The First World War.

Source C is an extract from a soldier who actually fought in the front line, which should make the source more reliable, but because of the time lapse, the source has the benefit of hindsight – understanding of a situation or event after it has happened, instead of a description of how the soldier actually felt at that moment. This means that this source is not a primary source, which makes it less reliable. Also, this source is more to the soldier’s opinion. He kept on asking questions about the failure of the planners. One of them was “how did the planners imagine that Tommies would get through the wire?” Also, this source has only one man in one place; it lacks a wider picture of the whole story. Since this source lacks factual context, one cannot say whether it is reliable or not.

Since both sources lack factual context, I cannot decide which source I trust more.

3. Both Sources D and E do have some useful context for the historians, despite that they are not directly referring to Haig and the Battle of the Somme.

Source D does contain a brief reference to Haig, saying that he was a poor, incompetent commander. This is shown by Blackadder’s dialogue where he said “Clearly Field Marshall Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin.” The word “drinks cabinet” already shows that they thought Haig was a General who did not care about their lives. This was not true, though, since a comedy show would always play on extremes to make one story funny, and here they decided to play on historians’ critics about Haig and his battle planning, which was also popular amongst the population. This shows the popularity of the Britain’s opinion of Haig in the Battle of the Somme, therefore this source does have its own value. But the downside of this source is that people who don’t know about the Battle of the Somme will be misled about Haig by this source.

Source E is giving a negative perspective of generals in war. Firstly, the date of the source, February 1917, reflects the attitudes after horrors in the Battle of the Somme. This suggests that the indictment of the army commander in this source is referring to Haig. Also, it may be suggesting how most soldiers in the BEF felt about the lack of leadership from their Generals in the First World War. In the source the Major-General asks a Sergeant-Major what is the “difference between a rehearsal and the real thing (real battle)”. The Sergeant-Major replies, “The absence of the General, Sir.” This may be referring to Haig, as I presume that this source is playing on the popular view about Haig during that time – people blamed Haig for not caring about the soldiers’ lives, but he himself stayed away from the battlefield. This source, like Source D, was probably playing on the popular views about Haig to gain attention; therefore historians may also find this source useful. The problem with this source is that this is only a view from one magazine, which does not necessarily mean that it was what everyone thought of Haig, so in some ways the source is not totally useful for studying Haig and the battle.

4. Source F is an extract from a recent book, which means that it contains views of modern historians about Haig. The source is giving a negative perception of Haig. It uses useful wordings to describe Haig, such as the comparison of Haig with a donkey at the beginning of the extract, saying that he was stubborn and unthinking. The source then goes on explaining how Haig’s “strategy” made him a “butcher” of the Battle of the Somme. They even said Haig’s “strategy” was in fact a “slaughter”. Here the source emphasised Haig’s fault on sending soldiers to death, and also, it is showing that Britain did not achieve anything apart from death from the “slaughter”. This is entirely based on the writer’s opinion, though.

On the other hand, Source G and H are giving a positive view of Haig. Source G says that “It (the Battle of the Somme) gave the Western Powers confidence. Their armies had accomplished an achievement that gave good promise for the future.” This shows that Britain did achieve something in the Battle of the Somme, which attacks on what Source F is indicating about Britain not achieving anything from the Battle of the Somme. What makes Source G reliable is that it was written by the Germans, and in the extract they admitted that Germany did suffer under the impacts of WWI, and that their desire to achieve victory was undermined. This makes the source reliable, since they were telling the truth instead of being bias to themselves.

Source H, again, gives a positive perception of Haig. Here, the British General praised Haig’s leadership in the Battle of the Somme, saying that his armies “were inspired by his determination”, and that “Haig was one of the main architects of the Allied victory. The writer of this source had fought in both world wars, which shows that he was highly experienced, making his words reliable, but the problem is because the source was written in 1973, which was a long time after both world wars, and this allowed the benefits of hindsight on this source, i.e. the writer had no pressure of the impact of WWI on him when he wrote this source on his view about Haig, therefore the source may not be accurate.

