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

Explain the importance of the war at sea to the final outcome of WWI

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain the importance of the war at sea to the final outcome of the war. The war at sea played quite a vital role in World War I, unlike the war at air, but possibly not as big a role as the war on land. Each side knew how vitally important it was to control the seas, as the land war was closely linked to the sea war, much more than the war at air was. It was unusual, in that there were not particularly any major sea battles or proper fighting - it was more of a struggle of stealth and caution to gain control of the seas. This is seen in the land war as well, which was meant to be a rapid affair yet turned out to be completely the opposite. The aim of the war at sea, therefore, was not necessarily to destroy as many enemy ships as possible in all out war but to cut off enemy supply lines and stop the enemy from cutting of your supply lines. This saw the rise of a new warfare strategy - submarine warfare. It was clear to everyone, especially the Germans now that the war had started, that the British navy was superior to everyone else's before the war and the years leading up to it. ...read more.

Middle

Each side utilised the naval surface technology - Dreadnoughts. The aim for the Germans was to remove the blockade of its seaports and harbours by British ships. Ultimately the main objective failed, although the Germans did destroy more British ships than British destroyed German. The German fleet remained in port for the rest of war after this battle ended. The U-Boat campaign resumed in 1917, with an overall larger fleet of submarines to carry out the job for the Germans. Many had been newly built and were unleashed to sight as many ships as possible and destroy them. Neutral ships and warships were targeted, the former with the most emphasis. The main aim now was to starve the Allied population of vital supplies and materials to halt their war effort. This still involved destroying ships related to the USA and they entered the war soon after the launch of the second campaign. Germany did not care now whether or not the USA entered the war, as they saw it as a reasonable gamble to defeat the British navy and trade ships before the USA had time to properly enter the war. Germany was feeling the strain of the naval blockade at this point and the deadlock on the Western front was placing severe strain on German forces for supplies. ...read more.

Conclusion

German people and their soldiers died of starvation without vital supplies increasingly more as the war grinded on. The war at sea was directly responsible for this, although nearly not as much as the war on land was. Germany, although had some sporadic minor victories at sea, never really placed a blockade on Britain as harsh as Britain placed upon them. Though the blockade didn't have immediate effect on the Germans, it did have an effect in the long run, nonetheless. This is seen in the Ludendorrf offensive and the later years of the war, when Germany was forced to give up the warfare of attrition for all out attack. However, their supply lines were low and German soldiers raided British supply huts for food and water. USA intervention (although due to the Germans because of the need to remove the blockade) proved decisive in the final year of the war. Any sea battle in the war was, on the whole, irrelevant to the outcome. Arguably, though, the war at sea contributed only partly to the land war. This part, however, was much bigger than the war in the air's contribution. The Western Front was the main culprit for using up the most amounts of supplies and material. In conclusion, the war at sea played quite a significant role in deciding the outcome of the war, again not as decisive as the Western Front though. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE International relations 1900-1939 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 GCSE International relations 1900-1939 essays

  1. Trench warfare. Trench warfare was created to help hold your position and fend ...

    The rats stole food and bit the men incessantly. Sanitation was almost nonexistent, and so disease ran rampant killing men almost as often as weapons of war. Life vacillated between terrifying battles and mind-numbing boredom."(Bowman, John S.) Trench foot was a disease caused by living in the unsanitary health conditions of trenches that had been filled with wet cold

  2. Trench Warfare between 1914-17

    Most of the German trench lines were connected with two exits; they felt their trenches were unbreakable. What they created was a fortress not a trench, barely visible at ground level except for the barbed wire which guarded the trench, the trenches were up to 40 feet deep.

  1. Who Was Responsible for The Tragedy at Gallipoli in 1915?

    For example, it is widely believed that Braithwaite13 is responsible for the separation of the General Staff and the Lines-of-Communication (or Administrative) staff. He believed that the administrators14 were not real soldiers, but instead were businessmen15. However, despite this, the administrative staff were left completely out of discussions.

  2. Dear Diary, It was the start of the Christmas month and I was ready ...

    If the plan works we could have a better chance of winning the war but very unlikely it will work. They set of and were going to try and complete the mission they were given. When we had the stand-to I still think there was some Germans who were spying

  1. Describe the conditions that soldiers experienced on the Western Front in the years 1915-1917.

    Haig didn't like Rawlinson's idea but didn't want to argue because he had just been appointed. Rawlinson believed that the wave principle would work. One wave would go to the German line, if that line failed then another wave would go out, if that failed then another and it would continue until they would win.

  2. History Sourcework- Field Marshal Haig Final

    However, more recent studies from historians like Trevor Wilson and Gary Sheffield have begun to disprove this view, suggesting he was extremely tactical, but so much that he gave himself unreasonable objectives. Source D from Punch is similar. The General (Haig)

  1. How far can Germany be held responsible for WWI?

    and the government realized only too late that the conflict could not remain localized. Ritter goes on to explain that the German government relied too much on military planners and in doing so devised plans, which made it almost impossible to escape the escalation of issues resulting in war.

  2. Was Field Marshall Douglas Haig more important that the allied blockade of German naval ...

    The French advance was considerably more successful. They had more guns and faced weaker defences, yet were unable to exploit this advantage without British backup and had to fall back to earlier positions. With the ?decisive breakthrough? now a decisive failure, Haig accepted that advances would be more limited and concentrated on the southern sector.

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