There is no doubt that the naval blockade also weakened Germany and its armed forces by 1918. The prevention of trading ships led to a lot of difficulties among the neutral nations and the United States. Nevertheless, the British blockade was effective because Germany was brought to a complete standstill. The German people were suffering from the effects of food shortages. The Germans U-Boat campaign had also led to food shortages in Britain the British naval blockade that prevented supplies from getting into German ports hit them harder. A virus hit the German cities causing large number of deaths amongst people already weakened by food shortages. This caused a massive problem in Germany because of strikes and demonstrations, which paralysed Berlin. This also caused Lundendorff to resign; the blockade of German ports caused mayhem in Germany and played a big role in breaking the stalemate.
The tanks also played their part in the war. The new weapon of 1915 was invented and built in Britain by a designer of farm machinery. It was an amour-plated tractor which moved at 6 km/h and was armed with both cannons and machine-guns. When tanks were first used in battle in 1916, the Germans were so scared by the sight that the panicked and fled. The tanks proved vital on August 8, 1918, when 450 tanks, struck the Germans with maximum surprise, overwhelming the German forward division who failed to entrench themselves adequately. Lundendorff said “August 8th was the black the day of the German Army in history of war… It put the decline of our fighting power beyond all doubt… The war must be ended.” He informed Germany’s political chiefs that peace negotiations should be opened before the situation became worse. Other new weapons used during the war were heavy artillery which could fire shells, which exploded into metal splinters called shrapnel over a distance of 13 km. Machine guns were lethal; they could fire up to 600 bullets a minute. Soldiers on the attack could be mown down in minutes by a hail of lead. All the new technology used in the war played its part and was important in breaking the stalemate.
American troops did not arrive in force in France until early 1918, but the Germans knew that in time American forces would be larger than their French and British Allies. This led the Germans to a gamble that almost won them the war. Early in 1918, Russia pulled out of the war. The Germans immediately transferred troops from the eastern front to the western front. On 21 March, the Germans launched the first of five major offensives against the Allies. They used a range of new tactics. They used lightly armed storm troopers who moved quickly and stopped the Allies bringing forces together to resist their advances. They moved quickly through gaps in the Allied lines and came within range of shelling Paris for the first time since
1914. More advances followed in April, May, June and July.
However, the tide was turning. The German advance forced the Allies to finally work as one unit instead of individual armies. American, French, British and Empire troops all agreed to accept the French Commander, Marshal Joffre, as Supreme Commander of Allied forces. He did not command the individual forces, but he did receive all the relevant information and he came up with military plans that made the most effective, co-ordinated use of all the of resources of the Allies. At the same time as the Allies began to co-ordinate effectively, German forces began to run out of manpower, resources, ammunition and equipment. This victory was important for the Allies because they managed to stop the Germans from winning the war. This helped their confidence and lowered Germany’s because they knew they could no longer win the war.
All the above points played an equally important point in helping break the stalemate because the played different parts. The new technology helped kill the enemy, the blockade caused mayhem in Germany and lots of people died, the failure of the of offensive meant that the Germans could no longer win the war, so to a certain extend they are all equally important. However, I believe that the American entry into the war played the biggest part of all because the vast supplies of manpower and material were now available for the Allies to draw upon. The stalemate had been going on for a year and a half and no one had won, which meant that both sides were equally matched, however the American entry gave the Allies an advantage and helped break the stalemate.
Question a)
Study Sources A and B
How far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men?
Source A proves that Haig does not care about the lives of his soldiers, ‘sacrifice of men’s life’, however only to a certain extend. Source B, on the other hand is a complete contrast and Haig is completely different, ‘men are in splendid spirits’.
The first source shows that Haig does not care about his men; he says that, ‘The nation must be taught to bear losses’, which basically means that the war can’t be won without losses and the nation need to get used to this. This speech is written before the attack began; Haig is trying to warn the nation that people will die in this war if they want to win, ‘To be won without the sacrifice of men’s lives’. I think that Haig gave this speech in order to warn the nation that soldiers were going to die if this war was to be won; the nation shouldn’t be shocked if they saw a huge number of casualties.
