C) Both sources D and E were written as comedy, to be funny and are not about Haig and the Somme but I do not think this makes them invalid when studying Haig and the Somme. They are both satire, so they sum up the views of the people which is a useful thing to know when studying any period of history. First I will comment on source D. I think this source is less useful because it was not written at the time. Although it was not written about the Somme it does talk about the strategy Haig used at the Somme and suggests that it was inevitable that lots of people would die, "Are we all going to get killed? Yes." This highlights the fact that Haig did not change his strategy because they are talking before a battle and know that many will die. Source E is more relevant because it was written at the time and, as I said, sums up the views of the people.It says that generals was never present at battles, only during practice. This must include Haig as he was a general at the time. Satire is a useful way to gauge public feeling, I am sure that in the future people will use tapes of programes such as "Have I Got News for You" to find out what the people's views are now, so I think that both these sources are useful.
D) I do not think that sources G and H prove source F totally wrong but that they do come quite close, puting the case for Haig very well. Source F is a very passionately against Haig and is probably over exagerating quite a lot, "He knew he had no chance of a breakthrough but still sent men to their deaths" would Haig really have sent men to thier deaths if he knew there was no chance of a breakthrough even if he was as stubborn and unthinking as is suggested. You would expect source G to be fill with bais against the allies as it from the German Official History of WW1 but it does not seem too be, it even seems to be mildly praising the allied attacks, "Thier armies had accomplished an achievement that gave good promise for the future" The fact that this source is not as bais as would be expected makes it very easy to trust as the Germans have no motive to lie about the things the have said. Source H is also surprisingly positive about Haig. You would expect an ex-service man of WW1 to be against Haig, for sending so many of his comrades to their deaths at the Somme, but of course he may not have fought at the Somme. Two things make source H less reliable than source G, firstly it was written a long time after the event so his views may have been slightly distorted with time and secondly he was a general so he is likely to have known Haig and want to give him a good name. This also works in the source's favour, the writer of this source is the only one of the three who has first hand experiance of Haig's command. He is therefore the best judge of charecter. In conclusion I think that sources G and H are much more reliable than source F and are therefore more likely to be true.
E) Sources I and J were both written by Lloyd George. I think there are many reasons they differ so much. Source I was written as a private letter to Haig but source J is part of George's published memoirs so in J he may have be aiming to write in a way which was closer to public opinion and in I he may be writing with the intention of keeping Haig's moral high. The reason Source J is less positive could be because George had had time to look back on events and decided that Haig's actions at the Somme were not as skillfull as he had first thought, we must remember that source I was written after only two months of a battle which lasted three months so anyone's opinion was bound to change. Also, in I he is commenting after having visited the battlefield and there is a possibility that he was only shown parts of the trenches and not given the full picture of how the battle was going.
F) In general, the sources do support the statement "Haig was an uncaring general who sacraficed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason" to a reasonably large extent. It is a very harsh and provocative statement which is very general. I belive that both sources A and B do support the statement despite the fact that they are by Haig himself. In source A he says that battles cannot be won "without the sacrifice of mens lives...the nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists" The way in which Haig uses the word "sacrafice" supports the statement very well. In source B Haig says about the first day of the battle, "Very successful attack this morning. All went like clockwork" this is simply not true as most other sources say that 20,000 men died. Even if he did not know the exact figures he must have known that many men died. This suggests that he did not care for the lives of his men or the feelings of thier families. Source C completely supports the statement, it is a daming attack on Haig's leadership skills. "How did the planners imagine the tommies would get through the wire?" Haig, as the main planner, with all his military knowledge must have know that the Tommy guns could not have cut through the wires and even if he didn't he could probably easily have found out. The fact that he did not bother to reasearch the damage Tommy guns would do or to do anything to change the type of weapon used shows that he did not care for the lives of his men. Sorces D and E both support the statement. They both represent the view's of the people and in source D it is said "Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet 6 inches closer to Berlin." This is not a good reason for sending thousands of men to thier deaths and as satire represents the people's thoughts then this is what the pepole, in mass, think; that Haig sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason. Again, in source E the view of the people seems to be that generals at the time of WW1, including Haig were not present during battles. If this is the case, which it evidently is as his base was 40 miles behind the front line then he obviously he did not care a great deal for the battle or have enough faith in his own army to feel safe near the front line. Source F, in some ways like source C is a somewhat harsh and aggressive. The ideas which are suggested in it fit with the idea of Haig being uncaring and sacrificing his men for no good reason, it says that Haig's philosophy was that if he could "kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men, then he would at some point win the war" Which is obviously very niave, suggesting that he did not care very much.
On the other hand, someof the sources do not in any way agree with the statement. Source H contains nothing but praise for Haig, it comments on his "determination" and how his armies had "complete cofidence in the leadership of their commander" It also says that had it not been for him, the "French resistance would have crumbled". Something we must remember when studying this source is that it was written a long time after the war and is by a general, not an ordinary soldier. He may have known Haig and be bias towards him. Source I also goes against the statement to a limited extent. It praises "the skill with which" Haig's plan's were made. It does not mention his nature and was written only a short time after the start of the Battle of the Somme before the full picture of the deaths which occured has become clear. In conclusion, the majority of the sources support the statement "Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the who sacrificed the for no good reason." This statement is a common one which does not seem unusual today as it sums up the public view of Haig's nature.
