2. Study Source C.
Is it likely to give an accurate impression of how soldiers in the trenches viewed
their commanders ?
Explain your answer using Source C and your own knowledge.
Source C is a poem written in 1917 by Seigfried Sassoon an infantry officer during the First World War. This poem shows Sassoon's point of view, he is not actually a soldier but a infantry officer and in this poem he comments on how he thinks foot soldier's view their senior officers and also how senior officers view their foot soldiers. Sassoon is writing this poem from a negative point of view and picks out the worst points of the war because he personally dislikes the war the leadership and the tactics. This source may not give an accurate impression of the soldier’s attitudes because Sassoon is not one of them and he may not know their views. However, the source does suggest what the soldiers thought of the general,
'Good morning, good morning! the General said.......the soldiers he smiled at are most of'em dead....."He's a cheery old card", grunted Harry to Jack'
the poem shows us that the soldiers always viewed their senior officers as cheerful whenever they visited the trenches to inspect them. This is probably true because the senior officers would be likely to be cheerful when they visited the trenches because it would greatly boost the moral of the soldiers to see a optimistic general smiling and happy than a pessimistic glum general around the trenches. However, its also seems likely that the soldiers were being sarcastic when he uses the words cheery old card, a sarcasm of the soldiers that Sassoon has reproduced in his poem. The poem also shows the other side of the soldier’s view of their general. The sources questions soldiers’ loyalty to the general and whether he is a respected figure of authority to the soldiers,
'we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.....But he did for them both with his plan of attack.'
there is evidence to show that this is true: The lack of respect for the general’s lead to mutinies in late 1917 after the Nivelles Offensive (the allied plan to get the Germans out of France). By using this line in his poem we can also see that he is critical and challenges Haig’s tactics. In his poem Sassoon is trying to understand and display the attitudes of soldiers to their commander and via versa. It is more likely that the soldiers respected infantry officers or soldiers that had become renown as heroes for fighting in the trenches than their generals. In this poem Sassoon is trying to understand and display the attitudes of soldier to commander and vice-versa. An infantry officer is halfway between the foot soldiers and a general, Sassoon doesn’t belong to either group. Sassoon comes from a middle-class and he uses middle class language, which is right for an infantry officer the class that he is from.
It is likely that Sassoon has a good opinion of both the general and soldier’s views because he has had experience with both of them. It also seems likely that Sassoon is more experienced in various aspects than both the general and foot-soldiers, e.g. Sassoon has had a first hand experience of the trenches whereas the generals have not. However, this source could be inaccurate. It’s inaccuracy stems from the fact due to Sassoon’s use of poetic license. In doing so he may have exaggerated on the truth of the opinions held by the generals and foot soldiers. There is no way to tell if this is true and because of this the source is less accurate.
3. Study Source D and E. Both were written by historians but they give different interpretations of Haig's qualities as a commander.
Why do you think their interpretations are so different ? Explain your answer using Sources D and E and your own knowledge.
Sources D and E are very similar in various ways. One example of these sources similarity is that they are both written around the same time, Source D in 1989 and Source E in 1991, therefore they are both secondary sources. Usually if there are different interpretations between sources its due to obviously discernable reasons. However, because these sources are similar we need to look at them in more depth to find the reason for different interpretations.
The main reason for these two sources difference are that each book has a different author and therefore a different perspective and interpretation. There is also another possible reason for the different interpretations. Although the sources were only written two years apart it could be that Source E (1991) was written to address the negative comments that were made about Haig in Source D (the earlier of the two written in 1989).
Source D is an extract from a book entitled 'Great Battles of World War 1' and it studies and considers the major battles throughout the WW1 period. Source D comments and also compares a number of battle leaders as well as key battles. Source E is an extract from a book called 'Field Marshall Haig' and is probably a biography of Haig's life. Its now clear why each source has a different interpretation. Source D shows Haig’s personality and comes out with negative points. It writes critically of Haig's tactics,
' this inability to recognise defeat that led to his continuing attacks on the Somme and Paschendaele.'
it questions his ability as an army general. It is also highly critical of Haig's tactics. However, Source E is the opposite, it shows Haig’s actions and comes out with positive points that support Haig and his actions. Although Source E acknowledges that Haig's tactics weren't completely successful and did led to lose of life it claims that there were no other tactics at the time. Source E generally has a more positive tone about Haig,
'test of a successful general is whether or not he wins wars, then Haig must be judged a success.'
although source E claims that no other tactics were used or worked at the time, Source D opposes this and states that other tactics were available. It is true that other tactics were available, however, they haven't been suggested until after the war,
'Haig could have attack without bombardments, which always warned the Germans that an attack was coming and took away the surprise.
