Should Germany Have Won WW1?

[Patroklos]

Germany initially didn't really care about Paris. The point of the Schlieffen plan was to decend through Belgium and then swing East to encircle and destroy the French armies in Northern France. They knew that if the French military was alowed to escape to Southern France in tact they would continue to resist, with Paris or not. You would have ended up with a negotriated peace.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

The point of the Schlieffen Plan was to "desend through Belguim" and drive striaght for Paris. Capturing Paris was Germany's goal through out the war. If they were succedful in doing so, France would have no choice but to surrender, like it did during the secound world war.

 

[Adler17]

If Paris falls France falls. Many ways are only leading through Paris. It is nearly impossible to fight on. In 1871 Paris was first enclosed and then surrendered. The end of the war. In 1914 if Paris would have been taken France would not have many chances to fight a long war. Soon the government, although fled, would have asked for peace.
The British would have been massive problems: They wouldn´t have a place to fight and so they would have to retreat to England. They would have to fear an invasion although the British fleet was too strong. They also couldn´t help Russia. They also had to ask for peace, but with much better consequences for them as for the French...
The troops in the west would have been mostly free to fight in Russia. I don´t know Nicolai II very well but I think he would have also asked for peace. Only if he feared a revolution he might have fought longer.
So in 1914 Germany had the match ball.

Adler

 

[Case]

Originally posted by RagingBarbarian
I talked to some of my freinds about this tread today, They say it was impossible for Germany to win the war. I disagreed with them, I argued that if they took Paris and essentially won very early they could have won the war.
What are your thoughts on this.

Germany probably did about as well as she possibly could have. Due to the logistics and weapons of the time, no nation could score a knock-out win in Western Europe.

According to Barbara Truchman's classic book The Guns of August exhustion and logistical over-stretch were the critical factors in stopping the German advance in 1914 - they simply couldn't have advanced any further then they did (and indeed, they shouldn't even have advanced as far as they did). After both sides had dug in, brought rail lines to the front and mobalised for total war in the rear, a decisive victory was totally out of the grasp of all concerned.

 

[pomsa]

If not for some crazy, half-deluded, sometimes overly agressive, sometimes overly cautious Brits and Frenchmen, the Germans would have been stopped a lot sooner.

Then again, if not for some crazy, half-deluded, sometimes overly agressive, sometimes overly cautious politicians, there would have been no war in the first place.

 

[rilnator]

there would have always been a war coz hitler wanted one.

 

[Adler17]

If Paris would have been fallen, which was possible, the war would have been over although the German army was overstreched I admit.
rilnator, Hitler was a simple corporal in ww1. If he tried to be elected with that scum of company in 1912 or 1914 he would soon be in the booby hatch were he should have been.

Adler

 

[Patroklos]

You all might believe that, but it was French Policy to resit after Paris fell. And the Germans defienelty esxpected them too, read Schliefen and Moltke. The French even had the government evacuated well ahead of time.

In 1871 and WWII the French Army ws destroyed in Northern France, a la the Schliefen plan concept, but not in WWI. The capture of Paris in the first too was incidental to the defeat of the French Army, not the other way around.

The Schliefein plan never called for the capture of Paris. If the wheeling manuever happend to get close of course they would grab it, but it was designed to defeat the French Army decisivley in the field.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

I still think the goal of the German Army was to capture Paris, They came very close in the opening battles of the war. Even after trench warfare set in the recruits were told to drive for Paris. That was the goal of the army to capture Paris and force france to surrender.

 

[stormbind]

As may be, but that wouldn't be the end of the war.

Wasn't Germany trying to unite all of Europe? The Germans were to capture France and the Austrians were to capture Russia. Italy was an ally.

You really think it would end with the fall of France? The Germans don't seem to have had a limit, they wanted the lands on the horizon, for as far as they could see... and when they get there, the horizon ofcourse moves...

They were effectively blinded by greed, so they would either lose or the war would never end.

 

[nonconformist]

The Germans ewnated to capture Paris. At the end of the war, when the Germans could see they were losing, Ludendorff made the last gamble. The German army fought hard and swept through France to Paris. In the end, they could literally see the Eiffel Tower from their positions, but the German army collapsed, exhausted, and they hads to surrender.

 

[Adler17]

stormbind, you´re mainly wrong: The first plans were to bind the Eurpean states in a kind of EU, controlled by Germany. Over a longer or shorter time out of this a kind of modern EU would have evolved. In the East there should be some puffer statesto keep the Russians away: Poland, Belorus, the baltic states, Finland and Ukraine. They should also belong to this "pre EU". The Fins are until now very glad that German soldiers liberated them in WW1!

