Explain how the Schlieffen Plan was meant to work.
Question 1: Explain how the Schlieffen Plan was meant to work.
The Schlieffen plan was devised by Count Alfred von Schlieffen, and was the blueprint for German military success. The plan had been devised in response to a potential war on two fronts at the same time. The main objective was to avoid France attacking on the Western Front at the same time as Russia attacking on Germany's Eastern Front. Von Schlieffen assessed both Russia and Frances forces, and concluded that it would be unwise to divide Germany's troops. The plan stated that Germany should attack France first, as Russia was estimated to take 6 weeks to mobilise and deploy her troops. Von Schlieffen also took into account that Germany had a proficient army, as well as a good railway system. Therefore one of the fundamental aspects of the Schlieffen plan was that Germany had to take France in a maximum time of six weeks, before the Russians could intervene. They could then use the railway system to move troops to the Eastern front.
The concept was not to send any troops to protect East Prussia against the Russians. Rather, the entire German army would be deployed in the west. Schlieffen theorised the best way to take France would be at their weak spot - their overly large capital city, Paris. Seven eighths of the German army was to be deployed between Metz and Aachen, on the right wing of the German front, leaving just one-eighth of the army to guard the left flank in Lorraine against a French attack. The strategy, as shown in the diagram, is a sweeping motion of troops encircling the capital Paris. Schlieffen planned to put the real power in the hammer of the sweep, the outside troops that would encircle Paris. The right wing of the western army would sweep through Belgium/Northern France, continually turning the French flank. This would push the French army into Switzerland, where there would be a single defeating battle. Following this quick battle, the Germans could retreat to East Prussia to deal with the Russian threat.
The Schlieffen plan involved getting to Paris through Belgium. Schlieffen looked to Belgium for numerous reasons. Firstly because the flatness of Belgium made it much easier to go through. Secondly, Belgium bordered France, and this border was not fortified. One of the mini objectives of the plan was to avoid fighting the French troops on the border. This created a vulnerable point. Schlieffen knew that as Britain had ensured Belgium's neutrality, when Germany would invade, Britain could not interfere. He also knew that by the time Britain sent troops over the channel, it would be over as Belgium had a very small, weak army. In capturing Belgium, Germany would have all of the major sea ports secured and therefore Britain would have nowhere to land.
The planned end of the Schlieffen Plan would be that military victory would be ensured, and therefore the security of Germany would also be ensured.
Question 2: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
There a numerous reasons why a stalemate developed on the Western Front. The main factor that led to the stalemate on the Western Front was the failure of the Schlieffen Plan. This failure was due to several factors, which encompassed; the death of General Schlieffen, the changes made to the plan by his replacement General Von Moltke, the unexpected speed at which Russia mobilised her troops, which ties in with the delay caused by von Moltkes decision to attack the Belgians, rather than coming back to them after France had been taken. The major problem was that the Schlieffen plan was the only plan available, and there was no contingency plan available. The battle of the Marne was the failing point of the Schlieffen plan, as well as the very beginning of the stalemate. Von Kluck, who was a German commander, had decided that he could not sweep around Paris as the original plan dictated, but rather he advanced straight towards it. The German army was weary and overstretched, whereas the French were fighting to save their country. The forces of Britain and French combined were able to stop the advance of the German army along the line of the river Marne. However, the forces were not strong enough to drive them out of France completely. Neither side could make any progress and this led to troops on both sides digging trenches to protect themselves from snipers as well as shell fire. Until now, it had been a war of movement, but these were the first signs of the stalemate that was about to come. The German army took the opportunity to select the best available defensive positions and dug themselves in behind the River Aisne where they waited for the Allied advance. With this came a higher ground that would allow the Germans to overlook the opposition. Faced with an impenetrable German line of trenches, the Allies' initial offensive approach was abandoned and a defensive one was adopted. The German armies stopped retreating and started bringing in the heavy artillery. This stalemate characterised fighting on the Western Front for the next four years. Both sides were fighting a war of attrition, which is a war of wearing down the opponent through continual attack and pressure.
