NOTES: The First World War: Why did the war end in 1918?

Task 1 - The War at Sea 

1. What was the state of the rival navies at the outbreak of war in 1914? 
The British saw their royal navy as their salvation, it's supremacy allowed for deficiencies in the army. Maintenance their naval dominance required a lot of effort and money. From the end of the Boer war to August 1914 Sir John Fisher (First Sea Lord) directed energy towards naval reform. His reforms were not at first directed towards Germany but were instead par of a periodic modernization programme - until 1904 the navy's size was calculated in relation to France and Russia. However, with the German naval bills of 1898 and 1900, Britain fought back believing that the Kaiser was building a navy to rival that of the UK, thus beginning the Anglo-German naval race. This was made more dramatic by the H.M.S Dreadnought (10th February 1906), rendering all other ships obsolete and causing both nations to have to start again from square one. The contest itself was based off of the writings of Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan which shakily assumed that the sheer number of large ships was more important than their effectiveness or the quality of the men who sailed in them. However, the state of military technology meant that this would be a long war and long wars do not need large ships as neither nation would be willing to risk the destruction of an entire fleet for a lengthy war. Smaler ships are more suitable for a long war as the navy's role is to maintain a blockade, keep shipping lanes open, transport troops and protect merchant shipping.
Germany did not have much of a significant overseas empire to defend like Britain, nor were Dreadnoughts going to much to counter land based threats or protect their ally, Austria-Hungary. They instead built them for image. The Kaiser wanted to appear powerful and threatening.
Britain won the naval race. However she did have a massive head start and didn't have to finance an army at the same time. On the eve of war Britain's total fleet was the largest and included 22 dreadnoughts, 40 other battleships and 130 cruisers of other various types. Germany had 15, 22 and 45 respectively. Russia was forced to give it's navy more attention after it's defeat by Japan and had 10 battleships and 12 cruisers. France had 22 battleships and 28 cruisers. Austria and Italy both possessed fleets around the same size as Russia's, and, although their involvement was not yet definite, both the US and Japan had undergone a dramatic programme of ship building. The naval war would primarily be a contest between Britain and Germany. However they both had very different tactics. Britain's fleet was well organised and disciplined but the highest ranking officers earned the place by social status over knowledge and skill. Germany instead offered bright young men the opportunity to work their way up in the ranks by proving their abilities.

2. What strategies did each navy employ in the early months of the war?
Britain had two strategies. The first was created by 'westerners' who believed that the naval war would be won on the North Sea. They planned to confront Germany near the Heligoland Bight. It involved taking control of the Baltic, thus cutting German trade routes to Sweden and stopping it's supply of valuable raw materials. However this plan assumed that Britain's Navy was invincible and it also increased the likelihood of of attacks by mines, torpedoes or submarines. The second plan was to avoid battles unless victory was guaranteed, and until that day the navy would be used to blockade Germany at a great distance. This put Germany in a difficult position as the only way to break the blockade would be to confront a force much bigger than that of its own.
Tirpitz provided Germany with a passive policy in which he was confident that he could preserve the fleet, as the Germans had more important technological advances that counterbalanced the size of the royal navy. However he did not receive much support and a more cautious group, including the Kaiser, decided that a guerrilla campaign involving torpedo raids, mines, and submarine attacks would in fact win the war and this strategy was ultimately adopted.

3. What success did the Royal Navy have in 1914? 
Both on land and at sea the war became characterized by a persistent stalemate. British commander Admiral Sir Archibald Berkeley Milne displayed the Royal Navies cautiousness and mediocrity. Following a disaster in the Mediterranean within the first few days of the war, another catastrophe followed on the 1st of November 1914. Vice-Admiral Sir Christopher Craddock met Admiral Graf Von Spee's East Asia Squadron off the coast of Chile. Their were only 5 survivors and Craddock was among those who were killed. This was a huge shock to the British as they had previously believed that there navy was invincible. A task force was then sent under Vice-Admiral Sir Frederick Sturdee to intercept Spee. He arrived on Port Stanley on 7 December 1914, where he assembled a squadron consisting of two modern battle cruisers and six other cruisers. Sturdee confronted an unaware Spee with the knowledge that his ships were both faster and better armed. After a short chase Spee retreated his light cruisers while 2 modern battleships remained. Sturdee then dispatched his cruisers to chase Spee's escaping ships. the Germans lost around 2000 lives, including Spee, whilst there were only 21 British casualties.
By the end of the year the oceans were rid of German raiders and British command of the seas was now total.

4. What was the significance of the battle of Jutland 1916?
There was a possibility that Germany could achieve a major naval breakthrough by severely damaging the British fleet, so that the British would find it difficult to find sufficient ships to escort both troops and supplies to France and the Middle East.
On May 31st, Rear-Admiral von Sheer was able to temp the British fleet out of it's bases. In the subsequent battle of Jutland he managed to inflict sufficient damage on the British fleet, however he rapidly withdrew his own fleet back to the German North Sea Bases. Although he may have damaged the British Navy, strategically the situation had not changed. The German fleet was not confined but it was confined to Norther Germany. The British retained their naval superiority and the blockade was still in place.

5. What was the role of the British blockade during the First World War?
At the beginning of the war, Britain's 'Business as Usual' strategy meant that the Royal Navy would blockade Germany, while Russia and France would make the major contributions on land. While the rest of this strategy failed when the war began, the naval aspects did endure, starving the German people into submission. However this plan was rather hasty and was built on the assumption that Germany depended heavily on on over seas trade for food and raw materials. While the blockade did cause widespread hardship, it would never have resulted in outright victory for the British.
The blockade was also complicated by the Treaty of London of 1909, preventing belligerents from stoping commodities from entering a neutral country. In order for the blockade to be effective, Britain had to block supplies through Holland (a neutral country). But fortunately for the Britsh the treaty was never ratified, allowing them to interfere with trade carried in neutral ships or bound for neutral ports.
They could not simply ignore the treaty, since this would anger the neutral states who traded with Germany, including America. This issue proved a sore point in Anglo-American relations. In February 1916 the British began to ration good entering Germany, anything beyond stipulated levels was considered contraband and was confiscated. This did not satisfy the Americans but it appeared that Germany was angering the US much more than the British through their submarine attacks on merchant ships.

