Morally superior

Another aim of wartime propaganda was to get the British to think that they were ‘morally superior’. For example source C, E, G and I are all examples of how this type of propaganda was used. Source E is a piece of text from a newspaper that tells you a story about brave British soldiers and coward’s i. e. the German soldiers. The source shows ‘morally superior ‘because it shows how the British soldiers were morally superior to the Germans because they spear the German soldier’s lives.

The factors which show that source E is reliable are it was produced at the time meaning it must have a correct indication of the events that may have, occurred during that time. In addition to this the source also researched, I know this because the source also says how the writer Gibbs interviewed ‘men about the part they had played on the 1st of July 1916 in the battle of the Somme. ‘ I know this source must contain some real facts because the event did actually occur and it was researched. In spite of this the source does also have some limitations to which it is reliable.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

First of all it only shows one view point, all the good things are accounted for but it does not tell you about soldiers that may have been killed or anything in the least that may have traumatic and upsetting for people in the home front to know about. This shows it was censored to only show how the British were ‘morally superior’ to the Germans. I think the authors motives were to report information on the battle of the Somme and to also provide a type of propaganda, for the Government whom he may have been working for.

The purpose of this source was to encourage people to think that they were ‘morally superior’, so they would believe they were better and had a right to fight and join the army. The intended audience would be any middle class or higher class; it also may have been for working classes so they would be encouraged to join the war. Lastly, a form of propaganda which was also used during the war, which was not permitted or produced by the British Government, is ‘Anti-war’ propaganda. Anti-war mainly shows a British socialist point of view on the war.

Sources which show this ‘anti-war’, propaganda are D and H. source D is an article which shows you how the British socialists felt about the war. It is informing the British working classes, they have no reason to fight and that the quarrel is not theirs but of the working classes (Government, leaders). The source is also trying to inform the working classes about what will happen. That they will be the ones who will suffer in the end, When they don’t have any reason to be going to war with other working class Europeans, because they are just like them.

Evidence which suggests that source D is reliable is it was made at the time. It was also no t censored because it is not produced by Government, and at that time free speech was allowed. This is because during that time people were for the war and patriotic, so the government didn’t need to use that much propaganda or censor all types of media. Despite this there are some factors which make source D unreliable for example it is a piece of propaganda, which is trying to discourage people to join the war rather than encourage them.

It is also a British socialist (newspaper of independent labour party) opinion making it biased because it doesn’t show to different view points. I think the author’s motives were to inform the working classes the outcomes of the war and they needn’t fight because it isn’t the war. The purpose is also quite similar because it is to discourage the British working classes from going to war. In conclusion I believe that hatred of the enemy wasn’t the most important aim of wartime propaganda because, although it was one of the main types of propaganda used, I don’t believe there is enough evidence to suggest this.

I find that hatred of the enemy was one of the least important because it was only mainly used near the end of the war, but morally superior and patriotism where used much more. There is evidence to suggest this because most of the sources show how these types of propaganda were used. And they were use throughout the war to encourage people or to make them believe they were superior, even when sources were created to encourage that still showed patriotism and morally superior. Question 2: study sources A and B.

Which source is more useful to an historian studying the use of propaganda for recruitment in the First World War? Source A is useful for a historian studying propaganda in world War One because it shows correct indications of what was happening at that time during world war one, I also know that during ww1 cinemas were used as part of recruitment and conscription and patriotism was encouraged because they had to sing national anthems. This is clearly shown in source A therefore this factor shows some accuracy in the source.

The source (A) must also have been well researched since it was not produced at the time, it’s also a piece of entertainment which might have addressed what occurred in world war one, and because there still might be some world war one survivors that want correct factors of what occurred, so therefore the author might have to use correct facts for people to read his novel. Another point would be that if the author john Harris Wanted his novel to be used in schools, which it could be because it contains facts about warfare he would be forced to use correct facts, or his books won’t be bought therefore leaving him without a job.

It is reliable for these exact reasons; it is a researched source and it shows correct occurrences of events during wartime. However there are some limitations to this source for a historian trying to learn about propaganda in World War One, for example it wasn’t produced at the time, making it a secondary source therefore meaning that every thing might not been 100% accurate to what might have actually occurred during the time of the event in hand. Another point which shows some unreliability in the source is that it is a fictional piece of writing, meaning that it was written strictly for entertainment values.

