Is Opening Up New Fronts a Way to Winning the War?

[Major Sennef]

During WW1 in both the Allied and the Central camps, schools propagated their views on the opening up of new fronts.
You had the 'Westerners' who maintained that the war could only be won on the Western front and that any deviation of resources was harmful to winning the war,
versus the 'Easterners' who held as view that battering the stalemate that was the Western fornt would be waste of resources and that new posibiities for winning the war should be created by opening new fronts.

Historically new fronts were opened: Gallipoli; Mesopotamia; Saloniki; ...
the entrance of till than neutral countries such as Italy and Romania caused new fronts to be created,
but it could be good IMO to think outside the envelope of place and also consider e.g. the War at Sea, the unrestricted submarine warfare and the War in the Air as of openings of new fronts that did require scarce resources.

In finding the answer to the thread's question it may be especially instructive to look beyond history and cast the net a bit wider by including Model Thinking e.g. the Colonel Blotto game and see which side is normally favoured by opening new fronts.
Lastly, as you no doubt have realized, though this is a WW1 forum, the question in general can also be instructive for studying other wars in the past and something useful may even be inferred on current conflicts such as the Global War On Terror

[Half Pint John]

Depends.

Opening up new fronts takes resources in material and people. Do you have more than your foe? Well it cause him more problems than for you? Gallipoli is a good example imo were the allies played into the Turks/Germans hands. Dumb move. Looking at the Pacific in WWII the US used two many fronts. The Islands and Up from Australia and into the Philippines. One side had the resources while the other was stretched thin.

[Vassilli]

Depends

Like Half pint pointed out, by creating new fronts you stretch the enemy out, but you risk doing the same to yourself.

[Twitter3]

I also went with depends. What are your goals? Each side has different goals and they can determine how many fronts to open. I think it also depends on the size of the war (small, local fighting vs. 'world war').

[Wellington95]

Well considering Gallipoli failed and Salonika did nothing in until the Allies were winning on other fronts I'd say it was pretty ineffective in World War I. In World War II, however, the use of multiple fronts stretched the German supply lines thinner, made them more vulnerable, and more easily overpowered at concentrated fronts such as North Africa, Italy, and Stalingrad.

Well, I suppose I shouldn't say easily...

[Rojik]

Comes down to what it is you are trying to do. If you have resources that can be spared or better used on another front, you can make the enemy fight in an area it would prefer not to, and / or you will be drawing enemy forces away from a more important area, then it's probably a good thing.

Essentially it is the same question you would ask yourself on any battlefield - what is the best ground for me to fight on, what is the best application of my resources, what would the enemy prefer I didn't do etc etc.

[broderickwells]

Opening new fronts works if it means you are fighting to your strengths or the other guy's weaknesses. And if you can keep the new front a secret long enough until the other guy can't respond in time.

The Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaign suffered from being the worst kept secret ever, whereas Salonika had no support from the British until quite late.

[The Ibis]

I voted other, but I guess I could have voted it depends.

IMHO, up until Russia was effectively knocked out of the war, the answer is no, since the Eastern Front served the purposes of dispersing CP strength and there was a threat to the CP that war could have been won by the Entente in the East (Russians in Berlin).

Once Russia is no longer a real threat to the Germans, in the absence of other fronts, the war can only be won in the West. Its where the Germans have to fight the hardest and make the greatest sacrifice. Thus, causing the Germans to disperse their forces makes sense to weaken them in the main theater.

By the same token, since Germany was already weakened, and by the time America is in the war, the Allied Powers have a massive superiority in men and matériel, the Allied Powers could afford to do it without weakening their position on the main front significantly. And once they made the attempt, the Germans couldn't sit by and let them do it unchecked.

[xristar]

Schematically speaking, the extension of the scale of war activities benefits the side with the greater resources. Speaking specifically about WW1 this is counterbalanced by the fact that the Central Powers occupied a central position and could operate from internal lines.
For example it was more demanding logistically for the Entente to provide Anglo-French troops to the Balkans than it was for the Central Powers to provide Austro-German, and this imbalcane would increase as the front moved inland.
However one should not ignore that the members of the Central Powers were not equal. The situation was more complex than just schematics. Turkey and Bulgaria were not self-sufficient in war supplies and Turkey in particular was in a very exposed position. Austria was in better shape but it was more vulnerable to centrifugal forces by its constituent nations. Already from the start it was recognized that it was possible to cause Hungary to sue for peace separately. The monolithic view that some people have that the war was all about attrition is incorrect. Or at least one has to define attrition more loosely to include popular morale, such as the demoralization from losing "national lands".
As such, and I said that at another thread, it is my view that the Balkan theater offered a very good opportunity for the Entente to inflict a heavy blow to the Central Powers by cutting off Turkey from the rest, neutralising Bulgaria, and possibly causing a political collapse to Austria.

[The Ibis]

Originally Posted by xristar

The monolithic view that some people have that the war was all about attrition is incorrect. Or at least one has to define attrition more loosely to include popular morale, such as the demoralization from losing "national lands".

You're right. This is an important point. History is replete with examples showing that wars don't have to end with the total destruction of an enemy's army. They can end when the enemy decides he cannot fight on. Destruction of the enemy's armed forces is only one of the things that can accomplish this objective. Sun Tzu would say doing so can even be counterproductive in the long run. But that's another debate.

[Mountain Man]

Depends.

As previously pointed out, a new front stretches the enemy, but also your own forces. You requires large, flexible and easily and rapidly mobile forces, well coordinated and fully supported by a massive logistical train.

Right here, right now, American has not done well fighting on two fronts.

[Glenn239]

Germany's path to victory lay in narrowing the war to just one front, eliminating the need to divide its strength between different fronts, and being forced to use its resources to prop up weaker allies. The Anglo-French required multiple fronts, to stretch CP resources, divide the German army between tasks, and maintain the blockade by way of an unbroken ring of hostile powers.

[The Ibis]

Originally Posted by Glenn239

Germany's path to victory lay in narrowing the war to just one front, eliminating the need to divide its strength between different fronts, and being forced to use its resources to prop up weaker allies. The Anglo-French required multiple fronts, to stretch CP resources, divide the German army between tasks, and maintain the blockade by way of an unbroken ring of hostile powers.

In that case, are you acknowledging that Germany could never win the war since it could never achieve autarky based on accessible continental resources and thus there would always be a naval front as well?

[rebpreacher]

I voted depends also. Everything depends on any of it. Your Army-anything.

[Full Monty]

No, opening up new fronts can only lead to a dispersion of effort thus violating basic military principles. It is only justifiable if one side enjoys a considerable advantage in men and materials over its opponent(s) allowing it to stretch its enemy whilst retaining sufficient force to achieve victory at the appropriate moment.