Why didn’t the schlieffen plan work in WWI?It was essentially fullproof but when put to practice didn’t work as well.What could the Germans of done to have made it work?Was von Moltke the problem?
>fullproof
>>182612411) Belgians held out much longer than expected2) Complete lack of coordination between the german armies to the point where they had to intercept each other's messengers just to know what the fuck was going on 3) Having to send troops to the east4) von Moltke losing his nerve whilst Joffre stubbornly held firm in spite of outrageous casualtiesRemove any of these and germany has a good chance at capturing Paris, or at least securing a good enough defensive line to make Entente counteroffensives nigh impossible.
>>18261241Doesn’t matter how fullbroof it was on paper.In reality the army was a different size, and they expected bo resistance where there was more resistance.Even then the Russians mobalized early. It wouldn’t have worked even if they thought it would.
>>18261241the anglo golems imposed a blockade on germany and starved millions of europeans to death (germans but also their 'allies' in poland, czechia, italy and elsewhere) by blocking food imports. this led to munities and food riots in germany and the so-called stab in the back.this is what decided ww1 not the military front. they never speak of this because it shames them.
The elder von Moltke famously said "No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy."
>>18261274>not the military front>please disregard that the German army was in full retreat during the hundred days offensive and the Entente were at the borders of Germany
>>18261276So why did the plan even get any form of recognition from other higher officials.
>>18261257>The RussiansMaybe late war, but early war? LMAOHell two of the Russian generals in the early war fucking hated eachother.
>>18261241It didn't work because the majority of the plan didn not focus on a human element. One such part of it required soldiers to march 20-30 miles a day every fucking day to get to where they were going and this was while expecting no resistance. The germans fought battles almost every day and they started to run out of food. It was never going to work because it on;y focused on logic and not about reality. How very German.
>>18261245yeah, OP is some english-as-barely-the-only-language mouthbreathing retard who most likely thinks calling others ESL gives him victory in debates because his only merit is being born in an english-speaking environment and still failing to learn it properly.
>>18261281yeah why would lack of food lead to mutinies and to a retreat? there's no causal link here not at all.
>>18261282German War Planners wanted a quick, decisive victory. On paper the Schlieffen Plan could give them that.
>>18261241All the good generals were on the Eastern front and the Western Front was all old guys completely unprepared for the reality of modern warfare
>>18261298>on paper
>>18261292The German military was still being fed dumb cunt.
>>18261299they still thought they were fighting the Franco-Prussian War and it is true that the initial campaigns in 1914 were closer to late XIX warfare than the war as it was being fought by 1917.
>>18261301They had families, fucktard.And yes their own food supplies were scarce too.>In August 1916 a group of soldiers’ wives wrote to the Hamburg Senate demanding its support for a peace settlement: ‘we want to have our husbands and sons back from the war and we don’t want to starve any more’.1 The government’s failure to ensure adequate food supplies and their equitable distribution, particularly to poorer people living in Germany’s towns and cities, impacted upon popular opinion towards the government and also the population’s support for the war.>In July 1918 meat rations amounted to 12% of pre-war consumption.>From October 1914 to eke out grain supplies bakers were allowed to use potato flour in the making of bread, the so-called K-Brot (K for Kartoffeln (potatoes) or, more patriotically, Krieg (war)), but continuing shortages led to the rationing of bread from January 1915. Throughout the war, other additives such as corn, lentils and even sawdust were used to eke out bread.>The autumn of 1915 was to see food riots in several German cities, as women protested about the new higher price ceiling for butter and food shortages.The government responded by decreeing that no fats were to be sold on Mondays and Thursdays, no meat on Tuesdays and Fridays and no flour at week-ends. A wave of food-related riots spread across Germany in summer 1916 and women would march to the town hall and demand better food supplies. Potatoes had been rationed in April 1916, butter and sugar in May, meat in June and eggs, milk and other fats in November.
>>18261301>>18261308>In the winter of 1916/17 weeks went by without potatoes, because of the poor harvest and transportation difficulties, and the turnip was used extensively as a replacement – it, too, was rationed. The Head of the Prussian Commission for the Provisioning of the People noted, ‘women’s wallets were filled with food ration cards of every kind, but the rations were often so minimal that it wasn’t even worth picking them up’.>In January 1917 Princess Blücher, an Englishwoman married to a Prussian aristocrat, wrote in her diary: ‘we are all growing thinner every day, and the rounded contours of the German nation have become a legend of the past. We are all gaunt and bony now, and have dark shadows round our eyes, and our thoughts are chiefly taken up with wondering what our next meal will be’.>By summer 1917, rations amounted to some 1,000 calories daily, about 40% of pre-war intake.>From 1917 onwards a deterioration in the health of the nation was clearly visible, with increases in stomach and intestinal illnesses. The Germans estimated that some 763,000 people died during the war from malnutrition and its effects. Between 1913 and 1918 the death rate from tuberculosis in towns with more than 15,000 inhabitants rose 91.1%. The numbers dying of typhoid doubled between 1916 and 1917. In Düsseldorf the number of reported cases of dysentry rose from 8 in 1914 to 351 in 1917. By December 1918 over half the children in Chemnitz’s schools suffered from anaemia, children across Germany were smaller and lighter, and 40% of them suffered from rickets.>The armistice in November 1918 did not bring much easing in the food crisis. It was to be July 1919 before the blockade was lifted and disturbances over food continued throughout 1919.
>>18261308>wives>women>>18261309>women>princessYou lost. You were fucked on the battlefield and your sailors didn't want to be fucked on the open sea.
>>18261313the women were the wives and daughters of the soldiers you thick anglo golem cunt. you won by starving europeans to death.
>>18261316>Nooooo you can't starve Europeans!!!>That's what our Under Sea Boats are for!!!!!!
>>18261309>>18261308Germany's agricultural and food production sectors were rather backward compared to those of the Anglo countries.
>>18261333the germans were sinking arms shipments disguised as regular trade. they never starved civilians to death.>>18261345bullshit. all of europe including britain depended on food imports from overseas, chiefly from america, canada, argentina & australia.this is because europe was the most densely populated region in the world, only with the 1970s agricultural tech advances did the continent become self-sufficient in food.
>>18261358Oh, they checked the cargo holds of every ship did they?
>>18261361no, they made many mistakes, it was a retarded policy. still doesn't excuse your blockade which continued for a whole year after germany surrendered.
>>18261316You do realize no one cares what some brown retard thinks, surely? Stop wasting your time by posting here, you can't hide what you are.
