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

    However, the TUC wanted to involve the government in any negotiations, to try to confirm a lasting settlement and to stop them having to call a strike. This proved that neither the government nor the TUC wanted a General Strike, but if neither were prepared to back down, a strike involving many of the key unions seemed inevitable.

  1. Causes of the General Strike

    In the 19th Century, Britain had been the `workshop of the world`, the richest and most profitable trading nation. However, by 1900 British industry was beginning to decline. Foreign competitors such as Germany and America could produce goods more cheaply than Britain, which meant that other countries began to buy products from them because they were cheaper than British goods.

  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. Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no ...

    "Who told them", which implies that Haig was misinformed, but overall Coppard is agreeing with the statement. Source D is a still from TV series 'Blackadder Goes Forth", and again this source mainly agrees with the statement. The source uses sarcasm as a way to criticise Haig, by saying, "Are we all going to get killed?

  2. General Haig

    He put his belief into one final mighty push against the Germans to be destroyed in the Somme region of France. The French had been asking for some form of military assistance from the British to help them in their battle with the Germans at Verdun, and so Haig had helped them, thus helping to win World War One.

  1. "Haig was an uncaring generalwho sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good ...

    "Very Successful attack this morning. All went like clockwork. The battle is going very well for us and already the Germans are surrendering freely. The enemy is so short of men that he is collecting them from all parts of the line.

  2. Some people have the view that British generals like Haig were incompetent leaders. How ...

    However other historians will interpret the event differently and say that so many lives were lost due to the weaponry used(the shells that were intended at the German lines were made by inexperienced munitions workers and only a third of them went off.), the German tactics and inexperienced soldiers and leaders like Haig were not to blame.

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