# data[].attributes.headline
How does cooperation and/or conflict lead to the division of the earths surface?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does cooperation and/or conflict lead to the division of the earths surface?

# data[].attributes.body
Boundary disputes, tensions over larger territories, competition for scarce resources and control of strategic sites all reveal the kids of factors that fuaterate global cooperation.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the global impacts of the competition for foreign markets and resources?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the global impacts of the competition for foreign markets and resources?

# data[].attributes.body
Globalization creates a market dynamic that encourages competition, requiring expertise in supply chain optimization and higher quality effici

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the global impacts of a the competition for foreign markets and resources?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the global impacts of a the competition for foreign markets and resources?

# data[].attributes.body
Competing for control of areas of Earth's surface, large and small, is a universal trait among societies and has resulted in both productive cooperation and destructive conflict between groups. Conflicts over trade, human migration and settlement, ideologies and religions, and exploitation of marine and land environments reflect how Earth's surface is divided into fragments controlled by different formal and informal political, economic, and cultural interest groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national geographic standard human systems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How the forces of cooperation and conflict among people influence the division and control of Earth's surface

# data[].attributes.body
First for those who don't know what a political boundary is, political boundaries are the dividing lines between countries, states, provinces, counties, and cities. They change through wars, treaties, and trades. For example, after WWII, the whole European map was almost completely drawn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A boundary is a real or imaginary line that separates two things. In geography, boundaries separate different regions of the Earth. There are many different types of boundaries.

Physical Boundaries

The most obvious type of boundary is a physical boundary. A physical boundary is a naturally occurring barrier between two areas. Rivers, mountain ranges, oceans, and deserts can all serve as physical boundaries. Many times, political boundaries between countries or states form along physical boundaries. For example, the boundary between France and Spain follows the peaks of the Pyrenees mountains, while the Alps separate France from Italy.

The Strait of Gibraltar is the boundary between southwestern Europe and northwestern Africa. This narrow waterway between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea is an important political, economic, and social boundary between the continents.

Rivers are common boundaries between nations, states, and smaller political units such as counties. The Rio Grande forms a large part of the boundary between Mexico and the United States. The Mississippi River is the defining boundary between many of the states it winds through, including Iowa and Illinois, Arkansas and Tennessee, and Louisiana and Mississippi.

Another type of physical boundary lies below the Earth's surface. The Earth's shell, or crust, is made of thick slabs of rock called tectonic plates. There are seven major tectonic plates and many smaller ones. These plates are constantly moving.

Interaction between tectonic plates creates activity on their boundaries. Sometimes, the plates spread apart from each other, creating ocean trenches and, eventually, continents. This is called a divergent boundary. Sometimes one plate slides underneath the other, creating volcanoes and earthquakes. This is called a convergent plate boundary. Sometimes the plates grind past each other, creating earthquake fault lines. This is called a transform fault or transform boundary.

The movement between the massive Pacific plate and the plates that border it creates all three types of boundaries. This tectonically active area is called the Ring of Fire. The divergent boundary between the Cocos and Nazca plates creates the Galapagos Ridge, off the coast of South America. The convergent boundary between the Pacific and Australian plates makes the island nation New Zealand very volcanically active. The transform fault between the Pacific and North American plates makes the U.S. state of California prone to earthquakes.

Political Boundaries

Political boundaries are the dividing lines between countries, states, provinces, counties, and cities. These lines, more often called borders, are created by people to separate areas governed by different groups. Sometimes, political boundaries follow physical boundaries, but most of the time you can't see them. Most maps show political boundaries.

Political boundaries change over time through wars, treaties, and trade. After World War II, the map of Europe was almost completely redrawn. Germany's eastern border was moved farther west, and the country itself was later divided into East and West Germany.

In 1803, the United States bought 2,147,000 square kilometers (828,800 square miles) of land in a treaty with France. This land, the Louisiana Purchase, expanded the size of the U.S. to include the areas that are now Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and parts of Minnesota, North and South Dakota, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Louisiana. The western boundary of the U.S. moved from the Mississippi River to what is now Yellowstone National Park.

An important type of political boundary in the United States is the boundary of a congressional district. A congressional district is an area that elects a representative to the U.S. House of Representatives. After the U.S. Census, which is taken every 10 years, the population of a state may grow or shrink enough to gain or lose a representative in the House. When this happens, congressional district lines are redrawn in a complicated and controversial process called redistricting. The boundaries between congressional districts may unite or divide economic, social, or ethnic neighborhoods.

Other Boundaries

Political boundaries are just one type of artificial, or man-made, boundary. Other boundaries created by people include linguistic, economic, and social boundaries.

Linguistic boundaries form between areas where people speak different languages. Often, these boundaries match political boundaries. For example, the predominant language in France is French, and the predominant language in Germany is German.

In India, 122 different languages are spoken by more than 10,000 people each. The Indian government recognizes 22 of these as " official languages." People who speak these languages are generally split up into different geographic regions. Inability to speak a neighboring region's language can cause difficulties and tensions between people and businesses.

Economic boundaries divide people with different incomes or levels of wealth. Sometimes these boundaries fall on national borders. The border between the developed country of the United States and the underdeveloped country of Mexico is an economic boundary as well as a political one.

Sometimes, economic boundaries fall within a single country, and even within a single city. For example, Beverly Hills, in Los Angeles, California, is a wealthy neighborhood with internationally recognized universities and hospitals. Watts, also in Los Angeles, is a low-income neighborhood whose residents struggle to access the excellent education and health care available only a few kilometers away.

Natural resources also play a role in economic boundaries. People who settle in areas rich in resources-whether it is underground oil or fertile soil-are more likely to become wealthy, while people who live in areas without many resources stay poor. People are also willing to pay more to live in areas with access to natural or economic resources: beautiful views, excellent schools, hospitals, and convenient access to shopping facilities.

Social boundaries occur where social differences lead to unequal access to resources and opportunities. Some of these boundary issues include race, gender, religion, and physical abilities. In some places, women may not have access to certain jobs or be allowed to travel in certain areas. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, all women must have a male guardian. This guardian's approval is required for women to travel, seek health care, manage personal finances, marry, or divorce. This social boundary discourages many women from seeking leadership positions in business or government.

People of different races may be voluntarily or forcibly segregated into different neighborhoods. In Bahrain, political leaders have outlined plans to force the country's Southeast Asian population to move to parts of the country where they will not live in communities with ethnic Bahrainis. Because most of Bahrain's Southeast Asian population is made up of immigrant laborers, this social boundary is also an economic one.

