In this source however Haig does mention the fact that none of the old soldiers that he has met every criticized his Father’s actions during the war, this may be true, I have gathered from other sources that although some men seemed unable to stop talking about their experiences in the war, many more were unable to do so and never mentioned the war again. This may account for the lack of talk he heard about his Father.
The source appears to be of limited use to a historian as it is incredibly biased, this would give a historian a view of how the extreme supporters of Haig at the time would have viewed Haig’s actions at the time.
It seems that none of these three sources are very useful to a historian studying the men’s opinions of their commanding officers as all of them are either biased or written by people who were not around at the time of the war.
Q2
“Was Haig a highly skilled soldier who lead Britain to victory in WW2, use sources C-L”
Source C does support Keegan’s views on Haig although it is biased in favour of Haig as his son who is biased in favour of his Father’s actions during the war writes it. This source could be useful to a historian who is studying Haig.
Source D shows what looks like a recruitment poster, but is not, someone has made a joke out of the recruitment posters of the time by making this
“Your country needs ME...like a hole in the head-which is what most of you are going to get” The picture is of Haig pointing to himself, this is a direct impression of the recruitment poster with Lord Kitchener (hero of the Boer war) on it, pointing out from the poster.
This source only shows some people’s views on Haig. It shows that some people in Britain did not have the respect for Haig that he wished to command. This source is unwitting and does not support John Keegan’s view that Haig was an “efficient, highly skilled” officer; it says exactly the opposite that some people did not think that Haig was helping Britain, more hindering them in the war.
The next source, E is written by Haig himself, it is a contemporary source but is biased in favour of him. The source is about how well the war is going and how no matter how many casualties there are, the war is for a good cause. The source would be slightly useful to a historian as it would tell them exactly what was going on at the time and how Haig viewed his own command and how he considered the loss of so many of the men under his command. This source does support Keegan’s views on Haig, but it is biased and as such is not a reliable source for a historian to use.
Source F is a secondary source as it was written after the First World War; in 1989 this means that it is less useful to a historian than a contemporary source would be however the source is, witting. The source does however provide some useful insights into Haig’s character, which do agree with Keegan’s statement about Haig being an “efficient and highly skilled” officer. The source does agree with this and although it was not written at the time the historian writing it may have been witnessing these events during the First World War. A historian reading this source would also glean one very interesting fact about Haig that he believed that God had chosen him for his position. This belief would give Haig the extra confirmation he needed to believe that sending thousands of men to their deaths in an often-futile attempt to break a stalemate was the right thing to do.
Source G is also opposed to Keegan’s views of Haig; Lloyd George who was the prime minister at the time of the First World War wrote it. This source shows Lloyd George feeling guilty about the useless loss of life that was the Somme (1916) This source also provides another useful insight to historian’s, that Haig would rather a million men perish than he ever have to admit that he was wrong. This source would be very useful to a historian as it is a contemporary source, although it opposes John Keegan’s views of Haig.
Source H is taken from the official biography of Haig, this source is biased in favour of Haig as his family had it written, his family probably support his views rather than oppose them. Also in the source there is no true answer as to whether giving battle on the Somme was a good idea, the point is skirted around and the French are blamed, in order to justify Haig’s losing one million men in that battle. I don’t think that this source agrees with John Keegan’s statement about Haig as it does not affix itself to any particular view on whether Haig was a good leader or not.
Source J, at a first glance seems to agree with John Keegan’s statement, although at a more detailed reading has a sarcastic tone, it was written for a German newspaper and then reprinted as a quote in a British newspaper. This contemporary source is making fun of the English choice of General and says that they have had to choose a foreign general as all Britons are made out to be incompetent in this source.
The Germans are saying how much they approve of Haig but this is only because he is sending men over the top to the mercy of the German machine gunners, they respect him as a General because he is not commanding the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) particularly well.
Source K is not a contemporary source; it was written a long time after the War, in 1998, it is a direct quote from a British magazine. The source vaguely agrees with Keegan’s statement as it says that to pile the entire guilt of the war onto one man is too extreme, but it does not praise Haig’s actions as Keegan does. It simply says that although Haig was not a brilliant General there was probably no one better around Britain at the time for commanding the British armies.
Source L:
This source shows how wrapped up Haig was in his ideas and was oblivious to other suggestions. He ignored good advice in case taking it caused him to lose face. This source disagrees with Keegan’s views and says almost the opposite as a good officer should be able to take good advice, Haig’s taking of this advice may have resulted in a reduced death toll.
Keegan’s views do not seem to be amply supported in the sources that I have found. This may mean that people with his views are few and far between or may mean that not many people hold those same views.
Bibliography: The extra sources I have used:
- Modern World History – David Ferriby
- The Great War: Myth and Reality.
- CGP-History Revision Guide.
- Comrades in Arms, the letters of Frank Cocker, a soldier in the Great War.
“We pointed out that the surface soil was of small depth, that below it lay a bed of clay...
We pleaded eloquently enough but we might just as well have appealed to a brick wall” This was written by Major-General J.C.Fuller, he, along with some other officers were attempting to persuade Haig to change the chosen site of the Nivelle Offensive. Haig ignored them and proceeded to churn the mass of clay into a bog in which many men drowned.
