Firstly, there are many sources proving that Hag is a butcher. One of these sources is an extract taken from ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One’. It says in source 7, “It is not a strategy at all, its slaughter. ” The use of the word ‘slaughter’ shows that Hag killed the men in thousands as though they were animals. This source criticisms Hag’s stubbornness, comparing his nature and his thinking to a donkey. People do not even have to read the first page to know that this is a negative perspective of General Hag.
The title makes it clear that it is criticizing Hag’s tactics. It is a book on British Butchers and if Hag was mentioned in it as one of the primary butchers, then certainly this evidence will ridicule and mock him. This is very likely to be biased and it probably would not balance both the positive and negative thoughts about Hag. Another example of negative thoughts about General Hag is source 10. “L expressed my doubts to General Hag as to whether cavalry (horses) could ever operate successfully on a front bristling for miles with barbed wire and machine guns.
This was written by Lloyd George in his book “War Memoirs”. This source suggests that Hag’s methods were not thought through and didn’t sound likely to work, thus the author emphasizes on this thought by using ‘could ever’ – conveying that it would not work in a million years. Actually this is not the only source written by L. George. Source 8 states that “He did not have the vision or imagination to plan a great campaign against some of the best German Generals. ” George complains about Hag’s lack of imagination and logic in both sources.
Although they were both taken room the same book War Memoirs’ (1928), the title is a fairly neutral one and does not suggest in any way that the purpose of it is to criticize Hag. However, the author openly mentions how Hag was not suitable for his position in this book. George was, in fact, one of the men who kept Hag in his place and other sources (such as source E) mention that he had trusted Haggis Judgment to cease the battle if he felt ‘he couldn’t attain his objective by continuing the offensive. ‘ He had kept quiet to avoid any accusation for anything he said.
He trusted Haggis words even though all the ports from the battle were deteriorating. To comply with these views, it is possible that George tried to protect his reputation by trying to look more intelligent by saying in this books that he disagreed with Hag’s thoughts. Decisions on bombardment by saying “Heavy casualties were inevitable. ” ‘even Brandon (the author of this source) mentions the pressure given to Hag by the French, and that the British had to strike constantly in order to wear the enemy down.
Although this may seem incredibly protective of Brandon, the title of the verbal source “The first World War 1914-1918” is a very academic and factual- sounding name. It is likely that this source is not biased, for the source also says “supporters of Hag argue that… ” Suggesting that the author was putting herself into another group’s shoes and trying to view things from their perspective instead of her There are other sources which show that Hag was a great commander. For example source 5 says “To have refused to fight would have meant the abandonment of Verdure and the breakdown of co-operation with the French”.
This source greatly implements Hag’s character as do the other pieces of ‘Hag’ written by Duff Cooper. At a first glance, it seems reliable and also fairly factual, however this biography was authorized by Hag’s family. Also, Cooper did not volunteer to write, he was asked to write by the family. Cooper was one of the military men who had a more positive view of Hag. The family might have been desperate to save their hero’s reputation after his death, so it is possible that the family only included the major positive facts and deeds of and about Hag.
Leaving the audience to contemplate whether to believe hat Hag was a good man, for if they say they are related to a War Hero, surely they will be welcomed and praised. However we should not generalist this. As you can see, there are various views on Hag and the percentages of people in each side today are fairly similar. Everyone has a different background, character and thoughts, therefore almost anything is opinionated. History is one of the key examples. Although there are events that happened for certain, people would never know about them in the future if it had not been recorded somehow.
History itself is actually arguably not a very reliable thing on its own. Because everyone has a different way of interpreting things, even though they talk about the same chain of events, it will differ. It is up to the readers and viewers of the sources to analyses these records and to determine whether they are biased or not. A person’s view will change depending on their own values and beliefs. In cases of primary sources, the human memory will matter for absent-minded; the human brain alters these memories and would censor things.
For example, a soldier who witnessed and lost Ovid ones due to the Battle of the Some, may take Hag as a brutal and a merciless man. The purposes of the source will change the way the author writes. If people make conclusions by looking at different sources, the opinions would change again. Time is another factor. Freedom of Speech will encourage people to be more open and honest. More information is exposed and censorship could be removed. When the main character of each argument deceases, respect for them may form and people may switch views. In conclusion history will differ depending on the origin Inner.