• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason. How far do the sources support this view?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason." How far do the sources support this view? I think all the different sources all have a mixed view on Haig, some implying he was 'uncaring' and that he 'sacrificed the lives of his soldiers', but others disagreeing with this. Source A mainly agrees with the statement. It is written by Haig himself, so it is not somebody's opinion of him. He has a cynical tone, saying that, "The nation must be taught to bear losses" and that they cannot win "without the sacrifice of men's lives". It seems as if Haig is trying to defend himself, as he says, "No amount of skill on the part of the higher commanders...will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men's lives." Although Source A does support the idea that Haig is sacrificing men's lives, and that he is bad for not caring about this, I think Haig may be just defending himself. He says that "no training, however good" and "no superiority of arms and ammunition" will stop people dying, so he is telling people so that he doesn't get blamed if it does happen. I think it also shows he must care a bit because he is warning the nation, and describing the deaths of soldiers as a "sacrifice". ...read more.

Middle

It is a cartoon and shows the troops practising for an attack. In some ways it does agree with the statement because it claims that the "General" was absent from an attack, which does imply that Haig did not care about his men enough to be there to instruct them. It also makes the "Major-General" seem stupid because in the cartoon he says there are "three major differences" between the practise and the real attack, and he only mentions two of these and forgets the second one. The cartoon is using humour. In some ways, the Source E disagrees with the statement. As the soldiers in the source are practising, it shows they care enough to instruct and practise and that they are taking the battle seriously by preparing for it. The source was published in a British magazine in 1917, and the purpose of the cartoon was to entertain people so it could be criticising Haig for humour to make people laugh, and this means we can't fully trust the source. The source shows Haig did care about the men, but also shows his faults. Some of the Sources disagree with the statement, one of them being Source B. Source B was written by Haig, in a report, and it mainly disagrees with the statement, especially in the first half. ...read more.

Conclusion

He had his own memories from the war, and as it was a significant event it is likely that he remembered a lot from it. Also, as he fought in both the World Wars he would have had another experience to compare it with, and therefore this source is reliable. The source doesn't tell us what it was written for, so the purpose of the source is unknown, but as the general is giving his opinion it is unlikely that it has been influenced by anyone for the purpose of writing the source. Some of the sources do agree with the statement, but others disagree. A lot of the sources do criticise Haig and his actions and do imply that he did not care about his men, but I have found that often these sources are not very reliable or have been written with a purpose to criticise Haig, as this was the attitude of people at the time, so many of the sources would agree with the statement to support peoples' views. The sources that disagree with the statement are more reliable than the ones that agree, so although a lot of sources are negative about Haig, I think this is just a reflection of the attitudes at the time. I think the sources agree with the statement to a certain extent. ?? ?? ?? ?? Rachel Everingham 11R History GCSE Coursework ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Britain 1905-1951 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Britain 1905-1951 essays

  1. General Haig - Butcher or Hero?

    Some officers even regarded the weapon as an improper form of warfare! The generals were so slow to adapt to new tactics used by the enemy at the start of the war that nearly 1 million casualties were sustained due to the inexplicable unchanging tactics of the world war one generals.

  2. Was General Haig a bad leader, source based

    Source D is a book from General Haig's Private War. It is on a view of Haig. The main purpose of this source is to show that Haig is the last person you need to lead your country hence the caption at the bottom of the book.

  1. Was General Haig a donkey or a great commander?

    it was Haig who suggested to the King that French was "a source of great weakness to the army, and no-one had any confidence in him anymore." He then suggested that he himself was ready to do the duty in any capacity, obviously meaning as commander in chief.

  2. General Haig

    This source therefore does support Keegan's interpretation of Haig. However, this source is not entirely reliable because it is a one-sided biased point of view of General Haig, because it is simply from his son who supports his father no matter what others say about him.

  1. General Haig doesn't care about his soldiers.

    Many of the soldier's commanders were killed so that none of the soldiers knew what to do and it was total chaos as they tried to squeeze through small gaps and became sitting ducks for German machine-gunners. The British were too slow due to them having to carry extra weight

  2. "Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no ...

    Throughout the war his "persistence" was not a public favourite as he made many mistakes. On the other side of the coin though, what could he do? He had been told by supporting generals that his plans were "brilliant" and therefore why would he change them?

  1. How Far was Haig responsible for the failings of the British War effort on ...

    and used against the German counter attack, but these packs just slowed down the British advance making them easy targets. Haig still hadn't realised the uselessness of cavalry in modern warfare. The cavalry were supposed to break through gaps in the German line but were just mowed down by the Germans.

  2. Some people have the view that British generals like Haig were incompetent leaders. How ...

    that leaders like Haig were the reason why so many men were killed. Laffin suggests that leader?s like Haig were responsible for the slaughter of many soldiers. In summary the source is useful because it helps us understand, whether true or not, why people think that these leaders were incompetent

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work