why were world war one and world war 2 the most important wars?

Question

i'm looking for a detailed answer, not crap i know what ww1 was

Answer 1

Without the Revolutionary War there would be no United States. Most historians think the Civil War was the most important in the formation of the nature of American society. WWI and WWII were the most important US wars to Europe and to people who think the world did not exist before the 20th century. Compared to the other 20th/21 century wars, the major ones being Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq, there is really no contest. In the latter 3 wars there was no declaration of war but were started by a presidential initiative, and had little public support or enthusiasm and they did/will not end with a clear US victory. All three were proxy wars against an enemy who had only a peripheral interest in the outcome, and would not be defeated, even if the US achieved total victory.

Answer 2

WOW!!!! Did any one else bother scrolling past jewle841's answer to reach here?
Not the most important wars in History, just the most important of the 20th Century. WW One ended the day's of Monarchy and Empires in the West though England's would limp along till 1947. Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Germany would all see the end to their days of Kings and Emperors. Communism and Nazism would both owe their births to WW One.
WW Two would see two Major developements....The emergence--FINALLY-- of the USA as a world class power that was no longer isolationist. And the end to Totalitarianism. Nazism in Germany. Fascists in Italy. And the Warlords of Japan. All would fall.

Answer 3

Recycling develop right into a propoganda gadget to make the yank inhabitants sense greater invested in the conflict. in actuality that the U. S. develop into self protecting and not in possibility of a scarcity in the process the conflict era. Having issues like victory gardens helped human beings sense like they have been helping the conflict reason. nonetheless some products including silk have been in short furnish and necessary to create parachutes.

Answer 4

WW1, "the war to end all wars", ended in a year long peace thready (peace thready of Versailles 1919).
This thready was for much of the world powers to be redistributed and borders to be redrawn
Woodrow Wilson, with his primitive, arrogant approach to world politics, was the boss of the team, who decided for instance not to listen to Ho-Chi-Min, such creating the future Vietnam disaster, not to listen experts, as the carved new borders for Iraq, such creating the Iraq disaster, not to listen to Jews, who had started in 1895 in Vienna an Initiative to create a Jewish state, not to listen to diplomats, who warned, not to humiliate Germany to much, such creating the atmosphere for WWII.
WWII was just the logical result of Versailles, so are most conflicts today. Thanks to the arrogance of Wilson.

Answer 5

In my view it was the sheer number of different nations that were involved and the terrible death and destruction.

Answer 6

WWI was called the war to end all wars.

Answer 7

They involved countries from all over the globe fighting with and against one another.

Answer 8

Date 28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918
Location Europe, Africa and the Middle East (briefly in China and the Pacific Islands)
Result Allied victory. End of the German Empire, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Creation of many new countries in Eastern and Central Europe.
Casus
belli Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (28 June) followed by Austrian declaration of war on Serbia (28 July) and Russian mobilisation against Austria-Hungary (29 July).

Combatants
Allied Powers:
Russian Empire
France
United Kingdom
Italy
United States
et al. Central Powers:
Austria-Hungary
German Empire
Ottoman Empire
Bulgaria
Commanders
Nicholas II
Aleksei Brusilov
Georges Clemenceau
Joseph Joffre
Ferdinand Foch
Robert Nivelle
Herbert H. Asquith
D. Lloyd George
Douglas Haig
John Jellicoe
Victor Emmanuel III
Luigi Cadorna
Armando Diaz
Woodrow Wilson
John Pershing
Franz Josef I
Conrad von Hötzendorf
Wilhelm II
Erich von Falkenhayn
Paul von Hindenburg
Reinhard Scheer
Erich Ludendorff
Mehmed V
İsmail Enver
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Ferdinand I
Casualties
Military dead:
5,520,000
Military wounded: 12,831,000
Military missing: 4,121,000[1]
Military dead:
4,386,000
Military wounded: 8,388,000
Military missing: 3,629,000[1]

Theatres of World War I
European (Balkans – Western Front – Eastern Front – Italian Front) – Middle Eastern (Caucasus – Mesopotamia – Sinai and Palestine – Gallipoli – Aden – Persia) – African (South-West Africa – West Africa – East Africa) – Asian and Pacific (German Samoa and New Guinea – Tsingtao) – Other (Atlantic Ocean – Mediterranean – Naval – Aerial)
World War I, also known as WWI (abbreviation), the First World War, the Great War, and "The War to End All Wars," was a global military conflict that primarily took place in Europe between 1914 and 1918. It left millions dead and largely defined the 20th century.

The Allied Powers, led by France, Russia, the United Kingdom and later, Italy and the United States, defeated the Central Powers, led by Austria-Hungary, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire.

Much of the fighting in World War I took place along the Western Front, within a system of opposing manned trenches and fortifications (separated by an unoccupied space between the trenches called "no man's land") running from the North Sea to the border of Switzerland. On the Eastern Front, the vast eastern plains and limited rail network prevented a trench warfare stalemate from developing, although the scale of the conflict was just as large. Hostilities also occurred on and under the sea and — for the first time — from the air. More than nine million soldiers died on the various battlefields, and millions of civilians perished.

The war caused the disintegration of four empires: the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian. Germany lost its overseas empire, and new states such as Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Yugoslavia were created, and in the cases of Lithuania and Poland, recreated.

World War I created a decisive break with the old world order that had emerged after the Napoleonic Wars, which was modified by the mid-19th century’s nationalistic revolutions. The outcomes of World War I would be important factors in the development of World War II 21 years later.
The Causes of World War I were complex and included many factors, including the conflicts and antagonisms of the four decades leading up to the war. The immediate origins of the war lay in the decisions taken by statesmen and generals during the July crisis of 1914, the spark (or Casus Belli) for which was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian separatist.[1] The crisis did not however exist in a void, it came at the end of a long series of diplomatic clashes between the Great Powers in the decade prior to 1914 which had left tensions high almost to breaking point. In turn these diplomatic clashes can be traced to changes in the balance of power in Europe since 1870 Ferdinand
On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the nephew of Emperor Franz Joseph and heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, duchess of Hohenburg, were assassinated in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, which had been annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908. They were shot by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student. Gavrilo Princip was part of a group of fifteen assailants, who formed the Young Bosnia group, acting with support from the Black Hand, some members of which were part of the Serbian government.

After the assassination of June 28, Austria-Hungary waited for 3 weeks before deciding on a course of action, obtaining first a "blank cheque" from Germany that promised support for whatever it decided. The Austro-Hungarian government, once assured of support, moved to crush Serbia. On July 23 Austro-Hungary issued the July Ultimatum to Serbia, demanding among other things that Austrian agents be allowed to take part in the investigation of the assassination, and that Serbia should take responsibility for it.[3]

The Serbian government accepted all the terms of the ultimatum, with the exception of those relating to the participation of the Austrian agents in the inquiry, which Serbia regarded as a violation of its sovereignty. Breaking diplomatic relations, Austria Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28 and proceeded to bombard Belgrade with artillery on July 29. On July 30, Austria-Hungary mobilised its army when its July Ultimatum to Serbia expired. Russia then mobilised its own army, due to its standing military guarantees to Serbia for Collective defense.

Having pledged its support to Austria-Hungary, Germany issued Russia an ultimatum on July 31, demanding a halt to mobilisation within 12 hours. On August 1, with the ultimatum expired, the German ambassador to Russia formally declared war.

On August 2, Germany occupied Luxembourg, as a preliminary step to the invasion of Belgium and implementation of the Schlieffen Plan (which was rapidly going awry, as the Germans had not intended to be at war with a mobilized Russia this quickly).

Yet another ultimatum was delivered to Belgium on August 2, requesting free passage for the German army on the way to France. The Belgians refused. At the very last moment, the Kaiser Wilhelm II asked Moltke, the German Chief of General Staff, to cancel the invasion of France in the hope this would keep Britain out of the war. Moltke refused on the grounds that it would be impossible to change the rail schedule—“once settled, it cannot be altered”.[4]

On August 3, Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium on August 4. This act violated Belgian neutrality, the status to which Germany, France, and Britain were all committed by treaty. It was inconceivable that Great Britain would remain neutral if Germany declared war on France; German violation of Belgian neutrality provided the casus belli that the British government sought. German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg told the Reichstag that the German invasions of Belgium and Luxemburg were in violation of international law, but argued that Germany was "in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law." Later that same day, in a conversation with the British ambassador Sir Edward Goschen, Bethmann Hollweg expressed astonishment that the British would go to war with Germany over the 1839 treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium, referring to the treaty dismissively as a "scrap of paper," a statement that outraged public opinion in Britain and the United States Britain's guarantee to Belgium prompted Britain, which had been neutral, to declare war on Germany on August 4. The British government expected a limited war, in which it would primarily use its great naval strength.[Although World War I was triggered by this chain of events unleashed by the assassination, the war's origins go deeper, involving national politics, cultures, economics, and a complex web of alliances and counterbalances that developed between the various European powers over the course of the nineteenth century, following the final 1815 defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte and the ensuing Congress of Vienna.

The reasons for the outbreak of World War I are a complicated issue; there are many factors that intertwine. Some examples are[citation needed]:

Fervent and uncompromising nationalism
Unresolved previous disputes
Intricate system of alliances
Convoluted and fragmented governance
Delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications
Arms races of the previous decades
Rigidity in military planning
Colonial rivalry (imperialism)
Economic rivalry
The various categories of explanation for World War I correspond to different historians' overall methodologies. Most historians and popular commentators include causes from more than one category of explanation to provide a rounded account of the causal circumstances behind the war. The deepest distinction among these accounts is that between stories which find it to have been the inevitable and predictable outcome of certain factors, and those which describe it as an arbitrary and unfortunate mistake[citation needed].

In attributing causes for the war historians and academics had to deal with an unprecedented flood of memoirs and oficial documents, released as each country involved tried to avoid blame for starting the war. Early releases of information by governments, particularly those released for use by the 'Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War' were shown to be incomplete and biased. Even in later decades however, when much more information had been released, even historians from the same culture have been shown to come to differing conclusions on the causes of the war[7].


[edit] Ideological causes
Some of the roots of the conflict arise out of specific ideologies which influenced the behavior of politicians and other figures during the years leading up to the war.


