Propaganda and War Document Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Propaganda and War Document Analysis - Essay Example At the end of the war, Russia withdrew its claims on the territories in the peninsular region and the Ottoman Empire maintained its sovereignty until the next war. However, there were severe casualties on either side: While over 220,000 died on the Russian side, total casualties of the French, English and Ottoman empires amounted to 375,000. It should be noted that the Allied forces began with more manpower than Russia – 1,000,000 as opposed to 720,000. The Crimean war has the distinction for being the first war that was covered exclusively by war correspondents. One among them was William Howard Russell; who wrote for the Times. The English public (the intended audience for the article in question) was kept informed of the day-to-day incidents at the war front. Towards the end of the war, there was widespread antagonism among the English public that culminated in several riots; the â€Å"Snowball riot† 1 the most famous among them. War correspondents like Russell, who travelled with the English forces and gave first hand accounts of their activities, were to a large extent responsible for the way the English public felt about the war – this2 was in part due to several tactical errors on the English, the ‘Charge of the light Brigade’ among them. ... ently in flowing praise for the English hence: â€Å"It was as much as our Heavy Cavalry Brigade could do to cover the retreat of the miserable remnants of that band of heroes as they returned to the place they had so lately quitted in all the pride of life. At thirty-five minutes past eleven not a British soldier, except the dead and dying, was left in front of these bloody Muscovite guns3†. Journalists by trade are expected to give as objective an account of the events as possible, but that this has not been possible since as long as the beginning of war correspondence is evident in these lines. It is however equally questionable whether the author portraits the enemy (the Russians) in any more monstrosity as a correspondent might do today. Further, the author has remained neutral in tone for the larger part of the article. However, it does seem that the author has the traditional English values of valour and courage in a battlefield. The English, being a people that have fo ught many wars have always been quick to praise and reward bravery in the face of death, particularly in the defence of the nation. At the beginning of the given article (itself a subtext of a more detailed account of the Battle of Balaclava) Russell point to the line of Turkish soldiers who run away at the sight of the enemy and remarks that he and the other soldiers observed this with â€Å"disgust†. He is profuse in praise for the generals who are willing to plunge into battle despite knowing that they are facing certain death. The narration is unlike the reports that we read today in newspapers, that tend to be objective and remain as factual as possible. The use of metaphoric language, poetic phrases, overly description of the geography of the land etc is unheard of in modern newspaper