However, factors that may cause me not to trust this source may be that he is a Private, questioning his reliability because his experience is limited to his sector, where we know other sectors were successful (The 36th Ulster Division). Another factor that might cause me to question his reliability would be the fact the interview was taken years after the battle whereas his account could be less accurate than straight after his experience. The fact that the interview was taken years after the battle comes into play again questioning his reliability as his negative response might reflect or be influenced by the harsh criticism towards Haig at that time.
Although Source C has factors that do question his reliability, I do trust it, as it is a factual account on what he experienced. As I believe also Source B can be trusted as I feel Haig had the intentions of truth, but his misinformation cause it not to be factual and I do not trust it to the extent as I do of Source B. To conclude I trust Source B more than I do than Source C.
(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?
Source D is a still from the T.V series ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’, showing two officers discussing an imminent attack on the Germans. To some extent I disagree that there is no use for a historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme to refer to this source as the source is very negative and very cynical towards Haig. During the still one officer says ‘Clearly Field Marshall Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to make his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin,’ suggesting Haig sits back while his men fought and died. To an extent this source can be considered as it reflects the generals and officers feelings on the ‘Battle of the Somme’ and the basic objective of the battle set out by Haig.
However, on the other hand the source is from a T.V series, which is likely to exaggerate, and further more from a comedy that I don’t think is to be taken seriously. I would say that the source is unreliable and should not have any use for a historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme.
Source E is from a cartoon from a British magazine published in February 1917 including a small article. The cartoon expresses the absence of the General on the war field referring to Haig. This is showing how he was away from the action while his men got killed, expressing a similar view to the one of Source D. This suggests that generals were cowardly as Haig was 15 miles away from the battlefield and was often in a cosy hotel while his men went and fought and died. This also shows that the British public know this and criticise him for it six months after the battle. To some extent I do think that there is reason for an historian studying the battle of the Somme and Haig to refer to this source, as I believe that it reflects the point of view of many of the soldiers and the public.
However, the may not be considered by historians as it is generally the case that generals were away from the battle in order to make military decisions, and I feel that the public may have criticised Haig very harshly for doing this. I think that this source is a bit extreme, but is reliable and should be considered by historians when studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme.
(d) Study sources F, G and H.
Do sources G and H prove that source F is wrong?
Source F is an extract from a recent book entitled ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War’. The extract shows a very critical, angry and harsh judgement with hostility towards Haig ‘Haig was stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey.’ The source does show some aspects of the truth as the extract states the fact that Haigs beliefs and objective during the battle was to kill more Germans, than Germans kill his men which many people perceived as butchery. However on the other hand the source does state that Haig did not have any sort of strategy at all and later says that Haig knew that he didn’t have any chance of breakthrough, but I believe that Haig did try and he did have a strategy as Source B helps to show, as there was thorough preparation with the week long bombardment, and how he kept Calvary in reserve. This source does criticise Haig very much, which I feel is very harsh as he did warn deaths in source A and the main objective of the battle was to ease pressure on the French at Verdun.
Source G is an extract from the German History of the First World War, which was published in the 1930s. This source does contradict Source F as it does focus on morale and the damage done to the army. I source may be expected to be making excuses for the Germans loosing the war, but I feel it dosen’t do this. However the source does contradict source F, it does have similar views as source F says that Haig had ‘an appalling kind of strategy’ and it’s ‘not a strategy at all’, source G does say that ‘the battle of the Somme had no great importance in the strategic sense.’ Although source G does have some similar views as source F, overall it does show that they are contradicting each other.
Source H is an extract written by a British general in 1973 mentioning that he fought in both world wars. This source does contradict source F as it focuses on Haigs achievements and how his men were inspired by his determination, whereas source F perceives Haig as a Butcher and sat back while his men were killed. This source does show some truth and also shows some aspects that are not true as the source says that the ‘French resistance would have crumbled’, which is not true as the French were getting the upper had at Verdun because many of the German troops had to leave the battle and help Austria-Hungry. I would say that the British general who wrote this was nationalistic and could be patriotic to his country causing him to be biased. The source was written in 1973, years after the battle, which might affect his memories, or his experience and access to the broader picture as he fought in both world wars give him a balanced view.
