Category: World history

Many factors led up to the start of World War 1 in Europe. A lot of these factors were rooted in the deep history of the old powers of Europe including Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Great. The real causes of WWI included politics, secret alliances and deals, imperialism, and nationalistic pride. However, there was one single event that started a chain of events leading up to the war. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

Starting in 1914, the causes of WW1 included long-term factors such as militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism.

Militarism – Nations were desperate not to be outdone in any area of their military. As a result, nations like Germany, France, and Russia started to conscript large portions of their male population and suddenly everyone was ready and willing to fight. This conscription and arms build-up meant that soon every European state had a huge army at its disposal, these armies were ruining their economies, they had to lose them soon but couldn’t just let them go, they were propelled to war to destroy their enemies and give them the security they needed to allow disarmament. Germany began building a large and modernized navy that directly threatened the British. The British, who Germany was still attempting to secure as an ally at the time, were eventually forced into the arms of the French. All this commotion leads to alliances. Alliances- Alliances played a large in WW1, as without them it would have just been a short war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. The system of alliances dragged all of Europe into insignificant conflict, starting with Germany and Russia and then with the British and French a few days later. It was what made a small war a major world conflict. Imperialism – When a country takes over new lands or countries and makes them subject to its rule. By 1900, the British Empire extended over five continents and France had control of large areas of Africa. With the rise of industrialism, countries needed new markets. The amount of land ‘owned’ by Britain and France increased the rivalry with Germany who had entered the scramble to acquire colonies late and only had small areas of Africa. Nationalism- When people are proud of their countries so much that they believe them to be better than everyone else’s. This contributed to the war in 1914 because each country thought they were better than each other and they had a better army. This eventually led to a fight. This is very much linked to another long-term cause of Militarism. To protect themselves from aggression, industrial nations formed alliances with their primary trade partners. These alliances ensured that a minor dispute between the two countries could result in a continental war. This system of alliances was an important short-term cause of World War I.

There were numerous Crises before 1914. There was the First Moroccan Crisis in 1905. Kaiser Wilhelm II visited the Moroccan port of Tangier to denounce the French and their influence there. It provoked an international crisis and was resolved in the Algeciras Conference in 1906, in France’s favour. The result brought Britain and France closer together. A Second Moroccan Crisis also occurred in 1911, when the Germans sent a gunboat, named the ‘Panther’, to the Moroccan port of Agadir. They claimed they did it to protect German Citizens there, suffering under French rule. This provoked a major war scare in Britain and the Germans agreed to leave Morocco to the French so they could keep their rights in the Congo. This was humiliating for Germany. Austria annexing the Balkans was also another short-term factor. The breakup of the Ottoman Empire left these territories open to attack. Austria conquered Bosnia, outraging Serbia due to there being a large Serbian population in Bosnia. Russia supported Bosnia and Serbia and accepted this occupation, but vowed not to be humiliated again. Russia encouraged Slavic nationalism and in the Balkans war of 1912-1913, Serbia doubled in size and felt growing support for a union with all Slavs under the leadership of Serbia.

The immediate cause of World War I was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at the hands of a member of a Serbian nationalist group. This action caused Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia, which was backed by Russia. Russia’s declaration of war against Austria-Hungary motivated other nations that were bound by alliances to enter the war.

World War I changed America’s character forever. Participation in the war confirmed the leading role of the United States in international affairs.

World War I marked the first war in which American women were allowed to enlist in the armed forces. While thousands of women did join branches of the army in an official capacity, receiving veterans status and benefits after the war’s close, the majority of female involvement was done through voluntary organizations supporting the war effort or through becoming a nurse for the military. Additionally, women made an impact on the war indirectly by filling the workforce and becoming employed in the jobs left behind by male soldiers.

The United States declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917, more than two and a half years after World War I started. A ceasefire and Armistice was declared on November 11, 1918. Before entering the war, the U.S. had remained neutral, though it had been an important supplier to Great Britain and other Allied powers. The impact of the United States joining the war was significant. The additional firepower, resources, and soldiers of the U.S. helped to tip the balance of the war in favor of the Allies. When war broke out in 1914, the United States had a policy of neutrality

Despite attempts to increase the number of armed personnel of the U.S. forces to decide. The armed forces were enlarged by the National Guard and the rapid adoption of several conscription laws, which included conscription (men, between the ages of 21 and 30).

According to John Simkin,” All males between the ages of 21 and 30 were required to register for military service. By 12th September 1918, 23,908,566 men had registered. Around 4,000,000 men were ultimately drafted into the armed services. Of these, 50 percent served overseas during the war”(115). The social conditions were such that the majority of those recruited were urban residents of the northeastern United States, many were recent immigrants or from immigrant families. Most of them were completely illiterate or illiterate(this, among others, led to the taking of multiple-choice tests), and many of them did not speak English. When black people called up for military service, they faced the challenges of racism and discrimination. The United States faced unpleasant political problems. In pre-war times, the U.S. military had racially constructed segregation. The same practice continued during the war. Army Command and the fleet didn’t want to accept black people soldiers in combat units. That’s why most of them ended up in the back units or were used as laborers in engineering units. A few units formed of only black people did not have connections with the white units and have been reassigned to the French command. In April 1917, the regular army had 6,000 officers and 122,000 soldiers, except that another 80,000 people were part of the National Guard. They were in a hurry and were supplemented by conscripts recruited in accordance with the Electoral Law of the Selective Service Act. The first division went to Europe under General Pershing’s command, and by the next few months was followed by a core contingent of Americans of the expeditionary forces. In April – May In 1918, they were fully deployed in France. By the time the truce is declared, there were 7 personnel divisions in France, 17 divisions of the National Guard, and 16 divisions of recruits (several other units were in Italy). The ‘National Army’ is defined by John J. Pershing in his book My Experiences in the World War (1931), Vol. 1, p. 130: ‘In the organization of our armies for the World War it was evident that if any considerable numbers were to be sent abroad, an additional force would be needed over and above the Regular Army and National Guard. The War Department, therefore, established what was called the National Army, to be composed principally of men who were to come into the service through the draft.’

Originally President Wilson wanted the Americans to fight separately and preserve their identity. But the divisions were subordinate to allies. They have undergone rigorous military training. Before that, the American troops fought in Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Philippines, with individual officers involved in the conquest of Cuba. However, the experience of participation in large-scale combat operations against an experienced enemy was new to most American officers and soldiers. Training, that they passed under the command of the French and English, has solved this problem. In addition, being away from home and their own sources of supply, most American units were dependent on arms and ammunition from the Triple Ally’s storage facilities.

