Worst essay I have ever had to mark

Why was the First World War especially hard on civilians?

One of the examples of civilians being treated hard is disease. They were kept locked in houses with no cleaned drains which caused gangrene and other disease, they didn't have fans which were used to push the germs out through the window. Many people were dying because of poor health care and no medical treatment. In order to keep the civilians alive they would have to move them to another house that was clean, had a good environment and a good medical treatment.

Another example of poor civilians is hardwork, they made them work very hard, even little kids. In 1914 they decided that children have to work also, they were sent to different places like factories, yards and the mills. They weren't even paid for their jobs, thousands of kids which worked in a sewing machines, died because when the machine got stuck cause of the tread. The kid had to go under the machine and untangle it, it was a huge risk because once you fix it, it starts working and you will get killed. Parents had different jobs there were times that were locked in another place without seeing their kid for years. They even splited (sic) mothers from their babies. Because of this people were loosing (sic) their lives so they could satisfy someone.

The civilians were treated really harsh no matter if it meant it was a woman, man or child. They thought that being a man was a successful way of what they intended to do, but it wasn't because they killed innocent people. One of the ways of killing civilians by Germans was by putting them in a room naked and spreading poison gas, which killed them slowly. Another way is either to make them die of hunger and thirst or either hang them or shoot one by one. In the battle of Versailles over 30,000 civilians were killed during the war. In 1916 it was more or less not a crime to kill civilians.

I am going to conclude this insane and harsh topic by saying it is wrong killing civilians. The question is, How are civilians (sic) from anybody else? they are not, just cause they don't wear suits and carry a gun it doesn't give any reason to kill them because they are still humans with civil rights. They should all be treated equal. If I was the leader for example Germany, I wouldn't ever kill a human that was innocent unless I really had to. Woodrow Wilson said that they had to revenge Germany in a very harsh way. Maybe that's the only way to resolve this fight.

Who is most to blame for the Great War?

German ambitions which brought about the Great War were no better than those of the Nazi’s during World War II as Fritz Fisher recognizes He saw the German Elite as being racists guided by imperialists and capitalist ideology; to an extent at which he called Bethmann-Hollweg the "Hitler of 1914".[1] He was the first German historian to interpret German history in a negative aspect, rather than those before him, who had eulogized the “Sonderweg”. [2] He was the first real German revisionist. Some people may argue that Germany was in fact the least to blame for war as its main efforts were to prevent it. But on the other hand, we must understand the belligerent nature of Germans. We could in fact identify them as the aggressors to initiate a “global” conflict. The German Schlieffen plan which was an ‘offensive’ stratagem, the Blank Cheque to Austria-Hungary, and the German ‘world policy’ which was intended for colonial expansion and development of German military strength. From these three points I would like to explain the aggressiveness of the Germans in connection to why they were most to blame for the Great War.

The German Schilieffen plan drawn up in 1905 and utilized during the Great War demonstrated aggression in many means. This is one reason showing why Germany should be most to blame for the Great War. After the formation of the Entente Cordiale in 1904 between the French and British, the Germans needed a plan in case of war. They needed one to not appear to be weak. Alfred Graf von was ordered to devise a stratagem which could fight a war on both fronts. After the Franco-Prussian war a following war seemed inevitable. Many of the European powers had individual ambitions; such as Frances want to take back Alsace and Lorraine. They began to formulate their own strategies of war.[3] The German Schlieffen plan was made so the Germans could be advantageous at the start of war. They hoped of being able to invade France in a short period of time before Russia could mobilize. We must also realize that the German Schlieffen Plan was created ten years before World War One even started. So should we understand this as Germans planning in advance as an aggressor or was German in a defensive position? That’s historical analysis in a nutshell. Either way, Germany after declaring war on Russia on the 1^st of August 1914 had already started to follow the Schlieffen Plan, invading Belgium and declaring war on France on the 3^rd of August 1914.The Schilieffen plan also meant that the German army had to go Belgium, a neutral country. In other words this demonstrates a lack of inconsideration for Belgium neutrality. From just these two elements we understand the callousness of Germany and their defiant nature in terms of no consideration of the terms of neutrality. Furthermore, this aggression that the Germans exhibit and strategic planning of the war ten years in advance lays part of the blame on Germany.

