Ww1 essay (order an essay inexpensively)

Posted by

The Main Causes of World War 1 Essay

The Causes of World War 1 Essay

World War 1 (better known as The Great War), was caused by a great many elements, some long-term, some short-term and the spark. Together these reasons created a brutal war involving many countries across the globe and also killing a vast number of the world’s population. In this essay, I will thoroughly explain what started this war and which reasons made it start sooner. What in my opinion was the least important reason, for the war starting was how much richer all the countries were getting…

The Causes of the First World War

This question has formed part of the historiography of the causes of the First World War, a historical debate that has endured ever since the conflict ended. It periodically resurfaces with new theories being advanced such as the Fischer thesis, usually on account of the release of previously unseen documents or because of a shift in the political climate. It has emerged to the fore once again because this year is the centennial of the war’s outbreak and there are plans to commemorate it nationally…

Five Main Cause Why World War I Happen Essay

World War One killed 9,906,000 soldiers, 21,219,000 soldiers got wounded and 7,750,000 soldiers were missing. It was a war between the Allied Powers, which were France, Russia, Britain, Italy and the United States, and the Central Powers, which were Germany, Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. The five main causes of the war were militarism, alliances, imperialism, nationalism, and certain events that happened that lead to war (MAINE). The first cause of World War One was due to militarism.…

Political Causes of World War 1

The political causes of World War 2 World War 2, famously known as the most devastating war, had causes dating back to WWI as well as,pre . Some people refereed it because of the Treaty of Versailles which most of the people agreed one that it was too unfair for Germany and that their anger was going to appear sooner or later. The people thought it will create fascism. Some historians saw that the failure of The League of Nations was also another factor. The Treaty of Versailles was…

The Main Causes of World War 1 Essay

Great War, also known as The First World War, lasted for four year (1914 to 1918). It brought a huge development of war technics and weapons. More number of countries had been involved in the Great War than any previous war. It involved the mobilization of the whole nations, not just an enormous army that turned the war into a “total war”. (Clare 6) However, historians are still arguing about the major cause of the World War I. The major cause will be one of the four long-term causes of WWI, which…

What Were the Main Causes of British Decolonization After World War Two?

Before World War 2, Great Britain ruled over one-fourth of the world and had 700 million people under its rule outside of the UK. By 1965, there were only 5 million people under British rule outside of the United Kingdom. Today, the British Empire only consists of minute islands spread around the globe. Great Britain was on the winning side with both the United States and the Soviet Union, but it came out of World War 2 as a sick old man. Therefore, Great Britain’s empire began to crumble beneath…

Causes of World War II

global conflict of the Second World War was started because of the inexistent actions taken to prevent the war. The Second World War did not happen directly, but there was a series of events that led up to the horrific war. The deadly World War II had begun by the inability to enforce the Treaty of Versailles, the corrupted League of Nations, and the failed policy of appeasement. These three points are long term causes which express thee reasoning for the outbreak of war. The inability to enforce…

The Main Long Term Causes of World War One Essay

The main Long term causes of World War ONE (1914-1918) There was no single cause for the outbreak of the First World War. The causes are much more complex than those of the Second World War and include short, intermediate and long term factors that all culminated to cause the July Days in 1914. These factors include militarism, nationalism, imperialism, the alliance system, and industrialization as the long term causes. The intermediate causes included the crises in…

Cause and Effect on World War 1 Essay

Cause and Effect on World War 1 World War One, a huge conflict that sparked in 1914 and lasting all the way until 1918. The war was between the world’s greatest powers as two opposing sides; the Central Powers and the Allies. It was a chain of events that had started this was which consist of key features such as imperialism, alliances, growth of militarism, crisis, and nationalism. It was the result of these accumulating factors that had eventually evoked war. The effects on World War One…

Essay on Causes of World War 1

Causes of World War 1 World War 1, also known as “The Great War” occurred due to many causes. It was the result of aggression towards other countries. Rising nationalism of European nations, economic and imperial completion, and fear of the war prompted alliances and increase of armed forces. This created tension contributing to the outbreak of war. But it was assassination in Sarajevo that triggered World War 1. In the 19th Century, people of the same nationality united under one border…

World War I

World War I essay questions

This collection of World War I essay questions has been written and compiled by Alpha History authors. These questions can also be used for short answer responses, research tasks, homework and revision activities. If you would like to suggest a question for this page, please contact Alpha History.

2. How did the leadership of Otto von Bismarck shape the future of Germany to 1914?

3. What were the outcomes of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71? How did these outcomes shape late 19th and early 20th century European relations?

4. Explain how the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s ethnic, cultural and language diversity created problems for the ruling Hapsburg dynasty.

5. Why was the Ottoman Empire considered the ‘sick man of Europe’? How did its problems affect or concern major European powers?

6. Compare and contrast the British, French and German Empires at the beginning of the 20th century.

7. Explain how militarism shaped and affected politics, economics and society in Germany to 1914. How democratic and representative was German government during this period?

8. How did imperialism and imperial rivalry contribute to European tensions between 1871 and 1914?

9. Discuss three alliances of the 19th and early 20th centuries, describing how each alliance affected European relations.

10. Bismarck famously said that a European war would start from “some damn foolish thing in the Balkans”. What “foolish things” happened in this region in the decade before World War I – and how did they affect European relations?

1. Identify and discuss the three most significant factors leading to the outbreak of World War I.

2. Investigate and discuss the ‘war readiness’ and military strengths and weaknesses of Europe’s major powers in 1914.

3. What was Weltpolitik and how did it contribute to European tensions to 1914?

4. “Kaiser Wilhelm II was more responsible for the outbreak of World War I than any other individual leader.” To what extent is this statement true?

5. In the early 1900s many believed England and Germany had much in common and should have been allies, not antagonists. What were the sources or reasons for Anglo-German tension prior to 1914?

6. Investigate the relationship between Serbia and Austria-Hungary in the years prior to 1914. Why was Serbian nationalism worrying for Austro-Hungarian leaders?

7. Austria considered Serbia wholly responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. To what extent was the Serbian government truly responsible?

8. It is often said that the alliance system made a major war inevitable. Did alliances alone compel European nations to war after June 1914 – or were other factors involved?

9. Many historians suggest that the ‘failure of diplomacy’ led to war in 1914. What attempts did European diplomats make to negotiate and avoid war, and why did these attempts fail?

10. What do the ‘Nicky and Willy telegrams’ (between the Russian tsar and German kaiser) reveal about the character and leadership of both men?

11. Were the Kaiser and his advisors anticipating a European war that involved Britain? Explain how Britain became entangled in the road to war in mid 1914.

12. Focusing on three different countries, describe how the press and the public responded to declarations of war in August 1914.

13. Investigate anti-war sentiment in 1914. Which groups and individuals wrote, spoke or campaigned against war? What arguments did they put forward?

14. Explain why the small nation of Belgium became so crucial, both in July and August 1914.

15. Why did the Ottoman Empire enter World War I? What were its objectives and how prepared was it for a major war?

2. What were the outcomes of the Battles of Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes in 1914? What did these battles reveal about the Russian military?

3. What happened at the first Battle of the Marne in 1914? What were the outcomes of this battle and what influence did it have on the rest of the war?

4. Compare the Western Front and Eastern Front as theatres of war. What were the similarities and differences in warfare on these two fronts?

5. How did naval power and the war on the seas shape the course of World War I? Refer to at least three major battles or incidents in your answer.

6. Why did the Allies consider the Dardanelles of strategic importance? Explain why the Dardanelles campaign of 1915 was a failure for the Allies.

7. What were the main objectives of the war in the Middle East? Discuss at least three significant locations or battles in your answer.

8. Why did Italy enter World War I in 1915? Where did most Italian troops fight and what impact did the war have on Italy?

9. Explain why the Battle of the Somme was such a significant operation, particularly for British forces.

10. Germany’s strategy of ‘unrestricted submarine warfare’ was largely responsible for bringing the United States into the war. Was it a reasonable or justifiable policy? Why was it adopted?

2. It is often said that British soldiers were “lions led by donkeys”. To what extent was this really true?

3. Explain why trench warfare became the dominant form of warfare on the Western Front.

4. What was life like for the average trench soldier? What were the duties, routines and rotations for those who served in the trenches?

