When looking at the conditions of the emergence of classical European nationalism, it is possible to conclude that many nations experienced the rise of national movements before World War I. This growth was most consistent in Italy and Germany, which is quite natural since these countries were leaders and were the main participants in the opposing bloc. The ideology aimed at strengthening national identity became key in these states, which led to serious historical consequences and global changes in the world. The formation of European nationalism from the 19th century was the reason for a significant change in views on the dominance and order of individual countries. This movement was the result of effective propaganda and an aggressive policy aimed at the redistribution of territories and the seizure of power.
Formation of Nationalism in Germany and Italy
The emergence of new economic models and forms of property management in Europe in the 19th century was a significant stage. It was one of the main factors driving the transition of German elites to the course of nationalism. According to von Bernstorff, the movement aimed at preserving the national idea in the conditions of competition and the struggle for world domination became prevailing because of specific economic issues (p. 237). It was due to the powerful orientation of people towards the course on innovations and the strengthening of countries internal structure. Despite the difficulties that both Germany and Italy experienced before the outbreak of World War I, both countries managed to use maximum opportunities to strengthen the national identity of the population.
Consequences of Nationalism
As a result, the 19th century was a turning point in the histories of these countries thanks to the policy of preserving domestic resources and building internal capacity. Maxwell and Davis note that some European countries supported such an order, which led to the spread of the ideas of nationalism and changes in views on development (p. 4). Anarchist ideas gave way to the order that, in turn, led to the policy of strengthening national identity. As Conversi argues, different social classes supported the course of transition to the power that was aimed at nationalism (794). Further, this movement became widespread as an algorithm for overcoming an economic crisis.
The history of Germany and Italy, beginning from the 19th century, has much in common since both states during the first half of that century created the ideology of future national unity. In the second half of the 19th century, Germany and Italy ended the struggle for unification and occupied the position of major independent European powers that began to influence global politics (Lyttelton and Ialongo, p. 300). Both countries were dissatisfied with the situation that they were allotted to countries that had previously dealt with feudal fragmentation, primarily Britain and France. After World War I, the states were humiliated by the Versailles Peace Germany, as a defeated country, and Italy, as a member of the coalition (von Bernstorff, p. 254). However, the surge of nationalism in Europe spread far beyond Germany and Italy, which proves the power of this ideology.
Conclusion
Effective intrastate propaganda and the desire to strengthen civic identity became the factors influencing the development of nationalism in Europe. Germany and Italy supported this course that, subsequently, was borrowed by other states. The preconditions of nationalism included the need to strengthen the economy and the desire to expand the spheres of influence. As a result, this powerful movement developed due to the impact of politicians. The consequences of nationalism were significant, and World War I was one of the outcomes.
Works Cited
Conversi, Daniele. Anarchism, Modernism, and Nationalism: Futurisms French Connections, 18761915. The European Legacy, vol. 21, no. 8, 2016, pp. 791-811.
Lyttelton, Adrian, and Ernest Ialongo. Multi/Interdisciplinary Investigations into Italy and World War I: An introduction. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, vol. 21, no. 2, 2016, pp. 300-305.
Maxwell, Alexander, and Sacha E. Davis. Germanness Beyond Germany: Collective Identity in German Diaspora Communities. German Studies Review, vol. 39, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-15.
von Bernstorff, Jochen. The Use of Force in International Law before World War I: On Imperial Ordering and the Ontology of the Nation-State. European Journal of International Law, vol. 29, no. 1, 2018, pp. 233-260.
Idealism refers to the philosophical theory that ideas are the only reality. It involves the elevated quality of believing that ideas should be pursued and thinking of things in their ideal form rather than the way they are (Rockmore 30). I disagree with the philosophy of idealism for a number of reasons. First, I believe that it is very important to accept facts about life. The reason for this is that it helps one to live consciously, knowing the importance of values such as honesty, reliability, and trust, among others (Rockmore 41). In addition, accepting the fact that everyone will die at some point plays a crucial role in making life more meaningful and purposeful.
Second, I disagree with this philosophy because there is a need to favor practicality when it comes to doing certain things in life. One of the factors that make some people more successful than others is their ability to assess the practicality of something before trying it out or investing resources in it (Rockmore 80). This means that being realistic with certain aspects of life or facts about the plausibility of something helps in reducing pain, losses, and dented self-confidence. Third, I disagree with this philosophy because a culture of high-mindedness can easily lead someone into believing that other people are always wrong. This can have drastic negative effects on an individual inclined to this philosophy because they have a high chance of missing the most crucial aspects of a fulfilling life (Rockmore 81).
It is possible to make the world a better place. The reason for this is that God has blessed human beings with the essential resources, which play a crucial role in promoting development. For example, people can make the world a better place by choosing to trust and support each other. Second, the world can become a better place if people make it their own responsibility to use the available resources in a sustainable manner. Third, the world can become better if people love each other more by taking the problems of others as their own. Although I disagree with the philosophy of idealism, it is a fact that it managed to create a better world following the events of World War I. For example, the development of the telegraph technology was because of an individual who had an idea, believed in it, and chose to pursue it. The results of that belief were very good and continue to make life better in the 21st Century (Rockmore 100). Second, the thought about the threatened status quo among the European powers help to bring unity across Europe, which played a crucial role in promoting sustainable development. Third, the ideas of stopping the spread of nationalism and liberalism across Europe helped to bore the reality regarding the importance of unity, peace, and cooperation between the countries.
