Q4. I think the government issued postcards like the one in source E because obviously the British army was loosing masses of troops every day to the German army. But back over in England normal citizens didn’t really know much about the war and what was going on, all they really knew was that Britain were winning the war even when in some cases they weren’t. People got the idea that Britain were winning the war from the government because at this time they had taken over all newspaper companies and mainly anything to do with the war it was called censorship. This is what they did when issuing the postcards. But the main reason for them only allowing the soldiers to write a certain amount was to keep the moral up in England. This was because if soldiers wife’s and families started hearing terrible stories about millions of men being killed and hearing about the terrible conditions the men had to live in they would become very upset, depressed and worried that there brave husband, son etc has died. And if this did happen it could have maybe had an effect on all the working women in England and they might stop going to work in the Ammunitions Factories imparticular. Then there would be not enough bullets and shells being produced for the army so then they wouldn’t be able to put up a fight against the Germans and could lose the war. Also the same things could have happened in other industries. It also could have had an effect on the men in England who haven’t joined up for the army, because if stories leaked out men who were considering joining up may find out the truth about what it is all about. They then might realise that it is not as good as it looks like on all the posters. They might realise that is the total opposite. This would then make the men not join up for the army and then there would be a shortage in troops.
The main reason for them only letting them write a certain amount was to keep up the moral of the British public.
Q5. As I already know sources F and G do match because as it already says they have the same publishing dates and they have both been published by the same people, the British Government. It was also published in the same paper, the Daily Mail. Another reason to how they mach is both the sources are about the East Surrey Regiment and how brave and almighty they were. Also both the sources have a connection with football because as you can see if you look at source F. You can see the brave looking Surrey Regiment standing proud and you can see if you look carefully some little footballs are being kicked along by the men. If you read source G it tells a poem about how brave and skilful the soldiers of the surrey regiment were and that they supposedly kicked 4 footballs for a mile into the German trenches whilst fighting. The impression that these source give you is very positive towards the British army and when published in the paper in July 1916 it would have made the British public again think that we were winning the war easily. These sources again were to keep the moral up in the people still at home in Britain. It also could have been use again to make men join up for the British Army because they could have seen the photos and pictures in the paper and thought to themselves that they could be out there fighting with their own regiment and becoming a hero. The British government intentionally did it make the army look good, as I already know that they owned what was published in the British newspapers at that time. This comes to the conclusion why sources F or G were not matched with source H. The reasons why source H was not matched with them was it was written over 60 years after the first day of the battle of the Somme by Mr B.A. Steward. This man was actually fighting in the Somme and he wrote the source from a first-hand account. Maybe the purpose for him writhing the source was so he made a realistic point of view of what happened instead of all the lies and cover up stories the that Government made up. Also another reason for source H not matching with sources F or G is it gives a negative but more realistic account of the war and the British army.
Q6. Source I is like many other sources, for example sources F and G. It gives a positive image towards the British army, it shows some soldiers laughing having a good time and they all look to be clean and healthy. Also in the picture it doesn’t look like there is any sign of war fighting or even any sign of dead bodies in fact the environment looks quite relaxing and peaceful. Even though this poster seems to be the exact opposite of life in the trenches it still does have a different prepossess. One is very simple it is to make men join up for the British army. It does this by it making men think that the British army looks just as it does on the picture. Even though the Government already knows it is not all-nice and peaceful, they know that it is the exact opposite but they still lie and publish the posters to trick men into joining up because the British army desperately needed troops. Another reason for the Government publishing this advertisement was again to keep up the moral of the British people in the United Kingdom. Source J is a very different account of life in the trenches it is memories of an infantry officer Siegfried Sassoon. It tells a quiet gory account of life in the trenches and in some ways it is quite stomach churning. I personally think that Siegfried Sassoon has exadurated his memories quiet alot seen as though after the war his experiences turned him against war. I think that he wrote his account worse than it actually was because he maybe wanted people to think and never wanted to experience war ever again. To round up how these sources are different is. Source I gives a positive account of life in the trenches because it was published, or provoked to be published in the way it is by the how the British Government wanted it to be published. And source J gives a negative but I think more believable account of life in the trenches because it was wrote by a man who took part in the war. But is maybe bias because he didn’t believe in any kind of war at all after his experiences of the war and fighting in it.
