Finally Source F is an account from a modern historians perspective in 1989 on Field Marshall Haig as a military commander. The purposes of this source are to inform and educate people studying the battles during the First World War. The modern historian has tried to explain that it was not his fault, he was overconfident and was incompetent but did not realise as he felt that god chose him. This statement is quite correct as he did think god chose him however this is not an excuse for his big mistakes as Haig had promised that he would withdraw the troops if he found he was not accomplishing his aims, but he never did. This is fairly reliable, as the historian has taken into account that Haig had made mistakes and tried to inform people why he made the mistake. So therefore he has given his strengths and weaknesses but backed them up.
Source H is a biography of Haig written by Duff Cooper who was asked by the Haig family to write it. It is a biography on whether Haig was right to press on with the Battle of Somme. The purpose of this source is for reader to be informed and educated about Haig. This source is quite unreliable, as Duff Cooper’s job was to write biographies and therefore is paid for it. This means that he has to put Haig up no matter how many mistakes Haig had made or else he would lose his job. Also it is consciously biased to the people who are reading the biography, because it is deliberately trying to encourage them to support Haig.
As a collection of sources that support Keegan I believe that they are generally unreliable and therefore there cannot be enough evidence to suggest that Keegan’s statement is correct.
Out of the collection of sources I had assessed there are two other sources that were neutral in the response to Keegan’s statement:
Source J is a news article from the British newspaper ‘The Times’ published in 1917. The article is the Germans perspective of General Haig. The purpose of this source is to show that even the Germans think that General Haig was a good leader however it could as well be sarcastic as the Germans are trying to say that because of General Haig’s mistakes it has benefited the German Army. It suggests that because of General Haig he is the leader that is giving Germany victory to win. Overall this source is not very reliable, as it is sarcastic so the article is not very truthful in saying that Haig had good leadership.
Source K is another source that is neutral. It is an article published in a GCSE modern History review in 1998. The article is on whether Haig was totally at Fault. The purpose of this source is to educate teenagers about Haig. Other purposes would be to make money by selling the history book. This sources is quite reliable as a history text book would look at many sources and then writes therefore it is more reliable and also it looks at both sides of the argument. Moreover it being a GCSE book it would write facts about the event rather than giving opinion as students will use it to revise from. Although there is a chance that the person writing the textbook is not completely telling the truth. This is because it is a secondary source, which means it came from a primary source, and that source could have been consciously biased.
Overall from the collection of two sources I believe there is fairly enough evidence for both for and against Keegan’s statement however there are only two sources.
From the sources that are left there are three sources that all oppose Keegan’s statement.
Source D is a book from General Haig’s Private War. It is on a view of Haig. The main purpose of this source is to show that Haig is the last person you need to lead your country hence the caption at the bottom of the book. It is very sarcastic so therefore I assume that the book is about Haig’s bad leadership throughout the Battle. The source is quite reliable, as I believe that the author of book knew what Haig was doing to the men, which was sending them to their graves. This is supported by the fact that Haig had managed to create so many casualties and deaths just on the first day and then continued with the same tactics with the same disappointing results.
Source G also opposes Kegan’s statement it is an extract from War memories of David Lloyd George published after the war. The source is on the Prime Ministers view of what happened on the Western Front. The purpose of this source is to inform people on how David Lloyd George felt about the situation and his opinion of the battle. He felt that the soldiers were very brave and not cowards like the Generals. However this source is not fairly reliable as at the time David Lloyd George was against what Haig was doing however there was no other person that David Lloyd George could keep in charge if he was to take Haig out. Although
David Lloyd George did limit Haig’s power. However the content of what has been written is very true and therefore it is strongly reliable.
Source L was the source that was available to me. It is a video from Timewatch on BBC TV showing the leadership undertaken by General Haig. The main purpose of the video is to inform and educate people studying the Battle of Somme. It is mostly reliable as it many historians who have studied the battle very carefully give their opinions and facts. They back everything said with evidence. It is a documentary so it is mostly reliable. The documentary shows the events that took place and explains them. The video tries to make us understand that Haig was bad at communicating and had too many ideas that he wished to accomplish however by this ambition made thousands of troops injured.
Overall from the collection of sources that oppose Keegan they are generally very reliable sources however there is no evidence that agrees with Keegan’s statement.
In conclusion I believe that there is not enough evidence to suggest that Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory during the First World War. Even though there are four sources that support Keegan they are very unreliable. Also John Keegan was a military historian so we can assume he was looking at the military side of the war which was very successful. Haig needed more weaponry for his soldiers and made them more efficient so that he could accomplished the rest of the battlep. Also if he was a good commander he would of known what he was leading his men into. In addition I believe that there is not enough evidence and we can conclude that Field Marshall Douglas Haig was a failure to the Battle of Somme and he led his troops to disaster.
