Which if the following best supports the contention that the First World War was the first total war?

Corner of the Battlefield Near Arras, August 8, 1918.
Detroit Publishing Company

War broke out in Europe in the summer of 1914, with the Central Powers led by Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side and the Allied countries led by Britain, France, and Russia on the other. At the start of the war, President Woodrow Wilson declared that the United States would be neutral. However, that neutrality was tested and fiercely debated in the U.S.

Submarine warfare in the Atlantic kept tensions high, and Germany’s sinking of the British ocean liner Lusitania on May 7, 1915, killed more than 120 U.S. citizens and provoked outrage in the U.S. In 1917, Germany’s attacks on American ships and its attempts to meddle in U.S.-Mexican relations drew the U.S. into the war on the side of the Allies. The United States declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917.

Within a few months, thousands of U.S. men were being drafted into the military and sent to intensive training. Women, even many who had never worked outside the home before, took jobs in factories producing supplies needed for the war effort, as well as serving in ambulance corps and the American Red Cross at home and abroad. Children were enlisted to sell war bonds and plant victory gardens in support of the war effort.

The United States sent more than a million troops to Europe, where they encountered a war unlike any other—one waged in trenches and in the air, and one marked by the rise of such military technologies as the tank, the field telephone, and poison gas. At the same time, the war shaped the culture of the U.S. After an Armistice agreement ended the fighting on November 11, 1918, the postwar years saw a wave of civil rights activism for equal rights for African Americans, the passage of an amendment securing women’s right to vote, and a larger role in world affairs for the United States.

As you explore the primary sources in this group, look for evidence of the different roles U.S. citizens played in the war effort, as well as the effects of the war on the people of the United States.

To find additional sources, visit the Library of Congress World War I page. You can also search the Library’s online collections using terms including World War I or Great War, or look for specific subjects or names, such as Woodrow Wilson, doughboys, trench warfare, or “Over There.”

To analyze primary sources like these, use the Library’s Primary Source Analysis Tool.

Documents

• I Did My Bit for Democracy
• Life as a Conscientious Objector in Wartime
• A Woman in the Red Cross Motor Corps
• Loyalty
  • The Breath of the Hun
  • Stripped 
• One Hundred Million Soldiers
• Immigrant Support for the War
• A Soldier Remembers the War’s End

Part of

• Primary Source Sets
• Lesson Plans
• Presentations

Additional Navigation

• Teachers Home

  The Library of Congress offers classroom materials and professional development to help teachers effectively use primary sources from the Library's vast digital collections in their teaching.

• Analysis Tool & Guide

  To help your students analyze these primary sources, get a graphic organizer and guides.

journal article

The New History of World War I and What It Means for International Relations Theory

International Security

Vol. 32, No. 2 (Fall, 2007)

, pp. 155-191 (37 pages)

Published By: The MIT Press

//www.jstor.org/stable/30133878

Read and download

Log in through your school or library

Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.

Get Started

Already have an account? Log in

Monthly Plan

• Access everything in the JPASS collection
• Read the full-text of every article
• Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep

$19.50/month

Yearly Plan

• Access everything in the JPASS collection
• Read the full-text of every article
• Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep

$199/year

Purchase a PDF

Purchase this article for $19.00 USD.

Purchase this issue for $44.00 USD. Go to Table of Contents.

How does it work?

1. Select a purchase option.
2. Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal .
3. Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.

Abstract

World War I looms large in international relations theory. The core concepts of defensive realism-the security dilemma, spiral model, and offense-defense balance-were largely inspired by this single historical case, and evidence from the war is frequently used to test explanations built on those concepts. The new historiography of World War I, however, challenges many of the long-held assumptions about the origins of the conflict. Newly available evidence strongly suggests that German leaders went to war in 1914 with eyes wide open. They provoked a war to achieve their goal of dominating the European continent, and did so aware that the coming conflict would almost certainly be long and bloody. Germany's leaders did not go to war with a bold operational blueprint for quick victory embodied in the Schlieffen Plan; they did not misjudge the nature of modern war; and they did not lose control of events on the eve of the conflict and attack out of fear that Germany's enemies would move first. In light of the new history, international relations scholars should reexamine their empirical understandings of this conflict, as well as their theoretical presuppositions about the causes of war.

Journal Information

International Security publishes lucid, well-documented essays on all aspects of the control and use of force, from all political viewpoints. Its articles cover contemporary policy issues, and probe historical and theoretical questions behind them. Essays in International Security have defined the debate on American national security policy and have set the agenda for scholarship on international security affairs. Readers of International Security discover new developments in: the causes and prevention of war ethnic conflict and peacekeeping post-Cold War security problems European, Asian, and regional security nuclear forces and strategy arms control and weapons proliferation post-Soviet security issues diplomatic and military history

Publisher Information

Among the largest university presses in the world, The MIT Press publishes over 200 new books each year along with 30 journals in the arts and humanities, economics, international affairs, history, political science, science and technology along with other disciplines. We were among the first university presses to offer titles electronically and we continue to adopt technologies that allow us to better support the scholarly mission and disseminate our content widely. The Press's enthusiasm for innovation is reflected in our continuing exploration of this frontier. Since the late 1960s, we have experimented with generation after generation of electronic publishing tools. Through our commitment to new products—whether digital journals or entirely new forms of communication—we have continued to look for the most efficient and effective means to serve our readership. Our readers have come to expect excellence from our products, and they can count on us to maintain a commitment to producing rigorous and innovative information products in whatever forms the future of publishing may bring.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
International Security © 2007 The MIT Press
Request Permissions

Which of the following most directly led to the start of the First World War?

Which of the following best describes the 1936 lithograph entitled The Hero by German artist George Grosz?

Which of the following best describes a similarity between the Russian revolutions?

Which of the following best explains the result of the enactment of laws like the one excerpted above?