I think that the failure of the Schlieffen plan made a long term contribution to the defeat of Imperial Germany, I think this because it took place right at the start of the war, and it’s consequences continued through out the rest of the war. In my opinion, the failure of the Schlieffen plan was definitelyone of the most significant of all the factors.
Another of the most significant factor’s is that Germany had to fight a war on both the eastern front and the western front, I think that having to fight Russia on the Eastern Front was one of the main reasons for Germanys downfall as it had a long term effect on their resources and their morale. Although Russia had lost to the Germans on the Eastern front, I don’t think that the allies could have clamed victory without Russia’s contribution on the Eastern Front. I think this because war on the eastern front kept most of Germany’s assets divided into two throughout the majority of the war, I think that if all of Germany’s forces had been entirely focused on the western front then Germany would have almost certainly won the war against the Allies. Another of Russia’s contributions, was causing the Schleiffen plan to fail, thus creating a war on two fronts. It was originally thought by Schleiffen that it would take Russia at least six weeks to mobilise, allowing time for 90% of the German forces to defeat France. But Russia mobilised in only 10 days, this caught the Germans by surprise, they were forced to send another 40% of the men to the Eastern front, as a direct result of this, they lost against the Allies in the Battle of the Marne and were forced to fight a war on two fronts for the majority of the war.
Russia’s battles against Austro-Hungary also helped progress on the western front. Russia was very successful on Galicia and in the Brusilov Offensive, this caused Germany to direct troops from the Western front to the Austro-Hungary/Russian border in order to help the situation. But by directing troops from the Western front, it weakened the German lines, giving the Allies the upper hand.
A great burden was placed on Russia during the war, they were often fighting a losing battle, at many times it almost seemed as if the Russian military was used as a sacrifice so that the Allies could be more successful on the western front. This tactic wasn’t very popular with the Russian public and was one of the main causes for the Russian Revolution (1917) causing Russia to surrender to Germany, resulting in a war on one front. But this still didn’t allow Germany to focus all of its assets on the Western front, this was due to a civil war in Russia in 1918. Germany thought that if political forces that were opposed to peace in Russia won the civil war, then the Eastern front would be under threat again so troops were kept there to keep Germany safe.
The Battle of the Somme was aimed to break the stalemate that had continued for almost two years on the Western front, it was described as being the big push. The original aim of the big push, was to break through the German lines and split it in two by heading to Cambrai and Douai.
There are many reasons as to why the Battle of the Somme failed to achieve it’s targets, Prior to the attack there was a week long preliminary bombardment, which was intended to completely wipe out the German front lines, but the shells were ineffective as the British lacked high-explosive shells in their arsenal at the time and the concussion shells used only churned up no-mans land, making it even more difficult to cross. Also, due to a variety of political leaks, the German Army was warned to expect a major offensive in the near future, so when the bombardment began, they would have realised that this was the start of the offensive, and as the concussion shells were almost useless, the Germans were given a week to ready them selves.
I think that the British Army learnt a lot from the Battle of the Somme. This was
Illustrated during many of the following battles. In the Battle of Cambrai the tank made it’s debut, the Somme had shown that great numbers of men could be lost by sending them out unprotected into no-mans land, the tank offered them this. It also gave a way of breaking through The barbed wire entanglements that had claimed many lives at the Somme. At the Battle of Cambrai, a much shorter bombardment was used, unlike on the Somme. As a result the British surprised the Germans with the attack. The combination of these new tactics gave great gains, and the supposedly impregnable Hindenburg line was broken.
Although many lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme, a lot was learnt from it. I think that the new tactics learnt from the Somme defiantly made a long term contribution to the defeat of Germany.They lost many of their best soldiers and were left relying more on very young, inexperienced troops – mostly conscripts.
The entry of the USA into the war in 1917, made a long term contribution to Germanys defeat. Although Americas entry was a long term contribution to German defeat it did cause some problems for the allies. Some of its benefits were short term, for example. The US was a rich nation and it had a powerful navy, but its Army was small, so it relied manly on British guns and munitions. Also the USA had been partly funding the allies war effort for the majority of the war, but now the US had joined the war, it needed the money that it had been giving to the allies to fund it’s own war effort. Also communication was poor between the two army’s which made it very difficult to act as 1 unit. Nevertheless, the German’s feared that America’s long term contribution could be telling.
When the USA joined the war, they had fresh troops, but they were in experienced in the art of trench warfare and other tactics that had been employed during the war, this caused them to suffer a loss of 116,000 men in a short period of time.
Although the US Army didn’t make much of an impact on the western front, the US navy made a valuable contribution to the war at sea, helping supplies reach troops on the western front, and on mainland as well. This would have boosted the morale of allied troops and lowered that of the Germans. Indeed, some of the German troops were becoming disillusioned by the war and the long term impact of the allied blockade.Indeed, the U Boat campaign had been partly a response to this-but could also be seen as a factor contributing to defeat because it had helped to draw the Americans in to the conflict (such as the sinking of the Lusitania).However the campaign had been close to success with only 6 weeks grain supply left at one stage.Perhaps the decision to stop the campaign was a mistake and itself therefore a contributory factor to German defeat.
Although, the Failure of the Ludendorf Offensive brought an end to the war, I don’t think that it was a hugely contributory factor, because without it I think that the allies would have still won the war. I think this because most of Germanys allies had pulled out, Italy joined the allies, and both Austro-Hungary and Bulgaria had signed peace treaties. I think that the Ludendorf offensive was a last ditch effort to save the war, but I think that at this point, the war was already lost for Germany and the odds were stacked against them. I think that Germany saw a window of opportunity in which to attack and to try and win the war as soon as possible. But they were low on munitions due to American supplies being cut short to supply their own army. Ludendorf used a variety of new tactics in the offensive, I think he saw it as a chance to take risks as he probably knew that the war was lost.
Success still lead to defeat because Germany couldn’t follow up the victory, the moral of the troops was low, partly due to the blockades, and most were not willing to carry on fighting, also there was a naval mutiny, due to the navy being sent on an almost suicidal mission.
I don’t think that the Ludendorf offensive was the reason that they lost the war although it had an immediate impact, with out Ludendorf offensive, I think that Germany would have lost though perhaps this would have been later.
Other factors also contributed to defeat. The introduction of the tank at Cambrai, may have had an Impact, it was a new form of warfare and it took the Germans by surprise. Also the blockades lowered moral, both on the German fronts and that of the German public, causing food riots and revolts. I also think that sheer bad luck also lead to Germany’s defeat.
I think that Germany lost the war due to a combination of all the factors, but I think that the most contributory factor was probable the failure of the Schleiffen plan at the start of the war because the consequences of it’s failure continued throughout the majority of the war. I also think that a range of other factors were also to blame.
