Why did the Germans lose the war?

[armourersergeant]

Given that the Germans possibly had the two best Generals of the war( or atleast 1,2, combination) why then did they loose the war. I have had a discussion recently with a forum member and the only thing we can agree on at the moment is that the Germans lost the War rather than we won it. A contreversal comment at best i am sure and you may wish to comment on this as well.

comments?

Arm.

[Guest Pete Wood]

Well I'm currently leaning towards the view held by the 'other' forum member.

Germany wasn't able to draw on the resources of the USA. If the USA had been on the side of Germany, what would the result have been...??

[AOK4]

Hello,

If the USA would have stayed out of the war, there would have been a peace by Christmas 1917 IMO...

Jan

[armourersergeant]

The assumption or fact would then be that with the US not entering the war Germany would not have rushed to launch the new offensive in March 1918. It was this all or nothing plan that IMO lost germany the war.

But would Germany have had the resources to hold on from a home front point of view, were the allies not starving their supply lines, or could they have found other routes etc with Russians out of the War.

Arm.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

IMO!

If the USA had stayed out of the War, the outcome would not have been different except that it would have taken longer perhaps with an Armistice in 1919 or maybe 1920. With the outcome of the German Advance of 1918 not really being effected by the status of the USA, and the morale factor in effectively failing in this Battle was a turning point. One can argue that the presence of the Americans in 1918 gave the Allies confidence but with all respect there were other issues facing the German civilian populace particularly starvation and unrest that contributed to the collapse.

Ian

[armourersergeant]

I too believe that the war could have been won without US military intervention and that it would probably have dragged on a few more years, but i think that the Germans realised that with the Yanks on there way and in number they needed to act fast and win the war or at the very least gain ground to help with a truce or something.

When i refer to Germany having lost the war, i think once the march april offensives had been slowed they had little left and to a certain extent by the penetration they had into the allies land they had rid themselves of the strong defences they had originally. this enabled the allies to attack in more favourable circumstances and with german moral low i think that it was a forn gone conclusion.

Arm.

[Tim Birch]

On the other hand did Germany launch the 1918 Spring Offensives under pressure and before they were really ready because of the fact that Americans were on the way?

If America had kept out the Germans could have waited another 6 months or even a year to properly prepare for their offensives, with the resources to fully capitalise on their advance and turn it into a true breakthrough - something never achieved by any Army on the Western Front. During 1918 Lloyd George could have continued to starve the BEF of fresh troops, as things seemed quiet maybe more of the line could have been taken over by the Portuguese and war weariness could have lead to a further reduction in French moral. Ideal ingrediants for a successful Autumn Offensive or Spring Offensive in 1919?

Tim

[Neil Burns]

Hi All,

I agree with Tim and Arm that the German High Command felt they needed to move quickly in 1918 before US military capacity really was up and running. After all the Germans referred to the offensive as the 'Peace Offensive' they themselves saw it as an all or nothing push.

Since the Germans were holding pretty well in the West it makes one wonder if without US involvement the Germans could concentrate the troops freed by Brest-Litovsk against Italy perhaps knocking Italy out of the war and essentially eliminating the immediate pressure on Austro-Hungary.

Also with more time Germany may have been able to more properly make use of the resources of the territory annexed by the Treaty of B-L.

Take care,

Neil

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Actually the answer is more simple. The German Spring Offensive was not only an effort to spilt the British & the French but also an effort to capture the British Army's forward supply depot of pink trousers 10 miles due west of St Quentin. Failing in this endevour the Germans never recovered - well wearing field grey for too long must get quite depressing.

Other little known facts about WW1 you won't read in 'Stand To' cos it revisionist:

1. He was really the Pink Baron

2. Tommies often ate in Huts run by the Pink Cross

3. The Military Police were really the Pink Caps

4. It was never really the Thin Red Line!

Enough of this frivolity, work beckons

Ian

[Neil Burns]

Bloody Pink Tabs!

[Guest Pete Wood]

I know where a pink hot poker should go

[MartinWills]

Returning to the topic (not the pink one...)

I have a strongly held belief that the war was lost on the German home front, an aspect which is very little understood.

