C. Both sources D and E are comical references to Haig and or the Somme and I agree in some ways that they don’t really have much use to a historian studying the battle of the Somme but disagree in other ways. One of the reasons I agree is because in Source D it describes how Haig’s decided that their going to go over the top, then it leads to the other man saying 'you mean are we going to get killed? yes'. To me this source doesn’t really have much use to a historian studying the battle of the Somme, as it doesn’t have any details into the artillery fire, the barbed wire etc. just the simple fact that Haig decides that he’s going to send the troops over the top. However in some ways a historian could get some information from it as it shows how willing Haig is to sacrifice lives of his men when it says how 'Haig is about to make yet another effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Britain'. From my own knowledge I know that Haig, instead of being on the frontline with the troops he was in some chateau away from the battle in which he probably had a drinks cabinet as in a hotel, so this can be saying that by sending the men over the top and gaining some land then he could maybe move to a closer chateau. This extract could also be taken to describe how Haig might have acted as a drunken person would have in deciding to send the men over the top for nothing. However, there is some use in the source as it is from a click from a T.V. program, for the program the would have done some research into the battle of the Somme so that information used in it, although comical and may be exaggerated, are actually based on truth. Source E is a comic sketch drawn, it shows how a general (that looks identical to Haig) is asking a Sergeant major the difference between a practice and the real war, and the Sergeant major replies saying how in the real war there’s 'The absence of a general'. At first glance I thought that this source had only two uses, and that was that Haig was not present at the frontline of the war and that they had practices/rehearsals. Then from looking at it again and using my own knowledge I noticed some more useful information. From looking closer at the sketch I noticed that the soldiers lined up all had little lines poking up above their heads, which from using my own knowledge I realised that this helped to prove that Haig gave them the wire cutters on the ends of their rifles-this information would be useful to a historian. Also I noticed their backpacks, which with using my own knowledge I found that these backpacks weighed around 60pounds and the men were expected to run with them, not only this but they were full of useless stuff such as tents etc. again this information is useful to a historian. However what made me think that they probably weren’t all that useful sources was because they both have a comical factor to them and though they have sense in them; can they be taken seriously because they are jokes? So I’m still split as to whether I agree or disagree with whether these sources are useful to a historian studying the battle of the Somme and Haig as although I’ve found that both sources have quite a bit of information in them that can be useful to them they are4 still both comical.
D. I think that sources G and H do prove that source F is wrong. I think this because source G was from official German history and I doubt that the Germans would lie about why they lost the war. Also source F is from the book ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of War’
Which meant the author of the book could be saying those things about Haig on purpose to match the title of the book. Source F describes Haig’s strategy which was ‘if he would kill more German than the Germans could kill his men, then he would at some time win the war.’ The book related to this as an appalling strategy but the other sources have praised this strategy because one of the sources have said how Haig’s move had killed the more experienced and reliable officers and put young soldiers whose training was poor into the battle which lead to heavy losses on the German side. This strategy proved itself again in another source because the source describes how the British hammering had lead to the German spirit of resistance being broken. This source also describes how the soldiers ‘were inspired by his determination, for he never wavered from his purpose of breaking down the powers of resistance of the enemy, both morally and physically.’ This showed that Haig’s strategy of keeping his men out there and fighting lead to the demise of the German army and he also had the faith of his soldiers which showed they agreed with his tactics. Source F also describes how Haig ‘knew he had no chance of a breakthrough but still sent men to their deaths.’
But in the other two sources it describes how by sending his men out to supposed ‘slaughter’ he destroyed German spirits, killed their experienced officers and he did breakthrough their defence in the end. Haig was described as ‘stubborn as a donkey’ in source F but in source H it showed how this stubbornness made sure he never wavered from his purpose of breaking down the powers of resistance of the enemy, both morally and physically and this might have been to what lead to Haig winning the battle of the Somme. Also if Haig did not have the determination to stick with his strategy in the Somme battles of 1916, French resistance whould have crumbled. This makes Haig one of the main architects of the allied victory. But in some ways you will have to agree with Source F because many men did die in the battle of the Somme and many lives could have been spared by Haig using better tactics than he did. But in the end sources G and H do prove source F wrong because in every comment which criticised Haig in Source F there was a comment in both of the other source which retaliated and gave an explanation to why Haig had done that which proves that Source F is wrong.
