Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Why And How Did Britain Survive The War From 1940-1943?
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 4075 Views: 165 Comments: 0
As you can see from this map war was raging in Europe in 1940 and Britain ?was in big trouble. Germany appeared unstoppable as the defeat of Poland had ?taken just under a month in September 1939 by using their new Blitzkrieg ?tactics in which tanks would converge in one big group and punch a massive ?hole through enemy lines. For the next months a phoney war occurred in which ?Britain prepared for a German invasion. Although Britain was officially at ?war with Germany, Britain had decided not to assist the Polish with their ?war effort but if war broke...
of military ?hardware the Americans produced. German invasion of Russia took the pressure ?off us and military planning and scientific skill meant that the German ?threat in the Atlantic was put to rest. The grit and determination of the ?British people meant that we survived the Blitz. Although as a result of the ?Second World War this country was in massive debt and had work to do to ?build itself up again, the factors from 1940-43 caused Britain"s eventual ?victory over it"s enemies and enabled future generations to live their lives ?freely and peacefully. Just think what could have happened????
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

In 1929-1932 there was the depression....In 1929-1932 there was the depression. At this time people were starving and had to get food from charity. Also at this time millions of people were unemployed and poor. President Hoover who as president at this time did nothing to help because he believed that the government should not interfere in industry or business, also he did little to help the unemployed and poor. But President Roosevelt offered a 'New Deal' to the American public, which was better than what they had now. He also promised to create jobs through public works schemes and he would give help to the poor. One of Roosevelt's aims was to restore America if he got elected. President Roosevelt sounded like a warrior when he said he "was waging a war against Destruction, Delay, Deceit and Despair" to get America back on track and out of the depression. All of this helped Roosevelt to win votes and to be elected president. Roosevelt also used strong powerful words like "crusade" which was a holy war, to fight the depression. And again at the start of the speech during his election campaign in 1932 he "pledges" himself to us, which means promises. His speech sounds powerful and uplifting to people especially since he was going to deal with the depression. That's why he was voted in. 2 Source B and C are very different. Source B supports the New Deal and source C is against the New Deal. In source B it mentioned the New Deal gave confidence and hope but in source C this is not even mentioned. In source B it mentions the New Deal created jobs but in source C it says the New Deal created jobs but that they were totally dependent on the government. It also tells us that unemployment rose to 11 million in 1938, but in source B it says that when Roosevelt became president unemployment had reached 14 million but this was about 1932-1933 so unemployment had gone down. In source B it mentions what the money has been spent on but doesn't mention anything about the cost and the debt. But in source C it tells us that they have a $250 billion debt and before Roosevelt they only had a debt of $19 billion. It also tells us that the money is raised from taxpayer's money. In source B it mentions that the government is strong but has no grater power than the people, which means the people can vote him out at any time. Whereas in source C it tells us that Roosevelt has all the power and is stronger than the people. And he used his power ruthlessly; he is like a dictator. 3 The photographer was trying to give the message that in America people have the "Worlds highest standard of living" but the photographer also shows us black people queuing up for government relief. But the poster also shows white people Americans driving around in a car with their family and pet. The poster also says "there's no way like the American Way". Which basically means every thing is fine and they're doing well. This means that the New Deal has only worked for some people. The New Deal has worked for the white American people but the New Deal has not worked for the black people because they are still queuing up for government relief. The photo was shoot in 1937. This was when Roosevelt had been in charge for 4 years. At this time Roosevelt cut tax but to do this he would have to fire people so this caused a spiral effect and created a lot of unemployment. So by this time unemployment was yet again rising, but this did not cause a new depression. 4 Source E was against the New Deal, because it says there has been "16 Billion Spent" on the New Deal. And the money was from the taxpayer because the source shows an old, weak man struggling with buckets of "$" up the hill which Roosevelt was pouring into the New Deal Pump, but the pump is leaking which means the tax payers money is being wasted. He is "spending the money like water". This source was drawn in an American newspaper in the 1930s just when Roosevelt was entering the Whitehouse. Source F is for the New Deal, because the source shows Roosevelt clearing out all the old polices which were all Hoover's ideas and polices, which President Roosevelt thought were rubbish. This source also shows Roosevelt with his sleeves rolled up which shows he was a man of action. The source was called "Getting Rid Of Rubbish". Source G is against the New Deal. The source shows that Roosevelt doesn't know what he is doing because he tells the old maid congress "Of course we might have to change remedies if we don't get a result" but in the source it shows us that he has already tried lots of bottles of remedies, which have had no result These bottles were the Alphabet Agencies. The bottles in the picture represent ways to make Uncle Sam America better. This was an American cartoon published in the middle of the 1930s, which was when Roosevelt had been president for about a year or so. 5 In source H it tells us that the New Deal worked for the old people But the old people wrote the letter. This was probably because