Category: World War 1

Introduction

World War I (WWI) is also known as the Great War of the First World War. It is one of the greatest wars to ever occur in the history of Europe. WWI commenced on July 28 1914 and ended on November 11 1919. This war involved the world’s greatest power assembled in two conflicting forces. One force composed of the Allies and the other group was the central powers.

Over seventy military forces took part in the Great War and this included more than 60 million Europeans. It resulted in the death of over nine million people through the use of great technology. The world war one stated in 1914. During this time, the United States remained neutral and the then president Wilson urged the Americans to remain calm and not to involve themselves in the war.

However, the United States was not able to maintain its neutrality due to some external forces. Many theories have been developed to explain why the US entered the World War I. Some people believe that, the United States entered into the war to defend itself against the Germans who were trying to violate its rights at the sea.

Others believe that, the US never maintained a neutral state and was actually supporting the British. They are still some people who believe that, the US entered into the war to defend itself against the declining economy caused by the war. This paper gives a brief over view of World War I, and how countries fought with each other.

It explains the international relations that existed between countries and how these were broken because of the war. The paper further gives an in-depth analysis of how the Germans waged war against the European countries and the circumstances that forced the United States to abandon its neutrality to take part in the Great War.

War between Germany and Britain and other Allied countries

Germany had about 28 models of U-boats. Five of these models were strong and would withstand the currents from the ocean. These boats measured about 64 meters in length and used two different types of engines that enabled the boats to move on a speed of 27km/h on the surface and 18km/h under water. The U-boats were armed with cannon and held about six torpedoes.

The captain of the U-20 (one of the boats that was strongest), was allowed to fire to the ships that came through the blockage zone. This was because the Germany wanted to stop any ship that supplied weapons to Britain (its great rival). However, this did not stop Britain from taking part in the war. To defend themselves, British ships attacked any of the Germany’s submarines anytime they saw them (Hook 1912). This made the U-boats to stay underwater for long periods of time in order to hide from the British ships.

On 4^th February 1915, Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II issued a warning that all British, Russia, and France ships be sunk in the waters. Ships from countries that did not take side in the war were not to be sunk although this was not guaranteed (Hook 1912). By this time, the United States was still neutral although its leaders could not bear with what the Germans were doing.

They warned the Germans that they would take appropriate steps in order to protect the lives of the Americans and safeguard its property. The president banned all private loans to quarrelsome nations as a way of constraining American involvement in the war. After one year in the war, most of the European nations had already expanded their cash reserve and therefore there was no need for loans. This forced the American president to lift the ban as a way of evading recession.

The Lusitania ship

A warning was sent by the German Embassy to one of the British shipping companies warning it that its crew was at very high risk of the Germans. This was because all the German ships were allowed to attack any ship that bore the British flag. Despite this warning, about two thousand passengers boarded one of the ships (Lusitania) owned by the company.

This was the largest ship measuring approximately 240 m in length. It was also the fastest ship in the company and could move at a speed of 48km/h. The Lusitania left New York for Liverpool with the captain assuring the passengers that they be safe since the ship would withstand any submarine attack (Mark 2).

As the Lusitania was moving across the Atlantic Ocean, one of the British U-boats (U-20) sank two ships in the blockage zone and all British ships were warned. The Lusitania was warned as well and on May 7 1916, it received another warning. This was after the U-20 was sunk in the blockage zone.

At this time, the Lusitania was headed to the coast of Ireland. The passengers boarding the ship had no information that their ship was being attacked by a German submarine (Venzon 10). The captain of U-20 ordered its boat to fire at the British ship and within 8 minutes the Lusitania was hit and sunk drowning more than one thousand passengers and this included more than one hundred Americans.

This outraged the Americans who were also shocked with the news and believed that it was time for them to enter into the war. However, the president held his ground and would not allow the Americans to involve themselves in the war.

This example portrayed by America was not just an example of peace because it would not involve in the battle, but because peace is the only healing influence and not strife. Instead of allowing the Americans to take part in the war, President Wilson criticized the Germans and told them that the inhuman act was not to be excused (Venzon 12).

The Germans seemed to apologize although from the newspapers published in the country, they were found bragging about the act. The following statement was recorded from one of its newspapers;

“With joyful pride we contemplate this latest deed of our Navy. It will not be the last. The English wish to abandon the German people to death by starvation. We are more humane. We simply sank an English ship with passengers, who, at their own risk and responsibility, entered the zone of operations” (Hook 1914)

Unlike President Wilson, the former president of the United Sates, Theodore Roosevelt was not for the idea of neutrality. He warned the Americans that they should prepare for war. According to him, the country was supposed to gather weapons, expand the military through training and also build warships.

His fear was that, the US would suffer greatly if it was attacked without prior preparation (Mark 20). Despite these fears expressed by the formal president, the US still maintained its neutral state. Songs were composed criticizing the war and urging Americans not to be involved in war.

After the Lusitania, hell broke loose and the Germans continued to attack ships form the Allied countries including Italy, Britain, and France. A total of 37 ships were sunk by the Germans between 1915 and 1916; 24 of this ships belonged to Britain. Sailors were killed at sea and this proceeded to the land.

The war reached a point where President Wilson became worried of the US ships that supplied food to Britain. He feared that if he stopped these ships from supplying to Britain its economy would be destroyed. He was not ready to abandon the country’s European friends by failing to supply to them. However, continuing with the supplies put the ships at very high risk of being attacked by the German U-boats.

The Housatonic ship

On 3^rd February 1917 a ship belonging to the US by the name Housatonic left for Liverpool, England. It shipped flour and other grains to England. After traveling for about 32 km, it was approached by one of German U-boat (U-53) (Mark 23). Two seamen together with a German officer left the U-boat and boarded the Housatonic questioning the captain about his intended destination and what he was shipping.

The captain was asked to load his passengers into lifeboats because the Germans had already decided to sink the US ship. The German officer told the captain that he did like what he was doing but had to do it because the ship was delivering food to Germany’s enemies.

The captain asked his crew to board lifeboats as requested and bombs were placed in the US ship by the Germans before leaving for their U-boat. Few minutes passed and a big explosion blew up the Housatonic sinking it. The U-boat and the lifeboats towed towards the shore where the American crew was rescued by a British ship.

The incident with the Housatonic ship outraged the president who would not advocate for peace any more and he asked his congress to cut off all the relations with Germany. Ambassador Bernstorff announced that;

“Unless the Imperial Government should now immediately declare and effect an abandonment of its present methods of submarine warfare against passenger and freight-carrying vessels, the Government of the United States can have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with the German Empire altogether” (Bass 4).

This marked the end of over two year’s wartime diplomacy in the US. The Americans could no longer hold their neutrality. United States later received a threat from Mexico that made it enter into war. After cutting the relations, Germany was not pleased and persuaded Mexico to invade the American territory.

Zimmermann (a German officer) issued a telegram to the German minister in Mexico encouraging him to invade some of the major cities in the US that Germany had lost a couple of years before. Money was offered for the operation (Bass 7).

Zimmerman’s argument was that, if the United States was attacked, it had to fight for itself and this would prevent it from helping the European countries. This would provide an opportunity for Germany to finish Britain.

The United States enters into war

International relations between Mexico and the United states became tense. One of the border towns in the United States was burned by the Mexican and the US invaded Mexico to punish the person responsible. The Mexican government was splintered and it feared entering into war with the United States.

