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

Haig was an 'efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War'. Is there sufficient evidence in Sources C to L to support this interpretation?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

2. Evaluation of an interpretation for sufficiency John Keegan, a modern military historian, suggests that Haig was an 'efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War'. Is there sufficient evidence in Sources C to L to support this interpretation? Use the sources and your knowledge to explain your answer. Source C is a quote from Field Marshall Haig's son, Dawyck Haig. Dawyck Haig, being Douglas Haig's son, would have definitive bias towards his father. This bias would be conscious and unconscious: conscious due to his faithfulness to his heritage and name; unconscious due to the effect of his father's upbringing. Anything Dawyck Haig had been taught about his father's efficiency and skill during his childhood would be from his father, mother and family, who would obviously never want to disgrace his father in front of his son. This would stay with him through his whole life, and any attempts to discredit his father would automatically be disregarded. Furthermore, Haig's purpose in saying this would be to somewhat rescue his father's reputation; therefore he may have been inclined to some extent to bend the truth. Therefore, in conclusion, Dawyck Haig's comments on his father's efficiency and skill are hardly useful at all, due to his strong bias towards his father. ...read more.

Middle

Haig's reports would be based on whatever information he had. Since he did not have direct contact with soldiers on the front, and radio and telephone technology was not very advanced, this information could often be faulty or incomplete. Also, the fact that he was the Field Marshall would have made his men afraid to tell him bad news. This means that any apparent evidence in the source can be unreliable, and therefore not very useful as evidence. The source supports the interpretation in the question; there is no doubt of that. However, this is not complete evidence, as it is not certain, making it only useful if other sources agree. In conclusion, this source provides additional evidence, however doesn't provide evidence by itself. Source F is an excerpt from a relatively recently published history book. The source makes no reference to Haig's efficiency or skill, instead focusing on his character. Therefore it is not very useful as direct evidence for the question. However, this source gives information on Haig that could be used to asses the reliability of Haig's own opinions, such as those in Source E. If he indeed was as the source describes him, then anything he says about himself, such as the high praise of his attack in Source E, should not be considered as reliable evidence. ...read more.

Conclusion

Source K is an excerpt from an article discussing whether Haig was totally at fault or not. The article describes Haig as the product of his time, and that nobody in his place would do better. It describes him as having made mistake, but that it was not all his fault; especially saying that ultimately he had won. It says that Haig had done the best that could be expected in efficiency and skill at the time, and that it is only now, in retrospect, that we can see the mistakes. Therefore, the source does support John Keegan's statement. In conclusion, only one source (Source K) definitively agrees with John Keegan's interpretation. However, only one definitively disagrees with the statement (Source G), and there is one that could be interpreted as strong evidence either way (Source J). All the others do not give sufficient evidence either way. Therefore, I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to support John Keegan's interpretation, but that there is also not enough evidence to contradict it. This is possibly due to the fact that it is difficult to measure skill and efficiency, especially when we know what happened next. Leszek Swirski Question 2 ...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. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    The source also says that the significance of Dunkirk was only realised after as Hitler realised that Britain could continue in the war. The source is written from a respected historian Allan Bullock, so I expect this source to be reliable.

  2. WHO WAS TO BLAME FOR THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR?

    Charles decided to go to war against Scotland anyway. It was a disaster. Not only he was defeated, the Scots army have also invaded the northern England. They now have the power to stop Charles getting into Scotland for good. The Scots agreed to return to Scotland, but only if Charles paid all costs of their army as well as his.

  1. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    terms of land lost and equipment lost, and is against Churchill saying that there was deliverance inside this defeat. This does not mention death as the defeating factor but the loss in 'military' terms, possibly due to Government censorship, especially when they have to be sensitive to families of soldiers.

  2. Defeat, Deliverance or Victory? Which of these best describes Dunkirk?

    the war would be a sensitive subject for the public so to be too critical he may not sell many copies of his book. The author being British and in the RAF could cause the source to be bias as he seems patriotic.

  1. Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain - 'Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a ...

    A bad point is that the soldiers appear to be firing nowhere, because guns in World War 2 could definitely not reach the Stuka Dive Bombers in the sky. From my own knowledge I know that the soldiers had meant to have dropped their weapons on the way to the

  2. John Keegan, a modern military historian, suggests that Haig was a "highly skilled, effective ...

    It shows that this success was a result of improving British tactics, which the Germans could not defend against.

  1. How did life for a typical soldier serving in a trench on the western ...

    Parliament called for extra soldiers. Recruiting stations were opened, and over three million men volunteered. The government used all sorts of methods to encourage enlistment. They used posters, public meetings, stories of German atrocities and the threat of shame. The woman's suffrage movement asked their members to give white feathers to men who had not enlisted.

  2. Do the sources provided give sufficient evidence to fully explain what happened in Belfast ...

    The government report on the 15/16 April raids was likely to be truthful because it was confidential and its contents match research evidence.

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