6. What was the impact of submarine warfare during the First World War? 
At the beginning of the war, many questioned the morality of fighting under water. In 1902 Admiral sir Arthur Wilson described the submarine as 'underhand, unfair, and damned unEnglish'. In this sense Germany had an advantage as they began to think of submarines in terms of ocean-going operations not simply coastal ones. The British, in comparisons, were much slower to widen their perception of U-boat utility. Victory of submarine warfare would go to the country that managed to build the greatest number of new vessels in the shortest time. Germany won this race hands down.
Although many British admirals recognised the potential of the submarine they did not see it as an immediate threat, as without torpedoes the threat was minimal. Those who did doubt the submarine had a rude awakening on 22 September when a single U-boat sunk three cruisers and 1600 people died.
However submarines did play a role that was not quite anticipated. Since Britain was inferring with international trade,  Germany decided to impose their own blockade upon Britain with the use of U-boats. But submarines would only work in a blockade if they sunk the ships that were supplying the goods. Therefore a conventional blockade, free of civilian casualties, could not be easily achieved. However on the 4th of February 1915, Germany issued a declaration stating that 'all waters surrounding Britain and Ireland, including the whole of the English Channel, are hereby declared a war zone'. The US protested and Germany softened her policy, but in May after the sinking of a British liner, killing 128 Americans, anger among the American grew. Germany believed that it was better to wait until the end of the war was in sight before angering the US.
Even a restricted approach to the submarine war caused enormous damage, with 750,000 tonnes of shipping being sunk in 1915. The Royal Navy sought a solution, while the Americans tottered on the brink of war.
on 22 December 1916, Admiral Henning von Holtzendorff, Chief of Admiral Staff, told the Chancellor that 'the war demands a decision by autumn 1917'. A campaign was to be launched in February to finally push Britain to the breaking point. This move would bring the US into the war, but this did not worry German generals as they did not believe that Germany would be able to mobilise effectively within 6 months. They also believed that morale at home would be lifted if the people felt the war would be over within 6 months.
Germany imposed unrestricted warfare from 1st February 1917. The strategy almost worked, 169 British and 204 allied or neutral vessels were sunk. And the effects upon food supplies were considerable. However Britain began to protects it's own ships by surrounding them with a cordon of destroyers. On 10 May 17 ships left Gibraltar and arrived in Britain 12 days later. It was a success and losses steadily declined from then on. Britain was not starving and American contribution to the war steadily expanded.
Overall, submarines caused a huge scare, but could not be used to sink enough merchant ships at a sufficient speed to cripple the allied war effort. Wishful thinking and poor strategic calculation meant that the campaign had little hope of success and carried with it extreme dangers. There were also not enough submarines to make the desired effect, 222 ships were needed when only 107 were available.

TASK 2 - 1918: The Final Year of the War 

1. How did the Germans benefit from the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia?
In Russia the Bolsheviks overthrew the Government in 1917. This led to a 2 year civil war and gave the Germans their best chance of victory since August 1914. Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, needed to make immediate peace with Germany if his regime were to survive. On the 22nd of December negotiation began at Brest-Litovsk. The Allies had ignored Lenin's call for general peace, he had no option but to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Russia was forced to give independence to Poland, the Baltic provinces, the Ukraine, Finland and the Caucasus.

2. What was the significance of the US entry into the war?
According to Haig's calculations, if the Allies could hold on until August 1918, they would win. The US entered the war in April 1917, but did not have a major impact in the fighting until 1918. America would have preferably stayed out of the war if German submarines had not forced them into it. In addition to this, Germany had promised Mexico land in the American south-west in exchange for entering the war on their side. The US would help defeat the the Germans but would not support the aims of the Entente, they were going to be an associated power not an ally. They also did not have hand grenades, tanks or suitable aircraft and there army was ranked 17th in the world regarding size. But this caused little concern as they believed that there presence alone would lead the allies to victory and thought that the threat of American mobilization alone would lead to a significant drop in German morale.
The American troops arrived with too much confidence and insisted upon being treated as being partners and seemed reluctant to learn from their allies' experience. Some generals also insisted that foreign commanders would not have control over their men. Relations with British and French were therefore shaky from the start.

3. What was the German plan for the spring of 1918?
The initiative now was in the hand of the Germans on the Western Front in January 1918. The majority of the troops on the western front had been moved to France, and by March there were 193 German divisions against 173 Allied. Despite the risk, the Allies were slow to withdraw troops from other areas to make up for these deficiencies.
Ludendorff planned to split the Allied armies and send the British back to the coast. The Germans attacked the point between the British and French Fronts where they had a local superiority of 69 divisions to 33. Special groups of trained troops attacked/ penetrated the enemy artillery with machine guns and flame throwers. By the end of March they had advance 40 miles.
The Allies set up a joint command under General Foch, which was able to co-ordinate military operations against the Germans, and for the first time US divisions were committed to battle. By mid- July the allies were in a position to counter-attack. On the 8th of August the Allies overwhelmed the German divisions.

4. Why did this plan fail?
On 21 March, the Germans began their attack, as 76 German divisions pressed forward supported by over 1000 aeroplanes. By the end of the day the British were forced to retreat along a significant portion of the line and as the days went on their advances grew. Meanwhile they were experiencing similar success in the French sector. Haig blamed Lloyd George who had supposedly left the BEF dangerously weak. However their uneven penetration of the Allied lines made it difficult to make a decisive breakthrough, and left successful units in vulnerable salients. Ludendorff had expected another battle of Tannenburg, he didn't anticipate the British capacity for orderly retreat. Although the number of British prisoners was high, it was not disastrous, the most worrying aspect of the offensive was that the Germans had failed to win the artillery dual.
Allied representatives met at Doullens on the 26th of March. Foch reversed Pétains hoarding of troops in Paris and instead distributed them at weak points in the line. He also decided to defend the Amiens railway junctions at all costs. American troops were also now allowed to serve under foriegn command.
Ludendorff launched small attacks on the French and the British and towards Amiens which made them some minor gains. However their huge efforts and and massive losses meant that they ended up with a longer front to defend, and a lengthier line of communication to maintain and the overall cost to the Germans was huge. The deeper their advance, the more difficult it was to keep the attackers supplied. When Operation Michael finished on 5 April, the Germans had suffered 240,000 deaths (equal to the losses of the French and British), and their morale plummeted as many came to realise that this offensive would not end the war, the opposite to which their national propaganda stated.

5. How did the allies successfully counter-attack in the summer of 1918?  
By early March there were 193 German divisions against 173 allied on the Western front. However the allies were slow to remove troops from other fronts to make up for this deficiency. Ludendorff wanted to divide the Allied armies and to push the British back to the coast. (Question 3^).
The Allies responded by setting up a joint command under General Foch. Troops were then recalled from other theatres and US divisions were committed to battle for the first time. On 8 August a Franco-British force attacked the east of the Amiens using over 400 tanks and overwhelmed the forward German divisions. It was a very bleak day for the Germans.

6. Why did the Germans sign an armistice agreement on 11 November 1918? 
On 28 September Ludendorff and Hindenburg advised the Kaiser to create a new parliamentary government which would establish peace with President Wilson (US) on the basis of 14 points. On 4 October the new German government asked Wilson for 'an immediate armistice'. Further requests then came from Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, all of which faced defeat from the Allies.
Germany's hopes of dividing the enemy were lost when Wilson asked the Allies to draft the agreements of the armistice:

•  Germany was to evacuate all occupied territory in the West, to a neutral zone to the east of the Rhine while Allied troops would occupy the West
• They were also to evacuate from Eastern territory
• Their navy was also to be interned to somewhere neutral or to an English Port

When news of the armistice reached the German people they demanded peace. German Admiral Rashly sent out a final suicide mission against the British fleet. In protest the sailors at Wilhelmshaven mutinied, soviets formed and protests followed. On 9 September, riots became so strong, the Kaiser was forced to abdicate and the government agreed to the armistice on 11 November. 

7. What happened to Germany's allies? 

Austria-Hungary
In the summer of 1918, the Allies recognised the the rights of Astro-Hungarian subjects to independence. The exiled leaders of the Yugoslavs agreed to form a South Slav state with the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. On 1 November the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dissolved and two days later the former Imperial High Command negotiated an armistice with the Italians.

Turkey
The Turkish armistice was signed at Mudros on 30 October. They surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia and gave the Allies the right to occupy forts controlling the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. They also had to withdraw their troops from the Caucasus.

NOTES: Charles I - 1640-46

A: The Short And Long Parliaments, 1640-41

1. What were the aims of Charles and the opposition in 1640?

Charles 
Charles's aims were largely short term. He was advised by his privy council to call parliament in spring 1640. The scottish hab d demanded that he should say that episcopacy was unlawful, and when he prorogued their parliament they rebelled and continued to sit. Also, even more worrying for Charles, the Scots were gaining support in England and the army raised for the First Bishops war had shown too much sympathy with the Scots. At all costs, Charles needed to isolate the scots and defeat them quickly before support for them grew even more. 

