Source C is an interview with Private George Coppard, already making it more reliable than source B because Private George Coppard was present at the frontline, therefore, his information is firsthand. What also makes this source reliable is the fact that he talks about real events, and I can relate to it with my contextual knowledge. However, his tone and language is very emotive; making his words seem very exaggerated, such as the barbed wire being “so thick that daylight could barely be seen through it.” And “who told them that artillery fire would pound such wire to pieces”, can be looked as an attack upon the general, since Private Coppard would have witnessed the death of his friends going over the top, this makes the source unreliable because it would be looked as an attack on the generals, rather than to inform people about the battle.
In conclusion, I trust source C purely on the fact that it was based on an interview and he was on the frontline, than source B where the words were manipulated and changed. Source C is a first hand view of the battle, whereas the writer of source B is not. I know the two sources do not relate, and I choose to believe source C because I can relate to it with my own contextual knowledge. The general seems like a selfish human, and since he was writing to the Prime Minister I would think that he would not risk jeopardising himself in anyway possible.
(E) Source I was written during the battle and at the time when Lloyd George was secretary of war. Therefore, like Haig he would write positively as he did not want to endanger himself or career, also by writing positively it would boost what the Prime Minister thought of him as he did not want to alarm the Government and let everyone doubt him
Source J is written quite a while after the war and the two sources share minimal comparison. Lloyd George having written both of these sources, now Prime Minister, allowed him to say things he wanted and get away with it, as he had already accomplished his goal. Also, he and Haig detested each other and now because of where they stood politically he would be able to blame Haig and get away with it. “I expressed my doubts to General Haig as to whether cavalry could ever operate successfully.” The tone of this statement gains sympathy and innocence towards Lloyd George, because he said he tried be of help and obviously neglected. Giving Haig a worse reputation and making him looked down on.
In conclusion the sources differ about the battle, purely where Lloyd George stood politically in the year they were written. Source I would have to be altered to be beneficial towards him because he was reporting to a superior which he wanted to keep happy. This fluctuates with Source J because it was written after the war and optimism is not there. Therefore, there would have been more honesty as he had nothing to worry about. This would also be beneficial to him because he was torturing Haig who he hated wit a passion.
