• 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 evacuation of the BEF meant that Britain still had an army. It also made Churchill's position of prime minister stronger. The source is extracted from the book "The incredible Escape", written by an American, Norman Gelb. The book is released 50 years after Dunkirk, so therefore he has the

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

    of troops saved stated by Taylor is 338,226 men, which is the same a source 10, of which 139,097 were French. The military aspect of victory was very important in showing Dunkirk as a victory on the whole. A large no.

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

    allowed to set up their own church and worship in their own way. I think that it is important to realise that they might all not want war but they still cannot stop arguing with each other. While Parliament were worrying about whether they could trust Charles, an Irish Rebellion had started.

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

    Many of the soldiers had seen the Luftwaffe bombs kill their friends; all these made the troops have low morale. Other source such as source: 2, 3, and 8 also back up Dunkirk as being a morale defeat. Below are 3 Sources that I have explained in detail that back up Dunkirk as being nature of the evacuation.

  1. John Keegan, a modern military historian, suggests that Haig was an 'efficient and highly ...

    Earl Haig is right that the victories his father achieved at least helped to bring the war to an end, as if the British had not attacked at the Somme the French would have been 'bled white' by the Germans.

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

    This suggests bombing and shelling killed many. I think that this source is quite reliable, as we understand that 68,000 troops were not evacuated from Dunkirk. Although there is a possibility that this source could be unreliable as the pilot might feel bitter towards Dunkirk as he was shot down.

  1. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    He also mentions Naval officers shooting their revolvers to gain order and soldiers fighting for boats in a mass fright. There is not even an element of victory in his words, but there is not even the famous Dunkirk spirit that is recalled by even the most negative sources.

  2. 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.

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