- History & Society
- Science & Tech
- Biographies
- Animals & Nature
- Geography & Travel
- Arts & Culture
- Games & Quizzes
- On This Day
- One Good Fact
- New Articles
- Lifestyles & Social Issues
- Philosophy & Religion
- Politics, Law & Government
- World History
- Health & Medicine
- Browse Biographies
- Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
- Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
- Environment
- Fossils & Geologic Time
- Entertainment & Pop Culture
- Sports & Recreation
- Visual Arts
- Demystified
- Image Galleries
- Infographics
- Top Questions
- Britannica Kids
- Saving Earth
- Space Next 50
- Student Center
Causes and Effects of World War I
Why Did World War I Happen?
In this free resource on World War I, explore the causes and effects of the Great War to understand how the conflict shaped world history.
Soldiers of the Royal Irish Fusiliers in the trenches on the southern section of Gallipoli Peninsula in 1915.
Source: Ernest Brooks via Australian War Memorial
Perhaps it comes as no surprise, but the 2017 box office hit Wonder Woman took a few creative liberties in its depiction of World War I. For instance, the film portrayed Ares, the god of war, as the evil mastermind behind the conflict. In reality, it was not the gods who pushed humanity toward conflict. World War I was caused by the actions of ordinary people and political leaders. However, World War I was so violent, costly, and traumatic that it is tempting to blame an all-powerful deity bent on humanity’s destruction.
A Short History of World War I
More than twenty countries that controlled territory on six continents would declare war between 1914 and 1918, making World War I (also known as the Great War) the first truly global conflict. On one side, Britain, France, and Russia formed the Triple Entente (also known as the Allied powers or, simply, the Allies). On the other side, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy made up the Triple Alliance (also known as the Central powers). Those alliances, however, were hardly static, and during the war Italy would change sides; the United States, Japan, and many other nations would join the Allied powers; the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria would join the Central powers; and Russia would withdraw altogether due to revolution back home.
Source: Atlas of World History.
By the war’s end in 1918, the Allied powers emerged victorious. However, both sides were left reeling from the scale of the violence. New technologies like chemical gas and long-range artillery drove conflict to cruel new heights. Nine million soldiers died while the civilian death toll likely exceeded ten million. Infectious diseases also ran rampant, fighting leveled infrastructure, and the financial toll of the war was immense. Following the conflict, most of the European continent was left in economic disarray.
In trying to make sense of this death and destruction, one obvious question stands out: Why did World War I break out in what had been a mostly peaceful and prosperous continent?
How did World War I start?
Experts continue to fiercely debate this question. Yes, the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, triggered a series of declarations of war. However many scholars argue that several other factors had been creating the conditions for conflict in Europe for decades prior. As the military historian Liddell Hart wrote, “Fifty years were spent in the process of making Europe explosive. Five days were enough to detonate it.”
This resource explores the factors that led to the outbreak of World War I and how the conflict reshaped society.
Origins of World War I
To understand the origins of World War I, let’s first go back to the early 1800s.
For centuries, a competing patchwork of European empires and kingdoms had waged near-constant war with each other. These conflicts were generally fought over land, colonies, religion, resources, and dynastic rivalries. As a result, the borders within the continent shifted frequently.
However, after the defeat of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who had conquered most of Europe, representatives from several European powers were eager to end the cycle of war. In 1814 and 1815, these representatives met in Vienna to establish a framework for peace.. What emerged was a series of agreements and understandings that ushered in an unusual period of relative stability for the continent. The resulting diplomatic system, known as the Concert of Europe, sought to preserve peace by supporting existing dynasties over revolutionary movements.
With peace at home, Europe enjoyed a century of immense progress and global influence. Technological innovations—like the development of machine production, steel, electricity, and modern chemistry—enriched the continent. Meanwhile, improvements in shipping, railroads, and weapons allowed countries to project their power farther abroad. As a result, Europe’s strongest empires—namely, Belgium, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and, later, Germany, Italy, and Russia— controlled much of the world throughout the nineteenth century.
However, this period of European peace and prosperity would not last forever. Many historians believe things began to unravel in the mid-1800s. The various regional conflicts and wars to unify the countries of Germany and Italy reintroduced costly warfare to the continent. But, unequivocally, Europe’s century of stability had come to a cataclysmic end with World War I.
Let’s explore three factors that brought about this great unraveling.
Three Causes of World War I
The rise of germany.
Following the Napoleonic Wars, Europe experienced a rough balance of power on the continent. In other words, the region’s strongest countries typically avoided massive conflicts with each other. The odds of conflict were mitigated because Europe’s largest powers were fairly equal in strength. This meant that the costs of going to war would almost certainly outweigh any expected benefits.
Initially, the strength of Austria, Britain, and Russia preserved peace and order. Later, Britain and Prussia (which would become part of Germany in 1871) maintained this balance as the continent’s strongest countries. The two nations both had large populations, towering economies, and robust militaries.
However, power dynamics shifted in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
Britain—the world’s largest empire and the biggest naval and economic power—saw its relative strength begin to fade in the mid- to late-1800s. For generations, Britain had enjoyed global primacy through its strong trade ties, unparalleled navy, and sprawling empire. Britain's imperial power provided access to natural resources and markets around the world. However, the costs of maintaining such a vast, globe-spanning empire began to mount. Additionally, by the end of the nineteenth century, rapidly industrializing countries like the United States and Germany began to outcompete Britain. As a result, Britain’s technological and manufacturing edge over the rest of the world faded.
Germany only emerged as an independent country in 1871 when Prussian leader Otto von Bismarck unified the nation. Prior to unification, Germany had been thirty-nine independent states—made up of a group of people fairly unified in language and culture, though not religion—into a single political unit. This new, united Germany would soon become exceedingly wealthy through industrialization . The country quickly began to showcase its power on the global stage through the acquisition of colonies in Africa.
Otto von Bismarck proclaiming German unification in Versailles on January 18, 1871, as depicted in an advertisement for Liebig's Meat Extract, published in 1899.
Source: Culture Club via Getty Images
Although Bismarck worked to preserve peace on the continent by balancing among the other powers, later leaders began to assert German dominance. Notably, historians describe Kaiser Wilhelm II as insecure and arrogant. Wilhelm possessed unbridled ambition to claim Germany’s “place in the sun.” However, his desire to improve Germany’s international standing ultimately translated into recklessness. For example, he abandoned the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in 1890, which led to Russia becoming friendly with France—an old enemy to Germany—and then with Britain.
Wilhelm spoke openly—and belligerently—about his desire for German economic and military supremacy and endeavored to make this vision a reality. In particular, he invested heavily in military spending. Wilhelm hoped to build a navy that could challenge Britain’s globally renowned fleet. This rapid militarization ignited an arms race on the continent, which unsettled Europe’s balance of power.
Nationalism
Nationalism is a powerful force that unites people based on ethnic, linguistic, geographic, or other shared characteristics. In certain contexts, it can serve as a basis of unity, inclusion, and social cohesion for a country. But when taken to extremes, nationalism can fuel violence , division, and global disorder.
In the lead-up to World War I, nationalism fueled intense competition in Europe. The continent’s most powerful countries frequently tried to best each other through their empires, militaries, and technological innovations. Meanwhile, governments, the new mass print media, and schools and universities reinforced messages of each country’s superiority.
With memories of the Napoleonic wars long since faded, countries viewed war as a quick and easy way through which to achieve glory. In fact, some Europeans celebrated the arrival of World War I. Parades and cheering spectators sent off their soldiers to the front lines. Young men rushed to recruiting offices eager not to miss the opportunity to serve. Most people believed that “the boys will be home by Christmas.” Few imagined that the war would drag on for four years in such horrific fashion.
Nationalism unified countries like Britain, France, and Germany—albeit to dangerous extremes. However,the same force also pulled other European empires apart. In particular, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia struggled to promote a cohesive national identity. Given their populations’ vast internal differences along ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious lines, these once-great European empires began to fracture.
In fact, the first shot of World War I—the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria—came at the fault lines of one of those multiethnic empires. Ferdinand’s assassins executed their attack in the name of Slavic nationalism.
Alliance Networks
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand could have remained a small, localized affair. After all, the attack did not directly affect the continent’s greatest forces such as Britain, France, Germany, or even Russia. Rather, it involved two lesser powers: Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
However, European leaders had spent years prior to the assassination constructing a network of alliances. These agreements were built on the promise of collective security, or the idea that an attack on one country would be treated as an attack against the entire alliance.
In theory, those alliances were intended to serve as a deterrent to conflict; a stronger country would be less inclined to attack a weaker one if the latter had the support of a powerful ally. In reality, the alliance networks had the opposite effect. The complex alliance network in Europe expanded local issues into a continent-spanning crisis. Behind Austria-Hungary stood Germany, behind Serbia stood Russia, and behind Russia stood Britain and France.
One week after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II pledged unconditional support to Austria-Hungary, however it chose to respond to the attack. With this so-called blank check assurance, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914. Within days, France, Germany, and Russia announced their own cascading declarations of war.
A 1912 political cartoon depicting the web of alliances that led to World War I.
Source: Nelson Harding/Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Thus, Europe marched toward war—or, rather, as one historian describes the consequences of careless decision making, the continent found itself “sleepwalking” its way to World War I.
How did World War I change the world?
World War I was incredibly destructive. But perhaps most tragic of all, the “war to end all wars'' ultimately did nothing of the sort. Historians assert that both the conflict and its aftermath sowed the seeds for a second—and even deadlier—world war just two decades later.
Although World War I did not curtail future conflict, it nevertheless transformed society across the United States, Europe, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa. Let’s explore a few examples:
New Age of Warfare: World War I ushered in a new age of lethal military technology. These military innovations include landmines, flamethrowers, submarines, tanks, and fighter planes. Aerial photography allowed both sides to create sophisticated maps of their opponents’ positions. Long-range artillery gave soldiers the ability to shoot at enemies they could not see. And the introduction of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical gas, were used to break through the dug-in stalemates of trench warfare. The scale and severity of such combat led tens of thousands of veterans to experience debilitating psychological trauma. This condition, then known as shell shock, is now commonly referred to as post-traumatic stress disorder.
In addition, although previous wars were largely confined to the battlefield, World War I was a “total war.” The conflict saw the complete erosion of the distinction between civilian and military targets. Germany, for example, used submarines to attack civilian ships and used airships known as zeppelins to bomb cities in Britain. The war also featured mass killings and expulsions of particular ethnic groups. For example, Armenians were violently excluded from the Ottoman Empire, a practice that many scholars would later term genocide .
Senate Sergeant at Arms Charles Higgins turns forward the Ohio Clock for the first Daylight Saving Time, while Senators William Calder (NY), William Saulsbury, Jr. (DE), and Joseph T. Robinson (AR) look on in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. in 1918.
Source: Library of Congress.
Innovations Beyond the Battlefield: In addition to new forms of weaponry, many medical practices and common household items have their origins in war. During World War I, doctors began using sodium citrate to stop blood from clotting. Doctors also performed some of the first successful skin grafts, which paved the way for modern plastic surgery. Additionally, the invention of splints greatly reduced the lethality of certain injuries: before the war, four out of every five soldiers with a broken femur died; after the introduction of the splint, four out of every five survived.
The Great War also led to the development of Kotex, one of the first branded sanitary products (used as a cheaper and more absorbent wartime alternative to cotton bandages), the popularization of exercises like pilates (invented by a captured German bodybuilder to stay fit), and the rise in print cartoons (used both as military propaganda and to help civilians and veterans process the horrors of war).
Daylight Saving Time : Daylight saving time (DST) was developed during World War I to conserve energy and free up more daylight hours for battle. Although DST was meant to be a temporary fix, essays dating back decades argued for its implementation; in 1794, Benjamin Franklin made the case in financial (candle cost-savings), productivity (longer workdays), and moral (a remedy for laziness) terms. Although most of the world repealed DST when the first World War ended, World War II led to its quick re-adoption. DST was popularized as a long-term solution following the end of that conflict decades later. The year-round DST we observe in the United States was introduced in the winter of 1973 amidst a global energy crisis.
Vegetarian Sausage : : Before World War I, these modern grocery store staples didn’t exist. Vegetarian sausage was created in sausage-loving Germany during the war as a cheap way to add protein to meals amidst frequent food shortages. Cologne’s then-mayor Konrad Adenauer made his Kölner Wurst or “Cologne sausage” using soya, flour, corn, barley, and ground rice. Despite its use in wartime, the sausages were infamously bland. Meat substitutes available today have made big gains in texture and taste but rely on many of the same ingredients from Adenauer’s original recipe.
Plastic Surgery : Before World War I, people who experienced disfiguring wounds had limited options to choose from. However, as the number and magnitude of facial disfigurations skyrocketed among soldiers fighting in the First World War, the medical community worked quickly to invent reconstruction procedures. Dr. Harold Gillies is credited with the idea to use patients’ own facial tissue to decrease the chance of transplant rejection, leading to rapid innovation in the field of plastic surgery. Following this innovation, treatment capabilities ranged from successful skin grafts to the first sex reassignment surgeries.
Everyday Words and Phrases : Next time you “ace” a test, unexpected news leaves you “shell shocked,” or that highly anticipated movie turns out to be a “dud,” you’re using language directly handed down from wartime. From World War I, English gained words like “lousy,” which transformed from an adjective to describe lice infestations to mean weary. The British also refashioned the term“trench coat,” which transitioned from battlefield necessity to universal fashion statement. World War II added household brands Spam (a mashup of “spiced” and “ham”) and Jeep (from the initials GP, which described its wartime roots as a general purpose vehicle). The global entanglement also created a melting pot of cultural ideas and terms. For example, describing something comfortable or privileged as “cushy,” is a direct contribution to the English language from Indian troops who fought alongside the British in World War I.
Wristwatches : Before we could check the time with the phones in our pockets, most people had to dig out their pocket watch to accomplish this essential task. That proved to be quite inconvenient for soldiers in the trenches, who were also operating without church bells and factory whistles to orient themselves in time. Wristwatches, the obvious solution to this problem, were seen as feminine accessories before World War I, a perception that changed rapidly as they became a crucial part of soldiers’ gear. The phrase “synchronize your watches” came to symbolize their importance on the battlefield where fighting had to be precisely scheduled and timing was a vital tool for communication and survival.
Newsreels : The advent of the twenty-four-hour news cycle stems from one of the earliest forms of broadcast: newsreels. Without televisions, cell phones, or social media, people would line up at movie theaters to watch hour-long loops of news and entertainment features. Early video cameras were bulky, so newsreels rarely included war reporting at the start of World War I. Instead, early war news covered parades, sports events, and cultural moments like royal weddings. Yet as the war progressed and the public hungered for updates, newsreels began to include footage from the conflict. Video cameras produced unprecedented imagery for the time, including the launch of military ships, civilians fleeing their villages, prisoners of war , and cratered battlefields. Video documentation led to a new awareness about wartime destruction.
A group of cameramen filming an event in June 1916.
Source: Topical Press Agency via Getty Images.
Changing Roles for Women: As Europe’s militaries sent millions of men to the front lines, women played an increasingly important role in professional life back home.
Thousands of women gained a taste of personal and financial independence as they staffed factories, offices, and farms to support the war effort. Pointing to these valuable contributions, women’s rights groups successfully lobbied for suffrage (voting rights) in numerous countries between 1917 and 1920. (Workers’ rights groups also highlighted these efforts—from both men and women—to push for stronger unions and greater collective bargaining power).
Women’s fashion even changed during the war too. Metal shortages led governments to ask women to stop buying corsets, leading to the creation of brassieres. And as more women began to work outside the home, they increasingly adopted factory-safe attire such as pants.
Certainly not all women experienced economic advancement during this time. World War I widowed at least three million women. As a result, these women were left to face extreme financial hardship after the conflict.
Rise and Fall of Powers: The end of World War I marked a shift in global powers. The war culminated with the fall of major empires, such as the Ottoman Empire, and the rise of a new global power, the United States .
Source: National Geographic.
The End of World War I
World War I brought about the collapse of four empires: the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian.
In many cases, the victors of World War I absorbed territory from those former empires. Britain and France carved up land belonging to the Ottoman Empire. Meanwhile, Germany was forced to cede its colonies in Africa and the Pacific as part of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. This peace treaty set the terms for the end of World War I in 1919. The breakup of these empires also resulted in the creation of new countries in Europe such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in addition to the reemergence of old ones like Poland.
With World War I leaving even Europe’s victors badly weakened, the global center of power began shifting across the Atlantic to the United States. Even before the war, the United States had surpassed Britain to become the world’s strongest economy. After the war, the United States emerged in an even more powerful position. In 1919, Washington was uniquely situated to shape the new international order. However, the nation balked at the opportunity, as the American public was largely uninterested in international leadership at the time. Instead,the country retreated into a period of isolationism.
It would take a second world war two decades later for the United States to fully become the global power it is today.
- History Classics
- Your Profile
- Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
- This Day In History
- History Podcasts
- History Vault
World War I Battles: Timeline
By: History.com Editors
Updated: July 18, 2024 | Original: April 8, 2021
For four years, from 1914 to 1918, World War I raged across Europe's western and eastern fronts after growing tensions and then the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria ignited the war . Trench warfare and the early use of tanks, submarines and airplanes meant the war’s battles were devastatingly bloody, claiming an estimated 40 million military and civilian casualties, including 20 million deaths. Fighting under brutal conditions, World War I battles on both land and at sea saw mass carnage, but few decisive victories, with some conflicts waging for months on end. Below is a timeline of the war's most significant battles.
Battle of Mons: August 23, 1914
The first European clash since 1815’s Battle of Waterloo, the Battle of Mons takes place in Mons, Belgium, with a British Expeditionary Force that numbers about 75,000 fighting an estimated 150,000 Germans in an attempt to hold the Mons-Conde Canal. In the final of four “Battles of the Frontier” held in the first weeks of World War I, the British forces are overpowered and forced to retreat, handing the Germans a strategic victory. Some 1,600 British and 5,000 Germans casualties are reported.
Battle of Tannenberg: August 26-August 30, 1914
Dubbed the Battle of Tannenberg by the victorious Germans in revenge for the 1410 conflict in which the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights, this would be the country’s biggest win against Russia along the Eastern Front. The battle begins with Russian armies attacking German troops in German East Prussia (now Poland) from the south and the east, which, at first, works. But after intercepting unencrypted radio messages from the Russians, the Germans are able to reorganize their strategy, forcing the Russians into retreat. The Germans pursued the Russians, essentially annihilating the armies with 30,000 casualties and more than 90,000 taken prisoner.
First Battle of the Marne: September 6-12, 1914
The First Battle of the Marne marks an Allied victory about 30 miles northeast of Paris, where the French army and British Expeditionary Force stop Germany’s swift advance into France. With an exhausted and weakened German force that had sent nearly a dozen divisions to fight in East Prussia and Belgium, the German First Army faces a counterattack and is forced to retreat to the Lower Aisne River, where the first trench warfare of the conflict begins.
First Battle of Ypres: October 19 to November 22, 1914
In what would become known as the “Race to the Sea,” the First Battle of Ypres begins, the first of three battles to control the ancient Flemish city on Belgium’s north coast that allows access to English Channel ports and the North Sea. The massive conflict—involving an estimated 600,000 Germans and 420,000 Allies—continues for three weeks until brutal winter weather brings it to an end. Typical of so many World War I battles, both sides engage in trench warfare and suffer massive casualties, but neither makes significant gains.
Battle of Dogger Bank: January 24, 1915
After decoding intercepted German messages , the British Grand Fleet attacks the German Kaiserliche Marine in the North Sea, sparking the Battle of Dogger Bank . The smaller German squadron retreats, but can’t outrun the British. Long-range gunfire ensues but while the German SMS Blücher cruiser is sunk, the British HMS Lion is severely damaged.
Battle of Verdun: February 21 to December 18, 1916
The Battle of Verdun becomes World War I’s longest single battle . It lasts nearly a year as the French Army fends off a surprise German offensive that causes mass losses on both sides, with more than 600,000 total casualties.
In an attempt to cripple France’s part in the war and cause a massive blow to its army’s morale, the Germans choose to attack the fort of Verdun, along the banks of the Meuse River. The Germans make advances in the bloody conflict until July when their offensive is called off. The French then begin retaking the stronghold and, as winter sets in and the first Battle of the Somme rages, the Verdun fighting finally comes to an end.
Battle of Gallipoli: February 19, 1915, to January 9, 1916
In modern warfare’s first major beach landing, the Gallipoli Campaign sees British and French troops invading the Ottoman Empire at the peninsula of Gallipoli in the Dardanelles Straits (now western Turkey). The invasion is an effort to control the sea route and seize Constantinople. With Western Front fighting stalled, the Ally forces intend the attack to be a swift victory, but ultimately withdraw, suffering some 180,000 casualties, including more than 28,000 Australian soldiers.
Battle of Jutland: May 31 to June 1, 1916
World War I’s biggest naval conflict, the Battle of Jutland off the coast of Denmark marks the first and only showdown between German and British battleships. After German forces attack the Royal Navy, 250 ships and 100,000 men take part in the bloody fight, with both sides losing thousands of lives and several ships. Although there is no clear victor, Britain is able to secure North Sea shipping lanes and continue a blockade of German ports. This blockade proves pivotal to the Allies eventually winning the war.
Battle of the Somme: July 1 to November 13, 1916
During one of history's bloodiest battles, on the first day alone of the first Battle of the Somme , British forces suffer more than 57,000 casualties, including 20,000 deaths, as they attempt to overrun German trenches and are easily gunned down.
The Allies soon change tactics in their attempt to fight back the Germans on the Western Front along the Somme River in France, but make minimal breakthroughs over a nearly five-month period. Notable for the firsts use of tanks, the battle finally ends with more than a million casualties.
Battles of the Isonzo: June 23, 1915 to October 24, 1917
The 12 battles held along the Italian Front at the Isonzo River at the Adriatic Sea (now part of Slovenia), see the Italians repeatedly attacking the Austrians to gain control of the area and entry to Vienna. After Italy makes some progress after multiple failed attempts, Germany eventually joins the Austrian troops, forcing Italy into retreat.
Third Battle of Ypres: July 31 to November 6, 1917
Also known as the Third Battle of Ypres, the Battle of Passchendaele takes place in Ypres, Belgium, as British forces, with help from the French and the use of tanks, launch an attack to wrest control of Ypres from the Germans. Attacks and counterattacks ensue for four months in the rain and mud, with Canadian forces brought in to help relieve the troops but little ground being won. In the end, it is considered a victory for the Allies, with but one that costs both sides more than 550,000 casualties.
Battle of Vimy Ridge: April 9-Apr 12, 1917
In its first attack as a unified force, the Canadian Corps , consisting of the four Canadian divisions, launches an Easter Sunday offensive at Vimy Ridge in northern France, claiming a quick and decisive victory over the Germans in three days. Part of the Allied Battle of Arras, the well-planned battle uses new artillery tactics and marks the corps as an elite force.
June Offensive: July 1-July 4, 1917
In an attack by Russian forces against the Austro-Hungarians and Germans in Galicia, the June Offensive (also called the Kerensky Offensive and the July Offensive) operation takes place, ordered by Russian Minister of War Alexander Kerensky against the nation's popular calls for peace. Despite early gains, Russian troops suffer mass casualties and soon revolt. They are quickly overtaken by an Austro-German counterattack and the Russian army essentially disintegrates.
Battle of Caporetto: October 24 to December 19, 1917
Immortalized by Ernest Hemingway 's A Farewell to Arms , the Battle of Caporetto , also called the 12th Battle of the Isonzo, is waged on the Italian Front near Kobarid (now part of Slovenia). German and Austro-Hungarian forces soundly defeat the Italian front line, resulting in nearly 700,000 Italian casualties and seriously diminishing morale.
World War I Alliances
In the years leading up to WWI, a series of agreements between the powers of Europe helped determine where and when battlelines were drawn.
Bet You Didn’t Know: Trench Warfare
From the War Between the States to the Western Front, get the full story on how trench warfare changed the battlefield.
Deconstructing History: U‑Boats
These deadly German submarines dominated the waters in both WWI and WWII.
Battle of Cambrai: November 20 to December 5, 1917
In World War I's first large-scale tank offensive, the Battle of Cambrai near Cambrai, France, ultimately gains little ground, but changes the course of modern warfare with the use of tank brigades and new artillery methods.
On November 20, British forces engage in a surprise attack, gaining some new territory over the next several days. But on November 30, a massive German counterattack results in most of that ground being recovered.
Second Battle of the Somme: March 21 to April 5, 1918
Fought along the Somme River basin in France, the Second Battle of the Somme is launched by the Germans, hoping to capitalize on the Russian army's collapse and attacking British trenches with gas and artillery fire. The British are forced into retreat and the Germans win their biggest single territorial gain along the Western Front since the war's onset. But within a week the Allies regroup and the German offensive begins to lose steam and is eventually halted .
Ludendorff Offensive March 21 to July 18, 1918
Also known as the Ludendorff Offensive, the 1918 Spring Offensive begins with the Germans launching a string of attacks along the Western Front in hopes of winning the war before U.S. troops can join the Allies. Despite making successful advances in four attacks, the territory they retake or newly control doesn’t lead to strategic gains. With the American forces arriving in July, a counteroffensive and exhausted soldiers, the Germans, while claiming victory, are badly weakened.
Second Battle of the Marne: July 15-18, 1918
In their last offensive attack of the war, the Germans strike Ally troops near the Marne River in France's Champagne region in a diversionary attempt to lure them from a separate planned attack in Flanders. But fooled by a set of false trenches implemented by the French, the Germans are met by heavy fire and a counterattack by French and American troops as they approach the actual front lines and are forced to retreat.
6 Key World War I Battles Fought in Africa
Battles in Africa were waged between colonial powers, but most of those compelled to fight were conscripted Africans.
How Imperialism Set the Stage for World War I
Many of the powers in World War I were competitive in overtaking territories in Europe and Africa.
How Airplanes Were Used in World War I
Even though airplanes were a relatively new invention, the race for air superiority started during World War I.
Battle of Amiens: August 8-11, 1918
The opening attack of what would be come to be called the Hundred Days Offensive, the Battle of Amiens sees one of the most successful advances of World War I, with Allied troops securing more than eight miles in the conflict’s first fog-covered day, later called "the black day of the German Army" by General Erich Ludendorff. Catching the Germans by surprise, the Allies attack with the help of 2,000 guns, 1,900 planes and 500 tanks, causing large-scale German casualties and a fatal blow to morale.
Battles of the Meuse-Argonne: September 26 to November 11, 1918
More than 1 million American soldiers take part in the Battles of the Meuse-Argonne in France's dense Forest of Argonne and along the Meuse River, making it the American Expeditionary Forces' biggest World War I operation. It would leave 26,000 Americans dead , with 120,000-plus casualties—the deadliest battle in U.S. history. Joined by the French and aided by tanks and U.S. Air Service planes, the Allies capture tens of thousands of German prisoners and, after four months, Germany finally cedes, beginning its last retreat.
