Introduction
It is sad to say that wars have been a typical activity for humankind throughout all time. Various nations relied on military power to protect themselves, conquer new territories, achieve economic advantages, and pursue other goals. Every war was unique, but the Great War (1914-1918) was significantly different from previous conflicts. Commonly known as World War I, it was the first war that actively relied on artillery, chemical weapons, and other brutal means.
That is why the Great War is deservedly considered one of the most brutal and bloodiest conflicts in world history. Soldiers from both sides were participating in violent warfare for four long years. This approach resulted in the fact that 37 million people were killed and wounded in total (Curry). Historians still argue about what was the main reason for this duration and high figure. It appears that several factors, including commanders’ judgment errors, advancements in medicine, and warfare activities, contributed to the prolonged duration of the Great War and resulted in numerous casualties.
Commanders’ Contribution
It is worth acknowledging that, despite the war lasting four years, there was a real opportunity to end it earlier. In 1916, it became evident that the war had resulted in catastrophic damage for the representatives of the Entente and Central Powers. No country managed to gain a decisive advantage on the battlefield, and victory remained elusive.
Under such conditions, Germany and the United States issued peace overtures to stop the war and reach a peace agreement. However, the Entente countries dismissed this offer, and the war continued, which led to further devastation and casualties (Lanoszka & Hunzeker). Thus, it is reasonable to understand why France, Britain, and Russia refused to negotiate peace conditions, and this answer will explain why the war lasted so long.
The rationale behind refusing to end the war lay in the psychology of the warring parties. When nations enter a war, they typically have honor that makes them believe that others should respect their identities. The Entente expected the aggressors to apologize, whereas the Central Powers were unwilling to do so (Lanoszka & Hunzeker). These conditions resulted in the fact that, in 1916, no country managed to defeat its enemies, and all parties were similarly disadvantaged on the battlefield.
However, their nations and commanders had the honor, which did not allow them to end the war without reaching any satisfactory outcomes. That is why one can stipulate that the suggested peace overtures were dissatisfactory for everyone. Thus, the warring parties did not seize the opportunity to halt the bloodshed and instead resumed military actions. This information suggests that senior military commanders played a significant role in promoting the Great War and the associated atrocities.
However, unwillingness to negotiate peace was not the only way in which commanders contributed to multiple casualties. On the one hand, it is impossible to ignore the impact of censorship and propaganda. Censorship kept “people in an atmosphere of utter ignorance and unshaken confidence in the authorities” (Demm). This quote suggests that commanders provided their soldiers with limited information, making them more willing to participate in warfare.
In turn, propaganda relied on patriotism to achieve the same result (Demm). Appropriate messages and posters were designed to address soldiers and evoke their emotions, motivating them to continue fighting. Thus, commanders relied on soft power to win the soldiers’ minds, which was necessary to have a stable influx of troops. That is why there is an evident connection between effective propaganda and the long duration of the Great War.
On the other hand, the commanders’ indifference to their soldiers significantly contributed to millions of people being wounded and killed. Historians of that time were unanimous in stating that individual warriors played no part in warfare, as large-scale maneuvers were considered the most important aspect. When all attention is drawn to the army corps, tactics, and outcomes, soldiers are often considered pawns who do not deserve to be recognized (Winter & Prost).
Since historians describe the events in this manner, it is possible to expect that commanders shared this opinion. If a high-ranking officer is indifferent to their soldiers, this commander can easily send the warriors to very dangerous locations where they are likely to die. This information suggests that soldiers were considered expendable, and commanders felt free to decide their fates without hesitation. That is why it is not surprising that a significant number of people became casualties during the Great War.
Insufficient Medicine
In a war, the number of wounded typically exceeds that of the killed. This issue is present because it is more challenging to murder a person, and individual organisms usually fight to keep living. However, even if a person survives an artillery barrage, it does not mean that the worst is behind them. Once an injury or trauma occurs, a soldier’s life and health are in a medical professional’s hands.