It was not until February 24, 1917 when the United States received the telegram from Zimmerman which was given on January 19. Having learnt about the telegram, the British had intercepted and decoded it then kept it a secret for over one month. Britain did this so as to release the telegram at a time when the United States would draw into war on their side.

After learning about the telegram, President Wilson asked the military to prepare itself from possible attacks from the Germans. The telegram was later published by the US state department although some of the Americans, who were opposed to war, regarded it as forgery (Keene 2). However, Zimmerman confirmed that he was the one who sent the telegram and this outraged the Americans. This marked the start of the war between German and the United States.

According to Keene (1), the United States entered the Great War in 1917 after the war had gone on for almost three years. Its entry marked a critical turning point in the history of America. For the Americans, the war took time before starting for the common man. The start of the war in America was marked by two years of conflict and agony when the Americans attempted to maintain neutrality.

On April 1917, America declared war against Germany for all the damage it had caused the country. At the start of the war (1914), President Wilson did not see any reason for the US to take part in the war. However, the war proceeded to the seas and this affected the American vessels and its passengers.

The president did not have a choice then but to declare war against the Germans (Jones 2). The president’s decision to enter into the Great War did not only affect the government but the nation at large. Millions of men and women in America were impacted by the formal decision. The Great War required support from different troops and also from a diverse network of labor force and volunteers.

Almost 15% of the American male populace volunteered to serve in the military in order to save they country from the Germans. The military together with some political leaders decided to fight along the western front and this influenced, to a great deal, the lives of a big group of the solders. The Americans who volunteered in the war were pleased in defeating Germany but the failures they encountered disillusioned them and did not see the sense of the sacrifices they offered.

Three US ships were sunk by Germany’s U-boats. President Wilson and former president Theodore waged war against Germany and vowed to regain the country’s peace. By the time Germany was being forced to sigh the Armistice, the Americans had already won the war (Jones 3).

The US lost about 50,300 set of soldiers against 4 million from other Allied war. By Armistice Day, the American troops constituted a third of the Allied troop and the number was still growing.

Conclusion

The First World War began with two major killings but ended with almost 14 million people being killed over a period of four years. Europe and the US entered the war from two different angles. The European powers marched into the battle in august, 1914.

However, most of the Europeans were prevented from considering the impacts of the Great War by the intoxicating does of patriotism. On the other hand, Americans took over two years to consider the impacts of the war on the national security and well-being of the Americans. By the time American made a formal decision to enter into the war, few illusions remained about the horror posed by use of technology such as firearms in the war.

Unlike the Europeans who entered into the war soon after it started, the Americans knew the kind of the war they were entering into when they decided to do so in 1917. When the war started President Wilson believed that all the nations that entered into the war then were abandoning their diplomacy by rushing into war.

At first, a number of Americans held the perception that the war concerned them directly and they ensured that the Americans remained in conflict over whose responsibility it was for starting the war.

The US tried to remain neutral but this proved to be difficult. Way before the president declared a formal entry into war, some of the Americans found it hard to remain calm. The United States was faced with the problem of remaining neutral while still protecting its economy.

A large number of American products were exported to Europe and this meant that if the county discontinued its trade with warring nations, then its economy would be hurt. The president of the US was up to fight for the rights of the Americans and was ready to go to all odds. The US was forced into the war as it tried to protect itself from the external forces. For instance before 1915, German had a policy that warned and allowed some time to pass so that ships carrying passengers would evacuate before they sank.

However, during this time, no warning was given and the Lusitania was sunk before been given time to evacuate. This incident killed more than one hundred and twenty Americans. As if this was not enough, another ship was sunk one year latter and at this time, the Americans were outraged at the violation of the rights to use the sea.

A group of Americans together with one of the former president Roosevelt demanded an instantaneous move by the government. The president acted to they plea by increasing the number of military forces and issued a warning to all the Germans. The US government could not just sit down and watch things as they went out of hand, something had to be done right away and this marked the start of the US involvement in world War I.

To many Americans, including Wilson, it warranted almost any act against it in vengeance. Expressing his feeling of revenge, Wilson cut all relations with Germany. Germans were not pleased with this move and it responded by ceasing its submarine warfare for two years. This warfare was continued in 1917 after the announcement of Ambassador Bernstorff who declared an end to the diplomatic relations held with the US.

Works Cited

Bass, Herbert. America’s Entry Into World War I. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart And Winston, 1964. Print.

Hook, Vander. The United States Enters World War I. Essential Events Set 4. New York: ABDO, 2010. Print.

Jones, Jerry. U.S, battleship Press operations in World War I. Texas: Naval institute Press, 1998. Print.

Keene, Jennifer. World War I. The Greenwood Press “daily life through history” series. London: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. Print.

Mark, Henry. The US Army of World War I. New York: Oseprey Publishing, 2003.Print.

Venzon, Capriano, and Miles Paul. The United States in the First World War: an encyclopedia Volume 1205 of Garland reference library of the humanities. California: Garland Pub, 1999. Print.

Introduction

The effects of World War I can be seen around the world even now, more than one hundred years after its end; however, there is still no consensus as to its cause. In the words of Alfred Korzybski, “the destruction was brought about by nationalism, entangled alliances, narrow ethnic concerns, and desires for political gain – forces that are still with people today.” (cited in Levinson, 2014). Even though the majority of United States citizens did not have the direct experience of the terrific upset that the war caused in Europe, it can be argued that the country’s concern with championing democracy around the globe is one of its products (Levinson, 2014).

Many historians agree that an atmosphere of twentieth-century Europe was conducive to the creation of a complex mixture of economic, social, and political reasons that translated into powerful forces of imperialistic, nationalistic, and militaristic movements leading to the diplomatic crises of 1914 (Donaldson, 2014). Therefore, it can be said that the blame for the war could not be assigned to any individual country or a group of countries.

Nonetheless, the issue of responsibility was the main focus of the world in the years following the Armistice of 1918 (Donaldson, 2014). To this end, the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and the Enforcement of Penalties met in Paris in 1919 (Donaldson, 2014). The investigation conducted by the commission showed that Germany and Austria, along with Turkey and Bulgaria as their allies, were responsible for the aggressive foreign policy tactics that led to the precipitation of the war (Donaldson, 2014).

Causes

The start of World War I was precipitated by the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, on June 28, 1914 (Mulligan, 2010) The elimination of the high-standing official was carried out by the group of secret society members called Black Hand and directed by Bosnian Serb Danilo Ilić (Storey, 2009). The political objective of the murder was to separate Austria-Hungary’s South Slav provinces to combine them into Yugoslavia (Storey, 2009).

In response to the killing of their official, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia that commanded its government to prosecute the assassins. The objective of the ultimatum was to make its terms so strict that Serbia would be forced to reject it, thereby giving an excuse for launching a small war against it (Storey, 2009). Taking into consideration that Serbia had diplomatic relationships with Russia strengthened by their shared Slavic ties, the Austro-Hungarian government decided to take precautions against the two countries declaring war on it and allied with Germany. It is agreed that Germany was not opposed to Austro-Hungarian bellicosity, but rather supported and encouraged it, thus providing one more reason for the precipitation of the Great War (Levinson, 2014).

