World War I | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
From the top, left to right: British Cheshire Regiment at the Battle of the Somme (1916); Ottoman Arab Camel Corps leaving for the Middle Eastern front (1916); SMS Grosser Kurfürst during Operation Albion (1917); German soldiers at the Battle of Verdun (1916); Aftermath of the siege of Przemyśl (1914–15); Bulgarian troops at the Monastir offensive (1916). |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Belligerents | ||||||||
Allied Powers:
and its territories:
and others … |
Central Powers:
and others … |
|||||||
Commanders and leaders | ||||||||
and others … |
and others … |
|||||||
Strength | ||||||||
Total: 42,928,000[1] | Total: 25,248,000[1] | |||||||
68,176,000 (total all) | ||||||||
Casualties and losses | ||||||||
further details … |
further details … |
World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), often abbreviated as WWI, was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history. It was fought between two coalitions, the Allies (primarily France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Italy, Japan, and the United States) and the Central Powers (led by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire). Fighting occurred throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia. An estimated 9 million soldiers were killed in combat, plus another 23 million wounded, while 5 million civilians died as a result of military action, hunger, and disease. Millions more died as a result of genocide, while the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic was exacerbated by the movement of combatants during the war.
The first decade of the 20th century saw increasing diplomatic tension between the European great powers. This reached breaking point on 28 June 1914, when a Bosnian Serb named Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Austria-Hungary held Serbia responsible, and declared war on 28 July. Russia came to Serbia’s defence, and by 4 August, defensive alliances had drawn in Germany, France, and Britain.
German strategy in 1914 was to first defeat France, then attack Russia. However, this failed, and by the end of 1914, the Western Front consisted of a continuous line of trenches stretching from the English Channel to Switzerland. The Eastern Front was more fluid, but neither side could gain a decisive advantage, despite a series of costly offensives. Attempts by both sides to bypass the stalemate caused fighting to expand into the Middle East, the Alps, the Balkans, and overseas colonies, bringing Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, and others into the war.
The United States entered the war on the side of the Allies in April 1917, while the Bolsheviks seized power in the Russian October Revolution, and made peace with the Central Powers in early 1918. Freed from the Eastern Front, Germany launched an offensive in the west on March 1918, hoping to achieve a decisive victory before American troops arrived in significant numbers. Failure left the German Imperial Army exhausted and demoralised, and when the Allies took the offensive in August 1918, they could not stop the advance.
Between 29 September and 3 November 1918, Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria-Hungary agreed to armistices with the Allies, leaving Germany isolated. Facing revolution at home, and with his army on the verge of mutiny, Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated on 9 November. The Armistice of 11 November 1918 brought the fighting to a close, while the Paris Peace Conference imposed various settlements on the defeated powers, the best-known being the Treaty of Versailles. The dissolution of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires resulted in the creation of new independent states, among them Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. Failure to manage the instability that resulted from this upheaval during the interwar period contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939.
Names
The term world war was first coined in September 1914 by German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel. He claimed that «there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared ‘European War’ … will become the first world war in the full sense of the word,»[2] in The Indianapolis Star on 20 September 1914.
The term First World War (often abbreviated as WWI or WW1), had been used by Lt-Col. Charles à Court Repington, as a title for his memoirs (published in 1920); he had noted his discussion on the matter with a Major Johnstone of Harvard University in his diary entry of 10 September 1918.[3][4]
Prior to World War II, the events of 1914–1918 were generally known as the Great War or simply the World War.[5][6] In August 1914, The Independent magazine wrote «This is the Great War. It names itself».[7] In October 1914, the Canadian magazine Maclean’s similarly wrote, «Some wars name themselves. This is the Great War.»[8] Contemporary Europeans also referred to it as «the war to end war» and it was also described as «the war to end all wars» due to their perception of its then-unparalleled scale, devastation, and loss of life.[9] After World War II began in 1939, the terms became more standard, with British Empire historians, including Canadians, favouring «The First World War» and Americans «World War I».[10][failed verification]
Background
Political and military alliances
Rival military coalitions in 1914: Triple Entente in green; Triple Alliance in brown. Only the Triple Alliance was a formal «alliance»; the others listed were informal patterns of support.
For much of the 19th century, the major European powers maintained a tenuous balance of power among themselves, known as the Concert of Europe.[11] After 1848, this was challenged by a variety of factors, including Britain’s withdrawal into so-called splendid isolation, the decline of the Ottoman Empire, New Imperialism, and the rise of Prussia under Otto von Bismarck. The 1866 Austro-Prussian War established Prussian hegemony in Germany, while victory in the 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War allowed Bismarck to consolidate the German states into a German Empire under Prussian leadership. Avenging the defeat of 1871, or revanchism, and recovering the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine became the principal objects of French policy for the next forty years.[12]
In order to isolate France and avoid a war on two fronts, Bismarck negotiated the League of the Three Emperors (German: Dreikaiserbund) between Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany. After Russian victory in the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War, the League was dissolved due to Austrian concerns over Russian influence in the Balkans, an area they considered of vital strategic interest. Germany and Austria-Hungary then formed the 1879 Dual Alliance, which became the Triple Alliance when Italy joined in 1882.[13] For Bismarck, the purpose of these agreements was to isolate France by ensuring the three Empires resolved any disputes between themselves; when this was threatened in 1880 by British and French attempts to negotiate directly with Russia, he reformed the League in 1881, which was renewed in 1883 and 1885. After the agreement lapsed in 1887, he replaced it with the Reinsurance Treaty, a secret agreement between Germany and Russia to remain neutral if either were attacked by France or Austria-Hungary.[14]
Bismarck viewed peace with Russia as the foundation of German foreign policy but after becoming Kaiser in 1890, Wilhelm II forced him to retire and was persuaded not to renew the Reinsurance Treaty by Leo von Caprivi, his new Chancellor.[15] This provided France an opportunity to counteract the Triple Alliance, by signing the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1894, followed by the 1904 Entente Cordiale with Britain, and the Triple Entente was completed by the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention. While these were not formal alliances, by settling long-standing colonial disputes in Africa and Asia, British entry into any future conflict involving France or Russia became a possibility.[16] British and Russian support for France against Germany during the Agadir Crisis in 1911 reinforced their relationship and increased Anglo-German estrangement, deepening the divisions that would erupt in 1914.[17]
Arms race
German industrial strength significantly increased after 1871, driven by the creation of a unified Reich, French indemnity payments, and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. Backed by Wilhelm II, Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz sought to use this growth in economic power to build a Kaiserliche Marine, or Imperial German Navy, which could compete with the British Royal Navy for world naval supremacy.[18] His thinking was influenced by US naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan, who argued possession of a blue-water navy was vital for global power projection; Tirpitz had his books translated into German, while Wilhelm made them required reading for his advisors and senior military personnel.[19]
However, it was also an emotional decision, driven by Wilhelm’s simultaneous admiration for the Royal Navy and desire to outdo it. Bismarck calculated that Britain would not interfere in Europe so long as its maritime supremacy remained secure, but his dismissal in 1890 led to a change in policy and an Anglo-German naval arms race.[20] Despite the vast sums spent by Tirpitz, the launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 gave the British a technological advantage over their German rival which they never lost.[18] Ultimately, the race diverted huge resources into creating a German navy large enough to antagonise Britain, but not defeat it; in 1911, Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg acknowledged defeat, leading to the Rüstungswende or ‘armaments turning point’, when he switched expenditure from the navy to the army.[21]
This decision was not driven by a reduction in political tensions, but German concern over Russia’s recovery from defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and subsequent 1905 Russian Revolution. Economic reforms backed by French funding led to a significant post-1908 expansion of railways and infrastructure, particularly in its western border regions.[22] Since Germany and Austria-Hungary relied on faster mobilisation to compensate for their numerical inferiority compared to Russia, the threat posed by the closing of this gap was more important than competing with the Royal Navy. After Germany expanded its standing army by 170,000 troops in 1913, France extended compulsory military service from two to three years; similar measures were taken by the Balkan powers and Italy, which led to increased expenditure by the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary. Absolute figures are hard to calculate due to differences in categorising expenditure, since they often omit civilian infrastructure projects like railways which also had a military use. However, from 1908 to 1913, military spending by the six major European powers increased by over 50% in real terms.[23]
Conflicts in the Balkans
The years before 1914 were marked by a series of crises in the Balkans as other powers sought to benefit from Ottoman decline. While Pan-Slavic and Orthodox Russia considered itself the protector of Serbia and other Slav states, they preferred the strategically vital Bosporus straits to be controlled by a weak Ottoman government, rather than an ambitious Slav power like Bulgaria. Since Russia had its own ambitions in northeastern Anatolia and their clients had over-lapping claims in the Balkans, balancing these divided Russian policy-makers and added to regional instability.[24]
Austrian statesmen viewed the Balkans as essential for the continued existence of their Empire and Serbian expansion as a direct threat. The 1908–1909 Bosnian Crisis began when Austria annexed the former Ottoman territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which it had occupied since 1878. Timed to coincide with the Bulgarian Declaration of Independence from the Ottoman Empire, this unilateral action was denounced by the European powers, but accepted as there was no consensus on how to reverse it. Some historians see this as a significant escalation, ending any chance of Austria co-operating with Russia in the Balkans while damaging relations with Serbia and Italy, both of whom had their own expansionist ambitions in the region.[25]
Tensions increased after the 1911–1912 Italo-Turkish War demonstrated Ottoman weakness and led to the formation of the Balkan League, an alliance of Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Greece.[26] The League quickly over-ran most of Ottoman Balkan territory in the 1912–1913 First Balkan War, much to the surprise of outside observers.[27] The Serbian capture of ports on the Adriatic resulted in partial Austrian mobilisation on 21 November 1912, including units along the Russian border in Galicia. In a meeting the next day, the Russian government decided not to mobilise in response, unwilling to precipitate a war for which they were not yet prepared.[28]
The Great Powers sought to re-assert control through the 1913 Treaty of London, which created an independent Albania, while enlarging the territories of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece. However, disputes between the victors sparked the 33-day Second Balkan War, when Bulgaria attacked Serbia and Greece on 16 June 1913; it was defeated, losing most of Macedonia to Serbia and Greece, and Southern Dobruja to Romania.[29] The result was that even countries which benefited from the Balkan Wars, such as Serbia and Greece, felt cheated of their «rightful gains», while for Austria it demonstrated the apparent indifference with which other powers viewed their concerns, including Germany.[30] This complex mix of resentment, nationalism and insecurity helps explain why the pre-1914 Balkans became known as the «powder keg of Europe».[31]
Prelude
Sarajevo assassination
Traditionally thought to show the arrest of Gavrilo Princip (right), this photo is now believed by historians to depict an innocent bystander, Ferdinand Behr[32][33]
On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to Emperor Franz Joseph, visited Sarajevo, capital of the recently annexed provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Six assassins[m] from the movement known as Young Bosnia, or Mlada Bosna, took up positions along the route taken by the Archduke’s motorcade, with the intention of assassinating him. Supplied with arms by extremists within the Serbian Black Hand intelligence organisation, they hoped his death would free Bosnia from Austrian rule, although there was little agreement on what would replace it.[35]
Nedeljko Čabrinović threw a grenade at the Archduke’s car and injured two of his aides, who were taken to hospital while the convoy carried on. The other assassins were also unsuccessful but an hour later, as Ferdinand was returning from visiting the injured officers, his car took a wrong turn into a street where Gavrilo Princip was standing. He stepped forward and fired two pistol shots, fatally wounding Ferdinand and his wife Sophie, who both died shortly thereafter.[36] Although Emperor Franz Joseph was shocked by the incident, political and personal differences meant the two men were not close; allegedly, his first reported comment was «A higher power has re-established the order which I, alas, could not preserve».[37]
According to historian Zbyněk Zeman, his reaction was reflected more broadly in Vienna, where «the event almost failed to make any impression whatsoever. On 28 and 29 June, the crowds listened to music and drank wine, as if nothing had happened.»[38][39] Nevertheless, the impact of the murder of the heir to the throne was significant, and has been described by historian Christopher Clark as a «9/11 effect, a terrorist event charged with historic meaning, transforming the political chemistry in Vienna».[40]
Expansion of violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Austro-Hungarian authorities encouraged the subsequent anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, in which Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks killed two Bosnian Serbs and damaged numerous Serb-owned buildings.[41][42] Violent actions against ethnic Serbs were also organised outside Sarajevo, in other cities in Austro-Hungarian-controlled Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia. Austro-Hungarian authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina imprisoned and extradited approximately 5,500 prominent Serbs, 700 to 2,200 of whom died in prison. A further 460 Serbs were sentenced to death. A predominantly Bosniak special militia known as the Schutzkorps was established and carried out the persecution of Serbs.[43][44][45][46]
July Crisis
The assassination initiated the July Crisis, a month of diplomatic manoeuvring between Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France and Britain. Believing Serbian intelligence helped organise Franz Ferdinand’s murder, Austrian officials wanted to use the opportunity to end their interference in Bosnia and saw war as the best way of achieving this.[47] However, the Foreign Ministry had no solid proof of Serbian involvement and a dossier used to make its case was riddled with errors.[48] On 23 July, Austria delivered an ultimatum to Serbia, listing ten demands made intentionally unacceptable to provide an excuse for starting hostilities.[49]
Serbia ordered general mobilisation on 25 July, but accepted all the terms, except for those empowering Austrian representatives to suppress «subversive elements» inside Serbia, and take part in the investigation and trial of Serbians linked to the assassination.[50][51] Claiming this amounted to rejection, Austria broke off diplomatic relations and ordered partial mobilisation the next day; on 28 July, they declared war on Serbia and began shelling Belgrade. Having initiated war preparations on 25 July, Russia now ordered general mobilisation in support of Serbia on 30th.[52]
Anxious to ensure backing from the SPD political opposition by presenting Russia as the aggressor, Bethmann Hollweg delayed commencement of war preparations until 31 July.[53] That afternoon the Russian government were handed a note requiring them to «cease all war measures against Germany and Austria-Hungary» within 12 hours.[54] A further German demand for neutrality was refused by the French who ordered general mobilisation but delayed declaring war.[55] The German General Staff had long assumed they faced a war on two fronts; the Schlieffen Plan envisaged using 80% of the army to defeat France in the west, then switch to Russia. Since this required them to move quickly, mobilisation orders were issued that afternoon.[56]
Cheering crowds in London and Paris on the day war was declared.
At a meeting on 29 July, the British cabinet had narrowly decided its obligations to Belgium under the 1839 Treaty of London did not require it to oppose a German invasion with military force. However, this was largely driven by Prime Minister Asquith’s desire to maintain unity; he and his senior Cabinet ministers were already committed to support France, the Royal Navy had been mobilised and public opinion was strongly in favour of intervention.[57] On 31 July, Britain sent notes to Germany and France, asking them to respect Belgian neutrality; France pledged to do so, Germany did not reply.[58]
Once the German ultimatum to Russia expired on the morning of 1 August, the two countries were at war. Later the same day, Wilhelm was informed by his ambassador in London, Prince Lichnowsky, that Britain would remain neutral if France was not attacked, and might not intervene at all given the ongoing Home Rule Crisis in Ireland.[59] Jubilant at this news, he ordered General Moltke, the German chief of staff, to «march the whole of the … army to the East». This allegedly brought Moltke to the verge of a nervous breakdown, who protested that «it cannot be done. The deployment of millions cannot be improvised.»[60] Lichnowsky soon realised he was mistaken, although Wilhelm insisted on waiting for a telegram from his cousin George V; once received it confirmed there had been a misunderstanding, and he told Moltke, «Now do what you want.»[61]
Aware of German plans to attack through Belgium, French Commander-in-Chief Joseph Joffre asked his government for permission to cross the border and pre-empt such a move. To avoid a violation of Belgian neutrality, he was told any advance could come only after a German invasion.[62] On 2 August, Germany occupied Luxembourg and exchanged fire with French units; on 3 August, they declared war on France and demanded free passage across Belgium, which was refused. Early on the morning of 4 August, the Germans invaded and Albert I of Belgium called for assistance under the Treaty of London.[63][64] Britain sent Germany an ultimatum demanding they withdraw from Belgium; when this expired at midnight without a response, the two empires were at war.[65]
Progress of the war
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. Previously tested deployment plans had been replaced early in 1914, but those had never been tested in exercises. Austro-Hungarian leaders believed Germany would cover its northern flank against Russia.[66] Germany, however, envisioned Austria-Hungary directing most 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.
Serbian campaign
Beginning on 12 August, the Austrian and Serbs clashed at the battles of the Cer and Kolubara; over the next two weeks, Austrian attacks were repulsed with heavy losses, dashing their hopes of a swift victory and marking the first major Allied victories of the war. As a result, Austria had to keep sizeable forces on the Serbian front, weakening its efforts against Russia.[67] Serbia’s defeat of the 1914 invasion has been called one of the major upset victories of the twentieth century.[68] In spring 1915, the campaign saw the first use of anti-aircraft warfare after an Austrian plane was shot down with ground-to-air fire, as well as the first medical evacuation by the Serbian army in autumn 1915.[69][70]
German offensive in Belgium and France
German soldiers on the way to the front in 1914; at this stage, all sides expected the conflict to be a short one.
Upon mobilisation in 1914, 80% of the German Army was located on the Western Front, with the remainder acting as a screening force in the East; officially titled Aufmarsch II West, it is better known as the Schlieffen Plan after its creator, Alfred von Schlieffen, head of the German General Staff from 1891 to 1906. Rather than a direct attack across their shared frontier, the German right wing would sweep through the Netherlands and Belgium, then swing south, encircling Paris and trapping the French army against the Swiss border. Schlieffen estimated this would take six weeks, after which the German army would transfer to the East and defeat the Russians.[71]
The plan was substantially modified by his successor, Helmuth von Moltke the Younger. Under Schlieffen, 85% of German forces in the west were assigned to the right wing, with the remainder holding along the frontier. By keeping his left wing deliberately weak, he hoped to lure the French into an offensive into the «lost provinces» of Alsace-Lorraine, which was in fact the strategy envisaged by their Plan XVII.[71] However, Moltke grew concerned the French might push too hard on his left flank and as the German Army increased in size from 1908 to 1914, he changed the allocation of forces between the two wings from 85:15 to 70:30.[72] He also considered Dutch neutrality essential for German trade and cancelled the incursion into the Netherlands, which meant any delays in Belgium threatened the entire viability of the plan.[73] Historian Richard Holmes argues these changes meant the right wing was not strong enough to achieve decisive success and thus led to unrealistic goals and timings.[74]
French bayonet charge during the Battle of the Frontiers; by the end of August, French casualties exceeded 260,000, including 75,000 dead.
The initial German advance in the West was very successful and by the end of August the Allied left, which included the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), was in full retreat. At the same time, the French offensive in Alsace-Lorraine was a disastrous failure, with casualties exceeding 260,000, including 27,000 killed on 22 August during the Battle of the Frontiers.[75] German planning provided broad strategic instructions, while allowing army commanders considerable freedom in carrying them out at the front; this worked well in 1866 and 1870 but in 1914, von Kluck used this freedom to disobey orders, opening a gap between the German armies as they closed on Paris.[76] The French and British exploited this gap to halt the German advance east of Paris at the First Battle of the Marne from 5 to 12 September and push the German forces back some 50 km (31 mi).
In 1911, the Russian Stavka had agreed with the French to attack Germany within fifteen days of mobilisation, ten days before the Germans had anticipated, although it meant the two Russian armies that entered East Prussia on 17 August did so without many of their support elements.[77] Although the Russian Second Army was effectively destroyed at the Battle of Tannenberg on 26–30 August, their advance caused the Germans to re-route their 8th Field Army from France to East Prussia, a factor in Allied victory on the Marne.[citation needed]
By the end of 1914, German troops held strong defensive positions inside France, controlled the bulk of France’s domestic coalfields and had inflicted 230,000 more casualties than it lost itself. However, communications problems and questionable command decisions cost Germany the chance of a decisive outcome, while it had failed to achieve the primary objective of avoiding a long, two-front war.[78] As was apparent to a number of German leaders, this amounted to a strategic defeat; shortly after the Marne, Crown Prince Wilhelm told an American reporter; «We have lost the war. It will go on for a long time but lost it is already.»[79]
Asia and the Pacific
World empires and colonies around 1914
On 30 August 1914, New Zealand occupied German Samoa, now the independent state of Samoa. On 11 September, the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force landed on the island of New Britain, then part of German New Guinea. On 28 October, the German cruiser SMS Emden sank the Russian cruiser Zhemchug in the Battle of Penang. Japan declared war on Germany prior to seizing territories in the Pacific which later became the South Seas Mandate, as well as German Treaty ports on the Chinese Shandong peninsula at Tsingtao. After Vienna refused to withdraw its cruiser SMS Kaiserin Elisabeth from Tsingtao, Japan declared war on Austria-Hungary as well, and the ship was sunk at Tsingtao in November 1914.[80] Within a few months, Allied forces had seized all German territories in the Pacific, leaving only isolated commerce raiders and a few holdouts in New Guinea.[81][82]
African campaigns
Some of the first clashes of the war involved British, French, and German colonial forces in Africa. On 6–7 August, French and British troops invaded the German protectorate of Togoland and Kamerun. On 10 August, German forces in South-West Africa attacked South Africa; sporadic and fierce fighting continued for the rest of the war. The German colonial forces in German East Africa, led by Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, fought a guerrilla warfare campaign during World War I and only surrendered two weeks after the armistice took effect in Europe.[83]
Indian support for the Allies
Prior to the war, Germany had attempted to use Indian nationalism and pan-Islamism to its advantage, a policy continued post-1914 by instigating uprisings in India, while the Niedermayer–Hentig Expedition urged Afghanistan to join the war on the side of Central Powers. However, contrary to British fears of a revolt in India, the outbreak of the war saw a reduction in nationalist activity.[84][85] This was largely because leaders from the Indian National Congress and other groups believed support for the British war effort would hasten Indian Home Rule, a promise allegedly made explicit in 1917 by Edwin Montagu, then Secretary of State for India.[86]
In 1914, the British Indian Army was larger than the British Army itself, and between 1914 and 1918 an estimated 1.3 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, while the Government of India and their princely allies supplied large quantities of food, money, and ammunition. In all, 140,000 soldiers served on the Western Front and nearly 700,000 in the Middle East, with 47,746 killed and 65,126 wounded.[87]
The suffering engendered by the war, as well as the failure of the British government to grant self-government to India after the end of hostilities, bred disillusionment and fuelled the campaign for full independence that would be led by Mahatma Gandhi and others.[88]
Western Front 1914 to 1916
Trench warfare begins
Pre-war military tactics that emphasised open warfare and the individual rifleman proved obsolete when confronted with conditions prevailing in 1914. Technological advances allowed the creation of strong defensive systems largely impervious to massed infantry advances, such as barbed wire, machine guns and above all far more powerful artillery, which dominated the battlefield and made crossing open ground extremely difficult.[89] Both sides struggled to develop tactics for breaching entrenched positions without suffering heavy casualties. In time, however, technology began to produce new offensive weapons, such as gas warfare and the tank.[90]
After the First Battle of the Marne in September 1914, Allied and German forces unsuccessfully tried to outflank each other, a series of manoeuvres later known as the «Race to the Sea». By the end of 1914, the opposing forces confronted each other along an uninterrupted line of entrenched positions from the Channel to the Swiss border.[91] Since the Germans were normally able to choose where to stand, they generally held the high ground, while their trenches tended to be better built; those constructed by the French and English were initially considered «temporary», only needed until an offensive would smash the German defences.[92] Both sides tried to break the stalemate using scientific and technological advances. On 22 April 1915, at the Second Battle of Ypres, the Germans (violating the Hague Convention) used chlorine gas for the first time on the Western Front. Several types of gas soon became widely used by both sides, and though it never proved a decisive, battle-winning weapon, it became one of the most-feared and best-remembered horrors of the war.[93][94]
Continuation of trench warfare
Neither side proved able to deliver a decisive blow for the next two years. Throughout 1915–17, the British Empire and France suffered more casualties than Germany, because of both the strategic and tactical stances chosen by the sides. Strategically, while the Germans mounted only one major offensive, the Allies made several attempts to break through the German lines.
German casualties, the Somme 1916
In February 1916 the Germans attacked French defensive positions at the Battle of Verdun, lasting until December 1916. The Germans made initial gains, before French counter-attacks returned matters to near their starting point. Casualties were greater for the French, but the Germans bled heavily as well, with anywhere from 700,000[95] to 975,000[96] casualties suffered between the two combatants. Verdun became a symbol of French determination and self-sacrifice.[97]
The Battle of the Somme was an Anglo-French offensive of July to November 1916. The opening day on 1 July 1916 was the bloodiest single day in the history of the British Army, which suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 dead. As a whole, the Somme offensive led to an estimated 420,000 British casualties, along with 200,000 French and 500,000 German.[98] Gun fire was not the only factor taking lives; the diseases that emerged in the trenches were a major killer on both sides. The living conditions made it so that countless diseases and infections occurred, such as trench foot, shell shock, blindness/burns from mustard gas, lice, trench fever, «cooties» (body lice) and the ‘Spanish flu’.[99][unreliable source?]
Naval war
At the start of the war, German cruisers were scattered across the globe, some of which were subsequently used to attack Allied merchant shipping. The British Royal Navy systematically hunted them down, though not without some embarrassment from its inability to protect Allied shipping. For example, the light cruiser SMS Emden, which was part of the German East Asia Squadron stationed at Qingdao, seized or sank 15 merchantmen, as well as a Russian cruiser and a French destroyer. Most of the squadron was returning to Germany when it sank two British armoured cruisers at the Battle of Coronel in November 1914, before being virtually destroyed at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December. The SMS Dresden escaped with a few auxiliaries, but after the Battle of Más a Tierra, these too had either been destroyed or interned.[100]
Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, Britain began a naval blockade of Germany. The strategy proved effective, cutting off vital military and civilian supplies, although this blockade violated accepted international law codified by several international agreements of the past two centuries.[101] Britain mined international waters to prevent any ships from entering entire sections of ocean, causing danger to even neutral ships.[102] Since there was limited response to this tactic of the British, Germany expected a similar response to its unrestricted submarine warfare.[103]
The Battle of Jutland (German: Skagerrakschlacht, or «Battle of the Skagerrak») in May/June 1916 developed into the largest naval battle of the war. It was the only full-scale clash of battleships during the war, and one of the largest in history. The Kaiserliche Marine’s High Seas Fleet, commanded by Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer, fought the Royal Navy’s Grand Fleet, led by Admiral Sir John Jellicoe. The engagement was a stand off, as the Germans were outmanoeuvred by the larger British fleet, but managed to escape and inflicted more damage to the British fleet than they received. Strategically, however, the British asserted their control of the sea, and the bulk of the German surface fleet remained confined to port for the duration of the war.[104]
U-155 exhibited near Tower Bridge in London, after the 1918 Armistice
German U-boats attempted to cut the supply lines between North America and Britain.[105] The nature of submarine warfare meant that attacks often came without warning, giving the crews of the merchant ships little hope of survival.[105][106] The United States launched a protest, and Germany changed its rules of engagement. After the sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915, Germany promised not to target passenger liners, while Britain armed its merchant ships, placing them beyond the protection of the «cruiser rules», which demanded warning and movement of crews to «a place of safety» (a standard that lifeboats did not meet).[107] Finally, in early 1917, Germany adopted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, realising the Americans would eventually enter the war.[105][108] Germany sought to strangle Allied sea lanes before the United States could transport a large army overseas, but after initial successes eventually failed to do so.[105]
The U-boat threat lessened in 1917, when merchant ships began travelling in convoys, escorted by destroyers. This tactic made it difficult for U-boats to find targets, which significantly lessened losses; after the hydrophone and depth charges were introduced, accompanying destroyers could attack a submerged submarine with some hope of success. Convoys slowed the flow of supplies since ships had to wait as convoys were assembled. The solution to the delays was an extensive program of building new freighters. Troopships were too fast for the submarines and did not travel the North Atlantic in convoys.[109] The U-boats had sunk more than 5,000 Allied ships, at a cost of 199 submarines.[110]
World War I also saw the first use of aircraft carriers in combat, with HMS Furious launching Sopwith Camels in a successful raid against the Zeppelin hangars at Tondern in July 1918, as well as blimps for antisubmarine patrol.[111]
Southern theatres
War in the Balkans
Bulgarian soldiers in a trench, preparing to fire against an incoming aeroplane
Austro-Hungarian troops executing captured Serbians, 1917. Serbia lost about 850,000 people during the war, a quarter of its pre-war population.[112]
Faced with Russia in the east, 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 counter-attack in the Battle of Kolubara 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 persuading Bulgaria to join the attack on Serbia.[113] The Austro-Hungarian provinces of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia provided troops for Austria-Hungary in the fight with Serbia, Russia and Italy. Montenegro allied itself with Serbia.[114]
Bulgaria declared war on Serbia on 14 October 1915 and joined in the attack by the Austro-Hungarian army under Mackensen’s army of 250,000 that was already underway. Serbia was conquered in a little more than a month, as the Central Powers, now including Bulgaria, sent in 600,000 troops total. The Serbian army, fighting on two fronts and facing certain defeat, retreated into northern Albania. The Serbs suffered defeat in the Battle of Kosovo. Montenegro covered the Serbian retreat towards the Adriatic coast in the Battle of Mojkovac in 6–7 January 1916, but ultimately the Austrians also conquered Montenegro. The surviving Serbian soldiers were evacuated by ship to Greece.[115] After conquest, Serbia was divided between Austro-Hungary and Bulgaria.[116]
In late 1915, a Franco-British force landed at Salonica in Greece to offer assistance and to pressure its government to declare war against the Central Powers. However, the pro-German King Constantine I dismissed the pro-Allied government of Eleftherios Venizelos before the Allied expeditionary force arrived.[117] The friction between the King of Greece and the Allies continued to accumulate with the National Schism, which effectively divided Greece between regions still loyal to the king and the new provisional government of Venizelos in Salonica. After intense negotiations and an armed confrontation in Athens between Allied and royalist forces (an incident known as Noemvriana), the King of Greece resigned and his second son Alexander took his place; Greece officially joined the war on the side of the Allies in June 1917.
The Macedonian front was initially mostly static. French and Serbian forces retook limited areas of Macedonia by recapturing Bitola on 19 November 1916 following the costly Monastir offensive, which brought stabilisation of the front.[118]
Serbian and French troops finally made a breakthrough in September 1918 in the Vardar offensive, after most of the German and Austro-Hungarian troops had been withdrawn. The Bulgarians were defeated at the Battle of Dobro Pole, and by 25 September British and French troops had crossed the border into Bulgaria proper as the Bulgarian army collapsed. Bulgaria capitulated four days later, on 29 September 1918.[119] The German high command responded by despatching troops to hold the line, but these forces were far too weak to re-establish a front.[120]
The disappearance of the Macedonian front meant that the road to Budapest and Vienna was now opened to Allied forces. Hindenburg and Ludendorff concluded that the strategic and operational balance had now shifted decidedly against the Central Powers and, a day after the Bulgarian collapse, insisted on an immediate peace settlement.[121]
Ottoman Empire
The Ottomans threatened Russia’s Caucasian territories and Britain’s communications with India via the Suez Canal. As the conflict progressed, the Ottoman Empire took advantage of the European powers’ preoccupation with the war and conducted large-scale ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian Christian populations, known as the Armenian genocide, Greek genocide, and Assyrian genocide.[122][123][124]
The British and French opened overseas fronts with the Gallipoli (1915) and Mesopotamian campaigns (1914). In Gallipoli, the Ottoman Empire successfully repelled the British, French, and Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZACs). In Mesopotamia, by contrast, after the defeat of the British defenders in the siege of Kut by the Ottomans (1915–16), British Imperial forces reorganised and captured Baghdad in March 1917. The British were aided in Mesopotamia by local Arab and Assyrian fighters, while the Ottomans employed local Kurdish and Turcoman tribes.[125]
Further to the west, the Suez Canal was defended from Ottoman attacks in 1915 and 1916; in August, a German and Ottoman force was defeated at the Battle of Romani by the ANZAC Mounted Division and the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division. Following this victory, an Egyptian Expeditionary Force advanced across the Sinai Peninsula, pushing Ottoman forces back in the Battle of Magdhaba in December and the Battle of Rafa on the border between the Egyptian Sinai and Ottoman Palestine in January 1917.[126]
Russian armies generally had success in the Caucasus campaign. Enver Pasha, supreme commander of the Ottoman armed forces, was ambitious and dreamed of re-conquering central Asia and areas that had been lost to Russia previously. He was, however, a poor commander.[127] 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.[128]
Kaiser Wilhelm II inspecting Turkish troops of the 15th Corps in East Galicia, Austria-Hungary (now Poland). Prince Leopold of Bavaria, the Supreme Commander of the German Army on the Eastern Front, is second from the left.
The Ottoman Empire, with German support, invaded Persia (modern Iran) in December 1914 in an effort to cut off British and Russian access to petroleum reservoirs around Baku near the Caspian Sea.[129] Persia, ostensibly neutral, had long been under the spheres of British and Russian influence. The Ottomans and Germans were aided by Kurdish and Azeri forces, together with a large number of major Iranian tribes, such as the Qashqai, Tangistanis, Lurs, and Khamseh, while the Russians and British had the support of Armenian and Assyrian forces. The Persian campaign was to last until 1918 and end in failure for the Ottomans and their allies. However, the Russian withdrawal from the war in 1917 led to Armenian and Assyrian forces, who had hitherto inflicted a series of defeats upon the forces of the Ottomans and their allies, being cut off from supply lines, outnumbered, outgunned and isolated, forcing them to fight and flee towards British lines in northern Mesopotamia.[130]
General Yudenich, the Russian commander from 1915 to 1916, drove the Turks out of most of the southern Caucasus with a string of victories.[128] During the 1916 campaign, the Russians defeated the Turks in the Erzurum offensive, also occupying Trabzon. In 1917, Russian Grand Duke Nicholas assumed command of the Caucasus front. Nicholas planned a railway from Russian Georgia to the conquered territories so that fresh supplies could be brought up for a new offensive in 1917. However, in March 1917 (February in the pre-revolutionary Russian calendar), the Tsar abdicated in the course of the February Revolution, and the Russian Caucasus Army began to fall apart.
The Arab Revolt, instigated by the Arab bureau of the British Foreign Office, started June 1916 with the Battle of Mecca, led by Sharif Hussein of Mecca, and ended with the Ottoman surrender of Damascus. Fakhri Pasha, the Ottoman commander of Medina, resisted for more than two and half years during the siege of Medina before surrendering in January 1919.[131]
The Senussi tribe, along the border of Italian Libya and British Egypt, incited and armed by the Turks, waged a small-scale guerrilla war against Allied troops. The British were forced to dispatch 12,000 troops to oppose them in the Senussi campaign. Their rebellion was finally crushed in mid-1916.[132]
Total Allied casualties on the Ottoman fronts amounted 650,000 men. Total Ottoman casualties were 725,000, with 325,000 dead and 400,000 wounded.[133]
Italian Front
Although Italy joined the Triple Alliance in 1882, a treaty with its traditional Austrian enemy was so controversial that subsequent governments denied its existence and the terms were only made public in 1915.[134] This arose from nationalist designs on Austro-Hungarian territory in Trentino, the Austrian Littoral, Rijeka and Dalmatia, which were considered vital to secure the borders established in 1866.[135] In 1902, Rome secretly agreed with France to remain neutral if the latter was attacked by Germany, effectively nullifying its role in the Triple Alliance.[136]
Italian soldiers in trench, 1918
Austro-Hungarian trench at 3,850 metres in the Ortler Alps, one of the most challenging fronts of the war
When the war began in 1914, Italy argued the Triple Alliance was defensive in nature and it was not obliged to support an Austrian attack on Serbia. Opposition to joining the Central Powers increased when Turkey became a member in September, since in 1911 Italy had occupied Ottoman possessions in Libya and the Dodecanese islands.[137] To secure Italian neutrality, the Central Powers offered them the French protectorate of Tunisia, while in return for an immediate entry into the war, the Allies agreed to their demands for Austrian territory and sovereignty over the Dodecanese.[138] Although they remained secret, these provisions were incorporated into the April 1915 Treaty of London; Italy joined the Triple Entente and on 23 May declared war on Austria-Hungary,[139] followed by Germany fifteen months later.
The pre-1914 Italian army was the weakest in Europe, short of officers, trained men, adequate transport and modern weapons; by April 1915, some of these deficiencies had been remedied but it was still unprepared for the major offensive required by the Treaty of London.[140] The advantage of superior numbers was offset by the difficult terrain; much of the fighting took place at altitudes of over 3000 metres in the Alps and Dolomites, where trench lines had to be cut through rock and ice and keeping troops supplied was a major challenge. These issues were exacerbated by unimaginative strategies and tactics.[141] Between 1915 and 1917, the Italian commander, Luigi Cadorna, undertook a series of frontal assaults along the Isonzo which made little progress and cost many lives; by the end of the war, total Italian combat deaths totalled around 548,000.[142]
In the spring of 1916, the Austro-Hungarians counterattacked in Asiago in the Strafexpedition, but made little progress and were pushed by the Italians back to the Tyrol.[143] Although an Italian corps occupied southern Albania in May 1916, their main focus was the Isonzo front which after the capture of Gorizia in August 1916 remained static until October 1917. After a combined Austro-German force won a major victory at Caporetto, Cadorna was replaced by Armando Diaz who retreated more than 100 kilometres (62 mi) before holding positions along the Piave River.[144] A second Austrian offensive was repulsed in June 1918 and by October it was clear the Central Powers had lost the war. On 24 October, Diaz launched the Battle of Vittorio Veneto and initially met stubborn resistance, [145] but with Austria-Hungary collapsing, Hungarian divisions in Italy now demanded they be sent home.[146] When this was granted, many others followed and the Imperial army disintegrated, the Italians taking over 300,000 prisoners.[147] On 3 November, the Armistice of Villa Giusti ended hostilities between Austria-Hungary and Italy which occupied Trieste and areas along the Adriatic Sea awarded to it in 1915.[148]
Romanian participation
Romania key locations 1916–1918 (note; using 2022 borders)
Despite secretly agreeing to support the Triple Alliance in 1883, Romania increasingly found itself at odds with the Central Powers over their support for Bulgaria in the 1912 to 1913 Balkan Wars and the status of ethnic Romanian communities in Hungarian-controlled Transylvania,[149] which comprised an estimated 2.8 million of the 5.0 million population.[150] With the ruling elite split into pro-German and pro-Entente factions, Romania remained neutral in 1914, arguing like Italy that because Austria-Hungary had declared war on Serbia, it was under no obligation to join them.[151] They maintained this position for the next two years, while allowing Germany and Austria to transport military supplies and advisors across Romanian territory.[152]
In September 1914, Russia had acknowledged Romanian rights to Austro-Hungarian territories including Transylvania and Banat, whose acquisition had widespread popular support, [150] and Russian success against Austria led Romania to join the Entente in the August 1916 Treaty of Bucharest.[152] Under the strategic plan known as Hypothesis Z, the Romanian army planned an offensive into Transylvania, while defending Southern Dobruja and Giurgiu against a possible Bulgarian counterattack.[153] On 27 August 1916, they attacked Transylvania and occupied substantial parts of the province before being driven back by the recently formed German 9th Army, led by former Chief of Staff Falkenhayn.[154] A combined German-Bulgarian-Turkish offensive captured Dobruja and Giurgiu, although the bulk of the Romanian army managed to escape encirclement and retreated to Bucharest, which surrendered to the Central Powers on 6 December 1916.[155]
Approximately 16% of the pre-war Austro-Hungarian population consisted of ethnic Romanians, whose loyalty faded as the war progressed; by 1917, they made up more than 50% of the 300,000 deserters from the Imperial army.[156] Prisoners of war held by the Russian Empire formed the Romanian Volunteer Corps who were repatriated to Romania in 1917.[157][158][n] Many fought in the battles of Mărăști, Mărășești and Oituz, where with Russian support the Romanian army managed to defeat an offensive by the Central Powers and even take back some territory.[161] Left isolated after the October Revolution forced Russia out of the war, Romania signed an armistice on 9 December 1917.[162] Shortly afterwards, fighting broke out in the adjacent Russian territory of Bessarabia between Bolsheviks and Romanian nationalists, who requested military assistance from their compatriots. Following their intervention, the independent Moldavian Democratic Republic was formed in February 1918, which voted for union with Romania on 27 March.[163]
On 7 May 1918 Romania signed the Treaty of Bucharest with the Central Powers, which recognised Romanian sovereignty over Bessarabia in return for ceding control of passes in the Carpathian Mountains to Austria-Hungary and granting oil concessions to Germany.[164] Although approved by Parliament, Ferdinand I refused to sign the treaty, hoping for an Allied victory; Romania re-entered the war on 10 November 1918 on the side of the Allies and the Treaty of Bucharest was formally annulled by the Armistice of 11 November 1918.[165][o] Between 1914 and 1918, an estimated 400,000 to 600,000 ethnic Romanians served with the Austro-Hungarian army, of whom up to 150,000 were killed in action; total military and civilian deaths within contemporary Romanian borders are estimated at 748,000.[167]
Eastern Front
Initial actions
As previously agreed with France, Russian plans at the start of the war were to simultaneously advance into Austrian Galicia and East Prussia as soon as possible. Although their attack on Galicia was largely successful, and the invasions achieved their aim of forcing Germany to divert troops from the Western Front, the speed of mobilisation meant they did so without much of their heavy equipment and support functions. These weaknesses contributed to Russian defeats at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes in August and September 1914, forcing them to withdraw from East Prussia with heavy losses.[168][169] By spring 1915, they had also retreated from Galicia, and the May 1915 Gorlice–Tarnów offensive then allowed the Central Powers to invade Russian-occupied Poland.[170] On 5 August, the loss of Warsaw forced the Russians to abandon their Polish territories.
Despite the successful June 1916 Brusilov offensive against the Austrians in eastern Galicia,[171] shortages of supplies, heavy losses and command failures prevented the Russians from fully exploiting their victory. However, it was one of the most significant and impactful offensives of the war, diverting German resources from Verdun, relieving Austro-Hungarian pressure on the Italians, and convincing Romania to enter the war on the side of the Allies on 27 August. It also fatally weakened both the Austrian and Russian armies, whose offensive capabilities were badly affected by their losses and increased the disillusionment with the war that ultimately led to the Russian revolutions.[172]
Meanwhile, unrest grew in Russia as the Tsar remained at the front, with the home front controlled by Empress Alexandra. Her increasingly incompetent rule and food shortages in urban areas led to widespread protests and the murder of her favourite, Grigori Rasputin, at the end of 1916.[citation needed]
Central Powers peace overtures
On 12 December 1916, after ten brutal months of the Battle of Verdun and a successful offensive against Romania, Germany attempted to negotiate a peace with the Allies.[173] However, this attempt was rejected out of hand as a «duplicitous war ruse».[173]
Soon after, US president Woodrow Wilson attempted to intervene as a peacemaker, asking in a note for both sides to state their demands and start negotiations. Lloyd George’s War Cabinet considered the German offer to be a ploy to create divisions amongst the Allies. After initial outrage and much deliberation, they took Wilson’s note as a separate effort, signalling that the United States was on the verge of entering the war against Germany following the «submarine outrages». While the Allies debated a response to Wilson’s offer, the Germans chose to rebuff it in favour of «a direct exchange of views». Learning of the German response, the Allied governments were free to make clear demands in their response of 14 January. They sought restoration of damages, the evacuation of occupied territories, reparations for France, Russia and Romania, and a recognition of the principle of nationalities.[174] This included the liberation of Italians, Slavs, Romanians, Czecho-Slovaks, and the creation of a «free and united Poland».[174] On the question of security, the Allies sought guarantees that would prevent or limit future wars, complete with sanctions, as a condition of any peace settlement.[175] The negotiations failed and the Entente powers rejected the German offer on the grounds that Germany had not put forward any specific proposals.
1917; Timeline of major developments
March to November 1917; Russian Revolution
By the end of 1916, Russian casualties totalled nearly five million killed, wounded or captured, with major urban areas affected by food shortages and high prices. In March 1917, Tsar Nicholas ordered the military to forcibly suppress a wave of strikes in Petrograd but the troops refused to fire on the crowds.[176] Revolutionaries set up the Petrograd Soviet and fearing a left-wing takeover, the State Duma forced Nicholas to abdicate and established the Russian Provisional Government, which confirmed Russia’s willingness to continue the war. However, the Petrograd Soviet refused to disband, creating competing power centres and caused confusion and chaos, with frontline soldiers becoming increasingly demoralised and unwilling to fight on.[177]
In the summer of 1917 a Central Powers offensive began in Romania under the command of August von Mackensen to knock Romania out of the war. Resulting in the battles of Oituz, Mărăști and Mărășești where up to 1,000,000 Central Powers troops were present. The battles lasted from 22 July to 3 September and eventually the Romanian army was victorious. August von Mackensen could not plan for another offensive as he had to transfer troops to the Italian Front.[178]
Following the Tsar’s abdication, Vladimir Lenin—with the help of the German government—was ushered by train from Switzerland into Russia on 16 April 1917. Discontent and the weaknesses of the Provisional Government led to a rise in the popularity of the Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin, which demanded an immediate end to the war. The Revolution of November was followed in December by an armistice and negotiations with Germany. At first, the Bolsheviks refused the German terms, but when German troops began marching across Ukraine unopposed, the new government acceded to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918. The treaty ceded vast territories, including Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, parts of Poland and Ukraine to the Central Powers.[179] Despite this enormous German success, the manpower required by the Germans to occupy the captured territory may have contributed to the failure of their Spring Offensive, and secured relatively little food or other materiel for the Central Powers war effort.
With the Russian Empire out of the war, Romania found itself alone on the Eastern Front and signed the Treaty of Bucharest with the Central Powers in May 1918, ending the state of war between Romania and the Central Powers. Under the terms of the treaty, Romania had to give territory to Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, and lease its oil reserves to Germany. However, the terms also included the Central Powers recognition of the union of Bessarabia with Romania.[180][181]
April 1917: the United States enters the war
The United States was a major supplier of war materiel to the Allies but remained neutral in 1914, in large part due to domestic opposition.[182] The most significant factor in creating the support Wilson needed was the German submarine offensive, which not only cost American lives, but paralysed trade as ships were reluctant to put to sea.[183] On 7 May 1915, 128 Americans died when the British Passenger ship Lusitania was sunk by a German submarine. President Woodrow Wilson demanded an apology and warned the United States would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, but refused to be drawn into the war.[184] When more Americans died after the sinking of SS Arabic in August, Bethman-Hollweg ordered an end to such attacks.[185] However, in response to British blockades, Germany resumed the use of unrestricted submarine warfare[p] on 1 February 1917.[187]
On 24 February 1917, Wilson was presented with the Zimmermann Telegram; drafted in January by German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann, it was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence, who shared it with their American counterparts. Already financing Russian Bolsheviks and anti-British Irish nationalists, Zimmermann hoped to exploit nationalist feelings in Mexico caused by American incursions during the Pancho Villa Expedition. He promised President Carranza support for a war against the United States and help in recovering Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, although this offer was promptly rejected.[188]
The Allied Avenue, 1917 painting by Childe Hassam, that depicts Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue decorated with flags from Allied nations
On 6 April 1917, Congress declared war on Germany as an «Associated Power» of the Allies.[189] The United States Navy sent a battleship group to Scapa Flow to join the Grand Fleet and provided convoy escorts. In April 1917, the United States Army had fewer than 300,000 men, including National Guard units, compared to British and French armies of 4.1 and 8.3 million respectively. The Selective Service Act of 1917 drafted 2.8 million men, although training and equipping such numbers was a huge logistical challenge. By June 1918, over 667,000 members of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), had been transported to France, a figure which reached 2 million by the end of November.[190] However, American tactical doctrine was still based on pre-1914 principles, a world away from the combined arms approach used by the French and British by 1918.[191] US commanders were initially slow to accept such ideas, leading to heavy casualties and it was not until the last month of the war that these failings were rectified.[192]
Despite his conviction Germany must be defeated, Wilson went to war to ensure the US played a leading role in shaping the peace, which meant preserving the AEF as a separate military force, rather than being absorbed into British or French units as his Allies wanted.[193] He was strongly supported by AEF commander General John J. Pershing, a proponent of pre-1914 «open warfare» who considered the French and British emphasis on artillery as misguided and incompatible with American «offensive spirit».[194] Much to the frustration of his Allies, who had suffered heavy losses in 1917, he insisted on retaining control of American troops and refused to commit them to the front line until able to operate as independent units. As a result, the first significant US involvement was the Meuse–Argonne offensive in late September 1918.[195]
April to June; Nivelle Offensive and French Army mutinies
Verdun cost the French nearly 400,000 casualties, and the horrific conditions severely impacted morale, leading to a number of incidents of indiscipline. Although relatively minor, they reflected a belief among the rank and file that their sacrifices were not appreciated by their government or senior officers.[196] Combatants on both sides claimed the battle was the most psychologically exhausting of the entire war; recognising this, Philippe Pétain frequently rotated divisions, a process known as the noria system. While this ensured units were withdrawn before their ability to fight was significantly eroded, it meant a high proportion of the French army was affected by the battle.[197] By the beginning of 1917, morale was brittle, even in divisions with good combat records.[198]
In December 1916, Robert Nivelle replaced Pétain as commander of French armies on the Western Front and began planning a spring attack in Champagne, part of a joint Franco-British operation. Nivelle claimed the capture of his main objective, the Chemin des Dames, would achieve a massive breakthrough and cost no more than 15,000 casualties.[199] Poor security meant German intelligence was well informed on tactics and timetables, but despite this, when the attack began on 16 April the French made substantial gains, before being brought to a halt by the newly built and extremely strong defences of the Hindenburg Line. Nivelle persisted with frontal assaults and by 25 April the French had suffered nearly 135,000 casualties, including 30,000 dead, most incurred in the first two days.[200]
Concurrent British attacks at Arras were more successful, although ultimately of little strategic value.[201] Operating as a separate unit for the first time, the Canadian Corps capture of Vimy Ridge during the battle is viewed by many Canadians as a defining moment in creating a sense of national identity.[202][203] Although Nivelle continued the offensive, on 3 May the 21st Division, which had been involved in some of the heaviest fighting at Verdun, refused orders to go into battle, initiating the French Army mutinies; within days, acts of «collective indiscipline» had spread to 54 divisions, while over 20,000 deserted.[204] Unrest was almost entirely confined to the infantry, whose demands were largely non-political, including better economic support for families at home, and regular periods of leave, which Nivelle had ended.[205]
Although the vast majority remained willing to defend their own lines, they refused to participate in offensive action, reflecting a complete breakdown of trust in the army leadership.[206] Nivelle was removed from command on 15 May and replaced by Pétain, who resisted demands for drastic punishment and set about restoring morale by improving conditions. While exact figures are still debated, only 27 men were actually executed, with another 3,000 sentenced to periods of imprisonment; however, the psychological effects were long-lasting, one veteran commenting «Pétain has purified the unhealthy atmosphere…but they have ruined the heart of the French soldier».[207]
In December, the Central Powers signed an armistice with Russia, thus freeing large numbers of German troops for use in the west. With German reinforcements and new American troops pouring in, the 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 success based on a final quick offensive. Furthermore, both sides became increasingly fearful of social unrest and revolution in Europe. Thus, both sides urgently sought a decisive victory.[208]
In 1917, Emperor Charles I of Austria secretly attempted separate peace negotiations with Clemenceau, through his wife’s brother Sixtus in Belgium as an intermediary, without the knowledge of Germany. Italy opposed the proposals. When the negotiations failed, his attempt was revealed to Germany, resulting in a diplomatic catastrophe.[209][210]
Ottoman Empire conflict, 1917–1918
British artillery battery on Mount Scopus in the Battle of Jerusalem, 1917. Foreground, a battery of 16 heavy guns. Background, conical tents and support vehicles.
In March and April 1917, at the First and Second Battles of Gaza, German and Ottoman forces stopped the advance of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, which had begun in August 1916 at the Battle of Romani.[211][212]
At the end of October, the Sinai and Palestine campaign resumed, when General Edmund Allenby’s XXth Corps, XXI Corps and Desert Mounted Corps won the Battle of Beersheba.[213] Two Ottoman armies were defeated a few weeks later at the Battle of Mughar Ridge and, early in December, Jerusalem was captured following another Ottoman defeat at the Battle of Jerusalem.[214][215][216] About this time, Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein was relieved of his duties as the Eighth Army’s commander, replaced by Djevad Pasha, and a few months later the commander of the Ottoman Army in Palestine, Erich von Falkenhayn, was replaced by Otto Liman von Sanders.[217][218]
In early 1918, the front line was extended and the Jordan Valley was occupied, following the First Transjordan and the Second Transjordan attacks by British Empire forces in March and April 1918.[219] In March, most of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force’s British infantry and Yeomanry cavalry were sent to the Western Front as a consequence of the Spring Offensive. They were replaced by Indian Army units. During several months of reorganisation and training of the summer, a number of attacks were carried out on sections of the Ottoman front line. These pushed the front line north to more advantageous positions for the Entente in preparation for an attack and to acclimatise the newly arrived Indian Army infantry. It was not until the middle of September that the integrated force was ready for large-scale operations.[citation needed]
Ottoman troops in Jerusalem
The reorganised Egyptian Expeditionary Force, with an additional mounted division, broke Ottoman forces at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918. In two days, the British and Indian infantry, supported by a creeping barrage, broke the Ottoman front line and captured the headquarters of the Eighth Army (Ottoman Empire) at Tulkarm, the continuous trench lines at Tabsor, Arara, and the Seventh Army (Ottoman Empire) headquarters at Nablus. The Desert Mounted Corps rode through the break in the front line created by the infantry. During virtually continuous operations by Australian Light Horse, British mounted Yeomanry, Indian Lancers, and New Zealand Mounted Rifle brigades in the Jezreel Valley, they captured Nazareth, Afulah and Beisan, Jenin, along with Haifa on the Mediterranean coast and Daraa east of the Jordan River on the Hejaz railway. Samakh and Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee were captured on the way northwards to Damascus. Meanwhile, Chaytor’s Force of Australian light horse, New Zealand mounted rifles, Indian, British West Indies and Jewish infantry captured the crossings of the Jordan River, Es Salt, Amman and at Ziza most of the Fourth Army (Ottoman Empire). The Armistice of Mudros, signed at the end of October, ended hostilities with the Ottoman Empire when fighting was continuing north of Aleppo.[citation needed]
1918; Timeline of major developments
German spring offensive
French soldiers under General Gouraud, with machine guns amongst the ruins of a church near the Marne, 1918
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 end the war before significant US forces arrived. The operation commenced on 21 March 1918 with an attack on British forces near Saint-Quentin. German forces achieved an unprecedented advance of 60 kilometres (37 mi).[220]
British and French trenches were penetrated using novel infiltration tactics, also named Hutier tactics after General Oskar von Hutier, by specially trained units called stormtroopers. Previously, attacks had been characterised by long artillery bombardments and massed assaults. In the spring offensive of 1918, however, Ludendorff 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. This German success relied greatly on the element of surprise.[221]
The front moved to within 120 kilometres (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 problems of re-supply were also exacerbated by increasing distances that now stretched over terrain that was shell-torn and often impassable to traffic.[222]
Following Operation Michael, Germany launched Operation Georgette against the northern English Channel ports. The Allies halted the drive after limited territorial gains by Germany. The German Army to the south then conducted Operations Blücher and Yorck, pushing broadly towards Paris. Germany launched Operation Marne (Second Battle of the Marne) on 15 July, in an attempt to encircle Reims. The resulting counter-attack, which started the Hundred Days Offensive, marked the first successful Allied offensive of the war. By 20 July, the Germans had retreated across the Marne to their starting lines,[223] having achieved little, and the German Army never 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. Anti-war marches became frequent and morale in the army fell. Industrial output was half the 1913 levels.
Hundred Days Offensive
Between April and November 1918, the Allies increased their front-line rifle strength while German strength fell by half.[224]
The Allied counteroffensive, known as the Hundred Days Offensive, began on 8 August 1918, with the Battle of Amiens. The battle involved over 400 tanks and 120,000 British, Dominion, and French troops, and by the end of its first day a gap 24 kilometres (15 mi) long had been created in the German lines. The defenders displayed a marked collapse in morale, causing Ludendorff to refer to this day as the «Black Day of the German army».[225][226][227] After an advance as far as 23 kilometres (14 mi), German resistance stiffened, and the battle was concluded on 12 August.
Rather than continuing the Amiens battle past the point of initial success, as had been done so many times in the past, the Allies shifted attention elsewhere. Allied leaders had now realised 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 to roll over it. They began to undertake attacks in quick order to take advantage of successful advances on the flanks, then broke them off when each attack lost its initial impetus.[228]
The day after the Offensive began, Ludendorff said: «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, replying, «I see that we must strike a balance. We have nearly reached the limit of our powers of resistance. The war must be ended.»[229] On 13 August, at Spa, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, the Chancellor, and Foreign Minister Hintz agreed that the war could not be ended militarily and, on the following day, the German Crown Council decided that victory in the field was now most improbable. Austria and Hungary warned that they could continue the war only until December, and Ludendorff recommended immediate peace negotiations. Prince Rupprecht warned Prince Maximilian 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.»[230]
Battle of Albert
British and Dominion forces launched the next phase of the campaign with the Battle of Albert on 21 August.[231] The assault was widened by French[230] and then further British forces in the following days. During the last week of August, the Allied pressure along a 110-kilometre (68 mi) front against the enemy was heavy and unrelenting. From German accounts, «Each day was spent in bloody fighting against an ever and again on-storming enemy, and nights passed without sleep in retirements to new lines.»[228]
Faced with these advances, on 2 September the German Oberste Heeresleitung («Supreme Army Command») issued orders to withdraw in the south to the Hindenburg Line. This ceded without a fight the salient seized the previous April.[232] According to Ludendorff, «We had to admit the necessity … to withdraw the entire front from the Scarpe to the Vesle.»[233][page needed] In nearly four weeks of fighting beginning on 8 August, over 100,000 German prisoners were taken. The German High Command realised that the war was lost and made attempts to reach a satisfactory end. On 10 September Hindenburg urged peace moves to Emperor Charles of Austria, and Germany appealed to the Netherlands for mediation. On 14 September 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.[230]
Allied advance to the Hindenburg Line
An American gun crew from the 23rd Infantry, 2nd Division, firing on German entrenched positions during the Meuse-Argonne offensive, 1918
In September the Allies advanced to the Hindenburg Line in the north and centre. The Germans continued to fight strong rear-guard actions and launched numerous counterattacks, but positions and outposts of the Line continued to fall, with the BEF alone taking 30,441 prisoners in the last week of September. On 24 September an assault by both the British and French came within 3 kilometres (2 mi) of St. Quentin. The Germans had now retreated to positions along or behind the Hindenburg Line. That same day, Supreme Army Command informed the leaders in Berlin that armistice talks were inevitable.[230]
The final assault on the Hindenburg Line began with the Meuse-Argonne offensive, launched by American and French troops on 26 September. The following week, co-operating American and French units broke through in Champagne at the Battle of Blanc Mont Ridge, forcing the Germans off the commanding heights, and closing towards the Belgian frontier.[234] On 8 October the line was pierced again by British and Dominion troops at the Battle of Cambrai.[235] The German army had to shorten its front and use the Dutch frontier as an anchor to fight rear-guard actions as it fell back towards Germany.
When Bulgaria signed a separate armistice on 29 September, Ludendorff, having been under great stress for months, suffered something similar to a breakdown. It was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defence. The collapse of the Balkans meant that Germany was about to lose its main supplies of oil and food. Its reserves had been used up, even as US troops kept arriving at the rate of 10,000 per day.[236][237][238]
Breakthrough of Macedonian Front
Bulgarian major Ivanov with white flag surrendering to Serbian 7th Danube regiment near Kumanovo
Allied forces started the Vardar offensive on 15 September at two key points: Dobro Pole and near Dojran Lake. In the Battle of Dobro Pole, the Serbian and French armies had success after a three day long battle with relatively small casualties, and subsequently made a breakthrough in the front, something which was rarely seen in World War I. After the front was broken, Allied forces started to liberate Serbia and reached Skopje at 29 September after which Bulgaria signed an armistice with the Allies on 30 September. German Emperor Wilhelm II wrote a telegram to Bulgarian Tsar Ferdinand I: «Disgraceful! 62,000 Serbs decided the war!».[239][240]
Allied armies continued the liberation of Serbia while Germany unsuccessfully tried to establish new front lines near Niš by sending troops from Romania. After the Serbian army entered Niš on 11 October, Germany left Austro-Hungary to organize the Balkan front. On 1 November Serbian forces liberated Belgrade and started to cross over the border with Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary was politically disintegrating and signed an armistice with Italy on 3 November, leaving Germany alone in Europe. On 6 November the Serbian Army liberated Sarajevo and Novi Sad on 9 November. The non-German peoples of Austria-Hungary started to organize independent states in the territory of Austria-Hungary, which it was unable to prevent.
