It is necessary to say that naval battles were an essential part of the global war, and some of the tactics and strategies that were used by British and German were astounding. I have seen some fights, and Germany’s boats have looked impressive. The number of casualties that both sides had to deal with was simply enormous. It is hard to argue with the significance of some of the battles. Unexpected bombardments were especially worrying because it was hard to predict most of the time (Collins, 2008).
Analysis
The fact that the government has tried to bring together varied demographics should not be disregarded, and it was necessary to make sure that African Americans train with other soldiers to establish cooperation and relationships (Collins, 2008). An enormous number of women wanted to offer their support and help the soldiers, and nursing could be viewed as an outstanding opportunity (Sondhaus, 2011). It is important to say that lower classes had to deal with the biggest number of issues, and they have suffered the most.
It is important to say that I am incredibly concerned about the way this war may affect the international community in the long-term. The biggest problem that needs to be mentioned is that it has led to tremendous tension among the participants. It will not be easy to forget such events, and they will forever remain in the pages of history. The fact that such massive conflict erupted is truly worrying because it is possible that it may happen in the future again. The fact that new technologies are being introduced is especially problematic because it may lead to more destruction.
One of the most important aspects that should not be disregarded is that the perception of the country has changed once the United States has decided to move away from isolationism. It is necessary to mention that a significant number of individuals were not satisfied with the participation in these events because they thought that it would lead to unnecessary expenses, and such intervention may cause numerous conflicts. However, many believed that it is necessary to offer support because the war was regarded as a global threat that needs to be addressed (Collins, 2008).
It is important to say that the economy of the United States had to deal with tremendous growth because the country has offered numerous loans. However, the biggest issue that has been worrying surrounding people is that it was not beneficial in the long-term and has caused numerous complications. One of the most significant problems that should be noted is that many individuals believe that it has led to the Great Depression (Sondhaus, 2011). It is necessary to mention that an enormous percentage of individuals thought that it was not possible to make sure that the economy is recovered.
Conclusion
One of the most significant aspects that should not be disregarded is that the experience before World War I was much better for me because I did not have to worry about possible incoming dangers. On the other hand, a victory has had a positive impact on morale and motivation because it indicated that the United States is a powerful force. However, issues that were associated with this event have been incredibly problematic. The fact that the country has lost an enormous number of soldiers was worrying and many individuals including myself were depressed.
References
Collins, R. F. (2008). World War One. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Sondhaus, L. (2011). World War One: The global revolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Many researchers consider the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in June 1914 in Sarajevo to be the reason for the start of World War I. These researchers state that Germany decided to use this favorable moment to unleash military conflict; however, it can be argued that the assassination of the Archduke was not the cause of the war but rather a pretext for it. The purpose of this paper is to provide arguments in support of this position.
Background
It should be noted that starting from 1878, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire had similar interests, which could be concluded to the desire to conquer the territories and divide the world differently. In the same manner, France and the Russian Empire needed to unite to be able to stand against their opponents. In 1907, Great Britain joined their side to protect its interests. However, even earlier, in 1848, Germany directed its efforts to reinforce the military power, and Great Britain comprehended the criticality of this maneuver; therefore, it had to join the French-Russian Union in 1907 to be able to protect itself. It is important to stress that prior to the start of the war, the opposing sides considered that it would be a Quick War. The allies had planned that the destruction would be immense and would not last long due to this reason.
Allies
The war was unleashed after Gavrilo Princip assassinated Franz Ferdinand and Austro-Hungary claimed such demands to Serbia, which the latter could not follow. Immediately after these events, Austro-Hungary received support from the side of Germany while the Russian Empire initiated support to Serbia and started the rapid mobilization. Thus, it can be stated that World War I was caused by an aggravation of existing conflicts between capitalist countries, conflicts that were associated with a struggle over markets and sources of raw materials rather than the fact of the assassination of the heir to Austro-Hungary. As these conflicts intensified, they gradually led to the emergence of hostile coalitions. Germany wanted to join the colonial powers and had a great interest in the re-division of the world map. Austria-Hungary decided to act as an ally of Germany since it had its own interests with respect to the Balkans. France, in turn, acted as an ally of Russia. Britain feared that the United States and Germany would reach the same naval power due to their growing economic potential. Thus, the Anglo-German conflict led to the unification of Great Britain with Russia and France. Russia was constrained by allied commitments and wanted to assert its status. In addition, it also sought to seize the Black Sea straits and the Balkans in order to compete with Austria-Hungary.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that the competition between countries over the redistribution of land, as well as the existing economic conflicts, were the root causes of World War I and the assassination in Sarajevo was only an excuse to unleash war. The balance of power was changing since Germany was aimed at building up military capabilities and France had united with England in their mutual need to protect themselves from Germany’s rising power. Russia also joined their union and started rapid mobilization. Therefore, the assassination was used by these countries to deliver an ultimatum to each other. Within a few days, all of the major European powers had entered what would become World War I.
Historical events such as wars, economic downturns, and political reconstruction have a high impact on the behavior of people and their preferences. In this case, American citizens went from industry workers and soldiers during the World War I (1917-1918) to the explorers, who discover different forms of entertainment in the 1920s (1920-1929) because of stabilization of the politics in the country and the abundance of free time. Consequently, the goal of this essay is to understand the primary causes of the development of this trend in the American society. At the same time, it is critical to see the how the behavior of people changed before and after World War I. Finally, the conclusions will highlight the primary findings of the paper.
