The offensive continued but with diminishing returns. Bourlon Wood fell on 23 November, but by now German counterattacks were beginning. Haig arrived at a Third Army planning meeting (26 November) and personally ordered further attacks the following day, but then had to bow to Byng’s decision to go onto the defensive, having achieved a salient 4 miles deep and 9 miles wide. Haig complained that the lack of an extra two divisions had prevented a breakthrough, a view described by one biographer as “self-deception, pure and simple”.[141]

The gains (after the church bells had been rung in England in celebration) were retaken after 30 November when the Germans counterattacked in earnest using their new 'sturmtruppen' tactics. GHQ intelligence had failed to piece together warnings, especially those from 55th Division. British casualties had mounted to over 40,000 by 3 December, with German losses somewhat less.[139]

Baker-Carr, then commanding 1st Tank Brigade, later claimed that Kiggell had proposed cutting the number of tank battalions by 50%, as Cambrai was “a splendid show but not one that can ever be repeated”. This was not Haig’s view. One biographer argues that the initial success at Cambrai helped to save Haig’s job,[142] but another view is that the ultimate disappointment did more damage to Haig’s political credibility than Third Ypres.[143]

Aftermath of Cambrai

Reviewing recent operations at an Army Commanders Conference (7 Dec) at Doullens Haig commented how six months earlier, before Messines, the British had expected offensives from Russia, Italy and France and had instead been left carrying the brunt of the burden.[144]

Lloyd George (6 December) was particularly angry at the embarrassing Cambrai reverse at the hands of a few German divisions, after Haig had insisted for the last two years that his offensives were weakening them. When told of this Haig wrote to Robertson that Lloyd George should either sack him or else cease his “carping criticism”. Haig’s support amongst the Army, the public and many politicians made this impossible – a plan that Haig be “promoted” to a sinecure post as generalissimo of British forces (similar to what had been done to Joffre at the end of 1916) was scotched when Lord Derby threatened resignation.[145] Asked to provide a statement to the House of Commons, Haig quoted Byng’s telephone report to GHQ that the counterattack had been “in no sense a surprise” (in fact this was contradicted by evidence from GHQ) and attributed the German success to “one cause and one alone … lack of training on the part of junior officers and NCOs and men”, a verdict support by the court of enquiry which, at Derby’s instigation, Haig ordered, although the enquiry also criticised “higher commanders” for failing to enforce defensive doctrine. There were also enquiries by a War Office Committee and by General Smuts on behalf of the War Cabinet.[146] In a later report to Robertson (24 Dec) Haig accepted the blame, stating that the troops had been tired as a result of the attack on Bourlon Wood which he had ordered.[143]

Esher had warned Haig (28 October) that Rawlinson was bad-mouthing Charteris (known as “the Principal Boy”), and reported that he had told Rawlinson that Charteris had “no influence” over Haig and his information had never let him down. Derby warned Haig (7 December) to sack Charteris, as the War Cabinet and General Staff were displeased at his exaggerated claims of German weakness.[142] Haig took responsibility and defended Charteris.[147]

Another important consequence of Cambrai was that the press baron Lord Northcliffe lessened his support of Haig. He had recently been offended on a visit to GHQ when Haig had been too busy and preoccupied to pay much attention him. A “Times” editorial “A Case for Inquiry” (12 Dec) criticised Charteris for his “fatuous estimates” of German losses and morale and called for the sacking of “every blunderer” at GHQ – Haig assumed Lloyd George had inspired the article.[148] Northcliffe also personally warned Haig’s aide Philip Sassoon that changes were required: “Sir Douglas is regarded with affection in the army, but everywhere people remark that he is surrounded by incompetents”.[149]

Haig was required to dismiss Charteris. Robertson had arrived at Haig's Headquarters with orders (signed by Derby) for his dismissal in his pocket in case Haig refused to do as he was asked. Haig claimed to his wife (14 December) that Charteris’ work had been excellent but he felt he had to sack him because he had “upset so many people”. A common criticism is that Haig only accepted intelligence from Charteris (who told him what he wanted to hear) and did not cross-check it with other intelligence.[150]


Political Manoeuvres

Over lunch at 10 Downing Street with Derby and Lloyd George in January (Derby bet a sceptical Lloyd George 100 cigars to 100 cigarettes that the war would be over by the following year), Haig predicted that the war would end within a year because of the “internal state of Germany”. Charteris’ final intelligence report had deduced that Germany was bringing 32 divisions, ten per month, from the moribund Eastern Front, so the most likely time for a German Offensive was in late March (a correct prediction).[151] Bonar Law asked Haig what he would do if he were a German general: Haig replied that a German offensive would be a “gambler’s throw” as Germany had only a million men as reserves and the balance of manpower would shift in favour of the Allies in August (this prediction was also correct) and that if he were a German general he would launch only limited offensives, although he did warn that the German generals might try to keep the civilians out of power by launching an attack to knock out France. Haig left the War Cabinet with the impression that he thought the Germans would launch small attacks on the scale of Cambrai.[152]

Haig also recommended that the British should keep the initiative and draw in German reserves by renewing the offensive around Ypres, a proposal which did not meet with political approval, and besides the logistical infrastructure was not available for a breakout from the Ypres salient.[153][154] By now Haig’s 1917 offensives were being criticised in the press (Lovat Fraser wrote a highly critical article in Northcliffe’s “Daily Mail” on 21 January) and in Parliament, where J.C.Wedgwood MP openly demanded a change of command.[144][155]

The purge of Haig’s staff continued, with the removal of Maxwell (Quartermaster-General) and Lt-Gen Launcelot Kiggell as BEF Chief of Staff. It is possible that Derby was covering Haig’s back, advising him to ask for Herbert Lawrence (a much stronger character than Kiggell, and who having made money in business and having no plans to stay in the Army after the War, was not beholden to Haig - actually in time the two men made a good team[156]) as the new CGS not General Butler. If so, Haig was not grateful, likening Derby to “a feather pillow which bears the mark of the last person who sat on him”.[157]

In January the Cabinet Minister Jan Christiaan Smuts and the Cabinet Secretary Maurice Hankey, whom Lloyd George had contemplated appointing to Kiggell's job, were sent to France to take discreet soundings among the Army Commanders to see whether any of them were willing to replace Haig - none of them were. The only possibility seemed to be Claud Jacob, GOC II Corps. Hankey formed the opinion that nobody important amongst the British generals thought a major German attack likely.[158]

At the Supreme War Council at Versailles (29 January) Haig and Petain complained of shortage of troops, but Haig’s political credibility was so low that Hankey wrote that they “made asses of themselves”. It was agreed that an Allied General Reserve be set up, under Foch with Henry Wilson as his deputy; Haig was reluctant to hand over divisions to the General Reserve. Haig argued against a common command, claiming that it would be “unconstitutional” for him to take orders from a foreign general, and that he did not have the reserves to spare (worrying that they would be shipped off to Turkey[159] but thinking the proposal would take time to be become operational) and suggested to Clemenceau (who was suspicious of Foch’s ambition to become generalissimo) that he might resign. Milner thought Haig’s stance “desperately stupid”, although Haig had a point that control of reserves by a committee was not necessarily sensible.[160] Clemenceau attacked Lloyd George’s wish to make offensives against Turkey top priority.[161]

Lloyd George now had his showdown with Robertson. He proposed that the CIGS be reduced to his pre-1915 powers (i.e. reporting to the Secretary of State for War, not direct to the Cabinet) and that the British military representative at the Supreme War Council in Versailles be Deputy CIGS and a member of the Army Council (i.e. empowered to issue orders to Haig). He offered Robertson a choice of remaining as CIGS with reduced powers or else accepting demotion to Deputy CIGS at Versailles – either way, Lloyd George would now have been able to cut him out of the decision-making loop. Derby summoned Haig to London, expecting him to support him in backing Robertson. In a private meeting with Lloyd George, Haig agreed with Robertson’s position that the CIGS should himself be the delegate to Versailles, or else that the Versailles delegate be clearly subordinate to the CIGS to preserve unity of command. However, he accepted that the War Cabinet must ultimately make the decision, and according to Lloyd George “put up no fight for Robertson” and was contemptuous of Derby’s threats to resign - he persuaded him not to do so after Robertson was pushed out. Haig thought Robertson (who had begun his military career as a private) egotistical, coarse, power-crazed and not “a gentleman” and was unhappy at the way Robertson had allowed divisions to be diverted to other fronts, even though Robertson had in fact fought to keep such diversions to a minimum. Henry Wilson now became CIGS, with Rawlinson as British military representative at Versailles.[162] Although Haig had been suspicious of Henry Wilson, they gradually established a warily respectful relationship, and interactions were socially more smooth than they had been with Robertson.[163]

German Michael Offensive

By March 1918 Germany's Western Front armies had been reinforced to a strength of almost 200 divisions by the release of troops from the Eastern Front. With a German offensive clearly imminent, at a meeting in London (14 March), Lloyd George and Bonar Law accused Haig of having said that there would not be a major German offensive (which was not actually what he had said – he had said it would be “a gambler’s throw”) but agreed to shelve the General Reserve for the time being until enough American troops had arrived.[164]

