The idea of that, even before the Gallipoli landings happened, provoked what was then called the “Eastern Question”: what would happen after the Ottomans had been defeated? To both pursue and answer that question, the British government set up a committee. Mark Sykes was the youngest member of the committee and he spent the most time of all its members on the subject, thinking through the options.

This article is an edited transcript of The Sykes-Picot Agreement with James Barr, available on History Hit TV.

Who was Mark Sykes?

Sykes had been a Conservative MP for four years by 1915. He was the son of Sir Tatton Sykes, a very eccentric Yorkshire baronet who had three joys in life: milk pudding, church architecture and the maintenance of his body at a constant temperature.

Sir Tatton Sykes had taken Mark to Egypt for the first time when he was about 11 years old. Mark was blown away by what he saw, like many tourists have been since, and he went back there repeatedly as a young man and as a student.

After he got a job as an attaché in the British Embassy in Constantinople, the younger Sykes returned to Egypt repeatedly. This all culminated in 1915 with the publication of his book The Caliphs’ Last Heritage, which was a part-travel diary and a part-history of the decay of the Ottoman Empire. The book established him as an expert on that part of the world.

Mark Sykes

Image Credit: Public Domain

But was he actually an expert?

Not really. Mark Sykes was rather what we’d think of as an adventurous tourist. You would get the impression (as people did within the British cabinet) that he could speak a number of Eastern languages, including Arabic and Turkish. But, in fact, he could speak none of them beyond sort of saying marhaba (hello) or shukran (thank you), and things like that.

But the book, which is about two inches thick, gave him this air of learning, not to mention he’d actually been to that part of the world. That in itself was a relatively rare thing. Most British politicians had not been there. They would have even struggled to place many of the most important towns and cities on a map of the area. So in contrast to the people he was dealing with, Sykes knew a lot more about it than they did – but he didn’t know that much.

The strange thing was that the people who did know about it had by and large been posted out to Cairo or to Basra or were based in Deli. Sykes enjoyed influence because he was still back at the seat of power and knew something about the subject. But there were many people who knew more about the issues than he did.

Splitting the sick man of Europe in two

The committee that was set up to determine Britain’s strategic interest in the Middle East finalised its views in the middle of 1915 and Sykes was sent out to Cairo and to Deli to canvas British officials about what they thought about the ideas.

The committee originally thought about dividing the Ottoman Empire up along its existing provincial lines and creating a kind of Balkan system of mini-states in which Britain could then pull the strings.

Detail of map of Sykes-Picot Agreement, showing areas of control agreed between the British and French in West Asia.

Image Credit: Public Domain

But Sykes had a much clearer idea. He proposed to divide the empire in two, “down the line that ran from the E in Acre to the Last K in Kirkuk” – with this line in practice being a British-controlled defensive cordon across the Middle East that would protect the land routes to India. And, surprisingly enough, the officials in Egypt and India all agreed with his idea rather than the idea of the majority of the committee.

So he went back to London saying, “Well, actually, no one likes your idea, but they like my idea of this belt of English-controlled country” – that was the phrase he used – that would go from the Mediterranean coast to the Persian frontier, and act as a way of keeping Britain’s jealous European rivals away from India.

Did oil play a big part in this British decision?

The British knew about oil in Persia, now Iran, but they didn’t at that point appreciate how much oil there was in Iraq. So the bizarre thing about the Sykes-Picot agreement is that it’s not about oil. It’s actually about the fact that the Middle East is a strategic crossroads between Europe, Asia and Africa.

The day was already a significant one. For the archduke, it marked his wedding anniversary and a rare time that the emperor would allow him to be seen in public with his commoner wife, Sophie. But for many Bosnian Serbs, the archduke’s visit to their country – which had been formally annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908 – was a far less happy occasion.

The plotters

Opposition to the Austro-Hungarian annexation had given rise to the formation of Young Bosnia, a predominantly student revolutionary movement made up mostly of Bosnian Serbs, but also Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. It was a cohort within this group who plotted the assassination of the archduke.

As Franz and his wife drove through Sarajevo in an open-top car, the plotters were waiting for him. The first two would-be assassins failed to act, but the third, a man named Nedeljko Čabrinović, threw a bomb at the car. The bomb missed its target, however, bouncing off the hood of the archduke’s car and exploding behind it, injuring 20 bystanders.

Gavrilo Princip fires at the archduke and his wife.

Image Credit: Cuban leader Fidel Castro gives a speech in Cuba circa October 22, 1962 during the Cold War Cuban Missile Crisis. Fifty years after the Cuban missile crisis, Havana remains virulently hostile to the United States, which reciprocates by maintaining a crippling economic embargo against the communist-ruled Caribbean island. AFP PHOTO-/AFP/GettyImages ORG XMIT:

Afterwards, Čabrinović attempted suicide, first taking a cyanide tablet that proved a dud and then throwing himself into a river only to find it was just four inches deep. He was then caught by an angry mob and almost beaten to death before being taken into custody.

The second assassination attempt

The outraged archduke proceeded to a town hall meeting before setting off to visit the hospitalised victims of Čabrinović’s attack. En route to the hospital, his driver took a wrong turn into Franz Josef Street where another of the plotters, Gavrilo Princip, happened to be sitting in a café.

Gavrilo Princip was just 19 when he killed Franz Ferdinand and his wife.

Princip, a 19-year-old Croat previously rejected from joining Serbian guerrilla bands in the First Balkan War due to his small stature, was determined to prove himself. As the archduke’s car backed out of the street, he seized his chance and opened fire.

Sophie, who was shot first, was struck in the abdomen, while Franz was hit in the neck. As his crying wife lay dying, the archduke cried out to her, “Don’t die darling, live for our children” – but shortly after they were both dead.

The aftermath

Too young to face the death penalty, Princip was tried for the murders and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He died in 1918 from a combination of malnutrition and tuberculosis.

Meanwhile, although the 19-year-old and his fellow conspirators attempted to deflect blame for the killings away from Serbia, the assassination of the archduke was viewed as a provocation by the Austro-Hungarians. Exactly one month later, the empire declared war on Serbia.

Churchill’s refusal to negotiate with Nazi Germany and his unwavering commitment to victory, even in the darkest hours of the war, earned him admiration and respect on a global scale. His leadership during the Battle of Britain, where the Royal Air Force successfully defended the country against German air attacks, further solidified his reputation as a steadfast leader.

Beyond his wartime achievements, Churchill’s career as a politician, writer, and historian also contributed to his worldwide fame. Churchill’s international influence and recognition as a statesman continue to resonate, solidifying his place as one of the most revered figures in modern history.

Young Churchill

Winston Churchill, characterised as a stocky red-haired boy, endured a somewhat distant relationship with his aristocratic parents during his youth. He encountered difficulties during his school years, particularly at Harrow, which he despised. However, he persevered and ultimately secured admission to the prestigious Royal Military College at Sandhurst, marking a turning point in his educational journey.

Following his initiation as a cavalry officer in the Queen’s Hussars, Churchill confronted the financial burden of the officer’s mess while feeling neglected by his family. Determined to secure additional income, he embarked on a journey to Cuba, assuming the role of a War Correspondent.

Churchill held a certain fondness for that period, recalling that his 21st birthday coincided with his inaugural exposure to enemy fire—an experience that would repeat itself in the future. He also developed a lasting appreciation for Cuban cigars during his time on the island.

Churchill in the military dress uniform of the 4th Queen’s Own Hussars at Aldershot in 1895. Image credit: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image Credit: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Travelling the Empire

In 1897, the British Army transferred Churchill to India, which was under British rule at the time, where Churchill not only focused on his military education but also developed a keen interest in British politics. In the same year, upon learning about a campaign against a tribal group on the north-western frontier, Churchill sought permission to join the expedition.

His experiences during this campaign served as the inspiration for his first book, The Story of the Malakand Field Force, in which he vividly recounted the events and challenges faced during the campaign. A year later, in 1898, Churchill was transferred to Egypt, a transfer that allowed him to further expand his military and political experiences.

Churchill went on to join Lord Kitchener’s force in the Sudan to combat Islamist rebels. It was during the battle of Omdurman that Churchill participated in a historic cavalry charge, marking the last such charge in British history, striking down several opponents from the back of his horse.

Upon his return to England in 1899, Churchill made the decision to resign from his military commission and embarked on a new journey in politics. Although his initial attempt at securing a parliamentary seat in Oldham was unsuccessful, Churchill’s determination remained undeterred.

The stage was set for Churchill’s meteoric rise as a renowned statesman and leader.

The Boer War

In October 1899, a pivotal moment in history unfolded as the South African Boers initiated hostilities against the British Empire, launching attacks on British territories in the region. Seizing the opportunity to be on the front lines, Churchill secured a position as a correspondent for The Morning Post and embarked on a voyage aboard the same ship as the newly appointed commander, Sir Redvers Buller.

Churchill spent weeks reporting from the front lines, providing firsthand accounts of the ongoing battles. During one fateful scouting expedition to the north aboard an armoured train, the journey was unexpectedly derailed by enemy forces.

Churchill found himself once again engaging in combat, but soon found himself captured and imprisoned within a Boer Prisoner of War camp.

Churchill commanding the 6th Battalion, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, 1916. His second-in-command, Archibald Sinclair, is seated on the left. Image credit: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Incredibly, after enlisting the help of a local mine manager he escaped over the fences and walked 300 miles to neutral territory in Portuguese East Africa – an escapade that briefly made him a national hero.

Ascending the political ladder

In 1900 Churchill once again stood for Oldham as a Conservative Party MP – this time successfully. However, despite being just 26 and regarded as a bright new hope by the party, the young man’s stance on free trade, and his friendship with the Liberal MP David Lloyd-George, meant that he took the almost unprecedented step of ‘crossing the floor’ and joining the Liberals in 1904.

That same year, he met Clementine Hozier, at a ball in Crewe Hall, whom he would marry 4 years later on 12 September 1908 in St. Margaret’s, Westminster.

Despite it’s controversy, the decision to join the Liberals appeared to be vindicated in 1905 when they swept into office, and new Prime Minister Campbell-Bannerman granted Churchill the position of Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies – an important position given the fragile nature of the Empire after the Boer War.

After demonstrating his capabilities in various roles, Churchill then joined the cabinet at the relatively young age of 34. As the President of the Board of Trade, he introduced a series of progressive policies, including the implementation of National Insurance and the introduction of the first minimum wage in the United Kingdom.

Churchill (second left) photographed at the Siege of Sidney Street. Image credit: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image Credit: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

A controversial career

Continuing his remarkable ascent, Churchill’s political career reached new heights when he assumed the role of Home Secretary in 1910. However, his handling of a miner’s riot in Wales drew strong criticism from Welsh and Socialist circles, as his militaristic approach clashed with their expectations of a more measured response.

Then, in 1911, a gripping incident unfolded in London as a pair of Latvian anarchists found themselves besieged in a house. Intriguingly, Churchill, arrived at the scene amidst the chaos. Churchill later disputed his direct involvement, but was documented as giving operational orders and allegedly preventing the fire brigade from rescuing the anarchists from the burning building.

These controversial actions were widely criticised by senior political figures, who viewed them as irresponsible and somewhat farcical. Churchill’s reputation suffered a blow as a result.

Despite these setbacks, Churchill’s early career had already established him as one of the most charismatic and renowned politicians in the country by the outbreak of World War One. Moreover, the experiences from these incidents provided him with valuable lessons and a lifelong passion for warfare, foreign affairs, and the intricacies of high-level politics.