World War I changed the attitude of women, prior everyone thought that women it is an unnecessary thing in “Man wars“. During the war, more than 20,000 U.S. Army nurses served in military hospitals in the United States and on the other side of the sea. They saved more than millions of soldiers. At that time most Americans understood that women can be part of the war, and sometimes be more necessary because it was harder to be a nurse, the difficulties a nurse might face treating gas victims. ‘ They cannot be bandaged or touched. We cover them with a tent or propped-up sheets. Gas burns must be agonizing because usually, the other cases do not complain even with the worst wounds but gas cases are invariably beyond endurance and they cannot help crying out ().To date, the U.S. has almost two million female veterans and it has the largest concentration of female soldiers who voluntarily enlist and are currently on active duty. U.S. female military personnel serve in most areas of the armed forces but are not allowed on submarines and are ‘precluded from units that engage the enemy on the ground with weapons or that are exposed to hostile fire and have a high possibility of direct physical contact with the enemy.’The U.S. also has the highest number of female soldiers in senior ranks, with at least four females with the three-star equivalent rank of lieutenant general or vice-admiral.

In the spring of 1918, Triple Allies achieved a win over Germany. Germany got into incredible debt. And they were supposed to take everything that happened in World World I into their hands, becoming 100 percent guilty of the war.

Today, the U.S. Army has 8,848 tanks, a huge number of armored vehicles and other military equipment, and 3,892 military aircraft in service. If during the Cold War, Soviet strategists focused on tanks, the Americans actively developed combat aviation. Currently, the U.S. Air Force is rightly considered the strongest in the world. The U.S. has the most powerful Navy, which includes ten aircraft carrier groups, more than seventy submarines, a large number of planes, and support ships. Americans are leaders in the development of the latest military technologies, and their range is very wide: from the creation of lasers and robotic combat systems to prosthetic systems. And it proves American power in military systems.

In the context of the years 1815-1914, how far was nationalism the most important cause of the Great War?

Nationalism was a significant long-term cause of the Great War, from 1815 through to the start of the war in 1914, this overconfidence in their nation, government, and military became a prominent part of all societies in each country. For some this patriotism was a new sensation, for others, it was about the supremacy of their empire or, like for the Slavics in the Balkans, it was the unification and stride of ethnic groups to independence. However increasingly throughout the period naval rivalry between Britain and Germany emerged and an ever-intensifying armaments race involving all powers whereby every European country mistrusted its fellows thus accumulating stocks of munitions and weapons and not agreeing on peace or disarmament. In addition, the formation of two hostile alliances, the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance, allowed the nations to fight and challenge each other as they knew they could rely on their friends for help, and support and use each other’s resources and power. Although this evidently meant that a dispute involving one of them would involve all of them. It cannot be forgotten that Imperialism was also a significant long-term factor as an important cause of the War. The Powers all had a desire to conquer the other lands and build an empire causing conflict between the nations. The events of Morocco caused much dispute between France and Germany and what had begun as a dispute in the Balkans over conflicting interests between Russia and Austria one country after another became involved until it became a general war. Arguably Germany and their actions were at the heart of the Great War, although non of the great powers can escape the blame. Germany’s constant concern about her own prestige and power was significant in the lead-up to the war, her severe pressure on Austria to act quickly in response to the Assassination and to make the ultimatum so strong as to be unacceptable by Serbia is notable. But the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 was a critical tipping point that sparked the chain of events leading to the Great War.

Nationalism had been building up for a long time before the war, it was an important long-term cause of the war because it can also be argued that it fuelled other causes. It all links back to the fact that each country wanted to be better than the other. Everywhere changes were wrought by the forces of nationalism: the unification of Germany and Italy and the rise of national states in the Balkans are prime examples of this.[footnoteRef:1] Throughout the century there were rising feelings of nationalism, the citizens of many multi-ethnic nations stove towards independence whilst the Great Powers strove to extend their rule and prestige and create colonies over Europe. Nationalistic sentiment fuelled the war, it created a new atmosphere and the people were delighted by the chance to prove their nation’s superiority and power[footnoteRef:2]. The unification of Germany in 1871 caused a new sensation of patriotism for Germany, The new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, became the driving force of this new, nationalistic Germany. It was ambitious, obsessed with military power and imperial expansion, proud of Germany’s achievements but envious of other empires.[footnoteRef:3] But significantly many citizens also dreamed of uniting all the Germans in one pan-German state and nationalists expressed their desire to have a colonial empire like the other Powers. However, arguably the most significant form of nationalism was on the rise in Southern and Eastern Europe. This nationalism was not about the supremacy of empires but the right of ethnic groups to independence and self-government[footnoteRef:4] seeking freedom away from their imperial masters. This movement had the biggest impact in relation to the cause of the Great War. Pan-Slavism was the belief that the Slavic people of Eastern Europe should be independent and have their own nation, and that they were a powerful force in the region thus they mainly opposed the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the control and influence it had over the region. It was predominantly in Serbia where their form of nationalism had risen significantly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Discontent was on a high and young Serbs joined radical nationalist groups like the ‘Black Hand’ because of Vienna’s annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, they wanted to drive Austria-Hungary from the Balkans to form a nation called ‘The Greater Serbia’. This is significant in the argument because it was this intensified form of nationalism that led to the start of World War I through the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914.[footnoteRef:5] [1: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/nationalism ] [2: “The Corrosion They Called Nationalism” by Mandeep Dhillon ] [3: https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/nationalism/ ] [4: https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/nationalism/ ] [5: https://schoolhistory.co.uk/notes/nationalism-as-a-cause-of-world-war-i/ ]

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was an imminent cause of nationalism in Serbia.