On the other hand, in Source B Haig changes his mood and tone. In the first source, he was trying to warn the nation that soldiers were going to die in the war, however Source B is written after the first day of the attack. After the attack Haig feels stronger and believes he can win the war without the as many men dying, ‘All the commanders are full of confidence’, he knows that they can win the war, ‘all went like a clockwork’, which means everything went according to plan. In the second source he is more positive because the war went as planned. He shows his appreciation of the soldiers and cares about their feelings, ‘Our troops are in wonderful spirits and full of confidence’; this shows he care about the soldiers. This source is written for the British public however his soldiers would have seen it as well. In this he is being very positive, unlike source A; this might be because he is trying to get the nation to back the war, make out as if they are winning so more soldiers sign up and most importantly to rise the morals of him men.
I think that Haig does care about his soldiers however in the first source he acts as if he doesn’t, ‘The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualties’, and this is because the extract is written before the attack. He is saying this because his not sure that they can win this war, and wants to warn the nation that soldiers are going to die; so they aren’t shocked when there’s a massive number of dead soldiers. Source B is written after the first day of attack; his is much more positive and full of confidence because, ‘All went like clockwork’, it went as planned. This shows that Haig does care about his men however he wanted to warn the nation that soldiers were going to die; this was done so the nation weren’t shocked when thousands of men died.
Question b)
Study Sources B and C
Which one of these to sources do you trust more?
These two sources are useful to us as historians because we can look at both pieces of evidence and decide whether they’re true or whether they’re biased. The sources are contrasts of each other; although one is a secondary and the other is primary. I trust source C more because this seems to be more similar to what we already know, however both sources contain useful information.
Source B was written by the Field Marshall Haig, after the first day of the attack, whilst source C is from an interview with Private George Coppard, years after the war. The first source written by Haig says that that the war is going to plan, ‘All went like clockwork/ the Germans are surrendering freely’, he tells the public that Britain are winning the war. Haig calls the attack ‘successful’ because the, ‘barbed wire has never been so well cut, nor the artillery preparation so through’. According to Haig the British are winning this war easily and the Germans are slowly surrendering, ‘the Germans are surrendering freely’. The extract written by Haig tells us that the war was going well for the British and that they were winning.
On the other hand, source C tells us that Britain was losing this war, as well as many men. Source C is taken from an interview with Private George Coppard, years after the battle, which means its secondary information. Unlike the first source, this source tells us that, ‘Hundreds of dead were strung out on the barded wire’, this show that lots of men got killed by machine guns, as they attempted to cut the barded wire. This is the opposite of what is said in the first source by Haig. Private George Coppard also says, ‘The Germans must have been reinforcing the wire for month’; this shows that the Germans had been preparing for war, unlike the British. ‘How did the planners imagine that Tommies would get through the wire?’ this is another contrast between the two sources because Haig says, ‘The barbed wire has never been so well cut’.
The two sources are completely different from each other because they are from different times. The first source is primary information from the war because it was written after the first day of the attack, whilst the second source is from a few years later which make it secondary information. The first source is a bit biased because Haig is trying to raise the confidence of his soldiers and the nation, so he tells them that the war is going as planned and that they are winning; although this might be the information Haig has received from his generals and commanders, so he could be telling the truth. Similarly, Haig also has a reason to lie in the source because he does not want to be blamed for all the deaths. On the other hand source C can be trusted more because it’s taken from an interview with a Private, years after the battle. The soldiers were the ones experiencing the war and fighting in the front line, not the marshals, so Private George Coppard would have seen what it was really like; this means that source C can be trusted more. In comparison Haig would have been away from the front line and would have not seen the fighting first hand.
We also know that source C can be trusted more because of our of background knowledge of the war. Haig says that the, ‘barbed wire has never been so well cut’, however we know this is a lie because most of the British soldiers were inexperienced and weren’t able to cut the wire. In his speech Haig says that it, ‘All went according to plan’, however as historians we know it didn’t; thousands of men were killed by machine guns as tried to cut the wire.
Source C can be trusted because it’s an eye witness account; written by a man who was actually at the battle and knows what happened. The source also backs up the information we know, ‘Hundreds of dead were strung out on the barbed wire’. We know that the wire was not destroyed by the artillery and that 20,000 men died on the first morning.