Yes, there are factors such as the (threat of the) advent of the Americans who were woefully underequipped despite a long period of preparation and who relied heavily on British provided equipment in the field.

Likewise the Russian revolution did release German troops from the Eastern Front.

None the less Britain had an effective stranglehold on the German Navy and the Allied blockade was becoming more effective as the days rolled on.

As early as 1916 there were real shortages and hardships on the German home front and the impact of this was being reflected to the soldier at the front. By 1917 ersatz products were beginning to be replaced with ersatz ersatz products. Food was at such a premium that many items were not rationed because there was not enough available of them for rationing to be an effective proposition. Just think of the Turnip Winter when turnips were just about all that as available to eat. Coupled with this inflation was beginning to bite (from 1914 to 1919 the value of savings in the bank fell by around 75%) the real damage being done long before the days of needing wheelbarrows to carry your pay home.

This sad situation at home was also being reflected in shortages in the forces such as the lack of rubber for aircraft wheels and no doubt those at home were writing of their predicament to the forces at the front.

The German Navy, holed up in port pretty much since Jutland, submarines apart, was ripe with discontent which spilled over into mutiny and revolution in the latter days of the war and the ferment of soldiers and sailors revolutionary councils. Unrest was everywhere.

At the same time the German Army was struggling against a British Army (including all the Canadians, Aussies, NZs etc. etc) which truly was at its finest.

It is hard to imagine that against the social background, divisiveness and malcontent in Germany of 1918 it would be possible for a nation to be victorious in arms.

This in no way belittles the efforts in arms on both sides, but by mid 1918 the die was cast for the German nation as a whole and defeat was inevitable.

I know this is not a widely promulagted view but it is one I firmly believe is, at least, a major factor.

What do you think?

Martin

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

I know where a pink hot poker should go

As they say where I grew up, only if you've got the 'nutmeg' son!

Howvever back to the subject. I totally agree with you Martin. IMHO the Germans became war weary, both militarily and on a civilian basis. The British were probably not far behind but at least they had not suffered the degree of dprivations on the home front.

Anyway isn't the loser in a war of of attrition the one who gives up first?

Ian

[Neil Burns]

martin & Ian,

You are both very correct but I do think the increased pressure brought about by the US joining the Allies also made the 1918 Offensives top priority. If Germany remained on the defensive in the West rolling stock and troops could have been used to harvest food in the East relieveing, somewhat, the pressure on the civilians.

Also given Lenin's anything to buy time attitude there appeared to be no limit to what he would accede to in order to protect the Revolution. The Red Army was in no condition to dispute any German demands.

The British blockade certainly contributed to victory in 1918 and doesn't get as much credit as it should but with out the millions of US troops arriving (and vice versa) I think the Germans could have held on, which is all they really had to do since they were occupying French and Belgian territory.

Take care,

Neil

[paul guthrie]

I agree with Ian Neil Martin, US did not win the war but fear of US partially did when Germans left their defensive lines lost their troops etc. I have a long article on this on the WFA forum titled America Enters the War, title does nt describe the article, I did not title it, it's about did US military intervention alone win a war Allies would otherwise have lost. Give it a read, no false modesty, it's good, Great War Society here is US is going to publish in its journal Relevance.

[Malcolm]

Did the loss of her allies Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria not push them toward an Armistice as well?

Aye

Malcolm

[paul guthrie]

Malcolm that's one of my main points in a long article. Others are unreliaiblity of troops from the east, starvation loss of defensive positions and fact Allies could get many more troops from Middle East and Macedonia, Germans had none anywhere they could use and that Ludendorf wanted. The biggest point is when was war won, in retrospect, and when did US take truly significant military action? Short answer is no later than August 8 , maybe July 18 and no sooner that September 12 when we attacked St Mihile Salient.

Few in the USA accept my argument but almost all UK do.

