How useful are sources A, B and C to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders during the First World War? Use sources A to C and knowledge from your studies in your answer.

History Coursework

How useful are sources A, B and C to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders during the First World War? Use sources A to C and knowledge from your studies in your answer.

Source A shows a cartoon, which represents a view of soldiers’ attitudes towards their general. It is a cartoon from the First World War period, which means it is a primary source. It was published by the British magazine ‘Punch’ which was around during the First World War. After some research I found out that the ‘Punch’ magazine was known to be satirical and a humorous magazine which was influenced heavily by the use of cartoons. The cartoons put a strong viewpoint across of how some people felt, even though the publishers used humour to put across their ideas to the reader. I think the cartoons must have been some what useful to historians studying them, as they put across ideas of some people. The source shows a Major General addressing his men, the caption beneath the cartoon is showing in a humorous way what the soldier actually thinks about the General. I think the soldier in the cartoon thinks of the General as being cowardly as he never comes to the front line during the war. Prior to the knowledge that I have gathered I learnt that Generals did not in fact go to the front line and that they gave orders which were passed down the ranks until they reached the front line. This is similar to the view which the cartoonist is portraying; the cartoonist is showing how the Generals were more in to there own well being and did not care about the soldiers. I think this source is slightly biased as it is critical of the leadership qualities which the Generals possessed. It is conscious biased as it is deliberately done to show the feelings of the soldiers to the public. This source being biased discredits the usefulness of it. As it will show historians mainly a one sided view. However by researching into Field Marshal Haig, I found out that he did not visit the front lines during conflict. This cartoon to a certain extent shows the truth.

Source B is a TV show which was broadcasted during the 90’s. The source is secondary. This source is very similar to source A in that it uses the same ideas but uses humour to show it to the audience. I think this source would be heavily exaggerated in order for to be funny, I believe the source is conscious biased as the producers have picked up some faults during the first world war and exaggerated them in order to make these faults (incidents) amusing. The source is showing a sarcastic view towards the Generals orders. The captain brands the General as General ‘insanity’ showing that the soldiers thought of the General as being in the wrong state of mind; it also shows how the soldiers thought of his orders as been unintelligent. I think that this source would not be very useful to an historian studying the attitudes of the British soldiers to there commanders during the First World War, I believe this as this is a heavily biased programme. It has some factual information but has been presented in a humorous way; I don’t think this is an ideal source for an historian. I think some of the soldiers feelings have been embellished so that the programme is funny.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source C is written by Earl Haig, the son of Field Marshal Haig it was published in a newspaper in 1998, this is a secondary source. This source is contradicting the other to sources. This source however is written in amore serious way where as the other two sources were written to be humorous. In this source the son of Field Marshal Haig is disputing that his father has been portrayed wrongly by many people. This source is likely to be conscious biased as it General Haig’s son which is evidently being honourable to his father by stating his qualities. This source could be very inaccurate and therefore not very useful for a historian. Sources A and C show a similar view of generals being careless. However source C is totally contradicting the other to sources by showing that General Haig was a decent commander. After some research I can state that all three sources have a hint of biased in them, so it would not be right for an historian to use them as they are not that useful. However an historian could show the different views on the General by using these sources.

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 knowledge to explain your answer.

At the beginning of World War One in 1914, Haig commanded the first Army Corps. As the war commenced he was promoted to Commander in Chief of the British Forces. Under Haig the British forces suffered massive losses in the battle of the Somme. Historians studying Field Marshal Haig are at odds about his role in the war. Many argue that his tactics led to the deaths of far more men than was absolutely necessary whilst others point to the pressure he was placed under by the French and British politicians. On the one hand losses in the major campaigns on the Somme and at Passchendale were higher than ever experienced in warfare – 60,000 casualties on the opening day of the battle of the Somme. The battle of the Somme was one of the most bloody of the First World War; more British soldiers had been killed than in any other battle before it. It earned Haig the title 'Butcher of the Somme', after he unnecessarily sent thousands of British troops to their deaths.

Source C is written by Earl Haig, the son of Field Marshal Haig it was published in a newspaper in 1998, this is a secondary source. The source is telling us what the son of Field Marshal Haig thought of him, he thinks of his father as being a ‘great man’ and should be given credit for the job he did and the victories he achieved during the First World War. The source is likely to be biased as he is the son and he will do anything to make his father seem honourable and a respected man and so it may be quite inaccurate and thus making it insufficient evidence. The source does however share the same view as John Keegan’s interpretation. More sources need to be analysed before I can conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support John Keegan’s interpretation.

