ESSAY: Why was World War One not over by Christmas 1914?

The First World War broke out in July 1914, and it was expected by almost every power involved to be a short war that would be over by Christmas of that same year. However this was not the case and the war ended four years later. There was no single reason for the war being prolonged further than expected; it was the combination of many factors. It could be argued that the most influential factors for lengthening the war was the introduction of new technologies and weapons, the failure of the Schlieffen plan under General Moltke, trench warfare and the Russian mobilisation. There is sufficient evidence to prove that all of these factors prolonged the war, however trench warfare appears to be the most direct cause for the elongation of the war as it led to a three year stalemate, and this perhaps shows that it is the leading cause. 

The failure of the Schlieffen Plan undoubtedly led to the war being prolonged. The plan was conducted by the German General Alfred von Schlieffen in 1905-6. The plan preached that ‘attack is the best defence’ and prepared Germany for a two front war against France and Russia. The aim was to quickly defeat France and then troops would move to the east to meet an advancing Russian army. However this plan made many shaky assumptions, one being that a quick defeat was possible against huge armies and powerful new weaponry. Another was that the capture of Paris would automatically mean victory over France. The Germans also made a fatal miscalculation when they predicted that Russia would take at least twelve weeks to mobilise, when it actuality it took around six. 

Germany first followed the plan and attacked through Belgium and was met by a Belgian force, French divisions and a small British army. The plan was then altered by General Moltke. Germany invaded Paris from the north instead of the west and their force was weakened in their right wing when they had t move troops to East Prussia to fend off an advancing Russian army. This ultimately led to their defeat at the battle of Mons, where the German army was pushed back to the river Aisne, thus beginning trench warfare and prolonging the war further. 

Had Germany stuck to the Schlieffen plan, they may have reached the quick victory that they had planned for and the war would have effectively have been over by Christmas of 1914. However the introduction of other factors such as the fast mobilisation of Russia led to the plan being altered and subsequently led to their defeat in Mons and the start of trench warfare – a battle strategy that undoubtedly led to the prolonging of WW1. The failure of the Schlieffen plan was not the single cause for the war being drawn out, but was certainly an important factor. However it could be argued that had the Russians not mobilised as quickly, the original plan would have been used and a fast victory would have been possible for Germany. 

The failure of the Schlieffen plan can be linked to the unexpectedly fast mobilization of the Russian army and how the size of this army alone appeared to threaten Germany into making changes to its original plan. Russia had mobilised in half the time Germany had expected, taking them by surprised and causing Moltke to make some quick, and perhaps poor, judgments. 100,000 German troops were moved to defend eastern Prussia against the advancing Russians and effectively weakening their force in Belgium. Russia and Germany finally collided on the 23^rd of August at the battle of Tannenberg. Although Russia had the largest force at the beginning of the war, with a standing army of 5 million soldiers, it had many drawbacks that prevented it from having a successful win against the Germans. Russia’s main difficulty was trying to transport troops to the enemy front lines quickly. Their ally, France, loaned them money to build railways in order to improve the transportation of both men and weaponry; although this was not the only drawback to the Russian army. Many would say that the effectiveness of the Russian army was mainly based on the enemy that it faced. They struggled to adapt to the new industrialized warfare on the battle field and effectively lost against the Germans at the battle of Tannenberg. Perhaps if Russia had mobilised in the expected time, Germany would have been able to continue with its original Schlieffen plan and the war would have been over before 1915 with a swift victory for Germany. Russia’s fast mobilisation meant that the Schlieffen plan was changed and ultimately ineffective in the end, causing the war to continue past Christmas of 1914 and lead on to a war on a scale that none of the powers anticipated. 

After Germany moved a large percentage of their force to defend the East from the Russians, Britain and France claimed victory in the battle of the Marne, and Germany was pushed back to the river Aisne thus beginning trench warfare. The Germans did not need to advance further and trenches provided them with an effective defence system, so they began to dig in. Britain and France soon followed suit and by the winter of 1914 both sides had dug trenches. A series of trenches were dug by both sides over 700km stretching from the Belgian coast to the Swiss boarder. This seriously prolonged the war as trench warfare does not involve much offensive strategy and neither side was advancing. This new tactical approach had not been expected by any of the powers involved as it was a huge step away from the colonial wars that had been fought before. An example of this would be that the cavalry was not longer useful with the introduction of the trenches but aircraft was steadily become more important and advanced. 

This new battle strategy undoubtedly led to the prolonging of the First World War. Germany did not want to advance further and therefore neither did the Western forces; as if the soldiers were to rise above ground level they would have undeniably have been shot. The opposing sides neither tried nor wanted to advance further and a stale mate was reached, effectively ruling out the possibility of the war being over by Christmas 1914. Also the circumstances of the men on both sides in the trenches were awful too. The conditions of the trenches were appalling and the soldiers were constantly in incredible danger (it was a heavy risk to even raise your head above ground level). This undoubtedly decreased morale as the war dragged on and the men on the front line began to realise that they would not be going home for Christmas. 

As Gerard J De Groot puts it, the new technologies in the war ‘narrowed the scope for imagination and good command’. The introduction of new lethal weaponry, such as long-range rifles, machine guns ad accurate artillery, had completely changed the character of warfare. Many commanding generals often found it difficult to part themselves with the old fashioned warfare tactics and it could be argued that this helped to draw the war out. These new weapons also pushed men into the trenches and kept them there. Because of this the soldiers directed their energy into improving the trenches thus preparing themselves for a longer stay there and effectively prolonging the war further. As the war met a long stalemate it appeared that victory would go to the nation or nations who were able to produce weapons in vast quantities and transport them to the battle field quickly. 

This new technology definitely prolonged the war. It was the development of these new weapons that slowed down advancement of both sides and perhaps caught the strategists off guard as warfare had become so different from that of years ago. These new weapons also caused the two opposing sides to begin to dig in the trenches. This undoubtedly slowed the advancement of the war as it continued on past 1915.

To conclude, there is sufficient evidence to prove that trench warfare was the leading cause for the war to continue past Christmas 1914. The trenches prevented advancement on both sides and therefore withheld both sides from making any major impact in their favour. With the majority of the men in the trenches, morale ran low and no major victories were made on either side, so the war undoubtedly would not be over by Christmas. However this does not diminish the impact of other factors, for example had Russia not mobilised as fast the Germans may have stuck by their original Schlieffen plan, and therefore may have won the battle of Mons thus preventing both sides from digging in in the ‘race to the sea’. Also had the commanding generals had a better idea of what impact new technology would have had on the character of the war, maybe trench warfare would have been used with a more tactical approach.