At this point Haig had 52 divisions in his front line Armies, and another 8 in GHQ reserve, and 3 cavalry divisions. British troops were tired and weakened, and British divisions had been cut in size from 12 battalions to 9.[165] Allied intelligence did not fall for German deceptions that they might attack in Italy or the Balkans, but thought that the main attack might fall in the Cambrai-St Quentin (Third Army) sector.[166]

Haig privately thought the Guards Division “our only reliable reserve”.[167] He has been criticised for writing (2 March) that he “was only afraid that the Enemy would find our front so very strong that he will hesitate to commit his Army to the attack with the almost certainty of losing very heavily”, but this in fact referred to the First, Third and Fourth (formerly Second, now renumbered, at Ypres) Army fronts which he had spent a week inspecting, and which were well-defended – Smuts and Hankey had come to the same conclusion in January. Haig thought the Canadians “really fine disciplined soldiers now and so smart and clean” compared to the Australians.[167]

Haig inspected Fifth Army (7–9 March) and noted widespread concerns, which he shared, at lack of reserves – he released one division from Flanders to Fifth Army and deployed another, under GHQ control, to the rear of Fifth Army. As late as 17 March Cox, who had replaced Charteris as Intelligence Chief, predicted that the German Offensive was not yet immediately imminent; Haig still believed that a power-struggle between generals and politicians in Germany (in fact the generals were very much in control) would determine if there was any attack. By 20 March deployment of German trench mortars had been reported by deserters, and British artillery began some spoiling fire.[168]

Germany launched an attack, "Michael" (21 March 1918), with 76 divisions and 7,000 guns, a force larger than the entire BEF (German divisions were somewhat smaller than British) and enjoying superiority of 5:1 over the 12 divisions of Gough’s Fifth Army, which were spread thinly over line recently taken over from the French.[169] Haig was initially calm on 21 March, as owing to the communications of the time GHQ was “an information vacuum” where news often took over a day to reach him, and spent much of the day entertaining foreign dignitaries including the US War Secretary. Third Army retreated as planned from the Flesquieres Salient, freeing up a division. On three-quarters of the 50-mile front attacked, British troops fought hard and the Germans failed to reach their first day objectives.[170] However, lacking reserves Gough had to retreat behind the Crozat Canal. 22 March saw Fifth Army retreat to the Somme; Haig still anticipated further German attacks in Champagne or Arras. The Germans did not initially realise the importance of Amiens as an objective.[165]

Haig did not speak to or visit Gough until 23 March. That day Haig arranged for reserves to be sent down from Flanders. Formal orders were issued to Fifth Army to maintain contact with Third Army to their north and the French to their south.[171] After initial optimism, Tim Travers has written of “panic” setting in amongst senior officers like Herbert Lawrence and Tavish Davidson at GHQ on 23 March,[172] and there is evidence that a retreat towards the Channel Ports may have been considered.[173]


Haig's GHQ Reserve was massed in the north, 72 hours’ march away, to protect the Channel Ports. The French Commander-in-Chief, Pétain and Haig met on 23 March (4pm), and Petain stressed the need for Gough’s Fifth Army to keep in touch with Pelle’s French V Corps on its right. Petain agreed to place two French armies under Fayolle as a reserve in the Somme valley, but could not agree to Haig’s request to send 20 French divisions to Amiens because of the risk of a German attack around Champagne.[174] Amidst mutual suspicion – a French officer recorded Petain’s increasing fears on 22 and 23 March that the British would retreat on the Channel Ports - Petain was issuing orders to cover Paris as a priority and maintain contact with the British “if possible”.[175]

24 March was “probably the most traumatic day (Haig) had endured since” First Ypres in 1914. Half of BEF supplies came into Le Havre, Rouen and Dieppe and passed by train through Amiens, making it a major choke point.[176] Planning that winter had left open the question of whether the BEF would retreat southwest or form “an island” around the Channel Ports (Calais, Boulogne, Dunkirk) through which Haig's armies drew the other half of their supplies. A retreat on the ports does not seem to have been decided until some days after 21 March.[177] Haig remained composed in front of more junior officers.[178]

This is one of the occasions where doubt has been cast on the authenticity of Haig’s diary. Haig’s handwritten diary of the next meeting (Dury, 24 March at 11 pm) is brief. The typed diary – probably based on notes prepared in April - describes Petain as “almost unbalanced and most anxious”, claiming that after attending a Cabinet meeting in Paris, where he had been ordered to “cover Paris at all costs”,[179] he threatened to retreat on Paris, leaving the British right flank uncovered. Tim Travers argues that Petain said at the meeting that he would only retreat on Paris if Haig retreated on the Channel Ports, and that Major-General Clive reported from the meeting that Petain had come away satisfied that Haig would not break contact. In a postwar exchange of letters with Haig Petain denied that he had ordered a retreat on Paris or had threatened Haig that he might, a recollection which Herbert Lawrence appears to have supported.[180] It has been suggested that Haig and Lawrence, on the long drive back to GHQ from their meeting with Petain may simply have misunderstood his intentions, and that any factual errors in Haig's diary for this period were honest if mistaken recollections.[172]

In the typed diary, Haig also claimed that at on returning at 3 am he telegraphed to Wilson (CIGS) and Milner (War Secretary – an error on Haig’s part, as Milner did not hold this position until April) to come over to France and ensure the appointment of “Foch or some other determined general who would fight” as Allied Generalissimo.[179] There is no record of the telegram, and Milner and Wilson were in fact already on their way to France at the time.[181] Wilson’s diary records that Haig telephoned him at 7 or 8 pm on 24 March, before the meeting with Petain, and after Haig’s evening visit to Third Army, at which he had ordered that Army to maintain contact at all costs with First Army to its north.[174] Travers suggests that Haig had written off both Fifth Army and the link with the French at this point, that he called Henry Wilson over to France to discuss a retreat on the Channel Ports, and that he wanted the 20 French divisions at Amiens not to maintain the link with the French but to cover the British retreat or perhaps to counterattack.[182]

Haig’s letter of 25 March, sent via Weygand, asked for 20 French divisions to cover the southern British flank as the BEF fought its way back “covering the Channel Ports”.[183] The letter is ambiguous and does not specifically mention a retreat "to" the ports. Sheffield argues that orders to Third Army were not a precursor to retreat but “a means to an end”, pointing to orders for, if needs be, a counterattack onto the northern flank of the German attackers,[172] and also argues that although GHQ had a duty to consider contingency plans, unlike in 1940, evacuation was never actually likely.[184]

Wilson’s diary for their meeting on 25 March (11am) describes Haig as “cowed” and saying that unless the French sent more help the BEF was beaten and “it would be better to make peace on any terms we could”. Wilson claimed that Haig suggested Petain be appointed Allied generalissimo (which is not consistent with Haig’s later claim that Petain was unwilling to help the British) and that he proposed Foch over Haig’s objections.[182] Petain had sent 3 French divisions on the evening of 21 March[176] to help the British, not the 20 Haig demanded, vindicating Henry Wilson's warnings that relying on bilateral agreement with Petain would provide “very cold charity”.[159]

At the Doullens Conference (26 March), Haig accepted the appointment of Foch to coordinate reserves of all nationalities wherever he saw fit. In his typed diary Haig claimed much of the credit for Foch’s appointment and to have insisted that he have wider powers over Petain than Clemenceau had wanted to grant him. However, the typed version of Haig’s diary, although fuller, does not specifically contradict the handwritten original, and it has been suggested that Haig either needed to reconcile himself psychologically to the need to accept a French superior or else was simply letting off steam and wanted to give himself the credit he felt he deserved.[183] Milner, who represented the British government at Doullens, recorded that Clemenceau was unhappy with Petain's recent efforts, but claimed that he himself had persuaded Haig to accept the appointment of Foch; Haig's official biographer Duff Cooper gave Haig the credit but commented that the idea had probably occurred to several participants simultaneously.[185] Wilson recorded that Haig seemed “10 years younger” that evening after Doullens.[182]

After a German offensive near Arras ("Mars", 9 German divisions, 28 March[186]) was beaten back, between 29 and 31 March the Germans pushed on Amiens. A Canadian brigade took part in an action at Moreuil Wood. Attacks on 4 April (Villers-Bretonneux, east of Amiens) and 5 April on the Third Army front were beaten back by British and Australian forces, although contingency plans were still being prepared to cover Rouen and Le Havre in case Amiens fell.[187]

German Georgette Offensive

Lloyd George demanded Haig sack Gough, and when Haig was reluctant he was given a direct order to do so by Derby (4 April).[169] Haig recommended Cavan for the vacancy (it went to Rawlinson), and offered to resign. Lloyd George wanted to accept Haig’s resignation and read out his offer to a meeting of the War Cabinet called (8 April) to discuss “the desirability of getting rid of Haig”, but the other ministers, and Henry Wilson, thought there was no obvious successor (Hankey thought the only possibility was Plumer who was “about as stupid as Haig himself”).[184] Rumours were rife in GHQ that Haig would soon be dismissed in favour of Robertson, Wilson (who may have been a prime mover for Haig's dismissal[188]), or more likely Plumer, Byng or Allenby.[189]

