The Battle Of The Somme 1916 Essay Example

period spanning many months, the area was lashed with heavy downpours that transformed it into an impassable swamp. On November 13th, following untold devastation and a death toll nearing 1.25 million, the conflict came to a close. According to Source A, a portion of a dispatch by Haig, the historian can place great trust in his statements as he delineates three goals of the battle, foremost among them being to relieve pressure on the French at Verdun. Although this source was intended for publication, its date evokes questions regarding its authenticity and purpose by excluding crucial objectives such as territorial conquest; however, Source I confirms that such gains were indeed accomplished.

According to this source, Haig's tactics involved breakthrough rather than attrition, which his assistant employed. The source also reveals Haig's true plans. Though the battle achieved its aims, the aims may have changed later to avoid failure. This conflicts with the idea that the battle was always doomed but ended up a disaster. The battle had clear goals on paper but failed due to the generals' maneuvers. Source B, a primary source, is an excerpt from a communication from Haig to Lloyd George. The source discusses armaments and sheds light on Haig's leadership, indicating that he aimed to bomb the Germans into submission.

It is my belief that General Haig exposed a weakness by requesting additional ammunition, indicating that he recognized that things had not gone as planned. The source indicates a hurried and careless approach to both soldiers and weaponry, highlighting his heavy-handed approach as unbecoming of a great General. Overall, it appears that the text outlines the General's failings as both commander and

tactician, with a desperate tone brought on by his unwillingness to change tactics and explore alternative plans of attack.

In my opinion, this source backs up the idea that the battle was destined to fail and highlights the shortcomings of General Haig. Like source A, Source C is a letter of justification and was written after the battle. It appears to be a private letter meant solely for the British cabinet and not for public consumption, making it a trustworthy source. In this letter, Haig acknowledges his mistakes and confesses that the battle achieved little ground. Nevertheless, he emphasizes that the battle demonstrated the competence of his troops and leadership. Haig's personality is a significant factor to consider in this source, especially since he was a Calvinist who believed that all his actions were sanctioned by God. This explains why he appeared unmoved by the loss of lives, as highlighted in source B. For him, it was an attritional battle aimed at wearing down the German forces.

The source questions the effectiveness of bombarding German defensive positions to force them out. Despite a weeklong shelling, their barbed wires and positions remained intact, resulting in heavy resistance from the Germans and significant casualties for the Allies. However, there were high numbers of German casualties, possibly due to attrition tactics used by both sides. The source characterizes Haig as stubborn and self-centered, unwilling to admit mistakes. Ultimately, the source does not take a stance on whether the Somme was a success or disaster.

Source D provides insight into the dynamic between Lloyd-George and Haig. Despite widespread belief that they held animosity towards one another, the source does not demonstrate

such a sentiment. Lloyd-George viewed Haig as a potential threat to his authority due to the latter's influential connections, such as in the House of Lords. However, Lloyd-George compliments Haig in this particular letter. It is important to consider Lloyd-George's motives, as he at this time sought to succeed Asquith as Prime Minister. This reveals the underlying reasons behind the content of the letter.

It is possible that what Lloyd-George saw during his time as Minister of Armaments was only a small part of the front line, which could explain his conclusions. Despite this, gains were made during the battle and this may be what he is referring to in this source. However, this source contradicts the statement as it acknowledges the success of the battle. Source E supports objective 3 in source A as Erich Ludendorff, an influential German General wrote it and it highlights the damage inflicted upon the Germans by entente troops. Nevertheless, Ludendorff's reason for writing "My War Memoirs" and any potential bias must be considered in evaluating the reliability of this source.

The source is a primary one as Ludendorff, who witnessed the battle, authored it. It suggests that Ludendorff may have had a pessimistic outlook towards the battle which could have been amplified after the war. However, this contradicts the notion that the battle was unsuccessful as the source details the German casualties inflicted by the battle. Historian A.J. wrote source F.

P. Taylor's reliability as a secondary source is doubtful as it appears to contradict Ludendorff's primary source (source E) by implying that the German lines were not eaten away by the entente forces. However, as Taylor had the

benefit of hindsight and perspective, it is important for historians to analyze his account, recognizing both its successes and failures.

