The German government insulted Wilson by ignoring the 14 Points and tried to win the war with a massive offensive that alienated the American public. Then, having failed in this bid, tried to bind American hands to an appeal that they hadpreviously spurned, even as the German army was reeling back on all fronts.The German government failed to understand what he meant by peace negotiations and an armistice and believed this would br based on his "Peace of Justice" and "14 Points".
Why did Germany lose WW1?
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
-
- Member
- Posts: 849
- Joined: 24 Jan 2004, 19:44
- Location: UK.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
Imperial Germany did not "insult" Wilson by ignoring his "14 Points" because they were duplicious, as were his previous statements like a "Peace of Justice".
One of the most impotant speeches of the war was made by Lloyd-George was made at the Toynbee Hall before a hand-picked audience of trade unionists, a few days before Wilson issued his "14 Points" in a speech to Congress. In this his emphasised that A-H would not be broken up although there should be "self-dtermination" for its peoples. It is clear from reading between the lines it was intended to break it up.
It was crucial that Wilson should be restrained from openly saying so as it would undermined efforts to bring about a surrender.
The "Points" were in fact an amalgam of self-righteous declarations and idealistic slogans (plus Freedom of the Seas) plus a list of territorial demands drawn up by a committee of re[resentatives of various powers added on to it.
The details were not actually realised in Germany but seen as an idealistic "Peace of Justice" statement.
There were opponents of the "Kaiser's Battle" offensive in Germany, including surprisingly Hindenburg.
This only failed because Ludendorff made it too complicated, and as has been said, drew back where he gained success and pushed forward where he did not. He was trying on a grand scale to replicate his victory in East Prussia.
In the spring and early summer of 1918 it was thought in Britain we were losing the war and panic swept the Ruling Class, whilst Lloyd-George started assembling a trail of documents which would prove he was not to blame.
One of the most impotant speeches of the war was made by Lloyd-George was made at the Toynbee Hall before a hand-picked audience of trade unionists, a few days before Wilson issued his "14 Points" in a speech to Congress. In this his emphasised that A-H would not be broken up although there should be "self-dtermination" for its peoples. It is clear from reading between the lines it was intended to break it up.
It was crucial that Wilson should be restrained from openly saying so as it would undermined efforts to bring about a surrender.
The "Points" were in fact an amalgam of self-righteous declarations and idealistic slogans (plus Freedom of the Seas) plus a list of territorial demands drawn up by a committee of re[resentatives of various powers added on to it.
The details were not actually realised in Germany but seen as an idealistic "Peace of Justice" statement.
There were opponents of the "Kaiser's Battle" offensive in Germany, including surprisingly Hindenburg.
This only failed because Ludendorff made it too complicated, and as has been said, drew back where he gained success and pushed forward where he did not. He was trying on a grand scale to replicate his victory in East Prussia.
In the spring and early summer of 1918 it was thought in Britain we were losing the war and panic swept the Ruling Class, whilst Lloyd-George started assembling a trail of documents which would prove he was not to blame.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
This of course neglects the effects of the mere prospects of massive American involvements on strategy and morale, both on the German and Allied sides. And the effects of actual involvement on the sustainability of the Allied offensives, with the Allies becoming stronger in numbers each day, while the Germans were unable to replace their losses (though they were still not larger than the Allied losses).Yes, the ANZAC Corps was not even used, whilst Pershing sat on a huge reserve. The German advance was spectacular, but it came nowhere close to winning. Now we can see events from both sides, it is clear they had far more problems than people thought, and the attack was really a last desperate gamble. The US would have made all the difference if the war lasted until 1919, but in 1918 they were far from the decisive force many imagine.
BTW, in autumn 1918 the Americans had as many troops in frontlione as the Brits and they held as large a sector.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
~~~~~with the Allies becoming stronger in numbers each day, while the Germans were unable to replace their losses~~~~~
It seems to me that Falky's judgement that the Germans didn't have the means to obtain a strategic decision in the west was just as true in 1918 as it was in 1914, despite the reinforcements from Russia. Reading a little bit of the British OH describing the 4th battle of Ypres the other day, German counter-attacks were conspicuous by their absence, the defence seemingly reduced to a delaying action. It did beg the question 'where had the Eingreif divisions gone' (presumeably buried around the Somme, Lys and Marne rivers)? I wouldn't be surprised if the prospect of American intervention cheered up a lot of people in the Entente and correspondingly depressed those in the Central Powers but I'd be surprised if that was what French and British squaddies were dwelling on during the German spring offensives.
