Why did Imperial Germany perform so well in World War I (in spite of its ultimate defeat and loss)?

[Futurist]

Any thoughts on this?

[Terry Duncan]

Did it perform that well overall? It had a good start to the war and was able to sit on the defensive in the west for the most part on the best ground, and in the east took three years to come close to defeating the already tottering Tzarist government. The very nature of minitary technology made it almost impossible to defeat any great power until its manpower reserves were exhausted, as well as making decisive breakthroughs almost impossible. At the start of the war the Germans had better munitions industries, and overall probably the best training for the staff officers, especially when compared to the British who took years to get a fully efficient staff running. I am not saying Germany did badly, but did it perform that much better than any of the other similar participants? I would say that all the armies were pretty well balanced, and this is why the war went on as long as it did.

[Futurist]

Did it perform that well overall?

Arguably, Yes, it did.

It had a good start to the war and was able to sit on the defensive in the west for the most part on the best ground, and in the east took three years to come close to defeating the already tottering Tzarist government.

Please keep in mind that Germany had to fight a two-front war in World War I, though.

The very nature of minitary technology made it almost impossible to defeat any great power until its manpower reserves were exhausted, as well as making decisive breakthroughs almost impossible.

Were Russia's manpower reserves exhausted in late 1905 (when it lost the Russo-Japanese War to Japan), though?

At the start of the war the Germans had better munitions industries, and overall probably the best training for the staff officers, especially when compared to the British who took years to get a fully efficient staff running. I am not saying Germany did badly, but did it perform that much better than any of the other similar participants? I would say that all the armies were pretty well balanced, and this is why the war went on as long as it did.

Please keep in mind, though, that Britain had France, Russia, Italy, and eventually the U.S. to help it out in World War I. In contrast, Imperial Germany only had a few weak allies (which were arguably more of a burden than a benefit to Germany) to help it out in World War I.

[Art]

Were Russia's manpower reserves exhausted in late 1905 (when it lost the Russo-Japanese War to Japan), though?

Not even remotely.
All in all, Germany had a superb tradition of staff officer training, strongest artillery (especially heavy) when the war started, well educated and motivated and mostly ethnically uniform manpower, powerful industry including military. Also an advantage of internal lines of communication which allowed to easily shift forces from one front to another. On the negative side: inferiority in most resources, geographical position surrounded by hostile powers, inferiority at sea and hence a naval blockade, weak allies and overall lack of strategic vision at the top.

[South]

Good afternoon Futurist,

Review the Battle of the Jutland Sound.

Bob

[Futurist]

Were Russia's manpower reserves exhausted in late 1905 (when it lost the Russo-Japanese War to Japan), though?

Not even remotely.

That's what I thought!

All in all, Germany had a superb tradition of staff officer training, strongest artillery (especially heavy) when the war started, well educated and motivated and mostly ethnically uniform manpower, powerful industry including military.

OK; frankly, all of this certainly makes sense!

Also an advantage of internal lines of communication which allowed to easily shift forces from one front to another.

Do you mean railroads?

On the negative side: inferiority in most resources,

Do you mean resources such as coal and iron ore here?

geographical position surrounded by hostile powers, inferiority at sea and hence a naval blockade, weak allies and overall lack of strategic vision at the top.

Yes; correct! Indeed, I completely agree with everything that you wrote here.

[Futurist]

Good afternoon Futurist,

Review the Battle of the Jutland Sound.

Bob

Out of curiosity--why exactly is this battle so important in relation to this discussion?

[South]

Good morning Futurist,

The discussion's focus is Germany's WWI performance prior to its ultimate defeat.

The Kaiser's fleet got bottled up after Jutland for the duration of the war.

This occurred when the Panama Canal was opened changing the costs of much of seaborne commerce. Germany had restricted participation in economic growth because of this.

See "The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783" (1890) and "The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire" (1892), both by Admiral Alfred T. Mahan, USN.


Warm regards,

Bob

[glenn239]

The German fleet was bottled up before Jutland and after it. Nothing had changed.

[Art]

Do you mean resources such as coal and iron ore here?

Practically all kind of resources: industrial output, manpower, agricultural products, raw materials.

[Sid Guttridge]

I would suggest that in both world wars a significant factor was that Germany took the early initiative, quickly seized enemy territory and, although unable to finish the wars off itself, was able to dig in on their turf so that its opponents thereafter had to come to it. Germany thus retained all its original industrial capacity and resources and additionally gained some others, whereas some of its opponents lost some of their original industrial capacity and resources and others took time to get their military acts together - especially the UK and USA. As the German Army was at least qualitatively as good as the best of its opponents, it therefore took a long time to wear Imperial Germany down. The diversity of the opposition and interior lines also helped.

Cheers,

Sid.

