The Influence of General Haig

Posted: January 4th, 2023

The Influence of General Haig

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

The Influence of General Haig

Douglas Haig, popularly referred to as Field Marshal Haig (1861-1928) served as a senior officer in the British Army. He was in charge of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), especially on the Western Front, from 1915 until the war ceased. He commanded the Army in number of confrontations, including The Battle of Somme, Passachendaele (the Third Battle of Ypre), and the German Spring Offensive among other notable confrontations. The immense impact, both positive and negative, which the Field Marshal exercised over the application of technology, has been largely unappreciated or overlooked by various commentaries and analysts. There is little doubt that the theatre commander was the single most essential leader in the Army during the various confrontations Britain experienced during his leadership as commander. His educational background exposed him to effective military techniques, which offered him the chance to rise through the ranks within a considerable time. He always saw the importance of applying knowledge and proper strategy to fight a battle, and worked closely with others to perform tasks and obligations. Haig spent time training other officers, and reminded them to be brave at all times. The analysis presents Haig as an ambitious person who knew the effects of applying science and technology on planning and executing military operations, but who failed to apply what he knows at all times to help the British Army face the opponent. Some of the difficulties Haig experienced in applying technology were influenced by external factors, including lack of proper coordination between industrialists and government that was in charge of ordering for military equipment. Haig emerges to be relatively well advanced in terms of technology use compared to the British theater commanders who served before and during his time, but less effective compared to the Field Marshalls who served much later in Britain and in other places.

Background

Although Haig did not receive his degree at the Oxford University where he studied for three years, his admission at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst offered him with a lot of skills on military operations. Haig showed more maturity and seriousness than his fellow officer candidates, which helped him to strictly and diligently program his every day activities. Haig’s approach to his work at school put him first in the order of merit when he graduated in 1884. He also achieved a milestone when he was bestowed with the Anson Memorial Sword while serving as a Senior Under Officer. The success at the military collage definitely prepared Haig to be competent personnel in the Army whose influence would reach great heights. He further prepared a place for himself in the Victorian Army by visiting Germany and learning their military practices and organizations after which he forwarded a copy of his findings to Sir Evelyn Wood who served as the British Quartermaster General. The Duke of Cambridge who also served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army appointed Haig to join the Staff College in 1896, and it is while serving as an instructor at Camberly that Colonel G. F. Henderson observed Haig and predicted that his superior capabilities would one day make him the Commander-in-Chief. Many viewed Henderson as a person with great ability to judge, and was influential in making decisions in the military.

Haig as Commander-in-Chief

Haig returned to Britain in 1906 after Secretary of State for War, Richard Haldane, invited him from India to help the War Office execute full changes of the British Army. The Field Marshall introduced programs that would transform BEF, and by 1914, the changes brought the British military organization and practices into the modern world. Haig got the opportunity to advocate for implementation of superior technology while he worked as the Director of Military Training. The indecisive and weak military policy during the reign of Lloyd George as Britain’s Prime Minister did not restrain Haig who focused on equipping the officers with better forms of planning and combating. His ascension to the position of the Commander-in-Chief in 1915 gave him more avenues to express his strategies, and people gauged the Commander’s technological capabilities from what he did, or did not do to help the Allied team to win in the Great War.

Field Marshal Haig used his technological competence to lead the Entente Military Cooperation to victory during World War I. His troupes thwarted the German’s attempts of attacking the French military at Verdun, and helped the American Army overcome the offensives it faced from the Germans in the final months of the Great War. The Triple Alliance that comprised of Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Germany staged war against Great Britain, Russia, France of the Triple Entente, an attack that would spark a global war. Haig developed a proper plan, or what was at the time regarded as the finest planning for high command as he contemplated upon his mission of conquering the Triple Alliance that was increasingly becoming threatening.

The technological growth and industrial mobilisation during the first quarter of the 1900s allowed Haig to employ better technology in planning for the Great War. The emergence of better weapons, and of new ways of manufacturing them in large volumes and at great speed, played an essential function in transforming the nature of conflict and war. The technological developments transformed the war at sea and in the air, but so much change was evident on land where the warring groups understood the importance of using acquiring new weapons in large volumes and to use them in the battle field. Haig and his team relied on pre-existing techniques at the start of the Great War, and new technology and application of new technology were still not rampant. The government and the military command team saw the need to apply science and technology to the issues generated by total war. The application of the tracer bullets during the Great War by the Haig-led team further depicts the Field Marshall as a commander who appreciated the impact of technology in real combat. Haig trained his troops on how to use the tracer bullets that were particularly effective for night combat. The Field Marshall could not disregard the technological equipment that was becoming eminent in warfare as he planned and executed his strategies, which present him as being technologically conscious.

