For some reason I can’t figure out how exactly Germany lost ww1, in the end of the war it controlled entire Belgium and even some parts of France, while France didn’t control any part of Germany, so what happened? I read somewhere that there were some revolutions in Germany, so was it like the ussr scenario where there was a revolution and after that they just decided to go out of the war or what? I suppose that that’s the thing, but even then I can’t understand how they lost, they didn’t win, but it was a stalemate at most, like Iran-Iraq war, borders changed, but not dramatically and that’s it… When I tried googling it, it just shows me a bunch of factors that contributed to the lose, but not the main reason.
Well, there was no main reason.
Although I suppose you could say that due to a variety of reasons, Germany’s military defense was about to collapse like a house of cards. Had the war lasted one year longer, or maybe even one month longer, Germany would have been completely occupied by the Allies. History would probably have been changed for the better had that happened.
There isn’t always a single “main reason,” and a combination of contributing factors can be quite enough.
You do know that many Germans seem to have felt the same way about the Armistice (that their leaders at that time gave in too soon) and so initiated a rematch about twenty years later.
A couple things:
In order to keep their line so far forward and even advance, they used “storm trooper” tactics that led to the depletion of their best soldiers, so the line was thinned and aging by the end. Not enough troops to prevent the Western powers from continually advancing – and Germany was being continuously pushed back at that point, even if they still controlled all of Germany up until that point.
More important than the revolutions in Germany, IMO, were the revolutions in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The empire fractured in a couple of weeks, causing rump Austria to surrender. One term of the surrender was to allow foreign troops to cross, so eventually even if Germany could stretch their thinning line to hold the West, they would eventually have a southern front to hold (not to mention the Balkan Front.)
If there was anything close to a ‘main reason’ why Germany lost the Great War, it’s the naval blockade.
Germany may have conquered Belgium and a slice of Northern France but it was entirely cut off from its own colonies and also from almost all international trade. France, however, while it came close to collapsing in 1917, held on because it enjoyed many creature comforts from abroad to keep the population content.
Unlike the Entente Powers which were in a broad sense military and economic equals (Russia excepting), the Central Powers really only had one predominant force - Germany, with a declining Austria in second place. Germany effectively propped up its allies, which were all second-rate powers, against a range of first-class powers. The naval blockade made this all the harder for Germany - the 1917 winter was known as the ‘Turnip Winter’.
Russia may have been knocked out in 1917 but this was a hollow victory for Germany as it didn’t impact the ability of Britain and France to resist one jot (and the loss was countered by American entry), while it served to stretch German forces thinner (occupying Russian territory) and also raised hopes for a swift victory in 1918 - which proved false, causing a major loss of morale, and defeat.
The 1918 Spanish Influenza hastened the end of the War.
everybody was more willing to talk peace.
Nobody expects the Spanish Influenza!
Germany had many weak points: two were:
(1)very small domestic oil production. gasoline and diesel was needed, Germany had almost no oil.
(2) agriculture. Germany had to import nitrates for fertilizer, because German soil was light and low in nitrogen. Starvation of the civilian population began in 1918, there were food riots in Berlin. The Royal Navy blockaded Germany, preventing any fertilizer from reaching the country.
By 1918, the Communists and Socialist began to get powerful, and it was only a matter of time until the Imperial government was overthrown.
America had entered the war and provided an increasingly powerful military edge.
The naval blockade was having a major effect on the German civilian population.
Rebellion was starting to affect the German armed forces.
The inevitable result would’ve been further retreat and then military collapse. They agreed to an armistice largely to prevent an outbreak of revolution.
The German army was demoralised and half starved. When the stormtroopers, mentioned above, overran Allied trenches, they found plenty of food and wine - the officers had a hard time keeping the men motivated.
The general population, hardliners excepted, were sick and tired (literally) of war although they were pretty outraged when they saw the terms of the armistice.
As everyone has said, multiple reasons. but the main one was that the Germany army had been defeated in the field during the battles of the Hundred Days through August, September, and October 1918.
As early as 1 October Ludendorff had told the high command that the war was lost, that “an unavoidable and conclusive defeat” beckoned, and advised that Social Democrats and Liberals be brought into the government so they could take the responsibility for making peace. On the 26th October Ludendorff fled to Sweden and on the 29th the High Seas Fleet mutinied when ordered to sea on what was essentially a suicide mission. Revolution was breaking out at home and by 9 November the new head of the army, Groener, was telling the Kaiser that troops would “march home in peace and order … but not under the command of Your Majesty” leading to Wilhelm’s abdication and the declaration of the German Republic.
The truth was the German generals who effectively ran the German government in the second half of the war had no way of stopping the remorseless allied advanced. Although not the driving force in the Hundred Days advance, that was the British Empire forces and the French, the ever growing and increasingly effective American armies were a huge psychological factor in making the German generals realise they had lost.
Other factors, the 'flu, the naval blockade, the collapse of Austria-Hungary all contributed - as did all the cumulative losses of the previous four years - but the basic fact was the German Army, “the main force of the main enemy”, had been defeated in battle and had no chance of recovering.
Incidentally, one thing that DID NOT cause the German to admit defeat was the use of tanks. There is an interesting articleon rapidly diminishing number of tanks available through the Hundred Day in the British Journal of Military History.
