THE FIRST WORLD WAR

ORIGINS & OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

IMPERIALISM

Imperialism is defined as the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination. As the Moroccan Crisis has evolved out of an imperialist relationship of France and Morocco and Germany’s imperialist attitude as forwarded in its World Policy caused tensions between the great European powers, especially Germany and the Entente Cordiale, one can well say that imperialism was another long-term cause for WWI. (“external” nationalism / jingoism, belligerence… cf. Scramble for Africa / Fashoda Crisis; Germany’s rise to power… etc.)

INDUSTRIALIZATION

The so-called “Second Industrial Revolution” that occurred in Germany in the second half of the 19th century boasted her economy. It became a serious competitor of Great Britain in the European market and so increased tensions among the two countries. In addition to that many leading figures in German politics feared that resources and markets would soon prove insufficient and therefore Germany should look for markets outside of Europe. So Germany’s economic boast forwarded the decision to start pursuing a new foreign policy. As chancellor Bülow stated: “Our vigorous national development, mainly in the industrial sphere, forced us to cross the ocean.”

NATIONALISM

In general nationalism is the strong identification of a group with a nation. With regards to WWI nationalism can also be considered a cause. Pan-nationalism in the form of Pan-Slavism helped to stir up trouble in the Balkan, as Austria feared it to cause the unification of all Slav peoples, including the southern Slavs that lived in Austria-Hungary and the aim to achieve a nationalistic attitude among the German people was one of the reasons why Germany started to pursue her ‘World Policy’.

MILITARISM

Militarism itself can be defined as the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests. Concerning World War I, militarism can be regarded a cause of it. Not only was it one of the reasons for the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race, but militarist attitudes can be also found in Austria’s decision to go to war with Serbia, as well as Germany’s justification to only fight a “pre-emptive war”. Generally one can well say that militarism was a common policy among the great powers in Europe at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. This becomes even more obvious if one takes a look at imperialism in which a militarist policy is often used in order to achieve a country’s goals (e.g. conquering territory to establish a colony).

GERMANY’S NEW COURSE/ WORLD POLICY/ “A PLACE IN THE SUN” / “SABRE-RATTLING”

Germany’s fundamental change in foreign policy from a European-focused one to one that was enlarging its interest in non-European affairs on a large scale was Germany’s ‘New Course’. The policy was aimed at making Germany a world power and to increase its status level among the European countries. Another motivation behind World Policy was to solve domestic problems. It should increase the patriotism among the Germans at a time when the apparent factional divisions in German politics were widening and thereby was a means of uniting national opinion and neutralizing the opposition of the Social Democrats. World Policy included rising expenses for the expansion of the military and the belated striving of Germany for colonies. It was belated, because the colonies Germany was now able to acquire were the ones left over by the other great powers. As a result the German colonies acquired by 1914 were dotted about the globe, making them indefensible and cost more than 505 million marks. However, for Germany and especially her Kaiser the prestige was regarded as being more important. Germany deserved, according to the Kaiser, her “rightful place in the sun”, meaning that Germany would then belatedly join in the scramble for colonies (especially Africa). This New Course of Germany was watched by other colonial powers with anxiety. Being regarded as “sabre rattling” (meaning?), the new foreign policy convinced them of the dangerous reality of German militarism. The formation of the Entente Cordiale was only one of the results of Germany’s striving for colonial acquisition. In general this policy increased tensions among the great powers in Europe from its start and therefore the ‘New Course’ and all the factors that contributed to it can be regarded as long-term causes of WWI.

NAVAL ARMS RACE

The Anglo-German Naval Arms Race was triggered by William II’s ambition to expand the German navy to the size of the British fleet. In order to achieve this, four Fleet Acts were passed in the period between 1898 and 1912. The British naval supremacy being challenged, Great Britain started her own fleet expansion programme expanding the Royal Navy massively in the period from 1902 to 1910 (Dreadnought battleships, Superdreadnought…). Great Britain had a two power standard with regards to her fleet, meaning that the Royal Navy was to match the size of the next biggest two fleets. Before Germany started its naval expansion, these fleets belonged to France and Russia. The Naval Arms Race increased tensions between Germany and Great Britain, because Germany’s enlargement of her fleet was seen as a provoking, threatening action by Great Britain. The long competition concerning the military between Great Britain and Germany ruptured their relation further and therefore can be considered a long-term cause of WWI.

KRÜGER TELGEGRAM

The Krüger Telegram was a message sent by William II of Germany to Paulus Krüger, president of the Transvaal Republic (being?). He congratulated him for the repelling of a raid by 600 British irregulars, who intended to trigger an anti-government uprising by the primarily British expatriate miners. As the telegram became public, the British were furious about it, which resulted in a deterioration of British German relations. (Boers?)

DAILY TELEGRAPH AFFAIR

The Daily Telegraph Affair was a state affair in the German Empire in 1908. Triggering the scandal were a number of talks Kaiser William II had had with a British colonel. He summarized the talks to wild statements and diplomatically damaging remarks and sent this “interview” to the British newspaper Daily Telegraph. The newspaper sent the manuscript to Berlin to have it confirmed by William II before publication. However, this was the task of the chancellor of the Empire Bernhard von Bülow. As he was as absent as well as the press relations officer, the paper was confirmed by someone in the Department for Foreign Affairs without having been proofread. The reaction of both the British and the German public was devastating for William II. Some voices called for his abdication, his prestige was severely damaged and British German relations suffered as he had indicated that the Germans cared nothing for the British. (The British are mad as March hares…)

ENTENTE CORDIALE

The Entente Cordiale was the precursor of the Triple Entente and was established in 1904. France and Great Britain cleared colonial disputes between them, because the new German world policy caused nervousness among them. The treaty was aimed at preventing German expansion in Europe, but mainly to prevent any further involvement of Germany in colonial affairs. (Entente v. alliance?)

TRIPLE ENTENTE

The Triple Entente was the extension of the Entente Cordiale (1904) between France and Great Britain with the inclusion of Russia in 1907. The Triple Entente was created with the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente in August 1907. This treaty settled the dispute between Russia and Great Britain about the supreme role in Central Asia. The Triple Entente was created as a counterweight to the Triple Alliance and thereby also to re- establish a balance of power in Europe. However, it can also be considered as one of the long-term causes for WWI, because with its creation the building of two opposing blocs had been completed.

TRIPLE ALLIANCE

The Triple Alliance was created in 1882 as an expansion of the Dual Alliance that had consisted of Austria-Hungary and Germany. Including Italy the alliance was created as a defensive one. If any of these countries was attacked by any other great power, the others would support their ally. However, support for an aggressive action was not compulsory. This was why Italy did not join Austria-Hungary and Germany when they declared war in 1914. The intention behind including Italy was to deprive France of a potential ally, thereby serving the purpose of keeping France isolated. This Alliance was part of the formation of bloc-alliances in Europe and therefore can be considered a long-term cause for WWI.

FIRST & SECOND MOROCCAN CRISES

The First Moroccan Crisis started in 1905 when Germany questioned Morocco’s status in order to ‘free’ it from French control and increase frictions between France and Great Britain. This was interpreted as a provocative action not only by France, but also by Great Britain and thereby caused a closer relationship between the two nations. The dispute was settled peacefully in the Algeciras Conference, in which France was supported by Great Britain, the U.S.A., Russia, Spain and Italy. Germany, being only supported by Austria-Hungary, gave in. The conference was a humiliation for Germany and increased the tensions between the Entente Cordiale (F + GB) and the Triple Alliance (A-H + G + (I)). In addition to that the conference increased the temptation by Germany to interpret the self-inflicted isolationism as an alleged “encirclement” of Germany by hostile nations.