German Revolution 1918–1919
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.
In northern Germany, the German Revolution of 1918–1919 began at the end of October 1918. Units of the German Navy refused to set sail for a last, large-scale operation in a war they believed to be as good as lost, initiating the uprising. The sailors’ revolt, which then ensued in the naval ports of Wilhelmshaven and Kiel, spread across the whole country within days and led to the proclamation of a republic on 9 November 1918, shortly thereafter to the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and to German surrender.[241][242][243][238]
New German government surrenders
With the military faltering and with widespread loss of confidence in the Kaiser leading to his abdication and fleeing of the country, Germany moved towards surrender. Prince Maximilian of Baden took charge of a new government on 3 October as Chancellor of Germany to negotiate with the Allies. Negotiations with President Wilson began immediately, in the hope that he would offer better terms than the British and French. Wilson demanded a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary control over the German military.[244] There was no resistance when the Social Democrat Philipp Scheidemann on 9 November declared Germany to be a republic. The Kaiser, kings and other hereditary rulers all were removed from power and Wilhelm fled to exile in the Netherlands. It was the end of Imperial Germany; a new Germany had been born as the Weimar Republic.[245]
Armistices and capitulations
Italian troops reach Trento during the Battle of Vittorio Veneto, 1918. Italy’s victory marked the end of the war on the Italian Front and secured the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The collapse of the Central Powers came swiftly. Bulgaria was the first to sign an armistice, the Armistice of Salonica on 29 September 1918.[246] German Emperor Wilhelm II in his telegram to Bulgarian Tsar Ferdinand I described situation: «Disgraceful! 62,000 Serbs decided the war!».[247][248] On the same day, the German Supreme Army Command informed Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Imperial Chancellor Count Georg von Hertling, that the military situation facing Germany was hopeless.[249]
On 24 October, the Italians began a push that rapidly recovered territory lost after the Battle of Caporetto. This culminated in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto, which marked the end of the Austro-Hungarian Army as an effective fighting force. The offensive also triggered the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During the last week of October, declarations of independence were made in Budapest, Prague, and Zagreb. On 29 October, the imperial authorities asked Italy for an armistice, but the Italians continued advancing, reaching Trento, Udine, and Trieste. On 3 November, Austria-Hungary sent a flag of truce to ask for an armistice (Armistice of Villa Giusti). The terms, arranged by telegraph with the Allied Authorities in Paris, were communicated to the Austrian commander and accepted. The Armistice with Austria was signed in the Villa Giusti, near Padua, on 3 November. Austria and Hungary signed separate armistices following the overthrow of the Habsburg monarchy. In the following days, the Italian Army occupied Innsbruck and all Tyrol with over 20,000 soldiers.[250]
On 30 October, the Ottoman Empire capitulated, signing the Armistice of Mudros.[246]
Ferdinand Foch, second from right, pictured outside the carriage in Compiègne after agreeing to the armistice that ended the war there. The carriage was later chosen by Nazi Germany as the symbolic setting of Pétain’s June 1940 armistice.[251]
On 11 November, at 5:00 am, an armistice with Germany was signed in a railroad carriage at Compiègne. At 11 am on 11 November 1918—»the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month»—a ceasefire came into effect. During the six hours between the signing of the armistice and its taking effect, opposing armies on the Western Front began to withdraw from their positions, but fighting continued along many areas of the front, as commanders wanted to capture territory before the war ended. The occupation of the Rhineland took place following the Armistice. The occupying armies consisted of American, Belgian, British and French forces.
In November 1918, the Allies had ample supplies of manpower and materiel to invade Germany. Yet at the time of the armistice, no Allied force had crossed the German frontier, the Western Front was still some 720 kilometres (450 mi) from Berlin, and the Kaiser’s armies had retreated from the battlefield in good order. These factors enabled Hindenburg and other senior German leaders to spread the story that their armies had not really been defeated. This resulted in the stab-in-the-back myth,[252][253] which attributed Germany’s defeat not to its inability to continue fighting (even though up to a million soldiers were suffering from the 1918 flu pandemic and unfit to fight), but to the public’s failure to respond to its «patriotic calling» and the supposed sabotage of the war effort, particularly by Jews, Socialists, and Bolsheviks.
The Allies had much more potential wealth they could spend on the war. One estimate (using 1913 US dollars) is that the Allies spent $58 billion on the war and the Central Powers only $25 billion. Among the Allies, the UK spent $21 billion and the US $17 billion; among the Central Powers Germany spent $20 billion.[254]
Aftermath
In the aftermath of the war, four empires disappeared: the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian.[q] Numerous nations regained their former independence, and new ones were created. Four dynasties, together with their ancillary aristocracies, fell as a result of the war: the Romanovs, the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs, and the Ottomans. Belgium and Serbia were badly damaged, as was France, with 1.4 million soldiers dead,[255] not counting other casualties. Germany and Russia were similarly affected.[1]
Formal end of the war
A formal state of war between the two sides persisted for another seven months, until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on 28 June 1919. The United States Senate did not ratify the treaty despite public support for it,[256][257] and did not formally end its involvement in the war until the Knox–Porter Resolution was signed on 2 July 1921 by President Warren G. Harding.[258] For the United Kingdom and the British Empire, the state of war ceased under the provisions of the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act 1918 with respect to:
-
- Germany on 10 January 1920.[259]
- Austria on 16 July 1920.[260]
- Bulgaria on 9 August 1920.[261]
- Hungary on 26 July 1921.[262]
- Turkey on 6 August 1924.[263]
After the Treaty of Versailles, treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire were signed. The Ottoman Empire disintegrated, with much of its Levant territory awarded to various Allied powers as protectorates. The Turkish core in Anatolia was reorganised as the Republic of Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was to be partitioned by the Treaty of Sèvres of 1920. This treaty was never ratified by the Sultan and was rejected by the Turkish National Movement, leading to the victorious Turkish War of Independence and the much less stringent 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
Some war memorials date the end of the war as being when the Versailles Treaty was signed in 1919, which was when many of the troops serving abroad finally returned home; by contrast, most commemorations of the war’s end concentrate on the armistice of 11 November 1918.[264] Legally, the formal peace treaties were not complete until the last, the Treaty of Lausanne, was signed. Under its terms, the Allied forces left Constantinople on 23 August 1923.
Peace treaties and national boundaries
After the war, there grew a certain amount of academic focus on the causes of war and on the elements that could make peace flourish. In part, these led to the institutionalization of peace and conflict studies, security studies and International Relations (IR) in general.[265] The Paris Peace Conference imposed a series of peace treaties on the Central Powers officially ending the war. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles dealt with Germany and, building on Wilson’s 14th point, brought into being the League of Nations on 28 June 1919.[266][267]
The Central Powers had to acknowledge responsibility for «all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by» their aggression. In the Treaty of Versailles, this statement was Article 231. This article became known as the War Guilt clause as the majority of Germans felt humiliated and resentful.[268] Overall the Germans felt they had been unjustly dealt with by what they called the «diktat of Versailles». German historian Hagen Schulze said the Treaty placed Germany «under legal sanctions, deprived of military power, economically ruined, and politically humiliated.»[269] Belgian historian Laurence Van Ypersele emphasises the central role played by memory of the war and the Versailles Treaty in German politics in the 1920s and 1930s:
Active denial of war guilt in Germany and German resentment at both reparations and continued Allied occupation of the Rhineland made widespread revision of the meaning and memory of the war problematic. The legend of the «stab in the back» and the wish to revise the «Versailles diktat», and the belief in an international threat aimed at the elimination of the German nation persisted at the heart of German politics. Even a man of peace such as [Gustav] Stresemann publicly rejected German guilt. As for the Nazis, they waved the banners of domestic treason and international conspiracy in an attempt to galvanise the German nation into a spirit of revenge. Like a Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany sought to redirect the memory of the war to the benefit of its own policies.[270]
Meanwhile, new nations liberated from German rule viewed the treaty as recognition of wrongs committed against small nations by much larger aggressive neighbours.[271] The Peace Conference required all the defeated powers to pay reparations for all the damage done to civilians. However, owing to economic difficulties and Germany being the only defeated power with an intact economy, the burden fell largely on Germany.
Austria-Hungary was partitioned into several successor states, largely but not entirely along ethnic lines. Apart from Austria and Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia received territories from the Dual Monarchy (the formerly separate and autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was incorporated into Yugoslavia). The details were contained in the Saint-Germain-en-Laye and the Treaty of Trianon. As a result, Hungary lost 64% of its total population, decreasing from 20.9 million to 7.6 million and losing 31% (3.3 out of 10.7 million) of its ethnic Hungarians.[272] According to the 1910 census, speakers of the Hungarian language included approximately 54% of the entire population of the Kingdom of Hungary. Within the country, numerous ethnic minorities were present: 16.1% Romanians, 10.5% Slovaks, 10.4% Germans, 2.5% Ruthenians, 2.5% Serbs and 8% others.[273] Between 1920 and 1924, 354,000 Hungarians fled former Hungarian territories attached to Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.[274]
The Russian Empire, which had withdrawn from the war in 1917 after the October Revolution, lost much of its western frontier as the newly independent nations of Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were carved from it. Romania took control of Bessarabia in April 1918.[275]
National identities
After 123 years, Poland re-emerged as an independent country. The Kingdom of Serbia and its dynasty, as a «minor Entente nation» and the country with the most casualties per capita,[276][277][278] became the backbone of a new multinational state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later renamed Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia, combining the Kingdom of Bohemia with parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, became a new nation. Romania would unite all Romanian-speaking people under a single state leading to Greater Romania.[279] 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 Australia and New Zealand, the Battle of Gallipoli became known as those nations’ «Baptism of Fire». It was the first major war in which the newly established countries fought, and it was one of the first times that Australian troops fought as Australians, not just subjects of the British Crown, and independent national identities for these nations took hold. Anzac Day, commemorating the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC), celebrates this defining moment.[280][281]
After the Battle of Vimy Ridge, where the Canadian divisions fought together for the first time as a single corps, Canadians began to refer to their country as a nation «forged from fire».[282] Having succeeded on the same battleground where the «mother countries» had previously faltered, they were for the first time respected internationally for their own accomplishments. Canada entered the war as a Dominion of the British Empire and remained so, although it emerged with a greater measure of independence.[283][284] When Britain declared war in 1914, the dominions were automatically at war; at the conclusion, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were individual signatories of the Treaty of Versailles.[285]
Lobbying by Chaim Weizmann and fear that American Jews would encourage the United States to support Germany culminated in the British government’s Balfour Declaration of 1917, endorsing creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.[286] A total of more than 1,172,000 Jewish soldiers served in the Allied and Central Power forces in World War I, including 275,000 in Austria-Hungary and 450,000 in Tsarist Russia.[287]
The establishment of the modern state of Israel and the roots of the continuing Israeli–Palestinian conflict are partially found in the unstable power dynamics of the Middle East that resulted from World War I.[288] Before the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire had maintained a modest level of peace and stability throughout the Middle East.[289] With the fall of the Ottoman government, power vacuums developed and conflicting claims to land and nationhood began to emerge.[290] The political boundaries drawn by the victors of World War I were quickly imposed, sometimes after only cursory consultation with the local population. These continue to be problematic in the 21st-century struggles for national identity.[291][292] While the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I was pivotal in contributing to the modern political situation of the Middle East, including the Arab-Israeli conflict,[293][294][295] the end of Ottoman rule also spawned lesser-known disputes over water and other natural resources.[296]
The prestige of Germany and German things in Latin America remained high after the war but did not recover to its pre-war levels.[297][298] Indeed, in Chile the war bought an end to a period of intense scientific and cultural influence writer Eduardo de la Barra scorningly called «the German bewitchment» (Spanish: el embrujamiento alemán).[297]
The Czechoslovak Legion fought on the sides of the Entente, seeking to win support for an independent Czechoslovakia. The Legion in Russia was established in September 1914, in December 1917 in France (including volunteers from America) and in April 1918 in Italy. Czechoslovak Legion troops defeated the Austro-Hungarian army at the Ukrainian village of Zboriv, in July 1917. After this success, the number of Czechoslovak legionaries increased, as well as Czechoslovak military power. In the Battle of Bakhmach, the Legion defeated the Germans and forced them to make a truce.
In Russia, they were heavily involved in the Russian Civil War, siding with the Whites against the Bolsheviks, at times controlling most of the Trans-Siberian Railway and conquering all the major cities of Siberia. The presence of the Czechoslovak Legion near Yekaterinburg appears to have been one of the motivations for the Bolshevik execution of the Tsar and his family in July 1918. Legionaries arrived less than a week afterwards and captured the city. Because Russia’s European ports were not safe, the corps was evacuated by a long detour via the port of Vladivostok. The last transport was the American ship Heffron in September 1920.
The Transylvanian and Bukovinian Romanians who were taken prisoners of war fought as the Romanian Volunteer Corps in Russia, Romanian Legion of Siberia and Romanian Legion in Italy. Taking part in the Eastern Front as part of the Russian Army and since summer 1917 in the Romanian front as part of the Romanian Army. As a supporter of the White movement with the Czechoslovak Legion against the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. In the battles of Montello, Vittorio Veneto, Sisemolet, Piave, Cimone, Monte Grappa, Nervesa and Ponte Delle Alpi as part of the Italian Army against Austria-Hungary and in 1919 as part of the Romanian Army in the Hungarian-Romanian War.[299][300]
In the late spring of 1918, three new states were formed in the South Caucasus: the First Republic of Armenia, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Georgia, which declared their independence from the Russian Empire. Two other minor entities were established, the Centrocaspian Dictatorship and South West Caucasian Republic (the former was liquidated by Azerbaijan in the autumn of 1918 and the latter by a joint Armenian-British task force in early 1919). With the withdrawal of the Russian armies from the Caucasus front in the winter of 1917–18, the three major republics braced for an imminent Ottoman advance, which commenced in the early months of 1918. Solidarity was briefly maintained when the Transcaucasian Federative Republic was created in the spring of 1918, but this collapsed in May when the Georgians asked for and received protection from Germany and the Azerbaijanis concluded a treaty with the Ottoman Empire that was more akin to a military alliance. Armenia was left to fend for itself and struggled for five months against the threat of a full-fledged occupation by the Ottoman Turks before defeating them at the Battle of Sardarabad.[301]
Health effects
Transporting Ottoman wounded at Sirkeci
Of the 60 million European military personnel who were mobilised from 1914 to 1918, 8 million were killed, 7 million were permanently disabled, and 15 million were seriously injured. Germany lost 15.1% of its active male population, Austria-Hungary lost 17.1%, and France lost 10.5%.[302] France mobilised 7.8 million men, of which 1.4 million died and 3.2 million were injured.[303] Among the soldiers mutilated and surviving in the trenches, approximately 15,000 sustained horrific facial injuries, causing them to undergo social stigma and marginalisation; they were called the gueules cassées. In Germany, civilian deaths were 474,000 higher than in peacetime, due in large part to food shortages and malnutrition that weakened resistance to disease. These excess deaths are estimated as 271,000 in 1918, plus another 71,000 in the first half of 1919 when the blockade was still in effect.[304] By the end of the war, starvation caused by famine had killed approximately 100,000 people in Lebanon.[305] Between 5 and 10 million people died in the Russian famine of 1921.[306] By 1922, there were between 4.5 million and 7 million homeless children in Russia as a result of nearly a decade of devastation from World War I, the Russian Civil War, and the subsequent famine of 1920–1922.[307] Numerous anti-Soviet Russians fled the country after the Revolution; by the 1930s, the northern Chinese city of Harbin had 100,000 Russians.[308] Thousands more emigrated to France, England, and the United States.
Emergency military hospital during the Spanish flu pandemic, which killed about 675,000 people in the United States alone, Camp Funston, Kansas, 1918
The Australian prime minister, Billy Hughes, wrote to the British prime minister, David Lloyd George, «You have assured us that you cannot get better terms. I much regret it, and hope even now that some way may be found of securing agreement for demanding reparation commensurate with the tremendous sacrifices made by the British Empire and her Allies.» Australia received £5,571,720 war reparations, but the direct cost of the war to Australia had been £376,993,052, and, by the mid-1930s, repatriation pensions, war gratuities, interest and sinking fund charges were £831,280,947.[309] Of about 416,000 Australians who served, about 60,000 were killed and another 152,000 were wounded.[1]
Diseases flourished in the chaotic wartime conditions. In 1914 alone, louse-borne epidemic typhus killed 200,000 in Serbia.[310] From 1918 to 1922, Russia had about 25 million infections and 3 million deaths from epidemic typhus.[311] In 1923, 13 million Russians contracted malaria, a sharp increase from the pre-war years.[312] Starting in early 1918, a major influenza epidemic known as Spanish flu spread around the world, accelerated by the movement of large number of soldiers, often crammed together in camps and transport ships with poor sanitation. Overall, the Spanish flu killed at least 17 million to 25 million people,[313][314] including an estimated 2.64 million Europeans and as many as 675,000 Americans.[315] Moreover, between 1915 and 1926, an epidemic of encephalitis lethargica spread around the world affecting nearly five million people.[316][317]
The social disruption and widespread violence of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Russian Civil War sparked more than 2,000 pogroms in the former Russian Empire, mostly in Ukraine.[318] An estimated 60,000–200,000 civilian Jews were killed in the atrocities.[319]
In the aftermath of World War I, Greece fought against Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal, a war that eventually resulted in a massive population exchange between the two countries under the Treaty of Lausanne.[320] According to various sources,[321] several hundred thousand Greeks died during this period, which was tied in with the Greek genocide.[322]
Technology
Ground warfare
Tanks on parade in London at the end of World War I
World War I began as a clash of 20th-century technology and 19th-century tactics, with the inevitably large ensuing casualties. By the end of 1917, however, the major armies, now numbering millions of men, had modernised and were making use of telephone, wireless communication,[323] armoured cars, tanks (especially with the advent of the first prototype tank, Little Willie),[324] and aircraft. Infantry formations were reorganised, so that 100-man companies were no longer the main unit of manoeuvre; instead, squads of 10 or so men, under the command of a junior NCO, were favoured.
Artillery also underwent a revolution. 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 the often overlooked field telephone.[325] Counter-battery missions became commonplace, also, and sound detection was used to locate enemy batteries.
A Russian armoured car, 1919
Germany was far ahead of the Allies in using heavy indirect fire. The German Army employed 150 mm (6 in) and 210 mm (8 in) howitzers in 1914, when typical French and British guns were only 75 mm (3 in) and 105 mm (4 in). The British had a 6-inch (152 mm) howitzer, but it was so heavy it had to be hauled to the field in pieces and assembled. The Germans also fielded Austrian 305 mm (12 in) and 420 mm (17 in) guns and, even at the beginning of the war, had inventories of various calibres of Minenwerfer, which were ideally suited for trench warfare.[326][327]
On 27 June 1917 the Germans used the biggest gun in the world, Batterie Pommern, nicknamed «Lange Max». This gun from Krupp was able to shoot 750 kg shells from Koekelare to Dunkirk, a distance of about 50 km (31 mi).
Much of the combat involved trench warfare, in which hundreds often died for each metre gained. Many of the deadliest battles in history occurred during World War I. Such battles include Ypres, the Marne, Cambrai, the Somme, Verdun, and Gallipoli. The Germans employed the Haber process of nitrogen fixation to provide their forces with a constant supply of gunpowder despite the British naval blockade.[328] Artillery was responsible for the largest number of casualties[329] and consumed vast quantities of explosives. The large number of head wounds caused by exploding shells and fragmentation forced the combatant nations to develop the modern steel helmet, led by the French, who introduced the Adrian helmet in 1915. It was quickly followed by the Brodie helmet, worn by British Imperial and US troops, and in 1916 by the distinctive German Stahlhelm, a design, with improvements, still in use today.
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime …
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
A Canadian soldier with mustard gas burns, c. 1917–1918
The widespread use of chemical warfare was a distinguishing feature of the conflict. Gases used included chlorine, mustard gas and phosgene. Relatively few war casualties were caused by gas,[331] as effective countermeasures to gas attacks were quickly created, such as gas masks. The use of chemical warfare and small-scale strategic bombing (as opposed to tactical bombing) were both outlawed by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and both proved to be of limited effectiveness,[332] though they captured the public imagination.[333]
The most powerful land-based weapons were railway guns, weighing dozens of tons apiece.[334] The German version 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 kilometres (62 mi), though shells were relatively light at 94 kilograms (210 lb).
Trenches, machine guns, air reconnaissance, barbed wire, and modern artillery with fragmentation shells helped bring the battle lines of World War I to a stalemate. The British and the French sought a solution with the creation of the tank and mechanised warfare. The British first tanks were used during the Battle of the Somme on 15 September 1916. Mechanical reliability was an issue, but the experiment proved its worth. Within a year, the British were fielding tanks by the hundreds, and they showed their potential during the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917, by breaking the Hindenburg Line, while combined arms teams captured 8,000 enemy soldiers and 100 guns. Meanwhile, the French introduced the first tanks with a rotating turret, the Renault FT, which became a decisive tool of the victory. The conflict also saw the introduction of light automatic weapons and submachine guns, such as the Lewis gun, the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, and the MP 18.
Another new weapon, the flamethrower, was first used by the German army and later adopted by other forces. Although not of high tactical value, the flamethrower was a powerful, demoralising weapon that caused terror on the battlefield.
Trench railways evolved to supply the enormous quantities of food, water, and ammunition required to support large numbers of soldiers in areas where conventional transportation systems had been destroyed. Internal combustion engines and improved traction systems for automobiles and trucks/lorries eventually rendered trench railways obsolete.
Naval
Germany deployed U-boats (submarines) after the war began. Alternating between restricted and unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, the Imperial German Navy employed them to deprive the British Isles of vital supplies. The deaths of British merchant sailors and the seeming invulnerability of U-boats led to the development of depth charges (1916), hydrophones (sonar, 1917), blimps, hunter-killer submarines (HMS R-1, 1917), forward-throwing anti-submarine weapons, and dipping hydrophones (the latter two both abandoned in 1918).[111] To extend their operations, the Germans proposed supply submarines (1916). Most of these would be forgotten in the interwar period until World War II revived the need.[335]
Aviation
Fixed-wing aircraft were first used militarily by the Italians in Libya on 23 October 1911 during the Italo-Turkish War for reconnaissance, soon followed by the dropping of grenades and aerial photography the next year. By 1914, their military utility was obvious. They were initially used for reconnaissance and ground attack. To shoot down enemy planes, anti-aircraft guns and fighter aircraft were developed. Strategic bombers were created, principally by the Germans and British, though the former used Zeppelins as well.[337] Towards the end of the conflict, aircraft carriers were used for the first time, with HMS Furious launching Sopwith Camels in a raid to destroy the Zeppelin hangars at Tønder in 1918.[338]
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,[339] so that if there was 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 were not developed until the end of the war; they were also opposed by the British leadership, who feared they might promote cowardice.[340]
Recognised for their value as observation platforms, balloons were important targets for enemy aircraft. To defend them against air attack, they were heavily protected by anti-aircraft guns and patrolled by friendly aircraft; to attack them, unusual weapons such as air-to-air rockets were tried. Thus, the reconnaissance value of blimps and balloons contributed to the development of air-to-air combat between all types of aircraft, 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, and indeed the resulting panic led to the diversion of several squadrons of fighters from France.[337][340]
Radio telecommunication
Mobile radio station in German South West Africa, using a hydrogen balloon to lift the antenna
The introduction of radio telegraphy was a significant step in communication during World War I. The stations utilised at that time were spark-gap transmitters. As an example, the information of the start of World War I was transmitted to German South West Africa on 2 August 1914 via radio telegraphy from the Nauen transmitter station via a relay station in Kamina and Lomé in Togo to the radio station in Windhoek.
War crimes
Rape of Belgium
The German invaders treated any resistance—such as sabotaging rail lines—as illegal and immoral, and shot the offenders and burned buildings in retaliation. In addition, they tended to suspect that most civilians were potential francs-tireurs (guerrillas) and, accordingly, took and sometimes killed hostages from among the civilian population. The German army executed over 6,500 French and Belgian civilians between August and November 1914, usually in near-random large-scale shootings of civilians ordered by junior German officers. The German Army destroyed 15,000–20,000 buildings—most famously the university library at Louvain—and generated a wave of refugees of over a million people. Over half the German regiments in Belgium were involved in major incidents.[341] Thousands of workers were shipped to Germany to work in factories. British propaganda dramatising the Rape of Belgium attracted much attention in the United States, while Berlin said it was both lawful and necessary because of the threat of franc-tireurs like those in France in 1870.[342] The British and French magnified the reports and disseminated them at home and in the United States, where they played a major role in dissolving support for Germany.[343][344]
Austro-Hungarian war crimes in Serbia
Austro-Hungarian soldiers executing men and women in Serbia, 1916[345]
Austria’s propaganda machinery spread anti-Serb sentiment with the slogan «Serbien muss sterbien» (Serbia must die).[346] During the war Austro-Hungarian officers in Serbia ordered troops to «exterminate and burn everything that is Serbian», and hangings and mass shootings were everyday occurrences.[346] Austrian historian, Anton Holzer, wrote that the Austro-Hungarian army carried out «countless and systematic massacres…against the Serbian population. The soldiers invaded villages and rounded up unarmed men, women and children. They were either shot dead, bayoneted to death or hanged. The victims were locked into barns and burned alive. Women were sent up to the front lines and mass-raped. The inhabitants of whole villages were taken as hostages and humiliated and tortured.»[347]
A claim from a local spy that «traitors» were hiding in a certain house was enough to sentence the whole family to death by hanging. Priests were often hanged, under the accusation of spreading the spirit of treason among the people. Multiple source state that 30,000 Serbs, mostly civilians, were hanged by Austro-Hungarian forces in the first year of the war alone.[346]
Baralong incidents
On 19 August 1915, the German submarine U-27 was sunk by the British Q-ship HMS Baralong. All German survivors were summarily executed by Baralong‘s crew on the orders of Lieutenant Godfrey Herbert, the captain of the ship. The shooting was reported to the media by American citizens who were on board the Nicosia, a British freighter loaded with war supplies, which was stopped by U-27 just minutes before the incident.[348]
On 24 September, Baralong destroyed U-41, which was in the process of sinking the cargo ship Urbino. According to Karl Goetz, the submarine’s commander, Baralong continued to fly the US flag after firing on U-41 and then rammed the lifeboat carrying the German survivors, sinking it.[349]
Torpedoing of HMHS Llandovery Castle
The Canadian hospital ship HMHS Llandovery Castle was torpedoed by the German submarine SM U-86 on 27 June 1918 in violation of international law. Only 24 of the 258 medical personnel, patients, and crew survived. Survivors reported that the U-boat surfaced and ran down the lifeboats, machine-gunning survivors in the water. The U-boat captain, Helmut Brümmer-Patzig, was charged with war crimes in Germany following the war, but escaped prosecution by going to the Free City of Danzig, beyond the jurisdiction of German courts.[350]
Blockade of Germany
After the war, the German government claimed that approximately 763,000 German civilians died from starvation and disease during the war because of the Allied blockade.[351][352] An academic study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000.[353] Germany protested that the Allies had used starvation as a weapon of war.[354] Sally Marks argued that the German accounts of a hunger blockade are a «myth,» as Germany did not face the starvation level of Belgium and the regions of Poland and northern France that it occupied.[355] According to the British judge and legal philosopher Patrick Devlin, «The War Orders given by the Admiralty on 26 August [1914] were clear enough. All food consigned to Germany through neutral ports was to be captured and all food consigned to Rotterdam was to be presumed consigned to Germany.» According to Devlin, this was a serious breach of International Law, equivalent to German minelaying.[356]
Chemical weapons in warfare
French soldiers making a gas and flame attack on German trenches in Flanders
The German army was the first to successfully deploy chemical weapons during the Second Battle of Ypres (22 April – 25 May 1915), after German scientists working under the direction of Fritz Haber at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute developed a method to weaponize chlorine.[r][357] The use of chemical weapons was sanctioned by the German High Command in an effort to force Allied soldiers out of their entrenched positions, complementing rather than supplanting more lethal conventional weapons.[357] In time, chemical weapons were deployed by all major belligerents throughout the war, inflicting approximately 1.3 million casualties, but relatively few fatalities: About 90,000 in total.[357] For example, there were an estimated 186,000 British chemical weapons casualties during the war (80% of which were the result of exposure to the vesicant sulfur mustard, introduced to the battlefield by the Germans in July 1917, which burns the skin at any point of contact and inflicts more severe lung damage than chlorine or phosgene),[357] and up to one-third of American casualties were caused by them. The Russian Army reportedly suffered roughly 500,000 chemical weapon casualties in World War I.[358] The use of chemical weapons in warfare was in direct violation of the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases and the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which prohibited their use.[359][360]
The effect of poison gas was not limited to combatants. Civilians were at risk from the gases as winds blew the poison gases through their towns, and they rarely received warnings or alerts of potential danger. In addition to absent warning systems, civilians often did not have access to effective gas masks. An estimated 100,000–260,000 civilian casualties were caused by chemical weapons during the conflict and tens of thousands more (along with military personnel) died from scarring of the lungs, skin damage, and cerebral damage in the years after the conflict ended. Many commanders on both sides knew such weapons would cause major harm to civilians but nonetheless continued to use them. British Field Marshal Douglas Haig wrote in his diary, «My officers and I were aware that such weapons would cause harm to women and children living in nearby towns, as strong winds were common in the battlefront. However, because the weapon was to be directed against the enemy, none of us were overly concerned at all.»[361][362][363][364]
The war damaged chemistry’s prestige in European societies, in particular the German variety.[365]
Genocide and ethnic cleansing
Ottoman Empire
Armenians killed during the Armenian Genocide. Image taken from Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, written by Henry Morgenthau Sr. and published in 1918.[366]
The ethnic cleansing of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian population, including mass deportations and executions, during the final years of the Ottoman Empire is considered genocide.[367] The Ottomans carried out organised and systematic massacres of the Armenian population at the beginning of the war and manipulated acts of Armenian resistance by portraying them as rebellions to justify further extermination.[368] In early 1915, a number of Armenians volunteered to join the Russian forces and the Ottoman government used this as a pretext to issue the Tehcir Law (Law on Deportation), which authorised the deportation of Armenians from the Empire’s eastern provinces to Syria between 1915 and 1918. The Armenians were intentionally marched to death and a number were attacked by Ottoman brigands.[369] While an exact number of deaths is unknown, the International Association of Genocide Scholars estimates 1.5 million.[367][370] The government of Turkey has consistently denied the genocide, arguing that those who died were victims of inter-ethnic fighting, famine, or disease during World War I; these claims are rejected by most historians.[371]
Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[372][373][374] At least 250,000 Assyrian Christians, about half of the population, and 350,000–750,000 Anatolian and Pontic Greeks were killed between 1915 and 1922.[375]
Russian Empire
Many pogroms accompanied the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Russian Civil War. 60,000–200,000 civilian Jews were killed in the atrocities throughout the former Russian Empire (mostly within the Pale of Settlement in present-day Ukraine).[376] There were an estimated 7–12 million casualties during the Russian Civil War, mostly civilians.[377]
Soldiers’ experiences
The British soldiers of the war were initially volunteers but increasingly were conscripted into service. Surviving veterans, returning home, often found they could discuss their experiences only amongst themselves. Grouping together, they formed «veterans’ associations» or «Legions». A small number of personal accounts of American veterans have been collected by the Library of Congress Veterans History Project.[378]
Prisoners of war
German prisoners in a French prison camp during the later part of the war
About eight million soldiers surrendered and were held in POW camps during the war. All nations pledged to follow the Hague Conventions on fair treatment of prisoners of war, and the survival rate for POWs was generally much higher than that of combatants at the front.[379] Individual surrenders were uncommon; large units usually surrendered en masse. At the siege of Maubeuge about 40,000 French soldiers surrendered, at the battle of Galicia Russians took about 100,000 to 120,000 Austrian captives, at the Brusilov Offensive about 325,000 to 417,000 Germans and Austrians surrendered to Russians, and at the Battle of Tannenberg, 92,000 Russians surrendered. When the besieged garrison of Kaunas surrendered in 1915, some 20,000 Russians became prisoners, at the battle near Przasnysz (February–March 1915) 14,000 Germans surrendered to Russians, and at the First Battle of the Marne about 12,000 Germans surrendered to the Allies. 25–31% of Russian losses (as a proportion of those captured, wounded, or killed) were to prisoner status; for Austria-Hungary 32%, for Italy 26%, for France 12%, for Germany 9%; for Britain 7%. Prisoners from the Allied armies totalled about 1.4 million (not including Russia, which lost 2.5–3.5 million soldiers as prisoners). From the Central Powers about 3.3 million soldiers became prisoners; most of them surrendered to Russians.[380] Germany held 2.5 million prisoners; Russia held 2.2–2.9 million; while Britain and France held about 720,000. Most were captured just before the Armistice. The United States held 48,000. The most dangerous moment was the act of surrender when helpless soldiers were sometimes gunned down.[381][382] Once prisoners reached a camp, conditions were, in general, satisfactory (and much better than in World War II), thanks in part to the efforts of the International Red Cross and inspections by neutral nations. However, conditions were terrible in Russia: starvation was common for prisoners and civilians alike; about 15–20% of the prisoners in Russia died, and in Central Powers imprisonment 8% of Russians.[383] In Germany, food was scarce, but only 5% died.[384][385][386]
The Ottoman Empire often treated POWs poorly.[387] 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.[388] Although many were in a poor 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.»[389] The survivors were then forced to build a railway through the Taurus Mountains.
In Russia, when the prisoners from the Czechoslovak Legion of the Austro-Hungarian army were released in 1917, they re-armed themselves and briefly became a military and diplomatic force during the Russian Civil War.
While the Allied prisoners of the Central Powers were quickly sent home at the end of active hostilities, the same treatment was not granted to Central Power prisoners of the Allies and Russia, many of whom served as forced labour, e.g., in France until 1920. They were released only after many approaches by the Red Cross to the Supreme War Council.[390] German prisoners were still being held in Russia as late as 1924.[391]
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 akin to modern «embedded» positions within the opposing land and naval forces.
Support for the war
In the Balkans, Yugoslav nationalists such as the leader, Ante Trumbić, strongly supported the war, desiring the freedom of Yugoslavs from Austria-Hungary and other foreign powers and the creation of an independent Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav Committee, led by Trumbić, was formed in Paris on 30 April 1915 but shortly moved its office to London.[392] In April 1918, the Rome Congress of Oppressed Nationalities met, including Czechoslovak, Italian, Polish, Transylvanian, and Yugoslav representatives who urged the Allies to support national self-determination for the peoples residing within Austria-Hungary.[393]
In the Middle East, Arab nationalism soared in Ottoman territories in response to the rise of Turkish nationalism during the war, with Arab nationalist leaders advocating the creation of a pan-Arab state. In 1916, the Arab Revolt began in Ottoman-controlled territories of the Middle East in an effort to achieve independence.[394]
In East Africa, Iyasu V of Ethiopia was supporting the Dervish state who were at war with the British in the Somaliland campaign.[395] Von Syburg, the German envoy in Addis Ababa, said, «now the time has come for Ethiopia to regain the coast of the Red Sea driving the Italians home, to restore the Empire to its ancient size.» The Ethiopian Empire was on the verge of entering World War I on the side of the Central Powers before Iyasu’s overthrow at the Battle of Segale due to Allied pressure on the Ethiopian aristocracy.[396] Iyasu was accused of converting to Islam.[397] According to Ethiopian historian Bahru Zewde, the evidence used to prove Iyasu’s conversion was a doctored photo of Iyasu wearing a turban provided by the Allies.[398] Some historians claim the British spy T. E. Lawrence forged the Iyasu photo.[399]
A number of socialist parties initially supported the war when it began in August 1914.[393] But European socialists split on national lines, with the concept of class conflict held by radical socialists such as Marxists and syndicalists being overborne by their patriotic support for the war.[400] Once the war began, Austrian, British, French, German, and Russian socialists followed the rising nationalist current by supporting their countries’ intervention in the war.[401]
Italian nationalism was stirred by the outbreak of the war and was initially strongly supported by a variety of political factions. One of the most prominent and popular Italian nationalist supporters of the war was Gabriele D’Annunzio, who promoted Italian irredentism and helped sway the Italian public to support intervention in the war.[402] The Italian Liberal Party, under the leadership of Paolo Boselli, promoted intervention in the war on the side of the Allies and used the Dante Alighieri Society to promote Italian nationalism.[403] Italian socialists were divided on whether to support the war or oppose it; some were militant supporters of the war, including Benito Mussolini and Leonida Bissolati.[404] However, the Italian Socialist Party decided to oppose the war after anti-militarist protestors were killed, resulting in a general strike called Red Week.[405] The Italian Socialist Party purged itself of pro-war nationalist members, including Mussolini.[405] Mussolini, a syndicalist who supported the war on grounds of irredentist claims on Italian-populated regions of Austria-Hungary, formed the pro-interventionist Il Popolo d’Italia and the Fasci Rivoluzionario d’Azione Internazionalista («Revolutionary Fasci for International Action») in October 1914 that later developed into the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in 1919, the origin of fascism.[406] Mussolini’s nationalism enabled him to raise funds from Ansaldo (an armaments firm) and other companies to create Il Popolo d’Italia to convince socialists and revolutionaries to support the war.[407]
Patriotic Funds
On both sides there was large scale fundraising for soldiers’ welfare, their dependents and for those injured. The Nail Men were a German example. Around the British empire there were many Patriotic Funds, including the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, Canadian Patriotic Fund, Queensland Patriotic Fund and, by 1919, there were 983 funds in New Zealand.[408] At the start of the next world war the New Zealand funds were reformed, having been criticised as overlapping, wasteful and abused,[409] but 11 were still functioning in 2002.[410]
Opposition to the war
Once war was declared, many socialists and trade unions backed their governments. Among the exceptions were the Bolsheviks, the Socialist Party of America, the Italian Socialist Party, and people like Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, and their followers in Germany.
Pope Benedict XV, elected to the papacy less than three months into World War I, made the war and its consequences the main focus of his early pontificate. In stark contrast to his predecessor,[411] five days after his election he spoke of his determination to do what he could to bring peace. His first encyclical, Ad beatissimi Apostolorum, given 1 November 1914, was concerned with this subject. Benedict XV found his abilities and unique position as a religious emissary of peace ignored by the belligerent powers. The 1915 Treaty of London between Italy and the Triple Entente included secret provisions whereby the Allies agreed with Italy to ignore papal peace moves towards the Central Powers. Consequently, the publication of Benedict’s proposed seven-point Peace Note of August 1917 was roundly ignored by all parties except Austria-Hungary.[412]
The Deserter, 1916: Anti-war cartoon depicting Jesus facing a firing squad with soldiers from five European countries
In Britain in 1914, the Public Schools Officers’ Training Corps annual camp was held at Tidworth Pennings, near Salisbury Plain. Head of the British Army, Lord Kitchener, was to review the cadets, but the imminence of the war prevented him. General Horace Smith-Dorrien was sent instead. He surprised the two-or-three thousand cadets by declaring (in the words of Donald Christopher Smith, a Bermudian cadet who was present),
that war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing, that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin, and that the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be decimated. In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a British General who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments, but during the next four years, those of us who survived the holocaust—probably not more than one-quarter of us—learned how right the General’s prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it.[413]
Voicing these sentiments did not hinder Smith-Dorrien’s career, or prevent him from doing his duty in World War I to the best of his abilities.
Possible execution at Verdun at the time of the mutinies in 1917. The original French text accompanying this photograph notes, however, that the uniforms are those of 1914–15 and that the execution may be that of a spy at the beginning of the war.
Many countries jailed those who spoke out against the conflict. These included Eugene Debs in the United States and Bertrand Russell in Britain. In the US, the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 made it a federal crime to oppose military recruitment or make any statements deemed «disloyal». Publications at all critical of the government were removed from circulation by postal censors,[414] and many served long prison sentences for statements of fact deemed unpatriotic.
A number of nationalists opposed intervention, particularly within states that the nationalists were hostile to. Although the vast majority of Irish people consented to participate in the war in 1914 and 1915, a minority of advanced Irish nationalists staunchly opposed taking part.[415] The war began amid the Home Rule crisis in Ireland that had resurfaced in 1912, and by July 1914 there was a serious possibility of an outbreak of civil war in Ireland. Irish nationalists and Marxists attempted to pursue Irish independence, culminating in the Easter Rising of 1916, with Germany sending 20,000 rifles to Ireland to stir unrest in Britain.[416] The UK government placed Ireland under martial law in response to the Easter Rising, though once the immediate threat of revolution had dissipated, the authorities did try to make concessions to nationalist feeling.[417] However, opposition to involvement in the war increased in Ireland, resulting in the Conscription Crisis of 1918.
Other opposition came from conscientious objectors—some socialist, some religious—who refused to fight. In Britain, 16,000 people asked for conscientious objector status.[418] Some of them, most notably prominent peace activist Stephen Hobhouse, refused both military and alternative service.[419] Many suffered years of prison, including solitary confinement and bread and water diets. Even after the war, in Britain many job advertisements were marked «No conscientious objectors need apply».[420]
Bolshevik leaders Lenin and Trotsky promised «Peace, Land and Bread» to the impoverished masses
The Central Asian revolt started in the summer of 1916, when the Russian Empire government ended its exemption of Muslims from military service.[421]
In 1917, a series of French Army Mutinies led to dozens of soldiers being executed and many more imprisoned.
On 1–4 May 1917, about 100,000 workers and soldiers of Petrograd, and after them, the workers and soldiers of other Russian cities, led by the Bolsheviks, demonstrated under banners reading «Down with the war!» and «all power to the soviets!» The mass demonstrations resulted in a crisis for the Russian Provisional Government.[422] In Milan, in May 1917, Bolshevik revolutionaries organised and engaged in rioting calling for an end to the war, and managed to close down factories and stop public transportation.[423] The Italian army was forced to enter Milan with tanks and machine guns to face Bolsheviks and anarchists, who fought violently until 23 May when the army gained control of the city. Almost 50 people (including three Italian soldiers) were killed and over 800 people arrested.[423]
In September 1917, Russian soldiers in France began questioning why they were fighting for the French at all and mutinied.[424] In Russia, opposition to the war led to soldiers also establishing their own revolutionary committees, which helped foment the October Revolution of 1917, with the call going up for «bread, land, and peace». The Decree on Peace, written by Vladimir Lenin, was passed on 8 November 1917, following the success of the October Revolution.[425] The Bolsheviks agreed to a peace treaty with Germany, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, despite its harsh conditions. The German Revolution of 1918–1919 led to the abdication of the Kaiser and German surrender.
Conscription
Conscription was common in most European countries. However, it was controversial in English-speaking countries. It was especially unpopular among minority ethnic groups—especially the Irish Catholics in Ireland and Australia,[426] and the French Catholics in Canada.
Canada
In Canada, the issue produced a major political crisis that permanently alienated the Francophones. It opened a political gap between French Canadians, who believed their true loyalty was to Canada and not to the British Empire, and members of the Anglophone majority, who saw the war as a duty to their British heritage.[427]
Australia
Australia had a form of conscription at the outbreak of the war, as compulsory military training had been introduced in 1911. However, the Defence Act 1903 provided that unexempted males could be called upon only for home defence during times of war, not overseas service. Prime Minister Billy Hughes wished to amend the legislation to require conscripts to serve overseas, and held two non-binding referendums – one in 1916 and one in 1917 – in order to secure public support.[428] Both were defeated by narrow margins, with farmers, the labour movement, the Catholic Church, and Irish-Australians combining to campaign for the «No» vote.[429] The issue of conscription caused the 1916 Australian Labor Party split. Hughes and his supporters were expelled from the party, forming the National Labor Party and then the Nationalist Party. Despite the referendum results, the Nationalists won a landslide victory at the 1917 federal election.[428]
Britain
British volunteer recruits in London, August 1914
In Britain, conscription resulted in the calling up of nearly every physically fit man in Britain—six of ten million eligible. Of these, about 750,000 died. Most deaths were those of young unmarried men; however, 160,000 wives lost husbands and 300,000 children lost fathers.[430] Conscription during the First World War began when the British government passed the Military Service Act in 1916. The act specified that single men aged 18 to 40 years old were liable to be called up for military service unless they were widowed, with children, or ministers of a religion. There was a system of Military Service Tribunals to adjudicate upon claims for exemption upon the grounds of performing civilian work of national importance, domestic hardship, health, and conscientious objection. The law went through several changes before the war ended. Married men were exempt in the original Act, although this was changed in June 1916. The age limit was also eventually raised to 51 years old. Recognition of work of national importance also diminished, and in the last year of the war, there was some support for the conscription of clergy.[431] Conscription lasted until mid-1919. Due to the political situation in Ireland, conscription was never applied there; only in England, Scotland and Wales.
United States
A United States Army recruiting poster shows Uncle Sam pointing his finger at the viewer to try and persuade them to enlist in the U.S. Army during World War I.
In the United States, conscription began in 1917 and was generally well received, with a few pockets of opposition in isolated rural areas.[432] The administration decided to rely primarily on conscription, rather than voluntary enlistment, to raise military manpower after only 73,000 volunteers enlisted out of the initial 1 million target in the first six weeks of the war.[433] In 1917 10 million men were registered. This was deemed to be inadequate, so age ranges were increased and exemptions reduced, and so by the end of 1918 this increased to 24 million men that were registered with nearly 3 million inducted into the military services. The draft was universal and included blacks on the same terms as whites, although they served in different units. In all 367,710 black Americans were drafted (13% of total), compared to 2,442,586 white (87% of total).
Forms of resistance ranged from peaceful protest to violent demonstrations and from humble letter-writing campaigns asking for mercy to radical newspapers demanding reform. The most common tactics were dodging and desertion, and many communities sheltered and defended their draft dodgers as political heroes. Many socialists were jailed for «obstructing the recruitment or enlistment service». The most famous was Eugene Debs, head of the Socialist Party of America, who ran for president in 1920 from his prison cell. In 1917 a number of radicals and anarchists challenged the new draft law in federal court, arguing that it was a direct violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the draft act in the Selective Draft Law Cases on 7 January 1918.
Austria-Hungary
Like all the armies of mainland Europe, Austria-Hungary relied on conscription to fill its ranks. Officer recruitment, however, was voluntary. The effect of this at the start of the war was that well over a quarter of the rank and file were Slavs, while more than 75% of the officers were ethnic Germans. This was much resented. The army has been described as being «run on colonial lines» and the Slav soldiers as «disaffected». Thus conscription contributed greatly to Austria’s disastrous performance on the battlefield.[434]
Diplomacy
The non-military diplomatic and propaganda interactions among the nations were designed to build support for the cause or to undermine support for the enemy. For the most part, wartime diplomacy focused on five issues: propaganda campaigns; defining and redefining the war goals, which became harsher as the war went on; luring neutral nations (Italy, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, Romania) into the coalition by offering slices of enemy territory; and encouragement by the Allies of nationalistic minority movements inside the Central Powers, especially among Czechs, Poles, and Arabs. In addition, there were multiple peace proposals coming from neutrals, or one side or the other; none of them progressed very far.[435][436][437]
Legacy and memory
… «Strange, friend,» I said, «Here is no cause to mourn.»
«None,» said the other, «Save the undone years»…
The first tentative efforts to comprehend the meaning and consequences of modern warfare began during the initial phases of the war, and this process continued throughout and after the end of hostilities, and is still underway, more than a century later. As late as 2007, signs warning visitors to keep off certain paths at battlefield sites like Verdun and Somme remained in place as unexploded ordnance continued to pose a danger to farmers living near former battlegrounds. In France and Belgium locals who discover caches of unexploded munitions are assisted by weapons disposal units. In some places, plant life has still not returned to normal.[438]
Historiography
Teaching World War I has presented special challenges. When compared with World War II, the First World War is often thought to be «a wrong war fought for the wrong reasons». It lacks the metanarrative of good versus evil that characterizes the Second World War. Lacking recognizable heroes and villains, it is often taught thematically, invoking tropes like the wastefulness of war, the folly of generals and the innocence of soldiers. The complexity of the conflict is mostly obscured by these oversimplifications.[438] George Kennan referred to the war as the «seminal catastrophe of the 20th century».[439]
Historian Heather Jones argues that the historiography has been reinvigorated by the cultural turn in recent years. Scholars have raised entirely new questions regarding military occupation, radicalisation of politics, race, medical science, gender and mental health. Furthermore, new research has revised our understanding of five major topics that historians have long debated: Why the war began, why the Allies won, whether generals were responsible for high casualty rates, how the soldiers endured the horrors of trench warfare, and to what extent the civilian homefront accepted and endorsed the war effort.[440][441]
Memorials
Memorials were erected in thousands of villages and towns. Close to battlefields, those buried in improvised burial grounds were gradually moved to formal graveyards under the care of organisations such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the American Battle Monuments Commission, the German War Graves Commission, and Le Souvenir français. Many of these graveyards also have central monuments to the missing or unidentified dead, such as the Menin Gate Memorial to the Missing and the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing of the Somme.
In 1915 John McCrae, a Canadian army doctor, wrote the poem In Flanders Fields as a salute to those who perished in the Great War. Published in Punch on 8 December 1915, it is still recited today, especially on Remembrance Day and Memorial Day.[442][443]
A typical village war memorial to soldiers killed in World War I
National World War I Museum and Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri, is a memorial dedicated to all Americans who served in World War I. The Liberty Memorial was dedicated on 1 November 1921, when the supreme Allied commanders spoke to a crowd of more than 100,000 people.[444]
The UK Government has budgeted substantial resources to the commemoration of the war during the period 2014 to 2018. The lead body is the Imperial War Museum.[445] On 3 August 2014, French President François Hollande and German President Joachim Gauck together marked the centenary of Germany’s declaration of war on France by laying the first stone of a memorial in Vieil Armand, known in German as Hartmannswillerkopf, for French and German soldiers killed in the war.[446] During the Armistice centenary commemorations, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited the site of the signing of the Armistice of Compiègne and unveiled a plaque to reconciliation.[447]
Cultural memory
World War I had a lasting impact on collective memory. It was seen by many in Britain as signalling the end of an era of stability stretching back to the Victorian period, and across Europe many regarded it as a watershed.[448] Historian Samuel Hynes explained:
A generation of innocent young men, their heads full of high abstractions like Honour, Glory and England, went off to war to make the world safe for democracy. They were slaughtered in stupid battles planned by stupid generals. Those who survived were shocked, disillusioned and embittered by their war experiences, and saw that their real enemies were not the Germans, but the old men at home who had lied to them. They rejected the values of the society that had sent them to war, and in doing so separated their own generation from the past and from their cultural inheritance.[449]
This has become the most common perception of World War I, perpetuated by the art, cinema, poems, and stories published subsequently. Films such as All Quiet on the Western Front, Paths of Glory and King and Country have perpetuated the idea, while war-time films including Camrades, Poppies of Flanders, and Shoulder Arms indicate that the most contemporary views of the war were overall far more positive.[450] Likewise, the art of Paul Nash, John Nash, Christopher Nevinson, and Henry Tonks in Britain painted a negative view of the conflict in keeping with the growing perception, while popular war-time artists such as Muirhead Bone painted more serene and pleasant interpretations subsequently rejected as inaccurate.[449] Several historians like John Terraine, Niall Ferguson and Gary Sheffield have challenged these interpretations as partial and polemical views:
These beliefs did not become widely shared because they offered the only accurate interpretation of wartime events. In every respect, the war was much more complicated than they suggest. In recent years, historians have argued persuasively against almost every popular cliché of World War I. It has been pointed out that, although the losses were devastating, their greatest impact was socially and geographically limited. The many emotions other than horror experienced by soldiers in and out of the front line, including comradeship, boredom, and even enjoyment, have been recognised. The war is not now seen as a ‘fight about nothing’, but as a war of ideals, a struggle between aggressive militarism and more or less liberal democracy. It has been acknowledged that British generals were often capable men facing difficult challenges and that it was under their command that the British army played a major part in the defeat of the Germans in 1918: a great forgotten victory.[450]
Though these views have been discounted as «myths»,[449][451] they are common. They have dynamically changed according to contemporary influences, reflecting in the 1950s perceptions of the war as «aimless» following the contrasting Second World War and emphasising conflict within the ranks during times of class conflict in the 1960s. The majority of additions to the contrary are often rejected.[450]
The social trauma caused by unprecedented rates of casualties manifested itself in different ways, which have been the subject of subsequent historical debate.[452] Over 8 million Europeans died in the war. Millions suffered permanent disabilities. The war gave birth to fascism and Bolshevism and destroyed the dynasties that had ruled the Ottoman, Habsburg, Russian and German Empires.[438]
The optimism of la belle époque was destroyed, and those who had fought in the war were referred to as the Lost Generation.[453] For years afterward, people mourned the dead, the missing, and the many disabled.[454] Many soldiers returned with severe trauma, suffering from shell shock (also called neurasthenia, a condition related to post-traumatic stress disorder).[455] Many more returned home with few after-effects; however, their silence about the war contributed to the conflict’s growing mythological status. Though many participants did not share in the experiences of combat or spend any significant time at the front, or had positive memories of their service, the images of suffering and trauma became the widely shared perception. Such historians as Dan Todman, Paul Fussell, and Samuel Heyns have all published works since the 1990s arguing that these common perceptions of the war are factually incorrect.[452]
Discontent in Germany and Austria
The rise of Nazism and fascism included a revival of the nationalist spirit and a rejection of many post-war changes. Similarly, the popularity of the stab-in-the-back legend (German: Dolchstoßlegende) was a testament to the psychological state of defeated Germany and was a rejection of responsibility for the conflict. This conspiracy theory of the betrayal of the German war effort by Jews became common, and the German populace came to see themselves as victims. The widespread acceptance of the «stab-in-the-back» theory delegitimised the Weimar government and destabilised the system, opening it to extremes of right and left. The same occurred in Austria which did not consider itself responsible for the outbreak of the war and claimed not to have suffered a military defeat.[456]
Communist and fascist movements around Europe drew strength from this theory and enjoyed a new level of popularity. These feelings were most pronounced in areas directly or harshly affected by the war. Adolf Hitler was able to gain popularity by using German discontent with the still controversial Treaty of Versailles.[457] World War II was in part a continuation of the power struggle never fully resolved by World War I. Furthermore, it was common for Germans in the 1930s to justify acts of aggression due to perceived injustices imposed by the victors of World War I.[252][458][459] American historian William Rubinstein wrote that:
The ‘Age of Totalitarianism’ included nearly all the infamous examples of genocide in modern history, headed by the Jewish Holocaust, but also comprising the mass murders and purges of the Communist world, other mass killings carried out by Nazi Germany and its allies, and also the Armenian Genocide of 1915. All these slaughters, it is argued here, had a common origin, the collapse of the elite structure and normal modes of government of much of central, eastern and southern Europe as a result of World War I, without which surely neither Communism nor Fascism would have existed except in the minds of unknown agitators and crackpots.[460]
Economic effects
Poster showing women workers, 1915
One of the most dramatic effects of the war was the expansion of governmental powers and responsibilities in Britain, France, the United States, and the Dominions of the British Empire. To harness all the power of their societies, governments created new ministries and powers. New taxes were levied and laws enacted, all designed to bolster the war effort; many have lasted to the present. Similarly, the war strained the abilities of some formerly large and bureaucratised governments, such as in Austria-Hungary and Germany.
Gross domestic product (GDP) increased for three Allies (Britain, Italy, and the United States), but decreased in France and Russia, in neutral Netherlands, and in the three main Central Powers. The shrinkage in GDP in Austria, Russia, France, and the Ottoman Empire ranged between 30% and 40%. In Austria, for example, most pigs were slaughtered, so at war’s end there was no meat.
In all nations, the government’s share of GDP increased, surpassing 50% in both Germany and France and nearly reaching that level in Britain. To pay for purchases in the United States, Britain cashed in its extensive investments in American railroads and then began borrowing heavily from Wall Street. President Wilson was on the verge of cutting off the loans in late 1916 but allowed a great increase in US government lending to the Allies. After 1919, the US demanded repayment of these loans. The repayments were, in part, funded by German reparations that, in turn, were supported by American loans to Germany. This circular system collapsed in 1931 and some loans were never repaid. Britain still owed the United States $4.4 billion[s] of World War I debt in 1934; the last installment was finally paid in 2015.[461]
Macro- and micro-economic consequences devolved from the war. 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 labourers sent to war. This aided the struggle for voting rights for women.[462]
World War I further compounded the gender imbalance, adding to the phenomenon of surplus women. The deaths of nearly one million men during the war in Britain increased the gender gap by almost a million: from 670,000 to 1,700,000. The number of unmarried women seeking economic means grew dramatically. In addition, demobilisation and economic decline following the war caused high unemployment. The war increased female employment; however, the return of demobilised men displaced many from the workforce, as did the closure of many of the wartime factories.
In Britain, rationing was finally imposed in early 1918, limited to meat, sugar, and fats (butter and margarine), 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.
Britain turned to her colonies for help in obtaining essential war materials whose supply from traditional sources had become difficult. Geologists such as Albert Kitson were called on to find new resources of precious minerals in the African colonies. Kitson discovered important new deposits of manganese, used in munitions production, in the Gold Coast.[463]
Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (the so-called «war guilt» clause) stated Germany accepted responsibility for «all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.»[464] It was worded as such to lay a legal basis for reparations, and a similar clause was inserted in the treaties with Austria and Hungary. However, neither of them interpreted it as an admission of war guilt.»[465] In 1921, the total reparation sum was placed at 132 billion gold marks. However, «Allied experts knew that Germany could not pay» this sum. The total sum was divided into three categories, with the third being «deliberately designed to be chimerical» and its «primary function was to mislead public opinion … into believing the «total sum was being maintained.»[466] Thus, 50 billion gold marks (12.5 billion dollars) «represented the actual Allied assessment of German capacity to pay» and «therefore … represented the total German reparations» figure that had to be paid.[466]
This figure could be paid in cash or in-kind (coal, timber, chemical dyes, etc.). In addition, some of the territory lost—via the treaty of Versailles—was credited towards the reparation figure as were other acts such as helping to restore the Library of Louvain.[467] By 1929, the Great Depression arrived, causing political chaos throughout the world.[468] In 1932 the payment of reparations was suspended by the international community, by which point Germany had paid only the equivalent of 20.598 billion gold marks in reparations.[469] With the rise of Adolf Hitler, all bonds and loans that had been issued and taken out during the 1920s and early 1930s were cancelled. David Andelman notes «refusing to pay doesn’t make an agreement null and void. The bonds, the agreement, still exist.» Thus, following the Second World War, at the London Conference in 1953, Germany agreed to resume payment on the money borrowed. On 3 October 2010, Germany made the final payment on these bonds.[t]
The war contributed to the evolution of the wristwatch from women’s jewellery to a practical everyday item, replacing the pocketwatch, which requires a free hand to operate.[474] Military funding of advancements in radio contributed to the post-war popularity of the medium.[474]
See also
- Lists of World War I topics
- Outline of World War I
- World War I reparations
- List of military engagements of World War I
Footnotes
- ^ Russian Empire during 1914–1917, Russian Republic during 1917. The Bolshevik government signed a separate peace with the Central Powers shortly after their armed seizure of power, resulting in a Central Powers victory on the Eastern Front of the war, and Russian defeat. However, this peace treaty was nullified by an Allied Powers victory on the Western Front, and the end of the war.
- ^ Following the Armistice of Focșani causing Romania to withdraw from the Eastern Front of World War I; Romania signed a peace treaty with the Central Powers on 7 May 1918, however the treaty was canceled by Romania and Romania itself rejoined the Allied Powers on 10 November 1918.
- ^ The United States did not ratify any of the treaties agreed to at the Paris Peace Conference.
- ^ Bulgaria joined the Central Powers on 14 October 1915.
- ^ The Ottoman Empire agreed to a secret alliance with Germany on 2 August 1914. It joined the war on the side of the Central Powers on 29 October 1914.
- ^ The United States declared war on Austria-Hungary on 7 December 1917.
- ^ Austria was considered one of the successor states to Austria-Hungary.
- ^ The United States declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917.
- ^ Hungary was considered one of the successor states to Austria-Hungary.
- ^ Although the Treaty of Sèvres was intended to end the war between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers and the Republic of Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, agreed to the Treaty of Lausanne.
