Propaganda in the First World War
Propaganda in the First World War
(History Coursework)
Q1. Which source is the more useful to an historian studying the use of propaganda for recruitment in the First World War?
In the First World War Britain started with only a small scale army, however as reality soared in, the government realized that more soldiers needed to be recruited at a very fast pace therefore, propaganda was the method introduced in order to achieve this.
Source A is a novel that was written in 1961.Firstly the fact that it is a novel, proves that the source could've easily been elaborated according to the choice of the novelist.However, the date shows how by 1961 there would be a wide array of information available in order for the novelist to compose a book with and therefore, the source could be reliable. The source is also reliable in the sense that in 1914, the war was still at its early stages so; propaganda would be at its peak by this stage. I feel that the point of this extract is to simply show that by simply singing a national anthem or by expressing great gratitude and evoking content towards the ones off to war could really boost the morale of young men and to give them the inner strength and courage to want to be a part of all this victory.
Source B is a newspaper article printed in early 1915 and clearly looks like first hand evidence. The article features five brothers and their brother in law all from the same town going to war together. From my knowledge, I know that in times of war, many young men from the same family or from the same town would all sign up together. Therefore there is a high probability that this is a reliable source.
However to a historian studying propaganda, I feel that both sources are full of detail and are both useful in their different senses. Source A, is on a more personal basis as it is concentrating on one character alone who is emotionally encountering the joys and the eagerness of giving help to his country. Whereas in source B, the article is showing the historian a real piece of evidence that would've been directed at other young men to be encouraged to follow these men's examples.Hower on a realistic level, I think that to a historian perhaps Source B could be better in a sense because of its nature of having been extracted from a real life newspaper of which the local people living in the town of bath would've experienced. Still although Source A meets one on a fictional level, it is unfair to say that it is totally unreliable and would be totally useless to an historian because it really does make the reader try to share the experience of these real life volunteers.So, still it is very both difficult and unfair as to state which source is the more useful but is a lot easier to say how they complement each other and are both full of very informative facts.
Study sources C and D.
Q2.Why do they differ about attitudes in Britain at the start of the war?
Source C,was taken from the British magazine, "Punch" in August 1914.This magazine is said to have been written for the middle classes so,therefore,this cartoon was sure to have been directed at the middle class in order to persuade them to join the army as at the moment,the majority of recruits seemed to be made up of the poor working classes.The cartoon is very anti-German so,it portrays the Germans to be very cruel and ruthless barbarians.However,being an anti-German cartoon it is sure to have ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Q2.Why do they differ about attitudes in Britain at the start of the war?
Source C,was taken from the British magazine, "Punch" in August 1914.This magazine is said to have been written for the middle classes so,therefore,this cartoon was sure to have been directed at the middle class in order to persuade them to join the army as at the moment,the majority of recruits seemed to be made up of the poor working classes.The cartoon is very anti-German so,it portrays the Germans to be very cruel and ruthless barbarians.However,being an anti-German cartoon it is sure to have been elaborated and I know this because at such an early stage in the war,civilians hadn't been greatly involved;but I still feel that the cartoon is actually an insight of the future and is stating that if the middle classes didn't get involved soon,then this was what the war could be like.
There are many aspects to the picture and the first thing the reader would notice in the cartoon would be that the soldier in the picture was German and this is made highly obvious from his attire (a special cap worn only by German soldiers) and of course the flag that he bears in his left hand.Then if one studied the soldier more clearly,they could see the grim,ruthless and shameless expression on this man's face showing that he really has no mercy.Then when you look at the deadly rifle in his right hand you can see the gunpowder blowing out of it suggesting that he has only just finished the slaughtering of two innocent souls.Then when you move behind the man,you can see fire and smoke all around this village which suggests many German soldiers have come to totally demolish and diminish this town.Then on the floor are a variety of dead bodies which suggests some type of massacre.The fact that the soldier is standing over the bodies of a woman and a young child would evoke a lot of sympathy from the reader because I feel that they would feel very disgusted by the fact that the Germans would be prepared to go to such extreme measures to kill such an innocent child and supposedly mother.
Source D is taken from the independent Labour party's magazine, " Labour Leader" in August 1914.At this point in time, the Labour party was a socialist organization that was closely related to communism and so therefore meant that the party felt strongly about imposing their views of equality. The newspaper article, in general, is just saluting every working class soldier and all the socialists all around Europe whether British or German.
This is definitely not an anti-war newspaper and is basically stating that " the Germans are not enemies of ours but our faithful friends" and I think this is because of the fact that Germany is a socialist nation and so, the British Labour party feel the need to express their gratitude towards their " overseas colleagues".
Further on in the text, it states that, " Workers of Great Britain, down with war", which generally means that the workers should stop feeling obliged to go to war and that it really isn't their war to fight. The article states how the real quarrel is actually between the rich noble classes and the poor working classes throughout Europe.When it states, "The flag of international togetherness is greater than that of all the individual European powers, the article is trying to express that the power of all the working classes throughout Europe, together as one, is what is fighting the war and without this power, the great European states wouldn't be capable of fighting this war.
So, the article is basically sating how the working classes should retreat from this warfare and to simply keep out of it as it really isn't their war to fight; however, it is saying that if they choose not to take this advice, then they will have to encounter the consequences of great suffrage.