Once the German generals had realised that there was no moving past enemy lines, they tried to outflank the opposition, by getting around the end of enemy lines. This charge was known as the race to the Sea. As the Germans charged west towards the sea, the British and French moved troops to block them whenever it seemed that the Germans were about to break through.
The second main factor that contributed to the development of stalemate was the fighting strategies that were employed at the time of warfare. The tactics focused on a static defensive war. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Once the German generals had realised that there was no moving past enemy lines, they tried to outflank the opposition, by getting around the end of enemy lines. This charge was known as the race to the Sea. As the Germans charged west towards the sea, the British and French moved troops to block them whenever it seemed that the Germans were about to break through.
The second main factor that contributed to the development of stalemate was the fighting strategies that were employed at the time of warfare. The tactics focused on a static defensive war. Both sides would dig trenches deep into the ground, and fortify the trenches with impenetrable barriers such as barbed wire, machine guns and minefields. This made the trenches exceedingly difficult to be taken by the opposition. But conversely, it also meant that the defenders would be unable to gain, as the opposition would have laid similar defences. The difficulties of trench warfare were always the same. Firstly there was barbed wire in no man's land between the two lines of opposing trenches which the attacking side tried to clear away by a massive artillery bombardment - but this removed any chance of a quick surprise attack, since the enemy always had plenty of warning. Secondly trenches were difficult to capture because the increased fire-power provided by magazine rifles and machine guns made frontal attacks suicidal and meant that cavalry were useless. Trench warfare was key to the development of the stalemate, as the impenetrability of them made the fighting static. The static ness of the fighting meant that no side could gain nor lose ground, thus causing a stalemate. The attacking strategies used to overcome the stalemate were mostly underdeveloped, and therefore prone to fail. This was due to the anachronistic Generals who had fought in wars where a single battle decided the outcome. The war on the west front had become a war where it could only be won through many battles until the opposition had been worn down.
Barbed wire, trenches and mud made cavalry charge, the traditional method of fighting, ineffective. This was also complimented by the machine guns that were introduced to the trenches. They could easily mow down any charging cavalry. The colossal new guns of the artillery could kill the enemy in the trenches, as well as wear down the troops and disrupt enemy supplies, but they couldn't make a break through the trenches. Troops tried to place pressure on the munitions supplies, but the supply of weapons to both sides quickly became inexhaustible. Factories back home in each country were soon geared up to produce all the extra munitions needed. As well as new weaponries, the invention of canning allowed soldiers to remain inside trenches at all times. This aided the development of the stalemate because it meant that the fighting would be happening continuously, rather than with breaking.
This style of fighting continued for 3 years, until numerous factors such as new technology like the tank, the American entry into the war, the blockading of German ports, as well as the German offensive, caused the stalemate to be broken finally.
Question 3: The following were equally important reasons why the stalemate on the Western Front was finally broken:
* New technology like the tank
* The American entry into the war
* The blockading of German ports
* The German offensive in March 1918
Explain how far you agree with this statement.
It is true that all four of the reasons are important factors as to why the stalemate was broken. However, saying that they were all of equal importance is false. Each factor had certain contributions to breaking the stalemate...but each factor also had limitations. Firstly we shall consider the introduction of new technology.
