• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why Did the Stalemate on the Western Front Occur?

Extracts from this document...


Why Did the Stalemate on the Western Front Occur? Alex Lines Why was there a stalemate on the western front for so long? This is a common question, discussed many times among many people. In total, between Germany, Britain and France, deaths amounted to 4,039,871, and 10,442,270 more were wounded during the whole war, and most of these casualties were caused in the stalemate on the western front. In truth, there are several reasons why the stalemate occurred. In my opinion, the most important reason for the stalemate was the strategies used during the war. With a lack of imagination from the generals added to the defensive stance of the Germans meant that the stalemate lasted a very long time. The overall offensive tactics involved mainly an artillery bombardment, infantry climbing out of the trenches to eliminate the enemy, then a support attack of cavalry. However, though this tactic may have worked in the past, the addition of the new weapon, the machine gun, destroyed any real chance of this orthodox attack from succeeding. The generals of the First World War started off (and carried on throughout most of the war) with the idea of massed infantry charges with bayonets fixed to their rifles, so with the ability to fire 600 rounds per minute, this weapon was excellent for wiping out large numbers of infantry and cavalry units, thus making it an excellent weapon of defence. ...read more.


Artillery fire accounted for a huge majority of casualties in the First World War (58%), so it was obviously very effective. However, the Allied generals felt that artillery should be used for offensives. It may have started off effective, but the Germans soon built deep bunkers, which protected them from most physical damage from the shells. Another effective defensive weapon was barbed wire, which both sides used. This caused attacking men to be trapped, and easy targets for enemy fire. Thus it prevented a lot of men from attacking the trenches. Artillery fire was used in an attempt to destroy the wire, but more often than not it threw the wire up, and it came down often in a worse tangle than before. Not only did this fail to work, but it also warned the defenders of an attack. These weapons meant that it was very hard to get a successful attack through to the trenches, and these breakthroughs were usually crushed before reinforcements came in time. There were some weapons created in an attempt to cause a massive breakthrough, but they weren't really effective. Gas was used for the first time in the First World War, but this was countered with the invention of gas masks. Underground mining was used to blow up trenches, but though effective, it took too long to lay mines, and the explosions only destroyed a small part of a trench. So, the weapons developed did very little to break the stalemate. ...read more.


This means that bombardment would have had to have been left out, so that there was a greater chance of attacking with surprise on their side. If conscription hadn't been introduced to armies, then the war of attrition wouldn't have been able to continue at Verdun or indeed anywhere else, because the armies would simply have run out of soldiers. This would mean that which ever side ran out of men first would have to surrender. The side that ran out first would probably be Germany's side, since that it was only Germany and Austria-Hungary fighting together, whereas the Allies had Russia, France, Great Britain, and all of Great Britain's colonies fighting together. If it weren't for the compressed front in which the stalemate took place, then there would have been the possibility of flank attacks. The compressed front, however, limited the generals' strategy. The geography of no-man's land also affected tactics. The attackers usually had real problems crossing no-man's land, and this was where geography affected the weapons used. Machine guns, given high ground, could hold off a lot of men for a very long time. It could be said that weapons affected geography as well, because the artillery and mines created craters that could be used either as obstacles or cover. Communication also affected tactics. The breakthroughs that were made weren't capitalised because of bad communication, so reinforcements usually arrived too late. So, all in all, I believe that the main reason for the stalemate is the lack of imagination on the generals' part, but really the other reasons are almost as important. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level War Poetry section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level War Poetry essays

  1. The development of a Stalemate

    The military leaders' tactics on the western front were out dated and ineffective for the type of warfare they had encountered in the Great War, especially trench warfare. Because of this the war took longer and more people's lives were lost.

  2. What Was Life Really Like In The Trenches On The Western Front

    one way too stop them from overheating so quickly was to fill the water barrel which was around the main gun with water, but when the water for the gun ran out it needed to be replaced, the gun crew had to use any liquid there was and that liquid was there urine.

  1. In my work i am going to explain why i believe that new technology ...

    This then led to a stale mate at sea. I believe that this was an equal part in the stalemate being broken because this caused German the public to turn against the government and so they lost support for the war.

  2. Why did stalemate develop on the western front?

    The possession of the higher ground not only gave the Germans a tactical advantage, but it also forced the British to live in the worst conditions. It was muddy and wet in the trenches, and not suited for quick attacks.

  1. The stalemate developed on the Western front - why and for how long?

    British and French armies managed to push the Germans back to the river Aisne where they began to dig trenches to defend themselves. Advancing allies hesitated and stopped. One man and a machine gun protected by mounds of earth was a very powerful weapon.

  2. I need to produce a marketing strategy for a new or existing product. I ...

    This means that when economic conditions change, e.g. combination of a strong pound and/or low oil price which makes UK gas more expensive they can import gas from Europe at a more economic price for supply to the British market.

  1. The Western Front.

    Most of this area was rarely a few feet above sea level and as soon as soldiers began to dig down they would normally find water two or three feet below the surface. Along the whole line, trench life involved a never-ending struggle against water and mud.

  2. The Trenches on the Western Front.

    rest your elbow on an elbow rest, which was usually, a plank of wood. There was a dugot, which was like a cave in the trench and was VERY unsafe.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work