The First World War – Field Marshall Haig: The Butcher ...

Category: Conflict,
Published: 26.11.2019 | Words: 1524 | Views: 399
Download now

How long do these kinds of sources support this watch? Sources M, C, G, E, Farreneheit and J seem to support the view that Haig was uncaring as being a general. Options G, They would and I differ with the assertion.

Whereas source A could be either in the two. Resource B demonstrates Haig was uncaring in regards to his men as he talks about how successful the battle was. He admits that that it most went just like clockwork, which will shows that having been uncaring about his males, because we can say that there were 57, 000 casualties in the first day.

Need help writing essays?
Free Essays
For only $5.90/page
Order Now

And so Haig presumed that the initially day of battle was a success despite the fact that there were a lot of casualties. Resource C helps this watch, because Coppard says ‘How did the planners suppose Tommies could get through the cable? ‘ This kind of suggests that it absolutely was obvious which the soldiers were not going to be capable of getting through the ditches, meaning that this individual wasn’t very worried about sacrificing lots of his men if perhaps some of them squeezed through the wire. This is a dependable source since George Coppard was present at the battle, so this individual saw the outcomes of Haig’s bad planning.

Source Deb is indicating that Haig did not sacrifice his men for any better reason than to move simply slightly nearer to Berlin. Meaning that Haig didn’t really love his guys, the struggle was more for personal gain than for anything else. However , this origin was obtained from a modern working day comedy show and is a great exaggeration.

Consequently , it is not a particularly reliable supply for assisting the assertion, although there is some truth to it. Source At the is another source written for entertainment purposes and not to tell. However , the comment ‘The absence of General, Sir, ‘ in response to the question ‘What is the second difference (between a wedding rehearsal and an actual battle)? ‘ does support the view that Haig was uncaring.

Though it doesn’t pertain directly to Haig, it does talk about ‘The General’ and this toon was posted in early 1917, it’s probably that it is making some direct reference to Haig. This supply was published in the United kingdom magazine, which suggests that many British people agreed. Source F is extremely anti-Haig.

The writer, Laffin, describes Haig’s strategy because ‘criminal negligence’ and says that ‘he knew he previously no potential for a breakthrough but still delivered men to their deaths. ‘ It’s nearly as if Laffin is saying that Haig was obviously a murderer if he talks about ‘criminal negligence’, and he is also saying that Haig knew complete well that he couldn’t win the battle, but he continue to sacrifices his men without a reason. Even though Laffin is biased in his composing he must have done a lot of research to write down his book so it is trusted in that he will have been quite knowledgeable on the subject of the Somme when publishing it, nevertheless it is opinionated and is not a very well balanced text. Origin J is a final origin that agrees with the affirmation.

It says that ‘(the battle) had not been responsible for the failure from the German efforts to capture Verdun. This unpleasant was already an inability. ‘ One of the main reasons that Haig ordered the attack within the Somme is that it was expected that the fight of the Somme would bring German troops away from Verdun. However , Lloyd-George says the battle from the Somme would not influence the problem at Verdun and that it had been already an inability, meaning that Haig was putting his men in danger when it wasn’t required. Lloyd-George as well says that ‘I indicated my questions to Standard Haig…’ concerning this strategy.

Nevertheless , we know that Haig carried on while using attack after Lloyd-George had spoken to him. This shows that Haig not only had no respect for his superiors, nevertheless that this individual didn’t care about his males, as he was carrying in using methods that the ‘Secretary for War’ had warned him might fail, although, Lloyd-George may possibly simply have been ‘covering his back’ when he talks about this kind of warning, because Haig is not able to argue this point. This origin is very reliable, however is definitely might be because reliable because he may have been worried in safeguarding his reputation, as Lloyd-George not only understood a lot regarding military techniques, being Admin for War, but actually witnessed part of the battle him self.

Source G does not point out if Haig was nurturing or not, but it contradicts the declaration that Haig sacrificed his men for no good explanation. It says a lot of the ‘most experienced and most reliable [German] officers and men were no longer inside their places’ and that ‘the assurance of the German troops in victory was not a longer as great because before’. This shows that though a lot of British troops were shed, it had certainly not been in vain, because the battle had quite a big negative impact on the Germans.

This is another very reliable source, since it is from an ‘official history’. Also, the fact that this was written by the Germans causes it to be more reliable, since they will go through the battle with an indifference to Haig. As well there is no cause to believe this source is definitely biased in any way, as the Germans will be praising Haig’s tactics once it’s anticipated that they could do the reverse. Source L states that Haig’s armies ‘had full confidence in the leadership of their commander’.

Therefore the army trusted Haig. It is improbable that they will trust him if he appeared to be uncaring about them, or perhaps if they will thought that his tactics had been doomed to failure. A general who battled in both equally wars wrote this supply. As he was an army general, his landscapes may be biased in favour of Haig as he seems loyalty to other commanders. However he has a lot of military experience so is likely to know what he’s talking about.

Source I is another source authored by Lloyd-George, this kind of extract by a letter to Haig. In this resource, he says ‘I congratulate you most warmly on the skill with which the plans had been laid’. This kind of shows that coming from Lloyd-George’s standpoint that Haig knew just what he was performing and that his tactics had been having a confident effect, instead of Haig reducing his guys with no gain.

However , this source fully contradicts what Lloyd –George says in source J, which means that among the sources is usually unreliable. It truly is more likely that source My spouse and i is untrustworthy, because Lloyd-George may not have wanted to criticise Haig during the challenge when he necessary support, which in turn would motivate him to praise Haig. Source M is far more probably reliable, while Lloyd-George would have no reward for Haig when writing in the 1930s.

Lloyd-George could have been criticising the war in Source L because it was popular to do so at the time, so that as Lloyd-George was obviously a politician, he can likely to have gone along with popular community opinion. Yet , Lloyd-George might have had even more reason to stifle his opinions through the war than after that, and it is traditional fact that Lloyd-George did not just like Haig or perhaps approve of his methods, as a result source I is untrustworthy. It could be argued that Source A will abide by the view that Haig was an uncaring General, when he seems to discuss being ‘prepared to see large casualty lists’ with no feel dissapointed.

However , it may also be argued that Haig was merely being reasonable about conflict, and that he was trying to remain emotionally detached, instead of not really caring about the lives of his men. Consequently source A does not support or argue with the affirmation that Haig was uncaring and sacrificed his men for no real reason. A lot of the sources manage to support the statement that Haig was an uncaring General who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no real reason.

The majority of the sources will be reliable and contain very good evidence to support the assertion and some are certainly not as trustworthy, Laffin’s in particular (source F). Of the few sources which often disagree with the statement one is extremely unreliable. The source obtained from the ‘German Official History’ is very dependable and states that Haig’s tactics were very powerful from the Germans’ point of view, meaning that his males were not lost for no reason.

Nevertheless , it doesn’t talk about regardless of whether he seriously cared regarding his military, making these kinds of sources rather weak total.