the end of WW1

[Belissarius]

Just to let u know, what you wrote in your first paragraph kinnda makes it sound like u think it would have been a good idea to let all the Germans kill themselves. Now the second paragraph,if the US wasn't needed, then why did the Brits try to so hard to get the US on their side? They even took extreme measures as cutting the German-American Atlantic telegraph line so that all war news in the US would come from the UK.

Well anyone that was fighting the Great war would want a powerful ally. and American shipping would help britian's shortages and fresh troops are a welcome thing. While they are not a desiding factor they are always better than not having them. Its simply make good sense to get the US on side.

 

[Belissarius]

That's interesting and all, but in what way is it related to my post?

hahaha nothing. Seems I pressed reply instead of post reply. sorry.

 

[Belissarius]

Well, it's actually German textbook history. Not necessary to slam the Americans all the time Only in early November 1918, did the first unrest begin with the revolt of the Reichsmarine on November 9 - which was subsequently falsely blamed for the defeat brandishing socialists, communists, and jews as the culprits. Before that, while the general populace was certainly feeling the pinch and in turmoil, it was far from revolt. Germans didn't revolt while at war, not matter if the circumstances warrant it or not. Open revolt on the streets only started in January 1919. World War I was a walk in the park compared for the population at home to WW II and despite it all, the population never revolted even then. From talking with my grandfather (who served with the Badisches Pionier Btl 16 in WW I) and grandmother, when they were still alive, I have a hard time to reconcile some of your analysis of the events. Also, check out the following link to the Goethe Institute: http://www.goethe.de/in/d/gaz/didak1918-f.html

"Ende des 1. Weltkriegs: Mit dem Kriegseintritt der USA 1917 zeichnete sich allmählich das Ende des 1. Weltkriegs ab, denn die deutschen Truppen wurden an der Westfront in die Defensive gedrängt. Bereits im Dezember 1917 unterzeichnete Deutschland einen Waffenstillstand mit Sowjetrussland, der im März 1918 in einem Sonderfriedensschluss endete. Die allgemeine Kriegslage, der Zusammenbruch Österreich-Ungarns und die inneren Unruhen in Deutschland zwangen die deutsche Heeresleitung letzendlich, den Alliierten einen Waffenstillstand anzubieten"

I'll paraphrase "with the war entry of the USA 1917 the end of WWI was predictable since the German troops were pushed into the defensive on the Western Front. In December 1917 Germany signed an armistice with Soviet Russia, which ended in a peace treaty in 1918. The general war situation, the breakup of the Austria-Hungary and the internal unrest in Germany forced the German Army Command to offer an armistice to the Allies"

First off I dont believe i said anything about revolt i stated that support was being lost and that the german leadership knew this. And you provided evidence to support that assurtion. You dont need a revolt for the german leadership to see that they couldnt survive a seige defence (there only option after 1918s offensives) They couldnt survive a seige because the german people were literly slowly starving and with that their support for the war. My analysis is based on the fact that American troops just didnt have the effect its given by yourself. The RN starved germany out. My indication of the Jewish-socialist conspiracy was pointing out that the troops on the field had no idea of the hardships at home not that there WAS a jewish-socialist conspiracy. I only indicate that some german officers and soldiers believed this. Only officers and soldiers who had no idea of the hardships at home could believe that there was a subversive element that caused the defeat of Germany. I am not saying now nor did my previous post even hint that this was a desiding factor to germany's defeat. i included it to indicate just how bad the civilian populas had it and just how ignorant that the german soldier and many of the officer corp were of the conditions in germany.

Points the lead to germany's defeat.

1) failed offensives of 1918. These failures ment the germany couldnt fight on the offense but had to switch to a "seige" defense. Ie bleed her remaining enemies dry and in turn keep from "losing'" the war, as she was no longer winning the war. She had the military force to keep from losing the war had points two and three not been a factor.

2) blaockade - germany was starving for everything including food she just couldnt continue fighting and the armericans didnt do a thing to make this inevitable. Germany was losing the war via blockade before teh US entry in 1917. Which explains the huge offensives of 1918, Germany wished to defeat the western allies on the field to win the war as she could already see the writing on the wall, the blockade was working.

3) eroding support at home for the war. With support at home the german people would have been willing to suffer more to help continue the war like the did for most of 1917 and 1918. But with no end in sight and les and less of their bassic needs being met the german leadership knew that they couldnt continue.