5. Evaluate the use and impact of chemical weapons in World War I. Were they an important weapon of war – or were they used for terror and shock value?

6. Prior to 1914 cavalry (horse-mounted soldiers) were an important feature of most armies. Did cavalry regiments play any significant role in World War I?

7. Using evidence and referring to specific battles or events, explain which three weapons had the greatest impact on the battlefields of the Western Front.

8. How were aircraft like planes and airships used in World War I? Did these machines have any impact on the war and its outcomes – or were they a sideshow to the real fighting on the ground?

9. Tanks are one of the most significant weapons to emerge from World War I. Investigate and discuss the development, early use and effectiveness of tanks in the war.

10. The Hague Convention outlined the ‘rules of war’ that were in place during World War I. Referring to specific examples, discuss where and how these ‘rules of war’ were breached.

1. How did the public in Britain and other nations respond to the outbreak of war in August 1914? Was there unanimous support for the war?

2. What impact did Kaiser Wilhelm II have on military strategy and domestic policy after August 1914? How effective was the Kaiser as a wartime leader?

3. What powers did the Defence of the Realm Act give the British government? How did the Act affect life and work in wartime Britain?

4. Referring to either Britain, France or Germany, discuss how one national government managed and coordinated the war effort.

5. Investigate voluntary enlistment figures in one nation after August 1914. When and why did voluntary enlistment fall? What steps did the government take to encourage volunteers to enlist?

6. Focusing on three different nations, discuss when and why conscription was introduced – and whether this attracted any criticism or opposition.

7. What was the Shell Crisis of 1915? What impact did this crisis have on the British government and its wartime strategy?

8. Using specific examples, explain how wartime governments used censorship and propaganda to strengthen the war effort.

9. Why was there a change of wartime government in Britain in late 1916?

10. What was the ‘Silent Dictatorship’ in wartime Germany? How effective was this regime in managing both the war effort and the domestic situation?

2. How did the leadership of Lloyd George (Britain) and Clemenceau (France) invigorate the war effort in their countries?

3. Discuss the issues and problems raised by conscription in Australia and Canada. Why was compulsory military service accepted in Europe but not in those two countries?

4. Why did the government of Tsar Nicholas II collapse in February and March 1917? How did the war help bring about revolution in Russia?

5. To what extent was the United States able to honour its pledge of neutrality in 1914-16?

6. Was the entry of the United States into World War I inevitable? Or was it a consequence of unforeseen factors?

7. What happened in the German Reichstag in July 1917? What did this reveal about German attitudes to the war?

8. What impact did the Allied naval blockade have on German society and the German war effort?

9. Explain the terms and effects of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed in March 1918. What implications did this treaty have, both for Russia and the war in general?

10. What did German commanders hope to achieve by launching the Spring Offensive? What problems or obstacles did they face?

2. Describe how the map of Europe was changed as a consequence of World War I and post-war treaties. What grievances might have arisen from these changes?

3. Explain the fate of the Hapsburg dynasty and the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the conclusion of World War I.

4. What happened to the Ottoman Empire and its territories after World War I? Describe its transition from a 19th century empire to the modern nation-state of Turkey.

5. A French general said of the Treaty of Versailles that was not a peace but a “20 year armistice”. Was he correct and, if so, why?

6. Why was Article 231 included in the Treaty of Versailles? What was the response to this particular clause, both in Germany and around the world?

7. Discuss what happened to European colonial possessions after World War I. Were colonies retained, seized by other nations or liberated?

8. How did the United States respond to the Treaty of Versailles? What were the global implications of this American response?

9. How effective was the newly formed League of Nations at resolving conflict and securing world peace?

10. Investigate and discuss the social effects of World War I in at least two countries. How did ordinary people live, during and after the war?

11. How did World War I affect the social, political and economic status of women?

Information and resources on this page are © Alpha History 2014. Content on this page may not be copied, republished or redistributed without the express permission of Alpha History. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.

World War 1 Essay

1. World War 1 Essay

World War I – 666 Words

World War I I will discuss the system of alliances between countries and the causes of World War I. What was the position of the United States at the beginning of the war? Why did the United States eventually end the war? How was the United States affected after the war? The best known cause of World War I was the alliance system that developed in Europe in the half-century before World War I. An alliance is a formal political, military or economic agreement signed by two or more nations. Alliances

Words: 666 – Pages: 3

2. World War 1 Essay

World War 2 – 1217 Words

World War II By: Austin cole 1/11/12 World War II was a global conflict that was underway by 1939 and ended in 1945. It involved most of the world’s nations including all of the great power eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. It was the most widespread war in history, with more than 100 million military personnel mobilized. In a state of total war, the major participants placed their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities at the

Words: 1217 – Pages: 5

3. World War 1 Essay

world war 1 letter home

Family, I am here, in the war. Writing to you all from these horrid Trenches. I have been fighting, trying to stay alive for these past six months. All I see everyday are people from both sides dying, thousands of lives being claimed. The living conditions in the trenches are absolutely disgusting. We have to sleep, eat, and basically live our lives among rats, lice, all types of bacteria, our own feces and especially hundreds of rotting dead bodies until the war ends, which I doubt will happen

Words: 311 – Pages: 2

4. World War 1 Essay

World War 1 – 503 Words

World War I The United States originally had a policy of isolationism, avoiding conflict while trying to find peace. This resulted in increased tensions with Berlin and London. When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, with 128 Americans aboard, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson vowed, “America was too proud to fight” and demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson unsuccessfully tried to mediate a settlement. He repeatedly warned the U.S. would not

Words: 503 – Pages: 3

5. Essay About World War 1

World War Ii – 717 Words

WWII Scrapbook Project: The scene: You are now approaching your eighties. You’ve lived through the very period your favorite grandchild is now studying in history. At a family dinner, you begin chatting about World War II. It’s clear that the events and mood of the period are very remote to your grandchild. To give him or her a richer picture of life back then, you go down to the basement (or up to the attic) and pull out and dust off the wartime scrapbook, in which so many of your critical

Words: 717 – Pages: 3

6. World War 1 Essays

World War I and War

dog and a horse by railroad tracks (1) – Robert is a soldier, his uniform is tattered, and he is in a daze. “He had wandered for over a week.” Something horrible has happened – “Robert appeared to be the sole survivor.” Is it a train wreck? – “It was as if both dog and horse had been waiting for Robert to come for them.” (2) Possible connection to animals? – “This was when the moon rose – red.” A premonition, red could symbolize blood – BAD OMEN 1 – all this happened a long time

Words: 2812 – Pages: 12

7. World War 1 Essay Example

World War 1 – 434 Words

roles in the conflict as well. World War I was one of the worst things to happen in history. The total number of casualties in World War I, both military and civilian, was about 37 million: 16 million deaths and 21 wounded. One reason for the war starting could be the increase of money spent on weapons. France, Germany, and Russia were the 3 biggest spenders. They were also 3 very large contributors of the war. Great Britain already had the largest navy in the war so they didn’t need to spend any

Words: 434 – Pages: 2

8. Essays on World War 1

World War 1 – 531 Words

Joe Buck 2. Did World War I substantially alter American society and culture (ethnic, class, gender, and race relations)? Prior to World War 1, America was experiencing the reform period, and was full of unrest. Women were looking for equal rights, the middle class was trying to grow and the country was working hard to become a melting pot of cultures and races. America’s entry and involvement in World War I propelled the country forward and accomplished independence for women and growth

Words: 531 – Pages: 3

9. World War 1 Essay

world war 1 – 1171 Words

centercenter WOrld war 1 Abstract There were wars before this and there were many and will continue to be many wars after, but this would be the one that all other wars would be based on. A war like no other before it a war of the world. The First World War. Lutz, Kimberly HIST 3346.781 U.S. 1877-1929 Coming of Age9410077300 WOrld war 1 Abstract There were wars before this and there were many and will continue to be many wars after, but this would be the one that all other wars would be based