The British navy could have been used to bomb the Germans from the West and Haig could have attacked the Germans' west flank close to the cost of Belgium.
When he realised the full-frontal attack were not breaking through, he could have stopped them. The Germans' advance had already been halted.'
these are just some of alternative tactics suggested later on. They were developed in more recent years by historians.
Therefore the different interpretations of Haig as a military commander in Source D and E are due to different to perspectives held by the two authors, but why did each author have a different perspective? Livesy (author of Source D) probably did much research (from various sources) into the battles that occurred during the WW1 period. Therefore his conclusion (he was against Haig) was probably far better than Warner's because he made it from a well-researched broad view. Warner wrote from a biographer’s point of view, this would mean that he would be slightly biased towards Haig. Secondly Warner, who was supporting Haig's decisions, seems to have made his statement from a less detailed and researched view, this is probably true because in the extract Warner claims that there were no alternative tactics, however, we have shown above that there were in fact a number of feasible alternative tactics but it was just that Haig didn't think about them.
4. Source F is only an advertisement for cigarettes and therefore is of little use as evidence about the war on the Western Front.
Do you agree or disagree ? Explain your answer.
Although this is only a cigarette advert it doesn't necessarily mean that it is completely useless. This source can provide certain vital pieces of information that could be very useful, therefore I disagree with the statement that this source can't give us any information about the war on the Western Front. However, although this source does have positive qualities it also has limitations to it i.e. in some areas in the advert are not accurate.
There are a number of positive and informative qualities in this source. One of these is that it depicts what the trenches may have been like on the Western Front. The source shows the artillery guns in the background, it shows what the trenches would have been like and it also shows the kind of clothes and uniform that the soldiers would have worn. The source shows us that soldiers on the Western Front would smoke cigarettes (many of them did it as something to do). The source also shows the soldiers as heroes, they're laughing and talking amongst themselves. It also shows us the mood of 1915, it shows us the hopefulness (because of the smiles on their faces) it shows us their hopes of future glory and of the possibility of winning the war. But, this picture of trench warfare is not completely correct. It depicts a scene that would have glamorised the life and war in the trenches in 1915, when this poster was produced (at the beginning of the war) less was known about trench life and the hero's of war than in later years.
Although there are a number of positive qualities in this source we mustn’t forget the limitations and unrealistic points of it. The source is not very practical and realistic in a number of points. One of these is that the man at the front of the trench is standing above the trenches, this would not have been possible in some areas of the Western Front because he would have been shot down. There is also the fact of the smiles on their faces, in this source there is no suggestion of fear or that the soldiers are used to dreary boring routines. This element suggests that soldiers were not very always active and they had time 'to while away their hours', this was true to some extent but the majority of the soldiers busied themselves with some sort of task e.g. cleaning their boots or weapons and there were many other things they did to keep themselves busy, therefore this element of the source is inaccurate. The closeness of the artillery in the picture suggests that this is the front line. The problem with this is that the trench would be right next to no-mans land, but there is no evidence to show this is true. E.g. there is no barbed wire, no shell-holes and the picture doesn't show the mud that was experienced at the front line (Source G describes the true horror of the mud, lice, rats etc. and that it was a terrible part of the front-line that isn't depicted in this poster).
Perhaps the advertisers did think the picture that they had shown was a 'true-trench' picture at that trench-life was easy. This could be true because it was only 1915 an early point in the war and not much was known about trench-life. And even if the advertisers did know the truth about the war they would not be able to show it because of censorship and DORA (Defence Of the Realm Act) that disallowed the horrors of the war to be shown to the British public. Personally I'm more inclined to believe that the advertisers knew the truth but wanted to show this picture. The picture that they have depicted is very patriotic, it shows them talking and laughing amongst themselves, they act like hero's, the front man is standing defiantly above the trenches in a saluting position and the phrase 'Time for one more' (before and attack) shows that they're not afraid of it but are anticipating it and ready for it. The name also provides evidence to show this is true, the name of the cigarettes is ‘Golden Dawn’, the business is using and exploiting the war to sell their products. The name appeals to men who would want to identify with soldiers on the Western Front. It also indicates fighting at first-light and at dawn, as if the public who bought the cigarettes could be ‘Golden Boys’ as well. I believe that this advert was designed in this way a more patriotic advert like this one would sell far better than an advert that showed true trench-life with a man with his leg shot of.
