Beginning in the early 1900s, Austria-Hungary - whose Balkan politics clashed with that of Russia - had been persuing a war with Serbia. On several occasions, Austria-Hungary had asked Germany for support in war against Serbia as it was protected by Russia, but Germany - fearing a war with both Russia and France - refused such an idea.
However, when the Austrian heir to the throne was assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914 by Serbian separatists, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia, which would force Serbia into war. Russia, concerned with an Austria-Hungarian invasion of Serbia, began to mobilise its troops. Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary went to its ally, Germany. Germany, whom feared Russia was pushing for war wanted the upper hand in what they assumed to be the coming war, Germany pre-emptively attacked Russia and France in August of 1914.
France, being an ally with Russia, was assumed to join on the side of Russia, which would put Germany in a pinch between France and Russia. To combat this issue, Germany's plan was to defeat France first, then focus on Russia, assuming slow Russian mobilisation. Part of the plan required to move through Belgium, violating its neutrality, something which the United Kingdom (and ironically Germany's processor, Prussia) had pledged to protect after the Belgian Revolution in 1830.
As a result, the United Kingdom joined the war on the side of France and Russia. In addition, to Germany's slowed advance into France, Russia mobilised a lot quicker than Germany had anticipated and a few months in, the war was entrenched.
The first significant change would first happen three years later in 1917 when Russia was forced to surrender itself from the war due to revolution in its own land. With the Russians gone, the Germans moved its troops towards the Western front. With new forces, the Germans gained an initial momentum, but quickly lost it as supplies waned. And when the Western Allies pushed back, Germany had lost its defensive positions in its trenches and quickly realised it had lost the war and surrendered in 1918.
Lol thank you for the advice, I wouldn't have done it if it wasn't for you, anon xDDD. Now thanks to Svip's generous sponsorage every woot children would have the option to get as many post-docs in Harvard as they wanted to get.
@Djoser: As I mentioned on the Stand; the Ottoman Empire's importance in the First World War is vastly overblown. What about Italy? Were they not important? To me, the war boils down to these five partners. They started it and they ended it. Americans like to overestimate their own importance in the war, but they really did not change much on the Western front, if only to give the soldiers a morality boost.
But I would recommend to you to get the book The Guns of August; it's a really really good history book. I wonder why it is not mandatory in school, but oh well.
Dragonfire, I would like to point out that the US didn't enter WWI until 1917, and the Allied Powers had been doing pretty well during the previous three years. The US did help the Allies quite a lot; I'm saying that the war probably still would've been won without direct American action. It just would've taken longer.
@Dragonfire: I'll give you the benefit of doubt and trust you are not actually trolling. The USA, the tank, the mustard gas and the aeroplanes meant little to nothing in regards to the outcome of the war.
When the US entered the war in 1917, the US lacked any real form of an army. So it took them a while to mobilise. Up until the First World War, the US had never really had a standing army, which was common in Europe. The US never managed to fully mobilise its troops to the Western front before the war was over.
The real intend of participating in the war from the US' perspective was to be able to outline the outcome of the war and ensure a more international presence of the United States.
But they were of no military significance. Neither was the Ottomans or Italy.
Dis be one o' da few pics from dis series I instantly had to go to da add'd commentary to figure out wut represent'd wut in this pic 'cause I was conbaffle'd. Nao I know moar 'bout history (even though it be something I ain't too interest'd in... DIS MEANZ DIS BE WERKIN'. Needz moar o' such series 8V)
Dat being said... brbfindingsomethingtodrinktoperformspittake
To call the Great War a world war is an example of eurocentrism. The term first appeared in British textbooks and appears to imply that Europe is the extent of the world. World War II should technically be the first world war as it involved nations across the globe. Also, I doubt US doughboys provided much of an increase in the overall morals of the western front.
What I mean to say, America isn't in the picture because either A) they only entered the war in it's final year, regardless of contribution or B) the commission specified only the European countries.
