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

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'.

Extracts from this document...


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 knowledge to explain your answer. Field Marshal Haig was the most important person during World War One. There are many different views on his competence, character and leadership qualities of both past and present leading up to his victory in 1918. Despite being victorious, there are many flaws and events of which Haig was at fault for during the war. On one hand you have the incompetent, criminal, immoral 'donkey' view of Haig supported by historians such as John Laffin, and on the other you have a competent, man of his time, innovative resourceful supported by historians such as Garry Sheffield and John Keegan. Ultimately I will prove which view is most accurate; using the sources and my own knowledge I will provide sufficient evidence to support John Keegans suggestion that Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier. On the subject of Haig's performance in the Battle of the Somme, Keegans views seem to be somewhat limited. Other historians such as John Laffin argue that Haig should be seen as an incompetent and inflexible. His initial bombardment tactics were flawed, in that the Germans were easily managed to attack the British troops. ...read more.


Therefore Keegans case is somewhat mostly na�ve and inaccurate, although there is some evidence that proves otherwise; the things Haig did wrong in the battle far outweigh suggestions that he was an efficient and highly skilled leader who did much to lead Britain to victory. On the subject of Haig's communications in relation to politicians, generals and soldiers, Keegans view appears to be correct to some extent. He was under extreme pressure to win the war quickly, by his political masters, by a vociferous media, and by the determination of the British Public, there was no path to victory on offer and he was rushed into action on many occasions. One must take into consideration the role John Charteris played in the battle of the Somme. He fed wrong and inaccurate information to Haig. General Haig allowing him to do so time and time again inevitable had all the blame put on him. However, Haig abortive attitude towards General Rawlinson is perhaps ultimately his greatest downfall. Keegan is not supported by the weight of evidence in source Ei, Haig understands and notifies the idea that there will be a lot of deaths during the battle and tells the British population to accept any losses with indulgence. "No superiority of arms and ammunition, however great, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men's lives." Haig in due course contradicts himself in this understanding; when original tactics incorporated by Haig were failing, (by taking as much ground as possible moving the artillery so that the guns and shells could defend the ground taken) ...read more.


He was an enthusiastic supporter of air power and introduced tanks to the war together with modern artillery- used to great effect. Artillery became much bigger and was more accurate, technologically the British were far more sophisticated than the Germans. It is the way in which Haig incorporated this advances into his tactics that undermine his demise. Source J underlines Haig's involvement in technology. A war veteran recalls a meeting with Haig in 1915, "Germans started shelling...Haig went round...and asked me questions, and then even talked about camouflage from the air." This source is very reliable as the person quoted actually fought in the war and therefore Keegans case is largely supported in terms of technology. Having evaluated Haig's performance on a variety of key issues and over the whole period of his command, my overall conclusion is that Haig was the right man for the job during the war. Many historians argue that he sent troops to their deaths, but in actual fact, there were fewer deaths in the British army than in the French or Germans. He made a number of serious errors, but he managed to learn from his mistakes. However Sir Douglas Haig's job was to win the war, and despite the countless amount of deaths, he did. Therefore, Keegan's view is to be frank, correct, although it does have it limitations and drawbacks, the successes Haig masterminded in the war far outweigh the losses. 1,459 words ?? ?? ?? ?? Prashant Patel 11s Centre Number:16325 GCSE History Coursework Candidate number:8076 ...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?

    However, to the contrary, the novel by Michael Foreman was written in 1989 and facts could be distorted easily over time. Also, it is not a primary source, thus flawing my view that source 8 is reliable in some ways.

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

    on the 20th May when Churchill gave his approval and codenamed it Operation Dynamo. Vice Admiral Ramsey had on the days following the 20th May managed to improvise a flotilla of over 800 civilian and Royal Navy Craft with smaller vessels e.g.

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

    Source 16 is from J.B Priestley who was a very popular speaker. He says that Britain snatched glory out of defeat and then swept on to victory, and he says about the little holiday streamers and how they made an excursion to hell and came back glorious.

  2. Dunkirk and The Battle of Britain - Why was Britain able to win the ...

    This means that if another battle were to break out, the BEF and army would not have enough equipment and arms to fight as the enemy seized many of them. I consider this speech to be unreliable as it shows bias - Anthony Eden was British and giving a speech to the British public.

  1. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    This piece of evidence also disagrees with many other sources. From my background I know that planes bombed soldiers on the beach vigorously and many men perished during operation Dynamo. So I conclude that this source is unreliable. Many historians thought that Dunkirk was a natural victory due to the

  2. To what extent was appeasement justified?

    There was nothing that would stop Hitler from reaching his goals. The fact that Chamberlain totally misjudged Hitler and believed that he did not have any ulterior motive at Munich in 1938 was a reflection of his naivety. The appeasers were so busy giving opportunities to Hitler what he wanted

  1. How important were Haig's tactics in bringing an end to WW1?

    Then it gets even worse for the Germans as the blockade stops the resources needed and creates a civil war in Germany, thus leading to their surrender. So could it be that without the blockade the Germans could have continued fighting and had the resources that they needed to win the war?

  2. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    he mercilessly killed thousands of soldiers by spraying them with bullets over and over again. He describes it as mass killing but still not very important in the eyes of Germans. Firstly this says that Dunkirk was no victory for the British, even if it was it wasn't a very important victory at all.

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