There are so many different views of Haig because different groups of people were affected by his actions and words in different ways. Haig was partly responsible for both sending men into the horrors of war and for Britain’s victory. People who focus on the deaths during war usually have a negative view of Haig and those who focus on the outcome of the war for Britain have a more positive attitude towards him.
Sources C, E and H support John Keegan’s view but they are unreliable-they are all biased towards Haig because the sources’ authors had personal connections and loyalties to Haig. Haig’s son, who would obviously want to remain loyal to his father, wrote source C. Source E is an extract from a diary written by Haig, it was not a personal diary, but a record of the war that he expected other people to read. Therefore it is one-sided and written to portray him as a good leader. Source H is an extract from Haig’s biography; his family requested that it was written and is therefore biased, as his family would not want to discredit him.
Keegan and these sources are justified in their opinions of Haig because he did contribute greatly to Britain’s victory-it was Haig’s method of ‘attrition’ that eventually wore Germany down and won the war.
As justified opinions of Haig, these sources are useful, but due to their obvious bias and one-sided nature, they do not contain sufficient information to serve as factual evidence to prove Keegan’s view.
There are also sources that oppose Keegan’s view; sources D, F, G and J.
Source D is a propaganda poster from ‘Haig’s private war’, an anti-Haig leaflet. The poster says that Britain needs Haig “like a hole in the head”. I do not know when this was published, but I believe that it was printed during the war, because it is an anti-war leaflet and would therefore only be of use during a war, as an attempt to stop it. It would have been ‘underground’ propaganda (illegal) because censorship during the war did not allow any negative media concerning the war to be printed. It is an unreliable source because it is propaganda-trying to persuade the reader to share the author’s view.
Anthony Livesey, a modern historian, wrote source F. His opinion is valid and reasonably unbiased because he would have researched Haig thoroughly, however it is one-sided and only one person’s opinion of Haig.
Source J is also unreliable propaganda, but it is not British propaganda, it is German. The article describes Haig as “a serious and persistent worker” but goes on to say that despite his ability as a leader, he was no match for Germany. This source is very biased as Haig’s enemies produced it and its purpose was to convince the German nation that Britain could easily be defeated.
Source J was written by David Lloyd George (British prime minister during World War One). It is an extract from his book ‘War memoirs of David Lloyd George’. In the extract, he tries to pass the blame for the deaths that he allowed to occur during World War One, over to Haig. He did this because it was for others to read and he wanted to show himself in a positive light. It is consciously biased and unreliable.
None of the sources are able to prove or disprove Keegan’s opinion, however, there is sufficient evidence in the sources to show that Keegan’s view is valid. As a historian writing about Haig, Keegan would have carried out extensive research to form an opinion on him, there are facts that support Keegan’s view-it cannot be denied that it was Haig’s orders and persistence in fighting at the Somme and Passchendaele that eventually won Britain the war. However, Keegan’s view is limited in that it is very one-sided; he makes no mention of the cost of victory-the lives of thousands of young men from all over the world (Although the source is only an extract and Keegan may have made mention of this at another time).
I believe that Haig did his job as well as he knew how, and he was a skilled soldier. However, because he had experience of wars that were fought very differently to World War One, he made many mistakes. Trench-warfare had never been experienced before and there were no reliable methods to use, so Haig fell back on methods that had worked for him in the past. I agree with what a modern historian, S.Warburton said; “Blaming Haig the individual for the failings of the British war effort is putting too much of a burden of guilt on one man.”