During the second major German offensive, "Georgette" in Flanders (9 April), Haig issued his famous order (11 April) that his men must carry on fighting "With Our Backs to the Wall and believing in the Justice of our Cause" to protect “The safety of our homes and the Freedom of mankind” - the latter being a real concern after recent British propaganda dwelled on the harsh terms imposed on Russia at Brest-Litovsk.[190] Just as "Michael" had swept over the Cambrai and the Somme battlefields, won at such cost by Haig's own offensives in previous years, this one swept over Passchendaele although not Ypres itself. The offensive threatened Hazebrouck, “the Amiens of the north”, a key railhead through which supplies were brought from the Channel Ports – had it fallen the Channel Ports might have been at risk and Plumer’s Second Army might have been cut off.[191]

Foch had earlier refused to send 4 French divisions to Flanders but now redeployed Maistre’s Tenth French Army to the Somme sector, freeing up British forces.[191] At Beauvais (3 April) Foch had been given power of “strategic direction”, although his powers were still largely based on persuasion rather than command[186] and he was given the title of Generalissimo (he would have preferred “Commander-in-Chief”) (14 April) to give him more clout over Petain, who was still reluctant to release French reserves. Eventually, later in the year, Petain would simply be placed under Foch’s command, although Haig and Pershing retained their right of appeal to their own governments. During a renewed attack (17 April) Foch drew attention to the valour of the British at First Ypres and refused to send further French reinforcements so as to keep a strategic reserve. 24 April saw a further unsuccessful German attack at Villers-Bretonneux near Amiens, featuring the first tank-to-tank combat. Haig was suspicious of Foch’s request to move British divisions to the French sector to free up French reserves, worrying that this might lead to “a permanent Amalgam” of French and British forces. Milner agreed but at a meeting on 27 April meeting the dispute was smoothed over, and British IX Corps moved to the French sector.[192] On 30 April Ludendorff called a halt to the Flanders offensive.[193]

Although some American divisions were now serving with the British forces, Haig thought Pershing “very obstinate and stupid” for refusing to integrate US troops (1 May) with Allied units (an ironic complaint in view of his reluctance to integrate British troops with French).[192] At Abbeville (2 May) it was agreed that in the event of renewed attack British forces would retreat south if necessary and abandon the Channel Ports rather than lose touch with the French. Contingency plans were made (11 May) although it is unclear that they would ever have been executed.[194]

The near-debacle of March 1918 was an object of political controversy. Repington wrote that it was “the worst defeat in the history of the Army”. Bonar Law claimed in a House of Commons debate (23 April) that Haig and Petain had agreed the extension of the British line, which was not wholly true as in January 1918 the Supreme War Council had ordered a longer extension than Haig and Petain had agreed between themselves in December 1917, only leaving them to sort out the details.[195] Lloyd George was accused (in the Maurice Debate of 9 May 1918 in the House of Commons, after Maurice's public accusation three days earlier) of having hoarded troops in the UK to make it harder for Haig to launch offensives. Lloyd George misled the House of Commons in claiming that Haig's forces were stronger (1.75 million men) at the start of 1918 than they had been a year earlier (1.5 million men) - in fact the increase was caused by an increase of 335,000 in the number of labourers (Chinese, Indians and black South Africans), and Haig had fewer combat infantry (630,000, down from 900,000 a year earlier), holding a longer stretch of front (the rest of Haig's men would have been tank, air & artillery crews and above all logistical support personnel).[196] Haig had opposed Maurice in taking his concerns into public, but was disappointed at how Lloyd George was able to get off the hook with a “claptrap speech”.[197] Maurice believed he had saved Haig from dismissal.[198]

German Bluecher Offensive

By late spring the BEF had taken just over 300,000 casualties. Battalions had had to be brought in from the Middle East. Haig spent time touring his forces in May.[199] Haig's wife reported rumours (11 May) that he was to be brought home as Commander-in-Chief Home Forces; when Wilson denied the rumours to Haig’s face, Haig recorded (20 May) that “no one has been chosen yet!” to replace him.[200]

A third major German offensive against the French on the Aisne ("Bluecher"), starting on 27 May, overwhelmed Hamilton-Gordon’s IX British Corps which had been sent there to refit after being involved in "Michael" and "Georgette". At a conference at Versailles (1 June) there was friction between Haig, who was worried that the Germans would attack his sector again (intelligence reported extra German hospital spaces being made available near La Bassee) - this was indeed the German plan but the offensive in question, "Hagen", was repeatedly postponed and never actually took place - and Foch, who demanded that the US divisions trained by the British be moved to his sector to release French divisions (of whose fighting ability Haig was privately scornful) - Foch also accused Lloyd George of withholding British troops in the UK. Foch moved French forces down from Flanders, but there was further friction at a meeting in Paris about the Foch's request to move British reserves south (7 June).[201] Haig threatened to appeal to the British Government if he felt Foch was demanding too many British troops,[198] so it was agreed that Haig and Foch should meet more frequently, and in time they developed a good working relationship (although wags at GHQ said he had to fight “Boche, Foch and Loygeorges[186]).

Cooperation improved when the Germans launched their "Gneisenau" Offensive on 9 June, to widen the "Bluecher" salient westwards. Lloyd George and Milner gave their full support to Foch on moving four British divisions.[202] They told Haig that he should consider himself subordinate to Foch for the time being and that they were no longer interested in sacking him (this may have been untrue – as late as August on eve of the battle of Amiens Lloyd George may have been trying to replace Haig with Cavan[203]).

With another German attack imminent, Herbert Lawrence was asked (12–13 July – Haig was on leave in England) to send 8 Divisions – he sent only 2 (XXII Corps). Haig thought this was breaching an agreement of 1 July that covering Paris and the Somme area was to take priority. Wilson consulted the War Cabinet then (in the small hours of 15 July) told Haig to “exercise his judgement” about holding the British line. Haig felt that they would take credit for Foch’s victory but might dismiss him if disaster befell the British forces.[202] The German "Peace Offensive" began against the French at Rheims on the same day. Haig eventually agreed that the French could use XXII Corps if necessary “for exploitation”.[204]

The Turn of the Tide and the Hundred Days

The "Peace Offensive" turned out to be the last German throw of the dice. "Hagen" was finally cancelled, and in July and August the Germans were defeated, by Franco-American forces at the Second Battle of the Marne, and by Rawlinson's Fourth Army (British and Australian, with the Canadian Corps attached) at Amiens. The latter victory, enjoying complete air and artillery superiority and using over 500 tanks,[205] was described by General Erich Ludendorff as "The Black Day of the German Army" after mass surrenders of German troops. On 11 August Haig, contrary to the wishes of Marshal Foch, insisted on a halt to the Amiens offensive (rather than engage new German troops with tired Allied ones who had outrun much of their artillery cover) and launched a new attack by Byng's Third Army on 21 August between the Scarpe and the Ancre. As with his previous offensives in 1916 and 1917, Haig encouraged his subordinates to aim for ambitious objectives, in this case a thrust from Albert to Bapaume, and this time with more success than in previous years, and more than the government were expecting: on 21 August Haig was visited by Winston Churchill, Minister of Munitions, who told him that new equipment (tanks, guns, new poison gases etc.) was being produced ready for what the government expected to be the war-winning offensive in July 1919.[206] On 10 September Haig, on a brief visit to London, insisted that the war could end that year and asked Lord Milner (Secretary of State for War) to send all available able-bodied men and transportation.[207] Milner afterwards shared with Wilson his scepticism and his concerns that Haig would embark on "another Passchendaele".[208]

Haig's forces continued to enjoy much success, but when they began to advance towards the Hindenburg Line Haig received a supposedly "personal" telegram from the CIGS Henry Wilson (31 August), warning him that he was not to take unnecessary losses in storming these fortifications. Haig, surmising that the War Cabinet were not forbidding him to attack but might dismiss him if the assault failed, telegraphed Wilson back that they were a "wretched lot" (Wilson replied that the government were worried about needing to retain troops in the UK because of a police strike) and wrote that attacking the Germans now would be less costly than allowing them time to regroup and consolidate.[209] When the Third and Fourth Armies reached the Hindenburg Line (18 September) Haig received a congratulatory note from Wilson saying “you must be a famous general", to which he replied that he was not (as this would have meant currying favour with Repington and the Northcliffe Press) but “we have a number of very capable generals”. Milner visited GHQ, and warned him that manpower would not be available for 1919 if squandered now.[208]

There is some dispute over how much direct operational control Haig maintained at this time, Tim Travers in particular arguing that he allowed his Army Commanders (Plumer, Byng, Horne, Birdwood and Rawlinson) a very free hand, whilst at the same time Ferdinand Foch, whose role had initially been confined to advice and deployment of reserves, was exerting ever-greater influence over strategy. Haig was irritated that Foch insisted that Plumer's Second Army remain part of an Army Group commanded by the King of the Belgians, so that the French and Belgians could take credit for liberating Brussels.[210]

Germany first requested an Armistice after the penetration of the Hindenburg Line Line at its strongest point, St Quentin/Cambrai, on 28 September, and the almost simultaneous capitulation of Bulgaria,[211] and discussions continued for a month until the ceasefire on 11 November. Haig urged moderation, suggesting that Germany only be asked to give up Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine, and warning that intelligence reports suggested that the German Army was still "far from beaten" (an ironic claim in view of his willingness to pronounce Germany on the verge of defeat in previous years) and that humiliating terms might lead to a militarist backlash. After one set of talks on 21 October Haig suspected Wilson, a staunch Unionist, of wanting to prolong the war as an excuse to subdue southern Ireland by bringing in conscription there.[212] In the end the collapse of Austria-Hungary encouraged the politicians to demand stricter terms (although less strict than Foch or Pershing would have liked) and Germany was required to evacuate the Rhineland as well.[210] However, once Germany had accepted the strict armistice terms, Haig suggested Germany be split into independent states at the peace treaty.[213]