Despite the contradiction of the sources, I feel that they do not necessarily prove that source F was wrong; as I have shown that source F does show some aspects of the truth. I feel that sources G and H do contradict source F, but also show misinformation as well as some aspects of truth.
(e) Study sources I and J
Why do you think that sources I and J differ about the battle of the Somme?
Source I was written by Lloyd George to Haig on 21st September 1916, after visiting the battlefield as a Secretary of war. The source shows Lloyd George congratulating Haig ‘most warmly on the skill with which your plans were laid’ and of ‘the heartening news of the last few days has confirmed our hopes that the tide has definitely in our favour’. We know this is not true as overall the battle was a disaster, but George may have been referring to some of the very few successes such as the regaining of French land, taking Flers and Courcelette. I believe that this may be the case, and throughout the source George was referring to Flers and Courcelette, but if not he may have reason to write false information to keep up morale as at this time he is secretary of defence. Lloyd George was to later that year in December become Prime Minister. As secretary of defence he may have reason to write false information as he is very much part of the battle, and may have to justify the actions of Haig.
Source J was written by Lloyd George in his War Memoirs in the 1930s. On the other hand to Source I, Source J shows George presenting a negative feeling towards Haig ‘I expressed my doubts to General Haig as to whether cavalry could ever operate successfully on a front bristling for miles with barbed wire and machine guns,’ almost saying he knew Haig was wrong but could do nothing. During this source George is not very critical on himself, as he should take some responsibility, blaming Haig. George also expresses that America was the reason for the allie victory, with around half a million men coming over by 1918. Not mentioning the Ludendorf spring offensive which eventually lead to the loss, as they had advanced too far and got surrounded. World War One was known as “the war to end all wars” and at the time this source was written (1930s) the league of nations had been set up and was having a bad time under threat of a World War Two. The oxford union were regarded as the best thinkers and said no to World War Two. In 1935 the peace pledge union organised an opinion pole of 10 million people, where 93% favoured in reduction of armourments. At this time in his memoirs he may have reason to justify what he did and he too may have been influenced by the harsh criticism towards Haig at this time.
These two sources were both written at different times, and the different times reflect the different ranks and responsibility that George has, and the different messages and views that the sources show towards Haig and the battle of the Somme.
(f) Study all the sources.
‘Haig was an uncaring General eho sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason.’ How far do these sources support this view?
Source A written by Haig in June 1916, shows how Haig expressing that the nation should be taught to bear losses, showing that expects men to be killed, which could be perceived as butchery. However, on the other hand Source A may show that Haig did care as the source was written in June 1916, before the battle of the Somme. I believe that Haig would have been presenting his men with a very realistic view, however harsh it may be perceived. His main objective was that he wanted to kill more Germans than they do kill his own, but no other General used any significantly different tactics, winning battles by their artillery and men. This source was written by Haig and may have been intended by him to by kept a secret, taking into account the morale of his men. I believe that this source doesn’t prove that Haig was an uncaring general as this source shows that before the battle he warned that men will be sacrificed and they were.
Source B contains two extracts written by Haig, the first the day before the attack, and the second a report on the first day of the attack. In the extract the day before the attack Haig shows how he prepared for the battle. The source shows how ‘the men are in splendid spirits’ and that ‘the artillery so thorough’. I believe this is true as Haigs week long of artillery bombardment was now coming to an end and how they believed they could stroll through no mans land. This proves that General Haig did care about the lives of his men, with his good plans and how he tried hard to prepare for the battle. The second extract, reporting on the first day of the attack expresses how successful the mornings attack was, which I feel Haig is giving an accurate interpretation of the information that he is being fed, but I don’t believe it gives an accurate interpretation on the truth and to an extent shows he is a caring general.
