Why did World War I last so long?

by gogoula (student)

When World War I broke out in August 1914, both the Central Powers and the Allied Forces believed that it would be over by Christmas of that year. Four years later, there was still terrible bloodshed and suffering on the battlefields and hardships on the home front. Why did World War I last so much longer than predicted? The answer is no doubt a multifaceted one, with most historians attributing the length of the war to, inter alia, the failure of the Schlieffen plan, new types of warfare, technological developments, incompetent generals and the similar strength of the two sides.

One of the most important reasons that the First World War lasted so long was the failure of the Schlieffen Plan. The famous German war plan aimed at avoiding fighting a war at two fronts by attacking France from the north, encircling Paris, quickly defeating the French, and then moving towards the eastern front to face the Russians who would not have been able to mobilize in time to help their ally. This plan, however, entailed the German troops passing through Belgium to reach France and consequently violating the London Treaty of 1839 that guaranteed Belgium neutrality. At the outbreak of World War I the Germans immediately put their plan into action but they failed to carry it out effectively. To begin with, the Belgians refused to let the German forces pass through their country and put up greater resistance than the Germans had predicted, managing to significantly delay them. Belgian resistance also gave Britain the time she needed to organize her Expeditionary Forces, which were sent to protect the neutrality of Belgium and help the French. The German forces were further delayed by the British Expeditionary Force as they had to fight them in the battle of Mons. When the Germans finally carried out their attack on France their forces were depleted. The German attack was further weakened by the fact that some of her troops had to be deployed to the eastern front because Russia had mobilized sooner than expected, thus she could not successfully carry out her plan to encircle Paris. French reservists were quickly brought to the Marne and the famous ‘miracle of the Marne’ ensued on September 14, where the French managed to drive back the German forces, putting an end to the German war plan. Had Germany been able to carry out the Schlieffen Plan successfully and defeated the French, the war would in all likelihood have ended within a couple of weeks. This assumption is based on the fact that, because the German army was a lot stronger, better organized, and more technologically advanced, the British and Russian armies would not have posed a great threat to Germany.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Following the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, the war quickly developed into trench warfare in the western front, which was another significant factor for WWI lasting so long. After their defeat at Marne, the Germans retreated to the river Aisne where they began digging up trenches. Both sides then attempted to outflank each other so as to be able to cut their enemies off from behind; this was the famous ‘race to the sea’. None of the forces, however, were successful and the result of this tactic was the establishment of a long line of trenches that ran all the way from the Channel coast up to the Alps. There were a few attempts made to break through the trench lines in 1914, most notably the battle of Ypres in November and the battles of Artois and Champagne in December, but again neither side was successful.

Due to the creation of trenches and technological advances the defensive became a lot easier than the offensive, which of course guaranteed that there would be no swift victory by either side. The trenches were surrounded by barbed wire, the soldiers armed with machine guns and grenades, and the ground in front of the trenches was bombarded by heavy artillery, making attacks very hard to be carried out. Also the development of extensive railroads made it easy for reserves to be brought into battle at short notice. This meant that by the end of 1914 there was a military stalemate in the western front, since as previously mentioned it was very difficult to break through the trenches and even if an offensive was successful the aggressor usually only won a few kilometers. In the eastern front significant advances were often made by the Russians into the Austrian-Hungarian empire but they were usually driven back into Russian territory by the Germans, so essentially not much progress was made there by either side.

The generals consequently adopted strategies that turned WWI into a war of attrition. This meant that their main focus was wearing down their opponents physically and psychologically through constant bombardments and attacks until they were defeated. In other words, in this war of attrition the side that withstood the terrible conditions they were under the longest was the side that would win the war. The adoption of such a tactic by both the German army and the allied forces was indisputably one of the main reasons that the war lasted for four years. This type of warfare was implemented at the western front throughout the biggest part of the First World War, from 1915 until the spring of 1918, and a number of brutal battles were fought mainly in order to wear down the enemy, examples of which are the battles of the Somme and Verdun, where millions of young men died. Because all other European wars prior to World War I had only lasted a few months and had not constituted total wars, in the sense that they also indirectly affected the European civilians, the generals were completely inexperienced in this sort of warfare and thus were unable to bring about a quick resolution of it. They were also very stubborn and despite seeing that their tactics were ineffective, they insisted on a war of attrition for a long time, causing millions of unnecessary deaths and prolonging the war.

What can be considered one of the leading factors for WWI lasting four years, and neither side ever having been truly defeated, was their similar strengths. On the one hand the Allies collectively had more troops, since Russia possessed the biggest army in Europe and Britain and France recruited men from their colonies to fight in the war. On the other hand, Germany’s army, though not quite as large as Russia’s, was the best trained and most technologically advanced in Europe. Moreover, the British volunteer army would not be ready to enter the war until 1916. Britain did have a slight advantage over Germany in the sea because she had the largest navy in the world, whereas the latter was the second largest naval power. Both the Germans and the British, however, feared the potential consequences of great naval battles; the destruction of their navy and their starvation respectively. Consequently, naval battles weren’t common place during WWI and in fact many consider the failure of either side to gain command of the sea to be one of the reasons that the war lasted so long.

The aforementioned factors are definitely not the only ones but are in my opinion the most important ones to consider when trying to understand why a war that was expected to last a few months lasted four whole years and constitutes to date, as described by Ernest Hemingway, one of the “most colossal, murderous, mismanaged butcheries that has ever taken place on earth”.