The forces under Haig's command - including Monash’s Australian Corps and Currie’s Canadian Corps - achieved impressive results: whereas the French, American and Belgian armies combined captured 196,700 prisoners-of-war and 3,775 German guns between 18 July and the end of the war, Haig's forces, with a smaller army than the French, engaged the main mass of the German Army and captured 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns - around half of these prisoners were captured by British cavalry. British daily casualty rates (3,645 per day) were heavier during this period than at the Somme (2,950) or Third Ypres (2,121) (but not Arras: 4,070 over a shorter period),[214] because British forces were attacking across the line, instead of being rotated through a single offensive.[215] The military historian, Gary Sheffield, called this, the so-called Hundred Days Offensive, 'by far the greatest military victory in British history'.[5]

Executions during World War I

As commander-in-chief, one of Haig's responsibilities was to give the final signature to the death warrants of British and Commonwealth soldiers (but not Australian - these went to the Governor-General of Australia) who had been first sentenced to death by Field General Court Martial. Although the book Shot at Dawn (1983), which began the campaign for pardons, says that it is “quite incorrect” to hold Haig solely responsible, as he was part of a legal process, by the late 1990s Haig was perhaps best known to the general public because of publicity which implied him to be a brutal disciplinarian – this was not the view of contemporaries.[216] Of the 3,080 men sentenced to death in all theatres,[217] 346 were executed, 266 (77%) were for desertion, 37 for murder (who would probably have been hanged under civilian law at the time) and 18 for cowardice.[218] Just over 250 of the executions took place during Haig's time as Commander-in-Chief, but only executed men's records survive, so it is hard to comment on the reasons why men were reprieved.[219]

Promotion of army dentistry during World War I

During the war, Haig suffered from toothache and sent for a Parisian dentist. Consequently, within months the army had hired a dozen dentists and, by the end of the war, there were 831. This led to the formation of the Royal Army Dental Corps in 1921.[220]

Later life

Field Marshal Haig unveiling the National War Memorial in St. John's, Newfoundland. (Memorial Day 1 July 1924)

After the conclusion of hostilities, Lloyd George arranged a ceremonial reception for Marshal Foch on 1 December - Haig was asked to travel in the fifth carriage with Henry Wilson, but not invited to the subsequent reception. Feeling that this was a snub and an attempt to win votes for the imminent General Election, Haig declined to attend at all, although he did swallow his dislike of Lloyd George enough to vote for the Coalition.[221]

In November 1918 Haig refused Lloyd George's offer of a viscountcy, partly as he felt it was another snub as his predecessor Sir John French had been awarded the same rank on being sacked, and partly to use his refusal to bargain for better state financial aid for demobilised soldiers, whom Henry Wilson told him were amply provided for by charity.[222] He held out despite being lobbied by the King,[223] until Lloyd George backed down in March 1919, blaming a recently sacked pensions minister. Haig was created Earl Haig (with a subsidiary viscountcy and a subsidiary barony)[224] and received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament and a grant of £100,000 to enable him to live in the style appropriate to a senior peer (he had asked for £250,000).[225]

In January 1919 disturbances broke out amongst troops at Calais as men returning from leave were expected to return to full army discipline, and key workers with jobs to go to (who had often been the last to enlist) were – contrary to Haig’s advice – being given priority for demobilisation. Haig accepted the advice of Winston Churchill, now Secretary of State for War, that exercising his right to shoot the ringleaders was not sensible.[226] For much of 1919 Haig served as Commander-in-Chief Home Forces in Great Britain,[227] a key position as a General Strike seemed likely. Haig kept a low profile in this job and insisted the Army be kept in reserve, not used for normal policing.[228] His military career ended in January 1920. Haig arranged for his Despatches to be published in 1922 as the General Election loomed, although in the end his nemesis Lloyd George was ousted for unrelated reasons.[229]

Haig in Canada

After ceasing active service, Haig devoted the rest of his life to the welfare of ex-servicemen, making many speeches (which did not come easily to him) and answering all letters in his own hand.[230] Haig pushed for the amalgamation of organisations, quashing a suggestion of a separate organisation for officers, into the British Legion which was founded in June 1921. He visited South Africa in 1921 and Canada in 1925 (visits to Australia and New Zealand were being planned when he died) to promote ex-servicemens' interests. He was instrumental in setting up the Haig Fund for the financial assistance of ex-servicemen and the Haig Homes charity to ensure they were properly housed; both continue to provide help many years after they were created.[230]

An avid golf enthusiast, Haig was captain of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, St. Andrews, from 1920 to 1921.[231] He was involved in the creation of the Royal British Legion, which he was president of until his death and was chairman of the United Services Fund from 1921 until his death.[232]

Haig maintained ties with the British Army after his retirement; he was honorary colonel of the 17th/21st Lancers (having been honorary colonel of the 17th Lancers from 1912),[233] Royal Horse Guards,[234] The London Scottish and the King's Own Scottish Borderers. He was also Lord Rector and, eventually, Chancellor of the University of St Andrews. In 1922 he became the first Chancellor of St Andrews to visit University College Dundee which was then a part of the University. This visit was made with his successor as Rector, J. M. Barrie and saw the official opening of University College's new playing fields.[235]


Haig's grave (right) next to his wife's, with the standard military headstone used in World War I.

Haig died from a heart attack, aged 66, on 29 January 1928 and was given an elaborate funeral on 3 February.[236] "Great crowds lined the streets ... come to do honour to the chief who had sent thousands to the last sacrifice when duty called for it, but whom his war-worn soldiers loved as their truest advocate and friend."[236] The gun-carriage that carried the Unknown Warrior to his grave and, in active service, had borne the gun that fired the first British shot in World War I took the field marshal's body from St Columba's Church, London|St Columba's Church, Pont Street, London, where it had been lying in state, to Westminster Abbey. Three royal princes followed the gun-carriage and the pall-bearers included two Marshals of France (Foch and Pétain).[236] The cortege was accompanied by five guards of honour at the slow march, with reversed arms and muffled drums: two officers and fifty other ranks from each branch of the British armed forces (Royal Navy, the Irish Guards, and the Royal Air Force); 50 men of the 1st French Army Corps; and 16 men from the Belgian Regiment of Grenadiers.[236] After the service at the Abbey, the procession re-formed to escort the body to Waterloo Station for the journey to Edinburgh where it lay in state for three days at St Giles Cathedral.[236]

He was buried at Dryburgh Abbey in the Scottish borders,[237] his grave marked by a simple standard Commonwealth War Graves Commission white headstone. The Earl Haig Memorial, an equestrian statue in Whitehall commissioned by Parliament, and sculpted by Alfred Frank Hardiman, aroused considerable controversy, and was not unveiled until just before Armistice Day in 1937.[238]


Post-war opinion

After the war Haig was praised by the American General John Pershing, who remarked that Haig was "the man who won the war".[239] He was also publicly lauded as the leader of a victorious army. His funeral in 1928 was a huge state occasion. However, after his death he was increasingly criticised for issuing orders which led to excessive casualties of British troops under his command, particularly on the Western Front, earning him the nickname "Butcher of the Somme".[8]

Earl Haig statue, Edinburgh Castle. Once in full public view near the Castle entrance, but now relatively hidden away in a back courtyard at the entrance to the National War Museum.

The assault on Haig's reputation began with the memoirs of the politicians. Winston Churchill, whose World Crisis was written during Haig's lifetime, suggested that greater use of tanks, as at Cambrai, could have been an alternative to blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men".[240][241]

Haig sent Churchill extracts from his diaries and commented on drafts, to which Churchill was willing to make amendments. Churchill told Haig (20 November 1926) that he was “a convinced and outspoken opponent to our offensive policy at Loos, on the Somme and at Passchendaele”. He thought the Somme “a welter of slaughter which … left the (Allied) armies weaker in relation to the Germans than when it began".[242] Haig thought these views “most mischievous”, but was willing to accept criticism for his command record, although he argued that decisions he took in August and September 1918 were responsible for the war ending in November.[243]

However, Churchill also wrote that although the Allied offensives up until August 1918 had been “as hopeless as they were disastrous”, requiring men of fifty to be called up because of the manpower shortage, “Haig and Foch were vindicated in the end” and that the Hundred Days “will excite the wonder of future generations”.[244] Churchill (23 Nov 1926) admitted to Beaverbrook, who thought him too willing to praise Haig[245] that “subsequent study of the war has led me to think a good deal better of Haig than I did at the time. It is absolutely certain there was no one who could have taken his place.”[243]

Churchill's essay on Haig in Great Contemporaries, written after his death, was slightly more critical, noting the government's refusal to offer Haig employment after 1920, his excessive (in Churchill's view) emphasis on the Western Front, and his lack of the "sinister genius" possessed by the truly great generals of history; he was "quite friendly to the tanks", Churchill wrote, but would never have come up with idea of inventing them himself.[246]

