In this essay I will be talking about how effective technology was in British land campaigns during the First World War and the Second World War. The first source we are presented with is source E. It is an interpretation of the effectiveness of British generals during the First World War, written by Gary Sheffield in 2001. It’s purpose is to show consensus of the interpretations of the generals in the First World War, and to also show his personal interpretation. He is doing this since he is a revisionist. Source E supports the statement because Sheffield uses the word ‘Donkeys’ to describe the ineffectiveness of the generals during the First World War and to show that the generals may have made mistakes. However, the second part of the …show more content…
However, there are also some limitations to this source. For example, it misses out a lot of other technology which was used is the First World War, since this is only an extract we can not see all. Another limitation is that the extract is from a book, this means the author (Sheffield) may have deliberately controversial in order for people to interested in is book and ultimately get more sales. Overall, this source gives us a bit of information, which both support and dispute the statement. The first part talks about the mistakes made during the First World War, however the second part talks about how weapons were used successfully, this shows that the source is objective. Source F is a primary source of a painting, which was created in WW1 by John Sargent. Sargent was paid by the British government to document the war, so it could be shown to future generations what happened during the First World War. Its purpose it so make the viewer question the morality of using gas and the possible affect it could have on thousands of men. The source supports the statement, by showing the sun setting in the background it symbolises the sacrifice of the wasted life of the men. The source also shows a group of soldiers playing football in the background, this shows us that gas attacks were a frequent thing during the First World War, this shows us that technology was not me to prevent gas attack, overall, supporting the statement. However, the source also disproves the statement,
Arthur Ponsonby was a British activist and politician. Falsehood in War-Time: Propaganda Lies of the First World War, was a book with excerpts of written testimony from newspapers, official reports, and background on falsehood. From the reading, a person can deduce that the author had seen, and was well aware of, the use of falsehood in war time. He provided explanation of falsehood, why it is used in every
World War I, also known as the First World War, the Great War and the War to End All Wars, was a global military conflict which took place primarily in Europe from 1914 to 1918.[2] Over 40 million casualties resulted, including approximately 20 million military and civilian deaths.[3] Over 60 million European soldiers were mobilized from 1914 1918.[4] The immediate cause of the war was the June 28, 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavril Principe, a Bosnian Serb citizen of Austria-Hungary and member of the Black Hand. The retaliation by Austria-Hungary against Serbia activated a series of alliances that set off a chain reaction of war declarations. Within a month, much of Europe was
In 1975 the Oxford University Press published the first edition of The Great War and Modern Memory written by Paul Fussell. As Fussell states in the opening line, “this book is about the British experience on the Western Front from 1914 to 1918.” In this paper I will argue, that despite the numerous literary awards this book has won, it contains historical inaccuracies and shortcomings in relation to the accurate information provided that takes away from the prestige of the book. Despite the numerous negative aspects of the book, this paper will also briefly highlight the few positive areas of the book, therefore providing an in-depth analysis of the book.
Professor Freeman, in her lecture titled: “The Logic of a Campaign (or, How in the World Did We Win?)”, talks about “logistical” problems that the British Army faced. First and foremost was the simple problem of supply and demand; regarding both fighting men and basic supplies. England was an ocean away and America’s ports were not always welcoming. Second was the actual lay of the land. British forces were not accustomed to fighting over such a vastly spread out region, nor were the accustomed to guerilla style warfare (Freeman).
Light machine guns and sub-machine guns were invented during World War I as small arms, but the larger machine guns were modernized as well. Flame throwers were used as an offensive attack against trench warfare.[ix],[x]
DeVries and Smith have succeeded in laying out and proving their argument, which is that medieval military technology was influenced both by that of society on technology, and technology’s influence on society; although, the argument of this book was somewhat difficult to figure out. Neither the introduction nor conclusion in, Medieval Military Technology is clear at pointing out the central argument of the book. Instead, these sections describe other historians’ contributions to the field of military technology, the structure of the book itself, happenings during the Middle Ages, and the dying out of military practices. It is not until you have thoroughly completed reading the text and reviewed its contents that you understand the books purpose.
The nations of the Entente (Britain, France, and Russia) sought the new technology as well. A German press report found that the French used chemical weapons at Ypres (Document 5). The technology of poison gas, though ultimately ineffectual in swaying the war to one side’s favor, showed the changing landscape of military technology in the First World War. A fundamental part of modern warfare is the use of “armor” or vehicles protected from conventional small-arms and small-artillery fire, such as tanks. The first widespread and successful use of tanks was seen in WWI.
Warfare is a grim and horrible thing. Napoleon’s wars cost hundreds of thousands of lives for example. Yet, less than one hundred years later, Europe would discover the full horror of modern war. The technology of World War I made that conflict incredibly agonizing and prolonged the conflict, costing many lives. In the end, technology also produced some startling results.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the Battle of Yorktown and identify key intelligence events that if they had not occurred, would have changed the outcome of the battle. If General George Washington did not utilize misinformation and Counter Intelligence in this battle the British would have not surrendered as they were the superior fighting force and would have continue to
How far is the extract similar to and different from your wider reading in the literature of world war one? You should consider the writers' choice of form, structure and language.
How did new technology in World War I influence warfare? Do you think this was (and continues to be) a positive or negative influence. Explain your answer with specific examples and details.
A gruesome and horrifying war, World War I led to great advancements in technology. Both sides of the war began trying to outdo one another in terms of crafting the best killing machines. With each side developing new weapons to gain the upper hand in the war, war technology became extremely important. New technology assisted soldiers in fighting the enemy in numerous different ways. Important advancements in war technology that helped define the Great War were tanks, machine guns, and flamethrowers.
The period after World War I was known as the Interwar period. During this time nations such as France, the United States, Russia, and even Germany made changes in their armed forces. The changes included the reduction of force structure to technological improvements in weaponry. Britain became a leader among nations in military, particularly Army or ground innovations during the interwar years. Their ingenuity led to other nations taking all or some of the ideas to improve upon or add to their army. However, Britain's army was unable to achieve greatness from their innovations in armored warfare during the Inter-War period because of political constraints and an inability to foresee their future needs.
This essay will look at all the factors and then ascertain the effect each had on the outcome of the Crimean war. To make this easier I have categorised the factors in to leadership and organisation, battlefield tactics, strategy and technology. The allied leadership in the Crimean war was weak and held surprisingly little commanding power over many aspects of the war. Lord Raglan, an old, inexperienced and cautious man, was the commander of the British troops.
American army officer Omar Bradley once said,“If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.” The meaning of this quote lies in the destruction and devastation of humanity and geography during war. If we do not stop advancing in ways of killing and causing suffering, we will soon face the consequences of these technologies. Throughout World War I and World War II, there was a ginormous technological boom in which countries were competing to invent new weapons or vehicles used in warfare. Specifically, World War I could be blamed for the start of the creating of new technologies used in warfare even today. These technologies were often invented or created during World War I,