Qs 2: Evaluation of an interpretation for sufficiency.
John Keegan, a modern 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 knowledge to explain your answer.
From Source C we cannot gain sufficient evidence to say that Field Marshall Haig was an efficient war leader, as the whole account is his son’s perception, of how he felt the soldiers he interviewed viewed his father. We are also informed that until recently Haig was scrutinised as being ‘a callous and uncaring man’. Hence this source does not support the interpretation of Haig as an ‘efficient and highly skilled soldier’ seeing that it was quoted by his son and is ultimately biased on the subject.
Source D is once again a difficult source to make a realistic conclusion from, as we are not informed whether Haig’s supporters produced this poster or if it was just another sarcastic commercial view? Other than a sentence, which says that this source was from ‘General Haig’s private war’ but doesn’t say who made it. Another limitation to the source’s justification is the lack of a date, to inform us when this poster was actually made. Moreover through this source we are able to maintain the evidence that Haig was not an efficient war leader, as he appears to be threatening the readers with comments such as, ‘…like a hole in the head- which is what most of you are going to get’. This source signifies that Haig felt he had to be aggressive to get his word across.
Source E is made up of three different accounts written by Haig on the Battle of Somme and trench warfare. According to the dates which are given for each account, they were written around the first days of the battle, however since these accounts were said to be written by Haig himself, we do not know if they were altered after the date they were said to be written at. From his accounts I have reasons to believe that Haig was not an efficient leader as he is already pre-empting on meeting heavy casualty/death lists before the battle. If he were confident in his battle strategies he would not make these presumptions. In addition through my research into the Battle of the Somme I found out that Haig had initially decided to attack the Germans at Somme for political reason not military ones. He was also out of touch with the war on the front-line as he believed the barbed wire was being cut, when it actually was getting worse.
Source F written by modern historian, Anthony Livesey and published in ‘Great Battles of World War 1’ in 1989, informs us that Haig had all the right ingredients of a great strategic war leader, but had an inability to recognising defeat. This was reinforced through his belief that he had been chosen by God to serve his country and the continuing attacks on the Battle of Somme and Passchendaele, which evidently cost the lives of thousands. This evidence proves that Haig had weaknesses as an efficient war leader.
Source G is an extract from Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s war memoirs, which were published at no given date after the war. In it he informs us of the doubt he had in Field Marshall Haig as an efficient war leader. The evidence given to suggest that Haig was appalling leader is Lloyd George’s comment on the ‘individuals who would rather the million perish then that they as a leader should admit – even to themselves – that they were blunderers…’ and that he should of resigned than allow those brave men be ‘slaughtered’ to uphold Haig’s foolish persistence of not facing defeat. This evidence clearly suggests that Lloyd George did not view Haig as the efficient war leader and objected to his strategies.
This next source comes from the official biography of Haig written by Duff Cooper, who was asked by Haig’s family to write this and consequently the source is probably biased. This source implies that Haig had no choice but to fight the Germans at Somme, as it would have meant abandonment of Verdun and breakdown of co-operation with the French. Hence this does agree with research I made on the battle and that Haig chose to fight at Somme for political on military reasons which is not what an efficient leader would do.
Source J is an extract from The Times newspaper, from 10th May 1917 and was initially taken from a German newspaper dedicated to Field Marshall Haig. This source includes the important requirements to label this source as being reliable with dates and names of publishers. However this source is not very useful in declaring Haig as an inefficient leader as the only statement to support this is that of how the Germans do not believe he is ‘equal’ to the German art of defence.
An article written by S.Warburton, published in ‘Hindsight: GCSE Modern review’, in April 1998, would be reliable as it backed up with names and dates and appears to written from an unbiased view. One mistake Warburton picked up on Haig as an inefficient war leader, was the numerous mistakes he made at the Battle of Somme to contribute to half a million allied casualties.
Source L is rather different to the others as it made up of a collective of inputs from various historians on a BBC ‘Timewatch ‘episode on Haig. Throughout the video there is a focus on two main historians whose inputs on Haig is much debated. There is Dr. Laffin who we find out does not like Haig and a Dr. Sheffield who agrees with S.Warburton from source K that Haig was a product of his time. Subsequently, through Dr. Laffin we are made aware of Haig’s inefficiency as a war leader, often regarding to Haig as having no comprehension of what he was sending his men into. The fact that it took the lives of hundreds of thousands, for him to realise he was doing a bad job. Laffin conveniently refers to Haig as ‘unthinking as a donkey’ and makes a bold statement as to whether the people in 1918 where cheering for Haig as a good leader or for the end of the war, on a featured parade from the time.
