Overall, I would say the source A is the more reliable source. Although source A doesn’t give us all the information we need about artillery bombardment in world war 1, source A gives us more information about the period around 1916 and the Battle of the Somme.
Question 3
Sources D and E are classics interpretations of Haig as a commander in World War 1. Source D is suggesting that Haig cannot admit defeat, while Source E is telling us the Haig should only be judged by his successes as a military commander.
Source D is an extract about Haig from the book ‘Great battles of world war 1’ written by Anthony Livesey. Source E is an extract from the biography written by Haig, called ‘Field Marshall Haig’ written by Philip Warner. Although these two interpretations are written around the same time, they give two very different opinions about Haig for a number of different reasons.
Source D is taken from a book, which focuses on the great wars of World War 1, not the military commanders. In this source we find the Authors personal opinion on why Haig acted as he did. The source provides a very negative outlook on Haig. Since it only hints at the negative aspects of Haig’s character. The source refers to Haig as being ‘silent, humourless and reversed’. The author uses the fact that Haig couldn’t admit defeat, to account for the huge number of casualties suffered as the result of Haig’s method. In this source Haig is presented as the ‘butcher of the Somme’.
Source E is an extract taken from a biography written about Haig. This could mean that the views about Haig could be biased, as the source makes Haig look good. Also this source has a tone which could be seen as defensive.
Source E defends Haig by saying that Haig should be judged by his successes, not by his failures. The author defends Haig by saying his main aim was to win the war and causalities couldn’t be helped. The author defends Haig further by saying generals commonly used Haig’s tactics.
I think that these interpretations are so different because they reflect the author’s opinions.
In source E, The extract is taken from a biography written about Haig. For these reasons, the author would have probably spent years researching Haig and must have had a strong interest in him. This could have clouded his views when he wrote the biography.
With source D because the extract was taken from a book about great wars in World War 1, the author wouldn’t have been concentrating on Haig, therefore the author adopted a very tradition interpretation
of Haig at the villain at the ‘British’ Battle of the Somme
Question 4:
This source, source F, is an artist’s impression designed to sell cigarettes in Britain. The source could also have been used for propaganda purposes to persuade young men to enlist in the army. Since the soldiers in the picture are happy and smiling, it deliberately ignores the horrific side of trench warfare.
The advert gives an inaccurate impression of combat because the artist and the government wouldn’t have wanted young men to see the reality of war as this would have prevented their enlisting.
This particular advert shows young soldiers smiling, laughing and having a cigarette before going over the top. This is a totally false image. Although the men maybe smoking, they certainly wouldn’t be smiling or laughing as they contemplated the possibility of war.
In total, the source actually provides little accurate information about combat on the western front. We are only given limited information about uniforms, a basic trench, the Lee Enfield rifle and a vague reference to artillery in the background.
Source F fails to show us most of the important aspects of combat, such as the trench systems. These covered hundreds of kilometres, stretching from coast of Belgium to the boarder of Switzerland we are also told nothing about back -up trench systems and dead end trenches to confuse the enemy.
Another major point that we are not told about, is the awful conditions the soldiers would have to live in. The trenches were usually infested with rats, these rats usually feed off the dead bodies. Also in the hot weather the trenches would bake, and in the winter the water at bottom of the trenches would freeze.
Evidence from other sources, tells us that life in the trenches was very dangerous. Source F gives us no indication of this. Even when soldiers slept and ate, they were being shelled. As most of the bombing took place during the night, the soldiers would become very bored and restless during the day.
Their moods tended to change very suddenly and dramatically. Soldiers would become increasingly
worried as they waited to go over the top to their deaths.
The source also neglects to tell us anything about the preparations for attack and how they would use ground or aircraft reconnaissance. Snipers would have been used to kill soldiers if they looked over the trench wall. Also in the advert there is a man standing up in the trench, in reality this man would be shot dead on the spot.
We are not told about illnesses or injuries caused by trench warfare. For example a lot of soldiers would have suffered ‘shell shock’. They would have also suffered from things like blindness or loss of limbs.
Finally we are not told about what happened behind the lines. In many areas, makeshift trenches and dressing stations were set up. Also, there were a lot of soldiers and support workers who helped during the war.
Women also helped behind the lines, in Voluntary Aid Detachments (VAD) and the first-aid-nursing auxiliary (FANY). In 1917, a women's Army Auxiliary Corps was set up to cook and clean
This source doesn’t tell us anything about the reality of combat on the western front. It is most likely because that the advent would have been used to give a false image of war to the British public. Which helped to enlist more men into the army.
Question 5:
For source H we looked at a film called “all quiet on the western front”. This film interprets aspects of war on the western front, in a very detailed way. This source is a story about a group of German teenagers who enlist in the German army. This source has a lot of strengths and weaknesses with regard to war on the western front.
There are a number of strengths presented in the source. First of all, this film is an excellent representation of the barbarity of war. For example, the film shows full frontal attacks which took place continually during the course of the war. During these attacks, hundreds of thousands of men were tragically killed; his fact is well presented in this film. Also, details such as the use of chorine and mustard gas are shown in the film. This was another way in which men were slaughtered during the war
Perhaps the greatest strength of the film is the way in which it shows the massive impact of war on the young men who enlisted.
We are shown how these young men came from different social backgrounds. There are scenes in the film, which gives us an idea of the variety of classes the young men came from. For example we are shown a group of young men just leaving university which would indicate that they were middle class. Also, the source suggests that none of this mattered as men from all backgrounds were killed and injured in the war.
