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

    between the troops, and this could bear at least part of the blame for the consequences of the war, in terms of loss of life. Even so, the blame cannot be lifted entirely from the ample shoulders of Haig, as it was widely known that even had he had decent

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

    That is how it began, but as the Schlieffen Plan began to go wrong because of the Allied resistance, so did the theory of the war. It began to slow down. The German war minister Count Alfred Von Schlieffen created the 'Schlieffen Plan.'

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

    extract from a book called 'British Butchers and Bunglers of World War', which would only write negative and untrue things about Haig because of the books title. Sources that don't support the view of General Haig being an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his men for no good reason are sources B, H and I.

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

    Because coal mining was a core primary industry in Britain in the 1920s, it was seen as a bellwether for all other industries. If the miners were having to take pay cuts and longer hours, then other unions thought it would not be long until all industries would also have to take these cuts.

  1. 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.

  2. General Haig

    It says that he thinks he was one of the greatest men in the twentieth century and not a callous, uncaring man when in fact he was a very humane man. He also says "When the old soldiers who fought in the war were alive, I never heard a word of criticism from them.

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