After the failure of the Schlieffen Plan at the Battle of the Marne in the September of 1914, and the fall into trench warfare, it became very unlikely that Germany would win the war with a quick victory. The factor of new technology was probably the least important of the four reasons. The technology available at the time was poor for the style of warfare that was being fought. The strategies and weapons employed were based around a defensive stance. This meant that no real progression could have been made if both sides were fighting defensively. The main factor of new technology used in World War 1 was the tank. Initially, tanks were highly unreliable. This meant that they would often break down, they were slow, and the strategies with which they were employed did not achieve much success. Tanks were also often used in isolation, when the tanks great strength was when they were used in collaboration with many other tanks. However, the tank did allow for the infantry to move across no man's land, protected from machine gun fire. This unreliability could be especially seen when they were first used at the Battle of the Somme in 1916. But after the battle of the Somme and their limited success, the Allies had learnt important tactical lessons, and began to fight a technical war. The true potential of the tank was seen by the year 1917, and the battle of Cambrai. Previously, before attacking the allies would attack they would issue an artillery bombardment. At Cambrai, there was no bombardment, as this would churn the battle field ground, and the ideal terrain for tanks would be on flat ground. Now that there was no bombardment, no indication was given to the opposition that the infantry were coming. The tanks were tightly packed together, and closely behind followed the infantry. The allies successfully crushed the Hindenburg line, and managed to make an advance of four miles. Even though the British were unable to sustain this initial success, it showed how, combined with well thought out tactics, the tank could be used to break the stalemate. A year following this, the tanks had been massively improved. They were now much more manoeuvrable, and could cross more terrain easier. But, with advantages came limitations. Tanks were extremely limited, because they would often sink into mud holes, and once they were in there the infantry would be unable to remove the tanks from the mud.
In terms of weaponry, it was still pretty much the same, but the way it was being used was much more effective. Deviating from the previous artillery bombardments, the new method was to use periodic crashes. This meant that the infantry would attack when least expected. A new form of weaponry used was high explosive shells. These were used to great effect when attacking trenches. They were so effective in helping to break the stalemate because they were able to destroy the trenches, and thus causing the opposition to move deeper into their dugouts. This meant that no opposition troops would be able to man their defences on the day of the attack. The main new invention was the machine gun. This destructive weapon was used in defence, to a great effect, as any attacking infantry was efficiently neutralised. Both the Allies and the Germans had the machine gun technology, and both sides used it with devastating effect.
All of these new technologies related to breaking the stalemate because the reforming ideas and strategies brought with these new technologies prevented the fighting from remaining static. However, this factor is limited because with both sides possessing similar knowledge and similar strategies, there was only so much advancement that could be made. There was also weakness in the fact that the new technologies were limited in the way that they were used, such as the tanks initial usage. Therefore, the development of new technologies, although contributory, was not enough to break the stalemate by itself. It was the contribution of these factors which led to the ultimate breakdown of the stalemate. Alongside new technology, another contributory factor was the allied blockade of the German ports.
Unlike the 'immediate' effects of the new technologies, the blockading of the German ports was a long and arduous process, and the effects of it only became apparent in 1917, when the shortages of resources really kicked in. The plan for the German naval blockade was to use allied naval superiority to strangle the German economy and war effort. They hoped this would break down the stalemate by wearing down the Germans. In the war of attrition that was being fought, the rival economies were being pitched against each other. The implications of this would be that the Germany would be unable to sustain the stalemate on the western front, and therefore the stalemate in theory would be broken. Britain had sent the strong navy to block off the German ports. This blacked would prevent Germany from importing and exporting all of their main resources - such as raw materials, weapons and food. In the early stages of the blockades, Germany had responded with some strong resistance. First of all, 'U-Boats' were used in an attempt to unblock Germany's naval ports, as well as to cut off the British economy in a similar way that the British were doing to the Germans. This U-Boat campaign was defeated by the usage of depth charges. Once the submarines emerged at the surface, they would be vulnerable to attack. As time went by it became more and more difficult for Germany to fight back. German trade had been reduced from $5.9 billion in 1914, to $0.8 billion in 1917. The German high command was forced to prioritise resources to the Western front line. With food in short supply, the German civilians began to feel unrest. This was shown particularly at the port of Keele, where angry Germans held a Socialist rebellion. This had an effect on the breaking of stalemate because it became very hard for the German high command to maintain a war when their own people were not supporting them.
