• 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. Explain how well Haigs background and military experience had prepared him for command of ...

    Again, this whole scenario went on for four months, and Haig had no flexibility to his plan. His ideas were outdated; after all, he said that you could beat a machine gun with grit and determination- a baffling comment. How could a soldier beat rapid firing gun with grit and determination?

  1. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    After many of Churchill's inspiring and patriotic speeches, his letters to General Weygand revealed the truth behind Dunkirk. He mentions how six troop-filled ships were sunk by German bombing. Keeping in mind that a ship could hold near a 1000 troops, that is up to 6000 men killed in one bombing session.

  2. World war 1

    As historians we have to take into account that people have different view, which means Sources G and H do not necessarily prove that Source F is wrong. I think all three source are correct to an extend because they are opinions given from different people; however in my opinion Source H is the most likely to be bias.

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

    amount for any day 7,669 troops were evacuated and the Luftwaffe interfered with the evacuation. As the source is only one persons account it makes it less reliable as he could have regarded the scene differently. Many of the troops were suffering from demoralisation caused by severe fatigue which could cause his negative attitude.

  2. Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain - 'Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a ...

    evacuation was going really well to keep hopes up back home and avoid turmoil, which would help the war effort let alone the evacuation. Most of the things that are included obviously suggest that Dunkirk was a huge deliverance. Some of these things include that the BEF have a good

  1. John Keegan, a modern military historian, suggests that Haig was a "highly skilled, effective ...

    The mud, which he makes much of, was only in the latter stages of the campaign, although the mud was indeed created mainly by British barrages. Source K is an interesting contrast to this. Source K is also a modern view, but one which is very much pro Haig.

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

    Historians who share the same interpretation as Terraine could use this source to form their interpretation that support leaders like Haig because this source shows that the leadership was good enough and the men seemed happy with the instructions they were given, therefore it is not the fault of the leaders.

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