Introduction

In the years leading up to 1914, Europe was carving itself up into two armed camps. Each country wanted to make sure that, should war break out, she could rely on the forces of another country to assist her in defeating the enemy. To this end, major European powers created treaties between one another which meant that if one country went to war, her allies would be pulled in as well. The various nations of Europe realised that many of their neighbours were powerful imperial powers that could provide thousands of extra soldiers to the domestic armies from their colonies, so such alliances were even more valuable.

At the outbreak of war, the Central Powers of Europe had organised themselves into an armed camp – called the Triple Alliance – consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. The other camp, the Triple Entente, was comprised of Britain, France and Russia. It was at this time that Germany realised she had a problem: because of being placed between Russia and France (and Britain just over the water), the German army would have to fight a war on two fronts. This was a major tactical disadvantage, as there was no way half the German force could stand up to the Russians, and the other half to France and Britain. Fortunately for Germany, this problem had been considered before, and in 1905 a solution was drawn up by General Von Schlieffen, simply called the Schlieffen Plan. The basis of this was to quickly defeat France and knock out the British Expeditionary Force in order to concentrate on Russia, thus ending the “two fronts” problem. General Schlieffen believed this could be done before Russia had troops prepared to take on Germany.

However, this was not to be, as when this plan was put into practise, France was not conquered and the BEF remained (despite the loss of men from the original force of 100,000). Following on from this failure, winter began to set in and the troops dug trenches to shelter from the elements, and the enemy. It was hoped that, come spring, the “war of movement” could continue and the war be ended soon after.

But there was no war of movement, and the grim carnage of the First World War dragged on for four bloody years, with the cost of ten million men.

In this investigation, I hope to answer the question as to why trench warfare cost so many lives by looking into the following aspects of the war:

Conditions of trenches – how did the state of living conditions contribute to the wide-spread death?

New weapons – how did they contribute to the slaughter?

Tactics – were the military planners guilty of dispensing of so many lives in the “war of attrition”?

Generals – was the number of casualties the result of stupidity on their part?

Trench Conditions

The basic design of a trench was supposed to be deep enough for men to walk through without being in the enemy’s line of fire and be wide enough for two men to pass easily. However, the standard varied a great deal and in any case the fortifications were under constant threat from enemy fire and even the ubiquitous mud.

It is important to remember that everyone expected the war of movement to return once the worst of the winter weather had passed. German trenches were typically of a better quality than the British ones: they were often better reinforced, and had deep dug-outs where men could sleep and some quarters even had electric lighting and medical equipment. British generals expected trenches to remain temporary fortifications. In comparison, the British trenches did not have their comforts. Those in charge knew this but, in the typical fashion of a British officer, they did not want to let the troops become too settled in. For in the long run it may be advantageous to have the troops live in this way – when the promised war of movement returns, the soldiers will be all the more keen to get on the move.

When the spring of 1915 came, the trenches of both sides had stretched from the outer reaches of the European mainland down to the Swiss frontier, in an unbroken line. Everyone was now stuck; the only way out was through, and soon some complex arrangements of trenches were developed.

Trenches evolved into fortifications including;

• Dugouts as sleeping quarters – these were tiny, flimsy holes in the wall where millions of men slept. Sometimes dugouts had to be shared and even turned into bunk “beds”. It was cramped, dirty just like the rest of the trench, but soldiers soon got used to it.

• Duckboards to prevent one from (literally) sinking into the mud on the ground when standing – in some places battles were fought little more than a few feet about sea level. In the case of the Battle of Passchendaele, the state of the ground was so waterlogged it became known as the “battle in the mud”. Stepping away from the directed safe route through the mud could result in being drowned in it: those unlucky soldiers who began to sink into it sometimes begged their comrades to shoot them, as this was preferable to being suffocated in filth.

• Firing steps on which sentries could see over the parapet or parados (on the rear wall of the trench), and keep a look out for advancing enemy troops, tanks, or observe the movements on the field. This was also the step used for getting out of the trench when the dreaded order to go “over the top” came. Another use was to have soldiers fire from it.

• Barbed wire doors were put in place to slow down enemy intruders while the gunners were caught up in the heat of a battle. These would have been very effective if the need for them had arisen, because it is of course very painful to be caught on barbed wire.

• Sandbags and wood were used on the walls to make the trenches look more like military constructions rather than holes in the ground. Any arrangement that would help hold the sides up was used – the materials used ranged from railway sleepers to corrugated iron.

• Barbed wire in front of the front line was there as a last line of defence against advancing enemy troops. Getting caught on this was not something the soldiers sought after.

• Reserve and communication trenches lay a distance away from the front line, hopefully out of range of enemy fire (where soldiers could walk in open air safely). Men were meant to be put on a four day shift on the front line before being retired to the secondary trenches where they were marginally safer. However, lack of men sometimes meant that those in the reserve trenches had to be called back to the front. In one case a Canadian regiment remained on the front line for a week. Communication trenches were used for ferrying supplies and men between trenches. Food was taken through them and so were injured soldiers. They could be a mile long and were a very important part of holding everything together: if they were not well kept, food, mail, ammunition and other supplies may not be able to get through to where it is needed.

• The periscope was an important feature of the trench, which helped to alleviate some of the danger of putting your head above the parapet. The device – simply two mirrors angled to reflect each other – could be looked into at the bottom to allow soldiers to see no-man’s land, in order to check for approaching force, or observe enemy movements.

• The open space between the front lines of each army was known as “no-man’s land.” Devastated, empty space – save for some ruins of what used to stand there, dead bodies and spent explosives – soldiers would have to advance through this abyss of muck to get to the enemy trenches. The enemy could be as little as 200 yards away; sometimes as much as ½ a mile.