From my previous knowledge the war was horrific and at the Battle of Somme almost 62000 Britons were killed. Many men died due to poor living conditions such as food shortages, lack of cleanliness, unhygienic latrines, trench fever, trench foot, bites and blisters, insects and rodents of which carried infectious diseases. Many men were nervous as them selves and their leaders disagreed with the plan created by Haig, to walk not run. No one told Haig how they felt as he was stubborn and critical, making people afraid.
In conclusion, to which of the two sources I trust most, I am inclined to trust Private George Coppard. I find there is no reason for him to lie about the war, where as Haig if unaware of the reality of the front line and he wants to be seen as a strong leader, so therefore his opinion may be bias. From other knowledge, the Battle of Somme is much more similar to the way Copppard describes it rather than Haig, though I do not blame Haig for his inaccurate report as he may have just been uninformed.
How far do you agree that they have no use for the Historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme?
Source D, a still from the television series ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’ is a great way to briefly say how the soldiers at the front line are feeling though it holds no accuracy. The source is designed to be funny, and in order to do has to exaggerate and twist the truth, it is not designed to hold any historical accuracy what so ever. The comedy is also British, and therefore makes it bias to Germany. It is hilarious, though it describes how Haig’s plan was ridiculous and that all soldiers going over the top knew they were going to die before it started, “You mean ‘are we going to get killed?’ Yes. Clearly Field Marshall Haig is about to make yet another Giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin”. This may be inaccurate but is they way that many men saw the Battle of the Somme. Also the actors are wearing the clothes which the soldiers would have worn and the set is as close to the dugouts’ as possible, which is a brilliant way to reconstruct and analyse the situations they were in.
Source E, a cartoon sketch drawn in 1917 from a British Magazine. The extract says ‘I want you to understand that there is a difference between rehearsal and the real thing… the absence of the enemy … and the absence of the General. The cartoon emphasises the absences of General Haig in the Battle of Somme. It suggests that he is irresponsible for making the plans and then abandoning the process of carrying it out. It may also suggest that Haig is afraid to attend the front line, this may be as he knows his plan will fail. It shows that Generals are weak, that they are able to make plans but not to for see them. It is to be funny, though it is something which is very serious and is an embarrassing problem for General’s. It is good for showing the reality of the war, though it is not said on front line.
Each of these sources is designed to appeal to an audience which are looking for comedy, though they each contain a realistic theme to the Battle of the Somme. They are no use from as accurate historical evidence, though they do show the basic attitudes to the war and General Douglas Haig.
Do sources G and H prove that F is wrong?
Source’s G and H share the same opinion of the Battle of Somme. In source G, from a German Official History of the First World War- 1930’s, it explains how the battle ‘gave the western powers confidence’ and how ‘the confidence of the German troops was no longer as great as before’. Also, emphasising the loss of German troops, it was necessary for the Germans to send ‘young soldiers whose training was poor’ to the front line.
Source H, written by a British General in 1973 that fought in both world wars, briefly tells us that it was Haig’s leadership which won the war. Like in Source G, source H also comments on ‘Germany’s spirit of resistance was broken’ which goes on to say ‘mainly by the courage and resolution of Haig’s armies, which had complete confidence in the leadership of their Commander’. This extract is very positive on Haig’s commandership and how troops ‘were inspired by his determination … morally and physically’.
Both of these sources tell Haig to be a strong and determined leader, and that his confidence in succession of the war broke down the spirits of the German troops. Source H, refers to Haig as ‘one of the main architects of the allied victory’ which connects to source G claim that the ‘Somme had no great importance in the strategic sense; its consequences nevertheless were great, particularly as regards to moral. It gave western powers confidence’.
Source F is against what sources G and H propose. This source was from a recent book called ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War’. Source F describes Haig to be ‘as stubborn as a donkey’. His strategy was that ‘if he could kill more Germans than Germany could kill British that he would at sometime would win the war’. This principal was described to be ‘appalling’ and ‘slaughter’. The Somme was also described as ‘criminal negligence’. The extract claims that he knew of the low succession rate and even so he sent the men to their deaths.
As you can see, the sources G and H show a very different opinion of Haig compared to F. The sources G and H have a very positive view about Haig, explaining that the death of thousands of men were to show Haig’s bravery, determination and shown the great belief he had in his plans. They also claim that many men were influenced by Haig, and believed in his plan despite they might have to lose their life. Source F suggests that Haig was an appalling and falling General. It suggests that Haigs actions were to blame for all the deaths caused in the Somme and that he was unthinking. It suggests that every had this opinion of Haig.
The sources G and H do not prove that source F is incorrect as source F is from a recent book, of which the authors would have had a wider range of information that the two slightly older sources, G and H. As they have a very different view, it is hard to say for definite which is correct, though source G is an old source published in 1930’s and source H will be bias as its written by a British General.
Why do you think sources I and J differ about the Battle of the Somme?
The source I, an extract written to Haig from Lloyd George on the 21st September 1916, at the beginning of the Battle of Somme, describes that George is most pleased with the goings on at the Somme. George writes ‘I congratulate you most warmly on the skill with which your plans were laid’. This source may be accurate for what George saw where he was. The front line may have made preparations to disguise the failure of the plan. I feel that that this is what George wanted to believe and so he tried hard to do so. Also, George would have been unable to visit every place in the trenches and therefore may not have a fair opinion.
Source J, also written by Lloyd George in his War Memoirs 1930s, shows an opposite view to source I, as his opinion of Haig is very negative, ‘It killed off far more of our best’. It comments on the hesitations George had about the cavalry and that if had not been for the Americans entering the war, the Somme would have been a failure.
