Could Germany win WWI?

[Cory]

Do you think The Central Powers could've achieved victory in WWI? I think definitely yes and will lay out my case in saying so. Call me out if you think I'm wrong.

Potential victory scenarios for the Central Powers:

Over by Christmas: The Germans (prewar) convince Austria to delay her offensive into Serbia in the Fall of 1914 in order for her to focus on Russia, thus requiring the Russians to focus more troops on that sector as opposed to their offensive into East Prussia in 1914. This in turn enables the Germans to have the extra forces they need in the West to execute the Shilieflien (sp) Plan as intended (i.e, before Moltke modified it). With the Northern Army Group encircling the French forces and taking Paris. France sues for peace and it's like 1870 all over again. Russia and Britain make a White Peace with Germany as Russia does not want to have to face the Germans alone and other then blockading them Britain is practically out of the war.

The Hindenburg Plan: Germany decides to revise it's entire war strategy to call for forming a defense-in-depth along the French border and focus offensively on Russia right from the get go. Their initial offensive is conducted in cohesion with Austria in a pincer movement to link up at Brest-Litvosk and mostly encircle the Russians in Poland. This would be the primary opening offensive as the Germans would remain strictly on the defensive in the West. Any French attack will almost definitely be crushed utterly by the German defenders for obvious reasons. This could possibly prompt of desperate move by the French in which they invade Belgium in order to en-long the front. This is unlikely however as it it diplomatically painful and doesn't really stretch the front for the Germans that much.

The Central Powers continue their offensives into Russia in a through and tactical manner, without overextending themselves (basically what the did IRL, but quicker due to the more troops available and the early focus there). Sometime in 1916 Russia is forced to make peace with Germany for pretty much the same reasons as IRL. After the defeat of Russia and probably several disastrous attempted offensives on their part, France may begin looking for options....

Operation Michael: Things go better for them and Germany manages to take Paris in the Summer of 1918. The French people simply can't take it anymore and the government begs for peace or collapses outright. France is defeated and the BEF is forced from the continent before significant American forces can arrive. Germany imposes a harsh treaty on France similar or worse then the Versailles Treaty in IRL. This will be the cause of much turmoil in France politically in the future, possibly with Fascist/Nationalist or Communist system emerging (probably Fascist). Britain/USA keep the blockade going for some time however eventually face reality and throw in the towel, making a White Peace with Germany. Italy of course makes a losers peace with the Central Powers as well.

However, things are not all right in MittelEuropa. By 1918 regardless of the German victory Austria-Hungary is in shambles politically and will probably collapse into several states that will surely be beholden to Germany. The Ottoman Empire is probably too far gone by now as well. Turkey itself will remain intact with German backing but the Empire is probably lost. Operation Micheal is probably the most intruding of the scenarios. The Germans will also have to craft of policy in relation to the ongoing Russian Civil War, as now that the war is over they will probably not view the Bolsheviks as such an asset anymore. Weather they back the Whites or Reds in the Civil War may not matter (for Germany, I mean), as both will have undeniable ambitions against Germany.

The damnedest thing about this scenario is that even though they won the war Germany is still surrounded by enemies and lacking in powerful allies. France looking for blood in the West (again) with Britain paranoid (for good reason) that perhaps Germany may use her mastery of the Continent to continue building a powerful blue-ocean navy to rival Britain. Further to the West the Americans would be decidedly hostile, and the Russians will be having a lean and hungry look in regards to Germany's eastern vassals.


So, what do you guys think?

[DiStOrTiOn]

yes, easily

if it weren't for the commie jews in the German government and in control of their economy

[ysr2096]

Well, it's a bit late now.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by ysr2096

Well, it's a bit late now.

Well, yeah, nut it's more of an intellectual exercise to see what people think about how they could've won, and what the world would look like in the aftermath.

[Cory]

No one has anything to say?

[is all mememememe with me]

of course they couldn't win, they were fighting the british.

