At first glance the sources seem to point towards Haig being a butcher of the Somme. However in my opinion, the most reliable sources point to Haig being a strong general.

Other sources such as D,E and J are blaming Haig for the casualties. Source C is an interview with George Coppard, who fought in the battle. The interview was years after the battle, which makes it slightly unreliable. Throughout the interview he accuses the generals for their bad tactics, he says 'how did the planners imagine that Tommies would get through the wire? Who told them that artillery fire would pound the wire to pieces?'. These are fair points but many of them are made using hindsight. It is questionable as to whether George Coppard would have thought these at the time of the battle. He then goes on to say 'Any Tommy could have told them that shell fire lifts wire up and drops it down, often in a worse tangle than before.'. This mistaken as many a soldier of the time were very confident of success, as Haig said, and if the generals overlooked this, it is highly probable that the soldiers would have. Some of the source you could deem as reliable, such as where he says 'the Germans must have been reinforcing the wire for months' and 'quite as many died on the enemy wire as on the ground'. These are quite reliable statements as Coppard experienced them first hand, which would make them likely to be quite accurate. I believe though that this source cannot really show that Haig was an uncaring general. Much of it is opinion and hindsight and Coppard only really experienced one part of the front line, where the wire was not cut, whereas in other parts of the line the tactics had worked and the wire was breached.

Source D is a Blackadder still, with some captions. Blackadder is a comedy, this particular episode was made about ten years ago. Being a comedy immediately tells us that it cant all be taken for true, as much of what is said is used for comedic purposes and are not at all factual. The caption says 'You mean the moment has finally arrived for us to give Harry Hun a darn good thrashing?' Blackadder 'You mean are we all going to get killed? Yes clearly field Marshall Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin.' This statement is exaggerated obviously, but the general tone of it rings true. It is trying to say that Haig sacrificed many lives for little territorial gain, which to a certain extent was true as very little ground was made during the battle, but that wasn't really the whole idea of the battle. It was a war of attrition and in the end it was the one who could grind down the enemy first who would win the battle, and then stand a better chance of winning the war. Also this programme plays on Haig's reputation as a donkey to get laughs, and it is unlikely that there would have been much research done, or they would not have studied both sides of the argument. This leads to this source being totally untrustworthy, as the programme was made a good seventy years after the war and it stereotypes Haig greatly. It useful to show how his reputation has changed over the years but it cannot be at all used to judge Haig.

The same can be said of Source E. It is a cartoon from a magazine in 1917. Being a cartoon it is likely it is going to be someone's opinion and not hard evidence to judge Haig by. The cartoon contains a General addressing his Sergeant Major saying 'there are three essential differences between a practice and the real thing: first, the absence of the enemy' turning to his Sergeant Major 'what is the second difference?' when he replies 'the absence of the general sir'. This cartoon is trying to say how the generals are never present when it comes to the real battle. This is quite true, as the generals were rarely there at the time of the battle, but this is only to be expected, as the generals need to be doing the planning, and someone as important as Haig can't really be risked for the sakes of just attending the battle. This was also printed in a magazine, which could make it quite unreliable as its an opinion, and its designed to cause controversy and sell magazines. This is why I believe you cannot really judge Haig on this, as it is totally opinion written by somebody who probably doesn't know the first thing about war. Its humour rests upon striking a chord with front line troops.

Source J can be taken a bit more seriously, as it was written by Lloyd George, former Prime Minister and secretary of war. It criticises Haig quite heavily, questioning his tactics saying 'I expressed my doubts to Haig, whether cavalry would ever operate successfully'. Also Lloyd George says 'it is claimed that the Somme killed of the best of the German army, it killed of far more off our best'. This is most probably true, but in source G the Germans claimed it to have killed of the best of their army so it was most probably fairy even. Also Source I makes source J look slightly odd. Source I is Lloyd George sending Haig a letter during the War, congratulating him. Lloyd George was Secretary of war at the time, and he says 'I congratulate you most warmly on the skill with which your plans were made.'. This is quite a different story from source J, where he accuses Haig of tactical errors. I believe this to be because he was trying to be Prime Minister at the time and wanted the war to run smoothly as it would make him look good. That may be why he was being very optimistic in the letter to Haig. But I believe there is more to his change in opinion. In 1917, he fell out with Haig, which may have caused him to be bitter towards him. Another big factor in him criticising Haig I believe is that he came under a lot of criticism during and after the war when he was Prime Minister. It looks as if he wanted to use Haig as a scapegoat, to try and maintain his image as it probably took a bit of a bashing after the war. Also Haig was an easy target as he was dead at the time and could not defend himself. I think that this is probably the reason as to why he criticised Haig. This is quite vital information as it makes it quite hard to trust the source, as there may have been lies to preserve Lloyd George's reputation.

There may be more sources saying Haig was a butcher, but in my opinion the strongest evidence points to Haig being a strong general who managed to turn the war in Britain's favour. My belief is based on three sources, A, G, and H.

Source A shows Haig as not brutal, but realistic. He accepts that there may be heavy losses, but says 'the nation must be taught to bear losses.' and 'no superiority of arms and ammunition, however great, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men's lives'. These two statements show how Haig was quite realistic before the battle, and knew deaths were inevitable and didn't run head first blindly into a battle that he thought would be a walk over.

Source G is another quite reliable source as it is written by a German point of view. It writes 'if the battle of the Somme had no great importance in the strategic sense , its consequences nevertheless were great, particularly as regards morale. It gave the Western Powers confidence.' This totally goes against many of the other sources, which believe that the loss of life was a waste as there was little territorial gain. This source I believe is very reliable as it is written by the opposition and is therefore written in perspective and not with rose tinted glasses. The source shows how it did have a big effect on the German army and it says 'the confidence of the German army was no longer as great as before' and it concedes that 'a great part of the best most experienced officers and men were no longer in their places', this shows how the Germans believed that their army was the worse off out of the two. I think this goes to show how the Germans felt the War had tilted in the Allies' favour and that eventually it probably won the war for us.

Another source which agrees with source G is source H. It is written by a British General in 1973, who would have been a fairly experienced veteran, as he was a general. He writes, 'Germany's spirit of resistance was broken, mainly by the courage and resolution of Haig's armies, which had complete confidence in the leadership of their commander.' This goes to show how many of the men had confidence in Haig, as this general would have experienced it first hand, unlike some of the other sources. He also says 'had Haig not had the moral courage to shoulder the main burden of the struggle in the Somme battles of 1916, French resistance would have crumbled.' This shows us how Haig was a strong man to take responsibility of the battles, and take the burden. I believe that the War needed a strong man to take it by the scruff of the neck, and I believe that Haig did this, the majority of the sources may point to him being a bit of a butcher, but I think the stronger ones point towards him being a strong man who carried the burden of a terrible war. The fact that more Germans died in the Somme is often overlooked, as people are always too quick to jump on the bandwagon and criticise Haig. Sources A, G, and H, I believe show that Haig helped win the war for Britain and I believe that can be easily forgotten.