Category: War

Although the United States was the last major power to enter World War I, its soldiers experienced their fair share of fighting. American art noted the prominent importance of this contribution and commemorated it in books, songs, and painting. One of such paintings is On the Wire, created in 1918 by Harvey Dunn, one of the artist-correspondents that accompanied the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) in France. The painting, belonging to the National Museum of American History, depicts two American soldiers hurrying along the endless rows of barbed wire and carrying their comrade on the stretchers. While not readily apparent from the distinctly local subject matter, the different parts of the painting reflect the political, socio-economic, and even ideological aspects of war. It reveals American political insistence on having their own sector of the front, the countrys economic unpreparedness for supplying the army for total war, and the remembrance of sacrifices epitomized by the poppy flower.

In political terms, Dunns painting indirectly demonstrates the outcome of American insistence on acting independently from the French and the British. The painting focuses on casualties, as the wounded or dead soldier carried by the two stretcher-bearers is its focal point (Dunn). One notable reason for these casualties was purely political. President Wilson wanted a strong showing on the battlefield to enhance his position at the peace table, which required the AEF to have its own front sector (Keene 515). However, getting these political gains meant putting American troops into action without direct contact with their more experienced allies, which resulted in increased casualties. For example, an American officer fighting in the frontlines remarked that some soldiers were lost to gas attacks because they did not know the characteristic smell of gas and did not put on gas masks on time (Hockaday). Consequently, Americans lost an average of 820 soldiers per day, as compared to the British figure of 457 (Keene 535). Hence, while not necessarily the artists intention, the focus on casualties may reveal the increased casualties that resulted from Wilsons political demand for a separate front sector.

From a socio-economic perspective, the soldiers equipment portrayed in the painting demonstrates the unpreparedness of the American economy to supply its army for total war. American industry caught up eagerly on the opportunity to produce war goods for the government (Keene 513). However, even that was not enough to provide millions of soldiers with everything they needed, and the painting gives ample evidence of that. To begin with, both stretcher-bearers wear the so-called Brodie Helmets recognizable by the wide brim (Dunn). It was a British 1915 design, and the United States had to initially buy several hundred thousand of those from their allies to equip the newly deployed troops (Audoin-Rouzeau 177). It took American industry until 1918 to begin producing the same helmets under license as M1917. Moreover, both soldiers carry gas masks, and these are the French M2, easily identifiable by their characteristic neck-worn poach (Dunn). Thus, if one looks closely enough, many pieces of equipment on the painting reveal themselves as not American-made. In this regard, On the Wire reflects the initial difficulties of the American economy in supplying the war.

Finally, the painting also demonstrates the ideological undertones of war participation and commemoration, which were characteristic of World War I. It is not hard to note the small red and blue flowers at the bottom half of the painting, and the red ones are quite likely poppies (Dunn). By 1918, when Dunn created the painting, the red poppy was already associated with the commemoration of the fallen, thanks to John McCraes In Flanders Fields written in 1915 (Aldritch and Hillard 535). Moreover, in the same 1918, American activist Moina Belle Michael launched an international initiative to wear red poppies as a symbol of respect for the sacrifices made by the veterans (Davila et al. 85). Hence, in the historical context in which Dunn wrote his painting, the red poppy was already firmly established as a commemorative symbol for the Ententes war effort. With this in mind, its deliberate inclusion into the painting demonstrates the ideological importance assigned to honoring the ordeals endured by the American troops on the frontline.

As one can see, while Dunns On the Wire seems to be purely local in its focus, it may actually reveal much about the political, socio-economic, and ideological context of World War I. The paintings emphasis on the dead or wounded soldiers highlights the fact that the AEF suffered high casualties during its active involvement in the fighting. These casualties were partially due to President Wilsons insistence on the AEF operating independently  a decision made for political gains. Similarly, the British helmets and French gas masks depicted on the painting show that, for all its potential output, the American economy was not initially ready to supply the army with everything it needed. Finally, the small red poppies at the bottom are a clear-cut reference to the ideological importance that the poppy flower as a commemorative symbol assumed by the time of making the painting.

Works Cited

Aldrich, Robert, and Christopher Hilliard. The French and British Empires. A Companion to World War I, edited by John Horne, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 524-540.

Audoin-Rouzeau, Stephane. Combat. A Companion to World War I, edited by John Horne, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 171-187.

Davila, Denise, at al. Military Life in Picturebooks. Journal of Childrens Literature, vol. 44, no. 2, 2018, pp. 80-86.

Dunn, Harvey T. On the Wire. 1918, National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.

Hockaday, James K. B. Letter, 28 Aug. 1918. The National WWI Museum and Memorial.

Keene, Jennifer D. The United States. A Companion to World War I, edited by John Horne, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 508-523.

World War II (WWII) saw a significant shift in fighting methods from earlier conflicts. In fact, aviation became an important aspect of warfare during WWII, and as countries competed for dominance, they were forced to modernize their aircraft fleets rapidly and rigorously. This essay will focus on the pivotal role of fighter planes during the battles, including the comparison and analysis of the Spitfire and the Messerschmitt, which, based on the maneuvering abilities and speed characteristics, will show the superiority of the Spitfire.

