Misplaced Pages

Home front during World War I: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:46, 27 February 2014 editPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,658 edits removed Category:World War I; added Category:Home front during World War I using HotCat← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:13, 14 January 2025 edit undoRichard Nevell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,563 edits Germany: fmt ref 
(339 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|none}}
The '''home front during World War I''' covers the domestic, economic, social and political histories of countries involved in ]. It covers the mobilization of war supplies and soldiers, but does not include the military history. During the entire war, ], including many weakened by years of malnutrition who fell in the worldwide ], which struck late in 1918 just as the war was ending.
], circa 1917-1919.]]
The '''home front during World War I''' covers the domestic, economic, social and political histories of countries involved in ]. It covers the mobilization of armed forces and war supplies, lives of others, but does not include the military history. For nonmilitary interactions among the major players see ].


About 10.9 million combatants and seven million civilians ], including many weakened by years of malnutrition; they fell in the worldwide ], which struck late in 1918, just as the war was ending.
The Allies had much more potential wealth they could spend on the war. One estimate (using 1913 US dollars) is that the Allies spent $147 billion on the war and the Central Powers only $61 billion. Among the Allies, Britain and its Empire spent $47 billion and the U.S. $27 billion; among the Central Powers Germany spent $45 billion.<ref>H.E. Fisk, ''The Inter-Allied Debts'' (1924) pp 13 & 325 reprinted in Horst Menderhausen, ''The Economics of War'' (1943 edition), appendix table II</ref>


The ] had much more potential wealth that they could spend on the war. One estimate (using 1913 US dollars), is that the Allies spent $147 billion ($4.5tr in 2023 USD) on the war and the ] only $61 billion ($1.88tr in 2023 USD). Among the Allies, Britain and its Empire spent $47 billion and the ] $27 billion; among the Central Powers, Germany spent $45 billion.<ref>H.E. Fisk, ''The Inter-Allied Debts'' (1924) pp 13 & 325 reprinted in Horst Menderhausen, ''The Economics of War'' (1943 edition), appendix table II</ref>
Total war demanded total mobilization of all the nation's resources for a common goal. Manpower had to be channeled into the front lines (all the powers except the United States and Britain had large trained reserves designed just for that). Behind the lines labor power had to be redirected away from less necessary activities that were luxuries during a total war. In particular, vast munitions industries had to be built up to provide shells, guns, warships, uniforms, airplanes, and a hundred other weapons both old and new. Agriculture had to be mobilized as well, to provide food for both civilians and for soldiers (many of whom had been farmers and needed to be replaced by old men, boys and women) and for horses to move supplies. Transportation in general was a challenge, especially when Britain and Germany each tried to intercept merchant ships headed for the enemy. Finance was a special challenge. Germany financed the Central Powers. Britain financed the Allies until 1916, when it ran out of money and had to borrow from the United States. The U.S. took over the financing of the Allies in 1917 with loans that it insisted be repaid after the war. The victorious Allies looked to defeated Germany in 1919 to pay "reparations" that would cover some of their costs. Above all, it was essential to conduct the mobilization in such a way that the short term confidence of the people was maintained, the long-term power of the political establishment was upheld, and the long-term economic health of the nation was preserved.<ref>Hardach, ''First World War: 1914–1918'' (1981)</ref>


Total war demanded the total mobilization of all the nation's resources for a common goal. Manpower had to be channeled into the front lines (all the powers except the United States and Britain had large trained reserves designed for just that). Behind the lines labor power had to be redirected away from less necessary activities that were luxuries during a total war. In particular, vast munitions industries had to be built up to provide shells, guns, warships, uniforms, airplanes, and a hundred other weapons, both old and new. Agriculture had to be mobilized as well, to provide food for both civilians and for soldiers (many of whom had been farmers and needed to be replaced by old men, boys and women) and for horses to move supplies. Transportation in general was a challenge, especially when Britain and Germany each tried to intercept merchant ships headed for the enemy. Finance was a special challenge. Germany financed the Central Powers. Britain financed the Allies until 1916, when it ran out of money and had to borrow from the United States. The US took over the financing of the Allies in 1917 with loans that it insisted be repaid after the war. The victorious Allies looked to defeated Germany in 1919 to pay "reparations" that would cover some of their costs. Above all, it was essential to conduct the mobilization in such a way that the short term confidence of the people was maintained, the long-term power of the political establishment was upheld, and the long-term economic health of the nation was preserved.<ref>Hardach, ''First World War: 1914–1918'' (1981)</ref> For more details on economics see ].
For more details on economics see ].

World War I had a profound impact on woman suffrage across the belligerents. Women played a major role on the homefronts and many countries recognized their sacrifices with the vote during or shortly after the war, including the United States, Britain, Canada (except ]), Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, Sweden and Ireland. France almost did so but stopped short.<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Palm | first = Trineke | title = Embedded in social cleavages: an explanation of the variation in timing of women's suffrage | journal = ] | volume = 36 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–22 | doi = 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2012.00294.x | date = March 2013 }}</ref>

==Financial costs==
{{Further|Economic history of World War I}}
The total direct cost of war, for all participants including those not listed here, was about $80 billion in 1913 US dollars. Since $1 billion in 1913 is approximately $46.32 billion in 2023 US dollars, the total cost comes to around $2.47 trillion in 2023 dollars. Direct cost is figured as actual expenditures during war minus normal prewar spending. It excludes postwar costs such as pensions, interest, and veteran hospitals. Loans to/from allies are not included in "direct cost". Repayment of loans after 1918 is not included.<ref>Harvey Fisk, ''The Inter-Ally Debts: An Analysis of War and Post-War Public Finance, 1914-1923'' (1924) pp 1, 21-37{{ISBN?}}</ref>
The total direct cost of the war as a percent of wartime national income:
* '''Allies''': Britain, 37%; France, 26%; Italy, 19%; Russia, 24%; United States, 16%.
* '''Central Powers''': Austria-Hungary, 24%; Germany, 32%; Turkey unknown.
The amounts listed below are presented in terms of 1913 US dollars, where $1 billion then equals about $25 billion in 2017.<ref>Fisk, ''The Inter-Ally Debts'' pp 21-37.</ref>
* Britain had a direct war cost about $21.2 billion; it made loans to Allies and Dominions of $4.886 billion, and received loans from the United States of $2.909 billion.
* France had a direct war cost about $10.1 billion; it made loans to Allies of $1.104 billion, and received loans from Allies (United States and Britain) of $2.909 billion.
* Italy had a direct war cost about $4.5 billion; it received loans from Allies (United States and Britain) of $1.278 billion.
* The United States had a direct war cost about $12.3 billion; it made loans to Allies of $5.041 billion.
* Russia had a direct war cost about $7.7 billion; it received loans from Allies (United States and Britain) of $2.289 billion.<ref>Peter Gatrell, ''Russia's First World War: A Social and Economic History'' (2005) pp 132-53</ref>

The two governments agreed that financially Britain would support the weaker Allies and that France would take care of itself.<ref>Martin Horn, ''Britain, France, and the financing of the First World War'' (2002) ch 1.</ref> In August 1914, ], a Morgan partner, traveled to London and made a deal with the ] to make J.P. Morgan & Co. the sole underwriter of ] for Great Britain and France. The Bank of England became a fiscal agent of J.P. Morgan & Co., and ''vice versa''. Over the course of the war, J.P. Morgan loaned about $1.5 billion (approximately ${{formatnum:{{inflation|US|1.5|1929|r=0}}}} billion in today's dollars) to the Allies to fight against the Germans.<ref name=wolff>{{Cite book|title=Black Sun: The Brief Transit and Violent Eclipse of Harry Crosby |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RpVaAAAAMAAJ|author=Geoffrey Wolff|year=2003|isbn=978-1-59017-066-3|publisher=New York Review of Books}}</ref>{{rp|63}} Morgan also invested in the suppliers of war equipment to Britain and France, thus profiting from the financing and purchasing activities of the two European governments.

Britain made heavy loans to Tsarist Russia; the Lenin government after 1920 refused to honor them, causing long-term issues.<ref>Jennifer Siegel, ''For Peace and Money: French and British Finance in the Service of Tsars and Commissars'' (Oxford UP, 2014).</ref>


==Britain== ==Britain==
{{main|History of the United Kingdom during World War I}} {{main|History of the United Kingdom during World War I|British entry into World War I}}
{{see also|Women's roles in the World Wars#World War I}} {{see also|Timeline of the United Kingdom home front during World War I}}
At the outbreak of war, patriotic feelings spread throughout the country, and many of the class barriers of ] faded during the years of combat.<ref>National Archives </ref> However the Catholics in southern Ireland moved overnight to demands for complete immediate independence after the failed ] of 1916. Northern Ireland remained loyal to the crown.


At the outbreak of war, patriotic feelings spread throughout the country, and many of the class barriers of ] faded during the years of combat.<ref>National Archives </ref> However, the Catholics in southern Ireland moved overnight to demands for complete immediate independence after the failed ] of 1916. Northern Ireland remained loyal to the crown.
Economic sacrifices were made, however, in the name of defeating the enemy.<ref>Stephen Broadberry and Peter Howlett, "The United Kingdom during World War I: business as usual?" in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 7</ref> In 1915 Liberal politician ] took charge of the newly created Ministry of Munitions. He dramatically increased output of artillery shells—the main weapon actually used in battle. In 1916 he became secretary for war. Prime Minister H. H. Asquith was a disappointment; he formed a coalition government in 1915 but it also was ineffective. Asquith was replaced by Lloyd George in late 1916. He had a strong hand in the managing of every affair, making many decisions himself. Historians credit Lloyd George for providing the driving energy and organisation that won the War.<ref>A.J.P. Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) pp.&nbsp;34–5, 54, 58, 73–76</ref>


In 1914 Britain had by far the largest and most efficient financial system in the world.<ref>Christopher Godden, "The Business of War: Reflections on Recent Contributions to the Economic and Business Histories of the First World War." ''Œconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy'' 6#4 (2016): 549-556. </ref> Roger Lloyd-Jones and M. J. Lewis argue:
Although ], morale remained relatively high due in part to the morale-building propaganda churned out by the national newspapers.<ref>Ian F. W. Beckett, ''The Great war'' (2nd ed. 2007) pp 394–395</ref> With a severe shortage of skilled workers, industry redesigned work so that it could be done by unskilled men and women (termed the "dilution of labour") so that war-related industries grew rapidly. Lloyd George cut a deal with the trades unions—they approved the dilution (since it would be temporary) and threw their organizations into the war effort.<ref>Beckett (2007), pp. 341, 455</ref>
: To prosecute industrial war required the mobilization of economic resources for the mass production of weapons and munitions, which necessarily entitled fundamental changes in the relationship between the state (the procurer), business (the provider), labor (the key productive input), and the military (the consumer). In this context, the industrial battlefields of France and Flanders intertwined with the home front that produced the materials to sustain a war over four long and bloody years.<ref>Roger Lloyd-Jones and M. J. Lewis, ''Arming the Western Front: War, Business and the State in Britain, 1900–1920'' (Routledge, 2016), p 1.</ref>


Economic sacrifices were made, however, in the name of defeating the enemy.<ref>Stephen Broadberry and Peter Howlett, "The United Kingdom during World War I: business as usual?" in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 7</ref> In 1915 Liberal politician ] took charge of the newly created Ministry of Munitions. He dramatically increased the output of artillery shells—the main weapon actually used in battle. In 1916 he became secretary for war. Prime Minister ] was a disappointment; he formed a coalition government in 1915 but it was also ineffective. Asquith was replaced by Lloyd George in late 1916. He had a strong hand in the managing of every affair, making many decisions himself. Historians credit Lloyd George with providing the driving energy and organisation that won the War.<ref>A.J.P. Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) pp.&nbsp;34–5, 54, 58, 73–76</ref>
Historian ] sees a radical transformation of British society, a deluge that swept away many old attitudes and brought in a more equalitarian society. He sees the famous literary pessimism of the 1920s as misplaced, for there were major positive long-term consequences of the war. He points to new job opportunities and self-consciousness among workers that quickly built up the Labour Party, to the coming of partial woman suffrage, and to an acceleration of social reform and state control of the British economy. He finds a decline of deference toward the aristocracy and established authority in general, and a weakening among youth of traditional restraints on individual moral behavior. Marwick concludes that class differentials softened, national cohesion increased, and British society became more equal.<ref>Arthur Marwick, ''The Deluge: British Society and the First World War'' (1965)</ref>


Although ], morale remained relatively high due in part to the propaganda churned out by the national newspapers.<ref>Ian F. W. Beckett, ''The Great war'' (2nd ed. 2007) pp 394–395</ref> With a severe shortage of skilled workers, industry redesigned work so that it could be done by unskilled men and women (termed the "dilution of labour") so that war-related industries grew rapidly. Lloyd George cut a deal with the trades unions—they approved the dilution (since it would be temporary) and threw their organizations into the war effort.<ref>Beckett (2007), pp. 341, 455</ref>
===Politics===


Historian ] saw a radical transformation of British society, a deluge that swept away many old attitudes and brought in a more equalitarian society. He also saw the famous literary pessimism of the 1920s as misplaced, for there were major positive long-term consequences of the war. He pointed to new job opportunities and self-consciousness among workers that quickly built up the ], to the coming of partial woman suffrage, and an acceleration of social reform and state control of the British economy. He found a decline of deference toward the aristocracy and established authority in general, and a weakening among youth of traditional restraints on individual moral behavior. Marwick concluded that class differentials softened, national cohesion increased, and British society became more equal.<ref>Arthur Marwick, ''The Deluge: British Society and the First World War'' (1965)</ref> During the conflict, the various elements of the British Left created the War Emergency Workers' National Committee, which played a crucial role in supporting the most vulnerable people on the Home Front during the war, and in ensuring the British Labour remained united in the years after the Armistice.<ref>David Swift, "The War Emergency: Workers' National Committee." ''History Workshop Journal'' 81 (2016): 84-105. </ref>

===Scotland===
Scotland played a major role in the British effort in the First World War.<ref>C. M. M. Macdonald and E. W. McFarland, eds, ''Scotland and the Great War'' (Edinburgh: Tuckwell Press, 1999)</ref> It especially provided manpower, ships, machinery, food (particularly fish) and money, engaging with the conflict with some enthusiasm.<ref>D. Daniel, "Measures of enthusiasm: new avenues in quantifying variations in voluntary enlistment in Scotland, August 1914-December 1915", ''Local Population Studies,'' Spring 2005, Issue 74, pp.&nbsp;16–35.</ref> With a population of 4.8 million in 1911, Scotland sent 690,000 men to the war, of whom 74,000 died in combat or from disease, and 150,000 were seriously wounded.<ref>I. F. W. Beckett and K. R. Simpson, eds. ''A Nation in Arms: a Social Study of the British Army in the First World War'' (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985) p. 11.</ref><ref>R. A. Houston and W. W. Knox, eds, ''The New Penguin History of Scotland'' (London: Penguin, 2001), p. 426.</ref> Scottish urban centres, with their poverty and unemployment were favourite recruiting grounds of the regular British army, and ], where the female dominated jute industry limited male employment had one of the highest proportion of reservists and serving soldiers than almost any other British city.<ref name=Lenman&Mackie1991>B. Lenman and J., Mackie, (London: Penguin, 1991)</ref> Concern for their families' standard of living made men hesitate to enlist; voluntary enlistment rates went up after the government guaranteed a weekly stipend for life to the survivors of men who were killed or disabled.<ref>D. Coetzee, "A life and death decision: the influence of trends in fertility, nuptiality and family economies on voluntary enlistment in Scotland, August 1914 to December 1915", ''Family and Community History'', Nov 2005, vol. 8 (2), pp.&nbsp;77–89.</ref> After the introduction of conscription from January 1916 every part of the country was affected. Occasionally Scottish troops made up large proportions of the active combatants, and suffered corresponding loses, as at the ], where there were three full Scots divisions and other Scottish units.<ref name=Lenman&Mackie1991/> Thus, although Scots were only 10 per cent of the British population, they made up 15 per cent of the national armed forces and eventually accounted for 20 per cent of the dead.<ref name=Buchanan2003p49>J. Buchanan, ''Scotland'' (Langenscheidt, 3rd edn., 2003), p. 49.</ref> Some areas, like the thinly populated Island of ] suffered some of the highest proportional losses of any part of Britain.<ref name=Lenman&Mackie1991/> Clydeside shipyards and the nearby engineering shops were the major centers of war industry in Scotland. In ], radical agitation led to industrial and political unrest that continued after the war ended.<ref>Bruce Lenman, ''An Economic History of Modern Scotland: 1660–1976'' (1977) pp&nbsp;206–14</ref>

In Glasgow, the heavy demand for munitions and warships strengthened union power. There emerged a radical movement called "]" led by militant trades unionists. Formerly a Liberal Party stronghold, the industrial districts switched to Labour by 1922, with a base among the Irish Catholic working class districts. Women were especially active in solidarity on housing issues. However, the "Reds" operated within the Labour Party and had little influence in Parliament; the mood changed to passive despair by the late 1920s.<ref>Iain McLean, ''The Legend of Red Clydeside'' (1983)</ref>

===Politics===
{{See also|David Lloyd George}} {{See also|David Lloyd George}}
] became prime minister in December 1916 and immediately transformed the British war effort, taking firm control of both military and domestic policy.<ref>John Grigg, ''Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918'' (2002) vol 4 pp&nbsp;1–30</ref><ref>A. J. P. Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) pp&nbsp;73–99</ref> ] became prime minister in December 1916 and immediately transformed the British war effort, taking firm control of both military and domestic policy.<ref>John Grigg, ''Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918'' (2002) vol 4 pp&nbsp;1–30</ref><ref>A. J. P. Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) pp&nbsp;73–99</ref>


In rapid succession in spring 1918 came a series of military and political crises.<ref>A. J. P. Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) pp&nbsp;100–106</ref> The Germans, having moved troops from the Eastern front and retrained them in new tactics, and now had more soldiers on the Western Front than the Allies. Germany launched a full scale ] starting March 21 against the British and French lines, hoping for victory on the battlefield before the American troops arrived in numbers. The Allied armies fell back 40 miles in confusion, and facing defeat London realized it needed more troops to fight a mobile war. Lloyd George found a half million soldiers and rushed them to France, asked American President Woodrow Wilson for immediate help, and agreed to the appointment of French General Foch as commander in chief on the Western Front so that Allied forces could be coordinated to handle the German offensive.<ref>John Grigg, ''Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918'' (2002) vol 4 pp&nbsp;478–83</ref> In rapid succession in spring 1918 came a series of military and political crises.<ref>A. J. P. Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) pp&nbsp;100–106</ref> The Germans, having moved troops from the Eastern front and retrained them in new tactics, now had more soldiers on the Western Front than the Allies. Germany launched a full scale ] (]), starting March 21 against the British and French lines, with the hope of victory on the battlefield before the American troops arrived in numbers. The Allied armies fell back 40 miles in confusion, and facing defeat, London realized it needed more troops to fight a mobile war. Lloyd George found a half million soldiers and rushed them to France, asked American President ] for immediate help, and agreed to the appointment of French General ] as commander-in-chief on the Western Front so that Allied forces could be coordinated to handle the German offensive.<ref>John Grigg, ''Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918'' (2002) vol 4 pp&nbsp;478–83</ref>


Despite strong warnings it was a bad idea, the War Cabinet ]. The main reason was that labour in Britain demanded it as the price for cutting back on exemptions for certain workers. Labour wanted the principle established that no one was exempt, but it did not demand that the draft actually take place in Ireland. The proposal was enacted but never enforced. The Catholic bishops for the first time entered the fray and called for open resistance to a draft, Many Irish Catholics and nationalists moved into the intransigent ] movement. This proved a decisive moment marking the end of Irish willingness to stay inside the UK.<ref>Alan J. Ward, "Lloyd George and the 1918 Irish Conscription Crisis," ''Historical Journal'' (1974) 17#1 pp.&nbsp;107–129 </ref><ref>Grigg, ''Lloyd George'' vol 4 pp&nbsp;465–88</ref> Despite strong warnings it was a bad idea, the War Cabinet ]. The main reason was that labour in Britain demanded it as the price for cutting back on exemptions for certain workers. Labour wanted the principle established that no one was exempt, but it did not demand that the draft actually take place in Ireland. The proposal was enacted but never enforced. The Catholic bishops for the first time entered the fray and called for open resistance to a draft. Many Irish Catholics and nationalists moved into the intransigent ] movement. This proved a decisive moment, marking the end of Irish willingness to stay inside the UK.<ref>Alan J. Ward, "Lloyd George and the 1918 Irish Conscription Crisis," ''Historical Journal'' (1974) 17#1 pp.&nbsp;107–129 </ref><ref>Grigg, ''Lloyd George'' vol 4 pp&nbsp;465–88</ref>


When on May 7, 1918, a senior army general on active duty, Major-General Sir ] went public with allegations that Lloyd George had lied to Parliament on military matters, ]. The German spring offensive had made unexpected major gains, and a scapegoat was needed. Asquith, the Liberal leader in the House, took up the allegations and attacked Lloyd George (also a Liberal), which further ripped apart the Liberal Party. While Asquith's presentation was poorly done, Lloyd George vigorously defended his position, treating the debate as a vote of confidence. He won over the House with a powerful refutation of Maurice's allegations. The main results were to strengthen Lloyd George, weaken Asquith, end public criticism of overall strategy, and strengthen civilian control of the military.<ref>John Gooch, "The Maurice Debate 1918," ''Journal of Contemporary History'' (1968) 3#4 pp.&nbsp;211–228 </ref><ref>John Grigg, ''Lloyd George: War leader, 1916–1918'' (London: Penguin, 2002), pp&nbsp;489–512</ref> When on May 7, 1918, a senior army general on active duty, Major-General Sir ] went public with allegations that Lloyd George had lied to Parliament on military matters, ]. The German spring offensive had made unexpected major gains, and a scapegoat was needed. Asquith, the Liberal leader in the House, took up the allegations and attacked Lloyd George (also a Liberal), which further split the Liberal Party. While Asquith's presentation was poorly done, Lloyd George vigorously defended his position, treating the debate as a vote of confidence. He won over the House with a powerful refutation of Maurice's allegations. The main results were to strengthen Lloyd George, weaken Asquith, end public criticism of overall strategy, and strengthen civilian control of the military.<ref>John Gooch, "The Maurice Debate 1918," ''Journal of Contemporary History'' (1968) 3#4 pp.&nbsp;211–228 </ref><ref>John Grigg, ''Lloyd George: War leader, 1916–1918'' (London: Penguin, 2002), pp&nbsp;489–512</ref>


Meanwhile the German offensive stalled. By summer the Americans were sending 10,000 fresh men a day to the Western Front, a speedup made possible by leaving their equipment behind and using British and French munitions. The German army had used up its last reserves and was steadily shrinking in number and weakening in resolve. Victory came on November 11, 1918.<ref>A. J. P. Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) pp&nbsp;108–11</ref> Meanwhile, the German offensive stalled. By summer the Americans were sending 10,000 fresh men a day to the Western Front, a more rapid response made possible by leaving their equipment behind and using British and French munitions. The German army had used up its last reserves and was steadily shrinking in number and weakening in resolve. Victory came with ] on November 11, 1918.<ref>A. J. P. Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) pp&nbsp;108–11</ref>


===Women=== ===Women===
Prime Minister David Lloyd George was clear about how important the women were:
:It would have been utterly impossible for us to have waged a successful war had it not been for the skill and ardour, enthusiasm and industry which the women of this country have thrown into the war.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bob Whitfield|title=The Extension of the Franchise, 1832-1931|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a-Rd0iLobaEC&pg=PA167|year=2001|publisher=Heinemann|page=167|isbn=9780435327170}}</ref>


The militant suffragette movement was suspended during the war, and at the time people credited the new patriotic roles women played as earning them the vote in 1918.<ref>Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) p. 29, 94</ref> However, British historians no longer emphasize the granting of woman suffrage as a reward for women's participation in war work. Pugh (1974) argues that enfranchising soldiers primarily and women secondarily was decided by senior politicians in 1916. In the absence of major women's groups demanding for equal suffrage, the government's conference recommended limited, age-restricted women's suffrage. The ] had been weakened, Pugh argues, by repeated failures before 1914 and by the disorganizing effects of war mobilization; therefore they quietly accepted these restrictions, which were approved in 1918 by a majority of the War Ministry and each political party in Parliament.<ref>Martin D. Pugh, "Politicians and the Woman's Vote 1914–1918," ''History,'' (1974), Vol. 59 Issue 197, pp&nbsp;358–374</ref> More generally, Searle (2004) argues that the British debate was essentially over by the 1890s, and that granting the suffrage in 1918 was mostly a byproduct of giving the vote to male soldiers. Women in Britain finally achieved suffrage on the same terms as men in 1928.<ref>G.R. Searle, ''A New England? Peace and war, 1886–1918'' (2004) p 791</ref> The militant suffragette movement was suspended during the war, and at the time people credited the new patriotic roles women played as earning them the vote in 1918.<ref>Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (1965) p. 29, 94</ref> However, British historians no longer emphasize the granting of woman suffrage as a reward for women's participation in war work. Pugh (1974) argues that enfranchising soldiers primarily and women secondarily was decided by senior politicians in 1916. In the absence of major women's groups demanding for equal suffrage, the government's conference recommended limited, age-restricted women's suffrage. The ] had been weakened, Pugh argues, by repeated failures before 1914 and by the disorganizing effects of war mobilization; therefore they quietly accepted these restrictions, which were approved in 1918 by a majority of the War Ministry and each political party in Parliament.<ref>Martin D. Pugh, "Politicians and the Woman's Vote 1914–1918," ''History,'' (1974), Vol. 59 Issue 197, pp&nbsp;358–374</ref> More generally, Searle (2004) argues that the British debate was essentially over by the 1890s, and that granting the suffrage in 1918 was mostly a byproduct of giving the vote to male soldiers. Women in Britain finally achieved suffrage on the same terms as men in 1928.<ref>G.R. Searle, ''A New England? Peace and war, 1886–1918'' (2004) p 791</ref>


==British Empire== ==British Empire==
The British Empire provided imports of food and raw material, worldwide network of naval bases, and a steady flow of soldiers and workers into Britain.<ref>Ashley Jackson, "The British Empire and the First World War"''BBC History Magazine'' 9#11 (2008) </ref>


===Canada=== ===Canada===
{{multiple image|direction=vertical|width=150|align=right|footer= Yiddish (top) and English versions of World War I recruitment posters directed at Canadian Jews.|image1=Enlist-canadaWW1-yiddish.jpg|alt1=Yiddish World War I recruitment poster|caption1= |image2=The Jews the world over love liberty poster.jpg|alt2=English World War I recruitment poster|caption2= }} {{multiple image|direction=vertical|width=150|align=right|footer= Yiddish (top) and English versions of World War I recruitment posters directed at Canadian Jews.|image1=Enlist-canadaWW1-yiddish.jpg|alt1=Yiddish World War I recruitment poster|caption1= |image2=The Jews the world over love liberty poster.jpg|alt2=English World War I recruitment poster|caption2=}}
] ]


