How far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men?

credit A is a constitution of text pen by Haig just originally the affair of the Somme (July 1916 to Nov 1916), It explains that in Haigs opinion the realm has to accept the losings of state of war utmostef ar. He believes that however tumescehead an army is trained and led they sterilise out start to bear sacrifices. This is true(a) scarcely non to the extent of the Somme where the everyies al angiotensin-converting enzyme alienated a massive 620,000 custody.Haig wrote this chicken out a month before the first approaching suggesting that he knew there was going to be a large beat casualties. This in any case implies that he hadnt made much of an effort to change the patchoeuvre and save the lives of men exactly lazily chose to prep ar the nation of wakeless losses. In this extinguish, a stubborn side of meat of Haig has been unleashed with his mind concent sensing scarce on the victory of the battle, no matter what the costs. For example Haig states a nation mustiness be taught to bear losses and no of skill will enable amount of victories to be won, without the sacrifice of mens lives giving us the sendiment that his determination for victory would stop at nonhing.Before arriving at a conclusion to this question, we must consider Haigs background as swell as his current position. Sir Douglas Haig had had a massive armed forces career fighting in some battles and wars including the Boer War where he had served in the Cavalry. During his 40-year career he had lost gayy comrades and it is probable that certain toughness will grow at bottom him and he will learn to forget to the highest degree the sadness of death. We must alike remember that Haig is the public of the Allied Forces, he will neediness to be portrayed as a tough man gain to take tough decisions. We also k forthwith Haig is a religious man. Would a religious man send a man to his death without condole with?In the end I think care is too strong a word. F rom the bear witness above I conclude that Haig sent men to their deaths, because he personally and honestly believed himself to be doing the right thing to succeed in victory. Haig did care, but he was an oldish fashion superior cosmopolitan using old fashion method to succeed in a modern war. remove firsts B & CWhich one of these sources do you trust more? antecedents B and C are both brief expresss from accounts of the battle of the Somme. Haig wrote source B on the sidereal daytime before and during the first ravish. He states the men are in splendid spirits and we wonder how men could be in such splendid spirits when they are living lives in a trench, probably suffering from trench foot and feeling homesick. This makes us wonder if Haig has actually visited the men in the front line, because he will fall out that the spirits of his military man are not as splendid as he described. Also when Haig states the barbed wire has neer been cut so well we know that from Pr ivate George Coppard ( consultation C) account that the barbed wire was one of the main agreements for such a high casualty list on the first day, if anything the wire as a result if the electric battery, was in a worse tangle than before.Haigs statements are hugely contradicted by Coppard whose spatial relation towards the Generals who told them that the artillery fire would pound such wire to pieces suggests to us that the team spirit of the men was not as high as Haig had expected. The phrase also tells us that the wire was not cut to allow army the kick the bucket through to the German line. This is enough for us to question the reliability of Source B. until now, if Source B is unreliable, the question must then be asked why would a top British General make such statements. The reasons could be many, amongst which one could include that Haig could get to been poorly informed, for political reasons, or scarcely to keep morale up both at home and on the front. on that po int are also many reasons why Source B is not accurate amongst the most important evidence are the many eyewitness accounts and the simple fact that the British Army suffered more than one-half million casualties throughout the battle.It could be argued that Coppards inter look out is the experience of one man through out the 15-mile line of the Somme. save, whereas Haig would gain credibility and keep his frolic by fictionalization, it is unlikely that Coppard would want to tarnish the memories of his late comrades by lying about the real incidents of the Somme. Factually, the evidence clogs Coppards case. The facts tell us that there were everyplace 55,000 casualties on the first day. Haig claims it was a successful storm whereas Coppard describes the hundreds of dead. The evidence strengtheners Coppard when he claims that the wire was not completely cut whereas Haig states, the wire has never been cut so well.Coppards purpose in doing the inter ensure was probably to revea l the truth and horrors of war and possibly to make sure the mistakes of war are never repeated. Haigs purpose in committal to writing Source B was probably political and to maintain his position. So I conclude that Source C is more reliable as it relates to the proven facts.Study Sources D & EThese two sources are not about Haig and the battle of the Somme. How far do you agree that they have no use for the historian perusal Haig and the battle of the Somme?Sources D and E are both made to frolic the au infractnce. Source D is a comical TV series of disembodied spirit in a trench. However, Source E is a piece of antiwar propaganda and make up though it has been made to amuse, it shares the resembling point of view as the handler of Blackadder (Source D) about Field Marshall Haig and his drinks cabinet.I think a historian studying Haig and the Somme would find Sources D and E of considerable use. They both sight popular roots of Haig, one at the time of the eveningt and t he other 60 long time after. As a television series, Source D would front views that the absolute majority of the people agree with in order to boost its ratings. This suggests that the majority of people agree that Haig was a poor leader. The series Blackadder goes Forth depicts both side of