Battle of Cambrai: September 27 to October 11, 1918
As part of the Hundred Days Offensive, British and Canadian Corps forces strike a decisive victory in Cambrai in northern France, which had been held by Germany since 1914. Surrounded, exhausted and with disintegrating morale, the Germans face the certainty that the war has been lost.
Battle of Mons: November 11, 1918
Fought on World War I's final day, the Canadian Corps captures Mons, Belgium, held by the Germans since 1914, in the Battle of Mons . The early morning offensive happens hours before troops learn that Germany has agreed to an armistice at 11 a.m. It also marks the final death of an Allied soldier, a Canadian shot by a sniper minutes before the gunfire ends.
HISTORY Vault: World War I Documentaries
Stream World War I videos commercial-free in HISTORY Vault.
Sign up for Inside History
Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.
By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.
More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us
Visit the new and improved Hamilton Education Program website
- AP US History Study Guide
- History U: Courses for High School Students
- History School: Summer Enrichment
- Lesson Plans
- Classroom Resources
- Spotlights on Primary Sources
- Professional Development (Academic Year)
- Professional Development (Summer)
- Book Breaks
- Inside the Vault
- Self-Paced Courses
- Browse All Resources
- Search by Issue
- Search by Essay
- Become a Member (Free)
- Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
- Program Information
- Scholarships and Financial Aid
- Applying and Enrolling
- Eligibility (In-Person)
- EduHam Online
- Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
- Official Website
- Press Coverage
- Veterans Legacy Program
- The Declaration at 250
- Black Lives in the Founding Era
- Celebrating American Historical Holidays
- Browse All Programs
- Donate Items to the Collection
- Search Our Catalog
- Research Guides
- Rights and Reproductions
- See Our Documents on Display
- Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
- Interactive Exhibitions Online
- About the Transcription Program
- Civil War Letters
- Founding Era Newspapers
- College Fellowships in American History
- Scholarly Fellowship Program
- Richard Gilder History Prize
- David McCullough Essay Prize
- Affiliate School Scholarships
- Nominate a Teacher
- State Winners
- National Winners
- Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
- Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
- George Washington Prize
- Frederick Douglass Book Prize
- Our Mission and History
- Annual Report
- Contact Information
- Student Advisory Council
- Teacher Advisory Council
- Board of Trustees
- Remembering Richard Gilder
- President's Council
- Scholarly Advisory Board
- Internships
- Our Partners
- Press Releases
History Resources
Historical Context: The Global Effect of World War I
By steven mintz.
A recent list of the hundred most important news stories of the twentieth century ranked the onset of World War I eighth. This is a great error. Just about everything that happened in the remainder of the century was in one way or another a result of World War I, including the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, World War II, the Holocaust, and the development of the atomic bomb. The Great Depression, the Cold War, and the collapse of European colonialism can also be traced, at least indirectly, to the First World War.
World War I killed more people--more than 9 million soldiers, sailors, and flyers and another 5 million civilians--involved more countries--28--and cost more money--$186 billion in direct costs and another $151 billion in indirect costs--than any previous war in history. It was the first war to use airplanes, tanks, long range artillery, submarines, and poison gas. It left at least 7 million men permanently disabled.
World War I probably had more far-reaching consequences than any other proceeding war. Politically, it resulted in the downfall of four monarchies--in Russia in 1917, in Austria-Hungary and Germany in 1918, and in Turkey in 1922. It contributed to the Bolshevik rise to power in Russia in 1917 and the triumph of fascism in Italy in 1922. It ignited colonial revolts in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia.
Economically, the war severely disrupted the European economies and allowed the United States to become the world's leading creditor and industrial power. The war also brought vast social consequences, including the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey and an influenza epidemic that killed over 25 million people worldwide.
Few events better reveal the utter unpredictability of the future. At the dawn of the 20th century, most Europeans looked forward to a future of peace and prosperity. Europe had not fought a major war for 100 years. But a belief in human progress was shattered by World War I, a war few wanted or expected. At any point during the five weeks leading up to the outbreak of fighting the conflict might have been averted. World War I was a product of miscalculation, misunderstanding, and miscommunication.
No one expected a war of the magnitude or duration of World War I. At first the armies relied on outdated methods of communication, such as carrier pigeons. The great powers mobilized more than a million horses. But by the time the conflict was over, tanks, submarines, airplane-dropped bombs, machine guns, and poison gas had transformed the nature of modern warfare. In 1918, the Germans fired shells containing both tear gas and lethal chlorine. The tear gas forced the British to remove their gas masks; the chlorine then scarred their faces and killed them.
In a single day at the Battle of the Somme in 1916, 100,000 British troops plodded across no man's land into steady machine-gun fire from German trenches a few yards away. Some 60,000 were killed or wounded. At the end of the battle, 419,654 British men were killed, missing, or wounded.Four years of war killed a million troops from the British Empire, 1.5 million troops from the Hapsburg Empire, 1.7 million French troops, 1.7 million Russians, and 2 million German troops. The war left a legacy of bitterness that contributed to World War II twenty-one years later.
Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.
Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.
- Teaching Resources
- Upcoming Events
- On-demand Events
The Brutal Realities of World War I
- Human & Civil Rights
- The Holocaust
- facebook sharing
- email sharing
Combat and the Colonies: the Role of Race in World War I
In August 1914, both sides expected a quick victory. Neither leaders nor civilians from warring nations were prepared for the length and brutality of the war, which took the lives of millions by its end in 1918. The loss of life was greater than in any previous war in history, in part because militaries were using new technologies, including tanks, airplanes, submarines, machine guns, modern artillery, flamethrowers, and poison gas.
The map below shows the farthest advances of Central and Allied forces on the fronts to the west, east, and south of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Most of the war's major battles took place between those lines of farthest advance on each front. Germany’s initial goal was to knock the French out of the war by occupying Belgium and then quickly march into France and capture Paris, its capital. German troops could then concentrate on the war in the east. That plan failed, and by the end of 1914, the two sides were at a stalemate. Before long, they faced each other across a 175-mile-long line of trenches that ran from the English Channel to the Swiss border. These trenches came to symbolize a new kind of warfare. A young officer named Harold Macmillan (who later became prime minister of Britain) explained in a letter home:
Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the modern battlefield is the desolation and emptiness of it all. . . . Nothing is to be seen of war or soldiers—only the split and shattered trees and the burst of an occasional shell reveal anything of the truth. One can look for miles and see no human being. But in those miles of country lurk (like moles or rats, it seems) thousands, even hundreds of thousands of men, planning against each other perpetually some new device of death. Never showing themselves, they launch at each other bullet, bomb, aerial torpedo, and shell. And somewhere too . . . are the little cylinders of gas, waiting only for the moment to spit forth their nauseous and destroying fumes. And yet the landscape shows nothing of all this—nothing but a few shattered trees and 3 or 4 thin lines of earth and sandbags; these and the ruins of towns and villages are the only signs of war anywhere. The glamour of red coats—the martial tunes of fife and drum—aide-de-camps scurrying hither and thither on splendid chargers—lances glittering and swords flashing—how different the old wars must have been. The thrill of battle comes now only once or twice in a [year]. We need not so much the gallantry of our fathers; we need (and in our Army at any rate I think you will find it) that indomitable and patient determination which has saved England over and over again. 1
The area between the opposing armies’ trenches was known as “No Man's Land” for good reason. Fifty years after the war, Richard Tobin, who served with Britain’s Royal Naval Division, recalled how he and his fellow soldiers entered No Man’s Land as they tried to break through the enemy’s line. “As soon as you got over the top,” he told an interviewer, “fear has left you and it is terror. You don’t look, you see. You don’t hear, you listen. Your nose is filled with fumes and death. You taste the top of your mouth. . . . You’re hunted back to the jungle. The veneer of civilization has dropped away.” 2
Unlike the war on Germany’s western front, the war on the eastern front was a war of rapid movement. Armies repeatedly crisscrossed the same territories. Civilians were frequently caught in the crossfire, and millions were evacuated from their homes and expelled from territories as armies approached. On both sides of the conflict, many came to believe that what they were experiencing was not war but “mass slaughter.” A private in the British army explained, “If you go forward, you’ll likely be shot, if you go back you’ll be court-martialed and shot, so what the hell do you do? What can you do? You just go forward.” 3
The carnage was incomprehensible to everyone, as millions of soldiers and civilians alike died. Historian Martin Gilbert details the loss of life:
More than nine million soldiers, sailors and airmen were killed in the First World War. A further five million civilians are estimated to have perished under occupation, bombardment, hunger and disease. The mass murder of Armenians in 1915 [see reading, Genocide Under the Cover of War ], and the [Spanish] influenza epidemic that began while the war was still being fought, were two of its destructive by-products. The flight of Serbs from Serbia at the end of 1915 was another cruel episode in which civilians perished in large numbers; so too was the Allied naval blockade of Germany, as a result of which more than three-quarters of a million German civilians died. 4
The chart below provides estimates of the number of soldiers killed, wounded, and reported missing during World War I. Exact numbers are often disputed and are nearly impossible to determine for a variety of reasons. Different countries used different methods to count their dead and injured, and some methods were more reliable than others. Records of some countries were destroyed during the war and its aftermath. Also, some countries may have changed the number of casualties in their official records for political reasons. The numbers of civilians from each country killed during the war are even more difficult to estimate. The numbers in the chart reflect the estimates made by most historians today (see reading, Negotiating Peace in Chapter 3).
World War I Casualties
Total Mobilized Forces | Killed or Died* | Wounded | Prisoners or Missing | Total Casualties | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Russia | 12,000,000 | 1,700,000 | 4,950,000 | 2,500,000 | 9,150,000 |
British Empire | 8,904,467 | 908,371 | 2,090,212 | 191,652 | 3,190,235 |
France | 8,410,000 | 1,357,800 | 4,266,000 | 537,000 | 6,160,800 |
Italy | 5,615,000 | 650,000 | 947,000 | 600,000 | 2,197,000 |
United States | 4,734,991 | 116,516 | 204,002 | — | 320,518 |
Japan | 800,000 | 300 | 907 | 3 | 1,210 |
Romania | 750,000 | 335,706 | 120,000 | 80,000 | 535,706 |
Serbia | 707,343 | 45,000 | 133,148 | 152,958 | 331,106 |
Canada | 424,000 | 59,694 | 172,000 | 3,800 | 61,082 |
Belgium | 267,000 | 13,716 | 44,686 | 34,659 | 93,061 |
Greece | 230,000 | 5,000 | 21,000 | 1,000 | 27,000 |
Portugal | 100,000 | 7,222 | 13,751 | 12,318 | 33,291 |
Montenegro | 50,000 | 3,000 | 10,000 | 7,000 | 20,000 |
TOTALS | 42,612,810 | 5,211,809 | 13,003,004 | 4,124,890 | 22,165,291 |
Total Mobilized Forces | Killed or Died* | Wounded | Prisoners or Missing | Total Casualties | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Germany | 11,000,000 | 1,773,700 | 4,216,058 | 1,152,800 | 7,142,558 |
Austria-Hungary | 7,800,000 | 1,200,000 | 3,620,000 | 2,200,000 | 7,020,000 |
Turkey | 2,850,000 | 325,000 | 400,000 | 250,000 | 975,000 |
Bulgaria | 1,200,000 | 87,500 | 152,390 | 27,029 | 266,919 |
TOTALS | 22,850,000 | 3,386,200 | 8,388,448 | 3,629,829 | 15,404,477 |
Total Mobilized Forces | Killed or Died* | Wounded | Prisoners or Missing | Total Casualties | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Allied Powers | 42,612,810 | 5,211,809 | 13,003,004 | 4,124,890 | 22,165,291 |
Central Powers | 22,850,000 | 3,386,200 | 8,388,448 | 3,629,829 | 15,404,477 |
Grand Totals | 65,462,810 | 8,598,009 | 21,391,452 | 7,754,719 | 37,569,768 |
- 1 Quoted in Mike Webb and Hew Strachan, From Downing Street to the Trenches: First-hand Accounts from the Great War, 1914–1916 (Oxford: Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, 2014), 180–81.
- 2 Quoted in Jasper Copping, “Unseen interviews with WW1 veterans recount the horror of the trenches,” The Telegraph , March 6, 2014, accessed May 4, 2016.
- 3 Quoted in Jonathan Glover, Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century , 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012), 157.
- 4 Martin Gilbert, The First World War: A Complete History (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1994), xv
World War I in Europe and the Middle East
World War I was fought between the Central powers and the Allied powers simultaneously on several fronts in western Europe, eastern Europe, and the Middle East.
Connection Questions
- How was war different in World War I? Why did this war result in so many casualties?
- How did the reality of combat in World War I compare to the beliefs and attitudes many Europeans had about war before fighting broke out?
- What did Richard Tobin mean by his statement, “The veneer of civilization has dropped away”?
- How would you describe the mood and tone of the voices of soldiers quoted in this reading?
Get the Reading
- document The Brutal Realities of World War I – PDF
- document The Brutal Realities of World War I – Doc
How to Cite This Reading
Facing History & Ourselves, “ The Brutal Realities of World War I ”, last updated August 2, 2016.
You might also be interested in…
Dismantling democracy (uk), the holocaust - bearing witness (uk), the holocaust - the range of responses (uk), how should we remember (uk), justice and judgement after the holocaust (uk), kristallnacht (uk), race and space (uk), the rise of the nazi party (uk), the roots and impact of antisemitism (uk), the weimar republic (uk), youth in nazi germany (uk), teaching holocaust and human behaviour (uk), inspiration, insights, & ways to get involved.
What are you looking for?
How did wwi reshape the modern world.