[jluetjen]

One fact that is often forgotten is that Germany managed to knock out one member of it's opponents each year of the war -- starting with the weaker countries and moving up to ultimately knock Russia out of the war. The thing that did them in was the entry of the US to buttress Franch and Germany. There was little chance of Germany defeating a fresher, larger, more industrial country which was out of reach of virtually all of Germany's military assets.

[South]

Good morning Glenn 239,

I'm replying to Futurist's "Why did Imperial Germany perform so well...". My view is that it didn't. I am not addressing the land engagements of the German Army but rather "Imperial Germany", the nation. Jutland is my example.

I disagree with "Nothing had changed". The Panama Canal changed much pricing of goods on the world market. The Junker strategic planners knew about Panama as per eg their historical knowledge of Suez in 1869.

German planners could.....some probably did - and the "discussions" (arguments ?) around the conference table were surely heated. ......accurately guess that America's first major military intervention in Europe would occur during this event.

It's not important enough for now to discuss if the German fleet was immobile prior to Jutland. The key is that the Panama Canal opened.

Jlvetjens' post nearby fortifies my position: "more industrial country"...


Warm regards,

Bob

[Terry Duncan]

Arguably, Yes, it did.

How? By fighting on, and in such a way that virtually ensured the worst possible configuration of powers against it? Germany started the war with a heavy attack on France and Belgium, failed to knock out the latter, then spent almost the rest of the war slowly giving up ground until they finally lost the ability to fight on. In the east they took three years to get close to defeating Russia's tottering Tzarist regime and the Provisional Government, then promoted Lenin and Communism, but when they relaxed their military efforts to further communism spreading throught the Russian armies, they also found it entering their own army and society as a major factor, contributing to the eventual collapse. Germany held its fronts well certainly, its armed forces put up a good fight, but it was a doomed fight from the start, with the leadership having no more idea how to win the war in 1918 than they had had in 1914. Some of the military achievements were spectacular, but all in a doomed cause, and over an issue that could have been settled without war in the first place.

Please keep in mind that Germany had to fight a two-front war in World War I, though.

They knew that was inevitable when they allowed Austria to start the war in the first place, and it is why their war plan was so restricting, both militarily and politically. Once Belgium and The Netherlands mobilised, Germany had no option but to either abandon its entire war plan, or back down entirely to the point of openly abandoning Austria, as the entire Liege coup de main would become almost impossible, and Austria would have deployed its army against Serbia unless the Germans could tell it to deploy to the Carpathians. The critical dates for these actions were 2nd and 1st August respectively. It didnt matter that the dispute was with Russia, or even if Austria was actually being attacked by Russia, any military actions by neighbours jepordised the German war plan. In the July Crisis there was almost no effort made to try and get agreement with other powers that may have allowed some sanction against Serbia, only an effective demand that everyone else do nothing and allow Austria and Germany to do as they liked - something that no doubt appealed and seemed reasonable to them, but hardly something they could expect Russia or France to feel the same way about.

Were Russia's manpower reserves exhausted in late 1905 (when it lost the Russo-Japanese War to Japan), though?

As others have said, not even close to being exhausted, there were overwhelming numbers of troops ready to deploy to the east, and Japan was almost bankrupt and unable to continue the war, but the political will failed, then Russia was effectively tricked into accepting defeat. The war was in a far flung area and on land only recently Russian, in eastern Europe the war was on soil that had been Russian for far longer, thus making it a more popular cause.

Please keep in mind, though, that Britain had France, Russia, Italy, and eventually the U.S. to help it out in World War I. In contrast, Imperial Germany only had a few weak allies (which were arguably more of a burden than a benefit to Germany) to help it out in World War I.

To be honest, the Italian efforts for much of the war were mostly futile (Isonzo), and at times became a critical drain on British and French strength to support them. Their fleet had almost never practised gunnery at sea, spending most time in harbour with the big ships, by 1917, leading the RN in the Med to consider it next to useless except as a notional deterrent. The smaller ships by contrast were very active. The US only 'helped out' after Germany insisted on following the illegal USW campaign to its logical conclusion, so very much a self-inflicted wound.

The problem as I see it for Germany is that all their pre-war military studies suggested they would be able to defeat either Russia or France but not both, especially with Britain involved, and that whilst a peace settlement with Russia would be possible after war broke out, with France any war would have to be fought to the end, as no peace agreement would be possible. There was never any hope they could defeat Britain, that only emerged briefly during the war with the USW campaign, but was then based on incorrect figures. The war played out in pretty much this way, which indicates that Germany made the fatal decisions in the July Crisis and just after, everything else was almost inevitable. I think 'futile' is the best and shortest description of the war from a German perspective.

[glenn239]

South It's not important enough for now to discuss if the German fleet was immobile prior to Jutland. The key is that the Panama Canal opened.

What is the relationship between the inactivity of the German fleet in January 1916, it’s inactivity in September 1916, and the Panama canal?