After studying sources B and C I trust source C more out of the two sources more due to the fact it was recorded in an interview by a soldier who fought in the battle whereas source B was written by somebody who planned the battle but did not attend it.
c) Source C and E do not make any specific mention of Haig or the battle of the Somme. However both sources make indirect comments about the battle.
Source E is an indirect comment about the battle of the Somme and shows us that they are practising for the battle of Passchendaele, which was after the battle of the Somme this is known by looking at the date it was published which was February 1917 and the closest battle to that date was the battle of the Somme which ended in November 1916. When ‘what is the second difference? Sergeant Major: the absence of the General Sir’ is said, it is suggesting that they are talking about General Haig and his absence from the battle of the Somme.
Source D says that the battle was one massive effort to move Haigs drink cabinet six inches closer to Berlin the suggested drink cabinet represents Haigs headquarters. This clearly represents the battle of the Somme because in that battle so much was lost and so little was gained.
After studying the Sources I believe that they do have use for the historian when studying the battle of the somme because both sources state that so much was lost and so little was gained and that the General was absent from the battle.
d
Source F is an anti Haig source and is biased because only one persons opinion of Haig is being expressed. The title ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War’ is suggesting that Haig could not perform his job to a very high standard. Source G however does not mention anything about Haig not being able to do his job but states that despite the huge loss of life the victory was worthwhile because it gave the western powers confidence and the german troops confidence in victory was no longer as great as before. Source G was written by the German government in the 1930’s and in January 1933 the Nazi party led by Hitler took over the German Government Hitler opposed the allies and resented the government which was in control during the great war. This leads me to believe this statement was released deliberately by the Nazi party to reinforce the fact that they believed the previous German government were incompetent however it does not say Haig made good decisions during the battle either. Source G also says ‘reliable officers and men were no longer in their places’ meant that they had died. This proves that source F isn’t wrong in saying that men were sent to their deaths.
Source F is all about Haig not minding his men being killed in action if it meant he was going to win the battle. The source says ‘as unthinking as a donkey’ calling Haig stupid. Source H is Pro Haig so is biased because it displays only one persons opinion of Haig. ‘They were inspired by his determination’, this means that his troops were proud of their general because of his strength of mind. This is proving source F incorrect because it states that had Haig not had the moral courage to shoulder the main burden of the struggle in the Somme battle of 1916, French resistance would of crumbled. In shorter terms it means that if had it not been for Haig and his planning they would of lost the battle of the Somme. Source F clearly states that Haig’s plan ‘is not at a strategy at all, it’s a slaughter’ and ‘the Somme was a criminal negligence. However, a British general who had fought in both World War 1 and 2 wrote source H so I believe his statement will be biased in favour of Haig because Haig himself was a General and by criticising Haigs decisions as a General in the war he would be criticising his own decisions as a General.
I do not believe that sources G and H prove source F wrong. I think that every source is biased in what it says so no Source can individually be trusted. Source F exaggerates deeply in what Haig did and is anti Haig because of the death toll at the end of the battle. Source H is pro Haig but is unreliable, as it is biased and Source H is biased as well towards the old German government.
e)Source I is written by David Lloyd George who was secretary of war at the time of the Somme. Source I is a private letter written to Haig. In source I Lloyd George is praising Haigs achievements in the Somme but Lloyd George is trying to build morale by making statements such as the tide has now definitely turned in our favour. David Lloyd George was in office at the time when he write this letter so had a duty to express the Governments opinion but the Governments opinion of the battle relied on what Haig had told them about it. This means the Governments opinion of the battle is incorrect because what Haig told them about the battle such as the barbed wire has never been so well cut was false.
Source J is Hindsight and was also written by David Lloyd George but as a memoir at a later date when he was not in office. Now that David Lloyd George is not in office he can express his own personal views about the battle of the Somme where as before he had to express the Governments views upon the battle. Due to the fact he is no longer in office he is able to truthfully express his feelings about the battle.
I believe Sources I and J differ about the Battle of the Somme because despite both sources being written by David Lloyd George each source is written under different circumstances because source I was written while David Lloyd George was in office meaning he could not express his own views but the Governments, where as in Source J David Lloyd George is no longer in office so can comfortably write how he felt about the Battle of the Somme.
f) Sources A, B, C, D, E, F and J agree that Haig did not care about his soldiers who he sacrificed and that he had no good reason to send the men to their deaths other than the fact that he believed in a war of Attrition meaning whichever army killed the most amount of its enemys men they would be successful regardless the amount of lives they had to sacrifice.
The question claims that Haig is uncaring meaning he wasn’t emotionally attached to his soldiers and that he sacrificed the lives of his soldiers. Sacrifice means a presentation of a gift to win a god’s favour, in Haig’s case the presentation of a gift was in fact the lives of his soldiers and instead of winning a god’s favour it was to win the war of attrition.
Source A agrees that Haig is uncaring and willing to sacrifice the lives of his men for no good reason. The source is written by Haig himself and before the battle and it clearly says that the nation must be taught to bear losses and to see heavy casualty lists. This shows us that Haig is prepared to sacrifice mens lives for no good reason.
Source B agrees with the statement that Haig was uncaring and sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason, like source A, it was written by Haig but after the first day of the battle. This source is a complete piece of propaganda claiming that the the barbed wire has never been so well cut. It seems that he doesn’t care about the 20,000 men lost on that day but he cares more about his status in the army. Haig claims that the Germans were surrendering freely but we don’t know weather this is true or not. Haig might have said this just to imply that his plan was going to plan.
A Private in the war who fought in the battle of the Somme wrote source C. ‘It was clear that there were no gaps in the wire at the time of the attack’ is evidence that Haig is just assuming that the bombardment cut the wire. This shows that Haig might have lied about the battle events to ensure he would keep his place in the army. The source says that any normal soldier knew that the shells would not have cut the wire this means that Haig must surely have know as well, meaning he knew he was sending his soldiers to their deaths because nobody could have penetrated the barbed wire when it had been tangled.
Source D doesn’t really mention the Somme and Haig specifically but does however suggest that they are talking about the Somme and Haig Indirectly. It suggests that there was no good reason for the attack as so much was lost and so little was gained.
Source E does mention Haig and the Somme Indirectly. It says ‘the absence of the general’ this is referring to Haigs absence from the recent battle of the Somme this shows that Haig didn’t care because he didn’t even attend the battle.
Source F completely agrees with the statement when it says the sacrifice of his own men. When it says ‘it’s a slaughter’ and that the battle of the Somme was a criminal negligence it is saying that Haig slaughtered his own men by sending them over the top and that he left them to die. This source is very anti Haig calling him ‘as unthinking as a donkey’.
The German government that doesn’t agree with the statement that Haig was uncaring and that he sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason but it doesn’t disagree with the statement either.
Source H is completely disagrees with the statement which claims Haig was uncaring and sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason. Instead the source is all for Haig saying that he was ‘one of the main architect of the allied victory’. It says that the soldiers had full confidence in their leader.
Source I says ‘the tide has definitely turned in are favour’ which says that there was a good reason for the Somme. However this source does have its limitations, as the writer could not write what he felt personally but only what the Government as a whole felt.
Source J agrees with the statement. The writer was able to write what he felt personally and stated that he questioned Haigs decision of using calvary on a battlefield bristling for miles with barbed wire and machine guns. He claims the attack killed off far more of the British’s best soldiers than it did of the Germans. This further reinforces the claim made that Haig sacrificed his soldiers lives for no good reason and was uncaring.