>>18261366the time of anglo-masonic-judaic hegemony is coming to an end, golem
>>18261365>admitting they sank ships bringing in food suppliesGerms want to starve Europeans confirmed.
>>18261376>doesn't deny being brown
>>18261241French plan failed and the allies illegally occupied neutral Greece
>>18261385For about a week.
>>18261298>>18261300Only work for 1905 plan if case Germany joined Anglo-Japanese war against the Entente
>>18261381i don't have to justify myself to a beady-eyed golem
>>18261398Blackest of niggers confirmed. OK nigger.
>>18261358>bullshit. all of europe including britain depended on food imports from overseas, chiefly from america, canada, argentina & australia.Russia also exported a lot of wheat since the second half of the XIX century.
>>18261410yes, but sadly it was taken out of the game by civil war communist kikery
>>18261437Ok nigger.
What if the Germans simply ran into France and didn't violate the neutral treaty of Belgium and get the English involved?
>>18261281>retard reverses order of events
>>18261447The French border was heavily fortified.
>>18261386No retard, a lot longer than a week.
>>18261458Ok nigger
>>18261456Both sides of the border; the French launched an assault on the German fortifications in August but were repulsed.
>>18261455>retard thinks the Kiel mutiny was before the hundred daysOk nigger.
>>18261241The french had better guns
>>18261464>The Battle of Lorraine cost the French a staggering 27,000 casualties on August 22, the worst single day military losses in French history.[3]
>>18261475Didn’t germs have massice 16 inch cannons they used to destroy bunkers in Belgium?
>>18261241planners after Schlieffen kept weakening the right wing, and they did not expect Belgium to resist and cause so much delay as it did.
>>18261605>”listen hans, they’ll just let us walk in!”>belgians fortify positionsand destroy their bridges>”oh nein… well we’ll show them! collectively punish the population for resisting!”>soldiers hang, shoot, and execute neutral civilians - men, women and children - for defending themselves>this gives france and england easy propoganda to create against them to show them as monstersThey really made it difficult upon thenselves. Even had the plan gone well the first step was a massive over look and every step after compounded against them in every way.
>>18261472>there was only this one single event!Dishonest kike
>>18261459>jewish hall monitor
>>18261274>Austria-Hungary>Consists of Slovakia and Transylvania>Yugo-Slavonia>Controls Austria, southern Hungary and Banat but excludes S*rbiaVGH............... WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN.....
Garman bros… why did it end like this.. twice…
>>18261291ESL cope. So many pronounce 'fool' and 'full' the same. Same with 'pool' and 'pull'.
>>18261934>ESL (You)
>>18261644>collectively punish the population for resisting!”>>soldiers hang, shoot, and execute neutral civilians - men, women and children - for defending themselvesThis isnt what contemporary accounts state.
>>18262100Germans always believed in collective punishment. you saw it all the time in WW1 and WW2.
>>18262177ALL countries practice collective punishment, the Germans were unique in that they had an extremely restrained hand in Belgium far more than what the Belgians deserved given how they treated the Germans.
>>18261274>they never speak of this because it shames them.nah the Royal Navy once again making continentals seethe and cry with impotence is actually peak British Pride.
>>18261282General Staffs make plans like that, they know they'll have to adapt to new conditions but overall it's still very useful to have a basic outline and vision which you can drill your armies and leadership towards carrying out in decent order.The "best" armies are basically whoever can fuck up and bungle the least amount
>>18261358>they never starved civilians to death.yeah, out of incompetence rather than intent. The U-Boats simply couldn't beat the convoy system and failed at their goal which was to starve out the Brits.
>>18261376>Judaism is when communism but also based communist Chinese will defeat Judaism but also I hate Asians because muh EVROPA supremacy Extremists online are something else, bro
>>18262180>Extremely restrained hand>Burnt down a medieval library and countless priceless relics and scrolls purely out of assblasted seething at Belgians for defending themselves Saupreußen, not even once.
>>18262180>than what the belgians deservedHans..
>>18262367You forgot about Congolese chocolate hand?
>>18262268>russia is a cobbled together group of new blood lead by generals who hate eachother that are incredibly close to revolution and government turn over>never once collapses and is on the winning side of both world warsI'd agree if this wasn't true.
>>18261361Yeah they did and we know this today because the UK declassified all the shipping data from a century ago and somehow the Germans, through spies, knew what was carrying weapons and what wasn’t.And yes the US and UK lied to us about it, for over a century.But you weren’t on this board pre-Covid when these things were actually discovered.Go back
>>18263168i know. the British declassified their state archives about WW1 on the 100th anniversary of the war last decade. a lot of assumptions historians had made about the war had to be revised from the release of this data.
Germany was suffering from dangerous shortages of food and raw materials by 1917. The US entry into the war was like dropping the atomic bombs on Japan; a morale turner that quickly convinced them further resistance was hopeless, but in the end they probably would have been starved out in a short time anyway. Famine conditions were affecting the German civilian population and soldiers were dressed in rags without shoes, coats, or boots. There was almost no scrap metal left for war production and they were resorting to melting down church bells and organs.
>>18261241>It was essentially fullproof but when put to practice didn’t work as well.the Schlieffen Plan was designed to convince that civilian German government that winning a quick war against France was impossible without a larger standing armythe civilian government adopted it as their plan for a war with France while refusing to raise the extra men the plan said it needed to actually work
>>18263196The victory in the Franco-Prussian War was ultimately a pretty bad thing as it gave Germany a lot of delusions about their martial prowess and led them to think they were invincible.
>>18261241There was one historian who concluded that the Schlieffen Plan would work in the Napoleonic Wars or WWII but not in WWI as it was at the point where armies had too complex logistics to operate like they did in the horse and musket era, but not complex enough for the plan to work. In particular there were ammo shortages because WWI was the first major conflict fought with fully automatic weapons and quick load artillery, so the ammo requirements were much greater; in fact all the powers had ammo issues early in the war.
>>18261241Belgium was protected by Britain
1916-17 was known as the Turnip Winter in Germany, a time of great food shortage and suffering caused by the loss of the potato crop from blight, although 1916 as a whole had poor weather conditions across the Northern Hemisphere.
>>18263196Every combatant had extremely unrealistic ideas of a war and what exactly would happen in one. What I find truly shocking is just how ill-defined are German strategic objectives. "A place in the Sun" is a slogan not a plan. And I do think the General Staff woefully failed the nation in not having a plan for more than roll the dice and hope we win. It reminds me of our MAD thinking under Lemay, nothing short of extermination is the plan despite a world full of dangers less than going full tilt for. But I concede that the Generals were not yet experienced in the sort of war that they found themselves in.