Haig's death mask, Edinburgh Castle

Lloyd George pulled fewer punches in his War Memoirs, published in 1936 when Haig was dead and Lloyd George no longer a major political player. In Chapter 89 he poured scorn on Haig's recently published diaries (clearly "carefully edited" by Duff Cooper), and described Haig as "intellectually and temperamentally unequal to his task", and "second-rate" (compared to Foch, p. 2014) although "above the average for his profession—perhaps more in industry than intelligence". He attributed his own "distrust of his capacity to fill such an immense position" to Haig's lack of a clear grasp even of the Western Front (likening him to "the blind King of Bohemia at Crecy"), let alone the needs of other fronts, and his inability, given his preference for being surrounded by courteous "gentlemen", to select good advisers. He also criticised Haig for lacking the personal magnetism of a great commander, for his intrigues against his predecessor Sir John French, his willingness to scapegoat Hubert Gough for the defeat of March 1918 (although he had actually defended him, and the alternative would probably have been Haig's own dismissal to boot), and his claims to have subsequently accepted the appointment of Foch as Allied Generalissimo, a move to which Lloyd George claimed Haig in fact to have been opposed. On another occasion he is said to have described Haig as "brilliant - to the top of his boots".[247] Lloyd George's biographer John Grigg (2002) attributed his vitriol to a guilty conscience that he had not intervened to put a stop to the Passchendaele Offensive. John Terraine also found some "faint stirring of consciousness" in the "shrill venom" with which Lloyd George sought to "exculpate himself", after he had destroyed trust between politicians and soldiers by the Nivelle Affair (making it impossible for Robertson to raise his concerns about the Third Ypres Offensive with the Prime Minister), and called the memoirs "a document as shabby as his behaviour at Calais".[248]

B.H. Liddell Hart, military historian who had been wounded during World War I, went from admirer to sceptic to unremitting critic. He wrote in his diary:

[Haig] was a man of supreme egoism and utter lack of scruple – who, to his overweening ambition, sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men. A man who betrayed even his most devoted assistants as well as the Government which he served. A man who gained his ends by trickery of a kind that was not merely immoral but criminal.[249]

Other historians

One of Haig's defenders was the military historian John Terraine, who published a biography of Haig (The Educated Soldier) in 1963, in which Haig was portrayed as a "Great Captain" of the calibre of the Duke of Marlborough or the Duke of Wellington. Terraine, taking his cue from Haig's "Final Despatch" of 1918, also argued that Haig pursued the only possible strategy given the situation the armies were in: that of attrition which wore down the German army and delivered the coup de grâce of 1918. Gary Sheffield stated that although Terraine's arguments about Haig have been much attacked over forty years, Terraine's thesis "has yet to be demolished".[4]

Australian historian Les Carlyon argues that while Haig was slow to adapt to the correct use of artillery in sufficient quantities to support infantry attacks and was generally sceptical that the science of such doctrine had much place in military theory, he was fully supportive of excellent corps and field commanders such as Herbert Plumer, Arthur Currie and John Monash, who seem to best grasp and exercise these concepts especially later in the war. Carlyon also points out that there is a case to answer for his support of more dubious commanders such as Ian Hamilton, Aylmer Hunter-Weston and Hubert Gough.[250]

Tactical developments

Haig's critics, such as Alan Clark and Gerard De Groot, argued that Haig failed to appreciate the critical science of artillery or supporting arms, and that he was "unimaginative", although de Groot added that he has had the misfortune to be judged by the standards of a later age, in which the cause of Britain and her Empire are no longer thought worthy of such bloodshed.[251] Paul Fussell, a literary historian in The Great War and Modern Memory, writes that

although one doesn't want to be too hard on Haig ... who has been well calumniated already ... it must be said that it now appears was that one thing the war was testing was the usefulness of the earnest Scottish character in a situation demanding the military equivalent of wit and invention. Haig had none. He was stubborn, self-righteous, inflexible, intolerant—especially of the French—and quite humourless ... Indeed, one powerful legacy of Haig's performance is the conviction among the imaginative and intelligent today of the unredeemable defectiveness of all civil and military leaders. Haig could be said to have established the paradigm.[252]

Military historian Brian Bond argues this was not the case. Haig, although not familiar with technological advances, encouraged their use. Bond also refutes claims that Haig was a traditionalist and focused only on Cavalry tactics.[253] Bond points out that the Cavalry represented less than three percent of the British Army by September 1916, whilst the British Army was the most mechanised force in the world by 1918, supported by the world's largest air force. The British Tank Corps was the world's first such force and some 22,000 men served in it during the war. The Royal Artillery grew by 520 percent and the engineers who implemented combined arms tactics grew by 2,212 percent. Bond argues this hardly demonstrates a lack of imagination.[254] Yet some historians, most notably John Keegan, refuse to accept the British Army undertook a 'learning curve' of any sort; despite this example, Bourne explains that there "is little disagreement among scholars about the nature of the military transformation".[255] Popular "media opinion" has failed to grasp that under Haig, the British Army adopted a very modern style of war in 1918, something that was very different from 1914, 1916, or even 1917.[256]

There is no consensus on the speed of the learning curve. Canadian historian Tim Travers remains an influential critic in this regard. In his view, there is no one 'villain' but the pre-war regular army. Travers blames the management of early campaigns on the ethos of the pre-war officer corps. Travers argues that this was based on privilege, with a hierarchy that was based on self-preservation and maintaining individual reputations. As a consequence the army was poorly positioned to adapt quickly. Travers claims that initiative was discouraged, making advancement in a learning curve slow. Travers points to the ethos of the army as being initially pro-human and anti-technological. The offensive spirit of the infantry, quality of the soldier, rapid rifle fire and the idea of the soldier being the most important aspect of the battlefield prevailed. The lessons of the Russo-Japanese War and the power of artillery were ignored, which caused tactical mistakes that would prove costly in the first half of the war. The tactics that Haig pursued (a breakthrough battle deep into enemy territory) were beyond the mobility and range of artillery, which contributed to operational failures and heavy losses. Travers also criticised Haig and enemy commanders for (in Travers' opinion) seeing battle as perfectly organised and something that could be planned perfectly, and ignoring the concept of fog of war and confusion in battle. Travers argues that top-down command became impossible in the chaos of battle and lower levels of command were relied upon. Owing to the lack of attention at this level in the early years of the war, a command vacuum was created in which GHQ became a spectator.[257]

Some historians, like Bourne and Bond, regard this as too harsh. Haig belonged to the lower officer corps of the pre-war army, yet he progressed along with other commanders from battalion, brigade, division and corps commanders of the Edwardian era to the army group and commanders-in-chief of the First World War. The advances in operational methods, technology and tactical doctrine were implemented by these officers, Haig among them. Bourne and Bond argue that it is difficult to reconcile the commanders of 1918 with the dogma-ridden, unprofessional, unreflecting institution depicted by Tim Travers. They argue that he does not take into account the year 1918, when the officer corps succeeded in integrating infantry, artillery, armour and aircraft in a war-winning operational method, a process which began on the Somme in 1916[258] and which would have been impossible had these Edwardian officers been hostile to change in operational methodology and technological terms.[259]


Whilst Haig is often criticised for the high casualties in his offensives, it is argued by some historians that this was largely a function of the size of the battles as his forces were engaging the main body of the German Army on the Western Front, and that no realistic alternative existed. Although total deaths in the Second World War were far higher than in the First, British deaths were lower because Britain was fighting mainly peripheral campaigns in the Mediterranean for much of the Second World War, involving relatively few British troops, whilst most of the land fighting took place between Germany and the USSR (the Soviets suffered roughly as many dead, not including civilians, as every country in World War One combined[214]).[260] When British forces engaged in a major battle in Normandy in 1944, total losses were fewer than on the Somme in 1916 as Normandy was around half the length and less than half the size, but casualties per unit per week were broadly similar.[261] Another historian observes that British daily loss rates at Normandy - a battle in which divisions lost up to three quarters of their combat infantry - were similar to those of Third Ypres in 1917, while average battalion casualty rates in 1944-5 (100 men per week) were similar to those of the First World War.[262]

John Terraine wrote:

It is important, when we feel our emotions rightly swelling over the losses of 1914-18, to remember that in 1939-45 the world losses were probably over four times as many ... the British task was entirely different, which is why the (British) loss of life was so different: about 350,000 in 1939-45 and about 750,000 (British deaths, 1 million including the Empire) in 1914-18 ... - ... The casualty statistics of the Great War ... tell us ... virtually nothing about the quality of ... British generals. The statistics show that ... the British losses in great battles were generally about the same as anyone else's.