war life in the frontline trenches and then in the Generals headquarters. This will make water a historian an acumen to the conditions of the trenches and that of the headquarters.However, Source D was made 60 years after the war so the director must have made it using sources such as E and other possibly accounts.Source E also shows how men were kitted out and how poorly teach would have alert them for the reality of the war they were about to fight. This is useful as it shows how much thought they gave to the training and equipping of his troops.I think both sources are relevant to a historian studying Haig as they show the view shared by many people, which is always important. Source E also tells us that the whole of the nation did not support the war propaganda and it gives a historian an insight to Britain during 1914-1918.Study Sources F,G & HDo Sources G and H prove that F is rail at?Source F is an extract from a recent book called British Butchers and Bunglers of adult male War. The odour of the title is derogatory, particularly towards Haig. The book centres on the popular view, that Haig was a ham-handed old general. The book, like many written, is based on opinion sort of than on fact. Whilst the book probably contains statistical evidence, the success or sorrow Haigs battle strategy is to an extent based on opinion. The writer has not taken into consideration that WW1 was the first type of war to be fought in trenches and with machine guns. I think its unfair to peck Haig (who had been trained as a cavalry officer) for not having developed a successful strategy. The fountain has also forgotten to mention had Haig not reacted at the Somme, the Fr ench would have been taken at Verdun and the German army would have overwhelmed the British.Source G is an extract from the German Official History of the First World War which surprisingly contradicts Source F. Unlike many other sources, this extract compliments the British for their victory. Source G is telling us that the victors of the Somme were granted a great morale boost for the future. It also meant that the Germans had lost all of their experienced soldiers, which weakened the German front line. It seems as though the Germans are praising Haig, unlike Source F. However, this source may also be questioned inclined that at the time of writing the Germans were paying massive reparations to the confederative forces so they might have felt if they could keep in severe terms with the allies, they may be able to clear some of the debt. However this is unlikely.Source H was written by a British general 57 years after the battle of the Somme. Because of the amount of time among the battle and the time of writing, it is possible that that of others has influenced his memory. Especially if he had risen to the absolute of General, he would have been in an environment where Haig was respected, as his superiors were followers of Haig. However whilst this has some merit, it is more likely that the General as a military person could appreciate more Haigs strategy. He begins by saying that the German armies were broken by the courage an resolution of Haigs armies, which had complete confidence in the leadership of their commander. This completely contradicts Source F which claims Haig was a unutterable commander.In conclusion whilst Source F repeats a popular view of Haig, I believe that Sources G and H does prove F wrong as it was written one by a fellow general with military training and from German point of view which had no reason to be bias.Study Source I & JWhy do you think that sources I and J differ about the meshing of the Somme?Sources I and J are bo th comments made by Lloyd George during and after the Battle of the Somme. Even though the sources have been written by the same man they completely contradict each other. It is almost as if the extracts were written by different men.Source I is part of a letter written by Lloyd George to Haig after his visit to the battlefields during the battle of the Somme. Lloyd George seems to be congratulating Haig on the battle plans. He seems sure that battle is going in their favour until now it was still another month until the battle ended.There are motley reasons why Lloyd George did not write what we would have expected him to write. Firstly, Lloyd George would have valued his General to be confident in his actions he would have to foster him. Secondly it would be stupid to start a quarrel with your General during a battle and bad for the morale of the troops.Source J is an extract written by Lloyd George in the 1930s. He is now 14 years later criticising Haig claiming that at the t ime of his visit he was confused by the cavalry in No mans Land.Now 14 years later and with no need to encourage Haig he speaks freely. However it may also be that at the time of writing Source I he did not see the faults in the British line up and is in Source J lying to try to stop any blame falling on him as Secretary of War.Study all the Sources.Haig was an unthinking General who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no beloved reason How far do this sources support this views.I believe that these sources do not go far to support this view. This is based on the following Sources A and B written by Haig himself, perhaps shows his deficiencies as a modern day leader not necessarily an uncaring butcher.Source C written by written by a private in the army, whilst giving a existent picture from the trenches could not possible see the overall strategy.Sources D & E whilst relevant in promoting the populist view, again are biased.Sources F, a deep written book, again follows the more popular view and is a dampen titles to sell books.Sources G is probably the most unbiased view given that it was written by the enemy with little to gain. This source perhaps gives the biggest insight into Haigs strategy.Source H again does not support the view of the question, and was the entirely sources written by a fellow general who has been trained in warfare.Sources I and J both written by Lloyd George, highlights the thornyy in coming to any conclusion. He contradicts himself and argues convincingly for and against, proving that the question, even with the benefit of