FIELD MARSHALL HAIG: 'THE BUCHER OF THE SOMME'?
FIELD MARSHALL HAIG: 'THE BUCHER OF THE SOMME'?
Question A
Study sources A and B
How far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men? [7]
Source A was written by Haig in June 1916 before the battle of the Somme began. It may have been produced to boost the moral of soldiers and people at home. Ostensibly this source seems quite uncaring and brutal but in my opinion he is being realistic. 'No amount of skill on the part of the commanders...however great, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men's lives.' This quotation may seem quite cold and perhaps he is trying to take the blame off himself by saying that the death of soldiers wasn't due to incompetence but it was necessary.
Source B is almost definitely not reliable. It was also written by Haig about the battle and says that the first day of battle went well. 'The men are in splendid spirits'. This is clearly not true. I know from my own knowledge that there were 57,000 casualties on the first day. This complete lie may be due to the fact that Haig wanted to keep people's moral up at home or might be because Haig himself was being misinformed. He was no where near the front line and had to rely on his generals who were scared of upsetting Haig and told him a rosier version of events.
We cannot trust source B so should we trust source A? I do not believe so. I believe that Haig is lying to make whoever reads these sources think a certain way about the war; he tries to say that the war is going well which it quite blatantly isn't and tries to shift the blame from himself about the loss of soldiers' lives. Therefore, I think source A does prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men to an extent. He says in source A that deaths were inevitable and it is all to 'enable victories to be won' and comes across as if he is being uncaring but quite realistic. However, I think that this source could be interpreted as just Haig making excuses. Source B proved that he is not trustworthy so Source A can only be trusted up to a point.
Question B
Study sources B and C
Which one of these two sources do you trust more? [8]
Source B is not trustworthy as it says that the first day of attack was successful, I know differently- there were 57,000 casualties that day. Haig was no where near the front line and cannot have got an objective view of the attack, whereas source C was written by a soldier who was actually present at the attack. However, Source C was taken from an interview years after the battle and events may have been exaggerated. Whereas source B was written on the day of the battle and would be clearer in Haig's mind.
Source C tells us the commanders were incompetent and did not understand the warfare, for example 'Any Tommy could have told them', but is perhaps not very reliable as the tone is extremely bitter, for example, 'Hundreds of dead were strung out on the barbed wire'. Source B tells us about the outcome of the battle but it is overly optimistic, for example 'Very successful attack this morning'. All my own knowledge refutes these claims and I know that this is wrong. For example there were 57,000 casualties and 20,000 killed on the first day, this does not ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Source C tells us the commanders were incompetent and did not understand the warfare, for example 'Any Tommy could have told them', but is perhaps not very reliable as the tone is extremely bitter, for example, 'Hundreds of dead were strung out on the barbed wire'. Source B tells us about the outcome of the battle but it is overly optimistic, for example 'Very successful attack this morning'. All my own knowledge refutes these claims and I know that this is wrong. For example there were 57,000 casualties and 20,000 killed on the first day, this does not really seem to be in agreement with Haig's statement. Therefore I trust source C most. I do not think that either source tells the whole truth, but I believe source B to be the least trustworthy as I know from my own knowledge that the first day of the battle went very badly, the complete opposite to what source B alleges.
Question C
Study Sources D and E
These two sources are not about Haig and the Battle of the Somme. How far do you agree that they have no use for the historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme? [7]
Source D shows two officers discussing the imminent attack on the Germans. Both soldiers have different views on the attack; one is very cynical, 'you mean 'are we all going to get killed?' Yes.', whereas the other is optimistic, 'a darn good British style thrashing'.
Source D was made in the 1980's, quite a long time after the war was over. It was produced to be entertaining and it is comedy, therefore things are exaggerated to be funny. It is not very trustworthy but does show the general point of view of people at the time. The attitude and tone of the source is very similar to that of source F, they are both cynical about the war and the leadership of the war. The attitude of one of the officers is optimistic, and this outlook is similar to source B. I think that this source is relevant to Haig and the battle as it reflects the feelings of the general public about the war and how Haig has been remembered.
Source E is a cartoon from a British magazine published in February 1917. It presents the General as quite unintelligent and unaware of what's going on. The sergeant is presented as knowing the real state of affairs. Like source D, the tone is cynical. This was probably printed as anti-war propaganda, to turn people against supporting the war and convince them that the generals were inept and the soldiers were being led to their deaths.
