User:LeadSongDog/Sandbox/Citation
World War I | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battle of the Dardanelles; a Vickers machine gun crew with gas masks, and German Albatros D.III biplanes | |||||
| |||||
Belligerents | |||||
Allied (Entente) Powers | Central Powers | ||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||
Leaders and commanders | Leaders and commanders | ||||
Casualties and losses | |||||
Military dead: 5,525,000 Military wounded: 12,831,500 Military missing: 4,121,000[1] ...further details. |
Military dead: 4,386,000 Military wounded: 8,388,000 Military missing: 3,629,000[1] ...further details. |
World War I (abbreviated WWI; also known as the First World War, the Great War, and the War to End All Wars) was a global war which took place primarily in Europe from 1914 to 1918.[2] Over 40 million casualties resulted, including approximately 20 million military and civilian deaths.[3] Over 60 million European soldiers were mobilized from 1914 to 1918.[4]
The act which is considered to have triggered the succession of events which led to war was the 28 June 1914
The underlying causes of the war dated back in part to the
The war was fought between two major alliances. The
The fighting of the war mostly took place along several fronts that broadly encircled the European continent. The
The war was ended by several treaties, most notably the
Causes
On 28 June 1914,
Arms race
The German industrial base had, by 1914, overtaken that of Britain, though Germany did not have the commercial advantages of a large empire. In the years running up to the war an increasing race to have the strongest navy arose between Britain and Germany, each country building large numbers of dreadnoughts. The naval race between Britain and Germany was intensified by the 1906 launch of
The cost of the arms race was felt in both Britain and Germany. The total arms spending by the six Great Powers (Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary and Italy) increased by 50% between 1908 and 1913.[10]
Plans, distrust, and mobilization
Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists that the mobilization plans of Germany, France and Russia automatically escalated the conflict. Fritz Fischer emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of the Schlieffen Plan, which outlined a two-front strategy. Fighting on two fronts meant Germany had to eliminate one opponent quickly before taking on the other. It called for a strong right flank attack, to seize Belgium and cripple the French army by pre-empting its mobilization. After the attack, the German army would rush east by railroad and quickly destroy the slowly mobilizing Russian forces.[11]
France's
Russia's Plan 19 foresaw a concurrent mobilization of its armies against Austria-Hungary, Germany, and the Ottomans, while Plan 19 Revised saw Austria-Hungary as the main target, reducing the initial commitment of troops against East Prussia.[12]
All three plans created an atmosphere in which speed was thought to be one of the determining factors for victory. Elaborate timetables were prepared; once mobilization had begun, there was little possibility of turning back. Diplomatic delays and poor communications exacerbated the problems.
Also, the plans of France, Germany and Russia were all biased toward the offensive, in clear conflict with the improvements of defensive firepower and entrenchment.[13][14][15]
Militarism and autocracy
The Allies consisted of Great Britain and France, both democracies, fighting the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. Russia, one of the Allied Powers, was an empire until 1917, but it was opposed to the subjugation of Slavic peoples by Austro-Hungary. Against this backdrop, the view of the war as one of democracy versus dictatorship initially had some validity, but lost credibility as the conflict dragged on.
Wilson hoped the League of Nations and disarmament would secure a lasting peace. Borrowing a thesis from H. G. Wells, he described the war as a "war to end all war". He was willing to side with France and the Britain to this end, despite their own militarism.
Fritz Fischer famously[17] put most of the blame on Germany's aristocratic leaders. He argued that the German leaders thought they were losing power and time was running out. The German social democratic party had won several elections, increasing their voting share and had by 1912 become the most represented party in Germany. While the elected institutions had little power compared with the Kaiser it was feared that some form of political revolution was imminent. Russia was in midst of a large scale military build-up and reform which was to be completed in 1916-17. A war would unite Germany and defeat Russia before this. In his later works Fischer went further and argued[18] that Germany had planned the war in 1912.
Samuel R. Williamson has emphasized[where?] the role of Austria-Hungary. Convinced Serbian nationalism and Russian Balkan ambitions were disintegrating a monarchy comprising 11 different nationalities, Austria-Hungary hoped for a limited war against Serbia and that the strong German support would force Russia to keep out of the war and weaken its Balkan prestige.
Balance of power
One of the goals of the foreign policies of the Great Powers in the pre-war years was to maintain the 'Balance of Power' in Europe. This evolved into an elaborate network of secret and public alliances and agreements. For example, after the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71), Britain seemed to favor a strong Germany, as it helped to balance its traditional enemy, France. After Germany began its naval construction plans to rival that of Britain, this stance shifted. France, looking for an ally to balance the threat created by Germany, found it in Russia. Austria-Hungary, facing a threat from Russia, sought support from Germany.
When World War I broke out, these treaties only partially determined who entered the war on which side. Britain had no treaties with France or Russia, but entered the war on their side. Italy had a treaty with both Austria-Hungary and Germany, yet did not enter the war with them; Italy later sided with the Allies. Perhaps the most significant treaty of all was the initially defensive pact between Germany and Austria-Hungary, which Germany in 1909 extended by declaring that Germany was bound to stand with Austria-Hungary even if it had started the war.[19]
Economic imperialism
Trade barriers
Ethnic and political rivalries
A
Myriad other geopolitical motivations existed elsewhere as well, for example France's loss of
July crisis and declarations of war
The Austro-Hungarian government used the assassination of
Chronology
Opening hostilities
Confusion among the Central Powers
The strategy of the Central Powers suffered from miscommunication. Germany had promised to support Austria-Hungary’s invasion of Serbia, but interpretations of what this meant differed. Austro-Hungarian leaders believed Germany would cover its northern flank against Russia. Germany, however, envisioned Austria-Hungary directing the majority of its troops against Russia, while Germany dealt with France. This confusion forced the Austro-Hungarian Army to divide its forces between the Russian and Serbian fronts.
