Would Germany have won WW1?

[Reno]

German defeat was set in motion IMHO the day they signed an alliance with Austria.

Not really, Had the Italians honored their alliance (yes, i know their army was not the best of kind) with Germany and Austria-Hungary, it would have forced another front to wich the Allies would have to deploy more forces in 1914, and had the Germans not sent those corps (from one of the attack groups fighting at the Marne) to fight at Tanneberg. The German attack force (at Marne) would have been a lot stronger.

So i'd say that the Germans had a chance all along. If they had not sent reinforcements to Prussia and Italy had comed to Central Power side like the original plan was.

 

[Verbose]

If the Germans had twisted the arm of the Austrians enough to make them hand over the parts of the Tyrol the Italians wanted, then they could have had them on their side.

 

[Reno]

If the Germans had twisted the arm of the Austrians enough to make them hand over the parts of the Tyrol the Italians wanted, then they could have had them on their side.

That's not the only reason why Italy joined the war on the Allies side. They had expected that if they joined Allied side they would gain the Adriatic coast from Austria, the Tirol area and parts of the dying Ottoman Empire. Wich at the time sounded better to the Italians then a few French colonies in Africa.

So, even if Austria-Hungary would have given the Tirol area to the Italians, (wich i doubt since the area was full of Austrians) i think that Italy would still have not hold up to it's promise to Germany and Austria-Hungary.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Yes, had the Schlieffen Plan been a little less foolproof as well as concealed from the enemy(Schlieffen had taught his plan in military school)

 

[Verbose]

It's also possible that if Wilhelmine Germany had been able to overcome its fear of arming workers it could have raised a considerable larger conscript army by 1914. They opted for filling their army with farmer and the middle class as much as they could. Workers with guns was... worrying.

Republican France on the other hand felt no reason not to go for the broadest application possible of conscription in an effort to at least somewhat make up for German numerical superiority.

Had German conscription been more all inclusive, maybe they could have overwhelmed the French in 1914 through sheer numbers?

 

[Ace]

What is this "workers with guns" garbage? In Imperial Germany, ALL males were subject to conscription and military service. Communism, even disguised as socialism, did not appear in Germany until 1918 when things got really bad for the Kaiser.

The French army, on the other hand, mutinied (raised the red flag) a year earlier and refused to "go over the top".

 

[Reno]

Communism, even disguised as socialism, did not appear in Germany until 1918 when things got really bad for the Kaiser.

Not true, there was a large amount of socialists in Germany a lot before 1918.

Have you forgoten that Marx was German?

 

[Verbose]

What is this "workers with guns" garbage? In Imperial Germany, ALL males were subject to conscription and military service. Communism, even disguised as socialism, did not appear in Germany until 1918 when things got really bad for the Kaiser.

The French army, on the other hand, mutinied (raised the red flag) a year earlier and refused to "go over the top".

France, pop. 40+ million gave 82% of its available manpower military training.
Germany, pop. 65 million or so, only 52%
All men were subject to conscription in theory. All men weren't conscripted in practice. Big difference.

The German army relied on the academic middle class and the rural population. Workers with guns were scary to the Junker class that dominated especially Prussia.

Sorry if your admiration for Wilhelmine Germany or feelings about the filthy French have been offended.

 

[Case]

The French army, on the other hand, mutinied (raised the red flag) a year earlier

While the French Army mutinied, it certainly didn't do so in the name of communism - the soldiers were sick of being treated badly by their officers (including, of course, their lives being wasted in miss-managed offensives). I've never read of any red flags being raised.

 

[Verbose]

Case is right:
The "red agitators stirred up the otherwise loyal men" was part a not uncommon attempt by the top brass to explain away the behaviour of the men. (Having the men under your command mutiny doesn't exactly do an officer credit. And blaming them usually makes him look even worse.)
It is of course also true that a lot of believing socialists wanted to interpret the situation as the first stirrings of the Revolution.

But, looking at what went on with the troops, what they mostly did was argue that their status as citizens of the Republis took precedence over their lowly position in the military hierarchy, and that citizens shouldn't be treated they way they were. Not unsurprisingly the army absolutely refused to see it their way.