Roosevelt gave old people pensions and he sent someone to help them. The old people were helped like in source H but in source I it says that all breadlines were gone but this was not true because this source was written in 1936, but in source D shows black people in breadline queuing up for government relief and source D was taken in 1937. Source H is biased because it was a letter published by Roosevelt's supporters as part of his election campaign. So this source would be un-reliable because it is one-sided and it was in favour of Roosevelt. Source I was a popular song that people bought. But people might not have agreed with the songs views, they might have just liked the music etc. In source H it tells us about the amount of people which agree with Roosevelt and it tells us that Roosevelt helped the old people we know that old people were helped because Roosevelt gave old people pensions. But we do know that this source is biased but out of both sources I think this source is the most useful. I don't think source I is that useful because it is a song and although this was a popular song, that doesn't mean people agreed with it. Source I would be unreliable because it mentions things like "no more breadlines we're glad to say" but as you know this wasn't the case this is mentioned above. 6 Source J was against the New Deal. The source was written by SB Fuller, who was a self-made businessman. This source was written in 1980. SB Fuller believed that the New Deal interfered with business. He also seems to imply that people who claim benefits were scroungers. In the source it shows this because it says, "a dog you feed will not hunt". Also he probably wasn't happy about the New Deal because rich people were heavily taxed. Also this source has very biased views because he puts people down. Source K is for the New Deal because it explains that with the New Deal, ordinary people have a better chance of life. This source also focuses on the ordinary people and not the rich, because it tells us that rich people have been hit hard but they still have something left. But the ordinary people like shopkeepers, or the ordinary, householder haven't got anything left. So when a voter sees this source it will definitely make a big impact on an ordinary person. But can we really trust this source? Because it was written by the secretary of Labour in Roosevelt's New Deal Government and she is bound to be in favour because she helped to build the New Deal. Source J was written in the 1980's and source K was written in 1949. These sources disagree with each other because source J says about the New Deal stopping the people using their initiative and that the New Deal hurt people. But source K tells us that the New Deal helped people who couldn't help themselves. 7 Source 7 i this view is for the New Deal tells us that "the New Deal helped many Americans" Only many? What is the point of having the New Deal if it didn't help all Americans and we know it didn't help the black people because in 1937 black people were still queuing for government relief. I know this because this is mentioned in source D This source also says that it gave Americans "self-respect" and "confidence". But what is the point of this? Because all this did was make most Americans over dependent on the government this is shown in source J. The New Deal did get America out of the Depression but unemployment was still very high but the war solved this for Roosevelt. Source B shows that the New Deal did this as it states "in the political field there was the strengthening of the government and the expansion of government activities to help people." But source B also mentions, "When Roosevelt became President, unemployment had reached 14 million" Source 7 ii This source is against the New Deal. In this source it tells us how the New Deal wasted money which was the tax payers money this is shown in source E. Because in source E it shows a little weak man carrying buckets of "$" up the hill and it shows Roosevelt pouring the tax payers money down "the New Deal pump" but the pump is leaking which shows that the tax payers money is being wasted. Also source G shows us that Roosevelt didn't know what he was doing because in this source it showed us that he had tried lots of ways to improve Americas state by making many Alphabet Agencies these were represented by the bottles in the picture but most of these had no result. This would have resulted in money being wasted. Source J also backs up source 7 ii ""¦it made people dependent on the government "¦" because source J says, "We had soup lines and the Depression became men lost confidence in themselves. Source C also backs up source 7 ii because in source it mentions ""¦ one in every four people depends on employment by the government." Source 7 ii also mentions, ""¦led to the government becoming too powerful." Source C can also back this up because source C says, "more people are on government relief and Roosevelt is calling for more power!" and also says that when Congress gave up much of its power to Roosevelt by giving Roosevelt billions of dollars into his hands, Roosevelt used the power ruthlessly. Conclusion for 7 i &7 ii I agree with source 7 ii. I agree with this source above because in source 7 i it says that the New Deal only "helped many Americans" but it didn't help any blacks. This is shown in source D. I agree with source 7 ii because the New Deal did waste a lot of money on pointless tasks This is shown in source E and others. And the New Deal didn't solve problems like unemployment the war did this. But from my background knowledge I know that the New Deal did help a lot of Americans mainly white people, and the New Deal did build up confidence and got rid of most of the breadlines. So this shows that parts of source 7 i were correct. 