In this essay I will try and show how far all the sources in the booklet support the statement that Haig was uncaring and sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no reason. I will give a balanced answer, showing both points of view, and reach a judgement.
Source A does support the statement, because it uses a cold and harsh tone, for example that the loss of soldiers was “teaching” the nation about the reality of war. It seems to suggest that he sees “heavy casualty lists” as an inevitability, and because he carried out the attack when he knew that many soldiers were going to die, we can infer that he did not care about the lives of his soldiers and was cold hearted.
However one could say that source a does not support the statement, because it does not explicitly mention anywhere that Haig did not care about the lives of his men, and one could argue that he is merely being a good general and preparing the nation and his men for what is going to happen.
One could also say that source B does not support the statement, because it mentions how well “instructed and informed” his men were before the attack, and this clearly does not support the statement because it shows how he cares about the morale and the preparation of his men. We can also see this because he mentions how the troops are in “wonderful spirits” after the attack.
However, we know from contextual knowledge that really the men were not well instructed and informed, because many of the 700,000 soldiers used in the attack were new recruits and had very little experience, and the only practice they had would not in any way prepare them for the realities of war. We also know that the attack was definitely not “very successful” on the first morning, by the end of the d...
... middle of paper ...
...for example source F is extremely explicit in its criticism of Haig, whereas with source A it is only through inferences that we are able to prove how it supports the statement. There are also many statements where support of the statement can be argued both ways, for example many seem to support it on the surface but when you take a closer look at their motives and provenance they are show to not be so reliable and therefore not support the statement so concretely, for example sources D and E which are both very critical of Haig but both are fictional. There is also the occasional source which doesn’t seem to support the statement at all, for example source H seems to be very positive when talking about Haig. However, when taking all of the above into account, I have reached the judgement that overall most of these sources do support the statement quite far.
Kerry paints himself as a man who experienced the war, therefore he can reveal information
It is far easier for us in the present than it was for those at Gettysburg, to look back and determine the path that the leaders should have taken. As students, studying battles such as this, we have the advantage of hindsight, knowing the outcome. Nonetheless, we can still learn valuable lessons from it. To do so, this analysis will explore some of the decisions of the leaders at Gettysburg, and how they were affected by the operational variables. This essay will scrutinize some of the leaders at Gettysburg, and the impact of their actions. The outcome of this analysis will show that what was true in 1863 is still true today. While many variables are vital to a successful army on the battlefield, none should be neglected. Each variable discussed in this examination will prove to be important, but the information battle will be paramount in the battle of Gettysburg.
I believe that even though most of the sources tell us that Haig was a
Throughout the battle, you see numerous Army Values and Warrior Ethos being used. “I will never leave a fallen comrade”, was the etho used the most, to reach the separated platoon. The battle also shows that not all tactical orders are effective, but as a leader you must never second guess yourself.
of that what Haig did was infact what he was supposed to do at the
...tion to the press, before his family yet again, the US Government was intentionally ambiguous when explaining their farce of an investigation: “investigation results indicate that Corporal Tillman probably died as a result of friendly fire while his unit was engaged in combat with enemy forces… (Page 361).”
as facts go - Haig was that far away. The rest of the source is
Later in the book, he again reflects on the war. He catalogs the proofs that he has been given — injured and half-starved countrymen — but persists in his existential doubt. He notes, “So we knew a war existed; we had to believe that, just as we had to believe that the name for the sort of life we had led for the last three years was hardship and suffering. Yet we had no proof of it. In fact, we had even less than no proof; we had had thrust into our faces the very shabby and unavoidable obverse of proof…” (94). Because he has not seen the battles, he has difficulty acknowledging the reality of war.
Most writers take sides, either for or against the atom bomb. Instead of taking sides, he challenges his readers to make their own opinions based on their personal meditations. One of the key questions we must ask ourselves is “Are actions intended to benefit the large majority, justified if it negatively impacts a minority?” The greatest atrocity our society could make is to make a mistake and not learn from it. It is important, as we progress as a society, to learn from our mistakes or suffer to watch as history repeats itself.
...a known source but usually the source is obvious. Lastly, black leaflets have a stated source which, however, is false. For example, the Allies invented non-existent anti-Nazi groups in Germany. On these leaflets Allied powers printed false information that attempted to challenge Hitler and the Nazis in attempt to lead others into rebellion.
A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain ...
The sensitive subject of whether the 7th Calvary killed innocent men, women, and children at No Gun Ri arose years after the end of the Korean War. Some sources argue that the killings were unprovoked, while others claim that the Communist enemy was mixed within the refugee lines. One source claims the killings numbered over 350 innocent people and others claim it was a mere 35. Although there is a major discrepancy in the number of civilians killed, the fact that innocent men, women, and children were murdered does not disappear. Therefore, whether the casualties were 35 or 350, the United States army engaged in a massacre of innocent Korean refugees. Therefore, the killings at No Gun Ri can not be denied, whether they casualty count is high or low.
...more sympathetic than Eaker to those who lost their lives in the Dresden bombing. Saundy believed “that the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny”, and that it wasn’t necessary to the Allies efforts to win the War (187). However, he does defend those who directed the bombing, stating they “were neither wicked nor cruel”, but instead forced into making a tough decision in a decisive time in the War (187). Saundy presents a much more humane view of the bombing of Dresden than Eaker. Saundy doesn’t attempt to justify or condemn the bombing; he instead portrays it as one of the many horrors of war that can only be viewed in hindsight as such.
O’Neill, William L. World War II A Student Companion. 1 ed. William H. Chafe. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Are assertions in the source based on reliable evidence? Are sources cited? How are you able to tell? They do list where they get their info from within the paragraphs or quotes.