The source reveals J. P. Taylor's lack of trust in WWI Generals and their abilities, while also emphasizing the optimistic and passionate attitude exhibited by soldiers during the Somme.

A.J. illustrates how the excitement for the cause at the beginning of the war was quickly shattered by the harsh realities of war, exemplified by the Battle of Somme.

In discussing the evaluation of a statement, it is important to consider P. Taylor's perspective as discussed in a particular source. Despite the potential support offered by this source, it is important to note Taylor's hindsight and WWI perspective, thereby rendering the source unreliable. On the other hand, Source G is a secondary source taken from Marc Ferro's "The Great War," which was published in 1969. As such, this source may not be considered reliable. Furthermore, the source is biased and dismisses the battle as useless without considering other viewpoints.

In retrospect, the battle differed from popularly held beliefs. It was fought to provide relief to the struggling French at Verdun, an aspect not acknowledged by Ferro. Despite lacking success in terms of death toll and planning, the military outcome was victorious. Ferro, swayed by his Marxist views, regards the Generals with disdain. Written in 1969 during a particularly unfavorable public opinion of the First World War, it was widely deemed futile until more recently when the necessity of WWI was finally recognized. The significance of the battle lay in establishing a balance of power in Europe, to which the British were deeply committed. However, overshadowed by WWII, this fact

is often overlooked.

I doubt the trustworthiness of the source due to multiple factors such as author's susceptibility to social pressure and evident biases. Even though it supports the claim, the source's publication date and source H's propaganda nature deems it as untrustworthy. The given piece of government propaganda named "The Battle of the Somme" is a forgery. It was executed behind the front line and served as propaganda throughout the country thus being completely unreliable. I question the motives behind the film's publication by the government. It can be argued that it was produced to counteract the speculations arising in Britain. The Germans emerged from their dugouts by now and were ready to open fire as soon as the Entente troops came out of their trenches.

Ultimately, this source lacks accuracy as the soldiers in the photo do not wear full packs and the trenches they climb out of appear to be of lower quality. The absence of visible reinforcements, such as sandbags, further undermines its reliability. However, a closer analysis reveals its use as propaganda and suggests that the Battle of the Somme was doomed from its inception. Thus, while the photo may not provide much information on its own, it highlights the disastrous nature of the battle and questions whether it should have been initiated.

Although the statement is contradicted by the source, the implications of the source support it. Source I - a map indicating the territory gained by the entente army during the Somme - can be trusted, as it provides accurate death tolls and territorial gains. Although not explicitly stated in Source A, it is inferred that the objective of

gaining land was present, as evidenced by the approximately 10km of land acquired. It is plausible that obtaining territory was not the primary objective, which would explain its absence from Source A.

This source supports the claim that the battle resulted in a disaster, causing over one million casualties despite minimal territorial gain. It presents a biased and emotional viewpoint of a British soldier (as seen in Source J) who was ordered to advance at a walking pace. However, it is essential to note that this perspective does not represent all soldiers' opinions. The soldier's narrow-minded focus on his comrades' welfare rather than strategic objectives like relieving pressure at Verdun is evident in this source. He believed that the battle was pointless and focused mainly on his battalion and life. Although there is no information regarding its publication date, modern anti-war sentiments may have influenced this source.

Despite the confident and life-disregarding tactics of the Generals, this source provides a stark contrast to the views expressed in sources E, C, and D as it speaks negatively about them. The source reinforces the assertion that the battle was an unprecedented disaster. Although the Somme inflicted heavy human losses and tarnished the British army's reputation, it accomplished some success as it eased French pressure at Verdun and drained the Germans' psychological and physical resilience. The Somme Battle did secure a bit of territory, (source I), but its most substantial accomplishment was providing combat experience to the British army.

Overall, the sources provided offer a limited perspective on the battle. While they both confirm and oppose the notion that the battle was a major achievement in some respects, it was equally

a notorious failure in others.