8 For or Against the New Deal. People were for the New Deal because the New Deal helped many Americans and gave them self-respect, the New Deal helped to gain confidence after the depression and the New Deal also made a lot of helpful government schemes for example the alphabet agencies. People were against the New Deal because rich people were heavily taxed, huge sums of money were paid to the unemployed people to do silly tasks like planting trees, and Roosevelt interfered with business by saying how long people could work for also people like Governor Huey long of Louisiana, thought the New Deal did not go far enough. Unfortunately the New Deal did not lower the unemployment rate to make a difference. But the war managed to solve this. Black people were also against the New Deal because the New Deal didn't really help them, because they still had to queue up in breadlines for government relief. But it really depends on who you were. A businessman would be against the New Deal because you would be heavily taxed, and the New Deal interfered with the way business was run for example limiting the hours people could work You can see this is true because source J is against the New Deal and this source is written by a businessman. A politician would be for and against the New Deal depending on which party you were on. A black person would be against the New Deal because not a lot changed for them source D shows this. An old person would be for the New Deal because they got benefits such as pensions this is shown in source H and also the unemployed would be for the New Deal because they would have received money from the government. The disagreement over the effects of the New Deal in the USA is shown in the sources below. Source B and C disagree over the New Deal even though they are written by historians. Source B focuses on the major achievements of the New Deal. But source C just focuses on all the bad points of New Deal so none of these sources gives an overall view of the New Deal. Source J and K also disagree. Source J is against the New Deal and this source was written by a self-made businessman who believed in rugged individualism and he also believed that anyone who claimed benefits are scroungers. This is a biased view. Source K was for the New Deal. This source was on about that the New Deal meant that ordinary people could have a better chance in life, because although rich people were hit by the depression they could cope. Ordinary people couldn't. But this source is also biased and can't be trusted because the women who wrote this was the Secretary of Labour in Roosevelt's New Deal government. Source A is also biased because source A was took from a speech by Roosevelt during his election campaign. We don't know much about these sources, below Source H is a letter from some old people saying how thankful they are to have Roosevelt as their president and all the benefits it has bought them. Roosevelt supporters published source H. Source I is a popular song which cant really be trusted because it is only a song and people might just have bought it for the music not the words. Conclusion Right from the start of New Deal different people had different views on it. Source E shows one view that people had of the New Deal. Which was, people thought Roosevelt is just wasting taxpayer's money down the drain as illustrated in the picture Source F shows another view people had of the New Deal. Which was, Roosevelt getting rid of all Hoovers old policies. It also shows Roosevelt with his sleeves rolled up which indicates he's a man of action. Finally Source G shows another view people had of the New Deal. Which was Roosevelt doesn't know what he is doing and he is wasting money on alphabet agencies, which don't work.   

In 1929-1932 there was the depression. At this time people were starving and had to get food from charity. Also at this time millions of people were unemployed and poor. President Hoover who as president at this time did nothing to help because he believed that the government should...

Words: 2760 View(s): 355 Comment(s): 0
Question I Source B shows...Question I Source B shows Hitler surrounded by others leading Nazis digging in the start of one of Germany's many new Autobahns. These "Autobahns" were the equivalent of our motorways; and the first of their kind anywhere in the world. Their creation in turn created around 100,000 new jobs, what with the industrial power needed to support them"¦for each manual labourer working on them, 3 jobs industry would be created to support the sheer material need Autobahns needed. The fact that Hitler allowed himself to pictured digging into an Autobahn project proves their importance to the Nazi regime; certainly Hitler was very rarely pictured whilst physically working any other time during Nazi rule. Question II Source C shows Germany's G.N.P. steadily having a large chunk of itself being spent on the Armed Forces from 3% in 1933 when Hitler first gained absolute power, to 23% in 1939 when Germany and Britain stood on the brink of World War. The increases on spending on Armed Forces in Germany follows the typical "Rolling Stone" increase pattern; where increase is a constant, and where each increase gets steadily larger on it's predecessor. The G.N.P. percentile peaks at 1939 for obvious and given reasons; but even before Germany was busy creating Lebensraum, the amount being spent on Armed Forces was incredibly high for a German who's welfare system should have been in economic overdrive. The Nazi can, therefore, be shown to have had a lot of determination to rebuild Germany's forces. Coincidently or not, as Germany's forces grew, unemployment dropped. But I firmly believe Nazi politics where to create a huge Army, not reduce unemployment; the Army came before social policies. The reason for a large percentage of the drop in unemployment is due to the fact that before Hitler and supposedly during, Germany's Armed Forces where still limited by the Treaty of Versailles to 100,000 men. For those 100,000 soldiers, perhaps another 250,000 industrial workers would be kept in their jobs as support for the army. By enlarging the Armed Forces, Hitler was not only fulfilling a rabid Nazi view that a strong Germany need a strong Army; he was creating, from thin air, 2,500,000 jobs"¦ conscription forced 1,000,000 men into the army and created up to an additional 2,500,000 jobs in blue and white collar workers. This drastically improved unemployment figures see Source A, and, on a more sinister note, connected with the Autobahn projects in preparing Germany for all out war. It is a grim fact the all #Autobahn routes lead to Austria, Holland, Belgium, France and Poland- Hitler's central targets during the World War that was to follow. Question III Source D is a German poem which offers "advice" in that it makes statements and expects them to be followed to German women. This poem was written in the 