Category: World War 1

Introduction

More than ninety years after the first volley was fired in the trenches, the discussion on the causes of World War I still continues. There are many theories and ideas as to the proverbial spark that started it all. For instance, historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay, in The Origins of the World War, made the assertion that “secret alliances, militarism, nationalism, economic imperialism, and the newspaper press” are the five most important causes of World War I (Herwig, p.16). While this would make an interesting discussion, it would be impossible to cover all of those factors in this study. It would be better to simplify the discussion by pointing out two major reasons why World War I engulfed much of Europe and affected the rest of the world. Firstly it has to do with age long conflicts between ethnic groups residing within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Secondly, World War I broke out as the indirect result complicated relationships among major European powers and this includes military alliances that forced allies to fight side by side with their allies even if they do not want to take part in World War I.

Igniting the Flames of War

On June 28, 1914, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie were visiting Bosnia where the Habsburg army was performing military maneuvers. It was supposed to be a routine event and something that men of royal blood are obligated to attend. But from the beginning, there were already signs that something bad was going to happen. First of all, it was an ill-chosen day because June 28 is the anniversary of the defeat of Serbia by the Turks in 1389 A.D. (Keegan, p. 49). This is the day that Serbian marked the beginning of suffering because from that point forward, starting form the conquest of the Turks, they experienced a long history of oppression from foreign overlords (Keegan, p. 49). Moreover, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie were in the wrong place at the wrong time because Bosnia was annexed by Austro-Hungary in 1908 (Keegan, p.49).

On this very day, the Serbian people are in mourning, remembering their sufferings in the hands of their oppressors. On this day, June 28, many Serbians were full of patriotism. The slightest provocation will lead to irrational actions that will hurt a lot of people. In fact, “the provincial administration had been warned that Ferdinand’s visit was unwelcome and might be dangerous” (Keegan, p.49). But Ferdinand, thinking perhaps that his actions were non-aggressive, ignored the warnings coming from the local leaders. Little did he know that the military maneuvers performed by members of the Austro-Hungarian army, stirred strong patriotic feelings from the Serbians.

These maneuvers were an affront to the Serbians and were especially offensive to a group of radicals called the Black Hand and the Young Bosnia Organization. The members of the aforementioned groups made secret plans to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand. The presence of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in the said maneuvers was the perfect opportunity. Archduke Ferdinand, ignorant of the plans and having a false sense of security in the midst of a large contingent of military personnel could never have thought that June 28, 1914 was his last day on earth. Gavrilo Princip, a young Serbian patriot was given the task to assassinate the archduke and he was able to carry the plans to perfection, killing Ferdinand and his wife and setting in motion a chain of events that will soon destroy the lives of millions of people and plunge Europe into an economic disaster that will take decades to repair.

Ethnic conflicts in Austro-Hungary

It is kind of bizarre to think that Gavrilo Princip and other members of radicals can be easily provoked by a display of military power. Although oppressed people are never happy when their masters show their military might it is still difficult to accept that this feeling can lead someone to shoot an heir to the throne and kill him in public. But upon closer examination of the ethnic composition of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it will be revealed that a large part of the population are of Slavic descent from which Serbians like Gavrilo Princip came from. Although the Slavs comprise the bulk of the population they are not the most dominant group.

According to one historian the following is a breakdown of the diverse ethnic population in the Austro-Hungarian Empire: Germans 24%; Hungarians 20%; Romanians 6%; Italians 3%; and Slavs 47% (Tonge, S, 1999). It is important to note that almost half of the population is composed of Slavs but they have no say in how their country should be governed. At that time, Austro-Hungary was a dualistic country governed by Germans and Hungarians, but the two groups together did not account for even half of the population. The Slavic people were oppressed for centuries by the Austro-Hungarian Empire with added pressure from its allies the German Empire.

When Gavrilo Princip pulled the trigger, he did it in behalf of all the Slavic people and he is hoping that this act will unite everyone to participate in a revolution to overthrow the yoke of the oppressors. After the capture of Gavrilo Princip it was time for the Austro-Hungarian Empire to react and teach the rebels a lesson they will not forget. They issued an ultimatum in order for those who took part in the conspiracy to surrender. If the perpetrators and mastermind of the assassination plot was no known before the deadline then there will be serious repercussions for the Serbians.

The ultimatum was directed at the Serbians who were of Slavic descent. It is important to reiterate this fact because the Russians are also of Slavic descent and this means that there is natural connection between the two ethnic groups. This bond between Serbians and Russians will play a major part in inciting nations to join the war. For instance, since most of the Serbians are Slavs, Serbian’s resistance would encourage Slavs in Austro-Hungary to revolt, which was a great threat to the Austro-Hungarian government. Furthermore, since the Serbians are part of a multicultural society, they can also easily encourage the other members of the minority, the Romanians and the Italians to fight for their freedom. In the letter from Prince G.N. Trubetskoi to Nicholas II in January 1914:

“Austro-Hungary will, in the perhaps not too distant future face a choice between two paths: either fundamental reconstruction of the state structure on the basis of federation of the different nationalities, or a desperate struggle aimed at the final confirmation of the predominance of the German-Hungarian minority over all the other peoples in the Empire…. At a given moment, especially if Germany were disposed towards this, the warlike tendency might come out on top in Austria-Hungary, and its supporters are already pointing out that war is perhaps the only way out of insoluble internal difficulties.” (Herwig, p.188)

Trubetskoi’s words were right on target. There is reason to be concerned and therefore he made an emphatic statement that there can be two ways to resolve the crisis. He suggested that the decision makers in Austro-Hungary can prevent a Slav revolt by building up the trialism system which is adding a third Slavic component to the original Dual Monarchy. The effect of this action is to reduce the complicated internal ethnic tensions.