Words: 1171 – Pages: 5

10. World War 1 Essay

world war 1 – 721 Words

World War 1 World War 1 began on June 28, 1914, a month after Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to Austria- Hungary’s throne, was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist. Before going to war with Serbia, Austria- Hungary made sure they had Germany to back them up. This gave Serbia time to get back up from Russia, with whom they had a treaty. But this was not the end; Russia had treaties with France and Britain, so by the time Austria- Hungary declared war, the whole Europe was already entangled in

Words: 721 – Pages: 3

World War I – 1042 Words

History: World War 1 Knowing (1 point) – List the contents of a soldiers backpack.Socks – Paper & Pen (For letters) – Emergency money Knife – Coil of rope Spare Blanket – Matches Spare Uniform – Canned Food Bar of soap – Bottle Spare Helmet – Compass Understanding (2 points) – Summarise important world events leading up to WWI.Alliances and Politics In the years leading up to the war, the nations

Words: 1042 – Pages: 5

World War Ii and War

do you agree that the impact of the First World War was beneficial to the economy and society of the US? – 30 marks America was initially an isolationist country and did not really want to enter the war as they believed it to be a purely European affair, but after the sinking of the Lucitania and the German pledge to sink any ship bound for the states president Wilson felt he had no choice but to enter the War on the side of the allies. After the war the dynamic of America had changed significantly

Words: 794 – Pages: 4

World War One. – 1044 Words

World War one. James martin and the Anzac Legend | James Charles Martin At the outbreak of World War 1 James said to his family that “One man in the family had to sign up for the war”, considering that his father was too old and weak and had to support his mother and 5 sisters he decided he was the one who had to do it. James Martin signed up for The Australian Imperial Force on April 12th 1915 giving a false date of birth saying he was 18 years of age when he was only 14 years and

Words: 1044 – Pages: 5

World War 1 – 706 Words

Rachel Roday 3-17-13 INTRODUCTION In 1914 World War I, or the Great War, as it was known then, began when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated and Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. In the war, there were two main alliances fighting against each other. On one side was the Central Powers which included Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. Fighting against them were the Allied powers; Great Britain, France, Russia, and in 1915, Italy. After three years of fighting

Words: 706 – Pages: 3

World War 1 – 1534 Words

 An Analysis of the Extent of Britain’s Responsibility for Causing the First World War Throughout the 19th and into the early 20th centuries, Great Britain held a position as the great power of the Europe, and ultimately, the great power of the world. Britain’s imperial expansion allowed for prosperous economy, and helped to improve its naval supremacy. As a result, Britain’s main goal was to try and preserve order within Europe and preserve their position of dominance. However, as Germany

Words: 1534 – Pages: 7

World War I and War

The First World War; The Arms Race Or The Assassination Of Archduke Ferdinand In Sarajevo In 1914? The First World War was the product of years of tension and competition between the Great Powers. There were many separate disputes between the different countries. However these disputes had not led to war. The arms race was a very significant cause to the war, however all this nationalism needed a trigger to ignite the smoldering hostilities and led to the outbreak of the First World War. Two bullets

Words: 1479 – Pages: 6

What Led to World War 1

What Led to World War I World War I was led by four topics; militarism, systems of alliances, imperialism, and nationalism. World War I was a global war centred in Europe that began on July 28, 1914 and lasted until November 11, 1918. From the time of its occurrence until the approach of World War II, it was called the World War or the Great War, then it was finally called World War I. More than 9 million combatants were killed, it was one of the deadliest conflicts in history. That is where

Words: 967 – Pages: 4

World War 1 – 524 Words

Eichhorn 5/3/13 Outline Germany had high hopes of winning World War 1 but a series of unfortunate events led to their fatal loss in November 1918. Despite their various victories and remarkable advancements, Germany fell apart and this was the cause of numerous reasons. These arguments include the failure of the Schlieffen Plan in 1914, Russia’s exit from WW1, an effective British blockade and the crucial entry of the USA into the war. The German army followed a single plan of action for the military

Words: 524 – Pages: 3

World War 1 was and still is one of the worst wars to take place on earth

World War 1 was and still is one of the worst wars to take place on earth. Innocent, young, elderly women and children were all nut victims in this horrific tragedy that took place in 1914. Although ww1 took place in Europe, it majorly affected most of the world including Australia, therefore causing n involvement of Australian militant. There were three main reasons why Australian troops became involved in ww1. These reasons being enthusiasm, the impression of women and higher wages being paid

Words: 368 – Pages: 2

Modern History World War 1

Haig Commander of British forces Lord Kitchener British Minister of War until 1916 David Lloyd George British Prime Minister from 1916 Woodrow Wilson President of United States during the war Georges Clemenceau French Premier at Paris Peace Conference General Foch French general; Supreme Allied Commander March 1918 War on the Western Front Reasons for Stalemate on the Western Front The Schlieffen Plan – German strategic plan for war against France and Russia simultaneously. Attack France and Paris

Words: 3319 – Pages: 14

World war 1 – 343 Words

 Ward World War one also known as “The Great War” is one of the most deadliest wars in history. World War t lasted four years. It begun in 1914 and ending in 1918. There is much debate as to the exact cause of war. As this war was stirring up for years prior to the actually start. The world was in the midst of an arms race and imperialism was causing greed. The main event that pushed the war into beginning was the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This four year war involved over

Words: 343 – Pages: 2

World War 1 – 964 Words

Rubino Trench Warfare Thursday, July 11, 2013 1. Conditions in the trenches during WW1 were horrendous.The trenches were literally dug into the earth to provide shelter when the fighting wasn’t too intense. Other than that there was little shelter. In summer the trench would be exposed to the hot

Words: 964 – Pages: 4

World War 1 – 2413 Words

 World War I Extreme nationalism and rivalry may have been major factors that started World War I, but the enemies they Germany main force By far the highest quality military in the world In the end they fall they pick a fight with too many people and get overwhelmed- too many enemies enemies- are able to exhaust Germany and then defeat them on the battle field against great odds- Germany is still able to hold on for many years Schlieffan plan- developed by the Germans (look at notes) what

Words: 2413 – Pages: 10

World War 2 – 2298 Words

The Atrocities of WW2 | December 3 2012 | | Who is most to blame? | Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including. wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular

Words: 2298 – Pages: 10

World War Ii – 2022 Words

* These values had strong global influence * Freedom of worship/ expression * Legal equality * The social contract American revolution: (EFFECT) * Tension between Britain and N. American colonies. * Legacy of seven years war (British debt, American tax burden) * Heavy taxes put on America * Colonies begin to boycott new taxes on them * They attack British officials (Boston tea party) * Battle of Lexington * Declaration of independence * Declaration

Words: 2022 – Pages: 9

World War 1 – 1610 Words

World War 1 By Bobby-Jo Parker Was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo the major cause of World War I? The writer believes and acknowledges the importance of this significant event, however would argue that the complex inter-relationship between National, Militarism, Leadership, Imperial rivalry, Colonialism and Alliances was the major cause of World War I. The simmering tensions between the five major powers was already accruing between these nations before 1914. The writer

Words: 1610 – Pages: 7

World War 1 – how it began

102-E01 The Broken Balance of the Great European Powers Lead to the Great War One hundred years ago, on July 28th, 1914, World War I began. Four years, three months and one week later, roughly 16 million deaths later, there seemed to be nothing grand about the so called Great War except the amount of causalities and damage left behind. World War I set the stage for the 20th Century. World War II, the Cold War, post-colonialism and the decline of Europe all followed after it. The question

Words: 1105 – Pages: 5

World War 1 Essay

enemies causing war to happen. The Alliance system was when the leaders wanted to make treaties with other countries to expand their power. For example the Three Emperors’ League (1873 Ger, A-H, Rus.), Dual Alliance (1879 Ger. & A-H), and the Triple Alliance (1882 Ger, A-H, It). Imperialism only made Colonial Rivalries in Africa worse (1914). Mass politics was used to make people join the war and help fight for their country. They used Intellectual Context in such a way they made the war look good

Words: 920 – Pages: 4

World War 1 Soldier Paper

World War I Soldier Paper HIS/120 U.S. HISTORY 1865 TO 1945 * * Analysis of the role played by American troops in the Second Battle of the Marne and subsequent engagements with the Germans * Although US troops assumed mainly a support role in this action, the battle came to be known as the beginning of the end for Germany. 85,000 US troops participated, with 12,000 casualties, gaining the praise of not only their own officers, but the French and British commanders as well

Words: 1183 – Pages: 5

To what extent was Germany to blame for the start of World War 1

was Germany to blame for the start of World War 1? During the beginning of the 19th Century Europe was crossing a period characterized by great technological advancements and scientific optimism, but it was also subject to hostile relations between many of its main powers. These hostilities transformed into war on the 28th of June 1914,when a 19 year old terrorist, Gavrilo Princip, assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, creating the cause of war that one month later brought Austria-Hungary

The Main Cause of WW1 Essay

The war drew in all the world’s great economic powers, which were …show more content…

Related Documents

 to What Extent Was Naval Rivalry the Main Cause of the First World War?

