However the way it does document this blame is in a very astute manner, as the source uses phrases such as hastily attached and it was alleged. This shows that the editor of The Illustrated London News was a supporter of Nolan and possibly wasn’t a great supporter of the higher command in the British army. Similarly source 2 appears to deflect the blame off Captain Nolan but in this source we are given a clear idea of who is thought to be at fault for the failings of the Charge of the Light Brigade. The source is clear about whom it feels is responsible as it clear as day states “Lucan was to blame”, it backs this up by saying as a senior officer Lucan should not have been influenced by Nolan’s eager spirit. Source 2 offers very little evidence to say that the disaster wasn’t Captain Nolan’s fault other than blaming Lucan for acting according to the captain’s enthusiasm.
However, he doesn’t say he has no respect or admiration for Churchill, writing “never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent. This suggests that he believes Churchill does play a crucial role during the war; it’s only his military influence which caused a problem. This source was produced by Sir Alan Brooke as a diary entry in September 1944. As the source was produced during the time, and was a diary entry, he would have had little time for any hindsight or reflection on the situation being discussed. This could affect the reliability of the source, with it possible that his true views have been influenced by the events of the day, making it possible he has been overly critical of Churchill due to the fact it is a diary entry.
Emily Booth How far do the sources agree that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disaster of the Charge of the Light Brigade? Source 3 agrees that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disaster of the Charge of the Light Brigade because it says that Nolan was headstrong and critical of the cavalry and its commanders, implying that due to his characteristics it was likely he would have went against orders given to him. This source is quite reliable because it is an extract from a journal meaning it would be an honest as it is self written only for that person to read. However, Source 2 disagrees with this and says that Nolan wasn’t to blame because he was merely aide-de-camp indicating that he was acting as an assistant only carrying on orders from another officer. If Nolan was acting as a military assistant to a more senior officer, he wouldn’t be critical of its commanders as suggested in Source 3, because it would be in his role to follow orders.
The English-Canadians sought after full conscription like Britain and the United States, while the French-Canadians still did not want any form of conscription. The countries unity was slowly crumbling but still Mackenzie King did not institute conscription. He felt there had to be other ways to solve the emerging problems then conscription. (Cruxton and Wilson, 263). In 1917, Borden felt the lack of troops was so awful that there was no choice but conscription.
This can be illustrated as it mentions “supreme performance which we shall never see again from him or anyone else”, suggesting that he was the nations back-bone and he was some- what looked up to by the majority of the British public and also some politicians. This could be interpreted as un-reliable as Chips Channon was a strong follower of the conservative, so source B creates the impression that Channon was simply just an admirer of Churchill. Throughout sources D and E there is a sense of appeasement throughout the sources, this can be inferred as source D suggests the appointment of Monckton was made out of sympathy to make Churchill happy, as the conservative party felt in-debt to Churchill after his heroic performance as Prime Minister for Britain. Source E also agrees with the tone of source D, the tone of sympathy and appeasement. This can be illustrated through the source as it says “On the wages front a quite deliberate policy if appeasement was adopted”.
Also again sources 11 and 12 fight in a similar way in favour of Mr.Jackson. Source 11 strongly supports Mr.Jackson as it gives an description of a scene where there were “Groans, hisses and yells were given for Mrs Jackson” which highlights the fact that she is being criticised for going against her husband, which shows people believed Mr.Jackson was ‘Right upon his side’ with the law and an appeal shouldn’t have taken place. Whilst source 12 has a similar view of this situation as it states that “the law court agreed and decided in favour of Mr Jackson at first which made people hate Mrs Jackson’s friends for getting involved in the case. However Source 10 and 12 also suggest that Mr.Jackson is indeed the one in the wrong and Mrs.Jackson is indeed wrong and Mrs.Jackson is more of an ‘angel in the house’. Source 10 suggests this by stating that she has not be known to have ‘complained’ about the abduction, but would like to ‘resume’ a ‘quiet’ private sphere lifestyle like an ‘angel in the house’.
Some say he should be held responsible for underestimating the enemy. He once said that machine guns were over rated and only got two per battalion whereas the Germans got a lot more. He also underestimated the amount soldiers and weaponry used. This was probably because he was inexperienced in the new trench warfare and used to the old ways which is where he became known. Most of his tactics were outdated and predictable for the Germans.
Douglas Haig was leading the British, and was a very stubborn leader. Haig’s tactics were for the British to simply walk over to the German trenches. After the first day there were 60 000 casualties. Haig being the stubborn leader that he was did not change the tactics at all after losing all these men. Other then the fact that the British had an awful tactic, they did not have the right weaponry.
This causes Victor to go into an extreme depression and eventually causes him to also go after the monster with a vengeance, allowing him to cross paths with Walton. Victor’s selfishness does not cease despite his health degrading in the novel. Instead of turning around, and leaving the situation, Victor is determined to keep going. The reason Victor is the monster is because he has no respect for the monster as a sentient being and only seems to care about himself. He is the prime example of a character that is easy to sympathize with or feel sorry for; however, the monster deserves a lot more sympathy than Victor does.