Haig’s knowledge on the value of applying advanced technology in planning and executing military plans encouraged the use of information management (IM) to facilitate operations. The approach facilitated the methodical processing, ordering, and transmission of information within the organisation. Haig together with other planners embraced the use of IM from 1914 onwards although the system was not very much sophisticated considering the level of technology at the time. The application of IM system by the British Army upon the onset of the war in 1914 was very much the outcome of the industrial and democratic transformations of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, which led to an increase in the mobility of organisations, firepower, and troop size. The other factors that pushed the Haig-led team to embrace the use of IM were the expansion in the complexity and size of the administrative roles formed by new information and communication technology. Furthermore, applying the simple forms of IM in the British Army that received its instructions from Haig introduced the bureaucratisation of power and command. The bureaucratization that developed with the adoption of IM was reflective of a now common trend that was happening throughout the Western countries with the main characteristics of the wave being a change from personal to impersonal regulation, rules and regulations, firm orders, the formation of hierarchies, the specialisation of labour, and the formation of increasingly intensive and elaborate structures for gathering, storing, and evaluating information. The application of new technologies such as punched-card tabulating appliances, telephones, and typewriters, fused with superior technology for handling information, such as vertical filing structures and pre-printed standard systems, allowed offices to process large volumes of information more efficiently and speedily thereby allowing the Army to respond very fast. It is necessary to mention that the rate of applying IM was not as developed in the Britain as it were in the U.S. Although large offices had developed in Britain much earlier than in the U.S., the application of IM picked up slowly with specialisation of clerical functions being widespread. Still, the application of some form of IM under the guidance of Haig suggests that the Field Marshall understood the effects of technology in planning and executing military operations.

The application of IM during the WWI set a precedent for the British to develop the system that has recorded tremendous growth over the years. Today, the Air Command runs its own IM Foundation Program, which aims to deliver a consistent measure of managing information across the whole of Royal Air Force. The Air Command works closely with its staff to improve information management, and the concerted effort makes it easier to standardise and advance working operations. Despite the tremendous developments made so far, more can still happen to improve the IM profile and to make sure that the possible risks to the Ministry of Defense (MOD) are averted. Following his desire and awareness on the importance of integrating technology into military planning and operations, Haig led his team to defeat the main enemy in a theater of operations where the final victory could be attained. 

The attempts by Haig to improve Britain’s use of IM resemble the efforts by Field Marshal Harold Alexander who was a one of British military commanders who used modern techniques to plan and implement their operations. He worked alongside Haig on the Western Front and together they strived to find ways of using technology to overcome the Alliance Force. He became the Second-in-Command of the 1^st Battalion at a young age of 25 years because of his increasing innovation while he served alongside other leaders in the military. He was conversant with marine technology and was familiar with aviation techniques. Alexander played an influential role as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces Headquarters in charge of all military activities and planning. He helped to improve IM in the Mediterranean Theatre, and his selection of weapons depicted him as a military leader who appreciated the effects of technology in planning and execution. 

Driven by the need for improved information transmission both on and from the battlefield, the beginning of the Battle of Verdun, on February 1916, Haig led the BEF in making significant strides in telecommunication development. The Commander was on the forefront in encouraging his team to partner with leading IT developers at the General Post Office to discover telecommunications designs and systems that would facilitate military operations. The Commander’s support pushed the state to increase financial allocations that promoted the development of technological devices and apparatus such as field radios, gun identifiers, and telephone headsets. Haig’s leadership as the Commander saw the development of a transmission machine that helped the Army relay operational and intelligence information and data between the headquarters and the frontline. Haig supported the formation of sound ranging, which allowed the Army to use sound waves to locate the coordinates and location of the attacking forces artillery. Haig’s support for increased telecommunication systems received a boost with the formation of the Royal Air Force during the onset of the WWI. The Royal Air Force stepped up the campaign to embrace the use of telephone headsets and wireless signals to improve the transmission of signals. The dedication Haig showed to transform telecommunication systems in the Army showed how much the Commander appreciated technology use in planning and implementation.