The second option is more direct and it is to completely suppress the Serbians and other groups who are encouraging others to rebellion. Before his death, Archduke Franz Ferdinand insisted that trialism would be the best solution (Herwig, H. 2003). However, this suggestion would also reduce the Hungarian power, which would bring about a new national issue – there will be ethnic groups other than Slavs who will clamor for more rights and privileges. Hungarians and Germans would certainly reject this idea. Some other decision makers insisted on taking the field against Serbia to completely end its national conflicts.

The classic book, The Origins of World War I provide the details, “The string of losses and the imminent threat led the top leaders to a now-or-never conclusion: the empire must react; it must end the Serbian threat, or else, like the Ottomans, it would proceed to an ultimate decline.” (Herwig,H. p.444). Judging from this analysis, it is easy to see that the Slavic nations’ strong desire for independence, especially in Serbia, forced Austro-Hungary to resort to violence. The leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire firmly believed that if they will not act now, if they will not go to war then they will stand to lose everything. Thus, the empire initiated war against the Serbians in 1914.

Interlocking relationships among European Countries

If the basis for going to war was the murder of Ferdinand and the open defiance of the Serbians then the war would have been limited between the empire and the Serbians. However, the complicated conflicts and interlocking relationships among the European major powers escalated the limited war to a world war. At that time, one country’s decisions directly influenced other countries’ decisions: France would go to war with support from Russia and vice versa if either was attacked by Germany; Britain would offer assistance to France if their vital interests were threatened; Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy (the Triple Entente) would go to war together if any of them was attacked by either Russia or France. (Keegan, J. p.52). As a result, every country’s decision highly depends upon its relationship with other countries, military alliances and then the assumptions on what the others might do as well as the predictions on what will happen to their vital interests in the region.

The Germans are willing to support Austro-Hungary if a war would break out between them and the Russians. This is because Germany believed that Britain would stay neutral. The German leaders thought that if they will emerge triumphant – with Italy as one of the principal members of the Triple Entente – they would expand their influence and solidify their hold on Central Europe. German decision makers’ extreme greediness made them belligerent. They made the bold prediction that even if France will come to the aid of Russia the Triple Entente can still defeat them. If German national leaders were able to foresee that Great Britain will be forced to join the war, then they would not have risked going to war.

Going back to the earlier events that led to World War I, Austro-Hungary made a wrong analysis when it came to the Russia’s sentiments. The Austro-Hungarian Empire concluded that although Serbians and Russians are closely knit because of a shared heritage, they argued that the Russians will not gain anything of value if they will go to war with the Serbians (Keegan, p.51). Their analysis was based on Russia’s past actions. In 1913 the Bulgarians, men and women of Slavic heritage were also threatened by war and yet Russia did not come to their rescue. Furthermore, the Austro-Hungarian Empire knew from experience that they can easily scare Russia if they get the support of Germany. In 1908, when they conquered Bosnia, Russia agreed to support the Bosnians but when Germany participated in the conflict Russia backed out knowing that it is a hopeless situation. So Austro-Hungary thought that the war must be a war between Serbia and Austro-Hungary and if they can get help from Germany they can be assured of non-interference from other major military power. What Austro-Hungary failed to anticipate was Russia’s secret alliance with the French that made their position much stronger and provided them the confidence to stand up against the Triple Entente.

This gave Russia a newfound resolve and this time around it stood by Serbia all the way until the dying hours of the final ultimatum in 1914. Their attitude was defiance against the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Sazonov, the foreign minister of Russia explained their position:

The moment had come when Russia, faced with the annihilation of Serbia, would lose all her authority if she did not declare herself the defender of a Slavonic nation threatened by powerful neighbors … if Russia failed to fulfill her historic mission she would be considered a decadent state and would henceforth have to take second place among the powers. (Herwig, p.115)

From Sazonov’s words, we can see that Russia was determined to help Serbia during her darkest moments. On the other hand Russia was willing to go to war to save its reputation and to show that she rightfully belongs to the elite club of military superpowers. Russia is tired from being kicked around by other powerful nations in Europe, this time Russia will show them what she is made of. Moreover, Russian political leaders thought that in 194, Russia had enough military and economic might to participate in an all out war. Furthermore, Russia is more than willing to bounce back from a humiliating defeat from an Asian upstart – the Japanese Imperial Army. In the recently concluded Russo-Japanese War (Herwig, p.445), Japan convincingly defeated the Russians. Thus, Russia decided to join the war.

Although France had a long-standing hostility towards Germany it would be better if this war could be avoided. In a conflict of this magnitude there would surely be a loser who will suffer tremendous loss of life and property. However, France had to honor its alliance with Russia. If France decided to break her promise, she would be left without an ally in the future and she will be isolated. No one can afford to be weak during the early phase of the 20^th century because during this period in human history it seems that nations were constantly at war therefore alliances are very precious. Every nation must do its utmost best to honor alliances or pay a terrible price in the future. Therefore, France was forced to take the risk of war and frankly speaking, she did not have any other option.

Unlike Austro-Hungary, Germany, France, and Russia, Britain had a different reason to go to war. It decided to follow France and Russia’s decision simply because it was afraid that she will be isolated and trapped in an increasingly volatile and dangerous situation. Great Britain, like France had to choose which side to support. But before going all out for war, Britain tried to exhaust every possible means to prevent a full scale war. Great Britain tried hard to defuse the crisis, offering mediation, the Foreign Secretary of Britain stated:

The danger of a European war, should Austro-Hungary invade Serbian territory would become immediate. The results of such a war between four nations would be absolutely incalculable (Herwig,H. p.280)

But just like France, Great Britain was forced into a corner. If Germany and Austro-Hungary beat Serbia, then Britain’s position of mistress of the seas would be seriously threatened. Furthermore, as an alliance member, Britain was expected to support France and Russia in the war. If Britain will turn its back against its allies then they will not forgive this treachery. So the battle for supremacy in the high seas as well as the effects of the interlocking relationship with its allies, Britain was forced to participate in World War I.