[Malcolm]

I agree with you. Lundendorf lost his faith in the reliability and strength of his army following its blackest day on 8th August. He tried to resign to Hindenberg and was refused, going over his head to the Head of the Military Cabinet who passed the request on to the Kaiser. The Kaiser also declined his resignation but gave him a hearing. On hearing Ludendorf's reasons he said - 'I see that it is necessary to review conditions. We have come to the limit. The war must be brought to an end. Accordingly, I shall expect the Commanders-in-Chief at Spa in the course of the next few days'. The meeting took place on 13th & 14th August when it was decided to go over to strategic defence. He then asked that the King of Spain or the Queen of the Netherlands should be asked to act as a mediator with the allies. Ludendorf wanted to save what was left of his armies and withdraw The German viewpoint was that they had a right to retain that part of Belgium they occupied and the Flemish coast. When the question of Belgium was brought up at the conference he is reported to have said ' Why bring up Belgium, that question is settled in black and white.'

This was a no-starter as far as Britian was concerned.

On August the 22nd Albert fell, on the 23rd August Byngs army destroyed one German division and ruined six others, on the 26th The Canadians drove forward to the Siegried Position and smashed through it on the 28th and reached the Wotan position on the 30th. The Australians attacked Perrone, Plumers Army attacked in Flanders , the Americans pinched out St Miheil, Foch's Grand Assault and then the Austrian Ambassador intimated that they would seek a seperate peace. The blockade was so bad back home that civilians were committing suicide as they were in a famine situation.

They managed to get the Austro-Hungarians to hold-off but only until the begining of September .

Aye

Malcolm

[egbert]

Here is what I analyzed and concluded after thorough investigation with support of scientific research methods. I don't want to withhold it to any Hobby-strategist :

The Germans were just on the wrong side!

[Guest Hussar]

In Martin Middlebrook's Book 'The Kaisers Battle' he points out that the Germans failed to achieve their objectives on the Spring Offensive, succeeding in breaching the 'Battle Zone' on only 1/4 of the front ( Gough's 5th Army Sector). Also, due to the re-deployment of reserves from other sectors to maintain the drive and pressure at this point, the pressure was taken off the British forces in the North and Centre. In the Final Analysis he points out that ' the verdict of German military historians was that the whole series of Spring offensives,..,had been a mistake, bringing heavy losses to German manhood and merely hastening the humiliation of defeat 8 months later.' and suggests that the Grmans should have, instead, kept their Divisions on the defensive and bargained, from a position of strength, for peace.

[Guest stevebec]

Of Cause we should also ask what would have happened if Germany did win the war.

The same as in 1870?

With a short occupation of Paris then back home.

Germany didn't enter the war for Land only to surport Austria against Russia. They had no reason to stay.

They may have asked for there colonies back from the British and French and where would we be for a Second World War.

S.B

[mordac]

I hold the view that the United States was the deciding factor for the allies winning the war. Here's a couple of key points:

1. Uncle Sam had very deep pockets and was financing both the French and British government war efforts.

2. The United States was suppling the allies with an almost unlimited supply of food, raw materials, spare parts and equipment.

3. The threat of American forces entering the war forced Germany's hand.

If America's money, resources and manpower had sided with Germany...

Garth

[David_Blanchard]

The Germans lost because of the arrogance of the Prussian military junta. In mid 1918 the German army still had 50 divisions (nearly 1 million men) on the Eastern Front. These troops were not simply holding the line against the Bolsevik treat but were taking part in military operations, driving on to the oilfields in the Caucasus.

I don't buy war weariness on the home front the High Command had choices about how to use these troops ie forced requistion of food and fodder in the areas of Russia they occupied. They chose the wrong option. This was folly, allowing the military to dominate all apects of policy in Germany cost them the war.

[mmbennett]

The entry of the US into the war was certainly a factor, but by no means the deciding one. Uncle Sam's pockets were deep, yes, but where it mattered, on the battlefield, it was the Allied armies of Britain and France who bore the overwhelming brunt of the Kaiserschlacht. If the British 3rd and 5th Armies had capitulated (which was what the Germans had expected to happen), then US troops would not have even had a base from which to establish operations, never mind offensives. A lot is owed to the men of Byng and Gough with regards to the final Allied victory - their resistance was crucial.

From the German point of view, substantial numbers of troops had been diverted from the Eastern Front, where warfare had taken on a very different theme. To these men, the Western Front was an almost alien environment, in which they were obliged to make "the final push", only days after arriving.

Regards,

Matt