Haig led his BEF team into improving its use of air power to strengthen its attacks on the Germany-led side. The Royal Flying Corps (RFC) worked closely with the Commander to find suitable ways of increasing the Army’s air power. Haig also worked closely with the Royal Naval Air Service to improve the state of aircrafts from the poorly developed versions of 1914 to more improved forms that could move faster and could last longer while still functional. Haig was confident that improving the BEF’s air power by applying the use of aircrafts would improve the Army’s ground attack approaches, strategic bombing, as well as advance other warfare approaches such as artillery identification and interdiction of the enemy’s communication infrastructure that became easier with the developments in aircraft production. Haig found it easier to advocate for the use of aircrafts in military operations due to the developments in wireless communication where officers on the ground could communicate with flight operators on air. Further, the developments in aerial photography offered Haig and his team additional advantage to apply aircrafts in the warfare. The support Haig gave the use of aircrafts shows that he acknowledged the value of technology in the warfare.

Haig’s support of increased production of armoured vehicles offers additional proof that the Commander was technology-minded. The production of tanks in 1915, for example, offered Haig and his team an opportunity to engage in major wars. The heavily-armored automobile could progress even at a time of irresistible firing of small arms, which made it more appropriate. Haig collaborated with other military personnel in Britain and outside the country to find ways of making the Tank more effective. His close partnership with Colonel Ernest Swinton who was a British Army officer, for example, encouraged the development of tanks that have the ability to work in radius of at least 20 miles, and which have the ability to accommodate about ten crew members. Haig also shared his views to help in the production of tanks that could turn sharply, and to move relatively faster on flat land. Haig’s support for tanks became evident when he sent a communication in London informing that they had utilized a new form of armoured vehicle, which has proved to be reliable. The use of tanks by the British forces proved successful again in August 1918 at the Battle of Amiens when the heavy artillery helped BEF defeat its opponents. Haig believed that using tanks at the Battle of Somme would offer more security to the British forces in France.

The increased and relentless support Haig offered to the use of technology resembles the energy Field Marshals Edmund Allenby (1861 – 1936) and William Slim (1891 – 1970) showed during their leadership of the British Army. Allenby was very much the same as Haig in the way he supported the use of armoured vehicles, but differed in the way he encouraged the use of heavy machine gun. His views on the effectiveness of the heavy machine gun and other superior artillery helped him to win the Boer War of 1899, and also helped him put a strong opposition against the Germans while he served in the Western Front alongside Haig. Slim might not be one of the highly glorified commanders in Britain, but his continued support for better technology since the WWI depicted him as a person who valued improved forms of warfare. He transformed the British Army from a relative a relatively poor state to an advanced team because of his views that it is easier to win with superior technology than when using traditional approaches. He resembled Haig in the way he encouraged the use of aircrafts to deliver supplies and to carry out attacks. He also promoted the use of sophisticated artillery and armoured vehicles, which further depict him as a person who valued technology use. The trend Haig put on the use of better technological weapons and artillery seemed to have influenced Allenby and Slim who relied on improved weapons to fight their battles.

 Other Competences

Haig managed to achieve great success during period of command because of other positive qualities other than his application of technology. The Field Marshall accepted a subordinate role to Nivelle and Joffre, and during Petain’s term as Commander-in-Chief, he served as an honest and hardworking partner to ease the pressure the Germans put on the French. Haig was innovative and throughout his career he developed ideas that would help his team become victorious and well-prepared. The Field Marshall, for example, introduced the Staff Ride approach to supervise and evaluate the Cavalry while he served under Lord Kitchener in India. He designed exercises to simulate real war conditions for commanders and unit staff. The tool encouraged officers to perform their tasks without the real engagement of troops. The program earned Haig so much fame in his station and throughout the army as a unique success. A detailed report of five of the staff rides were gathered and later published in 1907 under the heading Cavalry Studies, Strategical and Tactical. The book clearly expresses Haig’s belief in the significance of accurate staff functions, and the training of all officers, despite its technical method and language. Haig always believed on sound leadership and effective decision-making, and believed that serving as a team is a critical requirement to win and to achieve the set goals and objectives. Haig’s other competencies together with his interest in infusing technology in combat gave him fame as an exceptional military leader who always aimed for the best.

