Source C was written a good few years after the battle itself in an interview with a private that served in the battle. Private George Coppard tells us how the “Germans must have been reinforcing the barbed wire for months”. He describes how as many soldiers were dieing on the barbed wire as they were on the ground “Quite as many died on the enemy wire as on the ground”. The tone is slating the preparations of the attack and does not have a good word to say about them “How did the planners imagine the Tommie’s would get through the wire”. Although he seems to be more aware of what was going in the battle he only knows what’s going on in his patch where he is fighting. This does not give an overall account of the battle it can tell us how bad it was in some places along the frontline. I think that this source supports the view 'Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason' because it talks about how bad the planning was and I think if the Haig had planned better then maybe the death count would be lower.
Charlotte Gittings
Source D is a still out of the TV series “Blackadder Goes Forth”. I am unsure as to the category I should put this source in as it has no blatantly obvious clues. The source just insinuates that Haig is a man who likes his alcohol and would make a large sacrifice for such a small thing “Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to moves his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin”. The “yet” in this statement is a key point as it shows us that Haig has done something similar to this before. This source is also meant as a humorous one “You mean the moment has finally arrived for us to give Harry Hun a darn good British style thrashing, six of the best, trousers down?” so as you can see Source D is in the unsure category as there is nothing pointing to the statement 'Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason'.
Source E is a cartoon published in a magazine in February 1917. This source is also meant as a humorous one. But is infact having a dig at not only Haig but other generals “The absence of a general sir”. I think that this source agrees with the statement 'Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason' because if Haig did care I think that he would of visited the frontline and seen the real goings on of the war. This source is naming the three main differences between war and a rehearsal so as it is a general asking the question “Major General” it is obvious he is at the rehearsal but not at the war itself. This is entirely true, it is rare that the General would visit the frontline, in Haig’s case he was 40 miles back from the frontline and receiving information of the privates. So in my opinion using the information given I think that this source agrees.
Source F is an extract out of a book released recently “British Butchers and Bunglers of World War”. I think that this source agrees strongly with 'Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason' even though the information could just be written around the books title. The writer writes “He knew he had no chance of a breakthrough but still sent men to their deaths” this is a key point as it basically says what’s in the quote in the question but in different words. It is clear to see that this source is written to basically slaughter Haig and for no other purpose. This source also mentions the principle that guided Haig “The principle that guided him was if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men, then at some time he would win the war” this is also a point which I see as important because it shows all Haig is bothered about is winning the war and killing the Germans and doesn’t have a thought for the men doing all the dirty work involved in a war.
Source G is as far as I can tell praising Haig. The source is talking about how the confidence of the German troops dropped as the morale of the British troops escalated “The confidence of the German troops in victory was no longer as great as before” this source seems to on “on Haig’s side” so to speak. As it is praising all he did and belittleing all the Germans did. So you can see that source I disagrees with the statement 'Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason'.
Source H is also praising Haig like in source G “for he never wavered from his purpose of breaking down the powers of resistance of the enemy” this is telling how Haig stuck by what he’d said and was a good general overall and did his job proud. “Haig was one of the main architects of the Allied victory” this again shows Haig did a good job of being a
Charlotte Gittings
General. So as you can see this source disagrees with the statement 'Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason' because all this source does is praise Haig and his success. Although this source could be very biased as it was written by another British general despite this it still disagrees.
Sources I and J are both written by Lloyd George, but at different time periods. Source I for example was written in 1916 and congratulates Haig “I congratulate you most warmly on the skill with which you plans were laid.” Obviously Lloyd George thinks Haig is doing a good job. But does he? Is Lloyd George just writing to Haig in a positive manor because what he says is published or is he telling the truth? Well we won’t know. In contrast with source I, source J says how Lloyd George “Expressed my doubts to General Haig as to whether cavalry cold ever operate successfully” so here he is being very contradictory. Source I disagrees with the quote 'Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason' but source J is one I am unsure whether it agrees or disagrees.
