b) Study sources B and C. Which one of these do you trust more?
Unfortunately, the purpose for which Haig wrote source B is not completely evident, however it is likely to be a diary excerpt, due to the fact that it contains short, rushed sentences. This would result in the source to be reasonably reliable, as Haig wouldn’t feel the need to lie when recording his own personal thoughts, assuming his diary was private. However, if his diary was not exclusively for his own reading and, for example, he planned to publish it after the war, then its reliability can be doubted, due to the fact that Haig, as would most humans, could have slanted the information in his favour, to portray him in the best possible way. Perhaps he anticipated victory at the end of the battle, therefore allowing him to omit certain negative facts, as it would be more believable in victory and people would be less likely to challenge him afterwards. Additionally, Haig was the commander in charge of the battle, and would therefore unconditionally demonstrate bias towards himself, his decisions, and the positive way that the battle was going. The short sentences and frequent full stops could also mean that he is presenting a definitive report, and doesn’t want any questions, so he doesn’t have to elaborate on his lie.
From my own knowledge, the soldiers – mostly volunteers, who were extremely patriotic – were likely to be, as described by Haig, in “splendid spirits”. Still today, this patriotic attitude often leads to deception – with a nation believing themselves to be better and superior to others – resulting in the likelihood of them being in good spirits and the source being reliable. However, the use of the world “splendid” could be an exaggeration to boost British morale, especially due to the fact that the phrase “splendid spirits” contains alliteration, perhaps deliberately creating a nobler image. My own knowledge also concurs with the fact that several men said, “they had never before been so well instructed and informed” – as the soldiers were very well prepared before the Battle, suggesting the source is reliable. Furthermore, if Haig had decided to alter the facts of the war, it would have been a very large risk – as if his commanding officers found out then they would have been extremely angry, resulting in a huge and crucial loss of morale.
On the other hand, the source could also be an update to politicians or other commanders, as it frequently refers to “us” and “our”, suggesting communication with someone whose position and views are similar to that of Haig’s. If this is the case, then it is more likely to be unreliable – as Haig could again be trying to portray himself in the best possible way. Assuming the source was for public consumption, then Haig would have been obliged to be optimistic, as the first half of the source was written the day before the battle, where it would have been too late to go back, even if he doubted success. This would have resulted in a positive slant on the information given by Haig, whatever the circumstances. Assuming this was the case, then the slant on the truth would then have escalated, resulting in the second half of the source being even more unreliable. After saying that the men, artillery and barbed wire were so well prepared, and then giving a bad report after the first day, Haig would have greatly lost respect and trust – forcing him to lie to prevent this.
Haig’s report in this source contradicts what is generally accepted as factual in regard to quality of ammunition state of the barbed wire. This second half of the source is therefore shown to be almost a complete lie, which renders the source to be very unreliable. He states “the barbed wire has never been so well cut, nor the artillery preparation so thorough”, where in actual fact the barbed wire was tangled, and one third of the shells were later found to be dunce. After the first day, Haig reports “very successful attack this morning”, when 20,000 men had actually died within the first hour, 57,470 in total on the first day. He also says that the Germans were quickly surrendering, which my studies have shown to be untrue, as the battle continued for a further five months. Furthermore, source C describes the intensity of the German defences – which would have given them no reason to surrender. The only part of this source that has a possibility of being true is that the troops were “in wonderful spirits and full of confidence”, after the first day. This could be true, as people tried to be positive, and the battle was along a thirty-kilometre front – resulting in the total extremity of the deaths not being wholly understood by each individual soldier and officer. Although this source seems to be extremely unreliable, Haig may not have been completely responsible for the misinformation. He wasn’t actually there; meaning source B is a secondary source, less reliable than a primary source. The information reported to Haig may have been optimistically altered to boost morale, and Haig could have then added to this optimistic inaccuracy to boost morale further, unaware of this previous alteration. As the information had to be reported and passed through several officers, it is likely to be inaccurate and the source very likely to be unreliable. There is far more compelling evidence to suggest that this source is unreliable than there is suggesting it is reliable, resulting in my large distrust of the source.
Unfortunately, the purpose for which the interview in source C was taken is not evident, resulting in an uncertainty regarding the reliability of the source. However, the information given coincides with my own knowledge, increasing its likelihood of it being reliable. It is a primary source, as it is an account from someone who experienced the battle first hand – and the information given is therefore likely to be accurate. More evidence to support this is that it is very descriptive, which gives a good image of what happened, creating the idea that it is an accurate and reliable source. Private George Coppard also criticises the planners of the battle – which he is in a position to do, unlike Haig in source B (as the only person to criticise would be himself), resulting in this source being more likely to be reliable than source B. He states that the “shell fire lifts wire up and drops it down, often in a worse tangle than before”, which my studies have shown to be correct.