A hundred years after the end of the war to end all wars, USC experts discuss its surprising impact and how it affects us even today
One hundred years ago Sunday, the Allies and Germany agreed to an armistice ending World War I. The Great War claimed 40 million lives but also serves as an unexpected pivot point for modern civilization.
World War I is an amazingly important and underappreciated moment in history, said Nicholas J. Cull , historian in the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
The war ended when people were able to articulate a vision of the future, an optimism about how things were going to be better with nations working together.
The war also rewrote the world map. Russia quit the war as domestic unrest triggered the Bolshevik revolution, rise of Communism and the Cold War. The Middle East changed with the defeat of Turkey and Britains pledge for a Jewish state in Palestine. The Western powers, fatigued by war, yielded to isolationism and appeasement as the Third Reich emerged, triggering World War II and the Holocaust.
Impact of World War I on medical care
Another thing forever changed by the war: medicine.
Prior to WWI, most of the medicine practiced around the world was fairly archaic, said Carl Chudnofsky , chair and professor of clinical emergency medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC.
The best physicians and researchers were in the military … so that led to great discoveries that made a huge difference for public health. Carl Chudnofsky
But WWI was a time when the best physicians and researchers were in the military, not in civilian life, caring for patients, so that led to great discoveries that made a huge difference for public health.
Chudnofsky points out that disease awareness and prevention leaped forward during WWI, first to heal soldiers and later for civilians. Medical advances included screening for tuberculosis, treatment for tetanus, vaccines for typhoid, prevention of venereal disease and disinfection for surgery.
Triage for medical attention emerged from the trenches of WWI to become a fixture in battlefields and other disasters. And mobile field hospitals and medical trains were innovations that helped evacuate casualties and save thousands of lives techniques now common on battlefields.
Impact of World War I, the war to end all wars
And although World War I was called the war to end all wars, the U.S. has been at war somewhere around the world almost ever since. Michael Messner , professor of sociology at theUSC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, said thats because war and militarism are ingrained in American DNA.
Its part of our national identity, the old ideas of expansionism, white mans burden and Manifest Destiny in the previous century, he said. We idealize war and military.
Related Articles
Transcendent thinking can increase teens’ sense of purpose, why it’s better to say ‘climate change’ instead of ‘climate emergency’, working together to advance use of nature-based solutions that fight climate change.
World War I
World war i essay questions, the world before 1914.
1. Explain why nationalism was a significant force in 19th century Germany.
2. How did the leadership of Otto von Bismarck shape the future of Germany to 1914?
3. What were the outcomes of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71? How did these outcomes shape late 19th and early 20th century European relations?
4. Explain how the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s ethnic, cultural and language diversity created problems for the ruling Hapsburg dynasty.
5. Why was the Ottoman Empire considered the ‘sick man of Europe’? How did its problems affect or concern major European powers?
6. Compare and contrast the British, French and German Empires at the beginning of the 20th century.
7. Explain how militarism shaped and affected politics, economics and society in Germany to 1914. How democratic and representative was German government during this period?
8. How did imperialism and imperial rivalry contribute to European tensions between 1871 and 1914?
9. Discuss three alliances of the 19th and early 20th centuries, describing how each alliance affected European relations.
10. Bismarck famously said that a European war would start from “some damn foolish thing in the Balkans”. What “foolish things” happened in this region in the decade before World War I – and how did they affect European relations?
The road to war
1. Identify and discuss the three most significant factors leading to the outbreak of World War I.
2. Investigate and discuss the ‘war readiness’ and military strengths and weaknesses of Europe’s major powers in 1914.
3. What was Weltpolitik and how did it contribute to European tensions to 1914?
4. “Kaiser Wilhelm II was more responsible for the outbreak of World War I than any other individual leader.” To what extent is this statement true?
5. In the early 1900s many believed England and Germany had much in common and should have been allies, not antagonists. What were the sources or reasons for Anglo-German tension prior to 1914?
6. Investigate the relationship between Serbia and Austria-Hungary in the years prior to 1914. Why was Serbian nationalism worrying for Austro-Hungarian leaders?
7. Austria considered Serbia wholly responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. To what extent was the Serbian government truly responsible?
8. It is often said that the alliance system made a major war inevitable. Did alliances alone compel European nations to war after June 1914 – or were other factors involved?
9. Many historians suggest that the ‘failure of diplomacy’ led to war in 1914. What attempts did European diplomats make to negotiate and avoid war, and why did these attempts fail?
10. What do the ‘Nicky and Willy telegrams’ (between the Russian tsar and German kaiser) reveal about the character and leadership of both men?
11. Were the Kaiser and his advisors anticipating a European war that involved Britain? Explain how Britain became entangled in the road to war in mid 1914.
12. Focusing on three different countries, describe how the press and the public responded to declarations of war in August 1914.
13. Investigate anti-war sentiment in 1914. Which groups and individuals wrote, spoke or campaigned against war? What arguments did they put forward?
14. Explain why the small nation of Belgium became so crucial, both in July and August 1914.
15. Why did the Ottoman Empire enter World War I? What were its objectives and how prepared was it for a major war?
Battles and battle fronts
1. Why did the Schlieffen Plan fail in its objectives? Could Schlieffen’s strategy have been made to work?
2. What were the outcomes of the Battles of Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes in 1914? What did these battles reveal about the Russian military?
3. What happened at the first Battle of the Marne in 1914? What were the outcomes of this battle and what influence did it have on the rest of the war?
4. Compare the Western Front and Eastern Front as theatres of war. What were the similarities and differences in warfare on these two fronts?
5. How did naval power and the war on the seas shape the course of World War I? Refer to at least three major battles or incidents in your answer.
6. Why did the Allies consider the Dardanelles of strategic importance? Explain why the Dardanelles campaign of 1915 was a failure for the Allies.
7. What were the main objectives of the war in the Middle East? Discuss at least three significant locations or battles in your answer.
8. Why did Italy enter World War I in 1915? Where did most Italian troops fight and what impact did the war have on Italy?
9. Explain why the Battle of the Somme was such a significant operation, particularly for British forces.
10. Germany’s strategy of ‘unrestricted submarine warfare’ was largely responsible for bringing the United States into the war. Was it a reasonable or justifiable policy? Why was it adopted?
Methods of warfare
1. “World War I generals used 19th century battlefield strategies against 20th century equipment.” Discuss and evaluate this claim.
2. It is often said that British soldiers were “lions led by donkeys”. To what extent was this really true?
3. Explain why trench warfare became the dominant form of warfare on the Western Front.
4. What was life like for the average trench soldier? What were the duties, routines and rotations for those who served in the trenches?
5. Evaluate the use and impact of chemical weapons in World War I. Were they an important weapon of war – or were they used for terror and shock value?
6. Prior to 1914 cavalry (horse-mounted soldiers) were an important feature of most armies. Did cavalry regiments play any significant role in World War I?
7. Using evidence and referring to specific battles or events, explain which three weapons had the greatest impact on the battlefields of the Western Front.
8. How were aircraft like planes and airships used in World War I? Did these machines have any impact on the war and its outcomes – or were they a sideshow to the real fighting on the ground?
9. Tanks are one of the most significant weapons to emerge from World War I. Investigate and discuss the development, early use and effectiveness of tanks in the war.
10. The Hague Convention outlined the ‘rules of war’ that were in place during World War I. Referring to specific examples, discuss where and how these ‘rules of war’ were breached.
1. How did the public in Britain and other nations respond to the outbreak of war in August 1914? Was there unanimous support for the war?
2. What impact did Kaiser Wilhelm II have on military strategy and domestic policy after August 1914? How effective was the Kaiser as a wartime leader?
3. What powers did the Defence of the Realm Act give the British government? How did the Act affect life and work in wartime Britain?
4. Referring to either Britain, France or Germany, discuss how one national government managed and coordinated the war effort.
5. Investigate voluntary enlistment figures in one nation after August 1914. When and why did voluntary enlistment fall? What steps did the government take to encourage volunteers to enlist?
6. Focusing on three different nations, discuss when and why conscription was introduced – and whether this attracted any criticism or opposition.
7. What was the Shell Crisis of 1915? What impact did this crisis have on the British government and its wartime strategy?
8. Using specific examples, explain how wartime governments used censorship and propaganda to strengthen the war effort.
9. Why was there a change of wartime government in Britain in late 1916?
10. What was the ‘Silent Dictatorship’ in wartime Germany? How effective was this regime in managing both the war effort and the domestic situation?
Towards a conclusion
1. Explain why casualties and loss of life were so high in 1916, particularly at Verdun and the Somme.
2. How did the leadership of Lloyd George (Britain) and Clemenceau (France) invigorate the war effort in their countries?
3. Discuss the issues and problems raised by conscription in Australia and Canada. Why was compulsory military service accepted in Europe but not in those two countries?
4. Why did the government of Tsar Nicholas II collapse in February and March 1917? How did the war help bring about revolution in Russia?
5. To what extent was the United States able to honour its pledge of neutrality in 1914-16?
6. Was the entry of the United States into World War I inevitable? Or was it a consequence of unforeseen factors?
7. What happened in the German Reichstag in July 1917? What did this reveal about German attitudes to the war?
8. What impact did the Allied naval blockade have on German society and the German war effort?
9. Explain the terms and effects of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed in March 1918. What implications did this treaty have, both for Russia and the war in general?
10. What did German commanders hope to achieve by launching the Spring Offensive? What problems or obstacles did they face?
Treaties and post-war Europe
1. Compare and contrast the objectives and approaches of the ‘Big Three’ (Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau) at the Paris peace talks.
2. Describe how the map of Europe was changed as a consequence of World War I and post-war treaties. What grievances might have arisen from these changes?
3. Explain the fate of the Hapsburg dynasty and the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the conclusion of World War I.
4. What happened to the Ottoman Empire and its territories after World War I? Describe its transition from a 19th century empire to the modern nation-state of Turkey.
5. A French general said of the Treaty of Versailles that was not a peace but a “20 year armistice”. Was he correct and, if so, why?
6. Why was Article 231 included in the Treaty of Versailles? What was the response to this particular clause, both in Germany and around the world?
7. Discuss what happened to European colonial possessions after World War I. Were colonies retained, seized by other nations or liberated?
8. How did the United States respond to the Treaty of Versailles? What were the global implications of this American response?
9. How effective was the newly formed League of Nations at resolving conflict and securing world peace?
10. Investigate and discuss the social effects of World War I in at least two countries. How did ordinary people live, during and after the war?
11. How did World War I affect the social, political and economic status of women?
Information and resources on this page are © Alpha History 2018-23. Content on this page may not be copied, republished or redistributed without the express permission of Alpha History. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use .
The Causes and Effects of World War I Essay
- To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
- As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
- As a template for you assignment
Introduction
The effects of World War I can be seen around the world even now, more than one hundred years after its end; however, there is still no consensus as to its cause. In the words of Alfred Korzybski, “the destruction was brought about by nationalism, entangled alliances, narrow ethnic concerns, and desires for political gain – forces that are still with people today.” (cited in Levinson, 2014). Even though the majority of United States citizens did not have the direct experience of the terrific upset that the war caused in Europe, it can be argued that the country’s concern with championing democracy around the globe is one of its products (Levinson, 2014).
Many historians agree that an atmosphere of twentieth-century Europe was conducive to the creation of a complex mixture of economic, social, and political reasons that translated into powerful forces of imperialistic, nationalistic, and militaristic movements leading to the diplomatic crises of 1914 (Donaldson, 2014). Therefore, it can be said that the blame for the war could not be assigned to any individual country or a group of countries.
Nonetheless, the issue of responsibility was the main focus of the world in the years following the Armistice of 1918 (Donaldson, 2014). To this end, the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and the Enforcement of Penalties met in Paris in 1919 (Donaldson, 2014). The investigation conducted by the commission showed that Germany and Austria, along with Turkey and Bulgaria as their allies, were responsible for the aggressive foreign policy tactics that led to the precipitation of the war (Donaldson, 2014).
The start of World War I was precipitated by the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, on June 28, 1914 (Mulligan, 2010) The elimination of the high-standing official was carried out by the group of secret society members called Black Hand and directed by Bosnian Serb Danilo Ilić (Storey, 2009). The political objective of the murder was to separate Austria-Hungary’s South Slav provinces to combine them into Yugoslavia (Storey, 2009).
In response to the killing of their official, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia that commanded its government to prosecute the assassins. The objective of the ultimatum was to make its terms so strict that Serbia would be forced to reject it, thereby giving an excuse for launching a small war against it (Storey, 2009). Taking into consideration that Serbia had diplomatic relationships with Russia strengthened by their shared Slavic ties, the Austro-Hungarian government decided to take precautions against the two countries declaring war on it and allied with Germany. It is agreed that Germany was not opposed to Austro-Hungarian bellicosity, but rather supported and encouraged it, thus providing one more reason for the precipitation of the Great War (Levinson, 2014).
Even though Serbia’s response to the ultimatum was placating, Austria-Hungary decided to take aggressive action and declare war. It is argued that the main reason for World War I was the web of entangling alliances among the countries having an interest in the conflict between Austro-Hungary and Serbia (Storey, 2009). Following the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war, the Russian monarch mobilized his army because of the binding commitment of the treaty signed by the two countries.