Even though Serbia’s response to the ultimatum was placating, Austria-Hungary decided to take aggressive action and declare war. It is argued that the main reason for World War I was the web of entangling alliances among the countries having an interest in the conflict between Austro-Hungary and Serbia (Storey, 2009). Following the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war, the Russian monarch mobilized his army because of the binding commitment of the treaty signed by the two countries.

As a result, on August 3, 1914, Germany declared war on the Russian Empire (Levinson, 2014). France was bound by treaty to Russia, and, therefore, had to start a war on Austria-Hungary and Germany. Even though a treaty tying France and Britain was loosely worded, the latter country had “a moral obligation” to defend the former (Levinson, 2014). Therefore, Britain and its allies Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Japan, and the Union of South Africa also took a bellicose stance against Germany and offered their assistance in the military action against the country (Levinson, 2014). Thus, a gigantic web of entangling alliances pushed numerous countries to the precipice of war over what was intended to be a small-scale conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

Numerous other reasons led to World War I. The conflicting political interests of Russia and Japan over Manchuria and Korea resulted in a military defeat of Russia (Levinson, 2014). Therefore, the country wanted to restore its dignity by a victorious war. During the same period, a lot of small nations were seething with discontent over the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian rule, thereby providing an opportunity for the Russian Empire further to stir resentment by firing up nationalistic zeal under a pretense of pan-Slavic narrative (Levinson, 2014).

Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, sought an opportunity to establish its influence over a vast territory of mixed nations; the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne provided them with a perfect excuse for the initiation of the war. Political clashes in Germany were a reason for the country’s government to resort to the military conflict as a way of “averting civil unrest” (Levinson, 2014). Another factor that caused World War I was the desire of France to revenge a military defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 (Levinson, 2014).

Conclusion

It is impossible to name a single reason for the initiation of World War I. However, it is clear that the entangling web of alliances among numerous parties participating in the war, as well as complicated plots of governments and empires, led the small-scale dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia escalating into a military conflict that swept the entire world.

References

Donaldson, P. (2014). Interpreting the origins of the First World War. Teaching History, 155(4), 32-33.

Levinson, M. (2014). Ten cautionary GS lessons from World War I. Et Cetera, 71(1), 41-48.

Mulligan, W. (2010). The origins of the First World War. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Storey, W. (2009). The First World War. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

The First World War, as well as the Second World War, are regarded as the most devastating military conflicts in the history of humanity. The First World Ward is also known as the Great War. It was the first global conflict between Central Powers and Allied Powers. Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany, and Ottoman Empire comprised Central Powers. Russia, France, Italy, and Great Britain were the primary forces of Allied Powers. World War I commenced in 1914 and ended in 1918. More than nine million people were killed during four years of war (“World War I” par. 1). More countries took part in World War II than in WWI, and its destructive outcomes were worse too. The primary aggressors of WWII were Germany, Italy, and Japan. France, Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States became Allies. WWI started in 1939 and lasted until 1945. The approximate number of deaths comprised more than fifty million (“World War II” par. 2).

Numerous scientists have investigated the causes of both wars. In the following paper, Kenneth Waltz’s levels of analysis will be used for the comparison and contrast of causes of WWI and WWII. Kenneth Waltz was a founder of structural realism or neorealism who suggested three levels of analysis for the evaluation of causes of war in his book “Man, the State, the War”. The first level of analysis concerns particular individuals.

Thus, wars can be caused by the specific intentions and behaviors of leaders. The second level deals with the examination of domestic factors that may cause war. The situation within the country, the existence and activities of pressure groups belong to this level of analysis. The third level is global. It is the international level of analysis, and it examines international relations between states as a potential cause for war (Dooley 261-263).

The third level of analysis is systemic as far as it presents the highest level of evaluation. According to Waltz, the structure of international politics, power distribution, and national interests are primary causes of wars on the third level of analysis (Dibek par. 2). Waltz believed that the structure of the international system was anarchic. He used the word “anarchy” to describe the absence of absolute world power or the highest government rather than the state of chaos. Thus, at the highest level of their autonomy, countries are on their own. Consequently, they aim at improving their positions and defending national interests.

The first similarity between both WWI and WWII refers to the similar structure of wars. Thus, both wars were represented by Allied countries that opposed the German aggression and its supporters. One can conclude that there was a state of anarchy before wars. The second similarity refers to the distribution of power and the division of world order. In both wars, Germany believed that it should receive a better position on the global level.

Although the distribution of power and opposition to aggressors occurred between almost the same countries, wars had different ground. World War I was caused by the instability of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Serbia wanted to become an independent nation. After the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Russia supported Serbia while Germany — the Empire. The separation of Serbia was catastrophic for Empire’s might and dominance.

The conflict was based on the division of territories. Also, countries fought for national pride (“World War I & II Compare and Contrast” 11-12). In contrast, Adolf Hitler, who believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, initiated WWII. As a result, the war occurred because of the clash of two ideologies such as Fascism and Communism. These differences exemplify various processes of both conflicts. WWI comprised of fighting for territories and countries. WWII included acts of massive slaughtering of people who did not belong to the Aryan race.

According to Waltz, specialized international organizations should monitor the instability in the particular region. Some scholars believe that the lack of such authority as the League of Nations is the primary cause for WWI. The participants of WWI failed to follow rules of diplomatic negotiations. When the WWI was over, the League of Nations was created to promote peace and diplomacy in the world. The history showed that the League of Nations did not possess necessary power and influence to control intentions of Germany and other aggressors before WWII. Still, the presence of such organization and countries’ refusal to follow new principles of diplomacy are primary distinctive features of causes of WWII (“Comparing and Contrasting WW1 and WW2” par. 4).

The usage of the first and second levels of analysis would help me to improve my explanation of causes of WWII. As far as the first level describes individuals, it is directly connected with Adolf Hitler. His individuality, personal preferences, and beliefs were crucial for the beginning of WWII. The second level of analysis, domestic, can be useful for the evaluation of the propaganda of Nazi ideology among people. Hitler had to inspire his nation to follow his idea. The propaganda of the superiority of the Aryan race and the need to make the society clear was essential for the commencement of the war.

Works Cited

Comparing and Contrasting WW1 and WW2. n.d. Web.

Dibek, Elif. What are the Basic Concepts of Neorealism? n.d. Web.

Dooley, Kevin. Why Politics Matter: An Introduction to Political Science. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.

World War I. n.d. Web.

World War I & II Compare and Contrast. n.d. Web.

World War II. n.d. Web.

Introduction

War has always been a defining characteristic of human civilization. Since historical times, people have waged war against each other for various reasons. Before the First World War of 1914 to 1918, armed confrontations between nations were carried out in restricted manners and primarily against military targets. However, the First World War led to the emergence of a new kind of war.

The two main sides in the confrontation carried out attacks with an aim of defeating the belligerent at whatever cost. The paper will demonstrate that the First World War was a total war since it bore most the hallmark characteristics of the total war including unlimited warfare, prioritization of armament efforts, involvement of the civilian population, and the widening control of the economy by the government.

The Concept of Total War

The concept of total war emerged in the years following the end of the devastating First World War. By definition, the total war is an engagement where each nation’s social and economic resources are impressed into the war efforts. During this war, all available national resources are mobilized and fully exploited to the single end of military success.