I concur with the 'last desperate gamble' school and I also wonder if it was a last desperate gamble to defeat the Entente or a last desperate gamble to stay in power in Germany.
It seems to me that Falky's judgement that the Germans didn't have the means to obtain a strategic decision in the west was just as true in 1918 as it was in 1914, despite the reinforcements from Russia. Reading a little bit of the British OH describing the 4th battle of Ypres the other day, German counter-attacks were conspicuous by their absence, the defence seemingly reduced to a delaying action. It did beg the question 'where had the Eingreif divisions gone' (presumeably buried around the Somme, Lys and Marne rivers)? I wouldn't be surprised if the prospect of American intervention cheered up a lot of people in the Entente and correspondingly depressed those in the Central Powers but I'd be surprised if that was what French and British squaddies were dwelling on during the German spring offensives.
I concur with the 'last desperate gamble' school and I also wonder if it was a last desperate gamble to defeat the Entente or a last desperate gamble to stay in power in Germany.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
If Wilson was being duplicitious – and I do not agree he was - then all the more reason for Germany to have drawn him out and exposed him from January onwards.Imperial Germany did not "insult" Wilson by ignoring his "14 Points" because they were duplicious, as were his previous statements like a "Peace of Justice".
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
Personally, If I were to sum the war up as a series of "Paper-scissors-stone" match-ups (as many wars are), it would look like this.
- Germany had the best organized and most professional land forces. Sure the British Army of 1914 may have had the most professional soldiers, but the leadership didn't seem to have their arms around how to scale it quickly. While both sides had their good and bad Generals, it seems to me that Germany had more Generals who had a clue than the Allies.
- Great Britain had the best Navy and Naval leadership.
- Great Britain and France were better at managing the diplomatic challenges than Germany and Austria.
In the absence of the last point, the odds were stacked in Germany's favor. Germany had managed to knock at least one Allied country out of the war each year. With Russia out and all of Germany's forces focused on the western front, it wasn't looking good for Britain and France. Being focused on the Western front also removed Austria from being such a drag on coalition. To be honest, I don't think that Germany was terribly concerned about what happened on the Italian front since the Alps posed a terribly obstacle to any Allied efforts to getting substantially into A-H.
But at the end of they day, I believe that it was the third point that decided the war. At the start of the war, the US with it's large German-American population (disclaimer, this includes my family) wasn't really interested in taking sides. But over time, repeated German bumbling of diplomatic issues, as well as the inability of Germany to maintain communications and trade with the US (see point 2 above) ultimately turned the tide against Germany. Germany just couldn't maintain the quantity and quality of connections with the US. Great Britain and France did a much better job of keeping the US "On-side" and even enlisted the US to be put in harms way in the Atlantic, which resulted in the Lusitania sinking drawing the US into the war. If it wasn't the Lusitania, I suspect that it would have been some other ship, potentially even a convoy escort.
Once the US with its troops and material support starting appearing on the Western front, Germany was doomed. The US was too large, too fresh and too remote for Germany to defeat.
Just my $0.02. I'd be interested in hearing responses to my glib theory.
- Germany had the best organized and most professional land forces. Sure the British Army of 1914 may have had the most professional soldiers, but the leadership didn't seem to have their arms around how to scale it quickly. While both sides had their good and bad Generals, it seems to me that Germany had more Generals who had a clue than the Allies.
- Great Britain had the best Navy and Naval leadership.
- Great Britain and France were better at managing the diplomatic challenges than Germany and Austria.
In the absence of the last point, the odds were stacked in Germany's favor. Germany had managed to knock at least one Allied country out of the war each year. With Russia out and all of Germany's forces focused on the western front, it wasn't looking good for Britain and France. Being focused on the Western front also removed Austria from being such a drag on coalition. To be honest, I don't think that Germany was terribly concerned about what happened on the Italian front since the Alps posed a terribly obstacle to any Allied efforts to getting substantially into A-H.