@Dragonfire - "Never" is a pretty big word. While the US intervention after 1917 did provide a massive boost in men and materiel to the beleaguered Entente, it's debatable whether the US was that heavy of a deciding factor. Granted, a US-less First World War would look a hell of a lot different than the one in actual history; fighting that lasted into the 1920s could have been a distinct possibility.
@teh_ninja & Jud: I sincerely doubt that the war would have lasted longer without the US. The war's end came down to a leaving Russia and an exhausted Germany, neither if which the US had any control over. Russia would leave the war in 1917, regardless of US intervention, which would allow the Germans to push on the Western front. But already at this point did the Germans lack supplies and the strategy to truly take on the Allied forces. So their momentum was quickly lost into France, and now - out of their trenches - they were easy targets for the Allied forces, which then pushed forward.
Germany would quickly realise it had lost and surrendered. They weren't even pushed into Germany before they gave up.
@anon: The First World War would then technically be the Seven Years' War. It was fought on more continents than the Second World War.
I love this picture and while I agree with others that there is no dynamic element to the picture the concept is still great and fitting.
Hmm... Though you gotta admit a picture with the countries at their usual knee hieght breasts in a shoving contest might have worked well too. You could just imagine Germany doing her best to force back the titanic tits of both France and the United Kingdom, Austria with either her back to Germnay like this picture or maybe just one hand clasped between them in co-operation as she competes with the imposing Russia who might be showing the warning signs of a wardrobe malfunction to represent the internal revolution.
This is in no way meant to critise this work, i still love it and hope for a few more... historical references. But hey if you're gonna dream, dream big and it's nice to imagine a more... action filled pose for them.
Canada played a huge part in WWI, helping France at Vimy Ridge. If you go there today, there quite a memorial there and it is considered Canadian soil.
@Svip: Though you are correct that America accomplished little in WW 1 (save 300,000 casualties), America's presence helped Germany give up perhaps a few years sooner than the senseless bloodbath on the western front could have done. 3 million fresh troops (despite being rather hastily and sloppily trained) can make quite the impact. (though we should have come in sooner, it could have prevented some of the devastation Europe suffered)
@LoafDawg83: I am not saying that other nations should not be mentioned for the fighting that they did in WW1, the picture and what I find most interesting about WW1 is how it started; which boils down to these five countries. In some sense, Canada and Australia can be represented by the UK.
@Senor Bacon: I sincerely doubt years. Nothing happened in the European theatre until Russia had to leave the war, and that changed the nature of everything. Are you suggesting that without the US troops, Germany might have made their way to Paris in 1917? In fact, *I* don't even know the answer to that one. But I find this to be vastly on the limp of speculation.
Don't misinterpret what I am saying (not that I am suggesting that you do, but I know some will); I am not one of those who like to put off the loss of US troops because of what I *may* think of the US today. I respect the troops (regardless of what side they are fighting on), I also thank the US for their participation in WW2, where they *were* a significant force in the European theatre. But that's a different war.
@svip: It seems unlikely to me that Germany would have made it to Paris. I mean the stalemate on the western front got shorter, as both sides had been reduced to using teenagers due to almost literally having "run out of men". trenches that had once been filled with double rows of shoulder to shoulder troops were now only manned every ten yards or so. When the Zimmerman note (which might have been forged by the British)finally brought America and its fresh, non war-weary troops just ready for a fight into the war, it was simply too much for what was left of the German line to handle.
on a side note, I wasn't even thinking about about your personal opinions on the US, nor did I think that you were ignoring the US losses. I meant that our casualties in WW 1 were pathetic. I also respect the Germans for putting up such a strong resistance to defeat, even when the war was lost.
Can we at least admit that this is the most boobage to ever appear here on w00t's site and leave the historical arguments alone? We can all go to the library and do our own research...
@Senor Bacon: It is hard to speculate the exact consequences of no US in the war, but I think the war would have ended the same way; Germany surrendering. The exact extra time? Who knows?