Works Cited
Rockmore, Tom. Hegel, Idealism, and Analytic Philosophy. Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2005. Print.
Conventionally, the UAE had not been under colonialism; however, the Trucial States were subject to the Britain colonizers. The colonial masters were keen to maintain their territorial boundaries. Prior agreement by Arab leaders and the British government prevented any other power from entering the state. During the decline of the pearling industry, the British were highly vigilant to sustain the existing regional trend of alienation amongst leaders and the people.
After the war search for oil started in the 1950s, oil was struck in commercial quantities offshore from Abu Dhabi. Export facilities were constructed, and shipment started improving the infrastructure across the Trucial States. The influx of foreign men with construction companies ensured increased security for workers at the mines. The provision of employment increased with the development of oil companies. The British authorities felt the mandate to care for the people in this region by developing the Trucial States. Some of the members in the foreign office had gained experience after working in the Sudanese civil service. The foreigners were ready to help in improving the living standards of the people.
However, economic decline and reduced sale of pearls led to a loss of income and lowered the living standards of the people of Trucial states. The funds planned for developing the cities were alternatively channeled to other priority needs, thus derailing development. The formation of the UAE federation was spearheaded by Abu Dhabi. The federation was funded from the sale of oil by the Trucial States. The British political agency transformed into the British embassy and became one of the fast-growing diplomatic missions, which marked the end of the imperial era.
Works Cited
The Beginning of the Post-Imperial Era for the Trucial States from World War I to the 1960s. Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Region: Fifty Years of Transformation, by Frauke Heard-Bey, Gerlach Press, Berlin, Germany, 2017, pp. 126130.
Following the publication of the scholarly works such as the Great War and Womens Consciousness by Claire Tylees, other feminist scholars such as Angela K. Smith emerged to provide an expanded investigation and a critical assessment of various writings on the roles of women in the First World War authored by women scholars.
While Women Writings on The First World War provide an anthology of manuscripts, which are not published addressing various political voices of women struggling to live in a society dominated by male chauvinism, the book The Second Battlefield: Women, Modernism, and the First World War evaluates and/or assesses various terrains that women walked through during the First World War.
This assessment helps in laying a theoretical background on the contributions that are made by women in the development of literature on war history. The evaluation and assessment are conducted in relation to the stingy and scholarly troublesome concept of modernism.
In The Second Battlefield: Women, Modernism, and the First World War, Smith develops various themes related to womens contributions in war with particular reference to the First World War.
The first theme is the connection of writings of women on the subject of the First World War and the modernism theoretical constructs. Another important theme is the need for placing emphasis on gender issues that are prevalent in the modern world upon drawing from the role of women in the social developments showcased during the First World War.
Development of the two themes is supported by information drawn from a myriad of letters coupled with unpublished diaries. The selection of sources to support scholarly arguments introduces major weaknesses in terms of reliability of sources to give credible information to the arguments in a bid to provide solid scholarly evidence supporting the claims advanced by Smith.
However, thematic issues developed in the book are essential in helping to evaluate the roles played by women since the First World War in shaping the world order in the context of modernist theoretical paradigms.
This way, the book aids in triggering different paradigms for searching new mechanisms of womens expression in a free and transparent society prescribed by the theories of modernism. This gives the book the strength of contributing to scholarly development of womens contribution in modernism.
In the development of the first theme, Smith depicts the First World War as the foundation of the development of feminism. She is quick to point out her inclination on feminist arguments by subscribing to the school of thought of equal social economic and political rights of women, which were brought into societal limelight during and after the First World War.
She views various writings on the roles of women in the First World War as essentially reflecting and supporting the concepts of female modernism. This assertion is evident based on her argument that war experiences influenced the development of female modernist practice, opening up a pathway for a diverse range of different experimental discourses.
This case implies that, through the First World War experiences, women recognized that they had equal abilities tantamount to men. This line of argument may be challenged. History has records of women playing behind-war-scene roles during wars. Such roles include the provision of nursing services to wounded soldiers.
However, this counter argument does not imply that women were not engaged in direct combats during the First World War. The dispute is that, for Angela K. Smiths argument that First World War laid crucial backgrounds to the development of modern feminist theoretical constructs advocating for equality of men and women to be factual, it is important to provide statistical and quantitative data. This provides evidence for an equal ability of women and men to participate in war with specific reference to First World War beyond any doubt.
Smith sees womens writings during and soon after the First World War as significant contributors to the bridging of the realist school of thought of the nineteenth century and the experimental and practical works of the 1920s. This perhaps reveals why she relies on diaries and epistles as her sources.
She claims that such sources contain within them elements of stylistic change as their writers strive to find ways to articulate an experience, which cannot be easily condensed into convectional language. This belief is simplistic and one that is anchored on weak evidential foundations.