In the era of World War I, a significant share of the American society was represented by the active participants of the battlefield. It remains apparent that World War I plays a momentous role in the world’s history and global development. Thus, the United States of America pursued the “overseas following” of the military actions.1 This decision required the country to devote a noteworthy portion of resources to support their allies in the war.
It could be said that these changes in the political orientation and desire to help the country confront the enemy had driven the American population to the battlefield and the industry production.
In the era of 1920s, the United States of America minimized its military involvement, stabilized its politics, and offered more freedoms to its citizens. When the last troopers rebounded to the homeland, Warren G. Harding “was promising the return to normalcy”.2 Therefore, people were receiving more liberties and rights while leading to the subsequent development of “The liberty of the democracy” and the movement of “progressive democrats”.3, 4 It was a start of a novel era for the United States of America with innovative political standards and more free time for entertainment.
In the era of 1920s, due to the stabilization of American politics and increased percentage of leisure time among the regular workers, American population became the explorer of the different forms of entertainment. Since the last troopers returned from the distant lands, the country was slowly adapting to its new regime. The time of scarcity was left in the past and replaced by the “culture of abundance”.5
Dissimilar politics, more free time, and no need to invest in the war led the development of a new generation of American entertainment. Nowadays, this epoch is often recalled as the “cultural experimentation mixed with political conservatism”.6 Thus, it contributed to the development of the music movements such as jazz and discovering new possibilities of the ordinary lifestyle.
In the end, it could be said that the changes in politics of the country might affect the behavior of the citizens and cause the development of new forms of entertainment and culture. In this case, the World War I defined the population of the United States of America as an active participant of the war. The majority of the civilians were facing the enemies on the battlefield and working in the industrial segment, and a weighty part of the governmental budget was devoted to supporting military actions. The ending of the war helped America stabilize its politics and offer more leisure time to its citizens. Thus, this aspect was the primary cause of the development of novel forms of entertainment and associated lifestyles.
Footnotes
“Untold Story of US: Episode B,” Dailymotion. Web.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Erik Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2005), 828.
World War I, known in America at the time it happened as the Great War, was not only an international military conflict but also a series of historical processes that changed American society and were reflected in populations’ experiences. Before the war, there had been attempts to improve the relationship between labor and capital, and part of the process was labor migration of southern African-Americans northward and westward. The war changed the ethnic composition of the working class, and the need for manpower reinforced labor unions and movements (Zieger, 2000); particularly, more women became involved, gaining more political and economic power in the home front.
By the time the war began, more and more people in the United States believed that they were a great nation with claims to global leadership. Before that, the widespread view on American history was exceptionalism, and Americans were only willing to intervene in international processes or conflicts when a serious threat was recognized. However, such conflicts as Spanish-American War and Philippine-American War showed that the United States was interested in expanding its influence; this was demonstrated in World War I, as America became a strong global power, and expansionism continued after the war.
There was a heated debate in the American society concerning the county’s involvement in the Great War, and President Wilson was heavily criticized not only for the fact of entering the war but also for the way the United States carried out its participation. However, the debate was focused on the United States, and little concern was expressed about the impact on the international community. According to a historian Ross A. Kennedy (2001), the dominant belief was that the American nation had a mission, and entering the war and facilitating international relations upon its completion was part of this mission.
Wartime production needs to launch industrial expansion in the countries that participated in World War I, including the United States. More factories appeared, and since the process was rapid and forced, the working conditions for people in those factories were poor. However, the economic impact was the growing economic power of the United States, both internally and externally; also, the growing working class became a more active participant of economic relations in the country.
Before the war, the dominant mood in society was neutrality. The experience for entering the bloodiest war that had ever happened in the history of humankind was a significant shift, and this is demonstrated in the way most Americans in the post-war period were keen on the idea of American global influence (Ives, 2017). The very notion of American patriotism changed.
A key figure in the process was President Wilson himself, as he was an ardent supporter of the United States’ participation in international relations. His overall idea was that this participation was a crusade for liberty, but many assessed it as the continuation of the American imperialism (Zieger, 2000).
John J. Pershing, a general who commanded all the United States forces in Europe, was a supporter of promoting the influence, and he refused to integrate his army into the armies of the United States’ allies in Europe, as he insisted on having a separate American unit.
The allies, French Premier Georges Clemenceau and British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, were suspicious about the growing power of the United States, but they could not initiate confrontation because they needed help from the Americans in the European front. After the war, the United States wanted to become a superpower through facilitating international relations; the attempt to create the League of Nations, although ultimately a failure, demonstrated that the President of the United Stated positioned himself as a person responsible in a way for the world peace.
Hitler escaped from prison in 1924 and he was determined to obtain power legitimately from rulers. It was around the same time when the Nazi party grew in strength, although its presence in society was not yet felt. Nazi was considered a small group of activists that would not threaten any politician or political party. Nazi party gained a lot from the death of Gustav Stresemann, who was a strong politician believed to have held Weimar Republic together.
Hitler took advantage of leadership vacancy created by Weimar’s death. He mobilized supporters to develop loyalty to the Nazi party by coming up with various wings. The party had the political wing, military wing and communal wing, which belonged to everybody. Hitler’s influence in leadership was supported by various factors and events that prevailed at the time. This paper looks at some of the factors that encouraged Nazism and the rise of Hitler.