Criticism

Some critics believe that Haig failed to apply the necessary and critical technology of artillery and that he did not use adequate imagination to confront most of the battles. Some argue that he used repetitive methods, which might have caused failure in some areas while he served as one of Britain’s leading military figures. WWI offered a platform for commanders to prove their ability to employ superior technology, but Haig failed in some areas. One of his major weaknesses was his dismissal of the effects and power of the machine gun on the battlefield. He believed that the past failures do not have any links with application of firearms, but rather tactic and strategy incapability. Haig’s dismissal of the machine gun led to the death of thousands of British soldiers who could not put up with the heavy artillery of the German-led force during the Battle of Somme of July-November 1916. Sir Henry Rawlison who was in charge of the attacking force at the north of Somme had warned Haig against entering the battlefield with inferior artillery but the commander remained adamant. The Allied could not penetrate the Western Front, and instead bloodshed and manslaughter were witnessed on the initial day of combat.

Bernard Montgomery (1887-1976) was a British Field Marshall who differed with Haig’s views on the application of heavy machine guns, and in the way he applied better forms of technology in planning and executing military operations. Montgomery appeared to be more focused on technological applications compared to Haig because in most of the divisions that he led, including the 47^th Division, the 8^th Infantry Division, the 21^st Army Group, and 21st Army Group he showed great application of superior equipment and techniques. He marshaled his team to be ready with heavy machine guns before heading the BEF’s attack on Germany in 1939. He was aware of German’s technological advancement, and would not make the mistake Haig did of facing the opponent with inferior weapons. Montgomery applied the latest technologies in weapon production, aviation, and communication to make his operations more effective and more precise. Montgomery’s familiarity with superior technology further earned him the title of the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine.

John Vereker (1886 – 1946) is another a Field Marshall who gained much fame for leading the BEF dispatched to France in the initial year of WWII due to his support on the use of technology. He started to show his prowess during the First World War he ascended to the positions of a Brigade Major and later a Commanding Officer. Field Marshal Vereker showed his proficiency in technology during the Great War in the way he advocated for the use of superior weapons to counter attacks. His innovative skills and competence awarded him another promotion in 1928 when he became the Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and another one in 1936 as Commandant. His ascension to the position of the Commander-in-Chief of the BEF in 1939 offered him an opportunity to create a strategic plan for Britain that was based on technological planning. He particularly came out as being technologically conscious when he called for increased disbursement of mobile armoured vehicles and complete equipment of the infantry groups sent to France to help it defend Belgium and France. The decision showed that he knew the risks of going to the battlefield without applying modern technology.

Haig’s reluctance to apply new technology to ease transportation of weapons and other supplies such as food and medicine earned him much criticism as a commander who did not see the urgency to utilize modern equipment. The British Army under Haig’s directives put more focus on refurbishing common technologies introduced prior to the war rather than creating and innovating new systems. The conflict between allocating limited resources towards implementing new and better technology is evident in various ways. A good example is in the transportation of people and items from one place to the other. The Army experienced considerable challenges in disbursing essential commodities, particularly to the vast Western Front. The government requisitioned about 100 buses and 1100 civilian trucks to help with transportation of military personnel and equipment at the start of WWI. The Army continued to rely on motor transport as the war progressed but the approach proved futile if the combatants were to receive adequate blankets, weapons, food, medicine, and enough human reinforcement. The Army under Haig’s guidance and planning still relied on the old-fashioned method of using horse-driven carts to ferry supplies from the depot, which sometimes delayed deliveries to remote places, and during adverse weather. Haig and his team appeared to be more reluctant to embrace swift forms of transportation as the war progressed because the Army used about 24000 horses before serious battles commenced and later expanded to 590,000 by 1917. The Army on the Western Front also relied on thousands of oxen and camels to move items from one station to the other. It is highly likely that Haig would performed better if he advocated for advanced forms of transportation such as aircrafts because of their ability to move very fast and carry bulk at the same time.  

The Commander-in-Chief proved incapable to protect Britain and France using superior technology, and teamed up with the French to entice America into offering additional support against the Alliance Force. Haig and his team knew that the Western Front provided a suitable chance to break through the German Armies, but that could not happen without using superior technology that break through the German’s complex defense system. A suitable way to achieve victory, the Allies argued, was to strengthen the numbers. The Entente hoped to get support from the Americans who had developed a number of advanced weapons the time the Great War was forming. Haig led talks with the French Army in 1917 to address the concerns over the slow progress of the American forces in joining the War. The Allies felt that bringing in America into the fight against the German-led team would offer morale to the fighters and offer the chance to enjoy America’s technology prowess. The heavy reliance Haig’s Army had on the Americans further cast doubt on his ability to use sophisticated technology, especially when it was very necessary. Haig would lead the Allies towards winning the War without seeking America’s assistance using sophisticated technology if he had the skills and capacity to innovate, design, and implement better strategic and mechanised approaches.   

