However, the photograph is not conclusive and we are not given any clear facts about it. Although these men may look as if they are voluntarily recruiting, they may in fact be there for some other purpose. For example they could be demonstrating, watching a parade or queuing for some other reason. Also this is not a totally reliable source as a photograph can be posed for and may therefore give a false impression. The photograph is not dated and therefore it could have been taken after 1916 when conscription was introduced. If the photo was taken after 1916 then this shows that the propaganda in sources A and B did not work. This is conclusive evidence that a photo cannot prove an event.
- The government issued postcards like the one shown in source E for a number of reasons. Firstly, they wanted to keep the reality of the trenches from the British public as they wanted morale to remain high. If soldiers were to write any personal information then there was a distinct possibility that secret military plans could be leaked and end up in the enemies hands. The postcards were cheap and efficient and because of the structure of them, they were easy to forge. From a soldier’s point of view, some people may have had literacy problems so this type of card was easy for them.
5) Even if we didn’t know the dates of sources F and G we would still be able to tell that they appeared together and not with source H. To begin with, both sources F and G are about ‘the Surreys’ or the East Surrey regiment dribbling a football across no mans land. Source H, however was written 60 years later by a soldier who was actually there and gives a very different account. Nevertheless as this source was written 60 years later senility might have set in and he may not have a totally clear memory. Because of this, he may exaggerate the fear more than the glory. The whole attitude of the sources are also different. Sources F and G are very patriotic and are propaganda for the British people. The public look up to these brave people who, with “the fear of death before them” are still “true to the land that bore them”. Source F further backs this up with a picture of these heroes in action. It is a picture though and is not therefore totally reliable as a picture is drawn with bias by the artist. However, it is still propaganda unlike source H which is a clear and graphic first-hand account of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. As propaganda was used a lot in 1916 it would be a fair bet that sources F and G were published in 1916.
6) The main reason that source I and source J give such different impressions of conditions is that they are for different purposes.
Source I is a marketing campaign for ‘Golden Dawn’ cigarettes. These cigarettes would have been sold in Britain. The idea behind this campaign is that people will see the nationalistic picture of their countries brave men and will want to be like them and therefore want to purchase the cigarettes. The cigarettes are being sold by the public’s sense of pride.
Source J however, is written 10 years after the war by an infantry officer who was involved in many battles. Because of this and the fact that the language he employs is emotive and poetic the image of war may be depicted with more horror and description. As Siegfried Sassoon, who writes the passage, strongly detests war, the passage will be highly bias.
All together, the two sources give different impressions of what the conditions of the trenches are like because they were used for different purposes: source I used the nations patriotism to sell a product, whereas source J describes the conditions of the trenches so horribly because the writer hates war and wants other people to be shocked into hating it too.
7a) Sources E, F and G are not at all reliable as they purposefully give people at home the wrong impression of what life in the trenches was like.
Source E shows a postcard that soldiers were allowed to send home to family and friends. It is very restrictive in what they can say, with it in fact being more of a multiple choice type card. This would have been because the British government did not want anyone at home to know the true reality of the conditions in the trenches, in order to maintain high spirits.
The same is true of source F. The picture shows the East Surrey Regiment playing football in No Mans land. This could not be further from the truth, yet people at home would believe it. This proves that a picture is totally unreliable as it can be drawn to show something fictional but believable. This picture was issued so that people at home would think that the war was being won easily.
Source G is a very nationalistic poem referring to source F. This poem would not only fill the public with pride but would further back up the picture in source F, making people believe what the government wanted them to believe.
All the sourcesare clear bias and only highlight the good points of war and gives it a good impression. This would be all the public wanted to hear, so the majority would believe it. Therefore these sources are not reliable as they were designed only to keep the spirits of the people high, even if this meant blatantly lying to people. We also know that the first day of the Battle of the Somme saw the worst losses of men in British military history, with some 55,000 men being killed or injured. Therefore sources E, F and G cannot be seen as being reliable.
