"Why did war on the Western Front last so long?"

Authors Avatar

Katie Whitehurst

Why did war on the Western Front last so long?”

  1. Study sources A and B

How far do sources A and B agree about conditions on No Man’s Land?

In Source A it shows a photograph of No Man’s Land. We can see no signs of life but we can infer that there must have been some at one time or another because of the masses of barbed wire and old tree stumps or wooden posts. Soldiers on the Western Front used barbed wire to make it harder for opposition soldiers to invade their trenches. The tree stumps/wooden posts could have been used to hold up the barbed wire or could have been trees that had been bombed. From the Source we can see that there is lots of mud and water. Mud and water were a big problem to soldiers in WWI. There was lots in the trenches, which as well as causing them to get all dirty, the result of having wet feet all the time allowed many soldiers to suffer from the condition ‘Trench Foot’, where the feet would be in total agony and would swell to 2 or 3 times the normal size. The mud would also make it even harder to cross No Man’s Land, as it would be all slippery.

In Source B it shows a British tank caught on German barbed wire on the Western Front. We can see from the tank that there was definitely life here, and that they tried to cross No Man’s Land with use of this tank. From this source we can add to our knowledge that No Man’s Land must have been really dangerous and very difficult to cross. We think this because if a tank has got stuck in the barbed wire, there would be hardly any chance that soldiers would be able to get across without getting stuck themselves. Apart from the obvious use of tanks, soldiers would use them to hide behind for protection and if a tank went before them it would make it easier to cross No Man’s Land because the tank would trample down some of the barbed wire. However we can’t be certain that the tank did get stuck amongst the barbed wire. Tanks were new technology for WWI and were introduced in 1916. They were highly unreliable and it could be entirely possible that the tank simply broke down.  

In conclusion Source A and Source B agree about the conditions because they give the impression that it’s hard to cross No Man’s Land because of the barbed wire.

However, the differences between the sources are that in Source B we see definite signs of life and an attempt to cross No Man’s Land, whereas in Source A there is no sign of life.

   

  1. Study Source C

Use your knowledge of the Western Front to explain why the Government encouraged advertisement like source C in Britain in 1915.

In 1915 there was no conscription- meaning that the government had to persuade young men to volunteer to join the forces. To do this the government used propaganda. In source C it shows a drawing of British soldiers in a trench to advertise cigarettes. However this image was far from correct. It shows an unrealistic picture of soldiers in a trench. Firstly, it is a sunny day, and we know that it was mostly rainy. Because of the wet conditions, the mud would make the soldiers very dirty, and they only had the one lot of uniform so all soldiers were very unclean and it was not uncommon to have lice in your uniform. However, in the source this shows all the soldiers in pristine uniform. Another problem caused by the mud is illness, in particular trench foot. In the image, there is no water or mud. There are also no bodies or rats, which is very unlikely. There were often dead bodies, particularly on No Mans’ Land, because it was too dangerous to collect them. There were lots of rats. They lived in the trenches and on No Mans’ Land. Rat bites would cause soldiers to get ‘Trench Fever’. The lack of food also caused health worries. In the source, the soldiers are smiling, when in reality it was a miserable existence. There is no barbed wire for protection, and it shows a man stood above the trench. This is unrealistic, as he would have been shot. On the source it says ‘Time for one more’ (cigarette). This gives the impression that they had lots of spare time, which wasn’t true. The very fact that they have cigarettes is slightly unrealistic, as they were a special privilege.  

The government used adverts like this to try and persuade men to volunteer for the army, because at this time conscription had not been introduced. Conscription- all men between 18 and 40 were called up for the army- was introduced in 1916 for a number of reasons. Firstly, the army needed more and more men as the casualties on the Western Front grew. Secondly, volunteering was deemed as unfair, and volunteering left some factories and mines short of staff, products from the factories and mines were essential, so better planning was needed. This advert was published in 1915, so men were still volunteering, and adverts like this were used to persuade them. If they saw this advert, the men would think that it doesn’t look too bad, and would sign up but when they got to the Western Front it would be a different picture completely. The men in the advert were seen as idols to aspire to because they’re so brave and good for serving their country. The cigarette company would use this to sell the cigarettes, it would make the men think ‘If I have the same cigarettes as the brave soldiers than maybe I will be like them’.

Adverts like this were used to keep people supporting the war. It would also keep the families of soldiers happy because by seeing this they would think their sons would be in no harm and might actually be enjoying it. Parents would be willing to send their sons if they saw this source.

  1. Study Source D and E

How far is the account in Source D supported by Source E?        

 

Source D was from Ferdinand Foch’s Memories, which were published in 1931. Ferdinand Foch was a French marshal in WWI, who eventually rose to ‘commander of the allied armies’ and became of the three most prominent men in France’s military plans. Foch was the brain behind Frances’ ‘Plan 17’. This plan was thought up a year before the war, in 1913. It was a strategic plan to invade Germany, and to regain Alsace-Lorraine, which was lost to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. Plan 17 ended up as a tremendous failure. In this source he discusses the problems with the allied forces.

Foch is generally negative about his plan and the army. He says that because they were on the ‘offensive’, this lead ‘too often to tactics that were blind and brutal, and for that reason very dangerous’. He is very critical of the tactics used saying ‘Many troops were put into action at once and were feebly supported by artillery fire’. Foch also says ‘they [allied soldiers] found themselves exposed and impotent in the face of fire poured upon them from every direction by invisible weapons’.

Join now!

We can imply from this source that Foch thinks that the tactics led to many deaths with no progress made. We know this was true when we look at something like the Battle of the Somme, where 20,000 Allied soldiers died in one day for not even a miles worth of enemy territory. We can also infer that Foch thought that the Allied forces were inferior to the opposition. Because they were told to ‘get forward quickly’ they were killed by Germany’s ‘invisible weapons’. We can think of different things from the phrase ‘invisible weapons’. This could be referring to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay