The Blockade of Germany, or the Blockade of Europe, occurred from 1914 to 1919. The prolonged naval blockade was conducted by the Allies during and after World War I[1] in an effort to restrict the maritime supply of goods to the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. The blockade is considered one of the key elements in the eventual Allied victory in the war. In December 1918, the German Board of Public Health claimed that 763,000 German civilians had already died from starvation and disease caused by the blockade.[2][3] An academic study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000,[4] with similar or lower numbers given by more recent scholars, noting however complications with the degree of attribution of Spanish flu deaths.[5][6] Around 100,000 people may have died during the post-armistice continuation of the blockade in 1919.[7] However, it has been pointed out that there was an even slightly larger civilian excess mortality during the war in the United Kingdom, a country that was much less affected by food shortages (although this can also be attributed to the influenza epidemic and diseases such as bronchitis and tuberculosis which were not strictly nutrition-related).[8]
Both Germany and the United Kingdom relied heavily on imports to feed their population and supply their war industry. Imports of foodstuffs and war materiel to the European belligerents came primarily from the Americas and had to be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, which made Britain and Germany aim to blockade each other. The British Royal Navy was superior in numbers and could operate throughout the British Empire, while the German Kaiserliche Marine surface fleet was mainly restricted to the German Bight, using its commerce raiders and submarine warfare elsewhere. Germany was initially able to use neutral countries as a conduit for global trade, but eventually British pressure, American involvement, and German missteps led to full economic isolation.
Background
Prior to World War I, a series of conferences were held at Whitehall in 1905–1906 concerning military co-operation with France in the event of a war with Germany. The Director of Naval Intelligence, Charles Ottley, asserted that two of the Royal Navy's functions in such a war would be the capture of German commercial shipping and the blockade of German ports. A blockade was considered useful for two reasons: it could force the enemy's fleet to fight, and it could act as an economic weapon to destroy German commerce. It was not until 1908, however, that a blockade of Germany formally appeared in the navy's war plans and even then some officials were divided over how feasible it was. The plans remained in a state of constant change and revision until 1914, with the navy undecided over how best to operate such a blockade. A traditional "close blockade" involved warships being stationed directly outside an enemy's ports. By 1912, improvements in naval technology especially in torpedo boats, mines, coastal artillery and submarines led to fears that blockading ships would be vulnerable. Therefore, by July 1914, the British had decided that in the event of war with Germany, a "distant blockade" controlling entry to the Atlantic Ocean through the North Sea would be the best strategy.[9]
Meanwhile, Germany had made no specific plans to manage its wartime food supplies since in peacetime, it produced about 80% of its total consumption. The Germans also expected to requisition supplies from occupied territories, furthermore, overland imports from the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Romania would be unaffected by any naval blockade. A key component of German military thinking was the realization that notwithstanding food supplies, Germany's prospect of winning a long war with relatively weak allies against the United Kingdom, France and Russia was dubious in any case. The Schlieffen Plan was the product of this mindset, and had left the General Staff confident that the war would be over (at least in the west) long before food shortages might otherwise have become an issue. However, once it became clear that the Schlieffen Plan had failed and that Germany would have to fight a long war on two fronts, factors such as the conscription of farm laborers, the requisition of horses, poor weather and the diversion of nitrogen from fertilizer manufacture into military explosives all combined to cause a considerable drop in agricultural output.[10]
A key factor was the 1909 Declaration of London, which attempted to establish the generally recognized rules of international law. While signed, it was never formally ratified by any country (the US Senate consented to, not in time for the start of the war). The British, in particular, did not wholly accept the Declaration, but did not disregard it entirely either. As well as specifying certain rules on the treatment of neutral ships, the declaration defined three categories of neutral cargo during war:
Absolute contraband, which is clearly military cargo that can be seized without notice.
Conditional contraband, which are dual purpose goods including foodstuffs. These could be captured if "shown to be destined for the use of the armed forces or of a government department of the enemy state".
Goods not to be declared contraband, such as medical supplies, but also certain civilian raw materials and goods.
The British would "modify" and "supplement" the Declaration in their blockade.[11]
The United Kingdom, with its overwhelming sea power, established a naval blockade of Germany immediately on the outbreak of war in August 1914. This was strengthened or weakened in a number of steps.[11]
Official Royal Navy map showing approximate positions of naval minefields around the British Isles, 19th August 1918.
20 August 1914, a Maritime Order in Council declared that Conditional Contraband would be treated as Absolute Contraband.
21 September 1914, the Contraband Proclamation reassigned many goods from the "not to be declared contraband" list to the Conditional Contraband list.
29 October 1914, due to American protests, a new Maritime Order in Council repealed the 20 August order, but put the onus on the owners of the goods to prove there was not a military destination.
2 November 1914, accusing Germany of illegally placing naval mines, Britain declared the North Sea a "military area". This meant that to ensure "commerce of all countries will be able to reach its destination in safety", traffic through the area was recommended to follow specific lanes (to avoid German mines and British mines, ostensibly placed to protect against German warships), forcing them to submit to British inspection.[12]
11 March 1915, a Maritime Order in Council announced that the British would "seize all ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin". This was in retaliation for the February 1915 German "war zone" announcement[13]
The last of those measures was also preceded by the case of the SSWilhelmina(1888), a US-flagged cargo ship carrying American foodstuffs to Hamburg. The owners of the cargo had issued a guarantee that the food would not be used by the German military, which was accepted by the British. However, while the ship was en route, on 26 January 1915, the German Federal Council announced that the German government would seize all grain in Germany, a decree interpreted by the British as putting the food supply all under the control of the German Army. Thus the Wilhelmina was detained in Falmouth, Cornwall from 9 February, while the British, Germans and Americans debated how the decree affected the original assurance. The 11 March Order in Council overtook prize court proceedings which were originally planned for 31 March and the issue was eventually settled in July 1916 by Lord Mersey directing the British Government to purchase the cargo and pay damages to the ship owners, rejecting the Americans' claims of neutral trading rights.[14][15]
Eventually, it became clear that the British measures all but prevented maritime neutral trade, including foodstuffs, with the Central Powers.[16] While the British avoided the use of the word "blockade" in the above pronouncements, their actions presented an effective "distant blockade", in direct contravention of much of the London Declaration. The British defended their actions by pointing out that they had never ratified the agreement, by arguing that they were retaliating for German actions, by suggesting the Declaration failed to anticipate the military use of some goods (such as rubber),[17] and by referring to the German legal argument that coastal towns could be treated as fortifications and subjected to bombardment.[18] Despite protests, most neutral merchant vessels agreed to dock at British ports to be inspected and then escorted, less any "illegal" cargo destined for Germany, through the British minefields to their destinations.[19]
In March 1916, at the suggestion of Robert Peet Skinner, the United States Consul General in London, the inspection procedure was considerably simplified for neutral shipping. A certified manifest could be sent in advance by telegram to the local British embassy, which, if agreed, could issue a document known as a "navicert", which was forwarded to the Admiralty and would allow the cargo to pass through the blockade without the need for inspection.[20]
The German government regarded the blockade as an attempt to starve the country into defeat. Militarily, they attempted to retaliate in kind, in particular through the U-boat campaign. The German High Seas Fleet also set out multiple times from 1914 to 1916 to reduce the British Grand Fleet and regain access to vital imports. The sea conflicts culminated in the indecisive Battle of Jutland in 1916, never succeeding in breaking the blockade.[23][24]
Some German merchant ships served as blockade runners that were able to elude the Northern Patrol in periods of poor visibility. Neutral shipping was tempted by high prices to smuggle strategic materials such as rubber, cotton or metals, which could be hidden from inspection or listed as personal luggage. Some neutral ships colluded with the Germans in allowing themselves to be arrested in Danish waters. However, the desperation in Germany is illustrated by the building of two blockade-running submarines, Deutschland and Bremen.[25]
Foreign relations
The Freedom of the Seas. From the Hun Point of View British propaganda poster illustrating contradiction between German diplomatic stance and submarine attacks
While militarily Britain kept a firm hold of the situation, the diplomatic situation was more fluid. Britain's blockade did not cover Germany's surrounding neutral countries, and so could not be truly effective without their cooperation. German markets could offer high prices, and thus imports from these countries soared. The Netherlands became the biggest food supplier to Germany in 1915, with cheese exports tripling and some other products quintupling. Germany had prevented them from exporting to occupied Belgium, and Dutch traders found they could profit by consuming imports and exporting domestic production to bypass Allied requests to not allow re-exportation. To counter this, from 1916 the Entente Powers made deals to purchase commodities in these countries at above-market prices, to prevent them from being bought by the Germans. This operation was overseen in the United Kingdom by the Ministry of Blockade.[26] This was not initially successful, especially as Germany responded by torpedoing Dutch ships, forcing their exports to go to Germany.[27] Other British officials saw Sweden as the "principal offender", as it was also increasing imports from America enormously so that it could export to Germany at a profit. Exports to Germany from Sweden, Denmark and Norway increased in 1915 to almost exactly equal the loss of trade with the US. The Entente could do little to intervene as the Swedes also controlled the transit of goods to Russia.[8] In 1916, German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg declared that without the support of the neutrals, Germany would have collapsed.[27]
The Germans also heavily lobbied both the U.S. government and the American business community to intervene. German diplomats repeatedly pointed out that the blockade was hurting American exports. Under pressure, especially from commercial interests wishing to profit from wartime trade with both sides, Woodrow Wilson's administration protested vigorously. Britain did not wish to antagonise the Americans and set up a program to buy American cotton, guaranteed that the price stayed above peacetime levels and mollified cotton traders. When American ships were stopped with contraband, the British purchased the entire cargo and released the cargoless ship.[28]
