A crucial point in the war on the Western Front after the Somme is that the German and British armies had greatly changed during the course of the Somme. ‘The German Army suffered in the Somme battles to such an extent that… it was never again the effective fighting machine of early 1916,’1 whereas a previously amateur British army was now ‘a military machine the equal of any on earth.’1 The Somme can be seen as a turning point in the war on the Western Front as ‘the Germans really faced the beginning of the end.’2 The German army was also weaker in other ways. The Somme had a deep psychological effect on the Germans, lowering their morale. It was obvious that the Germans were on the brink of defeat. ‘We must save the men from a second Somme battle’ Ludendorff said. Their own commander accepted how great an affect the Somme had on the Germans. The statement also suggests how another battle like this would have been a knockout blow.
So it seems that the Somme was important leading up to the allied victory. It played a role in many ways, bringing the allies closer to victory. It can be concluded that it definitely contributed to the allied victory in the First World War. Perhaps it is true that ‘it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Somme was an essential precondition to success in the last two years of the war.’1 However it seems more likely that it may not have been as instrumental as the British superiority at sea, but the Somme definitely helped, cumulatively with other factors, to deliver the knockout blow in 1918.
The main hope that Germany had of winning a war on two fronts3 lay with the Schlieffen Plan. A quick victory in the West would allow Germany to focus all her attention in the East. However, the quick victory did not materialise and by November 1914 Germany was confronted with a two front war that she was not prepared for militarily or economically.
All three Triple Entente powers made positive contributions to the allied victory. The wealth and industrial power of Britain and her Empire helped the Allies withstand vast expense of war4. The French proved to be a determined ally who were prepared to make great sacrifices rather than surrender as seen, for example at Verdun. Until the Revolution of November 1917 took her out of the war, Russia, with her great reserves of manpower, took much strain off the Allies in the Western Front. This was in spite of her own heavy losses on the Eastern Front. The Allied superiority in manpower was vital in a war of ‘attrition’ where casualty rates were so high. This eventually allowed the Allies to overcome the more efficient but smaller German armies. By contrast Germany’s allies – Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria – all proved to be weak and in need of support from Germany. Germany’s war effort therefore, relied mainly on her own strength and, although this was considerable, the odds against her by the end of the war were overwhelming – she was at war with 27 countries by 1918.
The entry of the U.S.A into the war in April 1917 was a vital factor in the final Allied victory. The arrival of fresh American troops on the Western front by 1918 was not only of great practical assistance to the Allies but also a tremendous boost to their morale. For the Germans, however, it was a great psychological blow – one enemy, Russia, had just been forced out of the war only to be replaced by an even more powerful adversary. American troops and supplies played an important part of the final offensive on the Western Front in 1918. John Masier, in his book ‘The Myth of the Great War’ supports this point of view. What he is saying is that the Germans were tactically superior to the Allies, that their losses were substantially less than the allies and that the Somme was a massacre in which the British did not achieve the breakthrough that they sought. In conclusion Masier writes that ‘It is true that the armies of the two German Empires was melting away. But their armies were still entirely on enemy territory, and they were still surprisingly intact. Too intact for their broken opponents to contemplate fighting them further on their own… Without Pershing’s two million Americans, there was no army capable of beating Germany.’ He also makes the point that the Germans were much more efficient at killing than the British were and that the best troops that the British had, Australians and Canadians, suffered great losses as the Somme continued.
British control of the seas and the failure of the German U-boat campaign of unrestricted warfare in 1917 was also a vital factor in the Allied victory in 1918. British control of the seas allowed the Allies to blockade Germany and Austria-Hungary and this led to great shortages of food and raw materials in these countries. The Allies had also seized Germany’s colonies and destroyed her roving cruiser squadron. By November 1918 there were food riots and strikes in German cities. This, combined with the outbreak of mutiny in the German High Seas Fleet5 led to the abdication of the Kaiser and the final German surrender. As John Laffin wrote in his book ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One’6, ‘It can be stated flatly that neither the British Army nor the French Army, nor both of them together, won the war, for the German Army was not defeated and did not collapse. The Americans did not win the war, though their impressive and rapidly increasing strength convinced the Germans that they could no longer hold out… It was the Royal Navy, unseen by Europe as a whole, which played the most decisive part in winning the war.’ So that the failure of the unrestricted U-boat campaign in 1917 meant not only the survival of Britain but was also a major cause of the entry of the U.S.A. into the war on the side of the Allies.
The German strategy on land also led to their defeat. The Germans thought they could win a war of attrition. In other words, grinding down the enemy. This was a bad tactic, because whilst the Allies suffered horrific casualties, so too did the Germans. In the end, the superior numbers of the Allies made it almost inevitable that they would triumph. It should also be noted that the Allies tactics did have an impact on the war. Their command structure and willingness to try new tactics did eventually bear fruit. Yes, the casualties were horrifically high, but the Allied Commanders were not the uncaring fossils that stuck with the same murderous tactics that they are often portrayed to be.
The introduction of the Sopwith Camel, which proved to be the most successful fighter aircraft of World War I, gave the Allies control of the skies over the Western Front by 1918. This means that their final land offensive could go ahead without interference from German air attacks. Another factor was that whilst Britain fully mobilised her civilian population to pursue the war, Germany failed to achieve the same degree of mobilisation. The German economy was not controlled by the state, industries were not nationalised, and landowners were left pretty well untouched. The result of this was that Germany was never able to meet the military necessities of World War I.
With the failure of the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 it was almost inevitable that Germany would lose World War I. Despite this Germany chose to fight a two front war and suffered the inevitable consequences of this. German politicians were either unable or unwilling to accept a compromise peace. The surrender of Russia did offer some hope to the Germans in 1918, but this was quickly offset by the entry of America with her huge industrial might.
1 From ‘Forgotten Victory’ by Gary Sheffield
2 From ‘The Somme 1916; Crucible of a British Army’ by Michael Chappell
3 France in the West – Russia in the East
4 In 1918 alone Britain spent £2,700 million
5 The German High Seas Fleet refused to put to sea when ordered out in a final ‘suicide’ battle with the
British Fleet.
6 The title shows the opinion that the book sets out – Laffin is highly biased in favour of the German
armies, even though he is Australian.
