The Progressive Movement and the American Entry Into World War I

The Progressive Movement was a period of reform in the United States from the 1890s to the 1920s. This movement was driven by a desire to improve the lives of the people who were living in the country, particularly those in the working and middle classes. It was a response to the rapid industrialization and urbanization of the United States, which caused a range of social, economic, and political issues. The progressive movement sought to address these issues by advocating for greater government regulation of businesses and promoting fairness and equality. Along with putting an end to child labor, improving working conditions, and introducing social welfare programs, the Progressive Movement was the impetus for the United States’ entry into World War I

The Progressive Movement was led by a variety of individuals and organizations, all of whom had their own motivations and goals. Some, such as the American Federation of Labor and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, sought to improve working conditions and provide better opportunities for their members. Others, such as the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, advocated for the end of alcohol consumption and the protection of women and children (Fondren 19-20). Yet other organizations, such as the National Consumers League and the National Child Labor Committee, sought to protect consumers from unfair business practices and to end child labor.

It is important to state that the success of the progressive movement depended on the ability of its members to organize and work together to achieve their goals. They were successful in lobbying for the passage of a variety of laws and regulations, such as the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Clayton Antitrust Act. These laws were generated to protect the public from unlawful business practices and to ensure the safety of products and the rights of workers.

One should note that the progressive movement was also instrumental in the United States’ entry into World War I. At the time, the United States was largely isolationist in its foreign policy, and many of its citizens opposed involvement in the war. Although many of the settlement workers met war as a shock, they “were too committed to action” to avoid it (Davis 219). Hence, they started dedicating their efforts not only to domestic reforms but also to international affairs (Davis 218-219). The progressive movement recognized the importance of the war and the need to protect American allies, and they worked to convince the public and Congress of the necessity of American involvement. This effort was successful, and in April 1917, Congress declared war on Germany, marking the beginning of the United States’ involvement in World War I.

The motivations of the progressive movement were complex and varied, but they all sought to improve the lives of the people of the United States. By advocating for greater government regulation of businesses, an end to child labor, improved working conditions, and the introduction of social welfare programs, the progressive movement helped to make the country a fairer and more equitable place for all its citizens. Furthermore, it is possible to conclude that by pushing for the United States’ involvement in World War I, the movement helped to ensure a victory for the Allies and ultimately, a better world for everyone.

Works Cited

Davis, Allen Freeman. Spearheads for Reform: The Social Settlements and the Progressive Movement, 1890 to 1914. Rutgers University Press, 1985.

Fondren, Michael. The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union on Local, State, and Federal Government: An Arkansas Case Study, 1879-1984. 2018. Master’s Thesis. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Pozieres Battle in World War I on Western Front

The battle for the village of Pozieres was one of the deadliest and most remarkable for the Australian troops which took part in the First World War. The village had tactical importance and, hence, both German and allied armies tried to take control over the place. The Australian army learnt a lot of lessons from the war as well as the battle for Pozieres and incorporated the experience obtained in military education.

It is also noteworthy that the battle was characterised by excessive use of machine guns and artillery that was understood as one of the most potent tools. It is possible to analyse the battle (which is exemplary) to understand its major features and factors that determined the outcomes of the battle.

In the first place, it is necessary to note that the village had strategic importance as it was situated on a ridge and was a certain outpost for another defensive point. Pozieres was also “the location where two armies met, French and British” and it was crucial to take control over the place within the shortest time possible. The village was fortified by the German army, and there was a system of trenches and barbed wire. Besides, German troops occupying the village had a great number of machine guns which made the battle harsh.

The Australians knew about fortification of the village and employed a tactic which, eventually, had positive outcomes. Australian troops chose the tactic of “fire and movement.” Thus, the attacks started with excessive bombardments of the village, which lasted several days. During the bombardment, tear gas and phosgene were used. It is noteworthy that phosgene had a delayed outcome, and it had a reaction on the heart, and there were numerous causalities among soldiers. After the bombarding, the infantry advanced.

It is noteworthy that the first attack of the infantry was successful, but it was very costly as the Australians failed to evaluate fortification of the German trenches adequately. Captain C.E.W. Bean, who was official press correspondent, stressed that the attacked cost a lot of deaths and lots of wounded soldiers told about the battlefield which was turned into a mess. Further attacks employed more bombarding, and the result of this was the almost complete destruction of the first system of trenches which turned into an “unrecognisable powdered ditch.”

Notably, the Germans responded using the same tactics. The Australians were met by “heavy fire from rifles and machine guns, and shrapnel” and this was also an effective tactic as Australian troops had many causalities and had to move back. It is noteworthy that the use of artillery was seen as one of the most effective strategies and was employed by all armies in the First World War (this trend persisted in the Second World War as well).

Apart from this, the Germans resorted to tear gas as well The tear gas was effective if soldiers did not wear masks, and it had quite short-term outcomes. After heavy bombarding, German troops also tried to attack the Australians and were always met by considerable bombarding and sometimes hand-to-hand fighting. At this point, it is necessary to stress that the use of artillery was central to both parties and it was the reason why the battle led to so much causality and was named “nothing but mechanical slaughter.”

It is clear that the tactics used were similar, as was the performance of both forces. As has been mentioned above, the trenches of the Germans were well-fortified, which was one of the major reasons why they could hold the position for such a long period. There was also rather good communication between German troops and the use of artillery was efficient. The Australians effectively utilised artillery and managed to destroy a significant part of German trenches. Nonetheless, there were serious issues related to communication among the Australian troops and with their allies.

German bombardment destroyed the vast amount of communication trenches which were “blocked and collapsed” Australian troops were disconnected and somewhat disorganised as it was difficult to distinguish objects in the area which was completely damaged and altered by bombardment. At the same time, the infantry of both parties was effective as soldiers fight with all their vigour. However, the Australians managed to win the battle for the village as they had more resources (artillery and manpower).

Resources proved to be the major factor which led to the victory of the Australian troops. The village was attacked from different sides, and the Germans had to respond to these attacks. The lack of resources and especially manpower is clearly seen by the way the battle was held as Australians could not take control over the village as the Germans had more resources at the first stages of the battle. They used artillery extensively, and Australians had significant losses and were worn out by constant bombardment and attacks of the Germans. There was even the period when Australians could actually be defeated as at the beginning of August their resources almost came to an end. There were many wounded and dead; the trenches were badly damaged. Only forces which had been sent to the village could ensure the victory of the Australians. Thus, when manpower and artillery use increased, the Australians managed to take control over Pozieres.

It is also necessary to note that communication has proved to be very important (and sometimes decisive) for the victory. Thus, the Germans had well-fortified communication trenches and managed to keep their control over the three parts of trenches systems. At the same time, The Australians had significant issues with communication and could not defeat the Germans for a long period. Poor communication prevented them from the development of proper plans for massive attacks. Thus, when communication was improved, the Australians managed to attack and move further.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that the battle for the village of Pozieres was remarkable as it showed the significance of the use of artillery as well as communication. The forces were equal at the start of the battle, and the Germans even prevailed at certain periods since they had a well-established system of well-fortified trenches. However, the lack of resources forced the Germans to give the village away though they implemented a number of counter-attacks.

Therefore, the major outcome of the battle was the victory of the allied forces. The strategic location was taken, and the allied forces managed to proceed. It is also possible to add that the battle was a lesson for all the armies involved since it was an illustration of the efficacy of the use of artillery and the central role of communication.

Bibliography

Bean, C.E.W., ‘The Australians. Battlefield Pictures’, Sydney Morning Herald, 1916, p. 7

Bean, C.E.W., ‘The Australians. Fighting at Pozieres’, Sydney Morning Herald, 1916, p. 13.

Bean, C.E.W., ‘The Australians. Pozieres Battle. Bitter Night Attack. British Headquarters’, Sydney Morning Herald, 2 August 1916, p. 11.

Blair, D., Dinkum Diggers: An Australian Battalion at War, Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, 2001.

Charlton, P., Pozieres 1916: Australians on the Somme, London, Leo Cooper, 1986.

Grey, J., A Military History of Australia, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Events Leading Up to WWI

Introduction

World war 1 is one of the historical wars that has been documented and well remembered by many people. Its history has attracted attention from the present historians.

The war began because of a small conflict after Australia-Hungary declared to wage war on Serbia. The war began on 28 July 1914 and lasted for 5years ending in 1919. This was after the refusal of Serbia to accept the harsh penalties imposed to them by Austria-Hungary after the shooting of Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife.