Ultimately, the British were more successful with neutral countries as their blockade was careful to limit inconveniences to neutrals, while German efforts at raiding traffic to the UK had the effect of alienating world opinion, aiding the British efforts.[11] Dutch diplomats, for example, explained that their cooperation with Germany was only out of fear that the Germans would otherwise "torpedo their vessels without mercy". The British were also able to exert pressure through controlling British exports, such as coal and fertilizer, and by making the threat of potentially extending the blockade.[27] As the war went on, therefore, neutral countries cooperated more and more with the British, and so the blockade at last began to bite. Things only worsened with the February 1917 German declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare (which meant a loss of neutral tonnage, both through ships sunk and Allied requisition of vessels) and the subsequent American entry into World War I (which added immense US pressure to British efforts).[8] Sweden, as an example, was one of the last to give in. Even despite the sinking (by 1916) of almost 100 of their ships by German U-boats, even during the failed harvest of 1916 where Sweden suffered famine, Sweden had continued to export food and iron ore to Germany. But the Hjalmar Hammarskjöld government fell the next year, and combined Anglo-American pressure forced increasing restrictions on export to Germany until a full prohibition in May 1918.[11]
According to historian Alan Kramer[de], a related and perhaps more important issue for Germany was simply the fact that Germany ended up at war with most of its trading partners. Kramer notes that of the 2.5 million tons of wheat Germany imported in 1913, 0.85m tons came from Canada and Russia, 0.09m tons came from Romania (which joined the Allies in 1916) and 1.0m tons came from the US. Further, more than half of Germany's exports, with which it might expect to pay for imports, were to Britain, Russia and France.[8]
Before the war, more than 50% of German imports had been raw or semi-finished materials for German industry; chiefly textile fibres and yarn, animal hides, non-ferrous metals and ores, timber, iron ore, coal, crude oil and oil products, saltpeter and rubber. Although at the outbreak of war, stocks of strategic materials amounted to only three to six months of pre-war consumption, Germany was able to mitigate the effects of the blockade in a number of ways. Scrap and raw materials such as coal and iron ore were taken from occupied territories in France and Belgium. Inside Germany, old mines were reopened and material was recovered from spoil heaps. Scrap was recycled from the battlefield and from the civilian population;[29] for instance, a decree of March 1917 ordered church bells to be smelted for the war effort, resulting in the loss of 44% of Germany's bells.[30] Other shortages were mitigated by substitution, aided by Germany's well-developed chemical industry and university research departments; an example is the extraction of saltpeter from ammonia made by the Haber–Bosch process. Supplies could also be obtained from within the Central Powers alliance, such as bauxite for aluminium production from Austria-Hungary[29] and oil from Austrian Galicia. Oil was also imported overland from Romania, until it joined the Entente in mid-1916.[31]
However, not all of the shortages could be made good. Lack of rubber meant that trucks had to be fitted with iron tyres, limiting their speed to 12 miles per hour (19km/h). The army was prioritised for textiles and leather, so that civilians were unable to obtain new clothes and shoes. Weapons programmes were sometimes delayed or cancelled for lack of metals;[29] one example is the production of the German heavy tank, the A7V, the first production model of which was completed in October 1917, but only twenty tanks had reached combat units by the Armistice.[32]
Foodstuffs
The first English-language accounts of the effects of the blockade of foodstuffs were by humanitarians, diplomats and medical professionals, who were sympathetic to the suffering of the German people.[33] The official German account, based on data about disease, growth of children, and mortality, harshly criticised the Allies by calling the blockade a crime against innocent people.[34] The first account commissioned by the Allies was written by Professor A. C. Bell and Brigadier-General Sir James E. Edmonds, hypothesised that the blockade led to revolutionary movements but concluded that based on the evidence, "it is more than doubtful whether this is the proper explanation". Germans wanted to end the war because of the food shortage, but workers staged a revolution because of the long-term theory of socialism. The revolutionaries claimed in their slogans, for example, that they were Arbeitssklaven (worker slaves) to the monarchy.[35] Edmonds, on the other hand was supported by Colonel Irwin L. Hunt, who was in charge of civil affairs in the American occupied zone of the Rhineland, and held that food shortages were a post-armistice phenomenon caused solely by the disruptions of the German Revolution of 1918–19.[36]
More recent studies also disagree on the severity of the blockade's impact on the affected populations at the time of the revolution and the armistice. Some hold[37] that the blockade starved Germany and the Central Powers into defeat in 1918. Others hold that the armistice on 11 November was forced primarily by events on the Western Front, rather than any actions of the civilian population. The idea that a revolt of the home front forced the armistice was part of the stab-in-the-back myth. Also, Germany's largest ally, Austria-Hungary, had already signed an armistice on 3 November 1918, which exposed Germany to an invasion from the south. On 29 September 1918, General Erich Ludendorff told the Kaiser that the military front would soon collapse.
