What do you think?
Rate this book
In the Trenches During World War I (On the Front Line)
This book tells you all about World War I (1914-1918). This was the devastating struggle for supremacy between the world's most powerful nations. Using vivid personal accounts to tell the stories of real people, it describes the terrible loss of life in the trenches on the Western Front, as well as on other battlegrounds around the world. Find What was life like in the trenches? What happened on December 25, 1914? In which major battle were tanks first used?
48 pages, Paperback
First published June 15, 2005
2 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 29, 2015
Friday March 6, 2015
The first outcome of one major event that ignited the beginning of World War 1 would indeed be the attacks led German Lines by France. To start off, the strategy by France and Great Britain conducted by the soldier Patrick MacGill. Indeed, the major plan was to place a “big push,” in order to attack German lines however it was a painful and extremely laborious job for soldier who got ill, wounded, and most importantly died in numbers (Hibbert 6). Secondly, Patrick MacGill proved to be qualified for the job for an important reason regarding his honourable behaviour throughout the attacks who have lasted for an intense three days. Indeed, MacGill was the backbone of the attack as he did his beast to heal his mean to help his wounded men survive not to mention the area full of poisonous gas that put him in great difficulty, however he was still able to help his men out and persist. To conclude, the big push resulted in an intense attack between two rivals, which were the allied Great Britain and France attacking Germany as it also involved the honourable behaviour of Patrick MacGill.
As the beginning of World War I was beginning to be very apparent, an important aspect involving countries would indeed be the wealth, power, and most importantly how old the country was as the great superpowers were in an intense dispute to gain power and dominate. Firstly, the fact that that other countries including Great Britain, France, Russia, but not Germany negatively impacted the country in the dispute over power as Germany was not old enough to hold power over territories overseas. As a matter of fact, “Germany had grown rich and powerful, but didn’t have many territories overseas,” which men the other superpowers were able to stop them winning control over important resources (Hibbert 8). On the other hand, other countries used colonised areas as a way to be menacing and have control of resources, which mean a great increase in power. The major example seen would be the fact the Great Britain were in control of Belgium and defended them if another country attacked, which kept distances away as the power of Great Britain increased greatly due to this event. In other words, the factor that a country was old and had colonised other areas gave a great advantage in increasing power throughout the beginning of World War I.
The Schlieffen Plan conducted by the chief of the German general staff, Alfred Graf von Schflieffen, was an ingenious strategy for Germany for to seize power over two major superpowers, however regarding certain factors it proved to be a risky and unreliable war tactic. Firstly, the goal of the plant was to first strike France by attacking Belgium by surprise and then carving through, however this plan depended in Russia’s readiness to fight. Indeed, Russia was able to fight before and this reliance on Russia put Germany in great difficulty as it was now complicated for Germany to fight strongly. The next flaw that involved the unsuccessful plan would be the lack of organisation in a crucial and decisive moment in the war against France. The effect of the rapid advance after Belgium was conquered and German lines were heading to Paris was the fact that “the German army had moved so quickly that the soldiers lost contact with their headquarters,” which weekend resources and Germany was forced to forfeit, which resulted in the complete failure of the Schflieffen plan (Hibbert 9). To sum it up, the Schflieffen plan was ingenious itself as a whole, however the factors regarding other countries led to the failure of the operation.
The journey of the Scrivener brothers, Nelson and Frederic, that were sent to help the British army in times of war as their adventure reflected the path of many other young men from the overseas coming to Britain in order to support as their adventure as a whole was broken in two distinguished events. Firstly, the fact that the British army was full of soldiers and too busy to bring new recruits gave an advantage to Great Britain. Indeed, the “brothers would be fighting in the mediterranean against Germany’s ally, the Ottoman Empire,” which shows that Britain were powerful as forces were multiple and weakening Germany by fighting rivals was a great advantage Britain had (Hibbert 12). Secondly, the brothers were sent to attack the Ottoman Empire April, 1915, as it was the first time they were engaged in real duty. The brothers trained with the army only for seven weeks and the training was crucial as the brothers both survived the war and led to the weakening of Germany, despite the wound of Nelson. In other words, the journey of the Scrivener brothers describes the path of many young men from Australia supporting Great Britain as their help demonstrated the resources and power England Possessed.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Millions of soldiers suffered “shell shock,” or post traumatic stress disorder, due to the horrors of trench warfare. Shell-shocked men often had uncontrollable diarrhoea, couldn’t sleep, stopped speaking, whimpered for hours, and twitched uncontrollably. While some soldiers recovered, others suffered for the rest of their lives. In the Trenches in World War 1, by Adam Hibbert , gives an accurate overview of World War’s one bloody lifestyle and and the life of Soldiers throughout battles caused by the entangling alliances. Moreover, Hibbert accurately covered the matters of living conditions, the effect and role of different battles, and most importantly the relationship and cause of every battle in the point of view of different alliances. Additionally, the author has also analysed the flaws of every operation and positive and negative effects, without saying that specific examples were provided, which helped the reader understand every situation clearly as the focus was put on the life of one soldier several times. According to the information and analysis of the author, it is indeed safe to say that World WarI was basically an unnecessary war, which has caused the deaths of many due to entangling alliances, which should not have existed as they made matters worse, for example in the Gallipoli Campaign.