Fighter planes played the most important role during WWII. These planes were the fastest and easiest to maneuver as they even could be controlled remotely. In some cases, the fighters were used to shoot down enemy bomber planes, which was possible when they were equipped with some characteristics of bomber planes (Khazanov et al., 2019). In the past, the battles were more predictable as the involved sides main fighting capacity included mostly land troops. However, the development of aircraft allowed the use of sudden air attacks. Therefore, the types of fighter planes had a significant impact on the two sides favored battle strategies.

Comparing the specific types of fighters, British Supermarine Spitfire outperformed the German Messerschmitt in maneuvering. The Spitfire had thin elliptical wings that, at higher altitudes and the cases of close fight, allowed the plane to effectively dodge from attacks (Imperial War Museums, 2021). For example, if a German aircraft is chasing a British Spitfire, the Spitfire can turn to the left as tightly as feasible, which is more than the German Messerschmitt can. In this situation, Messerschmitts bullets, both from the machine guns and the two cannons, will just pass harmlessly by the tail of the chased Spitfire shooting into empty space. According to Hence, the British Supermarine Spitfire is better at maneuvering in the air.

When it comes to the maximum speed, the Spitfire is slower at low altitudes. That is why the Messerschmitt was in a winning position at the altitudes lower than 20,000 feet, which corresponded to the majority of battles (Khazanov et al., 2019). Khazanov et al. 2019 claims that Messerschmitts DB 601 engine had an automated variable-speed supercharger that improved the engines power output. At low altitude, the advanced engine of the Messerschmitt gave a considerable speed advantage over the Spitfire. Fuel-injection technology was also used in the engine, allowing the plane to pitch forward into a dive. However, the Spitfire cannot dive right away, wasting valuable fighting seconds because of having a less powerful engine. That is why the Spitfire was at disadvantage at a lower altitude.

The later models of the Spitfire solved the problems with its turning abilities at lower altitudes making it the best fighter plane during the WWII. Having its wings cut, the Spitfire 5 was able to maneuver at lower altitudes with increased speed (Imperial War Museums, 2021). This also added some horsepower to its speed increasing from 1000 to 1400, which turned to 2400 horsepower in the latest Spitfire 24 (Imperial War Museums, 2021). That is why the improved versions of the Spitfire improved all the shortcomings of the plane and made it more powerful than its German counterpart.

In conclusion, it is important to highlight the pivotal role of the fighters during WWII that developed the warfare strategies and moved the fight to the next level. Looking specifically at two types of fighters, the German Messerschmitt outperformed the British Spitfire in the climb and dive. At higher altitudes, however, its speed advantage over the Spitfire began to erode. At lower and middle altitudes, the Messerschmitts top speed was more than enough to keep up with the British fighter plane. Nevertheless, the Spitfire had a significant advantage in turns, which allowed it to hide from the bullets and effectively attack the German aircraft from behind.

Reference

Imperial War Museums. (2021). Spitfire Mk1 to Mk24 | How Spitfires kept getting better. [YouTube].

Khazanov, D., Medved, A., Young, E. M., & Holmes, T. (2019). Air Combat: Dogfights of World War II. Bloomsbury Publishing.

The history of Air Defense Artillery (ADA) as an independent branch of the United States Army started on the 20th of June 1968. Before that, ADA had been part of the United States Army Coast Artillery Corps (CAC) and the Armys Field Artillery Branch (FAB). ADA was part of CAC between 1920 and 1950, which includes the World WAR II (WWII) period as well. During the events of WWII, air defense units experienced an unprecedented expansion  up to 37 regiments from 19 in 1938. This was also accompanied by the mass purchase of antiaircraft artillery pieces between 1937 and 1939. These actions are explained by the fact that at the time the capabilities of airplanes increased rapidly, which had been demonstrated in the conflicts prior to WWII. It was no longer possible to down the faster and higher-flying planes with just machine guns. However, that realization came slowly, and the United States Army was still dragged into WWII underequipped and underprepared from the antiaircraft artillery (AAA) point of view. However, due to rapid transformation and adaptability, the AAA units finished the war in a completely different state, destroying or damaging a quarter of all enemy aircraft fleet.

This resulted in the Pearl Harbor and Clark Field disasters of 1941 when the US air defense forces were outmatched by better equipped and trained Japanese pilots. According to Greenwald (2018, p. 38-39), of the thirty-one separate antiaircraft batteries assigned to Hawaii, only four retrieved their ammunition and reached their positions before the attack ended; of all these forces, just one fixed their 3-inch gun battery. Another incident that illustrates the situation at that period happened on the 8th of December in Luzon, when the antiaircraft 200th Coast Artillery Regiment located there was not warned about the incoming Japanese bombers. Moreover, that same regiment received most of its equipment too late  during training at Fort Bliss, Texas, the 37mm batteries had a single 37mm gun, but no ammunition (Greenwald, 2018, p. 39). The soldiers had to simulate their 37 mm guns and use rocks for their ammunition while also training with 3-inch guns and M1903 Springfields.

When deployed, the 200th Coast Artillery Regiment found itself with about half of the necessary 3-inch and 37mm guns available and no working radio sets. When the Japanese attack started, it became clear that most of the ammunition was severely outdated  the rounds for 3-inch firearms were produced in 1932, and according to soldiers, 0.50 caliber ammunition was made in 1918. Most of the shells never reached their targets, while several soldiers on the ground were injured or even killed due to gun tubes blowing up. These cases illustrate the situation with the AAA of the United States Army at the beginning of the war. Such a situation required rapid and fundamental reorganization for the US air defense to be reborn during the conflict.

Antiaircraft Command (AAC) was established in March 1942, split from the Coast Artillery Corps, with headquarters in Richmond, Virginia. The work on new training standards, deployment, inspections started from there; tons of new ammunition were ordered to replace and renew. And while it was impossible to instantly raise the quality of training and supply enough ammunition to everyone, 154 new AAA battalions were created by the end of 1942. Some of these forces were immediately sent to North Africa as a part of the TORCH Operation (Smith, 2012). One of such battalions was the 443rd Antiaircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion, which was initially expected to be assigned to protect the Panama Canal, but were sent to the North African mission (TMFM, n.d.). The battalion received new multi-purpose weapons for antiaircraft and anti-tank defense created specifically for the North African campaign. The campaign taught the AAA forces a lot about their enemies, and even more was learned about their own strengths and weaknesses as many mistakes were made and precious combat experience was acquired.

One of the most serious problems included coordination between the Army Air Forces and AAA units. These units lacked joint training, and AAA forces could not discriminate between friendly and enemy aircrafts in the battles, which led to friendly fire cases. Due to this situation, Air Forces requested control over AAA units multiple times during the campaign, yet their request was never granted. However, the AAA forces demonstrated great adaptability and solved some of the deployment and friendly fire issues on the ground, creating effective algorithms and patterns for future battles. On the institutional level, only one anti-fratricide standard was adopted  firing at the aircraft only after it opens fire first. Nevertheless, the combat experience influenced not only the troops participating in the North African campaign but training programs back in the United States, which became more relevant, complex, and included closer cooperation with Air Forces. In combination with better equipment and adjustment of manufacturing to the ammunition and guns demands by the AAA forces, highly capable antiaircraft units were forged at that time. In the end, the AAA forces of the US Army proved to be highly effective during the war, destroying 526 German aircrafts in North Africa, 866 in Southern Europe, 975 in Northwest Europe, and another 3,151 between the 6th of June 1944 and 8th of May 1945.

The predecessor forces of ADA went through many institutional, bureaucratic, and combat transformations during WWII to turn from underequipped and underprepared units into the force be reckoned with along all of the theaters of war. And one of the critical features of the AAA, which has determined the outcome of many battles, is the ability to adapt and be flexible on the ground.

References

Greenwald, B. (2018). Learning to fight from the ground up: American antiaircraft artillery in World War II. On Point: The Journal of Army History, 24(1), 36-45.

Mulholland, J. (n.d.). Death by friendly fire  the story of Flt Sgt. R. Laverty, 202 Squadron. Web.

Smith, C. (2012). Operation TORCH: The North Africa landings, 70 years on. History Today. Web.

Texas Military Forces Museum. (n.d.). 443^rd Antiaircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion (SP). Web.

New weapons and capability transformed experience of war were among primary features of World War I. It seems reasonable to say that the introduction of chemical weapons during the period was a significant factor that changed the course of the war to a great extent. Due to this, there were many casualties who were dying in suffering, which was a foundation for the international ban on such an approach to conducting warfare. Below, the primary aspects of the application of chemical weapons will be presented, making an emphasis on the strategic changes it caused.

At the beginning of the war, ideas about chemical weapons were vague, and the British began by trying to give a second life to Lord Dundonalds unrealized project to burn heaps of sulfur with a fair wind. But by the end of the war, the combatants successfully used chemical weapons against each other in offensive and defensive combat operations on an operational scale. Chemical weapons in the First World War were created to get out of the positional impasse. The gas launch near Ypres on April 22, 1915, showed the great potential of chemical weapons (Trumpener 460). Their use became an integral tactical technique in an attack on a prepared defense line. In 19151916, the use of chemical weapons to overcome the enemys first line of defense changed the formation of battle formations by dispersing them and moving them into the depths of the defense line. The approach to the selection of organic substances has also changed. Chemical warfare began with the use of Incapacitants (bromoacetone, bromomethyl ketone) and low-toxic suffocating organic substances (Smart 22). Among the latter were chlorine or bromine gradually took on an extreme form, which meant the destruction of the enemy with lethal chemicals.

The scale of the use of chemical weapons has increased significantly  from single gas launches to the inclusion in artillery parks of 30-50% of chemical shells for various tactical purposes. LPG launches did not justify their results of the complexity of their preparation and, by the end of 1916, had lost their significance. Using 50% or more chemical projectiles was considered the key to suppressing the enemys defenses (Fitzgerald 621). In this case, the tactical and operational surprise was achieved. Gas rectangles were created on areas of tens of square kilometers. Mustard yellow spaces occupied hundreds of square kilometers of enemy territory for weeks.

In 1917, due to chemical weapons, the German army managed to overcome the contradiction between prolonged artillery preparation and the surprise of the offensive. The Germans began to use chemical weapons to reduce the duration of artillery preparation for an offensive from several days to several hours and as an alternative to tank attacks (Smart 14). Achievements in the field of chemical synthesis of organic substances, the improvement of the material base of artillery, and the tactics of artillery shooting, have significantly increased the lethality of chemical weapons. During the First World War, the inhalation toxicity of toxic substances compared with the toxicity of the initially applied chlorine increased by about 15 times. In addition to organic substances that affect a person through the respiratory system, since 1917, substances capable of causing crippling lesions through the skin and mucous surfaces have been widely used. It also became possible to break through the filters of gas masks that worked on the principles of non-specific sorption and chemical vapor absorption. In both blocs, industrial-scale production of the relevant chemicals has been established.