Whole nations became integrated fighting units with military personnel taking over aspects of production in some countries. Another defining characteristic of total war is that it leads to the blurring of distinction between civilians and soldiers.

All sectors of society are appropriately redefined as potential military targets leading to the abolition of the traditional distinction between military and civilian activities, and between combatant and noncombatant. In addition to the resource aspect of the total war, the total war is characterized by total unity among the leadership, army, and people.

This unity is necessary for the country to accept the huge financial and human costs associated with the sustained war efforts.

World War I as a Total War

The First World War was a total war in that the warring parties were committed to an unlimited warfare. The idea of unlimited war is where the nations involved set out to fight to the end. The nations mobilized their resources and neither side was prepared to compromise and reach a peaceful resolution to the war. Complete victory by crushing the enemy was the only alternative open to the warring parties.

The end of the war would require the unconditional surrender or total destruction of the enemy state. In the First World War, all the warring parties were unwilling to compromise since they all had ambitious war aims. Each side predicted a decisive victory over the belligerent and encouraged its citizens to join in the glorious battle (Fritz 59).

Another characteristic of total warfare exhibited by the First World War was the large-scale involvement of civilians in the war. This war destroyed the ages-old distinction between civilians and soldiers by making every citizen a combatant and the object of attack. Each party in the war engaged in strategic bombing of civilian locations and large-scale starvation.

Junger documents that civilians were attacked using bombs and even chemical weapons by the belligerents (62). The civilians were turned into active participants of the war. Historians explain that the civilians are not spared in a total war since the home front is as important as the battlefields in influencing the outcomes of the war.

The civilians at home provide the economic and moral support needed by the military personnel to carry on their war efforts (Kealey 57). German war bond posters from 1917 reveal that the government pleaded for aid in both moral and material from the German civilians (Fritz 59). For the enemy, breaking the home front is a priority since it will directly influence the military.

The social lives of civilians in the warring countries were impacted by the war. The huge casualties suffered at the battlefronts transformed the society by creating a large number of single parent families and increasing the number of destitute children.

The war also led to social changes as women took on the roles of men in factories as the young men were conscripted into the army. Howard reveals that while Britain had relied on voluntary membership to the army, the government was forced to introduce compulsory military service in May 1916 (58).

An aspect of total war evident in the First World War was the prioritization of armament. In order to carry out an effective and sustained military offensive against the enemy, each nation needed to be properly equipped. The warring parties made significant investments in their weaponry development.

There developments were made since each side wanted to gain an edge over the enemy and therefore achieve total victory by breaking the deadlock that the almost equal military capability had resulted in.

The early Germany victories over France were in part enabled by the massive artillery superiority that Germany boasted (Howard 63). In addition to conventional weapons, both sides used banned weapons. Accounts by Junger from a village in France reveal that chemical attacks were used against villages during the war (62).

The war efforts led to food shortages in Europe as farms were abandoned by men who joined the army (Howard 56). The nations therefore had to import most of their food supplies and this led to shortages as each side took steps to prevent the other from acquiring food from outside sources.

A major wartime activity was the naval blockade carried out by Britain in the hope of starving the enemy populations into submission (Howard 56). This blockade stopped vital food supplies from getting to Germany leading to desperate food shortages and the introduction of rationing. In retaliation, Germany engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare aimed at preventing Britain from importing food supplies.

In the total war, the government exerts control over the social, political and economic life of the population. This was the case in the First World War where governments took complete control of their country and ensured that all aspects contributed to the attainment of victory in the war. The military influenced the economic production of the nation during the First World War.

During peacetime, Western governments left most of the aspects of economic production to the private sector. During the war, this changed as the government took on a more active role in the economy of the country with resources being distributed in such a way as to bolster military forces.

Howard documents that the First World War turned even liberal states such as England into states where the government had increased power and a great command of the country’s economy (57).

The First World War made extensive use of propaganda to bolster the unity of the nation. This led to the total political and moral unity of the population that believed in the ability of their country to win the war (Kealey 57).

Both sides in the war engaged in widespread propaganda leading to heightened nationalism. Each side justified its position in the war by demonstrating that the other side was in the wrong and therefore needed to be defeated.

Discussion

Historians agree that the European war leaders did not manage to mobilize everyone and everything for war. Even so, the war led to the mobilization of as many people and a significant portion of the resources available to the State to the war efforts. The attempt to wage total war against each other led to many negative effects for the participants.

The attempt to achieve complete mobilization of people and resources by one side was countered by a similar attempt by the other side. This led to a prolonged conflict that was ruinous for all sides.

The use of extreme measures such as poison gas and naval blockades to starve the enemy was countered by equally extreme measures leading to high casualties in the war. The total war did not promote total victory since in the end; all the participants were exhausted hence unable to secure a decisive victory.

Conclusion

This paper has argued that the First World War was a total war since it exhibited the main features of the total war. It has shown how the war involved not just the military components of the warring nations but also their general population with civilians being active participants and targets in the war. The economies of Europe were mobilized for the war effort leading to a costly and long military engagement.

Even though the First World War did not end in the complete destruction of one side by the other, it can be classified as the world’s first total war since attempts were made at unlimited warfare, civilian population mobilization was widespread, and the government took control over the economic and social aspects of the society.

Works Cited

Fritz, Erler. German War Bond Poster: “Help Us Triumph!”. Stanford: Hoover Institute Library, 1917. Print.

Howard, Michael. The First World War: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Junger, Ernst. Storm of Steel. Penguin Books, 2004. Print

Kealey, Evans. British Recruitment Poster: Women of Britain Say – “GO!”. London: Department of Art, Imperial War Museum, 1915. Print.

Introduction

World War one seems like an ancient history with many cases of compelling wars to many people, but amazingly, it became known as the Great War because of influence it caused. It took place across European colonies and their surrounding seas between August 1914 and December 1918 (Tuchman, 2004). Almost sixty million troops mobilized for the war ended up in crippling situations.

For instance, more than eight million died and over thirty million people injured in the struggle. The war considerably evolved with the economic, political, cultural and social nature of Europe. Nations from the other continents also joined the war making it worse than it was.

The Causes of World War One

Over a long period, most countries in Europe made joint defense treaties that would help them in battle if the need arose. This was for defense purposes. For instance, Russia linked with Serbia, Germany with Austria-Hungary, France with Russia, and Japan with Britain (Tuchman, 2004).

The war started with the declaration of war on Serbia by Austria-Hungary. This later led to the entry of countries allied to Serbia into the war so as to protect their partners.

Imperialism is another factor that led to the First World War. Many European countries found expansion of their territories enticing.

Before World War One, most European countries considered parts of Asia and Africa as their property because they were highly productive. European nations ended up in confrontations among themselves due to their desire for more wealth from Africa and Asia. This geared the whole world into war afterwards.

Competition to produce more weapons compared to other countries also contributed to the beginning of World War One. Many of the European nations established themselves well in terms of military capacity and eventually sought for war to prove their competence.

Desire for nationalism by the Serbians also played a crucial role in fueling the war. Failure to come to an agreement about Bosnia and Herzegovina led the countries to war. Both countries wanted to prove their supremacy.

Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in Austria-Hungary sparked the war. Tuchman (2004) reveals that the Serbians assassinated Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914 while protesting to the control of Sarajevo by Austria-Hungary. The assassination led to war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. This led to mobilization of Russian troops in preparation for war.

