Source C is a statement from Haig’s Son. This instantly, without looking at it, will give u a biased view that would make it little use for analysing. It is looked at with Hindsight, and contradicting other points of view. He says how at the time, he was perfectly respectable, but people only focus on his Bad points because they didn’t realise the good ones. Earl Haig says that there was nothing else that could’ve been done in the situation. This is intended at ordinary people as a mass audience because it is a newspaper article. Its trying to get a large point across to everyone so its known and believed.
From these sources I can tell that the soldiers usually didn’t like their officers at the time that much, but there was nothing else they could do. I would say source A is the most useful because it was written at the time and can take limited factors into consideration, like how commanders were viewed at the time. The others are useful but the fact they are written with hindsight hinders their usefulness. It is useful for finding how soldier reacted to commanders and the battle they were fighting. There are some factors of the sources that are useful for other purposes. I.e. source C could prove as evidence for how other rich lords of Britain and even close relatives realised that maybe Haig wasn’t the right man to do the Job, but there was nothing else to do. Using all 3, different opinions can be produced of the soldiers.
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?
Sources C,E,H,J and K support Keegan’s Statement. Many of them are biased towards Haig, E was written by Haig himself, which means he won’t point out his own flaws. Somebody who worked for his family wrote H. J was written by a German newspaper and was sarcastically laughing at him. Saying he’s a great soldier but their defences are better. It could be viewed as an opposing source because of this. J is a source by a modern Historian, so it will have possibly unconscious biased but he says that he did the best with what he could. This historian has probably looked through many a source to come up with this statement.
All the other sources bad-mouth or oppose Haig. Source D is a very sarcastic poster, portraying Haig as Lord Kitchener who was a much better soldier. Haig is seen as arrogant because he’s saying the country needs him and the word ME is in big letters. He states that he’s responsible for the soldiers’ deaths. Source F mainly talks about his misplaced optimism, and how he couldn’t accept defeat. The continuing attacks on the Somme and Passchendaele caused thousands of deaths, because of his optimism and belief of him winning. To be fair to Haig, he was using a large amount of relatively inexperienced men, which meant that he couldn't use the French "rushing" tactics, nor could he help that 1 in 3 shells was a dud. But he could have attacked on a shorter front, increasing his chance of a breakthrough. He could have used a rolling bombardment, to keep the Germans head's down.
I think Keegan’s interpretation of Haig is not valid. I think it is more of a fact that he did whatever he could to lead Britain to victory. The sources mainly demonstrate my point above or the fact that he did it but, with more casualties that were needed it the situation due to his personality. In Keegan’s statement, he says he was efficient. This he definitely was not. Some people may consider it valid because of the fact that he did lead them to eventual victory. It is limited because there are many other factors which need to be considered. Whether he was ‘efficient’ or not is up to facts and figures. Personally, I would not use this statement as a source concerning Haig. Keegan’s statement doesn’t contain any facts to support his view. He needs to explain what he did which made him a highly skilled soldier and why it led the nation to victory.
I think Keegan has this view of Haig because he is looking at the situation from that epoch. At the time, Haig was seen as the best the country had to offer, agreeing with source J. Some people may quote it that he was a 19th century soldier fighting a 20th century war. This is very true I also believed that he was the wrong man for the job. There was no-one he could be compared with, so he was classed as efficient and highly skilled, because at the time he was seen as a hero for leading Britain as a nation to victory.
There are so many different interpretations of Haig because there are many incidents, which could be called failures or success. The public saw the Battle of the Somme as a success till they saw the movie the Battle of the Somme and realised that so many soldiers had died. Propaganda was used to display a different view of Haig, and made it seem as though he was a great war leader. Censorship at the time prevented people from knowing the truth.
As Time went on, the views on Haig changed dramatically. Censorship was not as aggressive and the real truth could be told about what happened in the trenches and amongst the countries generals. Now we can use Hindsight to see what the Generals should have done. Its easier to look back with retrospective and say, ‘He made a mistake’ but at the time, they didn’t know what the enemy were doing. Whether they were prepared for attack or had defences ready. It was really a case of blind leadership. The leaders did not know what they hoped to achieve from it. The leaders didn’t fully know what to do with the new technology that was coming about. Battling Tanks against horses seems like a slightly uneven fight. As time went on, The view on him became more negative, and more truthful. Facts were uncovered and censorship taken away.
I think that Haig was a 19th century man fighting a 20th century war. People didn’t realise at the time what they were actually doing. As comedian Eddie Izzard says “You kill one person, you go to jail for life. If you kill 100,000 people…… we’re almost saying ‘Well Done!’’ I think this is what actually happened with Haig and his tactic of a battle of attrition. I feel it was a waste of life, and some things he did were wrong, when they could have been prevented. He did what he could but his blind optimism led him to continue mass slaughters such as the Somme. I feel he was the wrong man for the job, and other properly trained officers, who fought with their troops with proper tactics, would have been better for it.
