Britain and the First World War, 1914-1918 Sources Questions

of “pushes” on the German line couldn’t be included nor could stationing information. If the enemy got that sort of information they could target the weakest point of the line with ease. So maybe it wasn’t a case of deliberate censorship but that it was a preventative measure against enemy interception. There is certainly some evidence that point’s towards this. Source E for example. It is a field postcard, which allows minimal information. At the time the government declared that it was introduced to help the many illiterate soldiers write home. This was of course true but one suspects that the underlying reason was censorship of information. There were of course casualty lists published in the papers everyday. Although ended towards the end of the war, the move to include casualty lists in papers could be interpreted as a truthful gesture from the government. These lists were often accompanied by poems such as the one in source G glorifying war. But even source G has an element of truth about it. The obvious quote to pick out would be “where blood is poured like water.” But also “where gallant comrades fall”. But poems such as these never give any other detail apart from how brave the men where. They never explain that the men could have been blown to pieces by a shell blast. This was because of the censorship system and the aim to keep the morale of the country up. Source J is a very good indication as to whether or not the government was telling the whole truth or not. From the evidence provided from Seigfreid Sassoon, it points towards a definite no. All government propaganda tells of how glorious and triumphant the men’s deaths were or even how relaxed the trench life actually was as in the cigarette advert of source I. Source J is a very reliable source as it’s author, Sassoon, was actually there. His graphic depiction of the battlefield suggests heavily that the government did in fact mislead the people of Britain, And in a way quite rightly so. If information as in source J like, “the mask of a human face which had detached itself from the skull”, had got home riots would have erupted. That is why the government had to circulate pictures such as source F. The image promotes the bravery and camaraderie of the soldiers. Such things would have kept the soldiers morale up as well in such publications as “for king and country”. The government may have misled the public but it was the right thing to do. In the end it was the best option for everyone involved. 9) Historians will always interpret thins differently. It is the nature of the job. A lot depends on how they were brought up and what opinions they harbour. There is no one in this world that doesn’t have a prejudice of one kind. A historian writing about the trenches in 1918 would have maybe written a little differently. In 1918 propaganda and censorship would have had an enormous effect. If the historian wasn’t overtaken by the propaganda, the censorship programme would have heavily edited any accurate details of the trenches as long as those details were bad. Interviewing soldiers for correct information would have been very difficult. Many would still be traumatised and unwilling to talk. A lot of soldiers were guilty of self-censorship. Not only had the trauma of the event got to the soldiers but also they couldn’t bring themselves to let their families in on the real story of life in the trenches. Soldiers felt heavily distanced from their families on their return as it was without distancing them further with such a story. Many soldiers just wanted to forget and get on with their lives. Although around 1918 the government was starting to open up more about the truths of the war, it would still be very difficult for a historian to obtain very accurate details of the trenches. The country had to get back on its feet after the economically draining task of war. People needed to be encouraged to work not depressed by the reality of a war that had finished. As always it depends on the origin of the piece. Source H for example is a first hand account of the battle of the Somme. It is first hand because he was actually there. Sixty years later he has given an extremely detailed piece of writing of how his experience at the battle of the Somme. An historian on the other hand was more than likely never they’re relying only on the scraps of information being fed to him/her. Writing much later such as sources H and J are affected by hindsight. In 1918 emotions would still have been running high and in winning the war the historian may have been wearing rose tinted glasses. An historian writing much later would have more access to the facts of the event being covered. History reflects the time in which it is written. An historian writing in the aftermath of the first world war would give a very different view to a historian writing much later.