In this essay I will try to show the extent to which all the sources in the pamphlet support the claim that Haig was indifferent and sacrificed the lives of his soldiers without reason. I will give a balanced answer, showing both points of view, and reach a judgment. Source A supports the statement, because he uses a cold and harsh tone, for example that the loss of soldiers was "teaching" the nation the reality of war. It seems to suggest that he regarded the “heavy casualty lists” as inevitable, and since he carried out the attack when he knew many soldiers would die, we can infer that he did not care about the lives of his soldiers and was cold-hearted. However it could be said that source a does not support the claim, because it does not explicitly mention anywhere that Haig did not care about the lives of his men, and it could be argued that he is simply being a good general and preparing the nation and his men for what will happen. You could also say that Source B doesn't support the claim, because he mentions how well "educated and informed" his men were before the attack, and this clearly doesn't support the claim because it shows how much he cares about the morale and preparedness of his men. his men. We can also see this because he mentions how the troops are in “wonderful spirits” after the attack. However, we know from contextual knowledge that in reality the men were not well educated and informed, because many of the 700,000 soldiers used in the attack were new recruits and had very little experience, and the mere practice they had would not have prepared them in any way for the reality of the war. We also know that the attack was definitely not “very successful” on the first morning, at the end of the d…… half of the document……for example source F is extremely explicit in his criticism of Haig, while with source A it is only through inferences we are able to demonstrate how it supports the claim. There are also many claims where support for the claim can be made either way, for example many seem to support it on the surface but when you look more closely at their motivations and provenance you find that they are not that reliable and therefore not they support the claim so concretely, for example sources D and E which are both very critical of Haig but both are fictitious. There is also the occasional source who doesn't seem to support the claim at all, for example source H seems to be very positive when talking about Haig. However, taking all of the above into account, I have come to the judgment that overall most of these sources quite support the claim.