- ^ Died in 1916 of pneumonia, succeeded by Charles (Karl) I of Austria
- ^ Died in July 1918 and succeeded by Mehmed VI
- ^ Cvjetko Popović, Gavrilo Princip, Nedeljko Čabrinović, Trifko Grabež, and Vaso Čubrilović were Bosnian Serbs, while Muhamed Mehmedbašić was from the Bosniak Muslim community[34]
- ^ Former prisoners also set up the Romanian Legion which served with the White movement in Siberia during the Russian Civil War,[159][160] while 37,000 of the 60,000 Romanians captured in Italy joined the Romanian Volunteer Legion and fought in the last battles on the Italian front.[156]
- ^ Bessarabia remained part of Romania until 1940, when it was annexed by Joseph Stalin as the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic;[166] following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, it became the independent Republic of Moldova
- ^ This gave German submarines permission to attack any merchant ships entering the war zone, regardless of their cargo or nationality; the zone included all British and French coastal waters [186]
- ^ Unlike the others, the successor state to the Russian Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, retained similar external borders, via retaining or quickly recovering lost territories.
- ^ A German attempt to use chemical weapons on the Russian front in January 1915 failed to cause casualties.
- ^ 109 in this context – see Long and short scales
- ^ World War I officially ended when Germany paid off the final amount of reparations imposed on it by the Allies.[470][471][472][473]
References
- ^ a b c d Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 273
- ^ Shapiro & Epstein 2006, p. 329.
- ^ Proffitt, Michael (13 June 2014). «Chief Editor’s notes June 2014». Oxford English Dictionary’s blog.
- ^ «The First World War». Quite Interesting. Archived from the original on 3 January 2014. Also aired on QI Series I Episode 2, 16 September 2011, BBC Two.
- ^ «Were they always called World War I and World War II?». Ask History. Archived from the original on 1 October 2015. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
- ^ Braybon 2004, p. 8.
- ^ «The Great War». The Independent. 17 August 1914. p. 228. Retrieved 17 May 2022.
- ^ «great, adj., adv., and n». Oxford English Dictionary. Archived from the original on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
- ^ «The war to end all wars». BBC News. 10 November 1998. Archived from the original on 19 June 2015. Retrieved 15 December 2015.
- ^ Margery Fee and Janice McAlpine. Guide to Canadian English Usage. (Oxford UP, 1997), p. 210.
- ^ Clark 2013, pp. 121–152.
- ^ Zeldin 1977, p. 117.
- ^ Keegan 1998, p. 52.
- ^ Medlicott 1945, pp. 66–70.
- ^ Keenan 1986, p. 20.
- ^ Willmott 2003, p. 15.
- ^ Fay 1930, pp. 290–293.
- ^ a b Willmott 2003, p. 21.
- ^ Herwig 1988, pp. 72–73.
- ^ Moll & Luebbert 1980, pp. 153–185.
- ^ Stevenson 2016, p. 45.
- ^ Crisp 1976, pp. 174–196.
- ^ Stevenson 2016, p. 42.
- ^ McMeekin 2015, pp. 66–67.
- ^ Clark 2013, p. 86.
- ^ Clark 2013, pp. 251–252.
- ^ McMeekin 2015, p. 69.
- ^ McMeekin 2015, p. 73.
- ^ Willmott 2003, pp. 2–23.
- ^ Clark 2013, p. 288.
- ^ Keegan 1998, pp. 48–49.
- ^ Finestone & Massie 1981, p. 247.
- ^ Smith 2010, p. ?.
- ^ Butcher 2014, p. 103.
- ^ Butcher 2014, pp. 188–189.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 16.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 17.
- ^ «European powers maintain focus despite killings in Sarajevo – This Day in History». History.com. 30 June 1914. Archived from the original on 23 June 2011. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
- ^ Willmott 2003, p. 26.
- ^ Clark, Christopher (25 June 2014). Month of Madness. BBC Radio 4.
- ^ Djordjević, Dimitrije; Spence, Richard B. (1992). Scholar, patriot, mentor: historical essays in honor of Dimitrije Djordjević. East European Monographs. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-88033-217-0.
Following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in June 1914, Croats and Muslims in Sarajevo joined forces in an anti-Serb pogrom.
- ^ Reports Service: Southeast Europe series. American Universities Field Staff. 1964. p. 44. Retrieved 7 December 2013.
… the assassination was followed by officially encouraged anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo …
- ^ Kröll, Herbert (2008). Austrian-Greek encounters over the centuries: history, diplomacy, politics, arts, economics. Studienverlag. p. 55. ISBN 978-3-7065-4526-6. Retrieved 1 September 2013.
… arrested and interned some 5.500 prominent Serbs and sentenced to death some 460 persons, a new Schutzkorps, an auxiliary militia, widened the anti-Serb repression.
- ^ Tomasevich 2001, p. 485.
- ^ Schindler, John R. (2007). Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad. Zenith Imprint. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-61673-964-5.
- ^ Velikonja 2003, p. 141.
- ^ Stevenson 1996, p. 12.
- ^ MacMillan 2013, p. 532.
- ^ Willmott 2003, p. 27.
- ^ Fromkin 2004, pp. 196–197.
- ^ MacMillan 2013, p. 536.
- ^ Lieven 2016, p. 326.
- ^ Clark 2013, pp. 526–527.
- ^ Martel 2014, p. 335.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 27.
- ^ Clayton 2003, p. 45.
- ^ Clark 2013, pp. 539–541.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 29.
- ^ Coogan 2009, p. 48.
- ^ Tsouras, Peter (19 July 2017). «The Kaiser’s Question, 1914». HistoryNet. Archived from the original on 26 December 2021. Retrieved 26 December 2021.
- ^ McMeekin 2014, pp. 342, 349.
- ^ MacMillan 2013, pp. 579–580, 585.
- ^ Crowe 2001, pp. 4–5.
- ^ Willmott 2003, p. 29.
- ^ Clark 2013, pp. 550–551.
- ^ Strachan 2003, pp. 292–296, 343–354.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 172.
- ^ Schindler 2002, pp. 159–195.
- ^ «Veliki rat – Avijacija». rts.rs. RTS, Radio televizija Srbije, Radio Television of Serbia. Archived from the original on 10 July 2017. Retrieved 16 July 2019.
- ^ «How was the first military airplane shot down». National Geographic. Archived from the original on 31 August 2015. Retrieved 5 August 2015.
- ^ a b Stevenson 2004, p. 22.
- ^ Horne 1964, p. 22.
- ^ Stevenson 2004, p. 23.
- ^ Holmes 2014, pp. 194, 211.
- ^ Stevenson 2012, p. 54.
- ^ Jackson 2018, p. 55.
- ^ Lieven 2016, p. 327.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp. 376–378.
- ^ Horne 1964, p. 221.
- ^ Donko 2012, p. 79.
- ^ Keegan 1998, pp. 224–232.
- ^ Falls 1960, pp. 79–80.
- ^ Farwell 1989, p. 353.
- ^ Brown 1994, pp. 197–198.
- ^ Brown 1994, pp. 201–203.
- ^ Kant, Vedica (24 September 2014). «India and WWI: Piecing together the impact of the Great War on the subcontinent». LSE. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
- ^ «Participants from the Indian subcontinent in the First World War». Memorial Gates Trust. Archived from the original on 1 July 2019. Retrieved 12 December 2008.
- ^ Horniman, Benjamin Guy (1984). British administration and the Amritsar massacre. Mittal Publications. p. 45.
- ^ Raudzens 1990, p. 424.
- ^ Raudzens 1990, pp. 421–423.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 99.
- ^ Goodspeed 1985, p. 199.
- ^ Duffy, Michael (22 August 2009). «Weapons of War: Poison Gas». Firstworldwar.com. Archived from the original on 21 August 2007. Retrieved 5 July 2012.
- ^ Love 1996.
- ^ Dupuy 1993, p. 1042.
- ^ Grant 2005, p. 276.
- ^ Lichfield, John (21 February 2006). «Verdun: myths and memories of the ‘lost villages’ of France». The Independent. Archived from the original on 22 October 2017. Retrieved 23 July 2013.
- ^ Harris 2008, p. 271.
- ^ «Living conditions». Trench Warfare. Archived from the original on 20 April 2018. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- ^ Taylor 2007, pp. 39–47.
- ^ Keene 2006, p. 5.
- ^ Halpern 1995, p. 293.
- ^ Zieger 2001, p. 50.
- ^ Jeremy Black (June 2016). «Jutland’s Place in History». Naval History. 30 (3): 16–21.
- ^ a b c d Sheffield, Garry. «The First Battle of the Atlantic». World Wars in Depth. BBC. Archived from the original on 3 June 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2009.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 306.
- ^ von der Porten 1969.
- ^ Jones 2001, p. 80.
- ^ Nova Scotia House of Assembly Committee on Veterans Affairs (9 November 2006). «Committee Hansard». Hansard. Archived from the original on 23 November 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
- ^ Chickering, Roger; Förster, Stig; Greiner, Bernd (2005). A world at total war: global conflict and the politics of destruction, 1937–1945. Publications of the German Historical Institute. Washington, DC: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83432-2.
- ^ a b Price 1980
- ^ «The Balkan Wars and World War I». p. 28. Library of Congress Country Studies.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 241–.
- ^ Neiberg 2005, pp. 54–55.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp. 1075–1076.
- ^ DiNardo 2015, p. 102.
- ^ Neiberg 2005, pp. 108–110.
- ^ Hall, Richard (2010). Balkan Breakthrough: The Battle of Dobro Pole 1918. Indiana University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-253-35452-5.
- ^ Tucker, Wood & Murphy 1999, pp. 150–152.
- ^ Korsun, N. «The Balkan Front of the World War» (in Russian). militera.lib.ru. Archived from the original on 9 August 2013. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
- ^ Doughty 2005, p. 491.
- ^ Gettleman, Marvin; Schaar, Stuart, eds. (2003). The Middle East and Islamic world reader (4th ed.). New York: Grove Press. pp. 119–120. ISBN 978-0-8021-3936-8.
- ^ January, Brendan (2007). Genocide: modern crimes against humanity. Minneapolis, Minn.: Twenty-First Century Books. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-7613-3421-7.
- ^ Lieberman, Benjamin (2013). The Holocaust and Genocides in Europe. New York: Continuum Publishing Corporation. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-1-4411-9478-7.
- ^ Arthur J. Barker, The Neglected War: Mesopotamia, 1914–1918 (London: Faber, 1967)
- ^ Crawford, John; McGibbon, Ian (2007). New Zealand’s Great War: New Zealand, the Allies and the First World War. Exisle Publishing. pp. 219–220.
- ^ Fromkin 2004, p. 119.
- ^ a b Hinterhoff 1984, pp. 499–503
- ^ a b c The Encyclopedia Americana, 1920, v.28, p.403
- ^ Northcote, Dudley S. (1922). «Saving Forty Thousand Armenians». Current History. New York Times Co. Archived from the original on 9 September 2021. Retrieved 9 September 2021.
- ^ Sachar 1970, pp. 122–138.
- ^ Gilbert 1994.
- ^ Hanioglu, M. Sukru (2010). A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press. pp. 180–181. ISBN 978-0-691-13452-9.
- ^ Thompson 2009, p. 13.
- ^ Thompson 2009, pp. 9–10.
- ^ Gardner 2015, p. 120.
- ^ Thompson 2009, p. 14.
- ^ Thompson 2009, pp. 30–31.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 166.
- ^ Thompson 2009, p. 57.
- ^ Marshall & Josephy 1982, p. 108.
- ^ Fornassin 2017, pp. 39–62.
- ^ Thompson 2009, p. 163.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 317.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 482.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 484.
- ^ Thompson 2009, p. 364.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 491.
- ^ Jelavich 1992, pp. 441–442.
- ^ a b Dumitru 2012, p. 171.
- ^ Dumitru 2012, p. 170.
- ^ a b Gilbert 1994, p. 282.
- ^ Torrie 1978, pp. 7–8.
- ^ Barrett 2013, pp. 96–98.
- ^ România în anii primului război mondial, vol.2, p. 831
- ^ a b Damian 2012.
- ^ Șerban 1997, pp. 101–111.
- ^ Părean 2002, pp. 1–5.
- ^ Șerban 2000, pp. 153–164.
- ^ Cazacu 2013, pp. 89–115.
- ^ Marble 2018, pp. 343–349.
- ^ Falls 1961, p. 285.
- ^ Mitrasca 2007, pp. 36–38.
- ^ Crampton 1994, pp. 24–25.
- ^ Béla 1998, p. 429.
- ^ Rothschild 1975, p. 314.
- ^ Erlikman 2004, p. 51.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 715.
- ^ Meyer 2006, pp. 152–154, 161, 163, 175, 182.
- ^ Smele
- ^ Schindler 2003, p. ?.
- ^ Tucker 2002, p. 119.
- ^ a b Alexander Lanoszka; Michael A. Hunzeker (11 November 2018). «Why the First War lasted so long». The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 12 April 2022. Retrieved 11 November 2018.
- ^ a b Keegan 1998, p. 345.
- ^ Kernek 1970, pp. 721–766.
- ^ Beckett 2007, p. 523.
- ^ Winter 2014, pp. 110–132.
- ^ Keith Hitchins, Clarendon Press, 1994, Rumania 1866–1947, p. 269
- ^ Wheeler-Bennett 1938, pp. 36–41.
- ^ Treaty of Bucharest with the Central Powers in May 1918
- ^ R. J. Crampton, Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, Routledge, 1994, ISBN 978-0-415-05346-4, p. 24–25
- ^ Stevenson 2012, pp. 315–316.
- ^ Stevenson 2012, p. 317.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 157.
- ^ Stevenson 2012, p. 258.
- ^ Stevenson 2012, p. 316.
- ^ Stevenson 2012, p. 250.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, pp. 308–309.
- ^ Gilbert 1994, p. 318.
- ^ Grotelueschen 2006, pp. 14–15.
- ^ Millett & Murray 1988, p. 143.
- ^ Grotelueschen 2006, pp. 10–11.
- ^ Stevenson 2012, p. 318.
- ^ Grotelueschen 2006, pp. 44–46.
- ^ Stevenson 2012, p. 403.
- ^ Clayton 2003, p. 132.
- ^ Horne 1964, p. 224.
- ^ Clayton 2003, pp. 122–123.
- ^ Clayton 2003, p. 124.
- ^ Clayton 2003, p. 129.
- ^ Strachan 2003, p. 244.
- ^ Inglis 1995, p. 2.
- ^ Humphries 2007, p. 66.
- ^ Horne 1964, p. 323.
- ^ Clayton 2003, p. 131.
- ^ Marshall & Josephy 1982, p. 211.
- ^ Horne 1964, p. 325.
- ^ Heyman 1997, pp. 146–147.
- ^ Kurlander 2006.
- ^ Shanafelt 1985, pp. 125–130.
- ^ Erickson 2001, p. 163.
- ^ Moore, A. Briscoe (1920). The Mounted Riflemen in Sinai & Palestine: The Story of New Zealand’s Crusaders. Christchurch: Whitcombe & Tombs. p. 67. OCLC 156767391.
- ^ Falls, Cyril (1930). Military Operations. Part I Egypt & Palestine: Volume 2 From June 1917 to the End of the War. Official History of the Great War Based on Official Documents by Direction of the Historical Section of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Maps compiled by A.F. Becke. London: HM Stationery Office. p. 59. OCLC 1113542987.
- ^ Wavell, Earl (1968) [1933]. «The Palestine Campaigns». In Sheppard, Eric William (ed.). A Short History of the British Army (4th ed.). London: Constable & Co. pp. 153–155. OCLC 35621223.
- ^ «Text of the Decree of the Surrender of Jerusalem into British Control». First World War.com. Archived from the original on 14 June 2011. Retrieved 13 May 2015.
- ^ Bruce, Anthony (2002). The Last Crusade: The Palestine Campaign in the First World War. London: John Murray. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-7195-5432-2.
- ^ «Who’s Who – Kress von Kressenstein». First World War.com. Archived from the original on 20 November 2015. Retrieved 13 May 2015.
- ^ «Who’s Who – Otto Liman von Sanders». First World War.com. Archived from the original on 27 December 2007. Retrieved 13 May 2015.
- ^ Erickson 2001, p. 195.
- ^ Westwell 2004.
- ^ «blitzkrieg | Definition, Translation, & Facts | Britannica». www.britannica.com. Retrieved 11 July 2022.
- ^ Gray 1991, p. 86.
- ^ Rickard 2007.
- ^ Ayers 1919, p. 104.
- ^ Schreiber, Shane B. (2004) [1977]. Shock Army of the British Empire: The Canadian Corps in the Last 100 Days of the Great War. St. Catharines, ON: Vanwell. ISBN 978-1-55125-096-0. OCLC 57063659.[page needed]
- ^ Rickard 2001.
- ^ Brown, Malcolm (1999) [1998]. 1918: Year of Victory. London: Pan. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-330-37672-3.
- ^ a b Pitt 2003
- ^ «This War Must Be Ended | History Today». www.historytoday.com. Retrieved 11 July 2022.
- ^ a b c d Gray & Argyle 1990
- ^ Terraine 1963.
- ^ Nicholson 1962.
- ^ Ludendorff 1919.
- ^ McLellan, p. 49.
- ^ Christie 1997, p. ?.
- ^ Stevenson 2004, p. 380.
- ^ Hull 2006, pp. 307–310.
- ^ a b Stevenson 2004, p. 383.
- ^ «The Battle of Dobro Polje – The Forgotten Balkan Skirmish That Ended WW1». Militaryhistorynow.com. Archived from the original on 23 September 2017. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
- ^ «The Germans Could no Longer Keep up the Fight». historycollection.co. 22 February 2017. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
- ^ K. Kuhl. «Die 14 Kieler Punkte» [The Kiel 14 points] (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 April 2019. Retrieved 23 November 2018.
- ^ Dähnhardt, D. (1978). Revolution in Kiel. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag. p. 91. ISBN 3-529-02636-0.
- ^ Wette, Wolfram (2006). «Die Novemberrevolution – Kiel 1918». In Fleischhauer; Turowski (eds.). Kieler Erinnerungsorte. Boyens.
- ^ Stevenson 2004, p. 385.
- ^ Stevenson 2004, Chapter 17.
- ^ a b «1918 Timeline». League of Nations Photo Archive. Archived from the original on 5 May 2016. Retrieved 20 November 2009.
- ^ «The Battle of Dobro Polje – The Forgotten Balkan Skirmish That Ended WW1». Militaryhistorynow.com. 21 September 2017. Archived from the original on 23 September 2017. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
- ^ «The Germans Could no Longer Keep up the Fight». historycollection.com. 22 February 2017. Archived from the original on 23 December 2019. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
- ^ Axelrod 2018, p. 260.
- ^ Andrea di Michele (2014). «Trento, Bolzano e Innsbruck: l’occupazione militare italiana del Tirolo (1918–1920)» [Trento, Bolzano and Innsbruck: The Italian Military Occupation of Tyrol (1918–1920)] (PDF). Trento e Trieste. Percorsi degli Italiani d’Austria dal ’48 all’annessione (in Italian): 436–437. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 October 2018.
La forza numerica del contingente italiano variò con il passare dei mesi e al suo culmine raggiunse i 20–22.000 uomini. [The numerical strength of the Italian contingent varied with the passing of months and at its peak reached 20–22,000 men.]
- ^ «Clairière de l’Armistice» (in French). Ville de Compiègne. Archived from the original on 27 August 2007.
- ^ a b Baker 2006.
- ^ Chickering 2004, pp. 185–188.
- ^ Hardach, Gerd (1977). The First World War, 1914–1918. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 153. ISBN 0-520-03060-5, using estimated made by Menderhausen, H. (1941). The Economics of War. New York: Prentice-Hall. p. 305. OCLC 774042.
- ^ «France’s oldest WWI veteran dies» Archived 28 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine, BBC News, 20 January 2008.
- ^ Hastedt, Glenn P. (2009). Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. Infobase Publishing. p. 483. ISBN 978-1-4381-0989-3.
- ^ Murrin, John; Johnson, Paul; McPherson, James; Gerstle, Gary; Fahs, Alice (2010). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People. Vol. II. Cengage Learning. p. 622. ISBN 978-0-495-90383-3.
- ^ «Harding Ends War; Signs Peace Decree at Senator’s Home. Thirty Persons Witness Momentous Act in Frelinghuysen Living Room at Raritan». The New York Times. 3 July 1921. Archived from the original on 4 December 2013. Retrieved 18 September 2017.
- ^ «No. 31773». The London Gazette. 10 February 1920. p. 1671.
- ^ «No. 31991». The London Gazette. 23 July 1920. pp. 7765–7766.
- ^ «No. 13627». The London Gazette. 27 August 1920. p. 1924.
- ^ «No. 32421». The London Gazette. 12 August 1921. pp. 6371–6372.
- ^ «No. 32964». The London Gazette. 12 August 1924. pp. 6030–6031.
- ^ «Dates on war memorials» (PDF). War Memorials Trust. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 January 2021. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
- ^ Ide, Tobias; Bruch, Carl; Carius, Alexander; Conca, Ken; Dabelko, Geoffrey D.; Matthew, Richard; Weinthal, Erika (2021). «The past and future(s) of environmental peacebuilding». International Affairs. 97: 1–16. doi:10.1093/ia/iiaa177. Archived from the original on 29 January 2021. Retrieved 31 March 2021.
- ^ Magliveras 1999, pp. 8–12.
- ^ Northedge 1986, pp. 35–36.
- ^ Morrow, John H. (2005). The Great War: An Imperial History. London: Routledge. p. 290. ISBN 978-0-415-20440-8.
- ^ Schulze, Hagen (1998). Germany: A New History. Harvard U.P. p. 204.
- ^ Ypersele, Laurence Van (2012). Horne, John (ed.). Mourning and Memory, 1919–45. A Companion to World War I. Wiley. p. 584.
- ^ «The Surrogate Hegemon in Polish Postcolonial Discourse Ewa Thompson, Rice University» (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 October 2013. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
- ^ «Open-Site:Hungary». Archived from the original on 3 January 2022. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
- ^ Frucht, p. 356.
- ^ Kocsis, Károly; Hodosi, Eszter Kocsisné (1998). Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin. p. 19. ISBN 978-963-7395-84-0.
- ^ Clark 1927.
- ^ «Appeals to Americans to Pray for Serbians» (PDF). The New York Times. 27 July 1918. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 September 2018. Retrieved 12 June 2018.
- ^ «Serbia Restored» (PDF). The New York Times. 5 November 1918. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 September 2018. Retrieved 12 June 2018.
- ^ Simpson, Matt (22 August 2009). «The Minor Powers During World War One – Serbia». firstworldwar.com. Archived from the original on 27 April 2010. Retrieved 27 May 2010.
- ^ Cas Mudde. Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europe Archived 15 May 2016 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ «‘ANZAC Day’ in London; King, Queen, and General Birdwood at Services in Abbey». The New York Times. 26 April 1916. Archived from the original on 15 July 2016. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
- ^ Australian War Memorial. «The ANZAC Day tradition». Australian War Memorial. Archived from the original on 1 May 2008. Retrieved 2 May 2008.
- ^ Canadian War Museum. «Vimy Ridge». Canadian War Museum. Archived from the original on 24 October 2008. Retrieved 22 October 2008.
- ^ «The War’s Impact on Canada». Canadian War Museum. Archived from the original on 24 October 2008. Retrieved 22 October 2008.
- ^ «Canada’s last WW1 vet gets his citizenship back». CBC News. 9 May 2008. Archived from the original on 11 May 2008.
- ^ Documenting Democracy Archived 20 May 2016 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 31 March 2012
- ^ «Balfour Declaration (United Kingdom 1917)». Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 19 December 2009. Retrieved 25 December 2009.
- ^ «Timeline of The Jewish Agency for Israel:1917–1919». The Jewish Agency for Israel. Archived from the original on 20 May 2013. Retrieved 29 August 2013.
- ^ Doughty 2005.
- ^ Hooker 1996.
- ^ Muller 2008.
- ^ Kaplan 1993.
- ^ Salibi 1993.
- ^ Evans 2005
- ^ «Pre-State Israel: Under Ottoman Rule (1517–1917)». Jewish Virtual Library. Archived from the original on 19 November 2007. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
- ^ Gelvin 2005
- ^ Isaac & Hosh 1992.
- ^ a b Sanhueza, Carlos (2011). «El debate sobre «el embrujamiento alemán» y el papel de la ciencia alemana hacia fines del siglo XIX en Chile» (PDF). Ideas viajeras y sus objetos. El intercambio científico entre Alemania y América austral. Madrid–Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana–Vervuert (in Spanish). pp. 29–40. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 January 2022. Retrieved 6 January 2019.
- ^ Penny, H. Glenn (2017). «Material Connections: German Schools, Things, and Soft Power in Argentina and Chile from the 1880s through the Interwar Period». Comparative Studies in Society and History. 59 (3): 519–549. doi:10.1017/S0010417517000159. S2CID 149372568.
- ^ Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Page 51
- ^ Volantini di guerra: la lingua romena in Italia nella propaganda del primo conflitto mondiale, Damian, 2012
- ^ Hovannisian 1967, pp. 1–39.
- ^ Kitchen 2000, p. 22.
- ^ Sévillia, Jean, Histoire Passionnée de la France, 2013, p.395
- ^ Howard 1993, p. 166.
- ^ Saadi 2009.
- ^ Patenaude, Bertrand M. (30 January 2007). «Food as a Weapon». Hoover Digest. Hoover Institution. Archived from the original on 19 July 2008. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
- ^ Ball 1996, pp. 16, 211.
- ^ «The Russians are coming (Russian influence in Harbin, Manchuria, China; economic relations)». The Economist (US). 14 January 1995. Archived from the original on 10 May 2007. (via Highbeam.com)
- ^ Souter 2000, p. 354.
- ^ Tschanz.
- ^ Conlon.
- ^ Taliaferro 1972, p. 65.
- ^ Spreeuwenberg 2018, pp. 2561–2567.
- ^ Knobler et al. 2005.
- ^ Ansart, Séverine; Pelat, Camille; Boelle, Pierre‐Yves; Carrat, Fabrice; Flahault, Antoine; Valleron, Alain‐Jacques (May 2009). «Mortality burden of the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic in Europe». Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. Wiley. 3 (3): 99–106. doi:10.1111/j.1750-2659.2009.00080.x. PMC 4634693. PMID 19453486.
- ^ K. von Economo.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 10 May 1917, 30: 581–585. Die Encephalitis lethargica. Leipzig and Vienna, Franz Deuticke, 1918.
- ^ Reid, A.H.; McCall, S.; Henry, J.M.; Taubenberger, J.K. (2001). «Experimenting on the Past: The Enigma of von Economo’s Encephalitis Lethargica». J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 60 (7): 663–670. doi:10.1093/jnen/60.7.663. PMID 11444794. S2CID 40754090.
- ^ «Pogroms». Encyclopaedia Judaica. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- ^ «Jewish Modern and Contemporary Periods (ca. 1700–1917)». Jewish Virtual Library. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- ^ «The Diaspora Welcomes the Pope» Archived 4 June 2012 at the Wayback Machine, Der Spiegel Online. 28 November 2006.
- ^ Rummel, R.J. (1998). «The Holocaust in Comparative and Historical Perspective». Idea Journal of Social Issues. 3 (2).
- ^ Hedges, Chris (17 September 2000). «A Few Words in Greek Tell of a Homeland Lost». The New York Times. Archived from the original on 25 November 2018. Retrieved 23 February 2017.
- ^ Hartcup 1988, p. 154.
- ^ Hartcup 1988, pp. 82–86.
- ^ Sterling, Christopher H. (2008). Military Communications: From Ancient Times to the 21st Century. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-85109-732-6 p. 444.
- ^ Mosier 2001, pp. 42–48.
- ^ Jager, Herbert (2001). German Artillery of World War One. Crowood Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-1-86126-403-9.
- ^ Hartcup 1988.
- ^ Raudzens 1990, p. 421.
- ^ a b Wilfred Owen: poems, 1917, (Faber and Faber, 2004)
- ^ Raudzens 1990.
- ^ Heller 1984.
- ^ Postwar pulp novels on future «gas wars» included Reginald Glossop’s 1932 novel Ghastly Dew and Neil Bell’s 1931 novel The Gas War of 1940.
- ^ «Heavy Railroad Artillery» on YouTube
- ^ Lawrence Sondhaus, The Great War at Sea: A Naval History of the First World War (2014).
- ^ Lawson, Eric; Lawson, Jane (2002). The First Air Campaign: August 1914– November 1918. Da Capo Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-306-81213-2.
- ^ a b Cross 1991
- ^ Cross 1991, pp. 56–57.
- ^ Winter 1983.
- ^ a b Johnson 2001
- ^ Horne & Kramer 2001, ch 1–2, esp. p. 76.
- ^ The claim of franc-tireurs in Belgium has been rejected: Horne & Kramer 2001, ch 3–4
- ^ Horne & Kramer 2001, ch 5–8.
- ^ Keegan 1998, pp. 82–83.
- ^ Honzík, Miroslav; Honzíková, Hana (1984). 1914/1918, Léta zkázy a naděje. Czech Republic: Panorama.
- ^ a b c Deutsche Welle. «Austrougarski zločini u Srbiji | DW | 12 October 2014». DW.COM (in Serbian). Archived from the original on 14 December 2021. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
- ^ «A History of the First World War in 100 Moments: Austro-Hungarian army». The Independent. 7 April 2014. Archived from the original on 17 February 2018. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
- ^ Halpern, Paul G. (1994). A Naval History of World War I. Routledge, p. 301; ISBN 1-85728-498-4
- ^ Hadley, Michael L. (1995). Count Not the Dead: The Popular Image of the German Submarine. McGill-Queen’s Press – MQUP, p. 36; ISBN 0-7735-1282-9.
- ^ Davies, J.D. (2013). Britannia’s Dragon: A Naval History of Wales. History Press Limited. p. 158. ISBN 978-0-7524-9410-4.
- ^ «The blockade of Germany». nationalarchives.gov.uk. The National Archives. Archived from the original on 22 July 2004. Retrieved 11 November 2018.
- ^ Raico, Ralph (26 April 2010). «The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany». Mises Institute. Archived from the original on 24 March 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2018.
- ^ Grebler, Leo (1940). The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria–Hungary. Yale University Press. p. 78
- ^ Cox, Mary Elisabeth (21 September 2014). «Hunger games: or how the Allied blockade in the First World War deprived German children of nutrition, and Allied food aid subsequently saved them. Abstract». The Economic History Review. 68 (2): 600–631. doi:10.1111/ehr.12070. ISSN 0013-0117. S2CID 142354720.
- ^ Marks 2013.
- ^ Devlin, Patrick (1975). Too Proud to Fight: Woodrow Wilson’s Neutrality. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 193–195. ISBN 978-0-19-215807-9.
- ^ a b c d Fitzgerald, Gerard (April 2008). «Chemical Warfare and Medical Response During World War I». American Journal of Public Health. 98 (4): 611–625. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.11930. PMC 2376985. PMID 18356568.
- ^ Schneider, Barry R. (28 February 1999). Future War and Counterproliferation: US Military Responses to NBC. Praeger. p. 84. ISBN 0-275-96278-4.
- ^ Taylor, Telford (1993). The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir. Little, Brown and Company. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-316-83400-1. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Graham, Thomas; Lavera, Damien J. (2003). Cornerstones of Security: Arms Control Treaties in the Nuclear Era. University of Washington Press. pp. 7–9. ISBN 978-0-295-98296-0. Retrieved 5 July 2013.
- ^ Haber, L.F. (20 February 1986). The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War. Clarendon Press. pp. 106–108. ISBN 978-0-19-858142-0.
- ^ Vilensky, Joel A. (20 February 1986). Dew of Death: The Story of Lewisite, America’s World War I Weapon of Mass destruction. Indiana University Press. pp. 78–80. ISBN 978-0-253-34612-4.
- ^ Ellison, D. Hank (24 August 2007). Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents (2nd ed.). CRC Press. pp. 567–570. ISBN 978-0-8493-1434-6.
- ^ Boot, Max (2007). War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World. Gotham. pp. 245–250. ISBN 978-1-59240-315-8.
- ^ Johnson, Jeffrey Allan (2017). «Military-Industrial Interactions in the Development of Chemical Warfare, 1914–1918: Comparing National Cases Within the Technological System of the Great War». In Friedrich, Bretislav; Hoffmann, Dieter; Renn, Jürgen; Schmaltz, Florian; Wolf, Martin (eds.). One Hundred Years of Chemical Warfare: Research, Deployment, Consequences. Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 147–148. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51664-6. ISBN 978-3-319-51664-6. Archived from the original on 17 February 2022. Retrieved 6 June 2020.
- ^ Henry Morgenthau (1918). «XXV: Talaat Tells Why He «Deports» the Armenians». Ambassador Mogenthau’s story. Brigham Young University. Archived from the original on 12 June 2012. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- ^ a b International Association of Genocide Scholars (13 June 2005). «Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan». Archived from the original on 6 October 2007.
- ^ Vartparonian, Paul Leverkuehn; Kaiser (2008). A German officer during the Armenian genocide: a biography of Max von Scheubner-Richter. translated by Alasdair Lean; with a preface by Jorge and a historical introduction by Hilmar. London: Taderon Press for the Gomidas Institute. ISBN 978-1-903656-81-5. Archived from the original on 26 March 2017. Retrieved 14 May 2016.
- ^ Ferguson 2006, p. 177.
- ^ «International Association of Genocide Scholars» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
- ^ Fromkin 1989, pp. 212–215.
- ^ International Association of Genocide Scholars. «Resolution on genocides committed by the Ottoman empire» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 April 2008.
- ^ Gaunt, David (2006). Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Schaller, Dominik J.; Zimmerer, Jürgen (2008). «Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies – introduction». Journal of Genocide Research. 10 (1): 7–14. doi:10.1080/14623520801950820. S2CID 71515470.
- ^ Whitehorn, Alan (2015). The Armenian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide: The Essential Reference Guide. ABC-CLIO. pp. 83, 218. ISBN 978-1-61069-688-3. Archived from the original on 1 August 2020. Retrieved 11 November 2018.
- ^ «Pogroms». Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jewish Virtual Library. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- ^ Mawdsley 2007, p. 287.
- ^ «Search Results (+(war:»worldwari»)): Veterans History Project». American Folklife Center, Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 11 July 2017. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
- ^ Phillimore & Bellot 1919, pp. 4–64.
- ^ Ferguson 1999, pp. 368–369.
- ^ Blair 2005.
- ^ Cook 2006, pp. 637–665.
- ^ «Максим Оськин – Неизвестные трагедии Первой мировой Пленные Дезертиры Беженцы – стр 24 – Читаем онлайн». Profismart.ru. Archived from the original on 17 April 2013. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
- ^ Speed 1990.
- ^ Ferguson 1999, Chapter 13.
- ^ Morton 1992.
- ^ Bass 2002, p. 107.
- ^ «The Mesopotamia campaign». British National Archives. Archived from the original on 29 October 2021. Retrieved 10 March 2007.
- ^ «Prisoners of Turkey: Men of Kut Driven along like beasts«. Stolen Years: Australian Prisoners of War. Australian War Memorial. Archived from the original on 8 January 2009. Retrieved 10 December 2008.
- ^ «ICRC in WWI: overview of activities». Icrc.org. Archived from the original on 19 July 2010. Retrieved 15 June 2010.
- ^ «Germany: Notes». Time. 1 September 1924. Archived from the original on 13 November 2007. Retrieved 15 June 2010.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 1189.
- ^ a b Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 1001
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 117.
- ^ Mukhtar, Mohammed (2003). Historical Dictionary of Somalia. Scarecrow Press. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-8108-6604-1. Archived from the original on 13 April 2021. Retrieved 28 February 2017.
- ^ «How Ethiopian prince scuppered Germany’s WW1 plans». BBC News. 25 September 2016. Archived from the original on 13 April 2020. Retrieved 28 February 2017.
- ^ Ficquet, Éloi (2014). The Life and Times of Lïj Iyasu of Ethiopia: New Insights. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 185. ISBN 978-3-643-90476-8. Archived from the original on 13 April 2021. Retrieved 22 November 2020.
- ^ Zewde, Bahru. A history. p. 126.
- ^ Ficquet, Éloi (2014). The Life and Times of Lïj Iyasu of Ethiopia: New Insights. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 62. ISBN 978-3-643-90476-8. Archived from the original on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 22 November 2020.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 1069.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 884.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 335.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 219.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 209.
- ^ a b Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 596
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 826.
- ^ Denis Mack Smith. 1997. Modern Italy: A Political History. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. p. 284.
- ^ «NO IMMEDIATE NEED. TE AWAMUTU COURIER». paperspast.natlib.govt.nz. 22 September 1939. Retrieved 16 June 2022.
- ^ «CHAPTER 4 — Response from the Home Front». nzetc.victoria.ac.nz. 1986. Retrieved 16 June 2022.
- ^ «5.2: Provincial patriotic councils». Office of the Auditor-General New Zealand. 2005. Retrieved 16 June 2022.
- ^ Aubert, Roger (1981). «Chapter 37: The Outbreak of World War I». In Hubert Jedin; John Dolan (eds.). History of the Church. The Church in the industrial age. Vol. 9. Translated by Resch, Margit. London: Burns & Oates. p. 521. ISBN 978-0-86012-091-9.
- ^ «Who’s Who – Pope Benedict XV». firstworldwar.com. 22 August 2009. Archived from the original on 8 November 2011. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- ^ «Merely For the Record»: The Memoirs of Donald Christopher Smith 1894–1980. By Donald Christopher Smith. Edited by John William Cox, Jr. Bermuda.
- ^ Karp 1979
- ^ Pennell, Catriona (2012). A Kingdom United: Popular Responses to the Outbreak of the First World War in Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-959058-2.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 584.
- ^ O’Halpin, Eunan, The Decline of the Union: British Government in Ireland, 1892–1920, (Dublin, 1987)
- ^ Lehmann & van der Veer 1999, p. 62.
- ^ Brock, Peter, These Strange Criminals: An Anthology of Prison Memoirs by Conscientious Objectors to Military Service from the Great War to the Cold War, p. 14, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8020-8707-8
- ^ «Winchester Whisperer: The secret newspaper made by jailed pacifists». BBC News. 24 February 2014. Archived from the original on 7 February 2022. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
- ^ «Soviet Union – Uzbeks». Country-data.com. Archived from the original on 20 January 2013. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
- ^ Richard Pipes (1990). The Russian Revolution. Knopf Doubleday. p. 407. ISBN 978-0-307-78857-3. Archived from the original on 1 August 2020. Retrieved 30 July 2019.
- ^ a b Seton-Watson, Christopher. 1967. Italy from Liberalism to Fascism: 1870 to 1925. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. p. 471
- ^ Cockfield 1997, pp. 171–237.
- ^ Sowers, Steven W. «Legacy of 1917 and 1918». Michigan State University. Archived from the original on 15 March 2019. Retrieved 30 July 2019.
- ^ Ward, Alan J. (1974). «Lloyd George and the 1918 Irish conscription crisis». Historical Journal. 17 (1): 107–129. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00005689. S2CID 162360809.
- ^ «The Conscription Crisis». CBC. 2001. Archived from the original on 13 July 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
- ^ a b «Commonwealth Parliament from 1901 to World War I». Parliament of Australia. 4 May 2015. Archived from the original on 15 December 2018. Retrieved 15 December 2018.
- ^ J.M. Main, Conscription: the Australian debate, 1901–1970 (1970) abstract Archived 7 July 2015 at archive.today
- ^ Havighurst 1985, p. 131.
- ^ Chelmsford, J.E. «Clergy and Man-Power», The Times 15 April 1918, p. 12
- ^ Chambers, John Whiteclay (1987). To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America. New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0-02-905820-1.
- ^ Zinn, Howard (2003). A People’s History of the United States. Harper Collins. p. 134.[edition needed]
- ^ Hastings, Max (2013). Catastrophe: Europe goes to War 1914. London: Collins. pp. 30, 140. ISBN 978-0-00-746764-8.
- ^ Stevenson 1988, p. [page needed].
- ^ Zeman, Z. A. B. (1971). Diplomatic History of the First World War. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-00300-3.
- ^ See Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1921). Scott, James Brown (ed.). Official Statements of War Aims and Peace Proposals: December 1916 to November 1918. Washington, D.C., The Endowment.
- ^ a b c Neiberg, Michael (2007). The World War I Reader. p. 1.
- ^ «The intro the outbreak of the First World War». Cambridge Blog. 2014. Retrieved 17 November 2022.
- ^ Jones, Heather (2013). «As the centenary approaches: the regeneration of First World War historiography». Historical Journal. 56 (3): 857–878 [p. 858]. doi:10.1017/S0018246X13000216.
- ^ see Christoph Cornelissen, and Arndt Weinrich, eds. Writing the Great War – The Historiography of World War I from 1918 to the Present (2020) free download Archived 29 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine; full coverage for major countries.
- ^ «John McCrae». Nature. Historica. 100 (2521): 487–488. 1918. Bibcode:1918Natur.100..487.. doi:10.1038/100487b0. S2CID 4275807.
- ^ David, Evans (1918). «John McCrae». Nature. 100 (2521): 487–488. Bibcode:1918Natur.100..487.. doi:10.1038/100487b0. S2CID 4275807. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
- ^ «Monumental Undertaking». kclibrary.org. 21 September 2015. Archived from the original on 29 May 2015. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
- ^ «Commemoration website». 1914.org. Archived from the original on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 28 February 2014.
- ^ «French, German Presidents Mark World War I Anniversary». France News.Net. Archived from the original on 3 April 2017. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
- ^ «Armistice Day: Macron and Merkel mark end of World War One». BBC News. 10 November 2018. Archived from the original on 10 December 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2021.
- ^ Sheftall, Mark David (2010). Altered Memories of the Great War: Divergent Narratives of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. London: I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-84511-883-9.
- ^ a b c Hynes, Samuel Lynn (1991). A war imagined: the First World War and English culture. Atheneum. pp. i–xii. ISBN 978-0-689-12128-9.
- ^ a b c Todman 2005, pp. 153–221.
- ^ Fussell, Paul (2000). The Great War and modern memory. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–78. ISBN 978-0-19-513332-5. Retrieved 18 May 2010.
- ^ a b Todman 2005, pp. xi–xv.
- ^ Roden.
- ^ Wohl 1979.
- ^ Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp. 108–1086.
- ^ Cole, Laurence (2012). «Geteiltes Land und getrennte Erzählungen. Erinnerungskulturen des Ersten Weltkrieges in den Nachfolgeregionen des Kronlandes Tirol». In Obermair, Hannes (ed.). Regionale Zivilgesellschaft in Bewegung – Cittadini innanzi tutto. Festschrift für Hans Heiss. Vienna-Bozen: Folio Verlag. pp. 502–31. ISBN 978-3-85256-618-4. OCLC 913003568.
- ^ Kitchen, Martin. «The Ending of World War One, and the Legacy of Peace». BBC. Archived from the original on 18 July 2008. Retrieved 11 March 2008.
- ^ «World War II». Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 4 July 2008. Retrieved 12 November 2009.
- ^ Chickering 2004.
- ^ Rubinstein, W.D. (2004). Genocide: a history. Pearson Education. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-582-50601-5.
- ^ Cosgrave, Jenny (10 March 2015). «UK finally finishes paying for World War I». CNBC. Retrieved 20 March 2023.
- ^ Noakes, Lucy (2006). Women in the British Army: War and the Gentle Sex, 1907–1948. Abingdon, England: Routledge. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-415-39056-9.
- ^ Green 1938, p. cxxvi.
- ^ Anton Kaes; Martin Jay; Edward Dimendberg, eds. (1994). «The Treaty of Versailles: The Reparations Clauses». The Weimar Republic Sourcebook. University of California Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-520-90960-1. Archived from the original on 15 January 2016. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
- ^ Marks 1978, pp. 231–232
- ^ a b Marks 1978, p. 237
- ^ Marks 1978, pp. 223–234
- ^ Stone, Norman (2008). World War One: A Short History. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-103156-9.
- ^ Marks 1978, p. 233
- ^ Hall, Allan (28 September 2010). «First World War officially ends». The Telegraph. Berlin. Archived from the original on 10 January 2022. Retrieved 15 March 2017.
- ^ Suddath, Claire (4 October 2010). «Why Did World War I Just End?». Time. Archived from the original on 5 October 2010. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
- ^ «World War I to finally end for Germany this weekend». CNN. 30 September 2010. Archived from the original on 16 March 2017. Retrieved 15 March 2017.
- ^ MacMillan, Margaret (25 December 2010). «Ending the War to End All Wars». The New York Times. Archived from the original on 16 March 2017. Retrieved 15 March 2017.
- ^ a b «From Wristwatches To Radio, How World War I Ushered in the Modern World». NPR. Archived from the original on 30 April 2018. Retrieved 5 April 2018.
Bibliography
Sources
- Axelrod, Alan (2018). How America Won World War I. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4930-3192-4.
- Ayers, Leonard Porter (1919). The War with Germany: A Statistical Summary. Government Printing Office.
- Bade, Klaus J.; Brown, Allison (tr.) (2003). Migration in European History. The making of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-18939-8. OCLC 52695573. (translated from the German)
- Baker, Kevin (June 2006). «Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth». Harper’s Magazine.
- Ball, Alan M. (1996). And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918–1930. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-20694-6., reviewed in Hegarty, Thomas J. (March–June 1998). «And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918–1930». Canadian Slavonic Papers. Archived from the original on 9 May 2013. (via Highbeam.com)
- Barrett, Michael B (2013). Prelude to Blitzkrieg: The 1916 Austro-German Campaign in Romania. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0253008657.
- Barry, J.M. (2004). The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Greatest Plague in History. Viking Penguin. ISBN 978-0-670-89473-4.
- Bass, Gary Jonathan (2002). Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 424. ISBN 978-0-691-09278-2. OCLC 248021790.
- Beckett, Ian (2007). The Great War. Longman. ISBN 978-1-4058-1252-8.
- Béla, Köpeczi (1998). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 978-84-8371-020-3.
- Blair, Dale (2005). No Quarter: Unlawful Killing and Surrender in the Australian War Experience, 1915–1918. Charnwood, Australia: Ginninderra Press. ISBN 978-1-74027-291-9. OCLC 62514621.
- Brands, Henry William (1997). T.R.: The Last Romantic. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-06958-3. OCLC 36954615.
- Braybon, Gail (2004). Evidence, History, and the Great War: Historians and the Impact of 1914–18. Berghahn Books. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-57181-801-0.
- Brown, Judith M. (1994). Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-873113-9.
- Brown, Malcolm (1998). 1918: Year of Victory (1999 ed.). Pan. ISBN 978-0-330-37672-3.
- Butcher, Tim (2014). The Trigger: Hunting the Assassin Who Brought the World to War (2015 ed.). Vintage. ISBN 978-0-09-958133-8.
- Cazacu, Gheorghe (2013). «Voluntarii români ardeleni din Rusia în timpul Primului Război Mondial [Transylvanian Romanian volunteers in Russia during the First World War]». Astra Salvensis (in Romanian) (1): 89–115.
- Chickering, Rodger (2004). Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83908-2. OCLC 55523473.
- Christie, Norm M (1997). The Canadians at Cambrai and the Canal du Nord, August–September 1918. CEF Books. ISBN 978-1-896979-18-2.
- Clayton, Anthony (2003). Paths of Glory; the French Army 1914–1918. Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-35949-3.
- Clark, Charles Upson (1927). Bessarabia, Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea. New York: Dodd, Mead. OCLC 150789848. Archived from the original on 8 October 2019. Retrieved 6 November 2008.
- Clark, Christopher (2013). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-219922-5.
- Cockfield, Jamie H. (1997). With snow on their boots: The tragic odyssey of the Russian Expeditionary Force in France during World War I. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-22082-2.
- Coffman, Edward M. (1969). The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I (1998 ed.). OUP. ISBN 978-0-19-631724-3.
- Conlon, Joseph M. The historical impact of epidemic typhus (PDF). Montana State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 June 2010. Retrieved 21 April 2009.
- Coogan, Tim (2009). Ireland in the 20th Century. Random House. ISBN 978-0-09-941522-0.
- Cook, Tim (2006). «The politics of surrender: Canadian soldiers and the killing of prisoners in the First World War». The Journal of Military History. 70 (3): 637–665. doi:10.1353/jmh.2006.0158. S2CID 155051361.
- Cooper, John Milton (2009). Woodrow Wilson: A Biography. Alfred Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-26541-8.
- Crampton, R. J. (1994). Eastern Europe in the twentieth century. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-05346-4.
- Crisp, Olga (1976). Studies in the Russian Economy before 1914. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-16907-0.
- Cross, Wilbur L. (1991). Zeppelins of World War I. New York: Paragon Press. ISBN 978-1-55778-382-0. OCLC 22860189.
- Crowe, David (2001). The Essentials of European History: 1914 to 1935, World War I and Europe in crisis. Research and Education Association. ISBN 978-0-87891-710-5.
- DiNardo, Richard (2015). Invasion: The Conquest of Serbia, 1915. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger. ISBN 978-1-4408-0092-4.
- Damian, Stefan (2012). «Volantini di guerra: la lingua romena in Italia nella propaganda del primo conflitto mondiale [War leaflets: the Romanian language in Italy in WWI propaganda]». Orrizonti Culturali Italo-Romeni (in Italian). 1.
- Djokić, Dejan (2003). Yugoslavism: histories of a failed idea, 1918–1992. London: Hurst. OCLC 51093251.
- Donko, Wilhelm (2012). A Brief History of the Austrian Navy. epubli GmbH. ISBN 978-3-8442-2129-9.
- Doughty, Robert A. (2005). Pyrrhic victory: French strategy and operations in the Great War. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01880-8.
- Dumitru, Laurentiu-Cristian (2012). «Preliminaries of Romania’s entering the World War I». Bulletin of «Carol I» National Defence University, Bucharest. 1. Archived from the original on 19 March 2022. Retrieved 14 March 2022.
- Dupuy, R. Ernest and Trevor N. (1993). The Harper’s Encyclopedia of Military History (4th ed.). Harper Collins Publishers. ISBN 978-0-06-270056-8.
- Erickson, Edward J. (2001). Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Contributions in Military Studies. Vol. 201. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-31516-9. OCLC 43481698.
- Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke [Population loss in the 20th century] (in Russian). Spravochnik.
- Evans, Leslie (2005). Future of Iraq, Israel-Palestine Conflict, and Central Asia Weighed at International Conference. UCLA International Institute. Archived from the original on 24 May 2008. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
- Falls, Cyril Bentham (1960). The First World War. London: Longmans. ISBN 978-1-84342-272-3. OCLC 460327352.
- Falls, Cyril Bentham (1961). The Great War. New York: Capricorn Books. OCLC 1088102671.
- Farwell, Byron (1989). The Great War in Africa, 1914–1918. W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-30564-7.
- Fay, Sidney B (1930). The Origins of the World War; Volume I (2nd ed.).
- Ferguson, Niall (1999). The Pity of War. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-05711-5. OCLC 41124439.
- Ferguson, Niall (2006). The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-100-4.
- Finestone, Jeffrey; Massie, Robert K. (1981). The last courts of Europe. JM Dent & Sons. ISBN 978-0-460-04519-3.
- Fornassin, Alessio (2017). «The Italian Army’s Losses in the First World War». Population. 72 (1): 39–62. doi:10.3917/popu.1701.0039.
- Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 978-0-8050-0857-9.
- Fromkin, David (2004). Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-375-41156-4. OCLC 53937943.
- Gardner, Hall (2015). The Failure to Prevent World War I: The Unexpected Armageddon. Routledge. ISBN 978-1472430564.
- Gelvin, James L. (2005). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85289-0. OCLC 59879560.
- Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle: A Visual Journey Through 5,000 Years of Combat. DK Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7566-5578-5.
- Gray, Randal; Argyle, Christopher (1990). Chronicle of the First World War. New York: Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-2595-4. OCLC 19398100.
- Gilbert, Martin (1994). First World War. Stoddart Publishing. ISBN 978-077372848-6.
- Goodspeed, Donald James (1985). The German Wars 1914–1945. New York: Random House; Bonanza. ISBN 978-0-517-46790-9.
- Gray, Randal (1991). Kaiserschlacht 1918: the final German offensive. Osprey. ISBN 978-1-85532-157-1.
- Green, John Frederick Norman (1938). «Obituary: Albert Ernest Kitson». Geological Society Quarterly Journal. 94.
- Grotelueschen, Mark Ethan (2006). The AEF Way of War: The American Army and Combat in World War I. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86434-3.
- Halpern, Paul G. (1995). A Naval History of World War I. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-85728-498-0. OCLC 60281302.
- Hardach, Gerd (1977). The First World War, 1914–1918. Allne Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-1024-7.
- Harris, J.P. (2008). Douglas Haig and the First World War (2009 ed.). CUP. ISBN 978-0-521-89802-7.
- Hartcup, Guy (1988). The War of Invention; Scientific Developments, 1914–18. Brassey’s Defence Publishers. ISBN 978-0-08-033591-9.
- Havighurst, Alfred F. (1985). Britain in transition: the twentieth century (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-31971-1.
- Heller, Charles E. (1984). Chemical warfare in World War I: the American experience, 1917–1918. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Combat Studies Institute. OCLC 123244486. Archived from the original on 4 July 2007.
- Herwig, Holger (1988). «The Failure of German Sea Power, 1914–1945: Mahan, Tirpitz, and Raeder Reconsidered». The International History Review. 10 (1): 68–105. doi:10.1080/07075332.1988.9640469. JSTOR 40107090.
- Heyman, Neil M. (1997). World War I. Guides to historic events of the twentieth century. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-29880-6. OCLC 36292837.
- Hickey, Michael (2003). The Mediterranean Front 1914–1923. The First World War. Vol. 4. New York: Routledge. pp. 60–65. ISBN 978-0-415-96844-7. OCLC 52375688.
- Hinterhoff, Eugene (1984). «The Campaign in Armenia». In Young, Peter (ed.). Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War I. Vol. ii. New York: Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 978-0-86307-181-2.
- Holmes, T.M. (April 2014). «Absolute Numbers: The Schlieffen Plan as a Critique of German Strategy in 1914». War in History. XXI (2): 194, 211. ISSN 1477-0385.
- Hooker, Richard (1996). The Ottomans. Washington State University. Archived from the original on 8 October 1999.
- Horne, Alistair (1964). The Price of Glory (1993 ed.). Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-017041-2.
- Horne, John; Kramer, Alan (2001). German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial. Yale University Press. OCLC 47181922.
- Hovannisian, Richard G. (1967). Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-00574-7.
- Howard, N.P. (1993). «The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade of Germany, 1918–19». German History. 11 (2): 161–188. doi:10.1093/gh/11.2.161.
- Hull, Isabel Virginia (2006). Absolute destruction: military culture and the practices of war in Imperial Germany. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-7293-0.
- Humphries, Mark Osborne (2007). ««Old Wine in New Bottles»: A Comparison of British and Canadian Preparations for the Battle of Arras». In Hayes, Geoffrey; Iarocci, Andrew; Bechthold, Mike (eds.). Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. ISBN 978-0-88920-508-6.
- Inglis, David (1995). Vimy Ridge: 1917–1992, A Canadian Myth over Seventy Five Years (PDF). Burnaby: Simon Fraser University. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 September 2018. Retrieved 23 July 2013.
- Isaac, Jad; Hosh, Leonardo (7–9 May 1992). Roots of the Water Conflict in the Middle East. University of Waterloo. Archived from the original on 28 September 2006.
- Jackson, Julian (2018). A Certain Idea of France: The Life of Charles de Gaulle. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-1-84614-351-9.
- Jelavich, Barbara (1992). «Romania in the First World War: The Pre-War Crisis, 1912-1914». The International History Review. 14 (3): 441–451. doi:10.1080/07075332.1992.9640619. JSTOR 40106597.
- Johnson, James Edgar (2001). Full Circle: The Story of Air Fighting. London: Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-35860-1. OCLC 45991828.
- Jones, Howard (2001). Crucible of Power: A History of US Foreign Relations Since 1897. Scholarly Resources Books. ISBN 978-0-8420-2918-6. OCLC 46640675.
- Kaplan, Robert D. (February 1993). «Syria: Identity Crisis». The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 December 2018. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
- Karp, Walter (1979). The Politics of War (1st ed.). ISBN 978-0-06-012265-2. OCLC 4593327.
- Keegan, John (1998). The First World War. Hutchinson. ISBN 978-0-09-180178-6.
- Keenan, George (1986). The Fateful Alliance: France, Russia and the Coming of the First World War. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-1707-0.
- Keene, Jennifer D (2006). World War I. Daily Life Through History Series. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-313-33181-7. OCLC 70883191.
- Kernek, Sterling (December 1970). «The British Government’s Reactions to President Wilson’s ‘Peace’ Note of December 1916». The Historical Journal. 13 (4): 721–766. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00009481. JSTOR 2637713. S2CID 159979098.
- Kitchen, Martin (2000) [1980]. Europe Between the Wars. New York: Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-41869-1. OCLC 247285240.
- Knobler, S. L.; Mack, A.; Mahmoud, A.; Lemon, S. M., eds. (2005). The Threat of Pandemic Influenza: Are We Ready? Workshop Summary. Contributors: Institute of Medicine; Board on Global Health; Forum on Microbial Threats. Washington DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/11150. ISBN 978-0-309-09504-4. OCLC 57422232. PMID 20669448.
- Kurlander, Eric (2006). Steffen Bruendel. Volksgemeinschaft oder Volksstaat: Die «Ideen von 1914» und die Neuordnung Deutschlands im Ersten Weltkrieg. H-net. Archived from the original (Book review) on 10 June 2007. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- Lehmann, Hartmut; van der Veer, Peter, eds. (1999). Nation and religion: perspectives on Europe and Asia. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01232-2. OCLC 39727826.
- Lieven, Dominic (2016). Towards the Flame: Empire, War and the End of Tsarist Russia. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-139974-4.
- Love, Dave (May 1996). «The Second Battle of Ypres, April 1915». Sabretache. 26 (4). Archived from the original on 16 September 2018. Retrieved 20 November 2009.
- Ludendorff, Erich (1919). My War Memories, 1914–1918. OCLC 60104290. also published by Harper as «Ludendorff’s Own Story, August 1914 – November 1918: The Great War from the Siege of Liège to the Signing of the Armistice as Viewed from the Grand Headquarters of the German Army» OCLC 561160 (original title Meine Kriegserinnerungen, 1914–1918)
- MacMillan, Margaret (2013). The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914. Profile Books. ISBN 978-0-8129-9470-4.
- MacMillan, Margaret (2001). Peacemakers; Six Months that Changed The World: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War (2019 ed.). John Murray. ISBN 978-1-5293-2526-3.
- Magliveras, Konstantinos D. (1999). Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations: The Law and Practice behind Member States’ Expulsion and Suspension of Membership. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-411-1239-2.
- Marble, Sanders (2018). King of Battle: Artillery in World War I. Brill. ISBN 978-9004305243.
- Marks, Sally (1978). «The Myths of Reparations». Central European History. 11 (3): 231–255. doi:10.1017/S0008938900018707. S2CID 144072556.
- Marks, Sally (September 2013). «Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany, and the Versailles Treaty, 1918–1921». The Journal of Modern History. 85 (3): 650–651. doi:10.1086/670825. S2CID 154166326.
- Martel, Gordon (2003). The Origins of the First World War (2016 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-92865-7.
- Martel, Gordon (2014). The Month that Changed the World: July 1914. OUP. ISBN 978-0-19-966538-9.
- Marshall, S. L. A.; Josephy, Alvin M. (1982). The American heritage history of World War I. American Heritage Pub. Co. : Bonanza Books : Distributed by Crown Publishers. ISBN 978-0-517-38555-5. OCLC 1028047398.
- Mawdsley, Evan (2007). The Russian Civil War. New York: Pegasus Books. ISBN 978-1-68177-009-3.
- McLellan, Edwin N. The United States Marine Corps in the World War. Archived from the original on 16 September 2018. Retrieved 26 October 2009.
- McMeekin, Sean (2014). July 1914: Countdown to War. Icon Books. ISBN 978-1-84831-657-7.
- McMeekin, Sean (2015). The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908–1923 (2016 ed.). Penguin. ISBN 978-0-7181-9971-5.
- Medlicott, W.N. (1945). «Bismarck and the Three Emperors’ Alliance, 1881–87». Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 27: 61–83. doi:10.2307/3678575. JSTOR 3678575. S2CID 154285570.
- Meyer, Gerald J (2006). A World Undone: The Story of the Great War 1914 to 1918. Random House. ISBN 978-0-553-80354-9.
- Millett, Allan Reed; Murray, Williamson (1988). Military Effectiveness. Boston: Allen Unwin. ISBN 978-0-04-445053-5. OCLC 220072268.
- Mitrasca, Marcel (2007). Moldova: A Romanian Province Under Russian Rule: Diplomatic History from the Archives of the Great Powers. Algora Publishing. ISBN 978-0875861845.
- Moll, Kendall D; Luebbert, Gregory M (1980). «Arms Race and Military Expenditure Models: A Review». The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 24 (1): 153–185. doi:10.1177/002200278002400107. JSTOR 173938. S2CID 155405415.
- Morton, Desmond (1992). Silent Battle: Canadian Prisoners of War in Germany, 1914–1919. Toronto: Lester Publishing. ISBN 978-1-895555-17-2. OCLC 29565680.
