• 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 Britainto victory in the First World War'. Is there sufficient evidence in Sources A to H to support this interpretation?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

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 A to H to support this interpretation? Use the sources and your knowledge to explain your answer. There are conflicting ideas as to whether Haig was 'an efficient and highly skilled soldier' or whether he was an ambitious, self-confident optimist. Source A, part of a report written by Haig in December 1916, claims that German soldiers were ready to surrender. It also claims that German casualties were 'greater than ours', a fact that is untrue if the number of French and British casualties were added together. This source forms only a part of a report and therefore could be selective and not the full story. ...read more.

Middle

In part 3, written on 1st July 1916, Haig claims that there had been a successful attack and that the battle was going well. He also claims that the Germans were surrendering and that British troops were in high spirits and full of confidence. These claims would seem to be false, as there was a large casualty list during fighting on 1st July. Source D, written by Anthony Livesey, a modern historian, and published in 1989, claims Haig was 'silent, humourless and reserved'. He claims that Haig had a constant, often misplaced, optimism, and an inability to recognize defeat. This source, more than any other, contradicts Keegan's views on Haig. Source E, was written after the war by Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time. It shows that he had serious concerns as to whether he should have stopped the battle, or have resigned rather than 'allow this slaughter of brave men'. ...read more.

Conclusion

contributed to the half a million casualties suffered by the allies'. Again, this is contrary to Keegan's view. In my opinion, the sources do not support Keegan's interpretation. Although Haig had a good education and military training and experience, he did make numerous mistakes during the Battle of the Somme. I think that the sources which come directly from Haig show him to be over confident and present an untrue picture of what was really happening, and give an untrue version of the morale of the soldiers. The sources from other people show that, although the Battle of the Somme was eventually won, Haig did make some bad mistakes. One of the most important sources to show this is source E, which was written by Lloyd George. If the Prime Minister felt that there were 'grounds for criticism' about 'two or three individuals who would rather millions perish ... than admit that they were blunderers', how can Haig be seen as an 'efficient and highly skilled soldier'? ...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. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    This is a popular view among historians due to the high sprits of the British public, and the bravery of normal people who helped save thousands of soldiers by sailing boats across the English channel to save their fellow countrymen.

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

    However he slowed down and asked questions about whether "camouflage from the air" would work, he was using the soldier's thoughts and opinions to help them do their job effectively. This is why John Keegan is correct in his opinion.

  1. World war 1

    which meant that both sides were equally matched, however the American entry gave the Allies an advantage and helped break the stalemate. Question a) Study Sources A and B How far does Source A prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men?

  2. 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.

  1. Haig in sources

    The third book "The official history of the Great War", published by the British government (1938 edition). It reads "British and French losses 623,907 and German losses 680,000." To me these figures seem reasonable; Germany had lost the war and therefore should have the higher number of deaths.

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

    war and so his memory have been mixed up with storys after the war and so his opinion might not be so valuable. Research has been carried out the shows many of the soldiers thought of Haig as a very good leader which is proven by Earl Haigs statement 'never herd a word of crticism' form old soldiers.

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

    This source contradicts Keegan's statement. I believe that this source was produced by some soldiers whose opinion of Haig was not a very good one. This shows that some of Haig's men don't agree with Keegan's statement. This source tells us that Haig is a danger to Britain and that

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

    ? for all we know this photograph could have been taken by the government for propaganda purposes. The source is also limited because it does show any other interpretations after 1919; by the 1930s people began to question the competence of leaders like Haig but by the 1960s balanced arguments had formed.

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