One of the factors that helped Hitler to ascend to power was the Great Depression of 1920s. The New York Stock Market, which boosted major investments in Germany, crashed in 1929. This meant that American loans could no longer be availed to German citizens.
Many people suffered mainly because of unemployment and lack of investment opportunities. This caused panic, uncertainty and fear to the people of Germany because they were unsure about the future. Parliamentary government that ruled Germany at the time could not contain the rising prices of food and major commodities. This gave Hitler a chance to sell his ideas to the desperate citizens, who were mainly women and the youth.
In 1930, Hitler’s ambitions and the rise of Nazism was boosted by president’s declaration that the state was to be ruled autocratically. This meant that demonstrators were to be separated brutally in case they attempt to strike. The president was completely intolerant to democracy, having served as Germany’s military commander during the First World War. In the same year, the Nazi party gained approximately 18.3% of the total votes cast in Germany.
The president failed to convince various traditionalists to compromise in order to serve in the same government. This was because socialists and capitalists could not unite to form a strong government. In 1932 elections, the Nazi party gained many seats than any other political party.
Nazism gained political influence because it presented hope and a sense of emotional belonging to the frightened individuals (Sherman and Joyce 739). The doctrines of Nazism attracted many youths and displaced veterans who wanted to regain their lost glories.
Nazism was viewed as the organizational will of the young people. Hitler promised to develop some policies that would mitigate people from recession. This included revisiting the treaties made during the First World War, which stated that Germany had to pay fully for damages. Hitler promised to get rid of unskilled leaders who spent money from taxpayers illegally. The Nazi party promised the youths to strengthen national pride and military power. This meant that many youths would benefit from Hitler’s government.
Rich aristocrats supported Nazism and Hitler because socialist and communist parties threatened their positions in society. Parties of mass integration, as well as communist parties suggested that the economy was to be run centrally. This meant that the rich had to surrender their wealth to the state. This disillusioned the rich. Supporters of Nazism were never concerned about the party’s ambitions. The party had frightening ideas on racism, nationalism and anti-Semantic enthusiasm (Sherman and Joyce 739). The party grew in strength and took over leadership, with Hitler as president. The army officials trusted Hitler because he had good plans for them (Sherman and Joyce 740).
Works Cited
Sherman, Dennis and Joyce, Salisbury. The West in the World: From 1600. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
The importance of the First World War is discussed by people all over the world because it affected numerous countries. Nevertheless, they tend to have various views on its peculiarities. If the authors of the required readings gathered for a discussion of the First World War and Vimy Ridge, they would be likely to agree and disagree with one another on some points. I believe that the conversation would start in a calm manner.
They would be eager to share their minds because they would be interested in one and the same topic. They would be likely to sound friendly and polite. The conversation would begin with the discussion of the First World War. The author from the Veterans Affairs Canada would state that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand lead to its development and made different countries unite. He would emphasize the fact that Canada had to involve in the war because its external affairs were ruled by the UK and it had no opportunity to refuse. Clarke and Harris would be likely to agree with him because they also pay much attention to the domination of Britain.
Then, the author from the Veterans Affairs Canada would state that the Battle of Vimy Ridge was critical for Canada because it made the country mature. Others would agree with him until he points out the fact that Canadians achieved success due to the hard work they accomplished in the preceding winter. While this author would emphasize Canadians’ contribution, others would say that the British army affected the situation greatly. Moreover, Clarke would add that previous French attempts to capture Vimy Ridge were significant for the final outcome while Harrison would state that Britain was the main force. Still, I would claim that Clarke’s idea is the best one because he considers the influences of all involved parties.
Main body
The author from the Veterans Affairs Canada would claim that Canadians were very enthusiastic to join the military in the first months. Clarke would add that they wanted to enhance nationhood, but Harrison would argue that such actions were a result of propaganda. To my mind, all these options could have affected the population, but the greatest influence was made by the propaganda targeted at the poor and working class.
These people looked for better lives and believed that their dream could come true if they fight for their rights. The author from the Veterans Affairs Canada would claim that the capture of Vimy Ridge can be associated with Canadian triumph. It improved national identity greatly and united the whole country. However, other authors would emphasize the fact that this is only a nation-building myth. Even though they all agree that Canadians became closer as they were fighting together, Clarke and Harrison would never support the opinion that Canada achieved outstanding success in this war.
Moreover, Harrison would claim that positive and nation-building beliefs were spread among the population initially. He would add that people were encouraged to go to the army and fight for democracy and freedom in the framework of official propaganda. In addition to that, Vimy Ridge turned into a symbol of Canadian independence under the influence of the book written by Pierre Berton, and I cannot disagree with this fact.
Conclusion
Finally, the author from the Veterans Affairs Canada would encourage Canadians to learn about sacrifices associated with Vimy Ridge as the most important war for Canada in the First World War. Clarke would support him but with no enthusiasm, and I would stick to his point. Harrison, in his turn, would argue that it is only a myth created to discuss Canada’s birth as a nation. Moreover, I believe that all arguments would be restrained, as all authors would take hold on themselves.
Nevertheless, Harrison would be the most quick-tempered, because he insists on this position and is not likely to accept other ideas, repeating that this war has the status of a founding myth.
