Pearson Edexcel International GCSE in History · 4HI1 · Free · no account needed

The Somme, Passchendaele and the responsibility of Haig

What could a commander in 1916 have known, and what alternative did he actually have?

Option A1 · The origins and course of the First World War, 1905–18 › Key topic 3 · The Schlieffen Plan and deadlock on the Western Front — one of 3 lessons in this key topic. Paper 2 Section A — historical investigation: The origins and course of the First World War, 1905–18, key topic 3 (30 marks: 6 · 8 · 16).

This lesson ends with Douglas Haig. Learn the Somme, Passchendaele and the responsibility of Haig, teach it, then defend it against Douglas Haig.

What the specification asks for

“Key features of Somme and Passchendaele. Successes and failures on the Western Front, including the responsibility of Haig.” — examined through significance and consequence. Incandio is aligned to specification 4HI1; it is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson.

1 · Understand it

The Somme, July to November 1916

The offensive was agreed at Chantilly in December 1915 as a joint Anglo-French attack, and its shape changed when the German assault on Verdun in February 1916 consumed the French army; by July the Somme had become mainly British and its purpose had become the relief of Verdun as much as a breakthrough.

A seven-day preliminary bombardment fired around 1.7 million shells. It failed to cut the wire in many sectors, a large proportion of the shells were shrapnel rather than high explosive and useless against deep dugouts, and the British dud rate has been estimated at up to a third because of rapid wartime manufacture. The Germans, dug 10 metres deep in chalk, survived it.

On 1 July 1916 the British Army suffered about 57,470 casualties, of whom around 19,240 were killed — the worst day in its history. The southern sector, where the French attacked with more and heavier guns and used shorter, sharper bombardments, took its objectives.

The battle continued until November and advanced about six miles. British and Empire casualties were roughly 420,000, French about 200,000 and German somewhere between 430,000 and 500,000. The German official history records the Somme as the muddy grave of the German field army, and Ludendorff wrote that the army had been fought to a standstill and was utterly worn out.

Passchendaele, July to November 1917

The Third Battle of Ypres had several aims: to clear the Belgian coast and the U-boat bases, to relieve pressure on a French army that had mutinied after the Nivelle offensive in the spring, and to wear down the German army. The opening at Messines in June, using nineteen enormous mines under the ridge, was a striking success.

The main offensive opened on 31 July and coincided with the wettest August in decades. The preliminary bombardment destroyed the drainage of reclaimed marshland and the battlefield became a bog in which men and horses drowned. Advances were measured in yards.

Passchendaele village was taken on 6 November. British and Empire casualties were around 275,000 and German around 200,000; the ground was given up in the German spring offensive of 1918. Haig's own chief of staff is said to have seen the ground for the first time near the end and asked whether they had really sent men to fight in that.

The Haig question, properly posed

The case against: he persisted after the first day and after it was clear the ground was impassable; his optimism about breakthrough was repeatedly disappointed; he was remote from conditions; and the casualties were on a scale that no other British commander has ever incurred.

The case for: he commanded a mass citizen army with an officer corps that had to be created from nothing, in a coalition in which the French dictated timing, against an enemy occupying French and Belgian territory, with the political requirement to attack; and he presided over an army that by 1918 was the most effective in the world and won the Hundred Days, the greatest series of victories in British military history.

The strongest answers do not defend or attack. They ask what a commander in 1916 could have known — the shell quality, the wire, the depth of the dugouts, all imperfectly known before the attack — and what alternative was actually available: not attacking meant leaving Verdun unrelieved and the French to face the German army alone, which was not a decision within his gift.

Two evidential points are worth carrying. The Lloyd George memoirs, the source of much of the butcher case, were written in the 1930s by a man who had been Haig's political opponent and after Haig was dead and could not reply. And Haig's funeral in 1928 drew enormous crowds of veterans, which does not settle anything and does have to be explained by anyone who claims the army despised him.

2 · Learn it — the notes

The dates that earn marks

February–December 1916
Verdun; the French army is consumed and the Somme's purpose changes. Why this date: The Somme cannot be judged without Verdun, because relief of Verdun became its main purpose.
1 July 1916
About 57,470 British casualties, 19,240 killed. Why this date: The worst day in British military history, and the figure must be given accurately.
November 1916
The Somme closes after an advance of about six miles. Why this date: The ground gained and the German assessment of their own losses both belong in the judgement.
June 1917
Messines: nineteen mines under the ridge, a clear success. Why this date: It shows what the same command could do with limited objectives and adequate preparation.
31 July – 6 November 1917
Third Ypres; the wettest August in decades; Passchendaele taken. Why this date: The weather is a fact about the decision to continue, not an excuse for it.

The figures, and how far to trust them

  • 57,470 casualties, 19,240 killed — The first day of the Somme, 1 July 1916.
  • About 1.7 million — Shells fired in the seven-day preliminary bombardment. (A large proportion were shrapnel and the dud rate has been estimated at up to a third.)
  • About 420,000 — British and Empire casualties on the Somme, against German losses estimated at 430,000–500,000. (German figures are contested because of different counting conventions for lightly wounded.)
  • About 275,000 — British and Empire casualties at Third Ypres.