❖ To what extent was naval rivalry the main cause of the first World War? One of the main causes of World War I was the Anglo-German naval race. Britain, as an island empire, always had the navy as one of her top priorities. A key event in Britain’s naval expansion was the 1889 “Naval Defense Act” that established the “two power standard”: Britain considered necessary to have a navy that was not only the largest in the world, but also equal to or greater than the sum of the world’s second and…

Main Causes of Depression Essay

it can help you perform under pressure and motivate you to do your best. Such words have never been related to depression. Selye (1936) defined stress as “the non-specific response of the body to any demand for change”. A stressor is stimulus that causes stress and stress can be caused by both good and bad experiences. When you begin to feel stressed due to something going on in your life, your bodies automatically acts in response by releasing chemicals into the blood. These chemicals produce more…

Naval Rivalry as the Main Cause for World War One Essay

Naval Rivalry as the Main Cause for World War One It has been argued that Naval rivalry was the main cause of World War One, this is because in 1898 Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted to have the most powerful and strongest navy in the world as he was extremely militaristic which worried Britain and consequently caused tension between the two countries. I believe that to a certain extent that Naval Rivalry did contribute to the war but in my opinion there were other factors…

The Main Causes of Changes in American Families Essay

The three main causes of changes in American families are the rising divorce rate, changing role of women, and changing attitudes about marriage. The first main cause of changes in American families is the rising divorce rate. The rising of divorce rate has increased for a long time. This increasing has caused too much changing in the life of American families. First, divorce has caused single parent for children. Most children who have single parent will have hard life. For instance, they live…

The Main Cause of WW1 Essay

and the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria the Central Powers. Ultimately, more than 70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilized in one of the largest wars in history. Although a resurgence of imperialism was an underlying cause, the immediate trigger for war was the June 28, 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-Hungary…

Ww1 M.A.I.N Causes Essay

were four main factors that pressed the great powers towards this explosive war.Although Francis Ferdinand’s assassination had sparked the beginning of the war, this however was not the main cause. The four major roles that played in the cause of World War I were Nationalism, Militarism, Imperialism, and the Alliance System. Nationalism: a philosophy that is purely focused on patriotism, loyalty to one’s nation and seeing it as the superior nation. In example of a nationalistic cause in the war…

The Main Cause of World War I: Imperialism or Alliances? Essay examples

still debate what the main cause is for World War 1. Was it imperialism, militarism, growing nationalism, or connected alliances? They may have all contributed to world war 1. However two main causes heavily influence the start of the war, and that is Imperialism, that has set upon jealousy amongst other nations, and the growing alliances between the allies, which were Russia, Britain and France, and the central powers of Germany, Austria – Hungary and Turkey. These two main causes greatly impacted the…

Essay about The Main Cause of World War Two

The Main Cause of World War Two The policy of appeasement could be looked at as one of the greatest mistakes any group of powerful people could make. The decision to give in to demands to try to preserve peace and hope that would be the last demand was a terrible policy to have been used by allied leaders. The reason why this policy was so terrible is that it gave Adolf Hitler half of Europe and 2 years to fully arm himself before the fighting started. Really, the allies…

Religion as the Main Cause of the Conflict in the Middle East Since 1914

Religion as the Main Cause of the Conflict in the Middle East Since 1914 The conflict in the Middle East has been unsolved for years and since then there has been much violence and suffering. Arabs and Jews both have a claim to the land that we now call Israel. In biblical times God promised Abraham the land of Canaan, now Israel if he and his followers spread the word of God. The Jews settled there. “Then the Lord appeared to Abraham and said ‘To your descendants I will…

Economic and Social Issues Were the Main Cause of Tudor Rebellion in Tudor England.

Economic and social issues were the main cause of Tudor Rebellion in Tudor England. Tudor England encountered problems with their economy and society. The society suffered from economic issues such as enclosure and bad harvest but also, they encountered problems with the nobility and the government. These issues concerned the majority of the people that started off rebellions. However, there were evidently rebellions that did not emphasise the problems of economic and social issues and saw these…

About World War I

The First World War was truly ‘the Great War’. Its origins were complex. Its scale was vast. Its conduct was intense. Its impact on military operations was revolutionary. Its human and material costs were enormous. And its results were profound.

The war was a global conflict. Thirty-two nations were eventually involved. Twenty-eight of these constituted the Allied and Associated Powers, whose principal belligerents were the British Empire, France, Italy, Russia, Serbia, and the United States of America. They were opposed by the Central Powers: Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire.

The war began in the Balkan cockpit of competing nationalisms and ancient ethnic rivalries. Hopes that it could be contained there proved vain. Expansion of the war was swift. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914; Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August. Germany declared war on France on 3 August and invaded Belgium. France was invaded on 4 August. German violation of Belgian neutrality provided the British with a convenient excuse to enter the war on the side of France and Russia the same evening. Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia on 6 August. France and Great Britain declared war on Austria-Hungary six days later.

The underlying causes of these events have been intensively researched and debated. Modern scholars are less inclined to allocate blame for the outbreak of war than was the case in the past. They have sought instead to understand the fears and ambitions of the governing йlites of Europe who took the fateful decisions for war, particularly that of imperial Germany.

Fears were more important than ambitions. Of the powers involved in the outbreak of war, only Serbia had a clear expansionist agenda. The French hoped to recover the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine lost to Germany as a result of their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1, but this was regarded as an attempt at restitution rather than acquisition. Otherwise, defensive considerations were paramount. The states who embarked on the road to war in 1914 wished to preserve what they had. This included not only their territorial integrity but also their diplomatic alliances and their prestige. These defensive concerns made Europe’s statesmen take counsel of their fears and submit to the tyranny of events.

The Austrians feared for the survival of their multi-racial Empire if they did not confront the threat of Serb nationalism and Panslavism. The Germans feared the consequences to themselves of allowing Austria, their closest and only reliable ally, to be weakened and humiliated. The Russians feared the threat to their prestige and authority as protector of the Slavs if they allowed Austria to defeat and humiliate Serbia. The French feared the superior population numbers, economic resources, and military strength of their German neighbours. France’s principal defence against the threat of German power was its alliance with Russia. This it was imperative to defend. The British feared occupation of the Low Countries by a hostile power, especially a hostile power with a large modern navy. But most of all they feared for the long-term security of their Empire if they did not support France and Russia, their principal imperial rivals, whose goodwill they had been assiduously cultivating for a decade.

All governments feared their peoples. Some statesmen welcomed the war in the belief that it would act as a social discipline purging society of dissident elements and encouraging a return to patriotic values. Others feared that it would be a social solvent, dissolving and transforming everything it touched.

The process of expansion did not end in August 1914. Other major belligerents took their time and waited upon events. Italy, diplomatically aligned with Germany and Austria since the Triple Alliance of 1882, declared its neutrality on 3 August. In the following months it was ardently courted by France and Britain. On 23 May 1915 the Italian government succumbed to Allied temptations and declared war on Austria-Hungary in pursuit of territorial aggrandizement in the Trentino. Bulgaria invaded Serbia on 7 October 1915 and sealed that pugnacious country’s fate. Serbia was overrun. The road to Constantinople was opened to the Central Powers. Romania prevaricated about which side to join, but finally chose the Allies in August 1916, encouraged by the success of the Russian ‘Brusilov Offensive’. It was a fatal miscalculation. The German response was swift and decisive. Romania was rapidly overwhelmed by two invading German armies and its rich supplies of wheat and oil did much to keep Germany in the war for another two years. Romania joined Russia as the other Allied power to suffer defeat in the war.

