How Did Hag Lead Britain To Victory

Haig could be seen as an efficient and highly skilled soldier who led Britain to victory in the First World War. The sources disagreed more than they agreed, some showed both agreement with this interpretation and disagreement but they mostly disagreed due to reliability of the different sources. So there isn’t sufficient evidence in Sources A to H to support this interpretation.

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

This source was authorised by Haig’s family, so it had to be supportive of Haig and justifies his decision to show he did the right thing. Source G shows that blaming Haig for the ‘falling of the British war effort is putting too much of a burden of guilt on one man’ however that is the same for putting all of the success down to him also. Nevertheless he was ‘ultimately victorious’ therefore he was an efficient leader. He wasn’t impeccable all of the time but eventually Britain was victorious. Source E, written by Lloyd George, mostly showed Haig’s bad leadership but Lloyd showed a justification that ‘Haig promised not to press the attack if it became clear

There were two reliable sources that show purely Haig being skilled but the others were either mixed feelings or completely against