Another Reason which places the blame on Germany is the Blank Cheque that it gave to Austria-Hungary on July the 5^th. This was given to them shortly after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The Blank Cheque assured that Germany would Support Austria-Hungary in any way it dealt with Serbia. So could we understand this as a German attempt to provoke Russia to mobilize and bring on a war? According to Fritz Fisher, the German General staff saw this as an opportunity to be triumphant against Russia if a war seemed inevitable. As they presumed that by 1916 Russia’s military strength would be too overwhelmingly powerful. So they decided in December, 1912, to exploit the next major European crisis in order to initiate a war. [4] This crisis was the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Germans Leaders at the time also argued that they should attack Russia whilst its army was still small in comparison to the other counties.[5] “That it was the weakness of the Russian Navy which kept the Russians in check, but that the assurance of English assistance to Russia turned the scales” (Dr. Dernburg, Quotes Belgium Against Russia…[6] This extraction explains the Russian Navy was not fully developed as it still relies on its Allies, Britain. “Germany tried to bribe us with peace to desert our friends and duty. But Great Britain has preferred the path of honour.”[7] At the same time the Germans were also trying to localize the war by convincing the British that the Russians were the Aggressors in this conflict. In other words the Germans hoped the British would not come to defend Russian so they could have an easier victory when taking on Russia. Of this matter, German intensions were again not to prevent war but in an indirect manner provoke Russia to attack first. The Germans by giving Austria-Hungary a Blank Cheque tacitly encouraged them to adopt an aggressive position knowing that they would have support from Germany. Therefore the Austria-Hungarians gave the Serbians an ultimatum whereby the consequences were to devastating. They had to refuse and Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July, 1914. Germany’s true intensions were always to provoke a war, they were always the aggressor. In giving the Blank Cheque to Austria-Hungary, furthermore starting World War One, they saw this as a chance to deteriorate Russian military strength. Germany is again to blame for its prewar actions set in motion or contributed to a chain of events which escalated in to World War One.

The ‘world policy’ adopted in the late 19^th century was intended for colonial expansion as well as the development of German military strength. The ‘world policy’ produced many diplomatic conflicts and economic struggles between Germany and other foreign nations which lead up to World War One. Conflicts such as The Morocco crisis of 1905-1906 where the French and Germans struggled for economic dominance over Morocco. But in the end, it instead only raised the tension between Germany and other rivalry nations with no real gain. The world policy was an aggressive approach by the Germans to find what Kaiser Wilhelm II called ‘their place in the sun’. Their aims were fast industrial advancement and formation of a colonial empire which could rival all other economic powers. This policy also meant the creation of the High Seas Fleet, which the Germans believed could compete against the British Royal Navy and even surpass them. As a result, there was an Anglo-German naval rivalry.[8] Before the Great War, Germany was a strong growing power; both militarily and economically which other nations viewed it as a threat. Germany in order for colonial expansion had to invade other controlled territory as most was already occupied by Britain, France and other powers. An example of such would be the French defeat at the Prussian War, 1870-1871, where Germany took Alsace and Lorraine. Germany desired for expansion and that meant that it was the aggressor. It was a country driven by capitalist and imperialist ideology which further deteriorated the relations between her and other European Powers. Germany’s aggressive nature and desire for colonial expansion and military strengthening aggravating other powers is a third reason for why Germany is most to blame for the Great War.

The Germans were always the aggressive force which tried to oppose and destroy the ‘peace’ and ‘balance’ in which was supposedly maintained by the British and its European Allies. They tried to provoke a war in any means necessary and had a belligerent approach to everything. They had planned the war in advance and hoped to have an easy victory over Russia through their attempts to localize the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. The Germans were the main aggressors which tried to instigate a global conflict and so I believe are most to blame for the Great War. Simple, clear, focussed ending to a perfect essay.