Opposition 
The opposition's aim were much more long-term. They were not going to intention of of granting Charles subsidies without redress of grievances as they did not trust him to continue parliament once he had this money. Grievances had built up during the Personal Rule and growing tension meant that they needed to be addressed soon. Parliamentarians did not intend to go home empty handed this time and it was agreed that co-ordinated action would be needed in order to resist Charles's condemning rule. 

2. Why did the Short Parliament only last three weeks? 
During this parliament, Charles requested 12 subsidies, however he would not be receiving these until the grievances of the MPs were met. Also, due to Laudianism, many have sympathy with the Scots and therefore were not going to vote for a grant. Instead the discussed their own agenda and John Pym presented a list of 36 matters of complaint, including impositions and ship money. By this point Charles was becoming increasingly urgent of these funds and even authorised an offer to abandon ship money. However many MPs took joy in explaining to him that if it was a legal tax, as he had claimed, then the King could not give it up. Charles dissolved parliament on the 5th of May and instead sought income from the Irish parliament and his advisors, and paid military levies through the countries with 'coat and conduct' money. 

3. On what grounds did Parliament impeach the Earl of Strafford?
Strafford was the one of the strangest men in government and his ruthless rule in the north and Ireland was known by many and made many members of the house of common fear him. He was suspected of being prepared to use Irish troops to allow Charles to regain power in England, which would have given Charles control of an army independant of Parliament. The opposition also feared what Strafford might do in the future and he was therefore arrested and impeached on the charges of:

• attempting to overthrow ancient and fundamental laws and government of England and Ireland 
• a whimsical and dictatorial government in Ireland
• provoking war against the scots

However they found it difficult to prove Strafford guilty as he could show that he had royal support for what he had done and thus could not be guilty of treason. John Pym was especially frustrated and used notes made by Sir Henry Vane as evidence against Strafford. These notes claimed that Strafford had told Charles 'you have an army in Ireland you may employ here to reduce this Kingdom'. However others denied that he had said this and thought that 'this kingdom' reffered to Scotland. They then decided to use an Act of Attainder, under which it was merely necessary to declare Strafford guilty of treason. 

4. What were the major reforms of the Long Parliament in terms of:

a) Reducing the political power of the King

• In the first 6 months of the Parliament the Triennial Act was passed (February 1641), requiring the King to call Parliament every third year and allowing it to sit for at least 50 days. This was not a radical reform as it was far from ensuring that Parliament would become part of the machinery of government. 
• One of Charles's political enforcers, Laud, was arrested and sent to the Tower of London. 
• Charles's political rival, John Pym, became a dominant figure in Parliament. 
• The Star Chamber, the Council of the North and the Council for the Marches of Wales were all abolished. 
• The Court of High Commission was also abolished with the condition that no similar court should ever be set up again. 

b) Limiting the financial power of the King  

• Ship money was declared illegal 
• It was illegal to compel anyone to take upon himself the order of knighthood
• The boundaries of royal forests were to be fixed as they had been in 1623
• The Tonnage and Poundage Act legalised the collection of customs duties and impositions, after declaring that the previous exaction of these had been illegal. The act had to be renewed every 2 months to ensure that Charles did not raise independent income. 

5. How did the Root and Branch Bill cause divisions in Parliament? 

In June the Commons drew up the Ten Propositions, in which they asked the King to:

• postpone his departure to Scotland until both the English and Scottish armies were disbanded. 
• bar Catholics from court and from the presence of the Prince of Wales
• provide for the security of the Kingdom through the militia under the Lord Lieutenant
• replace royal ministers with those in whom both people and parliament could have confidence 
• take advice from a joint committee of both Houses on Policy 

Both of the Houses agreed to these propositions, however this unity dd not last. The King said that he had complete confidence in his present advisors and went to Scotland. Many MPs were worried about what Charles would do in Scotland and sent a joint committee to follow him and on their own authority disarmed recusants, secured the arsenal at Hull and forbade recruiting in England by foreign armies. 

In Scotland Charles was forced to come to terms. There was some urgency as the presence of the Scottish army in the North had loomed over discussion in Parliament and the Scots demanded an extra £500,000 to be paid to them. Charles was able to pay off the Scottish army but had to accept the Acts passed by the Scottish parliament which had continued to meet after he dissolved it, agree to the abolition of bishops and to government by men chosen by the Scottish parliament, not the King. 

B: The Crises Of 1641-46

7. What caused the Irish Rebellion of October 1641 to occur and what was its impact?
The rebellion resulted from fears of the Native Irish and the Old English in Ireland that the 'puritans of England, Scotland and Ireland intended the destruction of the Catholic religion'. The Catholics decided that attack was the best defence and targeted the Protestants in Northern Ireland (Ulster). 3000 Protestants were killed and and more fled to England. The tales of the rebellion seemed to confirm that there was in fact a 'popish plot'. Parliamentarians were able to use these stories as propaganda against Charles as they could claim that he had sent them a commission authorising them to take up arms. This may have been a forgery but it was possible that Charles was considering using Irish troops. It was generally believed that Charles had played a part in the start of the rebellion and therefore it would be unwise to trust the King with an army to put down the rebellion. 

8. Why did the Grand Remonstrance cause tension between the King and parliament and within parliament itself?John Pym decided to compose a detailed critique of Charles's government to show how he was unfit to control an army. The Grand Remonstrance repeated the grievances of the people from 1626 justifying what had already been done to reform the situation and explaining what further actions were needed, including the appointment of trustworthy councillors and the restoration of true religion. Charles had excepted his right to choose his advisors in Scotland being overridden but refused to do the same in England. He was also determined to defend the Church. 
Moderates in the Commons saw no point in bringing up past issues that had already been remedied.  They also did not like that the Remonstrance was addressed to the people as they tended to fear social revolution. A vote was taken in November 1641 in the Commons and the Remonstrance won by 159 vote to 148. The King rejected the proposals. 

9. What was the impact of the failed arrest of the Five Members?
Londoners were becoming more hostile towards the Crown. Horror stories from the Irish revolution were in circulation and the economic downturn left many of the unemployed angry and rebellious. By the end of December mobs were confronting the guards around Westminster. 
For Charles the biggest concern was a rumour the Henrietta Maria was about to be impeached as part of the 'popish plot'. Charles made a final effort to to diffuse the situation by offering Pym the the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. He refused. Sir John Culpepper, Viscount Falkland and Edward Hyde now formed the core of his councillors.
Charles issued articles of high treason against Pym, Hampden, Holles, Sir Arthur Haselrig and William Strode, accusing them of trying to subvert the fundamental laws and government of England and encouraging the Scots to invade England. Charles lost any whatever advantage he had in this attempt to arrest the Five Members. The Common council refused to surrender the men leaving Charles to feel intimidated as he withdrew to Hampton court. The attempted arrest was the last straw for many as it showed how easily the King would resort to force or measures of dubious legality. 

10. Explain the significance of the Militia Ordinance of 1642
In the weeks immediately after the attempted arrest, parliament was bombarded with petitions inspired by the publication of the Grand Remonstrance in December 1641. Supporters blamed councillors, bishops and popish lords for the evils that the country was suffering and hinted at direct action if bishops were not excluded. Hence the Commons felt that they needed to take control and in March 1642 the Militia Ordinance was issued without the King's consent. This meant that the parliament was taking away the King's right to control his army. It was agreed that each country should be assessed. This new tax raised £400,000 and remained the chief source of revenue for parliament. These measures saw a rallying again to the King from those who feared the breakdown of law and order. 

