My senior thesis for college back in 2007 argued this:
"....Counter to Popular believe due to it’s outcome, the Germans in World War I were in fact a victorious nation throughout the war. The Germans of World War I under the rule of Kaiser Wilhelm II were in fact a triumphant nation because the Germans were so successful on the battlefield and throughout the western front, let alone the rest of the world, that victory would have been within reach without much hardship for the entire country by 1916. This overall idea of victory did not only come from the German soldiers, officers and civilians, but it also came from various individuals and groups from allied nations as well (this would include authorities in France and Great Britain at that time as well as Russia), which made the German opportunity for victory during that time, much more realistic than one might originally think..."
What do my fellow WWI Buff's think about this statement? I'm trying to spark a discussion here Solely about Pre WWI and WWI and why the Germans Should have/Could Have won the war(Or Not....)......
A7V21
WWI....
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz
The Germans suffered heavy casualties at the Somme too. Less so than the British, but more than enough to make them reconsider defensive tactics.
History is written by the victor, and I assume most of us are familiar only with English sources (which I personally regret). So you'll hear and read a lot about "the greatest British failure" but not much about the German side of the battle.
As for Germany winning the war, I'm not sure. Breaking through decisively in 1916 would have been almost impossible even if they had made no mistakes at all. IMO the Allies just had too much men and resources. Britain might be just an island but it had massive troop and resource reserves in it's colonies. Similar for France. And then the USA entered. No way you can beat that. The Germans were already lucky they managed to crush the weak Russian state and didn't face endless Russian reserves like in WW2.
By the end of the war Germany was depleted. The final offensives bogged down while the allies did manage to break through in the counter attack with their large quantity of men and tanks. Perhaps if the Germans had invested in their own tanks earlier. But considering the shortage of resources I'm not sure that would even be possible.
The main problem for the Germans - in both WW1 and WW2 - was their habbit of pretty much fighting the whole world on their own. It's actualy amazing how close they got to actualy pulling it off - twice.
History is written by the victor, and I assume most of us are familiar only with English sources (which I personally regret). So you'll hear and read a lot about "the greatest British failure" but not much about the German side of the battle.
As for Germany winning the war, I'm not sure. Breaking through decisively in 1916 would have been almost impossible even if they had made no mistakes at all. IMO the Allies just had too much men and resources. Britain might be just an island but it had massive troop and resource reserves in it's colonies. Similar for France. And then the USA entered. No way you can beat that. The Germans were already lucky they managed to crush the weak Russian state and didn't face endless Russian reserves like in WW2.
By the end of the war Germany was depleted. The final offensives bogged down while the allies did manage to break through in the counter attack with their large quantity of men and tanks. Perhaps if the Germans had invested in their own tanks earlier. But considering the shortage of resources I'm not sure that would even be possible.
The main problem for the Germans - in both WW1 and WW2 - was their habbit of pretty much fighting the whole world on their own. It's actualy amazing how close they got to actualy pulling it off - twice.
Reading the David Stevenson book (mentioned in the other thread).
The Central Powers (i.e. Germany and Austria / Hungary) were in the stronger position by the end of 1917 to early summer 1918. Britain and France were virtually spent, had dwindling manpower reserves (albeit as did the Central Powers) and had failed to force a decisive breakthrough.
Germany had shifted some 40 divisions over from the Eastern Front, all of them relatively fresh and they were deploying improved offensive tactics i.e. Stormtroopers / flamethrowers etc along with air superiority and artillery superiority.
I would argue the Central Powers had a "window" of opportunity to win in 1918 or at least prolong the war until 1919 to make peace on more favourable terms.
As it was the Germans launched 'Operation Michael' and pretty much routed the British in the Somme area (far better than what us Brits achieved in 1916
) taking a lot of ground albeit most of which was strategically unimportant (arguably the mistake 
)
They also launched further operations in the Champagne area and got to within 40 miles of Paris in the summer of 1918, it could be argued that the US played a major part in stopping the offensive and without them, who knows?
I would say The Central Powers could have won it in 1918 to 1919 with perhaps a more co-ordinated final push, easy to say in hindsight but the opportunity was there to win it in my opinion.
The Central Powers (i.e. Germany and Austria / Hungary) were in the stronger position by the end of 1917 to early summer 1918. Britain and France were virtually spent, had dwindling manpower reserves (albeit as did the Central Powers) and had failed to force a decisive breakthrough.
Germany had shifted some 40 divisions over from the Eastern Front, all of them relatively fresh and they were deploying improved offensive tactics i.e. Stormtroopers / flamethrowers etc along with air superiority and artillery superiority.
I would argue the Central Powers had a "window" of opportunity to win in 1918 or at least prolong the war until 1919 to make peace on more favourable terms.