Source D shows a poster which is been edited to mock Haig. The original poster which was famous had the caption “Your country needs you”, here the words have been slightly been twisted to ridicule Haig. The title on this poster says “Your country needs me,” below this title there is a small caption which state ‘Like a hole in the head – Which is what most of you are going to get’. The publisher is basically putting the point across, that Haig is uncaring and is willing to suffer huge losses in order to be victorious. This source clearly contradicts the interpretation of John Keegan as it is mocking Haig. Where as John Keegan was complimenting his efficiency and skills. Prior to my research I found out that Haig was a highly skilled soldier but I have doubts on his efficiency and skills when I found out the huge losses of life occurred in the Battle of the Somme.

Source E are Haig’s memoirs which he wrote at the time of the Battle of the Somme. The first section tells us that Haig wanted the nation to bear losses in order for them to be victorious, he later tells how no amount of skill, no training, no superiority of arms and ammunition can win battles. He then concludes the passage by saying victories will come with the sacrifice of life. In the second passage he says that the men are highly spirited, however my research tells me that Haig did not visit the front line very much so I don’t think that was the right statement. The third section follows on from the previous section as he talks about the soldiers being spirited and full of confidence. According the knowledge I acquired while researching on Haig I found out he did not visit the front line too much. The soldiers weren’t that fond of him they had there own opinions on him the majority did not agree with his ways. This source is likely to be biased as it is written by Haig himself and he would not criticise himself. This source agrees with Keegan’s interpretation, but there is not sufficient evidence in this source to suggest the interpretation is true, as it was written by Haig himself.

Source F is written by a historian who has stated many of the points that I had researched about Haig and his character. Therefore making this source reliable and unbiased. It is unbiased as the historian has also shown some of Haig’s qualities, for example when he points out how ambitious and confident he was. He also states that Haig was highly religious and believed he had been chosen by God to lead his country, the historian also outlines that his inability to recognise defeat led his persistent attacks. This contradicts the interpretation of Keegan however the historian does outline some qualities. Even though this source is the most reliable yet I still think that there is not enough sufficient evidence to support Keegan’s interpretation.

Source G shows war memoirs written by David Lloyd George the Prime Minister, he writes and tells us that Lloyd George thought of Haig as being cowardly, and that he is willing to let millions to die rather than admit his mistakes. This source agrees with my research; however I found that Lloyd George did like Haig and this is seen in this source as he is highly critical of him. This source is likely to have a hint biased in it as Lloyd George did not like Haig. This doesn’t agree with the interpretation of Keegan.

Source H is from the official biography of Hiag, which meant that a lot of extensive research would have been done and this means that this is likely to be quite a valid interpretation with real evidence. The source says that if they had stopped fighting, Verdun would have gone and so would have the French alliance and this would have been the case had they stopped fighting, and so Britain would not have won the war, and so this source does show sufficient evidence to show that Keegan's interpretation was correct.

Source J is the Germans opinion and they also agree with the interpretation because they claim that it was their persistence in attacks, which beat them, and this was the case and there is evidence that if the allies had not continued to attack, the course of the war would have turned in favour of the Germans. This is a reliable and unbiased source as it was written by the Germans, the enemies at the time of World War One, they seem to give a reliable account as they don’t criticise anyone.

Source K is written for a GCSE textbook and is therefore not likely to be biased in any way and is likely to give solid sound interpretations.

Source K believes that the blame cannot be all put on Haig as he was ultimately victorious which is the part, which agrees with the interpretation. But, this source shows the other side as well and that he did make the mistakes, which killed thousands. I believe that this is a very reliable and unbiased account.

To conclude the essay, I must state that overall there was not enough sufficient evidence in the sources to agree with Keegan’s interpretation. The majority of the sources which I analysed were highly critical of Haig and his character. This is understandable as he did make mistakes and the losses of life were immense. However the sources analysed were mostly opinions, thus making the sources biased towards or against Haig.

I believe that the interpretation of Keegan was too inflated and that Field Marshal Haig did make many mistakes leading to many soldiers death. However it was his persistence that one the battles but as a result huge losses of life were encountered.

By Harvinder Singh Daurka (11T)

Mr Thompson