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

The First world war - source questions on Field Marshall Haig.

Extracts from this document...


Assignment 2: The First world war - source questions on Field Marshall Haig. Answer A: Source A does not necessarily prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men. What it suggests is that Haig was to use tactics, which would involve the death of a fair number of men, no matter what their level of training was. It is clear that Haig intended to use the lives of his men to win battles; he says, "Will enable victories to be won, without the sacrifice of men's lives." The source does imply that Haig did not value the lives of his men, with the utmost importance, as winning battles was of a greater priority to him, than the limiting of casualty lists. However, this does not prove that Haig did not care about the lives of his men, despite Haig's obvious casual approach to the death of soldiers. The source also, is primarily a warning note to the public back home, that a war is being fought and there will be casualties, it is not necessarily a true reflection of Haig's attitude to his men's Life's. Answer B: Source B and C are both very different extracts, both have their elements of trustworthiness and of doubt. Source B for example was written during the war, before and after the battle of the Somme. Where as source C was written many years after the event, giving source B slightly more respectability, as it might be a more accurate reflection of events. ...read more.


However, what the general says could be thought of as wrong, quote "Haig's armies, which had complete confidence in the leadership of their commander Haig." It is clear from other sources and from my contextual knowledge that many soldiers had completely the opposite opinion and did not have any confidence in the leadership of their commander Haig. Source G also comes from the official history of the First World War, giving it more respectability. Source F the source which both G and H contradict, comes from the, "British Butchers and Bunglers of World War." Also has no author. Therefore making it more of an opinion than something, which could be used as evidence. Answer E: Sources J and I differ so dramatically primarily because of the time scale involved between the two extracts. Source I was written after the battle in 1916, after he had visited the area. It is a very brief statement on the battle overall, it could be said that source I is not his real opinion and is based upon information that has been reported to him by generals, or that possibly the sources use was to raise morale amongst soldiers and the public. Lloyd George has also not had first hand experience of the battle, as he only visited the battlefield, the source is therefore not a true account of event. Source J on the other hand is written in the 1930's much later, here Lloyd George is writing the source with the benefit of hindsight, and is written as a memoir. ...read more.


Source E is also against Haig, and questions his ability as a general but the source is similar to D in the respect that its purpose is to entertain an audience because it is a cartoon, therefore it to cannot be taken too seriously. Nevertheless, there is an element of truth in what is being said. Source J similarly to the other sources has its problems. It is contradicted by the same man who wrote it in the previous source, source I. In source, I Lloyd George supports Haig but in source J, he is against Haig. Source J does not prove that Haig was uncaring and did not care for the lives of his men. All the sources which are against Haig, do not prove that was Haig uncaring, and did not care for the lives of his men. Only two sources state that Haig was uncaring, but they are not totally trust worthy. The other four against Haig, cannot be fully trusted either and the sources in favor of Haig support him. The sources do support the view that "Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his men for no good reason." Quite a long way, but none of the sources against Haig prove him this. To prove him such a man would involve the use of hard evidence in the form of facts, or examples of Hag blatantly showing himself to be uncaring and a poor general. ...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?

    based his tactics at first), unfortunately did not work, when faced with fearsome machineguns, barbed wire, and a well equipped German army. Another aspect that was in the German's favour was that their trenches had been built suitable for the kind of warfare.

  2. Was General Haig a bad leader, source based

    It is a biography on whether Haig was right to press on with the Battle of Somme. The purpose of this source is for reader to be informed and educated about Haig. This source is quite unreliable, as Duff Cooper's job was to write biographies and therefore is paid for it.

  1. Field Marshall Haig: 'The Butcher of the Somme?'

    without sacrifice of men'. Though this may be perceived as uncaring, as he leaves no exception or alternative. Many people would either believe this to be selfish or Haig having the characteristics of a strong General. He is caring about the succession of war, to protect his country, but not about the sacrifices he has to make first.

  2. Was General Haig a donkey or a great commander?

    in the front line, and also launched their attack at exactly the same time as the Australians launched theirs. Unfortunately a few days later it started to rain again. Haig, encouraged by these three victories nevertheless ordered yet more attacks on the ridge, all of which were to end in failure and catastrophic loss of life.

  1. General Haig

    possibly lying to the newspaper in order to back up his father, who he respects. In conclusion, sources A to C are useful to a historian studying the attitudes of soldiers to their commanders in World War One because they all show in some way, the views of soldiers on their commanders.

  2. Was Field Marshall Haig the Butcher of the Somme

    Winston Churchill wrote in a personal memoir of his just this. [Source F]. As did Lord Lansdowne, except the only difference was that Lord Lansdowne took the bravery to be the first politician too publicly question the way the war was being fought.

  1. General Haig doesn't care about his soldiers.

    Source F claims that, "Haig was as stubborn as a donkey and as unthinking as a donkey". Source H on the other hand claims that the armies had, "complete confidence in the leadership of their commander". Two very different opinions. Source F also claims that the Somme, "was criminal negligence".

  2. Gallipoli Questions

    At Y beach a similar situation happened to S beach - they sat around all day waiting. The waiting around happening on S beach and Y beach was wholly down to the extremely poor planning. The generals gave no orders, and one would assume that they didn't because they didn't know what they were supposed to do after.

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