Anda di halaman 1dari 378

World War I

PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:46:53 UTC

Contents
Articles
Main article
World War I 1 1 55 55 57 60 78 85 88 96 103 119 123 128 131 148 155 160 185 185 193 193 204 215 227 229 246 254 260 264 266

Chronology
African theatre Asian and Pacific theatres Western front Naval warfare Balkans campaign Serbian campaign Macedonian front Middle Eastern theatre Italian campaign Eastern front Ukraine during World War I Russian Revolution of 1917 Spring Offensive Hundred Days Offensive Weimar Republic

Technology
Technology during World War I

Legacy
World War I in art and literature Media of World War I War memorial Surviving veterans of World War I World War I casualties Commonwealth War Graves Commission American Battle Monuments Commission Military attachs and war correspondents in the First World War Opposition to World War I French Army Mutinies

War crimes
Ottoman casualties of World War I Armenian Genocide Assyrian Genocide Pontic Greek Genocide Rape of Belgium

270 270 274 314 327 339 345 345

Aftermath
Aftermath of World War I

References
Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 358 365

Article Licenses
License 375

Main article
World War I
World War I (WWI), which was predominantly called the World War or the Great War from its occurrence until 1939, and the First World War or World War I thereafter, was a major war centred in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. It involved all the world's great powers,[1] which were assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies (based on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and Russia) and the Central Powers (originally centred around the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy; but, as AustriaHungary had taken the offensive against the agreement, Italy did not enter into the war).[2] These alliances both reorganised (Italy fought for the Allies), and expanded as more nations entered the war. Ultimately more than 70million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilised in one of the largest wars in history.[3][4] More than 9million combatants were killed, largely because of great technological advances in firepower without corresponding advances in mobility. It was the sixth-deadliest conflict in world history, subsequently paving the way for various political changes such as revolutions in the nations involved.[5] Long-term causes of the war included the imperialistic foreign policies of the great powers of Europe, including the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, the French Republic, and Italy. The assassination on 28 June 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by a Yugoslav nationalist was the proximate trigger of the war. It resulted in a Habsburg ultimatum against the Kingdom of Serbia.[6][7] Several alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked, so within weeks the major powers were at war; via their colonies, the conflict soon spread around the world. On 28 July, the conflict opened with the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia,[8][9] followed by the German invasion of Belgium, Luxembourg and France; and a Russian attack against Germany. After the German march on Paris was brought to a halt, the Western Front settled into a static battle of attrition with a trench line that changed little until 1917. In the East, the Russian army successfully fought against the Austro-Hungarian forces but was forced back by the German army. Additional fronts opened after the Ottoman Empire joined the war in 1914, Italy and Bulgaria in 1915 and Romania in 1916. The Russian Empire collapsed in March 1917, and Russia left the war after the October Revolution later that year. After a 1918 German offensive along the western front, United States forces entered the trenches and the Allies drove back the German armies in a series of successful offensives. Germany, which had its own trouble with revolutionaries at this point, agreed to a cease-fire on 11 November 1918, later known as Armistice Day. The war had ended in victory for the Allies. Events on the home fronts were as tumultuous as on the battle fronts, as the participants tried to mobilize their manpower and economic resources to fight a total war. By the end of the war, four major imperial powers the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires ceased to exist. The successor states of the former two lost a great amount of territory, while the latter two were dismantled entirely. The map of central Europe was redrawn into several smaller states.[10] The League of Nations was formed in the hope of preventing another such conflict. The European nationalism spawned by the war and the breakup of empires, the repercussions of Germany's defeat and problems with the Treaty of Versailles are generally agreed to be factors contributing to World War II.[11]

World War I

Names
In Canada, Maclean's Magazine in October 1914 said, "Some wars name themselves. This is the Great War."[12] During the Interwar period, the war was most often called the World War and the Great War, in English-speaking countries. After the onset of the Second World War in 1939, the terms World War I or the First World War became standard, with British and Canadian historians favouring the First World War, and Americans World War I. The notion that the "World War" was merely the first in a series was not a new idea at the time, however; it was first introduced in September 1914 by German philosopher Ernst Haeckel, who claimed that "there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word."[13] The First World War was the title of a 1920 history by the officer and journalist Charles Court Repington.

Background
In the 19th century, the major European powers had gone to great lengths to maintain a balance of power throughout Europe, resulting by 1900 in a complex network of political and military alliances throughout the continent.[2] These had started in 1815, with the Holy Alliance between Prussia, Russia, and Austria. Then, in October 1873, German Chancellor Map of the participants in World War I: Allied Powers in green, Central Powers in Bismarck negotiated the League of the orange, and neutral countries in grey Three Emperors (German: Dreikaiserbund) between the monarchs of AustriaHungary, Russia and Germany. This agreement failed because AustriaHungary and Russia could not agree over Balkan policy, leaving Germany and AustriaHungary in an alliance formed in 1879, called the Dual Alliance. This was seen as a method of countering Russian influence in the Balkans as the Ottoman Empire continued to weaken.[2] In 1882, this alliance was expanded to include Italy in what became the Triple Alliance.[14] After 1870, European conflict was averted largely through a carefully planned network of treaties between the German Empire and the remainder of Europe orchestrated by Bismarck. He especially worked to hold Russia at Germany's side to avoid a two-front war with France and Russia. When Wilhelm II ascended to the throne as German Emperor (Kaiser), Bismarck's alliances were gradually de-emphasised. For example, the Kaiser refused to renew the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in 1890. Two years later, the Franco-Russian Alliance was signed to counteract the force of the Triple Alliance. In 1904, the United Kingdom sealed an alliance with France, the Entente Cordiale, and in 1907, the United Kingdom and Russia signed the Anglo-Russian Convention. This system of interlocking bilateral agreements formed the Triple Entente.[2]

World War I

German industrial and economic power had grown greatly after unification and the foundation of the Empire in 1870. From the mid-1890s on, the government of Wilhelm II used this base to devote significant economic resources to building up the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial German Navy), established by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, in rivalry with the British Royal Navy for world naval supremacy.[15] As a result, each nation strove to out-build the other in terms of capital ships. With the launch of HMSDreadnought in 1906, the British Empire expanded on its significant advantage over its German rival.[15] HMSDreadnought. A naval arms race existed The arms race between Britain and Germany eventually extended to between the United Kingdom and Germany. the rest of Europe, with all the major powers devoting their industrial base to producing the equipment and weapons necessary for a pan-European conflict.[16] Between 1908 and 1913, the military spending of the European powers increased by 50percent.[17] Austria-Hungary precipitated the Bosnian crisis of 19081909 by officially annexing the former Ottoman territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which it had occupied since 1878. This angered the Kingdom of Serbia and its patron, the Pan-Slavic and Orthodox Russian Empire.[18] Russian political manoeuvring in the region destabilised peace accords that were already fracturing in what was known as "the powder keg of Europe".[18]

Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian-Serb student, was arrested immediately after he assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria

In 1912 and 1913 the First Balkan War was fought between the Balkan League and the fracturing Ottoman Empire. The resulting Treaty of London further shrank the Ottoman Empire, creating an independent Albanian State while enlarging the territorial holdings of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. When Bulgaria attacked both Serbia and Greece on 16 June 1913, it lost most of Macedonia to Serbia and Greece and Southern Dobruja to Romania in the 33-day Second Balkan War, further destabilising the region.[19] On 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian-Serb student and member of Young Bosnia, assassinated the heir to the

Ethno-linguistic map of AustriaHungary, 1910

Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia.[20] This began a period of diplomatic manoeuvring among Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, and Britain called the July Crisis.

World War I Wanting to finally end Serbian interference in Bosnia, Austria-Hungary delivered the July Ultimatum to Serbia, a series of ten demands intentionally made unacceptable, intending to provoke a war with Serbia.[21] When Serbia agreed to only eight of the ten demands, Austria-Hungary declared war on 28 July 1914. Strachan argues, "Whether an equivocal and early response by Serbia would have made any difference to Austria-Hungary's behaviour must be doubtful. Franz Ferdinand was not the sort of personality who commanded popularity, and his demise did not cast the empire into deepest mourning".[22] The Russian Empire, unwilling to allow AustriaHungary to eliminate its influence in the Balkans, and in support of its longtime Serb protgs, ordered a partial mobilisation one day later.[14] When the German Empire began to mobilise on 30 July 1914, France, resentful of the German conquest of Alsace-Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War, ordered French mobilisation on 1 August. Germany declared war on Russia on the same day.[23] The United Kingdom declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914, following an "unsatisfactory reply" to the British ultimatum that Belgium must be kept neutral.[24]

Theatres of Conflict
Opening hostilities
Confusion among the Central Powers The strategy of the Central Powers suffered from miscommunication. Germany had promised to support Austria-Hungary's invasion of Serbia, but interpretations of what this meant differed. Previously-tested deployment plans had been replaced early in 1914, but the replacements had never been tested in exercises. Austro-Hungarian leaders believed Germany would cover its northern flank against Russia.[25] Germany, however, envisioned Austria-Hungary directing most of its troops against Russia, while Germany dealt with France. This confusion forced the Austro-Hungarian Army to divide its forces between the Russian and Serbian fronts. On 9 September 1914, the Septemberprogramm, a possible plan which detailed Germany's specific war aims and the conditions that Germany sought to force on the Allied Powers, was outlined by German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. It was never officially adopted. African campaigns Some of the first clashes of the war involved British, French, and German colonial forces in Africa. On 7 August, French and British troops invaded the German protectorate of Togoland. On 10 August, German forces in South-West Africa attacked South Africa; sporadic and fierce fighting continued for the rest of the war. The German colonial forces in German East Africa, led by Colonel Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck, fought a guerrilla warfare campaign during World War I and only surrendered two weeks after the armistice took effect in Europe.[26]

Lettow surrendering his forces to the British at Abercorn

World War I Serbian campaign Austria invaded and fought the Serbian army at the Battle of Cer and Battle of Kolubara beginning on 12 August. Over the next two weeks Austrian attacks were thrown back with heavy losses, which marked the first major Allied victories of the war and dashed Austro-Hungarian hopes of a swift victory. As a result, Austria had to keep sizable forces on the Serbian front, weakening its efforts against Russia.[27] Serbias defeat of the Austro-Hungarian invasion of 1914 counts among the major upset victories of the last century.[28]

Declaration of war. Austro-Hungarian government's telegram to the government of Serbia on 28 July 1914.

Serbian troops artillery positions in the Battle of Kolubara.

German forces in Belgium and France At the outbreak of the First World War, the German army (consisting in the West of seven field armies) carried out a modified version of the Schlieffen Plan, designed to quickly attack France through neutral Belgium before turning southwards to encircle the French army on the German border.[6] The plan called for the right flank of the German advance to converge on Paris, and initially the Germans were successful, particularly in the Battle of the Frontiers (1424 August). By 12 September, the French, with assistance from the British forces, halted the German advance east of Paris at the First Battle of the Marne (512 September). The last days of this battle signified the end of mobile warfare in the west.[6] The French offensive into Germany, launched on 7 August with the Battle of Mulhouse, had limited success.

German soldiers in a railway goods van on the way to the front in 1914. A message on the car spells out "Trip to Paris"; early in the war all sides expected the conflict to be a short one.

World War I In the east, only one field army defended East Prussia, and when Russia attacked in this region it diverted German forces intended for the Western Front. Germany defeated Russia in a series of battles collectively known as the First Battle of Tannenberg (17 August 2 September), but this diversion aggravated problems of insufficient speed of advance from rail-heads not foreseen by the German General Staff. The Central Powers were denied a quick victory and forced 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. Despite this, communications problems and questionable command decisions cost Germany the chance of early victory.[29] Asia and the Pacific New Zealand occupied German Samoa (later Western Samoa) on 30 August. On 11 September, 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 the Siege 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; only isolated commerce raiders and a few holdouts in New Guinea remained.[30][31]

Early stages
Trench warfare begins Military tactics before World War I had failed to keep pace with advances in technology. These advances allowed for impressive defence systems, which out-of-date military tactics could not break through for most of the war. 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 extremely difficult.[32] The Germans introduced poison gas; it soon became used by both sides, though it never proved decisive in winning a battle. Its effects were brutal, causing slow and painful death, and poison gas became one of the most-feared and best-remembered horrors of the war. Commanders on both sides failed to develop tactics for breaching entrenched positions without heavy casualties. In time, however, technology began to produce new offensive weapons, such as Scots Fusiliers, 1916 the tank.[33] Britain and France were its primary users; the Germans employed captured Allied tanks and small numbers of their own design. After the First Battle of the Marne, both Entente and German forces began a series of outflanking manoeuvres, in the so-called "Race to the Sea". Britain and France soon found themselves facing entrenched German forces from Lorraine to Belgium's coast.[6] Britain and France sought to take the offensive, while Germany defended the occupied territories; consequently, 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 defences.[34] Both sides tried to break the stalemate using scientific and technological advances. On 22 April 1915 at the Second Battle of Ypres, the Germans (violating the Hague
Sir Winston Churchill with the Royal

World War I

7 Convention) used chlorine gas for the first time on the Western Front. Algerian troops retreated when gassed and a six-kilometre (four-mile) hole opened in the Allied lines that the Germans quickly exploited, taking Kitcheners' Wood. Canadian soldiers closed the breach at the Second Battle of Ypres.[35] At the Third Battle of Ypres, Canadian and ANZAC troops took the village of Passchendaele.

Sunlight Soap ad, placed in a trench (1915)

On 1 July 1916, the British Army endured the bloodiest day in its history, suffering 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 dead, on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Most of the casualties occurred in the first hour of the attack. The entire Somme offensive cost the British Army almost half a million men.[36] Neither side proved able to deliver a decisive blow for the next two years, though protracted German action at Verdun throughout 1916,[37] combined with the bloodletting at the Somme, brought the exhausted French army to the brink of collapse. Futile attempts at frontal assault came at a high price for both the British and the French poilu (infantry) and led to widespread mutinies, especially during the Nivelle Offensive.[38]

Men in Melbourne collecting recruitment papers

In the trenches: Royal Irish Rifles in a communications trench on the first day on the Somme, 1 July 1916.

World War I

Throughout 191517, the British Empire and France suffered more casualties than Germany, because of both the strategic and tactical stances chosen by the sides. Strategically, while the Germans only mounted a single main offensive at Verdun, the Allies made several attempts to break through German lines. Tactically, German commander Erich Ludendorff's doctrine of "elastic defence" was well suited for trench warfare. This defence had a lightly defended forward position and a more powerful main position farther back beyond artillery range, from which an immediate and powerful counter-offensive could be launched.[39][40] Ludendorff wrote on the fighting in 1917, The 25thof August concluded the second phase of the Flanders battle. It had cost us heavily... The costly August battles in Flanders and at Verdun imposed a heavy strain on the Western troops. In spite of all the concrete protection they seemed more or less powerless under the enormous weight of the enemy's artillery. At some points they no longer displayed the firmness which I, in common with the local commanders, had hoped for. The enemy managed to adapt himself to our method of employing counter attacks... I myself was being put to a terrible strain. The state of affairs in the West appeared to prevent the execution of our plans elsewhere. Our wastage had been so high as to cause grave misgivings, and had exceeded all expectation.[41] On the battle of the Menin Road Ridge, Ludendorff wrote, Another terrific assault was made on our lines on the20 September... The enemy's onslaught on the 20th was successful, which proved the superiority of the attack over the defence. Its strength did not consist in the tanks; we found them inconvenient, but put them out of action all the same. The power of the attack lay in the artillery, and in the fact that ours did not do enough damage to the hostile infantry as they were assembling, and above all, at the actual time of the assault.[42]

Canadian troops advancing behind a British Mark II tank at the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

A French assault on German positions. Champagne, France, 1917.

Officers and senior enlisted men of the Bermuda Militia Artillery's Bermuda Contingent, Royal Garrison Artillery, in Europe.

Around 1.1 to 1.2 million soldiers from the British and Dominion armies were on the Western Front at any one time.[43] A thousand 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 The British Grand Fleet making steam for Scapa offensive was underway. The front contained over 9600 kilometres Flow, 1914 (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) 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.

World War I

In the 1917 Battle of Arras, the only significant British military success was the capture of Vimy Ridge by the Canadian Corps under Sir Arthur Currie and Julian Byng. The assaulting troops could, for the first time, overrun, rapidly reinforce and hold the ridge defending the coal-rich Douai plain.[44][45]

Naval war

A battleship squadron of the Hochseeflotte at sea

At the start of the war, the German Empire had cruisers scattered across the globe, some of which were subsequently used to attack Allied merchant shipping. The British Royal Navy systematically hunted them down, though not without some embarrassment from its inability to protect Allied shipping. For example, the German detached light cruiser SMS Emden, part of the East-Asia squadron stationed at Tsingtao, seized or destroyed 15 merchantmen, as well as sinking a Russian cruiser and a French destroyer. However, most of the German East-Asia squadronconsisting of the armoured cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, light cruisers Nrnberg and Leipzig and two transport shipsdid not have orders to raid shipping and was instead underway to Germany when it met British warships. The German flotilla and Dresden sank two armoured cruisers at the Battle of Coronel, but was almost destroyed at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, with only Dresden and a few auxiliaries escaping, but at the Battle of Ms a Tierra these too were destroyed or interned.[46] Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, Britain began a naval blockade of Germany. The strategy proved effective, cutting off vital military and civilian supplies, although this blockade violated accepted international law codified by several international agreements of the past two centuries.[47] Britain mined international waters to prevent any ships from entering entire sections of ocean, causing danger to even neutral ships.[48] Since there was limited response to this tactic, Germany expected a similar response to its unrestricted submarine warfare.[49] The 1916 Battle of Jutland (German: Skagerrakschlacht, or "Battle of the Skagerrak") developed into the largest naval battle of the war, the only full-scale clash of battleships during the war, and one of the largest in history. It took place on 31 May 1 June 1916, in the North Sea off Jutland. The Kaiserliche Marine's High Seas Fleet, commanded by Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer, squared off against the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet, led by Admiral Sir John Jellicoe. The engagement was a stand off, as the Germans, outmanoeuvred by the larger British fleet, managed to escape and inflicted more damage to the British fleet than they received. Strategically, however, the British asserted their control of the sea, and the bulk of the German surface fleet remained confined to port for the duration of the war.[50] German U-boats attempted to cut the supply lines between North America and Britain.[51] The nature of submarine warfare meant that attacks often came without warning, giving the crews of the merchant ships little hope of survival.[51][52] The United States launched a protest, and Germany changed its rules of engagement. After the notorious sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915, Germany promised not to target passenger liners, while Britain armed its merchant ships, placing them beyond the protection of the "cruiser rules" which demanded warning and placing crews in "a place of safety" (a standard which lifeboats did not meet).[53] Finally, in early 1917 Germany adopted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, realising the Americans would eventually enter the war.[51][54] Germany sought to strangle Allied sea lanes before the U.S. could transport a large army overseas, but could maintain only five long-range U-boats on station, to limited effect.[51]

World War I

10

The U-boat threat lessened in 1917, when merchant ships began travelling in convoys, escorted by destroyers. This tactic made it difficult for U-boats to find targets, which significantly lessened losses; after the hydrophone and depth charges were introduced, accompanying destroyers might attack a submerged submarine with some hope of success. Convoys slowed the flow of supplies, since ships had to wait as convoys were assembled. The solution to the delays was an extensive program to build new freighters. Troopships were too fast for the submarines and did not travel the North Atlantic in convoys.[55] The U-boats had sunk more than 5,000 Allied ships, at a cost of 199 submarines.[56]

U-155 exhibited near Tower Bridge in London after the First World War.

World War I 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, as well as blimps for antisubmarine patrol.[57]

Southern theatres
War in the Balkans Faced with Russia, Austria-Hungary could spare only one-third of its army to attack Serbia. After suffering heavy losses, the Austrians briefly occupied the Serbian capital, Belgrade. A Serbian counter attack in the battle of Kolubara, however, succeeded in driving them from the country by the end of 1914. For the first ten months of 1915, Austria-Hungary used most of its military reserves to fight Italy. German and Austro-Hungarian diplomats, however, scored a coup by persuading Bulgaria to join in attacking Serbia. The Austro-Hungarian provinces of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia provided troops for Austria-Hungary, invading Serbia as well as fighting Russia and Italy. Montenegro allied itself with Serbia.[58] Serbia was conquered in a little more than a month, as the Central Powers, now including Bulgaria, sent in 600,000 troops. The Serbian army, fighting on two fronts and facing certain defeat, retreated into Albania, The Serbs suffered defeat in the Battle of Kosovo. Montenegro covered the Serbian retreat towards the Adriatic coast in the Battle of Mojkovac in 67 January 1916, but ultimately the Austrians conquered Montenegro, too. The surving 70,000 Serbian soldiers were evacuated by ship to Greece.[59] In late 1915, a Franco-British force landed at Salonica in Greece, to offer assistance and to pressure the government to declare war against the Central Powers. Unfortunately for the Allies, the pro-German King Constantine I dismissed the pro-Allied government of Eleftherios Venizelos, before the Allied expeditionary force could arrive.[60] The friction between the king of Greece and the Allies continued to accumulate with the National Schism, which effectively divided Greece between regions still loyal to the king and the new provisional government of Venizelos in Salonica. After intensive diplomatic negotiations and an armed confrontation in Athens between Allied and royalist forces (an incident known as Noemvriana) the king of Greece resigned, and his second son Alexander took his place. Venizelos returned to Athens on 29 May 1917 and Greece, now unified, officially joined the war on the side of the Allies. The entire Greek army was mobilized and began to participate in military operations against the Central Powers on the Macedonian front.

World War I

11

After conquest, Serbia was divided between Austro-Hungary and Bulgaria. In 1917 the Serbs launched the Toplica Uprising and liberated for a short time the area between the Kopaonik mountains and the South Morava river. The uprising was crushed by joint efforts of Bulgarian and Austrian forces at the end of March 1917. The Macedonian Front in the beginning was mostly static. French and Serbian forces retook limited areas of Macedonia by recapturing Bitola on 19 November 1916 as a result of the costly Monastir Offensive which brought stabilization of the front.

Serbian and French troops finally made breakthrough, after most of the German and Austro-Hungarian troops had withdrawn.This breakthrough was significant in defeating Bulgaria and Austro-Hungary, which leaded to the final victory of WWI. The Bulgarians suffered their only defeat of the war at the Battle of Dobro Pole but days later, they decisively defeated British and Greek forces at the Battle of Doiran, avoiding occupation. After Serbian breakthrough of Bulgarian lines, Bulgaria capitulated on 29 September 1918.[61] Hindenburg and Ludendorff concluded that the strategic and operational balance had now shifted decidedly against the Central Powers and a day after the Bulgarian collapse, during a meeting with government officials, insisted on an immediate peace settlement.[62] The disappearance of the Macedonian front meant that the road to Budapest and Vienna was now opened for the 670,000-strong army of general Franchet d'Esperey as the Bulgarian surrender deprived the Central Powers of the 278 infantry battalions and 1,500 guns (the equivalent of some 25 to 30 German divisions) that were previously holding the line.[63] The German high command responded by sending only seven infantry and one cavalry division but these forces were far from enough for a front to be reestablished.[63] Ottoman Empire The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers in the war, the secret Ottoman-German Alliance having been signed in August 1914.[64] It threatened Russia's Caucasian territories and Britain's communications with India via the Suez Canal. The British and French opened overseas fronts with the Gallipoli (1915) and Mesopotamian campaigns. In Gallipoli, the Ottoman Empire successfully repelled the British, French, and Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZACs). In Mesopotamia, by contrast, after the disastrous Siege of Kut (191516), British Imperial forces reorganised and captured Baghdad in March 1917. Further to the west, the Suez Canal was successfully defended from Ottoman attacks in 1915 and 1916; in August a joint German and Ottoman force was defeated at the Battle of Romani by the Anzac Mounted and the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Divisions. Following this victory, a British Empire Egyptian Expeditionary Force advanced across the Sinai Peninsula, pushing Ottoman forces back in the Battle of Magdhaba in December and the Battle of Rafa on the border A British artillery battery emplaced on Mount between the Egyptian Sinai and Ottoman Palestine in January 1917. In Scopus in the Battle of Jerusalem. March and April at the First and Second Battles of Gaza, German and Ottoman forces stopped the advance, but at the end of October the Sinai and Palestine Campaign resumed, when Allenby's XXth Corps, XX1st Corps and Desert Mounted Corps won the Battle of Beersheba. Two Ottoman armies were defeated a few weeks later at the Battle of Mughar Ridge, and early in December Jerusalem was captured following another Ottoman defeat at the Battle of Jerusalem (1917). About this time Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein was relieved of his duties as the Eighth Army's commander, replaced by Djevad Pasha, and a few

Bulgarian soldiers in a trench, preparing to fire against an incoming airplane

World War I months later the commander of the Ottoman Army in Palestine, Erich von Falkenhayn, was replaced by Otto Liman von Sanders. A reorganised Egyptian Expeditionary Force, with an additional mounted division under Field Marshal Edmund Allenby, broke Ottoman forces at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918. In six weeks, during virtually continuous operations, battles were successfully fought by British infantry and Australian, British, Indian and New Zealand, Light Horse, mounted Yeomanry, Lancers and Mounted Rifle brigades. They campaigned across the Jordan River to Amman in the east and northwards to capture Nablus and Tulkarm in the Judean Hills, and followed the Mediterranean coast into the Jezreel Valley (Esdraelon Plain), where Afula, Jenin and Nazareth were captured, along with Daraa east of the Jordan River on the Hejaz railway. Semakh and Tiberias on the Sea of Gallilee, were captured on the way northwards to Damascus and Aleppo. The Armistice of Mudros was signed on 30 October, when two and a half Ottoman armies had been defeated and captured. Russian armies generally had the best of it in the Caucasus. Enver Pasha, supreme commander of the Ottoman armed forces, was ambitious and dreamed of re-conquering central Asia and areas that had been lost to Russia previously. He was, however, a poor commander.[65] He launched an offensive against the Russians in the Caucasus in December 1914 with 100,000 troops; insisting on a frontal attack against mountainous Russian positions in winter, he lost 86% of his force at the Battle of Sarikamish.[66]
Russian forest trench at the Battle of Sarikamish General Yudenich, the Russian commander from 1915 to 1916, drove the Turks out of most of the southern Caucasus with a string of victories.[66] In 1917, Russian Grand Duke Nicholas assumed command of the Caucasus front. Nicholas planned a railway from Russian Georgia to the conquered territories, so that fresh supplies could be brought up for a new offensive in 1917. However, in March 1917 (February in the pre-revolutionary Russian calendar), the Czar was overthrown in the February Revolution and the Russian Caucasus Army began to fall apart.

12

Instigated by the Arab bureau of the British Foreign Office, the Arab Revolt started with the help of Britain in June 1916 at the Battle of Mecca, led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca, and ended with the Ottoman surrender of Damascus. Fakhri Pasha, the Ottoman commander of Medina, resisted for more than two and half years during the Siege of Medina.[67] Along the border of Italian Libya and British Egypt, the Senussi tribe, incited and armed by the Turks, waged a small-scale guerrilla war against Allied troops. The British were forced to dispatch 12,000 troops to oppose them in the Senussi Campaign. Their rebellion was

German soldiers in Jerusalem

finally crushed in mid-1916.[68]

World War I Italian participation Further information: Battles of the Isonzo Italy had been allied with the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires since 1882 as part of the Triple Alliance. However, the nation had its own designs on Austrian territory in Trentino, Istria, and Dalmatia. Rome had a secret 1902 pact with France, effectively nullifying its alliance.[69] At the start of hostilities, Italy refused to commit troops, arguing that the Triple Alliance was defensive and that AustriaHungary was an aggressor. The Austro-Hungarian government began negotiations to secure Italian neutrality, offering the French colony of Tunisia in return. The Allies made a counter-offer in which Italy would receive the Southern Tyrol, Julian March and territory on the Dalmatian coast after the defeat of Austria-Hungary. This was formalised by the Treaty of London. Further encouraged by the Allied invasion of Turkey in April 1915, Italy joined the Triple Entente and declared war on Austria-Hungary on 23 May. Fifteen months later Italy declared war on Germany.

13

Austro-Hungarian mountain corps in Tyrol

Militarily, the Italians had numerical superiority. This advantage, however, was lost, not only because of the difficult terrain in which fighting took place, but also because of the strategies and tactics employed. Field Marshal Luigi Cadorna, a staunch proponent of the frontal assault, had dreams of breaking into the Slovenian plateau, taking Ljubljana and threatening Vienna. Cadorna's plan did not take into account the difficulties of the rugged Alpine terrain, or the technological changes that created trench warfare, giving rise to a series of bloody and inconclusive stalemated offensives. On the Trentino front, the Austro-Hungarians took advantage of the mountainous terrain, which favoured the defender. After an initial strategic retreat, the front remained largely unchanged, while Austrian Kaiserschtzen and Standschtzen engaged Italian Alpini in bitter hand-to-hand combat throughout the summer. The Austro-Hungarians counterattacked in the Altopiano of Asiago, towards Verona and Padua, in the spring of 1916 (Strafexpedition), but made little progress. Beginning in 1915, the Italians under Cadorna mounted eleven offensives on the Isonzo front along the Isonzo River, northeast of Trieste. All eleven offensives were repelled by the Austro-Hungarians, who held the higher ground. In the summer of 1916, the Italians captured the town of Gorizia. After this minor victory, the front remained static for over a year, despite several Italian offensives. In the autumn of 1917, thanks to the improving situation on the Eastern front, the Austro-Hungarian troops received large numbers of reinforcements, including German Stormtroopers and the elite Alpenkorps. The Central Powers launched a crushing offensive on 26 October 1917, spearheaded by the Germans. They achieved a victory at Caporetto. The Italian Army was routed and retreated more than 100 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) to reorganise, stabilising the front at the Piave River. Since in the Battle of Caporetto the Italian Army had heavy losses, the Italian Government called to arms the so-called '99 Boys (Ragazzi del '99): that is, all males who were 18 years old. In 1918, the Austro-Hungarians failed to break through, in a series of battles on the Piave River, and were finally decisively defeated in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto in October of that year. From 56 November 1918, Italian forces were reported to have reached Lissa, Lagosta, Sebenico, and other localities on the Dalmatian coast.[70] By the end of hostilities in November 1918, the Italian military had seized
Depiction of the Battle of Doberd, fought in August 1916 between the Italian and Austro-Hungarian army.

World War I control of the entire portion of Dalmatia that had been guaranteed to Italy by the London Pact.[71] In 1918, Admiral Enrico Millo declared himself Italy's Governor of Dalmatia.[71] Austria-Hungary surrendered in early November 1918.[72][73] Romanian participation Romania had been allied with the Central Powers since 1882. When the war began, however, it declared its neutrality, arguing that because Austria-Hungary had itself declared war on Serbia, Romania was under no obligation to join the war. When the Entente Powers promised Romania large territories of eastern Hungary (Transylvania and Banat) that had a large Romanian population in exchange for Romania's declaring war on the Central Powers, the Romanian government Marshal Joffre inspecting Romanian troops renounced its neutrality, and on 27 August 1916 the Romanian Army launched an attack against Austria-Hungary, with limited Russian support. The Romanian offensive was initially successful, pushing back the Austro-Hungarian troops in Transylvania, but a counterattack by the forces of the Central Powers drove back the Russo-Romanian forces. As a result of the Battle of Bucharest the Central Powers occupied Bucharest on 6 December 1916. Fighting in Moldova continued in 1917, resulting in a costly stalemate for the Central Powers.[74][75] Russian withdrawal from the war in late 1917 as a result of the October Revolution meant that Romania was forced to sign an armistice with the Central Powers on 9 December 1917. In January 1918, Romanian forces established control over Bessarabia as the Russian Army abandoned the province. Although a treaty was signed by the Romanian and the Bolshevik Russian government following talks from 59 March 1918 on the withdrawal of Romanian forces from Bessarabia within two months, on 27 March 1918 Romania attached Bessarabia to its territory, formally based on a resolution passed by the local assembly of the territory on the unification with Romania. Romania officially made peace with the Central Powers by signing the Treaty of Bucharest on 7 May 1918. Under that treaty, Romania was obliged to end war with the Central Powers and make small territorial concessions to Austria-Hungary, ceding control of some passes in the Carpathian Mountains, and grant oil concessions to Germany. In exchange, the Central Powers recognised the sovereignty of Romania over Bessarabia. The treaty was renounced in October 1918 by the Alexandru Marghiloman government, and Romania nominally re-entered the war on 10 November 1918. The next day, the Treaty of Bucharest was nullified by the terms of the Armistice of Compigne.[76][77] Total Romanian deaths from 1914 to 1918, military and civilian, within contemporary borders, were estimated at 748,000.[78] The role of India Further information: Third Anglo-Afghan War and Hindu-German Conspiracy Contrary to British fears of a revolt in India, the outbreak of the war saw an unprecedented outpouring of loyalty and good will towards the United Kingdom.[79][80] Indian political leaders from the Indian National Congress and other groups were eager to support the British war effort since they believed that strong support for the war effort would further the cause of Indian Home Rule. The Indian Army in fact outnumbered the British Army at the beginning of the war; about 1.3million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, while both the central government and the princely states sent large supplies of food, money, and ammunition. In all, 140,000men served on the Western Front and nearly 700,000 in the Middle East. Casualties of Indian soldiers totalled 47,746 killed and 65,126 wounded during World War I.[81] The suffering engendered by the war as well as the failure of the British government to grant self-government to India after the end of hostilities bred disillusionment and fuelled the campaign for full independence that would be led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and others.

14

World War I

15

Eastern Front
Initial actions While the Western Front had reached stalemate, the war continued in East Europe. Initial Russian plans called for simultaneous invasions of Austrian Galicia and German East Prussia. Although Russia's initial advance into Galicia was largely successful, it was driven back from East Prussia by Hindenburg and Ludendorff at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes in August and September 1914.[82][83] 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 [84] a remarkable breakthrough on Poland's southern frontiers. On 5 August they captured Warsaw and forced the Russians to withdraw from Poland.
Russian troops awaiting a German attack

Russian Revolution Further information: North Russia Campaign Despite the success of the June 1916 Brusilov Offensive in eastern Galicia,[85] dissatisfaction with the Russian government's conduct of the war grew. The offensive's success was undermined by the reluctance of other generals to commit their forces to support the victory. Allied and Russian forces were revived only temporarily by Romania's entry into the war on 27 August. German forces came to the aid of embattled Austro-Hungarian units in Transylvania, and Bucharest fell to the Central Powers on 6 December. 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 Illyich Lenin In March 1917, demonstrations in Petrograd culminated in the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the appointment of a weak Provisional Government which shared power with the Petrograd Soviet socialists. This arrangement led to confusion and chaos both at the front and at home. The army became increasingly ineffective.[84]

Russian Cossacks on the front, 1915

Discontent and the weaknesses of the Provisional Government led to a rise in popularity of the Bolshevik Party, led by Vladimir Lenin, which demanded an immediate end to the war. The successful armed uprising by the Bolsheviks of November was followed in December by an armistice and negotiations with Germany. At first the Bolsheviks refused the German terms, but when German troops began marching across the Ukraine unopposed, the new government acceded to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918. The treaty ceded vast territories, including Finland, the Baltic provinces, parts of Poland and Ukraine to the Central Powers.[86] Despite this enormous apparent

World War I

16

German success, the manpower required for German occupation of former Russian territory may have contributed to the failure of the Spring Offensive and secured relatively little food or other materiel. With the adoption of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Entente no longer existed. The Allied powers led a small-scale invasion of Russia, partly to stop Germany from exploiting Russian resources and, to a lesser extent, to support the "Whites" (as opposed to the "Reds") in the Russian Civil War.[87] Allied troops landed in Arkhangelsk and in Vladivostok.

Signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (9 February 1918) are: 1. Count Ottokar von Czernin, 2. Richard von Khlmann, and 3. Vasil Radoslavov

Central Powers proposal for starting peace negotiations


In December 1916, after ten brutal months of the Battle of Verdun and a successful offensive against Romania, the Germans attempted to negotiate a peace with the Allies. Soon after, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson attempted to intervene as a peacemaker, asking in a note for both sides to state their demands. Lloyd George's War Cabinet considered the German offer to be a ploy to create divisions amongst the Allies. After initial outrage and much deliberation, they took Wilson's note as a separate effort, signalling that the U.S. was on the verge of entering the war against Germany following the "submarine On the way to Verdun. "They shall not pass" is a outrages". While the Allies debated a response to Wilson's offer, the phrase which for all time will be associated with Germans chose to rebuff it in favour of "a direct exchange of views". the heroic defense of Verdun. Learning of the German response, the Allied governments were free to make clear demands in their response of 14 January. They sought restoration of damages, the evacuation of occupied territories, reparations for France, Russia and Romania, and a recognition of the principle of nationalities. This included the liberation of Italians, Slavs, Romanians, Czecho-Slovaks, and the creation of a "free and united Poland". On the question of security, the Allies sought guarantees that would prevent or limit future wars, complete with sanctions, as a condition of any peace settlement.[88] The negotiations failed and the Entente powers rejected the German offer, because Germany did not state any specific proposals. To Wilson, the Entente powers stated that they would not start peace negotiations until the Central powers evacuated all occupied Allied territories and provided indemnities for all damage which had been done.[89]

World War I

17

19171918
Developments in 1917 Events of 1917 proved decisive in ending the war, although their effects were not 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. German planners estimated that unrestricted submarine warfare would cost Britain a monthly shipping loss of 600,000 tons. The General Staff acknowledged that the policy would almost certainly bring the United States into the conflict, but calculated that British shipping losses would be so high that they would be forced to sue for peace after 5 to 6 months, before American intervention could make an impact. In reality, tonnage sunk rose above 500,000tons per month from February to July. It peaked at 860,000tons in April. After July, the newly re-introduced convoy system became extremely effective in reducing the U-boat threat. Britain was safe from starvation while German industrial output fell, and the United States troops joined the war in large numbers far earlier than Germany had anticipated.

French troopers under General Gouraud, with their machine guns amongst the ruins of a cathedral near the Marne, driving back the Germans. 1918

On 3 May 1917, during the Nivelle Offensive, the weary French 2nd German film crew recording the action. Colonial Division, veterans of the Battle of Verdun, refused their orders, arriving drunk and without their weapons. Their officers lacked the means to punish an entire division, and harsh measures were not immediately implemented. Then, mutinies afflicted an additional 54 French divisions and saw 20,000 men desert. The other Allied forces attacked but sustained tremendous casualties.[90] However, appeals to patriotism and duty, as well as mass arrests and trials, encouraged the soldiers to return to defend their trenches, although the French soldiers refused to participate in further offensive action.[91] Robert Nivelle was removed from command by 15 May, replaced by General Philippe Ptain, who suspended bloody large-scale attacks. The victory of AustriaHungary and Germany at the Battle of Caporetto led the Allies at the Rapallo Conference to form the Supreme War 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 large numbers of German troops for use in the west. With German reinforcements and new American troops pouring in, the 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 success based on a final 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.[92] Entry of the United States

Haut-Rhin, France, 1917

World War I Non-intervention At the outbreak of the war the United States pursued a policy of non-intervention, avoiding conflict while trying to broker a peace. When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, with 128 Americans killed, President Woodrow Wilson insisted that "America is too proud to fight" but demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson unsuccessfully tried to mediate a settlement. However, he also repeatedly warned that the U.S.A. would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, in violation of international law. Former president Theodore Roosevelt, who denounced German acts as "piracy".[93] Wilson was narrowly reelected in 1916 as his supporters emphasized "he kept us out of war". In January 1917, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, realizing it would mean American entry. The German Foreign Minister, in the Zimmermann Telegram, invited Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the United States. In return, the Germans would finance Mexico's war and help it recover the territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.[94] Wilson released the Zimmerman note to the public, and Americans saw it as casus bellia cause for war. Wilson called on antiwar elements to end all wars, by winning this one and eliminating militarism from the globe. He argued that the war was so important that the U.S. had to have a voice in the peace conference.[95] U.S. declaration of war on Germany After the sinking of seven U.S. merchant ships by submarines and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany,[96] which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917.

18

President Wilson before Congress, announcing the break in official relations with Germany on 3 February 1917.

First active U.S. participation The United States was never formally a member of the Allies but became a self-styled "Associated Power". The United States had a small army, but, after the passage of the Selective Service Act, it drafted 2.8 million men,[97] and by summer 1918 was sending 10,000 fresh soldiers to France every day. In 1917, the U.S. Congress gave U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans when they were drafted to participate in World War I, as part of the Jones Act. Germany had miscalculated, believing it would be many more months before American soldiers would arrive and that their arrival could be stopped by U-boats.[98]

The United States Navy sent a battleship group to Scapa Flow to join with the British Grand Fleet, destroyers to Queenstown, Ireland, and submarines to help guard convoys. Several regiments of U.S. Marines were also dispatched to France. The British and French wanted U.S. units used to reinforce their troops already on the battle lines and not

American soldiers on the Piave front hurling a shower of hand grenades into the Austrian trenches

World War I

19

waste scarce shipping on bringing over supplies. The U.S. rejected the first proposition and accepted the second. General John J. Pershing, American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) commander, refused to break up U.S. units to be used as reinforcements for British Empire and French units. As an exception, he did allow African-American combat regiments to be used in French divisions. The Harlem Hellfighters fought as part of the French 16th Division, earning a unit Croix de Guerre for their actions at Chateau-Thierry, Belleau Wood, and Sechault.[99] AEF doctrine called for the use of frontal assaults, which had long since been discarded by British Empire and French commanders because of the large loss of life.[100]
Two Allied soldiers run towards a bunker.

Austrian offer of separate peace In 1917, Emperor Charles I of Austria secretly attempted separate peace negotiations with Clemenceau, with his wife's brother Sixtus in Belgium as an intermediary, without the knowledge of Germany. When the negotiations failed, his attempt was revealed to Germany, resulting in a diplomatic catastrophe.[101][102] German Spring Offensive of 1918 German 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. The operation commenced on 21 March 1918 with an attack on British forces near Amiens. German forces achieved an unprecedented advance of 60 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi).[103] British and French trenches were penetrated using novel infiltration tactics, also named Hutier tactics, after General Oskar von Hutier. Previously, attacks had been characterised by long artillery bombardments and massed assaults. However, in the Spring Offensive of 1918, Ludendorff 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.[104] The front moved to within 120 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) of Paris. Three heavy Krupp railway guns fired 183shells on the capital, causing many Parisians to flee. The initial offensive was so successful that Kaiser Wilhelm II declared 24 March 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. This situation was not helped by the supply lines now being stretched as a result of their advance.[105] The sudden stop was also a result of the four Australian Imperial Force (AIF) divisions that were "rushed" down, thus doing what no other army had done: stopping the German advance in its tracks. During that time the first Australian division was hurriedly sent north again to stop the second German breakthrough.

World War I

20

General Foch pressed to use the arriving American troops as individual replacements. Pershing sought instead to field American units as an independent force. These units were assigned to the depleted French and British Empire commands on 28 March. A Supreme War Council of Allied forces was created at the Doullens Conference on 5 November 1917.[106] General Foch was appointed as supreme commander of the allied forces. Haig, Petain, and Pershing retained tactical control of their respective armies; Foch assumed a coordinating rather than a directing role, and the British, French, and U.S. commands operated largely independently.[106]

British 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division troops blinded by tear gas during the Battle of Estaires, 10 April 1918.

Following Operation Michael, Germany launched Operation Georgette against the northern English Channel ports. The Allies halted the drive after limited territorial gains by Germany. The German Army to the south then conducted Operations Blcher and Yorck, pushing broadly towards Paris. Operation Marne was launched on 15 July, attempting to encircle Reims and beginning the Second Battle of the Marne. The resulting counterattack, starting the Hundred Days Offensive, marked the first successful Allied offensive of the war. By 20 July the Germans were back across the Marne at their Kaiserschlacht starting lines,[107] having achieved nothing. Following this last phase of the war in the West, the German Army never regained the initiative. German casualties between March and April 1918 were 270,000, including many highly trained storm troopers. Meanwhile, Germany was falling apart at home. Anti-war marches became frequent and morale in the army fell. Industrial output was 53percent of 1913 levels. New states under war zone In the late spring of 1918, three new states were formed in the South Caucasus: the Democratic Republic of Armenia, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Georgia, which declared their independence from the Russian Empire.[108] Two other minor entities were established, the Centrocaspian Dictatorship and South West Caucasian Republic (the former was liquidated by Azerbaijan in the autumn of 1918 and the latter by a joint Armenian-British task force in early 1919). With the withdrawal of the Russian armies from the Caucasus front in the winter of 191718, the three major republics braced for an imminent Ottoman advance, which commenced in the early months of 1918. Solidarity was briefly maintained when the Transcaucasian Federative Republic was created in the spring of 1918 but collapsed in May, when the Georgians asked and received protection from Germany and the Azerbaijanis concluded a treaty with the Ottoman Empire that was more akin to a military alliance. Armenia was left to fend for itself and struggled for five months against the threat of a full-fledged occupation by the Ottoman Turks.[109] Allied victory: summer and autumn 1918 The Allied counteroffensive, known as the Hundred Days Offensive, began on 8 August 1918. The Battle of Amiens developed with III Corps British Fourth Army on the left, the French First Army on the right, and the Australian and Canadian Corps spearheading the offensive in the centre through Harbonnires.[110][111] It involved 414 tanks of the Mark IV and Mark V type, and 120,000 men. They advanced 12 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) into German-held territory in just seven hours. Erich Ludendorff referred to this day as the "Black Day of the German army".[110][112]

World War I

21

The Australian-Canadian spearhead at Amiens, a battle that was the beginning of Germany's downfall,[42] helped pull forward the British armies to the north and the French armies to the south. On the British Fourth Army front at Amiens, after an advance as far as 14 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km), German resistance stiffened, and the battle there concluded. But the French Third Army lengthened the Amiens front on 10August, when it was thrown in on the right of the French First Army, and advanced 4 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km), liberating Lassigny in fighting which lasted until Aerial view of ruins of Vaux, France, 1918 16August. South of the French Third Army, General Charles Mangin (The Butcher) drove his French Tenth Army forward at Soissons on 20 August to capture eight thousand prisoners, two hundred guns, and the Aisne heights overlooking and menacing the German position north of the Vesle.[113] Another "Black day", as described by Erich Ludendorff. Meanwhile General Byng of the British Third Army, reporting that the enemy on his front was thinning in a limited withdrawal, was ordered to attack with 200 tanks towards Bapaume, opening the Battle of Albert, with specific orders "To break the enemy's front, in order to outflank the enemy's present battle front" (opposite the British Fourth Army at Amiens).[42] Allied leaders had now realised that to continue an attack after resistance had hardened was a waste of lives, and it was better to turn a line than to try to roll over it. They began to undertake attacks in quick order to take advantage of successful advances on the flanks, then broke them off when each attack lost its initial impetus.[113] The British Third Army's 15-mile (unknown operator: u'strong'km) front north of Albert progressed after stalling for a day against the main resistance line to which the enemy had withdrawn.[114] Rawlinson's British Fourth Army was able to push its left flank forward between Albert and the Somme, straightening the line between the advanced positions of the Third Army and the Amiens front, which resulted in recapturing Albert at the same time.[113] On 26August the British First Army on the left of the Third Army was drawn into the battle, extending it northward to beyond Arras. The Canadian Corps, already back in the vanguard of the First Army, fought its way from Arras eastward 5 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km) astride the heavily defended Arras-Cambrai area before reaching the outer defences of the Hindenburg Line, breaching them on the 28 and 29August. Bapaume fell on 29August to the New Zealand Division of the Third Army, and the Australians, still leading the advance of the Fourth Army, were again able to push forward at Amiens to take Peronne and Mont Saint-Quentin on 31August. Further south, the French First and Third Armies had slowly fought forward while the Tenth Army, which had by now crossed the Ailette and was east of the Chemin des Dames, neared the Alberich position of the Hindenburg Line.[115] During the last week of August the pressure along a 70-mile (unknown operator: u'strong'km) front against the enemy was heavy and unrelenting. From German accounts, "Each day was spent in bloody fighting against an ever and again on-storming enemy, and nights passed without sleep in retirements to new lines."[113] Even to the north in Flanders the British Second and Fifth Armies during August and September were able to make progress, taking prisoners and positions that had previously been denied them.[115]

World War I

22

On 2 September the Canadian Corps outflanking of the Hindenburg line, with the breaching of the Wotan Position, made it possible for the Third Army to advance, which sent repercussions all along the Western Front. That same day Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL) had no choice but to issue orders to six armies to withdraw back into the Hindenburg Line in the south, behind the Canal du Nord on the Canadian-First Army's front and back to a line east of the Lys in the north. This ceded without a fight the salient seized the previous April.[116] According to Ludendorff "We had to admit the necessity...to withdraw the entire front from the Scarpe to the Vesle."[117]

American troops in Vladivostok, Siberia, August 1918

In nearly four weeks of fighting beginning 8August, over 100,000 German prisoners were taken, 75,000 by the BEF and the rest by the French. As of "The Black Day of the German Army", the German High Command realised the war was lost and made attempts to reach a satisfactory end. The day after that battle Ludenforff told Colonel Mertz: "We cannot win the war any more, but we must not lose it either." On 11August he offered his resignation to the Kaiser, who refused it, replying, "I see that we must strike a balance. We have nearly reached the limit of our powers of resistance. The war must be ended." On 13 August at Spa, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, the Chancellor, and Foreign Minister Hintz agreed that the war could not be ended militarily, and on the following day the German Crown Council decided that victory in the field was now most improbable. Austria and Hungary warned that they could only continue the war until December, Close-up view of an American major in the basket of an observation and Ludendorff recommended immediate peace negotiations, to which balloon flying over territory near the Kaiser responded by instructing Hintz to seek the mediation of the front lines Queen of the Netherlands. Prince Rupprecht warned Prince Max of Baden: "Our military situation has deteriorated so rapidly that I no longer believe we can hold out over the winter; it is even possible that a catastrophe will come earlier." On 10September Hindenburg urged peace moves to Emperor Charles of Austria, and Germany appealed to the Netherlands for mediation. On 14September Austria sent a note to all belligerents and neutrals suggesting a meeting for peace talks on neutral soil, and on 15September Germany made a peace offer to Belgium. Both peace offers were rejected, and on 24September OHL informed the leaders in Berlin that armistice talks were inevitable.[115] September saw the Germans continuing to fight strong rear-guard actions and launching numerous counterattacks on lost positions, but only a few succeeded, and then only temporarily. Contested towns, villages, heights, and trenches in the screening positions and outposts of the Hindenburg Line continued to fall to the Allies, with the BEF alone taking 30,441prisoners in the last week of September. Further small advances eastward would follow the Third Army's victory at Ivincourt on 12September, the Fourth Army's at Epheny on 18September, and the French gain of Essigny-le-Grand a day later. On 24September a final assault by both the British and French on a 4-mile (unknown operator: u'strong'km) front would come within 2 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km) of St. Quentin.[115] With the outposts and preliminary defensive lines of the Siegfried and Alberich Positions eliminated, the Germans were now completely back in the Hindenburg Line. With the Wotan position of that line already breached and the Siegfried position in danger of being turned from the north, the time had now come for an Allied assault on the whole length of the line. The Allied attack on the Hindenburg Line, begun on 26September, included U.S. soldiers. The still-green American troops suffered problems coping with supply trains for large units on a difficult landscape.[118] The following week

World War I cooperating French and American units broke through in Champagne at the Battle of Blanc Mont Ridge, forcing the Germans off the commanding heights, and closing towards the Belgian frontier.[119] The last Belgian town to be liberated before the armistice was Ghent, which the Germans held as a pivot until the Allies brought up artillery.[120][121] The German army had to shorten its front and use the Dutch frontier as an anchor to fight rear-guard actions. When Bulgaria signed a separate armistice on 29September, the Allies gained control of Serbia and Greece. Ludendorff, having been under great stress for months, suffered something similar to a breakdown. It was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defence.[122][123] Meanwhile, news of Germany's impending military defeat spread throughout the German armed forces. The threat of mutiny was rife. Men of U.S. 64th Regiment, 7th Infantry Admiral Reinhard Scheer and Ludendorff decided to launch a last Division, celebrate the news of the Armistice, 11 attempt to restore the "valour" of the German Navy. Knowing the November 1918 government of Prince Maximilian of Baden would veto any such action, Ludendorff decided not to inform him. Nonetheless, word of the impending assault reached sailors at Kiel. Many, refusing to be part of a naval offensive which they believed to be suicidal, rebelled and were arrested. Ludendorff took the blame; the Kaiser dismissed him on 26October. The collapse of the Balkans meant that Germany was about to lose its main supplies of oil and food. Its reserves had been used up, even as U.S. troops kept arriving at the rate of 10,000 per day.[124] Having suffered over 6million casualties, Germany moved towards peace. Prince Maximilian of Baden took charge of a new government as Chancellor of Germany to negotiate with the Allies. Telegraphic negotiations with President Wilson began immediately, in the vain hope that he would offer better terms than the British and French. Instead Wilson demanded the abdication of the Kaiser. There was no resistance when the Social Democrat Philipp Scheidemann on 9November declared Germany to be a republic. Imperial Germany was dead; a new Germany had been born: the Weimar Republic.[125]

23

Armistices and capitulations


The collapse of the Central Powers came swiftly. Bulgaria was the first to sign an armistice, on 29 September 1918 at Saloniki.[127] On 30 October, the Ottoman Empire capitulated at Moudros (Armistice of Mudros).[127] On 24 October, 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 The signing of the armistice. disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During the last week of October, declarations of independence were made in Budapest, Prague, and Zagreb. On 29 October, the imperial authorities asked Italy for an armistice. But the Italians continued advancing, reaching Trento, Udine, and Trieste. On 3 November AustriaHungary 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

World War I

24

the Villa Giusti, near Padua, on 3 November. Austria and Hungary signed separate armistices following the overthrow of the Habsburg Monarchy. Following the outbreak of the German Revolution of 19181919, a republic was proclaimed on 9 November. The Kaiser fled to the Netherlands. On 11 November an armistice with Germany was signed in a railroad carriage at Compigne. At 11am on 11 November 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 Private George Lawrence Price was shot by a German sniper at 10:57 and died at 10:58.[128] American Henry Gunther was killed 60 seconds before the armistice came into force while charging astonished German troops who were aware the Armistice was nearly upon them.[129] The last British soldier to die was Pte George Edwin Ellison. The last casualty of the war was a German, Lieutenant Thomas, who, after 11am, was walking towards the line to inform Americans who had not yet been informed of the Armistice that they would be vacating the buildings behind them.[130] The occupation of the Rhineland took place following the Armistice. The occupying armies consisted of American, Belgian, British and French forces. Allied superiority and the stab-in-the-back legend, November 1918 In November 1918 the Allies had ample supplies of men and materiel to invade Germany. Yet at the time of the armistice, no Allied force had crossed the German frontier; the Western Front was still almost 900mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km) from Berlin; and the Kaiser's armies had retreated from the battlefield in good order. These factors enabled Hindenburg and other senior German leaders to spread the story that their armies had not really been defeated. This resulted in the stab-in-the-back legend,[131][132] which attributed Germany's defeat not to its inability to continue fighting (even though up to a million soldiers were suffering from the 1918 flu pandemic and unfit to fight), but to the public's failure to respond to its "patriotic calling" and the supposed intentional sabotage of the war effort, particularly by Jews, Socialists, and Bolsheviks. A formal state of war between the two sides persisted for another seven months, until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on 28 June 1919. Later treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire were signed. However, the negotiation of the latter treaty with the Ottoman Empire was followed by strife (the Turkish War of Independence), and a final peace treaty between the Allied Powers and the country that would shortly become the Republic of Turkey was not signed until 24 July 1923, at Lausanne. Some war memorials date the end of the war as being when the Versailles Treaty was signed in 1919, which was when many of the troops serving abroad finally returned to their home countries; by contrast, most commemorations of the war's end concentrate on the armistice of 11 November 1918. Legally, the formal peace treaties were not complete until the last, the Treaty of Lausanne, was signed. Under its terms, the Allied forces divested Constantinople on 23 August 1923.

In the forest of Compigne after agreeing to the armistice that ended the war, Foch is seen second from the right. The carriage seen in the background, where the armistice was signed, was later chosen as the symbolic setting of Ptain's June 1940 armistice. It was moved to Berlin as a prize, but because of Allied bombing was eventually moved to Crawinkel, Thuringia, where it was deliberately destroyed by SS troops in [126] 1945.

World War I

25

Technology
The First World War began as a clash of 20th-century technology and 19th-century tactics, with the inevitably large ensuing casualties. By the end of 1917, however, the major armies, now numbering millions of men, had modernised and were making use of telephone, wireless communication,[133] armoured cars, tanks,[134] and aircraft. Infantry formations were reorganised, so that 100-man companies were no longer the main unit of manoeuvre; instead, squads of 10 or so men, under the command of a junior NCO, were favoured. Artillery also underwent a revolution. In 1914, cannons were positioned in the front line and fired directly at their targets. By 1917, indirect fire with guns (as well as mortars and even machine guns) was commonplace, using new techniques for spotting and ranging, notably aircraft and the often overlooked field telephone. Counter-battery missions became commonplace, also, and sound detection was used to locate enemy batteries. Germany was far ahead of the Allies in utilising heavy indirect fire. Armoured cars The German Army employed 150 and 210mm howitzers in 1914, when typical French and British guns were only 75 and 105mm. The British had a 6inch (152mm) howitzer, but it was so heavy it had to be hauled to the field in pieces and assembled. Germans also fielded Austrian 305mm and 420mm guns, and already by the beginning of the war had inventories of various calibers of Minenwerfer ideally suited for trench warfare.[135] Much of the combat involved trench warfare, in which hundreds often died for each yard gained. Many of the deadliest battles in history occurred during the First World War. Such battles include Ypres, the Marne, Cambrai, the Somme, Verdun, and Gallipoli. The Germans employed the Haber process of nitrogen fixation to provide their forces with a constant supply of gunpowder, despite the British naval blockade.[136] Artillery was responsible for the largest number of casualties[137] and consumed vast quantities of explosives. The large number of head wounds caused by exploding shells and fragmentation forced the combatant nations to develop the modern steel helmet, led by the French, who introduced the Adrian helmet in 1915. It was quickly followed by the Brodie helmet, worn by British Imperial and U.S. troops, and in 1916 by the distinctive German Stahlhelm, a design, with improvements, still in use today.
"Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!... Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling, And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime... Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning."- Wilfred Owen, [138] DULCE ET DECORUM EST, 1917

The widespread use of chemical warfare was a distinguishing feature of the conflict. Gases used included chlorine, mustard gas and phosgene. Few war casualties were caused by gas,[139] as effective countermeasures to gas attacks were quickly created, such as gas masks. The use of chemical warfare and small-scale strategic bombing were both outlawed by the 1907 Hague Conventions, and both proved to be of limited effectiveness,[140] though they captured the public imagination.[141] The most powerful land-based weapons were railway guns weighing hundreds of tons apiece. These were nicknamed Big Berthas, even though the namesake was not a railway gun. Germany developed the Paris Gun, able to bombard Paris from over 100 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi), though shells were relatively light at 94kilograms (210lb). While the Allies also had railway guns, German models severely out-ranged and out-classed them.

World War I

26

Aviation
Fixed-wing aircraft were first used militarily by the Italians in Libya on 23 October 1911 during the Italo-Turkish War for reconnaissance, soon followed by the dropping of grenades and aerial photography the next year. By 1914 their military utility was obvious. They were initially used for reconnaissance and ground attack. To shoot down enemy planes, anti-aircraft guns and fighter aircraft were developed. Strategic bombers were created, principally by the Germans and British, though the former used Zeppelins as well.[143] Towards the end of the conflict, aircraft carriers were used for the first time, with HMS Furious launching Sopwith Camels in a raid to destroy the Zeppelin hangars at Tondern in 1918.[144]

RAF Sopwith Camel. In April 1917, the average life expectancy of a British pilot on the Western [142] Front was 93 flying hours.

Johnson's Nieuport 16 armed with Le Prieur rockets for attacking observation balloons.

Manned observation balloons, floating high above the trenches, were used as stationary reconnaissance platforms, reporting enemy movements and directing artillery. Balloons commonly had a crew of two, equipped with parachutes.,[145] so that if there was an enemy air attack the crew could parachute to safety. (At the time, parachutes were too heavy to be used by pilots of aircraft (with their marginal power output), and smaller versions were not developed until the end of the war; they were also opposed by British leadership, who feared they might promote cowardice.)[146]

Recognised for their value as observation platforms, balloons were important targets of enemy aircraft. To defend them against air attack, they were heavily protected by antiaircraft guns and patrolled by friendly aircraft; to attack them, unusual weapons such as air-to-air rockets were even tried. Thus, the reconnaissance value of blimps and balloons contributed to the development of air-to-air combat between all types of aircraft, and to the trench stalemate, because it was impossible to move large numbers of troops undetected. The Germans conducted air raids on England during 1915 and 1916 with airships, hoping to damage British morale and cause aircraft to be diverted from the front lines, and indeed the resulting panic led to the diversion of several squadrons of fighters from France.[143][146]

German trench destroyed by a mine explosion. Approximately 10,000 German troops were killed when the 19 mines were simultaneously detonated.

Improvements in naval technology during World War I


Germany deployed U-boats (submarines) after the war began. Alternating between restricted and unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, the Kaiserliche Marine employed them to deprive the British Isles of vital supplies. The deaths of British merchant sailors and the seeming invulnerability of U-boats led to the development of depth charges (1916), hydrophones (passive sonar, 1917), blimps, hunter-killer submarines (HMS R-1, 1917), forward-throwing anti-submarine weapons, and dipping hydrophones (the latter two both abandoned in 1918).[147] 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.

World War I

27

Improvements in ground warfare technology in World War I


Trenches, machine guns, air reconnaissance, barbed wire, and modern artillery with fragmentation shells helped bring the battle lines of World War I to a stalemate. The British sought a solution with the creation of the tank and mechanised warfare. The first tanks were used during the Battle of the Somme on 15 September 1916. Mechanical reliability was an issue, but the experiment proved its worth. Within a year, the British were fielding tanks by the hundreds, and they showed their potential during the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917, by British Vickers machine gun breaking the Hindenburg Line, while combined arms teams captured 8000 enemy soldiers and 100guns. The conflict also saw the introduction of Light automatic weapons and submachine guns, such as the Lewis Gun, the Browning automatic rifle, and the Bergmann MP18.

Flamethrowers and subterranean transport


Another new weapon, the flamethrower, was first used by the German army and later adopted by other forces. Although not of high tactical value, the flamethrower was a powerful, demoralising weapon that caused terror on the battlefield. It was a dangerous weapon to wield, as its heavy weight made operators vulnerable targets. Trench railways evolved to supply the enormous quantities of food, water, and ammunition required to support large numbers of soldiers in areas where conventional transportation systems had been destroyed. Internal combustion engines and improved traction systems for automobiles and trucks/lorries eventually rendered trench railways obsolete.

War crimes
Genocide and ethnic cleansing
The ethnic cleansing of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian population, including mass deportations and executions, during the final years of the Ottoman Empire is considered genocide.[148] The Ottomans saw the entire Armenian population as an enemy[149] that had chosen to side with Russia at the beginning of the war.[150] In early 1915, a number of Armenians joined the Russian forces, and the Ottoman government used this as a pretext to issue the Tehcir Law (Law on Deportation). This authorized the deportation of the Armenians from Austro-Hungarian soldiers executing Serb civilians during World War I occupation, Mava, eastern provinces of the Empire to Syria between 1915 and 1917. The 1914 exact number of deaths is unknown: while Balakian gives a range of 250,000 to 1.5 million for the deaths of Armenians,[151] the International Association of Genocide Scholars estimates over 1 million.[148] The government of Turkey has consistently rejected charges of genocide, arguing that those who died were victims of inter-ethnic fighting, famine, or disease during the First World War.[152] Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[153][154][155]

World War I

28

Russian Empire Approximately 200,000 Germans living in Volhynia and about 600,000 Jews were deported by the Russian authorities.[156][157][158] In 1916, an order was issued to deport around 650,000 Volga Germans to the east as well, but the Russian Revolution prevented this from being carried out.[159] Many pogroms accompanied the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Russian Civil War, 60,000200,000 civilian Jews were killed in the atrocities throughout the former Russian Empire.[160][161]
Remains of Armenians burnt alive in the cattle shed in Aly-Zrna, 1915

"Rape of Belgium"
The German invaders treated any resistancesuch as sabotaging rail linesas illegal and immoral, and shot the offenders and burned buildings in retaliation. The German army executed over 6,500 French and Belgian civilians between August and November 1914, usually in near-random large-scale shootings of civilians ordered by junior German officers. The German Army destroyed 15,000-20,000 buildingsmost famously the university library at Louvainand generated a refugee wave of over a million people. Over half the German regiments in Belgium were involved in major incidents.[162] Thousands of workers were shipped to Germany to work in factories. British propaganda dramatizing the "Rape of Belgium" attracted much attention in the U.S., while Berlin said it was legal and necessary because of the threat of "franc-tireurs" (guerrillas) like those in France in 1870.[163] The British and French magnified the reports and disseminated them at home and in the U.S., where they played a major role in dissolving support for Germany.[164] [165]

Soldiers' experiences
The soldiers of the war were initially volunteers, except for those of Italy, but increasingly were conscripted into service. Britain's Imperial War Museum has collected more than 2,500recordings of soldiers' personal accounts, and selected transcripts, edited by military author Max Arthur, have been published. The Museum believes that historians have not taken full account of this material, and accordingly has made the full archive of recordings available to authors and researchers.[166] Surviving veterans, returning home, often found that they could only discuss their experiences amongst themselves. Grouping together, they formed "veterans' associations" or "Legions".

The First Contingent of the Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps to the 1 Lincolns, training in Bermuda for the Western Front, winter 19141915. One in four survived the war.

World War I

29

Prisoners of war
About 8 million men surrendered and were held in POW camps during the war. All nations pledged to follow the Hague Conventions on fair treatment of prisoners of war. POWs' rate of survival was generally much higher than that of their peers at the front.[167] Individual surrenders were uncommon; large units usually surrendered en masse. At the Battle of Tannenberg 92,000Russians surrendered. When the besieged garrison of Kaunas surrendered in 1915, some 20,000Russians became prisoners. Over half of Russian losses (as a proportion of those captured, wounded, or killed) were to prisoner status; for Austria-Hungary 32%, for Italy 26%, for France 12%, for Germany 9%; for Britain 7%. Prisoners from the Allied armies totalled about 1.4million (not including Russia, which lost 2.-3.5 million men as prisoners.) From the Central Powers about 3.3million men became prisoners.[168] Germany held 2.5million prisoners; Russia held 2.9million; while Britain and France held about 720,000. Most were captured just prior to the Armistice. The U.S. held 48,000. The most dangerous moment was the act of surrender, when helpless soldiers were sometimes gunned down.[169][170] Once prisoners reached a camp, conditions were, in general, 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. However, conditions were terrible in Russia: starvation was common for prisoners and civilians alike; about 1520% of the prisoners in Russia died. In Germany, food was scarce, but only 5% died.[171][172][173] The Ottoman Empire often treated POWs poorly.[174] Some 11,800 British Empire soldiers, most of them Indians, became prisoners after the Siege of Kut in Mesopotamia in April 1916; 4,250 died in captivity.[175] Although many were in very bad condition when captured, Ottoman officers forced them to march 1100 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) to Anatolia. A survivor said: "We were driven along like beasts; to drop out was to die."[176] The survivors were then forced to build a railway through the Taurus Mountains.
German prisoners in a French prison camp This photograph shows an emaciated Indian Army soldier who survived the Siege of Kut.

In Russia, when the prisoners from the Czech Legion of the Austro-Hungarian army were released in 1917, they re-armed themselves and briefly became a military and diplomatic force

during the Russian Civil War. While the Allied prisoners of the Central Powers were quickly sent home at the end of active hostilities, the same treatment was not granted to Central Power prisoners of the Allies and Russia, many of whom served as forced labor, e.g., in France until 1920. They were released only after many approaches by the Red Cross to the Allied Supreme Council.[177] German prisoners were still being held in Russia as late as 1924.[178]

World War I

30

Military attachs and war correspondents


Military and civilian observers from every major power closely followed the course of the war. Many were able to report on events from a perspective somewhat akin to modern "embedded" positions within the opposing land and naval forces. These military attachs and other observers prepared voluminous first-hand accounts of the war and analytical papers. For example, former U.S. Army Captain Granville Fortescue followed the developments of the Gallipoli Campaign from an embedded perspective within the ranks of the Turkish defenders; and his report was passed through Turkish censors before being printed in London and New York.[179] However, this observer's role was abandoned when the U.S. entered the war, as Fortescue immediately re-enlisted, sustaining wounds at Forest of Argonne in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, September 1918.[180] In-depth observer narratives of the war and more narrowly focused professional journal articles were written soon after the war; and these post-war reports conclusively illustrated the battlefield destructiveness of this conflict. This was not the first time the tactics of entrenched positions for infantry defended with machine guns and artillery became vitally important. The Russo-Japanese War had been closely observed by military attachs, war correspondents and other observers; but, from a 21st century perspective, it is now apparent that a range of tactical lessons were disregarded or not used in the preparations for war in Europe and throughout the Great War.[181]

Support and opposition to the war


Support
In the Balkans, Yugoslav nationalists such as the leader Ante Trumbi in the Balkans strongly supported the war, desiring the freedom of Yugoslavs from Austria-Hungary and other foreign powers and the creation of an independent Yugoslavia.[182] The Yugoslav Committee was formed in Paris on 30 April 1915 but shortly moved its office to London; Trumbi led the Committee.[182] In the Middle East, Arab nationalism soared in Ottoman territories in response to the rise of Turkish nationalism during the war, with Arab nationalist leaders advocating the creation of a pan-Arab state.[183] In 1916, the Arab Revolt began in Ottoman-controlled territories of the Middle East in an effort to achieve independence.[183] Italian nationalism was stirred by the outbreak of the war and was initially strongly supported by a variety of political factions. One of the most prominent and popular Italian nationalist supporters of the war was Gabriele d'Annunzio, who promoted Italian irredentism and helped sway the Italian public to support intervention in the war.[184] The Italian Liberal Party under the leadership of Paolo Boselli promoted intervention in the war on the side of the Allies and utilised the Dante Aligheri Society to promote Italian nationalism.[185]

Old England first, self second 1916

A number of socialist parties initially supported the war when it began in August 1914.[186] But European socialists split on national lines, with the concept of class conflict held by radical socialists such as Marxists and syndicalists being overborne by their patriotic support for war.[187] Once the war began, Austrian, British, French, German, and Russian socialists followed the rising nationalist current by supporting their countries' intervention in the war.[188] Italian socialists were divided on whether to support the war or oppose it; some were militant supporters of the war, including Benito Mussolini and Leonida Bissolati.[189] However, the Italian Socialist Party decided to oppose the war after anti-militarist protestors were killed, resulting in a general strike called Red Week.[190] The Italian Socialist

World War I Party purged itself of pro-war nationalist members, including Mussolini.[190] Mussolini, a syndicalist who supported the war on grounds of irredentist claims on Italian-populated regions of Austria-Hungary, formed the pro-interventionist Il Popolo d'Italia and the Fasci Riviluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista ("Revolutionary Fasci for International Action") in October 1914 that later developed into the Fasci di Combattimento in 1919, the origin of fascism.[191] Mussolini's nationalism enabled him to raise funds from Ansaldo (an armaments firm) and other companies to create Il Popolo d'Italia to convince socialists and revolutionaries to support the war.[192] In April 1918 the Rome Congress of Oppressed Nationalities met, including Czechoslovak, Italian, Polish, Transylvanian, and Yugoslav representatives who urged the Allies to support national self-determination for the peoples residing within Austria-Hungary.[186]

31

Opposition
The trade union and socialist movements had long voiced their opposition to a war, which they argued would mean only that workers would kill other workers in the interest of capitalism. Once war was declared, however, many socialists and trade unions backed their governments. Among the exceptions were the Bolsheviks, the Socialist Party of America, and the Italian Socialist Party, and individuals such as Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, and their followers in Germany. There were also small anti-war groups in Britain and France. Benedict XV, elected to the papacy less than three months into World War I, made the war and its consequences the main focus of his early pontificate. In stark contrast to his predecessor,[193] five days after his election he spoke of his determination to do what he could to bring peace. His first encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, given 1 November 1914, was concerned with this subject. Seen as being biased in favour of the other and resented for weakening national morale, Benedict XV found his abilities and unique position as a religious emissary of peace ignored by the belligerent powers. The 1915 Treaty of London between Italy and the Triple Entente included secret provisions whereby the Allies agreed with Italy to ignore papal peace moves towards the Central Powers. Consequently, the publication of Benedict's proposed seven-point Peace Note of August 1917 was roundly ignored by all parties except Austria-Hungary.[194]

Shortly before the war, British General Horace Smith-Dorrien predicted a catastrophic war which should be avoided at almost any cost.

In Britain, in 1914, the Public Schools Officers' Training Corps annual camp was held at Tidworth Pennings, near Salisbury Plain. Head of the British Army Lord Kitchener was to review the cadets, but the imminence of the war prevented him. General Horace Smith-Dorrien The Deserter, 1916. Anti-war cartoon depicting was sent instead. He surprised the two-or-three thousand cadets by Jesus facing a firing squad made up of soldiers from five different European countries. declaring (in the words of Donald Christopher Smith, a Bermudian cadet who was present), that war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing, that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin, and that the loss of life would be so

World War I

32

large that whole populations would be decimated. In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a British General who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments, but during the next four years, those of us who survived the holocaustprobably not more than one-quarter of uslearned how right the General's prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it.[195] Voicing these sentiments did not hinder Smith-Dorien's career, or prevent him from doing his duty in World War I to the best of his abilities.

1917 Execution at Verdun at the time of the

mutinies. Many countries jailed those who spoke out against the conflict. These included Eugene Debs in the United States and Bertrand Russell in Britain. In the U.S., the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 made it a federal crime to oppose military recruitment or make any statements deemed "disloyal". Publications at all critical of the government were removed from circulation by postal censors,[95] and many served long prison sentences for statements of fact deemed unpatriotic.

A number of nationalists opposed intervention, particularly within states that the nationalists were hostile to. Irish nationalists staunchly opposed taking part in the intervention of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.[196] The war began amid the Home Rule crisis in Ireland that had begun in 1912, and by 1914 there was a serious possibility of an outbreak of civil war in Ireland between Irish unionists and republicans.[196] Irish nationalists and Marxists attempted to pursue Irish independence, culminating in the Easter Rising of 1916, with Germany sending 20,000 rifles to Ireland in order to stir unrest in the United Kingdom.[196] The UK government placed Ireland under martial law in response to the Easter Rising.[197]

The revolt of Czech units in Rumburk in May 1918 was brutally suppressed, and its leaders executed.

Other opposition came from conscientious objectors some socialist, some religious who refused to fight. In Britain 16,000 people asked for conscientious objector status.[198] Many suffered years of prison, including solitary confinement and bread and water diets. Even after the war, in Britain many job advertisements were marked "No conscientious objectors need apply". The Central Asian Revolt started in the summer of 1916, when the Russian Empire government ended its exemption of Muslims from military service.[199] In 1917, a series of mutinies in the French army led to dozens of soldiers being executed and many more imprisoned. In Milan in May 1917, Bolshevik revolutionaries organised and engaged in rioting calling for an end to the war, and managed to close down factories and stop public transportation.[200] The Italian army was forced to enter Milan with tanks and machine guns to face Bolsheviks and anarchists, who fought violently until 23 May when the army gained control of the city. Almost fifty people (including three Italian soldiers) were killed and over 800 people arrested.[200]

World War I

33

The Conscription Crisis of 1917 in Canada erupted when conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden brought in compulsory military service over the objection of French-speaking Quebecers.[201] Out of approximately 625,000 Canadians who served, about 60,000 were killed and another 173,000 wounded.[202] In 1917, Emperor Charles I of Austria secretly entered into peace negotiations with the Allied powers, with his brother-in-law Sixtus as intermediary, without the knowledge of his ally Germany. He failed, however, because of the resistance of Italy.[203]

German Revolution, November 1918

In September 1917, Russian soldiers in France began questioning why they were fighting for the French at all and mutinied.[204] In Russia, opposition to the war led to soldiers also establishing their own revolutionary committees, which helped foment the October Revolution of 1917, with the call going up for "bread, land, and peace". The Bolsheviks agreed to a peace treaty with Germany, the peace of Brest-Litovsk, despite its harsh conditions. In northern Germany, the end of October 1918, saw the beginning of the German Revolution of 19181919. Units of the German Navy refused to set sail for a last, large-scale operation in a war which they saw as good as lost; this initiated the uprising. The sailors' revolt which then ensued in the naval ports of Wilhelmshaven and Kiel spread across the whole country within days and led to the proclamation of a republic on 9 November 1918 and shortly thereafter to the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Conscription 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 members of the Anglophone majority, who saw the war as a duty to both Britain and Canada. Prime Minister Robert Borden pushed through a Military Service Act, provoking 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, so 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, which was rejected in two plebiscites. Conscription put into uniform nearly every physically fit man in Britain, six of ten million eligible. 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.[205]

Aftermath
Health and economic effects

World War I

34

No other war had changed the map of Europe so dramatically. Four empires disappeared: the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian. Four dynasties, together with their ancillary aristocracies, all fell after the war: the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs, the Romanovs, and the Ottomans. Belgium and Serbia were badly damaged, as was France, with 1.4million soldiers dead,[206] not counting other casualties. Germany and Russia were similarly affected.[207] The war had profound economic consequences. Of the 60million The French military cemetery with Douaumont European soldiers who were mobilised from 1914 to 1918, 8million ossuary, which contains the remains of more than 130,000 unknown soldiers. were killed, 7million were permanently disabled, and 15million were seriously injured. Germany lost 15.1% of its active male population, AustriaHungary lost 17.1%, and France lost 10.5%.[208] About 750,000 German civilians died from starvation caused by the British blockade during the war.[209] By the end of the war, famine had killed approximately 100,000people in Lebanon.[210] The best estimates of the death toll from the Russian famine of 1921 run from 5million to 10million people.[211] By 1922, there were between 4.5 million and 7 million homeless children in Russia as a result of nearly a decade of devastation from World War I, the Russian Civil War, and the subsequent famine of 19201922.[212] Numerous anti-Soviet Russians fled the country after the Revolution; by the 1930s the northern Chinese city of Harbin had 100,000Russians.[213] Thousands more emigrated to France, England, and the United States. Diseases flourished in the chaotic wartime conditions. In 1914 alone, louse-borne epidemic typhus killed 200,000 in Serbia.[214] From 1918 to 1922, Russia had about 25million infections and 3 million deaths from epidemic typhus.[215] Whereas before World War I Russia had about 3.5 million cases of malaria, its people suffered more than 13 million cases in 1923.[216] In addition, a major influenza epidemic spread around the world. Overall, the 1918 flu pandemic killed at least 50 million people.[217][218] Lobbying by Chaim Weizmann and fear that American Jews would encourage the USA to support Germany culminated in the British government's Balfour Declaration of 1917, endorsing creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.[219] A total of more than 1,172,000 Jewish soldiers served in the Allied and Central Power forces in World War I, including 275,000 in Austria-Hungary and 450,000 in Czarist Russia.[220] The social disruption and widespread violence of the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Russian Civil War sparked more than 2,000 pogroms in the former Russian Empire, mostly in the Ukraine.[221] An estimated 60,000200,000civilian Jews were killed in the atrocities.[222] In the aftermath of World War I, Greece fought against Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal, a war which resulted in a massive population exchange between the two countries under the Treaty of Lausanne.[223] According to various sources,[224] several hundred thousand Pontic Greeks died during this period.[225]

Peace treaties and national boundaries

Emergency military hospital during the Spanish flu pandemic, which killed about 675,000 people in the United States alone. Camp Funston, Kansas, 1918

After the war, the Paris Peace Conference imposed a series of peace treaties on the Central Powers. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles officially ended the war. Building on Wilson's 14th point, the Treaty of Versailles also brought into being the League of Nations on 28 June 1919.[226][227] In signing the treaty, Germany acknowledged responsibility for the war, and agreed to pay enormous war reparations and award territory to the victors. The "Guilt Thesis" became a controversial explanation of later events among

World War I analysts in Britain and the United States. The Treaty of Versailles caused enormous bitterness in Germany, which nationalist movements, especially the Nazis, exploited with a conspiracy theory they called the Dolchstosslegende (Stab-in-the-back legend). The Weimar Republic lost the former colonial possessions and was saddled with accepting blame for the war, as well as paying punitive reparations for it. Unable to pay them with exports (as a result of territorial losses and postwar recession),[228] Germany did so by borrowing from the United States. Runaway inflation in the 1920s contributed to the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic, and the payment of reparations was suspended in 1931 following the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the beginnings of the Great Depression worldwide. AustriaHungary was partitioned into several successor states, including Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, largely but not entirely along ethnic lines. Transylvania was shifted from Hungary to Greater Romania. The details were contained in the Treaty of Saint-Germain and the Treaty of Trianon. As a result of the Treaty of Trianon, 3.3 million Hungarians came under foreign rule. Although the Hungarians made up 54% of the population of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary, only 32% of its territory was left to Hungary. Between 1920 and 1924, 354,000 Hungarians fled former Hungarian territories attached to Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.

35

Greek refugees from Smyrna, Turkey, 1922

The Russian Empire, which had withdrawn from the war in 1917 after the October Revolution, lost much of its western frontier as the newly independent nations of Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were carved from it. Bessarabia was re-attached to Greater Romania, as it had been a Romanian territory for more than a thousand years.[229] The Ottoman Empire disintegrated, and much of its non-Anatolian territory was awarded to various Allied powers as protectorates. The Turkish core was reorganised as the Republic of Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was to be partitioned by the Treaty of Svres of 1920. This treaty was never ratified by the Sultan and was rejected by the Turkish republican movement, leading to the Turkish Independence War and, ultimately, to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Legacy
..."Strange, friend," I said, "Here is no cause to mourn." "None," said the other, "Save the undone years"... Wilfred Owen, Strange Meeting, 1918
[138]

The first tentative efforts to comprehend the meaning and consequences of modern warfare began during the initial phases of the war, and this process continued throughout and after the end of hostilities.

World War I

36

Memorials
Memorials were erected in thousands of villages and towns. Close to battlefields, those buried in improvised burial grounds were gradually moved to formal graveyards under the care of organisations such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the American Battle Monuments Commission, the German War Graves Commission, and Le Souvenir franais. Many of these graveyards also have central monuments to the missing or unidentified dead, such as the Menin Gate memorial and the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing of the Somme.
The Beaumont Hamel Newfoundland Memorial in the Somme.

On 3 May 1915, during the Second Battle of Ypres, Lieutenant Alexis Helmer was killed. At his graveside, his friend John McCrae, M.D., of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, wrote the memorable poem In Flanders Fields as a salute to those who perished in the Great War. Published in Punch on 8 December 1915, it is still recited today, especially on Remembrance Day and Memorial Day.[230][231] Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri, is a United States memorial dedicated to all Americans who served in World War I. The site for the Liberty Memorial was dedicated on 1 November 1921. On this day, the supreme Allied commanders spoke to a crowd of more than 100,000 people. It was the only time in history these leaders were together in one place. In attendance were Lieutenant General Baron Jacques of Belgium; General Armando Diaz of Italy; Marshal Ferdinand Foch of France; General Pershing of the United States; and Admiral D. R. Beatty of Great Britain. After three years of construction, the Liberty Memorial was completed and President Calvin Coolidge delivered the dedication speech to a crowd of 150,000 people in 1926.

Surgeon Lt. Col. John McCrae of Canada, author of In Flanders Fields, died in 1918 of pneumonia.

Liberty Memorial is also home to The National World War I Museum, the only museum dedicated solely to World War I in the United States.

Cultural memory
The First World War had a lasting impact on social memory. It was seen by many in Britain as signalling the end of an era of stability stretching back to the Victorian period, and across Europe many regarded it as a watershed.[232] Historian Samuel Hynes explained: A generation of innocent young men, their heads full of high abstractions like Honour, Glory and England, went off to war to make the world safe for democracy. They were slaughtered in stupid battles planned by stupid generals. Those who survived were shocked, disillusioned and embittered by their war experiences, and saw that their real enemies were not the Germans, but the old men at home who had lied to them. They rejected the values of the society that had sent them to war, and in doing so separated their own generation from the past and from their cultural inheritance.[233]

World War I

37 This has become the most common perception of the First World War, perpetuated by the art, cinema, poems, and stories published subsequently. Films such as All Quiet on the Western Front, Paths of Glory and King & Country have perpetuated the idea, while war-time films including Camrades, Flanders Poppies, and Shoulder Arms indicate that the most contemporary views of the war were overall far more positive.[234] Likewise, the art of Paul Nash, John Nash, Christopher Nevison, and Henry Tonks in Britain painted a negative view of the conflict in keeping with the growing perception, while popular war-time artists such as Muirhead Bone painted more serene and pleasant interpretations subsequently rejected as inaccurate.[233] Several historians have since countered these interpretations:

A village war memorial to soldiers killed in World War I.

These beliefs did not become widely shared because they offered the only accurate interpretation of wartime events. In every respect, the war was much more complicated than they suggest. In recent years, historians have argued persuasively against almost every popular clich of the First World War. It has been pointed out that, although the losses were devastating, their greatest impact was socially and geographically limited. The many emotions other than horror experienced by soldiers in and out of the front line, including comradeship, boredom, and even enjoyment, have been recognised. The war is not now seen as a 'fight about nothing', but as a war of ideals, a struggle between aggressive militarism and more or less liberal democracy. It has been acknowledged that British generals were often capable men facing difficult challenges, and that it was under their command that the British army played a major part in the defeat of the Germans in 1918: a great forgotten victory.[234]

Siegfried Sassoon (May 1915)

Though these historians have discounted as "myths"[233][235] these perceptions of the war, they are nevertheless prevalent across much of society. They have dynamically changed according to contemporary influences, reflecting in the 1950s perceptions of the war as 'aimless' following the contrasting Second World War, and emphasising conflict within the ranks during times of class conflict in the 1960s.[234] The majority of additions to the contrary are often rejected.[234]

Social trauma
The social trauma caused by unprecedented rates of casualties manifested itself in different ways, which have been the subject of subsequent historical debate.[236] Some people were revolted by nationalism and its results, and began to work towards 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 in a chaotic and inhumane world. Anti-modernist views were an outgrowth of the many changes taking place in society.