>>18263504There was a lack of initial strategy because no one knew why anyone else was actually fighting.They didn’t know if it was team deathmatch or ground war.The British are the ones at fault as they really postponed the conclusion of the war for basically no gain.>Germany was a rivalA trivial middle rate power that struggled against France. Completely unlike the United States which took over the planet 30 years later.
>>18263196The Entente powers were suffering as well.>Royal Navy close to running out of fuel by 1917>the British army was also running out of fuel>the British and French were also getting very low on manpowerAnyone who disputes that the US entry into the war wasn't the main reason for victory is retarded.
>>18263214No, it lead them to thinking they could defeat France, which they could.
>its not fair!!!!>we got stabbed in the back!>if we didn't lose the war then we would have won!!!!!The intellectual capabilities of the kaiserboo are astounding
The Germans may have been operating under the illusion the British would abide by international conventions in respect of neutral shipping. This expectation was also shared (and declared) by the USA in 1914. The Germans might have also expected a stronger reaction from the USA after the British made it clear that they would stop and search the ships of any neutral country for war materials. Ultimately, if the US had not been provoked in 1917, it is probable the diminutive German U-boats would have prevailed.
>>18263551Again, the Entente were also running out of fuel and manpower by 1917 and couldn't hold out much longer if the US didn't enter the war.
>>18263214>>18263520Allies were closer in capitulate- Lansdowne letter was deliver- French troops mutiny- Italian got smashed in Caporetto
>>18263560>if something else had happened then something else would have happened Damn you got him. If Germany had won and not lost then they they would have won and not lost.
>>18263560>>18263519Not actually true, Britain had adequate reserves of fuel and was not in serious risk of running out the way Germany and Austria were. Much of the fuel was gotten from the US and British oil stocks were at 573k tonnes in June 1917 and 800k tonnes by October. So long as American oil was available, the Entente were not going to run out.
on the whole Germany and Italy in this war suffered from being nearly new nations that had only existed as a single entity for a little over 50 years and had yet to develop proper state institutions. German naval planning was also spectacularly bad as Germany had not been a naval power very long and lacked Britain's centuries old naval tradition; they had no idea what the best way to use the Kriegsmarine was.
>>18263196It's worth noting that a year's supply of nitrates were captured on ships and warehouses in Antwerp. If they were not captured it would have had a severe effect on fertilizer ammunition and explosive production before Haber process was able to be ramped up. But they started to sort things out and reorganize from the change of 1914-15 (reorganizing shell production as well as supply as well as contrating and general war contract condition as well as distribution of labor, etc.) and were running more or less smoothly from the first quarter of 1916.
>>18263597The dearth of prewar planning aside, the Germans scrambled far less terribly than the other great powers, promptly securing whatever strategic resources were available and facilitating the industrial production of nitrates on a timely basis.I am curious about your opinion on the German industrial production of nitrates. Haber stated that the feasibility of industrial production of nitrates was still uncertain as late as September 1914 and it was ultimately the miraculous efforts of Bosch and his team that Germany was able to sustain the war beyond the first year. Elsewhere the German scientific endeavor and application of resources in the industrial production of nitrates has been compared to the Manhattan Project.However in September 1914 the German industrialists were still haggling over securing resources and remuneration, so from a business perspective, it would make sense to talk up the difficulty of an endeavor to maximize their share relating thereto. Further, the optimum catalyst for the industrial production for nitrates was only identified two months earlier. So was the German industrial production of nitrates less of a miracle and more of a case of war profiteering and good timing?
>>18263571There were indeed lots of projections that fuel would reach crisis levels in 1917 however these fears were not realised. The oil crisis was solved by the simple method of transporting oil in the double bottoms of cargo ships, along with the adoption of convoy on the tanker routes from America.
Honestly out of everything else being said i'd say one of the big defining factors was also that when germany needed to replenish their ranks for troops they didn't have any colonies to fall back on.France and England at the time had tons of places to get new bodies from.
>>18261274Angl*s is disaster for civilization.
>>18263624In such, yes. Britain had all of the Commonwealth cunts and the colonies for additional bodies--Australian and New Zealander troops were most of the manpower at Gallipoli and the invasion of Iraq used a significant amount of Pajeet soldiers brought in from British India.
The failure from the German side in this was forcing the US hand through unrestricted U-boat warfare, which not only alienated Washington, but also the neutral powers. Their surface fleet, following an inept Mahanian doctrine of decisive battle, kept in port husbanding its strength for, apparently peace negotiations. Why the German navy thought its doing nothing in wartime would improve its bargaining power in peace negotiations, that is anybody's guess.
>>18263589My understanding was that the death or Ferdinand mostly just bolstered the need for war in Germany because they believed that - while they were utterly and completely surrounded - they'd be invaded sooner or later.
>>18263655The German war on trade, even stuff like the random mining of sea lanes, always made it easier for Britain to tighten rules on neutrals and rules of Contraband, any delays in the imposition of those rules helps Germany more than a few random ships sunk.All the Pre Dreadnoughts, Armored Cruisers, older light cruisers are kind of worthless as bargaining chips, they would all be scrapped anyway in a few years if war didn't break out in 1914. Running the Blucher out to scoop up some merchants out of port is worth it. In the wintertime, long northern nights, unlike WWII no radar or aerial observation yet, once liberated from the American or other neutral ports from the watchful British AMCs that a high percentage could get through on the run to Germany.
>>18263663it was definitely true that blockade running would be easy to do during wintertime when there were up to 17-18 hours of darkness in northern Europe. in summertime it would be a bad idea.
The British blockade was clearly working given how Germany was literally starving by 1917. After the German breakthrough in the spring '18 offensive the first thing the soldiers do is commandeer British army food supplies. The army had priority on food and was still going hungry, proof of just how bad it was for the German civilian population. There was not much chance to hold out another year and Ukraine's breadbasket proved less useful than hoped due to the turbulent conditions there.What ultimately carried the day was the increased use of artillery on the Western front so by 1918 a single day's bombardment could do what it took a multi-week bombardment to do in 1915. Tanks and aircraft didn't affect anything that much as both were still basically novelties/toys at this point and not integral parts of the war machine like they would be in WWII.
>>18263686No European nation was self-sufficient in food until the post-WWII Green Revolution. Britain relied on imported food as much as everyone, in fact 60% of their food supply in 1914 was imported.
>>18261300It was a real "rubber meets the road" moment in a war full of them... Again and again.
