there was no defeat

[Tim Smith]

Andy is quite correct.

France was almost completely exhausted by 1918, their army was in a bad state, but Britain was still strong, and America was positively bouyant and becoming stronger by the day.

By May 1919 the US Army would have been fully mobilised, and twice the size of the British Army. The US and Britain had plans for a heavy bomber campaign in 1919-20 that would have rivaled that of the 8th Air Force in 1943-44. The German cities would have taken a very severe pounding.

Heavy bombers in WWI were very formidable opponents, much like the B-29 in WW2. They were nearly as fast as opposing fighters, and just as heavily armed with few blind spots.

Germany would have collapsed completely in 1919 had she fought to the end, without a doubt.

Germany was decisively defeated in World War I. They were in full retreat by 1918 and a third of their army had been destroyed. It was over, and they only said that the German Army had been stabbed in the back because they were still on French Soil by the end. The Allies would most definitely have reached Berlin by 1919 or 1920, Germany did not stand a chance by the end of their offensive. It was over and they knew it, that it why they wanted peace. They had been defeated.

[Lord Gort]

Its late, so i wont reply right away till tommorow, except to say that the idea that Germnay could maintain a succesful defence and be undefeated after the period of the amrstice is nonsense!

[Lord Gort]

I have to say that this is truly farcical. Germany not defeated!



Nothing could stop the allied offensive when it began in earnest in spetember. By then the American forces, which had been pouring into France at the rate if 250 000 a monthm were playing a full part in the fighting. The central powers collapsed. In 1917 the Greek King, who had opposed the Allies placing their forces at Salonika, was overthrown, and Greece entered the war. In mid september 1918 the allies launched an attack from salonika against Bulgaria, which surrendered whithin a fortnight. An allied army of hundreds of thousands aided by the Greek army were now marching up the balkans on a Austrohungary with no forces to spare to defend her capital or country. Why>? Because at Vittoria Veneto the Itlaians routed the Austro Hungarians, who sued for peace. The British General Allenby entered Dmascus in october, and the Turks signed an Armistice.

The idea that the Germans could have held out is a myth created by the nazi regime as an excuse to blame the jews and communists at home.


regards,

[Alter Mann]

There have been a number of statements in this thread that I disagree with, but that doesn't really matter.

There are a couple of points that I would like to bring up though.

1. From what I've read, the German Army was pretty much played out when it stopped at the Marne. I think that most people will agree that the German troops marched a long way in a short time and routes were not always as originally planned. This didn't effect the end of the war, though, other than to set the stage for the years of attrition that followed.

2. Although Russia had collapsed allowing Germany access to the Ukrainian wheatfields, who was going to harvest wheat? The Ukrainians might have, for a price, but would they also make the bread? If so, how would ig get to Germany and then be distributed.

3. Although the few remaining German civilians weren't exactly starving to death they weren't eating very well either. Ukrainian wheat, if it had been made available in Germany in edible form, would have made a big difference, but man does not live by bread alone, and I think that most of the male German farmers were in the Army. Once again, women could handle a lot of the tasks necessary to keep people fed, but not as effectively as could be done with sufficient farm workers.

4. The demand for German troops at the front lines cut seriously into the number of available skilled workers who could produce munitions for the war. Women were starting to play a surprising role for the time in industry but it is not possible to completely replace a skilled work force with an unskilled one in a short period of time. If munitions were not a concern for the Germans in 1917, and I think they were, they certainly would have been in 1918.

5. Austria Hungary was in no position to support Germany or even protect itself at the end of war.

Surely the Germans must have taken at least some of these conditions into consideration when they decided that it really didn't make much sense to continue the war, especially since it must have seemed increasingly unlikely that they would ever be able to achieve the goals they had set for the war. I think Germany's reach was exceeded by its grasp.

[Chris Dale]

Before the Marne the Germans were advancing and Schliffen’s hoped fall lighting stroke seemed to be nearly concluded. After the Marne, the Germans had withdrawn and were digging in. Mosier does not explain why, given such superior German fighting abilities, they didn’t just finish France there and then and decided to have a four year attritonal struggle.

While I agree with much of what you've said, I think Moiser does partially explain Germany's halting here by saying with the industry and coal from Belgium and Northern France in German hands, it was thought that France would surely collapse. He does not explain why if it was an option they didn't press on down the coast to cut off the British line of retreat which would cause the withdrawal of the BEF from Europe as we saw in 1940.
Cheers
Chris

[RCW Mark]

Isn't it funny when people say that Germany did not really lose, just because no Allied soldier stormed into German soil!

"Winning" a war is about achieving your aims, not whether the battles go your way or not. Victory of your armies in the field is no guarantee of victory in a war. There are plenty of wars where the eventual winners lost pretty much every major battle (the American War of Independence, for one).

