• Could Germany have won WW1?
    43 replies, posted
The German plan for fighting Russia and France at the same time was called the "Schlieffen Plan" it required Germany to knock France out of the war before Russia was able to mobilize. To do so, they would encircle the Bulk French Force, which would be eager to take Alsace-Lorraine, taken from them by Prussia/North German Federation in the Franco-Prussian war of 1871. The French would move towards Germany, Germany would sneak behind them and destroy them from the rear whilst Paris was encircled. Brilliant Plan, except for one problem, to effectively "spin" the German army into France without meeting French forces, they'd have to go through The Netherlands and Belgium, Britain had a treaty with Belgium that meant they'd aid anyone that attacked them, while the Germans had no real offensive terms towards Belgium, the Belgians fought back, Britain took this as reason to help Belgium, so they declared war on Germany, and started moving troops into France. This was devastating for the Germans as it meant they now had to take on two armies at once, [I]the very thing the schlieffen plan was designed to prevent[/I] Germany managed to push into Northern France, making it's way through belgium, but were halted at the Battle of Marne by British and French forces. As supplies dwindled, the forces meant to encricle Paris went East, closer to home and encricled the Marne. This led to the largest stalemate of all time, with Germany's defeat, and the dissolution of the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria Hungary. Now, on to the discussion, assuming Britain chose not to honour it's alliance and stayed out of the war, could the Schlieffen plan have worked? And could they have won the war? Let's remember that Germany had arguable the best military at the time, and Russia's was large, but very ill-equipped. Begin Discussion.
The problem with the German army was it was drilled too much to take orders and not think on their feet, save for the generals. When things got tough at the front, the officers there weren't able to maneuver as they could have, instead of sticking to their orders from behind the lines that were usually outdated to the conditions against the Allies. Not to mention, it's still a debate to whether Schlieffen meant his plan to be an actual plan to follow or an exercise plan that was never meant to be followed to the period. Also, I'm fairly certain England would have went to war with Germany regardless of Belgium, they just used its invasion as the actual grounds to rile up the masses for the war. I just don't know why Kaiser Wilhelm was so shocked at their entry when they did.
Interesting concept. I have to admit, had Britain not upheld the Treaty of London the course of the war would be very different. However, the Schlieffen Plan had assumed the Russians would take 2 to 3 weeks to mobilize and they only took 10 days. So they would yes maybe take Paris or at least encircle it however the Germans would still have to divert vital troops and supplies north again to stop Russia.
[QUOTE=dunkace;43027746]Interesting concept. I have to admit, had Britain not upheld the Treaty of London the course of the war would be very different. However, the Schlieffen Plan had assumed the Russians would take 2 to 3 weeks to mobilize and they only took 10 days. So they would yes maybe take Paris or at least encircle it however the Germans would still have to divert vital troops and supplies north again to stop Russia.[/QUOTE] As far as I know, they [I]did[/I] take out a few reserves from the Western front to fight Russia while they were still trekking through Belgium and these forces could have fought at the 1st Marne had they stayed. It's the cause of the gap in German forces that the British took advantage of, causing "the Miracle". The biggest issue with the Schlieffen Plan was, it only made itself a general outline of an attack against France. It lacked the intimate details that could have won Germany the war. Not to mention they didn't invade the Netherlands which was part of the plan as well, thus bottlenecking the Germans on their way to France, possibly saving the French a few days or a week to prepare.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43027771]As far as I know, they [I]did[/I] take out a few reserves from the Western front to fight Russia while they were still trekking through Belgium and these forces could have fought at the 1st Marne had they stayed. It's the cause of the gap in German forces that the British took advantage of, causing "the Miracle". The biggest issue with the Schlieffen Plan was, it only made itself a general outline of an attack against France. It lacked the intimate details that could have won Germany the war. Not to mention they didn't invade the Netherlands which was part of the plan as well, thus bottlenecking the Germans on their way to France, possibly saving the French a few days or a week to prepare.[/QUOTE] Very true what you have said. I suppose the plan also should have taken into account the fact that the Belgians might not like being used as a stepping stone. Which lead to the destruction of irrigation and bridges, flooding areas and slowing movement.
