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
…show more content…
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 …show more content…
There were two reliable sources that show purely Haig being skilled but the others were either mixed feelings or completely against
Not because of strong convictions, but because he didn't known. He didn't know who was right, or what was right, he didn't know if it was a war of self-determination or self-destruction, outright aggression or national liberation; he didn't know if nations would topple like dominoes or stand separate like trees; he didn't know who really started the war, or why, or when, or with what motives; he didn't know if it mattered; he saw sense in both sides of the debate, but he did not know where the truth lay; he simply didn't know. He just didn't know if the war was right or wrong or somewhere in the murky middle. So he went to war for reasons beyond knowledge. Because he believed in law, and law told him to go. Because it was a democracy...He went to war because it was expected. Because not to go was to risk censure, and to bring embarrassment on his father and his town. Because, not knowing, he saw no reason to distrust those with more experience. Because he loved his country, and more than that, because he trusted it. Yes, he did. Oh, he would rather have fought with his father in France, knowing certain things certainly, but he couldn't choose his war, nobody could. (p. 234-235)
the Germans for the first time in the war. The Battle of Britain was a
of that what Haig did was infact what he was supposed to do at the
Gross adds too many names throughout his story which strays away from the topic at hand. Gross argument isn 't persuasive because his evidence sabotages the revolutionary character of the war, because what Gross actually demonstrates is that long-term patterns (dating back as far as the early 1760s) set...
At the beginning of the war, the preconceptions of each side show exactly why Britain was destined for failure. On the American team,
In this essay I will explain the battle between Germany and Britain, discuss how important winning this battle was, what Britain had that the Germans did not have, and what could have happened if Britain would have lost. It is known cleverly as “the Battle of Britain”.
... people to let nothing keep them from contributing to the war effort as much as they can. Had Dowling been British rather than American, Churchill’s speech would more than likely stir him to take arms for his country.
These two sources are different because they are opposite opinions which are referring to the Battle of the Somme but they are written by the same person which was Lloyd George. The two sources however were very different from each other. Source I was written by Lloyd George on the 21st of September 1916 when he visited the battlefield with Sir Douglas Haig. It says that Lloyd George was the secretary for the War at this time of the Somme he was the war leader from 1906-1916. Source J is very negative about the Battle of the Somme when compared to Source I. This was written in the 1930’s; he could then have written what he actually wanted to write as he wasn’t the wars secretary, it was also an ok time for him to write it as he had lost the elections the previous year so he wasn’t in the public eye as much as before so he had much more freedom to have his own opinions without having the responsibility of a job. David Lloyd George was also at a very good time to be more confident in criticising the battle of the Somme because the War was over and most importantly, Sir General Do...
and against and also quotes to sum up and give a complete answer on my
General George McClellan was a very qualified general. He graduated second in his class from west point, had new clever organization ideas for the army and had to command his army without helpful help of other people. McClellan was an "accomplished soldier and able engineer (Document D)". He had the best qualifications for the job as general; his removal was not a military improvement but an interference of politicians. President Lincoln never studied military tactics or commanded on a battlefield as McClellan had. Any advice that was given to McClellan by politicians did not help the army, McClellan believed that he owed no thanks to any people in Washington because if the army was saved it would be because of him because the politicians were telling him to sacrifice the lives of the soldiers (Document D), which in the end would only damage the army. General McClellan was the best man qualified and his removal was a loss to the army.
The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J.P. Taylor, proposes and investigates unconventional and widely unaccepted theories as to the underlying causes of World War Two. Taylor is British historian who specialized in 20th century diplomacy, and in his book claims that as a historian his job is to “state the truth” (pg. xi) as he sees it, even if it means disagreeing with existing prejudices. The book was published in 1961, a relatively short time after the war, and as a result of his extreme unbias the work became subject to controversy for many years.
Being a war correspondent people describes Charles as being quite a dull person but also accurate, papers such as ‘The Age’ and ‘The Argus’ started to stop publishing Charles’ stories as for it had an “unappealing” style
...s Henry correct as to when the war may start but he was also correct in that he pointed out to the convention that Britain knew they were weak and vulnerable at the time.
To illustrate, according to Churchill, it indicates the worst side of World War I as how it was the most damaging and cruel war of humanity because it was global and wounded most people. Moreover, it confused the thought of how the war started, who was responsible for the war, and how it ended up, and no one still got a right answer, but the previous war was not cruel that kill most of the people around the world. It was well known who started the war and whose fault it was. Also, Generals in WWI were not participating directly with their soldiers and were sitting far from the wars with having information through telephones. Therefore, they had less effects on their soldiers, and the armies did not get encouragement from their Generals as in the previous wars had, such as the physical battle of Hannibal and Caesar, Turenne and Marlborough, Frederick and Napoleon. Another point of view in the essay is that Generals as Napoleon have hard work to do in order to attack a place. For instance, they should organize their armies, have better tactics and plans, know how to defeat themselves, know the right time of attacking, and make big decisions. Hence, it is the deal of thousands of men’ life including the General himself in the previous wars, but the World War I was only the armies and citizens as well were the victims, so Generals were disappearing. That’s why
The evidence he uses in his novel directly relates to the reader’s ability to enjoy and learn from the novel. Shaara does an excellent job in providing the right amount of factual evidence with fictional content to create a novel that flows smoothly. Unlike other historical books, Shaara does not drown The Glorious Cause in plain facts that mean nothing to the reader. Shaara knows that by just stating facts and numbers he will not create an enjoyable book for someone to read. So instead, Shaara adds a storyline that includes the information that captivates the reader from the beginning. This storyline pushes the novel to read itself, as the book flows from one event to another so effortlessly. Facts and evidence throughout the novel then cause the story to be historically accurate and educate the reader. A good example of facts that present themselves in the storyline occurs when General Knyphausen talks to Charles Cornwallis and tells him, “’For every man in my command that was killed, King George must pay the archduke three times the normal price per soldier. George Washington and his rebel marksmen have done a fine job in bringing gold to my country’s treasury’” (267). This quote not only presents the direct fact it states and flows into the dialogue, but it has more information for the reader to analyze. For example, the