During the years of the First World War, many different organic substances were used. In combat conditions, the striking effectiveness of 45 chemicals was tested (Smart 19). The quantitative growth of artillery made it possible to conduct massive chemical fires in the front of contact with the enemy. The improvement of artillery systems made it possible to hit the enemy with chemical weapons throughout the entire depth of the first line of defense and even deliver chemical strikes at the location of divisional headquarters and corps headquarters.

The importance of chemical weapons in the last year of the war is evidenced by the losses of the American army. The absolute number of losses of the American army from chemical weapons was 72,000 casualties, or 26,4% of the total losses, which amounted to 272,000 people (Smart 24). Such a significant percentage of losses from chemical weapons in the American army is explained by the fact that it took part in hostilities only in the second half of 1918, when chemical weapons reached their maximum perfection and were widely used at the front. Other armies suffered colossal losses from the very beginning of the war, so the percentage of losses from chemical weapons was less than American ones.

An analysis of losses from various types of chemical weapons showed that massive losses of the British were caused by artillery fire with the addition of a chemical element. The highest percentage of deaths among those affected by organic substances occurred as a result of the use of gas cannons (Fitzgerald 618). The reasons for the high losses among military personnel subjected to a gas-propelled attack at the wars end are understandable. Filtering gas masks are not able to protect a person from high concentrations of vapors created by a gas cannon volley. Therefore, artillery became a universal means of chemical destruction and mutual extermination in the First World War.

The massive use of chemical projectiles for various tactical purposes with unstable toxic substances to suppress enemy artillery batteries allowed the German command to change the tactics of the offensive. They reduced the duration of artillery preparation from several days to several hours and achieved its surprise. In the autumn of 1917, for the first time, it became possible to change the positional nature of the war through the use of two technical innovations: tanks and chemical weapons. The large German offensives on the Western Front in the spring of 1918 showed that the saturation of the troops with artillery and the addition of artillery chemical firing with shells with persistent poisonous substances led to the emergence of a new type of armed struggle  artillery chemical battle (Smart 14). Such a battle includes combat actions united by a single plan, carried out by operational formations, in which the gain of fire superiority over the enemy is pursued.

However, an artillery chemical battle is possible under conditions of low troop mobility. It was prepared for months, carried out by the state of defense, and stopped by returning to the same state. An effective chemical bombardment required thousands of guns conducting artillery preparation according to a single plan and millions of chemical shells for various tactical purposes (Center of Military History 608). Still, due to their vulnerable forms of warfare, artillery itself has become a more convenient object of chemical attack compared to infantry.

Nevertheless, in the second half of 1918, chemical weapons began to lose to another combat weapon that competed with them to break through the enemys fortified defense line  a tank. The point here is not only the ability of the tank to destroy wire obstacles, destroy machine-gun crews, and save the consumption of manpower with its armor. Since the German attempts to break through the defenses, there has been a problem with tactical pursuit on the battlefield (Smart 21). The skillful use of tanks by the Allies left the Germans with a heavy impression of some other war, which they could not resist. The mass deployment of tank brigades into battle during the second battle on the Marne and in the battle at Amiens with fire and air support indicated the path for the development of offensive tactics in the post-war period. But the problem of breaking through on an operational scale without the use of chemical weapons was overcome only during the Second World War by the creation of shock tank armies.

To conclude, chemical weapons greatly impacted the tactics and operational art of the First World War. Already its first use showed great opportunities to break through the enemys first line of defense, after which its use became an integral tactical technique. Chemical weapons were used to reduce the duration of artillery preparation for an offensive from several days to several hours and to ensure its surprise as an alternative to tank attacks. The First World War ended at the stage of development of chemical weapons, which involved their use by aviation for operational and strategic purposes.

Works Cited

Center of Military History. Policy-forming Documents of the American Expeditionary Forces: Volume 2. 1989, Web.

Smart, Jeffery. History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American Perspective. Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, edited by Russ Zajtchuk and Ronald Bellamy, Office of The Surgeon General Department of the Army, 1997, pp. 987.

Trumpener, Ulrich. The Road to Ypres: The Beginnings of Gas Warfare in World War I. The Journal of Modern History, vol. 47, no. 3, 1975, pp. 460480.

Fitzgerald, Gerard. Chemical Warfare and Medical Response During World War I. American Journal of Public Health, vol. 98, 2008, pp. 611  625.

Introduction

The conclusion of the World War I led to the transformation of Middle Eastern countries on different fronts, including the emergence of nationalist movements. The change is greatly attributed to the involvement of Western powers in the Middle East. The presence of Western powers shaped the nationalist movements within these regions. Some of the nationalist movements that arose from the World War I include Greek and Serbian nationalist movements. Different treaties were drawn between the Western powers, which led to the modern-day boundaries. This paper examines the role of Western influence in the Middle East after the World War I and how their presence shaped the region.

Main body

Firstly, encounters between the Middle East and the West developed a sense of belonging and national identity. After the World War I, the Middle East faced foreign interventions, partial occupation, and invasion by the British and the Soviet Union. These interventions led to far-reaching social and legal reforms to build a sense of nationalism and modernize the entire Middle Eastern region (Gasper, 2020). Some countries in the region started promoting feminism and even outlawed gender separation in public spaces as a move to offer social and political rights to women. For example, after their invasion and partial occupation, Iran adopted the French civil code. Still, it maintained that their laws on personal grooming and gender issues only acted as means to create modern Iranian citizens.