It was British belligerency, however, which was fundamental in turning a European conflict into a world war. Britain was the world’s greatest imperial power. The British had world-wide interests and world-wide dilemmas. They also had world-wide friends. Germany found itself at war not only with Great Britain but also with the dominions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa and with the greatest British imperial possession, India. Concern for the defence of India helped bring the British into conflict with the Ottoman Empire in November 1914 and resulted in a major war in the Middle East. Most important of all, perhaps, Britain’s close political, economic, and cultural ties with the United States of America, if they did not ensure that nation’s eventual entry into the war, certainly made it possible. The American declaration of war on Germany on 6 April 1917 was a landmark not only in the history of the United States but also in that of Europe and the world, bringing to an end half a millennium of European domination and ushering in ‘the American century’.

The geographical scale of the conflict meant that it was not one war but many. On the Western Front in France and Belgium the French and their British allies, reinforced from 1917 onwards by the Americans, were locked in a savage battle of attrition against the German army. Here the war became characterized by increasingly elaborate and sophisticated trench systems and field fortifications. Dense belts of barbed wire, concrete pillboxes, intersecting arcs of machine-gun fire, and accumulating masses of quick-firing field and heavy artillery rendered manœuvre virtually impossible. Casualties were enormous.

The first phase of the war in the west lasted until November 1914. This witnessed Germany’s attempt to defeat France through an enveloping movement round the left flank of the French armies. The plan met with initial success. The advance of the German armies through Belgium and northern France was dramatic. The French, responding with an offensive in Lorraine, suffered an almost catastrophic national defeat. France was saved by the iron nerve of its commander-in-chief, General J. J. C. Joffre, who had not only the intelligence but also the strength of character to extricate himself from the ruin of his plans and order the historic counter-attack against the German right wing, the ‘miracle of the Marne’. The German armies were forced to retreat and to entrench. Their last attempt at a breakthrough was stopped by French and British forces near the small Flemish market town of Ypres in November. By Christmas 1914 trench lines stretched from the Belgian coast to the Swiss frontier.

Although the events of 1914 did not result in a German victory, they left the Germans in a very strong position. The German army held the strategic initiative. It was free to retreat to positions of tactical advantage and to reinforce them with all the skill and ingenuity of German military engineering. Enormous losses had been inflicted on France. Two-fifths of France’s military casualties were incurred in 1914. These included a tenth of the officer corps. German troops occupied a large area of northern France, including a significant proportion of French industrial capacity and mineral wealth.

These realities dominated the second phase of the war in the west. This lasted from November 1914 until March 1918. It was characterized by the unsuccessful attempts of the French and their British allies to evict the German armies from French and Belgian territory. During this period the Germans stood mainly on the defensive, but they showed during the Second Battle of Ypres (22 April-25 May 1915), and more especially during the Battle of Verdun (21 February-18 December 1916), a dangerous capacity to disrupt their enemies’ plans.

The French made three major assaults on the German line: in the spring of 1915 in Artois; in the autumn of 1915 in Champagne; and in the spring of 1917 on the Aisne (the ‘Nivelle Offensive’). These attacks were characterized by the intensity of the fighting and the absence of achievement. Little ground was gained. No positions of strategic significance were captured. Casualties were severe. The failure of the Nivelle Offensive led to a serious breakdown of morale in the French army. For much of the rest of 1917 it was incapable of major offensive action.

The British fared little better. Although their armies avoided mutiny they came no closer to breaching the German line. During the battles of the Somme (1 July19 November 1916) and the Third Battle of Ypres (31 July-12 November 1917) they inflicted great losses on the German army at great cost to themselves, but the German line held and no end to the war appeared in sight.

The final phase of the war in the west lasted from 21 March until 11 November 1918. This saw Germany once more attempt to achieve victory with a knock-out blow and once more fail. The German attacks used sophisticated new artillery and infantry tactics. They enjoyed spectacular success. The British 5th Army on the Somme suffered a major defeat. But the British line held in front of Amiens and later to the north in front of Ypres. No real strategic damage was done. By midsummer the German attacks had petered out. The German offensive broke the trench deadlock and returned movement and manœuvre to the strategic agenda. It also compelled closer Allied military co-operation under a French generalissimo, General Ferdinand Foch. The Allied counter-offensive began in July. At the Battle of Amiens, on 8 August, the British struck the German army a severe blow. For the rest of the war in the west the Germans were in retreat.

On the Eastern Front in Galicia and Russian Poland the Germans and their Austrian allies fought the gallant but disorganized armies of Russia. Here the distances involved were very great. Artillery densities were correspondingly less. Manœuvre was always possible and cavalry could operate effectively. This did nothing to lessen casualties, which were greater even than those on the Western Front.

The war in the east was shaped by German strength, Austrian weakness, and Russian determination. German military superiority was apparent from the start of the war. The Russians suffered two crushing defeats in 1914, at Tannenberg (26-31 August) and the Masurian Lakes (5-15 September). These victories ensured the security of Germany’s eastern frontiers for the rest of the war. They also established the military legend of Field-Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and General Erich Ludendorff, who emerged as principal directors of the German war effort in the autumn of 1916. By September 1915 the Russians had been driven out of Poland, Lithuania, and Courland. Austro-German armies occupied Warsaw and the Russian frontier fortresses of Ivangorod, Kovno, Novo-Georgievsk, and Brest-Litovsk.

These defeats proved costly to Russia. They also proved costly to Austria. Austria had a disastrous war. Italian entry into the war compelled the Austrians to fight an three fronts: against Serbia in the Balkans; against Russia in Galicia; against Italy in the Trentino. This proved too much for Austrian strength. Their war effort was characterized by dependency on Germany. Germans complained that they were shackled to the ‘Austrian corpse’. The war exacerbated the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s many ethnic and national tensions. By 1918 Austria was weary of the war and desperate for peace. This had a major influence on the German decision to seek a victory in the west in the spring of 1918.

Perceptions of the Russian war effort have been overshadowed by the October Revolution of 1917 and by Bolshevik ‘revolutionary defeatism’ which acquiesced in the punitive Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (14 March 1918) and took Russia out of the war. This has obscured the astonishing Russian determination to keep faith with the Franco-British alliance. Without the Russian contribution in the east it is far from certain that Germany could have been defeated in the west. The unhesitating Russian willingness to aid their western allies is nowhere more apparent than in the ‘Brusilov Offensive’ (June-September 1916), which resulted in the capture of the Bukovina and large parts of Galicia, as well as 350,000 Austrian prisoners, but at a cost to Russia which ultimately proved mortal.

In southern Europe the Italian army fought eleven indecisive battles in an attempt to dislodge the Austrians from their mountain strongholds beyond the Isonzo river. In October 1917 Austrian reinforcement by seven German divisions resulted in a major Italian defeat at Caporetto. The Italians were pushed back beyond the Piave. This defeat produced changes in the Italian high command. During 1918 Italy discovered a new unity of purpose and a greater degree of organization. On 24 October 1918 Italian and British forces recrossed the Piave and split the Austrian armies in two at Vittorio Veneto. Austrian retreat turned into rout and then into surrender.

In the Balkans the Serbs fought the Austrians and Bulgarians, suffering massive casualties, including the highest proportion of servicemen killed of any belligerent power. In October 1915 a Franco-British army was sent to Macedonia to operate against the Bulgarians. It struggled to have any influence on the war. The Germans mocked it and declared Salonika to be the biggest internment camp in Europe, but the French and British eventually broke out of the malarial plains into the mountainous valleys of the Vardar and Struma rivers before inflicting defeat on Bulgaria in the autumn of 1918.