However, there is evidence doubting the reliability of the source. The interview was taken years after the battle, where the interviewee could have forgotten or gradually changed events in his mind as a result of other influences. Towards the end of the 20th century, war became very frowned upon and was perceived to be less noble, so Coppard could have altered his descriptions to agree with these views. Furthermore, the battle took place along a 30-kilometre front, in which Coppard could not see all the events of the battle, and his account would therefore only have been about the part of the battle that he saw and experienced.
The source is extremely descriptive, with very elaborate vocabulary, which very few normal people could come up with. This suggests that, unless he was very poetic, the descriptions were premeditated and not spontaneous – doubting the reliability of this source, as thought was evidently put into the description beforehand, and deliberate alterations could have been made. Moreover, people are known to have selective memories, where negative or unwanted memories are often blotted out, either consciously or subconsciously. If Coppard saw friends or family die in the war, then he could have either made the war seem nobler than it was, to remember them in a good way, or have a biased negative opinion to the war, resulting in his descriptions being biased.
In addition, both the interviewer and the interviewee have their own personal thoughts and opinions – which would be displayed in the way they communicate to each other. The interviewer is in charge of the interview, and can therefore direct the questions and information in the way that they want the conversation to go, to obtain selective information – the interviewer can slant the information and ‘put a spin’ on the questions to gain what they want. They are also able to omit certain questions whose answers would perhaps contradict the main aim of their interview, resulting in the source not being completely reliable, even though it is a primary source.
In conclusion, neither sources are overly reliable, but I trust source C more as it is less likely to contain as extreme levels of bias. Furthermore, the information given in source C is first hand, but the information in source B was passed on between different people, making it less reliable and untrustworthy. Private Coppard also didn’t have to alter his account to keep public face, whereas Haig would have been forced to, resulting in the source being very unreliable.
c) Study source D. The source is not about Haig and the Battle of the Somme. How far do you agree that it has no use for historians studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme?
For a source to have historical value, it must be both accurate and reliable to give a useful account of the events being analysed by historians. This source is an excerpt from a comedy TV show, whose main purpose is obviously for entertainment, rather than providing the viewers with factual information – it is therefore not intended to have historical value for historians studying the Battle of the Somme. The means by which comedy usually operates is based on the exaggerations of truths and opinions; otherwise it has no comic value. This means that whatever facts or opinions this source contains are very likely to be exaggerated, and therefore have little historical value. However, it is not often that historians can see such re-enactments, and may therefore help to give a better understanding of the conditions the soldiers lived in and their corresponding opinions. Furthermore, this re-enactment is likely to be based on reasonably accurate information regarding these conditions and opinions, as the writer’s (Ben Elton) uncle is a Professor of History. However, both Ben Elton and his uncle could have biased opinions, resulting in unreliability of opinions in the source. Bearing in mind the characters are merely actors following a script, rather than displaying their own personal opinions – these biased attitudes of the writers can easily be displayed.
The first quote in this source states that they were “at last about to go over the top”, which agrees with my own knowledge. From the beginning of the war in 1914, it took until 1916 for the recruitment of the British Territorial Army to be completed to a sufficient standard – possibly resulting in Blackadder’s opinion here to be fairly accurate in representing the opinion at the time. The second quote is also likely to show a fairly accurate opinion – as friends and colleagues were able to serve together in ‘Pals Battalions’, causing them to have high morale and optimism; displayed in this quote. Due to the fact that they are accurate, show that the source has some historical value.
However, the third quote disagrees with the previous, as it is extremely pessimistic and displays an undignified attitude towards Haig, which could possibly represent the variation in opinions and attitudes between each individual soldier. The fact that the soldier addresses Blackadder as ‘sir’ in the previous quote shows that Blackadder is more highly ranked and might suggest that he has had more experience in battle tactics, resulting in his pessimistic view – possibly showing that the soldier is more naïve in taking this optimistic approach. This is very likely to be true, as many different soldiers would have had many different views of the war at the time, showing that the source does have some historical value. Blackadder states that Field Marshall Haig is about to “make yet another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin”. This corresponds with fact – as a lot of “effort” was put in, with the results being very small land gains. However, here an obvious example of comic exaggeration is shown, as the typical advancements were usually a few miles, not “six inches”, reducing the factual value to historians. Whether the soldiers discussed their extreme opinions of the higher commanders as openly as this is not evident, but it is perhaps successful in accurately displaying their personal thoughts and opinions.