{{main|Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years#World War I}} {{main|Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years#World War I}}
The 620,000 men in service were most notable for combat in the trenches of the ]; there were 67,000 war dead and 173,000 wounded. The total does not include the 2000 deaths and 9000 injuries in December 1917 when ]<ref>War Office, ''Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914–1920'' (London, 1922) p. 237</ref> The 620,000 men in service were most notable for combat in the trenches of the ]; there were 67,000 war dead and 173,000 wounded. This total does not include the 2,000 deaths and 9,000 injuries in December 1917 when ], ].<ref>War Office, ''Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914–1920'' (London, 1922) p. 237</ref>


Volunteering provided enough soldiers at first, but high casualties soon required conscription, which was strongly opposed by Francophones. The ] saw the Liberal Party ripped apart, to the advantage of the Conservatives Prime Minister ], who led a ] to a landslide victory in 1917.<ref>Robert Craig Brown and Ramsay Cook, ''Canada, 1896–1921 A Nation Transformed'' (1974) ch 13</ref> Volunteering provided enough soldiers at first, but high casualties soon required conscription, which was strongly opposed by Francophones (French speakers, based mostly in ]). The ] saw the Liberal Party ripped apart, to the advantage of the ]'s Prime Minister ], who led a new ] to a landslide victory in 1917.<ref>Robert Craig Brown and Ramsay Cook, ''Canada, 1896–1921 A Nation Transformed'' (1974) ch 13</ref>


Distrusting the loyalties of ] and, especially, recent immigrants from the ] (who were citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), the government interned thousands of aliens.<ref>Frances Swyripa and John Herd Thompson, eds. ''Loyalties in Conflict: Ukrainians in Canada During the Great War'' (1983)</ref> Distrusting the loyalties of ] and, especially, recent ] immigrants from ], the government interned thousands of aliens.<ref>Frances Swyripa and John Herd Thompson, eds. ''Loyalties in Conflict: Ukrainians in Canada During the Great War'' (1983)</ref>


The war validated Canada's new world role, in an almost-equal partnership with Britain in the ]. Arguing that Canada had become a true nation on the battlefields of Europe, Borden demanded and received a separate seat for Canada at the ]. Canada's military and civilian participation in the First World War strengthened a sense of British-Canadian nationhood among the Anglophones (English speakers). The Francophones (French speakers) supported the war at first but pulled back and stood aloof after 1915 because of language disputes at home. Heroic memories centered around the "]" battles of 1917, especially the ] where 3600 died.<ref>Jacqueline Hucker, "'Battle and Burial': Recapturing the Cultural Meaning of Canada's National Memorial on Vimy Ridge," ''Public Historian,'' (Feb 2009) 31#1 pp&nbsp;89–109</ref> The war validated Canada's new world role, in an almost-equal partnership with Britain in the ]. Arguing that Canada had become a true nation on the battlefields of Europe, Borden demanded and received a separate seat for Canada at the ]. Canada's military and civilian participation in the First World War strengthened a sense of British-Canadian nationhood among the Anglophones (English speakers). The Francophones (French speakers) supported the war at first, but pulled back and stood aloof after 1915 because of language disputes at home. Heroic memories centered around the ] where the unified Canadian corps captured Vimy ridge, a position that the French and British armies had failed to capture and "]" battles of 1918 which saw the ] of 100,000 defeat one fourth of the German Army on the Western Front.<ref>Jacqueline Hucker, "'Battle and Burial': Recapturing the Cultural Meaning of Canada's National Memorial on Vimy Ridge," ''Public Historian,'' (Feb 2009) 31#1 pp&nbsp;89–109</ref>


===Australia=== ===Australia===
] active service postcard]] ] active service postcard]]
Prime Minister William Hughes led Australia into the war to support the mother country and to improve Australia's strategic advantages, such as building up new industries, gaining control of the German colony of New Guinea, and securing high prices for the export products. He expanded the government's role in the economy, while dealing with intense debates over the issue of conscription.<ref>Kosmas Tsokhas, "The Forgotten Economy and Australia's Involvement in the Great War," ''Diplomacy & Statecraft'' (1993) 4#2 331-357</ref> ], prime minister from October 1915, expanded the government's role in the economy, while dealing with intense debates over the issue of conscription.<ref>Kosmas Tsokhas, "The Forgotten Economy and Australia's Involvement in the Great War," ''Diplomacy & Statecraft'' (1993) 4#2 331-357</ref>


From a population of 5 million, 417,000 men enlisted; 330,000 went overseas to fight the First World War. They were volunteers, since the political battle for compulsory conscription failed. Some 58,000 died and 156,000 were wounded.<ref>See </ref> Fisher argues that the government aggressively promoted economic, industrial, and social modernization in the war years.<ref>Gerhard Fischer, "'Negative integration' and an Australian road to modernity: Interpreting the Australian homefront experience in World War I," ''Australian Historical Studies,'' (April 1995) 26#104 pp&nbsp;452–76</ref> However, he says it came through exclusion and repression. He says the war turned a peaceful nation into "one that was violent, aggressive, angst- and conflict-ridden, torn apart by invisible front lines of sectarian division, ethnic conflict and socio-economic and political upheaval." The nation was fearful of enemy aliens—especially Germans, regardless of how closely they identified with Australia. The government interred 2900 German-born men (40% of the total) and deported 700 of them after the war.<ref>Graeme Davidson et al., ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2nd ed. 2001) p&nbsp;283–4</ref> Irish nationalists and labor radicals were under suspicion as well. Racist hostility was high against toward nonwhites, including Pacific Islanders, Chinese and Aborigines. The result, Fischer says, was a strengthening of conformity to imperial/British loyalties and an explicit preference for immigrants from the British Isles.<ref>Fischer, "'Negative integration' and an Australian road to modernity" p. 452 for quote</ref> From a population of five million, 417,000 men enlisted; 330,000 went overseas to fight during the First World War. They were all volunteers, since the political battle for compulsory conscription failed. Some 58,000 died and 156,000 were wounded.<ref>See {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120215170018/http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/ww1.asp |date=2012-02-15 }}</ref> Gerhard Fischer argues that the government aggressively promoted economic, industrial, and social modernization in the war years.<ref>Gerhard Fischer, "'Negative integration' and an Australian road to modernity: Interpreting the Australian homefront experience in World War I," ''Australian Historical Studies,'' (April 1995) 26#104 pp&nbsp;452–76</ref> However, he says it came through exclusion and repression. He says the war turned a peaceful nation into "one that was violent, aggressive, angst- and conflict-ridden, torn apart by invisible front lines of sectarian division, ethnic conflict and socio-economic and political upheaval." The nation was fearful of enemy aliens—especially Germans, regardless of how closely they identified with Australia. The government interned 2,900 German-born men (40% of the total) and deported 700 of them after the war.<ref>Graeme Davidson et al., ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2nd ed. 2001) p&nbsp;283–4</ref> Irish nationalists and labor radicals were under suspicion as well. Racist hostility was high toward nonwhites, including Pacific Islanders, Chinese and Aborigines. The result, Fischer says, was a strengthening of conformity to imperial/British loyalties and an explicit preference for immigrants from the British Isles.<ref>Fischer, "'Negative integration' and an Australian road to modernity" p. 452 for quote</ref>


The major military event involved sending 40,000 ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand) soldiers in 1915 to seize the ] near Constantinople to open an Allied route to Russia and weaken the Ottoman Empire. The campaign was a total failure militarily and 8100 Australians died. However the memory was all-important, for it transformed the Australian mind and became an iconic element of the Australian identity and the founding moment of nationhood.<ref>Joan Beaumont, ''Australia's War 1914–18'' (1995)</ref> The major military event involved sending 40,000 ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand) soldiers in 1915 to seize the ] near Constantinople to open an Allied route to Russia and weaken the Ottoman Empire. The campaign was a total failure militarily and 8,100 Australians died. However the memory was all-important, for it transformed the Australian mind and became an iconic element of the Australian identity and the founding moment of nationhood.<ref>Joan Beaumont, ''Australia's War 1914–18'' (1995)</ref>


====Internment of German aliens==== ====Internment of German aliens====
The global nature of the war meant that many functions that were previously vested in the individual Australian state governments had to be placed under the control of the Commonwealth government. Additionally the exigencies of the war meant that the government required the power to enact certain laws that under the Constitution it would not normally be able to do. In order to enable this to occur, the '']'' was introduced in October 1914, providing the Commonwealth government with wide ranging powers for a period of up to six months after the duration of the war.<ref name=homefront> The '']'' provided the Commonwealth government with wide-ranging powers for a period of up to six months after the duration of the war.<ref name=homefront>
{{cite web |title=Home front Powers 1914–1918 |publisher=anzacday.org |date= |url=http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/powers.html |accessdate=2 May 2009}}</ref> {{cite web|title=Home front Powers 1914–1918 |publisher=anzacday.org |url=http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/powers.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010415012538/http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/powers.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=15 April 2001 |access-date=2 May 2009 }}</ref> It covered: the prevention of trade with hostile nations, issuing loans to pay for the war effort, the introduction of a national taxation scheme, the fixing of the prices of certain goods, the internment of people considered a danger to Australia, the compulsory purchase of strategic goods, and the censorship of the media.<ref name=homefront/>


At the outbreak of the war there were about 35,000 people who had been born in either Germany or Austria-Hungary living in Australia.<ref>Ernest Scott, ''Australia During the War'' (7th ed. 1941) p 105 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130704190307/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67897 |date=2013-07-04 }}</ref> They had weak ties with Germany (and almost none to Austria) and many had enlisted in the Australian war effort. Nevertheless, fears ran high and internment camps were set up where those suspected of unpatriotic acts were sent. In total 4,500 people were interned under the provisions of the ''War Precautions Act'', of which 700 were naturalised Australians and 70 Australian born. Following the end of the war, 6,150 were deported.<ref name=homefront2>{{cite web|title=Internment in Australia during WWI |publisher=anzacday.org |url=http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/enemy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010415020511/http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/enemy.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=15 April 2001 |access-date=2 May 2009 }}</ref>
The main provisions of the Act were focused upon allowing the Commonwealth to enact legislation that was required for the smooth prosecution of the war. The main areas in which legislation was enacted under the ''War Precautions Act'' were: the prevention of trade with hostile nations, the creation of loans to raise money for the war effort, the introduction of a national taxation scheme, the fixing of the prices of certain goods, the internment of people considered a danger to the war effort, the compulsory purchase of strategic goods, and the censorship of the media.<ref name=homefront/>

At the outbreak of the war there were about 35,000 people who had been born in either Germany or Austria-Hungary living in Australia.<ref>Ernest Scott, ''Australia During the War'' (7th ed. 1941) p 105 </ref> They had weak ties to Germany (and almost none to Austria) and many had enlisted in the Australian war effort. Nevertheless fears ran high and internment camps were set up where those suspected of unpatriotic acts were sent. In total 4,500 people were interned under the provisions of the ''War Precautions Act'', of which 700 were naturalised Australians and 70 Australian born. Following the end of the war, 6,150 were deported.<ref name=homefront2>{{cite web |title=Internment in Australia during WWI |publisher=anzacday.org |date= |url=http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/enemy.html |accessdate=2 May 2009}}</ref>


====Economy==== ====Economy====
], awarded to subscribers of the Australian Government's 7th War Loan in 1918]] ], awarded to subscribers of the Australian Government's 7th War Loan in 1918]]
In 1914 the Australian economy was small but very nearly the most propserous in the world per capita; it depended on the export of wool and mutton. London provided assurances that it would underwrite a large amount of the war risk insurance for shipping in order to allow trade amongst the Commonwealth to continue. London imposed controls so than no exports would wind up in German hands. The British government protected prices by buying Australian products even though the shortage of shipping meant that there was no chance that they would ever receive them.<ref>Scott, ''Australia During the War'' (1941) p.&nbsp;516–18, 539.</ref> In 1914 the Australian economy was small but very nearly the most prosperous in the world per capita; it depended on the export of wool and mutton. London provided assurances that it would underwrite a large amount of the war risk insurance for shipping to allow trade amongst the Commonwealth nations to continue. London imposed controls so that no exports would wind up in German hands. The British government protected prices by buying Australian products, even though the shortage of shipping meant that there was no chance that they would ever receive them.<ref>Scott, ''Australia During the War'' (1941) p.&nbsp;516–18, 539.</ref>


On the whole Australian commerce was expanded due to the war, although the cost of the war was quite considerable and the Australian government had to borrow considerably from overseas to fund the war effort. In terms of value, Australian exports rose almost 45 per cent, while the number of Australians employed in the manufacturing industry increased over 11 per cent. Iron mining and steel manufacture grew enormously.<ref>Russel Ward, ''A nation for a continent: The history of Australia, 1901–1975'' (1977) p 110</ref> Inflation became a factor as consumer prices went up,{{elucidate|date=February 2014}} while the cost of exports was deliberately kept lower than market value in an effort to prevent further inflationary pressures worldwide. As a result the cost of living for many average Australians was increased.<ref>Scott, ''Australia During the War'' (1941) pp. 549, 563</ref> On the whole, Australian commerce was expanded due to the war, although the cost of the war was quite considerable and the Australian government had to borrow considerably from overseas to fund the war effort. In terms of value, Australian exports rose almost 45 per cent, while the number of Australians employed in manufacturing industries increased over 11 per cent. Iron mining and steel manufacture grew enormously.<ref>Russel Ward, ''A nation for a continent: The history of Australia, 1901–1975'' (1977) p 110</ref> Inflation became a factor as the prices of ] went up, while the cost of exports was deliberately kept lower than market value to prevent further inflationary pressures worldwide. As a result, the cost of living for many average Australians was increased.<ref>Scott, ''Australia During the War'' (1941) pp. 549, 563</ref>


The trade union movement, already powerful grew rapidly, though the movement split on the political question of conscription. It expelled the politicians, such as Hughes, who favoured conscription (which never passed).<ref>Stuart Macintyre, ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901–42, the Succeeding Age'' (1987) pp&nbsp;163–75</ref> The government sought to stabilize wages, much to the anger of unionists. the average weekly wage during the war was increased by between 8–12 per cent, it was not enough to keep up with inflation. Angry workers launched a wave of strikes against both the wage freeze and conscription proposal. Nevertheless the result was very disruptive and it has been estimated that between 1914 and 1918 there were 1,945 industrial disputes, resulting in 8,533,061 working days lost and £4,785,607 in lost wages.<ref>Scott, ''Australia During the War'' (1941) pp.&nbsp;663–65</ref><ref>Russel Ward, ''A nation for a continent: The history of Australia, 1901–1975'' (1977) p&nbsp;110–11</ref> The trade union movement, already powerful, grew rapidly, although the movement was split on the political question of conscription. It expelled the politicians, such as Hughes, who favoured conscription (which was never passed into law).<ref>Stuart Macintyre, ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901–42, the Succeeding Age'' (1987) pp&nbsp;163–75</ref> The government sought to stabilize wages, much to the anger of unionists. The average weekly wage during the war was increased by between 8 and 12 per cent, it was not enough to keep up with inflation. Angry workers launched a wave of strikes against both the wage freeze and the conscription proposal. Nevertheless, the result was very disruptive and it has been estimated that between 1914 and 1918 there were 1,945 industrial disputes, resulting in 8,533,061 working days being lost and a £4,785,607 deficit in wages.<ref>Scott, ''Australia During the War'' (1941) pp.&nbsp;663–65</ref><ref>Russel Ward, ''A nation for a continent: The history of Australia, 1901–1975'' (1977) p&nbsp;110–11</ref>


Overall, the war had a significantly negative impact on the Australia economy. Real aggregate ] (GDP) declined by 9.5 percent over the period 1914 to 1920, while the mobilization of personnel resulted in a 6 percent decline in civilian employment. Meanwhile, although population growth continued during the war years, it was only half that of the prewar rate. Per capita incomes also declined sharply, failing by 16 percent.<ref>Ian W. McLean, ''Why Australia Prospered: The Shifting Sources of Economic Growth'' (2013), pp. 147–148.</ref> Overall, the war had a significantly negative impact on the Australian economy. Real aggregate ] (GDP) declined by 9.5 percent over the period 1914 to 1920, while the mobilization of personnel resulted in a six percent decline in civilian employment. Meanwhile, although population growth continued during the war years, it was only half that of the prewar rate. Per capita incomes also declined sharply, failing by 16 percent.<ref>Ian W. McLean, ''Why Australia Prospered: The Shifting Sources of Economic Growth'' (2013), pp. 147–148.</ref>


===New Zealand=== ===New Zealand===
The country remained an enthusiastic supporter of the Empire, sending 110,000 men fought in ] (see ]). 16,688 died. Conscription had been in force since 1909, and while it was opposed in peacetime there was less opposition during the war. The labour movement was pacifistic, opposed the war, and alleged that the rich were benefiting at the expense of the workers. It formed the Labour Party in 1916. Maori tribes that had been close to the government sent their young men to volunteer. Unlike in Britain, relatively few women became involved in war work. Women did serve as nurses; 640 joined the services and 500 went overseas.<ref>Gwen Parsons, "The New Zealand Home Front during World War One and World War Two," ''History Compass'' (2013) 11#6 pp&nbsp;419–428</ref><ref>Stevan Eldred-Grigg, ''The Great Wrong War: New Zealand Society in World War I'' (Auckland: Random House, 2010)</ref> The country remained an enthusiastic supporter of the Empire, enlisting 124,211 men and sending 100,444 to fight in World War I (see ]). Over 18,000 died in service. Conscription was introduced in mid 1916 and by the end of the war near 1 in four members of the NZEF was a conscript.<ref>Steven Loveridge, ''Calls to Arms: New Zealand Society and Commitment to the Great War'' (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2014) p.26</ref> As in Australia, involvement in the Gallipoli campaign became an iconic touchstone in New Zealand memory of the war and was commonly connected to imaginings of collective identity.


The war divided the labour movement with numerous elements taking up roles in the war effort while others alleged the war was an imperial venture against the interests of the working class. ] MPs frequently acted as critics of government policy during the war and opposition to conscription saw the modern Labour Party formed in 1916. Maori tribes that had been close to the government sent their young men to volunteer. The mobilisation of women for war work/service was relatively slight compared to more industrialised countries though some 640 women served as nurses with 500 going overseas.<ref>Gwen Parsons, "The New Zealand Home Front during World War One and World War Two," ''History Compass'' (2013) 11#6 pp&nbsp;419–428</ref>
New Zealand forces captured ] from Germany in the early stages of the war, and New Zealand administered the country until Samoan Independence in 1962. However Samoans greatly resented the imperialism, and blamed inflation and the catastrophic 1918 flu epidemic on New Zealand rule.<ref>Hermann Hiery, "West Samoans between Germany and New Zealand 1914–1921," ''War and Society'' (1992) 10#1 pp&nbsp;53–80.</ref>


New Zealand forces captured ] from Germany in the early stages of the war, and New Zealand administered the country until Samoan Independence in 1962. However many Samoans greatly resented the administration, and blamed inflation and the catastrophic 1918 flu epidemic on New Zealand rule.<ref>Hermann Hiery, "West Samoans between Germany and New Zealand 1914–1921," ''War and Society'' (1992) 10#1 pp&nbsp;53–80.</ref>
The heroism of the soldiers in the failed Gallipoli campaign made their sacrifices iconic in New Zealand memory, and secured the psychological independence of the nation.


===South Africa=== ===South Africa===
South Africa had a military role in the war, fighting the Germans in East Africa and on the Western Front.<ref>Bill Nasson, ''Springboks on the Somme: South Africa in the Great War, 1914–1918'' (2007); Anne Samson, ''Britain, South Africa and the East Africa Campaign, 1914–1918: The Union Comes of Age'' (2006)</ref> Public opinion in South Africa split along racial and ethnic lines. The British elements strongly supported the war and comprised the great majority of the 146,000 white soldiers. Nasson says, "for many enthusiastic English-speaking Union recruits, going to war was anticipated as an exciting adventure, egged on by the itch of making a manly mark upon a heroic cause."<ref>Nasson, ''Springboks on the Somme'' ch 8</ref> Likewise the Indian element (led by ]) generally supported the war effort. Afrikaners were split, with some like Prime Minister ] and General ] taking a prominent leadership role in the British war effort. Their pro-British position was rejected by many rural Afrikaners who favoured Germany and who launched the ], a small-scale open rebellion against the government. The trade union movement was divided. Many urban blacks supported the war expecting it would raise their status in society. Others said it was not relevant to the struggle for their rights. The Coloured element was generally supportive and many served in a Coloured Corps in East Africa and France, also hoping to better their lot after the war. Those blacks and Coloureds who supported the war were embittered when the postwar era saw no easing of white domination and restrictive conditions.<ref>Bill Nasson, "A Great Divide: Popular Responses to the Great War in South Africa," ''War & Society'' (1994) 12#1 pp&nbsp;47–64</ref> South Africa had a military role in the war, fighting the Germans in East Africa and on the Western Front.<ref>Bill Nasson, ''Springboks on the Somme: South Africa in the Great War, 1914–1918'' (2007); Anne Samson, ''Britain, South Africa and the East Africa Campaign, 1914–1918: The Union Comes of Age'' (2006)</ref> Public opinion in South Africa split along racial and ethnic lines. The British elements strongly supported the war and comprised the great majority of the 146,000 white soldiers. Nasson says, "for many enthusiastic English-speaking Union recruits, going to war was anticipated as an exciting adventure, egged on by the itch of making a manly mark upon a heroic cause."<ref>Nasson, ''Springboks on the Somme'' ch 8</ref> Likewise the Indian element (led by ]), generally supported the war effort. Afrikaners were split, with some like Prime Minister ] and General ] taking a prominent leadership role in the British war effort. Their pro-British position was rejected by many rural Afrikaners who favoured Germany and who launched the ], a small-scale open revolt against the government. The trade union movement was also divided. Many urban blacks supported the war, expecting it would raise their status in society, others said it was not relevant to the struggle for their rights. The Coloured element was generally supportive and many served in a Coloured Corps in East Africa and France, also hoping to better their lot after the war. Those blacks and Coloureds who supported the war were embittered when the postwar era saw no easing of white domination and restrictive conditions.<ref>Bill Nasson, "A Great Divide: Popular Responses to the Great War in South Africa," ''War & Society'' (1994) 12#1 pp&nbsp;47–64</ref>


===India=== ===India===
{{Main|India in World War I}}
The British controlled India (including modern Pakistan and Bangladesh) either directly through the ] or indirectly through ]. The colonial government of India supported the war enthusiastically, and enlarged the British Indian army by a factor of 500% to 1.4 million men. It sent 550,000 overseas, with 200,000 going as labourers to the Western Front and the rest to the Middle East theatre. Only a few hundred were allowed to become officers, but there were some 100,000 casualties. The main fighting of the latter group was in Iraq, where large numbers were killed and captured in the initial stages of the ], most infamously during the ].<ref>Tucker, ''European Powers,'' pp&nbsp;353–4</ref> The Indian contingent was entirely funded by the Indian taxpayers (who had no vote and no voice in the matter).
], ] donated to the war effort, 1916.]]


The British controlled India (including modern ] and ]) either directly through the ] or indirectly through ]. The colonial government of India supported the war enthusiastically, and enlarged the ] by a factor of 500% to 1.4 million men. It sent 550,000 overseas, with 200,000 going as laborers to the Western Front and the rest to the Middle East theatre. Only a few hundred were allowed to become officers, but there were some 100,000 casualties. The main fighting of the latter group was in Mesopotamia (modern ]), where large numbers were killed and captured in the initial stages of the ], most infamously during the ].<ref>Tucker, ''European Powers,'' pp&nbsp;353–4</ref> The Indian contingent was entirely funded by the Indian taxpayers (who had no vote and no voice in the matter).<ref name="online">Xu Guoqi. ''Asia and the Great War – A Shared History'' (Oxford UP) {{Dead link|date=October 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
Although Germany and the Ottoman Empire tried to incite anti-British subversion with help of Indian freedom fighters, such as ] or ], they had virtually no success, apart from a localized ],<ref>Hew Strachan, ''The First World War'' (2001) 1:791-814</ref> which was a part of the ]. The small Indian industrial base expanded dramatically to provide most of the supplies and munitions for the Middle East theatre.<ref>David Stevenson, ''With Our Backs to the Wall'' (2011) pp&nbsp;257–8, 381</ref> Indian nationalists became well organized for the first time during the war, and were stunned when they received little in the way of self-government in the aftermath of victory.


Although Germany and the Ottoman Empire tried to incite anti-British subversion with the help of Indian freedom fighters, such as ] or ], they had virtually no success, apart from a localized ],<ref>Hew Strachan, ''The First World War'' (2001) 1:791-814</ref> which was a part of the ]. The small Indian industrial base expanded dramatically to provide most of the supplies and munitions for the Middle East theatre.<ref>David Stevenson, ''With Our Backs to the Wall'' (2011) pp&nbsp;257–8, 381</ref> Indian nationalists became well organized for the first time during the war, and were stunned when they received little in the way of self-government in the aftermath of victory.
In 1918, India experienced an influenza epidemic and severe food shortage.

In 1918, India ] and severe food shortages.


==Belgium== ==Belgium==
{{main|Belgium in World War I|Rape of Belgium}} {{main|Belgium in World War I|Rape of Belgium}}
Nearly all of Belgium was occupied by the Germans, but the government and army escaped and fought the war on a narrow slice of the Western Front. The German invaders treated any resistance—such as sabotaging rail lines—as illegal and immoral, and shot the offenders and burned buildings in retaliation. The German army executed over 6,500 French and Belgian civilians between August and November 1914, usually in near-random large-scale shootings of civilians ordered by junior German officers. The German Army destroyed 15,000-20,000 buildings—most famously the university library at Louvain—and generated a refugee wave of over a million people. Over half the German regiments in Belgium were involved in major incidents.<ref>John Horne and Alan Kramer, ''German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial'' (Yale U.P. 2001) ch 1-2, esp. p. 76</ref> Thousands of workers were shipped to Germany to work in factories. British propaganda dramatizing the ] attracted much attention in the U.S., while Berlin said it was legal and necessary because of the threat of "franc-tireurs" (guerrillas) like those in France in 1870.<ref>Horne and Kramer, ''German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial'' ch 3-4 show there were no "franc-tireurs" in Belgium.</ref> The British and French magnified the reports and disseminated them at home and in the U.S., where they played a major role in dissolving support for Germany.<ref>Horne and Kramer, ''German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial'' ch 5-8</ref> Nearly all of Belgium was occupied by the Germans, but the government and army escaped and fought the war on a narrow slice of the Western Front. The German invaders treated any resistance—such as sabotaging rail lines—as illegal and immoral, and shot the offenders and burned buildings in retaliation. The German army executed over 6,500 French and Belgian civilians between August and November 1914, usually in near-random large-scale shootings of civilians ordered by junior German officers. The German Army destroyed 15,000-20,000 buildings—most famously the university library at ] (Leuven)—and generated a refugee wave of over a million people. Over half the German regiments in Belgium were involved in major incidents.<ref>John Horne and Alan Kramer, ''German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial'' (Yale U.P. 2001) ch 1-2, esp. p. 76</ref> Thousands of workers were shipped to Germany to work in factories. British propaganda dramatizing the ] attracted much attention in the US, while Berlin said it was legal and necessary because of the threat of "franc-tireurs" (guerrillas) like those in ].<ref>Horne and Kramer, ''German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial'' ch 3-4 show there were no "franc-tireurs" in Belgium.</ref> The British and French magnified the reports and disseminated them at home and in the US, where they played a major role in dissolving support for Germany.<ref>Horne and Kramer, ''German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial'' ch 5-8</ref>


The Germans left Belgium stripped and barren. They shipped machinery to Germany while destroying factories.<ref>E.H. Kossmann. ''The Low Countries'' (1978), p&nbsp;523–35</ref> After the atrocities of the first few weeks, German civil servants took control and were generally correct, albeit strict and severe.There was no violent resistance movement, but there was a large-scale spontaneous passive resistance of refusal to work for the benefit of German victory. Belgium was heavily industrialized; while farms operated and small shops stayed open most large establishments shut down or drastically reduced their output. The faculty closed the universities; publishers shut down most newspapers. Most Belgians "turned the four war years into a long and extremely dull vacation, says Kiossmann.<ref>Kossmann, p 525</ref> The Germans left Belgium stripped and barren. They shipped machinery to Germany while destroying factories.<ref>E.H. Kossmann. ''The Low Countries'' (1978), p&nbsp;523–35</ref> After the atrocities of the first few weeks, German civil servants took control and were generally correct, albeit strict and severe. There was no violent resistance movement, but there was a large-scale spontaneous passive resistance of a refusal to work for the benefit of German victory. Belgium was heavily industrialized; while farms operated and small shops stayed open, most large establishments shut down or drastically reduced their output. The faculty closed the universities; publishers shut down most newspapers. Most Belgians "turned the four war years into a long and extremely dull vacation", says Kiossmann.<ref>Kossmann, p 525</ref>


Neutrals led by the United States set up the Commission for Relief in Belgium, headed by American engineer ]. It shipped in large quantities of food and medical supplies, which it tried to reserve for civilians and keep out of the hands of the Germans.<ref>Johan den Hertog, "The Commission for Relief in Belgium and the Political Diplomatic History of the First World War," ''Diplomacy and Statecraft,'' (Dec 2010) 21#4 pp&nbsp;593–613,</ref> Many businesses collaborated with the Germans, and some women cohabitated with them. They were treated roughly in a wave of popular violence in November and December 1918. The government set up judicial proceedings to punish the collaborators.<ref>Laurence van Ypersele and Xavier Rousseaux, "Leaving the War: Popular Violence and Judicial Repression of 'unpatriotic' behaviour in Belgium (1918–1921)," ''European Review of History'' (Spring 2005) 12#3 pp&nbsp;3–22</ref> In 1919 the king organized a new ministry and introduced universal manhood suffrage. The Socialists—mostly poor workers—benefited more than the more middle class Catholics and Liberals, Neutrals led by the United States set up the Commission for Relief in Belgium, headed by American engineer ]. It shipped in large quantities of food and medical supplies, which it tried to reserve for civilians and keep out of the hands of the Germans.<ref>Johan den Hertog, "The Commission for Relief in Belgium and the Political Diplomatic History of the First World War," ''Diplomacy and Statecraft,'' (Dec 2010) 21#4 pp&nbsp;593–613,</ref> Many businesses collaborated with the Germans, and some women cohabitated with their men. They were treated roughly in a wave of popular violence in November and December 1918. The government set up judicial proceedings to punish the collaborators.<ref>Laurence van Ypersele and Xavier Rousseaux, "Leaving the War: Popular Violence and Judicial Repression of 'unpatriotic' behaviour in Belgium (1918–1921)," ''European Review of History'' (Spring 2005) 12#3 pp&nbsp;3–22</ref> In 1919 the ] organized a new ministry and introduced universal male suffrage. The Socialists—mostly poor workers—benefited more than the more middle class Catholics and Liberals.


===Belgian Congo=== ===Belgian Congo===
Rubber had long been the main export; production levels held up but its importance fell from 77% of exports (by value) to only 15%. New resources were opened, especially copper mining in ]. The British-owned Union Miniere company dominated the copper industry; it used a direct rail line to the sea at Beira. The war caused a heavy demand for copper, production soared from 997 tons in 1911 to 27,000 tons in 1917, then fell off to 19,000 tons in 1920. Smelters operated at ]; before the war copper was sold to Germany; the British purchased all the wartime output, with the revenues going to the Belgian government in exile. Diamond and gold mining expanded during the war. The British firm of Lever Brothers greatly expanded the palm oil business during the war, and there was an increased output of cocoa, rice and cotton. New rail and steamship lines opened to handle the expanded export traffic.<ref>{{Cite EB1922 |wstitle=Belgian Congo |volume=30 |page=429 |first=Frank Richardson |last=Cana}}</ref>

Rubber had long been the main export; production levels held up but its importance fell from 77% of exports (by value) to only 15%. New resources were opened, especially copper mining in Katanga province. The British-owned Union Miniere company dominated the copper industry; it used a direct rail line to the sea at Beira. The war caused a heavy demand for copper, and production soared from 997 tons in 1911 to 27,000 tons in 1917, then fell off to 19,000 tons in 1920. Smelters operate at Lubumbashi. Before the war the copper was sold to Germany; the British purchased all the wartime output, with the revenues going to the Belgian government in exile. Diamond and gold mining expanded during the war. The British firm of Lever Bros. greatly expanded the palm oil business during the war, and there was an increased output of cocoa, rice and cotton. New rail and steamship lines opened to handle the expanded export traffic.<ref>"Belgian Congo" in ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' (1922 edition) </ref>


==France== ==France==
{{main|French Third Republic#First World War}} {{main|French entry into World War I|French Third Republic#First World War}}
Many French intellectuals welcomed the war to avenge the humiliation of defeat and loss of territory to Germany following the ] of 1871. Only one major figure, novelist ] retained his pacifist internationalist values; he went to Switzerland. After Socialist leader ], a pacifist, was assassinated at the start of the war, the French socialist movement abandoned its antimilitarist positions and joined the national war effort. Prime Minister ] called for unity—for a "]" ("Sacred Union")--and France had few dissenters. However, war weariness was a major factor by 1917, even reaching the army, as soldiers were reluctant to attack—many threatened to mutiny—saying it was best to wait for the arrival of millions of Americans. The soldiers were protesting not just the futility of frontal assaults in the face of German machine guns but also degraded conditions at the front lines and at home, especially infrequent leaves, poor food, the use of African and Asian colonials on the home front, and concerns about the welfare of their wives and children.<ref>Leonard V. Smith, "War and 'Politics': The French Army Mutinies of 1917," ''War in History,'' (April 1995) 2#2 pp&nbsp;180–201</ref> Many French intellectuals welcomed the war to avenge the humiliation of defeat and loss of territory to Germany following the ] of 1871. Only one major figure, novelist ] retained his pacifist internationalist values; he moved to Switzerland.<ref>Martha Hanna, ''The mobilization of intellect: French scholars and writers during the Great War'' (Harvard University Press, 1996)</ref> After Socialist leader ], a pacifist, was assassinated at the start of the war, the French socialist movement abandoned its antimilitarist positions and joined the national war effort. Prime Minister ] called for unity—for a "]" ("Sacred Union"); France had few dissenters.<ref>Elizabeth Greenhalgh, "Writing about France's Great War." (2005): 601-612. </ref>


However, ] was a major factor by 1917, even reaching the army, as soldiers were reluctant to attack—many threatened to mutiny—saying it was best to wait for the arrival of millions of Americans. The soldiers were protesting not just the futility of frontal assaults in the face of German machine guns but also degraded conditions at the front lines and home, especially infrequent leaves, poor food, the use of African and Asian colonials on the home front, and concerns about the welfare of their wives and children.<ref>Leonard V. Smith, "War and 'Politics': The French Army Mutinies of 1917," ''War in History,'' (April 1995) 2#2 pp&nbsp;180–201</ref>
The economy was hurt by the German invasion of major industrial areas in the northeast. While the occupied area in 1913 contained only 14% of France's industrial workers, it produced 58% of the steel, and 40% of the coal.<ref>Gerd Hardach, ''The First World War: 1914–1918'' (1977) pp&nbsp;87–88</ref> Considerable relief came with the influx of American food, money and raw materials in 1917.<ref>Pierre-Cyrille Hautcoeur, "Was the Great War a watershed? The economics of World War I in France," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 6</ref>


On the other hand the economy was helped by American loans which were used to purchase foods and manufactured goods that allowed a decent standard of living. The arrival of over a million American soldiers in 1918 brought heavy spending for food and construction materials. Labor shortages were in part alleviated by the use of volunteer workers from the colonies. The industrial economy was badly hurt by the German invasion of major industrial areas in the northeast. While the occupied area in 1913 contained only 14% of France's industrial workers, it produced 58% of the steel, and 40% of the coal.<ref>Gerd Hardach, ''The First World War: 1914–1918'' (1977) pp&nbsp;87–88</ref> Considerable relief came with the influx of American food, money and raw materials in 1917.<ref>Pierre-Cyrille Hautcoeur, "Was the Great War a watershed? The economics of World War I in France," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 6</ref> The arrival of over a million American soldiers in 1918 brought heavy spending on food and construction materials. Labor shortages were in part alleviated by the use of volunteer and slave labor from the colonies.<ref>John Horne, "Immigrant Workers in France during World War I." ''French Historical Studies'' 14.1 (1985): 57-88. </ref>


The war damages amounted to about 113% of the GDP of 1913, chiefly the destruction of productive capital and housing. The national debt rose from 66% of GDP in 1913 to 170% in 1919, reflecting the heavy use of bond issues to pay for the war. Inflation was severe, with the franc losing over half its value against the British pound.<ref>Paul Beaudry and Franck Portier, "The French depression in the 1930s." ''Review of Economic Dynamics''(2002) 5#1 pp: 73-99.</ref>
] became prime minister in November 1917, a time of defeatism and acrimony. Italy was on the defensive, Russia had surrendered. Civilians were angry, as rations fell short and the threat of German air raids grew. Clemenceau realized his first priority was to restore civilian morale. He arrested ], a former French prime minister, for openly advocating peace negotiations. He won all-party support to fight to victory calling for "la guerre jusqu'au bout" (war until the end).

The World War ended a golden era for the press. Their younger staff members were drafted and male replacements could not be found (women were not considered). Rail transportation was rationed and less paper and ink came in, and fewer copies could be shipped out. Inflation raised the price of newsprint, which was always in short supply. The cover price went up, circulation fell and many of the 242 dailies published outside Paris closed down. The government set up the Interministerial Press Commission to closely supervise newspapers. A separate agency imposed tight censorship that led to blank spaces where news reports or editorials were disallowed. The dailies sometimes were limited to only two pages instead of the usual four, leading one satirical paper to try to report the war news in the same spirit:
: War News. A half-zeppelin threw half its bombs on half-time combatants, resulting in one-quarter damaged. The zeppelin, halfways-attacked by a portion of half-anti aircraft guns, was half destroyed."<ref>Collins, "The Business of Journalism in Provincial France during World War I," (2001)</ref>

] became prime minister in November 1917, a time of defeatism and acrimony. Italy was on the defensive, Russia had surrendered. Civilians were angry, as rations fell short and the threat of German air raids grew. Clemenceau realized his priority was to restore civilian morale. He arrested ], a former French prime minister, for openly advocating peace negotiations. He won all-party support to fight to victory calling for "la guerre jusqu'au bout" (war until the end).


==Russia== ==Russia==
{{Main|Russian entry into World War I|History of Russia (1892–1917)|Russian Revolution}}
Czarist Russia was being torn apart in 1914 and was not prepared to fight a modern war.<ref>Hans Rogger, "Russia in 1914," ''Journal of Contemporary History'' (1966) 1#4 pp.&nbsp;95–119 </ref> The industrial sector was small, finances were poor, the rural areas could barely feed themselves.<ref>Peter Gatrell, "Poor Russia, poor show: mobilising a backward economy for war, 1914–1917," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch. 8</ref> Repeated military failures and bureaucratic ineptitude soon turned large segments of the population against the government. Control of the Baltic Sea by the German fleet, and of the Black Sea by combined German and Ottoman forces prevented Russia from importing supplies or exporting goods. By the middle of 1915 the impact of the war was demoralizing. Food and fuel supplies grew scarce, war casualties kept climbing and inflation was mounting. Strikes increased among low-paid factory workers, and the peasants, who wanted land reforms, were restless. Meanwhile, elite distrust of the regime was deepened when a semiliterate mystic, ], gained enormous influence over the Czar. Major strikes broke out early in 1917 and the army sided with the strikers in the ]. The czar abdicated. The liberal reformer ] came to power in July, but in the ] Lenin and the Bolsheviks took control. In early 1918 they signed the ] that made Germany dominant in Eastern Europe, while Russia plunged into years of civil war.<ref>John M. Thompson, ''Revolutionary Russia, 1917'' (1989)</ref>
Tsarist Russia was being torn apart in 1914 and was not prepared to fight a modern war.<ref>Hans Rogger, "Russia in 1914," ''Journal of Contemporary History'' (1966) 1#4 pp.&nbsp;95–119 </ref> The industrial sector was small, finances were poor, the rural areas could barely feed themselves.<ref>Peter Gatrell, "Poor Russia, poor show: mobilising a backward economy for war, 1914–1917," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch. 8</ref> Repeated military failures and bureaucratic ineptitude soon turned large segments of the population against the government. Control of the ] by the German fleet, and of the ] by combined German and Ottoman forces prevented Russia from importing supplies or exporting goods. By the middle of 1915 the impact of the war was demoralizing. Food and fuel supplies grew scarce, war casualties kept climbing and inflation was mounting. Strikes increased among low-paid factory workers, and the peasants, who wanted land reforms, were restless. Meanwhile, elite distrust of the incompetent decision making at the highest levels was deepened when a semiliterate mystic, ], gained enormous influence over the Tsar and his wife until he was assassinated in 1916. Major strikes broke out early in 1917 and the army sided with the strikers in the ]. The ] abdicated. The liberal reformer ] came to power in July, but in the ] ] and the Bolsheviks took control. In early 1918 they signed the ] that made Germany dominant in Eastern Europe, while Russia plunged into years of ].<ref>John M. Thompson, ''Revolutionary Russia, 1917'' (1989)</ref>


While the central bureaucracy was overwhelmed and under-led, Fallows shows that localities sprang into action motivated by patriotism, pragmatism, economic self-interest, and partisan politics. Food distribution was the main role of the largest network, called the "Union of Zemstvos." It also set up hospitals and refugee stations.<ref>Thomas Fallows, "Politics and the War Effort in Russia: The Union of Zemstvos and the Organization of the Food Supply, 1914–1916," ''Slavic Review'' (1978) 37#1 pp.&nbsp;70–90 </ref> While the central bureaucracy was overwhelmed and under-led, Fallows shows that localities sprang into action motivated by patriotism, pragmatism, economic self-interest, and partisan politics. Food distribution was the main role of the largest network, called the "Union of Zemstvos." It also set up hospitals and refugee stations.<ref>Thomas Fallows, "Politics and the War Effort in Russia: The Union of Zemstvos and the Organization of the Food Supply, 1914–1916," ''Slavic Review'' (1978) 37#1 pp.&nbsp;70–90 </ref>


==Italy== ==Italy==
{{see also|History of Italy#First World War|Italy in World War I}} {{see also|History of Italy#First World War|Italy in World War I}}
Italy decided not to honor its ] with Germany and Austria, and remained neutral. Public opinion in Italy was sharply divided, with Catholics and socialists calling for peace. However nationalists saw their opportunity to gain their "irredenta" – that is, the border regions that were controlled by Austria. The nationalists won out, and in April 1915, the Italian government secretly agreed to the ] in which Britain and France promised that if Italy would declare war on Austria it would receive its territorial rewards. The Italian army of 875,000 men was poorly led and lacked heavy artillery and machine guns. The industrial base was too small to provide adequate amounts of modern equipment, and the old-fashioned rural base did not produce much of a food surplus.<ref>Francesco Galassi and Mark Harrison, "Italy at war, 1915–1918," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch. 9</ref> The war stalemates with a dozen indecisive battles on a very narrow front along the ], where the Austrians held the high ground. In 1916, Italy declared war on Germany, which provided significant aid to the Austrians. Some 650,000 Italian soldiers died and 950,000 were wounded, while the economy required large-scale Allied funding to survive.<ref>Thomas Nelson Page, ''Italy and the world war'' (1992) </ref> Italy decided not to honor its ] with Germany and Austria, and initially remained neutral. Public opinion in Italy was sharply divided, with Catholics and socialists calling for peace. However nationalists saw their opportunity to gain their "irredenta" – that is, the border regions that were controlled by Austria. The nationalists won out, and in April 1915, the Italian government secretly agreed to the ] in which Britain and France promised that if Italy would declare war on Austria, it would receive its territorial rewards. The Italian army of 875,000 men was poorly led and lacked heavy artillery and machine guns. The industrial base was too small to provide adequate amounts of modern equipment, and the old-fashioned rural base did not produce much of a food surplus.<ref>Francesco Galassi and Mark Harrison, "Italy at war, 1915–1918," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch. 9</ref> The war stalemated with a dozen indecisive battles on a very narrow front along the ], where the Austrians held the high ground. In 1916, Italy declared war on Germany, which provided significant aid to the Austrians. Some 650,000 Italian soldiers died and 950,000 were wounded, while the economy required large-scale Allied funding to survive.<ref>Thomas Nelson Page, ''Italy and the world war'' (1992) </ref>


Before the war the government had ignored labor issues, but now it had to intervene to mobilize war production. With the main working-class Socialist party reluctant to support the war effort, strikes were frequent and cooperation was minimal, especially in the Socialist strongholds of Piedmont and Lombardy. The government imposed high wage scales, as well as collective bargaining and insurance schemes.<ref>Luigi Tomassini, "Industrial Mobilization and the labour market in Italy during the First World War," ''Social History,'' (Jan 1991), 16#1 pp&nbsp;59–87</ref> Many large firms expanded dramatically. The workforce at the Ansaldo munitions company grew from 6,000 to 110,000 as it manufactured 10,900 artillery pieces, 3,800 warplanes, 95 warships and 10 million artillery shells. At Fiat the workforce grew from 4,000 to 40,000. Inflation doubled the cost of living. Industrial wages kept pace but not wages for farm workers. Discontent was high in rural areas since so many men were taken for service, industrial jobs were unavailable, wages grew slowly and inflation was just as bad.<ref>Tucker, ''European Powers in the First World War,'' p&nbsp;375–76</ref> Before the war the government had ignored labor issues, but now it had to intervene to mobilize war production. With the main working-class Socialist party reluctant to support the war effort, strikes were frequent and cooperation was minimal, especially in the Socialist strongholds of ] and ]. The government imposed high wage scales, as well as collective bargaining and insurance schemes.<ref>Luigi Tomassini, "Industrial Mobilization and the labor market in Italy during the First World War," ''Social History,'' (Jan 1991), 16#1 pp&nbsp;59–87</ref> Many large firms expanded dramatically. For example, the workforce at the Ansaldo munitions company grew from 6,000 to 110,000 workers as it manufactured 10,900 artillery pieces, 3,800 warplanes, 95 warships and 10 million artillery shells. At Fiat the workforce grew from 4,000 to 40,000. Inflation doubled the cost of living. Industrial wages kept pace but not wages for farm workers. Discontent was high in rural areas since so many men were taken for service, industrial jobs were unavailable, wages grew slowly and inflation was just as bad.<ref>Tucker, ''European Powers in the First World War,'' p&nbsp;375–76</ref>


Italy blocked serious peace negotiations, staying in the war primarily to gain new territory. The ] awarded the victorious Italian nation the Southern half of the ], ], ], and the city of ]. Italy did not receive other territories promised by the Pact of London, so this victory was considered "]". In 1922 Italy formally annexed the ] (''Possedimenti Italiani dell'Egeo''), that she had occupied during the previous war with Turkey. Italy blocked serious peace negotiations, staying in the war primarily to gain new territory. The ] awarded the victorious Italian nation the Southern half of the ], ], ], and the city of ]. Italy did not receive other territories promised by the Pact of London, so this victory was considered "]". In 1922 Italy formally annexed the ] (''Possedimenti Italiani dell'Egeo''), that she had occupied during the previous war with Turkey.


==United States== ==United States==
{{main|United States home front during World War I}} {{main|United States home front during World War I|American entry into World War I|}}
President ] took full control of foreign policy, declaring neutrality but warning Germany that resumption of ] against American ships would mean war. Wilson's mediation efforts failed; likewise the peace efforts sponsored by industrialist ] went nowhere. Germany decided to take the risk and try to win by cutting off Britain; the U.S. declared war in April 1917. The U.S. had the largest industrial, financial and agricultural base of any of the great powers, but it took 12–18 months to fully reorient it to the war effort.<ref>Hugh Rockoff, "Until its over, over there: the US economy in World War I," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 10</ref> American money, food and munitions flowed freely to Europe from spring 1917, but troops arrived slowly. The U.S. Army in 1917 was small and poorly equipped. ]]] The draft began in spring 1917 but volunteers were also accepted. Four million men and thousands of women joined the services for the duration.<ref>John W. Chambers, II, ''To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America'' (1987)</ref> By summer 1918 American soldiers under General ] arrived in France at the rate of 10,000 a day, while Germany was unable to replace its losses.<ref>Edward M. Coffman, ''The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I'' (1998)</ref> The result was Allied victory in November 1918. President ] took full control of foreign policy, declaring neutrality but warning Germany that the resumption of ] against American ships would mean war. Wilson's mediation efforts failed; likewise, the peace efforts sponsored by industrialist ] went nowhere. Germany decided to take the risk and try to win by cutting off Britain; the US declared war in April 1917. America had the largest industrial, financial and agricultural base of any of the great powers, but it took 12–18 months to fully reorient it to the war effort.<ref>Hugh Rockoff, "Until it's over, over there: the US economy in World War I," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 10</ref> American money, food and munitions flowed freely to Europe from spring 1917, but troops arrived slowly. The US Army in 1917 was small and poorly equipped.
]]]
The draft began in spring 1917 but volunteers were also accepted. Four million men and thousands of women joined the services for the duration.<ref>John W. Chambers, II, ''To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America'' (1987)</ref> By summer 1918 American soldiers under General ] arrived in France at the rate of 10,000 a day, while Germany was unable to replace its losses.<ref>Edward M. Coffman, ''The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I'' (1998)</ref> The result was an Allied victory in November 1918.


Propaganda campaigns directed by the government shaped the public mood toward patriotism and voluntary purchases of war bonds. The ] (CPI) controlled war information and provide pro-war propaganda, with the assistance of the private ] and tens of thousands of local speakers. The ] criminalized any expression of opinion that used "disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language" about the U.S. government, flag or armed forces. The most prominent opponents of the war were ] and ], many of whom were convicted of deliberately impeding the war effort and were sentenced to prison, including the Socialist presidential candidate ].<ref>Ronald Schaffer, ''The United States in World War I'' (1978)</ref> Propaganda campaigns directed by the government shaped the public mood toward patriotism and voluntary purchases of war bonds. The ] (CPI) controlled war information and provided pro-war propaganda, with the assistance of the private ] and tens of thousands of local speakers. The ] criminalized any expression of opinion that used "disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language" about the US government, flag or armed forces. The most prominent opponents of the war were ] and ], many of whom were convicted of deliberately impeding the war effort and were sentenced to prison, including the Socialist presidential candidate ].<ref>Ronald Schaffer, ''The United States in World War I'' (1978)</ref>


Wilson played the central role in defining the Allied war aims in 1917–1918 (although the U.S. never officially joined the Allies.) He demanded Germany depose the Kaiser and accept his terms, the ]. Wilson dominated the ] but Germany was treated harshly by the Allies in the ] (1919) as Wilson put all his hopes in the new ]. Wilson refused to compromise with Senate Republicans over the issue of Congressional power to declare war, and the Senate rejected the Treaty and the League.<ref>John Milton Cooper, ''Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations'' (2001)</ref> Woodrow Wilson played the central role in defining the Allied war aims in 1917–1918 (although the US never officially joined the Allies). He demanded Germany depose the ] and accept the terms of his ]. Wilson dominated the ] but Germany was treated harshly by the Allies in the ] (1919) as Wilson put all his hopes in the new ]. Wilson refused to compromise with ] ] over the issue of Congressional power to declare war, and the Senate rejected the Treaty and the League.<ref>John Milton Cooper, ''Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations'' (2001)</ref>


==Germany== ==Germany==
{{main|History of Germany during World War I}} {{main|History of Germany during World War I| German entry into World War I }}
By 1915 the British naval blockade had cut off food imports and conditions deteriorated rapidly on the home front, with severe food shortages reported in all urban areas. The causes included the transfer of so many farmers and food workers into the military, combined with the overburdened railroad system, a shortage of coal, and the ] that cut off imports from abroad.<ref>{{cite chapter |last=Albrecht |first=Ritschl |authorlink=Albrecht Ritschl (economist) |chapter=The pity of peace: Germany's economy at war, 1914–1918 and beyond |editor-last1=Broadberry |editor-last2=Harrison |title=The Economics of World War I |year=2005}}</ref> The winter of 1916–1917 was known as the "turnip winter" (]), because that vegetable, which was usually fed to livestock, was used by people as a substitute for potatoes and meat, which were increasingly scarce. Thousands of ]s were opened to feed the hungry people, who grumbled that the farmers were keeping the food for themselves. Even ] had to cut the rations for soldiers.<ref>Roger Chickering, ''Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918'' (2004) p. 141–42</ref> Compared to peacetime, about 474,000 additional civilians died, chiefly because malnutrition had weakened the body.<ref>N.P. Howard, "The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade of Germany, 1918–19," ''German History'' (1993) 11#2 pp&nbsp;161–88 table p 166, with 271,000 excess deaths in 1918 and 71,000 in 1919.</ref>
According to historian ]:
:By 1917, after three years of war, the various groups and bureaucratic hierarchies which had been operating more or less independently of one another in peacetime (and not infrequently had worked at cross purposes) were subordinated to one (and perhaps the most effective) of their number: the General Staff. Military officers controlled civilian government officials, the staffs of banks, cartels, firms, and factories, engineers and scientists, workingmen, farmers-indeed almost every element in German society; and all efforts were directed in theory and in large degree also in practice to forwarding the war effort.<ref>William H. McNeill, ''The Rise of the West'' (1991 edition) p. 742.</ref>


By 1915 the British naval blockade cut off food imports and conditions deteriorated rapidly on the home front, with severe food shortages reported in all urban areas. The causes involved the transfer of so many farmers and food workers into the military, combined with the overburdened railroad system, shortages of coal, and the British blockade that cut off imports from abroad.<ref>Albrecht Ritschl, "The pity of peace: Germany's economy at war, 1914–1918 and beyond," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. 'The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 2</ref> The winter of 1916–1917 was known as the "turnip winter," because that vegetable, usually fed to livestock, was used by people as a substitute for potatoes and meat, which were increasingly scarce. Thousands of soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry people, who grumbled that the farmers were keeping the food for themselves. Even the army had to cut the rations for soldiers.<ref>Roger Chickering, ''Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918'' (2004) p. 141–42</ref> Compared to peacetime, about 474,000 additional civilians died, chiefly because malnutrition had weakened the body.<ref>N.P. Howard, "The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade of Germany, 1918–19," ''German History'' (1993) 11#2 pp&nbsp;161–88 table p 166, with 271,000 excess deaths in 1918 and 71,000 in 1919.</ref> Morale of both civilians and soldiers continued to sink but using the slogan of "sharing scarcity" the German bureaucracy ran an efficient rationing system nevertheless.<ref>Keith Allen, "Sharing scarcity: Bread rationing and the First World War in Berlin, 1914–1923," ''Journal of Social History,'' (Winter 1998) 32#2 pp&nbsp;371–93 </ref> Morale of both civilians and soldiers continued to sink, but using the slogan of "sharing scarcity", the German bureaucracy ran an efficient rationing system nevertheless.<ref>Keith Allen, "Sharing scarcity: Bread rationing and the First World War in Berlin, 1914–1923," ], (Winter 1998) 32#2 pp&nbsp;371–93 </ref>


===Political revolution=== ===Political revolution===
The end of October 1918 saw the outbreak of the ] as units of the German Navy refused to set sail for a last, large-scale operation in a war which they saw as good as lost. By 3 November, the revolt spread to other cities and states of the country, in many of which workers' and soldiers' councils were established. Meanwhile, Hindenburg and the senior commanders had lost confidence in the Kaiser and his government. The end of October 1918 saw the outbreak of the ] as units of the German Navy refused to set sail for a last, large-scale operation in a war which they saw as good as lost (→]). By 3 November, the revolt had spread to other cities and states of the country, in many of which ] were established (→ ]). Meanwhile, ] and the senior commanders had lost confidence in Kaiser ] and his government.