In contrast, Italy participated in the war knowing that it has chosen the best and the strongest alliance. Italy, just like many of the nations that were dragged into the conflict, had to quarrel with the Serbians. In fact, at that point, Italy had been a major country that managed to remain neutral for quite some time. Due to her past failures in the 19^th century, Italy deciced to join Germany and Austro-Hungary first in 1882 before the Triple Entente formed (Herwig, p360). But as the war about to begin, the Italians realized that the combined forces of the British and French can easily tip the war into their favor. As a result Italy tried to find a way to break free from the Triple Alliance (Herwig, p.370), It was the reason why Italy’s first response to the war was a declaration of neutrality that its leadership announced on 3^rd August 1914 (Herwig, H. p.356-367). In late 1914, when Austro-Hungary was not in a positive situation in the war any more, Italy seriously considered to join Russia, Britain, and France, who were more likely to win the war compared to the Triple Alliance. Italy was acting shrewdly and very much interested on sharing the war loot in the aftermath of World War I. Then finally, just like the rest of the participants, Italy had to choose sides and therefore it formally joined the Triple Entente in 1915.

One can easily see that in the very beginning the conflict between Austro-Hungary and the Serbians could have been contained in that region and not allowed to spill over Europe and other parts of the world. The conflicts between two countries can hardly cause a global conflict. However, the intricate military alliances as well as the web of interlocking relationships among the major countries created a very complicated and highly volatile situation. At the end there were two major camps and every major national player in Europe was forced to choose which side they must support. There was no middle-ground and no one was allowed to be mere spectators

Conclusion

The Serbians were oppressed in their own country and ruled by a people who are only a part of the minority. They comprise the largest percentage of the whole population but they are not the most dominant group in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This fact plus their past history of defeat and oppression forced them to train and equipped a lone assassin. Gavrilo Princip was sent to kill the heir to the Hapsburg throne. The death of Archduke Ferdinand started a chain-reaction of event that led to the first ever global conflict. Yet, upon closer examination, it is not enough to simply blame the 1914 crisis and the ethnic issues in the empire that started the war. It was also the complicated relationships among the six European countries that became the tipping point and ignited the flames of World War I. It was the fear of breaking military alliances that forced countries like France, Britain, and Italy to join the war. It is the pride of citizenship and national heritage that forced Russia to join the war and it is the pride and desire for power that forced Austro-Hungary and Germany to join forces in the hopes to control central Europe. All of these factors together contributed to the cause of World War I.

Reference

Hobsbawm, E. J. The Age of Empire: 1875-1914, New York: Random House, Inc.

Albertini, L. The origins of the War of 1914, 3 vols. London and New York, vol. 2, pp. 390-465

Herwig, H. (2003) The Origins of World War I. New York: Cambridge University Press

Keegan, J (1999) The First World War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.

Tonge, S. (1999) European Histroy.

Introduction

First World War (1914-1918) brought forth immense destruction and catastrophe to human race. The war terminated abruptly in 1917, the signing of the Armistice on 11 November seems paradoxical to many. Germany surrendered when its forces mostly stood on Allied soil and the vanquishers stopped without infringing inside the enemy territory. Critics have hailed this ceasefire to be premature.

This paper studies the reason why the First World War ended and why an Armistice was accepted on both sides i.e. the Germans as well as the Allies forces. The German leaders realized their military defeat but why did the Allies underestimate the extent of their victory? This paper argues that German resignation to the Armistice was out of military defeat, but the Allies acceptance of the surrender is due to the mutual distrust of its partners i.e. the distrust between Americans, British, and the French.

Justification

Liberal states aim at bringing about peace and prosperity. Liberal states will aim at establishing capitalist state and guaranteeing individual liberty. Given this understanding of liberalism, it can be argued that the Allied states wanted to bring about the turmoil on the European continent brought about by the German leadership to establish prosperity and peace. However, the deliberate humiliation of the German leadership at the hand of the Allied forces perpetrated through the signing of the “war guilt clause” indicates that the reason for the Allied forces was not solely to bring forth peace through the termination of the war.

This indicates that the desire of the Allied forces was infused in their schemes to polarize the power over the European continent among the allies and crush the German aggression for good. In addition to the distrust of the Germans, the Allied forces also distrusted their partners, which led to the universal disarmament proposal of 1919. This re-establishes the anarchist theory of mutual distrust of nations. The desire for power to control European continent drove the mistrust among the Allied forces and a sense of insecurity. Further, the termination of the world war also demonstrated the realist theory wherein all the nations wanted to end the war as its costs had become too high for all.

Further, all decisions are rationally taken to bring forth the best interest of the nations. This was exactly what was done at both the origin and the termination of the First World War. The high regard for national security and power over other nations led Germany to war at the beginning of First World War and they continued fighting until the German leaders felt that their enemies could threaten their security. The end was brought forth due to the acceptance of military defeat, and as the cost of war weighed higher than the benefits.

Recent research on origin of First World War shows that the war was the outcome of the deliberate expansionist desire of the German leadership to gain European hegemony and global reign (Lieber 189). Given this change in reasoning of the origin of the war, the reason for the termination of the war may also change. However, little scholarship had demonstrated the reason for which the termination of the First World War. Therefore, it is important in the light of the new availability of primary sources which show that the first world war was a calculated step, may also prove that the termination of the war was too a calculated, ration, decision to end the war weighing the cost and benefits o fits continuation and end. That is why a research into the reason of termination of First World War is important.

Literature Review

The literature on the origin of the First World War makes it abundantly clear that historians and international relations scholars traditionally believed that the vanquished surrendered and accepted defeat, which was the reason for the termination of the war. Another explanation of the termination of the world war is that both the sides i.e. the Germans and the Allied forces negotiated the settlement. However, the central question that criticizes this argument is that “How can two states reach an agreement in an anarchic realm with no central authority to enforce its terms?” (Goemans 10) In other words, the winner always has more power than the vanquished, and so why would the winner lose the opportunity to take advantage of his position?