1930's, during the rise of Nazism. Today, such a poem would rightly be considered sexist; but Nazis enjoy dividing society up into rank and file, with each "type" of person being given, and expected to fulfil, and set role in their idea of a society. Hitler's Nazis tried with regrettable success to force all their ideals on the German population, and Source D is a typical example of the way in which they typically achieved this. These sorts of pressures where applied throughout education and into adulthood. As such, Education differed greatly between Aryans and Jews, boys and girls. An Aryan German boy would learn mainly maths, German, and physics, based around things like the trajectory of bombs, war stories and the amount of money Germany could save if it killed all those with mental health problems. Girls, however, used maths only as far as working out how to change a cooking recipe from a meal for 4, to a meal for 5, for example. Nazi indoctrination would continue through a teenager's life, with The Hitler Youth or the League of German Maidens eventually becoming compulsory. Whilst a teenage male would learn how to polish his jack-boots and march in a straight line, a teenage girl would be taught "The Three K's"- Children, Church and Cooking. Finally, as Source D shows, a young woman would be steadily, eventually even forcefully, be removed from the labour market, and persuaded to marry and have children with a "genetically healthy" Aryan man, ofcourse. Incentives were provided, such as marriage loans- given by the state to young couples. A loan of worth 6 months average pay would be issued, and upon each child after the first, would be split with the number of children produced as the denominator. The fraction left would be cancelled out all together upon the fifth child; medals where even given to women after having given birth enough times. It all basically boils down to the Nazi obsession with the Army. Hitler wanted lots of "perfect" Germans for his "perfect" Reich Army, to create his rather twisted idea of a "perfect" world. Question IV Sources E and F are both reasonably useful in finding out what life was really like in 1930's Nazi Germany. Source E, being that it is a statement of opposition to the Nazis in an Anti-Nazi newspaper, shows us that some opposition, however small, existed within Germany itself, and that it was not entirely silent. Source E's actual content that the worker in question states that he got higher wages and more freedom before Hitler, and that ""¦the whole thing stinks"¦" should be seen as at least as close to the Nazi idea of truth. Germany was so full of Nazi propaganda, that rather naturally opposition to the Nazis is likely to have been equally asquew from the truth. Since all forms of opposition banned in Nazi Germany, only a VERY small minority of people would even talk to opposition parties. Fewer still were members of such groups. The Nazi Secret Police the notorious Gestapo were not above pretending to be opposition members, and tricking people into breaking the law. Source F is the analysis of Germany's economic status and unemployment figures. Written by an American, this source could be biased for two reasons; firstly- the fact that most Americans fundamentally opposed Nazism because it ignored the American principles of personal and political freedom. Secondly, America has, and had, a relatively high Jewish population. It is, therefore, very likely that the writer of Source F would disagree with Nazism, possibly be Jewish himself, or know several Jewish people himself and therefore know the Nazi view to be utterly incorrect. However, that I completely agree with be anti-Nazi doesn't matter; the fact is Source F is likely to be sceptical to say the least towards Hitler's economic progress. Yet what Source F states is what we now know to be true"¦that a lot of "hidden unemployment" was created. Not at all a biased report- merely a truthful one. Sources E and F both lead us to consider things about Nazi Germany that would not be considered otherwise. Firstly, that Germany was not a Utopia without any opposition, and secondly that not even Germany's economic "success" was steeped in a sinister background. Question V Source A shows unemployment figures between 1933 and 1939 drop by 5,000,000. Very large by today's standards, but almost unbelievably huge in a depression wracked 1930's Germany. If something looks too good to be true, it probably is; this is certainly the case with Source A. Firstly- Source F tells us all Jews were removed from their jobs, replaced by Hitler's "Aryans", and packed off somewhere, never to be included in any unemployment figures. Source A would only show the course of action I just mentioned as a creation of jobs or a cutting of unemployment, when, in fact, it's just job shifting! Secondly, Source D shows us that women were encouraged, and later forced, to leave the labour market. Once more, Source A would show the unemployment figures dropping- and, once more, it was just a case of job shifting. More Nazi men would be drafted in to fill the jobs women left behind, and since housewives don't count as unemployed, Hitler has "created" more jobs. Thirdly, the Autobahn projects and Conscription forced hundreds of thousands of young, working-class men the social group mostly affected by unemployment into work. Not only that, but every army man needed equipment, and every man on an Autobahn project needed materials to work with. It can be said that up to 3 times as many industrial workers were needed to support such projects as there were army men or frontline workers. Source E shows us that many workers were forced into producing set products for whatever project the Nazis where undertaking at the time. Finally, Norman Thomas's Source F makes so many calculated arguments against Source A's accuracy that even if he is wildly biased, in all probability at least one of his accusations will be correct. I would say that merely in its existence, Source F is evidence enough to throw Source A's numbers in disrepute. Linked with Source D, I'd say Source A looks no more truthful than anything the Nazis ever created. Question VI I disagree with the statement, "Economic success was the main reason for the popularity of the Nazis before the Second World War". Firstly, I cannot believe that under the Nazis there can ever be any way of telling if