As it was the Germans launched 'Operation Michael' and pretty much routed the British in the Somme area (far better than what us Brits achieved in 1916
) taking a lot of ground albeit most of which was strategically unimportant (arguably the mistake ) They also launched further operations in the Champagne area and got to within 40 miles of Paris in the summer of 1918, it could be argued that the US played a major part in stopping the offensive and without them, who knows?
I would say The Central Powers could have won it in 1918 to 1919 with perhaps a more co-ordinated final push, easy to say in hindsight but the opportunity was there to win it in my opinion.
Could the Germans have won?
Definitely!
They made several major mistakes.
First, their strategy assumed they had to win a quick war or they would lose. That was not true. If you look at the history of the war, the Germans certainly had the capability to fight a prolonged struggle. There can't really be any doubt that had they planned for a longer war, they would have done better.
Second, they gambled on a quick victory in the West, but had no fall back plan for failure.
Third, instead of focusing on one front they went back and forth: 1914 the West, 1915 the East, 1916 the West, 1917 the East, 1918 the West. Clearly, had they stayed focused in the East after 1914 they would have done better. And if Russia had collapsed earlier....
Fourth, they embarked on a foolishly planned unrestricted submarine warfare campaign in early 1917 that they knew would bring the US into the war. Their assumptions on what their submarines could accomplish were grossly over-optimistic. About the only element of their strategy that they had right was that thenUS would probably intervene.
Fifth, Ludendorff launched his 1918 offensives without a clear strategic framework. He said something like: "we'll punch a hole and the rest will follow, as it did in the East." it didn't.
And there are more errors. German naval strategy was a joke. The German navy was mostly a waste of resources, what Holger Herwig called a "Luxury Fleet."
If the Germans had planned for the war as what they were--the most powerful state in Europe--they could not have done worse than they did.
Since I am writing here for gamers: would any of you playing Germany make the same decisions the actual Germans made? Would you even try a Schlieffen plan? If you did and it failed, would you quit because the war would be lost? If you did keep playing, would you switch your efforts from East to West every year? Would you unleash your handful of submarines against British commerce if you knew that it would lead to American intervention? Would you keep spending resources to build more dreadnoughts?
They made several major mistakes.
First, their strategy assumed they had to win a quick war or they would lose. That was not true. If you look at the history of the war, the Germans certainly had the capability to fight a prolonged struggle. There can't really be any doubt that had they planned for a longer war, they would have done better.
Second, they gambled on a quick victory in the West, but had no fall back plan for failure.
Third, instead of focusing on one front they went back and forth: 1914 the West, 1915 the East, 1916 the West, 1917 the East, 1918 the West. Clearly, had they stayed focused in the East after 1914 they would have done better. And if Russia had collapsed earlier....
Fourth, they embarked on a foolishly planned unrestricted submarine warfare campaign in early 1917 that they knew would bring the US into the war. Their assumptions on what their submarines could accomplish were grossly over-optimistic. About the only element of their strategy that they had right was that thenUS would probably intervene.
Fifth, Ludendorff launched his 1918 offensives without a clear strategic framework. He said something like: "we'll punch a hole and the rest will follow, as it did in the East." it didn't.
And there are more errors. German naval strategy was a joke. The German navy was mostly a waste of resources, what Holger Herwig called a "Luxury Fleet."
If the Germans had planned for the war as what they were--the most powerful state in Europe--they could not have done worse than they did.
Since I am writing here for gamers: would any of you playing Germany make the same decisions the actual Germans made? Would you even try a Schlieffen plan? If you did and it failed, would you quit because the war would be lost? If you did keep playing, would you switch your efforts from East to West every year? Would you unleash your handful of submarines against British commerce if you knew that it would lead to American intervention? Would you keep spending resources to build more dreadnoughts?
There were heavy casualties for both sides.A7V21 wrote:Wasn't the Somme, fought in 1916, basically a complete British debacle? Or does that go two fold and was a disaster for the Germans as well?
1916 it's not resumed to Somme. What about Verdun? Their plan to exhaust the French army failed. After Verdun they weren't able to launch any other campaign in 1916.
They didn't have air superiority in 1918, as far as I know. In fact, after "Bloody April", they begun too loose their air superiority that they won in the first months of 1917 with Albatros D.III and their Jastas; the balance in the end of 1917 was already pending for the allies. And in 1918, they weren't able to compete in terms of production values with the allies. They were having shortage of supplies.ElIndio wrote:.Germany had shifted some 40 divisions over from the Eastern Front, all of them relatively fresh and they were deploying improved offensive tactics i.e. Stormtroopers / flamethrowers etc along with air superiority and artillery superiority
Anyway you're also forgetting that also, the British army (at least) was perfecting their combined tactics, of using tanks, aviation, artillery and infantry. The battle of Cambrai is a good example, of the efficiency of their new tactics.
