• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Which had the greater effect on the course of the war, the withdrawal of Russia or the entry of the USA?

Extracts from this document...


Which had the greater effect on the course of the war, the withdrawal of Russia or the entry of the USA? On the 11th of November 1918 at 11o'clock the armistice to cease war was signed at Versailles. But what brought around the agreement to end the war, what caused it? In years since, historians argue two main points amongst other small issues of how the Great War ended. The Great War as it was named was the war to end all wars, in hindsight we now see that there was a Second World War and thus the Great War becomes the First World War. The main points which historians are split over are; was it the USA's entry or the withdrawal of the USSR that brought around the end of the war? There are other issues that historians and the general public discuss and argue over, the British blockade and the tank are two of those. I will be discussing and evaluating these factors. In April 1917 the USA entered the war, after a length of time officially staying out of the war. The USA had not been involved in the war that they called senseless and was none of their own making. The Americans didn't see why American husbands and sons should die in a war that was petty squabbling. However the Americans favoured the allies and sold war ammunition and contributed to the allies in ways other than fighting. ...read more.


I don't believe that any fighting contribution helped win the war but I do believe the Americans entering helped the war. Had they not entered the war a stalemate may have carried on just as the war had been before. A.A.J.P Taylor states 'Americas influence was over stated'. This may have been through cold war propaganda where America was influencing Britain and showing their power, they may have exaggerated their part in the war. Russia was also made to look bad because of the anti-communism propaganda and negativity towards Russia during the cold war. The exit of Russia, historians argue, is also one of the main reasons the war ended. The Russians left the Second World War to pursue Lenins slogan of 'Bread Land Peace' to carry on fighting in the war that seemed pointless and drained them of resources would have been fatal to Lenin and his new policies. Russia signed the treaty of Brest Litovsk with Germany giving them a large amount of land in exchange for peace. The exit of Russia in March 1918 meant that Germany had only one front to fight on and more armed forces that were previously on the eastern front could now fight on the western front. And the scales were briefly tipped for the Triple Alliance. The Germans, only having to fight on one front pushed for one last victory over France and Britain using all their troops, power and resources (operation Michael). ...read more.


The Kaisers Germany was becoming weak; people were losing faith in their leader and his war that was starving the whole country. These two last points are very important to the war in other ways than fighting and resources. The British blockade was more important than the tank as it helped to starve the German people who then lost faith in their leader Kaiser Wilhelm. A weak country unwilling to fight was not what the country needed to win the war. I believe that the end of the war was not caused by one singular event, but by an interlinked pattern of causation. The war of attrition, raging for 4 years was brought to and end by a pattern, every cause fits together to form the end of the war. Had one of the factors above not been incorporated in the events of 1914-1918 then I believe that the war would have had a very different out come. The absence of the British blockade for example may have caused Germany/the triple alliance to succeed in the war. I believe that the withdrawal of Russia and the entry of the USA are the main factors that contributed to the end of the war of grinding down. The exit of Russia may have caused the war to end differently had the USA not entered soon after. The pattern of events leads to the outcome of the war being one of victory for the triple Entente. I think all the factors are in the network with the smaller issues causing the armistice to be signed on 11th of November. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. The Prelude to the 1975 War and the Cairo Agreement.

    The main orchestrator of the rebellion was Fateh leader Abu Jihad. Libya, Iraq and Fateh provided financial support for the Khatib movement. On January 16, 1976, Minister of Defence Chamoun called in the mostly Christian manned Lebanese Air Force to bomb leftist positions near Damour as the town was under heavy attack.

  2. 1920's USA.

    Source L however seems much more accurate. Because it was written for a history textbook it is more likely to show a reliable viewpoint on 1920s life. Especially since it contains an example of an actual fact, as opposed to an opinion (i.e.

  1. During the course of this essay I will be investigating a play called 'All ...

    because when his sister Ann asked him when he started wearing a hat he answered back; 'Today. From now on I decided to look like a lawyer anyway' Again this shows signs how disillusioned people who were at war actually were.

  2. Analyse the impact of the USA's entry into WWI both in influencing the eventual ...

    He particularly endorses the fact that "the Americans fought with a disregard for casualties"v as a key contributor to raising the Allied morale which, in turn, contributed to the eventual Allied victory. On the other hand, other historians have argued more convincingly that the above components provided only a minor

  1. September 11th

    In recent years, Jordan's relationship with Iraq has deteriorated and that with the US strengthened. However, King Abdullah II is anxious to keep Jordan's role as a neutral country in tact and is very hesitant about allowing his military bases to be used for an all out invasion.

  2. Was the USA's entry into the war, the British blockade, Tanks and the German ...

    General Ludendorff used heavy guns and gas attacks to start with. Then small groups of well-armed, well-trained, fast-moving soldiers called "storm troops" broke through at many points in the Allied line. Ludendorff had failed to see the importance of tanks, and in Germany tanks had not been put into production early enough for significant use in 1918.

  1. Was it the technological or tactical changes which had the greater influence in determining ...

    Medieval armies also lacked anything like a comprehensive command structure able to evoke general, conditioned responses. Coherence depended on mutual loyalties far more than on discipline, drill, or fear of punishment. However all this was due to change influenced by a growing awareness that armoured horsemen were not in fact invulnerable.

  2. Was the entry of the USA into the First World War in 1917 the ...

    This was when Germany launched a huge offensive on the Western Front in a final attempt to break the deadlock there. They knew that the USA would be entering the war; so this was the final push. But the Allies were able to hold out until the Americans came, so the offensives were a failure for the Germans.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work