The blockading of German meant that supplies for ammunition and food were very low. This meant that Germany was falling further and further behind in technology. So, in Germany, the government were forced to slaughter 1/3 pigs in 1915 because the naval blockade had cut off imports to feed them. There were short supplies of nitrates, essential for explosives and for fertilising farming land. In Germany 1916, the average adult meal ration for one week was equivalent to 2 hamburgers. Germany was starving and desperate to end the war. The blockading of German ports was important because Germany was weakened without supplies. The soldiers were running out of ammunition and the country was starving.
Finally, the German offensive on March 1918 was Germany’s last attempt at winning the war. This was when stalemate ended. They thought that if they didn’t attack and try and win, they would starve. Also at the time, the USA was not fully involved and the British technology was getting more advanced by the second. So the Germans abandoned trench warfare and attacked out of the trenches and across no - mans land. Germany did this because of the above reasons. After defeating Russia, 1 million men from the eastern front came across to the western front and joined their fellow Germans. Using poisoned explosives they overwhelmed the British and French. It was successful to begin with but as Germany ran out of supplies they started to fall. 400,000 of Germany’s best soldiers were casualties. Ludendorff broke the stalemate of trench warfare by covering 50 miles in 3 days. By now the troops were tired and hungry. They refused to advance, but instead they looted British supplies. Ludendorff’s brilliant strategy ended with an embarrassing failure. The German offensive was important because it was the event that finally broke the stalemate.
In conclusion, I agree partly with the statement. But I think that the blockading of German ports was the most important reason why the stalemate on the Western front broke. I think this because it left the Germans with no ultimatum. It was either to starve or to abandon trench warfare and attack. The next important reason is the German offensive because if the Germans had not decided to attack, trench warfare would have continued for a longer period. The next important reason is the American entry into the war. I think this because America brought fresh men with them that were not tired and were ready to fight. The least important reason I think was new technology such as the tank. The tank was not very reliable and was a complete failure.
The Schlieffen plan was based upon assumptions by Count Alfred Von Schlieffen who devised the strategy in 1905 when he was German Chief of Staff, 9 years before it was put into use.
The main objectives of the plan were to avoid war on two fronts, to defeat France in 6 weeks and to capture Paris. On the Western front were France and on the Eastern front were Russia. It was vital to create the element of surprise, so Germany would have to attack first, instead of waiting for an attack from both fronts.
Schlieffen calculated that it would take Russia 6 weeks to arrange its large army for an attack on Germany. He assumed this for a number of reasons. At the time, Russia did not have an efficient railway network and also Russia was a vast country so it would take the army in Far East 6 weeks to reach the border with Germany. Therefore, it was vitally important to take control of France in 6 weeks, before Russia was ready to fight. If they took any longer, there would be a war on two fronts which they had been trying to avoid.
His plan involved using 90% of Germany’s army to attack France and to capture Paris. The remainder of the army was used to contain Russia and defend the west border of Germany with France, while France was being defeated. He took into consideration that Germany’s western border was next to French forts so he decided ‘hook’ around France through Belgium. At the time, Belgium was a neutral country so Schlieffen expected no resistance and The German Kaiser said that Britain would not go to war over their 1839 treaty with Belgium, which he described as a 'scrap of paper'. He also believed, even if Britain did defend Belgium, there was no need to worry about the British Expeditionary Force, which he called a 'contemptible little army'.
If the army went through Belgium, they would have been able to surround Paris and capture it so France would surrender. Schlieffen also assumed that Britain and Russia would not go to war with Germany if France was easily defeated.
After defeating France, Germany would then be able to concentrate on defeating the Russians in the east, instead of fighting a war on two fronts.