Could The Central Powers of won World War I?

[Drake Rlugia]

Just a curious question to historians. I adore world war one. Further more, I adore Imperial Germany, even if it's militaristic Prussian aristocratic policy was a bit frightening. But anyways, the question, or discussion per se is so: Could Germany, or the Central Powers of won World War 1?

She did have the best army in Europe at the time. What really killed her was America's entry into the war, and of course the blockade. Perhaps if Germany had not pushed into Belgium, she would've had more of a chance. Afterall, Britain didn't not have an exact "alliance" with France (if I recall, Parliament did not know of the alliance with France, and it was Belgium being invaded that allowed them to enter the war)..of course, getting into France is going to be near-impossible, but I suppose the French would of tired out after awhile, especially after Russia fell out of the war(I am guessing no matter what Russia was going to fall out of the war)..

Further more, a Central Victory would equal a scary Europe. Mitteleuropa would be put into use most likely, using scraps of the old Russian empire to create puppet states to supply the Germans with food and other materials, the remainder of Aslace-Lorraine absorbed into Germany, or "demilitarized", like what the French did in the Rhineland. Colonial concessions of course...

What do you all think?

 

[Adler17]

At first, yes, Germany and the central powers could have won the war several times. 1914 in the Marne battle, if the German reserve did not leave to East Prussia most likely the battle was won, 1916 in the battle of Jutland, but there the German destroyer did not find the enemy battle fleet in the night to conduct a feared torpedo attack, 1917, when France was near to collaps, and 1918, if in the Operation Michael the Germans could take Paris.
If Germany won Russia would have had the same border like now. The new independent states would be German allies, also because of the Bolshevics. But I do not think they were puppet states. France would have lost the remaining parts of Alsace Lorraine and some fortresses like Verdun would have been demilitarized. Also some colonies would have switched the sides. Britain would have stayed nearly intact and perhaps an agreement was made in questions of colonies and navy.
That's only a short overview, but enough for the moment.

Adler

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Just a curious question to historians. I adore world war one. Further more, I adore Imperial Germany, even if it's militaristic Prussian aristocratic policy was a bit frightening. But anyways, the question, or discussion per se is so: Could Germany, or the Central Powers of won World War 1?

No.

She did have the best army in Europe at the time. What really killed her was America's entry into the war, and of course the blockade.

She may well of had the best army in Europe at the time, just like in WW2 but it didnt help them win that war either. The final German Offensive of the war had already peetered out before American forces reached any significant level in Europe. The blockade was a war winning move by the Allies though.

Perhaps if Germany had not pushed into Belgium, she would've had more of a chance. Afterall, Britain didn't not have an exact "alliance" with France (if I recall, Parliament did not know of the alliance with France, and it was Belgium being invaded that allowed them to enter the war)..of course, getting into France is going to be near-impossible, but I suppose the French would of tired out after awhile, especially after Russia fell out of the war(I am guessing no matter what Russia was going to fall out of the war)..

There was an exact alliance between France and Britain, the French covered the Mediterrean and the British covered the channel with naval forces. Lord Grey used the invasion of Beligum as a pretext to getting involved in the war, Britain would of got involved no matter what (due to the internal politics at the time)

 

[Dreadnought]

The final German Offensive of the war had already peetered out before American forces reached any significant level in Europe.

The Germans broke through a large portion of the French lines, but the Americans pushed them back

Germany's "Peace Offensive" - Oxymoron

 

[ibn sina]

At first, yes, Germany and the central powers could have won the war several times. 1914 in the Marne battle, if the German reserve did not leave to East Prussia most likely the battle was won, 1916 in the battle of Jutland, but there the German destroyer did not find the enemy battle fleet in the night to conduct a feared torpedo attack, 1917, when France was near to collaps, and 1918, if in the Operation Michael the Germans could take Paris.
If Germany won Russia would have had the same border like now. The new independent states would be German allies, also because of the Bolshevics. But I do not think they were puppet states. France would have lost the remaining parts of Alsace Lorraine and some fortresses like Verdun would have been demilitarized. Also some colonies would have switched the sides. Britain would have stayed nearly intact and perhaps an agreement was made in questions of colonies and navy.
That's only a short overview, but enough for the moment.

Adler

I don't thinkt that they could've won the war but they could probably've reached a near status quo peace in 1917.
The allies were very weakened, the moral of the french army was terrible and it had been wrecked by mutiny and even though that had stopped the french army refused to participate in any offensives. Furthermore Russia had fallen and german troops would soon be arriving.
For the germans supplies were the problem, the english blockade had caused a shortage of almost everything which would also make them inclined to negotiate peace.
However the american entry in the war tipped the balance in the allies favor and thus one of the bloodiest war ever continued for another year and worse yet the humiliating peace that followed set the stage for WWII.