African campaigns
Some of the first clashes of the war involved British, French and German colonial forces in Africa. On 7 August, French and British troops invaded the German protectorate of Togoland. On 10 August German forces in South-West Africa attacked South Africa; sporadic and fierce fighting continued for the remainder of the war.
Serbian campaign
The Serbian army fought the
German forces in Belgium and France
Initially, the Germans had great success in the
Asia and the Pacific
peninsula. Within a few months, the Allied forces had seized all the German territories in the Pacific.Early stages
Trench warfare begins
This section needs additional citations for verification. (February 2008) |
Military tactics before World War I had failed to keep pace with advances in technology. It demanded the building of impressive defence systems, which out-of-date tactics could not break through for most of the war.
After the
On 1 July 1916, the
Neither side proved able to deliver a decisive blow for the next two years, though protracted German action at
Throughout 1915–17, the British Empire and France suffered more casualties than Germany, due both to the strategic and tactical stances chosen by the sides. At the strategic level, while the Germans only mounted a single main offensive at Verdun, the Allies made several attempts to break through German lines. At the tactical level, the German defensive doctrine was well suited for trench warfare, with a relatively lightly defended "sacrificial" forward position,[citation needed] and a more powerful main position from which an immediate and powerful counter-offensive could be launched. This combination usually was effective in pushing out attackers at a relatively low cost to the Germans.[citation needed] In absolute terms, of course, the cost in lives of men for both attack and defense was astounding.
Ludendorff wrote on the fighting in 1917: "The 25th of August concluded the second phase of the Flanders battle. It had cost us heavily…. The costly August battles in Flanders and at Verdun imposed a heavy strain on the Western troops. In spite of all the concrete protection they seemed more or less powerless under the enormous weight of the enemy’s artillery. At some points they no longer displayed the firmness which I, in common with the local commanders, had hoped for. The enemy managed to adapt himself to our method of employing counter attacks… I myself was being put to a terrible strain. The state of affairs in the West appeared to prevent the execution of our plans elsewhere. Our wastage had been so high as to cause grave misgivings, and had exceeded all expectation."
On the battle of the Menin Road Ridge he wrote: "Another terrific assault was made on our lines on the 20 September…. The enemy’s onslaught on the 20th was successful, which proved the superiority of the attack over the defence. Its strength did not consist in the tanks; we found them inconvenient, but put them out of action all the same. The power of the attack lay in the artillery, and in the fact that ours did not do enough damage to the hostile infantry as they were assembling, and above all, at the actual time of the assault."[28]
Around 800,000 soldiers from the British Empire were on the Western Front at any one time.[
In the 1917
At the start of the war, the German Empire had
Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, Britain initiated a naval blockade of Germany. The strategy proved effective, cutting off vital military and civilian supplies, although this blockade violated generally accepted international law codified by several international agreements of the past two centuries.[31] Britain mined international waters to prevent any ships from entering entire sections of ocean, causing danger to even neutral ships.[32] Since there was limited response to this tactic, Germany expected a similar response to its unrestricted submarine warfare.[33]
The 1916
German
The U-boat threat lessened in 1917, when merchant ships entered
The First World War also saw the first use of
Southern theatres
War in the Balkans
Faced with Russia, Austria-Hungary could spare only one third of its army to attack Serbia. After suffering heavy losses, the Austrians briefly occupied the Serbian capital, Belgrade. A Serbian counterattack in the battle of Kolubara, however, succeeded in driving them from the country by the end of 1914. For the first ten months of 1915, Austria-Hungary used most of its military reserves to fight Italy. German and Austro-Hungarian diplomats, however, scored a coup by convincing Bulgaria to join in attacking Serbia. The Austro-Hungarian provinces of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia provided troops for Austria-Hungary, invading Serbia as well as fighting Russia and Italy. Montenegro allied itself with Serbia.
Serbia was conquered in a little more than a month. The attack began in October, when the Central Powers launched an offensive from the north; four days later the Bulgarians joined the attack from the east. The Serbian army, fighting on two fronts and facing certain defeat, retreated into
In late 1915 a Franco-British force landed at
After conquest, Serbia was divided between Austro-Hungary and Bulgaria. Bulgarians commenced bulgarization of the Serbian population in their occupation zone, banishing
The Macedonian Front proved static for the most part. Serbian forces retook part of their country by liberating
Ottoman Empire
The
Russian armies generally had the best of it in the Caucasus. Vice-Generalissimo Enver Pasha, supreme commander of the Turkish armed forces, was ambitious and dreamed of conquering central Asia. He was, however, a poor commander.[40] He launched an offensive against the Russians in the Caucasus in December 1914 with 100,000 troops; insisting on a frontal attack against mountainous Russian positions in winter, he lost 86% of his force at the Battle of Sarikamish.[41]
The Russian commander from 1915 to 1916, General
The
Along the border of Italian Libya and British Egypt, the
Italian participation
Italy had been allied with the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires since 1882 as part of the
Militarily, the Italians had numerical superiority. This advantage, however, was lost, not only because of the difficult terrain in which fighting took place, but also because of the strategies and tactics employed.