[DirtySanchez]

No. If America hadn't gotten involved I think they couldve won since it was basically a stalemate and both sides were beaten down but when America entered it sealed their fate.

Originally Posted by DiStOrTiOn

yes, easily

if it weren't for the commie jews in the German government and in control of their economy

You are a moron.

[is all mememememe with me]

we are talking about WW1 here, not WW2. america wasn't the great power that it was by the late 30s. and i dunno what you're idea of stalemate is, but it certainly doesn't mean that everyone just goes 'oh well, nobody won, lets all go home and call it a draw'.

it basically brings it to a point where its about who's most determined to carry on, who can keep their supplies going and public support from back home. britain would of won on all of those in WW1.

[DirtySanchez]

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

we are talking about WW1 here, not WW2. america wasn't the great power that it was by the late 30s. and i dunno what you're idea of stalemate is, but it certainly doesn't mean that everyone just goes 'oh well, nobody won, lets all go home and call it a draw'.

it basically brings it to a point where its about who's most determined to carry on, who can keep their supplies going and public support from back home. britain would of won on all of those in WW1.

It's not that we were a massive power, it was more the fact that we hadn't been beaten down by years of war like the europeans and ottomans had.

[is all mememememe with me]

i'm not saying the US wasn't a help, they were hugely of course. just that the war would have gone on without them and we'd have just had to have found another way to win. and also to be fair, that hadn't been beaten down thing worked two ways. troops that had been fighting for a few years were very battle hardened and better at getting on with the job than fresh faces that didn't know what they were getting into and lacked real experience.

[DirtySanchez]

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

i'm not saying the US wasn't a help, they were hugely of course. just that the war would have gone on without them and we'd have just had to have found another way to win. and also to be fair, that hadn't been beaten down thing worked two ways. troops that had been fighting for a few years were very battle hardened and better at getting on with the job than fresh faces that didn't know what they were getting into and lacked real experience.

This is a good point but the citizens of these European countries were also extremely tired of the war. If America hadn't been involved it could've gone either way.

[is all mememememe with me]

by the last year germany were at near economic collapse. for england it would only have been a case of holding out till they went over the edge. we were still pretty ok financially.

[ratfrink]

Nah I don't think so; there were two factors which caused Germany to lose the war - US intervention, and the British naval blockade. Had either happened independently of the other, the war still would've been won, albeit much more slowly. In combination, Germany had absolutely no hope of winning.

The 1918 German Spring Offensive was initially very successful, but it was quickly halted by an influx of US troops. Following that, the Germans were unable to consolidate their gains because the British naval blockade was limiting Germany's industrial output. Furthermore, the blockade was seriously damaging morale in Germany (nearly a million civilians died from starvation due to the blockade).

[Struwwelpeter]

Originally Posted by Cory

No one has anything to say?

Unfortunately this website is dead; not unlike the rest of the internet.

It seems there has been a 'brain drain' going on since 2010 or so. The only thing that bugs me is that I don't know where all of the 'brains' went. Everyone just disappeared. Kind of sad.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

of course they couldn't win, they were fighting the british.

Care to explain how Britain can single-handedly defeat Germany if Russia and France are both totally defeated? With not foothold on the continent whatsoever? The blockade alone will not work if Germany has no land fronts to worry about and can harvest the resources and manpower of most of Europe.

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

by the last year germany were at near economic collapse. for england it would only have been a case of holding out till they went over the edge. we were still pretty ok financially.

If by "ok financially" you mean on the verge of bankruptcy, then yes.

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

it basically brings it to a point where its about who's most determined to carry on, who can keep their supplies going and public support from back home. britain would of won on all of those in WW1.

If France & Russia have both been removed from the war British public support for the continued war will collapse, and German morale will improve.