The Second Moroccan Crisis began in 1911 when the Moroccan city Fez was occupied by the French and thereby endangering the country’s formal independence (France was still involved in the country’s financial and political affairs). Germany was afraid of a French protectorate and sent a gunship to the Moroccan coast without having informed the French before. This action caused immediate response by the French and British, who feared that Germany had ambitions in establishing a naval base in Morocco. However, this dispute was also settled peacefully in negotiations between France and Germany. But even though Germany was given compensation for accepting Morocco as a French protectorate, it failed to reach its main goal, the independence of Morocco, and can thereby be interpreted as another blow to Germany’s international image. Because the crises created and deepened Germany’s belief that it was encircled by enemies, they can be considered long-term causes of WWI. (also cf. imperialism)

PAN-SLAVISM

Pan-Slavism was a movement with its roots in the mid-19th century aimed at uniting all Slavic peoples. In the context of the road to WWI it played a significant role in increasing tensions in the Balkans and was one of the reasons why Russia fully supported Serbia when it faced the invasion by Austria-Hungary. Pan-Slavism guaranteed the support of all Slav states by the others in case of an involvement in a conflict. If Austria was to expand its territory any further East, Russia would have intervened, because it felt responsible for the Slav peoples. On top of that it increased Austria’s anxiety, because a lot of Slavs lived in the East of the Austrian- Hungarian Empire and Austria feared that these were striving for independence, which was of course against Austria’s intentions (being a multi-ethnic empire and in danger of collapsing).

BOSNIAN CRISIS

The Bosnian Crisis started on 6 October 1908, when Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina that had been under Austrian administration since 1878 (so was it rightful then??). It caused tensions among the states of Russia, Serbia, Germany and Austria. The dispute over the action was settled in 1909 in the Treaty of Berlin which was amended to accept the new status quo. Serbia and its ally Russia protested, but had to accept the action as Germany had announced to stand by its ally Austria and would support it in case of a conflict. Russia and Serbia, being unable to defeat Germany and Austria at this point, backed down. This humiliation severely damaged the relation of Germany to Russia and can be seen as one long-term cause for WWI. (short- term?)

BALKAN WARS

The two Balkan Wars were fought in 1912 and 1913. In the first Balkan War the Balkan League, consisting of Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Serbia, attacked the Ottoman Empire in October 1912 and defeated it. As a result all of the Balkan League countries gained territory in the East. However, having unresolved disputes with Serbia over the division of northern Macedonia and with Greece over southern Macedonia, Bulgaria was prepared, if the need arose, to solve the problems by force, and began transferring its forces to the disputed regions. Unwilling to yield to any pressure, Greece and Serbia settled their mutual differences and signed a military alliance directed against Bulgaria on 1 May 1913. Russia itself was a so-called prime mover in the establishment of the Balkan League and regarded it as a helpful strategic element in the ‘quarrel’ with Austria-Hungary over the predominance in the East. On the contrary, Austria-Hungary was not enthusiastic about the outcome of the war. Struggling to remain a multinational country it feared the influence of independent Balkan states on its Slav populations and a strong Serbia which had aspirations in the direction of the Austrian-held Bosnia.

The Second Balkan War broke out on 16 June 1913 when Bulgaria, dissatisfied with the share of territory received after the First Balkan War, attacked Serbia and Greece. As there was also a dispute between Bulgaria and Romania, Romania joined on the side of Greece and Serbia and the Ottoman Empire also took advantage of the situation to regain land lost in the First Balkan War. Bulgaria was quickly defeated and had to give away most of its territory gained after the First Balkan War. Serbia grew stronger, almost doubling its territory and population, which caused anxiety among Austrian authorities. Austria-H. was still in possession of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had been annexed in 1908 (Germany was backing Austria back then -> Russia & Serbia therefore forced to accept it). Serbian ambitions rose in regaining this territory. As the Balkan Wars increased tensions in the Balkans and turned the Balkan into a ‘powder keg’ they can be considered as short-term causes of WWI.

JULY CRISIS / ASSASSINATION OF SARAJEVO

The July Crisis describes a series of events in summer 1914, which finally led to the beginning of WWI and is therefore a short-term cause of WWI. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, on 28 June, 1914 by a Serbian nationalist called Gavrilo Princip was the trigger of the events.

On July 4, Count Hoyos (Austrian foreign ministry official) was sent to Berlin to ascertain German policy. German military was in favour of early aggressive action by Austria while Russia was unprepared.

On July 5, the German Kaiser offered Austria the “blank cheque”. (meaning?)

On July 7, having been backed up by Germany, at a meeting of the Austrian Council of Ministers, Austria urged military action. An agreement was concluded on presenting an ultimatum, with the hint that it should be so framed as to be unacceptable to Serbia, thus preparing the way for war.

On July 9, the German ambassador to Britain informed the German government about Britain’s intention to act according to her own judgment and "in no circumstances would be found on the side of the aggressors" in the event of war.

On July 14, the French president and prime minister left on a previously planned visit to Russia, arriving in St. Petersburg on July 20 for a three-day visit in order to reaffirm the obligations they had agreed on in the Franco-Russian Entente.

On July 23, the Austrian ultimatum was delivered to the Serbian government. It included terms as the dismissal of Serbian officials the Vienna government objected to and the censorship of anti-Austrian papers in Serbia. The Russian response to the ultimatum was to tell Serbia to accept its terms, because the Russian Great Military Programme was not be finished until 1917 and Russia was not ready for war before. Serbia was willing to accept all terms except for one (§6).

On July 25, Russia decided on a partial mobilization against Austria alone, because Austria rejected the wish of Russia to extend the 48 hour time-limit given to Serbia to accept the ultimatum. Serbia ordered general mobilization. On top of that Germany refused to join a four-power (G.; G.B.; I.; F.) mediation conference proposed by Great Britain. Also, Austria announced general mobilization.

On July 28, Austria declared war on Serbia. Russia then ordered the partial mobilization decided upon before, because of the presumed imminent invasion of Serbia by Austria. The main motivation for Russia to support Serbia was the pursued policy of Pan-Slavism and to secure its trade route to the Black Sea.

On July 29, Austria invaded Serbia. Britain stated that it would not stay neutral in a war involving Germany and France. The tsar ordered full mobilization, even though Austria had not yet mobilized against Russia. On July 30, Britain rejected Germany’s request for British neutrality. Germany demanded the withdrawal of Russian mobilization, otherwise this was to be interpreted as an aggressive act by Russia.

On July 31, Russia rejected Germany’s demand to suspend war measures. Therefore, Germany ordered general mobilization.

On August 1, France ordered general mobilization shortly before Germany declared war on Russia. Italy declared itself neutral, because the invasion of Serbia was an aggressive act by Austria-Hungary, and could therefore withdraw from the Triple-Alliance.

On August 3, Belgium refused Germany’s demand for benevolent Belgian neutrality and access for German troops. Later that day, Germany declared war on France. (Schlieffen Plan)

On August 4, the British ultimatum to Germany that followed her violation of Belgian neutrality by invasion earlier in the day was rejected. Therefore, Britain was then at war with Germany.

On August 6, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia.

“BLANK CHEQUE”

The “blank cheque” is a metaphor for the description of how Kaiser Wilhelm II told Austrian- Hungarian officials on July 5, 1914 that they could deal with Serbia however they wanted (that they’d enjoy full German support at least) after Serbian Nationalists had assassinated the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and that Germany would support Austria for whatever action would be taken (also in a war with Serbia that was backed up by Russia). Because this action resulted in the imminent reaction of Austria to plan a (local) war against Serbia, the blank cheque can be considered a short-term cause of WWI. SCHLIEFFEN PLAN

The Schlieffen Plan was a militaristic strategy in order to achieve victory in case of Germany finding itself at the brink of a two-front-war (France in the West; Russia in the East). The plan was aimed at avoiding a two-front war by concentrating troops in the West, quickly defeating the French and then rushing those troops by rail to the East to face the Russians before they had time to mobilize fully. In WWI, this plan failed because of Belgian resistance (backed up by G.B.), the underestimation of Russia’s speed of mobilization and the underestimation of the French railway-system with which they were able to mobilize their troops far more quickly.  Germany found herself in a trench-war and a two-front-war

BRITISH-BELGIAN NEUTRALITY TREATY (“this scrap of paper”)

The British-Belgian Neutrality Treaty had been signed by Belgium and Great Britain in 1839 and guaranteed that Great Britain would secure Belgium’s neutrality. The treaty committed Great Britain to intervene if Belgium’s neutrality was violated and therefore it displays one of the reasons why Great Britain joined the war against Germany. Its meaning was underestimated by Germany, which believed in a neutral Britain, because the British-Belgian Neutrality Treaty dated back to 1839. (still: there was uncertainty about the British position since they did not react immediately, causing Germany to pursue their war plan)

In how far did William’s system of alliances differ from Bismarck’s and which consequences resulted from that?