Cadorna insisted on attacking the Isonzo front.
Cadorna unleashed eleven offensives with total disregard for his men's lives. The Italians also went on the offensive to relieve pressure on other Allied fronts. On the Trentino front, the Austro-Hungarians took advantage of the mountainous terrain, which favoured the defender. After an initial strategic retreat, the front remained largely unchanged, while Austrian Kaiserschützen and Standschützen and Italian Alpini engaged in bitter hand-to-hand combat throughout the summer. The Austro-Hungarians counter-attacked in the Altopiano of Asiago, towards Verona and Padua, in the spring of 1916 (Strafexpedition), but made little progress.
Beginning in 1915, the Italians mounted eleven offensives along the
Fighting in India
The war began with an unprecedented outpouring of loyalty and goodwill towards the United Kingdom from within the mainstream political leadership, contrary to initial British fears of an Indian revolt. India under British rule contributed massively to the British war effort by providing men and resources. This was done by the Indian Congress in hope of achieving self-government as India was very much under the control of the British. The United Kingdom disappointed the Indians by not providing self-governance, leading to the
Indian independence movement
The Ghadarites also attempted to organise incursions from the western border of India, recruiting Indian prisoners of war from
Although the conflict in India was not explicitly a part of the First World War, it was part of the wider strategic context. The British attempt to subjugate the rebelling tribal leaders drew away much needed troops from other theaters, in particular, of course, the Western Front, where the real decisive victory would be made.
The reason why some Indian and Afghani tribes rose up simply came down to years of discontent which erupted, probably not coincidentally, during the First World War. It is likely that the tribal leaders were aware that Britain would not be able to field the required men, in terms of either number or quality, but the underestimated the strategic importance of India to the British. Despite being far from the epicenter of the conflict, India provided a bounty of men for the fronts. Its produce was also needed for the British war effort and many trade routes running to other profitable areas of the Empire ran through India. Therefore, although the British were not able to send the men that they wanted, they were able to send enough to mount a gradual but effective counter-guerrilla war against the tribesmen. The fighting continued into 1919 and in some areas lasted even longer.
Eastern Front
Initial actions
While the Western Front had reached stalemate, the war continued in the East. Initial Russian plans called for simultaneous invasions of Austrian
Ukrainian oppression
Russian Revolution
Dissatisfaction with the Russian government's conduct of the war grew, despite the success of the June 1916
In March 1917, demonstrations in
The war and the government became more and more unpopular. Discontent led to a rise in popularity of the
With the Bolsheviks' accession to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Entente no longer existed. The Allied powers led a small-scale invasion of Russia to stop Germany from exploiting Russian resources and, to a lesser extent, to support the Whites in the Russian Civil War. Allied troops landed in Archangel and in Vladivostok.
1917–1918
Events of 1917 proved decisive in ending the war, although their effects were not fully felt until 1918. The British naval blockade began to have a serious impact on Germany. In response, in February 1917, the German General Staff convinced Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg to declare unrestricted submarine warfare, with the goal of starving Britain out of the war. Tonnage sunk rose above 500,000 tons per month from February to July. It peaked at 860,000 tons in April. After July, the reintroduced convoy system became extremely effective in neutralizing the U-boat threat. Britain was safe from starvation and German industrial output fell.
The victory of Austria-Hungary and Germany at the
In December, the Central Powers signed an armistice with Russia. This released troops for use in the west. Ironically, German troop transfers could have been greater if their territorial acquisitions had not been so dramatic. With German reinforcements and new American troops pouring in, the final outcome was to be decided on the Western front. The Central Powers knew that they could not win a protracted war, but they held high hopes for a quick offensive. Furthermore, the leaders of the Central Powers and the Allies became increasingly fearful of social unrest and revolution in Europe. Thus, both sides urgently sought a decisive victory.[52]
Entry of the United States
Isolationism
The United States originally pursued a policy of
Making the case
In January 1917, after the Navy pressured the Kaiser, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare. Britain's secret Royal Navy cryptanalytic group, Room 40, had broken the German diplomatic code. They intercepted a proposal from Berlin (the Zimmermann Telegram) to Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the United States, should the U.S. join. The proposal suggested, if the U.S. were to enter the war, Mexico should declare war against the United States and enlist Japan as an ally. This would prevent the United States from joining the Allies and deploying troops to Europe, and would give Germany more time for their unrestricted submarine warfare program to strangle Britain's vital war supplies. In return, the Germans would promise Mexico support in reclaiming Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.[55]
U.S. declaration of war on Germany
After the British revealed the telegram to the United States, President Wilson, who had won reelection on his keeping the country out of the war, released the captured telegram as a way of building support for U.S. entry into the war. He had previously claimed neutrality, while calling for the arming of U.S. merchant ships delivering munitions to combatant Britain and quietly supporting the British blockading of German ports and mining of international waters, preventing the shipment of food from America and elsewhere to combatant Germany. After submarines sank seven U.S. merchant ships and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany, which the
Crucial to U.S. participation was the massive domestic propaganda campaign executed by the
First active U.S. participation
The United States was never formally a member of the Allies but became a self-styled "Associated Power". The United States had a small army, but it drafted four million men and by summer 1918 was sending 10,000 fresh soldiers to France every day. In 1917, the U.S. Congress imposed U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans as part of the
The
German Spring Offensive of 1918
German General Erich Ludendorff drew up plans (codenamed Operation Michael) for the 1918 offensive on the Western Front. The Spring Offensive sought to divide the British and French forces with a series of feints and advances. The German leadership hoped to strike a decisive blow before significant U.S. forces arrived. The operation commenced on 21 March 1918 with an attack on British forces near Amiens. German forces achieved an unprecedented advance of 60 kilometers (40 miles).[60]
British and French trenches were penetrated using novel infiltration tactics, also named Hutier tactics, after General Oskar von Hutier. Previously, attacks had been characterised by long artillery bombardments and massed assaults.[citation needed] However, in the Spring Offensive, the German Army used artillery only briefly and infiltrated small groups of infantry at weak points. They attacked command and logistics areas and bypassed points of serious resistance. More heavily armed infantry then destroyed these isolated positions. German success relied greatly on the element of surprise.[citation needed]
The front moved to within 120 kilometers (75 mi) of Paris. Three heavy Krupp railway guns fired 183 shells on the capital, causing many Parisians to flee. The initial offensive was so successful that Kaiser Wilhelm II declared 24 March a national holiday. Many Germans thought victory was near. After heavy fighting, however, the offensive was halted. Lacking tanks or motorised artillery, the Germans were unable to consolidate their gains. The sudden stop was also a result of the four AIF (Australian Imperial Forces) divisions that were "rushed" down, thus doing what no other army had done and stopping the German advance in its tracks. During that time the first Australian division was hurriedly sent north again to stop the second German breakthrough.