You show a precocious conceptual awareness, insight, knowledge and understanding evident in your ability to show skills of critical thinking (asking at the very beginning how we should understand a very complex situation vis a vis the German military position); a high level of ability to provide answers which are fully developed, structured in

a logical and coherent manner and illustrated with appropriate examples and the ability to come to reasonable, albeit tentative, conclusions; consistent evidence of critical reflective thinking.

---

[1] http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Fischer

[2] http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderweg

[3] http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/plans.htm

[4] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Germany_grant_Austria-Hungary_a_blank_check

[5] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Germany_grant_Austria-Hungary_a_blank_check

[6]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9D04E5D71638E633A25754C0A9669D946596D6CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[7] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror01_01.shtml

[8] http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltpolitik

How did international events lead to World War One?

The First World War started as a result of multiple events which had been continuing for many decades. Pre-eminent among these was the apparent desire of Germany to be the dominant power in Europe. Whilst for France, Britain and other European nations, it was to retain the vestiges of their colonial supremacy. These events can be divided into three broad categories: the Morocco / Agadir crisis, the Bosnian crisis and Balkan war, and the German / British race for naval supremacy which was aligned with the growth of rightist militarism. The final trigger tipping Europe to war was the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand II.

The Moroccan and Agadir crisis between Germany and France could be acknowledged as a demonstration of diplomatic dominance intended for economic purposes or in other words colonial supremacy. France arrived at the Moroccan capital Fez in January 1905 with high hopes of being able to negotiate advantageous trading rights. The Kaiser followed suit, sailing his “German warship” into port Tangier demanding equal privileges to the French, as well as an international conference. His demands were granted and the French were given a central Moroccan bank a recompense. This event was partially intended for Germany to test the substance of the Anglo-French entente. The Kaiser had also heightened the awareness of other nations towards Germany. Five years later in 1911, a comparable political conflict between France and Germany took place in Morocco. In May 1911, French forces arrived at Fez to help prevent an internal revolution which the German government took to be a French attempt at annexation. So in July “The Panther” arrived in Agadir and requested trading benefits which the French rejected for they were supported by British foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey. The second Morocco crisis was also to display cooperative strength and furthermore coalition against German intimidation and also future threats. In addition to the two Morocco crises, the Bosnian crisis from 1908-09 could be included as it exhibits power between the different alliances and tension of war in Europe. Both events tightened the tensions between Germany and other European countries and alliances

Britain with its naval supremacy and "two power standard" Naval Defense Act created in 1889[1] dominated nationwide warfare. In 1897 Tirpitz became “Secretary of State for Germany’s Admiralty” and the year after he announced Germany’s First Naval Law.[2] The First Naval Law stated that nineteen battleships were to be constructed in the following seven years. In 1900 the number was increased to twenty-four battleships by 1920. The British recognized German increase of arms as a threat and therefore decided to construct greater warships, the Dreadnought. The Anglo-German naval rivalry from 1908-10 meant the further intensified antagonism between Britain and Germany. “The enormous growth of armaments in Europe, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them – it was these that made war inevitable.”[3] As Sir Edward Grey stated above, insecurity and anxiety among European countries gave birth to fear which will progress to unavoidable war. Perhaps also a main reason for the British entering World War One was to neutralize Germany’s naval capability. In parallel with this most European countries were increasing their armed forces numbers while all appeared to have plans in place either to attack or defend against attack should war break out.

