A couple of the sources very strongly agree with the statement, and one of those is Source F. The source is from a book written recently called “British Butchers and Bunglers of World War”. Source F speaks completely negatively of Haig, and describes him as “as stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey”, saying his principle was “if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men”, which agrees with the statement as it implies that Haig did not care about the lives of his men, as he just wanted to kill Germans and win the war. It calls Haig’s strategy “appalling” and his actions “slaughter”. It even claims that the Somme was “criminal negligence”. Source F definitely agrees with the statement in saying that Haig sacrificed his men for no reason, as it claims he was just trying to win the war regardless of how many men died, and he knew he had “no chance of a breakthrough”. We don’t know how much knowledge the writer would have had on the battle, but the source is from a book which was written to criticise leaders of World War, and therefore the purpose would be to write negatively about Haig, so it is not completely trustworthy, as parts could be exaggerated.
Another source that strongly agrees with the statement is Source J. Source J was written by Lloyd George, who worked with Haig. The source was written in his War Memoirs, and it was written in the 1930’s after Haig’s death. It claims that the “offensive was already a failure” before the failure of the German effort to capture Verdun. Lloyd George says he “expressed [his] doubts to General Haig”, which implies that Haig did not care about his men as he still went ahead even though he wasn’t sure on his plans. It also implies that he went ahead for no reason, as the offensive “was already a failure”. It is being negative about Haig’s actions, claiming it “killed off more of our best” men, rather than destroying Germany’s “best officers and men”. Lloyd George also says “the Somme would not have saved us from a stalemate” if the Germans had not provoked America. The source was written knowing that people would read it, and we are sceptical, as it seems as if Lloyd George is trying to put the blame onto Haig, especially as it was written after Haig’s death, because Lloyd George knew that Haig could not defend himself. The source definitely agrees with the statement, and there isn’t anything positive written about Haig.
Source E agrees and disagrees with the statement, and has an even view on Haig and the battle. It is a cartoon and shows the troops practising for an attack. In some ways it does agree with the statement because it claims that the “General” was absent from an attack, which does imply that Haig did not care about his men enough to be there to instruct them. It also makes the “Major-General” seem stupid because in the cartoon he says there are “three major differences” between the practise and the real attack, and he only mentions two of these and forgets the second one. The cartoon is using humour.
In some ways, the Source E disagrees with the statement. As the soldiers in the source are practising, it shows they care enough to instruct and practise and that they are taking the battle seriously by preparing for it. The source was published in a British magazine in 1917, and the purpose of the cartoon was to entertain people so it could be criticising Haig for humour to make people laugh, and this means we can’t fully trust the source. The source shows Haig did care about the men, but also shows his faults.
Some of the Sources disagree with the statement, one of them being Source B. Source B was written by Haig, in a report, and it mainly disagrees with the statement, especially in the first half. He says the “men are in splendid spirits” and that they are “full of confidence” when he is writing the day before the attack. It doesn’t show that Haig is uncaring, as he is taking into consideration how the men were and says that “several have said that they have never before been so instructed and informed”, which shows Haig was good and had done his best to instruct them. The second paragraph also shows Haig positively, and is written on the first day of the attack. It says the attack was “very successful” and that “all went like clockwork”, which shows Haig is caring for the men and seeing how the battle was going. As Haig wrote the extracts for a report, we know he was expecting for people to read them, so we can’t be sure this is the complete truth, and therefore we don’t know if Haig was as caring as the source shows, so we have reason to doubt it.
Another Source which mainly disagrees with the statement is Source G. Source G claims the consequences of the Somme were “great”, “particularly as regards morale”, which shows Haig did a good job and did care for his men. It says it “gave the Western Powers confidence”, and has lots of praise for the battle and how “The confidence of the German troops in victory was no longer as great as before”, and this disagrees with the statement when it says the Haig did it for no reason. It says the battles knocked the Germans’ “best, most experienced and most reliable officers and men” from their places. The only negative thing that is written in Source G is that it claims that the “Battle of the Somme had no great importance in the strategic sense”, but then he says, “the consequences nevertheless were great”. Source G is an extract from the German Official History of the First World War, so we know that it is based on true facts, and it was published a while after the war in the 1930’s so there must have been access to a lot of information. The only doubt we have about this source is that when it was written, they knew a lot of people would read it, so by praising the British army they could have been justifying why they lost the war by exaggerating some facts about the British army.
Source I also mainly disagrees with the statement. It is written by Lloyd George to Haig on the 21st September 1916, after Lloyd George had visited the battlefield. Lloyd George says that, “the heartening news of the last few days has confirmed our hopes that the tide had now definitely turned in our favour” and “I congratulate you most warmly on the skill with which your plans were laid”. This tells us that Haig did make good plans, so definitely didn’t risk mens’ lives for no reason. Lloyd George was the Secretary for War at the time of the Somme, so therefore he had to find out what was really happening as that was his job, so this could be a reliable source. Also, by visiting the battlefield, Haig must have spoken to many officers and also have had the casualty number, which shows he must have been well informed on the battle. We have to be sceptical of this source, though, because the letter was written to give to Haig to show the troops, so it could be untrue and just to keep the soldiers morale up. As well as this, the letter only says they have been doing well in “the last few days”, so we don’t know the whole picture of what happened throughout the battle, so we cannot trust this source fully. The source does disagree with the statement, and Lloyd George is congratulating Haig on his actions, which would show he was in fact caring for the men.
A source that very strongly disagrees with the statement is Source H. Source H was written by a British general who fought in both world wars, so must have had a good knowledge on what actually happened. The general is very positive about Haig, and says Germany’s spirit and resistance was broken by “the courage and resolution of Haig’s armies”. It also claims the men had “complete confidence in the leadership of their Commander” and that they were “inspired by his determination”, which implies that Haig must have cared for his men and been there for them. The British general says if it hadn’t have been for Haig “French resistance would have crumbled” and that “Haig was one of the main architects of the Allied victory”. The whole source is praise for Haig, with nothing negative written about him. The general knew a lot about the war, and wrote the Source in 1973 so he would have had time to think about the war and to develop his opinion on it by having the casualty figures, reports and other people’s opinions. He had his own memories from the war, and as it was a significant event it is likely that he remembered a lot from it. Also, as he fought in both the World Wars he would have had another experience to compare it with, and therefore this source is reliable. The source doesn’t tell us what it was written for, so the purpose of the source is unknown, but as the general is giving his opinion it is unlikely that it has been influenced by anyone for the purpose of writing the source.
Some of the sources do agree with the statement, but others disagree. A lot of the sources do criticise Haig and his actions and do imply that he did not care about his men, but I have found that often these sources are not very reliable or have been written with a purpose to criticise Haig, as this was the attitude of people at the time, so many of the sources would agree with the statement to support peoples’ views. The sources that disagree with the statement are more reliable than the ones that agree, so although a lot of sources are negative about Haig, I think this is just a reflection of the attitudes at the time. I think the sources agree with the statement to a certain extent.
