Fred Pearson, a private on the Western Front, comments on Haig in a local newspaper in 1966 and he refers to Haig as ‘the biggest murderer of the lot’, he holds this interpretation In source 1a but he never saw Haig on the western front. This could not be as valid as it seems because it was written a long time ago meaning the information may be interoperated. Fred Pearson Quotes ‘The biggest murderer of the lot was Haig’ this may be exaggerated as it comes from this source which was written for the local newspaper. This source is again not a fair interpretation of Haig as it does not take into account the other side of the argument it is just his personal view. Pearson says that ‘everybody hated him’, this cannot be reliable, as he does not represent everyone. However Fred Pearson worked on the western front so he experienced the feeling there and it is an opinion of what the soldiers thought of him and it is a primary source. To a small extent this source could be quite reliable but there is more chance that it is not because there is no facts or evidence. There is also a lack of official statistics which means he could be biased. The use of emotive language makes it sound more exaggerated such as words like ‘Bitter’ this affects its reliability. In source 2, David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister during the first world war he write a lot about his war memories in 1935, this supports the interpretation that Haig was the ‘butcher of the Somme’ he did not believe in the generals abilities. This interpretation of Haig in Source 3 supports a murderer, a page from the list of dead and wounded suffered by the Sheffield Pals Battalion on the first day of the Somme. This source blames Haig for all the deaths as letters were sent home to the families that had lost a family member due to the war. This source shows it’s reliable in a way and cannot be made up, as it is a fact. It shows it is not opinion based. However, this may not be a valid interpretation because this source only shows one page of deaths, which is only from one battalion and only shows the number of deaths on the first day of the battle. Another point that suggests that Haig was the butcher of the Somme was because of his lack of professional qualities as a general. Source 4 is a poem written by Siegfried Sassoon called ‘ the general’. The use of emotive language shows us as a reader that he is quite upset about the loss of his friends in the war this is because he shows his anger in the poem by throwing away his military cross. He uses a lot of descriptive language in this poem also as he describes Haig as and incompetent swine’ this seems quite opinion based and shows his personal view about Haig that he was quite useless as a General. This source may be interoperated as he calls Haig a beast for taking the entire life away from the innocent. The purpose of a poem is to entertain the public so it may not seem as valid. This poem is also biased and only shows a one mans opinion it does not mention what others felt at this time. This source suggests that Haig was the butcher of the Somme, Source 5 was written by A.J.P Taylor who was a socialist historian, he wrote a specialist history book from the First World War in 1963. This source states how important young people were in joining together in groups. He came up with his own interpretation because he is a socialist and also has observed which enabled him to come up with an interpretation about Haig.This source is quite reliable as it is a primary source however is shows it is all opinion based. Which shows it is not that valid and also as it is a revisionist socialist. Another interpretation that suggests that Haig was the butcher of the Somme was in Source 6, a cartoon from the British satirical magazine Punch 1917, mocks how the general add.
To a certain extent many historians could agree that General Haig was not the butcher of the Somme and that they considered him to be just the General doing his job. Many historians came up with this interpretation because troop morale was still high, Haig was a skilled general he had made a success in the battle of the Somme. An interpretation that suggests that Haig could not be the ‘butcher of the Somme’ because Haig was a well skilled general, this can be seen in Source 8, a historian named John Terraine who wrote his own study of the Somme called ‘The Smoke and the Fire’ in 1980. He mentions that the generals changed themselves according to the changes of the war but did not make anything of it. However, this may not be a valid interpretation because it is only one opinion and only a few generals were looked at. Other historians have come to the same interpretation because Haig had success in the battle of the Somme. Resses his men during a rehearsal. This cartoon is quite ironic and humorous of Haig and lets people know of how much time he was there on the Western Front, fighting with his men. However, this may not be a valid interpretation because it is a cartoon that mocks Haig and entertains the public. Low troop morale during the battle of the Somme can support the interpretation that Haig was the ‘butcher of the Somme’. Another reason that historians came up with this interpretation is because the people gave him support this I shown in source 11, which is an article, by Military Historian John Keegan in the Daily Mail in 1988. This source states that Haig was believed to not give up and he persuaded himself in what he believed in this source looks at all generals and compares them amongst each other, which may be seemed as a valid interpretation. However this source also seems not valid as it may be biased. Another explanation that has given historians to hold their interpretation that Haig was not the butcher of the Somme was because that they believed Haig was only one man. Source 12 is a report by sir Douglas Haig written on the 1st of July 1916. He mentions that the Germans are surrendering free which makes it seem as if it is a positive interpretation. He also mentions that the men are in’ splendid spirits’ so his opinion of the troop morale is still high. In addition to this source could also be considered as a non- valid interpretation because this is only one view and he only talks about the first day. He may consider to answer himself questions which may make the source more valid for example, ‘how was the morale during the rest of the battle?’ this source is also biased as the report was from Haig himself, he may not be willing to admit the truth about morale or any issues that may ruin his reputation as a general.
In conclusion to this I personally think that many interoperated Haig as being the butcher of the Somme because of the high death count and also because of Haigs lack of professional qualities as a general, which were issues like; the battle of the Somme which only had little success. Haigs stubborn personality and loss if troop morale. Many have interpreted Haig as being the general just doing his job because troop morale was still high, Haig was a well skilled general, he had success in the battle of the Somme, Haig had the support of the people and he was only one man. I think that if Haig was a decent general he would have been more organized and prepared his men for when the Germans arrived and attacked however we all know this just came out of the blue, and Haig was not aware of this. I think that Haig should have known that the Germans were not going to surrender that easily it would take time.
Word count; 1741