[edit] Social Darwinism
By the late 19th century a new form of political and social thought emerged in the same context as nationalism, known as Social Darwinism. It emphasized the competition on a social scale between different national, ethnic, or racial groups. Inspired by what Charles Darwin considered a faulty understanding of his theory of evolution, expressed as 'survival of the fittest', this ideology was taken up by European political elites. The new ideology emphasized the violent struggle for existence between "races" or "nations" in which the weak would inevitably be destroyed by the stronger. These ideas were profoundly influential (see Weikart, below). Much of the German and Austro-Hungarian leadership feared what they saw as an inevitable battle between "Slavs" and "Germanic civilization." Social Darwinism as a political ideology also influenced competition amongst nation states for colonies. Colonial expansion was rationalized by the elite as important for assuring a nation's economic and military strength in the face of rivals. The British policy of 'strategic exclusion' of potential competitors was compatible with this adversarial perspective.

An aspect of late 19th century Social Darwinism was the sense of urgency it engendered. For a nation to be not growing compared to its neighbors and rivals was seen as very risky. The French looked in dismay at their birth rate, which was lower than Germany's.


German Domestic Politics
Left wing parties, especially the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP) made large gains in the 1912 German election. German government at the time was still dominated by the Prussian Junkers who feared the rise of these left wing parties. Some authors feel that they deliberately sought an external war to distract the population and whip up patriotic support for the government. Other authors feel that German conservatives were ambivalent about a war, worrying that losing a war would have disastrous consequences, and even a successful war might alienate the population if it were lengthy or difficult. Many Germans, feeling that they were not given an adequate amount of respect from all surrounding European countries, desired this war in order to obtain the respect and appreciation that they felt they deserved. This feeling, as Henry Kissinger points out in his novel Diplomacy, was greatly encouraged by Kaiser Wilhelm II.


French Domestic Politics
The situation was quite the opposite in France, but with the same results. More than a century after the French Revolution, there was still a fierce struggle between the left wing French government and its right-wing opponents, including monarchists and "Bonapartists." A "good old war" was seen by both sides (with the only and remarkable exception of Jean Jaurès) as a way to solve this crisis[1] thanks to a nationalistic reflex. Everyone thought the war would be short and would lead to an easy victory. The left side government thought it would be an opportunity to implement social reforms (income tax was created in July, 1914) and the right side politicians hoped that their connections with the army's leaders could give them the opportunity to regain power.


Structural or Systemic Causes
Some of the causes of the war lie in the structure of European society at the time, and the way it functioned.

Unifications of Germany and of Italy

In the years that followed the Congress of Vienna, conflicts began springing up all over Europe between those who cried out for change, and those who resisted it. By the mid-1800s, nationalism had become an evident force. A wave of unrest was seen across the continent in the Revolution of 1848. The 1860s and early 1870s saw two great changes to the map: the unification of Italy and the unification of Germany. These two nations were formed on the basis of nationalism. German Unification was brought about by Prussia's "Iron Chancellor", Otto von Bismarck, through a series of wars from 1864–1871. Italy was finally unified in 1866 after a long struggle under leaders Cavour and Garibaldi. The addition of two great powers in Europe fundamentally altered the balance of power.


[edit] Changes in Austria
In 1867 the Austrian Empire fundamentally changed its governmental structure, becoming the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary. For hundreds of years the Empire had been run in an essentially feudal manner with a German-speaking aristocracy at its head. However, with the threat represented by an emergence of nationalism within the empire's many component ethnicities, some elements, including Emperor Franz Joseph, decided that a compromise would have to be made in order to preserve the power of the German aristocracy. In 1867 the Ausgleich was agreed upon which made the Magyar elite in Hungary almost equal partners in the government of the Empire.


"Distribution of Races in Austria–Hungary" from the Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1911This arrangement fostered a tremendous degree of dissatisfaction amongst many in the traditional German ruling classes. Some of them considered the policy to have been a calamity for their Empire because it often frustrated their intentions in the governance of the Empire. For example, it was extremely difficult for the empire to form a coherent foreign policy that suited the interests of both the German and Magyar elite.

Throughout the fifty years from 1867 to 1914 it proved difficult to reach adequate compromises in the governance of the empire, leading many to search for non-diplomatic solutions. At the same time a form of social Darwinism became popular amongst many in the Austrian half of the government which emphasised the primacy of armed struggle between nations, and the need for nations to arm themselves for an ultimate struggle for survival.

As a result at least two distinct strains of thought advocated war with Serbia, often unified in the same people.

In order to deal with political deadlock, some reasoned that more Slavs needed to be brought into the empire in order to dilute the power of the Magyar elite. With more Slavs, the South Slavs of the Empire could force a new political compromise in which the Germans would be able to play the Magyars against the South Slavs. Other variations on this theme existed, but the essential idea was to cure internal stagnation through external conquest.
Another fear was that the South Slavs, primarily under the leadership of Serbia, were organizing for a war against Austria-Hungary, and even all of Germanic civilization. Some leaders, such as Conrad von Hötzendorf, argued that Serbia must be dealt with before it became too powerful to defeat militarily.
A powerful contingent within the Austro-Hungarian government was motivated by these thoughts and advocated war with Serbia long before the war began. Prominent members of this group included among them Leopold von Berchtold, Alexander Hoyos, and Janós Forgách Graf von Ghymes und Gács. Although many other members of the government, notably Franz Ferdinand, Franz Joseph, and many Hungarian politicians did not believe that a violent struggle with Serbia would necessarily solve any of the multinational empire's problems, the hawkish elements did exert a strong influence on government policy, holding key positions.


[edit] Imperialism
Historically, many of the economic causes of the war can be attributed to a growing material dependency of advancing European nations on imperialism. Nations such as Great Britain and France maintained thriving domestic economies in the late 19th century through their control of foreign resources, markets, territories, and people. As a late arrival on the world stage, the German Empire was geographically locked out of the most valuable colonial regions in Africa and the Far East. In addition, the rapid exhaustion of natural resources in many European nations began to slowly upset the trade balance and make nations more eager to seek new territories rich in natural resources. Intense rivalries developed between the emerging economic powers and the incumbent great powers.


[edit] Colonial Expansion

Map of the world with the participants in World War I.
The Allies are depicted in green, the Central Powers in orange and neutral countries in grey.Rivalry among the powers was exacerbated from the 1880s by the scramble for colonies which brought much of Africa and Asia under European rule in the following quarter-century. Bismarck resented an overseas Empire, but could not resist those forces, who succeeded the other way. This started Anglo-German tension, as German acquisitions in Africa and the Pacific threatened to impinge upon British strategic and commercial interests. Bismarck knew that if the German state were to exist and thrive in spite of a clearly hostile France it would be necessary to isolate France both diplomatically and militarily from the other European powers. Part of Bismarck's strategy was to allow France to pursue its own colonial interests without German fetters. It could even be argued that Bismarck supported French colonization in Africa because it diverted government attention away from continental Europe. In spite of all of Bismarck's deft diplomatic maneuvering, in 1890 he was forced to resign by the new Kaiser (Wilhelm II). His successor, Leo von Caprivi, was the last German Chancellor, who tried successfully, to calm down Anglo-German tensions. After his loss of office, 1894, it wouldn't take long for the new German colonial policy to irritate the other European Powers and Japan. Within a few short years, France gained diplomatic control in Europe, attaining alliances with both England and Russia.

Wilhelm's support for Moroccan independence from France, Britain's new strategic partner; provoked the Tangier Crisis of 1905. During the Second Moroccan or Agadir Crisis (1911), a German naval presence in Morocco tested the Anglo-French coalition once again. These two crises led to negotiations which Germany arguably 'lost'. Not only did Germany fail to achieve its aims during the conferences but it also failed to gain support from the other European Powers (except Austria-Hungary). Wilhelm, like Bismarck, threatened the use of German military power in an attempt to "strong-arm" the other European Powers into compliance. The difference between the two statesmen was that Bismarck had his enemies isolated and his allies tightly wrapped around his diplomatic finger. Wilhelm II, by contrast, had neither and therefore Germany was not viewed as a political/military superpower worthy of due consideration but rather as a militaristic belligerent nation.


[edit] Web of alliances
A very tight web of alliances bound the European nations, (many of them requiring participants to agree to collective defense if attacked):

Treaty of London, 1839, about the neutrality of Belgium,
German-Austrian treaty (1879) or Dual Alliance,
Italy joining Germany and Austria in 1882,
Franco-Russian Alliance (1894),
"Entente" (less formal) between Britain and France (1904) and Britain and Russia (1907) forming the Triple Entente,

Basic representation of the alliances centered on the Balkans.Russia proclaiming herself the "protector of the Southern Slavs" in the Balkans through several treaties.
This complex set of treaties binding various players in Europe together prior to the war is sometimes thought to have been misunderstood by contemporary political leaders. Mobilization by a relatively minor player would have a cascading effect that could rapidly run out of control, involving every country. Yet leaders discussed the crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia as if it were a localized issue. This is how Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia resulted in Britain declaring war on Germany:

June 28, 1914: Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria assassinated by Serbian nationalist.
July 23: Austria-Hungary issues the July Ultimatum to Serbia.
July 28: Austria-Hungary's ultimatum expires, and it deems to Serbia to have not complied. It then declares war on Serbia.
July 30: Russia's treaties with Serbia commit it to mobilize against Austria-Hungary in Serbia's defense.
August 1; Germany declares war against Russia under the terms of the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary.
August 1: Germany, expecting that France will come in on the side of Russia, mobilizes against France.
August 1: France mobilizes against Germany under the terms of the Franco-Russian Alliance.
August 3: Germany declares war on France.
August 4: Germany invades Belgium. (The Schlieffen Plan for a war with Russia and France commits Germany to attacking France first, then turning against Russia when France is defeated. The roads of Belgium are needed for the German army to outflank the French.)
August 4: Britain declares war on Germany under the terms of the Treaty of London, 1839 which guarantees the neutrality of Belgium, and to support the Triple Entente.
With Britain's entry, the remainder of the British Imperial colonies and dominions are drawn in offering financial and military assistance. These were Australia, Canada, India, Newfoundland, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.
August 23: Japan, honoring the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, declares war on Germany.

