How far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men?
Source A is a allotment of argument accounting by Haig aloof afore the action of the Somme (July 1916 to Nov 1916), It explains that in Haig's assessment the nation has to acquire the losses of warfare. He believes that about able-bodied an army is accomplished and led they will accept to buck sacrifices. This is accurate but not to the admeasurement of the Somme area the allies abandoned absent a massive 620,000 men.
Haig wrote this abstract a ages afore the aboriginal advance suggesting that he knew there was activity to be a ample bulk casualties. This additionally implies that he hadn't fabricated abundant of an accomplishment to change the approach and save the lives of men but lazily chose to adapt the nation of abundant losses. In this extract, a adamant ancillary of Haig has been unleashed with his apperception apperception alone on the achievement of the battle, no bulk what the costs. For archetype Haig states " a nation charge be accomplished to buck losses" and "no of accomplishment will accredit bulk of victories to be won, afterwards the cede of men's lives" giving us the consequence that his assurance for achievement would stop at nothing.
Before accession at a cessation to this question, we charge accede Haig's accomplishments as able-bodied as his accepted position. Sir Douglas Haig had had a continued aggressive career angry in abounding battles and wars including the Boer War area he had served in the Cavalry. During his 40-year career he had absent abounding assembly and it is apparent that assertive courage will abound central him and he will apprentice to balloon about the anguish of death. We charge additionally bethink that Haig is the Accepted of the Affiliated Forces, he will appetite to be portrayed as a boxy man accessible to booty boxy decisions. We additionally apperceive Haig is a religious man. Would a religious man accelerate a man to his afterlife afterwards caring?
In the end I anticipate 'care' is too able a word. From the affirmation aloft I achieve that Haig beatific men to their deaths, because he alone and candidly believed himself to be accomplishing the appropriate affair to accomplish in victory. Haig did care, but he was an old appearance accepted application old appearance adjustment to accomplish in a avant-garde war.
Study Sources B & C:
Which one of these sources do you assurance more?
Sources B and C are both abrupt extracts from accounts of the action of the Somme. Haig wrote antecedent B on the day afore and during the aboriginal attack. He states "the men are in baroque spirits" and we admiration how men could be in such "splendid spirits" back they are active lives in a trench, apparently adversity from arroyo bottom and activity homesick. This makes us admiration if Haig has absolutely visited the men in the advanced line, because he will acquisition that the "spirits" of his troops are not as "splendid" as he described. Additionally back Haig states "the acid wire has never been cut so well" we apperceive that from Clandestine George Coppard (Source C) annual that the acid wire was one of the capital affidavit for such a aerial blow account on the aboriginal day, if annihilation the wire as a aftereffect if the bombardment, was "in a worse coil than before".
Haig's statements are badly contradicted by Coppard whose attitude appear the Generals "who told them that the arms blaze would batter such wire to pieces" suggests to us that the assurance of the men was not as aerial as Haig had expected. The byword additionally tells us that the wire was not cut to acquiesce troops the breach through to the German line. This is abundant for us to catechism the believability of Antecedent B. However, if Antecedent B is unreliable, the catechism charge afresh be asked why would a top British Accepted accomplish such statements. The affidavit could be many, amidst which one could accommodate that Haig could accept been ailing informed, for political reasons, or artlessly to accumulate assurance up both at home and on the front.
There are additionally abounding affidavit why Antecedent B is not accurate; amidst the best important affirmation are the abounding beholder accounts and the simple actuality that the British Army suffered added than bisected actor casualties throughout the battle.
It could be argued that Coppard's account is the acquaintance of one man through out the 15-mile band of the Somme. However, admitting Haig would accretion believability and accumulate his job by lying, it is absurd that Coppard would appetite to befoul the memories of his backward assembly by lying about the absolute incidents of the Somme. Factually, the affirmation supports Coppard's case. The facts acquaint us that there were over 55,000 casualties on the aboriginal day. Haig claims it was a acknowledged attack" admitting Coppard describes the "hundreds of dead". The affirmation supports Coppard back he claims that the wire was not absolutely cut admitting Haig states, "the wire has never been cut so well".
Coppard's purpose in accomplishing the account was apparently to acknowledge the accuracy and horrors of war and possibly to accomplish abiding the mistakes of war are never repeated. Haig's purpose in autograph Antecedent B was apparently political and to advance his position. So I achieve that Antecedent C is added reliable as it relates to the accurate facts.
Study Sources D & E:
These two sources are not about Haig and the action of the Somme. How far do you accede that they accept no use for the historian belief Haig and the action of the Somme?
Sources D and E are both fabricated to charm the audience. Antecedent D is a absurd TV alternation of activity in a trench. However, Antecedent E is a allotment of antiwar advertising and alike admitting it has been fabricated to amuse, it shares the aforementioned point of appearance as the Administrator of 'Blackadder' (Source D) about Field Marshall Haig and his drinks cabinet.
I anticipate a historian belief Haig and the Somme would acquisition Sources D and E of ample use. They both appearance accepted account of Haig, one at the time of the accident and the alternative 60 years later. As a television series, Antecedent D would present angle that the majority of the bodies accede with in adjustment to addition it's ratings. This suggests that the majority of bodies accede that Haig was a poor leader. The alternation 'Blackadder goes Forth' shows both ancillary of war; activity in the frontline trenches and afresh in the General's headquarters. This will accord a historian an acumen to the altitude of the trenches and that of the headquarters.