Francis was to become the next king of Austria-Hungary. He was killed in Sarajevo in Bosnia and assassins were thought to be Serbian nationalist (Aaron 2006, 50). This conflict draw attention to other nations like Russia, Germany, Great Britain and France because of their prior involvement in making of treaties which had obliged them to defend some nations of their interest.

A number of events contributed to the war. Some of these events include the assassination of the incumbent king of Austria-Hungary by the Serbian nationalist, formation of alliances, military agreement between France and Russia, nationalism, imperialism, fight or interests in Morocco in northern Africa by both France and Germany, attempts by Austria-Hungary to annex Herzegovina and Bosnia on its territory amongst others.

Formation of Alliances

Before the actual break of the war, events happened demonstrating the break of a great war, which was breezing. Alliances were formed early even before the war broke up. The purpose of these alliances was to ensure support and unity in case of an attack or an invasion by alien nations. For instance, in 1882, Bismarck of Germany) went into an alliance with Italy and Austria-Hungary. This alliance, otherwise referred to as the ‘triple alliance’ was meant to ensure that every nation was to come to rescue of on another in times of attacks.

Military agreement

In 1893, a military agreement was made between France and Russia. This alliance was joined by the Great Britain in 1907 in alliance called the triple entente. Similar to the triple alliance, this alliance was also formed with intention of protecting each other in the cause of an attack.

These nations signed a memorandum, which they could supplement or intervene in the event of war or conflict by supplying weapons and even military personalities. Some of the agreements were broken for instance, when the war broke up, Italy, which had entered into agreement with Germany, and Austria-Hungary broke the agreement and entered in a secret agreement with the Great Britain and France in the Triple entente agreement. Many other secret agreements were entered into by other small European nations.

Nationalism

Nationalism was also one of the factors that led to the break of the WW1. Russia and Hungary argued over the control of the Balkan while on the other side France and the Germans were opposed to who was to control Morocco. “The Russians felt the need to protect the people of Slavic who were living there since their languages and traditions, customs were similar to theirs” (Mulligan 2011, 23).

Therefore, Russian decided to help the Serbians in getting the seaport a move that was opposed by the Austria-Hungary. This move also contributed to the start of the conflict and eventually to the war.

Imperialism

Imperialism was also as one of the major factor or event, which led to the world war one. In Asia for instance, Japan was trying to become dominant. On the other side, “Italy and Germany wanted to be the most powerful in affairs of European and in the process of building colonial empires there” (Mulligan 2011, 15).

This growth of Germany was not received well by the balance of power among the nations of Europe. The hope of the German nation was to try its best level to have equal or to outdo the Great Britain in terms of wealth and power. Its growth in military and economic powers also contributed to creation of uneasiness among its fellow nations. This plan of becoming imperial also accounted to one of the events that led to the rise of conflict as every nation wanted to be recognized commanding power and wealth.

Fight or interests in Morocco in northern Africa by both France and Germany

The fight or interests in question were also a contributor to the world war. The two nations France and Germany belong to different alliances and this caused the war. As Mulligan (2011, 18) points out, “In 1905, Germany emperor declaration that Morocco was to remain independent was not received well by France”.

Despite meeting of powerful nations in 1906 in Spain and an agreement that Morocco are independent, police powers presence from France remained in Morocco. To make the situation even worse, in 1911, the army from France was sent to Morocco, which aggravated Germany. “They also send warships to the airport of Moroccan port in the city of Agadir, which set the preparations of war” (Mulligan 2011, 14). This crisis was known as Agadir Affair, which saw, Frances supported by Italy and Great Britain.

Attempts by Austria-Hungary to annex Herzegovina and Bosnia on its territory

Attempt by Austria-Hungary in 1908 to add Bosnia and Herzegovina to its territory also aggravated the World War 1. This decision was vehemently opposed by the Slavs, which saw Russia come to the aid of Serbia while on the other side, Germany coming to the rescue of the Austria-Hungary. At this point, war did not break up as the Serbian gave in but formed the basis of the World War I, which began after the shooting of Archduke Francis Ferdinand by a Serbia nationalist.

Assassination of the incumbent king of Austria-Hungary by the Serbian nationalist

The peak of the war was agitated by the shooting of the incumbent Austria-Hungary king Francis by a Serbian. This shooting lend to the culmination of the war. The ultimatum that was given by the Austria- Hungary was turned down by the Serbia who in their view of the Austria-Hungary gave unsatisfied response. This agitated the Austria-Hungary side to declare war on Serbia on 28 of July the year 1914.

This saw Russia that was bound by a treaty to the Serbia nation mobilize its army to give defense to Serbia. This preparation took around six weeks to come to completion. This cause of action by the Russian caused “Germany, which was allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty lead the Russian in mobilization as a step or an act of war against Austria-Hungary, which led to scant warnings leading to Germany declaration of war on Russia on August 1st” (Seniavskii and Seniavskaia 2010, 74).

Frances who had entered a treaty to Russia found itself in war against Germany and to some extend with Austria Hungary after the Germany declaration which was done on 3 August. The Germany in a swift way invaded Paris through Belgium which was neutral and which was the shortest route to arrive at Paris. On 4 August, Britain, which, through loose word treaty, sought to protect France declaring war against Germany. Britain was obliged to protect Belgium, which was neutral. This obligation was as per the terms of 75 years treaty.

This invasion by the Germany made the Belgium king to appeal for Britain intervention. “This intervention by Britain led to her dominions and colonies abroad offer financial and military assistance, which included Canada, India, Australia, union of South Africa and New Zealand” (Seniavskii and Seniavskaia 2010, 77). Japan also declared war against Germany on August 23, 1914 after accepting a military agreement with Britain. After two days, Austria-Hungary refused the decision and responded to this by declaring war on Japan.

“Italy which was allied to both Austria –Hungary and Germany cited a clause which made them avoid entering in this fray which enabled it to evade or elude its obligation” (Seniavskii and Seniavskaia 2010, 73). Nevertheless, contrary to this it sought to defend Austria-Hungary in the event of a defensive war hence declared a policy of neutrality. This saw it join the conflict in 1915 by siding with its allies.

United States which had declared a policy of absolute neutrality signed by president Woodrow Wilson was to last only to 1917 after the Germany policy about unrestricted warfare in the submarine that was to threaten the commercial or trade ship led to their entrance into the war on April, 6, 1917. Many nations entered into the conflict, which lasted for the period 1914-1919 commonly known as the Great War or rather the World War I.

Why WWI was not as cut and dry, which was at fault like in WWII.

In WWI, cut and dry were not in fault as in WWII. WWII was mainly caused by various issues one being nationalist different more especially due to unresolved tensions that caused the WW1and the great depression witnessed in the 1930s. Hitler’s aim, which led to the breaking of the treaty of Versailles and the aggression of his allies that wanted communism.

Furthermore, passiveness of democratic nations like France, USA, Britain and failure of the League of Nations to keep peace lead to the Second World War. Therefore, it is imperative that World War I actually was fought on tangible reasons as opposed to the WW2. If appropriate measures were undertaken, the war could not actually occur. Therefore, in WWI cuts and dry were not in fault as in WWII.

Reference List

Aaron Gillette. 2006. Why did they Fight the Great War? A Multi-Level Class Analysis of the causes of the First World War. History Teacher 40, no.1 (January/February): 45-58.

Mulligan William. 2011. The origins of the first world war. History Review 69, no. 1 (March/April): 12-17.

Seniavskii Aleksandr and Seniavskaia Elena. 2010. The Historical Memory of Twentieth-Century Wars as an Arena of Ideological, Political, and Psychological Confrontation. Russian Studies in History 49, no. 1 (September/October): 53-91.

Importance of Accountability: World War I

In the article, The Blood Test Revisited: A New Look at German Casualty in World War I, by James McRandle and James Quirk, the authors try to put forward the idea that the statistics, provided in the previous records, was not very accurate.

It is clear from the beginning of this article, that the statistics on the World War I causalities indicates that the Germans suffered fewer casualties compared to their western counterparts, who are the French and the British. Even though, all the parties that had been involved in the World War I suffered casualties[1], thus, it is not right to give inaccurate report on the number of casualties.

The article confirms that obtaining accurate data on casualties suffered in war, such as the World War I, is not an easy task. The argument made by Charles Carrington in 1965, that the account of the casualties made was made through the research work conducted by Sir Charles Oman, supports this idea.

This proves that the previous records had some problems with the data presentation. The article goes on to state that even the comparison tables made on the casualties from the work of Sir Winston Churchill that have been widely used by scholars, who previously worked on the issue, are not credible and any future scholarly work should not be based on them.

