C) Source C is taken from a speech made by Douglas Haigs son, Earl Haig. The source is based around Earl Haigs opinions on his father and him trying to justify his fathers actions and persuade people that his father was not harsh and uncaring. The first thing to notice about the source is that the author of the source is Earl Haig who is the son of Douglas Haig and so is unlikely to say anything negative about his father, this means there is a great element of bias within the source. The source has been taken from 1988 which could well imply the Earl Haig has just suffered years of crticim for his fathers action and so is tryin to clear his name by giving another point of view on the events of world war one. Although the content of the source is very accuracte with correct references to specific dates Earl haig would have been very young at the time of the war and so his memory have been mixed up with storys after the war and so his opinion might not be so valuable. Research has been carried out the shows many of the soldiers thought of Haig as a very good leader which is proven by Earl Haigs statement 'never herd a word of crticism' form old soldiers. Overall i believe that source C is quite un reliable because it shows a very heavily biased view from Douglas Haigs son which may also be influenced by other stories as Earl was very young at the time of the war.
Question 2
- Source C is taken from a speech made by Douglas Haigs son, Earl Haig.The source does agree with John Keegan's view point as it says “victories he achieved in the First World War bought the war to an end.” John Keegan also believes Haig did much to lead Britain to victory in World War one. Haig was involved in key battles such as the third Ypres, the Somme and in 1918 he oversaw successful advances which lead to an allied victory in November, these are all well known facts which mean the statement must be an accurate one. A historian called Gary Sheffield also backs Earl Haig's opinion by agreeing that “Sir Douglas Haig's key victories played a big part in the allies’ victory.” However with Haig in command the british army suffered very heavy lossed and Keegan and Earl Haig have not taken this into account. Keegan is more of a modern military historian and he has the power of hindsight and may know whether Haig was a good leader. However there are other modern historians who disagree with Keegan, and believe Haig was a useless leader, such as Laffin who believed Haig “sent people to there death.” Therefore the reliability of the statement in Source C comes into question. I believe Source C does not give sufficient evidence to back up Keegan’s views as the source is of Earl Haig just trying to clear his father’s name and so may present a bias view.
- The view presented in source D is a very harsh view against Douglas Haig, the source straight away seems to agree with the views of historians that Haig just sent people to their death, and disagree with the views of John Keegan. However the source can be seen as extremely unreliable because the author is anonymous and so his personal views cant easily be seen as bias or unbias. It is true that under Haigs command many British Soldiers were killed during the First World War but Haigs actions were done with the intention to defeat the german war effort and he knew that sacrifices would have to made for the War to be won, as he said in his diary "to many it would mean certain death" this quote has to contain a huge element of reliability because it is from Douglas Hauigs diary and so to him would have been an unbiased view. Many soldiers believed that without Haig as an officer the war would have continued for much longer than it did as one soldier said " without him the war would have gone on and on" This quote shows that it was a carefully planned tactic that had to followed in order for a victory in the long run.
Ei) This source shows Haigs opinion about how all the sacrifices made that lead towards the overall victory needed in World War One and about how big the challenge Haig had really was. This source has both parts that agree with Keegan and disagree with him, Haig had no alternative to the tatics he employed and so he knew he had to sacrafice soldiers but didnt have a choice as it was the only route that could be attacked, this makes him a good leader because he knew what he was doing when planning battles. With hindsight we can see that Haig knew exactly what he was doing in his battles and so was a good leader. However it can also be seen that the source disagrees with Keegan as it could be interpreted as Haig just sending soldiers into battle and to their death aimlessly. Laffin said "he just sent people to their death" which agrees completely with this view on the source.
ii) Another part to the source shows a view which agrees with keegan, it shows that Haig was a good leader as he was capable of informing his troops efficiently and keeping them well in touch with current situations some soldiers said "they had never been so informed" this must prove Haig was doing something right as a Head officer. The statements made in the source are most likely to be true because the statements are taken fro the Diary of Douglas Haig and so will be completely un bias. However the soldiers may not have known the truth and may have believed that the offensive was going to be very quick and easy and so may have believed in Haig alot more than they should have, as they didnt realise the amount of lives that would be lost.
iii) At first the third part of source E seems to completely disagree with keegan and seems to portray Douglas Haig as a bit of an idiot and a bad leader when it comes to military skills. Haig certainly makes this image on him alot more believable by saying that the somme attacks were infacy very successful even though around 60,000 lives were lost by thinking that this was a success Haig is simply making himself look like an awful leader. Haig cant be blamed for all the trouble at the somme because most of the time he was recieving in correct information of what was occurng at the front line and the success of the battles. This aids Laffins view that Haig " never went to the front line" because if he had been a good officer and fought with his men he would have known the situations in the War. Laffins view is also backed up because people could argue that if Haig was a good leader even without going to the front line he should have realised that after 142 days the attack wasnt going anywhere and so should have ended it.
F) The source is a short outlook on Haigs personality and it states that Haig believes he was chosen by god to fullfill the role of an officer. Haig would often turn to god for supposrt during the War because he knew that he was risking thousands of mens lives every day. Haig believed that he was more than capable of winning any battle because he had the help and support of god. It is probably this that clouded Haigs judgement at the somme and made him continue for 142 days even though it was obvious that the battle could not be won. The source disagrees with the opinion of Keegan but it is fairly unreliable as there are no sufficient pieces of evidence. Haigs persistance to attack was not only his belief in gid but also his belief in his informants who were misguiding Haig by telling him false information.