In 1918 everything was esseintaly lost for the central powers Germany tried with one last offensive before the americans arrived in any large numbers but it didn't have enough force to succed and even if they had taken Paris it would not've destroyed France, the americans would just've continued pouring in troops and materials and the naval blockade of Germany would've continued still. It might have prolonged the war even more but it wouldn't result in german victory.

 

[Zardnaar]

They could have won. Some of those battles were close. 1914 would've been the best chance assuming they would be willing to lose alot of east Prussia to the Russians and recapture it later. Their best chance would've been to defeat France and conclude a cease fire with Britain.

 

[simonnomis]

Major wars that last longer than a Blitzkreig will almost always come down to just a few basic factors that have little directly to do with the frontlines: who has the greatest resources [raw materials inc. food, population, economic strength, industrial output]; the most advanced technology; and greatest internal stability. Tactics and leadership are all important, especially in the opening stages of a conflict. But once things have settled down, these three other factors become far more crucial to ultimate success.

To put it simply, the Central Powers were substantially behind in most of these areas most of the time (not in military technology in the first years but certainly after 1916). The difference in resources between the two opposing forces was enormous even before the US became involved.

The only way the Central Powers had any chance of success would have been eliminating France with the same speed as they had in WW2. Yet I still don't see that happening no matter how many times the war is fought, because even had Paris fallen it would not have ended French resolve and certainly not have led to surrender as it did in WW2. It also would not have prevented British intervention.

 

[North King]

Probably not. The entry of Britain dooms them, and they won't get a good shot at France without invading Belgium, which means that Britain will enter; either it's a war of attrition that's fought uncomfortably close to their industrial heartland, or they have Britain against them.

The only decent shot they had at winning was the U-Boat blockade, but it was put into effect too little, too late, and by 1918 their numbers were too few, the convoys too many, and their kills dwindled down to nothing.

Could they? Possibly. Not really likely, though.

 

[Verbose]

The Germans broke through a large portion of the French lines, but the Americans pushed them back

Massive US self-overestimation?

All 20.000 of the US troops were involved, which was more a fortaste of things to come for the Germans than the force that closed the deal.

The impetus behind the German offensive was already expended. And the counterattack was a French affair with a minor US contigent involved. If Americans like to overplay their importance it's their problem.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Probably not. The entry of Britain dooms them, and they won't get a good shot at France without invading Belgium, which means that Britain will enter; either it's a war of attrition that's fought uncomfortably close to their industrial heartland, or they have Britain against them.

This was one of their key mistakes. They invaded Belgium but not the Netherlands. They gambled that violating Belgian but not Dutch neutrality would keep Britain away. They were wrong. If they had accepted the inevitability of British intervention and invaded both the Netherlands and Belgium, they would have access to more rail lines and could have gotten to Paris much faster.

Their other mistake at that time was defending against the French offensive. They should have let the French drive far into Germany, so that the troops could not be recalled to the Marne.

The only decent shot they had at winning was the U-Boat blockade, but it was put into effect too little, too late, and by 1918 their numbers were too few, the convoys too many, and their kills dwindled down to nothing.

Could they? Possibly. Not really likely, though.

Here I completely disagree; U-Boat Warfare was one of Germany's critical errors. It proved uneffective at coercing Britain and it may have drawn the United States into the war.

 

[North King]

Here I completely disagree; U-Boat Warfare was one of Germany's critical errors. It proved uneffective at coercing Britain and it may have drawn the United States into the war.

The US would not have been a significant threat in time if they had used large scale, unrestricted U Boat warfare early on. But instead, they put all their funding into the High Seas Fleet, a completely useless edifice that, even if it had won at Jutland, could not possibly have gone on to anything greater than dominating the North Sea alone.

 

[Archduke Otto]

The High Seas Fleet a useless edifice? I don't think so...

1. Without the threat of the High Seas Fleet, the British could have easily supplied Russia with all material they needed - the existence of the German fleet prevented them from ever entering the Baltic sea.

2. Had they really sunk the British Fleet at Jutland, the Germans might have rebased their fleet to Oostende - no British transport would have ever reached France again (or brought troops back home from there).

3. Had they really sunk the British fleet at Jutland, God knows whether any US ship would have ever come close enough to France to make a difference in this war.

4. Had they really sunk the British fleet at Jutland, noone would have been able to enforce a blockade against Germany anymore - and the blockade was one of the main reasons for Germany going down.

5. The mere existence of the High Seas Fleet made the British keep their fleet away from fighting U-Boats.

6. I like big ships, therefore, the High Seas Fleet can't be a useless edifice - its a pleasure to my eyes.

Cheerio

 

[YNCS]

This was one of their key mistakes. They invaded Belgium but not the Netherlands. They gambled that violating Belgian but not Dutch neutrality would keep Britain away. They were wrong. If they had accepted the inevitability of British intervention and invaded both the Netherlands and Belgium, they would have access to more rail lines and could have gotten to Paris much faster.