Throughout World War I, living conditions for soldiers were terrible in the trenches, which brought about lack of hygiene and sometimes deaths caused by blood poisoning, however taking in confederation the factors of the war, the trenches were indeed extremely important for general survival. The process of digging trenches was very painful for soldiers and put their lives in great danger as they worked in very dirty conditions. Specifically, William Peden, a Canadian volunteer, took part in the digging of trenches in Belgium where he found several dead bodies while working and most importantly, he got the condition of a trench foot, which meant that his feet were too wet and wrinkly, which caused them to rot, however he was exiled to the United Kingdom where he was taken car of and saved. Despite the terrible conditions of living in trenches, the system was indeed effective for survival and saved many soldiers’ life throughout intense battles. As a matter of fact, Otto von Borries and his brothers they were assigned to dig deep trenches, which they particularly hated, however the effort saved their lives as they had stayed for six days hidden deep in the ground, until “he and his friends had a surprise for the for the British (…) the attack was a for the British: 60,0000 soldiers were killed or wounded on the first day,” which shows the effectiveness of digging trenches , despite the dangerous conditions (Hibbert 23). In brief, life in the trenches was indeed extremely dangerous for soldiers causing hygiene issues and deaths, however they were also essential to survival and could be decisive when it came to critical battles.
Fighting throughout the world was a game changer for armies as different areas required different methods and battles either took more time or required support, which caused success and failure for armies. For instance, Germany was a perfect example as they knew great success in areas and lack of soldiers and concentration brought about defeat and great losses in other areas across the world. As an illustration, Paul von Hindenburg led attacks surrounding and destroying Russia, not to mention that “Germany forced the Russian army to retreat hundreds of miles, and took about 750,000 Russian prisoners,” after the attempt of Russia who wanted to take over the Carpathian Mountains, which caused the soldiers to lose faith in the Russian government (Hibbert 24). On a more negative aspect, Germany’s campaigns oversea were not successful causing Allies. In fact, the terrorisation of the Germans Allied ships in the Indian Ocean was quickly ended by and attack of the HMAS Sydney Cruiser wrecked the German ships and German commanders such as Von Müller, were captured but he Allies due to the lack of soldiers and seriousness in the German side.To conclude, fighting in different places required different tactics, readiness in concentration, however the flaws in oversea explorations by the Germans were not similar to the the Eastern front operations, as they were a complete failure.
The Gallipoli campaign throughout World War I, accurately emphasised the relations between alliances and the effect that each superpower could have in the point of view of two massive armies fighting in the Ottoman Empire. Firstly, the battle ignited as the Allies, which also included the Australian and new Zealand armies known as the ANZAC troops decided to invade Turkey. More specifically, the Allies wanted to take over the Dardanelles which linked the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea and as an effect they named their operation the Gallipoli Campaign, however the Germany, which were indeed allies to the Ottoman Empire had their word to say in the Gallipoli Campaign. Likewise, the Germans helped out the Ottoman empire and provided the Turkish early with supplies and ingenious plans. As the Allies attacked, “Turkish machine gunners the beach killed hundreds of troops (…) German submarines sank some nearby Allied battleships (…) to make matters worse, Bulgaria joined the side of Germany and Ottoman Empire,” which shows the relationship of entangling alliances, through the Gallipoli Campaign (Hibbert 24). In short, the Gallipoli Campaign as whole perfectly explained he relationships between entangling alliances and the roles of each without forgetting the contribution of each army in each side.
On the whole, the lifestyle of soldiers and the campaign conducted leave to say that World War I was indeed unnecessary, especially due to the destructive effects of entangling alliances, which have caused the deaths of several soldiers for no valid reasons. Additionally, Hibbert has accurately analysed the flaws and strengths of every aspect regarding the war, not to mention that specific examples, for example the Otto von Borries brothers who struggled living in trenches, however they benefited form the experience later on, which accurately shows the utility of trenches. In other words, the accurate analysis of Hibbert led the reader to the conclusion that World War I was particularly unnecessary and the lives of many wee waisted.
