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?

   Sources C, E and H are pro-Haig and, at least to some extent, support Keegan’s opinion of Haig. Source C completely supports Keegan’s opinion, with Earl Haig writing, ‘…the job he [Field Marshal Haig] did and the victories he achieved…brought the war to an end’. Earl Haig is right that the victories his father achieved at least helped to bring the war to an end, as if the British had not attacked at the Somme the French would have been ‘bled white’ by the Germans. Britain would have then stood alone, a position from which they would have been very unlikely to win the war. However, this source was written by Haig’s son, in defence of his father’s actions in the First World War, so needs to be treated with caution as it is biased. Source E was written by Haig and is therefore a useful source as it is an insight into Haig’s thinking as expressed by him. He wrote before the Battle of the Somme that ‘’The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists’. Saying this before the battle of the Somme, meant Haig knew the losses would be great, and he did not mislead anybody into thinking otherwise. He was an experienced soldier who knew the reality of war was that men had to die for any victories to be won. This agrees with Keegan’s opinion of Haig as ‘…a highly skilled soldier’. Haig would not criticise himself however, and perhaps there are elements of truth in Source G where Lloyd George wrote that there were, ‘…individuals who would rather the million [soldiers] perish than that they as leaders should admit…that they were blunderers’. He was implying that Haig was one of these ‘individuals’ and his opinion is perhaps rooted in some truth as after the first day of battle at the Somme, Haig wrote, ‘Very successful attack this morning…the battle is going very well for us’. This was not the case as, among other problems, there were 60,000 casualties, 20,000 of those deaths, on the first day of the battle. So aspects of Source E support Keegan’s view of Haig, but there are also those aspects which do not, such as Haig’s denial of blunders on the first day of battle. Source H supports Haig’s decision to fight at the Somme as Haig saw it was important to continue the attack to avoid a situation arising where Britain would find herself isolated. This agrees with Keegan’s opinion of Haig as his decision to keep attacking helped lead the British to victory despite huge losses. However, this source would want to portray Haig’s perseverance with the battle at the Somme as a right decision, as the author of this source had been asked by Haig’s family to write the book it was taken from.

   Sources K and L try to give a more balanced view of Haig and are therefore the most reliable sources to look to for support of Keegan’s opinion. Source K says that making Haig a scapegoat for everything that went wrong in the First World War ‘is putting too much of a burden of guilt on one man’. Warburton explains how Haig was a ‘product of his time’ and that all the commanders of other countries were employing the same tactics in battle. It has to be remembered that, ultimately, Haig was victorious and at the time the war ended, he was treated like a hero. It was only after the war that people began to criticise him and the way the First World War was fought. Many of the people that criticised him, as Earl Haig wrote in Source C, ‘…don’t know the first thing about it [the First World War]’. Warburton wrote that ‘Haig’s numerous mistakes…contributed to the half a million casualties suffered by the Allies’. The key word in that sentence is ‘contributed’. Haig cannot be directly blamed for causing all those deaths as he was using the tactics employed by all commanders at the time and did warn Britain that in pursuit of victory, there would no doubt be heavy losses. Source K supports Keegan’s opinion in that Warburton puts forward the argument that ‘he [Haig] was, ultimately, victorious’. Source L is the opinion of Mr J Cooksey, a modern military historian, and it looks at both sides of the arguments for and against Haig, and tries to draw a balanced conclusion after analysing them. Cooksey warns that, ‘War is…very complicated…and the best-laid plans…can go wrong’. Haig cannot be blamed for battle plans that went wrong, such as the Germans retreating into specially prepared dugouts during the bombing of their trenches prior to the British attack at the Somme. Cooksey also points out that, ‘The British commanders had, at first, to fight with inadequate weapons…and the blame if blame there be, should also lie with pre-war British governments and…the British voters who put them in power’. This clearly agrees with what Warburton wrote in Source K, that it is not as simple as placing all the blame on Haig for the mistakes in the first World war, but that the truth is that a myriad of people can be ‘blamed’ once you start to make the links. Source L does agree with Keegan’s opinion to an extent in that Cooksey accounts Haig’s achievements in the face of the problems and complications thrown at him, but at the same time he details Haig’s failings as a commander which do not agree with Keegan’s opinion.

   There is not enough sufficient evidence in sources C to L to support Keegan’s interpretation of Haig, as there are sources which strongly oppose and support his opinion. Sources K and L are the most valuable sources to analyse and they both also support and oppose Keegan’s opinion of Haig. It has to be concluded that while Keegan’s opinion of Haig is not incorrect, as there is evidence to support what Keegan believes, there is also evidence which contradicts Keegan’s view. Ultimately, there is not enough of one type of evidence in these sources to completely support Keegan’s view or oppose it.