I realise that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone.

The night before her execution by German firing squad, Edith Cavell uttered these words to her private chaplain. Convicted of treason by the German government for smuggling Allied troops out of Belgium, Cavell’s courage and dedication to saving others never wavered.

Working as a nurse in World War One, she tended to the wounded of both sides of the conflict, and helped save the lives of over 200 Allied soldiers fleeing German occupation. Here are 10 facts about the woman whose story has inspired the world for over 100 years.

1. She was born and raised in Norwich

Edith Cavell was born on 4 December 1865 in Swardeston near Norwich, where her father had been vicar for 45 years.

She attended Norwich High School for Girls before moving to boarding schools in Somerset and Peterborough, and was a talented painter. She also had a knack for French – a skill that would come in handy in her future work on the continent.

Though opportunities for female employment were scarce in the 19th century, the young Cavell was determined to make a difference. In a prophetic letter to her cousin, she wrote “some day, somehow, I am going to do something useful. I don’t know what it will be. I only know that it will be something for people. They are, most of them, so helpless, so hurt and so unhappy.”

After completing her studies she became a governess, and between the ages of 25 and 30 worked for a family in Brussels teaching their 4 young children.

2. Her career in nursing began close to home

In 1895, she returned home to care for her seriously ill father, and following his recovery resolved to become a nurse. She applied to study at the London Hospital, eventually becoming a private travelling nurse. This required treating patients in their homes with conditions such as cancer, appendicitis, gout and pneumonia, and for her role in assisting the typhoid outbreak in Maidstone in 1897, she received the Maidstone Medal.

Cavell gained valuable experience working in hospitals all over the country, from Shoreditch Infirmary to institutions in Manchester and Salford, before fatefully being called abroad.

3. She was involved in pioneering work on the continent

In 1907, Antoine Depage invited Cavell to be matron of Brussels’ first nursing school, L’École Belge d’Infirmières Diplômées. With experience in Brussels and proficiency in French, Cavell was a triumph and in a mere year became responsible for training nurses for 3 hospitals, 24 schools, and 13 nurseries.

Depage believed that the country’s religious institutions were not keeping up with modern medicinal practices, and in 1910 established a new secular hospital in Saint-Gilles, Brussels. Cavell was asked to be the matron of this establishment, and that same year set up a nursing journal, L’infirmière. With her help, the nursing profession established a good foothold in Belgium, and she is often considered the mother of the profession in that country.

Edith Cavell (centre) with a group of her student nurses in Brussels (Image Credit: Imperial War Museums / Public Domain)

4. When war broke out she aided wounded troops on both sides

When World War One broke out in 1914, Cavell was back in Britain visiting her now-widowed mother. Rather than remain in safety, she was determined to return to her clinic in Belgium, informing relatives “at a time like this, I am more needed than ever.”

By the winter of 1914, Belgium was almost completely overrun by German troops. Cavell continued to work from her clinic, which had now been turned into a hospital for wounded troops by the Red Cross, and nursed both Allied and German troops back to health. She instructed her staff to treat each soldier with equal compassion and kindness, no matter what side of the war they fought on.

5. She joined the Belgian Resistance, and helped to save hundreds of lives

As the war continued on in Europe, Cavell began smuggling wounded British and French troops out from behind enemy lines and into neutral Holland, preventing them from being captured. 

Where possible, she also manoeuvred young Belgian men out of the country so that they would not be called up to fight and possibly die in the increasingly bloody war. She provided them with money, fake identification cards and secret passwords to ensure their safety upon escape, and is credited with saving over 200 men in the process, despite this being against German military law.

6. It has been suggested that she was part of the British Secret Intelligence Service

Though vehemently denied by the British government following her death, it has been suggested that Cavell was in fact working for the British intelligence agency while in Belgium. Key members of her network were in touch with Allied intelligence agencies and she was known to use secret messages, as former head of MI5 Stella Rimington has since revealed.

The widespread use of her image in war propaganda following her execution however strove to paint her as a martyr and a victim of senseless violence – revealing her to be a spy did not fit into this narrative.

7. She was eventually arrested and charged with treason by the German government

In August 1915, a Belgian spy discovered Cavell’s secret tunnels beneath the hospital and reported her to German officials. She was arrested on 3 August and imprisoned in Saint-Gilles prison for 10 weeks, the final two being held in solitary confinement. 

At her trial, she admitted to her role in transporting Allied troops out of Belgium, maintaining complete honesty and dignified composure.

The trial lasted only two days, and Cavell was soon convicted of ‘conveying troops to the enemy’, an offence punishable by death in times of war. Despite not being a German native, Cavell was charged with war treason and sentenced to execution.

8. There was international outcry over her arrest

All over the world, public outrage was heard for Cavell’s sentence. With political tensions rife, the British government felt powerless to help, with Lord Robert Cecil, Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs, advising that “Any representation by us will do her more harm than good.”

The USA however, having not yet joined the war, felt in a position to apply diplomatic pressure. They informed the German government that going through with Cavell’s execution would only harm their already damaged reputation, while the Spanish embassy also fought tirelessly on her behalf.

These efforts would be in vain however. The German government believed to relinquish Cavell’s sentence would only encourage other female resistance fighters to act without fear of repercussion.

9. She was executed at dawn on 12 October 1915

At 7:00am on 12 October, 1915 Edith Cavell was executed by firing squad at the Tir national shooting range in Schaerbeek, Belgium. She died alongside fellow resistance fighter Philippe Baucq, who too aided wounded Allied troops in escaping the country. The night before her execution, she told her Anglican chaplain Stirling Gahan: “I have no fear nor shrinking. I have seen death so often that it is not strange or fearful to me”.

Her immense bravery in the face of death has been a noted aspect of her story since it occurred, with her words inspiring generations of Britons to come. Understanding her own sacrifice, she at last relayed to the German prison chaplain: “I am glad to die for my country.”