Look at it from teh leadership point of view. They cant mount an offensive, they cant feed and supply the nation because of the blockade and now the german people are losing support. Thats what causes them to realise they had lost NOT because some yabky soldiers showed up in the trenches. Had that been the case they would have surrenered in 1917. The german leadership had little fear from the us after they saw their fighting ability. This is not a diss towards the US these soldiers were simply far far far too green to make a major difference on the front. In fact it wasnt the US arrival that caused a change in the front, but the german attacks of 1918 which was from the huge influx of eastern front troops and the need to gain a victory as the blockade was working.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

i do believe there is a powerful smell of nationalism here


being "green" is a con AND a pro. american troops have no problem climbing over the trenches and charging in. they havent felt trench warfare for 4 years and are willing to do their part to win the war. "green" is not a huge pain because german troops are so demoralized that the american troops despite lacking expereince make up for it elsewhere.

to use victoria's battle system.

germanies 70 org to americas 50 does not make up for the fact that the average german division would be capped at 30 morale and americas is averaging at 75. with superior numbers and ability to use them germany is simply doomed. a new offensive would have achived a breakthrough because german troops would simply have given up. they cant stop americas overwelming numbers.

if america was not in the war germany can take all those troops from russia, do limited offensives to give them a much better defense position and simply wait the allies out. exploit the new russian lands for all they are worth and tell the allies we will accept a peace from you that results in germany gaining much land in the east, but giving back the lost french lands and colonial additions for england. allies would not care much because they cant break the german lines and without ability at such they want to end the war on terms good for them. germany gets all of polish lands and some other russian lands, france gets her land back and england gets more colonies and proves her navy superior.

blockaid wont end the war if germany knows the allies are unable to break her lines and with no american troops, french troops say no to any offensives by them and england cant invade germany on her own. stalemate which germany wins by defult since the war isnt fought on her lands. if some miracle caused a white peace with return to borders pre ww1 germany wins out with a country untouched physically by war.



its important to note that, this was not ww2. in ww1 countries were looking forward to dividing up spoils of victory and bringing in more voices at the peace table is only done if you NEED them for victory. if that country can play a crucial role in victory then you want them in, otherwise its just another opinion at a crowded peace table. uk didnt want US in just cuz it makes the war easier, they want them in because they may not win without the US but its a 100% fact they will win with them.

just the opinions of an american citizen watching the superbowl trying to get his opinion into words while distracted

 

[Grosshaus]

Jacob-lundgren:

Otherwise sound reasoning, but I'd presume all those German division brought from the east would have been used to make one final grand attempt of a full assault instead of minor skirmishes you proposed. The way WW1 assaults ended up, especially at that time with low morale, it propably would have resulted in major German casualties.

 

[Allenby]

And as for the Versailles treaty - it was just too harsh, in fact it was the single most important factor to the outbreak of WWII.

I agree with that first part - the mistake of the Treaty of Versailles was that it was it took the unsatisfactory middle path between reconciling Germany and completely crushing her. Ultimately, the treaty was harsh enough to rile the German people in wanting revenge but not harsh enough to render Germany totally incapable of her war making abilities. Either the Allies should have treated Germany leniently, in the manner of how Prussia dealt with Austria in 1866, or they should have dismembered it and subjected its constituent parts to Allied rule by proxy. In the first case, Hitler would have no followers because they would not see the need for revenge, and in the second, Hitler would not have the platform upon which to build a power base.

To say that Versailles was the most important factor in causing the Second World War to break out, mistakenly, in my mind, assumes that the Weimar Republic could never have survived. Had the German republic survived ten or maybe fifteen years later than it did, where would those angry First World War German army officers be? Old and in retirement, I would have thought.

 

[w_mullender]

Haig is not adored in the UK, but more people are rightfully recognising him as the commander who nourished a inexperienced and relatively small British Army in 1915 into a sizeable, powerful force capable of defeating the strongest army in the world by 1918. To say he's 'nothing more than a butcher' is simplistic tosh that I'd expect from Blackadder or an Alan Clark book.

I entirely disagree, but will just add that also the british PM wasnt too happy with Haig's "grand strategy".

 

[Allenby]

I entirely disagree, but will just add that also the british PM wasnt too happy with Haig's "grand strategy".