It suggests that the First World War led to the emergence of formal innovation, which facilitated the cognition of womens abilities that had long been shrouded. For instance, she sees the work of women writers such as La Motte together with the work of Borden as portraying concepts of modernism accidentally.
In particular, she argues that the work of Borden reflects high self-consciousness, a literary realization, which requires scholarly credit. However, this perception does not consider the familiarity of women with experimentalist works advanced by Gertrude Stein together with Amy Lowell. Hence, she fails to accord justice to their works, which displayed incredible writing brilliance.
Amid the criticisms for development of the first theme, Smith writes from safer grounds by choosing to analyze the various themes reflected in the womens writings on the First World War to unveil the concepts of modernism. Chapter 5 is dedicated to the evaluation of diverse women authors portraying their roles in the First World War. This creates various juxtapositions.
For instance, the works of May Sinclaire are not sufficiently addressed, yet she was a significant contributor of modernism that is celebrated today. Her focus is on developing arguments on the roles of women during the First World War.
Therefore, in the effort to advance the argument on the development of modernism school of thought, an intensive error is created in presenting May Sinclaire as a modernist writer whose roles and heroism in the First World War era were only recognized just before she died. In chapter 6, she explores the work of Katherine Mansfield and others presenting the theme of domestic imagery.
This capacity to run through a range of works developed by eloquently known women writers and feminists is non-canonical and unproductive. However, it is through deployment of this strategy that she is able to explore and provide expansive parameters for evaluation of various approaches to female modernism. This way, readers are able to traverse various writings of women during the First World War to determine how they link up with the concepts of modernism as they relate to feminism.
The second theme developed by The Second Battlefield: Women, Modernism, and the First World War is the need for placing central emphasis on gender issues that are prevalent in the modern world upon drawing from the historical roles of women in First World War together with social developments.
In this quest, she emphasizes her orthodox approach to the selection of her various materials reflecting this theme in the effort to exhibit the largest possible degree of experience of women in contributing to social progression of the society. This position is a major strength in her work to address the prevalent modern issues in the advancement of modernism issues.
Her work captures texts that are representative of the broad class boundaries. This means that the work of Smith passes the test for representation of the overall arguments on the development of women since the First World War amid cultural and geographical divides. This position is an essential characteristic for reliability and validity of a scholarly historical piece of work.
In the selection of the texts investigated by Smith, a major weakness is introduced. In her arguments against the segregation and perception of gender roles, not all women amid their class status are given sufficient attention. For instance, in chapter 4, Smith argues that women believed that, when the war broke, their only role was to oppose it since they had no other role to engage in the frontlines.
This was mens responsibility, but not women who were also not recognized in the systems of governance. Indeed, according to Smith, women were life creators as opposed to destroyers. The perception of life destruction was far removed from their nature. However, she claims that women who took part in the front lines during the First World War altered the traditional belief.
She further adds that such women wrote letters and diaries from which she draws her evidence of the development of perspectives of modernism during the First World War. Such women were literate. Literacy was a reserve for middle and upper- middle class group of women in 1910s and 1920s. This raises the question on the roles of illiterate women in setting the background for addressing gender-related issues prevalent in the modernist theoretical constructs.
Women writers reflected in the book are essentially drawn from the upper-middle-class and the middle class in some instances. Many are also highly reputable in the historical writing profession. This raises the scholarly question of whether only women belonging to this societal class had the capacity to disapprove the fallacy of segregation and division of gender roles.
Did the low-class women have the ability to perform equally or out perform some men in some gender-centered roles? In the development of the argument in the text, Smith has emphasized feminist topics together with the styles of writing, which reflect the development of modernism during and after the First World War.
While this emphasis is crucial in enhancing the provision of a feminist text, which is highly informative, such emphasis acts also as a weakness. The selections are highly abbreviated. This makes them not useful for scholarly research.
Smiths book The Second Battlefield: Women, Modernism, and the First World War is one of the books that reflect the theme of modernism. Such themes include the roles played by women in the First World War.
People interested in studies of history of the evaluation of women gender roles and/or how the subjects that have taken immense attention in the modern approaches to feminism relate to modernism will find the book worth reading.
Bibliography
Smith, Angela. The Second Battlefield: Women, Modernism, and the First World War. New York: Manchester University Press, 2000.
John Keegan was an author of British war history books. Besides, he was also a lecturer and a journalist. He was born on 15 May 1934 and died on 2 August 2012. His books cut across the 14th to 21st century history of armed combats from air, maritime, land, and military warfare intelligences . His books reflect themes of war psychology.
His major writings include Who Was Who in the World War II, Fields of Battle: The Wars for North America, The Iraq War, and The First World War among others.
In The First World War, John Keegan explores various war-related themes. One of the major themes is the manner in which the war progressed out of the failure of diplomacy and communication resulting in the escalation of bilateral disputes into a global conflict.
This theme is prevalent in all chapters. It is developed through narrations, analysis, and critical assessment of military conflicts in a fashion that is not anticipated of a person untrained in military operations. Keegan is also committed to narrating different events that took place in the Second World War where he shows how the different pieces fit together.