Social boundaries can also form along religious lines. The nation of Sudan has many distinct religious social boundaries. Northern Sudan is mostly Muslim, southwestern Sudan is mostly Christian, and southeastern Sudan has more followers of animism than the other two regions. Sudan suffered more than 20 years of civil war, and South Sudan voted to secede from Sudan as a separate nation in 2011.

Linguistic, economic, and social boundaries are not as sharply defined as political and natural boundaries. These types of boundaries are often transition zone s.

Term

Part of Speech

Definition

Encyclopedic Entry

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about licensing content on this page, please contact natgeocreative@natgeo.com for more information and to obtain a license. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please visit our FAQ page.

Media

Some media assets (videos, photos, audio recordings and PDFs) can be downloaded and used outside the National Geographic website according to the Terms of Service. If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the lower right hand corner ( ) of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service.

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Writers

Kim Rutledge
Melissa McDaniel
Diane Boudreau
Tara Ramroop
Santani Teng
Erin Sprout
Hilary Costa
Hilary Hall
Jeff Hunt

Illustrators

Tim Gunther
Mary Crooks, National Geographic Society

Editors

Kara West
Jeannie Evers, Emdash Editing

Educator Reviewer

Nancy Wynne

Producer

Caryl-Sue, National Geographic Society

Sources

Dunn, Margery G. (Editor). (1989, 1993). "Exploring Your World: The Adventure of Geography." Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A boundary is a real or imaginary line that separates two things. In geography, boundaries separate different regions of the Earth. There are many different types of boundaries. Physical Boundaries The most obvious type of boundary is a physical boundary. A physical boundary is a naturally occurring barrier between two areas.

# data[].attributes.body
It started on August 1st 1914 until November 11th 1918. So in total 1568 days, so 4 years, three months.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.

# data[].attributes.body
Because of Kaiser Wilhelm's invention of the Zimmerman Telegram, it was possible for Germany to make its U-boat campaign. A project that the Germans used to sink US and Britain ships. This was also the reason why the U.S. entered the war.

# data[].attributes.headline
3 Intriguing ways world war 1 could have been avoided.

# data[].attributes.subject
3 Intriguing ways world war 1 could have been avoided.

# data[].attributes.body
1- No Russia mobilization in 1915: Reason: By rushing to the defense of their ally, the Slavic, Russia set Germany's plan into motion. Earlier Germany Issued a "Blank Cheque" to Austria-Hungary, promising to come to its aid if Russia is to interfere with its efforts to tame Serbia. So they did.

2- The Allies invade Normandy - World War 2 style: Instead of invading Dardanelles, if they have invaded Normandy instead, they would have caught the Germans completely off guard. Killing thousands, and maybe losing much less, they would have forced Germany into a quick retreat, but only for a quick day or two. Due to the battle being closer to Germany, and their quick reinforcements, they would be back in action.

3- Kaiser Wilhelm- If Kaiser failed to make the Zimmerman Telegram, then that would have put Germany in a worse state of water territories. They were already losing by water, but it was Kaiser who put the Germans into a stronger position. Making the Torpedoes and improving the submarines, this put the Germans from looking bleak.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The First World War may have have featured static battlefields and attritional strategies, but that doesn't mean the course of events from 1914 to 1918 couldn't have unfolded differently. Here are 11 events that could have changed the outcome of the Great War.

Top image: A French solider is shot during the Battle of Verdun, 1916 (Alamy).
Listed in roughly chronological order.
1. No Russian Mobilization in 1914

Russian troops prepare for war. The Great War/BBC

Had it not been for the Russian mobilization of July 1914, the Great War might not have ever happened. By rushing to the defense of its Slavic ally, Serbia, Russia set German plans into motion. Earlier, Germany had issued a "blank cheque" to Austria-Hungary, promising to come to its aid should Russia interfere with its efforts to tame Serbia. But after relations between Russia and Germany soured, and as Russian troops scrambled along the Austrian border, Germany believed it had no choice to but to roll out its Schlieffen Plan - a strategy wherein France, an ally of Russia, was to be defeated prior to launching an all-out assault on Russia; the idea was to prevent a war on two fronts, which is precisely what ended up happening anyway.

Russia mobilized for several reasons. It was looking to re-assert itself after an embarrassing defeat to Japan in 1905. It was also the era of pan-Slavism, in which dreams of independent slavic states fueled aggressive foreign policies. But from a purely strategic perspective, there was no critical reason for Russia to come to Serbia's defense. The Tsar's actions turned a regional Balkan conflict into a global conflagration. But perhaps intentionally, it thwarted the plans of Austria-Hungary to expand its aging Empire into a tripartite state - the never-achieved Austro-Hungarian-Balkan League.

2. Britain Stays Out of the War

As Europe prepared for war during the July Crisis, it was not immediately obvious that Britain was going to join in. But when the million-strong German army ploughed through neutral Belgium, Britain sprang into action, officially entering into the fray. Though it was scarcely ready at the time, Britain's contribution to the Western Front and the ensuing naval blockade on Germany proved to be decisive; France would have very likely fallen without Britain's help.

British citizens cheer upon hearing the declaration of war.

There are two scenarios under which Britain could have stayed out of the war. First, Germany could have avoided provoking Britain by not sending its army through Belgium and invading France directly (though Britain would have likely declared war anyway to protect its ally and critical northern ports). Alternately, Britain could have stayed out of the war simply for the sake of staying out of it. As historian Niall Ferguson argues, the intervention was " the biggest error in modern history." He concedes that Britain would have reneged on its commitments to uphold Belgian neutrality, but that realism in foreign policy has a "long and distinguished tradition, not least of which in Britain."

3. The Schlieffen Plan Results in German Victory

The Schlieffen Plan as Schlieffen intended. The Great War/BBC

This is one of the big "what ifs" of history: What if Helmuth von Moltke and his general staff had succeeded in reaching Paris in September 1914? Indeed, such an assertion is not altogether unreasonable. Some historians contend that the Schlieffen plan would have worked if Moltke had followed Schlieffen's original plan. Had the right flank not been depleted, Germany's 1st Army would not have been forced away from the sea, the British Expeditionary Force would have been overwhelmed, and the French armies would have been trapped between Paris and the French eastern frontier.

With France fallen and the British routed, it's difficult to say what would have happened next, but it's safe to assume Germany would have given Russia hell out in the East. Unlike the situation 27 years later, Germany would have likely defeated Russia given the sorry state of its military. Together with Austria-Hungary, the two nations would have ruled over a massive European empire. What's more, a quick victory by the Central powers would have presented a terrible blow to democracy, while reaffirming autocratic political values. Indeed, the First World War was more ideological than many people realize.

