Was the war at sea more decisive than the western front in world war 1?
830042
NO. The main sea battle was the battle of Jutland\n\nFourteen British and eleven German ships were sunk with great loss of life. Jellicoe tried to cut the Germans off from their base in the hope of continuing the battle in the morning, but under cover of darkness Scheer crossed the wake of the British fleet and returned to port.\n\nFor the British, the outcome was a marginal tactical gain. Although they had lost more ships and had not destroyed the German fleet as intended, the Germans had retreated to port and the British were in command of the area. At a strategic level the outcome was more clear cut. The damaged British ships were restored to operational use more quickly than the German ships. However, the High Seas Fleet remained active and its presence as a fleet in being prevented a complete blockade of Germany. \n\nIt was a stalemate with German Fleet in PORT.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland\n\nThe land war ended after 4 years of stalemate,on August 15, General Haig called a halt and began planning a new offensive in Albert. This Second Battle of the Somme began on August 21. Some 130,000 United States troops were involved, along with soldiers from Third and Fourth British Armies. It was an overwhelming success for the Allies. The Second German Army was pushed back over a 55 kilometer (34 mi) front, and by September 2, the Germans were back to the Hindenburg Line, which was their starting point in 1914.\n\nLudendorff had decided, by October 1, that Germany had two ways out of the War—total annihilation or an armistice.\n\nThe German army could no longer fight. Americans were arriving and the Germans had run out of men horses and equipment. \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
676487
World War 1 is a big one.  Australia became  a federation (1901), Russian revolution.
670765
Absolutely. The US was able to apply resources that the British and the Russians struggled to supply. The Russians fought an incredibly bitter war and in many cases the Nazis were known to prefer fighting against the US and the UK than the Russians. However, it was the sheer scale of the entrance of the US to WW2 that put Hitler firmly on the backfoot. To sum up - The British won the war because they stood fast against a superior army, the Russians won the war through sheer sacrifice of numbers and grim determination, and the US won the war because although they were more interested in sorting out the Japanese (Pearl Harbour), they pumped billions of dollars worth of aircraft, man power and ammunition into the effort.
965772
Your question is kind of confusing because I don't know if you want information regarding the Central Powers (the triple alliance) or the Triple Entente.  What I can tell you is that anything you want to know about WWI you can get at this website http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW.htm
105817
The United States took a neutral position before entry into WWI.  Wilson had initially run on the platform of the man who would keep the U.S. out of the war.  The government also felt that entry onto the British side would divide the nation (with the U.S.'s large german population.)  The Zimmerman telegram would change all that, of course....
188954
I once had a 6th grade teacher that said that nobody could rule the world because it would spread them to thin. I subscribe to that theory because it sounds reasonable to me. Just because Germany or Japan took over France there was still a resistance that contributed to the victory by the allies. If it was here there would also have been an underground that would have made it tough to keep us in line. So the answer to this is no I think that English will always be the language of the land regardless if we pass on a war or not.
446443
basically it means that the majority of the countries of the world were at war. The first world war was against germany. \n\nUSA, and Europe, Africa, etc. were fighting to remain free.
609529
Killing of Archduke was a trigger moment, I think.\nThe real cause was that Germany started rising very fast and it has discovered that it was left behind by countries like British Empire, US and France. True, they had big economies and vast colonial territories (like Britain and France)in Africa and Asia, plus European map consisted of unsolved puzzles.\nThe steadfast growing of German economy and its advance in military technologies made it possible to challenge the world leaders of that time and finish first the Austria-Hungary Empire.\nUltimately, the cause for WW 1 were nonnegotiable contradictions within the Great Powers of that time.
1175396
Australia excels at Light infantry operations, particuarly in jungle environments.\n\nThis grew out of our experiences in WW2, and can be displayed by our records in the Indonesian Confrontation and Vietnam.
99398
The War of 1812's sea warfare was significant in two main fronts: Niagra and the Blockade of the Atlantic.  Brittain also played a small, but ironic, role.  There is a lot of detail into the Niagra conflict and should be researched indepth on your own. Read Carl Benn's The War of 1812 and various articles in the Madison Presidential Library.
251358
no it is not justified..the only reson we ewnt to war in the first place was for oil. and i think everyone knows that. This is wat war is all about, thorughout history form ww1 war was about natural resources liek oil. defiantely not justified
89455
In WWI the Phillipines were a colony of the United States. The US took control (sort of, there were a lot of rebels) after the Spanish-American War in 1898.\n\nNot a lot happened in the Pacific during WWI. Japan (which was on the allied side), as well as Australis and New Zealand snapped up some pacific islands that were German colonies. But if there was any fighting on the islands it was mild.\n\nThere were some engagements between Japanses and German naval forces out there. A few ships went down on each side.\n\nAs far as I can tell (see reference below) nothing directly involved the Phillipines during 1914 - 1918.\n\nOf course World War II was a different matter, it was a major battle ground in the Pacific.