The already prepared Germany immediately joined the war against Russia and France. On the other hand, Russians declared war on Austria and Germany. The invasion of the neutral Belgium by Germany triggered Britain to declare war against Germans.

Earlier, Britain had promised to defend Belgium against any attack. The British entered France with the intention of stopping the advancement of Germany. This intensified the enmity among the countries involved (Tuchman, 2004).

Tuchman (2004) argues that the French together with their weak allies held off the fighting in Paris and adopted trench warfare. The French had decided to defend themselves from the trenches instead of attacking. This eventually gave them the victory.

Although The British had the largest number of fleet in the world by the end of 1914, they could not end the First World War. The Germans had acquired a well-equipped fleet. This helped them advance the war to 1915. However, many countries participating in the war began to prepare for withdrawal from the conflict. The war had changed the social roles in many of the countries involved.

For instance, women in Britain performed duties initially considered masculine so as to increase their income (Tuchman, 2004). In the Western Front, the innovated gas weapons killed many people. In the Eastern Front, Bulgaria joined Austria-Hungary as the central power leading to more attacks in Serbia and Russia. Italy too joined the war and fought with the allied forces.

The British seized German ports in 1916. This led to severe shortage of food in Germany. The shortages encountered by the Germans led to food riots in many of the German towns. The Germans eventually adopted submarine warfare. With the help of this new tactic, they targeted Lusitania, one of the ships from America.

This led to the loss of many lives, including a hundred Americans, prompting America to join the war. On 1stJuly the same year, over twenty thousand people died and forty thousand injured. However, in the month of May the same year, the British managed to cripple the German fleet and eventually take control of the sea (Tuchman, 2004).

The year 1917 marked a remarkable change in Germany. Attempts to convince Mexico to invade the United States proved futile. Germany eventually lost due to lack of sufficient aid from their already worn-out allies. Towards the end of 1918, British food reserves became exhausted. This reduced the intensity of the warfare against Germans. It was in this same year that they established “Women Army Auxiliary Corps”.

It placed women on the forefront in the battlefield for the first time. On the Western Front, the Germans weakness eventually led to their defeat. The war came to an end. The British eventually emerged the superior nation among all the European nations.

The signing of the Treaty of Versailles on twenty eighth June 1919 between the Allied powers and Germany officially ended the war. Other treaties signed later contributed to the enforcement of peace among nations involved in the war (Tuchman, 2004).

The Effects of the War

First World War outlined the beginning of the modern era; it had an immense impact on the economic and political status of many countries. European countries crippled their economies while struggling to manufacture superior weapons. The Old Russian Empire replaced by a socialist system led to loss of millions of people.

The known Austro-Hungarian Empire and old Holy Roman Empire became extinct. The drawing of Middle East and Europe maps led to conflicts in the present time. The League of Nations formed later contributed significantly in solving international conflicts.

In Britain, a class system arose demarcating the lower class from the advantaged class whereas, in France the number of men significantly reduced (Tuchman, 2004). This led to sharing of the day to day tasks between men and women. First World War also caused the merger of cultures among nations. Poets and authors portray this well. Many people also ended up adopting the western culture and neglecting their own.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the First World War led to the loss of many lives. These included soldiers and innocent citizens of the countries at war. The First World War also led to extensive destruction of property. The infrastructure and buildings in many towns crumbled. It contributed to displacement of people from their homes. Many people eventually lost their land.

The loss of land and displacement of people has substantially contributed to the current conflicts among communities and nations. However, the First World War paved way to the establishment of organizations that ensured that peace prevailed in the world. It also led to the advancement of science and technology. It led to the realization that women too could perform masculine tasks.

Reference

Tuchman, W. B. (2004). The Guns of August: New York: Random House Publishing Group.

Introduction

World War I saw the application of several new technologies to the battlefield, the most important being that of the internal combustion engine, which permitted the development of the first successful mechanized armored fighting vehicles¹. The war was one of the greatest examples of technological advancements and strategic challenges in history, with the introduction of powerful technological inventions.

It saw the advancement of many technological developments of the battlefield which included the aircraft, machine guns, tanks, and poison guns². Particularly, the aircraft and the tank greatly transformed the battlefield from slow destruction to a decisive end.

This paper looks at technological inventions during World War I and how they were used in the war. The focus is, however, on the tank technology, how it was used in the war, and how it developed over the years since the start of World War I.

Technologies used in World War I

After the battlefield turned to a stalemate on the Western Front in 1915, the French and British armies studied potential technical solutions to overcome German defensive technology. There were three principal threats that had to be addressed and these included barbed wire, trenches, and deadly increase in defensive firepower³.

These three adversaries were a synergistic combination that shifted the technological and tactical balance back to the defense and led to the tactical stalemate experienced during World war I. Barbed wires deprived the attacking side of mobility and left the attacking infantry vulnerable to enemy machine guns.

Trenches provided the defender with the means to protect against attacking firepower and, the enhanced defensive firepower of 1914-18 made the advancing infantry vulnerable at greater ranges than ever before. As infantrymen advanced towards enemy lines, they had to endure artillery fire at longer ranges than previously encountered and then, if they survived that, they had to face the murderous attempts from machine guns and rifle fire.

Although early French efforts to develop technical solutions to this tactical dilemma were ingenious, they often focused on one of the threats rather than on all the three threats highlighted. Armored cars had been adopted by the French cavalry before the war, but these were useless in the trench warfare.

Even though their armor protected crews against machine guns and shell splitters, their narrow wheels created high ground pressure that made them sink into the soft soil leading to slow progression. In general, the primitive automotive suspensions offered no capability to operate in rough terrains.

In 1915, the French army endeavored to improve the cross country mobility of armored cars by building ten armored tractors on filtz agricultural tractors⁴. These were intended to crush or cut through barbed wire entanglements but, their combat entrance at Verdun in the autumn of 1915 demonstrated their arthritic movement in rough terrains.

A number of similar schemes during the early years of World War I existed including the armored Archer wheeled tractor and the Breton-Pretot wire cutting tractor. Another approach was to use an armored steam roller pioneered by the Rouleau Frot-Laffly design of March 1915. Also present were small remotely controlled tracked vehicles which used electric motors that would send a large explosive charge into the barbed wire entanglements and then blow them up.

These, however, never proved reliable or practical enough to be put into production and led to the development of the most elaborate device to deal with both barbed wire and trenches known as the Boirault device.

The first version of this 30 ton device consisted of a set of hinged frames powered by a motor suspended within the device. Trials in early 1915 failed to convince the French armies of the practicality of the device, so its inventor Louis Boirault developed a second design.

This was a slightly smaller design and had its engine placed within an armored capsule. Trials indicated that this second design was more robust and ingenious. There were, however, concerns about the value of the device due to its size, noise, and vulnerability to German artillery.

The aircraft, machine guns, submarines, tanks, flamethrowers, and poison guns were among the technologies used in World War I. This was besides the use of rifles and grenades. Although airplanes had for a long time been reserved for leisure, they later became critical as nations realized that they could strategically be used in the war.

Another important development of World War I was the use of submarines which were mainly used to counter any ship and other submarine attacks from opponents. Poison gas on the hand was used to subject the enemy to a slow and painful destruction process. The tanks were invented by the British as a replacement of the trench warfare technology that had been used for quite some time.