- A "callous killer" is the view shown in this source which immediately makes us think that Source G disagrees with the opinions of Keegan as it says all the killing of Britains soldiers at the somme was th fault of poor leadership from Haig. IT is believed in this source that if Haig had ended the battle of the somme way before the 142cnd day then many lives could have been saved, this view is supported greatly by Llyod George who states that Haig should have "resigned than allow this suffering". This creates the image of Haig as a mass murderer. However since Llyod George would most likely recieved alot of the blame for the losses of life in World War One it is very likely that the statement made by Llyod George was just an attempt to cover his own back and put the blame on Haig, so the source may not be very reliable. It was fairly common knowledge that Haig and George didnt get on very well and were considered enemies this could easily mean that the source is bias against Haig. This source probably could not be counted as a string case against Keegans views as this source is too unreliable, Georges battle plans were very poor and so with no military knowledge or experience who was George to criticise Haig? unless it was done just to remove the blame from himself and put it on Haig.
- Source H provides a more positive view on Haigs actions it it states clearly that Haigs actions were done only to support the French allies in trouble at Verdun and so agrees with Keegan that Haig was a good leader who fought to beat Germany and Protect Britain and her allies. The source quite fairly states that if it wasnt fo the actions of Haig then the French may have fallen at Verdun quite easily and so as a result the war would most probably have been lost so this again proves Haig was a good leader. since this section of Haigs biography had been carefully selected by his family then its most likely it was entered to balance the view on Haig and try and clear his name as a poor leader and callous killer. However the somme doesnt mention Haigs disasterous error in letting the huge slaughter of the battle of somme continue for 142 days in which 60,000 men were killed. The source can only really be viewed as unreliable due to the large aspect of bias shown intended to create sympathy towards Haig.
J) Source J was written by a German and is supposed to show a tribute to Douglas Haig. Since the source was written by a german we can instantly assume the source will be full of bias opinions and statements that portray Haig as bad as possible which would make it disagree with Keegans view totally. The source mocks Haig by saying Haig is "the best man Britain have....certainly makes Germany satisfied." this quote instantly shows that the source is sarcastic against Haig and doesnt agree with the view of Keegan. The source constantly portrays Haig as being incompetent and a very bad leader. This view is slightly justified due to the heavy losses which occured under Haigs command however the view is also very bias. Haig also had many victories and without his advances the victory against Germany may not have happenend and so the German author is probably very anti-Britain and anti-Haig. Haig was viewed as a good leader by many of his soldiers and maybe in a world with no bias the german author would agree with this view but aslong as the tension remains between the two countrys that element of bias will always be there. Modern historian Gary Sheffield believed that "the somme made britain strong" so in his view Haigs actions played a vital part in Britains overall victory. To some extent the source must be agreed with because Haig did make some huge mistakes which cost Britain dearly but without Haigs advances the War may not have been won. However even if u believe the source has an element of truth to it, it must be taken into account that the source is very bias and very sarcastic and doesnt agree with Keegans view.
- Source K is one of the only sources that present a very balanced view. The source states that Haigs tactics and methods of commanding were down to his past and his upbringing in earlier life, however the spource doesnt portray haig as a discraceful or poor leader. This source also adresses the issue that suggests Haig had no other option at the battle of the somme, if he had ordered the troops to dig in defensively then the germans would eventually advance and destoy the allies so by attacking it put the pressure on the germans which would have been the better option to take. However Haigs mistakes at the battle of letting it continue for too long lead to the death of 60,000 men which is backed by the source which presses the blame of most of the wars casulties on Haigs errors portraying him as a bad leader. since the source presents a perfectly balanced arguement it could easily be seen as completely unbiased but does not agree or disagree with Keegans view on Douglas Haig.
- Source L is a balanced view on Haig and it shows both points for and against his leadership skills, the source is a BBC documentry on the battle of the somme. The source lays the blame for many casulties on Haigs poor tactics, and his mistakes at the battle of the somme. Trevor Wilson said in the programme that Haig "shouldnt have attacked on such a wide front" by spreading his forces instead of concentrating them people believe that Haig made his offensive line to thin and so easy to kill, this could well have led to many of the casulties. In Haigs defence he was recieving false information from his officers which may mean that the attack was not his fault and explains why the offensive continued for 142 days even though Britain were getting slaughtered. According to Laffin Haig was such a bad officer that he didnt mind sending people to their death because he beleieved he shouldnt be fighting himself. The tactics employed by Haig were the exact same as those employed at neuve Chappelle so its obvious that he would try n use them again as the were such a success, " Neuve Chappelle shows a good example that Haigs tactics work" this quote proves that haig had been a very good officer who had many victories in the past, this would agree with Keegans point of view.
"Haig was far from an idiot contrary to popular myth, he and his army won a great series of victories in Britains history" this statement made by Gary Sheffield shows that Haig knew how to win battles usuing his own War tactics however when employing these tactics against Germany at the somme it was obvioous that Germany were a much more modern army who could easily handle Haigs traditional assualts using cavelry. As a result a common view point is that it was Haigs in ability to work with modern technology that lead to the endless suffering for British troops at the battle of the somme. The source gives an equally balanced view on the events and so neither supports nor contridicts Keegans opinions.
To sum up the question after analysing all nine of the sources C-L i believe that there isnt sufficient evidence to supports Keegans original view on Haig which was that Haig was an 'efficient and highly skilled leader who did mcuh to lead Britain to Victory in the First World War.' The reason i believe this i becauseso many of the sources contridicted one another or gave a balanced arguement there is no clear winner either for or agianst keegans perspective. Personally i believe that Haig was a good military leader who was simply to trusting in his own troops that he was led to believe false information. Haig was very successful in helping lead Britiain to victory in world war one, however i do except that Haig made some vital errors when commanding the british army which may have led to severe casulties.