4. Italy Joins the Central Powers

When war broke out in August 1914, Italy declared a policy of neutrality - this despite its previous alignment with Germany. Over the ensuing months, both the Entente and the Central Powers desperately tried to get Italy on their side, offering sweet rewards for victory. Italy bided its time, waiting for the best offer - and to get a better sense of who might actually win the conflict. Italy decided to join the Entente under the terms of the secret 1915 Treaty of London under which it was promised huge territorial gains at the expense of Austria-Hungary. Unabashedly, the Salandra government admitted that its decision arose from pure self-interest, or "sacred egoism."

Italian troops head to war.

But let's assume for a moment that the Central Powers were able to make a better offer, or that the Italian government honored its commitment to the Triple Alliance. With Italy on the side of the Central Powers, the war would have unfolded quite differently. Rather than having Italy fight against Austria-Hungary, the two nations could have joined together to clean up the Balkans and then launch coordinated campaigns against Russia on the Eastern Front. Some Italian troops could have also been sent to the Western Front, or help out the Turks. It's difficult to know if the war would have ended differently (probably not); Italian troops were plagued by poor generals, lack of experience, and a dearth of heavy equipment. One thing's for certain, though, the war would have dragged on considerably longer - perhaps long enough for the belligerent countries of Europe to suffer complete social and political collapse.

5. The Allies Invade Normandy - World War II Style

In their rush to open a third front and quickly knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war, Allied planners launched a naval campaign in 1915 in the Dardanelles that, after failing to meet its initial objectives, regressed into the catastrophic Gallipoli Campaign, an eight month ordeal that resulted in 252,000 casualties on the Allied side - and for absolutely no gain. It was a military and political disaster that cost Winston Churchill his job as the First Lord of the Admiralty. Historians regard Gallipoli as a precursor to the Normandy Campaign of June 1944. But unlike Operation Overlord, the amphibious landing at Gallipoli was a haphazardly planned and ill-equipped venture. In his book, Gallipoli: The End of the Myth, historian Robin Prior makes the case that the campaign would have failed in any incarnation.

ANZAC troops prepare to land at Gallipoli.

But what if they had landed in Normandy instead? Like the invasion rolled out by Allied forces in the subsequent war? It's certainly a plausible suggestion. With the war stalemated along the Western Front, the Entente could have caused the Germans considerable problems by opening up a new theatre of operations in northern France. The British Navy maintained sea dominance during the war, and could have easily transported masses of men to the Normandy (or Callais) coast. The Germans, barring sufficient intelligence, would have been caught completely off guard.

Admittedly, this is highly speculative stuff. Given the primitive state of technologies at this point in military history, and given what happened at Gallipoli, it's no guarantee this campaign would have worked. The logistical demands alone would have precluded such an invasion from happening until 1916 or later. Moreover, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - to justify the diversion of resources away from the main theatre, and for the Allies to contend with Germany's superior internal line of communications (in this war of attrition, Germany would have been able to supply its troops at a considerably quicker rate).

6. Germany Doesn't Declare Unrestricted Submarine Warfare

The sinking of the Lusitania. The Great War/BBC

Yes, it was the Zimmerman Telegram that ultimately pushed the United States into the First World War - but a strong case can be made that, if it wasn't for Germany's U-boat campaign against its merchant shipping fleet, the U.S. might not have entered into the fray.

Things were looking very bleak for Germany in 1917. With victory on land doubtful, Kaiser Wilhelm renewed his push for unrestricted submarine warfare - an effort to crush the flow of merchant shipping to its enemies. As it retained a defensive posture on the Western Front, the supreme army command endorsed the German navy's opinion that unrestricted U-boat warfare against the British and Americans at sea could result in a German victory on land by the fall of 1917. Germany's prime minister, Bethmann Hollweg, feared that such action would antagonize the United States. He was right.

If the U.S. hadn't joined the war, it would have dragged on for at least another year or two - or even more. There would have been no Michael campaign in 1918 - a last ditch effort by Germany to end the war before U.S. troops could make a difference - thus preserving Germany's fighting power.

7. Peace is Negotiated

Peace could have happened at virtually any time during the war. In fact, it would have been prudent for Germany to push for peace terms after the First Battle of the Marne in 1914 - a truly decisive battle that ultimately set the stage for Germany's defeat. Molke himself knew Germany was finished even at this early stage, telling the Kaiser, "Your Majesty, we have lost the war."
Related: 10 Shocking Ways the Second World War Could Have Ended Differently | The 10 Biggest Misconceptions About the First World War
1917 would have been another good year to call it quits. With no end in sight, with no prescription for ending the war, and with widespread social unrest, it would have made complete sense for any of the belligerent nations to say enough is enough and end the war. With the battle lines drawn, Germany would have extended its territory along the 440 mile long front. It would have retained its possession of Alsace-Lorraine, and become the permanent occupants of much of Belgium. In the East, Poland would have remained partitioned between Russia and the Central powers. A cold war would have settled in among the previously warring nations.

But none of these scenarios ever unfolded.

Germany's militaristic leaders found the prospect of a negotiated settlement appalling, as did many of France's leaders. Far too much had been lost at that point to simply call it quits. Victory was deemed necessary to justify and and avenge the sacrifices, regardless of the cost. Moreover, once the United States entered the war, victory for the Allies was all but assured.

But that's not to say some didn't try to seek peace. After the death of Franz Josef, the new emperor of Austria-Hungary, Charles I, secretly approached France to negotiate peace, but nothing came of it. Germany's Ludendorff, when he learned of it, was so angry he actually considered declaring war on his ally.

8. Germany Attacks During the French Army Mutinies

Unbeknownst to Germany, masses of French troops, fed up with how the war was going, conducted a large scale mutiny from April to May 1917. Imagine what would have happened if they launched an all-out assault during that small window of opportunity.

A French solider is executed by his fellow troops.

It all started after the failure of the Nivelle Offensives, and the catastrophe at Chemin de Dames in particular. French soldiers had been promised a breakthrough, but instead suffered a humiliating defeat. Weary from war, the soldiers left their posts one by one, demanding better rations and extended leaves. It wasn't a full-on refusal to fight; rather, it was a kind of work-to-rule action. At its height (and historians only learned this about this in 1967 thanks to the work of Guy Pedroncini), nearly 50 French divisions were affected. Of its 113 infantry divisions, 43% were experiencing mutinous behavior of varying degrees.

But the French government suppressed the news so as to not alert the Germans, or exacerbate the situation any further. General Petain managed to appease and calm his troops, and the situation was resolved. Had he not done so, a similar situation could have arisen in France that did in Russia, leading to widespread social unrest and revolution.

9. Lenin Isn't Sent to Russia by the Germans

Not only would this have changed the course of the Great War, it would have dramatically changed the complexion of the 20th century.