It was, however, mechanically unstable and did not deliver results as was expected. The Germans invented the use of flamethrowers which as the name suggests, were used to destabilize the enemy by throwing flames at them. Rifles were generally preferred as infantry weapons.

Although machine guns came in quite handy and played a very important role during the initial days of the World War I, they could easily be affected by mechanical problems that greatly interfered with their effectiveness. Trench motors, built to support the trench warfare, were also used during World War I.

Tank Technology in World War I

The tank technology is considered to be a very significant development of the World War I. Despite being such a great invention on the battlefield, the original tank was imperfect and had a number of shortcomings that had to be dealt with in order to enhance its performance. Later designs of the tank came with many improvements that ensured a higher level of efficiency.

However, despite the fact that the technology was quite primitive, the original tank provided a very strong foundation for advancing the tank technology into the future. Consequently, the tanks used in World War II turned out to be of much superior quality and proved to be quite useful to the military forces during the war.

Even though it was a British invention, the French and German soldiers also had similar vehicles that were used during the World War I. The force behind the tank invention was the desire to replace the trench warfare that was in use at the time. Both the British and German soldiers were dissatisfied by the trench warfare technology and had to seek a better alternative.

Apparently, the tank technology presented the much sought after substitute at the time. With the tank technology, the British army successfully managed to swiftly deal with attacks coming from the German fighters. On their first use, they seemed efficient and proved to be a serious threat to the German army. Shortly later, it turned out that there were more challenges than opportunities that accompanied the use of the tank.

According to Lieber, the impact of tanks on the offense-defense balance is best discussed in a chronological manner. The initial period saw them being used in World War I and the interwar period. Later, they were used in World War II from 1939 through to 1941 and finally, in World War II from the winter of 1942-43 through 1944⁵.

In World War I and the interwar period, the tanks were found to have no discernible effect on the offense-defense balance. In World War II, the most relevant evidence also indicated that tanks did not ultimately shift the balance toward offense. As a result, there were concerns regarding the impact of the tank technology and what needed to be done to them if greater gains were to be realized.

During the World War I, Allies strongly believed that the integration of new military technology such as tanks and airplanes into offensive plans would make operations more efficient and productive⁶. This led the British to develop the first tank in the year 1916, although its first battlefield appearance during the 1916 Somme offensive was quite unimpressive.

Poorly chosen ground, the use of inexperienced crew, and numerous mechanical breakdowns doomed the experimental use of the initial forty nine vehicles to failure. In November 1917, however, at the battle of Cambrai, the British demonstrated that if used on firm terrain, in sufficient numbers with a properly trained crew, placing tanks at the head of an infantry advance to crush barbed wire and aim machine gun fire at German defenders, a major breakthrough could result.

The success of the tank in penetrating five miles into German lines demonstrated its potential to support an infantry advance. These experiences provided valuable lessons for the Allies in 1918, when tanks would make more regular and effective appearances in battle.

This was one technological advantage that the Allies worked hard to retain through out the war. Later, the Germans developed several tank prototypes that were both too large and cumbersome. This prompted them to instead rely on the captured British tanks to create their own tanks.

There were concerns, however, that the use of tanks in World War I provided very little guidance regarding their eventual impact on warfare or their effect on the offensive-defensive balance. All of the major European armies had experimented with armored fighting vehicles by 1914, but only the British and the French sought to produce large numbers of tanks by 1916.

Originally, the tanks were used in the battle of Somme September 1916, achieved their greatest success at the battle of Cambrai in November 1917, and played a major role in the Amiens offensive in August 1918. In spite of the successes that were realized with the help of the original tanks, the technology did not meet the expectations of many as had been anticipated.

This being the case, fighters resolved to use new infantry tactics, shunning the use of tanks in some instances⁷. Clearly, the tank technology did not have a decisive impact on the military operations in World War I.

Conclusion

From the discussion presented in this paper, it has emerged that a number of technologies were used during World War I. The desire to be victorious in the war led to great inventions that later transformed the battlefield, speeding up the war.

From the use of one technology to another, fighters realized that they needed to be well prepared and this pushed them to work towards the development of technologies that would grant them an advantage over their enemies.

As already pointed out, the earlier technologies had enough shortcomings and had either to be eliminated or improved in order to increase the level of efficiency. The tanks in World War I, for example, were manned by untrained crews, vulnerable to defensive artillery fire, and prone to mechanical breakdown. According to Dowling⁸ the characteristics of the tanks are what limited their battlefield effectiveness.

With heavy tank speeds of 4 to 5 miles per hour and light tanks capable of only 8 miles per hour, tanks did not add much speed to operations⁹. Crews suffered severely from confinement in the hot steel tank bodies which offered little protection against enemy fire. Reliability was so poor that more tanks were lost to mechanical breakdowns than enemy fire, many even before a battle started.

Despite these problems, tanks were accepted as an integral part of any battlefield by the end of World War I. Experience with the new weapon also led to the development of effective tank tactics. By the end of World War I, tanks were an important component of battlefield operations. Although the techniques were developed at this point, the full potential of these weapons was not demonstrated until two decades later in World War II.

Bibliography

Dowling, Timothy. World War 1, Volume 1. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2006.

Hamilton, John. Weapons of World War I. Minnesota: ABDO Publishing Company, 2010.

Jackson, Robert. 101 Great Tanks. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2010.

Keene, Jennifer. World War I. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006.

Lieber, Keir. War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics over Technology. New York: Cornell University Press, 2005.

Small, Steven, Westwell, Ian & Westwood, John. History of World War I, Volume 3. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2002.

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

Zaloga, Steven. French Tanks of World War I. Long Island City, NY: Osprey Publishing, 2011.

Footnotes

¹ Small, Steven, Westwell, Ian & Westwood, John. History of World War I, Volume 3. (Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2002), 848.

² Hamilton, John. Weapons of World War I. (Minnesota: ABDO Publishing Company, 2010), 27.

³ Zaloga, Steven. French Tanks of World War I. (Long Island City, NY: Osprey Publishing, 2011), 3.

⁴ Jackson, Robert. 101 Great Tanks. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2010.

⁵ Lieber, Keir. War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics over Technology (New York: Cornell University Press, 2005), 101.

⁶ Keene, Jennifer. World War I. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006), 13.

⁷ Lieber, Keir. War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics over Technology. (New York: Cornell University Press, 2005), 101.

8 Dowling, Timothy. World War 1, Volume 1. (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2006), 103.

⁹ Tucker, Spencer. World War I: A – D., Volume 1. (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2005), 1151.

Ernist Junger explores various experiences he underwent during World War One in his book The Storm of Steel. Junger’s book, written in form of a personal memoir, highlights how thousands of individuals were affected by the horrors of World War One.

When the Storm of Steel was published, it became a favorite in Germany since it adored the greatness of war and the huge sacrifices made by the Germany warriors to end the war victoriously. Junger believes he was lucky to participate in such a great war that will undoubtedly enter Germany’s history.

Despite the fact that Junger’s book is very detailed, it is easy to follow since it is divided into chapters regarding various times spent at different locations during the war. Also, the language used in the book is not limited to those in the military, and hence, any reader who understands English can easily read through the book.

In addition, the book explores the extent to which soldiers disregard life while at war and the various approaches they use in adapting to the deadly environment. Though the book glorifies the greatness of World War One, it also covers some subtle anti-war elements (Junger, 1996).