It's easy to theorize after having in our possession all the data. Again, IMO, they couldn't have think in any other way. All that plan was made with the thought of previous campaigns (namely Franco-Prussian and Austria-Prussian war). Movement was the essence. Between those campaigns and the advent of WWI, there weren't much opportunities to test the new military equipments and its firepower. So no new tactics arrived in the paper. Remember that we lived the Bismark era, of the Real Politik and it's diplomatic gambling, balancing powers and entangled alliances. Even the French doctrine was based on the idea of swift attacks with all the possible élan...majpalmer wrote:Definitely!
They made several major mistakes.
First, their strategy assumed they had to win a quick war or they would lose. That was not true. If you look at the history of the war, the Germans certainly had the capability to fight a prolonged struggle. There can't really be any doubt that had they planned for a longer war, they would have done better.
So, the Schlieffen Plan was indeed a brilliant product of its era. If well executed, it could have given the victory to the Central Powers.
I agree however, that they forget to have a backup plan in case of failure. But I'm sure that military history is filled with brilliant plans with no backups. Only mostly are successful.
But I agree that those mistake you mentioned were indeed pivotal and central to their final defeat.
These are precisely my thoughts.adherbal wrote:As for Germany winning the war, I'm not sure. Breaking through decisively in 1916 would have been almost impossible even if they had made no mistakes at all. IMO the Allies just had too much men and resources. Britain might be just an island but it had massive troop and resource reserves in it's colonies. Similar for France. And then the USA entered. No way you can beat that. The Germans were already lucky they managed to crush the weak Russian state and didn't face endless Russian reserves like in WW2.
By the end of the war Germany was depleted. The final offensives bogged down while the allies did manage to break through in the counter attack with their large quantity of men and tanks. Perhaps if the Germans had invested in their own tanks earlier. But considering the shortage of resources I'm not sure that would even be possible.
The main problem for the Germans - in both WW1 and WW2 - was their habbit of pretty much fighting the whole world on their own. It's actualy amazing how close they got to actualy pulling it off - twice.
So, the question therein is this: When playing with Germany and the central powers how does one strategically plan to defeat europe beginning in 1914? Where does the invasion begin? In the East? Southeast France?
How does one spend his $ ? On developing heavy artillery? Battleships? What do we think?
Thanks
A7V21
How does one spend his $ ? On developing heavy artillery? Battleships? What do we think?
Thanks
A7V21
My understanding of 1918 was that the Germans had air superiority for the launch of their offensives and that this was won back by the Allies over the following months. They at least initially had artillery superiority in numbers for the start of the offensives.
Paris itself was shelled I believe.
From a gaming perspective
Develop tons of mustard gas / bio /chemical weapons...... 
Actually make a push for the channel ports in France (Calais / Boulogne) to cut off the supply of troops from the UK, thus isolating France, would be my strategy (pre game at least
) while holding a defensive line in the East.
Paris itself was shelled I believe.
From a gaming perspective
Develop tons of mustard gas / bio /chemical weapons...... Actually make a push for the channel ports in France (Calais / Boulogne) to cut off the supply of troops from the UK, thus isolating France, would be my strategy (pre game at least
) while holding a defensive line in the East.German options
During the decades before 1914 the Germans considered various strategic options other than the Schlieffen Plan. Moltke's idea was to open on the defensive and then shift to the offensive, probably in the East.
Again, on the gamers theme, if you have played a Great War simulation, board or computer, don't you experiment with other openings? And in most games, don't you eventually figure out that the one that works focuses on the East and knocking out the Russians? After all, who did the Germans end up knocking out first? And why, after seeing what had happened to Russia in 1905 did the Germans not think that Russia would collapse again?
German grand strategy evolved in an age when Prussia was small and vulnerable. Germany in 1914 was neither. It was the most powerful nation in Europe. And yet German strategy had not evolved. Not did it evolve after 1918, which is why the Germans have the honor of being the only major state to have lost two world wars.
Again, on the gamers theme, if you have played a Great War simulation, board or computer, don't you experiment with other openings? And in most games, don't you eventually figure out that the one that works focuses on the East and knocking out the Russians? After all, who did the Germans end up knocking out first? And why, after seeing what had happened to Russia in 1905 did the Germans not think that Russia would collapse again?
German grand strategy evolved in an age when Prussia was small and vulnerable. Germany in 1914 was neither. It was the most powerful nation in Europe. And yet German strategy had not evolved. Not did it evolve after 1918, which is why the Germans have the honor of being the only major state to have lost two world wars.
Re: German options
Interesting opinion.majpalmer wrote:German grand strategy evolved in an age when Prussia was small and vulnerable. Germany in 1914 was neither. It was the most powerful nation in Europe. And yet German strategy had not evolved. Not did it evolve after 1918, which is why the Germans have the honor of being the only major state to have lost two world wars.
