History GCSE First World War Russia "1917-1953"
Welcome Page GCSE: Art - Biology - Business Studies - Chemistry - Drama - Economics - English Language - English Literature - Geography - History - Information Technology - Mathematics - Media - Photography - Physics A-Level:Art - Biology - Business Studies - Chemistry - Drama - Economics - English Language - English Literature - Geography - History - Information Technology - Mathematics - Media - Photography - Physics

Assignment B: Objective 3

Was The Public Mislead About The Conditions In The Trenches?

A* Grade

By Heresh Rezavandi

Email

1) Sources A and B were published before 1916 since these two posters are attempting to encourage men in Britain and its Empire to volunteer to fight in the First World War, both aimed at the parents of the men (Source A) and the men themselves (Source B). Pre-1916 there was no conscription, therefore the British Government produced these posters of propaganda encouraging men to enlist as volunteers. However after the early days of 1916 the Government saw little use for these posters since there were fewer men enlisting to fight on the front (since they were now fairly aware of the horrific conditions), as a result the conscription act was introduced. However they still continued to produce posters of propaganda, although this time posters justifying why the war had to be raged on with the German opposition. It is Source C which was published after 1916 since it is an American poster and it was only in 1917 when they declared war on Germany. At this time America had not made military service compulsory therefore produced these posters to encourage men to enlist as volunteers in the army.

2) These three Sources have a lot in common. They are all posters of propaganda, produced between the years of 1914-1918 of the First World War belonging to the allied powers. They are all attempting to encourage men to enlist and fight in the war, they are written in English and incorporate pictures. However they are different in that Source A is aimed towards the parents of the men, particularly concentrating on their mother's (for the reason that there is a middle aged lady in the poster), suggesting that that it is their role to persuade their sons to enlist with the huge words imprinted; "Go/It's Your DutyLad/Join Today". Where in Source B the poster is aimed to the men themselves. In this poster there is an anxious and almost embarrassed looking father of two children beside him, who is directly looking at the person looking at the poster, unable to answer the question of; "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?", indicating that if the man looking at the poster looking at the poster should enlist, otherwise will be embarrassed and guilty for the rest of his life for not joining the army. In Source C it can be argued that the poster has a more powerful effect since it is aimed towards the American public and the men, achieving to encouraging men to enlist, and at the same time making them aware of the consequences and justifying the reason for declaring war, and if they don't the "Mad Brute" (Germany who has destroyed Europe) will sail across the Atlantic and destroy America. Also the mood of the posters are different. The sources of A and B have a very different mood than Source C since they are very calm and do not seem to be very violent pictures. Whereas Source C is very brutal and emotional since it has a gorilla and a dead woman in his arms. In conclusion the similarities between the sources are: they are posters of propaganda, they were produced between 1914-1918 during the First War, they belong to the Allied powers, they are attempting their men to enlist, they are written in English and they incorporate pictures. The differences are that A and B are British whereas C is American, they were produced at different times of the war, they are aimed at different people, they have different moods, they have different methods in encouraging men to enlist, and lastly Source C is encouraging men to enlist and at the same time justifying the war where A and B do not.

3) There is no proof in the photograph of Source D that the large number of men outside the police station are even recruits. However if we put into account that they are new recruits, the photograph still cannot prove that the sources A and B were successful in persuading the men to join the army. There could have been many reasons why they enlisted. Many men at that time were very patriotic and believed it was their role as a British citizen to join up and defend their country and allies. Other men may have hated the Germans so much that they joined to defeat them. Family, peer and public pressure were other reasons why some men enlisted, as they were constantly pressured by others to enlist otherwise in many cases accused of being cowards and unpatriotic, and even some were given the "white feather" symbolising cowardice, by young girls in the street. Also the men who enlisted would have had friends who served in the army which would have encouraged them to enlist, and would have joined the "Pals Battalions". We must also remember that there dozens of other recruiting posters which were in the public's view similar to those of the posters A and, particularly the most famous one of Lord Kitchener. The men in Source D may have seen this poster which would have inspired them. The chances of the men being persuaded by just two posters is very unlikely, since it is many aspects and influences aforementioned, which result men in them joining the army. If we were to have sources which would have revealed the fact if A or B were successful, we would need many more photographs taken at that time, and every new recruit would have to be questioned whether the posters A or B persuaded them. In conclusion, just one photograph is not proof that A or B were successful and cannot generalise the reason that so many men joined was because of two mere posters. However we must not forget that some of the new recruits may have seen posters A and B and may have been influenced by them.

