How Did Hag Lead Britain To Victory

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

leading that helped to save bad outcomes.

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

that he could not attain his objectives by continuing the offensive’. The fact that Lloyd recognised the reasoning for Haig’s actions even though he disliked Haig, showed that Haig was skillful. These sources have been reliable as they weren’t written by Haig to secure his position, and they fit with our knowledge. Source A was written by Haig and said that the German’s were ‘practically beaten men’ and that the British proved their ‘ability to force the enemy out of strong defensive positions and to defeat them’. Haig does state that ‘the amount of land we have gained is not great’ but this source supports him being a highly skilled soldier as it shows his leadership making the Germans become beaten men and cower away. Source C was another that backed Haig being an adequate soldier, ‘No amount of skill on the part the higher commanders, no training, however good, on the part of the officers and the men.. will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men’s lives’ thus saying that it wasn’t his fault, because no amount of skill could stop all of the loses. So, even his good leadership couldn’t save the soldiers. The source also says ‘The men are in spirits’ and that there was a ‘very successful attack this morning’ to show that he prepared the soldiers well enough for them to be at ease, adding to him being efficient highly skilled. Yet, these sources aren’t reliable as Haig wrote them himself to justify his position. The German’s at one point did seem disheartened, but Haig couldn’t really be sure about it.

The remaining sources opposed Haig being a highly skilled and efficient soldier. The negative side that Source E mostly showed was that millions of the soldiers on the Western Front would rather ‘die than call themselves cowards – even to themselves.’ Millions soldiers were terrified by Haig constantly sending men over the top. Source B is a criticism poster that says ‘Your country needs me… like a hole in the head – which is what most you are going to get’ Haig sent so many men over the top that the majority of them died, so it shows bad leadership on Haig’s behalf. He also used the same tactic every time, which wasn’t very skillful. Source C mostly supported Haig but also stated that on the 1st July everything was going well and that ‘Germans are surrendering freely’ this doesn’t fit with our knowledge, thus shows that not everything in this source can add up to Haig being very efficient. Source D did say that ‘Haig was also shrewd and ambitious’ but mostly showed that his self-confidence led to him ‘continuing attacks on the Somme’ because of his ‘inability to recognise defeat. Clearly, an efficient leader would back away when victory wasn’t going to come, but Haig didn’t. Source G, on the other hand established that Haig’s ‘numerous mistakes contributed to the half million casualties suffered by the Allies’ Haig’s mistake led to 60,000 casualties on just the first day. The fact that no one else could do his job doesn’t prove him to be an efficient leader, if he was an efficient leader there would be less deaths and better military techniques use. Finally, Source H was completely against Haig and showed him as a ‘fool and murderer’ this was a fiction T.V show that definitely didn’t support Haig, it is most likely written by people who disliked Haig so it could be facts just over exaggerated to show Haig as the worst. Sources H was unreliable as it was created by those that strongly disliked Haig, so it portrayed him as the worst. Source B could be seen as unreliable as it was created by someone who clearly disliked Haig, but it did fit with our knowledge so it was valid to be put forward. The other sources that disagreed with Haig being unskillful were reliable as they were either written by someone that disliked Haig but showed both good sides and bad sides so it wasn’t partial – or written by a Historian to educate people.

Overall, the sources mostly supported Haig not being an an efficient and skillful leader, as they were the more reliable sources than those that said he was skillful and there was more sufficient evidence.

There were two reliable sources that show purely Haig being skilled but the others were either mixed feelings or completely against

Haig.