Goemans believed that domestic German politics that had a great role in the termination of the First World War (29). The regime types and the situation of the domestic politics have a role to play in the termination of the war. This study reflects that regimes types that are divided into three categories such as dictatorship, mixed regimes, and democracies, influence the decision to end the war and the time of ending the war (Goemans 39).

Leaders minimize the domestic cost, which is the punishment the leader faces if they lose a war, by employing various strategies. Leaders in moderately repressive regimes face the maximum punishment as opposed to leaders from a non-repressive and highly repressive regime (Goemans 39-40). The research categorizes Britain and France as non-repressive regimes, Russia, and Germany as semi-repressive regimes and outlines that the latter were more ready to gamble to ensure victory. However, as the war progressed, all the parties saw their aims converge, and in 1918, none of the parties wanted to pay a higher price for the conflict (Goemans 311).

Dan Reiter believes that Germany continued fighting in the early 1918 as it distrusted the commitment of Britain and France in case of a settlement and wanted to gain control over Belgium (Reiter 166). Arguing on the lines of future expectation of the warring sides, the study points out that First World War did not end in before 1918 because both the parties expected a better outcome from the war (Reiter 167).

The Allied forces expected the advent of the American forces in their aid, which would better their chances of a victory, and the Germans expected to redeploy their forces from the eastern to the western border of the country that would make their chances of victory brighter (Reiter 167). The main aim of continuation of war for Germany was complete control over Belgium to make the nation secure from future attacks by the French or British forces (Reiter 171). Germany believed that a peace settlement might escalate future attacks on Germany, it continued to fight in early part of 1918. However, the termination was brought forth due to the German fear of the arrival of more American troops on the Western border would shift the balance of power.

Research on the post-World War I disarmament of Germany, it has been found that British, French, and American policy to German disarmament terms was a permanent solution to completely cripple the latter’s military power to prevent future aggression from the country (Stevenson 221). However, an early termination indicated that the distrust among the Allied forces: “In 1918 … the victors wished to limit the spread of Bolshevism and Britain to prevent too complete a French or American victory, while Wilson suspected his partners of being as imperialist as his enemies.” (Stevenson 222)

In another study conducted by Stevenson showed that the main reason for the ending of the First World War was the convergence of interest of the concerned parties. Stevenson studied primary sources from Germany, Britain, and France and on secondary sources of scholarly work on war termination scholarship by international relations scientists (Stevenson, 1918 Revisited 108). The research found that the Germans ended the war as they accepted their military defeat in the hands of the Allied forces and the Allied forces accepted the terms as they felt that “Continued fighting would have meant the death and mutilation of tens and even hundreds of thousands more men, and arching to Berlin would not in itself have protected Europe from another war.” (Stevenson 132)

The literature review shows that war termination theory of World War I is based on the argument that domestic conditions of Germany led to the end of the terminations of the war. However, the limitation of the studies on termination of First World War lays in the acceptation of the reason from one side of the acceptance of settlement i.e. the German side. Nevertheless very little has been discussed on the reasons why the Allied forces accepted the Armistice when the British were expecting a victory in face of more American support in early 1918. This paper will evaluate why the Allied forces entered the settlement to end the war in late 1918.

Methodology

The study of the termination of the First World War is based on the endogenous theory of war termination. According to the endogenous war termination theory, leaders who expect optimistic result out of a war will tend to initiate it (Slantchev 814). Further, at least two states are required to start a war, and one of them has to misjudge to get an outcome of the war. However, this cost benefit analysis goes wrong for the state who miscalculates the outcomes.

The study based on endogenous war termination theory suggests that initiators will initiate a war when they are certain of high chances of victory, and will end the war, when the perceived balance of power tilts. (Slantchev 827). This study on the termination of First World War will be based on this theory to see what were the cost benefit aspects that the British, French, Germans, and the United States faced to bring forth the termination of the war so abruptly.

Conclusion

The data that will be used for the study is based on the study of primary sources of World War I. The study is based on the primary sources or official documents issued by the British, French, German, and the United States to demonstrate the cost benefit analysis of the forces to understand why they ultimately settled for termination of the war. There is ample availability of primary sources of First World War from online website archives (war-diary.com; firstworldwar.com; WWI Document Archive).

References

firstworldwar. 2010. Web.

Goemans, Hein E. War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Lieber, Keir A. “The New History of World War I and What It Means for International Relations Theory.” International Security Vol. 32, No. 2 (2007): 155–191.

Reiter, Dan. How Wars End. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Slantchev, Branislav L. “How Initiators End TheirWars: The Duration of Warfare and the Terms of Peace.” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 48, No. 4 (2004): 813–829.

Stevenson, David. “1918 Revisited.” The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 28, No. 1 (2005): 107 – 139.

—. “Britain, France and the Origins of German Disarmament, 1916–19.” The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 29, No. 2 (2006): 195 – 224.

war-diary. 2010. Web.

WWI Document Archive. 2010. Web.

The advent of the US participation in the First World War signified a marked shift from the isolationist stance it had adopted by being neutral. Although a combination of factors—including trade alliances and the interception of the Zimmerman note—encouraged the decision to join the fray, Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare was the biggest reason for the US involvement. Attacks on American ships constituted a direct assault on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the US as a nation.

Attacks on American merchant ships by German U-boats posed a challenge to neutral position that the US had adopted when the war broke out. According to Knispel (2017), Germans knew that the US would be averse to unrestrained submarine warfare but launched it anyway as a provocation. There is a contention that German leadership had made an explicit admission on the day before the deployment of the submarines that they were counting upon war with America (Knispel, 2017).

