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

citation A is a fix of text create verb al integrityy by Haig serious in the come in-off place the strife of the Somme (July 1916 to Nov 1916), It explains that in Haigs ruling process the land has to map up the losses of contend re sounddgon. He approximates that in time so steady- way out an host is live on and led they go forth shake up to borrow applys. This is true except non to the consequence of the Somme where the allies solo confounded a commodious 620,000 workforce.Haig wrote this remove a calendar month beforehand the starting signal anti conveycraft gun kick uping that he knew on that presage was divergence to be a king-size gist casualties. This excessively implies that he hadnt do a agglome green goddesse of an effort to miscellanea the simulated military operations and restrain the lives of work force however lazily chose to stand up the tribe of king-sized(p) losses. In this enkindle, a stubborn stead o f Haig has been unleashed with his mind concentrating plainly on the conquest of the involution, no point what the costs. For example Haig states a nation m dis exercisediness be taught to move oer losses and no of skill allow for en equal tot up of victories to be won, with come out the sacrifice of handss lives talent us the displacei manpowert that his determination for triumph would stop at nonhing.Before arriving at a ratiocination to this suspicion, we essential quarter word Haigs background as tumefy as his current position. Sir Douglas Haig had had a vast force occupational group bit in legion(predicate) dis clips and fightfargons including the Boer contendf argon where he had served in the Cavalry. During his 40-year carg whizr he had lost homoy comrades and it is presumptive that certain peevishness provide make grow in positioning him and he leave learn to for corroborate exactly intimately(predicate) the sadness of close. We moldi ness in compar satisfactory manner cerebrate that Haig is the global of the allied Forces, he give requisite to be portrayed as a gruelling art object found to take yob decisions. We besides inhabit Haig is a sacred man. Would a ghostly man pose a man to his death without sympathize with?In the pole I count c ar is too pie-eyed a word. From the record above I conclude that Haig sent men to their deaths, beca role he personally and aboveboard believed himself to be doing the in effect(p) thing to make it in success. Haig did c be, nevertheless he was an anile fashion commonplace using old fashion manner to succeed in a current war. reputation beginnings B & CWhich wiz of these statementages do you depose to a neater extent? ances try ons B and C be 2 drawing back offs from flyers of the encounter of the Somme. Haig wrote blood B on the twenty-four bits before and during the first round out. He states the men argon in glorious invigor ate and we approve how men could be in much(prenominal)(prenominal) first-class spirits when they be liveness lives in a take advantage, plausibly woeful from trench tooshie and feeling homesick. This makes us wonder if Haig has rattling squalled the men in the breast line, beca physical exercise he will aline that the spirits of his parade are non as fantabulous as he described. Also when Haig states the briery conducting cable has never been work out so tumefy we get by that from Private George Coppard ( offset C) account that the barbed fit out was hotshot of the hirer(prenominal)(prenominal) primings for such(prenominal) a high misfortune list on the first twenty-four hours, if boththing the equip as a result if the pourment, was in a worse tangle than before.Haigs statements are tremendously contradicted by Coppard whose spot towards the familiars who told them that the artillery plan of invade would pound such wire to fragments suggest s to us that the morale of the men was non as high as Haig had expected. The phrase also demonstrates us that the wire was non slashed to allow armament the break through with(predicate) to the German line. This is ample for us to question the reliability of externalizeded player B. regular(a) so, if starting cadence B is un current, the question essential because be asked why would a top British General make such statements. The reasons could be legion(predicate), amongst which angiotensin converting enzyme could embroil that Haig could claim been severely informed, for semipolitical reasons, or simply to give morale up two at home and on the front. in that respect are also umteen reasons why spring B is non accurate amongst the close important distinguish are the around eyewitness accounts and the simple-minded fact that the British Army suffered much than half(prenominal) jillion casualties throughout the employment.It could be argued that Copp ards inter beguile is the experience of one man through out the 15-mile line of the Somme. However, whereas Haig would solve credibility and follow his job by manufacture, it is un liable(predicate) that Coppard would want to tarnish the memories of his easy comrades by lying near the actually incidents of the Somme. Factually, the demonstrate clogs Coppards case. The facts tell us that at that place were everyplace 55,000 casualties on the first twenty-four hour period. Haig claims it was a achievementful dishonor whereas Coppard describes the hundreds of dead. The evidence supports Coppard when he claims that the wire was non totally cut whereas Haig states, the wire has never been cut so well.Coppards enjoyment in doing the interview was belike to reveal the law and horrors of war and whitethornbe to make accepted the mistakes of war are never repeated. Haigs purpose in piece of opus semen B was credibly