Not to sound caustic, but did you even read the scenarios I posted? Do you disagree that those are scenarios in which Germany would've won? The reason I even posted them was to give people who don't think Germany could've won something to chew on. But honestly it just seems that you think Britain could just "somehow win" any war ever, facts on the ground be damned.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by ratfrink

Nah I don't think so; there were two factors which caused Germany to lose the war - US intervention, and the British naval blockade. Had either happened independently of the other, the war still would've been won, albeit much more slowly. In combination, Germany had absolutely no hope of winning.

One must remember that American intervention was not a given. Also, I don;t think the blockade alone could bring Germany down if they have defeated both France and Russia thus removing the constant strain on their economy and begin to harvest the economic resources of Middle-Europe.

Originally Posted by ratfrink

The 1918 German Spring Offensive was initially very successful, but it was quickly halted by an influx of US troops. Following that, the Germans were unable to consolidate their gains because the British naval blockade was limiting Germany's industrial output. Furthermore, the blockade was seriously damaging morale in Germany (nearly a million civilians died from starvation due to the blockade).

I agree. In my Operation Michael scenario I address the possibility of Germany performing better tactically leading to the fall of Paris and the collapse of French morale and their removal from the war.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Cory

So, what do you guys think?

Certainly possible for Germany to "win" WWI, but as said Cory mentioned regarding Germany's position and said angry neighbors on all fronts, it could not be considered decisive victory until all enemies are in no position to have aggressive expansionist ambitions for foreseeable future, proclaims Rolf.

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

of course they couldn't win, they were fighting the british.

Once again, britain's strength has never been in her ground forces, but in her strong navy and ability to hide behind it, notes Rolf.

[reject]

Nobody likes fighting wars like the British.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by reject

Nobody likes fighting wars like the British.

America, proclaims Rolf.

[AMFYOYO]

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

we are talking about WW1 here, not WW2. america wasn't the great power that it was by the late 30s. and i dunno what you're idea of stalemate is, but it certainly doesn't mean that everyone just goes 'oh well, nobody won, lets all go home and call it a draw'.

it basically brings it to a point where its about who's most determined to carry on, who can keep their supplies going and public support from back home. britain would of won on all of those in WW1.

That is pretty much what happened IRL, the German army never felt itself to be defeated on the field. Germany lost WWI at home not on the front lines. Even though there were some serious tactical blunders and break down in discipline on the part of advancing German troops during Operation Michael the German army was by no means dealt a decisive blow. Even though arrival in France of large reinforcements from the U.S. replaced material and men lost by the Triple Entente which the Germans could not match on a tactical level the U.S. troops were ineffective due to lack of experience and sound decision making on the part of their leadership. Even the casualty rates were close during Operation Micheal. The Allies lost nearly 177,739 men while the German troop losses were 209,000 men. The single most significant advantageous outcome from this last German offensive of WWI was not in terms of ground gained or defended nor even injury inflicted upon the opposition was the fact that the majority of the losses suffered by the Germans were crack shock troops that were irreplaceable. This resulted in German morale losses at home due to the failure of the Spring offensive to achieve it's unclear objectives.

No matter how you slice it though the German army was doomed to fail in most of it's offensive objectives for the same reason it did so in WWII, logistics. Operation Michael repeated the mistakes of the Schlieffen Plan, in that it forced German infantry to advance too deep and fight too far away from supplying rail heads. Historically in the 1st half of the 20th century the German high command underestimated time and material requirements for key operations. It was this more than anything that would have made it impossible for Germany to enjoy any real offensive success in WWI.

[MediumD]

Originally Posted by ratfrink

Nah I don't think so; there were two factors which caused Germany to lose the war - US intervention, and the British naval blockade.

I'll agree with the Brit who knows nothing about automobile design on these points, but with a slightly more biased opinion about American intervention.

Originally Posted by Cory

...and begin to harvest the economic resources of Middle-Europe.

Yeah, because harvesting the natural resources of half a continent is quick and easy and will help win a war... No way that would take half a decade to even begin seeing tangible results, it's INSTANT AXIS WIN!!!!111OMG!

