The first of these noteworthy, contributing factors can be attributed to the failure of the 1918 German offensives. In particular, the attacking German forces, under Ludendorff’s orders, contributed heavily to German failure by attacking in a manner that almost guaranteed their defeat. Upon encountering strong Allied resistance, German forces “went on attacking even when they met obstinate resistance”. As a result, while the Germans inflicted great losses on the Allies, they suffered even greater losses themselves by the defending forces so that the German offensives were brought to a halt earlier than the German commanders anticipated and degraded German morale to an irrecoverably low degree.
Furthermore, during the following Allied counter offences, the Allied victory was further sealed when the Allied commanders Foch and Haig shifted their fighting technique from attacking at the stronger points (which was one of the main blunders committed by the Germans during the German offensives) to attacking the enemy at the weaker points. Strategically, this new tactic proved to be very effective. So effective, in fact, that Taylor argues that it was the crucial deciding factor which influenced the allied victory. Hence, the Allies gained victory in the last decisive battles of the war primarily because of their implementation of this new tactic which managed to break through the Hindenburg Line and thus guarantee allied victory. Thereafter, Germany insisted on an immediate armistice, acknowledging that they have been defeated. New allied tactics therefore contributed greatly to the Allied victory, even more so than US involvement, because they managed to overcome the key problem of breaking the stalemate.
The conclusion of World War I marked the beginning of the peacemaking process to officially settle the conflicts between the Allies and the Central Powers. The USA’s contributions perpetuated through to this stage though they only influenced a minor segment towards the eventual peace settlements. This was because the USA’s representative, President Woodrow Wilson, was only one of the three main decision makers (collectively known as “The Big Three”); with the other two being France’s Premier, George’s Clemenceau and Britain’s Prime Minister, David Lloyd George.
The formation of the peace settlements officially began on the 18th of January 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference. While all three leaders had lasting peace as their ultimate goal, each leader also brought along their own individual aims to the conference. This resulted in conflicting views since the various different goals quite often contradicted each other. For example, Wilson’s contributions were extracted from his proposed peace plan, the Fourteen Points. Wilson initially wanted the Fourteen Points to form the basis of the entire peace settlements but this demand could not be granted since the demands of the other two leaders contradicted several of the points. Many of the points were thus modified before they were included in the peace settlements, including points 6-11 and points 13-14. On the other hand, the remaining points, points 1-5 and point 12, which demanded that there should be no secret treaties; complete freedom of the seas; free trade between countries; widespread international disarmament and self determination for colonial territories as well as the peoples of the Turkish Empire, were completely disregarded as they conflicted with the main aims of Clemenceau and Lloyd George. It can thus be concluded that the demands of all the three leaders were taken into account when developing the peace settlements; hence the USA’s contributions were limited by their compliancy within the demands of Clemenceau and Lloyd George.
However, a further credit to the USA’s contributions was the establishment of Wilson’s suggested League of Nations. This was an organisation which, Wilson hoped, would bring about an internationalist approach to solving future disputes between the nations. Ironically though, the USA never joined the league themselves which was a stunning blow from Wilson’s perspective. Furthermore, many believed that the League was not able to act effectively without America’s participation and support which, in one way, demerits the value of this particular contribution.
US entry into World War I contributed to, but wasn’t the primary force that influenced the Allied victory on the Western Front. Other forces, such as the implementation of new Allied tactics which were effective in finally breaking the stalemate on the Western Front, played a more celebratory role in influencing the eventual Allied victory. Similarly, during the aftermath of the war, the USA’s involvement only influenced a minor section of the eventual peace settlements since the goals of the other contributing countries had to be also taken into account.
Part C: Evidence of Research
Annotated Bibliography
-
Stewart, David and Fitzgerald, James. (1987). The Great War Using Evidence. Australia: Thomas Nelson Australia
Pages: 33-37
I used this resource for some background reading before I actually started on the assignment and particularly when I was trying to decide on what key feature I ought to find my sources on. I found that there was I lot of information on changing attitudes of soldiers and civilians to the war over time, which I took a mental note of if I found relevant sources.