If you follow the logic of the "Germany never lost" then you have to accept that Russia didn't lose either (and in fact you'll find plenty of Russians prepared to tell you that). It was just the revolution got in the way. (Never mind that the revolution was caused by the fact that the regime was not winning the war, just as in Germany.) Such people are right in saying that the Russian army was never fully defeated and by the time of the Brusilov Offensive was on the come-back -- but they are wrong on the main issue, because the Tsar had by 1917 pretty much failed to achieve any of his initial aims, with the exception of some gains in Anatolia.

Germany had by 1918 achieved one aim -- the dismissal of Russia -- and failed to achieve virtually every other one. France and Britain achieved virtually everything they set out to achieve. Therefore France and Britain won, and Germany and Russia lost. Arguments about how Germany would have been able to hold out past 1918 are irrelevant.

[glenn239]

If Germany had played it cool and been completely defensive on the Western Front, there would have been no violation of Belgium, so Britain would have found little excuse for going to war.

Zuber indicates that Joffre ordered the 'Belgian' variant to Plan XVII on August 2nd, 1914. This mobilization was intended to swing three armies (3rd, 4th, 5th) into position opposite to Belgium with two others (BEF and 6th Reserve) oncoming. Joffre ordered this deployment before the Germans made any demands of Belgium, before French intelligence could possibly have fixed the concentration points of the German army, and before it was necessary for the French to have picked the 'Belgian' variant.

[Duckman]

Joffre ordered this deployment before the Germans made any demands of Belgium, before French intelligence could possibly have fixed the concentration points of the German army, and before it was necessary for the French to have picked the 'Belgian' variant.

French intelligence had fixed the concentration points of the German Army in the years leading up to 1914. They might not have expected such a gross violation of Belgian neutrality as actually occurred, but they expected at least a "little violation", and planned accordingly.

[R.M. Schultz]

French intelligence had fixed the concentration points of the German Army in the years leading up to 1914. They might not have expected such a gross violation of Belgian neutrality as actually occurred, but they expected at least a "little violation", and planned accordingly.

Surely you are not saying that the disastrous “Plan 17” was a response to an anticipated German advance through Belgium?

[Duckman]

French intelligence had fixed the concentration points of the German Army in the years leading up to 1914. They might not have expected such a gross violation of Belgian neutrality as actually occurred, but they expected at least a "little violation", and planned accordingly.

Surely you are not saying that the disastrous “Plan 17” was a response to an anticipated German advance through Belgium?

Glenn implies that the French always intended to violate Belgian neutrality, based on the decision being made before the French could have fixed the German concentration points. My point is that those points were well known in advance.

Plan 17 (disastrous or otherwise) was a plan of concentration to position the French Army to oppose a direct German thrust across the Rhine, a hook through Belgium (never forseen on the scale Germany undertook) or for France to attack if circumstances (and Joffre's mood) allowed an attack.

Whether it was disastrous or not is neither here nor there. If it was disastrous, that would have more to do with pseudoreality prevailing at GQG about the options available to the French Army.

[JamesL]

One of my favorite quotes ............

"They never knew they were beaten in Berlin. It will all have to be done all over again." - Gen. John J. Pershing after the war.

The Doughboys, Laurence Stallings, Popular Library, NY 1963, page 437.

[Ziv]

I noticed nobody has mention that according to Hitler the enemy was already within during ww1, as he complained about what the german newspapers were saying back at home while the war was going on, he complained that the newspapers were being overly negative to the war effort..........

later before ww2 the nazis main plan included the removal of forieign ownership of german newspapers, thus only germans could own newspapers.

If anybody has ever read the chineses art of warfare .......the sun tzu stuff ..........one of the oldest and most effective methods of destroying somebody elses army is from within.

[weiss]

"he complained about what the german newspapers were saying back at home while the war was going on, he complained that the newspapers were being overly negative to the war effort.......... "


This sounds strangely familiar to me in our current conflicts.. At least Imperial Germany didn't have 24-hour cable news to deal with!

[Carl Schwamberger]

I noticed nobody has mention that according to Hitler the enemy was already within during ww1, as he complained about what the german newspapers were saying back at home while the war was going on, he complained that the newspapers were being overly negative to the war effort..........

That suggests to me Hitlers lack of appreciation of democratic government, and the role of independant information flow in a democracy or a republic.

[The Ibis]

I noticed nobody has mention that according to Hitler the enemy was already within during ww1, as he complained about what the german newspapers were saying back at home while the war was going on, he complained that the newspapers were being overly negative to the war effort..........

That suggests to me Hitlers lack of appreciation of democratic government, and the role of independant information flow in a democracy or a republic.

No law against necroing threads here I see!