Question 2a: Does source 4 support of refute sources 2 and 3? Explain your answer
Source 4 refutes sources 2 and 3. Sources 2 and 3 describe Haig as a ‘butcher’ and a ‘murderer’ who ‘never cared for men’s lives’. Soldiers would have had a narrow perspective though, as they would only see what surrounded them. Source 4 implies that he did care about his men, saying he knows ‘how many [men] will have to pay the penalty for peace’, and that he felt ‘quite sad’ about this. The phrase ‘quite sad’ is quite controversial. In the language of the upper class, ‘quite’ can be either deemed as very, or not very much. This shows that he was either affected, but not so much that others would notice and take into consideration, or that he was greatly affected
There is one point that is supported from all sources, being the fact that he always stayed behind the line (‘he lived almost 50 kilometers behind the line’, source 3), and knew nothing of trench warfare. ‘He lived almost 50 kilometers behind the line’, says source 3 and ‘I don’t think he knew what a trench was like’. Haig, in source 4, says that he saw his troops ‘march past’ him, supporting the idea that he ad little knowledge of trench warfare during the war. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, as being behind the front lines allows him to get a wider perspective of the war compared to the relatively narrow perspective seen from the front line, how much land gained etc. In addition, he could not get personally involved when in the front lines, as he would not be able to function as general if he did. However, this does carry the danger of him beginning to see soldiers as just numbers and figures of results, and not as lives, which is what he eventually is criticised for doing.
*Question 2b: Assess the reliability of sources two, three, and four
Sources 2 and 3 have been written after the war, from memory, and as they have witnessed Haig’s tactics they would almost definitely be biased against Haig. The writers might have forgotten key facts, and might have felt resentment that Haig was rewarded when the war ceased.
Source 2 is obviously quite unreliable, as he appears to be drawing almost all of his conclusions about Haig from what he thinks to be true; ‘I don’t know anything about generals’. This confirms the narrower perspective that the soldiers had as mentioned earlier. Source 3 reiterates what four (a private letter from Haig to his wife) says; ‘I don’t think he knew what a trench was like’ and ‘… don’t know anything about generals’. It is possibly even more unreliable than source 2, as there is a further element of bias. In addition, there is the fact that they do not know for sure whether their statements are true. He says ‘I’m very bitter’ and gives negative comments on his post-war rewards (or lack of).
Even more ambiguous, source 4 (a prime example of censorship) is very unreliable. When writing to his wife, Haig would have known it foolish to write ‘Today, I killed ten of thousands of men and I have thought nothing more of it’. He would not have received a warm reception by his wife (and others who would view the letter) upon arrival back home. Therefore, we cannot make a conclusion as to whether he was truly sad about the loss of his men, or that he wrote that he was as a façade.
Question 3: What impression does it give of Sir Douglas Haig? Why might this postcard have been printed during the war?
The impression of the postcard is of admiralty and patriotism and trust to the government. These effects are thanks to the appearance of General Haig, his stature, look of confidence, uniform and medals give the image that he is a great man, they also state that Haig is experienced. Overall, this picture gives a strong impression of authority. This is great governmental propaganda, as it would inspire confidence in his men and their families, increasing morale and encouraging fighting. Also, back at home, having seen the postcard, people would have felt sure of victory, and recruitment would rise.
*Question 4: Tanks were first used in the Battle of the Somme. Using these sources and your own knowledge assess the historians’ verdicts on Haig’s decisions to use tanks.
Sources 6 and 7 both have different opinions when tanks were first used at the battle of the Somme. Source 6 is obviously highly critical of Haig’s decision to use the tank in the Battle of the Somme. He holds the view that not only did Haig use the tanks before they had even been properly tested in battle, but ‘only fifty’ implies that he thinks that the number of tanks was so small that even to think that they had a chance of breaking the stalemate wasn’t really worth thinking about. Haig was ‘advised not to use them until they were available in greater numbers’, and as we know, he ‘ignored the counsel’, and the tanks were an overwhelming failure. This is a fair point to make, but if you consider the state of affairs, if he had not used the tanks he would have been condemned for having not used every means at his disposal. Therefore, whichever judgment he made, would have come under scrutiny. There seems to be a degree of scorn, with the remark ‘Sadly [sarcasm], twenty-eight broke down before they reached the battle area’. Evans is blatantly mocking Haig’s ignorance of the fact that the tank had never been previously tested. ‘…and were soon bogged down or knocked out’. He ends by stating that the tanks’ trial run had evidently failed. It was unwise to try out an untested weapon in a major battle.
Source 7 however is taking an opposite view point by sympathising with Haig’s mindset. Quoting Haig, Terry Norman (the writer) written that Haig was put under pressure ‘cannot wait any longer for them’. Terry Norman also was a bit sympathetic to Haig and his battle plans when he said ‘it is not difficult to feel a degree of sympathy with Haig’s reasoning’.
.
Question 4b: Are they right to think this?
Source 6 is very negative of Haig because of the negative wording of the source; there are several reasons for why he is negative. The source implied that Haig was ignorant which he may as well be because tanks were a new weapons in warfare, which Haig wasn’t used to because he spent the major years in the British army fighting the Boer wars when they were using we opens which were not on the same level as the ones they had when they were fighting, he even put on Horses in the trenches. Another reason why he is right to be negative is in the source he said that Haig was forewarned not to use the tanks, ‘he was advised not to use them until they were available in greater numbers’ this shows that Haig knew the tanks were not ready but he deployed them nevertheless. However, source 7 says that Haig deployed the tanks because he was under pressure, in desperate need in something to help his troops. Around the time of when he deployed the tanks, the Germans were advancing to capture French land in the battle of Verdun. Haig was faced with a dilemma of whether to deploy the tanks early to relieve pressure from the French or to see the French armies decimated. That is why Haig said to his wife, ‘I cannot wait any longer for them’. Therefore, with justification, he called on the tanks to ‘surprise [the Germans] to break the stalemate’.
I feel that Terry Norman makes a fair point, as the tank was more than just a theoretically devastating weapon. On the battlefield, the tank would have been a very formidable weapon, with impenetrable armour plating, fearsome firepower, and its ability to cover harsh terrain. Moreover, it was certainly the answer to barbed wire and other defenses put into place by the Germans to slow British advances. This would have delivered a huge blow on German morale. Also, back at home, seeing pictures of the potentially war winning weapon would have greatly strengthened the morale back at home; giving support from the public. Pictures of the tanks would have been shown in the cinemas, which made the viewers think they had a chance of winning, so recruitment went up. After reconsideration, the tank at the time would have seemed a justified course of action. However, after a while, the Germans eventually realised the tanks’ flaws, finding strategies for defeating the tanks, and creating blue prints for their own tanks.
Also, I believe strongly that Haig was not at fault for using the tanks at that stage of the war, but it was the way they were used. It was thought that if the artillery bombarded the enemies defenses, the tanks would be able to steam right through them. In reality, the artillery shells created giant craters, and turned up mud in which the eventually the tanks would be stuck, or ‘bogged down’ until they were ‘knocked out’ with relative ease by the Germans.
5. These sources are taken from a novel, a song, and a poem. How reliable are they as evidence about the role of generals during the war? Explain your answer.
