Q5 STUDY SOURCE F, G & H
If you did not know the dates of sources F & H, how else would you be able to work out that source F and not source H, appeared with source G in British newspapers in July 1916.
You would not know that source F and not source H, was in the paper of source G, because the dates on the sources are both in July 1916, and they both talk about the “Surreys” playing football. Source F & G showed that they were having fun (playing football), and so it raised the morale of the people back at home. Censorship of all publications meant that no details of the war were allowed to be published, this meant that publications like source F & G were welcomed as morale boosters, this indicates that it was written during the war, and during censorship. Source H was much more truthful and when you were out at war you were not allowed to send this kind of thing home, there were two different impressions of the war from three sources, H being a bad impression. Source H uses the past tense which indicates that it has been written after the war. As I said earlier, this kind of information would not have been allowed to be sent home. There is more evidence to back up this point. Source H told the truth and described what really happened and what it was really like. A few years after the war ended, censorship was lifted, so writers had the freedom to write as they wanted. One of the reason that F & G were written, were to boost morale of the people back home, and to give the impression that war is fun and easy not dangerous at all, to get people to volunteer.
Q6 STUDY SOURCES I & J
Suggest possible reasons why these two sources give different impressions of conditions in the trenches. Explain your answer.
There are many possibilities as to why these two sources give two different conditions in the trenches. Source I is very laid back, showing four men taking time out to smoke. It is an advert for Mitchell’s and is advertising Golden Dawn cigarettes. Source I also shows how comfortable it is. It is promoting machoism. Source I is also an advert which is trying to sell a product in the most effective way. As source I was published during censorship, it was not allowed to show any details, but even if censorship did not exist in that time, The Company Mitchell would not dream of showing the true conditions, as the people would not buy the cigarettes. The person who drew this advert probably was not in the trenches. Censorship of all published material meant that other published adverts like Source I was probably exagerated.
Source J tells about the terrible conditions in the trenches. Siegfried Sassoon fought in the trenches but soon after World War One, he turned completely against war. The account of what happened may have been written under no censorship, and Sassoon may have been there, but it is still not 100 % reliable, because of his hatred of the war.
Q7(a) STUDY SOURCES E, F & G
These three sources were written long after the war. How reliable
are they as evidence of what it was like in the trenches? Use the sources and your own knowledge of the First World War to
explain your answer.
I think that sources E F & G are unreliable in many ways. When these three sources were written censorship was in place which stopped anything being put in newspapers or on billboards, which might lower morale. Nothing in newspapers or in letters from soldiers that were sent home, gave a clear picture of the horrors of the trenches. Even if they had been allowed to, no journalist would have a clear picture of life in the trenches, because none of them had first hand experience.
Source E is a postcard, the type of which would have been used by soldiers to send home. It has straight unclear sentences on it. The soldiers were only allowed to mark the date and add their signature, or the card would have been destroyed.
Source F is a drawing of soldiers playing football in the trenches. ‘The Surreys play the game’ appeared in British newspapers in July 1916. The source is very unreliable because it is doubtful that football would be played in the trenches, on the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Source G is also about the East Surrey regiment playing football during the Battle of the Somme. But this time it is a poem which again appeared in July 1916. The unlikely case of four footballs being dribbled for a mile and a quarter is shadowing all the sources.
There is some level of reliability because they were all written during the war. On the other hand, there is more evidence to say that source F & G have been exagerated as they appeared in British newspapers just to boost morale.
Q7(b) STUDY SOURCES H & J
These two sources were written long after the war. How reliable are they as to what it was like in the trenches. Use the sources and your own knowledge of the First World War to explain your answer.
Sources H & J were written by soldiers who had had first hand experience and gave first hand accounts, both are fairly unreliable.
Source H was written by B. A. Steward, over 60 years after the war. Which means it cannot be 100% accurate. After 60 years, the writer is bound to exaggerate or change what has happened. If he had written after 60 years he must have been at least 75 years old when he wrote the account, and at that age the mind plays tricks. The main purpose of source H was to sell books and to sell books, they have to dramatic and interesting. Which may have urged him into exaggerating. In 1976, when he wrote the source, there were very few people to argue with what he said. This meant that he could exaggerate even more on top of the other evidence, which was already dramatised.
Source J was written several years after the war, by Siegfried Sassoon. He gave a first hand account of the trenches in his memoirs, but his previous experience in the trenches, had turned him completely against war. As he was against war, he may have exagerated to make the conditions sound worse than they were.