In 1815 Congress of Vienna was the first of a series of international meetings that came to be known as the Concert of Europe, an attempt to forge a peaceful balance of power in Europe. The Congress of Vienna dissolved the Napoleonic world and attempted to restore the monarchies Napoleon had overthrown, The goal was not simply to restore old boundaries but to resize the main powers so they could balance each other and remain at peace. The Concert of Europe, also known as the Congress System or the Vienna System after the Congress of Vienna, was a System of dispute resolution adopted by the major conservative powers of Europe to maintain their power, oppose revolutionary movements, weaken the forces of nationalism, and uphold the balance of power. This conservative agenda has been heavily criticized by many historians who argue that it stood in the way of progress and created the conditions for World War I. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-congress-of-vienna/

The poem The Wasteland provides a negative portrayal of the cultural and environmental state of the modern world. Through the use of polyphony, it compiles a shared sense of cultural doom, the landscaping which is utilized is often barren and dry, which indicates the view that Eliot felt pessimistic about the state of the environment. As well as this, the use of mythical allusion challenges the strength of modern society. The poem was published in December 1922, shortly after the end of the First World War. The pessimism within the poem therefore mirrors the discontent Eliot held towards the modern world specifically following the war. It highlights the disengagement which people had with society and humanity. This is shown through the cultural criticism by Eliot, but also environmental condemnation, following the mass destruction of natural habitats.

Eliot uses a compilation of different voices to narrate the poem, The Wasteland. The use of polyphony means that Eliot assimilates his plight with the plight of many, highlighting the reach of cultural disintegration. David Chinitz referred to this technique as, ‘a hopeless salvaging operation’ (T.S. Eliot: The Wasteland, 326), alluding to the fact that Eliot attempts to conjure up feelings from the past in the hopes of reintegrating a distinguishable and proud culture. However, according to Chinitz, the poem willingly falls short of achieving this in order to articulate Eliot’s hopelessness in the modern state. Historical referencing within these voices also adds to this feeling of detachment from the present. Eliot includes each reference as a commentary on the cultural state of the world. For example, the Shakespearian play, Antony and Cleopatra, is referred to in the lines, ‘The Chair she sat in like a burnished throne’. The use of this allusion draws parallels between the conflict within the play, and the conflict which occurred in World War One, as well as the personal tragedy which both events caused. The play presents a society in a cultural downward spiral that links closely to the reevaluation of society following the First World War. The inclusion of the opera by Richard Wagner incorporates the use of the German language to create a cross-cultural reference, signifying that the deformation of society is not just confined to America. The hyacinth garden offers apart relief from an otherwise environmentally and culturally barren landscape, however, by contrast, the story of Tristan and Isolde signifies the alienation of humanity from society. Therefore, by combining these two elements, Eliot warns of a positive misrepresentation of society. This allows the seeming refreshment from the hyacinth garden to be turned into a symbol of the doom of any idealization of civilization, giving a bleak view of not only the modern culture but also that of whatever future culture may or may not follow.

This message is mirrored through the use of mythical allusion, specifically that of the figure of Sibyl as well is used in the epigraph to Eliot’s poem. A character who looks to the future and prophecies, while wanting to die. This illustrated Eliot’s negative view of the future and therefore a lack of hope for any improvements which might be made. The use of mythical allusion and imagery throughout is significant in challenging the strength of modern society. It equates the overwhelming culture from ancient history to the comparative emptiness of contemporary culture. The references used are both used to represent cultural and environmental decay. ‘The Fisher King’, story utilizes the imagery of a desolate landscape due to the downfall of men. The injury to the King can be assimilated with the injury caused to the soldiers during the First World War. Both instances caused disruption and devastation to the people surrounding them, but also to the natural environment which was damaged faultlessly at the hands of humanity.

The criticism of humanity is continued through Eliot’s representation of the environment. The settings within the poem lend themselves to the idea of a society barren of hope and renewal, as well as a devastated landscape caused by humanity. Gabrielle McIntyre comments on Eliot’s use of landscape, ‘he is both writing about a barren, post-war land’, (The Wasteland as an Ecocritique, 178), this supports the idea that Eliot is specifically critical of the humanitarian impact upon the environment. This is reflected within the use of predominately desert imagery and cityscapes, ‘dead tree…dry stone, no sound of water’ (Eliot, 00), the dryness of the landscape not only shows the disintegration of the environment but also the dryness present in the culture at present, lacking in any significance. The motif of water is often used to symbolize rebirth and renewal. However, Eliot’s poem is consciously lacking in fertile landscapes, as Chinitz commented on, the image of water is used throughout to represent danger and is preached as to be avoided. Madame Sosostris warns that ‘fear death by water’, the idea of death by water suggests a negative connotation to the renewal and fear of regeneration, which can either be attributed to the characters themselves as a commentary on the shallowness of attitude towards culture, or it could be attributed to Eliot’s pessimism that a renewal of culture will not create anything better and instead the future generations are doomed for a meaningless existence. As foreshadowed earlier in the poem, the chapter, ‘Death by Water’, describes the death of a man, ‘Phlebas the Phoenician’, by drowning. In contrast to the rest of the play and the representation of water, water in this passage appears to be kind and forgiving death, ‘passes the stages of his age and youth’, illustrating a calmness and meditation in dying due to drowning. This presents a sense of hope which is otherwise absent from the poem. Though the death by water is also ironic. Through this imagery, the world is presented as turning away from humanity, the same way that humanity is turning on the world and causing natural destruction. Water within the section represents freedom from the world. By presenting Phlebas’s death as graphic, ‘picking his bones’, Eliot highlights the pain caused by surviving in the modern world, however, Phlebas’ death offers him release from an otherwise empty world.

To evaluate whether the concept of ‘total war’ can be applied to describing World War I, it is first important to provide a clear definition as to what we mean by the ‘total war’ concept.

A similar concept, ‘absolute war’, was first proposed by the Prussian General Carl Von Clausewitz. Absolute war was the concept whereby each side would aim the overthrow the other completely (Clausewitz, Paret, & Howard, 1984), and that ‘absolute war’ will escalate without pause for the simple reason that in order to prevail each combatant must come to war with the firm intent of applying maximum destructive force to their opponent (Honig, 2012) or in other words applying anything and everything at their deposal in order to overcome an opponent. Clausewitz’s theory states that failure to do so by one party would offer the adversary an irresistible opportunity to overwhelm him by employing more force. (Clausewitz C. V., 1832).

The idea of applying maximum force to destroy an opponent was discussed further in the early 20th century; very much moving away from matters that included just military action though. For instance, in the 1933 pamphlet, ‘The Total State’, Ernst Forstoff (Forsthoff, 1933) claimed that only a state which expanded its control to every element of society could assure the survival of the nation. This mimicked Jünger, who in 1930 argued that if WWI held one lesson for the future, it was that ‘war requires an arming to the core, to the innermost nerve’ (Honig, 2012).

In 1916, The French journalist Léon Daudet wrote these lines, ‘The war that Germany waged is a total war, a war of all Germans in and out of their country against the Allied nations;’ this was the first conception of the phrase ‘total war’ (Neitzel, 2014).