Haig managed to attain the good outcome in WWI despite his failure to apply technology in all aspects as would expected of a Commander of his status which makes him similar to Frederic Thesiger. Thesiger, 1^st Baron Chelmsford, is an example of an imperial general from Britain who achieved great outcome in the battlefield, although he did not apply superior technology compared to Haig and the others who showed great experience with technology. Thesiger’s served at a time when Britain was yet to embrace sophisticated technology in terms of planning and weapons, which hindered him and his teams from applying some of the modern weapons. His reliance on effective and strategic planning but use of inferior technology caused the defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana (1879). His inability to contain the battle forced the British government to call for his replacement with Sir Garnet Wolseley, but the order did not materialise immediately thereby giving the general more time to lead the batallaion against the Zulus. Thesiger, on the other hand, seemed to be aware of the importance of technology at the Battle of Ulundi (1879) where he used small firearms and rifles from the Royal Artillery to overpower the Zulus. The General desired to apply technology but lack of modern equipment at the time of his command denied him the chance to be one of the military commanders who applied technology to plan and execute operations.

Restraining Factors

Several factors could have hampered Haig who was highly ambitious and conscious of the impact of science and technology from employing the sophisticated approaches that would put Britain’s Army on the global map as being one of the most advanced up to WWI. The supply of weapons experienced considerable constraints after the British government started to advocate for changes in the design of guns. The Army had adopted Mark III that could fire over 2,800 yards and were very powerful by 1903. The minds behind strategic planning in the military including Haig opted to omit such additional features that they termed as not important in trench warfare. The military leaders wanted to reduce the size of the magazine, slots, and butt size to regulate the cost of production. Little did the military personnel and company owner know that the modifications were not always well accepted by those working in the manufacturing plants. Often these employees became dissatisfied on the account of repeated adjustments in the details of their tasks. Factories found it difficult to retain employees when the conditions fluctuated so much, which resulted in competition for labour that gave unskilled personnel an opportunity to bargain for higher pay.

The proper organisation of scientific and technological resources in Britain during Haig’s time was further affected by the hierarchal and divided structures of scholars and innovators. The British government offered scientists little opportunity to contribute towards the development of superior weapons forcing some innovators to seek for employment in other nations such as France. Many scientists and innovators did not have any option, but join the combatants in the battlefields. A few scientists established their private firms and worked with interested partners to find solutions to the war. A team of experts at the University of Sheffield, for example, partnered with a local firm to assist come up with ways of enhancing the production of military equipment. The initiative resulted in the formation of the Sheffield Committee on Munitions of War, whose core objectives were to boost production and make the military more effective. Various institutions such as the Board of Inventions and Research in the Admiralty and the Munitions Invention Department were later formed to advance scientific and technological application in military planning and warfare some of which performed well, while others failed to deliver on their mandate.

More fundamentally, the poor relationship between the service arms and innovators and technologists during the onset of total war generated both logistical and tactical complications that further affected operational planning. While these challenges were eventually addressed through better dissemination of strategic design and improved staff planning, if technology was to give a more productive contribution towards attaining success, then the problems of production and the alteration of design would have to be handled more keenly. It became apparent during Haig’s reign that too many forms of equipment affected flexibility, constrained logistics operations, and slowed down activities in other key areas. Fewer forms of technology and improved standardisation would improve transportation of materials and personnel as well as equip the teams on the battlefield. It is clear that Haig had to adopt a more suitable approach to institutionalise and manage technology change if engineers and manufacturers were to adequately promote tactical changes. Yet if the critics feel that Haig applied ineffective approaches, it is essential to question why the man remains so influential in the history of British Army before making firm judgment on his influence or technological competence as a commander.

Conclusion

Haig’s ability to steer Britain in the Great War transformed over the course of WWI. The Field Marshall got the opportunity to train military personnel on the effectiveness of better equipment and approaches, but appeared contradictory when he was reluctant to use the machine gun and superior forms of transportation while on the battlefield. Haig comes out as a military leader who strategically planned well and worked with others to achieve a common goal, but his inability to marshal the application of superior technology created so much criticism against him. Several factors inhibited the commander from applying technology in planning and execution as he would expect, with improper coordination between the manufacturers and the government and lack of cooperation between the Army and scientists and technologists being some of the major hurdles. Some British commanders such as Thesiger failed to apply superior forms of technology as it appears with Haig, but others such as Vereker, Montgomery, Slim Allenby, and Alexander took advantage of technological advancement to apply better and sophisticated designs.