John Keegan, a modern 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 C to L to support this interpretation?

Authors Avatar

History Coursework

John Keegan, a modern historian, suggests tat 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 C to L to support this interpretation?

Field Marshall Haig was a military leader during World War One.  At the time of the war and soon afterwards, while Britain’s victory was the focus of the nation, he was labelled as the hero who brought about Britain’s success.  However, over the years since the war, people began to reflect on the horrors of the war and what the soldiers had to suffer under Haig’s order.  

Some people believe that Haig did not care about the lives of his soldiers and was not concerned for the loss of life that came about as a result of the orders he gave.  He is often referred to as ‘the butcher of the Somme’ because he sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to their deaths in allegedly the ‘bloodiest battle of all history’, the Battle of the Somme.  Some people have a more positive opinion of Haig-they believe that he was a skilled leader and contributed greatly to Britain’s success in the war.  A modern historian who agrees with this view is John Keegan.  He suggests Haig to be ‘an efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War’.  

Join now!

There are so many different views of Haig because different groups of people were affected by his actions and words in different ways.  Haig was partly responsible for both sending men into the horrors of war and for Britain’s victory.  People who focus on the deaths during war usually have a negative view of Haig and those who focus on the outcome of the war for Britain have a more positive attitude towards him.  

Sources C, E and H support John Keegan’s view but they are unreliable-they are all biased towards Haig because the sources’ authors had personal connections ...

This is a preview of the whole essay