[edit] Arms Race
As David Stevenson has put it, "A self-reinforcing cycle of heightened military preparedness ... was an essential element in the conjuncture that led to disaster ... The armaments race ... was a necessary precondition for the outbreak of hostilities." David Herrmann goes further, arguing that the fear that "windows of opportunity for victorious wars" were closing, "the arms race did precipitate the First World War." If the Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been assassinated in 1904 or even in 1911, Herrmann speculates, there might have been no war; it was "the armaments race ... and the speculation about imminent or preventive wars" which made his death in 1914 the trigger for war. (Ferguson 1999 p 82)

The naval strength of the powers in 1914
Country Personnel Large
Naval Vessels
Tonnage
Russia 54,000 4 328,000
France 68,000 10 731,000
Britain 209,000 29 2,205,000
TOTAL 331,000 43 3,264,000
Germany 79,000 17 1,019,000
Austria-Hungary 16,000 3 249,000
TOTAL 95,000 20 1,268,000
Source: Ferguson 1999 p 85

The German naval buildup is seen by some historians as the principal cause of deteriorating Anglo-German relations.

The overwhelming British response, however, proved to Germany that its efforts were unlikely to equal the Royal Navy. In 1900 the British had a 3.7:1 tonnage advantage over Germany; in 1910 the ratio was 2.3:1 and in 1914, 2.1:1. Ferguson (1999 p 83-85) argues that "so decisive was the British victory in the naval arms race that it is hard to regard it as in any meaningful sense a cause of the First World War." This ignores the self-evident fact Kaiserliche Marine had narrowed the gap by nearly half, and the Royal Navy had long felt (reasonably enough) a need to be stronger than any two potential opponents; the United States Navy was in a period of growth, making the German gains very ominous, indeed.


[edit] Over by Christmas
The belief that a war in Europe would be swift, decisive and 'Over by Christmas' is often considered a tragic underestimation — the theory being, that had it been widely appreciated beforehand that the war would open such an abyss under European civilization, no-one would have prosecuted it. This account is less plausible on a review of the available military theory at the time, especially the work of Ivan Bloch, an early candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. Bloch's predictions of industrial warfare leading to bloody stalemate, attrition, and even revolution, were widely known in both military and pacifist circles. Some authors such as Niall Ferguson argue that the belief in a swift war has been greatly exaggerated since the war. He argues that the military planners, especially in Germany, were aware of the potential for a long war, as shown by the famous Willy-Nicky telegraphic correspondence between the Emperors of Russia and Germany. He also argues that most informed people considered a swift war unlikely. Moreover, it was in the governments' interests to feature this message widely in their propaganda, for this encouraged men to join the offensive, made the war seem less serious, and promoted general high spirits.


[edit] Primacy of the Offensive and War by Timetable
Military theorists of the time generally held that seizing the offensive was extremely important. This theory encouraged all of belligerents to strike first in order to gain the advantage. The window for diplomacy was shortened by this attitude. Most planners wanted to begin mobilization as quickly as possible to avoid being caught on the defensive.

Some analysts have argued that mobilization schedules were so rigid that once it was begun, they could not be cancelled without massive disruption of the country and military disorganization. Thus, diplomatic overtures conducted after the mobilizations had begun were ignored.


Map of the Schlieffen Plan and planned French counter-offensives
[edit] The Schlieffen Plan
Germany's strategic vulnerability, sandwiched between its allied rivals, led to the development of the audacious Schlieffen Plan. Its aim was to knock France instantly out of contention, before Russia had time to mobilize its gigantic human reserves, it aimed to accomplish this task within 6 weeks. Germany could then turn her full resources to meeting the Russian threat. Although Alfred Graf von Schlieffen initially conceived the plan well prior to his retirement in 1906, Japan's defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 exposed Russia's organizational weakness and added greatly to the plan's credibility.

The plan called for a rapid German mobilization, sweeping through Holland, Luxembourg and Belgium into France. Schlieffen called for overwhelming numbers on the far right flank, the northernmost spearhead of the force with only minimum troops making up the arm and axis of the formation as well as a minimum force stationed on the Russian eastern front.

Schlieffen was replaced by Helmuth von Moltke and in 1907-08 Moltke adjusted the plan, reducing the proportional distribution of the forces, lessening the crucial right wing in favor of a slightly more defensive strategy. Also, judging Holland unlikely to grant permission to cross its borders the plan now called for a direct move through Belgium and an artillery assault on the Belgian city of Liège. With the rail lines and the unprecedented firepower the German army brought Moltke did not expect any significant defense of the fortress.

The significance of the Schlieffen Plan is that it forced German military planners to prepare for a pre-emptive strike at the first sign of war; otherwise Russia would have time to mobilize, and Germany would be crushed by Russia's massive army. At the last minute, Kaiser Wilhelm II attempted to cancel the plan and avoid a war, he found that it was too late — to scrap the plan would require a re-organization of the German army that would leave Germany vulnerable for several months.

It appears that no war planners in any country had considered Germany's options, prepared for anything like the Schlieffen Plan, or advised politicians accordingly.


[edit] Specific Events

[edit] The Crimean War (1854-1856)
The Crimean War, in which Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire defeated Russia, radically changed the diplomatic structure of Europe. Austria had been allied to Russia following mutual assistance during the Revolutions of 1848. Fearing Russian power at the mouth of the Danube and in Constantinople, however, Austria waffled and then sided with the Allies in the crisis leading up to the Crimean War. Following the war, Austria was diplomatically isolated, allowing it to be defeated in the Second Italian War of Independence and in the Austro-Prussian War, losing its influence in most German-speaking lands. Soon after Austria allied with Germany; and Russia more aggressively supported pan-slavism in the Balkans, creating some of the conditions that would lead to World War I.


[edit] The Franco–Prussian War (1870–1871)

Napoleon III and Bismarck after the 1870 Battle of Sedan, of the Franco-Prussian War.Many of the direct origins of World War I can clearly be seen in the results and consequences of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. This conflict brought the establishment of a powerful and dynamic German Empire, causing what was seen as a displacement or unbalancing of power: this new and prosperous nation had the industrial and military potential to threaten Europe, and particularly the already established European powers. Germany’s nationalism, its natural resources, its economic strengths and its ambitions to "find a place in the sun" sparked colonial and military rivalries with other nations, particularly the Anglo-German naval arms race.

A legacy of animosity grew between France and Germany following the German annexation of parts of the formerly French territory of Alsace-Lorraine. The annexation caused widespread resentment in France, giving rise to the desire for revenge, known as revanchism. French sentiments wanted to avenge not only military and territorial losses, but also the displacement of France as the pre-eminent continental military power. French defeat in the war had sparked political instability, culminating in a revolution and the formation of the French Third Republic. Bismarck was wary of this during his later years, and tried to placate the French by encouraging their overseas expansion. However, anti-German sentiment remained. A Franco–German colonial entente that was made in 1884 in protest of an Anglo–Portuguese agreement in West Africa proved short-lived after a pro-imperialist government under Jules Ferry in France fell in 1885.


[edit] The 'War in Sight' crisis
France quickly recovered from its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. France paid its war remunerations and began to build its military strength again. Bismarck leaked that Germany was planning a preventative war against France so that this recovery could not be realized. However, the Dreikaiserbund sided with France rather than Germany, humiliatingly forcing Bismarck to back down.


[edit] The Rise of Kaiser Wilhelm II
Under the political direction of its first Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, Germany secured its new position in Europe by an alliance with Austria-Hungary and a diplomatic understanding with Russia. Bismarck began pursuing alliances and peace treaties. He made peace with almost every nation in Europe except France. He feared greatly that a war might destroy the newborn nation he had created in the 1860s. By the time of Wilhelm I's death, a system of alliances kept a tight peace in Europe.


German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.The ascension (1888) of Kaiser Wilhelm II brought to the German throne a young ruler who despite his rash diplomatic judgment was determined to direct policy himself. After the 1890 elections, in which the centre and left parties made major gains, and due in part to his disaffection at inheriting the Chancellor who had guided his grandfather for most of his career, Wilhelm engineered Bismarck's resignation.


Kaiser Wilhelm II.Much of the fallen Chancellor's work was undone in the following decades, as Wilhelm failed to renew the 1887 Reinsurance Treaty with Russia, presenting republican France with the opportunity to conclude (1891–94) a full alliance with the Russian Empire. Worse was to follow, as Wilhelm undertook (1898–1900) the creation of a German navy capable of threatening Britain's century-old naval mastery, prompting the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale of 1904 and its expansion (1907) to include Russia in the Triple Entente.


[edit] Anglo–German Naval Race
As mentioned above, Wilhelm II nurtured a desire to construct a German navy capable of challenging the maritime dominance of the Royal Navy and its two-power standard (vis a vis the German and French navies). Such a navy would tie in with German ambitions in the colonial and commercial spheres, threatening British pre-eminence in these areas. The Kaiser entrusted the establishment of this German navy to his Naval Minister and close advisor, Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz.

Motivated by Wilhelm's backing and his own enthusiasm for an expanded navy, Tirpitz championed four Fleet Acts from 1898 to 1912 that set Germany on constructing a fleet capable of matching the strength of British naval forces. The German program was enough to alarm the British and drive them into the above-mentioned alliances with France and Russia.

Under the direction of Admiral Jackie Fisher, the First Sea Lord from 1905 to 1910, the Royal Navy embarked on its own massive expansion to keep ahead of the Germans. The cornerstone of British naval rearmament was to be the revolutionary battleship Dreadnought, which was launched in 1906. From then on until 1914, the British and Germans vied with each other to construct superior numbers of battleships, submarines, and other naval vessels and weaponry, constituting the main (but by no means only) bone of contention between Great Britain and Germany. Ironically, Germany's shipbuilding is one of the reasons why Germany lost the war. Shipbuilding took immense amounts of resources, which could have been used for the land army.


[edit] Contemporary justifications, politico-moral
Actors, regardless of whether they perceived or understood the causes or events treated in this article, at the time immediately before and during the war, offered various justifications for the conflict. An introduction to contemporary views may be found in Henri Bergson's The Meaning of the War, Life & Matter in Conflict (London, 1915, also available on Project Gutenberg.)
Immediately after the war much academic work that blamed Germany entirely for the war was produced in Allied countries. However, academic work in the later 1920s and 1930s blamed all participants more or less equally. Starting in the mid-1920s, a number of American historians opposed to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles such as Sidney Fay and Harry Elmer Barnes produced works that claimed that Germany was not responsible for war, and as such, Article 231 of the Versailles which had seemingly assigned all responsibility for the war to Germany and thus justified the Allied claim to reparations was invalid. The objective of Fay and Barnes was to put an end to reparations imposed on Germany by attempting to prove what they regarded as the moral invalidity of Article 231. Both Fay and Barnes were provided with generous use of the German archives by the German government.