In developing the above two themes, Keegan relied on secondary materials as evidenced in the footnotes of the book. Hence, his book is not based on a first-hand experience on the first world events. Indeed, he was born in 1934, which is much later after First World War. Nevertheless, he narrates the events and military strategies of the First World War in a manner that reflects a first-hand experience in the war. Where could he have gotten this experience?
Is it from his father who served in the war? He is not clear on this issue. Through the vivid description of the First World War, military strategies and tactics prove that John Keegan is an expert in the field of military history. However, his sympathy and strong position that Britons were not defeated in the war gives an unbalanced account of the implications of the war. As he later proves in the book, many Britons lost their lives in the unnecessary war.
Based on its inclusion of legendary names in military such as Gallipoli, Sheds, and Somme, The First World War provides an incredible insight into the military tactics in the war especially the roles played by technology combined with geography in enhancing the success of combat attacks on targets.
Although Keegans book creates hilarious description of military operations in a manner that its readers envy, he is quick to establish his position on the First World War. He does this through inclusion of a humanistic perspective on the impacts of the war. For instance, he cites the names of people such as Nicholas II and Haig who made it possible for what he terms as unnecessary war to build up.
Referring the First World War as unnecessary gives a loose inference that Keegan did not support the war. Hence, he criticizes its inappropriateness in terms of having the repercussion of loss and devastation of human life. This position is important upon considering the need to respect peoples rights to life. However, the emergence of the bill of the right to peoples life across the globe is owed to the occurrence of the First and the Second World War.
In fact, the world civilization has been shaped for the past almost one century by the experiences of the First World War especially on matters of international relations, which focus on maintaining global peace via the global peace accord. In this extent, opposed to the Keegans view, the war was necessary. It acted as a tool for shaping the current state of global civilization.
Based on the above argument, it sounds reasonable enough to argue that the First World War does not only serve the purpose of providing historical accounts of successful and fateful military tactics and war intelligence but also the purpose of criticizing decisions to address multilateral and bilateral differences through military confrontations.
Keegans queries on the motivation of First World War makers such as Joffre and Haig support this inference, yet various events that translated to the war would have been curtailed had prudence or common goodwill found a voice. According to Keegan, the war was tragic since it claimed the lives of more than 10 million people globally while still destroying Europes the benevolent and optimistic culture. It also gave an opportunity for the occurrence of the Second World War.
Counterarguments offered by Keegan on the factor that contributed to First World War raise scholarly interrogatives. He argues that the war was unnecessary by attributing the rapture of bilateral differences, which could have otherwise been resolved through diplomatic efforts during the First World War, to war makers such as Haig and others. In a counterargument, he claims that these war makers did not send their troops deliberately in fatal battles.
Communication challenges made it impossible for them to evaluate the danger that was ahead in the battlefronts on the lives of the troops. Compared to other British war history books, this position portrays a practical explanation of why Britain was easily lured into war as early as 1914. However, Keegan used the theory of Gallipoli, Paachendaele, and Somme war disasters to explain other major war disasters during First World War.
To him, the decision to send troops into deadly war fields was informed by the ineptitude together with incompetence of generals akin to the poor garnering of military intelligence that was attributed to poor communication5. The question that emerges here is; how could the war have continued without attacks and retaliations?
According to Keegan, at the time when the First World War ended, three major empires felt its negative impacts. The Russian, Ottoman, and Hungarian empires had collapsed completely. He adds that devastation implications of war not only influenced the three empires. In fact, Europe was affected in such a severe way that its culture and political institutions still learn and/or remain informed by the First World War.
Keegan is quick to point out the weakness of the First World Wars historical coverage including his own composition. He highlights an immense sympathy for all people who fought for peace through undying efforts despite the fact that history did not record their contributions.
The second major theme explored by Keegan in his book The First World War is the narration of events that took place. The book documents Greeks war campaigns together with the manner in which the allies almost lost the war. Accounts on Frances missions for evacuation of Britons from France together with other chronologies of the First World War happenings and/or how the different events fitted cutely together are also given an incredible treatment.
While giving the accounts for these events, he does not forget that he is dealing with military history. Therefore, he poses to provide a detailed explanation of what it implies by being a soldier who takes central locations in a battlefield. While this position offers an explanation for the realities that took place on the ground during the First World War, it also offers invaluable aspects, which make the book convey the central theme it was designed: to narrate the experiences of fighting in a global war.
Keegan explains that the war emerged from various decisions, which were not analyzed critically to evaluate their implications. He accuses the German generals of having instigated the war claiming that, not even one of them thought that simple incidences could have led to a global war.
Indeed, he writes that all military professionals who were caught up in the First World War died in their thousands at Ypres not because of an ideal or self-sacrifice, but because it was expected of them and, in any case, there was no alternative. The revelation establishes a major weakness of Keegans book. It scores highly in providing explanations on how the war initiated together with how it was an incident-gone-badly.
He plays the role of the involvements of the worlds superpowers in the initiation of the war claiming that they were only caught up in a conflict that was caused by German generals, Serbian nationalists, and Balkans. While the accounts of how the war began are solid, the story of how it was brought to a halt is weak.
The book is authored from a British dimension. It forms a memory for British soldiers whose success is not substantive to account for the human lives that were lost although they emerged winners. However, its political, cultural, and institutional relevance lives to date.
