• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16
  17. 17
    17
  18. 18
    18

World war 1

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

a) Explain how the Schlieffen Plan was meant to work? Germany had been preparing for war since 1914 because they assumed that France and Russia would attack them; therefore they draw up the Schlieffen Plan so they would avoid fighting a war on two fronts. The German army's chief of staff Alfred von Schlieffen designed the plan, which took nine years to devise. It was started in 1897, presented in 1905 and tested out in 1914, during the First World War. The plan imagined a huge hammer blow at Paris, using 90 per cent of the German army, swinging down through Belgium and the Benelux countries, to take out France in a quick and decisive campaign. They chose to go through the Benelux countries and not France; this was because France would have their army on the border on put up more resistance. By going through the Benelux countries they could catch France unprepared and take over the capital Paris. The other 10 per cent would stay on Germany's eastern border to protect them against Russia. The plan assumed that France was weak and could be beaten in six weeks, and that Russia was much stronger, but would take longer to mobilise its army however by the time Russia would have mobilised the Germans would have defeated France and marched up to the eastern front to face Russia on the 9th week. However, in 1905 Alfred von Schlieffen died and Von Moltke became the new German chief of staff. He made slight alliterations to the plan; this is when things started to go wrong. Von Moltke decided the army should be 60 per cent instead of 90 per cent; this was unintelligent because 60 per cent of the German army was never going to defeat the French, no matter how weak they might have been. He decided to make this change because he wanted more defence on the eastern front. ...read more.

Middle

These two sources may not be about Haig or the Battle of the Somme, however they relate to it; this means that the sources are useful to us as historians to a certain extend. Both of these sources relate to the war in different ways. The first source is a still from 'Blackadder Goes Forth', which shows two officers discussing an imminent attack on the Germans. The two officers are talking about an attack on the Germans, 'go over the top'; this means that they are going to sent men over no man's land to attack the German trenches. This tactic was used by many Marshall's however it wasn't very effective; all it caused was millions of deaths. Soldiers would be killed by ruthless machine guns as they tried to 'go over', and get into the enemy's trenches. The source also shows that the officers think their Marshall is making unintelligent decisions, 'Field Marshall Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin'. The officers think that everyone is going to get killed, "You mean 'Are we all going to get killed? 'Yes", just so they can gain six inches of land. They imply that their Marshall is drunk, 'to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin', that's why he is making these stupid decisions. From this source we have learned that Field Marshall Haig was not respected from his officers and a tactic used during the Battle of Somme, 'going over the top'. This shows that the source is of use to historians, to a certain extend. Similarly, source E is a cartoon from a British magazine, published in February 1917; just after the Battle of Somme. The source shows a major-general addressing his men before practising an attack. The major-general tells his men, 'that there is a difference between a rehearsal and the real thing', the first being 'the absence of enemy', because there will be no enemy during a practise attack. ...read more.

Conclusion

The general in this source says that the men had complete confidence in Haig however as historians we know this is not true because his men hated him; this source can not be trusted. Looking at all the source and evaluating if they could be trusted or not; I have come up with my conclusion. The above source supported the view, 'Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason.' Haig was an uncaring general because his strategy, 'To kill more Germans that the Germans could kill his men', is murder; he risked the lives of his men for no good reason. During the battle he also made more stupid decisions, 'send men over the top', source C describes it like 'wreckage washed up on a high water mark/quite as many died on the enemy as on the ground'. This shows that his was uncaring and stupid. Source A is another very important source because it's written by Haig before the battle, in it he says 'The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty list/ victories to be won without the sacrifice of men's lives', this shows that he never cared about his men all he wanted was victory however he didn't even manage to get that. In source J Lloyd George says that the war was only won because of the stupidity of the Germans, 'Had it not been for the stupidity of the Germans in provoking a quarrel with America, the Somme would not have saved us from a stalemate'. Using our background knowledge of the war; we know that Haig plan to bombard the Germans for eight days and then send men over the top was a failure however he carried on doing this for another four months. The British army was getting slaughtered however he did not care he carried on the attack which were also failures. This shows that Haig was an uncaring general and got his men killed unnecessarily. ?? ?? ?? ?? Rigers Cama / Mr Carassco ...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. Marked by a teacher

    To what extend do you agree with Rhodes view that the British Empire was ...

    5 star(s)

    It would have seemed that the British Empire misrepresented past events. Cp hill was a historian that wanted to find out the truth about the British Empire. He wrote a book that stated, that profits from the investments in the British Empire to a small amount of British workers, but

  2. Marked by a teacher

    What Were the Consequences of the First World War for the British People 1914 ...

    4 star(s)

    So between the years 1918 - 1924 there was a high chance that the government would have changed hands anyway. Despite the goings on during the war. During the war a coalition government was set up, so in effect no one particular political group was in power.

  1. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    Getting nearly 340,000 soldiers off the beach was considered to be the start of the victory for Britain. The speed in which such a scratch operation was put together was considered to be a victory. If the British military spent anymore time planning operation Dynamo the number of people saved would have seriously diminished.

  2. Explain the importance of the battle of Britain as a turning point of the ...

    The operation was planned to shock German forces on the beaches with a mixture of land, sea and air attacks on Normandy. As well as this, the Allies sent false messages that the Germans received which diverted some of their forces, notably a bulk of the Waffen SS, to a fake landing site.

  1. Was General Haig a bad leader, source based

    This statement is quite correct as he did think god chose him however this is not an excuse for his big mistakes as Haig had promised that he would withdraw the troops if he found he was not accomplishing his aims, but he never did.

  2. World War 1-Life in the Trenches

    When the soldiers joined and learnt what it was really like, they didn't feel that it really was a glorious thing, and couldn't wait to leave it. They probably didn't perform as enthusiastically as they might have done if conditions were better and casualties were reduced.

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

    Also, George would have been unable to visit every place in the trenches and therefore may not have a fair opinion. Source J, also written by Lloyd George in his War Memoirs 1930s, shows an opposite view to source I, as his opinion of Haig is very negative, 'It killed off far more of our best'.

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

    However Haig and the leaders did not change their tactics until the end of the war. An historical interpretation is when an event id described from different points of view. Evidence (e.g. secondary research), personal interpretation of an event and opinion all play a big role of a historical interpretation.

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