The Kaiser and all German ruling princes abdicated. On 9 November 1918, the Social Democrat ] proclaimed a Republic. On 11 November, ] ending the war with a total defeat for Germany and occupation by the Allies.<ref>A. J. Ryder, ''The German Revolution of 1918: A Study of German Socialism in War and Revolt'' (2008)</ref> The Kaiser and all German ruling princes abdicated. On 9 November 1918, the Social Democrat ] (1865-1939) proclaimed a ]. On 11 November, ] ended the war with a total defeat for Germany.<ref>A. J. Ryder, ''The German Revolution of 1918: A Study of German Socialism in War and Revolt'' (1st ed. 1967 / 2008)</ref> The ] by the Allies (until 1923/1930).


==Austria-Hungary== ==Austria-Hungary==
{{see also|Hungary in World War I|Austria-Hungary#World War I}} {{see also|Austro-Hungarian entry into World War I|Hungary in World War I|Austria-Hungary#World War I}}

The heavily rural Austro-Hungarian Empire did have a small industrial base, but its major contribution was manpower and food.<ref>Max-Stephan Schulze, "Austria-Hungary's economy in World War I," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 3</ref><ref>Robert A. Kann, et al. eds. ''The Habsburg Empire in World War I: Essays on the Intellectual, Military, Political and Economic Aspects of the Habsburg War Effort'' (1977)</ref>
The heavily rural Empire did have a small industrial base, but its major contribution was manpower and food.<ref>Max-Stephan Schulze, "Austria-Hungary's economy in World War I," in Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 3 </ref><ref>Robert A. Kann, et al. eds. ''The Habsburg Empire in World War I: Essays on the Intellectual, Military, Political and Economic Aspects of the Habsburg War Effort'' (1977)</ref> Nevertheless, Austria-Hungary was more urbanized (25%)<ref>{{cite book|author=Mowat, C.L.|author-link=C. L. Mowat|title=The New Cambridge Modern History. volume xii|publisher=(CUP Archive)London: Cambridge University Press|page=479|year=1968|isbn=978-0521045513|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LLg8AAAAIAAJ&q=%22urban+population%22++%22austria-hungary%22}}</ref> than its actual opponents in the First World War, like the Russian Empire (13.4%),<ref>{{cite book|author=Andreas Kappeler|title=The Russian Empire: A Multi-ethnic History|publisher=Routledge|page=287|year=2014|isbn=9781317568100|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JZ9eBAAAQBAJ&q=%22russian+empire%22+urbanization}}</ref> Serbia (13.2%)<ref>{{cite book|author=Sima M. Cirkovic|title=The Serbs Volume 10 of The Peoples of Europe|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|page=235|year=2008|isbn=9781405142915|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2Wc-DWRzoeIC&q=serbia+%22city+dwellers%22+1910}}</ref> or Romania (18.8%).<ref>{{cite book|author=Marius Rotar|title=History of Modern Cremation in Romania|publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing|page=24|year=2013|isbn=9781443845427|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fbgwBwAAQBAJ&q=%22kingdom+of+romania%22+rural}}</ref> Furthermore, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had also a more industrialized economy<ref>{{cite book|author1=Stephen Broadberry|author2=Kevin H. O'Rourke|title=The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=70|year=2010|isbn=9781139489515|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YHk0z-ujS3AC|access-date=28 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151015202359/https://books.google.com/books?id=YHk0z-ujS3AC&;pg=PA70|archive-date=15 October 2015|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> and higher GDP per capita<ref>{{cite book|author=David Stevenson|title=With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918|publisher=Harvard University Press|page=399|year=2011|isbn=9780674063198|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DKn2zqoTPqQC&q=It+was+evenly+matched+against+Austria-Hungary}}</ref> than the ], which was economically the far most developed actual opponent of the Empire. On the home front, food grew scarcer and scarcer, as did heating fuel. The hog population fell 90 percent, as the dwindling supplies of ham and bacon were consumed by the Army. Hungary, with its heavy agricultural base, was somewhat better fed. Morale fell every year, and the diverse nationalities gave up on the Empire and looked for ways to establish their own nation states.<ref>Maureen Healy, ''Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire: Total War and Everyday Life in World War I'' (2007)</ref>

Inflation soared, from an index of 129 in 1914 to 1589 in 1918, wiping out the cash savings of the middle-class. In terms of war damage to the economy, the war used up about 20 percent of the GDP. The dead soldiers amounted to about four percent of the 1914 labor force, and the wounded ones to another six percent. Compared all the major countries in the war, Austria's death and casualty rate was toward the high-end.<ref>Schulze, "Austria-Hungary's economy in World War I,"</ref>

Whereas the German army realized it needed close cooperation from the home front, Habsburg officers saw themselves as entirely separate from the civilian world, and superior to it. When they occupied productive areas, such as Romania, they seized food stocks and other supplies for their own purposes, and blocked any shipments intended for civilians back in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The result was that the officers lived well, as the civilians began to starve. Vienna even transferred training units to Serbia and Poland for the sole purpose of feeding them. In all, the Army obtained about 15 percent of its cereal needs from occupied territories.<ref>Watson, ''Ring of Steel'' p 396-97</ref>


==Ottoman Empire== ==Ottoman Empire==
{{see also|Ottoman Empire#World War I (1914–1918)|Armenian Genocide}} {{see also|Ottoman Empire#World War I (1914–1918)|Armenian genocide}}
The Ottoman Empire had long been the "sick man of Europe" and by 1914 had been driven out of nearly all of Europe, and had lost its influence in North Africa. It still controlled 23 million people, of whom 17 million were in modern-day Turkey, 3 million in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, and 2.5 million in Iraq. Another 5.5 million people were under nominal Ottoman rule in the Arabian peninsula.<ref>Şevket Pamuk, "The Ottoman Economy in World War I" in Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 4, esp. p 112</ref> The Ottoman Empire had long been the "sick man of Europe" and by 1914 it had been driven out of nearly all of Europe, and had lost its influence in North Africa. It still controlled 23 million people, of whom 17 million were in modern-day Turkey, three million in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, and 2.5 million in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq). Another 5.5 million people were under nominal Ottoman rule in the ].<ref>Şevket Pamuk, "The Ottoman Economy in World War I" in Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ch 4, esp. p 112</ref>


A Turkish revival movement, the ] took control of the government in 1913; they mobilized society for war, employing numerous political and economic reforms. The Committee of Union and Progress, through its Committee of National Defense, fostered pan-Turkish nationalism based in Anatolia.<ref>Feroz Ahmad, "War and Society under the Young Turks, 1908–18," ''Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center,'' (1988) 11#2 pp&nbsp;265–286</ref> The Young Turks created new organizations, such as the Ottoman Red Crescent Society, the Ottoman Navy League, and the Committee of National Defense, to extend their political influence to the middle class, to mobilize support for the war effort and to construct a Turkish identity.<ref>Nadi˙r Özbek, "Defining the public sphere during the late Ottoman Empire: War, mass mobilization and the young Turk regime (1908–18)," ''Middle Eastern Studies,'' (Sept 2007) 43#5 pp&nbsp;795–809</ref> When the war broke out the sultan, in his capacity, as caliph, issued a jihad,<ref>see </ref> calling all Muslims in Egypt, India and other Allied colonies to revolt against their Christian rulers. Very few listened.<ref>Mustafa Aksakal, "'Holy War Made in Germany'? Ottoman Origins of the 1914 Jihad," ''War in History'' (April 2011) 18#2 pp&nbsp;184–199</ref> Meanwhile many Arabs turned against the Turkish rulers of the Empire and collaborated with the British.<ref>Hasan Kayali, ''Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1918'' (1997) </ref> A faction of the ] movement, the ], turned the Ottoman Empire into a one-party-state after a ]; they mobilized the country's society for war, employing numerous political and economic reforms. The Unionists, through its ], fostered ] based in ].<ref>Feroz Ahmad, "War and Society under the Young Turks, 1908–18," ''Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center,'' (1988) 11#2 pp&nbsp;265–286</ref> The Young Turks created new organizations, such as the ], the ], and the Committee of National Defense, to extend their political influence to the middle class, to mobilize support for the war effort and to construct a ] identity.<ref>Nadi˙r Özbek, "Defining the public sphere during the late Ottoman Empire: War, mass mobilization and the young Turk regime (1908–18)," ''Middle Eastern Studies,'' (Sept 2007) 43#5 pp&nbsp;795–809</ref> When the war broke out the sultan, in his capacity, as ], issued a ],<ref>see </ref> calling all Muslims in Egypt, India and other Allied territories to revolt against their Christian rulers. Very few listened.<ref>Mustafa Aksakal, "'Holy War Made in Germany'? Ottoman Origins of the 1914 Jihad," ''War in History'' (April 2011) 18#2 pp&nbsp;184–199</ref> Meanwhile, many Arabs turned against the Turks and rose in rebellion in the ].<ref>Hasan Kayali, ''Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1918'' (1997) </ref>


Reacting to highly exaggerated fears that the Armenians were a tool of the Russians, the Young Turks forcibly evacuated the Armenians from eastern Anatolia, regardless of the 600,000 or more lives lost in the ].<ref>Ronald Grigor Suny, "Truth in Telling: Reconciling Realities in the Genocide of the Ottoman Armenians," ''American Historical Review'' (2009) 114#4 pp.&nbsp;930–946 </ref> The Young Turks lost control as the war ended and fled into exile. Reacting to fears that the ] could be a potential fifth column for the Russian army, the CUP forcibly evacuated the Armenians from eastern Anatolia, regardless of the 600,000 or more lives lost in the ].<ref>Ronald Grigor Suny, "Truth in Telling: Reconciling Realities in the Genocide of the Ottoman Armenians," ''American Historical Review'' (2009) 114#4 pp.&nbsp;930–946 </ref> In October 1918, as the Allied powers were gaining ground on ] and Palestine Fronts, the ], the ruling Unionist triumvirate fled into exile. The ] ended World War I between the Allied powers and the Ottoman Empire, however the Turks would again see themselves in the battlefield with the Allies in the ].


=== Economic impacts ===
==Balkans==
The war effort in the Ottoman Empire was felt heavily on those living in the Empire. As the empire was blockaded by the Entente powers and the transportation system was largely inefficient it faced enormous challenges accommodating both civilians and the military.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=osu1313179729&disposition=inline |title=The Ottoman Home Front during World War I: Everyday Politics, Society, and Culture |publisher=Ohio State University |year=2011 |pages=76 |chapter=Chapter 2 - “THE INSATIABLE GIANT:” STATE, PEOPLE, and the PROVISIONING of the OTTOMAN ARMY}}</ref>


In the Ottoman Empire during World War 1, virtually all male Ottoman citizens were expected to serve in the military. In the years prior to the war, many exceptions that existed were eliminated such as exemptions for: students, non-Muslims and those who lived in the national capitol. High levels of desertion despite being threatened with death as a punishment were reported between enlistment and training due to the length in time between the two stages along with how long it took the process the incredibly large number of recruits. One could get out of military service by paying a fee.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Akın |first=Yiğit |title=The Ottoman Home Front during World War I: Everyday Politics, Society, and Culture |publisher=Ohio State University |year=2011 |chapter=Chapter 1: “Filling the Ranks:” War, Mobilization, and Soldiering in the Ottoman Army}}</ref> The new conscription policies were unpopular.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Minasidis |first=Charalampos |title=Mobilization (Ottoman Empire/Middle East) |url=https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/mobilization-ottoman-empiremiddle-east/ |access-date=January 9, 2024 |website=International Encyclopedia of the First World War}}</ref>

==Balkans==
===Serbia=== ===Serbia===
Despite its small size and population of 4.6 million, Serbia had the most effective manpower mobilization of the war, and had a highly professional officer corps. It called 350,000 men to arms, of whom 185,000 were in combat units.<ref>Stevenson, ''Cataclysm'' p 59</ref> However the casualties and expenditure of munitions in the Balkan Wars left Serbia depleted and dependent on France for supplies. Austria invaded twice in 1914 and was turned back after both armies suffered very heavy losses. Many captured Austrian soldiers were Slavic and joined the Serbian cause. The year 1915 was peaceful in the sense there was no military action, but food supplies were dangerously low and a series of deadly epidemics hit, especially typhus. The death toll from epidemics was about 100,000 civilians, 35,000 soldiers, and 30,000 prisoners of war.<ref>Dragan Zivojinovic, "Serbia and Montenegro: The Home Front" in Béla K. Király, ed. ''East Central European society in World War I'' (1985) pp&nbsp;253–59 esp p 243</ref> Despite its small size and population of 4.6 million, Serbia had the most effective manpower mobilization of the war, and had a highly professional officer corps. It called 350,000 men to arms, of whom 185,000 were in combat units.<ref>Stevenson, ''Cataclysm'' p 59</ref> Nevertheless, the casualties and expenditure of munitions in the Balkan Wars left Serbia depleted and dependent on France for supplies. Austria invaded twice in 1914 and was turned back after both armies suffered very heavy losses. Many captured Austrian soldiers were Slavic and joined the Serbian cause. The year 1915 was peaceful in the sense there was no military action, but food supplies were dangerously low and a series of deadly epidemics hit, especially ]. The death toll from epidemics was about 100,000 civilians, 35,000 soldiers, and 30,000 prisoners of war.<ref>Dragan Zivojinovic, "Serbia and Montenegro: The Home Front" in Béla K. Király, ed. ''East Central European society in World War I'' (1985) pp&nbsp;253–59 esp p 243</ref>


In late 1915, however, German generals were given control and invaded Serbia with Austrian and Bulgarian forces. The Serbian army hastily retreated west but only 70,000 made it through, and Serbia became an occupied land. Disease was rampant but the Austrians were pragmatic and paid well for food supplies, so conditions were not harsh. Instead Austria tried to depoliticize Serbia, to minimize violence, and to integrate the country into the Empire. Nevertheless Serbian nationalism remained defiant and many young men slipped out to help rebuild the Serbian army in exile.<ref>Jonathan E. Gumz, ''The Resurrection and Collapse of Empire in Habsburg Serbia, 1914–1918'' (2009)</ref> In late 1915, however, German generals were given control and invaded Serbia with Austrian and Bulgarian forces. The Serbian army hastily retreated west but only 70,000 made it through, and Serbia became an occupied land. Disease was rampant, but the Austrians were pragmatic and paid well for food supplies, so conditions were not harsh. Instead Austria tried to depoliticize Serbia, to minimize violence, and to integrate the country into the Empire. Nevertheless, Serbian nationalism remained defiant and many young men slipped out to help rebuild the Serbian army in exile.<ref>Jonathan E. Gumz, ''The Resurrection and Collapse of Empire in Habsburg Serbia, 1914–1918'' (2009)</ref>


France proved an invaluable ally during the war and its armies, together with reorganized Serbian units, moved up from Greece in 1918 and liberated Serbia, ], and ].<ref>Andrej Mitrovic, ''Serbia's Great War 1914–1918'' (2007)</ref> France proved an invaluable ally during the war and its armies, together with reorganized Serbian units, moved up from Greece in 1918 and liberated Serbia, ], and ].<ref>Andrej Mitrovic, ''Serbia's Great War 1914–1918'' (2007)</ref>


The war ended the very heavy death toll, which saw 615,000 of Serbia's 707,000 soldiers killed, along with 600,000 civilian dead. The death toll in Montenegro was also high.<ref>Zivojinovic, "Serbia and Montenegro: The Home Front" p 256</ref> Serbia achieved its political goals by forming the new ] (later Yugoslavia) in 1918. It proved more difficult to create the new-model "Yugoslav" as an exemplar of a united nation containing diverse ethnicities, languages and religions. For example Montenegro was included but, fearful of losing its own cultural traditions, there was a revolt in Montenegro that the Serbian army crushed.<ref>Zdenko Zlatar, "Nationalism in Serbia (1804–1918)," ''Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism'' (1979) Vol. 6, pp&nbsp;100–113</ref> The war ended the very heavy death toll, which saw 615,000 of Serbia's 707,000 soldiers killed, along with 600,000 civilian dead. The death toll in Montenegro was also high.<ref>Zivojinovic, "Serbia and Montenegro: The Home Front" p 256</ref> Serbia achieved its political goals by forming the new ] (later Yugoslavia) in 1918. It proved more difficult to create the new-model "Yugoslav" as an exemplar of a united nation containing diverse ethnicities, languages and religions. For example, Montenegro was included but, fearful of losing its own cultural traditions, there was a revolt there that the Serbian army crushed.<ref>Zdenko Zlatar, "Nationalism in Serbia (1804–1918)," ''Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism'' (1979) Vol. 6, pp&nbsp;100–113</ref>


===Bulgaria=== ===Bulgaria===
{{main|Bulgaria during World War I}} {{main|Bulgaria during World War I}}
Bulgaria, a poor rural nation of 4.5 million people sought to acquire Macedonia but when it tried it was defeated in 1913 in the ]. In the Great War Bulgaria at first stayed neutral. However its leaders still hoped to acquire Macedonia, which was controlled by an Ally, Serbia. In 1915 joining the Central Powers seemed the best route.<ref>Tucker, ''The European powers in the First World War'' (1996). pp&nbsp;149–52</ref> It mobilized a very large army of 800,000 men, using equipment supplied by Germany. The Bulgarian-German-Austrian invasion of Serbia in 1915 was a quick victory, but by the end of 1915 Bulgaria was also fighting the British and French—as well as the Romanians in 1916 and the Greeks in 1917. Bulgaria was ill-prepared for a long war; absence of so many soldiers sharply reduced agricultural output. Much of its best food was smuggled out to feed lucrative black markets elsewhere. By 1918 the soldiers were not only short of basic equipment like boots but they were being fed mostly corn bread with a little meat. Germany increasingly was in control, and Bulgaria relations with its ally the Ottoman Empire soured. The Allied offensive in September 1918 destroyed the remnants of Bulgarian military power and civilian morale. Troops mutinied and peasants ], demanding peace. By month's end Bulgaria signed an armistice, giving up its conquests and its military hardware. ] abdicated and Bulgaria's war was over. The ] stripped Bulgaria of its conquests, reduced its army to 20,000 men, and demanded reparations of £100 million.<ref>Richard C. Hall, "Bulgaria in the First World War," ''Historian,'' (Summer 2011) 73#2 pp&nbsp;300–315 </ref> Bulgaria, a poor rural nation of 4.5 million people, sought to acquire ], but when it tried it suffered defeat in 1913 in the ]. In the First World War Bulgaria at first stayed neutral. However its leaders still hoped to acquire Macedonia, which was controlled by an Ally, Serbia. In 1915, joining the Central Powers seemed the best route.<ref>Tucker, ''The European powers in the First World War'' (1996). pp&nbsp;149–52</ref> Bulgaria mobilized a very large army of 800,000 men, using equipment supplied by Germany. The Bulgarian-German-Austrian invasion of Serbia in 1915 provided a quick victory, but by the end of that year Bulgaria was also fighting the British and French—as well as the Romanians in 1916 and the Greeks in 1917. Bulgaria was ill-prepared for a long war; the absence of so many soldiers sharply reduced agricultural output. Much of its best food was smuggled out to feed lucrative black-markets elsewhere. By 1918 the soldiers were not only short of basic equipment like boots, but they were being fed mostly corn bread with a little meat. Germany increasingly took control, and Bulgarian relations with its ally the ] soured. The Allied offensive in September 1918 destroyed the remnants of Bulgarian military power and civilian morale. Troops mutinied and peasants ], demanding peace. By that month's end Bulgaria signed an armistice, giving up its conquests and its military hardware. ] abdicated and Bulgaria's war ended. The ] in 1919 stripped Bulgaria of its conquests, reduced its army to 20,000 men, and demanded reparations of £100 million.<ref>
Richard C. Hall, "Bulgaria in the First World War," ''Historian,'' (Summer 2011) 73#2 pp&nbsp;300–315
</ref>


===Greece=== ===Greece===
<!-- Deleted image removed: ] --> <!-- Deleted image removed: ] -->
Greece had been exhausted by the Balkan wars and sought to remain neutral, but its strategic position as the gateway to the Balkans made that impossible.<ref>George B. Leontaritis, ''Greece and the First World War'' (1990)</ref> In the ], ], a traditionalist who had German ties, battled with his modernizing liberal Prime Minister ], who was sympathetic to the Allies.<ref>Mark Mazower, "The Messiah and the Bourgeoisie: Venizelos and Politics in Greece, 1909–1912," ''Historical Journal'' (1992) 35#4 pp.&nbsp;885–904 </ref> Venizélos with Allied support, set up the short-lived Greek "state" of Salonica, from October 1916 to June 1917. An Allied blockade forced the ]. Venizélos was now in full control and Greece sided with the Allies and declared war. Greece served as a staging base for large numbers of French, Serbian and other Allied units. By war's end the Greek army numbered 300,000 and had about 5,000 casualties. The schism between modernizers and traditionalists did not heal and for decades was the polarizing factor in Greek politics.

Greece had been exhausted by the Balkan wars and sought to remain neutral, but its strategic position as the gateway to the Balkans made that impossible.<ref>
George B. Leontaritis, ''Greece and the First World War'' (1990)</ref> In the ], ], a traditionalist who had German ties, battled with his modernizing liberal Prime Minister ], who was sympathetic to the Allies.<ref>Mark Mazower, "The Messiah and the Bourgeoisie: Venizelos and Politics in Greece, 1909–1912," ''Historical Journal'' (1992) 35#4 pp.&nbsp;885–904 </ref> Venizélos with Allied support set up the short-lived Greek "state" of Salonika, from October 1916 to June 1917. An Allied blockade forced the ]. Venizélos now was in full control and Greece sided with the Allies and declared war. Greece served as a staging base for large numbers of French, Serbian and other Allied units. By war's end the Greek army numbered 300,000 and had about 5000 casualties. The schism between modernizers and traditionalists did not heal and for decades was the polarizing factor in Greek politics.