Exhausted and demoralized from war, the Tsarist autocracy was overthrown in February 1917. A provisional government was set up under Alexander Kerensky, a moderate socialist who insisted that Russia would uphold its commitment to the war. But in an astounding stroke of genius, Erich Ludendorff transported Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin and his acolytes from Switzerland to Russia in a sealed train. Knowing full well that Lenin was opposed to the war, Ludendorff's hope was that he would find a way to assume power - and assume power he did by virtue of a coup in October 1917. Platforming on the slogans, "Peace, bread, land," Lenin ended Russia's involvement in the Great War. It was an astounding German victory, one that knocked Russia out of the war.

Had Lenin not been sent to Petrograd, it's safe to assume that Kerensky would have continued the war, though under very difficult conditions. This would have forced the Germans to maintain sufficient forces on the Eastern Front - troops that were badly needed in the West.

Ironically, it would be Adolf Hitler's Third Reich that, a quarter of a century later, would fall to defeat at the hands of the Soviet behemoth his forebearers created during the Great War.

10. Revolution in France, Revolution In Germany

Troops with the Russian Provisional Government fire machine guns at revolutionaries in July 1917 in Petrograd.

After the fall of Tsarist Russia, a sense of dread emerged across Europe. No nation was left untouched by the specter of socialist revolution, France and Germany included. Had the war been more poorly managed, and had soldiers and workers been pushed ever more so to the brink, these countries could have very well fallen to socialist - or even communist - revolution. This would have resulted in a vastly different outcome to the war and very different post-war Europe, indeed.

11. Germany Refuses to Surrender in 1918

Such is the fantasy of the "Stab in the Back" conspiracists who followed in the wake of the war. Confused and surprised by the "sudden" surrender, some Germans believed the country still had considerable fight left in them. It was earlier in the year, after all, that Operation Michael produced some of the most significant gains recorded by the Germans during the war.

But it was only after much stubborn deliberation that Ludendorff and Hindenburg finally decided to call it quits in November 1918. With Germany stripped bare of its resources, and its population starving, exhausted, and entering into the early stages of an Influenza epidemic, the hawkish leaders finally - and reluctantly - surrendered.

But what would have happened if they hadn't? What if they insisted on a Nazi-esque Götterdämmerung in a desperate fight to the finish? First, the war probably wouldn't have ended in 1918 (the campaigning season was coming to a close), but it would have most certainly ended in early 1919. Allied troops, who were utilizing new combined operational tactics, were pushing steadily forwards. Eventually, they would have reached the German border, taking each town one by one until they took Berlin. It would have been a terrible mess, with mass soldier and civilian casualties on both sides - and for absolutely nothing.

Yet it would be this myth - that the war was still winnable for Germany - that fueled the subsequent rise of the Nazi party.

Follow me on Twitter: @dvorsky
Related: Trench Warfare in World War I Was a Smarter Strategy Than You Realize | Watch The Entire First World War Unfold In Less Than Six Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 Intriguing Ways World War I Could Have Turned Out Differently

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First World War may have have featured static battlefields and attritional strategies, but that doesn't mean the course of events from 1914 to 1918 couldn't have unfolded differently. Here are 11 events that could have changed the outcome of the Great War.

# data[].attributes.body
The Domino Effect, or Domino Theory, is the theory that a political event in one country will cause similar events in Neighboring countries, like a falling domino casing an entire row of upended domino's to fall.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.

# data[].attributes.body
The war was caused by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. By 1914, six major powers of Europe got into two groups: Britain, France, and Russia made the Triple Entente and Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy comprised the Triple Alliance. The domino effect happend.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Subscribe to The Week magazine - Try your first 6 issues FREE

This year marks the centenary of the Armistice, and the end of the First World War.

But, 100 years on, debate still rages as to the causes behind a conflict which claimed the lives of 17 million people, traumatised a generation, overturned old empires and changed the world's political order forever.

How did WWI start?

The simplest answer is that the immediate cause was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the archduke of Austria-Hungary. His death at the hands of Gavrilo Princip - a Serbian nationalist with ties to the secretive military group known as the Black Hand - propelled the major European military powers towards war.

The events that led up to the assassination are significantly more complicated, but most scholars agree that the gradual emergence of a group of alliances between major powers was partly to blame for the descent into war.

By 1914, those alliances resulted in the six major powers of Europe coalescing into two broad groups: Britain, France and Russia formed the Triple Entente, while Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy comprised the Triple Alliance.

As these countries came to each other's aid after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, their declarations of war produced a domino effect. CNN lists these key developments:

June 28, 1914 - Gavrilo Princip assassinates Franz Ferdinand.

July 28, 1914 - Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia.

August 2, 1914 - Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and Germany sign a secret treaty of alliance.

August 3, 1914 - Germany declares war on France.

August 4, 1914 - Germany invades Belgium, leading Britain to declare war on Germany.

August 10, 1914 - Austria-Hungary invades Russia.

As the war progressed, further acts of aggression drew other countries, including the United States, into the conflict. Many others, including Australia, India and most African colonies, fought at the behest of their imperial rulers.

But even the alliance theory is now considered overly simplistic by many historians. War came to Europe not by accident, but by design, argues military historian Gary Sheffield.

According to Sheffield, the First World War began for two fundamental reasons: "First, decision-makers in Berlin and Vienna chose to pursue a course that they hoped would bring about significant political advantages even if it brought about general war. Second, the governments in the entente states rose to the challenge."

Sheffield adds: "At best, Germany and Austria-Hungary launched a reckless gamble that went badly wrong. At worst, 1914 saw a premeditated war of aggression and conquest, a conflict that proved to be far removed from the swift and decisive venture that some had envisaged".

Was WWI caused by a family feud?

Far from being remote rulers who knew nothing of their enemies, the heads of state of Britain, Germany and Russia - George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II - were first cousins who knew one another very well.

A BBC documentary screened earlier this year, Royal Cousins at War, told the story of Wilhelm's difficult relationship with his parents and antipathy towards all things British and argues that this helped bring the world to the brink of war.

The three monarchs were like "sleepwalkers stepping towards an open lift shaft", Richard Davenport-Hines says in his review of Miranda Carter's book on the subject, The Three Emperors. The events leading up to the conflict are "a study in the envy, insincerity, festering rancour and muddle that only families can manage".

Unlike many family feuds, however, disagreements between the royal cousins exacted a geopolitical price. "As relationships between the royal cousins waxed and waned, so did the relationships between their countries," the Daily Mail's Ruth Styles says.

Queen Victoria attempted to broker peace between the cousins, but after her death good will "between the Russian, British and German branches of the family dissipated and Europe edged closer to war: George V and Tsar Nicholas on one side, and their estranged cousin, Wilhelm, on the other," Styles says.

