Supporting Keegan's interpretation of Haig Historians often differ greatly with their opinions of Field Marshal Haig and his success during the Great War. John Keegan is a modern historian very sympathetic to Haig. Keegan is quoted as saying that Haig was an "efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to bring Britain to victory in the First World War". In recent years most historians have begun to accept that Haig was not as bad as the seemingly common view of him as a bumbling idiot portrayed in the era after his death. Source C is an article from the conservative newspaper "The Telegraph". The article is written by Field Marshal Haig's son, Count Haig. With a source of this nature it is obviously necessary to look for any bias in his son's article. Coming from a traditional, high-class family, Earl Haig was undoubtedly raised to respect his father. Earl Haig may not have wanted to write anything negative about his late father or simply acknowledge his existence, in effect writing the article "with blinders on." The veterans he spoke to in the article, he said, never uttered a word of criticism about his father, but they undoubtedly knew who he was and didn't want to offend or upset him. Earl Haig criticizes people, in the article, for "pouring contempt" on his father despite him not having been at war, but he wasn't either and had probably heard about the war a lot from his father's perspective. Source D is a fake 'General Haig' Private War' poster showing Field Marshal Haig and the words 'Your country needs me... like a hole in the head - which is what most of you will get ". This obviously means having a very negative view of Haig, focusing on the amount of death and casualties that occurred during the conflict. This source has no clear author, so it is impossible to see the author's background and knowledge or situation.