Originally Posted by Jugg

the U.S. troops were ineffective due to lack of experience and sound decision making on the part of their leadership.... Allies lost nearly 177,739 men while the German troop losses were 209,000 men.

Yeah, sounds like the US troops were real ineffective, what with that 15+% margin of casualties... You might want to try to rephrase that.

[AMFYOYO]

Originally Posted by MediumD

Yeah, sounds like the US troops were real ineffective, what with that 15+% margin of casualties... You might want to try to rephrase that.

That 15% had nothing to do with the American troops it had to do with the fact that in trench warfare the attacker always has a higher casualty rate. So before you try provoking people get your facts straight. The U.S. had a very small standing professional army in 1916-1917. A huge army of conscripts was rapidly assembled, trained, and deployed to Europe in about 16 months. These troops were green, their leaders had no rel experience in "modern" combat, and used tactics that the French, English, and Germans had abandoned in 1915 as they were suicidal in trench warfare. The real contribution of the U.S. in WWI was not in combat effective troops on the ground but in materials and logistics from an emerging world economy unravaged by three plus years of war.

So if you have an intelligent response that can show in an historically documented manner that the U.S. ground troops were a deciding combat factor in any action during WWI let's have it bucko.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by MediumD

Yeah, because harvesting the natural resources of half a continent is quick and easy and will help win a war... No way that would take half a decade to even begin seeing tangible results, it's INSTANT AXIS WIN!!!!111OMG!

Key word you didn't catch, "begin". Yes it will take time for them to develop the area but the short-term gains from the conquered lands will help greatly, similar to how Germany got massive economic gains from conquering much of Europe in WWII without waiting 5 years. Also they will be able to demobilize large amounts of troops thus reducing the economic strain further.

I never said Germany's victory would be "instant" nor were the Axis involved in the first world war.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Jugg

So if you have an intelligent response that can show in an historically documented manner that the U.S. ground troops were a deciding combat factor in any action during WWI let's have it bucko.

I mostly agree with your post but would like to chime in that American ground troops were indeed decisive for the Allies as they needed a "meat-shield" of fresh bodies because they (particularly France) simply couldn't continue to take those kind of causalities. If you remember it was (in 1917) to the point where Anglo-French generals were begging the Americans to just send them men and that they would uniform/equip them if need be.

[AMFYOYO]

I will give you the meat shield role but being a meat shield is not the same as being a combat effective force.

[The Pat-Man]

I think it could have ended in a stalemate, as in no harsh penalties for either side. If the americans hadnt supplied the brits and later thrown their own dudes into the grinder it would have ended more fairly, probably preventing WW2.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Jugg

I will give you the meat shield role but being a meat shield is not the same as being a combat effective force.

Yes I will agree that you are right in saying that the other nation's armies were soldier-to-soldier more effective then the Americans for the most part.

Originally Posted by The Pat-Man

I think it could have ended in a stalemate, as in no harsh penalties for either side. If the americans hadnt supplied the brits and later thrown their own dudes into the grinder it would have ended more fairly, probably preventing WW2.

Well I think there will be some kind of Second European War, just not WWII as we know it.

[AMFYOYO]

Agreed, even if the Central Powers had defeated France in 1918 they were still no match for the British on the sea. This would have meant a white peace between Germany and Russia as per history as well as a similar arrangement with Britain. The French would have been uneasy at best under German occupation in the 20's and 30's, the British would have spent those 20 years developing equipment and doctrines at a faster pace not having been lulled into a false sense of security by the Treaty of Versailles, and the Russians (under Stalin) would have done the same as a victorious German empire in Europe would have made Stalin very uneasy on his Western front. All of this extra non-historical military advancement along with a proud but defeated France, Britain feeling isolated in Europe but with industrial support from the U.S., and an even more paranoid Stalin would have definitely led to a second European conflict that would have extended world wide due to the colonial interests of a victorious German empire in southeast Asia coming into conflict with American and Japanese interests in the same region. Who knows, maybe this could have led to an alliance between the U.S. and Japan as a common enemy, Germany, emboldened by success in the Great War encroached upon the resources so vitally necessary to the industrial development of Japan and the sustainment of the U.S. as an emerging world power. In this scenario Russia could easily be a part of the alliance between the U.S. Japan as German colonial interests in east Asia would conflict with Stalin's eye on those same resources.