But at the end of they day, I believe that it was the third point that decided the war. At the start of the war, the US with it's large German-American population (disclaimer, this includes my family) wasn't really interested in taking sides. But over time, repeated German bumbling of diplomatic issues, as well as the inability of Germany to maintain communications and trade with the US (see point 2 above) ultimately turned the tide against Germany. Germany just couldn't maintain the quantity and quality of connections with the US. Great Britain and France did a much better job of keeping the US "On-side" and even enlisted the US to be put in harms way in the Atlantic, which resulted in the Lusitania sinking drawing the US into the war. If it wasn't the Lusitania, I suspect that it would have been some other ship, potentially even a convoy escort.
Once the US with its troops and material support starting appearing on the Western front, Germany was doomed. The US was too large, too fresh and too remote for Germany to defeat.
Just my $0.02. I'd be interested in hearing responses to my glib theory.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
Your theory has merit. My only reservation would be the idea that US intervention "doomed" Germany. This again assumes the US was a plug-and-play replacement for Russia. It was not; Wilson had no intention of total war.
US intervention made impossible any German gains in the west, and made inevitable the hostile resolution of the Belgian and lost provinces issues. Beyond that, it was still possible for Germany to have avoided Versailles and won in the east.
US intervention made impossible any German gains in the west, and made inevitable the hostile resolution of the Belgian and lost provinces issues. Beyond that, it was still possible for Germany to have avoided Versailles and won in the east.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
I don't follow your comment that "it was still possible for Germany to have... won in the east". They did. Russia was out. So was Romania.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
The armistice forced them to surrender their gains.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
That's kind of my point. They won all of the campaigns in the east. The Alpine front was not a real threat to Germany. But by getting the US to enter on their side, Britain and France "trumped" the other German advantages. I argue that it was the diplomatic front that Germany lost, which forced them out of the war. To add insult to injury, they also lost the diplomatic battle after the armistice which changed a loss into a route, all without a shot being fired.
What's the old (non-PC) joke that goes something like "In heaven the Italians are the cooks, the Germans are the army and the British are the diplomats, while in Hell the British are the cooks, the Italians are the army and the Germans are the diplomats.", or something like that?
What's the old (non-PC) joke that goes something like "In heaven the Italians are the cooks, the Germans are the army and the British are the diplomats, while in Hell the British are the cooks, the Italians are the army and the Germans are the diplomats.", or something like that?
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
The inherent weakness of the German government under the Kaiser meant that a military bully was able to shoulder the civilian leadership aside. Ludendorff was compentent in military affairs, but in terms of international politics he was an imbecile. So the reason why Germany 'lost' diplomatically is mainly because of German mistakes stemming from poor leadership from the Kaiser.
Germany won militarily in the east, but in terms of winning the peace treay, it meant nothing because it was forced to abandon all those gains. Germany required a peace treaty in which the German army remained in the Ukraine, to help establish the newly created national identity, or whatother glap fits the bill.
Germany won militarily in the east, but in terms of winning the peace treay, it meant nothing because it was forced to abandon all those gains. Germany required a peace treaty in which the German army remained in the Ukraine, to help establish the newly created national identity, or whatother glap fits the bill.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
Say what you want about Ludendorff, I think the diplomatic "war" was lost long before 1918. I actually think that the key lost diplomatic opportunities were in 1914 and 1915. By 1916 it was pretty well done.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
That would imply a model of Woodrow Wilson's thinking that does not well fit with the facts.
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
Not necessarily. Wilson didn't want to be a "player" in the war. He (and many Americans) was isolationist. Wilson's support -- either implicitly, or explicitly was a strategic objective of Britain and France. My sense (I don't have any supporting data) is that it was primarily the British who were doing this. To cut Germany off from this support was another objective. Britain (and to a lesser degree France) succeeded in accomplishing this too. By the end of 1916 I'm arguing that the Allies has substantially accomplished both of these aims. As I said earlier, I believe that to their detriment, the Germans seemed to be equally inept in their attempts to get the US "on-side".
Re: Why did Germany lose WW1?
America standing aloof from the Euro suicide was as calculated as Stalin watching Germany and Britain and France fight each other in 1940. Realpolitik a-go-go.