However, Antecedent D was fabricated 60 years afterwards the war so the administrator charge accept fabricated it application sources such as E and alternative possibly accounts.
Source E additionally shows how men were kitted out and how ailing training would accept able them for the absoluteness of the war they were about to fight. This is advantageous as it shows how abundant anticipation they gave to the training and accouterment of his troops.
I anticipate both sources are accordant to a historian belief Haig as they appearance the appearance aggregate by abounding people, which is consistently important. Antecedent E additionally tells us that the accomplished of the nation did not abutment the war advertising and it gives a historian an acumen to Britain during 1914-1918.
Study Sources F,G & H:
Do Sources G and H prove that F is wrong?
Source F is an abstract from a contempo book alleged "British Butchers and Bunglers of World War". The accent of the appellation is derogatory, decidedly appear Haig. The book centres on the accepted view, that Haig was a bungling old general. The book, like abounding written, is based on assessment rather than on fact. Whilst the book apparently contains statistical evidence, the success or abortion Haig's action action is to an admeasurement based on opinion. The biographer has not taken into application that WW1 was the aboriginal blazon of war to be fought in trenches and with apparatus guns. I anticipate it's arbitrary to accusation Haig (who had been accomplished as a army officer) for not accepting developed a acknowledged strategy. The columnist has additionally abandoned to acknowledgment had Haig not reacted at the Somme, the French would accept been taken at Verdun and the German army would accept afflicted the British.
Source G is an abstract from the "German Official History of the Aboriginal World War" which decidedly contradicts Antecedent F. Clashing abounding alternative sources, this abstract adulation the British for their victory. Antecedent G is cogent us that the victors of the Somme were accustomed a abundant assurance addition for the future. It additionally meant that the Germans had absent all of their accomplished soldiers, which attenuated the German advanced line. It seems as admitting the Germans are praising Haig, clashing Antecedent F. However, this antecedent may additionally be questioned accustomed that at the time of autograph the Germans were advantageous massive reparations to the affiliated armament so they ability accept acquainted if they could accumulate in acceptable agreement with the allies, they may be able to bright some of the debt. About this is unlikely.
Source H was accounting by a British accepted 57 years afterwards the action of the Somme. Because of the bulk of time amid the action and the time of writing, it is accessible that that of others has afflicted his memory. Especially if he had risen to the rank of General, he would accept been in an ambiance area Haig was respected, as his superiors were followers of Haig. About whilst this has some merit, it is added acceptable that the Accepted as a aggressive being could acknowledge added Haig's strategy. He begins by adage that the German armies were burst by the "courage an resolution of Haig's armies, which had complete aplomb in the administration of their commander". This absolutely contradicts Antecedent F which claims Haig was a abhorrent commander.
In cessation whilst Antecedent F repeats a accepted appearance of Haig, I accept that Sources G and H does prove F amiss as it was accounting one by a adolescent accepted with aggressive training and from German point of appearance which had no acumen to be bias.
Study Antecedent I & J:
Why do you anticipate that sources I and J alter about the Action of the Somme?
Sources I and J are both comments fabricated by Lloyd George during and afterwards the Action of the Somme. Alike admitting the sources accept been accounting by the aforementioned man they absolutely belie anniversary other. It is about as if the extracts were accounting by altered men.
Source I is allotment of a letter accounting by Lloyd George to Haig afterwards his appointment to the battlefields during the action of the Somme. Lloyd George seems to be congratulating Haig on the action plans. He seems abiding that action is activity in their favour yet it was still addition ages until the action ended.
There are assorted affidavit why Lloyd George did not address what we would accept accepted him to write. Firstly, Lloyd George would accept capital his Accepted to be assured in his actions; he would accept to animate him. Secondly it would be brainless to alpha a affray with your Accepted during a action and bad for the assurance of the troops.
Source J is an abstract accounting by Lloyd George in the 1930's. He is now 14 years afterwards criticising Haig claiming that at the time of his appointment he was abashed by the army in No mans Land.
Now 14 years afterwards and with no charge to animate Haig he speaks freely. About it may additionally be that at the time of autograph Antecedent I he did not see the faults in the British band up and is in Antecedent J lying to try to stop any accusation falling on him as Secretary of War.
Study all the Sources.
"Haig was an blah Accepted who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no acceptable reason" How far do this sources abutment this views.
I accept that these sources do not go far to abutment this view. This is based on the following: -
Sources A and B accounting by Haig himself, conceivably shows his deficiencies as a avant-garde day baton not necessarily an blah butcher.
Source C accounting by accounting by a clandestine in the army, whilst giving a astute account from the trenches could not accessible see the all-embracing strategy.
Sources D & E whilst accordant in announcement the autonomous view, afresh are biased.
Sources F, a afresh accounting book, afresh follows the added accepted appearance and is a bigger titles to advertise books.
Sources G is apparently the best aloof appearance accustomed that it was accounting by the adversary with little to gain. This antecedent conceivably gives the better acumen into Haig's strategy.
Source H afresh does not abutment the appearance of the question, and was the alone sources accounting by a adolescent accepted who has been accomplished in warfare.
Sources I and J both accounting by Lloyd George, highlights the adversity in advancing to any conclusion. He contradicts himself and argues assuredly for and against, proving that the question, alike with the account of hindsight, is a difficult one to answer.
Order a unique copy of this paper