E. Source I is a comment said by Lloyd George writing to Haig on 21 September 1916 and Source J is written by Lloyd George in the 1930’s these two sources differ greatly and it could be for a number of different reasons. One of the reasons is the time gap, Lloyd George would have had time to reflect by 1930 and his words were most probably more wise than the words in 1916. The Source might also have differed because in 1916 positive words were needed and any negative thoughts would not do all to well for the British army or for Haig. So by 1930 Lloyd George was free to express his true feelings about the attack on the Somme. Also during the 1916 passage Lloyd George could not speak about the numbers that were lost and the casualties because he was secretary of war at that time and if he had done something wrong he would get sacked by the government even though it may not be his fault. For example he couldn’t talk about the numbers that were dead because the government were sure to blame that on him and not Haig but by 1930 he was free to express that even though the Somme had killed the ‘Old German army by killing it’s best officers and men’. It had killed far more of the British best which was more of a loss than a gain. During 1916 and at that time Lloyd George also didn’t know what was going to happen the days after that and the day he sent that letter he had no idea about what was going to happen the next day or the day after that. But in 1930 Lloyd George could have looked over the whole war and seen that just because that day might have been good the campaign on a whole was a disaster. So the two sources differ because of Lloyd George’s position and occupation he was in at the time which varied the way he felt about Haig and the Somme.’
F. All these sources vary on their opinions of Haig and some see him as an uncaring general while others see him as the face of pride and determination. Source A shows that Haig did not care much about his troops and he seemed to make out as if he wanted the people to die to make sure he won the war. He says ‘How the nation must be taught to bear losses’ which gave the impression that he was a heartless soul and throughout the passage he does not give an ounce of sympathy towards the future victims or their families. Source B also shows that Haig was an uncaring General because he describes how the first attack ‘All went like clockwork.’ When actually the first day was a disaster and many men died. This showed that Hague was not in touch with his ground troops and he was never at the frontline of the battle so he could never see what was really happening. Source C also agrees that Hague was an uncaring General that sacrificed lives because from an interview Private General Coppard describes how ‘Hundreds of dead were strung out of the barbed wire like wreckage washed up on the high water mark’. This gave the impression that Haig was simply sending men to their deaths and it was a lost cause trying to get through a German line so thickly reinforced with barbed wire, even though not all what Private Coppard may have said was true, the gist of the atmosphere is there. Even though the Black adder extract is comical it still has a sense of truth in it about Haig’s uncaring ways. When the soldier replies to a question asked about going over the top of the trench into war he says ‘You mean are we all going to get killed? Yes’. And that is what exactly happened to many soldiers and he relates to Haig’s move as ‘another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Britain’. In the giant effort he is relating to the giant effort as the mass of people who died and he said his drinks cabinet because the move could be thought of by some people as a move that only a drunken person could make. This showed that he was out of tune with his soldiers and he had no idea of what was going on down there so it lead to lives being lost. The other comical reference In Source E which was a joke about Haig saying how the General is always absent in a real war related to Haig not going to the frontline and thus by doing that he might not have thought about the tactics which might have served him better at the time, which could have saved him many lives.
The criticism continues in source F with Haig being labelled ‘As stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey’. His strategy about if more Germans die than British he had won the battle. This can be thought of as an appalling strategy because it clearly showed that Haig was just willing to throw lives away to win and no matter the numbers that were lost winning was what counted but by winning the battle of the Somme it did not give any real boost to Britain it actually just started as a sign that the British were helping. So Haig was willing to destroy all those lives just to show the French that the British were helping and that fits the model of an uncaring General who sacrificed lives. Lloyd George also criticised Haig’s strategies about cavalry riding through in ‘front bristling for miles with barbed wire and machine guns.’ This showed that Haig would rather sacrifice yet even more lives with cavalry which was quite a stupid idea considering the barbed wire and machine guns, and he did this just to stick to old traditions and maybe to get victory with style and finesse instead of worrying more about the lives of men which meant significantly more. But in other sources such as sources G and H it shows Haig as a face of determination and Iron. In the sources they describe how the soldiers had full faith in the leadership of Haig and they were inspired by his determination. This leads to conclusion that if Haig was not so determined maybe even the battle of the Somme might not have been one. This also shows that even though Haig was sending out his soldiers to certain death his soldiers most probably knew about it and they were willing to put there lives on the line for their country so it might be as much the soldiers fault as it is Haigs. But Haig still had no right to do that to his troops and more sources support the view that he is an uncaring general who sacrificed lives and these sources support that view to as far as the view reaches.