- Mosier, John (2001). «Germany and the Development of Combined Arms Tactics». Myth of the Great War: How the Germans Won the Battles and How the Americans Saved the Allies. New York: Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0-06-019676-9.
- Muller, Jerry Z. (March–April 2008). «Us and Them – The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism». Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on 23 June 2015. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
- Neiberg, Michael S. (2005). Fighting the Great War: A Global History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01696-5. OCLC 56592292.
- Nicholson, Gerald W.L. (1962). Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914–1919: Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War (1st ed.). Ottawa: Queens Printer and Controller of Stationery. OCLC 2317262. Archived from the original on 16 May 2007.
- Noakes, Lucy (2006). Women in the British Army: War and the Gentle Sex, 1907–1948. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-39056-9.
- Northedge, F.S. (1986). The League of Nations: Its Life and Times, 1920–1946. New York: Holmes & Meier. ISBN 978-0-7185-1316-0.
- Painter, David S. (2012). «Oil and the American Century». The Journal of American History. 99 (1): 24–39. doi:10.1093/jahist/jas073.
- Părean, Ioan, Lt Colonel (2002). «Soldați ai României Mari. Din prizonieratul rusesc în Corpul Voluntarilor transilvăneni și bucovineni [Soldiers of Greater Romania; from Russian captivity to the Transylvanian and Bucovina Volunteer Corps]» (PDF). Romanian Army Academy Journal (in Romanian). 3–4 (27–28): 1–5.
- Phillimore, George Grenville; Bellot, Hugh H.L. (1919). «Treatment of Prisoners of War». Transactions of the Grotius Society. 5: 47–64. OCLC 43267276.
- Pitt, Barrie (2003). 1918: The Last Act. Barnsley: Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-0-85052-974-6. OCLC 56468232.
- Porras-Gallo, M.; Davis, R.A., eds. (2014). «The Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918–1919: Perspectives from the Iberian Peninsula and the Americas». Rochester Studies in Medical History. Vol. 30. University of Rochester Press. ISBN 978-1-58046-496-3. Archived from the original on 22 January 2021. Retrieved 9 November 2020 – via Google Books.
- Price, Alfred (1980). Aircraft versus Submarine: the Evolution of the Anti-submarine Aircraft, 1912 to 1980. London: Jane’s Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7106-0008-0. OCLC 10324173. Deals with technical developments, including the first dipping hydrophones
- Raudzens, George (October 1990). «War-Winning Weapons: The Measurement of Technological Determinism in Military History». The Journal of Military History. 54 (4): 403–434. doi:10.2307/1986064. JSTOR 1986064.
- Rickard, J. (5 March 2001). «Erich von Ludendorff [sic], 1865–1937, German General». Military History Encyclopedia on the Web. Archived from the original on 10 January 2008. Retrieved 6 February 2008.
- Rickard, J. (27 August 2007). «The Ludendorff Offensives, 21 March–18 July 1918». historyofwar.org. Archived from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 12 September 2018.
- Roden, Mike. «The Lost Generation – myth and reality». Aftermath – when the Boys Came Home. Retrieved 13 April 2022.
- Rothschild, Joseph (1975). East-Central Europe between the Two World Wars. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0295953502.
- Saadi, Abdul-Ilah (12 February 2009). «Dreaming of Greater Syria». Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 13 May 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
- Sachar, Howard Morley (1970). The emergence of the Middle East, 1914–1924. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-0158-0. OCLC 153103197.
- Salibi, Kamal Suleiman (1993). «How it all began – A concise history of Lebanon». A House of Many Mansions – the history of Lebanon reconsidered. I.B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-091-9. OCLC 224705916. Archived from the original on 3 April 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2008.
- Schindler, J. (2003). «Steamrollered in Galicia: The Austro-Hungarian Army and the Brusilov Offensive, 1916». War in History. 10 (1): 27–59. doi:10.1191/0968344503wh260oa. S2CID 143618581.
- Schindler, John R. (2002). «Disaster on the Drina: The Austro-Hungarian Army in Serbia, 1914». War in History. 9 (2): 159–195. doi:10.1191/0968344502wh250oa. S2CID 145488166.
- Schreiber, Shane B (1977). Shock Army of the British Empire: The Canadian Corps in the Last 100 Days of the Great War (2004 ed.). Vanwell. ISBN 978-1-55125-096-0.
- Șerban, Ioan I (1997). «Din activitatea desfășurată în Vechiul Regat de voluntarii și refugiații ardeleni și bucovineni în slujba idealului național [Nationalist activity in the Kingdom of Romania by Transylvanian and Bucovina volunteers and refugees]». Annales Universitatis Apulensis (in Romanian) (37): 101–111.
- Șerban, Ioan I (2000). «Constituirea celui de-al doilea corp al voluntarilor români din Rusia – august 1918 [Establishment of the second body of Romanian volunteers in Russia – August 1918]». Apulum (in Romanian) (37): 153–164.
- Shanafelt, Gary W. (1985). The secret enemy: Austria-Hungary and the German alliance, 1914–1918. East European Monographs. ISBN 978-0-88033-080-0.
- Shapiro, Fred R.; Epstein, Joseph (2006). The Yale Book of Quotations. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-10798-2.
- Sheffield, Gary (2002). Forgotten Victory. Review. ISBN 978-0-7472-7157-4.
- Smith, David James (2010). One Morning in Sarajevo. Hachette UK. ISBN 978-0-297-85608-5.
He was photographed on the way to the station and the photograph has been reproduced many times in books and articles, claiming to depict the arrest of Gavrilo Princip. But there is no photograph of Gavro’s arrest—this photograph shows the arrest of Behr.
- Souter, Gavin (2000). Lion & Kangaroo: the initiation of Australia. Melbourne: Text Publishing. OCLC 222801639.
- Smele, Jonathan. «War and Revolution in Russia 1914–1921». World Wars in-depth. BBC. Archived from the original on 23 October 2011. Retrieved 12 November 2009.
- Speed, Richard B, III (1990). Prisoners, Diplomats and the Great War: A Study in the Diplomacy of Captivity. New York: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-26729-1. OCLC 20694547.
- Spreeuwenberg, P (2018). «Reassessing the Global Mortality Burden of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic». American Journal of Epidemiology. 187 (12): 2561–2567. doi:10.1093/aje/kwy191. PMC 7314216. PMID 30202996.
- Stevenson, David (1988). The First World War and International Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-873049-7.
- Stevenson, David (1996). Armaments and the Coming of War: Europe, 1904–1914. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820208-0. OCLC 33079190.
- Stevenson, David (2004). Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy. New York: Basic Books. pp. 560pp. ISBN 978-0-465-08184-4. OCLC 54001282.
- Stevenson, David (2012). 1914–1918: The History of the First World War. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-7181-9795-7.
- Stevenson, David (2016). Mahnken, Thomas (ed.). Land armaments in Europe, 1866–1914 in Arms Races in International Politics: From the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-873526-7.
- Stone, David (2014). The Kaiser’s Army: The German Army in World War One. Conway. ISBN 978-1-84486-292-4.
- Strachan, Hew (2003). The First World War: Volume I: To Arms. New York: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-03295-2. OCLC 53075929.
- Taliaferro, William Hay (1972) [1944]. Medicine and the War. ISBN 978-0-8369-2629-3.
- Taylor, Alan John Percivale (1998). The First World War and its aftermath, 1914–1919. Folio Society. OCLC 49988231.
- Taylor, John M. (Summer 2007). «Audacious Cruise of the Emden». The Quarterly Journal of Military History. 19 (4): 38–47. ISSN 0899-3718. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 5 July 2021.
- Terraine, John (1963). Ordeal of Victory. J.B. Lippincott. ISBN 978-0-09-068120-4. OCLC 1345833.
- Thompson, Mark (2009). The White War: Life and Death on the Italian Front, 1915-1919. Faber & Faber. ISBN 978-0571223336.
- Todman, Dan (2005). The Great War: Myth and Memory. A & C Black. ISBN 978-0-8264-6728-7.
- Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941–1945. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-7924-1. Archived from the original on 4 January 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
- Torrie, Glenn E. (1978). «Romania’s Entry into the First World War: The Problem of Strategy» (PDF). Emporia State Research Studies. Emporia State University. 26 (4): 7–8.
- Tschanz, David W. Typhus fever on the Eastern front in World War I. Montana State University. Archived from the original on 11 June 2010. Retrieved 12 November 2009.
- Tuchman, Barbara Wertheim (1966). The Zimmermann Telegram (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-02-620320-3. OCLC 233392415.
- Tucker, Spencer C.; Roberts, Priscilla Mary (2005). Encyclopedia of World War I. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio. ISBN 978-1-85109-420-2. OCLC 61247250.
- Tucker, Spencer C.; Wood, Laura Matysek; Murphy, Justin D. (1999). The European powers in the First World War: an encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-8153-3351-7. Archived from the original on 1 August 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2020.
- Tucker, Spencer (2002). The Great War, 1914-1918. Routledge. ISBN 978-1134817504.
- Turner, L.F.C. (1968). «The Russian Mobilization in 1914». Journal of Contemporary History. 3 (1): 65–88. doi:10.1177/002200946800300104. JSTOR 259967. S2CID 161629020.
- Velikonja, Mitja (2003). Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Texas A&M University Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-1-58544-226-3.
- von der Porten, Edward P. (1969). German Navy in World War II. New York: T.Y. Crowell. ISBN 978-0-213-17961-8. OCLC 164543865.
- Westwell, Ian (2004). World War I Day by Day. St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI Publishing. pp. 192pp. ISBN 978-0-7603-1937-6. OCLC 57533366.
- Wheeler-Bennett, John W. (1938). Brest-Litovsk:The forgotten peace. Macmillan.
- Williams, Rachel (2014). Dual Threat: The Spanish Influenza and World War I (PHD). University of Tennessee. Archived from the original on 29 October 2021. Retrieved 17 February 2022.
- Willmott, H.P. (2003). World War I. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 978-0-7894-9627-0. OCLC 52541937.
- Winter, Denis (1983). The First of the Few: Fighter Pilots of the First World War. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-005256-5.
- Winter, Jay, ed. (2014). The Cambridge History of the First World War (2016 ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-60066-5.
- Wohl, Robert (1979). The Generation of 1914 (3rd ed.). Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-34466-2.
- Zeldin, Theodore (1977). France, 1848–1945: Volume II: Intellect, Taste, and Anxiety (1986 ed.). Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822125-8.
- Zieger, Robert H. (2001). America’s Great War: World War I and the American experience. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-8476-9645-1.
- Zuber, Terence (2011). Inventing the Schlieffen Plan: German War Planning 1871–1914 (2014 ed.). OUP. ISBN 978-0-19-871805-5.
Primary sources
- Collins, Ross F., ed. (2008). World War I: Primary Documents on Events from 1914 to 1919. Greenwood Press. Archived from the original on 23 July 2018. Retrieved 12 June 2015.
- Hammond’s Frontier Atlas of the World War. C. S. Hammond & Company. 1916. Containing Large Scale Maps of All the Battle Fronts of Europe and Asia, Together With a Military Map of the United States.
Historiography and memory
- Cornelissen, Christoph, and Arndt Weinrich, eds. Writing the Great War – The Historiography of World War I from 1918 to the Present (2020) online free Archived 29 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine
- Deak, John (2014). «The Great War and the Forgotten Realm: The Habsburg Monarchy and the First World War». Journal of Modern History. 86 (2): 336–380. doi:10.1086/675880. S2CID 143481172.
- Iriye, Akira (2014). «The Historiographic Impact of the Great War». Diplomatic History. 38 (4): 751–762. doi:10.1093/dh/dhu035.
- Jones, Heather (2013). «As the centenary approaches: the regeneration of First World War historiography». Historical Journal. 56 (3): 857–878. doi:10.1017/s0018246x13000216.
- Jones, Heather (2014). «Goodbye to all that?: Memory and meaning in the commemoration of the first world war». Juncture. 20 (4): 287–291. doi:10.1111/j.2050-5876.2014.00767.x.
- Kitchen, James E.; Miller, Alisa; Rowe, Laura, eds. (2011). Other Combatants, Other Fronts: Competing Histories of the First World War. Excerpt Archived 2 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine
- Kramer, Alan (2014). «Recent Historiography of the First World War – Part I». Journal of Modern European History. 12 (1): 5–27. doi:10.17104/1611-8944_2014_1_5. S2CID 202927667.
- Kramer, Alan (2014). «Recent Historiography of the First World War (Part II)». Journal of Modern European History. 12 (2): 155–174. doi:10.17104/1611-8944_2014_2_155. S2CID 146860980.
- Mulligan, William (2014). «The Trial Continues: New Directions in the Study of the Origins of the First World War». English Historical Review. 129 (538): 639–666. doi:10.1093/ehr/ceu139.
- Reynolds, David (2014). The Long Shadow: The Legacies of the Great War in the Twentieth Century. Excerpt and text search Archived 3 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine
- Sanborn, Joshua (2013). «Russian Historiography on the Origins of the First World War Since the Fischer Controversy». Journal of Contemporary History. 48 (2): 350–362. doi:10.1177/0022009412472716. S2CID 159618260.
- Sharp, Heather (2014). «Representing Australia’s Involvement in the First World War: Discrepancies between Public Discourses and School History Textbooks from 1916 to 1936». Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society. 6 (1): 1–23. doi:10.3167/jemms.2014.060101.
- Trout, Stephen (2013). On the Battlefield of Memory: The First World War and American Remembrance, 1919–1941.
- Turan, Ömer (2014). ««Turkish Historiography of the First World War». Middle East». Critique. 23 (2): 241–257. doi:10.1080/19436149.2014.905079. S2CID 144673625.
- Winter, Jay; Prost, Antoine (2005). The Great War in History Debates and Controversies, 1914 to the Present. Cambridge University Press. excerpt Archived 4 August 2021 at the Wayback Machine
Further reading
- American Battle Monuments Commission (1938). American Armies and Battlefields in Europe: A History, Guide, and Reference Book. US Government Printing Office. OCLC 59803706.
- Balakian, Peter (2003). The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-019840-4. OCLC 56822108.
- Bond, Brian (1968). «The First World War». In C.L. Mowat (ed.). The New Cambridge Modern History. Vol. XII: The Shifting Balance of World Forces 1898–1945 (2nd ed.). pp. 171–208 – via archive.org.
- Duffy, Michael (2006). Somme. First World War.com. ISBN 978-0-297-84689-5. Retrieved 25 February 2007.
- Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed.). 1922. Comprises the 11th edition plus three new volumes 30-31-32 that cover events since 1911 with thorough coverage of the war as well as every country and colony.
- 1922 Encyclopædia Britannica – via Wikisource.
- scans of each page of vol 30-31-32
- Fortescue, Granville Roland (28 October 1915). «London in Gloom over Gallipoli; Captain Fortescue in Book and Ashmead-Bartlett in Lecture Declare Campaign Lost». The New York Times.
- Hirschfeld, Gerhard; et al., eds. (2012). Brill’s Encyclopedia of the First World War.
- Jenkins, Burris A. (2009). Facing the Hindenburg Line. BiblioBazaar. ISBN 978-1-110-81238-7.
- Goldrick, James (1995). «10. The Battleship Fleet: The Test of War, 1895–1919». In Hill, J. R. (ed.). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 299–318. ISBN 978-0-19-211675-8.
- Larsen, Daniel (2014). «Intelligence in the First World War: The state of the field». Intelligence and National Security. 29 (2): 282–302. doi:10.1080/02684527.2012.727070. S2CID 154714213.
- Lyons, Michael J. (1999). World War I: A Short History (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-020551-3.
- Meltzer, Allan H. (2003). A History of the Federal Reserve – Volume 1: 1913–1951. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 65–90. ISBN 978-0-226-52000-1.
- Moon, John Ellis van Courtland (July 1996). «United States Chemical Warfare Policy in World War II: A Captive of Coalition Policy?». The Journal of Military History. 60 (3): 495–511. doi:10.2307/2944522. JSTOR 2944522.
- Page, Thomas Nelson. «Chapter XI: Italy’s Attitude in the Beginning of the War». Italy and the World War. Brigham Young University. cites «Cf. articles signed XXX in La Revue de Deux Mondes, 1 and 15 March 1920″
- Prior, Robin (1999). The First World War. London: Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-35256-2.
- Repington, Charles à Court (1920). The First World War, 1914–1918. Vol. 2. London: Constable. ISBN 978-1-113-19764-1 – via archive.org.
- Sisemore, James D. (2003). The Russo-Japanese War, Lessons Not Learned (MMAS thesis). US Army Command and General Staff College. Archived from the original on 4 March 2009. Retrieved 1 March 2021.
- Symonds, Craig L. (2016). The U.S. Navy: A Concise History. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 68–70. ISBN 978-0-19-939494-4.
- Taylor, Alan John Percivale (1963). The First World War: An Illustrated History. Hamish Hamilton. ISBN 978-0-399-50260-6. OCLC 2054370.
- Wilgus, William John (1931). Transporting the A.E.F. in Western Europe, 1917–1919. New York: Columbia University Press. OCLC 1161730.
- Winegard, Timothy. «Here at Vimy: A Retrospective – The 90th Anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge». Canadian Military Journal. 8 (2).
External links
These audio files were created from a revision of this article dated 24 June 2006, and do not reflect subsequent edits.
- Links to other WWI Sites, worldwide links from Brigham Young U.
- The World War One Document Archive, from Brigham Young U.
- International Encyclopedia of the First World War
- Records on the outbreak of World War I from the UK Parliamentary Collections
- The Heritage of the Great War / First World War. Graphic color photos, pictures and music
- A multimedia history of World War I
- European Newspapers from the start of the First World War and the end of the war
- WWI Films on the European Film Gateway
- The British Pathé WW1 Film Archive
- World War I British press photograph collection – A sampling of images distributed by the British government during the war to diplomats overseas, from the UBC Library Digital Collections
- Personal accounts of American World War I veterans, Veterans History Project, Library of Congress.
Library guides
- National Library of New Zealand
- State Library of New South Wales
- US Library of Congress
- Indiana University Bloomington Archived 5 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine
- New York University Archived 5 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine
- University of Alberta
- California State Library, California History Room. Collection: California. State Council of Defense. California War History Committee. Records of Californians who served in World War I, 1918–1922.
Home
»
WW1
»
World War I: One Word
May 12, 2018 Unipro2013main WW1
One Word
How would you sum up World War I in just one word?
«WW1» and «WWI» redirect here. For other uses, see WW1 (disambiguation).
World War I | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clockwise from the top: The aftermath of shelling during the Battle of the Somme, Mark V tanks cross the Hindenburg Line, HMS Irresistible sinks after hitting a mine in the Dardanelles, a British Vickers machine gun crew wears gas masks during the Battle of the Somme, Albatros D.III fighters of Jagdstaffel 11 |
||||||
|
||||||
Belligerents | ||||||
Allied Powers …and others |
Central Powers …and co-belligerents |
|||||
Commanders and leaders | ||||||
Allied leaders …and others |
Central Powers leaders …and others |
|||||
Strength | ||||||
12,000,000 Total: 42,959,850[4] |
13,250,000 Total: 25,248,321[4] |
|||||
Casualties and losses | ||||||
Military dead: 5,525,000 Military wounded: 12,831,500 Military missing: 4,121,000 Total: 22,477,500 KIA, WIA or MIA …further details. |
Military dead: 4,386,000 Military wounded: 8,388,000 Military missing: 3,629,000 Total: 16,403,000 KIA, WIA or MIA …further details. |
World War I (WWI or WW1), also known as the First World War, was a global war centred in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. From the time of its occurrence until the approach of World War II in 1939, it was called simply the World War or the Great War, and thereafter the First World War or World War I.[5][6][7] In America it was initially called the European War.[8] More than 9 million combatants were killed: a scale of death impacted by industrial advancements, geographic stalemate and reliance on human wave attacks. It was the fifth-deadliest conflict in world history, paving the way for major political changes, including revolutions in many of the nations involved.[9]
The war drew in all the world’s economic great powers,[10] which were assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies (based on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Empire) and the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Although Italy had also been a member of the Triple Alliance alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary, it did not join the Central Powers, as Austria-Hungary had taken the offensive against the terms of the alliance.[11] These alliances were both reorganised and expanded as more nations entered the war: Italy, Japan and the United States joined the Allies, and the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria the Central Powers. Ultimately, more than 70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilised in one of the largest wars in history.[12][13]
Although a resurgence of imperialism was an underlying cause, the immediate trigger for war was the 28 June 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 delivered an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia,[14][15] and international alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict soon spread around the world.
On 28 July, the Austro-Hungarians fired the first shots in preparation for the invasion of Serbia.[16][17] As Russia mobilised, Germany invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg before moving towards France, leading Britain to declare war on Germany. After the German march on Paris was brought to a halt, what became known as the Western Front settled into a battle of attrition, with a trench line that would change little until 1917. Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front, the Russian army was successful against the Austro-Hungarians, but was stopped in its invasion of East Prussia by the Germans. In November 1914, the Ottoman Empire joined the war, opening fronts in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Sinai. Italy and Bulgaria went to war in 1915 and Romania in 1916.
The war approached a resolution after the Russian Tsar’s government collapsed in March 1917 and a subsequent revolution in November brought the Russians to terms with the Central Powers. After a 1918 German offensive along the western front, the Allies drove back the Germans in a series of successful offensives and American forces began entering the trenches. Germany, which had its own trouble with revolutionaries, agreed to an armistice on 11 November 1918, ending the war in victory for the Allies.
By the end of the war, four major imperial powers—the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires—ceased to exist. The successor states of the former two lost substantial territory, while the latter two were dismantled. The map of Europe was redrawn, with several independent nations restored or created. The League of Nations formed with the aim of preventing any repetition of such an appalling conflict. This aim failed, with weakened states, renewed European nationalism and the humiliation of Germany contributing to the rise of fascism and the conditions for World War II.
Names
In Canada, Maclean’s Magazine in October 1914 said, «Some wars name themselves. This is the Great War.»[18] A history of the origins and early months of the war published in New York in late 1914 was titled The World War.[19] During the Interwar period, the war was most often called the World War and the Great War in English-speaking countries.
After the onset of the Second World War in 1939, the terms World War I or the First World War became standard, with British and Canadian historians favouring the First World War, and Americans World War I. The term «First World War» was first used in September 1914 by the German philosopher Ernst Haeckel, who claimed that «there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared ‘European War’ … will become the first world war in the full sense of the word.»[20] The First World War was also the title of a 1920 history by the officer and journalist Charles à Court Repington.[21]
History
Background
Political and military alliances
Rival military coalitions in 1914: Triple Entente in green; Triple Alliance in brown. Only the Triple Alliance was a formal «alliance»; the others listed were informal patterns of support.
For much of the 19th century, the major European powers maintained a tenuous balance of power among themselves, known as the Concert of Europe.[22] After 1848, this was challenged by a variety of factors, including Britain’s withdrawal into so-called splendid isolation, the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of Prussia under Otto von Bismarck. The 1866 Austro-Prussian War established Prussian hegemony in Germany, while victory in the 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War allowed Bismarck to consolidate the German states into a German Empire under Prussian leadership. Avenging the defeat of 1871, or revanchism, and recovering the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine became the principal objects of French policy for the next forty years.[23]
In order to isolate France and avoid a war on two fronts, Bismarck negotiated the League of the Three Emperors (German: Dreikaiserbund) between Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany. After Russian victory in the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War, the League was dissolved due to Austrian concerns over Russian influence in the Balkans, an area they considered of vital strategic interest. Germany and Austria-Hungary then formed the 1879 Dual Alliance, which became the Triple Alliance when Italy joined in 1882.[24] For Bismarck, the purpose of these agreements was to isolate France by ensuring the three Empires resolved any disputes between themselves; when this was threatened in 1880 by British and French attempts to negotiate directly with Russia, he reformed the League in 1881, which was renewed in 1883 and 1885. After the agreement lapsed in 1887, he replaced it with the Reinsurance Treaty, a secret agreement between Germany and Russia to remain neutral if either were attacked by France or Austria-Hungary.[25]
Bismarck viewed peace with Russia as the foundation of German foreign policy but after becoming Kaiser in 1890, Wilhelm II forced him to retire and was persuaded not to renew the Reinsurance Treaty by Leo von Caprivi, his new Chancellor.[26] This provided France an opportunity to counteract the Triple Alliance, by signing the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1894, followed by the 1904 Entente Cordiale with Britain, and the Triple Entente was completed by the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention. While these were not formal alliances, by settling long-standing colonial disputes in Africa and Asia, British entry into any future conflict involving France or Russia became a possibility.[27] British and Russian support for France against Germany during the Agadir Crisis in 1911 reinforced their relationship and increased Anglo-German estrangement, deepening the divisions that would erupt in 1914.[28]
Arms race
SMS Rheinland, a Nassau-class battleship, Germany’s first response to the British Dreadnought
Creation of a unified Reich, along with indemnity payments imposed on France and the acquisition of important coal and iron deposits in the annexed provinces of Alsace-Lorraine, fuelled an economic boom and huge increase in German industrial strength. With the backing of Wilhelm II, after 1890 Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz sought to exploit this growth to create a Kaiserliche Marine, or Imperial German Navy, able to compete with the British Royal Navy for world naval supremacy.[29] He was greatly influenced by US naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan, who argued possession of a blue-water navy was vital for global power projection; Tirpitz had his books translated into German, while Wilhelm made them required reading for his advisors and senior military personnel.[30]
However, it was also an emotional decision, driven by Wilhelm’s simultaneous admiration for the Royal Navy and his desire to outdo it. Bismarck stressed the need to avoid antagonising Britain, a policy made easier by his opposition to acquiring colonies, but this challenge could not be ignored and resulted in the Anglo-German naval arms race.[31] The launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 gave the British a technological advantage over their German rival which they never lost.[29] Ultimately, the race diverted huge resources to creating a German navy large enough to antagonise Britain, but not defeat it; in 1911, Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg acknowledged defeat, leading to the Rüstungswende or ‘armaments turning point’, when he switched expenditure from the navy to the army.[32]
This was driven by concern over Russia’s recovery from defeat in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War and the subsequent revolution. Economic reforms backed by French funding led to a significant post-1908 expansion of railways and infrastructure, particularly in its western border regions.[33] Germany and Austria-Hungary relied on faster mobilisation to compensate for fewer numbers and it was the potential threat posed by the closing of this gap that led to the end of the naval race, rather than a reduction in tensions. When Germany expanded its standing army by 170,000 men in 1913, France extended compulsory military service from two to three years; similar measures taken by the Balkan powers and Italy, which led to increased expenditure by the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary. Absolute figures are hard to calculate due to differences in categorising expenditure, since they often omit civilian infrastructure projects with a military use, such as railways. However, from 1908 to 1913, defence spending by the six major European powers increased by over 50% in real terms.[34]
Conflicts in the Balkans
Sarajevo citizens reading a poster with the proclamation of the Austrian annexation in 1908
The years before 1914 were marked by a series of crises in the Balkans as other powers sought to benefit from Ottoman decline. While Pan-Slavic and Orthodox Russia considered itself the protector of Serbia and other Slav states, the strategic importance of the Bosporus straits meant they preferred these be controlled by a weak Ottoman government, rather than an ambitious power like Bulgaria. Balancing these competing objectives required simultaneously backing their clients while limiting their territorial gains, dividing Russian policy makers and adding to the instability of this region.[35]
At the same time, many Austrian statesmen considered the Balkans essential for the continued existence of their Empire and Serbian expansion as a direct threat to it. The 1908-1909 Bosnian Crisis began when Austria annexed the former Ottoman territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which it had occupied since 1878. Timed to coincide with the Bulgarian Declaration of Independence from the Ottoman Empire, this unilateral action was denounced by all the Great Powers; unable to reverse it, they amended the 1878 Treaty of Berlin and accepted Austrian annexation. Some historians see this as a significant escalation, ending any chance of Russia and Austria co-operating in the Balkans, while damaging Austrian relations with Serbia and Italy, who had their own expansionist ambitions in the area.[36]
Tensions were further heightened by the 1911 to 1912 Italo-Turkish War, which demonstrated the apparent inability of the Ottomans to retain their empire and led to the formation of the Balkan League.[37] An alliance of Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Greece, the League over-ran most of European Turkey in the 1912 to 1913 First Balkan War. Despite its decline, the Great Powers had assumed the Ottoman army was powerful enough to defeat the League and its collapse took them by surprise.[38] The Serbian capture of ports on the Adriatic resulted in partial Austrian mobilisation on 21 November 1912, including units along the Russian border in Galicia. When the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire met to consider their response next day, they decided not to mobilise, fearing Germany would do the same and start a European war for which they were not yet prepared.[39]
The Great Powers sought to re-assert control through the 1913 Treaty of London, which created an independent Albania, while enlarging the territories of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece. However, disputes between the victors sparked the 33-day Second Balkan War, when Bulgaria attacked Serbia and Greece on 16 June 1913; it was defeated, losing most of Macedonia to Serbia and Greece, and Southern Dobruja to Romania.[40] The result was that even countries which benefited from the Balkan Wars, such as Serbia and Greece, felt cheated of their «rightful gains», while for Austria it demonstrated the apparent indifference with which other powers viewed their concerns, including Germany.[41] This complex mix of resentment, nationalism and insecurity help explain why the pre-1914 Balkans became known as the «powder keg of Europe».[42]
Prelude
Sarajevo assassination
Traditionally thought to show the arrest of Gavrilo Princip (right), historians now believe this photo depicts an innocent bystander, Ferdinand Behr [43] [44]
On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to Emperor Franz Joseph, visited Sarajevo, capital of the recently annexed provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Six assassins [lower-alpha 9] from the movement known as Young Bosnia, or Mlada Bosna, took up positions along the route taken by the Archduke’s motorcade, with the intention of assassinating him. Supplied with arms by extremists within the Serbian Black Hand intelligence organisation, they hoped his death would free Bosnia from Austrian rule, although there was little agreement on what would replace it.[46]
Nedeljko Čabrinović threw a grenade at the Archduke’s car and injured two of his aides, who were taken to hospital while the convoy carried on. The other assassins were also unsuccessful but an hour later, as Ferdinand was returning from visiting the injured officers, his car took a wrong turn into a street where Gavrilo Princip was standing. He stepped forward and fired two pistol shots, fatally wounding Ferdinand and his wife Sophie, who both died shortly thereafter.[47] Although Emperor Franz Joseph was shocked by the incident, political and personal differences meant the two men were not close; allegedly, his first reported comment was «A higher power has re-established the order which I, alas, could not preserve».[48]
According to historian Zbyněk Zeman, his reaction was reflected more broadly in Vienna, where «the event almost failed to make any impression whatsoever. On Sunday 28 June and Monday 29th, the crowds listened to music and drank wine, as if nothing had happened.»[49][50] Nevertheless, the impact of the murder of the heir to the throne was significant, and has been described by historian Christopher Clark as a «9/11 effect, a terrorist event charged with historic meaning, transforming the political chemistry in Vienna».[51]
Expansion of violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Crowds on the streets in the aftermath of the anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, 29 June 1914
The Austro-Hungarian authorities encouraged the subsequent anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, in which Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks killed two Bosnian Serbs and damaged numerous Serb-owned buildings.[52][53] Violent actions against ethnic Serbs were also organised outside Sarajevo, in other cities in Austro-Hungarian-controlled Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia. Austro-Hungarian authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina imprisoned and extradited approximately 5,500 prominent Serbs, 700 to 2,200 of whom died in prison. A further 460 Serbs were sentenced to death. A predominantly Bosniak special militia known as the Schutzkorps was established and carried out the persecution of Serbs.[54][55][56][57]
July Crisis
Main articles: July Crisis, German entry into World War I, Austro-Hungarian entry into World War I, and Russian entry into World War I
Ethno-linguistic map of Austria-Hungary, 1910. Bosnia-Herzegovina was annexed in 1908.
The assassination initiated the July Crisis, a month of diplomatic manoeuvring between Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France and Britain. Correctly believing intelligence officials from the Black Hand were involved in the plot to murder the Archduke, Austria wanted to end Serbian interference in Bosnia and believed war was the best way to achieve this.[58] However, the Austrian-Hungarian Foreign Ministry had no proof of Serbian involvement, and a dossier belatedly compiled to make its case was riddled with errors.[59] On 23 July, Austria delivered an ultimatum to Serbia, listing ten demands made intentionally unacceptable to provide an excuse for starting hostilities.[60]
Serbia ordered general mobilisation on 25 July, but accepted all the terms, except for those empowering Austrian representatives to suppress «subversive elements» inside Serbia, and take part in the investigation and trial of Serbians linked to the assassination.[61][62] Claiming this amounted to a wholesale rejection, Austria broke off diplomatic relations and ordered partial mobilisation the next day; on 28 July, they declared war on Serbia and started shelling Belgrade. Having initiated war preparations on 25 July, Russia now ordered general mobilisation in support of Serbia on 30th.[63]
Anxious to ensure backing from the SDP political opposition by presenting Russia as the aggressor, Bethmann-Hollweg delayed commencement of war preparations until 31 July.[64] That afternoon the Russian government was given an ultimatum, requiring they «cease all war measures against Germany and Austria-Hungary» within 12 hours.[65] Germany also demanded assurances France would remain neutral; the French refused and ordered general mobilisation but delayed declaring war.[66] In reality, the German General Staff had long assumed a war on two fronts; originally completed in 1905, the Schlieffen Plan envisaged the bulk of the army would be used to defeat France in four weeks, before doing the same to Russia. In accordance with this, mobilisation orders were issued that afternoon.[67]
Cheering crowds in London and Paris on the day war was declared.
At a meeting on 29 July, the British cabinet had narrowly decided its obligations to Belgium under the 1839 Treaty of London did not require it to oppose a German invasion with military force. However, this was largely driven by Prime Minister Asquith’s desire to maintain unity; he and his senior Cabinet ministers were already committed to support France, the Royal Navy had been mobilised and public opinion was strongly in favour of intervention.[68] On 31 July, Britain sent notes to Germany and France, asking them to respect Belgian neutrality; France pledged to do so, Germany did not reply.[69]
Once the German ultimatum to Russia expired on the morning of 1 August, the two countries were at war. Later the same day, Wilhelm was informed by his Ambassador in London, Prince Lichnowsky, that Britain would remain neutral if France was not attacked, and in any case might be stayed by a crisis in Ireland.[70] Jubilant at this news, he ordered General Moltke, the German chief of staff, to «march the whole of the … army to the East». Moltke protested that «it cannot be done. The deployment of millions cannot be improvised.»[71] Lichnowsky, in any case, quickly realised he was mistaken. Although Wilhelm insisted on waiting for a telegram from his cousin George V, once received, it confirmed there had been a misunderstanding and he told Moltke «Now do what you want.»[72]
French intelligence was well aware of German plans to attack through Belgium, and the French Commander-in-Chief, General Joseph Joffre, asked that his troops be allowed to cross the border to pre-empt such a move. This was rejected by the French government, in part to avoid antagonising the British, and Joffre was told any advance into Belgium could come only after a German invasion.[73] On 2 August, Germany occupied Luxembourg and exchanged fire with French units; on 3 August, they declared war on France and demanded the Belgians allow them unimpeded right of way, which was refused. Early on the morning of 4 August, the Germans invaded; Albert I of Belgium ordered his army to resist and called for assistance under the Treaty of London.[74][75] Britain sent Germany an ultimatum demanding they respect Belgian neutrality and withdraw, which expired at midnight without a response; Germany was now at war with Britain and its global empire.[76]
Global war develops
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. Previously tested deployment plans had been replaced early in 1914, but those had never been tested in exercises. Austro-Hungarian leaders believed Germany would cover its northern flank against Russia.[77] Germany, however, envisioned Austria-Hungary directing most 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.
Serbian campaign
Serbian Army Blériot XI «Oluj», 1915
Beginning on 12 August, the Austrian and Serbs clashed at the battles of the Cer and Kolubara; over the next two weeks, Austrian attacks were repulsed with heavy losses, dashing their hopes of a swift victory and marking the first major Allied victories of the war. As a result, Austria had to keep sizeable forces on the Serbian front, weakening its efforts against Russia.[78] Serbia’s defeat of the 1914 invasion has been called one of the major upset victories of the twentieth century.[79] In spring 1915, the campaign saw the first use of anti-aircraft warfare after an Austrian plane was shot down with ground-to-air fire, as well as the first medical evacuation by the Serbian army in autumn 1915.[80][81]
German Offensive in Belgium and France
German soldiers on the way to the front in 1914; at this stage, all sides expected the conflict to be a short one.
When the war began, the German Order of Battle placed 80% of the army in the West, with the remainder acting as a screening force in the East. The plan was to quickly knock France out of the war, then redeploy to the East and do the same to Russia.
The German offensive in the West was officially titled Aufmarsch II West, but is better known as the Schlieffen Plan, after its original creator. Schlieffen deliberately kept the German left (i.e. its positions in Alsace-Lorraine) weak to lure the French into attacking there, while the majority were allocated to the German right, so as to sweep through Belgium, encircle Paris and trap the French armies against the Swiss border. This strategy was actually helped by the French themselves, since their Plan XVII envisaged a major offensive into the «lost provinces» of Alsace-Lorraine.[82] However, Schlieffen’s successor Moltke grew concerned that the French might push too hard on his left flank. Consequently, as the German Army increased in size in the years leading up to the war, he changed the allocation of forces between the German right and left wings from 85:15 to 70:30. Ultimately, Moltke’s changes meant insufficient forces to achieve decisive success and thus unrealistic goals and timings.[83]
French bayonet charge during the Battle of the Frontiers; by the end of August, French casualties exceeded 260,000, including 75,000 dead.
The initial German advance in the West was very successful: by the end of August the Allied left, which included the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), was in full retreat; French casualties in the first month exceeded 260,000, including 27,000 killed on 22 August during the Battle of the Frontiers.[84] German planning provided broad strategic instructions, while allowing army commanders considerable freedom in carrying them out at the front; this worked well in 1866 and 1870 but in 1914, von Kluck used this freedom to disobey orders, opening a gap between the German armies as they closed on Paris.[85] The French and British exploited this gap to halt the German advance east of Paris at the First Battle of the Marne from 5 to 12 September and push the German forces back some 50 km (31 mi).
In 1911, the Russian Stavka had agreed with the French to attack Germany within 15 days of mobilisation; this was unrealistic and the two Russian armies that entered East Prussia on 17 August did so without many of their support elements.[86] The Russian Second Army was effectively destroyed at the Battle of Tannenberg on 26–30 August but the Russian advance caused the Germans to re-route their 8th Field Army from France to East Prussia, a factor in Allied victory on the Marne.[citation needed]
By the end of 1914, German troops held strong defensive positions inside France, controlled the bulk of France’s domestic coalfields and had inflicted 230,000 more casualties than it lost itself. However, communications problems and questionable command decisions cost Germany the chance of a decisive outcome, while it had failed to achieve the primary objective of avoiding a long, two-front war.[87] As was apparent to a number of German leaders, this amounted to a strategic defeat; shortly after the Marne, Crown Prince Wilhelm told an American reporter; «We have lost the war. It will go on for a long time but lost it is already.»[88]
Asia and the Pacific
World empires and colonies around 1914
On 30 August 1914, New Zealand occupied German Samoa, now the independent state of Samoa. On 11 September, the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force landed on the island of New Britain, then part of German New Guinea. On 28 October, the German cruiser SMS Emden sank the Russian cruiser Zhemchug in the Battle of Penang. Japan declared war on Germany prior to seizing territories in the Pacific which later became the South Seas Mandate, as well as German Treaty ports on the Chinese Shandong peninsula at Tsingtao. After Vienna refused to withdraw its cruiser SMS Kaiserin Elisabeth from Tsingtao, Japan declared war on Austria-Hungary as well, and the ship was sunk at Tsingtao in November 1914.[89] Within a few months, Allied forces had seized all German territories in the Pacific, leaving only isolated commerce raiders and a few holdouts in New Guinea.[90][91]
African campaigns
Some of the first clashes of the war involved British, French, and German colonial forces in Africa. On 6–7 August, French and British troops invaded the German protectorate of Togoland and Kamerun. On 10 August, German forces in South-West Africa attacked South Africa; sporadic and fierce fighting continued for the rest of the war. The German colonial forces in German East Africa, led by Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, fought a guerrilla warfare campaign during World War I and only surrendered two weeks after the armistice took effect in Europe.[92]
Indian support for the Allies
The British Indian infantry divisions were withdrawn from France in December 1915, and sent to Mesopotamia.
Germany attempted to use Indian nationalism and pan-Islamism to its advantage, instigating uprisings in India, and sending a mission that urged Afghanistan to join the war on the side of Central Powers. However, contrary to British fears of a revolt in India, the outbreak of the war saw an unprecedented outpouring of loyalty and goodwill towards Britain.[93][94] Indian political leaders from the Indian National Congress and other groups were eager to support the British war effort since they believed that strong support for the war effort would further the cause of Indian Home Rule.[citation needed] The Indian Army in fact outnumbered the British Army at the beginning of the war; about 1.3 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, while the central government and the princely states sent large supplies of food, money, and ammunition. In all, 140,000 men served on the Western Front and nearly 700,000 in the Middle East. Casualties of Indian soldiers totalled 47,746 killed and 65,126 wounded during World War I.[95]
The suffering engendered by the war, as well as the failure of the British government to grant self-government to India after the end of hostilities, bred disillusionment and fuelled the campaign for full independence that would be led by Mohandas K. Gandhi and others.[96]
Western Front 1914 to 1916
Trench warfare begins
Trenches of the 11th Cheshire Regiment at Ovillers-la-Boisselle, on the Somme, July 1916
Pre-war military tactics that emphasised open warfare and the individual rifleman proved obsolete when confronted with conditions prevailing in 1914. Technological advances allowed the creation of strong defensive systems largely impervious to massed infantry advances, such as barbed wire, machine guns and above all far more powerful artillery, which dominated the battlefield and made crossing open ground extremely difficult.[97] Both sides struggled to develop tactics for breaching entrenched positions without suffering heavy casualties. In time, however, technology began to produce new offensive weapons, such as gas warfare and the tank.[98]
After the First Battle of the Marne in September 1914, Allied and German forces unsuccessfully tried to outflank each other, a series of manoeuvres later known as the «Race to the Sea». By the end of 1914, the opposing forces confronted each other along an uninterrupted line of entrenched positions from the Channel to the Swiss border.[99] Since the Germans were normally able to choose where to stand, they generally held the high ground; in addition, their trenches tended to be better built, since Anglo-French trenches were initially intended as «temporary,» and would only be needed until the breaking of German defences.[100]
Both sides tried to break the stalemate using scientific and technological advances. On 22 April 1915, at the Second Battle of Ypres, the Germans (violating the Hague Convention) used chlorine gas for the first time on the Western Front. Several types of gas soon became widely used by both sides, and though it never proved a decisive, battle-winning weapon, poison gas became one of the most-feared and best-remembered horrors of the war.[101][102]
Continuation of trench warfare
Royal Irish Rifles in a communications trench, first day on the Somme, 1916
Neither side proved able to deliver a decisive blow for the next two years. Throughout 1915–17, the British Empire and France suffered more casualties than Germany, because of both the strategic and tactical stances chosen by the sides. Strategically, while the Germans mounted only one major offensive, the Allies made several attempts to break through the German lines.
In February 1916 the Germans attacked French defensive positions at the Battle of Verdun, lasting until December 1916. The Germans made initial gains, before French counter-attacks returned matters to near their starting point. Casualties were greater for the French, but the Germans bled heavily as well, with anywhere from 700,000[103] to 975,000[104] casualties suffered between the two combatants. Verdun became a symbol of French determination and self-sacrifice.[105]
Dead German soldiers at Somme 1916
The Battle of the Somme was an Anglo-French offensive of July to November 1916. The opening day of the offensive (1 July 1916) was the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army, suffering 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 dead. The entire Somme offensive cost the British Army some 420,000 casualties. The French suffered another estimated 200,000 casualties and the Germans an estimated 500,000.[106] Gun fire was not the only factor taking lives; the diseases that emerged in the trenches were a major killer on both sides. The living conditions made it so that countless diseases and infections occurred, such as trench foot, shell shock, blindness/burns from mustard gas, lice, trench fever, «cooties» (body lice) and the ‘Spanish flu’.[107][unreliable source?]
Naval war
King George V (front left) and a group of officials inspect a British munitions factory in 1917.
At the start of the war, the German Empire had cruisers scattered across the globe, some of which were subsequently used to attack Allied merchant shipping. The British Royal Navy systematically hunted them down, though not without some embarrassment from its inability to protect Allied shipping. Before the beginning of the war, it was widely understood that Britain held the position of strongest, most influential navy in the world.[108][unreliable source?] The publishing of the book The Influence of Sea Power upon History by Alfred Thayer Mahan in 1890 was intended to encourage the United States to increase its naval power. Instead, this book made it to Germany and inspired its readers to try to over-power the British Royal Navy.[109] For example, the German detached light cruiser SMS Emden, part of the East Asia Squadron stationed at Qingdao, seized or destroyed 15 merchantmen, as well as sinking a Russian cruiser and a French destroyer. However, most of the German East-Asia squadron—consisting of the armoured cruisers SMS Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, light cruisers Nürnberg and Leipzig and two transport ships—did not have orders to raid shipping and was instead underway to Germany when it met British warships. The German flotilla and Dresden sank two armoured cruisers at the Battle of Coronel, but was virtually destroyed at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, with only Dresden and a few auxiliaries escaping, but after the Battle of Más a Tierra these too had been destroyed or interned.[110]
Battleships of the Hochseeflotte, 1917 U-155 exhibited near Tower Bridge in London, after the 1918 Armistice
Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, Britain began a naval blockade of Germany. The strategy proved effective, cutting off vital military and civilian supplies, although this blockade violated accepted international law codified by several international agreements of the past two centuries.[111] Britain mined international waters to prevent any ships from entering entire sections of ocean, causing danger to even neutral ships.[112] Since there was limited response to this tactic of the British, Germany expected a similar response to its unrestricted submarine warfare.[113]
The Battle of Jutland (German: Skagerrakschlacht, or «Battle of the Skagerrak») in May/June 1916 developed into the largest naval battle of the war. It was the only full-scale clash of battleships during the war, and one of the largest in history. The Kaiserliche Marine’s High Seas Fleet, commanded by Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer, fought the Royal Navy’s Grand Fleet, led by Admiral Sir John Jellicoe. The engagement was a stand off, as the Germans were outmanoeuvred by the larger British fleet, but managed to escape and inflicted more damage to the British fleet than they received. Strategically, however, the British asserted their control of the sea, and the bulk of the German surface fleet remained confined to port for the duration of the war.[114]
German U-boats attempted to cut the supply lines between North America and Britain.[115] The nature of submarine warfare meant that attacks often came without warning, giving the crews of the merchant ships little hope of survival.[115][116] The United States launched a protest, and Germany changed its rules of engagement. After the sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915, Germany promised not to target passenger liners, while Britain armed its merchant ships, placing them beyond the protection of the «cruiser rules», which demanded warning and movement of crews to «a place of safety» (a standard that lifeboats did not meet).[117] Finally, in early 1917, Germany adopted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, realising the Americans would eventually enter the war.[115][118] Germany sought to strangle Allied sea lanes before the United States could transport a large army overseas, but after initial successes eventually failed to do so.[115]
The U-boat threat lessened in 1917, when merchant ships began travelling in convoys, escorted by destroyers. This tactic made it difficult for U-boats to find targets, which significantly lessened losses; after the hydrophone and depth charges were introduced, accompanying destroyers could attack a submerged submarine with some hope of success. Convoys slowed the flow of supplies since ships had to wait as convoys were assembled. The solution to the delays was an extensive program of building new freighters. Troopships were too fast for the submarines and did not travel the North Atlantic in convoys.[119] The U-boats had sunk more than 5,000 Allied ships, at a cost of 199 submarines.[120]
World War I also saw the first use of aircraft carriers in combat, with HMS Furious launching Sopwith Camels in a successful raid against the Zeppelin hangars at Tondern in July 1918, as well as blimps for antisubmarine patrol.[121]
Southern theatres
War in the Balkans
Refugee transport from Serbia in Leibnitz, Styria, 1914 Bulgarian soldiers in a trench, preparing to fire against an incoming aeroplane Austro-Hungarian troops executing captured Serbians, 1917. Serbia lost about 850,000 people during the war, a quarter of its pre-war population.[122]
Faced with Russia in the east, 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 counter-attack in the Battle of Kolubara 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 persuading Bulgaria to join the attack on Serbia.[1]-132″>[123] The Austro-Hungarian provinces of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia provided troops for Austria-Hungary in the fight with Serbia, Russia and Italy. Montenegro allied itself with Serbia.[124]
Bulgaria declared war on Serbia on 14 October 1915 and joined in the attack by the Austro-Hungarian army under Mackensen’s army of 250,000 that was already underway. Serbia was conquered in a little more than a month, as the Central Powers, now including Bulgaria, sent in 600,000 troops total. The Serbian army, fighting on two fronts and facing certain defeat, retreated into northern Albania. The Serbs suffered defeat in the Battle of Kosovo. Montenegro covered the Serbian retreat towards the Adriatic coast in the Battle of Mojkovac in 6–7 January 1916, but ultimately the Austrians also conquered Montenegro. The surviving Serbian soldiers were evacuated by ship to Greece.[125] After conquest, Serbia was divided between Austro-Hungary and Bulgaria.[126]
In late 1915, a Franco-British force landed at Salonica in Greece to offer assistance and to pressure its government to declare war against the Central Powers. However, the pro-German King Constantine I dismissed the pro-Allied government of Eleftherios Venizelos before the Allied expeditionary force arrived.[127] The friction between the King of Greece and the Allies continued to accumulate with the National Schism, which effectively divided Greece between regions still loyal to the king and the new provisional government of Venizelos in Salonica. After intense negotiations and an armed confrontation in Athens between Allied and royalist forces (an incident known as Noemvriana), the King of Greece resigned and his second son Alexander took his place; Greece officially joined the war on the side of the Allies in June 1917.
The Macedonian front was initially mostly static. French and Serbian forces retook limited areas of Macedonia by recapturing Bitola on 19 November 1916 following the costly Monastir offensive, which brought stabilisation of the front.[128]
Serbian and French troops finally made a breakthrough in September 1918 in the Vardar offensive, after most of the German and Austro-Hungarian troops had been withdrawn. The Bulgarians were defeated at the Battle of Dobro Pole, and by 25 September British and French troops had crossed the border into Bulgaria proper as the Bulgarian army collapsed. Bulgaria capitulated four days later, on 29 September 1918.[129] The German high command responded by despatching troops to hold the line, but these forces were far too weak to re-establish a front.[130]
The disappearance of the Macedonian front meant that the road to Budapest and Vienna was now opened to Allied forces. Hindenburg and Ludendorff concluded that the strategic and operational balance had now shifted decidedly against the Central Powers and, a day after the Bulgarian collapse, insisted on an immediate peace settlement.[131]
Ottoman Empire
Main article: Ottoman Empire in World War I
Australian troops charging near a Turkish trench during the Gallipoli Campaign
The Ottomans threatened Russia’s Caucasian territories and Britain’s communications with India via the Suez Canal. As the conflict progressed, the Ottoman Empire took advantage of the European powers’ preoccupation with the war and conducted large-scale ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian Christian populations, known as the Armenian genocide, Greek genocide, and Assyrian genocide.[132][133][134]
The British and French opened overseas fronts with the Gallipoli (1915) and Mesopotamian campaigns (1914). In Gallipoli, the Ottoman Empire successfully repelled the British, French, and Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZACs). In Mesopotamia, by contrast, after the defeat of the British defenders in the Siege of Kut by the Ottomans (1915–16), British Imperial forces reorganised and captured Baghdad in March 1917. The British were aided in Mesopotamia by local Arab and Assyrian tribesmen, while the Ottomans employed local Kurdish and Turcoman tribes.[135]
Mehmed V greeting Wilhelm II on his arrival at Constantinople
Further to the west, the Suez Canal was defended from Ottoman attacks in 1915 and 1916; in August, a German and Ottoman force was defeated at the Battle of Romani by the ANZAC Mounted Division and the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division. Following this victory, an Egyptian Expeditionary Force advanced across the Sinai Peninsula, pushing Ottoman forces back in the Battle of Magdhaba in December and the Battle of Rafa on the border between the Egyptian Sinai and Ottoman Palestine in January 1917.[136]
Russian armies generally had success in the Caucasus campaign. Enver Pasha, supreme commander of the Ottoman armed forces, was ambitious and dreamed of re-conquering central Asia and areas that had been lost to Russia previously. He was, however, a poor commander.[137] 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.[138]
Kaiser Wilhelm II inspecting Turkish troops of the 15th Corps in East Galicia, Austria-Hungary (now Poland). Prince Leopold of Bavaria, the Supreme Commander of the German Army on the Eastern Front, is second from the left.
The Ottoman Empire, with German support, invaded Persia (modern Iran) in December 1914 in an effort to cut off British and Russian access to petroleum reservoirs around Baku near the Caspian Sea.[139] Persia, ostensibly neutral, had long been under the spheres of British and Russian influence. The Ottomans and Germans were aided by Kurdish and Azeri forces, together with a large number of major Iranian tribes, such as the Qashqai, Tangistanis, Lurs, and Khamseh, while the Russians and British had the support of Armenian and Assyrian forces. The Persian campaign was to last until 1918 and end in failure for the Ottomans and their allies. However, the Russian withdrawal from the war in 1917 led to Armenian and Assyrian forces, who had hitherto inflicted a series of defeats upon the forces of the Ottomans and their allies, being cut off from supply lines, outnumbered, outgunned and isolated, forcing them to fight and flee towards British lines in northern Mesopotamia.[140]
Russian forest trench at the Battle of Sarikamish, 1914–1915
General Yudenich, the Russian commander from 1915 to 1916, drove the Turks out of most of the southern Caucasus with a string of victories.[138] During the 1916 campaign, the Russians defeated the Turks in the Erzurum offensive, also occupying Trabzon. In 1917, Russian Grand Duke Nicholas assumed command of the Caucasus front. Nicholas planned a railway from Russian Georgia to the conquered territories so that fresh supplies could be brought up for a new offensive in 1917. However, in March 1917 (February in the pre-revolutionary Russian calendar), the Tsar abdicated in the course of the February Revolution, and the Russian Caucasus Army began to fall apart.
The Arab Revolt, instigated by the Arab bureau of the British Foreign Office, started June 1916 with the Battle of Mecca, led by Sharif Hussein of Mecca, and ended with the Ottoman surrender of Damascus. Fakhri Pasha, the Ottoman commander of Medina, resisted for more than two and half years during the Siege of Medina before surrendering in January 1919.[141]
The Senussi tribe, along the border of Italian Libya and British Egypt, incited and armed by the Turks, waged a small-scale guerrilla war against Allied troops. The British were forced to dispatch 12,000 troops to oppose them in the Senussi campaign. Their rebellion was finally crushed in mid-1916.[142]
Total Allied casualties on the Ottoman fronts amounted 650,000 men. Total Ottoman casualties were 725,000 (325,000 dead and 400,000 wounded).[143]
Italian participation
A pro-war demonstration in Bologna, Italy, 1914
Italy had been allied with the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires since 1882 as part of the Triple Alliance. However, the nation had its own designs on Austro-Hungarian territory in Trentino, the Austrian Littoral, Fiume (Rijeka) and Dalmatia. Rome had a secret 1902 pact with France, effectively nullifying its part in the Triple Alliance;[144] Italy secretly agreed with France to remain neutral if the latter was attacked by Germany.[citation needed]At the start of hostilities, Italy refused to commit troops, arguing that the Triple Alliance was defensive and that Austria-Hungary was an aggressor. The Austro-Hungarian government began negotiations to secure Italian neutrality, offering the French colony of Tunisia in return. The Allies made a counter-offer in which Italy would receive the Southern Tyrol, Austrian Littoral and territory on the Dalmatian coast after the defeat of Austria-Hungary. This was formalised by the Treaty of London. Further encouraged by the Allied invasion of Turkey in April 1915, Italy joined the Triple Entente and declared war on Austria-Hungary on 23 May. Fifteen months later, Italy declared war on Germany.[145]
Austro-Hungarian troops, Tyrol
The Italians had numerical superiority, but this advantage was lost, not only because of the difficult terrain in which the fighting took place, but also because of the strategies and tactics employed.[146] Field Marshal Luigi Cadorna, a staunch proponent of the frontal assault, had dreams of breaking into the Slovenian plateau, taking Ljubljana and threatening Vienna.
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 Austro-Hungarian Kaiserjäger, Kaiserschützen and Standschützen engaged Italian Alpini in bitter hand-to-hand combat throughout the summer. In the Alpine and Dolomite fronts, the main battle line led through rock and ice and often to an altitude of over 3000m. The soldiers were threatened not only by the enemy but especially in winter by the forces of nature and the difficult supply. The fighting led to the formation of special units with mountain guides and new combat tactics. The Austro-Hungarians counterattacked in the Altopiano of Asiago, towards Verona and Padua, in the spring of 1916 (Strafexpedition), but made little progress and were defeated by the Italians.[147]
Beginning in 1915, the Italians under Cadorna mounted eleven offensives on the Isonzo front along the Isonzo (Soča) River, northeast of Trieste. Of these eleven offensives, five were won by Italy, three remained inconclusive, and the other three were repelled by the Austro-Hungarians, who held the higher ground. In the summer of 1916, after the Battle of Doberdò, the Italians captured the town of Gorizia. After this victory, the front remained static for over a year, despite several Italian offensives, centred on the Banjšice and Karst Plateau east of Gorizia.
Depiction of the Battle of Doberdò, fought in August 1916 between the Italian and the Austro-Hungarian armies
The Central Powers launched a crushing offensive on 26 October 1917, spearheaded by the Germans, and achieved a victory at Caporetto (Kobarid). The Italian Army was routed and retreated more than 100 kilometres (62 mi) to reorganise. The new Italian chief of staff, Armando Diaz, ordered the Army to stop their retreat and defend the Monte Grappa summit, where fortified defences were constructed; the Italians repelled the Austro-Hungarian and German Army, and stabilised the front at the Piave River. Since the Italian Army had suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Caporetto, the Italian Government ordered conscription of the so-called ‘99 Boys (Ragazzi del ’99): all males born in 1899 and prior, who were 18 years old or older. In 1918, the Austro-Hungarians failed to break through in a series of battles on the Piave and were finally decisively defeated in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto in October. On 1 November, the Italian Navy destroyed much of the Austro-Hungarian fleet stationed in Pula, preventing it from being handed over to the new State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. On 3 November, the Italians invaded Trieste from the sea. On the same day, the Armistice of Villa Giusti was signed. By mid-November 1918, the Italian military occupied the entire former Austrian Littoral and had seized control of the portion of Dalmatia that had been guaranteed to Italy by the London Pact.[148] By the end of hostilities in November 1918,[149] Admiral Enrico Millo declared himself Italy’s Governor of Dalmatia.[149] Austria-Hungary surrendered on 11 November 1918.[150][151]
Romanian participation
Marshal Joseph Joffre inspecting Romanian troops, 1916
Romania had been allied with the Central Powers since 1882. When the war began, however, it declared its neutrality, arguing that because Austria-Hungary had declared war on Serbia, Romania was under no obligation to join the war. On 4 August 1916, Romania and the Entente signed the Political Treaty and Military Convention, that established the parameters of Romania’s participation in the war. In return, it received the Allies’ formal sanction for Transylvania, Banat and other territories of Austria-Hungary to be annexed to Romania. The action had large popular support.[152] On 27 August 1916, the Romanian Army launched an attack against Austria-Hungary, with limited Russian support. The Romanian offensive was initially successful in Transylvania, but a Central Powers counterattack drove them back.[153] As a result of the Battle of Bucharest, the Central Powers occupied Bucharest on 6 December 1916. Fighting in Moldova continued in 1917, but Russian withdrawal from the war in late 1917 as a result of the October Revolution meant that Romania was forced to sign an armistice with the Central Powers on 9 December 1917.[154]
Romanian troops during the Battle of Mărășești, 1917
In January 1918, Romanian forces established control over Bessarabia as the Russian Army abandoned the province. Although a treaty was signed by the Romanian and Bolshevik Russian governments following talks between 5 and 9 March 1918 on the withdrawal of Romanian forces from Bessarabia within two months, on 27 March 1918 Romania formally attached Bessarabia, inhabited by a Romanian majority, to its territory, based on a resolution passed by the local assembly of that territory on its unification with Romania.[155]
Romania officially made peace with the Central Powers by signing the Treaty of Bucharest on 7 May 1918. Under the treaty, Romania was obliged to end the war with the Central Powers and make small territorial concessions to Austria-Hungary, ceding control of some passes in the Carpathian Mountains, and to grant oil concessions to Germany. In exchange, the Central Powers recognised the sovereignty of Romania over Bessarabia. The treaty was renounced in October 1918 by the Alexandru Marghiloman government, and Romania nominally re-entered the war on 10 November 1918 against the Central Powers. The next day, the Treaty of Bucharest was nullified by the terms of the Armistice of Compiègne.[156][157] Total Romanian deaths from 1914 to 1918, military and civilian, within contemporary borders, were estimated at 748,000.[158]
Eastern Front
Initial actions
Emperor Nicholas II and Commander-in-Chief Nikolai Nikolaevich in the captured Przemysl. The Russian Siege of Przemyśl was the longest siege of the war.