In a different approach Lenin in his pamphlet Imperialism - the Highest Stage of Capitalism protrayed the war as imperialist, caused by rivalries triggered by highly organised financial monopolies, that frenzied competition for markets and raw materials had inevitably brought about the war. Evidence of secret deals between the Tsar and British and French governments to split the spoils of war was released by the Russians. In the 20's and 30's more socialist works built on this theme, a line of analysis which is still to be found today, although vigourously disputed on the grounds that wars occurred before the capitalist era.[8] Lenin argued that the private ownerhip of the means of production in the hands of a limiten number of capitalist monopolies would inevitably lead to war. He identified railways as a 'summation' of the basic capitalist industries, coal, iron and steel, and that their uneven development summed up capitalist development on a world-wide scale[9].

In the inter-war period, various factors such as the network of secret alliances, emphasis on speed of offence, rigid military planning, Darwinian ideas, and the lack of resolution mechanisms were blamed by many historians. These ideas have maintained some currency in the decades since then. Famous proponents include Joachim Remak and Paul Kennedy. At the same time, many one sided works were produced by politicians and other participants often trying to clear their own names. In Germany these tended to deflect blame, while in Allied countries they tended to blame Germany or Austria-Hungary. The debate over "German war guilt" was quite emotional and topical in the interwar years, and some lingering resentment within Germany may well have contributed[citation needed] to the rise of the Nazi party, which denied German war guilt.

In 1961 Fritz Fischer wrote the enormously influential Griff nach der Weltmacht in which he blamed Germany for the war. Fischer believed that many members of the German government had overtly expansionist plans, formulated in the aftermath of Social Democratic gains in the election of 1912. He alleged that they hoped to use external expansion and aggression to check internal dissent and democratization. Some of his work is based on Bethmann Hollweg's "September Programme" which laid out Germany's war aims. Fischer's work created a whole school of analysis in a similar vein, emphasizing domestic German political factors. Some prominent scholars in this school include Imanuel Geiss, Hans-Ulrich Wehler,Wolfgang Mommsen, and V.R. Berghahn.


European military alliances in 1915. The Central Powers are depicted in puce, the Entente Powers in grey and neutral countries in yellow.The "Berlin War Party" thesis and variants of it, blaming domestic German political factors became something of an orthodoxy in the years after publication. However, many authors have attacked it.

At first the idea prompted a strong response especially from German conservative historians such as Gerhard Ritter who felt the thesis was dishonest and inaccurate. Writing in the 1960s Ritter believed that Germany displayed all the same traits as other countries and could not be singled out as particularly responsible.

In the 1960s, two new rival theories emerged to explain the causes of World War One. The first one, championed by the West German historian Andreas Hillgruber argued that in 1914 a “calculated risk” on the part of Berlin had gone horribly awry. Hillgruber argued that what the Imperial German government had attempted to do in 1914 was to break the informal Triple Entente of Russia, France and Britain by encouraging Austria-Hungary to invade Serbia and thus provoke a crisis in an area that would concern only St. Petersburg. Hillgruber argued that the Germans hoped that both Paris and London would decide the crisis in Balkans did not concern them and that lack of Anglo-French support would lead the Russians to reach an understanding with Germany. In Hillgruber’s opinion, the German government had pursed a high-risk diplomatic strategy of provoking a war in the Balkans that had inadvertently caused a world war.

Another theory was A.J.P. Taylor's “Railroad Thesis”. In Taylor’s opinion, none of the great powers wanted a war, but all of the great powers wished to increase their power relative to the others. Taylor argued that by engaging in an arms race and having the general staffs develop elaborate railroad timetables for mobilization, the continental powers hoped to develop a deterrent that would lead the other powers to see the risk of war as being too dangerous. When the crisis began in the summer of 1914, Taylor argued, the need to mobilize faster than one's potential opponent made the leaders of 1914 prisoners of their own logistics – The railroad timetables forced invasion (of Belgium from Germany) as an unavoidable physical and logistical consequence of German mobilization. In this way, Taylor argued, the mobilization that was meant to serve as a threat and deterrent to war instead relentlessly caused a world war by forcing invasion. Many have argued that Taylor, who was one of the leaders of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, developed his Railroad Thesis to serve as a thinly veiled admonitory allegory for the nuclear arms race.

Other authors such as Arno Mayer, in 1967, agreed with some aspects of the "Berlin War Party" theory, but felt it isolated Germany from its historical context. Mayer believes that all states acted more or less as Germany did in the years before the war. Samuel R. Williamson lays most of the blame with the Austro-Hungarian elites rather than the German in his 1990 book, Austria-Hungary and the Coming of the First World War. Another recent work is Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War which completely rejects the Fischer thesis, laying most of the blame on diplomatic bumbling from the British. Recently, American historian David Fromkin has allocated blame for the outbreak of war entirely to Germany and Austria-Hungary in his 2004 book Europe's Last Summer. He theorized that the German military leadership, in the midst of a European arms race, believed that they would be unable to further expand the German army without extending the officer corps beyond the traditional Prussian aristocracy. Rather than allowing that to happen, they manipulated Austria-Hungary into starting a war with Serbia in the expectation that Russia would intervene, giving Germany a pretext to launch what was in essence a pre-emptive strike

successes in the Battle of the Frontiers (August 14–August 24). Russia, however, attacked in East Prussia and diverted German forces intended for the Western Front. Germany defeated Russia in a series of battles collectively known as the Second Battle of Tannenberg (August 17–September 2). This diversion exacerbated problems of insufficient speed of advance from railheads not allowed for by the German General Staff. Originally, the Schlieffen Plan called for the right flank of the German advance to pass to the west of Paris. However, the capacity and low speed of horse-drawn transport hampered the German supply train, allowing French and British forces to finally halt the German advance east of Paris at the First Battle of the Marne (September 5–12), thereby denying the Central Powers a quick victory and forcing them to fight a war on two fronts. The German army had fought its way into a good defensive position inside France and had permanently incapacitated 230,000 more French and British troops than it had lost itself. Yet communications problems and questionable command decisions, cost Germany the chance for an early victory.


Asia and the Pacific
Main article: Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I
New Zealand occupied German Samoa (later Western Samoa) on August 30. On September 11, the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force landed on the island of Neu Pommern (later New Britain), which formed part of German New Guinea. Japan seized Germany’s Micronesian colonies and after Battle of Tsingtao, the German coaling port of Qingdao, in the Chinese Shandong peninsula. Within a few months, the Allied forces had seized all the German territories in the Pacific.


Early stages

In the trenches: Infantry with gas masks, Ypres, 1917
Trench warfare begins
Main article: Western Front (World War I)
Military tactics in the early part of World War I failed to keep pace with advances in technology. New technology allowed the building of impressive defenses, which out of date tactics could not break through. Barbed wire was a significant hindrance to massed infantry advances; artillery, vastly more lethal than in the 1870s, coupled with machine guns, made crossing open ground a nightmare. The Germans introduced poison gas in 1915, at the Second Battle of Ypres. It soon became a weapon used by both sides. Poison gas never won a battle; however, its effects were brutal, causing slow and painful death. It became one of the most feared and remembered horrors of the war. Commanders on both sides failed to develop tactics for breaking through entrenched positions, without massive casualties. Technology, however, began to yield new offensive weapons. The tank was a wartime invention designed to break the trench warfare stalemate. Both Britain and France were the primary users of tanks, while the Germans employed captured Allied tanks, as well some of their own design.

After the First Battle of the Marne, both Entente and German forces began a series of outflanking maneuvers to try to force the other to retreat, in the so-called Race to the Sea. Britain and France soon found themselves facing entrenched German forces from Lorraine to Belgium’s Flemish coast. Britain and France sought to take the offensive, while Germany defended occupied territories. One consequence was that German trenches were much better constructed than those of their enemy: Anglo-French trenches were only intended to be “temporary” before their forces broke through German defenses. Some hoped to break the stalemate by utilizing science and technology. In April 1915, the Germans used chlorine gas, for the first time, in violation of the Hague Convention. They opened a 6 kilometer (4 mile) hole in the Allied lines, when British and French colonial troops retreated. Canadian soldiers closed the breach at the Second Battle of Ypres. At the Third Battle of Ypres, Canadian forces took the village of Passchendaele.

On July 1, 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme, the British Army saw the bloodiest day in its history, suffering 57,470 casualties and 19,240 dead.

Neither side proved able to deliver a decisive blow for the next two years, though protracted German action at Verdun throughout 1916, and the Entente’s failure at the Somme, in the summer of 1916, brought the exhausted French army to the brink of collapse. Futile attempts at frontal assault—with a rigid adherence to unimaginative maneuver—came at a high price for both the British and the French poilu (infantry) and led to widespread mutinies especially during the time of the Nivelle Offensive in the spring of 1917.


Canadian troops advancing behind a Canadian Mark II tank at the Battle of Vimy RidgeThroughout 1915–17, the British Empire and France suffered far more casualties than Germany. However, while the Germans only mounted a single main offensive at Verdun, each failed attempt by the Entente to break through German lines was met with an equally fierce German counteroffensive to recapture lost positions. Around 800,000 soldiers from the British Empire were on the Western Front at any one time. 1,000 battalions, occupying sectors of the line from the North Sea to the Orne River, operated on a month-long four-stage rotation system, unless an offensive was underway. The front contained over 9,600 kilometers (6,000 miles) of trenches. Each battalion held its sector for about a week before moving back to support lines and then further back to the reserve lines before a week out-of-line, often in the Poperinge or Amiens areas.

In the British-led Battle of Arras during the 1917 campaign, the only military success was the capture of Vimy Ridge by Canadian forces under Sir Arthur Currie and Julian Byng. It provided the allies with a great military advantage and had a lasting impact on the war. The Battle of Vimy Ridge is considered by many historians to be one of the founding myths of Canada.


Naval War
Main article: Naval Warfare of World War I
At the start of the war, the German Empire had cruisers scattered across the globe that they were subsequently used to attack Allied merchant shipping. The British Royal Navy thereafter systematically hunted them down: at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, for example, Germany lost a fleet of 2 armoured cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 2 transports.