In the same article he argued that British perceptions were coloured by the terrible losses of 1 July 1916 (57,000 in one day), but that it should also be remembered that the British never suffered anything like the losses of June 1916, when the Austro-Hungarian Army had 280,000 casualties in a week, or of August 1914 when the French Army lost 211,000 in 16 days, or of March and April 1918 when the Germans lost nearly 350,000 in six weeks (8,600 per day), or 1915 when Russia suffered 2 million casualties in a year.[214]

Total British WW1 deaths seemed especially severe as they fell among certain groups such as Pals Battalions (volunteers who enlisted together and were allowed to serve together - and were often killed together), or the alleged "Lost Generation" of public school and university educated junior officers. In fact British deaths, although heavy compared to other British wars, were only around half those of France or Germany as a proportion of population.[263]

Alleged falsification of records

Dennis Winter in his book "Haig's Command", accused Haig of protecting his reputation by falsifying his diary to mislead historians as to his thoughts and intentions. Sheffield & Bourne point out that all three versions of Haig’s diary (the handwritten original, the carbon copy thereof to which he sometimes made amendments, and the version typed up by Lady Haig) have been available in the National Library of Scotland since March 1961.[264] Barring a few disputes over contentious meetings such as the War Council of early August 1914 and the Doullens Conference of March 1918, “the overall authenticity of Haig’s diary is, however, not in doubt” not least because of the frequency with which its contents have been used to criticise him, and because the facts do not appear to have been distorted to fit a retrospective interpretation of the war such as that contained in the “Final Despatch” of 21 March 1919, in which Haig claimed to have delivered final victory after several years of “wearing-out” (attrition).[265] Dr John Bourne writes that (given the low regard in which Haig had come to be held by the general public) "Winter's perceived conspiracy would appear to be one of the least successful in history. The falsification of his diary seems equally inept, given the frequency with which its contents are held against the author's competence, integrity and humanity, not least by Winter himself."[266] Both Dr John Bourne and Bond point out that the critics of Haig tend to ignore the fact that the war was won in 1918.[267]

Winter also claimed that Haig and the British Government had conspired with the historian, Brigadier Edmonds, to show Haig in a better light in the Official History. These claims were rejected by a number of British and Australian historians, including Robin Prior and Correlli Barnett. Barnett's comments were supported by John Hussey and Dr. Jeffrey Grey of the University of New South Wales who wrote that "A check of the documents cited in the Heyes papers, collected for C.E.W.Bean in London in the 1920s, and in the correspondence between Bean and the British Official Historian, Sir James Edmonds, not only fails to substantiate Winter's claims but reinforces still further Barnett's criticisms of (Winter's) capacity as a researcher ... includ(ing) ... misidentification of documents, misquotation of documents, the running together of passages from different documents ... and misdating of material..(including) misdat(ing) a letter by seventeen years ... to support his conspiracy case against Edmonds."[268] Donald Cameron Watt found Winter "curiously ignorant of the by-no-means secret grounds on which the Cabinet Office, or rather its secretary, Lord Hankey, initiated a series of official histories of the first world war and the terms which were binding on the authors commissioned to write them"[269]

Winter’s claim that Edmonds did not canvass the opinion of veterans is untrue – some volumes were sent to 1,000 or more officers for their comments, as well as being checked against unit diaries down to battalion level; in some cases entire chapters were rewritten (or in the case of Third Ypres, the whole volume was rewritten several times in the 1940s as argument raged about the degree of culpability of Hubert Gough, who was still alive). Winter quotes out of context Edmonds’ advice to his researchers to write a draft narrative first then invite interviewees to comment over lunch: Andrew Green, in his study of the Official History, explains that this was done deliberately in order that memories might be prodded by the draft narrative, and that senior officers were more likely to be frank if approached informally.[270]

Winter expressed doubt that Haig had passed out of Sandhurst top of his year or been awarded the Anson Sword.[271] Winter's claim was refuted by S.A.Anglim, who consulted the Sandhurst records.[272]

Haig in popular culture

Haig appeared as himself in the films Under Four Flags (1918) and Remembrance (1927).

Journalism and popular history

Haig has commonly been portrayed as an inept commander who exhibited callous disregard for the lives of his soldiers, repeatedly ordering tens of thousands of them to supposedly useless deaths during battles such as Passchendaele. Sometimes the criticism is not so much of Haig personally, as of the generation of British generals which he is deemed to represent: a view aired by writers such as John Laffin (British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One) and John Mosier (Myth of the Great War). Alan Clark's book The Donkeys (1961) led to the popularisation of the controversial phrase 'lions led by donkeys' which was used to describe British generalship. Clark attributed this remark to the German generals Max Hoffman and Erich Ludendorff, but later admitted that he lied about the phrase.[273] A critical biographer finds “no evidence of widespread contempt for Haig; the claim that ordinary soldiers universally thought him a butcher does not accord with their continued willingness to fight”.[274]

Drama and literature

Haig was played by Sir John Mills in Richard Attenborough's 1969 film, Oh! What a Lovely War, in which much of the dialogue is taken from Alan Clark's "The Donkeys". He is portrayed as being indifferent to the fate of the troops under his command, his goal being to wear the Germans down even at the cost of enormous losses and to prevail since the Allies will have the last 10,000 men left. Gary Sheffield notes that although the film said more about 1960s attitudes than it did about the war itself, it helped to shape popular memory of the war, being “much quoted, alluded to and parodied”.[275]

In the 1989 BBC comedy series Blackadder Goes Forth, Haig, played by Geoffrey Palmer, makes a single appearance in the final episode. Referring to the limited gains made during the 1915–1917 offensives, Blackadder says: "Haig is about to make yet another gargantuan effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin". Haig is also portrayed sweeping up model soldiers from a large map with a dustpan and brush, and tossing them casually over his shoulder.[276]

In the 1985 Australian television mini-series Anzacs, Haig was played by actor Noel Trevarthen, and the series included scenes featuring meetings between Haig and prominent Australian journalist Keith Murdoch, the father of News Corp. CEO and Chairman Rupert Murdoch. Haig was portrayed as a cold and aloof man who is skeptical about the fighting abilities of the Australian and New Zealand troops arriving on the Western Front in 1916 and aggravated by the conduct of the Australians behind the lines. The series also portrayed British Prime Minister Lloyd George having a strong dislike of Haig and wishing to see him removed from command in 1917.[277]


The following table shows the honours awarded to Haig:

Order of the Thistle UK ribbon.png Knight of the Order of the Thistle (KT) 1917[278]
Order of the Bath UK ribbon.png Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB) 3 June 1915[279]
Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) 3 June 1913[280]
Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) 27 September 1901[281]
Galó de l'Orde del Mèrit (UK).png Member of the Order of Merit (OM) 3 June 1919[282]
Royal Victorian Order UK ribbon.png Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) 15 August 1916[283]
Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (KCVO) 25 June 1909[284]
Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO) 1904[278]
Ribbon bar Order of the Indian Empire.jpg Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire (KCIE) 12 December 1911[285]
Delhi Durbar Medal [286]
Queens Sudan Medal BAR.svg Queen's Sudan Medal [286]
Queens South Africa Medal 1899-1902 ribbon.png Queen's South Africa Medal [286]
Kings South Africa Medal BAR.svg King's South Africa Medal [286]
1914 1915 Star ribbon bar.svg 1914 Star [286]
British War Medal BAR.svg British War Medal [286]
Legion Honneur GC ribbon.svg Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour (France) 24 February 1916[287] (Grand Officer - 15 May 1915)[288]
Ruban de la Croix de guerre 1914-1918.png Croix de guerre (France) 21 April 1917[289]
Cavaliere di gran Croce Regno SSML BAR.svg Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus (Italy) 14 September 1916[290]
Obilitch Medal in Gold (Montenegro) 31 October 1916[291]
OrderStGeorge4cl rib.png 4th Class of the Order of St. George (Russia) 1 June 1917[292]
BEL Croix de Guerre WW1 ribbon.svg Croix de guerre (Belgium) ll March 1918[293]
Order of the Karađorđe's Star with Swords rib.png 1st Class of the Order of the Karađorđe's Star with Swords (Serbia), Military division 10 September 1918[294]
JPN Kyokujitsu-sho Paulownia BAR.svg Grand Cordon with Paulownia Flowers of the Order of the Rising Sun (Japan) 9 November 1918[295]
Ord.MichaeltheBrave-ribbon.jpg 1st Class of the Order of Michael the Brave (Romania) 20 September 1919[296]
Grand Crest Ordre de Leopold.png Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium) 24 February 1916[297]
Khedives Sudan Medal 1897.png Khedive's Sudan Medal (Egypt) 1898[286]


In the early 1920s, several years before his death, a new road of council houses in Kates Hill, Dudley, Worcestershire (now West Midlands) was named Haig Road in honour of Haig.[298]

In 1921, Ash Lane in Southport, Merseyside and the football ground of Southport F.C. that was situated there, were both renamed as Haig Avenue in his honour.[299]

Argentine football club Club Atlético Douglas Haig, founded in 1918, is named after Haig.[300]

Earl Haig Secondary School in Toronto was also named after Haig.[301]