The Balkan Wars between 1912 and 1914 exhibited strong nationalistic movement. At the time, Balkan nations, including Bulgaria, Albania Serbia and Macedonia were all held down by the Turkish Ottoman Empire. They were nationalists and desired to break free from Ottoman dominance. Of which by October 1912, the Balkan league accomplished and territory was split among Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece according to the London Agreement of 1913. However in June 1913, there was a second Balkan War which further increased Serbian power in the Balkan region. This cause drew serious attention from particularly Austria–Hungary because in Serbia, there are extreme nationalist organizations which support and promote the breaking free of other nationalist groups from Austro-Hungarian dominance. Not only there their? being strong believing nationalists, alliances between Serbia and Russia, and Austria-Hungary with Germany which could further antagonise the situation. Bearing in mind the amount of tension between Austria- Hungary and Serbia, this small conflict or trend developed into the Great War

Considering all events above, the Balkan War, the Morocco crises, the Anglo-German naval rivalry are all factors contributing to the escalating tension within Europe in the early years of the 20^th century. However, the true ignition of World War One was in fact the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914. This initiated the July crisis which gradually escalated into a continental and finally global conflict. On 23 July 1914, Austria issued an ultimatum to Serbia which demanded that Austrian police be allowed to enter into Serbia to capture all anti-Habsburg groups. However this request was denied and Austria-Hungary finally had its excuse to invade Serbia. This happened on 28 July 1914 when Austria Hungary declared war on Serbia. On 31 July 1914, Germany issued an ultimatum to the Russian government to cease advancement of Russian arms to Serbia but it was denied and on 1 August, Germany declared war on Russia. On 2 August Germany also sent an ultimatum demanding safe passage through Belgium for German soldiers into France. This was denied. Therefore on 3 August 1914 Germany invaded Belgium and declared war on France. Britain’s response was to defend Belgian Neutrality according to the Treaty of London 1839[4] and declared war against Germany on 4 August 1914. World War One officially began. The first Great War was the result of a combination of political factors. European nations to retain vestiges of their colonial supremacy, German ambition for greater power, the Anglo-German arms race and finally the War between Austria-Hungary and Serbia which was escalated because of diplomatic relations. In conclusion international events and conflicts were building blocks of the final inevitable outburst, the Great War.

You clearly show you in class the ability to retain knowledge and understand the issues of which you write. One thing I will be looking for later will be your sources. I need to know where you get your information from and how many different sources you use; I don’t want you to just rely on the same dead White English historians.

However, I don’t want to penalise you for being more advanced than your peers.

Mark awarded >	5	4	3	2	1
Criterion A: Knowledge	Each paragraph contains relevant evidence.	Each paragraph contains evidence, but not all evidence is relevant	There are several pieces of evidence, but not in each paragraph.	There are 1-2 pieces of evidence in the essay.	There is no evidence in the essay
Criterion B: Concepts	Understand the key terms and apply them correctly ESPECIALLY LAST TWO SENTENCES	Understand some key-terms	Tries to use the proper key terms (Industrialism, urbanisation, etc.)	Uses wrong key terms	There are no keywords, and poor understand of the topic.
Criterion C: Skills	Analysis in all paragraphs, Explanations all strong.	Analysis in all paragraphs, but Explanations are weak or missing. ESP. BEGINNING	Some attempts have been made at analysis.	The essay is a narrative. It is telling a story.	The essay is neither a narrative nor an analysis.
Criterion D: Organisation and presentation	The essay makes perfect use of P –E – E in all paragraphs	The essay is divided into paragraphs, with attempts of P – E – E	The essay is attempted divided into paragraphs.	The essay is not divided into paragraphs	The essay has incorrect or missing title The essay is too short. (min. 2 pgs.)

21/20

---

[1] http://members.aol.com/secretslag/naval.html

[2] http://members.aol.com/secretslag/naval.html

[3] Quote from Sir Edward Grey. http://www.ssi.unitn.it/en/download/WP032006Keefer.pdf

[4] http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/london1839.htm

The Failure of the German Spring Offensive of 1918

Abstract

After a continual stalemate in 1916 and 1917 on the Western Front, Germany attempted to break through the deadlock and deliver the fatal blow to the Allies. Why did the Hundred Days Offensive successfully break through the German defenses? The reasons lie in the planning process and the operation process of the German Spring Offensive. Why did the German Spring Offensive of 1918 fail? This question would present the background to the Hundred Days Offensive and the signing of armistice by Germany. This question is often overlooked. Many historical books specifically discuss the Hundred Days Offensive and not the Spring Offensive.