==Asia== ==Asia==
===China===
{{main|History of the Republic of China}}
The warlord ] was the most powerful leader in China. He dissolved the parliament and declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary on August 13, 1917. Enemy nationals were detained and their assets seized. Around 175,000 Chinese workers volunteered for well-paid positions in the ] that served the Allies behind the lines in France, and Africa and on supply ships. Some 10,000 died, including over 500 on ships sunk by ]s. No soldiers were sent overseas.<ref>Guoqi Xu, ''China and the Great War: China's Pursuit of a New National Identity and Internationalization'' (2011)</ref><ref name="online"/>


===Japan=== ===Japan===
{{main|Japan during World War I}} {{main|Japanese entry into World War I|Japan during World War I}}
Japan's military seized German possessions in the Pacific and East Asia. but there was no large-scale mobilization of the economy.<ref>Frederick R. Dickinson, ''War and National Reinvention: Japan in the Great War, 1914–1919'' (1999)</ref> Foreign minister ] and Prime Minister ] wanted to use the opportunity to expand Japanese influence in China. They enlisted ] (1866–1925), then in exile in Japan, but they had little success.<ref>Albert A. Altman and Harold Z. Schiffrin, "Sun Yat-Sen and the Japanese, 1914–16," ''Modern Asian Studies,'' (July 1972) 6#4 pp&nbsp;385–400</ref> The Imperial Navy, a nearly autonomous bureaucratic institution, made its own decision to undertake expansion in the pacific. It captured Germany's Micronesian territories north of the equator, and ruled the islands until 1921. The operation gave the navy a rationale for enlarging its budget to double the army budget and expanding the fleet. The Navy thus gained significant political influence over national and international affairs.<ref>J.C. Schencking, "Bureaucratic Politics, Military Budgets and Japan's Southern Advance: The Imperial Navy's Seizure of German Micronesia in the First World War," ''War in History,'' (July 1998) 5#3 pp&nbsp;308–326</ref> Inflation caused rice prices to quadruple, leading to small-scale riots all across the country in 1918. The government made thousands of arrests and prevented the newspapers from reporting the riots. Some 250,000 people died in the ] epidemic in late 1918. The death rate was much lower than other major countries because some immunity had developed from a mild outbreak earlier; public health officials successfully warned people to avoid contact; and the use of inoculation, herbals, masks, and gargling.<ref>Geoffrey W. Rice and Edwina Palmer, "Pandemic influenza in Japan, 1918–19: Mortality patterns and official responses," ''Journal of Japanese Studies,'' (Summer 1993) 19#2 pp&nbsp;389–420</ref> Japan's military seized German possessions in the Pacific and East Asia, but there was no large-scale mobilization of the economy.<ref>Frederick R. Dickinson, ''War and National Reinvention: Japan in the Great War, 1914–1919'' (1999)</ref> Foreign minister ] and Prime Minister ] wanted to use the opportunity to expand Japanese influence in China. They enlisted ] (1866–1925), then in exile in Japan, but they had little success.<ref>Albert A. Altman and Harold Z. Schiffrin, "Sun Yat-Sen and the Japanese, 1914–16," ''Modern Asian Studies,'' (July 1972) 6#4 pp&nbsp;385–400</ref> The ], a nearly autonomous bureaucratic institution, made its own decision to undertake expansion in the Pacific. It captured Germany's Micronesian territories north of the equator, and ruled the islands until 1921. The operation gave the navy a rationale for enlarging its budget to double the army budget and expanding the fleet. The Navy thus gained significant political influence over national and international affairs.<ref>J.C. Schencking, "Bureaucratic Politics, Military Budgets and Japan's Southern Advance: The Imperial Navy's Seizure of German Micronesia in the First World War," ''War in History,'' (July 1998) 5#3 pp&nbsp;308–326</ref>


Inflation caused rice prices to quadruple, leading to small-scale riots all across the country in 1918. The government made thousands of arrests and prevented the newspapers from reporting the riots. Some 250,000 people died in the ] epidemic in late 1918. The death rate was much lower than other major countries because some immunity had developed from a mild outbreak earlier; public health officials successfully warned people to avoid contact; and the use of inoculation, herbals, masks, and gargling.<ref>Geoffrey W. Rice and Edwina Palmer, "Pandemic influenza in Japan, 1918–19: Mortality patterns and official responses," ''Journal of Japanese Studies,'' (Summer 1993) 19#2 pp&nbsp;389–420</ref>
==Notes==

<references/>
==See also==

{{div col}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
** ]
** ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
{{div col end}}

== Notes and references ==
{{Reflist|2}}


==Further reading== ==Further reading==
* ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'' (12th ed. 1922) comprises the 11th edition plus three new volumes 30-31-32 that cover events since 1911 with very thorough coverage of the war as well as every country and colony. * ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' (12th ed. 1922) comprises the 11th edition plus three new volumes 30-31-32 that cover events since 1911 with very thorough coverage of the war as well as every country and colony. ]
** **
** **
* ''The Cambridge History of the First World War Volume 3: Civil Society'' (2014) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160820160141/http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/histories/subject_title_list.jsf?subjectCode=15&heading=Warfare&tSort=title+closed&aSort=author+default_list&ySort=year+default_list |date=2016-08-20 }}
* Fisk, H.E. ''The Inter-Ally Debts: An Analysis of War and Post-War Public Finance, 1914-1923'' (1924){{ISBN?}}
* Godden, Christopher. "The Business of War: Reflections on Recent Contributions to the Economic and Business Histories of the First World War." ''Œconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy'' 6#4 (2016): 549-556.
* Grayzel, Susan. ''Women and the First World War'' (2002), worldwide coverage * Grayzel, Susan. ''Women and the First World War'' (2002), worldwide coverage
* Herwig, Holger H., and Neil M. Heyman, eds. ''Biographical Dictionary of World War I'' (Greenwood, 1982); includes prime ministers and main civilian leaders.
* Higham, Robin and Dennis E. Showalter, eds. ''Researching World War I: A Handbook'' (2003), 475pp; highly detailed historiography, stressing military themes; annotates over 1000 books—mostly military but many on the homefront;
* Higham, Robin and Dennis E. Showalter, eds. ''Researching World War I: A Handbook'' (2003), 475pp; highly detailed historiography, stressing military themes; annotates over 1000 books—mostly military but many on the homefront{{ISBN?}}
* Horne, John N., ed. ''A Companion to World War I'' (2010), 38 essays by leading scholars covering all facets of the war
* Horne, John N., ed. ''A Companion to World War I'' (2010), 38 essays by leading scholars covering all facets of the war
* Horne, John N. ''State, Society and Mobilization in Europe during the First World War'' (2002) * Horne, John N. ''State, Society and Mobilization in Europe during the First World War'' (2002)
* Proctor, Tammy M. ''Civilians in a World at War, 1914–1918'' (2010) 410pp; global coverage * Proctor, Tammy M. ''Civilians in a World at War, 1914–1918'' (2010) 410pp; global coverage
* Stevenson, David. ''Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy'' (2005) 625pp; * Stevenson, David. ''Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy'' (2005) 625pp;
* Stevenson, David. ''With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918 '' (2011) covers both the homefront and the battlefields for the major powers * Stevenson, David. ''With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918'' (2011) covers both the homefront and the battlefields for the major powers
* Strachen, Hew. ''The First World War'' (vol 1, 2005) 1225pp; covers the battlefields and chief home fronts in 1914–1917 * Strachen, Hew. ''The First World War'' (vol 1, 2005) 1225pp; covers the battlefields and chief home fronts in 1914–1917
* Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia'' (1999) * Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia'' (1999)
* Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of World War I: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (5 vol 2005); the most detailed reference source; articles by specialists cover all aspects of the war * Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of World War I: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (5 vol 2005); the most detailed reference source; articles by specialists cover all aspects of the war
**Tucker, Spencer C., ed. ''World War I: A Student Encyclopedia.'' 4 vol. ABC-CLIO, 2006. 2454 pp. ** Tucker, Spencer C., ed. ''World War I: A Student Encyclopedia.'' 4 vol. ABC-CLIO, 2006. 2454 pp.
* Winter, J. M. ''The Experience of World War I'' (2006) * Winter, J. M. ''The Experience of World War I'' (2006)
*Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. ''Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919'' (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars ; * Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. ''Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919'' (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars ;


===Economics=== ===Economics===
{{main| Economic history of World War I#Further reading}} {{main| Economic history of World War I#Further reading}}
* Broadberry, Stephen, and Mark Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) ISBN 0-521-85212-9. Covers France, Britain, USA, Russia, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and the Netherlands, 362pp; * Broadberry, Stephen, and Mark Harrison, eds. ''The Economics of World War I'' (2005) {{ISBN|0-521-85212-9}}. Covers France, Britain, USA, Russia, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and the Netherlands, 362pp; ;
* Grayzel, Susan. ''Women and the First World War'' (2002), worldwide coverage * Grayzel, Susan. ''Women and the First World War'' (2002), worldwide coverage
* Stevenson, David. ''With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918'' (2011) , pp 350–438, covers major countries * Stevenson, David. ''With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918'' (2011) , pp 350–438, covers major countries
* Hardach, Gerd. ''The First World War 1914–1918'' (1977), economic history of major powers * Hardach, Gerd. ''The First World War 1914–1918'' (1977), economic history of major powers
* Thorp, William Long. ''Business Annals: United States, England, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, Sweden Netherlands, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, Japan, China'' (1926) capsule summary of conditions in each country for each quarter-year 1790–1925 * Thorp, William Long. ''Business Annals: United States, England, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, Sweden Netherlands, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, Japan, China'' (1926) capsule summary of conditions in each country for each quarter-year 1790–1925
Line 216: Line 293:
===Britain=== ===Britain===
* Butler, Simon. ''The War Horses: The Tragic Fate of a Million Horses Sacrificed in the First World War'' (2011) * Butler, Simon. ''The War Horses: The Tragic Fate of a Million Horses Sacrificed in the First World War'' (2011)
* Cassar, George. ''Lloyd George at War, 1916–1918'' (2009) * Cassar, George. ''Lloyd George at War, 1916–1918'' (2009)
* Cooksley, Peter. ''The Home Front: Civilian Life in World War One'' (2006) * Cooksley, Peter. ''The Home Front: Civilian Life in World War One'' (2006)
* Dewey, P. E. "Food Production and Policy in the United Kingdom, 1914–1918," ''Transactions of the Royal Historical Society'' (1980). v. 30, pp 71–89.
* Davis, Belinda Joy. ''Home Fires Burning: Food, Politics, and Everyday Life in World War I Berlin'' (2000)
* Dewey, P. E. "Food Production and Policy in the United Kingdom, 1914–1918," ''Transactions of the Royal Historical Society'' (1980). v. 30, pp 71–89.
* Doyle, Peter. ''First World War Britain: 1914–1919'' (2012) * Doyle, Peter. ''First World War Britain: 1914–1919'' (2012)
* Fairlie, John A. ''British War Administration'' (1919) * Fairlie, John A. ''British War Administration'' (1919)
* Ferguson, Niall ''The Pity of War'' (1999), 563pp; cultural and economic themes * Ferguson, Niall ''The Pity of War'' (1999), 563pp; cultural and economic themes{{ISBN?}}
* French, David. ''The Strategy of the Lloyd George Coalition, 1916–1918'' Oxford University Press, 1995 * French, David. ''The Strategy of the Lloyd George Coalition, 1916–1918'' Oxford University Press, 1995
* Fry, Michael. "Political Change in Britain, August 1914 to December 1916: Lloyd George Replaces Asquith: The Issues Underlying the Drama," ''Historical Journal'' (1988) 31#3 pp.&nbsp;609–627 * Fry, Michael. "Political Change in Britain, August 1914 to December 1916: Lloyd George Replaces Asquith: The Issues Underlying the Drama," ''Historical Journal'' (1988) 31#3 pp.&nbsp;609–627
* Goebel, Stefan and White, Jerry. . London Journal 41:3 (2016), 1–20.
* Gregory, Adrian. ''The Last Great War: British Society and the First World War'' (2009)
* Gregory, Adrian. ''The Last Great War: British Society and the First World War'' (2009)
* Grigg, John. ''Lloyd George: war leader, 1916–1918'' (2002) * Grigg, John. ''Lloyd George: war leader, 1916–1918'' (2002)
* Havighurst, Alfred F. ''Twentieth-Century Britain.'' 1966. standard survey * Havighurst, Alfred F. ''Twentieth-Century Britain.'' 1966. standard survey{{ISBN?}}
* Hazlehurst, Cameron. "Asquith as Prime Minister, 1908–1916," ''The English Historical Review'' Vol. 85, No. 336 (Jul. 1970), pp.&nbsp;502–531 * Hazlehurst, Cameron. "Asquith as Prime Minister, 1908–1916," ''The English Historical Review'' Vol. 85, No. 336 (Jul. 1970), pp.&nbsp;502–531
* Johnson, Matthew. "The Liberal War Committee and the Liberal Advocacy of Conscription in Britain, 1914–1916," ''Historical Journal,'' Vol. 51, No. 2 (June, 2008), pp.&nbsp;399–420 * Johnson, Matthew. "The Liberal War Committee and the Liberal Advocacy of Conscription in Britain, 1914–1916," ''Historical Journal,'' Vol. 51, No. 2 (June, 2008), pp.&nbsp;399–420
* Little, John Gordon. "H. H. Asquith and Britain's Manpower Problem, 1914–1915." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 397–409. Issn: 0018-2648; admits the problem was bad but exonerates Asquith Fulltext: in Ebsco * Little, John Gordon. "H. H. Asquith and Britain's Manpower Problem, 1914–1915." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 397–409. {{ISSN|0018-2648}}; admits the problem was bad but exonerates Asquith Fulltext: in Ebsco
*Marwick, Arthur. ''The Deluge: British Society and the First World War'', (1965) * Marwick, Arthur. ''The Deluge: British Society and the First World War'', (1965)
* Matthew, H. C. G. "Asquith, Herbert Henry, first earl of Oxford and Asquith (1852–1928)", ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,'' * Matthew, H. C. G. "Asquith, Herbert Henry, first earl of Oxford and Asquith (1852–1928)", ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,''
* Offer, Avner. ''The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation'' (1991), on food supply of Britain and Germany * Offer, Avner. ''The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation'' (1991), on food supply of Britain and Germany
* Paddock, Troy R. E. ''A call to arms: propaganda, public opinion, and newspapers in the Great War'' (2004) * Paddock, Troy R. E. ''A call to arms: propaganda, public opinion, and newspapers in the Great War'' (2004)
* Silbey, David. ''The British Working Class and Enthusiasm for War, 1914–1916'' (2005) * Silbey, David. ''The British Working Class and Enthusiasm for War, 1914–1916'' (2005){{ISBN?}}
* Simmonds, Alan G. V. ''Britain and World War One'' (2011) * Simmonds, Alan G. V. ''Britain and World War One'' (2011)
* Storey, Neil R. ''Women in the First World War'' (2010) * Storey, Neil R. ''Women in the First World War'' (2010)
* Swift, David. "The War Emergency: Workers' National Committee." ''History Workshop Journal'' 81 (2016): 84-105.
* Swift, David. ''For Class and Country: the Patriotic Left and the First World War'' (2017)
* Taylor, A.J.P. ''English History: 1914–1945'' (1965) pp 1–119 * Taylor, A.J.P. ''English History: 1914–1945'' (1965) pp 1–119
* Turner, John, ed. ''Britain and the First World War'' (1988) * Turner, John, ed. ''Britain and the First World War'' (1988).
* Williams, John. ''The Home Fronts: Britain, France and Germany 1914-1918'' (1972) Britain: pp 49–71, 111-33, 178-98 and 246-60.
* Wilson, Trevor. '' The Myriad Faces of War: Britain and the Great War 1914–1918'' (1989) 864pp; covers both the homefront and the battlefields
* Wilson, Trevor. ''The Myriad Faces of War: Britain and the Great War 1914–1918'' (1989) 864pp; covers both the homefront and the battlefields
*Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. ''Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919'' (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars ;
* Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. ''Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919'' (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars ;
* Whetham, Edith H. ''The Agrarian History of England and Wales: Volume VIII: 1914-39'' (Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp 70–123


====British Empire==== ====Year books====
*
* Beaumont, Joan. ''Australia's War, 1914–1918'' (1995)
*
* Brown R. C., and Ramsay Cook. ''Canada, 1896–1921 A Nation Transformed''. (1974). the standard survey
*
* MacKenzie, David, ed. ''Canada and the First World War'' (2005) 16 essays by leading scholars
*
* Morton, Desmond, and Jack Granatstein. ''Marching to Armageddon: Canadians and the Great War 1914–1919'' (1989)
*
* Nasson, Bill. ''Springboks on the Somme: South Africa in the Great War, 1914–1918'' (Johannesburg and New York, Penguin, 2007)

====Historiography====
* Holbrook, Carolyn, and Nathan Wise. "In the Shadow of Anzac: Labour Historiography of the First World War in Australia." ''History Compass'' 14.7 (2016): 314-325.
* Offer, Avner. ''The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation'' (1991), on food supply of Britain and the Empire, and Germany * Offer, Avner. ''The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation'' (1991), on food supply of Britain and the Empire, and Germany
* War Office. ''Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914–1920'' (London, 1922), 880pp
* Samson, Anne. ''Britain, South Africa and the East Africa Campaign, 1914–1918: The Union Comes of Age'' (2006) 262pp

* Wade, Mason. ''The French Canadians, 1760–1945'' (1955), ch 12
====British Empire, Dominions, India====
*War Office. ''Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914–1920'' (London, 1922), 880pp
{{Further|Bibliography of Canadian history#First World War homefront}}
* Winegard, Timothy C. ''Indigenous Peoples of the British Dominions and the First World War'' (2012) , covers Canada, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa
* ]. ''Australia's War, 1914–1918'' (1995).
* Condliffe, J. B. " New Zealand during the War," ''Economic Journal'' (1919) 29#114 pp.&nbsp;167–185 in JSTOR, free, economic mobilisation
* Crawford, John, and Ian McGibbon, eds. ''New Zealand's Great War: New Zealand, the Allies and the First World War'' (2008)
* {{cite book|author=Keith, Arthur Berriedale|title=War government of the British dominions|publisher=Clarendon Press|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.37399|quote=Australia.|year=1921}}
* Brown R. C., and Ramsay Cook. ''Canada, 1896–1921 A Nation Transformed''. (1974), a standard survey
* Grundlingh, Albert M. ''Fighting their own war: South African blacks and the First World War'' (Ravan Press of South Africa, 1987).

* Loveridge, Steven, ''Calls to Arms: New Zealand Society and Commitment to the Great War'' (2014)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901–42, the Succeeding Age'' (1993)
* MacKenzie, David, ed. ''Canada and the First World War'' (2005) 16 essays by leading scholars
* Marti, Steve. ''For Home and Empire: Voluntary Mobilization in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand during the First World War'' (2020)

* Morton, Desmond, and Jack Granatstein. ''Marching to Armageddon: Canadians and the Great War 1914–1919'' (1989)
* Nasson, Bill. ''Springboks on the Somme: South Africa in the Great War, 1914–1918'' (Johannesburg and New York, Penguin, 2007)
* Parsons, Gwen. "The New Zealand Home Front during World War One and World War Two." ''History Compass'' 11.6 (2013): 419-428.
* Samson, Anne. ''Britain, South Africa and the East Africa Campaign, 1914–1918: The Union Comes of Age'' (2006) 262pp
* Shaw, Amy. "Expanding the Narrative: A First World War with Women, Children, and Grief," ''Canadian Historical Review'' (2014) 95#3 pp 398–406.
* Tinker, Hugh. "India in the First World War and after." ''Journal of contemporary history'' 3.4 (1968): 89-107.
* Winegard, Timothy C. ''Indigenous Peoples of the British Dominions and the First World War'' (2012) , covers Canada, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa


===France=== ===France===
* Audoin-Rouzeau, Stéphane, and Annette Becker. ''14-18: Understanding the Great War'' (2003) * Audoin-Rouzeau, Stéphane, and Annette Becker. ''14-18: Understanding the Great War'' (2003)
* Becker, Jean Jacques. ''The Great War and the French People'' (1986) * Becker, Jean Jacques. ''The Great War and the French People'' (1986)
* Cabanes Bruno. ''August 1914: France, the Great War, and a Month That Changed the World Forever'' (2016) argues that the extremely high casualty rate in very first month of fighting permanently transformed France.
* Darrow, Margaret H. ''French Women and the First World War: War Stories of the Home Front'' (Berg, 2000)
* Darrow, Margaret H. ''French Women and the First World War: War Stories of the Home Front'' (Berg, 2000){{ISBN?}}
* Fridenson, Patrick. ''The French home front, 1914–1918'' (1992) * Fridenson, Patrick. ''The French home front, 1914–1918'' (1992)
* Grayzel, Susan R. ''Women's identities at war: gender, motherhood, and politics in Britain and France during the First World War'' (1999). * Grayzel, Susan R. ''Women's identities at war: gender, motherhood, and politics in Britain and France during the First World War'' (1999).
* Greenhalgh, Elizabeth. "Writing about France's Great War." (2005): 601-612.
* Smith, Leonard V. et al. ''France and the Great War'' (2003) 222pp;
* McPhail, Helen. ''The Long Silence: The Tragedy of Occupied France in World War I'' (2014)
*Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. ''Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919'' (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars ;
* Smith, Leonard V. et al. ''France and the Great War'' (2003) 222pp;
* Williams, John. ''The Other Battleground The Home Fronts: Britain, France and Germany 1914-1918'' (1972) pp 72–89, 134-47, 199-223, 261-72.
* Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. ''Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919'' (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars ;


===Russia=== ===Russia===
* Badcock, Sarah. "The Russian Revolution: Broadening Understandings of 1917." ''History Compass'' 6.1 (2008): 243-262. Historiography {{dead link|date=July 2022|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}
* Gatrell, Peter. ''Russia's First World War: A Social and Economic History.'' 2005. 318 pp.
* Lincoln, W. Bruce. ''Passage Through Armageddon: The Russians in War and Revolution, 1914–1918'' (1986) * Gatrell, Peter. ''Russia's First World War: A Social and Economic History'' (2005).
* Gatrell, Peter. "Tsarist Russia at War: The View from Above, 1914–February 1917" ''Journal of Modern History'' 87#4 (2015) 668-700
* Gaudin, Corinne. "Rural Echoes of World War I: War Talk in the Russian Village." ''Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas'' (2008): 391-414. in English.
* Jahn, Hubertus F. ''Patriotic Culture in Russia During World War I'' (1998)
* Lincoln, W. Bruce. ''Passage through Armageddon: the Russians in war and revolution, 1914-1918'' (1986)
* Sanborn, Joshua A. ''Imperial Apocalypse: The Great War and the Destruction of the Russian Empire'' (2014).
* Sanborn, Joshua A. ''Drafting the Russian Nation: Military Conscription, Total War, and Mass Politics, 1905-1925'' (2003)
* Sanborn, Joshua A. "The Mobilization of 1914 and the Question of the Russian Nation: A Reexamination," ''Slavic Review'' 59#2 (2000), pp.&nbsp;267–289
* Wade, Rex A. ''The Russian Revolution, 1917'' (Cambridge UP, 2000). {{Dead link|date=October 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
* Wood, Alan. ''The Origins of the Russian Revolution, 1861–1917'' (Routledge, 2004)


===U.S.=== ===U.S.===
* Bassett, John Spencer. ''Our War with Germany: A History'' (1919) * Bassett, John Spencer. ''Our War with Germany: A History'' (1919)
* Chambers, John W., II. ''To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America'' (1987) * Chambers, John W., II. ''To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America'' (1987)
* Keene, Jennifer D. "Remembering the 'Forgotten War': American Historiography on World War I." ''Historian'' 78#3 (2016): 439-468.
* Kennedy, David M. ''Over Here: The First World War and American Society'' (1982), covers politics & economics & society
* Kennedy, David M. ''Over Here: The First World War and American Society'' (1982), covers politics & economics & society{{ISBN?}}
* Koistinen, Paul. ''Mobilizing for Modern War: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1865–1919'' (1997) * Koistinen, Paul. ''Mobilizing for Modern War: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1865–1919'' (1997)
* May, Ernest R. ''The World War and American isolation, 1914–1917'' (1959 * May, Ernest R. ''The World War and American isolation, 1914–1917'' (1959)
* Scott, Emmett Jay. ''Scott's Official History of the American Negro in the World War'' (1919) 511 pages * Scott, Emmett Jay. ''Scott's Official History of the American Negro in the World War'' (1919) 511 pages
* Slosson, Preston William. ''The Great Crusade and after, 1914–1928'' (1930). social history * Slosson, Preston William. ''The Great Crusade and after, 1914–1928'' (1930). social history{{ISBN?}}
* Titus, James, ed. ''The Home Front and War in the Twentieth Century: The American Experience in Comparative Perspective'' (1984) essays by scholars.
* Venzon, Anne ed. ''The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia'' (1995) * Venzon, Anne ed. ''The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia'' (1995)
* Young, Ernest William. ''The Wilson Administration and the Great War'' (1922) * Young, Ernest William. ''The Wilson Administration and the Great War'' (1922)
* Zieger, Robert H. ''America's Great War: World War I and the American Experience.'' 2000. 272 pp. * Zieger, Robert H. ''America's Great War: World War I and the American Experience'' (2000). 272 pp.


===Other Allies=== ===Other Allies===
*De Grand, Alexander. ''Giovanni Giolitti and Liberal Italy from the Challenge of Mass Politics to the Rise of Fascism, 1882–1922'' (2001) * De Grand, Alexander. ''Giovanni Giolitti and Liberal Italy from the Challenge of Mass Politics to the Rise of Fascism, 1882–1922'' (2001)
* Dickinson, Frederick R. ''War and National Reinvention: Japan in the Great War, 1914–1919'' (2001) * Dickinson, Frederick R. ''War and National Reinvention: Japan in the Great War, 1914–1919'' (2001)
* Krippner, Monica. ''The Quality of Mercy: Women at War Serbia 1915–18'' (1980) * Krippner, Monica. ''The Quality of Mercy: Women at War Serbia 1915–18'' (1980)
* Mitrovic, Andrej. ''Serbia's Great War 1914–1918'' (2007) * Mitrovic, Andrej. ''Serbia's Great War 1914–1918'' (2007)
* Page, Thomas Nelson. ''Italy and the world war'' (1992) * Page, Thomas Nelson. ''Italy and the world war'' (1992)
* Xu, Guoqi. ''China and the Great War: China's Pursuit of a New National Identity and Internationalization'' (2011)
* Xu, Guoqi. ''Asia and the Great War – A Shared History'' (Oxford UP, 2016) {{Dead link|date=October 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}


===Central Powers=== ===Central Powers===
* Akın, Yiğit. ''When the War Came Home: The Ottomans' Great War and the Devastation of an Empire'' (Stanford University Press, 2018)
* Bloxham, Donald. ''The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians'' (Oxford University Press, 2005) * Bloxham, Donald. ''The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians'' (Oxford University Press, 2005)
* Chickering, R. ''Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918'' (1998) * Chickering, R. ''Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918'' (1998)
* Daniel, Ute. ''The war from within: German working-class women in the First World War'' (1997) * Daniel, Ute. ''The war from within: German working-class women in the First World War'' (1997).
* ]. ''Home Fires Burning: Food, Politics, and Everyday Life in World War I Berlin'' (2000)
* Feldman, Gerald D. ''Army, industry, and labor in Germany, 1914–1918'' (1966) * Feldman, Gerald D. ''Army, industry, and labor in Germany, 1914–1918'' (1966)
* Healy, Maureen. ''Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire: Total War and Everyday Life in World War I'' (2007)
* Herwig, Holger H. ''The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914–1918'' (2009) * Herwig, Holger H. ''The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914–1918'' (2009)
* Howard, N.P. "The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade of Germany, 1918–19," ''German History'' (1993) 11#2 pp 161–88 * Howard, N.P. "The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade of Germany, 1918–19," ''German History'' (1993) 11#2 pp 161–88
* Kann, Robert A. et al., eds. ''The Habsburg Empire in World War I: Essays on the Intellectual, Military, Political and Economic Aspects of the Habsburg War Effort'' (1977) * Kann, Robert A. et al., eds. ''The Habsburg Empire in World War I: Essays on the Intellectual, Military, Political and Economic Aspects of the Habsburg War Effort'' (1977)
* Kocka, Jürgen. ''Facing total war: German society, 1914–1918'' (1984). * Kocka, Jürgen. ''Facing total war: German society, 1914–1918'' (1984).
* Lutz, Ralph Haswell, ed. ''Fall of the German Empire, 1914–1918'' (2 vol 1932). 868pp , primary sources
* McCarthy, Justin. ''The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire'' (2001). * McCarthy, Justin. ''The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire'' (2001).
* Offer, Avner. ''The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation'' (1991), on food supply of Britain and Germany * Offer, Avner. ''The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation'' (1991), on food supply of Britain and Germany
* Osborne, Eric. ''Britain's Economic Blockade of Germany, 1914–1919'' (2004) * Osborne, Eric. ''Britain's Economic Blockade of Germany, 1914–1919'' (2004)
* Verhey, Jeffrey. ''The Spirit of 1914. Militarism, Myth and Mobilization in Germany'' (Cambridge University Press 2000) * Verhey, Jeffrey. ''The Spirit of 1914. Militarism, Myth and Mobilization in Germany'' (Cambridge University Press 2000)
* Watson, Alexander. ''Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I'' (2014)
* Welch, David. ''Germany, Propaganda and Total War, 1914–1918'' (2003) * Welch, David. ''Germany, Propaganda and Total War, 1914–1918'' (2003)
* Williams, John. ''The Other Battleground The Home Fronts: Britain, France and Germany 1914-1918'' (1972) Germany on pp 89–108, 148-74, 223-42, 273-87.
*Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. ''Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919'' (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars ;
* Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. ''Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919'' (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars ;
* Ziemann, Benjamin. ''War Experiences in Rural Germany, 1914–1923'' (Berg, 2007)
* Ziemann, Benjamin. ''War Experiences in Rural Germany, 1914–1923'' (Berg, 2007){{ISBN?}}


===Historiography=== ===Historiography===
* Rietzler, Katharina. "The war as history: Writing the economic and social history of the First World War." ''Diplomatic History'' 38.4 (2014): 826-839.
* Winter, Jay and Antoine Prost. ''The Great War in History: Debates and Controversies, 1914 to the Present'' (2005)
* Winter, Jay M. "Catastrophe and Culture: Recent Trends in the Historiography of the First World War," ''Journal of Modern History'' (1992) 64#3 525-532 * Winter, Jay and Antoine Prost. ''The Great War in History: Debates and Controversies, 1914 to the Present'' (2005)
* Winter, Jay M. "Catastrophe and Culture: Recent Trends in the Historiography of the First World War," ''Journal of Modern History'' (1992) 64#3 525-532


===Primary sources=== ==Primary sources and year books==
* Gooch, G. P. ''Recent Revelations Of European Diplomancy'' (1940), 475pp summarizes published memoirs by main participants
* Marwick, Arthur, and W. Simpson, eds. ''War, Peace and Social Change - Europe 1900-1955 - Documents I: 1900–1929'' (1990)
* Marwick, Arthur, and W. Simpson, eds. ''War, Peace and Social Change - Europe 1900-1955 - Documents I: 1900–1929'' (1990)
* Pollard, Sidney and Colin Holmes, eds. ''Documents of European Economic History Volume 3 The End of the Old Europe 1914–1939'' (1973) pp 1–89; 33 short excerpts * Pollard, Sidney and Colin Holmes, eds. ''Documents of European Economic History Volume 3 The End of the Old Europe 1914–1939'' (1973) pp 1–89; 33 short excerpts
* Shevin-Coetzee, Marilyn, and Frans Coetzee, eds. ''World War One and European Society'' (1995). * Shevin-Coetzee, Marilyn, and Frans Coetzee, eds. ''World War One and European Society'' (1995).
* * Shevin-Coetzee, Marilyn, and Frans Coetzee, eds. ''World War I: A History in Documents'' (2002) * Shevin-Coetzee, Marilyn, and Frans Coetzee, eds. ''World War I: A History in Documents'' (2002){{ISBN?}}
* Comprehensive coverage of world affairs; strong on economics; 867pp
* , 913pp
* , 791pp
* , 938pp
* , 904 pp
* , 904 pp
* , 744pp
* , 844 pp
* , 848 pp


==See also== ==External links==
* , in:
* ]
*
* ]
* , Comprehensive coverage of the British Empire during First and Second World Wars.
* Matteo Ermacora: , in: .
* Lawrence Sondhaus: , in: .
* Nancy Gentile Ford: , in: .
* John Paul Newman: , in: .
* Nazan Maksudyan: , in: .
* Melvin Baker: , in: .
* Frederick R. Dickinson: , in: .
* Marco Mondini: , in: .
* Matthew Johnson: , in: .
* Michaël Bourlet: , in: .
* Lin-Chun Wu: , in: .
* John Connor: , in: .