Following World War I and the involvement of the West, the entire Middle Eastern region map was redrawn. The post-World War I map of the Middle East significantly contributed to the regions division into separate entities, affecting commercial relationships and restricting peoples movement across the region (Gasper, 2020). The several jurisdictions formed by the new map replaced the Ottoman legal and political system across the region since distinct governments and institutions were introduced within these mandates. Consequently, the new boundaries led to different administrations that executed other legal authorizations on people, leading to new categories of identities and loyalties within the region. To a large extent, the political entities that emerged from the post-World War I Middle East map included the new regions that emerged from the old Middle East region.

The presence of the West caused political tensions that beset the Ottoman empire leading to its final dissolution and signing of peace treaties among the Western powers. The victors of the World War I wanted the Ottoman empire as compensation during the post-war peace treaties, which led to mixed reactions in the region. Mass agitation and political mobilization concerning anticolonial nationalism brought about nationalist movements in the region (Gasper, 2020). The nationalist movement, accompanied by the emergence of new radical identities, institutions, and practices, spread throughout the Middle East, leading to elite-led nationalist organizations. The post-World War I nationalist movements were mainly focused on the interests of their members and supporters and generally wanted to take the reins of the colonial mandate.

Conclusion

The West intervened in the Middle East, partially occupied it, and invaded it, resulting in significant social and legal reforms. Some countries in the region began to promote feminism, and some even prohibited gender separation in public spaces. The post-World War I map of the Middle East significantly contributed to the regions division into separate entities. There was widespread agitation and political mobilization in support of anticolonial nationalism. The nationalist movement spread throughout the region, accompanied by the emergence of new radical entities, identities, institutions, and practices.

Reference

Gasper, M. (2020). The making of the modern Middle East. SAGE Publications, Inc. Web.

Introduction

The First World War was more than merely a European conflict from its outset in August 1914. As this war progressed, more nations became involved making this war bigger in the years that followed. By 1918, the majority of the worlds population was officially at war, and even neutral countries were regularly participating in it in some form. Two big alliances faced a battle against one other in August 1914. These were Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side, shortly joined by the Ottoman Empire or the Central Powers. The Entente countries were on the opposite side, including France, Russia, and a collection of minor allies including Portugal, Belgium, and Serbia. They were shortly joined by Italy and subsequently by the United Kingdom. Hence, World War I has affected many states, and as the conflict progressed, more countries outside of Europe participated in it, which is why this conflict is a world war.

World War I

Although the combat was worldwide, many of the reasons for the First World War were domestic in nature. The first reason why this war affected many parts of the world was that the participating countries had colonies. Hence, even though from the onset the conflict took place in Europe, more states became involved later on. The empires of the European states spanned vast swaths of the world and housed many people. The British Empire was the largest one, and it reigned over enormous areas of North America, the Caribbean, Australias entire continent, and most of South Asia and Africa (Paice, 2019). Naturally, when the British Empire faced an armed conflict, its colonies and residents had to be involved as well. At that time, the British Empire had a population of 412 million people, but more than 80 percent of those people were Indianand lived in India (Blakemore, 2019). Other British territories housed another 36 million subjects. In its vast dominion, Britain had just 44 million residents.

France also possessed a large foreign empire, mostly in the Caribbean, the Pacific Ocean, Africa, and Southeast Asia (Paice 2019). The Ottoman Empire reached all the way to Arabia. And Africa was colonized by Italy, Portugal, and Belgium. Russias immensity extended all the way from the eastern boundary of Europe to Asias Pacific Coast, despite the fact this land had few residents.

Due to the empires reach, the conflict was already worldwide when it first started in 1914. However, other countries across the world joined the Entente forces, including Japan in Asia, the United States in North America, and Brazil in South America, among others (Pires, Tato, & Schmidt, 2021). China was the largest neutral country, yet even they provided aid and laborers to the Entente. The Chinese government also declared war on the Central Powers in August 1917 (Pires, Tato, & Schmidt, 2021). The majority of the world was at war by late 1917.

The majority of soldiers at the start of the conflict were Europeans. However, the European empires quickly began to enlist the assistance of colonial warriors. Moreover, 1.2 million Indian soldiers were enrolled by the British Empire, accounting for more than a quarter of Englands total forces (Pires, Tato, & Schmidt, 2021). Nigeria sent 17,000 troops and 37,000 workers, and 332,000 Canadian troops fought, together with 444,000 from New Zealand and Australia (Pires, Tato, & Schmidt, 2021). France depended on 335,000 African troops, over 50,000 armed men from Vietnam and nearby countries, and a large number of laborers (UNESCO, n.d.). Russia used a large number of troops from Siberia and Central Asia. By 1916, Entente forces were joined in the trenches by more than 120,000 neutral Chinese laborers and eventually by about 2,000,000. Thus, people who lived outside of Europe in Asia, America, and Africa were forced to participate in this war due to their dependence on the empires.

Conclusion

In summary, World War I is considered a world war because people from different continents participated in it. Although initially, this conflict emerged in Europe, many states at that time had colonies in Africa, Asia, or America. Therefore, troops and workers from these colonies were sent to the battlefield. Thus, since people of different nationalities and states were involved in this armed conflict, the war of 1914 was indeed a world war.

References

Blakemore, E. (2019). What caused World War I and what were its effects? National Geographic.

