How useful are the views of Anzac soldiers at Gallipoli suggested in Source A, B and C

All the sources are useful because even though they may not be reliable, they show the people's opinion of the Gallipoli campaign. Sources that show peoples opinion can be used to explore how the solders felt through out the wars. Source A was published in 1916, just one year after the Gallipoli campaign. This makes it a primary source, which could mean that its more reliable as it was written nearer the time, and details have had less time to be forgotten. It was made on the Gallipoli peninsular, which shows that the artist had an eye witness account this would mean he was relying on his own knowledge not someone else's. Although it as created by an Australian artist, which might mean it, is biased or exaggerated because he might want to make the Australians look better, it shows both the good and bad side of the war. The cartoons show two ANZAC soldiers as they looked during the Gallipoli campaign. The first cartoon shows a man in a large over coat, shoes that are to big for him, a gun, he's yawning and has skinny legs. The large coat and shoes that are to big for him suggest that the supplies aren't getting through and they are very low on resources so he has to use anything he can get. The skinny legs also show that there is a lack of food and that the soldiers are very weak. I know from my own knowledge that supplies weren't getting through and that food supplies were very low. Also there were thousand of flies, which infected the food so that the little food that was left was not edible. The title â€Å"another hopeless dawn† shows the soldiers feel that they are not getting anywhere and that they are not going to progress anywhere with the knew day. The source is quite reliable and is useful because it shows an actual account of the soldier's time in Gallipoli and is not over exaggerated to make them look better as it shows the positives and negatives. Therefore it can be use to show how the conditions affected the soldiers, it also shows what the soldiers looked like during the war. Source B is useful because it provides a historical account. However it maybe bias as an Australian writes it and he might want to make his army look better. It is a secondary source so it might be more reliable because there might be more sources available. Also the people who have written the sources he's based his book on have had time to recover from the shock they may have suffered and write the sources more accurately. I know part of it is truthful and is reliable, as I know that the citizen soldiers were trained from an early age for military. It is also similar to the feeling in Britain – † to be left behind was unthinkable. So we know that this part is truth and reliable. However, part of the source is unreliable as it is just one man's opinion (John Kegan). â€Å"New Zealanders skills with the rifle and spade would win them a reputation as the best soldiers in the war during the 20th Century. † We know this is not true as the New Zealanders lost their battle at the Gallipoli campaign to the Turks. As the British and French troops won most of their battles during the first and Second World War it could be argued that they were the stronger and better troops of the 20th Century. It also says in the source â€Å"†¦ ormidable offensive power, as the Turks were soon to discover† we know this is not true as they lost to the Turks. I also know the landings at Sulva bay went wrong for the ANZAC troops and also the landings at ANZAC cove and Cape Helles beach failed. This shows they cannot be the â€Å"formidable offensive power† the author makes them out to be and that he is maybe exaggerating what happened to make it his troops sound better. This source can be used as an insight as to what happen when the new Zealanders got called up to war, and what the New Zealand people thought of their troops. Source C is written by a reporter, but it is not clear as to what country he is from, the way he talks about the Australians suggest that he is not from Australia, but is impressed by them. He seems to over exaggerate the part they played in the war and the way they dealt with it. This would suggest the source is unreliable as it is his own opinion not actual facts. This source shows what some people thought of the Australians â€Å"it was great to watch them as they went†. It shows the high moral and ANZAC spirit that was present through the campaign, I know this is probably true because is very similar to what happened in Britain through out the first and second war there was arguably very high British spirit. It also has some inaccurate points i. e. ‘absolutely unaffected by the bullets' – this cannot be true as many troops were killed by bullets. I know that there were 200,000 allied casualties and some of these were from the ANZAC troops, therefore they weren't unaffected by bullets. This source is best used as an opinion and insight into what was thought of the Australians rather than as reliable account of what actually happened. In conclusion Sources A, B and C are useful in different ways. Source A is the most reliable and accurate account of what actually happened and could be used to show what actually happened. Source B and C is best used as opinions of what happened, where the truth may have been exaggerated or distorted. It can be used to show an account from the ANZAC point of view and how their people felt towards the campaign.