people were really happy"¦intimidation from the Gestapo and dog-eat-dog relationships with neighbours meant vast majorities of Germans were too scared to disagree with Nazis; I believe to the point of convincing themselves they were happy-though I don't believe that early on in Hitler's leadership any one reason can be used to excuse the German population for their 32% support for Hitler. Secondly then, most "economic success" in Nazi Germany was either achieved through brutal means and subtle tweaking of stats see Sources F and A, or through the introduction of Conscription which, in turn, obviously stimulated the arms industry into a German army that took utmost priority in Hitler's Meisterwerk. However, there is 1 social group that benefited from Nazism the most. Middleclass, non-Jewish Germans if they managed to ignore all their disappearing neighbours. Hitler recreated transport systems and general infrastructure was greatly improved; whilst he managed to hide from the general public the fact he was murdering hundreds of thousands of people in the same breath. That ordinary Germans never, as one mass, revolted against Hitler can be accredited to the reasons given earlier in this paragraph. Another group of Germans appeased by Hitler were the more right-wing members of society found at the top and bottom of the financial ladder. His annexing of Austria, the reclaiming of the Ruhr and Rhine lands, and the absorption of Czechoslovakia would have pleased a group of people who really only needed to have a small excuse to feel good about themselves and wave a Nazi flag. Hitler had given them more than enough. That would have only left the more socialist or liberal members of Germany. In the last election Hitler ran in, a rough 50% of the vote was left wing"¦Hitler won with a 33% "majority". Since we know left-wingers or labour minded working class people still existed in Germany see Source E it strikes me a sinister to say the least! that the views of half a country suddenly changed and became happy with any Nazi government. It is understandable that they would not of complained, but to mistake their silence for happiness is an insult to their collect memory. In conclusion, I would say that while what economic success Source A, and in general infrastructural improvements Hitler had would have honestly pleased a naïve majority of Germans, though many would have either felt or known it was all very sinister. As for those Germans to left of Hitler at the last election, around 95% of them would have been silenced by concentration camps, intimidation or a feeling of being alone, and used "economic success" as the cleanest reason for remaining silent about their views. Hitler's Nazi Party ruled under a dictatorship; a system of government which never comes under open vote To expect open opinions under such a system would be idiocy- therefore any "facts" given by Nazis are to be treated with the utmost of suspicion and caution. I would say most Germans realised Nazis lied, but also realised they would be made to disappear should the speak out; it is only logical, then, that when asked why not if they were happy with the Nazis, they would say, "economic success"- because after all, there really is nothing Nazi about economic progress.   

Question I Source B shows Hitler surrounded by others leading Nazis digging in the start of one of Germany's many new Autobahns. These "Autobahns" were the equivalent of our motorways; and the first of their kind anywhere in the world. Their creation in turn created around 100,000 new jobs,...

Words: 2166 View(s): 246 Comment(s): 0
When World War One broke... When World War One broke out in 1914 Britain had only a small professional army. It needed a large one very quickly. In order to solve this problem the government would introduce conscription in 1916. However, before the introduction of conscription the government would put a tremendous amount of social pressure onto the young men of Britain to volunteer to join the army. The government began a massive recruitment drive, with posters, leaflets, recruitment offices in every town and stirring speeches by government ministers. Not only this many newspapers would include poems written as a means of shaming men into joining the army. For example, the poem "Fall In" by Harold Begbie would make those who did not join the army feel ashamed. Also, the women would put further pressure on men to join the army. The idea that the women would want the men after they came back from war was common. During this time young the young men of Britain were put under a lot of pressure to join the army. The recruitment campaign was highly successful as by 1916 over 2 million had enlisted. At this time the people of Britain were ignorant and inexperienced about war. To most the war seemed like an adventure or almost like a "game". The use of propaganda only served to increase this impression. Government produced propaganda would make people dismiss reality and the truth, instead opting to believe what the government wanted them to believe. Whilst in reality World War One was a highly dangerous and horrific experience. As well as this many young men thought the war would be over by Christmas and that they would be seen as heroes when they defeated the enemy and came home. In hindsight we can see how delusional people were, manipulated into dismissing the truth. Wilfred Owen was one of the most recognised war poets during the war. Owen's poems would illustrate the true dangers of war with the focus being on the young men who had been almost forced to join the army. Owen's style of writing was in contrast with those of Harold Begbie and Jessie Pope. Begbie and Pope would write poems playing upon the concerns of young men and glorifying the war. It was partially Owen's dislike for Pope and Begbie that drove his poems as well as his need to record his first-hand experiences. The poem "Fall In" by Harold Begbie immediately tries to convince the reader to join the army. The title "Fall In" seems threatening and acts as a command almost telling the reader to join the army. Furthermore, the opening line of the poem immediately shows the main topic that runs through the poem: "What will you lack, sonny, what will you lack" Here we learn through the use of the word "sonny" that the implied reader is a young man, most likely still unsure about signing