In comparison to this the source is only written by an author called John Harris, this means that most of the novel is just a figment of his imagination that means at least some of it must have been made up. Also the author is a British man; this may mean that he wanted to show Britain in a good light. I don’t believe this source is particularly written for a certain group of people but can be read and enjoyed by many. Source B is useful for a historian trying to learn about propaganda in World War One because it was written at the time making it a primary source.

As a result of this the source must show correct indications of what was happening around that time. This means that it gives us an insight to which types of propaganda elements where used during the time the source was produced which was around 1914. I can also tell that some of the context is true because during ww1 there where families or groups of men whom went to war together but, this became less popular towards the 1915’s. The source contains information about brave and chivalrous family, it tells you, in a way to join the army because it contains patriotism (propaganda) as it is highlighting patriotic British civilians.

The source is reliable and accurate because it was produced at the time, giving you an accurate encounter of what may have occurred during the First World War. Also it is a newspaper article written to give civilians information about the war, so it may contain correct facts. Contradictory to this the source in some ways is unreliable because it is a piece of propaganda solely written to encourage patriotism and to eventually get people to join the war. I can back this up because I know that from 1914 the Government censored media and recruitment and conscription was beginning as volunteering decreased.

I believe the authors motives may have been to give information to civilians and to encourage patriotism as a job working for the Government, so people could join the army. The purpose of the source in my point of view is quite similar, again to encourage patriotism and to put social pressure on the British men and any male with the ability to fight for their country. The source also only shows the brave and the good things that have happened it doesn’t highlight the bad occurrences of the war.

Overall I think the most useful source for a historian trying to learn about propaganda in world war one is source B I find this is because the source was produced at the time it also gives you more accurate information as it was made during the time of world war one. I think source B would be more useful to a historian because source A is just a book written for entertainment, the information which is gained from b is more concrete because it is a type of media which was used to spread propaganda and it shows exactly how it was used.

Another point is that because source A is a piece of fictional information a historian wouldn’t know weather to trust it because some of it could be made up. On the other hand source B is and informational article written to provide information even though it is propaganda a historian would still find it useful because it tells what type of propaganda was used, when it was used and how ( what form it was presented to the British civilians) Question 3: Study Sources C and D, both produced at the start of the war. Why do they differ about attitudes in Britain at the start of the war?

Both sources have different attitudes for many reasons. Firstly, the sources were produced for different purposes. The information in source C is telling the British civilians that they are superior to the Germans because in the source the German ruler is standing in a stance over the dead bodies of a mother and child whom he has just killed. This is telling the British that the Germans are ruthless and have no morality because there is no need to kill innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the war. So I therefore believe that the purpose of this source was to encourage hatred of the enemy.

The information that D gives us is what the British anti-war socialist labour party leader thinks about the war. It says how the working classes should not have to fight because it isn’t there war to fight but of the ruling classes. Also, it shows the outcome if they do go to war, and that is they will be the only ones to suffer if they do. Another point that the labour party leader makes in the source is that they have no reason to fight with other fellow class Europeans, but for some reason they will be the ones to suffer.

In conclusion the purpose of this source would be to discourage the British from going to war. These are different as the authors have different motives. The reason source C has been drawn is to create a type of propaganda that would get the British middle classes to hate the enemy, thus meaning the author motives were to get the middle classes to hate the Germans and join the war because it shows what will happen if they do not. I think the author intended it for the middle classes because the British magazine punch was mainly written for middle classes.

Contradictory to this, source D was written to discourage people from going to war, meaning that the authors motives were to reveal the governments real motives of going to war and to inform the working classes what they were getting there selves into by going to war, in hope that working classes would be discouraged from going to war. The attitude of the majority of people at the beginning of World War one was hope full and patriotic, as people thought it would be a quick war.

This is reflected in source c. However at the beginning of the war there were other views expressed such as antiwar, socialist views for example the labour party. Source D reflects the attitude that there is no reason to fight others who are just like you ‘whom you have no quarrel with. ‘ So the main reasons why the sources show such different attitudes are at the beginning of the war free speech was allowed media was not censored so antisocialist.