A bread queue in Berlin, 1918.
All scholars agree that the blockade made a large contribution to the outcome of the war. By 1915, Germany's imports had fallen by 55% from its prewar levels and the exports were 53% of what they had been in 1914. Apart from leading to shortages in vital raw materials such as oil and nonferrous metals, the blockade also deprived Germany of supplies of fertiliser that were vital to agriculture - exacerbated by the diversion of existing stocks to munitions production. That led to staples such as grain, potatoes, meat and dairy products becoming so scarce by the end of 1916 that many people were obliged to instead consume ersatz products, including Kriegsbrot ("war bread") and powdered milk. The food shortages caused looting and riots not only in Germany but also in Vienna and Budapest.[38] The food shortages were so severe that by the autumn of 1918, Austria-Hungary hijacked barges on the Danube full of Romanian wheat bound for Germany, which in turn threatened military retaliation.[39] Also, during the winter of 1916 to 1917, there was a failure of the potato crop, which resulted in the urban population having to subsist largely on Swedish turnips. That period became known as the Steckrübenwinter or Turnip Winter.[10]
Food riots in Berlin, 1918; a looted shop in Invalidenstraße.
The German government made some attempts to counter the effects of the blockade, with questionable effectiveness. In 1914, statutory price controls on staple items encouraged farmers to switch to unregulated produce, thereby exacerbating shortages. In early 1915, a potato shortage was blamed on the vegetable being used for pig feed, prompting the Schweinemord or "pig massacre" which resulted a glut of pork products, the main protein source for working-class Germans. This was followed by a shortage of pork, as so many pigs had been slaughtered in a short time.[40] A complicated rationing system, initially introduced in January 1915, aimed to ensure that a minimum nutritional need was met, with "war kitchens" providing cheap mass meals to impoverished civilians in larger cities. Yet at times, rations only amounted to 1,000 calories per day, requiring supplementation from the black market the poor could ill afford.[41]
Thus, German policy frequently served to make food shortages worse. Particularly resented was the effect of unequal distribution.[42] Civilians were expected to compensate for the blockade by working harder than ever. For example, the Hindenburg Programme of economic was launched on 31 August 1916 and designed to raise war productivity by the compulsory employment of all men between the ages of 17 and 60, meeting only partial success.[43] But German authorities allocated to urban civilians (representing 67% of the population) only a third of the grain harvest. The military was the true priority, with the 10% of the population in the armed forces allotted 30% of grain and 60% of meat supplies, in addition to foodstuffs looted from the occupied territories. Even as a food crisis loomed on the eve of the armistice, the army built up a reserve of 1.5 million tons of grain (equivalent to 7 months of pre-war imports), plus other foodstuffs, for a possible last-ditch battle.[6]
After armistice
Press image of a malnourished German child with tuberculosis. Photo marked 1918–1920.
Twenty-six - The existing blockade conditions set up by the allied and associated powers are to remain unchanged, and all German merchant ships found at sea are to remain liable to capture. The Allies and the United States should give consideration to the provisioning of Germany during the armistice to the extent recognized as necessary.
