c) Both sources (d) and (e) do not refer directly to Haig himself, but this doesn’t mean that they are totally useless. Source (d) is a television programme, it basically tells us that Haig was very lazy, I think that this because one of the generals tells the other that Haig will have a “chance to move his drinks cabinet 6 inches closer to Berlin” this tells me that the generals attitudes to Haig was very poor, the other source is a cartoon about a general addressing his men before an attack, it is basically saying that Haig was never present during the time of an attack this would tell me that Haig wasn’t committed enough to his country and that he would rather keep warm and dry than be cold and wet but save the lives of many soldiers.
On a whole these two sources have told me that Haig is very selfish and wouldn’t take responsibility for the lives of HIS men.
d) It doesn’t prove source (f) wrong to a certain extent because in source (f) it says that Haigs strategy was very weak it also goes on to say that “Haig was a donkey” but if Haig was that much of a disgrace then would he of won the war for his country?
General Haigs tactics may have not been the most effective and precise but in source (g) it says that good things were to follow from this in favour of the British army.
E.g. The Germans generals were killed and so less experienced German soldiers were placed in charge, these new commanders would have had little experience and under confident.
It also goes onto say that German confidence was knocked, experienced soldiers were now not in battle, and that the “young soldiers training was poor” in source (h) it says that Haig was a great leader and that soldiers were “inspired” by his determination, the most important part of the source for me was “ Haig was one of the main architects of the allied victory” this is a very important source, but then you have to look at who the source was written by- a British general, would he want to give a fellow general a bad name? So basically if this source was to be trusted then it would definitely be in Haigs favour.
I don’t think that source (f) can be proved wrong but at the same time I don’t think that it is one hundred percent correct, as it may have been written by a biased person, sources (g) and (h) were written for a purpose, and this purpose was to get people to back Haig in what he did.
e) I believe that sources (I) and (j) differ about the battle of the Somme because although both extracts were written by the same person, time periods are very important because one was written before the war and Lloyd George praises Haig for his actions saying that he has to congratulate him on the skills that his plan was laid.
It was Lloyd Georges type that got Britain involved in the war so obviously he would do his up most to make it look like he is doing really well because it makes him look like the hero.
After the war Lloyd George written another extract telling the public that he was sometimes uncertain about some of Haigs decisions, now that the war was over Lloyd George has now got the freedom of speech, he no longer cares what people think of him, unlike when Britain was in the war and he was backing every decision Haig made. Lloyd George has now changed his opinion about Haig.
f) After studying all the sources there are some that supported the assertion of Haig being an “uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his own men for no good reason”.
For example source (a) Haig is telling people to be prepared for heavy casualty lists, I think that this source would be supporting the view because even before the war had started Haig is already telling/explaining that there are lots of soldiers that are going to die; most generals would be telling the nation how well they were going to do, not Haig.
Source (b) is again written by Haig but instead of a negative point he is now saying how well the attacks are going and how the men are in splendid spirits, Haig must not of been telling the whole truth because in source (c) it immediately telling us how poor Haigs tactics were, the private George Coppard is saying that he could not understand why Haig did some of the things he did. He is saying that Haig was making amateur mistakes.
For example he asks “Who told them artillery fire would pound such wire to pieces” he knows exactly who he is talking about but would rather not say his name, this source can then be supported by source (d) a still from the TV series Blackadder this is basically telling us that Haig was lazy and arrogant, although this is a TV programme it still has a lot of relevance to peoples views on Haig.
Source (e) tells us nearly exactly the same thing as source (d), but this source is a cartoon showing the British army preparing the men before an attack, a general asks a major what are the differences between rehearsals and a real attack? The major replies “ the absence of the general, sir?” he is obviously talking about Haig who was never present during an attack, this again means that Haig was not committed enough to the war, the war that he was supposed to be leading.
Source (f) is really slaughtering Haig it is an extract from a book that tells us what an awful leader Haig was, it says that Haig had a poor attitude towards the war, if Haig could kill more Germans than they could kill the British then that would be ok, no matter how many numbers die.
Source (g) is more in favour of Haig, it tells us of all the Germans inexperienced soldiers that replaced the older more reliable soldiers, therefore Haigs tactics must have worked to a certain extent.
Source (h) was written by a fellow British general he says that “Germanys spirit of resistance was broken” he says that Haigs army had complete confidence in him, how could they have so much confidence in him when he was never present at the time of an attack?
I think that the general lied in order to give Haig a good name, the same kind of thing happened in source (I) which tells us that the war had turned in the British favour and how Lloyd George congratulates him on his skills shown, but then after the war had finished he said that he couldn’t understand some of the decisions that Haig had taken.
My conclusion is that Haig was not as bad as some people said, but he did make unnecessary moves which unfortunately cost the lives of hundreds of men, Haig should have spent more time planning his moves and not rushing into things without any thought.
He should also have been present at the battlefields so that he would have been able to give out first hand advice, but Haig did do a lot of good for the British because good general or not he did win the war.
Unfortunately Haig did lie and he did this to gain peoples respect if he hadn’t of lied would he of earnt the respect he was given?
