This is where Coppard has the upper hand. He would have seen “hundreds of dead…strung out on the barbed wire like wreckage washed up on a high water mark.”
I also have doubts as to the truth behind the troops having “splendid spirits”. This is because he would have had someone to answer to and you wouldn’t go and tell them that everyone’s heads are dropped and worried about the fact that they could be shot at any point. As well as having someone else to answer to, you got the hopes of a nation on your shoulders and back in Britain, it was bad enough with people not wanting to fight without making matters worse by describing conditions in a negative way.
The main reason I am inclined to trust source C is the fact that Coppard was an eyewitness, and he says that the wire was, “so thick that daylight could barely be seen through it”.
- Study sources D and E.
These tow 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?
I think that both these sources would be useful to a Historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme. These sources give historians a feel for the atmosphere in and around camps, and the views troops held about their leaders.
Source E also suggests that Haig was never there getting his hands dirty or even making his presence felt and the source makes as aware if this. This propaganda shows us how the troops saw Haig – not a good general.
Take source D for example. The man on the right, in my view speaks on behalf of everyone involved in the war that thought it was not necessary to lose so many lives simply to as a result gain some land. Haig was making a “giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin”. This I plies two things in my opinion. Firstly, Haig was staying clear and sticking with his “drink cabinet” which people were annoyed with. And that I get the impression Haig seems to compare land with men and in order to gain land he will without hesitation sacrifice lives in order to do this.
The man on the right when he says, “‘Are we going to get killed?’ Yes” represents the feeling among the soldiers in the trenches, which is clearly a negative one. This tells us something about Haig because in source B, Haig is of the opinion that spirits are high. From this, I must once again assume that Haig had no idea what he was going on about.
I disagree with the statement because we can still use the feelings and opinions of people to form conclusions about Haig and the Battle of the Somme.
- Study sources F, G and H.
Do sources G and H prove that Source F is wrong?
At first, after reading the sources, I thought that that sources G and H proved source F wrong. Now I’m not so sure.
Source G for example is written by a Germans viewpoint and therefore will no doubt be somewhat biased. This is the case when the source suggests that Britain’s victory was due to the “Western Powers confidence” which grew after the Battle of the Somme whilst “the confidence of the German troops in victory was no longer as great as before.” Understandably, the source sees no fault in the Germans war effort.
In source H, we see a different view towards Haig. The general went so far as to say that “Haig was one of the main architects of the Allied victory.” Even with this source there is the possibility of the general being biased. He was not only English, but he was also a general just like Haig and because he had the same experience as Haig, he might be more lenient and not criticise him like everyone else seemed to do.
I also found source F to be bias in some way because it is an extract from a book, and his statement could just be publicity stunts that help sell his book. Words that are exaggerated like “appalling” and “slaughter” go to the extreme in criticising Haig.
All these sources are not only biased, but a matter of opinion. This is why I feel that sources G and H don’t prove that source F is wrong.
(e) Study sources I and J.
Why do you think that sources I and J differ about the Battle of the Somme?
Source I was written by Lloyd George at a time when Haig could have provided information about the current situation. This information wasn’t exactly reliable considering Haig stayed at least 40 miles away which meant he couldn’t have known too much, so he conveniently assumed that everything was going well.
In the 1930s when source J was written, their had been developments. Haig was dead and more sources and information would have been acquired providing more details of World War 1.
I therefore feel that sources I and J differ so much about the battle of Somme because of the death of Haig, affecting source J, and the more information and sources available by the 1930s, again affecting source J. This explains why Lloyd George’s feelings towards Haig changed.
- 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?
Source A leads me to believe that Haig was not the caring type, even though he might have just been trying to be frank when he explained how we must expect there to be deaths. This is because he doesn’t seem to express any emotions of regret or sympathy whilst explaining the situation as he sees it. In Haig’s eyes, victory can’t be enabled without “the sacrifice of men’s lives.”
At first, we see the possibility of Haig being caring and sensitive in source B when he claims, “the men are in splendid spirits” and “the commanders are full of confidence.” Studying this source however suggested this probably wasn’t the case, as it doesn’t really provide any clear-cut evidence.
Not only does source C suggest that Haig was uncaring, but it criticises him as well. This source led me to rule out any sort of reliability in source B because according to this eyewitness who wrote it, “hundreds of dead were strung out on the barbed wire” rather than the situation being that “the barbed wire has never been so well cut.”
Source D definitely show that Haig sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason (although Haig would say that it would be for a little plot of land!). The man on the right of the source speaks for a majority of people and what the felt about Haig. It wasn’t worth sacrificing lives of men in order to win land. This shows he was uncaring and inconsiderate if he thought it would be ok to send his men to their deaths to win land.
Source E, a form of propaganda, targeted Hiag’s appearance at the front line, or lack of it. In this situation, Haig is uncaring because he was sending men to their deaths but not knowing this because he was never there to learn otherwise.
Haig is seen to be “as stubborn as a donkey” and therefore uncaring in source F yet again. According to this source “if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men, then he would at some time win the war.” As the source states, this is “slaughter”. It seems that Haig had a ‘whatever you can do I can do better view’ using human lives at stake as his tools. You could say these lives of his men were like pieces on a chessboard.
Although source H praises Haig, saying that his troops had “complete confidence in the leadership of the Commander (Haig)” and that “they were inspired by his determination”. After reading all the previous sources, which all to an extent suggest Haig was uncaring, I feel that this is just ridiculous in the sense that it goes over the top with praise, the complete opposite of all the other sources and it may be biased because it was written by a English General.
I looked at sources I and J together because I saw them as a sort of before and after account whereby I can compare the two. Lloyd George in source I praised Haig because he was lead o believe that all was well in the frontline. However, in source J when Lloyd George had sources and accounts to study, he saw that he had been mislead and as a result changed his views towards Haig.
Almost all the sources in one way or another suggest that Haig was uncaring in one way or another. I think there are too many sources that back this view up to say otherwise.