Since this is a broad topic, the essay discusses the answers to this question from both the Allied and the German sides. The analysis does discuss the battles in the Offensive, but it primarily focuses on the situation of the society, industry, and the significant decisions behind the frontlines.

With the assistance of primary and secondary sources, the essay discusses and explains the 5 primary reasons that resulted in the failure of the Offensive. Even before the Spring Offensive, General Ludendorff made serious mistakes concerning the movement of his men and weapons from the Eastern Front to the Western Front. During the Spring Offensive, he made tactical and strategic mistakes. In other words, he missed opportunities that could have won him the Offensive. Germany's weaponry production declined in 1918, and these weapons were crucial to the Germans for the past successes. To maker matters worse, the forces lacked food as well. Ukraine did not live up to their expectations.

In the very end, America's moral, industrial, and military reinforcements, along with the reasons listed above, ultimately halted the German attacks and turned the defense into the offense that eventually won the war for the Allies.

Word Count: 296

Introduction

" We must strike at the earliest moment before the Americans can throw strong forces into the scale. We must beat the British." Erich Ludendorff, the German Commander, decided that the only opportunity for the Germans to be triumphant in World War One was to separate the French and British forces and force them to comply with a peace treaty on the terms of Germany before America was at full strength. Germany appeared to possess the upper hand when the Spring Offense was initiated, and it certainly had opportunities during the Spring Offensive to deliver the fatal blow to the Allies. Why Did the German Spring Offensive of 1918 Fail? This question is significant because the causes of the failure of the Spring Offensive are the underlying grounds for the final outcome of World War One. The German Spring Offensive of 1918 failed because of Ludendorff's preparation errors before the Offensive, Ludendorff's strategic and tactical mistakes during the Offensive, Germany's inadequate manufactures of weaponry in 1918, Germany's agricultural shortage in 1918, and America's moral, industrial, and military reinforcements for the Allies during the Offensive.

Background

In 1917, the failures of General Nivelle's offensive and the widespread mutinies radically lowered the French morale. During the period of November 1917 to March 1918, the British forces on the Western Front decreased by 25%. By March 1918, America was beginning to impact the outlook of the Western Front, but it has yet to reach full strength. General Ludendorff saw the opportunities to win the war, and placed the fate of the German people in this last offensive. The Spring Offensive is also known as "Kaiserschlacht" and Illustration 1 describes the progress of the entire Offensive. The German Spring Offensive of 1918 started at 4:50 AM on March 21st 1918 with Operation Michael, as shown in Illustration 2. Germany's Western Front extended from 390 km in March 20th to 510 km by June 25th. However, the Spring Offensive ultimately failed in its purpose to win the war, and the German forces returned to its starting line by July 20th. The counterattack of the Allies eventually defeated the Germans, and Germany eventually signed the armistice on November 11, 1918.

General Ludendorff's Planning Mistakes

The German Spring Offensive of 1918 failed because of General Ludendorff's planning mistakes for the Offensive. In December of 1918, the Central Powers signed an armistice with Russia and signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3rd, 1918. As a result, over 60 German divisions were freed from the Eastern Front. Over 1 million troops and 3000 artillery pieces were added to the German forces on the Western Front from the Eastern Front before March. However, approximately 1.5 million soldiers along with 270,000 horses were stationed on the Eastern Front in 1918. General Ludendorff did not even relocate the elite Eighth Army to the Western Front, and this army was responsible for decisive victories at the Battle of the Masurian Lakes and at the Battle of Tannenberg. Ludendorff also insisted that the Austro-Hungarians should continue with their campaigns to attack Italy rather than assisting the Germans in the Spring Offensive. Just as Crown Prince Rupprecht stated, "Ludendorff is a man of absolute determination, but determination alone is not enough, if it is not combined with clear-headed intelligence." Ludendorff was definitely one of the most talented and determined generals in World War One. Unfortunately, Ludendorff's mistakes during the planning process eventually resulted in the Offensive's failure. People supported Ludendorff by saying that Germany need 1.5 million people to stabilize Romania and Russia, but some historians claim that at least half of the Eastern Front army could be transferred to the Western Front. General Ludendorff undeniably overestimated the effectiveness of his forces in the Western Front so he was confident enough to leave 1.5 million men on the Eastern Front and ask no help from Austria-Hungary. These 1.5 million men require food and materials that the forces in the Spring Offensive could have used. He did not consider the predicament that the German troops would encounter if the Allies were able to successfully defend Germany's assaults in the early or middle stages of the Offensive. The German Spring Offensive of 1918 failed because General Ludendorff made critical mistakes during the planning process for the Offensive.