The First World War by John Keegan is a must-read book for people who are interested in military conflict studies. John Keegan is a great scholar in the military history. The book perhaps portrays him as the best military historian of the 21st century. It is authored in an elegant manner, thus carrying vivid details of the accounts of the First World War. It gives clear and omniscient explanations of military tactics.
The book gives thrilling narrations of the initiation of the First World War, records its impacts, discusses the manner in which it was executed, and sums by offering details on how the allies emerged the winners. The manner of writing of the book paints a clear picture that reflects accurately how the war unfolded on the ground. Through the description of the effects of the war on the lives, politics, and culture of Britons, the war sounds like a big mystery that engulfed the world.
However, according to Keegan, it could have been prevented from occurring. On reading the whole epilogue of the First World War, questions emerge why men and women agreed to fight under unspeakable war conditions. Why did it occur? Why did it occur for so long while leaders were aware of the large loss of human life on a daily basis?
Anyone seeking any response to these questions needs to read the full text of John Keegan The First World War. Keegan does not underrate these questions. Rather, he addresses them directly in details in a contemporary context such that any military history nonprofessional reader would find easy to synthesize.
Reference
Keegan, John. The First World War. London: Vintage, 2000.
Roger Chickering examines the comprehensive effects of the World War I on imperial Germany. The author is of the view that the war affected every person in society, irrespective of gender, age, educational background, race and religious affiliation. The book evaluates the role of the military in perpetuating the conflicts, the diplomatic aspects, governmental role, the politics, and the industrial sector.
In particular, the author is more concerned with giving the effects of the war on the German people, unlike other authors who generalize the effects of the war. In this regard, the author reports that the persistent effect of the total war on the underprivileged and the rich was massive. It affected both male and female members of society, the elderly and the youth, farmers and the city-dwellers, Catholics, Protestants, and the Jews.
The book analyzes the role of the military in any war. It states that the war affected the socio-economic and political structures of Germany more than it did in other countries. The first chapter talks about the period in which the war started (The war begins). In the first chapter, the author gives the immediate cause of the war whereby he compares the war with the modern day terrorism that is sponsored by the state.
It started with the shooting of Francis Ferdinand when he had visited Serbia. The incident surprised many in Europe since the Serbia government had been accused of being involved in the death of the heir to throne.
In subsequent subsection, he talks about the spirit of 1914 whereby he notes that the drama and the extravagant expectations of war lent almost mystical status to the spirit of 1914 (Chickering 15). Under the plan section, the author notes that the war was well planned, with many soldiers believing that Germany was superior to other nations, having crashed the French troops in the 1870-71 war.
The second chapter (The war continues) talks about the dynamics of the war as it progressed to the dangerous zones. The author looks at the role of bureaucratic institutions and the industrial sector in propagating the war. From this chapter, it is established that the war could not have achieved its objectives at the start without the support the bureaucrats and the wealthy businesspersons.
The business community provided adequate funds for feeding and paying soldiers while the bureaucrats offered technical support, as well as morale. In the third chapter (The war grows total), the author reports that the war was no longer under the control of the Germany government since it had attracted the attention of other players in the international system.
In 1916, the land campaigns were instituted whereby other races were expected to surrender land to the Germans. This was made possible through Hindenburg policies. At the same time, German troops occupied various parts of Europe while some soldiers took the war to sea. The fourth chapter (The war embraces all), observes how other groups in society, including women and the elderly, were forced to join the war.
At this stage, even the owners of the means of production felt the effects of the war. The fifth chapter (The War breeds discord) proves that the war had become so expensive and costly to an extent that many people were in the process of surrendering. The sixth chapter (The war ends) reports that the German populace could no longer sustain the war hence they embraced peace.
Effects of the War on Germany at Mid War
The author observes that the German empire is one of the empires that lost terribly in the First World War. Germany engaged in the conflict by declaring war on Serbia following the killing of the Austria-Hungary prince. German troops engaged the enemies on both eastern and western. However, the German territory was safe at start of the war.
At some point in 1914, the eastern part was invaded, but the enemies were defeated and the country continued to enjoy peace, even though its troops were at war abroad. Things changed in the winter of 1916-1917 when the British troops attacked several cities in Germany. Germany was faced with severe food shortages since the infrastructure was badly destroyed.
The 1916-1917 winter, also referred to as turnip winter, was the trying moment for the people of Germany since many individuals went for days without food. In 1916, there were two major battles on the western front, which weakened the capability of Germany. The battle at Verdun and Somme had tremendous effects to the Germany since it lost many soldiers and resources fighting the war that it never succeeded.
Germany lost an approximated two-hundred and eighty thousand soldiers at Verdun while an approximated six-hundred thousand soldiers lost their lives at Somme. The loss of soldiers at the two battlefronts demoralized the German people and solders.
In 1917, the German morale was declining since the number of solders lost could not be explained. The country suffered from inadequate work force since few people were willing to engage in war after realizing that it could not be won. At the home front, the war was unsustainable since enemies were attacking from all fronts.