But you could say probably the same from the English, French and the Russians, at least until 1914.
-
TheGrayMouser
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
My undertsanding is that the Schlieffen Plan was a complete farce. It was Moltke the elders baby that he continued to extort and rejoice over, long years after he retired from active duty and no doudt ingrained in many of the high command, the miltary academy's and the government that it was the ONLY way to win a quick war.
The problem with the plan was that the road and rail networks for his massive right hook didnt exist when he made the plan , nor did they exist right before WW1 when he was still moving symbols across maps on his estate and beliveing it would work, while ignoring reality . Basically it was physically impossble to move troops according the the time table of advance to achieve its major goals.
The problem with the plan was that the road and rail networks for his massive right hook didnt exist when he made the plan , nor did they exist right before WW1 when he was still moving symbols across maps on his estate and beliveing it would work, while ignoring reality . Basically it was physically impossble to move troops according the the time table of advance to achieve its major goals.
Van Creveld
Yes, that was the argument of Martin Van Creveld back in the '70s in SUPPLYING WAR. And it is an excellent argument. That was one of the reasons the the Younger Moltke had to scale back the swing of the right wing. Men couldn't march, and be supplied, that quickly.
And my reference to Moltke was to the Elder, who was Chief of the General Staff back in the 1880s.
And my reference to Moltke was to the Elder, who was Chief of the General Staff back in the 1880s.
-
TheGrayMouser
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
VanCreveld? Probably. He's written a bunch of books and said much that was controversial.
I guess my larger point is that when Slitherine finally releases Commander: The Great War, almost all of you will demonstrate (admittedly in hindsight) greater strategic imagination and focus than did the Germans. If you do try a Schlieffen strategy in the West in 1914 and fail, when you switch to the East you will stay with it until the Russians collapse. If you know that unrestricted submarine warfare has a 90% chance of US entry but only a 10% chance of knocking out GB, you won't do it.
I guess my larger point is that when Slitherine finally releases Commander: The Great War, almost all of you will demonstrate (admittedly in hindsight) greater strategic imagination and focus than did the Germans. If you do try a Schlieffen strategy in the West in 1914 and fail, when you switch to the East you will stay with it until the Russians collapse. If you know that unrestricted submarine warfare has a 90% chance of US entry but only a 10% chance of knocking out GB, you won't do it.
-
TheGrayMouser
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
I guess it depends on how "realistic" your options are within the game engine. IE will the game allow you to ally with Italy and Russia and then dismember the Ottomans while being defensive on the West Front?majpalmer wrote:VanCreveld? Probably. He's written a bunch of books and said much that was controversial.
I guess my larger point is that when Slitherine finally releases Commander: The Great War, almost all of you will demonstrate (admittedly in hindsight) greater strategic imagination and focus than did the Germans. If you do try a Schlieffen strategy in the West in 1914 and fail, when you switch to the East you will stay with it until the Russians collapse. If you know that unrestricted submarine warfare has a 90% chance of US entry but only a 10% chance of knocking out GB, you won't do it.
-
guyqui58
- Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:29 am
- Location: FRANCE North
Info on WWI
T read a lot on WWi for years (maybe due to my grand oncle died the 4th march 1917 near verdun - bezonvaux).
One good huge compilation, on Wisconsin university is from M. Hanotaux
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bi ... Y.HANOTAUX
Histoire illustrée de la guerre de 1914. Huge pack of info and plenty of pictures and maps. Precisely described.
You'll see also that schlieffen plan was precisely respected, the only german problem was timing. They spent too much time in belgium . One allies mistake was when Belgium army retreated to antwerpen (anvers) instead coming on the left of french and english front on the french/belgium border called "la bataille des frontières" -
Plan was to get out with west in 3 weeks and after to finish with east. But...
Germans were the first to improve wars by new technical upgrades (trench mortars - gas - cast-iron trenchs...) french and english the first Tanks.
First month, in belgium and in france (north east) there were already hundreds of thousands deads !
Guy
One good huge compilation, on Wisconsin university is from M. Hanotaux
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bi ... Y.HANOTAUX
Histoire illustrée de la guerre de 1914. Huge pack of info and plenty of pictures and maps. Precisely described.
You'll see also that schlieffen plan was precisely respected, the only german problem was timing. They spent too much time in belgium . One allies mistake was when Belgium army retreated to antwerpen (anvers) instead coming on the left of french and english front on the french/belgium border called "la bataille des frontières" -
Plan was to get out with west in 3 weeks and after to finish with east. But...
Germans were the first to improve wars by new technical upgrades (trench mortars - gas - cast-iron trenchs...) french and english the first Tanks.
First month, in belgium and in france (north east) there were already hundreds of thousands deads !
Guy