Blaming Haig for the Slaughter of the Somme

Blaming Haig for the Slaughter of the Somme

1. Source A is a balanced source. It is from a book called Field

Marshal Haig, which was written by the historian Philip Warner in 1991

makes this source Secondary Evidence because it was written some time

after the war. It contains both pro Haig and also anti Haig parts.

Here are some of the pro Haig points,

"If the criterion of a successful general is to win wars, Haig must be

judged a success". This statement praises General Haig in the way of

saying that he was a success at winning wars. "Haig's military methods

were in line with the ideas at the time". This brings out the thought

of that what Haig did was infact what he was supposed to do at the

time. But in this source there was some anti Haig comments such as,

"The cost of victory was appalling". This comment brings out that even

though he was a successful General at winning wars it also says that

the loss of men in the war was dreadful. "The full horrors of the

First World War". This sentence refers again to the loss of life in

the war and the other terrible things that happened. Overall source A

is a balanced source but what about source B.

Source B is from Colonel J.H. Boraston who was Haig's personal

secretary during the war and he said this in 1922, which makes this

Primary Evidence even though he said this after the war. "The Battle

of the Somme was a great triumph for the genius of British

leadership". This statement is praising the General by saying that he

was a genius. This could be because he was Haig's personal secretary

and that this source is biased towards Haig. The main and only view

that this source shows us is that this is pro Haig. So the only

similarities they have in common is that they both contain pro Haig

references but source A contains some anti Haig views.

2. In source C which is taken out from a Secondary School textbook