Soon after the war began, Britain initiated a Naval Blockade of Germany, preventing supply ships from reaching German ports. This strategy proved extremely effective, cutting off vital supplies from the German army and devastating Germany's economy in the homefront, leading to mass famine and starvation across the country. Furthermore, due to Britain's control of the sea, they were able to carry out their blockade often without firing a shot by simply boarding the ships, confiscating their cargo, and then letting the ship go afterwards. This strategy minimised casualties from ships belonging to nations not involved in the war. As a result, none of the neutral nations ever made a serious demand to end the blockade.

The 1916 Battle of Jutland (German: Skagerrakschlacht, or "Battle of the Skagerrak") developed into the largest naval battle of the war, and - remarkably - the only full-scale clash of battleships between the two sides. The Battle of Jutland was fought on May 31–June 1, 1916, in the North Sea off Jutland, the mainland of Denmark. The combatants were the Kaiserliche Marine's High Seas Fleet commanded by Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer and the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet commanded by Admiral Sir John Jellicoe. The battle was a standoff as the Germans, outmaneuvered by the larger British fleet, managed to escape to base. Strategically, the British demonstrated their control of the seas, and the German navy thereafter remained largely confined to port, where disgruntled sailors eventually mutinied in October 1918.

German U-boats threatened to cut the supply lines between North America and Britain. Due to the need to maintain positional secrecy, attacks came without warning, giving the crews of the targeted ships little chance to escape. The United States protested, and Germany modified its rules of engagement and - after the infamous sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915 - it promised not to sink passenger liners. Britain armed its merchant ships. Finally, in early 1917 Germany decided on a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, realising the Americans would enter the war. Germany gambled that it would be able to strangle the Allied supply line before the Americans could train and transport a large army.

The U-boat threat was solved in 1917 by herding merchant ships into convoys escorted by destroyers. This tactic made it much harder for U-boats to find targets, and the destroyers made it likely that a highly effective new weapon, the depth charge, would sink the slower submarines. The losses to submarine attacks became quite small, but the convoy system slowed the flow of supplies, because the convoy traveled at the speed of the slowest ship, and ships had to wait to be assembled and wait again to be unloaded. The solution to the delays was a massive program of building new freighters. Troop ships were too fast for the submarines and did not travel the North Atlantic in convoys.

The First World War also saw the first use of aircraft carriers in combat, with HMS Furious launching Sopwith Camels in a successful raid against the Zeppelin hangars at Tondern in July 1918.


Southern theatres

Ottoman Empire
Main article: Middle Eastern theatre of World War I
The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers in October and November 1914, because of the secret Ottoman-German Alliance, by three Pashas, which was signed in August 1914. It threatened Russia’s Caucasian territories and Britain’s communications with India and the East via the Suez Canal. The British and French opened another front in the South with the Gallipoli (1915) and Mesopotamian campaigns. In Gallipoli, the Turks were successful in repelling the British, French, and Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZACs) and forced their eventual withdrawal and evacuation. In Mesopotamia, by contrast, after the disastrous Siege of Kut (1915–16), British Empire forces reorganised and captured Baghdad in March 1917. Further to the west in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, initial British failures were overcome when Jerusalem was captured in December 1917, and the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, under Field Marshal Edmund Allenby, broke the Ottoman forces at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918.

Russian armies generally had the best of it in the Caucasus. Vice-Generalissimo Enver Pasha, supreme commander of the Turkish armed forces, was a very ambitious man with a dream to conquer central Asia. He was not, however, a practical soldier. He launched an offensive with 100,000 troops against the Russians in the Caucasus in December of 1914. Insisting on a frontal attack against Russian positions in the mountains in the heart of winter, Enver lost 86% of his force at the Battle of Sarikamis.

The Russian commander from 1915 to 1916, General Yudenich, with a string of victories over the Ottoman forces, drove the Turks out of much of the southern Caucasus.

In 1917, Russian Grand Duke Nicholas assumed senior control over the Caucasus front. Nicholas tried to have a railway built from Russian Georgia to the conquered territories with a view to bringing up more supplies for a new offensive in 1917. But, in March of 1917 (February in the pre-revolutionary Russian calendar), the Czar was overthrown in the February Revolution and the Russian army began to slowly fall apart.


Italian participation
Main article: Italian Campaign (World War I)
Italy had been allied to the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires since 1882. However, Italy had its own designs against Austrian territory in the Trentino, Istria and Dalmatia, and maintained a secret 1902 understanding with France, which effectively nullified its alliance commitments. Italy refused to join Germany and Austria-Hungary at the beginning of the war because their alliance (the "Triple Alliance") was defensive, while Austria-Hungary was the attacker. The Austrian government started negotiations to obtain Italian neutrality in exchange for French territories (Tunisia), but Italy joined the Entente by signing the London Pact in April and declaring war on Austria-Hungary in May 1915; it declared war against Germany fifteen months later.

In general, the Italians had numerical superiority but this advantage was squandered (along with the later increase in the size and quality of artillery which by 1917 rivaled the British and French gun parks) by the obstinacy with which Italian Generalissimo Luigi Cadorna insisted on attacking the Isonzo front. Cadorna, a staunch proponent of the frontal assault, had dreams of breaking into the Slovenian plateau, taking Ljubljana and then threatening Vienna itself; it was a Napoleonic plan which had no realistic chance in the age of barbed wire and machine guns. Cadorna unleashed 11 offensives (Battles of the Isonzo) with total disregard for his men's lives. The Italians went on the offensive to relieve pressure on the other Allied fronts and achieve their territorial goals. In the Trentino front, the Austro-Hungarian defense took advantage of the elevation of their bases in the mostly mountainous terrain, which was not suitable for military offensives. After an initial Austro-Hungarian strategic retreat to better positions, the front remained mostly unchanged, while Austrian Kaiserschützen and Standschützen and Italian Alpini fought bitter close combat battles during summer and tried to survive during winter in the high mountains. The Austro-Hungarians counterattacked in the Altopiano of Asiago towards Verona and Padua in the spring of 1916 (Strafexpedition), but they also made little progress.

Beginning in 1915, the Italians mounted 11 major offensives along the Isonzo River north of Trieste, known collectively as the Battle of the Isonzo. These eleven battles were repelled by the Austro-Hungarians who had the higher ground. In the summer of 1916, the Italians captured the town of Gorizia. After this minor victory, the front remained practically stable for over a year, despite several Italian offensives. In the fall of 1917, thanks to the improving situation on the Eastern front, the Austrians received large reinforcements, including German assault troops. The Central Powers launched a crushing offensive on October 26 that was spearheaded by German troops and supported by the Austrians and Hungarians. The attack resulted in the victory at Caporetto: the Italian army was routed, but after retreating more than 100 km, it was able to reorganise and hold at the Piave River. In 1918, the Austrians repeatedly failed to break the Italian line in battles such as the battle on the Asiago Plateau and, decisively defeated in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto, surrendered to the Entente powers in November.


War in the Balkans
Main articles: Balkans Campaign (World War I), Serbian Campaign (World War I), and Macedonian front (World War I)
Faced with the Russian threat, Austria-Hungary could spare only one third of its army for Serbia. After suffering tremendous losses, the Austrians briefly captured the Serbian capital, but Serb counterattacks succeeded in expelling the invaders from the country by the end of 1914. For the first 10 months of 1915, Austria used most of its spare armies to fight Italy. However, German and Austrian diplomats scored a great coup by convincing Bulgaria to join in a new attack on Serbia. The Austrian provinces of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia meanwhile fought on the Austrian side invading Serbia and being sent to fight Russia and Italy. Montenegro on the other side joined Serbia while Macedonia was occuiped by it.

The conquest of Serbia was finally accomplished in a little more than a month, starting on October 7, when the Austrians and Germans attacked from the north. Four days later the Bulgarians attacked from the east. The Serbian army, attacked from two directions and facing certain defeat, retreated east and south into Albania, stopping only once to make a stand against the Bulgarians, near modern day Gjilan, Kosovo, where they again suffered defeat. From Albania they went by ship to Greece.

In late 1915, a Franco-British force landed at Salonica in Greece to offer assistance and to pressure the Greek government into war against the Central Powers. Unfortunately for the Allies, the pro-German King Constantine I dismissed the pro-Allied Greek government of Eleftherios Venizelos, before the allied expeditionary force had even arrived.

The Salonica Front proved entirely immobile, so much so that it was joked that Salonica was the largest German prisoner of war camp. Only at the very end of the war were the Entente powers able to make a breakthrough, which was after most of the German and Austro-Hungarian troops had been removed, leaving the Front held by the Bulgarians alone. The Bulgarians suffered their only defeat in the war in the battle of Dobro Pole but days after this they decisively defeated the English and the Greeks in the battle of Doiran, which saved the country from enemy occupation. This led to Bulgaria’s signing an armistice on September 29, 1918.


Eastern Front

Initial actions
Main article: Eastern Front (World War I)
While the Western Front had reached stalemate, the war continued in the east. Initial Russian plans called for simultaneous invasions of Austrian Galicia and German East Prussia. Although Russia's initial advance into Galicia was largely successful, they were driven back from East Prussia by Hindenburg and Ludendorff at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes in August and September 1914. Russia’s less developed industrial base and ineffective military leadership was instrumental in the events that unfolded. By the spring of 1915, the Russians had retreated into Galicia, and in May, the Central Powers achieved a remarkable breakthrough on Poland’s southern frontiers. On August 5, they captured Warsaw and forced the Russians to withdraw from Poland. This became known as the “Great Retreat”in Russia and the “Great Advance”in Germany.


Russian Revolution
Main article: Russian Revolution of 1917
Dissatisfaction with the Russian government’s conduct of the war grew, despite the success of the June 1916 Brusilov offensive in eastern Galicia. The success was undermined by the reluctance of other generals to commit their forces to support the victory. Allied and Russian forces revived only temporarily with Romania’s entry into the war on August 27. German forces came to the aid of embattled Austrian units in Transylvania and Bucharest fell to the Central Powers on December 6. Meanwhile, unrest grew in Russia, as the Tsar remained at the front. Empress Alexandra’s increasingly incompetent rule drew protests and resulted in the murder of her favourite, Rasputin, at the end of 1916.


