Source A states that Haig knew that no matter how many men there are, however well trained, however well supported by artillery, lives would be lost in large quantities, “the nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists”. The two sources then combine to show that Haig was fully aware that his men would suffer heavy casualties, however source A suggests that he will give them every advantage he can to help them win. Source B goes on to mention that the men were in good spirits. There is the distinct possibility that Haig wanted to keep the men happy. Therefore I believe that source A can be taken to show that although he knew heavy casualties would be sustained, as sources A and B show when put together, he still cared enough to keep the men happy and to try and give them every advantage.
B) Study Sources B and C. Which one of these two sources do you trust more?
Haig himself wrote source B, and he states that the Somme was a great success; “Very successful attack this morning. All went like clockwork”. This is greatly contrasted by George Coppard’s account in source C, “It was clear that there were no gaps in the wire at the time of the attack…How did the planners imagine tummies (British soldiers) would get though the wire?”. Both sources are probably very biased. As discussed in A) either Haig was fed poor information, didn’t care about his men and wanted to save his political self, or he was bluffing to keep his men happy. If there is any bias in Haig’s piece it will be to save his political reputation, and to will favour himself. Contrasting this is the possible bias in Coppard’s piece, which sets him heavily against the general, Coppard will have watched many of the men he served alongside fall at the Somme, and as his source indicates, he believe a great part of the casualty list was down to poor planning on the Generals’ part.
However the facts tell us that 55,000 British casualties were incurred on the first day of the Somme. The attack in itself was not a success. The evidence supports Coppard, the wire was not cut, the attack did not go well. More to the point though, what does Coppard stand to gain from lying? Haig however would gain credit and keep his job. Similarly it is unlikely that Coppard would tarnish the memories of his comrades by lying about what took place. Coppard’s purpose is most likely to reveal the truth and possibly in doing so to prevent the same mistakes being made again. Haig’s purpose however was probably to keep himself in the job.
However as I have put forward previously there are other possible reasons for Haig’s piece not being as accurate as it perhaps might have been. Coppard’s piece is also only the experience of one man. It was not necessarily the same all the way up and down the line. However the facts concur with Source C, there were huge casualties, and Coppard tells us about them. Haig says the attack was a success. Yet the only success anybody else seems to think it could have been was with regards to how many of Germany’s experienced men it cost them. The evidence is greatly against Haig’s report in this instance, and so I conclude that source C is the most reliable as it concurs with what can be proven as fact, that being that large casualties were sustained, the wire was uncut, and that with better preparation many casualties would not have been incurred.
C) Study Sources D and E. These two sources are not about Haig and the Somme. How far do you agree that they have no use for a historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme?
Sources D and E are both comical and are both intended to make people smile as their primary objective. However source E is a politically motivated cartoon from the time, and will also have the intent of putting across a drinks cabinet in Blackadder’s opinion.
To a historian studying Haig and the Somme, both sources would be of considerable use. They both show popular opinions about Haig, one at the time of the event and the other 80 years later. Giving a primary and secondary source both of which are very popular. While it is possible that source D used sources such as Source E to concoct it’s attitudes, source D is a major television series. As such it has to prevent views that the majority of people will agree with (this is best illustrated in the case of Brass eye which was banned after it took a look at paedophilia with which the public disagreed). When dealing with an issue so hotly debated and so sensitively felt even today as the Somme, the show would be forced to regulate it’s views so that the majority agreed with it. Therefore both sources are useful to the historian studying Haig and the Somme. Source D has the benefit of hindsight and yet it’s views are still congruent with those of Source E.
Source E is also of use as it shows how the men were kitted out and how poorly the training would have prepared them for the reality of the war they were about to fight. This is useful as it shows how much thought Haig gave to the training and equipping of his troops.