Direct attacks on American vessels inevitably drew the US into the war since they constituted an affront to its sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as a blatant disregard to its declaration of neutrality. Although the Zimmerman Telegram was also influential, Knispel contends that there is no proof in any of the official records that the government took the threats contained in the note seriously (2017). Trade is also unlikely to suffice because the economies of its allies had already been devastated by the war and international commerce was not a priority at that point. Accordingly, sinking of the ships by the U-boats was the major reason for the US involvement.

Various factors were responsible for the involvement of the US in the First World War. However, the unrestricted submarine warfare employed by the Germans did not spare American merchant ships. Disregarding US’s neutrality and undermining its sovereignty and territorial integrity posed an open invitation to the war.

Reference

Knispel, S. (2017). Why did the U.S. enter World War I?. NewsCenter. Web.

It has been over a hundred years since the U.S entered into World War I (WWI). During the era, a lot of strategies and logistics were developed. They have had an impact on the U.S army to date, and are significant today as they were one hundred years ago. Some of the major strategies include the use of airplanes in the field of battle, employing armored vehicles, and electronic communication. This and many more are strategies that were brought about by World War I and have continued to be used over the years. Hence, WWI still influences the U.S army to date.

Most of the European armies employed aircraft and no one thought that this would majorly assist in the war. The Europeans produced new aircrafts each year that were better and more developed than the previous versions. The U.S war airplanes development, on the other hand, remained stagnant due to lack of funds and monopolization (U.S. Center for Military History, 2017). By 1918, the American army was using British and French planes, but they faced opponents that were more experienced hence, this droves them to developing their aircraft. Today, the Air force, which is a part of the military service, is devoted to airpower.

Electronic communication was highly improved during WWI. The army mostly used, ‘transoceanic telegraph wires’, that enabled the American troops in Europe to communicate effectively with their leaders in the U.S. Similarly, in France the American soldiers built a communication network that included telegraph lines, and telephones (U.S. Center for Military History, 2017). Although the communication was limited, it enabled the army to effectively communicate with each other. Technology has since evolved and tremendously grown since the war and the army can communicate with each other regardless of where they are.

World War I was a major historical event especially in the west and it led to a significant impact on the American army. The U.S army developed some strategies, like aircraft development and communication enhancement. This enabled them to fight against their opponents easily and avoided being attacked unaware. The strategies and logistics have been significant to date and have also improved with time.

Reference

U.S. Center for Military History. (2017). 7 ways WWI still impacts today’s Army. Www.army.mil.

Introduction

When World War I (WWI) broke out throughout Europe, the then US president declared that the nation would remain neutral in the fight. Most Americans supported this non-intervention policy with no vital interests. Locke & Wright (2019) state that the opinion of the public on neutrality began changing in 1915. As a result, President Wilson sought the approval of Congress to declare war against Germany and America officially joined the conflict on 6^th April 1917 (Locke & Wright, 2019). Consequently, the US domestic policy officially transited from that of isolation to involvement in the affairs of Europe in WWI.

Issues that Led the US to Join WWI And Declare War against Germany

Although the Germans had promised to stop attacking passenger and merchant ships, they resumed unrestricted submarine warfare on the grounds that it would give them victory in the war. Further, the British, in January 1917, decrypted a ciphered message from the foreign minister of Germany to the country’s minister in Mexico. The telegram proposed a Mexico and Germany alliance in case America participated in the war on her Allies’ side (Locke &Wright, 2019). The Zimmerman telegram news and German’s recommencement of submarine attacks outraged the US public and became the primary motivation behind the decision for America to enter into WWI.

Wilson’s Post WWI Plan and its Progressiveness

President Wilson still sought peace above everything and, as a result, he publicized the Fourteen Points, which was a principles statement aimed for peace negotiations to bring WWI to an end. The most effective plan in this declaration was the call for the creation of the League of Nations, an international association designed to maintain world peace by restoring an enduring, and equitable global balance based on the consensus of the great powers. Wilson’s plan can be considered progressive because it took several domestic progressive ideas and transformed them into foreign policy (Locke & Wright, 2019). The proposal served as the framework of today’s United Nations, which affords mutual territorial integrity and political independence guarantees to all states.

Conclusion

WWI is among the most destructive and deadly conflicts that the world had experienced: millions of people died, and Europe was primarily leveled. The issues that led to America’s involvement in this were the German’s resumption of unexpected submarine attacks and the Zimmerman telegram. However, Wilson wanted peace, and he announced the Fourteen Points, a plan that consists of principles for peaceful negotiations. The plan was progressive as it led to the formation of today’s United Nations, among other policies.

Reference

Locke, J. & Wright, B. (2019). The American yawp: World War I & its aftermath. Stanford University Press. Web.

Introduction

The First World War is one of the bloodiest events in the history of humankind. Formally, it began in 1914 and ended only four years later, in 1918. The “official” reason for the war is “Murder at Sarajevo,” the killing of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife. The most significant revolutions were committed; more than 10 million soldiers were killed during the years of the Great War. The main result of the battle was the victory of the Entente and the collapse of the four largest empires: the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and German. The essay reveals the topic of the first military conflict taking place on “the world stage.”

The Origins of World War I and Its Inevitability

The question of the causes of the Great War remains open today; there are many guesses and theories about this topic. President Woodrow Wilson claimed that the war began not for one specific and solid reason but several at once. Nevertheless, the official reason for the outbreak of hostilities is the Sarajevo murder in July 1914, which had a huge resonance. Gavrilo Princip, a member of the “Black Hand” organization of the “Young Bosnia” movement, killed Archduke Frans Ferdinand. At the same time, there were hidden principles and motives – the desire of the leading powers to dominate the world and its reconstruction. The participating countries were divided into opposing camps: “the Entente” and “the Central Powers.” Contradictions were growing between the countries, and they could only win resources from each other.

Certainly, the war was inevitable for several reasons, listed below. Firstly, the differences between the great powers had been growing significantly earlier, until the event in 1914. “The Triple Alliance” and “the Entente bloc” were formed for a “specific” reason. The murder of the Archduke is only an impetus to the outcome of a fierce worldwide struggle. Thus, there was a reason for Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia. Secondly, each country wanted domination and appropriated all the reserves and resources by exploiting the colonies (Keene, 2021). It was impossible to get them from the Indians, Africans, and South Americans.

