Haig As a Leader I think Haig was a bad leader who made many critical mistakes
during the battle of Passchendaele. From looking at the sources I can
see many bad views of Haig as a war leader, although some good views
can also be detected. In source A it is evident that Haig always
ensured that his army was well equipped by asking the War Cabinet for
more ammunition. I also know that Haig was one of the first generals
to pay attention to aerial intelligence, this was very good for
Britain as it put them at an advantage over many countries. Also from
my studies I have found out that Haig had always managed to hold enemy
advances back. It is also know that Haig had good leadership qualities
being strong willed and often ruthless. Haig was also committed when
attacking by always going out in all out attack. The reputation of
Haig and the fact that his chain of command was very much under his
control was also a factor that can be said to make Haig a good war
leader. All these reasons and the fact that Haig was also very
religious to some made Haig a good war leader. This is because he was
willing to sacrifice the lives of his men and himself for the cause in
which he believed in. however there are many factors that may make
Haig a bad war leader. For example source b, an extract from an
account of the battle of Passchendaele published in 1931 and written
by General Gough. This is a primary source as general Gough was a
British general during the battle. The source tells of how Haig
ignored the advice from others, including knowledgeable commanders.
...
... middle of paper ...
...ater goes on to say about Haig and the Battle of
Passchendaele. "A weaker man might have given in but then the outcome
would have been unimaginable". This shows that not everyone agrees
with Lloyd George's view that Passchendaele was a senseless campaign.
Dr Gerard De Groot also says, "Some have suggested that is another man
had been in charge they could have saved thousands of lives. I simply
don't think this would have been the case". Many other historians have
also echoed this feeling about Haig and Passchendaele and its worth as
a whole.
Overall most of the sources agree with Lloyd George that Passchendaele
was a senseless campaign. The fact that one of these sources was also
from generals also involved in the war also supports Lloyd George and
his view that the Battle of Passchendaele was 'A senseless campaign'.
I believe that even though most of the sources tell us that Haig was a
In The Once and Future King T.H. White conveys his personal thoughts on leadership through the help of Merlin, and Wart's transformations. Through each transformation Wart experiences different forms of power, each being a part of a whole idea on how a leader should act. He must piece together these ideas for the definitive way he should rule as king. In order to teach Wart, Merlin transforms him into several different forms, a fish, hawk, ant, goose and a badger.
...therefore did not have a huge majority or popularity within the House of Commons, he was openly criticized by an increasingly hostile media as well as some of his own MPs indicating a lack of unity within his party which eventually lost him the general election by quite some margin.
Sources F and G were the only two sources that weren’t written by Haig, that support him being a highly skilled soldier that lead Britain into victory. Source F shows that if Haig ‘refused to fight then and there would have meant the abandonment of Verdun to its fate and the breakdown of cooperation with the French’ therefore Haig’s decisions were well thought out for the consequence, making him a strong leader. However it could have been the case that Haig just told the troops to fight without proper reasoning, but it was still Haig’s effective
Due to Haig's lack of having a more original or effective strategy, he was constantly bombarded with accusations of being incompetent to be a general, but in all fairness if another officer had concocted a more successful strategy, then they would have taken over command. The Germans also used the same strategy, nevertheless, when the troops were dying in thousands, it's easy to blame the man in charge.
This outcome was not pre-ordained, as is so often suggested, once the British Empire was joined by the USSR and the USA in 1941. The Allies had to mobilise and utilise their large resources effectively on the battlefield and in the air. This outcome could not be taken for granted.
Source A gives the impression that Field Marshall Haig was high ranking leader in the army and possibly quite wealthy. This opinion is due to the Marshall having clean-cut hair and a formal uniform with medals/pins, as well as being have to have his photo taken.
winning the battle could have changed the outcome of the war. The battle took place on
goal was to break the stalemate. Machine guns were able to kill thousands at quickly, so that
“The liberation of Europe from years of German control was the most detrimental part of successful Allied outcome. The London Controlling Section (LCS) devised an elaborate two-part plan called Operation Fortitude that SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) helped
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was born on November 30 1874 and died on 24 January, 1965. He was the son of politician Lord Randolph Churchill and Jennie Jerome (an American). He was a direct descendant of the first Duke of Marlborough. Physically he was a small man at 5 feet tall. Churchill attended Harrow and Sandhurst. When his father died in 1895, Churchill was commissioned in the fourth hussars. He later obtained a leave and worked during the Cuban war as a reporter for the London Daily Graphic.
This sources origin is limited because the author is British and has a biased opinion on the generals. The context of the source is of value due to the primary sources used in the book and personal writings of generals which gives us insight to their perspective. The context is limited due to the fact that it informs us strictly on the generals and hardly mentions anyone one else. The purpose is of value because it gives detailed and precise insights of the generals and their personal experiences, thoughts, and strategies of the war. The purpose is limited because it has limited outlooks on the war other than Patton, Rommel, and
First, let us look at what advantages and disadvantages the puissant British people had. Coming on top of the seven year’s war the British boasted a mighty Empire. Which included professional, experienced, well trained disciplined Army that numbered well over fifty thousand. Furthermore, the British also commanded the mightiest Navy the world had ever known, up to that point. Not only was their Navy a physical
The aim of this study is to provide an insight of how strong leadership is required rather than sound management if it is to become a learning organization. Firstly, one must have clear understanding of what is leadership, the qualities of a leader and how those qualities can be incorporated into effective management. Also knowledge of what exactly is a learning organization and sound management would provide insight. Leadership is defined by Hannagan (2005: 37) as “the process of motivating people to act in particulars ways in order to achieve specific goals” while similarly Shackleton (1995: 2) says that “leadership is the process in which an individual influences other group members towards the attainment of a group or organizational goals”. Learning organization is one that facilitates the learning of its employees by continuously transforms itself with new knowledge and technological innovations in a rapidly changing environment. Sound management basically speaks about overall management that takes place in manner to accomplish objectives.
Colin Powell said that “The role of a leader is to put people, human beings in the best possible environment to achieve the purpose of the organization you are a part of. Leadership is the art and science of motivating, influencing, and directing the team to accomplish the mission of the organization.