The blockade would therefore continue until Germany would sign a formal peace agreement.[44] In early 1919, rations in German cities were on average 1,500 calories per day.[45] In the short term Germany would stave off starvation by consuming reserves (often reallocated against governments attempts to secure them for military use) but such supplies could not last forever.[6]
The Americans were most concerned about the bad conditions in Germany, with US Food Administrator Herbert Hoover desiring an almost immediate end to the blockade so the US could sell its surplus. The French were the most hostile, fearful of a renewed invasion.[46] Britain was somewhere between, with Winston Churchill one of the figures who took notice.[47] In March he stressed the need for a speedy settlement to the British House of Commons: "We are holding all our means of coercion in full operation, or in immediate readiness for use. We are enforcing the blockade with vigour. We have strong armies ready to advance at the shortest notice. Germany is very near starvation. The evidence I have received from the officers sent by the War Office all over Germany shows, first of all, the great privations which the German people are suffering, and, secondly, the great danger of a collapse of the entire structure of German social and national life under the pressure of hunger and malnutrition. Now is therefore the moment to settle".[48]
Indeed, negotiations had dragged on with little progress for the first four months. Though the armistice made mention of food supplies, the Entente dragged their feet on questions such as fishing rights and the how Germany was to pay for food.[49] For the Germans, in negotiations from January 1919 to March 1919, they refused to agree to the Allied demand to temporarily surrender its merchant ships to their control so as to provide transport. The head of the German armistice delegation, Matthias Erzberger wanted guarantees that the food imports could be financed with foreign credit owed to German businesses.[50] Leaders in industry and government feared that the Allies might confiscate the fleet as reparations so as to gain a competitive edge over German industries.[51] Privately, German authorities had initially considered the armistice only a temporary cessation of the war (so that they can regroup their forces), and feared that when fighting broke out again, the ships would be confiscated outright. In January, German officials notified an American representative in Berlin that the shortage of food would not become critical until late spring, with some leaders urging a delay in shipments so as to avoid strengthening the German left. Ultimately, food began arriving in American ships in March,[52] and facing the threat of food riots, Germany finally agreed to surrender its fleet on 14 March 1919. The Allies allowed Germany, under their supervision, to import 300,000 tons of grain and 70,000 tons of cured pork per month until August 1919,[53] making them the largest recipient of food imports.[46] The remaining restrictions were finally lifted on 12 July 1919 after Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles.[44]
Death toll
The official German statistics estimated 763,000 civilian malnutrition and disease deaths were caused by the blockade of Germany. The statistics came from a German National Health Office report published in December 1918 that estimated the blockade to be responsible for the deaths of 762,796 civilians, and the report claimed that that figure did not include deaths caused by the Spanish flu epidemic in 1918 because the figures for the last six months of 1918 were estimated by the first six months.[54] This estimate has been heavily criticised. Maurice Parmelle maintained that "it is very far from accurate to attribute to the blockade all of the excess deaths above pre-war mortality" and believed that the German figures were "somewhat exaggerated",[55] while in 1985 C. Paul Vincent wrote that the estimate's methodology was "peculiar" and so the estimate was impossible to confirm, possibly too high.[2] Historian Alan Kramer notes that many authors have taken the estimate at face value, but cautions that it comes from a partisan source in a context of "quivering nationalist hatred".[8] The German claims were made while Germany was waging a propaganda campaign to end the Allied blockade of Germany after the armistice. Germany also raised the issue of the Allied blockade to counter charges against the German use of submarine warfare.[56][57]
In 1928, a German academic study, sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace provided a thorough analysis of the German civilian deaths during the war. The study estimated 424,000 war-related deaths of civilians over the age of one in Germany, not including Alsace-Lorraine, and the authors attributed the civilian deaths over the prewar level primarily to food and fuel shortages in 1917–1918. The study also estimated an additional 209,000 Spanish flu deaths in 1918.[58] A study sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1940 estimated the German civilian death toll at over 600,000. Based on the 1928 German study, it maintained, "A thorough inquiry has led to the conclusion that the number of 'civilian' deaths traceable to the war was 424,000, to which number must be added about 200,000 deaths caused by the influenza epidemic".[4]
The historian and demographer Jay Winter estimated that there were 300,000 excess deaths in Germany from the blockade, after subtracting deaths from the influenza epidemic.[5] In 2014, Kramer calculated that paradoxically, British civilian excess mortality increased at a higher rate than Germans (1.3%, compared to Germany's ~1%). While the British did not suffer hunger (since the U-boat campaign failed dismally in its objectives), deaths came from diseases associated with bad wartime conditions.[8]
Official German figures for the death toll from the blockade do not cover the postwar period, though Dr. Max Rubner in an April 1919 article claimed that 100,000 German civilians had died from the continuation of the blockade of Germany after the armistice.[59] The British Labour Party antiwar activist Robert Smillie issued a statement in June 1919 condemning continuation of the blockade and giving the same figure.[60][7]
From a more modern perspective, in 1985 C. Paul Vincent found that no reliable death toll data exist for the period immediately after the November 1918 armistice, but maintains that for the German people, they were the most devastating months, as "Germany's deplorable state further deteriorated."[61] N. P. Howard places half of his overall estimate of 474,085 excess civilian deaths (including influenza) into the postwar period, but attributes around 100,000 to incipient famine conditions in the first month. Conditions greatly improved after soldier's councils raided large military food reserves (set aside for a continuation of the war) and gave them to the civilian population.[6]
Sally Marks argues that accounts of a hunger blockade are a "myth" since worse conditions occurred at the same time in Belgium and the regions of Poland and of northern France that Germany had occupied, and notes known cases of fabricated accounts of starving children.[62] Mary Cox rejects such arguments, writing that even though German reports (including "freakish" photos of starving children) were exaggerated for political effect, even though some parts of Europe may have suffered worse, many millions undoubtedly did suffer intense nutritional deprivation to which intentional Allied policy played some part.[46]
"Sincere thanks America". Scrapbook given to American Quaker relief program to aid German children, 1921.
