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

Is there sufficient evidence in sources C to L to support this interpretation? "Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War."

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Is there sufficient evidence in sources C to L to support this interpretation? "Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War." Many people have different opinions on how General Hiag performed in the First World War. In this collection of sources I have given a brief description of what they are like and whether they accurately show whether Haig was a good General or not. Source C: In Source C the son of the General Haig comments on how his dad is given unfair criticism on Haig's tactics during the war. He says that his dad should be given credit for the victory he achieved in the war. However he is not the most reliable to give this statement, for one he was not a soldier in the war and was not involved in the war. He would also be very heavily biased in support of his Haig, mainly because Haig is his dad. However we cannot discount his view entirely, he is not trying to change the facts. He is correct that Britain did win the war with Haig as their leader, and there are historians that do think that Haig did well. ...read more.

Middle

He was a great optimist who was always trying to find the positive in things, which you could say is a good thing, however this did leave him rather short sighted. He could not see his own tactical errors and lead to him suffering intense criticism. Source F as mentioned before shows some of Haig's strengths and weaknesses. According to the source his strengths are: "...reserved, Haig was also shrewd and ambitious and had great self-confidence." With my own knowledge I would say that this statement is accurate is defining his strengths. He was ambitious to undertake the huge operation of 'The Battle of the Somme" and self-confidence is evident when he continued with it even in the face of defeat. However the person who wrote this source, Anthony Livesey wrote it in 1989 and is unlikely to have met General Haig. However the source seems to be well research is credible enough to be taken into account. He also mentions Haig's weaknesses in this source: "Perhaps his greatest failing was his constant, often misplaced, optimism," Here I think he has not looked at his other weaknesses close enough. At 'The Battle of the Somme' he obviously got his tactics wrong and his creating of tactics is essential to be considered as a good General. ...read more.

Conclusion

"... and like the majority of able Britons, he is of Scottish origin." This shows to me that the source is just trying to please its own German readers. The source also has another reference in there about Briton not being able to get a successful attack. Though this was written at the time of the source many of the statement s seem false and cannot be trusted from an enemy source. Source K: This source tries to defend Haig from being totally at fault for the British war effort. However we won the war so surely he should be being praised for good leadership. The reasons why Haig should not be blamed range from that he was like every other military leader in that time to the German leader having the same problems as him at 'The Battle of the Somme'. These both may have been true but the fact is, he cannot be blamed for winning the war. Source L: This source states that Hague had no general intelligence and no imagination. You would think that these would be very important characteristics for a Military leader, so Hamilton Fyfe is obviously saying that he is not cut out be a leader. This is only his own opinion having met him and may just have caught him at a wrong time. ...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?

    The allied forces promptly swamped the susceptible German soldiers, inflicting losses of up to 1 million soldiers. There is a lot of evidence to prove that the war was not won "against overwhelming odds", but now I am also to discuss the evidence to the contrary.

  2. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    This shows that morale was very low and soldiers felt they were fighting for their own survival. Overall this shows that the soldiers were desperate and only thinking about themselves. This source came from a British Private it is primary evidence and therefore could be biased towards allies, however this

  1. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    This is very reliable though since it is first hand from someone who was there, and he was an ordinary soldier who had no reason to lie. Also most of the troops were actually evacuated from the harbour, not the beaches, maybe this is why.

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

    However, it wasn't all plain sailing for Haig, he had his critics, not only modern historians, but the soldiers at the time. Source G, the Memoirs of David Lloyd George (DLG), characterizes Haig as a blunderer. Someone who would rather let "millions perish, than that they as leaders should admit that they were blunderers".

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

    In perspective, the criticism Haig receives seems harsh and unjustified because the British casualties were the same as the Germans and French. Source H, shows us that Haig's perseverance in continuing the battle of the Somme, despite the heavy losses proved to be the correct option.

  2. Is there sufficient evidence in Sources C to L to support the interpretation that ...

    His attitude towards soldiers was as though they weren't actually humans but were just slaves serving him. He always comments on the soldiers' moral during Source E. "the men are in splendid spirits" "Our troops are in wonderful spirits and are full of confidence."

  1. John Keegan, a modern Military Historian, Suggests that Haig was An 'Efficient and highly ...

    It is also known that he was not in the frontline and so promoted an image of a family man, which is proved by the support of his son who opposed the view of the public by saying "he was the most humane man," when the public held him responsible

  2. Haig was an 'efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain ...

    However, since we know nothing about the author or artist, it is possible that one of them had a personal vendetta against Haig, for example that their relatives died while going 'over the top', and they blame Haig. Equally, the author and artist may be completely unbiased and just present things as they are.

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