The people to place

  • Douglas Haig — Commander-in-Chief of the BEF from December 1915 through the Somme, Passchendaele and the Hundred Days.
  • Henry Rawlinson — Commanded Fourth Army on the Somme and favoured limited bite-and-hold objectives against Haig's wider aims.
  • David Lloyd George — Prime Minister from December 1916; withheld reinforcements in early 1918 and wrote the memoirs that shaped Haig's reputation.
  • Erich Ludendorff — Recorded the German army as fought to a standstill by the end of 1916.

How historians disagree

Attributed interpretations, never voiced — the AO4 seam.

  • The 'butchers and bunglers' reading: Haig persisted with methods that had visibly failed, at a cost no objective justified, and was insulated by rank from the conditions he was ordering men into. Contested by The 'learning curve' reading, which holds that the BEF developed from an inexperienced mass army in 1916 into the force that won the Hundred Days in 1918, and that Haig presided over and sanctioned that development..

What students say — and what is actually the case

Not this: The Somme achieved nothing.

This: It relieved Verdun, inflicted losses the German command recorded as unsustainable, and was where the British army learned. It also cost 420,000 casualties for six miles. Both belong in the answer and the criterion decides which weighs more.

Not this: Haig was a stupid general who did not care.

This: The caricature comes largely from Lloyd George's memoirs, written by a political opponent after Haig's death, and from 1960s popular culture. The serious question is what was known and what alternative existed, and it is a much harder question.

Two things students merge

Blurred: Casualties and deaths.

The distinction: 57,470 casualties on 1 July includes killed, wounded, missing and prisoners; 19,240 were killed. Using the larger figure as a death toll is the commonest factual error in the option and it inflates by a factor of three.

Blurred: Attrition as a strategy and attrition as a result.

The distinction: Wearing down the enemy deliberately is a strategy with a logic; suffering heavy losses while failing to break through is a result. Whether the Somme was the first or the second is precisely the argument.

What a Grade 9 answer holds here

A Grade 9 answer refuses both verdicts and asks the historian's question instead: what was known on 30 June 1916, and what else could have been done given Verdun and a coalition. That reframing is not fence-sitting — it produces a specific judgement about a specific decision, which is what the top band means by criteria justified and applied.

3 · How it is examined

This strand is genuinely set through: Paper 2 Section A (a) (6 marks — “Describe TWO features of EITHER … OR ….”); Paper 2 Section A (b) (8 marks — “How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about …? Explain your answer.”); Paper 2 Section A (c) (16 marks — “Extract C suggests that …. How far do you agree with this interpretation? Use Extract C, Sources A and B and your own knowledge to explain your answer.”).

What earns marks: This strand carries the option's AO4 weight. Attributing the butcher case to Lloyd George's memoirs, and noting when and why they were written, is exactly the evaluation of an interpretation that p2a-c is designed to reward.

4 · Prove it — the questions

Answered inside Incandio, where a marker checks what a correct answer must contain and tells you which half was missing. The marking stays in the app; the questions are here.

  1. Describe TWO features of the Battle of the Somme. [6 marks · Paper 2 Section A (a)]
  2. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about Sir Douglas Haig? Explain your answer. [8 marks · Paper 2 Section A (b)]
  3. Describe TWO features of the Battle of Passchendaele. [6 marks · Paper 2 Section A (a)]
  4. Extract C suggests that the Battle of the Somme was a failure. How far do you agree with this interpretation? Use Extract C, Sources A and B and your own knowledge to explain your answer. [16 marks · Paper 2 Section A (c)]
  5. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about British tactics on the Western Front in 1916? Explain your answer. [8 marks · Paper 2 Section A (b)]

Decide it

This lesson feeds a Decide History judgement — a position you commit to, an objection you answer, a criterion you name: Was Haig wrong, or only unlucky in the war he was given?.

Think you understand it?

Reading is the start. On Incandio a topic counts as mastered only once you have taught it and defended it — the two things a revision guide cannot ask of you.

Incandio this topic → Prove it. Teach it. Defend it. What does “Incandio it” mean?

  1. Prove it — five questions on the Somme, Passchendaele and the responsibility of Haig, marked on the spot, that tell you what was missing rather than just what was wrong.
  2. Teach it — Explain the Somme, Passchendaele and the responsibility of Haig — what happened, why, and what it made possible — to Ember, an AI pupil who asks the awkward question. Understanding is credited; wording is not required.
  3. Defend it — Argue the Somme, Passchendaele and the responsibility of Haig against Douglas Haig — three rounds, marked against descriptors you can read before you begin.
  4. Then the exam — 16 authored exam-style questions on this option, marked on Incandio with the mistake you actually made named.

Completely free. No subscriptions, no paywalls, no account needed to start.

The debate is against Douglas Haig — a real historical figure with a genuine position on this question, portrayed from the record.

The same people, elsewhere in the option

Carry on through the option