Supporting Keegans Interpretation of Haig

960 Words4 Pages
Supporting Keegans Interpretation of Haig Historians often differ greatly with their opinions on Field Marshal Haig and how successful he was during the Great War. John Keegan is a modern historian very much in favour of Haig. Keegan is quoted as saying Haig was an "efficient and highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First World War". In recent years most historians have begun to accept that Haig was not nearly as bad as the seemingly common view of him as a bumbling idiot portrayed in the era after his death. Source C is an article from the conservative paper 'The Telegraph'. The article is written by Field Marshal Haigs son, Earl Haig. With a source of such a nature it is obviously necessary to look for any possible bias in his sons article. Coming from a high class and traditional family Earl Haig was no doubt brought up very much to respect his father. Earl Haig may not want to write anything negative about his late father or simply acknowledge its existence, in effect writing the article 'with blinkers on'. The veterans that he had spoken to in the article, according to him never spoke a word of criticism about his father, but they no doubt knew who he was and did not want to cause any offence or upset. Earl Haig criticises people, in the article, for 'pouring scorn' on his father despite not being in the war themselves, but neither was he and probably heard the of war very much from his fathers viewpoint. Source D is a fake poster from 'General Haig's Private War' showing Field Marshal Haig and the words "Your country needs me…like a hole in the head - which is what most of you are going to get." This is obviously taking a very negative view of Haig, focusing on the amount of deaths and casualties incurred during the conflict. This source has no clear author, so is impossible to see the author's background and knowledge or the situation.

More about Supporting Keegans Interpretation of Haig

Open Document