On the other hand this source could be biased because it’s written several years later when views were very anti- Haig; he might have been influenced by other people’s decisions. This source could also be biased because it’s only one persons view and doesn’t represent everyone’s view of the war; its only one aspect from one part of the battlefield where things could have been much worst than everywhere else.
Source B can be trusted because it’s written at the time of the war, by the man in charge. Haig was Commander in Chief of the BEF at the time and had lots of responsibility so he wouldn’t lie. This might have been the only information he was given because communication in the trenches was bad. However, source B contradicts with what we know about the 1st day of the battle; 20,000 men died. Haig says that, ‘The men are in splendid spirits/ All commanders are full of confidence’, which is a lie.
In conclusion I think source C is more reliable because its has more accurate information, however we must not forget that source B is also useful as it contains precise information as well, ‘The enemy is so short of men that he is collecting them from all part of the line’; this is correct, Germany did not have enough soldiers during the later stages of the second world war. This shows that both sources are useful to a certain extend although source C contains the most accurate information.
Question C
Study Sources D and E
These two sources are not about Haig and the Battle of the Somme. How far do you agree that they have no use for the historians studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme?
These two sources may not be about Haig or the Battle of the Somme, however they relate to it; this means that the sources are useful to us as historians to a certain extend.
Both of these sources relate to the war in different ways. The first source is a still from ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’, which shows two officers discussing an imminent attack on the Germans. The two officers are talking about an attack on the Germans, ‘go over the top’; this means that they are going to sent men over no man’s land to attack the German trenches. This tactic was used by many Marshall’s however it wasn’t very effective; all it caused was millions of deaths. Soldiers would be killed by ruthless machine guns as they tried to ‘go over’, and get into the enemy’s trenches. The source also shows that the officers think their Marshall is making unintelligent decisions, ‘Field Marshall Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin’. The officers think that everyone is going to get killed, “You mean ‘Are we all going to get killed? ‘Yes”, just so they can gain six inches of land. They imply that their Marshall is drunk, ‘to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin’, that’s why he is making these stupid decisions. From this source we have learned that Field Marshall Haig was not respected from his officers and a tactic used during the Battle of Somme, ‘going over the top’. This shows that the source is of use to historians, to a certain extend.
Similarly, source E is a cartoon from a British magazine, published in February 1917; just after the Battle of Somme. The source shows a major-general addressing his men before practising an attack. The major-general tells his men, ‘that there is a difference between a rehearsal and the real thing’, the first being ‘the absence of enemy’, because there will be no enemy during a practise attack. The major-general then ask his regimental sergeant-major, ‘what is the second difference?’ he replies ‘The absence of the General, Sir’. This cartoon was designed to shows to the public that the major-generals gave orders during the war, however they did not carry them out themselves the soldiers did. This source is useful to us as historians because it shows that during the Battle of Somme, when this cartoon was released major-generals gave orders to their men during practice, however during the war the generals would be staying in the reserve trenches while the soldiers would be going over no man’s land.
The two sources link together because Marshall like Haig would gives order to his men during the battle. In source D, two officers are discussing an imminent attack on the Germans; sending men over the top. This tactic was very unsuccessful because thousands of men got killed, and only inches of land were gained, however Field Marshall Haig did not care about this because during ‘the real thing’, he would not be there, going over the top. These sources are useful to us as historians because they show us that generals like Haig did not care, that making dangerous choices would get thousands of men killed, because they weren’t the ones fighting; they only gave orders. The sources also give us information about a tactic used at the Battle of Somme; ‘going over the top’.
These sources are useful to us as historians however only to certain extend, because we do not know whether these sources can be trusted or not; people might have been biased during these periods of time.
In conclusion I believe that both sources are useful because Source D shows us a modern interpretation of Haig and E shows us an interpretation if generals such as Haig whilst the war was going on.
Question d)
Study Sources F, G and H
Do Sources G and H prove that Source F is wrong?
Sources G and H do not prove that Source F is wrong because different people had different opinions about Haig; we have got to take this into account. As historians we have to take into account that people have different view, which means Sources G and H do not necessarily prove that Source F is wrong.
