-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Turning pints of WW1 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter darcho
- Start date
America's involvement was a major turning point in world war 1. Both their economic and military involvement changed the natural corse of the war in which many historians believe could have ended sooner had america stayed out of the war.
fat_penguin
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 48
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2005
somme was a turning point for civilian expectations..
With turning points, you can break it down into a variety of reasons :darcho said:
Militarily - The American's involvement was one, however, their army was actually quite small and it took them almost a year to arm and train themselves properly, however, their supplying weapons to the Allies and the fact that they were clearly pissed off at the Germans because of the U boat campaign (sinking of the Lusitania) and the Zimmerman telegraph, you could put it down the American military presence as being more of a demoralising factor for the Germans rather than being a military factor.
Also, while Britain and Germany were almost on par with teh development of new technology regarding weaponry, Britain was able to put more investment into their armaments, such as their investments into tanks, which were significant in battles such as Cambrai. Britain also managed to, more effectively than the Germans, learnt from their mistakes (militarily) and continuosly devised new tactics and stuff
Economy: The German homefront + economy was on the verge of collapse, people were starving, rationing was proving to be ineffective, people had to resort to the most bizarre substitutes for things like coffee , bread (where sawdust was ground up in the bread to make it look "white") etc. Plus Germany was on the verge of s socialist revolution (a result of the one in Russia in 1917 and due to the fact that many peace activists were socialist, such as Rosa Luxemborg). Germany also didn't have an effective labour force at the homefront for example, the high numbers of women entering traditional male jobs in Britain, especially weapon making, which freed up males to join the army and also allowed for the economy to continue running smoothly while allowing women to have greater freedom at home while their "men" were at war. Germany wasn't as liberal towards allowing more women to work in munitions factories and such so the economy became even more stagnant and people starved.
Propaganda: Germany lost the propaganda war and this meant that simply, it got to a point where noone wanted to support them, such as Italy, who despite having signed the Triple Entente ? I think it was, not sure, went to war against Germany.
Now these are reasons for the turning points rather than when, but I would put it at around the end of 1916 to 1917 (except for occasional bursts of military battles won by the Germans such as the Spring Offensive..? I think not sure anymore
)Hope this helps !
Lets look at the significant events.
Belgians hold out at Liege and the British arrival in Belgium, this slowed down the German timetable and also turned the war into a world war.
The collective battles to the sea and the Marne turned the war from one of movement to stalemate.
The failed attempts to break the stalemate (Verdun, Somme etc) turned the war into total war requiring full economic and civilian cooperation.
US financing continued the stalemate by keeping both britain and france in the war.
US exports of cotton helped the Germans replenish their artillery magazine
Tannenberg turned the war in the east.
Treaty of Litvosk ended russian participatuion and freed up 500k German soldiers.
US entry and the failure of the Ludendorf offensives
Allied counter attacks and ceasefire.
I feel British entry to be the most significant turning point and agree with Nial Ferguson on this having a significant impact on the nature and outcome of the war. I discount sinking of US ships and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare as a turning point. US entry was always about US securing its stake and its future as a global power.
Belgians hold out at Liege and the British arrival in Belgium, this slowed down the German timetable and also turned the war into a world war.
The collective battles to the sea and the Marne turned the war from one of movement to stalemate.
The failed attempts to break the stalemate (Verdun, Somme etc) turned the war into total war requiring full economic and civilian cooperation.
US financing continued the stalemate by keeping both britain and france in the war.
US exports of cotton helped the Germans replenish their artillery magazine
Tannenberg turned the war in the east.
Treaty of Litvosk ended russian participatuion and freed up 500k German soldiers.
US entry and the failure of the Ludendorf offensives
Allied counter attacks and ceasefire.
I feel British entry to be the most significant turning point and agree with Nial Ferguson on this having a significant impact on the nature and outcome of the war. I discount sinking of US ships and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare as a turning point. US entry was always about US securing its stake and its future as a global power.
pat213
New Member
oi nelsoinian, what year did u complete ur hsc?
ur ideas are outdated...get with the times
ur ideas are outdated...get with the times
I would have to say that Nelsonians ideas are not outdated.