>>18263663>>18263589The KM wasn't super-important as Germany is mostly a land power and can win without dominance of the seas. They also needed to preserve as much of the fleet as possible to safeguard their coastline against Entente attacks.
>>18263663>In the wintertime, long northern nights, unlike WWII no radar or aerial observation yetThe KM were able to sail north around the British Isles undetected in 1939-40 as well; as long as they didn't get too close to the British shoreline the Royal Navy didn't know they were there and that's considering they did have aerial reconnaissance by that point. By 1941 British reconnaissance capabilities in the North Sea were much improving.
>>18261241>Why didn’t the schlieffen plan work in WWI?German mistakes and French ingenuity, that's it, wars, just like athletic contests, arent played out on paper or computer sims>fullproof
>>18263639Kuts was bad enough kek
>>18263723Germans really liked their big grand plans. They had a lot of things that seemed good on paper that just didn't work. What was the one they were going to use for invading a city, where a line of troops would enter, then push things aside for a massive convoy of vehicles to enter and siege?
>>18263774at that battle the British army was captured by the Ottomans and the British and Hindu Indian soldiers taken as gay sex slaves if they were considered young and boyish enough. The Muslim Indians were invited to join the Ottoman army and most all of them did.
>>18263686had the Entente kept going into German territory they might well have reached Berlin with little resistance as the situation in Germany had become that desperate
>>18263686>After the German breakthrough in the spring '18 offensive the first thing the soldiers do is commandeer British army food supplies.The spring 18 offensive was clearly not going to go anywhere either, unlike 1870 or 1914 the German army is completely worn out and the French were far more motivated to resist than in 1870.
>>18261274>5 million Russians eaten>Russian victoryThe Russian is truly an asiatic.
WW1 was purest kino
conditions in Germany only started to deteriorate significantly in 1916, as the British blockade started to become more robust and as the silent dictatorship/ harvest failures in Germany screwed things up
>>18261241Frogs for once had a competent general that managed to launch counter attack against the Germans when they were near Paris, made them retreat and forced them into defensive positions, starting the trench warfare.
>>18263823right. of course the German general staff also didn't consider the idea of soldiers making man killing marches across northern France and having to fight along the way. it's as if they were playing board games and didn't think that IRL soldiers need to eat, rest, etc.
>>18263823Trench warfare was a product of the times, and largely inevitable imho.
As anon said, WW1 was a new experience as far as logistics because nobody had yet fought a major war with machine guns and quick load artillery that burned through ammunition at a fearsome rate. In the horse and musket days most armies could carry their entire ammo supply with them in wagons.
Lord Kitchener had been laughed at when he predicted that a general European conflict would repeat the Napoleonic Wars and be a prolonged affair with vast armies; the British military seemed to assume it would be like the "limited" mid-19th century wars with a few weeks or months of fighting.
>>18263560the situation in Britain and France was not nearly as desperate as it was getting in Germany by 1917 and they will still have the US and their overseas colonies to draw on for resources while German supplies of food, manpower, and raw materials were nearly used up. nobody to harvest crops or mine coal with all able bodied men in the army and women, children, and old men aren't gonna get the job done.
>Pershing is perfectly willing to use black soldiers in the AEF and the French also use black soldiers from the African colonies however the British have more rigid racial attitudes and did not care to use them
>>18263655This is true. The German chimpout of "unrestricted submarine warfare" pissed off a lot of neutrals. It drove America into joining the Entente. And pushed Argentina into loaning large amounts of money to Britain and France and switching all food exports to them.So that's two food suppliers Germany lost. Australia and Canada were always off the table (obviously).And Ukraine was too chaotic to provide a reliable wheat supply. In part because the Germans themselves freed Lenin and triggered the Russian Civil War.They were fucked in terms of food even if there had been no blockade, they pissed off every single of their suppliers by sinking their ships.Add Brazil when it comes to rubber, too.
>>18263686yeah Ukraine was not very useful as a food source, much of its grain has been stripped clean as the Russian army consumed or destroyed most of it. it took until 1926 for Ukraine's agricultural output to recover to 1913 levels.
Germany also went into the war without any real goals or a postwar plan, it was not like the wars of unification with a limited, set goal. There were various factions who wanted different endgames; some nutcase civilians like Naumann believed in the Mitteleuropa idea. Ludendorff had his own nutty postwar settlement ideas, and some sane individuals advocated for a negotiated peace with only small territorial changes, or even no territorial changes at all.
>>18263913With Britain there will be a negotiations, with France it will look like Brest-Litovsk, never mind Belgium or Luxembourg, they cease to exist
>>18263916hardly. BL was due to the unique circumstances in the Eastern Front.>Russia totally out of the war and in a state of anarchy>the Bolshevik leadership agrees to cede a vast area of land to get Germany out of the war so they can deal with the White armies>they also assume Germany will soon collapse into socialist revolution so they'll retake all the lost territory>to drive home the point, the German army overruns the Baltic coast and Ukraine just to prove Russia can do fuck-all to stop themFrance was not going to fold as easily as this.
>>18263916What if France invaded Switzerland?
>>18261241Germany didn't imagine that Britain would actually honor their 75 year old defense treaty with Belgium and assumed it was long forgotten.
>>18263704Facts is the US was able to produce record amounts of food with only 15% of its total landmass under cultivation. For contrast France, Britain, and Germany needed to devote a quarter to half their territory to agriculture.
>>18263883These are dumb excuses invented by mainstream kikestorians.
>>18263968>>18263704Britain actually could have been fairly self-sufficient in food but since the Corn Laws had been repealed almost 70 years earlier, production of food staples had declined as the country became increasingly reliant on North American and Argentine grain. As for Germany, they had protectionist policies on agriculture but the economy had become heavily focused on industry and farming was neglected and technologically backward.The British government had voluntary rationing of food staples in the early part of the war; restrictions on the use of grain got tighter and only in 1918 was rationing of meat introduced, but bread was never rationed. For contrast Germany and Austria approached famine conditions by 1917; the allowed daily caloric intake wouldn't even sustain a baby, let alone a grown adult and illness and deaths from malnutrition soared. Tuberculosis, rickets, and edema were becoming epidemics especially among children. Inflation in Germany reached 300% while in Britain it got to only 100%. One reason for the German military collapse on the Western front in 1918 was no doubt soldiers receiving desperate letters from relatives begging them to desert and come home.
>>18263989Retard, they sank 7,553 ships.1,200 from neutral nations.About 30% of the world's merchant shipping in total.
