As source C was actually written by someone who was present in the trenches and not obtaining information form messengers, he would be very clear on what was fact and what was fiction.
Qc) 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.
These sources certainly do not harbour enough information to study in detail the Battle of the Somme, but sources D and E would be very useful for analysing General Haig and his battle tactic, which he could have used in the Battle of the Somme.
Source D is a source from ‘Blackadder’ and in order for a comedy to be well received, it needs to ridicule or use sarcasm where appropriate. From this source it is clear that the general impression of Haig that has lasted decades after the war was that he wasn’t a respected or idolised man. This short extract conveys the feeling that Haig could not think of anything to do for the war effort except to send men over the lines to be slaughtered. Aside from maintaining awareness from the opposition, his troops would die aimlessly and achieve no progress whatsoever. This shows that Haig had limited strategic ideas and was not one for logical thinking.
The comment regarding the drinks cabinet in source C also further emphasises Haig’s obvious detachment from the men. All these factors are useful in understanding the kind of man Haig was, despite the fact that there is no direct link to the Battle of the Somme. Historians could take into account Haig’s personality traits and use them to portray an image of the morale and strategies that could have been used during the Battle of the Somme.
Source E is a 1917 cartoon, once again depicting Haig in a less then flattering way. But as always the source suggest more information if all the details are analysed. The troops appeared to be inexperienced and unprepared for the expectations and conditions of the war in the trivial way in which they were being educated in the distinction between a practise and actual fighting. The absence of a General could mean that the men had a lack of any leader to instruct them and not merely the absence of Haig.
All in all, these sources give a historian a clear impression of the attitudes of the public, the troops and their feelings towards Haig, not to mention scrutinising his leadership capabilities. Therefore the two sources are very informative regardless of whether they are about the Battle of the Somme. All the aspects derived from D and E show a typical idea of what circumstances in the Somme could have been and therefore would have been helpful when studying the Battle of the Somme.
Qd) Do sources G and H prove that source F is wrong?
Sources G and H do not prove that source F is wrong as all three sources have different origins and purposes. Sources F and H contradict each other, but that does not necessarily mean that one proves the other false. Source A is a very positive extremist view of General Haig. I think that there are two main factors that support this.
Firstly, it was a British General who had fought in both wars. This man contributed to two major victories therefore it is only natural for him to enhance his success by supporting his former leader. Being British the General would want to be patriotic by fully supporting the commander and therefore portray him in a positive light.
Secondly the source was written by a General, a high-ranking commander like Haig, and also like Haig was probably detached from the troops and the actual fighting. Hence the Generals would spend much more time together and since Haig had the main responsibility of leading the allied troops, understandably the General would wish to remain loyal to him.
Source G is a source about something entirely dissimilar. It is an extract from a German version of the history of World War One. Despite its origin, it is not bias towards any side merely factual unlike source H. This source focuses on the issue of morale of both armies and nowhere does it mention Haig. I think that without intending to do so, source G puts Haig in a better light. Among its comments, this source mentions that as a result of losses including the more experienced officers, new troops and reinforcements had to be brought in. They were very young and poorly trained, as there was no one to instruct them. This is recognised on the British side as well, which reminds us that the Germans were facing the same problems as the allies. So it can not be said that Haig was responsible or the sole leader, not competent, smart or considerate enough to end the stalemate because the opposition had also failed.
Lastly source F itself must be analysed to determine whether it is right or wrong. Considering the title of the book, it would be unseemly if it wasn’t strongly opinionated it blatantly accuses Haig of the slaughter of thousands of men. This extract insults Haig and implies he was a very incapable leader. It is easy to render this source as wrong because its is a fierce and vehement way of depicting Haig. However, that is not to say that the sources’ message is wrong. Of course portraying Haig as a stubborn donkey is incorrect because becoming a General he would have to have been a smart man. This source is basically the same as sources A, C and E just more verbally exaggerated. Using only sources G and H to prove that F is wrong or false in some way is impossible, as they don’t.
Source G was a written account produced in Germany referring to World War One and has no mention of Haig whatsoever. Source H is a complete reversal of F, but it is just as biased towards its own opinion, so there is nothing to say that F could prove H wrong. Essentially although useful in themselves, the three sources are too miscellaneous when put together, making it difficult to use as evidence against each other.
Qe) Why do you think that sources I and J differ about the Battle of the Somme?
Considering Lloyd George wrote both these sources and that unexpectedly opinions have changed, regardless of the date Lloyd George must have been writing as Haig did earlier; to whatever audience he knew he had.
For example source I was written during the Battle of the Somme, straight after he had visited the battlefield. To see the poor conditions of the soldiers and a lack of a strategic battle plan he would want to avoid a commotion and pretend that all was going well, and especially to boast morale.
As the secretary for war, he was obligated by occupation to World War One. Moreover it would not be a smart career move to criticise Haig’s leadership or disclose the information that the army was a pitiless state. As a result Lloyd George’s position combined with it being the middle of the war, he had no choice but to support the major battle of the Somme and World War One, and in addition try to create an atmosphere of optimism for the outcome of the war.
