The battle of the Somme did achieve militarily what it set out to do. It took the pressure off the French forces embattled near Verdun, the longest and bloodiest battle of the whole war. Had the Germans won their war of attrition with the French at Verdun, then Somme would truly have become terrible waste of human life. For all the mistakes made and the horror that the Somme invoked, it was a battle we needed to win. Haig using foolhardy, outmoded tactics won the battle and ultimately influenced the outcome of the war as a whole. The tragedy of the Somme is the final death count, calculated at over one million dead and the amount of ground gained, just five kilometres.
Q2. Study Source A. Do you agree with this interpretation of the importance of the Battle of the Somme? Use the source and knowledge from your studies to explain your answer.
Source A has interpreted the battle of the Somme as highly important. It fails to state this exactly; however, using the contents of the source it is easy to derive the writer’s interpretation of the importance of the battle of the Somme.
He opens this part of the report by using words such as ‘considerable’ and ‘practically’. This shows how he believed that the battle was important. He also states that the Germans were ‘ready to surrender’. If this were true it would mean the imminent end to the war and victory to the Triple Entente. Finally in this section of the source he states ‘the German casualties have been greater than ours’. This is correct but he fails to mention the 200,000 French lives that were taken at the Somme as well as the 420,000 British souls that were lost to the Germans. This is a total of 620,000 human lives lost fighting the Germans. Compared to the half a million Germans that fell, Haig is actually filtering the information within his report. Overall Haig’s view of the Germans being ‘practically beaten men’ had some truth to it. The truth however was based on the war weariness that was being experienced by both sides. Mainly because of the fact that people thought the war would have been won by Christmas 1914.
Reading the provenance it is possible to find that it is ‘part’ of a report. This means there may be more information explaining in more detail the importance of the Somme. Secondly it is about the aftermath of the Battle of the Somme. As general and in overall command of the troops Haig will be attempting to justify his actions and the battle itself. He will not be including any information pointing out the battle was avoidable, poorly fought or pointless. This would then leave him open to dispute and possible removal from his position.
Finally the report had been sent in December 1916, the belief was the war could have been won by Christmas (December) 1914. As the war had continued 2 years longer than predicted the British Cabinet would have been anxious for good if not excellent results at this point. It seems he was filtering the report to make sure they heard what he wished them to hear, which is what they wanted to hear.
In conclusion Haig’s interpretation of the importance of the war is to some point correct. As the battle took place to move the battle south and to draw forces away from Verdun, it was in those respects a success and helped the Triple Entente win the war. It was also correct in stating that more German lives were lost than British, however, taking into account the large losses also sustained by the French this actually outweighed the German losses. Finally the was war continued for a further two years after the Somme had taken place – if it had been so instrumental in the victory of the war, it would have ended sooner with fewer casualties.
Q3. 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 A to H to support this interpretation? Use the sources and your knowledge to explain your answer.
Source A agrees with this statement indicating that the Germans were beaten men and we had the ability to win. The report was sent to the British Cabinet and only hints at his own failures. It is limited because it is only part of the full report and was written when the outcome of the battle was already known.
Source B is a poster putting down Haig. This disagrees with the original statement. Its opinion is Haig fights against the Germans, not for his country but for himself. The source seems extreme and is unlikely to mirror popular opinion of the time.
Source C (i) was written prior to the battle by Haig. It shows he is a realist and understands what is to come. It shows him to be a good leader knowing that losses would be high and is a warning to the nation to prepare itself.
Source C (ii) shows Haig’s optimistic spirit at how high spirited and well prepared the troop were. This reflects well on Haig as an efficient soldier and leader. The statement made just before battle is for the morale of the troops and the country and is too bias a source to be totally reliable.
Source C (iii) definitely shows that he is highly skilled or else the battle would not have progressed so well. However the source could be written for the soldier’s morale and the general public, so it is unreliable. Also ‘Germans surrendering freely’ is unlikely as no other source mentions it.
Source D doesn’t agree totally with the statement. Stating that his belief was that he had been chosen by God stopped him from seeing the possibility of his own defeat. However it does acknowledge Haig’s great self confidence and ambitious nature and as an excerpt from Great Battles of World War 1 is in itself a testament to his brilliance.
Source E states that Haig was a blunderer and that if he had been stopped millions may have been saved. He makes himself sound naïve for believing Haig’s promise about stopping the attack if it became too bloody. The source is written in hindsight and was probably done to take blame away from Lloyd George making it an unreliable source.
Source F believes Haig was correct and did the right thing. However it is an extract from his official biography which is unlikely to criticise him. This information was written by Cooper who was a family friend who would be biased toward him and having been asked to write the book by the Haig family cannot be a reliable source.
Source G agrees with Keegans statement saying that blame could not placed solely on Haig’s shoulders and there wasn’t anyone else for the position. It gives a Germans perspective on the Somme calling it ‘the muddy grave of the German army’. His upbringing, education, training and previous experience indicate he was an efficient soldier for his time.
In conclusion to the question, the majority of the sources do support the statement however due to their biased nature there is insufficient evidence to support Mr Keegan’s interpretation.