up. Not only this the repetition of the word "sonny" throughout creates a sense of threatening insistency. As a rhetorical question the poetic voice manages to make the reader think whilst the repetition of "what will you lack" further emphasises the question. After the initial rhetorical question managing to grab the reader's attention Begbie goes on to prey upon one of their immediate concerns: "When the girls line up the street, Shouting their love to the lads come back" Here Begbie straight away focuses on one of the main concerns of the implied reader: appearing unmanly in front of women. Begbie is suggesting that by joining the army the implied reader would be instantly recognised as a hero. Not only this the girls would show their love and appreciation for them, revelling in their glory. This image of girls "shouting their love" would powerfully encourage the implied reader to consider going to war. We can also see Begbie's lack of knowledge and ignorance about the true horrors of war as he seems to believe that it would be an advantageous opportunity for young men. Begbie later preys upon different concerns that the implied reader might have: "And England's call is God's!" Here Begbie plays upon the idea of patriotism with his reference to "England". With many men joining their respective countries' armies Begbie could be suggesting that it would be your duty as a citizen of England to sign up. To further convince the implied reader Begbie mentions that "England's call is God's". This would indicate that God is with England and therefore by signing up you would be siding with God. Also, the implied reader could interpret this as suggesting that God would be with them throughout the war serving as a protector. Begbie later changes tactics as he tries to connect with the implied reader choosing to use more colloquial language: "The pub and the betting odds" With the implied reader being a young, inexperienced, somewhat immature young men this use of colloquial language here would relate to them on a personal level. With the mention of a "pub" and "betting odds" the implied reader might relate to these socially specific details, consequently making them warm to Begbie. With the introduction of the second stanza in "Fall in" Begbie adopts a more serious voice: "Will you say it was naught to you if France Stood up to her foe or bunked? But where will you look when they give you the glance That tells you they know you funked?" The indication here is that those who do not join the army will be betraying their country and fellow citizens. Moreover, the further use of rhetorical questions serves to make the reader ask themselves the question as well as making them feel more involved in the poem. In the penultimate stanza Begbie suggests that there is still time for the implied reader to redeem himself with the announcement: "Or say- I was not with the first to go, but I went, thank god, I went? Here it seems that Begbie is assuming the role of the implied reader to further connect with them whilst simultaneously bolstering the impression that they should volunteer. Also, Begbie is communicating the idea that there is still time to prove yourself and volunteer. Moreover, the mention of "god" again indicates the religious aspect of the war, maybe suggesting that by volunteering you will be siding with God. Finally, in the last stanza Begbie, possibly to serve his own ends, asks the rhetorical question: "It is nought to you if your country fall, and right is smashed by wrong?" With the use of this rhetorical question Begbie hopes to arouse the reader's emotions and immediately rush to volunteer. Begbie was not the only poet who wrote poems encouraging young men to volunteer. Jessie Pope is another poet who wrote poems of this nature. Pope's poem "Who's for the game?" is very similar to "Fall in" as they both communicate the same message in an attempt to encourage young men to volunteer. The title "Who's for the game?" gives us a good indication of how Pope views the war. By suggesting that war is little more than a contest we can conclude that Pope lacks knowledge about war and is unaware of the true horrors that occur. It is this thinking that enraged Owen and would influence his later work. "Who's for the game?" and "Fall in" are similar in many ways. For instance, like in "Fall in "there are many rhetorical questions found in "Who's for the game?": "Who's for the game, the biggest that's played, The red crashing game of a fight," Here Pope uses many references alluding to war as a game. It could be that Pope is attempting to make the war sound more welcoming to further convince the implied reader to volunteer. As well as this the tone throughout "Who's for the game?" is very upbeat and energised serving to make the reader feel more enthusiastic about the idea of volunteering. Also, the vocabulary and lexis seen here is very brash and confident to increase the impression that war is an adventure. Throughout this poem there are many direct rhetorical questions asked which would create a dialogue between the reader and the poetic voice. Consequently this makes it a lot more stirring and effective at influencing the intended audience whilst simultaneously almost forcing the reader to ask himself whether or not he should go to war. Moreover, Pope continues to show her ignorance to the true nature of war, presenting it as little more than a play: "Who'll give his country a hand? Who wants a turn to himself in the show?" Here Pope preys upon the implied reader's fears of being ostracised. The suggestion is that if you do not go to war then you will be letting your country and your peers down. This is very similar to Fall in where Begbie preyed upon the implied readers fears of appearing unmanly to women. In continuation of this, Pope goes on to focus on the sense of patriotism one would have if they were to volunteer: "Who knows it won't be a picnic-not much- "¦Who would much rather come back with a crutch" Here Pope is recognising that one could get injured in war. However, Pope then suggests that it would be a sign of honour to "come back with a crutch". As well as this Pope compares war to a "picnic". This idea that war is fun shows Popes ignorance to the dangers of war. Furthermore, in a more disturbing aspect, it could be that Pope is trying to manipulate these young men into going to war. In the last