I think all three source are correct to an extend because they are opinions given from different people; however in my opinion Source H is the most likely to be bias. The Source is written by a British general in 1973, which fought in both wars. The general praises Haig for winning the war, ‘resistance was broken, mainly by the courage and resolution of Haig’s armies, which had complete confidence in the leadership of their Commander’. The above quote says that Haig’s army had complete confidence in their leader, however we know this is not true because Haig was hated by his men and though to be stupid. This general applauds Haig for what he done during the Battle of Somme and calls him, ‘one of the main architects of the Allied victory’. From our background knowledge of the battle we know that Haig made a lot of incorrect decisions and his tactics got thousands of men killed unnecessarily. However, its was Haig relieved the pressure from the French, because the Battle of Somme caused the Germans to move troops from Verdun to Somme.
On the other hand Source F provides us with different information about Haig and the Battle of Somme. I think this is more correct information because of our background information of the war; Haig was criticised for his tactics by Prime Minister David Lloyd George, ‘for his deeply flawed strategies’. Source F also gives us another tactic used by Haig, ‘if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men, then they would win the war’, we know this is true because he would sent men over the top where they would be killed. However, the language used shows that this source is very biased, ‘stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey’. This is not the language usually used in history books and clearly shows the author’s opinion.
Source G is taken from the official German history of the First World War, published in the 1930. This source may be similar to Source H; however I don’t think that it supports it. Source G states that the Germans lost the war because of the huge numbers lost, ‘most experienced and most reliable officers and men were no longer in their places/this was marked as the heavy losses’. According to the Germans the huge number of losses demoralised their men, whilst ‘it gave the Western Powers confidence’. The men killed by the Allies had to be replaced; this was a problem for the Germans because they had to send young soldiers which were inexperienced. We could link this Source to Source H because Haig’s principle, ‘to kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men’, was working which means he ‘was one of the main architects of the Allied victory’.
However, is it right to use this kind of tactic during the war? The war might have been won however the British and French lost a lot more soldiers than the Germans. During the battle the British lost a total of 600,000 men and the French lost 200,000, whilst the German losses were 500,000; only 12 km was gained by this attack. This shows that Haig’s strategy was ‘stupid’ because he lost more men. Haig’s was a major architect of the allied victory however his tactic only worked because he had more men available. Haig tactic got thousands of men killed unnecessarily because he failed to destroy the German barbed-wire or the concrete bunkers protecting the German soldiers. This again proves that Source F can be trusted and contains useful information; Haig used ‘an appalling strategy’ which got thousands killed.
Source H praises Haig and calls him ‘one of the main architects of the Allied victory’. The general who has written this says, ‘Haig’s armies, which had complete confidence in the leadership of their commander’, however we know that this is not true because his men hated him and thought he was stupid. This shows that Source F is not wrong. I think that Source H is biased because it’s written by a general and not soldiers. The generals had no reason to despise Haig because they weren’t the one which had to carry out his order, ‘going over the top’; generals did not fight in the front line so they did not know what it was like for the soldiers. The soldiers were the ones which had to go over no man’s land and carry out his stupid strategies, not the generals so they had reason to hate him; the fact that this source is written be a general makes it biased. This again shows that Source F is not wrong.
Similarly, Source F and G have quite a few similarities; this proves that F is not wrong. Source G and F are both very similar; they both agree that the strategy Haig used was incorrect. ‘If the battle of the Somme had no great importance in the strategic sense, its consequences nevertheless were great’, this basically means that Haig got lucky. ‘The principle that guided him was if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men, then he would at same time win the war’. Both sources mention that the strategy used by Haig was inappropriate; the only reason he won was because he got lucky. The two sources are very similar, which shows that source F is not wrong.
Sources G and H do not prove that Source F is wrong because all three source are opinions from different people which make them all correct to a certain extend.
Question e)
Study Sources I and J
Why do you think that Sources I and J differ about the Battle of Somme?
These sources differ from each other because they are written at different times. During that period of time Britain lost a lot of men and Haig’s tactics were criticised; this also caused the publics opinions to change.
