The second extract of source B continues he optimistic mood of Haig. He comments on the previous attack saying it was relatively easy and it all “went like clockwork”. He then went on to say that the morale of the troops were still good. And that everybody is full of confidence.
Both the extracts from source B and were written by Haig at the time of the battle, the first before the attack and the second after the attack. As the extracts are based on Haig’s views and opinions it could potentially be biased. However, every source is biased in some way. Haig got his information for the first extract by his own knowledge after presumably witnessing the atmosphere around the camp, as the generals aren’t present during battles. The second extract is from his report, however, we know that the information given to Haig was wrong and the commanders may have purposely given the wrong information to Haig out of fear as the first day of the battle went so badly he didn’t want to inform Haig of the truth. These extracts were written very soon very soon after the attacks, Haig will not have left out any information unless he did it intentionally.
Source C is said in a very forceful and harsh manner. This is because Private General Coppard is commenting on the battle and how many “dead bodies were laid out” on the battle ground from his first hand experience. This recollection of old memories could prove very emotional and could possibly make him angry towards Haig as general Coppard along with other generals could believe it was Haigs fault.
Private George Coppard also used formal language as well as slang. He refers to the soldiers as “tommies” this shows he may have shared special bonds with the soldiers may therefore have developed nicknames. He is also very accurate with facts such as: “hundreds of dead”, “no gaps”. This differed from source B as Haig didn’t use any facts but ambiguous statements. He also uses a simile “like wreckage washed up on high water”.
The extract is from an interview years after the battle. However this doesn’t stop Private George Coppard being exact with his facts. You’d think that years after the battle he’s memory wouldn’t be as good and he would therefore be lenient with the amount of casualties. However this wasn’t the case with George Coppard as he states: “Hundred of dead, as many died on the enemy wire as on the ground. This shows Coppard believed that the barbed wire tactic was a disaster:” it was clear there were no gaps in the barbed wire at the time of the attack, the Germans must have been reinforcing the wire for months” this shows that Coppards comrades may have been killed due to Haig’s tactics. We know today about the casualties at the battle of the Somme.
I believe the purpose of Haig’s extract from source b was to reassure the public that everything was going to plan and that there were no signs of trouble. Haig did this by commenting on the soldier’s mood and overall atmosphere of the camp, he also regarded their first attack as a success. In contrast I believe the purpose of source c was to show the awfulness of the battle for peace today. To also make it seem Haig got his tactics wrong.
The omissions from source B is the fact of which that once Haig sent his troops over the top they were mowed down by machine gun fire. Though Haig seems to be happy with the result of the battle he doesn’t mention the events all though this could again be due to the fact of which Haig hasn’t received the correct information. George Coppard critiques Haig’s comment of “the enemy is so short of men he is collecting them from all parts of the line” as he recalls the countless number of comrades laid dead.
The omission from source c is the mood of the soldiers. Seeing as George Coppard was a private he should have known the atmosphere around the camp. However, I understand how he just mentions the battlefield, as that would leave a more memorable and possibly frightening experience.
In conclusion I feel the positives outweigh the negatives from source c and I therefore trust this source more than source b.
C) I agree to some degree that source D and E have no use for the Historian studying Haig and the battle of the Somme. Phrased in a different way, I believe that Source D and Source E have some use for the Historian studying General Haig and the Battle of the Somme. Both sources share comical values but are based on a serious event, which is the battle of the Somme.
As the provenance of source D states: The caption in source D along with the dialogue is a scene taken from the TV series Blackadder, which was made in the 1908’s (1989). From my own knowledge having seen this certain programme, Haig seems to be portrayed in a comedic fashion that coincides with the attitudes of that time before the revisionists portrayed him in a better way (man of his time).
The dialogue of the two officers show them agreeing that they and their fellow soldiers will “at last go over the top” of the trench, after a long wait. However, the twist is that they believe going over the top will gain little land, but in their words “move the drinks cabinet a few inches closer to Berlin”. This shows that the two officers agree that sacrificing their lives along with the other troops is unnecessary, as they will gain little land in return. The source itself shows the officers criticizing Haig’s tactics in a comical way “you mean, are we all going to get killed? Yes.” This quote shows that the officers presume going over the top automatically means you’re going to die.
Source D does retain its element of seriousness as in the programme it shows us how scared the generals were when finally going over the top. However the source/caption itself also leaves a moral message as neither officer look particularly content with the news of which they will soon go over the top.
Source D may provide little help to historians studying Haig and the battle of the Somme, but may show them how some officers may have felt at the time towards Haig and his tactics, it also shows the attitudes of the time when the programme was being made. The source could prove further helpful if historians studying the battle of the some and general Haig used this source to watch the programme “Balckadder goes Forth” as I have. The programme proved very useful and showed real aspects of the war such as the terrible living condition, the morale of the troops (whether good or bad) and many others. In conclusion to this source, source D has some use for historian studying Haig and the battle of the Somme.