The opposite views show he has a lot of hesitation in the first. I believe that George had not had all the information in source I and that was the purpose for his change in opinion. I also feel that in Source J, George had been given all the relevant information and consequences of Haigs actions, and that if he had kept to his original opinion, he would also be known as a Butcher of the War. Source I was written to Haig and that if George had disagreed with Haig’s plans, there would be a lot of hassle and quareels with each other, it was easier to be positive about Haig’s battle. Where as Source J, was written in a published book after the war, and therefore he did not have to be influenced by anyone. Though, he could hold some blame for the deaths of many men if he agreed with Haig’s plans.
‘Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason.’
Source A shows Haig to be caring: but not about the lives or families of his men. He shows great courage and determination for the winning of the war, despite the loss of many men, he writes: ‘no training … without sacrifice of men’. Though this may be perceived as uncaring, as he leaves no exception or alternative. Many people would either believe this to be selfish or Haig having the characteristics of a strong General. He is caring about the succession of war, to protect his country, but not about the sacrifices he has to make first.
Source B shows Haig to be considerate of the war and the men’s lives: ‘a very successful attack’ and ‘troops are full of confidence’. He carries on declaring the happiness of the men and the war, meaning that he is caring otherwise he would not write about it in such a way. He may be happy to know the men are ‘full of confidence’ though this maybe something he had not planned and is just an extra bonus of the Battle of Somme, he may not have cared either way.
Source C written by Private George Coppard, has a negative opinion about Haig’s plan, he says: “hundreds of dead were strung out along the barbed wire”. This source describes the failures of the plan, nothing directly against Haig. Coppard does argue: “How did the planners imagine that tommies would get through the wire?”. This question suggests that Haig was uncaring as he did not attend the front line to realise the failures being made, and that if he were informed about it, he consequently did nothing to prevent it. This source would suggest he was uncaring.
Source D is a still from the comedy Blackadder Goes Forth, it sarcastically comments: “Haig is about to make yet another attempt to move his drinks cabinet 6 inches closer to Berlin”. This suggests that Haig was uncaring about everything apart from winning the battle and this was to be unsuccessful. It also tells us that the men had lost enthusiasm as they disagreed with Haig’s plan. Haig is maybe shown to be uncaring by the loss of enthusiasm by his men, as he obviously never made an effort to see how they were. If he did care, this would not have been the way the men felt.
Source E is a cartoon from a British Newspaper, describing how General’s are absent from the front line, “The absence of the General, sir”. Once again, this is not directed at Haig but generally explains that General’s are uncaring as they do not attend the front line. As it is only a cartoon and has no detail it is unreliable to say whether Haig was caring or not.
Source F is from a recent book which describes Haig to be ‘as stubborn as a donkey’ and that ‘he new he had no chance of breakthrough but still he sent men to their deaths’. This strongly claims that Haig was uncaring as he killed the men with no chance of succeeding. I believe this to be accurate as the book’s authors would have had many resources to comment from, though there is no balancing opinion here so maybe very bias.
Source G disagrees with the statement ‘Haig was uncaring’ as it says: ‘it gave the western powers confidence’. It goes on to explain that the Somme ‘had no great importance in the strategic sense’ but the confidence of Haig had great moral for the British and lost moral for the German’s. It believes that Haig was successful, and achieved what he set out to do. It does not make any reasoning for the heavy casualties Britain suffered.
Source H claims that Germany’s ‘spirit of resistance was broken by the courage of Haig’s armies’. The armies may have shown to have courage, but it was actually fear about the punishments they would receive if they were to disagree. It describes Haig to be a powerful leader although it does not claim he cared about his men. This source is very positive about Haig, and shows no reasoning for him to be a bad leader.
Source I, written by Lloyd George at the beginning of the Somme, congratulates Haig for his plans. It does not say anything specifically about the men’s attitude on the front line or the conditions. It claims Haig’s plan is good and is so far successful. George has no doubts or queries, and seems very pleased with it so far. This may be incorrect if George were to be afraid of Haig, this may not be his true if George did not want to reveal his true opinion.
Source J is very negative about Haig’s plans, despite it is written by Lloyd George (the previous source). It comments on how George ‘expressed his doubts to Haig’, though he did not. He may be writing this after the battle as he does not want any blame for the deaths of thousands of men. He has no praise for Haig, which he did in source I, and says nothing to explain he previous feelings. This source shows Haig to be uncaring as it blames him for death of all the men killed in the Somme. It denies any success of the Somme, and praises the Americans entering otherwise Britain would have lost stalemate.
All of these show many different views to Haig’s plans, the minority being negative towards him. In many of the sources he is blamed for the death of the men by either being uncaring enough not to attend the front line (source E), being so stubborn that he can not take criticism despite realising the deaths of all the men (source F) and that theses two sources clearly show that he is not fit to be a General with these characteristics. The fact that he does not attend the front line through his own fault, means that he is careless about the men; the least he could do is attend once. Other sources such as J, D, C and A also have a negative opinion of Haig and his plan. These blame him of the deaths for being uncaring and incompetent.
Despite there being negative sources, there are also positive ones, such as Source H which claims that the Somme as successful as Haig created British moral as well as decreasing the German’s spirits. Other source’s suggest that Haig is caring, such as in Source B, by the way he writes about his men: ‘troops are full of confidence’. The positive attitude is also shown in source I, written by Lloyd George, though he changes his opinion a few years after the war in source J. This may have been the case for all the positive sources if they were to have all the information available to us now or without a bias view.
My overall conclusion is that Haig was uncaring about his men, as he shown on his attendance to the front line and acted stubbornly without giving any consideration to other opinions. Though I understand that the determination from Haig to win the war was great and this was seen to be successful by having high moral. I feel Haig cared about winning the war, and not about his men.