However, based on his experience in directing Germany’s war effort in World War I (WWI), German General, Erich Ludendorff then branched a gap between the idea of total state and total mobilization. He advanced the concept of absolute war to that of the ‘total war’ concept (in his book of the same name). He envisaged total mobilization of manpower and resources for war. The country at war would be led by a supreme military commander, and strategy would dictate policy (Ludendorff, 1935).

This total war concept became particularly more relevant in the 20th century; advances in technology and industry gave way to differing ways and means of warfare that often resulted in stalemates on the battlefield. When no noticeable advantage could be claimed by nations through military tactics, it led to the expansion of methods of waging war to gain an advantage. Mobilizing large armies required large domestic support structures. While nation-states provided an effective vehicle for organizing mass mobilization, the involvement of so many elements in society in support of the war effort created vulnerabilities. Whereas soldiers were selected and trained to endure the rigors of combat, the civilians on the ‘home front’ came unprepared. If they could be attacked in some way, a nation might collapse without suffering defeat in a front-line battle (Honig, 2012).

By 1916, during WWI, both the allied and central powers had torn down barriers that had preserved the rights of non-combatants. The distinction between a nation’s armed forces and its people became less defined; this led to a change in wartime tactics that moved away from traditional operational strategy towards the destruction of the enemy’s capacity to maintain their armed forces (Howard, 2010). Subsequently, the idea of ‘total war’, where “the whole population and all resources of the combatants are committed to complete victory and thus become legitimate targets” was born (Bicheno, 2001).

Since its conception, total war has become a term used by historians and other academics to cover a wide array of elements when looking at wars of the past. By the definitions already explored, real total war was and is impossible. However, elements of total war have been identified and can serve as a useful tool for further evaluation. Förster & Gessler (1999) provide a helpful framework for assessing the utility of the concept. They focus on four main aspects of ‘total war’: Total Aim, Total Method, Total Control, and Total Mobilisation, and together, these create the opportunity to test the ‘total war’ concept. This essay will therefore evaluate whether the concept of ‘total war’ can be applied to describing WWI using the four aspects aforementioned.

The aim, when war is total, is to completely defeat the enemy. Through having the goal of achieving the unconditional surrender of an enemy; this struggle to unconditional surrender could in extreme cases mean the physical extermination of the enemy. To aid this physical extermination the aim may also be to destroy the other contender’s resources so that they are unable to continue to wage war. This might include targeting major infrastructure and blocking access to water, or imports (often through blockades). These aims also combined to destroy the will of an enemy’s people. These total aims are mainly characterized by the lack of distinction between fighting lawful combatants and civilians. At the start of WWI, the German General staff warned against a prolonged campaign that could involve millions of men. Even though they tried to avoid it they failed, and both they and their adversaries adopted an attrition strategy directed at the morale of the ‘enemy people’ not just against the enemy armed forces; this was total war in intention if not by name (Howard, 2010).

With both sides unable to conceive any operational means to solve the deadlock that developed on the Western front, they both worked on the principle that the enemy could be demoralized rather than disarmed – the intention was the move closer to victory by destroying the morale of their enemy’s people through the losses of their armies. Therefore, on The Somme success was counted in terms of casualties inflicted rather than any territory gained (Krause, 2015). The war of attrition soon forced either side to search for objectives that aimed to destroy their enemy’s entire social and economic structure that allowed their enemy to fight in the war. The Blockade of Germany which occurred from 1914 to 1919, was a prolonged naval operation conducted by the Allied Powers to restrict the maritime supply of goods to the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. The intention was cripple Germany economically and starve the nation of the resources it needed to wage war and its population to live. Germany’s civilians began to suffer malnourishment from the winter of 1916 onwards, while the food situation in Austria caused riots and, eventually, actual starvation in some areas. (Watson, 2014). A wish to retaliate and to break Britain’s command of the seas motivated Germany to launch its campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917; an outcome that was insofar ‘total’.

Away from the land and sea warfare, the collateral damage from air bombing campaigns soon became a legitimate contribution to the enemy’s demoralization. These actions led to either side demonizing the other – justifying any extreme measures of retaliation that followed.

The original political aims of both sides in WWI were initially moderate and defensive; they didn’t go to war to exterminate each other. However, they soon evolved to become total methods of annihilation and the destruction of the enemy’s regime. As the war progressed each side came to see in the other an ‘evil’ to be destroyed (Howard, 2010); Germany’s leaders had ideas of expansion, whilst the German people believed that they were heroically defending their unique cultural heritage. Analogously, the British believed that they were fighting a brutal foe whose aggressive military and expansion ambitions could only be tamed by a ‘regime change’.

The second of the Förster and Gessler elements of the ‘total war’ concept is a total method. To be victorious in the highly militarized WWI everything became permissible as it served only to aid the total aims; the difference between combatants and non-combatants, fighters and civilians, became increasingly blurred, and the civilian population became more and more the actual target of the war.

During WWI the deadlocks on the Western Front saw both sides unable to devise any operational strategy to end the stalemate. As previously mentioned, battlefield successes were measured in terms of casualties inflicted rather than any territory either side gained; this was particularly relevant for the Germans in the 1916 campaign of Verdun and the Allies at The Somme and Flanders (Howard, 2010). The mass casualties inflicted were used to deliberately try and demoralize rather than disarm the enemy – ‘to destroy the morale of their people’. When a conflict reaches the point that the ultimate objective is the defeat of the morale of the enemy people, rather than the destruction of its armies by operational strategy, then the conflict has evolved into ‘total war’.

When the British initiated the five-year Blockade of Germany it served to starve its citizens and soldiers alike and debilitate the nation’s access to resources (Vincent, 1985). The allies removed the barrier of the LOAC principle of distinction, which preserves the right of non-combatants, to openly ruin enemy civilians – it was seen as a necessary concomitant of victory. A wish to retaliate and to break Britain’s command of the seas motivated Germany to launch its campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917; the practice used submarines to attack and sink all forms of enemy shipping, whether they are military or civilian, a total method itself. BOMBING RAIDS

Through total control, Britain initiated total war from the outset. Only a week after their declaration of war, Westminster passed the Defence of the Realm Act. The legislation gave the government executive powers to suppress published criticism, imprison without trial, and commandeer economic resources for the war effort i.e. the government could requisition any factories and land to produce the huge amount of munitions and weapons that were needed to win the war (UK Parliament, 2019). It was amended six times during the course of the war: Daylight saving was introduced to provide more working hours in the day. Alcohol consumption was restricted, opening hours of pubs were cut back and beer was watered down to reduce its strength. It became illegal to light bonfires or fly kites, both of which might attract enemy airships (Defence of the Realm Act, 1914).

