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

Was General Haig a bad leader, source based

Extracts from this document...


Assignment Part B In this essay I will analyse source C through to L to judge whether there is enough evidence to suggest that General Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier who lead Britain to victory during the First World War. I will look at the source provided and suggest whether there is enough evidence to suggest Keegans statement. From the collection of sources I will categorise each one into supports Keegan, neutral or oppose Keegan. I will use my own knowledge along with the sources given to back up my statements. Within the several sources I managed to find four sources that supported Keegan: Source C is a newspaper extract from the Daily Telegraph quoted by Field Marshal Haig's son on November 1998. The main purpose of this extract was to persuade and inform people that General Haig knew what he was doing and was a humane man. When Earl Haig said he never heard a criticism this could be because many people feared General Haig and therefore nobody would cross him. This source is not very reliable as it is consciously biased and is probably exaggerating as General Haig is his Father and therefore he would support and praise him. ...read more.


Out of the collection of sources I had assessed there are two other sources that were neutral in the response to Keegan's statement: Source J is a news article from the British newspaper 'The Times' published in 1917. The article is the Germans perspective of General Haig. The purpose of this source is to show that even the Germans think that General Haig was a good leader however it could as well be sarcastic as the Germans are trying to say that because of General Haig's mistakes it has benefited the German Army. It suggests that because of General Haig he is the leader that is giving Germany victory to win. Overall this source is not very reliable, as it is sarcastic so the article is not very truthful in saying that Haig had good leadership. Source K is another source that is neutral. It is an article published in a GCSE modern History review in 1998. The article is on whether Haig was totally at Fault. The purpose of this source is to educate teenagers about Haig. Other purposes would be to make money by selling the history book. ...read more.


The documentary shows the events that took place and explains them. The video tries to make us understand that Haig was bad at communicating and had too many ideas that he wished to accomplish however by this ambition made thousands of troops injured. Overall from the collection of sources that oppose Keegan they are generally very reliable sources however there is no evidence that agrees with Keegan's statement. In conclusion I believe that there is not enough evidence to suggest that Haig was an efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory during the First World War. Even though there are four sources that support Keegan they are very unreliable. Also John Keegan was a military historian so we can assume he was looking at the military side of the war which was very successful. Haig needed more weaponry for his soldiers and made them more efficient so that he could accomplished the rest of the battlep. Also if he was a good commander he would of known what he was leading his men into. In addition I believe that there is not enough evidence and we can conclude that Field Marshall Douglas Haig was a failure to the Battle of Somme and he led his troops to disaster. History Coursework Nikita Patel 11S Page 1 of 3 ...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?

    ways is fair enough, and he certainly could be viewed a 'murderer'. What happened after the war made a definite detrimental affect of his former soldiers' view of him. He returned from the war unscathed, with vast crowds cheering him as he was paraded down the streets.

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

    Whatever the case, "the only consequence of the commander-in-chief's determination on a hasty sequel to Messines was no action whatever." Haig's next important mistake is said to be the artillery bombardment of the German trenches.

  1. I think Haig was a bad leader who made many critical mistakes during the ...

    This source backs up what I have already said about the lack of knowledge of Haig about the conditions in Passchendaele. Another significant point is that the source was written after the battle. This backs up what I have previously said about the generals being scared of telling Haig the

  2. General Haig

    This source therefore does not support Keegan's interpretation of Haig. However, this source is not entirely reliable because it is written by Germans who will not diminish their country and will make out that the British have nothing worthy against them.

  1. Why did the General Strike of 1926 take place?

    Also, the other unions felt guilty at having deserted the miners on 'Black Friday', and had a feeling that this must not be repeated next time another union was in need of support. Between 1921 and 1925, the situation became worse for the miners, as many areas of British industry went through a slump.

  2. Field Marshal Haig.

    Haig's nickname was the butcher , he'd think nothing of sending thousands of men to certain death . The battle of the Somme was planned as a joint French and British operation . The idea came from the French Commander - in - chief Joseph Joffe and was accepted by General Haig .

  1. womens crsk history

    In conclusion, I think that both of the sources show us how extreme women would go into trying to win the vote. Source D showing that wo0men were violent and Source E showing that women were very extreme. Overall the Sources are trying to show; entrenched views of opposition, Suffragette activity had alienated political supporters, government intransigence.

  2. Source based work on Haig.

    It shows that a lot of people disliked Haig as Earl Haig is defending and praising his father and gives no criticisms of him at all. This is a limitation in the source. Another limitation is that it was published in the Telegraph in November 1998, which is a very

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