These two sources share the same view point even though they were produced approximately 70 years apart. However, both sources were produced to entertain, not inform. They were probably much exaggerated in order to make people laugh. Nevertheless, I think that these sources are relevant to the battle as they show the views of the general public from 1917 onwards.
Question D
Study Sources F, G and H
Do Sources G and H prove that source F is wrong? [9]
Source F is biased. I can tell this from the provenance alone. It is an extract form a book called 'British Butchers and Bunglers of World War'. It is bound to be biased. Its tone is bitter, I can tell this because of words such as 'stubborn', 'slaughter' and 'criminal negligence'. I know that this is partially correct as there were approximately 420,000 British deaths. Even though this may be true the source still seems slightly exaggerated and may not be trustworthy.
Source G was written in the 1930s by the Germans when Hitler was in power. It was written to convince Germany that they needed to be stronger and to remind Germany that they failed. The tone is quite objective and it comments on the events of the war without forcing an opinion onto the reader. 'The confidence of the German troops in victory was no longer as great as before'.
Source H supports source G. 'Germany's spirit of resistance was broken'. It was written by a British general and I think that this makes it more believable as he was actually there, unlike the author of 'British Butchers and Bunglers of World War'.
Sources G and H contradict F but this does not prove that F is wrong. They are all true to an extent.
Question E
Study sources I and J
Why do you think that Sourced I and J differ about the Battle of the Somme? [7]
These two sources are very different even thought they are written by the same person. The tone of these sources differ dramatically. The first is very optimistic, 'the tide has now definitely turned in our favour' whereas the second is rather cynical and critical of Haig 'this offensive was already a failure'.
This may be because the first source is a letter to Haig. Lloyd George did not want to upset Haig. If this letter was intended to be open and not confidential then Lloyd George was giving the British public an optimistic overview of the battle so they didn't panic.
The second source may be more critical, for example 'this offence was already a failure' this is probably because it is taken from his memoirs. He wanted to look good when he was writing it so he blamed the failure of the Somme on Haig, like the majority of people. He also didn't have to worry about upsetting Haig as he died in 1928, before this source was published.
However, Lloyd George may have been writing objectively in the first source according to what he saw. He would have been strategically placed and shown only the successful part of the front line. Also, this letter was written in September. Haig first began to use tanks with some success in September and Lloyd George would have seen this.
At that time it was important for Haig and Lloyd George to look united. The letter, had it been open, would have shown that Lloyd George agreed with and supported Haig's tactics. It made Britain's government appear strong and united.
Question F
Study all the sources
'Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason'
How far do these sources support this view? [12]
Source A was written by Haig in June 1916. He justifies the deaths of soldiers by saying that deaths were unavoidable. 'The nation must be taught to bear losses'. I think that this source does not show that he is uncaring, but realistic. Ostensibly it does seem quite harsh but true. War does kill people and, although a lot of men were killed, this was inescapable. This source only supports that view to an extent.
Source B does not really support this view at all. It is written by Haig and implies that he actually spoke to the soldiers on the front line, 'several have said that they have never been so instructed and informed'. It suggests that he cares but obviously had no idea about what was really going on. This could mean that he did not really care if the soldiers were dying as long as he could cover it up and make himself look successful. Source C supports the view that Haig was uncaring and did not really understand what was going on on the front, 'how did the planners imagine that Tommies would get through the wire?'. It is quite bitter, but still believable as the writer was there at the time. Sources D and E also support this view but are exaggerated to make them comic so they may not be entirely trustworthy. Source F completely supports this view and describes Haig as 'stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey'. It may not, however, be completely reliable as it seems very bitter and critical. Sources G and H do not support this view at all. They say that Haig was 'one of the main architects of the Allied victory' and the consequences of the Somme were 'great'. I believe that these sources are quite objective. Source I does not support this view on Haig; it congratulates him on his skill and makes it seem as if the battle is going well, it is overly optimistic. Source J, however, does support this view and is quite critical of Haig.
Sources C, D, E, F, and J support this view and sources B, H, I oppose it. Sources A and G are more objective and do not really support or refute the statement.
I think source C, D, E and F totally support this view. J supports it largely and B, H and I do not support it at all. The main thrust of sources is towards supporting the view. From my own knowledge I think that this is correct. Haig did send many men to their deaths and refused to change tactics when they didn't work, he didn't adapt to the demands of trench warfare and underestimated machine guns. His inflexibility, and sheer refusal to adapt his tactics in any way once they had been put in to action, was a great mistake. Overall, I believe he had no comprehension of what he was sending his troops to do. However, the battle did achieve its main objective; the Germans were forced to withdraw their attack on Verdun.