These sources mostly differ because of the massive time gap in which they were written between. The first source is written by Lloyd George to Haig on 21 September, 1916, just as the war had begun. The Battle of Somme started on 1st July 1916, Haig and Joffre planned a joint attack on the German lines near Bapaume. The action was designed to relieve some of the strain on the French at Verdun. Haig was quite hopeful that it would break through the German lines and bring the Allies victory. The attack was preceded by an eight-day artillery bombardment, in which 1537 British guns fired 1,723,873 rounds and then send men over the top to capture German trenches. The plan was a complete failure, however the British managed to achieve half of their plan; Germany moved its troops from Verdun to the Somme. This relieved the pressure from the French.
In this letter Lloyd George congratulates Haig, ‘I congratulate you most warmly on the skill with which your plans were laid’, because the plan worked; it relieved the extraordinary pressure on the French line further to the south. Lloyd George also says that, ‘the tide has now definitely turned in our favour’, this is because British forces were overrunning the German line; which were slowly losing land and their position. In this way, the frustrating war of "position" would turn back into a war of "movement" and favour the British; it was also hoped that a breakthrough would be achieved.
However the failure of the offensive caused the British problems. The shells were not powerful enough to break down into the German dug-outs, and the shrapnel shells, which consisted merely of cases filled with ball-bearings, did not destroy any of the wire, but simply made it more tangled and impassable. Things got from bad to worst on 1st July. Mines had been dug under the German trenches and packed with explosives. At 7.28 am these were detonated just before the British attack, giving the Germans 2 minutes warning. Then, at 7.30 am, whistles were blown and the men went ‘over the top’. Thinking that the Germans had been destroyed by the bombardment, and fearing that their inexperienced soldiers would become disorganised in a rush attack, the generals had ordered that the men should walk, in straight lines, across No Man’s Land. They were slaughtered.
Similarly in Source J Lloyd George is downbeat, ‘this offensive was already a failure’, he calls the offensive used by Haig a failure. Unlike in Source I, he says,’ I expressed my doubts to General Haig’; he blames the failure on Haig. This is because Haig was confident in his plans and continued the attack for another four months. Lloyd George mentions that the battle,’ it is claimed that the Somme destroyed the old German army by killing its best officers and men/ it killed off far more of our best’, this again links in with Haig’s strategy to kill more Germans than the Germans killed his men. Lloyd George has changed his view from 1916, because by the end of the war 450,000 men died; most of them killed by machine guns when going over the top.
Lloyd George views have differed a lot from 1916 to 1930; this is because during the war, thing got really bad for Britain. Haig’s strategy was a disaster and was getting men killed unnecessary, by the end of the war half a million were dead and millions wounded; and only 6 miles were gained. Lloyd George says that if it weren’t for the involvement of the Americans in the war, the Allies wouldn’t have won, ‘had it not been for the stupidity of the Germans in provoking a quarrel with America, the Somme would not have saved us from a stalemate’.
Lloyd George view have differed because in 1916, Haig plan managed to divert the Germans from Verdun and the Germans lines were getting overrun, however Haig’s awful strategy did not mange to a breakthrough. The major difference between the two sources it that they are written at different times and this makes them differ. Source I is written in 1916, while source J is written in the 1930’s; by this time Lloyd George might have access to new information, that why he is being so critical of Haig.
These sources also differ due to other reasons; source I is written in 1916, when Lloyd George was Secretary for War. This could mean that in source I he might just be saying nice thing because he wants Haig’s support; to back him for Prime Minister. Source J is written in the 1930’s, by this time Lloyd George is retired and Haig has died; so he doesn’t need anyone’s support anymore and can say what he wants as Haig is dead.
Similarly, they also differ because source I is probably a letter, which was expected to be read by Haig only, while J is a memoir; Lloyd George wants to make himself look good. The above are all reason to why the two sources differ, however the most important thing is that over time opinions change.
Question f)
Study all the sources.
‘Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason.’
How far do these sources support this view?
Most of the sources support this view, however we need to look at all the sources and evaluate them; if they can be trusted or not.