10. A state funeral was held for her at Westminster Abbey

She was buried in Belgium immediately after her death. At the end of the war, her body was exhumed and repatriated to Britain, where a state funeral was held at Westminster Abbey on 15 May, 1919. Atop her coffin, a wreath given by Queen Alexandra was placed, the card reading:

In memory of our brave, heroic, never to be forgotten Miss Cavell. Life’s race well run, Life’s work well done, Life’s crown well won, now comes rest. From Alexandra.

Though over 100 years have passed since her death, Edith Cavell’s inspiring story of bravery is still felt all around the world. In 1920, a statue of her was unveiled near Trafalgar Square, around the top of which 4 words may be found – Humanity, Fortitude, Devotion and Sacrifice. They are a reminder on an incredible woman’s resolve to help those in need, at the cost of her own life.

The Edith Cavell Memorial near Trafalgar Square, London (Image Credit: Prioryman / CC)

In her pursuit of women’s suffrage, Pankhurst employed controversial tactics that were both praised and criticised. Her approach of direct action, including acts of civil disobedience, was seen as radical by some and earned her both admirers and detractors. However, her unwavering commitment to the cause and her ability to mobilise women across the country played a pivotal role in raising awareness and garnering support for women’s suffrage.

How did Pankhurst’s early life shape her lifelong ambition to gain voting rights for women?

Early life

Emmeline Pankhurst was born in Manchester in 1858 to parents who were both keen social reformers and activists. Contrary to her birth certificate, Pankhurst claimed that she was born on 14 July 1858 (Bastille Day). She said that being born on the anniversary of the French Revolution had an influence over her life.

Pankhurst’s grandfather had been present at the Peterloo Massacre in 1819, a demonstration in favour of parliamentary reform. Her father was a passionate anti-slavery campaigner who served on Salford Town Council.

Her mother was actually from the Isle of Man, one of the first places in the world to give women the vote in 1881. She was an avid supporter of the women’s suffrage movement. Pankhurst’s upbringing in such a radical household helped inform her as an activist.

From a young age Pankhurst was encouraged to participate in politics. At the age of only fourteen she accompanied her mother to hear suffragist Lydia Becker give a speech. Becker solidified Emmeline’s political beliefs and encouraged her to join the fight for women’s suffrage.

Portrait of suffragist Lydia Becker. Image credit: Susan Isabel Dacre (1844-1933), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Family and activism

In 1879 Emmeline married a barrister and political activist, Richard Pankhurst, and soon bore him five children. Her husband agreed that Emmeline should not be a ‘household machine’, so hired a butler to help around the home.

Following her husband’s death in 1888, Emmeline established the Women’s Franchise League. The WFL aimed to help women achieve the vote, as well as equal treatment in divorce and inheritance.

It was disbanded owing to internal disagreements, but the League was an important step in establishing Pankhurst as a leader of the women’s suffrage movement. It proved to be the beginning of her radical political activities.

The WSPU

Dissatisfied with the progress being made towards female suffrage, Pankhurst founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) in 1903. Its famous motto, ‘Deeds not Words’, would come to be a fitting slogan for the group’s actions in the years to come.

The WSPU organised protests and published an official newspaper, the aptly titled ‘Votes for Women’. The union was successful in mobilising women around the country who sought an equal say in elections. On 26 June 1908, 500,000 demonstrators rallied in Hyde Park to achieve this end.

As the years drew on and women’s suffrage seemed no closer, the WSPU increased its militant tactics. Their demonstrations grew larger and altercations with the police turned more violent. In response to police brutality in 1912, Pankhurst organised a window smashing campaign across the commercial districts of London.

Escalating tactics

Many women, including all three of Pankhurst’s daughters, were imprisoned for their participation in WSPU protests. Hunger strikes became a common tool of resistance in prison, and jailers responded with violent force-feedings. Drawings of women being force-fed in prison were circulated in the press and highlighted the plight of suffragettes to the public.

The WSPU’s tactics continued to escalate, and soon included arson, letter-bombs and vandalism. Mary Leigh, a WSPU member, threw a hatchet at Prime Minister H. H. Asquith. In 1913 Emily Davidson died when she was trampled by the King’s horse at the Epsom Derby, whilst attempting to place a banner on the animal.

More moderate groups, such as Millicent Fawcett’s National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, condemned the militant actions of the WSPU in 1912. Fawcett said that they were the ‘chief obstacles in the way of success of the suffrage movement in the House of Commons’.

Pankhurst (wearing prison clothes) described her first incarceration as: ‘like a human being in the process of being turned into a wild beast.’. Image credit: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The WSPU and World War One

Unlike other women’s rights organisations, the WSPU were uncompromising in their sole aim of achieving votes for women. Pankhurst refused to allow democratic votes within the group itself. She argued that this meant the WSPU was not ‘hampered by a complexity of rules’.

The WSPU halted their activities during World War One and supported the British war effort. They considered the Germans to be a threat to all humanity. A truce with the British government was announced, and the WSPU prisoners were released. Christabel, Emmeline’s daughter, encouraged women to become involved in agriculture and industry.

Emmeline herself travelled Britain giving speeches in favour of the war effort. She visited the United States and Russia to advocate opposition against Germany.

Success and legacy

In February 1918 the WSPU finally achieved success. The Representation of the People Act gave women over the age of 30 the vote, providing they met certain property criteria.

Pankhurst is arrested by police outside Buckingham Palace while trying to present a petition to George V in May 1914. Image credit: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image Credit: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

It wasn’t until 1928, the year in which Pankhurst passed away, that women were granted electoral equality with men through the Equal Franchise Act. This historic achievement marked a significant milestone in the women’s suffrage movement and was a culmination of the relentless efforts of Pankhurst and numerous other activists who fought tirelessly for gender equality.

