[yassow3]

hey it would be greatly appreciated if you could help me with a question about mobilisation in WWI I know that it is a cause of stalemate and that WWI did not "end by christmas" because of it and other factors like failure of schlieffen plan and plan XVII and others. I also know that mobilisation is when a country prepares it's army 4 war but I need help finding info about how it caused stalemate

thanks 4 ur help
special thanx to "a finemess"

This post has been edited by yassow3: 26 October 2006 - 09:51 AM

[A Finemess]

You would be more likely to get help if you phrased your request a little more politely. The teachers who respond to student questions do so on their own time and for no reward at all other than the gratitude and politeness of the students who post.

I am afraid I still cannot help you without more details of the actual question you have been set. Your definition is correct but it would be helpful to know which war for example? Post again with more details and someone will help you.

[Miss Buxton]

Hello

Are you asking how mobilisation contributed to the First World War ending in a stalemate OR are you asking what factors led the war into stalemate and why it was not over by Christmas?

Here are some notes on Stalemate I ask GCSE students to rearrange into a GCSE answer:

The stalemate on the Western Front lasted for so long because it was much easier to defend the trenches than to attack them for the following reasons:
1. The weapons in the First World War were much better for defending than for attacking. As attacking soldiers charged across ‘No Man’s Land’ they were simply mowed down by machine gun fire or blown up by land mines. The defenders in the trenches were better protected.

2. ‘No Man’s Land’ was often deep mud and covered with barbed wire. This made it very difficult for men and horses to charge quickly.

3. Both sides had large reinforcements of men and guns that could easily be brought up to support trenches under attack.

4. The generals were not used to fighting this type of warfare. They could not think of any tactic other than to keep sending men across ‘No Man’s Land’.

5. Before an attack the enemy trenches were always bombarded with heavy artillery to ‘soften them up’. However, this simply warned the enemy that an attack was coming and took away the element of surprise.

[A Finemess]

Thank you and well done for the edit YASOW3. I hope Miss Buxton's information will be of help. Something you might like to consider also is the role of technology and particularly railways in allowing huge armies to be mobilised quickly and moved into position ready for battle.

[marbeannie]

I'm studying the same topic, thankyou for the help!

A Finemess, on Oct 27 2006, 04:29 AM, said:

Thank you and well done for the edit YASOW3. I hope Miss Buxton's information will be of help. Something you might like to consider also is the role of technology and particularly railways in allowing huge armies to be mobilised quickly and moved into position ready for battle.

Would the use of railways and faster mobilisation be a cause of why the war was "not over by Christmas"? I can not get my head around how that would contribute to the stalemate.

Thanks again

[MrJohnDClare]

marbeannie, on Oct 29 2006, 03:14 AM, said:

Would the use of railways and faster mobilisation be a cause of why the war was "not over by Christmas"? I can not get my head around how that would contribute to the stalemate.
Thanks

Firstly, thanks for the thanks - your politeness is greatly appreciated.

Secondly, the simple answer to your question is "of course"!
As one historian has said (I THINK it was AJP Taylor - it's usually him responsible for these brilliant aphorisms) the problem with World War One was that armies had a 19th century defence system, but a 18th century warhead.
Men defended with machine guns, and used trains to rush extra soldiers to trouble spots.
But they advanced with rifles, on foot.
That was why the Germans digging trenches brought the Allied counter-offensive to a shuddering halt in September 1914...
That was why any attack after 1914 ended up in a suicidal stalemate...
That was why the ONLY answer in the end was for both sides to settle down and slog it out in a bloody war of attrition until one of them collapsed with exhaustion....
...because whenever you attacked, yes, you could train in millions of men and guns and shells to make the attack, but when it eventually came to it, you had to say to them, 'OK lads, now go OTT and run at the enemy'. And WHEREVER you chose to make that attack, and however much of an overhwelming 'push' it was, and however much of a surprise it was to the enemy, within a day the enemy could train in millions of reinforcements to stop you.

The only exception to this rule during the entire time September 1914 to 1918 was the German attack of 1918, when they invented the idea of 'blitzkrieg'. The basic idea of blitzkrieg was, when you got up out of your trench and started running you actually didn't stop. You didn't stop to take enemy strongpoints or retrench or regather your forces, you just kept on running as fast as you could. This worked for a while, even in 1918, because the Allies couldn't decide where to send their reinforcements - as fast as they trained in men to what they thought was the front line, the Germans had broken through again and moved the 'front line'.
What happened in 1918, of course, was that eventually the Germans literally ran out of puff! There's a limit to how long a human being can run! So as soon as the German generals said: 'OK, let's take a breather', the Allied generals were able to train in millions of reinforcements, and the attack was over. (In fact the whole German war was over, because they had completely knackered themselves doing all that running.)

The success of Blitzkrieg waited upon another war, 20 years later and the invention of ... do you know? ... yes, the internal combustion engine. And can you now understand WHY the invention of the internal combustion engine broke the strangehold of the defence, and enabled blitzkrieg to succeed, and opened up warfare?... yes, because it allowed the attackers to advance as fast as the defenders could assemble their reinforcements.
But in WWI, the train was the only form of rapid transport, and because it relied on fixed railway lines and couldn't take off across open country, it gave the defenders the advantage.

Hope this helps.

[marbeannie]

What alot of useful information!! Thankyou so much for taking your time to write that.

So basically having trains and faster transport/mobilisation is really another way of saying that defending was much easier than attacking? From what you said, I can see that even if you plan a huge attack you could easily be shot down, or reinforcement was quick to get there. So really advancing was really difficult, and the faster mobilisation made it even harder.

I think i'm on the right track. And yes it did helpe alot, merci beaucoup!

[MrJohnDClare]

marbeannie, on Oct 30 2006, 06:05 AM, said:

So basically having trains and faster transport/mobilisation is really another way of saying that defending was much easier than attacking?

Precisely - and what a bon mot to put into your conclusion!

Quote

I think i'm on the right track.

Train track, I presume!!!

[johninaustralia]

hi,

doing historiography for the causes of the stalemate, i was wondering if someone could help me in discoving the main historians and their views other than the infamous AJP Taylor and war by time table?

Thankyou

[MrJohnDClare]

Try:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwo...ptions_01.shtml

There is tons more on interpretations of the generals/ Haig/ WWI - though maybe not directly relevant to the stalemate per se - in the links from my website at http://www.johndclare.net/wwi3.htm

[johninaustralia]

Thankyou very much, its interesting to see the differnce in opinion over the outcomes of the war from a futile bloodbath, to a popular victory.

Especially interesting the variety of opinions about Sir Douglas Hiag.

Thanks again.

[Miss Buxton]

BLAH BLAH you clicked on report this post instead of posting a topic on the causes of a stalemate, have a read of this thread first

[stephaniehunt]

MrJohnDClare, on Nov 2 2006, 04:03 PM, said:

Try:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwo...ptions_01.shtml

There is tons more on interpretations of the generals/ Haig/ WWI - though maybe not directly relevant to the stalemate per se - in the links from my website at http://www.johndclare.net/wwi3.htm

your website is really helpful! thanks

[yassow3]

thanks to everyone so much 4 their help wif mobilisation I"m still w8ing 4 my mark 4 mobilisation but my paragraph wz gr8 thanx 2 u guys

[MrJohnDClare]

Thnx 4 yr thnx.