The first outcome of one major event that ignited the beginning of World War 1 would indeed be the attacks led German Lines by France. To start off, the strategy by France and Great Britain conducted by the soldier Patrick MacGill. Indeed, the major plan was to place a “big push,” in order to attack German lines however it was a painful and extremely laborious job for soldier who got ill, wounded, and most importantly died in numbers (Hibbert 6). Secondly, Patrick MacGill proved to be qualified for the job for an important reason regarding his honourable behaviour throughout the attacks who have lasted for an intense three days. Indeed, MacGill was the backbone of the attack as he did his beast to heal his mean to help his wounded men survive not to mention the area full of poisonous gas that put him in great difficulty, however he was still able to help his men out and persist. To conclude, the big push resulted in an intense attack between two rivals, which were the allied Great Britain and France attacking Germany as it also involved the honourable behaviour of Patrick MacGill.
As the beginning of World War I was beginning to be very apparent, an important aspect involving countries would indeed be the wealth, power, and most importantly how old the country was as the great superpowers were in an intense dispute to gain power and dominate. Firstly, the fact that that other countries including Great Britain, France, Russia, but not Germany negatively impacted the country in the dispute over power as Germany was not old enough to hold power over territories overseas. As a matter of fact, “Germany had grown rich and powerful, but didn’t have many territories overseas,” which men the other superpowers were able to stop them winning control over important resources (Hibbert 8). On the other hand, other countries used colonised areas as a way to be menacing and have control of resources, which mean a great increase in power. The major example seen would be the fact the Great Britain were in control of Belgium and defended them if another country attacked, which kept distances away as the power of Great Britain increased greatly due to this event. In other words, the factor that a country was old and had colonised other areas gave a great advantage in increasing power throughout the beginning of World War I.
The Schlieffen Plan conducted by the chief of the German general staff, Alfred Graf von Schflieffen, was an ingenious strategy for Germany for to seize power over two major superpowers, however regarding certain factors it proved to be a risky and unreliable war tactic. Firstly, the goal of the plant was to first strike France by attacking Belgium by surprise and then carving through, however this plan depended in Russia’s readiness to fight. Indeed, Russia was able to fight before and this reliance on Russia put Germany in great difficulty as it was now complicated for Germany to fight strongly. The next flaw that involved the unsuccessful plan would be the lack of organisation in a crucial and decisive moment in the war against France. The effect of the rapid advance after Belgium was conquered and German lines were heading to Paris was the fact that “the German army had moved so quickly that the soldiers lost contact with their headquarters,” which weekend resources and Germany was forced to forfeit, which resulted in the complete failure of the Schflieffen plan (Hibbert 9). To sum it up, the Schflieffen plan was ingenious itself as a whole, however the factors regarding other countries led to the failure of the operation.
The journey of the Scrivener brothers, Nelson and Frederic, that were sent to help the British army in times of war as their adventure reflected the path of many other young men from the overseas coming to Britain in order to support as their adventure as a whole was broken in two distinguished events. Firstly, the fact that the British army was full of soldiers and too busy to bring new recruits gave an advantage to Great Britain. Indeed, the “brothers would be fighting in the mediterranean against Germany’s ally, the Ottoman Empire,” which shows that Britain were powerful as forces were multiple and weakening Germany by fighting rivals was a great advantage Britain had (Hibbert 12). Secondly, the brothers were sent to attack the Ottoman Empire April, 1915, as it was the first time they were engaged in real duty. The brothers trained with the army only for seven weeks and the training was crucial as the brothers both survived the war and led to the weakening of Germany, despite the wound of Nelson. In other words, the journey of the Scrivener brothers describes the path of many young men from Australia supporting Great Britain as their help demonstrated the resources and power England Possessed.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Millions of soldiers suffered “shell shock,” or post traumatic stress disorder, due to the horrors of trench warfare. Shell-shocked men often had uncontrollable diarrhoea, couldn’t sleep, stopped speaking, whimpered for hours, and twitched uncontrollably. While some soldiers recovered, others suffered for the rest of their lives. In the Trenches in World War 1, by Adam Hibbert , gives an accurate overview of World War’s one bloody lifestyle and and the life of Soldiers throughout battles caused by the entangling alliances. Moreover, Hibbert accurately covered the matters of living conditions, the effect and role of different battles, and most importantly the relationship and cause of every battle in the point of view of different alliances. Additionally, the author has also analysed the flaws of every operation and positive and negative effects, without saying that specific examples were provided, which helped the reader understand every situation clearly as the focus was put on the life of one soldier several times. According to the information and analysis of the author, it is indeed safe to say that World WarI was basically an unnecessary war, which has caused the deaths of many due to entangling alliances, which should not have existed as they made matters worse, for example in the Gallipoli Campaign.