11. What were the key demands of the Nineteen Propositions and how did Charles react to them?
These propositions were presented to Charles in June and demanded that:

• The two Houses should approve all Privy Councillors
• The laws against Jesuits and recusants be enforced
• The Five Members be pardoned 
• Reformation of the church as advised by Parliament 
• Parliament was to supervise the upbringings and marriage of the royal children

Charles's advisors argued that these propositions would involve total subversion of the laws and constitution and destroy the balance between Crown, Lords and Commons. This also seemed to bring more moderate Lords over to Charles. 

C: The First Civil War

12. What were the strengths of the Royalists in 1642? 

• Strong with regard to cavalry which could win battles by a ferocious charge - gave them an edge at the start of the war.
• Charles had support from the trained bands of Cornwall and he was also well recruited in Wales.
• His nephew, Prince Rupert, was the head of the cavalry - he was a competentant leader who trained and organised his men well.
• Charles had other strong, experienced leaders - Sir Ralph Hopton in the west and William Cavendish, Earl of Newcastle, in the north

13. What were the strengths of the Parliamentarians in 1642? 

• Their forces were strongly motivated - mainly by religion 
• They had possession of London which meant that they controlled the ports which provided customs duties, and organs of government which they could use to levy the new assessments. They could also borrow from the city and lines of communication across the country mostly stemmed from the capital. 
• They had the Iron foundries of Sussex and the armouries of the Tower could provide weaponry. 
• The Navy were on the side of Parliament, apart from 5 ships - the king was then deprived of his ship and was prevented from receiving any aid by sea

14. Why did the Royalists fail to exploit their opportunities in 1642-43? 

1. Edgehill, October 1642
Charles's aim was to recapture London, whilst the Earl of Essex was determined to prevent him. The forces on either side were roughly equal in numbers. Prince Rupert led a cavalry charge that blew the parliamentarians away. However it carried on too far and the royalists plundered Essex's baggage train, allowing the parliamentarians to recover and put the royalist guns out of action. Both sides claimed victory and London lay open. This was a missed opportunity for the royalists as Charles wasted time capturing Banbury, Oxford and Reading, and believing that parliament would soon ask for a truce. He reached London on the 13th of November but did not want risk a battle. He retreated to spend the winter in Oxford. 

2. Oxford Negotiation, January 1643
The Houses sent commissioners to Oxford to negotiate with Charles. They wanted him to disband his army, accept the Triennial Act, agree to the abolition of episcopacy, settle the government of the church, control the militia according to parliamentary advice and to pardon the 5 members. Charles replied that he would only disband his army if he was given back his revenue, his forts and his ships. He did not see much point in negotiating and still hoped for military success. 

3. London Attack
Charles planned for a three-pronged attack on London that was initially successful. He first captured Bristol in July, the second port in the country. This should have opened up the way to London but Charles over reached himself as he believed that Gloucester couuld be take with the same ease as Bristol. This turned out to be a very poor decision and led the royalists on a downward path. 

4. Ireland 
Charles thought that he would find hope in recruiting Irish troops. The 'Confederation Catholics of Ireland' now controlled most of Ireland, hence Charles thought it best to make peace and transfer troops to serve in England. This allowed for more roundhead propaganda proving of the King's tolerance towards Catholicism. 

15. Why did 1644 see the triumph of the Parliamentarians? 

a) The alliance with the Scots
Before his death, John Pym, in Autumn 1643 negotiated the Solemn League and Covenant with the Scottish Presbyterians. They agreed to bring troops across the border to help the parliamentarians in exchange for the Church becoming Presbyterian. The arrival of 21,000 men under Alexander Leslie allowed the parliamentarians to push back the royalists in the north. 

b) The Battle of Marston Moor
The combined forces of the Scots and Yorkshire volunteers under Sir Thomas Fairfax, trapped Newcastle up in York. Charles could not afford to lose York and sent Rupert to relieve the city. This is how the events unfolded:

• Rupert told Newcastle to be ready to fight the next day as Parliament's army was much bigger and therefore the element of surprise was important. 
• They argued about tactics
• The Parliamentarians, with Fairfax on the right and Cromwell on the left, saw the smoke from the royalist cooking fires and attacked. 
• Rupert's horse was killed and he his in a bean field. 
• Goring and Newcastle were initially more successful against Fairfax, but Cromwell rallied his troops and drove them back. 
• The battle left 4500 royalists dead and 1500 captured. 
• Newcastle went into exile as he could not face the humiliation of his defeated. 

c) Leadership 

At the beginning of the war it seemed that the royalists had the advantage here. However John Pym's and Hampden's deaths left Sir Henry Vane, St John and Cromwell in leading positions. although it took time to achieve, the parliamentarians were definitely better led going in to 1645. 

d) The New Model Army 

This was a union of three armies under one single force. It contained 10 cavalry regiments with 600 men in each  and 12 infantry regiments of 1200 men. The army under Manchester that had been included in this new force was made up of volunteer soldiers. The army was ideologically driven, it was also well paid and thus well disciplined as looting and pillaging was strongly discouraged. The army gained a fearsome reputation, although it appeared to avoid battle unless it held numerical superiority. 

e) The Battle of Naseby

Charles began 1645 with a two-pronged plan which may have been successful had he had a much less complex aim. He hoped to link up with the Earl of Montrose, who had been winning victories in Scotland and to defeat the New Model Army before it was fully established. He failed in both of these aims. At Naseby Cromwell defeated the royalists with devastating effect. The battle had two important results. 1. it opened the ay the west and the New Model Army went on to victory in Langport and then Bristol. 2. As the royal army fled Charles abandoned his baggage which revealed the extent of his contact with the Catholics in Ireland and Europe, allowing for more anti-royalist propaganda.

f) Resources  
From the outset, parliament controlled more wealthy parts of the country. Their possession of London meant that they could raise money a lot easier through taxation (although these were resented by many). Areas that belonged to the royalists were not very consistent in their loyalty, often containing towns which were in fact Parliamentarian. Charles sources of revenues were also finite and could not be repeated. 

g) Charles's Surrender 
In March 1646, Charles sent his son, the Prince of Wales, to Jersey for safety and in April he left Oxford to give himself up to the Scottish and in June Oxford surrendered. 

16. What was the impact of Neutralism?  
Many of the people who remained neutral were often trying to avoid the avoid the devastation that they had heard about from the Thirty Years War in Germany. Some individuals even supported both sides with men and money at the same time in an attempt to remain neutral. Many of the traditional ruling elites feared that social revolution would limit the power that they currently possessed. 
During 1642-43 there were many peace movements. Many peace petitions poured into parliament and neutrality pacts were common. 
The thrust of the war in 1643 favoured the King and this began concern that if there was an outright royalist victory, then the King would return to power and the constitutional gains of 1640-41 would be lost. Hence there was a polarisation of opinion for and against the King, making neutralism harder to maintain. But there were still MPs who feared social revolution so much that they were ready to agree to peace at almost any price. They formed a 'peace party' and their rivals formed a 'war' group.
Another example of neutrality emerged through clubmen. These were townsmen and village people who were fed up of the barbarities they suffered at the hands of occupying troops, usually royalists. The formed small armed forces and fought back on those who they believed to be threats. 

essay plan

Assess the reasons for the stalemate on the Western Front 1914-1917 – Essay Plan

Intro

• Broke out July 1914 – expected to be a short war – especially by Germany 
• War plans had been made before the war had broken out and did not fully give room for new technology etc

• Prolonged by the unexpected stalemate - Ended 1918 
• Stalemate brought on by technology and the leadership that came with it, trench warfare, failure of Schlieffen plan and nationalism.