362025
I'd say WWI, after WWII the soviets and Americans were pretty much at eachother's throats and the advent of the atomic age ensured heightened levels of paranoia from all sides now that a single bomber could level a city.\n\nAfter WWI things could have gone a lot better if the allied powers weren't so harsh on germany (but that goes back to the french's stupidity during the napoleonic wars, but I digress) and if the stock market hadn't crashed hitler would have had a much harder time coming to power.
370806
I don't need 3 or 4 pages. What distinguishes World War One from all previous conflicts was that it was what we call a "Total War". That meant that not only were ALL citizens from the belligerent countries fair game for destruction, but all citizens were expected to contribute to the way effort in any way they could. There were no rules of gentlemanly conduct and no limits to what either side could do. It was a contest between the maximum force of one side, and the maximum force of the other side, hence, Total War.
106566
I’m getting too old, I can’t believe anyone would need to ask such a question.\nWorld War I, 1914–18, also known as the Great War, conflict, chiefly in Europe, among most of the great Western powers. It was the largest war the world had yet seen.Causes \nWorld War I was immediately precipitated by the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by a Serbian nationalist in 1914. There were, however, many factors that had led toward war. Prominent causes were the imperialistic, territorial, and economic rivalries that had been intensifying from the late 19th cent., particularly among Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Austria-Hungary.\nOf equal importance was the rampant spirit of nationalism, especially unsettling in the empire of Austria-Hungary and perhaps also in France. Nationalism had brought the unification of Germany by blood and iron, and France, deprived of Alsace and Lorraine by the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, had been left with its own nationalistic cult seeking revenge against Germany. While French nationalists were hostile to Germany, which sought to maintain its gains by militarism and alliances, nationalism was creating violent tensions in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy; there the large Slavic national groups had grown increasingly restive, and Serbia as well as Russia fanned Slavic hopes for freedom and Pan-Slavism.\nImperialist rivalry had grown more intense with the new imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th cent. The great powers had come into conflict over spheres of influence in China and over territories in Africa, and the Eastern Question, created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire, had produced several disturbing controversies. Particularly unsettling was the policy of Germany. It embarked late but aggressively on colonial expansion under Emperor William II, came into conflict with France over Morocco, and seemed to threaten Great Britain by its rapid naval expansion.\nThese issues, imperialist and nationalist, resulted in a hardening of alliance systems in the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente and in a general armaments race. Nonetheless, a false optimism regarding peace prevailed almost until the onset of the war, an optimism stimulated by the long period during which major wars had been avoided, by the close dynastic ties and cultural intercourse in Europe, and by the advance of industrialization and economic prosperity. Many Europeans counted on the deterrent of war's destructiveness to preserve the peace.\nWar's Outbreak \nThe Austrian annexation (1908) of Bosnia and Hercegovina created an international crisis, but war was avoided. The Balkan Wars (1912–13) remained localized but increased Austria's concern for its territorial integrity, while the solidification of the Triple Alliance made Germany more yielding to the demands of Austria, now its one close ally. The assassination (June 28, 1914) of Archduke Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo set in motion the diplomatic maneuvers that ended in war.\nThe Austrian military party, headed by Count Berchtold, won over the government to a punitive policy toward Serbia. On July 23, Serbia was given a nearly unacceptable ultimatum. With Russian support assured by Sergei Sazonov, Serbia accepted some of the terms but hedged on others and rejected those infringing upon its sovereignty. Austria-Hungary, supported by Germany, rejected the British proposal of Sir Edward Grey (later Lord Grey of Fallodon) and declared war (July 28) on Serbia.\nRussian mobilization precipitated a German ultimatum (July 31) that, when unanswered, was followed by a German declaration of war on Russia (Aug. 1). Convinced that France was about to attack its western frontier, Germany declared war (Aug. 3) on France and sent troops against France through Belgium and Luxembourg. Germany had hoped for British neutrality, but German violation of Belgian neutrality gave the British government the pretext and popular support necessary fo
1094590
The Yamato had thicker armour, but the Iowa class ships had better fire control due to superior gunsights etc. It's pretty much a toss-up IMHO.
475258
Valor\nActually, the U.S. Navy was the first military service to accept and use the Medal of Honor, the General-in-Chief of the Army Winfield killed the idea as a European affectation