Bismarck’s flexible system of alliances was aimed at the goals of the isolation of France, securing Germany’s position in Europe and keeping peace in Europe.

Good relations with Russia prevented Germany from a two-front-war with Russia and France. Even though the League of the Three Emperors (G; A.-H.; R.) failed in 1887, the Reinsurance Treaty, signed by Germany and Russia in 1888, assured Germany not having to face Russia as an opponent in case of being attacked by France if Germany stayed neutral in case Russia was to be attacked by Austria- Hungary.

William’s system of alliances resulted in the building of two opposing blocs, namely the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente which made a war more likely. (why?)

He had no intention of keeping up the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia, which resulted in the formation of the Franco-Russian Entente in 1894 and ended the French isolationism. On top of that he pushed Britain out of its neutrality into an entente with France and Russia by establishing a rivalry through the Naval Arms Race and the world policy and thereby creating a strong enemy. If intended in the first place or not, the pursued policies and alliances ended in expansionism and were not aimed at peace-keeping.

What was William II’s role in the outbreak of the war?

The change in his alliance system from a flexible one to the creation of blocs is to be considered one of the causes of WWI. The change from a European-focused foreign policy to the pursuing of the ‘world policy’ and the resulting consequences are also part of his provocative initiatives that raised tensions among the European countries. The expansion of the navy ordered by him was one of the reasons why British-German relations deteriorated, because of the resulting naval rivalry between Germany and Great Britain. Other aspects that helped to push Europe at the brink of war were his personal faux pas that helped to stir up trouble with other European countries, such as the Krüger telegram and the Daily Telegraph Affair. At last the decision to sign the ‘blanke cheque’ increased the possibility of war to a great extent, giving Austria the opportunity to declare war with Germany’s consent and support.

Was the Schlieffen Plan doomed to fail?

By looking at it in retro-perspective the Schlieffen Plan was ‘doomed’ to fail. Proof for this is the subsequent failure of the plan after its activation. Many factors had not been considered.

1) It called for the invasion of neutral states in order to pass German troops to France. It was the decision to invade Belgium that would draw Great Britain into the war and would slow down the movement of the German army to the extent of time France needed to mobilize her troops. 2) The speed of Russian mobilization was underestimated. The plan implied that Germany had to defeat France within six weeks; the time the general staff thought it would take Russian troops to mobilize, and then move its troops over to the eastern border to defeat Russia. However, Russian troops advanced more quickly than expected, which forced the transferring of troops from the western to the eastern border and thereby the army force in the west was tremendously weakened. 3) The underestimation of the French railway system contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan. France was able to move its troops faster than expected and therefore the French army reached Northern France before the German troops arrived. At the point they arrived they were facing trench warfare. 4) No calculations of logistical shortcomings were included in the plan. It was logistically impracticable, as the historian van Crefeld puts it. Because of the fast advancing of troops supply lines stretched over 130 kilometres, making them an easy target for the British Expeditionary Force. On top of that the fast advance caused exhaustion among German soldiers and horses, which is a bad condition to fight in.

How and why did relations between Germany and Great Britain deteriorate?

Three main reasons can be made out as the reasons for the deterioration of the relationship. The shift in German foreign policy, military and economic competition and the personal insulting of Great Britain by the German Kaiser

The New Course in German foreign policy under William II was regarded by Great Britain as threatening and not reliable. Germany had, with pursuing this policy, become a rival in colonial affairs, resulting in imperial competition.

The Naval Arms Race is the prime example of military competition for German British rivalry and the resulting consequence, namely an anxious attitude towards Germany by Great Britain. On the economic level Germany and Great Britain had also become rivals by the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. Germany’s flourishing economy deprived Great Britain of markets in Europe and also threatened not only Britain’s supremacy of her navy, but also the supreme position of being the most industrialized and productive country in Europe.

The Daily Telegraph Affair and the Krüger Telegram were interpreted as sheer provocations of Great Britain through Germany, which also worsened the British-German relations.

Why can the Balkans be considered a powder keg?

After the First and Second Balkan War the situation in the Balkans had become very unstable. Austria wanted to keep up its influence on the Balkans, while Russia also struggled to establish a supreme role in the Balkans. The motivation for Russia was to secure its only trade line to the black sea and to act towards the principle of Pan-Slavism. Austria-Hungary on the contrary tried to get the upper hand in the Balkans, because it wanted to remain a multi-national Empire and feared the idea of Pan-Slavism, as it threatened to motivate Austria’s Slav people to struggle for independence. Russia had also lost prestige after it had to accept the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austria and was waiting for revenge after the humiliation. So the Balkans can be considered a powder keg, because two spheres of influence (R +A-H) tried to gain control of it at the same time.

Who was responsible for the outbreak of WWI? Do you agree with David Lloyd George that “the nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war?

The responsibility for the outbreak of WWI can be distributed among all the participants (except for the U.S.A.).

Germany wanted to fight a ‘preventive war’, before the Russian military program would have been finished in 1917. On top of that the war was seen as a solution to domestic problems by creating unity among the Germans. And Germany can be blamed for having handed Austria the ‘blank cheque’.

France wanted to regain the territories of Alsace and Lorraine and sought for revenge after its defeat in 1871 by Germany.

Great Britain feared a stronger Germany and it is speculated that it wanted Germany to be eliminated as an economic, imperial and military opponent.

Russia wanted to secure its influence on the Balkans by all means, having been one of the prime movers in the First and Second Balkan War.

Austria-Hungary wanted to keep up the Dual Monarchy by all means and wanted to stabilize the situation in the Balkans by establishing an Austrian sphere of influence. On top of that it can be blamed for handing Serbia an unrealizable ultimatum.

All in all one can well say that the countries all willingly and knowingly took into account that their provocative policies could result in a war, however there was not done enough to prevent one. Pursuing and achieving their egoistic aims was more important than to put oil on troubled water. They pushed each other closer to the edge of a “boiling cauldron of war” and as the first slithered in, the others were dragged in, too. (cf. two blocs of power)

 Could we also claim that is was no one’s fault / a miscalculation?  Could we side with historian Fritz Fischer: The Germans deliberately planned and provoked WWI? (Griff nach der Weltmacht)

THE FIRST “MODERN” AND “TOTAL” WAR

TOTAL WAR

The warring countries activated every resource available, human and non-human to supply the front lines. There was no clear separation between military and society. During the whole war, people of both genders had to contribute their part to the war effort of their country. This meant the war brought a collapse of the state system, resulting in a struggle for survival. The war wasn’t just about territorial gains; it was about the status as world power. Furthermore, everyone was affected as the economy had to support the army expenditures, meaning that the home population had to live a Spartan lifestyle. To secure the best possible outcome, domestic political disputes were put aside and the so-called “Burgfrieden” was implemented. This term refers to the way in which the garrison of a besieged castle puts aside its differences in the face of a common threat. The term comes to mean, a political truce at a time of crisis. It was necessary to exploit the national budget to press for a quick victory. (propaganda?)

MODERN WAR & NEW WEAPONRY

The enthusiasm in the early phase of the war was followed by a shock, due to the cruelty of the war. This implies that it showed the cruelty of the human being. The industrialisation that determined the war and innovations that largely influenced its course can be categorized into 4 aspects. - The mobilisation of huge armed forces, due to obligatory military service . These used the most modern weaponry. In 1914 there were 74 million soldiers mobilised on all sides. - New inventions that mass production brought along were: the widespread use of long range artillery, machine-pistols, battleships and submarines, also tanks, airplanes and zeppelins, which led to a waste of human and mechanic resources. These weapons made it easier to kill many enemies while limiting the risk of one’s own death. It was therefore called the “industrialised war” - One of the cruelest inventions was poisonous gas in 1915. This showed the depletion of the values of the “civilised world”, as it leads to suffocation and long painful deaths. - The war was seen by all participants as a struggle for survival. With unpredictable impact the Germans hit the French lines in 1914. The battle man against man was replaced by the battle between men against machines. The war of attrition at the western front, which saw hundreds of thousands of men lose their life in machine gun and artillery fire, became the cruel allegory of the First World War.

