Should Germany Have Won WW1?

[stormbind]

Totally disagree: Tanks ended the stalemate of trench warfare. They don't need to travel far to cross nomans land.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

There were no effective uses of tanks after the intial suprise attacks, they were easily knocked out, because of the lack of good tank, infantry coordination. What gains the allies did make with tanks where never exploited and were quickly taken back by the germans.

 

[Constantine]

Originally posted by stormbind

---
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.

Some Things I'd like to refute:

1. They still had it but to a lesser extent.
2. The Russians overextended themselves counterattacking and thusly led to them getting crushed.
3.Yet the Spring Offensive of 1918 nearly succeded despite the allies having almost 4 years to build trenchs.
4. Yet look at the battles were tanks were used; Cambari were they contained and then pushed back the British attack. In later battles were the allies had way too many men, guns and tanks to be stooped curtesty of the Americans. The Britsh had the tank since the Somme in '16.

1.They nearly did even though the Belgians fought longer than the Germans though they could,but the Germans still came very close to capturing Paris. People in Paris could hear the big guns at the Battle
of the Marne.
2. First of all the Czar was ruling at the start of the war so they didnt underestmiate the Russians. Second look at what they did to the Russians, Battle of Tanneberg and many others.
3. dont really understand your point

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Constantine
The Russians overextended themselves counterattacking and thusly led to them getting crushed.

Not relevant. What is relevant is that Russians deployed much quicker than the Germans expected. This was unexpected and forced Germany to move troops from the Western to the Eastern front.

The Germans "estimated" that the Russians would not be able to deploy quickly; they were wrong.

I'll have to look up the tank battles, but... If tanks fail in one battle and work in another, they are still an advantage.

The were unreliable, I had said this when I first mentioned them: This means they did not work all the time and I never said they did work all the time so please don't suggest that I did.

What I am saying is that they also ended the stalemate.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

I've said this before World War I tanks weren't used effectivley and didn't make much difference in the long run of the war.

 

[Adler17]

In some battles only 10 % of the tanks were able to fight. The others broke down before. And of these remaining tanks many were either captured or shot. The tank was too unreliable. The Americans were the factor. Without them at least in late 1918 peace would have ruled again- for Germany´s terms.
The Russians did overextent themselves. This was not predictable by the Germans who thought the Russians would only come if they´re well prepared. But the Russians invaded East Prussia. So The Germans sent 3 reserve corps from the west to the east and destroyed both armies. But these forces were missing in the west at the Marne. Russian troops of ww1 were fighting fearce like bears but lead by cows. They didn´t even have enough guns and shoes for all soldiers. Russian offensives were very costly for the Russians. The horror lead to the revolutions. But if the Russians didn´t attack East Prussia Germany would have taken Paris. Over short or long the French would have to surrender because all important ways are leading over Paris. You can´t drive in train from Brest to Nice without driving through Paris. And having this knot the Germans would have been able to devide the French troops. So France falls if Paris falls. This was in 1871 as it was in 1940.
Britain wouldn´t have the possibilities to invade France or Germany without fearing the loss of the Royal navy. On the other hand the Germans would now be able to blockade the British isles much better with the French harbours. As well German ships could now reach the ocean far better via France. And the RN would have to enlarge their convoys. But these forces were missing in the Home fleet loosing the only advantage over the German Hochseeflotte: the number of ships. So Britain would have asked for peace. Even if the US would side the Britsh the war would be lost for the allies.
Oh a last remark, the Red Army didn´t exist until 1918 or so. After the October revolution.

Adler

 

[bigfatron]

Originally posted by Adler17
IIRC the Lusitania had 4 modern DDs as escort on the last miles. Finally the Admirality KNEW the location of U 20 pretty well. 4 ships were attacked (3 sunk) at several locations. So they could know te location very precisly. Also Room 40 had caught messages from U 20. The report is still classified. This might be only because of hiding their stupidity. Or do they hide more? I don´t know. But speculations the British wanted to provoke this drama is possible and not very unrealistic.
We both agree the 2nd explosion was fatal. But what was the reason of this 2nd explosion? I don´t know. But I doubt it was the coal bunker. This is not impossible but not very propable. I think it was the hidden ammo. The torpedo hit the chamber or a section nearby causing a fire leading to this explosion. They had 10 ts of ammo. And a torpedo into this section would be deadly even if this ammo is only the equivalent of a 5 ton bomb it is enough to sink a ship like the Lusitania.
But the real truth about that them is only reached if all files are public. And even then is there a chance of having a myth. Nevertheless I think the Lusitania was sunk directly (sending the ship in front of a periscope of a German Uboat on a sunny day with best sightings) or indirectly (ammo chamber) by the British. They were responsible.