7b) Source H is written 60 years after the war. Because of this, the author’s recollection may not have been what it used to be and he may either forget or exaggerate different points. For example he says that he “had captured High Wood almost by myself.” It would be highly unlikely that it would be possible for him to do this. This shows that the source is not entirely trustworthy. However, it is a descriptive, first-hand account, which makes it quite believable.
Source J, on the other hand was written about 10 years after the war and is clearly bias. He will not have forgotten the horror of war quit so easily and may depict this vividly. Like source H, it is also descriptive. However, the language is poetic and may have a hidden, personal meaning. Therefore this source is useful but has flaws.
The two sources are fairly reliable as they are good, descriptive accounts of war in the trenches. On the other hand, they are written quite some time after the war so accuracy could have been forgotten or the story may have been twisted. They are bias of the bad points of war as the horror will be more vivid in their minds than anything good about the war.
- I agree with the statement “The British Government did everything it could to mislead the British people about what it was really like in the trenches.” From the sources shown, I believe that, for the public’s welfare and to keep moral high, the Government deliberately avoided telling people the reality of war.
Sources A, B and C, are clear propaganda, by using either emotional blackmail or by making war seem glamorous to encourage people to fight. These sources are good because they have been published by British and American governments at the time. Therefore these are perfect examples of how the government misled the public about the conditions of the trenches. Source A is a picture of a man smiling and telling you to go to war, as it was fun. This could not be further from the truth.
Source E shows s postcard that soldiers were allowed to send home to family and friends. The postcards are highly confining in what the soldiers may say. This shows that the government would not allow people at home to know the reality of the trenches.
Sources F and G are newspaper articles produced in 1916. They both depict the East Surrey Regiment on the first day at the Battle of the Somme. Source F is a picture of the soldiers ‘going over the top’ whilst dribbling a football. As the Battle of the Somme was the worst day in British military history, it is highly unlikely that it would be possible to play with a football in such a fierce fight. As pictures are unreliable, source G would back up the theory that our soldiers were winning the war easily, shown in source F. Source G is a poem, which many people would not understand but would still lead them to believe that the conditions of the trenches were good.
Source I is an advertisement for ‘Golden Dawn cigarettes’. It shows a heroic soldier at battle, who many people at home would aspire to be like. The soldier is shown to be happy with his present conditions. I think that with so many people around him dying, he would be far from happy. Behind him there are more people fighting out of a nice, clean and tidy trench, when the reality is that the trenches were usually muddy, dirty and waterlogged. The public were lead to believe that the war was easy and that the soldiers did not fear dying for their country.
Sources H and J however, are written accounts of soldiers who fought in the war. They clearly highlight the horrors and the probable realism of the war more than the glory. Because these accounts are so descriptive it would seem that they are more realistic and reliable. However, they are written quite some years after the war so all the facts may have been forgotten or ‘twisted’.
The government would not let the public know the reality of war and would only give them exaggerated good points and no bad points to keep moral high. That is why I agree with the statement: “The British government did everything it could to mislead the British public about what it was really like in the trenches.”
- I believe that a historian writing about the trenches in 1918 would have produced a different account to a historian writing on the same topic today.
Sources A, B and C all give the impression that war was a good thing. Source E shows all the reality of war a historian at that time would have to go on. Articles in the newspaper, shown in sources F and G are all a historian would have to write about. These articles are of course not giving the whole picture and exaggerating the good points.
Sources H and J are real accounts of what war was actually like. However these were written many years after the war and would therefore be no use to a historian in 1918.
As the press were not allowed to print any article on the reality of war such as ‘Dulce et Decorum est’ by Wilfred Owen, and the government were misleading everyone, a historian in 1918 would have as much genuine information as the public, which is not a lot. Because of this, a historian writing today, who had all the information, would write a different account to a historian writing in 1918 who had inaccurate information.