In detailing the impact of the war, the source refers to the normality of the soldier’s lives before the war began. This is shown to us through the use of ‘flashbacks’. Though out the film the men have flashbacks to what life had once been like. This helps us to compare how the young men's lives had drastically changed since they enlisted.
The film concentrates on how a typical soldier’s life would have been like. We are shown how the soldiers would have reflected on their own lives when faced with death. Also the film focuses on how the soldiers would have close friends in their platoons and how they would feel if they lost them.
The final strength of the film is how realistic it is. The film ’all quiet on the western front’ is based on a book written by a man who took part in French fighting. However we need to recognise that artistic licence is employed in the making of films. This means that the facts could have been blurred to the film can be a better success at the box office.
Although there are a lot of strengths, there are a lot of weakness also. A major weakness is that even though we are shown a lot about trench warfare on the western front, we are not shown any military aspects of the war. For example there is nothing to indicate what battles these men fought in, also we are not told about any historical figures such as Field Marshall Haig. Although the Kaiser is mentioned briefly.
The director of this source, has only concentrated on the German soldiers feeling towards the war when in fact it is most probable that the German soldiers views would have been the same as their French and British counter parts.
The last major weakness is that the film only shows war on western front. Also, the battles are very general in tone, we are only told about trench warfare, we are told nothing about others kinds of warfare which were taking place in other theatres of war.
In discussing all of the major strengths and weaknesses of the source the overall impression is that as a film presentation of the war on the western front, it shows us what the war was really like and how the soldiers would have reacted. This source is likely to be accurate as the author of the original book had served in the war and would have known how the men felt. Overall, this source is quite reliable as an examination of trench warfare on the western front.
Question 6:
The sources provided (sources A-H) only give a limited indication as to why world war one lasted as long as it did.
From our own knowledge we know that in August 1914, all sides thought that that war would be over by Christmas. This wasn’t the case, since by this stage the war had altered from a war of movement to one of stalemate. Germany was under the impression that the war would be over in a matter of months if the Schlieffen plan were successful .The Schlieffen plan (named after the General who devised it) was to pass through neutral Belgium and over the French border. After this Germany would capture Paris in a matter of six weeks and head towards Russia. This failed completely, Germany planned to go though Belgium without resistance but this didn’t happen. The Belgians fought very bravely, which gave the French troops time to be switched to the Belgian border. As the Belgians slowed Germany down, they failed to reach and capture the channel ports in time. This failure meant that the British could arrive to help France. Also, the German hadn’t expected Russia to mobilise their army so quickly, this now meant
that Germany had to weaken their western flank by transferring troops to the eastern front. It was clear that Germany wasn’t going to capture Paris within the six-week timeframe.
The British sent a small army of highly trained men (BEF) to France to attack Germany. The BEF planned to capture the ports, then help France and Russia, surround the German army and weaken them. However, in a matter of weeks half of the BEF were dead and they still hadn’t stopped Germany.
By Christmas 1914, neither side had made the knockout blow and both sides dug permanent trenches to protect themselves against machine-gun attacks. Attrition now became the tactic employed by the generals as both sides attempted to wear the other down; this method of warfare only prolonged the conflict further.
We must look at each of the sources (A-H) and grade them on the basis of the degree of understanding they provide on why the war lasted so long.
The most helpful sources are D and E. In these sources we are told about General Haig and how he was involved in a war of attrition. We are told how the war involved continued attacks at the Somme and Passchendale. Most Generals used these methods at the time. We are also told how Generals like Haig refused to give up and even if defeated continued to fight. This source provides valuable information on the methods used by the Generals during the war and gives us an insight into why it lasted four years.
The next source that helps our understanding is source A. This is a passage about the battle of the Somme. The source tells us about methods used in the Somme and battles like it. These methods were very unsuccessful and since they didn’t work, we are made aware of the contribution made by tactics in causing the war to go on.
The next two sources are less valuable but B and C do give us some direct and indirect information. Source B is a photograph showing success of bombardment. If this was the case and bombardment was a success, we would expect breakthroughs to have been made, resulting in the war ending sooner this wasn’t the case.
The next most useful source is source C the extract from a poem by Seignified Sassoon. The poem gives us an insight into the incompetence of the Generals and the way in which the soldiers reacted to them. More importance, however is that the source suggests that the Generals actions prolonged the war.
As we examine the list of sources; some appear much less useful when we try to understand why the war was prolonged. For example, Source H, a visual interpretation of the war on the western front, although showing some tactics used by the army, doesn’t tell us about any major battles or military figures. These are the things we’d need to know if we want to find out exactly why the war was prolonged. But since some reference is made to full front attack, we are made aware that the tactic of attrition had some responsibility
Source F is our next source on the scale of helpfulness. Source F is a poster; the poster shows soldiers smoking and was used for propaganda purposes in Britain. It gives a completely false impression of war on the western front. Posters such as these were used to give soldier’s families’ reassurance that they were having a heroic and adventurous time. This source gives us no information about why the war lasted so long, but it does tell us how propaganda was in Britain. Which may explain why people at home allowed to continue without protest
The last source is the least useful in helping us understand why the war lasted so long. Source G is a primary source, which gives us some accurate information about trench life, but tells us nothing about why the war continued for four years.
These sources only provide us with an indirect and limited understanding of why the war lasted as long as it did. When trying to understand why the war was prolonged we would need to access other information such as how politicians prolonged the war, reasons why the Schlieffen plan failed and the impact of new weapons on the war as a whole