4) The British Government which issued these postcards had restricted what the soldiers could say. They were only allowed to write the date and their signature. If they had wished to describe how they were or what they had received, they would be only able to underline and cross what was available, which consisted of a few sentences, and have stated that if any other thing had been written, the postcard would have been destroyed. There are many reasons why Government has done this. First of all they did not want the soldiers to write their disturbing experiences and the horrific conditions of the trenches, to avoid any information about the trenches to be released into the public. At that time the Government had portrayed the battle front and trenches totally different of what they were really like. If they did not use these methods of censorship, then information about the conditions of the trenches would seep through to the public (which gradually did) and would have changed their view on the "patriotic war against the Hun", and would been aware of the wet, muddy, bloody trenches their men were fighting in, the enormous casualties and a war virtually in a stalemate position. If the government had not issued these postcards then the war would have turned unpopular much earlier than in 1916. Another reason for the issue of these postcards is that if the soldiers were allowed to write letters they may have stated or hinted the dates of mass attacks and their fortifications and so on, there was a chance that these letters could have been were picked up by the Germans. As a result the attacks would have been more difficult for the British divisions. Also many soldiers barely knew how to read and write and by issuing these postcards it would have made it easier for them to reply home. These postcards may have only been given to those who were nearly illiterate and allowed other soldiers to write letters (although anything unsuitable would have been censored by their officer). In conclusion there are many reasons why the Government may have issued these postcards to the soldiers in the trenches. Although the likeliest reason is that the Government issued these cards is censorship, to stop the details of the real conditions getting to the British, such as those Sassoon describes.

5) I would be able to work out that Source G and not Source H appeared with Source F in British newspapers in July 1916 for a number of reasons. In Source G the article has clearly explained that a Surrey regiment is reported to have dribbles footballs for a mile and a quarter into enemy trenches, accompanied by a very patriotic, gallant and heroic poem describing this with emotion and assurance where "blood is poured like water" and have distinctly mentioned the noun "ball" stating that the soldiers are dribbling balls towards the enemy trenches. This clearly reflects Source F the painting of a great attack where soldiers are in a grand heroic charge so brave that they are dribbling balls and taking no notice of fear, with the two killed or wounded men on the ground. In Source H the person who has written this account has clearly stated that he and his companions did not "break any sporting records" meaning that they did not dribble any balls, and the pictures in the illustrated in the magazines are false. He has also distinctly stated that he did not want to get "bunched up with the others" (whereas in Source F there is a bunch of men) possibly he was frightened to get killed and shows that he did not feel at all heroic (whereas the soldiers in Source F and G appear to be very heroic). When he reached the enemy trenches he immediately returned back to his front line, where there is no mention of this in Source G. Another reason why H would not have appeared with F is that this account and many others would have never been published in newspapers. The reason for this is that the writer has clearly contradicted the media's attitude towards this ball dribbling battle and has made other claims. Nearly all newspapers supported the war and would have rejected this article. The "tone" of the sources are also different. F is very dramatic and very exciting which is similar to G which also has these qualities. Therefore G would have appeared with F. Whereas H has none of these qualities and is quite straight forward and does not show any great emotions. In conclusion H has very little similarities and makes totally different statements, almost contradicting G and F, of this battle and the soldier in Source H has taken a different route in this battle. Also the tones of F and G are very similar whereas H is very different.

