How useful are sources A, B and C to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders during the First World War?

BRITISH HISTORY: SOURCES COURSEWORK

Target 1: Evaluation of sources for their utility

An historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders during the First World War needs to be wary when considering sources A, B and C, as all three have limitations. Source C is written by Haig’s son in defence of the actions of his father, a general in the First World War, so obviously will not criticize him. Source C is also of limited value as it was written a long time after the War and Earl Haig was not a soldier in the First World War, so knowledge he thinks he has of the soldiers attitudes towards their commanders may be distorted. Sources A and B are limited in that they are the opinions of a cartoonist and a TV program, which are not necessarily representative of how the soldiers felt towards their commanders. Neither source indicates when it was written, so while the cartoon is more than likely to have been produced at the time of the War, the ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’ series started well after the First World War had ended. Sources A and B were produced with the intent of criticizing the commanders of the First World War, and so are biased towards portraying the commanders as uncaring of the men under their command, rather presenting a balanced view of the soldiers attitudes towards their commanders.

This is a preview of the whole essay

However, aspects of the sources may be useful when taken in conjunction with the historian’s own knowledge. Source C is the only source which offers an argument in defence of the commanders of the First World War. Earl Haig writes, ‘It is in more recent times that it [criticism of the commanders of the First World War, namely his father General Haig] has come.’ This statement is a solid argument as at the time that the First World War ended, General Haig was seen as a hero. He had a State Funeral and tens of thousands of his old soldiers watched his coffin pass. It was really after the 1930s and again in the 1960s and 70s that criticism of Haig and the way the First World War had been fought really escalated. Most of these critics had had no experience of the First World War and so their criticisms were based on their opinions and not on the attitudes of the soldiers to their commanders in the First World War. As Earl Haig writes in Source C, ‘When the old soldiers who fought in the war were alive, I never heard a word of criticism from them.’ This indicates that the attitudes of the soldiers towards Haig in the First World War were not of criticism and disdain as Sources A and B would have us believe, but of gratitude that he had led them to victory. Source C shows that these soldiers did not criticize Haig, but this does not mean that other soldiers under other commanders did not criticize those commanders. Sources A and B may be representative of some of the soldiers views towards their commanders, indeed Captain Blackadder saying, ‘General ‘Insanity’ Melchitt invites you to a mass slaughter’, gives perhaps more of an insight into some soldiers attitudes towards their commanders during the First World War. Many soldiers knew they would die as soon as they went ‘over the top’ yet still obeyed orders to do so because they had to. However, just because they obeyed orders, does not mean that at least some of the soldiers believed their commanders to be ‘insane’ when they knew that sending the soldiers ‘over the top’ was almost as good as sending them to their deaths.

These sources are helpful to an historian studying the attitudes of soldiers to their commanders during the First World War to a point, but have severe limitations. None of the sources are actually first hand accounts of how soldiers felt about their commanders during the War and all three are biased. Source C is the most useful as it speaks about the views of some old soldiers towards a commander in the First World War, and it offers some argument as to why the author thinks his opinion is the correct one. Sources A and B are biased and do not offer any justification for the views expressed in them. The messages expressed in each source may be representative of how some of the soldiers felt about their commanders, but neither Sources A, B or C are able to capture the attitudes of every soldier towards their commanders during the First World War. So while each source may be helpful to an historian in some respect, they need to be looked at along with other sources, accounts and knowledge for a valid conclusion to be reached about the attitudes of soldiers towards their commanders during the First World War, if indeed, a conclusion can be drawn.