In this primary source, Duiker and Spielvogel observe that Germany was forced to pay for the damages caused during the war, which led to hyperinflation in the country. The source suggests that this affected the economy of the country because personal savings of the middle-class earners were dried up. The scholars note that companies in Germany were unable to support various employees almost in all sectors of the economy leading to massive unemployment.
This had a negative impact on the stability and peace of the continent given the fact there was an increase in social instability that destabilized the delicate Weimar Republic. Western countries seized the opportunity to marginalize Germany to an extent of cutting links with democratically elected leaders of the country. The German nation had no choice but to resort to military expansion with an aim of restoring prestige and lost glory.
In the source, it is noted that the socio-economic difficulties that ensued after the war interfered with the country’s democratic ideals and paved the way for the radical right-wing parties that believed in war. The Treaty of Versailles was irrational because it favored other European states and aimed to punish Germany for the events that had taken place globally. For instance, the source revisits Article 22 of the treaty, which suggested that a number of communities that belonged to the Turkish Empire were set free from the German dictatorship because it was believed they had reached the take-off stage of development hence they had to be independent in order to determine their own destiny.
The authors evaluate the provisions of Article 42, which suggested that Germany was to be prevented from interfering with the affairs of Rhine. Furthermore, article 45 was meant to undermine the power of Germany because the state had to pay for the destruction of the coalmines in parts of France. Again, Germany was to surrender the mining fields it owned jointly with France, as one way of compensating for the damages caused. France was to continue with the mining process without consulting Germany. The source concludes that the provisions of the treaty were unfavorable to the government and the people of Germany, something that forced the country’s leaders to respond with militarization of the state.
Secondary Source
In the secondary source, Myers notes that a number of treaties developed after the war angered German leaders and its citizens because they took away everything that belonged to the state. The author analyzes the provisions of the Paris Peace Conference, which was set by the armistice agreements and was aimed at adopting the fourteen points as suggested by President Wilson. The states agreed to form the League of Nations to prevent the occurrence of another war. Under the treaty of Versailles, the history scholar suggests that Germany lost a tenth of its territory to neighbors because it ceded Alsace-Lorraine and Saar (Myers 41).
Additionally, Germany was barred from keeping a strong military, something that exposed it to aggressive neighbors. The areas previously controlled by Germany were handed over to other western powers, such as Britain and France, which was considered an insult to Germany. The scholar talks about the treaty of Saint-Germain and Trianon whereby it was decided that the newly created state of Austrian Republic could not reunite with Germany. The treaty suggested that those speaking German language outside the state were to be ruled by foreign powers. In the last treaty of Neuilly and Sevres, Bulgaria was forced to surrender some parts of its territory to Austria and Hungary even though it was treated better.
Works Cited
Duiker, William, and Jackson Spielvogel. World History: Since 1500. New York: Wadsworth Pub Co, 2012. Print.
Myers, Denys. “Revisions of the treaty of Versailles by Waldo E. Stephens”. The American Political Science Review 34.1 (1940):146-147 Print.
After the start of the First World War, different events and gaming activities had to be stopped in different parts of Europe. For example, the onset of this major global upheaval forced sporting organizations to suspend matches.
This new development affected the experiences and outcomes of many players. Several clubs and associations were unable to pursue their aims during that time. Despite such negative influences, soccer remained a unifying factor throughout the war period and influenced a wide range of sociological and political aspects at the macro level. It helped redefine the concepts of humanity and unity despite the hostilities that existed between different nations. The purpose of this essay is to describe how soccer influenced or affected the political and sociological attributes associated with this war.
Background Information
On 4th August 1914, war was declared in Europe that would eventually become a major global upheaval attracting armies from different continents, including America and Asia. Immediately after the onset of this conflict, many cricket associations across Europe chose to cancel all organized or planned matches. Fortunately, different decisions were considered by the Football Association (FA) in Britain.
Other soccer associations in this region were also expected to follow the example set by cricket teams. Serb reveals that soccer matches for the Football League continued for the entire 1914-1915 season (21). However, the events and descriptions associated with the ongoing war forced all stakeholders to consider suspending the normal or major league programs. However, many clubs in Europe were empowered or allowed to continue organizing regional contests and competitive matches amongst themselves.
During this period, many footballers and athletes were tempted or encouraged to join the militaries of their respective countries and become part of the ongoing war. With some of the professional players deciding to serve in the army, competitive matches couldn’t take place. Throughout this war, soccer became a powerful tool that continued to revolutionize people’s thoughts, attitudes towards the situation, and expectations. Nonetheless, soccer continued to reshape the future of this upheaval by encouraging fighters to relate positively with one another, interact effectively, and focus on the most appropriate approaches to support the missions or goals of their respective countries.
Soccer and the Famous Christmas Truce
In December 2014, several unofficial matches were held on the Western Front by British, French, and German troops. These events were possible since the fighting nations agreed to unofficial cessations of hostilities during the Christmas of the same year (Holder 79). With this kind of situation, different armies were empowered or willing to play soccer. One outstanding football game was the one played between the German and British fighters (McDaniel 93). On Christmas eve of 1914, German and Allied troops stepped out of their war trenches to kick a football at a time when the level of hostility was quite high. With football having become a favorite form of exercise, hobby, or profession for many people in Europe, these enemies had a reason to come together and share a moment of unity.
