Source based work on Haig Essay Example

from the British TV comedy "Blackadder Goes Forth" and is a sarcastic view of a fictional British general's orders. Ben Elton who is a left wing writer, co-wrote the Blackadder TV programmes and his left wing views are shown in his programmes.

His view is that Haig was wrong and this is reflected in his writing. This source gives one point of view and this is that the soldiers thought that the generals were insane! It is exaggerated for the reason that the show is a comedy and so it is made to be humorous. I know that this source has some truth in it as millions did lose their lives in the war. However, I also know that the first screening of "Blackadder Goes Forth" was in 1989 which is a long time after the war and so Elton would have got his information from somebody or somewhere as he wasn't even born at the time of the war and he has to gain laughs so exaggerates.

Source C is an article from The Daily Telegraph newspaper written by Earl Haig, the son of Field Marshall Haig. My expectation of this source was that it would be extremely biased as it was quoting Haig's son. From studying the source I can see that my expectation was correct. It shows that a lot of people disliked Haig as Earl Haig is defending and praising his father and gives no criticisms of him at all. This is a limitation in the source.

Another limitation is that it was published in the Telegraph in November 1998, which is a very long time after the war and as the

Telegraph is a right wing newspaper, they were probably trying to support Haig.In conclusion, I would say that Source A has some positive values, but its limitations out-weigh them and so I would say that Source A isn't too useful, mainly because I know from my own knowledge that it wasn't everybody's view. Source B I would also say isn't too useful as it was taken from a comedy show. Ben Elton is a left wing writer and so it is fairly biased to his views.

As for source C, I know from my own knowledge that there were some that felt the same way as Earl Haig. However to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers towards their commanders, he may find that the source would be too biased as Haig's son wrote it. Yes, the source is biased but I know that there were some who felt the same way as Earl Haig and so I would say that this source would probably be the most useful as it shows what Haig's son felt about his father, but also how other people portrayed him.Question 2John 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".

The question is, is there enough evidence to support this statement? By looking at Sources C to L, I can see that some sources agree with the interpretation, some disagree and some are fairly balanced.Source C supports the statement by John Keegan. It is written by Douglas Haigs son - Earl Haig and so would obviously be supporting his

father. Not only that, but it was published in a right wing newspaper - the Daily Telegraph, so this would also support Haig. The source shows us that Earl Haig thought very highly of his father as he says, "I thought he was one of the great men of the twentieth century".

It also says however, that "he is portrayed as this most callous, uncaring man" which shows that many felt this way and not the same way as John Keegan.The situation of this source is that it is written in 1998, so it means that it has the benefit of hindsight. However the purpose of this source is to try and save his family's reputation.Source E is taken from Haigs personal diary and so evidently supports the statement.

As it was extracted from his diary everything that is said is his interpretation of events. Source E is a primary source, not a contemporary one, as it was written at the time, which happens to be at the time of the Battle of the Somme. Haig thought that everything was going according to plan - "Very successful attack this morning...All went like clockwork" when I know that this was untrue.

Haig was getting information from John Charters - The Head of Intelligence that had been given a positive spin. Even if Haig hadn't have been given this information, he still would have carried on in the battle as his tactics were attrition, i.e grinding down the enemy.Source H supports Haig as it was taken from his official biography. The writer of his biography - Duff Cooper - was asked by Haig's family to write it

and so the source is biased.

The source is saying Haig made the correct decision about whether to press on or not with the Battle of the Somme and is underlining the fact that he is a great leader and people shouldn't doubt his tactics and decisions. I know that not all Haig's tactics worked, for example the Somme offensive failed to achieve the breakthrough Haig had hoped for. I also know from my own knowledge that this biography was published in 1935, which is quite a while after the war, and so has the benefit of hindsight. Also, this part of the biography was probably written to try and silence all the people who criticised Haig for continuing in the Battle of the Somme.

Source J is in agreement with the statement made by John Keegan. It is a German tribute to Haig and gives him nothing but praise. It was taken from a German newspaper and then printed in a British newspaper - The Times. Although it gives him praise, I feel that it isn't entirely truthful.

The reason that the Germans praised him is because if they were to insult him and say he was a bad leader, then the German public would be thinking "well why aren't we winning then?". As this was published during the war it would have boosted moral on both sides.These sources all agree with Keegan's views on Haig. Some are reliable some aren't too reliable.

However not all the sources agree with the statement and praise Haig, some criticise him.Source D disagrees with Keegan's statement. It is a spoof poster of Haig titled "Your Country Needs Me".

It says "Your Country Needs Me.

..Like A Hole In The Head - Which Is What Most Of You Are Going To Get". This is mocking Haig saying that the country doesn't need him at all i.e like no one needs a hole in the head at all.

It also says "Which is what most of you are going to get" meaning that it disagrees with Haig's decisions and supposes that most people were going to get killed. I suspect this was probably an underground poster, and wasn't allowed to be published.Source G is taken from the "War Memoirs of David Lloyd George" who was the current Prime Minister at the time. It is his views of what happened on the Western Front. Lloyd George was an Easterner not a Westerner and he disliked Haig for this.

In this source he is criticising Haig but he is also being self critical. I know from my own knowledge that Lloyd George disliked Haig and disliked his ideas as well and said he was "brilliant to the top of his boots". Lloyd George wanted to sack Haig after the Somme and Passchendaels battles, but he couldn't find any general who was better and Haig had the support of the Tories and King George V.These sources disagree with Keegan's statement about Haig and both criticise him. There are still three sources left, and these three sources are all fairly balanced.

Source F is a fairly balanced source as it doesn't completely disagree, nor strongly agree with Keegan's statement. Though it is fairly balanced I would say that the source is more critical of Haig than it is praising him. It

describes him in a fair way, but doesn't compliment him. It then sort of criticises his tactics but not too much. This source has the benefit of hindsight as it was published in 1989 - a long time after the war.

Source K is taken from a recent GCSE History textbook. This source is more complimenting than is critical of Haig but again is fairly balanced. It says that it would be harsh to lay all the blame on Haig for the failings of the British war effort, which to me is the view of either someone who likes Haig or someone who has mixed views. I know that usually in a textbook, views are normally fairly balanced as they usually give two sides to every story.Source L is the BBC TV "Timewatch" video. On the video there were mixed opinions about Haig.

Some rated him highly, some disliked him. It interviews soldiers from the time and most of them rated him quite highly and said he was a great commander. Others felt he was "stubborn as a donkey" and also that he should have stopped the Somme offensive earlier and shared similar views to those of David Lloyd George. Although people criticised his ways, Haig died a hero in 1928 winning some of the greatest battles in military history. So this source is the most evenly balanced as it has lots of points from both sides.In conclusion, I would say that looking at these sources, more agree with Keegan's statement than disagree.

However, all but one of the sources from C - L that support the statement, has a member of Haig's family involved somewhere.

Source C is by Haig's son, source E is from his own personal diary and source H is his biography which was written by Duff Cooper who was asked by Haig's family to write it.