TRENCH WARFARE

The invention of long-range artillery and machine guns made it necessary for the re-organisaton of the armies, as well as the creation of trenches since the innovations of weapons preceded the innovation improving the soldiers’ mobility. The soldiers on both sides were forced to dig long trenches in which they could hide themselves, in order escape machine gun fire, and were sheltered from artillery. It is a form of land warfare. Trenches were dug parallel to each other and both armies often had secondary trenches. The trenches were protected by barbed wire fences and sand bags. The defenders had a clear advantage in this kind of warfare. There was not much movement at all and the line of trenches stayed more or less fixed throughout the war (on the western front). It was a warfare where both sides take turns to advance towards the enemy, making minimal gains and resulting in severe casualties for the aggressors. The area between opposing trench lines is known as "no man's land". It was exposed to artillery and gun-fire from both sides. Attacks, even if successful, often cost the attackers many lives. The mortality rate of people going ‘over the top’ (of the trenches) was very high. The conditions in the trenches were also very appalling.

WAR OF ATTRITION (Zermürbungskrieg) It was a battle strategy in which one hoped to exhaust the enemy’s human and material resources in futile exchanges. But production increased on both sides and hopes became futile. Out-of-date tactics were employed, leading to a high number of casualties. The effectiveness of the new weapons also meant it was an attrition of men. The war will usually be won by the side with greater resources. It represents the opposite tactic to the usual battle strategies, where one tries to achieve large gains by using as few resources as possible. So it was a war of attrition because soldiers had been told to walk into machine gun fire. The primary reason that World War I became a war of attrition was the use of modern weapons. Machine guns made it easy to cut down large numbers of men quickly if they entered no-man’s-land. Once opposing armies became entrenched, long-range artillery, aerial bombs, and poison gas were used to try to force the other side to abandon its shelters and retreat.

STALEMATE

A stalemate is a deadlock situation between two opposing sides, where a rapid progression is no longer possible. The conditions such as weather, resources and supply determine whether a side can have a better position once the stalemate is over. A stalemate often occurs in battles when quick offensive attacks fail, often when they are met by heavy opposition. The attacking side usually had to be intent on fighting a long-term battle. Physical barriers such as fences or trenches also contribute to a stalemate. It also describes the condition when mobile warfare turns into static warfare. Both sides normally build trenches and basements and attacks often result in large losses for the aggressors. During a stalemate only minimal territorial gains are achieved. (cf. stalemate on the western front after the “race for the sea”)

 Kriegsverlauf bis 1916? E.g. Germans failing to capture Paris, BEF, “race for the sea”, Russian invasion on eastern front?

BATTLE OF THE SOMME

The main job of the British forces in 1914 and 1915 was to support the French army; this was because the British army was very small. General Sir Douglas Haig, British commander-in-chief on the western front, was not ready to attack in 1916. He was however forced in Feb 1916 when the Germans attacked the French fortress of Verdun. The attack intensified and when Verdun was just about to fall, the British and French governments decided that Haig would attack at the Somme in July, relieving pressure on Verdun. The attack took place on July 1st of 1916.The plan of using heavy artillery to weaken German defenses failed and British attacks in the first days resulted in catastrophic amounts of casualties on the British side, although there were some successes to the south of the Somme. The losses on the first day were appalling and it was proposed to blow off the attack, but Haig insisted it should carry on. He was convinced that they had fatally weakened the Germans. Furthermore Haig had no choice, as Verdun was still under pressure. The battle continued until November 1916, when Haig called off the attack. An area of land about 25 km long and 6 km wide had been taken, yet British casualties ran at 420,000 and the French casualties were at about 200,00, the Germans had lost half a million troops. This, consequently weakened the Germans, but the Germans had killed more men than they had lost. However, the pressure was off Verdun. The Allied troops now had combat experience and were later boasted when the Americans joined the war on the side of the entente. Also, the troops were now experienced and better prepared for trench warfare in 1917/18. (Haig – the butcher of the Somme?)

BATTLE OF VERDUN

German chief of staff Erich von Falkenhayn hoped to bleed “France white” through repeated attacks. (cf. Battle of the Somme text)

PROPAGANDA The wartime enthusiasm had boosted the nations at the start of the war. When the proclaimed “victory peace” (the war to end all wars) proved an illusion and the people had to prepare for a long- term war with an unforeseeable end, the countries employed war propaganda to keep enthusiasm as high as possible. It sought to persuade the people that the war not just about political interests, but also about the preservation of national values. This should boast the stamina of the people at the front and also boast their confidence. This came to be known as “Kriegspatriotismus”. One measure to secure support at home was the already mentioned “Burgfrieden“. Wilhelm II said: „Ich kenne in meinem Volke keine Parteien mehr. Es gibt unter uns nur noch Deutsche“. The resulting disappearance of domestic tensions on the other hand led to growing international tensions and conflicts. The three main objectives of propaganda were nationalisation, finalisation und mobilisation. The propaganda also tried to avoid reporting anything negative from the war front, meaning reports and letters were censored. There should be no doubt that the country was on the verge of victory. The higher the number of casualties, the more propaganda stressed the necessity of the continued effort for victory. Everyone believed in the Siegfrieden. (war bonds?)

Why was there a stalemate situation in the early phase of the war? Firstly, by the end of 1914 both sides had constructed hundreds of trench systems running all the way from the Belgian coast to the Swiss border. This meant that no side had any fear of being outflanked, so there was no possibility of a surprise attack. Furthermore, artillery and machine gun fire made it pointless for infantry to walk into no-man’s-land; and even if they did, they didn’t get far. As the months went by, the trench systems became more and more fortified. Making territorial gains became even more difficult. Successful frontal attacks on such deep defenses were impossible to achieve, so for nearly 4 years the front lines hardly moved. (on the western front)

Secondly, as already mentioned, thanks to the new weaponry, defending was much easier and safer than attacking. Especially machine gun fire could deal with a large number of attackers. Since there were hardly any innovations in the area of field tactics, the situations didn’t change much, the commanders were intent on using the same attacking strategies over and over again to weaken the enemies defenses. Furthermore, due to production (and propaganda), there was no shortage of men and material, making a war of attrition futile.

What impact did the use of this new weaponry have? This trend of mass production of weaponry dates back to the American civil war, and continued through smaller conflicts in which new weapons were tested. The new weaponry gave the soldiers the ability to take out enemy forces much more quickly and gave them limited risk of dying oneself. In addition, the new weapons led to the reorganisation of armies and the stalemate situation, in which trench warfare was the most likely outcome. The defenders always had a clear advantage. The new warfare also meant that battles were harder to win and territorial gains were at large cost of people and ammunition. The creation of trenches then led to the amelioration and development of new weapons. The new weapons had a major effect on the morale of the soldiers, as mortality rates were very high once one had left the trenches.

What is a total war? What role did propaganda have in this context? Total war needed high productivity in industry and the unrestricted financial support from the government. This could only be achieved when the morale at home was at its highest. Therefore, reports and letters from the war fronts were either changed or censored to give the impression of imminent victory and glorious battles in which the soldiers achieved surprising breakthroughs. To guarantee the financial support from the government, the Burgfrieden was proclaimed by Wilhelm II, for example.

EPOCHAL YEAR 1917

Was 1914 the end of the long 19th century? Historians (Hobsbawm: “long 19th and short 20th century”) agree that the start of WWI marked the end of the 19th century. The American historian George F. Kennan called the war the “Urkatastrophe” (seminal catastrophe) of the twentieth century. It led to the defeat of large Empires like the monarchy of Austria-Hungary. It also led to the establishment of a communist system in the Soviet Union. It also led to the rise of fascist movements all over Europe and it also led to the instability of the liberal order in most countries. Although many people had positive expectations at the beginning of the century, there was no doubt of the need for innovation. The Industrial Revolution, nationalism and the spread of parliamentarianism was seen as a sign of the technological era of progress and peace. Furthermore, the prospect of war was met by large enthusiasm in most European countries. The belief that man could change the persisting order was popular, but after weeks the people had to realize that the war was the cruelest thing that had haunted Europe until the 1930s. (?? Sinn??) The amount of destruction and catastrophe provoked the belief of a struggle for survival. The war destroyed the people’s trust in the industry-civilisation and its technologies. The war also destroyed the people’s belief in humanity.