Regardless of differing opinions on her methods, there is no denying the significant impact Pankhurst made in advancing the cause of women’s suffrage in Britain. Her unwavering determination, leadership, and advocacy efforts helped to raise awareness about gender inequality and laid the foundation for future progress in achieving electoral equality for women. Her legacy as a pioneering figure in the fight for women’s rights continues to be recognised today.

Just why was it so important that the French were successful in the Battle of Verdun, and what strategic implications did this have for the rest of the war?

Why Verdun?

Significance to Germany:

Germany aimed to crush the French army before the Allies grew in strength with the full deployment of British forces. Without France’s 96 divisions, the Allies would be unable to continue fighting in the west.

Erich von Falkenhayn, the chief of the German General Staff, believed the key to German forces making a breakthrough on the Western Front was to launch a concentrated offensive against the French.

The heavily fortified area of Verdun remained a formidable salient into German territory which threatened the main German communication lines. By attacking Verdun, the French Army would be drawn into circumstances from which it could not escape – for reasons of strategy and prestige.

Believing that the war would be won or lost in France, Falkenhayn hoped that France would ‘throw in every man they have’ to defend it, which would thus drain its army of resources. By combining the Verdun offensive with a U-Boat offensive against British shipping, Falkenhayn thought France and Britain would be forced to make terms with the Germans.

Significance to France:

Verdun was a fortress city on the River Meuse, and a strategically-vital link in the French sector of the Allied line on the Western Front. To the French people, Verdun was also a symbolic fortress and a national treasure. The loss of such a citadel would be an enormous blow to French morale.

“Bleed the French white”

As the war carried on into 1916 and with neither side able to forge a decisive advantage, the German high command began to plan a huge assault on the area, designed to “bleed the French white” and break their morale.

French commanders quickly realised that a new approach would be needed to combat the immensely powerful German artillery. Defence of the fortress was therefore focused on holding lightly-manned but heavily protected smaller forts.

The German plan hinged on the amount of artillery firepower at their disposal, with the aim of enveloping the defences in shellfire in order to minimise German infantry casualties.

Defending to the death

Initial German attacks proved successful, and French commander Philippe Pétain ordered his men to dig-in and defend their new lines to the death. Over the spring of 1916 offensives and counter-offensives were launched at great cost and for little gain for either side.

The ‘Lion of Verdun’, French commander Philippe Petain went on to become a controversial figure in French politics. (Image Credit: Cassowary Colorizations).

Verdun did indeed draw in the French troops as Falkenhayn had wanted: 3/4 of the French Western Front divisions would eventually serve there. However, Pétain used a rotation system to relieve French troops at Verdun, which involved most of the French Army in the battle but for shorter periods than German troops.

German commanders became increasingly desperate, and in early summer began a new attack. By 23 June their vanguard was within 5 kilometers of Verdun’s historic citadel, and it finally seemed as though a breakthrough was possible.

Impact of the Somme

Alarmed at a potential breakthrough by the Germans, allied commanders agreed that something had to be done to take the pressure off the French, and plans were launched for a British attack at the Somme, designed to distract the Germans and draw their men and munitions away from Verdun.

However, while the Germans did move vital guns and men away from the front to combat the new threat, their attacks pressed on. The French were staunch in their defending, and they began to push the exhausted and overstretched Germans back.

Germany accumulated huge losses and gained little territory, leading Falkenhayn to throw more and more men into the conflict, and meaning Verdun also became a battle of prestige for the Germans, as well as the French. The ability of the German army to inflict disproportionate losses on the French had been overestimated, in part because the 5th Army commanders had attacked regardless of losses to their own side.

On 29 August, Falkenhayn was sacked and replaced by Hindenburg and Ludendorff, who ended the German offensive on 2 September.

In October and November, peripheral forts lost in February were recaptured, and the French secured a defensive victory, with the battle ending in December and thousands of Germans surrendering. Although an area larger than the city of Paris had been destroyed and 9 villages had been obliterated, Falkenhayn’s plan to destroy the French army had failed.

The scale of the battle

The Battle of Verdun was one of the most savagely fought battles of World War One, and became the longest, and one of the most costly, battles in modern history.

In 10 months, the largest swathe of territory gained amounted to a mere 5 miles. Casualties had been high, estimated at approximately half a million men on either side. The trauma of this loss not only affected French political and military decision-making from then on, it had a lasting effect on French national consciousness.

French morale had suffered greatly from the protracted siege. Badly treated and paid, the soldiers had had to endure nearly 10 months of hell. The Germans fired 2 million shells just in the opening 8 hour bombardment. Verdun was also the first time flamethrowers were used in battle, a shocking yet devastatingly effective new weapon.

One French lieutenant, later killed by a rogue shell, wrote in his diary on 23 May 1916:

“Humanity is mad. It must be mad to do what it is doing. What a massacre! What scenes of horror and carnage! I cannot find words to translate my impressions. Hell cannot be so terrible. Men are mad!”

This effect was fully felt after Verdun when, ordered to ready itself for a new offensive, the French army mutinied. Haunted by their experiences defending the giant fortress, thousands of French soldiers refused to fight, forcing Britain to redouble its own efforts further north.

German aerial photographs of Fort Douaumont, before and after the battle (Image Credit: German Government, Department of photos and film / Public Domain).

Strategic implications for the rest of the war

The Allies had planned to defeat Germany through a series of large coordinated offensives, but the German attack at Verdun drastically reduced the number of French troops available. Britain and its Empire would therefore need to lead the big push on the Western Front.

However, Germany (and Falkenhayn in particular) had underestimated the French, for whom victory at all costs was the only way to justify the sacrifices their soldiers had already made. The French army did not collapse and a premature British relief offensive was never triggered.