See also



  1. Davidson 2010, xx and p. 126 & 149.
  2. "Lions Led By Donkeys? - the Somme - Background". The National Archives. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  3. "Douglas Haig". National Army Museum. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Sheffield 2002, p. 21.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Sheffield 2002, p. 263.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Hart 2008, p. 2.
  7. 7.0 7.1 "Field Marshal Douglas Haig would have let Germany win, biography says". The Times. 10 November 2008. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  8. 8.0 8.1 "World War I's Worst General". Military History Magazine. 11 May 2007. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  9. Davidson 2010, p. 137
  10. Todman 2005, p. 73-120.
  11. Corrigan 2002, p. 298-30, p. 406-10.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Neillands 2006, p29
  13. Groot 1988, p.1-2
  14. Groot 1988, p.18
  15. "OUPC Archive". Retrieved 10 August 2013. 
  16. Groot 1988, p.29
  17. "No. 25439". 6 February 1885. 
  18. "Polo Monthly 1928". Retrieved 10 August 2013. 
  19. Groot 1988, p.31
  20. "No. 25840". 24 July 1888. 
  21. Groot 1988, p.33
  22. "No. 26156". 28 April 1891. 
  23. Groot 1988, p.38
  24. Groot 1988, p.135
  25. Groot 1988, p.40
  26. "No. 26526". 26 June 1894. 
  27. Groot 1988, p.48
  28. Groot 1988, p.50
  29. "No. 26950". 22 March 1898. 
  30. Groot 1988, p.54
  31. Groot 1988, p.55-6
  32. Groot 1988, p.58
  33. Groot 1988, p.59
  34. Groot 1988, p.62
  35. "No. 27023". 15 November 1898. 
  36. "No. 27080". 16 May 1899. 
  37. Groot 1988, p.70
  38. "No. 27102". 25 July 1899. 
  39. "No. 27122". 3 October 1899. 
  40. "No. 27203". 19 June 1900. 
  41. Groot 1988, p.74
  42. Groot 1988, p.75
  43. Groot 1988, p.85
  44. Groot 1988, p.87
  45. Groot 1988, p.91
  46. "No. 27359". 27 September 1901. 
  47. "No. 27334". 16 July 1901. 
  48. "No. 27642". 5 February 1904. 
  49. "No. 27490". 31 October 1902. 
  50. Groot 1988, p.102
  51. 51.0 51.1 "Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig". Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  52. "Lady Alexandra Haig". National Portrait Gallery. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  53. Groot 1988, p.108
  54. "No. 27946". 4 September 1906. 
  55. Groot 1988, p.118
  56. Groot 1988, p.119
  57. Groot 1988, p.121-4
  58. Groot 1988, p.126
  59. Groot 1988, p.125-6
  60. "No. 28082". 22 November 1907. 
  61. Neillands 2006, p31
  62. Groot 1988, p.128-9
  63. Groot 1988, p.130
  64. Groot 1988, p.133-4
  65. "No. 28433". 4 November 1910. 
  66. Groot 1988, p.137
  67. "No. 28587". 5 March 1912. 
  68. Groot 1988, p.141-2
  69. Groot 1988, p.143-5
  70. Groot 1988, p.146
  71. 71.0 71.1 Groot 1988, p.147-9
  72. Sheffield & Bourne 2005, p.7
  73. "No. 28802". 17 February 1914. 
  74. Groot 1988, p.151
  75. Groot 1988, p.156
  76. Groot 1988, p.156-7
  77. Groot 1988, p.157
  78. Groot 1988, p.159
  79. Groot 1988, p.160
  80. Groot 1988, p.162-3
  81. Groot 1988, p.165-6
  82. Groot 1988, p.166
  83. Groot 1988, p.167
  84. Groot 1988, p.168
  85. Groot 1988, p.169
  86. Groot 1988, p.171-2
  87. "No. 28976". 13 November 1914. 
  88. Groot 1988, p.175
  89. Neillands 2006, p55
  90. Groot 1988, p.178-80
  91. Neillands 2006, p80
  92. Groot 1988, p.181
  93. Neillands 2006, p132
  94. Groot 1988, p.188
  95. Neillands 2006, p152
  96. Groot 1988, p.189
  97. Groot 1988, p.193
  98. Groot 1988, p.196-7
  99. Groot 1988, p.216
  100. Groot 1988, p.191, 195
  101. Groot 1988, p.202
  102. Groot 1988, p.203-4
  103. Neillands 2006, p192-4
  104. Neillands 2006, p204
  105. Neillands 2006, p193
  106. Groot 1988, p.205
  107. Groot 1988, p.205-7
  108. Neillands 2006, p256-7
  109. Groot 1988, p.208-9
  110. Neillands 2006, p261
  111. Neillands 2006, p257
  112. Neillands 2006, p266
  113. Groot 1988, p.219-20
  114. Groot 1988, p.215
  115. Groot 1988, p.218-9
  116. Terraine, 1977, p. 9.
  117. Groot 1988, p. 223-6, p230, p232
  118. Groot 1988, p.226
  119. Groot 1988, p.228-9
  120. Groot 1988, p.230
  121. Groot 1988, p.238-9.
  122. Groot 1988, p.243-4
  123. Groot 1988, p.243
  124. Groot 1988, p.245
  125. Groot 1988, p.177.
  126. "No. 29886". 29 December 1916. 
  127. Terraine, 1963, p. 245.
  128. "Battles - The Third Battle of Ypres, 1917". First World Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  129. "Passchendaele cemented Canada’s world role". Canadian Armed Forces. 12 November 2008. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  130. Berton, Pierre. Marching as to War, 2001, Toronto.
  131. 131.0 131.1 Mead 2008, p.305
  132. Groot 1988, p.347-8
  133. Sheffield 2011, p.262
  134. Groot 1988, p.349
  135. Sheffield 2011, p.250
  136. Sheffield 2011, p.253
  137. 137.0 137.1 Mead 2008, p.308
  138. Sheffield 2011, p.248-50
  139. 139.0 139.1 Groot 1988, p.350-1
  140. Sheffield 2011, p.252-4
  141. Sheffield 2011, p.254-5
  142. 142.0 142.1 Mead 2008, p.309
  143. 143.0 143.1 Sheffield 2011, p.256
  144. 144.0 144.1 Sheffield 2011, p.257
  145. Groot 1988, p.353
  146. Sheffield 2011, p.255
  147. Mead 2008, p.310
  148. Groot 1988, p.354-5
  149. Mead 2008, p.311
  150. Mead 2008, p.312
  151. Groot 1988, p.355
  152. Sheffield 2011, p.259-60
  153. Sheffield 2011, p.260
  154. Groot 1988, p.356
  155. Groot 1988, p.358-61
  156. Sheffield 2011, p.258
  157. Groot 1988, p.359-60
  158. Groot 1988, p.360
  159. 159.0 159.1 Groot 1988, p.368-9
  160. Sheffield 2011, p.263
  161. Groot 1988, p.361-2
  162. Groot 1988, p.363-6
  163. Sheffield 2011, p.264-5
  164. Groot 1988, p.369
  165. 165.0 165.1 Sheffield 2011, p.268
  166. Sheffield 2011, p.261
  167. 167.0 167.1 Sheffield 2011, p.265
  168. Sheffield 2011, p.267
  169. 169.0 169.1 Groot 1988, p.376
  170. Sheffield 2011, p.269
  171. Sheffield 2011, p.270-1
  172. 172.0 172.1 172.2 Sheffield 2011, p.275
  173. Travers 1992, p.54, 66-70
  174. 174.0 174.1 Travers 1992, p.66-7
  175. Sheffield 2011, p.273, 275
  176. 176.0 176.1 Sheffield 2011, p.272
  177. Travers 1992, p.69-70
  178. Sheffield 2011, p.276
  179. 179.0 179.1 Sheffield 2011, p.273
  180. Travers 1992, p.66-8
  181. Sheffield 2011, p.271
  182. 182.0 182.1 182.2 Travers 1992, p.68
  183. 183.0 183.1 Sheffield & Bourne 2005, p.8
  184. 184.0 184.1 Sheffield 2011, p.279
  185. Gollin, 1964, p.505-7
  186. 186.0 186.1 186.2 Sheffield 2011, p.277
  187. Sheffield 2011, p.278
  188. Groot 1988, p.380.
  189. Hart 2008, p. 250.
  190. Sheffield 2011, p.283
  191. 191.0 191.1 Sheffield 2011, p.282
  192. 192.0 192.1 Sheffield 2011, p.288
  193. Sheffield 2011, p.284-5
  194. Sheffield 2011, p.289
  195. Groot 1988, p.357
  196. Hart 2008, p. 229.
  197. Groot 1988, p379.
  198. 198.0 198.1 Sheffield 2011, p.290
  199. Sheffield 2011, p.286
  200. Sheffield 2011, p.280
  201. Groot 1988, p.381.
  202. 202.0 202.1 Groot 1988, p.382.
  203. Groot 1988, p.385.
  204. Sheffield 2011, p.291-2
  205. Hart 2008, p. 311.
  206. Hart 2008, p. 360, p364.
  207. Hart 2008, p.421.
  208. 208.0 208.1 Groot 1988, p.390.
  209. Hart 2008, p. 421.
  210. 210.0 210.1 Groot 1988, p.392-4.
  211. Groot 1988, p.391.
  212. Groot 1988, p.393.
  213. Groot 1988, p.400
  214. 214.0 214.1 214.2 "British Military Leadership in the First World War". Western Front Association. 8 July 2008. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  215. Hart 2008, p. 364.
  216. Bond & Cave 2009, p. 196, 215
  217. Corrigan 2002, p. 229.
  218. Corrigan 2002, p. 230.
  219. Bond & Cave 2009, p. 196
  220. Pain, Stephanie (10 March 2007). "Histories: Can't bite, can't fight (preview only)". New Scientist Issue 2594. pp. 50–51. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  221. Groot 1988, p.396-7.
  222. Groot 1988, p.397-8.
  223. Groot 1988, p.398.
  224. "No. 31610". 21 October 1919. 
  225. Groot 1988, p.400.
  226. Groot 1988, p.401.
  227. "No. 31307". 22 April 1919. 
  228. Groot 1988, p.402.
  229. Groot 1988, p.406.
  230. 230.0 230.1 Groot 1988, p.403-4.
  231. "History of the Hall". University of St. Andrews. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  232. "The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army". New Statesman. 24 August 2011. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  233. "No. 28611". 24 May 1912. 
  234. "No. 31488". 1 August 1919. 
  235. "J M Barrie and Rudyard Kipling". Archives, Records and Artefacts at the University of Dundee. 29 March 2011. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  236. 236.0 236.1 236.2 236.3 236.4 The Times, 4 February 1928, pp. 14–16.
  237. "Legion pays tribute to Earl Haig". Sourthern Reporter. 
  238. 'A Kick in the Teeth' by Nicholas Watkins.
  239. Gordon Corrigan, Mud, Blood and Poppycock, p. 204.
  240. Churchill 1938, p.1220
  241. Bond 2002, p. 43
  242. Churchill 1938 p1991
  243. 243.0 243.1 Sheffield 2011, p.365-6
  244. Churchill 1938, p. 1374-5
  245. Reid 2006, p. 499
  246. Churchill 1937, p223
  247. Laffin 1988, p162
  248. Terraine 1977, p. 341.
  249. Geoffrey Norman, Military History Magazine, Vol. 24, No.4, June 2007, p. 41
  250. Carlyon, Les. 2006. The Great War, Pan MacMillon.
  251. Groot 1988, p.407.
  252. Paul Fussell. 1975. "The Great War and Modern Memory".
  253. Bond 2009, p. 4.
  254. Bond 2009, p. 5.
  255. Bond 2009, pp. 5-6.
  256. Bond 2009, p. 6.
  257. Bond 2009, pp. 6-7.
  258. Duffy 2007, pp 320-328.
  259. Bond 2009, pp. 7-8.
  260. Corrigan 2002, p. 70.
  261. Corrigan 2002, p. 298-30, p408.
  262. French 2000, p. 154.
  263. Corrigan 2002, p. 55.
  264. Sheffield & Bourne 2005, p.2
  265. Sheffield & Bourne 2005, p.9
  266. Bond 2009, p. 3.
  267. Bond 2009, pp. 4-5.
  268. "Denis Winter’s Haig: A Manufactured Fraud". Times Literary Supplement. 19 April 1991, 10 May 1991, 9 August 1991. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  269. "Front Forum: discussing The Great War 1914-18". Western Front Association. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  270. Green 2003, p.57-9
  271. Winter 1991, pp. 28-9.
  272. "Haig`s Cadetship - A Reassessment". 1914-1918 Invision Zone. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  273. Corrigan 2002, p. 213.
  274. Groot 1988, p.236
  275. Sheffield 2002, pp20-1
  276. "Blackadder Episode Guide: Captain Cook". BBC. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  277. "Anzacs". IMDb. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  278. 278.0 278.1 Mosley, p. 1720
  279. "No. 29202". 22 June 1915. 
  280. "No. 28724". 30 May 1913. 
  281. "No. 27359". 27 September 1901. 
  282. "No. 31379". 30 May 1919. 
  283. "No. 29711". 18 August 1916. 
  284. "No. 28263". 22 June 1909. 
  285. "No. 28559". 8 December 1911. 
  286. 286.0 286.1 286.2 286.3 286.4 286.5 286.6 Apparent from the campaigns in which he served
  287. "No. 29486". 22 February 1916. 
  288. "No. 29163". 14 May 1915. 
  289. "No. 30030". 20 April 1917. 
  290. "No. 29750". 15 September 1916. 
  291. "No. 29977". 9 March 1917. 
  292. "No. 30108". 1 June 1917. 
  293. "No. 30568". 8 March 1918. 
  294. "No. 30891". 6 September 1918. 
  295. "No. 31002". 8 November 1918. 
  296. "No. 31560". 19 September 1919. 
  297. "No. 29486". 22 February 1916. 
  298. "How 1920’s Dudley honoured Nurse Cavell". Black Country Bugle. 6 January 2005. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  299. "History of Haig Avenue". Port Online. Retrieved 22 June 2013. "The ground was renamed Haig Avenue (after Earl Haig) in 1921" 
  300. "El Milan de Pergamino está de vuelta" (in Spanish). Retrieved 22 June 2013. "...whose name is a strange homage to Sir Douglas Haig, a Scottish marshal renowned for his participation in World War I" 
  301. "Earl Haig, A History". "... The original school was built in honour of Field Marshal Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig (1861-1928)" 