Rating: 6/10
-
Taylor, A.J.P. (1966). The First World War- An Illustrated History. England: Penguin Books Ltd
Pages: 231-234
I initially used this resource for background, pre-assignment reading. At that stage, I deemed it a useless source as I found that it had nothing to offer for that sources part of the assignment. However, upon reaching the essay part of the assignment, I decided to read the whole book (on Mrs Clarkson’s recommendations) and see what Taylor had to say on the issue of US entry into WWI. To my surprise (and delight) I found that he presented a one-sided opinion (presumably his) against the USA playing a dominant role in contributing to the eventual allied victory. This was exactly what I needed so I could incorporate evidence historiographical issues in my essay. This source thus played a major role in my essay.
Rating: 10/10
-
Ringer, Ron. (2000). Excel HSC Modern History. Australia: Pascal Press.
Pages: 67-69
I used this resource as corroborating evidence for the information that I found on changing attitudes of soldiers and civilians to the war. It served me well as just that, but it was otherwise too brief and general in detail.
Rating: 4/10
- www.firstworldwar.com
Visited on 15/11/03
I searched for propaganda posters on this site (I thought it might be easiest to do the key feature of recruitment, censorship and propaganda since I already had a generally idea of what doing this feature would entail). I searched all over the internet for appropriate propaganda posters and although I found some good ones, they all lacked visual clarity and had no information on the artist. The above site had some particularly interesting posters but they were all too small and when I enlarged them, they went all blurry. Thereafter I decided to give up on that key feature and try another one.
Rating: 2/10
-
Dennett, Bruce and Dixon, Stephen. (2003). Key Features of Modern History. Oxford University Press.
Pages: 88, 136-143, 149
This resource was extremely valuable to me as I used it in all areas of the assignment. I found my first source (photograph depicting early attitudes to war) and background information on the key feature. I also found information on the peace settlements to use in the essay question. What I really liked about this resource was that the information was straightforward and yet still interesting. Plus, it is presented in an impartial way so there is no evident bias.
Rating: 10/10
-
Winter, Jay and Baggett, Blaine. (1996). 1914-1918: The Great War and the Shaping of the Modern World. Britain: BBC Books.
Pages: 219-224
I found my second source (“A Soldier’s Declaration”) in this beautifully presented book on WWI. It also contained useful background information on the author of the source, Siegfried Sassoon, including the context under which the source was written.
Rating: 9/10
-
Keegan, John. (1990). The First World War. London: Pimlico.
Pages: 401-456
This resource was particularly useful to me in my essay as it presented another one-sided opinion on the USA’s contributions to the war. It contrasted Taylor’s views and thus exemplified an historiographical issue surrounding this event which I incorporated in my essay.
Rating: 9/10
- hi.com.au/evidenceWWI
Visited on 28/11/03
This site had interesting but tediously detailed information on the US entry into the war. I read some of the information but didn’t end up using any of it.
Rating: 2/10
-
McCallum, Anne. (1996). Evidence of War. Australia: Heinemann.
Pages: 116, 204-208, 232-233, 244, 248-249
Like “Key Features of Modern History”, I used “Evidence of War” in a almost every part of my assignment. It had useful background information on the changing attitudes of soldiers and civilians to the war as well as detail information on the peace settlements which I incorporated in my essay.
Rating: 9/10
-
Pickard, Alf. (2002). World War I and its Aftermath. Australia: Phoenix Education.
Pages: 120-133
I had more or less finished my essay when I referred to this resource so it didn’t help me as an actual resource. I did however, find that the information that I read here collaborated with what I had written in my essay and so in that sense, this resource was fairly useful.
Rating: 5/10
Keegan, John, (1990). The First World War. London: Pimlico.
Taylor, A.J.P. (1966). The First World War- An Illustrated History. England: Penguin Books Ltd.
McCallum, Anne. (1996). Evidence of War. Australia: Heinemann. Page 248
Many Authors. (2002). HTA Modern History Study Guide. Australia: HTA NSW. Page 35
These points (6-11 and 13-14) were (prior to modification):
Point 6- “The evacuation of all Russian Territory”
Point 7- “The evacuation of all Belgian Territory”
Point 8- “The evacuation of all French territory and the restoration of Alsace Lorraine”
Point 9- “The adjustment of Italy’s borders”
Point 10- “An opportunity for the various people of Austria-Hungary to seek autonomy”
Point 11- “The evacuation of Rumania, Serbia and Montenegro; Serbia given access to he seas and issues in the Balkans resolved”
Point 13- “An independent Poland”
Point 14- “The formulation of a general association of nations to ensure that all nations had protection against aggression”