Casualties, suffered by any side during the war, are evident even though there might be a degree of variance in terms of losses. From these differences in casualties, it can be seen that the category of the lightly wounded is widely ignored, and this was not a different case in the figures that presented German casualties.

The article indicates that the German war statistics on casualties did not include figures that presented the category of lightly wounded. They did not give an account of those soldiers who received casualties but returned to the battlefield after treatment. The records presented by the British side were, however, different from those of those gathered by Germans because they included all the casualties suffered during the World War I; both light and heavy casualties.

The issue of the lightly wounded casualties was an issue of a great controversy in account for the casualties suffered during the World War. Concerning this issue, the article states that Churchill had to source for advice in his correspondence to the “Blood Test” chapter. The main issues he had to seek advice for were the issues of the lightly wounded soldiers.

One of the advices he received was from Edmonds who assured him that the data he was using did not have a section on the lightly wounded. In this statement, he also made a clear argument that the 30% correction he had made on the British and the German counts were appropriate. However, the article goes on to show that Churchill did not agree with the 30 percent correction made on this data by Edmonds despite having been given assurance by German statistic experts.

History always repeats itself and, therefore, the mistakes committed in such situations as the World War I will recur. It is, therefore, necessary to give an accurate account of the events that took place during any of such episodes. The writer of the article under analysis article argues that the data provided for the casualties during the war is not correct. The writer goes on to show that the account given by the Germans missed many materials.

In addition, the author claims that the Germans did not reorganize the lightly wounded as casualties. This article gives a comparison of the data collected on casualties from the different fronts, that is the western and the French fronts. The writer bases his suggestion on this data, and thus, he makes his argument clear providing that data from one source is not sufficient for any meaningful comparison on the casualties suffered during any war.

The writer, therefore, goes on to argue that data obtained from either side involved in the war is always a subject of exaggeration. Furthermore, the writer continues to show that any side will manipulate the data on their casualties in order to meet their own interests. The writer then goes on to argue that any history scholar, who wishes to make an account of an event such as the world war, should not rely on one source of information only.

The writer goes on to make an account of the casualties suffered during the World War I without taking position of any side, and also he provides the analysis of several sources from this account. Therefore, this work is valid for any scholar willing to find figures and data on the World War I casualties.

The author should provide required support and convincing evidences for any argument or claim in scholarly work in order to make this work reliable. In accordance with the Chicago writing style, the writer of the article makes use of statistic data to support his arguments. The writer also makes use of direct quotes and footnotes from other author’s works in order to support his claims and arguments.

Reference

McRandle, J. H., and Quirk, J. “The Blood Test Revisited; A New Look At German Casualties in World War I.” The Journal of Military History 70, no. 3 (2006): 668-701. Web.

Footnotes

  1. McRandle, J. H., and Quirk, J. “The Blood Test Revisited; A New Look At German Casualties in World War I.” The Journal of Military History 70, no. 3 (2006): 668-701.

The Role of Airplanes During World War I (1914-1918)

Introduction

World War I (WWI)[1] refers to an international conflict that was mainly based in the continental Europe spanning from mid 1914 to late 1918. The conflict engaged all the great nations of the world apparently grouped into two rival coalitions: the allies, which mainly included France and Britain, and the Central Powers mainly involving Germany and Italy.

Human casualty rate was particularly high due to technological inventions such as the lethal use of warplanes. Primary causes of the conflict entailed imperial, territorial, as well as economic quests of the leading European powers mainly involving the German, British, and the Russian Empires.

The killing of Austria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 proved to be the primary spark of the battle[2]. The US was reportedly unsuccessful in inventing an airplane model of it’s own during the war though it also presented its underdeveloped airplane industry to battle with the basic momentum alongside some other ground works for stability purposes.

Role played by Airplanes during WWI

WWI was the first war to deploy airplanes on a large scale[3]. Tethered surveillance balloons had conventionally been applied in numerous conflicts. They were consequently utilized to locate enemy weapons. Germany particularly used Zeppelins for surveillance as well tactical bombing of the North Sea region of England. Airplanes, primarily reserved for reconnaissance, had just been introduced to facilitate combat activities incidentally by the onset of the war[4].

Pilots, as well as technicians, designed various superior models ranging from bombers, ground-attack airplanes, and fighters based on their experience[5]. Notably, fighter pilots were cherished as contemporary knights who were embraced as public heroes[6]. The battle further witnessed the assignment of top officers to overlook the belligerent states’ air war strategies. Whereas the influence of airplane in the course of conflict was still inadequate, various new ideas were merged in prospective wars.

The Aviation Industry

The Italians originally deployed airplanes in the late 1911 during the Italo-Turkish War particularly in Libya for the purpose of surveillance and later for dropping missiles, as well as aerial photography[7]. They were afterwards applied for ground attacks besides eliminating opponent planes and anti-aircraft artillery. The trends were eventually adjusted to design fighter airplanes[8]. Mainly the British, alongside the Germans, developed tactical military aircraft.

Over the last period of the war, airplanes with HMS Furious attacking Sop were also introduced by the ‘Allies’ in an operation to wipe out the Zeppelin base at Tondern[9]. Surveillance balloons floating deep within the trenches were often utilized as immobile reconnaissance bases to monitor rival activities besides directing missiles. Highly valued[10] as observation points, balloons represented major targets for the enemy’s air raids. Hence, antiaircraft guns tightly guarded the balloons besides being monitored by allied aircrafts.

Eventually, the surveillance purpose of balloons alongside blimps led to the emergence of air-to-air conflict among all models of aircraft along with the trench standoff by considering the fact it was impractical to shift vast groups of troops unobserved[11]. Supported by airships, the Germans carried out persistent air attacks in the British territories between 1915 and 1916 with the aim of demoralizing British confidence besides diverting the enemy’s airplanes from the combat front lines.

The US Participation in WWI

Aviation was one of the major challenges during war mobilization. Even though the US flew the first airplane in history, the sector had stalled mainly because of disagreements concerning patent rights[12]. In 1916, when the European nations were dogged in aerial armament contests, the Mexican activist, Pancho Villa[13], engaged the US troops along with its only aerial unit using the first Aero Squadron over its hilly southwestern region.

The squadron reportedly outfitted with the finest of the federal military. Six Curtiss JN-2 proved irrelevant as America’s groundbreaking warplane[14]. When the impact of the aerial unit was assessed after the operation, it was noted that, with adequate scheming, an aerial arm might be of indispensable assistance to the ground wings.

The federal administration hence unveiled a commission to research on how to advance the military aviation. Nonetheless, the commission faced many challenges since the government selected various distinctive bodies such as the Signal Corp and Aircraft Production Board[15] with equal powers in decision-making. None of them was ready to approve other’s ideas.

The federal was also badly in need of a stable industrial infrastructure to jumpstart the sector as opposed to the dozen airplane industries with a maximum of 10,000 accomplished personnel. To ensure growth towards the right direction, the US Congress assigned resources for the sector to endorse growth besides spearheading accords that permitted patents to be acquired by the rival companies thus terminating the patent standoff involving the Wright Company and the airplane society (Johnson 76).

Progressively, the Signal Corps created an aerial unit that later became the US Air Service (USAS)[16]. The country was also urgently in need of brilliant aircraft designers such as Anthony Fokker and Luis Blériot[17] to assist in devising a modern warplane.

The US Air Service (USAS)

The USAS[18] prepared the foundation for US Air Force during, as well as after the First World War. Even though the Europe conflicts forced the US Congress to improve funding for the Signal Corps in1916, it later introduced a bill that required the aviation unit to integrate all facets of military aviation[19]. The early 1917 affirmation of combat against Germany also forced the US to find amicable solutions to the prevailing engineering and manufacturing challenges.

The government further formed a consultative ‘Aircraft Production Board’ that was made up of members of the Army, Navy, as well as the sector to assess the Europeans’ fortunes in aircraft sector in a bid to upgrade the aircraft devices[20]. After the US formerly joined the conflict, the allies volunteered their aircraft models to guide the sector. However, the English-model De Havilland DH-4 became the only US-assembled aircraft to partake in the war[21].

The country also exhibited a shortage of pilots and technicians since, in the absence of modern warplanes and familiarity, they were unable to edify themselves in war skills. Nonetheless, contracts were negotiated with the allies late in 1917. Various contingents of pilots were trained at flying centers in France alongside Italy. The earliest US squadrons were ready for duty by April 1918.

