Another reason why source C could be viewed as reliable is the fact that Private Coppard is unlikely to forget something so devastating and traumatic. If the battle was as he describes in this source then such an event would be hard to forget. Therefore the source, in terms of its author, should be viewed as reliable and good representation of the average soldier at the Somme’s experiences.
However at face value source B would appear not so reliable because the extract is a report for the public. Therefore Haig could’ve used this as a way of creating a more rosier and successful image which could help boost morale and the recruitment of soldiers back in Britain. By increasing the positivity of his report Haig could also himself look like a much better leader in front of critical public.
Source B also can’t be judged as being completely reliable because Haig (as Field Marshall) did not serve at the front line and therefore wouldn’t be able to describe the conditions there. Never would he be in a place to comment on the emotional state of his soldiers “Our troops are in wonderful spirits and full of confidence”. The fact that Haig clearly wasn’t at the forefront of the British attack on the German defences at Thiepval also means that the information he used to compile his report was compiled from second hand information which means that errors and certain successful parts of the attack could’ve been exaggerated in the relaying of the report from the frontline to Haig. This shows as we know the casualties and deaths in the first couple of days in the battle of the Somme tolled at a level too high for the battle to be remotely described as “clockwork”.
Despite this evidence for illegitimacy of source B we must also take into consideration the evidence to suggest it should be trusted. One such argument is that Haig (as the field marshal) would’ve had been expected to have a good overview of the battle and would have been watching the developments intensively. With an overview of the battle he should have had a better picture of the battle as a whole rather than just the single section as described in Private George Coppard’s interview.
Furthermore, as Field Marshal, Haig would’ve been receiving information from lots of different sources meaning that the space error in the accuracy of their reports would have been much smaller. Clearly from Haig’s report the battle couldn’t have been a complete bloodbath as described in Source C as he includes the line “The battle is going very well”.
As with source B there is also good reason to doubt the reliability of source C. One reason why source C could be judged as unreliable is because its author (Private George Coppard) would’ve have had only a limited viewpoint of the battle and thus could not comment on how the battle was going on as a whole nevertheless it would appear that the Private has perhaps used his own experiences of the battle to guess on the happenings of the whole battle “Hundreds are dead”. This therefore could not be a sure representation of the greater scheme of the reality of the Somme.
It’s also feasible that Private George Coppard could’ve incorporated hearsay and guesses into his recalling of his experiences. One example of his guesswork can be seen in the line “The German must have been reinforcing the wire for months”. This shows that Private Coppard included guesses and instead of fact into his interview therefore making it much less reliable than I previously conceived.
Another way of checking a source’s reliability is to cross-refer it with another source. Cross-referring source B with source H you can instantly see that they share the same theory that “Germany’s spirits of resistance was broken”, that Haig was doing a good job of looking after and commanding his soldiers “...complete confidence in the leadership of their Commander” and that the battle was becoming an ever-increasing success, thus increasing the reliability of Haig’s extract.
Source G disagrees that the battle was as casualty free as source B, however it does go some way to state that the battle had made some gains “The confidence of the German troops in victory was no longer as great as before. Nevertheless it does state that that battle contained “heavy losses” which although contradicts the story given by Haig it does suggest that the casualties incurred were “necessary” as “It gave the Western Powers confidence”. This would suggest that although source B is not entirely reliable that in some respects Haig was right to describe the battle of the Somme as partly successful in some of its objectives.
Source C can also be compared to source G. Source G makes source C seem much more reliable because it confirms that there were “heavy losses” and also says “a great number of young soldiers whose training was poor” which could explain why the number of strewn dead on the “barbed wire” were so high in numbers.
Source J also cross-refers quite satisfactorily with source C. It suggests that Haig’s tactics lead to multiple dead, “I expressed my doubts”, and that the battle front described by Private Coppard also ties in with Lloyd George recount “a front bristling for miles with barbed wire and machine guns”. The memoirs written by Lloyd George also suggest that the death toll was a lot greater for the British than the Germans which ties in with both my own knowledge and source B “It killed off far more of our best”.
Taking into consideration both the reasoning behind the reliability and unreliability and the cross-referencing of both sources I think that source C should be judged as the most reliable of the pair. I think this because not only do we know from our own historical knowledge that the British encountered extremely heavy losses at the battle of the Somme but it also cross-refers better with the other two chosen sources. Therefore I trust source C more than source B.