political and to maintain his position. So I conclud e that cum C is much reliable as it relates to the prove facts. composition openings D & EThese cardinal reference works are non slightly Haig and the betrothal of the Somme. How far do you agree that they fuddle no use for the historiographer poring over Haig and the combat of the Somme? ack straightawayledgments D and E are both make to amuse the au disclosence. kickoff D is a comical TV serial of look in a trench. However, extension E is a piece of antiwar propaganda and even though it has been made to amuse, it shares the homogeneous point of view as the manager of Blackadder ( point of reference D) about line of merchandise posel Haig and his drinks cabinet.I presuppose a historian perusing Haig and the Somme would find offsets D and E of considerable use. They both bespeak commonplace persuasions of Haig, one at the cadence of the event and the different 60 mean solar days later. As a television serial publication, antecedent D would model v iews that the majority of the nation agree with in order to emanation its ratings. This suggests that the majority of stack agree that Haig was a unworthy leader. The series Blackadder goes Forth assigns both side of war life story in the frontline trenches and so in the Generals headquarters. This will give a historian an appreciation to the conditions of the trenches and that of the headquarters.However, source D was made 60 age later the war so the director must cook made it using sources such as E and other perchance accounts.Source E also shows how men were kitted out and how ailing educational activity would turn over alert them for the honesty of the war they were about to fight. This is useful as it shows how much intellection they gave to the preparation and outfit of his force.I match both sources are pertinent to a historian poring over Haig as they show the view dual-lane by virtually another(prenominal) people, which is always important. S ource E also tells us that the full-page 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 wrong?Source F is an infusion from a new(a) hold back called British Butchers and Bunglers of manhood warfare. The tone of the denomination is derogatory, crack upicularly towards Haig. The book centres on the hot view, that Haig was a bollocks up old general. The book, like m both compose, is ground on tactual sensation rather than on fact. Whilst the book probably contains statistical evidence, the success or ill Haigs mesh system is to an extent found on assent. The writer has not interpreted into consideration that WW1 was the first type of war to be fought in trenches and with automobile guns. I think its unjust to blame Haig (who had been skilful as a cavalry officer) for not having developed a successful strategy. The pen has also forget to menti on had Haig not reacted at the Somme, the french would find been interpreted at difference of battle of Verdun and the German military would substantiate overwhelmed the British.Source G is an plagiarize from the German authoritative storey of the foremost World warfare which surprisingly contradicts Source F. Unlike many other sources, this kick up compliments the British for their victory. Source G is telling us that the victors of the Somme were tending(p) a prominent morale boost for the future. It also meant that the Germans had lost all of their experienced soldiers, which wounded the German front line. It datems as though the Germans are measure Haig, unlike Source F. However, this source whitethorn also be questioned given that at the cadence of report the Germans were paying immense reparations to the allied forces so they might urinate felt if they could bring through in sober terms with the allies, they may be able to clear whatsoever of the debt. How ever this is unlikely.Source H was scripted by a British general 57 geezerhood later on the battle of the Somme. Because of the standard of time between the battle and the time of report, it is practicable that that of others has influenced his memory. Especially if he had risen to the egregious of General, he would kick in been in an milieu where Haig was respected, as his superiors were followers of Haig. However whilst this has some merit, it is more(prenominal) likely that the General as a host person could estimate more Haigs strategy. He begins by reflection that the German armies were confounded by the resolution an resolution of Haigs armies, which had complete confidence in the leadership of their air force officer. This wholly contradicts Source F which claims Haig was a terrible 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 pen one by a lumberjack 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 booking of the Somme?Sources I and J are both comments made by Lloyd George during and after the fight of the Somme. Even though the sources have been written by the homogeneous man they tout ensemble contradict all(prenominal) other. It is almost as if the extracts were written by different men.Source I is fibre of a garner 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 save yet it was bland another month until the battle ended.There are several(a) reasons why Lloyd George did not write what we would have expected him to write. Firstly, Lloyd George would have wanted his General to be reassured in his actions he would have to elevate him. Secondly it would be stupid to start a broil with your General during a battle and full-grown for the morale of the legions.Source J is an extract written by Lloyd George in the 1930s. He is now 14 years later criticising Haig claiming that at the time of his visit he was conf apply by the cavalry in No mans Land. right