General Ludendorff's Strategic and Tactical Mistakes during the Operations

The German Spring Offensive of 1918 failed because of General Ludendorff's strategic and tactical mistakes during the operations. Oskar von Hutier developed the Hutier (Infiltration) Tactics, and these tactics were effective at the Battle of Riga and Caporetto. It eliminated the enemies by having the storm troopers infiltrate the front lines of the enemies and destroy key infrastructures like communication and transportation systems, as shown in Illustration 3. Afterwards, the troops and the infantry will attack. Ludendorff utilized this tactic in the operations, but his strategy did not correspond with the tactic. According to Rupprecht, the Crown Prince of Bavaria, Ludendorff's strategy was: "We chop a hole. The rest follows". As a result, their attack at Arras and other locations were repelled. In Operation Michael, the British Fifth Army was obliterated and General Hutier's 8th army broke through the defense line. The Encarta Reference, concerning this situation, states that: "If Ludendorff had concentrated all his reserves to exploit the gap Hutier had opened, the plan might have succeeded. Instead, he launched three separate new attacks." Even the British recognized the opportunities of victory for the Germans of the gap that Hutier created. Kingsley Martin, a British soldier, described their thoughts of the German attempts for a breakthrough in March of 1918: "French soldiers shouted at us, 'What's happened to the bloody Fifth Army?' The British had lost the war. It was said not to be safe to go out because the French were so angry." During Operation Michael, Germany lost 239,000 men and most of these soldiers were storm troopers. Hew Strachan, in his book called The First World War, described Ludendorff, concerning his final plans to defeat France, as a person that "had lost all grasp of strategic reality." Officers around Ludendorff claimed that he possibly worked for over 19 hours a day and the psychological strain could have been a cause for his tactical mistakes, and his hardworking efforts are displayed in Illustration 4. His successes cannot be denied at the Battle of the Somme and other battles in the Offensive. However, his wrong perception of the Hutier tactics and his missed opportunities of attacking the weak defenses, like in the example of the gap that General Hutier created, were reasons that resulted in the failure of the Spring Offensive. Some people praised Ludendorff for the progression of his army despite the economics obstacles, but it has to be remembered that the German army did nevertheless have the opportunities to win the Offensive and Ludendorff missed it. Ludendorff overrated the effectiveness of the Hutier Tactic to an extent that he became idealistic about his tactics of infiltration. The German Spring Offensive failed because of Ludendorff's strategic and tactical mistakes during the Offensive.

Germany's Agricultural Shortage in 1918

The General Spring Offensive of 1918 failed because of Germany's agricultural shortage in 1918. From 1913 to 1918, the area of Germany under cultivation fell by 15% and the farming productions were in continual declines because mobilization took horses and over 3 million agricultural workers. After the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, 33% of Russia's pre-war population, 33% of arable land, 40% of coal output, and 24% of stell making capacity primarily belonged to Germany. A Corps Commander in Kiev reported to Ludendorff on March 23, 1918 concerning Ukraine, "The administrative structure is in total disorder, completely incompetent and in no way ready for quick results." Ottakar Czernin, the foreign minister of Habsburg Empire, stated in 1918, "The hopes, which the settlement at Brest-Litovsk had universally raised, were not remotely fulfilled." After the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany expected that their new regions would produce sufficient food for the soldiers. However, these territories did not provide enough materials for the soldiers in 1918. At the times when the German forces broke through the Allied defenses in the Spring Offensive, the supply line's food shortage forced the Germans to retreat. The German troops were starving, and this directly resulted in their low morale and their awful performances on the battlefield in the Offensive. The Spring Offensive failed because of Germany's inadequate production of foodstuffs to sustain the German troops.

