Battle of the Somme
...how the Germans used cellars in the villages to provide cover for the machine guns. However neither source Ai or Aii tell us the entire story of the battle of the Somme, it does not touch on the effects on the week long preliminary bombardment or the fact that the German artillery cut down the first waves of the Allied advances, the British did not even think they would still excist. Which source gives us the more reliable view of what happened on July 1st, 1916? Part of source B is a cartoon titled "The Somme Punch", from The News of the World on the morning after the day of the battle; it depicts a fist, which symbolises the British Army, hitting the Kaiser's face, which represents the German defences, the face's outline is the pattern of the line of trenchs that stretch from Osteh to Metz, the punch looks hard and it is striking in the right place; this emphasises the fact that the newspaper wanted the public to know how much of a success the first day, when it really was not. Neither of these sources are particularly reliable, due to the fact that the newspaper obtained its figures from Haig's despatch; also most of the article is quoted from Haig's despatch; newspapers at this time were always in support of the British Army and were very focussed on morale and patriotism to enspire the nation. In the entire article it gives no casualty figures and also in the real battle France were alot more successful than Britain. The newspaper has not got the facts completely right, they are biassed and vague. Haig would have been well informed but as i said in the previous question, he had many things to consider as he wrote it for example his reputation as a general, the British public, the government and his reliability as a successful general. It is true that both sources were taken immediatly, as the battle was happening but both sources are unreliable because Haig was the Commander in Chief of the British army, and he was out to prove himself to both the Britsh nation and all of his critics. So consequently publishing a report that was showing how negatively the first day was would not only crush the morale of the British public, it would also centre all the blame onto himself. Haig, as we can see as the war progresses, was always attempting to prove himself by launching huge brash offensives. Haig's report defines his character, it is very positive and shows that he wants the public and the government to think that the British soldiers were cunning, brave and fearless; and that in comparison the German soldiers were weak and stupid, he tells us "2,000" German prisoners have been taken, he describes the German defences as a "Labyrinth" making it again sound as though the British soldiers were daring and intelligent. When really the objective was not achieved, there was little ground gained with many casualties. Comparison of Sources D(i) and D(ii). Source D(i) seems the more reliable source, as it was written by soldiers who experienced going "over the top" but the accounts were written in the 1970s, meaning memories could be faded and possibly things could have been missed out. Whereas source D(ii) is also quite reliable because it was drawn by an artist from the Daily Mail, on the opening day of the battle.The second part of source D (ii) is showing a similar picure of victory, of soldiers having invaded an enemy trench and "having a laugh" about it. This source is unreliable because the German trench's were supposed to have been flattened by a week long preliminary bombardment and the holes in which the Germans hid are not pictured, showing this source to be unreliable and possibly biassed. The main difference between the sources is that D(ii) shows a completely scene, it glorifies the idea of war and shows a picture of patriotism and victory, shells explode around the troops like fireworks and an officer at the front is raising his fist, showing British soldier's bravery and contempt for the enemy. The picture was published in a British newspaper, meaning the newspaper's aim was to keep British morale up in any way possible, even by lying and making the idea of war wonderful and hopeful; whereas source D(i) shows what the war was really like for the soldiers involved, a horror zone of confusion and death, where somebody could drop down beside your feet and you would not know whether they are dead or just ducking for cover. Patriotism did occur but only momentarily as most of the soldiers were mown down by enemy bullets. I believe, in a historians point of view, Source D(i) is the more useful source because it shows many reports of what going "over the top" was like, and most of them are very similar. This shows how awful it was for everybody, not just some. The general view in this source is one of horror and terrible grief; whereas source D (ii) gives a more vague outline of what "going over the top" was like,it is one moment in millions, whereas source D (i) is a more thorough view of general trench warfare, in comparison to other sources source D(i) is the most honest as we can see from photographs from the war and pictures painted by artists who were really there. D (ii) is the least honest, but compared to other sources in the paper it is the more universally believed picture of what the war was like, the same applies for the second part of source D (ii). Question 4) Sources Ei and Eii are two completely perspectives, this is due to who the people are that are writing them and when they are writing. Sir Douglas Haig's despatch, written on the 23rd of December 1916 cannot necesarrily be that reliable because Haig not only had to give a semi-correct report of the battle he also had to justify the attack not only to the world but also to himself. He also has to prove himself as a good general and to try and keep the British morale up. The problem with this source is that Haig cannot see this report in context and cannot predict what would happen long term.Whereas Eii is by the Historian A.J.P Taylor and was written in 1963, A.J.P Taylor liked to say things to make people think, he was renowned for his outrageous statements. He also was infamous for getting his facts wrong, a reason to believe this source to be unreliable. Another thing to consider is the time it was w...