Russian plans for the start of the war called for simultaneous invasions of Austrian Galicia and East Prussia. Although Russia’s initial advance into Galicia was largely successful, it was driven back from East Prussia by Hindenburg and Ludendorff at the battles of Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes in August and September 1914.[159][160] Russia’s less developed industrial base and ineffective military leadership were instrumental in the events that unfolded. By the spring of 1915, the Russians had retreated from Galicia, and, in May, the Central Powers achieved a remarkable breakthrough on Poland’s southern frontiers with their Gorlice–Tarnów offensive.[161] On 5 August, they captured Warsaw and forced the Russians to withdraw from Poland.
Despite Russia’s success in the June 1916 Brusilov offensive against the Austrians in eastern Galicia,[162] the offensive was undermined by the reluctance of other Russian generals to commit their forces to support the victory. Allied and Russian forces were revived only briefly by Romania’s entry into the war on 27 August and initial gains in Transylvania, as Romania was rapidly pushed back by a combined Central Powers offensive until only the region of Moldavia was left. Meanwhile, unrest grew in Russia as the Tsar remained at the front. The increasingly incompetent rule of Empress Alexandra drew protests and resulted in the murder of her favourite, Rasputin, at the end of 1916.
Central Powers peace overtures
«They shall not pass», a phrase typically associated with the defence of Verdun
On 12 December 1916, after ten brutal months of the Battle of Verdun and a successful offensive against Romania, Germany attempted to negotiate a peace with the Allies.[163] However, this attempt was rejected out of hand as a «duplicitous war ruse».[163]
Soon after, the US president, Woodrow Wilson, attempted to intervene as a peacemaker, asking in a note for both sides to state their demands. Lloyd George’s War Cabinet considered the German offer to be a ploy to create divisions amongst the Allies. After initial outrage and much deliberation, they took Wilson’s note as a separate effort, signalling that the United States was on the verge of entering the war against Germany following the «submarine outrages». While the Allies debated a response to Wilson’s offer, the Germans chose to rebuff it in favour of «a direct exchange of views». Learning of the German response, the Allied governments were free to make clear demands in their response of 14 January. They sought restoration of damages, the evacuation of occupied territories, reparations for France, Russia and Romania, and a recognition of the principle of nationalities.[164] This included the liberation of Italians, Slavs, Romanians, Czecho-Slovaks, and the creation of a «free and united Poland».[164] On the question of security, the Allies sought guarantees that would prevent or limit future wars, complete with sanctions, as a condition of any peace settlement.[165] The negotiations failed and the Entente powers rejected the German offer on the grounds that Germany had not put forward any specific proposals.
1917; Timeline of Major Developments
March to November 1917; Russian Revolution
By the end of 1916, Russian casualties totalled nearly five million killed, wounded or captured, with major urban areas affected by food shortages and high prices. In March 1917, Tsar Nicholas ordered the military to forcibly suppress a wave of strikes in Petrograd but the troops refused to fire on the crowds.[166] Revolutionaries set up the Petrograd Soviet and fearing a left-wing takeover, the State Duma forced Nicholas to abdicate and established the Russian Provisional Government, which confirmed Russia’s willingness to continue the war. However, the Petrograd Soviet refused to disband, creating competing power centres and caused confusion and chaos, with frontline soldiers becoming increasingly demoralised and unwilling to fight on.[167]
In the summer of 1917 a Central Powers offensive began in Romania under the command of August von Mackensen to knock Romania out of the war. Resulting in the battles of Oituz, Mărăști and Mărășești where up to 1.000.000 Central Powers troops were present. The battles lasted from 22 July to 3 September and eventually the Romanian army was victorious. August von Mackensen could not plan for another offensive as he had to transfer troops to the Italian Front.[168]
Following the Tsar’s abdication, Vladimir Lenin—with the help of the German government—was ushered by train from Switzerland into Russia 16 April 1917. Discontent and the weaknesses of the Provisional Government led to a rise in the popularity of the Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin, which demanded an immediate end to the war. The Revolution of November was followed in December by an armistice and negotiations with Germany. At first, the Bolsheviks refused the German terms, but when German troops began marching across Ukraine unopposed, the new government acceded to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918. The treaty ceded vast territories, including Finland, the Baltic provinces, parts of Poland and Ukraine to the Central Powers.[169] Despite this enormous German success, the manpower required by the Germans to occupy the captured territory may have contributed to the failure of their Spring Offensive, and secured relatively little food or other materiel for the Central Powers war effort.
With the Russian Empire out of the war, Romania found itself alone on the Eastern Front and signed Treaty of Bucharest with the Central Powers in May 1918, ending the state of war between Romania and the Central Powers. Under the terms of the treaty, Romania had to give territory to Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, and lease its oil reserves to Germany. However, the terms also included the Central Powers recognition of the union of Bessarabia with Romania.[170][171]
April 1917: the United States enters the war
President Wilson asking Congress to declare war on Germany, 2 April 1917
The United States was a major supplier of war materiel to the Allies but remained neutral in 1914; many opposed the idea of involvement in «foreign wars», while German Americans made up over 10% of the total population in 1913.[172] On 7 May 1915, the British passenger liner RMS Lusitania was sunk by a German submarine, killing nearly 1,200, including 128 Americans. President Woodrow Wilson demanded an apology and warned the United States would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare but refused to be drawn into the war.[173] When more Americans died after the sinking of SS Arabic in August, Bethman-Hollweg ordered an end to such attacks and the affair blew over.[174] It led to a wider discussion over the morality of neutrality, a position summarised by former president Theodore Roosevelt, who denounced the idea of «setting a spiritual example [to others] by sitting idle, uttering cheap platitudes and picking up their trade».[175] However, this remained a minority view and Wilson was narrowly re-elected as president in 1916, campaigning on the slogan «he kept us out of war».[176]
By the end of 1916, the British naval blockade was causing serious shortages in Germany and Wilhelm approved the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare [lower-alpha 10] on 1 February 1917.[178] While the German government recognised this action was likely to bring America into the war, the navy claimed they could starve Britain into submission in less than six months.[179] The military position also appeared stable, at least for the foreseeable future. Despite heavy losses at Verdun and the Somme during 1916, withdrawal to the newly created Hindenburg Line would enable the Westheer to conserve its troops, while it was clear Russia was on the brink of revolution. The combination meant Germany was willing to gamble it could force the Allies to make peace before the US could intervene in any meaningful way.[180]
Although Wilson responded by severing diplomatic relations on 2 February, he was reluctant to start hostilities without overwhelming public support and delayed any military response. On 24 February, he was presented with the Zimmermann Telegram; drafted in January by German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann, it was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence, who shared it with their American counterparts. Already financing Russian Bolsheviks and anti-British Irish nationalists, Zimmermann hoped to exploit nationalist feelings in Mexico caused by American incursions during the Pancho Villa Expedition. He promised President Carranza support for a war against the United States and help in recovering Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, although this offer was promptly rejected.[181]
Publication of the telegram on 1 March caused an upsurge in support for war, but did not eliminate opposition to it, while public fury quickly subsided.[177] The most significant factor in creating the overwhelming majority Wilson needed was the German submarine offensive, which not only cost American lives, but paralysed trade as ships were reluctant to put to sea. This caused food shortages in cities along the East Coast and on 22 March, Congress approved the arming of merchant ships.[182] Now committed to war, in his speech to Congress on 2 April, Wilson presented it as a crusade «against human greed and folly, against Germany, and for justice, peace and civilisation».[183] On 6 April, Congress declared war on Germany, although it did so as an «Associated Power», rather than a formal ally.[184] The US also remained outside the Pact of London and was at war with Germany, not the other Central Powers.[177]
The Allied Avenue, 1917 painting by Childe Hassam, that depicts Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue decorated with flags from Allied nations
The United States Navy sent a battleship group to Scapa Flow to join the Grand Fleet, as well providing convoy escorts. In April 1917, the United States Army had fewer than 300,000 men, including National Guard units, compared to British and French armies of 4.1 and 8.3 million respectively. The Selective Service Act of 1917 drafted 2.8 million men, although training and equipping such numbers was a huge logistical challenge. By June 1918, over 667,000 members of the American Expeditionary Forces, or AEF, had been transported to France, a figure which reached 2 million by the end of November.[185] However, their arrival exposed weaknesses in American tactical doctrine, which was based on pre-1914 principles, a world away from the Combined arms approach used by the French and British in 1918.[186] US commanders were initially slow to accept such ideas, limiting their effectiveness and leading to heavy casualties; it was not until the last month of the war that these failings were rectified.[187]
Despite his conviction Germany must be defeated, Wilson went to war primarily to ensure the US would play a leading role in shaping the peace. This meant preserving independence of action and required the AEF to operate as a separate military force, rather than being absorbed into British or French units as his Allies wanted.[188] He was strongly supported in this by AEF commander General John J. Pershing, a proponent of pre-1914 «open warfare» who considered the French and British emphasis on artillery as misguided and incompatible with American «offensive spirit».[189] Much to the frustration of his Allies, who had suffered heavy losses in 1917, he insisted on retaining control of American troops and refused to commit them to the front line until able to operate as independent units. As a result, the first significant US involvement was the Meuse–Argonne offensive in late September 1918.[190]
April to June; Nivelle Offensive and French Army mutinies
French infantry advance on the Chemin des Dames, April 1917
Verdun cost the French nearly 400,000 casualties, while the horrific conditions severely impacted morale, leading to a number of incidents of indiscipline. Although relatively minor, they reflected a belief among the rank and file that their sacrifices were not appreciated by their government or senior officers.[191] Combatants on both sides claimed the battle was the most psychologically exhausting of the entire war; recognising this, Philippe Pétain frequently rotated divisions, a process known as the noria system. While this ensured units were withdrawn before their ability to fight was significantly eroded, it meant a high proportion of the French army was affected by the battle.[192] By the beginning of 1917, morale was brittle, even in divisions with good combat records.[193]
In December 1916, Robert Nivelle replaced Pétain as commander of French armies on the Western Front and began planning a spring attack in Champagne, part of a joint Franco-British operation. Nivelle claimed the capture of his main objective, the Chemin des Dames, would achieve a massive breakthrough and cost no more than 15,000 casualties.[194] Poor security meant German intelligence was well informed on tactics and timetables, but despite this, when the attack began on 16 April the French made substantial gains, before being brought to a halt by the newly built and extremely strong defences of the Hindenburg Line. Nivelle persisted with frontal assaults and by 25 April the French had suffered nearly 135,000 casualties, including 30,000 dead, most incurred in the first two days.[195]
Concurrent British attacks at Arras were more successful, although ultimately of little strategic value.[196] Operating as a separate unit for the first time, the Canadian Corps capture of Vimy Ridge during the battle is viewed by many Canadians as a defining moment in creating a sense of national identity.[197][198] Although Nivelle continued the offensive, on 3 May the 21st Division, which had been involved in some of the heaviest fighting at Verdun, refused orders to go into battle, initiating the French Army mutinies; within days, acts of «collective indiscipline» had spread to 54 divisions, while over 20,000 deserted.[199] Unrest was almost entirely confined to the infantry, whose demands were largely non-political, including better economic support for families at home, and regular periods of leave, which Nivelle had ended.[200]
Canadian Corps troops at the Battle of Vimy Ridge, 1917
Although the vast majority remained willing to defend their own lines, they refused to participate in offensive action, reflecting a complete breakdown of trust in the army leadership.[201] Nivelle was removed from command on 15 May and replaced by Pétain, who resisted demands for drastic punishment and set about restoring morale by improving conditions. While exact figures are still debated, only 27 men were actually executed, with another 3,000 sentenced to periods of imprisonment; however, the psychological effects were long-lasting, one veteran commenting «Pétain has purified the unhealthy atmosphere…but they have ruined the heart of the French soldier».[202]
The last large-scale offensive of this period was a British attack (with French support) at Passchendaele (July–November 1917). This offensive opened with great promise for the Allies, before bogging down in the October mud. Casualties, though disputed, were roughly equal, at some 200,000–400,000 per side.
The victory of the Central Powers at the Battle of Caporetto led the Allies to convene the Rapallo conference at which they formed the Supreme War Council to co-ordinate planning. Previously, British and French armies had operated under separate commands.
In December, the Central Powers signed an armistice with Russia, thus freeing large numbers of German troops for use in the west. With German reinforcements and new American troops pouring in, the 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 success based on a final quick offensive. Furthermore, both sides became increasingly fearful of social unrest and revolution in Europe. Thus, both sides urgently sought a decisive victory.[203]
In 1917, Emperor Charles I of Austria secretly attempted separate peace negotiations with Clemenceau, through his wife’s brother Sixtus in Belgium as an intermediary, without the knowledge of Germany. Italy opposed the proposals. When the negotiations failed, his attempt was revealed to Germany, resulting in a diplomatic catastrophe.[204][205]
Ottoman Empire conflict, 1917–1918
10.5 cm Feldhaubitze 98/09 and Ottoman artillerymen at Hareira in 1917 before the Southern Palestine offensive British artillery battery on Mount Scopus in the Battle of Jerusalem, 1917. Foreground, a battery of 16 heavy guns. Background, conical tents and support vehicles.
In March and April 1917, at the First and Second Battles of Gaza, German and Ottoman forces stopped the advance of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, which had begun in August 1916 at the Battle of Romani.[206][207]
At the end of October, the Sinai and Palestine campaign resumed, when General Edmund Allenby’s XXth Corps, XXI Corps and Desert Mounted Corps won the Battle of Beersheba.[208] Two Ottoman armies were defeated a few weeks later at the Battle of Mughar Ridge and, early in December, Jerusalem was captured following another Ottoman defeat at the Battle of Jerusalem.[209][210][211] About this time, Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein was relieved of his duties as the Eighth Army’s commander, replaced by Djevad Pasha, and a few months later the commander of the Ottoman Army in Palestine, Erich von Falkenhayn, was replaced by Otto Liman von Sanders.[212][213]
In early 1918, the front line was extended and the Jordan Valley was occupied, following the First Transjordan and the Second Transjordan attacks by British Empire forces in March and April 1918.[214] In March, most of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force’s British infantry and Yeomanry cavalry were sent to the Western Front as a consequence of the Spring Offensive. They were replaced by Indian Army units. During several months of reorganisation and training of the summer, a number of attacks were carried out on sections of the Ottoman front line. These pushed the front line north to more advantageous positions for the Entente in preparation for an attack and to acclimatise the newly arrived Indian Army infantry. It was not until the middle of September that the integrated force was ready for large-scale operations.
Ottoman troops during the Mesopotamian campaign
The reorganised Egyptian Expeditionary Force, with an additional mounted division, broke Ottoman forces at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918. In two days the British and Indian infantry, supported by a creeping barrage, broke the Ottoman front line and captured the headquarters of the Eighth Army (Ottoman Empire) at Tulkarm, the continuous trench lines at Tabsor, Arara, and the Seventh Army (Ottoman Empire) headquarters at Nablus. The Desert Mounted Corps rode through the break in the front line created by the infantry. During virtually continuous operations by Australian Light Horse, British mounted Yeomanry, Indian Lancers, and New Zealand Mounted Rifle brigades in the Jezreel Valley, they captured Nazareth, Afulah and Beisan, Jenin, along with Haifa on the Mediterranean coast and Daraa east of the Jordan River on the Hejaz railway. Samakh and Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee were captured on the way northwards to Damascus. Meanwhile, Chaytor’s Force of Australian light horse, New Zealand mounted rifles, Indian, British West Indies and Jewish infantry captured the crossings of the Jordan River, Es Salt, Amman and at Ziza most of the Fourth Army (Ottoman Empire). The Armistice of Mudros, signed at the end of October, ended hostilities with the Ottoman Empire when fighting was continuing north of Aleppo.
15 August 1917: Peace offer by the Pope
See also: Pope Benedict XV#Peace efforts
On or shortly before 15 August 1917 Pope Benedict XV made a peace proposal[215] suggesting:
- No annexations
- No indemnities, except to compensate for severe war damage in Belgium and parts of France and of Serbia
- A solution to the problems of Alsace-Lorraine, Trentino and Trieste
- Restoration of the Kingdom of Poland
- Germany to pull out of Belgium and France
- Germany’s overseas colonies to be returned to Germany
- General disarmament
- A Supreme Court of arbitration to settle future disputes between nations
- The freedom of the seas
- Abolish all retaliatory economic conflicts
- No point in ordering reparations, because so much damage had been caused to all belligerents
July to November; British offensive at Passchendaele
Section to be continued.
1918; Timeline of Major Developments
German Spring Offensive
French soldiers under General Gouraud, with machine guns amongst the ruins of a cathedral near the Marne, 1918
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 end the war before significant US forces arrived. The operation commenced on 21 March 1918 with an attack on British forces near Saint-Quentin. German forces achieved an unprecedented advance of 60 kilometres (37 mi).[216]
British and French trenches were penetrated using novel infiltration tactics, also named Hutier tactics after General Oskar von Hutier, by specially trained units called stormtroopers. Previously, attacks had been characterised by long artillery bombardments and massed assaults. In the Spring Offensive of 1918, however, Ludendorff 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. This German success relied greatly on the element of surprise.[citation needed]
British 55th (West Lancashire) Division soldiers blinded by tear gas during the Battle of Estaires, 10 April 1918
The front moved to within 120 kilometres (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 problems of re-supply were also exacerbated by increasing distances that now stretched over terrain that was shell-torn and often impassable to traffic.[217]
Following Operation Michael, Germany launched Operation Georgette against the northern English Channel ports. The Allies halted the drive after limited territorial gains by Germany. The German Army to the south then conducted Operations Blücher and Yorck, pushing broadly towards Paris. Germany launched Operation Marne (Second Battle of the Marne) on 15 July, in an attempt to encircle Reims. The resulting counter-attack, which started the Hundred Days Offensive, marked the first successful Allied offensive of the war. By 20 July, the Germans had retreated across the Marne to their starting lines,[218] having achieved little, and the German Army never 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. Anti-war marches became frequent and morale in the army fell. Industrial output was half the 1913 levels.
Hundred Days Offensive
Between April and November 1918, the Allies increased their front-line rifle strength while German strength fell by half.[219] Aerial view of ruins of Vaux-devant-Damloup, France, 1918
The Allied counteroffensive, known as the Hundred Days Offensive, began on 8 August 1918, with the Battle of Amiens. The battle involved over 400 tanks and 120,000 British, Dominion, and French troops, and by the end of its first day a gap 24 kilometres (15 mi) long had been created in the German lines. The defenders displayed a marked collapse in morale, causing Ludendorff to refer to this day as the «Black Day of the German army».[220][221][222] After an advance as far as 23 kilometres (14 mi), German resistance stiffened, and the battle was concluded on 12 August.
Rather than continuing the Amiens battle past the point of initial success, as had been done so many times in the past, the Allies shifted attention elsewhere. Allied leaders had now realised 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 to roll over it. They began to undertake attacks in quick order to take advantage of successful advances on the flanks, then broke them off when each attack lost its initial impetus.[223]
The day after the Offensive began, Ludendorff said: «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, replying, «I see that we must strike a balance. We have nearly reached the limit of our powers of resistance. The war must be ended.»[citation needed] On 13 August, at Spa, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, the Chancellor, and Foreign Minister Hintz agreed that the war could not be ended militarily and, on the following day, the German Crown Council decided that victory in the field was now most improbable. Austria and Hungary warned that they could continue the war only until December, and Ludendorff recommended immediate peace negotiations. Prince Rupprecht warned Prince Maximilian 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.»[224]
Battle of Albert
16th Bn (Canadian Scottish), advancing during the Battle of the Canal du Nord, 1918
British and Dominion forces launched the next phase of the campaign with the Battle of Albert on 21 August.[225] The assault was widened by French[224] and then further British forces in the following days. During the last week of August, the Allied pressure along a 110-kilometre (68 mi) front against the enemy was heavy and unrelenting. From German accounts, «Each day was spent in bloody fighting against an ever and again on-storming enemy, and nights passed without sleep in retirements to new lines.»[223]
Faced with these advances, on 2 September the German Oberste Heeresleitung («Supreme Army Command») issued orders to withdraw in the south to the Hindenburg Line. This ceded without a fight the salient seized the previous April.[226] According to Ludendorff, «We had to admit the necessity … to withdraw the entire front from the Scarpe to the Vesle.»[227][page needed] In nearly four weeks of fighting beginning on 8 August, over 100,000 German prisoners were taken. The German High Command realised that the war was lost and made attempts to reach a satisfactory end. On 10 September Hindenburg urged peace moves to Emperor Charles of Austria, and Germany appealed to the Netherlands for mediation. On 14 September 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.[224]
Allied advance to the Hindenburg Line
An American major, piloting an observation balloon near the front, 1918
In September the Allies advanced to the Hindenburg Line in the north and centre. The Germans continued to fight strong rear-guard actions and launched numerous counterattacks, but positions and outposts of the Line continued to fall, with the BEF alone taking 30,441 prisoners in the last week of September. On 24 September an assault by both the British and French came within 3 kilometres (2 mi) of St. Quentin. The Germans had now retreated to positions along or behind the Hindenburg Line. That same day, Supreme Army Command informed the leaders in Berlin that armistice talks were inevitable.[224]
The final assault on the Hindenburg Line began with the Meuse-Argonne offensive, launched by French and American troops on 26 September. The following week, co-operating French and American units broke through in Champagne at the Battle of Blanc Mont Ridge, forcing the Germans off the commanding heights, and closing towards the Belgian frontier.[228] On 8 October the line was pierced again by British and Dominion troops at the Battle of Cambrai.[229] The German army had to shorten its front and use the Dutch frontier as an anchor to fight rear-guard actions as it fell back towards Germany.
When Bulgaria signed a separate armistice on 29 September, Ludendorff, having been under great stress for months, suffered something similar to a breakdown. It was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defence. The collapse of the Balkans meant that Germany was about to lose its main supplies of oil and food. Its reserves had been used up, even as US troops kept arriving at the rate of 10,000 per day.[230][231][232] The Americans supplied more than 80% of Allied oil during the war, and there was no shortage.[233]
German Revolution 1918–1919
German Revolution, Kiel, 1918
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.
In northern Germany, the German Revolution of 1918–1919 began at the end of October 1918. Units of the German Navy refused to set sail for a last, large-scale operation in a war they believed to be as good as lost, initiating the uprising. The sailors’ revolt, which then ensued in the naval ports of Wilhelmshaven and Kiel, spread across the whole country within days and led to the proclamation of a republic on 9 November 1918, shortly thereafter to the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and to German surrender.[234][235][236][232]
New German government surrenders
With the military faltering and with widespread loss of confidence in the Kaiser leading to his abdication and fleeing of the country, Germany moved towards surrender. Prince Maximilian of Baden took charge of a new government on 3 October as Chancellor of Germany to negotiate with the Allies. Negotiations with President Wilson began immediately, in the hope that he would offer better terms than the British and French. Wilson demanded a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary control over the German military.[237] There was no resistance when the Social Democrat Philipp Scheidemann on 9 November declared Germany to be a republic. The Kaiser, kings and other hereditary rulers all were removed from power and Wilhelm fled to exile in the Netherlands. It was the end of Imperial Germany; a new Germany had been born as the Weimar Republic.[238]
Armistices and capitulations
Italian troops reach Trento during the Battle of Vittorio Veneto, 1918. Italy’s victory marked the end of the war on the Italian Front and secured the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The collapse of the Central Powers came swiftly. Bulgaria was the first to sign an armistice, the Armistice of Salonica on 29 September 1918.[239] German Emperor Wilhelm II in his telegram to Bulgarian Tsar Ferdinand I described situation: «Disgraceful! 62,000 Serbs decided the war!».[240][241] On the same day, the German Supreme Army Command informed Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Imperial Chancellor Count Georg von Hertling, that the military situation facing Germany was hopeless.[242]
On 24 October, the Italians began a push that rapidly recovered territory lost after the Battle of Caporetto. This culminated in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto, which marked the end of the Austro-Hungarian Army as an effective fighting force. The offensive also triggered the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During the last week of October, declarations of independence were made in Budapest, Prague, and Zagreb. On 29 October, the imperial authorities asked Italy for an armistice, but the Italians continued advancing, reaching Trento, Udine, and Trieste. On 3 November, Austria-Hungary sent a flag of truce to ask for an armistice (Armistice of Villa Giusti). The terms, arranged by telegraph with the Allied Authorities in Paris, were communicated to the Austrian commander and accepted. The Armistice with Austria was signed in the Villa Giusti, near Padua, on 3 November. Austria and Hungary signed separate armistices following the overthrow of the Habsburg Monarchy. In the following days, the Italian Army occupied Innsbruck and all Tyrol with over 20,000 soldiers.[243]
On 30 October, the Ottoman Empire capitulated, signing the Armistice of Mudros.[239]
Ferdinand Foch, second from right, pictured outside the carriage in Compiègne after agreeing to the armistice that ended the war there. The carriage was later chosen by Nazi Germany as the symbolic setting of Pétain’s June 1940 armistice.[244]
On 11 November, at 5:00 am, an armistice with Germany was signed in a railroad carriage at Compiègne. At 11 am on 11 November 1918—»the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month»—a ceasefire came into effect. During the six hours between the signing of the armistice and its taking effect, opposing armies on the Western Front began to withdraw from their positions, but fighting continued along many areas of the front, as commanders wanted to capture territory before the war ended. The occupation of the Rhineland took place following the Armistice. The occupying armies consisted of American, Belgian, British and French forces.
In November 1918, the Allies had ample supplies of men and materiel to invade Germany. Yet at the time of the armistice, no Allied force had crossed the German frontier, the Western Front was still some 720 kilometres (450 mi) from Berlin, and the Kaiser’s armies had retreated from the battlefield in good order. These factors enabled Hindenburg and other senior German leaders to spread the story that their armies had not really been defeated. This resulted in the stab-in-the-back myth,[245][246] which attributed Germany’s defeat not to its inability to continue fighting (even though up to a million soldiers were suffering from the 1918 flu pandemic and unfit to fight), but to the public’s failure to respond to its «patriotic calling» and the supposed intentional sabotage of the war effort, particularly by Jews, Socialists, and Bolsheviks.
The Allies had much more potential wealth they could spend on the war. One estimate (using 1913 US dollars) is that the Allies spent $58 billion on the war and the Central Powers only $25 billion. Among the Allies, the UK spent $21 billion and the US$17 billion; among the Central Powers Germany spent $20 billion.[247]
Aftermath
No other war had changed the map of Europe so dramatically. Four empires disappeared: the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian. Numerous nations regained their former independence, and new ones created. Four dynasties, together with their ancillary aristocracies, all fell after the war: the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs, the Romanovs, and the Ottomans. Belgium and Serbia were badly damaged, as was France, with 1.4 million soldiers dead,[248] not counting other casualties. Germany and Russia were similarly affected.[249]
Formal end of the war
A formal state of war between the two sides persisted for another seven months, until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on 28 June 1919. However, the American public opposed ratification of the treaty, mainly because of the League of Nations the treaty created; the United States did not formally end its involvement in the war until the Knox–Porter Resolution was signed in 1921. After the Treaty of Versailles, treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire were signed. However, the negotiation of the latter treaty with the Ottoman Empire was followed by strife (the Turkish War of Independence), and a final peace treaty between the Allied Powers and the country that would shortly become the Republic of Turkey was not signed until 24 July 1923, at Lausanne.
Some war memorials date the end of the war as being when the Versailles Treaty was signed in 1919, which was when many of the troops serving abroad finally returned to their home countries; by contrast, most commemorations of the war’s end concentrate on the armistice of 11 November 1918. Legally, the formal peace treaties were not complete until the last, the Treaty of Lausanne, was signed. Under its terms, the Allied forces divested Constantinople on 23 August 1923.
Peace treaties and national boundaries
After the war, the Paris Peace Conference imposed a series of peace treaties on the Central Powers officially ending the war. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles dealt with Germany, and building on Wilson’s 14th point, brought into being the League of Nations on 28 June 1919.[250][251]
Germany was forced, despite its vehement protests, to admit guilt for starting the war back in 1914, and therefore being liable for huge reparations. Specifically Germany had to acknowledge responsibility for «all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies». Similar clauses were included into the treaties signed by the other members of the Central Powers. This clause later became known, to Germans, as the War Guilt clause; the great majority of Germans felt humiliated and resentful on this point, and it became a major campaign issue for the Nazis in the 1920s. Overall the Germans felt they had been very unjustly dealt by what they called the «diktat of Versailles.» Schulze says, the Treaty placed Germany, «under legal sanctions, deprived of military power, economically ruined, and politically humiliated.»[252] Meanwhile, nations liberated from German rule viewed the Treaty as recognition of wrongs committed against small nations by much larger aggressive neighbors.[253] The Peace Conference required all the defeated powers to pay reparations for all the damage done to civilians, but in practice this meant only Germany.
Greek refugees from Smyrna, Turkey, 1922
Austria-Hungary was partitioned into several successor states, including Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, largely but not entirely along ethnic lines. Transylvania was shifted from Hungary to Greater Romania. The details were contained in the Treaty of Saint-Germain and the Treaty of Trianon. As a result of the Treaty of Trianon, 3.3 million Hungarians came under foreign rule. Although the Hungarians made up 54% of the population of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary, only 32% of its territory was left to Hungary. Between 1920 and 1924, 354,000 Hungarians fled former Hungarian territories attached to Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.
The Russian Empire, which had withdrawn from the war in 1917 after the October Revolution, lost much of its western frontier as the newly independent nations of Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were carved from it. Bessarabia was re-attached to Greater Romania, as it had been a Romanian territory for more than a thousand years.[254]
The Ottoman Empire disintegrated, and much of its non-Anatolian territory was awarded to various Allied powers as protectorates. The Turkish core was reorganised as the Republic of Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was to be partitioned by the Treaty of Sèvres of 1920. This treaty was never ratified by the Sultan and was rejected by the Turkish republican movement, leading to the Turkish Independence War and, ultimately, to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
National identities
Poland reemerged as an independent country, after more than a century. The Kingdom of Serbia and its dynasty, as a «minor Entente nation» and the country with the most casualties per capita,[255][256][257] became the backbone of a new multinational state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later renamed Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia, combining the Kingdom of Bohemia with parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, became a new nation. 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.
Map of territorial changes in Europe after World War I
In the British Empire, the war unleashed new forms of nationalism. In Australia and New Zealand the Battle of Gallipoli became known as those nations’ «Baptism of Fire». It was the first major war in which the newly established countries fought, and it was one of the first times that Australian troops fought as Australians, not just subjects of the British Crown. Anzac Day, commemorating the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, celebrates this defining moment.[258][259]
After the Battle of Vimy Ridge, where the Canadian divisions fought together for the first time as a single corps, Canadians began to refer to theirs as a nation «forged from fire».[260] Having succeeded on the same battleground where the «mother countries» had previously faltered, they were for the first time respected internationally for their own accomplishments. Canada entered the war as a Dominion of the British Empire and remained so, although it emerged with a greater measure of independence.[261][262] When Britain declared war in 1914, the dominions were automatically at war; at the conclusion, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were individual signatories of the Treaty of Versailles.[263]
The establishment of the modern state of Israel and the roots of the continuing Israeli–Palestinian conflict are partially found in the unstable power dynamics of the Middle East that resulted from World War I.[264] Prior to the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire had maintained a modest level of peace and stability throughout the Middle East.[265] With the fall of the Ottoman government, power vacuums developed and conflicting claims to land and nationhood began to emerge.[266] The political boundaries drawn by the victors of World War I were quickly imposed, sometimes after only cursory consultation with the local population. In many cases, these continue to be problematic in the 21st-century struggles for national identity.[267][268] While the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I was pivotal in contributing to the modern political situation of the Middle East, including the Arab-Israeli conflict,[269][270][271] the end of Ottoman rule also spawned lesser known disputes over water and other natural resources.[272]
Health and economic effects
The French military cemetery with Douaumont ossuary, which contains the remains of more than 130,000 unknown soldiers
The war had profound economic consequences. Of the 60 million European soldiers who were mobilised from 1914 to 1918, 8 million were killed, 7 million were permanently disabled, and 15 million were seriously injured. Germany lost 15.1% of its active male population, Austria-Hungary lost 17.1%, and France lost 10.5%.[273] In Germany civilian deaths were 474,000 higher than in peacetime, due in large part to food shortages and malnutrition that weakened resistance to disease.[274] By the end of the war, famine had killed approximately 100,000 people in Lebanon.[275] The best estimates of the death toll from the Russian famine of 1921 run from 5 million to 10 million people.[276] By 1922, there were between 4.5 million and 7 million homeless children in Russia as a result of nearly a decade of devastation from World War I, the Russian Civil War, and the subsequent famine of 1920–1922.[277] Numerous anti-Soviet Russians fled the country after the Revolution; by the 1930s, the northern Chinese city of Harbin had 100,000 Russians.[278] Thousands more emigrated to France, England, and the United States.
Emergency military hospital during the Spanish flu pandemic, which killed about 675,000 people in the United States alone. Camp Funston, Kansas, 1918
In Australia, the effects of the war on the economy were no less severe. The Australian prime minister, Billy Hughes, wrote to the British prime minister, Lloyd George, «You have assured us that you cannot get better terms. I much regret it, and hope even now that some way may be found of securing agreement for demanding reparation commensurate with the tremendous sacrifices made by the British Empire and her Allies.»[279] Australia received ₤5,571,720 war reparations, but the direct cost of the war to Australia had been ₤376,993,052, and, by the mid-1930s, repatriation pensions, war gratuities, interest and sinking fund charges were ₤831,280,947.[279] Of about 416,000 Australians who served, about 60,000 were killed and another 152,000 were wounded.[280]
Diseases flourished in the chaotic wartime conditions. In 1914 alone, louse-borne epidemic typhus killed 200,000 in Serbia.[281] From 1918 to 1922, Russia had about 25 million infections and 3 million deaths from epidemic typhus.[282] Whereas before World War I Russia had about 3.5 million cases of malaria, its people suffered more than 13 million cases in 1923.[283] In addition, a major influenza epidemic spread around the world. Overall, the 1918 flu pandemic killed at least 50 million people.[284][285]
Lobbying by Chaim Weizmann and fear that American Jews would encourage the US to support Germany culminated in the British government’s Balfour Declaration of 1917, endorsing creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.[286] A total of more than 1,172,000 Jewish soldiers served in the Allied and Central Power forces in World War I, including 275,000 in Austria-Hungary and 450,000 in Czarist Russia.[287]
The social disruption and widespread violence of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Russian Civil War sparked more than 2,000 pogroms in the former Russian Empire, mostly in the Ukraine.[288] An estimated 60,000–200,000 civilian Jews were killed in the atrocities.[289]
In the aftermath of World War I, Greece fought against Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal, a war which resulted in a massive population exchange between the two countries under the Treaty of Lausanne.[290] According to various sources,[291] several hundred thousand Pontic Greeks died during this period.[292]
Technology
Ground warfare
A Russian armoured car.
World War I began as a clash of 20th-century technology and 19th-century tactics, with the inevitably large ensuing casualties. By the end of 1917, however, the major armies, now numbering millions of men, had modernised and were making use of telephone, wireless communication,[293] armoured cars, tanks,[294] and aircraft. Infantry formations were reorganised, so that 100-man companies were no longer the main unit of manoeuvre; instead, squads of 10 or so men, under the command of a junior NCO, were favoured.
Artillery also underwent a revolution. 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 the 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 utilising heavy indirect fire. The German Army employed 150 mm (6 in) and 210 mm (8 in) howitzers in 1914, when typical French and British guns were only 75 mm (3 in) and 105 mm (4 in). The British had a 6-inch (152 mm) howitzer, but it was so heavy it had to be hauled to the field in pieces and assembled. The Germans also fielded Austrian 305 mm (12 in) and 420 mm (17 in) guns and, even at the beginning of the war, had inventories of various calibers of Minenwerfer, which were ideally suited for trench warfare.[295]
Much of the combat involved trench warfare, in which hundreds often died for each yard gained. Many of the deadliest battles in history occurred during World War I. Such battles include Ypres, the Marne, Cambrai, the Somme, Verdun, and Gallipoli. The Germans employed the Haber process of nitrogen fixation to provide their forces with a constant supply of gunpowder despite the British naval blockade.[296] Artillery was responsible for the largest number of casualties[297] and consumed vast quantities of explosives. The large number of head wounds caused by exploding shells and fragmentation forced the combatant nations to develop the modern steel helmet, led by the French, who introduced the Adrian helmet in 1915. It was quickly followed by the Brodie helmet, worn by British Imperial and US troops, and in 1916 by the distinctive German Stahlhelm, a design, with improvements, still in use today.
|
A Canadian soldier with mustard gas burns, ca. 1917–1918. |
The widespread use of chemical warfare was a distinguishing feature of the conflict. Gases used included chlorine, mustard gas and phosgene. Few war casualties were caused by gas,[299] as effective countermeasures to gas attacks were quickly created, such as gas masks. The use of chemical warfare and small-scale strategic bombing were both outlawed by the 1907 Hague Conventions, and both proved to be of limited effectiveness,[300] though they captured the public imagination.[301]
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 kilometres (62 mi), though shells were relatively light at 94 kilograms (210 lb). While the Allies also had railway guns, German models severely out-ranged and out-classed them.
British Vickers machine gun
Trenches, machine guns, air reconnaissance, barbed wire, and modern artillery with fragmentation shells helped bring the battle lines of World War I to a stalemate. The British and the French sought a solution with the creation of the tank and mechanised warfare. The British first tanks were used during the Battle of the Somme on 15 September 1916. Mechanical reliability was an issue, but the experiment proved its worth. Within a year, the British were fielding tanks by the hundreds, and they showed their potential during the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917, by breaking the Hindenburg Line, while combined arms teams captured 8,000 enemy soldiers and 100 guns. Meanwhile, the French introduced the first tanks with a rotating turret, the Renault FT, which became a decisive tool of the victory. The conflict also saw the introduction of Light automatic weapons and submachine guns, such as the Lewis Gun, the Browning automatic rifle, and the Bergmann MP18.
Another new weapon, the flamethrower, was first used by the German army and later adopted by other forces. Although not of high tactical value, the flamethrower was a powerful, demoralising weapon that caused terror on the battlefield. It was a dangerous weapon to wield, as its heavy weight made operators vulnerable targets.
Trench railways evolved to supply the enormous quantities of food, water, and ammunition required to support large numbers of soldiers in areas where conventional transportation systems had been destroyed. Internal combustion engines and improved traction systems for automobiles and trucks/lorries eventually rendered trench railways obsolete.
Naval
Germany deployed U-boats (submarines) after the war began. Alternating between restricted and unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, the Kaiserliche Marine employed them to deprive the British Isles of vital supplies. The deaths of British merchant sailors and the seeming invulnerability of U-boats led to the development of depth charges (1916), hydrophones (passive sonar, 1917), blimps, hunter-killer submarines (HMS R-1, 1917), forward-throwing anti-submarine weapons, and dipping hydrophones (the latter two both abandoned in 1918).[121] To extend their operations, the Germans proposed supply submarines (1916). Most of these would be forgotten in the interwar period until World War II revived the need.
Aviation
RAF Sopwith Camel. In April 1917, the average life expectancy of a British pilot on the Western Front was 93 flying hours[302]
Fixed-wing aircraft were first used militarily by the Italians in Libya on 23 October 1911 during the Italo-Turkish War for reconnaissance, soon followed by the dropping of grenades and aerial photography the next year. By 1914, their military utility was obvious. They were initially used for reconnaissance and ground attack. To shoot down enemy planes, anti-aircraft guns and fighter aircraft were developed. Strategic bombers were created, principally by the Germans and British, though the former used Zeppelins as well.[303] Towards the end of the conflict, aircraft carriers were used for the first time, with HMS Furious launching Sopwith Camels in a raid to destroy the Zeppelin hangars at Tondern in 1918.[304]
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,[305] so that if there was 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 were not developed until the end of the war; they were also opposed by the British leadership, who feared they might promote cowardice.)[306]
Recognised for their value as observation platforms, balloons were important targets for enemy aircraft. To defend them 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. Thus, the reconnaissance value of blimps and balloons contributed to the development of air-to-air combat between all types of aircraft, 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, and indeed the resulting panic led to the diversion of several squadrons of fighters from France.[303][306]
War crimes
Genocide and ethnic cleansing
Austro-Hungarian soldiers executing Serb civilians during the occupation of Mačva, 1914
The ethnic cleansing of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian population, including mass deportations and executions, during the final years of the Ottoman Empire is considered genocide.[307] The Ottomans saw the entire Armenian population as an enemy[308] that had chosen to side with Russia at the beginning of the war.[309] In early 1915, a number of Armenians joined the Russian forces, and the Ottoman government used this as a pretext to issue the Tehcir Law (Law on Deportation). This authorized the deportation of Armenians from the Empire’s eastern provinces to Syria between 1915 and 1917. The exact number of deaths is unknown: while Balakian gives a range of 250,000 to 1.5 million for the deaths of Armenians,[310] the International Association of Genocide Scholars estimates over 1 million.[307][311] The government of Turkey has consistently rejected charges of genocide, arguing that those who died were victims of inter-ethnic fighting, famine, or disease during World War I.[312] Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[313][314][315]
Picture showing Armenians killed during the Armenian Genocide. Image taken from Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, written by Henry Morgenthau, Sr. and published in 1918.[316]
Russian Empire
Main article: Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire
See also: Russian occupation of Eastern Galicia, 1914-1915, Volhynia, and Volga Germans
Many pogroms accompanied the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Russian Civil War. 60,000–200,000 civilian Jews were killed in the atrocities throughout the former Russian Empire.[317]
«Rape of Belgium»
The German invaders treated any resistance—such as sabotaging rail lines—as illegal and immoral, and shot the offenders and burned buildings in retaliation. In addition, they tended to suspect that most civilians were potential «franc-tireurs» (guerrillas) and, accordingly, took and sometimes killed hostages from among the civilian population. The German army executed over 6,500 French and Belgian civilians between August and November 1914, usually in near-random large-scale shootings of civilians ordered by junior German officers. The German Army destroyed 15,000–20,000 buildings—most famously the university library at Louvain—and generated a wave of refugees of over a million people. Over half the German regiments in Belgium were involved in major incidents.[318] Thousands of workers were shipped to Germany to work in factories. British propaganda dramatizing the «Rape of Belgium» attracted much attention in the United States, while Berlin said it was legal and necessary because of the threat of «franc-tireurs» like those in France in 1870.[319] The British and French magnified the reports and disseminated them at home and in the United States, where they played a major role in dissolving support for Germany.[320][321]
Soldiers’ experiences
The First Contingent of the Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps to the 1 Lincolns, training in Bermuda for the Western Front, winter 1914–1915. The two BVRC contingents suffered 75% casualties.
The British soldiers of the war were initially volunteers but increasingly were conscripted into service. Surviving veterans, returning home, often found that they could only discuss their experiences amongst themselves. Grouping together, they formed «veterans’ associations» or «Legions».
Prisoners of war
German prisoners in a French prison camp
About eight million men surrendered and were held in POW camps during the war. All nations pledged to follow the Hague Conventions on fair treatment of prisoners of war. POWs’ rate of survival was generally much higher than that of their peers at the front.[322] Individual surrenders were uncommon; large units usually surrendered en masse. At the siege of Maubeuge about 40,000 French soldiers surrendered, at the battle of Galicia Russians took about 100,000 to 120,000 Austrian captives, at the Brusilov Offensive about 325,000 to 417,000 Germans and Austrians surrendered to Russians, at the Battle of Tannenberg 92,000 Russians surrendered. When the besieged garrison of Kaunas surrendered in 1915, some 20,000 Russians became prisoners, at the battle near Przasnysz (February–March 1915) 14,000 Germans surrendered to Russians, at the First Battle of the Marne about 12,000 Germans surrendered to the Allies. 25–31% of Russian losses (as a proportion of those captured, wounded, or killed) were to prisoner status; for Austria-Hungary 32%, for Italy 26%, for France 12%, for Germany 9%; for Britain 7%. Prisoners from the Allied armies totalled about 1.4 million (not including Russia, which lost 2.-3.5[Clarification needed]
million men as prisoners. In some research it is stated that the number of Russian prisoners was 2,417,000). From the Central Powers about 3.3 million men became prisoners; most of them surrendered to Russians.[323]
Germany held 2.5 million prisoners; Russia held 2.2-2.9 million; while Britain and France held about 720,000. Most were captured just prior to the Armistice. The United States held 48,000. The most dangerous moment was the act of surrender, when helpless soldiers were sometimes gunned down.[324][325] Once prisoners reached a camp, conditions were, in general, satisfactory (and much better than in World War II), thanks in part to the efforts of the International Red Cross and inspections by neutral nations. However, conditions were terrible in Russia: starvation was common for prisoners and civilians alike; about 15–20% of the prisoners in Russia died (in some researches it is stated that 2.5% of prisoners in Russia died, and in Central powers imprisonment – 8% of Russians.[326] In Germany, food was scarce, but only 5% died.[327][328][329]
An emaciated Indian Army soldier who survived the Siege of Kut
The Ottoman Empire often treated POWs poorly.[330] 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.[331]
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.»[332] The survivors were then forced to build a railway through the Taurus Mountains.
In Russia, when the prisoners from the Czech Legion of the Austro-Hungarian army were released in 1917, they re-armed themselves and briefly became a military and diplomatic force during the Russian Civil War.
While the Allied prisoners of the Central Powers were quickly sent home at the end of active hostilities, the same treatment was not granted to Central Power prisoners of the Allies and Russia, many of whom served as forced labor, e.g., in France until 1920. They were released only after many approaches by the Red Cross to the Allied Supreme Council.[333] German prisoners were still being held in Russia as late as 1924.[334]
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 akin to modern «embedded» positions within the opposing land and naval forces. These military attachés and other observers prepared voluminous first-hand accounts of the war and analytical papers.
For example, former US Army Captain Granville Fortescue followed the developments of the Gallipoli Campaign from an embedded perspective within the ranks of the Turkish defenders; and his report was passed through Turkish censors before being printed in London and New York.[335] However, this observer’s role was abandoned when the U.S. entered the war, as Fortescue immediately re-enlisted, sustaining wounds at Montfaucon-d’Argonne in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, September 1918.[336]
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 not the 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 throughout the Great War.[337]
Support and opposition to the war
Support
Poster urging women to join the British war effort, published by the Young Women’s Christian Association
In the Balkans, Yugoslav nationalists such as the leader Ante Trumbić in the Balkans strongly supported the war, desiring the freedom of Yugoslavs from Austria-Hungary and other foreign powers and the creation of an independent Yugoslavia.[338] The Yugoslav Committee was formed in Paris on 30 April 1915 but shortly moved its office to London; Trumbić led the committee.[338] In April 1918, the Rome Congress of Oppressed Nationalities met, including Czechoslovak, Italian, Polish, Transylvanian, and Yugoslav representatives who urged the Allies to support national self-determination for the peoples residing within Austria-Hungary.[339]
In the Middle East, Arab nationalism soared in Ottoman territories in response to the rise of Turkish nationalism during the war, with Arab nationalist leaders advocating the creation of a pan-Arab state.[340] In 1916, the Arab Revolt began in Ottoman-controlled territories of the Middle East in an effort to achieve independence.[340]
A number of socialist parties initially supported the war when it began in August 1914.[339] But European socialists split on national lines, with the concept of class conflict held by radical socialists such as Marxists and syndicalists being overborne by their patriotic support for war.[341] Once the war began, Austrian, British, French, German, and Russian socialists followed the rising nationalist current by supporting their countries’ intervention in the war.[342]
Italian nationalism was stirred by the outbreak of the war and was initially strongly supported by a variety of political factions. One of the most prominent and popular Italian nationalist supporters of the war was Gabriele d’Annunzio, who promoted Italian irredentism and helped sway the Italian public to support intervention in the war.[343] The Italian Liberal Party, under the leadership of Paolo Boselli, promoted intervention in the war on the side of the Allies and utilised the Dante Alighieri Society to promote Italian nationalism.[344] Italian socialists were divided on whether to support the war or oppose it; some were militant supporters of the war, including Benito Mussolini and Leonida Bissolati.[345] However, the Italian Socialist Party decided to oppose the war after anti-militarist protestors were killed, resulting in a general strike called Red Week.[346] The Italian Socialist Party purged itself of pro-war nationalist members, including Mussolini.[346] Mussolini, a syndicalist who supported the war on grounds of irredentist claims on Italian-populated regions of Austria-Hungary, formed the pro-interventionist Il Popolo d’Italia and the Fasci Riviluzionario d’Azione Internazionalista («Revolutionary Fasci for International Action») in October 1914 that later developed into the Fasci di Combattimento in 1919, the origin of fascism.[347] Mussolini’s nationalism enabled him to raise funds from Ansaldo (an armaments firm) and other companies to create Il Popolo d’Italia to convince socialists and revolutionaries to support the war.[348]
Opposition
Sackville Street (now O’Connell Street), Dublin, after the 1916 Easter Rising
The trade union and socialist movements had long voiced their opposition to a war, which they argued would only mean that workers would kill other workers in the interest of capitalism. Once war was declared, however, many socialists and trade unions backed their governments. Among the exceptions were the Bolsheviks, the Socialist Party of America, and the Italian Socialist Party, and individuals such as Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, and their followers in Germany. There were also small anti-war groups in Britain and France.
Benedict XV, elected to the papacy less than three months into World War I, made the war and its consequences the main focus of his early pontificate. In stark contrast to his predecessor,[349] five days after his election he spoke of his determination to do what he could to bring peace. His first encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, given 1 November 1914, was concerned with this subject. Seen as being biased in favour of the other and resented for weakening national morale, Benedict XV found his abilities and unique position as a religious emissary of peace ignored by the belligerent powers. The 1915 Treaty of London between Italy and the Triple Entente included secret provisions whereby the Allies agreed with Italy to ignore papal peace moves towards the Central Powers. Consequently, the publication of Benedict’s proposed seven-point Peace Note of August 1917 was roundly ignored by all parties except Austria-Hungary.[350]
The Deserter, 1916. Anti-war cartoon depicting Jesus facing a firing squad made up of soldiers from five different European countries
In Britain, in 1914, the Public Schools Officers’ Training Corps annual camp was held at Tidworth Pennings, near Salisbury Plain. Head of the British Army Lord Kitchener was to review the cadets, but the imminence of the war prevented him. General Horace Smith-Dorrien was sent instead. He surprised the two-or-three thousand cadets by declaring (in the words of Donald Christopher Smith, a Bermudian cadet who was present), that war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing, that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin, and that the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be decimated. In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a British General who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments, but during the next four years, those of us who survived the holocaust—probably not more than one-quarter of us—learned how right the General’s prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it.[351] Voicing these sentiments did not hinder Smith-Dorien’s career, or prevent him from doing his duty in World War I to the best of his abilities.
1917 – Execution at Verdun at the time of the mutinies German Revolution, November 1918
Many countries jailed those who spoke out against the conflict. These included Eugene Debs in the United States and Bertrand Russell in Britain. In the U.S., the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 made it a federal crime to oppose military recruitment or make any statements deemed «disloyal». Publications at all critical of the government were removed from circulation by postal censors,[352] and many served long prison sentences for statements of fact deemed unpatriotic.
A number of nationalists opposed intervention, particularly within states that the nationalists were hostile to. Although the vast majority of Irish people consented to participate in the war in 1914 and 1915, a minority of advanced Irish nationalists staunchly opposed taking part.[353] The war began amid the Home Rule crisis in Ireland that had resurfaced in 1912, and, by July 1914, there was a serious possibility of an outbreak of civil war in Ireland.[354] Irish nationalists and Marxists attempted to pursue Irish independence, culminating in the Easter Rising of 1916, with Germany sending 20,000 rifles to Ireland in order to stir unrest in Britain.[354] The UK government placed Ireland under martial law in response to the Easter Rising, although, once the immediate threat of revolution had dissipated, the authorities did try to make concessions to nationalist feeling.[355]
Other opposition came from conscientious objectors – some socialist, some religious – who refused to fight. In Britain, 16,000 people asked for conscientious objector status.[356] Some of them, most notably prominent peace activist Stephen Henry Hobhouse, refused both military and alternative service.[357] Many suffered years of prison, including solitary confinement and bread and water diets. Even after the war, in Britain many job advertisements were marked «No conscientious objectors need apply».
The Central Asian Revolt started in the summer of 1916, when the Russian Empire government ended its exemption of Muslims from military service.[358]
In 1917, a series of French Army Mutinies led to dozens of soldiers being executed and many more imprisoned.
In Milan, in May 1917, Bolshevik revolutionaries organised and engaged in rioting calling for an end to the war, and managed to close down factories and stop public transportation.[359] The Italian army was forced to enter Milan with tanks and machine guns to face Bolsheviks and anarchists, who fought violently until 23 May when the army gained control of the city. Almost 50 people (including three Italian soldiers) were killed and over 800 people arrested.[359]
In September 1917, Russian soldiers in France began questioning why they were fighting for the French at all and mutinied.[360] In Russia, opposition to the war led to soldiers also establishing their own revolutionary committees, which helped foment the October Revolution of 1917, with the call going up for «bread, land, and peace». The Bolsheviks agreed to a peace treaty with Germany, the peace of Brest-Litovsk, despite its harsh conditions.
In northern Germany, the end of October 1918, saw the beginning of the German Revolution of 1918–1919. Units of the German Navy refused to set sail for a last, large-scale operation in a war which they saw as good as lost; this initiated the uprising. The sailors’ revolt which then ensued in the naval ports of Wilhelmshaven and Kiel spread across the whole country within days and led to the proclamation of a republic on 9 November 1918 and shortly thereafter to the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Conscription
The Conscription Crisis of 1917 in Canada erupted when the Conservative Prime Minister, Robert Borden, brought in compulsory military service through the Military Service Act over the objection of French-speaking Quebecers.[361] It opened a political gap between French Canadians, who believed their true loyalty should be to Canada and not to the British Empire, and members of the Anglophone majority, who saw the war as a duty to both Britain and Canada. Out of approximately 625,000 Canadians who served, about 60,000 were killed and another 173,000 wounded.[362]
In Australia, a sustained pro-conscription campaign by Billy Hughes, the Prime Minister, caused a split in the Australian Labor Party, so Hughes formed the Nationalist Party of Australia in 1917 to pursue the matter. Nevertheless, the labour movement, the Catholic Church, and Irish nationalist expatriates successfully opposed Hughes’ push, which was rejected in two plebiscites.
In Britain, conscription resulted in the calling up of nearly every physically fit man in Britain – 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.[363]
Legacy
File:Beaumont hamel newfoundland memorial.jpg The Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial in the Somme
…»Strange, friend,» I said, «Here is no cause to mourn.»
«None,» said the other, «Save the undone years,
The hopelessness»…
The first tentative efforts to comprehend the meaning and consequences of modern warfare began during the initial phases of the war, and this process continued throughout and after the end of hostilities.
Memorials
A typical village war memorial to soldiers killed in World War I
Memorials were erected in thousands of villages and towns. Close to battlefields, those buried in improvised burial grounds were gradually moved to formal graveyards under the care of organisations such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the American Battle Monuments Commission, the German War Graves Commission, and Le Souvenir français. Many of these graveyards also have central monuments to the missing or unidentified dead, such as the Menin Gate memorial and the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing of the Somme.
On 3 May 1915, during the Second Battle of Ypres, Lieutenant Alexis Helmer was killed. At his graveside, his friend John McCrae, M.D., of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, wrote the memorable poem In Flanders Fields as a salute to those who perished in the Great War. Published in Punch on 8 December 1915, it is still recited today, especially on Remembrance Day and Memorial Day.[364][365]
Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri, is a United States memorial dedicated to all Americans who served in World War I. The site was dedicated on 1 November 1921, when the supreme Allied commanders spoke to a crowd of more than 100,000 people. It was the only time in history these leaders were together in one place – Lieutenant General Baron Jacques of Belgium; General Armando Diaz of Italy; Marshal Ferdinand Foch of France; General Pershing of the United States; and Admiral D. R. Beatty of Britain. After three years of construction, the Liberty Memorial was completed and President Calvin Coolidge delivered the dedication speech to a crowd of 150,000 people in 1926. Liberty Memorial is also home to The National World War I Museum, the only museum in the United States dedicated solely to World War I.
The UK Government has budgeted substantial resources to the commemoration of the war during the period 2014 to 2018. The lead body is the Imperial War Museum.[366]
Cultural memory
World War I had a lasting impact on social memory. It was seen by many in Britain as signalling the end of an era of stability stretching back to the Victorian period, and across Europe many regarded it as a watershed.[367] Historian Samuel Hynes explained:
A generation of innocent young men, their heads full of high abstractions like Honour, Glory and England, went off to war to make the world safe for democracy. They were slaughtered in stupid battles planned by stupid generals. Those who survived were shocked, disillusioned and embittered by their war experiences, and saw that their real enemies were not the Germans, but the old men at home who had lied to them. They rejected the values of the society that had sent them to war, and in doing so separated their own generation from the past and from their cultural inheritance.[368]
This has become the most common perception of World War I, perpetuated by the art, cinema, poems, and stories published subsequently. Films such as All Quiet on the Western Front, Paths of Glory and King & Country have perpetuated the idea, while war-time films including Camrades, Poppies of Flanders, and Shoulder Arms indicate that the most contemporary views of the war were overall far more positive.[369] Likewise, the art of Paul Nash, John Nash, Christopher Nevison, and Henry Tonks in Britain painted a negative view of the conflict in keeping with the growing perception, while popular war-time artists such as Muirhead Bone painted more serene and pleasant interpretations subsequently rejected as inaccurate.[368] Several historians like John Terriane, Niall Ferguson and Gary Sheffield have challenged these interpretations as partial and polemical views:
These beliefs did not become widely shared because they offered the only accurate interpretation of wartime events. In every respect, the war was much more complicated than they suggest. In recent years, historians have argued persuasively against almost every popular cliché of World War I. It has been pointed out that, although the losses were devastating, their greatest impact was socially and geographically limited. The many emotions other than horror experienced by soldiers in and out of the front line, including comradeship, boredom, and even enjoyment, have been recognised. The war is not now seen as a ‘fight about nothing’, but as a war of ideals, a struggle between aggressive militarism and more or less liberal democracy. It has been acknowledged that British generals were often capable men facing difficult challenges, and that it was under their command that the British army played a major part in the defeat of the Germans in 1918: a great forgotten victory.[369]
Though these views have been discounted as «myths»[368][370] these perceptions of the war, they are common.[369] They have dynamically changed according to contemporary influences, reflecting in the 1950s perceptions of the war as ‘aimless’ following the contrasting Second World War and emphasising conflict within the ranks during times of class conflict in the 1960s.[369] The majority of additions to the contrary are often rejected.[369]
A book distributed by the US War Department to veterans in 1919
The social trauma caused by unprecedented rates of casualties manifested itself in different ways, which have been the subject of subsequent historical debate.[371] Some people were revolted by nationalism and its results, and began to work towards a more internationalist world, supporting organisations such as the League of Nations. Pacifism became increasingly popular. Others had the opposite reaction, feeling that only strength and military might could be relied upon in a chaotic and inhumane world. Anti-modernist views were an outgrowth of the many changes taking place in society.
The experiences of the war led to a collective trauma shared by many from all participating countries. The optimism of la belle époque was destroyed, and those who had fought in the war were referred to as the Lost Generation.[372] For years afterwards, people mourned the dead, the missing, and the many disabled.[373] Many soldiers returned with severe trauma, suffering from shell shock (also called neurasthenia, a condition related to posttraumatic stress disorder).[374] Many more returned home with few after-effects; however, their silence about the war contributed to the conflict’s growing mythological status.[371] In Britain, mass mobilisation, large casualty rates, and the collapse of the Edwardian era made a strong impression on society. Though many participants did not share in the experiences of combat or spend any significant time at the front, or had positive memories of their service, the images of suffering and trauma became the widely shared perception.[371] Such historians as Dan Todman, Paul Fussell, and Samuel Heyns have all published works since the 1990s arguing that these common perceptions of the war are factually incorrect.[371]
Discontent in Germany
The rise of Nazism and fascism included a revival of the nationalist spirit and a rejection of many post-war changes. Similarly, the popularity of the stab-in-the-back legend (German: Dolchstoßlegende) was a testament to the psychological state of defeated Germany and was a rejection of responsibility for the conflict. This conspiracy theory of betrayal became common, and the German populace came to see themselves as victims. The widespread acceptance of the «stab-in-the-back» theory delegitimized the Weimar government and destabilized the system, opening it to extremes of right and left. A sense of disillusionment and cynicism became pronounced, with nihilism growing.
