There always seems to be a lot of documentaries on WWII but not much on WWI. Lack of a villian like Hitler, lack of film footage and confusing motivations I’m sure contribute to this. However, I was discussing the war with some people the other day and we were split on one issue. Was Germany doomed to lose the war and the addition of American troops just hastened the inevitable? If America had not joined could the war have gone either way? I will reserve my opinions until I see if someone smarter than me blows my theory out of the water 
Just want to establish that there are hours and hours of film footage of World War I.
Compared to the Civil War yes. But next to WWII its nothing. Also most of what I have seen is pretty crappy. If there is some good footage I would like to see it. Most of what I have seen appears to be staged and taken during training. Lack of technology I’m sure. Of course I am hijacking my own thread.
I am not a historian of WW I by any stretch of the imagination (my preferences run earlier to that), so take the following with an appropriately large grain of salt.
I do not think that Germany was doomed to lose per se. Trench warfare had really changed the manner in which the nations of Europe fought and the battles had largely ground to a stand-still. Causualty rates were enormous on both sides of any line you care to pick. The will to war was largely shattered.
If the German government thought strategically, I think they could have ended the war by negotiating a peace that extended their territory in most, if not all, directions. If they were truly smart, they would have shrunk back from the lines that they had established and the people of the other nations would have forced the governments to accept the peace.
More than anything, I think that the entry into the war by the U.S. energized and invigorated the fighting spirit of the European nations. It was this catalyst (and the tremendous efforts of our troops) that caused the utter collapse of Germany’s advances.
To paraphrase Monty Python–
“Oh, you want Great Debates. This is GQ. They’re down the hall.”
Moved.
samclem GQ moderator.
I’m a history buff, though not of WWI per se. Nevertheless, I think it’s reasonably clear that Germany had a better than decent shot at winning barring US entry. As American troops were en route, the Germans had:
- knocked Russia out of the war and could concentrate on the Western Front only
- driven the French army to widespread mutiny
- developed tactics which would almost win the war for them even with the American entry
The last great German offensive was nearly successful (IIRC) but was a desperation move since the Yanks were coming-- an attempt to end the war before that. Absent American troops, they might either have succeeded or simply tried to wait out a plausible Second French Revolution…
Well, many people think that the Germans might have scored a quick victory if they had stuck to their original plan, the Schlieffen plan.
Appearantly Schlieffen’s successor, von Moltke, made some badly thought-out last minute changes to the plan. Schlieffen’s last words were reportedly “keep the right flank strong”. Von Moltke didn’t.
Anyway, it was a pretty close run thing. Maybe Germany could have won - then we might have some kind of French Hitler in the 30s and a different WWII. At least the war might have been shorter, because Germany didn’t really stand a chance if it didn’t score a relatively fast victory, since since the above-mentioned plan almost guaranteed that England, and eventually the US, would join the war against them. Still, if they had won in the east sooner, who knows?
Germany was farked. Hard.
Militarily, they failed to make any progress, and were falling back in some places. But that isn’t why they were farked.
They were (in many cases) starving to death. The British blockade of German ports and control of the seas prevented Germany from importing food and supplies. Much of what the Germans had was diverted to the war effort, and the people were suffering. The war was becoming increasingly unpopular, and their “knocking Russia out” was starting to backfire with rebellious Communists gaining power in Germany.
Germany had no chance.
The more I read this, the more I get a nervous twitch.
How, exactly, do you define Germany as “knocking Russia out”? You are aware of WHY Russia withdrew, and how narrowly they came to staying at war? And how little Germany had to do with that? You are also aware that there was fighting from Italy through Austria to Turkey?
There are a few ways that Germany could have won:
-
Stick to their original plans. Don’t let anxious field commanders do things that put things out of whack, happened in 1914, and also at Verdun.
-
Work better with their few allies. Had they co-ordinated with the AH Empire, they could have made the Verdun bleed the French Army to death. Instead, events on the other end of the war lead to not enough troops being available for the battle’s last stages.
-
Less clumsy diplomacy. This combined with a less anglophillic US President might kept the US out of the war. Instead, actions taken by the Germans lead directly to the US involvment, no matter what the desires of the President.
-
Make more realistic goals. The 1918 offenses should not have had to goal of going all the way to Paris, but to merely take the ground that could be secured.
-
Maybe use the Imperial Navy. Even if it was all sunk it might have taken down much of the Allied fleets. As it was, the way it was used led to it being almost worthless after Jutland.
One thing that could not really have been avoided was the number of fronts Germany and the A-HE had to fight on. Depending on how you looked at it, one could argue that they were fighting on FOUR fronts. (East, West, Italy, and that little incident with Rumania). That’s hard to overcome. Germany could not outresource the Allies, but it could use its skills to exhaust them into suing for peace. Although, had the war gone another year, one wonders if Tanks would have taken on a WW2-style appearance as they were hinting at in the latter stages of the war.
Germany had serious limitations, but not enough to ensure Allied victory.
Fine. Let me rephrase.
Russia left the war (for various reasons), and therefore the Central Powers could redeploy their troops from positions facing the Russians to positions facing the French, Belgians, British, etc.