Honestly, I think Germany ended up spreading their forces out too thin, which they repeated in World War 2.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43027771]As far as I know, they [I]did[/I] take out a few reserves from the Western front to fight Russia while they were still trekking through Belgium and these forces could have fought at the 1st Marne had they stayed. It's the cause of the gap in German forces that the British took advantage of, causing "the Miracle". The biggest issue with the Schlieffen Plan was, it only made itself a general outline of an attack against France. It lacked the intimate details that could have won Germany the war. Not to mention they didn't invade the Netherlands which was part of the plan as well, thus bottlenecking the Germans on their way to France, possibly saving the French a few days or a week to prepare.[/QUOTE] Yes, when Russia Mobilized sooner than thought, troops were sent to East Prussia. And, Moltke modified Schleiffen's Original plan so that they only moved through Belgium and Luxembourg, most likely because it would only involve moving through the South of the Netherlands, making it possible for the Tiny Netherlands to literally jump on the Germans back and stab it. [editline]30th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;43027821]Honestly, I think Germany ended up spreading their forces out too thin, which they repeated in World War 2.[/QUOTE] If they deployed [I]all[/I] their forces into France, and allowed Russia to advance into East Prussia, whilst they destroyed France, there was a chance they might still win, however their was an obsession of never giving ground.
[QUOTE=dunkace;43027786]Very true what you have said. I suppose the plan also should have taken into account the fact that the Belgians might not like being used as a stepping stone. Which lead to the destruction of irrigation and bridges, flooding areas and slowing movement.[/QUOTE] I think that's one of the biggest arguments to say the Schleiffen Plan was more of a general outline than an intricate strategy to be executed because it didn't taken in account of many things like that. Why the German military command didn't consider it when putting the plan through is another show of their failure of critical thinking. The Germans planned it thinking, "if you hit it hard enough, it'll break". Which they repeated throughout the war where instead of mobilizing new tactics and strategies, their plan every battle was "Let's just have MORE men fight in this spot than last time, it'll break 'em!" Not to mention building bigger and bigger artillery with farther range but didn't really help strategically. The only creative thing Germany did was firebomb England with zeppelins which were never effective throughout the war. [editline]30th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Scholtz;43027880] If they deployed [I]all[/I] their forces into France, and allowed Russia to advance into East Prussia, whilst they destroyed France, there was a chance they might still win, however their was an obsession of never giving ground.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I think if they put all their forces toward France but lost, it would have hindered the start of WWII seeing as much of Germany at the end of the war felt they didn't lose because no part of Germany saw any fighting. (Along with all that propaganda.)
One of the things was that in the end of the war, had the Americans not come in, the tide would have definitely been different. With units freed up from the eastern front and shifted back towards the alps and the western front, the germans had a lot of momentum towards France and the lines were breaking until America came in.
The main thing that killed Germany was the home front, their country was blockaded by British fleets, the country was starved and lacking munitions in late war, soldiers were drinking coffee made from mud. Had it not been for rebellion caused by starvation and a industry on its knees from lack of resources, then Germany may have been able to stay in the war. However, even with the Spring Offensive in 1918, the Germans took considerable losses that was the final blow to the German war machine.
What if Germany entered an alliance with Imperial Japan as early as WO1?
[QUOTE=Satansick;43029870]What if Germany entered an alliance with Imperial Japan as early as WO1?[/QUOTE] Japan was a participant in the war on the allied side. They took a few German colonies.
[QUOTE=Satansick;43029870]What if Germany entered an alliance with Imperial Japan as early as WO1?[/QUOTE] With an English blockade in the North Sea and Japan all the way over in the Pacific, I don't think it really would have helped Germany all that much. All Japan could have done was fight the English in the few Pacific islands they had at the time. Though Japan was industrious and strong, it was not yet the Great Power that it was in WW II. [editline]1st December 2013[/editline] Question to the OP: Is about the initial start of the war with the Schlieffen Plan or Germany's war effort as a whole throughout the conflict? Because if it's the latter, there's an infinite slew of possibilities that could have led to Germany winning at any point in time during the whole war.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43029429]One of the things was that in the end of the war, had the Americans not come in, the tide would have definitely been different. With units freed up from the eastern front and shifted back towards the alps and the western front, the germans had a lot of momentum towards France and the lines were breaking until America came in.[/QUOTE] Nah the american impact to the first world war was marginal at best. The main problem that was faced by Austria and Germany was the fact that they were essentially outclassed on munition production since roughly the first half of the war, in part because they lacked the raw resources to expand their production. The French and English on the other hand could massively ramp up their production which allowed them to keep their units much better supplied. Had the americans and canadians not shown up, the impact on the end would have been minimal. The war might have lasted a little while longer, but that's roughly it. You could see the same thing in ww2 again. Germans quickly ran to a limit of what their raw resources could provide, which is essentially one of the reasons the African and Eastern fronts existed in the first place. It was an attempt to capture more resources for the war machineand you also see it with essentially desperation attempts of technical benzin made from coal and other stuff. [QUOTE=Rangergxi;43030233]Japan was a participant in the war on the allied side. They took a few German colonies.[/QUOTE] The Japanese saw the war as an option to expand their territory, which is one of the reasons they allied with the British and Americans and were one of the groups that aided the Czechoslovak legions in Russia, since they ere hoping to be able to hold Vladivostok after those moved out.