The impact on childhood was assessed by Cox by using newly discovered data, based on heights and weights of nearly 600,000 German schoolchildren, who were measured between 1914 and 1924. The data indicate that children suffered severe malnutrition. Class was a major factor, as the working-class children suffered the most but were the quickest to recover after the war. Recovery to normality was made possible by massive food aid organized by the United States and other former enemies.[63][64][65]
↑ The New Cambridge Modern History, Vol 12 (2nd ed), Cambridge University Press, 1968, pp. 213
1 2 C. Paul Vincent, The Politics of Hunger: the Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915–1919. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1985. ISBN978-0-8214-0831-5 p. 145
↑ "Schädigung der deutschen Volkskraft durch die feindliche Blockade" [Damage to the German National Strength by the Enemy Blockade]. Memorandum of the Reichsgesundheitsamt [Reich Board of Health], 27 December 1918. Berlin: Reichsdruckerei. The report notes on page 17 that the figures for the second half of 1918 were estimated based on the first half of 1918.
1 2 Grebler, Leo (1940). The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria–Hungary. Yale University Press.1940 Page 78
1 2 Jay Winter, "Some Paradoxes of the First World War," in The Upheaval of War: Family, Work and Welfare in Europe, 1914-1918, ed. Richard Wall and Jay Winter, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988
↑ Unlike the British November declaration, this was a pseudo-unrestricted submarine warfare campaign, where ships were liable to be sunk without warning.
↑ Clapp, Edwin J. (1915). "Chapter IV: The Wilhelmina - A Test Case". Economic Aspects of the War. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
↑ "The war at sea". www.nationalarchives.gov.uk. The National Archives (United Kingdom). Archived from the original on 8 February 2017. Retrieved 4 November 2019. Britain still controlled the sea, and Germany never again attempted a full-scale naval confrontation. Germany was thus prevented from receiving vital war supplies and foodstuffs throughout the conflict
↑ Gliech, Oliver (7 January 2015). "Petroleum". encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net. 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. Retrieved 21 July 2024.
↑ Henry Noel Brailsford, Across the Blockade: A Record of Travels in Enemy Europe (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1919); Ruth von der Leyan, The English Food Blockade in Its Effects on Juvenile Criminality and Degradation (Berlin, 1919); and Lina Richter, Family Life in Germany under the Blockade (from Reports of Doctors, School Nurses, Children's Judges and Teachers) (London: National Labor Press, 1919); Ernest Starling, "The Food Supply of Germany during the War", Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 83 (1920): 225-254.
↑ Archibald Colquhoun Bell, A History of the Blockade of Germany and of the countries associated with her in the Great War, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey, 1914–1918. London: H.M. Stationery Off., 1937, p. 691.
1 2 The New Cambridge Modern History, Volume 12, (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, 1968, pp. 213
↑ Anne Roerkohl, Hungerblockade und Heimatfront: Die kommunale Lebensmittelversorgung in Westfalen während des Ersten Weltkrieges, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, 1991, p. 348; Wilfried Rudloff, Die Wohlfahrtsstadt: Kommunale Ernährungs-, Fürsorge, und Wohnungspolitik am Beispiel Münchens 1910-1933, Göttingen, Vandenhooeck & Ruprecht, 1998, p. 184
↑ Verhandlung der verfassungsgebenden Nationalversammlung: Stenographische Berichte und Drucksachen, Vol 24, Berlin, Norddeutschen Buchdruckerei, 1919, pp. 631-635
↑ Peter Krüger, Deutschland und die Reparation 1918/19: Die Genese des Reparationsproblems in Deutschland zwischen Waffenstillstand und Versailler Friedensschluß, Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1973, p. 93
↑ Marks, Sally (2013). "Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany, and the Versailles Treaty, 1918–1921". The Journal of Modern History. 85 (3): 650–651. doi:10.1086/670825.
↑ Germany. Gesundheits-Amt. Schaedigung der deutschen Volkskraft durch die feindliche Blockade. Denkschrift des Reichsgesundheitsamtes, Dezember 1918. (Parallel English translation) Injuries inflicted to the German national strength through the enemy blockade. Memorial of the German Board of Public Health, 27 December 1918 [Berlin, Reichsdruckerei,] the German Board of Health report provided an English translation of the German text. On page 17, it stated, "The high accumulation of cases of death from influenza which is to be noticed only in the second half-year of 1918 has consequently not been taken into account at all, although a considerable part of these cases of death was the consequence of bad constitution of the body, caused by malnutrition".