Source J was written at a time when people had much more freedom with regards to their opinion about the war. With the euphoria of victory over, many more people felt they could criticise the war and Haig. This is evident in Lloyd George. His first paragraph is contradictory to what he wrote in source I. In that he claims that the advice he gave to Haig was much closer to the truth. Not working for the commander of the army was an advantage as Lloyd George could now afford to be more courageous in his statements. He now exposes a more defeatist statement, especially when he said that without the American’s allied efforts would have been in vain.
I conclude that the main reason sources I and J differ is because Lloyd George was an opportunist. His changing attitude depended on the time it was given and who he was writing for. Lloyd George supported the war when it was required of him to do so and then proceeded to demean that view in the 1980s because that was the widespread opinion. Lloyd George would change his opinion to generally please who constituted as important and whenever he would gain a profitable reputation.
Qf) Study all the sources. “Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason” How far do the sources support this view?
Starting at source A, I found that it doesn’t support the statement, because firstly, Haig wrote it himself for himself. Without the need to impress any one, this source is probably more truthful then any of the others. Although source A fully shows that Haig was willing to make sacrifices, at no point are there any indications of him being uncaring or that the men’s efforts were ‘for no good reason’. This source seemed to suggest that Haig was just very negative about the war and most likely just a little to realistic.
Source B shows Haig to be very uncaring indeed. As Haig wrote it, he has put himself in a hole. The tone of this source strongly supports that Haig wrote this source for his superiors. As it was common knowledge about the indigent conditions the soldiers were forced to be in, it is hard to accept Haig’s high-spirited account. Perhaps is optimism was due to his detachment from the men or because he was mis-informed, either way his obvious attempt to obscure the truth makes him appear very uninterested in the lives of his soldiers.
Source C is one of the strongest sources, which support this given statement. It definitely goes against Haig, as the source was written by a private, someone with first hand experience of trench warfare, who goes on to explain the dead bodies strung out on the barbed wire. This certainly makes the General seem uncaring as well as indifferent about the number of casualties. This source is without fail genuine, and if a simple soldier can see the fundamental flaws in his plans then that really puts into perspective Haig’s ability as a general.
Sources D and E shows the public opinion of Haig which was extremely negative. Source D supports the statement’s claim that Haig sacrificed men’s lives with no goal in mind. It also points out Haig’s lack of concern for the wastefulness of the soldier’s needless deaths. Source E strengthens the argument by embellishing the ever-present factor of the General’s aloofness to his men, as well as a hint of how unprepared the troops were for battle.
Given source F and the its derivation, it is obviously going to be very acrimonious of Haig. It is very accusative of Haig and offers no defence to the contrary. Considering that so many people appear to have disagreed with Haig’s strategy, some of his advisors must have expressed this to him. The fact that nothing changed suggests that Haig was stubborn and did not listen to advice that may have saved many soldiers from pointless deaths. Therefore this source proves that he was uncaring.
Source G doesn’t contain any referral to Haig. However it is useful, because being German in origin, provides a completely different perspective. The most important factor of any offensive is how the enemy deals with it. Source G states the Germans admitting that the Battle of the Somme had an impact. The Battle has often been labelled as mass murder, but this source contradicts this opinion because the deaths of those soldiers could not have been in vain if the outcome created an image of intimidating force to the enemy. This source unintentionally defends Haig there fore it can not be said that there was ‘no reason’ to sacrifice the lives of all those men.
Source H disagrees with the statement because the British general really talks about Haig as a National hero. It contradicts sources C and D because he states the army had full confidence in their commander. In my opinion, the main factor of this source is that it was written in 1973. By that time, the country had seen two major victories, therefore Haig can be seen a victorious leader of the army of the Great War.
Source I is another source that praises Haig. It would seem to be much more reliable because it was written in 1916, which is obviously a date much closer to the events then 1973. The author was a direct subordinate of Haig, but even though this source is more beneficial to Haig’s credibility, it was Lloyd George who wrote it. As he was the secretary for War, his position would mean he had to support the War and thus tied him to Haig whom he had to support any way he could.
Source J is the final account that supports the statement against Haig, but in addition to that it, it reduces the amount of defence for Haig. The conflict of interests of this source and source I, which were both written by Lloyd George, almost renders useless and with that any credibility Haig may have gained with it.
Collectively, I found that sources A, H and I did not agree with the statement, and sources B to F do. Although now I have re-analysed them it is quite difficult deciding which of the sources did or did not agree with the original statement. The three factors- Haig was ‘uncaring’, Haig made needless ‘sacrifices’, Haig did it for ‘no good reason’. Some of the sources that do generally support the statement only do so for certain parts. Sources C and F, clearly, fully support this statement. However, source A doubtless shows that Haig was willing to sacrifice men’s lives, but at the same time the source doesn’t show him to be uncaring, nor that the deaths were for no good reason. This is shown with other sources as well.
Due to Haig’s lack of having a more original or effective strategy, he was constantly bombarded with accusations of being incompetent to be a general, but in all fairness if another officer had concocted a more successful strategy, then they would have taken over command. The Germans also used the same strategy, nevertheless, when the troops were dying in thousands, it’s easy to blame the man in charge.
