From the text written by Lloyd George we can see that all he does is criticise Haig in the beginning of the paragraph for all that he has done during the war and he can see no good outcomes coming from the plans that Haig has.
“ He is a second rate commander in unparalleled and unforeseen circumstances…”
But he then goes on to see the realistic side of the situation and sees that there has never been a situation quite like this one and he feels That under the circumstances Haig handled the situation well but it could have been better. Bu this does not mean that he thinks that Haig was the best man for the job. Lloyd George saw Haig as a commander who was only a little better than the rest and a commander who had no visions or imagination. And I believe that Lloyd George felt that these were two things that any good leader needed and because Haig lacked both that he was not the right man for the job at hand.
Source F has a very different view on what sort of a man Haig was. Duncan believed that Haig was a man of intellect and genius.
“ Haig was a logical thinker… he showed a min of a brilliant staff officer”.
As you can see Duncan looks at Haig in a completely different light and has a very different opinion than David Lloyd showed us in source E. Duncan has told you about every condition and problem that they have had to put up with in the war and then he has also told you how the man of genius has solved them with such vigour and talent. Later in the source he describes how he finished the war by November when everyone else doubted him and thought that the war would drag on for another year or so. For all of these reasons I believe that this source is very unreliable and cannot be used as strong information in this question. This is because Duncan only knows Haig in a religious way and I feel that the only way Duncan knows about the events that he talks about in this source is because he reads the newsletters that are sent back to England for the public to know about the war progress. And this is why I have come to the conclusion that this source has been very over rated and I feel that this source is not sturdy enough to fairly evaluate Haig as either a good or bad commander.
After reading both sources I have come to the conclusion that both of the sources are not reliable enough because they are from two extreme different opinions. One, which criticises Haig for all he has done to help the war effort, and the other, which praises every thing Haig has done throughout the period of the war. And because these two sources are so different I feel I cannot come to a final conclusion and decide what sort of Commander Haig was.