↑ Blockade and sea power; The Blockade, 1914–1919, and Its Significance for a World State, by Maurice Parmelle New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Co. [1924] pages 221–226
↑ The Blockade of Germany after the Armistice, 1918–1919 Bane, S.L., 1942, Stanford University Press, pp. 699–700
↑ Bumm, Franz, ed., Deutschlands Gesundheitsverhältnisse unter dem Einfluss des Weltkrieges, Stuttgart, Berlin [etc.] Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt; New Haven, Yale University Press, 1928, p. 22 to 61
↑ C. Paul Vincent, The Politics of hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915–1919, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, c1985ISBN 978-0-8214-0831-5, p. 145
↑ Mary Elisabeth Cox, "Hunger games: or how the Allied blockade in the First World War deprived German children of nutrition, and Allied food aid subsequently saved them". Economic History Review 68.2 (2015): 600-631.
↑ "Hunger in War and Peace: Women and Children in Germany 1914-1924" Cox, Mary E. 2019. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-882011-6
Swedish iron ore was an important economic and military factor in the European theatre of World War II, as Sweden was the main contributor of iron ore to Nazi Germany. The average percentages by source of Nazi Germany’s iron ore procurement through 1933–43 by source were: Sweden: 43.0 Domestic production (Germany): 28.2 France: 12.9. Within the German military the Navy was most dependent on Swedish steel as an absolute necessity to the German war effort, according to their grand admiral. It has also been argued that the Swedish export helped prolong the war.
Unrestricted submarine warfare is a type of naval warfare in which submarines sink merchant ships such as freighters and tankers without warning. The use of unrestricted submarine warfare has had significant impacts on international relations in regards to both the First World War and the Second World War. Its history has been dominated by German decision making.
Naval warfare in World War I was mainly characterised by blockade. The Allied Powers, with their larger fleets and surrounding position, largely succeeded in their blockade of Germany and the other Central Powers, whilst the efforts of the Central Powers to break that blockade, or to establish an effective counter blockade with submarines and commerce raiders, were eventually unsuccessful. Major fleet actions were extremely rare and proved less decisive.
During World War I, the German Empire was one of the Central Powers. It began participation in the conflict after the declaration of war against Serbia by its ally, Austria-Hungary. German forces fought the Allies on both the eastern and western fronts, although German territory itself remained relatively safe from widespread invasion for most of the war, except for a brief period in 1914 when East Prussia was invaded. A tight blockade imposed by the Royal Navy caused severe food shortages in the cities, especially in the winter of 1916–17, known as the Turnip Winter. At the end of the war, Germany's defeat and widespread popular discontent triggered the German Revolution of 1918–1919 which overthrew the monarchy and established the Weimar Republic.
The East African campaign in World War I was a series of battles and guerrilla actions, which started in German East Africa (GEA) and spread to portions of Mozambique, Rhodesia, British East Africa, the Uganda, and the Belgian Congo. The campaign all but ended in German East Africa in November 1917 when the Germans entered Mozambique and continued the campaign living off Portuguese supplies.
The Mediterranean U-boat Campaign in the Mediterranean Sea was fought by Austria-Hungary and German Empire against the Allies during World War I. It was characterised by the ability of the Central Powers to raid with near impunity during the first years of the war, causing substantial shipping losses, until the introduction of the convoy system allowed the Allies to drastically cut their losses from 1917 on.
During World War I (1914–1918), Brazil initially adopted a neutral position, in accordance with the Hague Convention, as an attempt to maintain markets for its export products, mainly coffee, latex and industrially manufactured items.
The U-boat campaign from 1914 to 1918 was the World War I naval campaign fought by German U-boats against the trade routes of the Allies. It took place largely in the seas around the British Isles and in the Mediterranean. The German Empire relied on imports for food and domestic food production and the United Kingdom relied heavily on imports to feed its population, and both required raw materials to supply their war industry; the powers aimed, therefore, to blockade one another. The British had the Royal Navy which was superior in numbers and could operate on most of the world's oceans because of the British Empire, whereas the Imperial German Navy surface fleet was mainly restricted to the German Bight, and used commerce raiders and submarine warfare to operate elsewhere.
Spain remained neutral throughout World War I between 28 July 1914 and 11 November 1918, and despite domestic economic difficulties, it was considered "one of the most important neutral countries in Europe by 1915". Spain had maintained a non-aligned stance during the political difficulties of pre-war Europe, and continued its neutrality after the war until the Spanish Civil War began in 1936. While there was no direct military involvement in the war, German forces were interned in Spanish Guinea in late 1915.
The Blockade of Germany (1939–1945), also known as the Economic War, involved operations carried out during World War II by the British Empire and by France in order to restrict the supplies of minerals, fuel, metals, food and textiles needed by Nazi Germany – and later by Fascist Italy – in order to sustain their war efforts. The economic war consisted mainly of a naval blockade, which formed part of the wider Battle of the Atlantic, but also included the bombing of economically important targets and the preclusive buying of war materials from neutral countries in order to prevent their sale to the Axis powers.
