Source B shows a poster depicting Haig that was produced by soldiers. This gives a true picture of the feelings of the soldiers at the front and clearly contradicts Keegan’s view.
Source C shows Haig’s personal views. Part 1, written prior to the Battle of the Somme, shows that Haig was prepared for heavy casualties, and that he felt that no amount of training or superiority of arms would ensure victory without ‘the sacrifice of men’s lives’. Part 2, written the day before the attack began, contradicts Haig’s previous claims. He states that the soldiers were in very good spirits, that they felt that they were well prepared, and the commanders were full of confidence. These claims may not be true. It could be that Haig wrote this to make himself look good. In part 3, written on 1st July 1916, Haig claims that there had been a successful attack and that the battle was going well. He also claims that the Germans were surrendering and that British troops were in high spirits and full of confidence. These claims would seem to be false, as there was a large casualty list during fighting on 1st July.
Source D, written by Anthony Livesey, a modern historian, and published in 1989, claims Haig was ‘silent, humourless and reserved’. He claims that Haig had a constant, often misplaced, optimism, and an inability to recognize defeat. This source, more than any other, contradicts Keegan’s views on Haig.
Source E, was written after the war by Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time. It shows that he had serious concerns as to whether he should have stopped the battle, or have resigned rather than ‘allow this slaughter of brave men’. He writes about the millions that died rather than call themselves cowards, and of the ‘two or three individuals’ who let millions die before they would admit ‘that they were blunderers’. As he then goes on to name Haig, it could be seen that Haig was one of the ‘two or three individuals’, yet another contradiction to Keegan’s view.
Source F, taken from the official biography of Haig, by Duff Cooper, questions whether the Battle of the Somme was wise or foolish. He states that not to fight would have meant a loss of co-operation with the French. This could mean that Haig was prepared to sacrifice the lives of the soldiers, rather than lose French support.
Source G, taken from an article by S. Warburton, published in 1998, questions whether Haig was totally to blame. He asks that, even if Haig had been replaced, would anyone have been better at the job? Even though he states that Haig was, ultimately, victorious, he does make the point that ‘Haig’s numerous mistakes … contributed to the half a million casualties suffered by the allies’. Again, this is contrary to Keegan’s view.
In my opinion, the sources do not support Keegan’s interpretation. Although Haig had a good education and military training and experience, he did make numerous mistakes during the Battle of the Somme. I think that the sources which come directly from Haig show him to be over confident and present an untrue picture of what was really happening, and give an untrue version of the morale of the soldiers. The sources from other people show that, although the Battle of the Somme was eventually won, Haig did make some bad mistakes. One of the most important sources to show this is source E, which was written by Lloyd George. If the Prime Minister felt that there were ‘grounds for criticism’ about ‘two or three individuals who would rather millions perish … than admit that they were blunderers’, how can Haig be seen as an ‘efficient and highly skilled soldier’?