Paice, E. (2019). The First World War in East Africa. British Library.

Pires, A., Tato, M., & Schmidt, J. (2021). The global First World War. Routledge.

UNESCO. (n.d.). The First World War and its consequences in Africa.

World War I may be regarded as a pivot point in modern history due to its impact on the world. Although the war was common for Europe as commercial, colonial, religious, dynastic, and civil wars of every variety formed its history, none of them prepared Europeans for such an unsettling, demoralizing, and devastating conflict that occurred between 1914 and 1918 (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). Some events immediately led to the outbreak of World War I, however, there had been several factors from the 19th and early 20th centuries that impacted it as well.

European imperialism is one of these factors that slowly but inevitably led to World War I. Starting with the medieval crusades and the colonization of the Americas in the 16th century, the expansion of Europe overseas continued in the 18th-19th century (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). Even though European countries had lost their American colonies, the 1800s may be regarded as the Era of Imperialisms last decade characterized by an unprecedented annexation of foreign territories. Thus, Britain spread its influence in India adding more than 66 million people and 4 million square miles of territory to its empire (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). Subdued Algeria in 1830-1847, France added 26 million people and 3.5 million square miles of territory (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). Other states that received subjects and new colonial territories included Germany, the United States, Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Finally, when Britain together with other European countries won the Opium War (18391842) and gained economic privileges from China, their authority in the international field became unquestionable. However, countries increasing competition for dominance and resources led to a confrontation with World War I as its pivotal point.

Another factor related to the war was nationalism intensified in Europe in the 19th century. Strengthened by Darwin-inspired notions of struggle and competition, popular journalism, romanticism, and economic rivalries, nationalism contributed to revolutions, the emergence of new states, and the unification of existing ones (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). Along with imperialism-related racism, missionary fervor, economic gains, and belief in the Wests superiority, the ideas of nationalism convinced people that confrontations and conquests brought prestige, respect, and national accomplishment. Thus, the nationalism of the 19th century was directly connected with authoritarianism and militarism. According to Heinrich von Treitschke, the German historian, war was right for noble nations as the paths to national greatness while perpetual peace was desirable only by weak people (Andrea & Overfield, 2012, p. 292). In addition, countries started to create alliances that presupposed united participation in any confrontation in the case of its occurrence. Therefore, the intention of every European country to prove its power supported by the belief in the righteousness of the war led to the first global conflict.

As a result, 32 countries were involved in World War I peculiar by great losses and poor efficiency. While attacks produced insignificant gains of territory, the combination of machine guns, trenches, land mines, barbed wire, and poison gas initially introduced in this conflict aimed to kill as many people as possible. Thus, of 65 million mobilized men, 10 million were killed while 20 million were wounded (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). At the same time, these losses did not lead to stable and long-lasting peace.

In contrast with a previous belief in the glory of war, both winners and losers faced considerable challenges, including high unemployment, inflation, economic struggles, and the loss of territories and power. Germany had to abandon their democratic republic which would be replaced with Hitlers Nazi dictatorship. The Ottoman Empire was forced to accept the humiliating conditions of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 as a defeated party and lose its territories (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). In turn, Arab countries who fought for independence were betrayed by Britain and France which gained control over them. Other countries that were on the winning side were left dissatisfied with territorial gains that did not outweigh new responsibilities, expenditures, and casualties. All in all, World War I negatively impacted all its participants causing substantial economic and political changes in them and forming the foundation for the next global confrontation.

From a personal perspective, the Enlightenment may be regarded as the most significant period in the history of the modern world as it determined the development of humankind in the next centuries. In general, the Age of Enlightenment was characterized by a growing force of secularism in the intellectual life of Europe. At the same time, it indicated the decline of the churchs influence on the regions political, economic, social, and cultural life (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). In the 1700s, intellectuals and artists ignored religion while rulers started to rely less on religion in making diplomatic and political decisions.

The Enlightenment was inspired by the Scientific Revolution when scientists demonstrated the abilities of human reason without addressing ancient texts and prioritizing religious authority. Intellectuals from different European countries met to discuss various political, economic, and social problems suggesting potential solutions. According to them, with freedom of thought, people had an opportunity to improve their life. As a philosophical movement, the Enlightenment advocated the ideals of progress, science, liberty, fraternity, and tolerance. Philosophers suggested the separation of the government and the church, and the prevalence of reason as the source of legitimacy and authority over religious dogmas, rules, regulations, and limitations.

The Age of Enlightenment provided the basis for the industrialization of the 19th century. In the 1700s, the capital for it was raised, financial institutions began their development, and the infrastructure necessary for further industrial progress was built (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). Moreover, important technological breakthroughs occurred, and new ways of thinking about economic growth and policy were developed (Andrea & Overfield, 2012, p. 166). In turn, these achievements substantially contributed to the spread of imperialism in the 19th century which may be regarded as one of the factors of World War I. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the Age of Enlightenment triggered technological progress that determined the subsequent significant events in human history.

In the 1600s, European history was characterized by monarchism with the absolute power of monarchs supported by the church. In other words, they were supposed to rule by divine right, meaning that God had chosen them to rule,

and, as a corollary, that opposition to such rulers was an affront to the Divinity (Andrea & Overfield, 2012, p. 145). However, the Age of Enlightenment gave the rise to ideas that questioned the necessity of absolute power. According to philosophers of that period, the capabilities of any ruler should be limited, and rulers should be chosen by people and dismissed by them in the case of poor performance. The Enlightenment contributed to the economic, social, and intellectual transformations of societies that led to political changes (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). Thus, the 17th  19th centuries were characterized by revolutions across the Americas and Western Europe as new secular values replaced old social hierarchies, the privilege of the church, and monarchies.