Germany's Industrial Unproductiveness during the Offensive

The German Spring Offensive of 1918 failed because of Germany's inadequate manufactures of weaponry in 1918. The British Navy started a Naval Blocade in August 1914 of Germany and had finished enclosing all the German sealine on the north by the end of 1914. It has been estimated that over 750,000 German civilians have died due to malnutrition and the blockade is a primary reason for the deaths. The German War Food Department announced in May 1918 that the flour allocation has to be reduced and it stated:

"The daily flour ration...will be reduced from 200 to 160 grams...The re-establishment of the old rations will take place as soon as sufficient imports from the Ukraine are in the hands of the Reich Grain Department."

At the same time, metal was so scarce that coins were melted and new forms of paper money called Notegeld circulated the market. For Germany, the deliveries of new guns fell from 3000 per month in 1917 to 2000 in February 1918. To make matters worse, German production of artillery shells in mid 1918 was merely half of the monthly output of 1917 and Germany was still fighting in WW1, in which artilleries are responsible for 70% of casualties. By 1917, industrial output had fallen 53% from 1913, and it continued to decline in 1918. Even the newly received Donets in Ukraine was only able to produce 5 million tons of coal in the first half of 1918 so transportation speed of these resources were decreased. By the time the former Russian territories produced enough resources, the railway network was unable to transfer them to the Western Front to support the forces. Strikes occurred in Germany at the beginning of 1918 and social unrest permeated through corners of the society. On January 28th, 100,000 demonstrated on the Berlin streets and there is an estimate that 4 million workers went to the streets around Germany in this period of time and the chaos are shown in Illustration 5. In the Offensive, German forces advanced their positions, but they were not able to secure it because of their lack of tanks and motorized artillery. Its production was not capable of producing sufficient weaponry for Germany because numerous workers were sick or died of malnutrition. Due to the lack of workers, many companies were shut down and this directly decreased the industrial production. At many times during the Offensive like Compeigne, mobilized weaponry could have easily opened new opportunities for the Germans, but they were forced to retreat because they did not have artillery backup to continue the offense. Towards the end of the Offensive, German forces mainly consisted of infantry and they stood no chance against the Allies that had modern tanks, artillery, and airplanes. The German Spring Offensive of 1918 failed because of Germany's inadequate manufactures of weaponry.

America's Reinforcements for the Allies

The German Spring Offensive of 1918 failed because of America's reinforcements for the Allies. In 1916, Britain was spending 250 million dollars per month in America and once America entered the war, the Allies possessed global monopolies in the purchases of chief foodstuffs and other crucial products to the war. With the assistance of the United States, France and France was able to jointly produce an average of 11,200 machines and 14,500 aero engines every month in the last year of 1918. While Germany lost 350,000 men in the spring, approximately American 180,000 troops arrived in France during the same period. The AEF was crucial in stalling the German attacks in the Battle of Lys and halting the Offensive in the Third Battle of Aisne at Chateau-Thierry. They even drove the Germans out of Belleau Wood on June 26th. Throughout the Offensive, the morale of the American army distinguished them from the rest of the Allies; General Pershing somehow vitalized and trained them into qualified soldiers, as shown in Illustration 6. On April 15th at the Battle of the Lys, General Pershing said to his 900 officers of the American first division:

" You are going to meet a savage enemy, flushed with victory. Meet them like Americans. When you hit, hit hard and don't stop hitting. You don't know the meaning of the word 'defeat'."

Between June and July of 1918, America sent over 584,000 men to the battlefield and these men decisively stopped the advancement of the Offensive. America's entry into World War One reinforced the forces of the Allies, as well as foodstuffs, weapons, and morale. The incoming troops in the next few months overwhelmed the German forces. The American soldiers were vigorous because most of them were new soldiers to the battlefield. The additional American forces in the upcoming months were crucial to the halt of the Offensive. Their addition also lifted the spirits for the French and British soldiers. The German Spring Offensive of 1918 failed because of America's moral, industrial, and military reinforcements for the Allies.