The Turnip Winter of 1916 to 1917 was a period of profound civilian hardship in Germany during World War I.
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.
The economic history of World War I covers the methods used by the First World War (1914–1918), as well as related postwar issues such as war debts and reparations. It also covers the economic mobilization of labour, industry, and agriculture leading to economic failure. It deals with economic warfare such as the blockade of Germany, and with some issues closely related to the economy, such as military issues of transportation. For a broader perspective see home front during World War I.
Sweden, following its long-standing policy of neutrality since the Napoleonic Wars, remained neutral throughout World War I between 28 July 1914 and 11 November 1918. However, this neutrality was not maintained without difficulty and Sweden at various times sympathised with different parties in the conflict.
The German occupation of Belgium of World War I was a military occupation of Belgium by the forces of the German Empire between 1914 and 1918. Beginning in August 1914 with the invasion of neutral Belgium, the country was almost completely overrun by German troops before the winter of the same year as the Allied forces withdrew westwards. The Belgian government went into exile, while King Albert I and the Belgian Army continued to fight on a section of the Western Front. Under the German military, Belgium was divided into three separate administrative zones. The majority of the country fell within the General Government, a formal occupation administration ruled by a German general, while the others, closer to the front line, came under more repressive direct military rule.
The Netherlands remained neutral during World War I, a stance that arose partly from a strict policy of neutrality in international affairs that started in 1830, with the secession of Belgium from the Netherlands. Dutch neutrality was not guaranteed by the major powers in Europe and was not part of the Dutch constitution. The country's neutrality was based on the belief that its strategic position between the German Empire, German-occupied Belgium, and the British guaranteed its safety.
The diplomatic history of World War I covers the non-military interactions among the major players during World War I. For the domestic histories of participants see home front during World War I. For a longer-term perspective see international relations (1814–1919) and causes of World War I. For the following (post-war) era see international relations (1919–1939). The major "Allies" grouping included Great Britain and its empire, France, Russia, Italy and the United States. Opposing the Allies, the major Central Powers included Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and Bulgaria. Other countries also joined the Allies. For a detailed chronology see timeline of World War I.
The onset of the 20th century saw England as the world's foremost naval and colonial power, supported by a 100,000-man army designed to fight small wars in its outlying colonies. Since the Napoleonic Wars nearly a century earlier, Britain and Europe had enjoyed relative peace and tranquility. The onset of World War I caught the British Empire by surprise. As it increased the size of its army through conscription, one of its first tasks was to impose a complete naval blockade against Germany. It was not popular in the United States. However, it was very important to England.
During World War I (1914–1918), belligerents from both the Allied Powers and Central Powers violated international criminal law, committing numerous war crimes. This includes the use of indiscriminate violence and massacres against civilians, torture, sexual violence, forced deportation and population transfer, death marches, the use of chemical weapons and the targeting of medical facilities.
SS Wilhelmina (1888) was a cargo steamship. Owned by an US company during WWI, while sailing from New York City to Hamburg in early 1915 it was seized by the British for carrying contraband foodstuffs, triggering a diplomatic incident over how the British naval blockade of Germany impacted neutral trading rights.
Howard, N. P. "The social and political consequences of the allied food blockade of Germany, 1918-19." German History 11.2 (1993): 161–88. online
Further reading
Bell, A.C. A history of the blockade of Germany and of the countries associated with her in the Great War, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, 1914-1918 (London: HM Stationery Office, 1937). online
Cundy, Alyssa A "Weapon of Starvation": The Politics, Propaganda, and Morality of Britain's Hunger Blockade of Germany, 1914-1919online
Davis, Belinda. Food Politics, and Everyday Life in World War I Berlin: Home Fires Burning (U of North Carolina Press, 2000) onlineArchived 11 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine
Hull, Isabel V. A scrap of paper: breaking and making international law during the Great War (Cornell UP, 2014).
Kennedy, Greg. "Intelligence and the Blockade, 1914–17: A Study in Administration, Friction and Command." Intelligence and National security 22.5 (2007): 699–721.
Lambert, Nicholas A., Planning Armageddon: British Economic Warfare and the First World War (Harvard University Press 2012)
Link, Arthur S. Wilson: the struggle for Neutrality 1914-1915 (1960), passim the legal and diplomatic aspects of blockade from American perspective
McDermott, John. "Total War and the Merchant State: Aspects of British Economic Warfare against Germany, 1914-16." Canadian Journal of History 21.1 (1986): 61–76.
McKercher, B. J. C., and Keith E. Neilson. "‘The triumph of unarmed forces’: Sweden and the allied blockade of Germany, 1914–1917." Journal of Strategic Studies 7.2 (1984): 178–199.
Mulder, Nicholas. The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War (2022) ch 1–2; excerpt also see online review
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