As we've locked swords over this subject before, I'll simply refer the right honourable gentleman to answers I gave previously

 

[w_mullender]

As we've locked swords over this subject before, I'll simply refer the right honourable gentleman to answers I gave previously

Oh I wasnt sure it was you. You might find this interesting then:
http://www.graphics35.freeserve.co.uk/dhaig/pages/essay.html

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Jacob-lundgren:

Otherwise sound reasoning, but I'd presume all those German division brought from the east would have been used to make one final grand attempt of a full assault instead of minor skirmishes you proposed. The way WW1 assaults ended up, especially at that time with low morale, it propably would have resulted in major German casualties.

not sure how the germans would see it but personaly i think its better to give yourself all the highground via smaller offensives all over the front and then instead of blooding yourself with another drive on paris, dig in and start working peace with the allies. if the germans hold all the high ground, a strategic reserve and offer france her land back. what are the french going to say? allies cant break through and the war is still on french soil.

 

[Grosshaus]

not sure how the germans would see it but personaly i think its better to give yourself all the highground via smaller offensives all over the front and then instead of blooding yourself with another drive on paris, dig in and start working peace with the allies. if the germans hold all the high ground, a strategic reserve and offer france her land back. what are the french going to say? allies cant break through and the war is still on french soil.

That's the way it's seen now, but according to the same reasoning most of the assaults of WW1 were futile and not worth the effort. Generals at the time thought otherwise. The mindset was so different.

 

[Nikolai II]

Gotta another question:End of WWI is in the year 1918 no?So why then I saw a monument dedicated to soldiers that fought in WWI and there was down there written 1914-1919?It is in London.

Well it ended 11th november, close enough to 1919.

Actually the war ended during the summer of 1919 - although the shooting ended november 11 so that's what we tend to claim as end of war today.

But back then a war wasn't over until a peace agreement had been signed - and making the Versailles treaty and getting it signed took a while..

 

[unmerged(24982)]

Points the lead to germany's defeat.

1) failed offensives of 1918. These failures ment the germany couldnt fight on the offense but had to switch to a "seige" defense. Ie bleed her remaining enemies dry and in turn keep from "losing'" the war, as she was no longer winning the war. She had the military force to keep from losing the war had points two and three not been a factor.

2) blaockade - germany was starving for everything including food she just couldnt continue fighting and the armericans didnt do a thing to make this inevitable. Germany was losing the war via blockade before teh US entry in 1917. Which explains the huge offensives of 1918, Germany wished to defeat the western allies on the field to win the war as she could already see the writing on the wall, the blockade was working.

3) eroding support at home for the war. With support at home the german people would have been willing to suffer more to help continue the war like the did for most of 1917 and 1918. But with no end in sight and les and less of their bassic needs being met the german leadership knew that they couldnt continue.

Look at it from teh leadership point of view. They cant mount an offensive, they cant feed and supply the nation because of the blockade and now the german people are losing support. Thats what causes them to realise they had lost NOT because some yabky soldiers showed up in the trenches. Had that been the case they would have surrenered in 1917. The german leadership had little fear from the us after they saw their fighting ability. This is not a diss towards the US these soldiers were simply far far far too green to make a major difference on the front. In fact it wasnt the US arrival that caused a change in the front, but the german attacks of 1918 which was from the huge influx of eastern front troops and the need to gain a victory as the blockade was working.

Re 1) Agreed, but neither France nor the UK were in a better manpower situation than Germany. What titled the tide was that more than 1 million fresh US troops were in France in 1918 and about 100,000 were coming every month. The arithmatic of the meatgrinder was overwhelming.

Re 2) I still disagree with this point. Things weren't rosy, but largely selfsufficient after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where the Germans got a lot of resources from the East, but which ultimately lost them the war. Germany had to occupy the territory with divisions which may have turned the offensive in 1918.

Re 3) Agreed. The spark was the revolt of the German Navy, which refused to go down in a last glorious battle. Interestingly enough, the steel from the WWI Germany Navy is now highly sought after, because it is the least radioactivly contaminated steel in the world.

And yes, I agree again, having said before that the OHL saw the writing on the wall and asked for the armistice to avoid further bloodshed.

 

[unmerged(24982)]

That's the way it's seen now, but according to the same reasoning most of the assaults of WW1 were futile and not worth the effort. Generals at the time thought otherwise. The mindset was so different.