Ultimately, the French resistance at Verdun proved a turning point, halting the German advance. The heavy German losses at Verdun combined with even greater casualties suffered on the Somme also created a manpower crisis within the German army that would become increasingly difficult to resolve as the war progressed.

Long term effects

Verdun has become the representative memory of World War One for the French, much like the Battle of the Somme in the UK. The battle symbolises the determination of the French Army and the destructiveness of the war.

A century on, the French Interior Ministry estimated that over 10 million shells (many filled with arsenic) have remained in the soil around Verdun, and bomb-clearing units continue to remove some 40 tons of unexploded munitions from the area annually. Parts of the forest are still so dangerous and have such high levels of poison still seeping through the land that the French have sealed them off.

It was estimated that at existing rates of clearance, the de-miners would be uncovering and disposing of ordnance in the Verdun area for centuries to come.

Verdun battlefield shows the impact of artillery shells in 2005. (Image Credit: Public Domain).

(Featured Image Credit: Verdun in ruins, 1916 – World History Archive / Alamy Stock Photo, Image ID: EC84A2).

Undermining the enemy

Between 1914 and 1918, the Allied British, French, New Zealand and Australian forces established a vast network of tunnels, particularly across the Ypres Salient in Belgium, as the Germans did so from the other side. The Germans employed tunnelling early on: in December 1914, tunnellers managed to lay mines beneath the Indian Sirhind Brigade and in the attack that ensued, the company was killed.

Yet the Allies quickly assembled their own special units of tunnellers guided by British Army Major Norton-Griffiths, an engineer on sewage tunnels in Manchester and Liverpool. In April 1915, 6 Allied-laid mines exploded, splitting open the German-occupied Hill 60.

Therefore, by the Battle of the Somme, tunnel warfare had become an inescapable characteristic of World War One.

The Battle of Messines

Shortly after 3.10 on the morning of 7 June 1917, British Prime Minister Lloyd-George awoke at 10 Downing Street to the deep rumbling sound of war from across the Channel. What the Prime Minister heard was the intense artillery bombardment the British launched against the Germans following a colossal explosion as 19 mines were detonated within 8,000 metres of tunnels underneath the Germans’ entrenched position.

The Battle of Messines continued until 14 June, and although initiated by the apocalyptic blast, the success of the British attack was the result of years of work. Since 1914, the Germans had been positioned on Messines Ridge that overlooked Ypres, giving them the advantage, so by 1915, recommendations to start extensive tunnelling below this tactical place had been made.

To break the stalemate, the British tunnellers crept underneath the German trenches and tunnel complex to lay the highly explosive ammonal, a combination of ammonium nitrate and aluminium powder. In fact, the Allies’ success was dependent on a second set of tunnels that had deceived the Germans: the true tunnels laced with explosives lay deep beneath, undetected. As the mines were detonated the German position was destroyed and thousands of German soldiers were instantly killed.

A destroyed German trench on Messines Ridge, 7 June 1917.

Image Credit: CC / John Warwick Brooke

Field Marshal Herbert Plumer is commonly credited with masterminding the Allied attack, and the explosion was immediately followed by Plumer’s innovative tactic of the ‘creeping barrage’, where advancing infantrymen were supported by overhead artillery fire. Messines was indeed an extraordinary feat of planning and strategy that allowed the Allies to recapture the ridge and gain the first real advantage over the Germans at Ypres since the Battle of the Somme.

‘Clay-kickers’ and ‘sappers’

Plumer could not have facilitated one of the most successful battles of the war alone. Tunnelling was not an easy job and those digging faced long, dark hours underground let alone the possible horrors of being buried when tunnels collapsed or were exploded by enemy mines. For this reason, the task of tunnelling was not done by ordinary soldiers but miners and engineers. 

Coal miners from Staffordshire, Northumberland, Yorkshire, Wales, as well as men who had worked on the London Underground and came from across the British Empire, were all recruited to dig. By summer 1916 the British had 33 companies of tunnellers at the Western Front. These tunnellers were used to the poor working conditions of mine-shafts and already had the strong team-work and discipline needed for military life.

The miners used a technique called ‘clay-kicking’ , in which one man with his back against a wooden frame would stab out chunks of clay (often using a bayonet) to be passed over his head and down the line of men along the tunnels. Clay-kicking earned the tunneller the name ‘clay-kickers’, although they were also known as ‘sappers’ meaning military engineers.

The technique was quiet and much quicker than the Germans, who continued to dig counter-tunnels in the hopes of destroying the Allied shafts. The British tunnellers would therefore leave someone below with a stethoscope pressed to the wall, listening to hear the Germans working and talking. When the German chatter stopped they were likely laying a mine, so the noisier they were the better.

Conditions worsened as the underground war progressed, with poisonous gas poured into the tunnels when British miners were discovered, accompanied by inevitable cave-ins. By the stalemates of the mid-war, the British army was in such need of tunnellers that the age and height restrictions were overlooked to find experienced sappers, who became greatly respected among the other soldiers.

Buried history

The efforts of tunnellers during World War One left dramatic scars on the Belgian and French landscape. In the 1920s and 1930s, tourists would stop by the immense chasm of Lochnagar Crater south of La Boisselle, looking in awe at the capabilities of tunnel warfare, which by its underground nature has remained largely unseen and out of mind.

The immense depression at Lochnagar was created when one of 19 mines exploded on the first day of the Somme, 1 July 1916 and became part of an area so pockmarked by exploded mines that British troops referred to it as ‘The Glory Hole’.

Soldiers standing inside a mine crater at La Boisselle, August 1916.

Image Credit: CC / Imperial War Museum

Not only did tunnel warfare leave craters behind, but many of the tunnels and the stories of those who worked and lived within them remain buried. In early 2019, a tunnel complex was found 4 metres underground on the Chemin des Dames battlefront in France. The Winterberg tunnels had been struck by precise French artillery fire on 4 May, 1917, sealing the entrance – and exit – to the tunnels and trapping 270 German soldiers inside.