The idea of daylight saving resurfaced during World War One when the need to conserve coal made the suggestion of daylight saving more pertinent. Coal power was king, so people really did save energy (and thus contribute to the war effort) by changing their clocks. Germany had already introduced a similar scheme when the Summertime Act was finally passed in the UK on 17th May 1916. It sparked a trend that soon spread across Europe. Within weeks, several countries had started using DST—among them France, Italy, Russia, and even Australia (Blakemore, 2018).

The British government’s control of the economy increased dramatically in 1915, in the wake of the ‘Shell Crisis’ (a shortage of artillery shells that contributed to British military failures on the Western Front); such was the need for total control to contribute to the total war, this shortage brought about a political crisis sought to force Parliament to adopt a national munitions policy with a strong leader at the head (French, 1979).

The new munitions policy saw new factories constructed and existing ones nationalized and retooled for the production of artillery shells; production increased by more than 1000 percent.

Along with the seizure of unused land for farming, including parks, rationing effectively provided total control over food; a much sought-after resource during WWI. The nation waging total war also impacted its own citizens through a mandatory draft. Similar controls were seen by the French. Essentially total control – of all social sectors by the states was implanted to ensure total mobilization.

Total control in Germany was implemented in part due to the shortages suffered due to the Allied naval blockade. By 1916 production levels were falling and the resources needed were severely depleted. The Oberster Kriegsamt, or Supreme War Office, was subsequently formed to control and coordinate all aspects of wartime production, labor, industry, and transport (Watson, 2014).

When we talk about total mobilization, it is to consider that mobilization does not just cover the military but the mobilization of civilians for total war also. The nations in World War I mobilized their own civilians for the war effort through forced conscription, military propaganda, and rationing; people who had not consented were made to sacrifice food, supplies, time, and money to aid the war. All aspects of total war.

The Great War, generally known as World War I, began in 1914 with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. His assassination triggered a European war that lasted until 1918. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire (the Central Powers) battled against the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Canada, Japan, and the United States during the war (the Allied Powers). World War I saw unparalleled levels of bloodshed and destruction due to new military technology and the horrors of trench warfare. By the time the war ended, and the Allies declared victory, more than 16 million people had died, both soldiers and civilians.

Tensions had been building for years in Europe, particularly in the problematic Balkan region in southeast Europe, when World War I broke out. For years, a number of alliances including European countries, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and other parties had existed, but political unrest in the Balkans threatened to derail these arrangements. The spark that sparked World War I was struck at Sarajevo, Bosnia, on June twenty-eight, 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was shot to death along with his wife, Sophie, by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip. Princip and other nationalists fought to remove Austro-Hungarian control in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The killing of Franz Ferdinand triggered a fast-rising sequence of events. Austria-Hungary, like many other countries throughout the world, blamed the Serbian government for the assault and sought to exploit the catastrophe to finally settle the subject of Serbian nationalism.

While Russia backed Serbia, Austria-Hungary held off on declaring war until it had assurances from German monarch Kaiser Wilhelm II that Germany would back them up. Leaders in Austria-Hungary anticipated that Russian involvement would involve Russia’s allies, France, and potentially the United Kingdom as well. On July fifth, Kaiser Wilhelm covertly committed his support, providing Austria-Hungary with a ‘blank check’ assurance of Germany’s assistance in the event of a conflict. The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary then issued an ultimatum to Serbia that was so harsh that it was practically unthinkable to accept. Convinced that Austria-Hungary was preparing for war, the Serbian leadership ordered the mobilization of the Serbian army and requested aid from Russia. On July twenty-eighth, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and Europe’s precarious peace swiftly collapsed. Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, and Serbia formed a unified front against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun.

Germany opened World War I on two fronts, invading France through neutral Belgium in the west and facing Russia in the east, according to an ambitious military plan known as the Schlieffen Plan. German forces crossed the border into Belgium on August fourth, 1914. The Germans attacked the highly defended city of Liege in the opening combat of World War I, employing the most powerful weaponry in their arsenal—enormous siege cannons—to seize the city by August fifteenth. As they moved through Belgium into France, the Germans left death and ruin in their path, killing people and murdering a Belgian priest they suspected of instigating civilian resistance.

The First Battle of the Marne, fought from September sixth to ninth, 1914, pitted French and British forces against the invading German army, which had advanced to within thirty miles of Paris. The Allies halted the German advance and successfully counterattacked, forcing the Germans back to the north of the Aisne River. The setback ended Germany’s ambitions for a swift triumph in France. Both sides constructed trenches, and the Western Front became the backdrop for a terrible attrition battle that would endure more than three years. This campaign’s longest and most expensive engagements were fought at Verdun in February and December 1916, and the Battle of the Somme in July-November 1916. During the Battle of Verdun alone, German and French forces lost about a million losses.

On the Eastern Front of World War I, Russian soldiers attacked German-held East Prussia and Poland but were repulsed at the Battle of Tannenberg in late August 1914 by German and Austrian forces. Despite that win, Russia’s attack prompted Germany to shift two corps from the Western Front to the Eastern Front, which contributed to Germany’s defeat in the Battle of the Marne. When combined with the overwhelming Allied opposition in France, Russia’s massive war machine’s capacity to deploy relatively swiftly in the east ensured a longer, more arduous fight rather than the fast triumph Germany had planned for under the Schlieffen Plan.

From 1914 through 1916, Russia’s army launched many offensives on the Eastern Front of World War I but was unable to break through German defenses. Defeat on the battlefield, along with economic insecurity and lack of food and other necessities, fueled growing discontent among the majority of Russia’s people, particularly the impoverished workers and peasants. This heightened antagonism was intended toward Czar Nicholas II’s imperial rule and his unpopular German-born wife, Alexandra. The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks, destroyed the czarist government and put an end to Russian participation in World War I. In early December 1917, Russia signed an armistice with the Central Powers, releasing German forces to fight the surviving Allies on the Western Front.