6) These two sources give different impressions of conditions in the trenches for a number of reasons. Source I is an advertisement for Golden Dawn cigarettes published in Britain during the First World War. The cigarette company has used the fact there were soldiers fighting for Britain and has used them as examples of users of their cigarettes, since at that time the war was a great issue in Britain and the public were constantly hearing and talking about it, hence has used the theme of war in its the advertisement. The advertisement is of five, clean and smiling soldiers in dry, straight trenches and with one soldier almost standing over the top! The cigarette company Mitchells's has produced this poster as an advertisement for its cigarettes, for it is not a poster of propaganda produced by the Government encouraging for men to enlist. Although this source is very misleading about the true conditions of the trenches, since the conditions were no way near of what they have been portrayed. The reason for this is that since the cigarette company has used the trenches in its advertisement, and it would have been bad for its image and its product if they had used soldiers smoking their cigarettes in conditions of those described in Source J ( muddy, ruined, bloody and so on), and would have made the public turn away in buying their cigarettes seeing that they were smoked by soldiers in these horrific conditions. Also we must not forget that the advertisers may have never been to the trenches and may have innocently portrayed them like this. However in Source J an account written by Siegfried Sassoon he has described from an eye witness account of the reality of the trenches in the most powerful and disturbing way. He has described that the trenches were a "morass of glue-like mud", that things were smashed, bodies lying around, and even a man drowned in a bog. The reason why Siegfried Sassoon has written this account is that he must have been so horrified and disturbed about his experiences of the War, that he felt the urge to write about them, and to let the public know the realities of the First World War. In conclusion, Mitchell's Golden Dawn Cigarettes Source I is nothing more than an advertisement for cigarettes, and has portrayed the trenches in the way it has, not as a poster of propaganda, but to give a good name implying that brave and patriotic soldiers smoke their product. Whereas Source J is a vivid description of consequences of war being death and destruction.

7)a. Source E is a simple postcard issued by the Government which would be given to the soldiers in the trenches in order for them to inform their families or friends about their health, whether they've received any letters or telegrams. It is not a photograph nor a picture nor even an account or description furthermore an impression. Although if we attempt to ask the question of why the Government issued these postcards, we may presume that the trenches were so dreadful that they did not want any information to be released into the public. Source F is a picture of a large group of soldiers charging in a mass attack. We see that they are fully equipped, running over an almost even ground, with heroic and brave faces where there are only three men who have fallen of wounds. Although this does not show any conditions of the trenches, not even impressions that could have been used for propaganda. This picture was produced as an artists impression working for a newspaper who probably never served in the trenches, which would have appeared with Source G. We do not even know if the soldiers are a couple of metres away from their trenches. However in Source G, the article has not described any details of the trenches both in the writing at the top of the article nor in its poem. The only thing described is that there are many deaths "Where blood is poured like water" therefore it is an unreliable source. Either the newspaper has deliberately left out descriptions of the conditions of the trenches to hide the facts from the public, or is not aware of the conditions of the trenches. Source G was published in newspapers to reflect the "heroism" of the soldiers in the first day of the Battle of the Somme, and the way they "captured" the enemy trenches. If F and G were reliable sources about what the conditions were really in the trenches, they would have described the real conditions of the trenches being: muddy, wet, bogged up with water, dead bodies lying around, large rats and other small animals infesting the trenches and diseases which the soldiers had to cope, then the sources would have been reliable. Source E does not tell usdirectly us anything about the conditions of the trenches. Source F an impression of the trenches tells us a bit about the conditions of the trenches, and Source G also tells us very little. In conclusion sources E, f and G are unreliable as evidence of what it was like in the trenches. Although if we look at Source E indirectly it is quite a reliable source in suggesting that the conditions of the trenches were so bad the Government issued the postcards as a method of censorship.

7)b. Source H tells us little of what it was like in the trenches. The person who has written this has described what he and his companions did in the first day of the Battle of the Somme. He has not described any specific and detailed descriptions of the trenches except when he states that he crawls into a "big dug out" occupied with dead Germans. This tells us that there were many abandoned trenches at that time with many dead soldiers in them. This source does not tell us about the conditions of the trenches which were always muddy, wet, damaged, cold where soldiers starved for days without a decent warm meal for days and the constant shelling of the trenches. Therefore this is not a very reliable source of evidence of what it was like in the trenches. However it is a reliable source in the fact that after sixty years B.A. Steward has remembered a battle on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in great detail. B.A. Steward produced this account in order to inform readers the true events and realities of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. In Source J however it is quite different. Siegfried Sassoon who written this account has written in detail a vivid description of the trenches. He has described the conditions they were in of being a "morass of glue-like mud" as a result of constant shelling and rain. Fortifications of the strongest kind were even smashed up which was a common thing in the First World War. He has described the "mangled bodies of the dead" everywhere around the trenches which happened to so many thousands of soldiers every day. He has stated that some trenches were flooded which happened to nearly all of the trenches, and most disturbingly a "mask of a human face which had detached itself from the skull", just one of the many horrific memories of men serving in the front line. This is a very reliable source as evidence of what it was like in the trenches, even though Sassoon has written this account about a decade after. He has written this account since he may have been horrified about the conditions of the trenches and most importantly the concepts of war, that he felt the urge to write his experiences down. There is no reason for him to mislead the reader because he has served in the trenches himself and wants other people to know the realities of war. Both sources describe different aspects of the trenches since in Source H the soldier has not mentioned the trenches since he wanted to talk about the Battle of the Somme in No Man's Land. Source J has given a vivid description of the trenches since he wanted to describe the trenches and not any battles such as H. Therefore Source J is a very reliable source of what it was like in the trenches and is a source of strong evidence, whereas Source H is reliable as evidence in describing an account of the first day of the Battle of the Somme, it is not a reliable source of evidence in telling us what it was like in the trenches.