Questions remain over how to appropriately memorialise the site and human remains found there, which has led to a long delay in excavating the tunnels. Yet sites such as Winterberg pose exciting opportunities for archaeologists and historians alike to continue uncovering the history of tunnel warfare during World War One.

Some men panicked and fled, others opened fire but it seemed that nothing, not even the hallowed machine gun, could penetrate the machine’s armour. They seemed invincible. The tank had arrived.

…a rumour spread through the German trenches on the Somme, “the Devil is coming”

Breaking the stalemate

The Western Front had become a stalemate as early as Autumn 1914 as the devastating and destructive firepower from the combination of artillery and the machine gun had made it almost impossible for either side to make a breakthrough.

The First Battle of Ypres (20 October-22 November 1914) had marked the end of open warfare on the Western Front after both sides were forced to seek cover on the battlefield and dig in for protection – trench warfare took hold. Something new was now needed to break the deadlock.

The concept of a vehicle that could provide troops with both mobile protection and firepower wasn’t new – indeed the tank’s conceptual roots go back to ancient times, when siege engines provided protection for troops moving up against stone walls or fortifications. Leonardo da Vinci is also sometimes credited with the invention of a war machine that resembled a tank.

Leonardo da Vinci sketch of his armored fighting vehicle (Image Credit: Public Domain).

Nevertheless, the combination of the internal combustion engine, armour plate and continuous caterpillar tracks, along with the stalemate of trench warfare, all helped give rise to the production of what became the tank.

Early Ideas

Early incarnations included a steam-powered land ram in 1855, and a series of tractors on which engineer David Roberts from Hornsby & Sons used his patented ‘chain-track’ between 1904-1909. These were tested by the British Army, who wanted to evaluate artillery tractors.

When Major Donohue remarked to David Roberts that he should design a new machine with armour that could carry its own gun, Roberts declined, disheartened by his previous rejected attempts to aid the army.

Other plausible proposals sent to the British War Office came from Lancelot De Mole in South Australia between 1912-1916. His designs even included the climbing face typical of later World War One tanks, but these were overlooked at the time, despite later being recognised as superior to the machines actually developed. (De Mole had been urged by friends to approach the Germans with his design before the war, but had declined to do so for patriotic reasons).

Before World War One, motorised vehicles were still relatively uncommon, and their use on the battlefield was initially limited. Armored cars were not good in challenging terrain and were limited by their wheels, which gave a high ground pressure for the vehicle’s weight. Switching to the use of caterpillar tracks offered a way round this problem.

Hornsby tractor (Image Credit: From David Fletcher, The British Tanks 1915-19, Ramsbury 2001 / Public Domain).

Breakthrough

In October 1914, an officer of the Royal Engineers, Lieutenant Colonel Ernest D. Swinton, made a suggestion to General Headquarters.

To put an end to the Western Front’s stalemate, he suggested the army required Armoured Machine Gun Destroyers – petrol driven machines, mounted on caterpillar tracks to deal with the barbed wire and uneven terrain, sporting hardened steel plates to protect the crew from enemy fire, and mounting Maxim machine guns and a 2-pounder.

After receiving the backing of Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty, a prototype was quickly developed after Churchill warned Asquith that the Germans might introduce something similar any moment.

Churchill established the Landships Committee in early 1915, where a requirement was formulated for an armoured vehicle capable of a speed of 4mph to match infantry, of climbing a 1.5 metre high parapet, crossing a 2.4 metre wide gap, and armed with machine guns and a light artillery piece.

‘Little Willie’ early design, December 1915 (Image Credit: Public Domain).

The military combined with engineers and industrialists including Fosters of Lincoln. Fosters of Lincoln built the 14 ton ‘Little Willie’, then Major Walter Wilson then added a larger track frame to it. A rhomboid shape was chosen to enhance climbing capacity and gap clearance, with guns on the side.

The resulting 30 ton ‘Big Willie’ (later known as ‘Mother’) was trialed in front of Lord Kitchener and Lloyd George, and an order was placed for 100 tanks to be made. (After the war the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors credited Sir William Tritton, managing director of Fosters, and Major Walter Wilson as the principal inventors of the tank).

Secrecy

In February 1916 recruitment began for men to crew these new weapons. Secrecy was paramount and the new recruits to the so-called Heavy Section of the Machine Gun Corps had no clue what they were letting themselves in for except that it would be dangerous.

Initially referred to as the landship, (which was later thought too descriptive, risking giving away British intentions), the new machine soon became known as the ‘tank’ – under the guise of water tanks – to ensure secrecy for the new weapon.

The first 50 were delivered to France on 30 August 1916, comprising of varying amounts of guns. The tanks had a crew of 8, half of which focused on steering and the gears.

A learning curve

Just over a year since Lieutenant Colonel Swinton’s memo, the first tanks rolled into action at Flers-Courcelette (part of the Battle of the Somme), ushering in a new era of mechanised warfare.

The first official photograph taken of a Tank (‘Big Willie’ / ‘Mother’) going into action, at the Battle of Flers-Courcelette, 15th September 1916. (Image Credit: IWM Q 2488, photographer Ernest Brooks, 15 September 1916 / Public Domain).

The effectiveness of the tanks at their first appearance was mixed. Of the 32 tanks ready for action on 15 September 1916, only 9 were able to reach the enemy lines and engage in actual combat. Many broke down as they were mechanically unreliable and were abandoned.

Although lessons could quickly be learned from their first deployment, the French Army felt the British had sacrificed the secrecy of the weapon, and used it in numbers too small to be decisive.

Despite the tank force’s limitations, the tank’s psychological impact on both sides was significant, prompting Douglas Haig to place another order for 1,000 more.

