How and why did a stalemate develop on the western front? Why did it last for so long?

How and why did a stalemate develop on the western front?

Why did it last for so long?

Introduction

Many factors contributed to the onset of stalemate, which left the allied and central powers forces in an impossible position of deadlock on either side of no mans on the western front. When the Germans entered Belgium propaganda stimulated uproar in England and the BEF entered the war, which without the French would have been poorly recruited as the BEF supplied large forces from colonial countries. After the collapse of the Schlieffen plan the central powers took retreat from Joffre’s counter attack on high ground and then the race to the sea began. This ended up with the allied forces barely keeping control of the northern ports and long lines of parallel trenches stretching all the way form the Alps at the Swiss frontier to the sea at Ostend took shape which prevented any further progress north or south. From then thousands of men would pour over the top of the trenches sacrificing their lives for their cause at the hands of the Generals for over another 3 years of trench warfare. In this essay I will examine the causes of the stalemate and investigating why the struggle persisted for so long.

Maybe the first factor contributing to a stalemate was the fact that the German commanders and Generals held a general belief that the war would be over resulting in a German victory before Christmas of 1914. This was also thought of by the allied forces who were also certainly not preparing for a war of attrition and many previous war in Europe over the last centaury had all been completed after a short time on a much smaller scale and during this period Britain had been in splendid isolation keeping them out of European affaire which left them a little in the blue with facing this new type of more modern war. This idea was fuelled by propaganda and the media, and soon it was a view held by all the German people now supporting the belief of a defensive war against the barbaric Russian’s which also helped enrol the much needed support of the SPD in the vote for war credits which without Germany wouldn’t have been able to finance the war. Patriotism swept through Europe prompting mass volunteering who all believed in a swift outcome. This lead to both politicians and generals becoming equally bound to try and bring about the speedy end to the war. In turn this meant that neither officials on either the Allied side or the central powers side had prepared for the long war. There was therefore a severe shortage in the necessary stockpiles of weapons and ammunition and in fact armies on both sides started to run out of ammunition after the first month of the war. (1) As both sides started to run out of ammunition there was little else that could be accomplished until the reinforcement supplies came though and soon it became a rush on the home fronts to total mobilisation in order to provide sufficient material for their men so any break was foreseeable. Trench warfare was a new type of warfare, which neither side had much knowledge of or were prepared for. This went especially for the Germans who according to the Schlieffen plan of fighting a war on two fronts should have been on their way to fighting Russia after the downfall of Paris.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The failure of the Schlieffen plan (diagram shown on previous page) was another major factor in the stalemate. Although the initial plans all went correctly there was large unexpected civilian and military resistance from the Belgian’s in the Battle of Mons which lost many German men and the BEF’s involvement had also slowed the Germans pace making them use more supplies. The French had also mobilised a lot quicker than predicted adding to the failure of the plan. Joffre the French commander put up a good counter attack on the 6th September when it came to the possible siege of Paris and he got the balance correct when it came to the positioning of troops leaving just enough to hold the German frontier while ensuring the protection of the capital. He also called of his offensive on the 24th August as Plan 17 was abandoned. Meanwhile Moltke the German commander made the mistake of sending two battalions to the Eastern front due to more pressure from a more rapid than predicted Russian Mobilisation and even the troops in Paris were at the point of exhaustion due to 5 weeks of marching and lack of supplies. The French hit hard on Moltke’s 1st army causing them to swing westwards and a gap opened in their line shown on the map. The BEF and 6th French army ploughed though and the Kaiser’s troops were forced to retreat to the River Aisne. Germany’s plans for a thunderclap victory in the west were dead.(2) The Schlieffen plan had missed its target by being cut short therefore making it impossible to take Paris and as new plans had to be made disorganisation ensued and both sides dug deep. The diagram illustrates how the German forces had to make the move o the west and how they fell short of their target Paris. This particular diagram is very accurate and contains all the place names as well as the country boarders and the river Aisne. The diagram is clear and also shows the gap created between the armies and also the trench line that was formed after.

After the failure of the Schlieffen plan Moltke told the Kaiser that now the war was lost and he was replaced with Falkenhayne for his failure of executing the Schlieffen plan. Germany had gained more resources like the French iron ore mines but they didn’t have the Channel ports to stop the BEF entering France or Paris and now Germany now faced the much-dreaded war on two fronts.

