# How did Germany lose ww1? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 6, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798 "2015-11-06T12:48:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/41 "2015-11-07T00:10:38Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > 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. . There are no such official documents. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/42 "2015-11-07T00:12:38Z")
> [@KaleMan](#): > > “Not enough mana for casting spell” 😃 > You just cant win if you start war against Russia Empire, Britain Empire, French Republic in same time. In theory they had the Austro Hungarian Empire, the Turkish Empire and the Italians on their side. so it want as lopsided as you make it out to be. The Italians were backstabbers and the AH empire turned out to be a paper Tiger. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/43 "2015-11-07T00:29:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In theory they had the Austro Hungarian Empire, the Turkish Empire and the Italians on their side. Also known as Larry, Curly and Moe :p. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/44 "2015-11-07T00:41:45Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I think the math shows the Versailles treaty was about ten times harder than the Treaty of Frankfurt. Oh, the math shows that, does it? Does the math also show the damage caused by the Germans in WWI vs. the damage caused by the French in the Franco-Prussian war? I’ll also note that you have no comment on the comparison with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/45 "2015-11-07T04:02:38Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > From reading this thread, it almost seems like Germany was a sprinter in a marathon. They had the resources and tactics to make gains but they were too costly and they wouldn’t be able to sustain what they’d gained. The sprinter had a leg cramp and bowed out before things got worse. That was what Schlieffen thought as well: Germany couldn’t win a two-front war, so knock France out first and decisively before Russia could mobilize, and then fight the Eastern Front while the UK was dithering about trying to launch what amounted to a D-Day invasion without what we’d consider modern landing craft or airplanes capable of softening up the invasion site. The hitch was that it involved going through neutral Belgium and, allegedly, killing a Hell of a lot of nuns. That brought the UK in, and then France managed to stop their offensive, and the war was lost right then. They just didn’t really see it at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/46 "2015-11-07T06:25:42Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Why go back 40 years or forward 20 years when we can look at what terms Germany felt was reasonable to impose on an Entente power in that very same year? Germany felt that it was perfectly reasonable to demand that Russia give up the territories of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine to German control, and Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi to Turkey. Poland also remained in control of the Central powers, though they didn’t mention it in the treaty. That was roughly a third of the Russian Empire’s population, half of her industry, and 90% of her coal mines. Russia was also required to pay six billion marks in reparations on a much shakier economy than Germany. That was because they knew Russia was in pretty bad shape, and that the Bolsheviks were pretty eager to get out of the war. It wasn’t a case of punishment, it was a case of what they could get away with. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/47 "2015-11-07T13:03:54Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > That was what Schlieffen thought as well: Germany couldn’t win a two-front war, so knock France out first and decisively before Russia could mobilize, and then fight the Eastern Front while the UK was dithering about trying to launch what amounted to a D-Day invasion without what we’d consider modern landing craft or airplanes capable of softening up the invasion site. > > The hitch was that it involved going through neutral Belgium and, allegedly, killing a Hell of a lot of nuns. That brought the UK in, and then France managed to stop their offensive, and the war was lost right then. They just didn’t really see it at the time. This. Which is not too far off what Yamamoto thought about WWII in the Pacific. It continues to amaze me when strategic thinkers believe in short sharp decisive wars at relatively low cost to the aggressor. One would think after this many centuries’ experience demonstrating the folly of that attitude folks would grow up. But no. Even as recently as the 21st Century GWB (Cheney?) did it in Iraq. It’s arguable whether any subsequent strategic-military adventures by other leaders or powers are in quite the same category, but the century is yet young. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/48 "2015-11-07T14:22:21Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > That was because they knew Russia was in pretty bad shape, and that the Bolsheviks were pretty eager to get out of the war. It wasn’t a case of punishment, it was a case of what they could get away with. They still pushed it too far. The Bolsheviks were eager to end the war but the Germans insisted on a treaty that was so outrageous even the Bolsheviks refused to sign it. As a result, the Germans had to launch another offensive to convince the Bolsheviks to sign. The problem for the Germans was that they were on a deadline. The whole plan had been they would force the Bolsheviks to surrender quickly so they could redeploy troops from Russia back to France for an offensive there before the Americans arrive. By insisting on their harsh treaty terms, they delayed this for several weeks. The result was that Germany lost the 1918 offensive in France and thereby lost the war. It was forced to give back all the territory it had taken from Russia and also sign the Versailles Treaty. It often seems like the effective force against Germany was Germany itself. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/49 "2015-11-07T16:19:00Z")
Some more reasons. With the loss of the Balkans, the Germans would lose their oil on top of everything else not going their way. [This graph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#/media/File:Riflemen-1918-Western-Front.jpg) shows how much the Allies increased their front-line rifle strength while German strength fell in half in 1918. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This summation explains why Germany lost the war even though it appeared to be doing well. It lost the naval war and that was the war that mattered. The land war, while it got most of the attention, wasn’t as important. Except of course, had the Germans done just a little better in the West and knocked out the French, it would have been a different story. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > Which is not too far off what Yamamoto thought about WWII in the Pacific. > > It continues to amaze me when strategic thinkers believe in short sharp decisive wars at relatively low cost to the aggressor. > > One would think after this many centuries’ experience demonstrating the folly of that attitude folks would grow up. But no. Even as recently as the 21st Century GWB (Cheney?) did it in Iraq. It’s arguable whether any subsequent strategic-military adventures by other leaders or powers are in quite the same category, but the century is yet young. I’m sure you are using Yamamoto as a shortcut for the military planners in Imperial Japan, but he was one of those more ambivalent about their chances, famously said > [@Yamamoto](#): > > Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices. That quote was often taken out of context to suppose that he believed it would be possible to win against the US, while the opposite was true. > [@](#): > > In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success. While opposed to the war against the US, he also was the architect of the Pearl Harbor raid and believed that the loss of the US battleships would seriously affect public morale. Along with those you’ve listed, we must add Hitler who was so confident of quick victories that he didn’t put German on total war footing until far too late. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The problem for the Germans was that they were on a deadline. The whole plan had been they would force the Bolsheviks to surrender quickly so they could redeploy troops from Russia back to France for an offensive there before the Americans arrive. By insisting on their harsh treaty terms, they delayed this for several weeks. > > The result was that Germany lost the 1918 offensive in France and thereby lost the war. It was forced to give back all the territory it had taken from Russia and also sign the Versailles Treaty. > > It often seems like the effective force against Germany was Germany itself. This is overly simplified and incorrect. Germany had structural problems with the offense, and poor logistics prevented bringing ammunition the food to the storm troopers, among other problems. They lacked a clear, overall plan and squandered many of their chances. They had tied up one million soldiers in occupying Russia, and were losing the best of the troops in the offense. The Allies had developed better defenses, so it’s not this simple case of losing because of a couple of weeks of timing. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/50 "2015-11-07T16:24:51Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > That was because they knew Russia was in pretty bad shape, and that the Bolsheviks were pretty eager to get out of the war. It wasn’t a case of punishment, it was a case of what they could get away with. It was a treaty with terms that Germany considered acceptable to impose on one of the Entente powers that lost in the very same year that Germans were whining about what big meanies the Entente powers were for the Versailles treaty. The idea that Germany considered taking 1/3 of the population of the Russian Empire a completely reasonable thing to do really weakens complaints about Versailles going to far. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/51 "2015-11-07T16:55:12Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > It continues to amaze me when strategic thinkers believe in short sharp decisive wars at relatively low cost to the aggressor. One would think after this many centuries’ experience demonstrating the folly of that attitude folks would grow up. What ‘many centuries experience?’ In 1870 Prussia fought a war againt France that lasted less than a year and resulted in a lot of territorial and financial gain at France’s expense, plus prompted the southern German states to merge with Prussia into Germany. That wasn’t even 50 years before World War I, it was still living memory. And shortly before that were the second Schleswig War and Austro-Prussian war, both of which were quick and profitable Prussian Victories. When your country was forged out of short, sharp victories it’s pretty easy to see why you’d think planning for a sharp war is a good idea. Ignoring facts on the ground (the Schlieffen plan required more troops than Germany had, for example) and expecting things to work out is bad planning, but that doesn’t make the whole concept invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/52 "2015-11-07T18:52:48Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > The 1918 Spanish Influenza hastened the end of the War. > everybody was more willing to talk peace. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Nobody expects the Spanish Influenza! > [@campp](#): > > Simply awesome. 🙂 Around 5% of all Humans on Earth died, in 9 terrifying months. Still cool? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/53 "2015-11-07T19:09:43Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > Around 5% of all Humans on Earth died, in 9 terrifying months. > > Still cool? :dubious: If you don’t laugh you’ve gotta cry… ---
**Author:** ![sparky\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@sparky\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sparky_1)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/54 "2015-11-07T19:57:15Z")
I had always thought Germany was essentially starved of supplies and fighting men. Continuing the war would have caused the populace to revolt. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/55 "2015-11-08T10:06:25Z")
The Germans and the Prussians before them had had good experiences with winning quick wars and fighting while outnumbered from several sides, much like Israel has. In WWI and WWII, quick decisive victories only partly came which then lead to being ground down from both sides. Those interested in this discussion may be interested in two past threads concerning WWI: Why was WWI such a stalemate?: [Why was WWI such a stalemate? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=644229) How was the WWI stalemate broken?: [How was the WWI stalemate broken? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=644975) ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798/56 "2015-11-08T10:37:42Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > What ‘many centuries experience?’ In 1870 Prussia fought a war againt France that lasted less than a year and resulted in a lot of territorial and financial gain at France’s expense, plus prompted the southern German states to merge with Prussia into Germany. That wasn’t even 50 years before World War I, it was still living memory. And shortly before that were the second Schleswig War and Austro-Prussian war, both of which were quick and profitable Prussian Victories. > > When your country was forged out of short, sharp victories it’s pretty easy to see why you’d think planning for a sharp war is a good idea. Ignoring facts on the ground (the Schlieffen plan required more troops than Germany had, for example) and expecting things to work out is bad planning, but that doesn’t make the whole concept invalid. It is arguable that the Schlieffen Plan was nothing more than a concept to state what Germany could have done with a few more Corps. It was, in effect, a plan to recruit more troops- and if the Kaiser had invested in that instead of a Navy that was effectively bottled up for the war it would have been really interesting. Some arguments state the pla was in the keeping of the elderly sisters of Schlieffen and it was resurrected later to explain the unthinkable defeat of a Prussian led army. (Terrence Zuber) Basically the war was lost for Germany due to the Naval Blockade by the Royal Navy. Germany lost access to things such as rubber, petroleum and more importantly fertilizers that crippled the farming industry. The American intervention was of course important, and possibly decisive, in Operation Michael. However, fighting a two front war was always going to be difficult. Russia was close to a basket case and going to war was the thing they could not afford to do. However, national pride took them there and it occupied German forces 3 years before the inevitable revolution. Of course, Germany’s allies were pretty useless eventually as they were all relying on Germany for hardware. In the end a long war was not going to end well for them:mad:. There is a discussion (for another time) that it would have been better if they had won- no Hitler etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-germany-lose-ww1/736798.md?page=2)