The Germans had a fighting chance if the US didn’t enter. I’m not saying they’d’ve definitely won, but they had a chance of lasting until a French collapse. Do you dispute that?
Fair enough.
Yes. The German military may indeed have been able to maintain a fighting front for some years (though they were falling back in many areas, reinforcements from the east would have helped shore that up), but their industry and home front could not stand a state of total warfare for much longer. Eventually, the government would have collapsed, probably into a Communist revolution similar to Russia’s. It wouldn’t help that the entire German military would have been fighting in France and wouldn’t be able to redeploy.
This isn’t correct. There was a documentary on Japanese TV about WWI (I think a translation of a Western documentary) that was long and very good. There IS a lot of footage from the war. Some of what they were showing was so clear I couldn’t believe it: could have been taken yesterday. Silent, of course. And they have footage from both the Allied and Central side. Stuff like guys in the trenches, setting off guns–not just training. Let’s also not ignore the tons of still photographs from the era.
Several posters have weighed in here, but there is another aspect to be considered: What would a German victory have meant? I don’t think any of the belligerent countries had clear goals (except the US at the end, which was basically to get the thing over with). So Germany wins–do they rule the world or something? Even had they won, they would have been weak as hell. Actually, considering what DID end up happening, a German victory would likely have been preferable: without the shame of loss and reparations burden, Hitler would likely not have risen to power.
This only seems to be available on Region 2 but if you can view it I’d say get your hands on The Great War. Hours of footage. The most complete account I’ve seen.
Basicly, whoever lost (and maybe even whoever won) would have been vulnerable to government collapse and the formation of either a communist or fascist government. Fascism, however, does not automatically equate with anti-semitism, so a radical right-wiong government in France might resemble Franco more than Hitler. It’s hard to say which side would win in France, it was the Friekorp that knocked the communists out of power in Germany, hard to say if France could make the equivelant.
Germany would have probably taken more of the French/German borderlands had they won. Germany would have been weak, but no one would be able to take advantage. Many of the German economic troubles of the 20’s would probably not have happened (hyper-inflation was caused by the German gov’ts efforts to make the WW1 reparation payments useless).
What happens to England is another matter. No one can be certain if the war would not have resumed on the seas after a brief respite. England was skillful at diplomacy and overbearing at the same time, there is little doubt they would try to isolate Germany once more.
Agreed. Germany did not plan for an extended war and had extremely limited capability to challenge the Allied blockade (for instance, few long-range U-boats at the start of the war). The later U-boat successes were stymied by institution of the convoy system. It was headed for defeat as soon as its forces were initially stopped on the Marne.
It’s highly doubtful it could have hung on and won any kind of victory even without the American entry (a peace based on withdrawal to previous borders would have been untenable in Germany).
It depends what you’re setting as your point of decision. If Germany makes different choices starting in 1914, sure, there’s lot of scenarios that allow them victory.
But if you’re setting your decision point at April 1917, when the US enters the war (or, in our alternate scenario, doesn’t) then I think the answer is clearly that Germany would have been defeated anyway - possibly not until early 1919, but no later. The point Zagadka is making is really the central point; tactical issues don’t matter when your entire country is falling apart, and all the divisions in the world are useless if they have no food and no ammunition.
Going down the home stretch, France and England were badly beaten but were still fully functional states that could have continued fighting for at least a few more years if necessary. Germany was falling apart economically and, as a result, politically. Even had the spring offensive worked, it wouldn’t have made enough ground to seriously hurt France, and Germany still would have collapsed. There was simply no gas left in the tank.
This is probably the American edition of the same. I remember watching it on PBS when I was in college. Absolutely wonderful. I can’t believe that PBS hasn’t released it on DVD.
Sorry, I thought this could stick more towards verifible facts. I bow to your wisdom.
How is that not correct? I said not much, not none. You cite one documentary, I consider that not much. You can’t refute that there are a ton more WWII documentaries. Almost everyday there is one on the History Channel. How do you know what was shown wasn’t in training or staged? I admit I have limited knowledge of the film technology of the time but I think the equipment was pretty cumbersome. Anyone setting up a film camera near the front would likely get their ass shot off. I have seen still photos and I know that cameras were well enough advanced that they could be in the trenches.
Why do I keep hijacking my own thread?
It was mentioned briefly before but I believe that tanks would have made a big difference as the war dragged on. The British use and stragedy sucked but eventually someone would have come up with good tactics. Given time the mechanical reliability would have improved. The Germans were way behind with developing Panzers.
So what * would * have been an acceptable end to the war for Germany, short of total defeat for the Allies? This is something I’ve never understood about the First World War–why couldn’t the warring nations negotiate an end to the conflict? What effort, if any, did the United States, Switzerland, and/or any other neutral powers make to help the belligerent nations find some kind of common ground so that everyone could lay down their arms?
Maybe it’s just sheer incredulity that’s keeping me from understanding. I simply cannot comprehend why the European powers would send millions of men to the slaughter for reasons that seem so vague. My impression is that even the warring powers didn’t really have a clear idea of what they were fighting for or against.