Accordingly, the book is in depth with several parts that are informative and interesting. For instance, Junger writes that he found so much pleasure when he adventured into war. This situation sounds unrealistic considering the consequences that war presents. In 1912, his father managed to retrieve him from the French Foreign Legion where he had joined voluntarily.

However, Junger’s father failed to contain him when he voluntarily joined another war that started in 1914 believing that trench fights would glorify his true nature. Here, it is crucial to emphasize that it is unfamiliar for someone to volunteer into war. By the fact that Junger willingly volunteered himself, a sense of concern is developed. Apparently, Junger was sane when he made his decision.

Besides, he believed that Germany soldiers had all the strength needed to win in that war. Even after he underwent the battle of Somme, Junger believed he needed to fight on alongside his friends who fought to death beside him (Junger, 1996).

This part of Junger’s book informs us of the determination that Germany soldiers had during World War One. Besides, it is so interesting and absurd at the same time that some soldiers like Junger fought on even after losing some of their friends to war.

Moreover, the manner in which Junger interprets duty must have undoubtedly influenced him during the war. When he explains why he did not run away from war at terrifying times, he says that deep inside his soul there was some strange voice that kept on besieging him to stay, and that specific voice was the power of Duty and Honor.

This can be interpreted that Germany soldiers were kept in the trenches of France and Flanders fighting because they were performing their duty. In fact, it was this duty that determined their relative performance in World War One, and relative performance was directly proportional to the honor that they were awarded.

Another very informative part of Junger’s work regarding duty and honor is apparent when he writes on the urge to quit fighting. He asserts that leaving was not optional as it would have displayed him as a wretch and a coward. Since it was Junger’s priority to gain respect and honor, he persistently and patiently waited until the last day of war.

However, the writer admits that the element of fulfilling duty needed a lot of sacrifice during the war. Junger goes ahead to inform us how far the Germany soldiers were willing to go in pursuit of performing their duty.

Furthermore, it is interesting to learn the kind of language used by Germany soldiers during World War One. In fact, Junger constantly uses the words “fell” or “fallen” instead of “killed” and “dead.” This implies that the Germany soldiers respected those of them who died while fighting. Again, this language is believed to lessen the grief that death usually presents.

For example, Junger calls death “glorious” when he writes about his friend who was departed by the fighting spirits and subsequently succumbed to a “glorious” death. He proceeds to write that “glorious” or “heroic” death in war is imminent and cannot be avoided by whatever means.

Here, the writer focuses on the do or die attitude soldiers hold once they are in the battle field. For the soldiers who survived in World War One, they witnessed the rebirth of a new country, but for those who fell, their names were held in glory.Throughout the book, Junger uses several of such passages and even sometimes talks of death without fanfare (Junger, 1996).

In addition, Storm of Steel is so informative regarding the extent of patriotism the Germany Army had for their country during the war.It is not by surprise that Junger’s patriotism earned him the nationalist right besides attending the Nazi Party (Junger, 1996). Fittingly, it needed more than love of the nation and duty for the Germany soldiers to make the sacrifices they made during World War One.

Factually, Junger’s argument regarding patriotism is very correct considering the fact that not all men in Germany volunteered to fight for their country. Therefore, it is credit for those soldiers who persevered through World War One. Junger proceeds to point out that men on either side of the battle went into war because they put the interest of their countries first.

He concludes by saying they fought and gave their lives for free to Germany unlike their enemies who fell for nothing. Indeed, the spirit of patriotism cannot go beyond what the Germany soldiers did for their country during World War One.

Overall, Junger’s book presents mixed messages in the most informative manner regarding World War One. Similar to other soldiers who were involved in the war, Junger went into it aiming to adventure but quickly got disillusioned.

The Germany soldiers did not give up the fight despite the great challenges that they met. Instead, they depended on the call of duty and honor coupled with the spirit of patriotism to come out of the war as heroes. This book is of great importance to different cadres of people especially historians since it supplies them with personal accounts of an individual who experienced the war in person.

Also, most of the events that happened in World War One are illustrated systematically in an interesting manner. The Storm of Steel remains the most popular book because the writer adopts a clear and open way of expressing the experience of soldiers in No Man’s Land.

Reference List

Junger, E. (1996). The Storm of Steel. New York: Howard Fertig.

The video, WWI Germany’s Secret Gambles, analyzes the way Germany turned to covert operations, which included sabotage, espionage, biological weapons and secret communications to win the First World War. The video evaluates the measures and strategies, which Germany adopted to undermine the authority of the British Empire.

For example, the film analyzes the outcomes of Germany’s secretive involvement with independent Irish groups. The film suggests that Germany collaborated with Irish Republicans in planning the revolt to end the British rule in Ireland. The planning of the Easter Rising began a couple of months after the British government declared war on Germany.

The planners of the Eastern Rebellion met with the German Ambassador in Washington and agreed on the involvement of a German expeditionary force to aid the uprising. The “interception of the German arms shipment by the Royal Navy” led to the quick suppression of the Eastern uprising and execution of key leaders of the Irish Republicans.¹ The failure by Germany to deliver on its promises on the Eastern Rebellion enabled the British forces to overpower Irish Republican militants and curtailed Germany’s efforts to destroy the British Empire.

The control of areas such as Texas, New Mexico and Arizona was a chief WWI strategy by Germany. The pursuit of close diplomatic ties was a covert operation to facilitate a secret alliance between Germany and the Mexican government. The enticement of Mexico into a secret alliance against the U.S was one of the factors, which influenced the U.S to severe its relations with Germany.

The interception of top-secret communications between the German Foreign Minister and German Ambassador in Mexico confirmed President Woodrow suspicions regarding “a secret alliance between Germany and Mexico”.² Germany promised to provide the relevant strategic support to recover the territories Mexico had lost to the United States in return for the Mexican government support of Germany’s First World War agendas.

Biological warfare was one of Germany’s most immoral covert operations in various parts of the world. Germany bioterrorism covert operations included the use of anthrax to infect animals or contaminate animal feed in enemy countries. The infection of livestock shipments designated for Allied countries was a core bioterrorism strategy by Germany.

The German scientists assumed that infecting a few animals would help to spark epidemics in the enemy countries. Germany was largely unsuccessful in its use of biological and chemical weapons considering the negligible effects of its biological sabotage. Germany operated spies within America with the objective to use the spies to instigate political unrest throughout the country.

The covert operations by German spies in America included sabotage and propaganda directed at the German-American population, culture and political institutions. Some of the covert operations by Germany spy rings in America included the New York Harbor explosion and San Francisco Bay attack.

The swift response by federal agents and local police departments led to anti-German sentiments and the “enactment of sedition and anti-espionage laws”, which targeted Germany sympathizers.³ The suspicions regarding German spy networks in America had detrimental effects on Germany’s strategic plan to turn Americans against their country.

Germany’s covert operations failed mainly due to quick counter-intelligence measures and systems implemented by the Allied countries. Germany overlooked the existence of spy programs and robust intelligence infrastructure by the Allied countries, which enabled them to detect the First World War maneuvers by Germany.

Bibliography

Best, Richard A. “Leadership of the U.S. Intelligence Community: From DCI to DNI.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 27, no. 2 (2014): 253-333.