Communist and fascist movements around Europe drew strength from this theory and enjoyed a new level of popularity. These feelings were most pronounced in areas directly or harshly affected by the war. Adolf Hitler was able to gain popularity by utilising German discontent with the still controversial Treaty of Versailles.[375] World War II was in part a continuation of the power struggle never fully resolved by World War I. Furthermore, it was common for Germans in the 1930s to justify acts of aggression in terms of perceived injustices imposed by the victors of World War I.[376][377][378] American historian William Rubinstein wrote that:
The ‘Age of Totalitarianism’ included nearly all of the infamous examples of genocide in modern history, headed by the Jewish Holocaust, but also comprising the mass murders and purges of the Communist world, other mass killings carried out by Nazi Germany and its allies, and also the Armenian genocide of 1915. All these slaughters, it is argued here, had a common origin, the collapse of the elite structure and normal modes of government of much of central, eastern and southern Europe as a result of World War I, without which surely neither Communism nor Fascism would have existed except in the minds of unknown agitators and crackpots.[379]
Views in the United States
The announcing of the armistice on 11 November 1918. Philadelphia
US intervention in the war, as well as the Wilson administration itself, became deeply unpopular. This was reflected in the U.S. Senate’s rejection of the Versailles Treaty and membership in the League of Nations. In the interwar era, a consensus arose that US intervention had been a mistake, and the Congress passed laws in an attempt to preserve U.S. neutrality in any future conflict. Polls taken in 1937 and the opening months of World War II established that nearly 60% regarded intervention in WWI as a mistake, with only 28% opposing that view. But, in the period between the fall of France and the attack on Pearl Harbor, public opinion changed dramatically and, for the first time, a narrow plurality rejected the idea that the war had been a mistake.[380]
Economic effects
«The Girl Behind the Gun» – women workers, 1915
One of the most dramatic effects of the war was the expansion of governmental powers and responsibilities in Britain, France, the United States, and the Dominions of the British Empire. In order to harness all the power of their societies, governments created new ministries and powers. New taxes were levied and laws enacted, all designed to bolster the war effort; many have lasted to this day. Similarly, the war strained the abilities of some formerly large and bureaucratised governments, such as in Austria-Hungary and Germany; however, any analysis of the long-term effects were clouded by the defeat of these governments.
Gross domestic product (GDP) increased for three Allies (Britain, Italy, and U.S.), but decreased in France and Russia, in neutral Netherlands, and in the three main Central Powers. The shrinkage in GDP in Austria, Russia, France, and the Ottoman Empire reached 30 to 40%. In Austria, for example, most pigs were slaughtered, so at war’s end there was no meat.
In all nations, the government’s share of GDP increased, surpassing 50% in both Germany and France and nearly reaching that level in Britain. To pay for purchases in the United States, Britain cashed in its extensive 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 great increase in U.S. government lending to the Allies. After 1919, the U.S. demanded repayment of these loans. The repayments were, in part, 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. In 1934, Britain owed the US$4.4 billion[381] of World War I debt.[382]
Macro- and micro-economic consequences devolved from the war. 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 labourers sent to war. This aided the struggle for voting rights for women.[383]
Hyperinflation reduced banknotes’ value so much that they were used as wallpaper, ruining many savers. Between 1914, a dollar was worth 4.2 marks; by November 1923, it was worth 4.2 trillion[384] marks.[385]
World War I further compounded the gender imbalance, adding to the phenomenon of surplus women. The deaths of nearly one million men[Clarification needed]
during the war increased the gender gap by almost a million; from 670,000 to 1,700,000. The number of unmarried women seeking economic means grew dramatically. In addition, demobilisation and economic decline following the war caused high unemployment. The war increased female employment; however, the return of demoblised men displaced many from the workforce, as did the closure of many of the wartime factories. Hence women who had worked during the war found themselves struggling to find jobs and those approaching working age were not offered the opportunity.
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 1917–1918 as the unions expressed grievances regarding prices, alcohol control, pay disputes, fatigue from overtime and working on Sundays, and inadequate housing.
Britain turned to her colonies for help in obtaining essential war materials whose supply had become difficult from traditional sources. Geologists such as Albert Ernest Kitson were called on to find new resources of precious minerals in the African colonies. Kitson discovered important new deposits of manganese, used in munitions production, in the Gold Coast.[386]
Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (the so-called «war guilt» clause) stated Germany accepted responsibility for «all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.»[387] It was worded as such to lay a legal basis for reparations, and the same clause was inserted, mutatis mutandis «in the treaties with Austria and Hungary, neither of whom interpreted it as declaration of war guilt.[388] In 1921, the total reparation sum was placed at 132 billion gold marks. However, «Allied experts knew that Germany could not pay» this sum. The total sum was divided into three categories, with the third being «deliberately designed to be chimerical» and its «primary function was to mislead public opinion … into believing the» total sum «was being maintained.»[389] Thus, 50 billion gold marks (12.5 billion dollars) «represented the actual Allied assessment of German capacity to pay» and «therefore … represented the total German reparations» figure that had to be paid.[389] Furthermore, this figure could be paid in cash or in kind (coal, timber, chemical dyes etc.). In addition, some of the territory lost — via the treaty of Versailles — was credited towards the reparation figure as was other acts such helping to restore the Library of Louvain.[390] In 1932 the payment of reparations was suspended by the international community, by which point Germany had only paid the equivalent of 20.598 billon gold marks in reparations.[391] With the rise of Adolf Hitler, all bonds and loans that had been issued and taken out during the 1920s and early 1930s were cancelled. David Andelman notes «refusing to pay doesn’t make an agreement null and void. The bonds, the agreement, still exist.» Thus, following the Second World War, at the London Conference in 1953, Germany agreed to resume payment on the money borrowed. On 3 October 2010, Germany made the final payment on these bonds.[392]
Media
Allied bombing runs over German lines |
French and British WWI-era tanks |
«We’re All Going Calling on the Kaiser» performed by Arthur Fields and the Peerless Quartet. By James Alexander Brennan. Edison Records, May 1918. |
«The Makin’s of the U.S.A.» (Von Tilzer; Peerless Quartet. Columbia Records, A2522 side B, released March 1918) |
See also
- Death rates in the 20th century
- European Civil War
- List of people associated with World War I
- List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll
- Lists of wars
- Lists of World War I topics
- World War I medal abbreviations
- Key Effects of World war 1
Notes
- ↑ «British Army statistics of the Great War». 1914-1918.net. http://www.1914-1918.net/faq.htm. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
- ↑ Figures are for the British Empire
- ↑ Figures are for Metropolitan France and its colonies
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 273
- ↑ Hargrove, Julia (2010). Tomb of the Unknowns. Lorenz Educational Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-7877-8592-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=-9FuoN0LHKQC&pg=PA5. Retrieved 18 July 2013.
- ↑ Karen Zeinert (2001). Those Extraordinary Women of World War 1. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-7613-1913-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=DsATANBmr68C&pg=PA14.
- ↑ Eugene L. Rasor (2000). Winston S. Churchill: 1874–1965 ; a Comprehensive Historiography and Annotated Bibliography. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-313-30546-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=6PpNUK5u1lkC&pg=PA64.
- ↑ «Were they always called World War I and World War II?». Ask History. http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/were-they-always-called-world-war-i-and-world-war-ii. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
- ↑ Willmott 2003, p. 307
- ↑ Willmott 2003, pp. 10–11
- ↑ Willmott 2003, p. 15
- ↑ Keegan 1988, p. 8
- ↑ Bade & Brown 2003, pp. 167–168
- ↑ Taylor 1998, pp. 80–93
- ↑ Djokić 2003, p. 24
- ↑ Evans 2004, p. 12
- ↑ Martel 2003, p. xii ff
- ↑ «Oxford English Dictionary». http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/81104. Retrieved March 2012.
- ↑ Baldwin, Elbert Francis (1914). The World War: How It Looks to the Nations Involved and What It Means to Us. New York: MacMillan Company. This book covers the war up to 20 November 1914.
- ↑ Shapiro & Epstein 2006, p. 329 citing a wire service report in The Indianapolis Star, 20 September 1914.
- ↑ Repington 1920
- ↑ Clark 2013, pp. 121–152.
- ↑ Zeldin 1977, p. 117.
- ↑ Keegan 1998, p. 52.
- ↑ Medlicott 1945, pp. 66-70.
- ↑ Keenan 1986, p. 20.
- ↑ Willmott 2003, p. 15.
- ↑ Fay 1930, pp. 290–293.
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 Willmott 2003, p. 21.
- ↑ Herwig 1988, pp. 72–73.
- ↑ Moll & Luebbert 1980, pp. 153–185.
- ↑ Stevenson 2016, p. 45.
- ↑ Crisp 1976, pp. 174-196.
- ↑ Stevenson 2016, p. 42.
- ↑ McMeekin 2015, pp. 66-67.
- ↑ Clark 2013, p. 86.
- ↑ Clark 2013, pp. 251–252.
- ↑ McMeekin 2015, p. 69.
- ↑ McMeekin 2015, p. 73.
- ↑ Willmott 2003, pp. 2–23.
- ↑ Clark 2013, p. 288.
- ↑ Keegan 1998, pp. 48–49.
- ↑ Finestone & Massie 1981, p. 247.
- ↑ Smith 2010, p. ?.
- ↑ Butcher 2014, p. 103.
- ↑ Butcher 2014, pp. 188-189.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994, p. 16.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994, p. 17.
- ↑ «European powers maintain focus despite killings in Sarajevo – This Day in History». History.com. 30 June 1914. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/european-powers-maintain-focus-despite-killings-in-sarajevo.
- ↑ Willmott 2003, p. 26.
- ↑ Clark, Christopher (25 June 2014). «Month of Madness». BBC Radio 4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t7p27.
- ↑ Djordjević, Dimitrije; Spence, Richard B. (1992). Scholar, patriot, mentor: historical essays in honor of Dimitrije Djordjević. East European Monographs. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-88033-217-0. //books.google.com/books?id=CDJpAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA313. «Following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in June 1914, Croats and Muslims in Sarajevo joined forces in an anti-Serb pogrom.»
- ↑ Reports Service: Southeast Europe series. American Universities Field Staff.. 1964. p. 44. //books.google.com/books?id=QGtWAAAAMAAJ. Retrieved 7 December 2013. «… the assassination was followed by officially encouraged anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo …»
- ↑ Kröll, Herbert (2008). Austrian-Greek encounters over the centuries: history, diplomacy, politics, arts, economics. Studienverlag. p. 55. ISBN 978-3-7065-4526-6. //books.google.com/books?id=uJRnAAAAMAAJ. Retrieved 1 September 2013. «… arrested and interned some 5.500 prominent Serbs and sentenced to death some 460 persons, a new Schutzkorps, an auxiliary militia, widened the anti-Serb repression.»
- ↑ Tomasevich 2001, p. 485.
- ↑ Schindler, John R. (2007). Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad. Zenith Imprint. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-61673-964-5. //books.google.com/books?id=c8Xb6x2XYvIC&pg=PA29.
- ↑ Velikonja 2003, p. 141.
- ↑ Stevenson 1996, p. 12.
- ↑ MacMillan 2013, p. 532.
- ↑ Willmott 2003, p. 27.
- ↑ Fromkin 2004, pp. 196–197.
- ↑ MacMillan 2013, p. 536.
- ↑ Lieven 2016, p. 326.
- ↑ Clark 2013, pp. 526-527.
- ↑ Martel 2014, p. 335.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994, p. 27.
- ↑ Clayton 2003, p. 45.
- ↑ Clark 2013, pp. 539-541.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994, p. 29.
- ↑ Coogan 2009, p. 48.
- ↑ Tsouras, Peter (2017-07-19). «The Kaiser’s Question, 1914» (in en-US). https://www.historynet.com/kaisers-question-1914.htm.
- ↑ McMeekin 2014, pp. 342,349.
- ↑ MacMillan 2013, pp. 579-580, 585.
- ↑ Crowe 2001, pp. 4–5.
- ↑ Willmott 2003, p. 29.
- ↑ Clark 2013, pp. 550-551.
- ↑ Strachan 2003, pp. 292–296, 343–354.
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 172.
- ↑ Schindler 2002, pp. 159–195.
- ↑ «Veliki rat – Avijacija». RTS, Radio televizija Srbije, Radio Television of Serbia. http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/Dru%C5%A1tvo/1516279/Veliki+rat+-+avijacija.html.
- ↑ «How was the first military airplane shot down». http://www.nationalgeographic.rs/vesti/3842-prvi-ratni-avion-oboren-u-istoriji-pao-na-kragujevac.html.
- ↑ Horne 1964, p. 22.
- ↑ Holmes 2014, pp. 194, 211.
- ↑ Stevenson 2012, p. 54.
- ↑ Jackson 2018, p. 55.
- ↑ Lieven 2016, p. 327.
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp. 376–378.
- ↑ Horne 1964, p. 221.
- ↑ Donko 2012, p. 79.
- ↑ Keegan 1998, pp. 224–232.
- ↑ Falls 1960, pp. 79–80.
- ↑ Farwell 1989, p. 353.
- ↑ Brown 1994, pp. 197–198.
- ↑ Brown 1994, pp. 201–203.
- ↑ «Participants from the Indian subcontinent in the First World War». Memorial Gates Trust. http://www.mgtrust.org/ind1.htm.
- ↑ Horniman, Benjamin Guy (1984). British administration and the Amritsar massacre. Mittal Publications. p. 45.
- ↑ Raudzens 1990, p. 424.
- ↑ Raudzens 1990, pp. 421–423.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994, p. 99.
- ↑ Goodspeed 1985, p. 199 (footnote).
- ↑ Duffy, Michael (22 August 2009). «Weapons of War: Poison Gas». Firstworldwar.com. http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/gas.htm.
- ↑ Love 1996.
- ↑ Dupuy 1993, p. 1042.
- ↑ Grant 2005, p. 276.
- ↑ Lichfield, John (21 February 2006). «Verdun: myths and memories of the ‘lost villages’ of France». The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/verdun-myths-and-memories-of-the-lost-villages-of-france-5335493.html.
- ↑ Harris 2008, p. 271.
- ↑ «Living conditions». https://trenchwarfareworldwar1.weebly.com/living-conditions.html.
- ↑ «The Naval Balance of Power in 1914». 4 August 2014. https://warandsecurity.com/2014/08/04/the-naval-balance-of-power-in-1914/.
- ↑ Sempa, Francis P. (30 December 2014). «The Geopolitical Vision of Alfred Thayer Mahan». The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2014/12/the-geopolitical-vision-of-alfred-thayer-mahan/.
- ↑ Taylor 2007, pp. 39–47.
- ↑ Keene 2006, p. 5.
- ↑ Halpern 1995, p. 293.
- ↑ Zieger 2001, p. 50.
- ↑ Jeremy Black (June 2016). «Jutland’s Place in History». pp. 16–21.
- ↑ 115.0 115.1 115.2 115.3 Sheffield, Garry. «The First Battle of the Atlantic». BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/battle_atlantic_ww1_01.shtml.
- ↑ Gilbert 2004, p. 306.
- ↑ von der Porten 1969.
- ↑ Jones 2001, p. 80.
- ↑ ((Nova Scotia House of Assembly Committee on Veterans Affairs)) (9 November 2006). «Committee Hansard». http://nslegislature.ca/index.php/committees/committee_hansard/C11/va_2006nov09.
- ↑ Chickering, Roger; Förster, Stig; Greiner, Bernd (2005). A world at total war: global conflict and the politics of destruction, 1937–1945. Publications of the German Historical Institute. Washington, DC: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83432-2. //books.google.com/books?id=evVPoSwqrG4C&pg=PA73.
- ↑ 121.0 121.1 Price 1980
- ↑ «The Balkan Wars and World War I». p. 28. Library of Congress Country Studies.
- [2]_132-0″>↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 241–.
- ↑ Neiberg 2005, pp. 54–55.
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp. 1075–1076.
- ↑ DiNardo 2015, p. 102.
- ↑ Neiberg 2005, pp. 108–110.
- ↑ Hall, Richard (2010). Balkan Breakthrough: The Battle of Dobro Pole 1918. Indiana University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-253-35452-5.
- ↑ Tucker, Wood & Murphy 1999, pp. 150–152.
- ↑ Korsun, N.. «The Balkan Front of the World War» (in ru). militera.lib.ru. http://militera.lib.ru/h/korsun_ng4/06.html.
- ↑ Doughty 2005, p. 491.
- ↑ Gettleman, Marvin; Schaar, Stuart, eds (2003). The Middle East and Islamic world reader (4th ed.). New York: Grove Press. pp. 119–120. ISBN 978-0-8021-3936-8. //books.google.com/books?id=srLGT3dwTogC.
- ↑ January, Brendan (2007). Genocide : modern crimes against humanity. Minneapolis, Minn.: Twenty-First Century Books. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-7613-3421-7. //books.google.com/books?id=IoPMDp2WA6cC.
- ↑ Lieberman, Benjamin (2013). The Holocaust and Genocides in Europe. New York: Continuum Publishing Corporation. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-1-4411-9478-7. //books.google.com/books?id=ySFMAQAAQBAJ.
- ↑ Arthur J. Barker, The Neglected War: Mesopotamia, 1914–1918 (London: Faber, 1967)
- ↑ Crawford, John; McGibbon, Ian (2007). New Zealand’s Great War: New Zealand, the Allies and the First World War. Exisle Publishing. pp. 219–220. //books.google.com/books?id=mtEEuD_-2SMC&pg=PA219.
- ↑ Fromkin 2004, p. 119.
- ↑ 138.0 138.1 Hinterhoff 1984, pp. 499–503
- ↑ a b c The Encyclopedia Americana, 1920, v.28, p.403
- ↑ Northcote, Dudley S. (1922). «Saving Forty Thousand Armenians». Current History. New York Times Co.. https://books.google.com/books?id=4LYqAAAAYAAJ.
- ↑ Sachar 1970, pp. 122–138.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994.
- ↑ Hanioglu, M. Sukru (2010). A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press. pp. 180–181. ISBN 978-0-691-13452-9.
- ↑ Gardner, Hall (2015). The Failure to Prevent World War I: The Unexpected Armageddon. Ashgate. p. 120. //books.google.com/books?id=631TBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA120.
- ↑ Page, Thomas Nelson (1920). Italy and the world war. Scribners. pp. 142–208. //books.google.com/books?id=nQgyAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA142.
- ↑ Marshall & Josephy 1982, p. 108
- ↑ Thompson, Mark (2009). The White War: Life and Death on the Italian Front, 1915–1919. London: Faber and Faber. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-571-22334-3.
- ↑ Praga, Giuseppe; Luxardo, Franco (1993). History of Dalmatia. Giardini. p. 281. ISBN 88-427-0295-1.
- ↑ 149.0 149.1 O’Brien, Paul (2005). Mussolini in the First World War: the Journalist, the Soldier, the Fascist. Oxford, England; New York: Berg. p. 17. ISBN 1-84520-051-9.
- ↑ Hickey 2003, pp. 60–65.
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp. 585–589.
- ↑ Laurentiu-Cristian Dumitru, Preliminaries of Romania’s entering the World War I,
No. 1/2012, Bulletin of «Carol I» National Defence University, Bucharest, p.171 - ↑ Michael B. Barrett, Prelude to Blitzkrieg: The 1916 Austro-German Campaign in Romania (2013)
- ↑ Falls 1961, p. 285.
- ↑ Clark 1927.
- ↑ Béla, Köpeczi. Erdély története. Akadémiai Kiadó. http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/571.html. Retrieved 26 November 2009.
- ↑ Béla, Köpeczi (1998). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 978-84-8371-020-3. http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/429.html. Retrieved 26 November 2009.
- ↑ Erlikman, Vadim (2004) (in ru). Потери народонаселения в 20. веке. Moscow: Русская панорама. ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1.
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 715.
- ↑ Meyer 2006, pp. 152–154, 161, 163, 175, 182.
- ↑ Smele
- ↑ Schindler 2003.
- ↑ 163.0 163.1 Alexander Lanoszka; Michael A. Hunzeker (11 November 2018). «Why the First War lasted so long». https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/11/why-the-first-world-war-lasted-so-long/?.
- ↑ 164.0 164.1 Keegan 1998, p. 345.
- ↑ Kernek 1970, pp. 721–766.
- ↑ Beckett 2007, p. 523.
- ↑ Winter 2014, pp. 110–132.
- ↑ Keith Hitchins, Clarendon Press, 1994, Rumania 1866-1947, p. 269
- ↑ Wheeler-Bennett 1938, pp. 36–41.
- ↑ Treaty of Bucharest with the Central Powers in May 1918
- ↑ R. J. Crampton, Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, Routledge, 1994, ISBN 978-0-415-05346-4, p. 24–25
- ↑ Stevenson 2012, pp. 315-316.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994, p. 157.
- ↑ Stevenson 2012, p. 258.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994, p. 159.
- ↑ Cooper 2009, p. 278.
- ↑ 177.0 177.1 177.2 Stevenson 2012, p. 316.
- ↑ Stevenson 2012, p. 250.
- ↑ Stevenson 2012, pp. 260-261.
- ↑ Stevenson 2012, p. 262.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994, pp. 308-309.
- ↑ Stevenson 2012, p. 317.
- ↑ MacMillan 2001, p. 14.
- ↑ Gilbert 1994, p. 318.
- ↑ Grotelueschen 2006, pp. 14-15.
- ↑ Millett & Murray 1988, p. 143.
- ↑ Grotelueschen 2006, pp. 10-11.
- ↑ Stevenson 2012, p. 318.
- ↑ Grotelueschen 2006, pp. 44-46.
- ↑ Stevenson 2012, p. 403.
- ↑ Clayton 2003, p. 132.
- ↑ Horne 1964, p. 224.
- ↑ Clayton 2003, pp. 122-123.
- ↑ Clayton 2003, p. 124.
- ↑ Clayton 2003, p. 129.
- ↑ Strachan 2003, p. 244.
- ↑ Inglis 1995, p. 2.
- ↑ Humphries 2007, p. 66.
- ↑ Horne 1964, p. 323.
- ↑ Clayton 2003, p. 131.
- ↑ Marshall & Josephy 1982, p. 211.
- ↑ Horne 1964, p. 325.
- ↑ Heyman 1997, pp. 146–147.
- ↑ Kurlander 2006.
- ↑ Shanafelt 1985, pp. 125–130.
- ↑ Erickson 2001, p. 163.
- ↑ Moore, A. Briscoe (1920). The Mounted Riflemen in Sinai & Palestine: The Story of New Zealand’s Crusaders. Christchurch: Whitcombe & Tombs. p. 67. OCLC 156767391.
- ↑ Falls, Cyril (1930). Military Operations. Part I Egypt & Palestine: Volume 2 From June 1917 to the End of the War. Official History of the Great War Based on Official Documents by Direction of the Historical Section of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Maps compiled by A.F. Becke. London: HM Stationery Office. p. 59. OCLC 1113542987.
- ↑ Wavell, Earl (1968). «The Palestine Campaigns». In Sheppard, Eric William. A Short History of the British Army (4th ed.). London: Constable & Co.. pp. 153–155. OCLC 35621223.
- ↑ «Text of the Decree of the Surrender of Jerusalem into British Control». First World War.com. http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/jerusalemdecree.htm.
- ↑ Bruce, Anthony (2002). The Last Crusade: The Palestine Campaign in the First World War. London: John Murray. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-7195-5432-2.
- ↑ «Who’s Who – Kress von Kressenstein». First World War.com. http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/kressenstein.htm.
- ↑ «Who’s Who – Otto Liman von Sanders». First World War.com. http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/liman.htm.
- ↑ Erickson 2001, p. 195.
- ↑ Daily Telegraph Wednesday 15 August 1917, reprinted on p. 26 of Daily Telegraph Tuesday 15 August 2017
- ↑ Westwell 2004.
- ↑ Gray 1991, p. 86.
- ↑ Rickard 2007.
- ↑ Ayers 1919, p. 104.
- ↑ Schreiber, Shane B. (2004). Shock Army of the British Empire: The Canadian Corps in the Last 100 Days of the Great War. St. Catharines, ON: Vanwell. ISBN 978-1-55125-096-0. OCLC 57063659.[page needed]
- ↑ Rickard 2001.
- ↑ Brown, Malcolm (1999). 1918: Year of Victory. London: Pan. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-330-37672-3.
- ↑ 223.0 223.1 Pitt 2003
- ↑ 224.0 224.1 224.2 224.3 Gray & Argyle 1990
- ↑ Terraine 1963.
- ↑ Nicholson 1962.
- ↑ Ludendorff 1919.
- ↑ McLellan, p. 49.
- ↑ Christie 1997, p. ?.
- ↑ Stevenson 2004, p. 380.
- ↑ Hull 2006, pp. 307–310.
- ↑ 232.0 232.1 Stevenson 2004, p. 383.
- ↑ Painter 2012, p. 25.
- ↑ K. Kuhl. «Die 14 Kieler Punkte». http://www.kurkuhl.de/docs/kieler_14punkte.pdf.
- ↑ Dähnhardt, D. (1978). Revolution in Kiel. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag. p. 91. ISBN 3-529-02636-0.
- ↑ Wette, Wolfram (2006). «Die Novemberrevolution – Kiel 1918». In Fleischhauer; Turowski. Kieler Erinnerungsorte. Boyens.
- ↑ Stevenson 2004, p. 385.
- ↑ Stevenson 2004, Chapter 17.
- ↑ 239.0 239.1 «1918 Timeline». http://www.indiana.edu/~league/1918.htm.
- ↑ «The Battle of Dobro Polje – The Forgotten Balkan Skirmish That Ended WW1». 21 September 2017. https://militaryhistorynow.com/2017/09/21/knock-out-blow-at-dobro-polje-six-facts-about-the-obscure-battle-that-ended-ww1/.
- ↑ «The Germans Could no Longer Keep up the Fight». 22 February 2017. https://historycollection.co/ten-facts-battle-dobro-polje-battle-led-allied-victory-world-war/9/.
- ↑ Axelrod 2018, p. 260.
- ↑ Andrea di Michele (2014). «Trento, Bolzano e Innsbruck: l’occupazione militare italiana del Tirolo (1918–1920)» (in it). pp. 436–437. http://www.agiati.it/UploadDocs/12255_Art_20_di_michele.pdf. «La forza numerica del contingente italiano variò con il passare dei mesi e al suo culmine raggiunse i 20–22.000 uomini. [The numerical strength of the Italian contingent varied with the passing of months and at its peak reached 20–22,000 men.]»
- ↑ «Clairière de l’Armistice» (in fr). Ville de Compiègne. http://www.compiegne.fr/decouvrir/clairierearmistice.asp.
- ↑ Baker 2006.
- ↑ Chickering 2004, pp. 185–188.
- ↑ Hardach, Gerd (1977). The First World War, 1914–1918. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 153. ISBN 0-520-03060-5. https://archive.org/details/firstworldwar1910000hardnone, using estimated made by Menderhausen, H. (1941). The Economics of War. New York: Prentice-Hall. p. 305. OCLC 774042.
- ↑ «France’s oldest WWI veteran dies», BBC News, 20 January 2008.
- ↑ Spencer Tucker (2005), Encyclopedia of World War I, ABC-CLIO, p. 273. ISBN 1-85109-420-2
- ↑ Magliveras 1999, pp. 8–12
- ↑ Northedge 1986, pp. 35–36
- ↑ Hagen Schulze (1998). Germany: A New History. Harvard U.P.. p. 204. http://books.google.com/books?id=B84ZaAdGbS4C&pg=PA204.
- ↑ The Surrogate Hegemon in Polish Postcolonial Discourse Ewa Thompson, Rice University [3]
- ↑ Clark 1927
- ↑ «Appeals to Americans to Pray for Serbians». 27 July 1918. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9406E4D8143EE433A25754C2A9619C946996D6CF.
- ↑ «Serbia Restored». 5 November 1918. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=990CEFDC113BEE3ABC4D53DFB7678383609EDE.
- ↑ Simpson, Matt (22 August 2009). «The Minor Powers During World War One – Serbia». firstworldwar.com. http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/minorpowers_serbia.htm.
- ↑ «‘ANZAC Day’ in London; King, Queen, and General Birdwood at Services in Abbey». 26 April 1916. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9400E1DD113FE233A25755C2A9629C946796D6CF&scp=12&sq=New+Zealand+anzac&st=p.
- ↑ «The ANZAC Day tradition». Australian War Memorial. http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac_tradition.asp. Retrieved 2 May 2008.
- ↑ «Vimy Ridge». Canadian War Museum. http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/guerre/vimy-ridge-e.aspx. Retrieved 22 October 2008.
- ↑ «The War’s Impact on Canada». Canadian War Museum. http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/guerre/war-impact-e.aspx. Retrieved 22 October 2008.
- ↑ «Canada’s last WW1 vet gets his citizenship back». CBC News. 9 May 2008. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/05/09/babcock-citizen.html.
- ↑ Documenting Democracy. Retrieved 31 March 2012
- ↑ Economist 2005
- ↑ Hooker 1996
- ↑ Muller 2008
- ↑ Kaplan 1993
- ↑ Salibi 1993
- ↑ Evans 2005
- ↑ Israeli Foreign Ministry
- ↑ Gelvin 2005
- ↑ Isaac & Hosh 1992
- ↑ Kitchen 2000, p. 22
- ↑ N.P. Howard (1993). «The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade of Germany, 1918–19». German History. pp. 161–88. http://libcom.org/files/blockade%20Germany_0.pdf. table p 166, with 271,000 excess deaths in 1918 and 71,000 in the first half of 1919 while the blockade was still in effect.
- ↑ Saadi
- ↑ «Food as a Weapon». Hoover Digest. Hoover Institution. 30 January 2007. http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/6731711.html.
- ↑ Ball 1996, pp. 16, 211
- ↑ «The Russians are coming (Russian influence in Harbin, Manchuria, China; economic relations)». The Economist (US). 14 January 1995. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16051029.html. (via Highbeam.com)
- ↑ 279.0 279.1 Souter 2000, p. 354
- ↑ Tucker, Spencer (2005). «Encyclopedia of World War I». Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. p. 273. ISBN 1-85109-420-2. http://books.google.com/?id=2YqjfHLyyj8C&pg=PA273&dq&q. Retrieved 7 May 2010.
- ↑ Tschanz
- ↑ Conlon
- ↑ William Hay Taliaferro (1972). «Medicine and the War». pp. http://books.google.com/books?id=HcOAnAINJZAC&pg=PA65 65. ISBN 0-8369-2629-3.
- ↑ Knobler 2005
- ↑ «Influenza Report». http://www.influenzareport.com/ir/overview.htm. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- ↑ «Error: no
|title=
specified when using {{Cite web}}«. Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/50162/Balfour-Declaration. - ↑ «Timeline of The Jewish Agency for Israel:1917–1919». The Jewish Agency for Israel. http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Jewish+History/Zionist+Institutions/JAFI+Timeline/1917-1919.htm. Retrieved 29 August 2013.
- ↑ «Pogroms». Encyclopaedia Judaica. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0016_0_15895.html. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- ↑ «Jewish Modern and Contemporary Periods (ca. 1700–1917)». Jewish Virtual Library. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/modtimeline.html. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- ↑ «The Diaspora Welcomes the Pope», Der Spiegel Online. 28 November 2006.
- ↑ R. J. Rummel, «The Holocaust in Comparative and Historical Perspective,» 1998, Idea Journal of Social Issues, Vol.3 no.2
- ↑ Chris Hedges (17 September 2000). «A Few Words in Greek Tell of a Homeland Lost». The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/17/nyregion/a-few-words-in-greek-tell-of-a-homeland-lost.html.
- ↑ Hartcup 1988, p. 154
- ↑ Hartcup 1988, pp. 82–86
- ↑ Mosier 2001, pp. 42–48
- ↑ Hartcup 1988
- ↑ Raudzens 1990, p. 421
- ↑ 298.0 298.1 Wilfred Owen: poems, (Faber and Faber, 2004)
- ↑ Raudzens 1990
- ↑ Heller 1984
- ↑ Postwar pulp novels on future «gas wars» included Reginald Glossop’s 1932 novel Ghastly Dew and Neil Bell’s 1931 novel The Gas War of 1940.
- ↑ Eric Lawson, Jane Lawson (2002). «The First Air Campaign: August 1914– November 1918«. Da Capo Press. p.123. ISBN 0-306-81213-4
- ↑ 303.0 303.1 Cross 1991
- ↑ Cross 1991, pp. 56–57
- ↑ Winter 1983
- ↑ 306.0 306.1 Johnson 2001
- ↑ 307.0 307.1 International Association of Genocide Scholars (13 June 2005). «Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan». Genocide Watch (via archive.org). Archived from the original on 6 October 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071006024502/http://www.genocidewatch.org/TurkishPMIAGSOpenLetterreArmenia6-13-05.htm.
- ↑ Lewy 2005, p. 57
- ↑ Ferguson 2006, p. 177
- ↑ Balakian 2003, pp. 195–196
- ↑ «International Association Of Genocide Scholars» (PDF). http://www.genocidescholars.org/sites/default/files/document%09%5Bcurrent-page%3A1%5D/documents/US%20Congress_%20Armenian%20Resolution.pdf. Retrieved 2013-03-12.
- ↑ Fromkin 1989, pp. 212–215
- ↑ International Association of Genocide Scholars. «Resolution on genocides committed by the Ottoman empire» (PDF). Archived from the original on 22 April 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080422005726/http://genocidescholars.org/images/Resolution_on_genocides_committed_by_the_Ottoman_Empire.pdf.
- ↑ Gaunt, David. Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2006.
- ↑ Schaller, Dominik J; Zimmerer, Jürgen (2008). «Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies – introduction». pp. 7–14. Digital object identifier:10.1080/14623520801950820.
- ↑ «Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story». BYU. 1918. http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/morgenthau/Morgen25.htm.
- ↑ «Pogroms». Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jewish Virtual Library. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0016_0_15895.html. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- ↑ Horne & Kramer 2001, ch 1–2, esp. p. 76
- ↑ The claim of «franc-tireurs» in Belgium has been rejected: Horne & Kramer 2001, ch 3–4
- ↑ Horne & Kramer 2001, ch 5–8
- ↑ Keegan 1998, pp. 82–83
- ↑ Phillimore & Bellot 1919, pp. 4–64
- ↑ Ferguson 1999, pp. 368–9
- ↑ Blair 2005
- ↑ Cook 2006, pp. 637&-665
- ↑ «Максим Оськин — Неизвестные трагедии Первой мировой Пленные Дезертиры Беженцы — стр 24 — Читаем онлайн». Profismart.ru. http://profismart.ru/web/bookreader-115250-24.php. Retrieved 2013-03-13.
- ↑ Speed 1990
- ↑ Ferguson 1999
- ↑ Morton 1992
- ↑ Bass 2002, p. 107
- ↑ «The Mesopotamia campaign». British National Archives. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/battles/mesopotamia.htm. Retrieved 10 March 2007.
- ↑ «Prisoners of Turkey: Men of Kut Driven along like beasts«. Stolen Years: Australian Prisoners of War. Australian War Memorial. http://www.awm.gov.au/stolenyears/ww1/turkey/story2.asp. Retrieved 10 December 2008.
- ↑ «ICRC in WWI: overview of activities». Icrc.org. http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JQGQ. Retrieved 15 June 2010.
- ↑ «GERMANY: Notes, Sep. 1, 1924». Time. 1 September 1924. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,768983,00.html. Retrieved 15 June 2010.
- ↑ Fortescue 1915, p. 1
- ↑ «Granville Roland Fortescue». Arlington National Cemetery. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/fortesc.htm. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- ↑ Sisemore 2003
- ↑ 338.0 338.1 Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 1189
- ↑ 339.0 339.1 Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 1001
- ↑ 340.0 340.1 Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 117
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 1069
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 884
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 335
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 219
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 209
- ↑ 346.0 346.1 Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 596
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 826
- ↑ Dennis Mack Smith. 1997. Modern Italy; A Political History. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Pp. 284.
- ↑ Roger Aubert; Margit Resch (tr.), John Dolan (1981). «History of the Church». In Hubert Jedin. London: Burns & Oates. p. 521. ISBN 0-86012-091-0.
- ↑ «Who’s Who — Pope Benedict XV». firstworldwar.com. 22 August 2009. http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/popebenedict.htm.
- ↑ «Merely For the Record»: The Memoirs of Donald Christopher Smith 1894–1980. By Donald Christopher Smith. Edited by John William Cox, Jr. Bermuda.
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs namedKarp-PoW-1979
- ↑ Pennell, Catriona (2012). «A Kingdom United: Popular Responses to the Outbreak of the First World War in Britain and Ireland». Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-959058-2.
- ↑ 354.0 354.1 Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 584
- ↑ O’Halpin, Eunan, The decline of the union: British government in Ireland, 1892–1920, (Dublin, 1987)
- ↑ Lehmann & van der Veer 1999, p. 62
- ↑ Brock, Peter, These Strange Criminals: An Anthology of Prison Memoirs by Conscientious Objectors to Military Service from the Great War to the Cold War, p. 14, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8020-8707-8
- ↑ «Soviet Union — Uzbeks». Country-data.com. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12499.html. Retrieved 2013-03-13.
- ↑ 359.0 359.1 Seton-Watson, Christopher. 1967. Italy from Liberalism to Fascism: 1870 to 1925. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Pp. 471
- ↑ Cockfield 1997, pp. 171–237
- ↑ «The Conscription Crisis». CBC.ca.
- ↑ «World War I». Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/91513/Canada/43004/World-War-I. Retrieved 5 December 2009.
- ↑ Havighurst 1985, p. 131
- ↑ «John McCrae». Historica. http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10200.
- ↑ Evans David. «John McCrae». Canadian Encyclopedia. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0004849.
- ↑ Commemoration website
- ↑ Mark David Sheftall (2010). «Altered Memories of the Great War: Divergent Narratives of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada».
- ↑ 368.0 368.1 368.2 Hynes, Samuel Lynn (1991). «A war imagined: the First World War and English culture». Atheneum. pp. i–xii. ISBN 978-0-689-12128-9.
- ↑ 369.0 369.1 369.2 369.3 369.4 Todman, Daniel (2005). «The Great War: myth and memory». Hambledon and London. pp. 153–221. ISBN 978-1-85285-459-1.
- ↑ Fussell, Paul (2000). «The Great War and modern memory». Oxford University Press. pp. 1–78. ISBN 978-0-19-513332-5. http://books.google.com/?id=D9iNQYfeKdwC. Retrieved 18 May 2010.
- ↑ 371.0 371.1 371.2 371.3 Todman, D. The Great War, Myth and Memory, p. xi–xv.
- ↑ Roden
- ↑ Wohl 1979
- ↑ Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp. 108–1086
- ↑ Kitchen, Martin. «The Ending of World War One, and the Legacy of Peace». BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/war_end_01.shtml.
- ↑ «World War II». Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. Archived from the original on 4 July 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080704030736/http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110199/World-War-II. Retrieved 12 November 2009.
- ↑ Baker, Kevin (June 2006). «Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth». Archived from the original on 15 July 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20060715174503/http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html.
- ↑ Chickering 2004
- ↑ Rubinstein, W. D. (2004). «Genocide: a history». Pearson Education. p. 7. ISBN 0-582-50601-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=nMMAk4VwLLwC.
- ↑ «1941 Gallup poll». Google. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RPUaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YEwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3742,5638207. Retrieved 15 June 2010.
- ↑ 109 in this context – see Long and short scales
- ↑ «What’s a little debt between friends?». BBC News. 10 May 2006.
- ↑ Noakes, Lucy (2006). «Women in the British Army: war and the gentle sex, 1907–1948». Abingdon, England: Routledge. p. 48. ISBN 0-415-39056-7.
- ↑ 1012 in this context – see Long and short scales
- ↑ «Germany in the Era of Hyperinflation». Spiegel.de. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,641758,00.html. Retrieved 2013-03-13.
- ↑ Green 1938, pp. CXXVI
- ↑ Treaty of Versailles, article 231
- ↑ Marls, The Myths of Reparations, pp. 231–2
- ↑ 389.0 389.1 Marks, p. 237
- ↑ Marks, pp. 223–234
- ↑ Marks, p. 233
- ↑ Suddath, Claire (4 October 2010). «Why Did World War I Just End?». Time magazine. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2023140,00.html. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
References
- For a comprehensive bibliography see List of books about World War I
- American Battle Monuments Commission (1938). «American Armies and Battlefields in Europe: A History, Guide, and Reference Book». U.S. Government Printing Office. OCLC 59803706. http://www.secstate.wa.gov/history/ww1/maps.aspx.
- «Army Art of World War I». United States Army Center of Military History: Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of American History. 1993. OCLC 28608539. http://www.secstate.wa.gov/history/publications_detail.aspx?p=28.
- Bade, Klaus J; Brown, Allison (tr.) (2003). «Migration in European History». Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-18939-4. OCLC 52695573. (translated from the German)
- Baker, Kevin (June 2006). «Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth».
- Balakian, Peter (2003). «The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response». New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-019840-4. OCLC 56822108.
- Ball, Alan M (1996). «And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918–1930». Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-20694-6., reviewed in Hegarty, Thomas J (March–June 1998). «And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918–1930». http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-38678108.html. (via Highbeam.com)
- Bass, Gary Jonathan (2002). «Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals». Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 424pp. ISBN 0-691-09278-8. OCLC 248021790.
- Blair, Dale (2005). «No Quarter: Unlawful Killing and Surrender in the Australian War Experience, 1915–1918». Charnwood, Australia: Ginninderra Press. ISBN 1-74027-291-9. OCLC 62514621.
- Brands, Henry William (1997). «T. R.: The Last Romantic». New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06958-4. OCLC 36954615.
- Brown, Judith M. (1994). «Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy». Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-873113-2.
- Chickering, Rodger (2004). «Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918». Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-83908-4. OCLC 55523473.
- Clark, Charles Upson (1927). «Bessarabia, Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea». New York: Dodd, Mead. OCLC 150789848. http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/clark/meta_pag.shtml.
- Cockfield, Jamie H (1997). «With snow on their boots : The tragic odyssey of the Russian Expeditionary Force in France during World War 1». Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-22082-0.
- Conlon, Joseph M. «The historical impact of epidemic typhus» (PDF). Montana State University. http://entomology.montana.edu/historybug/TYPHUS-Conlon.pdf. Retrieved 21 April 2009.
- Cook, Tim (2006). «The politics of surrender: Canadian soldiers and the killing of prisoners in the First World War». pp. 637–665. Digital object identifier:10.1353/jmh.2006.0158.
- Cross, Wilbur L (1991). «Zeppelins of World War I». New York: Paragon Press. ISBN 978-1-55778-382-0. OCLC 22860189.
- Djokić, Dejan (2003). «Yugoslavism : histories of a failed idea, 1918–1992». London: Hurst. OCLC 51093251.
- Doughty, Robert A. (2005). «Pyrrhic victory: French strategy and operations in the Great War». Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01880-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=vZRmHkdGk44C.
- Duffy, Michael. «Somme». First World War.com. ISBN 0-297-84689-2. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm. Retrieved 25 February 2007.
- Dupuy, R. Ernest and Trevor N. (1993). «The Harper’s Encyclopedia of Military History, 4th Edition». Harper Collins Publishers. ISBN 978-0-06-270056-8.
- Evans, David (2004). «The First World War». London: Hodder Arnold. ISBN 0-340-88489-4. OCLC 224332259.
- Evans, Leslie (27 May 2005). «Future of Iraq, Israel-Palestine Conflict, and Central Asia Weighed at International Conference». UCLA International Institute. http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=24920. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
- Falls, Cyril Bentham (1960). «The First World War». London: Longmans. ISBN 1-84342-272-7. OCLC 460327352.
- Farwell, Byron (1989). «The Great War in Africa, 1914–1918». W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-30564-7.
- Ferguson, Niall (1999). «The Pity of War». New York: Basic Books. pp. 563pp. ISBN 0-465-05711-X. OCLC 41124439.
- Ferguson, Niall (2006). «The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West». New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 1-59420-100-5.
- Fortescue, Granville Roland (28 October 1915). «London in Gloom over Gallipoli; Captain Fortescue in Book and Ashmead-Bartlett in Lecture Declare Campaign Lost». New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9907E3DE1E38E633A2575BC2A9669D946496D6CF.
- Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 0-8050-0857-8.
- Fromkin, David (2001). «A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East». New York: Owl Books. p. 119. ISBN 0-8050-6884-8. OCLC 53814831.
- Fromkin, David (2004). «Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?». New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-375-41156-9. OCLC 53937943.
- Gelvin, James L (2005). «The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War». Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85289-7. OCLC 59879560.
- Grant, R.G. (2005). «Battle: A Visual Journey Through 5,000 Years of Combat«. DK Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7566-5578-5.
- Gray, Randal; Argyle, Christopher (1990). «Chronicle of the First World War». New York: Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-2595-4. OCLC 19398100.
- Gilbert, Martin (1994). «First World War». Stoddart Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7737-2848-6.
- Gilbert, Martin (2004). «The First World War: A Complete History». Clearwater, Florida: Owl Books. p. 306. ISBN 0-8050-7617-4. OCLC 34792651.
- Goodspeed, Donald James (1985). «The German Wars 1914–1945». Random House; Bonanza. ISBN 978-0-517-46790-9.
- Gray, Randal (1991). «Kaiserschlacht 1918: the final German offensive». Osprey. ISBN 978-1-85532-157-1.
- Green, John Frederick Norman (1938). «Obituary: Albert Ernest Kitson«. Geological Society.
- Halpern, Paul G (1995). «A Naval History of World War I». New York: Routledge. ISBN 1-85728-498-4. OCLC 60281302.
- Harris, J. P. (2008). «Douglas Haig and the First World War». Cambridge: CUP. ISBN 978-0-521-89802-7.
- Hartcup, Guy (1988). «The War of Invention; Scientific Developments, 1914–18». Brassey’s Defence Publishers. ISBN 0-08-033591-8.
- Havighurst, Alfred F (1985). «Britain in transition: the twentieth century». University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-31971-1.
- Heller, Charles E (1984). «Chemical warfare in World War I : the American experience, 1917–1918». Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Combat Studies Institute. OCLC 123244486. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Heller/HELLER.asp.
- Heyman, Neil M (1997). «World War I». Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-29880-7. OCLC 36292837.
- Hickey, Michael (2003). «The Mediterranean Front 1914–1923». New York: Routledge. pp. 60–65. ISBN 0-415-96844-5. OCLC 52375688.
- Hinterhoff, Eugene (1984). «The Campaign in Armenia». In Young, Peter. Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War I. New York: Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 0-86307-181-3.
- Hooker, Richard (1996). «The Ottomans». Washington State University. Archived from the original on 8 October 1999. http://web.archive.org/web/19991008042702/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/OTTOMAN/OTTOMAN1.HTM. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
- Horne, John; Kramer, Alan (2001). «German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial». Yale University Press. OCLC 47181922.
- Hovannisian, Richard G. (1967). «Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918». Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-00574-0.
- Hull, Isabel Virginia (2006). «Absolute destruction: military culture and the practices of war in Imperial Germany». Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-7293-0.
- Humphries, Mark Osborne (2007). «Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment». In Hayes, Geoffrey; Iarocci, Andrew; Bechthold, Mike. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. pp. 65–85. ISBN 0-88920-508-6. http://books.google.ca/books?id=Pf5y7sehRwAC&lpg=PP1&dq=Vimy%20Ridge%3A%20A%20Canadian%20Reassessment&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=true.
- Inglis, David (1995). «Vimy Ridge: 1917–1992, A Canadian Myth over Seventy Five Years» (PDF). Burnaby: Simon Fraser University. http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/6687/b17448906.pdf.
- Isaac, Jad; Hosh, Leonardo (7–9 May 1992). «Roots of the Water Conflict in the Middle East». University of Waterloo. Archived from the original on 28 September 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20060928053605/http://www.oranim.ac.il/courses/meast/water/Roots+of+the+Water+Conflict+in+the+Middle+East.htm.
- Jenkins, Burris A (2009). «Facing the Hindenburg Line». BiblioBazaar. ISBN 978-1-110-81238-7.
- Johnson, James Edgar (2001). «Full Circle: The Story of Air Fighting». London: Cassell. ISBN 0-304-35860-6. OCLC 45991828.
- Jones, Howard (2001). «Crucible of Power: A History of U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1897». Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Books. ISBN 0-8420-2918-4. OCLC 46640675.
- Kaplan, Robert D (February 1993). «Syria: Identity Crisis». http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199302/kaplan. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
- Karp, Walter (1979). «The Politics of War». ISBN 0-06-012265-X. OCLC 4593327., Wilson’s maneuvering U.S. into war
- Keegan, John (1998). «The First World War». Hutchinson. ISBN 0-09-180178-8., general military history
- Keene, Jennifer D (2006). «World War I». Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 5. ISBN 0-313-33181-2. OCLC 70883191.
- Kernek, Sterling (December 1970). «The British Government’s Reactions to President Wilson’s ‘Peace’ Note of December 1916». pp. 721–766. Digital object identifier:10.1017/S0018246X00009481. JSTOR 2637713.
- Kitchen, Martin (2000). «Europe Between the Wars». New York: Longman. ISBN 0-582-41869-0. OCLC 247285240.
- Knobler, Stacey L, ed (2005). «The Threat of Pandemic Influenza: Are We Ready? Workshop Summary». Washington DC: National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-09504-2. OCLC 57422232. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095042/html/7.html.
- Kurlander, Eric (2006). «Steffen Bruendel. Volksgemeinschaft oder Volksstaat: Die «Ideen von 1914″ und die Neuordnung Deutschlands im Ersten Weltkrieg» (Book review). H-net. http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=101921145898314. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- Lehmann, Hartmut; van der Veer, Peter, eds (1999). «Nation and religion: perspectives on Europe and Asia». Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01232-6. OCLC 39727826.
- Lewy, Guenter (2005). «The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide». Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press. ISBN 0-87480-849-9. OCLC 61262401.
- Love, Dave (May 1996). «The Second Battle of Ypres, April 1915». http://www.worldwar1.com/sf2ypres.htm.
- Lyons, Michael J (1999). «World War I: A Short History». Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-020551-6.
- Ludendorff, Erich (1919). «My War Memories, 1914–1918». OCLC 60104290. also published by Harper as «Ludendorff’s Own Story, August 1914 – November 1918: The Great War from the Siege of Liège to the Signing of the Armistice as Viewed from the Grand Headquarters of the German Army» OCLC 561160 (original title Meine Kriegserinnerungen, 1914–1918)
- Magliveras, Konstantinos D (1999). «Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations: The Law and Practice behind Member States’ Expulsion and Suspension of Membership». Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-411-1239-1.
- Martel, Gordon (2003). «The Origins of the First World War». Pearson Longman, Harlow.
- Mawdsley, Evan (2008). «The Russian Civil War». Birlinn location. ISBN 1-84341-041-9.
- McLellan, Edwin N. «The United States Marine Corps in the World War». http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XX/WWI/USMC/USMC-WWI.html#XIV.
- Meyer, Gerald J (2006). «A World Undone: The Story of the Great War 1914 to 1918». Random House. ISBN 978-0-553-80354-9.
- Millett, Allan Reed; Murray, Williamson (1988). «Military Effectiveness». Boston: Allen Unwin. ISBN 0-04-445053-2. OCLC 220072268.
- Moon, John Ellis van Courtland (July 1996). «United States Chemical Warfare Policy in World War II: A Captive of Coalition Policy?». Society for Military History. pp. 495–511. Digital object identifier:10.2307/2944522. JSTOR 2944522.
- Morton, Desmond (1992). «Silent Battle: Canadian Prisoners of War in Germany, 1914–1919». Toronto: Lester Publishing. ISBN 1-895555-17-5. OCLC 29565680.
- Mosier, John (2001). «Myth of the Great War: How the Germans Won the Battles and How the Americans Saved the Allies». New York: Harper Collins. ISBN 0-06-019676-9.
- Muller, Jerry Z (March/April 2008). «Us and Them – The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism». Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/20080301faessay87203/jerry-z-muller/us-and-them.html. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
- Neiberg, Michael S (2005). «Fighting the Great War: A Global History». Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01696-3. OCLC 56592292.
- Nicholson, Gerald WL (16 May 2007). «Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914–1919: Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War». Ottawa: Queens Printer and Controller of Stationary. OCLC 2317262. Archived from the original on 16 May 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070516162359/http://www.censol.ca/research/greatwar/nicholson/index.htm.
- Northedge, FS (1986). «The League of Nations: Its Life and Times, 1920–1946». New York: Holmes & Meier. ISBN 0-7185-1316-9.
- Page, Thomas Nelson. «Italy and the World War». Brigham Young University. Chapter XI. http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/Italy/Page04.htm. cites «Cf. articles signed XXX in La Revue de Deux Mondes, 1 and 15 March 1920″
- Painter, David S. (2012). «Oil and the American Century». pp. 24–39. Digital object identifier:10.1093/jahist/jas073. http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/24.full.pdf.
- Phillimore, George Grenville; Bellot, Hugh HL (1919). «Treatment of Prisoners of War». pp. 47–64. OCLC 43267276.
- Pitt, Barrie (2003). «1918: The Last Act». Barnsley: Pen and Sword. ISBN 0-85052-974-3. OCLC 56468232.
- Price, Alfred (1980). «Aircraft versus Submarine: the Evolution of the Anti-submarine Aircraft, 1912 to 1980». London: Jane’s Publishing. ISBN 0-7106-0008-9. OCLC 10324173. Deals with technical developments, including the first dipping hydrophones
- Prior, Robin (1999). «The First World War». London: Cassell. ISBN 0-304-35256-X.
- Raudzens, George (October 1990). «War-Winning Weapons: The Measurement of Technological Determinism in Military History». Society for Military History. pp. 403–434. Digital object identifier:10.2307/1986064. JSTOR 1986064.
- Repington, Charles à Court (1920). «The First World War, 1914–1918». London: Constable. ISBN 1-113-19764-1. http://www.archive.org/details/firstworldwar19102repiuoft.
- Rickard, J (5 March 2001). «Erich von Ludendorff, 1865–1937, German General». Military History Encyclopedia on the Web. HistoryOfWar.org. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/people_ludendorff.html. Retrieved 6 February 2008.
- Rickard, J (27 August 2007). «The Ludendorff Offensives, 21 March-18 July 1918». http://www.historyofwar.org/scripts/fluffy/fcp.pl?words=20+July+1918&d=/battles_ludendorff.html.
- Roden, Mike. «The Lost Generation – myth and reality». Aftermath – when the boys came home. http://www.aftermathww1.com/lostgen.asp. Retrieved 6 November 2009.
- Saadi, Abdul-Ilah. «Dreaming of Greater Syria». Al Jazeera. http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/arabunity/2008/02/2008525183842614205.html. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
- Sachar, Howard Morley (1970). «The emergence of the Middle East, 1914–1924». Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-0158-6. OCLC 153103197.
- Salibi, Kamal Suleiman (1993). «A House of Many Mansions – the history of Lebanon reconsidered». I.B. Tauris. ISBN 1-85043-091-8. OCLC 224705916. http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/.
- Schindler, J (2003). «Steamrollered in Galicia: The Austro-Hungarian Army and the Brusilov Offensive, 1916». pp. 27–59. Digital object identifier:10.1191/0968344503wh260oa.
- Shanafelt, Gary W (1985). «The secret enemy: Austria-Hungary and the German alliance, 1914–1918». East European Monographs. ISBN 978-0-88033-080-0.
- Shapiro, Fred R; Epstein, Joseph (2006). «The Yale Book of Quotations». Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10798-6.
- Souter, Gavin (2000). «Lion & Kangaroo: the initiation of Australia». Melbourne: Text Publishing. OCLC 222801639.
- Sisemore, James D (2003). «The Russo-Japanese War, Lessons Not Learned». U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=113.
- Smele, Jonathan. «War and Revolution in Russia 1914–1921». World Wars in-depth. BBC. Archived from the original on 9 November 2011. http://www.webcitation.org/635RR9gbC. Retrieved 12 November 2009.
- Speed, Richard B, III (1990). «Prisoners, Diplomats and the Great War: A Study in the Diplomacy of Captivity». New York: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-26729-4. OCLC 20694547.
- Stevenson, David (1996). «Armaments and the Coming of War: Europe, 1904–1914». New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-820208-3. OCLC 33079190.
- Stevenson, David (2004). «Cataclysm: The First World War As Political Tragedy». New York: Basic Books. pp. 560pp. ISBN 0-465-08184-3. OCLC 54001282.
- Strachan, Hew (2003). «The First World War: Volume I: To Arms». New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-03295-6. OCLC 53075929.
- Taylor, Alan John Percivale (1963). «The First World War: An Illustrated History». Hamish Hamilton. ISBN 0-399-50260-2. OCLC 2054370.
- Taylor, Alan John Percivale (1998). «The First World War and its aftermath, 1914–1919». London: Folio Society. OCLC 49988231.
- Taylor, John M (Summer 2007). «Audacious Cruise of the Emden». pp. 38–47. doi:10.1353/jmh.2007.0331 (inactive 2010-07-26). ISSN 0899-3718.
- Terraine, John (1963). «Ordeal of Victory». Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott. pp. 508pp. ISBN 0-09-068120-7. OCLC 1345833.
- Tschanz, David W. «Typhus fever on the Eastern front in World War I». Montana State University. http://www.entomology.montana.edu/historybug/WWI/TEF.htm. Retrieved 12 November 2009.
- Tuchman, Barbara Wertheim (1966). «Zimmermann Telegram». New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-620320-0. OCLC 233392415.
- Tucker, Spencer C; Roberts, Priscilla Mary (2005). «Encyclopedia of World War I». Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio. ISBN 1-85109-420-2. OCLC 61247250.
- Tucker, Spencer C; Wood, Laura Matysek; Murphy, Justin D (1999). «The European powers in the First World War: an encyclopedia». Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-8153-3351-7.
- von der Porten, Edward P (1969). «German Navy in World War II». New York: T. Y. Crowell. ISBN 0-213-17961-X. OCLC 164543865.
- Westwell, Ian (2004). «World War I Day by Day». St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI Publishing. pp. 192pp. ISBN 0-7603-1937-5. OCLC 57533366.
- Wilgus, William John (1931). «Transporting the A. E. F. in Western Europe, 1917–1919». New York: Columbia University Press. OCLC 1161730.
- Willmott, H.P. (2003). «World War I». New York: Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 0-7894-9627-5. OCLC 52541937.
- Winegard, Timothy. «Here at Vimy: A Retrospective – The 90th Anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge». http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no2/winegard-eng.asp.
- Winter, Denis (1983). «The First of the Few: Fighter Pilots of the First World War». Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-005256-5.
- Wohl, Robert (1979). «The Generation of 1914». Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-34466-2.
- Zieger, Robert H (2001). «America’s Great War: World War I and the American experience». Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 50. ISBN 0-8476-9645-6.
- «Country Briefings: Israel». 28 July 2005. http://www.economist.com/countries/Israel/profile.cfm?folder=History%20in%20brief. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
- Israeli Foreign Ministry. «Ottoman Rule». Jewish Virtual Library. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Ottoman.html. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
External links
- The Heritage of the Great War / First World War. Graphic color photos, pictures and music
- A multimedia history of World War I
- British Pathé Online film archive containing extensive coverage of World War I
- The Heritage of the Great War, Netherlands
- The World War I Document Archive Wiki, Brigham Young University
- Maps of Europe covering the history of World War I at omniatlas.com
- The Great War Association – World War One Reenacting
- Your Family History of World War I – Europeana 1914–1918(Crowd-sourcing project)
- EFG1914 – Film digitisation project on First World War
- WWI Films on the European Film Gateway
- World War I British press photograph collection – A sampling of images distributed by the British government during the war to diplomats overseas, from the UBC Library Digital Collections
Animated maps
- An animated map «Europe plunges into war»
- An animated map of Europe at the end of the war
Cite error: <ref>
tags exist for a group named «lower-alpha», but no corresponding <references group="lower-alpha"/>
tag was found
Loading…
World War 1 inflicted hitherto unseen violence on Europe and entangled the entire planet in the conflict—the first time a war was so far-reaching. It broke empires, launched new nations onto the international stage, and caused humanity to question its innate goodness.
Scroll down to learn about the causes of World War 1, major battles, their end, treaties, and aftermath.
For more articles about World War One, go to the category archive.
World War One: Table of Contents
-
-
- A Comprehensive Overview of the Great War
- The Great War Timeline
- Did Kaiser Wilhelm Start World War 1?
- Causes Of WW1: Contributions and Influences of World War One
- The Background of the Great War
- Origins Of World War One
- Effects of World War 1
- World War One Weapons: What Were They?
- The Treaty of Versailles
- What Was US Involvement in World War One?
- Was the US Involvement in World War One a Mistake?