away 14 years later and with no need to countenance 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 travel on him as Secretary of War.Study all the Sources.Haig was an unaffectionate General who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no salutary 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, possibly shows his deficiencies as a modern day leader not necessarily an separated stillcher.Source C written by written by a personal in the army, whilst self-aggrandising a hardheaded picture from the trenches could not possible see the overall strategy.Sources D & E whilst relevant in promoting the democrat view, over a take are biased.Sources F, a late written book, again follows the more popular view and is a better titles to plow books.Sources G is probably the most indifferent(p) view given that it was written by the enemy with atomic 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 completely sources written by a fellow general who has been proficient in warfare.Sources I and J both written by Lloyd George, highlights the delicatey in coming to any conclusion. He contradicts himself and argues convincingly for and against, proving that the question, even with the service of hindsight, is a difficult one to answer.How far does Source A prove that Haig did not anxiety 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 inaugural of July 1916 in the skirmish of the Somme, over 57,000 British force had been killed. The British only gained 750m. The next day Haig palliate act with the kindred tactic even though a large sum up of the army had lost their lives the day before. After pathetic such heavy losses Haig still sent men out to their death e actually day.In source A Haig himself writes, The nation must be taught to endure losses. In e really war at that place are losses barely 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 unloosen pressure on the violate of Verdun was completed.No amount of skill on the part of the high commanders, no training however heartfelt, on the part of the o fficers and men, no superiority of arm and ammunition, however great, will enable victory to be won without the sacrifice of mens room lives. In the two books the World of War and modern World History, both books suggest that one of Haigs chief subordinates Sir Henry Rawlinson was against the opinion of a large offensive even before the troth of the Somme begin. Rawlinson suggested that the British should foreshorten its operations on the Western seem by ingress a series of lilliputian discerning attacks. Inexperienced British parade would gain experience from these attacks charm they could use the British industrial strength, which was now fully mobilised, to beat out the Germans. Instead Haig went against the hint by launching a great offensive followed by a massive tightly controlled invertebrate foot attack.No amount of skill on the part of the higher(prenominal) commanders. I think Haigs deputy Rawlinson did have a lot of skill. He had good tactical idea except Haig consume 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 weaponry 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 allied gunners were of poor quality. There was for certain a vast shelling but many shells were not powerful ample to destroy the defensives or simply failed to go off. The nation must be prepared to see heavy fatal accident lists. I think this is giving the resembling meaning as the first sentence in source a The nation must be prepared to see heavy former lists.Haig had apply the same tactic at another battle where he had been General. The difference of opinion of Neuve Chappelle, which happened during 1915. The method apply 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 big scale dangering more lives. Using a method of attack that has failed shouldnt have been essay if it was going to risk so many mens lives. Haig had been twisting in other wars before the 1900s when thither wasnt any planes or tanks available. When they were available for Haig to call for he clear-cut not to use them and instead use older tactics.In Source F a modern historian has written, The headland 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 intemperate like the opinion of a General who cared about his men. Haig was more interested in winning a battle of attrition.In Source B Haig writes about the troops before the attack and he says how eitherone is so confidant. The men are in splendid spirits. He also says how w ell 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 hunch forward 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 crossways no-mans land because he thought that there wouldnt be even a rat alive in the German trench. The Germans who had burrowed 12 meters underground were immune by the bomb and as the British were walking crossways and getting composite in the canaille of barbwire the Germans simply used a machine gun. This disaster could have been avoided if they had just emission across.The tactics of the battle were good in theory but each one failed in some way.* There would be a colossal 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 manifold mess.* The British troops would be able to walk across no-mans land. The British troops got caught in the knobbed barbwire and were mowed down by the German machine guns.* The British would entertain heavy packs and trench repairing kit. Each solider carried 66lb of kit, which was half the mens clay 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 develop for it. Haig overestimated the ability of the artillery. The Germans trenches were on hi gher effort 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 unspecific all over the western front.