Section I - WWI and its Aftermath (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

I kinda said that it was well known that Sassoon was anti-war by 1917, so he wasn't a particularly objective source for that reason.

 

[johnny_87]

Hmm...good points kols kebab. I did the entire WW1 section in just 40 minutes though, so I didn't have a lot of time to think through it. Still, should get 25-26.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

ROFL! Spread the word, wikipedia is the new Modern study guide.[/QUOTE]

Fuck yeah dude. Wiki pwns your average modern history teacher or text book anyday. This site and wiki provided at least 40% of my hsc knowledge.

 

[myrna]

did any 1 argue that both c and d were british perspectives so they didnt give complete picture of the german experience???

 

[fleepbasding]

did any 1 argue that both c and d were british perspectives so they didnt give complete picture of the german experience???

I considered that and I've done the same thing before in trials and stuff. Really though, it is neither here nor there. Next you'll find some kid arguing that it doesn't provide the french perspective (surely just as valid as the british and german). You see, there are only two sources and it is too much to expect of them to cover both sides experience, which would have been fairly similar regardless. You can't judge the usefulness of a source by what it doesn't contain, only by what it does.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

did any 1 argue that both c and d were british perspectives so they didnt give complete picture of the german experience???

Yeah that was part of my argument. Part.

 

[gorgo31]

In Sassoon's poem, it is emotional. So therefore it is not usefull to a historian as an accurate account of daily events. However it is usefull as an account of soilders attitudes to trench life. The fact that it was a primary source, and was written by a junior officer meant he would be reliable as a source on attitudes. Also as it was written in 1917, it can be corroborated with other sources that prove that war weariness was common in this time

I think you're incorrectly interchanging between useful and reliable here. The Source is primary and from the intimate, personal perspective of a soldier; that immediately makes it useful to a historian. Any primary source is useful as it presents a perspective on something - simple as that. Being useful, however, doesn't make it reliable. The content, structure, poetic imagery and anti-war emotive sensationalism make it an evocative but not entirely reliable source, especially considering that Sassoon's motive is to write poetry. Also, he was obviously desensitised by his experiences, casting more doubt on his ability to record an unbiased account.

For Source D, yes I agree, it seems to portray an attitude that life in the trenches was not that hard, which is in contrast to attitudes of Primary sources such as Sassoons poem, so therefore we question its reliability. Also it is an extract, taken out of context. However it does provide more specific detail than Sassoon's poem, such as percentages, and is therefore more usefull to a historian studying daily trench life.

This source's perspective is immediately useful because it provides a contrast to Sassoon's poem and the accepted norms of trench warfare, yes. However, in considering its reliability, you had to see that the source had no author, was only published on the internet, and did not demonstrate how it produced its figures or any of its conclusions on the apparent comfort of trench warfare. It gave percentages and statistics to support its contentious view - but where did they come from? Although it was descriptive and concise in nature, I think this was a highly unreliable source.

 

[stv_87]

did anyone write in the somme q about how haigs source was far from the truth in the soldiers gaining confidence. talk about historiography and how that divulges that the soldiers became demoralised and disillusioned ofhe war because of somme. instead of haigs heoism and proudness.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

I think you're incorrectly interchanging between useful and reliable here. The Source is primary and from the intimate, personal perspective of a soldier; that immediately makes it useful to a historian. Any primary source is useful as it presents a perspective on something - simple as that. Being useful, however, doesn't make it reliable. The content, structure, poetic imagery and anti-war emotive sensationalism make it an evocative but not entirely reliable source, especially considering that Sassoon's motive is to write poetry. Also, he was obviously desensitised by his experiences, casting more doubt on his ability to record an unbiased account.

This source's perspective is immediately useful because it provides a contrast to Sassoon's poem and the accepted norms of trench warfare, yes. However, in considering its reliability, you had to see that the source had no author, was only published on the internet, and did not demonstrate how it produced its figures or any of its conclusions on the apparent comfort of trench warfare. It gave percentages and statistics to support its contentious view - but where did they come from? Although it was descriptive and concise in nature, I think this was a highly unreliable source.

That's rather how I approached things. I think that last question about C and D will catch people out this year somewhat. Hopefully not I!

 

[dodgyfilokid]

help for modern history assessment

hello...does anyone here know any other websites related to the reasons for the stalemate in world war 1..i need 3 sources to evaluate on for my assessment...any response would be greatly appreciated