8) Source A is a recruiting poster produced by the British Government encouraging parents to urge their sons to enlist for the First World War. There is a middle aged lady with a younger man, presumably her son. There is nothing there which is misleading the people about what it was really like in the trenches. There are no pictures of the trenches, anything written about the trenches, nor even hinted. The Government is not misleading the people with this poster, although it can be argued that the Government has omitted the truth, since they though there would have been no point in informing the public about the trenches. Therefore Source A does not support this interpretation. Source B is also a recruiting poster, encouraging men to enlist. There is a father with two children beside him. Like Source B it is only encouraging men to enlist, and in no way, misleading the people about the conditions of the trenches, once again not even mentioning the trenches.. Again, Source B does not support this interpretation. Source C is an American poster encouraging men to enlist and justifying the First World War. Even though it does not apply to the British people and does not belong to the British Government, there is nothing there about the trenches. Therefore Source C does not support this interpretation even if it was produced by the British Government. Source D is a photograph of about eighty men huddled outside a police station. This source is does not mention anything about the trenches, although if it is seen indirectly it does. If the new recruits had been aware of the conditions of the trenches, it would have been likely that they would have not enlisted. Their lack of information about the trenches comes from the Government omitting and censoring the truth. Therefore this source supports the interpretation indirectly. Source E is a post-card which was issued to soldiers in the trenches. Directly it does not tell us anything about the conditions of the trenches. Although if indirectly studied we may presume that the trenches were so dreadful that they did not want any information to be released into the public. Therefore this is the second source which supports the interpretation that the British Government did everything to mislead the British people about what it was really like in the trenches. From evidence and our own knowledge we know that the trenches were places of disgraceful conditions. They were nearly always wet, flooded, cold, badly constructed, places where soldiers were so used of the fact that they were living with the dead, that they took no notice of bits of bodies, that they would have before they had become soldiers. Source F is a picture of a grand heroic charge on the enemy while dribbling footballs on the first day of the Battle of the Somme on no man's land. This is not a picture or painting of the trenches. However, this was the kind of thing the British Government wanted the public to imagine the First World War as, and did nothing to correct the newspapers. Therefore it can be argued that the Government allowed the British public to be mislead. Source G is an article that appeared in a newspaper in 1916. It claims that the East Surrey Regiment has reported that they dribbled four footballs for more than a mile into the enemy trenches. Following it is a poem, of the soldiers charging, through a hail of slaughter and where the blood is poured like water. However misleading or true this poem may be, it still does not describe any conditions of the trenches. This is another example of an article in a newspaper which was misleading about the goings on in the trenches, that the Government failed to correct. Source H is of a first-hand account of the first day of the battle of the Somme by a soldier on that day. It clearly contradicts what Source G has claimed and shows how the media mislead the people about the trenches and how the Government did nothing to correct it. Even though it is not about the trenches, it gives an idea of what measures the media and the Government took to mislead the people about the trenches. Source I is an advertisement for cigarettes, where the company has used the theme of war, with a couple of soldiers in a trench. It is a misleading advertisement about the trenches since it portrays the soldiers in them as happy, clean and confident. The trenches are also very clean, straight and do not seem to be damaged. Although this may be a misleading advertisement and was not produced by the British Government, the British Government wanted this image of the trenches to be shown to the British public, therefore did nothing to make the British public to be aware that they were somehow being mislead. Source J is an account written by Sassoon several years after the First World War. Directly it gives us a detailed description of the conditions of the trenches and no information whether the Government was misleading. Although if we combine this source with the other sources, we can say that the Government omitted the truth by not informing the people of the conditions of the trenches. In conclusion Source A and B do not tell us that the Government mislead the people, but suggests they omitted the truth. Source C has no relevance since it is an American poster. Source D has no relevance since it is just a photograph of a group of men outside a police station. Source E indirectly tells us that the Government mislead the people. Source F and G shows that the Government allowed newspapers to mislead the people the British Government did not do everything to mislead the people about the conditions of the trenches. Source H and J gives us an idea of examples of what the Government and the press did not inform the people about. Source I shows us how advertising companies mislead people in order to sell their product, and how the Government once again did not do anything to correct them, but somehow supported the newspapers in producing the misleading articles. They also omitted the truth about the conditions of the trenches, since they did not want the people to be entirely aware of the conditions, in order to sustain their patriotic attitude towards the war. It can be argued that the newspapers mislead the people about the conditions since they were the ones responsible about the knowledge the people got about the Western Front. However from our own knowledge we know that the British Government did not do everything to mislead the people about what it was really like in the trenches. They did however prevent information getting out to an extent to sustain the popularity of the war through censorship, such as methods like the postcard in Source E, to stop the true conditions of the trenches to leak through the public. If this was the case (which did eventually happen) the war would have become unpopular much sooner. Also we must not forget the majority of the population may have not expected the Government to mention the conditions of the trenches since the British people had not experienced any wars that may have been similar to the First World War since many of the wars which the present generation of the British public had fought in were colonial wars around primitive and weak countries of the world, where fast and great victories would have been won. . And in these wars the conditions were not horrific such as those trenches in the First World War. Therefore the British public did not ask questions about the trenches during the first stages of the war nor did they expect the Government to say anything in great detail about the trenches, since they had never done in the past.

9) It can be argued that a historian writing about the trenches in 1918 would have been more likely to have produced a different account of what the conditions were like from a historian writing much later. In 1918 Britain was still involved in the First World War. At this time the historian around at this time would have a limited source of knowledge and perspective. The reason for this is due to the amount of propaganda which the Government was providing the public about the conditions of the trenches. They did not let any information escape from the soldiers in the trenches, about them being in their disgraceful conditions. The public (even the intellectuals) had a mislead view, they were not aware of the mud, water, cold weather and the number if casualties. Also many historians those days were men of ages that could not serve in the army, therefore were unable to witness the conditions of the trenches. The evidence that the historian would have been able to get would have been very limited. If they did get hold of anything, they would have probably come across pictures or paintings similar to Source F, which is a picture which many soldiers in the Battle of the Somme would have disagreed with. If the historian looked into newspapers, he would have also come across articles describing grand victories such as that of Source G. Therefore this historian's description of the trenches in 1918 would have been a typical view of a common citizen in Britain. A historian writing much later would have produced a much different account on the trenches. He would have a larger perspective and much more evidence. He would be able to get hold of accounts of eye witness accounts, such as Source J. He would be able to get hold of photographs which would have been gradually revealed by the Government, and may also get interviews of men who had served in the trenches, who had good memories of 1914-1918 of the conditions in the trenches. Furthermore there would have been many ex-soldiers or ex-officers in the army which would have later been historians, and would have written down their experiences into detailed accounts, such as most famously Siegfried Sassoon who has published many of his works (Source J) together with poems about the trenches and the First World War, also B.A Steward (Source H). Also he would have the opportunity of interviewing soldiers which is perhaps one of the strongest sources he would be able to get hold of. In fact a historian writing much later would have had so much information that it would be almost impossible in describing all the details in just one book. In conclusion the types of accounts both historians would have written would have depended on the amount of evidence each one would be able to get. A historian writing much later would have a greater perspective than a historian writing during 1918, and would have produced a more detailed and factual description of the trenches, whereas the historian in 1918 would have had a limited perspective and would have probably written an account based mostly on Government propaganda about the trenches and sources from newspapers. We mustn't forget that evidence about the conditions of the trenches are still being both discovered and revealed indicating that more sources are available for historians to make their accounts more and more factual and detailed.