This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Miss_C_1982 (U2621579) on Monday, 5th December 2005
Who won World War 1?
(Questions I am posting at the moment are from the students in my Yr9 History class. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to reply).
None of the countries in Europe.
Short term, up until 1929, it was the Western Powers - chiefly Great Britain and France, who gained many of the colonies previously governed by Germany. Also, Germany was forced to pay reparations to France and Belgium.
Also, a host of Eastern European countries were created out of the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburg Empire - Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia etc., so they can be seen to be winners. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles (plus the subsequent treaties - I forget their names) was harsh with the now Bolshevik Russia, which lost more land than Germany, creating Poland, Finland and - temporarily the Ukraine and Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - all of which can be seen as winners as they gained independence. Also Rumania, which gained territory by the treaty.
Nations on the victorious side who gained relatively little and were therefore unhappy included Italy and Japan.
In the 1920s it was relatively clear cut - Great Britain and France had suffered during the conflict but were clearly winners in terms of gaining territory, reparations and not having their military limited. Throw in nearly every Eastern European country from Finland to Greece, except Austria and Hungary. The US, Japan and Italy were on the winning side but got little from it.
The losing 'team' was Germany, Austria-Hungary (disbanded) and Turkey (the Ottoman Empire was over as well). Russia, despite being on the Allied side until the Revolution, also lost as a punishment for becoming Bolshevik and a means of rewarding countries like Japan and Rumania.
Long term, the resentment of the harshness of the treaty and badly thought out borders (2 million Germans living in Czechoslovakia and a diverse mix of races in Yugoslavia) contributed to the start of WW2. Germany was unable to continue payments and France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr region in 1923. Germany used loans from the US and then had an economic meltdown during the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
Log term, even the winners fared badly - France and GB were close to bankrupt but had empires larger than ever that they could not afford. Their shock at the Great War led to disarmament and appeasement. By 1939, Russia was industrialising and had the largest military in the world, Germany had a small but professional and modern military machine while eastern Europe had become dictatorships or taken over by Germany. Japan had its Pacific empire and the third largest navy and Italy had conquered Abyssinia (Ethiopia).
Surely it is not so much who won the war, but who lost the peace. The Treaty of Versailles sowed the seeds for WW2. A magnamimous peace would have ensured a more rapid economic recovery and prevented the rise of Hitler.
US isolationist and anti British policies between 1920 and 1935 or so changed the balance of power in the world.
The results of this awful war, the effects of which still reverberate in the 21st century, could (not for sure of course) have been quite changed by these factors.
Good luck....
In short,the most important things are....to be these outcomes of 'wins' for 'winners'.
'Surely it is not so much who won the war, but who lost the peace.'
Surely no-one actually won the war, yeh you can say certain nations ended the war better than others, but each nation that took part certainly lost the war with the amount of human lives lost:
Casualties in WW1
Germany 1,800,000
Soviet Union 1,700,000
France 1,385,000
Austria 1,200,000
Great Britain 947,000
Japan 800,000
Romania 750,000
Serbia 708,000
Italy 460,000
Turkey 325,000
Belgium 267,000
Greece 230,000
USA 137,000
Portugal 100,000
Canada 69,000
Bulgaria 88,000
Montenegro 50,000
TOTAL 11,016,000
Although what must be noted is that the second world war was much more signifcant with regards to the number of nations taking part and the overall much larger death rate.
I have to say that posts like bring home the futility of the endeavour. And yet Churchill could still see the world in terms of pawns and great men in his analysis of WWII. Was it just that the powerful were not really effected by WWI?
or was it Churchill preferred to forget WW1 altogether...
the middle east problem hasnt been metioned either.
I think looking at it now, I would say USA.
WW1 destroyed the empires and power of the European dynasties which allowed USA to fill the gap through it's economy and trade which put it on the world map.
I believe no country really won ww1, yet one major contribution to Germanys downfall was the hunger and "famine" in Germany itself. So whilst the U-boats were trying to starve the British, the RN was effectively doing better to the Germans with their blockade.
The German army could have continued to fight, but the homefront was on breaking point.
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.