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.