stanza Pope again focuses on the patriotic aspect of war: "Your country is up to her neck in a fight, And she's looking and calling for you." The suggestion here to the implied reader is that their country is "looking" and "calling" for them. Writings like this would have put a tremendous amount of pressure on young men. Also, with all the other methods of persuasion that they would have been subjected to these men would have been almost forced into volunteering. In conclusion, it is clear to see that the poets Begbie and Pope were unaware of the true horrors of war as they attempted to manipulate young men into volunteering and consequently signing their lives away. It is these views expressed by Begbie and Pope that would have influenced the work of Wilfred Owen. Wilfred Owen was one of the most recognised war poets during the war. Influenced by the poems of propagandists such as Begbie and Pope, Owen would write about the true dangers of war with the focus being on the young men who had been almost forced to join the army. One of Owen's most recognised poems is "Disabled: a victim of war". In this poem Owen communicates the effects of war as he assumes the role of a young man who has just returned from war after being severely injured. Whilst in other poems the life of a soldier is generalised here we are given access to an individual sole person. Consequently we are able to sympathise more as we are presented with one man's experience. Furthermore, as this poem is written in the free indirect style it allows the reader a unique access to the young man's thoughts and memories. For instance, we are given a sense of his pain: "He sat in a wheeled chair, waiting for dark, And shivering in his ghastly suit of grey." Here we are presented with a grim indication of this young man's current situation. The mention that he "sat in a wheeled chair" augments his sense of pain and disability. However, a real sense of sympathy is experienced when we realise that it was the work of propagandists such as Begbie and Pope that manipulated men like him into volunteering. It is very likely that this man signed up to prove his potency but now he has ended up totally dependant and rendered impotent. Also, the suggestion that he was "waiting for dark" could show that the night is his only source of comfort as when it's dark he can sleep and experience no pain. Another way of looking at this is that night is a metaphorical symbol of death. He is now at a point where he views death as his only escape from this pain and therefore finds himself ultimately just waiting to die. This stresses the horrors of war by giving us a individual example to help us to sympathize and empathise. Furthermore, the description of him "shivering" shows how all energy has been drained from him, making him seem more vulnerable. Also, the mention of him as a "ghastly suit of grey" suggests that he is barely alive; he is only left with a conscience. Not only this the alliteration present here creates a sense of a desperate sigh almost as if he is disgusted with himself. The sense of pain the man is experiencing is continued: "Legless, sewn short at elbow." The syntax of the sentence here is designed to deliberately delay the detail of "legless", thus highlighting its graphic horror on the reader. As well as this the mention that he was "sewn short at elbow" indicates how he has been dehumanised as now he is made to sound like a piece of clothing. Whilst at the start we were an observer we are now given full access to his feelings and emotions making it far more evocative. This sense of pathos experienced by the reader is further increases with a reminder of what he used to have: "Voices of boys rang suddenly like a hymn, Voices of play and pleasure after day." The "voices of boys" only serve to remind him what he will never be able to experience again: joy, pleasure and energy. The mention of a "hymn" arouses the sense of religion. It could be that he feels he has been forsaken by God and now he doesn't even have his religion to give him hope. In the second stanza it seems as if we are going into his positive memories: "When glow-lamps budded in the light blue trees, And girls glanced lovelier as the air grew dim." Each stanza is separated by asterisks creating the impression that the man is drifting in and out of consciousness. With the introduction of the second stanza it seems that we are drifting into positive memories with of "light blue trees" creating a peaceful mood. Moreover, the mention of "girls" indicates a sense of lost romance. However, this sense of calm is immediately lost with a sudden volta: "In the old times, before he threw away his knees." There is a visceral sense of shock here as the mood dramatically changes. Whilst he was at peace reminiscing on his past memories of joy, he is now suddenly reminded of his current situation. He has now become aware that he will never be able to experience joy again: "Now he will never feel again how slim Girl's waists are, or how warm their subtle hands;" It seems he is aware that he will never know the joy of love and friendship again. His desire for physical love makes the reader sympathise even more. As the poem moves into the third stanza it segues into another positive memory. However, these constant reminders of what he used to have ultimately only pain him more. Yet he still looks desperately from some memory to salve his pain: "He's lost his colour very far from here, Poured it down shell-holes till the veins ran dry." This phantasmagorical image of "shell holes" shows how he has lost all of his dreams and hopes bolstering his sense of pain. Not only this it intensifies the sense of regret and anger at himself for being influenced by propaganda. It is almost as if war has drained him of everything. In the fourth stanza there seems to be an indirect attack on Pope: "After the matches, carried shoulder high. It was after football, when he'd drunk a peg." This could be interpreted as an attack on Pope. Here Owen is indicating that this man will never be able to play football again due to his injuries suffered at war. Whereas in "Who's for the game?" Pope, in an attempt to convince young men to volunteer, compared war to a team game. Furthermore, in "Fall in" and "who's for the game?" there was an indication that those you did volunteer would experience a heroic welcome when they