>>18263214On a 1:1 basis Germany absolutely could defeat France, and the Franco Prussian War was literally just a 1:1 fight. The problem was not accounting for the 2 fronts
>>18264026a lot has changed since 1870 though>France has a lot better railroad network>the French are a lot more motivated to resist in 1914>the French head of state isn't going to be riding into battle with his army this time around and getting captured, leading to the collapse of the government>ammo shortages since nobody has anticipated the amount of ammo that fully automatic weapons will need
>>18264052to put it simply, that's like today and you're comparing 2025 to 1981. just imagine how vastly different the world is now compared to 1981.
>>18263913In every war, the longer it goes on the more power that hardliners will get. It was exactly the same in the Civil War when in 1861-62 many still believed a negotiated peace with the South could be made and just return everything to the status quo antebellum with slavery left intact, but by 1864 there was nothing to do but total war and destruction of slavery.
There are still retarded bong and French patriots who think they could have won the war without American intervention even though nothing from contemporary sources in either country leads one to think that.
>>18264081The french could have just sat in their trenches till 1919 and gotten further than the armistice set the border at
>>18264014As anon said, Ukraine didn't actually have that much food since the Russian army had already eaten most of it or destroyed what they couldn't use and the Ukrainian peasants needed to keep some grain for their own use so they weren't motivated to let the Germans have it. Germany's two principle allies Austria and the Ottoman Empire are also on the verge of collapse (Bulgaria is too small and poor to contribute much and the Serbs and Greeks are ready to pounce on them).
>>18263876German coal miners were exempted from military service, but coal mining was physically demanding and required a lot of calories and the miners were also starving.
The spring 1918 offensive cost Britain and France a combined 800k casualties, which sounds enormous but Germany lost 650k men. Yet still the British and French had not yet totally reached the bottom of their manpower reserves while Germany had nothing left, they were at the point of conscripting kids and old men, and the AEF had not yet taken an active role in the fighting but is getting into position and will soon. Even if Germany won the spring offensive they still lose the war as they don't have enough manpower to exploit their victory.
>>18264093The Turks packed it in because Bulgaria's surrender left them cut off from their allies and exposed them to a direct attack on Constantinople. And the Bulgarians had quit because Germany was clearly headed for defeat, so they might as well cut their losses. They fell because Germany was falling, not vice versa.
>>18264138Bulgaria fell to a purely Franco-British-Greek offensive at the Vardar Offensive. How is that being stopped ITTL to stop the Ottoman Empire from surrendering considering they were considering to do that since the road to Constantinople is wide open after that?
>>18264143They did this because Germany was at the end of its rope in 1918 and couldn't rescue Bulgaria like they'd rescued Austria in 1916 when their offensive into Romania backfired.
>>18264158>>18264143Greece was very slow to mobilize and their infrastructure was virtually medieval so the Entente had a hard time moving reinforcements through there and the best the Greeks could do was small-scale border raids.Also Bulgaria gave up because their army mutinied once they knew Germany was collapsing. They had plans for offensive action by taking the Skra salient that the French and Greeks had occupied. Since Bulgaria is a small country with limited manpower reserves, they don't have any troops to spare once one of their armies mutinies. The Entente forces were on their southern border and they knew it was time to throw in the towel at that point.
>>18263876as anon said, the British had Indian troops in the invasion of Iraq and the French had African and Vietnamese troops in various fronts as well. The Vietnamese fought with distinction in Gallipoli and in Greece.
>>18261241afaik local infracture and overall german (or any other, in fact) logistics was insufficient by that time to conduct such a massive attack
German agricultural output dropped alarmingly when the government decided that most nitrogen reserves were to go to explosives rather than fertiziler.
>>18264129Britain in fact had plenty of soldiers who were being detained at home and not on the front because Lloyd George didn't trust Haig in charge of another offensive.
>>18264129The Entente had all the cards in their hands at that point.>had developed new, innovative military tactics like launching lots of small-scale assaults to bleed German manpower at minimal cost to themselves, while the retarded German generals still hoped for a massed offensive+breakthrough>the British and French had far better war industries and could build aircraft, tanks, automatic rifles, and other gear Germany lacked>even if the Michael and Blucher offensives succeeded it wouldn't be enough to win>since /his/ has a lot of 80 IQ krautboos on it, I'll pretend they could have taken Amiens but then it's not like that will magically cause the British and French armies to vanish in a puff of smoke>also the AEF wasn't immediately useful because it didn't actually get into the fighting for a year after the US entry into the war and the US Army had no modern experience with large scale warfare, and the French had to basically equip them at their own expensetl;dr Germany is toast long before US troops in Europe are combat-ready because of the terrible strategic choices Ludendorff and Hindenburg made, and the dumbshit krautboos on this board need to stop pretending they were invincible super soldiers
>>18264206Petain had done this starting in 1917; he abandoned futile frontal assaults on German trenches and instead concentrated on blasting them with artillery and then sending infantry in to mop up.
Not mentioned in here yet is Hindenberg and Ludendoff's astonishing retardation>contribute a huge amount to the suffering endured by the German civilian population in the war>both were later major components in getting the Nazis into power and Ludendoff also inspired the Japanese militarists since they avidly read his book about how military totalitarianism was the trend of the future
>>18264230The "miracle" victory that they won at Tannenberg had the same net negative effect as the Franco-Prussian War in making Germans insanely deluded about their martial prowess and elevating both generals to godhead status so any decisions they made were accepted without question.
The Marne offensive was Germany's best last chance to win because the fall of Paris would have knocked France out of the war same as 1871 because France was an extremely centralized country with most of its industry concentrated in the capital.
>>18264221that was after the French army mutinies in 17, right?
>>18264266Yes but the French government never publicly acknowledged the mutiny until the 1950s, it was kept a secret and so the Germans didn't know it was happening to be able to exploit it.
Also Germany's allies were less than useless.>Austria gets slapped around by Serbia, Romania, etc>the Russians overrun Galicia>Bulgaria is too small and poor to be helpful>the Ottomans fight bravely enough but most of their leadership is super retarded
>>18264081France had nothing left in terms of manpower by 1917, the number of military-aged males the country had not currently under arms was actually a state secret (protip: this number was practically zero). The British had half their army detained at home because Lloyd George didn't trust sending them to be sacrificed. The arrival of the AEF was the only thing saving the day.
