• 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 these 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 these sources support this view? One of the main things about studying sources is interpretation. They way you view a source can very much depend on your own beliefs, or that of others and therefore it is very hard to find a completely true source. Source A in my opinion is more a realistic part of writing from Haig, it does not actually show that he is uncaring, yet to me shows a side of honesty and truthfulness. However, to people that do not view Haig politely, this source could be seen as untactful, insensitive and pessimistic as it comments on the nation losing men when it should really be a moral booster. In my opinion Haig is being honest, he realises that in any war men are lost and he merely states his predictions. There is no actual sign of him being insensitive. Source B as we know now is false and does not represent the truth of the battle in any respective. Yet, Haig was only going by what he heard from intelligence, and he honestly believed the offensive to be effective, he would not have known that so many people died until days later and the sources are written before and on the day of the battle. ...read more.

Middle

However due to the source being made for comical purposes only it cannot be taken completely seriously, however many people very much against Haig would state the fact that in "Blackadder" he is constantly mocked for his choices made in the war. Although, it cannot be taken 100% seriously. The same could be said for Source E however it was written in 1917, during the war and therefore demonstrates that even then many people were against Haig and his was of leadership. The Source suggests that the General's should be on the frontline, however that suggestion is ludicrous, yet many people still believed it. In my opinion the source is slightly harsh, yet its purpose is against Haig and therefore shows him in a bad light, as does Source D. It is rather biased and therefore is not entirely credible because once again it was made for a comical purpose. Source F was written by a noted historian by the name of Laffin, however he was very much against Haig and his writing is against Haig in every way. He suggests Haig as being a "donkey" and committing "criminal negligence." In my view this is not true, however he is very much against Haig and shows him to be ignorant and incompetent. ...read more.

Conclusion

that Haig was very much a different man than what he once believed, and therefore this reflects Haig in a bad light, and shows that maybe he did sacrifice his men for his own benefits. Source can always be interpreted differently and therefore no one opinion can be formed. Every person has different views on Haig and the way he acted. Some sources are very biased against Haig and clearly believe him to be insensitive, and a slaughterer. Others seem to think that he was a brilliant General and his perseverance was a main point of the allied victory. Interpretation is very important, and in general I think Haig didn't do too much wrong. However I do realise that his offensive at the Somme was a disaster, yet he only went on his intelligence and what people told him and therefore the deaths cannot be blamed on one man. Haig is seen in many different lights, and many believe him to be very different than what he was. The sources show all different view point of Douglas Haig, and therefore show a complete picture of him. He was neither a good or bad General, but a mixture of both with good and bad points in his character. Just like every other human being. Ronnie Gunson ...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?

    These failed in entirety, for obvious reasons. It was not only this, but Haig seemed to repeat the bad tactics he had used in battles such as the Somme, and Passchendaele. He was incredibly slow to adapt to new tactics, let alone integrate weaponry.

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

    The Allies took six miles, but is that worth one hundred and seventy thousand, casualties that are more allied then the Germans had? When you say this, the way I did it seems like the success of the Somme is not worth the losses.

  1. Describe the conditions that soldiers experienced on the western front in the years 1915-1917.

    The Allied forces had to defend and had to stop the Germans gaining any more ground in France, and the German forces could not lose any ground they had gained in France. One adviser to the Kaiser said "Your Majesty, we have lost the war."

  2. 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.

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

    They maintain that he could not possibly have known what was happening unless he actually saw it, and therefore condemn him for his lack of understanding about the situation. Others disagree, and say that he could not possibly have conducted the war from the front line, as he would have seen too small a part of the whole picture.

  2. Study all Sources - 'Haig was an uncaring General who sacrificed the lives of ...

    As Lloyd George expressed his doubts to Haig, Haig should have listened and maybe changed his tactics but he didn't as he kept on sending men over the top. I think the purpose of source F is to put down Haig as source F is biased because it is an

  1. Why did the General Strike of 1926 take place?

    The industry slump leading to wage reductions in other industries heightened this fear and this was another reason for the formation of the General Council; the unions saw it as protection against their members being exploited by employers. The unions believed that it they could stop the cuts in the

  2. Causes of the General Strike

    The bill fully legalised peaceful picketing and union's funds were fully protected because the Taff Vale judgement was reversed. As a result of this act, Trade Unions became much more militant and increased the number of successful strikes. The worldwide economic depression was another long term cause of the General Strike.

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