In the same year, Ludendorff claimed that Germany would launch a peace offensive in the west, but the plan was cut short since the allies were very strong. In 1916, the Hindenburg program encouraged people to contribute financially since the country was facing serious financial shortages.
Farmers were forced to give their horses to the military since the supplies from Russia and Austria could not reach the country. In the middle of the war, the British launched an offensive that incapacitated Germany in terms of food supply. The economy of the country went down to an extent that it simply depended on the wealthy for the production of weapons.
With time, church materials were ripped out and would be melted to produce weapons. So many farmers and workers in various industries were transferred to the military, which affected the countrys food supply. The government was forced to come up with a feeding program that would help the poor who could not afford the basic needs.
In Europe, a number of countries faced challenges, as the war progressed since the number of soldiers killed was shocking. Each country, including France, Britain and Russia, lost troops in large numbers.
The war could no longer be sustained and many countries were of the view that the conflict had to be resolved peacefully. Just like in Germany, the populace in other countries was in strong opposition of the war since it affected their normal lives.
Works Cited
Chickering, Roger. Imperial Germany and the Great War: 1914 1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.
The 1919 Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty that put an end to World War I (WWI). At the time, the United States was led by President Wilson, who, prior to the US entry into the war, aimed at making peace without victory. A year before signing the treaty, Wilson delivered a speech in which he listed Fourteen Points that signified the countrys objectives following the conflict resolution. Among them, the president named the recovery of the European economy, self-determination of European and Middle Eastern ethnic groups, the fostering of free trade, and the creation of institutions, such as the League of Nations, to promote global peace. It should be said that the US participation in WWI changed its course, but at the same time, WWI transformed the US and impacted its new vision as a guardian of democracy around the globe. Though hoping for peace, after WWI, the United States was still aware of the German threat and, hence, prepared accordingly.
Since the formation of the Republic, American political and military leaders have worked relentlessly on improving army organization and ensuring the countrys independence and security against foreign forces. Gentile, Linick, and Shurkin single out four important periods in the evolution of the US army: Constitutional moorings and the 19th century, the Spanish-American War to Total War, and the Korean War to Total Force Policy. In accordance with this classification, it is safe to assume that the roots of post-WWI US military politics date back to the Spanish War. The ongoing conflict provided an impetus for improving various aspects, such as training, equipment, and on-site medical help. The early 1900s were also the time when the debacle between the Regular Army and the National Guards.
An important milestone of the postSpanish-American War military reforms the 1903 Act to Promote the Efficiency of the Militia, and for Other Purposes, often referred to as the Dick Act. The new legislation required the states National Guards to recreate the organization, armament, and discipline identical to those of the Regular Army. In short, in 1903, state militia received federal recognition and became a reserve for the Army. Fast forward to 1916 the government passed the National Defense Act (NDA), whose main purpose was to mobilize the countrys reserves and make them apt for industrial-era expeditionary warfare. The act recognized that the National Guard units of the several states as a component of the US Army, provided their federalization. The further step was taken in 1933 when a new amendment emphasized the importance of the raise and support armies clause over the militia clause. From then on, the National Guard had to serve the role of an Army reserve at all times, though mainatining its ties to specific states. All in all, post-WWI politics continued the trend toward building up military power through extending, training, and educating reserves.
During the 1920s and the 1930s, the United States military Joint Army and Navy Board introduced color-coded war plans, in all of which the country referred to itself as blue. War Plan Orange refers to the totality of war plans that entertained the possibility of a military conflict with Japan. Establishing itself as a world superpower came with its own set of risks for the US, such as having almost 7,000 miles of coast stretching from San-Francisco to the Philippines. The only way to defend itself against Japanese aggression was to develop sea power and the Navy and, what is as important, to ensure constant cooperation between the Army and the Navy. In short, War Plan Orange suggested that American forces would be relieved in Guam and the Philippines and later blockade the Japanese home islands. Before its adoption in 1938, the plan had been in the makingsince 1919. In two decades, the world had seen many technological advances, including submarines, air support, and aircraft carriers, which was something that the plan failed to foresee.
War Plan Red, also referred to as the Atlantic Strategic War Plan, was developed by the United States Department of War during the same period (1919-1939). The plan hypothesized a war with the British Empire (the red forces), which, according to estimations, could happen simultaneously with the Japanese invasion. War Plan Red paid special attention to British territories, such as Newfoundland (coded Red ), India ( Ruby ), Canada (Crimson), New Zealand (Garnet), and Australia ( Scarlet ). Because the Atlantic Ocean was separating the British Empire from the United States, it was established not to carry out any attacks outside the Western hemisphere. Instead, the United States planned to conquer Canada and use it as a strongpoint in all further negotiations. War Plan Red did not imply explicit military conflict; it rather focused on meddling with British-Canadian trade by keeping the US fleet in the western North Atlantic.
As for Germany who eventually become the main aggressor in World War II, the United States did not have a particular scenario for if the Western European country starts a conflict again. War Plan Black referred to the US plan to fight Germany in the early 1900s and World War I. The tangible scenario was Germanys seizure of French possessions in the Caribbean and attacks on the East Coast. Because Germany lost World War I, War Plan Black became irrelevant. However, it was not to say that the US seized to see the Western European country as a global threat. During Treaty of Versailles negotiations, the US was against Britains and Frances intentions to annex German lands. President Wilson saw it as a violation of human rights and suggested that the two winners enforce the right of the native populations to self-determination. In other words, the US was well-aware of Germanys possible retalization due to its tremendous politcial and economic losses resulting from World War I.