Q7a. I think sources E, F and G are not a very reliable account of life in the trenches. I think this because all three of them were obviously published by the British Government to help keep up the moral of all the British public in the United Kingdom. This was the main reason for source E, to stop stories from leaking out to the British public. If letters were sent home which expressed how awful the conditions were in the trenches the moral would drop in England and people would stop work and so on. The main reasons for source F and G were again to keep up the moral but to make the British armies look good and that they were easily winning the war. Because again if the British public started hearing stories that the British army were getting beat the moral would again drop and the same things would happen like if letters were sent home. Also I think both of these source tremendously lack in realism because as if some supposed brave soldiers from Surrey are going to kick 4 footballs into enemy trenches whilst fighting and killing Germans and basically some- how having fun. I think these sources misled the British public a lot but it was for the good of our country so it would carry on with all the important things needed to be done whilst a lot of the men in Britain were at war. Still in some ways these sources could have been useful by it shows at that time that the British government were lying to the public to try and keep the moral up so Britain would keep on fighting for their own good.
Q7b.The sources H and J could have been quit reliable in a way. They seem quit a lot more realistic than say sources F G. and I for example we know that trenches are not exactly a nice environment. In fact they were horrid and discussing. We also know that WW1 was not exactly a nice time. In fact it was a very tragic time for everybody as the sources H and J are trying to explain. But in a lot of ways both these sources are very problematic, because remembering they are both wrote by memory so parts of it could have been made up or exaggerated. For example lets start with source H. In this source it specifically says that the Author Mr B.A. Steward who was in the battle of the Somme. Said that basically on his own he supposedly captured a large piece of land called High Wood. It might be true I don’t know but he could have written it to make it look like he was a sort of hero or something. Another way why it could have been problematic could have been that it was wrote over 60 years later from the first day of the battle of the Somme and I think that is a very long time to remember things by. After studying source I, I found out that maybe it could have been exaggerated by the author Mr Siegfrie Sassoon. Because after his experience from being in the army it turned him totally against all war. So maybe he is trying to make the readers of his memoirs also turn against war and so they ralise how horrible war actually is. This is why I think he has made the accounts of war sound as gory as possible so then the readers would be sickened by the word war. So to sum it up I think sources H and J could have been reliable to what life was in the trenches. But they seem to problematic because they were both an opinion of just one man but I do think they seem to be more reliable than the posters, photos etc what the British government published at the time of the war.
Q8. I think the British Government did do everything they could to mislead the British people, but I also think it was for the good of all Britain during the war. It was good for Britain because if bad stories were being published in the paper or bad stories were going home to families i.e. the purpose of source E to stop families hearing bad stories and becoming upset so the moral would drop which would be bad for the British community. This was probably the main reason for the entire source to keep up the moral in Britain. The source I think which mostly misleads the British people to believe that life was good in the trenches source I. The purpose for source I is to again keep up the moral in Britain and to also recruit more men for the British army. Men would first see the advertisement and think to themselves that the army looks like a good live style because the environment looks nice the men look especially clean and healthy. The men would think that if that were what it’s like on the picture then that is what it must be like it. So the men would then join up for the army and find out that is very different to the posters, advertisements and things that they have see written about the war and then they would have been trapped in the army for a few years. This is what happened to millions of men joining up as you can see in source D because more than likely they all might be joining because of all the posters advertisements and things they have seen about the war. So all these sources like I f and g was I think nothing like the image of what life was like in the war or in the trenches so they were unreliable but they were reliable in the sense that what the government was telling the British public lies. Also notice like in sources which weren’t published by the government e.g. source j and h seem to give a more realistic impression of what live was like in both war and in the trenches. As again the main reason for the government misleading the British public on purpose was to keep the moral up in Britain and I think it was a vital point of our victory in the war.
Q9. The sources would be quit a lot different because first of all the historian writhing in 1918 would have a lot more access to reliability. Seen as thought it was 1918 and the war is over. Censorship wouldn’t have been needed because all the soldiers who were fighting have now returned back home therefore would be able to tell true stories of what happened and would have been able to tell a very good account of what the trenches were really like. Also censorship wouldn’t have needed to be used because if we have won the war then there would be no need to lie to the public because everything is now over and done with. This is why both the historians’ answers will be very different. The historian who is writhing before 1918 lets say about 1915 would only have sources for example like sources I, F and G to work with and plus he or she will be working under the rules and laws of censorship. I think the historian writhing before 1915 would have an answer like. “The British were obviously winning the war easily by this time and the boys fighting are having a great time and basically relaxing in their trenches in the beautiful countryside and standing almighty against German scum”. The historian writhing in 1918 would have an answer which would resemble sources H and J. It would be quite a realistic account of life I the and trenches the historian would have a lot of things to back his or her answer with like memoirs from soldiers. Also the historian maybe could have maybe interviewed some of the brave survivors of the Great War. So as you can see the historian writhing in 1918 would have had an all round clearer image of WW1. Mainly because of one main reason censorship was now not a law so newspapers could now print about things freely and so all the time he or she would be gaining more and more evidence to back his or hers answer up with to make there answer better.
By Ryan Dench
10PDU.
10Pdu.