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

How useful are Sources A, B and C to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders during the First World War? Use Sources A to C and knowledge from your studies in your answer.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How useful are Sources A, B and C to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders during the First World War? Use Sources A to C and knowledge from your studies in your answer. Due to the large variety of views shown, about the relationships between soldiers and commanders, sources A to C are quite useful in studying the soldiers attitudes. However. Limitations exist for many different reasons, but largely because the large amount of views held, and the sources can't possibly show every soldiers feeling. As a group, the sources are very useful as they are from a range of times. Source A was published during the war, so it is probably more a view that is more accurate of the feeling of the soldiers, but sources B and C are modern, which means that they have been researched and are therefore more likely to show the feelings of a large group of men. They also show the views of not only the soldiers about the high command, but also the views of the fighting officers, about their soldiers. The feelings between the different groups tended to be quite different, and so these sources are more useful as they show a number of issues. Source A demonstrates the fact that there was good relationships between soldiers and their fighting officers, as in this source they are sharing a very sarcastic joke about the fact the Major-General would be absent. ...read more.

Middle

Word count: 766 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 own knowledge to explain your answer. Sources C to L, provide many different views of General Haig's effectiveness as a commander, during the first world war. Many inherent limitations exist within this group of sources, the main limitation being the inability to convey every soldiers view in only nine sources. This however, is not as great as in the last question, due to the range of views provided. This question cannot be answered conclusively, due to not only the limitations of the sources, but also because of the fact that it is impossible to agree on how to define a success. Therefore, the answer is open to personal opinion. However, I will try and make a judgment based solely on the evidence to obtain the view of whether Haig was an 'efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War'. Haig's beliefs, played a large part on how he decided the war should be fought. A modern account of Haig, Source F, suggests that Britain took incredibly high losses during battles such as the Battle of the Somme and Passchendaele, due to "his ... ...read more.

Conclusion

This removes him from blame of these losses, but also shows that he was under the control of political powers, who told him where he had to attack and how to do it. Source E, from Haig's diaries, backs this up saying "No amount of skill...no training...no superiority of arms and ammunition...will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of life", showing that he realised that there was going to be heavy losses and so probably wouldn't have sent the men over the top if he was in control. This would also appear to remove from Haig the right to claim his success' as they could have also been due to external powers and therefore, make him only appear as a political puppet. The overall message of these sources however, is that Haig did have some part in the decision of making plans, but was limited by external forces. This is summed up by "he was, ultimately, victorious, and, even if he had been replaced, would there have been anyone better for the job", from source K, an article in Hindsight: GCSE Modern History review. Therefore, I believe that was a good general, but where the circumstances of the war, were dictated to him. I would wholly agree with Keegan's view of Haig, as he cannot be classed as an efficient general, when he lost so many men, but I do agree with his belief, that it was Haig "who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War". Word count: 1,021 ...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. World war 1

    This source is useful to us as historians because it written by the Germans and can be trusted. The source is taken from the enemy and shows what they thought caused them to lose the war. The source is useful and proves that Haig's tactic did work however in this source Haig is not mentioned.

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

    artillery fire, leaving these trenches defended by strong concrete pillboxes, that were impenetrable to artillery fire. He ordered his generals to defend using firepower, not manpower, and hence, hopefully, reduce the death tolls. The key to the policy was the immediate counterattacks that took place as soon as the British had overrun the front lines.

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

    Also he is very positive. But the source is biased because the author is British. Also he may be only playing up his role, in other words he has made this account up because he knew that his account was going to be used for propaganda.

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

    However, before the attack the figures seemed to compliment the British army and it is probably the reason why Haig decided to fight at the Somme. Question four: Explain why the battle of the Somme failed to achieve British objectives.

  1. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    must have been quite well organized and especially important if it boosted the morale of soldiers and civilians alike during the retreat.

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

    Source K supports Keegan's opinion in that Warburton puts forward the argument that 'he [Haig] was, ultimately, victorious'. Source L is the opinion of Mr J Cooksey, a modern military historian, and it looks at both sides of the arguments for and against Haig, and tries to draw a balanced conclusion after analysing them.

  1. Why was fighting on the Western Front such a new and terrible experience for ...

    Other ways of obtaining information stealthily was by sending out few men to No Man's Land in the dead of night when the vision of snipers and sentry guns was most obscured. The men would army crawl towards the enemy trench and try to infiltrate them.

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

    The source is also useful because it shows that alot of people did not think that leaders like Haig were incompetent hence the large amount of people that were there to welcome home their so called ?hero. However, the provenance of source is unknown therefore this makes the source unreliable

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