Since the main protagonists during this war were the Germans and the Britons, the idea of playing soccer contributed significantly to this famous Christmas truce. With everyone being eager to be part of the celebration, an unofficial cessation of fighting emerged between these enemies and their respective allies. The staged matches would encourage these soldiers to collaborate and share a common aim. Some analysts and researchers have gone to identify Christianity as a common factor that played a significant role in bringing these soldiers together (Holder 53).
With many people willing to be part of this physical exercise and the presence of shared religious views, it became possible for them to focus on soccer, thereby creating the best environment for the Christmas truce football match between the German and British troops during this time of war.
Christmas Truce: Sport and Humanity
The Christmas truce football matches have become some of the widely shared or known events of this infamous war. The scene should have been spectacular since many soldiers emerged from their respective trenches to shake hands, fraternize, and engage in a common physical activity in the name of soccer. This kind of occurrence has been studied widely as an outstanding symbol of humanity. The concepts associated with John Locke and Thomas Hobbes view people as intelligent creatures that are capable of establishing peace while at the same time holding on to their ideals or notions of the war (Crocker 37).
This short reprieve in the form of soccer matches indicates clearly that people are capable of connecting and pursuing their aims as an integral part of humanity. Despite being foes at the time, these troops chose to collaborate and engage in an exercise that appeared more rewarding and convenient to them at the time.
The occurrence of this truce is attributable to the role and effectiveness of soccer in any society. Since Europe had been brought together by this sporting event before the onset of the war, the troops were quite aware of its ability to bring them together and compete in a friendly manner. With football being the contributing factor or facilitator of this Christmas truce, it is agreeable that it reflects the outstanding connection between humanity and sport.
For many centuries, various activities have been observed to bring people together despite their diversities or differences (Holder 76). When people engage in sporting activities, chances are high that they will reveal their humanistic features. It also stands out as a unique or powerful tool for bringing more people together and encouraging them to pursue peace whenever necessary.
This kind of development reveals that soccer contributed significantly to the sociological aspects of the people at the time. Despite their significant differences during the time of this war, these soldiers chose to come together and interact as part of humanity. These issues would later become powerful attributes for encouraging more people to focus on a unified world that collaborated to overcome existing differences and promote global peace (Crocker 72). This discussion indicates that the Christmas truce is a true reflection of the connection between humanity and sport. Future populations will consider this relationship in an attempt to pursue their commonalities as part of God’s creation.
During the time, soccer became a unifying factor whereby many soldiers put their ranks and positions aside and focus on a common aim. Those who were not part of such sporting contests played the role of spectators. Combined with other sporting activities, soccer became the best opportunity for soldiers to improve their leadership and communication skills (Crocker 82). They were also empowered to forge links or positive relationships with other men with diverse backgrounds. The occurrences were instrumental in setting the stage for the Christmas truce and encouraging more soldiers to focus on their naturalness as part of the wider humanity.
Soccer and the Recruitment of Soldiers
From 1914, many countries in Europe did not end or stop football competitions. Using the example of Britain, Crocker indicates that those in top leadership targeted this area to get additional soldiers who could become part of the ongoing war (89). During the first year of this conflict, many matches were held in different parts of the country. A new approach was considered whereby individuals with placards and posters could be paraded at the sporting fields and arenas.
They also distributed cards and pamphlets that encouraged both players and supporters to become part of this war. During halftimes, famous or prominent leaders cold address the fans and encourage them to become part of the army. Although the response from the targeted individuals was quite unpromising, the British army managed to recruit around 478,000 soldiers within a month after the onset of the war (Holder 59). However, the same approach was pursued for more months in an attempt to establish stronger battalions and regiments.
While in France, the majority of these recruits were observed to engage in impromptu soccer matches. Such informal contests continued to become popular among the soldiers. The result was that more citizens and professional footballers were willing to enlist and become part of the army (Crocker 102). These individuals considered such sporting activities as essential since they made it easier for them to overcome stress, collaborate, and unwind after spending many days in their trenches.
Since soccer was known to have many followers and fans, the opportunity was right for different leaders to target citizens who supported different clubs and teams in Britain and across Europe. Those involved employed a unique form of propaganda whereby potential recruits were informed about the achievements of their fellow sportsmen. The emerging or popularized notion was that all the soldiers deployed in different regions to fight the enemy were good sportsmen. This kind of propaganda was aimed at encouraging more footballers and athletes to become part of this agenda and enlist as soldiers (Coates 218). Fans and local citizens were also primary targets since they were capable of providing appropriate services throughout the war period.
The works and appeals by Arthur Doyle stand out as a powerful initiative aimed at encouraging more people to join the ongoing war effort. Through his writings, Doyle informed and guided footballers to volunteer and support Britain’s military aims. Those in leadership positions went further to establish a unique Football Battalion in Middlesex. With this kind of strategy, over 2,000 professional players were convinced to become part of the story by joining the military (Holder 79).
Another battalion was established in Edinburgh to encourage more soccer players to enlist. A good example was the 16th Royal Scots that was comprised of prominent players from different Scottish football clubs, such as Raith Rovers, Hibernian, and Hearts (Holder 64). With this kind of initiative, the country was able to recruit around 1300 soldiers within less than a week. This means that soccer was an appropriate tool for recruiting more people to join the military.
Some famous footballers received decorations and medals for their contributions during the ongoing upheaval. Some of the outstanding ones included Tim Coleman, Jimmy Speirs, and Bernard Vann (Holder 82). After the end of the war, the majority of the soldiers were recognized and honored to ensure that more footballers could become part of the military in the future. From this analysis, it is agreeable that soccer remained a meaningful tool for supporting the success of this conflict.