When World War I began in 1914, the United States stayed neutral, following President Woodrow Wilson’s policy of neutrality while continuing to participate in business and shipping with European countries on both sides of the battle. However, maintaining neutrality was becoming increasingly difficult in the face of Germany’s unrestricted submarine aggressiveness against neutral ships, particularly those carrying passengers. Germany designated the waters surrounding the British Isles a war zone in 1915, and German U-boats sank many commercial and passenger ships, including several American ships. The sinking of the British ocean liner Lusitania by a U-boat in May 1915, when it was heading from New York to Liverpool, England, with hundreds of American passengers on board, helped shift the tide of American public opinion against Germany. Congress enacted a $250 million armaments funding bill in February 1917 in order to prepare the United States for war. The next month, Germany sank four additional US commerce ships, prompting Woodrow Wilson to address Congress on April 2 and urge for a declaration of war against Germany.

With Europe largely at a standstill in World War I, the Allies hoped to win a triumph over the Ottoman Empire, which had entered the battle on the side of the Central Powers in late 1914. After a disastrous attack on the Dardanelles (the strait between the Sea of Marmara and the Aegean Sea), British-led Allied troops launched a large-scale ground invasion of the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. The invasion was likewise a colossal disaster, and after suffering 250,000 losses, Allied forces conducted a full withdrawal from the peninsula’s coasts in January 1916. n Egypt and Mesopotamia, British-led forces fought the Ottoman Turks, while in northern Italy, Austrian and Italian troops clashed in a series of 12 skirmishes along the Isonzo River, which marked the frontier between the two countries.

The First Battle of the Isonzo occurred in late April 1915, shortly after Italy entered the war on the Allied side. German reinforcements enabled Austria-Hungary to secure a decisive victory in the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo, better known as the Battle of Caporetto (October 1917). Following Caporetto, Italy’s allies stepped up to provide more help. Troops from the United Kingdom, France, and, subsequently, the United States landed in the area, and the Allies began to retake the Italian Front.

During the First Battle of the Marne, information relayed by pilots enabled the Allies to exploit weak places in the German defenses, assisting the Allies in pushing Germany out of France. On July 15, 1918, German troops started the war’s final offensive, fighting French forces with 85,000 American troops and elements of the British Expeditionary Force in the Second Battle of the Marne. Only three days later, the Allies successfully fought back the German attack and started their own counteroffensive. Result of heavy deaths, Germany was obliged to abandon a planned onslaught farther north, in the Flanders area running between France and Belgium, which was envisioned as Germany’s greatest hope of victory. The Second Battle of the Marne effectively shifted the tide of the war in favor of the Allies, who were able to retake most of France and Belgium in the months that followed.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, Allied leaders proclaimed their goal to construct a post-war society that would protect itself against future battles of similar devastation. Some hopeful participants even began to refer to World War I as ‘the War to End All Wars.’ However, the Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, fell short of that ambitious ambition. With war guilt, enormous reparations, and refusal to join the League of Nations, Germany felt duped into signing the treaty, believing that any peace would be a ‘peace without victory,’ as President Wilson advocated in his famous Fourteen Points address in January 1918. In Germany, anger at the Versailles Treaty and its architects grew into a simmering hostility that would be regarded among the causes of World War II two decades later.

Millions of women entered the labor to replace males who went to war and those who never returned during World War I, causing immense societal upheaval. The first global war also contributed to the spread of one of the world’s deadliest pandemics, the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak, which killed an estimated 20 to 50 million people. World Conflict I was also known as ‘the first modern war.’ During World War I, many of the technology today associated with military conflict, such as machine guns, tanks, aerial warfare, and radio communication was introduced on a vast scale.

Bibliography

1. Hein, David. 2022. “The Great Books of the Great War.” Modern Age 64 (1): 38–45. https: search. EBSCOhost. com login. aspx?direct=true

Introduction

World War I, also known as ‘The Great War’ or ‘The War To End All Wars’, lasted from 1914 until November of 1918. This war involved over 65 million soldiers, with 9 million killed and 21 million wounded. With 5 million citizens dead, ideas of war shifted drastically during this time, after people realized how horrific warfare really is (HISTORY, 2018). Many factors influenced the outbreak of World War I, from the race to have the best military in the world and having secret alliances, to the ideas of imperialism and nationalism.

Germany was one of the main players in this pointless war. Its involvement in the war was mainly because of its alliance with Austria-Hungary and its deep sense of patriotism regarding its power in the world.

Alliances

Alliances are formed for mutual benefit between countries and organizations. This had a crucial part in World War I, as complex alliance systems were made years prior to the war. These complicated alliance systems created an obligation for countries to join the war in defense of their allies. This resulted in Europe being divided into two; ‘The Triple Alliance’ and ‘The Triple Entente’ (History Crunch, ND).

In 1879, Germany and Austria-Hungary formed a dual alliance. This treaty promised to intervene and/or offer support in case of an attack from other countries, such as Russia. Later in 1882, the Triple Alliance was formed when Italy joined, after losing to France in establishing a colony in Tunisia (School History, ND).

The assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, by Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, prompted Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. Austria-Hungary however, required German support, as its unprepared army was not ready to face the threat of Russian intervention. On July 6th, German chancellor Theobald Bethmann Hollwed responded to Emperor Franz Josef’s letter, informing Austrian representatives that Austria-Hungary had German support because of their alliance (HISTORY, 2018). On the 1st of August, Germany declares war on Russia, after hearing of its general mobilization. The German army attacks Russia’s ally, France, through Belgium, which violated the peace treaty signed in 1839 that guaranteed Belgium’s neutrality. This then prompted Britain and its allies to join the war (Ducksters, ND).

The dual alliance prompted Germany to support Austria-Hungary in its declaration of war. It obligated Germany into joining this war, as Austria-Hungary was their ally. If they didn’t, Germany would have gone against the treaty they signed in 1879, which would have created another enemy around its border. Germany needed to maintain an alliance with Austria-Hungary, so it had to offer its support by joining the war. Without their alliance with Austria-Hungary, Germany would have been surrounded by enemies because of its geographical location, with Russia being at its eastern border and France being at its west. They would have been cornered, so this alliance with Austria-Hungary was extremely important to the Germans. It was something they didn’t want to lose, so by supporting the Austrians, the Germans could not only keep their alliance but if they won, Germany could have claimed more land, getting itself out of being surrounded by the allied powers. This would have helped stabilize Germany’s existence and power in the region.

Nationalism

Nationalism can be described as a deep sense of patriotism and loyalty to one’s country. Nationalists would place their country’s interests above those of other nations, as they tend to highly regard their country. By the late 1800s, most European powers were obsessed with patriotism and nationalism, particularly the Germans (School History, ND).