>>18264283Austria-Hungary took a major role in softening the Russian advance without which the Success at Tannenberg xould not have occurred. They also kept Italy at Bay and pushed into their heartlands despite tremendous logistical difficulties. Yes, they struggled against Serbia, however not only did they face harsh terrain, but an Austrian Officer leaked vital military secrets and warplans to the Entente before WW1 which made it possible for the Serbians to exploit the tactical gaps of the A-H.The Ottomans were a major distraction tying hundreds of tousands of British soldiers to the Middle East. Obviously neither A-H nor the Ottoman Empire could compete in a 1 vs. 1 against the other great powers by any metric, but they were far from useless and punched above their weight class.
By June 1918 American soldiers were arriving in France at the impressive rate of 10k a day and they were being drilled mostly by British and Commonwealth officers, this was necessary as no one in the US Army had the experience they possessed. The first offensive action by AEF units serving under non-American command was 1,000 men (four companies from the 33rd Division AEF), with the Australian Corps during the Battle of Hamel on July 4 (the date being Independence Day was chosen on purpose). This battle took place under the overall command of the Australian Corps commander Lt. Gen. Sir John Monash. The Allied force in this battle combined artillery, armor, infantry, and air support (Combined arms), which served as a blueprint for all subsequent Allied attacks.Note that Monash had been given 10 US companies but then Pershing withdrew six and Monash was Jewish so he had to fight off some anti-Semitic prejudice while preparing for the battle.The first major and distinctly American offensive wasn't until September ie. it's nearly over. Pershing commanded the US 1st Army, composed of seven divisions and more than 500,000 men.
there were many reasons for Germany's collapse in the war>the blockade obviously>the lack of solid democratic institutions and separation of powers, one reason the communists gained a strong following>the German constitution gave the Kaiser extensive powers and in a dispute between him and the Reichstag he usually prevailed>this angered a lot of people who felt they weren't being represented through their elected officials>Germany couldn't adapt their agricultural sector to wartime needs as well as the British did theirs>Wilhelm II also virtually ceded his executive authority to Hindenberg and Ludendorff and all of their decisions were followed without question even when they were a bad idea>Wilhelm sometimes realized they were making bad decisions but couldn't do anything but offer suggestions, which they typically ignored>the civilian population became angered at the speedy collapse in their living standards and access to basic necessities>the initial victory at Tannenberg was a huge morale booster but quickly faded as Germany became bogged down in the endless stalemate in France, which led many to wonder if the army was not as invincible as they thought it was>the British and French also quickly overrun all their overseas colonies>serious food shortages were imminent since late 1915 and the ruling class seemed to act as if everything was ok and fine
The US was effectively on the side of the Entente from the beginning and considered them the representatives of democracy against German militarism.
>>18264403"Anti-democratic", you say? Neither Germany, nor Austria-Hungary, nor (to my knowledge) Bulgaria deviated from being constitutional monarchies with (somewhat) representative lower houses of government during that time, excepting that A-H suspended the Imperial Council from 1914 to 17 as an emergency measure (which constitutionally was a royal prerogative). Yet, the Entente included Russia, the last would-be autocracy in Europe (despite 1905).Mind you that free, democratic Burgerstan jailed antiwar protesters and socialists, terrorized German-Americans, passed the original version of the Espionage Act, and had major race riots and mass murders of black people. Or, for that matter, certain of the British Dominions? If I remember correctly, Australia and South Africa both balked a bit at the "self-determination of peoples" clause in the 14 Points.
>>18264376>and they were being drilled mostly by British and Commonwealth officersBullshit anglo revisionism, they were entirely redrilled and RE-EQUIPPED by French forces since they were shitty troops
>>18264408All the same the Central Powers were no doubt far less democratic.>German and Austrian constitutions both give the emperor considerable powers and he can overrule the legislature>the Bulgarian king dragged the country into back to back wars simply because he had the legal authority to>the Ottoman Empire was also absolutely undemocratic with the Sultan effectively powerless and the government ruled by the Triumvirate
>>18264423As for the Entente, obviously Russia had only a notional representative government and the Tsar had similar authority to override the Duma. American presidents also have always had considerable authority with operating the military as do the constitutions of other democratic countries.Wilhelm II had largely avoided direct involvement in German domestic politics for a while prior to the war; the Chancellor was in charge of that and any legislation had to be passed by the Reichstag.The Ottoman Empire had not a pretense of democracy after 1912 when the Triumvirate ran everything.In re: the United States, it is well known that a significant part of the states denied half their citizens basic legal and human rights due to their skin colorAs for British democracy, I suppose the typical Irish person in 1916 might have his doubts about that.
>>18264438i don't dispute that the Entente countries weren't perfect or that Americans who weren't white males really didn't have any rights back then, but no doubt they were better than the Central Powers.
>>18264423The Kaiser could dismiss the Reichstag, declare war, and rule by fiat. Though the Imperial Chancellor he wrote the budget and the Reichstag could only pass or reject it. In a balanced parliamentarian system the legislature has the powers of the purse, and to declare war, the executive has the power of the sword, to fight the war. The Legislature also has the power of oversight over the executive, and can impeach officials for abuse of power. Wilhelm II openly spoke of contempt for democratic government, though he did bow to the political realities of the age, but went along kicking, and screaming. For decades he talked among his inner circle of launching a coup against his own government. The arrogant warmongering, militaristic attitude was summed up by his statement "Might makes right." Though until 1914 it was mostly bombast, because in the final analysis he was a blowhard, but in 1914 he lost control of the situation.
>>18264392The Entente actually didn't know just how bad things were getting in Germany. The British knew there were some food shortages but they never guessed just how bad it was. Lloyd George was surprised during the Versailles conference to learn that 750k German civilians had died of malnutrition--he guessed around 350k. Germany was collapsing twice as fast as Britain thought they were.
>>18264455US intervention helped but Germany would still collapse anyway. A lot of the German artillery was shot and they couldn't replace them with fresh guns--many of the guns ended up dropping shells into their own lines, although many of the latter were also duds. German morale was collapsing, soldiers were deserting in increasing numbers, and overall they increasingly knew it was hopeless.
>>18264176German strength in the Balkans 1916 was between 50k and 100k men depending on the source used. France had 300k men there, Britain 404k. Greek numbers are unknown due to how long it took them to mobilize. Italy and Portugal's numbers are unknown as nobody has been interested enough to research them. However considering Mackensen is said to have taken around a fifth of the German troops from the Balkans, it's a good estimate to say the Germans had around 60k troops in the Balkans around 1916. The Turks had around 25k men and the Bulgarians had 500k. The Austrians were mostly garrisoning the Balkans and not doing active frontline service.The Entente still had an advantage. Bulgaria in 1916 had wished to go on the offensive to Salonika but hadn't due to direct intervention by Germany which allowed Greece to buy precious time to mobilize. The Entente are still going to smash through those lines because the Bulgarian and Turkish lines were weak and the around 60k troops could not stop around 850k troops, once fully mobilized.