Soccer and Performance on the Battleground
To a very big extent, soccer was instrumental in helping soldiers perform positively on the battleground and deliver the intended results. Coates indicates that football and other sporting activities remained essential elements of the First World War (217). After helping and empowering commanders and military leaders to recruit additional soldiers to join the war effort, soccer remained a powerful tool for encouraging more men to interact with one another and acquire additional skills.
For example, those who played amongst themselves managed to develop superior communication abilities. They identified additional approaches to solve problems and overcome their differences. This achievement made it possible for them to share ideas and pursue their aims diligently. This means that more men were willing to focus on the wider picture and fight to deliver victory to the country.
Many soldiers pursued soccer as the best form of hobby throughout the war period. This practice made it easier for them to improve or boost their morale. They were willing to establish unofficial teams and consider the best approaches to achieve their potential. The emerging ideas encouraged them to collaborate and be ready to help one another. Such initiatives made it possible for them to perform effectively on different battlegrounds (Coates 218). These attributes or practices explain why Britain was able to triumph throughout the war period.
The nature of the operations and intended goals forced major soldiers to stay in the trenches for prolonged hours. This kind of warfare was quite discouraging and capable of affecting their goals. With the power and freedom to play soccer, most of these soldiers were able to exercise, thereby being able to stay physically fit. They could stretch, laugh, and interact with one another whenever there was an opportunity to do so (Holder 48). These practices made it possible for them to perform effectively and deliver positive results. This observation explains why football and other sporting events remained relevant throughout this turmoil.
When people engage in different exercises, chances are high that they will become mentally alert and be in a position to focus on their primary aims. Throughout the war, British soldiers and those from other countries played soccer as the best exercise for improving their mental capabilities. Consequently, they found it easier to work together and target their common enemies (Holder 51). This practice made it possible for them to overcome stress and minimize the chances of depression. Those who were not willing to play became spectators and shouted, thereby becoming more alert. In the end, these soldiers managed to record positive results.
Since they had left their family members and friends behind, soccer became a unifying factor that brought many soldiers together. They could use such exercises as a way of sharing stories and experiences. They could also establish new friendships and focus on their common goals. These developments encouraged them to feel more at home than ever before. They were able to offer support and empowerment to each other, thereby being in a position to achieve their aims. From a sociological perspective, these individuals managed to get rid of loneliness or any form of homesickness (Serb 62). Consequently, they established their unique societies with shared values and common goals. These achievements eventually made it possible for them to emerge victoriously.
From the above discussions, it is evident that soccer transformed the sociological attributes of the people during the period of the Great War. German and British troops found themselves united by a single ball that would eventually result in the famous Christmas truce of 1914. Many historians have been analyzing and studying this occurrence as a symbol of the connection between humanity and sport (McDaniel 97).
Many footballers were encouraged to join the ongoing war effort and support the missions of their respective states. With the increasing number of footballers in different battalions, the stage had been set for soldiers to pursue soccer as the best exercise for keeping physically fit and improving their mental alertness. They got a new opportunity to escape the challenges and pains associated with trench warfare and get something new to smile about.
With such gains and achievements, the level of morale increased significantly while at the time minimizing burnout and stress. Many soldiers were willing or empowered to perform efficiently on their respective battlefields. Soccer became a unifying factor since many soldiers with diverse backgrounds had been recruited during the time. They managed to develop superior skills and competencies that continued to guide and empower them to pursue their interests.
With this kind of teamwork, leadership, and effort, the soldiers found it easier to fight in their battlegrounds and focus on the common enemy. Serb acknowledges that the success of the British soldiers during this war can be attributed to these soldiers’ decision to engage in soccer (46). The decisions of different commanders to promote this kind of exercise are worth noting since they played a significant role in supporting the war effort and delivering the intended results.
Conclusion
The above discussion has revealed that soccer had significant impacts or influences on the political and sociological aspects of the Great War. Being a favorite pastime for many citizens and professional athletes, different governments considered it as one of the best tools for encouraging more people to enlist and become part of the ongoing war effort. Within less than three months, thousands of soldiers had been encouraged to join the military and continue to support the outlined goals.
The occurrence of the famous Christmas truce became a new opportunity for these opposing sides to play soccer matches and show the world that humanity and unity were critical attributes that define human beings. With these ideas, more soldiers continued to play soccer to keep fit and overcome stress. The final result was that they performed effectively on their respective battlegrounds and eventually delivered the anticipated victory. With such developments, many leaders world continue to consider the importance of soccer as a unifying factor that was capable of presenting positive outcomes after the onset of the Second World War in 1939.
Works Cited
Coates, Dennis C. “Weaponization of Sports: The Battle for World Influence through Sporting Success.” The Independent Review, vol. 22, no. 2, 2017, pp. 215-221.
Crocker, Terri B. The Christmas Truce: Myth, Memory, and the First World War. The University Press of Kentucky, 2015.
Holder, James. The Great War’s Sporting Casualties. YouCaxton Publications, 2018.
McDaniel, Kathryn N. “Commemorating the Christmas Truce: A Critical Thinking Approach for Popular History.”The History Teacher, vol. 49, no. 1, 2015, 89-100.