As a result, on August 3, 1914, Germany declared war on the Russian Empire (Levinson, 2014). France was bound by treaty to Russia, and, therefore, had to start a war on Austria-Hungary and Germany. Even though a treaty tying France and Britain was loosely worded, the latter country had “a moral obligation” to defend the former (Levinson, 2014). Therefore, Britain and its allies Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Japan, and the Union of South Africa also took a bellicose stance against Germany and offered their assistance in the military action against the country (Levinson, 2014). Thus, a gigantic web of entangling alliances pushed numerous countries to the precipice of war over what was intended to be a small-scale conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
Numerous other reasons led to World War I. The conflicting political interests of Russia and Japan over Manchuria and Korea resulted in a military defeat of Russia (Levinson, 2014). Therefore, the country wanted to restore its dignity by a victorious war. During the same period, a lot of small nations were seething with discontent over the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian rule, thereby providing an opportunity for the Russian Empire further to stir resentment by firing up nationalistic zeal under a pretense of pan-Slavic narrative (Levinson, 2014).
Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, sought an opportunity to establish its influence over a vast territory of mixed nations; the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne provided them with a perfect excuse for the initiation of the war. Political clashes in Germany were a reason for the country’s government to resort to the military conflict as a way of “averting civil unrest” (Levinson, 2014). Another factor that caused World War I was the desire of France to revenge a military defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 (Levinson, 2014).
It is impossible to name a single reason for the initiation of World War I. However, it is clear that the entangling web of alliances among numerous parties participating in the war, as well as complicated plots of governments and empires, led the small-scale dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia escalating into a military conflict that swept the entire world.
Donaldson, P. (2014). Interpreting the origins of the First World War. Teaching History , 155 (4), 32-33.
Levinson, M. (2014). Ten cautionary GS lessons from World War I. Et Cetera, 71 (1), 41-48.
Mulligan, W. (2010). The origins of the First World War . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Storey, W. (2009). The First World War . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- First World War: German and Austrian Policies' Response
- World War I and the 1920s
- The Late 19th Century and the First World War, 1850-1918
- Eastern Crisis of 1875-1878
- Outbreak of War in Europe in 1914
- World War I, Its Origin and Allies
- The Worst Team in History: the Gallipoli Failure
- Principal Causes of the First World War
- "Two Cheers for Versailles" by Mark Mazower
- Germany's Aims in the First World War
- Chicago (A-D)
- Chicago (N-B)
IvyPanda. (2020, October 9). The Causes and Effects of World War I. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/
"The Causes and Effects of World War I." IvyPanda , 9 Oct. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/.
IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Causes and Effects of World War I'. 9 October.
IvyPanda . 2020. "The Causes and Effects of World War I." October 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/.
1. IvyPanda . "The Causes and Effects of World War I." October 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "The Causes and Effects of World War I." October 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/.
- Skip to main content
- Skip to secondary menu
- Skip to primary sidebar
- Skip to footer
A Plus Topper
Improve your Grades
World War 1 Essay | Essay on World War 1 for Students and Children in English
February 14, 2024 by Prasanna
World War 1 Essay: World War 1 was started in July 1914 and officially ended on November 11, 1918. Conflicts emerged among the most powerful forces in the modern world with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany and the Ottoman Empire (and briefly Italy) on one side, and Britain, France, Russia, and later the United States on the other side during the war.
The war took the lives of some 20 million people and the world’s great empires fell. Czarist Russia turned into reinstated as the communist Soviet Union. Imperial Germany turned into reinstated as the Weimar Republic and lost some parts of its territory in the East and West.
You can also find more Essay Writing articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.
Long and Short Essays on World War 1 for Students and Kids in English
We are providing students with essay samples on a long essay of 500 words and a short of 150 words on the topic of World War 1 for reference.
Long Essay on World War 1 Essay 500 Words in English
Long Essay on World War 1 Essay is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.
World War 1 started with a European conflict and gradually it developed into a World War. Militarism, nationalism, imperialism, and alliances increased the tensions among the European countries. The first reason, militarism, is known as the trend toward developing military resources, both for national defense and the protection of colonial interests.
Militarism indicated a rise in military disbursement and it extended to military and naval forces. It put more impact on the military men upon the policies of the civilian government. As a solution to problems militarism had a preference for force. This was one of the main reasons for the First World War. The second reason is there were too many alliances that frequently clashed with each other. Every country was pawning to safeguard others, creating intertwining mutual protection schemes.
They made alliances in secret, and they created a lot of mistrust and intuition among the European powers. Their general intuition stopped their diplomats to find a proper solution to many of the crises leading to war. Imperialism was the third reason for the First World War. As some areas of the world were left to colonize, nations were competing for subsisting colonies, and they were looking for enlarging their borders with adjacent countries. The fourth cause was nationalism. Nationalism is frequently insinuated to as identification with one’s own country and support for the country. Nationalism contains a strong recognition of a group of personnel with a political entity.
The support of individuals for their own country can become of one’s nation can become hatred of other nations. These were just some of the basic reasons for the war. Many people think that the instant reason for the war was because of the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the successor to Austria-Hungary’s throne. Archduke Ferdinand was fired and murdered due to what was thought to be a political conspiracy. The Austro-Hungarian Empire suddenly doubted Serbian conspiracy in the assassination and looked to frame a response that would both punish Serbia, and make the world respect Austria-Hungary’s prestige and determination.
You can now access more Essay Writing on this topic and many more.
The Great War lasted four years. The war was finally over after four years and it took the lives of many people. On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, a cease-fire went into effect for all fighters. Though the war has been finished, the effects, are still seen perceptible in the world today.
In the aftermath of World War 1, the political, cultural, and social order of the world was drastically changed in many places, even outside the areas directly involved in the war. Old nations were removed, new nations were formed, international organizations set up, and many new and old ideas took a stronghold in people’s minds.
As Europe fell in debt from war investment, inflation beset the continent. In addition to this, the buoyancy of previous decades was relinquished and a discouraging, gloomy outlook on life was adopted after people had experienced the ferocity of warfare and the effects of the war were brutal.
Short Essay on World War 1 Essay 150 Words in English
Short Essay on World War 1 Essay is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
The War took the lives of approximately 20 million people and put a break in the economic development of several nations. The war happened between two parties consisting of more than one hundred nations. Though all of them did not send armed forces to the battlefield, they were a hoard of commodities and human resources and provided moral support to their companions. It continued for 4 long years from 1914 to 1918. Indian soldiers also took part in World War 1 as a colony of Britain from Africa and West Asia.
India had an aspiration that they might win independence. World War 1 war laid down the economy of the world. It led to food shortage, an outbreak of a pandemic, scarcity of vital items, etc. At the end of 1918, the war came to an end. The Allied Powers won the war. Both parties signed the Peace Treaty called an armistice.
10 Lines on World War 1 Essay in English
1. The First World War was instigated in 1914 by Serbia. 2. The cause of the war was a competition between countries to acquire weapons and build military powers. 3. In 1914, Serbia aroused anger by assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir of Austria-Hungary throne. 4. The Allied Powers, and the Central Powers fought against each other. 5. The Central Powers include countries, such as Germany, Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, and Turkey. 6. The Allied Powers consisted of Serbia, Russia, The United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, and Belgium. 7. India, as a British colony, supported Britain. 8. The German adopted a militaristic Schlieffen approach. 9. World War 1 was fought from trenches, so it is also called the Trench War. 10. The War ended in 1918 after both allies signed an armistice.
FAQ’s on World War 1 Essay
Question 1. List the names of the two allies of the First World War 1914-1918.
Answer: The Allied Powers and the Central Powers.
Question 2. Who declared the First World War?
Answer: Austria-Hungary.
Question 3. Name the countries of Allied Powers.
Answer: Britain, Japan, France, Italy, Russia, the USA.
Question 4. Why did the First World War end?
Answer: The First World War ended in November 1918 when both allies signed the Peace Treaty known as an armistice.
- Picture Dictionary
- English Speech
- English Slogans
- English Letter Writing
- English Essay Writing
- English Textbook Answers
- Types of Certificates
- ICSE Solutions
- Selina ICSE Solutions
- ML Aggarwal Solutions
- HSSLive Plus One
- HSSLive Plus Two
- Kerala SSLC
- Distance Education
- Senior Fellows
- Research Fellows
- Submission Guidelines
- Media Inquiries
- Commentary & Analysis
Upcoming Events
- Past Events
- October 2021 War Studies Conference
- November 2020 War Studies Conference
- November 2018 War Studies Conference
- March 2018 War Studies Conference
- November 2016 War Studies Conference
- Class of 1974 MWI Podcast
- Urban Warfare Project Podcast
- Social Science of War
- Urban Warfare Project
- Project 6633
- Shield Notes
- Rethinking Civ-Mil
- Book Reviews
Select Page
The Urgent Lessons of World War I
Brian Frydenborg | 12.12.18
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori [Latin for “Sweet and fitting it is to die for one’s country”].
— “Dulce et Decorum est,” 1917-1918, by Wilfred Owen , British poet who fought in the war
The past weeks should have been a remarkable occasion to reflect on history, on the magnitude, costs, and legacy of what was once commonly known as the Great War, the most cataclysmic single war in Western history ever up until that point or at least since the fall of Rome and easily one of the worst and most lethal in world history .
And yet reflection on the war and its horrific costs and legacies has been woefully lacking. Whether it was due to questionable political and behavioral decisions during centenary commemorations that overshadowed the remembrances , a news media that sorely lacks competency in this type of historical examination, or a combination of reasons, something vital was missing: sober reflection that takes a measure of history, of its impact on the present and potential effects on the future, and on the many millions of lives cut short in conditions few of us could even imagine, let alone endure.
Indeed, it is hard to say which is most stunning: the incredible impact that four measly years in the span of human history had on the world one-hundred years ago, the impact it is still having and will continue to have, the incredible toll of lives lost (around some 16.5 million dead—about half military, half civilian— by some solid estimates , surpassed only by the next , and, we may hope, last, World War that followed just a few decades later), or the utter lack of general awareness today of all of these things.
Facing History and Ourselves
In the spirit of righting pretty much the one thing that can be righted still, below is an effort to wage war against this lack of awareness, an outline of four important ways we should all respect what World War I can teach us still, a century after its conclusion.
1. War is possible no matter how great things seem.
One of the most remarkable things about World War I is how advanced, culturally speaking, Germany, Great Britain, France, and Austria-Hungary were just before the war: they represented the most advanced civilizations Earth had to offer technologically, scientifically, culturally. They were producing arguably the greatest contemporary works of art, literature, architecture, and music, and, inarguably, the greatest contemporary works of science, medicine, and machinery. They were all rich and stable, and, with the exception of Germany as a rising and newly unified state, had been great powers for many centuries. And they all had intense, intimate ties with each other, both between individual leaders and as empires and nations as a whole, ties that bound them culturally, economically, socially, and politically. As the first years of the twentieth century unfolded, the world (at least the Western world) seemed to be entering a new era of globalization , peace, prosperity, luxury, electricity, increasing access to information, communication, booming technology, relatively rapid travel, improving medicine, and cooperation (an era not unlike our current one). In fact, Europe had seen the longest stretch of peace since the Pax Romana of ancient Rome : with just a few notable exceptions, there were no wars on the European continent from the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.
None of this mattered: not the long peace, not the advanced technology, not the increasingly interrelated ties between future combatant leaders, nations, and peoples, nor their representing the peaks of human civilization at the time. What was then a long peace rapidly devolved into one of the most destructive wars in human history, one that erupted between these most advanced nations in the world because of a series of freak events and decisions that caught pretty much everyone off guard in terms of the results.
The violence in the human animal is always there , below the surface if not on the surface, ready to break out without warning; nations and human society, as collections of individual humans, are clearly no different.
2. “Stupid is as stupid does.”
One hundred years after the outbreak of World War I, Graham Allison, the famed international relations scholar most recognized for his analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis (a crisis remarkably influenced by World War I), made clear that for him , World War I’s most important lesson is that “despite the fact that there’s many reasons for believing that something . . . would make no sense, and therefore would be incredible, and therefore maybe even impossible, shit happens.”
In this case, these nations had so many more reasons not to go to war than to go to war, and even when everyone was losing so much, and gaining almost nothing but death and destruction, they persisted in conducting the war even after bloody stalemates often became the norm, the war raging on for years even after this. None of this was rational or in the self-interests of these nations, but that is the course they chose. Of the leaders of the major powers who went to war in 1914, none would remain in power by the war’s end; four of the six main initial belligerents—Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire—had their governments overthrown in revolutions (“the greatest fall of monarchies in history,” to quote the late Christopher Hitchens) and lost their empires by the war’s end , while Britain and France were so weakened that the roots of the post–World War II unraveling of their empires were set in motion. In other words, the war was ruinous for all the major players that started it and suicidal for most of them. And still they perpetuated it.
Many books over many years have been written about this , many lectures given and panels held , many articles penned—and it would be easy for me to write a whole series of articles about the awful decision making just before and throughout the war. But what is important to note here is that, when confronted with a range of options, the belligerents often chose a horrible option when there were better ones available, and they often doubled down on the same or similar decisions despite repeated failure, continuing stalemate, and appalling loss of life. As the old adage goes, repeating the same failed actions in the hopes of a different result is the very definition of insanity, and insanity describes the nature of World War I (not just in hindsight but also contemporaneously) as well as any other word.
Whether in the outbreaks of wars or in their conduct, the role of stupidity and insanity in such affairs is considered by many to have no finer example than World War I. And yet, this lesson is harrowingly relevant event today, as the 2003 US decision to invade Iraq and the early incompetent years of its occupation there make all too clear.
3. A bad peace just means more war.
As great the Roman historian Tacitus, nearly two thousand years ago, quoted the sentiments of some Roman leaders discussing a possible war, “for a miserable peace even war was a good exchange!” A bad peace is not only a definite recipe for misery, but far more often than not is merely a prelude to further violent conflict. The brief peace after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003 is an excellent recent example, but perhaps no example in contemporary thinking exists more so as an example of a bad peace than the post–World War I settlements , most famously the much-maligned 1919 Versailles treaty that saw harsh terms imposed on Germany, but also a string of other , far lesser-known treaties .