World War I

38

The experiences of the war led to a collective trauma shared by many from all participating countries. The optimism of la belle poque was destroyed, and those who had fought in the war were referred to as the Lost Generation.[237] For years afterwards, people mourned the dead, the missing, and the many disabled.[238] Many soldiers returned with severe trauma, suffering from shell shock (also called neurasthenia, a condition related to posttraumatic stress disorder).[239] Many more returned home with few after-effects; however, their silence about the war contributed to the conflict's growing mythological status.[236] In the United Kingdom, mass mobilisation, large casualty rates, and the collapse of the Edwardian era made a strong impression on society. Though many participants did not share in the experiences of combat or spend any significant time at the front, or had positive memories of their service, the images of suffering and trauma became the widely shared perception.[236] Such historians as Dan Todman, Paul Fussell, and Samuel Heyns have all published works since the 1990s arguing that these common perceptions of the war are factually incorrect.[236]

Book distributed by the U.S. War Department to veterans in 1919

Discontent in Germany
The rise of Nazism and fascism included a revival of the nationalist spirit and a rejection of many post-war changes. Similarly, the popularity of the Stab-in-the-back legend (German: Dolchstolegende) was a testament to the psychological state of defeated Germany and was a rejection of responsibility for the conflict. This conspiracy theory of betrayal became common, and the German populace came to see themselves as victims. The Dolchstolegende's popular acceptance in Germany played a significant role in the rise of Nazism. A sense of disillusionment and cynicism became pronounced, with nihilism growing. Many believed the war heralded the end of the world as they had known it because of the high fatalities among a generation of men, the dissolution of governments and empires, and the collapse of capitalism and imperialism. Communist and socialist movements around the world drew strength from this theory and enjoyed a new level of popularity. These feelings were most pronounced in areas directly or harshly affected by the war. Out of German discontent with the still controversial Treaty of Versailles, Adolf Hitler was able to gain popularity and power.[240][241] World War II was in part a continuation of the power struggle never fully resolved by the First World War; in fact, it was common for Germans in the 1930s and 1940s to justify acts of international aggression because of perceived injustices imposed by the victors of the First World War.[242][243][244] The establishment of the modern state of Israel and the roots of the continuing Israeli-Palestinian Conflict are partially found in the unstable power dynamics of the Middle East which resulted from World War I.[245] Prior to the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire had maintained a modest level of peace and stability throughout the Middle East.[246] With the fall of the Ottoman government, power vacuums developed and conflicting claims to land and nationhood began to emerge.[247] The political boundaries drawn by the victors of the First World War were quickly imposed, sometimes after only cursory consultation with the local population. In many cases, these continue to be problematic in the 21st-century struggles for national identity.[248][249] While the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I was pivotal in contributing to the modern political situation of the Middle East, including the Arab-Israeli conflict,[250][251][252] the end of Ottoman rule also spawned lesser known disputes over water and other natural resources.[253] Further information: SykesPicot Agreement

World War I

39

Views in the United States


U.S. intervention in the war, as well as the Wilson administration itself, became deeply unpopular. This was reflected in the U.S. Senate's rejection of the Versailles Treaty and membership in the League of Nations. In the interwar era, a consensus arose that U.S. intervention had been a mistake, and the Congress passed laws in an attempt to preserve U.S. neutrality in any future conflict. Polls taken in 1937 and the opening months of World War II established that nearly 60% regarded intervention in WWI as a mistake, with only 28% opposing that view. But, in the period between the fall of France and the attack on Pearl Harbor, public opinion changed dramatically and, for the first time, a narrow plurality rejected the idea that the war had been a mistake.[254]

New national identities


Poland reemerged as an independent country, after more than a century. As a "minor Entente nation" and the country with the most casualties per capita,[255][256][257] the Kingdom of Serbia and its dynasty became the backbone of the new multinational state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed Yugoslavia). Czechoslovakia, combining the Kingdom of Bohemia with parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, became a new nation. Russia became the Soviet Union and lost Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, which became independent countries. The Ottoman Empire was soon replaced by Turkey and several other countries in the Middle East. In the British Empire, the war unleashed new forms of nationalism. In Australia and New Zealand the Battle of Gallipoli became known as those nations' "Baptism of Fire". It was the first major war in which the newly established countries fought, and it was one of the first times that Australian troops fought as Australians, not just subjects of the British Crown. Anzac Day, commemorating the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, celebrates this defining moment.[258][259] After the Battle of Vimy Ridge, where the Canadian divisions fought Map of territorial changes in Europe after World together for the first time as a single corps, Canadians began to refer to War I theirs as a nation "forged from fire".[260] Having succeeded on the same battleground where the "mother countries" had previously faltered, they were for the first time respected internationally for their own accomplishments. Canada entered the war as a Dominion of the British Empire and remained so, although she emerged with a greater measure of independence.[261][262] While the other Dominions were represented by Britain, Canada was an independent negotiator and signatory of the Versailles Treaty.

Economic effects
One of the most dramatic effects of the war 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, governments created new ministries and powers. New taxes were levied and laws enacted, all designed to bolster the war effort; many have lasted to this day. Similarly, the war strained the abilities of some formerly large and bureaucratised governments, such as in AustriaHungary and Germany; however, any analysis of the long-term effects were clouded by the defeat of these governments.

World War I

40 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 three main Central Powers. The shrinkage in GDP in Austria, Russia, France, and the Ottoman Empire reached 30 to 40%. In Austria, for example, most pigs were slaughtered, so at war's end there was no meat.

Germany, 1923: banknotes had lost so much value that they were used as wallpaper. Millions of middle-class Germans were ruined by hyperinflation. When the war began in 1914, a dollar was worth 4.2 marks; by November 1923, the dollar [263] [264] was at 4.2 trillion marks.

In all nations the government's share of GDP increased, surpassing fifty percent in both Germany and France and nearly reaching that level in Britain. To pay for purchases in the United States, Britain cashed in its extensive 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 allowed a great increase in U.S. government lending to the Allies. After 1919, the U.S. demanded repayment of these loans. The repayments were, in part, 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. In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4 billion[265] of World War I debt.[266] Macro- and micro-economic consequences devolved from the war. 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 labourers sent to war. This aided the struggle for voting rights for women.[267]

"The Girl Behind the Gun" women workers, 1915

In Britain, rationing was finally imposed in early 1918, 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 19171918 as the unions expressed grievances regarding prices, alcohol control, pay disputes, fatigue from overtime and working on Sundays, and inadequate housing. Britain turned to her colonies for help in obtaining essential war materials whose supply had become difficult from traditional sources. Geologists such as Albert Ernest Kitson were called upon to find new resources of precious minerals in the African colonies. Kitson discovered important new deposits of manganese, used in munitions

World War I production, in the Gold Coast.[268] Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (the so-called "war guilt" clause) declared Germany and its allies responsible for all "loss and damage" suffered by the Allies during the war and provided the basis for reparations. The total reparations demanded was 132 billion gold marks, which was far more than the total German gold or foreign exchange. The economic problems that the payments brought, and German resentment at their imposition, are usually cited as one of the more significant factors that led to the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. After Germany's defeat in World War II, payment of the reparations was not resumed. There was, however, outstanding German debt that the Weimar Republic had used to pay the reparations. Germany finished paying off the reparations in October 2010.[269]

41

Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Willmott 2003, pp.1011 Willmott 2003, p.15 Keegan 1988, p.8 Bade & Brown 2003, pp.167168 Willmott 2003, p.307 Taylor 1998, pp.8093 Djoki 2003, p.24

[8] Evans 2004, p.12 [9] Martel 2003, p.xii ff [10] Keegan 1988, p.7 [11] Keegan 1988, p.11 [12] See "great, adj., adv., and n." in Oxford English Dictionary (Second edition, 1989; online version March 2012) (http:/ / www. oed. com/ view/ Entry/ 81104) [13] Shapiro 2006, p.329 citing a wire service report in The Indianapolis Star, 20 September 1914 [14] Keegan 1998, p.52 [15] Willmott 2003, p.21 [16] Prior 1999, p.18 [17] Fromkin 2004, p.94 [18] Keegan 1998, pp.4849 [19] Willmott 2003, pp.223 [20] Willmott 2003, p.26 [21] Willmott 2003, p.27 [22] Strachan 2003, p.68 [23] Willmott 2003, p.29 [24] "Daily Mirror Headlines: The Declaration of War, Published 4 August 1914" (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ history/ worldwars/ wwone/ mirror01_01. shtml). BBC. . Retrieved 9 February 2010. [25] Strachan 2003, pp.292296, 343354 [26] Farwell 1989, p.353 [27] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.172 [28] John R. Schindler, "Disaster on the Drina: The Austro-Hungarian Army in Serbia, 1914," War In History (April 2002) 9#2 pp 159-195 (http:/ / wih. sagepub. com/ content/ 9/ 2/ 159. abstract) [29] Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp.3768 [30] Keegan 1968, pp.224232 [31] Falls 1960, pp.7980 [32] Raudzens 1990, pp.424 [33] Raudzens 1990, pp.421423 [34] Goodspeed 1985, p.199 (footnote) [35] Love 1996 [36] Duffy [37] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.1221 [38] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.854 [39] [40] [41] [42] Heer 2009, pp.2234 Goodspeed 1985, p.226 Ludendorff 1919, p.480 Terraine 1963

World War I
[43] Perry 1988, p.27 [44] "Vimy Ridge, Canadian National Memorial" (http:/ / www. ww1westernfront. gov. au/ vimy-ridge/ index. html), Australians on the Western Front 19141918 (New South Wales Department of Veteran's Affairs and Board of Studies), 2007, [45] Winegard [46] Taylor 2007, pp.3947 [47] Keene 2006, p.5 [48] Halpern 1995, p.293 [49] Zieger 2001, p.50 [50] Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp.61924 [51] Sheffield, Garry, "The First Battle of the Atlantic" (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ history/ worldwars/ wwone/ battle_atlantic_ww1_01. shtml), World Wars In Depth (BBC), , retrieved 11 November 2009 [52] Gilbert 2004, p.306 [53] von der Porten 1969 [54] Jones 2001, p.80 [55] "Nova Scotia House of Assembly Committee on Veterans' Affairs" (http:/ / www. gov. ns. ca/ legislature/ hansard/ / comm/ va/ va_2006nov09. htm), Hansard, , retrieved 30 October 2007 [56] Roger Chickering, Stig Frster, Bernd Greiner, German Historical Institute (Washington, D.C.) (2005). " A world at total war: global conflict and the politics of destruction, 19371945 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=evVPoSwqrG4C& pg=PA73& dq& hl=en#v=onepage& q=& f=false)". Cambridge University Press. p.73. ISBN 0521834325 [57] Price [58] Neiberg 2005, pp.5455 [59] Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp.10756 [60] Neiberg 2005, pp.10810 [61] Tucker, Wood & Murphy 1999, p.120 [62] Pyrrhic victory: French strategy and operations in the Great War (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=vZRmHkdGk44C& pg=PA247& dq=vardar+ offensive#v=onepage& q=vardar offensive& f=false), Harvard University Press, 2005;, 2005, p.491, ISBN9780674018808, , retrieved 3 October 2010 [63] "The Balkan Front of the World War (in Russian)" (http:/ / militera. lib. ru/ h/ korsun_ng4/ 06. html). militera.lib.ru. . Retrieved 27 September 2010. [64] The Treaty of Alliance Between Germany and Turkey (http:/ / avalon. law. yale. edu/ 20th_century/ turkgerm. asp) 2 August 1914, Yale University [65] Fromkin 2001, p.119 [66] Hinterhoff 1984, pp.499503 [67] Sachar, pp.122138 [68] Gilbert 1994 [69] Page [70] Giuseppe Praga, Franco Luxardo. History of Dalmatia. Giardini, 1993. Pp. 281. [71] Paul O'Brien. Mussolini in the First World War: the Journalist, the Soldier, the Fascist. Oxford, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Berg, 2005. Pp. 17. [72] Hickey 2003, pp.6065 [73] Tucker 2005, pp.5859 [74] "The Battle of Marasti (July 1917)" (http:/ / www. worldwar2. ro/ primulrazboi/ ?language=en& article=116). WorldWar2.ro. 22 July 1917. . Retrieved 8 May 2011. [75] Cyril Falls, The Great War, p. 285 [76] Bla, Kpeczi, Erdly trtnete (http:/ / mek. oszk. hu/ 02100/ 02109/ html/ 571. html), Akadmiai Kiad, [77] Bla, Kpeczi, History of Transylvania (http:/ / mek. niif. hu/ 03400/ 03407/ html/ 429. html), Akadmiai Kiad, ISBN848371020X, [78] Erlikman, Vadim (2004), Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik, Moscow, ISBN5-93165-107-1 [79] Brown 1994, pp.197198 [80] Brown 1994, pp.201203 [81] Participants from the Indian subcontinent in the First World War (http:/ / www. mgtrust. org/ ind1. htm), Memorial Gates Trust, , retrieved 12 December 2008 [82] Tucker 2005, p.715 [83] Meyer 2006, pp.1524, 161, 163, 175, 182 [84] Smele [85] Schindler 2003 [86] Wheeler-Bennett 1956 [87] Mawdsley 2008, pp.5455 [88] Kernek 1970, pp.721766 [89] Stracham (1998), p. 61

42

World War I
[90] Lyons 1999, p.243 [91] Marshall, 292. [92] Heyman 1997, pp.146147 [93] Brands 1997, p.756 [94] Tuchman 1966 [95] Karp 1979 [96] "Woodrow Wilson Urges Congress to Declare War on Germany" (Wikisource) [97] "Selective Service System: History and Records" (http:/ / www. sss. gov/ induct. htm). Sss.gov. . Retrieved 27 July 2010. [98] Wilgus, p.52 [99] Teaching With Documents: Photographs of the 369th Infantry and African Americans during World War I (http:/ / www. archives. gov/ education/ lessons/ 369th-infantry/ ), U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, , retrieved 29 October 2009 [100] Millett & Murray 1988, p.143 [101] Kurlander 2006 [102] Shanafelt 1985, pp.12530 [103] Westwell 2004 [104] Posen 1984, pp.190&191 [105] Gray 1991, p.86 [106] Moon 1996, pp.495196 [107] Rickard 2007 [108] Hovannisian, Richard G. (1967). Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN0-5200-0574-0. [109] See Hovannisian, Richard G. (1971). The Republic of Armenia: The First Year, 19181919. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp.139. ISBN0-5200-1805-2. [110] The Battle of Amiens: 8 August 1918 (http:/ / www. awm. gov. au/ 1918/ battles/ amiens. htm), Australian War Memorial, , retrieved 12 December 2008 [111] Amiens Map (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070617055415/ http:/ / www. awm. gov. au/ 1918/ battles/ amiensmap. htm), Australian War Memorial, archived from the original (http:/ / www. awm. gov. au/ 1918/ battles/ amiensmap. htm) on 17 June 2007, , retrieved 24 October 2009 (archived 17 June 2007) [112] Rickard 2001 [113] Pitt 2003 [114] Maurice 1918 [115] Gray & Argyle 1990 [116] Nicholson 1962 [117] Ludendorff 1919 [118] Jenkins 2009, p.215 [119] McLellan, p.49 [120] Gibbs 1918b [121] Gibbs 1918a [122] Stevenson 2004, p.380 [123] Hull 2006, pp.30710 [124] Stevenson 2004, p.383 [125] Stevenson 2004 [126] (in French) Clairire de l'Armistice (http:/ / www. compiegne. fr/ decouvrir/ clairierearmistice. asp), Ville de Compigne, , retrieved 3 December 2008 [127] "1918 Timeline" (http:/ / www. indiana. edu/ ~league/ 1918. htm). League of Nations Photo Archive. . Retrieved 20 November 2009. [128] Lindsay, Robert, "The Last Hours" (http:/ / www. nwbattalion. com/ last. html), 28th (Northwest) Battalion Headquarters, , retrieved 20 November 2009 [129] Gunther, Henry (Wednesday 29, 2008), [[BBC News|BBC Magazine (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ uk_news/ magazine/ 7696021. stm)]], , retrieved 6 December 2012 [130] Tomas (15 February 2010), [[11 Facts about the End of the Great War (http:/ / listverse. com/ 2010/ 02/ 15/ 11-facts-about-the-end-of-the-great-war/ )]], , retrieved 6 December 2012 [131] Baker 2006 [132] Chickering 2004, pp.185188 [133] Hartcup 1988, p.154 [134] Hartcup 1988, pp.8286 [135] Mosier 2001, pp.4248 [136] Harcup 1988 [137] Raudzens, p.421 [138] Wilfred Owen: poems, (Faber and Faber, 2004)

43

World War I
[139] Raudzens [140] Heller 1984 [141] Postwar pulp novels on future "gas wars" included Reginald Glossop's 1932 novel Ghastly Dew and Neil Bell's 1931 novel The Gas War of 1940. [142] Eric Lawson, Jane Lawson (2002). " The First Air Campaign: August 1914 November 1918 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=9PGHckhHiX0C& pg=PT123& dq& hl=en#v=onepage& q=& f=false)". Da Capo Press. p.123. ISBN 0306812134 [143] Cross 1991 [144] Cross 1991, pp.5657 [145] Winter 1983 [146] Johnson 2001 [147] Price 1980 [148] International Association of Genocide Scholars (13 June 2005). "Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoan" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20071006024502/ http:/ / www. genocidewatch. org/ TurkishPMIAGSOpenLetterreArmenia6-13-05. htm). Genocide Watch (via archive.org). Archived from the original (http:/ / www. genocidewatch. org/ TurkishPMIAGSOpenLetterreArmenia6-13-05. htm) on 6 October 2007. . [149] Lewy 2005, p.57 [150] Ferguson 2006, p.177 [151] Balakian 2003, pp.195196 [152] Fromkin 1989, pp.212215 [153] (PDF) Resolution on genocides committed by the Ottoman empire (http:/ / www. genocidescholars. org/ images/ Resolution_on_genocides_committed_by_the_Ottoman_Empire. pdf), International Association of Genocide Scholars, [154] Gaunt, David. Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I (http:/ / books. google. se/ books?id=4mug9LrpLKcC& printsec=frontcover& dq=Massacres,+ Resistance,+ Protectors& cd=1#v=onepage& q=& f=false). Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2006. [155] Schaller, Dominik J; Zimmerer, Jrgen (2008). "Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies introduction". Journal of Genocide Research 10 (1): 714. doi:10.1080/14623520801950820. [156] A People on the Move: Germans in Russia and in the Former Soviet Union: 17631997 (http:/ / lib. ndsu. nodak. edu/ grhc/ history_culture/ history/ people. html), North Dakota State University Libraries, , retrieved 17 November 2009 [157] WWI and the Jews (http:/ / www. myjewishlearning. com/ history/ Modern_History/ 1914-1948/ WWI_and_the_Jews. shtml), MyJewishLearning.com, , retrieved 17 November 2009 [158] Timeline 1900s (http:/ / www. loc. gov/ exhibits/ haventohome/ timeline/ haven-timeline_3. html), The Library of Congress, [159] The Germans from Russia: Children of the Steppe/Children of the Prairie (http:/ / archive. prairiepublic. org/ features/ GFR/ timeline. htm), Prairie Public Broadcasting, , retrieved 17 November 2009 [160] "Pogroms" (http:/ / www. jewishvirtuallibrary. org/ jsource/ judaica/ ejud_0002_0016_0_15895. html), Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jewish Virtual Library), , retrieved 17 November 2009 [161] Jewish Modern and Contemporary Periods (ca. 17001917) (http:/ / www. jewishvirtuallibrary. org/ jsource/ History/ modtimeline. html), Jewish Virtual Library, , retrieved 17 November 2009 [162] John Horne and Alan Kramer, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial (Yale U.P. 2001) ch 1-2, esp. p. 76 [163] Horne and Kramer, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial ch 3-4 show there were no "franc-tireurs" in Belgium. [164] Horne and Kramer, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial ch 5-8 [165] Keegan 1998, pp.8283 [166] Forgotten Voices of the Great War (http:/ / www. forgottenvoices. co. uk/ ), Imperial War Museum, , retrieved 30 March 2008 [167] Phillimore & Bellot 1919, pp.464 [168] Ferguson 1999, pp.3689 [169] Blair 2005 [170] Cook 2006, pp.637&-665 [171] Speed 1990 [172] Ferguson 1999 [173] Morton 1992 [174] Bass 2002, p.107 [175] The Mesopotamia campaign (http:/ / www. nationalarchives. gov. uk/ pathways/ firstworldwar/ battles/ mesopotamia. htm), British National Archives, , retrieved 10 March 2007 [176] "Prisoners of Turkey: Men of Kut Driven along like beasts" (http:/ / www. awm. gov. au/ stolenyears/ ww1/ turkey/ story2. asp), Stolen Years: Australian Prisoners of War (Australian War Memorial), , retrieved 10 December 2008 [177] "ICRC in WWI: overview of activities" (http:/ / www. icrc. org/ Web/ Eng/ siteeng0. nsf/ html/ 57JQGQ). Icrc.org. . Retrieved 15 June 2010. [178] Monday, 1 Sep. 1924 (1 September 1924). "GERMANY: Notes, Sep. 1, 1924" (http:/ / www. time. com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,768983,00. html). Time. . Retrieved 15 June 2010. [179] Fortescue 28 October 1915, p.1

44

World War I
[180] Granville Roland Fortescue (http:/ / www. arlingtoncemetery. net/ fortesc. htm), Arlington National Cemetery, , retrieved 17 November 2009 [181] Sisemore 2003 [182] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.1189 [183] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.117 [184] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.335 [185] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.219 [186] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.1001 [187] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.1069 [188] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.884 [189] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.209 [190] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.596 [191] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.826 [192] Dennis Mack Smith. 1997. Modern Italy; A Political History. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Pp. 284. [193] Roger Aubert, et al.; Margit Resch (tr.), John Dolan (1981). "Chapter 37: The Outbreak of World War I". History of the Church. 9. London: Burns & Oates. p.521. ISBN0860120910. [194] "Who's Who Pope Benedict XV" (http:/ / www. firstworldwar. com/ bio/ popebenedict. htm). firstworldwar.com. Saturday, 22 August 2009. . [195] "Merely For the Record": The Memoirs of Donald Christopher Smith 18941980. By Donald Christopher Smith. Edited by John William Cox, Jr. Bermuda. [196] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.584 [197] Tucker & Roberts 2005, p.586 [198] Lehmann 1999, p.62 [199] Uzbeks (http:/ / www. country-data. com/ cgi-bin/ query/ r-12499. html). Based on the Country Studies Series by Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. [200] Seton-Watson, Christopher. 1967. Italy from Liberalism to Fascism: 1870 to 1925. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Pp. 471 [201] " The Conscription Crisis (http:/ / history. cbc. ca/ history/ ?MIval=EpisContent. html& series_id=1& episode_id=12& chapter_id=2& page_id=3& lang=E)". CBC.ca. [202] World War I (http:/ / www. britannica. com/ EBchecked/ topic/ 91513/ Canada/ 43004/ World-War-I), Encyclopdia Britannica, , retrieved 5 December 2009. [203] " Charles (I) (emperor of Austria) (http:/ / www. britannica. com/ EBchecked/ topic/ 106679/ Charles-I#ref214141)". "Encyclopdia Britannica." [204] Cockfield 1997, pp.171237 [205] Havighurst 1985, p.131 [206] "France's oldest WWI veteran dies" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ europe/ 7199127. stm), BBC News, 20 Jan 2008. [207] Spencer Tucker (2005), Encyclopedia of World War I (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=2YqjfHLyyj8C& pg=PA273& dq& hl=en#v=onepage& q=& f=false), ABC-CLIO, p. 273. ISBN 1851094202 [208] Kitchen 2000, p.22 [209] "Lebensmittelversorgung" (http:/ / www. dhm. de/ lemo/ html/ wk1/ wirtschaft/ versorgung/ index. html) (in German), LeMO: Lebendiges virtuelles Museum Online (German Historical Museum), ISBN3515048057, , retrieved 12 November 2009, "Die miserable Versorgung mit Lebensmitteln erreichte 1916/17 im "Kohlrbenwinter" einen dramatischen Hhepunkt. Whrend des Ersten Weltkriegs starben in Deutschland rund 750.000 Menschen an Unterernhrung und an deren Folgen." [210] Saadi [211] "Food as a Weapon" (http:/ / www. hoover. org/ publications/ digest/ 6731711. html), Hoover Digest (Hoover Institution), [212] Ball 1996, pp.16, 211 [213] The Russians are coming (Russian influence in Harbin, Manchuria, China; economic relations) (http:/ / findarticles. com/ p/ articles/ mi_hb5037/ is_199501/ ai_n18298515/ ), The Economist (US), January 1995, , retrieved 17 November 2009 [214] Tschanz [215] Conlon [216] William Hay Taliaferro, Medicine and the War (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=HcOAnAINJZAC& pg=PA65& dq& hl=en#v=onepage& q=& f=false),(1972), p.65. ISBN 0836926293 [217] Knobler 2005 [218] Influenza Report (http:/ / www. influenzareport. com/ ir/ overview. htm), , retrieved 17 November 2009 [219] "Balfour Declaration" (United Kingdom 1917) (http:/ / www. britannica. com/ EBchecked/ topic/ 50162/ Balfour-Declaration), Encyclopdia Britannica. [220] " The Jewish Agency for Israel Timeline (http:/ / www. jewishagency. org/ JewishAgency/ English/ Jewish+ Education/ Compelling+ Content/ Jewish+ History/ Zionist+ Institutions/ JAFI+ Timeline/ 1917-1919. htm)" [221] "Pogroms" (http:/ / www. jewishvirtuallibrary. org/ jsource/ judaica/ ejud_0002_0016_0_15895. html), Encyclopaedia Judaica, , retrieved 17 November 2009

45

World War I
[222] "Jewish Modern and Contemporary Periods (ca. 17001917)" (http:/ / www. jewishvirtuallibrary. org/ jsource/ History/ modtimeline. html), Jewish Virtual Library, , retrieved 17 November 2009 [223] "The Diaspora Welcomes the Pope" (http:/ / www. spiegel. de/ international/ 0,1518,451140,00. html), Der Spiegel Online. 28 November 2006. [224] R. J. Rummel, "The Holocaust in Comparative and Historical Perspective," 1998, Idea Journal of Social Issues, Vol.3 no.2 [225] Chris Hedges, "A Few Words in Greek Tell of a Homeland Lost" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2000/ 09/ 17/ nyregion/ a-few-words-in-greek-tell-of-a-homeland-lost. html), The New York Times, 17 Sep 2000 [226] Magliveras 1999, pp.812 [227] Northedge 1986, pp.3536 [228] Keynes 1920 [229] Clark 1927 [230] John McCrae (http:/ / www. histori. ca/ minutes/ minute. do?id=10200), Historica, [231] Evans David, "John McCrae" (http:/ / www. thecanadianencyclopedia. com/ index. cfm?PgNm=TCE& ArticleId=A0004849), Canadian Encyclopedia, [232] Mark David Sheftall, Altered Memories of the Great War: Divergent Narratives of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (2010) [233] Hynes, Samuel Lynn (1991), A war imagined: the First World War and English culture, Atheneum, pp.ixii, ISBN9780689121289 [234] Todman, Daniel (2005), The Great War: myth and memory, Hambledon and London, pp.153221, ISBN9781852854591 [235] Fussell, Paul (2000), The Great War and modern memory (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=D9iNQYfeKdwC), Oxford University Press US, pp.178, ISBN9780195133325, , retrieved 18 May 2010 [236] Todman, D. The Great War, Myth and Memory, p. xixv. [237] Roden [238] Wohl 1979 [239] Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp.1081086 [240] The Ending of World War One, and the Legacy of Peace (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ history/ worldwars/ wwone/ war_end_01. shtml), BBC, [241] The Rise of Hitler (http:/ / www. schoolshistory. org. uk/ hitlergainspower. htm), , retrieved 12 November 2009 [242] "World War II" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080704030736/ http:/ / www. britannica. com/ eb/ article-9110199/ World-War-II), Britannica Online Encyclopedia (Encyclopdia Britannica Inc.), archived from the original (http:/ / www. britannica. com/ eb/ article-9110199/ World-War-II) on 4 July 2008, , retrieved 12 November 2009 [243] Baker, Kevin (June 2006), "Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth" (http:/ / harpers. org/ StabbedInTheBack. html), Harper's Magazine, [244] Chickering 2004 [245] Economist 2005 [246] Hooker 1996 [247] Muller 2008 [248] Kaplan 1993 [249] Salibi 1993 [250] Evans 2005 [251] Israeli Foreign Ministry [252] Gelvin 2005 [253] Isaac & Hosh 1992 [254] "1941 Gallup poll" (http:/ / news. google. com/ newspapers?id=RPUaAAAAIBAJ& sjid=YEwEAAAAIBAJ& pg=3742,5638207& dq=war+ poll& hl=en). Google. . Retrieved 15 June 2010. [255] "Appeals to Americans to Pray for Serbians" (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ mem/ archive-free/ pdf?_r=1& res=9406E4D8143EE433A25754C2A9619C946996D6CF). The New York Times. 27 July 1918. . [256] "Serbia Restored" (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ mem/ archive-free/ pdf?_r=1& res=990CEFDC113BEE3ABC4D53DFB7678383609EDE). The New York Times. 5 November 1918. . [257] Simpson, Matt (22 August 2009). "The Minor Powers During World War One Serbia" (http:/ / www. firstworldwar. com/ features/ minorpowers_serbia. htm). firstworldwar.com. . [258] "'ANZAC Day' in London; King, Queen, and General Birdwood at Services in Abbey" (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ gst/ abstract. html?res=9400E1DD113FE233A25755C2A9629C946796D6CF& scp=12& sq=New+ Zealand+ anzac& st=p). The New York Times. 26 April 1916. . [259] The ANZAC Day tradition (http:/ / www. awm. gov. au/ commemoration/ anzac/ anzac_tradition. asp), Australian War Memorial, , retrieved 2 May 2008 [260] Vimy Ridge (http:/ / www. warmuseum. ca/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ vimy-ridge-e. aspx), Canadian War Museum, , retrieved 22 October 2008 [261] The War's Impact on Canada (http:/ / www. warmuseum. ca/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ war-impact-e. aspx), Canadian War Museum, , retrieved 22 October 2008 [262] Canada's last WW1 vet gets his citizenship back (http:/ / www. cbc. ca/ canada/ ottawa/ story/ 2008/ 05/ 09/ babcock-citizen. html), CBC News, 9 May 2008,

46

World War I
[263] 1012 in this context see Long and short scales [264] " Germany in the Era of Hyperinflation (http:/ / www. spiegel. de/ international/ germany/ 0,1518,641758,00. html)". Spiegel Online. 14 August 2009. [265] 109 in this context see Long and short scales [266] " What's a little debt between friends? (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ uk_news/ magazine/ 4757181. stm)". BBC News. 10 May 2006. [267] Noakes, Lucy (2006). Women in the British Army: war and the gentle sex, 19071948. Abingdon, England: Routledge. p.48. ISBN0-415-39056-7. [268] Green 1938, pp.CXXVI [269] "Germany finishes paying WWI reparations, ending century of 'guilt'" (http:/ / www. csmonitor. com/ World/ Europe/ 2010/ 1004/ Germany-finishes-paying-WWI-reparations-ending-century-of-guilt). . Christian Science Monitor. 4 October 2010.

47

References
For a comprehensive bibliography see List of books about World War I American Armies and Battlefields in Europe: A History, Guide, and Reference Book (http://www.secstate.wa. gov/history/ww1/maps.aspx), U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938, OCLC59803706 Army Art of World War I (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/history/publications_detail.aspx?p=28), United States Army Center of Military History: Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of American History, 1993, OCLC28608539 Asghar, Syed Birjees (12 June 2005), A Famous Uprising (http://web.archive.org/web/20070803144344/ http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/050612/dmag14.htm), Dawn Group, archived from the original (http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/050612/dmag14.htm) on 3 August 2007, retrieved 2 November 2007 Ashworth, Tony (2000) [1980], Trench warfare, 191418 : the live and let live system, London: Pan, ISBN0330480685, OCLC247360122 Bade, Klaus J; Brown, Allison (tr.) (2003), Migration in European History, The making of Europe, Oxford: Blackwell, ISBN0631189394, OCLC52695573 (translated from the German) Baker, Kevin (June 2006), "Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth", Harper's Magazine Balakian, Peter (2003), The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response, New York: HarperCollins, ISBN9780060198404, OCLC56822108 Ball, Alan M (1996), And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 19181930, Berkeley: University of California Press, ISBN9780520206946, reviewed in Hegarty, Thomas J (MarchJune 1998), "And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 19181930" (http://findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_qa3763/is_/ai_n8801575), Canadian Slavonic Papers Bass, Gary Jonathan (2002), Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp.424pp, ISBN0691092788, OCLC248021790 Blair, Dale (2005), No Quarter: Unlawful Killing and Surrender in the Australian War Experience, 19151918, Charnwood, Australia: Ginninderra Press, ISBN1740272919, OCLC62514621 Brands, Henry William (1997), T. R.: The Last Romantic, New York: Basic Books, ISBN0465069584, OCLC36954615 Brown, Judith M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 474, ISBN0198731132. Chickering, Rodger (2004), Imperial Germany and the Great War, 19141918, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN0521839084, OCLC55523473 Clark, Charles Upson (1927), Bessarabia, Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea (http://depts.washington.edu/ cartah/text_archive/clark/meta_pag.shtml), New York: Dodd, Mead, OCLC150789848 Cockfield, Jamie H (1997), With snow on their boots : The tragic odyssey of the Russian Expeditionary Force in France during World War 1, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN0312220820 Conlon, Joseph M (PDF), The historical impact of epidemic typhus (http://entomology.montana.edu/ historybug/TYPHUS-Conlon.pdf), Montana State University, retrieved 21 April 2009

World War I Cook, Tim (2006), "The politics of surrender: Canadian soldiers and the killing of prisoners in the First World War", The Journal of Military History 70 (3): 637665, doi:10.1353/jmh.2006.0158 Cross, Wilbur L (1991), Zeppelins of World War I, New York: Paragon Press, ISBN9781557783820, OCLC22860189 Djoki, Dejan (2003), Yugoslavism : histories of a failed idea, 19181992, London: Hurst, OCLC51093251 Dignan, Don K (February 1971), "The Hindu Conspiracy in Anglo-American Relations during World War I", The Pacific Historical Review (University of California Press) 40 (1): 5776, ISSN0030-8684, JSTOR3637829 Doughty, Robert A. (2005), Pyrrhic victory: French strategy and operations in the Great War (http://books. google.com/books?id=vZRmHkdGk44C), Harvard University Press, ISBN9780674018808 Duffy, Michael, Somme (http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm), First World War.com, ISBN0297846892, retrieved 25 February 2007 Evans, David (2004), The First World War, Teach yourself, London: Hodder Arnold, ISBN0340884894, OCLC224332259 Evans, Leslie (27 May 2005), Future of Iraq, Israel-Palestine Conflict, and Central Asia Weighed at International Conference (http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=24920), UCLA International Institute, retrieved 30 December 2008 Falls, Cyril Bentham (1960), The First World War, London: Longmans, ISBN1843422727, OCLC460327352 Farwell, Byron (1989), The Great War in Africa, 19141918, W.W. Norton, ISBN9780393305647 Ferguson, Niall (1999), The Pity of War, New York: Basic Books, pp.563pp, ISBN046505711X, OCLC41124439 Ferguson, Niall (2006), The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West, New York: Penguin Press, ISBN1594201005 Findley, Carter Vaughn; Rothney, J.A. (2006), Twentieth Century World (6th ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin Fortescue, Granville Roland (28 October 1915), "London in Gloom over Gallipoli; Captain Fortescue in Book and Ashmead-Bartlett in Lecture Declare Campaign Lost. Say Allies Can't Advance; Attack on Allied Diplomacy in Correspondent's Doleful Talk Passed by Censor" (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract. html?res=9907E3DE1E38E633A2575BC2A9669D946496D6CF), New York Times Fraser, Thomas G (April 1977), "Germany and Indian Revolution, 191418", Journal of Contemporary History (Sage Publications) 12 (2): 255272, doi:10.1177/002200947701200203, ISSN0022-0094 Fromkin, David (2001), A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, New York: Owl Books, p.119, ISBN0805068848, OCLC53814831 Fromkin, David (2004), Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN0375411569, OCLC53937943 Gelvin, James L (2005), The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN0521852897, OCLC59879560 Gibbs, Phillip (26 October 1918 published 30 October 1918), "Fall of Ghent Near, German Flank in Peril" (http:// query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F05E4D61539E13ABC4850DFB6678383609EDE&scp=4& sq=Ghent+1918&st=p), New York Times Gibbs, Phillip (15 November 1918), "Ghent Burghers Hail Liberators" (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/ archive-free/pdf?res=940DE1DC1239E13ABC4D52DFB7678383609EDE) (PDF), New York Times Gray, Randal; Argyle, Christopher (1990), Chronicle of the First World War, New York: Facts on File, ISBN9780816025954, OCLC19398100 Gilbert, Martin (2004), The First World War: A Complete History, Clearwater, Florida: Owl Books, p.306, ISBN0805076174, OCLC34792651 Goodspeed, Donald James (1985), The German Wars 19141945, New York: Random House; Bonanza, ISBN9780517467909 Gray, Randal (1991), Kaiserschlacht 1918: the final German offensive, Osprey, ISBN9781855321571

48

World War I Green, John Frederick Norman (1938), "Obituary: Albert Ernest Kitson", Geological Society Quarterly Journal (Geological Society) 94 Haber, Lutz Fritz (1986), The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War, Oxford: Clarendon, ISBN0198581424, OCLC12051072 Halpern, Paul G (1995), A Naval History of World War I, New York: Routledge, ISBN1857284984, OCLC60281302 Harrach, Franz, "Archduke Franz Ferdinand's Assassination, 28 June 1914: Memoir of Count Franz von Harrach", Primary Documents (First World War.com) Hartcup, Guy (1988), The War of Invention; Scientific Developments, 191418, Brassey's Defence Publishers, ISBN0-08-033591-8 Havighurst, Alfred F (1985), Britain in transition: the twentieth century (4 ed.), University of Chicago Press, ISBN9780226319711 Heer, Germany (2009), German and Austrian Tactical Studies, ISBN9781110765164 Heller, Charles E (1984), Chemical warfare in World War I : the American experience, 19171918 (http:// www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Heller/HELLER.asp), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Combat Studies Institute, OCLC123244486 Herbert, Edwin (2003), Small Wars and Skirmishes 19021918: Early Twentieth-century Colonial Campaigns in Africa, Asia and the Americas, Nottingham: Foundry Books Publications, ISBN1901543056 Heyman, Neil M (1997), World War I, Guides to historic events of the twentieth century, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, ISBN0313298807, OCLC36292837 Hickey, Michael (2003), The Mediterranean Front 19141923, The First World War, 4, New York: Routledge, pp.6065, ISBN0415968445, OCLC52375688 Hinterhoff, Eugene (1984), Young, Peter, ed., "The Campaign in Armenia", Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War I (New York: Marshall Cavendish) ii, ISBN0863071813 Hooker, Richard (1996), The Ottomans (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/OTTOMAN/OTTOMAN1.HTM), Washington State University, retrieved 30 December 2008 Hoover, Herbert; Wilson, Woodrow (1958), Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson, New York: McGraw-Hill, ISBN0943875412, OCLC254607345 Hughes, Thomas L (October 2002), "The German Mission to Afghanistan, 19151916", German Studies Review (German Studies Association) 25 (3): 447476, doi:10.2307/1432596, ISSN0149-7952, JSTOR1432596 Hull, Isabel Virginia (2006), Absolute destruction: military culture and the practices of war in Imperial Germany, Cornell University Press, ISBN9780801472930 Isaac, Jad; Hosh, Leonardo (79 May 1992), Roots of the Water Conflict in the Middle East (http://web.archive. org/web/20060928053605/http://www.oranim.ac.il/courses/meast/water/Roots+of+the+Water+ Conflict+in+the+Middle+East.htm), University of Waterloo, archived from the original (http://www.oranim. ac.il/courses/meast/water/Roots+of+the+Water+Conflict+in+the+Middle+East.htm) on 28 September 2006 Jenkins, Burris A (2009), Facing the Hindenburg Line, BiblioBazaar, ISBN9781110812387 Johnson, Douglas Wilson (1921), Battlefields of the World War, Western and Southern Fronts (http:// openlibrary.org/b/OL23383739M/Battlefields_of_the_World_War_western_and_southern_fronts), New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN1432637398, OCLC688071 Johnson, James Edgar (2001), Full Circle: The Story of Air Fighting, London: Cassell, ISBN0304358606, OCLC45991828 Jones, Howard (2001), Crucible of Power: A History of U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1897, Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Books, ISBN0842029184, OCLC46640675 Kaplan, Robert D (February 1993), "Syria: Identity Crisis" (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199302/kaplan), The Atlantic, retrieved 30 December 2008

49

World War I Karp, Walter (1979), The Politics of War (1st ed.), ISBN006012265X, OCLC4593327, Wilson's maneuvering U.S. into war Keegan, John (1998), The First World War, Hutchinson, ISBN0091801788, general military history Keene, Jennifer D (2006), World War I, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, p.5, ISBN0313331812, OCLC70883191 Kennedy, David M (2004), Over here: the First World War and American society, Oxford University Press, ISBN9780195173994 Kernek, Sterling (December 1970), "The British Government's Reactions to President Wilson's 'Peace' Note of December 1916", The Historical Journal 13 (4): 721766, JSTOR2637713 Keynes, John Maynard (1920), The Economic Consequences of the Peace, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, ISBN0521220955, OCLC213487540 Kitchen, Martin (2000) [1980], Europe Between the Wars, New York: Longman, ISBN0582418690, OCLC247285240 Knobler, Stacey L, ed. (2005), The Threat of Pandemic Influenza: Are We Ready? Workshop Summary (http:// www.nap.edu/books/0309095042/html/7.html), Washington DC: National Academies Press, ISBN0309095042, OCLC57422232 Kurlander, Eric (2006) (Book review), Steffen Bruendel. Volksgemeinschaft oder Volksstaat: Die "Ideen von 1914" und die Neuordnung Deutschlands im Ersten Weltkrieg (http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev. cgi?path=101921145898314), H-net, retrieved 17 November 2009 Lehmann, Hartmut; van der Veer, Peter, eds. (1999), Nation and religion: perspectives on Europe and Asia, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, ISBN0691012326, OCLC39727826 Lewy, Guenter (2005), The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, ISBN0874808499, OCLC61262401 Love, Dave (May 1996), "The Second Battle of Ypres, April 1915" (http://www.worldwar1.com/sf2ypres. htm), Sabretasche 26 (4) Lyons, Michael J (1999), World War I: A Short History (2nd ed.), Prentice Hall, ISBN0130205516 Ludendorff, Erich (1919), My War Memories, 19141918, OCLC60104290 also published by Harper as "Ludendorff's Own Story, August 1914 November 1918: The Great War from the Siege of Liege to the Signing of the Armistice as Viewed from the Grand Headquarters of the German Army" OCLC561160 (original title Meine Kriegserinnerungen, 19141918) Magliveras, Konstantinos D (1999), Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations: The Law and Practice behind Member States' Expulsion and Suspension of Membership, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, ISBN9041112391 Maurice, Frederick Barton (18 August 1918), "Foe's reserves now only 16 divisions; Allies' Counteroffensive has reduced them from 60, Gen. Maurice says Ludendorff in dilemma; he must choose between giving up offensive projects and shortening his line" (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract. html?res=9B02EFD6103BEE3ABC4052DFBE668383609EDE&scp=8&sq=Ludendorff+Amiens+1918& st=p), New York Times Martel, Gordon (2003), The Origins of the First World War, Pearson Longman, Harlow Mawdsley, Evan (2008), The Russian Civil War (Edinburgh ed.), Birlinn location, ISBN1843410419 McDermott, T. P., USA's Boy Scouts and World War I Liberty Loan Bonds (http://www.sossi.org/journal/ scouts-ww1-liberty-bonds.pdf) McLellan, Edwin N, The United States Marine Corps in the World War (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ AMH/XX/WWI/USMC/USMC-WWI.html#XIV) Meyer, Gerald J (2006), A World Undone: The Story of the Great War 1914 to 1918, Random House, ISBN9780553803549

50

World War I Millett, Allan Reed; Murray, Williamson (1988), Military Effectiveness, Boston: Allen Unwin, ISBN0044450532, OCLC220072268 Moon, John Ellis van Courtland (July 1996), "United States Chemical Warfare Policy in World War II: A Captive of Coalition Policy?", The Journal of Military History (Society for Military History) 60 (3): 495511, doi:10.2307/2944522, JSTOR2944522 Morton, Desmond; Granatstein, Jack L (1989), Marching to Armageddon: Canadians and the Great War 19141919, ISBN0886192099, OCLC21449019 Morton, Desmond (1992), Silent Battle: Canadian Prisoners of War in Germany, 19141919, Toronto: Lester Publishing, ISBN1895555175, OCLC29565680 Mosier, John (2001), "Germany and the Development of Combined Arms Tactics", Myth of the Great War: How the Germans Won the Battles and How the Americans Saved the Allies, New York: Harper Collins, ISBN0060196769 Muller, Jerry Z (March/April 2008), "Us and Them The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism" (http://www. foreignaffairs.com/20080301faessay87203/jerry-z-muller/us-and-them.html), Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations), retrieved 30 December 2008 Neiberg, Michael S (2005), Fighting the Great War: A Global History, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, ISBN0674016963, OCLC56592292 Nicholson, Gerald WL (1962), Canadian Expeditionary Force, 19141919: Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War (http://www.censol.ca/research/greatwar/nicholson/index.htm) (1st ed.), Ottawa: Queens Printer and Controller of Stationary, OCLC2317262 Northedge, FS (1986), The League of Nations: Its Life and Times, 19201946, New York: Holmes & Meier, ISBN0718513169 Page, Thomas Nelson, Italy and the World War (http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/Italy/Page04. htm), Brigham Young University, Chapter XI cites "Cf. articles signed XXX in La Revue de Deux Mondes, 1 and 15 March 1920" Perry, Frederick W (1988), The Commonwealth armies: manpower and organisation in two world wars, Manchester University Press, ISBN9780719025952 Phillimore, George Grenville; Bellot, Hugh HL (1919), "Treatment of Prisoners of War", Transactions of the Grotius Society 5: 4764, OCLC43267276 Pitt, Barrie (2003), 1918: The Last Act, Barnsley: Pen and Sword, ISBN0850529743, OCLC56468232 Price, Alfred (1980), Aircraft versus Submarine: the Evolution of the Anti-submarine Aircraft, 1912 to 1980, London: Jane's Publishing, ISBN0710600089, OCLC10324173 Deals with technical developments, including the first dipping hydrophones Prior, Robin (1999), The First World War, London: Cassell, ISBN030435256X Raudzens, George (October 1990), "War-Winning Weapons: The Measurement of Technological Determinism in Military History", The Journal of Military History (Society for Military History) 54 (4): 403434, doi:10.2307/1986064, JSTOR1986064 Repington, Charles Court (1920), The First World War, 19141918 (http://www.archive.org/details/ firstworldwar19102repiuoft), 2, London: Constable, ISBN1113197641 Rickard, J (5 March 2001), "Erich von Ludendorff, 18651937, German General" (http://www.historyofwar. org/articles/people_ludendorff.html), Military History Encyclopedia on the Web (HistoryOfWar.org), retrieved 6 February 2008 Rickard, J (27 August 2007), The Ludendorff Offensives, 21 March-18 July 1918 (http://www.historyofwar.org/ scripts/fluffy/fcp.pl?words=20+July+1918&d=/battles_ludendorff.html) Roden, Mike, "The Lost Generation myth and reality" (http://www.aftermathww1.com/lostgen.asp), Aftermath when the boys came home, retrieved 6 November 2009

51

World War I Ross, Stewart Halsey (1996), Propaganda for War: How the United States was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 19141918, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, ISBN0786401117, OCLC185807544 Saadi, Abdul-Ilah, Dreaming of Greater Syria (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/arabunity/2008/02/ 2008525183842614205.html), Al Jazeera English, retrieved 17 November 2009 Sachar, Howard Morley (1970), The emergence of the Middle East, 19141924, Allen Lane, ISBN0713901586, OCLC153103197 Safire, William (2008), Safire's Political Dictionary (http://books.google.com/?id=jK-0NPoMiYoC), Oxford University Press, ISBN9780195343342 Salibi, Kamal Suleiman (1993), "How it all began A concise history of Lebanon" (http://almashriq.hiof.no/ lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/), A House of Many Mansions the history of Lebanon reconsidered, I.B. Tauris, ISBN1850430918, OCLC224705916 Schindler, J (2003), "Steamrollered in Galicia: The Austro-Hungarian Army and the Brusilov Offensive, 1916", War in History 10 (1): 2759, doi:10.1191/0968344503wh260oa Shanafelt, Gary W (1985), The secret enemy: Austria-Hungary and the German alliance, 19141918, East European Monographs, ISBN9780880330800 Shapiro, Fred R; Epstein, Joseph (2006), The Yale Book of Quotations, Yale University Press, ISBN0300107986 Singh, Jaspal, History of the Ghadar Movement (http://www.panjab.org.uk/english/histGPty.html), panjab.org.uk, retrieved 31 October 2007 Sisemore, James D (2003), The Russo-Japanese War, Lessons Not Learned (http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/ item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=113), U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Smele, Jonathan, "War and Revolution in Russia 19141921" (http://www.webcitation.org/635RR9gbC), World Wars in-depth (BBC), archived from the original (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/ eastern_front_01.shtml) on 9 November 2011, retrieved 12 November 2009 Speed, Richard B, III (1990), Prisoners, Diplomats and the Great War: A Study in the Diplomacy of Captivity, New York: Greenwood Press, ISBN0313267294, OCLC20694547 Stevenson, David (1996), Armaments and the Coming of War: Europe, 19041914, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN0198202083, OCLC33079190 Stevenson, David (2004), Cataclysm: The First World War As Political Tragedy, New York: Basic Books, pp.560pp, ISBN0465081843, OCLC54001282, major reinterpretation Stevenson, David (2005), The First World War and International Politics, Oxford: Clarendon, OCLC248297941 Gilbert, Martin (1994), First World War, Stoddart Publishing, ISBN9780773728486 Strachan, Hew (2004), The First World War: Volume I: To Arms, New York: Viking, ISBN0670032956, OCLC53075929: the major scholarly synthesis. Thorough coverage of 1914 Strachan, Hew (1998), The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN0198206143 Stumpp, Karl; Weins, Herbert; Smith, Ingeborg W (trans) (1997), A People on the Move: Germans in Russia and in the Former Soviet Union: 17631997 (http://lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/history_culture/history/people. html), North Dakota State University Libraries Swietochowski, Tadeusz (2004), Russian Azerbaijan, 19051920: The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community, 42, Cambridge University Press, ISBN9780521522458, reviewed at JSTOR1866737 Taylor, Alan John Percivale (1963), The First World War: An Illustrated History, Hamish Hamilton, OCLC2054370 Taylor, Alan John Percivale (1998), The First World War and its aftermath, 19141919, London: Folio Society, OCLC49988231 Taylor, John M (Summer 2007), "Audacious Cruise of the Emden", The Quarterly Journal of Military History 19 (4): 3847, doi:10.1353/jmh.2007.0331 (inactive 2010-07-26), ISSN0899-3718 Terraine, John (1963), Ordeal of Victory, Philadelphia: Lippincott, pp.508pp, OCLC1345833

52

World War I Tschanz, David W, Typhus fever on the Eastern front in World War I (http://www.entomology.montana.edu/ historybug/WWI/TEF.htm), Montana State University, retrieved 12 November 2009 Tuchman, Barbara Wertheim (1962), The Guns of August, New York: Macmillan, OCLC192333, tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres Tuchman, Barbara Wertheim (1966), The Zimmerman Telegram (2nd ed.), New York: Macmillan, ISBN0026203200, OCLC233392415 Tucker, Spencer C (1999), European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, ISBN081533351X, OCLC40417794 Tucker, Spencer C; Roberts, Priscilla Mary (2005), Encyclopedia of World War I, Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, ISBN1851094202, OCLC61247250 Tucker, Spencer C; Wood, Laura Matysek; Murphy, Justin D (1999), The European powers in the First World War: an encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, ISBN9780815333517 von der Porten, Edward P (1969), German Navy in World War II, New York: T. Y. Crowell, ISBN021317961X, OCLC164543865 Westwell, Ian (2004), World War I Day by Day, St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI Publishing, pp.192pp, ISBN0760319375, OCLC57533366 Wilgus, William John (1931), Transporting the A. E. F. in Western Europe, 19171919, New York: Columbia University Press, OCLC1161730 Willmott, H.P. (2003), World War I, New York: Dorling Kindersley, ISBN0789496275, OCLC52541937 Winegard, Timothy, "Here at Vimy: A Retrospective The 90th Anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge" (http:/ /www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no2/winegard-eng.asp), Canadian Military Journal 8 (2) Winter, Denis (1983), The First of the Few: Fighter Pilots of the First World War, Penguin, ISBN9780140052565 Wohl, Robert (1979), The Generation of 1914 (3 ed.), Harvard University Press, ISBN9780674344662 Zieger, Robert H (2001), America's Great War: World War I and the American experience, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, p.50, ISBN0847696456 "Country Briefings: Israel" (http://www.economist.com/countries/Israel/profile.cfm?folder=History in brief), The Economist, 28 July 2005, retrieved 30 December 2008 Israeli Foreign Ministry, Ottoman Rule (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Ottoman.html), Jewish Virtual Library, retrieved 30 December 2008

53

External links
A multimedia history of World War I (http://www.firstworldwar.com/) British Path (http://www.britishpathe.com/workspace.php?id=2930&display=list/) Online film archive containing extensive coverage of World War I The Heritage of the Great War, Netherlands (http://www.greatwar.nl/) The World War I Document Archive (http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Main_Page) Wiki, Brigham Young University Maps of Europe (http://maps.omniatlas.com/europe/19140905/) covering the history of World War I at omniatlas.com

World War I

54

Animated maps
An animated map "Europe plunges into war" (http://www.the-map-as-history.com/demos/tome06/) An animated map of Europe at the end of the war (http://www.the-map-as-history.com/demos/tome03/)

55

Chronology
African theatre
The African Theatre of World War I comprises geographically distinct campaigns around the German colonies of Kamerun, Togoland, South-West Africa, and German East Africa.

Overview
The British Empire, with near total command of the world's oceans, had the power and resources to conquer the German colonies when the Great War started. Most German colonies in Africa had been recently acquired and were not well defended, with the notable exception of German East Africa. They were also surrounded on all land sides by African colonies belonging mostly to their enemies, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and, later in the war, Portugal.

West Africa
Germany had two colonies in West Africa, Togoland (modern-day Togo and the Volta Region of Ghana) and Kamerun (modern-day Cameroon). The small colony of Togoland was quickly conquered by British and French military forces. The German troops in Kamerun fought fiercely against invading British, French and Belgian forces, but in 1916 (after many soldiers had escaped into Spanish Guinea, which was neutral territory) the fighting ended with the surrender of the remaining German colonial armed forces (Schutztruppe). Strategic assets in the German West African colonies included: 4 high power long wave transmitters (one in Togo, the remainder in Kamerun) port facilities containing coal refuelling depots The British Atlantic Ocean colonies of Ascension Island and Saint Helena played no part in the West Africa campaigns except in their role as shipping re-supply points.

South-West Africa
German South-West Africa (modern-day Namibia) was a huge and arid territory. Bounded on the coast by the desolate Namib Desert, the only major German population was around the colonial capital of Windhoek, some 200 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km) inland from the Atlantic Ocean. The Germans had 3,000 soldiers and could count on the support of most of the 7,000 adult male German colonists. In addition, the Germans had very friendly relations with the Boers in South Africa, who had ended a bloody war with the British just twelve years before. The British began their attack by organizing and arming their former enemies, the Boers. This was dangerous, and the proposed attack on German South-West Africa turned into an active rebellion by some 12,000 Boers. Boer leaders Jan Smuts and Louis Botha both took the British side against Christiaan Beyers and Christiaan De Wet. In two battles in October, the rebels were defeated and by the end of 1914, the rebellion was ended. General Smuts then continued his military operations into South-West Africa, starting around January 1915. The South African troops were battle-hardened and experienced in living in this type of terrain. They crossed the hundreds of miles of empty land on horseback in four columns. The Germans tried to delay this advance, but without

African theatre success. Windhoek was captured on May 12, 1915. Two months later, all the German forces had surrendered. South Africa effectively ruled South-West Africa for the next 75 years. Even before the official declaration of war between Germany and Portugal in March 1915, German and Portuguese troops clashed several times on the border between German South West Africa and Portuguese Angola. The Germans won these clashes and were able to occupy part of southern Angola, until the surrender in July 1915.

56

German East Africa


In German East Africa (modern-day Tanzania, Burundi, and Rwanda) the British were unable to fully subdue the defenders of the colony despite four years of effort and tens of thousands of casualties. The German commander, Colonel (later General) Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck, fought a guerrilla campaign for the duration of the Great War. His achievement became the stuff of legend, although in military terms his epic campaign had only a small impact on the course of the War.

Lettow surrendering his forces to the British at

Abercorn German forces staged raids, hit-and-run attacks, and ambushes. The British army often laid traps for Lettow-Vorbeck's troops but failed to catch him. The German forces ranged over all of German East Africa, living off the land and capturing military supplies from the British and Portuguese military.

In 1916 the British gave the task of defeating the Germans to the Boer commander Jan Smuts along with a very large force. His conquest of German East Africa was methodical and moderately successful. By the autumn of 1916, British troops had captured the German railway line and were solidly in control of the land north of the railway, while BelgianCongolese troops under the command of General Tombeur had captured the Eastern part of the colony, including Ruanda-Urundi and Tabora. However, Lettow-Vorbeck's army was not defeated and remained active long after Smuts had left to join the Imperial War Cabinet in London in 1917. The German forces moved into Portuguese East Africa in November 1917, and later back into German East Africa, finally ending up in Northern Rhodesia when the war ended. Lettow-Vorbeck's small army agreed to a cease-fire at the Chambeshi River on November 14, 1918, after receiving a telegram informing them that Germany had given up fighting on November 11 (see Von Lettow-Vorbeck Memorial). The formal surrender took place on November 23, 1918 at Abercorn. Lettow-Vorbeck's army was never defeated in battle, and he was welcomed in Germany as a hero.

After the war


The war marked the end of Germany's short-lived overseas empire. Britain, France and Belgium divided up the German African colonies between them, but their colonial rule would be short-lived also. Most of the former German colonies had gained their independence by 1960; Namibia (German South West Africa) was the last to gain independence, doing so from South Africa only in 1990.

References
Strachan, Hew (2001), The First World War: To Arms, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN0-19-926191-1

African theatre

57

External links
Maps of the war in Africa [1]

References
[1] http:/ / www. tech2classroom. com/ Edw11/ africa. html

Asian and Pacific theatres


The Asian and Pacific Theatre of World War I was a largely bloodless conquest of German colonial possession in the Pacific Ocean and China. The most significant military action was the careful and well-executed Siege of Tsingtao in what is now China, but smaller actions were also fought at Bita Paka and Toma in German New Guinea. All other German and Austrian possessions in Asia and the Pacific fell without bloodshed. Naval warfare was common; all of the colonial powers had naval squadrons stationed in the Indian or Pacific Oceans. These fleets operated by supporting the invasions of German held territories and by destroying the East Asia Squadron.

Allied offensives in the Pacific


One of the first land offensives in the Pacific theatre was the Occupation of German Samoa in August 1914 by New Zealand forces. The campaign to take Samoa ended without bloodshed after over 1,000 New Zealanders landed on the German colony, supported by an Australian and French naval squadron. Australian forces attacked German New Guinea in September 1914: 500 Australians encountered 300 Germans and native policemen at the Battle of Bita Paka; the Allies won the day and the Germans retreated to Toma. A company of Australians and a British warship besieged the Germans and their colonial subjects, ending without bloodshed with a German surrender. After the fall of Toma, only minor German forces were left in New Guinea and these capitulated once met by Australian forces. The only exception was a small expedition under the command of Hermann Detzner which managed to elude Australian patrols and hold out in the interior of the island until the end of the war. German Micronesia, the Marianas, the Carolines and the Marshall Islands also fell to Allied forces during the war, all unopposed.

Retreat of the German East Asia Squadron


When war was declared on Germany in 1914, the German East Asia Squadron withdrew from its base at Tsingtao and attempted to make its way east across the Pacific and back to Germany. The fleet raided several Allied targets as it made its way across the Pacific. Detached cruisers raided the cable station at Fanning and then rejoined with the squadron. Later the German forces would attack Papeete where Admiral Maximilian von Spee with his two armoured cruisers sank a French gunboat and a freighter before bombarding Papeete's shore batteries. The next engagement was fought off Chile at the Battle of Coronel on November 1, 1914, Admiral Spee won the battle by defeating a British squadron which was sent to destroy him. His two protected cruisers and three light cruisers sank two Royal Navy protected cruisers and forced a British light cruiser and auxiliary cruiser to flee. Over 1,500 British sailors (all hands aboard both cruisers) were killed while only three Germans were wounded. The victory did not last long as the German fleet was soon defeated in Atlantic waters at the Battle of the Falklands in December 1914. Spee himself went down with his own flagship SMSScharnhorst. The only German vessels to escape the Falklands engagement was the light cruiser Dresden and the auxiliary Seydlitz. Seydlitz fled into the Atlantic before being interned by neutral Argentina, while Dresden turned about and steamed back into the Pacific. The Dresden then attempted to act as a commerce raider, without much success, until

Asian and Pacific theatres March 1915 when its engines began to break down. Without means of getting repairs, the German light cruiser sailed into neutral Chilean waters at the island of Mas a Tierra where it was cornered by British naval forces. After a short battle in which four of her crew were killed, the Dresden was forced to scuttle and her crew was interned by Chilean authorities.

58

The cruise of SMS Emden


SMS Emden was left behind by Admiral Graf Maximilian von Spee when he began his retreat across the Pacific. The ship won the Battle of Penang, in which the Germans sank a Russian cruiser and a French destroyer. Emden also harried merchant vessels of the Allies and destroyed over thirty of them. She went on and bombarded Madras, India, causing damage to British oil tanks and sinking an Allied merchant ship. The attack caused widespread panic in the city and thousands of people fled from the coast, fearing that the Germans may have begun an invasion of India as a whole. After a very successful career as a merchant raider, Emden was engaged by HMAS Sydney at the Battle of Cocos, where the German vessel was destroyed. A group of sailors under the command of Hellmuth von Mcke managed to escape towards the Arabian peninsula which was then part of the Ottoman Empire, an ally of the German Empire during World War I.

The Siege of Tsingtao


Tsingtao was the most significant German base in the area. It was defended by 600 German troops supported by 3,400 Chinese colonial troops and Austro-Hungarian soldiers and sailors occupying a well-designed fort. Supporting the defenders were a small number of vessels from the Imperial German Navy and Austro-Hungarian Navy. The Japanese sent nearly their entire fleet to the area, including six battleships and 50,000 soldiers. The British sent two military units to the battle from their garrison at Tientsin numbering 1,600. The bombardment of the fort started on October 31. An assault The German front line at Tsingtao. was made by the Imperial Japanese Army on the night of November 6. The garrison surrendered the next day. Casualties of the battle were 200 on the German side and 1,455 on the Allied side. One Allied protected cruiser was also sunk by a German torpedo boat and when defeat was certain, the Germans and Austro-Hungarians scuttled their squadron.

The cruise of SMS Seeadler


The SMS Seeadler, an auxiliary cruiser windjammer and merchant raider, commanded by Felix von Luckner managed successful attacks on Allied shipping in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. During her career she captured sixteen vessels and sunk most of them. In August 1917 SMS Seeadler was wrecked at the island of Mopelia in French Polynesia so the Germans established a small colony on the island which housed them and several Allied prisoners, most of whom were American. Eventually when starvation proved to be an urgent concern, Luckner and his crew left the prisoners on the uninhabited island and set sail in lifeboat for Fiji. There, on September 5, Luckner captured a French schooner named Lutece and renamed her Fortuna. After that they headed for Easter Island and again their ship was wrecked when it grounded on a reef. Subsequently the Germans were interned by the Chileans on October 5, 1917 which ended the journey. During the entire cruise only one man perished, due to an accident.

Asian and Pacific theatres

59

The scuttling of SMS Cormoran


The United States was involved in at least one hostile encounter with Germans in the Pacific during World War I. On August 7, 1917, the SMS Cormoran was scuttled in Apra Harbor, Guam to prevent her capture by the auxiliary cruiser USS Supply. The Americans fired their first shots of the war at the Germans as they attempted to sink their ship. Ultimately the Germans succeeded in scuttling the Cormoran but with a loss of nine men dead.

SMS Cormoran

Manchu Restoration
The German government was accused of being behind Zhang Xun's monarchist coup in China to prevent Duan Qirui's pro-war faction from supporting the Allies. After the coup failed in July 1917, Duan used the incident as a pretext for declaring war on Germany. The German and Austro-Hungarian concessions in Tientsin and Hankow were occupied and their nationals detained. An even more serious plot was Germany's funding of the Constitutional Protection Movement, which geographically split China into two rival governments for eleven years.

Gallery

The German fleet off Chile in November 1914 after the Battle of Coronel.

Madras oil tanks on fire after being bombarded by SMS Emden.

Australian troops after digging up a German land mine along Bita Paka Road during the New Guinea Campaign.

The German auxiliary cruiser SMS Seeadler.

Notes References
Falls, Cyril (1960). The Great War, pgs. 9899. Keegan, John (1998). World War One, pgs. 205206.

Western front

60

Western front
Following the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the German Army opened the Western Front by first invading Luxembourg and Belgium, then gaining military control of important industrial regions in France. The tide of the advance was dramatically turned with the Battle of the Marne. Following the race to the sea, both sides dug in along a meandering line of fortified trenches, stretching from the North Sea to the Swiss frontier with France. This line remained essentially unchanged for most of the war. Between 1915 and 1917 there were several major offensives along this front. The attacks employed massive artillery bombardments and massed infantry advances. However, a combination of entrenchments, machine gun nests, barbed wire, and artillery repeatedly inflicted severe casualties on the attackers and counter attacking defenders. As a result, no significant advances were made. Among the most costly of these offensives were the Battle of Verdun with a combined 700,000 dead, the Battle of the Somme with more than a million casualties, and the Battle of Passchendaele with roughly 600,000 casualties. In an effort to break the deadlock, this front saw the introduction of new military technology, including poison gas, aircraft and tanks. But it was only after the adoption of improved tactics that some degree of mobility was restored. The German Spring Offensive of 1918 was made possible by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that marked the end of the conflict on the Eastern Front. Using the recently-introduced infiltration tactics, the German armies advanced nearly 60miles (unknown operator: u'strong' kilometres) to the west, which marked the deepest advance by either side since 1914 and very nearly succeeded in forcing a breakthrough. In spite of the generally stagnant nature of this front, this theater would prove decisive. The inexorable advance of the Allied armies during the second half of 1918 persuaded the German commanders that defeat was inevitable, and the government was forced to sue for conditions of an armistice. The terms of peace were agreed upon with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

1914German invasion of France and Belgium

Map of the Western Front and the Race to the Sea, 1914

Western front

61

French bayonet charge

German infantry on the battlefield, August 7, 1914

At the outbreak of the First World War, the German Army (consisting in the West of Seven Field Armies) executed a modified version of the Schlieffen Plan, designed to quickly attack France through neutral Belgium before turning southwards to encircle the French army on the German border.[1] Belgium's neutrality was guaranteed by Britain under the 1839 Treaty of London; the invasion brought the British into the war. Armies under German generals Alexander von Kluck and Karl von Blow attacked Belgium on the 4 August 1914. Luxembourg had been occupied without opposition on 2 August. The first battle in Belgium was the Siege of Lige, which lasted from 516 August. Lige was well fortified and surprised the German army under von Blow with its level of resistance. However, German heavy artillery was able to pound the key forts into ruin within a few days.[2] Following the fall of Lige, most of the Belgian army retreated to Antwerp and Namur. Although the German army bypassed Antwerp, it remained a threat to their flank. Another siege followed at Namur, lasting from about 2023 August.[3] For their part, the French had five Armies deployed on their borders. The pre-war French offensive plan, Plan XVII, was intended to capture Alsace-Lorraine following the outbreak of hostilities.[4] On 7 August the VII Corps attacked Alsace with its objectives being to capture Mulhouse and Colmar. The main offensive was launched on 14 August with 1st and 2nd Armies attacking toward Sarrebourg-Morhange in Lorraine.[5] In keeping with the Schlieffen Plan, the Germans withdrew slowly while inflicting severe losses upon the French. The French advanced the 3rd and 4th army toward the Saar River and attempted to capture Saarburg, attacking Briey and Neufchateau, before being driven back.[6] The French VII Corps captured Mulhouse after a brief engagement on August 7, but German reserve forces engaged them in the Battle of Mulhouse and forced a French retreat.[7] The German army swept through Belgium, causing great suffering on the part of the civilian population.[8] The wartime allied propaganda immediately seized this opportunity to portray the German invasion as the "Rape of Belgium".[9] (A modern author uses the term only in the narrower sense of describing the war crimes committed by the German army during this period.[8]) After marching through Belgium, Luxembourg and the Ardennes, the German Army advanced, in the latter half of August, into northern France where they met both the French army, under Joseph Joffre, and the initial six divisions of the British Expeditionary Force, under Sir John French. A series of engagements known as the Battle of the Frontiers ensued. Key battles included the Battle of Charleroi and the Battle of Mons. In the former battle the French 5th Army was almost destroyed by the German 2nd and 3rd Armies

Western front and the latter delayed the German advance by a day. A general Allied retreat followed, resulting in more clashes such as the Battle of Le Cateau, the Siege of Maubeuge and the Battle of St. Quentin (Guise).[10] The German army came within 70km (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) of Paris, but at the First Battle of the Marne (612 September), French and British troops were able to force a German retreat by exploiting a gap which appeared between the 1st and 2nd Armies, ending the German advance into France.[11] The German army retreated north of the Aisne River and dug in there, establishing the beginnings of a static western front that was to last for the next three years. Following this German setback, the opposing forces tried to outflank each other in the Race for the Sea, and quickly extended their trench systems from the North Sea to the Swiss frontier.[12] The resulting German-occupied territory held 64% of France's pig-iron production, 24% of its steel manufacturing and 40% of the total coal mining capacity, dealing a serious, but not crippling setback to French industry.[13] On the Entente side, the final lines were occupied by the armies of the allied countries, with each nation defending a part of the front. From the coast in the north, the primary forces were from Belgium, the British Empire and France. Following the Battle of the Yser in October, the Belgian forces controlled a 35km length of Belgium's Flanders territory along the coast, with their front following the Yser river and the Yperlee canal, from Nieuwpoort to Boesinghe.[14] Stationed to the south was the sector of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). Here, from 19 October until 22 November, the German forces made their final breakthrough attempt of 1914 during the First Battle of Ypres. Heavy casualties were suffered on both sides but no breakthrough occurred.[15] By Christmas, the BEF guarded a continual line from the La Basse Canal to south of St. Eloi in the Somme valley.[16] The remainder of the front, south to the border with Switzerland, was manned by French forces.

62

1915Stalemate
Between the coast and the Vosges was an outward bulge in the trench line, named the Noyon salient for the captured French town at the maximum point of advance near Compigne. Joffre's plan for 1915 was to attack this salient on both flanks in order to cut it off.[17] The British would form the northern attack force by pressing eastward in Artois, while the French attacked in Champagne. On 10 March, as part of what was intended as a larger offensive in the Artois region, the British army attacked at Neuve Chapelle in an effort to capture the Aubers Ridge. The assault was made by four Map of the Western Front, 191516 divisions along a 2-mile (unknown operator: u'strong'km) front. Preceded by a concentrated bombardment lasting 35 minutes, the initial assault made rapid progress and the village was captured within four hours. The advance then slowed because of problems with logistics and communications. The Germans then brought up reserves and counter-attacked, forestalling the attempt to capture the ridge. Since the British had used about one-third of their supply of artillery shells,[18] General Sir John French blamed the failure on the shortage of shells, despite the success of the initial attack.[19]

Western front

63

Gas warfare
Despite the German plans to maintain the stalemate with the French and British, German commanders planned an offensive at the Belgian town of Ypres, which the British had defended in November 1914. This Second Battle of Ypres was intended to divert attention from offensives in the Eastern Front while disrupting Franco-British planning and to test a new weapon: the second mass use of chemical weapons. (Ypres is frequently cited as the first use of gas but this had occurred at Bolimow, on the Eastern Front.) On 22 April, after a two-day bombardment, the An artist's rendition of Canadian troops at the Second Battle of Ypres Germans released 168 tons of chlorine gas onto the battlefield. Being heavier than air, the gas crept across no man's land and drifted into the British trenches.[20] The green-yellow cloud asphyxiated some defenders and those in the rear fled in panic, creating an undefended four-mile (6km)-wide gap in the Allied line. The Germans were unprepared for the level of their success and lacked sufficient reserves to exploit the opening. Canadian troops quickly arrived and drove back the German advance. The gas attack was repeated two days later and caused a three-mile (5km) withdrawal of the Franco-British line but the opportunity had been lost. The success of this attack would not be repeated, as the Allies countered by introducing gas masks and other countermeasures. An example of the success of these measures came a year later, on 27 April at Hulluch 25 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km) to the south of Ypres, where the 16th (Irish) Division withstood several German gas attacks.[21]

Air warfare
This year also saw the introduction of aeroplanes specifically modified for aerial combat. While planes had already been used in the war for scouting, on 1 April the French pilot Roland Garros became the first to shoot down an enemy plane by using a machine gun that fired forward through the propeller blades. This was achieved by crudely reinforcing the blades so bullets which hit them were deflected away.[22] Several weeks later Garros was forced to land behind German lines. His plane was captured and sent to Dutch engineer Anthony Fokker, who soon produced a significant improvement, the interrupter gear, in which the machine gun is synchronized with the propeller so it fires in the intervals when the blades of the propeller are out of the line of fire. This advance was quickly ushered into service, in the Fokker E.I (Eindecker, or monoplane, Mark 1), the first single seat fighter aircraft to combine a reasonable maximum speed with an effective armament;[23] Max Immelmann scored the first confirmed kill in an Eindecker on 1 August.[24] This started a back-and-forth arms race, as both sides developed improved weapons, engines, airframes and materials, which continued until the end of the war. It also inaugurated the cult of the ace, the most famous being the Red Baron. Contrary to the myth antiaircraft fire claimed more kills than fighters.[25]

Western front

64

Continued Entente attacks


The final Entente offensive of the spring was fought at Artois, with the goal of trying to capture Vimy Ridge. The French 10th Army attacked on 9 May after a six-day bombardment and advanced 3 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km). However, they retreated as they had come into sights of machine gun nests and the German reinforcements fired artillery at the attackers. By 15 May the advanced had been stopped, although the fighting continued until 18 June.[26] In May the German army captured a French document at La Ville-aux-Bois describing a new The ruins of Carency after it was recaptured by France system of defence. Rather than relying on a heavily fortified front line, the defence is arranged in a series of echelons. The front line would be a thinly manned series of outposts, reinforced by a series of strongpoints and a sheltered reserve. If a slope was available, troops were deployed along the rear side for protection. The defense became fully integrated with command of artillery at the divisional level. Members of the German high command viewed this new scheme with some favour and it later became the basis of an elastic defence in depth doctrine against Entente attacks.[27][28] During autumn of 1915, the "Fokker Scourge" began to have an effect on the battlefront as Allied spotter planes were nearly driven from the skies. These reconnaissance planes were used to direct gunnery and photograph enemy fortifications but now the Allies were nearly blinded by German fighters.[29] In September 1915 the Entente allies launched another offensive, with the French attacking at Champagne and the British at Loos. The French had spent the summer preparing for this action, with the British assuming control of more of the front in order to release French troops for the attack. The bombardment, which had been carefully targeted by means of aerial photography,[30] began on 22 September. The main French assault was launched on 25 September and at first made good progress, in spite of surviving wire entanglements and machine gun posts. Rather than retreating, the Germans adopted a new defense-in-depth scheme that consisted of a series of defensive zones and positions with a depth of up to 5mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km).[31] On 25 September, the British began their assault at Loos, which was meant to supplement the larger Champagne attack. The attack was preceded by a four-day artillery bombardment of 250,000 shells and a release of 5,100 cylinders of chlorine gas.[32][33] The attack involved two corps in the main assault and two more corps performing diversionary attacks at Ypres. The British suffered heavy losses, especially due to machine gun fire, during the attack and made only limited gains before they ran out of shells. A renewal of the attack on 13 October fared little better.[34] In December, British Field Marshal Sir John French was replaced by General Douglas Haig as commander of the British forces.[35]

Western front

65

1916Artillery duels and attrition


The German Chief of Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, believed that a breakthrough might no longer be possible, and instead focused on forcing a French capitulation by inflicting massive casualties.[36] His new goal was to "bleed France white".[37] As such, he adopted two new strategies. The first was the use of unrestricted submarine warfare to cut off Allied supplies arriving from overseas.[38] The second would be targeted, high-casualty attacks against the French ground troops. To inflict the maximum possible casualties, he planned to attack a position from which the French could not retreat for reason of both strategic positions and national pride and thus trap the French. The town of Verdun was chosen for this because it was an important stronghold, surrounded by a ring of forts, that lay near the German lines and The operation was codenamed Gericht, German for "court", but

German soldier on the Western Front in 1916

because it guarded the direct route to Paris.[39] meant "place of execution".[37]

Falkenhayn limited the size of the front to 34 miles (4.86.4km) to concentrate their firepower and to prevent a breakthrough from a counteroffensive. He also kept tight control of the main reserve, feeding in just enough troops to keep the battle going.[40] In preparation for their attack, the Germans had amassed a concentration of aircraft near the fortress. In the opening phase, they swept the air space of enemy spotters which allowed the accurate German artillery spotters and bombers to operate without interference. However, by May, the French countered by deploying escadrilles de chasse with superior Nieuport fighters. The tight air space over Verdun turned into an aerial battlefield, and illustrated the value of tactical air superiority, as each side sought to dominate air reconnaissance.[41]

Battle of Verdun
The Battle of Verdun began on 21 February 1916 after a nine-day delay due to snow and blizzards. After a massive eight-hour artillery bombardment, the Germans did not expect much resistance as they slowly advanced on Verdun and its forts.[42] However, heavy French resistance was encountered. The French lost control of Fort Douaumont. Nonetheless, French reinforcements halted the German advance by 28 February.[43] The Germans turned their focus to Le Mort Homme to the north from which the French were successfully shelling them. After some of the French soldiers observing enemy movements most intense fighting of the campaign, the hill was taken by the Germans in late May. After a change in French command at Verdun from the defensive-minded Philippe Ptain to the offensive-minded Robert Nivelle the French attempted to re-capture Fort Douaumont on 22 May but were easily repulsed. The Germans captured Fort Vaux on 7 June and, with the aid of the gas diphosgene,[44] came within 1,200 yards (1km) of the last ridge over Verdun before stopping on 23 June.

Western front Over the summer, the French slowly advanced. With the development of the rolling barrage, the French recaptured Fort Vaux in November, and by December 1916 they had pushed the Germans back 1.3 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km) from Fort Douaumont, in the process rotating 42 divisions through the battle. The Battle of Verdunalso known as the 'Mincing Machine of Verdun' or 'Meuse Mill'[45]became a symbol of French determination and sacrifice.[46]

66

Battle of the Somme


In the spring allied commanders had been concerned about the ability of the French army to withstand the enormous losses at Verdun. The original plans for an attack around the river Somme were modified to let the British make the main effort. This would serve to relieve pressure on the French, as well as the Russians who had also suffered great losses. On 1 July, after a week of heavy rain, British divisions in Picardy launched an attack around the river Somme, supported by five French divisions on their right flank. The attack had been preceded by seven days of heavy artillery bombardment. The experienced French forces were successful in advancing but the British artillery cover had neither blasted away barbed wire, nor destroyed German trenches as effectively as was planned. They suffered the greatest number of casualties (killed, wounded and missing) in a single day in the history of the British army, about 57,000.[47] Having assessed the air combat over Verdun, the Allies had new aircraft for the attack in the Somme valley. The Verdun lesson learnt, the Allies' tactical aim became the achievement of air superiority and the German planes were, indeed, largely swept from the skies over the Somme. The success of the Allied air offensive caused a reorganization of the German air arm, and both sides began using large formations of aircraft rather than relying on individual combat.[48] After regrouping, the battle continued throughout July and August, with some success for the British despite the reinforcement of the German lines. By August General Haig had concluded that a breakthrough was unlikely, and instead switched tactics to a series of small unit actions. The effect was to straighten out the front line, which was thought necessary in preparation for a massive artillery bombardment with a major push.
British infantry advance near Gingy. Photo by Ernest Brooks.

The final phase of the battle of the Somme saw the first use of the tank on the battlefield.[49] The Allies prepared an attack that would involve 13 British and Imperial divisions and four French corps. The attack made early progress, advancing 3,5004,500 yards (3.24.1km) in places, but the tanks had little effect due to their lack of numbers and mechanical unreliability.[50] The final phase of the battle took place in October and early November, again producing limited gains with heavy loss of life. All told, the Somme battle had made penetrations of only five miles (8km), and failed to reach the original objectives. The British had suffered about 420,000 casualties and the French around 200,000. It is estimated that the Germans lost 465,000, although this figure is controversial.[51] The Somme led directly to major new developments in infantry organization and tactics; despite the terrible losses of 1 July, some divisions had managed to achieve their objectives with minimal casualties. In examining the reasons behind losses and achievements, the British, and the Colonial contingents, reintroduced the concept of the infantry platoon, following in the footsteps of the French and German armies who were already groping their way towards the use of small tactical units. At the time of the Somme, British senior commanders insisted that the company (120 men) was the smallest unit of manoeuvre; less than a year later, the section of 10 men would be so.[52]

Western front

67

Hindenburg line
In August 1916 the German leadership along the western front had changed as Falkenhayn resigned and was replaced by Generals Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff. The new leaders soon recognized that the battles of Verdun and the Somme had depleted the offensive capabilities of the German army. They decided that the German army in the west would go over to the strategic defensive for most of 1917, while the Central powers would attack elsewhere.[53]

The Hindenburg Line at Bullecourt, as seen from the air.

During the Somme battle and through the winter months, the Germans created a prepared defensive position behind a section of their front that would be called the Hindenburg Line using the defensive principles elaborated since the defensive battles of 1915, including the use of Eingreif divisions.[54] This was intended to shorten the German front, freeing 10 divisions for other duties. This line of fortifications ran from Arras south to St Quentin and shortened the front by about 30 miles.[53] British long-range reconnaissance aircraft first spotted the construction of the Hindenburg Line in November 1916.[55]

1917British offensives
The Hindenburg Line was built between two[56] and thirty miles behind the German front line. On 9 February German forces retreated to the line and the withdrawal was completed 5 April, leaving behind a devastated territory to be occupied by the Allies. This withdrawal negated the French strategy of attacking both flanks of the Noyon salient, as it no longer existed. However, offensive advances by the British continued as the High Command claimed, with some justice, that this withdrawal resulted from the casualties the Germans received during the Battles of the Somme and Verdun, despite the Allies suffering greater losses.

Map of the Western Front, 1917

Meanwhile, on 6 April the United States declared war on Germany. Back in early 1915 following the sinking of the Lusitania, Germany had stopped their unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic because of concerns of drawing the United States into the conflict. With the growing discontent of the German public due to the food shortages, however, the government resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917. They had calculated that a successful submarine and warship siege of Britain would force that country out of the war within six months, while American forces would take a year to become a serious factor on the western front. The submarine and surface ships had a long period of success before Britain resorted to the convoy system, bringing a large reduction in shipping losses.[57]

Western front By 191617, the size of the British army on the western front had grown to two-thirds the total numbers in the French forces.[13] In April 1917 the British Empire forces launched an attack starting the Battle of Arras. The Canadian Corps and the British 5th Infantry Division, attacked German lines at Vimy Ridge, but received heavy casualties. The Allied attack ended with the refusal to provide reinforcements to the region. During the winter of 191617, German air tactics had been improved, a fighter training school was opened at Valenciennes and better aircraft with twin guns were introduced. The result was near disastrous losses for Allied air power, particularly for the British, Portuguese, Belgians, and Australians who were struggling with outmoded aircraft, poor training and weak tactics. As a result the Allied air successes over the Somme would not be repeated, and heavy losses were inflicted by the Germans. During their attack at Arras, the British lost 316 air crews and the Canadians lost 114 compared to 44 lost by the Germans.[58] This became known to the RFC as Bloody April.

68

Low French morale


The same month, French General Robert Nivelle ordered a new offensive against the German trenches, promising that it would be a war-winner. The attack, dubbed the Nivelle Offensive (also known as Chemin des Dames, after the area where the offensive took place), would be 1.2 million men strong, to be preceded by a week-long artillery bombardment and accompanied by tanks. However, the operation proceeded poorly as the French troops, with the help of two Russian brigades,[59] had to negotiate rough, upward-sloping terrain. In addition, detailed planning had been dislocated by the voluntary German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line, A Benet-Mercier machine gun section of 2nd Rajput Light Infantry of British Indian Army in action in Flanders, during secrecy had been compromised, and German planes gained the winter of 191415. control of the sky making reconnaissance difficult. This allowed the creeping barrage to move too far ahead of the advancing troops. Within a week 100,000 French troops were dead. Despite the heavy casualties and his promise to halt the offensive if it did not produce a breakthrough, Nivelle ordered the attack continued into May. On 3 May the weary French 2nd Colonial Division, veterans of the Battle of Verdun, refused their orders, arriving drunk and without their weapons. Their officers lacked the means to punish an entire division, and harsh measures were not immediately implemented. Thereupon the mutinies afflicted 54 French divisions and saw 20,000 men desert. The other Allied forces attacked but received massive casualties.[60] However, appeals to patriotism and duty, as well as mass arrests and trials, encouraged the soldiers to return to defend their trenches, although the French soldiers refused to participate in further offensive action.[61] Nivelle was removed from command by 15 May, replaced by General Philippe Ptain, who suspended large-scale attacks. The French would go on the defensive for the following months, in order to avoid high casualties and to give back confidence to soldiers in their own High Command.

Western front

69

British offensives, American troops arrive


On 7 June a British offensive was launched on Messines ridge, south of Ypres, to retake the ground lost in the First and Second Battles of Ypres in 1914. Since 1915 specialist Royal Engineer tunnelling companies had been digging tunnels under the ridge, and about 500tonnes[62] (roughly 500,000kg) of explosives had been planted in 21 mines under the enemy lines. Following four days of heavy bombardment, the explosives in 19 of these mines were set off resulting in the deaths of 10,000 Germans. The offensive that followed again relied on heavy bombardment which allowed the British infantry to capture the ridge in one day. The limited offensive was a great success, all German counter-attacks were defeated and the southern flank of the Gheluvelt plateau protected from German observation.[63]

On 11 July 1917 during this battle, the Germans introduced a new weapon into the war when they fired gas shells delivered by artillery. The limited size of an artillery shell required that a more potent gas be deployed, and so the Germans employed mustard gas, a powerful blistering agent. The artillery deployment allowed heavy concentrations of the gas to be used on selected targets. Mustard gas was also a persistent agent, which could linger for up to several days at a site, an additional demoralizing factor for their opponents.[64] Along with phosgene, gas would be used lavishly by both German and Allied forces in later battles, as the Allies also began to increase production of gas for chemical warfare. On 25 June the first U.S. troops began to arrive in France, forming the American Expeditionary Force. However, the American units did not enter the trenches in divisional strength until October. The incoming troops required training and equipment before they could join in the effort, and for several months American units were relegated to support efforts.[65] In spite of this, however, their presence provided a much-needed boost to Allied morale. Beginning on 31 July July and continuing to 10 November the struggle around Ypres was renewed with the Battle of Passchendaele (technically the Third Battle of Ypres, of which Passchendaele was the final phase). The battle had the original aim of capturing the ridges east of Ypres then advancing to Roulers and Thourout to close the main rail line supplying the German garrisons of the western front and the Belgian coast then capturing the German submarine bases on the Belgian coast, but was later restricted to advancing the British Army onto the ridges around Ypres, as the unusually wet weather slowed British progress. Canadian veterans from the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the Battle of Hill 70 relieved the two ANZAC Corps and other British forces and took the village of Passchendaele on 6 November, despite extremely heavy rain and casualties. The offensive produced large numbers of casualties on both sides for relatively little gain of ground aganst dogged German resistance, yet that captured was of great tactical importance and the British made inexorable gains during periods of drier weather. The ground was generally muddy and pocked by shell craters, making supply missions and further advancement very difficult. Both sides lost a combined total of over a half million men during this offensive. The battle has become a byword among some British historians for bloody and futile slaughter, whilst the Germans called Passchendaele "the greatest martyrdom of the War". It is one of the two battles (the other is the Battle of the Somme) which have done most to earn British Commander in Chief Sir Douglas Haig his controversial reputation.

Two U.S soldiers run toward a bunker past the bodies of two German soldiers during World War I. Digitally restored.

Western front

70

Battle of Cambrai
On 20 November the British launched the first massed tank attack during the Battle of Cambrai.[66] The Allies attacked with 324 tanks, with one-third held in reserve, and twelve divisions, against two German divisions. To maintain surprise, there was no preparatory bombardment; only a curtain of smoke was laid down before the tanks. The machines carried fascines on their fronts to bridge trenches and 4 m-wide (12-foot-wide) German tank traps. Special "grapnel tanks" towed hooks to pull away the German barbed wire. The initial attack was a success for the British. The British forces penetrated further in six hours than had been achieved at the Third Ypres in four months, and at a cost of only 4,000 British casualties.[67][68] However, the advance produced an awkward salient and a surprise German counteroffensive on 30 November drove the British back to their starting lines. Despite the reversal, the attack had been seen as a success by the Allies and Germans as it proved that tanks could overcome trench defences. The battle had also seen the first massed use of German stosstruppen on the western front, which used infantry infiltration tactics to successfully penetrate the allied lines; bypassing resistance and quickly advancing into the enemy's rear.[69]

1918Final offensives

Map of the final German offensives, 1918

German tank in Roye, 21 March 1918

Following the successful Allied attack and penetration of the German defences at Cambrai, Ludendorff and Hindenburg determined that the only opportunity for German victory now lay in a decisive attack along the western front during the spring, before American manpower became a significant presence. On 3 March 1918, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed, and Russia withdrew from the war. This would now have a dramatic effect on the conflict as 33 divisions were now released from Eastern Front for deployment to the west. It is important to remember, however, that the Germans occupied almost as much Russian territory under the provisions of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as they did in the Second World War: this considerably restricted their troop redeployment. However, they still had an advantage of 192 divisions to the Allied 178 divisions, which allowed Germany to pull veteran units from the line and retrain them as sturmtruppen.[70] In contrast, the Allies still lacked a unified command and suffered from morale and manpower problems: the British and French armies were sorely depleted, and American troops had not yet transitioned into a combat role.

Western front Ludendorff's strategy would be to launch a massive offensive against the British and Commonwealth designed to separate them from the French and her allies, then drive them back to the channel ports. The attack would combine the new storm troop tactics with ground attack aircraft, tanks, and a carefully planned artillery barrage that would include gas attacks.

71

German spring offensives


Operation Michael,[71] the first of the German spring offensives, very nearly succeeded in driving the Allied armies apart, advancing about 40 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km) during the first eight days and moving the front lines more than 60 miles (100 km) west, within shelling distance of Paris for the first time since 1914. As a result of the battle, the Allies finally agreed on a unified system of command. General Ferdinand Foch was appointed commander of all Allied forces in France. The unified Allies were now better able to respond to each of the German drives, and the offensive turned into a battle of attrition. In May, the American divisions also began to play an increasing role, winning their first victory in the Battle of Cantigny. By summer, 300,000 American soldiers were arriving every month. A total of 2.1 million American troops would be deployed on this front before the war came to an end. The rapidly increasing American presence served as a counter for the large numbers of redeployed German forces.

Final allied offensives

A Belgian machinegunner on the front lines in 1918

Map of the final Allied offensives

In July, Foch initiated an offensive against the Marne salient produced during the German attacks, eliminating the salient by August. A second major offensive was launched two days after the first, ending at Amiens to the north. This attack included Franco-British forces, and was spearheaded by Australian and Canadian troops,[72] along with 600 tanks and supported by 800 aircraft. The assault proved highly successful, leading Hindenburg to name 8 August as the "Black Day of the German Army".[73] The German army's manpower had been severely depleted after four years of war, and its economy and society were under great internal strain. The Entente now fielded a total of 216 divisions against 197 understrength German divisions.[74] The Hundred Days Offensive beginning in August proved the final straw, and following this string of

Western front military defeats, German troops began to surrender in large numbers. As the Allied forces broke the German lines, Prince Maximilian of Baden was appointed as Chancellor of Germany in October in order to negotiate an armistice. Because of his opposition to the peace feelers, Ludendorff was forced to step aside and he fled to Sweden.[75] Fighting was still continuing, but the German armies were in retreat when the German Revolution put a new government in power. An armistice was quickly signed, that stopped all fighting on the Western Front on Armistice Day (11 November 1918).[76] The German Imperial Monarchy collapsed as Ludendorff's successor General Groener agreed, for fear of a revolution like that in Russia the previous year, to support the moderate Social Democratic Government under Friedrich Ebert rather than sustain the Hohenzollern Monarchy.[77]

72

Consequences
The war along the western front led the German government and its allies to sue for peace in spite of German success elsewhere. As a result the terms of the peace were dictated by France, Britain and the United States, during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The result was the Treaty of Versailles, signed in June 1919 by a delegation of the new German government. The terms of the treaty would effectively cripple Germany as an economic and military power. The Versailles treaty returned the border provinces of Alsace-Lorraine to France, thus limiting the coal required by German industry. The Saar, which formed the west bank of the Rhine, would be demilitarized and controlled by Britain and France, while the Kiel Canal opened to international traffic. The treaty also drastically reshaped Eastern Europe. It severely limited the German armed forces by restricting the size of the army to 100,000 and disallowing a navy or air force. The navy was sailed to Scapa Flow under the terms of surrender but was later scuttled, under the order of German admirals, as a reaction to the treaty.[78][79]

Comparison of Casualties from Major Western Front Battles


Battle 1st Marne First Battle of Ypres Verdun Somme 2nd Aisne 3rd Ypres Spring Offensive Hundred Days Offensive Total Casualties Year 1914 1914 1916 1916 1917 1917 1918 1918 Allies 263,000 126,921 - 161,921 400,000 - 542,000 German 220,000 134,315 355,000 - 434,000

623,907 465,000 - 595,294[80] 118,000 200,000 - 448,000 851,374 1,069,636 40,000 260,000 - 400,000 688,341 1,172,075

1914 - 1918 3,619,838 - 4,077,838 3,370,731 - 3,684,025

Germany in 1919 was bankrupt, the people living in a state of semi-starvation, and having no commerce with the remainder of the world. The allies occupied the Rhine cities of Cologne, Koblenz and Mainz, with restoration dependent on payment of reparations. Among the German populace, the myth aroseopenly cultivated by the Army Chief of Staff Hindenburgthat the defeat was not the fault of the 'good core' of the army but due to certain left-wing groups within Germany; this would later be exploited by Nazi party propaganda to partly justify the overthrow of the Weimar Republic.[81] See Stab-in-the-back legend. France suffered heavy damage in the war. In addition to losing more casualties relative to its population than any other great power, the industrial north-east of the country had been devastated by the war. The provinces overrun by Germany had produced 40% of the nation's coal and 58% of its steel output.[82] Once it was clear that Germany was

Western front going to be defeated, Ludendorff had ordered the destruction of the mines in France and Belgium.[83] His goal was to cripple the industries of Germany's main European rival. In order to prevent similar German aggression in the future, France later built a massive series of fortifications along the German border known as the Maginot Line.[84] The war in the trenches left a generation of maimed soldiers and war widows. The unprecedented loss of life had a lasting effect on popular attitudes toward war, resulting later in an Allied reluctance to pursue an aggressive policy toward Adolf Hitler[85] (himself a decorated veteran of the war). The repercussions of that struggle are still being felt to this day.

73

Dramatizations
Aces High (1976 film) Across the Black Waters (1939 novel), Mulk Raj Anand All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 film) All Quiet on the Western Front (1979 TV film) The Big Parade (1925 film) Behind the Lines (film) (1916 film) Beneath Hill 60 (2010 film) Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks (1994 novel) Blackadder Goes Forth (1989 TV series) The Blue Max (1966 British film) The Dawn Patrol (1930 and 1938 film) Flyboys (film) (2006 film) The General (novel), C.S. Forester (1932 novel) Generals Die in Bed, Charles Yale Harrison (1936 novel) Grand Illusion (1937 film) Johnny Got His Gun (1971 film) Joyeux Nol (2005 film) King & Country (1964 film) Legends of the Fall (1994 film) The Lost Battalion (1919 film, 2001 TV remake) Passchendaele (2008 film) Paths of Glory (1957 film) Rage of Angels, The, Alan Fisher (1997 novel) Sergeant York (1940 film) The Trench (1999 film) Under Fire, Henri Barbusse (1916 novel) A Very Long Engagement (2004 film) War Horse (2011 film) The Wars 1977 novel made into a film Westfront 1918 (1930 film) What Price Glory? (1926 film) What Price Glory? (1952 film) Wings (1927 film) Wooden Crosses (1932 film) "Yellow", Tales from the Crypt episode (1991) [86]

All Quiet on the Western Front, Erich Maria Remarque (1929 novel)

References
Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Various 2003, p.159. Griffith 2004, p.9. Griess 1986, pp.2224, 2526. Various 2003, p.254. Griffiths 2003, p.30. Griess 1986, pp.2930. Smith, Audoin-Rouzeau & Becker 2003, p.33. Zuckerman 2004, p.23. Described as such in the following books: John Horne (2010). A companion to World War I (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=5sm0LLZMzegC& pg=PA265). John Wiley and Sons. p.265. ISBN978-1-4051-2386-0. . Susan R. Grayzel (2002). Women and the First World War (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=MHhmOe8OQFsC& pg=PA16). Longman. p.16. ISBN978-0-582-41876-9. . Nicoletta Gullace (2002). The blood of our sons: men, women, and the renegotiation of British citizenship during the Great War (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=DCKVMN5OzxkC& pg=PA24). Palgrave Macmillan. p.24. ISBN978-0-312-29446-5. . Kimberly Jensen (2008). Mobilizing Minerva: American women in the First World War (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=xiaIGO5KxSYC& pg=PA30). University of Illinois Press. p.30. ISBN978-0-252-07496-7. . Thomas F. Schneider (2007). "Huns" vs. "Corned beef": representations of the other in American and German literature and film on World War I (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=sMwPYN_6aZAC& pg=PA32). V&R unipress GmbH. p.32. ISBN978-3-89971-385-5. .

Western front
Annette F. Timm; Joshua A. Sanborn (2007). Gender, sex and the shaping of modern Europe: a history from the French Revolution to the present day (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=7pE88il0dKsC& pg=PA138). Berg. p.138. ISBN978-1-84520-357-3. . Joseph R. Conlin (2008). The American Past (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=_Mm6r3lOY5gC& pg=PP251). Cengage Learning. pp.251. ISBN978-0-495-56622-9. . [10] Terraine 2002, pp.78175. [11] Mombauer, Annika (2006). "The Battle of the Marne: Myths and Reality of Germany's "Fateful Battle"". The Historian 68 (4): 747769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2006.00166.x. [12] Griess 1986, pp.3137. [13] Kennedy 1989, pp.2656. [14] Barton 2005, p.17. [15] Rickard, J (August 25, 2007). "First battle of Ypres, 19 October-22 November 1914" (http:/ / www. historyofwar. org/ articles/ battles_ypres1. html). historyofwar.org. . Retrieved 2007-11-22. [16] Baker, Chris. "Home > Myths and legends > The Christmas Truce of 1914" (http:/ / www. 1914-1918. net/ truce. htm). . Retrieved 2007-11-22. [17] Fuller 1992, p.165. [18] Lyons 2000, p.112. [19] Fuller 1992, pp.1667. [20] Fuller 1992, pp.1723. [21] Jones 2002, pp.223. [22] Spick 2002, p.326327. [23] Payne, David (December 2004). "The Military Aircraft Used By The Germans On The Western Front In The Great War" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20071209111940/ http:/ / www. westernfrontassociation. com/ thegreatwar/ articles/ factsandfigures/ germanaircraft. htm). The Western Front Association. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. westernfrontassociation. com/ thegreatwar/ articles/ factsandfigures/ germanaircraft. htm) on December 9, 2007. . Retrieved 2008-02-06. [24] Yoon, Joe (April 22, 2007). "Fighter Guns & Synchronization Gear" (http:/ / www. aerospaceweb. org/ question/ weapons/ q0303. shtml). Aerospaceweb.org. . Retrieved 2008-02-06. [25] Granatstein & Morton 2003, p.40. [26] Smith, Audoin-Rouzeau & Becker 2003, pp.7980. [27] Herwig 1997, p.165. [28] Lupfer 1981, pp.136. [29] Campbell 1981, pp.2627. [30] Bailey 2004, p.245. [31] Samuels 1995, pp.168171. [32] Palazzo 2000, p.66. [33] Hartesveldt 2005, p.17. [34] Warner 2000, pp.431. [35] Wiest 2005, p.xvii. [36] Lyons 2000, p.141. [37] Knox 2007, p.153. [38] Hull 2005, pp.295296. [39] Foley 2005, pp.207208. [40] Marshall 1964, pp.2367. [41] Campbell 1981, p.40. [42] Lyons 2000, p.143. [43] Martin 2001, pp.2883. [44] Jones & Hook 2007, pp.2324. [45] Foley 2005, p.224. [46] Lichfield, John (February 21, 2006). "Verdun: myths and memories of the 'lost villages' of France" (http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ news/ world/ europe/ verdun-myths-and-memories-of-the-lost-villages-of-france-467285. html). The Independent. . Retrieved 2011-04-13. [47] Griess 1986, pp.7172. [48] Campbell 1981, p.42. [49] Bailey, George (2005). "Modern project management and the lessons from the study of the transformation of the British Expeditionary Force in the Great War". Management Decision 43 (1): 5671. doi:10.1108/00251740510572489. [50] Prior & Wilson 2005, pp.280281. [51] Watson 2008, p.11. [52] WikiSysop (March 19, 2007). "Infantry Section" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070926225317/ http:/ / www. canadiansoldiers. com/ mediawiki-1. 5. 5/ index. php?title=Infantry_Section). Canadian Soldiers wiki. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. canadiansoldiers. com/ mediawiki-1. 5. 5/ index. php?title=Infantry_Section) on 2007-09-26. . Retrieved 2007-10-10. [53] Herwig 1997, pp.246252.

74

Western front
[54] Wynne, If Germany...., p. 290. [55] Dockrill & French 1996, p.68. [56] Marshall 1964, pp.2889. [57] Griess 1986, pp.1445. [58] Campbell 1981, p.71. [59] Cockfield 1999, pp.91114. [60] Lyons 2000, p.243. [61] Marshall 1964, p.292. [62] Bostyn 2002, p. 227.the estimated quantity of explosives of all types is about 500,000kg, or 500tonnes (492tons). As the value is only an approximation, 500tons was used as the imperial equivalent. [63] Edmonds, J OH 1917 II p.87 [64] Fuller 1992, pp.1734. [65] Griess 1986, p.124. [66] "The Cambrai Operations, 20 November - 7 December 1917" (http:/ / www. 1914-1918. net/ bat21. htm). The Long, Long Trail. Milverton Associates Limited. . Retrieved 2006-08-10. [67] Marshall 1964, p.317. [68] Paschall 1994, pp.115116. [69] Lupfer 1981, p.40. [70] Herwig 1997, pp. 393397,400401. 40 infantry and 3 cavalry divisions were retained for German occupation duties in the east. [71] Marshall 1964, pp.3537. [72] Ekins 2010, p.24. [73] Griess 1986, pp.155156. [74] Kennedy 1989, pp. 266302. French, 60 British Empire, 42 (double-sized) American and 12 Belgian divisions. [75] Herwig 1997, pp.426428. [76] Griess 1986, p.163. [77] Herwig 1997, p.446. [78] Massie 2004, p.787. [79] Duffy, Michael (July 2000). "Primary Documents: Treaty of Versailles, 28 June 1919" (http:/ / www. firstworldwar. com/ source/ versailles. htm). FirstWorldWar.com. . Retrieved 2007-10-16. [80] Philpott 2010, p.521. [81] Herwig 1996, pp.87127. [82] Chickering & Frster 2000, p.297. [83] Marshall 1964, p.460. [84] Alexander 2003, p.180. [85] Adamthwaite 1989, pp.2526. [86] http:/ / www. imdb. com/ title/ tt0084889/

75

Bibliography Adamthwaite, Anthony P. (1989). The Making of the Second World War. Routledge. ISBN0415907160. Alexander, Martin S. (2003). The Republic in Danger: General Maurice Gamelin and the Politics of French Defence, 19331940. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521524296. Bailey, Jonathan B. A. (2004). Field artillery and firepower. AUSA Institute of Land Warfare book (2nd ed.). Naval Institute Press. ISBN1591140293. Barton, Peter; Doyle, Peter; Vandewalle, Johan (2005). Beneath Flanders Fields: The Tunnellers' War, 1914-1918. McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN0773529497. Bostyn, Franky (2002). "Zero Hour: Historical Note on the British Underground War in Flanders, 1915-17". In Peter Doyle, Matthew R. Bennett. Fields of Battle: Terrain in Military History. Springer. ISBN1402004338. Campbell, Christopher (1981). Aces and Aircraft of World War I. Dorset: Blandford Press Ltd. ISBN0713709545. Chickering, Roger; Frster, Stig (2000). Great War, Total War: Combat and Mobilization on the Western Front, 1914-1918. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521773520. Cockfield, Jamie H. (1999). With Snow on Their Boots: The Tragic Odyssey of the Russian Expeditionary Force in France During World War I. Macmillan. ISBN0312220820. Corrigan, Gordon (1999). Sepoys in the Trenches: The Indian Corps on the Western Front 19141915. Spellmount Ltd. ISBN1-86227-354-5.

Western front Dockrill, Michael L.; French, David (1996). Strategy and intelligence: British policy during the First World War. Continuum International Publishing Group. p.77. ISBN185285099X. Ekins, Ashley (2010). 1918 - Year of Victory: The End of the Great War and the Shaping of History. Exisle Publishing. ISBN1921497424. Foley, Robert T. (2005). German Strategy and the Path to Verdun: Erich von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition, 1870-1916. Cornell University Press. ISBN0801442583. Fuller, John F. C. (1992). The Conduct of War, 17891961: A study of the impact of the French, Industrial and Russian revolutions on war and its conduct. New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN0306804670. Granatstein, Jack; Morton, Desmond (2003). Canada and the Two World Wars. Toronto: Key Porter. Griffith, Paddy (2004). Fortifications of the Western Front 1914-18. Osprey Publishing. ISBN1841767603. Griffiths, William R. (1986). Thomas E. Griess. ed. The Great War. Wayne, NJ: Avery Publishing Group. ISBN0895293129. Griffiths, William R. (2003). The Great War. Square One Publishers, Inc. ISBN0757001580. Hartesveldt, Fred R. van (2005). The battles of the British Expeditionary Forces, 1914-1915: historiography and annotated bibliography. Bibliographies of battles and leaders. Greenwood Publishing Group. p.17. ISBN0313306257. Herwig, Holger H. (1997). The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary, 1914-1918. St. Martin's Press, Inc. ISBN0-340-57384-1. Herwig, Holger (1996). "Patriotic Self-Censorship in Germany After the Great War". In Keith Wilson. Forging the collective memory. Berghahn Books. ISBN9781571818621. Hull, Isabel V. (2005). Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521841933. Jones, Simon (2002). World War I Gas Warfare Tactics and Equipment. Osprey Publishing. ISBN1846031516. Jones, Simon; Hook, Richard (2007). World War I Gas Warfare Tactics and Equipment. Osprey Publishing. ISBN1846031516. Kennedy, Paul (1989). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Vintage Books. ISBN0679720197. Knox, MacGregor (2007). To the Threshold of Power, 1922/33: Origins and Dynamics of the Fascist and National Socialist Dictatorships. 1. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521878608. Lupfer, Timothy T. (July 1981). The Dynamics of Doctrine, The Changes in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War (http://books.google.com/books?id=8jI3CaPI__UC). U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Lyons, Michael J. (2000). World War I: A Short History (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN0130205516. Marshall, Samuel L. A. (1964). The American Heritage History of World War I. American Heritage: Oxford University Press. ISBN0517385554. Martin, William (2001). Verdun 1916: They Shall Not Pass. Osprey Publishing. ISBN1-85532-993-X. Massie, Robert K. (2004). Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN0-345-40878-0. Nicholson, Gerald W. L. (2007). The Fighting Newfoundlander. Carleton Library Series. 209. McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN0773532064. Palazzo, Albert (2000). Seeking Victory on the Western Front: The British Army and Chemical Warfare in World War I. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN0803287747. Paschall, Rod (1994). The defeat of imperial Germany, 1917-1918. 1. Da Capo Press. pp.105117. ISBN0306805855. Philpott, William (2010). Three Armies on the Somme: The First Battle of the Twentieth Century (http://books. google.com/books?id=8MXGNxVINkAC&pg=PA521). Random House Digital, Inc. ISBN0307265854. Retrieved 2011-04-11. Prior, Robin; Wilson, Trevor (2005). The Somme. Yale University Press. ISBN0300106947.

76

Western front Samuels, Martin (1995). Command or control?: command, training and tactics in the British and German armies, 1888-1918. Psychology Press. ISBN0714645702. Smith, Leonard V.; Audoin-Rouzeau, Stphane; Becker, Annette (2003). France and the Great War, 1914-1918. New approaches to European history. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521666317. Spick, Mike (2002). The Illustrated Directory of Fighters. Zenith Imprint. ISBN0760313431. Terraine, John (2002). Mons: The Retreat to Victory. Wordsworth Editions. ISBN1840222433. Various (2003). Hamilton, Richard F.; Herwig, Holger H.. ed. The Origins of World War I. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521817358. Warner, Philip (2000). The Battle of Loos. Wordsworth Military Library, Military History Series. Wordsworth Editions. ISBN1840222298. Wiest, Andrew A. (2005). Haig: The Evolution of a Commander. Brassey's. ISBN1574886843. Watson, Alexander (2008). Enduring the Great War: combat, morale and collapse in the German and British armies, 1914-1918. Cambridge military histories. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521881013. Wynne, G.C. (1976). If Germany Attacks : The Battle in Depth in the West. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN0837150299. Zuckerman, Larry (2004). The Rape of Belgium: The Untold Story of World War I. New York: New York University Press. ISBN978-0-8147-9704-4.

77

External links
The Western Front Museum (http://www.westernfront.nl/) Articles on the Western Front in Lorraine & Alsace at Battlefields Europe (http://battlefieldseurope.co.uk/ default.aspx) 'That Contemptible Little Army' (http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Contemptible_Army/ Contemptible_Army_01.htm) by E. Alexander Powell. The British Army Seen by an American Journalist in 1916 Information and multimedia on the Western Front. An interactive forum area where Western front stories and pictures can be posted (http://www.forgingtheanzacs.com/) Watch clips from the Australian War Memorial's collection of films made on the Western Front 1917-1918 (http:/ /aso.gov.au/titles/collections/awm-western-front/) on the National Film and Sound Archive's australianscreen online (http://aso.gov.au/)

Naval warfare

78

Naval warfare
Naval warfare in World War I was mainly characterized by the efforts of the Allied Powers, with their larger fleets and surrounding position, to blockade the Central Powers by sea, and the efforts of the Central Powers to break that blockade or to establish an effective blockade of the United Kingdom and France with submarines and raiders.

Prelude
The naval arms race between Britain and Germany to build dreadnought battleships in the early 20th century is the subject of a number of books. Germany's attempt to build a battleship fleet to match that of the United Kingdom, the dominant naval power The British Grand Fleet imposing the blockade of Germany at the outbreak of war in on the 19th-century and an island 1914 country that depended on seaborne trade for survival, is often listed as a major reason for the enmity between those two countries that led the UK to enter World War I. German leaders desired a navy in proportion to their military and economic strength that could free their overseas trade and colonial empire from dependence on Britain's good will, but such a fleet would inevitably threaten Britain's own trade and empire. Ever since the first Moroccan crisis (over the colonial status of Morocco, between March 1905 and May 1906,) there had been an arms race, over their respective navies. However there were events leading up to this. Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan was an American naval officer, extremely interested in British naval history. In 1887, he published The Influence of Sea Power upon History. The theme of this book was naval supremacy as the key to the modern world. His argument was that every nation that had ruled the waves, from Rome to Great Britain, had prospered and thrived, while those that lacked naval supremacy, such as Hannibals Carthage or Napoleons France, had not. He hypothesized that what Britain had done in building a navy to control the worlds sea lanes, others could also do indeed must do if they were to keep up with the race for wealth and empire in the future.

Naval arms race


Mahan's thesis was highly influential and lead to an explosion of new naval construction worldwide. The US congress immediately ordered the building of three battleships (with a fourth USSIowa, to be built two years later). Japan, whose British trained navy wiped out the Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima, helped to reinforce the concept of naval power as the dominant factor in conflict. However, the book made the most impact in Germany. The German Kaiser Wilhelm II had been brought up amongst the Royal Navy, when he visited his grandmother, Queen Victoria. His mother said "Wilhelms one idea is to have a Navy which shall be larger and stronger than the British navy". In 1898 came the first German Fleet Act, two years later a second doubled the number of ships to be built, to 19 battleships and 23 cruisers in the next 20 years. In another decade, Germany would go from a naval ranking lower than Austria to having the second largest battle fleet in the world. For the first time since Trafalgar, Britain had an aggressive and truly dangerous rival to worry about. Mahan wrote in his book that not only world peace or the empire, but Britains very survival depended on the Royal Navy ruling the waves. Indeed, the Cambridge 1895 Latin essay prize was on "British Sea Power" (in Latin obviously). So when the great naval review of June 1897 for the Queens diamond Jubilee took place, it was in an atmosphere of unease and uncertainty. The question everyone wanted to know the answer to was how Britain was

Naval warfare going to stay ahead. But Mahan couldnt give any answers. The man who thought he could was Jackie Fisher, then Commander in Chief, Mediterranean Fleet. He believed there were "Five strategic keys to the empire and world economic system: Gibraltar, Alexandria and Suez, Singapore, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Straits of Dover." His job was to keep hold of all of them.

79

HMS Dreadnought
When he became First Sea Lord, Fisher began drawing up plans for a naval war against Germany. "Germany keeps her whole fleet always concentrated within a few hours of England," he told the Prince of Wales in 1906. "We must therefore keep a fleet twice as powerful within a few hours of Germany." He thus began work on HMSDreadnought, launched at Portsmouth in 1906, and she made all previous warships obsolete. She had steam turbine engines, making her the fastest capital ship then afloat, capable of doing 21kn (unknown Design of the revolutionary battleship operator: u'strong'mph; unknown operator: u'strong'km/h) HMSDreadnought. certainly faster than any threatening submarine. She carried ten 12inch guns, whereas her biggest and closest competitors carried only four. The dreadnoughts guns were emplaced in five turrets, one fore, two in wing turrets, and two aft. Fisher proclaimed, We shall have ten Dreadnoughts at sea before a single foreign Dreadnought is launched, and we have thirty percent more cruisers than Germany and France put together!.

German response
Admiral Alfred Tirpitz had also often visited Portsmouth as a naval cadet and admired and envied the Royal Navy. Like the Kaiser, Tirpitz believed Germanys future dominant role in the world depended on a navy powerful enough to challenge it. He demanded large numbers of battleships. Even when Dreadnought was launched making his previously constructed 15 battleships obsolete, he believed that eventually Germanys technological and industrial might would allow Germany to out-build Britain ship for ship. Using the threat of his own resignation he forced the Reichstag to build three dreadnoughts and a battle cruiser. He also put aside money for a future submarine branch. At the rate that Tirpitz insisted upon, Germany would have thirteen in

SMSRheinland, a Nassau-class battleship, Germany's first response to Dreadnought.

1912, to Britains 16. When this was leaked out to the British public in spring 1909, there was public outcry. The public demanded eight new battleships instead of the four the government had planned for that year. As Winston Churchill put it, The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight. So the pro-navy party had won but at what cost? Tirpitz had no option but to consider Britains new dreadnought building program as a direct threat to Germany. He had to respond, raising the stakes further. However, the commitment of funds to out-build the Germans meant Britain was abandoning any notion of a two-power standard for naval superiority. No amount of money would allow Britain to compete with Germany and Russia or the USA, or even Italy. Thus a new policy, of dominance over the worlds second leading sea power by a 60% margin went into effect. Fishers staff had been getting increasingly annoyed by the way he refused to tolerate any difference in opinion, and the eight dreadnought demand had been the last straw. Thus on January 25, 1910, Fisher left the admiralty. Shortly after Fisher's resignation, Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty. Under him, the race

Naval warfare would be continued; indeed Lloyd George nearly resigned when Churchill presented him with the naval budget of 1914 of 50 million pounds . By the start of the war Germany had an impressive fleet both of capital ships and submarines. Other nations had smaller fleets, generally with a lower proportion of battleships and a larger proportion of smaller ships like destroyers and submarines. France, Italy, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Japan, and the United States all had modern fleets with at least some dreadnoughts and submarines.

80

Naval technology
Naval technology in World War I was dominated by the battleship. Battleships were built along the dreadnought model, with several large turrets of equally sized big guns. In general terms, British ships had larger guns and were equipped and manned for quicker fire than their German counterparts. In contrast, the German ships had better optical equipment and rangefinding, and were much better compartmentalized and able to deal with damage. The Germans also generally had better propellant handling procedures, a point that was to have disastrous consequences for the British battlecruisers at Jutland. Many of the individual parts of ships had recently improved dramatically. The introduction of the turbine led to much higher performance, as well as taking up less room and thereby allowing for improved layout. Whereas pre-dreadnought battleships were generally limited to about 1217 kn (unknown operator: u'strong'unknown operator: u'strong'unknown operator: u'strong' unknown operator: u'strong'; unknown operator: u'strong'unknown operator: u'strong'unknown operator: u'strong' unknown operator: u'strong'), modern ships were capable of at least 20kn (unknown operator: u'strong'mph; unknown operator: u'strong'km/h), and in the latest British classes, 24kn (unknown operator: u'strong'mph; unknown operator: u'strong'km/h). The introduction of the gyroscope and centralized fire control, the "director" in British terms, led to dramatic improvements in gunnery. Ships built before 1900 had effective ranges of perhaps 2000yd (unknown operator: u'strong'm), whereas the first "new" ships were good to at least 8000yd (unknown operator: u'strong'm), and modern designs to over 10000yd (unknown operator: u'strong'm). One class of ship that appeared just before the war was the battlecruiser. There were two schools of thought on battlecruiser design. The first, the British design, were armed like their heavier dreadnought cousins, but deliberately lacked armor to save weight in order to improve speed. The concept was that these ships would be able to outgun anything smaller than themselves, and run away from anything larger. The German designs opted to trade slightly smaller main armament (11 or 12inch guns compared to 12 or 13.5inch guns in their British rivals) for speed, while keeping relatively heavy armor. They could operate independently in the open ocean where their speed gave them room to maneuver, or alternately as a fast scouting force in front of a larger fleet action. The torpedo boat caused considerable worry for many naval planners. In theory a large number of these inexpensive ships could attack in masses and overwhelm a dreadnought force. This led to the introduction of ships dedicated to keeping them away from the fleets, the torpedo boat destroyers, or simply destroyers. Although the mass raid continued to be a possibility, another solution was found in the form of the submarine, increasingly in use. The submarine could approach underwater, safe from the guns of both the capital ships and the destroyers (although not for long), and fire a salvo as deadly as a torpedo boat's. Limited range and speed, especially underwater, made these weapons difficult to use tactically. Submarines were generally more effective in attacking poorly defended merchant ships than in fighting surface warships, though several small to medium British warships were lost to torpedoes launched from German U-boats. Oil was just being introduced to replace coal, containing as much as 40% more energy per volume, extending range and further improving internal layout. Another advantage was that oil gave off considerably less smoke, making visual detection more difficult. This was generally mitigated by the small number of ships so equipped, generally operating in concert with coal-fired ships.

Naval warfare Radio was in early use, with naval ships commonly equipped with radio telegraph, merchant ships less so. Sonar was in its infancy by the end of the war. Aviation was primarily focused on reconnaissance, with the aircraft carrier being developed over the course of the war, and bomber aircraft capable of lifting only relatively light loads. Naval mines were also increasingly well developed. Defensive mines along coasts made it much more difficult for capital ships to get close enough to conduct coastal bombardment or support attacks. The first battleship sinking in the war that of HMSAudacious was the result of her striking a naval mine on 27 October 1914. Suitably placed mines also served to restrict the freedom of movement of submarines.

81

Theaters
North Sea
The North Sea was the main theater of the war for surface action. The British Grand Fleet took position against the German High Seas Fleet. Britain's larger fleet could maintain a blockade of Germany, cutting it off from overseas trade and resources. Germany's fleet remained mostly in harbor behind their screen of mines, occasionally attempting to lure the British fleet into battle (one of such attempts was the bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft) in the hopes of weakening them enough to break the blockade or allow the High Seas Fleet to attack British shipping and trade. Britain strove to maintain the blockade and, if possible, to damage the German fleet enough to remove the threat to the islands and free the Grand Fleet for use elsewhere. Major battles included those at Heligoland Bight (two of them), Dogger Bank, and Jutland. In general, Britain, though not always tactically successful, was able to maintain the blockade and keep the High Seas Fleet in port, although the High Seas Fleet remained a threat that kept the vast majority of Britain's capital ships in the North Sea. The set-piece battles and maneuvering have drawn historians' attention but it was the blockade of German commerce through the North Sea, which ultimately starved the German people and industries and contributed to Germany seeking the Armistice of 1918.

English Channel
Although the English Channel was of vital importance to the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) fighting in France, there were no big warships of the British Royal Navy in the Channel. The primary threat to the British forces in the Channel was the German High Seas Fleet based near Heligoland; the German fleet, if let out into the North Sea, could have destroyed any ship in the Channel. The German High Seas Fleet could muster at least 13 dreadnoughts and many armoured cruisers along with dozens of destroyers to attack the Channel.[1] The High Seas Fleet would be fighting against only six armoured cruisers that were laid down in 1898-1899, far too old to accompany the big, fast dreadnoughts of the Grand Fleet based in Scapa Flow.[2] The U-boat threat in the Channel, although real, was not a significant worry to the Admiralty because they regarded submarines as useless.[3] Even the German high command regarded the U-boat as, "experimental vessels."[4] Although the Channel was a major artery of the BEF, the Channel was never attacked directly by the High Seas Fleet.

Naval warfare

82

Atlantic
While Germany was greatly inconvenienced by Britain's blockade, Britain, as an island nation, was heavily dependent on resources imported by sea. German submarines (U-boats) were of limited effectiveness against surface warships on their guard, but were greatly effective against merchant ships. In 1915, Germany declared a naval blockade of Britain, to be enforced by its U-boats. The U-boats sank hundreds of Allied merchant ships. However, submarines normally attack by stealth. This made it difficult to give warning before attacking a merchant ship or to rescue survivors. This resulted in many civilian deaths, especially when passenger ships were sunk. It also violated the Prize Rules of the Hague Convention. Furthermore, the U-boats also sank neutral ships in the blockade area, either intentionally or because identification was difficult from underwater. This turned neutral opinion against the Central Powers, as countries like the U.S. and Brazil suffered casualties and losses to their trade. In early 1917, Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare, including attacks without warning against all ships in the "war zone", including neutrals. This was a major cause of U.S. declaration of war on Germany. The U-boat campaign ultimately sank about half of all British merchant shipping, and caused serious shortages of food and other necessities. The U-boats were eventually defeated by grouping merchant ships into defended convoys. This was also assisted by U.S. entry into the war and the increasing use of primitive sonar and aerial patrolling to detect and track submarines.

Mediterranean
Some limited sea combat took place between the navies of Austria-Hungary and Germany and the Allied navies of France, Britain, Italy and Japan. The navy of the Ottoman Empire only sortied out of the Dardanelles once late in the war during the Battle of Imbros, preferring to focus its operations in the Black Sea. The main fleet action was the Allied attempt to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war by an attack on Istanbul in 1915. This attempt turned into the Battle of Gallipoli which was an Allied defeat. For the rest of the war, naval action consisted almost entirely in submarine combat by the Austrians and Germans and blockade duty by the Allies.

U-boat sinking a troopship, painting by Willy Stwer

Black Sea
The Black Sea was the domain of the Russians and the Ottoman Empire. The large Russian fleet was based in Sevastopol and it was led by two diligent commanders: Admiral Eberhardt (19141916) and Admiral Kolchak (19161917). The Ottoman fleet on the other hand was in a period of transition with many obsolete ships. It had been expecting to receive two powerful dreadnoughts fitting out in Britain, but the UK seized the completed Reshadiye and Sultan Osman I with the outbreak of war with Germany and incorporated them into the Royal Navy. The war in the Black Sea started when the Ottoman Fleet bombarded several Russian cities in October 1914. The most advanced ships in the Ottoman fleet consisted of two ships of the German Mediterranean Fleet: the powerful battlecruiser SMSGoeben and the speedy light cruiser SMSBreslau, both under the command of the skilled German Admiral Wilhelm Souchon. Goeben was a modern design, and with her well-drilled crew, could easily outfight or outrun any single ship in the Russian fleet. However, even though the opposing Russian battleships were slower, they were often able to amass in superior numbers to outgun Goeben, forcing her to flee.

Naval warfare A continual series of cat and mouse operations ensued for the first two years with both sides' admirals trying to capitalize on their particular tactical strengths in a surprise ambush. Numerous battles between the fleets were fought in the initial years, and Goeben and Russian units were damaged on several occasions. The Russian Black Sea fleet was mainly used to support General Yudenich in his Caucasus Campaign. However, the appearance of Goeben could dramatically change the situation, so all activities, even shore bombardment, had to be conducted by almost the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet, since a smaller force could fall victim to Goeben's speed and guns. However by 1916, this situation had swung in the Russians favour - Goeben had been in constant service for the past two years. Due to a lack of facilities, the ship was not able to enter refit and began to suffer chronic engine breakdowns. Meanwhile, the Russian Navy had received the modern dreadnought Imperatritsa Mariya which although slower, would be able to stand up to and outfight Goeben. Although the two ships skirmished briefly, neither managed to capitalize on their tactical advantage and the battles ended with Goeben fleeing and Imperatritsa Mariya gamely trying to pursue. However, the Russian ship's arrival severely curtailed Goeben's activities and so by this time, the Russian fleet had nearly complete control of the sea, exacerbated by the addition of another dreadnought, Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya. German and Turkish light forces would however continue to raid and harass Russian shipping until the end of the war in the east. After Admiral Kolchak took command in August 1916, he planned to invigorate the Russian Black Seas Fleet with a series of aggressive actions. The Russian fleet mined the exit from the Bosporus, preventing nearly all Ottoman ships from entering the Black Sea. Later that year, the naval approaches to Varna, Bulgaria were also mined. The greatest loss suffered by the Russian Black Sea fleet was the destruction of Imperatritsa Mariya, which blew up in port on October 20 (October 7 o.s.) 1916, just one year after being commissioned. The subsequent investigation determined that the explosion was probably accidental, though sabotage could not be completely ruled out. The event shook Russian public opinion. The Russians continued work on two additional dreadnoughts under construction, and the balance of power remained in Russian hands until the collapse of Russian resistance in November 1917. To support the Anglo-French attack on the Dardanelles, British and French submarines were sent into the Black Sea in the Spring of 1915. A number of Turkish supply ships and warships were sunk but several submarines were lost. The boats were withdrawn at the evacuation of the Dardanelles in January 1916.

83

Baltic Sea
In the Baltic Sea, Germany and Russia were the main combatants, with a number of British submarines sailing through the Kattegat to assist the Russians. With the German fleet larger and more modern (many High Seas Fleet ships could easily be deployed to the Baltic when the North Sea was quiet), the Russians played a mainly defensive role, at most attacking convoys between Germany and Sweden. A major coup for the Allied forces occurred on August 26, 1914 when as part of a reconnaissance squadron, the light cruiser SMSMagdeburg ran aground in heavy fog in the Gulf of Finland. The other German ships tried to refloat her, but decided to scuttle her instead when they became aware of an approaching Russian intercept force. Russian Navy divers scoured the wreck and successfully recovered the German naval codebook which was later passed on to their British Allies and provided immeasurably to Allied success in the North Sea. With heavy defensive and offensive mining on both sides, fleets played a limited role in the Eastern Front. The Germans mounted major naval attacks on the Gulf of Riga, unsuccessfully in August 1915 and successfully in October 1917, when they occupied the islands in the Gulf and damaged Russian ships departing from the city of Riga, recently captured by Germany. This second operation culminated in the one major Baltic action, the battle of Moon Sound at which the Russian battleship Slava was sunk. By March 1918, the Russian Revolution and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk made the Baltic a German lake, and German fleets transferred troops to support the White side in the Finnish Civil War and to occupy much of Russia, halting only when defeated in the West.

Naval warfare

84

Other Oceans
A number of German ships stationed overseas at the start of the war engaged in raiding operations in poorly defended seas, such as SMSEmden, which raided into the Indian Ocean, sinking or capturing thirty Allied merchant ships and warships, bombarding Madras and Penang, and destroying a radio relay on the Cocos Islands before being sunk there by HMASSydney. Better known was the German East Asia Squadron, commanded by Admiral Graf Maximilian von Spee, who sailed across the Pacific, raiding Papeete and winning the Battle of Coronel before being defeated and mostly destroyed at the Battle of the Falkland Islands. The last remnant's of Spee's squadron were interned at Chilean ports and destroyed at the Battle of Mas a Tierra. Allied naval forces captured many of the isolated German colonies, with Samoa, Micronesia, Qingdao, German New Guinea, Togo, and Cameroon falling in the first year of the war. Despite the loss of the last German cruiser in the Indian Ocean, SMSKnigsberg, off the coast of German East Africa in July 1915, German East Africa held out in a long guerilla land campaign. British naval units despatched through Africa under Lieutenant-Commander Geoffrey Spicer-Simson had won strategic control of Lake Tanganyika in a series of engagements by February 1916, though fighting on land in German East Africa continued until 1918.

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ history/ worldwars/ wwone/ war_sea_gallery_01. shtml Castles of Steel by Robert K. Massie pg. 129 Castles of Steel by Robert K. Massie pg. 122 Castles of Steel by Robert K. Massie pg. 126

External links
World's Navies in World War 1, Campaigns, Battles, Warship losses (http://www.worldwar1atsea.net) Turkish Navy in the First World War (http://www.turkeyswar.com/navy/navy_index.htm) German Naval Warfare - Room 40 Documents (http://germannavalwarfare.info/) Hans Joachim Koerver. German Submarine Warfare 1914 - 1918 in the Eyes of British Intelligence, LIS Reinisch 2010, ISBN 978-3902433794

Balkans campaign

85

Balkans campaign
The Balkans Campaign of World War I was fought between Central Powers Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary, and Germany on one side and the Allies Serbia, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Montenegro (and later Romania and Greece, who sided with the Allied Powers) on the other side.

Overview
The prime cause of World War I being the hostility between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, it isn't surprising that some of the earliest fighting took place between Serbia and its powerful neighbour to the north: Austria-Hungary. Serbia held out against Austria-Hungary for more than a year before it was conquered in late 1915. Dalmatia was a strategic region during World War I that both Italy and Serbia intended to seize from Austria-Hungary. Italy entered the war in 1915 upon agreeing to the Treaty of London that guaranteed Italy a substantial portion of Dalmatia. Allied diplomacy was able to bring Romania into the war in 1916 but this proved disastrous for the Romanians. Shortly after they joined the war, a combined German, Austrian and Bulgarian offensive conquered two-thirds of their country in a rapid campaign which ended in December 1916. However, the Romanian and Russian armies managed to stabilize the front and hold on to Moldavia. In 1917, Greece entered the war on the Allied side, and in 1918, the multi-national Army of the Orient, based in northern Greece, finally launched an offensive which drove Bulgaria to seek peace, recaptured Serbia and finally halted only at the border of Hungary in November 1918.

Serbian Campaign
The Serbian Army was successfully able to rebuff the larger Austro-Hungarian Army due to Russia's assisting invasion from the north. In 1915 the Austro-Hungarian Empire placed additional soldiers in the south front while diplomatically coercing Bulgaria to engage as an ally. Shortly after the Serbian forces were attacked from both the north and east, forcing a retreat to Greece. Despite the loss, the retreat was successful and the Serbian Army remained operational in Greece with a newly established base.

Romanian Campaign
Romania before the war was an ally of Austria-Hungary but, like Italy, refused to join the war when it started. The Romanian government finally chose to side with the Allies in August 1916, the main reason for this was that they wanted the occupation and annexation of Transylvania, to the Kingdom of Romania. The war started as a total disaster for Romania. Before the year was out, the Germans, Hungarians, Austrians, Bulgarians and Ottomans had conquered Wallachia and Dobruja and captured more than half of its army as POWs. In 1917, re-trained (mainly by a French expeditionary corps under the command of General Henri Berthelot) and re-supplied, the Romanian Army, together with a disintegrating Russian Army, were successful in containing the German advance into Moldavia. In May 1918, after the German advance in Ukraine and Russia signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Romania, surrounded by the Central Powers forces, had no other choice but to sue for peace (see Treaty of Bucharest, 1918). After the successful offensive on the Thessaloniki front which knocked Bulgaria out of the war, Romania re-entered the war on November 10, 1918.

Balkans campaign

86

Italian Campaign
Dalmatia was a strategic region during World War I that both Italy and Serbia intended to seize from Austria-Hungary. Italy joined the Triple Entente Allies in 1915 upon agreeing to the London Pact that guaranteed Italy the right to annex a large portion of Dalmatia in exchange for Italy's participation on the Allied side. From 5-6 November 1918, Italian forces were reported to have reached Lissa, Lagosta, Sebenico, and other localities on the Dalmatian coast.[1] By the end of hostilities in November 1918, the Italian military had seized control of the entire portion of Dalmatia that had been guaranteed to Italy by the London Pact and by 17 November had seized Fiume as well.[2] In 1918, Admiral Enrico Millo declared himself Italy's Governor of Dalmatia.[3] Famous Italian nationalist Gabriele d'Annunzio supported the seizure of Dalmatia, and proceeded to Zadar in an Italian warship in December 1918.[4]

Bulgarian Campaign
In the aftermath of the Balkan Wars Bulgarian opinion turned against Russia and the western powers, whom the Bulgarians felt had done nothing to help them. The government aligned Bulgaria with Germany and Austria-Hungary, even though this meant also becoming an ally of the Ottomans, Bulgaria's traditional enemy. But Bulgaria now had no claims against the Ottomans, whereas Serbia, Greece and Romania (allies of Britain and France) were all in possession of lands perceived as Bulgarian. Bulgaria, recuperating from the Balkan Wars, sat out the first year of World War I, but when Germany promised to restore the boundaries of the Treaty of San Stefano, Bulgaria, which had the largest army in the Balkans, declared war on Serbia in October 1915. Britain, France and Italy then declared war on Bulgaria. Although Bulgaria, in alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary, won military victories against Serbia and Romania, occupying much of Southern Serbia (taking Nish, Serbia's war capital in November 5th), advancing into Greek Macedonia, and taking Dobruja from the Romanians in September 1916, the war soon became unpopular with the majority of Bulgarian people, who suffered enormous economic hardship. The Russian Revolution of February 1917 had a great effect in Bulgaria, spreading antiwar and anti-monarchist sentiment among the troops and in the cities. In September 1918 the Serbs, British, French, Italians and Greeks broke through on the Macedonian front,but they were stopped in Doiran and didn't succeed to occupy Bulgarian lands. Tsar Ferdinand was forced to sue for peace. In order to head off the revolutionaries, Ferdinand abdicated in favour of his son Boris III. The revolutionaries were suppressed and the army disbanded. Under the Treaty of Neuilly (November 1919), Bulgaria lost its Aegean coastline in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers (transferred later by them to Greece) and nearly all of its Macedonian territory to the new state of Yugoslavia, and had to give Dobruja back to the Romanians (see also Dobruja, Western Outlands, Western Thrace).
Bulgaria during World War I

Balkans campaign

87

Macedonian front
In 1915 the Austrians gained military support from Germany and, with diplomacy, brought in Bulgaria as an ally. Serbian forces were attacked from both north and south and were forced to retreat. The retreat was skillfully carried out and the Serbian army remained operational, even though it was now based in Greece. The front stabilised roughly around the Greek border, through the intervention of a Franco-British-Italian force which had landed in Salonica. The German generals had not let the Bulgarian army advance towards Salonika, because they hoped they could persuade the Greeks to join the Central powers. Three years later (1918) this mistake was already irreparable. In 1918, after a prolonged build-up, the Allies, under the energetic French General Franchet d'Esperey leading a combined French, Serbian, Greek and British army, attacked out of Greece. His initial victories convinced the Bulgarian government to sue for peace. He then attacked north and defeated the German and Austrian forces that tried to halt his offensive. By October 1918 his army had recaptured all of Serbia and was preparing to invade Hungary proper. It is noteworthy to mention the heroics of Hungarian General eyson Apgar who led his unit with distinct bravery. The offensive halted only because the Hungarian leadership offered to surrender in November 1918.

Results
The Russians had to pour extra divisions and supplies to keep the Romanian army from being utterly destroyed again by the Austro - Hungarian and Bulgarian army.. According to John Keegan, the Russian Chief of Staff, General Alekseev was very dismissive of the Romanian army and argued that they would drain, rather than add to the Russian reserves (John Keegan, World War I, pg 307). Alekseev was proven correct in his analysis. The French and British kept six divisions each on the Greek frontier from 1916 till the end of 1918. Originally, the French and British went to Greece to help Serbia, but with Serbia's conquest in the fall of 1915, their continued presence was pointless. For nearly three years, these divisions accomplished essentially nothing and only tied down half of the Bulgarian army, which wasn't going to go far from Bulgaria in any event. In fact, Keegan argues that "the installation of a violently nationalist and anti-Turkish government in Athens, led to Greek mobilization in the cause of the "Great Idea" - the recovery of the Greek empire in the east - which would complicate the Allied effort to resettle the peace of Europe for years after the war ended." (Keegan pg. 308).

References
[1] Giuseppe Praga, Franco Luxardo. History of Dalmatia. Giardini, 1993. Pp. 281. [2] Paul O'Brien. Mussolini in the First World War: the Journalist, the Soldier, the Fascist. Oxford, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Berg, 2005. Pp. 17. [3] Paul O'Brien. Mussolini in the First World War: the Journalist, the Soldier, the Fascist. Oxford, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Berg, 2005. Pp. 17. [4] A. Rossi. The Rise of Italian Fascism: 1918-1922. New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2010. Pp. 47.

Sources
D. J. Dutton, 'The Balkan Campaign and French War Aims in the Great War' (http://www.jstor.org/ sici?sici=0013-8266(197901)94:370<97:TBCAFW>2.0.CO;2-O), The English Historical Review, Vol. 94, No. 370 (Jan., 1979), pp.97113

Serbian campaign

88

Serbian campaign
The Serbian Campaign was fought from late July 1914, when Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia at the outset of the First World War, until late 1915, when the Macedonian Front was formed. The front ranged from the Danube to southern Macedonia and back north again, involving forces from almost all combatants of the war. The Serbian Army declined severely towards the end of the war, falling from about 420,000[1] at its peak to about 100,000 at the moment of liberation. The Kingdom of Serbia lost 1,100,000 inhabitants during the war (both army and civilian losses), which represented over 27% of its overall population. According to the Yugoslav government in 1924: Serbia lost 265,164 soldiers, or 25%, of all mobilized people. By comparison, France lost 16.8%, Germany 15.4%, Russia 11.5%, and Italy 10.3%.

Background
On July 23, Austria-Hungary demanded Serbia comply with its March 1909 declaration to the Great Powers to maintain good neighborly relations with Austria-Hungary and issued the July Ultimatum. In its response, Serbia accepted all the points except point #6, which demanded a criminal investigation against those participants in the conspiracy that were present in Serbia, and to allow an Austrian delegation to participate in the investigation. The Austro-Hungarian ambassador rejected the response on the spot and returned to Vienna. The Austro-Hungarians declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914. World War I had begun. For complex reasons, the dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia escalated into what is now known as World War I, which involved Russia, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Within a week, Austria-Hungary had to face a war with Russia, which had the largest army in the world at the time. The result was that Serbia became just another front to the massive fight that started to unfold along Austria-Hungary's border with Russia. Serbia had an experienced army, having fought two wars in the last two years, but it was also exhausted and poorly equipped, and the Austro-Hungarians thought Austrian troops executing captured Serbians in 1917. that it would fall in less than a month. Serbia's strategy was to hold on as long as it could and hope the Russians could defeat the main Austro-Hungarian Army. Serbia constantly had to worry about its hostile neighbor to the east, Bulgaria, with which it had fought several wars, most recently in 1913. The Serbian army at the start of the war was some 180,000 strong, commanded by Marshal (Vojvoda) Radomir Putnik. However, he was an old man (67) and in poor health. When the war broke out, he was undergoing medical treatment in Budapest. The Austro-Hungarian government arrested him at the hospital, but then released him after the personal intervention of the Austro-Hungarian Chief of General Staff Franz Graf Conrad von Htzendorf, partly as an act of chivalry, and partly due to assuming that the ailing general would be an easy opponent. They were proven wrong as Putnik would brilliantly handle the Serbian Army even though he could not travel to the front and had to conduct the war from his hospital bed in Belgrade.

Serbian campaign

89

1914
The war against Serbia started on July 28 when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and her artillery shelled Belgrade the following day.[2] On August 12 the Austro-Hungarian armies crossed the border, the Drina River (see map). Initially, three out of six Austro-Hungarian armies were mobilized at the Serbian frontier, but due to Russian intervention, the II Army was redirected east to the Galician theatre. But still, the Austro-Hungarians had available two armies (the Fifth and the Sixth) for an attack over the Bosnian border. The V and VI Austro-Hungarian armies comprised about 270,000 men which were much better equipped than the Serbians. Overall, Austro-Hungarian command was in the hands of general Potiorek. In addition, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had the third largest population in Europe in 1914, behind Russia and Germany, and almost twelve times the population of the Kingdom of Serbia, giving it an enormous manpower advantage.

First Attack on Serbia, August 1914

Battle of Cer
Potiorek rushed the attack against Serbia from northern Bosnia with his Fifth Army, supported by elements of the Second Army from Syrmia. The Second Army was due to be transported to Galicia to face the Russians at the end of August, but he made use of it until then. The Sixth was positioning itself in southern Bosnia and was not yet able to commence offensive operations. Potiorek's desire was to win a victory before Emperor Fighting on Ada Ciganlija Franz Joseph's birthday and to knock Serbia out as soon as possible. Thus he made two grave strategic errors, attacking with only just over half of his strength, and attacking hilly western Serbia instead of the open plains of the north. This move surprised Marshal Butnik, who expected attack from the north and initially believed that it was a feint. Once it became clear that it was the main thrust, the strong Second Army under the command of General Stepa Stepanovi was sent to join the small Third under Pavle Jurii turm already facing the Austro-Hungarians and expel the invaders. After a fierce four day battle, the Austro-Hungarians were forced to retreat, marking the first Allied victory of the war. Casualties numbered 23,000 for Austro-Hungarians (of whom 4,500 were captured) and 16,500 for the Serbians.

Serbian campaign

90

Battle of Drina
Under pressure from its allies, Serbia conducted a limited offensive across the Sava river into the Austro-Hungarian Syrmia with its Serbian First Army. Meanwhile the Timok division I of the Serbian Second Army suffered a heavy defeat in a diversionary crossing, suffering around 6,000 casualties while inflicting only 2,000. With most of his forces in Bosnia, Potiorek decided that the best way to stop the Serbian offensive was to launch another invasion into Serbia to force the Serbs to recall their troops to defend their much smaller homeland.

Later Operations in Serbia, 1914

September 7 brought a renewed Austro-Hungarian attack from the west, across the river Drina, this time with both the Fifth Army in Mava, and the Sixth further south. The initial attack by the Fifth Army was repelled by the Serbian Second Army, with 4,000 Austro-Hungarian casualties, but the stronger Sixth Army managed to surprise the Serbian Third Army and gain a foothold. After some units from the Serbian Second Army were sent to bolster the Third, the Austro-Hungarian Fifth Army also managed to establish a bridgehead with a renewed attack. At that time, Marshal Putnik withdrew the First Army from Syrmia (against much popular opposition) and used it to deliver a fierce counterattack against the Sixth Army that initially went well, but finally bogged down in a bloody four-day fight for a peak of the Jagodnja mountain called Makov Kamen, in which both sides suffered horrendous losses in successive frontal attacks and counterattacks. Two Serbian divisions lost around 11,000 men, while Austro-Hungarian losses were probably comparable. Marshal Putnik ordered a retreat into the surrounding hills and the front settled into a month and a half of trench warfare, which was highly unfavourable to the Serbs, who had little in the way of an industrial base and were deficient in heavy artillery, ammunition stocks, shell production (having only a single factory producing around 100 shells a day) and also footwear, since the vast majority of infantry wore the traditional (though state-issued) opanaks, while the Austro-Hungarians had waterproof leather boots. Most of their war material was supplied by the Allies, who were short themselves. In such a situation, Serbian artillery quickly became almost silent, while the Austro-Hungarians steadily increased their fire. Serbian casualties reached 100 soldiers a day from all causes in some divisions (notably in Combined division). During the first weeks of trench warfare, the Serbian Uice Army (one strengthened division) and the Montenegrin Sanjak Army (roughly a division) conducted an abortive offensive into Bosnia. In addition, both sides conducted a few local attacks, most of which were soundly defeated. In one such attack, the Serbian Army used mine warfare for the first time: the Combined Division dug tunnels beneath the Austro-Hungarian trenches (that were only 20-30m away from the Serbian ones on this sector), planted mines and set them off just before an infantry charge.

Serbian campaign

91

Battle of Kolubara
Having thus weakened the Serbian Army, the Austro-Hungarian Army launched another massive attack on November 5. The Serbians withdrew step by step, offering strong resistance at the Kolubara River, but to no avail, due to the lack of artillery ammunition. It was at that time that General ivojin Mii was made commander of the battered First Army, replacing the wounded Petar Bojovi. He insisted on a deep withdrawal in order to give the troops some much-needed rest and to shorten the front. Marshal Putnik finally relented, but the consequence was the abandonment of the capital city of Belgrade. The Maxim G 10 of Serbian Royal Army Austro-Hungarian Army entered the city on December 2. This move led Potiorek to move the whole Fifth Army to the Belgrade area and use it to crush the Serbian right flank. This, however, left the Sixth alone for a few days to face the whole Serbian army. At this point, artillery ammunition finally arrived from France and Greece. In addition, some replacements were sent to the units and Marshal Putnik correctly sensed that the Austro-Hungarian forces were dangerously overstretched and weakened in the previous offensives, so he ordered a full-scale counterattack with the entire Serbian Army on December 3 against the Sixth Army. The Fifth hurried its flanking maneuver, but it was already too late - with the Sixth Army broken, the Second and Third Serbian Armies overwhelmed the Fifth. Finally, Potiorek lost his nerve and ordered yet another retreat back across the rivers into Austria-Hungary's territory. (See second map.) The Serbian Army recaptured Belgrade on December 15. The first phase of the war against Serbia had ended with no change in the border, but casualties were enormous compared to earlier wars, though sadly, not out of keeping with other campaigns of this war. The Serbian army lost around 170,000 men killed, wounded captured or missing. Austro-Hungarian losses were approaching 215,000. Austro-Hungarian General Potiorek was removed from command and replaced by Archduke Eugen of Austria (C. Falls p.54). On the Serbian side, a deadly typhus epidemic killed hundreds of thousands of Serbian civilians during the winter.

1915
Prelude
Early in 1915, with the Ottoman defeats at the Battle of Sarikamis and in the First Suez Offensive, German Chief of the General Staff Erich von Falkenhayn tried to convince the Austro-Hungarian Chief of Staff, Conrad von Htzendorf, of the importance of conquering Serbia. If Serbia were taken, then the Germans would have a rail link from Germany, through Austria-Hungary and down to Constantinople (and beyond). This would allow the Germans to send military supplies and even troops to help the Ottoman Empire. While this was hardly in Austria-Hungary's

Serbian artillery

Serbian campaign interests, the Austro-Hungarians did want to defeat Serbia. However, Russia was the more dangerous enemy, and furthermore, with the entry of Italy into the war on the Allied side, the Austro-Hungarians had their hands full (see the Italian Campaign (World War I)). Both the Allies and the Central Powers tried to get Bulgaria to pick a side in the Great War. Bulgaria and Serbia had fought two wars in the last 30 years: the Serbo-Bulgarian War in 1885, and the Second Balkan War in 1913. The result was that the Bulgarian government and people felt that Serbia was in possession of lands to which Bulgaria was entitled, and when the Central Powers offered to give them what they claimed, the Bulgarians entered the war on their side. With the Allied loss in the Battle of Gallipoli and the Russian defeat at Gorlice, King Ferdinand signed a treaty with Germany and on September 23, 1915, began mobilizing for war.

92

Opposing forces
During the preceding nine months, the Serbians had tried, and failed, to rebuild their battered armies and improve their supply situation. Despite their efforts, the Serbian army was only about 30,000 men stronger than at the start of the war (around 225,000) and was still badly equipped. Although Britain and France had talked about sending serious military forces to Serbia, nothing was done until it was too late. When Bulgaria began mobilizing, the French and British sent two divisions, but they arrived late in the Greek town of Salonika. Part of the reason for the delay was the Greek government's conflicted views about the war. Against Serbia were marshalled the Bulgarian First Army, the German Eleventh Army and the Austro-Hungarian Third Army, all under the command of Field Marshal Mackensen. In addition the Bulgarian Second Army, which remained under the direct control of the Bulgarian high command, was deployed against Macedonia.

Course of the Campaign


The Austro-Hungarians and Germans began their attack on October 7 with a massive artillery barrage, followed by attacks across the rivers. Then, on the 14th, the Bulgarian Army attacked from two directions, from the north of Bulgaria towards Ni and from the south towards Skopje (see map). The First Army defeated the Serbian Second Army at the Battle of Morava, while the Bulgarian Second broke through the less trained and equipped Troops of New Areas and cut the vital railroad to Salonika (Battle of Ovche Pole). With the Bulgarian breakthrough, the Serbian position was hopeless; the main army in the north could try to retreat, or be surrounded and forced to surrender. In the Battle of Kosovo the Serbs made a last and desperate attempt to join the two incomplete Allied divisions that made a limited advance from the south, but were unable to gather enough forces, due to the pressure from north and east and were stopped by the Bulgarians under General Georgi Todorov and had to pull back.

Conquest of Serbia, 1915

Serbian campaign Marshal Putnik ordered a full retreat, south and west through Montenegro and into Albania. The weather was terrible, the roads poor, and the army had to help the tens of thousands of civilians who retreated with them with almost no supplies or food left. But the bad weather and poor roads worked for the refugees as well, as the Central Powers forces could not press them hard enough, and so they evaded capture. Many of the fleeing soldiers and civilians did not make it to the coast, though - they were lost to hunger, disease, attacks by enemy forces and Albanian tribal bands. The circumstances of the retreat were disastrous, and all told, some 155,000 Serbs, mostly soldiers, reached the coast of the Adriatic Sea, and embarked on Allied transport ships that carried the army to various Greek islands (many to Corfu) before being sent to Salonika. The survivors were so weakened that thousands of them died from sheer exhaustion in the weeks after their rescue. Marshal Putnik had to be carried during the whole retreat and he died a bit more than a year later in a hospital in France. The French and British divisions marched north from Salonika in late November under the command of French General Maurice Sarrail. However, the British divisions were ordered by the War Office in London not to cross the Greek frontier. So the French divisions advanced on their own up the Vardar River. This advance was of some limited help to the retreating Serbian Army as the Bulgarian Army had to concentrate some forces on their southern flank to deal with the threat (see: Battle of Krivolak). By mid-November, General Sarrail concluded retreat was necessary in the face of determined Bulgarian assaults

93

Serbian Army during its retreat towards Albania

on his positions. This was a nearly complete victory for the Central Powers at a cost of around 67,000 casualties as compared to around 90,000 Serbs killed or wounded and 174,000 captured.[3] The railroad from Berlin to Constantinople was finally opened. The only flaw in the victory was the remarkable retreat of the Serbian Army, which was however almost completely disorganized and had to be rebuilt almost from scratch. However, they took part in the fighting throughout the rest of the war on various fronts and performed well. For subsequent events, see Macedonian front (World War I).

Summary
Once Bulgaria attacked in coordination with Austria-Hungary, the smaller Serbian Army could not withstand the attack alone, so the order was given for the temporary withdrawal to Greek islands. Greece was not a major power, nor friendly to the Allies, and the northern border of Greece offered superior defensive positions for the Bulgarians to defend. The ramifications of the war were manifold. When World War I ended, the Treaty of Neuilly gave Greece Western Thrace, and Serbia some minor territorial concessions from Bulgaria. Serbian Army on parade in Paris Austria-Hungary was broken apart and Hungary lost much land to both Yugoslavia and Romania in the Treaty of Trianon. Serbia assumed the lead position in the new state of Yugoslavia, joined by its old ally, Montenegro. Meanwhile, Italy established a quasi-protectorate over Albania and Greece reoccupied the country's southern part, which was autonomous under a local Greek provisional Government (see Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus).

Serbian campaign

94

Atrocities
Incited by anti-Serbian propaganda and ordered by the command of the Austro-Hungarian Army, soldiers committed numerous atrocities against the Serbian people on the territory of Serbia and Austria-Hungary. According to the German criminologist and observer R.A. Reiss, it was a "system of extermination". In addition to executions of prisoners of war, civilian populations were subjected to mass murder and rape. Villages and towns were burned and looted. Fruit trees were cut down and water wells were poisoned in an effort on the Austro-Hungarian part to get the Serb inhabitants to not return.[4][5][6] Also, the invading Bulgarian army committed numerous atrocities, particularly in Ni and the town of Surdulica.

Casualties
Before the war, the Kingdom of Serbia had 4.5 million inhabitants.[7] According to the New York Times, in 1915 alone 150,000 people are estimated to have died during the worst typhus epidemic in world history. With the aid of the American Red Cross and 44 foreign governments, the outbreak was brought under control by the end of the year.[8] The number of civilian deaths is estimated by some sources at 650,000, primarily due to the typhus outbreak and famine, but also direct clashes with the occupiers.[9] Serbia's casualties accounted for 8% of the total Entente military deaths. 58% of the regular Serbian Army (420,000 strong) perished during the conflict.[10] The total number of casualties is placed around 1,000,000:[11] 25% of Serbia's prewar size, and an absolute majority (57%) of its overall male population.[12] L.A. Times and N.Y. Times also cited over 1,000,000 victims in their respective articles.[13][14] The extent of the Serbian demographic disaster can be illustrated by the statement of the Bulgarian Prime Minister Vasil Radoslavov: "Serbia ceased to exist" (New York Times, summer 1917).[15] In July 1918 the US Secretary of State Robert Lansing urged the Americans of all religions to pray for Serbia in their respective churches.[16][17] Serbia suffered enormous casualties. The Serbian Army had been decimated towards the end of the war, falling from about 420,000 [1] at its peak to about 100,000 at the moment of liberation. The Kingdom of Serbia lost 1,100,000 inhabitants during the war (both army and civilian losses: of 4.5 million people, 275,000 were military deaths, while 450,000 were civilian - mostly due to food shortages, epidemics and the Spanish fluand there were 133,148 wounded), which represented over 15% of its overall populationa demographic disaster that is still obvious today. According to the Yugoslav government in 1924, Serbia lost 365,164 soldiers, or 26%, of all mobilized personnel, while France suffered 16.8%, Germany 15.4%, Russia 11.5%, and Italy 10.3%.
The remains of Serbs massacred by Bulgarian soldiers in the town of Surdulica

The Entente casualties

Serbian campaign At the end of the war, there were 114,000 disabled soldiers and 500,000 orphaned children. (cit. Serbian History : Duko M. Kovaevi, Dejan Mikavica, Branko Belin, Biljana imunovi-Belin)

95

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] http:/ / www. vojska. net/ eng/ world-war-1/ serbia/ organization/ 1914/ Gordon Martel, The Origins of the First World War, Pearson Longman, Harlow, 2003, p. xii f. Spencer Tucker, "Encyclopedia of World War I"(2005) pg 1077, ISBN 1851094202 How Austria-Hungary waged war in Serbia (1915) (http:/ / www. archive. org/ details/ howaustriahungar00reis) German criminologist R.A.Reiss on atrocities by the Austro-Hungarian army [5] Augenzeugen. Der Krieg gegen Zivilisten. Fotografien aus dem Ersten Weltkrieg (http:/ / www. kakanien. ac. at/ beitr/ fallstudie/ AHolzer1/ ?page=2& alpha=h) Anton Holzer, Vienna [6] Photos of Austrian atrocities in Serbia (http:/ / www. ww1-propaganda-cards. com/ executions(3). html) [7] Serbia in 1914 (http:/ / www. spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk/ FWWinSerbia. htm) [8] "$1,600,000 was raised for the Red Cross" (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ mem/ archive-free/ pdf?res=9C07E5DA1239E333A2575AC2A9669D946496D6CF) (PDF). The New York Times. 29 October 1915. . [9] http:/ / www. firstworldwar. com/ features/ minorpowers_serbia. htm [10] Serbian army, August 1914 (http:/ / www. vojska. net/ eng/ world-war-1/ serbia/ organization/ 1914/ ) [11] Tema nedelje: Najvea srpska pobeda: Sudnji rat: POLITIKA (http:/ / www. politika. rs/ rubrike/ Tema-nedelje/ Najvecha-srpska-pobeda/ Sudnji-rat. lt. html) [12] : : : (http:/ / www. politika. rs/ rubrike/ Tema-nedelje/ Najvecha-srpska-pobeda/ Svi-srpski-trijumfi. sr. html) (Serbian) [13] Fourth of Serbia's population dead. (http:/ / pqasb. pqarchiver. com/ latimes/ access/ 337249982. html?dids=337249982:337249982& FMT=ABS& FMTS=ABS:AI& date=Jun+ 30,+ 1918& author=PIERRE+ LOTI. + Special+ Contributor+ to+ "The+ Times. "& pub=Los+ Angeles+ Times& desc=FOURTH+ OF+ SERBIA'S+ POPULATION+ DEAD. & pqatl=google) [14] Asserts Serbians face extinction (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ mem/ archive-free/ pdf?res=9A06E5D81E3FE433A25756C0A9629C946996D6CF) [15] Serbia restored (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ mem/ archive-free/ pdf?_r=1& res=990CEFDC113BEE3ABC4D53DFB7678383609EDE& oref=slogin) [16] "Serbia and Austria" (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ mem/ archive-free/ pdf?_r=1& res=9F02E7D7143EE433A2575BC2A9619C946996D6CF& oref=slogin) (PDF). New York Times. 28 July 1918. . [17] "Appeals to Americans to pray for Serbians" (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ mem/ archive-free/ pdf?res=9406E4D8143EE433A25754C2A9619C946996D6CF) (PDF). New York Times. 27 July 1918. .

Sources
Falls, Cyril, The Great War (1960) Esposito, Vincent (ed.), The West Point Atlas of American Wars - Vol. 2; maps 46-50. Frederick Praeger Press (1959)

Macedonian front

96

Macedonian front
The Macedonian Front (or Salonika front) of World War I was formed as a result of an attempt by the Allied Powers to aid Serbia, in the autumn of 1915, against the combined attack of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. The expedition came too late and in insufficient force to prevent the fall of Serbia, and was complicated by the internal political crisis in Greece (the "National Schism"). Eventually, a stable front was established, running from the Albanian Adriatic coast to the Struma River, pitting a multinational Allied force against the Central Powers. The Macedonian Front remained quite stable, despite local actions, until the great Allied offensive in September 1918, which resulted in the capitulation of Bulgaria and the liberation of Serbia.

Background
Austria-Hungary had attacked Serbia in August 1914, but had failed to overcome Serbian resistance. After the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the war on the side of the Central Powers, the decisive factor was the position of Bulgaria. Bulgaria occupied a strategically important position on the Serbian flank, and its intervention on either side would swing the balance decisively. Bulgaria and Serbia, however, had fought two wars in the previous 30 years, the first in 1885 (see Serbo-Bulgarian War for details), the second in 1913 (see the Second Balkan War for details). The outcome of the latter had been humiliating to Bulgaria, and there was a widespread feeling in the Bulgarian government and people that Serbia had stolen land which was rightfully Bulgarian. While the Allies could only offer small territorial Conquest of Serbia, 1915 concessions from Serbia and (as yet neutral) Greece, the Central Powers' promises were far more enticing, as they offered to give most of the land Bulgaria claimed. When the Allied defeat at the Battle of Gallipoli and the Russian defeat at Gorlice-Tarnw demonstrated the Central Powers' strength, King Ferdinand signed a treaty with Germany, and on September 21, 1915 Bulgaria began mobilizing for war.

The Bulgarian intervention and the fall of Serbia


During the last year, the Serbs had tried, and failed to improve their supply situation. The Serbian Army had fielded a total of 420,597 men in the beginning of the war (Serbian Campaign (World War I)) and was considered veteran after its victories during the first (1912) and second Balkan wars which had ended a year before. For a year, the Allies (Britain and France) had repeatedly promised to send serious military forces to Serbia, while nothing had been realized. But with Bulgaria's mobilization to its south, the situation for Serbia became desperate. The developments finally forced the French and the British to decide upon sending a small expedition force of two divisions to help Serbia, but even these arrived too late in the Greek port of Salonika to have any impact in the operations. The main reason for the delay was the lack of available Allied forces due to the critical situation in the western front, while the Greek government's insistence for neutrality was used as an excuse although the Albanian coast was also available for a rapid deployment of reinforcements and supplying of equipment during the past 14 months. As

Macedonian front Marshal Putnik had suggested, the Albanian coast was adequately covered by the Montenegrin army to the northbeing at safe distance from any Bulgarian advancing direction to the southin case of a Bulgarian intervention. A second reason for the delay was the protracted secret negotiations with the hope to bring Bulgaria to the Allied camp, in which case no Allied help would be needed. In any case the lack of Allied support sealed the fate of the Serbian Army. Against Serbia were marshalled the Bulgarian Army, a German Army, and an Austro-Hungarian Army, all under the command of Field Marshal Mackensen, totalling more than 800,000 soldiers. The Germans and Austro-Hungarians began their attack on October 7 with a massive artillery barrage, followed by attacks across the rivers. Then, on the 11th, the Bulgarian Army attacked from two directions, one from the north of Bulgaria towards Ni, the other from the south towards Skopje (see map). The Bulgarian Army rapidly broke through the weaker Serbian forces of the Vardar front, that tried to block its advance. With the Bulgarian breakthrough, the Serbian position became hopeless; either their main army in the north would be surrounded and forced to surrender, or it would try to retreat. Many high ranking Serbian officers were killed including Major Jovan Nikolic. Marshal Putnik ordered a full retreat, south and west through Montenegro and into Albania. The weather was terrible, the roads poor, and the army had to help the tens of thousands of civilians who retreated with them. Only some 125,000 Serbian soldiers reached the coast of the Adriatic Sea and embarked on Italian transport ships that carried the army to various Greek islands (many went to Corfu) before being sent to Thessaloniki. Marshal Putnik had to be carried during the whole retreat and he died a bit more than a year later in a hospital in France. The French and British divisions marched north from Thessaloniki in late November under the command of French General Maurice Sarrail. However, the British divisions were ordered by the War Office in London not to cross the Greek frontier. So the French divisions advanced on their own up the Vardar River. This advance was of some limited help to the retreating Serbian Army as the Bulgarian Army had to concentrate larger forces on their southern flank to deal with the threat (see: Battle of Krivolak). By mid-December, General Sarrail concluded retreat was necessary in the face of massive Bulgarian assaults on his positions. As with the British, the Germans ordered French soldiers halting in Salonica. 1915 the Bulgarians not to cross the Greek borders reluctant to risk a Greek entrance to the war against a Bulgarian invasion in Macedonia. The Allies for their part took advantage of that, reinforcing and consolidating their positions behind the borders. This was a clear, albeit incomplete victory for the Central Powers. As a consequence the railway from Berlin to Constantinople was opened and Germany was able to prop up its weak partner, the Ottoman Empire. A flaw in the victory was that the Allies managed to save a part of the Serbian Army, which although battered, seriously reduced and almost unarmed, escaped total destruction and after reorganizing was able to resume operations six months later. But the most damaging event for the Central Powers was that the Alliesusing the moral excuse of saving the Serbian Armymanaged to replace the impossible Serbian front with a viable one established in Macedonia (albeit by violating the territory of an officially neutral country); a front which would prove key to their final victory three years later.

97

Macedonian front

98

Establishment of the Macedonian Front


The Austro-Hungarian Army attacked Serbia's ally Montenegro. The small army of Montenegro offered strong resistance in the Battle of Mojkovac that greatly helped the withdrawal of the Serbian Army, but soon faced impossible odds and was compelled to surrender on January 25. The Austro-Hungarians continued advancing down the Adriatic Coast, attacking into Italian-controlled Albania. By the end of the winter, the small Italian Army had been forced out of nearly the whole country.

Fighting along the Greek border, 1916

At this point, with the war in the Balkans effectively lost, the British General Staff wanted to withdraw all their troops from Greece, but the French government protested strongly. Since the French divisions were staying, the British also stayed, with undisguised antipathy. The Allied armies entrenched themselves around Thessaloniki, which became a huge fortified camp, earning themselves the mocking nickname "the Gardeners of Salonika". The Serbian Army (now under the command of General Petar Bojovi), after rest and refit on Corfu, was transported by the French to the Macedonian front. In the meantime, the political situation in Greece was confused. Officially, Greece was neutral, but King Constantine I was pro-German, while Prime Minister Venizelos was pro-British. At first, Greece supported the French-British military activity in saving the Serbian army, but after the Allies occupied Thessaloniki gradually changed policy. With the Venizelos' resignation, the royalist government settled for officially condemning it, but was unable to oppose the superior Allied armies that had landed in Thessaloniki. The Germans, trying to keep Greece neutral, were careful not to cross the Greek border. In May 1916, the French General Sarrail demanded that the Greek Army demobilize. Although the Greek government complied, this action further pushed them to side with the Central Powers. With certain knowledge that Romania was about to join the Allied side, General Sarrail began preparations for an attack on the Bulgarian Armies facing his forces. The Germans, with excellent intelligence from Greek supporters, made plans of their own for a "spoiling attack". The German offensive was launched on August 17, just three days before the French offensive was scheduled to start. In reality, this was a Bulgarian offensive, as the Austro-Hungarian Army was in Albania and only a single German division was on the Greek border. The attack achieved early success thanks to surprise, but the Allied forces held a defensive line after two weeks. Having halted the Bulgarian offensive, the Allies staged a counterattack starting on September 12. The terrain was rough and the Bulgarians were on the defensive, but the Allied forces made steady gains. Slow advances by the Frenchman instructing Serbian in the use Allies continued throughout October and on into November even as the of a trench mortar, 1916-1917. weather turned very cold and snow fell on the hills. The Germans sent two more divisions to help bolster the Bulgarian Army, but by November 19 the French and Serbian Army captured Kaymakchalan, the highest peak of Nide mountain, and compelled the Central powers to abandon Bitola to the Entente. Losses in this campaign were at least 50,000 on the Allied side and likely more than 60,000 killed and captured Bulgarians and Germans (Falls, p.240). The front had been advanced just 25 miles.

Macedonian front However, the Bulgarian advance into Greek-held Eastern Macedonia precipitated a major internal crisis in Greece. The government, determined to remain neutral, ordered its troops in the area (the demobilized IV Corps) not to resist and to retreat to the port of Kavalla for evacuation, but no naval vessels turned up to permit the evacuation to take place. Consequently, despite occasional local resistance from a few officers and their nucleus units, most of the troops, along with their commander, were forced to surrender to a token German force, and were interned for the remainder of the war at Grlitz, Germany. The surrender of recently hard-won territory to the hated Bulgarians was seen by many Venizelist Army officers as the last straw. With the active help of the Allied authorities, they launched a coup which secured Thessaloniki and most of Macedonia for Venizelos (see Movement of National Defence). From that point Greece had, in practice, two governments: the "official" royalist government at Athens, which maintained Greek neutrality in the face of increasing Allied pressure, and the "revolutionary" Venizelist government at Thessaloniki. Adding to this confusing situation, the Allies continued for the next two years to officially recognize the royalist government until December 1917. At the same time, the Italians had deployed more forces to Albania and these new troops managed to push the Austrian corps back through very hilly country south of Lake Ostrovo.

99

1917
By the spring of this year, General Sarrail's Armee d' Orient had been reinforced to the point that he had 24 divisions: 6 French, 6 Serbian, 7 British, 1 Italian, 3 Greek and 2 Russian brigades. An offensive was planned for late April, but the initial attack failed with major losses and the offensive was called off on May 21. Subsequently the Allies, wishing to exert more pressure on Athens, occupied Thessaly, which had been evacuated by the royalist Greek Army, and the Isthmus Bulgarian troops counterattack at Yarebichna Peak in 1917 of Corinth, practically severing the country in two. After an attempt to occupy Athens by force that caused the reaction of the local Greek forces and ended in an ignominious fiasco in December (see Noemvriana), the Allies established a naval blockade around southern Greece which was still loyal to the king causing extreme hardship to the people in those areas. Six months later in June, they presented a final ultimatum resulting in the exile of the Greek king (on June 14) and the reunification of the country under Prime Minister Venizelos, supported by Allied bayonets. The new government immediately declared war on the Central Powers and started to create a new Army. Despite this favourable outcome, the new French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau recalled General Sarrail in November and put a much more diplomatic French General, Adolphe Guillaumat, in his place.

1918
Opposing forces in the middle of September
Central Powers

Macedonian front

100

Order of battle: Army Group Scholtz (General of the Artillery Friedrich von Scholtz) Army 11th German Army Commander Gen.d.Inf. Kuno von Steuben Note Corps LXI. Corps LXII. Corps 1st Bulgarian Army Lt-Gen. Stefan Nerezov Commander Lt-Gen. Friedrich Fleck Divisions 1st, 6th & Mixed Bulgarian Division

Lt-Gen. Karl Suren 302nd German Division, 4th, 2nd & 3rd Bulgarian Division 5th, Mountain, 9th Bulgarian Infantry Divisions & 1/11 Infantry Brigade

Order of battle: Bulgarian High Command (Lieutenant General Georgi Todorov) Army 2nd Bulgarian Army 4th Bulgarian Army Commander Lt-Gen Ivan Lukov Lt-Gen Stefan Toshev Note Corps Commander Divisions 11th, 7th & 8th Bulgarian Infantry Division 10th Bulgarian Infantry division & 2nd Bulgarian Cavalry Division

Entente
Order of battle: Allied Armies of the East (General Louis Franchet d'Esprey) Army French Army of the Orient Franco-Serbian Group 1st Group of Divisions British Salonika Army Commander General Paul Henrys Voivode ivojin Mii General Philippe d'Anselm General George Milne XII Corps XVI Corps Army Reserve Greek Army I Greek Corps Maj-Gen. Emmanuel Ioannou Lt-Gen. Henry Wilson Lt-Gen. Briggs Note Corps Commander Division 30th, 76th, 57th, 156th French Infantry Divisions, 35th Italian Infantry Division, 11th French Colonial Division & 3rd Greek Infantry Division Drina, Morava, Yugoslav & Timok Infantry Divisions, 122nd & 17th French Infantry Division 16th French Colonial Division, Greek Archipelago division & 27th British Infantry Division 22nd & 26th British Infantry Division, Greek Serres Infantry Division 28th British Infantry Division & Greek Cretan division 4th & 14th Greek Infantry Division 1st, 2nd & 13th Greek Infantry Division

9th Greek Infantry Division(training)

Macedonian front

101

Military Operations
In May, General Guillaumat's Greek troops attacked and captured the strong Bulgarian position of Skra-di-Legen, marking the first major Greek action on the Allied side in the war. However, with the German offensive threatening France, Guillaumat was recalled to Paris and replaced by General Franchet d'Esperey. Although d'Esperey urged an attack on the Bulgarian Army, the French government refused to allow an offensive unless all the countries agreed. General Guillaumat, no longer needed in France, traveled from London to Rome, trying to win approval for an attack. Finally in September, agreement was reached and d'Esperey was allowed to launch his grand offensive.

Colonel Nikolaos Christodoulou, one of the leaders of the Greek National Defence army, interrogates Bulgarian POWs

The Allied forces were now very large, despite the Russians being obliged to cease their participation due to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918. Not only did the Entente have the Greek army fully on their side (9 divisions strong), but they also had some 6,000 men from the Czechoslovak Legion, who had been evacuated from Russia and sailed around the world, ready to fight the hated Austro-Hungarians. However, the Bulgarians had also increased the size of their army during 1917 and in total man power, the two sides were roughly equal (291 Allied battalions vs. 300 Bulgarian battalions, plus 10 German battalions). But in morale, the two sides were completely different. The Allied were certain of their impending victory while the Bulgarians could see the war was lost - the Ottoman Empire was near collapse, the Austro-Hungarian government was in chaos, and the mighty German Army was beaten on the all-important Western Front. The Bulgarians were not willing to fight and die for a lost cause. The Battle of Dobro Pole started with the (now traditional) artillery bombardment of enemy positions on September 14. The following day, the French and Serbians attacked and captured their objective. On September 18, the Greeks and the British attacked as well, but were stopped with heavy losses by the Bulgarians in the Battle of Doiran. However the Franco-Serbian army continued advancing vigorously. The next day, some Bulgarian units started surrendering positions without a fight. Bulgarian command ordered a retreat. However, in the official British government history of the Macedonian Front campaign, Military Operations Macedonia, the author gives a very detailed analysis of the situation of the Bulgarian forces and the situation of the front. Although a breakthrough was achieved at Dobro Pole, and the allied forces continued their advance, the Bulgarian army was not completely routed and was retreating in order. By September 29 (a day before Bulgaria exited World War I), Skopje was in the hands of the allies, but a strong Bulgarian and German force had been ordered to try and retake it the next day. Also the number of Bulgarian p.o.w.'s in allied hands around that day was only 15,000 (this figure is given by the author of the official British government history of the Macedonian Front campaign, Military Operations Macedonia on p.251 of the US edition from 1996). Another major factor contributed to Bulgaria's request for an armistice. A mass of retreating and deserted Bulgarian soldiers had mutinied and converged on the railway centre of Radomir in Bulgaria, just 30 miles from the capital city of Sofia. On September 27 leaders of the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union took control of the mutinous troops and proclaimed the overthrow of the monarchy and a Bulgarian republic. About 40005000 rebellious troops threatened Sofia the next day. Under those chaotic circumstances a Bulgarian delegation arrived in Thessaloniki to ask for an armistice. On September 29, the Bulgarians were granted the Armistice of Thessaloniki by General d'Esperey, ending their war. The Soldiers Uprising is finally put down by October 2. Tsar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria abdicated and went into exile on October 3.

Macedonian front At this point, the British army headed east towards the European side of the Ottoman Empire, while the French and Serbian forces continued north. The British Army neared Constantinople and with no serious Ottoman forces to stop it, the Ottoman government asked for an armistice (the Armistice of Mudros) on October 26 (Enver Pasha and his partners had fled just days earlier to Berlin). With "Desperate Frankie" (as the British called d'Esperey) pushing ever forward, the Serbo-French Army re-captured Serbia and overran several weak German divisions that tried to block its advance near Ni. On November 3, Austria-Hungary was forced to sign an armistice on the Italian Front and the war finally came to an end. On November 10, d'Esperey's army crossed the Danube river and was poised to enter the heartland of Hungary. On request of the French general, Count Krolyi, leading the Hungarian government, came to Belgrade and signed another armistice.

102

Notes References
Esposito, Vincent (ed.) (1959): The West Point Atlas of American Wars, Vol. 2; maps 4650. Frederick Praeger Press. Falls, Cyril (1960): The Great War (1960). Falls, Cyril: History of the Great War: Military Operations Macedonia ; originally published 1935, forty-eighth edition in the Battery Press Great War Series, printed jointly in 1996 by The Imperial War Museum, London, Department of Printed Books and The Battery Press inc, Nashville, TN, ISBN 0-89839-243-8 Hall, Richard (2010). Balkan Breakthrough: The Battle of Dobro Pole 1918. Indiana University Press. ISBN0253354528. Palmer, Alan (1965): The Gardeners of Salonika: The Macedonian Campaign 19151918 (Andre Deutsch, London). Parker, Charles (1964): Return to Salonika (Cassell & Co, London). Wakefield, Alan & Moody, Simon (2004): Under the Devils Eye: Britains Forgotten Army at Salonika 19151918 (Sutton Publishing, Stroud England) ISBN 0-7509-3537-5

External links
Balkanalysis.com review of the official British government history of the Macedonian Front campaign, Military Operations Macedonia: Part 1 (http://www.balkanalysis.com/?p=532) and Part 2 (http://www.balkanalysis. com/2006/01/19/military-operations-macedonia-the-official-british-history-part-2) The New Zealand Stationary (Military) Hospital at Salonika (chapter on) (http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/ tei-WH1-Effo-t1-body-d6.html) The New Zealand Stationary Hospital at Salonika (photo of)) (http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/ WH1-Effo-fig-WH1-Effo108a.html)

Middle Eastern theatre

103

Middle Eastern theatre


The Middle Eastern theatre of World War I was the scene of action between 29 October 1914, and 30 October 1918. The combatants were the Ottoman Empire, with some assistance from the other Central Powers, and primarily the British and the Russians among the Allies of World War I. There were five main campaigns: the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, the Mesopotamian Campaign, the Caucasus Campaign, the Persian Campaign, and the Gallipoli Campaign. There were the minor North African Campaign, the Arab Campaign, and South Arabia Campaign. Besides the regular forces both sides used asymmetrical forces in the region. Participating on the Allied side were Arabs who participated in the Arab Revolt, and Armenian militia who participated in the Armenian Resistance. The Armenian volunteer units and Armenian militia formed the Armenian Corps of the Democratic Republic of Armenia in 1918. This theatre encompassed the largest territory of all the theatres of the war. The Russian participation ended with the Armistice of Erzincan (5 December 1917) and the revolutionary Russian government eventually withdrew from the war with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3 March 1918). The Armenians attended the Trabzon Peace Conference (14 March 1918) and resulting with the Treaty of Batum on 4 June 1918. The Ottomans accepted the Armistice of Mudros with the Allies on 30 October 1918, and signed the Treaty of Svres on 10 August 1920 and later the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923.

Objectives
The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers in through the secret Ottoman-German Alliance,[1] which was signed on 2 August 1914. The main objective of the Ottoman Empire in the Caucasus was the recovery of its territories in Eastern Anatolia lost during the Russo-Turkish War, 187778, in particular Artvin, Ardahan, Kars, and the port of Batum. Success in this region would force the Russians to divert troops to this front from the Polish and Galician fronts.[2] German advisors with the Ottoman armies naturally supported the campaign for this reason. From an economic perspective, the Ottoman, or rather the German, strategic goal was to cut off Russian access to the hydrocarbon resources around the Caspian Sea.[3] Germany established an Intelligence Bureau for the East on the eve of World War I. The bureau was involved in intelligence-gathering and subversive missions to Persia and to Afghanistan, to dismantle the Anglo-Russian Entente.[4] Ottoman War Minister Enver Pasha claimed that if Russians could be beaten in the key cities of Persia, it could open the way to Azerbaijan, to Central Asia and to India. If these nations were to be removed from Western influence, Enver envisioned a cooperation between these newly establishing Turkic states. Enver's project conflicted with European interests which played out as struggles between several key imperial powers. The Ottomans also challenged Britain's communications with India and the East via the Suez Canal. The British feared that the Ottomans might attack and capture the Middle East (and later Caspian) oil fields.[3] Opposed to the Ottomans, the British Royal Navy depended upon oil from the petroleum deposits in southern Persia, to which the British-controlled Anglo-Persian Oil Company had exclusive access.[3] The Russians viewed the Caucasus Front as secondary to the Eastern Front. They feared a campaign into the Caucasus aimed at retaking Kars (which had been taken from the Ottoman Empire during the Russo-Turkish War (18771878), and the port of Batum. In March 1915, when the Russian foreign minister Sergey Sazonov met with British ambassador George Buchanan and French ambassador Maurice Palologue, he stated that a lasting postwar settlement demanded full Russian possession of the capital city of the Ottoman Empire, Constantinople, the straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, southern Thrace up to the Enos-Midia line as well as parts of the Black Sea coast of Anatolia between the Bosphorus, the Sakarya River and an undetermined point near the Bay of Izmit. The Russian Imperial government planned to replace the Muslim population of Northern Anatolia and Istanbul with more reliable Cossack settlers.[5]

Middle Eastern theatre The Armenian national liberation movement also sought to establish the First Republic of Armenia in the Eastern part of Asia Minor. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation eventually achieved this goal while the Ottoman rule was finally crumbling, with the establishment of the internationally recognized Democratic Republic of Armenia in May 1918. As early as 1915, the Administration for Western Armenia and later Republic of Mountainous Armenia were Armenian-controlled entities, while the Centrocaspian Dictatorship was established with Armenian participation. None of these entities were long lasting.

104

Operational Area
The Caucasus Campaign comprised armed conflicts between the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire, later including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Central Caspian Dictatorship and the UK as part of the Middle Eastern theatre or alternatively named as part of the Caucasus Campaign during World War I. The Caucasus Campaign extended from the Caucasus to the Eastern Asia Minor reaching as far as Trabzon, Bitlis, Mu and Van. The land warfare was accompanied by the Russian navy in the Black Sea Region of the Ottoman Empire. On February 23, 1917, the Russian advance was halted following the Russian Revolution, and later the disintegrated Russian Caucasus Army was replaced by the forces of the newly established Armenian state, comprised from the previous Armenian volunteer units and the Armenian irregular units. During 1918 the region also saw the establishment of the Central Caspian Dictatorship, the Republic of Mountainous Armenia and an Allied force named Dunsterforce which was composed of elite troops drawn from the Mesopotamian and Western Fronts. The Ottoman Empire and German Empire had a hot conflict at Batumi with the arrival of German Caucasus Expedition whose prime aim was to secure oil supplies. On March 3, 1918, the campaign terminated between the Ottoman Empire and Russia with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and on June 4, 1918, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Batum with Armenia. However, the armed conflicts extended as Ottoman Empire continued to engage with Central Caspian Dictatorship, Republic of Mountainous Armenia and Dunsterforce of British Empire until the Armistice of Mudros signed on October 30, 1918.

Top: Destruction in the city of Erzurum; Left Upper: Russian forces; Left Lower: Wounded Muslim refugees; Right Upper:Ottoman forces; Right Lower: Armenian refuges

FebruaryApril 1915, The Battle of Gallipoli

"Top:" The size of the stars show where the active conflicts occurred in 1915 "Left Upper:" Armenians defending the walls of Van in the spring of 1915 "Left Lower:" Armenian Resistance in Urfa "Right:" A seventy year old Armenian priest leading Armenians to battle field.

Middle Eastern theatre

105

Ottomans at the Eastern European Front


The general consensus is that Ottoman Empire mainly fought on the Empires own territories. In reality over 90,000 troops were sent to the Eastern European Front in 1916, to participate in operations in Romania in the Balkans Campaign. The Central Powers asked for these units to support their operations against the Russian army. Later, it was concluded that was a mistake, as these forces were needed to protect Ottoman territory, as the massive Erzerum Offensive was under way. This move was initiated by Enver. It was originally rejected by the German Chief of Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, but his successor, Paul von Hindenburg, agreed with some doubts. The decision was reached after the Brusilov Offensive, as the Central Powers were running short of men on the Eastern Front. In early 1916, Enver sent the XV Army Corps to Galicia, the VI Army Corps to Romania, and the XX Army Corps and 177th Infantry Regiment to Macedonia. There are two Turkish sources regarding these operations and respectively they state 117,000 and 130,000 men were sent, but both agree that nearly 8,000 of them were killed in action, with another 22,000 being wounded.

Forces
Central Powers (Ottoman Empire)
After the Young Turk Revolution and the establishment of the Second Constitutional Era (Turkish: kinci Mertiyet Devri) on July 3, 1908, a major military reform started. Army headquarters were modernized. The Ottoman Empire was engaged in the Turco-Italian War and Balkan Wars, which forced more restructuring of the army, only a few years before the First World War. During this period, the Empire divided its forces into armies. Each army headquarters consisted of a Chief of Staff, an operations section, intelligence section, logistics section and a personnel section. As a long established tradition in Ottoman military, support departments for supplies, medical and veterinary services were included in these armies. In 1914, before the Ottoman Empire entered the War, the four Armies divided their forces into Corps and divisions such that each division had 3 infantry regiments and an artillery regiment. Before the war, the largest units were: First Army with 15 divisions; Second Army with 4 divisions, and an independent infantry division with 3 infantry regiments and an artillery brigade; Third Army with 9 divisions, four independent infantry regiments and four independent cavalry regiments (tribal units); Fourth Army with 4 divisions.

War Minister Ismail Enver of the Ottoman Empire

In August 1914, of 36 infantry divisions organized, 14 were established from scratch and essentially new divisions. In a very short time, 8 of these newly-recruited divisions gone through major redeployment. During the World War, more armies were established; 5th Army and 6th Army in 1915, and 7th Army and 8th Army in 1917, and Kuva-i nzibatiye and the Army of Islam which had only a single Corps in 1918. By 1918, these original armies had been so badly reduced that the Empire was forced to establish new unit definitions which incorporated these armies. These were the Eastern Army Group and Yildirim Army Group. However, although the number of armies were increasing during these four years, the Empire's resources of manpower and supplies were declining, so that the Army Groups in 1918 were not bigger than the Armies in 1914. In 1918, the Ottoman Army was still partially intact and partially effective to the end of the war.

Middle Eastern theatre Most of the war equipment was built by Germans or Austrians, and were maintained by German and Austrian engineers. Germany supplied most of the military advisers to this theatre. A force of specialist troops (the Asia Korps) was dispatched in 1917, and increased to a fighting force of two regiments in 1918. The German Caucasus Expedition was established in the formerly Russian Transcaucasia around early 1918 during the Caucasus Campaign. Its prime aim was to secure oil supplies for Germany and stabilize a nascent pro-German Democratic Republic of Georgia, which brought the Ottoman Empire and Germany into conflict, with exchanges of official condemnations between them at the final months of the war. Recruitment The Ottoman Empire established a new recruitment law on 12 May 1914. This lowered the conscription age from 20 to 18, and abolished the redif or reserve system. Active duty lengths were set at 2 years for the infantry, 3 years for other branches of the Army and 5 years for the Navy. These measures remained largely theoretical during the war. Traditional Ottoman forces depended on volunteers from the Muslim population of the empire. Additionally, several groups and individuals in the Ottoman society volunteered for active duty during the World War. The major examples being the Mevlevi and the Kadiri.

106

Ottoman military recruitment near Tiberias

There were also units formed by Caucasian and Rumelian Turks, who took part in the battles in Mesopotamia and Palestine. Among Ottoman forces, volunteers were not only from Turkic groups; there were also Arab and Bedouin volunteers who supported the campaign against the British to capture the Suez Canal, and in Mesopotamia. It has to be noted that these forces did not provide a substantial support. Volunteers become unreliable with the establishment of organized army, as they were not trained well, also most of the Arab and Bedouin volunteers were motivated by financial gains. As the real conflicts approached, Ottoman volunteer system disappeared by itself.

Entente nations
Before the war, Russia had the Russian Caucasus Army, but almost half of this was redeployed to the Prussian front after the defeats at the battles of Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes, leaving behind just 60,000 troops in this theatre. In the summer of 1914, Armenian volunteer units were established under the Russian Armed forces. Nearly 20,000 Armenian volunteers expressed their readiness to take up arms against the Ottoman Empire as early as 1914. In several towns occupied by the Russians, the Armenians showed themselves ready to join the Russian volunteer army.[6] These volunteer units increased in size during the war, to the extent that Boghos Nubar represented them to number 150,000 in a public letter to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919.[7] In 1914, there were some British Indian Army units located in the southern influence zone in Persia. These units had extensive experience in dealing with dissident tribal forces. The British later established the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force, British Dardanelles Army, Egyptian Expeditionary Force, and in 1917 they established Dunsterforce under Lionel Dunsterville, consisting of less than 1,000 Australian, British, Canadian and New Zealand troops accompanied by armoured cars to oppose Ottoman and German forces in the Caucasus. In 1916, an Arab Revolt began in the Hejaz. About 5,000 regular soldiers (mostly former prisoners of war, of Arab origin) served with the forces of the revolt. There were also many irregular tribesmen the direction of the Emir Feisal and British advisers, of whom T.E. Lawrence is the best known. France sent the French Armenian Legion to this theatre as part of its larger French Foreign Legion. Foreign Minister Aristide Briand needed to provide troops for French commitment made in Sykes-Picot Agreement, which was still secret.[8] Boghos Nubar, the leader of the Armenian national assembly, also met with Sir Mark Sykes and Georges-Picot after signing the French-Armenian Agreement. General Edmund Allenby, the commander of the

Middle Eastern theatre Egyptian Expeditionary Force, extended the original agreement. The Armenian Legion fought in Palestine and Syria. Many of the volunteers in Foreign Legion who managed to survive the first years of the war were generally released from the Legion to join their respective national armies. The Armenian national liberation movement commanded the Armenian Fedayee (Armenian: ) during these conflicts. These were generally referred to as Armenian militia. In 1917, The Dashnaks established Armenian Corps under the command of General Tovmas Nazarbekian which, with the declaration of the Democratic Republic of Armenia, became the military core of this new Armenian state and Nazarbekian became the first Commander-in-chief. Recruitment Before the war, Russia established a volunteer system to be used in the Caucasus Campaign. In the summer of 1914, Armenian volunteer units were established under the Russian Armed forces. As the Russian Armenian conscripts were already sent to the European Front, this force was uniquely established from Armenians that were neither Russian subjects nor obliged to serve. The Armenian detachment units were credited no small measure of the success which attended by the A group of Armenians responded to Russian recruitment for the Armenian volunteer units Russian forces, as they were natives of the region, adjusted to the climatic conditions, familiar with every road and mountain path, and had real incentives to fight.[9] The Armenian volunteers were small, mobile, and well adapted to the semi-guerrilla warfare.[10] They did good work as scouts, though they took part in many severe engagements.[10] December 1914, Nicholas II of Russia visited the Caucasus Campaign. Telling to the head of the Armenian Church along the president of the Alexander Khatisyan of the Armenian National Bureau in Tiflis that: From all countries Armenians are hurrying to enter the ranks of the glorious Russian Army, with their blood to serve the victory of the Russian Army... Let the Russian flag wave freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Let your will the peoples [Armenian] remaining under the Turkish yoke receive freedom. Let the Armenian people of Turkey who have suffered for the faith of Christ received resurrection for a new free life ....[11] Nicholas II of Russia

107

Asymmetrical forces
The forces used in the Middle Eastern theatre was not only regular army units and regular warfare, but also what is known today as "Asymmetrical conflicts". Contrary to myth, it was not T. E. Lawrence or the Army that conceptualised a campaign of internal insurgency against the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East: it was the Arab Bureau of Britain's Foreign Office that devised the Arab Revolt. The Arab Bureau had long felt it likely that a campaign instigated and financed by outside powers, supporting the breakaway-minded tribes and regional challengers to the Ottoman government's centralised rule of their empire, would pay great dividends in the diversion of effort that would be needed to meet such a challenge. The Ottoman authorities devoted a hundred or a thousand times the resources to contain the threat of such an internal rebellion, as the Allies' devoted to sponsoring it. Germany established Intelligence Bureau for the East on the eve of War. It was dedicated to promoting and sustaining subversive and nationalist agitations in the British Indian Empire and the Persian Campaign and Egyptian satellite states. Its operations in Persia, aimed at fomenting trouble for the British in the Persian Gulf, were led by Wilhelm Wassmuss,[4] a German diplomat, also known as the "German Lawrence of Arabia" or "Wassmuss of Persia".

Middle Eastern theatre

108

Chronology
Prelude
In early July 1914, the political situation changed dramatically after the events in Europe. The Ottoman Empire was forced to make a secret Ottoman-German Alliance on 2 August 1914, followed by another treaty with Bulgaria. The Ottoman War ministry developed two major plans. Bronsart von Schellendorf, a member of the German military mission to the Ottoman Empire who had been appointed Assistant Chief of the Ottoman General Staff, completed a plan on 6 September 1914 by which the Fourth Army was to attack Egypt and the Third Army would launch an offensive against the Russians in Eastern Anatolia. There was opposition to Schellendorf among the Ottoman army. The most voiced opinion was that Schellendorf planned a war which benefitted Germany, rather than taking into account the conditions of the Ottoman Empire. Hafiz Hakki Pasha presented an alternative plan, which was more aggressive, and concentrated on Russia. It was based on moving forces by sea to the eastern Black Sea coast, where they would develop an offensive against Russians. Hafiz Hakki Pasha's plan was shelved because the Ottoman Army lacked the resources. Schellendorfs "Primary Campaign Plan" was therefore adopted by default. As a result of Schellendorf's plan, most of the Ottoman operations were fought in Ottoman territory, with the result that in many cases they directly affected the Empire's own people. It was proven later the resources to implement this plan also were lacking, but Schellendorf organized the command and control of the army better, and positioned the army to execute the plans. Schellendorf also produced a better mobilization plan for raising forces and preparing them for war. Among some historical documents within the Ottoman War minister's archives today are the War plans drafted by Schellendorf, dated 7 October 1914, which included Ottoman support to the Bulgarian army, a secret operation against Romania, and Ottoman soldiers landing in Odessa and Crimea with the support of German Navy. An aspect of the German influence on Turkey's operations was that during the Palestine campaign, most of the staff posts in the Yldrm Army Group were held by German officers. Even the headquarters correspondence was in German. This situation ended with the final defeat in Palestine and the appointment of Mustafa Kemal to command the remnants of the Yildirim Army Group. During July 1914, there were negotiations between the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) and Armenians at the Armenian congress at Erzurum. The public conclusion of this congress was "Ostensibly conducted to peacefully advance Armenian demands by legitimate means".[12] The CUP regarded the congress as the seedbed for establishing the decision of insurrection.[13] Historian Erikson concluded that after this meeting, the CUP was convinced of the existence of strong Armenian Russian links, with detailed plans to detach the region from the Ottoman Empire.[13] On 29 October 1914, The Ottoman Empire's first armed engagement with the Allies occurred when the German battlecruiser Goeben and light cruiser Breslau, having been pursued into Turkish waters and transferred to the Ottoman navy, shelled the Russian Black Sea port of Odessa.

Middle Eastern theatre

109

Pre-War Period

1914, Before the war new recruits marching out to a drill

1914, the general staff of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign

1914
November Following the bombing of the Russia black sea ports, Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 2 November 1914. The British Navy attacked the Dardanelles on 3 November and the other Allies declared was on 5 November.[14] In November, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill put forward his initial plans for a naval attack to Ottoman Capital, based at least in part on what turned out to be erroneous reports regarding Ottoman troop strength, as prepared by Lieutenant T. E. Lawrence. He reasoned that the Royal Navy had a large number of obsolete battleships which might well be made useful, supported by a token force from the army being required for routine occupation tasks. The battleships were ordered to be ready by February 1916. At the same time, Ottoman Fourth Army was preparing a force of 20,000 men under the command of the Ottoman Minister of the Marine Djemal Pasha to take the Suez Canal. The attack on the Suez was suggested by War Minister Enver Pasha at the urging of their German ally. The chief of staff for the Ottoman Fourth Army was the Bavarian Colonel Kress von Kressenstein, who organized the attack and managed to get supplies for the army as it crossed the desert. On November 1, the Bergmann Offensive was the first armed conflict of Caucusus Campaign. The Russians crossed the frontier first, and planned to capture Doubeyazt and Kprky.[15] On their right wing, the Russian I Corps moved from Sarkam toward the direction of Kprky. On the left wing, the Russian IV Corps moved from Yerevan to the Pasinler Plains. The commander of the Ottoman Third Army, Hasan Izzet, was not in favour of an offensive in the harsh winter conditions. His plan to remain on the defensive and to launch a counter attack at the right time was overridden by the War Minister Enver Pasha. On November 6, a British naval force bombarded the old fort at Fao. The Fao Landing of British Indian Expeditionary Force D (IEF D), consisting of the 6th (Poona) Division led by Lieutenant General Arthur Barrett, with Sir Percy Cox as Political Officer, was opposed by 350 Ottoman troops and 4 cannons. On 22 November, the British occupied the city of Basra against a force of 2900 Arab conscripts of the Iraq Area Command commanded by Suphi Pasha. Suphi Pasha and 1,200 prisoners were captured. The main Ottoman army, under the overall command of Khalil Pasha was located about 440 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) north-west around Baghdad. They made only weak efforts to dislodge the British. On November 7, the Ottoman Third Army commenced its offensive at Caucuses Campaign with the participation of the XI Corps and all cavalry units supported by Kurdish Tribal Regiment. By November 12, Ahmet Fevzi Pasha's IX

Middle Eastern theatre Corps reinforced with the XI Corps on the left flank supported by the cavalry, began to push the Russians back. The Russians were successful along the southern shoulders of the offensive, where Armenian volunteers were effective and took Karakse and Doubeyazt.[16] By the end of November, the Russians held a salient 25 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) into Ottoman territory along the Erzurum-Sarkam axis.

110

November 1914

1914, Ottoman forces preparation for the attack on the Suez Canal

1914, Staff of Armenian volunteers; Khetcho, DRO, and Armen Garo

December In December, at the height of the Battle of Sarikamish, General Myshlaevsky ordered the withdrawal of Russian forces from Persian Campaign to be used in facing Enver's offense. Only one brigade of Russian troops under the command of the Armenian General Nazarbekoff and one battalion of Armenian volunteers remained scattered throughout Salmast and Urmia. While the main body of Ottoman troops were preparing for the operation in Persia, a small Russian group crossed the Persian frontier. After repulsing a Russian offensive toward Van-Persia mountain crossings, the Van Gendarmerie Division, a lightly equipped paramilitary formation commanded by Major Ferid, chased the enemy into Persia. On 14 December, the Van Gendarmerie Division occupied the city of Kotur in the Persian Campaign. Later, it proceeded towards Hoy. It was supposed to keep this passage open for Kazm Bey's 5th Expeditionary Force and Halil Bey's 1st Expeditionary Force, who were to move towards Tabriz from the bridgehead established at Kotur. However, the Battle of Sarkamsh depleted the Ottoman forces and these expeditionary forces were needed elsewhere. On December 22, Ottoman Third Army received the order to advance towards Kars. Enver Pasha assumed the personal command of the Third Army and ordered the forces to move against the Russian troops. The disastrous conflicts of Battle of Sarikamish began. In the face of the Third Army's advance, Governor Vorontsov planned to pull the Russian Caucasus Army back to Kars. General Nicolai Yudenich ignored Vorontsov's order.

Middle Eastern theatre

111

December 1914

1914 December, under the command of the Andranik's 1st battalion of Armenians scattered throughout Salmast and Urmia districts at the [17] Persian Campaign

1914, Initial British offence at Mesopotamian campaign

1915
January March On 2 January, Sleyman Askeri Bey assumed the Iraq Area Command. Enver Pasha realized the mistake of underestimating the importance of the Mesopotamian campaign. The Ottoman Army did not have any other resources to move to this region as an attack on Gallipoli was imminent. Sleyman Askeri Bey sent letters to Arab sheiks in an attempt to organize them to fight against the British. On 3 January, at the Battle of Qurna, Ottoman forces tried to retake the city of Basra. They came under fire from Royal Navy vessels on the Euphrates while British troops managed to cross the Tigris. Judging that the earthworks were too strong to be taken, the Ottomans surrendered the town of Al-Qurnah and retreated to Kut. On January 6, the Third Army headquarters found itself under fire. Hafiz Hakki Pasha ordered a total retreat at the Battle of Sarikamish. Only 10% of the army managed to retreat to its starting position. Enver gave up command of the army. During this conflict, Armenian detachments challenged the Ottoman operations at the critical times: "the delay enabled the Russian Caucasus Army to concentrate sufficient force around Sarikamish".[17] The British and France asked Russia to relieve the pressure on Western front, but Russia needed time to organize its forces. The operations in the Black Sea gave them the chance to replenish their forces; also the Battle of Gallipoli drew many Ottoman forces from the Russian and other fronts.[15] In March 1915, the Ottoman Third army received reinforcements amounting to a division from the First and Second Armies. On 19 February, the first attack began when a strong Anglo-French fleet, including the British battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth, bombarded artillery along the coast. Admiral Sackville Carden sent a cable to Churchill on 4 March, stating that the fleet could expect to arrive in Constantinople within fourteen days.[18] On 18 March the first major attack was launched. The fleet, comprising 18 battleships and an array of cruisers and destroyers, sought to target the narrowest point of the Dardanelles where the straits are just a mile wide. The French ship Bouvet exploded in mysterious circumstances, causing it to capsize with its entire crew aboard. Minesweepers, manned by civilians and under constant fire from Ottoman guns, retreated leaving the minefields largely intact. The battleship HMS Irresistible and battlecruiser HMS Inflexible both sustained critical damage from mines, although there was confusion during the battle whether torpedoes were to blame. The battleship HMS Ocean, sent to rescue the Irresistible, was itself mined and both ships eventually sank. The French battleships Suffren and Gaulois were also badly damaged. The losses prompted the Allies to cease any further attempts to force the straits by naval power alone.

Middle Eastern theatre In February, General Yudenich was promoted to command to Russian Caucasus Army replacing Aleksandr Zakharevich Myshlayevsky. On 12 February, the new commander of the Ottoman Third Army (Hafiz Hakki Pasha) died of typhus and was replaced by Brigadier General Mahmut Kamil Paa. Kamil undertook the task of putting the depleted Third Army in order. The Ottoman Empire tried to seize the Suez Canal in Egypt with the First Suez Offensive, and they supported the recently deposed Abbas II of Egypt, but were defeated by the British in both aims.

112

January - March 1915

January 1915, Third Army lost soldiers to frost at Battle of Sarikamish at Caucasus Campaign

1915, 6th Army field HQ at Mesopotamian campaign

February 1915, camel corps at Beersheba at Sinai and Palestine Campaign

March 1915, the Bouvet at Gallipoli Campaign

April June Following their unexpected success in Mesopotamia Campaign, the British command reconsidered their plan in favour of aggressive operations. In April 1915, general Sir John Nixon was sent to take command. He ordered Major General Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend to advance to Kut or even to Baghdad if possible. Enver Pasha worried about the possible fall of Baghdad, and sent the German General Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz to take command. On 12 April, Sleyman Askeri attacked the British camp at Shaiba with 3800 troops early in the morning. These forces provided by Arab sheiks produced no results. Sleyman Askeri was wounded. Disappointed and depressed, he shot himself at the hospital in Baghdad. On 20 April, the Siege of Van brought the conflicts into city of Van. On 24 April, Talat Pasha promulgated the order on April 24 (known by the Armenians as the Red Sunday) which claimed that the Armenians in this region were organized under the leadership of Russians and had rebelled against Ottoman government. On 25 April, the second part of the campaign began on the Gallipoli Peninsula on the European side of the Dardanelles, when the Allies launched an amphibious assault. The troops were able to land but could not dislodge the Ottoman forces after months of battle that caused the deaths of an estimated 131,000 soldiers, and 262,000 wounded. Eventually the Allied forces withdrew. The campaign represented something of a coming of age for Australia and New Zealand who celebrate 25 April as ANZAC Day. Kemal Ataturk, who later became the first leader of modern Turkey, distinguished himself as a Lieutenant Colonel on Gallipoli. On 6 May, General Yudenich began an offensive into Ottoman territory. One wing of this offensive headed towards Lake Van to relieve the Armenian residents of Van. The Fedayee turned over the city of Van to the Russians. On 21 May, General Yudenich received the keys to the city and its citadel, and confirmed the Armenian provisional government in office with Aram Manukian as governor. Fighting shifted farther west for the rest of the summer with Van secure.[2] On 6 May, the Russian second wing advanced through the Tortum Valley towards Erzurum after weather turned milder. The Ottoman 29th and 30th Divisions managed to stop this assault. The X Corps counter-attacked the Russian forces. On the southern part, the Ottomans were not as successful as they had been in the north. On 17 May, Russian forces at the city of Van continued to push back the Ottoman units. The city of Malazgirt had had already fallen on 11 May. The Ottomans' supply lines were being cut, as the Armenian forces caused additional difficulties behind the lines. The region south of Lake Van was extremely vulnerable. During May, the Ottomans had to defend a line of more than 600 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) with only 50,000

Middle Eastern theatre men and 130 pieces of artillery. They were clearly outnumbered by the Russians. On 27 May, during the high point of Russian offensive Ottoman parliament passed the Tehcir Law. Talat Pasha, the Interior Minister, ordered a forced deportation of all Armenians from the region. The Armenians of the Van resistance and others which were under Russian occupation were spared these deportations. On 19 June, the Russians launched another offensive northwest of Lake Van. The Russians, under Oganovski, launched an offense into the hills west of Malazgrit, but they underestimated the size of the Ottoman forces in this region. They were surprised by a large Ottoman force at the Battle of Malazgirt. They were not aware that the Ottoman IX Corps, together with the 17th and 28th Divisions was moving to Mu also. The 1st and 5th Expeditionary Forces were positioned to the south of the Russian offensive force and a Right Wing Group was established under the command of Brigadier General Abdlkerim Paa. This group was independent from the Third Army and Abdlkerim Paa was reporting directly to Enver Paa.

113

April - June 1915

April 1915, Armenian troops holding a defense line at the Siege of Van

1915, Armenian resistance members from Adapazari committee

July September On September 24, General Yudenich become the supreme commander of all Russian forces in the region. This front was quiet from October till the end of the year. Yudenich used this period to reorganize. At the turn of 1916, Russian forces reached a level of 200,000 men and 380 pieces of artillery. On the other side the situation was very different; the Ottoman High Command failed to make up the losses during this period. The war in Gallipoli was sucking up all the resources and manpower. The IX, X and XI Corps could not be reinforced, and the 1st and 5th Expeditionary Forces were deployed to Mesopotamia. Enver Pasha, after failing to achieve his ambitions in the Caucasus, or recognizing the dire situation on other fronts, decided that the region was of secondary importance.

Middle Eastern theatre

114

July - September 1915

1915, Mustafa Kemal in Gallipoli with his soldiers

A trench at Lone Pine after the battle, showing Australian and Turkish dead on the parapet

October December The rapid advance of the British up the river changed some of the Arab tribes perception of the conflict. Realizing that the British had the upper hand, Arabs in the region joined the British efforts. They raided Ottoman military hospitals and massacred the soldiers in Amara. On 7 December, the siege of Kut began. Von der Goltz helped the Ottoman forces build defensive positions around Kut, and established new fortified positions down river to fend off any attempt to rescue Townshend. General Aylmer made three attempts to break the siege, but each effort was unsuccessful. On 22 November, Townshend and von der Goltz fought the battle at Ctesiphon. The battle was inconclusive as both the Ottomans and the British retreated from the battlefield. Townshend halted and fortified the position at Kut-al-Amara. In December, the British government (started early 1915) attempted to cultivate favor with Ibn Saud via its secret agent, Captain William Shakespear, but this was abandoned after Shakespear's death at the Battle of Jarrab. Instead, the British transferred support to Ibn Saud's rival Sharif Hussein bin Ali, leader of the Hejaz, with whom the Saudis were almost constantly at war. Lord Kitchener also appealed to Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca for assistance in the conflict and Hussein wanted political recognition in return. an exchange of letters with Henry McMahon assured him that his assistance would be rewarded between Egypt and Persia, with the exception of imperial possessions and interests in Kuwait, Aden, and the Syrian coast. British entered into the Treaty of Darin in which made the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate. Ibn Saud pledged to again make war against Ibn Rashid, who was an ally of the Ottomans. Ibn Saud was also given a monthly stipend in exchange for waging war against Ibn Rashid.

Middle Eastern theatre

115

October - December 1915

July 1915, Defenders of the Urfa Resistance

December 1915, the trenches at Siege of Kut

1916
In 1916, a combination of diplomacy and genuine dislike of the new leaders of the Ottoman Empire (the Three Pashas) convinced Sherif Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca to begin a revolt. He gave the leadership of this revolt to two of his sons: Faisal and Abdullah, though the planning and direction for the war was largely the work of Lawrence of Arabia. The Russian offensive in northeastern Turkey started with a victory at Battle of Koprukoy and culminated with the capture of Erzurum in February and Trabzon in April. By the Battle of Erzincan the Third Army was no longer capable of launching an offensive nor could it stop the advance of the Russian Army.

1916, the general staff of the Mesopotamian campaign

The Ottoman forces launched a second attack across the Sinai with the objective of destroying or capturing the Suez Canal. Both this and the earlier attack (1915) were unsuccessful, though not very costly by the standards of the Great War. The British then went on the offensive, attacking east into Palestine. However, two failed attempts to capture the Ottoman fort of Gaza resulted in sweeping changes to the British command and the arrival of General Allenby, along with many reinforcements.

1917
British Empire forces reorganized and captured Baghdad in March 1917. On December 16, The Armistice of Erzincan (Erzincan Cease-fire Agreement) was signed which officially brought the end to the hostilities between Ottoman Empire and Russians. The Special Transcaucasian Committee also endorsed the agreement. The Sinai and Palestine Campaign was dominated with the success of the revolt. The revolt aided the General Allenby's 1917's operations.
British artillery placements during the Battle of Jerusalem, 1917.

Late in 1917, Allenby's Egyptian Expeditionary Force smashed the Ottoman defenses and captured Gaza, and then captured Jerusalem just before Christmas. While strategically of minimal importance to the war, this event was key in the subsequent creation of Israel as a separate nation in 1948.

Middle Eastern theatre

116

1918
The war weary Ottoman Empire could be quickly defeated with campaigns in Palestine and Mesopotamia, but the German Spring Offensive in France delayed the expected Allied attack. General Allenby was given brand new divisions recruited from India. The British achieved complete control of the air. General Liman von Sanders had no clear idea where the British were going to attack. Compounding the problems, the Ottomans withdrew their best troops to Caucasus Campaign. General Allenby finally launched the Battle of Megiddo, with the Jewish Legion under his command. Ottoman troops started a full scale retreat.

Ottoman trenches at the shores of the Dead Sea, 1918.

T. E. Lawrence and his Arab fighters staged many hit-and-run attacks on supply lines and tied down thousands of soldiers in garrisons throughout Palestine, Jordan, and Syria. On March 3, the Grand vizier Talat Pasha signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Russian SFSR which stipulated that Bolshevik Russia cede Batum, Kars, and Ardahan to Ottoman Empire. The Trabzon Peace Conference held between March and April among the Ottoman Empire and the delegation of the Transcaucasian Diet (Transcaucasian Sejm) and government. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk united the Armenian-Georgian block.[19] Democratic Republic of Armenia declared the existence of a state of war between the Ottoman Empire.[19] In early May, 1918, the Ottoman army faced the Armenian Corps of Armenian National Councils which soon declared the Democratic Republic of Armenia. The Ottoman army captured Trabzon, Erzurum, Kars, Van, and Batumi. The conflict led to the Battle of Sardarapat, the Battle of Kara Killisse (1918), and the Battle of Bash Abaran. Although the Armenians managed to inflict a defeat on the Ottomans at the Battle of Sardarapat, the Ottoman army won the later battle and scattered the Armenian army. The fight with Democratic Republic of Armenia ended with the sign the Treaty of Batum in June, 1918. However throughout the summer of 1918, under the leadership of Andranik Toros Ozanian Armenians in the mountainous Karabag region resisted the Ottoman 3rd army and established the Republic of Mountainous Armenia.[20] The Army of Islam avoided Georgia and marched to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. They got as far as Baku on the Caspian Sea. They threw the British out in September 1918 with the Battle of Baku.

Aftermath
On October 30, 1918, The Armistice of Mudros, signed on aboard the HMS Agamemnon in Mudros port on the island of Lemnos between the Ottoman Empire and the Triple Entente. Ottoman operations in the active combat theaters ceased.

Military occupation
On November 13, 1918, the Occupation of Constantinople (present day Istanbul) the capital of the Ottoman Empire occurred when the French troops arrived, followed by British troops the next day. The occupation had two stages: the de facto stage from November 13, 1918 to March 20, 1920, and the de jure stage from de facto to the days following the Treaty of Lausanne. The occupation of Istanbul along with the occupation of zmir, mobilized the establishment of the Turkish national movement and led to the Turkish War of Independence.[21]

Middle Eastern theatre

117

Peace Treaty
On 18 January 1919, the negotiations for a peace began with the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. The negotiation of the peace treaty continued at the Conference of London, and took definite shape only after the premiers' meeting at the San Remo conference in April 1920. France, Italy, and Great Britain, however, had been secretly partitioning of the Ottoman Empire as early as 1915. The Ottoman Government representatives signed the Treaty of Svres on August 10, 1920, but the treaty was not sent to Ottoman Parliament for ratification, as Parliament was abolished on March 18, 1920 by the British, during the occupation of Istanbul. As a result, the treaty was never ratified by the Ottoman Empire.[22][23] The Treaty of Svres was annulled in the course of the Turkish War of Independence and the parties signed and ratified the superseding Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Abolition of the Caliphate


On March 3, 1924, the Caliphate was abolished when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk deposed the last Ottoman caliph, Abdul Mejid II.

Casualties
If we look without breakdowns, the total Ottoman losses run almost as high as 25% of the population approximately 5 million out of population of 21 million.[] To be more exact, the 1914 census gave 20,975,345 as the population size, which 15,044,846 was Muslim millet, 187,073 Jew millet, 186,152 do not belong to any and the rest of the size is shared by other millets.[24] Among the 5 million, we know that 771,844 is military casualties killed in action and other causes.[25] The military only covers 15% of the total casualties. The main question is what happened to 85% (all millets) of the casualties, which is more but not less than 4,000,000. Ottoman statistics analyzed by Turkish Kamer Kasim (Manchester University, Ph.D.), claims that cumulative percentage was 26.9% (higher than 25% reported by western sources) of the population, which this size stands out among the countries that took part in World War I.[26] To understand the size of the issue, Kamer Kasm's %1.9 increase on the totals adds 399,000 civilians to the total number, which has not been reported in western sources.

Footnotes
[1] [2] [3] [4] The Treaty of Alliance Between Germany and Turkey (http:/ / www. yale. edu/ lawweb/ avalon/ turkgerm. htm) 2 August 1914 Hinterhoff, Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia, pp.499503 The Encyclopedia Americana, 1920, v.28, p.403 Popplewell, Richard J (1995), Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire 19041924. (http:/ / www. routledge. com/ shopping_cart/ products/ product_detail. asp?sku=& isbn=071464580X& parent_id=& pc=), Routledge, ISBN071464580X, [5] R. G. Hovannisian. Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967, pg. 59 [6] The Washington Post, November 12, 1914. "Armenians Join Russians" the extended information is at the image detail) [7] Joan George "Merchants in Exile: The Armenians of Manchester, England, 18351935", p.184 [8] Stanley Elphinstone Kerr. The Lions of Marash: personal experiences with American Near East Relief, 19191922 p. 30 [9] The Hugh Chisholm, 1920, Encyclopdia Britannica, Encyclopdia Britannica, Company ltd., twelve edition p.198. [10] Avetoon Pesak Hacobian, 1917, Armenia and the War, p.77 [11] (Shaw 1977, pp.314315) [12] Richard G. Hovannisian, The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, 244 [13] (Erickson 2001, pp.97) [14] Historical dictionary of the Ottoman Empire, By Seluk Akin Somel [15] A. F. Pollard, "A Short History Of The Great War" chapter VI: The first winter of the war. [16] (Erickson 2001, pp.54) [17] (Pasdermadjian 1918, pp.22) [18] Fromkin, 135. [19] Richard Hovannisian "The Armenian people from ancient to modern times" Pages 292293 [20] Mark Malkasian, Gha-Ra-Bagh": the emergence of the national democratic movement in Armenia page 22

Middle Eastern theatre


[21] Mustafa Kemal Pasha's speech on his arrival in Ankara in November 1919 [22] Sunga, Lyal S. (1992-01-01). Individual Responsibility in International Law for Serious Human Rights Violations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN0-7923-1453-0. [23] Bernhardsson, Magnus (2005-12-20). Reclaiming a Plundered Past: archaeology and nation building in modern Iraq. University of Texas Press. ISBN0-292-70947-1. [24] Stanford Jay Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw "History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey" Cambridge University page 239-241 [25] Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War By Huseyin (FRW) Kivrikoglu, Edward J. Erickson Page 211. [26] Kamer Kasim, Ermeni Arastirmalari, Say 1617, 2005, page 205.

118

Bibliography
Erickson, Edward J. (2001). Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN9780313315169. Pasdermadjian, Garegin; Aram Torossian (1918). Why Armenia Should be Free: Armenia's Role in the Present War (http://books.google.com/books?id=4XYMAAAAYAAJ). Hairenik Pub. Co.. p.45. Shaw, Stanford Jay; Shaw, Ezel Kural (1977). History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge University Press.

Further reading
David R. Woodward: Hell in the Holy Land: World War I in the Middle East. Lexington 2006, ISBN 978-0-8131-2383-7 W.E.D. Allen and Paul Muratoff, Caucasian Battlefields, A History of Wars on the Turco-Caucasian Border, 18281921, Nashville, TN, 1999 (reprint). ISBN 0-89839-296-9</ref> The Anglo-Russian Entente:Agreement concerning Persia (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914m/ anglruss.html) 1907 The French, British and Russian joint declaration (http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.160/ current_category.7/affirmation_detail.html) over the situation in Armenia published on May 24, 1915 Sykes-Picot Agreement 15 & 16 May 1916. The Middle East during World War I (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/middle_east_01.shtml) By Professor David R Woodward for the BBC Vintage and modern maps of the middle eastern front (http://tech2classroom.com/Edw11/africa.html) Turkey in the First World War web site (http://www.turkeyswar.com)

Italian campaign

119

Italian campaign
The Italian campaign (Italian: Fronte italiano; in German: Gebirgskrieg, "Mountain war") refers to a series of battles fought between the armies of Austria-Hungary and Italy in northern Italy between 1915 and 1918. Italy hoped that by joining the countries of the Triple Entente against the Central Powers it would gain Cisalpine Tyrol (today's provinces of Trentino and South Tyrol), the Austrian Littoral, and northern Dalmatia. Although Italy had hoped to begin the war with a surprise offensive intended to move quickly and capture several Austrian cities, the war soon bogged down into trench warfare similar to the Western Front fought in France.

Causes for the campaign


Although a member of the Triple Alliance with Austria-Hungary and Germany, Italy did not declare war in August 1914, arguing that the Alliance was defensive in nature and therefore that Austria-Hungary's aggression did not obligate Italy to take part.[1] Italy had a longstanding rivalry with Austria-Hungary, dating back to the Congress of Vienna in 1815 after the Napoleonic Wars, which granted several regions on the Italian peninsula to the Austrian Empire.[1] More importantly, a radical nationalist political movement, called Unredeemed Italy (Italia irredenta), founded in the 1880s, started claiming the Italian-inhabited territories of Austria Hungary, especially in the Austrian Littoral and in the County of Tyrol. By the 1910s, the expansionist ideas of this movement were taken up by a significant part of the Italian political elite. The liberation and annexation of those Austrian territories (inhabited not only by Italians, but also by ethnic Germans, South Slavs and Friulians) became the main Italian war goal, assuming a similar function as the issue of Alsace-Lorraine had for the French.[1] In the early stages of the war, Allied diplomats courted Italy, attempting to secure Italian participation on the Allied side, culminating in the Treaty of London of April 26, 1915 in which Italy renounced her obligations to the Triple Alliance.[2] On May 23, Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary.[2]

Campaigns of 1915-1916
First battles of Isonzo river
Italy opened the war with an offensive aimed at capturing the town of Gorizia (Gorica) on the Soa (Isonzo) river, and capturing the highlands on the Kras plateau and in the western Julian March, which would enable them to secure a further advance towards Trieste (Trst), Rijeka (Fiume), Kranj (Krainburg) and Ljubljana (Laibach). However, the Italian Army was poorly equipped in artillery, vehicles, and ammunition. At the beginning of the war, Italy had just 600 vehicles to move troops. As with most contemporary militaries, the Italian army primarily used horses for transport, and these failed to move supplies fast enough in the tough terrain of the Alps. Also, the newly appointed Italian commander, Luigi Cadorna, had no combat experience and was highly unpopular amongst his men.

Italian Front in 1915-1917: eleven Battles of the Isonzo and Asiago offensive. In blue, initial Italian conquests.

At the beginning of the offensive, Italian forces outnumbered the Austrians 3 to 1, but failed to penetrate their strong defensive lines along the Julian Alps and the northwestern highlands of the Gorika region. This was mostly due to

Italian campaign the Austrian forces being based on higher ground, and so Italian offensives had to be conducted climbing. Despite a professional officer corp, Italian units were severely undertrained and deficient in morale. Moreover, equipment and munition shortages suffered during the Turkish War in Libya (19111912) slowed progress and frustrated all hopes for a "Napoleonic style" breakout.[3] Two weeks later, the Italians attempted another frontal assault with more artillery but were beaten back again. Another attack was mounted from October 18 to November 4 with 1,200 heavy guns, which again resulted in no gain.

120

The Asiago offensive


Following Italy's disastrous offensives, the Austrians began planning a counteroffensive (Strafexpedition) in Trentino and directed over the plateau of Altopiano di Asiago, with the aim to break through to the Po River plain and thus cutting off the II., III., and IV. Italian Armies in the North East of the country. The offensive began on March 11, 1916 with 15 divisions breaking the Italian lines. Though warned of an impending offensive, the local Italian commander had chosen to conduct local offensives instead of preparing a defense. The unprepared Italian positions collapsed and Italy only staved off defeat by quickly transferring reinforcements from other fronts.

Later battles for the Isonzo


Later in 1916, four more battles along the Isonzo river erupted. The Sixth Battle of the Isonzo, launched by the Italians in August, resulted in a success greater than the previous attacks largely because the Austrians had depleted their lines for the Brusilov Offensive. The offensive gained nothing of strategic value but did take Gorizia, which boosted Italian spirits. The Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth battles of the Isonzo (September 14-November 4) managed to accomplish little except to wear down the already exhausted armies of both nations. The frequency of offensives for which the Italian soldiers partook between May 1915 and August 1917, one every three months, was higher than demanded by the armies on the Western Front. Italian discipline was also harsher, with punishments for infractions of duty of a severity not known in the German, French, and British armies.[4] Shellfire in the rocky terrain caused 70% more casualties per rounds expended than on the soft ground in Belgium and France. By the Austro-Hungarian supply line over the Vri autumn of 1917 the Italian army had suffered most of the deaths it was pass. October 1917 to incur during the war, yet the end of the war seemed to still be an eternity away.[4] This was not the same line of thought for the Austrians. On August 25, the Emperor Charles wrote to the Kaiser the following: "The experience we have acquired in the eleventh battle has led me to believe that we should fare far worse in the twelfth. My commanders and brave troops have decided that such an unfortunate situation might be anticipated by an offensive. We have not the necessary means as regards troops."[5] On 13 December 1916, known as 'White Friday', 10,000 soldiers were killed by avalanches in the Dolomites.[6]

Italian campaign

121

1917: Germany arrives


Following the minuscule gains of the Tenth Battle of the Isonzo, the Italians directed a two-pronged attack against the Austrian lines north and east of Gorizia. The Austrians easily checked the advance east, but Italian forces under Luigi Capello managed to break the Austrian lines and capture the Banjice (Bainsizza) Plateau. Characteristic of nearly every other theater of the war, the Italians found themselves on the verge of victory but could not secure it because their supply lines could not keep up with the front-line troops and they were forced to withdraw. The Austrians received desperately needed Battle of Caporetto and Italian retreat to the Piave river. reinforcements after the Eleventh Battle of the Isonzo from German Army soldiers rushed in after the Russian offensive ordered by Kerensky (Kerensky Offensive) of July 1917 failed. The Germans introduced infiltration tactics (Hutier tactics) to the Austrian front and helped work on a new offensive. Meanwhile, mutinies and plummeting morale crippled the Italian Army from within. The soldiers lived in poor conditions and engaged in attack after attack that often yielded minimal or no military gain. On October 24, 1917 the Austrians and Germans launched the Battle of Caporetto (Italian name for Kobarid) with a huge artillery barrage followed by infantry using Hutier tactics, bypassing enemy strong points and attacking on the Italian rear. At the end of the first day, the Italians had retreated 12 miles to the Tagliamento River.

1918: The war ends


Battle of the Piave
Advancing deep and fast, the Austrians overran their supply lines, which forced them to stop and regroup. The Italians, pushed back to defensive lines near Venice on the Piave River, had suffered 600,000 casualties to this point in the war. Because of these losses, the Italian Government called to arms the so-called '99 Boys (Ragazzi del '99), that is, all males who were 18 years old. In November 1917, British, French and US forces started to bolster the front line, though not in decisive numbers; the Italians were able to contain the Austrian offensive largely by themselves. Far more decisive than Allied help in troops, indeed, was Franco-British (and US) help provided in those strategic materials (coal, steel, etc.) Italy always lacked sorely. In the spring of 1918, Germany pulled out its troops for use in its upcoming Spring Offensive. The Austrians now began debating how to finish the war in Italy. The Austro-Hungarian generals disagreed on how to administer the final offensive. Archduke Joseph August of Austria decided for a two-pronged offensive, where it would prove impossible for the two forces to communicate in the mountains. The Battle of the Piave River began with a diversionary attack near the Tonale Pass named Lawine, which the Italians easily repulsed after two days of fight.[7] Austrian deserters betrayed the objectives of the upcoming offensive, which allowed the Italians to move two armies directly in the path of the Austrian prongs. The other prong, led by general Svetozar Boroevi von Bojna initially experienced success until aircraft bombed their supply lines and Italian reinforcements arrived.

Italian campaign

122

The decisive Battle of Vittorio Veneto


To the disappointment of Italy's allies, no counter-offensive followed the Battle of Piave. The Italian Army had suffered huge losses in the battle, and considered an offensive dangerous. General Armando Diaz waited for more reinforcements to arrive from the Western Front. By October 1918, Italy finally had enough soldiers to mount an offensive. The attack targeted Vittorio Veneto, across the Piave. Though Austrian soldiers fought fiercely, the superior numbers of the Italians overwhelmed them. The Italians broke through a gap near Sacile and poured in reinforcements Italian front in 1918 and battle of Vittorio Veneto. that crushed the Austrian defensive line. On 3 November, 300,000 Austrian soldiers surrendered. The Battle of Vittorio Veneto heralded the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Army as an effective fighting force, and also triggered the disintegration of Austria-Hungary. During the last week of October, declarations made in Budapest, Prague, and Zagreb proclaimed the independence of their respective parts of the old empire. On October 29, the imperial authorities asked Italy for an armistice, but the Italians continued to advance, reaching Trento, Udine, and Trieste. On November 3, Austria-Hungary sent a flag of truce to the Italian Commander to ask again for an Armistice and terms of peace. The terms were arranged by telegraph with the Allied Authorities in Paris, communicated to the Austrian Commander, and were accepted. The Armistice with Austria was signed in the Villa Giusti, near Padua, on November 3, and took effect on November 4, at three o'clock in the afternoon. Austria and Hungary signed separate armistices following the overthrow of the Habsburg Monarchy and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Occupation of northern Dalmatia


By the end of hostilities in November 1918, the Italian military had seized control of the entire portion of Dalmatia that had been guaranteed to Italy by the London Pact.[8] From 56 November 1918, Italian forces were reported to have reached Lissa, Lagosta, Sebenico, and other localities on the Dalmatian coast.[9] In 1918, Admiral Enrico Millo declared himself Italy's Governor of Dalmatia.[8]

Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Nicolle 2003, p.3 Nicolle 2003, p.5 Keegan, John (1999). The First World War. Knopf, N.Y.. pp.226, 227. ISBN0-375-40052-4. (2001),Keegan (2001), p319 Keegan (2001), p322 Thompson, Mark (2008). The White War: Life and Death on the Italian Front, 1915-1919. London: Faber & Faber. ISBN0571223338. From the website of the museum of the war on Adamello (http:/ / www. museoguerrabianca. it/ index. php?option=com_content& task=view& id=12& Itemid=41) [8] Paul O'Brien. Mussolini in the First World War: the Journalist, the Soldier, the Fascist. Oxford, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Berg, 2005. Pp. 17. [9] Giuseppe Praga, Franco Luxardo. History of Dalmatia. Giardini, 1993. Pp. 281.

Italian campaign

123

References
Mortara, G (1925). La Salute pubblica in Italia durante e dopo la Guerra. New Haven: Yale University Press. Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. ISBN5931651071. Cassar, George H. (1998). The Forgotten Front: The British Campaign in Italy, 1917-1918. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN185285166X. Nicolle, David (2003). The Italian Army of World War I. Osprey Publishing. ISBN1841763985. Page, Thomas Nelson, (1920) "Italy and the World War". New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, Full Text Available Online (http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/Italy/PageTC.htm). Keegan, John (2001). The first World War; An Illustrated History. London: Hutchinson. ISBN0091793920. Thompson, Mark (2008). The White War: Life and Death on the Italian Front, 19151919. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN0465013295.

External links
The Walks of Peace in the Isonzo Region Foundation (http://www.potimiruvposocju.si/). The Foundation preserves, restores and presents the historical and cultural heritage of the First World War in the area of the Isonzo Front for the study, tourist and educational purposes. The Great War in the Dolomites (http://www.frontedolomitico.it/). The men, the mountains and the events

Eastern front
The Eastern Front was a theatre of war during World War I in Central and, primarily, Eastern Europe. The term is in contrast to the Western Front. Despite the geographical separation, the events in the two theatres strongly influenced each other. In Russian sources, the war was sometimes called the Second Fatherland War.[1]

Theatre of war
The length of the front in the east was much longer than in the west. The theatre of war was roughly delimited by the Baltic Sea in the west The Eastern Front, as it was in 1914 and Minsk in the east, and Saint Petersburg in the north and the Black Sea in the south, a distance of more than 1600 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'mi). This had a drastic effect on the nature of the warfare. While World War I on the Western Front developed into trench warfare, the battle lines on the Eastern Front were much more fluid and trenches never truly developed. This was because the greater length of the front ensured that the density of soldiers in the line was lower so the line was easier to break. Once broken, the sparse communication networks made it difficult for the defender to rush reinforcements to the rupture in the line to mount a rapid counteroffensive and seal off a breakthrough. In short, on the Eastern front the side defending did not have the overwhelming advantages it had on the Western front. However, as in the Napoleonic Wars and World War II, Russian forces were familiar with their own ground which provided a natural advantage for the Russian emperor's land forces.

Eastern front

124

1914
At the outbreak of the war, Tsar Nicholas II appointed his cousin, Grand Duke Nicholas as Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Russian Army. On mobilization, the Russian army totaled some 1.2 million men under arms, including 70 infantry [2] and 24 cavalry divisions with nearly 7,900 guns (7,100 field guns, 540 field howitzers and 257 heavy guns). Divisions were allocated as follows: 32 infantry and 10.5 cavalry divisions to operate against Germany, 46 infantry and 18.5 cavalry divisions to operate against Austria-Hungary, 19.5 infantry and 5.5 cavalry divisions for the defence of the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea littorals, and 17 infantry and 3.5 cavalry divisions were to be transported in from Siberia and Turkestan. The war in the east began with the Russian invasion of East Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian province of Galicia. The first effort quickly turned to a defeat following the Battle of Tannenberg in August 1914. The second incursion was completely successful, with the Russians controlling almost all of Galicia by the end of 1914. Under the command of Nikolai Ivanov and Aleksei Brusilov, the Russians won the Battle of Galicia in September and began the Siege of Przemyl, the next fortress on the road towards Krakw. This early Russian success in 1914 on the Austro-Russian border was a reason for concern to the Central Powers and caused considerable German forces to be transferred to the East to take pressure off the Austrians, leading to the creation of the new German Ninth Army. At the end of 1914 the main focus of the fighting shifted to central part of Russian Poland, west of the river Vistula. The October Battle of the Vistula River and the November Battle of d brought little advancement for the Germans, but at least kept the Russians at a safe distance. The Russian and Austro-Hungarian armies continued to clash in and near the Carpathian Mountains throughout the winter of 19141915. Przemysl fortress managed to hold out deep behind enemy lines throughout this period, with the Russians bypassing it in order to attack the Austro-Hungarian troops further to the west. They made some progress, crossing the Carpathians in February and March 1915, but then the Germans sent relief and stopped further Russian advance. In the meantime, Przemysl was almost entirely destroyed and the Siege of Przemysl ended in a defeat for the Austrians.

1915
In 1915 the German command decided to make its main effort on the Eastern Front, and accordingly transferred considerable forces there. To eliminate the Russian threat the Central Powers began the campaign season of 1915 with the successful Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive in Galicia in May 1915. After the Second Battle of the Masurian Lakes, the German and Austro-Hungarian troops in the Eastern Front functioned under a unified command. The offensive soon turned into a general advance and then a strategic retreat by the Russian army. The cause of the reverses suffered by the Russian army was not so much errors in the tactical sphere, as the deficiency in technical equipment, particularly in artillery and ammunition. Only by 1916 did buildup of Russian war industries increase production of war material and improve the supply situation.

Eastern front

125

By mid-1915, the Russians had been expelled from Russian Poland and hence pushed hundreds of kilometers away from the borders of the Central Powers, removing the threat of Russian invasion of Germany or Austria-Hungary. At the end of 1915 German-Austrian advance was stopped on the line RigaJakobstadtDvinskBaranovichiPinskDubnoTernopil. The general outline of this front line did not change until the Russian collapse in 1917.

1916
By June 1916 there were 140 Russian infantry divisions against 105 Austro-German infantry divisions and 40 Russian cavalry divisions against 22 Austro-German. The mobilization of industry and increase of imports enabled the Russian army to resume the offensive. A large attack on the southwestern The Eastern Front in 1917 front under the leadership of General Aleksey Brusilov (the Brusilov Offensive) started in June. The attack, aimed against the part of the front held by Austro-Hungarians, was initially a spectacular success. The Russian army advanced to a depth of 5070 kilometres (unknown operator: u'strong'unknown operator: u'strong'unknown operator: u'strong' unknown operator: u'strong'), capturing several hundred thousand prisoners and several hundred guns. The arrival of important enemy reinforcements from the west, the defeat of the Romanians, and failure of Russia's western allies to shake German defenses, brought the Russian advance to an end in September. On 14 August 1916, Romania entered the war on the side of the Entente and had a successful offensive until September. After that it started to suffer great losses and several defeats from German-Austrian-Bulgarian-Ottoman forces, as the Romanian Army was poorly equipped and their Russian allies offered little support on the front.

19171918
By 1917, the Russian economy finally neared collapse under the strain of the war effort. While the equipment of the Russian armies actually improved due to the expansion of the war industry, the food shortages in the major urban centres brought about civil unrest, which led to the abdication of the Tsar and the February Revolution. The large war casualties also created disaffection and mutinous attitudes in the army, which was fueled by Bolshevik agitators and the Russian Provisional Governments new liberalization policies towards the army (stripping officers of their mandate by giving wide sweeping powers to "soldier committees", the abolition of the death penalty). The very last offensive undertaken by the Russian Army in the war was the brief and unsuccessful Kerensky Offensive in July 1917. On 29 November 1917, the Communist Bolsheviks took power under their leader Vladimir Lenin. Lenins new Bolshevik government tried to end the war but the Territory lost by Russia under the Germans demanded enormous concessions. Finally, in March 1918, the Treaty of Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Brest-Litovsk was signed and the Eastern Front ceased to be a war zone. While the treaty was practically obsolete before the end of the year, it did provide some relief to

Eastern front

126

Bolsheviks, who were embroiled in a civil war, and affirmed the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, and Lithuania. The Germans were able to transfer substantial forces to the west in order to mount an offensive in France in the spring of 1918. However, this offensive failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough and the arrival of more and more American units in Europe was sufficient to offset the German advantage. Even after the Russian collapse, about a million German soldiers remained tied up in the east until the end of the war, High-ranking German officers in Riga after its attempting to run a short-lived addition to the German Empire in fall, 3 September 1917 Europe. In the end, Germany and Austria lost all their captured lands, and more, under various treaties (such as the Treaty of Versailles) signed after the armistice in 1918.

Casualties
The Russian casualties in the First World War are difficult to estimate, due to the poor quality of available statistics. Some official Russian sources list 775,400 battlefield fatalities. More recent Russian estimates give 900,000 battlefield deaths and 400,000 dead from combat wounds, or a total of 1,300,000 dead. This is about equal to the casualties suffered by France and Austria-Hungary and about one-third less than those suffered by Germany. Cornish gives a total of 2,006,000 military dead (700,000 killed in action, 970,000 died of wounds, 155,000 died of disease and 181,000 died while POWs). This measure of Russian losses is similar to that of the British Empire, 5% of the male population in the 15 to 49 age group. He says civilian casualties were five to six hundred thousand in the first two years, and were then not kept, so a total of over 1,500,000 is not unlikely. He has over five million men passing into captivity, the majority during 1915. When Russia withdrew from the war, 3,900,000 Russian POWs were in German and Austrian hands. This by far exceeded the total number of prisoners of war (1,300,000) lost by the armies of Britain, France and Germany combined. Only the Austro-Hungarian Army, with 2,200,000 POWs, came even close.

Notes
[1] Moore, Colleen M. "Demonstrations and Lamentations: Urban and Rural Responses to War in Russia in 1914." In The Historian, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Fall 2009), pg. 563. [2] WWI DATABOOK, p.166 date 2001

References
Cornish, Nik (2006). The Russian Army and the First World War. Stroud: Tempus. ISBN1862272883. Stone, Norman (2004). Eastern Front 19141917. Penguin Global. ISBN0140267255. Russia U.S.S.R. : a complete handbook. New York: W.F. Payson, 1933. Section on armed forces by A. Zaitsov.

Eastern front

127

External links
WWI Eastern Front Foto (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65817306@N00/sets/486575/). WWI Eastern Front Part II (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65817306@N00/sets/1219581/) With the Russian army, 19141917 (http://www.archive.org/details/withrussianarmy101knoxuoft) by Alfred Knox War And Revolution In Russia 19141917 (http://www.archive.org/details/warandrevolution009671mbp) by General Basil Gourko. WWI German Military Cemeteries in Belarus (http://globus.tut.by/type_tno_graves_nem.htm) modern photos by Andrey Dybowski (rus).

Ukraine during World War I

128

Ukraine during World War I


History of Ukraine

This article is part of a series

Ukraine Portal
Upon the outbreak of World War I, the name Ukraine was used only geographically, as the term did not exist nationally. The territory that made up the modern country of Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire with a notable southwestern region administered by Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the border dating to the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

Ukraine's role in the prelude to the war


However as the border did not undermine the ethnic composition of Europe, both Empires towards the latter 19th century, on the tide of rising national awareness of the period attempted to exert their influence on the adjacent territory. For the Russian Empire, viewed Ukrainians as Little Russians and had support of the large Russophile community among the Ukrainian population in Galicia. Austria on the contrary supported the late-19th century rise in Ukrainian Nationalism. Ultimately for both empires Western Ukraine was but a pawn in a major standoff for the Balkans and the Slavic Orthodox population it harboured.

A Balkan war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was considered inevitable, as Austria-Hungarys influence waned and the Pan-Slavic movement grew. The rise of ethnic nationalism coincided with the growth of Serbia, where anti-Austrian sentiment was perhaps most fervent. Austria-Hungary had occupied the former Ottoman province of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had a large Serb population, in 1878. It was formally annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908. Increasing nationalist sentiment also coincided with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Russia supported the Pan-Slavic movement, motivated by ethnic and religious loyalties and a rivalry with Austria dating back to the Crimean War. Recent events such as the failed Russian-Austrian treaty and a century-old dream of a warm water port also motivated St. Petersburg.[1] Religion also played a key role in the standoff. When Russia and Austria partitioned Poland at the end of the 18th century, they inherited largely Eastern-rite Catholic populations. Russia went to great lengths to revert the population to Orthodoxy, often peacefully (see Synod of Polotsk), but at times forcibly (as took place in Chelm)[2] The final factor was that by 1914, Ukrainian nationalism had matured to a point where it could significantly influence the future of the region.[3] As a result of this nationalism and of the other main sources of Russo-Austrian

Modern Ukraine's borders superimposed on the 1912 administrative division of the Russian and Austrian Empires

Ukraine during World War I confrontations, including Polish and Romanian lands, both empires eventually lost these disputed territories when these territories formed new, independent states according to Ivan Rudnystsky.

129

Outbreak
The Russian advance into Galicia began in August 1914. During the offensive, the Russian army successfully pushed the Austrians right up to the Carpathian ridge effectively capturing all of the lowland territory, and fulfiling their long aspirations of annexing the territory. Ukrainians were split into two separate and opposing armies. 3.5 million fought with the Imperial Russian Army, while 250,000 fought for the Austro-Hungarian Army.[4] Many Ukrainians thus ended up fighting each other. Also, many Ukrainian civilians suffered as armies shot and killed them after accusing them of collaborating with opposing armies (see Ukrainian Austrian internment).[5]

Eastern Front on the verge of conflict in 1914

Ukraine after the Russian Revolution of 1917


During World War I the western Ukrainian people were situated between Austria-Hungary and Russia. Ukrainian villages were regularly destroyed in the crossfire. Ukrainians could be found participating on both sides of the conflict. In Galicia, over twenty thousand Ukrainians who were suspected of being sympathetic to Russian interests were arrested and placed in Austrian concentration camps, both in Talerhof, Styria and in Terezn fortress (now in the Czech Republic).

Ukraine during World War I

130

The brutality did not end with the end of the First World War for Ukrainians. Fighting actually escalated with the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The revolution began a civil war within the Russian Empire and much of the fighting took place in the Ukrainian provinces. Many atrocities occurred during the civil war as the Red, White, Polish, Ukrainian, and allied armies marched throughout the country.[5] There were couple of attempts during this period when the Ukrainians successfully established their own state. One was with the capital in Kiev and the other in Lviv, but neither one of them gained enough support in the international community and they both failed.[5] The 1919 Treaty of Versailles secured the Ukrainian land after other European countries. In the west, Galicia and western Volhynia were left to Poland. The Kingdom of Romania stayed the Bukovina province. Czechoslovakia secured former lands of the Austria-Hungary, Uzhhorod and Mukachevo. The remaining central and eastern Ukrainian provinces were left to the brotherly Soviet Union. As a result of World War I and the Russian Civil War, Ukrainians saw as their attempt to attain a statehood crumbled in favor of other countries when 1.5 million had lost their lives while fighting for it.[5] With the end of World War I the Ukrainian national movement went underground.

February 1918 article from The New York Times showing a map of the Russian Imperial territories claimed by Ukraine Peoples Republic at the time, before the annexation of the Austro-Hungarian lands of the West Ukrainian People's Republic

References
[1] Cecil, Lamar (1996). Wilhelm II: Emperor and Exile, 1900-1941. UNC Press. pp.176. ISBN0807822833. [2] Himka, John Paul. (1999). Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine. McGill-Queen's University Press: Montreal and Kingston. pp. 32-33. [3] Rudnystsky, Ivan L. (1963). The Role of the Ukraine in Modern History. Slavic Review. pp.199216. [4] Subtelny, Orest (2000). Ukraine: A History. University of Toronto Press. pp.340344. ISBN 0-8020-8390-0. [5] Reid, Anna (1999). Borderland: A Journey Through The History of Ukraine. Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3792-5.

Map of the West Ukrainian People's Republic

Russian Revolution of 1917

131

Russian Revolution of 1917


The Russian Revolution is the collective term for a series of revolutions in Russia in 1917, which destroyed the Tsarist autocracy and led to the creation of the Soviet Union. The Tsar was deposed and replaced by a provisional government in the first revolution of February 1917 (March in the Gregorian calendar; the older Julian calendar was in use in Russia at the time). In the second revolution, during October, the Provisional Government was removed and replaced with a Bolshevik (Communist) government. The February Revolution (March 1917) was a revolution focused around Petrograd (now St. Petersburg). In the chaos, members of the Imperial parliament or Duma assumed control of the country, forming the Russian Provisional Government. The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, the last Tsar of Russia, abdicated. The Soviets (workers' councils), which were led by more radical socialist factions, initially permitted the Provisional Government to rule, but insisted on a prerogative to influence the government and control various militias. The February Revolution took place in the context of heavy military setbacks during the First World War, which left much of the army in a state of mutiny. A period of dual power ensued, during which the Provisional Government held state power while the national network of Soviets, led by socialists, had the allegiance of the lower-class citizens and the political left. During this chaotic period there were frequent mutinies and many strikes. When the Provisional Government chose to continue fighting the war with Germany, the Bolsheviks and other socialist factions campaigned for the abandonment of the war effort. The Bolsheviks formed workers militias under their control into the Red Guards (later the Red Army) over which they exerted substantial control.[1] In the October Revolution (November in the Gregorian calendar), the Bolshevik party, led by Vladimir Lenin, and the workers' Soviets, overthrew the Provisional Government in St Petersburg. The Bolsheviks appointed themselves as leaders of various government ministries and seized control of the countryside, establishing the Cheka to quash dissent. To end the war, the Bolshevik leadership signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in March 1918. Civil war erupted between the "Red" (Bolshevik), and "White" (anti-Bolshevik) factions, which was to continue for several years, with the Bolsheviks ultimately victorious. In this way the Revolution paved the way for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). While many notable historical events occurred in Moscow and St. Petersburg, there was also a broad-based movement in cities throughout the state, among national minorities throughout the empire, and in the rural areas, where peasants took over and redistributed land.

Russian Revolution of 1917

132

Background
The Russian Revolution of 1905 was said to be a major factor to the February Revolutions of 1917. The events of Bloody Sunday triggered a line of protests. A council of workers called the St. Petersburg Soviet was created in all this chaos, and the beginning of a communist political protest had begun.[2] World War I prompted a Russian outcry directed at Tsar Nicholas II. It was another major factor contribution to the retaliation of the Russian Street demonstration on Nevsky Prospekt in Petrograd just after troops of the Provisional Communists against their Royal Government opened fire counterparts. After the entry of Turkey on the side of the Central Powers in October 1914, Russia was deprived of a major trade route through Turkey, which followed with a minor economic crisis, in which Russia became incapable of providing munitions to their army in the years leading to 1917. However, the problems were merely administrative, and not industrial as Germany was producing great amounts of munitions whilst constantly fighting on two major battlefronts.[3] The war also developed a weariness in the city, owing to a lack of food in response to the disruption of agriculture. Food had become a considerable problem in Russia, but the cause of this did not lie in any failure of the harvests, which had not been significantly altered during war-time. The indirect reason was that the government, in order to finance the war, had been printing off millions of rouble notes, and by 1917 inflation had sent prices up to four times what they had been in 1914. The peasantry were consequently faced with the higher cost of purchases, but made no corresponding gain in the sale of their own produce, since this was largely taken by the middlemen on whom they depended. As a result they tended to hoard their grain and to revert to subsistence farming. Thus the cities were constantly short of food; at the same time rising prices led to demands for higher wages in the factories, and in January and February 1916 revolutionary propaganda, aided by German funds, lead to widespread strikes. The outcome of all this, however, was a growing criticism of the government rather than any war-weariness. The original fever of the patriotic excitement, which had caused the name of St. Petersburg to be changed to the less German sounding Petrograd, may have subsided a little in the subsequent years, but it had not turned to defeatism and during the initial risings in Petrograd in February 1917, the crowds in the streets clearly objected to the banners proclaiming "down with the war". Heavy losses during the war also strengthened thought that Tsar Nicholas II was unfit to rule.[3] The Liberals were now better placed to voice their complaints, since they were participating more fully through a variety of voluntary organizations. Local industrial committees proliferated and in July 1915 a Central War Industries Committee, established under the chairmanship of a prominent Octobrist Guchkov, included ten workers' representatives- in which the Petrograd Mensheviks agreed to join despite the objections of their leaders abroad. All this activity gave renewed encouragement to political ambitions and in September 1915 a combination of Octobrists and Kadets in the Duma demanded the forming of a responsible government. The Tsar rejected these proposals. He had now taken over the position of commander-in-chief of the armed forces and during his absence at his headquarters at Mogilev, he had left most of the day-to-day government in the hands of the Empress who was intensely unpopular, owing to her German origin and the influence that Rasputin, an unsavoury monk, was thought to exercise over her.[4]

Russian Revolution of 1917 All these factors had given rise to a sharp loss of confidence in the regime by 1916. Early in that year, Guchkov had been taking soundings among senior army officers and members of the Central War Industries Committee about a possible coup to force the abdication of the Tsar. In November Pavel Milyukov in the Duma openly accused the government of contemplating peace negotiations with Germany. In December, a small group of nobles assassinated Rasputin and in January 1917 the Tsar's uncle, Grand Duke Nicholas, was asked indirectly by Prince Lvov whether he would be prepared to take over the throne from his nephew, Tsar Nicholas II. None of these incidents were in themselves the immediate cause of the February revolution, but they do help to explain why the monarchy survived only a few days after it had broken out.[4] Meanwhile, the Social Democrat leaders in exile, now mostly in Switzerland, had been the glum spectators of the collapse of International Socialist solidarity. French and German Social Democrats had voted in favour of their respective governments. Georgi Plekhanov in Paris had adopted a violently anti-German stand, while Helphand supported the German war effort as the best means of ensuring a revolution in Russia. The Mensheviks largely maintained that Russia had the right to defend herself against Germany, although Martov (a prominent Menshevik), now on the left of his group, demanded an end to the war and a settlement on the basis of national self-determination, with no annexations or indemnities.[4] It was these views of Martov that predominated in a manifesto drawn up by Leon Trotsky (a major Bolshevik revolutionary) at a conference in Zimmerwald, attended by thirty-five Socialist leaders in September 1915. Inevitably Lenin, supported by Zinoviev and Radek, strongly contested them. Their attitudes became known as the Zimmerwald Left. Lenin rejected both the defence of Russia and the cry for peace. Since the autumn of 1914 he had insisted that "from the standpoint of the working class and of the labouring masses from the lesser evil would be the defeat of the Tsarist Monarchy"; the war must be turned into a civil war of the proletarian soldiers against their own governments, and if a proletarian victory should emerge from this in Russia, then their duty would be to wage a revolutionary war for the liberation of the masses throughout Europe. Thus Lenin remained the enfant terrible of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, although in this point in the war his following in Russia was as little as 10 000 and he must have seemed no more than the leader of an extremist wing of a bankrupt organization. Lenin, however, then executed the protests of Petrograd which set off the 1917 Russian Revolution.[5]

133

Economic and social changes


An elementary theory of property, believed by many peasants, was that land should belong to those who work it. At the same time, peasant life and culture was changing constantly. Change was facilitated by the physical movement of growing numbers of peasant villagers who migrated to and from industrial and urban environments, but also by the migration of city culture into the village through material goods, the press, and word of mouth.[6] Workers also had good reasons for discontent: overcrowded housing with often deplorable sanitary conditions, long hours at work (on the eve of the war a 10-hour workday six days a week was the average and many were working 1112 hours a day by 1916), constant risk of injury and death from very poor safety and sanitary conditions, harsh discipline (not only rules and fines, but foremens fists), and inadequate wages (made worse after 1914 by steep war-time increases in the cost of living). At the same time, urban industrial life was full of benefits, though these could be just as dangerous, from the point of view of social and political stability, as the
A group of poor street children during the Russian Revolution

Russian Revolution of 1917 hardships. There were many encouragements to expect more from life. Acquiring new skills gave many workers a sense of self-respect and confidence, heightening expectations and desires. Living in cities, workers encountered material goods such as they had never seen while in the village. Most important, living in cities, they were exposed to new ideas about the social and political order.[7] The social causes of the Russian Revolution mainly came from centuries of oppression of the lower classes by the Tsarist regime, and Nicholas's failures in World War I. While rural agrarian peasants had been emancipated from serfdom in 1861, they still resented paying redemption payments to the state, and demanded communal tender of the land they worked. The problem was further compounded by the failure of Sergei Witte's land reforms of the early 20th century. Increasing peasant disturbances and sometimes full revolts occurred, with the goal of securing ownership of the land they worked. Russia consisted mainly of poor farming peasants, with 1.5% of the population owning 25% of the land. The rapid industrialization of Russia also resulted in urban overcrowding and poor conditions for urban industrial workers (as mentioned above). Between 1890 and 1910, the population of the capital, Saint Petersburg, swelled from 1,033,600 to 1,905,600, with Moscow experiencing similar growth. This created a new 'proletariat' which, due to being crowded together in the cities, was much more likely to protest and go on strike than the peasantry had been in previous times. In one 1904 survey, it was found that an average of sixteen people shared each apartment in Saint Petersburg, with six people per room. There was also no running water, and piles of human waste were a threat to the health of the workers. The poor conditions only aggravated the situation, with the number of strikes and incidents of public disorder rapidly increasing in the years shortly before World War I. Because of late industrialization, Russia's workers were highly concentrated. By 1914 40% of Russian workers were employed in factories of +1,000 workers (32% in 1901). 42% worked in 100-1,000 worker enterprises, 18% in 1-100 worker businesses (in the USA, 1914, the figures were 18, 47 and 35 respectively).[8]
Years 1862-9 1870-84 1885-94 Average annual strikes 6 20 33

134

1895-1905 176 [9]

World War I only added to the chaos. Conscription swept up the unwilling in all parts of Russia. The vast demand for factory production of war supplies and workers caused many more labor riots and strikes. Conscription stripped skilled workers from the cities, who had to be replaced with unskilled peasants, and then, when famine began to hit due to the poor railway system, workers abandoned the cities in droves to look for food. Finally, the soldiers themselves, who suffered from a lack of equipment and protection from the elements, began to turn against the Tsar. This was mainly because, as the war progressed, many of the officers who were loyal to the Tsar were killed, and were replaced by discontented conscripts from the major cities, who had little loyalty to the Tsar.

Political issues
Many sections of the crown had reason to be dissatisfied with the existing autocracy. Nicholas II was a deeply conservative ruler and maintained a strict authoritarian system. Individuals and society in general were expected to show self-restraint, devotion to community, deference to the social hierarchy, and a sense of duty to country. Religious faith helped bind all of these tenets together as a source of comfort and reassurance in the face of difficult conditions and as a means of political authority exercised through the clergy. Perhaps more than any other modern monarch, Nicholas II attached his fate and the future of his dynasty to the notion of the ruler as a saintly and infallible father to his people.[10]

Russian Revolution of 1917 This idealized vision of the Romanov monarchy blinded him to the actual state of his country. With a firm belief that his power to rule was granted by Divine Right, Nicholas assumed that the Russian people were devoted to him with unquestioning loyalty. This ironclad belief rendered Nicholas unwilling to allow the progressive reforms that might have alleviated the suffering of the Russian people. Even after the 1905 revolution spurred the Tsar to decree limited civil rights and democratic representation, he worked to limit even these liberties in order to preserve the ultimate authority of the crown.[10] Despite constant oppression, the desire of the people for democratic participation in government was strong. Since the Age of Enlightenment, Russian intellectuals had promoted Enlightenment ideals such as the dignity of the individual and of the rectitude of democratic representation. These ideals were championed most vociferously by Russias liberals, although populists, Marxists, and anarchists also claimed to support democratic reforms. A growing opposition movement had begun to challenge the Romanov monarchy openly well before the turmoil of World War I. Dissatisfaction with Russian autocracy culminated in the huge national upheaval that followed the Bloody Sunday massacre of January 1905, in which hundreds of unarmed protesters were shot by the Tsar's troops. Workers responded to the massacre with a crippling general strike, forcing Nicholas to put forth the October Manifesto, which established a democratically elected parliament (the State Duma). The Tsar undermined this promise of reform but a year later with Article 87 of the 1906 Fundamental State Laws, and subsequently dismissed the first two Dumas when they proved uncooperative. Unfulfilled hopes of democracy fueled revolutionary ideas and violent outbursts targeted at the monarchy. One of the Tsars principal rationales for risking war in 1914 was his desire to restore the prestige that Russia had lost amid the debacles of the Russo-Japanese war. Nicholas also sought to foster a greater sense of national unity with a war against a common and ancient enemy. The Russian Empire was an agglomeration of diverse ethnicities that had shown significant signs of disunity in the years before the First World War. Nicholas believed in part that the shared peril and tribulation of a foreign war would mitigate the social unrest over the persistent issues of poverty, inequality, and inhuman working conditions. Instead of restoring Russia's political and military standing, World War I led to the horrifying slaughter of Russian troops and military defeats that undermined both the monarchy and society in general to the point of collapse.

135

World War I
The outbreak of war in August 1914 initially served to quiet the prevalent social and political protests, focusing hostilities against a common external enemy, but this patriotic unity did not last long. As the war dragged on inconclusively, war-weariness gradually took its toll. More important, though, was this deeper fragility: although many ordinary Russians joined anti-German demonstrations in the first few weeks of the war, the most widespread reaction appears to have been skepticism and fatalism. Hostility toward the Kaiser and the desire to defend their land and their lives did not necessarily translate into enthusiasm for the Tsar or the government.[11][12][13] Russia's first major battle of the war was a disaster: in the 1914 Battle of Tannenberg, over 30,000 Russian troops were killed or wounded and 90,000 captured, while Germany suffered just 20,000 casualties. However, Austro-Hungarian forces allied to Germany were driven back deep into the Galicia region by the end of the year. In the autumn of 1915, Nicholas had taken direct command of the army, personally overseeing Russia's main theatre of war and leaving his ambitious but incapable wife Alexandra in charge of the government. Reports of corruption and incompetence in the Imperial government began to emerge, and the growing influence of Grigori Rasputin in the Imperial family was widely resented. In the eyes of Lynch, a revisionist historian who focuses on the role of the people, Rasputin was a "fatal disease" to the Tsarist regime. In 1915, things took a critical turn for the worse when Germany shifted its focus of attack to the Eastern front. The superior German army better led, better trained and better supplied was terrifyingly effective against the ill-equipped Russian forces, driving the Russians out of Galicia, as well as Russian Poland, during the

Russian Revolution of 1917 GorliceTarnw Offensive campaign. By the end of October 1916, Russia had lost between 1,600,000 and 1,800,000 soldiers, with an additional 2,000,000 prisoners of war and 1,000,000 missing, all making up a total of nearly 5,000,000 men. These staggering losses played a definite role in the Mutinies that began to occur and, in 1916, reports of fraternizing with the enemy started to circulate. Soldiers went hungry, and lacked shoes, munitions, and even weapons. Rampant discontent lowered morale, which was further undermined by a series of military defeats. Casualty rates were the most vivid sign of this disaster. Already, by the end of 1914, only five months into the war, around 390,000 Russian men had lost their lives and nearly 1,000,000 were injured. Far sooner than expected, scarcely trained recruits had to be called up for active duty, a process repeated throughout the war as staggering losses continued to mount. The officer class also saw remarkable turnover, especially within the lower echelons, which were quickly filled with soldiers rising up through the ranks. These men, usually of peasant or worker backgrounds, were to play a large role in the politicization of the troops in 1917. The huge losses on the battlefields were not limited to men. The army quickly ran short of rifles and ammunition (as well as uniforms and food), and, by mid-1915, men were being sent to the front bearing no arms. It was hoped that they could equip themselves with the arms that they recovered from fallen soldiers, of both sides, on the battlefields. With patently good reason, the soldiers did not feel that they were being treated as human beings, or even as valuable soldiers, but rather as raw materials to be squandered for the purposes of the rich and powerful. By the spring of 1915, the army was in steady retreat, which was not always orderly; desertion, plunder and chaotic flight were not uncommon. By 1916, however, the situation had improved in many respects. Russian troops stopped retreating, and there were even some modest successes in the offensives that were staged that year, albeit at great loss of life. Also, the problem of shortages was largely solved by a major effort to increase domestic production. Nevertheless, by the end of 1916, morale among soldiers was even worse than it had been during the great retreat of 1915. The fortunes of war may have improved, but the fact of the war, still draining away strength and lives from the country and its many individuals and families, remained an oppressive inevitability. The crisis in morale (as was argued by Allan Wildman, a leading historian of the Russian army in war and revolution) "was rooted fundamentally in the feeling of utter despair that the slaughter would ever end and that anything resembling victory could be achieved."[14] The war devastated not only soldiers. By the end of 1915, there were manifold signs that the economy was breaking down under the heightened strain of wartime demand. The main problems were food shortages and rising prices. Inflation shoved real incomes down at an alarmingly rapid rate, and shortages made it difficult to buy even what one could afford. These shortages were especially a problem in the capital, St. Petersburg, where distance from supplies and poor transportation networks made matters particularly bad. Shops closed early or entirely for lack of bread, sugar, meat and other provisions, and lines lengthened massively for what remained. It became increasingly difficult both to afford and actually buy food. Not surprisingly, strikes increased steadily from the middle of 1915, and so did crime; but, for the most part, people suffered and endured, scouring the city for food. Working-class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end. Government officials responsible for public order worried about how long the people's patience would last. A report by the St. Petersburg branch of the security police, the Okhrana, in October 1916, warned bluntly of "the possibility in the near future of riots by the lower classes of the empire enraged by the burdens of daily existence."[15] Nicholas was blamed for all of these crises, and what little support he had left began to crumble. As discontent grew, the State Duma issued a warning to Nicholas in November 1916. It stated that, inevitably, a terrible disaster would grip the country unless a constitutional form of government was put in place. In typical fashion, however, Nicholas ignored them, and Russia's Tsarist regime collapsed a few months later during the February Revolution of 1917. One year later, the Tsar and his entire family were executed. Ultimately, Nicholas's inept handling of his country and the

136

Russian Revolution of 1917 War destroyed the Tsars and ended up costing him both his rule and his life.

137

February Revolution
At the beginning of February, Petrograd workers began several strikes and demonstrations. On March 7 [O.S. February 22], workers at Putilov, Petrograd's largest industrial plant, announced a strike.[16] The next day, a series of meetings and rallies were held for International Women's Day, which gradually turned into economic and political gatherings. Demonstrations were organised to demand bread, and these were supported by the industrial working force who considered them a reason for continuing the strikes. The women workers marched to nearby factories bringing out over 50,000 workers on strike.[17] By March 10 [O.S. February 25], virtually every industrial enterprise in Petrograd had been shut down, together with many commercial and service enterprises. Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings. To quell the riots, the Tsar looked to the army. At least 180,000 troops were available in the capital, but most were either untrained or injured. Historian Ian Beckett suggests around 12,000 could be Nicholas II, March 1917, shortly after the revolution brought about his regarded as reliable, but even these proved reluctant abdication. to move in on the crowd, since it included so many women. It was for this reason that when, on March 11 [O.S. February 26], the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioting by force, troops began to mutiny.[18] Although few actively joined the rioting, many officers were either shot or went into hiding; the ability of the garrison to hold back the protests was all but nullified, symbols of the Tsarist were rapidly torn down around the city, and governmental authority in the capital collapsed not helped by the fact that Nicholas had prorogued the Duma that morning, leaving it with no legal authority to act. The response of the Duma, urged on by the liberal bloc, was to establish a Temporary Committee to restore law and order; meanwhile, the socialist parties establish the Petrograd Soviet to represent workers and soldiers. The remaining loyal units switched allegiance the next day.[19] The Tsar took a train back towards Petrograd, which was stopped on March 14 [O.S. March 1],[18] having been instructed to divert by a group of disloyal troops. When the Tsar finally reached his destination, the Army Chiefs and his remaining ministers (those who had not fled under pretense of a power-cut) suggested in unison that he abdicate the throne. He did so on March 15 [O.S. March 2], on behalf of himself, and then, having taken advice, on behalf of his son, the Tsarevich.[18] Nicholas nominated his brother, the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, to succeed him. But the Grand Duke realised that he would have little support as ruler, so he declined the crown on March 16 [O.S. March [18] 3], stating that he would take it only if that was the consensus of democratic action.[20] Six days later, Nicholas, no longer Tsar and addressed with contempt by the sentries as "Nicholas Romanov", was reunited with his family at the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoe Selo.[21] He was placed under house arrest with his family by the Provisional Government.

Russian Revolution of 1917 The immediate effect of the February Revolution was a widespread atmosphere of elation and excitement in Petrograd.[22] On 16 March [O.S. 3 March], a provisional government was announced. The center-left was well represented, and the government was initially chaired by a liberal aristocrat, Prince Georgy Yevgenyevich Lvov, a member of the Constitutional Democratic party (KD).[23] The socialists had formed their rival body, the Petrograd Soviet (or workers' council) four days earlier. The Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government competed for power over Russia.

138

Between February and throughout October: "Dual Power" (dvoevlastie)


The effective power of the Provisional Government was challenged by the authority of an institution that claimed to represent the will of workers and soldiers and could, in fact, mobilize and control these groups during the early months of the revolution the Petrograd Soviet [Council] of Workers' Deputies. The model for the soviet were workers' councils that had been established in scores of Russian cities during the 1905 revolution. In February 1917, striking workers elected deputies to represent them and socialist activists began organizing a citywide council to unite these deputies with representatives of the socialist parties. On 27 February, socialist Duma deputies, mainly Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, took the lead in organizing a citywide council. The Petrograd Soviet met in the Tauride Palace, the same building where the new government was taking shape. The leaders of the Petrograd Soviet believed that they represented particular classes of the population, not the whole nation. They also believed Russia was not ready for socialism. So they saw their role as limited to pressuring hesitant "bourgeoisie" to rule and to introduce extensive democratic reforms in Russia (the replacement of the monarchy by a republic, guaranteed civil rights, a democratic police and army, abolition of religious and ethnic discrimination, preparation of elections to a constituent assembly, and so on).[24] They met in the same building as the emerging Provisional Government not to compete with the Duma Committee for state power but to best exert pressure on the new government, to act, in other words, as a popular democratic lobby. The relationship between these two major powers was complex from the beginning and would shape the politics of 1917. The representatives of the Provisional Government agreed to "take into account the opinions of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies," though they were also determined to prevent "interference in the actions of the government," which would create "an unacceptable situation of dual power."[25] In fact, this was precisely what was being created, though this "dual power" (dvoevlastie) was the result less of the Anarchist Russian sailors in Helsinki during summer 1917 actions or attitudes of the leaders of these two institutions than of actions outside their control, especially the ongoing social movement taking place on the streets of Russias cities, in factories and shops, in barracks and in the trenches, and in the villages. A series of political crises see the chronology below in the relationship between population and government and between the Provisional government and the soviets (which developed into a nationwide movement with a national leadership, The All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets (VTsIK)) undermined the authority of the Provisional Government but also of the moderate socialist leaders of the Soviet. Although the Soviet leadership initially refused to participate in the "bourgeois" Provisional Government, Alexander Kerensky, a young and popular lawyer and a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRP), agreed to join the new cabinet, and became an

Russian Revolution of 1917 increasingly central figure in the government, eventually taking leadership of the Provisional Government. As minister of war and later Prime Minister, Kerensky promoted freedom of speech, released thousands of political prisoners, did his very best to continue the war effort and even organised another offensive (which, however, was no more successful than its predecessors). Nevertheless, Kerensky still faced several great challenges, highlighted by the soldiers, urban workers and peasants, who claimed that they had gained nothing by the revolution: Other political groups were trying to undermine him. Heavy military losses were being suffered on the front. The soldiers were dissatisfied, demoralised and had started to defect. (On arrival back in Russia, these soldiers were either imprisoned or sent straight back into the front.) There was enormous discontent with Russia's involvement in the war, and many were calling for an end to it. There were great shortages of food and supplies, which was difficult to remedy because of the wartime economic conditions. The political group that proved most troublesome for Kerensky, and would eventually overthrow him, was the Bolshevik Party, led by Vladimir Lenin. Lenin had been living in exile in neutral Switzerland and, due to democratization of politics after the February Revolution, which legalized formerly banned political parties, he perceived the opportunity for his Marxist revolution. Although return to Russia had become a possibility, the war made it logistically difficult. Eventually, German officials arranged for Lenin to pass through their territory, hoping that his activities would weaken Russia or even if the Bolsheviks came to power lead to Russia's withdrawal from the war. Lenin and his associates, however, had to agree to travel to Russia in a sealed train: Germany would not take the chance that he would foment revolution in Germany. After passing through the front, he arrived in Petrograd in April 1917. With Lenin's arrival, the popularity of the Bolsheviks increased steadily. Over the course of the spring, public dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government and the war, in particular among workers, soldiers and peasants, pushed these groups to radical parties. Despite growing support for the Bolsheviks, buoyed by maxims that called most famously for "all power to the Soviets," the party held very little real power in the moderate dominated Petrograd Soviet. In fact, historians such as Sheila Fitzpatrick have asserted that Lenin's exhortations for the Soviet Council to take power were intended to arouse indignation both with the Provisional Government, whose policies were viewed as conservative, and the Soviet itself, which was viewed as subservient to the conservative government. By most historians' accounts, Lenin and his followers were unprepared for how their groundswell of support, especially among influential worker and soldier groups, would translate into real power in the summer of 1917. On 18 June, the Provisional Government launched an attack against Germany that failed miserably. Soon after, the government ordered soldiers to go to the front, reneging on a promise. The soldiers refused to follow the new orders. The arrival of radical Kronstadt sailors who had tried and executed many officers, including one admiral further fueled the growing revolutionary atmosphere. The sailors and soldiers, along with Petrograd workers, took to the streets in violent protest, calling for "all power to the Soviets." The revolt, however, was disowned by Lenin[26] and the Bolshevik leaders and dissipated within a few days. In the aftermath, Lenin fled to Finland under threat of arrest while Trotsky, among other prominent Bolsheviks, was arrested. The July Days confirmed the popularity of the anti-war, radical Bolsheviks, but their unpreparedness at the moment of revolt was an embarrassing gaffe that lost them support among their main constituent groups: soldiers and workers. The Bolshevik failure in the July Days proved temporary. In August, poor or misleading, communication led General Lavr Kornilov, the recently appointed Supreme Commander of Russian military forces, to believe that the Petrograd government had been captured by radicals, or was in serious danger thereof. In response, he ordered troops to Petrograd to pacify the city. To secure his position, Kerensky had to ask for Bolshevik assistance. He also sought help from the Petrograd Soviet, which called upon armed Red Guards to "defend the revolution." This Kornilov Affair failed largely due to the efforts of the Bolsheviks, whose influence over railroad and telegraph workers proved vital in stopping the movement of troops. With his coup failing, Kornilov surrendered and was relieved of his

139

Russian Revolution of 1917 position. The Bolsheviks' role in stopping the attempted coup immensely strengthened their position. In early September, the Petrograd Soviet freed all jailed Bolsheviks and Trotsky became chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. Growing numbers of socialists and lower-class Russians viewed the government less and less as a force in support of their needs and interests. The Bolsheviks benefited as the only major organized opposition party that had refused to compromise with the Provisional Government, and they benefited from growing frustration and even disgust with other parties, such as the Mensheviks and SRs, who stubbornly refused to break with the idea of national unity across all classes. In Finland, Lenin had worked on his book State and Revolution and continued to lead his party writing newspaper articles and policy decrees. By October, he returned to Petrograd, aware that the increasingly radical city presented him no legal danger and a second opportunity for revolution. The Bolshevik Central Committee drafted a resolution, calling for the dissolution of the Provisional Government in favor of the Petrograd Soviet. The resolution was passed 102 (Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev prominently dissenting) and the October Revolution began.

140

October Revolution
The October Revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin and was based upon Lenin's writing on the ideas of Karl Marx, a political ideology often known as Marxism-Leninism. It marked the beginning of the spread of communism in the 20th century. It was far less sporadic than the revolution of February and came about as the result of deliberate planning and coordinated activity to that end. Though Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Party, it has been argued that since Lenin was not present during the Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks, speaking at a meeting in Sverdlov Square in Moscow, with Leon Trotsky and Lev Kamenev adjacent to the right of actual takeover of the Winter Palace, it was the podium really Trotsky's organization and direction that led the revolution, spurred by the motivation Lenin instigated within his party. Critics on the Right have long argued that the financial and logistical assistance of German intelligence via their key agent, Alexander Parvus was a key component as well, though historians are divided, for the evidence is sparse. On 7 November 1917, Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin led his leftist revolutionaries in a revolt against the ineffective Provisional Government (Russia was still using the Julian Calendar at the time, so period references show a 25 October date). The October revolution ended the phase of the revolution instigated in February, replacing Russia's short-lived provisional parliamentary government with government by soviets, local councils elected by bodies of workers and peasants. Liberal and monarchist forces, loosely organized into the White Army, immediately went to war against the Bolsheviks' Red Army. Soviet membership was initially freely elected, but many members of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, anarchists, and other leftists opposed the Bolsheviks through the soviets. When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets. Other socialists revolted and called for "a third Russian revolution." The most notable instances were the Tambov rebellion, 19191921, and the Kronstadt rebellion in March 1921. These movements, which made a wide range of demands and lacked effective coordination, were eventually defeated along with the

Russian Revolution of 1917 White Army during the Civil War.

141

Civil war
The Russian Civil War, which broke out in 1918 shortly after the revolution, brought death and suffering to millions of people regardless of their political orientation. The war was fought mainly between the Red Army ("Reds"), consisting of the uprising majority, and the "Whites" the monarchists, conservatives, liberals and moderate socialists who opposed the drastic restructuring championed by the Bolsheviks. The Whites had backing from nations such as Great Britain, France, USA and Japan. Also during the Civil War, Nestor Makhno led a Ukrainian anarchist movement, the Black Army allied to the Bolsheviks thrice, one of the powers ending the alliance each time. However, a Bolshevik force under Mikhail Frunze destroyed the Makhnovist movement, when the Makhnovists refused to merge into the Red Army. In addition, the so-called "Green Army" (peasants defending their property against the opposing forces) played a secondary role in the war, mainly in the Ukraine.

Death of the imperial family


In early March, the Provisional Government placed Nicholas and his family under house arrest in the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoe Selo, 15 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km) south of Petrograd. In August 1917 the Kerensky government evacuated the Romanovs to Tobolsk in the Urals, allegedly to protect them from the rising tide of revolution during the Red Terror. After the Bolsheviks came to power in October 1917, the conditions of their imprisonment grew stricter and talk of putting Nicholas on trial increased. As the counter revolutionary White movement gathered force, leading to full-scale civil war by the summer, the Romanovs were moved during April and May 1918 to Yekaterinburg, a militant Bolshevik stronghold. During the early morning of 16 July, at approximately 01:30, Nicholas, Alexandra, their children, their physician, and several servants were taken into the basement and killed. According to Edvard Radzinsky and Dmitrii Volkogonov, the order came directly from Vladimir Lenin and Yakov Sverdlov in Moscow. That the order came from the top has long been believed, although there is a lack of hard evidence. It has been argued that the execution was carried out on the initiative of local Bolshevik officials, or that it was an option approved in Moscow should White troops approach Yekaterinburg. Radzinsky noted that Lenin's bodyguard personally delivered the telegram ordering the execution and that he was ordered to destroy the evidence.[27][28]

The Russian revolution and the world


Leon Trotsky said that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world revolution. Indeed, a revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until 1923. Despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution of 19181919, in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and others like it, no other Marxist movement succeeded in keeping power in its hands. This issue is subject to conflicting views on the communist history by various Marxist groups and parties. Joseph Stalin later rejected this idea, stating that socialism was possible in one country. The confusion regarding Stalin's position on the issue stems from the fact that he, after Lenin's death in 1924, successfully used Lenin's argument the argument that socialism's success needs the workers of other countries in order to happen to defeat his competitors within the party by accusing them of betraying Lenin and, therefore, the ideals of the October Revolution.

Russian Revolution of 1917

142

Chronologies
Chronology of events leading to the Revolution of 1917
Dates are correct for the Julian calendar, which was used in Russia until 1918. It was twelve days behind the Gregorian calendar during the 19th century and thirteen days behind it during the 20th century.
Date(s) 1855 1861 Start of reign of Tsar Alexander II. Emancipation of the serfs. Event(s)

187481 Growing anti-government terrorist movement and government reaction. 1881 1883 1894 1898 1900 1903 19045 1905 Alexander II assassinated by revolutionaries; succeeded by Alexander III. First Russian Marxist group formed. Start of reign of Nicholas II. First Congress of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). Foundation of Socialist Revolutionary Party (SR). Second Congress of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Beginning of split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Russo-Japanese War; Russia loses war. Russian Revolution of 1905. 1906 1907 1907 1911 1912 1914 1915 1916 1917 January: Bloody Sunday in Saint Petersburg. June: Battleship Potemkin uprising at Odessa on the Black Sea (see movie The Battleship Potemkin). October: general strike, Saint Petersburg Soviet formed; October Manifesto: Imperial agreement on elections to the State Duma.

First State Duma. Prime Minister: Petr Stolypin. Agrarian reforms begin. Second State Duma, FebruaryJune. Third State Duma, until 1912. Stolypin assassinated. Fourth State Duma, until 1917. Bolshevik/Menshevik split final. Germany declares war on Russia. Serious defeats, Nicholas II declares himself Commander in Chief. Food and fuel shortages and high prices. Progressive Bloc formed. Strikes, mutinies, street demonstrations lead to the fall of autocracy.

Timeline 19141916
1914 30 July: The All Russian Zemstvo Union for the Relief of Sick and Wounded Soldiers is created with Lvov as president. AugustNovember: Russia suffers heavy defeats and a large shortage of supplies, including food and munitions, but holds onto Austrian Galicia. 3 August: Germany declares war on Russia, causing a brief sense of patriotic union amongst the Russian nation and a downturn in striking. 18 August: St. Petersburg is renamed Petrograd as 'Germanic' names are changed to sound more Russian, and hence more patriotic. 5 November: Bolshevik members of the Duma are arrested; they are later tried and exiled to Siberia. 1915

Russian Revolution of 1917 19 February: Great Britain and France accept Russia's claims to Istanbul and other Turkish lands. 5 June: Strikers shot at in Kostrom; casualties. 9 July: The Great Retreat begins, as Russian forces pull back out of Galicia and Russian Poland into Russia proper. 9 August: The Duma's bourgeois parties form the 'Progressive bloc' to push for better government and reform; includes the Kadets, Octobrist groups and Nationalists. 10 August: Strikers shot at in Ivnovo-Voznesnsk; casualties. 17 August-19th: Strikers in Petrograd protest at the deaths in Ivnovo-Voznesnsk. 23 August: Reacting to war failures and a hostile Duma, the Tsar takes over as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, prorogues the Duma and moves to military headquarters at Mogilev. Central government begins to seize up. 1916 JanuaryDecember: Despite successes in the Brusilov offensive, the Russian war effort is still characterised by shortages, poor command, death and desertion. Away from the front, the conflict causes starvation, inflation and a torrent of refugees. Both soldiers and civilians blame the incompetence of the Tsar and his government. 6 February: Duma reconvened. 29 February: After a month of strikes at the Putlov Factory, the government conscripts the workers and takes charge of production. Protest strikes follow. 20 June: Duma prorogued. October: Troops from 181st Regiment help striking Russkii Renault workers fight against the Police. 1 November: Miliukov gives his 'Is this stupidity or treason?' speech in reconvened Duma. 29 December: Rasputin is killed by Prince Yusupov. 30 December: The Tsar is warned that his army will not support him against a revolution.

143

Expanded chronology of events during the Revolution of 1917


Gregorian Date Julian Date January February 8 March 23 February 26 February 27 February Strikes and unrest in Petrograd. February Revolution. International Women's Day: strikes and demonstrations in Petrograd, growing over the next few days. Event

11 March

50 demonstrators killed in Znamenskaya Square Tsar Nicholas II prorogues the State Duma and orders commander of Petrograd military district to suppress disorders with force. * Troops refuse to fire on demonstrators, deserters. Prisons, courts, and police bumbs attacked and looted by angry crowds. Okhrana buildings set on fire. Garrison joins revolutionaries. Petrograd Soviet formed. Formation of Provisional Committee of the Duma by liberals from Constitutional Democratic Party (Kadets).

12 March

14 March 15 March 16 April 34 May

1 March 2 March 3 April 2021 April

Order No.1 of the Petrograd Soviet. Nicholas II abdicates. Provisional Government formed under Prime Minister Prince Lvov. Return of Lenin to Russia. He publishes his April Theses. "April Days": mass demonstrations by workers, soldiers, and others in the streets of Petrograd and Moscow triggered by the publication of the Foreign Minister Miliukov's note to the allies, which was interpreted as affirming commitment to the war policies of the old government. First Provisional Government falls.

Russian Revolution of 1917

144

18 May

5 May

First Coalition Government forms when socialists, representatives of the Soviet leadership, agree to enter the cabinet of the Provisional Government. Alexander Kerensky, the only socialist already in the government, made minister of war and navy. First All-Russian Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies opens in Petrograd. Closed on 24 June. Elects Central Executive Committee of Soviets (VTsIK), headed by Mensheviks and SRs. Planned Bolshevik demonstration in Petrograd banned by the Soviet. Kerensky orders offensive against Austro-Hungarian forces. Initial success only. Official Soviet demonstration in Petrograd for unity is unexpectedly dominated by Bolshevik slogans: "Down with the Ten Capitalist Ministers", "All Power to the Soviets". Russian offensive ends. Trotsky joins Bolsheviks. The "July Days"; mass armed demonstrations in Petrograd, encouraged by the Bolsheviks, demanding "All Power to the Soviets". German and Austro-Hungarian counter-attack. Russians retreat in panic, sacking the town of Tarnopol. Arrest of Bolshevik leaders ordered. Lvov resigns and asks Kerensky to become Prime Minister and form a new government. Established 25 July. Trotsky and Lunacharskii arrested. Second coalition government ends.

16 June

3 June

23 June 29 June 1 July

10 June 16 June 18 June

15 July 1617 July

2 July 34 July

19 July

6 July

20 July 4 August 8 September 812 September

7 July 22 July 26 August

2630 August

"Kornilov mutiny". Begins when the commander-in-chief of the Russian army, General Lavr Kornilov, demands (or is believed by Kerensky to demand) that the government give him all civil and military authority and moves troops against Petrograd. Majority of deputies of the Petrograd Soviet approve a Bolshevik resolution for an all-socialist government excluding the bourgeoisie. Russia declared a republic.

13 September 14 September 17 September 18 September 2 October

31 August

1 September 4 September 5 September 19 September 25 September

Trotsky and others freed.

Bolshevik resolution on the government wins majority vote in Moscow Soviet.

Moscow Soviet elects executive committee and new presidium, with Bolshevik majorities, and the Bolshevik Viktor Nogin as chairman. Third coalition government formed. Bolshevik majority in Petrograd Soviet elects Bolshevik Presidium and Trotsky as chairman.

8 October

23 October 24 October 2 November 7 November

10 October Bolshevik Central Committee meeting approves armed uprising. 11 October Congress of Soviets of the Northern Region, until 13 October. 20 October First meeting of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet.

25 October October Revolution is launched as MRC directs armed workers and soldiers to capture key buildings in Petrograd. Winter Palace attacked at 9:40pm and captured at 2am. Kerensky flees Petrograd. Opening of the 2nd All-Russian Congress of Soviets. 26 October Second Congress of Soviets: Mensheviks and right SR delegates walk out in protest against the previous day's events. Congress approves transfer of state authority into its own hands and local power into the hands of local soviets of workers', soldiers', and peasants' deputies, abolishes capital punishment, issues Decree on Peace and Decree on Land, and approves the formation of an all-Bolshevik government, the Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom), with Lenin as chairman.

8 November

Russian Revolution of 1917

145

Cultural portrayal
The Russian Revolution has been portrayed in several films. Arsenal ' (IMDB profile) [29]. Written and directed by Aleksandr Dovzhenko. Konets Sankt-Peterburga AKA The End of Saint Petersburg (IMDB profile) [30]. Lenin v 1918 godu AKA Lenin in 1918 (IMDB profile) [31]. Directed by Mikhail Romm and E. Aron (co-director). October: Ten Days That Shook the World (IMDB profile) [32]. Directed by Sergei Eisenstein and Grigori Aleksandrov. Runtimes: Sweden:104 min, USA:95 min. Country: Soviet Union. Black and White. Silent. 1927. The End of Saint Petersburg, directed by Vsevolod Pudovkin, USSR, 1927. Reds (IMDB profile) [33]. Directed by Warren Beatty, 1981. It is based on the book Ten Days that Shook the World. Anastasia (IMDB profile) [34], an American animated feature, directed by Don Bluth and Gary Goldman, 1997. Dr. Zhivago, an American drama-romance-war film directed by David Lean, 1965, and loosely based on the famous novel of the same name by Boris Pasternak. The White Guard, Mikhail Bulgakov, 1926. Partially autobiographical novel, portraying the life of one family torn apart by uncertainty of the Civil War times. Also, Dni Turbinykh (IMDB profile) [35], 1976 film based on the novel.

Footnotes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Orlando Figes, A Peoples Tragedy, p370 Wood, 1979. p. 18 Wood, 1979. p. 24 Wood, 1979. p. 25 Wood, 1979. p. 26 The scholarly literature on peasants is now very large. Major recent works that examine themes discussed above (and can serve as a guide to older scholarship) Christine Worobec, Peasant Russia: Family and Community in the Post Emancipation Period (Princeton, 1955); Frank and Steinberg, eds., Cultures in Flux (Princeton, 1994); Barbara Alpern Engel, Between the Fields and the City: Women, Work, and Family in Russia, 18611914 (Cambridge, 1994); Jeffrey Burds, Peasant Dreams and Market Politics (Pittsburgh, 1998); Stephen Frank, Crime, Cultural Conflict and Justice in Rural Russia, 18561914 (Berkeley, 1999). [7] Among the many scholarly works on Russian workers, see especially Reginald Zelnik, Labor and Society in Tsarist Russia: The Factory Workers of St. Petersburg, 18551870 (Stanford, 1971); Victoria Bonnell, Roots of Rebellion: Workers Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, 19001914 (Berkeley, 1983). [8] Joel Carmichael, A short history of the Russian Revolution, pp 23-4 [9] Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: a short history, page 6 [10] See, especially, Dominic Lieven, Nicholas II: Emperor of all the Russias (London, 1993); Andrew Verner, The Crisis of the Russian Autocracy: Nicholas II and the 1905 Revolution (Princeton, 1990); Mark Steinberg and Vladimir Khrustalev, The Fall of the Romanovs: Political Dreams and Personal Struggles in a Time of Revolution (New Haven, 1995); Richard Wortman, Scenarios of Power, vol. 2 (Princeton, 2000); Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 18911924, Part One. [11] Allan Wildman, The End of the Russian Imperial Army, vol. 1 (Princeton, 1980): 7680 [12] Hubertus Jahn, Patriotic Culture in Russia During World War I (Ithaca, 1995) [13] Figes, A Peoples Tragedy, 257258. [14] Wildman: The End of the Russian Imperial Army (I), p. 8589, 99105, 106 (quotation). [15] "Doklad petrogradskogo okhrannogo otdeleniia osobomu otdelu departamenta politsii" ["Report of the Petrograd Okhrana to the Special Department of the Department of the Police"], October 1916, Krasnyi arkhiv 17 (1926), 435 (quotation 4). [16] Service, 2005. p. 32. [17] When women set Russia ablaze (http:/ / www. fifthinternational. org/ content/ when-women-set-russia-ablaze), Fifth International 11th July 2007. [18] Beckett, 2007. p. 523. [19] Wade, 2005. pp. 4043. [20] Browder and Kerensky, 1961. p. 116. [21] Tames, 1972. [22] Malone, 2004. p. 91. [23] Service, 2005. p. 34.

Russian Revolution of 1917


[24] N. N. Sukhanov, The Russian Revolution: A Personal Record, ed. and trans. Joel Carmichael (Oxford, 1955; originally published in Russian in 1922), 1018. [25] "Zhurnal [No. 1] Soveta Ministrov Vremennogo Pravitel'stva," 2 March 1917, GARF (State Archive of the Russian Federation), f. 601, op. 1, d. 2103, l. 1 [26] Lenin, Vladimir (27) [1917]. Apresyan, Stephen. ed (in Russian). One of the Fundamental Questions of the Revolution. 25. Jim Riordan (4th ed.). Moscow: Progress Publishers. pp.37077. [27] Dmitrii Volkogonov, Lenin: A New Biography (New York: Free Press, 1994). [28] Edvard Radzinsky, The Last Tsar: The Life And Death Of Nicholas II (New York: Knopf, 1993). [29] http:/ / www. imdb. com/ title/ tt0019649/ [30] http:/ / www. imdb. com/ title/ tt0018066/ [31] http:/ / www. imdb. com/ title/ tt0031564/ [32] http:/ / www. imdb. com/ title/ tt0018217/ [33] http:/ / www. imdb. com/ title/ tt0082979/ [34] http:/ / imdb. com/ title/ tt0118617/ [35] http:/ / imdb. com/ title/ tt0167123/

146

Notes References
Acton, Edward, Vladimir Cherniaev, and William G. Rosenberg, eds. A Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 19141921 (Bloomington, 1997). Beckett, Ian F.W. (2007). The Great war (http://books.google.com/books?id=CMYbKgcAW88C) (2 ed.). Longman. ISBN1405812524. Robert Paul Browder; Aleksandr Fyodorovich Kerensky (June 1961). The Russian Provisional Government, 1917: documents (http://books.google.com/books?id=LzWsAAAAIAAJ). Stanford University Press. ISBN9780804700238. Retrieved 30 August 2010. Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 23, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-81529-0 (vol. 2) ISBN 0-521-81144-9 (vol. 3). Figes, Orlando. A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 18911924, : ISBN 0-14-024364-X (trade paperback) ISBN 0-670-85916-8 (hardcover) Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. 199 pages. Oxford University Press; 2nd Reissue edition. 1 December 2001. ISBN 0-19-280204-6. Lincoln, W. Bruce. Passage Through Armageddon: The Russians in War and Revolution, 19141918. (New York, 1986). Malone, Richard (2004). Analysing the Russian Revolution. Australia: Cambridge University Press. pp.67. ISBN0-521-54141-7. Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution (New York, 1990) Robert Service (2005). A history of modern Russia from Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin (http://books.google. com/books?id=eseDgCQK9UkC). Harvard University Press. ISBN9780674018013. Retrieved 1 September 2010. Steinberg, Mark, Voices of Revolution, 1917. Yale University Press, 2001 Tames, Richard (1972). Last of the Tsars. London: Pan Books Ltd. ISBN9780330029025. Wade, Rex A. (2005). The Russian Revolution, 1917 (http://books.google.com/books?id=uBfnjdxFUkUC). Cambridge University Press. ISBN9780521841559. Retrieved 1 September 2010.

Russian Revolution of 1917

147

Further reading
Participants' accounts
Reed, John. Ten Days that Shook the World (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/ index.htm). 1919, 1st Edition, published by BONI & Liveright, Inc. for International Publishers. Transcribed and marked by David Walters for John Reed Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/works/ index.htm). Penguin Books; 1st edition. 1 June 1980. ISBN 0-14-018293-4. Retrieved 14 May 2005. Serge, Victor. Year One of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/ index.htm). L'An l de la revolution russe, 1930. Year One of the Russian Revolution, Holt, Reinhart, and Winston. Translation, editor's Introduction, and notes 1972 by Peter Sedgwick. Reprinted on Victor Serge Internet Archive by permission. ISBN 0-86316-150-2. Retrieved 14 May 2005. Trotsky, Leon. The History of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/ 1930-hrr/index.htm). Translated by Max Eastman, 1932. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 8083994. ISBN 0-913460-83-4. Transcribed for the World Wide Web by John Gowland (Australia), Alphanos Pangas (Greece) and David Walters (United States). Pathfinder Press edition. 1 June 1980. ISBN 0-87348-829-6. Retrieved 14 May 2005.

Primary documents
Ascher, Abraham, ed. The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution (Ithaca, 1976). Avrich, Paul, ed. The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution (Ithaca, 1973). Browder, Robert Paul and Alexander F. Kerensky, eds., The Russian Provisional Government, 1917: Documents. 3 volumes (Stanford, 1961). Bunyan, James and H. H. Fisher, eds. The Bolshevik Revolution, 19171918: Documents and Materials (Stanford, 1961; first ed. 1934). Steinberg, Mark D. Voices of Revolution, 1917. In the series Annals of Communism, Yale University Press, 2001. On-line publication of these texts in the Russian original: Golosa revoliutsii, 1917 g. (Yale University Press, 2002) (http://www.yale.edu/annals/Steinberg/golosa.htm)

Other books
Goldston, Robert, The Russian Revolution, 1966.

External links
Russian Revolution 1917 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/system/topicRoot/Russian_revolution_1917/) Original reports from The Times Avrahm Yarmolinsky, Road to Revolution: A Century of Russian Radicalism, 1956. (http://www.ditext.com/ yarmolinsky/yarframe.html) Soviet history archive at www.marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/index.htm) Russian Revolution archive at www.libcom.org (http://libcom.org/history/russian-revolution) Year One of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/index.htm) from the Victor Serge Internet Archive on Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org). Translation, editor's Introduction, and notes 1972 by Peter Sedgwick. Retrieved 5 April 2005. Prcis of Russian Revolution (http://www.st-petersburg-life.com/st-petersburg/1917-russian-revolution) A summary of the key events and factors of the 1917 Russian Revolution. Kevin Murphy's Isaac and Tamara Deutscher Memorial Prize lecture Can we Write the History of the Russian Revolution (http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=364&issue=116), which examines historical accounts of 1917 in the light of newly accessible archive material.

Spring Offensive

148

Spring Offensive
The 1918 Spring Offensive or Kaiserschlacht (Kaiser's Battle), also known as the Ludendorff Offensive, was a series of German attacks along the Western Front during World War I, beginning on 21 March 1918, which marked the deepest advances by either side since 1914. The Germans had realised that their only remaining chance of victory was to defeat the Allies before the overwhelming human and matriel resources of the United States could be deployed. They also had the temporary advantage in numbers afforded by nearly 50 divisions freed by the Russian surrender (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). There were four separate German attacks, codenamed Michael, Georgette, Gneisenau and Blcher-Yorck, and launched in that order. Michael was the main attack, which was intended to break through the Allied lines, outflank the British forces which held the front from the Somme River to the English Channel and defeat the British Army. Once this was achieved, it was hoped that the French would seek armistice terms. The other offensives were subordinate to Michael, and were designed to divert Allied forces from the main offensive on the Somme. However, the strategic goals of the operation were lacking. No clear single objective was established before the start of the offensives and once the operations were underway, the targets of the attacks were constantly changing according to the battlefield situation. The Allies, by comparison, concentrated their main forces in the essential areas (the approaches to the Channel Ports and the rail junction of Amiens), while leaving strategically worthless ground, devastated by years of combat, lightly defended. The Germans also were unable to move supplies and reinforcements forward fast enough to maintain their advance. The fast-moving stormtroopers leading the attack could not carry enough food and ammunition to sustain themselves, and all the German offensives petered out, in part through lack of supplies. By late April 1918, the danger of a German breakthrough had passed. The German Army had suffered heavy casualties and now occupied ground of dubious value which would prove impossible to hold with the fewer manpower reserves now available. In August 1918, the Allies began a counter-offensive, using new artillery techniques and operational methods. The Hundred Days Offensive resulted in the Germans abandoning or being driven from all of the ground taken in the Spring Offensive, the collapse of the Hindenburg line and the capitulation of the German Empire that November.

German preparations
Strategy
The German High Commandin particular General Erich Ludendorff, the Chief Quartermaster General at Oberste Heeresleitung, the supreme army headquartershas been heavily criticised by military historians for the failure to formulate sound and clear strategy. Ludendorff privately conceded that Germany could no longer win a war of attrition, yet he was not ready to give up the German gains in the West and East and was one of the main obstacles to the German government's attempts to reach a settlement with the Western Allies. Although Ludendorff was unsure whether the Americans would enter the war in strength, at a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff of the German armies on the Western Front on 11 November 1917, he decided to launch an offensive.[1] The German government and Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, nominally the Chief of the General Staff, were not party to the planning process. Eventually it was decided to launch Operation Michael near Saint-Quentin, at the hinge between the French and British armies, and strike north to Arras. The main reason for the choice was tactical expediency. The ground on this sector of the front would dry out much sooner after the winter and spring rains and would therefore be easier to advance across. It was also a line of least resistance as the British and French armies were weak in the sector.

Spring Offensive The intention was not to reach the English Channel coast, but to break through the Allied lines and roll up the flank of the British army from the south, pushing it back against the Channel Ports or destroying it if the British chose to stand and fight. Further operations such as Operation Georgette and Operation Mars were designed to strike further north to seize the remaining Allied ports in Belgium and France while diverting Allied forces from Michael. However, these remained only secondary and weaker operations, subordinate to Michael.[2] The constant changing of operational targets once the offensive was underway gave the impression the German command had no coherent strategic goal. Any capture of an important strategic objective, such as the Channel ports, or the vital railway junction of Amiens would have occurred more by chance than by design.[3][4]

149

Logistical limitations
Logistics were a key issue in the Spring Offensives, owing to the German failures in that area. Operation Michael in particular repeated the mistakes of the Schlieffen Plan, in that it forced German infantry to advance too deep and fight too far away from supplying railheads. The stormtrooper units leading the advance were unable to carry enough supplies to sustain themselves for more than a few days as it would slow them down and defeat the object of employing a unit built for a speedy advance. Instead, they relied on logistical support brought up quickly from the rear to allow them to continue rapid advances. This was not achieved; the advance was slowed by supply shortages, which then gave Allied commanders the time to reinforce the threatened areas and slow the advance further.[5] Exacerbating the problem, the Germans were trying to advance over areas which had been devastated during the Battle of the Somme in 1916 or to which the Germans themselves had applied scorched earth techniques during their retreat to the Hindenburg line in FebruaryMarch 1917, where communications were difficult.[6]

Tactical innovation
The German army had concentrated many of its best troops into stormtrooper units, trained in Hutier tactics (after Oskar von Hutier) to infiltrate and bypass enemy front line units, leaving these strong points to be "mopped-up" by follow-up troops. The stormtroopers' tactic was to attack and disrupt enemy headquarters, artillery units and supply depots in the rear areas, as well as to occupy territory rapidly.[7] Each major formation "creamed off" its best and fittest soldiers into storm units; several complete divisions were formed from these elite units. This process gave the German army an initial advantage in the attack, but meant that the best formations would suffer disproportionately heavy casualties, while the quality of the remaining formations declined as they were stripped of their best personnel to provide the storm troops. The Germans also failed to arm their forces with a mobile exploitation force, such as Cavalry, to exploit gains quickly. This tactical error meant the infantry had to keep up an exhausting tempo of advance.[8] Notwithstanding the effectiveness of the stormtroopers, the following German infantry often made attacks in large traditional waves and suffered heavy casualties.[9] To enable the initial breakthrough, Lieutenant Colonel Georg Bruchmller[10] a German artillery officerdeveloped the Feuerwalze, an effective and economical artillery bombardment scheme.[11] There were three phases: a brief attack on the enemy's command and communications (headquarters, telephone exchanges, etc.), destruction of their artillery and lastly an attack upon the enemy front-line infantry defences. Bombardment would always be brief so as to retain surprise. Bruchmller's tactics were made possible by the vast numbers of heavy guns (with correspondingly plentiful amounts of ammunition for them) which Germany possessed by 1918.

Spring Offensive

150

Allied preparations
Defensive tactics
In their turn, the Allies had developed defences in depth, reducing the proportion of troops in their front line and pulling reserves and supply dumps back beyond German artillery range. This change had been made after experience of the successful German use of defence in depth during 1917. In theory, the front line was an "outpost zone" (later renamed the "forward zone"), lightly held by snipers, patrols and machine-gun posts only. Behind, out of range of German field artillery, was the "battle zone" where the offensive was to be firmly resisted, and behind that again, out of range of all but the heaviest German guns, was a "rear zone" where reserves were held ready to counter-attack or seal off penetrations. In theory, a British infantry division (with nine infantry battalions) deployed three battalions in the outpost zone, four battalions in the battle zone and two battalions in the rear zone.[12] This change had not been completely implemented by the Allies. In particular, in the sector held by the British Fifth Army, which they had recently taken over from French units, the defences were incomplete and there were too few troops to hold the complete position in depth. The rear zone existed as outline markings only, and the battle zone consisted of battalion "redoubts" which were not mutually supporting (allowing stormtroopers to penetrate between them).

Michael
On 21 March 1918, the Germans launched a major offensive against the British Fifth Army, and the right wing of the British Third Army. The artillery bombardment began at 4.40am on 21 March. The bombardment [hit] targets over an area of 150square miles, the biggest barrage of the entire war. Over 1,100,000 shells were fired in five hours...[13] The German armies involved werefrom north to souththe Seventeenth Army under Otto von Below, the Second Army under Georg von der Marwitz and the Eighteenth Army under Oskar von Hutier, with a Corps (Gruppe Gayl) from the Seventh Army supporting Hutier's attack. Although the British had learned the approximate time and location of the offensive, the weight of the attack and of the preliminary bombardment was an unpleasant surprise. The Germans were also fortunate in that the morning of the attack was foggy, allowing the stormtroopers leading the attack to penetrate deep into the British positions undetected.

German A7V tank at Roye on 21 March 1918

By the end of the first day, the British had lost nearly 20,000 dead and 35,000 wounded, and the Germans had broken through at several points on the front of the British Fifth Army. After two days Fifth Army was in full retreat. As they fell back, many of the isolated "redoubts" were left to be surrounded and overwhelmed by the following German infantry. The right wing of Third Army became separated from the retreating Fifth Army, and also retreated to avoid being outflanked. Ludendorff failed to follow the correct stormtrooper tactics, as described above. His lack of a coherent strategy to accompany the new tactics was expressed in a remark to one of his Army Group commanders, Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria, in which he stated, "We chop a hole. The rest follows." Ludendorff's dilemma was that the most important parts of the Allied line were also the most strongly held. Much of the German advance was achieved where it was not strategically significant. Because of this, Ludendorff continually exhausted his forces by attacking strongly entrenched British units. At Arras on 28 March, he launched a hastily-prepared attack (Operation Mars)

Spring Offensive against the left wing of the British Third Army, to try to widen the breach in the Allied lines, and was repulsed. The German breakthrough had occurred just to the north of the boundary between the French and British armies. The French commander-in-chief, General Ptain, sent reinforcements to the sector too slowly in the opinion of the British commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Haig, and the British government. The Allies reacted by appointing the French General Ferdinand Foch to coordinate all Allied activity in France, and subsequently as commander-in-chief of all Allied forces everywhere. After a few days, the German advance began to falter, as the infantry became exhausted and it became increasingly difficult to move artillery and supplies forward to support them. Fresh British and Australian units were moved to the vital rail centre of Amiens and the defence began to stiffen. After fruitless attempts to capture Amiens, Ludendorff called off Operation Michael on 5 April. By the standards of the time, there had been a substantial advance. It was, however, of little value; a Pyrrhic victory in terms of the casualties suffered by the crack troops, Germans passing a captured British trench as the vital positions of Amiens and Arras remained in Allied hands. The newly-won territory was difficult to traverse, as much of it consisted of the shell-torn wilderness left by the 1916 Battle of the Somme, and would later be difficult to defend against Allied counterattacks. The Allies lost nearly 255,000 men (British, British Empire, French and American). They also lost 1,300 artillery pieces and 200 tanks.[14] All of this could be replaced, either from British factories or from American manpower. German troop losses were 239,000 men, many of them specialist shocktroops (Stotruppen) who were irreplaceable.[14] In terms of morale, the initial German jubilation at the successful opening of the offensive soon turned to disappointment as it became clear that the attack had not achieved decisive results.

151

Georgette
Michael had drawn British forces to defend Amiens, leaving the rail route through Hazebrouck and the approaches to the Channel ports of Calais, Boulogne and Dunkirk vulnerable. German success here could choke the British into defeat. The attack started on 9 April after a Feuerwalze. The main attack was made on the sector defended by the Portuguese Expeditionary Corps, which was tired after an entire year spent in the trenches, and just when they were scheduled to be replaced in the line by fresh British troops. Portuguese POWs Despite a desperate defense in which they lost more than 7,000 men, the Portuguese defenders and the British on their northern flank were rapidly overrun. However, the British defenders on the southern flank held firm on the line of the La Basse Canal. The next day, the Germans widened their attack to the north, forcing the defenders of Armentieres to withdraw before they were surrounded, and capturing most of the Messines Ridge. By the end of the day, the few British divisions in reserve were hard-pressed to hold a line along the River Lys. Without French reinforcements, it was feared that the Germans could advance the remaining 15mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km) to the ports within a week. The commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, issued an "Order of the Day" on 11 April stating, "With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight on to the end." However, the German offensive had stalled because of logistical problems and exposed flanks. Counterattacks by British, French, American, and ANZAC forces slowed and stopped the German advance. Ludendorff ended

Spring Offensive Georgette on 29 April. As with Michael, losses were roughly equal, approximately 110,000 men wounded or killed, each.[15] Again, the strategic results were disappointing for the Germans. Hazebrouck remained in Allied hands and the Germans occupied a vulnerable salient under fire from three sides. The British abandoned the comparatively worthless territory they had captured at vast cost the previous year around Ypres, freeing several divisions to face the German attackers.

152

Blcher-Yorck
While Georgette ground to a halt, a new attack on French positions was planned to draw forces further away from the Channel and allow renewed German progress in the north. The strategic objective remained to split the British and the French and gain victory before American forces could make their presence felt on the battlefield. The German attack took place on 27 May, between Soissons and Rheims. The sector was partly held by six depleted British divisions which were "resting" after their exertions earlier in the year. In this sector, the defences had not been developed in depth, mainly due to the obstinacy of the commander of the French Sixth Army, General Denis Auguste Duchne. As a result, the Feuerwalze was very effective and the Allied front, with a few notable exceptions, collapsed. Duchne's massing of his troops in the forward trenches also meant there were no local reserves to delay the Germans once the front had broken. Despite French and British resistance on the flanks, German troops advanced to the Marne River and Paris seemed a realistic objective. There was a febrile atmosphere in Paris, which German long-range guns had been shelling since 21 March, with many citizens fleeing and the government drawing up plans to evacuate to Bordeaux.[16] However, U.S. Army machine-gunners and Senegalese sharpshooters halted the German advance at Chteau-Thierry, with U.S. Marines also heavily engaged at Belleau Wood. Yet again, losses were much the same on each side: 137,000 Allied and 130,000 German casualties up to 6 June.[17] German losses were again mainly from the difficult-to-replace assault divisions.

Gneisenau
Although Ludendorff had intended Blcher-Yorck to be a prelude to a decisive offensive (Hagen) to defeat the British forces further north, he made the error of reinforcing merely tactical success by moving reserves from Flanders to the Aisne, whereas Foch and Haig did not overcommit reserves to the Aisne.[18] Ludendorff sought to extend Blcher-Yorck westwards with Operation Gneisenau, intending to draw yet more Allied reserves south, widen the German salient and link with the German salient at Amiens. The French had been warned of this attack (the Battle of Matz (French: Bataille du Matz)) by information from German prisoners, and their defence in depth reduced the impact of the artillery bombardment on 9 June. Nonetheless, the German advance (consisting of 21 divisions attacking over a 23mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km) front) along the Matz River was impressive, resulting in an advance of 9 miles (unknown operator: u'strong'km) despite fierce French and American resistance. At Compigne, a sudden French counter-attack on 11 June, by four divisions and 150 tanks (under General Charles Mangin) with no preliminary bombardment,[19] caught the Germans by surprise and halted their advance. Gneisenau was called off the following day. Losses were approximately 35,000 Allied and 30,000 German.

Spring Offensive

153

Last German attack


Ludendorff now postponed Hagen and launched the German Seventh, First and Third Armies in the Friedensturm (Peace Offensive) of 15 July,[19] a renewed attempt to draw Allied reserves south from Flanders, and to expand the salient created by Blcher-Yorck eastwards. An attack east of Rheims was thwarted by the French defence in depth. In many sectors the Germans, deprived of any surprise as their fuel-starved air force had lost air superiority to the Allies, advanced no further than the French Forward Zone, and nowhere did they break the French Battle (Second) Zone.[20] Although German troops southwest of Rheims succeeded in crossing the River Marne, the French launched a major offensive of their own on the west side of the salient on 18 July, threatening to cut off the Germans in the salient. Ludendorff had to evacuate most of the Blcher-Yorck salient by 7 August, and the much-postponed Hagen Offensive was finally cancelled altogether.[21] The initiative had clearly passed to the Allies, who were shortly to begin the Hundred Days Offensive which effectively ended the war.

Strategic Impact
The Kaiserschlacht series of offensives had yielded large territorial gains for the Germans, in First World War terms. However, victory was not achieved and the German armies were severely depleted, exhausted and in exposed positions. The territorial gains were in the form of salients which greatly increased the length of the line that would have to be defended when allied reinforcements gave the allies the initiative. In six months, the strength of the German army had fallen from 5.1 million fighting men to 4.2 million. By July the German superiority of numbers on the Western Front had sunk to 207 divisions to 203 Allied,[19] a lead which would be reversed as more American troops arrived. German manpower was exhausted. The German High Command predicted they would need 200,000 men per month to make good the losses suffered, but even by drawing on the next annual class of eighteen year olds, only 300,000 recruits would be available for the year. Even worse, they lost most of their best trained men: stormtrooper tactics had them leading the attacks. Even so, about a million German soldiers remained tied up in the east until the end of the war, attempting to run a short-lived addition to the German Empire in Europe. German political ambitions remained extravagant until the very end. The Allies had been badly hurt but not broken. The lack of a unified high command was partly rectified by the appointment of Marshal Foch to the supreme command, and coordination would improve in later Allied operations. American troops were for the first time used as independent formations and had proven themselves. Their presence counterbalanced the serious manpower shortages that Britain and France were experiencing after four years of war.

References
[1] Blaxland, p.25 [2] Middlebrook 1983, pp. 3034. [3] Brown 1998, p. 184. [4] Robson 2007, p. 93. [5] Brown 1998, p. 184 [6] Middlebrook 1983, pp. 347348. [7] Simpson 1995, p. 117-118. [8] Simpson 1995, p. 124. [9] Simpson 1995, p. 123. [10] Bruchmller (http:/ / www. firstworldwar. com/ bio/ bruchmuller. htm) biography. [11] D T Zabecki, The German 1918 Offensives: A Case Study of The Operational Level of War, Taylor & Francis, 2005, p 56 [12] Blaxland, p.28 [13] historyofwar.org (http:/ / www. historyofwar. org/ articles/ battles_sommeII. html) [14] Marix Evans, p.63 [15] Marix Evans, p.81 [16] Hart 2008, p.296 [17] Marix Evans, p.105

Spring Offensive
[18] [19] [20] [21] Hart 2008, p.294 Hart 2008, p.298 Hart 2008, p.299 Hart 2008, p.300

154

Sources
Brown, Ian. British Logistics on the Western Front: 19141919. Praeger Publishers, 1998. ISBN 978-0275958947 Blaxland, Gregory [1968] (1981) Amiens 1918, War in the twentieth century series, London: W. H. Allen, ISBN 0-352-30833-8 Chodorow, Stanley [1969] (1989) Mainstream of Civilization, 5th ed., San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, ISBN 0-15-551579-9 Gray, Randal (1991) Kaiserschlacht, 1918: The Final German Offensive, Osprey Campaign Series 11, London: Osprey, ISBN 1-85532-157-2 Griffith, Paddy (1996). Battle Tactics of the Western Front: British Army's Art of Attack. 191618. Yale. ISBN 0300066635. Hart, Peter (2008). 1918: A Very British Victory, Phoenix Books, London. ISBN 978-0-7538-2689-8 Keegan, John (1999). The First World War, London: Pimlico, ISBN 9780712666459 Marix Evans, Martin (2002) 1918: The Year of Victories, Arcturus Military History Series, London: Arcturus, ISBN 0-572-02838-5 Middlebrook, Martin. The Kaiser's Battle: 21 March 1918: The First Day of the German Spring Offensive. Penguin. 1983. ISBN 0-14-017135-5 Simpson, Andy. The Evolution of Victory: British Battles of the Western Front, 19141918. Tom Donovan, 1995. ISBN 1-871085-19-5 Robson, Stuart. The First World War. Longman. 2007. ISBN 978-1405824712 Zabecki, David T. (2006) The German 1918 Offensives. A Case Study in the Operational Level of War, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-35600-8

Further reading
Pitt, Barrie [1962] (2003) 1918 The Last Act, Pen & Sword Military Classics series, Barnsley: Pen and Sword Books Ltd, ISBN 0-85052-974-3

Hundred Days Offensive

155

Hundred Days Offensive


The Hundred Days Offensive was the final period of the First World War, during which the Allies launched a series of offensives against the Central Powers on the Western Front from 8 August to 11 November 1918, beginning with the Battle of Amiens. The offensive forced the German armies to retreat beyond the Hindenburg Line and was followed by an armistice. The Hundred Days Offensive does not refer to a specific battle or unified strategy, but rather the rapid sequences of Allied victories starting with the Battle of Amiens.

Background
The German Spring Offensives on the Western Front which began on 21st March, 1918 with Operation Michael had petered out by July. The Germans had advanced to the Marne River but failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough. When Operation Marne-Rheims ended in July, the Allied supreme commander, the French Ferdinand Foch, ordered a counter-offensive which became the Second Battle of the Marne. The Germans, recognising their untenable position, withdrew from the Marne towards the north, for which victory Foch was promoted Marshal of France. Foch considered the time had arrived for the Allies to return to the offensive. The Americans were now present in France in large numbers, and their presence invigorated the Allied armies.[1]:472 Their commander, General John J. Pershing, was keen to use his army in an independent role. The British Army had also been reinforced by large numbers of troops returned from campaigns in Palestine and Italy, and large numbers of replacements previously held back in Britain by Prime Minister David Lloyd George.[1]:155 A number of proposals were considered, and finally Foch agreed on a proposal by Field Marshal Douglas Haig, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), to strike on the Somme, east of Amiens and southwest of the 1916 battlefield of the Battle of the Somme, with the intention of forcing the Germans away from the vital Amiens-Paris railway.[1]:472 The Somme was chosen as a suitable site for the offensive for several reasons. As in 1916, it marked the boundary between the BEF and the French armies, in this case defined by the Amiens-Roye road, allowing the two armies to cooperate. Also the Picardy countryside provided a good surface for tanks, which was not the case in Flanders. Finally, the German defenses, manned by the German Second Army of General Georg von der Marwitz, were relatively weak, having been subjected to continual raiding by the Australians in a process termed peaceful penetration.

Initial Battles
Amiens
The Battle of Amiens (with the French attack on the southern flank called the Battle of Montdidier (French: Bataille de Montdidier)) opened on 8 August 1918, with an attack by more than 10 Allied divisionsAustralian, Canadian, British and French forceswith more than 500 tanks.[1]:497 Through careful preparations, the Allies achieved complete surprise.[2]:20,95[3] The attack, spearheaded by Australian Corps and Canadian Corps of the British Fourth Army, broke through the German lines, and tanks attacked German rear positions, sowing panic and confusion. By the end of the day, a gap 15mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km) long had been created in the German line south of the Somme.[4] The Allies had taken 17,000 prisoners and captured 330 guns. Total German losses were estimated to be 30,000 on 8 August, while the Allies had suffered about 6,500 killed, wounded and missing. The collapse in German morale led Erich Ludendorff to dub it "the Black Day of the German Army".[2]:20,95 The advance continued for three more days but without the spectacular results of 8 August, since the rapid advance outran the supporting artillery and ran short of supplies.[5] During those three days, the Allies had managed to gain 12mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km), but most of that had occurred on the first day, as a result of the Germans

Hundred Days Offensive adding reinforcements.[6] On 10 August, the Germans began to pull out of the salient that they had managed to occupy during Operation Michael in March, back towards the Hindenburg Line.[7]

156

Somme
On 15 August 1918, Foch demanded that Haig continue the Amiens offensive, even though the attack was faltering as the troops outran their supplies and artillery, and German reserves were being moved to the sector. Haig refused, and instead prepared to launch a fresh offensive by the British Third Army at Albert (the Battle of Albert), which opened on 21 August.[1]:7134 The offensive was a success, pushing the German Second Army back over a 34mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km) front. Albert was captured in 22 August.[8] The attack was widened on the south, by the French 10th Army starting the 2nd Battle of Noyon (French: 2e Bataille de Noyon) on 17 August, capturing the town of Noyon on 29 August.[8] On 26 August, to the north of the initial attack, the British First Army widened the attack by another 7mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km) with the Second Battle of Arras. Bapaume fell on 29 August (during the Second Battle of Bapaume).

1 September 1918, Pronne (Somme). A machine gun position established by the Australian 54th Battalion during its attack on German forces in the town.

Advance to the Hindenburg Line


With the front line broken, a number of battles took place as the Allies forced the Germans back to the Hindenburg Line. East of Amiens (after the Battle of Amiens), with artillery brought forward and munitions replenished, the British Fourth Army also resumed its advance, with the Australian Corps crossed the Somme River on the night of 31 August, breaking the German lines during the Battle of Mont St. Quentin.[9] On 26 August, to the north of the Somme, the British First Army widened the attack by another 7mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km) with the Second Battle of Arras, which includes the Battle of the Scarpe (1918) (26 August) and the Battle of Drocourt-Queant (2 September).[10] South of the British Expeditionary Forces, the French First Army approached the Hindenburg Line on the outskirts of Saint Quentin during the Battle of Savy-Dallon (French: Bataille de Savy-Dallon) (10 September),[11]:1289 and the French Tenth Army approached the Hindenburg Line near Laon during the Battle of Vauxaillon (French: Bataille de Vauxaillon) (14 September).[11]:125 The British 4th Army approached the Hindenburg Line along the St Quentin Canal during the Battle of pehy (18 September). By 2 September, the Germans had been forced back close to the Hindenburg Line, from which they had launched their offensive in the spring.

Hundred Days Offensive

157

Battles of the Hindenburg Line


Foch now planned a series of great concentric attacks on the German lines in France (sometimes referred to as the "Grand Offensive"), with the various axes of advance designed to cut the Germans lateral means of communications, intending that the success of a single attack would enable the entire front line to be advanced.[2]:2056 The main German defences were anchored on the Hindenburg Line, a series of defensive fortifications stretching from Cerny on the Aisne River to Arras.[12] Before Foch's main offensive was launched, the remaining German salients west and east of the line were crushed at Havrincourt and St Mihiel on 12 September; and at Epehy and Canal du Nord on 27 September.[2]:217 The first attack of Foch's "Grand Offensive" was launched on 26 September by French and American Expeditionary Forces in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive this offensive also includes the Battle of Somme-Py (French: Bataille de Somme-Py) (26 September), the Battle of Saint-Thierry (French: Bataille de Saint-Thierry) (30 September), the Battle of Montfaucon (French: Bataille de Montfaucon) (6 October) and the Battle of Chesne (French: Bataille du Chesne) (1 November). The offensive involved attacking over difficult terrain, resulting in the Hindenburg Line not being broken until the 17 October. Two days later, the Army Group under Albert I of Belgium (the Belgian Army, the British Second Army under General Herbert Plumer and the French 6th Army under General Degoutte) launched an attack near Ypres in Flanders (the Fifth Battle of Ypres). Both attacks made good progress initially but were then slowed by logistical problems. On 29 September, the central attack on the Hindenburg Line commenced, with the British 4th Army led by the Australian Corps attacking the St. Quentin Canal (the Battle of St. Quentin Canal) and the French First Army attacking fortifications outside St Quentin (the Battle of St Quentin (French: Bataille de Saint-Quentin)). By 5 October, the Allies had broken through the entire depth of the Hindenburg defences over a 19mi (unknown operator: u'strong'km) front.[11]:123 Rawlinson wrote, "Had the Boche [Germans] not shown marked signs of deterioration during the past month, I should never have contemplated attacking the Hindenburg line. Had it been defended by the Germans of two years ago, it would certainly have been impregnable" Subsequently (on October 8), led by the Canadian Corps, the 1st and 3rd British armies broke through the Hindenburg Line at the Battle of Cambrai.[13] This collapse forced the German High Command to accept that the war had to be ended. The evidence of failing German morale also convinced many Allied commanders and political leaders that the war could be ended in 1918; previously, all efforts had been concentrated on building up forces to mount a decisive attack in 1919.

Beyond the Hindenburg Line

Canadian troops shelter in a ditch along the Arras-Cambrai road.

Through October, the German armies retreated through the territory gained in 1914. The Allies pressed the Germans back toward the lateral railway line from Metz to Bruges (shown in the map at the head of this article), which had supplied their entire front in Northern France and Belgium for much of the war. As the Allied armies reached this line, the Germans were forced to abandon increasingly large amounts of heavy equipment and supplies, further reducing their morale and capacity to resist.[14] Casualties remained heavy in all of the Allied fighting forces, as well as in the retreating German Army. Rearguard actions were fought during the Pursuit to the Selle (9 October), Battle of Courtrai (14 October), Battle of

Hundred Days Offensive Mont-DOrigny (French: Bataille de Mont-D'Origny) (15 October), Battle of the Selle (17 October), Battle of Lys and Escaut (French: Bataille de La Lys et De L'Escaut) (20 October) (including the subsidiary Battle of the Lys and Battle of the Escaut), Battle of the Serre (French: Bataille de la Serre) (20 October), Battle of Valenciennes (1 November) and the Battle of the Sambre (including the Second Battle of Guise (French: 2me Bataille de Guise) (4 November) and the Battle of Thirache (French: Bataille de Thirache) (4 November), with fighting continuing until the last minutes before the Armistice took effect at 11:00 on 11 November 1918. One of the last soldiers to die was Canadian Private George Lawrence Price, two minutes before the armistice took effect.[15]

158

References
[1] Bean. [2] Livesay, John Frederick Bligh (1919). Canada's Hundred Days: with the Canadian Corps from Amiens to Mons, Aug. 8 Nov. 11, 1918 (http:/ / www. archive. org/ details/ canada100days00liveuoft). Toronto: Thomas Allen. . [3] Christie, Norm M (1999). For King and Empire: The Canadians at Amiens, August 1918. CEF Books. ISBN1-8969-7920-3. [4] Schreiber, Shane B (2004) [1977]. Shock army of the British Empire: the Canadian Corps in the last 100 days of the Great War. St. Catharines, ON: Vanwell. ISBN1-5512-5096-9. OCLC57063659. [5] Orgill, Douglas (1972). Armoured onslaught: 8th August 1918. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN0-3450-2608-X. [6] "Canada's Hundred Days" (http:/ / www. vac-acc. gc. ca/ remembers/ sub. cfm?source=history/ firstwar/ canada/ canada15). Canada: Veterans Affairs. 29 July 2004. . Retrieved 2008-08-07. [7] Dancocks, Daniel George (1987). Spearhead to VictoryCanada and the Great War. Hurtig. p.294. ISBN0-8883-0310-6. OCLC16354705. [8] "History of the Great War Principal Events Timeline 1918" (http:/ / www. greatwar. co. uk/ timeline/ ww1-events-1918. htm#august). . Retrieved 11 June 2010. [9] "Mont St Quentin Peronne 31 August 2 September 1918" (http:/ / www. ww1westernfront. gov. au/ battlefields/ mont-st-quentin-peronne-1918. html). . Retrieved 11 June 2010. [10] "The Second Battles of Arras 1918" (http:/ / www. 1914-1918. net/ bat29. htm). 19141918. . Retrieved 11 June 2010. [11] Hanotaux. [12] Christie, Norm M (2005) [1997]. The Canadians at Arras and the Drocourt-Queant Line, AugustSeptember, 1918. CEF Books. ISBN1-8969-7943-2. OCLC60369666. [13] Christie, Norm M (1997). The Canadians at Cambrai and the Canal du Nord, AugustSeptember 1918. CEF Books. ISBN1-8969-7918-1. OCLC166099767. [14] Wasserstein, Bernard (2007). Barbarism and civilization: a history of Europe in our time. Oxford University Press. pp.9396. ISBN978-0-1987-3074--3. [15] Hayes-Fisher, J. (29 October 2008). "The last soldiers to die in World War I" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ uk_news/ magazine/ 7696021. stm). Timewatch, BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 2009-01-18.

Bibliography
Bond, Brian. The Unquiet Western Front, Britain's Role in Literature and History. Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (2007). ISBN 978-0-521-03641-2 Bean, C.E.W. Official Histories First World War, Volume VI The Australian Imperial Force in France during the Allied Offensive. Angus and Robertson Ltd (1942) Christie, Norm M. (1999). For King and Empire, The Canadians at Amiens, August 1918. CEF Books. ISBN 1-896979-20-3. Christie, Norm M. (2005). The Canadians at Arras and the Drocourt-Queant Line, AugustSeptember, 1918. CEF Books. ISBN 1-896979-43-2. OCLC 60369666. Christie, Norm M (1997). The Canadians at Cambrai and the Canal du Nord, AugustSeptember 1918. CEF Books. ISBN 1-896979-18-1. OCLC Dancocks, Daniel George (1987). Spearhead to VictoryCanada and the Great War. Hurtig Publishers. p.294. ISBN 0-88830-310-6. OCLC 16354705. Hanotaux, Gabriel. Histoire Illustree de la Guerre de 1914, Tome 17. Gounouilhou (1924) Livesay, J.F.B. Canadas Hundred Days. Thomas Allen (1919) Orgill, Douglas (1972). Armoured onslaught: 8 August 1918. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-02608-X.

Hundred Days Offensive Schreiber, Shane B (2004). Shock army of the British Empire: the Canadian Corps in the last 100 days of the Great War. St. Catharines, Ontario: Vanwell. ISBN 1-55125-096-9. OCLC 57063659.

159

External links
Maps of Europe (http://maps.omniatlas.com/europe/19180920/) during the Allied Hundred Days Offensive at omniatlas.com

Weimar Republic

160

Weimar Republic
German Realma Deutsches Reich

19191933

Flag

Coat of Arms

Anthem Das Lied der Deutschen

Territory of Germany during the Weimar period


Capital Language(s) Government Berlin German Federal republic, parliamentary representative democracy (1919-1930) De facto authoritarian state by emergency decrees (1930-1933)

President - 19181925 - 19251934 Chancellor - 1919 - 19191920 - 1920 Philipp Scheidemann Gustav Bauer Hermann Mller (first) Friedrich Ebert Paul von Hindenburg

Weimar Republic

161
Constantin Fehrenbach Joseph Wirth Wilhelm Cuno Reichstag Reichsrat Interwar period 11 August 1919 30 January 1933 27 February 1933 23 March 1933

- 19201921 - 19211922 - 19221923 Legislature - State council Historical era -Established -Hitler appointed chancellor -Reichstag fire -Enabling Act Area -1925 [1]

468787km2 (181000sqmi)

Population -1925 [2] est. 62411000 133.1/km2 (344.8/sqmi) Mark (), coll. Papiermark (19191923) German Rentenmark (19231924) Reichsmark () (19241933) Germany Poland Russia

Density Currency

Today part of

The above shown coat-of-arms was the version used until 1928, then replaced by the conclusive version as shown in section Flag and coat of [3] arms.
a

The term "reich" does not literally connote an empire as has been commonly assumed by English-speaking people, the term "Kaiserreich" literally denotes an empire particularly a hereditary empire led by a literal emperor, though "reich" has been used in German to denote the Roman Empire because it has a weak hereditary tradition. In the case of the German Empire, the official name was Deutsches Reich that is properly translated as "German Realm" because the official position of head of state in the constitution of the German Empire was officially a "presidency" of a confederation of German states led by the King of Prussia who would assume "the title of German Emperor" as referring to the German people but [4] was not emperor of Germany as in an emperor of a state.

The Weimar Republic (Weimarer Republik [vama epublik]( listen)) is the name given by historians to the federal republic and parliamentary representative democracy established in 1919 in Germany to replace the imperial form of government. It was named after Weimar, the city where the constitutional assembly took place. Its official name was German Realm (Deutsches Reich), which is often mistranslated into English as German Empire, or rendered by the partial translation German Reich.[5][6][7][8][9] Following World War I, the republic emerged from the German Revolution in November 1918. In 1919, a national assembly convened in Weimar, where a new constitution for the German Reich was written, then adopted on 11 August of that same year. Germany's period of liberal democracy lapsed in the early 1930s, leading to the ascent of the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler in 1933. The legal measures taken by the Nazi government in February and March 1933, commonly known as Gleichschaltung ("coordination") meant that the government could legislate contrary to the constitution. The republic nominally continued to exist until 1945, as the constitution was never formally repealed. However, the measures taken by the Nazis in the early part of their rule rendered the constitution irrelevant. Thus, 1933 is usually seen as the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of Hitler's Third Reich.

Weimar Republic In its 14 years, the Weimar Republic was faced with numerous problems, including hyperinflation, political extremists on the left and the right and their paramilitaries, and hostility from the victors of World War I, who tried twice to restructure Germany's reparations payments through the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. However, it overcame many of the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles, (Germany eventually repaid a reduced amount of the reparations required of the treaty with the last payment being made on 3 October 2010[10][11]), reformed the currency, and unified tax politics and the railway system, as well as creating a unique cultural impact with its art, music and cinema. Germany continued to lead the world in science and technology during this period.

162

Name
Despite its political form, the new republic was still known as Deutsches Reich in German. This phrase was commonly translated into English as German Empire, although the German word Reich has a broader range of connotations than the English "empire", so the name is most often translated to the German Reich in English. The English word "realm" captures broadly the same meaning. The common short form in English remained Germany.

Flag and coat of arms


After the introduction of the republic, the flag and coat of arms of Germany were altered to reflect the political changes. The republican tricolour is based on the flag that the Paulskirche Constitution of 1849 introduced, which was decided upon by the German National Assembly in Frankfurt upon Main, at the peak of the German civic movement that demanded parliamentary participation and unification of the German states. The achievements and signs of this movement were mostly done away with after its downfall and the political reaction. Only the tiny German Principality of Waldeck-Pyrmont upheld the tradition and continued to use the German colours called Schwarz-Rot-Gold in German (English: Black-Red-Gold). These signs had remained symbols of the Paulskirche movement and Weimar Germany wanted to express its view of being also originated in that political movement between 1848 and 1852. However, anti-republicans opposed this flag. While the first German Confederal Navy (Reichsflotte) (18481852) had proudly used a naval ensign based on Schwarz-Rot-Gold, the Weimar republic navy, or Reichsmarine (19181935) insisted on using the pre-1918 colours of the previous Kaiserliche Marine (18711918), which were Black-White-Red, as did the German merchant marine.

Naval ensign of Reichsflotte (18481852).

Jack of the Kaiserliche Marine 190319

Weimar Republic

163

Jack of the Reichsmarine 191835

The republican coat of arms took up the idea of the German crest established by the Paulskirche movement, using the same charge animal, an eagle, in the same colours (black, red and gold), but modernising its form, including a reduction of the heads from two to one. Friedrich Ebert initially declared the official German coat of arms to be a design by Emil Doepler (shown in the infobox above) as of 11 November 1919, following a decision of the German government.[12] However, in 1928 the Reichswappen (Reich's coat of arms) designed by Tobias Schwab (18871967) in 1926 [or 1924[13]] replaced it as the official emblem for the German Olympic team.[14][15][16] The Reichswehr adopted the new Reichswappen in 1927.[16] Doepler's design then became the Reichsschild (Reich's escutcheon) with restricted use such as pennant for government vehicles. The 1949 the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) adopted all three signs of Weimar Republic, Reichswappen, Reichsschild and Reichsflagge as Bundeswappen, Bundesschild and Bundesflagge.[16]

The official German coat of arms (Reichswappen) from 1928 to 1935.

November Revolution
In October 1918, the constitution of the German Empire was reformed to introduce a parliamentary system similar to the British, but this soon became obsolete. On 29 October, rebellion broke out in Kiel among sailors. There, sailors, soldiers and workers began electing worker and soldier councils (Arbeiter- und Soldatenrte) modeled after the soviets of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The revolution spread throughout Germany, and participants seized military and civil powers in individual cities. The power takeover was achieved everywhere without loss of life and control was firmly in the hands of the largest political party, the social democrats. Nevertheless, the rebellion caused great fear in the establishment and in the middle classes because of the Soviet Russia connotation of the councils. For the supporters of a monarchy, the country seemed to be on the verge of a communist revolution. On 7 November, the revolution had reached Munich, causing King Ludwig III of Bavaria to flee. Groener, a self-appointed military expert in the MSPD was sent to Kiel to prevent any further unrest and took on the task of controlling the mutinous sailors and their supporters in the Kiel barracks. The sailors and soldiers, inexperienced in matters of revolutionary combat, welcomed Groener as an experienced politician and allowed him to negotiate a settlement, thus defusing the initial anger of the revolutionaries in uniform. At the time, the traditional political representation of the working class, the Social Democratic Party was divided into two major factions: one group, the Independent Social Democrats called for immediate peace negotiations and favoured a socialist system of industrial control. To keep their influence, the remaining Majority Social Democrats

Weimar Republic (MSPD), who supported the war efforts and a parliamentary system, decided to make use of their support at grass roots and put themselves at the front of the movement, and on 7 November, demanded that Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicate. When he refused, Prince Max of Baden simply announced that he had done so and frantically attempted to establish a regency under another member of the House of Hohenzollern. On 9 November 1918, the "German Republic" was proclaimed by MSPD member Philipp Scheidemann at the Reichstag building in Berlin, to the fury of Friedrich Ebert and James Mitchell, the leaders of the MSPD, who thought that the question of monarchy or republic should be answered by a national assembly. Two hours later, a "Free Socialist Republic" was proclaimed, 2km (unknown operator: u'strong'mi) away, at the Berliner Stadtschloss. The proclamation was issued by Karl Liebknecht, co-leader (with Rosa Luxemburg) of the communist Spartakusbund (Spartacist League), a group of a few hundred supporters of the Russian revolution that had allied itself with the USPD in 1917. On 9 November, in a legally questionable act, Reichskanzler Prince Max of Baden transferred his powers to Friedrich Ebert, who, shattered by the monarchy's fall, reluctantly accepted. In view of the mass support for more radical reforms among the workers's councils a coalition government called "Council of People's Commissioners" (Rat der Volksbeauftragten) was established, consisting of three MSPD and three USPD members. Led by Ebert for the MSPD and Hugo Haase for the USPD it sought to act as a provisional cabinet of ministers. But the power question was unanswered. Although the new government was confirmed by the Berlin worker and soldier council, it was opposed by the Spartacist League. Ebert called for a National Congress of Councils, which took place from 16 to 20 December 1918, and in which the MSPD had the majority. Thus, Ebert was able to institute elections for a provisional National Assembly that would be given the task of writing a democratic constitution for parliamentary government, marginalizing the movement that called for a socialist republic (see below).

164

Philipp Scheidemann talking from a window of the Reich Chancellery building to the people, 9 November 1918

On 11 November, an armistice was signed at Compigne by German representatives. It effectively ended military operations between the Allies and Germany. It amounted to German capitulation, without any concessions by the Allies; the naval blockade would continue until complete peace terms were agreed. From November 1918 to January 1919, Germany was governed by the Council of People's Commissioners, under the leadership of Ebert and Haase. It issued a large number of decrees that radically shifted German policies. It introduced the eight-hour workday, domestic labour reform, works councils, agricultural labour reform, right of civil-service associations, local municipality social welfare relief (split between Reich and States) and important national health insurance, re-instatement of demobilised workers, protection from arbitrary dismissal with appeal as a right, regulated wage agreement, and universal suffrage from 20 years of age in all types of elections local and national. To ensure his fledgling government maintained control over the country, Ebert made an agreement with the OHL (supreme army command), now led by Ludendorff's successor General Wilhelm Groener. The 'EbertGroener pact' stipulated that the government would not attempt to reform the army so long as the army swore to protect the state. On the one hand, this agreement symbolised the acceptance of the new government by the military, assuaging concern among the middle classes; on the other hand, it was thought contrary to working-class interests by left wing social democrats and communists, and was also opposed by the far right who believed democracy would make Germany weaker. The new Reichswehr armed forces, limited by the Treaty of Versailles to 100,000 army soldiers and 15,000 sailors, remained fully under the control of the German Officer Class despite its nominal re-organisation. As in other countries, it came to the permanent split in the social democratic movement, into the democratic SPD and the Communists. There was no revolution because the right wing of the socialist movement, led by Ebert and

Weimar Republic Scheideman, supported the republic they had brought into being. Combined action on the part of the socialists was not possible without action from the millions of workers who stood midway between the parliamentarians and the revolutionaries wanted to strengthen the powers of the workers' councils. The rift between the two socialist parties became final after Ebert called upon the OHL for troops to put down another Berlin army mutiny on 23 November 1918, in which soldiers had captured the city's garrison commander and closed off the Reichskanzlei where the Council of People's Commissioners was situated. The ensuing street fighting left several dead and injured on both sides. The USPD leaders were outraged by what they believed was treachery by the MSPD, which, in their view, had joined with the anti-communist military to suppress the revolution. Thus, the USPD left the Council of People's Commissioners after only seven weeks. In December, the split deepened when the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was formed out of a number of radical left-wing groups, including the left wing of the USPD and the "Spartacist League" group. In January, the Spartacist League and others in the streets of Berlin made more armed attempts to establish communism, known as the Spartacist uprising. Those attempts were put down by paramilitary Freikorps units consisting of volunteer soldiers. Bloody street fights culminated in the beating and shooting deaths of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht after their arrests on 15 January. With the affirmation of Ebert, those responsible were not tried before a court martial, leading to lenient sentences, which made Ebert unpopular among radical leftists. The National Assembly elections took place on 19 January 1919. In this time, the radical left-wing parties, including the USPD and KPD, were barely able to get themselves organized, leading to a solid majority of seats for the MSPD moderate forces. To avoid the ongoing fights in Berlin, the National Assembly convened in the city of Weimar, giving the future Republic its unofficial name. The Weimar Constitution created a republic under a parliamentary republic system with the Reichstag elected by proportional representation. The democratic parties obtained a solid 80% of the vote.

165

Official postcard of the National Assembly.

During the debates in Weimar, fighting continued. A Soviet republic was declared in Munich, but was quickly put down by Freikorps and remnants of the regular army. The fall of the Munich Soviet Republic to these units, many of which were situated on the extreme right, resulted in the growth of far-right movements and organizations in Bavaria, including Organisation Consul, the NSDAP, and societies of exiled Russian Monarchists. Sporadic fighting continued to flare up around the country. In eastern provinces, forces loyal to Germany's fallen Monarchy fought the republic, while militias of Polish nationalists fought for independence: Great Poland Uprising in Provinz Posen and three Silesian Uprisings in Upper Silesia. Germany lost the war because the country ran out of allies and its economic resources were running out; support among the population began to crumble in 1916 and by mid-1918 there was support for the war only among the die-hard monarchists and conservatives. The decisive blow came with the entry of the United States into the conflict, which made the vast industrial resources available to the beleaguered allies.[17] Nevertheless, the German armies were still on French and Belgian territory when the war ended on 11 November. In a hearing on the reasons for Germany's defeat in 1920, Hindenburg claimed that it was the defeatism of the civilian population that had made defeat inevitable. The die-hard nationalists then blamed the civilians for betraying the army and the surrender. This was the "Stab-in-the-Back Myth" that was unceasingly propagated by the right in the 1920s and ensured that the monarchists and conservatives would never support the government of the "November criminals".[18]

Weimar Republic

166

Treaty of Versailles
The growing postwar economic crisis was a result of lost pre-war industrial exports, the loss of supplies in raw materials and foodstuffs from Alsace-Lorraine, Polish districts and the colonies, along with worsening debt balances, but above all, the result of an exorbitant issue of promissory notes raising money to pay for the war. Military-industrial activity had almost ceased, although controlled demobilisation kept unemployment at around one million. The fact that the Allies continued to blockade Germany until after the Treaty of Versailles did not help matters, either. The allies permitted only low import levels of goods that most Germans could not afford. After four years of war and famine, many German workers were exhausted, physically impaired and discouraged. Millions were disenchanted with capitalism and hoping for a new era. Meanwhile, the currency depreciated. The currency would continue to depreciate following the French invasion of the Ruhr.
Germany after Versailles Lost by Germany after World War I; Annexed by neighbouring countriesLost by Germany after World War I; Saar (League of Nations)Saar Basin administered by the League of Nations 192035Germany (19191935)

The German peace delegation in France signed the Treaty of Versailles, accepting mass reductions of the German military, the prospect of substantial war reparations payments to the victorious allies, and the controversial "War Guilt Clause". Adolf Hitler later blamed the republic and its democracy for the oppressive terms of this treaty. The Republic's first Reichsprsident ("Reich President"), Friedrich Ebert of the SPD, signed the new German constitution into law on 11 August 1919. The new post-World War I Germany, stripped of all colonies, became 13.3% smaller in its European territory than its imperial predecessor. Of these losses, a large proportion consisted of provinces that were originally Polish and Alsace-Lorraine, seized by Germany in 1870, where Germans constituted only part or a minority of local populations despite nationalist outrage at the fragmentation of Germany.

Allied Rhineland Occupation


The occupation of the Rhineland took place following the Armistice with Germany of 11 November 1918. The occupying armies consisted of American, Belgian, British and French forces. In 1920, under massive French pressure, the Saar was separated from the Rhine Province and administered by the League of Nations until a plebiscite in 1935, when the region was returned to the German Reich. At the same time, in 1920, the districts of Eupen and Malmedy were transferred to Belgium (see German-Speaking Community of Belgium). Shortly after, France completely occupied the Rhineland, strictly controlling all important industrial areas, executing workers that peacefully refused to work.

Weimar Republic

167

Years of crisis (19191923)


The Republic was soon under attack from both left- and right-wing sources. The radical left accused the ruling Social Democrats of having betrayed the ideals of the workers' movement by preventing a communist revolution. Various right-wing sources opposed any democratic system, preferring an authoritarian state like the 1871 Empire. To further undermine the Republic's credibility, some right-wingers (especially certain members of the former officer corps) also blamed an alleged conspiracy of Socialists and Jews for Germany's defeat in World War I. In the next five years, the central government, assured of the support of the Reichswehr dealt severely with the occasional outbreaks of violence in Germany's large cities. The left claimed that the Social Democrats had betrayed the ideals of the revolution, while the army and the government-financed Freikorps committed hundreds of acts of gratuitous violence against striking workers.

1923-issue 50 million mark banknote. Worth approximately US$1 when printed, this sum would have been worth approximately US$12 million, nine years earlier. The note was practically worthless a few weeks later, because of continued inflation.

The first challenge to the Weimar Republic came when a group of communists and anarchists took over the Bavarian government in Munich and declared the creation of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. The uprising was brutally attacked by Freikorps, which consisted mainly of ex-soldiers dismissed from the army and who were well-paid to kill the most active supporters of a democratic Germany. The Freikorps was an army outside the control of the government, but they were in close contact with their allies in the Reichswehr. The Kapp-Luttwitz Putsch took place on 13 March 1920: 5000 Freikorps soldiers occupied Berlin and installed Wolfgang Kapp (a right-wing journalist) as chancellor. The national government fled to Stuttgart and called for a general strike against the putsch. The strike meant that no "official" pronouncements could be published, and with the civil service out on strike, the Kapp government collapsed after only four days on 17 March. Inspired by the general strikes, a workers' uprising began in the Ruhr region when 50,000 people formed a "Red Army" and took control of the province. The regular army and the Freikorps ended the uprising on their own authority. The rebels were campaigning for an extension of the plans to nationalise major industries and supported the national government, but the S.P.D. leaders did not want to lend support to the growing USPD, who favoured the establishment of a socialist regime. The repression of an uprising of S.P.D. supporters by the reactionary forces in the Freikorps on the instructions of the S.P.D. ministers was to become a major source of conflict within the socialist movement and thus contributed to the weakening of the only movement that could have withstood the Hitler movement. Other rebellions were put down in March 1921 in Saxony and Hamburg. In 1922, Germany signed the Treaty of Rapallo with the Soviet Union, which allowed Germany to train military personnel in exchange for giving Russia military technology. This was against the Treaty of Versailles, which limited Germany to 100,000 soldiers and no conscription, naval forces of 15,000 men, twelve destroyers, six battleships, and six cruisers, no submarines or aircraft. However, Russia had pulled out of World War I against the Germans as a result of the 1917 Russian Revolution, and was excluded from the League of Nations. Thus, Germany seized the chance to make an ally. Walther Rathenau, the Jewish Foreign Minister who signed the treaty, was assassinated two months later by two ultra-nationalist army officers.

Weimar Republic Hyperinflation Further information: Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic In the early postwar years, inflation was growing at an alarming rate, but the government simply printed more and more banknotes to pay the bills. By 1923, the Republic claimed it could no longer afford the reparations payments required by the Versailles Treaty, and the government defaulted on some payments. In response, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr region, Germany's most productive industrial region at the time, taking control of most mining and manufacturing companies in January 1923. Strikes were called, and passive resistance was encouraged. These strikes lasted eight months, further damaging the economy. The strike prevented some goods from being produced, but one industrialist, Hugo Stinnes, was able to create a vast empire out of bankrupt companies. Because the production costs in Germany were falling almost hourly, the prices for German products were unbeatable. Stinnes made sure that he was paid in dollars, which meant that by mid-1923, his industrial empire was worth more than the entire German economy. By the end of the year, over two hundred factories were working full time to produce paper for the spiralling bank note production. Stinnes' empire collapsed when the government-sponsored inflation was stopped in November 1923. In 1919 one loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923 it cost 100,000 million marks. Since striking workers were paid benefits by the state, much additional currency was printed, fueling a period of hyperinflation. The 1920s German inflation started when Germany had no goods to trade. The government printed money to deal with the crisis; this meant payments within Germany were made with worthless paper money, and helped formerly great industrialists to pay back their own loans. This also led to pay raises for workers and for businessmen who wanted to profit from it. Circulation of money rocketed, and soon banknotes were being overprinted to a thousand times their nominal value and every town produced its own promissory notes.

168

1 Million Mark notes, used as note paper, October 1923

The value of the Papiermark had declined from 4.2 per U.S. dollar at the outbreak of World War I to 1 million per dollar by August 1923. This led to further criticism of the Republic. On 15 November 1923, a new currency, the Rentenmark, was introduced at the rate of 1 trillion (1,000,000,000,000) Papiermark for one Rentenmark, an action known as a monetary reset. At that time, one U.S. dollar was equal to 4.2 Rentenmark. Reparation payments resumed, and the Ruhr was returned to Germany under the Locarno Pact, which defined a border between Germany, France and Belgium. Further pressure from the right came in 1923 with the Beer Hall Putsch, also called the Munich Putsch, staged by the NSDAP under Adolf Hitler in Munich. In 1920, the German Workers' Party had become the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), or Nazi Party, and would become a driving force in the collapse of Weimar. Hitler named himself chairman of the party in July 1921. On 8 November 1923, the Kampfbund, in a pact with Erich Ludendorff, took over a meeting by Bavarian prime minister Gustav von Kahr at a beer hall in Munich. Ludendorff and Hitler declared that the Weimar government was deposed and that they were planning to take control of Munich the following day. The 3,000 rebels were thwarted by the Bavarian authorities. Hitler was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison for high treason, a minimum sentence for the charge. In the event, he served less than eight months in a comfortable cell, receiving a daily stream of visitors before his release on 20 December 1924. While in jail, Hitler dictated Mein Kampf, which laid out his ideas and future policies. Hitler now decided to focus on legal methods of gaining power.

Weimar Republic

169

Military
After the dissolution of the Imperial army, the Reichsheer, in 1918, Germany's military forces consisted of irregular paramilitaries, namely the various right-wing Freikorps groups composed of veterans from the war. The Freikorps were formally disbanded in 1920 (although continued to exist in underground groups), and on January 1st 1921, the Reichswehr (literally; Defence of the realm) was created. The Treaty of Versailles limited the size of the Reichswehr to 100 000 soldiers (consisting of seven infantry divisions and three cavalry divisions), 10 armoured cars Reichswehr on parade, 1932. and a navy (the Reichsmarine) restricted to 24 ships. No aircraft of any kind was allowed. The main advantage of this limitation however was that the Reichswehr could afford to pick the best recruits for service. However with inefficient armour and no air support, the Reichswehr would've had limited combat abilities. Officers mainly recruited from the countryside because they believed that young men from the towns were prone to socialist behaviour, which would fray the loyalty of the privates to their conservative officers. Although technically in service of the republic, the army was predominately officered by conservative reactionaries who were sympathetic to right wing organizations. Hans von Seeckt, the head of the Reichswehr, declared that the army was not loyal to the democratic republic, and would only defend it if it were in their interests. During the Kapp Putsch for example, the army refused to fire upon the rebels. However, as right wing as the army was, it hesitated to assist the Nazis, whom they mostly viewed as thugs. The SA was the Reichswehr's main opponent throughout its existence, as they saw them as a threat to their existence, and the army fired at them during the Beerhall Putsch. Upon the establishment of the SS over the SA in 1929, the Reichswehr took a softer look upon the Nazis since the SS seemed more respectable, and openly favoured order over anarchy. In 1935, several years after Hitler came to power, the Reichswehr was disbanded and re-formed as the Wehrmacht. Two generals who refused to swear allegiance to the Nazis, Kurt von Schleicher and Ferdinand von Bredow were executed by the SS without objection from the force's officer corps.

Golden Era (19241929)


Gustav Stresemann was Reichskanzler for 100 days in 1923, and served as foreign minister from 19231929, a period of relative stability for the Weimar Republic, known in Germany as Goldene Zwanziger ("Golden Twenties"). Prominent features of this period were a growing economy and a consequent decrease in civil unrest. Once civil stability had been restored, Stresemann began stabilising the German currency, which promoted confidence in the German economy and helped the recovery that was so ardently needed for the German nation to keep up with their reparation repayments, while at the same time feeding and supplying the nation. Once the economic situation had stabilised, Stresemann could begin putting a permanent currency in place, called the Rentenmark (1924), which again contributed to the growing level of international confidence in the German economy.

Weimar Republic

170

To help Germany meet reparation obligations, the Dawes Plan (1924) was created. This was an agreement between American banks and the German government in which the American banks lent money to German banks with German assets as collateral to help it pay reparations. The German railways, the National Bank and many industries were therefore mortgaged as securities for the stable currency and the loans.[19] Shortly after, the French and Germans agreed that the borders between their countries would not be changed by force, which meant that the Treaty of Versailles was being diluted Christmas broadcast of Wilhelm Marx in [20] December 1923. Marx was the longest serving by the signing countries. Other foreign achievements were the chancellor of the republic. evacuation of the Ruhr in 1925 and the 1925 Treaty of Berlin, which reinforced the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922 and improved relations between the Soviet Union and Germany. In 1926, Germany was admitted to the League of Nations as a permanent member, improving her international standing and giving her the ability to veto League of Nations legislation. However, this progress was funded by overseas loans, increasing the nation's debts, while overall trade increased and unemployment fell. Stresemann's reforms did not relieve the underlying weaknesses of Weimar but gave the appearance of a stable democracy. The major weakness in constitutional terms was the inherent instability of the coalitions. The growing dependence on American finance was to prove dangerous, and Germany was one of the worst hit nations in the Wall Street Crash of 1929. The 1920s saw a remarkable cultural renaissance in Germany. During the worst phase of hyperinflation in 1923, the clubs and bars were full of speculators who spent their daily profits so they wouldn't lose the value the following day. Berlin intellectuals responded by condemning the excesses of capitalism, and demand revolutionary changes on the cultural scenery. Influenced by the brief cultural explosion in the Soviet Union, German literature, cinema, theatre and music worlds entered a phase of great creativity. Innovative street theatre brought plays to the public, the cabaret scene and jazz Roaring twenties in Berlin hotel Esplanade, 1926 band became very popular. According to the clich, modern young women were Americanised, wearing makeup, short hair, smoking and breaking with traditional mores. The euphoria surrounding Josephine Baker in the metropolis Berlin for instance, declared "erotic goddess" and in many ways admired and respected, kindled further "ultramodern" sensations in the minds of the German public.[21] A new type of architecture taught at "Bauhaus" schools, and Art reflected the new ideas of the time, with artists such as George Grosz being fined for defaming the military and for blasphemy. Artists in Berlin were influenced by other contemporary progressive cultural movements, such as the Impressionist and Expressionist painters in Paris, as well as the Cubists. Likewise, American progressive architects were admired. Many of the new buildings built during this era followed a straight-lined, geometrical style. Examples of the new architecture include the Bauhaus Building by Gropius, Grosses Schauspielhaus, and the Einstein Tower.[22] Not everyone, however, was happy with the changes taking place in Weimar culture. Conservatives and reactionaries feared that Germany was betraying her traditional values by adopting popular styles from abroad, particularly the U.S. Hollywood popularised American film, while New York became the global capital of fashion. Germany was more susceptible to Americanisation, because of the close economic links brought about by the Dawes plan. In 1929, three years after receiving the 1926 Nobel Peace Prize, Stresemann died of a heart attack at age 51. When stocks on the New York Stock Exchange crashed in October, the inevitable knock-on effects on the German economy brought the "Golden Twenties" to an abrupt end.

Weimar Republic

171

Decline (19301933)
Economic instability
In 1929, the onset of the depression in the United States of America produced a severe shock wave in Germany. The economy was supported by the granting of loans through the Dawes Plan (1924) and the Young Plan. When American banks withdrew their loans to German companies the onset of severe unemployment could not be stopped by conventional economic measures. Unemployment grew rapidly and in September 1930 a political earthquake shook the republic to its foundations. The NSDAP entered the Reichstag with 19% of the popular vote and made the fragile coalition system by which every chancellor had governed, unworkable. The last years of the Weimar Republic were stamped by even more political instability than in the previous years. The administrations of Chancellors Brning, Papen, Schleicher and Hitler (from 30 January to 23 March 1933) governed through presidential decree, rather than through consultation with the Reichstag (the German parliament). The finance expert Heinrich Brning was appointed as successor of Chancellor Mller by Reichsprsident Paul von Hindenburg on 29 March 1930, after months of political lobbying by General Kurt von Schleicher on behalf of the military. The new government was expected to lead a political shift towards conservatism, based on the emergency powers granted to the Reichsprsident by the constitution, since it had no majority support in the Reichstag. After a bill to reform the Reich's finances was opposed by the Reichstag, Hindenburg established the bill as an emergency decree based on Article 48 of the constitution. On 18 July, the bill was again invalidated by a slim majority in the Reichstag with the support of the SPD, KPD, the (then small) NSDAP and DNVP. Immediately afterwards, Brning submitted to the Reichstag the president's decree that it would be dissolved.

Members of the Communist Roter Frontkmpferbund marching through Berlin-Wedding, 1927

Flag of the Communist Party of Germany.

Flag of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

The Reichstag general elections on 14 September resulted in an enormous political shift: 18.3% of the vote went to the Nazis, five times the percentage compared to 1928. It was no longer possible to form a pro-republican majority in the Reichstag, not even a Grand Coalition of all major parties except the KPD, NSDAP and DNVP. This encouraged the supporters of the Nazis to force their claim to power by increasing organization of public demonstrations and paramilitary violence against rival paramilitary groups. From 19301932, Brning tried to reform the devastated state without a majority in Parliament, governing with the help of the President's emergency decrees. During that time, the Great Depression reached its low point. In line with conservative economic theory that less government spending would spur economic growth, Brning drastically cut state expenditures, including in the social sector. He expected and accepted that the economic crisis would, for a while, deteriorate before things would improve. Among others, the Reich completely halted all public grants to the obligatory unemployment insurance (which had been introduced only in 1927), which resulted in higher contributions by the workers and fewer benefits for the unemployed.

Weimar Republic The bulk of German capitalists and land-owners originally supported the conservative experiment: not from any personal liking for Brning, but believing the conservatives would best serve their interests. But as the mass of the working class and middle classes turned against Brning, more of the great capitalists and landowners declared themselves in favour of his opponents Hitler and Hugenberg. By late 1931, conservatism as a movement was dead, and the time was coming when Hindenburg and the Reichswehr would drop Brning and come to terms with Hugenberg and Hitler. Although Hindenburg disliked Hugenberg and despised Hitler, he was no less a supporter of the sort of anti-democratic counter-revolution represented by the DNVP and NSDAP.[23] On 30 May 1932, Brning resigned after no longer having Hindenburg's support. Five weeks earlier, Hindenburg had been re-elected Reichsprsident with Brning's active support, running against Hitler (the president was directly elected by the people while the Reichskanzler was not).

172

The Von Papen deal


Hindenburg then appointed Franz von Papen as new Reichskanzler. Von Papen lifted the ban on the NSDAP's SA paramilitary, imposed after the street riots, in an unsuccessful attempt to secure the backing of Hitler. Von Papen was closely associated with the industrialist and land-owning classes, and pursued an extreme Conservative policy along Hindenburg's lines. He appointed as Reichswehr Minister Kurt von Schleicher, and all the members of the new cabinet were of the same political opinion as Hindenburg. This government was expected Army feeds the poor, 1931 in Berlin to assure itself of the co-operation of Hitler. Since the Republicans were not yet ready to take action, the Communists did not want to support the republic, and the Conservatives had shot their political bolt, Hitler and Hugenberg were certain to achieve power.

Elections of July 1932


Because most parties opposed the new government, von Papen had the Reichstag dissolved and called for new elections. The general elections on 31 July 1932 yielded major gains for the KPD and the NSDAP (the Nazis), who won 37.2% of the vote, supplanting the Social Democrats as the largest party in the Reichstag. The new question was what part the now immense Nazi Party would play in the Government of the country. The Nazi party owed its huge increase to growing support from middle-class people, whose Harzburger Front of 1931, a coalition of traditional parties were swallowed up by the Nazi Party. The millions nationalist conservatives and the extreme right of radical adherents at first forced the Party towards the Left. They wanted a renewed Germany and a new organisation of German society. The left of the Nazi party strove desperately against any drift into the train of such capitalist and feudal reactionaries. Therefore Hitler refused ministry under Papen, and demanded the chancellorship for himself, but was rejected by Hindenburg on 13 August 1932. There was still no majority in the Reichstag for any government; as a result, the Reichstag was dissolved and elections took place once more in the hope that a stable majority would result.

Weimar Republic

173

Cabinet Schleicher
The 6 November 1932 elections yielded 33.1% for the Nazis,[24] two million voters fewer than in the previous election. Franz von Papen stepped down and was succeeded by General Kurt von Schleicher as Reichskanzler on 3 December. Schleicher, a political army officer, had developed in an atmosphere of semi-obscurity and intrigue that encompassed the Republican military policy. He had for years been in the camp of those supporting the Conservative counter-revolution. Schleicher's bold and unsuccessful plan was to build a majority in the Reichstag by uniting the trade unionist left wings in the various parties, including that of the Nazis led by Gregor Strasser. This did not prove successful either. In this brief Presidential Dictatorship entr'acte, Schleicher took the role of 'Socialist General', and entered into relations with the Christian Trade Unions, the left-wing members of the Nazi party and even with the Social Democrats. Schleicher planned for a sort of labour government under his Generalship. But the Reichswehr officers were not prepared for this, the working class had a natural distrust of their future allies, and great capitalists and landowners did not like the plans. The SPD and KPD could have achieved success building on a Berlin transport strike. Hitler learned from von Papen that the general had no authority to abolish the Reichstag parliament, whereas any majority of seats did. The cabinet (under a previous interpretation of Article 48) ruled without a sitting Reichstag, which could vote only for its own dissolution. Hitler also learned that all past crippling Nazi debts were to be relieved by German big business. On 22 January, Hitler's efforts to persuade Oskar von Hindenburg (the President's son) included threats to bring criminal charges over estate taxation irregularities at the President's Neudeck estate (although 5000 acres (unknown operator: u'strong'km2) extra were soon allotted to Hindenburg's property). Out-maneuvered by von Papen and Hitler on plans for the new cabinet, and having lost Hindenburg's confidence, Schleicher asked for new elections. On 28 January, von Papen described Hitler to Paul von Hindenburg as only a minority part of an alternative, von Papen-arranged government. The four great political movements, the SPD, KPD, Centre, and the Nazis were in opposition. On 29 January, Hitler and von Papen thwarted a last-minute threat of an officially sanctioned Reichswehr takeover, and on 30 January 1933 Hindenburg accepted the new Papen-Nationalist-Hitler coalition with the Nazis holding only three of 11 Cabinet seats. Later that day, the first cabinet meeting was attended by only two political parties, representing a minority in the Reichstag: The Nazis and the DNVP led by Alfred Hugenberg (196 + 52 seats). Eyeing the Catholic Centre Party's 70 (+ 20 BVP) seats, Hitler refused their leader's demands for constitutional "concessions" (amounting to protection) and planned for dissolution of the Reichstag. Hindenburg, despite his misgivings about the Nazis' goals and about Hitler as a person, reluctantly agreed to Papen's theory that, with Nazi popular support on the wane, Hitler could now be controlled as chancellor. This date, dubbed by the Nazis as the Machtergreifung (seizure of power) by Nazi propaganda, is commonly seen as the beginning of Nazi Germany. However, the phase of German history in which the democratic principles of the constitution and personal liberty came to an end, was the appointment of Brning as Chancellor by Hindenburg.
Poster for the nationalist "Black-White-Red" coalition of DNVP leader Alfred Hugenberg, Franz von Papen and Franz Seldte.

Weimar Republic

174

Hitler's chancellorship (1933)


Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor on the morning of 30 January 1933 in what some observers later described as a brief and indifferent ceremony. By early February, a mere week after Hitler's assumption of the chancellorship, the government had begun to clamp down on the opposition. Meetings of the left-wing parties were banned and even some of the moderate parties found their members threatened and assaulted. Measures with an appearance of legality suppressed the Communist Party in mid-February and included the plainly illegal arrests of Reichstag deputies. The Reichstag Fire on 27 February was blamed by Hitler's government on the Communists. Hitler used the ensuing state of emergency to obtain the assent of President von Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree the following day. The decree invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution and "indefinitely suspended" a number of constitutional protections of civil liberties, allowing the Nazi government to take swift action against political meetings, arresting and killing the Communists. Hitler and the Nazis exploited the German state's broadcasting and aviation facilities in a massive attempt to sway the electorate, but this election yielded a scant majority of 16 seats for the coalition. At the Reichstag elections, which took place on 5 March, the NSDAP obtained 17 million votes. The Communist, Social Democrat and Catholic Centre votes stood firm. This was the last multi-party election until the end of the Third Reich 12 years later and the last all-German election for 57 years. Hitler addressed disparate interest groups, stressing the necessity for a definitive solution to the perpetual instability of the Weimar Republic. He now blamed Germany's problems on the Communists, even threatening their lives on 3 March. Former Chancellor Heinrich Brning proclaimed that his Centre Party would resist any constitutional change and appealed to the President for an investigation of the Reichstag fire. Hitler's successful plan was to induce what remained of the now Communist-depleted Reichstag to grant him, and the Government, the authority to issue decrees with the force of law. The hitherto Presidential Dictatorship hereby was to give itself a new legal form. On 15 March, the first cabinet meeting was attended by the two coalition parties, representing a minority in the Reichstag: The Nazis and the DNVP led by Alfred Hugenberg (196 + 52 seats). According to the Nuremberg Trials, this cabinet meeting's first order of business was how at last to achieve the complete counter-revolution by means of the constitutionally allowed Enabling Act, requiring parliamentary majority. This Act would, and did, lead Hitler and the NSDAP toward his goal of unfettered dictatorial powers.[25]

Hitler cabinet meeting in mid-March


At the meeting of the new cabinet on 15 March, Hitler introduced the Enabling Act, which would have authorised the cabinet to enact legislation without the approval of the Reichstag. Meanwhile, the only remaining question for the Nazis was whether the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) would support the Enabling Act in the Reichstag, thereby providing the majority required to ratify a law that amended the constitution. Hitler expressed his confidence to win over the Centre's votes. Hitler is recorded at the Nuremberg Trials as being sure of eventual Centre Party Germany capitulation and thus rejecting of the DNVP's suggestions to "balance" the majority through further arrests, this time of Social Democrats. Hitler however assured his coalition partners that arrests would resume after the elections and, in fact, some 26 SPD Social Democrats were physically removed. After meeting with Centre leader Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and other Centre Trade Union leaders daily and denying them a substantial participation in the government, negotiation succeeded in respect of guarantees towards Catholic civil-servants and education issues. At the last internal Centre meeting prior to the debate on the Enabling Act, Kaas expressed no preference or suggestion on the vote, but as a way of mollifying opposition by Centre members to the granting of further powers to Hitler, Kaas somehow arranged for a letter of constitutional guarantee from Hitler himself prior to his voting with the centre en bloc in favor of the Enabling Act. This guarantee was not ultimately given. Kaas, the party's chairman since 1928, had strong connections to the Vatican Secretary of State, later Pope Pius XII. In return for pledging his support for the act, Kaas would use his connections with the Vatican to set in train and draft the Holy See's long desired Reichskonkordat with Germany (only possible with the co-operation of the Nazis).

Weimar Republic Ludwig Kaas is considered along with von Papen as being one of the two most important political figures in the creation of a National Socialist dictatorship.[26]

175

Enabling Act negotiations


On 20 March, negotiation began between Hitler and Frick on one side and the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) leaders Kaas, Stegerwald and Hackelsburger on the other. The aim was to settle on conditions under which Centre would vote in favor of the Enabling Act. Because of the Nazis' narrow majority in the Reichstag, Centre's support was necessary to receive the required two-thirds majority vote. On 22 March, the negotiations concluded; Hitler promised to continue the existence of the German states, agreed not to use the new grant of power to change the constitution, and promised to retain Zentrum members in the civil service. Hitler also pledged to protect the Catholic confessional schools and to respect the concordats signed between the Holy See and Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929) and Baden (1931). Hitler also agreed to mention these promises in his speech to the Reichstag before the vote on the Enabling Act. The ceremonial opening of the Reichstag on 21 March was held at the Garrison Church in Potsdam, a shrine of Prussianism, in the presence of many Junker landowners and representatives of the imperial military caste. This impressive and often emotional spectacle orchestrated by Joseph Goebbels aimed to link Hitler's government with Germany's imperial past and portray National Socialism as a guarantor of the nation's future. The ceremony helped convince the "old guard" Prussian military elite of Hitler's homage to their long tradition and, in turn, produced the relatively convincing view that Hitler's government had the support of Germany's traditional protector the Army. Such support would publicly signal a return to conservatism to curb the problems affecting the Weimar Republic, and that stability might be at hand. In a cynical and politically adroit move, Hitler bowed in apparently respectful humility before President and Field Marshal von Hindenburg.

Passage of the Enabling Act


The Reichstag convened on 23 March 1933, and in the midday opening, Hitler made a historic speech, appearing outwardly calm and conciliatory. Hitler presented an appealing prospect of respect towards Christianity by paying tribute to the Christian faiths as "essential elements for safeguarding the soul of the German people". He promised to respect their rights and declared his government's "ambition is a peaceful accord between Church and State" and that he hoped "to improve our friendly relations with the Holy See." This speech aimed especially at the future recognition by the named Holy See and therefore to the votes of the Centre Party addressing many concerns Kaas had voiced during the previous talks. Kaas is considered to have had a hand therefore in the drafting of the speech.[26] Kaas is also reported as voicing the Holy See's desire for Hitler as bulwark against atheistic Russian nihilism previously as early as May 1932.[27] Hitler promised that the Act did not threaten the existence of either the Reichstag or the Reichsrat, that the authority of the President remained untouched and that the Lnder would not be abolished. Of course, all the promises would be broken soon enough, but they served their purpose. During an adjournment, the other parties (notably the Centre) met to discuss their intentions.[28] In the debate prior to the vote on the Enabling Act, Hitler orchestrated the full political menace of his paramilitary forces like the storm troopers in the streets to intimidate reluctant Reichstag deputies into approving the Enabling Act. The Communists' 81 seats had been empty since the Reichstag Fire Decree and other lesser known procedural measures, thus excluding their anticipated "No" votes from the balloting. Otto Wels, the leader of the Social Democrats, whose seats were similarly depleted from 120 to below 100, was the only speaker to defend democracy and in a futile but brave effort to deny Hitler the majority, he made a speech critical of the abandonment of democracy to dictatorship. At this, Hitler could no longer restrain his wrath.[29] In his retort to Wels, Hitler abandoned earlier pretence at calm statesmanship and delivered a characteristic screaming diatribe, promising to exterminate all Communists in Germany and threatening Wels' Social Democrats as

Weimar Republic well. He did not even want their support for the bill. "Germany will become free, but not through you," he shouted.[30] Meanwhile Hitler's promised written guarantee to Monsignor Kaas was being typed up, it was asserted to Kaas, and thereby Kaas was persuaded to silently deliver the Centre bloc's votes for the Enabling Act anyway. The Act formally titled the "Act for the Removal of Distress from People and Reich" was passed by a vote of 441 to 94. Only the SPD had voted against the Act. Every other member of the Reichstag, whether from the largest or the smallest party, voted in favor of the Act. It went into effect the following day, 24 March.

176

Aftermath
The passage of the Enabling Act of 1933 is widely considered to mark the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the Third Reich. It empowered the cabinet to legislate without the approval of Reichstag or the President, and to enact laws that were contrary to the constitution. Before the March 1933 elections Hitler had persuaded Hindenburg to promulgate the Reichstag Fire Decree using Article 48, which empowered the government to restrict "the rights of habeas corpus [...] freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications" and legalised search warrants and confiscation "beyond legal limits otherwise prescribed". This was intended to forestall any action against the government by the Communists. Hitler used the provisions of the Enabling Act to pre-empt possible opposition to his dictatorship from other sources, in which he was mostly successful. The process of bringing all major organisations into line with Nazi principles and into the service of the state was called Gleichschaltung. Gleichschaltung is usually translated as "coordination", but sometimes as "forcible coordination".[31] It is a compound word, consisting of gleich, meaning alike, and schaltung, which means switching. The NSDAP meant to imply a particular mechanical meaning of the word: a certain means of wiring an electrical generator and electric motors, so that when the generator is made to turn at a given speed or turned to a certain angle, each motor connected to it will also turn at that speed, or to the same angle in other words, synchronization. The NSDAP was thought of as the generator, and other civil groups as motors wired to it. Hitler's cabinet issued many decrees for the purpose of Gleichschaltung in the weeks following the passage of the Act. It removed Jews from the civil service (at Hindenburg's request, an exception was made for Jews who had served at the front during World War I). It banned all trade unions and eventually outlawed all other political parties. After the exiled SPD published its new weekly Neuer Vorwarts in Prague, Hitler banned the party, confiscating its assets and abolishing its parliamentary representation, by decree of 22 June. However, opposition was frequently not addressed by legislation at all. The process of Gleichschaltung was often voluntary, or in any event not mandated by a formal decree. Most other parties had dissolved before being officially banned: the NSDAP's coalition partner, the DNVP, dissolved on 27 June, one day after Hugenberg's resignation from the cabinet. The Staatspartei (formerly the DDP) dissolved itself on 28 June and the DVP on 29 June. On 45 July, the Catholic parties (the BVP and the Centre) also wound up. By the time the formal decree banned the creation of new parties, there were none left except the NSDAP.[32][33] ...many organizations showed themselves only too willing to anticipate the [Gleichschaltung] process and to "coordinate" themselves in accordance with the expectations of the new era. By the autumn, the Nazi dictatorship... had been enormously strengthened. What is striking is not how much, but how little, Hitler needed to do to bring this about... Hitler took remarkably few initiatives. Kershaw p. 469. Willing Gleichschaltung was termed Selbstgleichschaltung or "self-coordination". There was a rush to join the NSDAP, overrunning the party's ability to process applications: on 1 May, the party announced that it was suspending the admission of new members. The party's membership had increased to 2.5 million, from about 900,000 at the end of January. Many prominent intellectuals allied themselves with the new government: the country's most famous philosopher, Martin Heidegger and its most prominent constitutional scholar, Carl Schmitt, spoke in favour of it, and Heidegger became the sponsor of a manifesto of German professors pledging allegiance to "Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist State." Lists were prepared of writers whose works were unacceptable in the

Weimar Republic 'New Order', including Freud, Einstein and Brecht. On the evening of 10 May, under the leadership of the German Students' Association and without substantial protest by the university faculties, some 20,000 volumes were burned at Berlin's Opernplatz.[34] The Reichswehr had, however, remained mostly untouched by Gleichschaltung. It was not until Hindenburg's death in August 1934 that all military personnel swore an oath of loyalty directly to Hitler, instead of to the constitution. Thereafter, the military came under gradually increasing pressure to align itself with NSDAP ideology, but it never entirely capitulated. Likewise, the holdings of industrialists and aristocratic "Junker" landowners remained for the most part untouched, whilst the administrative and judicial machinery was only very slightly tampered with.[23] The Nazi efforts to "co-ordinate" the Christian churches (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) were mostly unsuccessful, and were largely abandoned. However, the churches as a whole did not present any serious opposition to Hitler.

177

Legacy
The constitution of 1919 was never formally repealed, but the Enabling Act meant that it was a dead letter. The Enabling Act itself was breached by Hitler on three occasions in 1934: Article 2 of the act stated that 'Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.' The powers of the Lnder (states) were transferred to the central government, rendering the Reichsrat obsolete. A month later, the Reichsrat itself was dissolved. President von Hindenburg died in August, and Hitler appropriated the president's powers for himself. The Enabling Act did not specify any recourse that could be taken if the chancellor violated Article 2, and no judicial challenge ensued. After the death of Hindenburg in 1934, the constitution was largely forgotten, with some minor exceptions. In Hitler's 1945 political testament (written shortly before his suicide) he appointed Admiral Karl Doenitz to succeed him, but he named Doenitz as President rather than Fuehrer, thereby re-establishing a constitutional office dormant since Hindenburg's death twelve years earlier. On 30 April 1945 Doenitz formed what became known as the Flensburg government, which controlled only a tiny area of Germany near the Danish border, including the town of Flensburg. It was dissolved by the Allies on 23 May. On 5 June, the Allied Berlin Declaration stated in its preamble that the Allies assumed supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government [...] and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. It also declared that there was no central Government or authority in Germany capable of accepting responsibility for the maintenance of order, the administration of the country and compliance with the requirements of the victorious Powers. Article 13 of the declaration read: [T]he four Allied Governments will take such steps, including the complete disarmament and demilitarization of Germany, as they deem requisite for future peace and security. The Allied Representatives will impose on Germany additional political, administrative, economic, financial, military and other requirements arising from the complete defeat of Germany. [...] All German authorities and the German people shall carry out unconditionally the requirements of the Allied Representatives, and shall fully comply with all such proclamations, orders, ordinances and instructions. These provisions, not legally challenged by either of the subsequent German governments, meant that neither any NSDAP decree nor the 1919 constitution held any legal force over the Allies' administration of Germany. The 1949 Constitution of the German Democratic Republic contained many passages that were originally part of the 1919 constitution.[35] It was intended to be the constitution of a united Germany, and was thus a compromise

Weimar Republic between liberal-democratic and Leninist ideologies. It was replaced by a new, explicitly Leninist constitution in 1968, which was substantially amended in 1974. In 1990, the GDR dissolved altogether. The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, enacted in 1949, stated that 'The provisions of Articles 136, 137, 138, 139 and 141 of the German Constitution of 11 August 1919 shall be an integral part of this Basic Law.'[36] These articles of the Weimar constitution (which dealt with the state's relationship to various Christian churches) remain part of the German Basic Law.

178

Reasons for failure


The reasons for the Weimar Republic's collapse are the subject of continuing debate. It may have been doomed from the beginning since even moderates disliked it and extremists on both the left and right loathed it. Germany had limited democratic traditions and Weimar democracy was widely seen as chaotic. And since Weimar politicians had been blamed for the 'Dolchstosslegende (Stab In The Back legend) a then widely believed theory that Germany's surrender in World War I had been the unnecessary act of traitors the popular legitimacy of the government was on shaky ground. No single reason can explain the failure of the Weimar Republic. The most commonly asserted causes can be grouped into three categories: economic problems, institutional problems and the roles of specific individuals.

Economic problems
The Weimar Republic had some of the most serious economic problems ever experienced by any Western democracy in history. Rampant hyperinflation, massive unemployment, and a large drop in living standards were primary factors. From 19231929, there was a short period of economic recovery, but the Great Depression of the 1930s led to a worldwide recession. Germany was particularly affected because it depended heavily on American loans. In 1926, about 2 million Germans were unemployed this rose to around 6 million in 1932. Many blamed the Weimar Republic. This was made apparent when political parties on both right and left wanting to disband the Republic altogether made any democratic majority in Parliament impossible. The Weimar Republic was severely affected by the Great Depression. The economic stagnation led to increased demands on Germany to repay the debts owed to the United States. As the Weimar Republic was very fragile in all its existence, the depression was devastating, and played a major role in the NSDAP's takeover. Most Germans thought the Treaty of Versailles was a punishing and degrading document, because it forced them to surrender resource-rich areas and pay massive amounts of compensation. These punitive reparations caused consternation and resentment, although the actual economic damage resulting from the Treaty of Versailles is difficult to determine. While the official reparations were considerable, Germany ended up paying only a fraction of them. However, the reparations did damage Germany's economy by discouraging market loans, which forced the Weimar government to finance its deficit by printing more currency, causing rampant hyperinflation. In addition, the rapid disintegration of Germany in 1919, due to the return of a disillusioned army, the rapid change from possible victory in 1918 to defeat in 1919, and the political chaos may have caused a psychological imprint on Germans that could lead to extreme nationalism, later epitomized and exploited by Hitler. Most historians agree that many industrial leaders identified the Weimar Republic with labour unions and with the Social Democrats, who had established the Versailles concessions of 1918/1919. Although some did see Hitler as a means to abolish the latter, the Republic was already unstable before any industry leaders were supporting Hitler. Even those who supported Hitler's appointment often did not support Nazism in its entirety and considered Hitler a temporary solution in their efforts to abolish the Republic. Industry support alone cannot explain Hitler's enthusiastic support by large segments of the population, including many workers who had turned away from the left.

Weimar Republic Princeton historian Harold James argues that there was a clear link between economic decline and people turning to extremist politics.[37]

179

Institutional problems
It is widely believed that the 1919 constitution had several weaknesses, making the eventual establishment of a dictatorship likely but it is unknown whether a different constitution could have prevented the Third Reich. However, the 1949 West German constitution (the Grundgesetz) is generally viewed as a strong response to these flaws. The institution of the Reichsprsident was frequently considered as an Ersatzkaiser ("substitute emperor"), an attempt to replace the Kaiser with a similarly strong institution meant to diminish party politics. Article 48 of the constitution gave the President power to "take all necessary steps" if "public order and security are seriously disturbed or endangered". Although this was intended as an emergency clause, it was often used before 1933 to issue decrees without the support of Parliament (see above) and also made Gleichschaltung easier. During the Weimar Republic, it was accepted that a law did not have to conform to the constitution as long as it had the support of two thirds of parliament, the same majority needed to change the constitution (verfassungsdurchbrechende Gesetze). This was a precedent for the Enabling Act of 1933. The Basic Law of 1949 requires an explicit change of the wording, and it prohibits abolishing the basic rights or the federal structure of the republic. The use of proportional representation meant any party with a small amount of support could gain entry into the Reichstag. This led to many small parties, some extremist, building political bases within the system. Yet, the Reichstag of the monarchy was fractioned to a similar degree, even though elected by majority vote (under a two-round system). The republic did not fall due to the small parties, but to the strength of the communists, conservatives and national socialists. Nevertheless, the modern German Bundestag has introduced a 5% threshold limit for a party to gain parliamentary representation. The Reichstag could remove the Reichskanzler from office even if it was unable to agree on a successor. This "Motion of No Confidence" meant, since 1932, that a government could not be held in office when the parliament came together. As a result, the 1949 Grundgesetz stipulates that a chancellor may only be voted down by Parliament if a successor is elected at the same time (see Constructive Vote of No Confidence). The political parties started to have a role in creating a government only in October 1918. They had no time to get used to that, under the old system.

Weimar Republic

180

Role of individuals
Brning's economic policy from 19301932 has been the subject of much debate. It caused many Germans to identify the Republic with cuts in social spending and extremely liberal economics. Whether there were alternatives to this policy during the Great Depression is an open question. Paul von Hindenburg became Reichsprsident in 1925.

Constituent states
Prior to World War I, the constituent states of the German Empire were 22 smaller monarchies, three republican city-states and the Imperial territory of Alsace-Lorraine. After the territorial losses of the Treaty of Versailles and the German Revolution of 19181919, the remaining states continued as republics. The former Ernestine duchies continued briefly as republics before merging to form the state of Thuringia in 1920, except for Saxe-Coburg, which became part of Bavaria.

Germany during the Weimar period, with the Free State of Prussia (in blue) as the largest state.

States of Germany (1925)

Weimar Republic

181

State Anhalt Baden Bavaria (Bayern) Brunswick (Braunschweig) Hesse (Hessen / Hessen-Darmstadt) Lippe Mecklenburg-Schwerin Mecklenburg-Strelitz Oldenburg Prussia (Preuen)

Capital Dessau Karlsruhe Munich Braunschweig Darmstadt Detmold Schwerin Neustrelitz Oldenburg Berlin

Saxe-Coburg (Sachsen-Coburg) - to Bavaria in 1920 Coburg Saxony (Sachsen) Schaumburg-Lippe Thuringia (Thringen) - from 1920 Waldeck-Pyrmont - to Prussia in 1921/1929 Wrttemberg City-states Bremen Hamburg Lbeck States merged to form Thuringia in 1920 Reuss Saxe-Altenburg (Sachsen-Altenburg) Saxe-Gotha (Sachsen-Gotha) Saxe-Meiningen (Sachsen-Meiningen) Gera Altenburg Gotha Meiningen Dresden Bckeburg Weimar Arolsen Stuttgart

Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach) Weimar Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt Schwarzburg-Sondershausen Rudolstadt Sondershausen

These states were gradually de facto abolished under the Nazi regime via the Gleichschaltung process, as the states were largely re-organised into Gaue. However, the city-state of Lbeck was formally incorporated into Prussia in 1937 following the Greater Hamburg Act apparently motivated by Hitler's personal dislike for the city. Most of the remaining states were formally dissolved by the Allies at the end of World War II and ultimately re-organised into the modern states of Germany.

Weimar Republic

182

References
[1] "Das Deutsche Reich im berblick" (http:/ / www. gonschior. de/ weimar/ Deutschland/ index. htm). Wahlen in der Weimarer Republik. . Retrieved 26 April 2007. [2] "Das Deutsche Reich im berblick" (http:/ / www. gonschior. de/ weimar/ Deutschland/ index. htm). Wahlen in der Weimarer Republik. . Retrieved 26 April 2007. [3] Cf. Der Groe Brockhaus: Handbuch des Wissens in zwanzig Bnden: 21 vols., completely revis. ed., Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 15 19281935, vol. 4 (1929): "Vierter Band ChiDob", article: 'Deutsches Reich', pp. 611704, here pp. 648 and 651. No ISBN. [4] Harper's magazine, Volume 63. Pp. 593. [5] World Book, Inc. The World Book dictionary, Volume 1. World Book, Inc., 2003. Pp. 572. States that Deutsches Reich translates as "German Realm" that was a former official name of the Germany. [6] Royal Institute of International Affairs. A history of the Peace Conference of Paris , Volume 3. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 1969 Pp. 347. On the topic of the Weimar Republic constitution, it states that "The word Reich we translate as Realm" in the context of the name Deutsches Reich as German Realm. [7] Harper's magazine, Volume 63. Pp. 593. The term "reich" does not literally connote an empire as has been commonly assumed by English-speaking people, the term "Kaiserreich" literally denotes an empire particularly a hereditary empire led by a literal emperor, though "reich" has been used in German to denote the Roman Empire because it has a weak hereditary tradition. In the case of the German Empire, the official name was Deutsches Reich that is properly translated as "German Realm" because the official position of head of state in the constitution of the German Empire was officially a "presidency" of a confederation of German states led by the King of Prussia who would assume "the title of German Emperor" as referring to the German people but was not emperor of Germany as in an emperor of a state. [8] Bo Gransson. Universities in Transition: The Changing Role and Challenges for Academic Institutions. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2011. Pp. 261. Describes German Realm as the definition of "Deutsches Reich". Pp. 261. [9] Joseph Whitaker. Whitaker's almanack, 1991. J Whitaker & Sons, 1990. Pp. 765. Refers to the term Deutsches Reich being translated in English as "German Realm", up to and including the Nazi period. [10] http:/ / www. jpost. com/ International/ Article. aspx?id=189637 [11] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Agreement_on_German_External_Debts [12] Jana Leichsenring, "Staatssymbole: Der Bundesadler", in: Aktueller Begriff, Deutscher Bundestag Wissenschaftliche Dienste (ed.), No. 83/08 (12 December 2008), p. 1. [13] According to sources of the German national football team Schwab created the emblem for the team in 1924. [14] Cf. Reichswappen as depicted in the table: "Deutsches Reich: Wappen I" in: Der Groe Brockhaus: Handbuch des Wissens in zwanzig Bnden: 21 vols., Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1519281935; vol. 4 "ChiDob" (1929), p. 648. [15] Jrgen Hartmann, "Der Bundesadler", in: Vierteljahreshefte fr Zeitgeschichte (No. 03/2008), Institut fr Zeitgeschichte (ed.), pp. 495509, here p. 501. [16] Jana Leichsenring, "Staatssymbole: Der Bundesadler", in: Aktueller Begriff, Deutscher Bundestag Wissenschaftliche Dienste (ed.), No. 83/08 (12 December 2008), p. 2 [17] Kitchen, Germany, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK 1996)| [18] Wilhelm Diest and E. J. Feuchtwanger, "The Military Collapse of the German Empire: the Reality Behind the Stab-in-the-Back Myth," War in History, April 1996, Vol. 3 Issue 2, pp 186207 [19] Kitchen, Illustrated History of Germany, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p 241 [20] Kitchen ibid [21] "Josephine Baker in Berlin" (http:/ / www. cabaret-berlin. com/ ?p=440). Cabaret Berlin Exploring the entertainment of the Weimar era. 8 December 2010. . Retrieved 11 June 2011. [22] Delmer, Sefton (1972). Weimar Germany: Democracy on Trial. London: Macdonald. pp.8293. [23] Rosenberg, Arthur (1936). A History of The German Republic. London: Methuen. [24] Evans, Richard J. (2004). The Coming of the Third Reich. New York: The Penguin Press. p.446. ISBN1594200041. [25] As Kershaw notes (p. 468), after the passage of the Act, "Hitler was still far from wielding absolute power. But vital steps toward consolidating his dictatorship now followed in quick succession." [26] von Klemperer, Klemens (1992). German Resistance Against Hitler:The Search for Allies Abroad 19381945. Oxford: OUP / Clarendon Press. ISBN0-19-821940-7. [27] Mowrer, Edgar Ansel (1970). Triumph and Turmoil. London: Allen & Unwin. p.209. ISBN0049200267. [28] Kershaw pp. 46768. [29] Shirer, William L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN0-671-72868-7. [30] Kershaw p. 468. [31] Kershaw p. 481. [32] See Kershaw pp. 474476. [33] See Kershaw pp. 475483. [34] They included the works of Heinrich Heine, a poet who had written that "where books are burned, in the end people are also burned." Ibid. pp. 469478. [35] http:/ / web. wm. edu/ law/ publications/ lawreview/ documents/ Vol49-4_Markovits. pdf?svr=law

Weimar Republic
[36] Article 140 of the Basic Law. http:/ / www. bundestag. de/ interakt/ infomat/ fremdsprachiges_material/ downloads/ ggEn_downloand. pdf [37] James, Harold, "Economic Reasons for the Collapse of the Weimar Republic," in "Weimar: Why Did German Democracy Fail," ed. Ian Kershaw, Widenfeld and Nicolson, (London: 1990), pp 3057.

183

Further reading
Allen, William Sheridan (1984). The Nazi seizure of Power: the experience of a single German town, 19221945. New York, Toronto: F. Watts. ISBN0-531-09935-0. Berghahn, V. R. (1982). Modern Germany. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-34748-3. Bookbinder, Paul (1996). Weimar Germany: the Republic of the Reasonable. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. ISBN0-7190-4286-0. Bracher, Karl Dietrich (1971) (in German). Die Auflsung der Weimarer Republik; eine Studie zum Problem des Machtverfalls in der Demokratie. Villingen, Schwarzwald: Ring-Verlag. Broszat, Martin (1987). Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar Germany. Leamington Spa, New York: Berg. ISBN0-85496-509-2. Childers, Thomas (1983). The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 19191933. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN0-8078-1570-5. Craig, Gordon A. (1980). Germany 18661945 (Oxford History of Modern Europe). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-502724-8. Dorpalen, Andreas (1964). Hindenburg and the Weimar Republic. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Eschenburg, Theodor (1972) "The Role of the Personality in the Crisis of the Weimar Republic: Hindenburg, Brning, Groener, Schleicher" pages 350 from Republic to Reich The Making Of The Nazi Revolution edited by Hajo Holborn, New York: Pantheon Books. Feuchtwanger, Edgar (1993). From Weimar to Hitler: Germany, 19181933. London: Macmillan. ISBN0-333-27466-0. Gay, Peter (1968). Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider. New York: Harper & Row. Gordon, Mel (2000). Volutpuous Panic: The Erotic World of Weimar Berlin. New York: Feral House. Hamilton, Richard F. (1982). Who Voted for Hitler?. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN0-691-09395-4. James, Harold (1986). The German Slump: Politics and Economics, 19241936. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Clarendon Press. ISBN0-19-821972-5. Kaes, Anton; Jay, Martin; Dimendberg, Edward (eds.) (1994). The Weimar Republic Sourcebook. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN0-520-06774-6. Kershaw, Ian (1990). Weimar. Why did German Democracy Fail?. London: Weidenfield & Nicholson. ISBN0-312-04470-4. Kershaw, Ian (1998). Hitler 18891936: Hubris. London: Allen Lane. ISBN0-393-04671-0. Kolb, Eberhard (1988). The Weimar Republic. P.S. Falla (translator). London: Unwin Hyman. ISBN0-04-943049-1. Mommsen, Hans (1991). From Weimar to Auschwitz. Philip O'Connor (translator). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN0-691-03198-3. Mowrer, Edgar Angel (1933). Germany Puts The Clock Back. London. Nicholls, Anthony James (2000). Weimar And The Rise Of Hitler. New York: St. Martin's Press,. ISBN0-312-23350-7. Peukert, Detlev (1992). The Weimar Republic: the Crisis of Classical Modernity. New York: Hill and Wang. ISBN0-8090-9674-9. Turner, Henry Ashby (1996). Hitler's Thirty Days To Power: January 1933. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ISBN0-201-40714-0.

Weimar Republic Turner, Henry Ashby (1985). German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-503492-9. Weitz, Eric D. (2007). Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-01695-5. Wheeler-Bennett, John (2005). The Nemesis of Power: German Army in Politics, 19181945. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Publishing Company. ISBN1-4039-1812-0. Widdig, Bernd (2001). Culture and Inflation in Weimar Germany. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN978-0520222908.

184

External links
The Constitution of the German Reich (Weimar constitution) of 11 August 1919 (http://www.zum.de/psm/ weimar/weimar_vve.php) (English) Weimar Republic World History Database (http://www.malc.eu/history/Weimar-Republic-Germany.general. html) PSM Data Bank (http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/index.php3) historical documents (German) (http://www.documentarchiv.de/)

185

Technology
Technology during World War I
Technology during World War I reflected a trend toward industrialism and the application of mass production methods to weapons and to the technology of warfare in general. This trend began fifty years prior to World War I during the U.S. Civil War, and continued through many smaller conflicts in which new weapons were tested. August 1914 marked the end of a relatively peaceful century in Europe with unprecedented invention and new science. The 19th-century vision of a peaceful future fed by ever-increasing prosperity through The machine gun was one of the decisive technologies during World War I. technology was largely shattered by the Picture: British Vickers machine gun crew on the Western Front. war's end; after the technological escalation during World War II, it was apparent that whatever the gains in prosperity and comfort due to technology applied to civilian uses, these benefits would always be under the shadow of the horrors of technology applied to warfare. The earlier years of the First World War can be characterized as a clash of 20th-century technology with 19th-century warfare in the form of ineffectual battles with huge numbers of casualties on both sides. It was not until the final year of the war that the major armies made effective steps in revolutionizing matters of command and control and tactics to adapt to the modern battlefield, and started to harness the myriad new technologies to effective military purposes. Tactical reorganizations (such as shifting the focus of command from the 100+ man company to the 10+ man squad) went hand-in-hand with armored cars, the first submachine guns, and automatic rifles that could be carried and used by one man.

Trench warfare
The new metallurgical and bio industries, and many innovative mechanical inventions, had created new firepower that made defense almost invincible and attack almost impossible. These innovations included bolt-action infantry rifles, rifled artillery and hydraulic recoil mechanisms, zigzag trenches and machine guns, and their application had the effect of making it difficult or nearly impossible to cross defended ground. The hand grenade, already in existence though crudedeveloped rapidly as an aid to attacking trenches. Probably the most important was the introduction of high explosive shells, which dramatically increased the lethality of artillery over the 19th-century equivalents. Trench warfare led to the development of the concrete pill box, a hardened blockhouse that could be used to deliver machine gun fire. They could be placed across a battlefield with interlocking fields of fire.[1] Because attacking an entrenched enemy was so difficult, tunneling underneath enemy lines became one of the major efforts during the war. Once enemy positions were undermined, huge amounts of explosives would be planted and detonated as part of the preparation for an overland charge. Sensitive listening devices that could detect the sounds of

Technology during World War I digging were a crucial method of defense against these underground incursions. The British proved especially adept at these tactics, thanks to the skill of their tunnel-digging "sappers" and the sophistication of their listening devices.

186

Artillery
Of all the types of weapons in existence in 1914, artillery underwent the most revolutionary and scientific advances. At the beginning of the war, artillery was often sited in the front line to fire over open sights at enemy infantry. During the war, the following improvements were made: the first "box barrage" in history was fired at Neuve Chapelle in 1915; this was the use of a three- or four-sided curtain of shell-fire to prevent the movement of enemy infantry
7.7 cm FK 16 developed and used by Germany in WWI

the wire-cutting No. 106 fuze was developed, specifically designed to explode on contact with barbed wire, or the ground before the shell buried itself in mud, and equally effective as an anti-personnel weapon the first anti-aircraft guns were designed out of necessity indirect counter-battery fire was developed for the first time in history flash spotting and sound ranging were invented, for the location and eventual destruction of enemy batteries the creeping barrage was perfected factors such as weather, air temperature, and barrel wear could for the first time be accurately measured and taken into account when firing indirectly forward observers were used to direct artillery positioned out of direct line of sight from the targets, and sophisticated communications and fire plans were developed The majority of casualties inflicted during the war were the result of artillery fire.

Technology during World War I

187

Poison gas
At the beginning of the war, Germany had the most advanced chemical industry in the world, accounting for more than 80% of the world's dye and chemical production. Although the use of poison gas had been banned in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, Germany turned to this industry for what it hoped would be a decisive weapon to break the deadlock of trench warfare. Chlorine gas was first used on the battlefield in April 1915 at the Second Battle of Ypres in Belgium. The unknown gas appeared to be a simple smoke screen, used to hide attacking soldiers, and Allied troops were ordered to the front trenches to repel the expected attack. The gas had a devastating effect, killing many defenders. Later, mustard gas, phosgene and other gases were used. Britain and France soon followed suit with their own gas weapons. The first defenses against gas were makeshift, mainly rags soaked in water or urine. Later, relatively effective gas masks were developed, and these greatly reduced the effectiveness of gas as a weapon. Although it sometimes resulted in brief tactical advantages and probably caused over 1,000,000 casualties, gas seemed to have had no significant effect on the course of the

Australian infantry with gas masks, Ypres, 1917.

war.

Command and control


In the early days of the war, generals tried to direct tactics from headquarters many miles from the front, with messages being carried back and forth by couriers on motorcycles. It was soon realized that more immediate methods of communication were needed. Radio sets of the period were too heavy to carry into battle, and phone lines laid were quickly broken. Runners, flashing lights, and mirrors were often used instead; dogs were also used, though they were only used occasionally as troops tended to adopt them as pets and men would volunteer to go as runners in the dog's place. There were also aircraft (called "contact patrols") that could carry messages between headquarters and forward positions, sometimes dropping their messages without landing. The new long-range artillery developed just before the war now had to fire at positions it could not see. Typical tactics were to pound the enemy front lines and then stop to let infantry move forward, hoping that the enemy line was broken, though it rarely was. The lifting and then the creeping barrage were developed to keep artillery fire landing directly in front of the infantry "as it advanced". Communications being impossible, the danger was that the barrage would move too fast losing the protection or too slowly holding up the advance. There were also countermeasures to these artillery tactics: by aiming a counter barrage directly behind an enemy's creeping barrage, one could target the infantry that was following the creeping barrage. Microphones (Sound ranging) were used to triangulate the position of enemy guns and engage in counter-battery fire. Muzzle flashes of guns could also be spotted and used to target enemy artillery.

Technology during World War I

188

Railways

German ammunition train wrecked by shell fire, c. 1918. Railways dominated in this war as in no other. Through railways, men and material could be moved to the front at an unprecedented rate, but they were very vulnerable at the front itself. Thus, advancing armies could only move forward at the pace that they could build or rebuild a railway, e.g. the British advance across Sinai. Motorized transport did feature in World War I, but only rarely. After the railhead, troops moved on foot and guns were drawn by horses. The German strategy was known beforehand by the Allies simply because of the vast marshaling yards on the Belgian border that had no other purpose than to deliver the mobilized German army to its start point. The German mobilization plan was little more than a vast detailed railway timetable. Railways lacked the flexibility of motor transport and this lack of flexibility percolated through into the conduct of the war.

War of attrition
All countries involved in the war applied the full force of industrial mass-production to the manufacture of weapons and ammunition, especially artillery shells. Women on the home-front played a crucial role in this by working in munitions factories. This complete mobilization of a nation's resources, or "total war" meant that not only the armies, but also the economies of the warring nations were in competition. For a time, in 1914-1915, some hoped that the war could be won through an attrition of materiel--that the enemy's supply of artillery shells could be exhausted in futile exchanges. But production was ramped up on both sides and hopes proved futile. In Britain the Shell Crisis of 1915 brought down the British government, and led to the building of HM Factory, Gretna, a huge munitions factory on the English-Scottish border. The war of attrition then focused on another resource: human lives. In the battle of Verdun in particular, German Chief of Staff Erich Von Falkenhayn hoped to "bleed France white" through repeated attacks on this French city. In the end, the war ended through a combination of attrition (of men and material), advances on the battlefield, and a breakdown of morale and productivity on the German home-front due to an effective naval blockade of her seaports.

Technology during World War I

189

Air warfare
As with most other technologies, the aircraft underwent many improvements during World War I. Early war aircraft were not much different in design from the original Wright Flyer, which made its first flight over a decade earlier. While early air spotters were unarmed, they soon began firing at each other with handheld weapons and even throwing spears. An arms race commenced, quickly leading to increasingly agile planes equipped with machine guns. A key The Fokker triplane belonging to Manfred von Richthofen (the "Red Baron") innovation was the interrupter gear, a German invention that allowed a machine gun to be mounted behind the propeller so the pilot could fire directly ahead, along the plane's flight path. As the stalemate developed on the ground, with both sides unable to advance even a few miles without a major battle and thousands of casualties, planes became greatly valued for their role gathering intelligence on enemy positions and bombing the enemy's supplies behind the trench lines. Large planes with a pilot and an observer were used to reconnoiter enemy positions and bomb their supply bases. Because they were large and slow, these planes made easy targets for enemy fighter planes. As a result, both sides used fighter aircraft to both attack the enemy's observer planes and protect their own. Germany led the world in the design of Zeppelins, and used these airships to make occasional bombing raids on military targets, London and other British cities, without any great effect. Later in the war, Germany began attacking English cities with long range strategic bombers. As with the Zeppelin attacks, Germany's strategic bombing of England had limited tactical value, but it was demoralizing and showed the British they could not be completely immune from the effects of the war in their own country. It also forced the British air forces to maintain squadrons of fighters in England to defend against air attack, depriving the British Expeditionary Force of planes, equipment, and personnel badly needed on the Western front. 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, each equipped with parachutes: upon an enemy air attack on the flammable balloon, the crew would jump to safety. At the time, parachutes were too heavy to be used by pilots in aircraft, and smaller versions would not be developed until the end of the war. (In the British case, there arose concerns that they might undermine morale, effectively encouraging cowardice.) Recognized 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 of antiaircraft guns and patrolled by friendly aircraft. By inhibiting the enemy's ability to move in secrecy, aerial reconnaissance over the front can be blamed to some degree for the stalemate of trench warfare.

Technology during World War I

190

Tanks
Although the concept of the tank had been suggested as early as the 1890s, few authorities showed interest in them until the trench stalemate of World War I caused serious contemplation of unending war and ever escalating casualties. In Britain, a Landships Committee was formed, and teamed with the Inventions Committee, set out to develop a practical weapon. Based on the caterpillar track (first invented in 1770 and perfected in the early 1900s) and the four-stroke gasoline powered Internal combustion engine (refined in the 1870s), early tanks were fitted with Maxim type guns or Lewis guns, armor plating, and their caterpillar tracks were configured to allow crossing of an 8-foot-wide (unknown operator: u'strong'm) trench. Early tanks were unreliable, breaking down often. Though they first terrified the Germans, their use in 1917 engagements provided more opportunities for development than actual battle successes. It was also realized that new tactics had to be developed to make best use of this weapon. In particular, planners learned that tanks needed infantry support and massed formations to be effective. Once tanks could be fielded in the hundreds, such as they were at the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917, they began to show their potential. Still, reliability was the achilles heel of tanks throughout the remainder of the war. In the Battle of Amiens, a major Entente counteroffensive near the end of the war, British forces went to field with 534 tanks. After several days, only a few were still in commission, those that suffered mechanical difficulties outnumbering those disabled by enemy fire. Regardless of their effects on World War I, tank technology and mechanized warfare had been launched and grew increasingly sophisticated in the years following the war. By World War II, the tank had evolved to a fearsome weapon which made the trench obsolete, just as the trench and the machine gun had made horse-mounted cavalry obsolete.[2]

Naval Warfare
The years leading up to the war saw the use of improved metallurgical and mechanical techniques to produce larger ships with larger guns and, in reaction, more armor. The launching of HMS Dreadnought (1906) revolutionized battleship construction, leaving many ships obsolete before they were completed. Consequently, at the start of the war, many navies comprised newer ships and obsolete older ones. The advantage was in long-range gunnery, and naval battles took place at far greater distances than before. The Battle of Jutland (1916) was the only full-scale battle between fleets in the war. Having the largest surface fleet, the United Kingdom sought to press its advantage. British ships blockaded German ports, hunted down German and Austro-Hungarian ships wherever they might be on the high seas, and supported actions against German colonies. The German surface fleet was largely kept in the North Sea. This situation pushed Germany, in particular, to direct its resources to a new form of naval power: submarines.

Submarines
World War I was the first conflict in which submarines were a serious weapon of war. In the years shortly before the war, the relatively sophisticated propulsion system of diesel power while surfaced and battery power while submerged was introduced. The United Kingdom relied heavily on imports to feed its population and supply its war industry, and the German navy hoped to blockade and starve Britain using U-boats to attack merchant ships in unrestricted submarine warfare. This struggle between German submarines and British counter measures became known as the First Battle of the Atlantic. As German submarines became more numerous and effective, the British sought ways to protect their merchant ships. "Q-ships," attack vessels disguised as civilian ships, were one early strategy. Consolidating merchant ships into convoys protected by one or more armed navy vessels was adopted later in the war. There was initially a great deal of debate about this approach, out of fear that it would just provide German

Technology during World War I U-boats with a wealth of convenient targets. Thanks to the development of active and passive sonar devices,[3] coupled with increasingly deadly anti-submarine weapons, the convoy system reduced British losses to U-boats to a small fraction of their former level. Lieutenant Otto Weddigen remarked of the first submarine attack of the Great War:

191

How much they feared our submarines and how wide was the agitation caused by good little U-9 is shown by the English reports that a whole flotilla of German submarines had attacked the cruisers and that this flotilla had approached under cover of the flag of Holland. These reports were absolutely untrue. U-9 was the only submarine on deck, and she flew the flag she still flies -- the German naval ensign.

Mobility
Between late 1914 and early 1918, the Western Front hardly moved. Ironically, the beginning of the end for Germany started with a huge German advance. In 1917, when Russia surrendered after the October Revolution, Germany was able to move many troops to the Western Front. Using new stormtrooper tactics developed by Oskar von Hutier, the Germans pushed forward some tens of kilometers from March to July 1918. These offensives showed that machine guns, barbed wire and trenches were not the only obstacle to mobile warfare. In the Battle of Amiens of August 1918, the Entente forces began a counter attack that would be called the Hundred Days Offensive. The Australian and Canadian divisions that spearheaded the attack managed to advance 13 kilometers on the first day alone. These battles marked the end of trench warfare on the Western Front and a return to mobile warfare. The sort of unit that now began to emerge combined cyclist infantry and machine guns mounted on motor cycle sidecars. These motor machine gun units had originated in 1915[4]. The Hindenburg Line fell to the Allies and the Canal du Nord was crossed. In Berlin, Kaiser Wilhelm was told Germany had lost, and must now surrender. Advances continued but political developments inside Germany compelled Germany to sign an Armistice on November 11, 1918. The war was over, but a new mobility-driven form of warfare was beginning to emerge; one that would be mastered by the defeated Germans and deployed in 1939 as their blitzkrieg, or lightning warfare, embodying all they had learned in 1918.

Small Arms
The machine gun directly impacted the organization of the infantry in 1914, and, by the middle of 1917, put an end to the tactic of company sized waves. Platoons and squads of men became important; hand in hand with that organization was the use of light automatic weapons. The Lewis Gun was the first true light machine gun that could in theory be operated by one man, though in practice the bulky ammo pans required an entire section of men to keep the gun operating (Postwar research would show that its ingenious, but heavy and intricate, air cooling ducts were entirely unnecessary).[5] The Browning Automatic Rifle was adopted by the U.S. Army in 1918; adapters on cartridge belts allowed the BAR man to walk and fire the gun at the same time. Early sub-machine guns were also developed in this period. While in use, these guns would often overheat - which led to the development of several cooling methods.

Flame throwers
The Imperial German Army deployed flame throwers (Flammenwerfer) on the West Front attempting to flush out French or British soldiers from their trenches. Introduced in 1915, it was used with greatest effect during the Hooge battle of the Western Front on 30 July 1915. The German Army had two main types of flame throwers during the Great War: a small single person version called the Kleinflammenwerfer and a larger multiple person configuration called the Grossflammenwerfer. In the latter, one soldier carried the fuel tank while another aimed the nozzle. Both the large and small versions of the flame-thrower were of limited use because their short range left the operator(s)

Technology during World War I exposed to small arms fire.

192

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] March, F. A.; Beamish, R. J. (1919), History of the World War: An Authentic Narrative of the World's Greatest War, Leslie-Judge Raudzens 1990, pp.421426 Hartcup 1988, pp.129, 130, 140 http:/ / www. 1914-1918. net/ mmg. htm P. Griffiths 1994 Battle Tactics of the Western Front p130

193

Legacy
World War I in art and literature
Art
The years of warfare were the backdrop for art which is now preserved and displayed in such institutions as the Imperial War Museum in London, the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, and the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Official war artists were commissioned by the British Ministry of Information and the authorities of other countries. After 1914, avant-garde artists began to consider and investigate many things that had once seemed unimaginable. As Marc Chagall Contemporary sand sculpture rendition of the iconic later remarked, "The war was another plastic work that totally Australian War Memorial in Canberra, Australia. absorbed us, which reformed our forms, destroyed the lines, and gave a new look to the universe."[1] In this same period, academic and realist artists continued to produce new work. Traditional artists and their artwork developed side by side with the shock of the new as culture reinvented itself in relationships with new technologies.[2] Some artists responded positively to the changes wrought by war. C. R. W. Nevinson, associated with the Futurists, wrote that "This war will be a violent incentive to Futurism, for we believe there is no beauty except in strife, and no masterpiece without aggressiveness."[3] His fellow artist Walter Sickert wrote that Nevinson's painting 'La Mitrailleuse' (now in the Tate collection) 'will probably remain the most authoritative and concentrated utterance on the war in the history of painting.'[4] Pacifist artists also responded to the war in powerful ways: Mark Gertler's major painting, The Merry-Go-Round, was created in the midst of the war years and was described by D. H. Lawrence as "the best modern picture I have seen"[5] and depicts the war as a futile and mechanistic nightmare.[3] The commissions related to the official war artists programmes insisted on the recording of scenes of war. This undermined confidence in progressive styles as commissioned artists conformed to official requirements. The inhumanity of destruction across Europe also led artists to question whether their own campaigns of destruction against tradition had not, in fact, also been inhuman. These tendencies encouraged many artists to "return to order" stylistically.[3] The Cubist vocabulary itself was adapted and modified by the Royal Navy during "the Great War." The Cubists aimed to revolutionize painting and reinvented the art of camouflage on the way.[6]

World War I in art and literature

194

British marine painter Norman Wilkinson invented the concept of "dazzle painting" - a way of using stripes and disrupted lines to confuse the enemy about the speed and dimensions of a ship.[7] Wilkinson, then a lieutenant commander on Royal Navy patrol duty, implemented the precursor of "dazzle" on SS Industry; and in August 1917, the HMS Alsatian became the first Navy ship to be painted with a dazzle pattern. Solomon J. Solomon advised the British Army on camouflage. In December 1916 he established a camouflage school in Hyde Park[8] In 1920, he published a book on the subject, Strategic Camouflage.[9] Alan Beeton advanced the science of camouflage.[10] An early influence of the War on artists in the United Kingdom was the recruiting campaign of 1914-1915. Around a hundred posters were commissioned from artists by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee of which two and a half million copies were distributed across the Painting of Dazzle-ships in Drydock at Liverpool, country. Private companies also sponsored recruitment posters: by Edward Wadsworth, 1919 Remember Belgium, by the Belgian-born Frank Brangwyn and The Only Road for an Englishman by Gerald Spencer Pryse were two notable examples produced on behalf of the London Electric Railways. Although Brangwyn produced over 80 poster designs during the War, he was not an official war artist.[11] His grim poster of a Tommy bayoneting an enemy soldier (Put Strength in the Final Blow: Buy War Bonds) caused deep offence in both Britain and Germany. The Kaiser himself is said to have put a price on Brangwyns head after seeing the image.[12] Brangwyn states in 1917 that Will Dyson's cartoons were "an international asset to this present war." His exhibition of "War Satires" in 1915 was followed by him being appointed an Australian official war artist. The Royal Academy Summer Exhibition of 1915 was noted for the paucity and general poor quality of paintings on war themes, but The Fighting-Line from Ypres to the Sea by W. L. Wyllie was noted for its bold experimentation in showing a bird's-eye view of war from an aeroplane. George Clausen's symbolist allegory Renaissance was the most memorable painting of that 1915 exhibition, contrasting ruins and oppression with dignity and optimism.[13] When exhibited in the spring of 1916, Eric Kennington's portrayal of exhausted soldiers The Kensingtons at Laventie, Winter 1914[14] caused a sensation. Painted in reverse on glass, the painting was widely praised for its technical virtuosity, iconic colour scheme, and its stately presentation of human endurance, of the quiet heroism of the rank and file.[15] Kennington returned to the front in 1917 as an official war artist. The general failure of academic painting, in the form of the Royal Academy, to respond adequately to the challenges of representing the War was made clear by reaction to the 1916 Summer Exhibition. Although popular taste acclaimed Richard Jack's sentimental Return to the Front: Victoria Railway Station, 1916, the academicians and their followers were stuck in the imagery of past battle pictures of the Napoleonic and Crimean eras. Arrangements of soldiers, officers waving swords, and cavalrymen swaggering seemed outdated to those at home, and risible to those with experience of the front. A wounded New Zealander standing in front of a painting of a cavalry charge commented that "one man with a machine-gun would wipe all that lot out."[10] It was therefore not to a painter of the academic style but to an artist in black-and-white that recourse was made when Charles Masterman, head of the British War Propaganda Bureau and acting on the advice of William Rothenstein, appointed Muirhead Bone as Britain's first official war artist in May 1916.[16] In April 1917 James McBey was appointed official artist for Egypt and Palestine, and William Orpen was similarly sent to France. Orpen's work was criticised for superficiality in the pursuit of perfectionism: "in the tremendous fun of painting he altogether forgot the ghastliness of war".[10]

World War I in art and literature The most popular painting in the Royal Academy Exhibition of 1917 was Frank O. Salisbury's Boy 1st Class John Travers Cornwell V.C. depicting a youthful act of heroism. But of more artistic importance in 1917 was the establishment on 5 March of the Imperial War Museum and the foundation during the summer of the Canadian War Memorials Fund by Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere and significant work by Australian war artists.[10] David Bomberg's experiences of mechanized slaughter and the death of his brother in the trenches - as well as those of his friend Isaac Rosenberg and his supporter T. E. Hulme - permanently destroyed his faith in the aesthetics of the machine age.[17] This can be seen most clearly in his commission for the Canadian War Memorials Fund, Sappers at Work (19181919): his first version of the painting was dismissed as a "futurist abortion" and was replaced by a second far more representational version.[18] At the 1918 Royal Academy exhibition, Walter Bayes' monumental canvas The Underworld depicted figures sheltering in a Tube station during an air raid.[10] Its sprawling alien figures predate Henry Moore's studies of sheltering figures in the Tube during the Blitz of World War II.

195

Painting
Walter Richard Sickert's The Integrity of Belgium, painted in October 1914, was, when exhibited in Burlington House in January 1915 at an exhibition in aid of the Red Cross, recognised as the first oil painting exhibited of a battle incident in the Great War.[10] John Singer Sargent Among the great artists who tried to capture an essential element of war in painting was Society portraitist John Singer Sargent. In his large painting Gassed and in many watercolors, Sargent depicted scenes from the Great War.[19] Wyndham Lewis
John Singer Sargent's Gassed presents a classical frieze of soldiers being led from the battlefield -alive, but changed forever by individual encounters with deadly hazard in war.

British painter Wyndham Lewis was appointed as an official war artist for both the Canadian and British governments, beginning work in December 1917 after Lewis' participation in the Third Battle of Ypres. For the Canadians he painted A Canadian Gun-Pit (1918, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa) from sketches made on Vimy Ridge. For the British he painted one of his best known works, A Battery Shelled (1919, Imperial War Museum)(see [20]), drawing on his own experience in charge of a 6-inch howitzer at Ypres. Lewis exhibited his war drawings and some other paintings of the war in an exhibition, "Guns", in 1918. Alfred Munnings An unlikely war artist was Sir Alfred Munnings, who is best known as a painter of purebred racehorses; but he turned his painter's skills to the task of capturing images of the Canadian Cavalry Brigade in the war.[21] His mounted portrait of General Jack Seely (later Lord Mottistone) on his charger Warrior achieved acclaim.[22] Forty-five of his canvasses were exhibited at the "Canadian War Records Exhibition" at the Royal Academy,[23] including Charge of Flowerdew's Squadron at Moreuil Wood in March 1918. Lieutenant Gordon Flowerdew of Lord Strathcona's Horse cavalry, was awarded the Victoria Cross for leading the attack.[24] Less well known are paintings which feature teams of work-horses in the staging areas behind the front lines with the Canadian Forestry Corps.[25] The artist later recalled these days in his autobiography: My next move was unexpected and unlooked-for. Amongst the officers who came to have a look, as the news spread that my pictures were to be seen on the walls of ... [headquarters] ..., there were two colonels, both in the Canadian Forestry Corps ... persuading me that I must go with them and see the companies of Canadian Forestry who were then working in the many beautiful forests of France ....[26]

World War I in art and literature The forest of Conche in Normandy was my first experience of painting with the Forestry. Then came the area of the forest of Dreux, one of the finest in France, taking up fifteen square miles of ground... Each company had a hundred and twenty horses, all half-bred Percheron types, mostly blacks and greys. A rivalry existed between the companies as to which had the best-conditioned teams. I painted pictures of these teams at work, pictures of men axing, sawing down trees...[26] John Nash British painter John Nash believed that "the artist's main business is to train his eye to see, then to probe, and then to train his hand to work in sympathy with his eye."[27] The artist's most celebrated war painting is Over the Top (oil on canvas, 79.4 x 107.3cm), now hanging in the Imperial War Museum, London. In this painting, the artist presents an image of the attack during which the 1st Battalion Artists Rifles (28th London Regiment) left their trenches and pushed towards Marcoing near Cambrai. Of the eighty men, sixty-eight were killed or wounded during the first few minutes.[28]

196

Over The Top, 1918, oil on canvas, by John Nash, Imperial War Museum.

Nash himself was one of the twelve spared by the shellfire in the charge depicted in the painting. He created this artwork three months later.[28] The war artist crafted a chilling, harsh, vivid image. The painting offers a narrative of men moving forward despite the likelihood of not coming back alive: As soon as our line, set on its jolting way, emerged, I felt that two men close by had been hit, two shadows fell to the ground and rolled under our feet, one with a high-pitched scream and the other in silence like an ox. Another disappeared with a movement like a madman, as if he had been carried away. Instinctively, we closed ranks and pushed each other forward, always forward, and the wound in our midst closed itself. The warrant officer stopped and raised his sword, dropped it, fell to his knees, his kneeling body falling backwards in jerks, his helmet fell on his heels and he remained there, his head uncovered, looking up to the sky. The line has promptly split to avoid breaking this immobility. But we couldn't see the lieutenant any more. No more superiors, then... A moment's hesitation held back the human wave which had reached the beginning of the plateau. The hoarse sound of air passing through our lungs could be heard over the stamping of feet. Forward! cried a soldier. So we all marched forward, moving faster and faster in our race towards the abyss.[29] Nash's scene of devastation in We Are Making a New World used the destruction of the countryside as a bitterly ironic comment on war.[3]

World War I in art and literature Arthur Streeton Australian painter Arthur Streeton was an Australian Official War Artist with the Australian Imperial Force, holding the rank of lieutenant. He served in France attached to the 2nd Division. Streeton brought something of the antipodes Heidelberg school sensibility to his paintings of an ANZAC battlefield in France. Streeton's most famous war painting, Amiens the key of the west shows the Amiens countryside with dirty plumes of battlefield smoke staining the horizon, which becomes a subtle image of war. As a war artist, Streeton continued to deal in landscapes and his works have been criticised for failing to concentrate on the fighting soldiers.
Portrait of Arthur Streeton (1917) by George Lambert.

197

Streeton aimed to produce "military still life", capturing the everyday moments of the war. Streeton observed that, "True pictures of battlefields are very quiet looking things. There's nothing much to be seen, everybody and thing is hidden and camouflaged."

Sculpture

"Amiens, the key to the west" by Arthur Streeton, 1918.

Charles Webb Gilbert This heroic sculpture was designed as a part of the Mont St. Quentin Memorial which was dedicated in the mid-1920s at Mont St. Quentin, France. The original memorial to the men of the 2nd Australian Division features an heroic bronze statue of an Australian soldier bayoneting a German eagle.[30] A bronze plaque on the pedestal of the monument reads: 'To the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the 2nd Australian Division who fought in France and Belgium in the Great War 1916, 1917, 1918.' The statue on top of the memorial and the bas reliefs on its sides, which were sculpted respectively by Lieutenant Charles Web Gilbert and May Butler-George, were removed by the occupying German Army in 1940. They were later replaced with a new statue and new reliefs.[30]
The casting of the figure atop the memorial at Mont St. Quentin memorial -- Charles Gilbert's studio in, Fitzroy, Melbourne.

World War I in art and literature

198

Remembrance
Iconic memorials created after the war are designed as symbols of remembrance and as carefully contrived works of art. In London, the Guards Memorial was designed by the sculptor Gilbert Ledward in 1923-26. The edifice was erected on Horse Guards Parade and dedicated to the five Foot Guards regiments of World War I. The bronze figures were cast from guns from the Great War, commemorating the First Battle of Ypres and other battles.[31]

Literature
E. M. Remarque's best-selling book about the First World War, Im Westen nichts Neues, was translated into 28 languages with world sales nearly reaching 4 million in 1930.[32] and the award-winning film which was based on that work of fiction have had a greater influence in shaping public views of the war than the work of any historian.[33] John Galsworthy's perspective was quite different in 1915 when he wrote

The Mont St. Quentin memorial (c. 1925) commemorates the men of the Australian Imperial Forces (AIF) and their contribution in the battle which was fought in this area.

Those of us who are able to look back from thirty years hence on this tornado of death will conclude with a dreadful laugh that if it had never come, the state of the world would be very much the same. It is not the intention of these words to deny the desperate importance of this conflict now that it has been joined ....[34] Alfred Noyes is often portrayed by hostile critics as a militarist and jingoist.[35] In 1913, when it seemed that war might yet be avoided, he published a long anti-war poem called The Wine Press. During World War I, Noyes was debarred by defective eyesight from serving at the front.[36] Instead, from 1916, he did his military service on attachment to the Foreign Office, where he worked with John Buchan on propaganda.[37] He also did his patriotic chore as a literary figure, writing morale-boosting short stories and exhortatory odes and lyrics recalling England's military past and asserting the morality of her cause.[35] These works are today justly forgotten, apart from two ghost stories, "The Lusitania Waits" and "The Log of the Evening Star", which are still occasionally reprinted in collections of tales of the uncanny. John Masefield submitted a report to the British Foreign Office, and suggested that he be allowed to write a book about the failure of the allied efforts in the Dardanelles, which possibly could be used in the US in order to counter what he thought was German propaganda there. As a result, Masefield wrote Gallipoli. This work was a success, encouraging the British people, and lifting them somewhat from the disappointment they had felt as a result of the Allied losses in the Dardanelles. Due to the success of his wartime writings, Masefield met with the head of British Military Intelligence in France and was asked to write an account of the Battle of the Somme. Although Masefield had grand ideas for his book, he was denied access to the official records, and therefore, what was to be his preface to the book was published as "The Old Front Line", a description of the geography of the Somme area.

World War I in art and literature

199

Poetry
In the early weeks of the war, British poets responded with an outpouring of literary production. Rudyard Kipling's For all we have and are aroused most comment.[38] Robert Bridges, Poet Laureate, contributed a poem Wake Up, England! at the outbreak of war that he later wished suppressed.,[39] John Masefield, who later succeeded Bridges as Poet Laureate, wrote August, 1914, a poem that was widely admired. Wilfred Owen was killed in battle; but poems created at the front did achieve popular attention after the war's end,.e.g., Dulce Et Decorum Est, Insensibility, Anthem for Doomed Youth, Futility and Strange Meeting. In preparing for the publication of his collected poems, Owen tried to explain: This book is not about heroes. English poetry is not yet fit to speak of them. Nor is it about deeds, or lands, nor anything about glory, honour, might, majesty, dominion, or power, except War. Above all I am not concerned with Poetry. My subject is War, and the pity of War. The Poetry is in the pity. This brief statement became the basis for a play based on the friendship between Owen and Siegfried Sassoon in 1917. The poem In Flanders Fields, by John McCrae, continues to be one of the most popular wartime poems in Canada, and has achieved a status where it is recognized as one of the country's most notable unofficial symbols.

Drama
Journey's End (1928) Playwright: R. C. Sherriff The Accrington Pals (1982) Playwright: Peter Whelan Not About Heroes (1982) Playwright: Stephen Macdonald Oh What a Lovely War (1963) Playwright: Joan Littlewood

Novels
See also WWI Novels Henri Barbusse, Under Fire (1916) A. P. Herbert, The Secret Battle (1919) John Dos Passos, Three Soldiers (1920) Ernst Jnger, Storm of Steel (1920) Romain Rolland, Pierre et Luce (1920) Jaroslav Haek, The Good Soldier vejk (1923) Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms (1929) Erich Maria Remarque, All Quiet on the Western Front (1929) Siegfried Sassoon, Memoirs of an Infantry Officer Henry Williamson, The Patriot's Progress (1930) Louis-Ferdinand Cline, Journey to the End of the Night (1932) William March, Company K (1933) Norman Angell, The Great Illusion (1933) C. S. Forester, The African Queen (1935)

Dalton Trumbo, Johnny Got His Gun (1939)

World War I in art and literature

200

Movies
Among the notable movies which have been set during this period are such well-known films as: A Farewell to Arms (1932) Stars: Gary Cooper, Helen Hayes, Adolphe Menjou Director: Frank Borzage Oscars: Best Cinematography, Best Sound The African Queen (1951) Stars: Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn Director: John Huston Oscars: Best Actor in a Leading Role All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) Stars: Lew Ayres, Louis Wolheim, John Wray, Slim Summerville, Director: Lewis Milestone Oscars: Best Director, Best Picture Gallipoli (1981 film) (1981) Stars: Mel Gibson, Mark Lee, Bill Kerr, David Argue Director: Peter Weir Grand Illusion (1937) Stars: Jean Gabin, Erich von Stroheim, Pierre Fresnay, Marcel Dalio Director: Jean Renoir Paths of Glory (1957) Stars: Kirk Douglas, Adolphe Menjou, Ralph Meeker, Richard Anderson Director: Stanley Kubrick Sergeant York (1940) Stars: Gary Cooper, Joan Leslie, Walter Brennan, Dickie Moore, Ward Bond Director: Howard Hawks Oscars: '41 Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Film Editing Wings (1927) Stars: Charles Rogers, Richard Arlen, Clara Bow, Gary Cooper, Henry B. Walthall, Roscoe Karns, William A. Wellman Director: William Wellman Oscars: Best Picture The war and its aftermath continues to remain a potent focal point for a fresh perspective and evaluationas in, for example, the "relentlessly picturesque" 1994 film Legends of the Fall starring Brad Pitt, Anthony Hopkins, Aidan Quinn, Julia Ormond, and Henry Thomas.[40]

World War I in art and literature

201

Opera
Die Frau ohne Schatten (1919) Composer: Richard Strauss Wozzeck (1925) Composer: Alban Berg

Television
My Boy Jack tells the story of Rudyard Kipling's son, who volunteered to fight for "king and country" in France.[41] The made-for-television drama was broadcast in the United Kingdom in 2007 and in the United States in 2008.[42] Jack Kipling was killed in action in September 1915 after being in France for only three weeks; but he remained on the list of soldiers "missing believed wounded" for two years. The Kiplings were devastatednot only by their loss, but also by the fact that their son's body could not be found. In 1916, Kipling's Sea Warfare was published, and the book contained a poem about his son Jack: "Have you news of my boy Jack?" Not this tide. "When d'you think that he'll come back?" Not with this wind blowing, and this tide. "Has any one else had word of him?" Not this tide. For what is sunk will hardly swim, Not with this wind blowing and this tide. "Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?" None this tide, Nor any tide, Except he didn't shame his kind Not even with that wind blowing and that tide. Then hold your head up all the more, This tide, And every tide, Because he was the son you bore, And gave to that wind blowing and that tide! --Rudyard Kipling[43] A more comedic view on World War One was 'Blackadder Goes Forth'. This was a series made to show the British military to be a lot of blundering fools.

World War I in art and literature

202

Notes
[1] Cohen, Aaron J. (2008). Imagining the Unimaginable: World War, Modern Art, and the Politics of Public Culture in Russia, 1914-1917, abstract. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=l8AimiuwacoC& client=firefox-a) [2] Hughes, Robert. (1981). The Shock of the New, p. 15. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?client=firefox-a& id=aX1PAAAAMAAJ& dq=the+ shock+ of+ the+ new& q=first+ world+ war& pgis=1#search) [3] British Art Since 1900, Frances Spaulding, 1986 ISBN 0500202044 [4] Sickert, The Burlington Magazine, September/October 1916. [5] (Letters, 9 October 1916) [6] Glover, Michael. "Now you see it... Now you don't," (http:/ / entertainment. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ arts_and_entertainment/ visual_arts/ article1479657. ece) The Times. March 10, 2007. [7] Fisher, Mark. "Secret history: how surrealism can win a war," (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ news/ uk/ scotland/ article785672. ece) The Times. January 8, 2006. [8] Rankin 2008, p.181. [9] Rankin 2008, p.232. [10] The Influence of the War on art, Frank Rutter, in The Great War, ed. H.W. Wilson & J.A. Hammerton, London 1919 [11] Libby Horner, Frank Brangwyn. A Mission to Decorate Life, The Fine Art Society & Liss Fine Art, p137 [12] MacIntyre, Ben (8 November 2008). "The power of war posters" (http:/ / entertainment. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ arts_and_entertainment/ visual_arts/ article5074754. ece?token=null& offset=12& page=2). The Times (London). . Retrieved 2 May 2010. [13] The Influence of the War on art, Frank Rutter, in The Great War, ed. H.W. Wilson & J.A. Hammerton, London 1919 [14] THEY ARE ORDINARY MEN: THE KENSINGTONS AT LAVENTIE WINTER 1914 (http:/ / www. firstworldwar. bham. ac. uk/ Kensingtons at Laventie. doc) [15] Paul Gough (2010) A Terrible Beauty: British Artists in the First World War (Sansom and Company) p.20. [16] Vale Royal Borough Council. (2005). "Whitegate Conservation Area Update," p. 11. (http:/ / www2. valeroyal. gov. uk/ internet/ VR. nsf/ AllByUniqueIdentifier/ DOC2BF7194260E87CD680256FEB00380329/ $file/ whitegate ADOPTED appraisal. pdf) [17] Hubbard, Sue (2006-09-04). "Back in the frame" (http:/ / findarticles. com/ p/ articles/ mi_qn4158/ is_20060904/ ai_n16708198). The Independent (Find Articles at BNET.com). . Retrieved 2008-01-19. [18] Raynor, Vivien (1988-09-25). "A Neglected British Genius" (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ gst/ fullpage. html?res=940DE2D8133FF936A1575AC0A96E948260& sec=& spon=& pagewanted=all). New York Times. . Retrieved 2008-01-20. [19] Little, Carl. (1998). The Watercolors of John Singer Sargent, p. 135 [20] http:/ / www. spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk/ ARTlewis. htm [21] Norfolk Museums: Watering Horses, Canadian Troops in France, 1917; (http:/ / www. culturalmodes. norfolk. gov. uk/ projects/ nmaspub5. asp?page=item& itemId=NWHCM : 1928. 107 : F) Art Gallery of new South Wales: A Canadian Soldier (http:/ / collection. artgallery. nsw. gov. au/ collection/ results. do?view=detail& images=true& dept=western/ modern& db=object& browse=western/ modern/ browse& id=4547) [22] Scott, Brough. "The mighty Warrior, who led one of history's last-ever cavalry charges," (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ news/ uknews/ 1582562/ The-mighty-Warrior-who-led-one-of-historys-last-ever-cavalry-charges. html) The Telegraph (London). March 23, 2008. [23] Sir Alfred Munnings Art Museum: the artist (http:/ / www. siralfredmunnings. co. uk/ the-artist. html) [24] Canadian War Museum: Charge of Flowerdew's Squadron; (http:/ / www. warmuseum. ca/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ photo-e. aspx?PageId=3. D. 2& photo=3. D. 2. z& f=/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ official-art-e. aspx) Dictionary of Canadian Biography: Gordon Flowerdew (http:/ / www. biographi. ca/ 009004-119. 01-e. php?& id_nbr=7371) [25] Peter Nahum, Leicester Galleries: Archive: Draft Horses, Lumber Mill in the Forest of Dreux; (http:/ / www. leicestergalleries. com/ art-and-antiques/ detail/ 13453) Canadian War Museum: Moving the Truck Another Yard (http:/ / www. warmuseum. ca/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ photo-e. aspx?PageId=3. D. 2& photo=3. D. 2. aq& f=/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ official-art-e. aspx) [26] Munnings, Alfred. (1950). An Artist's Life, pp. 313-315. [27] Victorian and Albert Museum: "A John Nash Walk" (http:/ / www. vam. ac. uk/ activ_events/ adult_resources/ memory_maps/ trails/ johnnashwalk/ index. html) [28] Gregory, Barry. (2006). A History of the Artists Rifles 1859-1947, (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=0RsbAAAACAAJ& dq=The+ Artists+ Rifles+ by+ Barry+ Gregory& lr=& client=firefox-a) p. 176. [29] Art of the First World War: citing Barbusse, Henri. (1916). Le feu (Fire). Paris: Flammarion. (http:/ / www. art-ww1. com/ gb/ texte/ 014text. html) [30] Australian War Memorial: Image number P02205.011, caption. [31] UK Ministry of Defence: Guards Memorial (http:/ / www. mod. uk/ DefenceInternet/ AboutDefence/ WhatWeDo/ DefenceEstateandEnvironment/ MODArtCollection/ MinistryOfDefenceArtCollectionGuardsMemorial. htm) [32] Strachan, Hew. (2000). The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War: A History, p. 313. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=zLeKQoe_O9AC& pg=PA313& vq=all+ quiet+ on+ the+ western+ front& client=firefox-a& source=gbs_search_r& cad=1_1#PPA313,M1) [33] Strachan, p. 315.

World War I in art and literature


[34] Galsworthy, John. "Art and the War" in Atlantic Monthly, p. 267. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=2s3jb6IiJ80C& pg=PA627& client=firefox-a& vq="from+ thirty+ years+ hence+ on+ this+ tornado+ of+ death,+ will+ conclude+ with+ a+ dreadful+ laugh+ that,+ if+ it+ had+ never"& source=gbs_quotes#PPA627,M1) [35] Featherstone, Simon. War Poetry: An Introductory Reader. Routledge, 1995, pp. 28, 56-57. [36] Parrott, Thomas Marc and Thorp, Willard (eds). Poetry of the Transition, 1850-1914, Oxford University Press, New York, 1932, p. 500. [37] Mason, Mark. "Alfred Noyes" (http:/ / www3. shropshire-cc. gov. uk/ noyes. htm), Literary Heritage: West Midlands. [38] New York Times, 27 September 1914 [39] Up the Line to Death, ed. Brian Gardner, 1976 ISBN 0417023502 [40] Maslin, Janet. "Grit vs. Good Looks In the American West," (http:/ / movies. nytimes. com/ movie/ review?_r=1& res=9A04E1DF1F38F930A15751C1A962958260& scp=3& sq=legends of the fall& st=cse) New York Times. December 23, 1994. [41] PBS: My Boy Jack (http:/ / www. pbs. org/ wgbh/ masterpiece/ myboyjack/ index. html) April 20, 2008. [42] Bellafante, Ginia. "A Different Kind of Kipling Adventure," (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 04/ 18/ arts/ television/ 18mast. html?_r=1) New York Times. April 18, 2008. [43] PBS: "Rudyard Kipling Biography" (http:/ / www. pbs. org/ wgbh/ masterpiece/ myboyjack/ kipling. html)

203

References
Cohen, Aaron J. (2008). Imagining the Unimaginable: World War, Modern Art, and the Politics of Public Culture in Russia, 1914-1917. (http://books.google.com/ books?id=l8AimiuwacoC&client=firefox-a) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 10-ISBN 0-8032-1547-9; 13-0ISBN 978-0-8032-1547-4 Corbett, David Peters. (1997). The Modernity of English Art, 1914-30. (http://books.google.com/books?id=2Xi7AAAAIAAJ& client=firefox-a) Manchester: Manchester University Press. 10-ISBN 0-7190-3733-6; 13-ISBN 978-0-7190-3733-7

The World War I Memorial in Washington, D.C. shows the effects of the passing years.

Das, Santanu. (2005). Touch and Intimacy in First World War Literature. (http://books.google.com/books?id=759jdWk_-t0C&client=firefox-a) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10-ISBN 0-521-84603-X; 13-ISBN 978-0-521-84603-5 Meredith, James H. (2004). Understanding the Literature of World War I: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historical Documents. (http://books.google.com/books?id=XysmARKSjNMC&client=firefox-a) Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. 10-ISBN 0-313-31200-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-313-31200-7; OCLC 56086111 (http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/56086111) Saunders, Nicholas J. (2002). Trench Art. (http://books.google.com/books?id=VbWLw5Td6pUC& client=firefox-a) Oxford: Osprey Publishing. 10-ISBN 0-7478-0543-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-7478-0543-4 Roy, Pinaki. (2011) "Einer ruhigen literarischen Kreuzzug gegen den Krieg: Rereading Remarques All Quiet on the Western Front". Labyrinth (ISSN 0976-0814). Ed. L. Mishra. 2:4. October 2011. Pp. 173-81. Roy, Pinaki. (2011) "Schriftsteller Aus Der Marge: German Poets of the Two World Wars". Labyrinth (ISSN 0976-0814). Ed. L.Mishra. 2:3. July 2011. Pp. 47-59. Strachan, Hew. (2000). The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War: A History. (http://books.google. com/books?id=zLeKQoe_O9AC&client=firefox-a) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10-ISBN 0-19-289325-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-19-289325-3 Viney, Nigel. (1991). Images of Wartime: British Art and Artists of World War I (http://books.google.com/ books?id=yckhAAAACAAJ&dq=art++of+world+war+i&client=firefox-a) (Imperial War Museum). Newton Abbot, Devon: David & Charles. 10-ISBN 0-7153-9790-7: 13-ISBN 978-0-7153-9790-9; OCLC 25964347 (http:/ /www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/25964347) Rankin, Nicholas (2008). Churchill's Wizards: The British Genius for Deception 1914-1945. Faber and Faber. ISBN978-0-571-22196-7.

World War I in art and literature

204

External links
Watch clips from Australian films taken during World War I (http://aso.gov.au/titles/collections/awm-film/), and read Paul Byrnes' interpretations of them, on the National Film and Sound Archive's australianscreen online (http://aso.gov.au/) Watch clips from Australian films, newsreels and documentaries about World War I (http://aso.gov.au/titles/ tags/First World War/) on australianscreen online (http://aso.gov.au/)

Media of World War I


Art
The years of warfare were the backdrop for art which is now preserved and displayed in such institutions as the Imperial War Museum in London, the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, and the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Official war artists were commissioned by the British Ministry of Information and the authorities of other countries. After 1914, avant-garde artists began to consider and investigate many things that had once seemed unimaginable. As Marc Chagall Contemporary sand sculpture rendition of the iconic later remarked, "The war was another plastic work that totally Australian War Memorial in Canberra, Australia. absorbed us, which reformed our forms, destroyed the lines, and gave a new look to the universe."[1] In this same period, academic and realist artists continued to produce new work. Traditional artists and their artwork developed side by side with the shock of the new as culture reinvented itself in relationships with new technologies.[2] Some artists responded positively to the changes wrought by war. C. R. W. Nevinson, associated with the Futurists, wrote that "This war will be a violent incentive to Futurism, for we believe there is no beauty except in strife, and no masterpiece without aggressiveness."[3] His fellow artist Walter Sickert wrote that Nevinson's painting 'La Mitrailleuse' (now in the Tate collection) 'will probably remain the most authoritative and concentrated utterance on the war in the history of painting.'[4] Pacifist artists also responded to the war in powerful ways: Mark Gertler's major painting, The Merry-Go-Round, was created in the midst of the war years and was described by D. H. Lawrence as "the best modern picture I have seen"[5] and depicts the war as a futile and mechanistic nightmare.[3] The commissions related to the official war artists programmes insisted on the recording of scenes of war. This undermined confidence in progressive styles as commissioned artists conformed to official requirements. The inhumanity of destruction across Europe also led artists to question whether their own campaigns of destruction against tradition had not, in fact, also been inhuman. These tendencies encouraged many artists to "return to order" stylistically.[3] The Cubist vocabulary itself was adapted and modified by the Royal Navy during "the Great War." The Cubists aimed to revolutionize painting and reinvented the art of camouflage on the way.[6]

Media of World War I

205

British marine painter Norman Wilkinson invented the concept of "dazzle painting" - a way of using stripes and disrupted lines to confuse the enemy about the speed and dimensions of a ship.[7] Wilkinson, then a lieutenant commander on Royal Navy patrol duty, implemented the precursor of "dazzle" on SS Industry; and in August 1917, the HMS Alsatian became the first Navy ship to be painted with a dazzle pattern. Solomon J. Solomon advised the British Army on camouflage. In December 1916 he established a camouflage school in Hyde Park[8] In 1920, he published a book on the subject, Strategic Camouflage.[9] Alan Beeton advanced the science of camouflage.[10] An early influence of the War on artists in the United Kingdom was the recruiting campaign of 1914-1915. Around a hundred posters were commissioned from artists by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee of which two and a half million copies were distributed across the Painting of Dazzle-ships in Drydock at Liverpool, country. Private companies also sponsored recruitment posters: by Edward Wadsworth, 1919 Remember Belgium, by the Belgian-born Frank Brangwyn and The Only Road for an Englishman by Gerald Spencer Pryse were two notable examples produced on behalf of the London Electric Railways. Although Brangwyn produced over 80 poster designs during the War, he was not an official war artist.[11] His grim poster of a Tommy bayoneting an enemy soldier (Put Strength in the Final Blow: Buy War Bonds) caused deep offence in both Britain and Germany. The Kaiser himself is said to have put a price on Brangwyns head after seeing the image.[12] Brangwyn states in 1917 that Will Dyson's cartoons were "an international asset to this present war." His exhibition of "War Satires" in 1915 was followed by him being appointed an Australian official war artist. The Royal Academy Summer Exhibition of 1915 was noted for the paucity and general poor quality of paintings on war themes, but The Fighting-Line from Ypres to the Sea by W. L. Wyllie was noted for its bold experimentation in showing a bird's-eye view of war from an aeroplane. George Clausen's symbolist allegory Renaissance was the most memorable painting of that 1915 exhibition, contrasting ruins and oppression with dignity and optimism.[13] When exhibited in the spring of 1916, Eric Kennington's portrayal of exhausted soldiers The Kensingtons at Laventie, Winter 1914[14] caused a sensation. Painted in reverse on glass, the painting was widely praised for its technical virtuosity, iconic colour scheme, and its stately presentation of human endurance, of the quiet heroism of the rank and file.[15] Kennington returned to the front in 1917 as an official war artist. The general failure of academic painting, in the form of the Royal Academy, to respond adequately to the challenges of representing the War was made clear by reaction to the 1916 Summer Exhibition. Although popular taste acclaimed Richard Jack's sentimental Return to the Front: Victoria Railway Station, 1916, the academicians and their followers were stuck in the imagery of past battle pictures of the Napoleonic and Crimean eras. Arrangements of soldiers, officers waving swords, and cavalrymen swaggering seemed outdated to those at home, and risible to those with experience of the front. A wounded New Zealander standing in front of a painting of a cavalry charge commented that "one man with a machine-gun would wipe all that lot out."[10] It was therefore not to a painter of the academic style but to an artist in black-and-white that recourse was made when Charles Masterman, head of the British War Propaganda Bureau and acting on the advice of William Rothenstein, appointed Muirhead Bone as Britain's first official war artist in May 1916.[16] In April 1917 James McBey was appointed official artist for Egypt and Palestine, and William Orpen was similarly sent to France. Orpen's work was criticised for superficiality in the pursuit of perfectionism: "in the tremendous fun of painting he altogether forgot the ghastliness of war".[10]

Media of World War I The most popular painting in the Royal Academy Exhibition of 1917 was Frank O. Salisbury's Boy 1st Class John Travers Cornwell V.C. depicting a youthful act of heroism. But of more artistic importance in 1917 was the establishment on 5 March of the Imperial War Museum and the foundation during the summer of the Canadian War Memorials Fund by Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere and significant work by Australian war artists.[10] David Bomberg's experiences of mechanized slaughter and the death of his brother in the trenches - as well as those of his friend Isaac Rosenberg and his supporter T. E. Hulme - permanently destroyed his faith in the aesthetics of the machine age.[17] This can be seen most clearly in his commission for the Canadian War Memorials Fund, Sappers at Work (19181919): his first version of the painting was dismissed as a "futurist abortion" and was replaced by a second far more representational version.[18] At the 1918 Royal Academy exhibition, Walter Bayes' monumental canvas The Underworld depicted figures sheltering in a Tube station during an air raid.[10] Its sprawling alien figures predate Henry Moore's studies of sheltering figures in the Tube during the Blitz of World War II.

206

Painting
Walter Richard Sickert's The Integrity of Belgium, painted in October 1914, was, when exhibited in Burlington House in January 1915 at an exhibition in aid of the Red Cross, recognised as the first oil painting exhibited of a battle incident in the Great War.[10] John Singer Sargent Among the great artists who tried to capture an essential element of war in painting was Society portraitist John Singer Sargent. In his large painting Gassed and in many watercolors, Sargent depicted scenes from the Great War.[19] Wyndham Lewis
John Singer Sargent's Gassed presents a classical frieze of soldiers being led from the battlefield -alive, but changed forever by individual encounters with deadly hazard in war.

British painter Wyndham Lewis was appointed as an official war artist for both the Canadian and British governments, beginning work in December 1917 after Lewis' participation in the Third Battle of Ypres. For the Canadians he painted A Canadian Gun-Pit (1918, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa) from sketches made on Vimy Ridge. For the British he painted one of his best known works, A Battery Shelled (1919, Imperial War Museum)(see [20]), drawing on his own experience in charge of a 6-inch howitzer at Ypres. Lewis exhibited his war drawings and some other paintings of the war in an exhibition, "Guns", in 1918. Alfred Munnings An unlikely war artist was Sir Alfred Munnings, who is best known as a painter of purebred racehorses; but he turned his painter's skills to the task of capturing images of the Canadian Cavalry Brigade in the war.[20] His mounted portrait of General Jack Seely (later Lord Mottistone) on his charger Warrior achieved acclaim.[21] Forty-five of his canvasses were exhibited at the "Canadian War Records Exhibition" at the Royal Academy,[22] including Charge of Flowerdew's Squadron at Moreuil Wood in March 1918. Lieutenant Gordon Flowerdew of Lord Strathcona's Horse cavalry, was awarded the Victoria Cross for leading the attack.[23] Less well known are paintings which feature teams of work-horses in the staging areas behind the front lines with the Canadian Forestry Corps.[24] The artist later recalled these days in his autobiography: My next move was unexpected and unlooked-for. Amongst the officers who came to have a look, as the news spread that my pictures were to be seen on the walls of ... [headquarters] ..., there were two colonels, both in the Canadian Forestry Corps ... persuading me that I must go with them and see the companies of Canadian Forestry who were then working in the many beautiful forests of France ....[25]

Media of World War I The forest of Conche in Normandy was my first experience of painting with the Forestry. Then came the area of the forest of Dreux, one of the finest in France, taking up fifteen square miles of ground... Each company had a hundred and twenty horses, all half-bred Percheron types, mostly blacks and greys. A rivalry existed between the companies as to which had the best-conditioned teams. I painted pictures of these teams at work, pictures of men axing, sawing down trees...[25] John Nash British painter John Nash believed that "the artist's main business is to train his eye to see, then to probe, and then to train his hand to work in sympathy with his eye."[26] The artist's most celebrated war painting is Over the Top (oil on canvas, 79.4 x 107.3cm), now hanging in the Imperial War Museum, London. In this painting, the artist presents an image of the attack during which the 1st Battalion Artists Rifles (28th London Regiment) left their trenches and pushed towards Marcoing near Cambrai. Of the eighty men, sixty-eight were killed or wounded during the first few minutes.[27]

207

Over The Top, 1918, oil on canvas, by John Nash, Imperial War Museum.

Nash himself was one of the twelve spared by the shellfire in the charge depicted in the painting. He created this artwork three months later.[27] The war artist crafted a chilling, harsh, vivid image. The painting offers a narrative of men moving forward despite the likelihood of not coming back alive: As soon as our line, set on its jolting way, emerged, I felt that two men close by had been hit, two shadows fell to the ground and rolled under our feet, one with a high-pitched scream and the other in silence like an ox. Another disappeared with a movement like a madman, as if he had been carried away. Instinctively, we closed ranks and pushed each other forward, always forward, and the wound in our midst closed itself. The warrant officer stopped and raised his sword, dropped it, fell to his knees, his kneeling body falling backwards in jerks, his helmet fell on his heels and he remained there, his head uncovered, looking up to the sky. The line has promptly split to avoid breaking this immobility. But we couldn't see the lieutenant any more. No more superiors, then... A moment's hesitation held back the human wave which had reached the beginning of the plateau. The hoarse sound of air passing through our lungs could be heard over the stamping of feet. Forward! cried a soldier. So we all marched forward, moving faster and faster in our race towards the abyss.[28] Nash's scene of devastation in We Are Making a New World used the destruction of the countryside as a bitterly ironic comment on war.[3]

Media of World War I Arthur Streeton Australian painter Arthur Streeton was an Australian Official War Artist with the Australian Imperial Force, holding the rank of lieutenant. He served in France attached to the 2nd Division. Streeton brought something of the antipodes Heidelberg school sensibility to his paintings of an ANZAC battlefield in France. Streeton's most famous war painting, Amiens the key of the west shows the Amiens countryside with dirty plumes of battlefield smoke staining the horizon, which becomes a subtle image of war. As a war artist, Streeton continued to deal in landscapes and his works have been criticised for failing to concentrate on the fighting soldiers.
Portrait of Arthur Streeton (1917) by George Lambert.

208

Streeton aimed to produce "military still life", capturing the everyday moments of the war. Streeton observed that, "True pictures of battlefields are very quiet looking things. There's nothing much to be seen, everybody and thing is hidden and camouflaged."

Sculpture

"Amiens, the key to the west" by Arthur Streeton, 1918.

Charles Webb Gilbert This heroic sculpture was designed as a part of the Mont St. Quentin Memorial which was dedicated in the mid-1920s at Mont St. Quentin, France. The original memorial to the men of the 2nd Australian Division features an heroic bronze statue of an Australian soldier bayoneting a German eagle.[29] A bronze plaque on the pedestal of the monument reads: 'To the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the 2nd Australian Division who fought in France and Belgium in the Great War 1916, 1917, 1918.' The statue on top of the memorial and the bas reliefs on its sides, which were sculpted respectively by Lieutenant Charles Web Gilbert and May Butler-George, were removed by the occupying German Army in 1940. They were later replaced with a new statue and new reliefs.[29]
The casting of the figure atop the memorial at Mont St. Quentin memorial -- Charles Gilbert's studio in, Fitzroy, Melbourne.

Media of World War I

209

Remembrance
Iconic memorials created after the war are designed as symbols of remembrance and as carefully contrived works of art. In London, the Guards Memorial was designed by the sculptor Gilbert Ledward in 1923-26. The edifice was erected on Horse Guards Parade and dedicated to the five Foot Guards regiments of World War I. The bronze figures were cast from guns from the Great War, commemorating the First Battle of Ypres and other battles.[30]

Literature
E. M. Remarque's best-selling book about the First World War, Im Westen nichts Neues, was translated into 28 languages with world sales nearly reaching 4 million in 1930.[31] and the award-winning film which was based on that work of fiction have had a greater influence in shaping public views of the war than the work of any historian.[32] John Galsworthy's perspective was quite different in 1915 when he wrote

The Mont St. Quentin memorial (c. 1925) commemorates the men of the Australian Imperial Forces (AIF) and their contribution in the battle which was fought in this area.

Those of us who are able to look back from thirty years hence on this tornado of death will conclude with a dreadful laugh that if it had never come, the state of the world would be very much the same. It is not the intention of these words to deny the desperate importance of this conflict now that it has been joined ....[33] Alfred Noyes is often portrayed by hostile critics as a militarist and jingoist.[34] In 1913, when it seemed that war might yet be avoided, he published a long anti-war poem called The Wine Press. During World War I, Noyes was debarred by defective eyesight from serving at the front.[35] Instead, from 1916, he did his military service on attachment to the Foreign Office, where he worked with John Buchan on propaganda.[36] He also did his patriotic chore as a literary figure, writing morale-boosting short stories and exhortatory odes and lyrics recalling England's military past and asserting the morality of her cause.[34] These works are today justly forgotten, apart from two ghost stories, "The Lusitania Waits" and "The Log of the Evening Star", which are still occasionally reprinted in collections of tales of the uncanny. John Masefield submitted a report to the British Foreign Office, and suggested that he be allowed to write a book about the failure of the allied efforts in the Dardanelles, which possibly could be used in the US in order to counter what he thought was German propaganda there. As a result, Masefield wrote Gallipoli. This work was a success, encouraging the British people, and lifting them somewhat from the disappointment they had felt as a result of the Allied losses in the Dardanelles. Due to the success of his wartime writings, Masefield met with the head of British Military Intelligence in France and was asked to write an account of the Battle of the Somme. Although Masefield had grand ideas for his book, he was denied access to the official records, and therefore, what was to be his preface to the book was published as "The Old Front Line", a description of the geography of the Somme area.

Media of World War I

210

Poetry
In the early weeks of the war, British poets responded with an outpouring of literary production. Rudyard Kipling's For all we have and are aroused most comment.[37] Robert Bridges, Poet Laureate, contributed a poem Wake Up, England! at the outbreak of war that he later wished suppressed.,[38] John Masefield, who later succeeded Bridges as Poet Laureate, wrote August, 1914, a poem that was widely admired. Wilfred Owen was killed in battle; but poems created at the front did achieve popular attention after the war's end,.e.g., Dulce Et Decorum Est, Insensibility, Anthem for Doomed Youth, Futility and Strange Meeting. In preparing for the publication of his collected poems, Owen tried to explain: This book is not about heroes. English poetry is not yet fit to speak of them. Nor is it about deeds, or lands, nor anything about glory, honour, might, majesty, dominion, or power, except War. Above all I am not concerned with Poetry. My subject is War, and the pity of War. The Poetry is in the pity. This brief statement became the basis for a play based on the friendship between Owen and Siegfried Sassoon in 1917. The poem In Flanders Fields, by John McCrae, continues to be one of the most popular wartime poems in Canada, and has achieved a status where it is recognized as one of the country's most notable unofficial symbols.

Drama
Journey's End (1928) Playwright: R. C. Sherriff The Accrington Pals (1982) Playwright: Peter Whelan Not About Heroes (1982) Playwright: Stephen Macdonald Oh What a Lovely War (1963) Playwright: Joan Littlewood

Novels
See also WWI Novels Henri Barbusse, Under Fire (1916) A. P. Herbert, The Secret Battle (1919) John Dos Passos, Three Soldiers (1920) Ernst Jnger, Storm of Steel (1920) Romain Rolland, Pierre et Luce (1920) Jaroslav Haek, The Good Soldier vejk (1923) Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms (1929) Erich Maria Remarque, All Quiet on the Western Front (1929) Siegfried Sassoon, Memoirs of an Infantry Officer Henry Williamson, The Patriot's Progress (1930) Louis-Ferdinand Cline, Journey to the End of the Night (1932) William March, Company K (1933) Norman Angell, The Great Illusion (1933) C. S. Forester, The African Queen (1935)

Dalton Trumbo, Johnny Got His Gun (1939)

Media of World War I

211

Movies
Among the notable movies which have been set during this period are such well-known films as: A Farewell to Arms (1932) Stars: Gary Cooper, Helen Hayes, Adolphe Menjou Director: Frank Borzage Oscars: Best Cinematography, Best Sound The African Queen (1951) Stars: Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn Director: John Huston Oscars: Best Actor in a Leading Role All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) Stars: Lew Ayres, Louis Wolheim, John Wray, Slim Summerville, Director: Lewis Milestone Oscars: Best Director, Best Picture Gallipoli (1981 film) (1981) Stars: Mel Gibson, Mark Lee, Bill Kerr, David Argue Director: Peter Weir Grand Illusion (1937) Stars: Jean Gabin, Erich von Stroheim, Pierre Fresnay, Marcel Dalio Director: Jean Renoir Paths of Glory (1957) Stars: Kirk Douglas, Adolphe Menjou, Ralph Meeker, Richard Anderson Director: Stanley Kubrick Sergeant York (1940) Stars: Gary Cooper, Joan Leslie, Walter Brennan, Dickie Moore, Ward Bond Director: Howard Hawks Oscars: '41 Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Film Editing Wings (1927) Stars: Charles Rogers, Richard Arlen, Clara Bow, Gary Cooper, Henry B. Walthall, Roscoe Karns, William A. Wellman Director: William Wellman Oscars: Best Picture The war and its aftermath continues to remain a potent focal point for a fresh perspective and evaluationas in, for example, the "relentlessly picturesque" 1994 film Legends of the Fall starring Brad Pitt, Anthony Hopkins, Aidan Quinn, Julia Ormond, and Henry Thomas.[39]

Media of World War I

212

Opera
Die Frau ohne Schatten (1919) Composer: Richard Strauss Wozzeck (1925) Composer: Alban Berg

Television
My Boy Jack tells the story of Rudyard Kipling's son, who volunteered to fight for "king and country" in France.[40] The made-for-television drama was broadcast in the United Kingdom in 2007 and in the United States in 2008.[41] Jack Kipling was killed in action in September 1915 after being in France for only three weeks; but he remained on the list of soldiers "missing believed wounded" for two years. The Kiplings were devastatednot only by their loss, but also by the fact that their son's body could not be found. In 1916, Kipling's Sea Warfare was published, and the book contained a poem about his son Jack: "Have you news of my boy Jack?" Not this tide. "When d'you think that he'll come back?" Not with this wind blowing, and this tide. "Has any one else had word of him?" Not this tide. For what is sunk will hardly swim, Not with this wind blowing and this tide. "Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?" None this tide, Nor any tide, Except he didn't shame his kind Not even with that wind blowing and that tide. Then hold your head up all the more, This tide, And every tide, Because he was the son you bore, And gave to that wind blowing and that tide! --Rudyard Kipling[42] A more comedic view on World War One was 'Blackadder Goes Forth'. This was a series made to show the British military to be a lot of blundering fools.

Media of World War I

213

Notes
[1] Cohen, Aaron J. (2008). Imagining the Unimaginable: World War, Modern Art, and the Politics of Public Culture in Russia, 1914-1917, abstract. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=l8AimiuwacoC& client=firefox-a) [2] Hughes, Robert. (1981). The Shock of the New, p. 15. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?client=firefox-a& id=aX1PAAAAMAAJ& dq=the+ shock+ of+ the+ new& q=first+ world+ war& pgis=1#search) [3] British Art Since 1900, Frances Spaulding, 1986 ISBN 0500202044 [4] Sickert, The Burlington Magazine, September/October 1916. [5] (Letters, 9 October 1916) [6] Glover, Michael. "Now you see it... Now you don't," (http:/ / entertainment. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ arts_and_entertainment/ visual_arts/ article1479657. ece) The Times. March 10, 2007. [7] Fisher, Mark. "Secret history: how surrealism can win a war," (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ news/ uk/ scotland/ article785672. ece) The Times. January 8, 2006. [8] Rankin 2008, p.181. [9] Rankin 2008, p.232. [10] The Influence of the War on art, Frank Rutter, in The Great War, ed. H.W. Wilson & J.A. Hammerton, London 1919 [11] Libby Horner, Frank Brangwyn. A Mission to Decorate Life, The Fine Art Society & Liss Fine Art, p137 [12] MacIntyre, Ben (8 November 2008). "The power of war posters" (http:/ / entertainment. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ arts_and_entertainment/ visual_arts/ article5074754. ece?token=null& offset=12& page=2). The Times (London). . Retrieved 2 May 2010. [13] The Influence of the War on art, Frank Rutter, in The Great War, ed. H.W. Wilson & J.A. Hammerton, London 1919 [14] THEY ARE ORDINARY MEN: THE KENSINGTONS AT LAVENTIE WINTER 1914 (http:/ / www. firstworldwar. bham. ac. uk/ Kensingtons at Laventie. doc) [15] Paul Gough (2010) A Terrible Beauty: British Artists in the First World War (Sansom and Company) p.20. [16] Vale Royal Borough Council. (2005). "Whitegate Conservation Area Update," p. 11. (http:/ / www2. valeroyal. gov. uk/ internet/ VR. nsf/ AllByUniqueIdentifier/ DOC2BF7194260E87CD680256FEB00380329/ $file/ whitegate ADOPTED appraisal. pdf) [17] Hubbard, Sue (2006-09-04). "Back in the frame" (http:/ / findarticles. com/ p/ articles/ mi_qn4158/ is_20060904/ ai_n16708198). The Independent (Find Articles at BNET.com). . Retrieved 2008-01-19. [18] Raynor, Vivien (1988-09-25). "A Neglected British Genius" (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ gst/ fullpage. html?res=940DE2D8133FF936A1575AC0A96E948260& sec=& spon=& pagewanted=all). New York Times. . Retrieved 2008-01-20. [19] Little, Carl. (1998). The Watercolors of John Singer Sargent, p. 135 [20] Norfolk Museums: Watering Horses, Canadian Troops in France, 1917; (http:/ / www. culturalmodes. norfolk. gov. uk/ projects/ nmaspub5. asp?page=item& itemId=NWHCM : 1928. 107 : F) Art Gallery of new South Wales: A Canadian Soldier (http:/ / collection. artgallery. nsw. gov. au/ collection/ results. do?view=detail& images=true& dept=western/ modern& db=object& browse=western/ modern/ browse& id=4547) [21] Scott, Brough. "The mighty Warrior, who led one of history's last-ever cavalry charges," (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ news/ uknews/ 1582562/ The-mighty-Warrior-who-led-one-of-historys-last-ever-cavalry-charges. html) The Telegraph (London). March 23, 2008. [22] Sir Alfred Munnings Art Museum: the artist (http:/ / www. siralfredmunnings. co. uk/ the-artist. html) [23] Canadian War Museum: Charge of Flowerdew's Squadron; (http:/ / www. warmuseum. ca/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ photo-e. aspx?PageId=3. D. 2& photo=3. D. 2. z& f=/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ official-art-e. aspx) Dictionary of Canadian Biography: Gordon Flowerdew (http:/ / www. biographi. ca/ 009004-119. 01-e. php?& id_nbr=7371) [24] Peter Nahum, Leicester Galleries: Archive: Draft Horses, Lumber Mill in the Forest of Dreux; (http:/ / www. leicestergalleries. com/ art-and-antiques/ detail/ 13453) Canadian War Museum: Moving the Truck Another Yard (http:/ / www. warmuseum. ca/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ photo-e. aspx?PageId=3. D. 2& photo=3. D. 2. aq& f=/ cwm/ exhibitions/ guerre/ official-art-e. aspx) [25] Munnings, Alfred. (1950). An Artist's Life, pp. 313-315. [26] Victorian and Albert Museum: "A John Nash Walk" (http:/ / www. vam. ac. uk/ activ_events/ adult_resources/ memory_maps/ trails/ johnnashwalk/ index. html) [27] Gregory, Barry. (2006). A History of the Artists Rifles 1859-1947, (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=0RsbAAAACAAJ& dq=The+ Artists+ Rifles+ by+ Barry+ Gregory& lr=& client=firefox-a) p. 176. [28] Art of the First World War: citing Barbusse, Henri. (1916). Le feu (Fire). Paris: Flammarion. (http:/ / www. art-ww1. com/ gb/ texte/ 014text. html) [29] Australian War Memorial: Image number P02205.011, caption. [30] UK Ministry of Defence: Guards Memorial (http:/ / www. mod. uk/ DefenceInternet/ AboutDefence/ WhatWeDo/ DefenceEstateandEnvironment/ MODArtCollection/ MinistryOfDefenceArtCollectionGuardsMemorial. htm) [31] Strachan, Hew. (2000). The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War: A History, p. 313. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=zLeKQoe_O9AC& pg=PA313& vq=all+ quiet+ on+ the+ western+ front& client=firefox-a& source=gbs_search_r& cad=1_1#PPA313,M1) [32] Strachan, p. 315. [33] Galsworthy, John. "Art and the War" in Atlantic Monthly, p. 267. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=2s3jb6IiJ80C& pg=PA627& client=firefox-a& vq="from+ thirty+ years+ hence+ on+ this+ tornado+ of+ death,+ will+ conclude+ with+ a+ dreadful+ laugh+ that,+ if+ it+

Media of World War I


had+ never"& source=gbs_quotes#PPA627,M1) [34] Featherstone, Simon. War Poetry: An Introductory Reader. Routledge, 1995, pp. 28, 56-57. [35] Parrott, Thomas Marc and Thorp, Willard (eds). Poetry of the Transition, 1850-1914, Oxford University Press, New York, 1932, p. 500. [36] Mason, Mark. "Alfred Noyes" (http:/ / www3. shropshire-cc. gov. uk/ noyes. htm), Literary Heritage: West Midlands. [37] New York Times, 27 September 1914 [38] Up the Line to Death, ed. Brian Gardner, 1976 ISBN 0417023502 [39] Maslin, Janet. "Grit vs. Good Looks In the American West," (http:/ / movies. nytimes. com/ movie/ review?_r=1& res=9A04E1DF1F38F930A15751C1A962958260& scp=3& sq=legends of the fall& st=cse) New York Times. December 23, 1994. [40] PBS: My Boy Jack (http:/ / www. pbs. org/ wgbh/ masterpiece/ myboyjack/ index. html) April 20, 2008. [41] Bellafante, Ginia. "A Different Kind of Kipling Adventure," (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 04/ 18/ arts/ television/ 18mast. html?_r=1) New York Times. April 18, 2008. [42] PBS: "Rudyard Kipling Biography" (http:/ / www. pbs. org/ wgbh/ masterpiece/ myboyjack/ kipling. html)

214

References
Cohen, Aaron J. (2008). Imagining the Unimaginable: World War, Modern Art, and the Politics of Public Culture in Russia, 1914-1917. (http://books.google.com/ books?id=l8AimiuwacoC&client=firefox-a) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 10-ISBN 0-8032-1547-9; 13-0ISBN 978-0-8032-1547-4 Corbett, David Peters. (1997). The Modernity of English Art, 1914-30. (http://books.google.com/books?id=2Xi7AAAAIAAJ& client=firefox-a) Manchester: Manchester University Press. 10-ISBN 0-7190-3733-6; 13-ISBN 978-0-7190-3733-7

The World War I Memorial in Washington, D.C. shows the effects of the passing years.

Das, Santanu. (2005). Touch and Intimacy in First World War Literature. (http://books.google.com/books?id=759jdWk_-t0C&client=firefox-a) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10-ISBN 0-521-84603-X; 13-ISBN 978-0-521-84603-5 Meredith, James H. (2004). Understanding the Literature of World War I: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historical Documents. (http://books.google.com/books?id=XysmARKSjNMC&client=firefox-a) Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. 10-ISBN 0-313-31200-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-313-31200-7; OCLC 56086111 (http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/56086111) Saunders, Nicholas J. (2002). Trench Art. (http://books.google.com/books?id=VbWLw5Td6pUC& client=firefox-a) Oxford: Osprey Publishing. 10-ISBN 0-7478-0543-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-7478-0543-4 Roy, Pinaki. (2011) "Einer ruhigen literarischen Kreuzzug gegen den Krieg: Rereading Remarques All Quiet on the Western Front". Labyrinth (ISSN 0976-0814). Ed. L. Mishra. 2:4. October 2011. Pp. 173-81. Roy, Pinaki. (2011) "Schriftsteller Aus Der Marge: German Poets of the Two World Wars". Labyrinth (ISSN 0976-0814). Ed. L.Mishra. 2:3. July 2011. Pp. 47-59. Strachan, Hew. (2000). The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War: A History. (http://books.google. com/books?id=zLeKQoe_O9AC&client=firefox-a) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10-ISBN 0-19-289325-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-19-289325-3 Viney, Nigel. (1991). Images of Wartime: British Art and Artists of World War I (http://books.google.com/ books?id=yckhAAAACAAJ&dq=art++of+world+war+i&client=firefox-a) (Imperial War Museum). Newton Abbot, Devon: David & Charles. 10-ISBN 0-7153-9790-7: 13-ISBN 978-0-7153-9790-9; OCLC 25964347 (http:/ /www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/25964347) Rankin, Nicholas (2008). Churchill's Wizards: The British Genius for Deception 1914-1945. Faber and Faber. ISBN978-0-571-22196-7.

Media of World War I

215

External links
Watch clips from Australian films taken during World War I (http://aso.gov.au/titles/collections/awm-film/), and read Paul Byrnes' interpretations of them, on the National Film and Sound Archive's australianscreen online (http://aso.gov.au/) Watch clips from Australian films, newsreels and documentaries about World War I (http://aso.gov.au/titles/ tags/First World War/) on australianscreen online (http://aso.gov.au/)

War memorial
A war memorial is a building, monument, statue or other edifice to celebrate a war or victory, or (predominating in modern times) to commemorate those who died or were injured in war.

Symbolism
Historic usage
For most of human history war memorials were erected to commemorate great victories. Remembering the dead was a secondary concern. Indeed in Napoleon's day the dead were shoveled into mass, unmarked graves. The Arc de Triomphe in Paris or Nelson's Column in London contain no names of those killed. By the end of the nineteenth century it was common for regiments in the British Army to erect monuments to their comrades who had died in small Imperial Wars and these memorials would list their names. By the early twentieth century some towns and cities in the United Kingdom raised the funds to commemorate the men from their communities who had fought and died in the Second Anglo-Boer War. However it was after the great losses of the First World War that commemoration took center stage and most communities erected a war memorial listing those men and women who had gone to war and not returned.
Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne, Australia.

The National War Memorial in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

War memorial

216

Pacifist memorial at Gentioux, France with the inscription 'Cursed be war'

The Monument to the People's Heroes in Beijing, China.

German memorial commemorating World War I.

War memorial

217

India Gate, Monument in New Delhi, India

The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan.

The Auckland War Memorial Museum in New Zealand with the Cenotaph out front.

Monument to the Heroes of the Warsaw Uprising in Poland.

War memorial

218

The Cenotaph in Whitehall, London, United Kingdom.

Monument to the Women of World War II in London

The Liberty Memorial, National World War I Memorial of the USA in Kansas City, Missouri.

War memorial

219

Modern usage
In modern times the main intent of war memorials is not to glorify war, but to honor those who have died. Sometimes, as in the case of the Warsaw Genuflection of Willy Brandt, they may also serve as focal points of increasing understanding between previous enemies. Using modern technology an international project is currently archiving all post-1914 Commonwealth war graves and Commonwealth War Graves Commission memorials to create a virtual memorial (see The War Graves Photographic Project for further details).

History
World War I
During the First World War, many nations saw massive devastation and loss of life. More people lost their lives in the east than in the west, but the outcome was different. In the west, and in response to the red rose at war memorial with blurred crosses in the background victory there obtained, most of the cities in the countries involved in the conflict erected memorials, with the memorials in smaller villages and towns often listing the names of each local soldier who had been killed in addition (so far as the decision by the French and British in 1916 to construct governmentally designed cemeteries was concerned) to their names being recorded on military headstones, often against the will of those directly involved, and without any opportunity of choice in the British Empire (Imperial War Graves Commission). Massive British monuments commemorating thousands of dead with no identified war grave, such as the Menin Gate at Ypres and the Thiepval memorial on the Somme, were also constructed. The Liberty Memorial, located in Kansas City, Missouri, is a memorial dedicated to all Americans who served in the Great War. For various reasons connected with their character, the same may be said to apply to certain governmental memorials in the United Kingdom (the Cenotaph in London, relating to the Empire in general, and the Scottish National War Memorial in Edinburgh, also with a reference to the Empire, but with particular connections to the United Kingdom, having been opened by the Prince of Wales in 1927 and with the King and the Queen the first visitors and contributors of a casket of the Scottish names for addition within the Shrine).

Pacifist war memorials and those relating to war and peace


After World War I, some towns in France set up pacifist war memorials. Instead of commemorating the glorious dead, these memorials denounce war with figures of grieving widows and children rather than soldiers. Such memorials provoked anger among veterans and the military in general. The most famous is at Gentioux-Pigerolles in the department of Creuse. Below the column which lists the name of the fallen stands an orphan in bronze pointing to an inscription Maudite soit la guerre (Cursed be war). Feelings ran so high that the memorial was not officially inaugurated until 1990 and soldiers at the nearby army camp were under orders to turn their heads when they walked past. Another such memorial is in the small town of queurdreville-Hainneville (formerly queurdreville) in the department of Manche. Here the statue is of a grieving widow with two small children.[1][2] There seems to be no exact equivalent form of memorial within the United Kingdom but evidently sentiments were in many cases identical. Thus, and although it seems that this has never been generally recognized, it can be argued that there was throughout the United Kingdom a construction of war memorials with reference to the concept of peace (e.g. a war memorial in what is now known as Hartlepool (previously West Hartlepool) with the inscription 'Thine O Lord is the

War memorial Victory' relating to amongs other architecture the 1871 Royal Albert Hall of Arts and Sciences with a frieze including the same words and concluding 'Glory be to God on high and on earth peace'). It seems also to be the case that relatives were after the First World War (and possibly after other subsequent wars) in the United Kingdom and possibly also in France given the option, presumably on the basis that the issue was historically somewhat controversial, of not having the names of their military casualties included on war memorials, notwithstanding that this approach was arguably either in clear parallel with or in support of the form of the memorials erected in the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, these questions being at the time (the First World War) therefore reflected in political controversy.

220

World War II and later


In many cases, World War I memorials were later extended to show the names of locals who died in the World War II in addition. Since that time memorials to the dead in other conflicts such as the Korean War and Vietnam War have also noted individual contributions, at least in the West. In relation to actions which may well in point of fact be historically connected with the world wars even if this happens, for whatever reason, not to be a matter of general discussion (e.g. occupation by Western forces in the 1920s of Palestine and other areas being the homelands of Arabs in the Near East and followed eighty years later in 2001 by the '9/11' raid on New York and elsewhere in the United States) similar historically and architecturally significant memorials are also designed and constructed (vide National September 11 Memorial).

Types
A war memorial can be an entire building, often containing a museum, or just a simple plaque. Many war memorials take the form of a monument or statue, and serve as a meeting place for Memorial Day services. As such, they are often found near the centre of town, or contained in a park or plaza to allow easy public access. Many war memorials bear plaques listing the names of those that died in battle. Sometimes these lists can be very long. Some war memorials are dedicated to a specific battle, while others are more general in nature and bear inscriptions listing various theatres of war. Many war memorials have epitaphs relating to the unit, battle or war they commemorate. For example an epitaph which adorns numerous memorials in Commonwealth countries is "The Ode" by Laurence Binyon: They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them. The Memorial Arch at the Royal Military College of Canada, which remembers ex-cadets who died on military service includes lines of Rupert Brooke's poem, The Dead: Blow out, you bugles, over the rich Dead. There are none of these so lonely and poor of old, But dying has made us rarer gifts than gold. The Memorial Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada consisted of a Union Jack on a background adorned with 1100 green maple leaves bearing name of ex-cadets who served in war. The red maple leaves in centre memorialized cadets who made the supreme sacrifice. The Memorial Stairway in the administration building is lined with paintings of ex-cadets who died on military service, which is visited by about 1,000 people each year. The Royal Military College of Canada Gentlemen cadets Roll of Honour remembers ex-cadets who died on military service.

War memorial The granite slab at the Collge militaire royal de Saint-Jean, which is a World War II War Memorial, which remembers ex-cadets who died on military service, includes the Bible 2 Timothy 4:6-8 (King James Version) quote, I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. The Kohima Epitaph which is on the World War II War Memorial for the Allied fallen at the Battle of Kohima says: When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today

221

In cemeteries
Many cemeteries tended by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission have an identical war memorial called the Cross of Sacrifice designed by Sir Reginald Blomfield that varies in height from 18ft to 32ft depending on the size of the cemetery. If there are one thousand or more burials, a Commonwealth cemetery will contain a Stone of Remembrance, designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens with words from the Wisdom of Sirach: "Their name liveth for evermore"; all the Stones of Remembrance are 11ft 6 ins long and 5ft high with three steps leading up to them. Arlington National Cemetery has a Canadian Cross of Sacrifice with the names of all the citizens of the USA who lost their lives fighting in the Canadian forces during the Korean War and two World Wars.

Controversy
Unsurprisingly, war memorials can be politically controversial. A notable example are the controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine in Japan, where a number of convicted World War II war criminals are interred. Chinese and Korean representatives have often protested against the visits of Japanese politicians to the shrine. The visits have in the past led to severe diplomatic conflicts between the nations, and Japanese businesses were attacked in China after a visit by former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to the shrine was widely reported and criticized in Chinese and Korean media.[3] In a similar case, former German chancellor Helmut Kohl was criticised by writers Gnter Grass and Elie Wiesel for visiting the war cemetery at Bitburg (in the company of Ronald Reagan) which also contained the bodies of SS troops.[4] Unlike the case of the Yasukuni Shrine, there was no element of intentional disregard of international opinion involved, as is often claimed for the politician visits to the Japanese shrine. Soviet World War II memorials included quotes of Joseph Stalin's texts, frequently replaced after his death. Such memorials were often constructed in city centres and now are sometimes regarded as symbols of Soviet occupation and removed, which in turn may spark protests (see Bronze Soldier of Tallinn). The memorial arch to the Royal Dublin Fusiliers who fought in the Boer War, erected at 1907 in St. Stephen's Green, Dublin, was called "Traitors' Gate" by the Redmondites and later Irish Republicans, from whose point of view Irish soldiers going off to fight the British Empire's wars were traitors to Ireland. The sharpness of the controversy gradually faded, and while the term "Traitors' Gate" is still in occasional colloquial use in Dublin daily life, it has mostly lost its pejorative meaning. In Australia, in 1981, historian Henry Reynolds raised the issue of whether war memorials should be erected to Indigenous Australians who had died fighting against British invaders on their lands. "How, then, do we deal with the Aboriginal dead? White Australians frequently say that 'all that' should be forgotten. But it will not be. It cannot be. Black memories are too deeply, too recently scarred. And forgetfulness is a strange prescription coming from a community which has revered the fallen warrior and

War memorial emblazoned the phrase 'Lest We Forget' on monuments throughout the land. [...] [D]o we make room for the Aboriginal dead on our memorials, cenotaphs, boards of honour and even in the pantheon of national heroes? If we are to continue to celebrate the sacrifice of men and women who died for their country can we deny admission to fallen tribesmen? There is much in their story that Australians have traditionally admired. They were ever the underdogs, were always outgunned, yet frequently faced death without flinching. If they did not die for Australia as such they fell defending their homelands, their sacred sites, their way of life. What is more the blacks bled on their own soil and not half a world away furthering the strategic objectives of a distant Motherland whose influence must increasingly be seen as of transient importence in the history of the continent."[5] Reynolds' suggestion proved controversial.[6] Occasional memorials have been erected to commemorate Aboriginal people's resistance to colonisation, or to commemorate white massacres of Indigenous Australians. These memorials have often generated controversy. For example, a 1984 memorial to the Kalkadoon people's "resistance against the paramilitary force of European settlers and the Queensland Native Mounted Police" was "frequently shot at" and "eventually blown up".[7] With the advent of long war, some memorials are constructed before the conflict is over, leaving space for extra names of the dead. For instance, the Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial in Irvine, CA, memorializes an ongoing pair of US wars, and has space to inscribe the names of approximately 8,000 fallen servicemembers,[8] while the UK National Memorial Arboretum near Lichfield in England hosts the UK's National Armed Forces Memorial which displays the names of the more than 16,000 people who have already died on active service in the UK armed forces since World War Two, with more space available for future fatalities. It seems that in at least one country newly added names are dedicated each year at a special eucumenical service in the presence of family members, veterans and invited dignitaries ; the historical and political issues that are involved are arguably numerous and complicated; they can certainly be said to include both the issue of whether it makes any historical sense whatsoever that the names of the dead in war can be added in this fashion into what seems to be intended to be an indefinite future while completely ignoring those of the military who died in what is effectively, from the point of view of nationality and politics, the same military actions over the period of all the previous centuries in which the country in question existed, and also an issue which is perhaps even more relevant from a personal and legal point of view, namely whether the relatives and others who should in principle, together with any others involved in point of law, be in some sort of control of the use of the names of the dead for commemorative purposes will necessarily be in accordance with the military decisions taken by the government, or the character of the government itself, it being the case that if they are not they may not wish the names to be included (this citizen right having it seems, on the record, been generally observed at the time of the erection of the war memorials after the First World War in particular in western Europe, if not it seems after the Second World War). This possibility can perhaps be said to relate to the perhaps rather complicated legal position (at least up to the First World War and the creation in the United Kingdom of the Imperial War Graves Commission, and as in record from the classical Roman times) that the bodies of the dead (and consequently also presumably the commemoration of their names?) are not apparently, in legal terms, within the normal law of property.

222

War memorial

223

Famous examples
Africa
Egypt Unknown Soldier Memorial (Egypt)

Americas
Canada List of Canada war memorials USA Iron Mike Korean War Veterans Memorial National Cemetery Navy Merchant Marine Memorial Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial[9] Spirit of the American Doughboy Tomb of the Unknowns United States Marine Corps War Memorial United States Navy Memorial Vietnam Unit Memorial Monument Vietnam Veterans Memorial Vietnam Women's Memorial World War I Memorial World War II Memorial

Asia
Bangladesh Jatiyo Smriti Soudho, Savar, in Bangladesh China Monument to the People's Heroes (Beijing) Hong Kong The Cenotaph (Hong Kong) India India Gate (National Monument of India) War Memorial (Chennai) Iraq Al-Shaheed Monument Japan Yasukuni Shrine Malaysia Tugu Negara (National Monument) Singapore Kranji Memorial

War memorial South Korea The War Memorial Museum Gapyeong Canada Monument

224

Europe
Austria Soviet war memorial (Vienna) Belarus Brest Fortress (Brest) Belgium Menin Gate Memorial (Ypres) Saint Julien Memorial (Langemark ) Island of Ireland Peace Park (Messines) Estonia Independence War Victory Column (Tallinn) France Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial Park Douaumont Ossuary Verdun Welsh Memorial at Mametz Wood Notre Dame de Lorette Verdun Memorial VillersBretonneux Australian National Memorial (Australian World War I Memorial) Vimy Ridge Memorial (Canadian World War I Memorial) Thiepval Memorial to the Missing of the Somme (British World War I Memorial) Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial (USA World War II Memorial)

Germany Tannenberg memorial Vlkerschlachtdenkmal Befreiungshalle Hermannsdenkmal Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)

Ireland Garden of Remembrance National War Memorial, Islandbridge Italy Sacrario militare di Redipuglia Netherlands National Monument (Amsterdam) Netherlands American Cemetery Groesbeek Memorial, Canadian War Cemetery Liberty Monument Welberg(Welberg (Steenbergen))

Romania Mausoleum of Mreti

War memorial Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Russia Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Piskarevskoye Memorial Cemetery Poklonnaya Gora Mamayev Kurgan

225

Spain Valle de los Cados (Valley of the Fallen) Turkey Zafer Ant-Turkish ndependence War Glory Memorial Ulus Cumhuriyet Ant-Ulus Turkish Republic Memorial Guven Ant-Turkish Soldiers Memorial Gelibolu Peninsula (Gallipoli) Korean War Veterans Memorial Turkish ndependence War Memorial

UK The National Armed Forces Memorial in Alrewas, Staffordshire The Cenotaph, Whitehall, London The Cenotaph, Belfast Hall of Memory, Birmingham Commando Memorial, Spean Bridge, Highland Lewis War Memorial, Stornoway, Western Isles National Firefighters Memorial Scottish National War Memorial, Edinburgh Castle, City of Edinburgh Shot at Dawn Memorial the Unknown Warrior in Westminster Abbey Women of World War II, London Welsh National War Memorial, Cardiff Scottish War Memorials Northern Ireland War Memorial

Oceania
Australia Australian War Memorial (Canberra) ANZAC War Memorial (Sydney) Shrine of Remembrance (Melbourne) National War Memorial (Adelaide) Hobart Cenotaph (Hobart) Shrine of Remembrance (Brisbane)

New Zealand Auckland War Memorial Museum

War memorial

226

References
[1] Copel, Philippe (1997). Que maudite soit la guerre. Bricqueboscq: Editions des champs. pp.204. ISBN2-910138-08-9. [2] For pictures of the pacifist memorials at Gentioux-Pigerolles and at queurdreville-Hainneville and elsewhere see fr:Monument aux morts pacifiste [3] Japan: Chinese foreign minister on fence-mending visit (http:/ / www. radioaustralia. net. au/ connectasia/ stories/ s1849512. htm) - Radio Australia program transcript, date unknown [4] Reagan Joins Kohl in Brief Memorial at Bitburg Graves (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 1985/ 05/ 06/ international/ europe/ 06REAG. html) New York Times, Monday 6 May 1985 [5] Reynolds, Henry, The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia, 1981, ISBN 0-86840-892-1, p.202 [6] Reynolds, Henry, Why Weren't We Told?, 1999, ISBN 0-14-027842-7, chapter 12: "Lest We Forget", pp.169-184 [7] ibid, pp.177-8 [8] http:/ / 3. bp. blogspot. com/ _ihsLW9amV1E/ S4R1kx2Z-vI/ AAAAAAAAAhs/ F0gIKTbHiTs/ s1600-h/ northwood_memorial. jpg [9] http:/ / www. northwoodmemorial. com/

External links
General: Sites of Memory (http://sites-of-memory.de/main/index.html) (Historical markers, memorials, monuments, and cemeteries worldwide) France: Mmorial pacifist in French (http://moulindelangladure.typepad.fr/monumentsauxmortspacif/) Queutchny1418 (http://queutchny1418.canalblog.com) (As of May 5, 2011, more than 3550 Pictures of 1914-1918 memorials)(in French) Mmorial-GenWeb (http://www.memorial-genweb.org) (French war memorials (photos and inscriptions), in French) Germany: German war memorials (http://www.denkmalprojekt.org) (photos and inscriptions), in German Remembering The Reich (http://wordsoffireinkofblood.blogspot.com/2007/03/in-memoriam.html) (German World War II and Holocaust memorials, private travel blog entry) Ireland: Irish War Memorials (http://www.irishwarmemorials.ie), (An inventory of war memorials in Ireland) Japan: Kamikaze Images - Monuments (http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaze/monuments/index.htm) (private academic website about the Japanese Special Attack Units) United Kingdom: Architecture (http://www.cwgc.org/content.asp?menuid=2&submenuid=10&id=10& menuname=Architecture&menu=sub) (from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website) War Memorials Trust (http://www.warmemorials.org/) (charity working to protect and conserve the estimated 65,000 War Memorials in the UK) UK National Inventory of War Memorials (http://www.ukniwm.org.uk) (charity working to register UK war memorials) Scottish War Memorials Project (http://warmemscot.s4.bizhat.com/) (public access forum recording all of Scotland's War Memorials) Charity recording North East War Memorials including names and images. (http://www.newmp.org.uk) (http://www.saltwoodkent.co.uk) United States:

War memorial United States Navy Memorial (http://www.navymemorial.org) (including Navy Log and naval history information) Vietnam Unit Memorial Monument (http://www.vummf.org), (Coronado California)

227

Surviving veterans of World War I


The last living veteran of World War I (28 July 1914 11 November 1918) was Florence Green, a British citizen who served in the Allied armed forces, and who died 4 February 2012, aged 110.[1] The last combat veteran was Claude Choules who served in the British Royal Navy (and later the Royal Australian Navy) and died 5 May 2011, aged 110.[2] The last veteran who served in the trenches was Harry Patch who died on 25 July 2009, aged 111. The last Central Powers veteran, Franz Knstler of Austria-Hungary, died on 27 May 2008 at the age of 107. The total number of participating personnel is estimated by the Encyclopdia Britannica at 65,038,810. There were approximately 9,750,103 military deaths during the conflict. Veterans, for this purpose, are defined as people who were members of the armed forces of one of the combatant nations up to and including the date of the Armistice. This policy may vary from the policy in actual use in some countries. The last surviving veteran of World War I per country is shown in the table below.
Country Austrian Empire Australia Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada [5] John Babcock [8] 18 February 2010 9 August 2003 109 years 107 years [5] [3] Name August Bischof [4] [6] Death date 4 March 2006 3 June 2009 Age 107 years 110 years

John Campbell Ross

Cyrillus-Camillus Barbary

[7] 16 September 2004 105 years

[9] Alois Vocsek[10] Czechoslovakian Legions France German Empire Greece Hungarian Kingdom Indian Empire Italy Japan Montenegro Newfoundland New Zealand [5] [16] Wallace Pike Bright Williams Yakup Satar [17] [5] Delfino Borroni [15] [3] Franz Knstler [14] Pierre Picault [11][12] [13]

20 November 2008 109 years 1 January 2008 107 years

Erich Kstner

27 May 2008

107 years

26 October 2008

110 years

11 April 1999 13 February 2003 2 April 2008 [19] 12 January 2008

99 years 105 years 110 years 105 years

[5]

Ottoman Empire Polish forces [9]

[18]

Stanisaw Wycech

Surviving veterans of World War I


[20] [21]

228
5 May 2003 9 January 2007 107 years 104 years

Portugal Romania Russian Empire Serbia Siam South Africa [5]

Jos Ladeira

Gheorghe Pnculescu Mikhail Krichevsky

[22][23]

26 December 2008 111 years 22 June 2004 9 October 2003 March 2000 4 February 2012 27 February 2011 105 years 106 years 102 years 110 years 110 years

[24] Aleksa Radovanovi Yod Sangrungruang Norman Kark [25]

[26][27] [28]

United Kingdom United States

Florence Green

[29] Frank Buckles

References
[1] Blackmore, David (7 February 2012). "Norfolk First World War Veteran Dies" (http:/ / www. edp24. co. uk/ news/ norfolk_first_world_war_veteran_dies_aged_110_1_1201358). EDP24. . Retrieved 7 February 2012. [2] Carman, Gerry (6 May 2011). "Last man who served in two world wars dies, 110" (http:/ / www. theage. com. au/ national/ last-man-who-served-in-two-world-wars-dies-110-20110505-1ea59. html). The Age. . Retrieved 6 May 2011. [3] Austria and Hungary were component, technically sovereign, nations within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [4] "Autriche" (http:/ / dersdesders. free. fr/ autriche. html) (in French). Ders Des Ders. . Retrieved 2010-11-20. [5] A self-governing Dominion under the British Empire. [6] "Australia's oldest man and Digger Jack Ross dies aged 110" (http:/ / www. theage. com. au/ national/ last-remaining-digger-australias-oldest-man-jack-ross-dies-aged-110-20090603-buy4. html). The Age. . Retrieved 2011-02-15. [7] "Belgique" (http:/ / dersdesders. free. fr/ belgique. html) (in French). Ders Des Ders. . Retrieved 2010-11-20. [8] Goldstein, Richard (2010-02-24). "..John Babcock, Last Canadian World War I Veteran, Dies at 109" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2010/ 02/ 24/ world/ americas/ 24babcock. html). The New York Times. . Retrieved 2010-11-20. [9] Accorded belligerent status at Versailles. [10] "REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE" (http:/ / dersdesders. free. fr/ tcheque. html) (in French). Ders Des Ders. . Retrieved 2010-11-20. [11] "france" (http:/ / dersdesders. free. fr/ france. html) (in French). Ders Des Ders. . Retrieved 2010-11-20. [12] The French government, under whose legal definition of a WWI veteran as having served six months during the war years Picault did not qualify, officially recognized Lazare Ponticelli, who died March 12, 2008, as the last poilu. [13] "Germany's 'last' WWI veteran dies" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ 7210346. stm). BBC. 2008-01. . Retrieved 2010-11-20. [14] "Franz Knstler, Veteran of 2 Wars, Dies at 107" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 05/ 30/ world/ europe/ 30kunstler. html?_r=1). The New York Times. 2008-05-30. . Retrieved 2010-11-21. [15] "Delfino Borroni: Italys last surviving veteran of the First World War" (http:/ / www. theaustralian. news. com. au/ story/ 0,25197,24557283-12377,00. html). The Times. 2008-10-30. . Retrieved 2010-11-21. [16] "Last of Newfoundland's WW1 vets passes away" (http:/ / www. cbc. ca/ news/ story/ 1999/ 04/ 19/ nf_pike990419. html). CBC. 1999-04-19. . Retrieved 2010-11-04. [17] "The last Great War veterans" (http:/ / www. rsa. org. nz/ about/ nws2003feb/ media_release. html). RNZRSA. 2003-02. . Retrieved 2010-11-04. [18] "Yakup Satar" (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ comment/ obituaries/ article3676439. ece). The Times. 2008-04-03. . Retrieved 2010-11-21. [19] "Polands WWI veteran Stanislaw passes away" (http:/ / www. omantribune. com/ index. php?page=news& id=19774& heading=Europe). Oman Tribune. . Retrieved 2010-11-04. [20] Silva, Carlos (2005-09-07). "1643 portugueses mortos na grande guerra em Frana" (http:/ / www. geneall. net/ P/ forum_msg. php?id=221424& fview=e) (in Portuguese). Frum de Genealogia. . Retrieved 2010-11-21. "Filipe Prista Lucas, a GRG correspondent says quote (translated from Portuguese) "According to the information I hold, the last Portuguese veteran of World War I he died in 2003. His name was Jose Luis Ladeira, and died on May 5, 2003, in Goshen Valley, Miranda do Corvo, 107 years old."" [21] "ROUMANIE" (http:/ / dersdesders. free. fr/ roumanie. html) (in French). Ders Des Ders. . Retrieved 2010-11-21. [22] " ()" (http:/ / novosti. dn. ua/ details/ 58826/ ) (in Russian). - . 2008-02-22. . Retrieved 2010-11-21. [23] "Oldest known Ukrainian Jew dies at 111" (http:/ / jta. org/ news/ article/ 2009/ 01/ 05/ 1002004/ oldest-known-ukrainian-jew-dies-at-111). JTA. 2009-01-05. . Retrieved 2010-11-04. [24] Raci, M. (2004-06-26/27). "ODLAZAK POSLEDNJEG SRPSKOG SOLUNCA" (http:/ / arhiva. kurir-info. rs/ Arhiva/ 2004/ jun/ 26-27/ V-09-26062004. shtml) (in Serbian). Kurir. . Retrieved 2010-11-21.

Surviving veterans of World War I


[25] "Last WW1 veteran dies" (http:/ / www. taipeitimes. com/ News/ world/ archives/ 2003/ 10/ 11/ 2003071220). Taipei Times. 2003-10-11. . Retrieved 2010-11-04. [26] Printing World (2000-04-17). "Longest serving Stationer dies at the wonderful age of 102" (http:/ / www. accessmylibrary. com/ coms2/ summary_0286-27692861_ITM). Highbeam Business. . Retrieved 2010-11-04. [27] Ashley, Mike (2010-11-11). "Collecting Crime: London Mystery Magazine - Part Two" (http:/ / www. crimetime. co. uk/ community/ mag. php/ showcomments/ 587). Crime Time. . Retrieved 2010-11-21. [28] "Last surviving veteran of First World War dies aged 110" (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ news/ uknews/ 9066371/ Last-surviving-veteran-of-First-World-War-dies-aged-110. html). The Telegraph. . Retrieved 2012-02-07. [29] Courson, Paul (2011-02-28). "Last living U.S. World War I veteran dies" (http:/ / www. cnn. com/ 2011/ US/ 02/ 27/ wwi. veteran. death/ ). CNN. . Retrieved 2011-02-28.

229

World War I casualties


The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 35 million. There were over 15 million deaths and 20 million wounded ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history. The total number of deaths includes about 10 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost about 6.0 million soldiers while the Central Powers lost about 4.0 million. About two-thirds of military deaths in World War I were in battle, unlike the conflicts that took place in the 19th century when the majority of deaths were due to disease. Improvements in medicine as well as the increased lethality of military weaponry were both factors in this development. Nevertheless disease, including the Spanish flu, still caused about one third of total military deaths for all belligerents.

British and German wounded, Bernafay Wood, 19 July 1916. Photo by Ernest Brooks

Classification of casualty statistics


Estimates of casualty numbers for World War I vary to a great extent; estimates of total deaths range from 9 million to over 15 million [1] The figures listed here are from official secondary sources, whenever available. These sources are cited below.

Douaumont French military cemetery seen from Douaumont ossuary, which contains remains of French and German soldiers who died during the Battle of Verdun in 1916

World War I casualties Military casualty statistics listed here include 6.8 million [2] combat related deaths as well as 3 million military deaths caused by accidents, disease and deaths while prisoners of war. First World War civilian deaths are 'hazardous to estimate" according to Michael Clodfelter who maintains that The generally accepted figure of noncombatant deaths is 6.5 million[3] The figures listed below include about 6 million excess civilian deaths due to war related malnutrition and disease that are often omitted from other compilations of World War I casualties. The war brought about malnutrition and disease caused by a disruption of trade resulting in shortages of food; the mobilization for the war took away millions of men from the agricultural labor force cutting food production. The civilian deaths listed below also include the Armenian Genocide. Civilian deaths due to the Spanish flu have been excluded from these figures, whenever possible. Furthermore, the figures do not include deaths during the Turkish War of Independence and the Russian Civil War.

230

Casualties by 1914 borders

Deaths by alliance and military/civilian. Most of the civilian deaths were due to war-related famine.

Deaths of the Allied powers

Deaths of the Central powers

Allies of World War I

Population (millions)

Military deaths

Direct Civilian deaths(Due to military action)

Excess Civilian deaths(Due to famine & Disease)

Total deaths

Deaths as % of population

Military wounded

Australia b

4.5

61,966

61,966

1.38%

152,171

World War I casualties

231
7.2 315.1 1.1 0.2 45.4 64,976 74,187 18,052 1,570 886,939 1,115,597 2,000 4,000 107,000 107,000 2,000 66,976 74,187 18,052 1,570 995,939 1,226,597 0.92% 0.02% 1.64% 0.65% 2.19% 149,732 69,214 41,317 2,314 1,663,435 2,090,212

Canada d Indian Empire g New Zealand l Newfoundland m United Kingdom s Sub-total for British Empire East Africaa Belgium c France e Greece f Italy h Empire of Japan i Luxembourg j Montenegro k Portugal n Romania o Russian Empire p Serbia q United States t Total (Entente Powers) Central Powers

See footnote 7.4 39.6 4.8 35.6 53.6 0.3 58,637 1,397,800 26,000 651,000 415 4,000 7,000 40,000 55,000 260,000 150,000 585,000 120,637 1,697,800 176,000 1,240,000 415 See footnote 3,000 7,222 250,000 1,811,000 275,000 116,708 5,712,379 Military deaths 120,000 500,000 150,000 757 821,757 Direct Civilian deaths(Due to military action) 120,000 2,853,000 Excess Civilian deaths(Due to famine & Disease) 347,000 100,000 1,000 425,000 2,150,000 121,000 3,022,000 82,000 330,000 1,000,000 300,000 3,000 89,222 680,000 3,311,000 725,000 117,465 9,387,136 Total deaths 0.6% 1.49% 9.07% 1.89% 16.11% 0.13% 1.19% Deaths as % of population 10,000 13,751 120,000 4,950,000 133,148 205,690 12,809,280 Military wounded 1.63% 4.29% 3.67% 3.48% 0% 44,686 4,266,000 21,000 953,886 907

0.5 6.0 7.5 175.1 4.5 92.0 806.0 Population (millions)

Austria-Hungary u Bulgaria v German Empire w Ottoman Empire x Total (Central Powers) Neutral nations Denmark y Norway z Sweden z Grand total

51.4 5.5 64.9 21.3 143.1

1,100,000 87,500 2,050,897 771,844 4,010,241

1,567,000 187,500 2,476,897 2,921,844 7,153,241

3.05% 3.41% 3.82% 13.72% 5%

3,620,000 152,390 4,247,143 400,000 8,419,533

2.7 2.4 5.6 960.0 9,722,620

722 1,892 877 946,248

722 1,892 877 5,875,000 16,543,868

0.03% 0.08% 0.02% 1.75%

_ _ _ 21,228,813

World War I casualties

232

Casualties by modern borders


The war involved multi-ethnic empires such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary and Turkey. The diverse ethnic groups in these multi-ethnic empires were conscripted for military service. The casualties listed by modern borders are also included in the above table of figures for the countries that existed in 1914.

Austria
The following estimates of Austrian deaths, within contemporary Map of Territorial Changes in Europe after World borders, were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of War I human losses in the 20th century. Total dead 175,000: including military losses 120,000 with the Austo-Hungarian forces and POW deaths in captivity of 30,000. Civilian dead due to famine and disease were 25,000 [4]

Belgian Congo
The Belgian Congo was part of the Kingdom of Belgium during the war. Following estimates of casualties were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Democratic Republic of the Congo (1914 known as the Belgian Congo): 5,000 in military and 150,000 civilians.[5]

Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovakia was part of Austro-Hungary during the war. The estimates of Czechoslovak deaths within 1991 borders were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Total dead 185,000: including military losses 110,000 with the Austro-Hungarian forces and POW deaths in captivity of 45,000. Civilian dead due to famine and disease were 30,000.[6] The Czechoslovak Legions fought with the armies of the Allies during the war.

Estonia
Estonia was part of Russian Empire during the war and about 100,000 Estonians served in the Russian Army. Of them about 10,000 were killed.[7]

French colonies
The following estimates of French colonial military deaths, within contemporary borders, during World War I were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Total military dead in French Army 81,000.[8] Algeria (1914 known as French Algeria): 26,000 Vietnam (1914 known as French Indochina): 12,000 Mali (1914 part of French West Africa): 10,000 Morocco (1914 known as the French protectorate of Morocco): 8,000 Senegal (1914 part of French West Africa): 6,000 Guinea (1914 part of French West Africa): 2,500 Madagascar: 2,500 Benin (1914 part of French West Africa): 2,000

World War I casualties Burkina Faso (1914 part of French West Africa): 2,000 Republic of the Congo (1914 part of French Equatorial Africa):2,000 Cte d'Ivoire (1914 part of French West Africa): 2,000 Tunisia (1914 known as French Tunisia): 2,000 Chad (1914 part of French Equatorial Africa): 1,500 Central African Republic (1914 known as French Ubangi-Shari): 1,000 Niger (1914 part of French West Africa): 1,000 Gabon (1914 part of French Equatorial Africa): 500

233

German colonies
The following estimates of German Colonial military deaths, within contemporary borders, during World War I were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Total military dead 17,000.[9] Tanzania (1914 part of German East Africa): 20,000 Namibia (1914 known as German South-West Africa): 10,000 Cameroon (1914 known as Kamerun): 5,000 Togo (1914 known as German Togoland): 2,000

Hungary
The following estimates of Hungarian deaths, within contemporary borders, during World War I were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Total dead 385,000: including military losses 270,000 with the Austro-Hungarian forces and POW deaths in captivity of 70,000. Civilian dead due to famine and disease were 45,000[10]

Ireland
Ireland was a part of the UK during World War I. Five sixths of the island left to form the Irish Free State, now the Republic of Ireland, in 1922. A total of 206,000 Irishmen served in the British forces during the war.[11] The number of Irish deaths in the British Army recorded by the registrar general was 27,405.[12] A significant number of these casualties were from what, in 1920, became Northern Ireland. While 49,400 soldiers died serving in Irish Divisions (the 10th, 16th and 36th) [13] only 71% of the casualties in these Divisions were natives of Ireland.[12]

Poland
Poland was occupied by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia from 17951914. By late 1915 Germany had complete control over modern day Poland. A 2005 Polish study estimated 3.4 million Poles served in the Armed Forces of the occupying powers during World War I. Total deaths from 191418, military and civilian, within the 19191939 borders, were estimated at 1,130,000.[14] The following estimates of Polish deaths, within contemporary (post 1945) borders, during World War I were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Total dead 640,000: including military losses of 250,000 Poles conscripted into the following armies listed below. POW deaths in captivity of 20,000. Civilian losses due to the war included 120,000 due to military operations and 250,000 caused by famine and disease.[15] The ethnic Polish Blue Army served with the French Army. The ethnic Polish Legions fought as part of the Austro-Hungarian Army on the Eastern Front. Austria-Hungary (Polish Legions): 67,000

World War I casualties German Empire: 87,000 Russian Empire: 96,000

234

Romania
The territory of Transylvania was part of Austria-Hungary during World War I. The following estimates of Romanian deaths, within contemporary borders, during World War I were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Total dead 748,000: including military losses 220,000 with the Romanian forces and 150,000 with the Austro-Hungarian forces and POW deaths in captivity of 48,000. Civilian dead were as follows due to famine and disease 200,000, killed in military operations 120,000 and 10,000 dead in Austrian prisons. [16] Romanian Forces: 220,000 military and 330,000 civilians Austro-Hungarian Forces: 150,000

British colonies
The following estimates of British Empire colonial military deaths, within contemporary borders, during World War I were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Total military dead 35,700.[17] Britain recruited Indian, Chinese, native South African, Egyptian and other overseas labour to provide logistical support in the combat theaters.[18] Included with British casualties in East Africa are the deaths of 44,911 recruited labourers.[19] The CWGC reports that nearly 2,000 workers from the Chinese Labour Corps are buried with British war dead in France.[20] Ghana (1914 known as the Gold Coast): 1,200 Kenya (1914 known as British East Africa): 2,000 Malawi (1914 known as Nyasaland): 3,000 Nigeria (1914 part of British West Africa): 5,000 Sierra Leone (1914 part of British West Africa): 1,000 Uganda (1914 known as the Uganda Protectorate): 1,500 Zambia (1914 known as Northern Rhodesia): 3,000

Kingdom of Yugoslavia
The following estimates are for Yugoslavia within 1991 borders. Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia were part of Austria-Hungary during World War I. Serbia (including Macedonia) and Montenegro were independent nations. The Yugoslav historian Vladimir Dedijer put Serbian deaths in World War One at 369,815 military and 600,000 civilians .[21] The following estimates of Yugoslav deaths, within 1991 borders, during World War I were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Total dead 996,000: including military losses 260,000 with the Serbian forces, 80,000 with the Austro-Hungarian forces 13,000 with Montenegro forces and POW deaths in captivity of 93,000. Civilian dead were as follows due to famine and disease 400,000, killed in military operations 120,000 and 30,000 dead in Austrian prisons or executed.[22]

World War I casualties

235

Nepal
Nepal -During World War I (191418), the Nepalese army was expanded and six new regiments, totaling more than 20,000 troopsall volunteerswere sent to India, most of them to the North-West Frontier Province, to release British and Indian troops for service overseas. Simultaneously, the Nepalese government agreed to maintain recruitment at a level that both would sustain the existing British Gurkha units and allow the establishment of additional ones. The battalions were increased to thirty-three with the addition of 55,000 new recruits, and Gurkha units were placed at the disposal of the British high command for service on all fronts. Many volunteers were assigned to noncombat units, such as the Army Bearer Corps and the labor battalions, but they also were in combat in France, Turkey, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. The Rana prime ministers urged Nepalese males to fight in the war. Of the more than 200,000 Nepalese who served in the British Army, there were some 20,000 Gurkha casualties included above with the British Indian Army.[23]

Notes on sources
The main sources used for military and civilian deaths (unless stated otherwise in the footnotes below) are as follows: The Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) Annual Report 20092010 is the source of the military dead for the British Empire. The war dead totals listed in the report are based on the research by the CWGC to identify and commemorate Commonwealth war dead. The statistics tabulated by The Commonwealth War Graves Commission are representative of the number of names commemorated for all servicemen/women of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and former UK Dependencies, whose death was attributable to their war service. Some auxiliary and civilian organizations are also accorded war grave status if death occurred under certain specified conditions. For the purposes of CWGC the dates of inclusion for Commonwealth War Dead are 04/08/1914 to 31/08/1921. Total World War I dead were 1,115,597 (UK and former colonies 886,939; Undivided India 74,187; Canada 64,976; Australia 61,966; New Zealand 18,052; South Africa 9,477[24] These figures also include the Merchant Navy.

Graves of French soldiers who died on the Ypres Salient, Ypres Necropole National, Ypres, Belgium.

Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920, The War Office March 1922.[25] This official report lists 908,371 'soldiers' killed in action, died of wounds, died as prisoners of war and were missing in action from 4 August 1914 to 31 December 1920, (British Isles 702,410; India 64,449; Canada 56,639; Australia 59,330; New Zealand 16,711; South Africa 7,121 and Newfoundland 1,204,other colonies 507). The India Gate in Delhi commemorates the Figures include the Royal Navy war dead and missing of 32,287. Indian soldiers who died during World War I. These figures do not include the Merchant Navy total dead of 14,661 which was listed separately. Figures for total Royal Flying Corps, Royal Air Force and Royal Naval Air Service war dead were included in the total dead and not listed separately in War Office report. The losses of Bulgaria and Portugal were also listed in the UK War Office report.

World War I casualties The official "final and corrected" casualty figures for British Army,including the Territorial Force (not including allied British Empire forces) were issued on 10 March 1921. The losses were for the period 4 August 1914 until 30 September 1919, included 573,507 "killed in action, died from wounds and died of other causes"; 254,176 missing less 154,308 released prisoners; for a net total of 673,375 dead and missing. There were 1,643,469 wounded also listed in the report[26] Casualties and Medical Statistics published in 1931.[27] was the final volume of the Official Medical History of the War, gives British Empire Army losses by cause of death. Total losses in combat theaters from 19141918 were 876,084, which included 418,361 killed, 167,172 died of wounds, 113,173 died of disease or injury, 161,046 missing and presumed dead and 16,332 prisoner of war deaths. Total losses were not broken out for the UK and each Dominion. These figures do not include the losses of Dominion forces in the Gallipoli Campaign, since records were incomplete.[19] Figures do not include the Royal Navy. Huber, Michel La Population de la France pendant la guerre, Paris 1931.[28] This study published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace lists official French government figures for war-related military deaths and missing of France and its colonies. Mortara, Giorgo La Salute pubblica in Italia durante e dopo la Guerra, New Haven: Yale University Press 1925.[29] The official government Italian statistics on war dead are listed here. A brief summary of data from this report can be found online.go to Vol 13, No. 15 [30] Urlanis, Boris Wars and Population, Moscow, 1971. Lists the military dead of Russia, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro[31] The footnotes give his estimates of combat-related casualties; killed and missing in action or died of wounds for each nation. Heeres-Sanittsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums, Sanittsbericht ber das deutsche Heer, (Deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege 1914-1918, Volume 3, Sec. 1, Berlin 1934. The official German Army medical war history listed German losses. Grebler, Leo and Winkler, Wilhelm The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria-Hungary This study published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace details the losses of Austria-Hungary and Germany in the war.[32] Erickson, Edward J. Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War The authors estimates were made based data from official Ottoman sources.[33] Hersch, Liebmann, La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7. No 1. This study published in an academic journal detailed the demographic impact of the war on France, the UK, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Serbia, Romania and Greece. The total estimated increase in the number of civilian deaths due to the war was 2,171,000, not including an additional 984,000 Spanish Flu deaths. These indirect war losses were due primarily to food shortages caused by the disruption of trade. This was by no means the only cause, the mobilization for the war took away millions of men from the agricultural labor force.[34] Dumas, Samuel (1923). Losses of Life Caused by War. Oxford- This study published by an academic press detailed the impact of the war on the civilian population. The study estimated excess civilian deaths at: France(264,000 to 284,000), the UK (181,000), Italy(324,000), and Germany(692,000).[35] Tucker, Spencer C. ed. The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia This is the source for military wounded, unless stated otherwise. Civilian deaths in the Ottoman Empire are also listed in this source.[36] The source of population data is: Haythornthwaite, Philip J., The World War One Source Book Arms and Armour, 1993, 412 pages, ISBN 978-1-85409-102-4.

236

World War I casualties

237

Footnotes
a

The conflict in East Africa caused enormous civilian casualties. The Oxford History of World War One notes that "In east and central Africa the harshness of the war resulted in acute shortages of food with famine in some areas, a weakening of populations, and epidemic diseases which killed hundreds of thousands of people and also cattle." [37] The following estimates of civilian deaths during World War I were made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century: Kenya 30,000; Tanzania 100,000; Mozambique 50,000; Rwanda 15,000; Burundi 20,000; and the Belgian Congo 150,000.[8] The reported military casualties of the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, and Portugal include Africans who served with their armed forces. The details are noted in the footnotes of the various nations.
b

Australia Included in total military deaths are 54,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] The Commonwealth War Graves Commission Annual Report 2009-2010 is the source of the total 61,966 military dead.[24] The 'Debt of Honour Register' lists the 1.7 million men and women of the Commonwealth forces who died during the two world wars.[38] The 1922 War Office report listed 59,330 Army war dead.[39]
c

Belgium: The total Includes 35,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] Official Belgian government figures for military losses in Europe were 26,338 killed, died of wounds or accidents and 14,029 died of disease or missing. The total in Europe is 40,367. In Africa: 2,620 soldiers killed and 15,560 porter deaths, for a total in the African campaign of 18,270. The combined total for Europe and Africa is 58,637[40] Another estimate (by the UK War Office in 1922) was 13,716 killed and 24,456 missing up until November 11, 1918. "These figures are approximate only, the records being incomplete." [41] The U.S. War Department in 1924 estimated 13,716 killed and died US War Dept 1924[42] Civilian deaths exceeded the prewar level by 92,000. 62,000 were caused by food shortages and German reprisals, and 30,000 by the Spanish Flu [43] Prof. John Horne estimated that 6,500 Belgian and French civilians were killed in German reprisals.[44]
d

Canada The total military deaths includes 53,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] The Commonwealth War Graves Commission Annual Report 2009-2010 gives a total of 64,976 military dead.[24] Includes 1,297 dead in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. The Canadian Virtual War Memorial[45] contains a registry of information about the graves and memorials of Canadians and Newfoundlanders who served valiantly and gave their lives for their country. The losses for Newfoundland are listed separately on this table because it was not part of Canada at that time, but are included in the CVWM registry. The 1922 War Office report listed 56,639 Army war dead [39] Civilian deaths were due to the Halifax Explosion
e

France The total includes 1,186,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] The figure for total military dead of 1,397,800 is from a study published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1931[46] The total includes 71,100 French Colonial Forces, 4,600 foreign nationals, and 28,600 war-related military deaths occurring from 11/11/18 to 6/1/1919[47] The UK War Office in 1922 estimated French losses as 1,385,300 dead and missing, including 58,000 colonial soldiers[48] The U.S. War Department in 1924 estimated 1,357,800 killed and died[49] The names of the soldiers who died for France during World War I are listed on-line by the French government.[50] The French encyclopedia Quid reports that 30-40,000 foreign volunteers from about 40 nationalities served in the French army. At the end of the war 12,000 were in the Czechoslovak Legions and the ethnic Polish Blue Army. 5,000 Italians served in a "Legion" commanded by Colonel Garibaldi. There were also 1,000 Spaniards and 1,500 Swiss in French service. 200 American volunteers served with the French from 191416, including the Lafayette Escadrille[51] Luxembourg was occupied by Germany during the war. 3,700 Luxembourg citizens served in the French armed forces. 2,800 gave their lives in the war.[52] They are commemorated at the Glle Fra in Luxembourg. The French Armenian Legion served as part of the French Armed forces during the war. Civilian deaths exceeded the prewar level by 500,000. 300,000 were caused by military operations and food shortages, and 200,000 by the Spanish Flu[53] Another estimate of the demographic loss of the civilian population in the France during the war put total excess deaths at 264,000 to 284,000 not including an additional 100,000 to

World War I casualties 120,000 Spanish Flu deaths.[54] Civilian dead include 1,509 merchant sailors[55] and 3,357 killed in air attacks and long range artillery bombardments[56] The French government did not provide an estimate of civilian deaths in the war zone, however tertiary sources have estimated civilian war dead at 40,000.[57][58]
f

238

Greece Included in total are 11,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] The Soviet demographer Boris Urlanis estimated total military dead of 26,000 including 15,000 deaths due to disease [59] Jean Bujac in a campaign history of the Greek Army in World War I listed 8,365 combat related deaths and 3,255 missing [60] Other estimates of Greek casualties are as follows: By UK War Office in 1922: Killed/died wounds 5,000; prisoners and missing 1,000.[61] By US War Dept in 1924: killed and died 5,000 [49] Civilian deaths exceeded the prewar level by 150,000, caused by food shortages and the Spanish Flu [62]
g

Indian EmpireThe Indian Empire included present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Included in total military deaths are 27,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds.[31] The Commonwealth War Graves Commission Annual Report 2009-2010 is the source of the total 74,187 military dead.[24] The 'Debt of Honour Register' lists the 1.7 million men and women of the Commonwealth forces who died during the two world wars.[38] The 1922 War Office report listed 62,056 Indian Army war dead and 2,393 British serving in the Indian Army.[39]
h

Italy Included in total are 433,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds [31] The figure 651,000 military dead is from a 1925 Italian demographic study of war deaths based on official government data published by Yale Univ. Press. The details are as follows, Killed in action or died of wounds 378,000; died of disease 186,000 and an additional 87,000 deaths of invalids from 12 Nov. 1918 until 30 April 1920 due to war related injuries.[63] Other estimates of Italian casualties were: by UK War Office in 1922, Dead 460,000[48] and by the US War Dept in 1924 650,000 killed and died[49] Civilian deaths exceeded the prewar level by 1,021,000. 589,000 caused by food shortages and 432,000 by the Spanish Flu [64] Another estimate of the demographic loss of the civilian population in the Italy during the war put total excess deaths at 324,000 not including an additional 300,000 Spanish Flu deaths.[65] Civilian deaths due to military action were about 3,400 including 2,293 by attacks on shipping, 958 during air raids and 142 by sea bombardment.[66]
i

Japan War dead figure of 415 is from a 1991 history of the Japanese Army[67] However, Michael Clodfelter reported the official toll was put at 300 KIA and noted that "A more reliable count of total Japanese military deaths from all causes lists 1,344 fatalities.[68] Casualties reported by the US War Dept in 1924 were 300 killed and died [49]
j

Luxembourg remained under German control during the war. Some citizens were conscripted into the German forces. Others escaped to volunteer for the Allies.31 3,700 Luxembourgian nationals served in the French Army, of whom 2,000 died. They are commemorated at the Glle Fra in Luxembourg.[52]
k

Montenegro: Michael Clodfelter lists 3,000 battle deaths and 7,000 missing and POW.[69] However, the Yugoslav government in 1924 listed 13,325 military war dead from Montenegro.[70] Casualties Reported by the US War Dept in 1924 were 3,000 killed and died [49]
l

New Zealand: Included in total military deaths are 14,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] The Commonwealth War Graves Commission Annual Report 2009-2010 is the source of the total 18,052 military dead [24] The 'Debt of Honour Register' lists the 1.7 million men and women of the Commonwealth forces who died during the two world wars.[38] The 1922 War Office report listed 16,711 Army war dead.[39]
m

Newfoundland was a separate dominion at the time, and not part of Canada.The 1922 War Office report listed 1,204 Army war dead. [24] Currently the Commonwealth War Graves Commission includes Newfoundlands casualties with Canada and the U.K. An academic journal published in Newfoundland has given the details of Newfoundlands military casualties. Fatalities totaled 1,570 The Royal Newfoundland Regiment suffered 1,297 dead; there were an additional 171 dead in the Royal Navy and 101 in the Merchant Navy [71]
n

Portugal: Included in total are 6,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] Total war dead reported by British War Office were 7,022 including the following: killed and died of other causes up until January 1, 1920; 1,689 in France and 5,333 in Africa. Figures do not include an additional 12,318 listed as missing and POW.

World War I casualties Africans are included in these figures[39] Another estimate of Portuguese casualties by the US War Dept in 1924 was 7,222 killed and died[49] Civilian deaths exceeded the prewar level by 220,000, 82,000 caused by food shortages and 138,000 by the Spanish Flu[72]
o

239

Romania: Included in total are 177,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] The statistic of 250,000 military dead is "The figure reported by the Rumanian Government in reply to a questionnaire from the International Labour Office[73] Other estimates of Romanian casualties are as follows: By UK War Office in 1922: 335,706 Killed and missing [74] By US War Dept in 1924: 335,706 killed and died [49] Civilian deaths exceeded the prewar level by 430,000, caused by military action,food shortages, epidemics and the Spanish Flu[75] A Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century estimated 120,000 Romanian civilian deaths due to military activity,10,000 in Austro-Hungarian prisons and 200,000 caused by famine and disease [76]
p

Russian Empire Included in total are 1,451,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] The estimate of the 1,811,000 total Russian military and 1,500,00 civilian deaths was made by the Soviet demographer Boris Urlanis.[77] Other estimates of Russian casualties are as follows: By UK War Office in 1922: Killed 1,700,000[74] By the US War Dept in 1924 1,700,000 killed and died.[49] A 2001 study by the Russian military historian G.F. Krivosheev provided these revised figures- Killed in action 1,200,000; missing in action 439,369; died of wounds 240,000, gassed 11,000., died from disease 155,000, POW deaths 190,000, deaths due to accidents and other causes.19,000. Total war dead 2,254,369. Wounded 3,749,000. POW 3,342,900.[78] Civilian deaths from 19141917 exceeded the prewar level by 1,500,000 due to famine and disease and military operations .[79]
q

Kingdom of Serbia Included in total are 165,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] The estimate of total combined Serbian and Montenegrin military losses of 278,000 was made by the Soviet demographer Boris Urlanis.[80] Other estimates of Serbian casualties are as follows: By Yugoslav government in 1924: Killed 365,164 .[80] By UK War Office in 1922: Killed 45,000, missing .[61] By US War Dept in 1924: 45,000 killed and died [49] Civilian deaths exceeded the prewar level by 450,000, due to military activity, food shortages, epidemics and the Spanish Flu[81] A Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century estimated 120,000 Serbian civilian deaths due to military activity and 30,000 in Austro-Hungarian prisons.[82]
r

South Africa Included in military dead total are 5,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds[31] The Commonwealth War Graves Commission Annual Report 2009-2010 is the source of the 9,477 total military dead.[24] The 1922 War Office report listed 7,121 Army war dead[39]
s

UK and Colonies Included in total military dead are 624,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds.[31] The Commonwealth War Graves Commission Annual Report 2009-2010 is the source of total 886,939 UK military dead(including Newfoundland)[24] the 'Debt of Honour Register' lists the 1.7m men and women of the Commonwealth forces who died during the two world wars.[38] The losses of Newfoundland are listed separately on this table. The official "final and corrected" casualty figures for British Army,including the Territorial Force were issued on 10 March 1921. The losses were for the period 4 August 1914 until 30 September 1919, included 573,507 "killed in action, died from wounds and died of other causes"; 254,176 missing less 154,308 released prisoners; for a net total of 673,375 dead and missing. There were 1,643,469 wounded also listed in the report[26] The 1922 War Office report detailed the casualties of "soldiers who lost their lives", "killed in action, died as prisoners, died of wounds and missing" from the Regular and Territorial Forces and Royal Naval Division: 702,410 from the UK, 507 from "other colonies" and 2,393 British serving in the Indian Empire Army.[39] The figures include Royal Navy war dead of 32,287 [83] The Merchant Navy war dead of 14,661 were listed separately [83] Figures for total RAF are included in the totals of the War Office report[84] Civilian deaths exceeded the prewar level by 292,000. 109,000 due to food shortages and 183,577 by the Spanish Flu[85]

World War I casualties Another estimate of the demographic loss of the civilian population in the UK during the war put total excess deaths at 181,000 not including an additional 100,000 Spanish Flu deaths.[86] The 1922 War Office report detailed the deaths of 1,260 civilians and 310 military personnel due to air and sea bombardment of the UK[87] Losses at sea were 908 UK civilians and 63 fisherman killed by U-Boat attacks[88]
t

240

United States The official figures of military war deaths listed by the US Dept. of Defense for the period ending Dec. 31, 1918 are 116,516; which includes 53,402 battle deaths and 63,114 non combat deaths.,[89] The US Coast Guard lost an additional 192 dead.."[90] United States estimated civilian losses include 128 killed on the RMS Lusitania as well as 629 Merchant Marine personnel killed on merchant ships.[91]
u

Austria-Hungary Included in total are 900,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds.[31] The figure of total estimated 1,100,000 military dead is from a study published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1940, based on analysis of Austro-Hungarian War Dept. data.[32] Other estimates of Austro-Hungarian casualties are as follows: By Austrian Ministry of Defense in 1938: Military dead 1,016,200[92] By UK War Office in 1922: Dead 1,200,00[93] By US War Dept in 1924: 1,200,00 killed and died [49] A study published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1940 estimated civilian 467,000 deaths "attributable to war", the primary cause being famine.[94] A Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century estimated 120,000 civilian deaths due to military activity in Austro-Hungarian Galicia.[82]
v

Bulgaria: Included in total are 62,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds.[31] 87,500 total military war dead were reported by the Bulgarian War Office including 48,917 killed, 13,198 died of wounds, 888 accidentally killed, 24,497 died of disease, "losses during the retreat from sickness and privations were much greater than the figures they possess [39] The US War Dept in 1924 also listed 87,500 killed and died [49] Civilian deaths exceeded the prewar level by 100,000.[95] due to food shortages.
w

German Empire Included in total are 1,796,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds.[31] The official German medical war history listed 2,036,897 military war dead. Including confirmed military dead from all causes: Army 1,900,876, Navy 34,836 ,Colonial troops 1,185 and an estimated 100,000 missing and presumed dead [96]-To these figures we must add an additional 14,000 African conscript deaths during the war.[97] Total dead 2,050,89 -Other estimates of German casualties are as follows: By UK War Office in 1922: Killed 1,808,545 exclusive of 14,000 African conscript deaths during the war[39] By US War Dept in 1924: 1,773,700 killed and died .[49] 720 German civilians were killed by allied air raids [98] Civilian deaths caused by the Blockade of Germany German official statistics estimated 763,000 civilian malnutrition and disease deaths were caused by the blockade of Germany.[99][100] This figure was disputed by a subsequent academic study that put the death toll at 424,000.,[101] In December 1918 the German government estimated that the blockade was responsible for the deaths of 762,796 civilians, this figure did not include deaths due to the Spanish flu epidemic in 1918. The figures for the last six months of 1918 were estimated.[102] Maurice Parmelle maintained that "it is very far from accurate to attribute to the blockade all of the excess deaths above pre-war mortality", he believed that the German figures were "somewhat exaggerated".[103] The German claims were made at the time when Germany was waging a propaganda campaign to end the Allied blockade of Germany after the armistice that lasted from November 1918 until June 1919. Also in 1919 Germany raised the issue of the Allied blockade to counter charges against the German use of submarine warfare.[104][105] In 1928 a German academic study sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace provided a thorough analysis of the German civilian deaths during the war. The study estimated 424,000 war related deaths of civilians over age 1 in Germany, not including Alsace-Lorraine, the authors attributed these civilian deaths over the pre war level primarily to food and fuel shortages in 1917-1918. The study also estimated an additional 209,000 Spanish flu deaths in 1918[106] A study sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1940 estimated the German civilian death toll at over 600,000. Based on the above mentioned German study of 1928 they

World War I casualties maintained that A thorough inquiry has led to the conclusion that the number of civilian deaths traceable to the war was 424,000, to which number must be added about 200,000 deaths caused by the influenza epidemic [101] Not included in the figure of 763,000 famine deaths are additional civilian deaths during the blockade of Germany after the armistice from November 1918 until June 1919. Dr. Max Rubner in an April 1919 article claimed that 100,000 German civilians had died due to the continuation blockade of Germany after the armistice.[107] In the UK a Labour Party anti-war activist Robert Smillie isuued a statement in June 1919 condeming the continuation blockade in which he also claimed that 100,000 German civilians had died.[108][109]
x

241

Ottoman Empire: Ottoman military casualties listed here are from data derived from the Ottoman Archives which total 771,844 war dead including 243,598 killed in action, 61,487 missing action and 466,759 deaths due to disease. The number of wounded was 763,753 and POWs 145,104[110][111] Other estimates of Ottoman military casualties are as follows: By UK War Office in 1922: Killed 50,000, died wounds 35,000, died of disease 240,000[112] By US War Dept in 1924: 325,000 killed and died.[49] Estimates of Ottoman civilian casualties range from 2,000,000[113] to 2,150,000.[36][58][114] Civilian casualties include the Armenian Genocide, and it is debated if this event should be included with war losses. The total number of resulting Armenian deaths is generally held to have been between 1 million and 1.5 million.[115][116][117][118][119] Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[120][121][122] Total Ottoman population losses from 19141922 were approximately 5 million[123] including the Spanish flu deaths, the Turkish War of Independence from 19191922 and the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, these other population losses are not included with the casualties of World War I.
y

Denmark was neutral in the war. However, Germany at that time included part of Danish Schleswig. 30,000 men from this area served in German forces, and 3,900 were killed. These losses are included with German casualties. 722 Danish merchant sailors and fisherman died, mostly due to vessels torpedoed by German submarines[124]
z

Norway and Sweden were both neutral in the war. They both lost ships and merchant sailors in trading through the war zones. Norway lost about 50% of its merchant fleet, percentage-wise the highest loss of any nation's merchant fleet in World War I.[125] 1,892 Norwegian merchant sailors died, mostly due to vessels torpedoed by German submarines. 877 Swedish merchant sailors died, mostly due to vessels torpedoed or sunk by mines.[126]

References
[1] Matthew White, Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Primary Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century (http:/ / necrometrics. com/ 20c5m. htm) [2] Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow. p. 85. [3] Clodfelter, Michael (2002). Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 15002000 2nd Ed.. ISBN 978-0-7864-1204-4. Page 479 [4] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Page 36 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [5] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Page 88 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [6] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Page 54 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [7] Estonian War Museum - General Laidoner Museum (http:/ / www. esm. ee/ 11419/ ?id=11419& album_id=11403The) [8] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Pages 59 and 83-99 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [9] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Pages 83-99 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [10] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Pages 41 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [11] Fergus Campbell, Land and Revolution, Nationalist Politics in the West of Ireland 1891-1921, p196 [12] David Fitzpatrick, Militarism in Ireland, 1900-1922, in Tom Bartlet, Keith Jeffreys ed's, p392 [13] Dchas The Heritage Service, Visitors Guide to the Gardens [14] Andrzej Gawryszewski (2005). Ludnosc Polski w XX wieku. Warsaw. [15] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Pages 49 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [16] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Page 51 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [17] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Pages and 83-99 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [18] Chris Baker www.1914-1918.net The Labour Corps of 1917-1918 (http:/ / www. 1914-1918. net/ labour. htm) [19] Mitchell, T.J. (1931). Casualties and Medical Statistics of the Great War. London: Reprinted by Battery Press (1997).Page 12 ISBN 978-0-89839-263-0

World War I casualties


[20] Commonwealth War Graves Commission, THE CHINESE LABOUR CORPS AT THE WESTERN FRONT (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ admin/ files/ cwgc_clc. pdf) [21] Vladimir Dedijer, History of Yugoslavia McGraw-Hill Inc.,US, 1975 ISBN 0070162352 Page 501 [22] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. Page 55 ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. [23] US Library of Congress A Country Study: Nepal [24] The Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) Annual Report 20092010 (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ document. asp?menuid=5& submenuid=24& id=68& menuname=Annual) [25] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p. 237. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0. [26] The Army Council. General Annual Report of the British Army 19121919. Parliamentary Paper 1921, XX, Cmd.1193.,PartIV p. 62-72 [27] Mitchell, T.J. (1931). Casualties and Medical Statistics of the Great War. London: Reprinted by Battery Press (1997) ISBN 978-0-89839-263-0 [28] Huber, Michel (1931). La Population de la France pendant la guerre. Paris. [29] Mortara, G (1925). La Salute pubblica in Italia durante e dopo la Guerra. New Haven: Yale University Press. [30] http:/ / www. demographic-research. org/ [31] Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow Page 85 [32] Grebler, Leo (1940). The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Yale University Press. [33] Erickson, Edward J., Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War, Greenwood 2001. ISBN 978-0-313-31516-9 [34] The article is available from Metron, the publisher (http:/ / www. metronjournal. it) [35] Dumas, Samuel (1923). Losses of Life Caused by War. Oxford. [36] Tucker, Spencer C (1999). The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8153-3351-7. [37] Strachan, Hew (1999). World War I: A History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820614-9 Page 100 [38] Research world war casualties (http:/ / www. direct. gov. uk/ en/ Diol1/ DoItOnline/ DG_4017507) [39] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p. 237. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 [40] l'Annuaire statistique de la Belgique et du Congo Belge 1915-1919. Bruxelles. 1922 [41] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p. 352. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 [42] data listed in the Encyclopdia Britannica [43] Hersch, L., La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.P59-62 [44] Horne, John and Kramer, Alan, German Atrocities, 1914 ISBN 978-0-300-08975-2 [45] Canadian Virtual War Memorial (http:/ / www. vac-acc. gc. ca/ remembers/ sub. cfm?source=collections/ virtualmem) [46] Huber, Michel (1931). La Population de la France pendant la guerre. Paris [47] Huber, Michel (1931). La Population de la France pendant la guerre. Paris Page 414 [48] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p.352. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 [49] US War Dept 1924 data listed in the Encyclopdia Britannica [50] Mmoire des hommes (http:/ / www. memoiredeshommes. sga. defense. gouv. fr/ spip. php?page=base_recherche& _Base=MPF1418& _Action=1SGA) [51] Quid. [52] National Museum of Military History in Diekirch, Luxembourg (http:/ / www. nat-military-museum. lu/ pageshtml/ virtualmuseumtour. php#b2The) [53] Hersch, L., La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7. Pages 30-47 [54] Dumas, Samuel (1923). Losses of Life Caused by War. Oxford. Page 157 [55] Huber, Michel (1931). La Population de la France pendant la guerre. Paris.Page 314 [56] Huber, Michel (1931). La Population de la France pendant la guerre. Paris Pages 312-313 [57] Ellis, John (1993). World War IDatabook. Aurum Press. ISBN 978-1-85410-766-4, Page 269 [58] Randal Grey. Chronicle of World War I, Vol2 Facts on File 1991 ISBN0816021392 Page 292 [59] Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow page 160 [60] Bujac, Jean, Les campagnes de l'arme Hellnique, 19181922, Paris, 1930 [61] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 Page 353 [62] Hersch, L., La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.Pages 80-81 [63] Mortara, G (1925). La Salute pubblica in Italia durante e dopo la Guerra. New Haven: Yale University Press.P 28-29 [64] Hersch, L., La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.Pages 52-59 [65] Dumas, Samuel (1923). Losses of Life Caused by War. Oxford. Page 165 [66] Mortara, G (1925). La Salute pubblica in Italia durante e dopo la Guerra. New Haven: Yale University Press Pages 57-66

242

World War I casualties


[67] Harries, Merion (1991). Soldiers of the Sun-The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army. Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-75303-2 Page 111 [68] Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 15002000 2nd Ed Clodfelter, Michael 2002 isbn978-0-7864-1204-4 page483 [69] Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 15002000 2nd Ed Clodfelter, Michael 2002 isbn978-0-7864-1204-4 page 483 [70] Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow Page 62-63 [71] Sharpe, Christopher A. The Race of Honour: An Analysis of Enlistments and Casualties in the Armed Forces of Newfoundland: 191418, Newfoundland Studies 4.1 (Spring 1988): 2755. (http:/ / journals. hil. unb. ca/ index. php/ NFLDS/ index) Newfoundland Studies is available online [72] Hersch, L., La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.Pages 61-64 [73] Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow Page 64 [74] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p.353. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 [75] Hersch, L., La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.Pages 76-80 [76] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. Page 51 [77] Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow Pages 46-57 [78] G.F. (2001).Rossiia i SSSR v voinakh XX veka : poteri vooruzhennykh sil : statisticheskoe issledovanie / pod obshchei redaktsiei. Moscow: OLMA-Press. (http:/ / lib. ru/ MEMUARY/ 19391945/ KRIWOSHEEW/ poteri. txt#w02. htm-186Krivosheeva,) [79] Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow Pages 268 [80] Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow Pages 62-64 [81] Hersch, L., La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.Pages 65-76 [82] Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. ISBN 978-5-93165-107-1. Page 55 [83] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p. 339. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 [84] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p. 495-509. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 [85] Hersch, L., La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.Pages 47-61 [86] Dumas, Samuel (1923). Losses of Life Caused by War. Oxford. Page 151 [87] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0.Pages 674-676 [88] Gilbert, Martin (1994). Atlas of World War I. Oxford UP. ISBN 978-0-19-521077-4 [89] Congressional Research Service, American War and Military Operations Casualties:Lists and Statistics (http:/ / www. fas. org/ sgp/ crs/ natsec/ RL32492. pdf) [90] Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 15002000 2nd Ed. Clodfelter, Michael 2002 isbn978-0-7864-1204-4 page 481 [91] American Merchant Marine at War, www.usmm.org (http:/ / www. usmm. org/ ww1. html) [92] sterreichischen Bundesministerium fr Herrswesen (1938). sterreich-Ungarns letzer Kreig, 1914-1918 Vol. 7. Vienna.VII, Beilage 37 [93] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p.357 ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 [94] Grebler, Leo (1940). The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Yale University Press. Page 147 [95] Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow Page 268 [96] Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums (1934) (in German). Sanitaetsbericht ber das deutsche Heer, (deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege 19141918. Volume 3, Sec 1. Berlin. Pages 12-14 [97] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p.355 ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 [98] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p. 687. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0. [99] "The National Archives: The Blockade of Germany (http:/ / www. nationalarchives. gov. uk/ pathways/ firstworldwar/ spotlights/ blockade. htm) [100] C. Paul Vincent, The politics of hunger : the allied blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 Athens, Ohio : Ohio University Press, c1985ISBN 978-0-8214-0831-5 Page 141 [101] Grebler, Leo (1940). The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Yale University Press. Page78 [102] Germany. Gesundheits-Amt. Schaedigung der deutschen Volkskraft durch die feindliche Blockade. Denkschrift des Reichsgesundheitsamtes, Dezember 1918. (Parallel English translation) Injuries inflicted to the German national strength through the enemy blockade. Memorial of the German Board of Public Health, 27 December 1918 [Berlin, Reichsdruckerei,] [103] Blockade and sea power; the blockade, 1914-1919, and its significance for a world state, by Maurice Parmelle New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Co. [1924] Page 221-226 [104] The Times London January 18, 1919

243

World War I casualties


[105] The Blockade of Germany after the Armistice 19181919 Bane, S.L. 1942 Stanford University Press page 699-700 [106] Bumm, Franz, ed., Deutschlands Gesundheitsverhltnisse unter dem Einfluss des Weltkrieges, Stuttgart, Berlin [etc.] Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt; New Haven, Yale University Press, 1928 Pages 22 to 61 [107] Dr. Max Rubner, Von der Blockde und Aehlichen, Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift Berlin, 10 April 1919 Vol. 45 Nr.15 [108] Common Sense(London)July 5, 1919. [109] The Blockade of Germany after the Armistice 19181919 Bane, S.L. 1942 Stanford University Press page 791 [110] Erickson, Edward J., Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War, Greenwood 2001. ISBN 978-0-313-31516-9 Page 211 [111] Emin, Ahmed (1930). Turkey in the World War. Yale. [112] The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. ISBN 978-1-84734-681-0 [113] Ellis, John (1993). World War IDatabook. Aurum Press. ISBN 978-1-85410-766-4. Page 270 [114] Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 15002000 2nd Ed. Clodfelter, Michael 2002 isbn978-0-7864-1204-4 page 483 [115] Totten, Samuel, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs (eds.) Dictionary of Genocide. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, p. 19. ISBN 978-0-313-34642-2. [116] Nol, Lise. Intolerance: A General Survey. Arnold Bennett, 1994, ISBN 978-0-7735-1187-3, p. 101. [117] Schaefer, T (ed.). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2008, p. 90. [118] The criminal law of genocide: international, comparative and contextual aspects Ralph J Henham and Paul Behrens 2007 page 17. [119] Levon Marashlian Politics and Demography: Armenians, Turks, and Kurds in the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Zoryan Institute 1991. [120] International Association of Genocide Scholars Resolution_on_genocides_committed_by_the_Ottoman_Empire (http:/ / www. genocidescholars. org/ images/ Resolution_on_genocides_committed_by_the_Ottoman_Empire. pdf) [121] Gaunt, David. Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I (http:/ / books. google. se/ books?id=4mug9LrpLKcC& printsec=frontcover& dq=Massacres,+ Resistance,+ Protectors& cd=1#v=onepage& q=& f=false). Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2006. [122] Schaller, Dominik J; Zimmerer, Jrgen (2008). "Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies introduction". Journal of Genocide Research 10 (1): 714. doi:10.1080/14623520801950820. [123] The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War Gelvin, James L.Cambridge University Press isbn978-0-521-85289-0 Page 77 [124] and Southern Jutland during the First World War (http:/ / dendigitalebyport. byhistorie. dk/ monumenter/ artikel. aspx?xid=denmark_and_southern_jutlandDenmark) [125] "Norway info -The history of Norway" (http:/ / www. cyberclip. com/ Katrine/ NorwayInfo/ Articles/ HistNorw. html). Cyberclip.com. . Retrieved 2010-09-12. [126] "World War I Swedish Ship Losses" (http:/ / www. mareud. com/ WW_Losses/ ww1/ shiplist_wwI. htm). Mareud.com. 2009-05-18. . Retrieved 2010-09-12.

244

Sources
Urlanis, Boris (1971). Wars and Population. Moscow. Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums (1934) (in German). Sanitaetsbericht ber das deutsche Heer, (deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege 19141918. Volume 3, Sec 1. Berlin. Dumas, Samuel (1923). Losses of Life Caused by War. Oxford. Clodfelter, Michael (2002). Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 15002000 2nd Ed.. ISBN978-0-7864-1204-4. The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 19141920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. ISBN978-1-84734-681-0. Huber, Michel (1931). La Population de la France pendant la guerre. Paris. Bujac, Jean, Les campagnes de l'arme Hellnique, 19181922, Paris, 1930 Erickson, Edward J., Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War, Greenwood 2001. ISBN 978-0-313-31516-9 The Commonwealth War Graves Commission Debt of Honour Register (http://www.cwgc.org/ debt_of_honour.asp?menuid=14) Grey, Randal (1991). Chronicle of the First World War, Vol II: 19171921. Facts On File. ISBN978-0-8160-2595-4. Grebler, Leo (1940). The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Yale University Press.

World War I casualties Gilbert, Martin (1994). Atlas of World War I. Oxford UP. ISBN978-0-19-521077-4. Harries, Merion (1991). Soldiers of the Sun-The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army. Random House. ISBN978-0-679-75303-2. Mortara, G (1925). La Salute pubblica in Italia durante e dopo la Guerra. New Haven: Yale University Press. Mitchell, T.J. (1931). Casualties and Medical Statistics of the Great War. London: Reprinted by Battery Press (1997). ISBN978-0-89839-263-0. Gelvin, James L.. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-85289-0. Hersch, L., La mortalit cause par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7. Ellis, John (1993). World War IDatabook. Aurum Press. ISBN978-1-85410-766-4. US War Dept 1924 data listed in the Encyclopdia Britannica sterreichischen Bundesministerium fr Herrswesen (1938). sterreich-Ungarns letzer Kreig, 1914-1918 Vol. 7. Vienna. The Army Council. General Annual Report of the British Army 19121919. Parliamentary Paper 1921, XX, Cmd.1193. l'Annuaire statistique de la Belgique et du Congo Belge 1915-1919. Bruxelles. 1922. Horne, John and Kramer, Alan, German Atrocities, 1914 ISBN 978-0-300-08975-2 Haythornthwaite, Philip J. (1992). The World War One Sourcebook. Arms and Armour. ISBN978-1-85409-102-4. Strachan, Hew (1999). World War I: A History. Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-820614-9. Krivosheeva, G.F. (2001). Rossiia i SSSR v voinakh XX veka : poteri vooruzhennykh sil : statisticheskoe issledovanie / pod obshchei redaktsiei (http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri. txt#w02.htm-186). Moscow: OLMA-Press. Erlikman, Vadim (2004). Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow. ISBN978-5-93165-107-1. Tucker, Spencer C (1999). The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing. ISBN978-0-8153-3351-7. Emin, Ahmed (1930). Turkey in the World War. Yale. Bane, S.L.; Lutz R. H., (1942). The Blockade of Germany after the Armistice 19181919. Stanford: Stanford Iniv. Press. Andrzej Gawryszewski (2005). Ludnosc Polski w XX wieku. Warsaw.

245

External links
Casualties of World War I from "Trenches on the Web" (http://www.worldwar1.com/tlcrates.htm) Miscellaneous World War I Overseas Casualty Reports from genealogybuff.com (http://www.genealogybuff. com/misc/ww1/ww1-casualties.htm) World War I casualties from Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ warstat1.htm) Casualties of World War I from about.com (http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable. htm) World War I troop statistics - Troop Strength, Wounded, and Casualty Statistics from digitalsurvivors.com (http:/ /www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/worldwar1troopstats.php)

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

246

Commonwealth War Graves Commission


Commonwealth War Graves Commission
Logo of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission Abbreviation Formation Legalstatus CWGC 21 May 1917 Commission

Purpose/focus To pay tribute to the personnel of the Commonwealth forces who died in the two world wars. Also maintains a roll of honour for civilians killed in the Second World War Headquarters Maidenhead, Berkshire, United Kingdom Regionserved Worldwide (150 countries) President Key people Prince Edward, Duke of Kent Alan Pateman-Jones (Director General) Timothy Reeves (Deputy Director General) 43,027,498 (2008) http:/ / www. cwgc. org/

Budget Website

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) is an intergovernmental organisation of six independent member states whose principal function is to mark, record and maintain the graves, and places of commemoration, of Commonwealth of Nations military service members who died in the two World Wars.[1] The Commission is also responsible for commemorating Commonwealth civilians who died as a result of enemy action during the Second World War.[1] The Commission was founded by Fabian Ware and constituted through Royal Charter in 1917 as the Imperial War Graves Commission.[1] The Imperial War Graves Commission amended its name to its present name in 1960.[2] The Commission, as part of its mandate, is responsible for commemorating all Commonwealth war dead individually and equally. To this effect, the war dead are commemorated by name on either a headstone, at an identified site of a burial, or on a memorial. War dead are commemorated in a uniform and equal fashion, irrespective of military or civil rank, race or creed. The Commission is currently responsible for the continued commemoration of 1.69million deceased Commonwealth military service members in 150countries.[3] Since its inception, the Commission has constructed approximately 2,500 war cemeteries and numerous memorials.[1] The Commission is currently responsible for the care of war dead at over 23,000 separate burial sites and the maintenance of more than 200memorials worldwide.[2] In addition to commemorating Commonwealth military service members, the Commission maintains, under arrangement with applicable governments, over 40,000 non-Commonwealth war graves and over 25,000 non-war military and civilian graves.[1][3] The Commission operates through the continued financial support of the member states: United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa. The current President of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is Prince Edward, Duke of Kent.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

247

History
First World War
On the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, Fabian Ware, a director of the Rio Tinto Company, found that at 45 he was too old to join the British Army.[4] He used the influence of Rio Tinto chairman, Viscount Milner, to become the commander of a mobile unit of the British Red Cross. He arrived in France in September 1914 and whilst there was struck by the lack of any official mechanism for marking the graves of those who had been killed and felt compelled to create the organisation within the Red Cross for this purpose. In 1915, his work was given official recognition by the Imperial War Office and the unit Canadian war graves near Ypres, Belgium was transferred to the British Army as the Graves Registration Commission.[5] By October 1915, the new Graves Registration Commission had over 31,000 graves registered and 50,000 by May 1916.[6] As reports of the grave registration work became public, the commission began to receive letters of enquiry and requests for photographs of graves from relatives of deceased soldiers.[7] In March 1915, the commission, with the support of the Red Cross, began to dispatch photographic prints and useful locational information in answer to the requests.[7] The Graves Registration Commission became the Directorate of Graves Registration and Enquiries in the spring of 1916 in recognition of the fact that the scope of work began to extend beyond simple grave registration and began to include responding to enquiries from relatives of those killed.[7] The directorate's work was also extended beyond the Western Front and into other theatres of war, with units deployed in Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia.[7]

Formal establishment
As the war continued, Ware and others became concerned about the fate of the graves in the post-war period. Upon the suggestion by the British Army, the National Committee for the Care of Soldiers Graves was appointed by the British government in January 1916, with Edward, Prince of Wales agreeing to serve as president.[8] The National Committee for the Care of Soldiers Graves was created with the intention of taking over the work of the Directorate of Graves Registration and Enquiries after the war.[9] The government felt that it was more appropriate to entrust the work to a specially appointed body rather than to any existing government department.[9] By early 1917 a number of members of the committee believed a formal imperial organisation would be needed to care for the graves. With the help of Edward, Prince of Wales, Ware submitted a memorandum to the Imperial War Conference in 1917 suggesting that an Carving of headstones by hand imperial organisation be constituted under Royal Charter.[9][10] The suggestion would take a week was accepted and on 21 May 1917 the Imperial War Graves Commission was established by Royal Charter, with Edward, Prince of Wales serving as president, Secretary of State for War Lord Derby as chairman and Ware as vice-chairman.[1][10] The Commission's undertakings began in earnest at the end of the First World War. Once land for cemeteries and memorials had been guaranteed, the enormous task of recording the details of the dead could begin. By 1918, some 587,000 graves had been identified and a further 559,000 casualties were registered as having no known grave. A committee under Frederic Kenyon, Director of the British Museum, presented a report in November 1918 on how the cemeteries should be developed. Two key elements of this report were that bodies should not be repatriated and that

Commonwealth War Graves Commission uniform memorials should be used to avoid class distinctions. Beyond the logistical nightmare of returning home so many corpses, it was felt that repatriation would conflict with the feeling of brotherhood that had developed between all serving ranks. Both of these issues generated considerable public discussion, which eventually led to a heated debate in Parliament on 4 May 1920.[11] The matter was eventually settled with Kenyon's proposal being accepted.

248

First cemeteries
Three of the most eminent architects of their day, Sir Herbert Baker, Sir Reginald Blomfield, and Sir Edwin Lutyens were commissioned to design the cemeteries and memorials. Following the principals outlined in the Frederic Kenyon report, the Commission built three experimental cemeteries at Le Treport, Forceville and Louvencourt. Of these, the one located at Forceville was agreed to be the most successful. Having consulted with garden designer Gertrude Jekyl, the architects created a walled cemetery with uniform headstones in a garden setting, augmented by Blomfields Cross of Sacrifice and Lutyens Stone of Remembrance.[1] After some adjustments, Forceville became the template for the Commissions building program. At the end of 1919, the Commission had spent 7,500, and this figure rose to 250,000 in 1920 as construction of cemeteries and memorials increased. 4,000 headstones a week were being sent to France in 1923. In 1927, when the majority of construction had been completed, over 500 cemeteries had been built, with 400,000 headstones and 1,000 Crosses of Sacrifice. In many cases small cemeteries were closed and the graves concentrated in larger ones. The cemetery building and grave concentration programme was completed in 1938, just before the outbreak of the Second World War.

Architects and sculptors


As well as the main Principal Architects for France and Belgium (Baker, Blomfield and Lutyens), there were Principal Architects appointed for other regions as well. Sir Robert Lorimer was Principal Architect for Italy, Macedonia and Egypt, while Sir John James Burnet was Principal Architect for Palestine and Gallipoli, assisted by Thomas Smith Tait. The Principal Architect for Mesopotamia was Edward Prioleau Warren. In 1943 Sir Edward Maufe was appointed as a chief designer and worked extensively for the commission for 25 years. He remained there as the principal architect and then chief architect and artistic advisor until 1969. As well as these senior architects, there was a team of Assistant Architects who were actually responsible for many of the cemetery and memorial designs. These architects were younger, and many of them had served in the war. The Assistant Architects were: George Esselmont Gordon Leith, Wilfred Clement von Berg, Charles Henry Holden (who in 1920 became a Principal Architect), William Harrison Cowlishaw, William Bryce Binnie, George Hartley Goldsmith, Frank Higginson, Arthur James Scott Hutton, Noel Ackroyd Rew, and John Reginald Truelove.[12] Other architects that worked for the Commission, or won competitions for the Commission memorials, included Harold Chalton Bradshaw, Sawley Nicol, Verner Owen Rees, Gordon H. Holt, and Henry Philip Cart de Lafontaine.[13][14]. Sculptors that worked on the memorials and cemeteries after World War I included Eric Henri Kennington, Charles Thomas Wheeler, William Reid Dick, Gilbert Ledward, Ernest Gillick, Basil Gotto, Charles Sargeant Jagger, Alfred Turner, and Laurence A. Turner.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

249

Second World War


From the start of the Second World War in 1939, the Commission had a graves registration unit. With the increased number of civilian casualties compared with the First World War, Winston Churchill agreed to Ware's proposal that the Commission also maintain a record of Commonwealth civilian war deaths. This book, containing the names of nearly 67,000 men, women and children, has been kept in Westminster Abbey since 1956. When the war began turning toward the Allies favour, the Commission was able to begin restoring its The first Second World War cemetery, Dieppe 1914-1918 cemeteries and memorials to their pre-war standard. So too, Canadian War Cemetery it began the task of commemorating the 600,000 Commonwealth casualties from the Second World War. In 1949, the commission completed Dieppe Canadian War Cemetery, the first of 559 new cemeteries and 36 new memorials. Eventually, over 350,000 new headstones were erected. The wider scale of the Second World War, coupled with manpower shortages and unrest in some countries, meant that the construction programme was not completed until the 1960s.

Burial sites and memorials


The Commission is currently responsible for the continued commemoration of 1.69million deceased Commonwealth military service members in 150countries and approximately 67,000 civilians who died as a result of enemy action during the Second World War.[1][3] Commonwealth military service members are commemorated by name on either a headstone, at an identified site of a burial, or on a memorial. As a result, the Commission is currently responsible for the care of war dead at over 23,000 separate burial sites and maintenance of more than 200memorials worldwide.[2] The vast majority of burial sites are pre-existing communal cemeteries located in the United Kingdom, however the Commission has itself constructed approximately 2,500 war cemeteries worldwide.[1][15] The Commission has also constructed or commissioned memorials to commemorate the dead who have no known grave; the largest of these is the Thiepval Memorial. The Commission only commemorates those who have died during the designated war years, while in Commonwealth military service or of causes attributable to service. The applicable periods of consideration are 4 August 1914 to 31 August 1921 for the First World War and 3 September 1939 to 31 December 1947 for Second World War.[3] Civilians who died as a result of enemy action during the Second World War are commemorated differently than those that died as a result of military service. They are commemorated by name through the Civilian War Dead Roll of Honour located in St Georges Chapel in Westminster Abbey.[3] In addition to its mandated duties, the Commission maintains, under arrangement with applicable governments, over 40,000 non-Commonwealth war graves and over 25,000 non-war military and civilian graves.[1][3]

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

250

Cemetery design
Architecture
Structural design has always played an important part in the Commissions cemeteries. A typical cemetery is surrounded by a masonry wall with an entrance through wrought iron gates. In larger sites a stainless steel notice gives details of the respective military campaign. In all but the smallest cemeteries, a bronze register box is present containing an inventory of the burials and a plan of the plots and rows. Typically, cemeteries of more than 40 graves have a Cross of Sacrifice designed by architect Reginald Blomfield. A simple cross embedded with a bronze broadsword and mounted on an octagonal base to represent the faith of the majority of commemorations. Those with more than 1000 burials typically have a Stone of Remembrance, designed by Edwin Lutyens, to commemorate those of all faiths and none respectively. The geometry of the structure was based on studies of the Parthenon and steers purposefully clear of shapes associated with any particular religion.

The Cross of Sacrifice.

Individual graves are arranged, where possible, in straight rows and marked by uniform headstones, the vast majority of which are made of Portland stone. Unlike French, German, or American graves, the headstones are rectangles with rounded tops. Most headstones are inscribed with a cross, except for those deceased known to be atheist or non-Christian. Differentiated only by their inscriptions: the national emblem or regimental badge, rank, name, unit, date of death and age of The Stone of Remembrance, a feature of larger each casualty is inscribed above an appropriate religious symbol and a cemeteries more personal dedication chosen by relatives. In the case of burials of Victoria Cross recipients, the regimental badge is replaced by the Victoria Cross emblem. Many gravestones are for unidentified casualties; they consequently bear only what could be discovered from the body. In places prone to extreme weather or earthquakes, such as Thailand and Turkey, stone-faced pedestal markers are used instead of the normal headstones and the freestanding Cross of Sacrifice is replaced with one built into a wall. These measures are intended to prevent masonry being damaged during earthquakes or sinking into sodden ground.[16] In Struma Military Cemetery, in Greece, to avoid risk of earthquake damage, small headstones are laid flat on the ground.[17] The smaller size of the markers mean that they lack unit insignia.[16][18]

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

251

Horticulture
Commission cemeteries are distinctive in treating floriculture as an integral part of the cemetery design. Originally, the horticultural concept was to create an environment where visitors could experience a sense of peace in a setting, in contrast to traditionally bleak graveyards.[19] Recommendations given by the Assistant Director of the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew enabled the Commission to develop cemetery layouts and architectural structures that took into account the placement of suitable plant life. Combining structural and horticultural elements was not unfamiliar to the Commissions architects. Sir Edwin Lutyens furthered his long-standing working relationship with horticulturist Gertrude Jekyll, whose devotion to traditional cottage garden plants and roses greatly influenced the appearance of the cemeteries.[19] Where possible, indigenous plants were utilised to enhance sentimental associations with the gardens of home.[19]

Variety in texture, height and timing of floral display were equally important horticultural considerations. The beds around each headstone is planted with a mixture of floribunda roses and herbaceous perennials. Low-growing plants are chosen for areas immediately in front of headstones, ensuring that inscriptions are not obscured and preventing soil from splashing back during rain. In cemeteries where there are pedestal grave markers, dwarf varieties of plants are used instead.[19] The absence of any form of paving between the headstone rows contributes to the simplicity of the cemetery designs. Lawn paths add to the garden ambiance, and are irrigated during the dry season in countries where there is insufficient rain. Where irrigation is inappropriate or impractical, dry landscaping is an ecological alternative favoured by the Commissions horticulturists, as is the case in Iraq. Drier areas require a different approach not only for lawns, but also to plants and styles of planting. Similarly, there are separate horticultural considerations in tropical climates. When many cemeteries are concentrated within a limited area, like along the Western Front or Gallipoli peninsula, mobile teams of gardeners operate from a local base. Elsewhere, larger cemeteries have their own dedicated staff while small cemeteries are usually tended by a single gardener working part time.

Roses around headstones in Menin Road South Military Cemetery, Belgium

Financing
The CWGC's work is funded predominantly by grants from the governments of the six member states. In the fiscal year 2007/08, these grants amounted to 43m.[20] The contribution from each country is proportionate to the number of graves maintained, as follows:

Headquarters of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in Maidenhead, UK

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

252

Country

Value of grants ( m) 33.7 4.3 2.6 0.9 0.9 0.5

% of total

United Kingdom Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa India

78.4 10.1 6.1 2.1 2.1 1.2 [20]

Source: Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Vandalism
CWGC cemeteries are generally respected as humanitarian, non-political sites, and instances of vandalism and desecration appear to be rare; when they do occur they tend to make news in Commonwealth countries. Accusations of vandalism of Imperial war graves were levelled at Nazi Germany after their victory in the Battle of France. On 2 June 1940, Adolf Hitler visited the Vimy Memorial to show that it had not been vandalised or destroyed by German troops.[21] Vandals defaced the central memorial of the Etaples Military Cemetery in northern France with anti-British and anti-American graffiti on 20 March 2003 immediately after the beginning of the Iraq War. The many war graves that the Commission looked after in Iraq were left to fall into disrepair after Saddam Hussein banned the Commission from visiting the graveyards after the first Gulf War.[22] On 9 May 2004 thirty-three headstones were demolished in the Gaza cemetery, which contains 3,691 graves,[23] allegedly in retaliation for the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.[24] In November 2008, nineteen headstones at the Wagga Wagga War Cemetery were desecrated by vandals. On 1 April 2009 the nineteen headstones were restored at a cost of AU$7500 with A$10,000 reward on offer for information leading to the conviction of those responsible for the attack.[25] In late March 2009, vandals desecrated eight headstones at the Albury War Cemetery, in Albury, New South Wales, which were found by a member of the Office of Australian War Graves. Replacement headstones will cost A$2000 each and take up to eight weeks to replace.[26] On 24 February 2012, protesters enraged at the alleged deliberate burning of the Koran by NATO forces in Afghanistan rampaged through the Benghazi war cemetery and damaged dozens of headstones, as well as the central memorial.

Current projects
A project is underway to photograph the graves of and memorials to all service personnel from 1914 to the present day and make the images available to the public. The work is being carried out by The War Graves Photographic Project[27] in conjunction with the CWGC. The project has thus far recorded 1,000,000 photographs for posterity.[28] Since an initial archaeological investigation in 2008, the Commission has been working with the British and Australian authorities to plan the recovery of between 250 and 400 casualties from previously unidentified mass graves resulting from the Battle of Fromelles. Recovery operations began in May 2009, and it is expected that by July 2010 all remains will have been reburied in individual graves in the new Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery close by (the first new CWGC cemetery for more than fifty years).[29][30]

Commonwealth War Graves Commission British graves and memorials in South Africa from the Second Boer War have been the responsibility of the CWGC since 2005, and the project involving the renovation of graves of over 24,000 casualties at 223 sites is expected to be completed in 2011.[31]

253

Notes
[1] Peaslee p. 300 [2] Gibson & Ward p. 63 [3] "Facts and figures" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ content. asp?menuid=2& submenuid=50& id=50& menuname=Facts and figures& menu=sub). Commonwealth War Graves Commission. . Retrieved 2009-12-15. [4] "Major General Sir Fabian Ware" (http:/ / www. veterans-uk. info/ remembrance/ ware. html). Ministry of Defence Veterans Agency. . Retrieved 2008-05-26. [5] "Major General Sir Fabian Ware" (http:/ / www. veteransagency. mod. uk/ remembrance/ ware. html). Ministry of Defence Veterans Agency. . Retrieved 2006-09-15. [6] "Records" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ content. asp?menuid=2& submenuid=11& id=11& menuname=Records& menu=sub). Commonwealth War Graves Commission. . Retrieved 2006-09-15. [7] Summers p. 15 [8] Summers pp. 15-16 [9] "WO 32/9433 - Text of Memorandum put before the Imperial War Conference in April 1917 (http:/ / www. nationalarchives. gov. uk/ catalogue/ externalrequest. asp?requestreference=WO32/ 9433)", The Catalogue, The National Archives. Retrieved on 15 December 2009. [10] Summers p. 16 [11] Imperial War Graves Commission HC Deb 04 May 1920 vol 128 cc1929-72 (http:/ / hansard. millbanksystems. com/ commons/ 1920/ may/ 04/ imperial-war-graves-commission), Hansard, Parliament of the United Kingdom, 4 May 1920. Retrieved on 15 December 2009 [12] The Memorial to the Missing of the Somme (Gavin Stamp, 2007), pages 90-91 [13] Silent Cities (Gavin Stamp, 1977) [14] Holt is mentioned in connection with the Soissons Memorial: SOISSONS MEMORIAL (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ search/ cemetery_details. aspx?cemetery=79400& mode=1), CWGC website, accessed 20/02/2011 [15] "Annual Report 2007-2008 Finances, Statistics, Service" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ admin/ files/ Finances, Statistics and Service. pdf) (PDF). Commonwealth War Graves Commission. pp.4852. . Retrieved 2009-10-21. [16] "Features of Commonwealth War Cemeteries" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ admin/ files/ Features of Commonwealth War Cemeteries. doc) (Word document). Commonwealth War Graves Commission. . Retrieved 2009-05-23. [17] "Charles Usher Kilner" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ education/ life_death_pop/ ussher/ rem. htm). Commonwealth War Graves Commission. . Retrieved 2009-05-23. [18] "Haidar Pasha Cemetery" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ admin/ files/ cwgc_haidar. pdf) (PDF). Commonwealth War Graves Commission. . Retrieved 2009-05-23. [19] "Horticulture" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ content. asp?menuid=2& submenuid=9& id=9& menuname=Horticulture& menu=sub). Commonwealth War Graves Commission. . Retrieved 2006-09-15. [20] "The Commission Finances" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ admin/ files/ Finances. pdf) (PDF). Commonwealth War Graves Commission. . Retrieved 2006-08-15. [21] "Vimy War Memorial Gallery" (http:/ / www. harrypalmergallery. ab. ca/ galwarvimy/ galwarvimy. html). Harry Palmer. . Retrieved 2006-10-17. [22] "French Plea as cemetery defaced" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ europe/ 2907701. stm). BBC. 2003-04-01. . Retrieved 2007-10-30. [23] "Gaza War Cemetery" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ search/ cemetery_details. aspx?cemetery=71701& mode=1). Commonwealth War Graves Commission. . Retrieved 2006-09-15. [24] Lynfield, Ben (2004-05-11). "Palestinians vandalise UK war graves" (http:/ / news. scotsman. com/ topics. cfm?tid=1183& id=535772004). The Scotsman. . Retrieved 2006-09-15. [25] Holliday, Rebekah (2009-04-02). "Vandals show no respect" (http:/ / www. dailyadvertiser. com. au/ news/ local/ news/ general/ vandals-show-no-respect/ 1476611. aspx). The Daily Advertiser. . Retrieved 2009-04-05. [26] Tucker, Breanna (2009-04-01). "Despicable ... Albury war graves smashed" (http:/ / www. bordermail. com. au/ news/ local/ news/ general/ despicable-albury-war-graves-smashed/ 1475495. aspx?storypage=0). Albury, New South Wales: The Border Mail. . Retrieved 2009-04-05. [27] http:/ / www. twgpp. org/ index. php [28] "About The War Graves Photographic Project" (http:/ / www. twgpp. org/ the_war_graves_photographic_project. php). . Retrieved 2008-08-13. [29] "Recovery of Fromelles WWI dead begins" (http:/ / www. mod. uk/ DefenceInternet/ DefenceNews/ HistoryAndHonour/ RecoveryOfFromellesWwiDeadBegins. htm). Ministry of Defence. 6 May 2009. . Retrieved 8 May 2009. [30] "Remembering FromellesHomepage" (http:/ / www. cwgc. org/ fromelles/ ?page=english/ homepage). CWGC. . [31] CWGC Newsletter, January 2011

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

254

References
Durie, W. (2012). The British Garrison Berlin 1945-1994 "No where to go" Berlin: Vergangenheits/Berlin. ISBN 978-3-86408-068-5. Gibson, T. A. Edwin; Ward, G. Kingsley (1989). Courage Remembered: The Story Behind the Construction and Maintenance of the Commonwealth's Military Cemeteries and Memorials of the Wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45. London: Stationery Office Books. ISBN0117726087. Peaslee, Amos Jenkins (1974). International Governmental Organizations. 2 (3rd ed.). London: Martinus Nijhoff. ISBN9024716012. Summers, Julie (2007). Remembered: The History of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. London: Merrell. ISBN1858943744.

External links
CWGC official website (http://www.cwgc.org/) Maple Leaf Legacy Project (http://www.mapleleaflegacy.ca/) Australian War Grave Photographic Archive (http://www.australianwargraves.org/about.php) South Africa War Graves Project (http://www.southafricawargraves.org/)

United Kingdom National Inventory of War Memorials (http://www.ukniwm.org.uk) New Zealand Memorials Register, Ministry of Culture & Heritage (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/category/tid/ 648)

American Battle Monuments Commission


The American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) is a small independent agency of the United States government. Established by Congress in 1923,[1] it is responsible for: Commemorating the services of the U.S. armed forces where they have served since April 6, 1917 (the date of U.S. entry into World War I) Establishing suitable memorial shrines; designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining permanent American military burial grounds in foreign countries Controlling the design and construction of U.S. military monuments and markers in foreign countries by other U.S. citizens and organizations, both public and private Encouraging the maintenance of such monuments and markers by their sponsors[1] The Commission administers, operates, and maintains 24 permanent American burial grounds on foreign soil. As of May 2006, there are 124,917 U.S. war dead interred at these cemeteries: 30,921 of World War I, 93,246 of World War II and 750 of the Mexican-American War. An additional 6,033 American veterans and others are interred in the Mexico City National Cemetery and Corozal American Cemetery and Memorial. [2]
American Battle Monuments Commission.

Complete sortable list of ABMC cemeteries

American Battle Monuments Commission

255

Cemetery

Country

Conflict World War I

Web Link [3]

Video .wmv .wmv .wmv [10] .wmv [13] .wmv [15] .wmv [18] .wmv [20] .wmv [23] .wmv [26] .wmv [29] .wmv [32] .wmv [35] .wmv [38] .wmv [41] .wmv [44] .wmv [46] .wmv [49] .wmv [52] .wmv [55] .wmv [58] .wmv [61] [4] [7]

Booklet .pdf .pdf .pdf [11] None [5] [8]

Coordinates 49446.02N 31729.16E 503250.75N 52755.55E 483111.6N 1186.2W

Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial France Ardennes American Cemetery and Memorial Brittany American Cemetery and Memorial Belgium France

World War II Link [6] World War II Link [9]

Brookwood American Cemetery and Memorial

United Kingdom United Kingdom Panama

World War I

Link [12]

51185N 03822.9W

Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial

World War II Link [14] Panama Canal Link [17]

.pdf [16]

5213.020N 003.320E

Corozal American Cemetery and Memorial

85928N 793414.2W

Epinal American Cemetery and Memorial

France

World War II Link [19] World War I Link [22]

.pdf [21] .pdf [24] .pdf [27] .pdf [30] .pdf [33] .pdf [36] .pdf [39] .pdf [42] None

48837.14N 62931.02E

Flanders Field American Cemetery and Memorial Florence American Cemetery and Memorial

Belgium

505225.14N 3278.28E

Italy

World War II Link [25] World War II Link [28] World War II Link [31] World War II Link [34] World War II Link [37] World War I Link [40]

434131.4N 111240.2E

Henri-Chapelle American Cemetery and Memorial Lorraine American Cemetery and Memorial

Belgium

504150.58N 55354.48E

France

49718.12N 64252.32E

Luxembourg American Cemetery and Memorial

Luxembourg

493642N 061108E

Manila American Cemetery and Memorial

Philippines

143239.7N 121255.2E

Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery and Memorial Mexico City National Cemetery

France

49202.64N 5522.56E

Mexico

Mexican War Link [43] World War II Link [45] World War II Link [48] World War II Link [51] World War I Link [54]

192631.3N 99958.2W

Netherlands American Cemetery and Memorial

Netherlands

.pdf [47] .pdf [50] .pdf [53] .pdf [56] .pdf [59] .pdf [62]

504915.4N 54813.1E

Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial

France

492137N 05126W

North Africa American Cemetery and Memorial

Tunisia

365155.5N 101946.3E

Oise-Aisne American Cemetery and Memorial

France

49128N 33253.3E

Rhone American Cemetery and Memorial

France

World War II Link [57] World War II Link [60]

433210.1N 62822.7E

Sicily-Rome American Cemetery and Memorial

Italy

412755.08N 123930.18E

American Battle Monuments Commission

256
France World War I 49596.18N 31247.88E

Somme American Cemetery and Memorial

Link [63] Link [66] Link [69]

.wmv [64] .wmv [67] .wmv [70]

.pdf [65] .pdf [68] .pdf [71]

St. Mihiel American Cemetery and Memorial

France

World War I

485725.14N 55111.04E

Suresnes American Cemetery and Memorial

France

World War I

485218.84N 2137.56E

Complete sortable list of ABMC monuments


Monument Audenarde American Monument Belleau Wood American Monument Bellicourt American Monument Cabanatuan American Memorial Cantigny American Monument Chateau-Thierry American Monument Chaumont AEF Headquarters Marker East Coast Memorial Guadalcanal American Memorial Honolulu Memorial Kemmel American Monument Montfaucon American Monument Montsec American Monument Naval Monument at Brest Naval Monument at Gibraltar Pointe du Hoc American Monument Papua American Marker Saipan American Memorial Santiago Surrender Tree Sommepy American Monument Country Belgium France France Philippines France France France USA Nearest town Oudenaarde Belleau St. Quentin Cabanatuan City Montdidier Chteau-Thierry Chaumont New York City Conflict World War I World War I World War I World War II World War I World War I World War I World War II World War II World War II World War I World War I World War I World War I World War I Web Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89]

Solomon Islands Guadalcanal USA Belgium France France France Gibraltar France New Guinea Mariana Islands Cuba France Honolulu Ieper (Ypres) Verdun St. Mihiel Brest Gibraltar

St. Laurent-sur-Mer World War II Papua Saipan Santiago de Cuba St. Menehould Claye-Souilly Tours World War II World War II

Spanish American War Link [90] World War I World War I World War I Link Link Link Link Link [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]

Souilly American Headquarters Marker France Tours American Monument Utah Beach American Monument West Coast American Memorial France France USA

Ste-Marie-du-Mont World War II San Francisco World War II

American Battle Monuments Commission


[96]

257
Morocco Casablanca World War II

Western Task Force American Marker

Link

Members
The authorizing legislation for the American Battle Monuments Commission (36 U.S.C., Chapter 21) specifies that the president will appoint 11 members to the commission and an officer of the regular Army to serve as the secretary.[97]

Chairmen of the ABMC


Brigadier General John M. Palmer, (19211923) General of the Armies John J. Pershing, (19231948) General of the Army George Marshall, (19491959) General Jacob L. Devers, (19601969) General Mark W. Clark, (19691984) General Andrew Goodpaster, (19851990) General Paul X. Kelley, (19911994, 20012005) General Frederick F. Woerner, Jr., (19942001) General Frederick M. Franks, Jr., (20052009) General Merrill A. McPeak (2010-present)

Current Commissioners
Cindy Campbell Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel Darrell Dorgan John L. Estrada Evelyn P. Foote Rolland Kidder Richard L. Klass Constance Morella Ike Skelton Maura C. Sullivan Max Cleland, Secretary

References
[1] "Intro" (http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ commission/ index. php). American Battle Monuments Commission. . Retrieved 2011-11-21. [2] "History" (http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ commission/ history. php). American Battle Monuments Commission. . Retrieved 2011-11-21. [3] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ am. php [4] http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ am. wmv [5] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ am_pict. pdf [6] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ar. php [7] http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ ar. wmv [8] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ar_pict. pdf [9] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ br. php [10] http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ br. wmv [11] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ br_pict. pdf [12] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ bk. php [13] http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ bk. wmv [14] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ca. php [15] http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ ca. wmv

American Battle Monuments Commission


[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ca_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ cz. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ cz. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ep. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ ep. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ep_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ff. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ ff. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ff_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ fl. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ fl. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ fl_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ hc. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ hc. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ hc_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ lo. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ lo. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ lo_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ lx. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ lx. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ lx_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ml. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ ml. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ml_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ma. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ ma. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ma_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ mx. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ mx. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ne. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ ne. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ ne_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ no. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ no. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ no_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ na. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ na. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ na_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ oa. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ oa. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ oa_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ rh. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ rh. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ rh_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ sr. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ sr. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ sr_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ so. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ so. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ so_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ sm. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ sm. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ sm_pict. pdf http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ su. php http:/ / media. oaktreesys. com/ abmc/ video/ cemeteries/ su. wmv http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ cemeteries/ cemeteries/ su_pict. pdf

258

[72] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ au. php [73] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ bw. php [74] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ be. php

American Battle Monuments Commission


[75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ cb. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ cy. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ ct. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ cm. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ ec. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ gu. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ hn. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ ke. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ mf. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ ms. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ bt. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ gr. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ ph. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ pa. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ si. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ sst. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ sp. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ sy. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ tr. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ ut. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ wc. php http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ memorials/ memorials/ cc. php

259

[97] "ABMC Commissioners" (http:/ / www. abmc. gov/ commission/ commissioners. php). ABMC. . Retrieved 2011-11-21.

Nishiura, Elizabeth, editor (1989). American Battle Monuments: A Guide to Military Cemeteries and Monuments Maintained By the American Battle Monuments Commission. Detroit, Michigan: Omnigraphics Inc. Hallowed Grounds (http://www.pbs.org/hallowedgrounds/) (2009). PBS video of twenty-two America's overseas military cemeteries in eight different countries.

Bibliography
American Battle Monuments Commission (1938). American armies and battlefields in Europe: a history, guide, and reference book. U.S.G.P.O.. Selected photos available online through the Washington State Library's Classics in Washington History collection (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/history/publications_detail.aspx?p=31) American Battle Monuments Commission (1938). American armies and battlefields in Europe: a history, guide, and reference book. U.S.G.P.O.. Maps available online through the Washington State Office of the Secretary of State's Washington History collection (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/history/ww1/maps.aspx) Nishiura, Elizabeth, editor, American Battle Monuments: A Guide to Military Cemeteries and Monuments Maintained By the American Battle Monuments Commission, Omnigraphics Inc., Detroit, Michigan 1989

External links
Official website (http://www.abmc.gov/) World War I : Soldiers Remembered (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/history/ww1/) Presented by the Washington State Library and Washington State Archives American operations in the Aisne-Marne region: May 31 October 12, 1918 (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/ history/maps_detail.aspx?m=24) American operations in the St. Mihiel region: September 12 November 11, 1918 (http://www.secstate.wa. gov/history/maps_detail.aspx?m=25) The Meuse-Argonne offensive of the American First Army: September 26 November 11, 1918 (http:// www.secstate.wa.gov/history/maps_detail.aspx?m=25) Records of Thomas North regarding Dwight D. Eisenhower's service with the Commission, 19271929 (http:// eisenhower.archives.gov/Research/Finding_Aids/N.html)

Military attachs and war correspondents in the First World War

260

Military attachs and war correspondents in the First World War


Military attachs and war correspondents in the First World War were historians creating first-hand accounts of a multi-national, multi-continent, multi-ocean military conflict. In this multi-year series of military engagements across a worldwide landscape of theaters of battle, the military taxonomy of war became increasingly complex. The First World War was the first modern mediated war in the sense that warfare becomes conflicts and controversies between parties who exchange information and arguments indirectly by the mass media. The discourse in mediated conflicts is influenced by its public character. By forwarding information and arguments to the media, conflict parties attempt to gain support from their constituencies and persuade their opponents.[1]

Overview
The multi-national military attachs and observers who took part in the First World War were expressly engaged in collecting data and analyzing the interplay between tactics, strategy, and technical advances in weapons and machines of modern warfare. Military theorist Carl von Clausewitz stressed the significance of grasping the fundamentals of any situation in the "blink of an eye" (coup d'il). In a military context, the astute tactician can immediately grasp a range of implications and can begin to anticipate plausible and appropriate courses of action,[2] but World War I resisted the conventional pre-war taxonomies and paradigms. Military and civilian observers from every major power closely followed the course Pie chart showing deaths by of the war. Most were able to report on events from a perspective somewhat like alliance and military/civilian. Most of the civilian deaths were what is now termed "embedded" positions within the land and naval forces of both due to war related famine. sides. These military attachs, naval attachs and other observers prepared voluminous first-hand accounts of the war and analytical papers. In-depth observer narratives of the war and more narrowly-focused professional journal articles were written soon after the war; and these post-war reports conclusively illustrated the battlefield destructiveness of this conflict. The functions of a military attach are illustrated by the American military attachs in Japan during the war years. A series of military officers had been assigned to the American diplomatic mission in Tokyo since 1901 when the US and Japan were co-operating closely in response to the Boxer Rebellion in China. The military attach advised the United States Ambassador to Japan on military matters, acted as a liaison between US Army and the Imperial General Headquarters, and gathered and disseminated intelligence. The military attach's office in Tokyo usually had two assistants and a number of "language officers" who were assigned specifically to learn Japanese whilst attached to Japanese Imperial Army regiments as observers. These "language officers" translated training and technical manuals and reported on conditions in Japanese military units.[3]

Military attachs and war correspondents in the First World War

261

Selected military attachs serving with Entente powers


Russia
Nakajima Masatake, Japan (1915).[4] Mitsumasa Yonai, Japan (1915).[5]

France
James Collins, US (1917).[6]
Pie chart showing military deaths of the Entente Powers.

United Kingdom
Teijiro Toyoda, Japan (1914).[7]

United States
Kichisaburo Nomura, Japan (19141918).[7] Major-General Katsusugu Iouye, Japan (19171919); awarded Distinguished Service Medal.[8] Lieutenant Colonel T. Mizumachi, Japan (19171919); awarded Distinguished Service Medal.[8] Captain Hsiao Watari, Japan (19171919); awarded Distinguished Service Medal.[8]

Japan
Lieutenant Colonel Karl F. Baldwin, U.S. (19171919).[9]

Selected military attachs serving with Central powers


Germany
Joseph Ernest Kuhn, US (19151916).[10]

War correspondents
Press coverage of the war was affected by restrictions on the movement of non-combatant observers and strict censorship. This raises the question of the role the media plays in selecting news about such conflicts. Events which support the Pie chart showing military position of either one of the protagonists in a conflict are understood as instrumental deaths of the Central Powers. factors in the modern mediated conflict; and the publication of information on these events is construed as one of the major goals of the conflicting parties and one important activity of journalists.[1] In Britain, there were initially five official accredited war correspondents: Philip Gibbs, Percival Philips, William Beach Thomas, Henry Perry Robinson, and Herbert Russell. Their reports were vetted by C. E. Montague. Other writers and journalists who later received official accreditation from the British government were John Buchan, Valentine Williams, Hamilton Fyfe, Henry Nevinson and Robert Donald.[11]

Military attachs and war correspondents in the First World War

262

Select list
Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, The Times (London) * Charles Bean, Sydney Morning Herald (New South Wales, Australia).[12] Richard Harding Davis, Wheeler Syndicate (USA), Daily Chronicle (London)[13] Granville Roland Fortescue, Daily Telegraph (London) Hamilton Fyfe, Daily Mail (London).[14] Floyd Gibbons, Chicago Tribune Philip Gibbs, The War Illustrated (London); Daily Chronicle (London).[15] Louis Grondijs, Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant (Rottterdam); L'Illustration (Paris); Daily Telegraph.[16] Will Irvin, Collier's[17] F. Tennyson Jesse, Collier's[18] Robert Scotland Liddell, The Sphere.[19] Gerald Morgan Collier's[20] Keith Murdoch Melbourne Herald & Sydney Sun (Australia) E. Alexander Powell, New York World;[21] ''Scribner's; Daily Mail.[22] Mary Roberts Rinehart, The Saturday Evening Post.[23] Charles Court Repington, The Times.

William Beach Thomas, Daily Mail.[21] Frederick Villiers, Illustrated London News.[24] Alice Waterman.[25]

Notes
[1] Kepplinger, Hans Mathias et al. "Instrumental Actualization: A Theory of Mediated Conflicts," (http:/ / www. jstor. org/ pss/ 3650646) European Journal of Communication, Vol. 6, No. 3, 263-290 (1991). [2] Calusewitz, Carl. (1982). On War, p. 141; (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=_La4qTgECD0C& pg=PA141& lpg=PA141& dq=clausewitz+ coup+ d'oeil& source=web& ots=8UCKTI28o4& sig=0ntr9cQoagmpsJVuulXii533H8U& hl=en& sa=X& oi=book_result& resnum=10& ct=result) "Defining 'Taxonomy'," (http:/ / www. greenchameleon. com/ gc/ blog_detail/ defining_taxonomy/ ) Straights Knowledge website. [3] Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives, King's College London: US Military Intelligence Reports, Japan, Context (http:/ / www. aim25. ac. uk/ cgi-bin/ search2?coll_id=2651& inst_id=21) [4] Central and Eastern European Online Library: Savliev, Igor and Yuri S. Pestushko. "Dangerous Rapprochement Russia and Japan in the First World War, 1914-1916," (http:/ / www. ceeol. com/ aspx/ getdocument. aspx?logid=5& id=d6cfc541-da02-4597-881c-d8f1ffde8e0a) Acta Salvica Iaponica. 18:19-41, 26n33 (2001). [5] WWII Database: Mitsumasa Yonai (http:/ / ww2db. com/ person_bio. php?person_id=353) [6] Venzon, Anne Cipriano. (1995). The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, p. 154. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=5UFp5uYXA7gC& pg=RA2-PA318-IA4& lpg=RA2-PA318-IA4& dq=japan+ military+ attache+ first+ world+ war& source=web& ots=Kvu9sbEttg& sig=9SlWVBG2CG-3_bkNQcOuxvT4Wg4& hl=en& sa=X& oi=book_result& resnum=3& ct=result#PPA154,M1) [7] Japan Center for Asian Historical Records: "US-Japan War Talks," key figures. (http:/ / www. jacar. go. jp/ english/ nichibei/ person/ index. html) [8] Stringer, p. 466. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=0MYLAAAAYAAJ& pg=PA466& lpg=PA466& dq=japan+ military+ attache+ first+ world+ war& source=web& ots=8WptiGYqwI& sig=30sbrGURkIWs_PL6mtFa1DAws5I& hl=en& sa=X& oi=book_result& resnum=10& ct=result#PPA466,M1) [9] Stringer, p. 435. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=0MYLAAAAYAAJ& pg=PA466& lpg=PA466& dq=japan+ military+ attache+ first+ world+ war& source=web& ots=8WptiGYqwI& sig=30sbrGURkIWs_PL6mtFa1DAws5I& hl=en& sa=X& oi=book_result& resnum=10& ct=result#PPA435,M1) [10] Venzon, p. 318. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=5UFp5uYXA7gC& pg=RA2-PA318-IA4& lpg=RA2-PA318-IA4& dq=japan+ military+ attache+ first+ world+ war& source=web& ots=Kvu9sbEttg& sig=9SlWVBG2CG-3_bkNQcOuxvT4Wg4& hl=en& sa=X& oi=book_result& resnum=3& ct=result) [11] British Journalism and the First World War (http:/ / www. spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk/ FWWjournalism. htm), Spartacus Educational, accessed 16 January 2010 [12] Inglis, Ken. (1979). "Bean, Charles Edwin Woodrow (1879-1968)," (http:/ / www. adb. online. anu. edu. au/ biogs/ A070225b. htm) Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 7, pp. 226-229.

Military attachs and war correspondents in the First World War


[13] "With the Allies" by R.H. Davis Scribner's, 1914. [14] Great War in a Different Light: Fyfe bio (http:/ / www. greatwardifferent. com/ Great_War/ Hamilton_Fyfe/ Hamilton_Fyfe_01. htm) [15] Great War in a Different Light: Gibbs bio (http:/ / www. greatwardifferent. com/ Great_War/ Gibbs/ Gibbs_01. htm) [16] Great War in a Different Light: Grondjis bio (http:/ / www. greatwardifferent. com/ Great_War/ Reporters_East_Front/ Grondijs_00. htm) [17] "With the Allies" by R.H. Davis Scribner's, 1914. [18] Jesse, F. Tennyson. "A Woman in Battle at Belgium's Last Stand," (http:/ / www. greatwardifferent. com/ Great_War/ Antwerp_Colliers/ Antwerp2. htm) Collier's. November 14, 1918. [19] Scotland Liddell's accounts and photos (http:/ / www. greatwardifferent. com/ Great_War/ Russian_Battery/ Russian_Battery_01. htm) [20] "With the Allies" by R.H. Davis Scribner's, 1914. [21] Great War in a Different Light: Powell bio (http:/ / www. greatwardifferent. com/ Great_War/ E_Alexander_Powell/ E_Alexander_Powell_02. htm) [22] "E. A. Powell Dead; Explorer was 78; World Traveler Wrote About Remote Areas of Globe -- Reporter end Soldier," (http:/ / select. nytimes. com/ gst/ abstract. html?res=FB0916FD3A5C127A93C6A8178AD95F438585F9& scp=35& sq=e. alexander powell& st=cse) New York Times. November 14, 1957. [23] "Mary Roberts Rinehart Is Dead; Author of Mysteries and Plays; Mary Roberts Rinehart Is Dead; Author of Mysteries," (http:/ / select. nytimes. com/ gst/ abstract. html?res=F70A1FF63D59127A93C1AB1782D85F4C8585F9& scp=6& sq=mary roberts rinehart& st=cse) New York Times. September 23, 1958. [24] Great War in a Different Light: Villiers bio (http:/ / www. greatwardifferent. com/ Great_War/ Villiers/ Villiers_00. htm) [25] Fyfe, Hamilton. "A Wanderer in War Lands," (http:/ / www. greatwardifferent. com/ Great_War/ Reporter_on_Reporters/ Reporter_on_Reporters. htm) The War Illustrated. February 16, 1918.

263

References
Kepplinger, Hans Mathias, Hans-Bernd Brosius and Joachim Friedrich Staab. "Instrumental Actualization: A Theory of Mediated Conflicts," (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3650646) European Journal of Communication, Vol. 6, No. 3, 263-290 (1991) DOI: 10.1177/0267323191006003002 Strachan, Hew. (2001). The First World War: To Arms. (http://books.google.com/books?id=zv8Zrrt6vqgC& dq=ernest+troubridge+russo-japanese+war&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10-ISBN 0-19-926191-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-19-926191-8 Stringer, Harry R. (1919). Heroes All!: A Compendium of the Names and Official Citations of the Soldiers and Citizens of the United States and of Her Allies who Were Decorated by the American Government for Exceptional Heroism and Conspicuous Service Above and Beyond the Call of Duty in the War with Germany, 1917-1919. (http://books.google.com/books?id=0MYLAAAAYAAJ&dq=japan+military+attache+first+world+war& source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0) Washington, D.C.: Fassett Publishing Company. OCLC: 394536 (http://www. worldcat.orgsearch?q=Heroes All! harry r.stringer)

Opposition to World War I

264

Opposition to World War I


Opposition to World War I was mainly by left-wing groups, but there was also opposition by Christian pacifist and nationalist groups. 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 bosses. But once the war was declared, the vast majority of the socialist and trade union bodies decided to back the government of their country and support the war. For example, After the War a Medal and Maybe a Job, antiwar cartoon by John French Sloan, 1914. Digitally restored on 25 July 1914, the executive of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) issued an appeal to its membership to demonstrate against the coming war, only to vote on 4 August for the war credits the German government wanted. Likewise the French Socialist Party and its union, the CGT, especially after the assassination of the pacificist Jean Jaurs, organised mass rallies and protests until the outbreak of war, but once the war began they argued that in wartime socialists should support their nations against the aggression of other nations and also voted for war credits.[1] The few exceptions were the Russian Bolsheviks (though the success of the 1917 Revolution was due to the war among the other countries), the Socialist Party of America, the Italian Socialist Party, Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg and their followers in Germany, and very small groups in Britain and France. In Sweden, the socialist youth leader Zeth Hglund was jailed for his anti-war propaganda, even though Sweden did not participate in the war.

In Britain
During World War One, Bertrand Russell was one of a very small number of intellectuals engaged in pacifist activities, and, in 1916, he was dismissed from Trinity College following his conviction under the Defence of the Realm Act. A later conviction resulted in six months' of imprisonment in Brixton prison. Russell was released from the Brixton prison in September 1918.

In other allied countries


In Australia two referendums in 1916 and 1917 resulted in votes against conscription, and were seen as opposition to an all-out prosecution of the war. Groups opposed to conscription ranged from trade unions to religious leaders. In Canada opposition to conscription and involvement in the war centered on the French Canadian community. Following the 1917 elections, the government implemented the Military Service Act 1917 that came into effect in 1918. In Ireland the Conscription Crisis of 1918 had long-term repercussions, uniting several nationalist parties and playing a part in the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922. In Russia, opposition to the war led to soldiers also establishing their own revolutionary committees and helped foment the October Revolution of 1917, with the call going up for "bread, land, and peace". After the revolution, the

Opposition to World War I Bolsheviks called for an armistice, but the world powers refused, worried about the possible spread of revolution. The Bolsheviks agreed a peace treaty with Germany, the peace of Brest Litovsk, despite its harsh conditions. They also published the secret treaties signed by Russia with Western powers, hoping that publications would encourage international workers' resistance against the war. In 1917, a series of mutinies in the French army led to dozens of soldiers being executed and many more imprisoned. These soldiers were rehabilitated by the French government in the 1990s.

265

In the United States


Leading up to 1917 and the declaration of war against Germany, the labor unions, socialists, members of the Old Right, and pacifist groups in the United States publicly opposed participation, the obvious motive for the 1916 Preparedness Day Bombing stemming from this. When Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection in 1916 on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War", he received support from these groups (although the Socialist Party of America ran its own candidate, Allan Benson). After being reelected, though, events quickly spiraled into war. The Zimmermann Telegram and resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany provoked outrage in the U.S., and Congress declared war on April 6. Conscription was introduced shortly thereafter, which the anti-war movement bitterly opposed. The Espionage Act of 1917 was passed to prevent spying but also contained a section which criminalized inciting or attempting to incite any mutiny, desertion, or refusal of duty in the armed forces, punishable with a fine of not more than $10,000, not more than twenty years in federal prison, or both. Thousands of anti-war activists and unhappy citizens were prosecuted on authority of this and the Sedition Act of 1918, which tightened restrictions even more. Among the most famous was Eugene Debs, chairman of the Socialist Party of the USA for giving an anti-war speech in Ohio. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld these prosecutions in a series of decisions. Conscientious objectors were punished as well, most of them Christian pacifist inductees. They were placed directly in the armed forces and court-martialed, receiving draconian sentences and harsh treatment. A number of them died in Alcatraz Prison, then a military facility. Vigilante groups were formed which suppressed dissent as well, such as by rounding up draft-age men and checking if they were in possession of draft cards or not. Ben Salmon was a Catholic conscientious objector and outspoken critic of Just War theology. During World War I the Catholic Church denounced him and the The New York Times described him as a "spy suspect." The US military (in which he was never inducted) charged him with desertion and spreading propaganda, then sentenced him to death (this was later revised to 25 years hard labor).[2]

Come on in, America, the Blood's Fine! (1917) by M.A. Kempf.

His Best Customer (1917) by Winsor McCay.

Around 300,000 American men evaded or refused conscription in World War I. Aliens such as Emma Goldman were deported, while naturalized or even native-born citizens, including Eugene Debs, lost their citizenship for their

Opposition to World War I activities. Helen Keller, a socialist, and Jane Addams, a pacifist, also publicly opposed the war, but neither was prosecuted, likely because they were sympathetic figures (Keller working to help fellow deaf-blind people and Addams in charity to benefit the poor). In 1919, as the soldiers came home, disturbances continued, with veterans fighting strikers, the Seattle General Strike, race riots in the South and the Palmer Raids following two anarchist bombings. After the election of Warren G. Harding in 1920, Americans were eager to follow his campaign slogan of "Return to Normalcy." Anti-war dissidents in federal prison, such as Debs, and conscientious objectors, had their sentences commuted to time served or were pardoned on December 25, 1921. The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921, but the Espionage Act remains, and Richard Nixon attempted to invoke it in 1971 to prevent the Pentagon Papers being published. Many U.S. Supreme Court decisions since then have substantially, but not explicitly, gutted the provisions used to stop dissent. Media withheld much oppostition to the war.

266

References
[1] Prelude to Revolution: Class Consciousness and the First World War (http:/ / pubs. socialistreviewindex. org. uk/ isj76/ trudell. htm) by Megan Trudell [2] Staff of the Catholic Peace Fellowship (2007). "The Life and Witness of Ben Salmon" (http:/ / www. catholicpeacefellowship. org/ nextpage. asp?m=2524). Sign of Peace 6.1 (Spring 2007). .

French Army Mutinies


The French Army Mutinies of 1917 took place amongst the French troops on the Western Front in Northern France. They started just after the conclusion of the disastrous Second Battle of the Aisne, the main action in the Nivelle Offensive, and involved, to various degrees, nearly half of the French infantry divisions stationed on the western front. The mutinies were kept secret at the time, and their full extent and intensity has only been revealed recently.
Execution at Verdun sometime in 1917

Background

Nearly one million French soldiers (306,000 in 1914; 334,000 in 1915; 217,000 in 1916; 121,000 in early 1917) out of a population of twenty million French males of all ages had been killed in fighting by early 1917. These losses had deadened the French will to attack.[1] In April 1917, French Commander-in-Chief General Robert Nivelle tried to break the German line on the Western Front with a great attack at the Chemin des Dames on the Aisne River. For this attack the French adopted a tactic they had first used on a lower scale at Verdun in October 1916, a creeping barrage, in which artillery fired their shells to land just in front of the advancing infantry. This was supposed to suppress the defending troops in their trenches right up to the moment that the attackers closed with them. The infantry was to follow the barrage so closely that they were expected to suffer many casualties from friendly shells falling short as this was a new tactic and not something fully comprehended at the time by military commanders. Nivelle's attack (the Second Battle of the Aisne) failed with enormous losses. This was largely due to the appearance in very large numbers of the new lighter and more portable German MG08/15 machine guns. Nivelle was removed

French Army Mutinies from his command on 15 May 1917 and was replaced by General Philippe Ptain.[1]

267

The mutinies
The French troops at Chemin des Dames had suffered a steadily growing number of desertions since the end of April.[2] On 27 May, those desertions turned to mutiny. Up to 30,000 soldiers left the front line and reserve trenches and went to the rear.[2] Even in regiments where there was direct confrontation, such as the 74th Infantry Regiment, the men wished their officers no harm; they just refused to return to the trenches.[1] The mutinies were not a refusal of war, simply of a certain way of waging it.[3] The soldiers had come to believe that the attacks they were ordered to make were futile. In the behind-the-lines towns of Soissons, Villers-Cotterts, Fre-en-Tardenois and Cuvres-et-Valsery, troops refused to obey their officers' orders or go to the front.[2] On 1 June, a French infantry regiment took over the town of Missy-aux-Bois.[2] According to historian Tony Ashworth, the mutinies were "widespread and persistent," and involved more than half the divisions in the French army.[3] On 7 June, General Ptain and British commander Sir Douglas Haig had a private talk: Ptain told Haig that two French divisions had refused to go and relieve two divisions in the front line.[4] Historian John Keegan estimates the true figure was over fifty divisions.[5] Detailed research in 1983 by the late French military historian Guy Pedroncini, based on the French military archives, concludes that, altogether, 49 infantry divisions were destabilized and experienced repeated episodes of mutiny. This was calculated as: nine infantry divisions very gravely impacted by mutinous behavior; fifteen infantry divisions seriously affected; and twenty five infantry divisions affected by isolated but repeated instances of mutinous behavior. As the French Army comprised a total of 113 infantry divisions by the end of 1917,[6] this puts the proportion of destabilized French infantry divisions at 43%. Conversely, only 12 artillery regiments were affected by the crisis of indiscipline.[7]

The French High Command's response


On or about 8 June the military authorities took swift and decisive action: mass arrests were followed by mass trials.[2] Those arrested were selected by their own officers and NCOs, with the implicit consent of the rank and file.[1] There were 3,427[1] conseils de guerre (courts-martial), at which 23,385 men were convicted of mutinous behaviours of one sort or another;[2] 554 men were sentenced to death;[1] 49 men were actually shot;[1] and the rest sentenced to penal servitude.[2] More up to date (1983) research by Pedroncini documents 2,878 convictions to hard labour and 629 death penalties. According to Pedroncini, only 43 executions were carried out and can be solidly documented. The lack of rigor in repressing the mutinies provoked adverse reactions among some of the French Army's divisional commanders.[7] General Ptain and French President Raymond Poincar, on the other hand, made it their policy to mend rather than to aggravate the French Army's morale. According to French historian Denis Rolland, "there would have been about 30 executions. This number has always been controversial because of the difficulty of accessing the files until 100 years have elapsed."[8] From time to time, anecdotal accounts have emerged of whole French infantry units marched to quiet sectors and then deliberately hachs ("cut to pieces") by their own artillery. However there is no evidence that this ever happened.[9] Conversely, it is well documented that a rebellious Russian division of the Russian Expeditionary Force in France was encircled by French troops in September 1917 at Camp de La Courtine in central France and then fired upon with 75mm cannon. However only 19 rebels lost their lives. The leaders of the rebellion were shipped off to North Africa in penal servitude while the rest of the Russian troops (about 10,000 men) were demobilized and transferred into labor battalions.[10]

French Army Mutinies

268

Aftermath
Whatever the figure, along with the deterrent of military justice, General Ptain offered two incentives: more regular and longer leave; and, at least for the time being, an end to attacks.[1]

[11] Friday, November 9, 1917: Commandant E. A. Gemeau, French liaison officer on Haig's headquarters staff, ... said that the state of the French army is now very good, but at the end of May there were 30,000 "rebels" who had to be dealt with. A whole Brigade of Infantry had marched on Paris with their rifles after looting a supply column. Another lot seized a motor convoy. Some others occupied a village and a brigade of cavalry had to be employed to round them up. This was not done without opening fire on the village. This shows how really bad the [12] condition of the French army was after Nivelle's failure, and Ptain had a very difficult job to get things in good order. (Haig's war diary)

Investigation and scholarly aftermath


The recent revelations on the extent and intensity of the mutinies were largely achieved by the publication, in 1967 and 1983, of highly detailed statistical research on the mutinies by Guy Pedroncini. His project was made feasible by the opening of most of the relevant military archives 50 years after the events, a delay in conformity with French War Ministry procedure. However, there are still undisclosed archives on the mutinies, which are believed to contain documents mostly of a political nature; those archives will not be opened to researchers until 100 years after the mutinies, in 2017.[13]

Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Keegan, pp 356-8 Gilbert, pp 333-334 Ashworth, pp 224-5 Blake, p 236 Keegan, p 382 Buffetaut, (2000) Pedroncini (1983) il y aurait eu environ 30 excutions. Ce nombre a toujours t un sujet de controverses du fait de l'impossibilit d'accder librement aux archives avant 100 ans. (French) Wikipdia: Mutineries de 1917 [9] Horne, p. 324. [10] Poitevin (1938) [11] Greenhalgh [12] Blake, p 265 [13] Meyer (2007), p.540.

References
Ashworth, Tony; Trench Warfare, 1914-18: The Live and Let Live System, Pan (Grand Strategy series), London 2000. ISBN 978-0330480680 Blake, Robert (editor); The Private Papers of Douglas Haig 1914-1918, London, 1952. Buffetaut, Yves. (2000) (French) Votre anctre dans la Grande Guerre, Ysec Editions: Louviers. ISBN 2-9513423-2-2 Gilbert, Martin; First World War, Paperback ed. HarperCollins, London, 1995. ISBN 978-0006376668 Greenhalgh, Elizabeth, Victory through Coalition, Britain and France during the First World War, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2005. ISBN 978-0521853842 Horne, Alastair, The Price of Glory, (first printing) St. Martin's Pr