What made the First World War so bloody?
/
courtesy of pixabay
History class in high school tend to focus on the battles of World War One and the Second World War, but they never focused on other aspects of the war. This blog post we will focus on just that, why was the First World War was so bloody.
First let us look at the new technologies and lack of technology that helped make the war so bloody.
The development of artillery and indirect artillery throughout the years. Artillery before the first world war had to be close to the front line and protected against infantry and cavalry attacks. Now with the development of indirect artillery fire, artillery can now be placed further away from the front lines and still fire at enemy positions.
The increase use of barbed wire helped protect a defensive position. It slows and can prevent troops from moving forwards. By slowing the enemy troop movements, it allows the defensive force to eliminate the attacking force.
Machine guns development in 1885 saw the creation of Hiram Maxim’s machine gun. The gun feature water cooling system to prevent the barrel from overheating. This allows it to fire more rounds than the other machine guns. Firing more rounds, the kill potential the machine gun has.
Lebel rifle
Courtesy of wikimedia commons
Another innovation that took place in 1880s with the replacement of charcoal gunpowder with smokeless propellants as well as metal-cased cartridges. These allow for better reliability of the rifle and with the smokeless propellant allows the gunman to not have his vision blurred or covered by discharging the firearm. Riflemen could now continuously fire on the enemy without losing sight of the enemy. With these new innovations brought with it new rifles that allowed them to fire more rounds than before. An example to illustrate this is a French division with Chassepots (their older rifle) could fire 40,000 rounds a minute. The same division with their new rifle the Lebel could fire 200,000 rounds a minute.
These improvements made it so wars would be more deadly than before with the quicker fire rate and number of bullets they can fire they can simply mow down the enemy troops.
courtesy of wikimedia commons
Schlieffen plan
Tied into this is the doctrine of nations. Most if not all European states favoured offensive doctrine. An example the Germans had the Schlieffen Plan, and the French with their Plan XVII had the ‘cult of the offensive’ belief, to name a few. The Schlieffen Plan in the best-case scenario would have knocked France out of the war in six weeks by marching through neutral Belgium, encircle the French army near Alsace-Lorraine destroying it, and marching onwards to Paris while the encirclement happened.
The French ‘cult of the offensive’ belief was to avoid defensive positions and focused more on the offensive. Being on the defensive demoralizes soldiers and gives the enemy the initiative. By focusing on offensive, they can push into enemy territory and win the war. As General Joseph Joffre of the French army said, “the offensive alone leads to positive results. … Battles are above all moral struggles.”
As I alluded to in my previous blog post about the Russo-Japanese War the French saw how the Japanese won battles because of their high morale compare to the Russians. What the French didn’t realize was by constantly charging enemy defenses, their manpower reserve would run low and they will not be able to continue fighting. The deaths caused by the French cult of the offensive spirit could have been avoided if they focused on defensive doctrine instead.
The military technology did not support the French military doctrine or other offensive doctrine and instead favoured a more defensive style. It was not until 1916 when technology finally caught up to the offensive doctrine. Invention of the tank, airplanes, and new tactics helped nations go on the offensive. This allowed for causalities to be minimal compared to previous offensives without those technologies or tactics.
Italian front 1915-1917
Courtesy of wikimedia commons
We also have some generals who should not have been leading the army. An example Luigi Cadorna, the Chief of Staff of the Italian Army during the First World War. He was in charge of the Italian front against the Austria-Hungary Empire. He participated in twelves battles of Isonzo. During those assaults, almost one million Italian causalities occurred. The last battle finally saw him dismissed from the Italian army. Luigi Cadorna had the reputation of being ruthless. He dismissed officers, he executed officers whose units retreated and even executed soldiers. These types of Generals who threw lives away also helped make the war bloodier than it was.
New military technology, the offensive doctrine, and the generals all played a part in making the First World War bloodier than it should be. If things played differently lives would have been saved.
Braden Harrison
Braden is a second-year student of the Professional Writing program at Algonquin College. He enjoys learning history, via reading books or watching videos, and reading fantasy novels.