Vladimir Ulianov (Lenin)In March 1917, demonstrations in St Petersburg culminated in the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the appointment of a weak Provisional Government. It shared power with the socialists of the Petrograd Soviet. This arrangement led to confusion and chaos both at the front and at home. The army became increasingly ineffective.

The war and the government, became more and more unpopular. Discontent led to a rise in popularity of the Bolshevik party, led by Vladimir Lenin. He promised to pull Russia out of the war and was able to gain power. The triumph of the Bolsheviks in November was followed in December by an armistice and negotiations with Germany. At first, the Bolsheviks refused to agree to the harsh German terms. But when Germany resumed the war and marched with impunity across Ukraine, the new government acceded to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918. It took Russia out of the war and ceded vast territories, including Finland, the Baltic provinces, parts of Poland and Ukraine to the Central Powers.

The publication by the new Bolshevik government of the secret treaties signed by the tsar was hailed across the world, either as a great step forward for the respect of the will of the people, or as a dreadful catastrophe which could destabilise the world. The existence of a new type of government in Russia led to the reinforcement in many countries of Communist parties.

After the Russians dropped out of the war, the Entente no longer existed. The Allied powers led a small-scale invasion of Russia. The intent was primarily to stop Germany from exploiting Russian resources and, to a lesser extent, to support the Whites in the Russian Civil War. Troops landed in Archangel (see North Russia Campaign) and in Vladivostok.


1917–18

In the trenches: Royal Irish Rifles in a communications trench on the first day on the Somme, 1 July 1916.Events of 1917 would prove decisive in ending the war, although their effects would not be fully felt until 1918. The British naval blockade began to have a serious impact on Germany. In response, in February 1917, the German General Staff convinced Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg to declare unrestricted submarine warfare, with the goal of starving Britain out of the war. Tonnage sunk rose above 500,000 tons per month from February to July. It peaked at 860,000 tons in April. After July, the reintroduced convoy system became extremely effective in neutralizing the U-boat threat. Britain was safe from starvation and the German industrial output fell.

The victory of Austria-Hungary and Germany at the Battle of Caporetto, led the Allied at the Rapallo Conference to form the Supreme Allied Council, to coordinate planning. Previously, British and French armies had operated under separate commands.

In December, the Central Powers signed an armistice with Russia. This released troops for use in the west. Ironically, German troop transfers could have been greater if their territorial acquisitions had not been so dramatic. With German reinforcements and new American troops pouring in, the final outcome was to be decided on the Western front. The Central Powers knew that they could not win a protracted war. But they held high hopes for a quick offensive. Furthermore, the leaders of the Central Powers and the Allies became increasingly fearful of social unrest and revolution in Europe. Thus, both sides urgently sought a decisive victory.


Entry of the United States
Main article: American Expeditionary Force

President Wilson before Congress, announcing the break in official relations with Germany on February 3, 1917The United States pursued a policy of isolationism, avoiding conflict whilst trying to broker a peace. This resulted in increased tensions with Berlin and London. When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, with 128 Americans aboard, the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson vowed that "America was too proud to fight" and demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson unsuccessfully tried to mediate a settlement. He repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, in violation international law and American ideas of human rights. Wilson was under pressure from former president Theodore Roosevelt, who denounced German acts as "piracy."[7] In January 1917, after the Navy pressured the Kaiser, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare. Berlin's proposal to Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the U.S. angered Americans (see Zimmermann Telegram). After submarines sank seven American merchant ships, Wilson called for war on Germany, which Congress declared on April 6, 1917.[8]

The United States was never formally a member of the Allies, but became a self-styled "Associated Power". America had a small army, but it drafted 4 million men and by summer 1918 was sending 10,000 fresh soldiers to France every day. Germany had miscalculated that it would be many more months before they would arrive or that the arrival could be stopped by U-boats.[9]

The United States Navy sent a battleship group to Scapa Flow to join with the British Grand Fleet, several destroyers to Queenstown, Ireland, and several submarines to help guard convoys. Several regiments of U.S. Marines were also dispatched to France. The British and French wanted American units used to reinforce their troops already on the battle lines, and not waste scarce shipping on bringing over supplies. The Americans rejected the first proposition, and accepted the second. The AEF had its own slice of the Western Front, but used French and British artillery, aircraft and tanks. General John J. Pershing, American Expeditionary Force (AEF) commander, refused to break up American units to be used as reinforcements for British Empire and French units (though he did allow African American combat units to be used by the French). Pershing ordered the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British Empire and French commanders because of the large loss of life sustained throughout the war.


German Spring Offensive of 1918
Main article: Spring Offensive

For most of World War I, Allied forces were stalled at trenches on the Western FrontGerman General Erich Ludendorff drew up plans (codenamed Operation Michael) for the 1918 offensive on the Western Front. The Spring Offensive sought to divide the British and French forces with a series of feints and advances. The German leadership hoped to strike a decisive blow before significant U.S. forces arrived. Before the offensive began, Ludendorff made a seemingly fatal mistake, by leaving the elite Eighth Army in Russia and sending over only a small portion of the German forces to the west.[citation needed]

Operation Michael opened on March 21, 1918. British forces were attacked near Amiens. Ludendorff's wanted to split the British and French armies. German forces achieved an unprecedented advance of 60 kilometers (40 miles). For the first time since 1914, maneuver was achieved on the battlefield.

British and French trenches were penetrated using novel infiltration tactics, also named Hutier tactics, after General Oskar von Hutier. Until now, attacks had been characterised by long artillery bombardments and massed assaults. However, in the Spring Offensive, the German Army used artillery only briefly and infiltrated small groups of infantry at weak points. They attacked command and logistics areas, and bypassed points of serious resistance. More heavily armed infantry then destroyed these isolated positions. German success relied greatly on the element of surprise.

The front moved to within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of Paris. Three heavy Krupp railway guns fired 183 shells on the capital, causing many Parisians to flee. The initial offensive were so successful that Kaiser Wilhelm II declared March 24 a national holiday. Many Germans thought victory was near. After heavy fighting, however, the offensive was halted. Lacking tanks or motorised artillery, the Germans were unable to consolidate their gains.

American divisions, which Pershing had sought to field as an independent force, were assigned to the depleted French and British Empire commands on March 28. A supreme command of Allied forces was created at the Doullens Conference. General Foch was appointed as supreme commander of the allied forces. Haig, Petain and Pershing retained tactical control of their respective armies.

Following Operation Michael, Germany launched Operation Georgette against the northern Channel ports. The Allies halted the drive with limited territorial gains for Germany. The German Army to the south then conducted Operations Blücher and Yorck, broadly towards Paris. Next, Operation Marne was launched on July 15, attempting to encircle Reims and beginning the Second Battle of the Marne. The resulting Allied counterattack marked their first successful offensive of the war. By July 20, the Germans were back at their Kaiserschlacht starting lines, having achieved nothing. Following this last phase of the war in the West, the German Army never again regained the initiative. German casualties between March and April 1918 were 270,000, including many highly trained stormtroopers.

Meanwhile, at home Germany was crumbling. Anti-war marches become frequent and morale in the army fell. Industrial output was 53% of 1913 levels.


Allied victory: summer and autumn 1918
Main articles: Hundred Days Offensive and Weimar Republic

American engineers returning from the front during the Battle of Saint-Mihiel in September 1918The Allied counteroffensive, known as the Hundred Days Offensive began on August 8, 1918. The Battle of Amiens developed with III Corps Fourth British Army on the left, the First French Army on the right, and the Australian and Canadian Corps spearheading the offensive in the centre. It involved 414 tanks of the Mark IV and Mark V type, and 120,000 men. They advanced 12 kilometers (7 miles) into German-held territory in just seven hours. Erich Ludendorff referred to this day as the "Black Day of the German army”.

The offensive lost momentum due to supply problems. British units had encountered problems with all but seven tanks and trucks ran out of fuel. On August 15, General Haig called a halt and began planning a new offensive in Albert. The Second Battle of the Somme began on August 21. Some 130,000 U.S. troops were involved, along with soldiers from Third and Fourth British Armies. It was an overwhelming success. The Second German Army was pushed back over a 55 kilometer (34 mile) front. By September 2, the Germans were back to the Hindenburg Line, their starting point in 1914.

The Allied attack on the Hindenburg Line (the Meuse-Argonne Offensive) began September 26. 260,000 American soldiers went “over the top”. All initial objectives were captured, except the U.S. 79th Infantry Division, which met stiff resistance at Montfaucon and took an extra day to capture its objective. The US Army stalled because of supply problems, as its inexperienced headquarters had to cope with large units and a difficult landscape.

At the same time, French units broke through in Champagne and closed on the Belgian frontier. The most significant advance came from Commonwealth units, as they entered Belgium (liberation of Ghent). The German army had to shorten its front and use the Dutch frontier as an anchor to fight rear-guard actions. This probably saved the army from disintegration, but was devastating for morale.

By October, it was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defense. They were increasingly outnumbered, with the few new recruits. Rations were cut. Ludendorff decided, on October 1, that Germany had two ways out—total annihilation or an armistice. He recommended the latter at a summit of senior German officials. Allied pressure did not let up.

Meanwhile, news of Germany’s impending military defeat spread throughout the German Armed forces. The threat of mutiny was rife. Admiral Reinhard Scheer and Ludendorff decided to launch a last ditch attempt to restore the “valor” of the German Navy. Knowing the government of Max von Baden would veto any such action; Ludendorff decided not to inform him. Nonetheless, word of the impending assault reached sailors at Kiel. Many rebelled and were arrested, refusing to be part of a naval offensive which they believed to be suicidal. Ludendorff took the blame—the Kaiser dismissed him on October 26. The collapse of the Balkans meant that Germany was about to lose its main supplies of oil and food. The reserves had been used up, but the Americans kept arriving at the rate of 10,000 a day.[10]

With power coming into the hands of new men in Berlin, further fighting became impossible. With 6 million German casualties, Germany moved toward peace. Prince Max von Baden took charge of a new government. Negotiations with President Wilson began immediately, in the vain hope that better terms would be offered than with the British and French. Instead Wilson demanded the abdication of the Kaiser. There was no resistance when the social democrat Philipp Scheidemann on November 9 declared Germany to be a republic. Imperial Germany was dead; a new Germany had been born: the Weimar Republic.[11]


End of war

This photograph was taken after reaching an agreement for the armistice that ended World War I. The location is in the forest of Compiègne. Foch is second from the right.The collapse of the Central Powers came swiftly. Bulgaria was the first to sign an armistice on September 29, 1918. On October 30, the Ottoman Empire capitulated.

