Source C is a newspaper extract from The Daily Telegraph, printed in November 1998. The extract contains an interview with Earl Haig, Field Marshall Haig’s son. Haig’s son, who wrote Source C, would obviously be biased to keep loyalty intact with his father. The source was printed near Remembrance Day, so it could be printed to influence people’s beliefs. The target audience for this source are the general public and the source is a positive one of Haig. The source is useful for giving evidence on Haig’s efficient and highly skilled behaviour. This is because it says: ‘It is high time my father was given credit for the job he did and the victories he achieved.’
This quotation supports Keegan’s interpretation that Haig was a highly efficient and skilled general.
Source E is made up of three diary entries, which is likely to be biased as it is written by Haig. It is just as likely to have been written by Haig knowing that it would be found later. From this source, it seems that Haig never intended to fight a war of attrition, and that he really felt that breakthrough was imminent. The source however could be unreliable as Haig could have written the source knowing that his diary would be found later. This prospect is also an influence on the reliability. Despite this possibility, the source is still reliable. Source E has limits on its usefulness because there is a possibility that Haig could have written his diary knowing it would be found. On the other hand, the source clearly tells us of the successful attacks made. In balance, Source E is quite useful to support Keegan’s interpretation.
Source H is an extract from General Haig’s biography produced by Duff Cooper. This source can be called unreliable as the source was written on request by Haig’s family. Cooper was also a family friend of Haig’s. In the source, Cooper says that by not battling in the Battle of the Somme would result in death for the French. The purpose of the source is to inform people of Haig’s good actions and try to persuade them to believe that Haig was a good general. The target audience for the source are biography readers. The source gives a positive view of Field Marshal Haig.
These sources support Keegan’s view, but due to the bias and one-sided nature, they do not provide sufficient factual evidence to confirm Keegan’s view.
Source D is a propaganda poster from ‘Haig’s Private War, an anti-Haig leaflet. The source says Britain needs Haig ‘like a hole in the head.’ I do not know when this was published, but I believe that it was printed during the war, because it is an anti-war leaflet and would therefore only be of use during a war, as an attempt to stop it. It would have been 'underground' propaganda because censorship during the war did not allow any negative media concerning the war to be printed. It is an unreliable source because it is propaganda-trying to persuade the reader to share the author's view. It shows that this person defiantly thought Haig was not a highly skilled and efficient general. The author did not show who he was, so the source is likely to be unfair or biased. Source D has limits on its usefulness because it has been produced anonymously to express stronger feelings about Haig and does not directly say Haig was skilled and efficient. On the other hand, Source D could have some truth about it because soldiers who enlisted did get shot. This reflects the general’s attitude to his soldiers, which is against Keegan’s views. In balance, Source D is not very useful to support Keegan’s interpretation.
Source F is a book written by the modern historian Anthony Livesey. He shows weaknesses and flaws of Haig in battle, he says ‘perhaps his greatest failing was his constant, often misplaced optimism, which seemed to stem from the belief he had been chosen by God.’ This source is very dependable against Haig as it has been well researched; this is almost the complete opposite to Keegan’s view. Source F has limits to its usefulness because it is produced many years after the war. On the other hand, this could also favour the writer as he could have gathered further sources to form his view. His opinion is valid and reasonably unbiased because he would have researched Haig thoroughly, however it is one-sided and only one person's opinion of Haig. In balance, Source F is quite useful in supporting Keegan’s interpretation.
Source G is ‘War Memoirs of David Lloyd George’, the date was after WW1. Here it shows that Lloyd George regrets sending Haig to command forces, as he calls Haig ‘blundering’. He also states that Haig went back on a promise because of his selfish ideals. He did not stop the attack because he could not continue the offensive; he stopped it because of poor weather conditions. Source G has limits to its usefulness as it was published after the war, this could limit the accuracy of the war activity. On the other hand, more information could be gathered to get a final judgement of Haig as an efficient and skilled soldier.
Source J is unreliable German propaganda. The article describes Haig as ‘a serious and persistent worker’ but goes on to say that despite his ability as a leader, he was no match for Germany. This source is highly biased as Haig’s enemies produced it and its purpose was to convince the German nation that Britain could easily be defeated. The bias of this source could affect its sufficiency for making a valid conclusion.
Source K tries to defend Haig from being totally at fault for the British war effort. However, Britain won the war so surely he should be being praised for good leadership. The reasons why Haig should not be blamed range from that he was like every other military leader in that time to the German leader having the same problems as him at ‘The Battle of the Somme’. These both may have been true but the fact is that he cannot be blamed for winning the war.
While none of the sources are able to prove or challenge Keegan’s opinion, there is still sufficient evidence in the sources to show that Keegan’s view is valid. As a historian writing about Haig, Keegan would have carried out broad research to form an opinion on him, there are facts that support Keegan’s view and it cannot be denied that it was Haig’s orders and persistence in fighting at the Somme and Passchendaele that eventually won Britain the war. Keegan’s view is restricted in that it is very one-sided and makes no mention of the lives lost all over the world. I believe that Haig did his job as well as he knew how, and he was a skilled soldier. Trench-warfare had never been experienced before and there were no reliable methods to use, so Haig turned to techniques that had helped him previously. I agree that blaming Haig ‘is putting too much of a burden of guilt on one man.’