USA’s entry into the war (“peace without victory”) On January 22, 1917, Wilson addressed the Senate in a version of the speech he had given to the Europeans a month before, arguing for a “peace without victory.” That “victory” cited by Wilson was one of the main reasons for a continuation of the war: “Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor’s terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice.” On Feb 4, 1915, Germany started unrestricted submarine warfare. On 10th FEB Wilson published his 14 Points, which are found later on. When on May 7th, an American ship was sunk by a German submarine, America realised that Germany was not sticking to its promise of abandoning unrestricted submarine warfare. President Woodrow Wilson advocated "Peace Without Victory" before WWI was over in an attempt to stop bloodshed. He knew that if the Allies or the Central Powers were to win, then they would take something valuable from the losers, which would humiliate them and lead to new violence. Wilson wanted a peace where no country really loses, a compromise, a "Peace without Victory". The "peace without victory" speech was based on self- determination for all nations and the creation of an international organisation to enforce peace. Wilson’s plea fell on deaf ears in Europe, and Germany escalated their submarine warfare, sinking any ship flying enemy colors. One of those ships was the British luxury ocean liner RMS Lusitania, which was torpedoed and sunk with nearly 2,000 people, including 198 Americans on board. The loss of American lives outraged the nation and Wilson went back to Congress and had no other option as to prepare for war, yet he was still interested in the peace of the world and not interested in reparations or the like. Also the Zimmermann telegram meant that America had to intervene in Europe.

UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE

Unrestricted submarine warfare had been abolished during 1915 and 1916. After the OHL realised that there was a stalemate on the western front, which bought the Entente powers a lot of time, and since they were not intent on compromises, they decided something radical had to be done. This resulted in the resumption of the unrestricted submarine warfare, which, despite international warnings, meant that Germany declared all the oceans to warzones; this should force Britain into signing a peace treaty. The unrestricted warfare led to the death of innocent civilians, which drew harsh international criticism.

ZIMMERMANN TELEGRAM

It was the secret telegram sent form the Foreign Office in Berlin to the German ambassador in Mexico; the text was decoded by the British. Arthur Zimmermann was “Staatssekretär” in the German foreign office. Jan 19th 1917, the telegram notes that Germany intended to start unrestricted submarine warfare and furthermore tried to keep the USA neutral. In case that such neutrality was not guaranteed, Zimmermann proposed an alliance with Mexico, who he advises, in case of an aggression of the USA, to seek communication with Japan, and mediate between Germany and Japan. Zimmerman also indicates that the unrestricted submarine warfare will force England into agreeing on peace terms. Mexico was to acquire territory lost during previous wars with the US. (why Japan?)

RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

Before the outbreak of this revolution one has to consider that after miserable conditions in the country, paired with the humiliation by the loss of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 (about?), the Tsar Nicolaus II, was forced to resign on March 15th. After this event a preliminary government was set up in July 1917, which failed during a crisis in July. A second government, led by Alexander Kerenski, was not willing to end the war for Russia. The country became separated into two fronts, separated by the question what coalition the new government should form, one of which were the Bolsheviks, who had the majority in the Petrograd soviets (= council), which formed part of the new government. The economic, governmental and warfront crisis resulted in greater support for the Bolsheviks. Lenin, who had been exiled, and Trotsky came up with the plan to overthrow the government. In the night of November 8th, troops of the Red Guard occupied strategic buildings in St.Petersburg and the preliminary government was arrested. Lenin became head of government. He immediately declared the “Dekret über den Frieden” (Decree of Peace), in which he offered all war-involved countries a ceasefire/armistice. There was hardly any resistance against the putsch by the left-wing Bolsheviks. The soviets and military joined the Bolshevik peace-movement. The people of Petrograd were only informed in the morning. Lenin did not gain full control over Russia; the Russian civil war brought the proper end to the revolution. Lenin hoped that the Russian revolution would spark communist revolutions all over Europe. The revolution is called the October revolution, as the Russians had the old Julian calendar. Only after the revolution they used the Gregorian calendar, which we use today. (How did Lenin return to Russia? Political ideas?)

BOLSHEVIKS/ MENSHEVIKS

There was dissatisfaction with the failure of the Tsar government and the coalition government, because they stuck to the old course of the Tsar. The till then rather small Bolshevik party, the left wing of the socialist workers’ party, gained rapid popularity. The leader of the more radical wing of the Bolsheviks, Lenin, sought to defeat the coalition government. The Mensheviks, the minority in the country, were the right wing of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party. Both parties wanted to abolish the rule of the Tsar. The Bolsheviks decided, after their seizure of power, to stop the workers from creating national organisations. Furthermore, they tried to put the industry proletariat under central control of the state. The workers were forced to subordinate themselves to the trade unions, which they took over at a later stage. Furthermore, the Bolsheviks tried to oppress any opposition by means of secret policing. The Mensheviks did not play any important role after the October revolution in 1917.

SOVIET UNION The October Revolution of 1917 created a change of system: The 400-year Tsar-rule ended, yet no democracy was implemented. The Bolsheviks came to power and created a totalitarian regime, which became the Soviet Union in 1922.The second all-Russian, Soviet-congress saw that all their objectives had been reached. The government had been arrested, the Bolsheviks had the power. The soviet rule was declared. The Council of People's Commissars or Sovnarkom was a government institution formed shortly after the October Revolution in 1917. Created in the Russian Republic, the council laid foundations in restructuring the country to form the Soviet Union. It was of course under control of the Bolsheviks. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was established in December 1922, the USSR, Sovnarkom was modelled on the post-revolution Russian Sovnarkom. In 1922, the Bolsheviks won the civil war, forming the Soviet Union with the unification of the Russian and Ukrainian Republic.

COMMUNISM

This implies the autarchy of the ‘Staatspartei’, the Bolsheviks and their bureaucracy, supported by personality cult, which controlled the entire everyday life in the Soviet Union. The promotion of industrialisation and the collectivisation of the agricultural sector concluded the pillars of the economic “ modernisation from above”. This meant enormous social costs. To free up capital for the industrialisation, the living standard was reduced for the majority of the population. As part of communist ideology, nationalisation and seizure of land was used, employment insurances introduced. War-communism was established- seizure of food. There was an abolition of the police, army and bureaucracy. There should be equal wage payments for all. The spread of international communism was one of Lenin’s main concerns. Lenin, as chairman of the Bolsheviks, issued a series of decrees; introducing, for all workers, an 8-hour working day and 40-hour working weeks, the abolishment of titles and class distinctions, in order to create a classless society, while banning of non-Bolshevik newspapers. (theory of Leninism-Marxism? “steps” in Marxist ideology?)

TREATY OF BREST-LITOVSK 1918

In order to convince the people of his objectives and to gain time in order to implement them, Lenin needed peace with Germany immediately (How about Russia in war?). He therefore accepted the tremendously harsh peace terms that were dictated by the ‘Oberste Heeresleitung’. The resistance in the Central committees of the Bolsheviks was extensive. After the collapse of the army, the absence of a revolution in Germany and Austria-Hungary & the advance of the central powers, the Russians had no other option. Lenin had to accept their loss of sovereign rights in many western areas ; Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland became sovereign states. Trotsky called the treaty a Diktat-peace; he had wanted to buy time and see how the western front developed, but Russian military exhaustion forced Russia to sign it. Also, the Russians though that in case of a German defeat, it would regain territory. Therefore they had no intention to fight on. It was called a Diktat (robber peace) because of the harsh terms imposed by the Germans (such as??). Since the Germans were in the better position to negotiate terms, the OHL could implement its objectives. The Bolsheviks had to sign as quickly as possible, as they did not want to jeopardize the success of the October Revolution. Lenin’s predictions paid off, as the German West-front collapsed under the pressure of the American attack at the western front. (Though he couldn’t foresee this.)

