Some People Have the View That British Generals Like Haig Were Incompetent Leaders. How Far Does the Sources Support or Contradict This Interpretation?
Some people have the view that British generals like Haig were incompetent leaders.
How far does the sources support or contradict this interpretation?
Some people have the view that British generals such as Haig were useless leaders. Famous sources like ‘O What a lovely War’, ‘Blackadder’ and ‘The Trench’ support this. However from the 1980s many military historians have challenged this interpretation and states that under Haigs leadership, Britain and her allies won the war from encouraging new weapons and military tactics. After Haigs death in 1918, historians blamed him for needless laughter of nearly 750,000 British soldiers on the Western Front and biographers pilloned him for his overconfidence, insensitivity and logical shortcountings. However a new age group of scholars now believes that he may have been more a victim of position than a cruel monster. This essay will try and support and contradict this interpretation.
The view that the army were incompetent can be found in evidence dated back from the 1960s, back to the beginging of the way. It was a decoded war with the notorious catch phrase ‘Lions Led By Donkeys’ and other disparagement come from other books such as ‘The First World War’ written by AJP Taylor. Historians who back-up this view normally rely mostly on primary solider accounts. They would support this by using film and photographic evidence, war poetry, statistics, The Somme 1916, Passchendale 1917. They are also intrigued in social accounts of an ordinary solider. The views of polititions were widely used
A direct witness Fred Pearson, who was a private on the Western Front , holds a letter to a local newspaper during 1966 (Source B3). He says in the letter “The biggest murderer of the lot was Haig” this quote supports the view of British generals being incompetent. Debates still rage about Haigs tactics at the Battle of the Somme, when 20,000 men were killed on the first day alone. He also talks about his wrong decisions where he
How far does the sources support or contradict this interpretation?
Some people have the view that British generals such as Haig were useless leaders. Famous sources like ‘O What a lovely War’, ‘Blackadder’ and ‘The Trench’ support this. However from the 1980s many military historians have challenged this interpretation and states that under Haigs leadership, Britain and her allies won the war from encouraging new weapons and military tactics. After Haigs death in 1918, historians blamed him for needless laughter of nearly 750,000 British soldiers on the Western Front and biographers pilloned him for his overconfidence, insensitivity and logical shortcountings. However a new age group of scholars now believes that he may have been more a victim of position than a cruel monster. This essay will try and support and contradict this interpretation.
The view that the army were incompetent can be found in evidence dated back from the 1960s, back to the beginging of the way. It was a decoded war with the notorious catch phrase ‘Lions Led By Donkeys’ and other disparagement come from other books such as ‘The First World War’ written by AJP Taylor. Historians who back-up this view normally rely mostly on primary solider accounts. They would support this by using film and photographic evidence, war poetry, statistics, The Somme 1916, Passchendale 1917. They are also intrigued in social accounts of an ordinary solider. The views of polititions were widely used
A direct witness Fred Pearson, who was a private on the Western Front , holds a letter to a local newspaper during 1966 (Source B3). He says in the letter “The biggest murderer of the lot was Haig” this quote supports the view of British generals being incompetent. Debates still rage about Haigs tactics at the Battle of the Somme, when 20,000 men were killed on the first day alone. He also talks about his wrong decisions where he