One can argue that the Great War witnessed significant improvements in healthcare. In particular, the germ theory of disease was widely accepted, which enabled the identification and control of infections through vaccination (Barr et al.). In addition to that, medical professionals could cope with slight wounds from gunshots and artillery, while severe injuries typically resulted in complications and death.
That is why it is worth acknowledging that the medical development level presented above was insufficient to provide all soldiers with adequate care. On the battlefield, individuals were subject to numerous adverse phenomena, including overcrowding, poor sanitation, dysentery, the presence of rats, and the inability to take a shower, among other unfavorable conditions (Barr et al.).
All these factors were harmful to soldiers, and the latter started having various diseases. Even though medical professionals tried to do their best to provide all the warriors in need with adequate care, the healthcare knowledge of that time was insufficient to address those challenges. That is why soldiers were forced to fight against two dangers. Firstly, it was necessary to defeat enemies from the warring country. Secondly, poorly developed medicine required individuals to suffer from challenging living conditions on the battlefield.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that dysentery and overcrowding contributed to a broader issue. In 1918, the Spanish flu outbreak began, resulting in approximately 40-50 million deaths worldwide (Golshani et al.). It is possible to establish a direct link between the Great War and the subsequent disease. The rationale behind this statement is that warfare often gathers many people in one place, which contributes to the spread of the virus.
Consequently, the new disease spread within societies, while the medical sphere could not adequately address the challenge because it was overloaded with war victims. That is why no one can deny that there is a relationship between World War I and the Spanish flu outbreak, and the two events resulted in millions of people killed across the entire world.
Warfare Type
When a large number of casualties is considered, it is impossible to ignore the impact of a new and innovative type of warfare that was employed in the Great War, compared to previous military conflicts. World War I was characterized by the development of trench warfare, which involved thousands of warring soldiers being deployed close to their enemies and constructing trenches to protect themselves.
As a result, soldiers were constantly under threat that their enemies’ grenades or artillery shells would reach their location. This state of affairs was harmful since it led to numerous deaths and injuries for thousands of individuals. For example, many soldiers reported loss of vision or hearing as a result of constant attacks (Conroy & Malik). That is why there is no doubt that the specific type of warfare contributed to the fact that the Great War witnessed a huge number of casualties.
Additionally, one should not overlook the fact that this type of warfare subjects soldiers to challenging conditions. The war lasted four years, which denotes that soldiers were forced to endure various climatic conditions on the battlefield. Summers were characterized by extreme heat, while wet and cold conditions marked winters.
In particular, Figure 1 presents a photograph by The National WWI Museum and Memorial, which demonstrates the living and warring conditions of soldiers during the Great War. According to the decisions of senior military commanders, individuals were forced to spend hours and days in such challenging conditions. Furthermore, one should forget that their enemies were located close to them, which resulted in a constant threat of artillery attacks. This fact was another influential factor that contributed to many people being killed and injured during World War I.
Furthermore, it is worth admitting that the Great War achieved notoriety for the means the warring parties used to defeat their enemies. As mentioned above, this military conflict witnessed the widespread and intensive use of industrialized weaponry and heavy artillery. These more powerful guns contributed to increased damage and harm to the troops. That is why the participating countries willingly implemented this weaponry, which resulted in multiple casualties.
However, one should admit that World War I was characterized by new, terrifying weapons, including poison gas (Leonard). Senior military commanders relied on this and other chemical weapons to kill and hurt as many enemies as possible. This information demonstrates that the desire to achieve success on the battlefield led to the fact that warring countries justified all available means, regardless of their consequences.
The use of poison gas deserves specific attention because the Great War was the first conflict that saw this weapon type. Figure 2, from the National Museum of the US Navy, demonstrates that commanders sought to minimize the poisonous effects on their soldiers and provided them with gas masks and other protective equipment. However, it is worth acknowledging that the impact of harmful agents was not fully investigated, and it is impossible to state with certainty that the equipment completely helped people avoid the harmful effects. One should additionally remind that senior military commanders typically drew little attention to their soldiers’ well-being. That is why it is possible to conclude that the chemical weapons resulted in many casualties from both sides of the front line.
