Source C was probably written around the time of the sixties. At this time public opinion of the generals was not very high. It was easy for the public to blame the generals for all that went wrong during the First World War. Private George Coppard tells us how the barbed wire was not cut properly to the pointy in which light could not shine through it. He describes how as many soldiers were dieing on the barbed wire as they were on the ground. The tone is almost mocking the preparations of the attack and does not have a good word to say about it. Although this seems to be a more truthful account of the offensive it is only truthful to the part of the line that he was fighting on. This does not give an accurate account of the whole line but it can tell us how bad it was in some places along the line. George Coppard could have been influenced by public opinion at the time, which would have swayed his opinions.
In conclusion I believe that Source C is probably more trustworthy than Source B because George Coppard was telling us his account years after the war and was not under government pressure to say certain things. Haig needed to produce good news for the public and I don’t believe that we can completely trust the information that is given.
Question c)
These two sources are not about Haig and the Battle of the Somme. How far do you agree that they have no use for an historian studying Haig and Battle of the Somme.
Both Sources D and E are for comedy purposes. Source D is a still from the TV series ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’ written by Ben Elton. It shows a left tenant and an officer discussing how that they are about to go over the top and the officer says that they are all going to be killed for the sake of Haig moving his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin. Source E is a cartoon from a British magazine published in February 1917. It shows a major general addressing his men before practising an attack behind the lines. It shows the sergeant major saying hoe the major general is never there in the real thing. It is a Mickey take and is depicting the public view of the generals at the time.
Source D, in my opinion, is very useful for an historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme because it shows what the public felt at the time and shows us the reputation that Haig had. Source D shows a very varied opinion between officers and left tenants, showing the left tenants to be unaware of what’s going to happen to them when they go over the line. It shows the Generals to know what is going to happen but they still wouldn’t do anything about it. This Source is a completely one-sided opinion and shows the public myth of the First World War. It says that the whole Somme campaign was almost a waste of time and it also gives a very naïve and cynical opinion.
Source E is again for comedy purposes however it does show some very true points about the pubic opinion of Haig and the Somme Offensive. The difference with this one is hat it is published very soon after the Somme and is extremely controversial. Not many people would say this at the time due to the government and reputations of the generals. It shows the generals to be lazy and that they don’t really care much about there men. The cartoon, although it never mentions any names, is quite obviously mocking general Haig. We can tell this because of the drawings that depict Haig. It also shows the Generals dressed in fine clothes and shiny boots whereas the soldiers look tatty and worn out. It is saying how the generals were not present at the actual attack and is trying to complain about it. At the time of this cartoon morale was starting to drop ad it shows an underlying unsatisfactory towards the generals at that time.
In conclusion I think that to a certain extent, these two sources are useful to somebody studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme. It is very useful if they are studying public opinion and reputations but if they are studying historical facts then these would nit be very useful at all.
Question d)
Do Sources G and H prove that Source F is wrong?
Source F is written by an historian called Laffin and is from the book ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War’. It is a completely one sided, tunnel visioned view of Haig from somebody who comes across as ignorant and stubborn. Laffin seems as though he is unable to weigh up both sides of the argument but instead he takes one side and throws insults left right and centre. If Laffin was one of many well-known historians who had such an extreme view of Haig then people may take him seriously. In a way it almost seems as though he has such a strong opinion so that he gets himself noticed and gets paid to have his name in a book. I am completely against this source because I feel that he has not looked properly at both sides of the argument. There is some truth in the source but Laffin has not approached it in the correct way.
Source G is from the ‘German Official History of the First World War’, published in the 1930’s. This is a German source and is very useful to have as it shows us what the enemies thought was regarding the Battle if the Somme. The source is very open minded although it was written by the government so it is probably quite biased. It says how the offensive did not gain any strategic benefits yet its consequences were great. It says how it gave the Western powers confidence and how their armies had accomplished an achievement that gave great promise for the future. The source says how most of the German armies greatest officers and men had died and that they had been replaced with untrained men. Does this in itself not prove that Laffin was wrong by saying that the Battle of the Somme was a waste? If most of the Germans best were killed then that is an achievement, so already we are seeing that Laffin is being proved wrong.