What is an epochal year? It is a year where the constellation of nations is changed. It results in a profound change that would largely affect the rest of the century. It could see the inventions of new technologies, or the rise and fall of nations to world powers. It also sees the establishment of tendencies that were to dominate history, or change the course of history in a very significant way. (= change in paradigm)

Why did the US enter into the war and what were their objectives?

- February 4, 1915: German Admiralty Declaration regarding ? - February 10, 1915: President Wilson's first warning to the Germans - May 7, 1915: Lusitania sunk by German U-Boat off Irish coast - January 31, 1917: Germany officially breaks her promise and announces resumption of unrestricted U-boat warfare. - April 6, 1917: U.S. declares war on Germany (Zimmermann Telegram?)

When the USA entered the war on the side of the Entente in 1917, they had various reasons, they were of political, diplomatic and of economic nature: - The unrestricted submarine warfare that Germany used to cut off British supply lines - Wilson’s 14 points o Public peace treaties o Free naval travel o Economic blockades lifted o Independence of Poland o Creation of a League of Nations o Limit arms production o Resolution of all colonial issues o Clearing of occupied Russian territory o Belgian independence o Alsace-Lorraine, given back to France o Self-determination of all the people o Correction of borders, Polish access to the sea o Autonomous development for A/H o Re-establishment of Romania’s independence o Independence of Ottoman peoples. - Spread of free market economy and democracy - Germany had broken international law, by attacking civilians and committing to unrestricted submarine warfare. On April 2, 1917, Woodrow Wilson went to Congress to say that American neutrality had failed. The only hope for preventing future wars he claimed was to place the United States in a position to negotiate the peace. He urged Congress to vote for war on American terms. Wilson proclaimed that the United States was not fighting for the same goals as England or France, instead, the USA would be fighting for democracy and self-determination. On April 6th 1917, the USA declared war against Germany

Why was there a revolution in Russia and what was its outcome? The pre-world-war Russia was long behind the rest of Europe in terms of industry and farming. Living standards weren’t improved. The country suffered high inflation and a lack of food. The social causes stemmed mainly from the oppression of the lower classes by the Tsarist regime. The situation for the peasants became worse, as land reforms in the 1900s failed. Furthermore, in the cities, they encountered the usual problem of rapid industrialisation, which led to the creation of a large proletariat. It was the result of an accumulation of social unrest; due to Russia’s limited industry shifting towards total warfare, there was famine and conditions at the war front were appalling. Consequently, the whole of Russia had become war-tired and there were mutinies in the army. After the February Revolution in 1917, little had changed, so Lenin and Trotsky exploited the situation, aided by Germany (in how far?), and initiated the revolution to bring the Bolsheviks to power.

Why is 1917 an epochal year? The downfall of the ‘old-Europe’ in the First World War underlined its loss of power. The new world powers arose outside of Europe. In the West, the USA was militarily and economically superior; and in the East, the Soviet Union was the follow-up state of Tsarist Russia. Two major developments dominated or were to dominate the world. The American troops were to decide the war and its economy would guarantee them superiority. After the February and the October Revolution in 1917, the first communist state was proclaimed. This was a step that led to the peace treaty of Brest- Litovsk. The epochal year also condenses two modern tendencies. The 19th century was one of nation-states and extreme nationalism, but also internationalism and international cooperation. The result of this was the creation of a world market, meaning global interdependencies, which vanished at the start of WWI and were only re-established after WWII. Apart from that, the clash of the two superpowers is also the result of the opposing models of government since Russia, after the abdication of the Tsar, did not consort to parliamentary democracy, but to international socialism in form of Communism or Leninism. America, the free market economy and capitalist democracy, entered the war in April 1917, making its outcome predictable, as military logistics were now against Germany. It was the result of the resumed unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany, Furthermore, the widespread use of new weaponry brought the war to an all new level, an industrialised war, which meant that the war would cost the countries thousands of lives and a lot of money. Furthermore, the English foreign minister Arthur Balfour promised the Jews that they would receive a settlement in Palestine. This would later lead to the Gaza conflict. Another occurrence was that the OHL took over control from Wilhelm II and, from then on, decided about war strategies and logistics. The epochal year 1917 not only saw the Germans break civil law, by committing to unrestricted submarine warfare, but also saw that this should provoke the American declaration of war on Germany, which would be decisive for the defeat of the central powers. With the declaration of war in April 1917, the USA changed its policy of political solitude, its isolationism. This was only the case in the American relationship with Europe, as the Monroe Doctrine forbade any intervention in any country which was not in the American sphere of influence. America was determined to bring democracy to Germany. (So two world powers enter the stage that were to dominate the 20th century / Cold War.)

What were the different attitudes towards the Brest-Litovsk Treaty in the Soviet Union? Germany had dictated the conditions in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Since Lenin and Trotsky were international revolutionaries, they had only a limited loyalty towards Russia, and wanted to spread the proletarian revolution. So they subordinated Russian interests in the talks. This was, however, to the dismay of many Bolsheviks and to the dismay of most Russians. They called it a ‘robber peace’. The majority of the Bolsheviks, especially the “left communists”, condemned the signing of the treaty at Brest-Litovsk. In the end, after days of discussions, it was only Lenin’s persistence that there was need for party loyalty in a time of crisis that finally persuaded them to reluctantly accept the treaty. The collapse of the German western front proved Lenin right, because consequently there was a withdrawal of all German troops from Russia. Lenin had speculated that the Treaty would become meaningless had paid off. It strengthened his position in the party and in Russia; it also enabled him to get backing to expel political opponents such as the Left SRs. It is called a ‘pobber peace’ as Russia had been picked apart. They lost the territories of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. (Different attitudes towards the Treaty: Lenin and Trotzky?)

How did this Treaty change Germany’s situation? Germany could redirect all its resources to the western front, hoping to achieve a forced armistice. It took away logistical problems of fighting a two front war. It also meant that Germany had secured effective gains in territorial perspective. The “robber peace” led to an extensive propaganda campaign to boost morale and productivity at the western front and in Germany’s factories. Germany also feared a Bolshevik revolution like the one in Russia. Yet, Germany did not manage to get its troops to the western front in time to prevent its collapse. The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a kind of military victory for Germany. This strengthened the position of the OHL, which had replaced Wilhelm II in all his military functions.

END OF FIRST WORLD WAR & POLITICAL CHANGES IN GERMANY

STAB-IN-THE-BACK MYTH (Dolchstoßlegende)

 German popular reaction to the armistice & Treaty of Versailles was very negative → especially war-guilt clause angered German people (ART. 231)  term (Dolchstoß) first used by Ludendorff (picture) → German army was not defeated but betrayed  by unpatriotic populace (with whom they meant the Jewish-Bolshevik population) → claimed that these had worked against the German army & for its defeat  & by German politicians through signing the Treaty of Versailles → What most Germans did not know: army leaders wanted German politicians to start secret peace negotiations with Allies  Right-wing extremists disavowed the failure of the German army

 Concept welcomed with open arms → Germany’s last attack (Spring Offensive 1918) seemed to be successful → in reality the lack of supply caused a huge amount of casualties & the German army lost → Germans did not realize the sudden defeat & its consequences for Germany

THE GERMAN REVOLUTION 1918 (November Revolution)

PREHISTORY  ‚Military dictatorship‘ (Wilhelm II: no longer control over army) by 3rd Army High Command (→ Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg (upper picture)) e.g. by provoking the USA by submarine attack to make them join war (upper picture: von Hindenburg)  Max von Baden (lower picture) new Chancellor (why? Motivation?)  SPD split up in SPD and USPD (→ more radical)  First strikes caused by less food  War seemed not to end

SAILORS´ MUTINY  3rd November 1918  Should take away pressure from army by calling the enemy’s attention on the English channel  sailors demonstrated → Suicidal mission  Resisted the officers’ order (thought that right-wing officers endangered armistice negotiations & wanted to save rather own lives than ‘German honour’  Uprisings in Wilhelmshaven and Kiel (→ 8 sailors killed, 400 arrested) → genuine protest against intolerable conditions → spread throughout Germany  Soldiers’, Workers’ and Sailors’ Councils were formed (controlled by Socialists → snatch control of administration from local government; get rid of Emperor & establish democratic form of government)  8th November: Republic proclaimed by Kurt Eisner (Independent Socialist; picture) in Bavaria (→ ‘Free State’) → reason: frightened by invasion of Austria/Hungary (→ collapsed); aimed for peace  Threat of strikes & civil war (→ Shop Stewards, most active revolutionaries; leaders: Barth & Müller)