The provenance from source E also doesn’t directly associate general Haig with the cartoon however you do get the impression that they are implying Haig in particular. The old attitude towards Haig, before the revisionists was evident in 1917 the time of which the cartoon was published.
The cartoon doesn’t show resemblance towards the battle of the Somme but the similarities towards the source and Field Marshall Haig is that Haig is away from the battles along with the general from the cartoon. Apart from the fact of which the cartoon stresses the point that the generals are absent during battle, it doesn’t show any other information that links in with Haig or the battle of the Somme.
Therefore, in conclusion Source E is ambiguous and vague and not as useful towards historians such as myself studying Haig and the battle of the Somme in comparison to source D. Source E has limited use in for Historians studying Haig and the battle of the Somme.
D) Source G and H proves that Source F is wrong to some extent. I say this because only source H opposes F as Source G agrees with source F’s revisionists based ideas of Haig.
Although, nothing is particularly wrong as it is not a balanced judgment but a one sided opinion and not the whole story. The revisionist’s views of source G and F against source H and its old attitude towards Haig.
Source F attacks Haig completely, its provenance states the book is called “British butchers of world war”, this is indeed what source F is strongly suggesting about Haig. The word “Bunglers” isn’t a word you would use in serious content. The title sets the tone for the rest of the source. The source starts of very strong and from a very one-sided point of view saying “Haig was as stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey”. The source also ridicules Haig’s tactics as not being a strategic plan: “ it’s not a strategic plan at all, its slaughter.’ Source F goes on further to strongly call Haig a murderer for forcing his men to go over the top and get killed without any other alternative or reconciliation
Many people shared this old attitude towards Haig (like in source F), which blamed Haig for not doing anything untoward or different for that time in order to prevent a large amount of deaths at the battle of the Somme. However, after further research another perspective was uncovered called the revisionists attitude which was based on how Haig was a man of his time and was not expected to do anything differently but was still expected to prevent inevitable deaths from occurring. It had never occurred to Haig to change his strategy as nobody before him had ever done so. People could also argue that even if he did change his tactics he would have still lost a large amount of men a casualty lists would have remained high if not larger.
Source G is written by a German, but even still shows the revisionist views towards Haig. The source says that the war was not one of strategy. It goes on to say “morale” was a key factor in the outcome of the war. The German writer shows jealousy and flatters Haig by doing so by implying that not only had The British armies “accomplished and achieved” something at the war but were also looking promising for future wars.
The source also the German troops morale was deteriorating under the influence of young and inexperienced soldiers continuously entering the war due to high casualty lists. The provenance of Source G shows that it was written several years after the war as a German official History of the First World War book. This book was definitely under the influence of revisionist ideas as only years after the First World War were people starting to consider different point of views of why the result of the war was out of Haig’s control. The book is most definitely in favor of Haigs attributes and this is saying a lot as the opposition wrote the book.
Source H, actually praises Haig as it says his armies displayed “courage and resolution” which broke the German soldiers spirit and morale. It says that Haig’s determination radiated through his soldiers, Haig was persistent in breaking down the enemy and therefore he was brandished as one of the main architects of the Allied victory.
These two sources oppose everything written in source F as the British general praises what Haig did. In contrast to source F instead of slating Haig by saying he “sent people to their deaths purposely” (murderer), source H say’s he was one of the main factors that influenced the allies victory.
E) I believe source J and I differ from the Somme because Lloyd George has written the sources at different times, from different views and different objectives.
I say this because Lloyd George has written source I in which he is congratulating Haig immediately after the battle. This must also have been influenced by his position of “secretary for war” Lloyd George wrote source I immediately after the battle so the result would have been fresh in the mind. Source I was written in 1916 so Lloyd George would have had to encourage Haig.
However, Lloyd George has written source J in 1930, 13 years after the war. In source J Lloyd George is questioning Haig and his methods. Lloyd George then goes on to suggest that if it weren’t for America the stalemate would not have been broken. Source J shows Lloyd George’s real feelings and his opinions. Lloyd George has changed his attitude along with the public opinion to make it seem he had nothing to do with the Somme.
Lloyd George has been involved and seen first hand what happened at Verdun. He is relieved that everything is finished in their favor.
F) These sources support this view to some extent: “Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason”. I say this because I have analyzed all the sources and I can say the sources and I can the sources that support the view are: Sources C, D, E, F and J. However, the sources that don’t agree with this view are Sources A, B, H, G and I. Therefore, this quote is a balanced argument. I will now go on to explain why each quote agrees or disagrees with the quote.
Source A does not agree with the negative of Haig as Source A shows that Haigs knows there will be a high casualty lists as with most wars. He is justifying the fact that people will die in order to win the war.
As Source A is written by Haig himself. It will obviously disagree with the statement as Haig says: “the nation must be taught to bear losses”. However, the statement says: Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason”. Therefore, the words uncaring general who sacrificed his men’s lives for no good reason shows that though haig thought soldiers were dieing for a purpose, (to win the war) clearly the statement disagrees.