Source C is from an interview, years after the battle with a Private George Coppard. The source shows the disaster of the first day and the miss use shell-fire, which we know to be true. This source is an eyewitness account and is factual based on his experiences in the battlefield causing me to trust it, suggesting that Haig is an uncaring general. The fact that the interview was taken years after the battle questions its reliability as his negative response might reflect or be influenced by the harsh criticism towards Haig at that time. Overall I feel that the source does prove that Haig was an uncaring general to an extent.
Source D is a still from the T.V series ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’, showing two officers discussing an imminent attack on the Germans. To some extent this source does show that Haig is an uncaring general as during the still one officer says ‘Clearly Field Marshall Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to make his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin,’ suggesting Haig sits back while his men fought and died. To an extent this source can be trusted as it gives a basic reflection of the generals and officers feelings of the ‘Battle of the Somme’ and the basic objective of the battle set out by Haig. However, on the other hand the source is from a comedy, which is likely to exaggerate and I don’t think is to be taken seriously. I would say that the source is unreliable, but does suggest that Haig is an uncaring general and reflects the basic feelings about the battle.
Source E is from a cartoon from a British magazine published in February 1917. The cartoon expresses the absence of the General on the war field referring to Haig. This shows and suggests that Haig was an uncaring general, showing how he was away from the action while his men got killed. This suggests that generals were cowardly as Haig was 15 miles away from the battlefield and was often in a cosy hotel while his men went and fought and died. This also shows that the British public know this and criticise him for it six months after the battle, expressing a similar view to the one of Source D. To some extent this source does show that Haig was an uncaring general, as I believe that it reflects the point of view of many of the soldiers and the public, criticising Haig.
Source F is an extract from a recent book entitled ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War’. The extract shows a very critical, angry and harsh judgement with hostility towards Haig ‘Haig was stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey.’ The source does show some aspects of the truth as the extract states the fact that Haigs beliefs and objective during the battle was to kill more Germans, than Germans kill his men which many people perceived as butchery. This source does criticise Haig very much, which I feel is very harsh as he did warn deaths in source A, but the source does overall support that Haig was an uncaring general.
Source G is an extract from the German History of the First World War, which was published in the 1930s. This source does not support that Haig was an uncaring general as it focus’ on morale and the damage done to the army. On the other hand, source G does say that ‘the battle of the Somme had no great importance in the strategic sense,’ suggesting that Haig was uncaring. Although this, source G does not support the view that Haig was an uncaring general.
Source H is an extract written by a British general in 1973 mentioning that he fought in both world wars. This source does not support the view that Haig was an uncaring general to any extent as it focuses on Haigs achievements and how his men were inspired by his determination. I would say that the British general who wrote this was nationalistic and could be patriotic to his country causing him to be biased. The source was written in 1973, years after the battle, which might affect his memories, or his experience and access to the broader picture as he fought in both world wars give him a balanced view and similar to the ones of Haig.
Source I was written by Lloyd George to Haig on 21st September 1916, after visiting the battlefield as a Secretary of war. The source shows Lloyd George congratulating Haig ‘most warmly on the skill with which your plans were laid’ and of ‘the heartening news of the last few days has confirmed our hopes that the tide has definitely in our favour’. We know this is not true as overall the battle was a disaster, but the source does none the less support the view as it does show that Haig cares, despite the fact that it is not the truth.
Source J was written by Lloyd George in his War Memoirs in the 1930s. Source J shows George presenting a negative feeling towards Haig ‘I expressed my doubts to General Haig as to whether cavalry could ever operate successfully on a front bristling for miles with barbed wire and machine guns,’ almost saying he knew Haig was wrong but could do nothing. This source does support the view that Haig was an uncaring general.
Each one these sources have factors that support this view, and on the other hand factors that don’t support this view as I have stated. I personally feel that Haig did care for his men after reading these sources and I conclude to some extent that these sources do not support the view that says Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason.
