Although usually remembered as a conflict of attrition or material, the First World War was, above all, a contest of endurance. Nowhere was this truer than on the Western Front where, for the four years following August 1914, the French, Belgian and British armies, later joined by the Americans, fought the German army in some of the most costly battles in history. The conflict's long duration, unprecedented bloodiness and particularly horrendous and indecisive ‘trench warfare’ placed extreme strain on individuals, armies and nations. Yet it was only in the second half of 1918, after enduring months of inconclusive static combat followed by a dramatic offensive which almost broke through Entente lines, that the overstrained German war effort finally collapsed. The rapid decline in combat motivation at the front and the outbreak of revolution at home indicated clearly that Hindenburg's soldiers, army and nation had reached the end of their mental resources.

Historians have adopted a number of approaches to account for the longevity and outcome of the war. Some, such as Gerald Feldman and Avner Offer, have focused on the Central Powers' material shortages and inefficiencies in order to explain the eventual collapse of their armies and economies. Other scholars, most notably Paddy Griffith, Tim Travers, Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson, have examined the Allied success in breaking the German line at the end of the war, producing detailed studies of the development of strategy, tactics and technology on the Western Front.