• 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 Historianstudying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders duringthe First World War?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

History Essay 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 own studies to answer. These sources vary in usefulness. Source A was produced during the war, while B and C have been made more recently. Because of this they have hindsight. This can be a benefit and a detriment. Looking back with perspective at things now, we can see what they should have done, but at the time, they didn't have a clue. We can look at the situation without censorship and from different angles, but at the moment the situation may have looked a lot different. Each is a different type of media, and Source C I suspect to be particularly biased towards Haig. This is because it is written by is son, and is an actual quote in a Newspaper. Source B is from a comedy TV series; therefore this has the benefit of moving image, which can sometimes portray information better than text. Source A may have caused an uproar because of its content. Source A has a comedy aspect about it so it will relate with a lot of people well. ...read more.

Middle

Using all 3, different opinions can be produced of the soldiers. John Keegan, A modern 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? Sources C,E,H,J and K support Keegan's Statement. Many of them are biased towards Haig, E was written by Haig himself, which means he won't point out his own flaws. Somebody who worked for his family wrote H. J was written by a German newspaper and was sarcastically laughing at him. Saying he's a great soldier but their defences are better. It could be viewed as an opposing source because of this. J is a source by a modern Historian, so it will have possibly unconscious biased but he says that he did the best with what he could. This historian has probably looked through many a source to come up with this statement. All the other sources bad-mouth or oppose Haig. Source D is a very sarcastic poster, portraying Haig as Lord Kitchener who was a much better soldier. Haig is seen as arrogant because he's saying the country needs him and the word ME is in big letters. ...read more.

Conclusion

Its easier to look back with retrospective and say, 'He made a mistake' but at the time, they didn't know what the enemy were doing. Whether they were prepared for attack or had defences ready. It was really a case of blind leadership. The leaders did not know what they hoped to achieve from it. The leaders didn't fully know what to do with the new technology that was coming about. Battling Tanks against horses seems like a slightly uneven fight. As time went on, The view on him became more negative, and more truthful. Facts were uncovered and censorship taken away. I think that Haig was a 19th century man fighting a 20th century war. People didn't realise at the time what they were actually doing. As comedian Eddie Izzard says "You kill one person, you go to jail for life. If you kill 100,000 people...... we're almost saying 'Well Done!'' I think this is what actually happened with Haig and his tactic of a battle of attrition. I feel it was a waste of life, and some things he did were wrong, when they could have been prevented. He did what he could but his blind optimism led him to continue mass slaughters such as the Somme. I feel he was the wrong man for the job, and other properly trained officers, who fought with their troops with proper tactics, would have been better for it. ...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?

    46,000 allied troops had been killed during the fighting on land from a total of 252,000 casualties. Although the Ottoman Turks suffered around 300,000 casualties, the failed campaign gained little, & it blemished Kitchener's & Churchill's reputations. These bad tactics were summed up by Siegfried Sassoon; 'he did for them...

  2. How useful are sources A, B and C to an historian studying the attitudes ...

    Source C agrees that Haig brought the war to an end - ". . . and the victories he achieved in the First World War which brought the war to an end."

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

    Instead they covered their faces with rags soaked in water which slightly reduced the effects- The chemicals in the gas would travel to your lungs and burn them internally. You would then die a cruel slow death in agony. Machine guns on the other hand usually caused instant death.

  2. Styal Mill - Study sources A, B, C and D. Which of these sources ...

    We are not able to find out which of the sources is telling a lie or which one is true so that makes both source A and C unreliable. The final limitation of the source is that in the last paragraph, it says that "Mrs.

  1. Why do sources A to F differ in their attitudes to the evacuation of ...

    Source C is an extract from a children's novel while source F is a scene from a film. Source F is also similar to source A as they both show evacuees who are about to be evacuated. Both the sources show that lots of children were evacuated at once as

  2. World war 1

    Source F also gives us another tactic used by Haig, 'if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men, then they would win the war', we know this is true because he would sent men over the top where they would be killed.

  1. Haig and the other British generals were incompetent leaders. How valid is this interpretation ...

    He also attended a Quaker school as a way of protesting against the war l and his parents vocally opposed WW1. This would affect the validity of the source as he is against war and violence and comes from a family who openly protested against the war, therefore this source

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

    Source B1 is an example of an interpretation which supports the interpretation that leaders like Haig are incompetent. The author of this source, John Laffin, researched the war from soldier?s viewpoints and has been able to come with a negative interpretation.

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