After the unification of Germany in 1871, nationalism became the ‘glue’ that stuck the 26 states and territories together. Britain was Germany’s enemy, as the Germans wanted what the British had, imperial expansion and military power. This lust for power on the German side can be reflected in Kaiser Wilhelm’s speech, where he encourages German imperialism using the phrase, “a place in the sun” (Llewellyn J and Thompson S, 2017). Germany and its leader were extremely arrogant about their achievements. Its confidence in the German military, was ultimately what influenced its decision in declaring war on the Russians. Nationalists were convinced that their country would win, as they strongly believed in the efficiency and power of their military (School History, ND).

The Schlieffen plan, created by Count Alfred Von Schlieffen between 1897 and 1905, — after an alliance was established between Russia and France in 1891 — meant that Germany could battle a two-front war at different times (Onion A, ND). This plan was heavily fuelled by nationalism to work, as the German military had high confidence in the assumptions made in the plan. This nationalism-fuelled plan was ultimately used when Germany declared war on Russia in 1914 (School History, ND). Behind this plan were many incorrect assumptions and inflexibility, that the Germans did not see until it was too late. Nationalism made the plan look like it was a good plan when it really wasn’t, which ultimately resulted in Germany’s downfall in the war (Onion A, ND).

Germany was a nation fuelled and glued together by nationalism. This idea resulted in them joining the war, as they had full confidence in their plan. They were ultimately blinded by patriotism regarding their country and its standing in the world. Nationalism was a key factor in why Germany wanted to get in the war, to show the globe what they ultimately believed in, that Germany’s strength is supreme to other nations in the world. They wanted to expand their territory — like Britain — but nationalism made them underestimate their enemy’s power, which concluded in their defeat. The confidence, reassurance, and lust for power caused by nationalism conclusively made Germany decide to join World War I.

Conclusion

Germany’s decision in joining the war was ultimately because of its alliance with Austria-Hungary, and nationalism. These two MAIN factors led Germany down the road to joining the destructive war, as Germany was obligated to join the war as Austria-Hungary was their ally, and they wanted to show the world the strength and power that they believed their country had. They wanted to stabilize their power and existence in the region by gaining more land. These factors all contributed to Germany’s decision into joining the First World War.

Bibliography

1. Ducksters. n.d. World War I: Causes Of WW1. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 April 2020].
2. Ducksters. n.d. World War I: Central Powers. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 April 2020].
3. HISTORY. 2018. Outbreak Of World War I. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 April 2020].
4. History Crunch. n.d. Long-Term Causes Of World War I. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 April 2020].
5. Llewellyn, J. and Thompson, S., 2017. Nationalism As A Cause Of World War I. [online] Alpha History. Available at: [Accessed 3 April 2020].
6. Onion, A., n.d. Was Germany Doomed In World War I By The Schlieffen Plan? [online] HISTORY. Available at: [Accessed 3 April 2020].
7. School History. n.d. Nationalism As A Cause Of World War I Key Facts & Worksheets. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 April 2020].
8. School History. n.d. The Triple Alliance | Facts, Summary, Who Was Part Of It? & Aftermath. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 April 2020].

This book report will be based on the book, World War 1 Told Through 100 Artifacts by Gary Sheffield. This book has informational research from Gary Sheffield, Philomena H. Badsey, Spencer Jones, and Michael LoCicero presenting multiple pages worth of information about known and not very-known items, weapons, places, and vehicles of World War 1, a war where millions of brave men laid down their lives in order to give us a better future. This essay will showcase some of the artifacts from this book that either influence this war and future wars or are just something interesting to learn about.

The first artifact is the Ross Rifle. The Ross Rifle series was adopted by the Canadian military about ten years before the outbreak of the war even though it was rejected for military use by the British. The British were instead using the superior Lee Enfield rifle. The Ross Rifle was so poorly constructed that many Canadian soldiers were killed by their own guns and started taking Lee Enfields from dead and injured British soldiers. The Canadian government replaced the Ross Rifle with the Lee Enfield in September of 1916.

The next artifact is the Lewis Gun. The weapon was created by Colonel Issac Newton Lewis and was invented in America, although not adopted by the American Army. It was then taken to Belgium and a production license was sold to the Birmingham Small Arms Company (BSA). The gun became so popular at the outbreak of the war, there were four Lewis Guns issued to each infantry battalion by June 1915. These Lewis Guns were manned by eight men, each trained with a gun. One was responsible for carrying and firing the gun, two carried four 47-round magazines, another two acted as scouts, and the last three carried an additional 36 magazines with them. The men who carried the ammo collectively carried over 2,000 rounds which weighed about 182 pounds. A single Lewis Gun destroyed German land troops and machine guns single-handedly saved pinned down British troops.

The next artifact is a tank known as the Renault FT Tank. It was created in 1917 and is considered, “the first truly modern tank.” It was designed and produced by the French automotive firm of Renault and it first saw service with French and American forces during May-November 1918. Colonel Jean-Baptiste Estienne was convinced that the lighter tank would be better for maneuverability and had a higher tactical value. He persuaded French General Headquarters to place orders for large quantities of the FTs in early 1917. Major George S. Patton became an enthusiast when he saw this tank, it was because of this and his advancements in tank operations that got him appointed as head of the newly established US Army Tank Corps School at Langres. He’d emerge later as one of the most effective soldiers trained in armored warfare of the Second World War.

The next artifact is the German Flammenwerfer. The development and design of the flamethrower commenced during the first decade of the twentieth century. Richard Fiedler worked with Hermann Reddeman, who would later become an officer of a flamethrower unit on the Western Front, and created two basic designs, the two-man Kleinflammenwerfer, and the impractical Grossflammenwerfer. The first field test took place near Verdun in 1914 and showed that they were

The First World War was central to the coming of the 1917 revolution in Russia because it put enormous strains on the population and dramatically increased popular discontent. It also undermined the discipline of the Russian army, thereby reducing the government’s ability to use force to suppress the increased discontent. – whether or not Russia would have avoided revolution had there been no war is difficult to determine, however, it is certainly true that, even if a revolution was probable, the war profoundly shaped the revolution that did occur. The Russian people were already fractious, dissatisfied, and eager for change. In 1905 their demands had taken the empire to the brink of revolution before tensions were eased with promises of reforms – promises which were never truly fulfilled. The Russian empire rested on ‘unstable pillars’, and as such they were unable to sustain involvement in the war. In source three, Hickey notes that the war kindled patriotic support at first, but after just six months this support became negligible given the economic costs and civilian suffering that it caused. This was very much the case because, at the time of Russia’s descent into war, they were emerging from a period of relative stability from 1908 to 1913 thanks to Stolypin’s agrarian reforms. The 1913 celebration of the Romanov dynasty’s tercentennial anniversary also played into the immense, yet brief, support for the Tsar as a wave of patriotism and hopes of a resurgence of former victory swept across the country.

