Haig - source based questions

HAIG

Sources A,B,C are valuable in different ways some have comical and some have serious meanings. secondary sources, source A is from the British magazine called Punch which reported on the news at the time in a humorous manner. The source contains an image that shows a Major General addressing the men before practising an attack. He says, “ I want you to understand that there is a difference between a rehearsal and the real thing. There are three essential differences: first the absence of the enemy now” turning to the Regimental Major “ what is the second difference?” the Regimental Major reply’s “ the absence of the General ,sir.” This show unrest in the ranks.

This source tells us that the difference between a rehearsal and the real thing is the absence of an enemy and the absence of the general. This has some truth because around that time some people would say that the army where “LIONS LEAD BY DONKEYS”. Which also comments on the general’s behaviour commanding the front deep in safety miles away being in essence cowards (donkeys).

This source in conclusion would be useful to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers towards their commanders. It would tell them that there is a time of unrest between the army. There must be some truth because for a national ‘joke’ in punch the must have been something to trigger it.

Source b is a quote from Blackadder Goes Forth were captain Blackadder is Insulting The general and commenting on how the first world war was played with numbers.

“After sitting here since Christmas 1914, during which millions of me have died and we’ve advanced no further than an asthmatic ant carrying some heavy shopping.”

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source b is a quote from Blackadder Goes Forth were captain Blackadder is Insulting The general and commenting on how the first world war was played with numbers.

“After sitting here since Christmas 1914, during which millions of me have died and we’ve advanced no further than an asthmatic ant carrying some heavy shopping.”

The First World War caused millions of death. After both sides had dug in heavy shelling turned no mans land in to an impassable swamp of mud and death. The only way the general could think of to solve this problem would throw men over the top to their almost certain death. Men were just statistics to these men commanding them to death from houses miles away. Using this tactic they managed to kill almost all of the original army, the task then fell on the volunteers who had flooded the offices at the start of the war because of promises that it would be over by Christmas. Generals would also plan how to break trenches and kill as many of the enemy as possible. The whole war was based on how many you could kill and how many got killed.

Source b is not that reliable as a source but again highlights as with source A that there was unrest toward the general. To support this view all you have to do is look at the numbers that died. Again this shows the attitudes of the men against there Generals.

Source C even though printed in a newspaper is still unreliable and biased is has been quoted from Earl Haig Field Marshal Haigs’ son. The source is a written quote from Earl Haig condemning the people that criticised his farther and stating that his farther should be given credit for the job he did.

This would have been added to a news paper as a compassion to what other people view of Haig would have been. Most viewed Haig as a callous and uncaring man. I believe that Haig was in a difficult position and the only option would have been to shell them to death but then would have to send men other top. It not as if It was just English men that died many other races suffered many loses. The overall tactic of the war was flawed not just the generals. When it was realised that you could not win a war with just numbers the unnecessary deaths stopped.

This source is useful for several reasons because is shows a different view and also shows how biased different sources can be. This is understandable when so much death occurs people want a person to blame when you can not blame one man for a countries choice.

Question 2

Sir Douglas Haig who many regard as the man who sent many men to there death is still recognised as the person that help the war greatly and served his country well. John Keggan Suggests that Haig was a “an efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War”

Haig did help lead Britain to victory, his ranks were disciplined and under control I believe that most of the army would have deserted if it were not for Haig. Source E is Group of quotes for before and during the battle of Somme he say that before the battle the men where in high spirits and were well informed about the battle. He goes on to say the attack was very successful. This source does back up what Keegan say about Haig only a skilled commander could make a battle run like Haig described it. Haig wrote these quotes so we can presume that they will be biased for one haig has been described as a confident and also a person who does not accept defeat.

Source F is a description of Haigs personality written by Anthony Livesey this source is written much later after the war he could not have known Haig so he must be working from Peoples opinion or other evidence. He states that “perhaps his greatest failing was his constant, often misplaced optimism” This does not show Haig in quite the same light as Keegan would hope. Still I does not disagree with him because after all General had some training and experience. But no war had been fought on the scale before the generals were still using old tactics that did not account for large shells and long distance weapons.

Source H Is an answer to the question Was Haig right to press on with the battle of the Somme?

The source tell use that whether or not it was foolish to give fight a Somme. If we had not it would have meant the abandonment of Verdun which would have meant a lose for Britain. So in this respect it supports Keegans statement that Haig helped in the First World War. He help to win a war for Queen And Country Which he was to do until

“ it became clear that he could not attain his objectives by continuing the offensive”

David Lloyd George Source G

Source K contains my view that you can not blame Haig for the war that is to much for one man he was a product of his time and military experience. if he would have been replaced would it have been better. Both sides were not ready to face each other in war using old tactics in a war were people could be killed like flies. Haig was used to house back rifles not tanks and canons.

In conclusion there is a lot of evidence to show that Haig was a highly skilled and solider. Source k does not support this but does give the fair and most no biased account of Haig. I think Keegans interpretation of Haig is slightly optimistic but I don’t believe that it would have been any better with another commander. There is a lot of evidence to show that his ranks were unsettled but I think that the situation not dislike of Haig. In the end a number of mistakes made by many people contributed to the half a million causalities suffered by the allies.