They were posted in France around Toul where they could ease to duty when called upon to participate. By June 1918, intelligence alleged that the Germans were planning an attack on Chateau-Thierry. Hence, the US ground units were ordered to resist the advance. The USAS, “headed by the military Commander Colonel Billy Mitchell, also combined a couple of squadrons to form the First Pursuit Group (FPG)”[22] to assist the ground troops.

However, the Germans, with numerous superior and experienced squadrons, expectedly overwhelmed the amateur Americans by hiring old Nieuports. Although the Americans were up to the challenge and were never demoralized, they later proved victorious in assisting to thwart the German invasion though with considerable losses under the command of Mitchell, as well as the help from Allied powers[23].

Halting Pershing’s approach at Saint-Mihiel, Mitchell deployed around three-quarters of the units directly to provide support for ground contingents while the rest concentrated in bombing enemy points on the back line in an attempt to destabilize Germany’s determination on the battlefront[24].

The USAS recorded a successful performance, as Mitchell’s squadrons held air dominance besides witnessing at least 60 victories where they assisted the ground force to recapture the region in the process following the 1914 German incursion. By the conclusion of the war in 1918, the USAS generally had relied on around 45 airplanes to cover about 137 kilometers whereas 71 pilots were endorsed for bombing an average of five German airplanes during the war.

Financial, economic, and production issues of the US airplane industry

The US was notably unsuccessful in designing airplanes of its own throughout the First World War era[25]. Nonetheless, the experience guaranteed momentum for the developing sector besides offering numerous aircraft companies a lifeline. In terms of finance, as revealed by, the US entered WWI under the vow that it would rock German skies using the best aerial squadron in existence thus consequently backing the assurance with about $600 million (1).

However, as opponents alleged, after the conclusion of the war, the US only exhibited 196 home-assembled airplanes in the European battle Front thus rendering the incentive subject to various federal enquiries concerning misuse of huge resources. Besides the 196 DH-4’s machines, the country had about 270 aircrafts designed for its training units, 323 under supply bases, and 2000 pending consignment to the western front[26].

Generally, about 3540 fighter airplanes had been manufactured alongside around 6000 training models while a minimum of 1400 warplanes were acquired from Europe. The amount seemed impressive: it was arguably a shortfall. This was upon considering the financial backup that was awarded to the sector besides a maximum of 2000 airplanes that were in record by July 1918.

In terms of the economy, following the declaration of war, America never even attempted to deploy its enormous resource potential in the European war (Tucker 26). Instead, it opted to preserve its work force that reportedly exceeded those of all the other nations that took part in the combat.

This allowed the US to concentrate on its emerging industrial supremacy, which progressively surpassed the impasse, as well as squalor of the draining battle, which eventually boosted the allies to defeat Germany. Besides being a modern and efficient weapon, the airplane had been originally invented in the US’ citizens.

Supported with progress in other economic sectors during the Great War era, it emerged as the country’s greatest input to the WWI operation. Most American WWI era production was tailored on the development of training airplanes of the Britain model[27], De Havilland DH-4 fighters, and airplane equipments. Prior to the mass manufacturing, the US channeled its resources on the invention of a specific European aircraft.

Early in 1917, the defense department dispatched the Bolling Commission to Europe to appraise the sector to choose a specific airplane model to be adopted by the country. They opted for British DH-4 apparently invented by Geoffrey de Havilland. The DH-4[28] was partly favored because Britain approved liberal application of its certificate for the automobile, but not because it was superior to French airplanes, which obligated royalty compensation.

Although the Aircraft Production Board (APB) did accept criticism of the decision to limit producers to one model, the mandate was eventually revoked though it was too late and never influenced the war[29]. During the era, federal law recommended that the administration must not solely depend on private producers to supply their aircraft equipments.

This accordingly resulted to the formation of the Philadelphia based Naval Aircraft Factory (NAF) by 1971 to invent and manufacture wartime airplanes besides putting private companies in costs alongside profit check. Although the private sector attempted to thwart its development, the NAF efficiently invented and manufactured a variety of naval airplanes such as the Curtiss H-16s, flying boats, and corresponding spare parts.

Apart from the development exhibited by the established aircraft industries, a range of emerging manufacturers sprung up throughout the war era including the Dayton-Wright Company, the Lewis and Vought, and the Aero Corporation. 31 airplane companies were recorded at the end of the conflict in 1919. Nonetheless, at its best, wartime service was estimated at 175,000 while manufacturers produced at the level of above 12,000 airplanes annually by the conclusion of the war.

Massive contracts for assembling the DH-4 were awarded to various companies including Dayton-Wright, Glenn L. Curtiss, and Fisher Body among others. Although critics argued that these manufacturers lacked the basic know-how while more reliable groups had been overlooked besides alleging the manufacturers of inflating costs in an attempt to gain unfair profits.

Generally, the total amount of the US-assembled DH-4s was limited with most American troops in Europe relying on the French-made airplanes to oversee their expeditions. By the time the federal administration hoped to intervene, pungent patent lawsuits had been proceeding for almost a decade.

The government mobilized the rival producers to create the Manufacturers Aircraft Association (MAA). The union members exhibited cross-licensing accords, which permitted producers to utilize the ideas that their counterparts had invented though at a fee, which depended on the value of the involved technology. Federal law during the era recommended that the administration must not solely depend on private producers to supply their aircraft equipments.

Conclusion

Finally, WWI remarkably signaled the fall of European supremacy that had spanned for over five centuries. As discussed, the airplane industry played a crucial role in fueling the war following the support it offered to the victim countries.

As the European nations concentrated on the domestic disastrous combat, others continents successfully fulfilled and reduced their vitality by making up for their imports and knowledge. The US particularly for the first time rallied its vast industrial capability to intervene beyond the American region. America’s involvement in the First World War was notably limited. By the period the nation joined the battle, aviation technology had already advanced far much ahead.

Still, the US with an exceptional magnitude of moral energy along with determination managed to assist in ensuring success for the allies over last months of the battle following the support of the airplane industry as discussed. Moreover, it also acquired the highly needed aviation technology from the brief combat stint coupled with a federal passion for flying, which eventually provided the groundwork for the US Golden Age of Flight (GAF).

Works Cited

Chambers, John. The Oxford Companion to American Military History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

History SparkNotes. World War I (1914–1919), 2012. Web.

Johnson, Herbert. Wingless Eagle: U.S. Army Aviation through World War I. North Carolina, NA: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Print.

Tucker, Spencer. World War I: A – D., Volume 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2005. Print.

Zimmerman, Robert. “How We Won the War (With Tools Commonly Found in the Shop). The Model Aircraft Project.” Journal of American Culture 8.4(1995): 51-58. Print.

Footnotes

  1. Also called Great War
  2. This aroused the anger of the many alliances that had already been established
  3. It was only 13 years after the first airplane had been developed
  4. Robert Zimmerman, “How We Won the War (With Tools Commonly Found in the Shop). The Model Aircraft Project.” Journal of American Culture 8.4(1995): 51-58. Print.
  5. They were new to this technology with many not knowing the exact use of airplanes, leave alone using them in the war
  6. Herbert Johnson, Wingless Eagle: U.S. Army Aviation through World War I. North Carolina, NA: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Print.
  7. Zimmerman 53
  8. They were believed to work well with two wings for easy lifting
  9. They were primarily used to carry bombs
  10. Johnson 64
  11. Spencer Tucker, World War I: A – D., Volume 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2005. Print.
  12. John Chambers, The Oxford Companion to American Military History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
  13. He was initially a gangster who contributed a lot towards the Mexican revolution during 1911 and 1923 when he died
  14. Zimmerman 54
  15. The service was a very active US airplane service during the WWI. Its well known for assembling the first aviation body squadrons in the US between 1914-18
  16. “This was the forerunner of the US during after the WWI” (John Chambers 14)
  17. They were experts in the field of aviation to the level of publishing the book ‘Early Birds of Aviation’ to give a picture of the airplanes used during WWI
  18. Made in September 1917
  19. The then aviation body was inadequate and could not help much in the war
  20. Chambers 67
  21. However, this was not again efficient , as it could not meet the US’ expectation during the war
  22. Tucker 9
  23. Tucker 19
  24. Johnson 74
  25. It lacked competent people in the aircraft designing sector and hence the need to train more
  26. This step confirmed the US’ efforts to take control of the war using its well-up aviation industry
  27. This was after the US performed poorly in Mexico, a situation that pushed it to come up with finer strategies in a bid to gain a competitive edge over the European aircraft designers
  28. These were the most popular as they were numerous though only 1213 were taken abroad while 1087 being assembled
  29. History SparkNotes, World War I (1914–1919), 2012. Web.