Hammond, Thomas H. “Intelligence Organizations and the Organization of Intelligence.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 23, no. 4 (2010): 680-724.

Director of National Intelligence, “An Overview of the United States Intelligence Community for the 111th Congress,” January 1, 2009. Accessed from https://fas.org/irp/eprint/overview.pdf

Footnotes

¹ Best, Richard A. “Leadership of the U.S. Intelligence Community: From DCI to DNI.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 27, no. 2 (2014): 253-333.

² Director of National Intelligence, “An Overview of the United States Intelligence Community for the 111th Congress,” January 1, 2009.

³ Hammond, Thomas H. “Intelligence Organizations and the Organization of Intelligence.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 23, no. 4 (2010):680-724.

Introduction

In the complex environment of the 21^st century, political engagement among civilians is often taken for granted, as people are capable of exercising their rights to partake in political and military processes within the state. This is an incredible breakthrough compared to what could be observed before the World War I arguably, the latter served as a trigger for causing a massive increase in the rates of military and political activity among people all over the world.

The rapid and nearly unanimous change towards a politically aware behavioral model and the sharp increase in the significance of the role of civilian population all over the world can be explained by the fact that the WWI affected people deeply not only on the state level, but also of a more personal one by jeopardizing both their lives and their values.

The True Face of War

Bringing drastic changes to people’s lives to the point where the latter were literally destroyed, the World War I affected people on a personal level, therefore, making them engage in military actions in order to survive and protect those, who were dear to them. It should be noted, though, that the effect that the WWI had on the military engagement and political awareness among civilians, is rather bitter.

While the increase in the engagement rates and the incredible upheaval in the political activeness of civilians, not to mention the reconsideration of warfare in general by an average citizen, are beyond amazing, the toll that it took on people is huge and truly terrifying. The enhancement of the role of civilians in modern warfare cost millions of lives taken in the course of the war (Gatrell and Nivett 64).

The very fact that the World War I triggered mass deportations, as well as that concentration camps were created and used actively at the time (Winter 258), is a solid proof for the social tension that was building up within the society in the course of the war along with the political one. As the enemy’s actions had a terrible and enormous impact on people’s families, the stakes of people joining the military in order to combat the enemy were obviously higher than ever, and, therefore, the striving for defeating the latter was all the stronger.

The “extremely violent transfer of the population” (Becker 00:26:23), which was a common occurrence in the environment of the WWI, did play its role in the development of a specific attitude towards warfare among the people belonging to the allied states(Schaepdrijver 87). Thus, incorporating both negative and positive influence, though clearly with a much stronger stress on the former, the WWI reinvented the role of average citizens in modern warfare, making it more significant.

Conclusion

Therefore, it can be assumed that, owing to the changes that the WWI brought into the political life of the state and the people that live in it, as well as the rates of political engagement among the people of the 20^th and 21^st century, the war has altered the role of citizens in modern warfare drastically.

Not only did the war encouraged people to join their forces in order to fight the enemy, but also affected their perception of the state’s key political processes raising political engagement rates among population, WWI made the role of citizens in warfare more significant.

Works Cited

Becker, Annette. Lecture. Web.

Gatrell, Peter and Peter Nivett. “Refugees and Exiles.” The Cambridge History of the First World War. Vol. 3. Ed. Jay Winter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print.

Schaepdrijver, Sophie de. “Population under Occupation” The Cambridge History of the First World War. Vol. 3. Ed. Jay Winter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print.

Winter, Jay. The Cambridge History of the First World War. Vol. 3. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print.

World War I was one of the most large-scale weapon conflicts in the world history. The name “World War I” was established only after the beginning of the World War II. According to the official version, the main motive for this war was the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in June 1914. However, this version is still debated in the historical circles. No matter what the reasons of this war were, one thing is certain, it involved almost half of the world and ruined lives of millions of people.

The conflict arose among two powerful alliances: the Central Power and the Allies, “since the Great War of 1914-18 was fought, on all the oceans of the world and ultimately involved belligerents from every continent, it can justifiably be termed a “world war” (Howard 1) Millions of people were killed on both sides and it influenced lives of many people involving all aspects of modern society. It affected both soldiers and civilians alike, no matter to what nation or culture they belonged. In this paper, we are going to discuss how the World War I affected live of people and what was the life of soldiers and civilians serving and living on the frontlines.

The war is considered to be “a men business”, however, it is too farfetched to assume that only grown-up men served on the frontlines and participated in battles. There were many children under the age of 18 who took weapons and served as soldiers. There were many women who served as nurses in the frontlines and there were women who took weapon and fought for their native land. The war brought many violence, grief and death in peoples’ lives. Many people died as heroes, many people died accidentally and many people died because of the terrible conditions of life. The war influenced all aspects of the social life changing people’s lives, way of thinking and perception of the better world.

Civilians who lived on the home fronts faced all the horrors of war; they were witnesses of mass killings, disappearance, home destructions, hunger, etc.

The war was extremely expensive for civilian people. They had to pay for the war debts. People could not cover these expenses and many people could not earn a living and suicide because of despair. When the voluntary service was introduced, many patriotic people joined the army. Thus, numerous workers left their professions and production of vital good suffered. Such situation brought many drawbacks for the industry and governments of many countries were forced to return people on their work places. People volunteered into the armed forces because they could not earn their living in the home fronts and it was the only way to survive (or, actually, die).

The number of crimes also rose. People killed for food and clothes. Many people shared the philosophy that “each day might be the last, and why not enjoy life today when tomorrow there might be a burial without coffin, without anything except regret… (Heyman 201). The war influenced not only all social sides of peoples’ lives, but their moral and ethical principles. The face of world changed.

Soldiers serving on the frontlines had to suffer not only battles, inconveniences, bad medical treatment and diseases. As an example, the live of soldiers in the trenches can be described. “Death was a constant companion to those serving in the line, even when no raid or attack was launched or defended against” (Duffy n. p.). Many soldiers died when the trenches were just built. They died because of the sniper’s bullets. Rat infestation was another reason for many deaths, as there were millions of them in the trenches and they were very big ones. Soldiers were afraid of them. The other sources of infection were lice and frogs. Lies were the reason of the Trench Fever, a very painful disease that brought away lives of many soldiers. In such terrible conditions, soldiers had to spend for weeks under the watch of enemy snipers.

The anti-sanitarian conditions of life were not the only difficulty that soldiers faced. Strict orders and rules were laid upon them. If someone left the trench for some reason or was wounded trying to carry out the order, he was accused of being a coward.

Technology introduced new weapons. However, it was not perfect and caused deaths of enemy soldiers, as well as soldiers who used it. Soldiers used light machine guns and pistols while helmets were their only protection from bullets. Moreover, the General Headquarters relied on new weapon, rather than on logic and strategy that caused many more deaths. Finally, soldiers suffered great psychological traumas.

Thus, the World War I was a great disaster for millions of people. It brought great and irrevocable changes into their lives, no matter if they were civilians living on the home fronts or soldiers serving on the frontlines. Men, women and children suffered diseases, death of close people, hunger and numerous killing caused by fear and despair.

Works Cited

Duffy, Michael. Life in the Trenches. A Multimedia History of World War One, 2009. Web.

Heyman, Neil M. World War I. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997.

Howard, Michael. The First World War: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.