Trench warfare

• Germany moved a large percentage of their force to defend the East from Russia - Britain and France claimed victory in the Marne - Germany was pushed back to the river Aisne
• Due to lack of reserves, exhaustion and huge loss of life, both sides took a defensive stance- beginning trench warfare
• By winter 1914 both sides were dug in 
• A series of trenches led to the north series as both sides tried to outflank each other = race to the sea - decided the locations of the 440-mile-long trench system known as the western front
• example = Hindenburg line – Germany was on the brink of defeat so retreated to a highly secure fortified line
• continued the stalemate – incredibly difficult to breakthrough – barbed wire, concrete emplacements and firing positions 
• soldiers lived in awful conditions - in winter had to use artillery in mist and fog + move through knee deep mud - made in very difficult to launch effective attacks
• no mans land had deep mud and barbed wire - difficult for men and horses to charge quickly 

Technology 

• Affected the initial course of the war 
• Believed that they had to fight a war of attrition - by killing enough enemy soldiers and destroying enough of their resources to force them to surrender
• Machine guns and rapid firing artillery all gave made defence easier and attacking harder - the new weapons were designed for defence - better use of planes and tanks would make movement and attack possible again
• Cambrai Nov 17- showed how tanks could be used to good effect (backed up by infantry) - used by haig to attack hindenburg line - lack of reserves led to failure
• Generals used offensive techniques of the past - Verdun - both sides shared equally in the loss of 700,000 men before realising either could advance 
• British offensive at the somme - 20,000 dead on the first day

Schliefen Plan

• prepared Germany for two front attack against France and Russia - preached ‘attack is the best defence’ 
• changed by moltke - weakened the his right wing in France - led to disaster for Germany - by moving through/ attacking Belgium they brought Britain into the war
• The Schliefen plan was working - Belgian army defeated and BEF retreated at the battle of Mons
• Changed at the battle of the Marne - Germany retreated to claim better defence at the Rive Aisne
• The schleifen plan had not did not prepare the german commanders for france fighting back 
• Fast Mobilisation of Russia - twice as fast - 100,000 Germans moved to defend east Prussia
• Battle of the marne Sep 1914- signalled the end of a war of movement - settled into trenches 

Generals 

• the generals were not used to fighting this type of war - they needed to stop fighting a war of attrition and except the immutability of stalemate
• ‘Westerners’ - Haig and Joffre - concentrate all effort into France and Belgium and eventually Germany would crack
• Example - the Somme July 1st  - flawed plan -assumed British artillery could destroy German wire - didn’t have to ammunition or guns to achieve this 
• Cambrai - Haig tried to use tanks - 13 out of 49 tanks didn’t make it to the field - 11 stalled in no mans land - France and britain combined had more casualties than Germans 
• ^ should never have been launched - didn’t have the reserves - could have been a very significant breakthrough 

Nationalism 

• the stalemate could not be broken by negotiated pace treaty 
• The Pope and the international socialist conference petitioned for peace
• ^ as did the Riechstag in July 1917 
• its was nations against each other not just armies
• each nation was fuelled by the possibility of absolute victory to consolidate their suffering 
• Russia showed that war weariness could lead to revolution 

NOTES: The First World War: 1915-1917 - Why was the stalemate on the Western Front not broken?

TASK 1 - Trench Warfare 

1. What were the features of Trench Warfare

Trenches were designed to protect troops from enemy firepower. They were protected with huge barbed-wire entanglements and machine guns.  However over the course of the next three years the trenches were shored up with timber and sand bags and deep concrete dug-outs were built.  

In 1915 both side's attacks followed a similar pattern where air craft located the enemy machine gun nests and trench system which were then pounded with heavy artillery shells.  The infantry then went 'over the top', in which the attackers often took the first line of trenches but were then pushed back by a counter-attack. In 1915 no British of French attack managed to gain more than three miles of land. 

2. How were the following used to break the deadlock? 

Artillery 

It became clear that only artillery could effectively destroy tench defences and give a frontal attack some chance of success. Throughout 1915 both sides sought to improve their deficiencies in heavy guns and find new techniques for their use, such as creeping barrage (involving artillery fire moving forward in stages just ahead of the advancing infantry). By 1916 Germany had developed enormous howitzers, which could fire a shell weighing nearly a tonne. 

Gas 

As early as October 1914 Germany had considered using gas to achieve a breakthrough, but it was not until April 1915 that it was used in Ypres. However it failed as they did not exploit the initial surprise and panic. Later, with the development of gas masks, the impact of gas was minimised.

Tanks

In March 1915 a technical solution to the problem of barbed wire, trenches and machine guns was introduced in the form of tanks. It used armour plating to protect the soldiers and caterpillar tracks to cross trenches and surmount barbed wire. However it was not until November 1917 that the tank was first used to its full potential. 

Task 2 - The Other Fronts

1. Why (and with what results) did Japan declare war on Germany? 

Japan seized the opportunity to declare war on Germany on the 23rd August 1914, in order to capture German territory in the Chinese province of Shantung as well as the German Pacific islands. Japan refused to send troops to the Western Front, but it's navy helped Britain to ensure security of the Pacific Ocean. Japan's main goal was to strengthen its hold on China. 

2. Why did Turkey join the Central Powers?

Both Germany and the Allies tried to secure Turkish support. In the end Germany was able to outbid it's rivals by promising support for the Turkish annexation of Russian border territory, and possibly the restoration of the Aegean islands, which had been ceded to Greece. Britain failed to gain their support as they refused to give back two Turkish warships which had just been constructed in British dockyards.

Turkey declared war on the Entente powers on the 28th of October 1914. 

Turkey's entry into the war was a direct threat to Britain's position in Egypt and led to the dispatch of the Anzac Corps to defend the Suez Canal. 

3. Why did Italy join the war on the Allied side? 

Throughout the winter of 1914-15 Italy negotiated with both Central Powers and the Allied Powers. In the end Italy joined the war on the Allied side in May 1915, and by the treaty of London was promised not only the Austrian territories of South Tyrol, Istria and nearly half of the Dalmatian coastline, but also territory in Africa and the Middle East. 

4. What did Britain hope to achieve at Gallipoli?

By January 1915 the Royal Navy controlled the seas. Given the stalemate on the Western Front, British politicians increasingly wondered whether sea power could somehow break the military deadlock and lead to a quick end to the war. Inspired by Winston Churchill, the decision was taken to force the Dardandelles. This plan would have knocked Turkey out of the war and opened up Russia to military supplies from western Europe and the USA, and in turn allowed them to export wheat to Britain. The plan could well have altered the course of the war and prevented the Russian revolution. 

British and Anzac troops landed on Gallipoli on the 15th of April, but an earlier naval bombardment had eliminated the element of surprise. The campaign rapidly degenerated into another trench war and troops were withdrawn in December. This failure showed that there was no 'easy fix' and that only on the western front could a decision be obtained. 