Finally the text states how, "Rulers, diplomats and the military has forced this military war upon us all", and I think here is where the reader would really get the real feel of this party's view as basically in the last sentence, the article is saying that everyone could either be thrown into war together or the government and all the people who caused the war, can fight it for themselves.
So, from the first source, the general attitude concerning the poster is that it is totally demeaning the Germans and portraying them as a "blood-thirsty nation". It is also encouraging middle classes to join up as this was sure to have psyched them up and to fully make them feel obliged to join.
In the second source, the British Labour party is basically "communists" and is generally trying to enforce equality through the nation. However, in order to achieve this they have to state their views and their thoughts about the war; theses views are the fact that it isn't fair that the working classes are fooled into war when the noble classes just sit at home and don't contribute to any of the previous efforts.
So, basically, the first poster is mainly encouraging middle classes and everybody else to join the war but the second article is discouraging people, especially of working class to join the war. The first is dishonoring the Germans and the second portrays them as comrades towards the British.This is how they differ however the also are similar in the sense that they are both trying to target at one specific class of society.
Q3. 'The most important aim of wartime propaganda was to encourage hatred of the enemy'
Is there sufficient evidence in sources A to I to support this interpretation?
When looking at source A, you can see that the source doesn't really encourage hatred of the enemy at all. In fact there is no specific mention of the enemy at all. It is just trying to show life from a young man's point of view and show his reactions and personal feelings towards the propaganda in the source.
Source B doesn't really encourage hatred of the enemy. It is simply reaching out to the young men in the town of bath and to tell them to follow the examples of the brave and courageous men. Both these two sources are just simply about general encouragement and with no specific mention of the enemy at all.
In source C,there is definitely sufficient evidence here proving that portraying the enemies as brutal barbarians would encourage people to sign up during the war.Here,you really see the Germans being portrayed as incredibly ruthless and uncaring. I feel that this poster would've had a very high impact at the time because I feel that even the idea of the poster alone would've angered the reader of the magazine; and to therefore evoke a want of seeking vengeance on the enemy. I think also that it is a very psychological picture and would've played with the reader's mind, therefore encouraging hem to feel the need to seek revenge on the lost souls displayed on the ground in the picture.
The next source totally disagrees with the statement as its sole aim is to actually tell the reader to embrace the enemy as their comrades because of the fact that they also follow the socialist ways. This type of propaganda is actually encouraging the working classes to stand up for their well earned rights and that they should open up their eyes to reality and recognize the fact that the ruling classes are oppressing them. It is stating how the war is between the working classes and the noble classes, not Germany and Britain.So, in a strange sense, it is actually discouraging people to sign up.
In source E, I feel that the source definitely encouraging hatred towards the enemy. I feel this because on reading the source for the first time, the word "German" or "Germans" appears four times throughout the whole source which instantly makes the reader realize that the reporter is trying to make some sort of point. In the third and 4th line of the source, the report states how "They appeared out of the ground and flung bombs with a grim refusal to surrender" which I feel shows the Germans as being very ruthless and wild; as if they were almost animals. It is also quite a grim account of things as the reader is given a full view report by being told things such as, 'Then he hurled himself on a large German soldier and ran his bayonet through the man's body'; which nevertheless is to be expected because this is speaking of the Battle of the Somme; which was the nation's first real life account of what the war really was like. Then further on in the text, the reader is told how the, who earlier on had tried to kill the Britons, were suddenly crying for mercy, therefore portraying them as cowardly.However,I think the main message or moral of the story is the fact that under no circumstances would the British ever break the rules of warfare. They could've easily killed the Germans who they chose to keep as prisoners but they didn't do so.
So, I think in reference to the statement, there is an aura of hatred toward the Germans but there are also slight sympathetic sides to the story as the Germans were both so cowardly and had to sink so low by breaching the rules of warfare.
I don't really feel that either source F or source G relates to the statement as such. In source F, the relevance of the source is to point out the fact that the reporter was not always telling the public the whole truth at all times to spare them any heartache and so, this is what the statement is about. Source G is basically just a song which is boosting the encouragement levels of the soldiers at war. One could see this as a type of propaganda in reverse because usually you read sources trying to convince the people back at home that things at the warfront are fine when in fact they're not; however, this source is trying to state how things are fine at home when in fact they're far from home. So this again is a piece of propaganda taken from a completely new angle.
When considering source H,I feel that this poster is a piece of anti war propaganda just like Source D and basically shows the famous poster with Kitchener on it however, this is scrawled over with writing stating how if one joins the war then the profits gained from it will not go towards that person. Therefore this has no reference to the enemy and is therefore viewing propaganda from a very different angle.
The last source is headed with the sentence, 'Surrender! British Cavalry Beat and Cow the Hun' which is saying how the British soldiers will make fools of the Germans and impose great fear into them. The picture is basically showing,' a good old Tommy' (the name for a British soldier at the time) who seems to be very brave and is making the Germans cower and surrender at his feet. I feel that this piece of propaganda is aimed at the people at home to show them that things are really great and successful out at the warfront. In general though, I think that this source definitely agrees with the statement because the poster and text are trying to evoke hatred of the enemy. This is so that back home, people will see the enemy as very cowardly and would feel very assured indeed that everything was going so well out in the war.
In concusion, Sources: C, E and I totally agree with the statement. Sources D and H are anti-war sources. A and B are just plainly to boost morale and to encourage. So, therefore all the sources don't agree with the statement but the majorities do, therefore suggesting that the statement could've easily been just.
Bridget Emanuel