In fact, though the war “ended” in 1918, there was hardly a break in the east, where violent conflicts continued or erupted and persisted for years, including the deadly Russian Civil War, which itself claimed the lives of millions. In the west, rebellion and civil war erupted in the United Kingdom’s Irish territory (bad enough that many fled Ireland, including my grandparents to New York). Even after Versailles, more treaties had to be concluded and were being negotiated well into the 1920s, particularly concerning the former Ottoman Empire’s territories , which Britain and France had planned to split between themselves since the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement was reached secretly during the war in 1916.
This bad peace not only led to the messy wars that raged right after World War I, and to World War II, but also in large part set the stage for many wars since then. Just since the 1990s, there were wars in the Balkans, wars between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Africa’s World War in the Congo, various Arab-Israeli conflicts, Russia’s wars with Georgia and Ukraine, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and civil wars, insurgencies, or separatist conflicts in countries spanning the globe, even in a region as remote as the Pacific.
There’s even the war with ISIS.
A good number of these conflicts are still ongoing in one form or another and can arguably trace their causation more to the aftermath of World War I than that of World War II. That this is the case one hundred years after the end of World War I is as good an indication as anything of the terrible price of a bad or failed peace.
4. There is no divine “plan”; decisions of war and peace are up to us and only us, and we own the results.
“The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict.” So begins the first chapter of the late historian John Keegan’s The First World War . Not everything has meaning or happens for a reason; some monumental efforts come to naught, some conflicts are pointless and meaningless, and lives—many millions—can be lost in vain. Considering that World War II happened just a little over two decades after the fighting stopped in World War I, to a large extent much of World War I’s deaths can be said to have been in vain, and this does not even address the futility of the suicidal tactics throughout the war that produced a great many casualties that can be said to have been totally unnecessary, especially in the trench warfare on the Western Front.
In addition, the stupidity of the strategic decisions that led to truly global war and its perpetuation also showcase how utterly avoidable and unnecessary the overall conflict was. Unlike World War II, which especially in Europe was motivated by sharply different ideologies that were being aggressively exported, World War I was generally lacking in ideology , more or less just a competition among empires that were exploitative of their subjects. For many (probably most) fighting in the war, they could not even explain why they were fighting beyond mere nationalism and coercion.
Few people know one of the worst outrages of the war, perhaps the most awful example of senseless battlefield slaughter of the entire conflict. Though the final armistice on the Western Front was reached in the early morning hours of November 11, 1918, just after 5 a.m., it was not put into effect until 11 a.m., allowing several hours of unforgiveable, pointless slaughter. Not one person needed to die in those final hours, likely the most needless carnage on the field of battle of the entire war. Incredibly, the Allies kept up assaults against the German lines “until the very last minute,” notes Adam Hochschild , a great chronicler of the era. He continues:
Since the armies tabulated their casualty statistics by the day and not by the hour, we know only the total toll for November 11th: twenty-seven hundred and thirty-eight men from both sides were killed, and eighty-two hundred and six were left wounded or missing. But since it was still dark at 5 a.m. , and attacks almost always took place in daylight, the vast majority of these casualties clearly happened after the Armistice had been signed, when commanders knew that the firing was to stop for good at 11 a.m. The day’s toll was greater than both sides would suffer in Normandy on D Day, 1944. And it was incurred to gain ground that Allied generals knew the Germans would be vacating days, or even hours, later.
One particular story Hochschild shares is especially heartbreaking: “Private Henry Gunther, of Baltimore, became the last American to be killed in the war, at 10:59 a.m. , when he charged a German machine-gun crew with his bayonet fixed. In broken English, the Germans shouted at him to go back, the war was about to stop. When he didn’t, they shot him.”
This was hardly just a case of a few callous or glory-obsessed commanders. Hochschild sheds light on the true extent of such disgraceful leadership: “A few Allied generals held their troops back when they heard that the Armistice had been signed, but they were in the minority.”
He concludes: “And so thousands of men were killed or maimed during the last six hours of the war for no political or military reason whatever. . . . The war ended as senselessly as it had begun.”
Taking into account all of this, the idea that there was some great divine plan guiding these events is an obscenity, even more so if one can accept the idea it was with willful divine purpose that so many people would be conscripted by governments that dehumanized them into cannon fodder, some even being conditioned and led, often unthinking and slavishly, to commit outrages and atrocities against the defenseless. On this note, it is no surprise that from the trenches of World War I , The Lord of the Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien— who fought on the Western Front , saw most of his closest friends die there, and was so deeply shaped by the war like nearly everyone of his generation— could draw inspiration for orcs. Writing to his son in 1944 , who was fighting in World War II, and commenting on the war and on war in general—commentary obviously influenced by his experience in World War I—Tolkien multiple times noted the potential for all kinds of people to become orcs. In one letter, commenting on the war effort against the Axis powers, he wrote that “we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed. But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs.” In another: “I think the orcs as real a creation as anything in ‘realistic’ fiction . . . only in real life they are on both sides, of course.” In a third, he is even more explicit about even his own countrymen’s ability to become orc-like:
There are no genuine Uruks [a special kind of strong orc bred for war], that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle, and that there are probably abnormally many of such creatures in Deutschland [Nazi Germany] and Nippon [Imperial Japan]—but certainly these unhappy countries have no monopoly: I have met them, or thought so, in England’s green and pleasant land).
That so many millions of people could be reduced to mere means to evil ends, often with little or no choice or agency, is as much proof against the idea of some divine plan orchestrated by a concerned celestial being as anything.
“Both Kipling and Owen,” wrote Hitchens of two World War I–era poets he admired, “came to the conclusion that too many lives had been ‘taken’ rather than offered or accepted, and that too many bureaucrats had complacently accepted the sacrifice as if they themselves had earned it.”
Thus, millions died in a wholly unnecessary, deeply avoidable, strategically stupid war that was generally conducted with stupid tactics throughout, resulting in possibly the worst loss of life in such a short time in all of human history, until World War II outdid even this two decades later.
If anything, these sobering realities—that war can happen at any time, can be incredibly stupid, that planning for war’s aftermath is so crucial for avoiding further conflict, and that there is not a master plan from some spiritual being—teaches us that our actions are of the utmost importance and are all we can hope or strive for besides luck: everything happens not for a grander reason, but simply because of the mix of chance and of the consequences of our own decisions and those of others. In other words, whatever “plan” there is carries on not in spite of human willpower, but only because of it, and, if it even exists, exists only because of it. Therefore, our decisions throughout our lives—personal political, national—are what matter most, and rather than just toss up our hands and place hope in some greater plan beyond our power to absolve us from having to fret over our own decisions, it is our very decisions that are supremely powerful and which must be given the greatest weight and consideration, and for which we must take the greatest responsibility.
If all we truly have to count on are our decisions and actions, we cannot trust in some nonexistent cosmic plan, only in ourselves and our fellow humans, as problematic as that is. If anything, then, there is an even greater urgency in helping our fellow humans develop their potential, because much of our lives and existence will depend on them, along with ourselves, being equipped and in positions to make better decisions than they would generally otherwise.
It is these decisions that affect our world, our lives, together with chance. Chance is indifferent and immovable, but human action is not, so it is in helping each other that we have our only hope. The less we support each other, then, the higher the chance for deadly conflict of the very type epitomized by the Great War. Contrary to much of the spirit of human history, then, instead of placing blind faith in some sort of divine power to actually intervene to guide, protect, and empower us, we must place that faith in humanity, and for placing that faith to be a safe bet, we must guide, protect, and empower each other.
Ultimately, the very horrors exhibited by humankind in World War I and the lessons discussed here are all the more reason why we must focus on helping our fellow human beings if we want to avoid such abysmal catastrophes in the future. That is not to oversimplify a very complex conflict , or to show disrespect for the millions who fought, died, and sacrificed in this great tragedy; far from it. Rather, to honor their sacrifices, we must heed these lessons so that such needless sacrifice is not forced upon many millions in the future. In many ways, this one-hundred-year-old conflict is shaping our world today more than any of the wars that have been fought since.
Here let us end as we began, with words of Wilfred Owen from 1918:
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, dominion or power, except War. Above all, this book is not concerned with Poetry. The subject of it is War, and the pity of War. The Poetry is in the pity. Yet these elegies are not to this generation, This is in no sense consolatory. They may be to the next. All the poet can do to-day is to warn.
Owen died, twenty-five years of age, in action on the Western Front almost exactly a week to the hour before its Armistice went into effect; his mother received notification of his death on Armistice Day itself, as her local church bells were ringing in celebration.
Brian E. Frydenborg is an American freelance writer and consultant from the New York City area who has been based in Amman, Jordan, since early 2014. He holds an MS in Peace Operations and specializes in a wide range of interrelated topics, including international and US policy and politics, security, conflict, terrorism and counterterrorism, humanitarianism, development, social justice, and history. You can follow and contact him on Twitter: @bfry1981 .
15 Comments
"There were no wars on the European continent from the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914." It's hard to fathom where such an ignorant statement fits into the article which largely decries the modern ignorance of history.
Correct. There were numerous wars in that period in Europe. Many people have incorrectly said the last war ended in 1871, the Franco-Prussian war. There was a war in the Balkans in 1912 and maybe others.
At least get the map right – the nation is not named "Great Britain"; it is "The United Kingdom".
Britain was not called the UK then.
Concur with Scott Miller – Napoleon's defeat inspired his grandson (with German goading) to attack in 1870. The subsequent French defeat drove the militarization of French society and schools, paving the way for eager participation in the slaughter to come. Go visit the Great War Museum just outside of Paris. It will be well worth your time if you are unfamiliar with French society and the military pre-WWI.
While I agree with the general thrust of this article that the First World War was pointless, and that we could just as easily blunder into another pointless conflagration, the author of this article seems to have a rather superficial understanding of the First World War, or European history in general.
First, I'd say that the Russo-Turkish War of 1829-29, the Crimean War, the Wars of German Unification, the Wars of Italian Unification, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars, account for more than a "few notable exceptions" to the supposed century of peace between 1815 and 1914. That just off the top of my head and doesn't include any of the revolutions or wars of independence that dotted the 19th century. That list of wars had as belligerents all the major European belligerents from WW1, and most of the minor ones too.
Second, to the point about the fighting on NOV 11, it's not quite as clear cut as it was simply pointless slaughter. To some extent it was, but, it must be remembered that they were signing an armistice and not a peace treaty. On certain points of the front, attacking was inexcusable. On others, American and allied forces were attacking to seize important terrain while the Germans were on the back foot, in the event that hostilities started back up. Also, with communications as they were at the time, a delay between signing the armistice and it coming into effect is just common sense. Getting word to the units all along the line would take some time.
Lastly, I'm assuming that the author has read The Sleepwalkers, as a review is linked. My reading of that book did not leave me with the impression that Europe's leadership in the summer of 1914 was stupid, or insane. Making that statement here undermines the whole message of the article; if we're attempting to avoid future pointless warfare, we need to understand why people made poor decisions in the past and not simply chalk it up to stupidity or insanity.
Thank you all for reading. A few points:
1.) I used the word "notable" in describing the exceptions to the relatively peaceful trends of the period for a reason. The examples that some of you were correct in mentioning are exactly what I had in mind and why I qualified my statement that there were "notable exceptions." To our modern sensibilities, all wars are terrible and such sentiment is appropriate, and whether the Risorgimento or the Balkan Wars, people died and there were important consequences to these conflicts. But in comparison to the periods both before and after, the stretch of 1816-1913 contained conflicts that were generally shorter in duration, more contained geographically, less deadly, less complex, and were fewer and farther between. In fact, in each century from the end of the Pax Romana through the end of the 1700s and the Napoleonic Wars, wars were generally longer in duration, more widespread geographically, deadlier, more complex, and more numerous and frequent than in the period 1816-1913. Indisputably, that period is among the most peaceful in Europen history, third only to the Pax Romana and the post-WWII international order. Taking the long view, there is no question of the relative peace of 1816-1913, in spite of the "notable exceptions" you were not wrong to raise.
2.) Throughout the war, of course there were numerous, even many, individual tactical and strategic decisions that were wise and competent. Notably, the Russians had impressively rebounded before the Czarist government was overthrown. The issues of insanity and stupidity very correctly overshadow these positive developments in a larger-picture sense, as, especially on the Western Front, the aggregate totality of the decisions made and the fact that so many failed actions were repeated with little variation in execution or results over not just a period of days, weeks, or months, but over years, means that despite individual acts that could be deemed competent or better at the time, the overall collections of tactics and strategies executed cannot be said to be only stupid or insane in hindsight. Such was the sentiment at the time that of the major initial belligerents, not one set of leadership that entered the war was running the show when the curtain mercifully came down in 1918.
3.) As for the final day on the Western Front, the telegraph predated the American Civil War, so allowing almost six-additional hours of mostly unrestrained hostilities after the warring parties reached an armistice agreement–not a cease-fire, but if you check the history the Germans by 5AM had agreed to humiliating and clear capitulation–when it would hardly have taken anywhere near that long to notify all parties truly is the definition of callous madness. Many of the men knew this at the time: many artillerymen deliberately aimed their shells to miss and the Germans who had Allied troops in their sites pleaded with them to stop, that the war was about to end, that they did not want to kill them. I think that pretty much sums that up.
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts, and especially for reading in the first place.
-The Author
Very good article. Yhankyou.
You are too kind!!!
Fake news, from Modern War Institute at West Point.