  • Bond, Brian (2002). The Unquiet Western Front. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521809955. 
  • Bond, Brian; Cave, Nigel (2009). Haig – A Reappraisal 70 Years On. Pen & Sword. ISBN 978-0850526981. 
  • Carlyon, Les (2005). The Great War. Pan MacMillan. ISBN 978-1405037617. 
  • Churchill, Winston (1937). Great Contemporaries. Butterworths. ISBN 978-1935191995. 
  • Churchill, Winston (1938). The World Crisis. Odhams. ISBN 978-0141442051. 
  • Corrigan, Gordon (2002). Mud, Blood & Poppycock. Cassell. ISBN 978-0304366590. 
  • Duffy, C. (2007). Through German Eyes, The British and the Somme 1916. Phoenix. ISBN 978-0-7538-2202-9. 
  • French, David (2000). Raising Churchill's Army. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199246304. 
  • Gollin, Alfred (1964). Proconsul in Politics: Lord Milner. Macmillan. ASIN B000Q9OI12. 
  • Green, Andrew (2003). Writing the Great War. Frank Cass. ISBN 978-0714684307. 
  • Hart, Peter (2008). 1918: A Very British Victory. Phoenix Books. ISBN 978-0-7538-2689-8. 
  • Mosley, Charles (2003). Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, volume 2. Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd. ISBN 978-0971196629. 
  • Laffin, John (1988). British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One. Sutton. ISBN 978-0-7509-0179-6. 
  • Neillands, Robin (2006). The Death of Glory: the Western Front 1915. John Murray. ISBN 978-0-7195-6245-7. 
  • Sheffield, Gary (2002). Forgotten Victory: The First World War: Myths and Realities. Headline Review. ISBN 978-0747264606. 
  • Terraine, John (1977). The Road to Passchendaele: The Flanders Offensive of 1917: A Study in Inevitability. Leo Cooper. ISBN 978-0850522297. 
  • Todman, Dan (2005). The Great War: Myth and Memory. Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 978-1852855123. 
  • Travers, Tim (1992). How the War Was Won. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84415-207-0. 
Primary sources
  • Charteris, Brigadier-General John (1929). Field Marshal Earl Haig. Cassell. ASIN B000WT9ZU0. 
  • Haig, Countess (1936). The Man I Knew. The Moray Press. ASIN B0008605P6. 
  • Haig, F-M Sir Douglas (1919). Sir Douglas Haig's Despatches (December 1915-April 1919). Ed. by Lt.-Col. J.H. Boraston, OBE, Private Secretary to Earl Haig. Dent. ASIN B0012JWJD4. 
  • Secrett, Sergeant T (1929). Twenty-Five Years with Earl Haig. Jarrods. ASIN B0016Q48SC. 
  • Sheffield, Gary; Bourne, John (2005). Douglas Haig War Diaries and Letters 1914-18. Phoenix. ISBN 978-0297847021. 

Further reading

  • Dixon, Dr. Norman (1994). On the Psychology of Military Incompetence. Pimlico. ISBN 978-0712658898. 
  • Holmes, Richard (2004). Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0007137527. 
  • Hochschild, Adam (2011). To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0-618-75828-9. 
  • Keegan, John (1999). The First World War. Pimlico. ISBN 978-0712666459. 
  • Travers, Tim (1987). The Killing Ground: The British Army, The Western Front and The Emergence of Modern War 1900–1918. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 978-0850529647. 

External links

Military offices
Preceded by
Sir Beauchamp Duff
Chief of the General Staff (India)
Succeeded by
Sir Percy Lake
Preceded by
Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien
GOC-in-C Aldershot Command
Succeeded by
Sir Alexander Hamilton-Gordon
New creation GOC I Corps
August 1914 – December 1914
Succeeded by
Charles Monro
New creation Commander of the British First Army
Succeeded by
Sir Henry Rawlinson
Preceded by
Sir John French
Commander of the British Expeditionary Force
End of World War I
Preceded by
Thomas Arthur Cooke
Colonel of the 17th Lancers (Duke of Cambridge's Own)
Regiment amalgamated
Preceded by
Sir Evelyn Wood
Colonel of the Royal Horse Guards
Succeeded by
Sir William Robertson
New title
Regiment formed
Colonel of the 17th/21st Lancers
With: Sir Herbert Lawrence
Succeeded by
Sir Herbert Lawrence
Preceded by
Sir Charles Woollcombe
Colonel of the King's Own Scottish Borderers
Succeeded by
Duncan Macfarlane
Academic offices
Preceded by
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair
Rector of the University of St Andrews
Succeeded by
Sir J. M. Barrie
Preceded by
The Lord Balfour of Burleigh
Chancellor of the University of St Andrews
Succeeded by
The Viscount Haldane
Peerage of the United Kingdom
New creation Earl Haig
Succeeded by
George Haig

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).