Serb, Chris. War Football: World War I and the Birth of the NFL. Rowman & Littlefield, 2019.
The Verdun war was one of the longest during the First World War. Verdun was one of the strongest holds of France and it contained well prepared trenches with quite a number of fortresses. The details of the war are contained in a letter written by Falkenhayn, who was the field commander in Germany. The attack on France by the Germans begun on 21st February 1916, the letter was written to Kaiser. He believed that in order to win the battle he had to attack the western front. Falkenhayn knew that the attack on Verdun would not automatically lead to a breakthrough into France territory, but at least it would drain the French men. This is because this battle would drain the French army of its resources even the spare resources. This would ensure that subsequent attacks would be successful. Ant success by the Germans would have had some form of psychological victory. This is because the Verdun forts were respected throughout France.
Falkenhayn reasoned that if Germany defeated France, then Britain would seek an alliance with Germany or risk being defeated. Britain formed an allied effort against Germany and therefore Falkenhayn believed that she must be eliminated from the war. He therefore recommended a policy that would enable warfare submarines to have unrestricted merchant shipping. The implementation of this policy would ensure that Britain starved. This in turn would block France out. To him this move would end the hostilities that were there. Kaiser implemented the policies as he had been advised by Falkenhayn. He agreed on the policy of unrestricted submarines warfare’s even though he knew he risked bringing the United States into the war. This was a very dangerous move. Kaiser also authorized the implementation of a siege against Verdun. He also shifted his focus from the eastern front to the Western front, which is towards Britain. (Jeremy, 2002) This particular move had its disadvantage because Germany was unable to capture the Russian army and this compromised the position of the Germans.
The choice of Verdun as the center of interest by the Germans was not very effective because the French men lost faith in the fortresses and the need to defend them. But still Verdun remained a psychological pride for the French men. This is because of its status as a fortress even during the period of the Romans and also the recognition of Verdun’ by most French men. Falkenhayn depended on the fact that Verdun was important to the Frenchmen symbolically rather than strategically. So practically the woods behind Verdun were easier to defend than the fortresses. During the Franco-Prussian war the last fortress town fell on the hands of the Prussians.
Falkenhayn plan was to bomb Verdun thus diverting the attention of the French troop who were stationed at the western front and draw them into Verdun. The troops were thus spread across the eight mile front. Verdun was a French salient into German territory and this opened up three sides of attack. This was an added advantage to Falkenhayn. (Jeremy, 2002)
Crown Prince Wilhelm was the fifth army commander who was responsible of besieging Verdun. The assault was supposed to take place from two different sides that surrounded Meuse River. This plan was not good for Falkenhayn, who was very cautious. He thus ordered the attack to be restricted to the eastern side of the river (east bank). This is because he feared a lot of losses.
The original plan was to start the attack on 12th February. But due to poor weather the plan was changed and the attack started on 21st February. (John, 2000) The attack was supposed to be preceded by a preliminary bombardment. This was to last for 21 hours.
Before the war started, the French Commander-in-chief, Joffre, was attacked. This move made him to have reinforcement given to French second army. The fortress commander, Lieutenant Colonel Emile Driant, also tried to improve the trench system. He posted two battalions, which he led, on river Meuse (east bank) but the German troops out numbered the French army. The German troops were one million against two hundred thousand French troops.
The attack finally started on February 21st at 7:15. The fifth army commander, Crown Prince Wilhelm, began the attack with 1,400 guns. They were stationed along an eight mile front. These guns were served by railway facilities. Around 100,000 shells were directed into Verdun after every hour. The intention of the Germans was to kill the Frenchmen even before they advanced into the fortresses. It was later reported by a scouting party that nearly half of the French troops were killed. This meant that half of the French force had remained for the counter attack. By the end of the first day German forces had only managed the trenches that were in front. This was less had they had planned (John, 2000).
Verdun remained in the hands of the French though not for long. This is because on 23rd February it was confirmed that Driant, the French commander in chief had been killed and the battalions reduced to 180 men from 600 men. On 24th February, the German troops managed to force their way into the second line of trenches. They were within 8 kilometers of Verdun, but still two forts held on, these were Douamont and Vaux. Later on the next day Douamont fell into the hands of the Germans. This clearly affected the morale of the French troops. The withdrawal of German troops from Verdun was politically impossible but the French chief commander remained tough. He threatened everyone who did not oppose the advancement of the German troops into Verdun. This move made him to sack General Langle de Cary, he was responsible for defending Verdun against attacks. (Jeremy, 2002) He was sacked because he decided to remove his troops along the east banks of Meuse river. Henri-Philippe Petain was promoted to defend Verdun.
Petain was ready to defend Verdun at all cost (William, 2001) He knew that in the defense of Verdun there will be a lot of casualties. But he was prepared to inflict damage to the German troops. He therefore re-organized the French troop and took charge of defense in Verdun. He ensured that an effective route was established in order to ensure that the needed supplies reached Verdun. Petain also stationed troops to guard the road and do the necessary repairs; this road was called ‘Voie Sacree’ to mean the ‘sacred road’. On 6th march the French troops received fresh supplies and this helped them to push back the advancing German troops. Falkenhayn sent another troop to attack the left bank of river Meuse towards the Le Morte-homme (the ‘dead man’) ridge. This battle was fought for long both sides had huge numbers of casualties. And by the time the war ended there were about one million casualties on both sides (William, 2001)
On April 6th, Germany mounted another attack on both sides of the salient but still Petains defense was strong to sustain the attacks and have counter-attacks until may. By May 29th Mort Homme fell in the hands of the Germans and by June 7th, they had also captured fort Vaux. This fort had held against the bombardment by the Germans in February. But now the French troops in the fort had run out of water and the fort was now in ruins. The capture of this fort by the German troops increased their morale and this enabled them to break the French lines by the end of June and beginning of July. At this stage the German troops started the chemical warfare. They used phosgene gas which turned into hydrochloric acid if and when inhaled.