The French Revolution inspired by the Age of Enlightenment may be regarded as the most significant one due to its scope and impact. It introduced the ideas and principles of democracy that every person, irrespective of social standing, should have a voice in government and that all people should be treated equally before the law (Andrea & Overfield, 2012, p. 175). Thus, as the revolution inspired different nations across the globe, the Enlightenment led to global political changes that determined the course of modern history.

The Enlightenment contributed to significant changes in social classes as the ideals of equity inspired women to fight for their civil rights. The feminist movement appeared in France and subsequently affected other European countries, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand (Andrea & Overfield, 2012). In addition, the French Revolution initiated the first nationalist movements and wars against Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia as the French peoples patriotic crusade to save their ideals and spread them across the continent. French nationalism led to Napoleons victories, the extension of Frances dominance over Europe, and responsive nationalism from Germany, Russia, Poland, and Italy that fought for independence. Subsequently, European nationalism led to more devastating conflicts, including World War I and II.

Reference

Andrea, A. J., & Overfield, J. H. (2012). The human record: Sources of global history, volume II: Since 1500 (7^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

In the modern world, military actions and wars are still considered a major threat to continuing technological advancements and human affairs. The Just War theory attempts to describe the nature of wars and how they affect the wellbeing of humanity. Because people in modern society are frequently exposed to conflicts through news and other media services, it is becoming increasingly important to debate whether military actions are justified. Therefore, theories such as the Just War have an important mission to analyze and explain why war is not justifiable by modern moral standards.

The Just War doctrine is relevant because it encourages reasoning and focuses on the problem of human armed combat. People today frequently focus on issues with a social context, so larger geopolitical conflicts remain the domain of specialized debates and research. However, as a result of the contributions of the Just War theoretical foundation, communities begin to notice larger-scale and more serious problems, such as wars in various parts of the world. As a result, individuals are more aware of the political context throughout most of the world and are more inclined to express their opinions on contemporary issues.

The Just War theory emphasizes the value of studying war regulations such as the Geneva conventions. In addition, the theory focuses on the philosophical foundation of the problem of war. Events in the modern world often have a complex and multifaceted nature of origin. As a result, the Just War theorys multidimensional approach enables a more accurate evaluation and interpretation of the events. By applying historical and philosophical knowledge to the issues of contemporary society, the theory manages to explain the problem of military conflicts from various intellectual perspectives.

The Just War theory consists of a framework that investigates justice during the process of war. The part of the theory that explains how military actions can be justifiable or not is called Jus Ad Bellum. The ability to implement the Jus Ad Bellum principles into the debate of contemporary combat operations is another benefit of the Just War theory. Modern conflicts often attempt to justify themselves by referring to ethical causes and reasons. In the same way that the Just War theory agrees with a war that has a solid and just cause, the instigators attempt to portray their intentions as noble and just. However, the actions of the originators of violence often have no moral foundation and heavily rely on personal needs and goals. The Just War theory can help expose the true intentions of aggressors by studying the nature of these morally questionable conflicts.

In addition to the theoretical foundation that constitutes the theory, just war traditions may also be useful in solving practical issues of the modern world. According to the doctrine, war should be viewed as the last solution to any conflict or problem. Therefore, before opting to engage in military intervention, nations must exhaust all available options in order to justify a war. Such a mode of thinking motivates individuals to consider more options and educates them on the risks that the conflict poses. Furthermore, those who have studied the history and traditions of the Just War have a better understanding of the wars outcomes. People frequently come to the realization that wars have highly questionable origins by attempting to justify military action, which results in less violence and more peaceful settlements.

World War I was one of the severest, largest, and most grievous warfares in the history of humanity. The war occurred between July 1914 and November 1918 and became one of the deadliest ones, resulting in millions of murdered people. The immediate cause of the wars outbreak was considered to be an assassination of the heir of the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, by Serbian irredentists.

Nevertheless, the murder of Franz Ferdinand was a relatively superficial cause, a spark that provoked subsequent events leading to war and forcing all the parties to participate. In reality, the tension was created far earlier, and imperialism, militarism, alliances, and nationalism were the main generally accepted by scholars as causes of World War I (Martel, 2017). It is impossible to assess which of these rooted origins was the main one. Instead, the war was caused by the interflow of mentioned reasons. Martel (2017) states that imperialism, nationalism, and militarism are the most prominent of the underlying causes of war that historians have investigated in their attempts to go beneath the surface of the events that led to war in 1914 (p. 8). However, if it were not for alliances, doubtfully, the conflict would have spread this globally, resulting in the world war.

An alliance implies an agreement between two and more nations formed to serve particular purposes. Essentially, countries within one union make arrangements related to trade, politics, financial support, supplies, and mutual defense in case of a war outbreak. Due to complicated European geopolitics, the alliance system was substantively developed on the eve of World War I, and within alliances formed between 1970 and 1914, two were the most significant ones (Martel, 2017). The Triple Alliance initially included Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy and The Triple Entente consisted of France, Britain, and Russia. The complex network of European alliances led to the division of the great powers of Europe into two camps when the conflict occurred.

