Trench Warfare in WWI- #1 (why it happened) & #2 (its effects)

#1
WWI evolved into trench warfare for many reasons. One of these was poor execution of the Schlieffen plan. The plan clearly called for Germany’s left flank to be weak on the western front. This way, France would be tempted to attack the left flank, and then Germany’s right flank could make a counterclockwise move through Belgium and the Netherlands and move behind France’s troops. Several major problems arose, though. For one, the new German chief of staff, Moltke, made modifications to the plan by strengthening the left flank at expense of the right flank. He also chose to enter France only through Belgium, and not through the Netherlands too. This created a bottleneck on the right flank. Also, Belgium resisted its invasion with more strength than most would have predicted. These factors aided Britain and France a victory at the Battle of the Marne, which effectively ended Germany’s hopes of a quick western offensive. The Allies and Germany dug in to maintain their positions, thus leading WWI into a stalemate of trench warfare.
This couldn’t have happened, though, without the necessary technological advancements. The most obvious and profound of these, of course, is the Maxim gun, better known as the machine gun. People on both sides could be mowed down, and both sides would just replaced the dead with more troops, making trench warfare into the three year stalemate that it became. This technology, along with the problems of a modified Schlieffen plan, contributed to the evolution of WWI into trench warfare attrition.

#2
Trench warfare had a massive effect on troops, civilians, and governments. Its worst result was the killing of almost an entire generation of European men, with a death toll of 15 million. The whole western front degenerated into a conflict of attrition, and after three years of stalemate, morale could not possibly be high for any troops in the trenches. Never had a war left so many widows who could barely provide for their families. All civilians were affected by trench warfare because it had totally dehumanized many of them, as so many people personally experienced the devastating effects of modern total war. A whole generation basically entered into a state of shell shock. All of Europe also fell into a deep economic depression, as the population of Europe shrunk drastically, due to all of the deaths of trench warfare. Because resources and troops had to be constantly sent to the trenches as more men fell, the war also took a hard economic toll on governments. This lead to the rise of nationalist sentiment to pitch levels in Austria-Hungary, causing the disintegration of the empire into the many states that occupy the land today. The dehumanizing nature also led to civilian discontent about being involved in international politics in some nations. For this reason, the US entered a period of moderate isolation after WWI. Trench warfare not only affected the troops and civilians, but changed many governments, as well as damaged economies in Europe.

I didn't realize how much of an effect trench warfare had on the economy, but I understand how it declined as a result of a shortage of people and supplies. Thanks for posting.

You know, I didn't even think of the Schleiffen plan. This was a good idea. Now everyone can throw around answers and we all get a better understanding!

It appears that, according to your post, that trench warfare was a result of Germany's hasty decisions in relation to the "S" plan. The leaders of their offensive in French soil seemed incompetent to properly manage the German army in their invasion of France, weakening the German offensive. And then furthermore, the German offensive was waekened on account for unplanned resistance from the Belge people. Overall, it seems that your post suggests that Germany's incompetence in military strategy coupled with a kind of blind arrogance culminated in their weakening, a weakening that left them only with the option of holding their ground, causing them to dig trenches.

Military pride did seem to be a major part of the lasting stalemate as well, as neither side seemed to be willing to concede more that a mile or two, at most, of land. The attrition of enemy military forces seemed to be the entire goal of commanders, who saw that as the only way to make victory possible. As a result of this single-minded strategy combined with the hubris seen on both sides of the conflict, it seems as if the desired attrition of military strength actually did occur, but as it turned out, only a handful of men were required to defend a large area, due to the nature of the conflict. Perhaps a reconsideration of strategy, such as the widespread use of tanks like the book mentioned, could have drastically shortened the conflict.

Carter Tate wrote:It appears that, according to your post, that trench warfare was a result of Germany's hasty decisions in relation to the "S" plan. The leaders of their offensive in French soil seemed incompetent to properly manage the German army in their invasion of France, weakening the German offensive. And then furthermore, the German offensive was waekened on account for unplanned resistance from the Belge people. Overall, it seems that your post suggests that Germany's incompetence in military strategy coupled with a kind of blind arrogance culminated in their weakening, a weakening that left them only with the option of holding their ground, causing them to dig trenches.

While I do think there was definitely some arrogance involved, it seemed that part of the failure of the Schlieffen plan was that the current commanders were unsure if it would work, so they reinforced the left flank. Of course, no conflict could have devolved into the mess of attrition it became without the necessary technology.

I had not even considered the Schlieffen Plan as a cause of Trench Warfare. I understand your point but I thought that Trench Warfare had already started by the time that the modifications of the S plan had taken place. I have one question for you. How did the Schlieffen plan account for new military technologies? If the new technologies are what caused the S plan to fail, wouldn't that make technology the cause for Trench Warfare?

Also, did you take into account that women filled in for the soldiers gap in the workforce durning World War I, when you mention that trench warfare left many families incapable of providing for their families? The women would have been able to help pick up the slack?

Tyler B wrote:I had not even considered the Schlieffen Plan as a cause of Trench Warfare. I understand your point but I thought that Trench Warfare had already started by the time that the modifications of the S plan had taken place. I have one question for you. How did the Schlieffen plan account for new military technologies? If the new technologies are what caused the S plan to fail, wouldn't that make technology the cause for Trench Warfare?

Also, did you take into account that women filled in for the soldiers gap in the workforce durning World War I, when you mention that trench warfare left many families incapable of providing for their families? The women would have been able to help pick up the slack?

Both the Schlieffen plan and technology contributed to trench warfare. I don't think their developments are related, though. What really seemed to cause the plan to fail was both arrogance and lack of confidence, lack of confidence I add because the plan was modified by the current chief of staff on concerns that the left flank should have more troops.
On women, I was more referring to after the war, when the war machines spun down and mothers had to raise a family and provide for it, most not having enough money to support their families. I'm sure over the course of the war that women did pick up the slack, as seems to happen in most conflicts before when all the men leave to be involved in whatever war. My main assumption here is that trench warfare=massive loss of life. I know its not always safe to assume that correlation equals causation, but trench warfare seems like a pretty safe bet for the insane number of casualties to me.

How exactly did the war damage the economy? Could you be more specific?