Sources H & J were very different and also very similar. The difference being when they were written, and the similarity being why they were written. Again, as they were written for books, they would have been exaggerated. These two men fought in different parts of the trenches, at different times, and in different situations. Which means that they cannot both be put forward as evidence together.
Q8 ‘The British government did everything it could to mislead the British people about what it was really like in the trenches.’ How far do the sources and your knowledge of the period support this interpretation?
The government, throughout the First World War, tried to censor everything that appeared in public about the trenches. There were limitations on all publications, including newspapers and bill boards. There were also big limits on what could be sent home, from the trenches.
Sources A, B & C are all recruitment posters and so they did not really hide anything about the trenches, but they also gave no details away.
Source D is a photograph of the new recruits waiting for their pay in London. Having a photograph like this one was welcomed as it highered morale because the families of soldiers may have thought that they had survived the trenches and were collecting their pay.
Source E is an actual postcard which was used by the soldiers during World War One. The postcard was highly censored and left no room for details. On the postcard there were dates and a signature to fill in, and it would have been destroyed if anything else had been added. The postcard left no choice but to leave ‘I am quite well’, which then sent the message home, that the soldiers were OK.
Source F is a drawing of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. It appeared in British newspapers in 1916. It shows a load of fully armed soldiers playing football. It looks , to the British people who see it, that the British are winning and that it is very easy, and that they are having fun.
Source G also follows the drawing in source F, of the ‘Surreys’ playing football. It is a poem about them playing the game. This source is also heavily censored as it is extremely unlikely that the Surreys would be playing football. This source was also used for lifting morale.
Source H is a first hand account of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. It was written by B.A.Steward, over 60 years after the war. As this source was not written during the war, the government could not do anything to censor it and therefore the government could not mislead the British people.
Source I is an advertisement poster, of which was advertised during World War One. This poster shows four soldiers smoking Mitchell’s Golden Dawn cigarettes. This poster was printed during censorship , so no details would have got home.
Source J was written by Seigfried Sassoon, who , after fighting in the trenches, turned against war. The source talks about Sassoons experiences in the trenches. This source was written in the late 1920’s and so censorship would not have applied. If censorship had applied none of Sassoons points would have been made.
Q9 Would a historian writing about the trenches in 1918 have been likely to have produced a different account of what conditions were like from a historian writing much later? Use the sources and your own knowledge of the period to help explain your answer.
Yes, I think that a historian writing in 1918, and a historian writing much later would produce different accounts, for many reasons.
Just after the war, the censorship of a publications was partially still in place. The government wanted to protect the British people from all the details and conditions further still, as emotions were probably running high, and the soldiers probably would not want to se what they had been seeing for the last 3-4 years again. If the government wished too they, could keep some of the documents and secrets of the war safe, for 80 years, until 1998, under the Official Secrets Act.
The British people may not want to hear about the trenches, especially after 4 years, they may be tired of the countless accounts the newspapers and all the details may bring emotion, because World War 1 was fresh in their minds.
The writer in 1918, would be at another disadvantage to the later historian, no pictures would be available to them, as it was a short time between the end of the war and then, even if they were available, as I said earlier, the government would have probably kept some to protect the British people from the horrific conditions.
If the writer in 1918 was British he may be one-sided, or bias for his own country, as he would have fresh memories of the German enemy.
The historian writing later would have an advantage over the historian in 1918, for many reasons, but he is disadvantaged.
Censorship was lifted, and publications could show the details of the war, and statistics for number of dead etc. would have been released. Other things like source E, the postcard used by soldiers in the war would also be published, to show what was allowed to be sent home, for those who did not see it.
The later historian would not be bias or one-sided, because he would have taken evidence and views from both sides, and collected it all together, writing a fair account, which does both sides justice. This is something that maybe the earlier historian would not have done, because of the fresh World War 1 memories, the 1918 historian may make Britain and the USA sound faultless and ‘perfect.’
The are some negative points to writing later. There would have been few first hand account from soldiers and families, and and if the government did decide to keep some documents until 1998 under the Official Secrets Act. If there were some first hand accounts from ex-soldiers, they would probably been very old, and their mind may have played tricks on them, and they may forget or exaggerate what they say, for example, in Source J, Siegfried Sassoon wrote about his experiences in the trenches, but he turned all against war, which made him one sided, and his account, is not 100% reliable.