Conclusion

Towards the beginning of July of 1918, Germany's forces were radically weakened as a result of the large casualties and the low morale, but it was not until July 15th that the operations stopped at a dead end. Gerhard Ritter was a young officer at the Western Front in 1918 and described the final periods of the Offense as:

"A crushing disappointment. Once again war's end had receded into the distant future, once again heart combs had done no more haplessly lengthen the front; and how could what had not been achieved in the first great blow, struck with every resource, full surprise, and tremendous barrages, now be won with far weaker forces, consisting largely of decimated and exhausted divisions?"

By this time, the Offense was considered to be a failure, and this passage displays the disappointment of the soldiers by then. Why did the German Spring Offenses of 1918 fail? The reasons that resulted in the failure of the Germany Spring Offenses of 1918 were the faulty preparations of General Ludendorff, the tactical mistakes of General Ludendorff during the operations, the scarce production of German foodstuffs, the inadequate manufactures of German weaponry, and the reinforcements of America into World War One. Other reasons like the continuous deaths of soldiers, as shown in Illustration 7, and the decrease of the German forces, were important factors for the failure too. In conclusion, only one or two of these five causes may not have resulted in the failure of the Offensive, but the combination of all 5 causes was enough for the failure of the German Spring Offensive of 1918.

Word Count: 2498

Bibliography

Gilbert, Martin. A History Of The Twentieth Century: Volume One: 1900-1933. U.S.A.: First Avon Books Trade Paperback Printing, November 1998.

McDonough, Frank. Conflict, Communism and Fascism: Europe 1890-945. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2001

Hamlyn. The Hamlyn Pictorial History of the 20th Century. Michelin House, 81 Fulham Road, London: Reed Consumer Books Ltd, 1989.

Upshur, Jiu-Hwa., Terry, Janice., Holoka, James., Goff, Richard., Cassar, George., and Lowry, Bullitt. World History: Comprehensive Volume: Second Edition. United States of America: West Publishing Company, 1995.

Strachan, Hew. The First World War. United States of America: Penguin Groups, 2004.

Yan, Li and Ming, Gao. The First World War. Beijing: Beijing TongZhou Jing Hua Shua Zhi Ban Chang, 2005.2.

Kaiserschlacht 1918: The Final German Offensive Of World War One. Randal Gray. <http://www.ralphmag.org/CW/new.html>

The German Spring Offensive of 1918.

<http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/german_spring_offensive_of_1918.htm>

World War I. <http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-I>

Australian Military Units: German Spring Offensive.

<http://www.awm.gov.au/units/event_65.asp>

United States in the War and Last Battles.

<http://www.germannotes.com/hist_ww1_late_stage.shtml>

The Victories and Defeats of the Russian Army: 1914. Patrick Murphy. <http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwi/articles/russianarmy1914.aspx>

Stormtrooper Tactics of World War I.

<http://www.johnsmilitaryhistory.com/stormtrooper.html>

Spring Offensive. <http://www.answers.com/topic/spring-offensive>

Spring Offensive. <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWspring.htm>

Germany's Spring Offensive WW1 (Kaiserschlacht).

<http://www.germannotes.com/archive/article.php?products_id=160&osCsid=c7175d4d1e992ae4136c02af3d8884bb>

Feature Articles: Deceit Used by the High Command: An Unexpected Peace. 3 January, 2006. <http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/highcommanddeceit.htm>

The Effect Of The British Naval And Economic Blockade: On The Western Front In The Great War. Dr. David Payne. The Western Front Association. <http://web.westernfrontassociation.com/thegreatwar/articles/research/effectbritishnnavalblockade.htm>

German Historical Banknotes: Notegeld WW1: Emergency Money. <http://www.germannotes.com/faq_notgeld_ww1.shtml>

"World War I." Encarta Reference Library Premium 2005. 2005.