How the hell can a piece of history be 'outdated'. Its history! What happened happened and there's no changing that. People's opinions change over time but there is no new evidence to suggest that any of the ideas nelsonian suggested are 'outdated'....yes there may be other interpretations but that does not mean that nelsonian is outdated.
pat213, I strongly suggest you get with the times.
How the hell can a piece of history be 'outdated'. Its history! What happened happened and there's no changing that. People's opinions change over time but there is no new evidence to suggest that any of the ideas nelsonian suggested are 'outdated'....yes there may be other interpretations but that does not mean that nelsonian is outdated.
pat213, I strongly suggest you get with the times.
h0met0wnher0
New Member
darcho... get off the crack..
wat pat213 means is that his perspective is out of date, he was trying to say that nelsonian's ideas were of the objective conservative type, someone who must know what there talking about as he doesnt provide any real points of debate. Now wat pat213 n i am tryin to say is that this view whilst still being educationally viable for someone as limitedly knowlegeable as yourself, we academics find inspiration in the historiography of the topic, debate and the eternal search for 'truth'
darcho, i strongly suggest you fix your head
wat pat213 means is that his perspective is out of date, he was trying to say that nelsonian's ideas were of the objective conservative type, someone who must know what there talking about as he doesnt provide any real points of debate. Now wat pat213 n i am tryin to say is that this view whilst still being educationally viable for someone as limitedly knowlegeable as yourself, we academics find inspiration in the historiography of the topic, debate and the eternal search for 'truth'
darcho, i strongly suggest you fix your head
hangerm5
Member
What about the allied blockade of the North German sea...it seriously restricted Germanys ability to cope on the home front and this has reaching repercussions.Perhaps not a major turning point but it certainly helped to shift the balance of power over time.
Oh hang on, its really early in the morning, i just woke up, I really hope i have got the right war for the naval blockade! Its pretty much the only interesting thing that happened at sea durinig WW1, exept for the battle of jutland i suppose
Oh hang on, its really early in the morning, i just woke up, I really hope i have got the right war for the naval blockade! Its pretty much the only interesting thing that happened at sea durinig WW1, exept for the battle of jutland i suppose
hopeles5ly
Take Me Higher.
the whole core study of world war one boreded me to death lolhangerm5 said:
Naval blockade is an arguable point and could be valid. I left it out because it was expected and the Germans knew they would be shut down at sea. Their submarines offered a glimmer of hope but they were used as an economic more than military tool. By economic I refer to their attacks on supply ships rather than warships. Due to me being a little bias in this regard I figured the naval blockade as essentially not something that changed the character, scale or momentum of the conflict. The use of Subs in WW2 (Battle of the Atlantic) is probably closer to a turning point because it failed. It too though wasn't relied upon as an overall war winning strategy prior to the conflict because Germany's production of U Boats before the war was well below that needed to cut England off.
This begs the question as to whether the Germans really anticipated taking on Britain in WW2 or they perhaps were really concerned with the Russian threat as they were in WW1. If your admiralty advise prior to the war, that 100 U-boats are required to effectively interrupt Atlantic convoys why would you start a fight with Britain with only 30. (numbers here may not be entirely accurate but the point remains the same)
I know the blockade did eventually impact on the German economy but some items from the US did get through such as the cotton I referred to earlier. To me because the blockade was expected and it's consequences known it's impact was not sudden enough to turn or mutate this inferno to a point where the German's lost significant tempo. More I feel it was one of those straws that combined with all the other setbacks in 1918 that broke the back of German will to continue.
This begs the question as to whether the Germans really anticipated taking on Britain in WW2 or they perhaps were really concerned with the Russian threat as they were in WW1. If your admiralty advise prior to the war, that 100 U-boats are required to effectively interrupt Atlantic convoys why would you start a fight with Britain with only 30. (numbers here may not be entirely accurate but the point remains the same)
I know the blockade did eventually impact on the German economy but some items from the US did get through such as the cotton I referred to earlier. To me because the blockade was expected and it's consequences known it's impact was not sudden enough to turn or mutate this inferno to a point where the German's lost significant tempo. More I feel it was one of those straws that combined with all the other setbacks in 1918 that broke the back of German will to continue.