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?

The public stance was backed up by that of the media and the Prime Minister, as they regarded a large contributor to the disaster of this war was the part of Haig. Haig was appointed by the Prime Minister and was trusted with taking Britain to victory. However, David Lloyd George did not think that this war would kill so many of Britain’s men. He later regretted allowing the offences to go ahead and source G suggests that he would have vetoed the decision of appointing Haig if he had known what was to come. There was a sense of mocking towards the inability of Haig in the press, which was only emphasised by the propaganda that was in circulation. The newspapers knew of his lack of knowledge of what was happening on the battlefield, which is supported by the ironic “Tribute to Sir D. Haig,” which supposedly was in a German newspaper. Despite the humour of this piece, there are also serious issues bought to light that are supported by modern day evidence. Such as his eagerness to attack not meeting the force of the German defence that disproves the theory of Haig contributing much to Britain’s victory. Therefore, neither of these offer any support to the argument put forward by Keegan.

Some of the sources are written many years after the event, which makes the evidence less reliable because it couldn’t have been gained through first hand experience. After Haig died, he was heralded a hero despite the burdens that the public had previously placed on him. The view in source K supports this and also suggests that there was a problem with the lack of adaptability that was presented in his childhood. This is also correct as he was committed in his training to be a soldier and he was a very religious person showing his lack of willingness to change. The author obviously researched a lot of material in order to make his article as unbiased as possible and wanted to inform people, not get a lot of sales of his book. So although this source could be used to either support or criticise Haig, it does give a fair interpretation. Source F also supports this, but also brings across his personality and how this could have been a the reason why he was such a good soldier as he was reserved, which offers good support to his ambitious nature. This portrays the great soldier image that Keegan’s argument suggests and that his personality aided Britain in this victory. However, content in the sources that were written long after the war is deeply contrasting. The two historic accounts suggest that Haig’s only flaw was his up bringing. One suggests that he had too much faith that God had put him there and therefore would win him the battle (this is false as if he had put all his faith in God’s hands then he wouldn’t have had intelligence and would therefore not have all the wrong evidence causing the nearly pathetic tactics such as the creeping barrage). The other blames the lack of knowledge that is needed of the new technology, this is because of his education, and he was taught the old war winning tactics. Both sources are right about different things, but neither offer a clear and reliable answer for his mistakes. It does, however, give the evidence that Haig wasn’t as good as Keegan suggests.

The battle of the Somme was one of the most disastrous battles for the British army and Haig alike, the army had fifty seven thousand casualties in just one day and Haig was said to be “quite unfit for high command in time of crises,” which was only emphasised as the German machine gunners were the clear victors. This is where the third part of source E is quite interesting, as Haig describes a “Very successful attack.” We know that the British army gained barely any land and lost many men during the attack that he writes about. However, this is supported as he previously said that no battle could be won without a loss of life. Also, the French were under enormous pressure before this attack, showing that Haig had no alternative but to help them, unless he wanted the whole of France under German control. This is supported in source H, as a lack of British support “would have meant the abandonment of Verdun. Proving that the errors that Haig made could have been due to the pressure he was under and the eventual victory at the Somme was an outstanding achievement in itself.

In conclusion, there is not enough information in these sources to support the interpretation. In fact, many of the sources do not agree with Keegan’s interpretation at all.