Source D also shows how little faith people had in Haig. In particular the use of “drinks cabinet” is important. The is the insinuation that Haig is rather keen on drink, and that only a dedicated drinker could possibly authorise the attack Blackadder is about to participate in. If this was not intended, then another piece of furniture that springs to mind more readily would have been used, for example a bookcase if Haig had been known for his learning, or a wardrobe if he had been know for his love of fine clothes. So both sources are useful to a historian studying Haig as they show a diversity of thoughts and opinions about him.
D) Study Sources F, G and H. Do Sources G and H prove that Source F is wrong?
Source F clearly states that Haig was “as stubborn and unthinking as a donkey”. It goes on to say that there was never any chance of breakthrough, and that Haig’s planning of the attack was criminal negligence. However this source cannot definitely be trusted. It contains no facts to prove what it says, there are no statistics or extracts from documents of the time to prove this negligence it talks about. That makes what it says opinions, it is an opinionated piece of writing. The book title is “British Butchers and Bunglers of World War”, the tone of the title is very bitter, and the title also predetermines what the writer will say. With a title like that it will not say that Haig was a brilliant general. Another reason to distrust the source is because of the type of language used. The language is very bitter, and not very technical; “donkey…then he would at some time win the war…Haig was stubborn”. There is nothing specific about the source, it doesn’t make any mention of the overall strategy, or any possible reasons for Haig’s failure, or any possible success that the Somme may have been. It is heavily biased, and it’s purpose can be none other than to set the reader firmly against Haig’s actions. The writer does not stop to consider that the Somme’s principal intent was to divert German attentions form Verdun and to keep the French in the war. Nor does the writer consider that had the French fallen, English forces would have been overwhelmed.
Source G however contradicts source F, it is written by the Germans as part of their “German Official History of the First World War”. Therefore it will most likely be trustworthy, it comes from the German’s, and will tell their side of the story. And it states: “It’s consequences nevertheless were great, particularly as regards morale…A great part of the best, most experienced, and most reliable officers and men were no longer in their places”. It is very clear from this that the Somme cost the Germans a lot of their best troops, and that Although Germany had a supply of new troops, the ones with experience had been killed at the Somme, and this would have significantly weakened the army. In particular the loss of the officers who went into action with the troops, as it would be their experience and knowledge that decided how to go about their objectives. However the source is not necessarily quite this straightforward. At the time of it’s writing, the Germans were paying massive reparations to the allies, and the French were very quick to increase the reparations at the slightest event. Had this official history openly ridiculed the leading British general, then Germany would have found it’s already tenuous political position even further weakened. It is also an official source, therefore it will have the purpose of putting across whatever the government of the time needs it to say. And while they may have needed to keep the French and English happy, they would also have needed to reassure a broken and defeated people that they were not losers, and to blame their defeat upon the loss of experienced men in a battle designed by a British general is the ideal way to keep both parties happy.
A British general who served in both World Wars wrote source H. At the time of writing, the author was a minimum of 71 years old, and therefore likely to have been part of the old school of soldiering, the same old school who ran the First World War. It is also a possibility that by the time he wrote it, his own memories had become influenced by those of others. And if he rose to the level of General, some of his superiors while he rose through the ranks were most likely supporters of Haig, and would have planted their opinions alongside his own. He begins by saying that the German armies were broken by the courage and resolution of Haig’s armies who had complete confidence in him. If this is to be taken at face value, then it is only fair to say that the men would not have had faith in Haig, if he were the donkey portrayed in source F. He also writes that if Haig had not had the moral courage to shoulder the burden of the attack, the war would have turned into a disaster. This is an admission that Haig had to choose between the loss of life his armies suffered, and the loss of the war, and ultimately more loss of life. However that it supposedly took him moral courage to do it does show that Haig thought about it, and that he cared about it. So he was not a stubborn unthinking donkey, who willingly sent his troops to the slaughter. Both source G and H disprove source F.valid political point. Both however agree that Haig would send his men to attack while he was happily tucked away, probably by his