Source three epitomizes perfectly just how unprepared and unequipped Russia and its military were for the war. In his letter, Nicholas II expressed his worries about ammunition shortages, which ‘stood in the way of an energetic advance’. Such shortages were present from the very outset of Russia’s involvement in the war; the first campaigns of 1914 revealed similar shortcomings in weaponry, where they suffered from a shortage of artillery shells and new weapons such as machine guns. These shortages were aggravated further by Russia’s weak and outdated industry, which made overcoming them an irreconcilable task. Observing the wider context surrounding source three, it becomes clear that the mentioned shortages are likely to have been augmented by the Gorlice–Tarnów offensive launched in May of 1915, which forced the Tsar’s armies into a headlong retreat. It also becomes evident that this source and the contained descriptions are well aligned with the ‘Great Retreat’ which took place in the months that followed. As a result, the precise weaknesses of the Russian army at this point are only emphasized, such that they were to endure a series of unending retreats in the summer months.

These retreats dealt a crippling blow to the troops’ morale and as a result rumors quickly spread among their ranks about treason at the court. Such conspiracy theories were granted credibility because of the German background of the Empress and other government figures. For many soldiers this was the vital psychological moment of the revolution – the moment when their loyalty to the monarchy ended; around a million men surrendered to the German and Austrian forces during the retreat. In a desperate attempt to restore morale and discipline the Tsar took over the Supreme Command. If the soldiers would not fight for ‘Russia’, then perhaps they would fight for him. It was the worst decision of his reign as Nicholas would now take all the blame for the reverses at the Front.

The most common view taken by historians seems to be that the Old Regime was fundamentally flawed, and so its collapse was inevitable notwithstanding the burdens of the First World War; though it can certainly be described as a catalyst for the collapse, war is by no means considered the prominent cause. S. A. Smith is a proponent of this view and has described the affliction of Imperial Russia as primarily a crisis of modernization’, suggesting that ‘the effect of industrialization, urbanization, internal migration, and the emergence of new social classes’ made the ‘erosion of the autocratic state’ inexorable. Smith goes further in his examination of the February Revolution, disregarding ‘military defeat’ and ‘war weariness’ as potential causes. Instead, he sees the revolution as a result of ‘the collapse of public support in the government’, and so adopts the ‘pessimistic’ view that the emergence of a Western-style democracy from the Romanovs was fanciful. Other revisionists have also taken a similar approach, with Hasegawa emphasizing the ‘structural weakness of the regime itself’ and describing the tsarist regime as ‘pregnant with irreconcilable internal contradictions that it had no capacity to resolve’. The revisionist view is often seen as having emerged from guilt felt as a result of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and so it is naturally skewed to be less hostile in its assessment of the Soviets and the October Revolution. In addition to this, during the year 1976-7 Smith studied for his doctorate in History at the state-controlled University of Moscow in the Soviet Union, which may have influenced his later works and his inclination towards revisionist ideas.

Pipes has been critical of the revisionist interpretation, claiming that it is merely a rehash of the Soviet view. He concedes that the collapse of tsardom was ‘not improbable’, but maintains that it was ‘certainly not inevitable’. Similarly to Smith, he cites ‘deep-seated cultural and political flaws’ as being preventative to the tsarist state ‘adjusting to the economic and cultural growth of the country’, however, he places much greater emphasis on World War One. He does not consider these ‘cultural and political flaws’ as being detrimental in isolation but instead states that they ‘proved fatal under the pressure generated by the war’. This ‘optimistic view’, espoused by liberals such as Pipes, is essentially suggesting that ‘peaceful modernization’ would have been possible in Russia had there been no war, and hence the war is seen as the determining factor behind the collapse. Pipes is generally regarded as having conservative inclinations and has been described as a radical conservative. This is perhaps no surprise given his position as a senior advisor on Soviet affairs in the Reagan Administration, which oversaw the anti-communist Reagan Doctrine and sought a ‘roll-back’ of communism. Pipes is also associated with the Committee on the Present Danger, which aimed to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This helps to explain his strongly anti-Soviet view that the Revolution was only advanced as a result of the war and was motivated by ‘political reasons, rather than economic or social ones’.

The Allies won ww1 mostly because they had a bigger advantage in their quantity and quality. They had also got a bigger industry for weapons and many other things. The allies were Russia, France, Britain, the United States, and some other smaller countries states. France had 777,000 French troops and 46,000 regional troops, Russia had 5,971,000 men in the Russian army, the United States had 4.7 men and women that served in the regular force, national guard units, and draft units, and 2.8 million of them were serving overseas.

In Britain, they had around 247,000 soldiers for the regular army, and over half of them were sent overseas supported by 210,000 reserves and a possible 60,000 extra reserves. This shows that, overall, Britain had the lowest number of people fighting for them and this gave the Allies a very big advantage. Ww1 lasted for four years from 28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918 and had around 15 to 22 million deaths and 23 million wounded.

By 1917(3 years of WW1) the allies, France, Britain, and Russia, were losing. Then the United States joined the war after a German U-boat sunk into the British ocean which killed 159 Americans. After America joined, Germany tried to persuade Mexico to join the war against the United States.

The Allies had loads of new soldiers so this gave Germany no other choice but to surrender. The German Army had 700,000 men in 1914, though within a week, they had 3.8 million men under arms.

They lost due to the arrival of new american troops. This was bad because the German lines were being pressured by the British, American forces, and the French. A few of Germany’s allies backed down like Bulgaria and Turkey leaving Germany alone. The German war machines were tired and were lacking the ability to produce new guns and many other things and this forced them to quit.

Another very important reason was that when the U.S. entered the war and since it was a big country with a huge population and a giant industrial base, they were able to provide weapons, materials, and millions of men so the allies won just because they were able to get the US on their side.

The western front was the main place of war during ww1. The German army opened up the Western Front by invading Belgium and Luxembourg and then they gained military control in the industrial regions of France.

World War 1 began in 1914 due to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, this murder caused war across Europe that lasted until 1918.