We can relate the naval blockade to the breaking of the stalemate as a contributory factor. This is because the blockades were limited in the way that it took such a long time for an impact to become evident. However, it did contribute to the breaking of the stalemate, by starving Germany, and making it evident that the war would be impossible to win if the blockade was to continue. Therefore, it can be safely assumed, that though not a primary factor, the naval blockades were more important a reason than the development of new technologies in the breaking of the stalemate. The interrelation of the four factors is clearly evident. For example, the Americans joined the war effort partly due to the German submarine campaigns, and the submarine campaign was started in response to the Naval Blockades. The blockades made the Germans know that to win the war would be impossible. It was then decided that a forced peace would be the ultimate solution. A forced peace would be attained by Germany taking France. This is because the Germans believed that once France had been conquered, it would be extremely difficult for the Allies to win her back, as her pivotal coastal position meant that the British would be unable to attack. The plan for this was called the German offensive, and it took place in March 1918.
Russia had withdrawn from the ware after the Russian revolution in 1917. Russia had also sought peace terms with Germany, in the form of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This meant that Germany no longer needed to station troops on her eastern front. Once the Americans had declared their entry into the war, the Germans realised that any victory had to happen soon before any military support from the Americans arrived. The German 'Ludendorff' Offensive was simple in concept. The aim was to divide the French and British armies situated on the Western Front. Once the two were separated, it was theorised that France would be forced to surrender Paris. This in turn would cause the British army to be trapped against the coast. The plan was put into action on the 21st of March 1918. Despite Germany's weaker weaponry, they still managed to push back the Allies approximately 14 miles. The static stalemate had finally received some movement. But the German forces were unable to sustain this advance, due to the loss of 400,000 troops and having no reserves to call upon. Between the two months of May and August, the Germans had made no further advance.
Arguably, since the offensive heralded the breaking of the stalemate, it is fair to argue that this is the most important factor. However, the offensive was the product of both the American entry into the war and the blockade of the naval ports. Therefore the offensive is seen to be more of a contributory factor. The offensives relative weighting in the four factors places it third after the American entry to the war and the naval blockades. This is because, although it caused movement on the western front, it was merely a product of the two afore mentioned factors. This leaves one factor to be discussed, which is of course the American entry into the war.
The American entry into the war was the most important factor in the breaking of the Stalemate. The U.S.A. had entered the war due to the U-Boat campaign targeting the American trading ships. This left them with no choice but to retaliate and join the war effort. The entry had both an immediate and a future impact. It was not only a morale boost which the Americans provided the Allies with. Many resources, such as military equipment and men, were given. At the time of the stalemate, U.S.A. had the largest economy in the world, and could therefore afford to pay for weaponry, as well as give large loans. When the American forces entered the war in 1918, they were enthusiastic, but they were also naïve and inexperienced. The impact of the American troops took a while to be felt because their army in 1917 was extremely limited. They had small numbers of men, and many others had to be recruited, trained and transported before any fighting on the Western front could begin. But the numbers of troops sent over from the U.S.A. exponentially increased, and eventually the future impact of this super power could be felt. The main effects of the entry were twofold. Firstly, it reinforced, if not strengthened, the Allies resources in all aspects - manpower, money, weapons and so on. Secondly, the resources placed a great strain on the Germans. Germany was unable to compete with the sheer power of the American troops, and could therefore not sustain the stalemate on the western front. To conclude, the American entry had the greatest weighting of the four reasons.
In conclusion every factor must be used in explaining how the stalemate on the western front was broken. If one factor was lacking, then the breaking of the stalemate would not have been achieved. The four factors also link in many ways. For example, the submarine was a new invention, and it was used by the British to blockade the German ports, which was a significant factor towards breaking the stalemate. The German U-Boats were used in unrestricted submarine warfare, which led to the American entry into the war. The American entry into the war had immediate and long term impacts in terms of breaking the stalemate. Without the American entry into the war, the stalemate would not have been broken as soon as it did, because the three other reasons alone were not enough to cause the other side to retreat and break the stalemate.
OCR GCSE History Coursework
The First World War
Tuesday, 30 September 2003
Vishnu Parameshwaran