The World War I

The World War I was one of the greatest challenges for humanity. The war brought to the fore various issues which had been in the air in the end of the nineteenth century and in the beginning of the twentieth century. Of course, the World War I was not the only reason for the development of nationalism in Germany.

However, it is considered to be one of the major reasons for the rise of nationalism in Germany which resulted in the World War II, which was the most devastating war in the history of humanity. German nationalism, Nazism, is also often regarded as “one of the key ingredients in the totalitarian ideologies and systems that emerged in post-World War I Germany” (Conversi 166). The ideas developed in the first part of the twentieth century shaped the world considerably.

In the first place, it is necessary to consider the development of nationalism in Europe in the end of the nineteenth century. Darwinism played a very important role in the development of nationalism at that period. The ideas of superiority and combat prevailed in Europe at that time (Sondhaus 28). Notably, such countries as Germany and Italy had rather specific vision. Those were distorted nations which only sought for unification.

As far as Germany is concerned, Otto von Bismarck made a great thing and created a strong empire (Spohn 60). Nonetheless, this unification had some negative effects. Thus, German people started believing in their superiority. The legend of the great nation was created in the end of the twentieth century (Chirot 42). Thus, it is possible to state that unification of the nation, the development of sciences made many people believe in ideas of nationalism.

Importantly, the development of industries and technology can be regarded as one of the potent factors that contributed to the rise of nationalism in Germany. The nation’s advances were regarded as evidence of the nation’s power and superiority. Therefore, the World War I was a logical continuation of Germany’s policies.

The World War I was initiated by such nations as Germany and Austria- Hungary. Historians note that German people were in fear of other nations and such forces as Catholicism or socialism (Chirot 42). German nationalism of that period was a distorted ideology which made people start a war to defend themselves from the non-existing enemies.

During the World War I Germany had to fight against the greatest powers of that period. Thus, Great Britain, Russian Empire, France, the United States, Italy and other countries defeated Germany. It is not surprising that German people were angry with the entire world.

At that period the world was divided into two camps for German people: Germans and others. German people became hostile to others. Nationalism started acquiring quite new forms. The ideas of nationalism were intermingled with Darwinism, strive for unification, hostility to others and strong dissatisfaction with the new world where the winning countries deprived German people of many resources (many German people shared this idea).

However, the rise of the nationalism can be explained by the end of the war, not its beginning. The World War I ended and the winning countries reshaped the entire world. It goes without saying that such policy was rather dangerous. The Germans were afraid of aliens who could intervene in their affairs, and after the World War I those fears became true. After the war Germany was in the camp of the “have-not” nations which

under the rule of repressive dictatorships sought to redress what they saw as the inequities of the peace settlements after the World War I. (Eder & Roberts 308)

The nation was dissatisfied with the unfair, as Germans saw it, policies implemented by “have” nations (Eder & Roberts 308). Ideas concerning aliens and superiority of the Germans became grains of mustard seeds.

The period between the two World Wars can be regarded as a period of development of ultra-nationalism in Germany. Nazism can be regarded as a product of the post-World War I treaties. The Germans strived for unification and safety. People felt humiliated and disappointed.

However, the majority of German people did not see the guilt of Germany, they focused on the policies which winning countries, France, Great Britain, Russia, implemented. This can be seen as one of the reasons why nationalist ideas were turned into Nazism ideology.

Interestingly, after the World War I Weimar Republic appeared. It had one of the most democratic constitutions at that time (Eder & Roberts 290). Nonetheless, the Republic soon ceased to exist as people were not ready to forget their offences and move on. Many people focused on the ‘injustice’. They blamed other nations which were ‘responsible’ for the disgrace.

Adolf Hitler was one of those who shared the ideas of the Germans’ unjust alienation (Eder & Roberts 290). He took part in many military operations and he felt a kind of personal offence when Germany was defeated. Hitler was influenced by those ideas. Notably, he made an attempt to cease the power in 1923. However, the so-called Munich Beer Hall Putsch was a failure and Hitler was sentenced to five years imprisonment (Eder & Roberts 290).

Though the Putsch proved to be a complete failure it became the necessary background for the future Hitler’s triumph. Hitler acquired reputation of the victim of the wrongful rule. He became a kind of fighter for the rights of the entire nation. Basically, Hitler articulated ideas which were in the air at that time (Eder & Roberts 291). The ideas of nationalism were reconsidered and acquired new vectors.

Some may be shocked that Nazism was accepted by the entire nation as the rightful ideology. However, it is important to remember that Hitler promised to give people what they wanted, and he provided simple answers to difficult questions. Thus, he explained the failure of the nation in the World War I by the fact that there was a conspiracy of other nations which were inferior to their nation. Hitler gave the Germans goals to achieve and people who did not have any aims or objectives eagerly accepted the new rule and the new order.

Scholars also note that the development of nationalism in Germany can be regarded as “Unification nationalism” (Conversi 172). Thus, Germany managed to unite people divided politically. Therefore, many German people thought they were powerful enough to unite the entire world under the rule of the great German empire. Notably, “unification nationalism” can be regarded as an initial form of ultra-nationalism and Nazism.

It goes without saying that the development of Nazism affected the development of the world. First of all, nationalism government was an example for others, at the same time; it was a warning for other nations. Thus, such countries as Germany, Italy and Japan had much in common. These countries saw Germany as a country which had found the best way to develop.

The Germans who made specific steps to reach their goals were regarded as a model for Italians and Japanese people. However, other countries saw the danger as nationalism government focused on a particular group of people. More so, the central ideas of nationalism were not quite enough to make the country develop properly. The nation was inspired by rather delusive ideas and this inspiration could not be lasting.

It is also necessary to note that countries failed to see the danger in time as many saw Nazis Germany as a better option than the Socialistic Germany. Nazis opposed the spread of Communism and it was quite enough for many Western countries. Thus, Western countries made a mistake as they thought that one totalitarian country (Germany) could become a good ally against another totalitarian state (the USSR).

The world between the two World Wars was highly polarized. Though Western countries recognized the USSR as a sovereign country, they opposed the spread of Communism. Many countries in the Eastern as well as Western Europe (Especially Germany) were shaken by many riots.

Germany had rather strong communist party and the USSR used to assist Communist movements in various countries (Eder & Roberts 290). Therefore, the rise of the Nazis party was seen as the necessary strong and perspective opposition to communist party. However, soon it was clear that Nazis should have been regarded as the greater of the two evils.

However, the rule of the nationalism government also had long-term effects. Thus, the example of Germany has been a warning to many nations in the post-World War II world. Thus, the rise of similar ideas is now regarded as a dangerous trend which should be diminished. Many people share the idea that

Nationalism is neither a spent force nor any less dangerous than it ever was. The antiquity of the feelings that lie behind it belie any notion that it is somehow a fairly recent creation, and therefore, one that is likely at any time soon to become obsolete. (Chirot 45)

Admittedly, the ideas promulgated by German people after the World War I were partially positive and rightful. However, they soon became dangerous and delusive. The idea of unification turned into the idea of hostility to any other nation. The idea of national identity soon turned into the idea of the nation’s superiority. The lesson that the entire world learned made people hostile to any manifestation of ultra-nationalism (Chirot 45).

On balance, it is necessary to note that the rise of nationalism in Germany was due to several factors: the development of sciences and industries, popularity of Darwin’s ideas, unification of the nation, and the World War I. At that, the World War One was one of the most potent factors that influenced the development of nationalism in Germany.

The war turned ideas of nationalism into the ideas of Unification nationalism and Nazism. German people were deluded by such leaders as Hitler who promised easy and ‘rightful’ ways to achieve justice. The development of Nazism led to another world war which became the lesson that nations learned better than the previous one (World War I).

Works Cited

Chirot, Daniel. “The Retribalization of the Modern World: How the Revival of Ancient Sentiments Leads to Persisting Nationalist and Ethnic Conflicts.” Ab Imperio 3 (2008): 23-46. Print.

Conversi, Daniele. “Democracy, Nationalism and Culture: A Social Critique of Liberal Monoculturalism.” Sociology Compass 2.1 (2007): 156-182. Print.

Eder, James M., and Seth A. Roberts. Barron’s AP European History, New York: Barron’s Educational Series, 2010. Print.

Sondhaus, Lawrence. World War One: The Global Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.

