# Could Germany ever have won the 1st World War?



## WaylanderToo (Mar 3, 2016)

leading on from the WWII thread the obvious question has to be if WWI was ever a realistic proposition for the Axis? Given that this was pretty much the zenith of 'the Empire' I'd have thought not but....


----------



## Mirannan (Mar 3, 2016)

Yup. One rather obvious point is that it was touch-and-go whether Britain entered WWI. If it hadn't, the correlation of forces would probably have been decisive in Germany's favour.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 6, 2016)

German achieved its strategic aims in respect of the Eastern Front in 1917 - the treaty of Brest-Litovsk created a swath of independent states from the Gulf of Finland to the Black Sea which were fearful of resurgent Russian expansionism, and thus pro-Western (nothing new under the sun). However the French 'side-show' (knock them out of the war and redeploy eastwards in the estimated 6 weeks it will take the Russians to mobilise) had degenerated into an Imperial mind-set p*ssing contest where no-one could now back-down without a catastrophic loss of face. This is why German peace overtures in 1916 were brushed aside by the British Imperial General Staff - the argument being that the British people had already sacrificed so much they would only be satisfied by 'total' victory.

Well, we got it, for all the good it did.

If the Central Powers had managed to extricate themselves then you would have seen todays situation in the Baltic and Ukraine played out in the 1920s (and you can have that storyline for free!)


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 6, 2016)

reiver33 said:


> German achieved its strategic aims in respect of the Eastern Front in 1917 - the treaty of Brest-Litovsk created a swath of independent states from the Gulf of Finland to the Black Sea which were fearful of resurgent Russian expansionism, and thus pro-Western (nothing new under the sun). However the French 'side-show' (knock them out of the war and redeploy eastwards in the estimated 6 weeks it will take the Russians to mobilise) had degenerated into an Imperial mind-set p*ssing contest where no-one could now back-down without a catastrophic loss of face. This is why German peace overtures in 1916 were brushed aside by the British Imperial General Staff - the argument being that the British people had already sacrificed so much they would only be satisfied by 'total' victory.
> 
> Well, we got it, for all the good it did.
> 
> If the Central Powers had managed to extricate themselves then you would have seen todays situation in the Baltic and Ukraine played out in the 1920s (and you can have that storyline for free!)



 Lloyd George and his crew of misfit toys could have saved alot of lives had they come to the table in 1916.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 6, 2016)

Part of the tragedy of the Imperial mind-set is an inability to recognise nationalism in others. Thus the Germans evidently believed that Belgium would allow their armies passage, en route to attack France, and were shocked to be fired upon; "but we're not invading!". The fact that the Reich could never accept the affront of foreign troops trampling over the 'sacred soil of Germany' seems to have totally escaped them.

As soon as the British launched their first big offensive then its failure guaranteed any diplomatic solution would be viewed as 'surrender' and 'a betrayal of our glorious dead', etc., etc., etc. (you know how it goes)


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 6, 2016)

reiver33 said:


> Part of the tragedy of the Imperial mind-set is an inability to recognise nationalism in others. Thus the Germans evidently believed that Belgium would allow their armies passage, en route to attack France, and were shocked to be fired upon; "but we're not invading!". The fact that the Reich could never accept the affront of foreign troops trampling over the 'sacred soil of Germany' seems to have totally escaped them.
> 
> As soon as the British launched their first big offensive then its failure guaranteed any diplomatic solution would be viewed as 'surrender' and 'a betrayal of our glorious dead', etc., etc., etc. (you know how it goes)



Reiver I can't help but feel a certain level of contempt for their thinking. What about the men that are doing all the dying and the sacrificing? I think what they should have done was send Lloyd George and the British  government  along with Clemenceau and the french government ,  Wilson and his Cabinet to the Front line, The Kaiser and his advisors , Emperor Franz Joseph , The Ottoman Sultan and the Romanov's,  maybe if all them had to face the grinder of the trenches  and view firsthand  the death and suffering that their malicious and thoughtless stupidity caused , they might think that war is a really bad idea.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 6, 2016)

Sorry but I don't follow your thinking here - I completely agree that the government (and senior military) were isolated from the realities of warfare on the Western Front. My point was that the Imperial attitude to conflict is one of absolutes, hence the use of quotes around such terms as 'surrender' and 'glorious dead' - at best platitudes and at worst indifference from those spared the horror suffering.


----------



## JoanDrake (Mar 6, 2016)

What if Jutland had been a decisive victory in their favor, sinking or crippling the British fleet with small loses to themselves? I've always understood that one reason they surrendered was that they realized that the Blockade was unbreakable and they would eventually starve to death.

However, I've never understood why it is that nations which seem perfectly capable of feeding themselves in peacetime suddenly seem to need to import a large part of their food in war


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 6, 2016)

reiver33 said:


> Sorry but I don't follow your thinking here - I completely agree that the government (and senior military) were isolated from the realities of warfare on the Western Front. My point was that the Imperial attitude to conflict is one of absolutes, hence the use of quotes around such terms as 'surrender' and 'glorious dead' - at best platitudes and at worst indifference from those spared the horror suffering.



I have problem with that kind ivory tower stupidity which is what it really is.  To me ,  people that are that disconnected should not be making decisions where lives of the personal  under  them are at stake.


----------



## Wiglaf (Mar 6, 2016)

If the US didn't come in, or came in later, Germany could very well of won or at least forced a draw.  The Germans had defeated Russia and were moving reinforcements westward at the same time Americans were arriving to counter them.  France would have given them more ports making it easier to sneak in supplies.