'Kill more Germans' summarised Haig's strategy as Commander in chief of the British forces in France during most of World War One. His war of attrition resulted in enormous numbers of British casualties and his leadership remains controversial. Douglas Haig was appointed commander in chief of the BEF, in December 1915. Haig now become under extreme pressure from the French to produce a diversion from .
On 1st July 1916, Haig and Joffre planned a joint attack on the German lines near Bapaume. The action was designed to relieve some of the strain on the French at Verdun. Haig was quite hopeful that it would break through the German lines and bring the Allies victory. The plan was to bombard the Germans continuously for eight days. The aim of the attack was to, firstly kill the German soldiers and to destroy the German barbed wire.
However, the attack failed. The shells were not powerful enough to break down into the German dug-outs, and the shrapnel shells which consisted merely of cases filled with ball-bearings, did not destroy any of the wire, but simply made it more tangled and impassable. However thinking that the Germans had been destroyed by the bombardment, and fearing that their inexperienced soldiers would become disorganised in a rush attack, the generals had ordered that the men should walk, in straight lines, across No Man’s Land.
They were slaughtered by German machine guns. British casualties on the first day were 20,000 dead and more than 35,000 wounded. However as if it weren’t bad enough, Haig was still confident that his plan would work. He continued the attack for 4 months. He made a major attack, following the same plan, and with the same result, in September. This is when Haigs’ strategy was questioned and his men started to despise him.
In the end the Allies managed to win the war however Britain had lost 420,000 men and the French lost 160,000 men; so is Haig is hero or a villain?
Source A, is written by Haig in June 1916; he writes this letter to the British public, ‘The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty list’. By this Haig means that the public should not be shocked when they see a big number of men dieing, they need to get used to this, ‘The nation must be taught to bear losses’. He also says, ‘No amount of skill on the part of the high commanders, no training, however good/ will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men’s lives’, this means that they war will only be won by men dieing, not by tactic. This source supports the idea that, ‘Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers fro no good reason’, because commanders are meant to try and win wars by losing as less men as possible, not the other way round. In this source Haig is uncaring because he doesn’t care about his men and shows he is an unintelligent commander because he wants to win the war by, ‘sacrifice of men’s lives’.
On the other hand we could say that Haig is saying this to warn the nation. He knows that a war will cause deaths and lots of men are going to die, so he warns the public, so they are not shocked when they see a huge number of dead and casualties. So, we could say that this is a smart speech by Haig; done in order to warn the public.
Source A is very important to us because it’s written by Haig himself during the war; which means it’s a primary source.
Source C is another which supports the above view, ‘Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason.’ This source is taken from an interview with Private George Coppard; he talk about Haig’s decision, ‘to send men over the top’ on 1st July, ‘Hundreds of dead were strung out on the barbed wire like wreckage washed up on a high water mark’. Haig ordered his men to walk in straight lines across no man’s lands because he thought the bombardment would have made the German soldiers disorganised and in a rush. In this interview Private George Coppard, talk about how the plan went horribly wrong, ‘Quite as many dead on the enemy wire as on the ground’, 20,000 men died on the first day. Haig’s predicted that the shells would destroy the German barbed wire; however they made it worst, ‘It was clear that there were no gaps in the wire at the time of the attack/How did the planners imagine the Tommies would get through the wire?’
Source C again supports the view because Haig’s decision to send men over the top, and ordering them to walk in straight lines was excessively stupid. This shows that Haig did not care about his men and got soldiers killed unnecessarily. This source is useful to use because it’s from an interview with a private, which means he would have seen what was going on and know what it was like. A private would have been in the front line and going over no man’s land, which means that this source can be trusted and is useful to us as historians.
Similarly source D also supports the above view. The source is a still from the TV serious ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’; it shows two officers discussing an imminent attack on the Germans. The two officers are talking about an attack; we are at last about to go over the top’. Both officers know that this is stupid, “You mean ‘Are we all going to get killed?’ Yes”, they are frightened they are going to die. This source gives a vivid impression of the slaughter involved in going ‘over the top’. The phrase is still used today to describe something excessively stupid. This source does support the view; however it can not be trusted because it’s from a TV programme. This source is not very useful to us historians so we can not base the above view on this information.