Referring back to Source C, which is not very reliable in regarding Haig as an efficient war leader as it is a biased account. Nevertheless his son does tap into some truth on how modern revisionist historians are now coming to the view that Haig’s tactics were the results of how he saw wars were fought at the time and ultimately they brought an end and victory to a long war. Meaning that Haig was an efficient war leader for his time.
Source D is not very useful in providing us with much evidence to suggest that Haig was an efficient leader as it is a poster with minimal writing. One perception of the poster could be that Haig appears to be a strong, in control leader and have authority over others. This view portrays Haig as an efficient and powerful leader.
The three accounts in Source E written by Haig, you could say present Haig as not having a clue of what was happening at the front line. On the contrary I have found evidence through my research on the Somme and the soldiers attitudes towards their leaders, that Haig was more often fed misguided information on the successes of the battles and the soldiers views regarding him as an efficient leader. Evidence to this would be when Haig states that ‘the barb wire had never been so well cut’, whereas we know that most of the barbwire has just entangled even further. This would imply that the battles failure wasn’t entirely down to Haig’s bad leadership, but the misinformation he was been fed by his ‘YES’ men.
This next source informs us that Haig was an able, shrewd leader with ambitions and great self-control. As much as this builds up praise for Haig as a good leader there isn’t enough evidence to suggest Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier, using this source.
Source G which is made up of an extract from PM Lloyd George’s memoirs, give evidence that Haig was an efficient war leader as Lloyd George writes to facilitate Haig promised to end his pursuits of attacking if it became clear that he could not obtain his objectives. Thus saving thousands of lives.
This next source which comes from a biography extract, was written upon the request of Haig’s family on Haig is probably biased as it was written to fulfil the family’s intention on how he should be viewed.
As to whether Haig was an ‘efficient soldier’ of the war, in my extensive on Haig I overcame passage on where it was said that Haig was not usually responsible for the infantry’s approach to the trench warfare. But Haig’s second in command, Sir Henry Rawlinson. Rawlinson as it reads was the one who gave orders for the infantry soldiers to walk shoulder in shoulder to the enemy, hoping that success would work upon a ‘wave principle’ of men which he had strategise upon in the Battle of the Somme. This evidence proves that was an efficient war leader but took blame for others mistakes that influenced his final decisions.
Source J an article extract from a German newspaper speaks in favour of Haig as an able leader and recognises him as ‘the best man Great Britain has at present to set against her enemies’. However there is a sense of humour as the article reads, ‘like the majority of able Britons, he is of Scottish decent’ and undermines Britain’s best being no match to the Germans.
This source is reliable as it provides dates and name to confirm it reliability status.
Source K, S.Warburton’s article speaks in favour of Haig as an efficient and highly skilled war leader for putting an end to a failing British war campaign. His views as a modern revisionist who concludes that Haig’s efforts were just the ‘product of his time, upbringing, education, training and previous military experience’. Arguing that he was ultimately victorious for bringing the war to an end and that at the time there wasn’t anyone better to do the job. He also defends Haig as an efficient war leader, referring to a statement made by a German officer condemning the Somme as, ‘the muddy grave of the German army’. This implies that the Somme wasn’t just a British battle failure from which they suffered huge loses but their enemies were affected just as inadequately.
Source L provides with an inside into the efficiency of Haig as war leader through Dr Sheffield who presents us with evidence in the video that Haig was often given poor intelligence on the German advancements and was often made to believe he was doing well/winning at the battles. We are informed that he did eventually learn from his mistakes on how to combine the usage of artillery, tanks and the infantry. Moreover many viewed the fact that this would be a war of attrition and not over in 6 months as it was assumed.
Through the Sources C to L I believe there is sufficient evidence to support John Keegan’s interpretation that Haig was an ‘efficient and highly skilled soldier, who did much to lead Britain to victory in World War 1’. Within each source there is evidence that Haig did make mistakes which thousands of lives, however he did subsequently learn from them and through persistence achieve victory. I do nevertheless, do not believe that Haig was a great leader but an efficient leader who was the product of his time and did evidently bring the war to an end, the only way he knew. As he was the only leader from either side to still be the Commander in Chief from 1916 to 1918, he was thought as the one who learned from mistakes and brought the war to an end.