5. What advantages would the defeat of Russia bring to the Central Powers?

In France the Germans remained on the defensive throughout 1915. 8 German divisions were moved from the Western to the Eastern Front and formed the basis of the new German army there. The aim was that, with Austria, they could deliver a knock out blow against Russia. A successful attack was launched against the Russians in Southern Poland in early May. The central powers broke Russian lines of communication and advanced 95 miles within 2 weeks. In August Warsaw was taken and by Autumn there was great success achieved for the Central Powers. Russia suffered nearly 2 million casualties. 

A consequence of this was that Bulgaria joined the central powers in September. However Russia had not been defeated and the Central Powers were still locked in a two front war with no decisive victory in sight. 

TASK 3 - The Battles of 1915

1. Why did the offensive of 1915 fail to achieve a breakthrough on the Western Front?

During 1915 both sides attacked with considerable ferocity, but were not able to sustain a victory for very long. Offensive action was limited as the demand for artillery ammunition was greater than the supply they were receiving. The army had expected a static war of movement, which would need far fewer shells than that of a static war so they ended up in short supply. It would also be a long time before the factories at home could satisfy the demand of various weapons, especially since the manufacture of high-explosive shells was more difficult and dangerous than shrapnel. Thus, in early 1915 the progress of the war was determined by capacity of the factories to supply them. 

Germany attacked near Ypres in April 1915 in an attempt to show that they were still strong in the west and to cover up up the movement of troops to the east. This assault was notable for the first systematic use of poison gas. Because this weapon was used with surprise, it's effects were impressive. The Germans won the body count with half of that of the British and French combined. The attack also narrowed the salient that was formed the previous year when the allies refused to surrender Ypres. The salient was now extremely dangerous and abandonment of the town may have been a wiser choice. 

Joffre turned his attention to the area around Artois. On the 9th of May 1915 the French attacked Vimy. A British thrust upon Aubers Ridge was timed to happen at the same time, but achieved little success. Attacks continued until mid June when exhaustion and lack of ammunition dictated a halt. This convinced the Germans that they had mastered the art of defence, however France and Britain were sure that with a reliable supply of weaponry and men, a breakthrough could be achieved. 

Later, a simultaneous attack was launched by the British and French in Artois and by the French in Champagne. However German reinforcements stifled the attack in Champagne.

Entente forces managed to achieve some small successes however the German defence and shortage supply in ammunition meant that on the battle field they were usually met with the equivalent of a brick wall. 

2. To what extent can the commanders of the allied forces be blamed for this failure?

The British and French responded to the stalemate by applying old principles of warfare. The artillery would 'soften' a section of the enemy line where upon the infantry would then attack, and the cavalry would then turn the flank. They, rather naively, believed that these tactics would still work to their advantage, and even after they failed to achieve a breakthrough, did not change these strategies, but instead intensified their attack. They believed that given sufficient munitions and men, they could restore mobility to the war. It would have been more advantageous to the allies if had they not fought a war of attrition and instead accepted the immutability of stalemate. 

Battle strategies followed two different trains of thought; 'westerners' like Haig and Joffre thought that victory would come if all effort was concentrated in France and Belgium and eventually the Germans would crack. 'Easterners' believed that an attack on Germany 'through the back door' was the best strategy.

Haig and French did not often agree. Haig thought that, had French released the reserves in time, they would have achieved a breakthrough at the battle of Loos. French was a good man and a competent commander but too sensitive to direct a war of such appalling tragedy. In contrast, Haig held an iron nerve. 

TASK 4 -1916: Deadlock Still Unbroken

1. What plans did the allies have for an offensive in 1916?

Both sides had failed to achieve a breakthrough. France had been weakened but it's army remained the strongest on the allies side. The British Empire was mobilising its resources effectively and Britain now had over a million men in France. Italy was also an ally, and Russia had unlimited man power, if only it could be exploited. 

The plan was to create a co-ordinated attack on the central powers by all four allied nations. This was agreed at the Inter-Allied Military Conference at Chantilly in December 1915. 

2. What were the German plans for 1916?

The central powers had limited manpower resources and needed to force one of their enemies out of the war. They could:

• Renew the offensive against Russia 
• Weaken an already unstable France to the point of leaving the war
• Or eliminate Britain or France

General Von Falkenhayn, the German chief of Staff, argued that defeating France would be the best option. If the French were forced to surrender, the British would soon lose the desire to fight alone on French soil. He decided to attack at Verdun. The Germans would begin the attack with a series of short intense artillery bombardments they would then advance and consolidate their position before France counter attacked. 

The attack began on February 21st. The Germans gained 336,831 casualties and the French had 362,000. 

3. How did France's allies try to relieve the pressure on the French?

To relieve the pressure in Verdun, Italy, Russia and Britain all launched offensives in the summer of 1916. Italy attacked in May on the Trentino front, Russia attacked in June and on the 1st of July Britain advanced on German positions in the north of the Somme. 

The Italians were stopped on the 10th of June. The Russians initially achieved great success against the Austrians on the Carpathian Front. This persuaded Romania to join the war on the side of the Allies and forced Falkenhayn to transfer reserves from the Western Front. However this all ground to a halt in Autumn. 

The British attack in the Somme was successful in taking some pressure off of the French. However there were around 415,000 British casualties. 

4. To what extent can military leadership be blamed for the lack of a breakthrough in 1916? 

Much of the British army was raised from Kitchener's new volunteer scheme, who had little or no experience in battle. The battle in the Somme on July 1 was based upon a tragically flawed assumption that British artillery could destroy German wire, when in actual fact, they did not have the ammunition or the guns to achieve such a feat. Another disadvantage to the British soldiers was that they were told to walk towards the German line instead of run. Because of their limited experience, this allowed them to be better mentally equipped to the chaos that they were about to experience. 

Haig, later on the 15th of September, tried to introduce tanks into the war. This was a failed attempt to alter the war as the rough ground meant that 13 out of 49 tanks broke down on the way to the front line and 11 stalled in no mans land. 

Haig believed that he had caused more damage to the Germans than they had given in return. However, if the French losses are introduced, Britain and France had around 600,000 casualties and Germany 500,000.

TASK 5 - 1917: "No Peace Without Victory"

1. Why did the Germans retire to the Hindenburg line?

At the end of 1916 General Ludendorff told Bethmann Hollweg that if the war continued without the collapse of one of the Allies, Germany would inevitably be defeated. He feared that another offensive on the scale of the Somme would break through the German lines. As a result of this advice, in north-eastern France, the Germans constructed a strongly fortified line, the Hindenburg line, to which they retreated in March 1917. This decision would also save the Germans man power as they would require 13 less divisions to defend it. 

2. What were the consequences of the failure of the Nivelle offensive? 
The strength of the Hindenburg line meant that the Allies had to abandon plans for another attack across the Somme. They were instead persuaded by the new Commander-in-Chief of the French armies, General Nivelle, that a massive attack south of the Hindenburg line, composed of over 50 French divisions, would drive through the German line. 

The attack opened on the 16th of April. By the middle of May the French army was paralysed by a series of mutinies. By the beginning of June there were only two reliable divisions on the French central Front covering Paris. 

The possibility of a French collapse was prevented by Nivelle's replacement, General Pétain, who managed to to restore morale and discipline to the soldiers. The extent of the mutinies was also concealed by from both France's allies and the Germans. 

The main burden of the war now fell on the British, who launched a major offensive at Ypres in July, however by early November, when it ended, only a few miles had been gained. Germany had 200,000 casualties and Ludendorff was concerned that this would decrease morale for his troops. Britain's losses were even higher at 245,000. 