returned. However, in "Disabled" the returning soldier does not receive this response: "Some cheered him home, but not as crowds cheer Goal. Only a solemn man who brought him fruits." Owen is again satirizing Pope and her poem "Who's for the game?" with the suggestion that he would have been given more praise for scoring a goal than going to war. This is highly ironic since Pope compared war to a game in "Who's for the game?" As the poem ends Owen gives one final indication of this man's pain: "How cold and late it is! Why don't they come And put him into bed? Why don't they come?" The repetition here of the question "Why don't they come" augments his sense of pain and suffering whilst indicating his longing for an end to his nightmarish existence. Owen has cleverly focused on an individual person rather than a faceless mass to make it easier for the audience to sympathise and empathise. Thus, Owen stresses the horrors of war through his description of one man's life after the war. Another of Owen's most recognized poems is "Dulce et Decorum est" which translated means sweet and fitting it is. This title is not meant to be taken seriously as in the poem Owen adopts an angry, bitter tone to talk about the horrors of war. Straight away Owen stresses the horrors of war with his description of these young men: "Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through Sludge." Here we learn about the soldier's wretched condition as they return to the Front. The use of similes comparing these soldiers to "beggars" and "hags" is very powerful considering they were young men. There is a suggestion that they have been reduced to old weak women. This shows the appalling conditions that soldiers experienced in the war. Owen is trying to communicate to the reader the true effect that war can have on people through his vivid description of these men returning to the front. In continuation of this, Owen carries on to bolster this impression of their hardships: "But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots." Here we can see how mentally and physically drained they are as they "limped on". Furthermore, they seem to have lost their senses as they are now "lame", "blind", and "deaf". This powerfully communicates their distress and wretched condition. As well as this they are dehumanised with the mention that they are "blood-shod". They have now reached a state of pain and suffering that they are no longer recognized as humans. With the introduction of the second stanza Owen focuses on one man who could not get his gas helmet on in time: "Gas! Gas! Quickly, boys! "“ An ecstasy of fumbling "¦And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime"¦ Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning." Here Owen allows the reader to see through the eyes of a soldier. Consequently we are able to empathise with this soldier on a personal level as we can experience what is happening from the first person. We are seeing the true horrors of war through this one soldier's perspective rather than the ideas presented by such propagandists as Begbie and Pope. The description is very surreal and chaotic due to the powerful visual and aural imagery present. Owen uses a powerful underwater metaphor to compare the soldier succumbing to poison gas with drowning. This metaphor helps the reader to vividly picture the scene consequently making it far more effective. Also, the mention of a "green sea" suggests the soldier's helplessness and pain as he dies. Moreover, the unforgiving horrors of war can be seen with the mention that he was "flound'ring like a man in fire". This simile indicates the pain he was experiencing as he died and further stresses the horrors of war. In the third stanza Owen looks back from a new perspective at what has just happened to his friend: "In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning." The commas used here serve as a pause prolonging the sentence making it seem more saddening. Another way of looking at this is that the pauses are meant to be sighs, expressed by Owen as he watches in horrors as his friend dies before him, knowing there is nothing he can do save him. In the fourth stanza Owen attacks those people at home who uphold the war's continuance unaware of its realities: "If in some smothering dreams you too could pace "¦ And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; Owen is suggesting here that if those people who are ignorant to the horror of war could experience his own "smothering dreams", which replicate in small measure the victim's sufferings, then maybe they would change their perceptions. The "you" whom Owen addresses could imply people in general but it more likely it applies to the propagandist poets who influenced his work. The sufferings that are experienced at war are described in sickening detail by Owen to shock the reader. The verbs "writhing" and "hanging" denote an especially virulent kind of pain. Whilst the simile comparing his face to a "devils sick of sin" indicates that he has somewhat experienced hell on earth in the form of war. Thus we can see how Owen stresses the horrors of war through his vivid description of one man's sufferings at war. Owen ends this poem with a somewhat angered bitter line that represents his attitude to the propagandists: "The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro Patria mori." This translates to "the old lie: sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country". We can see just how disgusted Owen was by the propagandists in this poem. Therefore, we can see just how Owen stresses the horrors of war through his vivid and descriptive writing about soldiers in the war. The main purpose of "Dulce et Decorum Est" was to make people aware of the true nature of war. Similarly, "Disabled" also attempts to communicate the horrors of war. Both these poems were influenced by the works of propagandists such as Begbie and Pope who wrote poems unaware of what war was really like with the intention of manipulating young men into volunteering.   

When World War One broke out in 1914 Britain had only a small professional army. It needed a large one very quickly. In order to solve this problem the government would introduce conscription in 1916. However, before the introduction of conscription the government would put a tremendous amount of...

Words: 3877 View(s): 249 Comment(s): 0