Parts of this sources which are not completely true is when it says that Haig “knew he had no chance of a breakthrough but sill sent men to their deaths”. I know that this is not true as Haig had not been told the true information. From the information he had been given he thought he could easily breakthrough the enemy lines. However this was not true and Haig did not know that.
Source G is for the German Official History of the First World War, published in the 1930s. It is talking about good achievement and grate fighting spirits of British Troops.
It is truthful in places for example when it talks about Battle of the Somme having “no great importance in the strategic sense” as it actually was lead by very bad strategy due to the new artillery and movement methods.
Another part which is correct is when the source is telling us about the German confidence. “ The confidence of the German troops in victory was no longer as great as before.” We know this is true as Germans had a great confidence in themselves winning and when they lost their morale was really, really low.
However this source is quite biased as it only praises British army. It tells the public how good British army was, and how hard it was for Germans to beat them. I think that this source might be written to make German public feel better about losing. They might wanted the German public to feel that there was no way Germans could beat British Army anyway. It might also have another reason. They might want to get their ground ready, for the next war. So that if they beat them in the next war , their winning will feel even sweater as the British Army was “so good”.
Source H was written by British General in 1973,who had fought in both world wars. It also praises Haig for his grate commandership. I think it might had been written because the General might had also been involved in making some of this decisions so praising Haig was equivalent to praising himself. They are also o the same side.
This source is also really biased as it paints Haig only in good colors not showing any bad sides of him. He says that the troops were “inspired by his determination” which is not true as many of the soldiers were really angry on him for not changing the tactics and their morale and fighting spirit were very low. It also states “ Had Haig not had the moral courage to shoulder the main burden of the struggle in the Somme battles of 1916, French resistance would have crumbled”. This means that if Haig was not there to lead his army, French resistance would have died and French would lose the war. Saying this General implies that the victory was all because of Haig. This is not true because by the time America got to the war Britain was nearly beaten by the enemy. Also it was not Haig that won but his and American soldiers.
In conclusion I believe that G and H do prove F wrong because they show the good side of Haig as well. Haig was not a donkey just a General that had never been in this kind of war before. Also he’s morale cannot be question and his believe in winning. However I also believe that G and H does not prove F wrong because they are really biased and do not show the whole truth, while F which is also biased shows the other side of Haig. I feel that I would trust F more as it shows the rough reality while H and G are only trying to make all story sound really sweet. I feel that F is more reliable as the sources G and H seems to be really praising Haig and not showing any bad sides of Him and his decisions which we know there were many. This makes this sources sound not right. In conclusion they cannot prove F wrong as they are written by the people who needed to say those things from a variety of different reasons, while G was written by someone who didn’t need to be either praising Haig or be really mean to him for that it seems more believable.
