How useful are sources A, B, and C to a historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders during the First World War?

Mark M Addison Page 5/9/2007

Coursework Assignment One

Question One

How useful are sources A, B, and C to a historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders during the First World War?

Firstly, Source A is a cartoon from the British magazine ‘Punch’. It shows a Maj. General addressing his men before a practice exercise. The text beneath the cartoon describes the General telling the men that there a three essential differences between a practice and the real attack; firstly the absence of the enemy and them he asks a Sargent Major for the second to which he replies ‘the absence of the General’. This source takes a very satirical view of the hypocrisy of the First World War commanders. It shows a General telling men about battles of the kind he has never participated in. This highlights the way many soldiers felt, particularly those of ranks such as Lieutenant and Captain, who tell their men the wire was cut and that everything would be alright, despite what they knew, because those were the orders of the Generals. The problem with this source is that it was drawn in Britain, most probably by someone who had not been to the front. This however, means that it is very good for judging public opinion. It is aimed at the British public to inform them of the way their Generals were acting. This source agrees with that of source B, but not of source C.

Secondly, Source B is an extract from the BBC television program ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’ and describes the reaction of a fictional British officer to the issue of his General’s orders. Many officers did feel that their General’s orders were poorly thought through and this satirical view of an officer, even if those same phrases would not have been used, would still feel dismayed at the issue of another ‘textbook’ approach to the battle they were destined to face. It was written in the 1990’s so the writer would have access to much information about the feelings of men on the front. However, it is a comedy program and is meant to be funny, not teach a lesson about the views of soldiers about their commanders and as such is not very useful for finding out about the views of soldiers in the First World War. This source has the same type of satirical opinion as source A.

Source C is an extract from an article in the newspaper; ‘The Daily Telegraph’ published on in November 1998. The extract is a quote by Earl Haig, the son of Field Marshal Haig, defending and justifying his father’s actions in the First World War. Earl Haig is not a historian and will have been influenced by what his father has told him about his actions and will quite obviously have an extremely biased and one sighted opinion. He says, “When the old soldiers who fought in the war were alive, I never heard a word of criticism from them.” He is blatantly not going to meet with a man who is going to insult his father’s actions, and if he did he would not be likely to tell a national newspaper about it. The people he talked to probably did not participate in any large scale battle and so he only has the views of those who did not suffer greatly in the war, and he should perhaps talk to a member of the Newfoundland division if he wanted the opinions of those who suffered at the orders of his father. He goes on to say, “Many of the people who now pour scorn on my father and the way the war was fought don’t know the first thing about it.” I doubt that Earl Haig has read any deep and serious historical research about the First World War and the attitudes of British soldiers towards his father. Finally Earl Haig would probably have editorial control over the article in exchange for his views on the matter. This renders this source a lot less useful that the others perhaps are, unless we want to find out about what Earl Haig thinks he knows about how his father’s orders were met at the frontline.

Email

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

In conclusion, neither of these three sources are much use in finding out about what soldiers thought about their commanders in the First World War. Source A is the closest to the truth, but it does not tell us a great deal about the feelings of the soldiers. Source B is not much use because in the end it is not meant to be a historical program. Yes it is set in the past, but it’s primary aim is to be funny, not factual. Source C is single minded, biased opinion from the son of Haig, who cannot help but ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In conclusion, neither of these three sources are much use in finding out about what soldiers thought about their commanders in the First World War. Source A is the closest to the truth, but it does not tell us a great deal about the feelings of the soldiers. Source B is not much use because in the end it is not meant to be a historical program. Yes it is set in the past, but it’s primary aim is to be funny, not factual. Source C is single minded, biased opinion from the son of Haig, who cannot help but be biased because of the fact his father was Field Marshal Haig.

Question Two

John Keegan, a modern military historian, suggests that Haig was an, “efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War.” Is there sufficient evidence in Sources

C - L to support this interpretation? Use sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.

The extract that makes up source C is a quote by Earl Haig, defending his father’s actions in the First World War. Earl Haig is not a historian and will have been influenced by what his father has told him about his actions and will then, quite obviously, have an extremely biased opinion. He says, “When the old soldiers who fought in the war were alive, I never heard a word of criticism from them.” He is obviously not going to meet with an ex-soldier who will insult his father’s actions during the war, and if he did he would be very unlikely to tell a national newspaper, like the ‘Daily Telegraph,’ read by millions of people, about it. Finally Earl Haig would probably have editorial control over the article in exchange for his views. This quote would support Keegan’s interpretation about Haig being an ‘efficient’ commander when he says “It is high time my father was given credit for… the victories he achieved… which brought the war to an end.” It is true that Haig achieved many victories but at an immense cost of human life, which I believe does not reflect an efficient or highly skilled soldier.

