20,000 British soldiers were killed on the first day, the barbed wire was not cut and the Germans had survived the bombing but source B shows that Haig thought everything had gone like clockwork, I can no longer trust the information given in this source by Haig, but Private George Coppard talks about how the wire was left in a worse condition, he actually saw it. I can’t completely trust source C’s account because the soldier’s personal experience might make him exaggerate, and he might remember it worse than it actually was.
c)I think that sources D and E are not completely useless for a historian studying Haig and the battle of the Somme, I agree that these sources can not be used as facts but it can be used to see the public’s reaction to the war and to Haig. Both these sources criticise Haig in some way or another. Source D is pointing out how the strategic moves of Haig were small ‘six also shows Haig intervention in the battle, it says that while his men were dying he was 40 miles away, without getting his “hands dirty”, also it shows Haig as a selfish man because he is willing to sacrifice the lives of many of his men for so little gain, gain which would help him “win the war for Britain”. Source E is making a similar statement, it is showing that while the men are fighting and giving their lives the Generals are not there, I think that this refers to Haig because while men where dying he was 40 miles away taking no direct action.
These sources are critics of Haig, they might not be factual but they show what the public thought about him and what the people thought about him in my opinion represents what he is, and that if these critics were made there must have been a reason.
d)I think that sources G and H do not prove F wrong. Many opinions have come up about Haig’s role and actions during war world one, specially on the battle of the Somme, but that’s all they are, opinions. Source F is an example of this; it was written by John Laffin, he wrote the book ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War’ in which he argues that a large number of casualties during WW I were caused by British commanders who were “vain, egocentric, incompetent and uncaring”, one of them being Douglas Haig. Source F are just biased opinions made by John Laffin with a lack of facts, support and evidence. Sources G and H talk about Haig’s great performance in the battle of the Somme, he was ‘one of the main architects of the Allied victory’ or at least that’s what a general who fought in the battle thought. All these sources are in the need of facts which would support their ideas, for example in source F John Laffin says that the principle that guided Haig was if he could ‘kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men’ but how do we know that’s true, John Laffin comments are more personal than those made in sources G and H, John Laffin insults Haig he says that he was ‘as stubborn as a donkey’ for me this makes the comments look unprofessional. Source H is written by a general who fought in the battle of the Somme, this might make us rely on his ideas because he witnessed the battle, but he wrote these 56 years after the battle.
e)These source give two different opinions, that come from one single person about one event, source I says that he is impressed by Haig’s great performance and achievements, but source J contradicts what he had said earlier on, he says that he did not agreed with Haig’s strategy and use of cavalry. Source I is a primary source and source J is a secondary source. The fact that source I was written at the moment does affect what is written, while a war is on action the worse thing you can do is be pessimist and negative, even more if you’re telling who’s in charge and the information is coming from an important person as the
Secretary for War is, this letter written to Haig is written in the subject of morale, so it doesn’t go low. Source J is written in 1930, Lloyd George is no longer Secretary for War nor Prime Minister, he does no longer have a reason to “lie” to anyone because the battle was over, Lloyd George has more sources available and he can look at the “bigger picture” he can see what happened, instead of seeing what had happened in one place at that time.
f) ‘Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason’ as being this one of the most argued statements about Haig we have to consider it and we also have to consider why is this. I believe and my opinion is that one of the reasons of why this statement is so argued is for the event that happened on the first day when the battle began, when Haig sent all his soldiers to the enemy’s trenches without making sure that the Germans had actually suffered major losses in their barbed wire and soldiers, he led 20,000 men to die by a decision based on a prediction and this shows us his negligence. Source A supports this point indirectly, this is a speech written by Haig where he says that they will have to suffer heavy casualties, and by this we can see that keeping the casualties low was not a part of Haig’s plan it was not a priority for him, the main priority was to win with no matter the casualties, so winning meant more for him than low casualties, if they could win the war two months earlier and by this causing doubling all the casualties I am sure that he would do it.
Source F supports this statement, source F is an extract from a book called ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War’ written by John Laffin, it says that Haig was as stubborn as a donkey and that what Haig wanted was to kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men, well he did spend a week bombarding the enemy trenches without noticing that the effect the bombardment was having was little but the waste of ammunition was greater, also having a double effect of this causing 20,000 men to die, but source F is an opinion ,one of the many opinions raised by Haig.
Even when people that supported Haig talked about him, they don’t support him for trying his hardest to end this war “right” with as low casualties as possible, they support him for ending the war, so in a way they are showing indirectly he was an ‘uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason’.