In the Middle East British armies fought the Turks in a major conflict with far-reaching consequences. Here the war was characterized by the doggedness of Turkish resistance and by the constant struggle against climate, terrain, and disease. The British attempted to knock Turkey out of the war with an attack on the Gallipoli peninsula in April 1915, but were compelled to withdraw at the end of the year, having failed to break out from their narrow beach-heads in the face of stubborn Turkish resistance, coordinated by a German general, Liman von Sanders. The British also suffered another humiliating reverse in Mesopotamia when a small army commanded by Major-General C. V. F. Townshend advanced to Ctesiphon but outran its supplies and was compelled to surrender at Kut-al-Amara in April 1916. Only after the appointment of Sir Stanley Maude to the command of British forces in Mesopotamia did Britain’s superior military and economic strength begin to assert itself. Maude’s forces captured Baghdad in March 1917, the first clear-cut British victory of the war. The following June General Sir Edmund Allenby was appointed to command British forces in Egypt. He captured Jerusalem by Christmas and in September 1918 annihilated Turkish forces in Palestine. Turkey surrendered on 31 October 1918.

The war also found its way to tropical Africa. Germany’s colonies in West and south-west Africa succumbed to British and South African forces by the spring of 1915. In East Africa, however, a German army of locally raised black African soldiers commanded by Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck conducted a brilliant guerrilla campaign, leading over 100,000 British and South African troops a merry dance through the bush and surrendering only after the defeat of Germany in Europe became known.

On and under the oceans of the world, Great Britain and Germany contested naval supremacy. Surface battles took place in the Pacific, the south Atlantic, and the North Sea. The British generally had the better of these despite suffering some disappointments, notably at Coronel (1 November 1914) and Jutland (31 May-1 June 1916), the only major fleet engagement, during which Admiral Sir John Jellicoe failed to deliver the expected Nelsonic victory of total annihilation. Submarine warfare took place in the North Sea, the Black Sea, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the Baltic. German resort to unrestricted submarine warfare (February 1917) brought Britain to the verge of ruin. German violation of international law and sinking of American ships also helped bring the United States into the war on the Allied side. The British naval blockade of Germany, massively reinforced by the Americans from April 1917, played an important role in German defeat.

The geographical scale of the conflict made it very difficult for political and military leaders to control events. The obligations of coalition inhibited strategic independence. Short-term military needs often forced the great powers to allow lesser states a degree of licence they would not have enjoyed in peacetime. Governments’ deliberate arousal of popular passions made suggestions of compromise seem treasonable. The ever-rising cost of the military means inflated the political ends. Hopes of a peaceful new world order began to replace old diplomatic abstractions such as ‘the balance of power’. Rationality went out of season. War aims were obscured. Strategies were distorted. Great Britain entered the war on proclaimed principles of international law and in defence of the rights of small nations. By 1918 the British government was pursuing a Middle Eastern policy of naked imperialism (in collaboration with the French), while simultaneously encouraging the aspirations of Arab nationalism and promising support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. It was truly a war of illusions.

Europe’s political and military leaders have been subjected to much retrospective criticism for their belief that the ‘war would be over by Christmas’. This belief was not based on complacency. Even those who predicted with chilling accuracy the murderous nature of First World War battlefields, such as the Polish banker Jan Bloch, expected the war to be short. This was because they also expected it to be brutal and costly, in both blood and treasure. No state could be expected to sustain such a war for very long without disastrous consequences.

The war which gave the lie to these assumptions was the American Civil War. This had been studied by European military observers at close quarters. Most, however, dismissed it. This was particularly true of the Prussians. Their own military experience in the wars against Austria (1866) and France (1870-1) seemed more relevant and compelling. These wars were both short. They were also instrumental. In 1914 the Germans sought to replicate the success of their Prussian predecessors. They aimed to fight a ‘cabinet war’ on the Bismarckian model. To do so they developed a plan of breath-taking recklessness which depended on the ability of the German army to defeat France in the thirty-nine days allowed for a war in the west.

Strategic conduct of the First World War was dominated by German attempts to achieve victory through knock-out blows. Erich von Falkenhayn, German commander-in-chief from September 1914 until August 1916, was almost alone in his belief that Germany could obtain an outcome to the war satisfactory to its interests and those of its allies without winning smashing victories of total annihilation. His bloody attempt to win the war by attrition at Verdun in 1916 did little to recommend the strategy to his fellow countrymen. The preference for knock-out blows remained. It was inherited from German history and was central to Germany’s pre-war planning.

Pre-war German strategy was haunted by the fear of a war on two fronts, against France in the west and Russia in the east. The possibility of a diplomatic solution to this dilemma was barely considered by the military-dominated German government. A military solution was sought instead. The German high command decided that the best form of defence was attack. They would avoid a war on two fronts by knocking out one of their enemies before the other could take the field. The enemy with the slowest military mobilization was Russia. The French army would be in the field first. France was therefore chosen to receive the first blow. Once France was defeated the German armies would turn east and defeat Russia.

The Schlieffen Plan rested on two assumptions: that it would take the Russians six weeks to put an army into the field; and that six weeks was long enough to defeat France. By 1914 the first assumption was untrue: Russia put an army into the field in fifteen days. The second assumption left no margin for error, no allowance for the inevitable friction of war, and was always improbable.

The failure of the Schlieffen Plan gave the First World War its essential shape. This was maintained by the enduring power of the German army, which was, in John Terraine’s phrase, ‘the motor of the war’. The German army was a potent instrument. It had played a historic role in the emergence of the German state. It enjoyed enormous prestige. It was able to recruit men of talent and dedication as officers and NCOs. As a result it was well trained and well led. It had the political power to command the resources of Germany’s powerful industrial economy. Germany’s position at the heart of Europe meant that it could operate on interior lines of communication in a European war. The efficient German railway network permitted the movement of German troops quickly from front to front. The superior speed of the locomotive over the ship frustrated Allied attempts to use their command of the sea to operate effectively against the periphery of the Central Powers. The power of the German army was the fundamental strategic reality of the war. ‘We cannot hope to win this war until we have defeated the German army,’ wrote the commander-in-chief of the British Expeditionary Force, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. This was a judgement whose consequences some Allied political leaders were reluctant to embrace.

The German army suffered from two important strategic difficulties. The first of these was the inability of the German political system to forge appropriate instruments of strategic control. The second was Great Britain. German government rested on the tortured personality of the Kaiser. It was riven by intrigue and indecision. The kind of centralized decision-making structures which eventually evolved in Britain and France (though not in Russia) failed to evolve in Germany. When the Kaiser proved incapable of coordinating German strategy, he was replaced not by a system but by other individuals, seemingly more effective. Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg radiated calm and inspired confidence. This gave him the appearance of a great man but without the substance. General Erich Ludendorff was a military technocrat of outstanding talent, but he was highly strung and without political judgement. In 1918 his offensive strategy brought Germany to ruin.

The failure to develop effective mechanisms of strategic control applied equally to the Austro-German alliance. The Austrians depended on German military and economic strength, but the Germans found it difficult to turn this into ‘leverage’. Austria was willing to take German help but not German advice. Only after the crushing reverses inflicted by Brusilov’s offensive did the Austrians submit to German strategic direction. By then it was almost certainly too late.

Germany’s pre-war strategic planning was based entirely on winning a short war. British belligerency made this unlikely. The British were a naval rather than a military power. They could not be defeated by the German army, at least not quickly. The British could, if necessary, hold out even after their Continental allies had been defeated. They might even have chosen to do this. They had in the past and they would again in the not-too-distant future. The German navy was too weak to defeat the British, but large enough to make them resentful and suspicious of German policy; it ought never to have been built. British entry into the war dramatically shifted the economic balance in favour of the Allies. Britain was one of the world’s great industrial powers. Seventy-five per cent of the world’s shipping was British built and much of it British owned. London was the world’s greatest money and commodities market. British access to world supplies of food and credit and to imperial resources of manpower made them a formidable enemy, despite the ‘contemptible little army’ which was all they could put into the field on the outbreak of war. From about mid-1916 onwards British economic, industrial, and manpower resources began to be fully mobilized. Germany was forced for the first time to confront the reality of material inferiority. Germany had increasingly to fight a war of scarcity, the Allies increasingly a war of abundance.