Maintaining Neutrality

The United States remained neutral until April 6, 1917, when the American people entered the First World War. Most likely, the delaying of military operations would lead to possible adverse consequences for the country. Therefore, it would not have been possible to maintain neutrality in World War I for a long time. First of all, the States did not forgive Germany for sinking the liner “Lusitania” in 1915, when more than 100 American citizens died. In addition, President Wilson threatened the German people to take radical measures. “The opposite side” ignored his message, and the US ships continued to be destroyed. Besides, Germany offered Mexico to join the war against the United States together. Perhaps, the other reason for entering the war was that the United States wanted to become a “world power.” Having entered in 1917, the States had great strength and every chance of success of the plans (Dyer, 2018). Thus, having entered the First World War shortly before the end, the American state became the world leader in all indicators, also thanks to the competent actions of President Wilson.

The US Entering World War I

Becoming the first president in the history of the United States to come to the White House, Woodrow Wilson declared his desire to “make the world safe for democracy.” Thus, the American revolutionaries radically changed the course of the First World War; they laid the principle of being an example for the whole world. The entry of America into the war played a decisive role in stopping the advance of German troops and breaking the enemy’s spirit. After the United States provided humanitarian assistance to the allies at the beginning of the war, they showed moral fortitude in the future. They selflessly participated in hostilities, bringing victory and the onset of peace closer.

The Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles is the most important treaty signed in 1919. The document signed at Versailles put an end to world disagreements and temporarily protected the rest of the world from German hostilities. The results of the First World War dealt a severe blow not only to the defeated but also to the winners. Therefore, some called this peace just a truce because Germany will sooner or later try to take revenge and the Second World War was inevitable (Farmer, 2018). If one talks about the positive impact of the Versailles Peace Treaty, the idea of a democratic world continued to live.

Approving the Treaty of Versailles

The United States Senate should have approved the Treaty of Versailles for the following reason. America suffered many losses and adverse consequences; many Americans died, giving honor to their state during the Great War. For this reason, the United States should unite with other countries and help prevent another major war. If all the world’s peoples act against the “common enemy,” they will have no reason to create a conflict. Every society will begin to build its new future, to live in peace and harmony, without repressions from empires.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the First World War is a colossal phenomenon in world history, affecting every state and society. This battle marked the beginning of the century of all major revolutions – social, scientific, geopolitical, economic, and ideological. Therefore, the entry of the United States of America helped to radically influence the balance of forces and bring the end of the war closer. The entrepreneurial spirit of the Americans was able to restrain, albeit for a short time, German oppression and the desire to subjugate the whole world.

References

Dyer, J. (2018). Transforming America: U. S. history since 1877, a war to end all wars: Part 2 [Video]. Web.

Farmer, B. (2018). The Treaty of Versailles and the rise of Nazism.The New American.

Keene, J. D. (2021). The United States and the First World War. Routledge.

Introduction

World War I commenced with the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 and tore Europe into two belligerents. The first was called Triple Entente and consisted of France, Russia, and the U.K., opposed by the Triple Alliance of Italy, Germany, and Austria-Hungary. However, in 1917, after Russian Empire was forced out of the war due to the socialist revolution, the U.S.A. joined the Triple Entente. This paper will outline the events leading to America’s entrance into the war, the obstacles faced by the U.S. military, and the role of American women and minorities.

America’s Entrance into World War I

Initially, the American government did not plan to join the war. Berg and Jansen (2018) state that one of the central conflicts, leading to the U.S. intervention was the crash of Lusitania – a British passenger ship with over a hundred American passengers destroyed by a German submarine. The authors remark that while the secretary of the state opposed the intervention, Woodrow Wilson “considered Germany a potential threat to the United States and a chief obstacle to mediation” (2018, p. 600). According to the background reading material titled “America Enters the War”, the U.S.A. declared war on Germany on April 4th, 1917. One of the concepts, explaining this decision, was the balance of power, which, when disrupted, presents a challenge for the whole world. Furthermore, Kennedy (2018) points out that Wilson adhered to the policy that ensured the preservation of the U.S. status quo and influence over Latin America and China, resulting in the Versailles Treaty and League of Nations. Ultimately, the U.S. decision of joining the war was largely based on the seeming concern for national security as well as Wilson’s ambitions of creating a new world order.

As far as the U.S. military campaign is concerned, the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) were expected to change the course of the war and ended up losing over a hundred thousand men in combat. Perkins emphasizes the U.S. initial reliance on the open warfare doctrine that “imagined infantry brigades maneuvering outside the trenches that had immobilized the war months after it began in 1914” (2017, p. 6). The author argues that this strategy was excessively optimistic and called for a review of the doctrine as the U.S. military suffered extreme casualties due to its aggressive offense. Some of the unforeseen obstacles were the enemy’s heavy artillery and the use of poison gases. Subsequently, the AEF had to adopt the tactics of the European allies and shift the focus to defense rather than open warfare approach, thus, being able to overcome most aforementioned obstacles.

Concerning U.S. women and minorities, most American citizens were drafted for the war effort as a part of the preparedness movement. According to the background reading “On the Homefront”, the U.S. intervention followed an unprecedented pro-war propaganda campaign. Thus, the tradition of non-involvement was disrupted for the first time. As the majority of able men joined the AEF and left for Europe, American women took their places at the factories, learning various occupations they were previously denied or considered unfeminine. Moreover, Gavin argues that “those four years of war liberated women from old molds and stereotypes, provided new opportunities for them, and made them economically independent” (1997, p. 4). As for the U.S. minorities, Berg and Jansen (2018) mention that African and Mexican Americans recruited for war also tried to use the service to exercise their rights as American citizens. Nevertheless, the U.S. policy of segregation and discrimination continued into and after the war, eventually resulting in racial movements and protests.