- WW1 Soldiers: British, German, French, Russian, Italian, and Ottoman
- Trench Warfare: The Hellish Fighting Conditions of WW1
- Flying Aces:The Red Baron and More
- World War One Gas Attacks
- End of World War One
- What Were Some Causes of World War Two?
-
-
Did Kaiser Wilhelm Start World War 1?
(See Main Article: Did Kaiser Wilhelm Start World War 1?)
Kaiser Wilhelm, the German emperor, and King of Prussia was a more-than-slightly recognizable figure of World War 1 and World War 2. It was a storied life that included ascending to royalty, abdication, and finally, exile. He also just may have been one of the reasons that World War 1 was started.
Of course the debate of who or what caused the first World War will rage on between historians and historiographers for years to come. But among the most immediate and easily traceable causes was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. However, its causes can also be attributed to an outbreak of Imperialism. Before World War I, several European countries planted their proverbial flags, and laid claims in Africa and parts of Asia, making them points of contention. Tensions ran high in Europe as the various countries decide who had the right to exploit these areas for their own benefit. The increasing competition and desire for greater empires led to an increase in confrontation that helped push the world into World War I.
Causes Of WW1: Contributions and Influences of World War One
(See Main Article: Causes Of WW1: Contributions and Influences of World War One)
An alliance is an agreement made between two or more countries to give each other help if it is needed. When an alliance is signed, those countries become known as Allies.
“Europe’s Pre-WW1 Alliances Were a Doomsday Machine That Pulled the Entire Continent Into War”
Listen to the full “History Unplugged” podcast here!
A number of alliances had been signed by countries between the years 1879 and 1914. These were important because they meant that some countries had no option but to declare war if one of their allies. declared war first. (the table below reads clockwise from the top left picture)
Who Started WW1? The Background of the Great War
(See Main Article: Who Started WW1? The Background of the Great War)
Since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, there had been several regional conflicts in Europe, but there had not been a general war (one that involved all of the major European powers). Between 1815 and 1914, the most powerful nations of Europe had coexisted in an arrangement called the “Balance of Power.” Under this arrangement, the major powers of Europe kept each other’s power in check. If one nation seemed to be growing too powerful, the others would act to stop this and preserve the balance.
In 1914, Europe was dominated by several major powers, most of which were multinational empires. They called themselves the Great Powers. There were 5 Great Powers, as well as two other nations who desired to be, although they lacked the military and economic power of the others. Let’s go around Europe and take a look at each of these powers.
What Started WW1? A Closer Look at the Origins of the Great War
(See Main Article: What Started WW1? A Closer Look at the Origins of the Great War)
At first, it all seemed very far away. The possibility of a Great War engulfing Europe had not become a reality since the terrifying days of the Napoleonic Wars. But it did not begin due to the failure of diplomacy. The reasons for the beginning of World War One all start with a wrong turn taken on a road in Sarajevo.
On 28 June 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Countess Sophie, were assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia. It was the couple’s fourteenth wedding anniversary. They were utterly devoted; indeed it sometimes seemed Sophie was Ferdinand’s only friend. Politically liberal and personally difficult, Ferdinand had married against the wishes of his uncle, Austria’s Emperor Franz Joseph. As a result, his children were removed from any right to succession, but he was still next in line to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
An empire it surely was, even if its welter of nationalities were only tenuously welded together. Ferdinand was an Austrian, skeptical of Hungarians, married to a Czech, and inclined to be indulgent with Croats and Serbs. His reputation for liberalism—in what was a tolerant, cosmopolitan, fatalistic, conservative-reactionary empire, which regarded itself, in the famous Viennese phrase, as being in a situation that was hopeless but not serious—came largely from his support for expanding the dual monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into a tripartite monarchy that would have given greater autonomy to the Slavs.
It was not a popular position. Austrian hardliners saw no reason for the change, Hungarians feared it would lessen their influence, and Slavic nationalists did not want their people reconciled to Austrian rule; they wanted violence, bloodshed, and nationalist revolution. On 28 June 1914, one of their number—Gavrilo Princip, a tubercular student, an atheist in a famously Catholic if multireligious empire, and a member of the Black Hand, a Serbian terrorist movement—committed the murders that eventually created an independent Yugoslavia, all at the cost of a cataclysmic world war.
What started World War 1 began with one death. It ended with 17 million more dead.
Effects of World War 1: What Exactly Were They?
(See Main Article: Effects of World War 1: What Exactly Were They?)
How Many People Died in World War 1?
World War One was one of the deadliest conflicts in the history of the human race, in which over 16 million people died. The total number of both civilian and military casualties is estimated at around 37 million people. The war killed almost 7 million civilians and 10 million military personnel.
Military and Civilian Deaths on Both Sides
The Allies, or Entente Powers, counted around 6 million deaths, the Central Powers 4 million.
Click here to learn about the impacts of World War One.
For more on the effects of World War 1, be sure to listen to the podcast episode below:
“Effects of World War 1: Loss of Life and Psychological Impact”
Listen to the full “History Unplugged” podcast here!
Many people died, not from combat, but from diseases caused by the war, a figure estimated at around 2 million deaths. 6 million people went missing during the war and were presumed dead.
Two out of three soldiers died in battle, the rest died due to infections or disease. The Spanish flu also killed a lot of people in prisoner camps.
The total number of civilian deaths is very hard to determine, unlike military deaths, which were better documented. Because of the war, many people suffered from disease and malnutrition because of food shortages brought about by a disruption in trade. Millions of men were also mobilized for the war, taking their labor away from farms, which cut down food production. In the Ottoman Empire, there were also the genocides that killed thousands of people. The Spanish flu also killed a lot of people, but historians often left these figures out of accounts.
Finally, there are even more indirect deaths caused by the wars that are not accounted in such reports. The Armenian Genocide, which left 1.5 million dead in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, was precipitated by the Ottoman political leadership believing that the Armenian people would side with Russia in World War One, leading to the empire’s ruin. To secure their borders, they put Armenian men in work camps, which became extermination centers, and forced marched the elderly, women, and children to Northern Syria, which became a death march.
World War One Weapons: What Were They?
(See Main Article: World War One Weapons: What Were They?)
During World War One a variety of weapons were used. The tried-and-true small arms and artillery were prominent features of the battlefield, as they had been for the last three centuries. But in the early 20th century a number of technological innovations created entirely new classes of weapons. These World War One weapons were responsible for the staggering scale of death from the Great War.
Rifle
The main weapon used by British soldiers in the trenches was the bolt-action rifle. 15 rounds could be fired in a minute and a person 1,400 meters away could be killed.
World War One Weapons: Machine Gun
Machine guns needed 4-6 men to work them and had to be on a flat surface. They had the fire-power of 100 guns.
Large field guns had a long range and could deliver devastating blows to the enemy but needed up to 12 men to work them. They fired shells which exploded on impact.
Gas
The German army were the first to use chlorine gas at the battle of Ypres in 1915. Chlorine gas causes a burning sensation in the throat and chest pains. Death is painful – you suffocate! The problem with chlorine gas is that the weather must be right. If the wind is in the wrong direction it could end up killing your own troops rather than the enemy.
Mustard gas was the most deadly weapon used. It was fired into the trenches in shells. It is colourless and takes 12 hours to take effect. Effects include: blistering skin, vomiting, sore eyes, internal and external bleeding. Death can take up to 5 weeks.
World War One – The Treaty of Versailles
(See Main Article: World War One – The Treaty of Versailles)
The military hostilities of World War One ended at 11am on 11th November 1918 but a final diplomatic end of the war was not reached until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1919, Lloyd George of England, Orlando of Italy, Clemenceau of France and Woodrow Wilson from the US met to discuss how Germany was to be made to pay for the damage world war one had caused.
Wilson had devised a 14 point plan that he believed would bring stability to Europe.
-
-
- Open Diplomacy – There should be no secret treaties between powers
- Freedom of Navigation – Seas should be free in both peace and war
- Free Trade – The barriers to trade between countries such as custom duties should be removed
- Multilateral Disarmament – All countries should reduce their armed forces to the lowest possible levels
- Colonies – People in European colonies should have a say in their future
- Russia – Russia should be allowed to operate whatever government it wanted and that government should be accepted, supported and welcomed.
- Belgium – Belgium should be evacuated and restored to the situation before the war.
- France – should have Alsace-Lorraine and any lands taken away during the war restored.
- Italy – The Italian border should be readjusted according to nationality
- National Self -Determination – The national groups in Europe should, wherever possible, be given their independence.
- Romania, Montenegro and Serbia – Should be evacuated and Serbia should have an outlet to the sea
- Turkey – The people of Turkey should have a say in their future
- Poland – Poland should become an independent state with an outlet to the sea.
- League of Nations – An assembly of all nations should be formed to protect world peace in the future.
-
Germany expected a treaty based on these fourteen points. However, negotiations between the ‘big four’ Lloyd George of England, Orlando of Italy, Clemenceau of France and Woodrow Wilson of America did not go smoothly. Wilson believed that his fourteen points was the only way to secure everlasting peace. The French however, wanted the defeated nations to be punished severely and believed Wilson’s plan too lenient. Privately Lloyd George sided with Wilson although he was concerned about the threat from Communism, however, the British public, like Clemenceau, wanted Germany punished severely. Lloyd George knew that if he sided with Wilson he would lose the next election.
How did the Treaty of Versailles Lead to WW2?
(See Main Article: How did the Treaty of Versailles Lead to WW2?)
President Woodrow Wilson, for his part, urged Americans to be neutral in thought, word, and deed. Yet the president was at heart pro-British. Wilson himself once remarked privately, “England is fighting our fight and you may well understand that I shall not, in the present state of the world’s affairs, place obstacles in her way. . . . I will not take any action to embarrass England when she is fighting for her life and the life of the world.”
Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality, which involved the passing of troops through Belgium on their way to France, became for the Allies a symbol of barbarity and militarism run amok and a reminder of the need to wipe autocracy from the face of the earth. Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality was certainly an outrage, but obviously not the greatest atrocity in the history of mankind. The Germans had made the same request of the Belgians that they had of Luxembourg, which accepted them without difficulty: they wanted safe passage for German troops and agreed to compensate Belgians for any damage or for any victuals consumed along the way.
-
US Involvement in World War One
(See Main Article: US Involvement in WW1)
-
-
- President Wilson: Background
- Wilson had grown up in Virginia and other parts of the South. His father was a minister, and the family moved a lot.
- Wilson attended Princeton and later taught there. Eventually, he became the president of the university.
- He was elected Governor of New Jersey and then US president in 1912.
- A devout Presbyterian, he believed that he was being used by God to affect change worldwide. He saw himself as an outsider and above politics. He tried to communicate directly with the American people, bypassing political institutions.
- When the war broke out, he was determined to keep the U. S. neutral.
- He won re-election in 1916, running under the slogan “He has kept us out of war.” But at the same time, he offered to mediate an end to the war. The Europeans rejected his offer.
- America’s March Toward War
- When war broke out in 1914, few Americans were interested in getting involved.
-
12 million immigrants had come to America (most from Europe) since 1900, and many had experienced conscription, European-style military service, and even war. They wanted no part of war.
-
Many immigrants had ties to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Irish immigrants felt no love for the Allies, especially the UK.
-
Still, most Americans sympathized with the Allies. Plus, American trade had increased with the Allies due to British naval policy (especially the blockade), while trade with Germany had been virtually eliminated.
-
German sinkings of ships containing Americans caused Americans to gradually turn against the Germans. The most famous sinking was the Lusitania in 1915, a luxury liner. 1200 people died, including 128 Americans. The Sussex sinking in 1916 also caused a great deal of outrage among Americans.
-
The sinkings led to a movement among Americans called the “Preparedness Campaign.” Preparedness advocates wanted an expanded and well-trained US Army and Navy in the event that America was to join the war. Theodore Roosevelt was a key leader of the movement.
-
Some Americans volunteered to join European forces. One famous unit was the French “Escadrille Lafayette,” an air unit.
-
President Wilson tried to calm the increasingly pro-war passions of Americans, charting a middle ground. He argued that Americans were “too proud to fight.”
-
Between 1914 and 1917, American production greatly increased. Steel production increased 76%. American exports quadrupled. American loans helped finance the Allied war effort, and America went from being a debtor nation to a creditor nation.
-
In February of 1917, Germany announced the resumption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. The U. S. broke diplomatic relations with Germany and began arming merchant’s vessels.
-
On March 1, Wilson made the “Zimmermann Telegram” public. This had been sent by the German foreign minister to Mexico. Zimmermann had proposed that Mexico go to war with the US, with German support. In return, Germany would make sure that Mexico received the states of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico as compensation. This was the last straw for most Americans.
-
On April 6, 1917, the U. S. formally declared war on Germany. In his war message, Wilson said “The world must be made safe for democracy.” But he said the U. S. was not joining the Allies, but rather becoming an “Associated Power.”
- President Wilson: Background
-
Was the US Involvement in World War One a Mistake?
(See Main Article: Was the US Involvement in World War One a Mistake?)
“Was the US Involvement in World War One a Mistake?”
For the full “History Unplugged” podcast, click here!
Most Americans are unclear about their country’s contribution to victory in World War I. They figure we entered the conflict too late to claim much credit, or maybe they think our intervention was discreditable. Some say we had no compelling national interest to enter the Great War; worse, our intervention allowed Britain and France to force on Germany an unjust, punitive peace that made the rise of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party inevitable. Had we stayed out of the war, the argument goes, the Europeans would have been compelled to make a reasonable, negotiated peace, and postwar animosity would have been lessened.
WW1 Soldiers: British, German, French, Russian, Italian, and Ottoman
(See Main Article: WW1 Soldiers: British, German, French, Russian, Italian, and Ottoman)
“The Average WW1 Soldier Was a 110-Pound Villager”
For the full “History Unplugged” podcast, click here!
Let’s look at the profiles of an average soldier in World War One. We will look at the backgrounds, training, and provisions allotted to troops in the British, French, German, Russian, and Ottoman armies. We will look at their lives in the trenches, which were with very few exceptions absolutely miserable. We will also look at the terrible experiences that they faced on the battlefield, trying desperately to survive artillery barrages or poison gas attacks. Many suffered “shell shock” from the experienced, what we know today as PTSD.
II. Battle Wounds
-
-
- Between 9 and 10 million soldiers were killed in WW1. Serbia lost 37% of its soldiers. France lost 16%. (Expand this)
- Another 13 million more were wounded.
- About half of the bodies of those killed were never found or identified. Most ended up in mass graves. Many were too badly damaged to be identified.
- Millions more soldiers were wounded. It is estimated that about 85% of battle wounds came from exploding artillery shells. Wounds caused by exploding shells were often jagged and became infected due to dirt and mud getting in them. They caused extensive damage to bone and muscles. This problem was exacerbated in the Alps, due to fragments of rock.
- Disease was common. There was “trench foot,” “trench fever” (a form of typhus caused by lice, which were omnipresent)
- Some soldiers inflicted wounds on themselves, including exposing themselves to frostbite, shooting themselves, and injecting themselves with toxins.
- Gas poisoning affected about 1.2 million men. They caused long-term damage to lungs and eyes.
-
III. Medical Care
-
-
- When possible, wounded would be carried off the battlefield by stretcher bearers to “casualty clearing stations” behind the front lines. Triage would be done. Some would be operated on there, while others would be evacuated to hospitals further behind the lines.
- Antiseptic care and anesthetics were greatly improved from 19th century military medicine. Blood transfusions were now possible.
- Hygiene was stressed. Delousing was done, as were vaccinations. There was even medically supervised prostitution.
- Prosthetics were commonly used. These included not just artificial arms and legs but also noses and face masks made of rubber or wax.
- Cosmetic surgery advanced. Still some soldiers’ faces could not be repaired, and many stayed secluded.
-
IV. Psychological Damage
-
-
- Soldiers increasingly saw themselves as expendable.
- Nearly half of all surviving soldiers experienced “Shell Shock,” or PTSD. Doctors originally thought this was a physical condition caused by the impact of shells on the brain.
- Commanders initially thought soldiers with shell shock were being cowardly or shirking their duty. Many were punished, including a few who were executed.
- Treatments were primitive. They included shock therapy and solitary confinement.
- Some soldiers went mad.
-
V. Capture and Imprisonment
-
-
- About 8.5 million men became prisoners of war during WW1. This is about 10% of the total number of soldiers.
- Many prisoners were killed soon after capture.
- Those who were kept in prison camps dealt with shame, squalor, hunger, and disease.
- The International Red Cross and other organizations tried to relieve the suffering of prisoners.
-
Trench Warfare: The Hellish Fighting Conditions of WW1
(See Main Article: Trench Warfare: The Hellish Fighting Conditions of WW1)
“World War 1 Trenches Were A Labyrinth of Rats, Disease, Decaying Flesh, and the Omnipresent Threat of Death”
For the full “History Unplugged” podcast, click here!
“Rats came up from the canal, fed on the plentiful corpses, and multiplied exceedingly. A new officer joined the company and…when he turned in that night he heard a scuffling, shone his torch on the bed, and found two rats on his blanket tussling for the possession of a severed hand.” The scene that Captain Robert Graves described in his autobiography was common for that of many soldiers. There were perhaps few places in the history of warfare as miserable as the trenches. Unlike most armies, which are constantly on the move, the armies of WW1 stayed locked in positions for months or even years. There they festered in disease, cold, hunger, and the fear that the whistle would blow and they would have to go “over the top” and face a hail of enemy artillery as they tried to charge No Man’s Land.
The world of the trenches quickly took on reality as a world apart. And trench warfare made a permanent imprint on the western imagination. Phrases like “over the top,” “in the trenches,” and “no man’s land” became a permanent part of the vocabularies of the languages of the various powers.
The Structure of Trenches
-
-
-
-
Trenches became increasingly elaborate.
-
Barbed wire barriers were built in front of each side’s trenches.
-
Trenches began to be built in zigzag formations.
-
Boards had to be put at the bottom of the trenches due to moisture.
-
They were typically about 10 feet high and were lined with sandbags. They had a parapet in the front.
-
Trenches had a “fire step” that allowed people to see over the edge.
-
They had a machine gun and mortar batteries placed at intervals.
-
-
-
Between and Behind the Trenches
-
-
-
-
The area in between the two sides was called “No Man’s Land.” It could be anywhere from 30 yards to several hundred yards wide.
-
It was filled with shell holes, the remains of fortifications, and dead bodies.
-
It was usually about 275 yards across.
-
Trenches consisted of several lines: front lines, support lines, reserve lines, and retreat lines. Also, there were supply lines, workshops, training facilities, and HQ.
-
They had dugouts, where up to 3 men could squeeze in for shelter.
-
Trench networks were so complicated that there had to be maps and guides.
-
Behind the trenches were bunkers that were reinforced with concrete. There
-
Behind the bunkers were artillery positions.
-
Some trenches had railways in them, which could be used to quickly bring in reinforcements.
-
-
-
Life in the Trenches
-
-
-
-
Soldiers were constantly exposed to the weather.
-
Snow and mud were commonly present.
-
Soldiers took on near-primitive existences. Filth was everywhere. The smell was horrible due to the rotting bodies of men and animals, overflowing latrines, and the inability of the soldiers to bathe.
-
Rats and vermin were everywhere.
-
Extreme boredom prevailed, although it was punctuated by moments of extreme terror. Soldiers would read and do other time-killing activities to beat the boredom.
-
Heroism seemed pointless. War seemed to be all about technology, not individuals. Soldiers felt dehumanized.
-
Soldiers would be rotated, spending (perhaps one week on the front lines, then a week in the reserve trenches, then time behind the lines (sometimes on leave).
-
The daily routine involved getting ready (“Stand To”) for an attack at the beginning of the day. Then there would be “The Daily Hate”, big artillery or machine-gun barrage. Then if no attack happened, there would be meals, sentry duty, repairing and adding on to trenches, cleaning weapons, inspections, and other duties. At the end of the day, they would “Stand To” again.
-
At night, soldiers had to be prepared for attacks. Lack of sleep was the norm. Sentry duty was assigned in 2-hour shifts.
-
The disease was rampant, like “Trench Foot” and “Trench Fever” (which came from vermin and lice). The British army alone suffered about 20,000 casualties from Trench Foot by the end of 1914. Trench foot decreased as the quality of trenches increased.
-
There was also “Shell Shock” (PTSD).
-
Soldiers gave names to sections of their trenches. The names often evoked places back home.
-
Soldiers tried to make the best of things, often with dark humor. At a British salient at Ypres, there was a spot where an arm was sticking out from a trench wall. Soldiers called the arm “Jack” and would shake the hand on their way out of and back into the trenches (Dr. Vejas Liulevicius).
-
They also published trench newspapers, put on plays, and showed movies.
-
About 1/3 of Allied casualties on the Western Front occurred in the trenches.
-
Dan Carlin: Unlike in WW2 and other wars, in which the armies often moved, in WW1, they mostly stayed put (at least on the Western Front). This means that the soldiers had to fight where they also lived. Bodies had to be buried very close to where the soldiers stayed, and often shellings and the digging of more or deeper trenches caused them to be unearthed.
-
-
-
Technology
-
-
-
-
Machine Guns: Had a range of more than 1000 yards. Fired 600 rounds per minute. One machine gun crew could hold off masses of enemies.
-
No-recoil artillery. It was not jolted out of position by every firing. It also did not have to be re-sighted or recalibrated. This allowed for precise attacks.
-
Poison Gas: First used by Germany on April 22, 1915
-
All this gave the defense a great advantage. The “Cult of the Offensive” was dead.
-
-
-
A Typical Attack
-
-
-
-
A massive artillery barrage (intended to cut barbed wire and damage enemy defenses). But the barrages seldom accomplished either of these things. Instead, they ruined the element of surprise.
-
Attacking units were ordered to go “Over the Top”…out of the trenches with bayonet charges, through no man’s land, and into enemy trenches.
-
However, the artillery barrages made attacks more difficult by tearing up no man’s land. Soldiers sometimes got caught on barbed wire.
-
The attackers would be mowed down by machine guns operated by the defenders.
-
“Defense was mechanized; the attack was not.” – AJP Taylor
-
Many commanders refused to adapt to the new reality. They stubbornly clung to old notions of warfare, including cavalry, heroic bayonet charges, and the Cult of the Offensive.
-
-
-
World War One Flying Aces: The Red Baron and More
(See Main Article: WW1 Flying Aces: The Red Baron and More)
“The Flying Aces of World War One”
For the full “History Unplugged” podcast, click here!
Since the first successful flight of an airplane, people had imagined and dreamed of airplanes being used for combat. H. G. Wells’s 1908 book (The War in the Air was an example. When World War One broke out, there were only about 1000 planes on all sides. Planes were very basic. Cockpits were open, instruments were rudimentary, and there were no navigational aids. Pilots had to use maps, which were not always reliable. Getting lost was common. Sometimes pilots had to land and ask for directions! At the beginning of the war, airplanes were seen as being almost exclusively for reconnaissance, taking the job formerly done by cavalry. Eventually, however, it became necessary for planes to eliminate the observation planes of the enemy, so air-to-air combat (dogfights) became common.
The Development of Combat Aircraft
-
-
-
-
Since the first successful flight of an airplane, people had imagined and dreamed of airplanes being used for combat. H. G. Wells (The War in the Air, 1908) was an example.
-
Planes had been used in minor wars beginning in the 1910s.
-
Each Great Power had formed air branches of the army and/or navy. France had the most developed one. Britain had two: The Royal Flying Corps (part of the army) and the Royal Naval Air Service (part of the navy). They would be merged into the Royal Air Force, the first independent air service, in 1917. The German service was called the Luftstreitkrafte.
-
When the war broke out, there were only about 1000 planes on all sides.
-
Planes were very basic. Cockpits were open, instruments were rudimentary, and there were no navigational aids. Pilots had to use maps, which were not always reliable. Getting lost was common. Sometimes pilots had to land and ask directions!
-
At the beginning of the war, airplanes were seen as being almost exclusively for reconnaissance, taking the job formerly done by cavalry. They were also used for artillery spotting and range finding. Flying reconnaissance missions was dangerous, however.
-
Eventually, however, it became necessary for planes to eliminate the observation planes of the enemy, so air-to-air combat (dogfights) became common.
-
Plane technology improved throughout the war, and specialized planes began to emerge (seaplanes, fighters, bombers). There were biplanes and triplanes. Popular makes included the Neuport, the Sopwith Pup and Sopwith Camel, and the German Fokker triplane.
-
Plane speeds increased throughout the war, from about 75 mph at the start of the war to nearly twice that at the end.
-
The air forces increased greatly in size. At the beginning of the war, the British air services had 300 officers and about 1800 men. By the end of the war, they had 27,000 officers and over 300,000 men. France had less than 140 aircraft at the start of the war but 4500 at the end of the war (the most of all powers).
-
Production of planes also increased greatly. By the war’s end, France was building as many planes every day as the total number they had at the start of the war.
-
Aircraft weaponry became more elaborate. At the beginning of the war, pilots just shot at each other with pistols or other small arms.
-
Then machine guns were installed, but the bullets would hit the propeller. Metal plates were installed on propeller blades to deflect the bullets. But the bullets would sometimes ricochet, and repeated hits would wear off the plates.
-
This problem was solved by Dutch engineer Anthony Fokker, who invented an interrupter gear that synchronized the gun’s action with the propeller. This invention gave the Central Powers air superiority (“The Fokker Scourge”) for a while, but only for about a year. After about a year, the Allies had developed this technology and the German advantage was lost.
-
-
-
World War One Gas Attacks: When Poison Was Released in 1915
(See Main Article: WW1 Gas Attacks: When Poison Was Released in 1915)
“WW1 And The Use of Gas As A Weapon”
For the full “History Unplugged” podcast, click here!
In 1915, the Central Powers and Allies dug in their heels and tried desperately to break the stalemate of the war, still hoping for a short conflict on the scale of a few months. Poison gas was used for the first time. Germans experimented with flamethrowers and armored shields, while the French began using hand grenades. In April, Germans began the Second Battle of Ypres and used 168 tons of chlorine gas. On the Eastern Front, Austria launched three offensives against Russian forces in the Carpathians. All three failed miserably. As many as 100,000 Austrian soldiers froze to death. Further north, Russian forces began to retreat from Warsaw and Riga. In Poland, Russian forces adopted a “scorched earth policy.” They forced Poles and other residents of Poland and western Russia to burn their crops and abandon their homes. This created millions of refugees. In December, the remains of the Serbian Army, along with several hundred thousand civilians, fled through the freezing mountains of Montenegro and Albania to the coast. 200,000 died along the way (out of 700,000 initially). Finally, the Ottomans began the forced deportation of Armenians to Syria, which was actually a death march. It became known as the Armenian Genocide in which 1.5 million were slaughtered.
Western Front
-
-
-
-
Winter Offensives: Joffre wanted to push the Germans back and help prevent them from sending more troops to the East. So they launched a series of offensives in late 1914 and 1915
-
First Battle of Artois (17 Dec 1914 – 13 Jan 1915)
-
First Champagne Offensive (20 Dec 1914 – 17 March 1915). 93.000 French casualties and 46,000 German.
-
The Christmas Truce
-
Jan 31: Poison gas used for first time – it had little effect due to cold weather. In March, Germans experimented with flamethrowers and armored shields, while the French began using hand grenades.
-
March 10: British First Army (let by Sir Douglas Haig) attacked Germans at Neuve-Chappelle. His policy was “bite and hold,” which meant quickly taking a piece of the enemy’s line and forcing them to counterattack it, suffering many casualties.
-
-
-
-
Spring Offenses
-
-
-
-
-
April 17: The British launched an attack at Hill 60, in which they used mines to undermine the German position.
-
April 22: Germans began the Second Battle of Ypres and used 168 tons of chlorine gas. This time it had devastating consequences. The British used makeshift respirators, including cloths draped in urine. The Allies held the town. The battle lasted just over a month.
-
May 8: The British and French launched a combined offensive (first time) at the Second Battle of Artois. The battle lasted 6 weeks. The French lost 100,000 casualties, while the Germans lost 75,000.
-
-
In late September, the British and French launched offensives at Loos, Artois (Third Battle), and Champagne (Second Battle). The British used poison gas for the first time. The British and French initially took their objectives, but a stubborn German defense caused massive Allied casualties. Germans used phosgene gas (worse than chlorine). These ended the first week of November. Neither side gained anything.
-
On December 19, Sir John French was replaced as the BEF commander by Sir Douglas Haig.
-
-
-
Eastern Front
-
-
-
-
Austria launched three offensives against Russian forces in the Carpathians. All three failed miserably. As many as 100,000 Austrian soldiers froze to death.
-
Przemysl fell to the Russians on March 23. 126,000 prisoners and over 700 big guns fell to the Russians.
-
May 1: A combined German-Austrian army launched an offensive against the Russians at Gorlice and Tarnow. The Russians had to retreat, and they lost all the land they had gained since the start of the war. 30,000 Russian prisoners were taken. Austrian forces recaptured Przemysl on June 3 and Lvov on June 22.
-
Further north, Russian forces began to retreat from Warsaw and Riga. In Poland, Russian forces adopted a “scorched earth policy.” They forced Poles and other residents of Poland and western Russia to burn their crops and abandon their homes. This created millions of refugees.
-
Warsaw fell to the German Army on August 5. Soon after Ivangorod, Kovno, Novogeorgiev, Brest-Litovsk, Bialystock, and the Grodno fortress fell. 1.5 million Russian prisoners had been taken by the end of August. Soon after, Austrian and German forces linked up to form a single line.
-
On September 5, Tsar Nicolas removed the Grand Duke Nikolai from command and assumed personal command of the army.
-
On September 18, the Germans took Vilnius and drove its Russian defenders completely out of Poland and Galicia. Russia had lost 300 miles of territory. But the ground became muddy and the Russians improved their defenses. This stopped the German advance.
-
After Christmas, the Russian army launched major offensives in Bessarabia, Eastern Galicia, and also attacked in other places, including the Prippett Marshes. None of these attacks succeeded.
-
By the end of 1915, Russia had suffered 3.4 million casualties and there were 2 million Russians displaced by the war.
-
In January, 1916, Russia successfully attacked through the
-
-
-
The Balkans
-
-
-
-
In March, a typhus epidemic broke out, killing many Serbs and Austrians. The outbreak prevented any attacks on Serbia for a while.
-
On April 1, a force of Bulgarian Turks attacked Valandovo, in Macedonia (then part of Serbia). Serb forces repelled the invasion.
-
On September 6, Bulgaria joined the war on the side of the Central Powers. Along with Austria-Hungary and Germany, they invaded Serbia the next month (beginning October 6). Belgrade fell on October 9. (Bulgaria would end up sending 25% of its entire population to war…that’s the highest percentage.)
-
On November 5, Nis fell, giving the Central Powers a direct rail link from Berlin to Constantinople. At the end of the month, the Serbian army was defeated and forced to retreat.
-
In December, the remains of the Serbian Army, along with several hundred thousand civilians, fled through the freezing mountains of Montenegro and Albania to the coast. 200,000 died along the way (out of 700,000 initially). Allied naval forces evacuated them from the Albanian coast to Corfu.
-
French and British forces tried to help the Serbian army but were pushed by the Bulgarian army out of Macedonia into Greece. They established a base at Salonika (over the objections of the Greek government, which was neutral).
-
In January 2016, the Austrian army invaded Montenegro. The government surrendered, but the army fled into Albania. The Austrians pursued them.
-
-
-
Southern Front
-
-
-
-
February: Turkish attacked British forces in Egypt in an attempt to take the Suez Canal. They were soundly defeated.
-
Turkey began the forced deportation of Armenians.
-
British troops defend Basra and advance up the Tigris Valley toward Baghdad. In December, they became trapped at Kut-al-Amara., which the Turks put under siege.
-
The next month, a rescue operation tried but failed to relieve them. Repeated attempts to rescue them would also fail, and the British force would eventually surrender in April 1916.
-
May 23: Italy joins the war on the side of the Allies and attacked Austria-Hungary at the Isonzo River. For the next few months, they fought multiple battles there but made no gains. The fighting finally ended on December 10 due to winter weather.
-
In the summer, Italy raided the Adriatic coast in several places.
-
-
-
Sea & Air
-
-
-
-
December 14, 1914: German ships bombarded the cities of Scarborough, Whitley, and Hartleypool. This killed several civilians (first time since 1690!), but it increased popular British hatred for the Germans.
-
Feb: Germans begin Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
-
Mar: British start a sea blockade of Germany. Later they mine the North Sea.
-
May 7: A German U-boat sinks the Lusitania (1200 people, including 120 Americans are killed).
-
The Dutch inventor Anthony Fokker invents (for the Germans) developed interrupter gear, which led to German domination of the skies (the “Fokker Scourge”).
-
On April 1916 the Germans began a policy of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare.
-
-
-
World War One – End of WW1
(See Main Article: World War One – End of WW1)
Although America did not declare war on Germany until 1917, she had been involved in the war from the beginning supplying the allies with weapons and supplies. America was critical involved in military operations that led to the final conclusion of the Great War and was there to witness the end of WW1.
On May 2nd 1915 the British passenger liner Lusitania was sunk by a torpedo from a German submarine. 1195 passengers, including 128 Americans, lost their lives. Americans were outraged and put pressure on the government to enter the war.
Woodrow Wilson (right) campaigned for a peaceful end to the war. He appealed to both sides to try to settle the war by diplomatic means but was unsuccessful.
In February 1917, the Germans announced an unrestricted submarine warfare campaign. They planned to sink any ship that approached Britain whether it was a military ship, supply ship or passenger ship.
On April 3rd 1917, Wilson made a speech declaring that America would enter the war and restore peace to Europe.
The United States declared war on Germany on April 6th 1917. American troops joined the French and British in the summer of 1918. They were fresh and not war-weary and were invaluable in defeating the Germans.
The allied victory in November 1918 was not solely due to American involvement. Rapid advancements in weapon technology meant that by 1918 tanks and planes were common place.
The German commander Erich Ludendorff was a brilliant military commander and had won decisive victories over Russia in 1917 that led to the Russian withdrawal from the war.
In 1918 he announced that if Germany was to win the war then the allies had to be defeated on the Western Front before the arrival of American troops.
Although his offensive was initially successful the allies held ground and eventually pushed the Germans back.
By 1918 there were strikes and demonstrations in Berlin and other cities protesting about the effects of the war on the population. The British naval blockade of German ports meant that thousands of people were starving. Socialists were waiting for the chance to seize Germany as they had in Russia. In October 1918 Ludendorff resigned and the German navy mutinied. The end was near. Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated on November 9th 1918.
On 11th November the leaders of both sides held a meeting in Ferdinand Foch’s railway carriage headquarters at Compiegne.
The Armistice was signed at 6am and came into force five hours later. Thus all sides witnessed the final end of WW1.
Some Main Long-Term Causes of World War II
(See Main Article: What Were the Causes of World War II?)
Treaty of Versailles – the harsh stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles in an economically difficult time, left many Germans bitter and caused them to vote for the Nazi party.
Anti-Communism – When the communist Bolsheviks came to power in Russia with the aim to overthrow capitalism world-wide, supporting the setup of communist regimes in other countries, many Europeans were starting to fear a violent Communist revolution.
Expansionism – A couple of countries sought to expand their territories and benefit from that economically. Benito Mussolini wanted to establish a “New Roman Empire,” Hitler also wanted to claim back the “rightful” territories of Germany and expand further into Europe to create a Greater Germany and Japan wanted to conquer China to benefit from its economy and resources.
Failure of the League of Nations – The League of Nations was established after World War I with the aim to prevent a repeat war. Its policies however had no effect on the countries that were trying to expand, forcing the Allies to use violent means to stop them.
President Wilson: Background
America’s March Toward War- When war broke out in 1914, few Americans were interested in getting involved.
-
12 million immigrants had come to America (most from Europe) since 1900, and many had experienced conscription, European-style military service, and even war. They wanted no part of war.
-
Many immigrants had ties to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Irish immigrants felt no love for the Allies, especially the UK.
-
Still, most Americans sympathized with the Allies. Plus, American trade had increased with the Allies due to British naval policy (especially the blockade), while trade with Germany had been virtually eliminated.
-
German sinkings of ships containing Americans caused Americans to gradually turn against the Germans. The most famous sinking was the Lusitania in 1915, a luxury liner. 1200 people died, including 128 Americans. The Sussex sinking in 1916 also caused a great deal of outrage among Americans.
-
The sinkings led to a movement among Americans called the “Preparedness Campaign.” Preparedness advocates wanted an expanded and well-trained US Army and Navy in the event that America was to join the war. Theodore Roosevelt was a key leader of the movement.
-
Some Americans volunteered to join European forces. One famous unit was the French “Escadrille Lafayette,” an air unit.
-
President Wilson tried to calm the increasingly pro-war passions of Americans, charting a middle ground. He argued that Americans were “too proud to fight.”
-
Between 1914 and 1917, American production greatly increased. Steel production increased 76%. American exports quadrupled. American loans helped finance the Allied war effort, and America went from being a debtor nation to a creditor nation.
-
In February of 1917, Germany announced the resumption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. The U. S. broke diplomatic relations with Germany and began arming merchant’s vessels.
-
On March 1, Wilson made the “Zimmermann Telegram” public. This had been sent by the German foreign minister to Mexico. Zimmermann had proposed that Mexico go to war with the US, with German support. In return, Germany would make sure that Mexico received the states of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico as compensation. This was the last straw for most Americans.
-
On April 6, 1917, the U. S. formally declared war on Germany. In his war message, Wilson said “The world must be made safe for democracy.” But he said the U. S. was not joining the Allies, but rather becoming an “Associated Power.”
- Wilson had grown up in Virginia and other parts of the South. His father was a minister, and the family moved a lot.
- Wilson attended Princeton and later taught there. Eventually, he became the president of the university.
- He was elected Governor of New Jersey and then US president in 1912.
- A devout Presbyterian, he believed that he was being used by God to affect change worldwide. He saw himself as an outsider and above politics. He tried to communicate directly with the American people, bypassing political institutions.
- When the war broke out, he was determined to keep the U. S. neutral.
- He won re-election in 1916, running under the slogan “He has kept us out of war.” But at the same time, he offered to mediate an end to the war. The Europeans rejected his offer.
-
Cite This Article
«World War One: Its Cause, Its End, And Its Legacy» History on the Net
© 2000-2023, Salem Media.
April 15, 2023 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/world-war-one>
More Citation Information.
Top Questions
What was the main cause of World War I?
What countries fought in World War I?
Who won World War I?
How many people died during World War I?
What was the significance of World War I?
World War I, also called First World War or Great War, an international conflict that in 1914–18 embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions. The war pitted the Central Powers—mainly Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey—against the Allies—mainly France, Great Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan, and, from 1917, the United States. It ended with the defeat of the Central Powers. The war was virtually unprecedented in the slaughter, carnage, and destruction it caused.
World War I was one of the great watersheds of 20th-century geopolitical history. It led to the fall of four great imperial dynasties (in Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey), resulted in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and, in its destabilization of European society, laid the groundwork for World War II.
The last surviving veterans of World War I were American serviceman Frank Buckles (died in February 2011), British-born Australian serviceman Claude Choules (died in May 2011), and British servicewoman Florence Green (died in February 2012), the last surviving veteran of the war.
The outbreak of war
With Serbia already much aggrandized by the two Balkan Wars (1912–13, 1913), Serbian nationalists turned their attention back to the idea of “liberating” the South Slavs of Austria-Hungary. Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević, head of Serbia’s military intelligence, was also, under the alias “Apis,” head of the secret society Union or Death, pledged to the pursuit of this pan-Serbian ambition. Believing that the Serbs’ cause would be served by the death of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austrian emperor Franz Joseph, and learning that the Archduke was about to visit Bosnia on a tour of military inspection, Apis plotted his assassination. Nikola Pašić, the Serbian prime minister and an enemy of Apis, heard of the plot and warned the Austrian government of it, but his message was too cautiously worded to be understood.
Britannica Quiz
World Wars
At 11:15 am on June 28, 1914, in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, Franz Ferdinand and his morganatic wife, Sophie, duchess of Hohenberg, were shot dead by a Bosnian Serb, Gavrilo Princip. The chief of the Austro-Hungarian general staff, Franz, Graf (count) Conrad von Hötzendorf, and the foreign minister, Leopold, Graf von Berchtold, saw the crime as the occasion for measures to humiliate Serbia and so to enhance Austria-Hungary’s prestige in the Balkans. Conrad had already (October 1913) been assured by William II of Germany’s support if Austria-Hungary should start a preventive war against Serbia. This assurance was confirmed in the week following the assassination, before William, on July 6, set off upon his annual cruise to the North Cape, off Norway.
The Austrians decided to present an unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia and then to declare war, relying on Germany to deter Russia from intervention. Though the terms of the ultimatum were finally approved on July 19, its delivery was postponed to the evening of July 23, since by that time the French president, Raymond Poincaré, and his premier, René Viviani, who had set off on a state visit to Russia on July 15, would be on their way home and therefore unable to concert an immediate reaction with their Russian allies. When the delivery was announced, on July 24, Russia declared that Austria-Hungary must not be allowed to crush Serbia.
Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content.
Subscribe Now
Serbia replied to the ultimatum on July 25, accepting most of its demands but protesting against two of them—namely, that Serbian officials (unnamed) should be dismissed at Austria-Hungary’s behest and that Austro-Hungarian officials should take part, on Serbian soil, in proceedings against organizations hostile to Austria-Hungary. Though Serbia offered to submit the issue to international arbitration, Austria-Hungary promptly severed diplomatic relations and ordered partial mobilization.
Home from his cruise on July 27, William learned on July 28 how Serbia had replied to the ultimatum. At once he instructed the German Foreign Office to tell Austria-Hungary that there was no longer any justification for war and that it should content itself with a temporary occupation of Belgrade. But, meanwhile, the German Foreign Office had been giving such encouragement to Berchtold that already on July 27 he had persuaded Franz Joseph to authorize war against Serbia. War was in fact declared on July 28, and Austro-Hungarian artillery began to bombard Belgrade the next day. Russia then ordered partial mobilization against Austria-Hungary, and on July 30, when Austria-Hungary was riposting conventionally with an order of mobilization on its Russian frontier, Russia ordered general mobilization. Germany, which since July 28 had still been hoping, in disregard of earlier warning hints from Great Britain, that Austria-Hungary’s war against Serbia could be “localized” to the Balkans, was now disillusioned insofar as eastern Europe was concerned. On July 31 Germany sent a 24-hour ultimatum requiring Russia to halt its mobilization and an 18-hour ultimatum requiring France to promise neutrality in the event of war between Russia and Germany.
Both Russia and France predictably ignored these demands. On August 1 Germany ordered general mobilization and declared war against Russia, and France likewise ordered general mobilization. The next day Germany sent troops into Luxembourg and demanded from Belgium free passage for German troops across its neutral territory. On August 3 Germany declared war against France.
In the night of August 3–4 German forces invaded Belgium. Thereupon, Great Britain, which had no concern with Serbia and no express obligation to fight either for Russia or for France but was expressly committed to defend Belgium, on August 4 declared war against Germany.
Austria-Hungary declared war against Russia on August 5; Serbia against Germany on August 6; Montenegro against Austria-Hungary on August 7 and against Germany on August 12; France and Great Britain against Austria-Hungary on August 10 and on August 12, respectively; Japan against Germany on August 23; Austria-Hungary against Japan on August 25 and against Belgium on August 28.
Romania had renewed its secret anti-Russian alliance of 1883 with the Central Powers on February 26, 1914, but now chose to remain neutral. Italy had confirmed the Triple Alliance on December 7, 1912, but could now propound formal arguments for disregarding it: first, Italy was not obliged to support its allies in a war of aggression; second, the original treaty of 1882 had stated expressly that the alliance was not against England.
On September 5, 1914, Russia, France, and Great Britain concluded the Treaty of London, each promising not to make a separate peace with the Central Powers. Thenceforth, they could be called the Allied, or Entente, powers, or simply the Allies.
The outbreak of war in August 1914 was generally greeted with confidence and jubilation by the peoples of Europe, among whom it inspired a wave of patriotic feeling and celebration. Few people imagined how long or how disastrous a war between the great nations of Europe could be, and most believed that their country’s side would be victorious within a matter of months. The war was welcomed either patriotically, as a defensive one imposed by national necessity, or idealistically, as one for upholding right against might, the sanctity of treaties, and international morality.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand
Tensions had been brewing throughout Europe—especially in the troubled Balkan region of southeast Europe—for years before World War I actually broke out.
A number of alliances involving European powers, the Ottoman Empire, Russia and other parties had existed for years, but political instability in the Balkans (particularly Bosnia, Serbia and Herzegovina) threatened to destroy these agreements.
The spark that ignited World War I was struck in Sarajevo, Bosnia, where Archduke Franz Ferdinand—heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire—was shot to death along with his wife, Sophie, by the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip on June 28, 1914. Princip and other nationalists were struggling to end Austro-Hungarian rule over Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand set off a rapidly escalating chain of events: Austria-Hungary, like many countries around the world, blamed the Serbian government for the attack and hoped to use the incident as justification for settling the question of Serbian nationalism once and for all.
Kaiser Wilhelm II
Because mighty Russia supported Serbia, Austria-Hungary waited to declare war until its leaders received assurance from German leader Kaiser Wilhelm II that Germany would support their cause. Austro-Hungarian leaders feared that a Russian intervention would involve Russia’s ally, France, and possibly Great Britain as well.
On July 5, Kaiser Wilhelm secretly pledged his support, giving Austria-Hungary a so-called carte blanche, or “blank check” assurance of Germany’s backing in the case of war. The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary then sent an ultimatum to Serbia, with such harsh terms as to make it almost impossible to accept.
World War I Begins
Convinced that Austria-Hungary was readying for war, the Serbian government ordered the Serbian army to mobilize and appealed to Russia for assistance. On July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and the tenuous peace between Europe’s great powers quickly collapsed.
Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Serbia had lined up against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun.
The Western Front
According to an aggressive military strategy known as the Schlieffen Plan (named for its mastermind, German Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen), Germany began fighting World War I on two fronts, invading France through neutral Belgium in the west and confronting Russia in the east.
On August 4, 1914, German troops crossed the border into Belgium. In the first battle of World War I, the Germans assaulted the heavily fortified city of Liege, using the most powerful weapons in their arsenal—enormous siege cannons—to capture the city by August 15. The Germans left death and destruction in their wake as they advanced through Belgium toward France, shooting civilians and executing a Belgian priest they had accused of inciting civilian resistance.
First Battle of the Marne
In the First Battle of the Marne, fought from September 6-9, 1914, French and British forces confronted the invading German army, which had by then penetrated deep into northeastern France, within 30 miles of Paris. The Allied troops checked the German advance and mounted a successful counterattack, driving the Germans back to the north of the Aisne River.
The defeat meant the end of German plans for a quick victory in France. Both sides dug into trenches, and the Western Front was the setting for a hellish war of attrition that would last more than three years.
Particularly long and costly battles in this campaign were fought at Verdun (February-December 1916) and the Battle of the Somme (July-November 1916). German and French troops suffered close to a million casualties in the Battle of Verdun alone.
World War I Books and Art
The bloodshed on the battlefields of the Western Front, and the difficulties its soldiers had for years after the fighting had ended, inspired such works of art as “All Quiet on the Western Front” by Erich Maria Remarque and “In Flanders Fields” by Canadian doctor Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae. In the latter poem, McCrae writes from the perspective of the fallen soldiers:
Published in 1915, the poem inspired the use of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance.
Visual artists like Otto Dix of Germany and British painters Wyndham Lewis, Paul Nash and David Bomberg used their firsthand experience as soldiers in World War I to create their art, capturing the anguish of trench warfare and exploring the themes of technology, violence and landscapes decimated by war.
The Eastern Front
On the Eastern Front of World War I, Russian forces invaded the German-held regions of East Prussia and Poland but were stopped short by German and Austrian forces at the Battle of Tannenberg in late August 1914.
Despite that victory, Russia’s assault forced Germany to move two corps from the Western Front to the Eastern, contributing to the German loss in the Battle of the Marne.
Combined with the fierce Allied resistance in France, the ability of Russia’s huge war machine to mobilize relatively quickly in the east ensured a longer, more grueling conflict instead of the quick victory Germany had hoped to win under the Schlieffen Plan.
Russian Revolution
From 1914 to 1916, Russia’s army mounted several offensives on World War I’s Eastern Front but was unable to break through German lines.
Defeat on the battlefield, combined with economic instability and the scarcity of food and other essentials, led to mounting discontent among the bulk of Russia’s population, especially the poverty-stricken workers and peasants. This increased hostility was directed toward the imperial regime of Czar Nicholas II and his unpopular German-born wife, Alexandra.
Russia’s simmering instability exploded in the Russian Revolution of 1917, spearheaded by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks, which ended czarist rule and brought a halt to Russian participation in World War I.
Russia reached an armistice with the Central Powers in early December 1917, freeing German troops to face the remaining Allies on the Western Front.
America Enters World War I
At the outbreak of fighting in 1914, the United States remained on the sidelines of World War I, adopting the policy of neutrality favored by President Woodrow Wilson while continuing to engage in commerce and shipping with European countries on both sides of the conflict.
Neutrality, however, it was increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of Germany’s unchecked submarine aggression against neutral ships, including those carrying passengers. In 1915, Germany declared the waters surrounding the British Isles to be a war zone, and German U-boats sunk several commercial and passenger vessels, including some U.S. ships.
Widespread protest over the sinking by U-boat of the British ocean liner Lusitania—traveling from New York to Liverpool, England with hundreds of American passengers onboard—in May 1915 helped turn the tide of American public opinion against Germany. In February 1917, Congress passed a $250 million arms appropriations bill intended to make the United States ready for war.
Germany sunk four more U.S. merchant ships the following month, and on April 2 Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress and called for a declaration of war against Germany.
Gallipoli Campaign
With World War I having effectively settled into a stalemate in Europe, the Allies attempted to score a victory against the Ottoman Empire, which entered the conflict on the side of the Central Powers in late 1914.
After a failed attack on the Dardanelles (the strait linking the Sea of Marmara with the Aegean Sea), Allied forces led by Britain launched a large-scale land invasion of the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. The invasion also proved a dismal failure, and in January 1916 Allied forces staged a full retreat from the shores of the peninsula after suffering 250,000 casualties.
Did you know? The young Winston Churchill, then first lord of the British Admiralty, resigned his command after the failed Gallipoli campaign in 1916, accepting a commission with an infantry battalion in France.
British-led forces also combated the Ottoman Turks in Egypt and Mesopotamia, while in northern Italy, Austrian and Italian troops faced off in a series of 12 battles along the Isonzo River, located at the border between the two nations.
Battle of the Isonzo
The First Battle of the Isonzo took place in the late spring of 1915, soon after Italy’s entrance into the war on the Allied side. In the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo, also known as the Battle of Caporetto (October 1917), German reinforcements helped Austria-Hungary win a decisive victory.
After Caporetto, Italy’s allies jumped in to offer increased assistance. British and French—and later, American—troops arrived in the region, and the Allies began to take back the Italian Front.
World War I at Sea
In the years before World War I, the superiority of Britain’s Royal Navy was unchallenged by any other nation’s fleet, but the Imperial German Navy had made substantial strides in closing the gap between the two naval powers. Germany’s strength on the high seas was also aided by its lethal fleet of U-boat submarines.
After the Battle of Dogger Bank in January 1915, in which the British mounted a surprise attack on German ships in the North Sea, the German navy chose not to confront Britain’s mighty Royal Navy in a major battle for more than a year, preferring to rest the bulk of its naval strategy on its U-boats.
The biggest naval engagement of World War I, the Battle of Jutland (May 1916) left British naval superiority on the North Sea intact, and Germany would make no further attempts to break an Allied naval blockade for the remainder of the war.
World War I Planes
World War I was the first major conflict to harness the power of planes. Though not as impactful as the British Royal Navy or Germany’s U-boats, the use of planes in World War I presaged their later, pivotal role in military conflicts around the globe.
At the dawn of World War I, aviation was a relatively new field; the Wright brothers took their first sustained flight just eleven years before, in 1903. Aircraft were initially used primarily for reconnaissance missions. During the First Battle of the Marne, information passed from pilots allowed the allies to exploit weak spots in the German lines, helping the Allies to push Germany out of France.
The first machine guns were successfully mounted on planes in June of 1912 in the United States, but were imperfect; if timed incorrectly, a bullet could easily destroy the propeller of the plane it came from. The Morane-Saulnier L, a French plane, provided a solution: The propeller was armored with deflector wedges that prevented bullets from hitting it. The Morane-Saulnier Type L was used by the French, the British Royal Flying Corps (part of the Army), the British Royal Navy Air Service and the Imperial Russian Air Service. The British Bristol Type 22 was another popular model used for both reconnaissance work and as a fighter plane.
Dutch inventor Anthony Fokker improved upon the French deflector system in 1915. His “interrupter” synchronized the firing of the guns with the plane’s propeller to avoid collisions. Though his most popular plane during WWI was the single-seat Fokker Eindecker, Fokker created over 40 kinds of airplanes for the Germans.
The Allies debuted the Handley-Page HP O/400, the first two-engine bomber, in 1915. As aerial technology progressed, long-range heavy bombers like Germany’s Gotha G.V. (first introduced in 1917) were used to strike cities like London. Their speed and maneuverability proved to be far deadlier than Germany’s earlier Zeppelin raids.
By the war’s end, the Allies were producing five times more aircraft than the Germans. On April 1, 1918, the British created the Royal Air Force, or RAF, the first air force to be a separate military branch independent from the navy or army.
Second Battle of the Marne
With Germany able to build up its strength on the Western Front after the armistice with Russia, Allied troops struggled to hold off another German offensive until promised reinforcements from the United States were able to arrive.
On July 15, 1918, German troops launched what would become the last German offensive of the war, attacking French forces (joined by 85,000 American troops as well as some of the British Expeditionary Force) in the Second Battle of the Marne. The Allies successfully pushed back the German offensive and launched their own counteroffensive just three days later.
After suffering massive casualties, Germany was forced to call off a planned offensive further north, in the Flanders region stretching between France and Belgium, which was envisioned as Germany’s best hope of victory.
The Second Battle of the Marne turned the tide of war decisively towards the Allies, who were able to regain much of France and Belgium in the months that followed.
The Harlem Hellfighters and Other All-Black Regiments
By the time World War I began, there were four all-Black regiments in the U.S. military: the 24th and 25th Infantry and the 9th and 10th Cavalry. All four regiments comprised of celebrated soldiers who fought in the Spanish-American War and American-Indian Wars, and served in the American territories. But they were not deployed for overseas combat in World War I.
Blacks serving alongside white soldiers on the front lines in Europe was inconceivable to the U.S. military. Instead, the first African American troops sent overseas served in segregated labor battalions, restricted to menial roles in the Army and Navy, and shutout of the Marines, entirely. Their duties mostly included unloading ships, transporting materials from train depots, bases and ports, digging trenches, cooking and maintenance, removing barbed wire and inoperable equipment, and burying soldiers.
Facing criticism from the Black community and civil rights organizations for its quotas and treatment of African American soldiers in the war effort, the military formed two Black combat units in 1917, the 92nd and 93rd Divisions. Trained separately and inadequately in the United States, the divisions fared differently in the war. The 92nd faced criticism for their performance in the Meuse-Argonne campaign in September 1918. The 93rd Division, however, had more success.
With dwindling armies, France asked America for reinforcements, and General John Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Forces, sent regiments in the 93 Division to over, since France had experience fighting alongside Black soldiers from their Senegalese French Colonial army. The 93 Division’s 369 regiment, nicknamed the Harlem Hellfighters, fought so gallantly, with a total of 191 days on the front lines, longer than any AEF regiment, that France awarded them the Croix de Guerre for their heroism. More than 350,000 African American soldiers would serve in World War I in various capacities.
Toward Armistice
By the fall of 1918, the Central Powers were unraveling on all fronts.
Despite the Turkish victory at Gallipoli, later defeats by invading forces and an Arab revolt that destroyed the Ottoman economy and devastated its land, and the Turks signed a treaty with the Allies in late October 1918.
Austria-Hungary, dissolving from within due to growing nationalist movements among its diverse population, reached an armistice on November 4. Facing dwindling resources on the battlefield, discontent on the homefront and the surrender of its allies, Germany was finally forced to seek an armistice on November 11, 1918, ending World War I.
Treaty of Versailles
At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Allied leaders stated their desire to build a post-war world that would safeguard itself against future conflicts of such a devastating scale.
Some hopeful participants had even begun calling World War I “the War to End All Wars.” But the Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, would not achieve that lofty goal.
Saddled with war guilt, heavy reparations and denied entrance into the League of Nations, Germany felt tricked into signing the treaty, having believed any peace would be a “peace without victory,” as put forward by President Wilson in his famous Fourteen Points speech of January 1918.
As the years passed, hatred of the Versailles treaty and its authors settled into a smoldering resentment in Germany that would, two decades later, be counted among the causes of World War II.
World War I Casualties
World War I took the lives of more than 9 million soldiers; 21 million more were wounded. Civilian casualties numbered close to 10 million. The two nations most affected were Germany and France, each of which sent some 80 percent of their male populations between the ages of 15 and 49 into battle.
The political disruption surrounding World War I also contributed to the fall of four venerable imperial dynasties: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey.
Legacy of World War I
World War I brought about massive social upheaval, as millions of women entered the workforce to replace men who went to war and those who never came back. The first global war also helped to spread one of the world’s deadliest global pandemics, the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918, which killed an estimated 20 to 50 million people.
World War I has also been referred to as “the first modern war.” Many of the technologies now associated with military conflict—machine guns, tanks, aerial combat and radio communications—were introduced on a massive scale during World War I.
The severe effects that chemical weapons such as mustard gas and phosgene had on soldiers and civilians during World War I galvanized public and military attitudes against their continued use. The Geneva Convention agreements, signed in 1925, restricted the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare and remain in effect today.
Photo Galleries
1 / 12: Galerie Bilderwelt/Getty Images
1 / 12: Bettmann/CORBIS
1 / 11: Michael St. Maur Sheil/CORBIS
1 / 10: Royal Engineers No 1 Printing Company/ IWM via Getty Images
1 / 26: Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain
1 / 13: Lake County Museum/CORBIS
1 / 8: IWM/Getty Images
1 / 10: Keystone/Getty Images
World War I | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gavrilo Princip—the igniting torch of World War I |
||||||
|
||||||
Combatants | ||||||
Allies: Serbia, Russia, France, Romania, Belgium, British Empire, United States, Italy, and others |
Central Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Ottoman Empire |
|||||
Casualties | ||||||
Military dead: 5 million Civilian dead: 3 million Total dead: 8 million |
Military dead: 4 million Civilian dead: 3 million Total dead: 7 million |
The First World War, known as the Great War before 1939 and as World War One after 1950, lasted from August 1914 to the final Armistice with Germany on November 11, 1918. During the war, it was referred to as the war to end all wars. Some question the appropriateness of the term “world war” because it was largely a European, North African, and Middle Eastern war. However, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, and other British dominions and colonies contributed troops, and the United States also entered the conflict. Much of Asia and South America were not directly involved. The Allies of World War I, led by the United Kingdom, France, Russia (until 1917), and the United States (after 1917), defeated the Central Powers, led by the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. The war caused the disintegration of four empires: Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian. It also brought about radical change in the European and Middle Eastern maps. The Allied Powers before 1917 are sometimes referred to as the Triple Entente and the Central Powers are sometimes referred to as the Triple Alliance. Many people believed that this would be the last European conflict and that in the future, diplomacy and detente would resolve differences. Many question whether the war was necessary, suggesting that it could have been avoided.
The legacy of the war, in many respects, was World War II, which was rooted in the punitive sanctions that the World War I’s victors placed on Germany. The war can be represented as totalitarian regimes verses democratic regimes, but that is a somewhat simplistic analysis because rivalry and jealousy between the two sides was a fundamental issue. Germany felt that it was entitled to an empire; Britain, France, and even Belgium possessed extensive overseas territory while Germany had just a few colonies. The democratization process, though, was more advanced among the Allies than in Germany and her main ally, the Ottoman Empire. Humanity should learn from the legacy of this war that war cannot end war—it can only lead to more violence. The higher principle of peaceful resolution of differences attracted much interest after 1918 when the League of Nations was formed, but the nations of the world were unwilling to establish this as an effective body, being reluctant to give it any real power. President Woodrow Wilson had been one of its chief architects but the U.S.A. did not join and league members tended to act in their own interest, rather than in that of all members.
Causes
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip of Young Bosnia, a group whose aims included the unification of the South Slavs and independence from Austria. This assassination set in motion a series of fast-moving events that escalated into a full-scale war. The cause of the conflict, however, is complex. Historians and political scientists have grappled with this question for nearly a century without reaching a consensus. The treaty that ended the war required Germany to admit to being the aggressor (Article 231) but this was achieved in the context of Germany’s defeat, economic sanctions, and the threat of renewed hostilities. The damage this caused to national pride would help Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.