On October 24 the Italians began a push which rapidly recovered territory lost after the Battle of Caporetto. This culminated in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto, which marked the end of the Austro-Hungarian Army as an effective fighting force. The offensive also triggered the disintegration of Austria-Hungarian Empire. During the last week of October declarations of independence were made in Budapest, Prague and Zagreb. On October 29 the imperial authorities asked Italy for an armistice. But the Italians continued advancing, reaching Trento, Udine and Trieste. On November 3 Austria-Hungary sent a flag of truce to ask for an Armistice. The terms, arranged by telegraph with the Allied Authorities in Paris, were communicated to the Austrian Commander and accepted. The Armistice with Austria was signed in the Villa Giusti, near Padua, on November 3. Austria and Hungary signed separate armistices following the overthrow of the Habsburg monarchy.

Following the outbreak of the German Revolution, a republic was proclaimed on November 9. The Kaiser fled to the Netherlands. On November 11, an armistice with Germany was signed in a railroad carriage at Compiègne. At 11:00am on November 11, 1918 — the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month — a ceasefire came into effect. Opposing armies on the Western Front began to withdraw from their positions. Canadian George Lawrence Price is traditionally regarded as the last soldier killed in the Great War: he was shot by a German sniper and died at 10:58.

A formal state of war between the two sides persisted for another seven months, until signing of the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on June 28, 1919. Later treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and The Ottoman Empire were signed. However, the latter treaty with the Ottoman Empire was followed by strife (the Turkish Independence War) and a final peace treaty was signed between the Allied Powers and the country that would shortly become the Republic of Turkey, at Lausanne on July 24, 1923.

Some war memorials date the end of the war as being when the Versailles treaty was signed in 1919; by contrast, most commemorations of the war’s end concentrate on the armistice of November 11, 1918. Legally the last formal peace treaties were not signed until 1923. Some also treat the Versailles treaty as the prelude to World War II.

Further information: World War I casualties

Prisoners of war
About 8 million men surrendered and were held in POW camps until the war ended. All nations pledged to follow the Hague rules on fair treatment of prisoners of war, and in general the POW's had a much higher survival rate than their peers who were not captured.[12] Individual surrenders were uncommon; usually a large unit surrendered all its men. At Tannenberg 92,000 Russians surrendered during the battle. When the besieged garrison of Kaunas surrendered in 1915, 20,000 Russians became prisoners. Over half the Russian losses were prisoners (as a proportion of those captured, wounded or killed); for Austria 32%, for Italy 26%, for France 12%, for Germany 9%; for Britain 7%. Prisoners from the Allied armies totalled about 1.4 million (not including Russia, which lost between 2.5 and 3.5 million men as prisoners.) From the Central Powers about 3.3 million men became prisoners.[13]

Germany held 2.5 million prisoners; Russia held 2.9 million, and Britain and France held about 720,000, mostly gained in the period just before the Armistice in 1918. The US held 48,000. The most dangerous moment was the act of surrender, when helpless soldiers were sometimes gunned down. Once prisoners reached a camp, in general, conditions were satisfactory (and much better than in World War II), thanks in part to the efforts of the International Red Cross and inspections by neutral nations. Conditions were terrible in Russia, starvation was common for prisoners and civilians alike; about 15-20% of the prisoners in Russia died. In Germany food was short but only 5% died.[14]

The Ottoman Empire often treated prisoners of war poorly. Some 11,800 British Empire soldiers, most of them Indians, became prisoners after the five-month Siege of Kut, in Mesopotamia, in April 1916; 4,250 died in captivity.[15] Although many were in very bad condition when captured; Ottoman officers forced them to March 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) to Anatolia: a survivor said: "we were driven along like beasts, to drop out was to die."[16] The survivors were then forced to build a railway through the Taurus Mountains.

The most curious case came in Russia where the Czech Legion of Czech prisoners (from the Austro-Hungarian army), were released in 1917, armed themselves, and briefly became a military and diplomatic force during the Russian Civil War.


War crimes

Armenian Genocide
Main article: Armenian Genocide
The ethnic cleansing of Armenians during the final years of the Ottoman Empire is widely considered a genocide. The Turks accused the (Christian) Armenians of preparing to ally themselves with Russia, and saw the entire Armenian population as an enemy within their empire. The exact number of deaths is unknown; most estimates are between 800,000 and 1.5 million[citation needed]. Turkish governments since that time have consistently rejected charges of genocide, typically arguing either that those Armenians who died were simply in the way of a war or that killings of Armenians were justified by their individual or collective support for the enemies of the Ottoman Empire. These claims have often been labeled as historical revisionism by western scholars.


Rape of Belgium
Main article: Rape of Belgium
In Belgium, German troops, in fear of French guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs, massacred townspeople in Andenne (211 dead), Tamines (384 dead), and Dinant (612 dead). The victims included women and children. On August 25, 1914 the Germans set fire to the town of Leuven and burned the library of 230,000 books, killing 209 civilians and forcing 42,000 to evacuate. These actions brought worldwide condemnation.[17]


Economics and manpower issues
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased for three Allies (Britain, Italy, and U.S.), but decreased in France and Russia, in neutral Netherlands, and in the main three Central Powers. The shrinkage in GDP in Austria, Russia, France, and the Ottoman Empire reached 30 to 40%. In Austria, for example, most of the pigs were slaughtered and, at war’s end, there was no meat.

All nations had increases in the government’s share of GDP, surpassing fifty percent in both Germany and France and nearly reaching fifty percent in Britain. To pay for purchases in the United States, Britain cashed in its massive investments in American railroads and then began borrowing heavily on Wall Street. President Wilson was on the verge of cutting off the loans in late 1916, but with war imminent with Germany, he allowed a massive increase in U.S. government lending to the Allies. After 1919, the U.S. demanded repayment of these loans, which, in part, were funded by German reparations, which, in turn, were supported by American loans to Germany. This circular system collapsed in 1931 and the loans were never repaid.

One of the most dramatic effects was the expansion of governmental powers and responsibilities in Britain, France, the United States, and the Dominions of the British Empire. In order to harness all the power of their societies, new government ministries and powers were created. New taxes were levied and laws enacted, all designed to bolster the war effort; many of which have lasted to this day.

At the same time, the war strained the abilities of the formerly large and bureaucratised governments such as in Austria-Hungary and Germany. Here, however, the long-term effects were clouded by the defeat of these governments.

Families were altered by the departure of many men. With the death or absence of the primary wage earner, women were forced into the workforce in unprecedented numbers. At the same time, industry needed to replace the lost laborers sent to war. This aided the struggle for voting rights for women.

As the war slowly turned into a war of attrition, conscription was implemented in some countries. This issue was particularly explosive in Canada and Australia. In the former it opened a political gap between French-Canadians — who claimed their true loyalty was to Canada and not the British Empire — and the English-speaking majority who saw the war as a duty to both Britain and Canada. Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden pushed through a Military Service Act that caused the Conscription Crisis of 1917. In Australia, a sustained pro-conscription campaign by Prime Minister Billy Hughes, caused a split in the Australian Labor Party and Hughes formed the Nationalist Party of Australia in 1917 to pursue the matter. Nevertheless, the labour movement, the Catholic Church and Irish nationalist expatriates successfully opposed Hughes' push to introduce conscription, which was rejected in two plebiscites.

In Britain, rationing was finally imposed in early 1918 and was limited to meat, sugar and fats (butter and oleo), but not bread. The new system worked smoothly. From 1914 to 1918 trade union membership doubled, from a little over four million to a little over eight million. Work stoppages and strikes became frequent in 1917-18 as the unions expressed grievances regarding prices, liquor control, pay disputes, “dilution”, fatigue from overtime and from Sunday work, and inadequate housing. Conscription put into uniform nearly every physically fit man, six million out of ten million eligible in Britain. Of these, about 750,000 lost their lives and 1,700,000 were wounded. Most deaths were to young unmarried men; however, 160,000 wives lost husbands and 300,000 children lost fathers. [Havighurst p 134–5]


Technology
See also: Technology during World War I

French Nieuport 17 C.1 fighter, 1917The First World War began as a clash of 20th-century technology with 19th-century tactics and the inevitable appalling casualties. By the end of 1917, however, the major armies — now numbering millions of men — had modernised significantly and were making use of such technology as wireless communication, armored cars, tanks, and tactical aircraft. The infantry was reorganised such that 100-man companies were no longer the main unit of maneuver, in favour of the squad of 10 or so men under the command of a junior NCO. Artillery also had undergone a revolution; in 1914, cannons were positioned on the front lines and fired using open sights directly at their targets; by 1917, indirect fire with guns (as well as mortars and even machine guns) was responsible for the majority of casualties inflicted, and counter-battery artillery missions became commonplace, using new techniques for spotting and ranging enemy artillery.

Much of the war’s combat involved trench warfare, where hundreds often died for each yard of land gained. Many of the deadliest battles in history occurred during the First World War. Such battles include Ypres, Vimy Ridge, Marne, Cambrai, Somme, Verdun, and Gallipoli. During the war, the Haber process of nitrogen fixation was employed to provide the German forces with a continuing supply of powder for the ongoing conflict in the face of British naval control over the trade routes for naturally occurring nitrates. Artillery was responsible for the largest number of casualties during the First World War, which consumed vast quantities of explosives. The large number of head-wounds caused by exploding shells and shrapnel forced the combatant nations to develop the modern steel helmet. The French, who introduced the Adrian helmet in 1915, led this effort. It was quickly followed by the Brodie helmet, worn by British Empire and U.S. troops, and in 1916 by the German Stahlhelm, the distinctive steel helmet that with improvements continued in use throughout World War II.

There was chemical warfare and aerial bombardment, both of which had been outlawed under the 1907 Hague Convention, and both of which had extremely limited effects in tactical terms.

Chemical warfare was a major distinguishing factor of the war. Gases used included chlorine, mustard gas, and phosgene. Only a small proportion of total war casualties were caused by gas, but it achieved harassment and psychological effects by masking speech and slowing movement. Effective countermeasures to gas were quickly created in gas masks. Even as the use of gas increased, its effectiveness in creating casualties was quite limited.

