Rowan Atkinson is really exaggerating how little ground had been gained and does not mention whether the particular battle they were in had any other objectives (such as in the 3rd battle of Ypres; one of the objectives being to relieve pressure on the French. The series is set in a trench in Flanders so it is quite possible that the battle had other objectives). This source differs from Source A in the way that it was the sergeant major that was being negative about generals rather than a low level solider. It is very hard to tell whether this source is biased or not because we do not know where the producers of the show got their information or whether they were trying to provide a biased view. However the writers were well educated and it is very probable they did lots of research.
Source C is biased not because it was written by Haig’s son (however I'm sure that is part of the reason for his view) but because it does not refer to any hard evidence for the reasons it puts forward, it is an opinion rather than a view. However it does have some use to a historian because the author talks about how some of the older soldiers never said a bad word about Haig. On the other hand I believe this should be treated with scepticism due to the bias of the excerpt in the first paragraph. I would say this source is biased and thus of very little use to a historian studying soldiers views of Haig.
John Keegan, a modern military historian, suggests that Haig was an ‘efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War’
Is there sufficient Evidence in Sources C to L to support this interpretation? Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
Sources C, F, H, K, J and L have some evidence within them to support that Haig was highly skilled and an efficient soldier.
Source C agrees that Haig brought the war to an end – “. . . and the victories he achieved in the First World War which brought the war to an end.” However there is no evidence to support that Haig was a highly efficient soldier, the source does not go into depth regarding that which leads us to question the bias of the source. It’s written by Haig’s son so most probably is biased towards Haig. The source doesn’t offer any evidence to support the claims and makes this no more than an opinion.
Source F is very negative towards Haig as a person however mentions that he had great self-confidence and that he did not know when to recognized defeat. This could be seen in 2 views. 1 that he was wrong and should of stopped fighting, and the other being that if he had stopped; co-operation with the French would have broken down (source H refers to this and hence implies that Haig was not wrong to carry on fighting) and allowed Germany to win the war. This inability to recognise defeat resulted in Britain prevailing over Germany due to the sustained fighting in my opinion.
Source J is a tribute to Haig by the Germans, They certainly agree Haig was a good soldier – “Haig is certainly one of the ablest generals of contemporary England . . . There is very strict discipline under his command. He is a serious and persistent worker.”
There is not much evidence to support that Haig ultimately brought the war to an end but most of the sources that suggest he was a highly skilled and efficient soldiers imply that this lead Britain to victory. Source K mentions “One argument goes that he was, ultimately, victorious and; even if he had been replaced, would there have been anyone better for the job”. Although I don’t think the author of this source is entirely supporting that argument he is trying to provide a balanced argument because it is from a GCSE textbook and hence is very unlikely to be biased. Source K also has evidence to support that Haig was a highly efficient soldier – “Even on the Somme a German officer called the battlefield ‘the muddy grave of the German army. This was the same battle in which Haig's numerous mistakes contributed to the half a million casualties suffered by the Allies.” This implies that Haig even with mistakes could command an army to victory.
Estimated final Casualties:
The main objectives of the Somme were to gain territory, keep pressure of the French in Verdun and to kill as many Germans as possible. 2/3rds of these objectives were completed which leads us to suggest that Haig was a very talented and efficient soldier.
Sources D, E and G are very negative towards Haig.
Source D is from a secondary source (General Haig’s Private War). The pictures satirises the famous poster of Kitchener. This is very anti-Haig and probably from the 60s when the hatred for Haig has reached its pinnacle however it could have also come from a trench magazine produced by soldiers. Not knowing where it came from makes it very hard to judge whose opinion it is and thus renders it fairly obsolete.
From my own knowledge I know that communication between Haig and the officers in the Battle of the Somme was very poor. This is because the officers were keen to please Haig and then twisted the truth trying to make things sound better than they were.(Source E) “The men are in splendid spirits. Several have said that they have never been so instructed and informed of the operation before them” Written by Haig on the 30th June. The other entries are just as inaccurate as this one. This would suggest Haig was not well informed and thus not an efficient and highly skilled soldier.
Source G was written by Lloyd George. It has been known that he would go back and edit his diary to make himself look better by rationalising his entries in retrospect, this leads us to question whether the source is biased. Lloyd George implies that he told Haig not to carry on if he thought he could not attain his objectives by continuing the offensive and thus is criticising him for not stopping.
Source L (Haig: BBC TV ‘Timewatch’) Provides us with 2 sides to the argument. Haig over-used tactics so the Germans always knew what was coming before an attack (e.g. heavy artillery) However one could argue that Haig was quite versatile and was happy to let experts do what they needed to do and he did use tanks and realised how powerful artillery was and used them to his advantage.
Haig didn’t stay anywhere near the frontline which leads one to question how could he order his men to go to fight if he didn’t know about any complication. On the other hand if he had died on the front line he would of been no use.
John Laffin believes that Haig’s mindset of the war being one of attrition was an appalling tactic, yet others would argue that it was the only way to win the war.
In my opinion I think that Haig was not a perfect general, He did not find out what was happening on the frontline which clouded his judgement, nevertheless He did lead the British to victory which in my opinion suggests that he was a highly skilled and efficient soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory. At the time there was no one who could have done better than him, perhaps he was the best of a bad bunch yet he still brought Britain to victory.