well one problem with Germany was that in both wars they would spend massive amounts of time and resources on new weapons and tactics, while only a very few would actually pay off. the germans in ww1 spent thousands of tons of aluminum and steel, thousands of pounds of leather and millions in capital to build dozens of airships which usually went on suicide missions to bomb french cities and british cities because they were too fragile to use above the trenches where the real war was at. but at the same time, they funneled many resources into the zimmerman programs which effectively worked to sabotage, destroy, or incite revolution throughout the french, british, and russian empires. they delivered lennin to the communists when a small rebellion broke out, and eliminated russia from the war, they delivered arms and supplies to irish dissidents and forced britain to deploy hundreds of troops to keep their own people in check. The german high command in both wars was able to both create very effective and cheap ways to distract or cripple their enemies, but it was always at the expense of spending massive amounts of scarce resources spread about dozens of hair-brained projects. If germany had a better command system and if they had been constantly evaluating their tactics, they could have drawn WW1 to a stalemate if they had better utilized more espianage, and less on experimental weapons such as the paris gun or the zepplins. They held their own against whatever the allies could throw at them and they were very efficient at using resources but they always seem to fail at managing resources and evaluating where they should go. [editline]1st December 2013[/editline] Also if they had addopted the tank-fist tactics the british devised, they could have easily pushed the line back from the hindenburg line because they possessed tanks which were comprable to the british in effectiveness, but their commanders failed to see the usefulness in tanks and instead kept them as counter-attack units to fight the british tanks, tactics which were useless later on in the war when the british commanders started massing tanks into single spots instead of spreading them out as infantry support like the german commanders and the american commanders did. [editline]1st December 2013[/editline] to sum up, the german war machine[B] was efficient at utilizing resources[/B], they were able to fight global empires on little more than their own european supplies. [B]it sucked at managing the resources,[/B] by spending tons of materials on airships, while only diverting a fraction of arms and support to the espionage department its tactics were stagnant, they essentially fought the same throughout the war even as the british developed effective means to punch through the lines with massed armored units and massive bombardments [B]and it relied too much on innovation and not enough on evaluation[/B], while they were able to very quickly develope a counter to british mk1 tanks, they never employed the british tank tactics on a wide scale, instead they relied on their techical brilliance for hairbrained schemes such as tunneling under the lines with explosives, or chemical artillery bombardments, or wonder-weapons such as the paris gun which wasted thousands of tons of steel and hundreds of men and wasn't really effective at all. they still relied on man-wave tactics long after the machine gun and advances in communication and artillery targeting rendered those tactics unusable if you are unfamiliar with zimmerman, i am talking about this guy [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Zimmermann[/url] if he had the right inteligence he could have crippled the british and french empires
An interesting idea but Germany was too naive thinking Britain would stay out of it for long if at all. Britain was waiting for any excuse to get stuck in as soon as possible and the Invasion or Belgium was exactly that. You see Britain simply could not allow any one nation to take over the continent, it would have been nion impossible to defend against. That why we routinely stepped out into the continent to give France and Russia bloody noses to keep them in check. The whole reason the France - British relationship exists today was initially because of the German threat.
[QUOTE=Sableye;43040454] [B]and it relied too much on innovation and not enough on evaluation[/B], while they were able to very quickly develope a counter to british mk1 tanks, they never employed the british tank tactics on a wide scale, instead they relied on their techical brilliance for hairbrained schemes such as tunneling under the lines with explosives, or chemical artillery bombardments, or wonder-weapons such as the paris gun which wasted thousands of tons of steel and hundreds of men and wasn't really effective at all. they still relied on man-wave tactics long after the machine gun and advances in communication and artillery targeting rendered those tactics unusable if you are unfamiliar with zimmerman, i am talking about this guy [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Zimmermann[/url] if he had the right inteligence he could have crippled the british and french empires[/QUOTE] To be honest, once they tested some tactic well enough, they very quickly put into into wider use. A good example are ww1 stormtroopers which was more or less a german advancement and very quickly spread around their ranks.
