TRENCH WARFARE EXERCISE D – MODEL ANSWERS
How useful would Sources B and D be for a historian studying the physical and
psychological impact on soldiers fighting in the trenches on the Western Front?
In your answer, consider the perspectives provided by the two sources and the
reliability of each.
Sources B and D are both useful and very reliable for historians studying the physical and
psychological impact of war on soldiers on the Western Front. The former provides evidence of
the physical impact of artillery on soldiers; the latter offers evidence of they psychological impact
of one of the most deadly and feared weapons on the front.
Source B is an account of the medical effects of shell fragments on soldiers, written by a
German field surgeon, Dr Schlange. Having had first hand experience operating on German
soldiers on the Western Front, Schlange was in a perfect position to detail the destructive effects
of these weapons. In his account, he talks of their capacity to inflict immediate damage to tissue
and bones (mainly due to their ability to penetrate the body) and the difficulty in achieving longterm recovery for victims, given the dangers of gangrene and infection.
As far as reliability is concerned, there is every reason to place great faith in the accuracy of
Schlange’s account. Although he was German, he had no reason to exaggerate or cover up the
extent of the damage caused by Allied artillery. His perspective on this issue appears to be
objective. Like any good doctor, he merely describes the medical conditions encountered in the
trenches.
Given its reliability as a primary source, Schlange’s account is very useful to a historian seeking
to explain the high casualty rate on the Western Front. Although Schlange does not directly refer
to the psychological impact of artillery bombardment, this can be implied from the nature of the
wounds inflicted. It must have been terrifying for soldiers to consider the agonising deaths they
could suffer if they fell victim to an artillery attack.
Source D is a description of the types of flame-throwers used by the Germans during and after
the second Battle of Ypres (1915), and the impact of those weapons on the allied soldiers who
encountered them. It is a secondary source, written from a completely neutral perspective and, as
such, is highly reliable.
According to the author, John Laffin, the flame-throwers had a physical and psychological
impact on the enemy – killing the troops in their path and terrifying those nearby. Given the
description of these weapons by soldiers of the time (“liquid fire”), they must have been terrifying
weapons indeed, and contributed significantly to the sapping of Allied morale.
The only shortcoming of this source is its brevity. It does not contain enough detail on the
effects of flamethrowers on enemy troops. We are not told how deadly these weapons were in
comparison to other armaments used by the Germans. We are not told whether these weapons
were regarded as more terrifying than other weapons of mass destruction (such as machine guns,
poison gas and artillery shells). As such, the source is somewhat limited in its usefulness to a
historian studying the physical and psychological impact of trench warfare on soldiers serving on
the Western Front.
Trench Warfare exercise B - answers
How useful would Sources B and C be for a historian studying the large
number of deaths and casualties among officers and infantry on the Western
Front? In your answer, consider the perspectives provided by the two sources
and the reliability of each.
Five main factors explain the large numbers of casualties suffered by officers and infantry on the
Western Front during World War One: devastating new technologies; old-fashioned tactics; poor
sanitary conditions; inadequate medical capabilities and supplies; and the willingness of troops to
fight, despite overwhelming odds. Sources B and C illustrate one more of these factors, rendering
them highly useful to an historian studying this particular topic.
Source B is an account by a German doctor, Dr Schlange, who worked in a hospital on the
Western Front during the war. As a primary source, its reliability is high. This is particularly so
since there is no reason to believe a dedicated surgeon would exaggerate or underplay the
conditions he experienced on the front.
Schlange describes the effects of shell fragments on soldiers in his care. These devastating
weapons caused “frightful destruction of bone and tissue,” making the wounds nigh impossible to
treat. If the initial trauma did not lead to death, then there was a good chance that infection or
gangrene would, rendering the healer’s task even more difficult. Sadly, there were no antibiotics
available at the time, which meant that even the smallest wound could kill. This difficulty was
exacerbated by the filthy conditions in the trenches and in no-man’s-land, as described in Source
C.
Source C is a letter from an Allied Lieutenant – Alec Raws. As a primary source, this document
is also likely to be reliable, and even though letters were censored by the authorities to ensure that
morale stayed high on the home front, this one is extremely frank, suggesting it contains the truth.
In the letter, Raws describes the appalling sanitary conditions experienced by troops in the
trenches in 1916. As he puts it, “My tunic is rotten with other men’s blood, and partly splattered
with a comrade’s brains.” Given these conditions, it is little wonder that wounds became infected
easily and that casualties were high.
Raws also tells of soldiers who had been driven mad by the ceaseless bombardment, and who
were wandering aimlessly in no-man’s-land – sitting ducks for German snipers and artillerymen.
Yet one more reason why casualties were high.
Finally, Raws comments on the sheer bravery of the men, who are willing to fight on despite the
hopelessness of their situation. As he puts it, “If we live tonight we have to go through tomorrow
night – and next week – and next month.” Yet still men did not mutiny or shirk their duties. They
preferred to lose their lives rather than lose their honour.
Hence it can be seen that both these sources – the one from the perspective of a German
surgeon, the other from an Allied officer – are highly reliable, and give significant insight into the
reasons why casualties were so high on the Western Front.
Trench Warfare exercise B - answers