Conclusion

In conclusion, American neutrality and abstinence from the war culminated in the U.S. intervention following the sinking of the Lusitania and was supported by the policy of Wilsonianism. The AEF drafted white Americans and minorities such as African and Mexican Americans alike while women contributed to the war effort back at the American production lines. The war had led to serious casualties owing to the American open warfare doctrine, however, also resulted in significant liberation and emancipation of American women and further radicalization of American racial minorities.

References

Berg, M. and Jansen, A. (2018). Americans in World War I – World War I in America. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 17(4), 599–607. Web.

Gavin, L. (1997). American women in World War I: They also served. University Press of Colorado.

Kennedy, R. A. (2018). Four new takes on Wilson, World War I, and the making of the post-war order. Journal of Strategic Studies, 41(7), 1058-1070. Web.

Perkins. D. G. (2017). Multi-domain battle driving change to win in the future. Military Review, 97(4), 6-12.

Introduction

The murder of Archduke Ferdinand and his spouse in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 sparked the July crisis that led to the British declaring war on Germany on 4 August. The killing of Archduke Ferdinand was a short-term causative factor. Five weeks of decision-making resulted in the start of a European war that quickly grew into a global conflict of unprecedented scope. Militarism, economic rivalry, nationalism, regional tensions, and the formation of the alliance system were other long-term and thematic causal factors of World War I. There was the competition between the United Kingdom, Germany, and France to exploit Africa economically. The American Civil War and the Revolutionary War provide unmistakable evidence that economic factors were the primary contributors to wars. Common economic factors that contributed to conflicts were competition for precious resources, imperialism, and fears of the effects of fiscal interdependence.

American Civil War

When the British colonized the South, they brought slavery with them, and by the 1850s, slave labor was essential in the agricultural industry. Slave labor was crucial to the plantation system’s vast growth of cotton and tobacco. Thus its replacement with wage workers would have been disastrous for the planters. As of 1860, the American South was generating 75% of the world’s cotton due to the institution of slavery on the part of its wealthy farmers. Public backing for slavery in the South was solid, and abolition would wipe out the enormous profits made by plantation owners. Nevertheless, beginning in the 1830s, with the second revival religious movement, staunch endorsement for slavery met growing criticism. An increasing number of Americans, particularly in the North, started to talk out against slavery on religious grounds.

Defenders of slavery upped their argument, saying that slaves needed to be owned for the economy to function and for the enslaved people’s good. Slavery’s apologists frequently appealed to racial stereotypes to make their case, claiming that slaves could not be trusted to take care of themselves and would be better off under the supervision of their masters. Hostilities broke out in April due to the South’s decision to break away from the Union and form the Confederate States of America in early 1861. The American South’s economy was in tatters by the time the Civil War ended. The Union army outlawed slavery in the South after their success in the Civil War. Many believe that industrialization, modern taxation, banking, and the usage of paper currency all began with the American Civil War.

The Revolutionary War

For the first half of the eighteenth century, Britain was preoccupied with its battles with other European countries, failing to safeguard the American colonies. Due to the need for the colonies to develop their own political and economic institutions, Britain adopted a ‘salubrious neglect’ policy, which resulted in lax enforcement of British mercantilist laws. Parliament’s focus shifted to the colonies when Britain claimed victory from the Seven Years’ War, despite incurring substantial war debts. Parliament’s new, more authoritarian stance toward the colonies marked the end of the age of ‘beneficial neglect’ in 1763. Britain’s new policies aimed to increase its authority over the territories by, among other things, taxing the colonists to raise money for the imperial guard that ensured the safety of the colonies. A series of new laws were created to regulate American economic operations in a way that benefited British mercantilists, and existing rules were enforced more strictly than ever before.

The Navigation Acts and the Writs of Assistance were among the preexisting laws that were given fresh enforcement. The Navigation Acts were a set of trade restrictions that mandated the use of British and colonial shipping for the transportation of commodities and imposed tariffs on products from anywhere other than Britain and her colonies. It was hoped that British business owners, producers, and shipbuilders, as well as their colonial counterparts, would benefit from these regulations. Court orders called Writs of Assistance were rarely used before 1763 and allowed British officers to scrutinize colonial homes, businesses, and ships for contraband goods. Unlike the earlier American search warrant, which only permitted officials to check in a specific spot for a particular object, European consent allowed investigators to scrutinize everywhere and seize contraband goods. Prime Minister George Grenville increased the number of royal tax collectors, supervisors, and naval patrols sent out in 1763 to enforce the Navigation Acts, while British officials enhanced the Writs of Assistance.

The new laws had an economic focus, encompassing the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Sugar Act of 1764. The Sugar Act lowered duty rates on non-British sugar imports into the colonies, although the law required strict adherence. Compared to other laws, the Stamp Act was more effective in sparking widespread outrage among the colonies. As opposed to the small commercial population that previously bore British taxes and tariffs, it was the first levy to involve a considerable part of colonists. Constitutional disputes were a significant cause of the American Revolutionary War against Great Britain. The struggle began in April 1775 with skirmishes between British forces and colonial fighters in Lexington and Concord and escalated into a full-scale war for independence the following summer.

Conclusion

Long-term and thematic causes of World War I included militarism, economic rivalry, nationalism, regional conflicts, and an established alliance system. Conflicts often broke out because of competition for limited resources, imperialism, and anxiety about the potential consequences of growing economic interdependence. The abolitionist effort to eradicate slavery throughout the US received a boost from the second great revolution. The Stamp Act caused more widespread outrage in the colonies than any other law. Battles at Lexington and Concord in April 1775 marked the beginning of what would become a full-scale battle for self-rule the following summer.