American divisions, which Pershing had sought to field as an independent force, were assigned to the depleted French and British Empire commands on 28 March. A Supreme War Council of Allied forces was created at the Doullens Conference on 5 November 1917.[61] General Foch was appointed as supreme commander of the allied forces. Haig, Petain and Pershing retained tactical control of their respective armies; Foch assumed a coordinating role, rather than a directing role and the British, French and U.S. commands operated largely independently.[61]
Following Operation Michael, Germany launched
By 20 July the Germans were back at their Kaiserschlacht starting lines,[citation needed] having achieved nothing. Following this last phase of the war in the West, the German Army never again regained the initiative. German casualties between March and April 1918 were 270,000, including many highly trained stormtroopers.
Meanwhile, Germany was falling apart at home.
New states under war zone
In 1918, the internationally recognized
In 1918, the
Allied victory: summer and autumn 1918
The Allied counteroffensive, known as the
The Australian-Canadian spearhead at Amiens, a battle that was the beginning of Germany’s downfall,
Meanwhile General Byng of the Third British Army, reporting that the enemy on his front was thinning in a limited withdrawal, was ordered to attack with 200 tanks toward Bapaume, opening what is known as the Battle of Albert with the specific orders of "To break the enemy's front, in order to outflank the enemies present battle front" (opposite the British Fourth Army at Amiens).[65] Allied leaders had now realized that to continue an attack after resistance had hardened was a waste of lives and it was better to turn a line than to try and roll over it. Attacks were being undertaken in quick order to take advantage of the successful advances on the flanks and then broken off when that attack lost its initial impetus.[66]
The British Third Army's 15-mile (24 km) front north of Albert progressed after stalling for a day against the main resistance line to which the enemy had withdrawn.
In nearly four weeks of fighting since 8 August over 100,000 German prisoners were taken, 75,000 by the BEF and the rest by the French. Since "The Black Day of the German Army" the German High Command realized the war was lost and made attempts for a satisfactory end. The day after the battle Ludenforff told Colonel Mertz "We cannot win the war any more, but we must not lose it either." On 11 August he offered his resignation to the Kaiser, who refused it and replied, "I see that we must strike a balance. We have nearly reached the limit of our powers of resistance. The war must be ended." On 13 August at Spa, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, Chancellor and Foreign minister Hintz agreed that the war could not be ended militarily and on the following day the German Crown Council decided victory in the field was now most improbable. Austria and Hungary warned that they could only continue the war until December and Ludendorff recommended immediate peace negotiations, to which the Kaiser responded by instructing Hintz to seek the Queen of Holland's mediation. Prince Rupprecht warned Prince Max of Baden "Our military situation has deteriorated so rapidly that I no longer believe we can hold out over the winter; it is even possible that a catastrophe will come earlier." On 10 September Hindenburg urged peace moves to Emperor Charles of Austria and Germany appealed to Holland for mediation. On the 14th Austria sent a note to all belligerents and neutrals suggesting a meeting for peace talks on neutral soil and on 15 September Germany made a peace offer to Belgium. Both peace offers were rejected and on 24 September OHL informed the leaders in Berlin that armistice talks were inevitable.[69]
September saw the Germans continuing to fight strong rear guard actions and launching numerous counter attacks on lost positions, with only a few succeeding and then only temporarily. Contested towns, villages, heights and trenches in the screening positions and outposts of the Hindenburg Line continued to fall to the Allies as well as thousands of prisoners, with the BEF alone taking 30,441 in the last week of September. Further small advances eastward would follow the Third Army victory at Ivincourt on 12 September, the Fourth Armies at Epheny on the 18th and the French gain of Essigny Le Grand a day later. On the 24th a final assault by both the British and French on a four mile (6 km) front would come within two miles (3 km) of St. Quentin.[69] With the outposts and preliminary defensive lines of the Siegfried and Alberich Positions eliminated the Germans were now completely back in the Hindenburg line. With the Wotan position of that line already breached and the Siegfried position in danger of being turned from the north the time had now come for an assault on the whole length of the line.