Spohn, Willfried. “Austria: From Habsburg Empire to a Small Nation in Europe.” Entangled Identities: Nations and Europe. Ed. Atsuko Ichijo and Willfried Spohn. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2006. 55-72. Print.

World War 1 Origins (How and Why the War Started)

Introduction

Since time immemorial the world has witnessed wars between different groups, states, countries, and allies. Initially, the motive behind wars was survival. Ancient people fought in order to usurp land for cultivation. Gradually, as the world population grew, the motives behind wars became multifarious.

Different groups and countries started fighting with each other in order to gain control of areas where there were natural resources such as gold. Another reason for war was to gain access to routes generally used for movement of commodities from the starting place to the consumption areas.

It is understood that after a war, one group prospered at the cost of another. Religion also has been an instigating factor for many wars. However, in all the wars, the motive was to gain advantage of some sort.

During the past years, when countries came together as allies, there have been instances when allies of a particular group had to go to war just because they wanted to safeguard themselves from the disadvantages of not participating in the war. In this paper, we shall discuss the reasons that led to World War 1. “World War 1 began in eastern Europe. The war started when Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany decided that war or the risk of war was an acceptable policy option[1]”.

Causes of World War 1

General Causes

Alliances

1879 onwards, the world witnessed formation of alliances between nations having similar interests. Following are some of the major alliances that took place:

  • The Dual Alliance: Germany and Austria-Hungary entered into an alliance in 1879 in order to defend against Russia.
  • Austro-Serbian Alliance: Austria-Hungary and Serbia entered into an alliance in 1881 in order to prevent Russia from asserting power in Serbia.
  • The Triple Alliance: Germany and Austria-Hungary entered into an alliance with Italy in 1882 so that the latter could not favor Russia’s moves.
  • Franco-Russian Alliance: Russia and France entered into an alliance in 1894 in order to protect their countries from the Dual Alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary.
  • Entente Cordiale: France and Britain entered into a formal agreement in 1904 in order to protect each other’s interests.
  • Anglo-Russian Entente: Britain and Russia entered into a formal agreement in 1907 in order to protect each other’s interests.
  • Triple Entente: Russia, France and Britain entered into an alliance to counteract Germany’s growing threats. Later, in 1914 and under the same alliance, all the three countries concurred that they will not sign any peace treaty without mutual consent.

All these alliances (from 1879 to 1914) forced some countries to go to war just because they were in some alliance.

Imperialism

Imperialism is a term used for instances where any country usurps any other country’s land and asserts its supremacy and power. Due to the incessant progress of industrialization, countries felt the need of venturing into fresh marketplaces.

By the year 1900, Britain had extended its empire in five continents and France controlled major parts of Africa. The increase of both these countries’ power did not go well with Germany; Germany had only small areas under its rule. Following is a map that depicts the colonies of these three major European players in 1914.

Source: Web.

William Anthony Hay claims that according to McMeekin, a tutor of international relations, “The war’s real catalyst lay in Russia’s ambition to supplant the waning Ottoman Empire in the Near East and to control the Turkish straits – the Bosphorus and Dardanelles – linking the Black Sea and the Mediterranean[2]”.

But Richard Evans contradicts this opinion by stating that “In the end it was the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia that set off the process that ended in the outbreak of World War 1, not Russian ambitions in the Straits[3]. But if we think logically, no country will enter into a war without personal interests.

Alliances were also made to serve individual interests. So it is wrong to say that Russia did not have any interest or ambitions in the Straits. Russia was an industrialized nation and needed to sell its products to people in other nations. For this purpose, it needed a safe passage and new markets.

Militarism

When any country gives preference to its army, it is said to be following militarism. The growing alliances among various nations prompted nations to empower their army with more arms and ammunitions. France and Germany doubled the strengths of their respective armies.

Britain and Germany seemed to be in a competition of better sea control. In 1906, Britain launched the ‘Dreadnought’, considered to be a very efficient battleship. Following the footsteps, Germany also launched its own version of impressive battleships. The following illustration shows how Germany planned to attack France in case Russia attacked Germany; France and Russia were allies. So due to the alliance, Russia was bound to retaliate when one of its allies was attacked.

“A military revolution occurred in the seventeenth century. The most important of the many changes was a considerable growth in the size of the armies. Those large forces could no longer live off the land: steal supplies from the populace[4]”.

Nationalism

We all have love for our respective countries. So did the people of that period. Austria-Hungary and Serbia had different radical groups trying to free their states from foreign involvement. Both Italy and Germany were divided. People of these countries wanted unification. “Along with the history of imperial machinations, however, World War 1 should be understood in the context of the popular imagination and the growth of nationalist sentiment in Europe[5]”.

The Crisis

Moroccan Crisis

As part of an understanding, Britain gave control of Morocco to France in 1904. The Moroccan people wanted freedom. Germany, in order to take an advantage of the situation, proclaimed its support for the freedom of Morocco. A conference was held that allowed France to continue its control over Morocco and a war was averted. Again, in 1911, Germany started pronouncing its support for the Moroccan independence but again it was persuaded to compromise its stand on the issue.

Bosnian Crisis

Bosnia (a Turkish province) was taken over by Austria-Hungary in 1908. This action of Austria-Hungary did not go well with the Serbians. The Serbians thought Bosnia was under them. As such, a conflict aroused. Serbia proclaimed war over Austria-Hungary. Russia supported Serbia and Germany supported Austria-Hungary. A war was about to start but at the nick of the time Russia backed off and the war was averted.

But tensions were still mounting up between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. “It is true that during July the German decision makers sometimes expressed the hope that the conflict would be localized: in other words that Austria would be able to vanquish Serbia without Russian Intervention[6]”. Dale Copeland argues that “Germany actively sought war in July 1914 and that German leaders by the end of July preferred world war to a negotiated peace, even to one that gave Austria most of what it wanted[7]”.

The Immediate Trigger

World War 1 started in the year 1914. The assassination of Austria’s Archduke, Franz Ferdinand, acted as a trigger to World War 1. Franz Ferdinand and his wife were murdered in 1914 by Gavrilo Princip, member of a Bosnian radical group. “The crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire decided, after the assassination on 28 June, to take action against Serbia, which was suspected of being behind the murder[8]”.

This was considered to be an immediate reason for the war but the real reasons seem to be more complex and are still topics of debate among various historians. According to William Anthony Hay, “Germany bears responsibility for the war, in this view, because its leaders deliberately turned a regional clash between Austria-Hungary and Serbia into an existential Struggle of rival alliances[9]”.

Hay is right in his opinion because history reveals that there were other options with Germany that could have averted the war. But since Germany wanted to gain on its own interests, it forced other countries to plunge into a war that they did not intend. “The size and wealth of the conquered Eastern territories easily outweighed what would have been lost had the Germans withdrawn from Belgium and France. Had they done so, France might have made peace and the anti-German coalition collapsed[10]”.

Conclusion

All these instances make us to believe that Germany was behind waging the World War 1. In its ambitions to usurp power, Germany was thought to have instigated the war. But it is to be understood that down the years, historians put an end to the controversy as to which country was responsible for the World War 1.

Historians from the two main countries (Germany and France) came to an understanding that none of their countries should be blamed for instigating World War 1. It was the policies of militarization of each of the participating countries that led to the war.

But certain facts still point the finger towards Germany. After the war started, some confidential documents were discovered that suggested that the German government had vast plans of extending its territory due to the economic requirements.

Bibliography

Copeland, Dale. The Origins of Major War. New York: Cornell University Press, 2001.

Evans, Richard. “New Republic. 2011. Web.

Fergusan, Niall. “Germany and the origins of the First World War: New Perspectives.” The Historical Journal 35, no. 3 (1992): 725-752.

Hamilton, Richard and Holger Herwig. The Origins of World War 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Hay, William. “.” The Wall Street Journal. 2011. Web.

Merriman, John. “The Origins of World War 1.” Yale University. 2013. Web.

Sheffield, Gary. “BBC. 2011. Web.

Williamson, Samuel. “The Origins of World War 1.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 4 (1988): 795-818.

Footnotes

  1. Samuel Williamson, “The Origins of World War 1,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 4 (1988): 795.
  2. William Anthony Hay, “Ambition in the East,” The Wall Street Journal, 2011.
  3. Richard Evans, “The Road to Slaughter,” 2011.
  4. Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig, The Origins of World War 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 5.
  5. John Merriman, “The Origins of World War 1,” Yale University, 2013.
  6. Niall Fergusan, “Germany and the origins of the First World War: New Perspectives”, Historical Journal 35, no. 3 (1992): 731.
  7. Dale Copeland, The Origins of Major War (New York: Cornell University Press, 2001), 79.
  8. Gary Sheffield, “The Origins of World War One,” BBC, 2011.
  9. William Anthony Hay, “Ambition in the East” in The Wall Street Journal
  10. Gary Sheffield, “The Origins of World War One,” BBC, 2011.