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;43040917]An interesting idea but Germany was too naive thinking Britain would stay out of it for long if at all. Britain was waiting for any excuse to get stuck in as soon as possible and the Invasion or Belgium was exactly that. You see Britain simply could not allow any one nation to take over the continent, it would have been nion impossible to defend against. That why we routinely stepped out into the continent to give France and Russia bloody noses to keep them in check. The whole reason the France - British relationship exists today was initially because of the German threat.[/QUOTE] The British-French relationship was formed against Russia during the Crimean War, 50+ years before WWI.
No way. Don't have time to develop and it was already said before. This war was a war of attrition until the very end when primitive Combined Arms tactics (tanks+airplanes+infantry) were developed. The fact that Germany didn't have a navy that could compete with the RN was what decided the war. And even if they took France, UK would never capitulate, just as it happened in WW2. They could rely on the USA for help and that's were all chances of winning went to the garbage bin.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;43043732] This war was a war of attrition until the very end when primitive Combined Arms tactics (tanks+airplanes+infantry) were developed. The fact that Germany didn't have a navy that could compete with the RN was what decided the war.[/quote] Whether the Imperial German Navy could compete with the Royal Navy has been a debate since the war since there was only one major naval battle which resulted in a close draw. It's not that they didn't have a competitive navy but that they had one that competed [I]too[/I] well. Both countries were scared shitless of going into a major battle and losing even half their fleet to the other, evenly enforced navy and thus kept their fleets in reserves for most of the war. [QUOTE=Cutthecrap;43043732]And even if they took France, UK would never capitulate, just as it happened in WW2. They could rely on the USA for help and that's were all chances of winning went to the garbage bin.[/QUOTE] How would the UK fight Germany had France capitulated? It's not as if they had long range bombers like in the next war nor could they effectively do an amphibious assault onto France as the country wouldn't have been occupied, just told to kick out its British allies (which it would have done with Paris under German occupation). WWI isn't like the war afterward, where Germany had to completely occupy a nation in order to subdue it. If Paris had fallen, so would France. France would have conceded probably some more land to Germany, including some oversea territories and Germany would have left with no occupational force there, save probably a few border regions.
also the u.s. government was controlled by the progressives which were stouch isolationists, our entry into ww1 was as much a shock to Britain as it was to the people of america, we only declared war in 1917 long after both sides could have settled the war, it really was about getting land and continuing imperialism not the ethnic cleansing of ww2
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43043699]The British-French relationship was formed against Russia during the Crimean War, 50+ years before WWI.[/QUOTE] Sort of, The alliance during the Crimean was more of a mutual befits alliance rather than anything more, both parties had interest in the med which they wanted to look out for, granted the cooperation laid the foundations that brought the 2 nations together but it wasn't till the 1900's that both France and Britain became real 'friends'. Even during the Crimean war Britain and France still did not like one another that much (not open hostility), it's just the enemy warranted the joint venture. Germany's rise as a potential danger solidified Britain and France as partners.
[QUOTE=Sableye;43045894]also the u.s. government was controlled by the progressives which were stouch isolationists, our entry into ww1 was as much a shock to Britain as it was to the people of america, we only declared war in 1917 long after both sides could have settled the war, it really was about getting land and continuing imperialism not the ethnic cleansing of ww2[/QUOTE] Our boats are being sunk and germany says they'll help mexico retake texas and other states. Yep it's all about our imperialism. Also before you mention the other states, remember texas joined the USA willingly.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;43060976]Our boats are being sunk and germany says they'll help mexico retake texas and other states. Yep it's all about our imperialism. Also before you mention the other states, remember texas joined the USA willingly.[/QUOTE] Mexico said no, though. Not to mention England sat on that letter until it was useful to them to give us. And our boats weren't targeted most of the time. What got people angry at the Germans were Americans dying on British boats, which was stupid of them to be sailing on to begin with given that there was a declared war zone around the British Isles. And Texas willingly joined the US the same way Palestine became Israel - massive flood of foreign immigrants that pushed out the natives then declared themselves independent after amassing the numbers to fight off the original inhabitants. Tons of Americans flooded the Texas area and after the Mexican government tried to tell them to follow Mexican laws (which were fair enough given that they were living in Mexico, after all), they rebelled instead.