The mutineers arguments were for the most part republican and democratic. As for the direction of their anger, usually the front line officers were spared any direct verbal or other abuse. (I've read one incident where a popular captain had to bodily protect some staff officer having come out to adress the men, after the poilus started pelting the hated staffer with clods of earth.)

 

[Verbose]

Case is right:
The "red agitators stirred up the otherwise loyal men" argument was part a not uncommon attempt by the top brass to explain away the behaviour of the men. (Having the men under your command mutiny doesn't exactly do an officer credit. And blaming them usually makes him look even worse.)
It is of course also true that a lot of believing socialists wanted to interpret the situation as the first stirrings of the Revolution.

But, looking at what went on with the troops, what they mostly did was argue that their status as citizens of the Republis took precedence over their lowly position in the military hierarchy, and that citizens shouldn't be treated they way they were. Not unsurprisingly the army absolutely refused to see it their way.

The mutineers arguments were for the most part republican and democratic. As for the direction of their anger, usually the front line officers were spared any direct verbal or other abuse. (I've read one incident where a popular captain had to bodily protect some staff officer having come out to adress the men, after the poilus started pelting the hated staffer with clods of earth.)

 

[MattII]

To clear up a few myths about the Bismark and its opponents. The Hood was destroyed when one of Bismark's shells penetrated the forward magazine, setting off an explosion which tore the ship in two. The Hood got a shot in on the Bismark's forward fuel line, limiting the top speed and causing the Bismark to give off an easily detectable trail of diesel. The Bismark's armour was not effective for her final engagement, as it was designed for engaging opposing battleships at relatively close range. The Bismark's fatal weakness was a minimum fire height of about 16 feet off the water, allowing a pair of Fairy Swordfish to deliver te blow to the rudder. All in all, the Bismark was a run of the mill battleship that excelled in the kind of combat it would never really be able to get into.

 

[Adler17]

MattII, a very last word on Hood and Bismarck by me. I won´t come back to this topic in this thread.
Bismarck hit Hood with one or two 15" shells with her third slavo. Most probably these shells lead to an explosion of the 4" shells or the signal rockets. Tue to that firestorm the 15" magazine exploded. IIRC it was the rear magazine as the bow guns fired a last slavo when the ship was torn in two. Hood never hit Bismarck but PoW did. 2 of the 3 hits were not very serious but the third hit an oil bunker with the known results. Captain Lindemann wanted to finish off the badly damaged PoW and then return to Norway. For some reasons Admiral Lütjens decided to go to Brest an leave the PoW. IMO a stupidity. Although the Bismarck lost fuel the Brits lost contact with her. Also CA Prinz Eugen was detached, a second stupidity as having more FlaK. Nevertheless Bismrack had good chances to go to Brest when she was seen by a PBY Catalina flying boat. The PBY was heavied damaged by FlaK but was able to return to base. If the FlaK of the Prinz Eugen shot also the Catalina would have been forced to land or been shot down. On her a US soldier was wearing a US uniform. This would have lead to even more tensions with the US and for Roosevelt worse chances to go on with his war plans. Then Bismarck had 2 cm FlaK that were able to fire in the angle you say. However no plane was shot down at this attack indeed. Half a year later a squadron of 6 Swordfishes wanted to to the very same by attacking the German capital ships in the Channel. All six were downed before being able to come in attack position- by FlaK.
In the last fight the first hit of the Brits destroyed the main rangefinder reducing the accuracy of the German guns dramatically. However it lasted 2 hours until the last gun was disabled on the Bismarck. Then the ship was scuttled.
Oh a very last word on the Scharnhorst´s last fight: She was hit at first by a torpedo reducing her speed. After thirteen (!!!) or fourteen other torpedo hits and about 15 14" hits the ships sunk. HMS Barham sunk after three hits to compare. When sinking the damage was not so dramatical that the engines were quiete as they still worked. Also Scharnhorst retreated. This means only her last turret could fire on the enemy in this angle.
This should be a good counter argument on the post Bismarck and Scharnhorst were too soon crippled. Comparing again with PoW which was not complete I admit these ships could take much more damage and were still in some extent more operational.
However this is my last word to this topic here.

Adler