The Allied
By October, it was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defence.[citation needed] They were increasingly outnumbered, with few new recruits. Rations were cut. Ludendorff decided, on 1 October,[citation needed] that Germany had two ways out — total annihilation or an armistice. He recommended the latter at a summit of senior German officials. Allied pressure did not let up.
Meanwhile, news of Germany's impending military defeat spread throughout the German armed forces. The threat of mutiny was rife. Admiral Reinhard Scheer and Ludendorff decided to launch a last attempt to restore the "valour" of the German Navy. Knowing the government of Max von Baden would veto any such action, Ludendorff decided not to inform him. Nonetheless, word of the impending assault reached sailors at Kiel. Many rebelled and were arrested, refusing to be part of a naval offensive which they believed to be suicidal. Ludendorff took the blame—the Kaiser dismissed him on 26 October. The collapse of the Balkans meant that Germany was about to lose its main supplies of oil and food. The reserves had been used up, but U.S. troops kept arriving at the rate of 10,000 per day.[76]
Having suffered over 6 million casualties, Germany moved toward peace.
Allied superiority and the stab-in-the-back legend, November 1918
In November 1918 the Allies had ample supplies of men and materiel; continuation of the war would have meant the invasion of Germany. This had unforeseeable consequences; some Allied decisionmakers felt the war should be "finished," not just stopped, and many voices on both sides voiced the opinion that the war was not really over. [citation needed] But most Allied decisionmakers were eager to see the end of hostilities.
Berlin was almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front; no Allied soldier had ever set foot on German soil in anger, and the Kaiser's armies retreated from the battlefield in good order. Thus many Germans, including
End of war
The collapse of the Central Powers came swiftly. Bulgaria was the first to sign an armistice on 29 September 1918 at
On 24 October the Italians began a push which rapidly recovered territory lost after the
Following the outbreak of the
A formal state of war between the two sides persisted for another seven months, until signing of the
Some war memorials date the end of the War as being when the Versailles treaty was signed in 1919; by contrast, most commemorations of the War's end concentrate on the armistice of 11 November 1918. Legally the last formal peace treaties were not signed until the Treaty of Lausanne. Under its terms, the Allied forces abandoned Constantinople on 23 August 1923.
Soldiers' experiences
The soldiers of the war were initially volunteers, except for Italy, but increasingly were conscripted into service. Books such as All Quiet on the Western Front detail the mundane time, but also the intense horror, of soldiers that fought the war. Britain's Imperial War Museum has collected more than 2,500 recordings of soldiers' personal accounts and selected transcripts, edited by military author Max Arthur, have been published. The museum believes that historians have not taken full account of this material and accordingly has made the full archive of recordings available to authors and researchers.[80]
Military attachés and war correspondents
Military and civilian observers from every major power closely followed the course of the war. Many were able to report on events from a perspective somewhat like what is now termed "
For example, former U.S. Army Captain
In-depth observer narratives of the war and more narrowly-focused professional journal articles were written soon after the war; and these post-war reports conclusively illustrated the battlefield destructiveness of this conflict. This was the not first time the tactics of entrenched positions for infantry defended with machine guns and artillery became vitally important. The Russo-Japanese War had been closely observed by Military attachés, war correspondents and other observers; but, from a 21st century perspective, it is now apparent that a range of tactical lessons were disregarded or not used in the preparations for war in Europe and during the course of the Great War.[83]
An early recorded use of the term "World War" is attributed to a well-known journalist for The Times, Colonel Charles A. Repington (1858–1925), who wrote in his diary on September 10, 1918: "We discussed the right name of the war. I said the we called it now The War, but that this could not last. The Napoleonic War was The Great War. To call it The German War was too much flattery for the Boche. I suggested The World War as a shade better title, and finally we mutually agreed to call it The First World War in order to prevent the millennium folk from forgetting that the history of the world was the history of war."[84]
Prisoners of war
About 8 million men surrendered and were held in
Germany held 2.5 million prisoners; Russia held 2.9 million and Britain and France held about 720,000. Most were captured just prior to the Armistice. The U.S. held 48,000. The most dangerous moment was the act of surrender, when helpless soldiers were sometimes gunned down.
The Ottoman Empire often treated POWs poorly.[92] Some 11,800 British Empire soldiers, most of them Indians, became prisoners after the Siege of Kut, in Mesopotamia, in April 1916; 4,250 died in captivity.[93] Although many were in very bad condition when captured, Ottoman officers forced them to march 1,100 kilometres (684 mi) to Anatolia. A survivor said: "we were driven along like beasts, to drop out was to die."[94] The survivors were then forced to build a railway through the Taurus Mountains.
In Russia, where the prisoners from the
War crimes
Genocide
The
Rape of Belgium
In Belgium, German troops, in fear of French and Belgian guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs, massacred townspeople in Andenne (211 dead), Tamines (384 dead), and Dinant (612 dead). The victims included women and children. On 25 August 1914, the Germans set fire to the town of Leuven, burned the library containing about 230,000 books, killed 209 civilians and forced 42,000 to evacuate. These actions brought worldwide condemnation.[100]
Economics and manpower issues
All nations had increases in the government's share of GDP, surpassing fifty percent in both Germany and France and nearly reaching fifty percent in Britain. To pay for purchases in the United States, Britain cashed in its massive investments in American railroads and then began borrowing heavily on Wall Street. President Wilson was on the verge of cutting off the loans in late 1916, but allowed a massive increase in U.S. government lending to the Allies. After 1919, the U.S. demanded repayment of these loans, which, in part, were funded by German reparations, which, in turn, were supported by American loans to Germany. This circular system collapsed in 1931 and the loans were never repaid.
