Another case for the interpretation is that too many lives were lost for too small a gain. A source that supports this is a piece of dialogue from ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’ series 4 – episode 1. The script reads:
This source may be reliable because it is written long after the time of the war and would have been a balanced interpretation of General Haig. Also the script writers would have researched these opinions very well. Blackadder is a comedy and people laugh at it. Therefore there must have been some truth in it otherwise it would not be funny. However Blackadder exaggerates the situation because it is for a satirical programme. So the purpose of the programme would have been to entertain people and make them laugh. Therefore this source is reliable because there has to be truth in what Blackadder says otherwise people would not watch it and laugh. The programme was produced years after the actual event which makes it more reliable because it would be based on balanced opinions.
A question that comes up a lot is why did Haig continue using the same method of attack? The answer to this would be that Haig was stubborn and single minded, he had 1 plan and 1 plan only. John Laffin supports this in his book ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War 1’. In part of this book Laffin shows a list of Rhetorical questions that are criticisms of the Generals actions. Part of this list is shown below:
John Laffins book was published in 1988. It
May be reliable because he would have done
lots of research for his book and also many
others feel the same. But it may not be
reliable because it is obviously a one sided
view of the generals. He may have written
this book to become famous. It is written a long time after the war. This is important to reliability because immediately after the war the politicians blamed the Generals (not themselves). Laffin may have been influenced by this but he is writing a long time after the politicians and generals died so he couldn’t give their interpretations. This argument is also included in Blackadder. The script mocks the Generals methods of attack. It says:
At the end of the war Sir Douglas Haig was awarded many honours. However, due to the public criticisms of the way the war had been conducted he decided to make his diary available to government historians. In 1991 a well-known war historian Dennis Winter published a book, in which he looked at Haigs conduct of the war. Dennis discovered that Haig did not keep his diary secret, as others believed. Actually his wife had typed it up for him, and she then passed extracts to the King. It seems unlikely that Haig would write exactly what he was feeling if he knew that his diary was being read by such important people. He instead wrote what he wanted them to believe.
This can be seen in a diary extract from 30th June 1916. Haig wrote:
This is obviously not true because from my own knowledge. I know that the barbed wire was not cut at all. This proves that Sir Douglas Haig lied in his diary to make people believe that they were winning. When indeed at the time thousands of lives were being lost.
Now I am going to look at the case against the interpretation.
One of the reasons why people argue against the interpretation is the fact that Germany was defeated in 1918. A source that supports this is an extract from an article written by a well known war historian John Terraine in 1982. The fact that he was well known affects his interpretation because his work is reliable and people believe what he says.
The source reads:
This source may be reliable because what he has said in this source is pure fact. Also because this article was written a long time after the war, it makes the source more reliable because more information was made available on the war by this time and so he could base his articles using a bigger view of the war.
Many people say that the Generals needed to be away from the battlefield. There was no point them being at the front because they would not be able to get a wider picture of what was actually going on. By being further away the Generals can get a larger view of the war. This is supported in the Timewatch Programme, ‘Haig - The Unknown Soldier’. In this programme John Terraine spoke on it and he said ‘There was no point in Haig being at the front because he would not be be able to get a wider picture of what was actually going on. By being further away the Generals can get a larger view of the war instead of a few inches’. This source should be reliable as it is being said many years after the wars, so it should be unbiased. In the programme it gives balanced views and it is a documentary by historians so it should be well researched. This programme may have been made to balance both sides of the interpretation and give people a better view of the war. So I believe that the people that appear on the programme would have well researched and justified their opinions. This makes the programme reliable.
Another reason why people argue against the interpretation is that letters, poems written by troops at the time, show little bitterness towards the generals.
A source that supports this is a letter written by Private William Martin on 24th March 1917 in France. The letter Reads:
My dearest Emily
Just a few lines dear to tell you I am still in the land of the living and keeping well, trusting you are the same dear, I have just received your letter dear and was very pleased to get it. It came rather more punctual this time for it only took five days. We are not in the same place dear, in fact we don't stay in the same place very long... we are having very nice weather at present dear and I hope it continues... Fondest love and kisses from your
loving Sweetheart
Will
xxxxxxxxxxx
This source may be reliable because it is written by an actual Soldier from the war and he is writing exactly what he is feeling at the time. The fact that William Martin was writing this from the trenches makes the source partially reliable. It is reliable because he was there under the awful conditions in trenches, so he had a feel of what was going on but it may not be reliable because he did not know what was going on outside the trenches. This source definitely shows no bitterness towards the generals.
This is a picture showing a waterlogged trench. Many trenches became waterlogged due to poor weather and when this did happen there would be a mudslide and the mud gathered at the bottom making it hard to walk through and very tiring. As you can see the trench is very narrow. These are the conditions that the soldiers had to live in.
The final argument against the interpretation which I will be looking at is that people say that it was the politicians, not the generals who should take responsibility for the events. This is again supported by John Terraine in the Timewatch Programme ‘Haig - The Unknown Soldier’. In this programme he expressed his point that the ‘Politicians led Haig to do things the way he did’ and that ‘Haig was following orders from the Politicians’. This source is reliable because it is from a documentary written a long time after the war. This documentary would have been well researched and what is said can be supported and justified.
As a conclusion to this essay I am going to say that I agree with the interpretation ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ in some ways but in others I feel like what happened was justified. For example, people said that the generals did not understand what was going on in the battlefield and what it was like being there. But if they were on the front line there was a risk to their own lives and by being further away from the battlefield they can get a clearer picture of the war. I do believe that the Generals were naïve. If they were being told what to do by the politicians and they were losing so many lives why didn’t the generals tell the politicians that they needed a change of strategy because they were becoming predictable. Therefore I am going to say that I do believe that the interpretation ‘Lions led by donkeys’ is a valid one.