Well, they also had no other means. Only the tank started to change the bloody stalemate. If you look at it, the Moltke Plan was the "solution" to get around the trench warfare. In violation of Belgian neutrality they swooped around the prepared positions, such as Verdun, that dominated the southern half of the western front. And it almost worked... it's called the Miracle at the Somme for a reason. After the 1st Battle of the Somme, they fought for feet or meters rather than for miles of kilometers of advancement. The "hope" was to punch a hole through the front and get movement in. They had weeks of artillery bombardments in preparation of some major offensives to no avail. The most successful course of action were counter-offensives...

 

[Nikolai II]

Re 3) Agreed. The spark was the revolt of the German Navy, which refused to go down in a last glorious battle. Interestingly enough, the steel from the WWI Germany Navy is now highly sought after, because it is the least radioactivly contaminated steel in the world.

And yes, I agree again, having said before that the OHL saw the writing on the wall and asked for the armistice to avoid further bloodshed.

No. The spark was more along the line of scared Ludendorff wanted to talk armistice. After a few days he realized that Germany could easily hold until 1919 since winter weather would prevent any useful allied offensives until spring.

By then the word that the war was about to end had spread - and nothing destroys morale in an army as the knowledge that you would die for no reason..

The German Naval Mutiny is only the most famous example, but mutineering and rioting was commonplace. It was the experiences from this time that would lead to a later german leader proclaim that 'we will never surrender' and refuse to even talk about peace..

What the German high command could see written on the wall was that the army could no longer be trusted to fight (that it would not be able to fight for long even if it could have been trusted, that they conveniently overlooked) so they quickly thrust german leadership back into civilian hands to be able to keep their hands 'clean'.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

Well, they also had no other means. Only the tank started to change the bloody stalemate. If you look at it, the Moltke Plan was the "solution" to get around the trench warfare. In violation of Belgian neutrality they swooped around the prepared positions, such as Verdun, that dominated the southern half of the western front. And it almost worked... it's called the Miracle at the Somme for a reason. After the 1st Battle of the Somme, they fought for feet or meters rather than for miles of kilometers of advancement. The "hope" was to punch a hole through the front and get movement in. They had weeks of artillery bombardments in preparation of some major offensives to no avail. The most successful course of action were counter-offensives...

That isn't correct, the trench warfare wasn't recongized as a problem, at least not as a cruical problem. The Turks, Bulgarians, Serbs and Greek fought two wars of movement prior to it.
The sweep trough Belgium was the only option to achive a strategic suprise and promised a operational advatege. This advatage was so importment for the Germans that they decided to brake the neutrality, brign UK into the war, open a longer front etc...
However it had no chance to work, the French were forming another army at Paris, and while they miracle happend at the Marne, they didn't need one at Seine
The tank was an importment weapon, but it wasn't the only one, artillery got a lot more effective, forward observs were etablished, companies were brooken up, etc... Basicly the advantage of defense wasn't so crushing 1918 compared to 1914.

 

[Demetrios]

Interestingly enough, the steel from the WWI Germany Navy is now highly sought after, because it is the least radioactivly contaminated steel in the world.

Why is that? Did the waters of the Scapa Flow protect it?

 

[unmerged(5205)]

Without US help before and after its entry in both wars, Germany would have won both wars in the west. In 1914/15, with the UK having previously relied on German imports of chemicals for its consumptions ran seriously short on explosives and ammunition. Only US support left the British Army operational.

After living many years in the UK and the US after growing up in Germany, it is very apparent how different the views on what happend are. In the UK, I find that the role of the Royal Navy gets highlighted, which was important but rather uneventful. Just look at the controversy if the Bismarck scuttled itself or got sunk by the RN. It's only a controversy in the UK. I am still boggled how much the British adore FM Haig, who lets be honest was nothing more than a butcher. Interestingly enough, WWI doesn't recognize in the American awareness, where everything is dominated by WWII and Vietnam, even Korea gets little recognition.

And for the record I believe that it was good for the world that Germany lost both of the wars.

Same thing for William T. Sherman. Down south he is viewed as a war criminal(burning down a city should qualify you) and up north they name tanks after him and enshrine him as a great General. I agree he was a good leader but burning down cities makes you a war criminal

 

[L G]

Dont forget ladies and gentlemen, the 1918 German offensive was also (from the three sources ive read) sparked by the incoming American troops, green or not. I still remember vividly John Keegan explaining the reasoning for Hindenburg and L's offensive, As Theng said.

 

[Darkrenown]

hahaha nothing. Seems I pressed reply instead of post reply. sorry.

No probs, I just wondered if you'd someone read some other meaning in my post.