One of the most dramatic effects was the expansion of governmental powers and responsibilities in Britain, France, the United States, and the
At the same time, the war strained the abilities of the formerly large and bureaucratised governments such as in Austria-Hungary and Germany. Here, however, the long-term effects were clouded by the defeat of these governments.
Families were altered by the departure of many men. With the death or absence of the primary wage earner, women were forced into the workforce in unprecedented numbers. At the same time, industry needed to replace the lost laborers sent to war. This aided the struggle for voting rights for women.
As the war slowly turned into a
In Britain, rationing was finally imposed in early 1918, limited to meat, sugar, and fats (butter and oleo), but not bread. The new system worked smoothly. From 1914 to 1918 trade union membership doubled, from a little over four million to a little over eight million. Work stoppages and strikes became frequent in 1917–18 as the unions expressed grievances regarding prices, alcohol control, pay disputes, fatigue from overtime and working on Sundays and inadequate housing. Conscription put into uniform nearly every physically fit man, six of ten million eligible. Of these, about 750,000 lost their lives and 1,700,000 were wounded. Most deaths were to young unmarried men; however, 160,000 wives lost husbands and 300,000 children lost fathers.[101]
Britain turned to her colonies for help in obtaining essential war materials whose supply had become difficult from traditional sources. Geologists, such as
Technology
The First World War began as a clash of 20th century
In 1914, cannons were positioned in the front line and fired directly at their targets. By 1917, indirect fire with guns (as well as mortars and even machine guns) was commonplace, using new techniques for spotting and ranging, notably aircraft and (often overlooked) field telephone. Counter-battery missions became commonplace, also, and sound detection was used to locate enemy batteries.
Germany was far ahead of the Allies in utilizing heavy indirect fire. She employed 150 and 210 mm howitzers in 1914 when the typical French and British guns were only 75 and 105 mm. The British had a 6 inch (152 mm) howitzer, but it was so heavy it had to be assembled for firing. Germans also fielded Austrian 305 mm and 420 mm guns, and already by the beginning of the war had inventories of various calibers of Minenwerfer ideally suited for trench warfare.[103]
Much of the combat involved
There was chemical warfare and small-scale strategic bombing, both of which were outlawed by the 1907 Hague Conventions, and both proving of limited effectiveness,[104] though they captured the public imagination.[105]
The widespread use of chemical warfare was a distinguishing feature of the conflict. Gases used included chlorine, mustard gas and phosgene. Only a small proportion of total war casualties were caused by gas. Effective countermeasures to gas attacks were quickly created, such as gas masks.
The most powerful land-based weapons were railway guns weighing hundreds of tons apiece. These were nicknamed Big Berthas, even though the namesake was not a railway gun. Germany developed the Paris Gun, able to bombard Paris from over 100 km (60 mi), though shells were relatively light at 94 kilograms (210 lb). While the Allies had railway guns, German models severely out-ranged and out-classed them.
Towards the end of the conflict,
German
Trenches, machineguns, air reconnaissance, barbed wire, and modern artillery with fragmentation
Manned observation balloons, floating high above the trenches, were used as stationary reconnaissance platforms, reporting enemy movements and directing artillery. Balloons commonly had a crew of two, equipped with parachutes.[107] In the event of an enemy air attack, the crew could parachute to safety. At the time, parachutes were too heavy to be used by pilots of aircraft (with their marginal power output) and smaller versions would not be developed until the end of the war; they were also opposed by British leadership, who feared they might promote cowardice.[108] Recognised for their value as observation platforms, balloons were important targets of enemy aircraft. To defend against air attack, they were heavily protected by antiaircraft guns and patrolled by friendly aircraft; to attack them, unusual weapons such as air-to-air rockets were even tried. Blimps and balloons contributed to air-to-air combat among aircraft, because of their reconnaissance value, and to the trench stalemate, because it was impossible to move large numbers of troops undetected. The Germans conducted air raids on England during 1915 and 1916 with airships, hoping to damage British morale and cause aircraft to be diverted from the front lines. The resulting panic took several squadrons of fighters from France.[108]
Another new weapon, flamethrowers, were first used by the German army and later adopted by other forces. Although not of high tactical value, they were a powerful, demoralizing weapon and caused terror on the battlefield. It was a dangerous weapon to wield, as its heavy weight made operators vulnerable targets.
Opposition to the war
The
Aftermath
No other war had changed the map of Europe so dramatically — four empires disappeared: the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and the Russian. Four defunct dynasties, the
Later conflicts
The end of World War I set the stage for other world conflicts, some of which are continuing into the 21st century. The
The birth of
Peace treaties
After the war, the Allies imposed a series of peace treaties on the Central Powers. The 1919
The Ottoman Empire was to be partitioned by the
Austria-Hungary was also partitioned, largely along ethnic lines. The details were contained in the
New national identities
This section needs additional citations for verification. (May 2008) |
Poland reemerged as an independent country, after more than a century. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were entirely new nations agglomerating previously independent peoples. Russia became the Soviet Union and lost Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, which became independent countries. The Ottoman Empire was soon replaced by Turkey and several other countries in the Middle East.