hindsight, is a difficult one to answer.How far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men?I think source A completely suggests that Field Marshal Sir General Haig did not care about the lives of his men because after one day of fighting the Germans on the maiden of July 1916 in the Battle of the Somme, over 57,000 British troops had been killed. The British only gained 750m. The next day Haig still continued with the same tactic even though a large amount of the army had lost their lives the day before. After suffering such heavy losses Haig still sent men out to their death every day.In source A Haig himself writes, The nation must be taught to bear losses. In every war there are losses but by writing this Haig gave no indications of just how many men he thought the nation would loose. I think Haig didnt care how many men were killed as long as his main objective to relieve pressure on the attack of Verdun was completed.No amount of skill on the part of the higher(prenominal) commanders, no training however good, on the part of the officers and men, no favourable position of arms and ammunition, however great, will enable victory to be won without the sacrifice of mens lives. In the two books the World of War and modern font World History, both books suggest that one of Haigs chief subordinates Sir Henry Rawlinson was against the idea of a large offe nsive even before the Battle of the Somme begin. Rawlinson suggested that the British should concentrate its operations on the Western Front by insertion a series of small discreet attacks. Inexperienced British troops would gain experience from these attacks while they could use the British industrial strength, which was now fully mobilised, to beat the Germans. Instead Haig went against the suggestion by launching a great offensive followed by a massive tightly controlled metrical unit attack.No amount of skill on the part of the higher commanders. I think Haigs deputy Rawlinson did have a lot of skill. He had good tactical idea but Haig choose not to use them. no training, however good, on the part of the officers and men. Rawlinson suggested small attacks to give the British troops experience. no superiority of arms and ammunition, however great will enable victories to be won. From the Modern World History book it says, many an(prenominal) of the shells supplied to the allie d gunners were of poor quality. There was certainly a vast spring but many shells were not powerful enough to destroy the defensives or simply failed to go off. The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists. I think this is giving the same meaning as the first sentence in source a The nation must be prepared to see heavy author lists.Haig had used the same tactic at another battle where he had been General. The Battle of Neuve Chappelle, which happened during 1915. The method used was to continuously bombard the enemy with shells for weeks. The barbwire would be cut then the British would attack using infantry. The method failed at the Battle of Neuve Chappelle but Haig used it again at the Battle of the Somme but on a much bigger scale hazarding more lives. utilize a method of attack that has failed shouldnt have been tried if it was going to risk so many mens lives. Haig had been involved in other wars before the 1900s when there wasnt any planes or tanks available. When they were available for Haig to choose he immovable not to use them and instead use older tactics.In Source F a modern historian has written, The principal that guided him was if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men then he would inevitably at some time win the war. This to me does not hygienic like the opinion of a General who cared about his men. Haig was more interest in winning a battle of attrition.In Source B Haig writes about the troops before the attack and he says how everyone is so confidant. The men are in splendid spirits. He also says how well the barbwire was cut.The second extract in Source B is again written by Haig giving us the report after the first day of the battle. Very successful attackthe battle is going very wellThe Germans are surrendering freely.From what we know the battle wasnt very successful and is cognise as one of the worst British battles. If the attack had started at midnight on the 1st July and carried on for 24 hours that would mean that 2375 British troops would die every hour and 1 soldier would die every 1 second. The battle didnt go on for 24 hours though so the losses per hour would have been greater.Haig ordered his men to walk across no-mans cut because he thought that there wouldnt be even a rat alive in the German trench. The Germans who had burrowed 12 meters underground were unaffected by the shelling and as the British were walking across and getting convoluted in the masses of barbwire the Germans simply used a machine gun. This mishap could have been avoided if they had just run across.The tactics of the battle were good in theory but each one failed in some way.* There would be a huge military bombardment and mines would devastate the Germans positions. The bombardment didnt devastate any of German positions.* The Germans barbwire would be cut. The barbwire wasnt cut. It was simply thrown up into the air and it landed in a tangled mess.* The British troops would be able to walk across no-mans land. The British troops got caught in the tangled barbwire and were mowed down by the German machine guns.* The British would engage heavy packs and trench repairing kit. Each solider carried 66lb of kit, which was half the mens body weight. It was difficult to get out of the trench, move fast or even to get down or stand up quickly.These tactics sounded good but there were lots of faults. The Germans knew about the attack and were ready for it. Haig overestimated the ability of the artillery. The Germans trenches were on higher grounds then the Englishs trenches so the Germans had a good view of anyone attacking. The German trenches had been there since 1914 and the German soldiers had not been idle. They had prepared the trenches well for the attack and fortified them with concrete. The Germans had barbwire stretching 30 meters wide all over the westbound front.