The most powerful land weapons of the Great War were naval guns weighing hundreds of tons apiece (nicknamed Big Berthas by the British); they could be moved on land only by railroad. The largest U.S., British, and French rail guns were severely outranged by the German Krupp, Max E, and Paris Guns.

Fixed-wing aircraft were first used militarily during the First World War. Initial uses consisted of reconnaissance and ground attack. To shoot down enemy planes, anti-aircraft machine guns were used, and, more effectively, fast fighter aircraft. Strategic bombing aircraft were created principally by the Germans and British, though the former used Zeppelins to this end as well.

Towards the end of the war, aircraft carriers were used in combat for the first time, with HMS Furious launching Sopwith Camels in a raid against the Zepplin hangars at Tondern in 1918.

German U-boats (submarines) were used in combat shortly after the war began. Alternating between restricted and unrestricted submarine warfare during the First Battle of the Atlantic, they were employed by the Kaiserliche Marine in a strategy of defeating the British Empire through a tonnage war. The deaths of British merchantmen and the invulnerability of U-boats led to the development of several countermeasures: depth charges (1916), hydrophones (passive sonar, 1917), blimps, hunter-killer submarines (HMS R 1, 1917), ahead-throwing weapons, and dipping hydrophones (both abandoned in 1918). To extend their operations, the Germans proposed supply submarines (1916). Most of these would be forgotten in the interwar period until World War II revived the need.

Trenches, the machine gun, air reconnaissance, barbed wire, and modern artillery with fragmentation shells helped bring the battle lines of World War I to a stalemate by making massed infantry attacks deadly for the attacker. The infantry was armed mostly with magazine fed bolt-action rifles, but the machine gun, with the ability to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, blunted infantry attacks as an offensive doctrine. The British sought a solution and created the tank, and with it mechanised warfare. The first tanks were used during the Battle of the Somme on 15 September 1916; mechanical reliability issues hampered their mobility, but the experiment proved its worth as protection against enemy weapons, particularly the machine gun. Within a year, the British were fielding tanks by the hundreds and showed their potential during the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917 by breaking the Hindenburg Line, while combined arms teams captured 8000 enemy soldiers and 100 guns. Light automatic weapons also were introduced, such as the Lewis Gun and Browning automatic rifle, combining the firepower of the machine gun with the portability of the rifle.

Manned observation balloons floating high above the trenches were used as stationary reconnaissance points on the front lines, reporting enemy troop positions and directing artillery fire. Balloons commonly had a crew of two personnel equipped with parachutes; upon an enemy air attack on the flammable balloon, the balloon crew would parachute to safety. At the time, parachutes were too bulky to be used by pilots in aircraft, and smaller versions would not be developed until the end of the war. Recognised for their value as observer platforms, observation balloons were important targets of enemy aircraft. To defend against air attack, they were heavily protected by large concentrations antiaircraft guns and patrolled by friendly aircraft. Blimps and balloons helped contribute to the stalemate of trench warfare in World War I, and the balloons contributed to air-to-air combat among aircraft defending the skies and maintaining air superiority because of the balloons' significant reconnaissance value. The Germans conducted air raids on England and London during 1915 and 1916 using airships intending to damage British morale and will to fight, and to cause aircraft to be reassigned away from the front lines.

Another new weapon sprayed jets of burning fuel: flamethrowers. First used in war by the German army, and later adopted by other powers during WWI (it was invented prior to this, and simple models have existed since ancient times). Although not of high tactical value, they were a powerful, demoralizing weapon and caused much terror on the battlefield. It was a dangerous weapon to wield as their heavy weight made operators vulnerable targets. Despite Hollywood portrayal, however, there was little actual danger of the fuel tank exploding if shot or punctured.


Opposition to the war
Main article: Opposition to World War I
The trade union and socialist movements had declared before the war their determined opposition to a war which they said could only mean workers killing each other in the millions in the interests of their capitalist employers. Once the war was declared, however, the vast majority of socialist and trade union bodies decided to back the government of their respective countries and support the war. The few exceptions were the Russian Bolsheviks, the Italian Socialist Party, Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg and their followers in Germany, and very small groups in Britain and France. Other opposition came from conscientious objectors - some socialist, some religious - who refused to fight in the war. In Britain 16,000[citation needed] people asked for conscientious objector status, and many suffered years of prison, including solitary confinement and bread and water diets, to oppose the war. Even after the war in Britain, many job offers were marked "No conscientious objectors need apply"[citation needed].

Many countries jailed those who spoke out against the war. Eugene Debs in the United States objected and was thrown in jail for a speech in 1918. Bertrand Russell in Britain was also jailed for writing an anti-war article in 1915.


Aftermath
Main article: Aftermath of World War I
The direct consequences of World War I brought many old regimes crashing to the ground, and ultimately, would lead to the end of 300 years of European hegemony in the world.


The Newfoundland Memorial at Beaumont Hamel.No other war had changed the map of Europe so dramatically—four empires disappeared: the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and the Russian. Four defunct dynasties, the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburg, Romanovs and the Ottomans together with all their ancillary aristocracies, all fell during the war. France was badly damaged, with 1.4 million soldiers dead, not counting other casualties. In addition, a major influenza epidemic that started in Western Europe in the latter months of the war killed millions of people in Europe and then spread elsewhere around the world. Overall the influenza epidemic killed at least 50 million people.[18][19]


Peace Treaties
After the war, the Allies imposed a series of peace treaties on the defeated Central Powers. The 1919 Versailles Treaty ended the war with Germany. Germany was kept under a food blockade until it signed the treaty, which declared that Germany was responsible for the war and therefore had to pay all its costs. The treaty required Germany to pay enormous annual cash reparations, which it did by borrowing from the United States, until reparations were suspended in 1931. The “Guilt Thesis” became controversial in Britain and the United States. It caused enormous bitterness in Germany, which nationalist movements, especially the Nazis, exploited in the 1920s. (See Dolchstosslegende). Due to this treaty, one of the worst economic collapses in history took place in Germany, resulting in widespread famine, and inflation.

The Ottoman Empire was to have been partitioned by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 but the treaty was never ratified by the sultan and was rejected by the Turkish republican movement. This led to the Turkish Independence War and ultimately the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Austria-Hungary was also partitioned, largely along ethnic lines. The details were contained in the Treaty of Saint-Germain and the Treaty of Trianon.


New national identities
Poland reemerged as an independent country, after more than a century. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were entirely new creations. Russia became the Soviet Union and lost several regions such as Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia which became independent countries. The old Ottoman Empire was soon replaced by Turkey and several other countries in the following years in the Middle East.

In the British Empire the war unleashed new forms of nationalism. In Australian and New Zealand popular minds, the First World War, specifically Gallipoli became known as the nations' “Baptism of Fire”, as it was the first major war in which the newly established countries fought, and it is one of the first cases in which Australian troops fought as Australians, not just subjects of the British Crown. Anzac Day commemorating the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps is a defining moment.

This effect was even greater in Canada. Canadians proved they were their own country and not just subjects of the British Empire. Indeed, many Canadians refer to their country as a nation “forged from fire”, as Canadians were respected internationally as an independent nation from the conflagrations of war and bravery. When Canada entered the war it was simply a Dominion of the British Empire, when the war came to a close Canada was an independent nation. Canadian diplomats played a significant role in negotiating the Treaty to end WWI, and Canada placed her own signature to the treaty whereas other Dominions were represented by Britain's signature. Canadians commemorate the war dead on Remembrance Day. However the French Canadians did not see it that way, creating a permanent chasm that continues to split the country. See Conscription Crisis of 1917.


Social trauma
The experiences of the war led to a sort of collective national trauma afterwards for all the participating countries. The optimism of the 1900s was entirely gone, and those who fought in the war became what is known as “the Lost Generation” because they never fully recovered from their experiences. For the next few years, much of Europe began its mourning; memorials were erected in thousands of villages and towns. The soldiers returning home from World War I suffered greatly, since the horrors witnessed in that war had never before been seen in history. Although it was then commonly called shell shock, it is now known that many returning soldiers suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

This social trauma manifested itself in many different ways. Some people were revolted by nationalism and what it had supposedly caused and began to work toward a more internationalist world, supporting organisations such as the League of Nations. Pacifism became increasingly popular. Others had the opposite reaction, feeling that only strength and military-might could be relied upon for protection in a chaotic and inhumane world that did not respect hypothetical notions of civilisation. “Anti-modernist” views were a reaction against the many changes taking place within society. The rise of Nazism and fascism included a revival of the nationalistic spirit of the pre-war years and, on principle, a rejection of many post-war changes. Similarly, the popularity of the Dolchstosslegende was a testament to the psychological state of the defeated, as acceptance of the scapegoat mythos signified a rejection of the “lessons” of the war and therefore, a rejection of its popular resulting perspective. Certainly a sense of disillusionment and cynicism became pronounced, with nihilism growing in popularity. This disillusionment towards humanity found a cultural climax with the Dadaist artistic movement. Many people believed that the war heralded the end of the world as they had known it, including the collapse of capitalism and imperialism. Communist and socialist movements around the world drew strength from this theory and enjoyed a level of popularity they had never known before. These feelings were most pronounced in areas directly or particularly harshly affected by the war, especially within Europe.


Lt. Col. John McCrae of Canada, who wrote the poem In Flanders Fields, died in 1918 of pneumoniaIn 1915, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae of Canada wrote the memorable poem In Flanders Fields as a salute to those who perished in the Great War. It is still recited today, especially on Remembrance and Memorial Day.


Other names
World War I has also been called “The Great War” (a title previously used to refer to the Napoleonic Wars) or sometimes “the war to end all wars” until World War II. “War of the Nations” and “War in Europe” were commonly employed as descriptions during the war itself and in the 1920s. In France and Belgium it was also sometimes referred to as La Guerre du Droit ('the War for Justice') or La Guerre Pour la Civilisation / de Oorlog tot de Beschaving ("the War to Preserve Civilisation"), especially on medals and commemorative monuments. The term used by official histories of the war in Britain and Canada is First World War, while American histories generally use the term World War I.

In many European countries, it appears that the current usage is tending back towards calling it "the Great War" / la Grande Guerre / de Grote Oorlog / der Grosse Krieg, due to the growing historical awareness that, of the two 20th-century world wars, the 1914-1918 conflict was the more momentous in causing social and political change and upheaval, as well as being prime cause of the Second World War