Source H is written by a British general in 1973 who fought in both wars and is almost the complete opposite to Source F. He says how good Haig was and how he managed to keep himself and the British army together and to keep morale high. He praises Haigs determination and will to win. He describes Haig like a pillar holding the British armies morale and determination high. This was written in 1973 which tells us that there was no pressures on the general to right any paricular things about Haig. At the time, in fact, it would probably have been more fashionable to slate Haig instead of praise him. I believe that this bloke generally did believe that Haig was a major part of winning the war for the allies and he tells us how much he and the rest of the British army believed in their commander. This source is, in my opinion, very trustworthy and holds a lot of truth.
In conclusion I would say that sources G and H do prove source F to be wrong in certain places. However, I believe that all three sources hold their own important facts and could all be very useful in somebody studying the Haig. Every historian will have a different view of Haig and each one should certainly be taken into account (even Laffin!).
Question e)
Why Do You Think That Sources I and J Differ about the Battle of the Somme?
Source I was written by Lloyd George who was writing to Haig on 21st of September 1916 after visiting the Somme battlefield. In this source Lloyd George is congratulating Haig on how well the plans for the Offensive have been laid. This source is quite trustworthy because it was written by the Prime Minister at that time. He says how he thinks that the war is now in Britain’s favour. This is almost a blessing to Haig from Lloyd George that he is ready for the huge losses and the trouble it will bring.
Source J is also written by Lloyd George yet it shows a completely different view of Haig and his views on the battle of the Somme. It is written in the 1930’s, a time when Haig was not very much liked throughout Britain. It s written for the public and was pretty negative. There was very strong anti war feelings in the 1930’s and Lloyd George wanted the public to think that he was on their side as he was very worried about his reputation at the time. This source does go against almost everything that Lloyd George said in source I and makes us see Lloyd as quite a two faced man who is trying to please everyone.
These sources are affected by many different things. Public opinions of the war at the time at both of them were written because due to Lloyd George being Prime Minister he wanted to try and get everyone on his side so most of the time he was just saying what the public wanted to hear, like many politicians still do today. Lloyd George was popular during the war and she wanted to keep his popularity after his run as prime minister and so he tried to do by telling the people exactly what they wanted to hear.
Question f)
‘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 seems as though it is trying to prepare the nation for the losses it is going to bear or maybe it is trying to explain the losses from the battle of the Somme. I would not say that Source A says that Haig did not care about his soldiers lives, he is just trying prepare the nation for necessary casualties in war. He is trying to say however well prepared your soldiers are and how nothing the army can do can stop people dieing inn the war. This shows that Haig did care about his soldiers but was aware that he had to bear losses to win the war.
Source B says how well the preparations are for the first day of the attack. With hindsight we can see just how untrue this source is, but did Haig know this? Haig could have been given false information by the people working under him due to fear or maybe pressure to produce good news. The second part again tells how well the first day went yet it is, in my opinion, untrustworthy. Even it is untrustworthy it is still useful because it shows us just how little Haig new about the offensive. I believe that his source B shows how ill informed Haig was about the casualties and how he doesn’t know the full scale to which his soldiers were killed. I f he didn’t know how many were killed then he would not realise what he was doing.
Source C was probably written around the time of the sixties. At this time public opinion of the generals was not very high. It was easy for the public to blame the generals for all that went wrong during the First World War. Private George Coppard tells us how the barbed wire was not cut properly to the pointy in which light could not shine through it. He describes how as many soldiers were dieing on the barbed wire as they were on the ground. The tone is almost mocking the preparations of the attack and does not have a good word to say about it. Although this seems to be a more truthful account of the offensive it is only truthful to the part of the line that he was fighting on. This does not give an accurate account of the whole line but it can tell us how bad it was in some places along the line. George Coppard could have been influenced by public opinion at the time, which would have swayed his opinions. This source tells us that in some parts of the line there were heavy losses and many soldiers were being killed however it is only true to one part of the line.
In conclusion I believe that Haig did care about his soldiers however he was not given the right information by the people working under him and was seen as an easy scapegoat for the public