The engagement was disastrous for all three monarchs. By the end of 1918 the German kaiser was deposed and had fled into exile, the Russian tsar and his children had been executed by revolutionaries, and the British king presided over "a broken, debt-ridden empire," Davenport-Hines says.

Which nation was the primary aggressor?

The question of which country or countries caused the war is sometimes flipped on its head by scholars who have asked which countries - had they conducted themselves differently - could have prevented it.

On the BBC website, military historian Sir Max Hastings says that while no one nation deserves the blame alone, Germany is more guilty than most, as "it alone had power to halt the descent to disaster at any time in July 1914 by withdrawing its 'blank cheque' which offered support to Austria for its invasion of Serbia."

Sir Richard J Evans, Regius professor of history at the University of Cambridge disagrees, arguing that Serbian nationalism and expansionism were the root cause of the conflict. "Serbia bore the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of WW1," Evans says, "and Serbian backing for the Black Hand terrorists was extraordinarily irresponsible,"

Other leading scholars believe the blame should be shared equally between all the main players: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Serbia, Russia, France, the Ottoman empire and Britain. The "fatal mixture of political misjudgement, fear of loss of prestige and stubborn commitments on all sides of a very complicated system of military and political alliances of European states" led to the descent into all-out war.

Why did the US join the war?

Until the US Congress declared war on Germany in April 1917, President Woodrow Wilson "had strained every political sinew" to keep the country out of the conflict, author Patrick Gregory writes for the BBC.

Despite widespread horror in the US over newspaper reports of German atrocities against civilians, the general feeling among in the early months of the conflict was that American men should not risk their lives in a European war.

That all started to change in May 1915, when a German U-boat torpedoed and sank the British passenger liner the Lusitania as it crossed the Atlantic, killing 1,198 of the 1,962 people on board.

The attack provoked shock and fury across the world. Among the dead were 128 Americans, putting substantial pressure on the government to abandon its neutral stance on the conflict.

Although ambivalence to the war remained strong enough that Wilson campaigned for reelection in 1916 on the slogan "He kept us out of war", Gregory writes, the Lusitania atrocity swelled the ranks of the pro-war lobby, led by former president Theodore Roosevelt.

In response to the outcry, Kaiser Wilhelm II halted U-boat operations in the Atlantic. Nevertheless, the pro-war sentiment in the US continued to fester - and when Germany announced plans to resume its naval strikes on passenger ships in January 1917, it exploded.

Public opinion was further inflamed, writes Gregory, over the emergence of a telegram, supposedly from the German foreign minister Arthur Zimmerman to Mexico offering military assistance if the US entered the war.

Observers soon came to believe that the change in public feeling made US entry into the war inevitable, and eight weeks later Congress approved a resolution declaring war on Germany.

The Anglo-German arms race

Towards the end of the 19th century, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany embarked on a massive project to build a fleet that would rival Great Britain's.

The Royal Navy at the time was regarded as the most powerful in the world, although its primary purpose was not military, but the protection of trade.

"Britain relied upon imports and its economic prosperity rested on seaborne trade, financed by the City of London," Paul Cornish, the senior curator at the Imperial War Museum, says. "Any threat to Britain's naval supremacy was a threat to the nation itself."

A shipbuilding arms race with Germany began in 1898, but Britain had gained a technological edge over its rival by 1906, with the development of a new class of battleship - the dreadnought.

"Designed around the firepower of heavy guns and powered by steam turbines, these huge vessels made all earlier warships obsolete," Cornish adds. "In both countries, the public, encouraged by the press, popular authors and naval pressure groups, demanded more battleships."

Ultimately, Germany was unable to keep pace with the spending power of its rival and shifted attention away from its navy back to the development of its army. However, "the damage to Germany's relationship with Britain proved irreversible".

Is it wrong to try to point the finger?

Attempting to identify which nation or nations should be held accountable for the war is an exercise doomed to failure, Margaret MacMillan argues in her 2013 First World War history, The War that Ended Peace.

In her Spectator review of MacMillan's "important new study", Jane Ridley says that the book's main thrust is that the blame game itself is "conceptually flawed".

"The alternative to searching for scapegoats is to examine the system," MacMillan argues "and the international system in 1914 was seriously dysfunctional".

According to MacMillan, the alliances drawn up between nations before the war could actually have helped to preserve the fragile peace.
However, pacifist ideals were brushed aside by the "frightening shifts" in the mindset of Europe's leaders who ultimately came to think in terms of military solutions rather than diplomatic ones.

"The most we can hope for," MacMillan says, "is to understand as best we can those individuals who had to make the choices between war and peace."

Can any individual be blamed for the First World War?

The Guardian identifies six people who, from a British perspective, had the largest roles in the events leading to the outbreak of war:

Kaiser Wilhelm II, the "hot-tempered, military-minded ruler of German empire and kingdom of Prussia" who was "increasingly suspicious of motives" in Britain, France and Russia

David Lloyd George, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, who "against his earlier inclinations" ultimately became a leading proponent of military action against Germany

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, who found himself caught between Russia's loyalty to Serbia, and his desire to avoid war on the continent

Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was "keen to strengthen Austrian army" but wanted not to antagonise Serbia

Herbert Asquith, the British Prime Minister who led the nation into war, to be replaced by Lloyd George in December 1916

Edward Grey, the foreign secretary who "was ineffective in his attempts to warn Germany against threatening Belgium's neutrality in 1914".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The First World War: how did it start and who was to blame?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Subscribe to The Week magazine - Try your first 6 issues FREE This year marks the centenary of the Armistice, and the end of the First World War. But, 100 years on, debate still rages as to the causes behind a conflict which claimed the lives of 17 million people, traumatised a generation, overturned old empires and changed the world's political order forever.

# data[].attributes.headline
New technology they were using during the war.

# data[].attributes.subject
New technology they were using during the war.

# data[].attributes.body
There were many that were made, but 12 most famous that made it on this list was
- Tanks (Invented by Europeans in 1914)
- Flamethrowers (Invented by Richard Fiedler in 1901
- Poison Gas (First wildly used by the German army in the battle of Bilimov)
- Tracer Bullets (Invented by the British in 1915)
- Air Traffic Control (Invented by the US Army in 1916)
- Hydrophone (Invented by Reginald Fessenden in 1916)
- Aircraft Carriers (Invented by the British in 1912)
Pilotless Drones (Invented by Elmer Sperry and Peter Hewitt in 1916)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Erik Sass has been covering the events leading up to World War I exactly 100 years after they happened. But today he's here to discuss some inventions of The Great War.

1. Tanks

In 1914, the "war of movement" expected by most European generals settled down into an unexpected, and seemingly unwinnable, war of trenches. With machine guns reinforcing massed rifle fire from the defending trenches, attackers were mowed down by the thousands before they could even get to the other side of "no-man's-land."