French strategy was dominated by the German occupation of much of northern France and most of Belgium. At its closest point the German line was less than 40 miles from Paris. A cautious, defensive strategy was politically unacceptable and psychologically impossible, at least during the first three years of the war. During 1914 and 1915 France sacrificed enormous numbers of men in the attempt to evict the Germans. This was followed by the torment of Verdun, where the Germans deliberately attempted to ‘bleed France white’. French fears of military inferiority were confirmed. If France was to prevail its allies would have to contribute in kind. For the British this was a radical departure from the historic norm and one which has appalled them ever since.

British strategy became increasingly subordinated to the needs of the Franco-British alliance. The British fought the war as they had to, not as they wanted to. The British way in warfare envisaged a largely naval war. A naval blockade would weaken Germany economically. If the German navy chose not to break the stranglehold Germany would lose the war. If it did choose to fight it would be annihilated. British maritime superiority would be confirmed. Neutral opinion would be cowed. Fresh allies would be encouraged into the fight. The blockade would be waged with greater ruthlessness. Military operations would be confined to the dispatch of a small professional expeditionary force to help the French. Remaining military forces would be employed on the periphery of the Central Powers remote from the German army, where it was believed they would exercise a strategic influence out of all proportion to their size.

The British never really fought the war they envisaged. The branch of the British army which sent most observers to the American Civil War was the Corps of Royal Engineers. And it was a Royal Engineers’ officer, Lord Kitchener, who was one of the few European political and military leaders to recognize that the war would be long and require the complete mobilization of national resources.

Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War on 5 August 1914. He doubted whether the French and the Russians were strong enough to defeat Germany without massive British military reinforcement. He immediately sought to raise a mass citizen army. There was an overwhelming popular response to his call to arms. Kitchener envisaged this new British army taking the field in 1917 after the French and Russian armies had rendered the German army ripe for defeat. They would be ‘the last million men’. They would win the war and decide the peace. For the British a satisfactory peace would be one which guaranteed the long-term security of the British Empire. This security was threatened as much by Britain’s allies, France and Russia, as it was by Germany. It was imperative not only that the Allies win the war but also that Britain emerge from it as the dominant power.

Kitchener’s expectations were disappointed. By 1916 it was the French army which was ripe for defeat, not the German. But the obligations of the French alliance were inescapable. The British could not afford to acquiesce in a French defeat. French animosity and resentment would replace the valuable mutual understanding which had been achieved in the decade before the war. The French had a great capacity for making imperial mischief. And so did the Russians. If they were abandoned they would have every reason for doing so. There seemed no choice. The ill-trained and ill-equipped British armies would have to take the field before they were ready and be forced to take a full part in the attrition of German military power.

The casualties which this strategy of ‘offensive attrition’ involved were unprecedented in British history. They were also unacceptable to some British political leaders. Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from December 1916), in particular, were opposed to the British army ‘chewing barbed wire’ on the Western Front. They looked to use it elsewhere, against Germany’s allies in the eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Balkans. Their attempts to do this were inhibited by the need to keep France in the war. This could only be done in France and by fighting the German army. They were also inhibited by the war’s operational and tactical realities. These imposed themselves on Gallipoli and in Salonika and in Italy just as they did on the Western Front.

Attempts to implement an Allied grand strategy enjoyed some success. Allied political and military leaders met regularly. At Chantilly in December 1915 and December 1916 they determined to stretch the German army to its limits by simultaneous offensive action on the western, eastern, and Italian fronts. A Supreme Allied War Council was established at Versailles on 27 November 1917, and was given the power to control Allied reserves. Franco-British co-operation was especially close. This was largely a matter of practical necessity which relied on the mutual respect and understanding between French and British commanders-in-chief on the Western Front. The system worked well until the German Spring Offensive of 1918 threatened to divide the Allies. Only then was it replaced by a more formal structure. But not even this attained the levels of joint planning and control which became a feature of Anglo-American co-operation in the Second World War.

Allied grand strategy was conceptually sound. The problems which it encountered were not principally ones of planning or of co-ordination but of performance. Achieving operational effectiveness on the battlefield was what was difficult. This has given the war, especially the war in the west, its enduring image of boneheaded commanders wantonly sacrificing the lives of their men in fruitless pursuit of impossibly grandiose strategic designs.

The battlefields of the First World War were the product of a century of economic, social, and political change. Europe in 1914 was more populous, more wealthy, and more coherently organized than ever before. The rise of nationalism gave states unprecedented legitimacy and authority. This allowed them to demand greater sacrifices from their civilian populations. Improvements in agriculture reduced the numbers needed to work on the land and provided a surplus of males of military age. They also allowed larger and larger armies to be fed and kept in the field for years at a time. Changes in administrative practice brought about by the electric telegraph, the telephone, the typewriter, and the growth of railways allowed these armies to be assembled and deployed quickly. Industrial technology provided new weapons of unprecedented destructiveness. Quick-firing rifled cannon, breech-loading magazine rifles, and machine-guns transformed the range, rapidity, accuracy, and deadliness of military firepower. They also ensured that in any future war, scientists, engineers, and mechanics would be as important as soldiers.

These changes did much to make the First World War the first ‘modern war’. But it did not begin as one. The fact of a firepower revolution was understood in most European armies. The consequences of it were not. The experience of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) appeared to offer a human solution to the problems of the technological battlefield. Victory would go to the side with the best-trained, most disciplined army, commanded by generals of iron resolution, prepared to maintain the offensive in the face of huge losses. As a result the opening battles of the war were closer in conception and execution to those of the Napoleonic era than to the battles of 1916 onwards.

It is difficult to say exactly when ‘modern’ war began, but it was apparent by the end of 1915 that pre-war assumptions were false. Well-trained, highly disciplined French, German, and Russian soldiers of high morale were repeatedly flung into battle by commanders of iron resolve. The results were barren of strategic achievement. The human costs were immense. The ‘human solution’ was not enough. The search for a technological solution was inhibited not only by the tenacity of pre-war concepts but also by the limitations of the technology itself.

The principal instrument of education was artillery. And the mode of instruction was experience. Shell-fire was merciless to troops in the open. The response was to get out of the open and into the ground. Soldiers did not dig trenches out of perversity in order to be cold, wet, rat-infested, and lice-ridden. They dug them in order to survive. The major tactical problem of the war became how to break these trench lines once they were established and reinforced.

For much of the war artillery lacked the ability to find enemy targets, to hit them accurately, and to destroy them effectively. Contemporary technology failed to provide a man-portable wireless. Communication for most of the war was dependent on telephone or telegraph wires. These were always broken by shell-fire and difficult to protect. Artillery and infantry commanders were rarely in voice communication and both usually lacked ‘real time’ intelligence of battlefield events; First World War infantry commanders could not easily call down artillery fire when confronted by an enemy obstruction. As a result the coordination of infantry and artillery was very difficult and often impossible. Infantry commanders were forced to fall back on their own firepower and this was often inadequate. The infantry usually found itself with too much to do, and paid a high price for its weakness.

Artillery was not only a major part of the problem, however. It was also a major part of the solution. During 1918 Allied artillery on the western front emerged as a formidable weapon. Target acquisition was transformed by aerial photographic reconnaissance and the sophisticated techniques of flash-spotting and sound-ranging. These allowed mathematically predicted fire, or map-shooting. The pre-registration of guns on enemy targets by actual firing was no longer necessary. The possibility of surprise returned to the battlefield. Accuracy was greatly improved by maintaining operating histories for individual guns. Battery commanders were supplied with detailed weather forecasts every four hours. Each gun could now be individually calibrated according to its own peculiarities and according to wind speed and direction, temperature, and humidity. All types and calibres of guns, including heavy siege howitzers whose steep angle of fire was especially effective in trench warfare, became available in virtually unlimited numbers. Munitions were also improved. Poison gas shells became available for the first time in large numbers. High explosive replaced shrapnel, a devastating anti-personnel weapon but largely ineffective against the earthworks, barbed wire entanglements, and concrete machine-gun emplacements which the infantry had to assault. Instantaneous percussion fuses concentrated the explosive effect of shells more effectively against barbed wire and reduced the cratering of the battlefield which had often rendered the forward movement of supplies and reinforcements difficult if not impossible. Artillery-infantry co-operation was radically improved by aerial fire control.