Wandering what Special Education MIS classes are taught Modern War Institute.
First and Second Balkan Wars not in studies at your institution.
"there were no wars on the European continent from the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914."
I addressed that in the clause just before the quotation you used: "with just a few notable exceptions, there were no wars on the European continent from the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914." What you speak of are some of the notable exceptions!
The Germans knew they couldn’t win a long war vs France and GB. They had to be aggressive early. Their destruction of France and GB early made it so the war wasn’t going to end peacefully and it was going to go to the last man if needed. How could GB and France ask for peace when they lost so many men. And Germany had couldn’t surrender when not a single battle was fought on its own soil.
What happened in Sarajevo in 1914, where Germans incited Austrians to declare war, the breach of Belgian neutrality and many other episodes make it evident who began WW1. Versailles was too soft on Germany. The división of that country in Bavaria, Prussia and Rheinland would had avoided WW2
Crimean war was senseless too and more of a vengeful act upon Russia of the then grandson then president of France Napoleons grandson and stupid enough were the English who were just as unjust in most countries they ruled to join in instead of staying out of it altogether Christian people have a tendency to war with each other
I'm not a scholar nor a qualified historian who pretend to compete among others to post a pure technical opinion that matter the chronologic and speculative events about the "culture of wars". The only,and primary crucial important thing , I'd like to tell is that :" war" is not to glorify! War is the worst and inhumane decision to take . But at same time we ,as human , can't to ignore the truth obout the instinctual tendency to fight for survival in some extreme circumstance. Nowadays, in civilised emancipate societies is enough the tremendous lesson that we learn about wars, and specially the ww I. Is time to tuner the corner and work hard to glorify the life in any of is form. In reading this beautiful article I've felted an extraordinary gratitude to the author for the great insights and his commitment to promote the respect of the sacrality of life on that planet. I'd like to express my appreciation towards the author about this article. I'd like also to add an observation about a comments that make me emotionally and culturally to think about because, more than one readers, where semantically arguing about the chronologic and historical event of war rather than give evidences of them interest and emphatically participation of the nature and scope of this article. Regard Domenico Sepe
Leave a reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
The articles and other content which appear on the Modern War Institute website are unofficial expressions of opinion. The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
The Modern War Institute does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published. Rather, the Modern War Institute provides a forum for professionals to share opinions and cultivate ideas. Comments will be moderated before posting to ensure logical, professional, and courteous application to article content.
Announcements
- We’re Looking for Officers to Join the Modern War Institute and the Defense and Strategic Studies Program!
- Call for Applications: MWI’s 2024–25 Research Fellows Program
- Join Us Friday, April 26 for a Livestream of the 2024 Hagel Lecture, Featuring Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary Jeh Johnson
- Announcing the Modern War Institute’s 2023–24 Senior and Research Fellows
Home — Essay Samples — History — World History — WW1 And Its Effects On The World
Ww1 and Its Effects on The World
- Categories: Germany Russia World History
About this sample
Words: 966 |
Published: Mar 18, 2021
Words: 966 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read
Cite this Essay
Let us write you an essay from scratch
- 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
- Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours
Get high-quality help
Dr Jacklynne
Verified writer
- Expert in: Geography & Travel History
+ 120 experts online
By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email
No need to pay just yet!
Related Essays
1 pages / 574 words
2 pages / 960 words
2 pages / 1066 words
2 pages / 747 words
Remember! This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.
121 writers online
Still can’t find what you need?
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled
Related Essays on World History
The Russian Revolution of 1917 was one of the most explosive political events of the twentieth century. The Russian Revolution affected the economy greatly. The effects on economy were the Czarist Rule, the Soviet Union was [...]
In the annals of history, the classical Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta are often portrayed as polar opposites. While Sparta is lauded for its unparalleled military prowess and austere lifestyle, Athens is celebrated for [...]
Gill, R. B. (2000). The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death. University of New Mexico Press.Pagani, M., Pedentchouk, N., Huber, M., Sluijs, A., Schouten, S., Brinkhuis, H., ... & Sinninghe Damsté, J. S. (2006). Arctic [...]
Have you ever wondered how the exchange of goods, ideas, and cultures have shaped the world we live in today? The study of world history allows us to explore the interconnectedness of societies across time and space, revealing [...]
Starting in 1791, the Haitian revolution was a series of disagreements between colonists, Haitian slaves and the armies of the French, the British and Spanish. After struggling for over a decade from gaining independence from [...]
Did you know that a loaf of bread costed a week's salary for 98% of the population, which mainly included peasants, in France during the French Revolution? The French Revolutions, one of the major Revolutions in all of Europe [...]
Related Topics
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Where do you want us to send this sample?
By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
Be careful. This essay is not unique
This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before
Download this Sample
Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts
Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.
Please check your inbox.
We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!
Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!
We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .
- Instructions Followed To The Letter
- Deadlines Met At Every Stage
- Unique And Plagiarism Free
- Library of Congress
- Research Guides
World of 1898: International Perspectives on the Spanish American War
Introduction.
- Overview Essay
- Cuba in 1898
- Chronology of Cuba in the Spanish-American War
- Philippine Perspective
- The Changing of the Guard: Puerto Rico in 1898
- The Spanish-American War of 1898: a Spanish View
- American Perspective
- Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy
- Russell Alexander Alger
- Thomas McArthur Anderson
- Basilio Augustin y Dávila
- Ramón Auñón y Villalón
- Román Baldorioty de Castro
- José Celso Barbosa
- Clara Barton
- Segismundo Bermejo
- Ramón Emeterio Betances
- Ramón Blanco y Erenas
- Andrés Bonifacio
- John Rutter Brooke
- Jules-Martin Cambon
- Pascual Cervera y Topete
- Grover Cleveland
- Stephen Crane
- George W. Davis
- Federico Degetau y González
- George Dewey
- José de Diego
- Manuel V. Domenech
- Enrique Dupuy de Lôme
- Oswald Herbert Ernst
- Maximo Gómez Baez
- John Milton Hay
- Guy Vernon Henry
- Eugenio María de Hostos y Bonilla
- Tulio Larrinaga
- Fitzhugh Lee
- William Ludlow
- Antonio Maceo
- Manuel Macías
- William McKinley
- Nelson Appleton Miles
- Luis Muñoz Rivera
- Whitelaw Reid
- Lola Rodríguez de Tió
- Manuel Rojas
- Theodore Roosevelt
- Práxedes Mateo Sagasta
- William T. Sampson
- Juan Manuel Sánchez y Gutiérrez de Castro
- Theodore Schwan
- William Shafter
- Martín Travieso
- Joaquín Vara de Rey y Rubio
- James Franklin Wade
- Richard Wainwright
- Valeriano Weyler
- Walt Whitman
- Henry H. Whitney
- James Harrison Wilson
- Coamo and Aibonito
- Mayagüez, Hormigueros, and Arecibo
- Cienfuegos Bay
- Abolition of Slavery in Puerto Rico
- American Ships in the Spanish-American War
- Balzac v. Porto Rico
- Foraker Act (Organic Act of 1900)
- Grito de Balintawak
- Grito de Lares
- Hurricane San Ciriaco
- Anti-Imperialist League
- Military Government in Puerto Rico
- Olmsted Amendment
- Peace Agreement in Puerto Rico
- Reconcentration Policy
- Rough Riders
- Spanish Ships in the Spanish-American War
- Teller and Platt Amendments
- Treaty of Paris of 1898
- U.S.S. Gloucester
- Additional Resources
- Acknowledgements
Guide Editor: María Daniela Thurber, Reference Librarian, Hispanic Reading Room, Latin American, Caribbean, and European Division
Content Authors: Please visit the Acknowledgement page for information on all authors and contributors to the original The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War web project.
Note: This guide is adapted from The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War , the first online collection mounted on the web by the Hispanic Reading Room.
Created: Spring 2022
Last Updated: February 28, 2023
Caribbean, Iberian & Latin American Studies : Ask a Librarian
Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.
Haga su pregunta .
Faça a sua pergunta .
The war of the United States with Spain was very brief. Its results were many, startling, and of world-wide meaning. --Henry Cabot Lodge
On April 25, 1898 the United States declared war on Spain following the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. As a result, Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire -- Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines Islands, Guam, and other islands.
Beginning in 1492, Spain was the first European nation to sail westward across the Atlantic Ocean, explore, and colonize the Amerindian nations of the Western Hemisphere. At its greatest extent, the empire that resulted from this exploration extended from Virginia on the eastern coast of the United States south to Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America excluding Brazil and westward to California and Alaska. Across the Pacific, it included the Philippines and other island groups. By 1825 much of this empire had fallen into other hands and in that year, Spain acknowledged the independence of its possessions in the present-day United States (then under Mexican control) and south to the tip of South America. The only remnants that remained in the empire in the Western Hemisphere were Cuba and Puerto Rico and across the Pacific in Philippines Islands, and the Carolina, Marshall, and Mariana Islands (including Guam) in Micronesia.
Kurz & Allison. Destruction of the U.S. battleship Maine in Havana Harbor Feby 15th. Havana, Cuba, ca. 1898. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.
A view of our battleship MAINE as she appears today. Havana Harbor, ca. 1900. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.
Raising of battleship Maine. Havana, Cuba. 1911. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.
Following its declaration of war against Spain issued on April 25, 1898, the United States added the Teller Amendment asserting that it would not attempt to exercise hegemony over Cuba. Two days later Commodore George Dewey sailed from Hong Kong with Emilio Aguinaldo on board. Fighting began in the Phillipines Islands at the Battle of Manila Bay on May 1 where Commodore George Dewey reportedly exclaimed, "You may fire when ready, Gridley," and the Spanish fleet under Rear Admiral Patricio Montojo was destroyed. However, Dewey did not have enough manpower to capture Manila so Aguinaldo's guerrillas maintained their operations until 15,000 U.S. troops arrived at the end of July. On the way, the cruiser Charleston stopped at Guam and accepted its surrender from its Spanish governor who was unaware his nation was at war. Although a peace protocol was signed by the two belligerents on August 12, Commodore Dewey and Maj. Gen. Wesley Merritt, leader of the army troops, assaulted Manila the very next day, unaware that peace had been declared.
In late April, Andrew Summers Rowan made contact with Cuban General Calixto García who supplied him with maps, intelligence, and a core of rebel officers to coordinate U.S. efforts on the island. The U.S. North Atlantic Squadron left Key West for Cuba on April 22 following the frightening news that the Spanish home fleet commanded by Admiral Pascual Cervera had left Cadiz and entered Santiago, having slipped by U.S. ships commanded by William T. Sampson and Winfield Scott Schley. They arrived in Cuba in late May.
War actually began for the U.S. in Cuba in June when the Marines captured Guantánamo Bay and 17,000 troops landed at Siboney and Daiquirí, east of Santiago de Cuba, the second largest city on the island. At that time Spanish troops stationed on the island included 150,000 regulars and 40,000 irregulars and volunteers while rebels inside Cuba numbered as many as 50,000. Total U.S. army strength at the time totalled 26,000, requiring the passage of the Mobilization Act of April 22 that allowed for an army of at first 125,000 volunteers (later increased to 200,000) and a regular army of 65,000. On June 22, U.S. troops landed at Daiquiri where they were joined by Calixto García and about 5,000 revolutionaries.
U.S. troops attacked the San Juan heights on July 1, 1898. Dismounted troopers, including the African-American Ninth and Tenth cavalries and the Rough Riders commanded by Lt. Col. Theodore Roosevelt went up against Kettle Hill while the forces led by Brigadier General Jacob Kent charged up San Juan Hill and pushed Spanish troops further inland while inflicting 1,700 casualties. While U.S. commanders were deciding on a further course of action, Admiral Cervera left port only to be defeated by Schley. On July 16, the Spaniards agreed to the unconditional surrender of the 23,500 troops around the city. A few days later, Major General Nelson Miles sailed from Guantánamo to Puerto Rico. His forces landed near Ponce and marched to San Juan with virtually no opposition.
Representatives of Spain and the United States signed a peace treaty in Paris on December 10, 1898, which established the independence of Cuba, ceded Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States, and allowed the victorious power to purchase the Philippines Islands from Spain for $20 million. The war had cost the United States $250 million and 3,000 lives, of whom 90% had perished from infectious diseases.
What's included in this guide
This presentation provides resources and documents about the Spanish-American War, the period before the war, and some of the fascinating people who participated in the fighting or commented about it. Information about Cuba, Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Spain, and the United States is provided in chronologies, bibliographies, and a variety of pictorial and textual material from bilingual sources, supplemented by an overview essay about the war and the period. Among the participants and authors featured are such well-known figures as Presidents Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as Admiral George Dewey and author Mark Twain (United States), together with other important figures such as Antonio Maceo and José Martí (Cuba), Román Baldorioty de Castro and Lola Rodríguez de Tió (Puerto Rico), José Rizal and Emilio Aguinaldo (Philippines), and Antonio Cánovas del Castillo and Ramón Blanco (Spain).
Related Research Guides by the Library of Congress
Spanish-American War: A Resource Guide
The Spanish-American War (1898) was a conflict between the U.S. and Spain, ending with the loss of Spain’s overseas empire and the U.S. emerging as a world power. This guide compiles digital material, external websites, and a selected print bibliography.
Spanish American War: Topics in Chronicling America
A guide for researching the topic of the "Spanish American War," which took place from April 25 until December 10,1898, in the Chronicling America digital collection of historic newspapers.
Spain: Hispanic Reading Room Country Guide
This guide provides curated Library of Congress resources for the study of Spain, including digitized primary source materials in a wide variety of formats, books and periodicals, online databases, and tips for searching.
