How useful are sources A, B and C to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanding officers during the First World War? Use sources A, B and C and your own knowledge.

                     

Source A is cartoon that was produced in 1916 and found its way into the magazine “Punch”. The message coming from this source is that soldiers thought their commanding officers should have come and seen the conditions that they were forced to live in. This source is very truthful in the way that soldiers thought commanding officers should have experience the frontline conditions, however this source does have some limitations such as it is a cartoon and its only one person’s opinion. This source is valuable in a way as soldiers in the end did refuse to follow orders but where shot if done so. Soldiers felt critical changes must be made if they were going to do their jobs as soldiers. The conditions these soldiers were living in were terrible muck, mud, smell and it was very cold also soldiers didn’t have anywhere to sleep. Most of the time they spelt in mud as a result of this the soldiers became critically ill. Overall I think this source is useful as it has a good understanding of soldier’s lives, because conditions were very poor and many British servicemen died knowing that they made no advance, which made soldiers worry at the futility of it all. This source is not that reliable as we don’t know who drew it or when, it is also unlikely to have be drawn by a soldier but very similar to humour in Soldier magazines.

         

Source B is a comedy programme called “Blackadder” and produced by two men called Ben Elton and Richard Curtis. This source shows a sarcastic view of fictional British General’s orders; it also shows Generals didn’t really care about their soldiers as only few went to the frontline to see the conditions. They also didn’t care about how many lives being taken by the enemy as a result many British servicemen died. The information given such as “Melchitt invites you to a mass slaughter…” tells you that Commanding officers haven’t thought about how many lives would have been left. The source is not reliable as it’s a comedy series but some parts were accurate as this order was given and many men lost their lives. The limitation of this source is that it is a comedy series. The source is valuable as its does show how generals felt towards their men. I think this is very useful as it does give you of an example of how generals felt about their men; it’s as if the commanders were experimenting on the soldiers.

Source C is a view from General Haig’s son Earl George Haig about his father Field Marshall Haig. It was published in November 1998 in a newspaper (The Daily Telegraph). The message coming form this source is son Earl is telling people his father (Field Marshall)  what he done was for the greater good and brung the war to an end, as Earl was 9 when his father died he didn’t know much about him. But General Haig was awarded a sum of money from the parliament for his services to the country. This source is not very reliable as it is written by his own son. The limitation of this source is the fact it’s his son writing about his father, you expect any son to defend their father from critics. Its does give a good example of old soldiers, if old soldiers thought he was a murderer and a “uncaring” General why didn’t they say so after the war its only 20 years on when people are questioning his greatness.  Overall I think it’s a useful in a way that it gives some good points but it is from Haig’s own son.

Over all I think that Source B is most useful to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanding officers during the First World War.