A solution presented itself, however, in the form of the automobile, which took the world by storm after 1900. Powered by a small internal combustion engine burning diesel or gas, a heavily-armored vehicle could advance even in the face of overwhelming small arms fire. Add some serious guns and replace the wheels with armored treads to handle rough terrain, and the tank was born.

The first tank, the British Mark I, was designed in 1915 and first saw combat at the Somme in September 1916. The French soon followed suit with the Renault FT, which established the classic tank look (turret on top). Despite their later prowess in tank combat in WWII, the Germans never got around to large-scale tank production in WWI, although they did produce 21 tanks in the unwieldy A7V model.

2. Flamethrowers

Although the Byzantines and Chinese used weapons that hurled flaming material in the medieval period, the first design for a modern flamethrower was submitted to the German Army by Richard Fiedler in 1901, and the devices were tested by the Germans with an experimental detachment in 1911. Their true potential was only realized during trench warfare, however. After a massed assault on enemy lines, it wasn't uncommon for enemy soldiers to hole up in bunkers and dugouts hollowed into the side of the trenches. Unlike grenades, flamethrowers could "neutralize" (i.e. burn alive) enemy soldiers in these confined spaces without inflicting structural damage (the bunkers might come in handy for the new residents). The flamethrower was first used by German troops near Verdun in February 1915.

3. Poison Gas

Getty Images
Poison gas was used by both sides with devastating results (well, sometimes) during the Great War. The Germans pioneered the large-scale use of chemical weapons with a gas attack on Russian positions on January 31, 1915, during the Battle of Bolimov, but low temperatures froze the poison (xylyl bromide) in the shells. The first successful use of chemical weapons occurred on April 22, 1915, near Ypres, when the Germans sprayed chlorine gas from large cylinders towards trenches held by French colonial troops. The defenders fled, but typically for the First World War, this didn't yield a decisive result: the Germans were slow to follow up with infantry attacks, the gas dissipated, and the Allied defenses were restored. Before long, of course, the Allies were using poison gas too, and over the course of the war both sides resorted to increasingly insidious compounds to beat gas masks, another new invention; thus the overall result was a huge increase in misery for not much change in the strategic situation (a recurring theme of the war).

4. Tracer Bullets

While the Great War involved a lot of futile activity, fighting at night was especially unproductive because there was no way to see where you were shooting. Night combat was made somewhat easier by the British invention of tracer bullets-rounds which emitted small amounts of flammable material that left a phosphorescent trail. The first attempt, in 1915, wasn't actually that useful, as the trail was "erratic" and limited to 100 meters, but the second tracer model developed in 1916, the .303 SPG Mark VIIG, emitted a regular bright green-white trail and was a real hit (get it?). Its popularity was due in part to an unexpected side-benefit: the flammable agent could ignite hydrogen, which made it perfect for "balloon-busting" the German zeppelins then terrorizing England.

5. Interrupter Gear

Airplanes had been around for just a decade when WWI started, and while they had obvious potential for combat applications as an aerial platform for bombs and machine guns, it wasn't quite clear how the latter would work, since the propeller blades got in the way. In the first attempt, the U.S. Army basically tied the gun to the plane (pointing towards the ground) with a leather strap, and it was operated by a gunner who sat beside the pilot. This was not ideal for aerial combat and inconvenient because it required two airmen to operate. Another solution was mounting the gun well above the pilot, so the bullets cleared the propeller blades, but this made it hard to aim. After the Swiss engineer Franz Schneider patented his idea for an interrupter gear in 1913, a finished version was presented by Dutch designer Anthony Fokker, whose "synchronizer," centered on a cam attached to the propeller shaft, allowed a machine gun to fire between the blades of a spinning propeller. The Germans adopted Fokker's invention in May 1915, and the Allies soon produced their own versions. Schneider later sued Fokker for patent infringement.

6. Air traffic control

In the first days of flight, once a plane left the ground the pilot was pretty much isolated from the terrestrial world, unable to receive any information aside from obvious signals using flags or lamps. This changed thanks to the efforts of the U.S. Army, which installed the first operational two-way radios in planes during the Great War (but prior to U.S. involvement). Development began in 1915 at San Diego, and by 1916 technicians could send a radio telegraph over a distance of 140 miles; radio telegraph messages were also exchanged between planes in flight. Finally, in 1917, for the first time a human voice was transmitted by radio from a plane in flight to an operator on the ground.

7. Depth Charges

The German U-boat campaign against Allied shipping sank millions of tons of cargo and killed tens of thousands of sailors and civilians, forcing the Allies to figure out a way to combat the submarine menace. The solution was the depth charge, basically an underwater bomb that could be lobbed from the deck of a ship using a catapult or chute. Depth charges were set to go off at a certain depth by a hydrostatic pistol that measured water pressure, insuring the depth charge wouldn't damage surface vessels, including the launch ship. After the idea was sketched out in 1913, the first practical depth charge, the Type D, was produced by the Royal Navy's Torpedo and Mine School in January 1916. The first German U-boat sunk by depth charge was the U-68, destroyed on March 22, 1916.

8. Hydrophones

Of course it was a big help if you could actually locate the U-boat using sound waves, which required a microphone that could work underwater, or hydrophone. The first hydrophone was invented by 1914 by Reginald Fessenden, a Canadian inventor who actually started working on the idea as a way to locate icebergs following the Titanic disaster; however, it was of limited use because it couldn't tell the direction of an underwater object, only the distance. The hydrophone was further improved by the Frenchman Paul Langevin and Russian Constantin Chilowsky, who invented an ultrasound transducer relying on piezoelectricity, or the electric charge held in certain minerals: a thin layer of quartz held between two metal plates responded to tiny changes in water pressure resulting from sound waves, allowing the user to determine both the distance and direction of an underwater object. The hydrophone claimed its first U-boat victim in April 1916. A later version perfected by the Americans could detect U-boats up to 25 miles away.

9. Aircraft Carriers

The first time an airplane was launched from a moving ship was in May 1912, when commander Charles Rumney Samson piloted a Short S.27 pontoon biplane from a ramp on the deck of the HMS Hibernia in Weymouth Bay. However, the Hibernia wasn't a true aircraft carrier, since planes couldn't land on its deck; they had to set down on the water and then be retrieved, slowing the whole process considerably. The first real aircraft carrier was the HMS Furious, which began life as a 786-foot-long battle cruiser equipped with two massive 18-inch guns-until British naval designers figured out that these guns were so large they might shake the ship to pieces. Looking for another use for the vessel, they built a long platform capable of both launching and landing airplanes. To make more room for takeoffs and landings, the airplanes were stored in hangars under the runway, as they still are in modern aircraft carriers. Squadron Commander Edward Dunning became the first person to land a plane on a moving ship when he landed a Sopwith Pup on the Furious on August 2, 1917.