Best regards,

Adler

P.S. I read on http://www.w-akten.de/ersterweltkrieg.phtml something knew about the ship design. Because of being constructed also as auxiliar cruiser (= warship!) the ship was built not very well having the coal in bunkers which should normally be empty. So also this design leadt to the catastrophy. Also I modify my opinion the coal was not the cause: I think it might be so there are three propabilities which could caused the sinking: ammo and cole alone or perhaps the ammo detonets and this leads to an explosion of the coal.

Adler, obviously you're entitled to your opinion, I just think you are mistaken, and there are some factual inaccuracies in your posting:

- the Lusitania had NO escorts, destroyers or otherwise, when it was sunk, nor was it expecting escorts.
- the 10t of explosive you mention was mostly rifle cartridges, which do not explode even when ignited - so logically these cannot have been the cause of the secondary explosion. Even if they were, unless they were being stored in one of the coal bunkers or around the engineering compartments, instead of in the hold, they would not have been in the right place to cause the damage.
- while coal bunker explosions were rare, the deposit of coal around the wreck was similar to that observed in other instances, e.g. the detonation of certain ships in the German High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow in 1919.

I'm not sure why it is so important to explain the sinking of the Lusitania as a British plot - as I said before, it was lawful (though not surprisingly the British tried hard to portray it as unlawful) but pretty brutal work by a U-boat captain who had a reputation for playing tough, and was made far worse than it needed to be by a combination of incompetence by the crew and a secondary explosion which no-one would have foreseen on either side(remember, just three years before the Titanic had gone down after being ripped open by an iceberg, and had still stayed afloat for much longer than the Lusitania did).

Incompetence on the Birtish side? Yes.
Toughness from the German captain? Yes.
Bad luck on the part of the victims? Yes.

But.....
Legal? Yes.
A plot? No chance.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

Originally posted by Adler17
In some battles only 10 % of the tanks were able to fight. The others broke down before. And of these remaining tanks many were either captured or shot. The tank was too unreliable. The Americans were the factor. Without them at least in late 1918 peace would have ruled again- for Germany´s terms.
The Russians did overextent themselves. This was not predictable by the Germans who thought the Russians would only come if they´re well prepared. But the Russians invaded East Prussia. So The Germans sent 3 reserve corps from the west to the east and destroyed both armies. But these forces were missing in the west at the Marne. Russian troops of ww1 were fighting fearce like bears but lead by cows. They didn´t even have enough guns and shoes for all soldiers. Russian offensives were very costly for the Russians. The horror lead to the revolutions. But if the Russians didn´t attack East Prussia Germany would have taken Paris. Over short or long the French would have to surrender because all important ways are leading over Paris. You can´t drive in train from Brest to Nice without driving through Paris. And having this knot the Germans would have been able to devide the French troops. So France falls if Paris falls. This was in 1871 as it was in 1940.
Britain wouldn´t have the possibilities to invade France or Germany without fearing the loss of the Royal navy. On the other hand the Germans would now be able to blockade the British isles much better with the French harbours. As well German ships could now reach the ocean far better via France. And the RN would have to enlarge their convoys. But these forces were missing in the Home fleet loosing the only advantage over the German Hochseeflotte: the number of ships. So Britain would have asked for peace. Even if the US would side the Britsh the war would be lost for the allies.
Oh a last remark, the Red Army didn´t exist until 1918 or so. After the October revolution.

Adler

those are my exact feelings as well.

 

[Patroklos]

I don't understand why people believe half wit popular historians about Paris over Petain, Schleifen, and Moltke

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. What suprise were you expecting? Basically when Germany attacked Belgium that day was all the suprise you could get. It forced the French to redeploy and that what it was meant to do. Even if their was no delay due to fighting in Belgium, the French would have still had the time to do what they did to counter this, which was little to nothing.

2. Obviously the German's would have prefered the Russians did not attack, but this was planned for ahead of time and taken care of with far LESS troops than was originally expected.

3. Irrelevant. Your contention is that the Germans would have to have won early, or rather before the race to the sea and trench warfare evolved.

4. It has been consistantly proved that the amount of material, expertise, and production funneled into the tank was a liabiliy to the Allies when it is compared to combat effectiveness.

The failure of the original plan had little to do with the actions of any of Germany's enemies or the troops syphoned off to the East, but rather the distibution of the troops they had. The plan called for a skeleton force along the French border with he bulk of the army poised to move through Belgium. The skeleton force would act as a decoy to keep the French away from the main German thrust and also to alow them to advance into Germany to draw them further into the noose.

Unfortunetly one of the commanders of the "skeleton" force was the Crown Prince. He didn't want to be in command of an imaginary force but a rather a grand army. Because of this and the interferance of other nobels and generals you ended up with a 3/5 ratio of French border to Belgium border forces instead of the planned 1/5 ratio.

This is the true reason why the main thrust had trouble in Belgium and did not penetrate far enough fast enough. Not only that, but the enlarged units along the French border not only did not fall back to draw the French out, they actually beat the French and pushed them back into their territory.

