Do you agree that on the whole, the soldiers in the British Army were well treated by the military authorities?

I do agree that soldiers on the whole, in the British Army were well treated by military authorities; this is because many soldiers were able to do many things to keep them entertained and maintain their morale. For example in source 4 it states that “The game-bingo today was the only game of chance allowed in the army” this clearly states that soldiers were able to relax and play games to keep them entertained, this is crucial that the military authorities as allowed the soldiers to play games such as bingo as it reduces mental illnesses such as shellshock as it can take the soldiers minds off of the battlefield and the war in general. In addition to this soldiers were able to go to the pubs in the local towns in France or Belgium to have a drink and relax; also they had football matches and played in bands. This was crucial as the soldiers were able to address there boredom which would further maintain their morale and this is crucial when they are on the battlefield. However there were restrictions on the games they could play also such as “Crown and Anchor, Banker of Pontoon” this shows that were not well treated as there were some games that they could not play also, this means that soldiers had the opportunity’s to rebel against military authorities which means the soldiers would obtain punishments if caught like losing a day’s pay, this punishment can easily disintegrate morale as soldiers would not be able to go out to real, gamble or drink. This meant that soldiers were not able to attend to their boredom which could lead to them rebelling more or affecting other soldier’s morale as well as their own. However I believe the factor of entertainment was well maintained by the British military authorities as they were able to do many things to unwind and relax and keeping yourself entertained was one of the driving factors that maintained morale on the Western Front as every soldier would need to maintain their boredom a many soldiers did not see much action on the Western Front.
In addition to this another reason why I agree that on a whole, the soldiers in the British army where treated fairly by their authorities as they had a good quality calorie intake and a good quality of food, this is shown in source 5 where it says “The British Army gave its soldiers at the front a daily intake of 4193 calories” this is further shown when it says “British soldiers hardly went without” this shows that the soldiers were well treated as soldiers did not really go without and they have a good calorie intake this meant that soldiers would have the upper hand on the battlefield as they would be physically better than there enemy’s. This is further helped that the Germans had less of a calorie intake then the British which can make them physically worse than the British. In addition to this soldiers were given a daily ration of rum and food and tobacco was easily available to soldiers, these were the most important priorities in a soldier’s day and there was never a shortage of these luxury’s; this resulted in the soldiers having a high morale because things such as food was always available and as a result of this the army never experienced any mutiny’s. However I also believed that the factor of food and nesscitys was well maintained as soldiers rarely went without which kept morale high and it was also a driving factor in helping the British win the war as it kept them physically strong and confident.
In contrast to these points there are some aspects of the British military authority where the soldiers are not treated fairly; one of these aspects is punishment. For example in source 6 it states “the discipline is extremely strict, even by standards of regular units. The punishments are frequent and severe” this shows that when it came to discipline it was unjust and soldiers were not treated fairly as soldiers in other regiments were not treated unfairly, for example in the “4/Royal Berkshire Regiment, all of them neighbours, ‘there is not a great deal of punishment’” this shows that soldiers were not treated fairly when it came to punishment as it shows that soldiers were treated differently in different regiments, this can lead to the low morale in different trenches as soldiers could be getting severe and embarrassing punishments such as field punishment number 1 for very minor offences and this was where soldiers would be shackled to an object and sometime in the line of enemy fire, this would be very physiologically damaging for soldiers and can also damage soldiers morale. In addition to this soldiers were not treated fairly with punishment when it came to mental illness due to authority’s lack of knowledge, for example a man named Harry Farr was executed in the war for cowardice, but actually the solider had shellshock due to the heavy artillery his trench went under. This unfairness when it came to punishment as the authorities should have diagnosed the shell shock which would of meant that he would have not been executed. However this is a big factor when thinking about the treatment of soldiers because if soldiers are being punished severely for minor punishments it shows a lack of care for the soldiers and for the war as it can destroy a soldier’s morale and the other soldiers around them.

In conclusion I do agree that the soldiers were treated well in the western front but only to a certain extent, this is because when it came to discipline it was very unjust as soldiers were being severely punished for minor offences and I believe it was one of the main catalysts in the low morale of the soldiers on the western front. But soldiers were also treated well when it came to things such as entertainment and necessity’s which also helped try and raise the morale on the western front. In addition to this I believe that that the factor of necessity’s was the main driving factor on keeping morale up and demonstrating the well treatment to soldiers on the western front.