There's no sense in saying that the Schlieffen Plan would have worked because it relied on Russia mobilizing slowly, which obviously did not happen.
[QUOTE=Explosions;43067683]There's no sense in saying that the Schlieffen Plan would have worked because it relied on Russia mobilizing slowly, which obviously did not happen.[/QUOTE] The Germans trounced Russia. If the Austrians had carried their weight on the Eastern front the Germans would have been able to end the war pretty quickly, allowing them to turn their weapons on the west which could have changed the war completely.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43087078]The Germans trounced Russia. If the Austrians had carried their weight on the Eastern front the Germans would have been able to end the war pretty quickly, allowing them to turn their weapons on the west which could have changed the war completely.[/QUOTE] They trounced Russia but hindsight is 20/20. When they first heard that Russia was mobilizing faster than they anticipated, they feared they would be steamrolled.
I think the Germans would have been far better off taking on the eastern front and holding Alsace-Lorraine in the west. It wouldn't have taken a lot of resources to hold the narrow corridor between Switzerland and Luxembourg, plus the area had already been fortified before the war. At the beginning of the war, Austria-Hungary and Turkey were both already at peak health and didn't have to worry about the Italians or the British forces in the middle east just yet. It is fair to say that the Russian Empire was going to politically collapse regardless of what happened, so a combined offensive through the Caucuses, Ukraine, and Poland with full German offensive concentration (while also catching them off guard with the Russian delay in mobilization) would have easily knocked the Russians out of the war in (what I would guess to be) perhaps a year to a year-and-a-half. With Russia out of the way, Germany would be fresh able to wreak full havoc on the west, (And the Schlieffen plan in this scenario would have still come as a surprise to the French) while prolonging the life support of her allies. Eh that's just my two cents.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;43125793]I think the Germans would have been far better off taking on the eastern front and holding Alsace-Lorraine in the west. It wouldn't have taken a lot of resources to hold the narrow corridor between Switzerland and Luxembourg, plus the area had already been fortified before the war. At the beginning of the war, Austria-Hungary and Turkey were both already at peak health and didn't have to worry about the Italians or the British forces in the middle east just yet. It is fair to say that the Russian Empire was going to politically collapse regardless of what happened, so a combined offensive through the Caucuses, Ukraine, and Poland with full German offensive concentration (while also catching them off guard with the Russian delay in mobilization) would have easily knocked the Russians out of the war in (what I would guess to be) perhaps a year to a year-and-a-half. With Russia out of the way, Germany would be fresh able to wreak full havoc on the west, (And the Schlieffen plan in this scenario would have still come as a surprise to the French) while prolonging the life support of her allies. Eh that's just my two cents.[/QUOTE] Except, Turkey and the Habsburg Empire weren't at "peak health". Both were wrought with corruption, political turmoil and trying their hardest to keep minor nationalities from boiling to the point of revolution (which eventually did happen throughout the Middle East and Europe during the war). Russia was making a good advance toward the Habsburgs and needed Germany to bail themselves out from the Russian offensives. There was also a great deal of national strife in the Habsburg Empire as you had Polish soldiers in Austria-Hungary fighting Polish soldiers from Russia, and so forth. Not to mention, England was already in Egypt in 1914 which is where they launched their Palestinian campaign that, with the help of Arab rebels, managed to go as far north as to capture Acre and Damascus. They were also in India where they could sail from to go up the Persian Gulf and march through Mesopotamia (which they did and captured Baghdad) Neither power should have worried about Italy when war broke out regardless because up until then, Italy was a part of the Central Powers alliance (Turkey was not, but very politically close to Germany whom were pouring money into new Turkish infrastructure and military aid). So at the time, Turkey had only to fear the British in the Middle East while also fearing the Russians through the Caucuses. Not to mention, the war breaking out in the Balkans, they had to worry about what the other Balkan states would do (most of whom had little friendship with the Ottomans). Of course, the Ottoman Empire could have avoided the war altogether had they not jumped in it for Germany's navy.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43027729]The problem with the German army was it was drilled too much to take orders and not think on their feet, save for the generals. When things got tough at the front, the officers there weren't able to maneuver as they could have, instead of sticking to their orders from behind the lines that were usually outdated to the conditions against the Allies[/QUOTE] From what I've read and watched I thought it was that the Germans were great at thinking on their feet. I mean, look at the first couple days of the Somme. Of course, that may have been German High Command at work there :P
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.