Was The Four Years On The Western Front The Generals? Fault Essay, Research Paper
There are
many different perspectives to the question above. I intend to look at some and
say reasons why they are to blame and why some blame could be put on other
people. Most people think they are to blame but most of them have not heard the
arguments why they are not to blame. There are other aspects why the four years
on the western front might not be the Generals? fault. These are that they had
not adapted their tactics to the new technology, the nature of trench warfare
and bad understanding of the new technology so they were not used to their full
potential ability. This coursework will present the arguments and reasons why
they were to blame and the arguments and reasons why they were not to blame. Schlieffen was definitely not to blame; it
was not his fault he died. However, if he did not die before the war and his
plan was followed the war would have ended in the first few months and there
would have been no stalemate on the western front. However, he did die and you
can blame the General taking his place for the stalemate, as he did not follow
the plan, which lead to the stalemate. The General, who took his place, Von
Moltke could be a general to blame, as he was very inexperienced and did not
take the key ports like Dunkirk and Calais so the highly trained, professional
BEF (British Expeditionary Force) landed at the ports and made the stalemate.
On the other hand, Von Moltke?s boss or the person who chose him as the general
could be blamed as he chose a bad General that would cost them a quick victory.
Other reasons why Von Moltke was to blame are that he went the wrong way around
Paris so that they clashed into the retreating: French army. He also allowed
the BEF to confront them and give them a ?stopping blow? and expected the
completely wrong things. One thing that all the Generals can be blamed for are
that all their tactics and plans were made for a war of movement whilst the war
was a war of attrition. Again, all of the Generals could be criticised for not
using their new weapons to their full potential and not following up the gaps
in the trenches caused by it. For example, they wasted lots of artillery shells
and not killing hardly any of the enemy as they were in deep dugouts. In addition,
it just made it harder for the troops to get past the barbed wire as it just
made it get more tangled up. Gas and tanks were used very effectively but the
gap in the front line caused by them was not followed up therefore more troops
took the position and they were back to square one. Haig also wasted many men,
which if he did not waste, could attack all at once taking the enemy trenches
easily. Haig still sent the men out even if he knew that the barbed wire was
tangled and therefore they would have no chance. However, I cannot say that
Haig tried to make the stalemate go on for longer or did not try to
breakthrough as he did use some very good ideas like mining and he did make the
final breakthrough in 1918. None of the Generals learnt that the weapons have
changed and hand to hand, combat is outdated. They were sending men over with
bayonets, which had no firepower, which left them to be slaughtered by the
defending army. Haig also thought that cavalry would make the breakthrough so
he sent loads of horses over but they were rarely used. In addition, in the
Somme, Haig sent men over walking telling them that the entire enemy?s army at
that area is dead so they walked over with heavy backpacks to capture and
repair the trenches. If he sent some machine gun men over quickly, he would not
have lost so many men because at least his army would have known the trenches
were still occupied. Haig could be heavily criticised for the Somme as he kept
sending men over the top to die. He said the machine gun was a much over rated
weapon yet it was used to gun down thousands of his men. He refused to change
his tactics even when day after day men kept going over the top to be killed.
He did not make sure that all the preparations had worked before commencing the
attack. Most of his attacks were like the Somme, which means the kept on losing
battles and not gaining much land. However, Haig might not be to blame. This
could be, as the messengers that told Haig what?s going on would lie to him.
They would not tell him that his plans and tactics are useless so they would
tell him that it is working. Therefore, he continues the attacks thinking they
were working. Haig could also be blamed for not learning. He could obviously
see that his tactics were ineffective so he should have changed them. ?????????? Trench warfare is always going to be
long because of its nature to make the attacker always have the disadvantage
and the defender to always have the advantage in most cases. This means that
most attacks would be a failure so the tactics cannot always be at blame. An
example of the defender having the advantage is the Somme. Haig used 27
divisions, 750,000 men whilst Germany used 16 divisions. Although the British
had 11 more divisions attacking, Germany still came out on top of them. In the
first day, they had 58,000 casualties. Haig continued to attack although they
were being slaughtered. ?????????? Haig did experiment with different
tactics like the creeping barrage, which made the final breakthrough and mining
tunnels and rigging them with bombs, which was very effective. However, with
some of the tactics like the tank and the mining were very effective but Haig did
not send through men to take over the trenches that the tanks destroyed. ?????????? Von Moltke
was probably the general to blame for all of the trench warfare as he went east
around Paris so it collided with the retreating French army and the BEF so the
French sent loads of reserve soldiers and with the BEF pushed Germany back
60km. Then they kept on trying to outflank each other but they found themselves
next to the sea. Neither side could advance therefore each side had to dig
trenches to stop its enemy from advancing. Just that one thing (going around
Paris the eastern way) led to a very long stalemate of trench warfare so if
that did not happen there would have been no stalemate. Therefore, if any one
General were to blame it would be Von Moltke however all the Generals
contributed to the war not finishing quickly. ?????????? Nivelle was not really properly
tested as in what could have been an early breakthrough, the Nivelle offensive
was ruined because an officer with the plans had been captured so the Germans were
well prepared for it. The failure of the Nivelle Offensive made all the French
soldiers loose their moral and caused mutiny. ?????????? None of the Generals
made a good attempt at opening a front elsewhere. The attempts that they did
make were feeble like the Gallipoli Campaign, which led to needless slaughter.
If they actually broke open another front through Gallipoli and then it might
other nearby countries join the allies, surround Austria-Hungary, and force
them to surrender isolating Germany to make them get defeated easily. So if
they opened another front it would have ended the war quickly. None of the
battles was very well planned for example they should have easily seen that
Paschendale was below sea level and will become marshy if heavily bombarded. Haig
won one battle and then he thought hat he will win all the battles easily so he
sent lots of men to ?the sea of liquid mud?, Paschendale. When an officer saw
the scenes at Paschendale the burst into tears, crying ?My God! Did we really
send men to fight in that?? That exclamation shows that even the higher ranks
of the army were horrified by the conditions for fighting in. ?????????? Haig did
not actually make the breakthrough although he takes most of the credit in this
country; it was the French who actually did so this might mean that the arguments
against Haig might unbalance the arguments for Haig. The French General who lead
the final breakthrough battle was Ferdinand Foch. He cannot be blamed for the stalemate,
as without him the allies would have lost the war. The Germans were advancing
and the Generals did not know what to do as the Germans were gaining land
quickly so they put Foch in charge. Foch saw that the Germans had made a big
mistake. They had made a massive salient. Foch took advantage and did one big
final massive counter attack with everything he had. It worked; he pushed the Germans
back and won the war for the allies. ?????????? If any one General were to blame, it
would be either Von Moltke or Haig. Von Moltke because he ruined the whole Schlieffen
plan and therefore can be blamed for the stalemate. He also did not make his plans
properly, as he did not take essential ports allowing Britain to come. Haig could
be blamed for not doing anything efficiently or right as he made massive gaps in
the enemy trenches with tanks and with mines but he did it all too fast so
there were no troops to follow up and fill in the gaps so the Germans counter
attacked and got all their trenches back. He would have won the war in 1915 if
he followed up the gaps and moved more slowly.