why did britain continue the war on the weston front for so long?
...where it comes from. In fact, it could have been a government-sponsored project as part of propaganda or it could have been a spontaneous song by the people in a pub or a community social meeting. At the beginning of the song there is a type of psychopathic tone trying to show the men how they are proud of them and why they are so ‘great’. The next part of the song is a different tone singing about the element of danger. There are two lines which express ‘so come and join the army as your fathers did before you’ which is moral blackmail making the men feel as though they have to live up to there fathers. It also says about how much they are going to miss them trying to sympathise for them. At the end it is saying how much of a ‘hero’ they will be treated as when they get back even though the likelihood is that they won’t come back. This is interesting because there is no records of were it comes from and because of what it says. Source 5 is a picture of men queuing up for an army recruiting office. This could be a totally genuine photo as ‘the camera never lies’ or it could be fake and be used as more propaganda by the war office. It could also have been used as a way to intimidate the Germans. Either way it would have worked in encouraging more men into signing up and it would antagonise the Germans. This source id written by school textbook writer ‘Howarth’, from his book ‘the twentieth centaury world’ which means this is a reliable source. He tells that voluntary recruitment took place in other countries as well as Britain, also of how the countries were equal and anything happening in one country would be happening on the other side. Though most importantly we learn of how the soldiers got around by the modern railway system in Europe. This supplied men constant food, armaments and equipment. Howarth also tells us of how without the trains the armies could only go as fast as a marching soldier which meant each side always had time to send reinforcements so progression by the opposition was virtually impossible. Source A has been particularly interesting for this question. We learn about the war office propaganda and they over recruited. In conclusion, from this source, I have learnt one reason for why the war lasted so long. Because the sides were equal and there was no way either side take an easy win. Before very long the war had come to a complete stand still, there was little or no progress. Trench warfare was establishing itself as a primary method of warfare by both sides. A long hard war was inevitable. Yet, this is not the only reason to why the war went on for so long. Section B is specific to war tactics and debating whether or not these tactics were to blame for the three year delay. Source B1, is once again taken from A.J.P Taylor’s book ‘the first world war’. This source is about the Schilieffen plan, which it’s inventor called ‘ cannau’. This plan was to trick the French army by going around them via Belgium and then coming up behind them to win the battle and take Paris. This plan went wrong when the Germans got stuck between the British, French and Belgium armies. Taylor inflicted an incredible amount of criticism on Schilefflen, saying of how this was apparently the only plan the Germans had for war. On this account Taylor has used hindsight on Schilefflen and so he has no defence. On this occasion Taylor has placed all the blame upon Schilefflen but other sources tell us different. In fact, the new commander, Mothie, had altered the plans and unbalanced the forces, there was more resistance from the Belgium sources than expected. Also from the British and French, as a result of this the French had a chance to plan a counter attach. To add to this, the Russians had a surprise attach on the Germans. Furthermore, more troops were set in the opposite direction as well as the troops being exhausted from the walking 30km everyday. In source B1, Taylor talks very hypothetically but hypothesis might be useful to a scientist looking for a new discovery but it doesn’t go down to well in history. Taylor seems to be more concerned with establishing his credibility, in being some sort of ‘know it all’ writer than being for the characters whom he has judged. Source B2 was taken from Josh Brooman’s book ‘the great war’ Brooman was a technical, straightforward writer. It is about the battle of Maine and how the First World War turned into trench warfare. It is also telling us how the battle stretched out across 240 kilometres. This is a reliable source because it is straightforward and it is clear Brooman was trying into see. It tells us of how machine-gun posts were used. In source B4 the book ‘Britain and the Great War’ by Rosemary Rees is the subject. This tells us of how the two sides tried to continuously outflank each other from the trenches and how savage battles were fought over a few hundred meters of land. This is a revelation to the thinking of the British generals, it shows how much they were prepared to sacrifice and how much they would do it for. We can count the source as reliable because of the same reasons to Brooman. These sources in section B have given another indication to the answer. When the war dramatically changed into trench warfare it meant neither side were going nowhere. Source C1 will help establish which side gains the advantage through weaponry and tactics, or if either side did. Also, both sides had the same kind of defence tactics, which could be another reason. Source C1 is a unanimous source with no author, meaning we don’t know how reliable this source is. It tells of how each side were trying to gain the advantage over the other by inventing new weaponry armaments. It tells of the introduction of the tank and gas attaches. The source explains that the first use of chlorine gas was in Ypes, Belgium April 1915, which would implicate that this was a test for the use of gas. Germany were the better consumer of gas but both sides used them in infantry which would mean that it would have been good enough for Britain and France. As a result of this new weapon the defence was made, gas masks, which almost made gas useless. From the information we know that both side used gas attaches and we know that both sides were using gas masks, and they were invented very fast, which means neither side had the advantage. Despite the questionable reliability of this source, we can still prove the use of gas and gas masks in the war because of other evidence. For example, John Singer Sergeant painting ‘crossed’, this is a picture, which is a first hand account of British soldiers suffering from a gas attach. These men were suffering from mustard gas which is the devastating because as the causes are skin blisters and effects to the eyes. Source C2 is a photograph of a tank, this is evidence that tanks were being used in the First World War. The first tanks were pretty useless and the picture seems to suggest this as it is stuck in the ground. From other sources we learn that the first British tank was used in the Battle of the Somme, 15 September 1916. Even most of them broke down, but production did continue and improving them was the key. Germany only built about 20 tanks during the war the first being in 1915. In the Battle of Amiens on 8th August 1918 400 British tanks crossed ‘no mans land’ defeating the Germans. This may have been the beginning of the end for Germany. Source is a piece of writing by George Coppard, a soldier who fought on the Somme, July 1916. This was a primary source and he wrote this as he saw it happen, this would be hard to make up. In this writing Coppard talks about the memories he had of men running into ‘no mans land’ without much of a chance of surviving the machine gun fire and even if they did make it past the densely covered razor wire blockages would leave them dead. He blames the ‘planners’ for sending all the men. This source is very reliable because it is a first hand account and it once again shows the t...