9th NOVEMBER 1918  Pressure from SPD, Shop Stewards & Independent Socialists (leader: Hugo Haase) that Wilhelm II shall abdicate; if not: big uprising on 9th November → Wilhelm II refused, did not react  At noon: Prince Max von Baden pronounced abdication of Emperor autonomously (he feared the threatened uprising) → He intended appointment of Friedrich Ebert (moderate Social Democrat, leader of SPD with Philipp Scheidemann (upper picture), level-headed; von Baden had most respect for Ebert) as new leader (Imperial Chancellor) → could be able to gain control again & avert radical social revolution  Before appointment: Karl Liebknecht (lower picture, leader of the Spartacists) proclaims Soviet Republic & speaks up for more radical socialists (Russia as the political role model → radical approach)  Against Ebert’s hopes: Philipp Scheidemann reacts with proclaiming a German Socialist Republic to marginalize Liebknecht’s Republic (democratic, aim: peace and stability → moderate approach)  Ebert appointed as leader of new civilian government → Majority Socialists had to hurry up to avoid social strikes, uprisings, demonstrations & breakdown of governmental authority  10th November: Wilhelm II went into exile to Holland

TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT  10th November: negotiations between Majority Socialists (SPD) and Independent Socialists (USPD) → asks for coalition government  USPD’s conditions (e.g. only socialists in government) → Ebert accepted with delay (hoped for government including all political views)  Compromise caretaker government (temporary): six-member ‘Council of People´s Representatives‘ formed → 3 Independent Socialists (Haase, Dittmann, Barth) & 3 Majority Socialists (Ebert, Scheidemann, Landsberg) → soon gained popularity  Tasks: e.g. organizing elections for National Constituent Assembly (suffrage: wo-/men over 20 years of age); strive for armistice, peace negotiations, food supply, demobilization of troops, return former soldiers to civilian life & work, suppress people’s violence  Government should last until National Constituent Assembly was established  Armistice achieved on 11th November: signed by Germany (Erzberger) & the Allies & came into effect at 11 o’clock (terms: withdrawal from enemy territories, disarmament, etc. → Treaty of Versailles)  Meetings with delegates of the All-German Congress of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils (body of 28 members → councils have all executive & legislative power) → Hamburg Points: 8 conditions shall be fulfilled (e.g. in army: ranks abolished, officers elected, standing army replaced by people’s militia) → Ebert had to accept due to less power but he delayed realization (→ endangered Ebert-Groener Pact)  12th November: Ebert-Groener Pact: General Groener (picture; successor of Ludendorff) offered Ebert support of army in maintaining laws and suppressing revolutionary uprisings → Ebert accepted (→ Groener gained autonomy of military guidance) → new regime needs the help of the old elites (Reichswehr) → Foundation/ cause of repeated repression of radical moments in following months & years → split between moderate & radical socialists → failure of unification (in defense of Weimar democracy) (→ Army, judicial & civil service remained untouched by political revolution)  15th November: Stinnes-Legien Agreement: crucial concessions to labor (e.g. reincorporation of soldiers, establishment of workers’ committees (→ employees’ working conditions, limitation of working day to 8 hours, institution of Central Committee (→ representatives of unions) → regulate working problems → Committee laid foundation for Zentrale ArbeitsGemeinschaft (→ later rejection of economic elites to system for such concessions to workers)  December: USPD left government → wanted a complete new reform of army & socialization of key industries → in short: wanted to effect a genuine revolution  More & more tensions → result in revolts (e.g. 6th December: soldiers fired & killed Spartacist demonstrators)

SPARTACUS WEEK  1st January 1919: Spartacists break with Independent Socialists & formed German Communist Party (KPD, leaders: Karl Liebknecht & Rosa Luxemburg(picture)) → want people to be informed about politics (→ gained support by Shop Stewards) → 6th January 1919: formed revolutionary committee (53 people), leaders: Liebknecht, Ledebour, Scholze  Spontaneous, large uprising in Berlin (triggered by dismissal of radical police chief Eichhorn (→ under control of Socialist leaders)  SPD overreacts: Ebert uses Ebert-Groener-Pact & requests support of army and Free Corps units (demobilized soldiers) → suppressed revolts with vengeance (started on 10th January 1919)  13th January 1919: Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg brutally murdered during process of imprisoning  Larger (, unbridgeable) gap between moderate Social Democrats & radical socialists/ communists  Bitter resentment & hostility of even later communists to socialists (SPD)  More street fighting, strikes, demonstrations & barricades (again eliminated by army) → almost perpetual state of civil war

FORMATION OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC  Elections expected for 19th January must be held by end of January due to demonstrations (→ elections for constituent assembly)  SPD: coalition with German Democratic Party (DDP) and Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum)  6th February: National Constituent Assembly meets in Weimar  13th February: Ebert (picture) elected as First Republic President and Scheidemann became head of coalition government

Who spread the “stab-in-the-back myth” and to what purpose?  Army leaders (Ludendorff, later also Hindenburg) & right-wing nationalists (especially NSDAP) spread stab-in-the-back myth  In order to draw the public’s attention to others than themselves (who were responsible for the defeat) → did not want to take responsibility & consequences for their failure  & to cause distrust of German politicians, Jewish-Bolshevik population & new regime (→ population against democracy from beginning of Weimar Republic)

How did the November Revolution contribute to the Emperor’s abdication and to the armistice?  Emperor did not abdicate himself but Germany’s chancellor pronounced his abdication in a situation where there was no other option than acting this way (& Emperor did not admit his failure but hiding from public and its reaction to his failure) → forced abdication by revolutionary people  Temporary government was established whose task and aim was armistice → not supported by majority of people (→ republic without republicans) → later more detailed armistice signed with the Treaty of Versailles

What were the main proposals for a future Germany to look like, what were the main differences between them & which model was chosen in the end?  Workers’ and soldiers’ councils formed during sailors’ mutiny; wanted to dispossess Wilhelm II; democratic socialists; had all legislative & executive power (→ council democracy) → represented the majority working class’ opinions & strived for their aims (→ZAG) → failed due to military power that suppressed their (& the radical politicians’) uprisings  Weimar Republic (basis found on 9th November by Ebert as Chancellor, enhanced the following days by creating the temporary government); wanted to establish a peaceful, democratic system (→ parliamentary democracy); supported by army → used this advantage by suppressing revolutionaries with violence → loss of people’s & radicals’ support; signed Treaty of Versailles → lost even more support  Nevertheless, Weimar Republic was “chosen” in the end due to its support by the army but soon the Majority Socialists lost the majority of votes & the support of the people → old elites were still very powerful (army, …) → mind-set of the people very conservative & anti-democratic → radical left dissatisfied (So what ARE the differences between a council democracy and a parliamentary democracy?) Why did Germany lose WWI?  Weak allies (→ Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria)  Inefficient organization  Failure of Schlieffen Plan → underestimate France’s military strength & Russian mobilization → two-front war (lack of alternative strategies)  Unrestricted submarine warfare  Naval Blockade (Britain stopped all supply that was shipped to Germany by blocking the few ports) → lack of resources → starvation → revolutionaries in army & country  Strength of Allies → supported with resources by US whole time; superiority at sea; more modern warfare  Worsened economy → huge investments in war instead of people; less trade (import/export) possible → less resources → worse living conditions

Can the First World War be considered to be the “seminal catastrophe of the 20th century”, as historians claim? In how far did it give rise to the “short 20th century”?  Led to economic crisis; beginning of ideological after-shocks but first democratic system in Germany  Change of political system → 1918: final fall of old regime (end of century of nation-states; brutality of warfare... connection between WWI & WWII? Versailles?)

