World War I

Timeline

• 6 May 1915- Germany sinks Britain's Lusitania
• August 1915- Passenger ship Arabic sinks via German U-boat killing two Americans
• End of 1916- 1.23 million tons of allied shipping is lost
• 16 January 1917- Germany sends encrypted message to Mexico trying to form an alliance, promising to give New Mexico, Arizona and Texas to Mexico
• Britain intercepts the encrypted message to Mexico and interprets it
• Jan 31 1917- U.S. breaks communication with Germany
• 24 February 1917- Britain informs the U.S. of the message between Germany and Mexico
• 5 April 1917- U.S. enters the war

Post by Elizabeth Hartney, Ashley Brown, and Michelle Scheuter

Timeline of 1916:

February 21, 1916: Verdun Campaign

• German attack on French city of Verdun
• Primarily fought using guns; also introduced gas and flamethrowers in hand-to-hand combat
• French victory, but at a high cost-->destroys their army
• First major setback for Germans
• Both sides lose approx 500,000 men

March 1916: Russian attack on Northern Front at Vilna

• Lose 100,000 men (even though they have better weapons and more men)
• Considered a loss for the Allies

June 1916: Brusilov's Offensive

• Russian attack on Galician front under Brusilov
• Huge strides--20 mile gap in Austrian armies, 500,000 Austrian prisoners
• Austrians had poor command, poor morale--contributed to their defeat
• Russians have huge courage...even though they lose close to 1 million men
• Russian never fully recovers
• Encourages Romania to join Allies

July--October 1916: Battle of the Somme

• British & French vs. Germany (on French territory)
• Poor leadership, major losses (Allies lose 600,000 men)
• Poor quality of weaponry
• Allies only gain 10 miles in 4 months

End of 1916: Russia ungovernable; Continued stalemate

• strikes
• evasion of military service
• Lots of discontent everywhere

The first use of gas in the first world war was the deployment of non-lethal tear gas by the French in 1914. The first use of lethal gas was by the Germans in 1915. The next major advancement of the first world war is the "Little Willie" tank by the British in 1915. Most of the fundamental changes in weapons used in the first world war were invented prior to the start of the war. The major changes in handheld weapons were increased fire rate, range and accuracy. These changes made for massive increases in casualties. The lethal effects of these weapons were compounded by the incompetence of the commanding officers. These weapons also changed the way the war was fought forcing the soldiers into trenches to avoid immediate death. The trenches also created an environment in which gas warfare could easily be used to wipe out thousands of unsuspecting troops. The militaries quickly devised ways to counteract these new technologies. This is evidenced by the use of gas masks in response to the use of gases.

In A Very Short Introduction, I found many aspects Chapter 6, “The United States Enters the War,” to be very interesting. For one, I cannot believe that Germany was willing to risk unrestricted submarine warfare when they were almost certain that this would be the catalyst for the US to enter the war. Yes, the Germans figured that the US would not be able to gather together her military forces in time, but it was still a huge risk. Even with the worsening living conditions and the growing war weariness in Germany, her leaders kept pushing in an ultimately fatal move. A Very Short Introduction sums up the huge risks of unrestricted submarine warfare in an ominous prediction made by a German statesman: “and if it is not trumps, we are lost for centuries” (72). Still, the German military leaders pressed forward with their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, provoking the US to enter the conflict, which ultimately sealed Germany’s fate.  

I do wish we were doing a bit more reading from the German standpoint. History portrays this country as the “bad guy” of both world wars, often detracting from the suffering experienced by peaceful German civilians. As A Very Short Introduction States, “Mortality among [German] women and small children had increased 50 per cent,” (74). This was before the US even entered the war, when the situation undoubtedly worsened. In spite of this, the German government persisted with the war efforts. I think it would be fascinating to read the war from German citizens’ perspectives, to see if they stood by their leaders or just wanted the war to end. Though I do not know for sure, I would bet that the general attitude favored peace over war. 

What I have found to be interestings from our assigned readings are the paradoxes and ironies that surface due to the politics and practicality of war. For instance, we read in Chapter 5 of The First World War that "everywhere governments assumed powers over the lives of their citizens to a degree that was not only unprecedented but had previously been unimaginable" (56).  This is understandable considering the advent of modern technology and mass propaganda, however, it also necessarily eclipses a value that I would argue is essentially democratic.  

Several times throughout the book we read that WWI became not just a traditional struggle for power, but especially for Germany and Great Brittain it was a conflict of ideologies (38). Interestingly, the ideologies for which either side fought were not always evidenced by that nation's conduct in a state of war. For example, "every belligerant European state" (57) is said to have become a command economy during the war. It makes sense that war conditions would put a unique strain on supply and demand, but it is nevertheless interesting to consider countries like Great Brittain and Russia having similar economic structures. Another irony of the war is that Germany is harshly punished for its agressive expansionism, all while the other major powers involved had great imperialist histories of their own.

