Source B: This source is useful in studying the attitudes of soldiers towards their commanders. This source tells me that the soldiers do not have any respect towards their commanders. This source was written after the war in a series called “Blackadder goes forth” on BBC TV. This source is not biased but I think this script tends to be on the soldier’s view. The intended audience for this is for everyone because there is comedy for younger people and for people who served in the world wars. The source is telling me that the Generals were pretty useless and made a lot of innocent people lose their lives. It also tells me that soldiers really did dislike their Generals because they put a lot of soldiers and innocent people in life risking situations.
Source C: This source was written in The Daily Telegraph in November 1998. It was written by Earl Haig, the son of Field Marshall Haig which makes it biased because he is sticking up for his father as anyone else would. In support to this view from my own knowledge the battle did take pressure off Verdun, where the Germans called off their attack. Nobody at that time knew of a different way of fighting so Haig should not be blamed for using these tactics. Haig was trying to bring the war to an end by attacking in the only way he knew. But in support of criticisms of Haig using my own knowledge, Haig could think of no other way of fighting then sending wave after wave of soldiers to their deaths in “No-man’s land”. It was soon clear that these attacks were not going to succeed and yet Haig persisted with them. A total of 620,000 British soldiers were killed for just a few miles of territory. Haig had wasted all these lives and the German lines had not been broken. The bombardment had been useless and had just warned the Germans about the attack. But to be fair to Haig trench warfare was new to everyone at the time and no one really had any idea about how to cope with it. This source cannot be useful because it is clearly biased.
Question 2: 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 to L to support this interpretation? Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
Source C is telling us that this opinion is bias because it is written by Earl Haig, the son of Field Marshall Haig. He probably did not like it that all these bad things were being said about his father. We cannot make this useful sufficient evidence. He is saying that his father should have been given credit for the job he did and the victories he achieved. But is he just saying this because he loves his father?
Source E supports the view of John Keegan. We can use this source as sufficient evidence because it sounds as if it’s coming from the heart. Haig sounds like he generally cares about the soldiers and commanders. By evidence from source E it tells me that Haig was very strict but then again he had to be otherwise England would not win the war. Sounds that he was prepared for war because he knew that lives would be lost from both sides and his top priority was to win victories without the sacrifice of men’s lives. Haig brought a lot of confidence to his men.
Source D also supports the view of John Keegan because we can use this source as sufficient evidence because it shows that Haig is very efficient and does not lie to people he is being very truthful because he tells them that a lot of people are going to get wounded or even worse killed. He shows that they can win the war as he speaks these words, “Your country needs me”. You can tell that he is totally committed to this job. This source in conclusion tells me that this source is supporting the idea of John Keegan. The source is limited but still reliable as there is not much information.
Source F: You can use this source as sufficient and reliable evidence because this is not bias in fact he says some positive and some negative comments but more or less on a positive attitude towards Haig. This supports John Keegans view. This source was written or rather published in 1989. The author was a man named Anthony Livesy this source is from the book “Great Battles of World War I”. He has no reason to be biased sd he is just a modern historian. His view on Haig is that he thinks its this inability to recognize defeat that led to Haig’s continuing attacks on the Somme and Passchendaele.
Source G: This source is biased because the prime minister is not taking any blame he always believed that Haig was the one in fault that led to millions of deaths. The prime minister had not liked Haig so we cannot use this evidence as it is bias. This though does not support John Keegan’s view. This evidence has a point that cannot be sufficient. The source suggests that Haig killed millions of people in the war but the Army men already knew that millions were going to die. Source D suggests it. The Prime minister blames Haig for pressing the attack even though it became clear that he couldn’t attain his objectives by continuing the offensive. The source was written after the war.
Source H: This source supports Keegan’s view but again we cannot use this evidence as it is bias because the author, Cooper was asked by Haig’s family to write this. This source tells us that if Haig had not have gone ahead with the attack then that would have meant abandonment of Kerdun.
Source J: This source does not support Keegan’s view. The source is telling us that Haig’s army cannot match the Germans. The article was quoted from a German Newspaper so as this newspaper would try and build up Germany’s hopes this cannot be used as sufficient evidence.
Source K: This source is supporting John Keegan’s view this source says that blaming Haig as an individual for the casualities is putting too much burden on one man. This source is not bias and has no at all reason to be. Even though this source does support Keegan it also does blame Haig’s numerous mistakes leading to the half a million casualties suffered by the allies at the end of this source