How Useful Is the Source to Tell Us the Importance of General Haig in the Ww1?
Summary:
During WW1 and many years after, generals have been questioned and criticised about their actions and duties towards their soldiers. From my own knowledge I know that thousands of troops where massacred and also suffered horrendous living conditions in the trenches.
During WW1 and many years after, generals have been questioned and criticised about their actions and duties towards their soldiers. From my own knowledge I know that thousands of troops where massacred and also suffered horrendous living conditions in the trenches. Sources A-C focuses on soldier's attitudes towards their generals, all 3 sources are arguable to a historian studying WW1 therefore I will have to compare and contrast the 3 sources and see which is most trustworthy and the most useful to a historian.
Firstly I will be looking at Source A, it is a cartoon drawn and published by Punch Magazine in 1918. It shows Marshall Haig being paraded and saluted by soldiers while riding past on his horse. To start off with I can say that the source shows that the soldiers had a strong Positive view towards the generals, secondly it shows that soldiers respected and looked up to their commanders. From my own knowledge I know that the source agrees with Captain Peter Bentley who wrote in a letter home in 1916 that Marshall Haig has done his homework and had large amounts of resources (Shells & Guns) to fight against the enemy therefore I think that the source is useful.
However there are limitations on how useful it is to a historian because From my own knowledge I know that the source disagrees with Lieutenant JA Raws who wrote in a letter to his family August 1916 that he believed that Goldie and many others were murdered by the stupidity of those in authority. This disagrees with the source, therefore I think that it is not useful.
,
By looking at the description of the cartoon it says ."...interpretation of the soldiers view of Haig" from this I can argue that it didn't show the soldiers view of their commanders but how people living in Britain thought it was like for the soldiers (these where mainly used for advertisement to recruit new troops into the army). Therefore I think that Source A is not useful for showing soldiers attitudes towards their generals, however it could be useful for someone studying how people back in Britain thought the war was like and how the government used cartoons like this, to give a positive view about the war to the public.
Secondly I will be looking at Source B; it is poem written by a soldier who served during the war (Seigfried Sassoon). It describes in detail and with emotion about soldiers being killed due to those in command, the source suggests that soldiers thought negatively towards their generals. It describes the generals as ."..incompetent swine" it also describes the soldiers .".cursing" the generals and their actions. It was written to show people that generals weren't doing their job properly and that their tactics caused the death of thousands.
Source b is some use to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers towards their commanders during the first world war because from my own knowledge I know that Source B agrees with a veteran of the Great War, writing in 1961 which states that many were murdered by the stupidity of those in command, this indicates that he blames Haig for soldiers being killed and thought that his tactics and leadership skills were poor. This agrees with the source and so the source is useful.
On the other hand source B has limitations on its usefulness because I know that Peter Bentley wrote in a letter
The source is useful because I trust it. I trust this source because it was written at the time of the war, not years after, this is important because it keeps the source trustworthy and useful because it was less likely for someone to influence him during that time. However there are some limitations to this source because I have reasons not to trust it. I know that his friends and family died during the war, which may have influenced the source. I also know that he was writing to persuade people back in Britain that the war wasn't a heroic adventure but a waste of time with a lot of young men dying for no reason. Therefore I think that Source B is of limited use for a historian studying the attitudes of soldiers toward their generals.
Lastly I will be looking at Source C; it is quotation from The Daily Telegraph newspaper, which is written in 1998. It describes Marshall Haig and his duties during the war, it tells us that people have been criticising Haig and that he is being portrayed as a bad person. It is written by Marshall Haig's son and shows a weak Positive view on soldier's attitudes towards generals. We can see from the source that his motive was to defend and persuade people to think that his father was a good general and served well. From my own knowledge I know that the source agrees with evidence 4 that states Marshall Haig showed a triumph of skill. However there are limitations, firstly I don't trust the source because it was written to change people's view about his father which shows that it is unreliable, secondly I need to know the soldiers view on their, not sons. Overall I think that Source C is not very useful for a historian studying soldier's attitudes towards their generals. It can be useful for someone studying the after affect of the war and how many generals where criticised about their duties.
By studying with insight and detail I can say that all three sources a quite useful for a historian studying soldier's attitudes towards their generals. By comparing all three I can say each source has its own motive on why it was written or drawn. They are all useful for studying WW1 and showing different opinions of people during the war. However we need to be aware that all three are very different and have limitations on how useful it is.
This is the complete article, containing 992 words
(approx. 3 pages at 300 words per page).