{{WWI history by nation}}
{{World War I}} {{World War I}}


] ]
]
]

Latest revision as of 23:13, 14 January 2025

"Help the Red Cross". American poster by the U.S. Food Administration, circa 1917-1919.

The home front during World War I covers the domestic, economic, social and political histories of countries involved in that conflict. It covers the mobilization of armed forces and war supplies, lives of others, but does not include the military history. For nonmilitary interactions among the major players see diplomatic history of World War I.

About 10.9 million combatants and seven million civilians died during the entire war, including many weakened by years of malnutrition; they fell in the worldwide Spanish flu pandemic, which struck late in 1918, just as the war was ending.

The Allies had much more potential wealth that they could spend on the war. One estimate (using 1913 US dollars), is that the Allies spent $147 billion ($4.5tr in 2023 USD) on the war and the Central Powers only $61 billion ($1.88tr in 2023 USD). Among the Allies, Britain and its Empire spent $47 billion and the United States $27 billion; among the Central Powers, Germany spent $45 billion.

Total war demanded the total mobilization of all the nation's resources for a common goal. Manpower had to be channeled into the front lines (all the powers except the United States and Britain had large trained reserves designed for just that). Behind the lines labor power had to be redirected away from less necessary activities that were luxuries during a total war. In particular, vast munitions industries had to be built up to provide shells, guns, warships, uniforms, airplanes, and a hundred other weapons, both old and new. Agriculture had to be mobilized as well, to provide food for both civilians and for soldiers (many of whom had been farmers and needed to be replaced by old men, boys and women) and for horses to move supplies. Transportation in general was a challenge, especially when Britain and Germany each tried to intercept merchant ships headed for the enemy. Finance was a special challenge. Germany financed the Central Powers. Britain financed the Allies until 1916, when it ran out of money and had to borrow from the United States. The US took over the financing of the Allies in 1917 with loans that it insisted be repaid after the war. The victorious Allies looked to defeated Germany in 1919 to pay "reparations" that would cover some of their costs. Above all, it was essential to conduct the mobilization in such a way that the short term confidence of the people was maintained, the long-term power of the political establishment was upheld, and the long-term economic health of the nation was preserved. For more details on economics see Economic history of World War I.

World War I had a profound impact on woman suffrage across the belligerents. Women played a major role on the homefronts and many countries recognized their sacrifices with the vote during or shortly after the war, including the United States, Britain, Canada (except Quebec), Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, Sweden and Ireland. France almost did so but stopped short.

Financial costs

Further information: Economic history of World War I

The total direct cost of war, for all participants including those not listed here, was about $80 billion in 1913 US dollars. Since $1 billion in 1913 is approximately $46.32 billion in 2023 US dollars, the total cost comes to around $2.47 trillion in 2023 dollars. Direct cost is figured as actual expenditures during war minus normal prewar spending. It excludes postwar costs such as pensions, interest, and veteran hospitals. Loans to/from allies are not included in "direct cost". Repayment of loans after 1918 is not included. The total direct cost of the war as a percent of wartime national income:

  • Allies: Britain, 37%; France, 26%; Italy, 19%; Russia, 24%; United States, 16%.
  • Central Powers: Austria-Hungary, 24%; Germany, 32%; Turkey unknown.

The amounts listed below are presented in terms of 1913 US dollars, where $1 billion then equals about $25 billion in 2017.

  • Britain had a direct war cost about $21.2 billion; it made loans to Allies and Dominions of $4.886 billion, and received loans from the United States of $2.909 billion.
  • France had a direct war cost about $10.1 billion; it made loans to Allies of $1.104 billion, and received loans from Allies (United States and Britain) of $2.909 billion.
  • Italy had a direct war cost about $4.5 billion; it received loans from Allies (United States and Britain) of $1.278 billion.
  • The United States had a direct war cost about $12.3 billion; it made loans to Allies of $5.041 billion.
  • Russia had a direct war cost about $7.7 billion; it received loans from Allies (United States and Britain) of $2.289 billion.

The two governments agreed that financially Britain would support the weaker Allies and that France would take care of itself. In August 1914, Henry Pomeroy Davison, a Morgan partner, traveled to London and made a deal with the Bank of England to make J.P. Morgan & Co. the sole underwriter of war bonds for Great Britain and France. The Bank of England became a fiscal agent of J.P. Morgan & Co., and vice versa. Over the course of the war, J.P. Morgan loaned about $1.5 billion (approximately $27 billion in today's dollars) to the Allies to fight against the Germans. Morgan also invested in the suppliers of war equipment to Britain and France, thus profiting from the financing and purchasing activities of the two European governments.

Britain made heavy loans to Tsarist Russia; the Lenin government after 1920 refused to honor them, causing long-term issues.

Britain

Main articles: History of the United Kingdom during World War I and British entry into World War I See also: Timeline of the United Kingdom home front during World War I

At the outbreak of war, patriotic feelings spread throughout the country, and many of the class barriers of Edwardian era faded during the years of combat. However, the Catholics in southern Ireland moved overnight to demands for complete immediate independence after the failed Easter Rebellion of 1916. Northern Ireland remained loyal to the crown.

In 1914 Britain had by far the largest and most efficient financial system in the world. Roger Lloyd-Jones and M. J. Lewis argue:

To prosecute industrial war required the mobilization of economic resources for the mass production of weapons and munitions, which necessarily entitled fundamental changes in the relationship between the state (the procurer), business (the provider), labor (the key productive input), and the military (the consumer). In this context, the industrial battlefields of France and Flanders intertwined with the home front that produced the materials to sustain a war over four long and bloody years.

Economic sacrifices were made, however, in the name of defeating the enemy. In 1915 Liberal politician David Lloyd George took charge of the newly created Ministry of Munitions. He dramatically increased the output of artillery shells—the main weapon actually used in battle. In 1916 he became secretary for war. Prime Minister H. H. Asquith was a disappointment; he formed a coalition government in 1915 but it was also ineffective. Asquith was replaced by Lloyd George in late 1916. He had a strong hand in the managing of every affair, making many decisions himself. Historians credit Lloyd George with providing the driving energy and organisation that won the War.

Although Germans were using Zeppelins to bomb the cities, morale remained relatively high due in part to the propaganda churned out by the national newspapers. With a severe shortage of skilled workers, industry redesigned work so that it could be done by unskilled men and women (termed the "dilution of labour") so that war-related industries grew rapidly. Lloyd George cut a deal with the trades unions—they approved the dilution (since it would be temporary) and threw their organizations into the war effort.

Historian Arthur Marwick saw a radical transformation of British society, a deluge that swept away many old attitudes and brought in a more equalitarian society. He also saw the famous literary pessimism of the 1920s as misplaced, for there were major positive long-term consequences of the war. He pointed to new job opportunities and self-consciousness among workers that quickly built up the Labour Party, to the coming of partial woman suffrage, and an acceleration of social reform and state control of the British economy. He found a decline of deference toward the aristocracy and established authority in general, and a weakening among youth of traditional restraints on individual moral behavior. Marwick concluded that class differentials softened, national cohesion increased, and British society became more equal. During the conflict, the various elements of the British Left created the War Emergency Workers' National Committee, which played a crucial role in supporting the most vulnerable people on the Home Front during the war, and in ensuring the British Labour remained united in the years after the Armistice.

Scotland

Scotland played a major role in the British effort in the First World War. It especially provided manpower, ships, machinery, food (particularly fish) and money, engaging with the conflict with some enthusiasm. With a population of 4.8 million in 1911, Scotland sent 690,000 men to the war, of whom 74,000 died in combat or from disease, and 150,000 were seriously wounded. Scottish urban centres, with their poverty and unemployment were favourite recruiting grounds of the regular British army, and Dundee, where the female dominated jute industry limited male employment had one of the highest proportion of reservists and serving soldiers than almost any other British city. Concern for their families' standard of living made men hesitate to enlist; voluntary enlistment rates went up after the government guaranteed a weekly stipend for life to the survivors of men who were killed or disabled. After the introduction of conscription from January 1916 every part of the country was affected. Occasionally Scottish troops made up large proportions of the active combatants, and suffered corresponding loses, as at the Battle of Loos, where there were three full Scots divisions and other Scottish units. Thus, although Scots were only 10 per cent of the British population, they made up 15 per cent of the national armed forces and eventually accounted for 20 per cent of the dead. Some areas, like the thinly populated Island of Lewis and Harris suffered some of the highest proportional losses of any part of Britain. Clydeside shipyards and the nearby engineering shops were the major centers of war industry in Scotland. In Glasgow, radical agitation led to industrial and political unrest that continued after the war ended.

In Glasgow, the heavy demand for munitions and warships strengthened union power. There emerged a radical movement called "Red Clydeside" led by militant trades unionists. Formerly a Liberal Party stronghold, the industrial districts switched to Labour by 1922, with a base among the Irish Catholic working class districts. Women were especially active in solidarity on housing issues. However, the "Reds" operated within the Labour Party and had little influence in Parliament; the mood changed to passive despair by the late 1920s.

Politics

See also: David Lloyd George

David Lloyd George became prime minister in December 1916 and immediately transformed the British war effort, taking firm control of both military and domestic policy.

In rapid succession in spring 1918 came a series of military and political crises. The Germans, having moved troops from the Eastern front and retrained them in new tactics, now had more soldiers on the Western Front than the Allies. Germany launched a full scale Spring Offensive (Operation Michael), starting March 21 against the British and French lines, with the hope of victory on the battlefield before the American troops arrived in numbers. The Allied armies fell back 40 miles in confusion, and facing defeat, London realized it needed more troops to fight a mobile war. Lloyd George found a half million soldiers and rushed them to France, asked American President Woodrow Wilson for immediate help, and agreed to the appointment of French General Foch as commander-in-chief on the Western Front so that Allied forces could be coordinated to handle the German offensive.

Despite strong warnings it was a bad idea, the War Cabinet decided to impose conscription on Ireland. The main reason was that labour in Britain demanded it as the price for cutting back on exemptions for certain workers. Labour wanted the principle established that no one was exempt, but it did not demand that the draft actually take place in Ireland. The proposal was enacted but never enforced. The Catholic bishops for the first time entered the fray and called for open resistance to a draft. Many Irish Catholics and nationalists moved into the intransigent Sinn Féin movement. This proved a decisive moment, marking the end of Irish willingness to stay inside the UK.

When on May 7, 1918, a senior army general on active duty, Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice went public with allegations that Lloyd George had lied to Parliament on military matters, a crisis was at hand. The German spring offensive had made unexpected major gains, and a scapegoat was needed. Asquith, the Liberal leader in the House, took up the allegations and attacked Lloyd George (also a Liberal), which further split the Liberal Party. While Asquith's presentation was poorly done, Lloyd George vigorously defended his position, treating the debate as a vote of confidence. He won over the House with a powerful refutation of Maurice's allegations. The main results were to strengthen Lloyd George, weaken Asquith, end public criticism of overall strategy, and strengthen civilian control of the military.

Meanwhile, the German offensive stalled. By summer the Americans were sending 10,000 fresh men a day to the Western Front, a more rapid response made possible by leaving their equipment behind and using British and French munitions. The German army had used up its last reserves and was steadily shrinking in number and weakening in resolve. Victory came with the Armistice on November 11, 1918.

Women

Prime Minister David Lloyd George was clear about how important the women were:

It would have been utterly impossible for us to have waged a successful war had it not been for the skill and ardour, enthusiasm and industry which the women of this country have thrown into the war.

The militant suffragette movement was suspended during the war, and at the time people credited the new patriotic roles women played as earning them the vote in 1918. However, British historians no longer emphasize the granting of woman suffrage as a reward for women's participation in war work. Pugh (1974) argues that enfranchising soldiers primarily and women secondarily was decided by senior politicians in 1916. In the absence of major women's groups demanding for equal suffrage, the government's conference recommended limited, age-restricted women's suffrage. The suffragettes had been weakened, Pugh argues, by repeated failures before 1914 and by the disorganizing effects of war mobilization; therefore they quietly accepted these restrictions, which were approved in 1918 by a majority of the War Ministry and each political party in Parliament. More generally, Searle (2004) argues that the British debate was essentially over by the 1890s, and that granting the suffrage in 1918 was mostly a byproduct of giving the vote to male soldiers. Women in Britain finally achieved suffrage on the same terms as men in 1928.

British Empire

The British Empire provided imports of food and raw material, worldwide network of naval bases, and a steady flow of soldiers and workers into Britain.

Canada

Yiddish World War I recruitment posterEnglish World War I recruitment posterYiddish (top) and English versions of World War I recruitment posters directed at Canadian Jews.
A Canadian recruiting poster featuring names of French battlefields (but an English text)
Main article: Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years § World War I

The 620,000 men in service were most notable for combat in the trenches of the Western Front; there were 67,000 war dead and 173,000 wounded. This total does not include the 2,000 deaths and 9,000 injuries in December 1917 when a munitions ship exploded in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Volunteering provided enough soldiers at first, but high casualties soon required conscription, which was strongly opposed by Francophones (French speakers, based mostly in Quebec). The Conscription Crisis of 1917 saw the Liberal Party ripped apart, to the advantage of the Conservative's Prime Minister Robert Borden, who led a new Unionist coalition to a landslide victory in 1917.

Distrusting the loyalties of Canadians of German ethnicity and, especially, recent Ukrainian Canadian immigrants from Austria-Hungary, the government interned thousands of aliens.

The war validated Canada's new world role, in an almost-equal partnership with Britain in the Commonwealth of Nations. Arguing that Canada had become a true nation on the battlefields of Europe, Borden demanded and received a separate seat for Canada at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Canada's military and civilian participation in the First World War strengthened a sense of British-Canadian nationhood among the Anglophones (English speakers). The Francophones (French speakers) supported the war at first, but pulled back and stood aloof after 1915 because of language disputes at home. Heroic memories centered around the Battle of Vimy Ridge where the unified Canadian corps captured Vimy ridge, a position that the French and British armies had failed to capture and "Canada's Hundred Days" battles of 1918 which saw the Canadian Corps of 100,000 defeat one fourth of the German Army on the Western Front.

Australia

An Australian Kookaburra active service postcard

Billy Hughes, prime minister from October 1915, expanded the government's role in the economy, while dealing with intense debates over the issue of conscription.

From a population of five million, 417,000 men enlisted; 330,000 went overseas to fight during the First World War. They were all volunteers, since the political battle for compulsory conscription failed. Some 58,000 died and 156,000 were wounded. Gerhard Fischer argues that the government aggressively promoted economic, industrial, and social modernization in the war years. However, he says it came through exclusion and repression. He says the war turned a peaceful nation into "one that was violent, aggressive, angst- and conflict-ridden, torn apart by invisible front lines of sectarian division, ethnic conflict and socio-economic and political upheaval." The nation was fearful of enemy aliens—especially Germans, regardless of how closely they identified with Australia. The government interned 2,900 German-born men (40% of the total) and deported 700 of them after the war. Irish nationalists and labor radicals were under suspicion as well. Racist hostility was high toward nonwhites, including Pacific Islanders, Chinese and Aborigines. The result, Fischer says, was a strengthening of conformity to imperial/British loyalties and an explicit preference for immigrants from the British Isles.

The major military event involved sending 40,000 ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand) soldiers in 1915 to seize the Gallipoli peninsula near Constantinople to open an Allied route to Russia and weaken the Ottoman Empire. The campaign was a total failure militarily and 8,100 Australians died. However the memory was all-important, for it transformed the Australian mind and became an iconic element of the Australian identity and the founding moment of nationhood.

Internment of German aliens

The War Precautions Act 1914 provided the Commonwealth government with wide-ranging powers for a period of up to six months after the duration of the war. It covered: the prevention of trade with hostile nations, issuing loans to pay for the war effort, the introduction of a national taxation scheme, the fixing of the prices of certain goods, the internment of people considered a danger to Australia, the compulsory purchase of strategic goods, and the censorship of the media.

At the outbreak of the war there were about 35,000 people who had been born in either Germany or Austria-Hungary living in Australia. They had weak ties with Germany (and almost none to Austria) and many had enlisted in the Australian war effort. Nevertheless, fears ran high and internment camps were set up where those suspected of unpatriotic acts were sent. In total 4,500 people were interned under the provisions of the War Precautions Act, of which 700 were naturalised Australians and 70 Australian born. Following the end of the war, 6,150 were deported.

Economy

The Australian Honour Flag, awarded to subscribers of the Australian Government's 7th War Loan in 1918

In 1914 the Australian economy was small but very nearly the most prosperous in the world per capita; it depended on the export of wool and mutton. London provided assurances that it would underwrite a large amount of the war risk insurance for shipping to allow trade amongst the Commonwealth nations to continue. London imposed controls so that no exports would wind up in German hands. The British government protected prices by buying Australian products, even though the shortage of shipping meant that there was no chance that they would ever receive them.

On the whole, Australian commerce was expanded due to the war, although the cost of the war was quite considerable and the Australian government had to borrow considerably from overseas to fund the war effort. In terms of value, Australian exports rose almost 45 per cent, while the number of Australians employed in manufacturing industries increased over 11 per cent. Iron mining and steel manufacture grew enormously. Inflation became a factor as the prices of consumer goods went up, while the cost of exports was deliberately kept lower than market value to prevent further inflationary pressures worldwide. As a result, the cost of living for many average Australians was increased.

The trade union movement, already powerful, grew rapidly, although the movement was split on the political question of conscription. It expelled the politicians, such as Hughes, who favoured conscription (which was never passed into law). The government sought to stabilize wages, much to the anger of unionists. The average weekly wage during the war was increased by between 8 and 12 per cent, it was not enough to keep up with inflation. Angry workers launched a wave of strikes against both the wage freeze and the conscription proposal. Nevertheless, the result was very disruptive and it has been estimated that between 1914 and 1918 there were 1,945 industrial disputes, resulting in 8,533,061 working days being lost and a £4,785,607 deficit in wages.

Overall, the war had a significantly negative impact on the Australian economy. Real aggregate Gross Domestic Product (GDP) declined by 9.5 percent over the period 1914 to 1920, while the mobilization of personnel resulted in a six percent decline in civilian employment. Meanwhile, although population growth continued during the war years, it was only half that of the prewar rate. Per capita incomes also declined sharply, failing by 16 percent.

New Zealand

The country remained an enthusiastic supporter of the Empire, enlisting 124,211 men and sending 100,444 to fight in World War I (see New Zealand Expeditionary Force). Over 18,000 died in service. Conscription was introduced in mid 1916 and by the end of the war near 1 in four members of the NZEF was a conscript. As in Australia, involvement in the Gallipoli campaign became an iconic touchstone in New Zealand memory of the war and was commonly connected to imaginings of collective identity.

The war divided the labour movement with numerous elements taking up roles in the war effort while others alleged the war was an imperial venture against the interests of the working class. Labour MPs frequently acted as critics of government policy during the war and opposition to conscription saw the modern Labour Party formed in 1916. Maori tribes that had been close to the government sent their young men to volunteer. The mobilisation of women for war work/service was relatively slight compared to more industrialised countries though some 640 women served as nurses with 500 going overseas.

New Zealand forces captured Western Samoa from Germany in the early stages of the war, and New Zealand administered the country until Samoan Independence in 1962. However many Samoans greatly resented the administration, and blamed inflation and the catastrophic 1918 flu epidemic on New Zealand rule.

South Africa

South Africa had a military role in the war, fighting the Germans in East Africa and on the Western Front. Public opinion in South Africa split along racial and ethnic lines. The British elements strongly supported the war and comprised the great majority of the 146,000 white soldiers. Nasson says, "for many enthusiastic English-speaking Union recruits, going to war was anticipated as an exciting adventure, egged on by the itch of making a manly mark upon a heroic cause." Likewise the Indian element (led by Mahatma Gandhi), generally supported the war effort. Afrikaners were split, with some like Prime Minister Louis Botha and General Jan Smuts taking a prominent leadership role in the British war effort. Their pro-British position was rejected by many rural Afrikaners who favoured Germany and who launched the Maritz Rebellion, a small-scale open revolt against the government. The trade union movement was also divided. Many urban blacks supported the war, expecting it would raise their status in society, others said it was not relevant to the struggle for their rights. The Coloured element was generally supportive and many served in a Coloured Corps in East Africa and France, also hoping to better their lot after the war. Those blacks and Coloureds who supported the war were embittered when the postwar era saw no easing of white domination and restrictive conditions.

India

Main article: India in World War I
Ambulances from Calcutta, India donated to the war effort, 1916.

The British controlled India (including modern Pakistan and Bangladesh) either directly through the British Raj or indirectly through local princes. The colonial government of India supported the war enthusiastically, and enlarged the British Indian army by a factor of 500% to 1.4 million men. It sent 550,000 overseas, with 200,000 going as laborers to the Western Front and the rest to the Middle East theatre. Only a few hundred were allowed to become officers, but there were some 100,000 casualties. The main fighting of the latter group was in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), where large numbers were killed and captured in the initial stages of the Mesopotamian campaign, most infamously during the Siege of Kut. The Indian contingent was entirely funded by the Indian taxpayers (who had no vote and no voice in the matter).

Although Germany and the Ottoman Empire tried to incite anti-British subversion with the help of Indian freedom fighters, such as Rash Bihari Bose or Bagha Jatin, they had virtually no success, apart from a localized 1915 Singapore Mutiny, which was a part of the Gadar conspiracy. The small Indian industrial base expanded dramatically to provide most of the supplies and munitions for the Middle East theatre. Indian nationalists became well organized for the first time during the war, and were stunned when they received little in the way of self-government in the aftermath of victory.

In 1918, India experienced an influenza epidemic and severe food shortages.

Belgium

Main articles: Belgium in World War I and Rape of Belgium

Nearly all of Belgium was occupied by the Germans, but the government and army escaped and fought the war on a narrow slice of the Western Front. The German invaders treated any resistance—such as sabotaging rail lines—as illegal and immoral, and shot the offenders and burned buildings in retaliation. The German army executed over 6,500 French and Belgian civilians between August and November 1914, usually in near-random large-scale shootings of civilians ordered by junior German officers. The German Army destroyed 15,000-20,000 buildings—most famously the university library at Louvain (Leuven)—and generated a refugee wave of over a million people. Over half the German regiments in Belgium were involved in major incidents. Thousands of workers were shipped to Germany to work in factories. British propaganda dramatizing the Rape of Belgium attracted much attention in the US, while Berlin said it was legal and necessary because of the threat of "franc-tireurs" (guerrillas) like those in France in 1870. The British and French magnified the reports and disseminated them at home and in the US, where they played a major role in dissolving support for Germany.

The Germans left Belgium stripped and barren. They shipped machinery to Germany while destroying factories. After the atrocities of the first few weeks, German civil servants took control and were generally correct, albeit strict and severe. There was no violent resistance movement, but there was a large-scale spontaneous passive resistance of a refusal to work for the benefit of German victory. Belgium was heavily industrialized; while farms operated and small shops stayed open, most large establishments shut down or drastically reduced their output. The faculty closed the universities; publishers shut down most newspapers. Most Belgians "turned the four war years into a long and extremely dull vacation", says Kiossmann.

Neutrals led by the United States set up the Commission for Relief in Belgium, headed by American engineer Herbert Hoover. It shipped in large quantities of food and medical supplies, which it tried to reserve for civilians and keep out of the hands of the Germans. Many businesses collaborated with the Germans, and some women cohabitated with their men. They were treated roughly in a wave of popular violence in November and December 1918. The government set up judicial proceedings to punish the collaborators. In 1919 the king organized a new ministry and introduced universal male suffrage. The Socialists—mostly poor workers—benefited more than the more middle class Catholics and Liberals.