However, the army still lacked officers who understood how best to employ the tanks and they failed to impress during Arras, Messines and Passchendaele. It was not until the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917 that the tanks were really able to show what they could do, proving their effectiveness as crossing barbed wire defences when over 400 tanks penetrated almost 6 miles on a 7-mile wide front.

French, German and American tanks

As production and reliability improved, tanks became more advanced and were used in greater numbers, becoming a common sight on the battlefields as part of an ‘all arms’ approach by summer 1918.

Other countries such as France had also ramped up their tank development, with the French creating the Renault FT light tank – the first to use a fully rotating main armament turret on top and the basis of tank design ever since.

French Light Renault FT17

German forces often salvaged British and French tanks to re-use for their own purposes on the battlefield and to obtain information for research. The German General Staff did not have a similar enthusiasm for tanks, but allowed the development of anti-tank weapons.

After the Battle of Cambrai, the Germans developed their own armoured programme, yet despite creating the A7V tank (which weighed 30 tons and had a crew of 18), by the end of the war, only 20 had been built. Although other tank designs had been planned, material shortages limited the German tank corps to the A7Vs.

German A7V Sturmpanzerwagen tank

The Americans too were interested in tank development. General Pershing, Commander in Chief, American Expeditionary Forces requested in September 1917 that 600 heavy and 1,200 light tanks be produced in the United States.

The first American-produced heavy tank was the 43.5-ton Mark VIII. Armed with two 6-pounder cannons and five rifle-caliber machine guns, it was operated by an 11-man crew, and had a maximum speed of 6.5mph and a range of 50 miles. However, production difficulties meant only test vehicles were completed before the end of the war.

Although General Erich Ludendorff of the German High Command praised the Allied tanks after the war as being a principal factor in Germany’s defeat, the effectiveness of the tank as a weapon was not fully realised until the inter-war years and beyond – particularly with the development of the Soviet T-34 tank.

Although the tragedy of the war is often conveyed through the massive scale of the slaughter, sometimes this is better expressed through individual tales.

1. Australian Private Billy Sing sniped at least 150 Turkish soldiers at Gallipoli

His nickname was ‘Murderer’.

2. US Sergeant Alvin York was one of the most decorated American soldiers

In the Meuse Argonne Offensive (1918) he led an attack on a machine gun nest which killed 28 enemy and captured 132. He was later awarded the Medal of Honor.

3. During a patrol over Italy in March 1918, Lt Alan Jerrard’s Sopwith Camel was hit 163 times – he won the VC

4. The youngest recipient of the Victoria Cross, Boy (First Class) John Cornwell, was 16 years old

He stayed at his post for over an hour despite receiving a fatal wound.

5. 634 Victoria Crosses were awarded during World War One

166 of those were awarded posthumously.

6. The Red Baron of Germany was the war’s greatest flying ace

Baron Manfred von Richthofen was credited with 80 kills.

7. Edith Cavell was a British nurse who helped 200 Allied soldiers escape from German-occupied Belgium

The Germans arrested her and she was executed by a German firing squad. Her death helped turn global opinion against Germany.

8. Anibal Milhais, the most decorated Portuguese soldier of the war, successfully and single-handedly withstood two German assaults

His resistance and rate of fire during a German ambush convinced the enemy that they were up against a fortified unit rather than a lone soldier.

9. Renegade Pilot Frank Luke, the ‘balloon buster’, claimed 18 victories in total

On September 29 1918 he downed 3 balloons but was fatally injured in the process.

10. Ernst Udet was Germany’s second greatest flying Ace, claiming 61 victories

Udet would enjoy a playboy lifestyle after the war. However he re-enlisted in World War Two and committed suicide in 1941 during Operation Barbarossa.

This stance soon came under pressure, as the impact of events across the Atlantic were felt in the US. By 1917 isolation had become untenable. In April, Wilson sought the approval of Congress to go to war. Several key factors played a part in this change of course.

These are 5 reasons why the United States joined World War One.

1. The Lusitania

In early 1915, Germany introduced a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic. This meant U-Boats were hunting and sinking merchant shipping without warning. The RMS Lusitania left New York on 1st May, 1915, bound for Liverpool. On 7th May it was spotted off the coast of Ireland by U-20 and torpedoed. Of 1,962 passengers, 1,198 lost their lives. Among the dead were 128 Americans, causing widespread outrage in the US.

2. The German invasion of Belgium

Following Germany’s invasion of neutral Belgium in 1914, stories began to circulate about atrocities committed against Belgian civilians. These stories, both true and exaggerated, were seized upon for propaganda. So-called “atrocity propaganda” spread far and wide, painting the Germans as a barbaric nation bent on ruthless, indiscriminate destruction. This propaganda was soon sweeping the US, firing anti-German sentiment.

3. American loans

The US had a vested financial interest in the outcome of the war in Europe. American businesses and banks made huge loans to the Allies. If they didn’t win then they were unlikely to get their money back.

1918 American poster used to encourage the purchase of War Bonds

Image Credit: Ellsworth Young (1866–1952), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

4. The reintroduction of unrestricted submarine warfare

Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917. Knowing they risked provoking the United States into joining the war, Germany gambled on defeating the British before the US had a chance to mobilise. During February and March, several US cargo vessels were sunk without warning, resulting in the United States severing diplomatic ties with Berlin.

5. The Zimmerman telegram

In January 1917, the German diplomatic representative in Mexico received a secret telegram penned by German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann. It proposed a secret alliance between Germany and Mexico, should the United States enter the war. If the Central Powers were to win, Mexico would be free to annex territory in New Mexico, Texas and Arizona. Unfortunately for Germany, the telegram was intercepted by the British and decrypted by Room 40. The British passed the document to Washington and it appeared on the front page of American newspapers on 1st March.

This combination of factors turned public opinion around. On 6 April, the United States declared war on Germany and began to mobilise. The first American troops arrived in Europe in June.