The binding between allies was one of the crucial points in spreading the confrontations that led to World War I. One month after Franz Ferdinands assassination, on 28 July, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia (Martel, 2017, p. 5). Considering that Russia and Serbia were also allies, Tsar Nicholas II started mobilizing his forces the same day to support Serbia in the war against Austria-Hungary. This event appeared to be a point of no return: European countries began mobilizing their armies, and war became inevitable. On 1 August 1914, after unsatisfied order to stop helping Serbia, Germany declared war on Russia. Martel (2017) claims that there would not have been a war in 1914 if Russia had declined to support Serbia (Martel, 2017, p. 94). France started preparing its army the same day to confront the invasion of German troops. After France declined to stay neutral, on 3 August, Germany declared war on France and the following day started invading Belgium, which was allied with France (Martel, 2017). Considering mutual defense and protection agreements with France and Belgium, Britain declared war on Germany.

Although the alliance system was not the only underlying cause of World War I occurrence, it contributed to the rapid spreading of the confrontation between European countries. Alliances were a powerful tool of balance, keeping peace and maintaining stability after a series of conflicts throughout Europe before World War I. Nevertheless, they acted as a catalyst, involving more countries to enter the war to defend and support their allies.

Reference

Martel, G. (2017). Origins of the First World War (4^th ed.). Routledge.

Operation Barbarossa was a code name given to the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1939 before the development of the Second World War. The attack came after Germany had defeated other European powers like Poland, Norway, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Holland, and Belgium.^1,2 Hitler believed that the only way to solve the dilemma was to invade the Soviet Union, although the two countries had signed a pact in 1939.³ The failure of operation Barbarosa was the first defeat to be experienced by Hitler which marked their weakness and the fact that they were heading towards losing the Second World War. Although German thought it was easy to conquer Soviet, the operation Barbarossa failed terribly due to reasons such as poor planning and underestimation of their opponents.

German did not have enough soldiers or resources to support the war making Hitler to rely on intelligence sources to shape his military and political plans. Hitler had learned estimated that the Soviet Union was not well-prepared for prolonged war since their economy could not handle it.⁴ Such knowledge, together with the victories he had gained in the east, gave him the confidence to invade the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.⁵ He believed the invasion would last for a short duration, but despite his early success in the attack, the operation lasted several months.

Operation Barbarossa failed due to the various mistakes that Hitler made in addition to with the physical conditions in Russia. Among the factors that influenced the losses was the winter in Russia that halted the Germans attack outside the Moscow gates.⁶ The weather made it challenging for them as they were not preparing for such a climate.⁷ Hitler failed in planning for the wars long-term impacts, which made the operation a total failure. Hitler underestimated the power of the Russian forces as they had planned to win the battles in six weeks, but the fight continued for six months which led to shortage of supplies.

Operation Barbarossa is considered a turning point in the Second World War. The Germans failure to conquer the Soviet Union led to new strategies to eliminate the Jews.⁸ After the failure, the Second World War took a new turn as the Soviet Union launched a counter-offensive mission at Stalingrad in November 1952. The Soviet armies encircled a German army of 220000 soldiers, and after a month of severe fighting accompanied by a large number of casualties, the remaining German soldiers surrendered.⁹ This aspect was contrary to Germanys expectations as they had planned to win against the soviet and expand their territory.

The failure of the operation Barbarossa signaled the imminent defeat of German forces in the brutal Second World War. Miscalculations to delay attack on Moscow, unfavorable weather conditions and underestimation of soviet strength were among the factors that characterized Hitlers downfall. Germans had to accept the fact that they were losing the war as they had lost strength owing to shortage of supplies and blunders.

Bibliography

Bartolini, Guido. Italian Memory of The Invasion of The Soviet Union During The Second World War Reproduction By Division: Historical Parks Russia Is My History. Historical Expertise 4 (2018): 224-241. Web.

Fuelling, Mathias. Book Review-Operation Barbarossa. (2022).

Wettstein, Adrian. Operation Barbarossa and Urban Battle. Military History Journal 66, no. 1 (2007): 21-44.

Footnotes

1. Guido Bartolini, Italian Memory of the Invasion of the Soviet Union During the Second World War Reproduction by Division: Historical Parks Russia is my History, Historical Expertise 4 (2018): 238. Web.
2. Mathias Fuelling, Book Review-Operation Barbarossa, (2022):1. Web.
3. Adrian Wettstein, Operation Barbarossa and Urban Battle, Military History Journal 66, no. 1 (2007): 40. Web.
4. Adrian Wettstein, Operation Barbarossa and Urban Battle, Military History Journal 66, no. 1 (2007): 34. Web.
5. Guido Bartolini, Italian Memory of the Invasion of the Soviet Union During the Second World War Reproduction by Division: Historical Parks Russia is my History, Historical Expertise 4 (2018): 237. Web.
6. Guido Bartolini, Italian Memory of the Invasion of the Soviet Union During the Second World War Reproduction by Division: Historical Parks Russia is my History, Historical Expertise 4 (2018): 238. Web.
7. Adrian Wettstein, Operation Barbarossa and Urban Battle, Military History Journal 66, no. 1 (2007): 33. Web.
8. Adrian Wettstein, Operation Barbarossa and Urban Battle, Military History Journal 66, no. 1 (2007): 30. Web.
9. Mathias Fuelling, Book Review-Operation Barbarossa, (2022):1. Web.