Alliances
Political scientists regard the building of alliances as a cause, specifically the formation of the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance. Alliances emboldened participating nations, leading each to believe that they had powerful backing. Both camps functioned in unique ways that contributed to the spread of war. For the Triple Alliance, the strong relationship between Germany and Austria expanded the conflict to a level where it would include at least four participants. Russia, France, and Britain had a relationship that was much less certain in 1914, contributing to the fact that each made the decision to go to war without collaborative consultation and with their own interests in mind.
Arms races
The German-British naval arms race drastically intensified after the 1906 launch of the HMS Dreadnought, a revolutionary battleship that made all previous battleships obsolete. A major naval arms race in shipbuilding developed, related to the concept of new imperialism, furthering the interest in alliances. Kennedy argues that both nations adopted U.S. Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan’s conclusion that control of the oceans was vital to a great nation. (Kennedy, 1997) Additionally, this concentration kept related industries active and unemployment down while minimizing internal strife through the focus on a common, patriotic goal. Different scholars have different opinions about the degree to which the arms race was itself a cause of the war. Ferguson points out that Britain easily maintained her advantage. On the other hand, both sides were prepared for war. (Ferguson, 1999)
Plans, distrust, and mobilization: The First out of the Gate theory
Many political scientists argue that the German, French, and Russian war plans automatically escalated the conflict. Fritz Fischer (1908-1999) and his followers emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of Germany’s Schlieffen Plan, which outlined German strategy if at war with both France and Russia. Conflict on two fronts meant that Germany had to eliminate one opponent quickly before attacking the other, relying on a strict timetable. France’s well defended border with Germany meant that an attack through Belgian (and possibly Dutch) territory was necessary, creating a number of unexpected problems. In a greater context, France’s own Plan XVII called for an offensive thrust into Germany’s industrial Ruhr Valley, crippling Germany’s ability to wage war. Russia’s revised Plan XIX implied a mobilization of its armies against both Austria-Hungary and Germany. All three created an atmosphere where generals and planning staffs were anxious to take the initiative and seize decisive victories using these elaborate mobilization plans with precise timetables. Once the mobilization orders were issued, it was understood by both generals and statesmen alike that there was little or no possibility of turning back or a key advantage would be sacrificed. The problem of communications in 1914 should also not be underestimated; all nations still used telegraphy and ambassadors as the main form of communication, which resulted in delays from hours to even days.
Militarism and autocracy
U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and other observers blamed the war on militarism. The idea was that aristocrats and military elites had too much control over Germany, Russia, and Austria, and the war was a consequence of their thirst for military power and disdain for democracy. This was a theme that figured prominently in anti-German propaganda, which cast Kaiser Wilhelm II and Prussian military tradition in a negative light. Consequently, supporters of this theory called for the abdication of such rulers, the end of the aristocratic system, and the end of militarism—all of which justified American entry into the war once Czarist Russia dropped out of the Allied camp. Wilson hoped the League of Nations and universal disarmament would secure a lasting peace, although he failed to secure U.S. support for the league. He also acknowledged variations of militarism that, in his opinion, existed within the British and French political systems.
Economic imperialism
Lenin famously asserted that the worldwide system of imperialism was responsible for the war. In this he drew upon the economic theories of English economist John A. Hobson, who, in his 1902 book entitled Imperialism had earlier predicted that the outcome of economic imperialism, or unlimited competition for expanding markets, would lead to a global military conflict.[1] This argument proved persuasive in the immediate wake of the war and assisted in the rise of Marxism and Communism. Lenin’s 1917 pamphlet «Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism» made the argument that large banking interests in the various capitalist-imperialist powers had pulled the strings in the various governments and led them into the war.[2]
Nationalism and romanticism
Civilian leaders of European powers found themselves facing a wave of nationalist zeal that had been building across Europe for years as memories of war faded or were convoluted into a romantic fantasy that resonated in the public conscience. Frantic diplomatic efforts to mediate the Austrian-Serbian quarrel simply became irrelevant, as public and elite opinion commonly demanded war to uphold national honor. Most of the belligerents envisioned swift victory and glorious consequences. The patriotic enthusiasm, unity and ultimate euphoria that took hold during the Spirit of 1914 was full of that very optimism regarding the post-war future. Also, the Socialist-Democratic movement had begun to exert pressure on aristocrats throughout Europe, who optimistically hoped that victory would reunite their countries via the consolidation of their domestic hegemony. However, Lord Kitchener and Erich Ludendorff were among those who predicted that modern, industrialized warfare would be a lengthy excursion.
Culmination of European history
Map of the world with the Participants in World War I. The Allies are depicted in green, the Central Powers in orange, and the neutral countries in grey.
A localized war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was made possible due to Austria-Hungary’s deteriorating world position and the Pan-Slavic separatist movement in the Balkans. The expansion of such ethnic sentiments coincided with the growth of Serbia and the decline of the Ottoman Empire, as the latter had previously ruled much of the region.
Imperial Russia also supported the Pan-Slavic movement, motivated by ethnic loyalties, dissatisfaction with Austria (dating back to the Crimean War), and a centuries-old dream of a warm water port.[3] For the Germans, both the Napoleonic Wars and Thirty Years’ War were characterized by incursions which had a lasting psychological effect; it was Germany’s precarious position in the center of Europe that ultimately led to the decision for an active defense, culminating in the Schlieffen Plan. At the same time, the transfer of the contested Alsace and Lorraine territories and defeat in the Franco-Prussian War influenced France’s policy, characterized by revanchism. However, after the League of the Three Emperors fell apart, the French formed an alliance with Russia and a two-front war became a distinct possibility for Germany.
Religion and the War
Bertrand Russell blamed the war on religion, arguing that “the First World War was wholly Christian in origin” and that opposition came from Socialists who were “anti-Christian.” (Russell, 1957) “The three emperors,” he says, were “devout, and so were the more warlike of the British Cabinet.” Phillips points out that:
When hostilities began, German churchmen preached holy war in the east against Russia and in the west against “atheistic” France. Britons, however, singled out the Kaiser, and became manic over the return of the “Hun” and the threat to world civilization, against which God had marshaled his chosen people. The most extreme blessing of the cannons came from the bishop of London, A. F Winnington-Ingram, who called the war “a great crusade—we cannot deny it—to kill Germans.” He advised The Guardian that “you ask for my advice in a sentence as to what the church is to do. I answer—MOBILIZE THE NATION FOR A HOLY WAR.” (Phillips, 2005)
The Kaiser also “pretended to be a Muslim sympathizer to bolster his alliance with Turkey.” (Phillips, 2005) Germany had been more sympathetic towards the Ottomans, who were increasingly in debt to the Allied Powers, assisting with technology and aid.
July crisis and declarations of war
After the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Austria-Hungary waited for three weeks before deciding on a course of action. The army was on leave to help gather the harvest, which practically denied Austria the possibility of military action at the time. On July 23, assured by unconditional support of the Germans should war break out, it sent an ultimatum to Serbia containing many demands, among them that Austrian agents would be allowed to take part in the investigation, and in general holding Serbia responsible for the assassination. The Serbian government accepted all the terms, except that of the participation of the Austrian agents in the inquiry, which it saw as a violation of its sovereignty. Emboldened by last minute Russian support, Serbia rejected the ultimatum. Austria-Hungary, in turn, rejected the Serbian reply on July 26. Breaking diplomatic relations, the Austro-Hungarian Empire declared war on Serbia on July 28 and proceeded to bombard Belgrade on July 29. On July 30, Austria-Hungary and Russia both ordered general mobilization of their armies.
The Germans, having pledged support to Austria-Hungary, sent Russia an ultimatum on July 31 to stop mobilization within 12 hours. The same day, Raoul Villain assassinated French socialist leader Jean Jaurès, a leading anti-war campaigner. On August 1, with the ultimatum expired, the German ambassador to Russia formally declared war. On August 2, Germany occupied Luxembourg, as a preliminary step to the invasion of Belgium and the Schlieffen Plan (Germany had planned to attack France first according to the plan, and then Russia, which had already gone wrong). The same day, yet another ultimatum was delivered to Belgium, requesting free passage for the German army on the way to France. The Belgians refused. At the very last moment, the Kaiser Wilhelm II asked Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, the German Chief of General Staff, to cancel the invasion of France in the hope this would keep Britain out of the war. Moltke, horrified by the prospect of the utter ruin of the Schlieffen Plan, refused on the grounds that it would be impossible to change the rail schedule—»once settled, it cannot be altered.» (Tuchman, 1994) On August 3, Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium on August 4. This act—violating Belgian neutrality to which Germany, France, and Britain were all committed to guarantee—gave Britain, which up to that point had yet to choose a side in the conflict, a reason to declare war on Germany on August 4.
Opening hostilities
Africa and Pacific
Some of the first hostilities of the war occurred in Africa and in the Pacific Ocean, in the colonies and territories of the European powers. In August 1914 French and British Empire forces invaded the German protectorate of Togoland in West Africa. Shortly thereafter, on August 10, German forces based in Namibia (South-West Africa) attacked South Africa, which was then part of the British Empire. New Zealand occupied German Samoa (later Western Samoa) on August 30. On September 11, the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force landed on the island of Neu Pommern (later New Britain), which formed part of German New Guinea. Japan seized Germany’s Micronesian colonies and the German coaling port of Qingdao in the Chinese Shandong peninsula. Within a few months, the Allied forces had seized all the German territories in the Pacific. Sporadic and fierce fighting, however, continued in Africa for the remainder of the war.
European military alliances in 1915. The Central Powers are depicted in puce, the Allies or Entente Powers in grey and neutral countries in yellow
Europe
In Europe, the Central Powers—the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire—suffered from mutual miscommunication and lack of intelligence regarding the intentions of each other’s army. Germany had originally guaranteed to support Austria-Hungary’s invasion of Serbia but practical interpretation of this idea differed. Austro-Hungarian leaders believed Germany would cover the northern flank against Russia. Germany, however, had planned for Austria-Hungary to focus the majority of its troops on Russia while Germany dealt with France on the Western Front. This confusion forced the Austro-Hungarian army to split its troop concentrations. Somewhat more than half of the army went to fight the Russians on their border, and the remainder was allocated to invade and conquer Serbia.
Serbian Campaign
The Serbian army fought a defensive battle against the invading Austrian army (called the Battle of Cer) starting on August 12. The Serbians occupied defensive positions on the south side of the Drina and Save Rivers. Over the next two weeks Austrian attacks were thrown back with heavy losses. This marked the first major Allied victory of the war. Austrian expectations of a swift victory over Serbia were not realized and as a result, Austria had to keep a very sizable force on the Serbian front, which weakened their armies facing Russia.
Germany in Belgium and France
Haut-Rhin, France 1917.[4]
After entering Belgian territory, the German army soon encountered resistance at the fortified city of Liège. Although the army as a whole continued to make rapid progress into France, it was Britain’s decision to honor a dated protection pact with Belgium and to declare war on Germany that left the German government in disbelief and seriously hindered their military plans. Britain sent an army to France (the British Expeditionary Force, or BEF) which advanced into Belgium and slowed the Germans. The first British soldier killed in the war was John Parr, on August 21, 1914, near Mons.
Initially, the Germans had great successes in the Battle of the Frontiers (August 14–24, 1914). However, Russia attacked in East Prussia and diverted German forces which were intended for the Western Front. Germany defeated Russia in a series of battles collectively known as the Second Battle of Tannenberg (August 17–September 2). This diversion exacerbated problems of insufficient speed of advance from railheads not allowed for by the German General Staff. It also allowed French and British forces to finally halt the German advance on Paris at the First Battle of the Marne (September 1914) and the Entente forced the Central Powers to fight a war on two fronts. The German army had fought its way into a good defensive position inside France and had permanently incapacitated 230,000 more French and British troops than it had lost itself in the months of August and September. Yet staff incompetence and leadership timidity (such as Moltke the Younger needlessly transferring troops from the right to protect Sedan) cost Germany the chance for an early victory over France with its very ambitious war plan.
Early stages
In the trenches: Infantry with gas masks, Ypres, 1917.
Trench warfare begins
Trench warfare was the distinctive feature of the war. After the First Battle of the Marne, both Entente and German forces began a series of outflanking maneuvers to try to force the other to retreat, in the so-called Race to the Sea. The United Kingdom and France soon found themselves facing entrenched German positions from Lorraine to Belgium’s Flemish coast. The United Kingdom and France sought to take the offensive, while Germany defended occupied territories. One consequence was that German trenches were much better constructed than those of their enemy: Anglo-French trenches were only intended to be temporary before their forces broke through German defenses. Some hoped to break the stalemate by utilizing science and technology. In April 1915 the Germans used chlorine gas for the first time, which opened a 4 mile wide hole in the Allied lines when French colonial troops retreated before it. This breach was closed by allied soldiers at the Second Battle of Ypres where over five thousand, mainly Canadian, soldiers were gassed to death and Third Battle of Ypres, where Canadian forces took the village of Passchendale with the help of the Allied Powers.
Neither side proved able to deliver a decisive blow for the next four years, though protracted German action at Verdun throughout 1916, and the Entente’s failure at the Somme in the summer of 1916, brought the exhausted French army to the brink of collapse. Futile attempts at frontal assault—with a rigid adherence to unimaginative maneuvers—came at a high price for both the British and the French poilu (infantry) and led to widespread mutinies, especially during the time of the Nivelle Offensive in the spring of 1917. News of the Russian Revolution gave a new incentive to socialist sentiments among the troops, with its seemingly inherent promise of peace. Red flags were hoisted, and the Internationale was sung on several occasions. At the height of the mutiny, thirty thousand to forty thousand French soldiers participated.
British 55th (West Lancashire) Division troops blinded by tear gas await treatment at an Advanced Dressing Station near Bethune during the Battle of Estaires, 10 April 1918, part of the German offensive in Flanders. Photographed by 2nd Lt. T.L. Aitken.
Throughout 1915-1917 the British Empire and France suffered far more casualties than Germany. However, while the Germans only mounted a single main offensive at Verdun, each failed attempt by the Entente to break through German lines was met with an equally fierce German counteroffensive to recapture lost positions. Around eight hundred thousand soldiers from the British Empire were on the Western Front at any one time. One thousand battalions, each occupying a sector of the line from the North Sea to the Orne River, operated on a month long, four stage rotation system, unless an offensive was underway. The front contained over six thousand miles of trenches. Each battalion held its sector for about a week before moving back to support lines and then further back to the reserve lines before a week out-of-line, often in the Poperinge or Amiens areas.
In the British-led Battle of Arras during the 1917 campaign, the only military success was the capture of Vimy Ridge by the Canadian forces under Sir Arthur Currie and Julian Byng. It provided the British allies with great military advantage that had a lasting impact on the war and is considered by many historians as the founding myth of Canada.
Southern theaters
Ottoman Empire
The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers in October and November 1914 because of the secret Turko-German Alliance, which was signed in August 1914. It threatened Russia’s Caucasian territories and Britain’s communications with India and the East via the Suez Canal. The British Empire opened another front in the South with the Gallipoli and Mesopotamian campaigns in 1915. In Gallipoli, the Turks were successful in repelling the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZACs) and forced their eventual withdrawal and evacuation. In Mesopotamia, by contrast, after the disastrous Siege of Kut (1915–1916), British Empire forces reorganized and captured Baghdad in March 1917. Further to the west in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, initial British failures were overcome when Jerusalem was captured in December 1917, and the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, under Field Marshall Edmund Allenby, broke the Ottoman forces at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918.
Russian armies generally had the best of it in the Caucasus. Vice-Generalissimo Enver Pasha, supreme commander of the Turkish armed forces, was a very ambitious man with a dream to conquer central Asia, but he was not a practical soldier. After launching a frontal offensive with one hundred thousand troops against the Russians, called the Battle of Sarikamis, in the Caucasus in December of 1914, he lost 86 percent of his force.
General Nikolai Nikolaevich Yudenich, Russian commander from 1915 to 1916, achieved a string of victories over the Ottoman forces, driving them out of much of present day Armenia. Tragically, this would provide a context for the deportation and genocide against the Armenian population in eastern Armenia.
In 1917 Russian Grand Duke Nicholas (first cousin of Tsar Nicholas II) assumed senior control over the Caucasus front. Nicholas tried to have a railway built from Russian Georgia to the conquered territories with a view to bringing up more supplies for a new offensive in 1917. But, in March of 1917, the tsar was overthrown in the February Revolution and the Russian army began to slowly fall apart.
Italian participation
Italy had been allied with the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires since 1882. Italy had its own designs against Austrian territory in the Trentino, Istria, and Dalmatia, and maintained a secret 1902 understanding with France, which effectively nullified its previous alliance commitments. Italy refused to join Germany and Austria-Hungary at the beginning of the war because their alliance was defensive. The Austrian government started negotiations to obtain Italian neutrality in exchange for French territories namely Tunisia, but Italy joined the Triple Entente by signing the London Pact in April and declaring war on Austria-Hungary in May 1915; it declared war against Germany 15 months later.
In general, the Italians had numerical superiority but were poorly equipped. The Italians went on the offensive to relieve pressure on the other Allied fronts and achieve their territorial goals. In the Trentino-South Tyrol front, the Austro-Hungarian defense took advantage of the elevation of their bases in the mostly mountainous terrain, which was not suitable for military offensives. After an initial Austro-Hungaric strategic retreat to better positions, the front remained mostly unchanged, while Austrian Kaiserschützen and Standschützen and Italian Alpini troops fought bitter, close combat battles during the summer and tried to survive during the winter in the high mountains. The Austro-Hungarians counterattacked in the Altopiano of Asiago towards Verona and Padua in the spring of 1916, known as the Strafexpedition, but they also made little progress.
Beginning in 1915, the Italians mounted 11 major offensives along the Isonzo River north of Trieste, known as the First through Eleventh Battles of the Isonzo. These attacks were repelled by the Austro-Hungarians who had the higher ground. In the summer of 1916, the Italians captured the town of Gorizia. After this minor victory, the front remained practically stable for over a year, despite several Italian offensives. In the fall of 1917, thanks to the improving situation on the Eastern front, the Austrians received large reinforcements, including German assault troops. The Central Powers launched a crushing offensive on October 26 that was spearheaded by German troops and supported by the Austrians and Hungarians. The attack resulted in the victory of Caporetto; the Italian army was routed, but after retreating more than 60 miles, it was able to reorganize and hold at the Piave River. In 1918 the Austrians repeatedly failed to break the Italian line and, decisively defeated in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto, surrendered to the Entente powers in November.
War in the Balkans
Faced with the Russian threat, Austria-Hungary could spare only one-third of its army for Serbia. After suffering tremendous losses, the Austrians briefly captured the Serbian capital, but Serb counterattacks succeeded in expelling the invaders from the country by the end of 1914. For the first ten months of 1915. Austria used most of its spare armies to fight Italy. However, German and Austrian diplomats scored a great coup by convincing Bulgaria to join in a new attack on Serbia.
The conquest of Serbia was finally accomplished in a little more than a month, starting on October 7, when the Austrians and Germans attacked from the north. Four days later the Bulgarians attacked from the east. The Serbian army, attacked from two directions and facing certain defeat, retreated east and south into Albania, and then by ship to Greece. In late 1915, a Franco-British force landed at Salonica in Greece to offer assistance and to pressure the Greek government into war against the Central Powers. Unfortunately for the Allies, the pro-Allied Greek government of Eleftherios Venizelos was dismissed by the pro-German King Constantine I before the Allied expeditionary force had even arrived.
The Salonica Front proved entirely immobile, so much so that it was joked that Salonica was the largest German prisoner of war camp. Only at the very end of the war were the Entente powers able to make a breakthrough, which was after most of the German and Austro-Hungarian troops had been removed, leaving the Front held by the Bulgarians alone. This led to Bulgaria’s signing an armistice on September 29, 1918.
Eastern Front
Initial actions
While the Western Front had reached stalemate in the trenches, the war continued in the east. The Russian initial plans for war had called for simultaneous invasions of Austrian Galicia and German East Prussia. Although Russia’s initial advance into Galicia was largely successful, they were driven back from East Prussia by the victories of the German generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff at the battles of Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes in August and September 1914. Russia’s less-developed industrial base and ineffective military leadership was instrumental in the events that unfolded. By the spring of 1915, the Russians were driven back in Galicia and in May, the Central Powers achieved a remarkable breakthrough on Poland’s southern fringes, capturing Warsaw on August 5 and forcing the Russians to withdraw from all of Poland. This became known as the «Great Retreat» by the Russian Empire and the «Great Advance» by Germany.
Russian Revolution
Dissatisfaction with the Russian government’s conduct of the war grew despite the success of the June 1916 Brusilov offensive in eastern Galicia against the Austrians. The Russian success was undermined by the reluctance of other generals to commit their forces in support of the victorious sector commander. Allied and Russian forces revived only temporarily with Romania’s entry into the war on August 27; German forces came to the aid of embattled Austrian units in Transylvania, and Bucharest fell to the Central Powers on December 6. Meanwhile, internal unrest grew in Russia as the tsar remained out of touch at the front. Empress Alexandra’s increasingly incompetent rule drew protests from all segments of Russian political life and resulted in the murder of Alexandra’s favorite, Grigori Rasputin, by conservative noblemen at the end of 1916.
In March 1917 demonstrations in St. Petersburg culminated in the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the appointment of a weak Russian Provisional Government, which shared power with the socialists of the Petrograd Soviet. This division of power led to confusion and chaos both on the front and at home, and the army became increasingly ineffective.
The war, and the government, became more and more unpopular, and the discontent led to a rise in popularity of the Bolshevik political party, led by Vladimir Lenin, who were able to gain power. The October Revolution was followed in December by an armistice and negotiations with Germany. At first, the Bolsheviks refused to agree to the harsh German terms, but when Germany resumed the war and marched with impunity across Ukraine, the new government acceded to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918, which took Russia out of the war and ceded vast territories, including Finland, the Baltic provinces, Poland, and Ukraine to the Central Powers.
After the Russians dropped out of the war, the Entente no longer existed. The Allied Powers led a small-scale invasion of Russia. The invasion was made with intent primarily to stop Germany from exploiting Russian resources and, to a lesser extent, to support the Whites in the Russian Revolution. Troops landed in Archangel and in Vladivostok.
1917–1918
In the trenches: A carrying party of the Royal Irish Rifles in a communications trench on the first day on the Somme, July 1, 1916
The events of 1917 were decisive in ending the war, although their effects would not be fully felt until 1918. The British naval blockade of Germany began to have a serious impact on morale and productivity on the German home front. In response, in February 1917, the German General Staff was able to convince Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg to declare unrestricted submarine warfare, with the goal of starving the United Kingdom out of the war. Tonnage sunk rose above five hundred thousand tons per month from February until July, peaking at 860,000 tons in April. After July, the reintroduced convoy system was extremely effective in neutralizing the U-boat threat, thanks to American experimentation. Britain was safe from the threat of starvation, and the German war industry remained deprived materially.
The decisive victory of Germany at the Battle of Caporetto led to the Allied decision at the Rapallo Conference to form the Supreme Allied Council at Versailles to coordinate plans and action. Previously, British and French armies had operated under separate command systems.
In December, the Central Powers signed an armistice with Russia, which released troops from the eastern front for use in the west. Ironically, German troop transfers could have been greater if their territorial acquisitions had not been so dramatic. With both German reinforcements and new American troops pouring into the Western Front, the final outcome of the war was to be decided in that front. The Central Powers knew that they could not win a protracted war now that American forces were certain to be arriving in increasing numbers, but they held high hopes for a rapid offensive in the West using their reinforced troops and new infantry tactics. Furthermore, the rulers of both the Central Powers and the Allies became more fearful of the threat first raised by Ivan Bloch (1836–1929), the Polish financier and war theoretician in 1899, that protracted industrialized war threatened social collapse and revolution throughout Europe. Both sides urgently sought a decisive, rapid victory on the Western Front because they were both fearful of collapse or stalemate.
Entry of the United States
America’s policy of insisting on neutral rights while also trying to broker a peace resulted in tensions with both Berlin and London. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson repeatedly warned that he would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, and the Germans repeatedly promised to stop. A proposal to Mexico to join the war against the Allies was exposed in February, bringing war closer. After further U-boat (German submarines) attacks on American merchant ships, Wilson requested that Congress declare war on Germany, which it did on April 6, 1917. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the war resolution 373-50, the U.S. Senate 82-6, with opposition coming mostly from German American districts. Wilson hoped war could be avoided with Austria-Hungary; however, when it kept its loyalty to Germany, the U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December 1917.
Although the American contribution to the war was important, particularly in terms of the threat posed by an increasing U.S. infantry presence in Europe, the United States was never formally a member of the Allies, but an «Associated Power.» Significant numbers of fresh American troops arrived in Europe in the summer of 1918, and they started arriving at ten thousand per day.
Germany miscalculated that it would be many more months before large numbers of American troops could be sent to Europe, and that, in any event, the U-boat offensive would prevent their arrival.
The United States Navy sent a battleship group to Scapa Flow to join with the British Grand Fleet, several destroyers to Queenstown, Ireland and several submarines to the Azores and to Bantry Bay, Ireland to help guard convoys. Several regiments of U.S. Marines were also dispatched to France. However, it would be some time before the United States would be able to contribute significant manpower to the Western and Italian Fronts.
The British and French wanted the United States to send its infantry to reinforce their troops already on the battle lines, and not use scarce shipping to bring over supplies. Consequently, Americans primarily used British and French artillery, airplanes, and tanks. However, General John J. Pershing, American Expeditionary Force (AEF) commander, refused to break up American units to be used as reinforcements for British Empire and French units (though he did allow African American combat units to be used by the French). Pershing ordered the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British Empire and French commanders as too costly in lives of their troops. To the astonishment of the Allies, the dispirited Germans broke and ran when the Americans came running, and the AEF suffered the lowest casualty rate of any army on the Western Front, with most recorded deaths being attributed to disease.
German Spring Offensive of 1918
For most of World War I, Allied forces were stalled at trenches on the Western Front
German General Erich Ludendorff drew up plans (codenamed Operation Michael) for a 1918 general offensive along the Western Front, aiming to divide the British and French armies in a series of feints and advances by striking a decisive blow against the enemy before significant United States forces could be deployed. Before the offensive even began, Ludendorff made what was possibly a fatal mistake; he left the elite Eighth Army in Russia, sending over a few German troops from the east to aid the offensive in the west.
Operation Michael opened on March 21, 1918, with an attack against British Empire forces near the rail junction at Amiens. Ludendorff’s plan was to split the British Empire and French armies at this point. German forces achieved an unprecedented advance of 40 miles. For the first time since 1914, maneuvering was achieved on the battlefield.
British and French trenches were defeated using novel infiltration tactics. Instead of the usual long artillery bombardments and continuous front mass assaults, the German Army started to use artillery briefly to infiltrate the line with small groups of infantry at weak points, attacking command and logistics areas and surrounding points of serious resistance. More heavily armed infantry then destroyed these isolated positions. German success relied greatly on this tactic.
Canadian troops advancing behind a tank at the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
The front line had now moved to within 75 miles of Paris. Three super-heavy Krupp railway guns advanced and fired 183 shells on Paris, which caused many Parisians to flee the city. The initial stages of the offensive were so successful that German Kaiser Wilhelm II declared March 24 a national holiday. Many Germans thought victory was close; however, after heavy fighting, the German offensive was halted. The Germans had brilliant new storm trooper, or Hutier tactics that avoided the trenches and sent small units on preplanned raids deep behind the lines to control and communication centers. That worked very well, but the Germans, lacking tanks or motorized artillery, were unable to consolidate their positions. The British and French learned that they had to fall back a few miles and the Germans would be disorganized and vulnerable to counterattack.
American divisions, which Pershing had sought to field as an independent force, were assigned to the depleted French and British Empire commands on March 28. A supreme command of Allied forces was created at the Doullens Conference, in which British Field Marshal Douglas Haig handed control of his forces over to French Marshall Ferdinand Foch.
Following Operation Michael, Germany launched Operation Georgette to the north against the English Channel ports. This was halted by the Allies with less significant territorial gains to Germany. Operations Blücher and Yorck were then conducted by the German Army to the south, broadly towards Paris. Next, Operation Marne was launched on July 15 in an attempt to encircle Reims, beginning the Second Battle of the Marne. The resulting Allied counterattack marked their first successful offensive of the war. By July 20, the Germans were back at their Kaiserschlacht starting lines, having achieved nothing. Following this last phase of the ground war in the West, the German Army never again held the initiative. German casualties between March and April 1918 were 270,000, including many of the highly trained storm troopers. Their best soldiers were gone just as the Americans started arriving.
Meanwhile, Germany was crumbling internally as well. Anti-war marches were a frequent occurrence and morale within the army was at low levels. Industrial output had fallen 53 percent since 1913.
Allied victory: summer and autumn 1918
American engineers returning from the front during the Battle of Saint-Mihiel in September 1918
The Allied counteroffensive, known as the Hundred Days’ Offensive began on August 8, 1918. The Battle of Amiens developed with III Corps Fourth British Army on the left, the First French Army on the right, and the Canadian and Australian Corps spearheading the offensive in the center. It involved 414 tanks of the Mark IV and Mark V type, and 120,000 men. They advanced as far as seven miles into German-held territory in just seven hours. Erich Ludendorff (1865–1937), a leading German General, referred to this day as «the Black Day of the German army.» Ludendorff wrote extensively on the conduct of the war, which he believed had been defensive.
After a few days, the offensive had slowed down—British Empire units had encountered problems with all but seven tanks. On August 15, General Haig called a halt and began planning a new offensive in Albert, Somme. This Second Battle of the Somme began on August 21. Some 130,000 United States troops were involved, along with soldiers from Third and Fourth British Armies. It was an overwhelming success for the Allies. The German Second Army was pushed back over a 34 mile front. The town of Bapaume was captured on August 29 and by September 2 the Germans were on the Hindenburg Line, which was the starting point of the war.
The Allied attempt to take the Hindenburg Line (the Meuse-Argonne Offensive) began on September 26, as 260,000 American soldiers went «over the top.» All divisions were successful in capturing their initial objectives, except the U.S. Seventy-Ninth Infantry Division, which met stiff resistance at Montfaucon and took an extra day to capture the objective.
By the start of October, it was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defense, let alone a counterattack. On the frontline they were increasingly outnumbered, with the few new recruits too young or too old to be of much help. Rations were cut for men and horses because the food supply was critical. Ludendorff had decided by October 1 that Germany had two ways out of the War—total annihilation or an armistice. He recommended the latter to senior German officials at a summit on that very same day. During October, Pershing’s artillery continued to unrelentingly pound the exhausted and bewildered Germans, all along the Meuse-Argonne front. The Allied pressure did not let up until the end of the war.
Meanwhile, news of Germany’s impending military defeat had spread throughout the German Armed forces. The threat of general mutiny was rife. Naval commander Admiral Reinhard Scheer and Ludendorff decided to launch a last ditch attempt to restore the «valor» of the German Navy. Knowing any such action would be vetoed by the government of Prince Maximilian of Baden, 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 nothing more than a suicide bid. It was Ludendorff who took the blame for this—the Kaiser dismissed him on October 26.
With power coming into the hands of new men in Berlin, further fighting became impossible. With 6 million German casualties, Germany moved toward peace. Prince Maximilian of Baden took charge of the new German government. Negotiations for peace began immediately upon his appointment. In the matter of the German monarchy, he was torn between the ideas of a constitutional monarchy—in which he himself was in line for the crown—or a republic. President Wilson demanded the abdication of the Kaiser and there was no resistance when the Social Democratic Philipp Scheidemann declared Germany to be a republic on November 9. Von Baden then announced that the Kaiser was to abdicate, along with all other princes in the Reich. Imperial Germany was dead; a new Germany had been born—the Weimar Republic.
End of war
Front page of the New York Times on Armistice Day, November 11, 1918.
The collapse of the Central Powers came swiftly. Bulgaria was the first to sign an armistice (September 29, 1918). Faced with the opening of a second front in the Austrian rear, Ludendorff and Hindenberg demanded that the government pursue a negotiated peace. On October 3 Germany and Austria-Hungary appealed to President Wilson for an immediate armistice. The sailors of Germany’s High Seas Fleet mutinied starting October 29, and rebellion quickly spread throughout western Germany. On October 30 the Ottoman Empire capitulated. On November 4 the Armistice with Austria was granted to take effect at 3:00 in the afternoon. Austria and Hungary signed separate armistices following the overthrow of the Habsburg monarchy and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Following the outbreak of the German Revolution, a republic was proclaimed on November 9, marking the end of the monarchy. The Kaiser fled the next day to the neutral Netherlands, which granted him political asylum.
On November 11 an armistice with Germany was signed in a railroad carriage at Compiègne in France where Germans had previously dictated terms to France, ending the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.
At 11:00 a.m. on November 11, 1918, a ceasefire came into effect and the opposing armies on the Western Front began to withdraw from their positions. Canadian George Lawrence Price is traditionally regarded as the last soldier killed in the Great War: he was shot by a German sniper and died at 10:58 a.m.
A formal state of war between the two sides persisted for another seven months until it was finally ended by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919, with Germany, and the following treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and The Ottoman Empire signed at St. Germain, Trianon, Neuilly, and Sèvres respectively. However, the latter treaty with the Ottoman Empire was followed by strife (the Turkish Independence War) and a final peace treaty was signed between the Allied Powers and the country that would shortly become the Republic of Turkey, at Lausanne on July 24, 1923.
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 November 11, 1918. Legally the last formal peace treaties were not signed until 1923.
Economics and manpower issues
All nations saw increases in government share of gross domestic product (GDP), surpassing 50 percent in both Germany and France and nearly reaching 50 percent in Britain. To pay for purchases in the U.S., Britain cashed in its massive investments in American railroads and then borrowed heavily on Wall Street. President Wilson was on the verge of cutting off the loans in late 1916, but with war imminent with Germany, he 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 of the end of the war was the expansion of governmental powers and responsibilities in the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and the Dominions of the British Empire. To harness all the power of their societies, new government ministries and powers were created. New taxes were levied and laws enacted, all designed to bolster the war effort. Many of these continue to this day.
The war strained the abilities of formerly large and bureaucratized governments such as those 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 war of attrition, conscription was implemented in some countries. This issue was particularly explosive in Canada and opened a political gap between the French-Canadians—who claimed their true loyalty was to Canada and not the British Empire—and the English-speaking majority who saw the war as a duty to both Britain and Canada, and a way of demonstrating leadership and high-contribution to the British Empire. Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden pushed through a Military Service Act that caused the Conscription Crisis of 1917.
In Britain, rationing was finally imposed in early 1918 and was 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 4 million to a little over 8 million. Work stoppages and strikes became frequent in 1917–1918 as the unions expressed grievances regarding prices, liquor control, pay disputes, «dilution,» fatigue from overtime and from Sunday work, and inadequate housing. Conscription put nearly every physically fit man into uniform, 6 million out of the 10 million eligible in Britain. About 750,000 lost their lives and 1,700,000 were wounded. Most fatalities were young unmarried men; however, 160,000 wives lost husbands and three hundred thousand children lost fathers.
Technology
Nieuport Fighter, France 1917.
The First World War has been described as clash of twentieth century technology with nineteenth century tactics. Millions of soldiers, both volunteers and conscripts, fought on all sides, with Kitchener’s Army being a notable all volunteer force.
Much of the war’s combat involved trench warfare, where hundreds often died for each yard of land gained. Many of the deadliest battles in history occurred during the First World War, including the Battles of Ypres, Vimy Ridge, Marne, Cambrai, Sommm, and Verdun and artillery was responsible for the largest number of casualties during the First World War. Vast quantities of explosives were used. Despite having been outlawed by the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907), chemical weapons such as mustard gas, phosgene and tear gas, and aerial bombardment were used. Casualties from chemical weapons were few but the psychological impact was devastating. Countermeasures such as gas-masks became more effective as the war progressed.
Perhaps the most powerful weapons of the Great War were railway-mounted heavy guns, which became increasingly larger. As each belligerent nation increased the firepower and range of its artillery, the other nations were required to respond likewise in order to prevent the technological superiority of any given military power. The naval guns of the day were the largest guns on the planet, and weighed hundreds of tons apiece. Thus, a method for transporting these guns was essential, and railroads became the favored means. The largest U.S., British, and French rail guns were severely outranged by the German Krupp, Max E, and Paris Guns.
Fixed-wing aircrafts were first used militarily during the First World War. Initial uses consisted primarily of reconnaissance, though this developed into ground attack and fighter duties as well. Strategic bombing aircrafts were created principally by the Germans and British, though the former used Zeppelins (dirigible balloons) to this end as well.
U-boats (submarines) were used in combat shortly after the war began. Alternating between restricted and unrestricted submarine warfare during the First Battle of the Atlantic, they were employed by the Kaiserliche Marine in a strategy of defeating the British Empire through a tonnage war. The deaths of British merchantmen and the invulnerability of U-boats led to the development of several countermeasures: depth charges (1916), hydrophones (passive sonar, 1917), blimps, hunter-killer submarines (HMS R-1, 1917), ahead-throwing weapons, and dipping hydrophones (abandoned in 1918). To extend their operations, the Germans proposed supply submarines (1916). Most of these would be forgotten in the interwar period until World War II revived the need.
Tanks were introduced in World War I by the British and created mechanized warfare that dominated the rest of the twentieth century. The first tank was nicknamed Mother. The first use of tanks was during the Battle of the Somme on September 15, 1916. This was not as successful as intended, but as a start the tanks proved their value against the machine gun. Trenches, the machine gun, air reconnaissance, barbed wire, and modern artillery with shrapnel helped stalemate the battle lines of World War I by making massed infantry attacks deadly for the attacker. The infantry was armed mostly with a bolt action magazine rifle, but the machine gun, with the ability to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, blunted infantry attacks as an offensive weapon; therefore, the British sought a solution and created the tank. Their first use proved tanks needed infantry support and massed formations, but within a year the British were fielding tanks by the hundreds and showed their potential during the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917 by breaking the Hindenburg Line while capturing eight thousand enemy and one hundred artillery guns.
Captive balloons were used as stationary reconnaissance points on the front lines. Balloons commonly had a crew of two with parachutes; upon an enemy air attack on the flammable balloon the balloon crew would parachute. Recognized for their value as observer platforms, they were important targets of enemy aircrafts; fixed, they were also heavily defended by antiaircraft guns. Blimps and balloons helped contribute to the stalemate of the trench warfare of World War I, and the balloons contributed to air to air combat among the aircrafts to defend the skies for air superiority because of their significant reconnaissance value. The Germans conducted air raids during 1915 and 1916 on England with the intent to damage the morale and will to fight of the British and to cause aircrafts to be reassigned to England away from the front lines.
Aftermath
The First World War ended with Europe scarred by trenches, spent of its resources, and littered with the bodies of the millions who died in battle. The direct consequences of World War I brought many old regimes crashing to the ground, and ultimately, would lead to the end of three hundred years of European hegemony in the world.
No other war had changed the map of Europe so dramatically—four empires were shattered—the German, the Austro-Hungarian, the Ottoman, and the Russian. Their four dynasties, the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs, the Ottomans, and the Romanovs, who had roots of power back to the days of the Crusades, all fell during or after the war. After the war, Germany’s overseas colonies were placed under Allied control and provinces of the former Ottoman Empire were mandated to France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The size of Germany was also reduced. Heavy reparations were written into the treaty, together with restrictions on the manufacture of arms.
In Australian and New Zealand popular legend, the First World War is known as the nation’s «baptism of fire,» as it was the first major war in which the newly established countries fought, and it is one of the first cases where Australian troops fought as Australians, not just subjects of the British Crown. Anzac Day (Australia New Zealand Army Corps) is thus held in great reverence by many Australians and New Zealanders.
Similarly, Anglo-Canadians believe that they proved they were their own country and not just subjects of the British Empire. Indeed, many Canadians refer to their country as a nation «forged from fire,» as Canadians were respected internationally as an independent nation from the conflagrations of war and bravery. Like their British counterparts, Canadians commemorate the war dead on Remembrance Day. Indian troops had also fought in the war and now felt that they should have a greater say in running India.
The experiences of the war led to a collective national trauma afterwards for all the participating countries. The optimism for world peace of the 1900s was entirely gone, and those who fought in the war became what is known as «the Lost Generation» because they never fully recovered from their experiences. For the next few years, much of Europe began its mourning; memorials were erected in thousands of villages and towns.
This social trauma manifested itself in many different ways. Some people were revolted by nationalism and what it had supposedly caused and began to work toward a more internationalist world, supporting organizations such as the League of Nations. Pacifism became increasingly popular. Others had the opposite reaction, feeling that only strength and military might could be relied upon for protection in a chaotic and inhumane world that did not respect hypothetical notions of civilization. «Anti-modernist» views were a reaction against the many changes taking place within society.
The rise of Nazism and fascism included a revival of the nationalistic spirit of the pre-war years and, on principle, a rejection of many post-war changes. Similarly, the popularity of the Dolchstosslegende (the theory that German defeat was due to internal treason and lack of national unity) was a testament to the psychological state of the defeated, as acceptance of the scapegoat mythos signified a rejection of the «lessons» of the war and therefore, a rejection of its popular resulting perspective. Also, the extreme economic hardship in Germany that developed after the war helped breed conditions for Hitler’s rise to power there.
Certainly a sense of disillusionment and cynicism became pronounced, with Nihilism growing in popularity. This disillusionment towards humanity found a cultural climax with the pessimistic existentialism of Sartre and Camus and Dadaist artistic movement. Many people believed that the war heralded the end of the world as they had known it, including the collapse of capitalism and imperialism. Communist and socialist movements around the world drew strength from this theory and enjoyed a level of popularity they had never known before. These feelings were most pronounced in areas directly or particularly harshly affected by the war, especially within Europe.
Notes
- ↑ Hobson, John A., Imperialism. Retrieved June 11, 2007.
- ↑ Lenin, Vladimir, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Retrieved June 11, 2007.
- ↑ MIT, Imperial Russian Council St. Petersburg, July 1914 Supplemental Guide. Retrieved June 11, 2007.
- ↑ World War One Color Photos Retrieved June 11, 2007.
References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- Beaver, Daniel R. Newton D. Baker and the American War Effort, 1917-1919. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. 1966.
- Beesly, Patrick. Room 40. Oxford, New York: Oxford University. 1984. ISBN 0192814680
- Bidwell, Shelford, and Graham, Dominick. Firepower: British Army Weapons and Theories of War, 1904-1945. Boston: Allen & Unwin. 1985. ISBN 0049421905
- Broadberry, Stephen and Harrison, Mark. eds. The Economics of World War I. Cambridge and NY: Cambridge University. 2005. ISBN 0521852129
- Buchan, John. A History of the Great War. 4 Vols. Annapolis, MD: Nautical and Aviation Pub. Co. of America. 1980. ISBN 093385210X
- Carver, Michael. The War Lords : Military Commanders of the Twentieth Century. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military Classics. 2005. ISBN 1844153088
- Cassar, George H. Kitchener’s War: British Strategy from 1914 to 1916. Washington, DC: Brassey’s. 2004. ISBN 1574887084
- Chambers II, John W. To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America. New York: Free; London: Collier Macmillan. 1987. ISBN 0029058201
- Coffman, Edward M. The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. 1998. ISBN 0813109558
- Cruttwell, C. R. M. F. A History of the Great War, 1914-1918. Chicago, IL: Academy Chicago. 1991. ISBN 0897333152
- Editors of American Heritage. History of WWI. Simon & Schuster. 1964.
- Evans, R. J. W., and Von Strandman, Hartmut Pogge. eds. The Coming of the First World War. Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford University. 1988. ISBN 0198228996
- Falls, Cyril. The Great War. Norwalk, CT: Easton. 1987.
- Ferguson, Niall. The Pity of War. New York: Basic Books. 1999. ISBN 0465057128
- Gilpin, Robert. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University. 1981. ISBN 0521240182
- Gudmundsson, Bruce I. Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918. New York: Praeger. 1989. ISBN 0275933288
- Hallas, James H. Doughboy War: The American Expeditionary Force in World War I. Boulder, Col: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 2000. ISBN 1555878555
- Hamilton, Richard F. and Herwig, Holger H. Decisions for War, 1914-1917. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University. 2004. ISBN 0521545307
- Hardach, Gerd. The First World War 1914-1918. Berkeley: University of California. 1977. ISBN 0520030605
- Henig, Ruth. The Origins of the First World War. London; New York: Routledge. 2002. ISBN 0415261856
- Herwig, Holger H. The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914-1918. London, New York: Arnold. 1997. ISBN 0340573481
- Higham, Robin and Showalter, Dennis E. eds. Researching World War I: A Handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood. 2003. ISBN 031328850X
- Holley, I. B. Ideas and Weapons: Exploitation of the Aerial Weapon by the United States During World War I. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History: For sale by the Supt. of Docs. U.S. GPO. 1983. ISBN 0912799110
- Hoover, Herbert. Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson. p 47. 1918.
- Howard, Michael. The First World War Oxford, New York: Oxford University. 2002. ISBN 0192853627
- Howarth, Stephen. To Shining Sea: A History of the United States Navy, 1775-1991. New York: Random House. 1991. ISBN 0394576624
- Hubatsch, Walther. Germany and the Central Powers in the World War, 1914- 1918. Lawrence: University of Kansas. 1963.
- Hurley, Alfred F. Billy Mitchell, Crusader for Air Power. Bloomington: Indiana University. 1975. ISBN 0253312035
- Joll, James. The Origins of the First World War. London; New York: Longman. 1992. ISBN 0582089204
- Kahn, David. The Codebreakers. New York: Scribner. 1996. ISBN 0684831309
- Kahn, David. The Reader of Gentlemen’s Mail: Herbert O. Yardley and the Birth of American Codebreaking. New Haven: Yale University. 2004. ISBN 0300098464
- Keegan, John. The First World War. New York: A. Knopf. 1999. ISBN 0375400524
- Kennedy, David M. Over Here: The First World War and American Society. Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University. 2004. ISBN 0195173996
- Kennedy, Paul M. The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860-1914. London: Atlantic Highlands; NJ: Ashfield. 1987. ISBN 0948660066
- Kennedy, Paul M. ed. The War Plans of the Great Powers, 1880-1914. Boston: Allen & Unwin. 1985. ISBN 0049400827
- Knutsen, Torbjørn L. The Rise and Fall of World Orders. Manchester, UK: Manchester University; New York: Martin’s.1999. ISBN 0719040582
- Koistinen, Paul. Mobilizing for Modern War: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1865-1919. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas. 1997. ISBN 0700608605
- Lee, Dwight E. ed. The Outbreak of the First World War: Who Was Responsible? Boston: Heath. 1963.
- Liddell Hart, B. H. The Real War 1914-1918. Boston: Little; Brown. 1963; 1930.
- Lincoln, W. Bruce. Passage Through Armageddon: The Russians in War and Revolution, 1914-1918. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1986. ISBN 0671557092
- Lyons, Michael J. World War I: A Short History. (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall. 2000. ISBN 0130205516
- Messenger, Charles. Call To Arms: The British Army 1914-1918. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 2005. ISBN 0297846957
- Milner, Prof. Marc. Canadian Military History. Toronto: Irwin. 1998. ISBN 0772525137
- Morrow Jr., John H. The Great War: An Imperial History. London; New York: Routledge. 2004. ISBN 0415204399
- Morton, Desmond, and Granatstein, J. L. Marching to Armageddon: Canadians and the Great War 1914-1919. Toronto, Canada: Lester & Orpen Dennys. 1989. ISBN 0886192110
- Phillips, Kevin. American Theocracy. NY: Viking. 2005. ISBN 9780670034864
- Ponting, Clive. Thirteen Days: The Road to the First World War. London: Chatto & Windus. 2002. ISBN 0701172932
- Pope, Stephen and Wheal, Elizabeth-Anne. eds. The Macmillan Dictionary of the First World War. Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military Classics. 2003. ISBN 0850529794
- Robbins, Keith. The First World War. Oxford, New York: Oxford University. 1993. ISBN 0192891499
- Russell, Bertrand. Why I am Not a Christian. NY: Viking. 1957. ISBN 0671203231
- Sheffield, G. D. Leadership in the Trenches: Officer-Man Relations, Morale and Discipline in the British Army in the Era of the First World War. New York: St. Martin’s. 2000. ISBN 0312226403
- Shotwell, James T. Economic and Social History of the World War. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 1924.
- Slosson, Preston William. The Great Crusade and after, 1914-1928. New York: Macmillan. 1930.
- Smith, Leonard V. Between Mutiny and Obedience. The Case of the French Fifth Infantry Division during World War I. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. 1994. ISBN 0691033048
- Stevenson, David. Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy. New York: Basic Books. 2004. ISBN 0465081843
- Stevenson, David. The First World War and International Politics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University. 1988. ISBN 0198730497
- Stokesbury, James. A Short History of World War I. New York: Morrow. 1981. ISBN 0688001297
- Strachan, Hew. The First World War: Volume I: To Arms. New York: Viking. 2004. ISBN 0670032956
- Stubbs, Kevin D. Race to the Front: The Material Foundations of Coalition Strategy in the Great War. Westport, Conn: Praeger. 2002. ISBN 0275972992
- Taylor, A. J. P. The First World War: An Illustrated History. London: Hamish Hamilton. 1963.
- Time Magazine. Warm Water Friendship. Retrieved June 12, 2007.
- Toland, John. No Man’s Land. 1918—The Last Year of the Great War. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. 2002. ISBN 0803294514
- Trask, David F. The United States in the Supreme War Council: American War Aims and Inter-Allied Strategy, 1917-1918. Westport, CT: Greenwood. 1978. ISBN 0313200068
- Trumbo, Dalton. Johnny Got His Gun. New York: L. Stuart. 1970.
- Tuchman, Barbara. The Guns of August. New York: Ballantine. 1994. ISBN 034538623X
- Tuchman, Barbara W. The Zimmermann Telegram. New York: Macmillan. 1966.
- Tucker, Spencer. ed. The Encyclopedia of World War I: A Political, Social, and Military History. Vol. 5. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. 2005. ISBN 1851094202
- Tucker, Spencer. ed. European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland. 1996. ISBN 081533351X
- Turner, John. ed. Britain and the First World War. London and Boston: Unwin Hyman. 1988. ISBN 0044451091
- University of Calgary Social Science. Centre for Military and Strategic Studies. Retrieved June 12, 2007.
- Venzon, Anne. ed. The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland. 1995. ISBN 0824070550
- Wade, Mason. The French Canadians, 1760-1945. London: Macmillan. 1955.
- A Web of English History. Russia 1870-1917. Retrieved June 12, 2007.
- Winter, J. M. Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin, 1914-1919. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University. 1997. ISBN 0521571715
- Winter, J. M. The Experience of World War I. New York: Oxford University. 1989. ISBN 0195207769
- Wynn, Neil A. From Progressivism to Prosperity: World War I and American Society. New York: Holmes & Meier. 1986. ISBN 084191107X
External links
All links retrieved October 10, 2020.
- The Library of Congress. World War I Resources.
- Duffy, Michael. A Multimedia History of World War One.
- BBC. The War to End All Wars.
- The Heritage of the Great War. The Heritage of the Great War / First World War 1914–1918.
- GenealogyBuff.com. World War I Casualties of American Army Overseas—1918.
- The Long, Long Trail. The British Army in the Great War.
- Historique de Regiments.
- Swaim, Don. Fighting the Hun in the Great War.
- World War I. Trenches on the Web.
- Military Indexes. Online World War I Indexes & Records.
- Brigham Young University. World War I Document Archive.
- Brigham Young University. The Medical Front WWI
- World War I Naval Combat. World War I Naval Combat
- Musee McCord Museum. Wanted! 500, 000 Canadians for WW I
- Internet Archive. Memoirs of the Great War.
- Military History Index. The Great War 1914–1918.
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article
in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
- World War I history
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
- History of «World War I»
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
Educalingo cookies are used to personalize ads and get web traffic statistics. We also share information about the use of the site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.
Download the app
educalingo
PRONUNCIATION OF WORLD WAR ONE
GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY OF WORLD WAR ONE
World War One is a noun.
A noun is a type of word the meaning of which determines reality. Nouns provide the names for all things: people, objects, sensations, feelings, etc.
WHAT DOES WORLD WAR ONE MEAN IN ENGLISH?
World War I
British Empire ▪ United Kingdom ▪ Australia ▪ Canada ▪ British India ▪ Newfoundland ▪ New Zealand ▪ South Africa France Russian Empire Italy United States Japan Serbia Montenegro Romania Belgium Greece Portugal …and others Central Powers Germany ▪ Baden ▪ Bavaria ▪ Prussia ▪ Saxony ▪ Württemberg Austria-Hungary Ottoman Empire Bulgaria Co-belligerents Darfur Dervish State Jabal Shammar…and others Commanders and leaders Allied leaders H. H. Asquith David Lloyd George Douglas Haig Georges Clemenceau Raymond Poincaré Ferdinand Foch Nicholas II Nicholas Nikolaevich Aleksei Brusilov Victor Emmanuel III Vittorio Orlando Luigi Cadorna Woodrow Wilson John J. Pershing Ferdinand I Constantin Prezan Taishō Peter I Radomir Putnik…
WORDS THAT RHYME WITH WORLD WAR ONE
ˈaɪɛsəʊˌeɪteɪtˌfaɪvnaɪnˌwʌn
Synonyms and antonyms of World War One in the English dictionary of synonyms
Translation of «World War One» into 25 languages
TRANSLATION OF WORLD WAR ONE
Find out the translation of World War One to 25 languages with our English multilingual translator.
The translations of World War One from English to other languages presented in this section have been obtained through automatic statistical translation; where the essential translation unit is the word «World War One» in English.
Translator English — Chinese
第一次世界大战
1,325 millions of speakers
Translator English — Spanish
Primera Guerra Mundial
570 millions of speakers
Translator English — Hindi
विश्व युद्ध के एक
380 millions of speakers
Translator English — Arabic
الحرب العالمية الاولى
280 millions of speakers
Translator English — Russian
Первая мировая война
278 millions of speakers
Translator English — Portuguese
Primeira Guerra Mundial
270 millions of speakers
Translator English — Bengali
বিশ্বযুদ্ধের এক
260 millions of speakers
Translator English — French
Première Guerre mondiale
220 millions of speakers
Translator English — Malay
Perang Dunia Pertama
190 millions of speakers
Translator English — German
Weltkrieg
180 millions of speakers
Translator English — Japanese
第一次世界大戦
130 millions of speakers
Translator English — Korean
세계 대전
85 millions of speakers
Translator English — Javanese
Perang Donya
85 millions of speakers
Translator English — Vietnamese
Chiến tranh thế giới Một
80 millions of speakers
Translator English — Tamil
உலக போர் ஒன்று
75 millions of speakers
Translator English — Marathi
पहिले युद्ध एक
75 millions of speakers
Translator English — Turkish
Birinci Dünya Savaşı
70 millions of speakers
Translator English — Italian
Prima Guerra Mondiale
65 millions of speakers
Translator English — Polish
I wojna światowa
50 millions of speakers
Translator English — Ukrainian
Перша світова війна
40 millions of speakers
Translator English — Romanian
Primul Război Mondial
30 millions of speakers
Translator English — Greek
Ο Πρώτος Παγκόσμιος Πόλεμος
15 millions of speakers
Translator English — Afrikaans
Eerste Wêreldoorlog
14 millions of speakers
Translator English — Swedish
Världskriget
10 millions of speakers
Translator English — Norwegian
World War One
5 millions of speakers
Trends of use of World War One
TENDENCIES OF USE OF THE TERM «WORLD WAR ONE»
The term «World War One» is quite widely used and occupies the 37.018 position in our list of most widely used terms in the English dictionary.
FREQUENCY
Quite widely used
The map shown above gives the frequency of use of the term «World War One» in the different countries.
Principal search tendencies and common uses of World War One
List of principal searches undertaken by users to access our English online dictionary and most widely used expressions with the word «World War One».
FREQUENCY OF USE OF THE TERM «WORLD WAR ONE» OVER TIME
The graph expresses the annual evolution of the frequency of use of the word «World War One» during the past 500 years. Its implementation is based on analysing how often the term «World War One» appears in digitalised printed sources in English between the year 1500 and the present day.
Examples of use in the English literature, quotes and news about World War One
10 ENGLISH BOOKS RELATING TO «WORLD WAR ONE»
Discover the use of World War One in the following bibliographical selection. Books relating to World War One and brief extracts from same to provide context of its use in English literature.
1
World War One: The Global Revolution
This is an indispensable and accessible new introduction to the global history of World War One and its revolutionary consequences.
2
World War One: History in an Hour
Love history? Know your stuff with History in an Hour.
3
World War One British Poets: Brooke, Owen, Sassoon, …
An introduction to the physical characteristics, behavior, and habitat of brown recluse spiders.
A dynamic portrait of the world’s greatest human conflict, now in paperbackWorld War I is a dramatic account of the Great War combining emotive photography with personal accounts to evoke both the futility and spirit of the conflict.
5
World War One: A Short History
In World War One, Norman Stone, one of the world’s greatest historians, has achieved the almost impossible task of writing a terse and witty short history of the war.
This captivating collection of first-hand accounts brings to life the «War to End All Wars.»
7
A history of the Great War: World War One and the …
The text is also enhanced by maps, photos, and an engaging vignette at the opening of each chapter that serves as an introduction.
8
America and World War One
With over 2,000 entries selected from a wide variety of publications, manuscript collections, databases, and online resources, this volume will be an invaluable research tool for students, scholars, and military history buffs alike.
9
World War One: German Army
This new addition to Brassey’s History of Uniforms series covers the German Army at war from 1914-1918 and is the partner volume to the title World War One: British Army.
Stephen Bull, Christa Hook, 2000
10
German Artillery of World War One
World War I introduced the use of artillery on a hitherto unprecedented scale, changing the very nature of war from a series of set-piece battles to stalemates punctuated by attacks on frontlines.
3 NEWS ITEMS WHICH INCLUDE THE TERM «WORLD WAR ONE»
Find out what the national and international press are talking about and how the term World War One is used in the context of the following news items.
Armistice Day: Final Tower poppy laid as UK honours fallen
Large crowds saw 13-year-old army cadet Harry Hayes place the last of 888,246 flowers, each representing a British military death in World War One. «BBC News, Nov 14»
Today’s troops reflect on World War One
This year is special for remembrance, for two reasons. It marks the centenary of the outbreak of World War One, dubbed by that generation as the Great War, … «BBC News, Nov 14»
Abe sees World War One echoes in Japan-China tensions
Suga told a news conference that Abe — noting that this year is the 100th anniversary of the start of World War One — said Britain and Germany clashed despite … «Reuters, Jan 14»
REFERENCE
« EDUCALINGO. World War One [online]. Available <https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/world-war-one>. Apr 2023 ».
Download the educalingo app
Discover all that is hidden in the words on
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a word search?
A word search is a puzzle where there are rows of letters placed in the shape of a square, and there are words written forwards, backwards, horizontal, vertical or diagonal. There will be a list of words for the player to look for and the goal of the player is to find those words hidden in the word search puzzle, and highlight them.
How do I choose the words to use in my word search?
Once you’ve picked a theme, choose words that have a variety of different lengths, difficulty levels and letters. You don’t need to worry about trying to fit the words together with each other because WordMint will do that for you!
How are word searches used in the classroom?
Word search games are an excellent tool for teachers, and an excellent resource for students. They help to encourage wider vocabulary, as well as testing cognitive abilities and pattern-finding skills.
Because the word search templates are completely custom, you can create suitable word searches for children in kindergarten, all the way up to college students.
Who is a word search suitable for?
One of the common word search faq’s is whether there is an age limit or what age kids can start doing word searches. The fantastic thing about word search exercises is, they are completely flexible for whatever age or reading level you need.
Word searches can use any word you like, big or small, so there are literally countless combinations that you can create for templates. It is easy to customise the template to the age or learning level of your students.
How do I create a word search template?
For the easiest word search templates, WordMint is the way to go!
Pre-made templates
For a quick an easy pre-made template, simply search through WordMint’s existing 500,000+ templates. With so many to choose from, you’re bound to find the right one for you!
Create your own from scratch
- Log in to your account (it’s free to join!)
- Head to ‘My Puzzles’
- Click ‘Create New Puzzle’ and select ‘Word Search’
- Select your layout, enter your title and your chosen words
- That’s it! The template builder will create your word search template for you and you can save it to your account, export as a Word document or PDF and print!
How can I print my word search template?
All of our templates can be exported into Microsoft Word to easily print, or you can save your work as a PDF to print for the entire class. Your puzzles get saved into your account for easy access and printing in the future, so you don’t need to worry about saving them at work or at home!
Can I create a word search in other languages?
Word searches are a fantastic resource for students learning a foreign language as it tests their reading comprehension skills in a fun, engaging way.
We have full support for word search templates in Spanish, French and Japanese with diacritics including over 100,000 images.