Field Marshall Haig - Source based Questions.

c.        Source D is inaccurate as it is from a recent comedy series that aims to please and entertain people rather than inform them of what the trenches were actually like. But it does nevertheless have some importance to a historian researching Haig and the Battle of the Somme as it is an opinion and must have some reasoning behind it. It is proven that many of the soldiers did think as the man on the right-hand side of the still does. Many must have disagreed with Haig’s ideas. The second source is quite similar in its purpose but it does have more importance as it was written at the time of Haig and the Battle of the Somme. It once again shows the opinion of some of the soldiers in the trenches preparing for the Somme and how they thought of Haig himself. Overall I believe both sources contain relevance for a historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme.

d.        Source F was written quite recently and has obviously been written by someone who strongly opposes Haig and his strategy. I believe the Somme was a major breakthrough despite its casualties, if it had not have occurred the First World War could have continued for far longer than it did. The book was title ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War’ so it would obviously contain views biased against Haig and his strategy. Yet source F does not even mention the affects it had mentally and physically on the troops and the consequences it had on the war in general. The young badly trained troops who survived it became battle hardened warriors and gave great experience to all troops who lived through it. It also gave the Western Powers confidence as stated in source G. I also entirely back the comments made in source H and believe them to be entirely true.

e.        The extract from source I is a letter to Haig from Lloyd George at the end of the war and as there had been great success from the battle I believe Lloyd George felt obliged to congratulate Haig however I do not believe he was being entirely honest. It was also written on the spur of the moment and the fact that the battle had been successful despite heavy losses, Lloyd George must have been moderately pleased. On the other hand source J is being written in hindsight and Lloyd George has had plenty of time to think about the war looking back on what he remembered. He now believed that the war was only won due to the entry of the Americans. In the first paragraph of the extract it is also made apparent that he questioned the use of cavalry in a new style of war suggesting that maybe he did not entirely back the use of it.

f.        My overall opinion on this subject is abstinent. Some of the sources do support this view and others oppose it to great effect. Source A was a letter written by Haig near the beginning or possibly before the battle was well under way and was written to warn the British of the heavy casualty lists they may be seeing before too long. I personally believe that it does not really support that Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his men. However source B is quite different, it shows two possible points of view on the subject. Either Haig was being untruthful to the British public, or he was being given false information. I believe that source D does not represent Haig at all and it was also produced before any of the revisionist historians thoroughly reviewed Haig’s situation and put up any opposition to the heavy criticism he had been receiving until recently. Source F is a strange extract which has obviously been written by someone who is extremely stubborn and irrational about Haig, his strategy and the Battle of the Somme. It definitely does support the view of Haig having a callous disregard for his soldiers. Source G was produced by a German writer and is surprisingly rational about Haig, the extract states clearly that although the Battle of the Somme was not backed by the best of strategies it did nevertheless have colossal consequences.

        I believe Haig was and is still unfairly criticised for his strategy and ‘old-fashioned’ approach to this ‘new’ form of war. Many critics say that he did not use the new technology very affectively and he was often stated as being a ‘cavalry man’. Yet most of these points are brought up by stubborn and irrational people who do not understand the pressure Haig was under. Haig had a mighty burden on his shoulders and had a desire to win as most generals should have. Although Haig’s approach to war was not always quite what the public expected he was nevertheless an affective Field Marshall. Also, although criticised for being old-fashioned. Haig did use the modern technology of the time to great affect for instance at the Battle of Cambrai where tanks were first used to their full potential and worked extremely affectively.

        Once again my overall conclusion to the sources backing up Haig as an ignorant callous man who had no respect for the lives of his soldiers is abstinent.