>>18264461German boys born in 1899 turned 18 in 1917 but the government decided to hold off drafting them for a year so they could be used to harvest crops that fall. They were promptly drafted in 1918 and provided most of the manpower for the spring offensive. After the armstice the vast amount of demobilized soldiers were put to work on farms and the food situation improved in 1919 but was still pretty dire.
>>18264461>US intervention helped but Germany would still collapse anyway. Every allied offensive had failed until 1918 when the American offensive captured Sedan, a major rail hub which ment the Germans couldnt send reinforcements and supplies along its front line
>>18264481as he said the French had stopped launching offensives by 1917
>September 28, 1918 - Confronted by the unstoppable strength of the Allies and faced with the prospect of an outright military defeat on the Western Front, General Ludendorf suffers a nervous collapse at his headquarters, losing all hope for victory. He then informs his superior, Paul von Hindenburg, the war must be ended. The next day, Ludendorf, accompanied by Hindenburg, meet with the Kaiser and urge him to end the war. The Kaiser's army is becoming weaker by the day amid irreversible troop losses, declining discipline and battle-readiness due to exhaustion, illness, food shortages, desertions and drunkenness. The Kaiser takes heed from Hindenburg and Ludendorf, and agrees with the need for an armistice.
Didn't Russia also have shortages of everything in WW1?
>>18264546They had plenty of food but the peasants were refusing to sell it. Ironic that for all of Russia's reputation for being an all powerful autocracy, the government's biggest failing in WW1 was not acting autocratic enough and just confiscating food as they needed it. They acted too democratic/free market for their own good.Oh and of course Russia had major shortages of armaments and relied on a lot of imported weapons; the army ended up with ten different rifle types.
>>18264555it's ironic that Russia fell apart in WW1 because they actually weren't totalitarian enough and didn't properly convert the economy to a total war footing
>>18264558that it was. tsarist Russia was hardly liberal and it did some unjust, authoritarian stuff eg. the Jewish pogroms but it also didn't act authoritarian enough to survive. the Duma operated all the way to 1917 and the Russian state under Nicholas II was nowhere even close to USSR for inhuman brutality.
>>18264563on that note. the tsarist political police (Okhrana) numbered 1,000 personnel at its peak 1905-07. KGB had 1 million personnel. further Russia under Nicholas II had jury-based court system unlike USSR.
>>18264571>>18264563right. they were like France in 1788, just authoritarian enough to piss people off but not authoritarian enough for people to be afraid of the government.
You also have to factor in that a shortage of fertilizer was only one factor affecting the productivity of German agriculture. Young fit farm workers were prime candidates for military service, large parts of German farm and was broken up among small inefficient peasant farms and Germany was also short of animal feed for pigs and cows because that was also imported, though not to the same degree as the 1920s and 30s.During WW2 of course there were similar shortages but they solved that problem by robbing Poland and Ukraine of food.
>>18263237Everyone had major ammo shortages the first 18 months of the war--by 1916 ammo could be made in huge quantities. Machine guns were the biggest consumers of bullets; in some units they accounted for 90% of ammo use.
>>18264555>built lots of railroads, but administered them poorly>had more artillery shells than is often recognized, but hid millions of them away in fortresses where they didn't get used>had tons of warm bodies, but mistrusted and made lousy use of their reserve divisions>their excessive number of cavalry divisions consumed vastly too much transport space>had far too few literate NCOs>war-oriented industry was neglected in favor of foreign prewar purchases of ammo to stockpile (they presupposed a short war)
don't get me started on the qualitative difference between German and bong industry in 1914>Germany was vastly outpacing Britain in production of chemicals, steel, and electrical equipment including radios and telephones>most German factories were electrified and had modern machinery while bong factories were still in 1850 with steam power and no electrification
>>18264619plus in general Germany was way more ahead in electrification--British cities were still mostly using gas lamps
>>18264619>>18264620Not true btw.>British soldiers always had adequate clothing throughout the war while the Germans were dressed in rags and going barefoot by 1918, during the spring offensive they paused to raid British supply dumps and strip dead British soldiers of their good coats and shoes>No British soldiers or civilians were reduced to eating wild onions and gnawing on tree bark while this was happening in Germany by 1917>Britain had a well-established car culture by WW2 and privately owned vehicles were abundant, even the French had a decent car culture while Germany didn't become Europe's auto factory until after WW2>British agriculture was pretty decently mechanised especially in the country's main farm belt of the East Midlands and Anglia while a lot of German farming was still in the Middle Ages>Germany did have a way better chemical industry in 1914, by 1918 Britain outproduced them fourfold>Britain was able to replace all the destroyed rail lines in France and Belgium in a year>Britain actually had the world's first electrified factories but coal and gas were cheap so there was no special reason to electrify them until a national grid was in place>Paris was one of the world's most electrified cities in 1914 and earned its nickname the City of Lights for a reason, and almost all French electrical equipment was domestically produced>and lesser things like soap--Britain was the world's largest soap producer at the time while I imagine few Germans had ever seen a bar of soap before
>>18264651in all fairness German coal was rather crap quality which may have driven their early electrification drive--it's good as fuel but not as good for powering machinery
>>18264651in all fairnessBritish factories were mostly small cottage workshops, many equipped with outdated steam-powered machinery from the last century, and stuck with craft based methods. They produced lots of outdated goods that would be eventually redundant, especially before 1914, like steam engines, gas lamp or telegraph.German factories, on the other hand, were large, sophisticated, modern and well equipped. Look at Krupp Essen, a gold standard for European factories at that time, you could never find a British equivalent. They excelled in new products like diesel engines, electric trains, light bulbs, telephones, optics and other precision instruments, electrical machinery, organic chemical, advanced drugs, advanced machine tool. After both world wars the Allies extensively stole all the tech they could from Germany.You could see that British small arms during 1900-18 were often produced with craft based methods in small workshops, while German weapons were mainly manufactured on modern production lines, in places like Krupp Essen.
>>18264651the German pharmaceutical industry was also world class while Britain could only produce simple things like syrups.
Britain also lacked great industrial tycoons like the US and Germany had, no equivalent of Carnegie, Ford, Westinghouse, Bayer, Krupp, Siemens, etc.
