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

Study source E and F Which of these two sources is the more reliable view of Douglas Haig as a military commander? Explain your answer.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Study source E and F Which of these two sources is the more reliable view of Douglas Haig as a military commander? Explain your answer. I believe that both source e and source F are very strong opinions from two very different people. Sir Lloyd George knew Haig as an employee so to speak and looked down on him as someone who he could depend on and would do the job he had been appointed. But the chaplain (G S Duncan) knew Haig in a more social manor. This is why I Believe that both of the sources have there criticisms and appraisals towards Haig but they look at the situation from two completely different view points. ...read more.

Middle

Lloyd George saw Haig as a commander who was only a little better than the rest and a commander who had no visions or imagination. And I believe that Lloyd George felt that these were two things that any good leader needed and because Haig lacked both that he was not the right man for the job at hand. Source F has a very different view on what sort of a man Haig was. Duncan believed that Haig was a man of intellect and genius. " Haig was a logical thinker... he showed a min of a brilliant staff officer". As you can see Duncan looks at Haig in a completely different light and has a very different opinion than David Lloyd showed us in source E. ...read more.

Conclusion

And this is why I have come to the conclusion that this source has been very over rated and I feel that this source is not sturdy enough to fairly evaluate Haig as either a good or bad commander. After reading both sources I have come to the conclusion that both of the sources are not reliable enough because they are from two extreme different opinions. One, which criticises Haig for all he has done to help the war effort, and the other, which praises every thing Haig has done throughout the period of the war. And because these two sources are so different I feel I cannot come to a final conclusion and decide what sort of Commander Haig was. ...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. South Africa - source related study

    The Sources F and I are all secondary sources none of them were there at the time of the event so they really don't know what actually happened they are just getting their information from different people who are most probably more likely to lie because they would rather blame each other than themselves.

  2. Votes For Women - Source related study.

    There is no indication apart from the dates that the women were actively contributing to the war effort; this is only inferred because of the years mentioned. However it can be deduced that they were helping the war effort as these areas of employment were essential to it.

  1. History: assignment two

    Source F, a poster of which is government propaganda produces in 1916 to make women want to join the women munitions workers, as there was a lack of workers since the workers would have been men but most men had gone to fight the war.

  2. General Douglas Haig

    This was unfortunately, not a good thing as it undermined confidence towards Haig as a leader. Haig is said to be 'unable to recognise defeat' which is true although he wanted the attack to go the same way as it did at Neuve-Chapelle, where initial progress was rapid, quickly breaking

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