At this stage France urged Britain to form a counter-attack on the western front to help drain the German troops. Thus the Battle of the Somme began on 1st July. The Russians attacked the Germans from the eastern front and this weakened the German troops because it had to defend the eastern side. The unsuccessful capture of Verdun led to the Dismissal of Falkenhayn as the commander of the German troops.
Third army General, Charles Mangin, was appointed as the commander of the forts (Martin Gilbert 2004). He managed to recapture Douaumont on October 24th followed by Vaux on November 2nd. The period of rest allowed Mangin to reorganize his troop, and thus he was able to recapture lost ground from the Germans. The Battle of Verdun ended in December and between 15th -18th the French troops had managed to recapture around 11,000 prisoners from the Germans. They also got around 115 guns. By the end of the war, no army had any advantage over the other, be it strategically or tactical. The casualties were estimated to be 550,000 French casualties and the German losses were about 434,000.
References
Jeremy, Black. Warfare in the Western World, 1882-1975. New York: Indiana University Press, 2002.
John, Keegan. The First World War. New York, Vintage. 2000.
Martin, Gilbert. The First World War: A Complete History. London, Henry Holt & Company. 2004.
William, Martin. Verdun 1916: They Shall Not Pass. London, Osprey. 2001.
When looking at the conditions of the emergence of classical European nationalism, it is possible to conclude that many nations experienced the rise of national movements before World War I. This growth was most consistent in Italy and Germany, which is quite natural since these countries were leaders and were the main participants in the opposing bloc. The ideology aimed at strengthening national identity became key in these states, which led to serious historical consequences and global changes in the world. The formation of European nationalism from the 19th century was the reason for a significant change in views on the dominance and order of individual countries. This movement was the result of effective propaganda and an aggressive policy aimed at the redistribution of territories and the seizure of power.
Formation of Nationalism in Germany and Italy
The emergence of new economic models and forms of property management in Europe in the 19th century was a significant stage. It was one of the main factors driving the transition of German elites to the course of nationalism. According to von Bernstorff, the movement aimed at preserving the national idea in the conditions of competition and the struggle for world domination became prevailing because of specific economic issues (p. 237). It was due to the powerful orientation of people towards the course on innovations and the strengthening of countries’ internal structure. Despite the difficulties that both Germany and Italy experienced before the outbreak of World War I, both countries managed to use maximum opportunities to strengthen the national identity of the population.
Consequences of Nationalism
As a result, the 19th century was a turning point in the histories of these countries thanks to the policy of preserving domestic resources and building internal capacity. Maxwell and Davis note that some European countries supported such an order, which led to the spread of the ideas of nationalism and changes in views on development (p. 4). Anarchist ideas gave way to the order that, in turn, led to the policy of strengthening national identity. As Conversi argues, different social classes supported the course of transition to the power that was aimed at nationalism (794). Further, this movement became widespread as an algorithm for overcoming an economic crisis.
The history of Germany and Italy, beginning from the 19th century, has much in common since both states during the first half of that century created the ideology of future national unity. In the second half of the 19th century, Germany and Italy ended the struggle for unification and occupied the position of major independent European powers that began to influence global politics (Lyttelton and Ialongo, p. 300). Both countries were dissatisfied with the situation that they were allotted to countries that had previously dealt with feudal fragmentation, primarily Britain and France. After World War I, the states were humiliated by the Versailles Peace – Germany, as a defeated country, and Italy, as a member of the coalition (von Bernstorff, p. 254). However, the surge of nationalism in Europe spread far beyond Germany and Italy, which proves the power of this ideology.
Conclusion
Effective intrastate propaganda and the desire to strengthen civic identity became the factors influencing the development of nationalism in Europe. Germany and Italy supported this course that, subsequently, was borrowed by other states. The preconditions of nationalism included the need to strengthen the economy and the desire to expand the spheres of influence. As a result, this powerful movement developed due to the impact of politicians. The consequences of nationalism were significant, and World War I was one of the outcomes.
Works Cited
Conversi, Daniele. “Anarchism, Modernism, and Nationalism: Futurism’s French Connections, 1876–1915.” The European Legacy, vol. 21, no. 8, 2016, pp. 791-811.
Lyttelton, Adrian, and Ernest Ialongo. “Multi/Interdisciplinary Investigations into Italy and World War I: An introduction.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies, vol. 21, no. 2, 2016, pp. 300-305.
Maxwell, Alexander, and Sacha E. Davis. “Germanness Beyond Germany: Collective Identity in German Diaspora Communities.” German Studies Review, vol. 39, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-15.
von Bernstorff, Jochen. “The Use of Force in International Law before World War I: On Imperial Ordering and the Ontology of the Nation-State.” European Journal of International Law, vol. 29, no. 1, 2018, pp. 233-260.