In conclusion, I do not agree that the source has completely no value to historians studying the Battle of the Somme, but it has very little. It is fairly accurate in regard to its factual content and representation of opinions, but the exaggeration and the fact that its intentions are for entertainment result in it being unreliable to historians, and therefore not very useful. Furthermore, the extremely pessimistic view displayed by Blackadder could be a result of a biased opinion from the writer, resulting in the source being untrustworthy and not very valuable for historians.
d) Do sources G and H prove that source F is wrong?
Source F is very unreliable, as it contains extreme levels of bias. This tremendous level of bias can be seen not only from the content of the source, but also from the title of the book from which the source was taken. “British Butchers and Bunglers of World War” immediately displays an obviously biased attitude – the blatant opposition to commanders using the ‘war of attrition’ tactic. The book was also written recently, which makes it very likely that the author was not in the war, and the information is therefore a secondary source, more likely to be unreliable and inaccurate. The book does not present an argument or discussion, but presents an opinion – only one side of the argument, resulting in doubt of its historical value, as it is not allowing the reader to come to their own conclusion about Haig. If the information was presented in a more neutral way, then some might have argued that the ‘war of attrition’ tactic is a principle which has been used by others in war – it is almost an acceptable concept of war, so it doesn’t necessarily make him a butcher. The source says “the principle that guided him was if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men”, which in fact reinforces this argument, as it is the same principle that the Germans used at Verdun. The source also states “he knew they had no chance of breakthrough but still sent men to their deaths”. This again displays the biased opinion the source contains – despite the fact that the authors can use hindsight, they still fail to mention the fact that the main purpose of the Somme was to relieve pressure on Verdun, which it succeeded in doing. This shows that the source is very unreliable, and can easily be proven wrong.
Source G was written by the Germans, so one would expect it to be very biased. However, this is not the case. In fact, they even praise the Allies, “their armies had accomplished an achievement that gave good promise for the future”, rather than praising or making excuses for themselves, as would be expected. If what the source describes is not the truth, then why would the Germans go out of their way to lie and praise the opposition? This shows that the source is likely to be the truth, or truth in the way the Germans perceived the war. There are few obvious reasons for lies, so it is likely to be accurate and reliable – it is also the official record of the event, and will therefore have been intended to be as accurate as possible. The only possible explanation for the Germans altering their evident opinion is that it was published in the 1930’s, at least 14 years after the Battle of the Somme. During this time, Hitler had risen to power – and mass propaganda was in place. If the Allies had access to this German Official History (which they were likely to have had, as the source is available to be examined now, and probably was then as well), then the Germans may have altered the official history, to show a positive attitude towards the Allies, so they wouldn’t expect Hitler’s present rearmament. However, this can only be speculated. Although the source was written after the actual battle, it is still a primary source as it was written from people who witnessed the event first hand – making it reasonably reliable. It was also written by many different people – so it is less likely to display one single opinion, making it more reliable. However, it was only written by people from the German side, who would inevitably have the same overall opinions. The source also shows that Haig did actually achieve, “its consequences nevertheless were great”, which contradicts source F, making source F likely to be untrue – as G is evidently more reliable. If the opposition are saying that the Somme had achieved, then it is likely to be true – as there would be no reason to lie in favour of their opposition.
Although the author of source H is a general, and could therefore be biased and ‘backing his own’, he is experienced and can consequently compare Haig to other generals. However, there is more evidence suggesting this source’s unreliability. This source contradicts source C, as H is positive towards Haig and his tactics, whereas C is negative towards him. This means that one has to be inaccurate – and it is more likely to be source H, as Coppard has nothing to prove, whereas the British General has his colleague’s decisions to justify – suggesting the sources unreliability. More evidence to suggest the source’s unreliability is the fact that the General had been through two traumatic wars, and was giving his account nearly sixty years after the battle, meaning he could easily be confused or his descriptions inaccurate. The source also displays bias, as it only discusses the positives about Haig and his decisions, and doesn’t contain both sides of the argument.
From this, G can be perceived as the most reliable of the three sources, followed by H and finally F. This means that the message being portrayed in sources G and H can be more trusted and more convincingly believed. The main message portrayed in source F is that Haig’s tactics were disastrously wrong and his aims were unsuccessful. This source is likely to be wrong, as sources G and H (the more reliable sources) contradict it, as their main message is that what Haig did was right, and he was successful in achieving his aims. As well as the fact that sources G and H suggest source F is wrong, some factual evidence previously mentioned regarding source F also doubts the level of truth of its content. In conclusion, source F is very likely to be wrong. However, sources G and H do not completely prove that source F is wrong, as they have been shown not to be completely reliable. Additionally, the reasonings as to why source G is praising the Allies is not known, and the reasons why source H was written is not known – so a definite conclusion cannot be ascertained, only assumed, so source F cannot be entirely proven wrong.