Throughout World War I, living conditions for soldiers were terrible in the trenches, which brought about lack of hygiene and sometimes deaths caused by blood poisoning, however taking in confederation the factors of the war, the trenches were indeed extremely important for general survival. The process of digging trenches was very painful for soldiers and put their lives in great danger as they worked in very dirty conditions. Specifically, William Peden, a Canadian volunteer, took part in the digging of trenches in Belgium where he found several dead bodies while working and most importantly, he got the condition of a trench foot, which meant that his feet were too wet and wrinkly, which caused them to rot, however he was exiled to the United Kingdom where he was taken car of and saved. Despite the terrible conditions of living in trenches, the system was indeed effective for survival and saved many soldiers’ life throughout intense battles. As a matter of fact, Otto von Borries and his brothers they were assigned to dig deep trenches, which they particularly hated, however the effort saved their lives as they had stayed for six days hidden deep in the ground, until “he and his friends had a surprise for the for the British (…) the attack was a for the British: 60,0000 soldiers were killed or wounded on the first day,” which shows the effectiveness of digging trenches , despite the dangerous conditions (Hibbert 23). In brief, life in the trenches was indeed extremely dangerous for soldiers causing hygiene issues and deaths, however they were also essential to survival and could be decisive when it came to critical battles.
Fighting throughout the world was a game changer for armies as different areas required different methods and battles either took more time or required support, which caused success and failure for armies. For instance, Germany was a perfect example as they knew great success in areas and lack of soldiers and concentration brought about defeat and great losses in other areas across the world. As an illustration, Paul von Hindenburg led attacks surrounding and destroying Russia, not to mention that “Germany forced the Russian army to retreat hundreds of miles, and took about 750,000 Russian prisoners,” after the attempt of Russia who wanted to take over the Carpathian Mountains, which caused the soldiers to lose faith in the Russian government (Hibbert 24). On a more negative aspect, Germany’s campaigns oversea were not successful causing Allies. In fact, the terrorisation of the Germans Allied ships in the Indian Ocean was quickly ended by and attack of the HMAS Sydney Cruiser wrecked the German ships and German commanders such as Von Müller, were captured but he Allies due to the lack of soldiers and seriousness in the German side.To conclude, fighting in different places required different tactics, readiness in concentration, however the flaws in oversea explorations by the Germans were not similar to the the Eastern front operations, as they were a complete failure.
The Gallipoli campaign throughout World War I, accurately emphasised the relations between alliances and the effect that each superpower could have in the point of view of two massive armies fighting in the Ottoman Empire. Firstly, the battle ignited as the Allies, which also included the Australian and new Zealand armies known as the ANZAC troops decided to invade Turkey. More specifically, the Allies wanted to take over the Dardanelles which linked the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea and as an effect they named their operation the Gallipoli Campaign, however the Germany, which were indeed allies to the Ottoman Empire had their word to say in the Gallipoli Campaign. Likewise, the Germans helped out the Ottoman empire and provided the Turkish early with supplies and ingenious plans. As the Allies attacked, “Turkish machine gunners the beach killed hundreds of troops (…) German submarines sank some nearby Allied battleships (…) to make matters worse, Bulgaria joined the side of Germany and Ottoman Empire,” which shows the relationship of entangling alliances, through the Gallipoli Campaign (Hibbert 24). In short, the Gallipoli Campaign as whole perfectly explained he relationships between entangling alliances and the roles of each without forgetting the contribution of each army in each side.
On the whole, the lifestyle of soldiers and the campaign conducted leave to say that World War I was indeed unnecessary, especially due to the destructive effects of entangling alliances, which have caused the deaths of several soldiers for no valid reasons. Additionally, Hibbert has accurately analysed the flaws and strengths of every aspect regarding the war, not to mention that specific examples, for example the Otto von Borries brothers who struggled living in trenches, however they benefited form the experience later on, which accurately shows the utility of trenches. In other words, the accurate analysis of Hibbert led the reader to the conclusion that World War I was particularly unnecessary and the lives of many wee waisted.
Displaying 1 of 1 review