(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? [7 marks]
I do not believe that Sources D an E have no use for the historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme. I think that historians should look carefully at each source and weigh up the evidence.
Source E was a cartoon which was drawn in 1917. It clearly shows us that the cartoonist is making the point that the generals are not fighting at front line. This is also highlighted by Sources B and C differing so much as to what actually happened at the front line.
Source D is a still from a modern TV Series and is not particularly as useful to a historian other than to take account of someone else's opinion who has also studied the events of the Battle of the Somme. It is still based on evidence gathered from a variety of sources, but has been adapted to provide entertainment. One of the officers says "My instincts lead me to believe that we are at last about to go over the top." This tells us that they had been waiting for some time for a decision to move. The same officer also says "You mean are we all going to get killed? Yes." This statement seems to be based on Haig's speech that the nation must be taught to bare loses.
(d) Study Sources F, G and H.
Do sources G and H prove that Source F is wrong? [9 marks]
I do think that Sources G and H prove that Source F is wrong.
Source F is saying that Haig was unthinking and uncaring, and that he had no strategy at all. This source is taken from a recent book, and is not based on an account from the time, but on the author's opinion. This opinion seems biased.
Sources G and H show that although Haig's strategy resulted in huge British loss of life there were still heavy casualties and knock the morale of the Germans. These two sources are giving the same type of information although G is from the German point of view and H is from a British general.
Also as mentioned previously Source B shows that Haig was receiving incorrect information from the Front Line. If he had known what was really happening, his decisions may have been different.
Source H was written in 1973, but by a general who fought in the war and has knowledge of events at the time.
Source G is from the German Official History of the First World War, and although published in the 1930's is based on fact from the time.
Source F lacks evidence and the comments are more personal than G or H.
We know that the author is not accurate about Haig being as unthinking as a donkey as there is evidence of him studying at Oxford.
Source B also shows that Haig was caring as he is talking about the men's spirit, this shows that he did care about the morale of troops. Source H backs this up and shows that the men had confidence in the leadership of their commander.
(e) Study Sources I and J.
Why do you think that Sources I and J differ about the Battle of the Somme? [7 marks]
Sources I and J were both written by Lloyd George, Source I in 1916 and Source J in the 1930's. In Source I Lloyd George says "that the heartening news of the last few days has confirmed that the tide has now defiantly turned in our favour." We know that the British attack lifted the pressure on Verdun, this could have been what Lloyd George was referring to at the time. When Source J was written in the 30s Lloyd George knew the full extend of casualties and lives lost, and obviously wanted to distance himself from decisions made at the time of the war. He seems to be covering himself by saying that he expressed his doubts to General Haig. Source I tells a different story with Lloyd George congratulating Haig on the skill with which his plans were laid, at that time he was hoping that the British would be successful and the victors of the war. Had that been the case Lloyd George would have shared the glory of the victory. So sources I and J differ so much due to the fact that I was written before the final outcome was known and J after the war by someone who appears to be distancing themselves from the outcome.
(f) Study all the sources.
"Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason."
How far do these sources support this view? [12 marks]
Source A does not support this view; it shows us that Haig felt that there was good reason to make the sacrifice of men's lives. It does not make Haig uncaring, it just shows us that he was realistic and knew no war could be won without casualties. Haig states that "No amount of skill on the part of the higher commanders, no training however good, on the part of the officers and men, no superiority of arms and ammunition, however great, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men's lives." This tells us that Haig believed that the British army were well trained and more than capable of winning this battle, even though he knew it may be a hard fought battle.
Source B shows us extracts from Haig's reports. In the first extract Haig is talking about the men's spirits and morale, and about the confidence of the commanders. This shows us that Haig was indeed caring and concerned about the troops. The second extract tells us how Haig felt after the first day of attack. He again mentions the troops being in wonderful spirits. We now know that his account was incorrect, however Haig wrote this in good faith after receiving wrong information. If he had been given correct information he may have changed tactics, and maybe so many lives would not have been lost.
Source C gives us clear information of what it was like at the front line. It tells us that better planning should have gone into breaking the barbed wire. Haig was ultimately responsible for the battle plan, however as mentioned previously he was relying on intelligence from the front line. Even source C, which shows us clearly how bad things were. This does not support the view that Haig was uncaring and sacrificed the lives of soldiers for no good reason.
Source D is implying that Haig knew that many men's lives would be sacrificed, but ultimately that the British would win the battle. So this does not support the view that there was no good reason just that Haig was aware how difficult the battle will be. He knew the horrors of war and wanted to prepare the British public for what may happen. As mentioned previously in Source D an officer said "My instincts lead me to believe that we are at last about to go over the top." This shows us that battle planners were thinking carefully before asking troops to move forward and so obviously did care about the consequences of their actions. The second officer says "Great Scott, Sir! You mean the moment has finally arrived for us to give Harry Hun a darn good British style thrashing, six of the best, trousers down?" This Comment supports Haig's report in source B that our troops were in wonderful sprits and full of confidence. As mentioned previously this shows us that Haig was in fact a caring general who cared about the morale of the troops.
Source E is a cartoon which highlights the absence of the general from the battlefield. This does not prove that Haig was uncaring and sacrificed his men for no good reason; it just shows how important it is to communicate accurate information to battle planners who are not actually at the front line.
Source F does support the view that Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason. However this source appears to be biased and not based on fact. The comments are personal, such as "Haig was as stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey." Other evidence shows that these comments were not true.
Source G is an extract from the German official history of the First World War. It shows us that despite the huge British lose of life; there was still a huge impact on the Germans. They to had suffered the loss of experienced officers and the German armies confidence had been knocked. Strategically this was a great consequence for the British.
Source H does not support the view that Haig was uncaring and sacrifices the lives of his soldier for no good reason. It was written by a British general who fought in both world wars and describes Haig as a leader with courage and determination who never wavered from his purpose of breaking down the powers of resistance of the enemy. The writer clearly believes that the British army were inspired by Haig and that Germany's spirit of resistance was broken.
Source I written at the time of the war is also congratulating Haig on his skill and plans and describes heartening news that the tide had turned in favour of the British. This source in no way shows Haig sacrificing the lives of his soldiers.
Source J written in the 30s shows Lloyd George distancing himself from the decisions made at the time, but in no way describes Haig as an uncaring general who deliberately sacrificed his soldiers.
