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

How far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men?

Extracts from this document...


How far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men? I think source A completely suggests that Field Marshal Sir General Haig did not care about the lives of his men because after one day of fighting the Germans on the 1st of July 1916 in the Battle of the Somme, over 57,000 British troops had been killed. The British only gained 750m. The next day Haig still continued with the same tactic even though a large amount of the army had lost their lives the day before. After suffering such heavy losses Haig still sent men out to their death every day. In source A Haig himself writes, "The nation must be taught to bear losses". In every war there are losses but by writing this Haig gave no indications of just how many men he thought the nation would loose. I think Haig didn't care how many men were killed as long as his main objective to relieve pressure on the attack of Verdun was completed. ...read more.


Haig had used the same tactic at another battle where he had been General. The Battle of Neuve Chappelle, which happened during 1915. The method used was to continuously bombard the enemy with shells for weeks. The barbwire would be cut then the British would attack using infantry. The method failed at the Battle of Neuve Chappelle but Haig used it again at the Battle of the Somme but on a much bigger scale risking more lives. Using a method of attack that has failed shouldn't have been tried if it was going to risk so many men's lives. Haig had been involved in other wars before the 1900's when there wasn't any planes or tanks available. When they were available for Haig to choose he decided not to use them and instead use older tactics. In Source F a modern historian has written, "The principal that guided him was if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men then he would inevitably at some time win the war". ...read more.


* The Germans barbwire would be cut. The barbwire wasn't cut. It was simply thrown up into the air and it landed in a tangled mess. * The British troops would be able to walk across no-man's land. The British troops got caught in the tangled barbwire and were mowed down by the German machine guns. * The British would carry heavy packs and trench repairing kit. Each solider carried 66lb of kit, which was half the men's body weight. It was difficult to get out of the trench, move fast or even to get down or stand up quickly. These tactics sounded good but there were lots of faults. The Germans knew about the attack and were ready for it. Haig overestimated the ability of the artillery. The German's trenches were on higher grounds then the English's trenches so the Germans had a good view of anyone attacking. The German trenches had been there since 1914 and the German soldiers had not been idle. They had prepared the trenches well for the attack and fortified them with concrete. The Germans had barbwire stretching 30 meters wide all over the western front. ?? ?? ?? ?? Dominic Chrominski Assignment A 10MS 11th November 2001 ...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. Study sources A and B. how far does source A prove that Haig does ...

    This is purely because this is what general Haig thought to be happening, as he himself didn't go to the front. He believed this was the truth, as he knew no different. Source C however can definitely be trusted as it is, as we know, nearer to the truth.

  2. How far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives ...

    You could also say that by writing in this cynical way, Haig protected himself, so that if any troops were killed, it would not come as a shock to the system and as he warned people of this possible outcome, people wouldn't blame him.

  1. Field Marshal Haig.

    - the well-bred horse , as you have ever done in the past . This shows that Haig was obsessed with the old way of things. This proves usefull because it shows that he was more concerned with the way his men looked rather than their fighting standards.

  2. General Haig doesn't care about his soldiers.

    morale meaning that later on in the war they had to use young soldiers, "Whose training was poor". This source is even more reliable as it is written by Germans as an official history in 1930. Lastly source H fully supports what Haig did and claims that the men had, "complete confidence in the leadership of their commander".

  1. Study source A. Does it prove that Haig did not care about the lives ...

    The second extract in Source B was written on the first day of the battle (1st July 1916).

  2. How far do these sources prove that Haig did not care about the lives ...

    Overall I think that this source doesn't go any distance to prove if he cared or not about his soldiers. Source 2 Is a extract written by Haig on 30th June 1916 the day before the attack of the Somme it is primary evidence but it shows Haig as having a very callous and uncaring attitude.

  1. How Far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives ...

    Source B, as I said in the previous question, is two accounts written by Haig. One was written the day before the attack and the other is an extract from his account of the first day of the attack. Source C is from an interview with Private George Coppard years after the battle.

  2. What was life like for fighting men on the Western Front?

    The war was not all about gaining land, but instead it was about stealing deaths. The attack in this war was in fact to defend one?s position and hard earned ground. This type of war became known as attrition war, where the casualties were high and the aim was simply

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