Various evidence from credible and reliable sources has demonstrated that there were several reasons why the Great War lasted so long and brought so many casualties. The senior commanders’ decisions, poor medical levels, and exceptionally brutal warfare led to millions of people killed and injured. It is impossible to determine the responsibility of each factor or calculate the number of people who died due to a specific issue. However, one can still analyze their relative contribution to identify which issue had the most significant impact.
The comparative investigation of the three factors allows us to stipulate that one of them can be considered primary. This statement refers to the role of senior military commanders in the war. However, this information does not mean that insufficient medicine and fierce warfare were insignificant. The two contributed to many deaths and injuries, and the scientific evidence above has proved it. When it is mentioned that the senior military commanders’ role is more impactful, the focus is on the fact that the commanders maximized the harm of the other two factors.
Since medicine was underdeveloped at that time, a suitable decision was to take care of soldiers and try to make their trench life less harmful and more convenient. Additionally, the commanders could be more merciful, at least to their own subordinates. Since the Great War was characterized by the use of heavy and chemical weaponry, soldiers should have been provided with sufficient protective equipment. It had also been necessary for the commanders to avoid sending their subordinates into the attack when it was likely that the outcome would be lethal for them.
However, one should not ignore the fact that senior military commanders directly contributed to the fact that the Great War lasted so long. In 1916, there was an opportunity to end the war. Still, the participants failed to reach an agreement because none of them achieved satisfactory outcomes. Furthermore, it is worth highlighting the role of censorship and propaganda, which provided the armed forces with a constant influx of new soldiers. This fact provided the commanders with an opportunity to take little care of their subordinates. Thus, the commanders’ indifference toward their soldiers significantly led to many casualties.
Conclusion
The paper focuses on the Great War and investigates why it lasted so long and resulted in many casualties. The analysis of credible and reliable sources enables the identification of several specific factors, including senior military commanders’ decisions, insufficient medical supplies, and a particular type of warfare. Although three distinct issues are mentioned, it is worth highlighting that the commanders made the most significant contribution.
On the one hand, there was an opportunity to end the war in 1916, but the warring parties failed to use it. On the other hand, the senior military commanders were indifferent and brutal toward their enemies and their own subordinates. That is why brutal warfare, challenging living conditions, and insufficient medicine resulted in millions killed and injured. Thus, the commanders can be blamed for the devastating outcomes of World War I.
Bibliography
Barr, Justin, Leopoldo C. Cancio, David J. Smith, Matthew J. Bradley, and Eric A. Elster. “From Trench to Bedside: Military Surgery During World War I upon Its Centennial.” Military Medicine 184, no. 11-12 (2019): 214-220.
Conroy, K., and V. Malik. “Hearing Loss in the Trenches – A Hidden Morbidity of World War I.” The Journal of Laryngology & Otology 132, no. 11 (2018): 952-955.
Curry, Peter. “How Many People Died in the First World War?” History Hit.
Demm, Eberhard. Censorship and Propaganda in World War I: A Comprehensive History. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019.
Golshani, Seyyed Alireza, Mohammad Zohalinezhad, Mohammad Taghrir, Sedigheh Ghasempoor, and Alireza Salehi. “Spanish Flu and the End of World War I in Southern Iran from 1917–1920.” Archives of Iranian Medicine 24, no. 1 (2021): 78-83.
Lanoszka, Alexander, and Michael A. Hunzeker. “Why the First World War Lasted So Long.” The Washington Post, November 11, 2018.
Leonard, Matthew. “A Sensorial No Man’s Land: Corporeality and the Western Front During the First World War.” The Senses and Society 14, no. 3 (2019): 257-270.
National Museum of the US Navy. “Weapons: Chemical Warfare.”
The National WWI Museum and Memorial. “Trench Warfare.”
Winter, Jay, and Antonie Prost. The Great War in History: Debates and Controversies, 1914 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.