To what extent was poor leadership responsible for massive loss of life, and stalemate on the Western Front 1914 - 1918?

Poor leadership, throughout World War One was one of main causes, of such large losses of life. Better planning and a careful delivery of instructions would more than likely have resulted in higher success and the loss of fewer men. Generals and commanders sat in their country mansions in arrogance, far from the front lines planning endless attacks with hardly any regard for human life. Commander Robson wrote, ‘Wiring parties worked though the nights while raiders tried to cut gaps – these gaps then showed the enemy where an attack would have come.’ The evidence speaks for itself. It seems that leadership, poor or not was crucial on and off the battle field, and those who were wealthy and could buy their positions, leading positions at that, should not have been allowed to do so when the lives of other men were at stake.

Stalemate was the bane of all commanders that fought on the Western Front throughout the duration of the First World War; the taking of little ground, and the loss of many good men. The most famous example was the Western Front, where Germany planned at first to take out France before Russia could strike, but all did not go as they planned. The Russians managed to mobilise a large enough army, quick enough to strike Germany when she least expected it, and as a result many troops that were going to be used for the infamous Shlieffen Plan, had to be diverted back to the east to defend against the ever advancing Russians. The Russians achieved initial success, but were later driven back when the supporting troops arrived.

It has been argued that the Germans could have fended off the Russians without the extra troops, in which case the likelihood of the Shlieffen Plan succeeding would have been higher. When the Germans attacked France they could not inflict a hard enough ‘punch’ and experienced heightened resistance, which with the help of the B.E.F to the French, slowed down the attack, and eventually halted the Germans at the battle of the Marne. When little ground was being gained, both sides raced northwards digging a series of trenches running up the entire country for the long haul. No doubt the situation both sides were landed in was due to inefficient planning. On the part of the Germans, Von Moltke the poor leader of whom the German armies were under command of, should have left enough troops back as support for such a situation as the Russian attacks that were not expected but a possibility none the less. And the British should have intervened sooner, honouring their treaty with Belgium, which might have stopped the German advance into France and giving the French enough time to mobilise fully, and defend themselves. This in turn would have at least more decisive battles, and the likely hood that the war could have been ended by Christmas as everyone hoped.

This is a preview of the whole essay

One of effects of stalemate was that generals had to now concentrate on trying to break it. This meant even heavier casualties during battles, and even more men would be needed than originally anticipated. The British lost half of their professional soldiers in the defence of one, Ypres. In four days of fighting in the Battle of the Frontiers, the French army had suffered 140,000 casualties, and by ht end of sixteen months over 600,000 of their soldiers had been killed, German losses on a similar scale, as generals of both sides threw in countless men in senseless bayonet charges. A witness at the fort of Liege during a German attack wrote, ‘The Germans made no attempt at deploying, but came on line after line, almost shoulder to shoulder, until as we shot them down, the fallen were heaped on top of each other in an awful barricade of dead and wounded that threatened to mask our guns.’ Does this kind of attack sound one of sensible planning, careful thought, or poor leadership?

Frequently, army commanders tried to bring honour and glory to the men under their command, and unsuccessfully at that. Commanders mounted massive assaults intended to drive back the enemy over a long salient, or less frequently, to establish a breakthrough in his line that would enable him to be attacked from the rear. Such attacks began with a long artillery barrage intended to blow away the enemy’s barbed fences, flatten his front trenches, and shatter morale. Then at dawn, the attacking army, usually carrying heavy packs and fixed bayonets, would go ‘over the top’ in long lines that walked slowly, in rapidly diminishing numbers, toward the enemy’s line. Occasionally poison gas would be hurled at the attackers, but this proved rather pointless when the gas began to blow back onto their own men. I do not believe that a more vicious or militarily ineffective method of slaughter could have been fathomed.

Poor leadership resulted in the war being so prolonged; by November the winter began to creep up on the lines and all the operations literally became bogged down, and the war of rapid movement originally planned by the generals, had turned into a slogging match between each of the sides of entrenched armies, and the lines moved very little from then on. Factors such as the weather should have been taken into account when the war was being planned. A combination of the sheer drop in temperatures and the wet muddy conditions resulted in the death of some soldiers not out on the battle fields, but in what was seen as their homes, the trenches. Ignorantly commanders wrongly predicted that the war that was to last for years would be over in a matter of months, they told all the men they would be home by Christmas.