PEACE TREATIES

THE “BIG THREE”  USA (President Woodrow Wilson); France (George Clemenceau); Great Britain (David Lloyd George) → most powerful countries after WWI who decided on how to treat Germany after her surrender  Met at the Paris peace conference (January-July 1919)

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (Völkerbund)  Resulted from Paris peace conference  International organization to maintain world peace  Lasted for 27 years, Germany initially excluded but joined in 1926 & withdrew from LoN in 1933 → failed, as a Second World War broke out (WHY did fail?)

THE FOURTEEN POINTS / SELF-DETERMINATION

The "Fourteen Points" was a statement of aims contained in a speech given by Woodrow Wilson in Congress on January 8, 1918. The points contained war aims and post-war aims, as well as general guidelines for post-war territorial settlement. He tried to convince the world that the nations involved in the war wanted to establish post-war peace. Europe welcomed Wilson’s suggestions, but the main Entente powers, France and Britain, were skeptical of the usefulness of Wilson’s ideas.  The Fourteen Points speech was the only issuing statement of war aims by America, who, according to Woodrow, wanted self-determination of zones within Europe and governance in a League of Nations.  Wilsons 14 points o Public peace treaties o Free naval travel o Economic blockades lifted o Independence of Poland o Creation of a League of Nations o Limit arms production o Resolution of all colonial issues o Clearing of occupied Russian territory o Belgian independence o Alsaces-Lorraine, given-back to France o Self-determination of all the people o Correction of borders, Polish access to the sea o Autonomous development for A/H o Re-establishment of Romania’s independence o Independence of Ottoman peoples.

TREATY OF VERSAILLES (“ignominious peace”- Schandfrieden; dictate)  June 1919: Germany signed Treaty → Weimar representatives knew that they had to sign and that there was no other option than to agree (had not even been invited to the negotiations!)  Most important terms: - Conquered territory is given back to its primary possessors & more (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine to France, West-Prussia to Poland) (Polish Corridor) - Harsh disarmament (army reduced to 100,000 men, no air force nor submarines, reduced amount of navy ships) (Rhineland?) - Article 231: War-guilt Clause → Germany had to concede the full responsibility and guilt for starting the war → therefore responsible for all damaged caused by the war → therefore Germany solely had to pay back a high indemnity (reparations) for everything the war destroyed (either in goods or in cash)  Reaction of the German people: - Treaty seen as a dictate as it was forced on the Germans and they had no choice but to sign it - German people outraged by the Treaty’s terms & against German signature → thought it to be humiliating & unfair (→ Schandfrieden) - German politicians (especially the SPD) seen as traitor → stab-in-the-back-myth supported this impression/opinion/mood → German people: lack of commitment to democracy - Loss of national cohesion

→ however, it satisfied the “Big Three” as the LoN was established (→ USA), the reparations were implemented (→ France) & Germany was made weak enough to be forced to maintain peace but at the same time strong enough to stop the spread of communism (→ UK) (Who got most of what they wanted? Long-term impact of Versailles? Economic / psychological / territorial impact? Right-wing propaganda? USA never ratified Versailles...)

TWENTY YEARS’ TRUCE - Means an armistice of 20 years (1919-1939) - Also: duration of the Treaty of Versailles (?)

(General Foch’s opinion on Versailles Treaty; treaty terms indicate an upcoming war! Cf. WWII – inevitable consequence of WWI?)

POLISH CORRIDOR

This corridor is a strip of land which is between 32 to 112km wide that was granted to the newly reconstituted state of Poland, giving it access to the Baltic Sea. The corridor consisted of West Prussia and the east of the Province of Pozen, which the Treaty of Versailles had given to Poland after Germany had been defeated. This arrangement caused humiliation on the German side, provoking much animosity and resentment towards the Polish and the allies, as the corridor ran between Pomerania and East Prussia, separating east Prussia from the new German republic. The Polish Corridor was a reaction to the proposal of Wilson’s 14 points where he demands that Poland should be given “a free and secure access to the sea”.

100.000 MANN HEER

In order to prevent Germany from any military aggression or back-lashing against the Treaty of Versailles, and to keep them from threatening the establishment of European peace, the Treaty of Versailles only allowed an army of 100,000 men to defend the new German republic. That number was hardly big enough to defend the country against any attack, as for example the Germans had lost up to 500,000 soldiers in Verdun alone. The limitation of the army humiliated the Germans a lot.

TREATY OF ST. GERMAINE

The Treaty of Saint-Germaine was signed on 10 September 1919 by the victorious Allies of WWI on the one hand and by the Republic of German-Austria on the other and clarified how Austria had to handle her relations with Germany in the years after WWI. Article 88 of the treaty required Austria to refrain from directly or indirectly compromising its independence, which meant that Austria could not enter into political or economic union with the German Reich without the agreement of the council of the League of Nations and was prohibited an ‘Anschluss’ to the Germany.

What did the “Big Three” want with respect to the treatment of Germany and who got most of what he wanted?  USA: did not want Germany to be harshly punished → due to less power than UK & France, he compromised on their demands when the LON was founded  France: (French people thought like their leader) wanted a very harsh treatment of Germany to keep it down and never let it go up again so that it will never have a chance to harm France another time (Clemenceau still affected by Franco-Prussian war and therewith the loss of Alsace & Lorraine) → wanted revenge → claimed huge reparations as Germany caused the most damage in France → wanted to protect the French population from reliving these terrible losses of WWI  UK: Lloyd George clearly supported the British people’s will of damaging Germany as much as possible, even though he himself was rather against such harsh punishment → also claimed for huge reparations to Britain (→ personally thought that Germany should rather restore a financial stable economy as it was one of Britain’s most important trading partners before the war)  As the French & the British population had in most points a similar attitude, France & Britain got most what they wanted; Wilson was not taken seriously with his vision of a peaceful world (→ 14 points) (? GB: treaty too harsh; balance of power => cf. British-German relations, 1919-1939!)

Why would France insist on a harsh treatment of Germany?  In order to end the permanent struggle of Germany and France that has a long history, France wanted to use its chance to finally stamp Germany to the ground (“hereditary enmity”)  Long-term enemies (why?)

Why was the Treaty of Versailles an “ignominious peace” to many Germans? How did the treatment of the German delegation contribute to that perception?  Due to the image of a stab-in-the-back that was established by the army leaders, most Germans condemned the Treaty of Versailles → to their mind, the punishment was too severe & in the end of WWI, it even looked as if Germany still had a chance to win the war (which was definitely nonsense but most people could not think rationally at that time as the defeat was an unbelievable, not possible twist, keeping in mind their attitude before the war) → This chance of winning the war was interrupted by the “evil” politicians → German pride is attacked

Was the Treaty of Versailles rather a “Twenty-Years-Truce” and if so, why?  For the time being, the treaty was conformed in most of its terms  Only reparations were impossible to pay back immediately & were neither performable in long-term → caused economic breakdown  Treaty made it nearly impossible that Germany might regain its strength → therefore: yes, it ensured armistice as it secured Germany’s disability in several forms  In 1933, Nazis came to power and broke its terms step by step → Allies did not show a serious reaction (Die Frage zielt in die Richtung: WWII as the inevitable consequence of WWI? Hier gilt es dann zu berücksichtigen, welche Parallelen / Kontinuitäten beide Weltkriege aufweisen, z.B. Aspekte der Kriegsführung, hier aber natürlich auch der „Revanche“ / Revisionismusgedanke; ebenso z.B. Nationalismus / andere Parallelen; ggf. auch welche „legacy“ WWI in der Zwischenkriegszeit hinterlassen hat. Argumentiert man anders (not the inevitable consequence), müsste man schauen, was WWII einzigartig macht bzw. welche Ereignisse o.Ä. in der Zwischenkriegszeit zu WWII führten / beitrugen, die nicht unmittelbar mit WWI verknüpft sind).

Sources:  http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/sandytov/Big_Three.htm  http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm  http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/nov-11-1918-world-war-i-ends/  http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/stab_in_the_back_legend.htm  http://suite101.com/article/the-myth-of-the-stab-in-the-back-a254613  http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/the-nazi-rise-to-power/effects-of-ww1-on- germany/stabbed-in-the-back/#.URlm9GdekkY  http://voices.yahoo.com/why-did-germany-her-allies-lose-world-war-1-11102460.html  http://socyberty.com/history/why-did-germany-lose-world-war-one/