I like reading about World War II, but lately I have been looking more into World War I because much of the events in the first World War were interconnected to the second one.
It seems as though Germany had much greater success in the first World War; they seemed to be doing very considering they had offensives going up until 1918. In WWII, not only did most of their conquered territory get retaken, but the allies (particularly the Soviets) bulldozed through Germany and forced a surrender when fighting was all the way inside Berlin. In WWI, though, the conflict ended with German forces still in France.
So some questions arise-
1.) Could the Schleffen plan have worked? I read that some German commanders didn’t stick to the plan as closely as they were supposed to, and that the ‘strong’ wing of the attack didn’t have as many troops as originally planned. Also, part of that wing went off to pursue the French army instead of turning back East towards Paris. So it almost seems like the Germans botched it up themselves, and that the failure was attributed to not commiting enough troops to a single goal/objective.
2.) Could WWI have been fought with zero US involvement? From what I understand, a large part of the US going to war was unrestricted submarine warfare, and the Zimmerman note. But what if Germany (wisely) made it a point to leave the US the hell alone, since obviously it was not in their benefit to have us step in after they had been worn down by years of trench warfare. I really wonder how things would have gone, since much of WWI didn’t look too good for the Allies; Russia declared an armistice and coughed up a bunch of territory to the Germans, the French army was so decimated it relied on the British army for its offensives, the British were learning the hard lessons of submarine warfare, etc.
There’s much more to it but my money is on the fact that the Germans poured almost everything they had into the War effort, which caused great privation back home. Meanwhile the Allies were still able to out-produce them and still have enough material to keep the home front from starvation.
“War of attrition” doesn’t just refer to soldiers.
I would have to say that even without American assistance a German victory, while theoretically possible, would have been very unlikely - a lot of things would have had to go right just to beat the French and British. The March offensive petered out under its own weight and the followup July offensive went very poorly indeed; it is unlikely American forces had much effect on either event.
Once the spring offensive failed (at a cost of 250,000 men) I don’t see how Germany could possibly have avoided defeat. They simply were not in a position to defeat the Commonwealth and French forces arrayed against them; with the initiative lost by July, the French alone were far too strong for the Germans to stop. The enormous American force guaranteed the war would end in 1918 instead of 1919, but I suspect even without them Germany was doomed.
Germany was by mid-1918 starting to break down as a functioning state (as was Austria-Hungary.) The economy was in tatters and the army began to turn against its own government. That’s not true of either France or Britain or any of the Commonwealth powers; bad though their losses were they were still 100% running countries capable of executing military policy. Germany’s very structure was breaking down; it’s inconceivable they could have maintained a substantial strategic war effort past September or October of 1918.
In any event, the arrival of the U.S. Army hopelessly unbalanced the size of the two armies, so whatever slim chance Germany might have had was gone.
True, but there’s a difference between beating and not-being-beaten-by. The Allies were a loooong way from Berlin. Forget Paris, but without the Americans the upper hand in eventual armistice negotions would have been more up-in-the-air. Germany might have been able to retain some of the Belgian and French they controlled, or been made to give back Alsace-Lorraine, or perhaps a return to prewar borders–a draw–might have ensued. But a major Allied incursion into German territory was unlikely.
Some time in the years between the wars, Winston Churchill is said to have made the claim that had the Americans not entered the war, both sides would have fought to an exhausted peace, wherein everybody basically called it quits, and there was a negotiated settlement which didn’t have the horrendous reparations forced upon Germany. Given that Churchill was fairly knowledgeable about the war and it’s aftermath, I’d go with what he and sqweels said.
From what I have read, the Schleffen Plan was probably doomed to begin with… there just wasn’t enough motorized transport to carry the soldiers the distance required in the the proper timeframe. Another problem was that the Germans had to divert a significant number of troops to the Eastern Front, because the Russian army was able to mobilize much more quickly than anybody thought was possible. Germany might have captured Paris, but lost Berlin.
I highly recommend the book The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman for a good explanation of the initial month or so of WWI. If you’re a real keener, you should also read her book The Proud Tower for a informative account of the events that led to WWI.
But they didn’t get to Berlin anyway, even with American help.
Germany didn’t lose the war because they were conquered; they lost because the country collapsed. That was inevitable once they could not defeat France in spring 1918. There’s no other possible outcome; they weren’t prepared to negotiate a peace and the country was simply doomed to revolution as a result.
While we’re at it, could someone elucidate the “stabbed in the back” argument that the Nazis–specifically Hitler–made and which was a central tenant of their rise to power?
The “stabbed in the back” argument says that, at the time of the Armistice, if not winning the war, at least not losing it…the front lines were still on French soil, Germany still held French territory, and that another offensive still might have been possible.
However, back in Germany itself, Socialists, Communists and pacifists were revolting and striking, which brought down the government, forced the Kaiser to abdicate, and surrender.
So, the German army wasn’t beaten by the enemy, but instead betrayed by elements within Germany.
Basically this legend claims that Germany was “undefeated on the battle field” and the collapse resulted from a leftist revolution.
The following were some important events connected to the “November Revolution”:
9/29/1918 The German supreme command, including Hindenburg and Ludendorff (not exactly leftist revolutionaries) urged the Emperor and Chancellor to seek a ceasefire because they were convinced that the war could not be won by military means any more.
10/29/1918 Mutiny of the sailors of the German High Sea Fleet which more or less stayed in port after the battle of Jutland; As a reaction some ships were moved to Kiel
11/4/1918 In Kiel the first “Council of workers and soldiers” was formed. It was headed by a member of parliament of the social democrat SPD (btw. the party of the current Chancellor Schröder) In the following days the revolution spread throughout Germany, “Worker’ s Councils” were established in several cities.
11/9/1918 Imperial Chancellor Max von Baden on his own authority announced the abdication of Emperor Wilhelm II, the social democrats proclaim the republic. The same day the communist Spartakusbund proclaims the “Free Socialist Republic of Germany”.
The more moderate social democrats gain the upper hand and after further struggles the “Weimar” republic is founded.
Officially not at all, since the (moderate) republic had been proclaimed earlier and became the foundation of the “Weimar” republic, but the constitution wasn’t passed before 8/11/1919 (in Weimar, hence the name). In the transitional period there were fights between the different factions.
A notable example is the “Räterepublik” (translation of soviet republic) in Bavaria. It went through several stages of violent civil war. In december 1919 the state of war officially ended, but even the later Weimar republic wasn’t always peaceful by todays standards.
And yes, they definitely intended to create a full-blown communist state. Some of the leaders of the Spartakusbund like Liebknecht who proclaimed the “Free Socialist Republic” became national icons (and martyrs) in east Germany.
The “Free Socialist Republic of Germany” really didn’t exist outside of Liebknecht’s head. The communists rose up in Berlin in January of 1919, but the uprising was crushed, and Lieknecht and Luxemburg murdered in custody.
There was a more successful Communist state in Bavaria. Kurt Eisner declared the Bavarian Socialist Republic on November 7, 1918, and led it till he was assassinated on Feb. 21, 1919. At his death the Bavarian soviets (afraid of a counterrevolution) overthrew the National Assembly and the state became a lot more millitant.
After the April execution by the Red Guard of eight men suspected of being Freikorps spies, Germany sent troops in, and crushed the BSR.