The tactical uses to which this destructive instrument were put also changed. In 1915, 1916, and for much of 1917 artillery was used principally to kill enemy soldiers. It always did so, sometimes in large numbers. But it always spared some, even in front-line trenches. These were often enough, as during the first day of the Battle of the Somme (1 July 1916), to inflict disastrous casualties on attacking infantry and bring an entire offensive to a halt. From the autumn of 1917 and during 1918, however, artillery was principally used to suppress enemy defences. Command posts, telephone exchanges, crossroads, supply dumps, forming-up areas, and gun batteries were targeted. Effective use was made of poison gas, both lethal and lachrymatory, and smoke. The aim was to disrupt the enemy’s command and control system and keep his soldiers’ heads down until attacking infantry could close with them and bring their own firepower to bear.

The attacking infantry were also transformed. In 1914 the British soldier went to war dressed like a gamekeeper in a soft cap, armed only with rifle and bayonet. In 1918 he went into battle dressed like an industrial worker in a steel helmet, protected by a respirator against poison gas, armed with automatic weapons and mortars, supported by tanks and ground-attack aircraft, and preceded by a creeping artillery barrage of crushing intensity. Firepower replaced manpower as the instrument of victory. This represented a revolution in the conduct of war.

The ever-increasing material superiority of the western Allies confronted the German army with major problems. Its response was organizational. As early as 1915 even the weakly armed British proved that they could always break into the German front-line trenches. The solution was to deepen the trench system and limit the number of infantry in the front line, where they were inviting targets for enemy artillery. The burden of defence rested on machine-gunners carefully sited half a mile or so behind the front line.

From the autumn of 1916 the Germans took these changes to their logical conclusion by instituting a system of ‘elastic defence in depth’. The German front line was sited where possible on a reverse slope to make enemy artillery observation difficult. A formal front-line trench system was abandoned. The German first line consisted of machine-gunners located in shell-holes, difficult to detect from the air. Their job was to disrupt an enemy infantry assault. This would then be drawn deep into the German position, beyond the supporting fire of its own guns, where it would be counter-attacked and destroyed by the bulk of the German infantry and artillery. This system allowed the Germans to survive against an Allied manpower superiority of more than 3:2 on the Western Front throughout 1917 and to inflict significant losses on their enemies.

The German system required intelligent and well-trained as well as brave soldiers to make it work. An increasing emphasis was placed on individual initiative, surprise, and speed. In 1918 specially trained ‘stormtroops’, supported by a hurricane bombardment designed to disrupt their enemies’ lines of communication and their command and control systems, were ordered to bypass points of resistance and advance deep into the enemy’s rear. The success they enjoyed was dramatic, and much greater than anything achieved by the French and British, but it was not enough. Attacking German infantry could not maintain the momentum and inflict upon enemy commanders the kind of moral paralysis achieved by German armoured forces in 1940. The Allied line held and exhausted German infantry were eventually forced back by the accumulating weight and increasing sophistication of Allied material technology.

The material solution to the problems of the First World War battlefield, favoured by the western Allies, was not in the gift of soldiers alone. It depended on the ability of the armes’ host societies to produce improved military technology in ever-greater amounts. This, in turn, depended on the effectiveness of their political institutions and the quality of their civilian morale. It was a contest at which the liberal democracies of France and Great Britain (and eventually the United States of America) proved more adept than the authoritarian regimes of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia.

The ‘modern war’ fought from 1916 onwards resolved itself simply into a demand for more: more men, more weapons, more ammunition, more money, more skills, more morale, more food. Some of the demands were contradictory. More men meant more men for the armies and more men for the factories. Balancing the competing demands was never easy. ‘Manpower’ (a word first coined in 1915) became central to the war effort of all states. The Allies were in a much stronger position than Germany. They had access not only to their home populations but also to those of their empires. 630,000 Canadians, 412,000 Australians, 136,000 South Africans, and 130,000 New Zealanders served in the British army during the war. Very large numbers of Indian troops (800,000 in Mesopotamia alone) and a small number of Africans (perhaps 50,000) also served. (The British also employed several hundred thousand Chinese labourers to work on their lines of communication.) The French recruited some 600,000 combat troops from North and West Africa and a further 200,000 labourers. And of course there were the Americans. American troops arrived in France at the rate of 150,000 a month in 1918. Truly the new world had come in to redress the balance of the old.

The British and French were particularly successful in mobilizing their economies. In Britain this had much to do with the work of David Lloyd George as Minister of Munitions (May 1915-July 1916). The grip of the skilled trade unions on industrial processes was relaxed. Ancient lines of demarcation were blurred. Women replaced men in the factories. Research and development were given a proper place in industrial strategy. Prodigies of production were achieved. On 10 March 1915, at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle, the British Expeditionary Force struggled to accumulate enough shells for half an hour’s bombardment. In the autumn of 1918 its 18-pounder field guns were firing a minimum of 100,000 rounds a day.

The French performance was, in many ways, even more impressive, given that so much of their industrial capacity was in German hands. Not only did the French economy supply the French army with increasing amounts of old and new weaponry, but it also supplied most of the American Expeditionary Force’s artillery and aeroplanes. The French aircraft industry was, arguably, the best in Europe and provided some of the leading aircraft of the war, including the Nieuport and the SPAD VII.

Morale was also a key factor. All sides tried to explain and justify the war and used increasingly refined techniques of propaganda to maintain commitment to the cause. Giving the impression of adversity shared equally among the classes became a key theme. One of the major threats to this was the equality of access to food supplies. In Germany this proved increasingly difficult to maintain. Morale deteriorated and industrial efficiency suffered as a result. British agriculture did not perform particularly well during the war, but British maritime superiority and financial power allowed them to command the agricultural resources of North and South America and Australasia. Food was one of the Allies’ principal war-winning weapons. The degree of active resistance to the war was low in most countries. But war-weariness set in everywhere by 1917. There were many strikes and much industrial unrest. In Russia this was severe enough to produce a revolution and then a Bolshevik coup d’йtat which took Russia out of the war in 1918.

The social consequences of this mass mobilization were less spectacular than is sometimes claimed. There were advances for the organized working class, especially its trade unions, especially in Britain, and arguably for women, but the working class of Europe paid a high price on the battlefield for social advances at home. And in the defeated states there was very little social advance anyway.

The First World War redrew the map of Europe and the Middle East. Four great empires, the Romanov, the Hohenzollern, the Habsburg, and the Ottoman, were defeated and collapsed. They were replaced by a number of weak and sometimes avaricious successor states. Russia underwent a bloody civil war before the establishment of a Communist Soviet Union which put it beyond the pale of European diplomacy for a generation. Germany became a republic branded at its birth with the stigma of defeat, increasingly weakened by the burden of Allied reparations and by inflation. France recovered the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, but continued to be haunted by fear and loathing of Germany. Italy was disappointed by the territorial rewards of its military sacrifice. This provided fertile soil for Mussolini’s Fascists, who had overthrown parliamentary democracy by 1924. The British maintained the integrity and independence of Belgium. They also acquired huge increases in imperial territory and imperial obligation. But they did not achieve the security for the Empire which they sought. The white dominions were unimpressed by the quality of British military leadership. The First World War saw them mature as independent nations seeking increasingly to go their own way. The stirrings of revolt in India were apparent as soon as the war ended. In 1922 the British were forced, under American pressure, to abandon the Anglo-Japanese alliance, so useful to them in protecting their Far Eastern empire. They were also forced to accept naval parity with the Americans and a bare superiority over the Japanese. ‘This is not a peace,’ Marshal Foch declared in 1919, ‘but an armistice for twenty-five years.’

The cost of all this in human terms was 8.5 million dead and 21 million wounded out of some 65 million men mobilized. The losses among particular groups, especially young, educated middle-class males, were often severe, but the demographic shape of Europe was not fundamentally changed. The real impact was moral. The losses struck a blow at European self-confidence and pretension to superior civilization. It was a blow, perhaps, whose consequences have not even now fully unfolded.

From The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern War. Ed. Charles Townshend. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press.

Leave a Reply