In the British Empire, the war unleashed new forms of nationalism. In
After the
Social trauma
This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2008) |
The experiences of the war led to a collective trauma for all participating countries. The optimism of the 1900s was gone and those who fought in the war became known as the Lost Generation. For the next few years, much of Europe mourned. Memorials were erected in thousands of villages and towns. The soldiers returning home from World War I suffered greatly from the horrors they had witnessed. Many returning veterans suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, called shell shock at the time.
The social trauma caused by years of fighting manifested itself in different ways. Some people were revolted by
On 3 May 1915, during the
Other names
Before World War II, the war was also known as The Great War, The World War, The War to End All Wars, The Kaiser's War, The War of the Nations and The War in Europe. In France and Belgium it was sometimes referred to as La Guerre du Droit (the War for Justice) or La Guerre Pour la Civilisation / de Oorlog tot de Beschaving (the War to Preserve Civilization), especially on medals and commemorative monuments.
The term used by official histories of the war in Britain and Canada is The First World War, while American histories generally use the term World War I.
There is evidence that German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel used the key phrase shortly after the start of the fighting in Europe: "There is no doubt that the course and character of the feared "European War"...will become the first world war the full sense of the word."[130]
Although the wide-spread use of the term First World War has been dated to 1931, the first known appearance of the phrase in print was in the
In many European countries, it appears the current usage is tending back to calling it The Great War / la Grande Guerre / de Grote Oorlog / der Große Krieg, because of the growing historical awareness that, of the two 20th century world wars, the 1914–1918 conflict caused more social, economic and political upheaval. It was also one of the prime factors in the outbreak of the Second World War.
Historical era
See also
- Timeline of World War I
- Surviving veterans of World War I
- War memorials
- World War I casualties
- World War One - Medal Abbreviations
- List of people associated with World War I
- List of wars by death toll
- Technology during World War I
- Russian Civil War
- List of wars
- World War II
- Room 40
Media
-
Video clip of allied bombing runs over German lines
-
Primitive WWI tanks help the Allies with an advance in Langres, France (1918)
Animated maps
- An animated map "Europe plunges into war"
- An animated map of Europe at the end of the First World War
Notes
- ^ a b Evans, David. Teach yourself, the First World War, Hodder Arnold, 2004.p.188
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ The Treaty of Versailles and its Consequences
- ^ a b Ashworth, Tony. Trench warfare 1914–1918, pp3–4. 2000: Macmillan Press, London.
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Stevenson, D., Armaments and the Coming of War: Europe, 1904-1914, 1996 (Oxford University Press)
- ^ Herrmann, David G. The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War(1996)
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Fischer, Fritz. Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914-1918 (published in English as Germany's Aims in the First World War)
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Snyder, Jack. Ideology of the Offensive. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984; Dupuy, Trevor N., Colonel, USA (rtd). Numbers Predictions, and War. Philadelphia: Bobbs-Merrill, 1979.
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ 30 October 1918 in Herbert Hoover, Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson p. 47
- ^ Southgate Troy, "The Fischer Controversy"
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ “Imperialism" (1902) fordham.edu website
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Joll, James. The Origins of the First World War, 2nd ed. (Harlow, 1992), pp. 10–38
- ISBN 1-85109-420-2.
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ John M. Taylor, "Audacious Cruise of the Emden", The Quarterly Journal of Military History, Volume 19, Number 4, Summer 2007, pp. 39–47
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Price, Alfred. Aircraft versus the Submarine. (London: Wiliam Kimber, 1973).
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ a b User:Headbomb/unicite
- Paris Peace Conference, 1919through a letter to French Foreign Office - 3 December 1918
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Participants from the Indian subcontinent in the First World War
- ^ Fraser 1977
- ^ Hughes 2002, p. 474
- ^ Dignan 1971, p. 57
- ^ Sykes 1921, p. 101
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Herbert 2003
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ H. W. Brands, T. R. (1997) p. 756.
- ^ a b Karp, Walter. "Politics of War" (1979)
- ^ Barbara Tuchman, The Zimmerman Telegram
- ^ (see: Woodrow Wilson declares war on Germany.
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ William John Wilgus, Transporting the A. E. F. in Western Europe, 1917–1919 p. 52
- ^ Allan Reed Millett and Williamson Murray, Military Effectiveness, Routledge, p.143
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ a b van Courtland Moon, John Ellis. "United States Chemical Warfare Policy in World War II: A Captive of Coalition Policy?" (JSTOR), The Journal of Military History, Vol. 60, No. 3. (Jul., 1996), pp. 495-511. Retrieved 14 October 2007.
- ^ a b Amiens
- ^ Map
- ^ Rickard J. (5 March 2001), "Erich von Ludendorff, 1865-1937, German General" accessed 2008-02-06
- ^ a b Ordeal Of Victory John Terraine
- ^ a b "1918 The Last Act" Barrie Pitt
- ^ Fredrick B. Maurice, "Foe's Reserves Now Only 16 Divisions; Allies'Counteroffensive Has Reduced Them from 60, Gen. Maurice Says. Ludendorff in Dilemma; He Must Choose Between Giving Up Offensive Projects and Shortening His Line" New York Times 1918-08-18
- ^ "1918 The last Act" Barrie Pitt
- ^ a b c d Chronicle Of The First World War
- ^ The Last Act Barrie Pitt
- ^ Nicholson CEF
- ^ Ludendorff My War Memories
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ "Ghent Burghers Hail Liberators" New York Times 1918-11-15
- ^ "Fall of Ghent Near, German Flank in Peril" New York Times dateline 1918-10-26, published 1918-10-30
- ^ Stevenson, Cataclysm (2004) p 383.