In contrast, it was the United States that economically benefitted from World War I. Even though partaking in the war cost the country around $32 billion, mobilizing industries opened up new prospects for Americans. What helped with post-WWI industrialization is the 44-month period of neutrality during which the US was selling goods for the war to Europeans. The war also created jobs both in the military, the government, and manufacturing, which explains why by 1918, the unemployment rate in the US had plummeted from 7.9 to 1.6%. It is said that WWI set a precedent for centralized economic planning because wartime required reallocation of all kinds of resources.
The 1920s were a decade of unprecedented economic growth as the US was establishing itself as a world power to be reckoned with. During this decade, the economy grew by 42% while per capita GDP surged from $6,460 to $8,016 per person, though economic prosperity did not benefit all members of society equally. World War I wreaked havoc on manufacturing in Europe, which made the US the worlds leading producer of consumer goods. The abundance of the latter was also ascribed to technological advances and inventions that characterized the era. For instance, the adoption of electricity changed Americans way of living as it affected transportation, entertainment, housekeeping, and communication. At the same time, the share of farming in GDP declined from 18.2 to 12%. Most likely, it is this shift in global power that allowed the US to transition from a traditional to a free market economy.
The economic boom of the 1920s served as a veneer for the actual weaknesses of the system. It was in the 1930s that the US experienced an economic downturn, also known as the Great Depression. A worldwide trend, the Great Depression hit the United States the most. The consequences included a 47% decrease in the industrial production, a 30% decline in gross domestic product (GDP), and soaring unemployment rates. All branches suffered from recession, military included because many veterans found themselves indefinitely out of work.
The question arises as to how military policies and economic changes impacted the countrys readiness to become involved in World War II. It should be said that many Americans lamented the losses the US suffered in World War I. Essentially, President Wilsons stance reflected the prevailing public opinion as Americans leaned toward neutrality and isolationism. However, World War II was imminent, and the US had to face it well-prepared. It appears that military reforms dating back to the early 20th century positively contributed to the formation of the Army. They created a track for volunteers wanting to joining the military forces as well as set out standards for training that were later used at boot camps. In 1939, the Army barely counted 174,000 people, but during World War II, it was expanded to include around eight million trained men and women. Despite the hard hit of the Great Depression, the US industries were still in a better position than their European counterparts, which also added to the countrys general preparedness for military conflict.
World War I was a turning point in the history of the United States. Following it, the US emerged as a new global superpower that other countries had to reckon with. After signing the Treaty of Versailles, the US prioritized peace, which, however, did not prevent it from developing contingency plans. Color-coded war plans set out various scenarious of fighting the British Empire, Japan, and Germany. The two decades between World Wars were contrasting in terms of economic prosperity. Despite the Great Depression, the US still faced World War II preparation, which could also be ascribed to the series of military reforms that aimed at the expansion and the mobilization of the Army.
Bibliography
Gentile, Gian, Michael E. Linick, Michael Shurkin. The Evolution of US Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present. California: RAND Corporation, 2017.
Gordon, Robert J. The Rise and Fall of American Growth. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2016.
Keene, Jennifer D. The United States and the First World War. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Lewis, Adrian R. The American Culture of War: A History of US Military Force from World War II to Operation Enduring Freedom. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Rockoff, Hugh. Until Its Over, Over There: The US Economy in World War I. No. w10580. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2004.
According to (John, 2003), after the First World War, America underwent several changes that were mainly aimed at recovering what had been lost in war. Americans who had kept neutrality before engaging themselves in war were not pleased with the outcome of war and decided to keep peace once more. Among the various changes underwent by America during their recovery period in the 1920s were changes in culture, economy as well as in the workforce.
Changes That Took Place in America after the First World War
The changes that took place in America after the First World War began with the election of a new president. At that time, Wilson was not in a position to run for presidency because, he had stroke. The main presidential candidates were Warren Harding and James Cox. Most Americans had been fed up with war which made them out rule Cox for presidency because; he was Supporter of the former president. Harding was therefore Americas preferred candidate since he argued that, America should focus on issues that were directed at developing the economy and not solving problems beyond its borders. There were also changes that took place in the American economy such as removing restrictions in the manufacturing companies. Therefore, the government seized to control industrial production, shipping as well as operations of railways. This improved American economy through allowing most industries that were previously involved in supplying ammunitions to produce other products. Better roads were constructed so as to allow transportation of products to the markets. Demands made by American drivers were more than they were before the First World War which led to construction of more and better roads (John, 2003).
According to (Robson, 2007), the workforce of America underwent great improvements due to advancement in technology which led to innovation. Most Americans acquired the new technology which was mostly applied in the manufacturing of automobiles. As a result, affordable cars were made which created more employment to American people due to high levels of specialization involved in the assembly of cars. More businesses were also opened alongside the new roads that had been constructed to cater for the large numbers of car. The new businesses called for more people to work, thereby increasing the countrys workforce. The press also benefited from the new technology as more radio stations were opened leading to demand for more workers.