5. Study all the sources.
Do these sources help you to understand why the First World War lasted so long ?
Explain your answer using all the sources and your own knowledge.
The overall answer to this question is that yes the sources do help you to understand why the First World War lasted so long. There are a number of reasons that can be concluded from various sources as to why the First World War lasted long and each of the sources supports the reason concluded from it with evidence to back it up.
During the WWII Britain clearly had the edge technologically in the air with their faster and more manoeuvrable Spitfire fighters and this is what led to them overcoming Germany in the air. Whereas in WWI it was the opposite, neither side was much further technologically advanced than the other. This meant that neither side could easily defeat the other and the main tactic that had to be used was that of attrition. This led to a long lasting war that was fought in trenches on the Western Front. Sources A, B and G support this statement and provide evidence to prove it is true. Source A and B both refer to the artillery bombardments (that both sides used) and their successfulness. These sources showed that artillery bombardment could be successful and but Source B shows that artillery could not work, therefore although artillery was powerful weapon the fact that both sides used it and it was highly unreliable neither side could win the war via the use of artillery. Source G shows how the conditions also combined with technology lengthened the war. Source G talks about the mud and it made it very difficult for soldiers to physically fight in their best way possible i.e. neither sides had technologically advanced far enough to find a way of dealing with mud successfully,
'Many men got trench foot - their legs swelled up so badly that they'd scream......It was kind of gangrene, I think.'
because of these problems many soldiers found it impossible to fight.
Another reason as to why the war lasted so long is because of the stalemate due to the trenches and the tactics that were used to fight in the war. Source D and E provide evidence to indicate that this was true. Sources D and E both discuss the tactics used by General Haig. Source D claims that his tactics failed and Source E supports his tactics and methods claiming there were no others. More importantly is why his tactics didn't work, the trench system ensured that they were easily defended but not easily attacked this meant that each side could hold out against the other for a long time but they couldn't defeat each other. Most attacks failed due to the use of the of the machine gun on the Western Front. The failing of the attacks meant that neither side got anywhere and this led to stalemate, Haig's tactics didn't help either. By using the same method of attack and not developing new tactics Haig ensured that the stalemate was kept on the Western Front.
The final reason why the war lasted so long was the effect of attrition on the Western Front and also that both sides had a large stock of weapons and men to fight. Source C the poem shows us that of the tactics of attrition which led to many deaths
'Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of em dead,'
it also shows us that there was a non-ending supply of more soldiers coming in to fight for the allied side. Source E talks about Haig's tactics of attrition, Haig's tactics of attrition involved sending men over the top so that the enemy supplies of shells and weapons would be run down by having to use them to kill he allied soldiers. Haig's method of attrition ensured that the war would last a long time because different tactics were not used, also each side had a huge supply of weapons and men so even though Haig's method of attrition did work it was hardly effective until later on in the war because the lose of supplies due to Haig's attrition tactics were nothing compared to the total amount of supplies each side owned. Therefore the only thing that Haig achieved by using his attrition tactics at the beginning of the war was to prolong it.
On a final point I have said all the good things about the sources that helped prove why the war lasted so long however I have not shown all the limiting factors which effect all of these sources. The first limitation is that the sources don't give the German viewpoints or German information (all the sources are taken from British books/soldiers). Another problem is that none of the sources mention the other fighting fronts, they only talk about the Western Front, e.g. the Eastern Front is not involved, the war in the air and the war at sea (including the naval blockades which from the allied point of view were very successful in cutting of the Germans supplies) are not discussed by any of the sources. A number of factors that are not discussed by this source are the events prior to the beginning of the war in 1914 that led to stalemate and a long lasting war. These include key events such as the failure of the Schlieffen Plan which meant that a fast moving war could not be fought and a trench war was the result, other similar key events such as the alliance system before the war were not taken into account by any of the sources. Therefore the general usefulness of these sources in answering this question is brought down quite a lot. In conclusion these source are all very helpful in showing us why the war lasted so long, however, we can also see that all these sources are limited just like any other source.