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

Field Marshall Haig - Source related study.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

History Coursework a} By studying source a it proves that Haig did not care about the lives of his men, you can tell this because he says that "the nation should be taught to bear losses", he also goes on to say that no matter how good his army is, the sacrifice of men's lives is definite. Haig must have said this because he knows that his plan will be unsuccessful and that many men's lives will be lost, and he wants to prepare the nation in advance, but then Haig goes on to say in source b that the attack has gone very well and the "Germans are surrendering freely". Haig is trying to keep morale high by telling the nation that everything is running like clockwork. Haig is now saying this to keep spirits up after what he said previously in source a). The purpose of source a) was to prepare the nation for the worst; he has already told everyone that many lives will be lost, so they cannot enquire afterwards. b) After reading both sources b and c, in my opinion he would trust the extract written by private George Coppard because unlike Haig he was actually at the front line and witnessed the attack for himself, although this mans experience might have ...read more.

Middle

then you have to look at who the source was written by- a British general, would he want to give a fellow general a bad name? So basically if this source was to be trusted then it would definitely be in Haigs favour. I don't think that source (f) can be proved wrong but at the same time I don't think that it is one hundred percent correct, as it may have been written by a biased person, sources (g) and (h) were written for a purpose, and this purpose was to get people to back Haig in what he did. e) I believe that sources (I) and (j) differ about the battle of the Somme because although both extracts were written by the same person, time periods are very important because one was written before the war and Lloyd George praises Haig for his actions saying that he has to congratulate him on the skills that his plan was laid. It was Lloyd Georges type that got Britain involved in the war so obviously he would do his up most to make it look like he is doing really well because it makes him look like the hero. ...read more.

Conclusion

Source (h) was written by a fellow British general he says that "Germanys spirit of resistance was broken" he says that Haigs army had complete confidence in him, how could they have so much confidence in him when he was never present at the time of an attack? I think that the general lied in order to give Haig a good name, the same kind of thing happened in source (I) which tells us that the war had turned in the British favour and how Lloyd George congratulates him on his skills shown, but then after the war had finished he said that he couldn't understand some of the decisions that Haig had taken. My conclusion is that Haig was not as bad as some people said, but he did make unnecessary moves which unfortunately cost the lives of hundreds of men, Haig should have spent more time planning his moves and not rushing into things without any thought. He should also have been present at the battlefields so that he would have been able to give out first hand advice, but Haig did do a lot of good for the British because good general or not he did win the war. Unfortunately Haig did lie and he did this to gain peoples respect if he hadn't of lied would he of earnt the respect he was given? ...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?

    However, it did mean that all of America's vast supplies of manpower, materials, money and technology were now available for the Allies to draw upon. Although American troops did not go into action until 1 June 1918, they were fresh and not weary of fighting like the other nations involved.

  2. How important were Haig's tactics in bringing an end to WW1?

    They succeeded in winning about 125 sq miles of territory, but the drive did not bring about a breakthrough. The Battle of the Somme marked the earliest use of the modern tank, deployed by the British on September 15 in an attack near Courcelette.

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

    Whether or not this is true, this skill did not emerge very obviously during the Somme. Nevertheless, his supporters, still undaunted, then justify the Somme for other reasons. One of these is the fact that the Somme was an excellent training ground for the BEF.

  2. The Battle of the Somme - source related study

    3. Source 15.I is taken from a novel. How does this make a difference to its value as a source of information about the Battle of the Somme? Source 15.J is a novel, which I think makes it a less reliable source, which is because of a few reasons.

  1. Haig and 'The Battle of the Somme' - source related study.

    Source D is a still from the T.V series 'Blackadder Goes Forth', showing two officers discussing an imminent attack on the Germans. To some extent I disagree that there is no use for a historian studying Haig and the Battle of the Somme to refer to this source as the source is very negative and very cynical towards Haig.

  2. Field Marshall Haig: 'The Butcher of the Somme?'

    It does not say anything specifically about the men's attitude on the front line or the conditions. It claims Haig's plan is good and is so far successful. George has no doubts or queries, and seems very pleased with it so far.

  1. Was General Haig a bad leader, source based

    Overall from the collection of two sources I believe there is fairly enough evidence for both for and against Keegan's statement however there are only two sources. From the sources that are left there are three sources that all oppose Keegan's statement.

  2. How important was Haig's role in the successes and failures of the British Army ...

    This demonstrates that the soldiers had absolute faith in Haig and saw him as a hero. Another aspect where Haig was heavily criticized for was the fact that he never visited the front line himself. The general thought that the public had was that a general had to visit the front line to check how well things were going.

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