I found this map that helped me while I was doing my readings.  You can check it out at the following link:

http://www.the-map-as-history.com/demos/tome06/

After reading much of the short introduction to the First World War, the aspect of it that is most surprising to me (or maybe not surprising) is the extent to which the belligerent countries put the good of their nation, and the good of Europe as a whole, above the lives of the citizens they were sending to fight their war. It's true that people can make their own decision to sacrifice themselves to their country, but this war and the second World War are good examples of how nationalism and patriotism can be destructive forces. German militarism, for example, became a sort of religion to some of the German people, and like the author writes, their generals were elevated to the rank of demigods. This attitude, while it does improve the economy and the status of countries like Germany in the world, seems unhealthy.

I think this attitude of putting the country before oneself could be a symptom of modernity in the literature we will read this semester. Not every soldier is fighting for the same reasons, and so the ones who have been roped into the conflict might begin to feel alienated by the nationalism around them. This alienation is a keystone of Modernism, and I assume we'll be reading some instances of that during the semester.

When reading "The First World War: A Very Short Intorduction", what surprises me the most is the way in which the war quickly snowballed from a relatively unimportant dispute between two comparatively insignificant countries, to a gruesome bloodbath which embroiled the mightiest countries in the world, all do to a set of bass ackwards alliances. It really shocked me to learn that after the first year or so, both Austria-Hungary and Russia, the two original beligerants, wanted to try and come to some sort of agreement, but couldn't because the larger powers were far too concerned with being able to defeat eachother. Looking at it historically, it's almost like the European powers had built some sort of Rube-Goldberg machine of alliances around themselves.

One of the most surprising pieces of information that I read was that the United States entered the first war. I knew that Americans went overseas to help fight, but I did not realize that President Wilson actually declared war as well. The U.S. did not enter WWI until the very end, but I also found one of the reasons why they entered to be very interesting. The one thing I do not understand is why Britain waited so long to tell President Wilson about the decoded message they intercepted. "On that assumption the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmerman, had already on 16 January cabled the Mexican government," "The British had intercepted and decoded this remarkable document as soon as it was sent, but they did not reveal its contents to Wilson until 24 February". 

This piece of information alone makes me to look at the first world war in a different light. The dealings that went on during the war are incredibly interesting. This helps me to be even more open about what went on and why things happened the way they did. I look forward to reading more material and diving deeper into the history.

Although I have taken history courses that taught quite a bit about World War I, I feel like my knowledge of the war is relatively limited. For that reason there were a lot of things that stuck out to me while reading this "short introduction." I liked how detailed it was about the reasons for each county entering the war. That fascinated me, because it was not something I knew much about. The opening paragraph to the fourth chapter really stood out to me. It says, "had this been a 'limited war' in th style of the eighteenth century, governments might at this point have declared a truce and patched up a compromise peace." He then goes on to state that the the original countries involved would have done so, but "their allies were now in the driving seat." This struck me as being particularly interesting. The original countries that had the conflict would probably have been able to reach some sort of peace, but because of the nature of their alliances, the war was no longer even about that original conflict. 

This was so interesting to me because it says a lot about the war and the forces that drove it on. I think this is something that can and should be considered within the context of the literary texts we will read later this semester. That confusion and the different reasons for fighting will probably come up in the writing done during this time. If the original reasons for the war were forgotten, I imagine this only made the confusion and frustration for the war stronger. This kind of feeling will play an important part in the writings during this time. 

     The part of the reading that surprised me the most was the section titled "Popular Reactions" at the beginning of chapter three. While it is now clear that no one expected the War to last more than six months, I still find it very surprising that the various european peoples were so willing to enter a war that was predicted to kill many due to the new technologies. I personally would have expected the declaration of war to be a surprise to the europeans because I would not have expected them to understand all of the ententes and alliances being formed prior to the outbreak of fighting. This is even more interesting to me because european countries are so near one another- I would therefore expect people of different backgrounds to have family or friends in other countries, making war in Europe more of an emotional conflict.

      From a more historical standpoint, I was interested to learn that Germany initially seemed to be winning the war. It seems that they had all that they needed: a strong army, good tactics and enough financial support. I feel that if they hadn't given Britain enough time to ally with Russia and France that Germany definitely could have quickly won the war as they expected to do. As I continue to read I will try to pinpoint the poor decisions made by Germany that lead to her loss in the War. I am also interested in Russia's poor showing in the War and will continue to follow this as I finish the reading. It seems to me that a country with such a strong population and tough people should have been able to easily defeat the influx of German troops.