The statement says Haig was uncaring. However, source A disagrees with this as the provenance says Haig has written the source before the battle has even taken place. This shows Haig has been dwelling on the soldiers in his mind, but at the same time shows Haig knows plenty of his soldiers will die and he is not going to do anything to change it.
Source B doesn’t agree with the statement as Haig also wrote the two extracts in Source B. However, these extracts were both written at different times, the first before the attack and the second after the attack.
The first extract says that the soldiers are in “splendid spirits” and the battle is going well and that everybody is confident of success due to proceedings. Although we know that this is wrong as the 1st battle went badly the impression we get from the first extract is that haig is not uncaring and does not sacrifice his men’s lives needlessly
The second extract gives round about the same message as the first but says “Germans are surrendering freely therefore they are running out of men. He then goes onto repeat that the soldiers are in “wonderful spirits and full of confidence”. However, the source does not mention the huge casualty list of Britain, as we know today from the 1st day of the attack.
The extract disagrees with the statement even more so than the first> I say this because we can presume that the reason the first extract was because Haig was given the wrong information by his leading commander chief of staff. However as the se3cond extract is written by Haig in his report he must have also been given the wrong information or sincerely thought the first attack didn’t go too bad.
Source C supports the negative views towards Haig. I say this because the source discriminates Haig’s tactics of trying to destroy the barbed wire. He says that there were plenty of dead, which was caused by the barbed wire. He then goes on to say the barbed wire had not been affected by the attrition as the Germans keep reinforcing the wire. He says that if the ammunition had any effect on the barbed wire it would have made it harder for their troops to cross no mans land. The Source ridicules the plans
The provenance states the source was from an interview with a private of the war named George Coppard years after the battle. Therefore, he will have had a first hand experience of the war and is therefore unlikely to be lying about the details. If anything he may have been lenient towards Haig, as he may have forgotten some of the details due to his age. This source is severely implying that Haig was reckless with his tactics and therefore sacrificed his soldier’s lives for no good reason.
Source D supports this negative view of Haig. I say this because though the source does not refer to the war you get the feeling the source is focusing on Haig as the two comments on how going over the top of the trenches meant nothing but moving Haigs “drinks cabinet a few inches closer to Berlin”.
Source D contains a dialogue from two comrades who don’t talk about Haig until the last line. However, when they do, they don’t talk about his tactics directly but instead ridicule it by saying the sacrifice of his men’s lives didn’t mean anything as we gained “inches of land”
Source E agrees with the negative view of Haig. As altogether the cartoon does not directly refer to Haig. You get the feeling that that’s who they are suggesting due to the date the cartoon was published and the old attitude towards Haig before the revisionist’s views.
The cartoon itself gives no impression of Haig, just an army and its general. However, the provenance states that the major General is addressing the men before practicing an attack and explaining the difference between a practice and the real thing. The major general says the essential absences are that of the enemy and of the general.
This shows that the cartoon is poking fun out of Haig’s absences during the battles. Therefore, this could support the point of view which states Haig was an uncaring general.
Source F agrees with the negative view of Haig as the source comes from a recent book called “British Butchers and Bungles of World War”. This shows that the source will immediately be critical towards Haig as he wouldn’t be in the book otherwise.
Source F shares the old attitude towards Haig as it uses words such as this to describe haig and his tactics: “stubborn as a donkey”, “unthinking”, “appalling kind of strategy”,”its slaughter”, ”criminal negligence”,”sent men to their deaths”.
Source G disagrees with the view of Haig. I say this because revisionists used Source G. The source doesn’t talk about Haig in particular but only the confidence the battle of the Somme had given the British soldiers for the rest of the war.
As the provenance states the source is from a German textbook. Germany are admitting Haig had a positive effect on the army morally. The source then goes onto discuss their (Germany’s) losses i.e.: comrades. There is a sense of envy from Germany towards Britain as I feel Germany had respect for Haig.
Source H disagrees with the view of Haig. I say this because the provenance states the sources where written by a general who taught in both wars. The general says that the Germans morale’s were dented by the courage of Haig’s armies. He then goes on to say he thinks Haig had the support of his soldiers. He was persistent when trying trying to break down the enemy. He ends with a powerful statement saying Haig was one of the main architects of the allied victory.
The General fought in both wars and therefore had a first hand experience of Haig’s personality, the soldier’s views of Haig and the other aspects he says in the source. Therefore, I wouldn’t doubt some parts of the extract. However, the general wrote the source in 1873 years after the war.
Source I disagrees with the negative view of Haig. I say this because Lloyd George is complimenting Haig on his ability of turning the battle around. However the provenance states Lloyd George wrote the source during the war as the secretary for war and therefore had to be complementary.
Source J agrees with the negative view of Haig as Lloyd George has changed his attitude 13 years on with the public opinion. Source J shows his real feeling and opinions as it is written in his memoirs as oppose to source I. Source j was written to make Lloyd George seem he had nothing to do with the Somme. Lloyd George is therefore going along with the public opinion.