----------



## MWagner (Mar 6, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> I have problem with that kind ivory tower stupidity which is what it really is.  To me ,  people that are that disconnected should not be making decisions where lives of the personal  under  them are at stake.



That's not fair to the leaders. In WW1 the upper classes suffered substantially higher casualties than the working class, many of whom were exempted from duty due to crucial work in mines and industry. Many of the generals and political leaders lost sons in the trenches, where it was still customary for young officers to lead from the front (Ludendorff had a nervous breakdown after his second stepson was killed). They knew about the carnage, and all but the most cold-blooded were appalled by it. The problem was that though nobody knew how to break the stalemate, each side felt the other must be on the verge of collapsing.

And it's easy for us to stand back today and say they should have accepted a white peace. But it would not have been only the upper classes who would have balked at chalking up such dreadful losses to a draw. Look at what happened to the German leaders who eventually did acknowledge reality and sue for peace - they were accused of betraying their nation, and sowed the seeds of fascism among their defeated countrymen.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 6, 2016)

MWagner said:


> That's not fair to the leaders. In WW1 the upper classes suffered substantially higher casualties than the working class, many of whom were exempted from duty due to crucial work in mines and industry. Many of the generals and political leaders lost sons in the trenches, where it was still customary for young officers to lead from the front (Ludendorff had a nervous breakdown after his second stepson was killed). They knew about the carnage, and all but the most cold-blooded were appalled by it. The problem was that though nobody knew how to break the stalemate, each side felt the other must be on the verge of collapsing.
> 
> And it's easy for us to stand back today and say they should have accepted a white peace. But it would not have been only the upper classes who would have balked at chalking up such dreadful losses to a draw. Look at what happened to the German leaders who eventually did acknowledge reality and sue for peace - they were accused of betraying their nation, and sowed the seeds of fascism among their defeated countrymen.



Your right, it is very easy to stand in the present  and be critical of their design making, we've got the advantage of hindsight .  It is was indeed very sad that the upper class suffered the losses they did . The news media  of that era really didn't help matters, they did alot to push for the war and managed to help sway public opinion in favor of it .  They all believed  that when the war started is would be over in matter of a few weeks.It was in their minds supposed to be grand and heroic adventure. Well , it  sure didn't turn out that way.  I think that none of them them could have  imagined that would drag out Four  or how military doctrine and tactics did not keep up with technology and the resulting carnage .  At the end of it the  Hohenzollerns ,  Hapsburg's,  Romanovs and  Ottoman Empire , swept away Europe was wrecked .  Britain , France , Germany and  Russia , Turkey and Italy  all economically weaken. I think if they had a crystal ball and could seen the end result , they would avoided it.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Mar 7, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> I think if they had a crystal ball and could seen the end result , they would avoided it.



TBH I'm not convinced that they would, if they (France Britain) could have crushed the nascent German Empire they would have done - the only thing a crystal ball would have done would be to encourage them to invade Germany (which TBH might not have been the worst idea ever)


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 7, 2016)

reiver33 said:


> This is why German peace overtures in 1916 were brushed aside by the British Imperial General Staff - the argument being that the British people had already sacrificed so much they would only be satisfied by 'total' victory.



Peace in 1916 sounds like a reasonable suggestion to a modern audience, but if hostilities had broken off I suspect it could only have been temporarily. A big cause of WWI was a political need to decide who was the dominant industrial power in Europe: Britain or Germany. Sadly, we both lost.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 7, 2016)

I'm going for - yes they possibly could have...but it would have required a serious rearrangement of diplomatic manoeuvres in the twenty years leading up to 1914. Namely, the Kaiser actually getting along with the British Empire and remaining friends or even allies. 

However motivated by jealousy or envy (inter-family things can be so toxic) he deliberately did practically everything to antagonise or make the British paranoid, driving them into the arms of their long-term traditional continental enemies, the French, and even the Russians, which whom the British were really tussling with in their Eurasian colonies. 

So for example not focusing on building a massive high seas fleet - really just an expensive toy for the Kaiser - as he was obsessed with his cousins more practical and useful one. 

The Germans with the help of the Austro Hungarians knocked Russia out of the war, and a western front without the British I think would have gone in Germany's favour. There were widespread mutinies in the French army in 1917 - which marks the nadir of the French forces - if the British had not been there in force to shore up the West, I think there is a strong possibility that the French may have collapsed 1916-17 as well. 

However....

British European policy had always been to oppose the strongest continental power. For hundreds of years it had been the French. Perhaps even if the Kaiser had been conciliatory and friendly to the UK, they would have found a way to wriggle onto the opposing side - particularly if he looked like he was going to win. (Then what would be his next step? A 'proper' overseas empire??)


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 7, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> TBH I'm not convinced that they would, if they (France Britain) could have crushed the nascent German Empire they would have done - the only thing a crystal ball would have done would be to encourage them to invade Germany (which TBH might not have been the worst idea ever)



Men like George Clemenceau who wanted revenge. Hence the harshness of the Versailles Treaty. Clemenceau  wanted revenge for Frances defeat in the Franco Prussian war. He wasn't the only one.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 7, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> Peace in 1916 sounds like a reasonable suggestion to a modern audience, but if hostilities had broken off I suspect it could only have been temporarily. A big cause of WWI was a political need to decide who was the dominant industrial power in Europe: Britain or Germany. Sadly, we both lost.



It cost both countries an entire generation of men.


----------