The Role of Canada in World War I

During World War 1 (WWI), Canada’s place in global politics changed significantly. At the same time, the country has evolved within, as it introduced new policies and programs for its citizens. Before the war, Canada was an ally of the British army, being under the European state’s control (Watts). Thus, Canada’s partaking in WWI was not entirely voluntary. Nevertheless, the nation’s actions in the war have turned Canada into an independent and respected state.

The beginning of the war was marked by great losses in the field and in the economy of the state. However, the cruel conditions of combat also united the Canadian nations, especially during such events as the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917 (Watts). At the same time, the country evolved socially with women’s suffrage resulting in women getting voting rights in 1916 (Watts). By the war’s end, Canada had shown itself as a great power, which allowed the state to demand more independence and become a member of the newly created League of Nations (Watts). Nevertheless, the country continued to isolate itself from other nations in its politics, further separating itself from Great Britain. In 1929, at the end of this period, Canada entered the era of the Great Depression, but it also made great strides toward gender equality.

Canadian history between 1914 and 1929 is a series of interconnected events that depicts how the Northern American country has moved away from its dependence on the British commence and towards a path of its own. The nation has gone through numerous struggles and lost many people, as well as its economic stability. Nonetheless, it gained more independence, improved its social structures, and opened up opportunities for international collaboration.

Work Cited

Watts, Richard. Times Colonist, 2019.

Aboriginal Soldiers in the World War I and II

Since Australia was involved in World War I and II, native Aboriginals have served the country proudly, selflessly, and courageously. From the Light Horse brigades in Palestine and Egypt to the Gurkha battalions in Burma and New Guinea, indigenous soldiers distinguished themselves in a variety of theatres and campaigns (Riseman, 2012). Despite this, they remain largely unsung and their contribution has been largely ignored by both Australian society and the military establishment. This paper exemplifies the role Aboriginal soldiers played in the two wars, with a particular focus on their experience as indigenous people fighting for a white nation. In this regard, both the whites and blacks were involved in the battle. However, after the battle, more credit was accorded to whites while ignoring the blacks’ efforts. It will then consider why Anzacs have been remembered almost exclusively as white, and suggest that the contribution of these individuals has been obscured by a deliberate campaign of forgetting. Additionally, the paper will argue that the role and experiences of Aboriginal soldiers and the manner in which they have been overshadowed by other significant events in Australian history. This will draw an attention for more inclusive and accurate assessment of their contributions.

The first wave of soldiers of Aboriginal descent served in World War I, with many joining up after the Gallipoli campaign. Unlike their white counterparts, these men were not given the opportunity to volunteer; they were instead conscripted into the military against their will. The experiences of these soldiers were often appalling, with many subjected to racism and discrimination both on and off the battlefield. One of the most famous Aboriginal units in the First World War was the 29th Battalion, also known as the “Fighting 29th”. This unit was raised in 1916 as part of Australia’s effort to replenish its diminishing ranks and was made up largely of native volunteers (Maynard, 2007). The battalion saw action in Palestine and Egypt and suffered heavy casualties at the Battle of Gaza.

Despite their service, these soldiers were not recognized as equals by the Australian military or society more broadly. They were given inferior equipment and received little or no training, and were not eligible for promotion or medals. On returning home, many faced discrimination and social exclusion. Their experience in WWI was typical of their treatment during all the wars in which they served. In fact, Indigenous people have fought in every major conflict in Australia’s history, from the Boer War to the Vietnam War. However, their contribution has been largely ignored and they continue to be marginalized in Australian society. A closer look at World War II depicts a saw a similar level of service from the natives, with thousands of men enlisting in the armed forces. Once again, they were conscripted against their will and faced discrimination and racism on the battlefield. One of the most famous Aboriginal units in the Second World War was the 2/16th Battalion, which saw action in North Africa and Italy (Riseman, 2012). The battalion suffered heavy casualties at the Battle of El Alamein, one of the turning points of the war.

The Aboriginals have a long and complicated history in Australia. While they have often been oppressed, their pivotal role in The First and Second World Wars cannot go unmentioned. It remains unfortunate that they were not given the same rights or opportunities as other Australians, and they suffered from discrimination and violence (Winegard, 2012). However, they were pivotal in developing Australia. As original inhabitants of the land, they developed unique cultures and traditions that are still celebrated today. Aboriginals also participated in the first and second world wars. In fact, they fought in every major battle in which Australians participated. They served as infantrymen, snipers, artillerymen, and pilots. They also served in non-combat roles such as drivers, cooks, and nurses. Aboriginal soldiers were highly respected by their fellow soldiers for their courage and bravery on the battlefield. Many of them were awarded medals for their service, including the Victoria Cross (the highest award for bravery that can be awarded to a British soldier).

Despite their contributions, aboriginal soldiers have not always been recognized or rewarded for their service. For example, the Australian government did not apologize for the discrimination and violence that aboriginals endured until 2008 (Gerrard & Harman, 2015). In addition, many of the aboriginal soldiers who fought in the wars have not been given proper recognition or compensation for their service. This is changing slowly, but there is still much work to be done in order to properly honor the contributions of aboriginal soldiers. The history of Australian aboriginals is complex and fascinating. Their contribution to the first and second world wars was significant, and it is time that they are recognized and honored for their bravery and courage.

In general, aboriginal soldiers served in the same roles as other Australian soldiers. However, they often faced additional challenges due to their race and ethnicity. For example, they were often not given the same equipment or training as other soldiers, and they were often treated with suspicion by their fellow soldiers. This was especially true in the early years of the war when aboriginals were not considered to be “real” Australians. However, they proved themselves time and again on the battlefield, and they gradually earned the respect of their fellow soldiers.

In addition to facing discrimination from their fellow soldiers, aboriginal soldiers also had to deal with racism from the general population. For example, many people believed that aboriginals were inferior to other races and that they were not capable of fighting in a war. This was not only insulting, but it was also inaccurate (Sheffield & Riseman, 2018). Aboriginal soldiers fought with distinction and bravery in every major battle, and they earned the respect of their fellow soldiers and the general population.

History encourages a glorification of Aboriginal soldiers who served in every major battle, performing heroically under fire. They have been marginalized and oppressed for centuries, but they paid the ultimate price for their country. It is time that their contributions are recognized and honored. For example, the Australian government should apologize for the discrimination and violence that aboriginal soldiers have endured in the past (Keane, 2018). In addition, the Australian military should erect monuments and memorials to honor the bravery and courage of aboriginal soldiers.

Aboriginal soldiers’ hand in the two historical wars has fallen short of the attention it deserves. The Anzacs have been remembered almost solely as white, according to Scarlett (2015), who contends that the focus on the military contributions of Aboriginals has obscured the roles played by persons of color (Morris & Mulvaney, 1992). Gerrard and Harman (2015) provide a detailed account of the role of Aboriginal soldiers in both wars, and makes a strong case for giving these soldiers more recognition.

The focus on Aboriginal soldiers detracts from the contributions of other groups of soldiers. Stanley (2011) claims that there is no evidence to suggest that Aboriginal soldiers played any different role than other soldiers, and that to focus on their contributions is to ignore the sacrifices made by all soldiers. While both of these perspectives are valid, it would appear believe that Scarlet (2015) makes the strongest argument. Aboriginal soldiers played an important role in both wars, and their contributions should be recognized. By focusing on the contributions of Aboriginal soldiers, evidence can be gathered to paint a more complete picture of the Anzacs and their role in these wars.

While Aboriginal soldiers were acknowledged as playing an important role in the defense of Australia during World Wars I and II, their presence in Anzac Day parades and commemorative events has been a topic of debate for many years (Huggonson, 1989). Some people argue that the focus on Aboriginal soldiers detracts from the contributions of other groups of soldiers, while others maintain that their stories are an important part of Australia’s history and should be told.