What good does having extra rail lines that go nowhere near France do? Once the German Army entered France, they were marching away from the railheads in Belgium. I don't see how having more rail lines even futher away from the troops, particularly von Kluck's 1st and von Bülow's 2nd Armies, gives any advantage to the Germans.

 

[Archduke Otto]

The idea of invading Holland was that the Germans could have moved through open ground and then directely via Antwerp into northern Belgium - thereby bypassing both the fortress of Liege and the Ardennes.

Mobilization would have been speedier as well, using more railways: 1st an 2nd armies would have been set up farther to the North instead of being squeezed into a narrow strip opposite the fortress of Liege.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

The Germans broke through a large portion of the French lines, but the Americans pushed them back

Germany's "Peace Offensive" - Oxymoron

When did I say that the Germans didn't break through the Allied Lines, all i said was that the offensive had peetered out before there was a significant number of American troops.

 

[YNCS]

The idea of invading Holland was that the Germans could have moved through open ground and then directly via Antwerp into northern Belgium - thereby bypassing both the fortress of Liege and the Ardennes.

Look at a map of the Netherlands, Belgium and northern France. The Netherlands border with France is non-existent. To get from the Netherlands to France, the direct route is through Belgium.

Mobilization would have been speedier as well, using more railways: 1st an 2nd armies would have been set up farther to the North instead of being squeezed into a narrow strip opposite the fortress of Liege.

Please explain how mobilization would have been speedier.

German mobilization took place entirely in Germany. Having to move troops into the Netherlands would have slowed down deployment. Those troops would still have to go through Belgium to get to France, only now they'd have a longer way to travel, first to the Netherlands and then through the entire width of Belgium.

Also, I doubt the Dutch would have rolled over and played dead any more than the Belgians did. How many corps would have to be detached from the German Army to occupy the Netherlands? That's how many fewer corps would be unavailable for use in France.

 

[North King]

The High Seas Fleet a useless edifice? I don't think so...

1. Without the threat of the High Seas Fleet, the British could have easily supplied Russia with all material they needed - the existence of the German fleet prevented them from ever entering the Baltic sea.

Not really. A massive fleet was not needed to block the rather small opening into the Baltic Sea.

2. Had they really sunk the British Fleet at Jutland, the Germans might have rebased their fleet to Oostende - no British transport would have ever reached France again (or brought troops back home from there).

3. Had they really sunk the British fleet at Jutland, God knows whether any US ship would have ever come close enough to France to make a difference in this war.

4. Had they really sunk the British fleet at Jutland, noone would have been able to enforce a blockade against Germany anymore - and the blockade was one of the main reasons for Germany going down.

Which is a very big if. It is very doubtful that either side could have turned Jutland into anything besides a stalemate.

5. The mere existence of the High Seas Fleet made the British keep their fleet away from fighting U-Boats.

More ships would only have been more fodder for U-Boats, at least initially. Anti-sub measures were laughable.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Had they not screwed up the Schlieffen Plan and sent divisions to Tannenburg, the Germans very well might have dealt the knockout blow to France at the Marne 1914. The Russians were for sure dead then, and how could England have deat effectively with an occupied France? Its not as if they had the long range bombers they had in WWII, ot hit them from afar. If they Germans occupied France in 1914, then lets say that Russia would have been beaten in 1916, with the reserves Germany had in the West. No need for USW, as they dont get supplies from afar anymore, a peace would be signed, unless Germany wanted to go after Britain proper, but didn't they want the Brits on their side? I recall reading an adress where the German guy wanted to impress the Brits and bring the two nations together, but instead wound uip insulting them with his 'tough talk,' driving them into a naval arms race and driving them into what became the Triple Entente. Well that, and the fact that Austria did not support Russia in the balkans.

Oh, and there is a game, called Enigma:Rising Tide, it kicks butt, and the history involves the Germans winning WWI, but they occupied Britain too.

 

[Adler17]

Concerning Jutland:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172887

Adler

 

[Gallienus]

Germany's best chance of winning the war was through submarine attacks on the merchant ships importing food into Britain in an attempt to starve Britain into surrendur - at one point Lord Jellicoe estimated that Britain only had six weeks worth of food left. If Britain had not developed the Q-ship strategy (warships disguised as helpless merchant ships), it is probable that the submarine campaign would have succeeded.

Germany would not have needed to occupy Britain; a few well placed fleets (probably former Royal Navy ships crewed by reservists) would keep the British from causing any trouble. France would then be in a very difficult situation, and it would probably have to sue for peace unless fear of Germany becoming a major world power frightened America and neutral European countries into entering the war.