[ratfrink]

Originally Posted by MediumD

I'll agree with the Brit who knows nothing about automobile design...

Oh fuck off. My employer disagrees.

[Shrike]

Guys, hey guys. What if Albert Einstein invented a time travel machine and assasinated Hitler in order to prevent WW2?

[AMFYOYO]

Originally Posted by Shrike

Guys, hey guys. What if Albert Einstein invented a time travel machine and assasinated Hitler in order to prevent WW2?

Or better yet what if Einstein did that and prevented you thereby negating your post.

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by Shrike

Guys, hey guys. What if Albert Einstein invented a time travel machine and assasinated Hitler in order to prevent WW2?

then this modern era would probably exist in a state similar to the early 19th century

WW2 was by broad the best thing to ever happen to the scientific and technological world

Albert would therefore be a total fucking asshole if he did that shit

[MediumD]

Originally Posted by Jugg

So if you have an intelligent response that can show in an historically documented manner that the U.S. ground troops were a deciding combat factor in any action during WWI let's have it bucko.

I don't care to argue the point, just saying you probably could have phrased your point better.

Originally Posted by ratfrink

Oh fuck off. My employer disagrees.

I meant to put some kind of smiley at the end of that, my bad.

[AMFYOYO]

Originally Posted by MediumD

I don't care to argue the point, just saying you probably could have phrased your point better.

So in other words you have no intelligent input to the conversation. Thanks for making that clear.

[Struwwelpeter]

Originally Posted by DiStOrTiOn

then this modern era would probably exist in a state similar to the early 19th century

WW2 was by broad the best thing to ever happen to the scientific and technological world

Albert would therefore be a total fucking asshole if he did that shit

Although it is not necessarily true that WW2 was the best thing to happen to the technological world, if there was anything Albert Einstein could do to thwart the advancement of technology he would have done it - because like any bright mind he realized that technology is "like an ax in the hand of a pathological criminal."

[AMFYOYO]

Originally Posted by Cory

Key word you didn't catch, "begin". Yes it will take time for them to develop the area but the short-term gains from the conquered lands will help greatly, similar to how Germany got massive economic gains from conquering much of Europe in WWII without waiting 5 years. Also they will be able to demobilize large amounts of troops thus reducing the economic strain further.

I never said Germany's victory would be "instant" nor were the Axis involved in the first world war.

The same way the Germans enjoyed the oil fields of Eastern Europe as soon as they conquered those lands in WWII. Exploiting captured resources takes very little time if any. The only delay is when certain infrastructure vital to the processing or transport of those resources are destroyed or damaged during the conflict in which they change hands. And the damage that occurs from that can be repaired by the engineer corps in months or even weeks in many cases. This is why the Russian army followed a scorched earth policy during their retreat at the onset of operation Barbarossa and why the German army did the same thing on their retreat back to Germany in 1944 - 1945. It is a known fact that invading armies can exploit captured resources almost immediately if said resources are left intact other than collateral damage from the conflict.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by DiStOrTiOn

then this modern era would probably exist in a state similar to the early 19th century

WW2 was by broad the best thing to ever happen to the scientific and technological world

Albert would therefore be a total fucking asshole if he did that shit

You guys clearly don't play enough video games.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Shrike

Guys, hey guys. What if Albert Einstein invented a time travel machine and assasinated Hitler in order to prevent WW2?

Red Alert lol. Great game.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Cory

Red Alert lol. Great game.

Einstein was a dick in that game.