Culture which was portrayed in the lifestyles of Americans after the First World War underwent some changes. These changes resulted from economic as well as technological changes. The manufacture of affordable cars allowed more people to own cars which made more families shift from towns to live in the farms. Also, traveling for leisure was made easier, as families used their car which was not the case before, to explore and visit several parts of the country. Improvements in economy and workforce allowed Americans to enjoy a better life which was characterized by more luxuries (Robson, 2007).
Conclusion
Although they had won the battle against Germans, Americans had a lot to learn from damages caused by the First World War. Their fellow Americans had lost their lives in war as they tried to solve problems that were beyond its borders. Therefore the changes that took place in America were directed to making it a better country which was led by Harding, their new president. Those changes were noticed in several areas among them being culture, economy and workforce (Robson, 2007).
References
John A. (2003): Reformers and War: Cambridge University Press pp. 45-50
Robson S. (2007): The First World War: Pearson Longman pp. 34-36
The USA entered the war in 1917; before that, it remained neutral. President W. Wilson, concerned about its possible adverse consequences for the United States in dragging out hostilities, tried to appear as a mediator between the warring countries. His peacekeeping efforts were unsuccessful, mainly because both sides did not lose hope of winning the decisive battle. The United States is believed to have entered the war after sinking the American liner Lusitania by a German submarine in 1915. However, other important factors influenced the United States to enter World War I in 1917.
Political factors include Wilsons desire to get a seat in the post-war negotiations to promote his idea of the League of Nations. Without the war, these ideas would not have been heard by the countries of Europe. It is assumed that the US desire to become a world power also became the reason for entering the war (Stevenson 23). Having entered in 1917, the United States possessed enormous power and strength and had every chance of implementing its plans. Analyzing the economic factors of entering the war, the situation that developed in Atlanta can be noted when the United States took its side. The United States began to provide loans to its allies at a reasonably high-interest rate. Such a move will give the country a chance to generate income in the future and have some influence over the debtor countries in the present.
Thus, having entered the First World War shortly before the end, the United States of America became the world leader in all respects. Due to the competent actions of President W. Wilson, the USA was able to achieve some of the goals set before its entry. The war events served as a turning point that marked the end of the modern era and made radical adjustments to the economic and political world order.
Work Cited
Stevenson, David. 1917: war, peace, and revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017.
There are numerous authors who have endeavoured to identify and describe the factors which triggered the First World War. John Merriman has given an account of the events which prepared the ground for the war to start. In his description of the war, it is clear that Europe played a key role towards the formation of the war alliances.
Europe is said to have formed a series of alliances which were later used in the war. It was the ideological compromise between France and Russia, which started in the twentieth century that led to the war alliances. The following are the key factors that sparked the First World War.
The Causes of the First World War
First, the growth of nationalism in Europe was largely untamable. The French Revolution caused a strong sense of nationalism, which was spread in many parts of Europe. Ideologies of sovereignty dominated the minds of European leaders. It, therefore, became a duty of European leaders at the time to spread the wave of nationalism in other parts of the world. In so doing, nationalism formed a strong political force which eventually led to the First World War.
Secondly, the unresolved conflicts in Europe were a propelling force of the First World War. John Merriman gives an elaborate account of the years preceding the war. In his analysis, the factors which caused the war were intertwined. The four decades, which preceded the war, were marred by hostility and conflicts between different states in Europe. A period of militarism was created.
The statesmen further formed alliances to support their militarism agenda. The weapons and army training was not enough, and alignments of military power were formed. The imperialism factors could not be ruled out at the initial stages of the war. The war emanated from the Central Europe and later spread to other parts of the world.
Thirdly, the factors mentioned above were aggravated by the existence of diplomatic problems between the superpowers of Europe by the time. As John Merriman puts it, diplomatic clashes created a period of tension between the European superpowers. The diplomatic clashes occurred at a time when there was a crucial imbalance of power in Europe.
The tensions created over the territory of the Balkans were a spark to the war which had long been prepared for. The untamed competition between Russia, Serbia and Austria-Hungary eventually caused other European powers to join the war.
Fourth, the period before the war was attributed to countries accumulating wealth through the control of overseas colonies. United Kingdom and France were extremely wealthy and powerful through colonial control of trade and resources. Russia and other European countries had similar ambitions, which were repeatedly frustrated by the United Kingdom. This created tensions, which gave birth to the war.
The Role of America Entering the War and Russias Exit
During the initial stages of the war, America maintained a neutral stand. The American participation in the war was caused by the German use of the U-boat which killed 128 Americans. The American participation played a crucial role in the defeat of Germany. The victory of the Allied powers was due to the American support. The exit of Russia from the war weakened the Allied forces. The Allied forces would have faced a defeat, if American forces never intervened.
Conclusion
The First World War was caused by a series of factors intertwined together has John Merriman asserts. Central Europe played a leading role in the war. The Allied forces were seriously weakened by the exit of Russia from the war. The American venture in the war strengthened the Allied forces.