3. Why was the battle of Cambrai a pointer to the future?

In November 1917 381 British tanks attacked the Hindenburg line at Cambrai. The Germans  were caught completely by surprise and their Front lines, which had once been considered impenetrable, were overrun. However a lack of tank and infantry reserves, the attack ran out of steam and over a week the Germans had won back almost all of the land that they had lost. This gave an insight in to battles of the near future, in which tanks were used en masse instead of the usual prolonged bombardment. 

4. Why was it impossible to end the war in 1917 through a negotiated peace? 

The new Austrian Emperor, Karl, desperate to save his empire from disintegration, had already tried to reach out to Allies in the name of peace in autumn 1916. The Pope and the International Socialist Conference, which met in Stockholm on June, also appealed to bring an end to the war. In Germany the Reichstag, in July 1917, passed a resolution 'for peace of understanding'. 

Both sides were suffering. However it was a war of nations against each other not just armies. Each nation was inspired with the prospect of an absolute victory that would make worthwhile their present suffering, and Russia had provided evidence that war weariness could in fact lead to revolution. 

The entry of the USA into the war also gave Britain and France the hope of ultimate victory. In December 1916 Lloyd George came to power with a mandate to fight on for victory. 11 months later Georges Clemenceau became PM and was committed to war against the Central Powers. 

In Germany the Collapse of Russia also held out the prospect of eventual victory. Also in July 1917 Hollweg was a replaced by a 'puppet' of the Fatherland's Party who were certainly pro-war.

5. To what extent can military leadership be blamed for the lack of breakthrough in 1917? 

The attack in Cambrai should never have been launched as Haig did not have sufficient reserves to achieve the breakthrough he had anticipated. Whereas the Germans had additional men ready. This major miscalculation led to the failure of what could have been a very significant breakthrough.

ESSAY: Why was World War One not over by Christmas 1914?

The First World War broke out in July 1914, and it was expected by almost every power involved to be a short war that would be over by Christmas of that same year. However this was not the case and the war ended four years later. There was no single reason for the war being prolonged further than expected; it was the combination of many factors. It could be argued that the most influential factors for lengthening the war was the introduction of new technologies and weapons, the failure of the Schlieffen plan under General Moltke, trench warfare and the Russian mobilisation. There is sufficient evidence to prove that all of these factors prolonged the war, however trench warfare appears to be the most direct cause for the elongation of the war as it led to a three year stalemate, and this perhaps shows that it is the leading cause. 

The failure of the Schlieffen Plan undoubtedly led to the war being prolonged. The plan was conducted by the German General Alfred von Schlieffen in 1905-6. The plan preached that ‘attack is the best defence’ and prepared Germany for a two front war against France and Russia. The aim was to quickly defeat France and then troops would move to the east to meet an advancing Russian army. However this plan made many shaky assumptions, one being that a quick defeat was possible against huge armies and powerful new weaponry. Another was that the capture of Paris would automatically mean victory over France. The Germans also made a fatal miscalculation when they predicted that Russia would take at least twelve weeks to mobilise, when it actuality it took around six. 

Germany first followed the plan and attacked through Belgium and was met by a Belgian force, French divisions and a small British army. The plan was then altered by General Moltke. Germany invaded Paris from the north instead of the west and their force was weakened in their right wing when they had t move troops to East Prussia to fend off an advancing Russian army. This ultimately led to their defeat at the battle of Mons, where the German army was pushed back to the river Aisne, thus beginning trench warfare and prolonging the war further. 

Had Germany stuck to the Schlieffen plan, they may have reached the quick victory that they had planned for and the war would have effectively have been over by Christmas of 1914. However the introduction of other factors such as the fast mobilisation of Russia led to the plan being altered and subsequently led to their defeat in Mons and the start of trench warfare – a battle strategy that undoubtedly led to the prolonging of WW1. The failure of the Schlieffen plan was not the single cause for the war being drawn out, but was certainly an important factor. However it could be argued that had the Russians not mobilised as quickly, the original plan would have been used and a fast victory would have been possible for Germany. 

The failure of the Schlieffen plan can be linked to the unexpectedly fast mobilization of the Russian army and how the size of this army alone appeared to threaten Germany into making changes to its original plan. Russia had mobilised in half the time Germany had expected, taking them by surprised and causing Moltke to make some quick, and perhaps poor, judgments. 100,000 German troops were moved to defend eastern Prussia against the advancing Russians and effectively weakening their force in Belgium. Russia and Germany finally collided on the 23^rd of August at the battle of Tannenberg. Although Russia had the largest force at the beginning of the war, with a standing army of 5 million soldiers, it had many drawbacks that prevented it from having a successful win against the Germans. Russia’s main difficulty was trying to transport troops to the enemy front lines quickly. Their ally, France, loaned them money to build railways in order to improve the transportation of both men and weaponry; although this was not the only drawback to the Russian army. Many would say that the effectiveness of the Russian army was mainly based on the enemy that it faced. They struggled to adapt to the new industrialized warfare on the battle field and effectively lost against the Germans at the battle of Tannenberg. Perhaps if Russia had mobilised in the expected time, Germany would have been able to continue with its original Schlieffen plan and the war would have been over before 1915 with a swift victory for Germany. Russia’s fast mobilisation meant that the Schlieffen plan was changed and ultimately ineffective in the end, causing the war to continue past Christmas of 1914 and lead on to a war on a scale that none of the powers anticipated. 

After Germany moved a large percentage of their force to defend the East from the Russians, Britain and France claimed victory in the battle of the Marne, and Germany was pushed back to the river Aisne thus beginning trench warfare. The Germans did not need to advance further and trenches provided them with an effective defence system, so they began to dig in. Britain and France soon followed suit and by the winter of 1914 both sides had dug trenches. A series of trenches were dug by both sides over 700km stretching from the Belgian coast to the Swiss boarder. This seriously prolonged the war as trench warfare does not involve much offensive strategy and neither side was advancing. This new tactical approach had not been expected by any of the powers involved as it was a huge step away from the colonial wars that had been fought before. An example of this would be that the cavalry was not longer useful with the introduction of the trenches but aircraft was steadily become more important and advanced. 

This new battle strategy undoubtedly led to the prolonging of the First World War. Germany did not want to advance further and therefore neither did the Western forces; as if the soldiers were to rise above ground level they would have undeniably have been shot. The opposing sides neither tried nor wanted to advance further and a stale mate was reached, effectively ruling out the possibility of the war being over by Christmas 1914. Also the circumstances of the men on both sides in the trenches were awful too. The conditions of the trenches were appalling and the soldiers were constantly in incredible danger (it was a heavy risk to even raise your head above ground level). This undoubtedly decreased morale as the war dragged on and the men on the front line began to realise that they would not be going home for Christmas. 

As Gerard J De Groot puts it, the new technologies in the war ‘narrowed the scope for imagination and good command’. The introduction of new lethal weaponry, such as long-range rifles, machine guns ad accurate artillery, had completely changed the character of warfare. Many commanding generals often found it difficult to part themselves with the old fashioned warfare tactics and it could be argued that this helped to draw the war out. These new weapons also pushed men into the trenches and kept them there. Because of this the soldiers directed their energy into improving the trenches thus preparing themselves for a longer stay there and effectively prolonging the war further. As the war met a long stalemate it appeared that victory would go to the nation or nations who were able to produce weapons in vast quantities and transport them to the battle field quickly. 

This new technology definitely prolonged the war. It was the development of these new weapons that slowed down advancement of both sides and perhaps caught the strategists off guard as warfare had become so different from that of years ago. These new weapons also caused the two opposing sides to begin to dig in the trenches. This undoubtedly slowed the advancement of the war as it continued on past 1915.