Cuba: Hispanic Reading Room Country Guide
This guide provides curated Library of Congress resources for researching Cuba, including digitized primary source materials in a wide variety of formats, books and periodicals, online databases, and tips for searching.
Philippine-American War: Topics in Chronicling America
After the Treaty of Paris, the Phillippine-American War occurred from February 1899 to July 1902. This guide provides access to materials related to the “Philippine-American War” in the Chronicling America digital collection of historic newspapers.
- Next: Overview Essay >>
- Last Updated: Jan 12, 2024 2:02 AM
- URL: https://guides.loc.gov/world-of-1898
- Election 2024
- Entertainment
- Newsletters
- Photography
- AP Buyline Personal Finance
- AP Buyline Shopping
- Press Releases
- Israel-Hamas War
- Russia-Ukraine War
- Global elections
- Asia Pacific
- Latin America
- Middle East
- Election results
- Google trends
- AP & Elections
- U.S. Open Tennis
- Paralympic Games
- College football
- Auto Racing
- Movie reviews
- Book reviews
- Financial Markets
- Business Highlights
- Financial wellness
- Artificial Intelligence
- Social Media
Trump campaign was warned not to take photos at Arlington before altercation, defense official says
The Army says an Arlington National Cemetery official was “abruptly pushed aside” during an altercation with former President Donald Trump’s staff during a wreath-laying ceremony but declined to press charges.
- Copy Link copied
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump’s campaign was warned about not taking photographs before an altercation at Arlington National Cemetery during a wreath-laying ceremony earlier this week to honor service members killed in the Afghanistan War withdrawal, a defense official told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter concerning Monday’s events. It came a day after NPR reported, citing a source with knowledge of the incident, that two Trump campaign staff members “verbally abused and pushed” aside a cemetery official who tried to stop them from filming and photographing in Section 60, the burial site for military personnel killed while fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The defense official told the AP that the Trump campaign was warned about not taking photographs in Section 60 before their arrival and the altercation. Trump was at Arlington on Monday at the invitation of some of the families of the 13 service members who were killed in the Kabul airport bombing exactly three years prior.
Arlington National Cemetery is the resting place for more than 400,000 service members, veterans and their families. Cemetery officials said in a statement that “an incident” had occurred and a report had been filed, but it did not address details of what had happened. They declined to share the report.
“Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate’s campaign,” the cemetery officials’ statement said. “Arlington National Cemetery reinforced and widely shared this law and its prohibitions with all participants. We can confirm there was an incident, and a report was filed.”
Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung said the Republican presidential candidate’s team was granted access to have a photographer. He contested the allegation that a campaign staffer pushed a cemetery official.
“The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and for whatever reason, an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump’s team during a very solemn ceremony,” he said.
Chris LaCivita, a top Trump campaign adviser, noted that Trump was there at the invitation of the families of the service members who were killed in the airport bombing. The Trump campaign posted a message signed by relatives of two of the service members killed in the bombing that said “the president and his team conducted themselves with nothing but the utmost respect and dignity for all of our service members, especially our beloved children.”
“For a despicable individual to physically prevent President Trump’s team from accompanying him to this solemn event is a disgrace and does not deserve to represent the hollowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery,” he said in a written statement, misspelling the word hallowed. “Whoever this individual is, spreading these lies are dishonoring the men and women of our armed forces.”
Michael Tyler, a spokesperson for Trump’s Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris , called the reports “pretty sad when it’s all said and done.”
What to know about the 2024 Election
- Today’s news: Follow live updates from the campaign trail from the AP.
- We want to hear from you: Are you a nonwhite evangelical planning to vote for Harris? Tell us why you’re supporting her and if you’re campaigning for her.
- Ground Game: Sign up for AP’s weekly politics newsletter to get it in your inbox every Monday.
- AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.
“This is what we’ve come to expect from Donald Trump and his team,” Tyler said on CNN. “Donald Trump is a person who wants to make everything all about Donald Trump. He’s also somebody who has a history of demeaning and degrading military service members, those who have given the ultimate sacrifice.”
Democratic U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia has called on cemetery officials to release more information about what happened Monday.
“It’s sad but all too expected that Donald Trump would desecrate this hallowed ground and put campaign politics ahead of honoring our heroes,” he said. “His behavior and that of his campaign is abhorrent and shameful.”
Trump’s running mate JD Vance was asked about the incident Wednesday at a campaign event in Erie, Pennsylvania, and said that “apparently somebody at Arlington Cemetery, some staff member, had a little disagreement with somebody” and “the media has turned this into a national news story.”
He instead tried to focus on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, calling Harris “disgraceful” for not firing anyone for the deaths of service members in the terror attack. “She can go to hell,” Vance said.
The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the attack.
A Pentagon investigation into the deadly attack concluded that the suicide bomber acted alone and that the deaths of more than 170 Afghans and 13 U.S. service members were not preventable. But critics have slammed the Biden administration for the catastrophic evacuation, saying it should have started earlier than it did.
Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox faced criticism Wednesday for including a photo of him and Trump at the Arlington ceremony in a campaign email soliciting donations for his reelection bid. One of the victims in the suicide bombing was Sgt. Darin Taylor Hoover, a Utah resident.
Cox’s campaign has apologized for using the photo and politicizing the graveside ceremony.
“This was not a campaign event and was never intended to be used by the campaign,” the governor wrote in a post on X. “It did not go through the proper channels and should not have been sent.”
Gomez Licon reported from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Schoenbaum from Salt Lake City. Associated Press writers Michelle L. Price in New York and Farnoush Amiri in Washington contributed to this report.
- Share full article
Advertisement
Supported by
Guest Essay
The Coming War Nobody Is Talking About
By Afyare A. Elmi and Yusuf Hassan
Dr. Elmi is a professor at the City University of Mogadishu, where Mr. Hassan is a fellow. They wrote from Mogadishu, Somalia.
Trouble has horns to hold but not tails.
This Somali proverb, suggesting that disaster can be prevented but not easily controlled, feels very apt for East Africa right now. Trouble has certainly arrived. Thanks to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia’s expansionist ambitions and reckless designs, the Horn of Africa is on the cusp of a war that would imperil the region and rebound against the rest of the world. It must be stopped before it’s too late.
The catalyst for the conflict is Mr. Abiy’s obsession with making Ethiopia a coastal state. Last year, he declared that Ethiopia could not stay landlocked and must have access to the sea, either by negotiation or by force. Somalia, the weakest of the five coastal countries that border Ethiopia, was the obvious target. On Jan. 1, Mr. Abiy duly signed a memorandum of understanding with the president of Somaliland, a self-declared breakaway republic in northwestern Somalia. In exchange for officially recognizing Somaliland, Ethiopia would gain a 12-mile naval base on the Gulf of Aden. Mr. Abiy would have his coast.
This was a clear violation of Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, recalling Ethiopia’s destructive history of meddling in the country. Somalia immediately rejected the memorandum and mounted a diplomatic offensive, explaining to regional states and international powers that Ethiopia was seeking control of Somali territory through illegal means. The United Nations, the African Union, the United States and the European Union all backed Somalia’s position, emphasizing the necessity of respecting established boundaries and national sovereignty.
Yet despite international pressure, particularly from the Biden administration, Mr. Abiy has remained resolute. He seems to believe that now is the right moment to carry out his plan, as Somalia grapples with an extremist insurgency and the American government is distracted by elections and embroiled in conflicts in the Middle East and Europe. A possible victory for Donald Trump, who Mr. Abiy apparently hopes will either support or be indifferent to his actions, is another boon.
Tensions, bubbling away all year, have escalated in recent weeks. In a display of power, Ethiopia sent its troops to Somalia twice in June, setting off complaints from Somalia to the United Nations Security Council. In July, a local militia in Somalia looted two truckloads of weapons and ammunition sent from Ethiopia, suggesting that arms have made their way into the country, too.
Somalia, for its part, threatened to expel Ethiopian troops from the African peacekeeping forces in the country and, in a bold move, approved a defense pact with Egypt in July — adding to one it signed earlier in the year with Turkey. Ankara has stepped in to mediate but has been unable to find a solution. With both sides at loggerheads, the region is sitting on a time bomb.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
World War I began in 1914, after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and lasted until 1918. During the conflict, Germany, Austria‑Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire (the Central ...
World War I, international conflict that in 1914-18 embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with Russia, the U.S., the Middle East, and other regions. It led to the fall of four great imperial dynasties and, in its destabilization of European society, laid the groundwork for World War II.
World War I: To its contemporaries, it was known simply as "the World War" or "the Great War," because it was nearly impossible to imagine a conflict that would surpass the one that shattered Europe between July 28, 1914, and November 11, 1918.
A typical village war memorial to soldiers killed in World War I. National World War I Museum and Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri, is a memorial dedicated to all Americans who served in World War I. The Liberty Memorial was dedicated on 1 November 1921, when the supreme Allied commanders spoke to a crowd of more than 100,000 people. [350]
Lists covering some of the major causes and effects of World War I, international conflict that in 1914-18 embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions. The war was one of the great watersheds of 20th-century history.
In this free resource on World War I, explore the causes and effects of the Great War to understand how the conflict shaped world history.
This World War I timeline of battles outlines the most important engagements of the 1914‑1918 war, from the first Battle of Mons to the final 1918 armistice.
Get a custom essay on First World War: Causes and Effects. For instance, more than eight million died and over thirty million people injured in the struggle. The war considerably evolved with the economic, political, cultural and social nature of Europe. Nations from the other continents also joined the war making it worse than it was.
World War I was a product of miscalculation, misunderstanding, and miscommunication. No one expected a war of the magnitude or duration of World War I. At first the armies relied on outdated methods of communication, such as carrier pigeons. The great powers mobilized more than a million horses.
Gain insight into why the death and destruction of World War I was different than previous wars through firsthand accounts from former soldiers.
A hundred years after the end of the "war to end all wars," USC experts discuss its surprising impact and how it affects us even today. One hundred years ago Sunday, the Allies and Germany agreed to an armistice ending World War I. The Great War claimed 40 million lives — but also serves as an unexpected pivot point for modern civilization.
This collection of World War I essay questions, written by Alpha History authors, can also be used for short answer questions, research tasks and revision.
The effects of World War I can be seen around the world even now, more than one hundred years after its end; however, there is still no consensus as to its cause.
The identification of the causes of World War I remains a debated issue. World War I began in the Balkans on July 28, 1914, and hostilities ended on November 11, 1918, leaving 17 million dead and 25 million wounded.
World War 1 Essay: World War 1 was started in July 1914 and officially ended on November 11, 1918. Conflicts emerged among the most powerful forces in the modern world with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany and the Ottoman Empire (and briefly Italy) on one side, and Britain, France, Russia, and later the United States on the other side during the war.
The Urgent Lessons of World War I. Pro patria mori [Latin for "Sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country"]. — "Dulce et Decorum est," 1917-1918, by Wilfred Owen, British poet who fought in the war. The past weeks should have been a remarkable occasion to reflect on history, on the magnitude, costs, and legacy of what was once ...
A war erupted between countries from 1914 to 1918 which is known as World War 1 which was between major powers of Europe. During the 19th century and the... read full [Essay Sample] for free
Militarism emerged as a significant cause of World War 1 due to the escalating arms race and military expenditures among various countries. Germany, in particular, invested heavily in its military, constructing numerous vessels, submarines, U-boats, warships, and conscripting a substantial army. Collectively, Britain, France, Germany, Austria ...
Ww1 and Its Effects on The World. World War One (WW1) happened from the years 1914 to 1918 and shaped what we know as the modern world. It had ever lasting impacts which can still be seen on daily basis but it mostly affected social and political spheres. It was between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria along with the Ottoman Empire against ...
The aftermath of World War I saw far-reaching and wide-ranging cultural, economic, and social change across Europe, Asia, Africa, and even in areas outside those that were directly involved. Four empires collapsed due to the war, old countries were abolished, new ones were formed, boundaries were redrawn, international organizations were ...
Spanish-American War: A Resource Guide. The Spanish-American War (1898) was a conflict between the U.S. and Spain, ending with the loss of Spain's overseas empire and the U.S. emerging as a world power. This guide compiles digital material, external websites, and a selected print bibliography.
The phraseology hearkens to her 2019 launch, at which Harris — a longtime prosecutor and California's first woman to serve as attorney general — recalled introducing herself in court as "Kamala Harris, for the people," adding, "In my whole life I've only had one client, the people.''Throughout that campaign, Harris returned to the phrase time and again, in speeches but also ...
Yet, the Israeli military never managed to overwhelm Hezbollah in 34 days of war, allowing the group and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to emerge as stars in the Arab world. Hezbollah soon allied ...
The former president and his backers aim to strengthen the power of the White House and limit the independence of federal agencies.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's campaign was warned about not taking photographs before an altercation at Arlington National Cemetery during a wreath-laying ceremony earlier this week to honor service members killed in the Afghanistan War withdrawal, a defense official told The Associated Press on Wednesday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter ...
In December 2012, a 23-year-old physiotherapy student boarded a bus in New Delhi a little after 9 p.m., expecting it would take her home. Instead, she was gang-raped and assaulted so viciously ...
For nearly a month, people in Lebanon and Israel braced for a wider war. A deadly rocket strike from Lebanon last month on the town of Majdal Shams in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights was ...
Ukraine had been bracing for a major Russian attack for weeks, in response to Kyiv's shock incursion into the border region of Kursk - the first foreign invasion of Russia since World War II ...
Dr. Elmi is a professor at the City University of Mogadishu, where Mr. Hassan is a fellow. They wrote from Mogadishu, Somalia. Trouble has horns to hold but not tails. This Somali proverb ...