 

[Adler17]

AFAIK the Lusiatania had a small escort or was awaiting but the ships were sent away. I might be wrong.
To the coal I didn´t know of the coal around the Lusitania. Interesting. Nevertheless the Lusitania had much more ammo as I mentioned before. I have sources which speak about other not declared ammo like nitro cellulose. They were officially declared as furs. However the last evidence they existed is missing, but it is most probably. Nevertheless they had not only rifle cartridges but also 3 " grenades. IF the ammo chamber was hit and ther were not other ammo than the one which was proven it is possible these grenades caused the second explosion. So this was a source of danger for the ship. But it was only one source which could have caused the sinking. After the Titanic incident (also before but that incident was making the situation tougher) the Cunard and other British lines suffered. New ships must be built but also they needed money to buy these ships. So they asked the RN for help. They agreed but only if the ships are used as auxiliar cruiser in times of war. The lines agreed. Therefore the Lusitania had to be built with several errors. The coal bunker for example. They were not as safe as other liners, US or German ones. This is the other possible source why the ship sunk: the torpedo hit a bunker aor a section nearby causing a fire which lead to the sinking. In both cases the British admirality was responsible for the loss of the ship and the lifes. Which of both sources really responsible is I don´t know but the question can here stay open. Nevertheless it would be interesting to see a drawing of the ships cargo, the coal and the impact of the torpedo. Then we can be sure what caused the sinking.
I summerise: In both cases, coal or ammo, the British admirality was responsible for the loss of the ship and the lifes.
As you said we both agree the sinking of the Lusitania, a warship!, was legitime but brutal.
To the plot: There are many strange things yet unknown and some of the files are still secret. Why? I only wanted to show in the other posts that it was possible the ship should be sunk by U 20. However I can´t prove it. Perhaps there will never be the reason known why and how the ship was sunk.

Adler

 

[HalfBadger]

I'm not much of a historian compared to many posters here, but I was wondering where Switzerland would fit in all this? Unless I missed a post, most posts talk about all the countries around Swizterland, but don't mention it. Was it too small or neutral to make any sort of impact or have significance.

 

[nonconformist]

Switzerland has been neutral for almost evey conflict. There would have been very little concequence.

 

[HalfBadger]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Switzerland has been neutral for almost evey conflict. There would have been very little concequence.

Why weren't they dragged into conflict, like why would someone attack Italy or France, but leave Switzerland, just because they declared themselves Neutral? I remember hearing during WW2 Germany stayed away, because of the Banking in Switzerland they didn't want to destroy.

 

[nonconformist]

Well, I asked this to my history teacher, and it was something like this: the Swiss were armed to the teeth, and attacking them would be a bad idea. Also, there was no real point in attacking Switzerland, there was nothing that could be achieved.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Well, I asked this to my history teacher, and it was something like this: the Swiss were armed to the teeth, and attacking them would be a bad idea. Also, there was no real point in attacking Switzerland, there was nothing that could be achieved.

I don't think the swiss were armed to the teeth, If they were they would have partcipated in the fighting and joined one of the alliances. They stayed neutral because there army was small, and there was no need in joining in the war, they wouldn't benefit from it. The other countries didn't attack it, because they used it as a sort of nuetral terriotory, they kept money in its banks. Switzerland was almost like a agreed apon non-aggression zone. The powers would benefit more if Switzerland remained neutral.

 

[Zardnaar]

Although useful the Swiss have a reputation as some of the finest soldiers in Europe. Although small the army is well equiped and motivated. Also its mountainous country. Basically theres very little gain to be had invading it and its a good way to lose alot of men in very hostile terrain.

 

[nonconformist]

That is what I meant by 'armed to the teeth'

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Better yet, which would still avoid the formation of the USSR and WWII would be getting a better treaty than Versailase. Just MHO, it was stupid for the other European Countries to rip Germany apart with this.

 

[Mongols_rule]

Sorry to bring this great thread off topic, but here's another cool question - what if Hitler was killed in action in WWI? Would WWII have started then?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Mongols_rule
Sorry to bring this great thread off topic, but here's another cool question - what if Hitler was killed in action in WWI? Would WWII have started then?

Who knows ? The majority of germans didn't want to start another war in 1918. What pushes them to revenge was the huge poverty in which Germany had been stuck. In 1932, there were 6 million unemployed in the country. When we were unemployed then, it meant we had no revenues at all. Because of that misery, WW1 has been kept in German's mind and that's the reason why they didn't get over it.

People considered that WW1 has lead to WW2. But it's not that simple. What should have been done in 1918 ?

Should we have to be nice with Germans, forget their attempt to invade France and Poland and gave them maybe Warsaw so that we would be sure they wouldn't attack anyone again ? Or maybe we should have destroyed the Ruhr to prove to Germans they had been completely defeated ? The main reason why people get calmer afterwards had been the Nukes. I'm not sure that without the nukes, Europe would have experienced 50 years of Peace as it has been the case.