It can be argued that poor leadership lost the Germans the war, not troops, or lack of morale, towards the end of the war anyhow, although they were contributing factors. The Germans made a decisive decision in 1918, the commander at the time Ludendorff chose to throw all the available troops into battle on the Western Front in an attempt for one last victory. For four months Ludendorff struck without respite at all different section of the front, but one by one the attacks were repelled by the British, French and American troops, with the Germans taking heavy casualties. In June the Germans tried one last time to march down the Marne to Paris but were defeated, and eventually all their fronts began to collapse. To throw all available troops into one area was not a wise choice at all, especially when Germany was not exactly winning the war, and as a results of the bad decision many men that should not have died did, a result of poor leadership.

The greatest tragedy of all, possibly one of the largest number of deaths in one battle in the history of the world, was at the Battle Of The Somme. Something that still lives in the minds of veterans as thousands upon thousands of their comrades were simply wiped out. This is probably the greatest example of the extent of poor leadership that existed during the First World War, and ended in calamity with loss of life on an entirely new scale.

The Battle of the Somme was planned as a joint attack for the British and French. The idea was originally thought up by French Commander in Chief, Joseph Joffre and was accepted by General Sir Douglas Haig, commander of the B.E.F. Although Joffre was concerned with territorial gain, it was also an attempt to destroy German manpower. Joffre first intended to use mainly French troops but it was eventually decided to turn it into a large scale British diversionary offensive. At this point General Sir Douglas Haig now tool over responsibility for the operation and with the help of General Sir Henry Rawlinson, came up with his own plan of attack. This taking over by Haig was probably the first spark that would lead to a tragic explosion. The undertaking of such a large and what hoped to be significantly tide turning assault, should not have been left to Haig and his aid Rawlinson. It should have taken a large number of high ranked commanders, French and British working together, to carefully plan over a long period of time, with the aim of success and regard for human lives.

Haig’s strategy was a large eight-day preliminary bombardment that he believed would completely destroy the German forward defences. This however proved rather pathetic when all it did was to toss the barbed wire defences into the air and tangle it more, not making it easier, but if anything worse for attackers to had to try and get around it whilst also attempting to dodge and wall of bullets. A series of mines had been carefully laid near the German front line, that would be a great help to the attacking Allied powers because when the Germans came out of their dugouts they wouldn’t expect it. However reason was given up for madness, and to impress everyone back home in England the order was given to prematurely detonate one of the mines for the benefit of a newspaper photographer. This then gave away the plan of the mines to the German soldiers, who went back in their dugouts when the mines were being detonated. Finally on the day of attack the men were ordered to ‘go over the top’ not in the frame of mind to kill, because the biggest bombardment in the history of the world was supposed to have killed all the Germans, but with footballs being kicked around between the men, laughing and joking, strolling along as if it was a walk in the park. Not the most sensible idea would you agree? The Germans who were waiting patiently in their dugouts came out, and took to their machine-guns, and mowed down the oncoming troops. This instruction to go over to an enemy trench in such a fashion was folly; after all did Haig really think his bombardment would have killed all the Germans, or that they had simply run away? This ‘poor’ leadership to say the least, was a clear example of the extent of poor leadership that was responsible for massive loss of life, and stalemate on the Western Front.

However, the commanders of the Western Front must not entirely discredited for their efforts, they did eventually manage to break the stalemate. During the last few months of the war in 1918, a war of movement began once more. The introduction of the tank by the British finally rendered the trench lines penetrable, and increased usage of aeroplanes not only made small scale bombings possible on open trench lines, but also allowed more accurate reconnaissance and intelligence gathering.

In conclusion, leadership was vital in a war of such a scale. It should be undertaken by high ranking, experienced, and intelligent people. This was not always the case, and when mistakes occur the effects are usually worse than expected in situations such as war. Leadership was to a large extent to blame, although not entirely, for the large needless losses of life, and stalemate on the Western Front 1914 - 1918. Attacks should be planned very carefully, with every aspect and possibility taken into account, as we saw with the German commanders of the Shlieffen plan who did not expect the Russians to mobilise so quickly. Poor leadership, means poor results clearly proven on countless occasions such as the Somme and the defence of Ypres.