>>18264422>Bullshit anglo revisionism, they were entirely redrilled and RE-EQUIPPED by French forces since they were shitty troopsThe main reason for that was because the French were already contracting US manufacturers to produce guns and ammo for them, so it was easier to just equip American soldiers with French small arms and artillery, which we were set up to mass produce, instead of our own homegrown stuff like the 1903 Browning rifle, which we weren't set up to mass produce.
>>18264670>>18264619you know it's amazing to me how Germany had such world class industries back then yet still ended up with literally starving people by late in the war, being reduced to melting church bells for scrap metal, and soldiers dressed in rags with no shoes. how is it that in WW2 they still used horse power while the British army was totally mechanised? why is it private ownership of cars was very rare in Germany until the 1950s and few Germans knew how to drive?
>>18264690You could also look at how many were made. So the British in their wattle and daub cottages spoon whittling in steam powered factories travelled to work in cars and buses. Leading to a plethora of mechanics able to fix internal combustion engines and drivers and such like while the Germans travelled on trams powered by mains electricity.Shame they couldn't run tram lines for the tanks and planes when war came.Same for radios, in Britain and France they are something teenagers build for fun. In Germany there is a massive state effort to make radios available so people can listen to the Fuhrer's speeches, so fixed tuned to one station and comparatively rare.The whole synthetic fuel and rubber issue is a case study in stupidity and attempted autarchy. Yes you can make it at around the twice the price of importing it. But to import it requires global trading and exports people want and there are only so many guns you can sell. From 1910-40 with a brief interruption in the 20s Germany did not have a viable export economy because it was gearing up a military.
>>18264619Not in chemical batteries, Germany was way behind and in fact the United States was the world's battery factory back then.
>>18264651>British agriculture was pretty decently mechanised especially in the country's main farm belt of the East Midlands and Anglia while a lot of German farming was still in the Middle Agesthat's mainly because Britain imported most of its food and domestic agriculture that remained was focused only on the most productive land and richest farmers that were able to remain competitive with imports. German agriculture was bigger but also much less efficient.
on paper it looks then like German agriculture sucked
>>18264719It also sucked in practice.They were far behind the UK in mechanisation, actually, not much better than the Russians. They were using oxen, even long after WWI. The Nazis were more interested in trying to breed neo-aurochs than in making a 'People's Tractor'. Examples like the late '30s Eicher were what the US had been doing in the early '20s.
>>18264719This was another of the many strategic blunders from WWI stemming out of the general belief it would be a short and decisive war.There was also bad luck involved, as the potato crop failed in 1916, leaving the Germans to subsist on turnips and by the Spring of 1917 over 80K German children had died from starvation.
How to get instant replies on /his/>make a WWI or II adjacent thread>ask why the Germans didn’t win and how they could have won
>>18264928Everyone in the Northern Hemisphere had a poor harvest in 1916. Europe had too much rain that year and North America not enough.
>>18264283Romania didn’t joined until 1916.https://gmic.co.uk/blogs/entry/530-romanian-soldiers-in-the-austro-hungarian-army/Bulgarian were kicking ass at Doiran Lake
>>18264702USA was irrelevant in 1914
>>18264670Germany was forced by the Treaty of Versailles to destroy a lot of their weapon tooling. When rearmament came under Hitler they had to make totally new tooling, which was to their ultimate advantage as it forced the development of new weapon types while Britain had a lot of old-fashioned WW1 equipment still in service. The Luftwaffe also had aircraft with modern style monoque construction while many British planes were still using biplane construction with wood and stringers, but a metal shell over top.
>>18264651>Britain had a well-established car culture by WW2*By WW1, sorry
>>18265533This is an actual discussion for it and not just a hitler brown nosing and denialism thread.
>>18264722Almost everyone in the WW1 era still had animal-driven farms.
>>18265533althistory has lots of retarded krautboos as well
>>18265675Fuck off streetshitter
>>18264690The British army was 1/4th as big as the Wehrmacht so mechanization was easy.
>>18263882What are you talking about, the English used the Irish
>>18264015Retarded lying little jew
>>18264221It tooo that retard over 3 years to learn basic breakthrough logic? Why were all the generals mentally handicapped in WWI?
>>18264283No, I don’t agree. Overunning a flat plain like galicia isn’t an achievement. Austria’s destruction of half the italian armed forces at caperetto tells me that they ounched above their weight, like the other guy said. The entente inability to defeat turkey was shameful.
>>18264690Tranny, maybe look into industrial logistics, and how goods are manufactured.
>>18266430There is a registry of all the ships sunk by U-boats, you can look it up here:https://uboat.net/wwi/ships_hit/7,553 attacks.
>>18263961Brits sent like 75k menThey were utterly irrelevant on the Western Front until 1916
Why do the germans always want to go to war. what made them super paranoid they'd be invaded soon after?
>>18264699>From 1910-40 with a brief interruption in the 20s Germany did not have a viable export economy because it was gearing up a military.What the fuck are you blabbering about. In 1910 Germany had world renown machine tool building, chemical and steel industries that exported goods to its neighbors. One of the arguments used against war falling out was that 'Germany wouldn't dare invade its main trade partners, it doesn't make sense!'. In the 30's there was this little thing called the Great Depression, have you heard of it? It caused everyone to hike up their tariffs and made an export based economy completely unviable (see Japan). In conclusion, shut your stupid whore mouth.
>>18263569no one said this, however to say that Germany must lose because fate is retarded and makes me think youre a fatalistic slav.Germany defeated Russia against all odds, France somehow managed to lose WWII despite having a vastly larger armored force and airforce, and navy, and the defensive advantage.Germany in the 1700s defeated three Empires in rapid succession in head on battles.A tiny little pseudo country of 300,000 people defeated a nation of tens of millions.There's no such thing as historical determinism perse.
>>18264129>>18264206Why did no one inform the Entente their victory was inevitable? Why was their morale so low, their struggle so toilsome, and their advances so costly?I thought they had already won because Germany had zero soldiers on the frontline by 1917?
>>18261241>By 1914 Bethmann-Hollweg was deeply unpopular in Germany. He became convinced that only a successful war could divert opposition to his economic policies. He hoped and expected a short, limited war. He encouraged Austro-Hungarian aggression under Conrad von Hötzendorf guided after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Bethmann-Hollweg changed his mind after it became clear that it might escalate into a world war. However, he lacked the political authority to halt the Schlieffen Plan.>Also Conrad’s Italian offensive of 1916 also came close to success, but troop withdrawals to the threatened Russian front again cost him victory.
>NOOOOOO YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE LEGAL PRECEDENT IN YOUR ARGUMENTDerangement syndrome.Trade with one side but not the other is no longer neutrality.Germany never struck a neutral vessel.