Overall, Source G tackles on what Source F indicating about Britain not achieving anything from the Battle of the Somme; and Source H tackles on Source F’s description of Haig being stubborn and unthinking. But this does not necessarily mean the two sources prove that Source F is wrong, since there is also some truth in Source F about the great number of casualties in the Battle of the Somme.

5. Both Sources I and J were written by Lloyd George, but both say different things. The obvious difference is that Source I – a letter from Lloyd George to Haig – was written in 1916, which was during the Battle of the Somme; and Source J – Lloyd George’s War Memoir – was written in the 1930s, which was after the battle. Another difference was when Lloyd George wrote Source I, he was the Secretary of War, so part of his duty would be to enthuse the soldiers, and this may possibly be the reason for why Lloyd George gave good comments about Haig – “I (Lloyd George) congratulate you (Haig) most warmly on the skill with which your plans were laid”.

But when Lloyd George wrote Source J, he was the Prime Minister of Britain, and maybe because he wanted to promote himself as a very thoughtful man (the War Memoir he wrote was to be published to the public), therefore he appeared to be much more critical towards Haig’s plan in the Battle of the Somme, rather than just praising Haig like the others – Lloyd George chose to go on the extreme side to stand out to gain attention, instead of just praising Haig’s work. This is why these two sources differ.

6. There are a few sources that agree to the point that Haig was uncaring, for example, Source C shows that Haig’s artillery bombardment did not work, and that many men’s lives were sacrificed, showing that he was uncaring about the soldiers’ lives. The problem with this source is that it is only one man in one place, which doesn’t give a wider picture, so I am not sure if this source is reliable or not.

Source D, which is a still from a comedy show, describes Haig’s tactics as a slaughter, when he enjoys his drink from his “drinking cabinet”, which again shows Haig uncaring about the soldiers’ lives, but one must bear in mind that this was exaggerated to make the joke funny, therefore one can’t say this source totally supports the question.

Source E is also a comedy type of source. It was published in February 1917, which suggests that it was reflecting the attitudes after the horrors in the Battle of the Somme. In the source the Major-General, which may be referring to Haig, asks one of the soldiers the difference between a drill and a real battle, and the reply is “the absence of the General”. This shows the common view of Generals not fighting on the battlefield, but instead just sending men to death, which may be referring to Haig in the Battle of the Somme. This, though, is only a view from one magazine; therefore I cannot say that this source is totally accurate.

Sources F and J are directly referring to Haig – both criticising him. Source F clearly indicates it is strongly opposing Haig’s strategy used in the Battle of the Somme, which killed a lot of men, and that “he knew he had no chance of a breakthrough but still sent men to their deaths”, which shows that he did not care about the men’s lives. Source J then says that Britain won because of Germany’s provoke to America – not because of Haig’s strategy; otherwise they would not have won. Also, many of the Germany’s best officers were killed, when Britain had less of her best men killed, which means most of the others that were killed were the less well-trained ones. This briefly shows that Haig knew that they had no chance of a breakthrough, but still he sent the not well-trained soldiers to their deaths, just like what Source F is saying.

The sources that disagree with the question points out that Haig was a caring General. Starting from Source A and B, together they suggest that Haig was a realist, but still he cared about his men’s lives, which is totally opposite to what the question says. Both these sources were written by Haig, but we are not given what type of sources they are, which may greatly affect what I think of Haig, but I presume that Source A is an extract from Haig’s diary, and Source B is an extract from a report.

Then Source G backs the two sources up, saying that Britain did achieve something from the Battle of the Somme, which is indirectly praising Haig for his work. What makes Source G reliable is that it was written by the Germans, and in the extract they admitted that Germany did suffer under the impacts of WWI, and that their desire to achieve victory was undermined, which was true.

Sources H and I directly praises Haig’s leadership and his plans that were laid, saying that he was “one of the main architects of the Allied Victory”. Both of these sources, though, do not directly indicate that Haig cared about the soldiers’ lives, therefore I am not sure if these two belong to this catalogue or not.

The number of sources in each group appears to be equal, but the sources in the non-supporting group appear to be more reliable than the ones in the supporting group, therefore I find myself against the motion.