Adler

 

[stormbind]

Keh? Russia is part of Europe too!

In earlier politics (esp. under Bismark), Germany was neutral towards Russia but in the time leading upto WW1 Austria and Russia had clearly conflicting interests. This was a major issue for Germany which was the middle member of the "Three Emperors Alliance".

Germany did want a unified europe like the EU, and right at the start of WW1: Germany declaration of war on Russia!

So you see they were trying to expand both directions, the primary objective was certainly not limited to the capture of Paris: They wanted it all, in all directions... everything... no end in sight.

 

[Patroklos]

You are right about the later years, the goal then was to capture Paris, a la The Marne. That of course was AFTER the Schliefan plan failed and a short and decisive war was impossible. Simply put, now that it was imposible to trap and annahilate the French Army in a one move checkmate, Paris was now the obvious goal. Not that all the operations were still aimed a t Paris. Verdun for instance was again designed to destroy the French army in the field, not capture Paris.

Every power had a background wish to be that arbiters of Europe. The French ambition was no different than the Germans at the beginning of the war. The French actually still thought they would be able to do so at the end of the war, but were held back their allies.

 

[stormbind]

Emphasis on: "AFTER the Schliefan plan failed"

That is "after Germany had lost WW1" but this thread is titled ".. Should Germany have won WW1".

In order to win, one must not have lost

Thus in order to tackle the question, we must consider only the objectives from before the Schliefan plan failed.

 

[Patroklos]

In other words if Germany was to have won it most likley would have been using the Schliefen plan, which was in use for a decade before the war, or in other words when Paris wasn't the prime objective.

Not that Germany couldn't of won after the Schliefen Plan failed. It was just less likely.

I like that logic though, using those tenets Paris was NEVER an objective.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

Even after the failure of the Schliefen plan the germans could have still won the war. The last offensive they made was a success. The outcome might have been different had the americans not joined.

But let us say the Sclhiefen plan was succesful, and the french army was destroyed, they would have gone into Paris wouldn't they?

But we've become side tracked. My orginal point was that germany could have won the war, and I think it could have. Some of you have argued that no side could have won, because of logistics and other reasons, but there was a winner. The allies won the war. the central powers could have won as well, the same way the allies won, after attrition. The french and british were very close to surrendering 1918, Germany would have won had the allies surrendered. They didn't neccesarly have to conquer anything in order to win.

 

[Patroklos]

they would have gone into Paris wouldn't they?

Yeah.... and Orleans, Rheims, Caen, Bordeaux, Marsailies, Lyon etc. That is a ridiculous argement. So was the object of D-
Day to capture Paris?o, it was to secure a Normandy beach head to contribute to winning the war, which would mean capturing Paris.

 

[stormbind]

Germany had no means of invading Britain. Britain was building a massive number of a fangled new steam-powered device called the tank.

The longer the war dragged on, the more likely Britain (and her allies) were to win it. The tank, although terribly unreliable, was superior to the more natural war machines currently in use..

Sickiningly, the requirement for victory was to delay the Germans as long as possible with squishy foot soldiers which the allies had in abundance.

An example is August 8 when British tanks attacked at Amiens. General Ludendorff (German commander-in-chief) described it as "the blackest day of the German army."
---
The USA was also building tanks but had Germany been winning (which this thread is about) then France must fall which makes deployment terribly difficult. Had Britain had fallen (which is pretty unlikely) the logistics problems for an invasion of German territory by US tanks would be unsurmountable.
---
In order to win WW1, Germany required several things to be significantly different.

1. The element of surprise (sp. that Belgium did not oppose them)
2. That the Russians did not counter attack
3. That nobody in France would figure out how to dig trenches
4. That nobody in the world would invent the tank

1. Plausible that Germany could have captured France had the Belgians not slowed them down.
2. It's simply not plausible that Russia would forget to deploy! What were the Germans thinking? They just underestimated the Red Army.
3. Not plausible because most aren't stupid enough stand up when bullets come flying at them; though to every rule there are exceptions.
4. Well...

All in all, there's too many issues that Germany just didn't think of.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

You give to much credit to tanks. Tanks during this time were very unreliable, many would break down after a few hundered kilometers. Also after the intial suprise of the tanks was over, they were easily knocked out. They were only effective during the first opening tank battles, after that german artillery would easily knock them out.
While the allies did have the numbers of tanks needed, of these unreliable slow tanks, they didn't have the tactics neccessary to use them proparly. The infantry would fall behind the tanks unable to support them. The tanks where then easy prey for acurate artillery fire.
In the end the tank advantage the allies had little affect on the war itself, tanks wouldn't really be effective until World War II