Source C is from an extract with George Coppard who was Private in the battle of the Somme and would have been fighting at the front line. Although it was written a long time after the battle it is still a primary source and can be trusted. It shows that the men had little confidence in their senor officers and the plans and tactics that they came up with. “any Tommy could have told them that shell fire lifts wire up and drops it down, often in a worse tangle that before.”
Source D is an extract from a T.V. series “Blackadder Goes Forth”. This series was fictional but it was based on facts. It carries an underling message about what people thought of Haig. The extract is very critical of him. “Yes, clearly Field Marshall Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches close to Berlin.” This is analogy of how Haig will do anything just to gain a few miles of land, even kill thousands of men.
Source E is about a British cartoon drawn in 1917 after the Somme offensive had finished. It is stating the fact that Haig never went to the front line to see what the men where actually having to fight in. “Major-General: I want you to understand that there is a difference between a rehearsal and the real thing. There are three essential differences: first, the absence of the enemy. Now (turning to the Regimental Sergeant-Major) what is the second difference? Sergeant Major: The absence of the General, Sir.”
Source F is in favour of the question but we don’t know when it was written or who wrote it. The title of the book, “British Butchers and Bunglers of World” gives the impression of negativity, very anti-war, anti Haig and the battle of the Somme. “The Somme was criminal negligence.”
David Lloyd George wrote source J in the 30’s. It is an extract from his memoirs. These are his own private thoughts, he has nothing to gain by saying what he is saying. He is no longer president, Haig is dead so we can trust what this source says.
The following sources are against the statement.
Although the first part of source B is against the statement it is proper gander and the intention of it was to keep moral high so it was not the truth.
Source G is an official German account of the war. It is unlikely to be bias but it is going to be one-sided view.
Source H is from a British general in 1973 who fought in both wars. It is very supportive of Haig, “Haigs’ armies, which had complete confidence in the leadership of their commander.” But this extract of writing was written along time after the war. Also it is understandable that this man is so supportive of Haig. This general had lived his whole life in the army and had been taught to have complete faith in his commanders.
Source I was written by David Lloyd George. It is very positive and supportive of Haig but at this point of David’s life he was sectary of war. This meant that if the war was going badly he could be blamed. This source is also to keep moral high.
The sources that support the stalemate out weight the sources that are against it. From background knowledge we know that Haig never visited the front line and was prepared to send men to there deaths in there thousands. He would send men over the top knowing that there were no gaps in the German wire. He would also send cavalry against machine guns, which was hopeless. The artillery was not set up properly and there was no element of surprise. The Germans would have always known about an attack. Also Haig was a very stubborn man.