- ^ Stevenson, Cataclysm (2004) ch 17.
- ^ a b User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ [ "London in Gloom over Gallipoli; Captain Fortescue in Book and Ashmead-Bartlett in Lecture Declare Campaign Lost. Say Allies Can't Advance; Attack on Allied Diplomacy in Correspondent's Doleful Talk Passed by Censor,"] New York Times. October 28, 1915.
- ^ Arlington National Cemetery: Granville Roland Foretscue
- U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.
- ^ Shapiro, Fred R. (2006). The Yale Book of Quotations, p. 633.
- ^ Geo G. Phillimore and Hugh H. L. Bellot, "Treatment of Prisoners of War", Transactions of the Grotius Society Vol. 5, (1919), pp. 47–64.
- ^ Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War (1999) pages 368-369
- ^ Dale Blair, No Quarter: Unlawful killing and surrender in the Australian war experience, 1915-1918(2005)
- ^ Tim Cook, The politics of surrender: Canadian soldiers and the killing of prisoners in the First World War The Journal of Military History, Vol.70, No.3, 2006, pp.637-665
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Ferguson, The Pity of War (1999) ch 13
- ^ Desmond Morton, Silent Battle: Canadian Prisoners of War in Germany, 1914-1919 (1992)
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Letter from the International Association of Genocide Scholars to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, 13 June 2005
- ^ Lewy, Guenter, "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide", p.57
- ISBN 1-5942-0100-5.
- ISBN 0-0605-5870-9.
- ISBN 0-8050-6884-8
- ^ Keegan, John. The First World War. 1998. pp82–83
- ^ Havighurst p.134-5.
- ^ John Frederick Norman Green, 'Obituary: Albert Ernest Kitson', Geological Society, Quarterly Journal no 94, 1938, p. CXXVI
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ Postwar, there were numerous pulp novels on future "gas wars", including Ghastly Dew The Gas War of 19--.
- ^ Price, Alfred, Professor. Aircraft versus the Submarine (London : Kimber, 1973).
- ^ Winter, Denis. First of the Few.
- ^ ISBN 0304358606
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ BBC - History - The Ending of World War One, and the Legacy of Peace
- ^ The Rise of Hitler
- ^ World War II - Britannica Online Encyclopedia
- ^ Economist.com | Country Briefings: Israel
- ^ The Ottomans
- ^ Foreign Affairs - Us and Them - Jerry Z. Muller
- ^ Syria: Identity Crisis
- ^ How it all began - A concise history of Lebanon
- ^ Future of Iraq, Israel-Palestine Conflict, and Central Asia Weighed at International Conference, UCLA International Institute
- ^ Ottoman Rule
- ^ [1]
- ^ Roots of the Water Conflict in the Middle East
- ^ Keynes, J.M. The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York : Harcourt, 1920).
- ^ "Canada's last WW1 vet gets his citizenship back" CBC News 2008-05-09
- ^ Baker, Kevin Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth Harper's Magazine, June 2006
- ^ Chickering, Rodger, Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914-1918." Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 2004
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ User:Headbomb/unicite
- ^ a b Shapiro, p. 329/
References
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite general military history
- User:Headbomb/unicite an analysis of cultural changes before, during, and after the war
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite despite the title covers entire war
- User:Headbomb/unicite general military history
- User:Headbomb/unicite on literature
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite economics
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite, historiography, stressing military themes
- User:Headbomb/unicite, general military history
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite, general military history
- User:Headbomb/unicite, Wilson's maneuvering U.S. into war
- User:Headbomb/unicite, covers politics & economics & society
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite, readings from multiple points of view
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite, short overview
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite, major reinterpretation
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite: the major scholarly synthesis. Thorough coverage of 1914; Also:
- User:Headbomb/unicite: a 385pp version of his multivolume history
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite, tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
- User:Headbomb/unicite, online at eBook.com
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite
- User:Headbomb/unicite, topical essays; well illustrated
- User:Headbomb/unicite Connects submarine and antisubmarine operations between wars, and suggests a continuous war
- Price Alfred, Dr. Aircraft versus the Submarine. Deals with technical developments, including the first dipping hydrophones
- Dignan, Don (1971), The Hindu Conspiracy in Anglo-American Relations during World War I. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 40, No. 1. (Feb., 1971), pp. 57-76., University of California Press, ISSN 0030-8684.
- Fraser, Thomas G (1977), Germany and Indian Revolution, 1914-18. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1977), pp. 255-272., Sage Publications, ISSN 0022-0094
- Hughes, Thomas L (2002), The German Mission to Afghanistan, 1915-1916.German Studies Review, Vol. 25, No. 3. (Oct., 2002), pp. 447-476., German Studies Association, ISSN 0149-7952
- Herbert, Edwin (2003), Small Wars and Skirmishes 1902-1918: Early Twentieth-century Colonial Campaigns in Africa, Asia and the Americas, Nottingham, Foundry Books Publications., ISBN 1901543056