Aboriginal soldiers have often been depicted as heroic figures, and there is a growing body of scholarship that seeks to explore their experiences in more depth. In recent years, there has been a concerted effort to recognize the importance of Aboriginal servicemen and women and to ensure that their stories are told. This is an important goal, and therefore an effort ought to be made to ensure that the coming generations are exposed to the contributions of all soldiers, regardless of their race or ethnicity (Hall, 1995). A good exemplification of the laser focus on the part played by these soldiers in both wars emerges through various arguments that have been raised over the years about their inclusion in Anzac Day commemorative events (Gerrard & Harman, 2015). Additionally, Aboriginals have been documented in Australian War Memorials since 1988, and the AWM holds the world’s largest collection of objects and images relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ military service.

A critical look at the Anzacs augments a first image that comes to mind as usually comprised of white soldiers. This is not surprising, given that the Anzacs have been celebrated and remembered almost exclusively as white people. At the onset, evidence elucidates several explorations of this phenomenon. Under close focus is the possibility is that white soldiers have been lionized in Australian history, while Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander soldiers have been largely ignored (Scarlett, 2015). This is reflected in the way Anzac Day is remembered – as a celebration of white Australian masculinity and militarism. Another possibility is that white people are simply more visible than aboriginal, intensifying their own commemoration.

Over the years, Australians have had to contend with a number of uncomfortable truths about our history. One of these truths is the fact that native soldiers have been largely excluded from mainstream narratives about the Anzacs. This exclusion is evident in a number of ways. For example, their role has often been overlooked or ignored in commemorative events such as Anzac Day. Additionally, there has been very little scholarship exploring the experiences of indigenous servicemen and women (Harman, 2015). While the government is hesitant on paying homage, even modern society has been accused of not being keen to acknowledge the contributions of Aborigines’ military service. Their representation is relatively small compared to the memorial’s overall collection.

In order to reshape the ideologies that have been constructed around the Anzacs and Aboriginality, it is important to not only complicate but dominate the narratives positively. It must be remembered that the Anzacs were a diverse group of people and that their stories should be told in all their complexity. Additionally, Aboriginals have been documented in Australian War Memorials since 1988, and the AWM holds the world’s largest military memorabilia (Winegard, 2012). Therefore, while it is true that there is more work to be done, care should be undertaken not to overlook the progress that has been made in recent years. It is also worth noting that indigenous people have served their country for a long time. This should be acknowledged and remembered on its own, regardless of the Anzacs. After all, as historian Clare Wright points out, “the Anzacs did not liberate Australia – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had been fighting for their land and families for centuries before the first shots were fired at Gallipoli.””

In conclusion, Aboriginal soldiers have a proud history of service to Australia, but their contribution has been largely ignored by both the military establishment and society more broadly. In a nutshell, Aboriginal soldiers have been largely invisible in Australia’s official history. This is not only unfair, but it also does a disservice to their memory. A closer analysis shows this is due in part to the systematic discrimination that they have faced throughout our history, and also deliberate campaign of forgetting.

Often, the stories of Aboriginal servicemen and women are complex and challenging and do not fit neatly into the popular narratives about the Anzacs. Thankfully, there are some people who are working to bring the needed change. For example, the Australian War Memorial has been functioning to include more Aboriginal stories in its exhibits, and there are now a number of researches on Aboriginal servicemen and women. These projects help to ensure the contributions of Aboriginal soldiers are recognized and remembered. In a nutshell, Aboriginal soldiers have a proud history of service to Australia, and it is important to put note on their stories. There is need to ensure that they are included in our official histories and commemorations.

References

Gerrard, A., & Harman, K. (2015). Lives twisted out of shape! Tasmanian Aboriginal soldiers and the aftermath of the First World War. ANU Press.

Hall, R. A., & Hall, R. A. (1995). Fighters from the Fringe: Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Recall the Second World War. Aboriginal Studies Press.

Harman, K. (2015). . Aboriginal History, 39, 223–244.

Huggonson, D. (1989). . The Australian Quarterly, 61(3), 352–357.

Keane, J. (2018). Engaging with History. In National Identity and Education in Early Twentieth-Century Australia. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Maynard, J. (2007). Fight for liberty and freedom: the origins of Australian Aboriginal activism. Aboriginal Studies Press.

Morris, C. F., & Mulvaney, D. J. (1992). Participation in the war effort by Australian Aborigines. ANU Press.

Riseman, N. (2012). Defending whose country? Indigenous soldiers in the Pacific war. University of Nebraska Press.

Scarlett, P. (2015). Aboriginal service in the First World War: Identity, recognition and the problem of mateship. In L. Conor (Eds.), Aboriginal history. ANU Press.

Sheffield, R. S., & Riseman, N. (2018). Indigenous peoples and the Second World War: The politics, experiences, and legacies of war in the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Cambridge University Press.

Stanley, P. (2011). He was black; he was a White man, and a dinkum Aussie: Race and empire in revisiting the Anzac legend. In S. Das (Eds.), Race, empire and First World War writing (pp. 213-230). Cambridge University Press.

Winegard, T. C. (2012). Indigenous peoples of the British Dominions and the First World War. Cambridge University Press.

WWI-War: Revolution, and Reconstruction

The WWI-War was influenced by conflicts among military groups from countries known as world’s supreme powers. It was a four year war i.e. from 1914 to 1918, centered between two disputed allies’, central powers and the triple entente. Sources indicate that close to seventy million soldiers were deployed with fifteen million people perishing as a consequence of the fateful period (Caddick-adams).

In as much as soldiers and civilians garnered experience during WWI, it is imperative to acknowledge that the unsuitable environment at the forefront led to deterioration of health standards; furthermore, civilians were forced to live with minimal supplies and restricted space for operations.

Soldiers serving in the frontline during the First World War faced a lot of challenges and difficulties when fighting for their own countries. As a way of hiding from ruthless enemies they had to live in unhealthy trenches at the expense of their health.

Due to this fact they faced frequent deaths as a result of attacks by dreadful diseases and unpredictable enemies who attacked via gunfire or bayonet (Caddick-adams). Though living in the trenches could keep them safe from the enemy that was not so in the case of attacks by frogs, rats and lice. Furthermore, trenches provided conducive environment for their multiplication hence a big threat to the health of soldiers.

Regardless of a conducive environment or not, lice could still multiply fast due to their short breeding periods and caused painful itches which led to high fever followed by severe headaches. In the filthy trenches they were expected to be on high alert and constantly having their weapons ready at any moment just in case the enemy attacks.

In addition, movement was minimized and attending to any personal issue was scheduled after fully completing assigned duties. Such kind of life was boring consequently leading to deterioration in the quality of life.

Sources indicate that bodies were left lying and rotting on the ground or buried in shallow graves. As a result the entire battle field was clouded with a stinking smell that was a disguise to the dedicated soldiers. Overflowing shallow latrines, also contributed to the disguise by its stinking smell. In addition, sometime the soldiers fell short of adequate water supply which forced them to go weeks and sometimes even months without taking bath (Caddick-adams).

The newly introduced soldier in the frontline had difficulties in adapting with the situation on the ground but with no option of turning back they had to adjust for the sake of their survival. Most of the frontline soldier suffered a disease known as shell shock, a mental illness that eventually leads to mental breakdown.

The First World War significantly affected the civilians or persons at home front, forcing them to adjust and adapt by the situation. Rationing was not only done on luxurious commodities but also on the basic ones such as food supply, attires and many more household materials (Caddick-adams).

As a result, various households had to adapt to the situation by venturing in home gardening to act as a substitute for the missing diets. Fortunately, to the civilians who lived in countryside were not greatly affected since most of their home use products were locally supplied. Many home use equipments were eventually turned into weapons to act as protection devices against enemies.

The First World War was characterized by displacement of people so as to create room for battlefields. Once an area was declared a battlefield by the government it had to be evacuated no matter what, hence civilians had no option but to comply. Furthermore, who would want to stay close to battlefields with an ongoing war at place?

Women also had to take great responsibilities due to the fact that men were sent to war. They had act as the sole breadwinners by ensuring each member of their family was quite comfortable as far as provision is concerned. Sometimes they could go the great extents by carrying the entire burden left by the absence of men for the well being of their families.

In some instances women were also expected to frequently supply food to their husbands when fighting in battlefields. Education and formal job were left at stand still due to insecurity was a big threat to future of civilians as they could not study or make a living.

The impacts of the WW1-war were felt by both persons at fore front and home front. Soldiers at the fore front suffered from diseases and poor living conditions that accelerated their deaths. Not forgetting persons at the home front who were displaced, unemployed and had to work extra hard to meet their needs. As noted from the findings the WW1-war was characterized by negative impacts both to civilians and soldiers whether at home or at fore front.

Work Cited

Peter, Caddick-adams. . BBC. 2005. Web.