OCR Specification focus:
‘the entry of the USA; the reasons for the outcome on Western and Eastern fronts’
The entry of the United States and the contrasting fortunes of the Western and Eastern Fronts were decisive in shaping the First World War’s ultimate outcome.
The Entry of the USA into the War
Background to US Neutrality
At the outbreak of war in 1914, the United States under President Woodrow Wilson maintained a position of neutrality. American society was divided, with large German and Irish immigrant populations resisting intervention on Britain’s side. However, economic, ideological, and security concerns increasingly pulled the USA toward the Allies.
Reasons for US Entry
Several key factors explain why the USA abandoned neutrality in April 1917:
Unrestricted Submarine Warfare: In 1917 Germany resumed unrestricted attacks on shipping, sinking vessels such as the Lusitania (1915) and later US merchant ships, directly threatening American lives and trade.
Economic Interests: The USA had extended significant loans and trade to Britain and France. A German victory would risk the repayment of billions of dollars in credits.
The Zimmermann Telegram: In January 1917, German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann proposed a German–Mexican alliance against the USA.
Decoded text of the Zimmermann Telegram sent by Germany to Mexico in January 1917. Its publication in March 1917 helped shift U.S. public opinion and policy towards intervention. Source
Ideological Commitment: Wilson framed US entry as a mission to “make the world safe for democracy”, contrasting the liberal Allies with the autocratic Central Powers.
Impact of American Entry
Although the USA took time to mobilise, its entry shifted the strategic balance:
Manpower: By 1918 over two million American troops were deployed in Europe, strengthening the Allies’ exhausted armies.
Resources: Vast economic and industrial resources provided weapons, food, and financial support.
Psychological Boost: The promise of US support undermined German morale and boosted Allied confidence.
The Outcome on the Western Front
Nature of the Western Front
The Western Front from 1914–1918 was characterised by trench warfare and stalemate. The adoption of defensive technologies such as machine guns, barbed wire, and artillery created devastating attrition.
Reasons for the Outcome
The Western Front was ultimately decided by a combination of military, economic, and political factors:
German Offensive Failures: The Schlieffen Plan in 1914 failed to secure a quick victory. Later offensives, such as the Ludendorff Offensive of 1918, overextended supply lines and collapsed.
German Spring Offensive, March–July 1918, with main thrusts and front-line changes. The map shows initial German advances and the sectors attacked, clarifying how success stalled as logistics and manpower faltered. Source
Allied Cooperation: The Allies, though strained, coordinated effectively under the unified command of General Foch in 1918, ensuring greater strategic coherence.
Technological Innovation: Tanks, aircraft, and improved artillery tactics gradually broke the deadlock of trench warfare.
The US Contribution: Fresh American troops reinforced Allied offensives during the “Hundred Days” campaign in late 1918, overwhelming exhausted German forces.
German Domestic Collapse: By autumn 1918, economic hardship, food shortages, and political unrest weakened German resolve, leading to demands for an armistice.
Key Turning Points
Battle of the Somme (1916): Though costly, it wore down German reserves.
Passchendaele (1917): Symbolised the attritional grind of trench warfare.
Hundred Days Offensive (1918): Coordinated Allied attacks, supported by US troops, pushed Germany back and forced surrender.
The Outcome on the Eastern Front
Nature of the Eastern Front
The Eastern Front was more fluid than the Western Front, covering vast areas from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Battles were mobile, with rapid advances and retreats.
Reasons for the Outcome
Several factors explain the collapse of Russia and the contrasting fortunes of the Eastern Front:
Russian Weaknesses: Poor infrastructure, lack of industrial capacity, and shortages of weapons left Russia ill-prepared for modern war.
German Superiority: German forces under generals such as Hindenburg and Ludendorff achieved decisive victories, including Tannenberg (1914), which destroyed a Russian army.
Political Instability: Russia’s internal crises culminated in the 1917 revolutions. The Bolsheviks, prioritising survival, sought peace at any cost.
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918): Russia’s withdrawal allowed Germany to seize vast territories and concentrate forces on the Western Front.
Territorial losses imposed on Russia by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, including areas in present-day Poland, Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine. This visual clarifies the scale of Russia’s exit from the war and how it briefly freed German divisions for the west. Source
Comparative Outcomes
On the Western Front, the war ended with Germany’s military exhaustion, Allied superiority, and American intervention.
On the Eastern Front, the collapse of Russia removed one of Germany’s enemies but ultimately could not reverse the imbalance of resources and manpower once the USA joined.
The Overall Balance of Factors
The First World War’s outcome was shaped by interconnected elements:
The entry of the USA provided decisive manpower, finance, and morale.
On the Western Front, attrition, Allied unity, and American support broke Germany’s resistance.
On the Eastern Front, Russian collapse freed German forces but could not compensate for overwhelming Allied strength elsewhere.
Ultimately, the war was won by the side that combined military resilience with superior economic and political stability, reinforced by the transformative impact of American intervention.
FAQ
American industry rapidly supplied the Allies with weapons, munitions, food, and medical supplies on a scale unmatched by Germany.
This industrial output allowed the Allies to sustain offensives and replace losses more effectively. The psychological effect of endless American resources also convinced Germany it could not win a war of attrition
Initially, German leaders dismissed America’s military readiness, believing mobilisation would take too long to matter.
By 1918, however, the arrival of well-equipped American forces demoralised soldiers and civilians. News of the United States’ overwhelming manpower and industrial capacity intensified unrest at home, fuelling strikes and revolutionary sentiment.
The vast geography of Eastern Europe lacked the dense trench systems of the west.
Long, open spaces made static defence harder to sustain.
Poor infrastructure meant supply lines often collapsed, leading to rapid retreats or advances.
Both Russia’s weaknesses and Germany’s operational flexibility allowed sweeping manoeuvres, unlike the entrenched attrition of France and Belgium.
The treaty freed over fifty German divisions from the Eastern Front, enabling a massive shift west.
This allowed Germany to launch the Spring Offensive of 1918. However, the occupation of vast new territories drained manpower, and administering them distracted resources. Ultimately, the apparent short-term gain undermined Germany’s ability to maintain pressure on the Western Front.
The U.S. government launched the Committee on Public Information to rally citizens behind the war.
Posters, films, and pamphlets portrayed Germany as barbaric and democracy as under threat. This propaganda not only boosted recruitment but also increased public tolerance of economic sacrifices such as rationing and war bonds, ensuring home front stability.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Give two reasons why the United States entered the First World War in 1917.
Mark Scheme
1 mark for each valid reason identified.
Acceptable answers include:
German unrestricted submarine warfare threatening American lives and trade.
The Zimmermann Telegram encouraging Mexico to ally with Germany against the USA.
Economic ties and loans to the Allies, creating a vested interest in their victory.
Wilson’s ideological desire to “make the world safe for democracy.”
(Max 2 marks)
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain two reasons why the war on the Western Front ended in Allied victory.
Mark Scheme
Up to 3 marks per reason explained.
Award 1 mark for identifying a valid reason, 1–2 further marks for explanation and development.
Acceptable reasons include:
German military failures: e.g. collapse of the Ludendorff Offensive due to overextension and supply issues.
Allied unity and coordination: improved under General Foch’s unified command.
American entry: fresh manpower and resources bolstered the Allies, tipping the balance.
Technological innovation: tanks, artillery, and air support helped break stalemate.
German domestic collapse: political unrest and economic hardship eroded morale and capacity to fight.
(Max 6 marks)
