Home › Haig and the Somme › Haig's view

Haig's view

What did Haig think was happening at the Somme? These sources come from his own diary and from the official report he wrote at the end of the battle. They tell us a lot, but you need to think about when and why he wrote each one.

Haig's plan

The attack was planned by General Sir Henry Rawlinson, who commanded the British Fourth Army, under Haig's direction. Rawlinson wanted a cautious "bite and hold" attack: take the German front trenches, hold them against counter-attacks, then go again. Haig wanted more. He pushed for deeper objectives and kept cavalry ready to ride through a gap. Many historians argue that this spread the bombardment over too much ground, so it was too thin to destroy the German defences.

The planners expected the week-long bombardment to cut the wire and kill or stun the defenders. Because of this, many battalions crossed no man's land at a steady pace, carrying heavy loads.

Source A: the night before

"The wire has never been so well cut, nor the artillery preparation so thorough."

From Haig's diary, 30 June 1916, the day before the attack.

What it shows: Haig was confident the bombardment had worked.

What we know: in many places the wire had not been cut. Many shells were shrapnel, which was poor at cutting wire, and large numbers failed to explode. Most German soldiers survived in their dugouts.

Think about: was Haig fooling himself, or was he given bad information? He seems to have believed the hopeful reports that reached his headquarters, which supports the idea that he was out of touch with the front.

Source B: after the first day

"The A.G. reported today that the total casualties are estimated at over 40,000 to date. This cannot be considered severe in view of the numbers engaged, and the length of front attacked."

From Haig's diary, 2 July 1916. The "A.G." was the Adjutant-General, the officer in charge of personnel.

What it shows: this is the source Haig's critics quote most. The real figure for 1 July alone was 57,470 casualties. To most readers, calling that "not severe" sounds heartless.

Think about: Haig was writing as the commander of an army of more than a million men, measuring losses against the size of the attack, and the full figures were not yet known. That doesn't make the entry less shocking, but it helps explain it.

Source C: Haig's report at the end

"Verdun had been relieved; the main German forces had been held on the Western front; and the enemy's strength had been very considerably worn down."

From Haig's official despatch on the Somme, dated 23 December 1916 and published for the public a few days later.

What it shows: Haig claimed the battle had achieved its aims.

What we know: there is truth in it. Germany scaled back its attacks at Verdun in July 1916, and the German army suffered terrible losses. A German officer later called the Somme "the muddy grave of the German field army". But Haig doesn't mention the breakthrough he had hoped for, which never came.

Think about: the despatch was written for the government and the public after more than 400,000 British and Empire casualties. Haig needed to show the battle had been worth it.

How reliable is Haig's own evidence?

The diary was private and written at the time, so it shows his real reactions. But Haig later had it typed up and changed some entries, so historians check the typed version against his handwritten original, which is kept at the National Library of Scotland.
The despatch was public and written to justify the battle. It tells us what Haig wanted people to believe.
Both are very useful for understanding Haig's thinking and attitude, and much less useful for what was actually happening in the front line.

Practice question

How useful are Sources B and C to a historian studying the Battle of the Somme?

AQA asks this kind of question about two sources for 12 marks, and Edexcel asks a similar one for 8. For each source, cover three things:

Content: what does the source tell you about the topic?
Provenance: who made it, when and why? How does that make it more or less useful?
Context: what do you know that supports or challenges it?

Here is a paragraph on Source B:

Source B is useful because it shows how Haig reacted to the first day of the Somme. He describes over 40,000 casualties as "not severe", which suggests he was prepared to accept heavy losses as the price of the attack. Because it comes from his private diary, written the next day, it is likely to show his real reaction rather than something written for the public. However, it is less useful for what actually happened, because the figure was too low: the British army had 57,470 casualties on 1 July alone, including 19,240 killed. It is also possible the entry was changed when Haig had his diary typed up later. So Source B is most useful for understanding Haig's attitude, and a historian would need other sources for the facts of the battle.

Updated 18 October 2026