10. Pilotless Drones

The first pilotless drone was developed for the U.S. Navy in 1916 and 1917 by two inventors, Elmer Sperry and Peter Hewitt, who originally designed it as an unmanned aerial bomb-essentially a prototype cruise missile. Measuring just 18.5 feet across, with a 12-horsepower motor, the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Aircraft weighed 175 pounds and was stabilized and directed ("piloted" is too generous) with gyroscopes and a barometer to determine altitude. The first unmanned flight in history occurred on Long Island on March 6, 1918. In the end, the targeting technique-point and fly-was too imprecise for it to be useful against ships during the war. Further development, by attempting to integrate remote radio control, continued for several years after the war, until the Navy lost interest in 1925.

11. Mobile X-Ray Machines

With millions of soldiers suffering grievous, life-threatening injuries, there was obviously a huge need during the Great War for the new wonder weapon of medical diagnostics, the X-ray-but these required very large machines that were both too bulky and too delicate to move. Enter Marie Curie, who set to work creating mobile X-ray stations for the French military immediately after the outbreak of war; by October 1914, she had installed X-ray machines in several cars and small trucks which toured smaller surgical stations at the front. By the end of the war there were 18 of these "radiologic cars" or "Little Curies" in operation. African-American inventor Frederick Jones developed an even smaller portable X-ray machine in 1919 (Jones also invented refrigeration units, air conditioning units, and the self-starting gasoline lawnmower).

12. Sanitary Napkins

Women traditionally improvised all kinds of disposable or washable undergarments to deal with their monthly period, all the way back to softened papyrus in ancient Egypt. But the modern sanitary napkin as we know it was made possible by the introduction of new cellulose bandage material during the First World War; it wasn't long before French nurses figured out that clean, absorbent cellulose bandages were far superior to any predecessors. British and American nurses picked up on the habit, and corporate America wasn't far behind: In 1920, Kimberly-Clark introduced the first commercial sanitary napkin, Kotex (that's "cotton" + "texture"). But it was rough going at first, as no publications would carry advertisements for such a product. It wasn't until 1926 that Montgomery Ward broke the barrier, carrying Kotex napkins in its popular catalogue.

Subscribe to our Newsletter!

ABDESIGN/iStock via Getty Images

Hurricane Dorian skimmed the United States' East Coast last week, creating a trail of damage residents are still dealing with. But it wasn't just trash and debris the storm surges left behind: As WCSC reports, two cannonballs dating back to the Civil War were discovered on Folly Beach in South Carolina in the aftermath of the storm.

Aaron Lattin and his girlfriend Alba were walking on the beach on September 6 when they saw what looked like rocks nestled in the sand. As they examined them more closely, they realized they had found something much more special. The weathered objects were actually cannonballs that have likely been buried in the area for more than 150 years.

Incredibly, this isn't the first time Civil War cannonballs have been discovered on Folly Beach following a hurricane: In 2016, Hurricane Matthew unearthed 16 of them. Folly Island was used as a Union base a century and a half ago, and items leftover from the artillery battery built there are still scattered around the shoreline. The couple behind this latest discovery believes there are more waiting to be found.

Old cannonballs may look like cool artifacts to treasure hunters, but they should still be treated with caution. Police and bombs disposal technicians were called to the scene at Folly Beach to confirm the cannonballs were no longer functional.

It was after midnight on May 15, 1918 when William Henry Johnson began to hear the rustling. Johnson was a long way from his home in Albany, New York, guarding a bridge in the Argonne Forest in Champagne, France. Sleeping next to him was Needham Roberts, a fellow soldier. Both men had enlisted in the New York National Guard just a few months earlier and were now part of the French Army, donated by U.S. forces to their understaffed allies in the thick of World War I.

As Johnson continued hearing the strange noises late into the night, he urged his partner to get up. A tired Roberts waved him off, believing Johnson was just nervous. Johnson decided to prepare himself just in case, piling up his assortment of grenades and rifle cartridges within arm's reach. If someone was coming, he would be ready.

The rustling continued. At one point, Johnson heard a clipping noise-what he suspected was the sound of the perimeter fence being cut. He again told Roberts to wake up. "Man," he said, "You better wake up pretty soon or you [might] never wake up."

The two began lobbing grenades into the darkness, hoping to discourage whoever might be lurking around the perimeter. Suddenly, in the middle of the French forest, Johnson saw dozens of German soldiers come charging, bayonets pointed toward him. They began to fire.

What transpired over the next hour would become an act of heroism that prompted former President Theodore Roosevelt to declare Johnson one of the bravest Americans to take up arms in the war. Johnson would even lead a procession back in New York City, with crowds lined up along the street to greet him.

Johnson may or may not have felt like a hero, though he certainly was. But he must have also felt something else-a sense of confusion. A man of color, he had been dispatched to a segregated regiment, where he received paltry combat training and was assigned menial tasks like unloading trucks. Even his homecoming parade was split up according to race. Henry Johnson, decorated virtually head to toe in French military honors, returned to a country that considered him both hero and a second-class citizen.

Though officers would later verify much of Johnson's account of that night in the woods, his early life is harder to pin down. It has been reported that Johnson himself wasn't quite sure when he was born. No one appeared to have kept a close eye on his birth certificate, which came out of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The official U.S. Army website honoring Johnson's service lists an approximate birth date of July 15, 1892. Other research indicates he could have been born as early as 1887 or as late as 1897.

After moving to New York as a teenager, Johnson took on an assortment of odd jobs; he was a chauffeur and a soda mixer, among other occupations. Depending on the account, he was living in Albany working either in a coal yard or as a railway porter when he opened a newspaper in the spring of 1917 and read that the 15th New York Infantry Regiment of the New York National Guard was accepting enlistees. The regiment was comprised entirely of black soldiers.

Johnson showed up on June 5, 1917, weighing a slight 130 pounds and standing 5 feet, 4 inches tall. Assigned to Company C of the 15th-which later became known as the 369th U.S. Infantry Regiment-he was quickly dispatched to Camp Wadsworth in South Carolina, where he trained along with the rest of the segregated unit. Though minorities had served in the U.S. military since the Revolutionary War, they often lacked support from officials and got inferior training compared to their white counterparts. At Camp Wadsworth, Johnson was said to have been used primarily as labor, unloading supplies and digging latrines. If there was one bright spot during this time, it was that he married his wife, Georgina Edna Jackson, that September.