Source D is a poster appearing in the book ‘General Haig’s Private War.’ The information I have about this source is limited since I do not know when it was drawn, who drew it or what type of book it is published in. Regardless of this lack of information we can still learn a great deal about Haig from it. The poster shows Haig’s absolute and unshakeable self-confidence, which, on the Somme, led to his inability to recognise defeat. It was his absolute self-belief which led him to promise a great victory on the Somme and subsequently led him to make continued attacks over the 142 days of the battle when most would have seen that his objectives could not be achieved by this. In my view, for a commander to be efficient he must be able to recognise defeat. Haig showed no sign of this ability on the Somme, leading me to the conclusion that he was not an efficient commander as Keegan suggests.

Source E is three extracts from what I presume to be Haig’s diary. The last two extracts shows a man blind to the truth and reality of modern warfare. “Very successful attack,” refers to the 60,000 dead or wounded on the first day of the Somme, with only the village of Montauban taken, and the greatest British military disaster of all time. To suggest, after seeing this phrase used for such an event, that Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier would be naïve. However, I am looking at this from the point of view that it had killed so many people, whilst Keegan may have taken the view that these casualties were necessary, and the battle had to be fought to relieve pressure on the French at Verdun. This Haig achieved, saving Verdun and the British-French co-operation, which was a necessary part of winning the war. Whether or not you view the Somme as a victory would depend largely on your perspective.

Sources F and K are written by modern military historians, and were both published post 1989, when there was much more information available to the authors that in previous decades about Haig as a commander and also as a man. This enables Livesey, author of source F, and Warburton, author of source K, to write unbiased overviews of Haig. Haig, however, is not the main subject of Livesey’s book, entitled, ‘Great Battles of World War 1.’ It does talk about Haig’s ‘great self-confidence’ and ‘constant, often misplaced’ optimism. Livesey also mentioned an ‘inability to recognise defeat.’ This source portrays Haig as a man blind except unto himself, and this certainly means he is not an efficient and highly skilled commander. Source K is from a GCSE modern history book. This extract asks probably the best question about Haig to used in his defence: was there anyone better for the job? Haig was a product of his time, and this was a war of a type that had never been seen before, and at the end of the war was he not ultimately victorious.

Source G is the war memoirs of David Lloyd George. In these memoirs he is trying to justify his actions and absolve himself of blame and he does this by using a scapegoat in the form of Haig. “My only justification is that Haig promised not to press the attack if it became clear he could not attain his objectives by continuing the offensive.” This once again shows Haig’s inability to recognise defeat and, as discussed before, this is a vital quality for a general leading to the conclusion that Haig was neither highly skilled nor efficient.

Source H is from the official biography of Haig, which Cooper has been asked to write by Haig’s family. Haig’s family would have editorial control over this book and so Cooper’s arguments are likely to be one sided and biased. However, it does make the point that the battle of the Somme had to be fought. This then raises the following questions. Did Haig have to use those tactics? No. Did Haig have to ignore intelligence? No. Did Haig have to continue the battle for 142 days, after it became clear his objective of breaking the German line had become impossible to achieve after perhaps five days? No. These answers make it clear that Haig was neither a highly skilled nor an efficient commander.

In conclusion, There is not sufficient evidence to support Keegan’s theory in the sources, although his son believed in Keegan’s interpretation he would have a biased opinion and therefore that source is not of much use to me. There are a few balanced overviews, the most credible being from a GCSE modern history book (Source K) meant to educate about the war, however it is still a long way from saying that he was efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War. However, to blame Haig for the individual failings of the British war effort is putting too much criticism on him. Keegan may have arrived at his opinion from looking at other battles Haig fought and commanded in, and not just the Somme and other bloodlettings like it. However, there is still the example of Haig’s inefficiency and lack of skill in the art of modern warfare that was the Battle of the Somme, and this must be taken into consideration. It is seen by some as a victory, but there were 20,000 dead 40,000 wounded on the first day and many of these casualties were taken in the first half-hour of the battle. This cost on the first day amounted to just one advance of just over a mile to seize the village of Montauban. During a five-day attack on the Somme, on the ridge marked by Delville Wood, only 758 men of the 3000 strong South African Brigade were left alive, and many of these had suffered wounds before relief arrived. During the 142 days between 1st July and 18th November that was the Battle of the Somme, 1.2 million men were dead or wounded. Surely these would be hugely unacceptable losses to an efficient and highly skilled commander as Keegan suggests Haig was, but still he pressed on with the attack, and for example, in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps alone, 23,000 men died to gain just one mile of mud. A.J.P. Taylor sums up the Somme in these words, “The Somme set the picture by which future generations saw the First World War: brave helpless soldiers; obstinate generals; nothing achieved.”