Belgian Congo

Rubber had long been the main export; production levels held up but its importance fell from 77% of exports (by value) to only 15%. New resources were opened, especially copper mining in Katanga province. The British-owned Union Miniere company dominated the copper industry; it used a direct rail line to the sea at Beira. The war caused a heavy demand for copper, production soared from 997 tons in 1911 to 27,000 tons in 1917, then fell off to 19,000 tons in 1920. Smelters operated at Lubumbashi; before the war copper was sold to Germany; the British purchased all the wartime output, with the revenues going to the Belgian government in exile. Diamond and gold mining expanded during the war. The British firm of Lever Brothers greatly expanded the palm oil business during the war, and there was an increased output of cocoa, rice and cotton. New rail and steamship lines opened to handle the expanded export traffic.

France

Main articles: French entry into World War I and French Third Republic § First World War

Many French intellectuals welcomed the war to avenge the humiliation of defeat and loss of territory to Germany following the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. Only one major figure, novelist Romain Rolland retained his pacifist internationalist values; he moved to Switzerland. After Socialist leader Jean Jaurès, a pacifist, was assassinated at the start of the war, the French socialist movement abandoned its antimilitarist positions and joined the national war effort. Prime Minister Rene Viviani called for unity—for a "Union sacrée" ("Sacred Union"); France had few dissenters.

However, war-weariness was a major factor by 1917, even reaching the army, as soldiers were reluctant to attack—many threatened to mutiny—saying it was best to wait for the arrival of millions of Americans. The soldiers were protesting not just the futility of frontal assaults in the face of German machine guns but also degraded conditions at the front lines and home, especially infrequent leaves, poor food, the use of African and Asian colonials on the home front, and concerns about the welfare of their wives and children.

The industrial economy was badly hurt by the German invasion of major industrial areas in the northeast. While the occupied area in 1913 contained only 14% of France's industrial workers, it produced 58% of the steel, and 40% of the coal. Considerable relief came with the influx of American food, money and raw materials in 1917. The arrival of over a million American soldiers in 1918 brought heavy spending on food and construction materials. Labor shortages were in part alleviated by the use of volunteer and slave labor from the colonies.

The war damages amounted to about 113% of the GDP of 1913, chiefly the destruction of productive capital and housing. The national debt rose from 66% of GDP in 1913 to 170% in 1919, reflecting the heavy use of bond issues to pay for the war. Inflation was severe, with the franc losing over half its value against the British pound.

The World War ended a golden era for the press. Their younger staff members were drafted and male replacements could not be found (women were not considered). Rail transportation was rationed and less paper and ink came in, and fewer copies could be shipped out. Inflation raised the price of newsprint, which was always in short supply. The cover price went up, circulation fell and many of the 242 dailies published outside Paris closed down. The government set up the Interministerial Press Commission to closely supervise newspapers. A separate agency imposed tight censorship that led to blank spaces where news reports or editorials were disallowed. The dailies sometimes were limited to only two pages instead of the usual four, leading one satirical paper to try to report the war news in the same spirit:

War News. A half-zeppelin threw half its bombs on half-time combatants, resulting in one-quarter damaged. The zeppelin, halfways-attacked by a portion of half-anti aircraft guns, was half destroyed."

Georges Clemenceau became prime minister in November 1917, a time of defeatism and acrimony. Italy was on the defensive, Russia had surrendered. Civilians were angry, as rations fell short and the threat of German air raids grew. Clemenceau realized his priority was to restore civilian morale. He arrested Joseph Caillaux, a former French prime minister, for openly advocating peace negotiations. He won all-party support to fight to victory calling for "la guerre jusqu'au bout" (war until the end).

Russia

Main articles: Russian entry into World War I, History of Russia (1892–1917), and Russian Revolution

Tsarist Russia was being torn apart in 1914 and was not prepared to fight a modern war. The industrial sector was small, finances were poor, the rural areas could barely feed themselves. Repeated military failures and bureaucratic ineptitude soon turned large segments of the population against the government. Control of the Baltic Sea by the German fleet, and of the Black Sea by combined German and Ottoman forces prevented Russia from importing supplies or exporting goods. By the middle of 1915 the impact of the war was demoralizing. Food and fuel supplies grew scarce, war casualties kept climbing and inflation was mounting. Strikes increased among low-paid factory workers, and the peasants, who wanted land reforms, were restless. Meanwhile, elite distrust of the incompetent decision making at the highest levels was deepened when a semiliterate mystic, Grigory Rasputin, gained enormous influence over the Tsar and his wife until he was assassinated in 1916. Major strikes broke out early in 1917 and the army sided with the strikers in the February Revolution. The tsar abdicated. The liberal reformer Alexander Kerensky came to power in July, but in the October Revolution Lenin and the Bolsheviks took control. In early 1918 they signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that made Germany dominant in Eastern Europe, while Russia plunged into years of civil war.

While the central bureaucracy was overwhelmed and under-led, Fallows shows that localities sprang into action motivated by patriotism, pragmatism, economic self-interest, and partisan politics. Food distribution was the main role of the largest network, called the "Union of Zemstvos." It also set up hospitals and refugee stations.

Italy

See also: History of Italy § First World War, and Italy in World War I

Italy decided not to honor its Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria, and initially remained neutral. Public opinion in Italy was sharply divided, with Catholics and socialists calling for peace. However nationalists saw their opportunity to gain their "irredenta" – that is, the border regions that were controlled by Austria. The nationalists won out, and in April 1915, the Italian government secretly agreed to the London Pact in which Britain and France promised that if Italy would declare war on Austria, it would receive its territorial rewards. The Italian army of 875,000 men was poorly led and lacked heavy artillery and machine guns. The industrial base was too small to provide adequate amounts of modern equipment, and the old-fashioned rural base did not produce much of a food surplus. The war stalemated with a dozen indecisive battles on a very narrow front along the Isonzo River, where the Austrians held the high ground. In 1916, Italy declared war on Germany, which provided significant aid to the Austrians. Some 650,000 Italian soldiers died and 950,000 were wounded, while the economy required large-scale Allied funding to survive.

Before the war the government had ignored labor issues, but now it had to intervene to mobilize war production. With the main working-class Socialist party reluctant to support the war effort, strikes were frequent and cooperation was minimal, especially in the Socialist strongholds of Piedmont and Lombardy. The government imposed high wage scales, as well as collective bargaining and insurance schemes. Many large firms expanded dramatically. For example, the workforce at the Ansaldo munitions company grew from 6,000 to 110,000 workers as it manufactured 10,900 artillery pieces, 3,800 warplanes, 95 warships and 10 million artillery shells. At Fiat the workforce grew from 4,000 to 40,000. Inflation doubled the cost of living. Industrial wages kept pace but not wages for farm workers. Discontent was high in rural areas since so many men were taken for service, industrial jobs were unavailable, wages grew slowly and inflation was just as bad.

Italy blocked serious peace negotiations, staying in the war primarily to gain new territory. The Treaty of St. Germain awarded the victorious Italian nation the Southern half of the County of Tyrol, Trieste, Istria, and the city of Zadar. Italy did not receive other territories promised by the Pact of London, so this victory was considered "mutilated". In 1922 Italy formally annexed the Dodecanese (Possedimenti Italiani dell'Egeo), that she had occupied during the previous war with Turkey.

United States

Main articles: United States home front during World War I and American entry into World War I

President Woodrow Wilson took full control of foreign policy, declaring neutrality but warning Germany that the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare against American ships would mean war. Wilson's mediation efforts failed; likewise, the peace efforts sponsored by industrialist Henry Ford went nowhere. Germany decided to take the risk and try to win by cutting off Britain; the US declared war in April 1917. America had the largest industrial, financial and agricultural base of any of the great powers, but it took 12–18 months to fully reorient it to the war effort. American money, food and munitions flowed freely to Europe from spring 1917, but troops arrived slowly. The US Army in 1917 was small and poorly equipped.

Navy poster by Howard Chandler Christy

The draft began in spring 1917 but volunteers were also accepted. Four million men and thousands of women joined the services for the duration. By summer 1918 American soldiers under General John J. Pershing arrived in France at the rate of 10,000 a day, while Germany was unable to replace its losses. The result was an Allied victory in November 1918.

Propaganda campaigns directed by the government shaped the public mood toward patriotism and voluntary purchases of war bonds. The Committee on Public Information (CPI) controlled war information and provided pro-war propaganda, with the assistance of the private American Protective League and tens of thousands of local speakers. The Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized any expression of opinion that used "disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language" about the US government, flag or armed forces. The most prominent opponents of the war were Wobblies and Socialists, many of whom were convicted of deliberately impeding the war effort and were sentenced to prison, including the Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs.

Woodrow Wilson played the central role in defining the Allied war aims in 1917–1918 (although the US never officially joined the Allies). He demanded Germany depose the Kaiser and accept the terms of his Fourteen Points. Wilson dominated the 1919 Paris Peace Conference but Germany was treated harshly by the Allies in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) as Wilson put all his hopes in the new League of Nations. Wilson refused to compromise with Senate Republicans over the issue of Congressional power to declare war, and the Senate rejected the Treaty and the League.

Germany

Main articles: History of Germany during World War I and German entry into World War I

By 1915 the British naval blockade had cut off food imports and conditions deteriorated rapidly on the home front, with severe food shortages reported in all urban areas. The causes included the transfer of so many farmers and food workers into the military, combined with the overburdened railroad system, a shortage of coal, and the British blockade that cut off imports from abroad. The winter of 1916–1917 was known as the "turnip winter" (de:Steckrübenwinter), because that vegetable, which was usually fed to livestock, was used by people as a substitute for potatoes and meat, which were increasingly scarce. Thousands of soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry people, who grumbled that the farmers were keeping the food for themselves. Even the army had to cut the rations for soldiers. Compared to peacetime, about 474,000 additional civilians died, chiefly because malnutrition had weakened the body. According to historian William H. MacNeil:

By 1917, after three years of war, the various groups and bureaucratic hierarchies which had been operating more or less independently of one another in peacetime (and not infrequently had worked at cross purposes) were subordinated to one (and perhaps the most effective) of their number: the General Staff. Military officers controlled civilian government officials, the staffs of banks, cartels, firms, and factories, engineers and scientists, workingmen, farmers-indeed almost every element in German society; and all efforts were directed in theory and in large degree also in practice to forwarding the war effort.

Morale of both civilians and soldiers continued to sink, but using the slogan of "sharing scarcity", the German bureaucracy ran an efficient rationing system nevertheless.

Political revolution

The end of October 1918 saw the outbreak of the German Revolution of 1918–19 as units of the German Navy refused to set sail for a last, large-scale operation in a war which they saw as good as lost (→Kiel mutiny). By 3 November, the revolt had spread to other cities and states of the country, in many of which workers' and soldiers' councils were established (→ German Revolution of 1918–19). Meanwhile, Hindenburg and the senior commanders had lost confidence in Kaiser Wilhelm II and his government.

The Kaiser and all German ruling princes abdicated. On 9 November 1918, the Social Democrat Philipp Scheidemann (1865-1939) proclaimed a Republic. On 11 November, the armistice ended the war with a total defeat for Germany. The Rhineland was occupied by the Allies (until 1923/1930).

Austria-Hungary

See also: Austro-Hungarian entry into World War I, Hungary in World War I, and Austria-Hungary § World War I

The heavily rural Empire did have a small industrial base, but its major contribution was manpower and food. Nevertheless, Austria-Hungary was more urbanized (25%) than its actual opponents in the First World War, like the Russian Empire (13.4%), Serbia (13.2%) or Romania (18.8%). Furthermore, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had also a more industrialized economy and higher GDP per capita than the Kingdom of Italy, which was economically the far most developed actual opponent of the Empire. On the home front, food grew scarcer and scarcer, as did heating fuel. The hog population fell 90 percent, as the dwindling supplies of ham and bacon were consumed by the Army. Hungary, with its heavy agricultural base, was somewhat better fed. Morale fell every year, and the diverse nationalities gave up on the Empire and looked for ways to establish their own nation states.

Inflation soared, from an index of 129 in 1914 to 1589 in 1918, wiping out the cash savings of the middle-class. In terms of war damage to the economy, the war used up about 20 percent of the GDP. The dead soldiers amounted to about four percent of the 1914 labor force, and the wounded ones to another six percent. Compared all the major countries in the war, Austria's death and casualty rate was toward the high-end.

Whereas the German army realized it needed close cooperation from the home front, Habsburg officers saw themselves as entirely separate from the civilian world, and superior to it. When they occupied productive areas, such as Romania, they seized food stocks and other supplies for their own purposes, and blocked any shipments intended for civilians back in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The result was that the officers lived well, as the civilians began to starve. Vienna even transferred training units to Serbia and Poland for the sole purpose of feeding them. In all, the Army obtained about 15 percent of its cereal needs from occupied territories.

Ottoman Empire

See also: Ottoman Empire § World War I (1914–1918), and Armenian genocide

The Ottoman Empire had long been the "sick man of Europe" and by 1914 it had been driven out of nearly all of Europe, and had lost its influence in North Africa. It still controlled 23 million people, of whom 17 million were in modern-day Turkey, three million in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, and 2.5 million in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq). Another 5.5 million people were under nominal Ottoman rule in the Arabian Peninsula.

A faction of the Young Turk movement, the Committee of Union and Progress, turned the Ottoman Empire into a one-party-state after a coup in 1913; they mobilized the country's society for war, employing numerous political and economic reforms. The Unionists, through its Committee of National Defense, fostered pan-Turkish nationalism based in Anatolia. The Young Turks created new organizations, such as the Ottoman Red Crescent Society, the Ottoman Navy League, and the Committee of National Defense, to extend their political influence to the middle class, to mobilize support for the war effort and to construct a Turkish identity. When the war broke out the sultan, in his capacity, as caliph, issued a jihad, calling all Muslims in Egypt, India and other Allied territories to revolt against their Christian rulers. Very few listened. Meanwhile, many Arabs turned against the Turks and rose in rebellion in the Arab Revolt.

Reacting to fears that the Armenians could be a potential fifth column for the Russian army, the CUP forcibly evacuated the Armenians from eastern Anatolia, regardless of the 600,000 or more lives lost in the Armenian genocide. In October 1918, as the Allied powers were gaining ground on Macedonian and Palestine Fronts, the Three Pashas, the ruling Unionist triumvirate fled into exile. The Armistice of Mudros ended World War I between the Allied powers and the Ottoman Empire, however the Turks would again see themselves in the battlefield with the Allies in the Turkish War of Independence.

Economic impacts

The war effort in the Ottoman Empire was felt heavily on those living in the Empire. As the empire was blockaded by the Entente powers and the transportation system was largely inefficient it faced enormous challenges accommodating both civilians and the military.

In the Ottoman Empire during World War 1, virtually all male Ottoman citizens were expected to serve in the military. In the years prior to the war, many exceptions that existed were eliminated such as exemptions for: students, non-Muslims and those who lived in the national capitol. High levels of desertion despite being threatened with death as a punishment were reported between enlistment and training due to the length in time between the two stages along with how long it took the process the incredibly large number of recruits. One could get out of military service by paying a fee. The new conscription policies were unpopular.

Balkans

Serbia

Despite its small size and population of 4.6 million, Serbia had the most effective manpower mobilization of the war, and had a highly professional officer corps. It called 350,000 men to arms, of whom 185,000 were in combat units. Nevertheless, the casualties and expenditure of munitions in the Balkan Wars left Serbia depleted and dependent on France for supplies. Austria invaded twice in 1914 and was turned back after both armies suffered very heavy losses. Many captured Austrian soldiers were Slavic and joined the Serbian cause. The year 1915 was peaceful in the sense there was no military action, but food supplies were dangerously low and a series of deadly epidemics hit, especially typhus. The death toll from epidemics was about 100,000 civilians, 35,000 soldiers, and 30,000 prisoners of war.

In late 1915, however, German generals were given control and invaded Serbia with Austrian and Bulgarian forces. The Serbian army hastily retreated west but only 70,000 made it through, and Serbia became an occupied land. Disease was rampant, but the Austrians were pragmatic and paid well for food supplies, so conditions were not harsh. Instead Austria tried to depoliticize Serbia, to minimize violence, and to integrate the country into the Empire. Nevertheless, Serbian nationalism remained defiant and many young men slipped out to help rebuild the Serbian army in exile.

France proved an invaluable ally during the war and its armies, together with reorganized Serbian units, moved up from Greece in 1918 and liberated Serbia, Montenegro, and Vojvodina.

The war ended the very heavy death toll, which saw 615,000 of Serbia's 707,000 soldiers killed, along with 600,000 civilian dead. The death toll in Montenegro was also high. Serbia achieved its political goals by forming the new Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) in 1918. It proved more difficult to create the new-model "Yugoslav" as an exemplar of a united nation containing diverse ethnicities, languages and religions. For example, Montenegro was included but, fearful of losing its own cultural traditions, there was a revolt there that the Serbian army crushed.

Bulgaria

Main article: Bulgaria during World War I

Bulgaria, a poor rural nation of 4.5 million people, sought to acquire Macedonia, but when it tried it suffered defeat in 1913 in the Second Balkan War. In the First World War Bulgaria at first stayed neutral. However its leaders still hoped to acquire Macedonia, which was controlled by an Ally, Serbia. In 1915, joining the Central Powers seemed the best route. Bulgaria mobilized a very large army of 800,000 men, using equipment supplied by Germany. The Bulgarian-German-Austrian invasion of Serbia in 1915 provided a quick victory, but by the end of that year Bulgaria was also fighting the British and French—as well as the Romanians in 1916 and the Greeks in 1917. Bulgaria was ill-prepared for a long war; the absence of so many soldiers sharply reduced agricultural output. Much of its best food was smuggled out to feed lucrative black-markets elsewhere. By 1918 the soldiers were not only short of basic equipment like boots, but they were being fed mostly corn bread with a little meat. Germany increasingly took control, and Bulgarian relations with its ally the Ottoman Empire soured. The Allied offensive in September 1918 destroyed the remnants of Bulgarian military power and civilian morale. Troops mutinied and peasants revolted, demanding peace. By that month's end Bulgaria signed an armistice, giving up its conquests and its military hardware. The Bulgarian Czar abdicated and Bulgaria's war ended. The Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine in 1919 stripped Bulgaria of its conquests, reduced its army to 20,000 men, and demanded reparations of £100 million.

Greece

Greece had been exhausted by the Balkan wars and sought to remain neutral, but its strategic position as the gateway to the Balkans made that impossible. In the National Schism, King Constantine I, a traditionalist who had German ties, battled with his modernizing liberal Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos, who was sympathetic to the Allies. Venizélos with Allied support, set up the short-lived Greek "state" of Salonica, from October 1916 to June 1917. An Allied blockade forced the king to abdicate in June 1917. Venizélos was now in full control and Greece sided with the Allies and declared war. Greece served as a staging base for large numbers of French, Serbian and other Allied units. By war's end the Greek army numbered 300,000 and had about 5,000 casualties. The schism between modernizers and traditionalists did not heal and for decades was the polarizing factor in Greek politics.

Asia

China

Main article: History of the Republic of China

The warlord Duan Qirui was the most powerful leader in China. He dissolved the parliament and declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary on August 13, 1917. Enemy nationals were detained and their assets seized. Around 175,000 Chinese workers volunteered for well-paid positions in the labor battalions that served the Allies behind the lines in France, and Africa and on supply ships. Some 10,000 died, including over 500 on ships sunk by U-boats. No soldiers were sent overseas.

Japan

Main articles: Japanese entry into World War I and Japan during World War I

Japan's military seized German possessions in the Pacific and East Asia, but there was no large-scale mobilization of the economy. Foreign minister Kato Takaaki and Prime Minister Okuma Shigenobu wanted to use the opportunity to expand Japanese influence in China. They enlisted Sun Yat-sen (1866–1925), then in exile in Japan, but they had little success. The Imperial Navy, a nearly autonomous bureaucratic institution, made its own decision to undertake expansion in the Pacific. It captured Germany's Micronesian territories north of the equator, and ruled the islands until 1921. The operation gave the navy a rationale for enlarging its budget to double the army budget and expanding the fleet. The Navy thus gained significant political influence over national and international affairs.

Inflation caused rice prices to quadruple, leading to small-scale riots all across the country in 1918. The government made thousands of arrests and prevented the newspapers from reporting the riots. Some 250,000 people died in the Spanish flu epidemic in late 1918. The death rate was much lower than other major countries because some immunity had developed from a mild outbreak earlier; public health officials successfully warned people to avoid contact; and the use of inoculation, herbals, masks, and gargling.