To conclude, there is sufficient evidence to prove that trench warfare was the leading cause for the war to continue past Christmas 1914. The trenches prevented advancement on both sides and therefore withheld both sides from making any major impact in their favour. With the majority of the men in the trenches, morale ran low and no major victories were made on either side, so the war undoubtedly would not be over by Christmas. However this does not diminish the impact of other factors, for example had Russia not mobilised as fast the Germans may have stuck by their original Schlieffen plan, and therefore may have won the battle of Mons thus preventing both sides from digging in in the ‘race to the sea’. Also had the commanding generals had a better idea of what impact new technology would have had on the character of the war, maybe trench warfare would have been used with a more tactical approach. 

ESSAY: To what extent was the alliance system the main cause of the First World War?

The triple alliance and triple Entente saw Europe, effectively, being split into two sides. On one was Germany, Austria and Italy, and on the other; Britain, France and Russia. This huge divide between the greatest powers of Europe undoubtedly caused tensions, and would lead many to believe that the foundation for the beginning of the first word war was the establishment and practice of these two main alliances. I, personally, would disagree with this to a certain extent. I believe that the alliances were formed through defensive strategies, for example the Franco-Russian alliance could be seen to have been formed through the mutual threat that they received from Germany. Therefore I believe that there was no singular cause for WW1, but it was actually a combination of events and factors that gradually built over a period of time eventually leading to war. However I think that the reason for these causes leading to a full scale world war was because of these defensive alliances. Had these agreements not existed, crises such as those in the Balkans may not have been leading factors for the break out of a world war as they would have remained small scales as no alliances would require the involvement of other great powers. 

One example of a hugely influential factor would be Germany’s foreign policy before the war. When Kaiser Wilhelm II came to power and failed to renew the reinsurance treaties with Russia tensions began to grow. The Kaiser intended to build up the German navy, meaning that his rejection of the treaty would lead Russia to join forces with France in the dual Entente. This was the beginning of the creation of these hostile alliances. The Kaiser then went on to introduce new naval bills in 1898 and 1900, alienating another possible ally, Britain, as they felt that it was a threat towards their naval supremacy. The Moroccan crisis again proved the Kaiser’s pro-war stance as he could be perceived to have been making attempts to frustrate France by claiming that Morocco should be a free nation. At the Algeciras conference, much to Germany’s distaste, Britain made it clear that it was completely in the defence of France. Germany had gained another enemy and had firmly created tensions between itself and France – one of the great powers. Germany had become aware of these tensions and had decided that a war was inevitable and the sooner it happened the more advantage they would have. In December 1912 the Kaiser, Moltke and Tirpitz agreed to a war with France and Russia and the Schlieffen plan was put into place. And on the 31^st July the formal decision for European war was made. Germany had decided on a full scale European war on its own; its ally Austria would have been content with a localised Balkan war, but Germany firmly believed in the inevitably of a European war and believed the sooner it happened the better.

Germany’s choices clearly had a huge impact on the tensions that led to the war. The uneasy hostility between itself, Russia and France, starting in the early 1900s, could be seen as the starting point for the huge tensions that eventually led to a world war, and much of the blame for the beginning of these hostilities can be placed onto Germany’s shoulders. For example Germany’s interference in Morocco at the Algeciras conference not only added fuel to the enmity between itself and France, but also managed to put itself in an uncomfortable position with Britain as they had taken the side of the French. It could also be argued that they were the leading cause for Britain’s involvement in the war as they had threatened their naval supremacy through the naval bills of 1898 and 1900. However had Germany made these defensive moves towards an un-allied France or Russia it could be argued that, although there may well have been an outbreak of war, it would not have been a world war because other great powers would not have been obliged to react or become involved.

The Agadir crisis was another very influential factor. The sultan of morocco asked the French to restore the order after riots had broken out; angering Germany as they saw this to be a growth of French influence and power – something that they certainly did not want. Germany acted upon the invasion of French troops in Fez quickly by sending in a gunboat and a cruiser to Agadir. They eventually agreed to back down when they were given French territory in Africa. This had been a very significant event in the build up to the first world war as Britain had very clearly taken the side of the French – ruling them out for good as a possible ally to the Germans. It also showed the undoubtedly strong will of Germany as they had made it clear that they definitely did not want increased influence of the French in Europe.  This again showed that Germany was willing to take drastic measures against one of its main enemies. However Germany’s stance towards the French had been made clear in previous events. This event hold its significance as it was during this crisis that Britain had made it extremely clear that it wanted to prevent German diplomatic success and sided completely with the French as it was now officially a member of the triple entente. This again shows that the alliances were a strong factor leading to the outbreak of war as Britain would now be involved in a conflict that could have been contained between the French and the Germans, due to its involvement in the triple entente. 

Another significant event that helped to cause the war was Austrian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This began the vast tensions between Serbia and Austria. Austria’s stubborn mindedness towards its goal of taking over Serbia created a deep-seated hatred within the Serbs. The Serbian population strived for a ‘greater Serbia’ and those who lived under Austrian rule in Herzegovina and Bosnia wanted to once again be part of independent Serbia. Russia backed them in these aims. However the Russian involvement in the conflict only made tensions grow worse as their rival, Germany, took the side of Austria. However Austria had come out of the conflict victorious, with full possession of the two countries and this did little in the favour of the entente alliance. Austria’s victory had only furthered its power and strength, meaning that Germany now had a much stronger ally. Russia was unwilling to see any growth of German or Austrian power and this event highlights the lengths that it would go to in order to stop this happening. Therefore it could be argued that Russia’s involvement in this conflict only heightened the already existing tensions between the two alliances, causing the conflict to be more significant in starting a world war then it originally had been. It also meant that, because of Russia’s involvement, tensions grew and a war became more inevitable as Russia’s influence meant that all of the triple entente would become involved leading t a full scale European war at the least. 

Finally, the Balkan wars were undoubtedly a significant cause. After the collapse of Turkish influence a power vacuum was left along with a great deal of unrest in the Balkans. Serbia had emerged as the most powerful new state and hoped to form a ‘greater Serbia’. However through the Austrian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina many Serbs were left under Austrian influence thus causing a great deal of tension between the Serbia and Austria. Austria saw this unification of the Serbian people as a threat to its power and looked for an excuse to attack them as soon as it could. After the assignation of Franz Ferdinand it saw its opportunity.

Many would argue that this Ferdinand’s death at the hands of the Black Hand group was the one event that triggered the whole of world war one. Once Austria mobilised, Russia became involved as Serbia’s ally then triggering Germany to become involved and France and Britain followed; commencing World War One. However, without the alliances this there is a possibility that this event would have only led to a small scale war between Austria and Serbia.

Overall I believe that the alliance systems were the largest contributing factors towards starting the First World War. Without these defensive alliances, there are strong possibilities that the most significant events that I have mentioned before, would not have led to world war because the alliances would not have required all of the greatest powers of Europe to become involved.  For example the Austrian and Serbian conflicts would not have ventured any further across Europe had Germany not offered Austria a ‘blank cheque’, and had Russia not supported Serbia. Also, although there were many tensions that built up for a long time before the war in Europe, many of the greater hostilities were contained between Germany, France and Russia; meaning that had the alliances not formed there would have been little reason for Britain and Austria to become involved for example. However due to these protective agreements each country took on a defensive stance and Europe was effectively split into two halves; thus beginning greater and greater hostilities and beginning a world war.