Question

Only use content to give reason why Interpretation 1 is more convincing than Interpretation 2, backed up with 2 N/N (N/N - Names and Numbers eg, Battle names, Battle dates, etc.)

Interpretation 1:

Few soldiers have been less understood and more misrepresented than Douglas Haig. Duff Cooper and John Terraine have cleverly championed his reputation as a humane commander. The legend of his lack of imagination and callous brutality, however, still exist. One of the faults of Haig’s nature was that he trusted too completely some of his immediate subordinates. The cost was high, but it would have been higher still had the agony been prolonged. Haig’s foresight, energy and resolve were among the main factors which contributed to the Allied victory in 1918.

Interpretation 2:

The whole planning of the Somme campaign was ham-fisted and clumsy. The fault for the failure of most of the strategic planning must fall on Haig. Because the plan failed, Haig must be held responsible. The main fault with Haig and his Chief of Staff in London, General Sir William Robertson, was that although they had got the reasoning of the war right, ie that it must be divided on the Western Front, they also felt they must have some spectacular victory to prove how right they were.

Perhaps the fault lay in the idea that the British still regarded war as an extension of a game of rugger … an attitude which proved totally ineffectual against the cold German professionalism that manifested itself in the form of accurate shell, machine gun and rifle fire. Haig promised victory and failed.

Answer 1

Answer:

hey mate I am not getting your question ...

Stu