Source F strongly supports the above view; ‘Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason.’ This source is taken from a recent book called ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War’. This book describes Haig, ‘As stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey’, this relates to Haig’s plans and decisions which got thousands of men killed unnecessarily. ‘The principle that guided him was if he could kill more Germans that the Germans could kill his men, then he would at some time win the war’, this links in with Haig’s strategy during the Battle of Somme; this gain shows that Haig did not care about his men and supports the view even further. The book also states, ‘He knew he had no chance of breakthrough but still sent men to their deaths’, this is talking about the four months of attack after the 1st July. Despite the setback of the first day, Haig was still confident and continued to attack for a further 4 months, however the attack failed and many more men died unnecessarily.
Source F provides us with secondary information because the book has only just been written. This means that its one persons view of Haig and can not be trusted because people can argue that one persons view does not make Haig a bad and uncaring person. As historians we need to look further into this source because it could be biased.
On the other hand source G supports Haig; this source is from the German Official History of the First World War, published in the 1930s. This source says that the battle killed the most experienced soldiers and the Germans had to replace them with young soldiers with poor training, ‘A great part of the best, most experienced and most reliable officers and men were no longer in their places/it made it necessary to send to the front a great number of young soldiers whose training was poor’. According to the Germans the heavy losses demoralised their soldiers and the Western Powers gained confidence by this, ‘The confidence of the German troops is victory was no longer as great as before’.
Source G proves that Haig’s plan worked after all, his strategy ‘to kill more Germans than the Germans killed his men’, demoralised the German army and killed their best and most experienced men. Haig might not have been a hero to the British public because he got half a million men killed, however his strategy was suitable for this war. The only way to win this war to by killing the best German men and he managed to achieve this.
This source is useful to us as historians because it written by the Germans and can be trusted. The source is taken from the enemy and shows what they thought caused them to lose the war. The source is useful and proves that Haig’s tactic did work however in this source Haig is not mentioned.
Similarly Source H applauds Haig and calls him ‘the main architect of the Allied victory’. This source is written by a British general in 1973, which fought in both wars. The general says that ‘Germany’s spirit of resistance was broken, mainly by the courage and resolution of Haig’s armies’, he congratulates him. The source also states that ‘Haig’s armies, which had complete confidence in the leadership of their Commander/they were inspired by his determination’; this means that the soldiers were inspired by Haig and his hard work. This source opposes the view and says that we should thank Haig for what he did otherwise this war wouldn’t have been won, ‘Had Haig not had the moral courage to shoulder the main burden of the struggle battles of 1916, French resistance would have been crumbled’.
This source disagrees with the view however we can not trust the information given by this source. The source is written by a general which makes it bias because generals did not fight in the front lines, nor did they go over the top so they had no reason to hate Haig. During the war generals did not fight with their division, they stayed in the reserve trenches so they had no idea of what the war was like for the men. The general in this source says that the men had complete confidence in Haig however as historians we know this is not true because his men hated him; this source can not be trusted.
Looking at all the source and evaluating if they could be trusted or not; I have come up with my conclusion. The above source supported the view, ‘Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason.’ Haig was an uncaring general because his strategy, ‘To kill more Germans that the Germans could kill his men’, is murder; he risked the lives of his men for no good reason. During the battle he also made more stupid decisions, ‘send men over the top’, source C describes it like ‘wreckage washed up on a high water mark/quite as many died on the enemy as on the ground’. This shows that his was uncaring and stupid. Source A is another very important source because it’s written by Haig before the battle, in it he says ‘The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty list/ victories to be won without the sacrifice of men’s lives’, this shows that he never cared about his men all he wanted was victory however he didn’t even manage to get that.
In source J Lloyd George says that the war was only won because of the stupidity of the Germans, ‘Had it not been for the stupidity of the Germans in provoking a quarrel with America, the Somme would not have saved us from a stalemate’. Using our background knowledge of the war; we know that Haig plan to bombard the Germans for eight days and then send men over the top was a failure however he carried on doing this for another four months. The British army was getting slaughtered however he did not care he carried on the attack which were also failures. This shows that Haig was an uncaring general and got his men killed unnecessarily.
Rigers Cama / Mr Carassco
