Haig Coursework

Authors Avatar

Question 1a: In what way are the accounts similar and in what way do they differ? 

These accounts are very similar and very different in their accounts of their feelings towards General Haig.  The similarities of the sources are that all of them were written about world war one and they all also refer to Haig.  Finally, they are all written by people who fought in the war, whether before or during the war (source 1) or after the war (source 2 and 3).The first main difference in the sources is that sources 1 and 3 had been in contact with Haig. Source 2, however had ‘never had any contact’ with Haig, and so lacks primary knowledge, so his account cannot be a fair judgment.

Another key difference is if the Kitchener volunteer wrote the account, then he would have written the letter before January 1915.  This is before 1916 and 1917, which are the years of Haig’s reputed worst wars. Therefore, this person has never witnessed or been involved in any of Haig’s battle strategies.  Consequently, his judgment that Haig is a good leader is founded purely on looks and on what he has been told, “A wonder full looking man, with a very firm chin and dark blue eyes'.  This is the first main difference between the sources. Sources 2 and 3 are both taken after war had ceased and so they had seen Haig in action and could judge him with justification, as they had experienced Haig’s tactics, and are very bitter from it, ‘I’m very bitter and always will be, and everyone else that knew him’ [Fred Pearson].  However, we see that source 1 is yet to witness Haig in action, and portrays Haig in a good light.

The final difference is found in source 3.  The writer appears to be ‘very bitter’, with comments including, ‘made earl...  I know what I’d…’ Even though they express the same view of Haig as source 2, calling him a ‘butcher’ (source 2) and a ‘murderer’ (source 3), it shows signs of acrimony towards Haig, when he says ‘I’m very bitter, always will be’ and ‘I don’t think he knew what a trench was like’. This is a considerable bias, and would greatly affect his judgement, unlike sources 1 and 2 which show comparatively few signs of bias on a personal level. Also, source 2 shows a lack of first hand knowledge; ‘I think…’ and ‘… I never had any contact with them [generals].’ 

 
Question 1b: Use your knowledge of the First World War to suggest reasons for the different attitudes expressed in these three sources 

This Kitchener volunteer, recruited before general conscription and highly optimistic of the war, views Haig as a great leader, who will lead the country to many great victories. Everyone felt about the war pre-1914 this way. They had been fed patriotic propaganda, and genuinely believed that the war would be ‘over by Christmas’; he had obviously fallen for the postcard in source 5, just as the government wanted. Obviously, Kitchener was supposed to put forward an enthusiastic approach to the war, he was pushing people to sign up to the war effort. The only way to do this was to try to inspire confidence in the commander by promoting his image to make him look trustworthy and a good leader who deserved admiration, so that men would not have any queries about conscripting. 
Sources 2 and 3 have been written after the war, and had witnessed Haig’s tactics and the results of the Somme, Ypres and Passchendaele. These battles had by far been Haig’s worst, and the Somme offensive saw 58,000 British troops killed on the first day of battle. His tactics came under harsh scrutiny, with critics believing that the mass casualties could have been avoided with better tactics.  
In addition, Sources 2 and 3 have lived through the domestics of the war; low morale, poor living conditions, diseases, friends dying around them etc. Clearly this would affect there judgment so they would be very critical of Haig.
 

Join now!

Question 2a: Does source 4 support of refute sources 2 and 3? Explain your answer 

Source 4 refutes sources 2 and 3. Sources 2 and 3 describe Haig as a ‘butcher’ and a ‘murderer’ who ‘never cared for men’s lives’. Soldiers would have had a narrow perspective though, as they would only see what surrounded them. Source 4 implies that he did care about his men, saying he knows ‘how many [men] will have to pay the penalty for peace’, and that he felt ‘quite sad’ about this. The phrase ‘quite sad’ is quite controversial. In the language of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay