Figure 48 Europe 1914
This is THE war, in that it set the foundations of the twentieth century; a century of war, murder, and devastation beyond anything seen before. If we take the position, as many do, the First World War caused the Second World War then the First World War is the most important conflict in history. However one desires to look at it, World War I changed everything. We must recognize that World War I set the foundations for the 20th and the 21st centuries, and shattered the idealism of the 19th Century. It was a momentous turning point.
In theory, if WWI never occurred, World War II, the Depression, the Cold War, communism, and a host of other ills evaporate from history’s pages. Prior to WWI, the world experienced a long peace in the sense that no general war had broken out between great powers since the Congress of Vienna in 1815. In 1913 a person traveling around the world using the English pound as currency and speaking the English language encountered very few problems. European empires controlled colonies the world over generally uniting the world in a Western European ideology. A monetary system based on precious metals kept the world markets relatively stable, and international trade grew steadily. The world experienced peace and prosperity across the globe. Europe ruled most of the world creating a trading bonanza because business found predictable governmental systems, many uniform laws, safe trade routes, stable currencies, and access to huge markets. Rising wages with falling prices enabled consumer purchasing. Scientific and industrial advances transpired consistently, and people of the era came to suppose the future held wonderful promise.
World War I smashed the illusion of a good and predictable world. WWI was brutal beyond all explanation. Artillery, machine guns, bombs, and repeating rifles destroyed life in mass. Men marched into hopeless battles facing certain failure and all but certain death. It was war outside comprehension and beyond reason. All sides fought claiming virtue and honor belonged to them alone. Propaganda played a large role by deifying one government while demonizing the opposition, and it encouraged the opposing populations to endure monstrous hardships. Propaganda also played into the unrealistic and harsh war aims adopted by the two warring sides and guaranteed prolonging the war to the bitter end.
Casualties
“The war to end all wars,” referring to World War I, began in August 1914 and ended in November 1918. The Allies (England, France, Russia, and later Italy, and even later joined by the United States)—also known as the Triple Entente),[166] and the CentralPowers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey)[167] together lost approximately 8 million dead and over 20 million wounded. On the Western Front alone, casualties on both sides averaged 2,250 dead and approximately 5,000 wounded every day. In England, three men were killed in WWI for every one man killed in WWII. In 1921 England there were 55 women to every 45 men in the most marriageable age group of twenty to thirty-nine years of age. During the first two months of the Great War (August and September 1914), France lost about 360,000 men, Germany 241,000, England 30,000, Austria-Hungary 230,000, Serbia 170,000, and Russia about 50,000. In spite of these losses early in the war, the most deadly year was 1918. The British lost more men in 1918 than they lost in all of WW II.
After the war, a great influenza epidemic hit the world causing 50 to 100 million deaths worldwide. Most researchers think men coming home from the Western Front spread the influenza. Coupled with WWI, this was a human disaster of incalculable proportions. Pile this on top of WWII casualties and you know why the 20th Century earned its name as the century of slaughter.
Financial Costs
All the warring nations spent vast sums financing the conflict. The major European warring nations alone spent over 200 trillion dollars, and after the war large repatriations were required from Germany to pay back the winning sides’ expenses to the tune of thirty-two billion dollars. Few recognized it at the time, but these war expenses shattered the world economic system. World War I strained the monetary system beyond its capacity. The world trade system began to collapse after the war, then tariffs were passed by the major economic powers to protect their internal markets causing retaliatory tariffs by other nations. International trade dried up as a direct result of these tariffs. After the stock market crash in 1929, US banks began calling war loans to Europe rather than extending them. The world economic system imploded, and an unremitting depression swept the world. Because of governments’ mismanagement after the crisis hit, the Great Depression lingered on unlike past depressions. This depression began in 1929 and lasted past the start of World War II in 1939 until 1941 or later.[168]
Other Costs
World War I gave birth to a new world menace: communism. In 1918, Russia’s monarchy suffered a revolution and overthrow directly related to its grave mishandling of the war. A rather-small group of communist fanatics eventually took over the nation. Russia left the war in 1918, withdrawing into itself in an orgy of murder and destruction so vast the nation remained wounded until WWII. Russia took itself out of the world’s markets after the Communist Revolution causing additional European economic disruption. Communism spread after World War II and remained a direct challenge to the Western Democracies for decades (China is still communist in 2010). The number of people killed in the name of communism runs well over 94 million. Absent World War I, the world may have dodged this worldwide scourge.
Now the worst part. The great powers as a group desired peace, the war began for stupid reasons, and the war continued for the worst of reasons; both sides demanded total “victory.”[169] The ultimate cost was the destruction of a world without equal in history which, like Rome, plunged into that dark abyss of the uncaring past.
Causes of the Great War
World War I resulted from many indirect causes, and among the most important (in no particular order) were:
1) An arms race between Germany, France, and England raising world tensions. The main arms race was between England and Germany over sea power. For years the great problem standing in the way of peace was Germany’s insistence on constructing a fleet that would equal England’s. Every attempt to reach a compromise on the issue of fleet size failed, and this failure can be traced directly to German Admiral Tirpitz and the Germany’s Kaiser. Dreadnaughts were terribly expensive, so the arms race was consuming enormous amounts of money resulting in higher taxes as well as higher tensions
2) Germany, encircled by the Allies, faced a losing two-front war unless it took desperate measures such as the Schlieffen Plan. Those plans meant Germany must move at the first sign of trouble. Under these circumstances any general mobilization by Russia or France would mean war.
3) The various interlocking European alliances were complex and often secret causing widespread mistrust. England struggled to keep the balance of power in Europe which entailed supporting weaker European nations against any nation becoming so strong it could rule Europe. England wanted to avoid another problem like Napoleon. In 1914, Germany was the nation with the ability to rule Europe as it could defeat France even if France were united with Russia; however, England supporting France increased the power of the anti-German alliance significantly. The problem: a wrong move by any nation could draw all the Great Powers into war.
4) The failure of diplomacy for many reasons including a lack of time, and German resolve to allow the Austrian attack on Serbia. After the assassination and Austria’s announced its move against Serbia, the mobilizations began so quickly that there was no time to react with diplomacy. Another problem was Russia’s pride. Russia was recently forced to back down in a confrontation with Germany and Austria, and the Tsar decided any challenge from Austria, backed by Germany or not, would be immediately accepted. The Kaiser’s diplomacy had also failed to prevent Russia and France combining in a military alliance against Germany. The Kaiser was very inept at handling foreign affairs and allowed the combinations arranged by the brilliant Bismarck to expire while failing to prevent the formation of deadly alliances against Germany. Worst of all, a few German leaders had decided on war in 1914 and conspired with Austria to allow Austria to crush Serbia.
5) The emergence of super nationalist terror organizations sponsored by desperate nations such as Serbia. The Serbs possessed extensive desires with few resources. Thus, they turned to terrorist activities, such as assassinations, to create chaotic circumstances possibly benefitting Serbia—which in fact happened. It was one of these Serb backed terrorist organizations, the Black Hand, that killed Archduke Ferdinand.
6) A dramatic change in German political philosophy took place in 1897 after Kaiser Wilhelm II took power and decided to expand German military power on land and at sea, plus acquire additional colonies, thus upsetting the balance of power in Europe.
The direct cause of the Great War was the murder of Archduke Ferdinand, next in line to the crown of Austria, and his wife Sophie by the Black Hand, a terrorist organization sponsored by Serbia. After the assassination and the discovery that Serbia sponsored the student murderer Gavrilo Princip, Austria sent Serbia several written absolute demands; however, Serbia rejected a few. Austria gave the Serbs 48 hours to respond, and the pressure of time limited the diplomat’s ability to gather the parties for talks. Serbia asked and received from Russia assurances saying if Austria attacked Serbia, Russian mobilization and war on Austria would follow.[170] Austria, meanwhile, contacted Germany and the Kaiser responded he would support Austria if Russia declared war. Russia contacted France and France told Russia they could count on the alliance (again unconditioned), and France promised to declare war on Germany if Germany mobilized against Russia.[171]
Encased in all this maneuvering were several unseen problems. Austria asked Germany to support their position against Serbia. Diplomats always condition responses to achieve flexibility; however, the German Kaiser’s response was yes, and without conditions. Being no diplomat, the Kaiser’s response put Germany in a poor position, forfeiting all ability to leverage its uninhibited partner toward moderation. Moreover, the Kaiser answered before knowing the demands Austria sent to Serbia. A most unwise move since the Austrian demands were quite harsh. Serbia must reject the worst demands or forfeit national honor (a big no no in 1914). The unlimited German promise freed Austria to declare war if any demand suffered rejection. The 48-hour Austrian time limit for Serbia’s response denied the Great Powers time to arrange negotiations to avert war. In addition, several heads of state were absent from their capitols and were hard to reach. Worse, the underlings left in charge apparently desired war. Russia’s growing strength convinced the German military to recommend war before Russia grew any stronger. We now know the Germans and Austrians were working together to start a war against Serbia, so diplomatic actions that would stop the march to war were rebuffed by Germany. Austria’s foreign minister, Leopold von Berchtold, despised Serbia, and he pressed for war to end Serbian expansionist policies. With Germany’s backing he hoped to demolish the Serbs, but Russia had to stay out for Austria to win. Russia had backed down before when faced with a joint Austrian—German front and Berchtold hoped for a repeat, but this time it was different. Russia’s military told the Tsar that a limited mobilization was impossible and unwise, plus the Tsar wanted to avoid another humiliation at the hands of the Germans, so he ordered a full mobilization. France failed to encourage Russia to moderate its actions. For example, if Russia had initiated a limited mobilization the nervous German plans would not require action. Finally, there was the Schlieffen Plan.
The von Schlieffen Plan
Germany’s major problem involved a threatened two-front war against France in the west and Russia in the east. The alliance of France with Russia specifically sought to keep Germany under control; unfortunately, the desired cautious mindset failed to appear. Instead, desperate plans became a necessity in the German mind because of the dual alliance. The German General Staff came under immense pressure to find a way to win a two-front war rather than avoid it at all costs. The result of German thinking became the famous von Schlieffen Plan. The plan required Germany to attack France at the very outset of war with a colossal assault while a few troops moved east to hold back the Russian tidal wave until France capitulated. Thereafter, Germany’s focus could shift to Russia. The built-in predicament entailed the need for an instant attack in the West. Everything depended on knocking France out of the war before Russia mobilized and moved its considerable numbers of troops to the front. Realizing England might join France, the plan’s need for speed increased exponentially. France must be defeated within six weeks, before significant help arrived from England or Russia. Germany’s plan confirmed its desperation, as well as carrying numerous grave risks and false assumptions.
The plan required an attack through neutral Belgium followed by an encirclement of French forces near Paris. The great wheeling movement required enough force and coordination to smash French forces manning the north of France, then charge south toward Paris, and finally rotating east to capture France’s military in a pocket. What a tall order! The plan also called for allowing French forces attacking Germany at the frontier to advance during the first few days of the war, thus pulling them away from the main attack and deeper into the German pocket. Oddly, French Plan 17 called for this very attack into German territory. Imprudently, the German military staff took no notice that attacking neutral Belgium guaranteed England would declare war, as England ensured Belgium’s neutrality. This is another indication of how desperate von Schlieffen perceived Germany’s situation.
The German plan did not address failure. There was no plan B. Everything depended on defeating France within six weeks.[172] For a general staff to shun planning for possible failure is inexcusable. If the plan failed, as everyone knew it might because it required a number of great gambles, Germany’s future depended on improvisation rather than a well researched backup plan. Because of this lack of foresight Germany went forward under a gross assumption that the plan must succeed. A close examination of the failure alternative might have convinced even the most hardened general that peace trumped war in this instance. Failure predestined Germany to fight on two-fronts against the massive Russian army to the east and a very good set of armies to the west. The consequences of a British naval blockade and the resulting lack of supplies and food was obvious. Peace was by far the best course of action; nevertheless, peace failed to pass muster. Worse yet for Germany, a new set of German generals significantly changed the Schlieffen Plan.
Mobilization
Austria resolved on war with Serbia and mobilized, declaring war on July 28, 1914; then Serbia called on Russian support, and Russia mobilized. Germany then mobilized, thus leading to a French mobilization. England stayed out at this point. If England had continued to stay out, history might have changed course dramatically. As France mobilized Germany struck immediately because of the von Schlieffen plan’s speed requirements. Germany crashed through neutral Belgium and England immediately entered the war. England sent its army to France very quickly, and gave significant aid to France at the key moment of the German assault.
Due to the reasons listed above, the great powers of the day stumbled into an all out war no one wanted. None of the great powers would survive intact. Austria-Hungary ended up broken up; the Turkish Empire ceased to exist; Germany lost territory, economic power, and prestige;[173]England gained colonies but lost a generation of young men and its financial underpinnings; Russia lost its government and its national soul to an evil beyond all calculation; and France lost a generation in the trenches as well as its financial foundations. Serbia suffered assault and defeat. Serbia lost the least and gained the most considering its culpability in inaugurating the avalanche of doom. The Black Hand murderers achieved their goal of an independent Slav state (Yugoslavia). The assassin Princip is still considered a hero in Serbia. In short, the terrorists won and everyone else lost.
A short summary of events: Serbia murders Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, Austria makes demands on Serbia, Russia backs Serbia, Germany backs Austria, France backs Russia, Austria attacks Serbia, Russia mobilizes, Germany attacks France through Belgium, England enters war. Even this sounds complicated.
Deciding Factors (in order of importance):
1. The British Blockade of Germany and its allies. This devastating blockade prevented any kind of material, including food, from reaching Germany or its allies. Even the Ottoman Empire suffered. Syria claimed the loss of one-half million people due to starvation from the blockade. Cut off from its traditional food sources in Russia, Austria-Hungary’s agricultural system began to collapse in 1917 increasing starvation in their nation. In the end, England starved the Germans and their allies into submission. Even after Germany agreed to the armistice, Britain continued the blockade while thousands of civilians starved to death needlessly (and people wonder why the Germans started WWII).
2. The Failure of the Schlieffen Plan. Germany staked everything on the Schlieffen Plan. After it failed, Germany fought a war on two fronts, eventually proving the pre-war prediction of certain defeat. After the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, Germany needed to consider offering peace even if the terms were unfavorable. Years of slaughter followed but still failed to change the course of the German nation.
3. The Entry of the United States into the War on the Allied Side. Once again, like Britain, if the USA had remained neutral, the world’s future might have transformed. With no intervention by the USA, WWI might have continue stalemated; thus, requiring all sides to consider some kind of negotiated peace where everyone “lost.” Senator Warren Harding, a future US president, led the Republicans in arguing against entering the war but failed to convince the public or the Democrats who controlled Congress.
4. The Code Breakers. England was reading Germany’s codes consistently, leading directly to the deciphering of the Zimmerman Telegram bringing the United States into the war. The code breakers knew beforehand everything the German High Seas Fleet was doing, enabling them to block any move to destroy or significantly damage the English fleet. The code breakers also warned the Allied generals of coming German offensives. Overall, the Allied code breakers were a key war-winning factor (just like WWII).
5. Allied Technological and Tactical Developments. The invention of the tank and combined arms warfare (tanks, aircraft, artillery, and infantry all working together as a team) broke open the Western Front leading directly to the defeat of Germany. In addition, the invention of the convoy system and new detection devices destroyed Germany’s undersea offensive, which was their last chance to break England. Allied aircraft became much better as the war progressed giving the Allies control of the air, another key component in winning on the Western Front.
The War Begins
The war began with Germany executing its Schlieffen Plan, which violated the neutrality of Belgium. The English then entered the war because of this neutrality violation and straight away landed troops in France. Meanwhile, the French were positioning their troops improperly. Under theFrench Plan 17 they planned an immediate attack on the German frontier, thus, inadvertently putting themselves into the German sack. Germany’s generals had changed the Schlieffen Plan by positioning more units on the German frontier where the French attack took place. The French attack suffered heavy losses followed by a retreat. This was not what Schlieffen had wanted. Von Schlieffen placed only a few German troops on the frontier because he wanted them driven back. The French drive would continue if they thought they were winning, making it impossible to reposition their troops fast enough to prevent their encirclement. Critically, since the French attack experienced a bloody repulse, the French units were in position to move swiftly by rail to meet the German advance on Paris. This rapid repositioning of their forces saved France. Quickly retreating Allied units from the Belgian frontier caused confusion near Paris, allowing the German advance to nearly reach the city. But, similar confusion in the German forces resulted in a wide gap between units at a key location on the German front. Allied reconnaissance aircraft spotted the gap near the River Marne, and the British launched an attack into this gap threatening the entire German advance. In a series of engagements on the River Marne the combined French and English forces defeated the Germans and “saved” France in the Miracle of the Marne.
The word “saved” is in quotes because “salvation” meant a long cruel war for France. Millions of additional Frenchmen died due to the Miracle of the Marne. If the German plan had achieved success the war could have been mercifully short thereby saving millions of lives. Until the next war anyway.
Figure 49 The Schlieffen Plan
The German plan failed for many tactical reasons, including: lack of coordination between advancing German armies; stiff resistance by the small, but extremely professional, British Army; too few German troops on the critical right wing; too many German troops at their frontier; the swift repositioning of French frontier forces; the German High Command stripping troops from the right wing for the Eastern Front before concluding the critical encirclement of French forces; the Allied decision to immediately abort French Plan 17 and reposition the troops; the German field commanders allowing a gap to develop between their divisions; the Allies quickly locating the gap with air reconnaissance and immediately attacking into the gap.
The strategic cause of failure: the plan’s timetable proved far too ambitious. The timetable was the plan’s key feature, and if the timetable failed the plan failed. Foot soldiers could not hope to keep the plan’s timetable. After the Germans left their jump-off points they advanced on foot. Marching men trying to cover the given distances faced an impossible task. The heat of summer, the lack of supply transport, stiff resistance by British and French troops, and a lack of coordination made victory, for mere mortals, unattainable. The lack of radio communications made the problem of coordinating movement overwhelming. The plan could solve these concerns only by striking with such crushing force that all problems of coordination, timing, and distance fell before the sheer weight of the assault. If enough troops were available to stop counterattacks, keeping the momentum on the attacker’s side, it might have worked, although it would have taken more than the planned six weeks. Von Schlieffen designed in this extra strength; however, less skillful generals changed the equation by decreasing strength in the attacking armies while increasing defensive strength in the wrong places.[174] After the Germans faltered, the French and English forces counterattacked effectively causing the Germans to withdraw. The Germans entrenched in defensive positions, blocking Allied counterattacks. The entrenchments then lengthened, soon extending from the English Channel to Switzerland, creating the ultimate front without a flank.
Momentarily think on this: if WWI caused WWII, then WWI becomes history’s most important war. Thus, the Schlieffen Plan is history’s most important plan, and the Battle of the Marne the most important battle. The reasoning is flawed due to numerous disconnects, but it is easy to argue the position.[175] By arguing against or for such propositions we gain a better understanding of history. Comparisons deepen understanding.
Stalemate in the West
The Germans failed to destroy France and possessed no plans for this result in the west. The Allied problem was that Germany held a large part of France containing quality resources and many French citizens. The Western Allies reasoned that the Germans could just sit where they were. France could not allow such an outcome, so frontal attacks against well-fortified positions seemed to be a necessity (recall there was no flank). The Germans assumed the same and took pains to deepen and strengthen their positions. For three years, the power of these defenses proved impossible to overcome. [176]
Figure 50 Trench System, from English Army Manual 1914
The Maxim gun, the first reliable machine gun, was a main instrument for trench defense. The machine guns of World War I, invented by H. Maxim (thus the name) in 1884, fired about six hundred rounds per minute (ten rounds per second), and were so heavy it took several men to move, maintain, and shoot them; however, they also decimated attacking troops. The Germans protected their machine guns until the Allied artillery stopped firing, then set up the guns to drench the advancing troops with bullets. The howitzer artillery piece, a defensive and offensive machine, fired a projectile at high angles while out of sight (behind a hill for example) for a long distance. New shells exploded in the air scattering great quantities of fast flying, hot, steel fragments (shrapnel) capable of killing numerous men in an instant. These new machines of war erased men’s lives by the millions as they advanced across the open, muddy, barbed wire covered ground of No Man’s Land.[177]
Following 1914, the Western Front settled into doomed and nightmarish Allied attacks against excellent defensive fortifications held by the Germans. During the next three years, the front hardly moved in spite of countless sacrifices by hundreds of thousands of troops. The Battle of theSomme, a combined British and French attack on German trenches in July 1916, lasted four and one-half months. When the ordeal ended, British casualties totaled approximately 420,000, French 205,000, and German 500,000; and, theattack failed to reach objectives set for the first day. AtVerdun, a million men died, while positions hardly changed.[178] These battles were typical for the Western Front.
the Western Front
The French and British generals, such as Nivelle for France and Haig for Britain, kept frontally attacking the perfectly dug-in Germans. After achieving nothing, and scratching their heads for a moment or two, they demanded more men and attacked just as before, notwithstanding some minor adjustments (more men, more artillery). The next attack will do it, they promised their political overlords; nevertheless, the only difference was higher piles of dismembered dead. Alarmingly similar results hardly worried the military leaders. As shredded bodies and splintered bones piled up civilian governments in England and France began asking their generals embarrassing questions. The responding generals said the Germans were suffering many more casualties than the attacking allies; thus, with each offensive victory grew closer. Liars. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results, these generals qualify as insane. And the political leaders were stupid and timid. Of course, the politicians were being lied to, but they needed to dig out the truth. Widespread incompetence is verified by the politicians accepting the general’s statements without analysis while the grim reaper prospered.
Figure 51 Lack of Movement on Western Front
(Shaded Areas with arrows Show Changes in the Front)
This view of the war is not universal. Numerous historians now take a new view, saying the Allied generals did a good job of trying to cope with a new military situation. They point out the generals changed tactics, increased the bombardment by artillery, fielded new weapons, and perfected new artillery techniques. One technique, the walking barrage, involves falling artillery shells creating a literal moving box of explosions around the advancing troops, protecting them all the way to the enemy trenches. New weapons, like aircraft, helped in observation to better assess enemy capabilities. The invention of tanks, pushed by Winston Churchill, tested by the Royal Navy’s Landships Committee, and fielded in 1916 helped break the stalemate. Meanwhile, by 1918 the Germans invented a new assault technique called infiltration, which entailed the first attackers bypassing enemy strongholds for reduction by follow-on troops. In the last German offensives of the war these methods proved effective, but not war winning. By 1918, the British developedcombined arms tactics which coordinated tanks, artillery, aircraft, and infantry into a team that crashed in unison through the defensive trench networks. Thereafter, they effectively followed up the assault with reserves, achieving deep penetrations into enemy territory. The British tactics were war winning. These combined arms assaults moved the front miles each day instead of yards. Unfortunately, the new techniques were discovered in 1918, which was far too late for most of the men.
There was a collective condemnation of the war at the time, even before the fighting ended. “We saved the world,” proclaimed the Allied generals; however, the surviving troops and grieving families thought otherwise. WWI destroyed the world rather than saved it, and the public knew it. Civilian governments discovered the generals had lied about casualties and the effects of the Allied frontal assaults on Germany. When the war’s trivial causes surfaced an antiwar movement arose condemning the diplomats, government leaders, and generals directing the Western Democracies into such a futile, murderous, and destructive war, and then refusing to end it.
This historical survey adopts the old view that Europe’s leadership was hollow. In defense of this older view, please take note of one fact: On the very last day of the war, after the armistice was signed, with fewer than three hours to go before the war’s end, theAllied generals ordered an attackon German positions causing casualties in excess of ten thousand men. The generals, and the men, knew the war was ending at eleven o’clock that day, but the Allied leaders ordered the assaults to begin at 9:00 AM. German positions scheduled for surrender to the Allies the next day were the targets. The men went forward, as ordered, dying for nothing. The explanation given? Germany’s utter defeat must be proven to them; thus, the large scale assaults had to be made to prove to them they were totally defeated. This is irrational to say the least. The tired, battered, hungry Germans on the front lines needed no additional proof of defeat. Why attack them? Some Germans at home, far beyond the reach of Allied guns, thought defeat came through traitors at home. How was this attack going to convince those Germans of defeat? The fact that a general even contemplated such an assault, much less carried it out, is mind boggling. Of course, the generals safely relaxed miles away as bullets ruptured their soldier’s bodies. This is the proof that the historians new view of the generals is mistaken in the extreme.
These incompetent generals were murderers. Each of these “hero” generals needed a swift hanging. Because such men go unpunished (except by historians) those following them often remain callous towards the lives of their troops. Until their last days on earth, these generals contended they saved the world for democracy, obviously believing their own vapid propaganda.
The Russian Front
In August 1914, the Germans on the Eastern Front faced the realization that the Russians were able to mobilize faster than anyone thought possible. Two massive Russian armies advanced to the frontier while thin lines of Germans maneuvered to stop them. In carrying out the terms of the alliance with France, the Tsar launched an instant offensive against Germany and her partner Austria–Hungary. The German staff received nervous calls for help and, anxious about the unexpected swiftness of the Russian attack, pulled units from the west, consequently reducing German combat power in the advance on Paris. The Germans experienced serious problems in the east for a while, but a new set of German generals arrived and turned the tide. Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorffbecame the team eventually giving the Germans victory over Russia. The costly conquest came with new infiltration methods of assaulting the enemy and a brilliant performance by German troops and their leaders in the field. Hindenburg and Ludendorff’s triumphs earned them promotions, and they eventually earned the command leadership of all Germany’s armies.
The Eastern and Western Fronts are dissimilar because in the east flanks existed. Trenches did not extend continuously across the landscape. This war required maneuvers over huge expanses of land, often in subzero weather. On this front, Austria-Hungary (Austria) engaged Russia along with their German ally; however, the Austrians failed miserably in every endeavor. The Austrians found themselves quickly defeated by Russia in the early battles, and soon threatened with complete defeat. Germany sent troops to their aid. Stretched thin by failure in France, pressure from Russia, and now the need to help Austria, Germany began to falter.
The German problems in the east included the landscape and immense numbers of Russian troops. Russian troops, mostly ill-trained peasants, were tough beyond all imagination. The Czar’s troops withstood endless hardships and continued fighting. Russia’s main problems revolved around leadership and logistics. Russian officers displayed ineptitude of the first order (with some notable exceptions), often throwing soldier’s lives away for little gain. For example, at the start of the war, in battles around Tannenberg, two Russian armies made good ground, threatening to defeat the outnumbered Germans. Unfortunately, the two Russian commanders despised one another and refused to cooperate in their individual advances. Excellent German leadership prevailed, after a narrow escape or two, and defeated each large Russian army separately.
Russia’s poor leadership displayed itself in several ways. Their equipment and supply system often did not hold up when it counted (logistics). The Russians could build up for an offensive well enough, but after the attack started supplies always dwindled quickly. Nonetheless, Russia played a key role in the Alliance, pulling numerous German units away from the Western Front, and often mauling them in the process. Russia wrecked the Austria-Hungarian armed forces causing Germany to expend critical resources in efforts to prop up their faltering ally.
The War at Sea
The war on land and the fight at sea turned against Germany by 1917. At sea, the German East Asian Cruiser Squadron under Admiral Spee won victories in the east and off the coast of South America in 1914 against superior English sea forces, but England swiftly hunted down the German cruisers and hammered them under the waves. Britain immediately initiated a total blockade of Germany, and soon nothing entered the nation, causing German civilians and troops to starve. The British blockade, as invoked, violated international law; nonetheless, this was total war making everything cricket according to the English Navy. At the Battle of Jutland, fought on May 31 to June 1, 1916, the German surface fleet tried to ambush a smaller British force, but ended up being ambushed themselves and nearly destroyed. The British broke the German codes early on and knew of German plans before their execution. Only excellent maneuvering saved the German High Seas Fleet. Since Britain lost more ships than Germany the Kaiser proclaimed victory. Such a claim was pure propaganda. The German fleet never again put to sea in force. All that manpower and firepower sat idle for the rest of the war.
The Germans, in desperation, then turned to submarines, and for a few months huge numbers of English merchant ships plunged to the ocean floor. Over 860,000 tons sank due to enemy action in April of 1917. The German submarine threat virtually ended after England countered with convoys and better underwater detection. Germany’s surface navy failed; thus, Germany would starve. Germany’s undersea navy failed; thus, Britain would not starve. Britain’s propaganda made every German sinking of a neutral ship an act of piracy and a slaughter of innocents by the demon Huns; however, while Britain broadcast German evils thousands of German civilians, including children, died of hunger because of the British blockade. The inability of Germany to make effective use of propaganda overseas hurt its cause immensely. At sea, and in propaganda, the Englishvictory was total.
New Technology
World War I became increasingly vicious. The use of technology for killing saw manifold increases. Germany introduced poison gas to the battlefield (which availed them nothing), being immediately matched by Allied use of poison gas (who likewise achieved nothing). Air power became important for observing and bombing the enemy. Allied troops dug tunnels under the German lines and exploded large mines (which also achieved nothing). At sea, the Germans began unrestricted submarine warfare, often destroying neutral shipping bound for England thus angering the world (not good). Germany used large airships and Gotha bombers to bomb London and Paris (no real impact). Flamethrowers, hand grenades, smaller machine guns, and new artillery shells invented by the warring parties to win the war, only increased the slaughter. Each side hoped to slaughter the other with new technology, but their adversaries quickly picked up the new instruments of war and threw them back into the inventor’s face. All this became increasingly deadly and very expensive. In the final analysis, Allied technology won the war with tanks and airplanes superior to the Central Powers’ and produced in much larger quantities. Tanks were the major land innovation. The Allies thought them up, learned how to best use them, and then produced them in large enough numbers to smash German trench lines. Early on the Germans produced outstanding aircraft, but over time, the Allies produced more and better aircraft, wrestling the skies from the Kaiser. As a result the Allies had better reconnaissance information, and continually harassed the German troops and supply lines bombing and strafing everything that moved. The Allies won with war winning technology combined with new tactics.
Figure 52 Tanks on the Western Front, Vimy 1917
The Eastern Front and Revolution
On the Eastern Front, Russian problems amplified. Inept Russian leadership regularly turned victory into defeat. Russian troops fought with outdated weapons and seldom received supplies of clothing or food needed to keep going. During 1915, Russia suffered 3.8 million casualties, and by 1917 they lost 2.3 million dead and 5 million injured. The government came under intense pressure to do quit, and when they refused the Bolshevik Revolution started in October 1917 overthrowing the Russian Czar, murdering the royal family, and starting a bloody civil war leading to a communist government controlled by Vladimir Lenin (1870 to 1924). The communists sued for peace with Germany. Germany extracted a harsh settlement from Lenin, but he needed Russia out of the war. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed on March 3, 1918, took Russia out of the war and massively increased the power and strategic advantages of the Central Powers.
Other Fronts
Prior to the Russia defeat in 1917, the Allies in the west tried a few adventures to get around the stalemated Western Front by achieving victories elsewhere. Winston Churchill convinced the British government to attack Ottoman Turkey, who joined the Central Powers in November of 1914, to knock the Ottomans out of the war and open a warm-water supply line to Russia through the Bosporus. After a naval expedition failed to breach the straights using ships alone, Churchill decided on an amphibious assault to clear the Turkish forts guarding the passageway. This transpired in 1915 at Gallipoli with Australian and New Zealand troops achieving surprise landings near the Dardanelles; however, lack of aggressive exploitation resulted in a costly stalemate as bad as the Western Front. It became a disaster for the Allies and Churchill. Following a year of suffering, the British withdrew from Turkey after experiencing serious losses in men and ships. Gallipoli cost Britain’s colonials, Australia and New Zealand, 250,000 casualties. Elsewhere, Italian attacks on Austria–Hungary through mountainous terrain failed with terrible losses, and an Allied landing in the Balkans went literally nowhere. The Western Allies then paused. They were at their breaking point. The French Army mutinied in 1917 by refusing to leave their trenches for offensives. They were tired of donkey generals slaughtering them for no purpose. By putting down the mutiny and restoring the French Army General Petain of France saved the Allied cause; nonetheless, Allied troops were exhausted. When Russia quit the war immediate German exploitation might have put France and England on the ropes, but a dreadful German diplomatic move changed everything.
Over in the Middle East, then part of the Turkish Empire (Ottoman Empire), the English General Allenby began changing the world. With Arab help, he marched from Egypt across the Sinai Desert to Jerusalem, defeating the Turks everywhere along the way. Simultaneously, another British army attacked up the Tigris-Euphrates river valley for the second time in the war and finally seized Baghdad. General Allenby then prepared to invade Turkey itself, and the Turks were none too happy about these developments. Earlier in the war, they defeated a British expedition marching up the Tigris-Euphrates river valley and an English incursion launched out of Egypt. Those early victories were long past now, and the Turks worried about the English driving into Istanbul, so they sued for peace. WWI ended shortly after the Turks capitulated; thus, Allenby’s efforts went mostly unrecognized, but he had altered the world dramatically. At Versailles the Ottoman Empire would fade into history as Britain and France divided the old empire between themselves. To this day, the division of the Ottoman Empire made at the Versailles peace talks haunts the world.
Turning Point: The United States of America Enters the War
The United States stayed out of the war, even though the sinking of US ships angered Americans and turned public opinion against Germany. English propaganda played its part by depicting the Germans as beasts murdering innocents.[179] So far, this had failed to persuade the United States to join the fight. Then Germany’s foreign minister, Mr. Zimmerman, committed the ultimate act of idiocy by sending a telegram to Mexico requesting it join the war on the German side by attacking the United States.[180] In return, Mexico would regain areas lost in the Mexican-American war. Naturally, the telegram was in code, but English code breakers had been reading Germany’s code since the war broke out. Now the code breakers gave England the hammer it needed to break American reluctance to enter the war. And, once again, proving the importance of codes. Britain broke the German codes in WWII with similar outstanding results.
When the American public learned of the Zimmerman Telegram they demanded war. America’s president, Woodrow Wilson, campaigned for his second term on a peace platform; however, after the Zimmerman telegram Congress quickly declared war against Germany. Secretly, Wilson wanted to enter the war against the Germans, but American public opinion prevented the move until this moment. The United States of America entered the Great War in April 1917. This was the turning point. Germany faced her doom unless, by some strategy, she could defeat France and England before the Americans managed to arrive in force. With troops from the Russian front, new training in improved infiltration assault techniques, and new leadership at the top of the army (Hindenburg and Ludendorff),[181] and high hopes, the Germans began their last great offensive. The large German assault (series of assaults actually) initially made good headway, but then faltered without achieving even one key aim. The assaults failed because Germany lacked troops and because Ludendorff failed to focus his plan. The Americans soon arrived, turning the tide against Germany for the last time. Interestingly, Ludendorff had failed to establish a plan for what to do if the offensive failed. Just like they had in 1914 the Germans went forward assuming the plan would work even though it was a big gamble. Ludendorff pushed the attacks too far, and scarified too many men in the assaults, probably because the attack had to work. Without an alternate plan he had no other choice.
As Germany starved and scraped the bottom of the manpower barrel it also stumbled in the technological war. The Allies produced tanks (a lot of them), better tactics (combined arms assaults), better aircraft (a lot more of these too), better technology for warfare at sea, more equipment, more spare parts, and better code-breaking methods—just to name a few Allied advantages.
After the last German assault bled to a halt, the Allies took the offensive all along the Western Front. For years, the Germans successfully moved troops from one location to another as each Allied campaign began. [182] Now the Allies attacked everywhere at once, and Germany’s dwindling reserves could not plug every hole. As the German Army retreated, Ludendorff lost his nerve abruptly announcing to the Kaiser that Germany must surrender at once. At the same time, mutinies were taking place in the German Navy and spreading to the populace. The news stunned the Kaiser and German civilian leadership, remembering that only a few weeks ago they were told Germany was opening a war winning offensive. Violent questioning changed nothing, as German military leadership continued to insist on capitulation. The public knew nothing of these behind the scene military and political maneuvers. As the mutinies spread, Wilhelm II abdicated and the armistice was signed; nonetheless, the English blockade continued for months, starving women and children from Germany to Syria for reasons unclear to this day. With each innocent’s death, German hatred grew because of the shortsighted English policy.
The German Army forced the nation’s capitulation, but the Allies failed to enter Germany proper. Later, the myth arose that the German Army was “stabbed in the back” by enemies at home rather than suffering defeat in the field. This myth ballooned to a widespread belief and helped Adolph Hitler rise to power in Germany. Hitler, the man who started World War II, fought bravely in the Great War winning the Iron Cross—very hard for an enlisted man in the Kaiser’s army. His hatred of the French, his condemnation of Germany’s defeat, and the armistice terms of Versailles drove him to start a war to salvage German honor. Some Allied generals, Pershing among them, predicted that unless the Allies marched into Berlin the Germans would not admit defeat and the war would renew itself after a few years. The war did renew itself after a few years, and the new war proved worse than the old; however, the origins of WWII go far beyond an Allied failure to march on Berlin. While the myth dovetailed into post war evils, far greater issues pivoted on an international economic collapse, German economic problems, poor leadership in the West, and poor leadership in Germany that allowed Adolf Hitler to worm his way into power.
Aftermath
(And you thought the war was bad . . .)
The Germans cringed when they received the peace terms, but the Allies ripped at their throat. Germany must sign or be utterly destroyed. Germany was not allowed to enter the peace conference until told, as only the winning nations were allowed to attend. There were no negotiations. Over German protest, especially the clause saying Germany started the war (the War Guilt clause), the French and English battered Germany into signing the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The negotiations between the winning parties over the contents of the treaty were probably the most important in history. Many modern worldwide problems started with the Treaty of Versailles. World War II grew from this document, as well as numerous civil wars. World War I was a grave error for the West, but the Treaty of Versailles compounded and extended the error to future generations. The American Senate, to President Wilson’s dismay, decided against the treaty and the US later signed a separate peace treaty with Germany.
As the Kaiser fled and the German parliament sued for peace, Germany itself faced a left-wing revolution. Communist cells, established all over Europe by the USSR and competing socialists movements, now attempted to take full advantage of the upheaval to gain control of governments in Germany and other troubled European nations, such as the new nations forming from the crumbling Austria-Hungarian Empire. As the German government tottered the streets became scenes of chaos. The starving populace began rioting, and the police strained to maintain order. In the short term, at least a semblance of order paved over smoldering difficulties; however, the future shown none too brightly for Western Europe as the forces of radical change swept the continent. Germany became theWeimar Republic, a weak government struggling to survive after the Great War.
As the war concluded, a horrendous influenza pandemic swept the world in 1918 and 1919 killing about 50 to 100 million people. [183] The influenza exterminating the world probably came from the trenches of World War I, when a normal strain of flu moving through millions of men radically changed in the process. Then infected men took the flu back to their home nations where it became an invisible hurricane killing anyone susceptible. Humanity found no cure, and the killing storm simply exhausted itself as survivors were apparently immune to its effects. The pandemic killed far more people than the war itself.
The Great War’s victims were many. Millions were dead, and billions spent. The Ottoman Empire, destroyed; Austria-Hungary, dismembered; Germany’s overseas colonies, and national territory stripped; German honor, shattered; the French and British populace, decimated; the world’s economy, in torment. The great world of 1900, murdered. European wealth and society was destroyed by stupidity beyond imagination.
Versailles’ Treaty stripped Germany of its army and navy, forced the nation to admit responsibility for the war, and forced its citizens to pay thirty-two billion (in 1919 dollars, much more today) in repatriations to the Allies.[184] The United States refused to ratify the treaty. Woodrow Wilson, the American president negotiating the treaty, sold out everything for his concept of a new organization joining the leading nations of the world in a setting where diplomacy substituted for wars—the League of Nations. Wilson, an idealist, dreamed of the League forming the centerpiece of a world without war. However, the US Senate must ratify US treaties, and the Senate rejected the treaty and the League of Nations. The United States signed a separate peace with Germany, bitterly disappointing the Europeans. The world’s nations went ahead with the League, but America never joined, and the USSR (Russia renamed by the communists)[185] stayed away until 1934. As organized, the League possessed little ability to enforce any rules it might pass, and passing rules was nearly impossible because taking action required a unanimous vote. It became mostly a talking club, and when talking failed the League failed. The Concert of Europe depended on balance of power politics to maintain the peace, and that produced arms races and the Great War. The League would not rely on balance of power politics that it thought caused the great conflagration, and the ideal of a mutual defense against aggression failed to prevent a swift march to a new murderous conflict.
Economic calamity overtook Germany and Europe immediately after the war, with only England and the United States seeming to emerge from the firestorm with something like their old economies intact. An illusion, at best. England spent its national treasure on the war, and it borrowed heavily to sustain itself during the fighting. The German economy launched into hyperinflation where a thousand marks could not buy a loaf of bread. At one point, a million German marks equaled about one US dollar. The United States also spent deeply to enter the war and sustain the fight. Little did the “winning” nations recognize the world economic system sustained enormous strain, and even one misstep by the economic ministers could cause the international system to fail. In fact, several missteps came in the form of higher tariffs, tightening national money supplies, increasing taxation, and more government control over economies (socialism—which resulted in even higher taxes). The world economic system crumbled and the world’s worse depression hit—The Great Depression. With millions out of work; banks failing and taking people’s savings; industry shrinking; production falling; and international trade dying the government bureaucracies choked. Around the world finance ministers seemed unable to deal with the emergency, and the steps governments did take made the Depression worse. From 1929 to 1939, the Depression gripped the world, but the Depression hit hardest in the world’s most industrialized nation—the United States.[186]
In the United States, President Hoover, who took office in 1929, tried to keep wages high, and he approved of recent congressional moves to increase tariff rates substantially. Hoover adopted high government spending to solve the crisis, and he tried many economic moves never tried before. By keeping wages artificially high Hoover caused layoffs in major industries, keeping high tariffs shrank international trade, and high government spending created high taxes taking money away from consumers. PresidentRoosevelt, elected into office in 1933,[187] also desired high wages, did nothing to reduce the towering tariffs, and his administration spent far more than Hoover’s. Roosevelt tried to raise the price of farm products and manufactured goods, he created extensive government works programs, and he raised taxes. This caused fewer goods to be available for purchase and took more money away from private enterprise inhibiting new hiring. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programs did much more harm than good. Recovery from the Great Depression began only after World War II took men out of the workforce as soldiers, and started massive production to fight the war. In fact, some economists claim the recovery did not happen until the 1950s. (See our section on the Great Depression).
As the worldwide economic disaster started, dictators began taking over major nations in Europe and Asia. It seemed capitalism and democracy failed, as shown by the Great War and now the Great Depression. Italy moved to Mussolini as its leader (a dictator) in 1922; Russia came under a brutal dictatorship by 1928 (Stalin); Germany elected Hitler (another dictator) as its leader in 1933, and in Spain Franco became dictator in 1934. The economic tragedy of the Great Depression, caused in large part by WWI, led to a political catastrophe where powerful modern nations fell to cold-blooded dictators. In this fashion, World War I led to World War II. The Great War had changed everything, and everything collapsed quickly.
Some Thoughts on the Great War and the Aftermath
The great problems of the First World War stemmed from the Treaty of Versailles, the enormous debt incurred fighting the war, the massive death toll, the social dislocation, damage to political and economic structures, and the humiliation of the German nation. At the conclusion of any war, especially a momentous war such as WWI, the winning nation(s) must strive to create a peace stabilizing the situation in a fashion that prevents another war. This is winning the peace. The Roman general Scipio Africanus understood the principle of winning the peace, and this was why he made a generous peace with Carthage. Scipio ended the very long and brutal Second Punic War where Hannibal spent sixteen years destroying Italy as well as butchering several Roman legions. Scipio had won a total victory, and burning Carthage to the ground posed no problem—as was later accomplished in the Third Punic War after inferior leaders in Rome destroyed Scipio’s diplomatic triumph. Scipio knew Carthage could become a trading partner and assist Rome in controlling Africa; thus, Scipio designed a peace to avoid further war and bring additional prosperity to Romeand its ancient enemy Carthage.
The drafters of the Versailles Treaty failed to follow Scipio’s example, creating a treaty calculated to crush and humiliate Germany. France intended to stop another war by being so harsh with Germany she could never threaten Europe again; however, by making the Versailles treaty so ruthless the leaders all but guaranteed the next war. The axiom is simple enough to understand: it is not wise to humiliate a great people.[188] By destroying Germany’s wealth through huge repatriations they guaranteed the world additional financial tribulations.[189] The great debt incurred by the warring nations hurt their economies and international trade, but no one saw that by harming Germany’s economy they wounded every economy worldwide. These problems, plus feeble financial decisions by key economic powers in Europe and America, resulted in an economic collapse of epic proportions.
Economically, the world was in a fairly good place in 1900 and the future seemed bright. Democracies or paternal monarchies ruled most of Europe and by extension most of the world. Industrialism brought benefits in new and better products at lower prices while workers earned higher wages. Science helped to advance industry bringing ever improving manufactured goods. (These thoughts are my opinions. Many historians disagree.)
Many observers see things another way. They view the pre-World War I era as one of oppression and imperialism. These people see a world filled with inequality and the desperation of people downtrodden by the Western World and its monopoly on modern weapons. Such spectators perceive the West dissipating wonderful cultures by imposing Western ideas and ideals upon an unwilling populace while using the oppressed people’s natural resources and labor to further enrich super wealthy imperialist capitalists. Imperialism is still a pejorative term today. In fact, imperialism brought a modern way of life to countless people, including medical care, sanitation, increased crop production, increased equality for many (women for example), education, improving economies, and other unqualified enhancements to areas in India, Indochina, China, Africa, and others. It would have taken decades or centuries to achieve this progress without the “curse” of imperialism.
The Western World’s leadership failed miserably after 1900 in numerous clumsy and dim-witted ways. The major failures include: the failure to stop WWI; the failure to end the war once it started; the fundamental failures in drafting the Treaty of Versailles; the destruction of Austria-Hungary; the imposition of huge repatriations on Germany; the imposition of high tariffs that killed international trade; the utter failure to mitigate the Great Depression; the failure to stop Germany’s rearming; and the failure to stop WWII long before it began. The cause of each failure: poor decisions by governments and military leaders. Any of the above occurrences cried out for avoidance. Utter, complete, and total leadership incompetence underpinned these events.
Let Us Learn
The lessons of the First World War are many and complex. For our daily lives we can learn to slow down when making significant decisions, avoid letting pride fog clear thinking about ultimate consequences, think out the “end game” of any significant decision before taking action, and, when involved in a losing situation, cut your losses by getting out immediately. You must also watch for desperate acts by weak people that can cause unusual disruptions and poor decisions.
Tally up what you have and learn how to keep it. One of the first rules of life is avoid destroying what you have in the search for more. Europe in 1914 enjoyed the fruits of hundreds of years of progress. Why they tossed it out is a multifaceted question; nevertheless, we must note the fact that it was thrown away for no reason beyond human pride and stupidity. In your life, keep track of your positives, and remember they entail more than money. Good health is an asset of invaluable worth; thus, keep it safe. Loyal friends are another asset with value beyond measure, learn how to nurture those relationships. A sense of humor holds the key to a happier life. Respect for others should be recognized, acknowledged, and encouraged. Financial security must be planned and then carefully sought after. If financial security is finally achieved, protect and enjoy it.
Europe’s financial bounty in 1912 was beyond compare. Its social interactions were world renowned. The arts, theater, literature, painting, engineering, philosophy, and so much more were at their zenith prior to WWI. All this was destroyed by avarice, fear, distrust, and hatred among world leaders. Leaders must keep what their nations’ have intact and risk its loss only in the most dire circumstances. If Germany backed away from its commitment to Austria-Hungary, would it have been cowardly? Even if it was, would a bad reputation destroy her? Could Russia swallow its pride and allow Serbia to go under? After all, Serbia caused the death of the Archduke. Decisions made in anger or pride are poor decisions. Respond to situations with cold logic. Give yourself time to think before acting. Do not make decisions based on pride as Serbia, Austria, Russia, Germany, France, and perhaps even England did in starting the First World War. Remember what you have and ask if you want to lose it. Even WWI “winners” lost heavily. Keep in mind that winning can include keeping what you have intact. Destroying an enemy while destroying yourself is not winning at all.
Books and Resources on the Great War:
World War I, Keegan, 2000, Vintage Press. Must reading for understanding the great war.
The 11th Month, the 11th day, the 11th Hour, Persico, 2004, Random House. Lets the reader understand the horror of the war as few other books can. It tells the story of the last attacks by the Allies just hours before the war was to end.
World War I, SLA Marshall, is excellent reading.
The First World War, A Complete History, Martin Gilbert,1994, Owl Books.
The Great War (West Point Military History), by W. Griffits, Square One Publishers, 2003.
Cataclysm, The First World War As Political Tragedy, Stevenson, 2004, David, Basic Books, Perseus Book Group.
The Third Reich in Power, Evans, R., Penguin, 2005
Dreadnought, Massy, 1992, Ballantine Books
The World Crisis, 1911-1918, Churchill, 1931, Free Press
Fighting the Great War, a Global History, Neiberg, Michael, Harvard University Press, 2005.