Also, I wasn't suggesting that *you* specifically were thinking about that, but I tend to hear it often in debates with Americans about their country's war effort in the World Wars. So I was just pre-emptying that, if you will. Or if that is even how it is spelt.
@Svip: As a Canadian, I have to say that your comment 'In some sense, Canada and Australia can be represented by the UK.' is, unfortunately, pretty much accurate for WWI, at least for Canada. WWI was the first time that Canada was involved in any war since the formation of the country (and the first war not on North American soil); and for the most part during the war, Canadian troops were led by British officers (Including Lord Byng, who would later become Canada's Governor-General).
On the other hand, WWI essentially became Canada's debut onto the international scene, and Canada would become much more of an active player and mediator after that time. Particularly during the lead-up into WWII, where Canada and other Commonwealth countries would become major training centres for pilots, due to being much safer places to train than England itself.
I just have a few small notes that I think bear mentioning. The very fact that the war even happened was more or less a fluke. If Gavrilo Princip hadn't stopped to get a sandwich, he wouldn't have gotten a shot at Archduke Ferdinand because the car stalled when the driver took a wrong turn. While the American forces in Europe were relatively limited (four million men compared to eight and a half million from France and nearly nine million from Great Britain), the year we entered the war things were going terribly for the Entante. There were mutinies in the French ranks and three failed British attacks gave the US its first combat experience of the war. The Russian entrance into the war probably gave the Bolsheviks what would really be their one shot to unseat the monarchy, what with twelve million Imperial Russian soldiers fighting the Central Powers and unable to suppress an uprising at home.
Well, both yes and no. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand is the trigger, but Europe had since the unification of Germany in 1870 been on the tip of war. Essentially, Europe was merely waiting for the trigger. And as things prolonged, the less willing to compromise were each nation. France for instance, would enjoy any opportunity to retake Alsace-Lorraine.
What I think matters about the assassination of Ferdinand is not so much his triggering of the first world war, but rather the timing. Had it been a few years later or earlier, the outcome of the war might have been very different.
As for the American contributions, they were marginal. And yes, the Entente was not doing well on the Western front, but the Germans did not have the excess troops to use the advantage, because of the Eastern front.
You also make the Russian entrance into the war seem as if it was late, their mobilisation is practically what made Germany nervous enough to declare war. Russia's departure from the war is what decided it, which I also make clear in the original description. Oh and, while the Germans could not push through the Russian lines, the Russian army was pretty much a joke in comparison, they just had so many troops that it made up for the quality.
![Historines: World War I [Commission]](./content/woot-c-wwi.png)
However, when the Austrian heir to the throne was assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914 by Serbian separatists, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia, which would force Serbia into war. Russia, concerned with an Austria-Hungarian invasion of Serbia, began to mobilise its troops. Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary went to its ally, Germany. Germany, whom feared Russia was pushing for war wanted the upper hand in what they assumed to be the coming war, Germany pre-emptively attacked Russia and France in August of 1914.
France, being an ally with Russia, was assumed to join on the side of Russia, which would put Germany in a pinch between France and Russia. To combat this issue, Germany's plan was to defeat France first, then focus on Russia, assuming slow Russian mobilisation. Part of the plan required to move through Belgium, violating its neutrality, something which the United Kingdom (and ironically Germany's processor, Prussia) had pledged to protect after the Belgian Revolution in 1830.
As a result, the United Kingdom joined the war on the side of France and Russia. In addition, to Germany's slowed advance into France, Russia mobilised a lot quicker than Germany had anticipated and a few months in, the war was entrenched.
The first significant change would first happen three years later in 1917 when Russia was forced to surrender itself from the war due to revolution in its own land. With the Russians gone, the Germans moved its troops towards the Western front. With new forces, the Germans gained an initial momentum, but quickly lost it as supplies waned. And when the Western Allies pushed back, Germany had lost its defensive positions in its trenches and quickly realised it had lost the war and surrendered in 1918.