What do you mean by history would have changed for the better?
German was not more or less evil than the rest of the parties involved in the war.
History did change for the better, because the way the Allies treated Germany in Versailles and the following collapse of Wallstreet lead to the Nazi party coming to power and showed the world how stupid racial stereo typing is.
May I remind you that Eugenicswas all the rage at the time even in the US, who done that shit way before the Nazis ever though of it.
This does not mean, that I condone or think, what the Nazis did was a good thing.
However, getting back to the topic:
Not just Germany’s military was at the brink of collapsing - all parties involved were on the brink of collapsing.
Since the German military was not able to sustain the fight much longer, the leadership needed and excuse, keep face and/or blame someone else to stop the war especially with the news, that the US was getting more active in the war - which tipped the scale in the favor of the Allies.
Certainly the revolution in Germany, to finely get rid of the monarchy did not help the matter and the people in charge used the Dolchstossas an excuse.
Which of cause got later on further exploited by the Nazi party, similar disinformation like the Rothschild or 9/11 conspiracies going around these days - however, that’s WW2 related stuff.
Without putting words in Frank’s mouth I assumed he meant that if the Allies had insisted on unconditional surrender and occupied the whole of Germany, victory parades in Berlin, Munich, etc, it would not have been possible for Hitler and his like to pretend the German army had been undefeated. Whether this would been enough to prevent the Nazis coming to power and history changing for the better I don’t know but it is a plausible scenario.
Simply awesome. 
An Army is no good if the country supporting and fielding it is collapsing.
You can’t just look at territory held. With the naval blockade and wartime expenses, the German economy (both for supporting civilians and waging war) was a wreck. Morale in the army after years of fighting and especially the offensives that were repulsed was in the toilet, mutinies were becoming more common. Germany’s allies were falling to pieces too, Turkey was gone and Austria-Hungary had split up into component parts. Territories captured from Russia provided some food, but not enough to stave off starvation, and required occupation troops.
So while Germany held some French and Belgian territory, her armies were barely holding ground before the allied offensives, and were unable to hold out against the offensives. With the collapse of Austria-Hungary, there was a whole new section of frontier that needed troops and nowhere to take them from. While Germany was losing allies, the Entente just added the US, with an undamaged economy, untouched morale, and practically limitless manpower. And internally revolt from the impovershed, hungry population or the exhausted soldiers was looming nearer.
Their situation was hopeless, and the Entente was trying to be merciful in ending the war via surrender instead of carrying the fight into Germany proper with more loss of life. History shows that it was a mistake, because postwar Germans looked at the situation like you did and were able to believe the ‘stab in the back’ myth that helped Hitler come to power, but people were tired of war and didn’t have hindsight to know that.
Germany got off very light in the Versailles treaty, and trying to blame Hitler’s rise to power on it has always seemed bizarre to me. Versailles was quite light compared to the treaty of Brest-Livstock that Germany imposed on Russia, for example, and lighter than anything that documents indicate Germany would have wanted from France were they victorious. The economic problems supposedly from Versailles really had a lot more to do with bad economic decisions by the Wiemar government (‘just print money for all of the debt and somehow inflation won’t happen’).
Well, they lost in the end due to economic collapse…basically, their entire economy collapsed, causing the systemic collapse that meant they couldn’t support their armies in the field anymore. Why Germany and not the allies? Well, actually, it could have gone either way, but most likely the intervention of the US and US supplies was the little bit that allowed the allies to hold on (well, some of them…obviously Russia also collapsed and bowed out) long enough for Germany to fold. At a more base level though Germany needed to win quickly…and they didn’t. In the end, France and the UK together were more powerful economically and structurally than the Triple Alliance (even though Russia was a weak point, it still drained the alliance, especially AH), and they had a bit easier of a logistics support picture than Germany did.
In any full-on war there comes a point where the side that’s behind has a decision to make: quit now and sue for peace on some terms, or fight on to the utter destruction of your government and the total occupation of your territory.
Actually that decision is available at *every *moment in a war. But there’s usually a tipping point where it becomes obvious to the high command that they’ve past the point where they can fight to victory or even to a true stalemate. And once they recognize they’re at or past that point they’re simply deciding which post-war environment they prefer.
Not every high command sees this clearly or decides smartly. Note also that what’s best for their country, their citizens, and themselves may differ.
In WWI Germany’s case the whole thing was caving in around their ears pretty decisively as the other posters have ably explained. So recognition wasn’t the hard part. Changes of command, often at gunpoint or via execution are common at this juncture.
The problem was not essentially the Treaty of Versailles by itself, since the Dawes Planand Young Plan eases the treaty to a manageable plan for Germany.
The problem aroused from the financial disaster the Wall Street Crash of 1929was, when the US asked for the money from France and UK the US lend to them, who in turn cashed in on the reparations due from Germany - without Germany being able to borrow any money from the US anymore to keep the show going.
Also remember, that at the time Germany was facing (besides a the biggest economic crises) the huge gain of communism which lead to the coalition disaster in the German federal election in Julyand Nov 1932
Who knows what would have happened.
However, the world made a good move towards better international policies after the insanity that WW2 was.
The UK stopped their major exploits of their colonies and became a goody-two-shoes, the US and other major nations stopped their eugenics program.