See also

Notes and references

  1. H.E. Fisk, The Inter-Allied Debts (1924) pp 13 & 325 reprinted in Horst Menderhausen, The Economics of War (1943 edition), appendix table II
  2. Hardach, First World War: 1914–1918 (1981)
  3. Palm, Trineke (March 2013). "Embedded in social cleavages: an explanation of the variation in timing of women's suffrage". Scandinavian Political Studies. 36 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2012.00294.x.
  4. Harvey Fisk, The Inter-Ally Debts: An Analysis of War and Post-War Public Finance, 1914-1923 (1924) pp 1, 21-37
  5. Fisk, The Inter-Ally Debts pp 21-37.
  6. Peter Gatrell, Russia's First World War: A Social and Economic History (2005) pp 132-53
  7. Martin Horn, Britain, France, and the financing of the First World War (2002) ch 1.
  8. Geoffrey Wolff (2003). Black Sun: The Brief Transit and Violent Eclipse of Harry Crosby. New York Review of Books. ISBN 978-1-59017-066-3.
  9. Jennifer Siegel, For Peace and Money: French and British Finance in the Service of Tsars and Commissars (Oxford UP, 2014).
  10. National Archives "The war and the changing face of British society"
  11. Christopher Godden, "The Business of War: Reflections on Recent Contributions to the Economic and Business Histories of the First World War." Œconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy 6#4 (2016): 549-556. online
  12. Roger Lloyd-Jones and M. J. Lewis, Arming the Western Front: War, Business and the State in Britain, 1900–1920 (Routledge, 2016), p 1.
  13. Stephen Broadberry and Peter Howlett, "The United Kingdom during World War I: business as usual?" in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. The Economics of World War I (2005) ch 7
  14. A.J.P. Taylor, English History, 1914–1945 (1965) pp. 34–5, 54, 58, 73–76
  15. Ian F. W. Beckett, The Great war (2nd ed. 2007) pp 394–395
  16. Beckett (2007), pp. 341, 455
  17. Arthur Marwick, The Deluge: British Society and the First World War (1965)
  18. David Swift, "The War Emergency: Workers' National Committee." History Workshop Journal 81 (2016): 84-105.
  19. C. M. M. Macdonald and E. W. McFarland, eds, Scotland and the Great War (Edinburgh: Tuckwell Press, 1999)
  20. D. Daniel, "Measures of enthusiasm: new avenues in quantifying variations in voluntary enlistment in Scotland, August 1914-December 1915", Local Population Studies, Spring 2005, Issue 74, pp. 16–35.
  21. I. F. W. Beckett and K. R. Simpson, eds. A Nation in Arms: a Social Study of the British Army in the First World War (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985) p. 11.
  22. R. A. Houston and W. W. Knox, eds, The New Penguin History of Scotland (London: Penguin, 2001), p. 426.
  23. ^ B. Lenman and J., Mackie, A History of Scotland (London: Penguin, 1991)
  24. D. Coetzee, "A life and death decision: the influence of trends in fertility, nuptiality and family economies on voluntary enlistment in Scotland, August 1914 to December 1915", Family and Community History, Nov 2005, vol. 8 (2), pp. 77–89.
  25. J. Buchanan, Scotland (Langenscheidt, 3rd edn., 2003), p. 49.
  26. Bruce Lenman, An Economic History of Modern Scotland: 1660–1976 (1977) pp 206–14
  27. Iain McLean, The Legend of Red Clydeside (1983)
  28. John Grigg, Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918 (2002) vol 4 pp 1–30
  29. A. J. P. Taylor, English History, 1914–1945 (1965) pp 73–99
  30. A. J. P. Taylor, English History, 1914–1945 (1965) pp 100–106
  31. John Grigg, Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918 (2002) vol 4 pp 478–83
  32. Alan J. Ward, "Lloyd George and the 1918 Irish Conscription Crisis," Historical Journal (1974) 17#1 pp. 107–129 in JSTOR
  33. Grigg, Lloyd George vol 4 pp 465–88
  34. John Gooch, "The Maurice Debate 1918," Journal of Contemporary History (1968) 3#4 pp. 211–228 in JSTOR
  35. John Grigg, Lloyd George: War leader, 1916–1918 (London: Penguin, 2002), pp 489–512
  36. A. J. P. Taylor, English History, 1914–1945 (1965) pp 108–11
  37. Bob Whitfield (2001). The Extension of the Franchise, 1832-1931. Heinemann. p. 167. ISBN 9780435327170.
  38. Taylor, English History, 1914–1945 (1965) p. 29, 94
  39. Martin D. Pugh, "Politicians and the Woman's Vote 1914–1918," History, (1974), Vol. 59 Issue 197, pp 358–374
  40. G.R. Searle, A New England? Peace and war, 1886–1918 (2004) p 791
  41. Ashley Jackson, "The British Empire and the First World War"BBC History Magazine 9#11 (2008) online
  42. War Office, Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914–1920 (London, 1922) p. 237
  43. Robert Craig Brown and Ramsay Cook, Canada, 1896–1921 A Nation Transformed (1974) ch 13
  44. Frances Swyripa and John Herd Thompson, eds. Loyalties in Conflict: Ukrainians in Canada During the Great War (1983)
  45. Jacqueline Hucker, "'Battle and Burial': Recapturing the Cultural Meaning of Canada's National Memorial on Vimy Ridge," Public Historian, (Feb 2009) 31#1 pp 89–109
  46. Kosmas Tsokhas, "The Forgotten Economy and Australia's Involvement in the Great War," Diplomacy & Statecraft (1993) 4#2 331-357
  47. See "First World War 1914–18" from Australian War Memorial Archived 2012-02-15 at the Wayback Machine
  48. Gerhard Fischer, "'Negative integration' and an Australian road to modernity: Interpreting the Australian homefront experience in World War I," Australian Historical Studies, (April 1995) 26#104 pp 452–76
  49. Graeme Davidson et al., The Oxford Companion to Australian History (2nd ed. 2001) p 283–4
  50. Fischer, "'Negative integration' and an Australian road to modernity" p. 452 for quote
  51. Joan Beaumont, Australia's War 1914–18 (1995)
  52. ^ "Home front Powers 1914–1918". anzacday.org. Archived from the original on 15 April 2001. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
  53. Ernest Scott, Australia During the War (7th ed. 1941) p 105 online Archived 2013-07-04 at the Wayback Machine
  54. "Internment in Australia during WWI". anzacday.org. Archived from the original on 15 April 2001. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
  55. Scott, Australia During the War (1941) p. 516–18, 539.
  56. Russel Ward, A nation for a continent: The history of Australia, 1901–1975 (1977) p 110
  57. Scott, Australia During the War (1941) pp. 549, 563
  58. Stuart Macintyre, The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901–42, the Succeeding Age (1987) pp 163–75
  59. Scott, Australia During the War (1941) pp. 663–65
  60. Russel Ward, A nation for a continent: The history of Australia, 1901–1975 (1977) p 110–11
  61. Ian W. McLean, Why Australia Prospered: The Shifting Sources of Economic Growth (2013), pp. 147–148.
  62. Steven Loveridge, Calls to Arms: New Zealand Society and Commitment to the Great War (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2014) p.26
  63. Gwen Parsons, "The New Zealand Home Front during World War One and World War Two," History Compass (2013) 11#6 pp 419–428
  64. Hermann Hiery, "West Samoans between Germany and New Zealand 1914–1921," War and Society (1992) 10#1 pp 53–80.
  65. Bill Nasson, Springboks on the Somme: South Africa in the Great War, 1914–1918 (2007); Anne Samson, Britain, South Africa and the East Africa Campaign, 1914–1918: The Union Comes of Age (2006)
  66. Nasson, Springboks on the Somme ch 8
  67. Bill Nasson, "A Great Divide: Popular Responses to the Great War in South Africa," War & Society (1994) 12#1 pp 47–64
  68. Tucker, European Powers, pp 353–4
  69. ^ Xu Guoqi. Asia and the Great War – A Shared History (Oxford UP) online
  70. Hew Strachan, The First World War (2001) 1:791-814
  71. David Stevenson, With Our Backs to the Wall (2011) pp 257–8, 381
  72. John Horne and Alan Kramer, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial (Yale U.P. 2001) ch 1-2, esp. p. 76
  73. Horne and Kramer, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial ch 3-4 show there were no "franc-tireurs" in Belgium.
  74. Horne and Kramer, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial ch 5-8
  75. E.H. Kossmann. The Low Countries (1978), p 523–35
  76. Kossmann, p 525
  77. Johan den Hertog, "The Commission for Relief in Belgium and the Political Diplomatic History of the First World War," Diplomacy and Statecraft, (Dec 2010) 21#4 pp 593–613,
  78. Laurence van Ypersele and Xavier Rousseaux, "Leaving the War: Popular Violence and Judicial Repression of 'unpatriotic' behaviour in Belgium (1918–1921)," European Review of History (Spring 2005) 12#3 pp 3–22
  79. Cana, Frank Richardson (1922). "Belgian Congo" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 30 (12th ed.). London & New York: The Encyclopædia Britannica Company. p. 429.
  80. Martha Hanna, The mobilization of intellect: French scholars and writers during the Great War (Harvard University Press, 1996)
  81. Elizabeth Greenhalgh, "Writing about France's Great War." (2005): 601-612. in JSTOR
  82. Leonard V. Smith, "War and 'Politics': The French Army Mutinies of 1917," War in History, (April 1995) 2#2 pp 180–201
  83. Gerd Hardach, The First World War: 1914–1918 (1977) pp 87–88
  84. Pierre-Cyrille Hautcoeur, "Was the Great War a watershed? The economics of World War I in France," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. The Economics of World War I (2005) ch 6
  85. John Horne, "Immigrant Workers in France during World War I." French Historical Studies 14.1 (1985): 57-88. online
  86. Paul Beaudry and Franck Portier, "The French depression in the 1930s." Review of Economic Dynamics(2002) 5#1 pp: 73-99.
  87. Collins, "The Business of Journalism in Provincial France during World War I," (2001)
  88. Hans Rogger, "Russia in 1914," Journal of Contemporary History (1966) 1#4 pp. 95–119 in JSTOR
  89. Peter Gatrell, "Poor Russia, poor show: mobilising a backward economy for war, 1914–1917," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. The Economics of World War I (2005) ch. 8
  90. John M. Thompson, Revolutionary Russia, 1917 (1989)
  91. Thomas Fallows, "Politics and the War Effort in Russia: The Union of Zemstvos and the Organization of the Food Supply, 1914–1916," Slavic Review (1978) 37#1 pp. 70–90 in JSTOR
  92. Francesco Galassi and Mark Harrison, "Italy at war, 1915–1918," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. The Economics of World War I (2005) ch. 9
  93. Thomas Nelson Page, Italy and the world war (1992) online at Google
  94. Luigi Tomassini, "Industrial Mobilization and the labor market in Italy during the First World War," Social History, (Jan 1991), 16#1 pp 59–87
  95. Tucker, European Powers in the First World War, p 375–76
  96. Hugh Rockoff, "Until it's over, over there: the US economy in World War I," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. The Economics of World War I (2005) ch 10
  97. John W. Chambers, II, To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America (1987)
  98. Edward M. Coffman, The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I (1998)
  99. Ronald Schaffer, The United States in World War I (1978)
  100. John Milton Cooper, Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations (2001)
  101. Albrecht, Ritschl (2005). "The pity of peace: Germany's economy at war, 1914–1918 and beyond". In Broadberry; Harrison (eds.). The Economics of World War I.
  102. Roger Chickering, Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918 (2004) p. 141–42
  103. N.P. Howard, "The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade of Germany, 1918–19," German History (1993) 11#2 pp 161–88 online table p 166, with 271,000 excess deaths in 1918 and 71,000 in 1919.
  104. William H. McNeill, The Rise of the West (1991 edition) p. 742.
  105. Keith Allen, "Sharing scarcity: Bread rationing and the First World War in Berlin, 1914–1923," Journal of Social History, (Winter 1998) 32#2 pp 371–93 in JSTOR
  106. A. J. Ryder, The German Revolution of 1918: A Study of German Socialism in War and Revolt (1st ed. 1967 / 2008)
  107. Max-Stephan Schulze, "Austria-Hungary's economy in World War I," in Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds. The Economics of World War I (2005) ch 3 online
  108. Robert A. Kann, et al. eds. The Habsburg Empire in World War I: Essays on the Intellectual, Military, Political and Economic Aspects of the Habsburg War Effort (1977)
  109. Mowat, C.L. (1968). The New Cambridge Modern History. volume xii. (CUP Archive)London: Cambridge University Press. p. 479. ISBN 978-0521045513.
  110. Andreas Kappeler (2014). The Russian Empire: A Multi-ethnic History. Routledge. p. 287. ISBN 9781317568100.
  111. Sima M. Cirkovic (2008). The Serbs Volume 10 of The Peoples of Europe. John Wiley & Sons. p. 235. ISBN 9781405142915.
  112. Marius Rotar (2013). History of Modern Cremation in Romania. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 24. ISBN 9781443845427.
  113. Stephen Broadberry; Kevin H. O'Rourke (2010). The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present. Cambridge University Press. p. 70. ISBN 9781139489515. Archived from the original on 15 October 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
  114. David Stevenson (2011). With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918. Harvard University Press. p. 399. ISBN 9780674063198.
  115. Maureen Healy, Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire: Total War and Everyday Life in World War I (2007)
  116. Schulze, "Austria-Hungary's economy in World War I,"
  117. Watson, Ring of Steel p 396-97
  118. Şevket Pamuk, "The Ottoman Economy in World War I" in Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds. The Economics of World War I (2005) ch 4, esp. p 112
  119. Feroz Ahmad, "War and Society under the Young Turks, 1908–18," Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center, (1988) 11#2 pp 265–286
  120. Nadi˙r Özbek, "Defining the public sphere during the late Ottoman Empire: War, mass mobilization and the young Turk regime (1908–18)," Middle Eastern Studies, (Sept 2007) 43#5 pp 795–809
  121. see text of jihad
  122. Mustafa Aksakal, "'Holy War Made in Germany'? Ottoman Origins of the 1914 Jihad," War in History (April 2011) 18#2 pp 184–199
  123. Hasan Kayali, Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1918 (1997) in JSTOR
  124. Ronald Grigor Suny, "Truth in Telling: Reconciling Realities in the Genocide of the Ottoman Armenians," American Historical Review (2009) 114#4 pp. 930–946 in JSTOR
  125. "Chapter 2 - "THE INSATIABLE GIANT:" STATE, PEOPLE, and the PROVISIONING of the OTTOMAN ARMY". The Ottoman Home Front during World War I: Everyday Politics, Society, and Culture. Ohio State University. 2011. p. 76.
  126. Akın, Yiğit (2011). "Chapter 1: "Filling the Ranks:" War, Mobilization, and Soldiering in the Ottoman Army". The Ottoman Home Front during World War I: Everyday Politics, Society, and Culture. Ohio State University.
  127. Minasidis, Charalampos. "Mobilization (Ottoman Empire/Middle East)". International Encyclopedia of the First World War. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
  128. Stevenson, Cataclysm p 59
  129. Dragan Zivojinovic, "Serbia and Montenegro: The Home Front" in Béla K. Király, ed. East Central European society in World War I (1985) pp 253–59 esp p 243
  130. Jonathan E. Gumz, The Resurrection and Collapse of Empire in Habsburg Serbia, 1914–1918 (2009)
  131. Andrej Mitrovic, Serbia's Great War 1914–1918 (2007)
  132. Zivojinovic, "Serbia and Montenegro: The Home Front" p 256
  133. Zdenko Zlatar, "Nationalism in Serbia (1804–1918)," Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism (1979) Vol. 6, pp 100–113
  134. Tucker, The European powers in the First World War (1996). pp 149–52
  135. Richard C. Hall, "Bulgaria in the First World War," Historian, (Summer 2011) 73#2 pp 300–315 online
  136. George B. Leontaritis, Greece and the First World War (1990)
  137. Mark Mazower, "The Messiah and the Bourgeoisie: Venizelos and Politics in Greece, 1909–1912," Historical Journal (1992) 35#4 pp. 885–904 in JSTOR
  138. Guoqi Xu, China and the Great War: China's Pursuit of a New National Identity and Internationalization (2011)
  139. Frederick R. Dickinson, War and National Reinvention: Japan in the Great War, 1914–1919 (1999)
  140. Albert A. Altman and Harold Z. Schiffrin, "Sun Yat-Sen and the Japanese, 1914–16," Modern Asian Studies, (July 1972) 6#4 pp 385–400
  141. J.C. Schencking, "Bureaucratic Politics, Military Budgets and Japan's Southern Advance: The Imperial Navy's Seizure of German Micronesia in the First World War," War in History, (July 1998) 5#3 pp 308–326
  142. Geoffrey W. Rice and Edwina Palmer, "Pandemic influenza in Japan, 1918–19: Mortality patterns and official responses," Journal of Japanese Studies, (Summer 1993) 19#2 pp 389–420

Further reading

  • Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed. 1922) comprises the 11th edition plus three new volumes 30-31-32 that cover events since 1911 with very thorough coverage of the war as well as every country and colony. v. 30-31-32 partly online and list of article titles
  • The Cambridge History of the First World War Volume 3: Civil Society (2014) online Archived 2016-08-20 at the Wayback Machine
  • Fisk, H.E. The Inter-Ally Debts: An Analysis of War and Post-War Public Finance, 1914-1923 (1924)
  • Godden, Christopher. "The Business of War: Reflections on Recent Contributions to the Economic and Business Histories of the First World War." Œconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy 6#4 (2016): 549-556. online
  • Grayzel, Susan. Women and the First World War (2002), worldwide coverage
  • Herwig, Holger H., and Neil M. Heyman, eds. Biographical Dictionary of World War I (Greenwood, 1982); includes prime ministers and main civilian leaders.
  • Higham, Robin and Dennis E. Showalter, eds. Researching World War I: A Handbook (2003), 475pp; highly detailed historiography, stressing military themes; annotates over 1000 books—mostly military but many on the homefront
  • Horne, John N., ed. A Companion to World War I (2010), 38 essays by leading scholars covering all facets of the war excerpt and text search
  • Horne, John N. State, Society and Mobilization in Europe during the First World War (2002)
  • Proctor, Tammy M. Civilians in a World at War, 1914–1918 (2010) 410pp; global coverage excerpt and text search
  • Stevenson, David. Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy (2005) 625pp; excerpt and text search
  • Stevenson, David. With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918 (2011) excerpt and text search covers both the homefront and the battlefields for the major powers
  • Strachen, Hew. The First World War (vol 1, 2005) 1225pp; covers the battlefields and chief home fronts in 1914–1917 excerpt and text search
  • Tucker, Spencer, ed. European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia (1999) excerpt and text search
  • Tucker, Spencer, ed. The Encyclopedia of World War I: A Political, Social, and Military History (5 vol 2005); the most detailed reference source; articles by specialists cover all aspects of the war
    • Tucker, Spencer C., ed. World War I: A Student Encyclopedia. 4 vol. ABC-CLIO, 2006. 2454 pp.
  • Winter, J. M. The Experience of World War I (2006) excerpt and text search
  • Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919 (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars vol 1 excerpt; vol 2 excerpt and text search

Economics

Main article: Economic history of World War I § Further reading
  • Broadberry, Stephen, and Mark Harrison, eds. The Economics of World War I (2005) ISBN 0-521-85212-9. Covers France, Britain, USA, Russia, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and the Netherlands, 362pp; excerpt and text search; online review
  • Grayzel, Susan. Women and the First World War (2002), worldwide coverage
  • Stevenson, David. With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918 (2011) excerpt and text search, pp 350–438, covers major countries
  • Hardach, Gerd. The First World War 1914–1918 (1977), economic history of major powers
  • Thorp, William Long. Business Annals: United States, England, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, Sweden Netherlands, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, Japan, China (1926) capsule summary of conditions in each country for each quarter-year 1790–1925

Britain

  • Butler, Simon. The War Horses: The Tragic Fate of a Million Horses Sacrificed in the First World War (2011)
  • Cassar, George. Lloyd George at War, 1916–1918 (2009) excerpt and text search
  • Cooksley, Peter. The Home Front: Civilian Life in World War One (2006)
  • Dewey, P. E. "Food Production and Policy in the United Kingdom, 1914–1918," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (1980). v. 30, pp 71–89. in JSTOR
  • Doyle, Peter. First World War Britain: 1914–1919 (2012)
  • Fairlie, John A. British War Administration (1919) online edition
  • Ferguson, Niall The Pity of War (1999), 563pp; cultural and economic themes
  • French, David. The Strategy of the Lloyd George Coalition, 1916–1918 Oxford University Press, 1995
  • Fry, Michael. "Political Change in Britain, August 1914 to December 1916: Lloyd George Replaces Asquith: The Issues Underlying the Drama," Historical Journal (1988) 31#3 pp. 609–627 in JSTOR
  • Goebel, Stefan and White, Jerry. 'London and the First World War'. London Journal 41:3 (2016), 1–20.
  • Gregory, Adrian. The Last Great War: British Society and the First World War (2009) excerpt and text search
  • Grigg, John. Lloyd George: war leader, 1916–1918 (2002)
  • Havighurst, Alfred F. Twentieth-Century Britain. 1966. standard survey
  • Hazlehurst, Cameron. "Asquith as Prime Minister, 1908–1916," The English Historical Review Vol. 85, No. 336 (Jul. 1970), pp. 502–531 in JSTOR
  • Johnson, Matthew. "The Liberal War Committee and the Liberal Advocacy of Conscription in Britain, 1914–1916," Historical Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2 (June, 2008), pp. 399–420 in JSTOR
  • Little, John Gordon. "H. H. Asquith and Britain's Manpower Problem, 1914–1915." History 1997 82(267): 397–409. ISSN 0018-2648; admits the problem was bad but exonerates Asquith Fulltext: in Ebsco
  • Marwick, Arthur. The Deluge: British Society and the First World War, (1965)
  • Matthew, H. C. G. "Asquith, Herbert Henry, first earl of Oxford and Asquith (1852–1928)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online
  • Offer, Avner. The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation (1991), on food supply of Britain and Germany
  • Paddock, Troy R. E. A call to arms: propaganda, public opinion, and newspapers in the Great War (2004)
  • Silbey, David. The British Working Class and Enthusiasm for War, 1914–1916 (2005)
  • Simmonds, Alan G. V. Britain and World War One (2011) excerpt and text search
  • Storey, Neil R. Women in the First World War (2010)
  • Swift, David. "The War Emergency: Workers' National Committee." History Workshop Journal 81 (2016): 84-105.
  • Swift, David. For Class and Country: the Patriotic Left and the First World War (2017)
  • Taylor, A.J.P. English History: 1914–1945 (1965) pp 1–119
  • Turner, John, ed. Britain and the First World War (1988).
  • Williams, John. The Home Fronts: Britain, France and Germany 1914-1918 (1972) Britain: pp 49–71, 111-33, 178-98 and 246-60.
  • Wilson, Trevor. The Myriad Faces of War: Britain and the Great War 1914–1918 (1989) excerpt and text search 864pp; covers both the homefront and the battlefields
  • Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919 (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars vol 1 excerpt; vol 2 excerpt and text search
  • Whetham, Edith H. The Agrarian History of England and Wales: Volume VIII: 1914-39 (Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp 70–123

Year books

Historiography

  • Holbrook, Carolyn, and Nathan Wise. "In the Shadow of Anzac: Labour Historiography of the First World War in Australia." History Compass 14.7 (2016): 314-325. link
  • Offer, Avner. The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation (1991), on food supply of Britain and the Empire, and Germany
  • War Office. Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914–1920 (London, 1922), 880pp online edition

British Empire, Dominions, India

Further information: Bibliography of Canadian history § First World War homefront
  • Beaumont, Joan. Australia's War, 1914–1918 (1995).
  • Condliffe, J. B. " New Zealand during the War," Economic Journal (1919) 29#114 pp. 167–185 in JSTOR, free, economic mobilisation
  • Crawford, John, and Ian McGibbon, eds. New Zealand's Great War: New Zealand, the Allies and the First World War (2008)
  • Keith, Arthur Berriedale (1921). War government of the British dominions. Clarendon Press. Australia.
  • Brown R. C., and Ramsay Cook. Canada, 1896–1921 A Nation Transformed. (1974), a standard survey
  • Grundlingh, Albert M. Fighting their own war: South African blacks and the First World War (Ravan Press of South Africa, 1987).
  • Loveridge, Steven, Calls to Arms: New Zealand Society and Commitment to the Great War (2014)
  • Macintyre, Stuart. The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901–42, the Succeeding Age (1993)
  • MacKenzie, David, ed. Canada and the First World War (2005) 16 essays by leading scholars excerpt and text search
  • Marti, Steve. For Home and Empire: Voluntary Mobilization in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand during the First World War (2020) excerpt
  • Morton, Desmond, and Jack Granatstein. Marching to Armageddon: Canadians and the Great War 1914–1919 (1989)
  • Nasson, Bill. Springboks on the Somme: South Africa in the Great War, 1914–1918 (Johannesburg and New York, Penguin, 2007)
  • Parsons, Gwen. "The New Zealand Home Front during World War One and World War Two." History Compass 11.6 (2013): 419-428.
  • Samson, Anne. Britain, South Africa and the East Africa Campaign, 1914–1918: The Union Comes of Age (2006) 262pp
  • Shaw, Amy. "Expanding the Narrative: A First World War with Women, Children, and Grief," Canadian Historical Review (2014) 95#3 pp 398–406. online
  • Tinker, Hugh. "India in the First World War and after." Journal of contemporary history 3.4 (1968): 89-107. in JSTOR
  • Winegard, Timothy C. Indigenous Peoples of the British Dominions and the First World War (2012) excerpt and text search, covers Canada, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa

France

  • Audoin-Rouzeau, Stéphane, and Annette Becker. 14-18: Understanding the Great War (2003) excerpt and text search
  • Becker, Jean Jacques. The Great War and the French People (1986)
  • Cabanes Bruno. August 1914: France, the Great War, and a Month That Changed the World Forever (2016) argues that the extremely high casualty rate in very first month of fighting permanently transformed France.
  • Darrow, Margaret H. French Women and the First World War: War Stories of the Home Front (Berg, 2000)
  • Fridenson, Patrick. The French home front, 1914–1918 (1992)
  • Grayzel, Susan R. Women's identities at war: gender, motherhood, and politics in Britain and France during the First World War (1999).
  • Greenhalgh, Elizabeth. "Writing about France's Great War." (2005): 601-612. in JSTOR
  • McPhail, Helen. The Long Silence: The Tragedy of Occupied France in World War I (2014)
  • Smith, Leonard V. et al. France and the Great War (2003) 222pp; excerpt and text search
  • Williams, John. The Other Battleground The Home Fronts: Britain, France and Germany 1914-1918 (1972) pp 72–89, 134-47, 199-223, 261-72.
  • Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919 (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars vol 1 excerpt; vol 2 excerpt and text search

Russia

  • Badcock, Sarah. "The Russian Revolution: Broadening Understandings of 1917." History Compass 6.1 (2008): 243-262. Historiography online
  • Gatrell, Peter. Russia's First World War: A Social and Economic History (2005).
  • Gatrell, Peter. "Tsarist Russia at War: The View from Above, 1914–February 1917" Journal of Modern History 87#4 (2015) 668-700 online
  • Gaudin, Corinne. "Rural Echoes of World War I: War Talk in the Russian Village." Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas (2008): 391-414. in English.
  • Jahn, Hubertus F. Patriotic Culture in Russia During World War I (1998)
  • Lincoln, W. Bruce. Passage through Armageddon: the Russians in war and revolution, 1914-1918 (1986)
  • Sanborn, Joshua A. Imperial Apocalypse: The Great War and the Destruction of the Russian Empire (2014). excerpt
  • Sanborn, Joshua A. Drafting the Russian Nation: Military Conscription, Total War, and Mass Politics, 1905-1925 (2003)
  • Sanborn, Joshua A. "The Mobilization of 1914 and the Question of the Russian Nation: A Reexamination," Slavic Review 59#2 (2000), pp. 267–289 in JSTOR
  • Wade, Rex A. The Russian Revolution, 1917 (Cambridge UP, 2000). excerpt
  • Wood, Alan. The Origins of the Russian Revolution, 1861–1917 (Routledge, 2004)

U.S.

  • Bassett, John Spencer. Our War with Germany: A History (1919) online edition
  • Chambers, John W., II. To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America (1987)
  • Keene, Jennifer D. "Remembering the 'Forgotten War': American Historiography on World War I." Historian 78#3 (2016): 439-468.
  • Kennedy, David M. Over Here: The First World War and American Society (1982), covers politics & economics & society
  • Koistinen, Paul. Mobilizing for Modern War: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1865–1919 (1997)
  • May, Ernest R. The World War and American isolation, 1914–1917 (1959) online at ACLS e-books
  • Scott, Emmett Jay. Scott's Official History of the American Negro in the World War (1919) 511 pages online edition
  • Slosson, Preston William. The Great Crusade and after, 1914–1928 (1930). social history
  • Titus, James, ed. The Home Front and War in the Twentieth Century: The American Experience in Comparative Perspective (1984) essays by scholars. online free
  • Venzon, Anne ed. The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia (1995)
  • Young, Ernest William. The Wilson Administration and the Great War (1922) online edition
  • Zieger, Robert H. America's Great War: World War I and the American Experience (2000). 272 pp.

Other Allies

  • De Grand, Alexander. Giovanni Giolitti and Liberal Italy from the Challenge of Mass Politics to the Rise of Fascism, 1882–1922 (2001)
  • Dickinson, Frederick R. War and National Reinvention: Japan in the Great War, 1914–1919 (2001) excerpt and text search
  • Krippner, Monica. The Quality of Mercy: Women at War Serbia 1915–18 (1980)
  • Mitrovic, Andrej. Serbia's Great War 1914–1918 (2007) excerpt and text search
  • Page, Thomas Nelson. Italy and the world war (1992) online at Google
  • Xu, Guoqi. China and the Great War: China's Pursuit of a New National Identity and Internationalization (2011)
  • Xu, Guoqi. Asia and the Great War – A Shared History (Oxford UP, 2016) online

Central Powers

  • Akın, Yiğit. When the War Came Home: The Ottomans' Great War and the Devastation of an Empire (Stanford University Press, 2018)
  • Bloxham, Donald. The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians (Oxford University Press, 2005)
  • Chickering, R. Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918 (1998)
  • Daniel, Ute. The war from within: German working-class women in the First World War (1997).
  • Davis, Belinda Joy. Home Fires Burning: Food, Politics, and Everyday Life in World War I Berlin (2000) excerpt and text search
  • Feldman, Gerald D. Army, industry, and labor in Germany, 1914–1918 (1966)
  • Healy, Maureen. Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire: Total War and Everyday Life in World War I (2007)
  • Herwig, Holger H. The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914–1918 (2009)
  • Howard, N.P. "The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade of Germany, 1918–19," German History (1993) 11#2 pp 161–88 online
  • Kann, Robert A. et al., eds. The Habsburg Empire in World War I: Essays on the Intellectual, Military, Political and Economic Aspects of the Habsburg War Effort (1977) online borrowing copy
  • Kocka, Jürgen. Facing total war: German society, 1914–1918 (1984). online at ACLS e-books
  • Lutz, Ralph Haswell, ed. Fall of the German Empire, 1914–1918 (2 vol 1932). 868pp online review, primary sources
  • McCarthy, Justin. The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (2001).
  • Offer, Avner. The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation (1991), on food supply of Britain and Germany
  • Osborne, Eric. Britain's Economic Blockade of Germany, 1914–1919 (2004)
  • Verhey, Jeffrey. The Spirit of 1914. Militarism, Myth and Mobilization in Germany (Cambridge University Press 2000)
  • Watson, Alexander. Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I (2014)
  • Welch, David. Germany, Propaganda and Total War, 1914–1918 (2003)
  • Williams, John. The Other Battleground The Home Fronts: Britain, France and Germany 1914-1918 (1972) Germany on pp 89–108, 148-74, 223-42, 273-87.
  • Winter, Jay, and Jean-Louis Robert, eds. Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914–1919 (2 vol. 1999, 2007), 30 chapters 1200pp; comprehensive coverage by scholars vol 1 excerpt; vol 2 excerpt and text search
  • Ziemann, Benjamin. War Experiences in Rural Germany, 1914–1923 (Berg, 2007)

Historiography

  • Rietzler, Katharina. "The war as history: Writing the economic and social history of the First World War." Diplomatic History 38.4 (2014): 826-839.
  • Winter, Jay and Antoine Prost. The Great War in History: Debates and Controversies, 1914 to the Present (2005)
  • Winter, Jay M. "Catastrophe and Culture: Recent Trends in the Historiography of the First World War," Journal of Modern History (1992) 64#3 525-532 in JSTOR

Primary sources and year books

External links

History of World War I by region and country
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
World War I
Theatres
European
Middle Eastern
African
Asian and Pacific
Naval warfare
Principal
participants
Entente Powers
Central Powers
Timeline
Pre-War conflicts
Prelude
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
Co-belligerent conflicts
Post-War conflicts
Aspects
Warfare
Conscription
Casualties /
Civilian impact
Disease
Occupations
POWs
Refugees
War crimes
Diplomacy
Entry into the war
Declarations of war
Agreements
Peace treaties
Other
Categories:
Home front during World War I: Difference between revisions Add topic