I believe that America did not remain neutral from 1914 to 1917. The claimed policy was not kept for several reasons. Even though the people of America were shocked and firmly against involvement in the war, the US president thought of the crisis as a turning point that could significantly change America’s place in the world. From 1914 to 1917, the policy of neutrality was subordinated to this task. It was a way to increase economic power, take important steps in regulating the economic life of society, and gradually strengthen military potential.

The first reason to state that America did not remain neutral is the arms supply. The US actively provided weapons to Britain and France, which increased trade with the Allies from 1914 to 1916 more than three times (Davidson et al., 2022). America got involved in the war economically, favoring supply to one European block, thus not being neutral.

The series of tragic events pushed the US even closer to involvement in the war. On the seventh of May, 1915, the British passenger liner sank because of a German commander, carrying away the lives of 1200 people, including 128 Americans (Davidson et al., 2022). The French liner sank due to a torpedo in a month, and several Americans got injured. Wilson made multiple attempts to be a “mediator” between the two blocs of European states and searched for the principles of “new diplomacy,” but, unfortunately, it was unsuccessful.

After effortless calls for communication with two of the European blocks, Wilson started to promote the expansion of the army and the construction of the navy. It showed that the US was getting ready to get involved in the war, breaking neutrality again.

References

Davidson, J. W., DeLay, B., Christine, L. H., Lytle, M., & Stoff, M. B. (2022). U.S. A Narrative History Volume II (9th ed.). McGraw Hill LLC.

The First World War is considered the seminal catastrophe of the 20^th century. The assumptions were made based on the fact that since the Black Death pandemic, Western Nations had not experienced another disaster with a devastating impact. The war had only lasted for four years and three months but had claimed over eight million lives from both sides of the warring alliances (The Seminal Tragedy). Additionally, the war impacted heavily on the psychological welfare of the survivors. It resulted in devastating effects which persisted long after the war was over. There were increased cataclysms in Europe over time; for instance, the war laid a foundation for the rise of Hitler and increased the influence of the Nazism ideology (The Seminal Tragedy). New states were formed while others were absorbed into bigger nations, influencing major continental map changes.

Before the start of WW1, the Western World had undergone extensive growth in terms of infrastructural development, economic growth, political stability, and social development. Even though these developments facilitated better living standards among the people, they also culminated in increasing rivalry and suspicion between countries. Consequently, they resulted in the formation of alliances, thus dividing themselves into two major world blocks. The alliances aimed to ensure that if a country were attacked, its allies would automatically join the world in its defense. Additionally, the alliances allowed countries with similar economic and development goals to unite, thereby rendering themselves strong economic and civilized development blocks. The Central Powers and the Triple Entente were the two major coalitions formed by the European countries.

The Triple Alliance was an agreement between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, and it has been subject to periodic renewal since its formation. This treaty was initially formed in 1882 between Germany and Austria-Hungary, and they remained allies; later, Italy joined the treaty to seek support against France. This followed its failed attempt to obtain colonies in North Africa due to increased competition with France. The treaty ensured that Italy would remain neutral if a disagreement between Austria-Hungary and Germany ensued (Western Civilization). Furthermore, if France attacked Italy, these two countries would attack without cause for provocation in defense of Italy. However, Italy made a similar agreement with France secretly; this was aimed at ensuring its safety.

However, as time progressed and tension between states increased, more countries joined the alliance, hence the name Central Powers. Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia, after which Russia began mobilizing its troops. In return, Germany gathered its troops along the Russian border, thus declaring war on Russia if it joined the war against Austria (Western Civilization). Nevertheless, Italy was reluctant to join the war because Austria-Hungary was an aggressive nation since it had gone against the treaty that prohibited it from interfering with the Balkans (Western Civilization). These arrangements were among the fundamental flaws of the western civilization that facilitated the First World War.

Countries that were against the central powers agreement formed an opposing alliance. The Allies included the British Empire, French Republic, and Russia. Italy defected from the Central powers and joined the Allies, citing that Germany and Austria-Hungary were too aggressive and that it was only natural for the Allies to retaliate (Western Civilization). Later on, the United States of America joined the war against the Central Powers following a series of unprovoked attacks. However, this entry was in terms of an associate power and not as part of the agreement (Western Civilization). These alliances were among the primary causes of the WW1 because countries could access support in terms of machinery and military power, thus promoting attacks and increased tensions.

The explanation is not complicated; this is because, with increased growth and development, western nations began to suspect each other, raising tension between different powers. Subsequently, they sought to establish alliances to ensure support if they were ever attacked. These alliances, in turn, created even more tensions and pressure since some countries started provoking others because they knew they had support (The Seminal Tragedy). The war had various effects on the warring societies and the world. Some of these effects included mass deaths and incapacitation of young people; for instance, France lost more than half of its young male population, and more others have maimed; these deaths were experienced on both sides of the warring countries, and this resulted in a serious shortage of both skilled and unskilled labor at a time when it was most needed (The Seminal Tragedy). Another effect of the war was the disruption of economic activities; mechanization was barely developed at the time as such human labor was the primary source of labor. Mandatory enlisting resulted in reduced human power, thereby impacting many economic activities.

Works Cited

Agostinone-Wilson, Faith. “Fascism and Right-Wing Populism: Similarities, Differences, and New Organizational Forms.” Already Enough! A Socialist Feminist Response to the Re-Emergence of Right-Wing Populism and Fascism in Media, Brill, 2020, pp. 31–60. JSTOR. Web.

Brenner, Michael and Riemer, Jeremiah. In Hitler’s Munich: Jews the Revolution and the Rise of Nazism. Princeton University Press 2022.

Paoletti, Matteo. “‘A Single Purpose: The Conquest of the Foreign Art Markets’: Theatre and Cultural Diplomacy in Mussolini’s Italy (1919–1927).” New Theatre Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, 2022, pp. 201–221., Web.

“The Seminal Tragedy of the 20th Century.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 2002, Web.

“Western Civilization II (His 104) – Biel.” Lumen, Web.