Johnson and the 369th were sent to France on January 1, 1918. There they continued laboring, which frustrated their commander, Colonel William Hayward. Hayward lobbied his superiors to give his men a chance in combat. Since France was experiencing a shortage of men, the 369th-which later became known as the Harlem Hellfighters because many of their members had come from Harlem in New York City-joined the 161st Division of the French Army, even wearing the jackets and helmets of the foreign military.

To the French, Johnson and his fellow soldiers were a welcome solution to their lack of manpower. Sent to the front lines in March 1918, Johnson and the others learned enough French to understand commands from superiors. They were armed with rifles and held on to the bolo knives used by the U.S. Army. The imposing 14-inch blades weighed more than a pound and had much of their weight running along the back, giving them a cleaving action similar to a machete. Johnson would soon be glad he had such a weapon on his waist.

Along with Needham Roberts-a man from Trenton, New Jersey-Johnson was assigned sentry duty on the western edge of the Argonne Forest. Patrolling near a bridge, Johnson and Roberts were given the late shift, on patrol until midnight on the evening of May 14. It would be a night neither he nor Roberts would ever forget.

As their shift wound down, Johnson saw two relief soldiers approaching. The soldiers were young and inexperienced, and Johnson felt uncomfortable leaving them alone. He stayed put and surveyed the area while Roberts went to rest in a trench. Shortly thereafter, he began to hear the rustling noises, which eventually became German soldiers rushing through the darkness. Johnson realized they were surrounded, and urged Roberts to run for help. But Roberts didn't get far before he decided to come back and help, and was soon hit by the shrapnel of a grenade in his arm and hip.

Still conscious, Roberts handed Johnson grenades to toss. When those ran out, Johnson began firing his rifle while being hit by bullets in his side, hand, and head. Quickly, Johnson shoved an American cartridge into his French rifle, but the ammunition and the weapon were incompatible. The rifle jammed. As the Germans swarmed him, Johnson began using the rifle like a club, smashing it over their heads and into their faces.

After the butt of the rifle finally fell apart, Johnson went down with a blow to the head. But he climbed back up, drew his bolo knife, and charged forward. The blade went deep into the first German he encountered, killing the man. More gruesome work with the weapon followed, with Johnson hacking and stabbing bodies even as bullets continued to strike him.

At one point, Johnson noticed the Germans had grabbed Roberts and were attempting to haul him away. He intervened, stabbing more soldiers, including one in the ribs.

The melee went on for roughly an hour, he said. When reinforcements finally arrived, the remaining Germans fled. Johnson was given medical attention. So was Roberts. Both lived.

The next day, military officials visited the scene of the battle. German helmets rested on the ground, along with puddles of blood. Four bodies were left behind. The officials estimated Johnson had wounded up to 24 others. Some men who walked the site said the death toll was six, with Johnson injuring 32 men. After all the fighting, Johnson had prevented the Germans from breaking the French line.

The nicknames came fast. The bridge was declared "the Battle of Henry Johnson." Johnson himself was given the unofficial label "the Black Death" and the official rank of sergeant. He was headed back home.

Before they departed, the French honored Johnson and Roberts with the Croix de Guerre, one of France's highest awards for valor. They were the first two Americans to receive it. Johnson's was amended with the addition of the Gold Palm, intended to signify extraordinary valor.

It was an honor, though one that came with a heavy price. Johnson later estimated he had been shot five times, the bullets striking both feet, his thigh, his arm, and even his head. A scar stretched over his lip. A bayonet had been plunged into his torso-twice. He had to have a metal plate inserted into his left foot. In all, Johnson endured 21 injuries as a result of his defiant stand against the Germans.

Back home, he convalesced as the country sang his praises. Often, such reports of his bravery took pains to note he was a man of color. "When proudly speaking of fighting races we must not overlook the American Negro," read an editorial in the New York Evening Telegram. Other times, Johnson found himself in the peculiar position of being celebrated while simultaneously being reminded of his purportedly inferior status. The parade that honored the Harlem Hellfighters in February 1919 ran for seven miles, with Johnson leading the procession in an open-topped cab. But the Hellfighters could not march with their white counterparts.

Unfortunately, Johnson's postwar life remains as murky as his earliest years. He reportedly received disability payments from the government as well as medical care, but it's unknown to what extent that supported him or how badly his injuries kept him from employment opportunities. (He did ask for, and received, as much as $100 per minute during speaking engagements in cities such as St. Louis-well over $1000 in today's money.) An attempt was made by the Albany Afro-American Association to raise money to build him a home as a way of expressing gratitude for his service, but it's unclear whether the effort was successful. On July 1, 1929, Johnson died of myocarditis (an inflammation of the heart muscle) while living in Washington, D.C. He was awarded a posthumous Purple Heart in 1996.

For years, it was unclear what became of Johnson's remains. In 2002, when the historians at the New York Division of Military and Naval Affairs researched his service at the behest of his descendants (though it was later discovered they were mistaken and not actually related to Johnson), the historians determined Johnson was buried at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors. With confirmation of the gravesite, Johnson also became eligible for and was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross in 2002.

In 2015, President Barack Obama awarded him the Medal of Honor, which was accepted on Johnson's behalf by Sergeant Major Louis Wilson of the New York National Guard. And every June 5, Albany celebrates Henry Johnson Day in acknowledgement of the day he enlisted. The city also gives out a Henry Johnson Award for Distinguished Community Service for those making contributions in the area.

Those honors joined the Croix de Guerre, which Johnson was said to have worn with humility. He sometimes needed to be prodded into discussing his act of bravery, as if it were of no major consequence. "There wasn't anything so fine about it," he said. "[I] just fought for my life. A rabbit would have done that."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 Technological Advancements of World War I

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erik Sass has been covering the events leading up to World War I exactly 100 years after they happened. But today he's here to discuss some inventions of The Great War. 1. Tanks In 1914, the "war of movement" expected by most European generals settled down into an unexpected, and seemingly unwinnable, war of trenches.

# data[].attributes.body
The Brusilov Offensive would be the most successful Russian Offensive- and the most successful breakthrough operations.

# data[].attributes.body
The battle of Verdun was the longest battle of the first world war

# data[].attributes.body
The war took in many places, like Germany, Poland, France, Italy, and more. Some of the most famous battles being, The battle of Marne (September 6-10 1914), Battle of Verdun (February 27-December 18 1916), and the Brusilov Offensive (June 4-September 20 1916)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Significant Battles Of The First World War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Germany's failure to defeat the French and the British at the Marne also had important strategic implications. The Russians had mobilised more quickly than the Germans had anticipated and launched their first offensive within two weeks of the war's outbreak.

# data[].attributes.body
Allies included Britain, France, Russia, Italy, and the United States. These countries fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria.