• 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. 'Lions Led by Donkeys'. Using the information in the sources and your own knowledge, ...

    of the Somme and the writer could be judging from another small battle. Haig was a British commander during this time who was blamed because of these occasions. Haig was also accused for using the wrong tactics. Haig was also accused for using the wrong tactics and not taking into account big details of the Germans defences.

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

    Source 14, part (i) is an extract by Charles Lightoller, a retired sailor who took his yacht to Dunkirk. This source is a description of a scene of a yacht getting boarded with troops ready to get evacuated. This source makes it sound like the evacuation was so easy.

  2. Sources A,B and C portray a particular view of the attitudes of British Soldiers ...

    However the points used in the programme must hold some element of truth in order to be relevant to the episode. It says in 'The front line soldier and the Staff' - " to some soldiers the commander-in-cheif was so renound a figure hat they failed to recognise him even when they encountered him in person..."

  1. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    He also mentions Naval officers shooting their revolvers to gain order and soldiers fighting for boats in a mass fright. There is not even an element of victory in his words, but there is not even the famous Dunkirk spirit that is recalled by even the most negative sources.

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

    Source C: This source was written in The Daily Telegraph in November 1998. It was written by Earl Haig, the son of Field Marshall Haig which makes it biased because he is sticking up for his father as anyone else would.

  1. The Battle of Passchendaele

    Haig was a very aggressive General who wanted to see something finished once started and even after advised by Gough to stop the battle as the casualties were very high and they weren't really getting anywhere. This was one of Haig's tactics that was costly in terms of the amount

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

    Terraine seems to ignore all of these new interpretations, he has focused on the interpretation that these so called war heroes were not to blame and the fault was due to the other contributing factors which worsened life for the soldiers in the trenches like trench foot.

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