Trench warfare was a new concept to both armed camp and the commanders were not used to controlling with the huge numbers of men involved in this warfare and failed to make use of the millions of soldiers effectively. Also many of the soldiers involved had little training especially when conscription was introduced and many had very little experience or knowledge of what they were about to face. This was certainly true of the colonial soldiers from British colonies that often had absolutely no familiarity with the enemy. The battle of the Marne was a prime example of this as thousands of men were literally sent to their death trying to cross no mans land to try and break through the oppositions defences everyday. The soldiers were said to be ‘lions lead by donkeys’. The British commander Haigh faced the problem of how to go about assaulting the German line by the time it had been fortified in the spring of 1915. He adopted the plan of attack to be a heavy bombardment with artillery with a mixture of shells in order to cut the barbed wire and kill German troops and then to follow this up with a traditional cavalry attack to cut through the lines. Unfortunately this plan never succeeded as the commanders had little knowledge of the artillery they were using and so calculations were often inaccurate and defences were not as affected by the bombardment. The soldiers were then sent over the top and were killed by machine guns still armed with soldiers or if they were lucky enough to make it to the opposing trench couldn’t get in due to lots of barbed wire still being in tact making the chance of a cavalry breakthrough impossible. Germans could then bring in reeves and the stalemate ensued. Haigh adopted this plan many times varying the amount of artillery but he kept by his idea of a cavalry breakthrough that never occurred and was accused of sending many men to their untimely death. This highlights that the commanders on indeed both sides of the war failed to adopt new tactics quickly, which caused many men to die needlessly and so made the stalemate much longer as more and more men had to be brought in. The Germans responded by integrating modern combined arms tactics, passed off by the Allies as infiltration tactics and this triggered a slow, complex and difficult to trace series of both evolutions in battlefield tactics.(3) This progressive way of learning slowed down a possible victory immensely and it was only much later in the war where the Allied forces started to embrace new idea’s more quickly that there was a result. The German forces on the other hand failed to lean from their mistake quickly, which may have lost them the war. Many attacks were made but always forced to retreat, as the defence was always too strong on both sides. Large planned attacks came to nothing except huge loss of life on both sides, which caused more recruitment to be needed, and never more than a mile of land was gained prolonging a break in stalemate. At Vimmy Ridge the Moroccans made a visible break through but were drove back due to unbroken German lines at the front, which annihilated the reserves. Another attack made at Verdun by Falkenhayn was on a very narrow front, which meant extremely heavy bombardment. This tactic also failed however when the narrow front lead to attacks on reserves from the sides and many other attacks got so far and were forced to retreat due to lack of any reserves or ammunition. Commanders were also left in control, which meant new tactics, and plans took longer to form. Also the Hindernburg line was built making the possibility of breaking into central power territory impossible.

As well as taking a long time to adapt to new tactics the commanders also took a long time to adapt to the modern technology of the war. Both side didn’t have a true understanding of the weapons now dominating the battlefield.(4) Machine guns were greatly underestimated and the tank a new invention was only firstly used by the British in mass deployment in the battlefield in late 1916 which was a breaking point in the deadlock. From the beginning of the war the German trenches were much better fortified due to their preparation while the British one were much more temporary and often had to house many horses for the intended cavalry breakthrough that often died of starvation due to lack of supplies anyway. This meant the German lines were harder to break through but also the Allied knowledge of tactics was learned quicker as they faced the larger problems and so their defence was kept and stalemate continued. German trenches often had telephones to contact Generals whereas the Allied ones did not and often much information was lost as the only communication was runners. This made losses harder to be known and so many mistakes where made when revising battle plans. Also the trench systems were where all the soldiers were for a long time and they often got more and more advanced with zig zag styles and fortifications and tunnels systems as well as trench systems making it even harder to break through the lines. Both sides quickly ran out of ammunition so there were large break in between the battles in order to restock supplies. The naval blockade was also preventing Germans ship from getting essential materials to Germany, which slowed down progress and also starved the country. Much ammunition was wasted on crudely planned attacks amounting to nothing and many shells failed to work due to inexperience of workers at home and the rush to make them. New technology was therefore not often used to its best advantage until it had been a while in the field and so slowing progress of breaking the stalemate.

Also the long winters made the western front halt to a standstill and the regular fog, wind, snow and rain meant little could be achieved in the winter with any positive results on either side. As the stalemate continued each year held another winter slowing down progress and heavy rain often killed many soldiers as no mans land became impossible to cross with many men dying in huge puddles formed by the shells where they would drown with the weight of their packs. The bad weather made it harder to get supplies through and often trench conditions with the freezing weather got much worse and men died of disease, hypothermia and malnutrition.

In conclusion the combinations of the severe shortage in ammunition, supplies and trained men resulting in both sides being ill prepared for such a large scale war with commanders who had such a lack of knowledge of the modern technology and type of warfare that the first world war consisted of made the problem of breaking stalemate a difficult and slow procedure. Heavy losses of men and formations of new tactics and learning from previous mistakes was a long slow process, which took much longer than thought. This added to the hard winters and poor trench conditions that men had to endure could only batter their moral and make the breakthrough that each side sought seem further and further away. Both sides were facing the problem of building up enough ammunition for attacks and the manpower to support them as well as food for these soldiers and so attacks were often quickly planned and not as thoroughly thought through as possible. Finally the infrequent change in command left the leaders dry of new ideas and this only drew out the length of time it took to adjust to reap the benefits of more modern technology and so break the stalemate.

(1) www.richthofen.com/ww1sum by Edward Blanchard