Why did the Central Powers ultimately lose the war?

[ASFC]

I have not voted either, because I feel that the failiure of the Schlieffen Plan and Britain entering the war was why the Central Powers lost.

The Schlieffen PLan was devised because Germany knew it could not fight a sustained war on two fronts (which is why in WW2 Stalin wanted a second front), and the plan was developed to quickly remove France from the war and then fight Russia, who the Germans thought it would take at least six weeks for the Russians to mobilize. It took the Russians less and hence the Germans had to split the forces and that meant that the Central Powers would have to fight on at least two fronts, and that Germany would have to take the brunt of this fighting (simply because I do not consider the then Austrian-Hungarian Army to be as good).

Fighting on two fronts would not have been as bad if Britain had not entered the war. Not because of the entry of the BEF, but because it was Britain who enforced the Naval Blockade on the German Coast, (and the Imperial Navy just did not have the strength in depth to fight both Britain, France and Russia) that ultimately cut off supplies and led to problems for Germany like the Turnip winter and a change in Govt.

Of course this was all made worse by the entry into the war of the Americans in 1917, which meant that the Western Front now could now be re-enforced. Many say that the German Army was not defeated on the field, and that it was the change in Govt in Berlin that forced a ceasefire, however although the German Army would not be difficult to beat, i'd argue that by 1919 (if the war was still ongoing) that the allies would have amassed a large enough army in France to invade Germany. And I won't mention the fact that the Ottoman empire had been in decline for decades and would probably struggle to survive the war anyway.

Just my 2 pence.

[kennylibben]

Well, ASFC agrees with me at least somewhat... we didn't give the same details but gave the same general answer... glad to see I'm not the only one!

[Seasick]

A fresh Army and Marine Corps into the frey to reenforce the overstressed and depleted French and British armies.

[kennylibben]

I do agree with that as well - it may not been the main blow, but it was probably the coup de grace. Not only were there fresh troops and equipment, with a huge population to pull from and unscathed industry to support them, but it also drastically increased morale for the entente.

[Werner]

I wonder if the fact that America, which was a VERY German country in the 19th Century would side with the British and French had any moral and morale implications on the German leadership and army.

[kennylibben]

Quite possibly, even if it wasn't for the fact that it was German... but for the same reasons it raised French/British morale it would have lowered German morale.

I wonder how high the hopes were with the Germans for America siding with them? It would be somewhat understandable since America and Britain were still not very friendly until WWI, what with the War of 1812, Recognition of the CSA, etc.
France wasn't very close anymore either.

It would make some sense that they would expect America to side with Germany... especially since Germany was only defending Austria-Hungary against Russia (originally).

[chuck]

I wonder if the fact that America, which was a VERY German country in the 19th Century would side with the British and French had any moral and morale implications on the German leadership and army.

The recent wave of German immigration doesn't make America a very German country.

In wealth, culture and finance, American's tie to Britain was dominant. In the 10 years leading up to WWI, outside areas receiving major German immigration, the reputation of Germany amongst Americans was low. Germany was associated in popular minds not only with the stereotypically aggressive and unpleasant Prussian traits, but also with disreputable business ethics. A singularly devastating blow to Germany's reputation occurred in the aftermath of the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906, during which British insurance underwriters were perceived as scrupulously honest and generous, and German insurance industry were perceived as grossly dishonest and underhanded. Lloyds of London's telegraphed instructions to its San Francisco agents to "pay all claims in full" was widely publicized to enormous public acclaim throughout the states, The story of German insurance firms closing theirs San Francisco offices and using outrageous legalistic contortions to avoid paying anything at all in the aftermath of the quake generated widespread condemnation, not only of German insurance industry, but also the German national character in general. In the months after the San Francisco earthquake, the reputation of the "German national character" in most of the US would have been little better than the reputation of the ruling Junta of Berma today.

In the aftermath of Lusitania, the story of the behavior of German insurance firms 10 years before were rehashed again in American newspapers, and remained every bit as effective in whipping up anti-German sentiment as 10 years before.

[ASFC]

And forgive me i'm a bit rusty on my WW1 history, but wasn't it the intercepting of a telegram between Germany and Mexico encouraging Mexico to invade the Southern states that finally brought America into the war? If Germany was hoping in anyway that America might side with it, Insurance underwriters or not, it wasn't going about it the right way with that telegram and the Lusitania sinking.

Germany would have been demoralised by America sideing with Britain and France because it knew winning the war would be more difficult, not because any of the German Leadership had links to America. Its like saying the Japanese were demoralised because they had to go to war with America in 1941 because they had links to America and because the likes of Yamamoto had lived and studied there, where in fact it would be much more likely that they were slightly demoralised because they knew it was going to be a difficult war (or certain Admirals knew it would be).

[kennylibben]

You're thinking of the Zimmerman Note... yes, that's what happened - although it wasn't the only reason America joined... it was the final blow.

However, it is actually believed that the note was created by the British and purposely put in American hands to get them to join on their side.

[ASFC]

[off-topic] despite the fact that Zimmermann himself admitted that it was true in March 1917 [/off topic]

[chuck]

As far back as 1900, Germany had prepared war plans against the US. It should be pointed out that Spanish-American war and the charge up San Juan hill did not impress the Germans of American fighting ability and the will to resist. The German war plan stipulated that at the onset of war, Germany would transport 30,000 troops, on chartered foreign ships no less, to New York. Once there these 30,000 troops would seize New York, apparently overwhelming any local resistance. It is thought the loss of New York would cause American to immediately sue for peace, accepting any condition the Kaiser care to impose, thus bring the German-American war to a successful conclusion in an expeditious manner without taking even a single German corp out of the European stand off.

[kennylibben]

Interesting to both of you, I hadn't been aware of either of the information you both posted!

[ASFC]

As far back as 1900, Germany had prepared war plans against the US. It should be pointed out that Spanish-American war and the charge up San Juan hill did not impress the Germans of American fighting ability and the will to resist. The German war plan stipulated that at the onset of war, Germany would transport 30,000 troops, on chartered foreign ships no less, to New York. Once there these 30,000 troops would seize New York, apparently overwhelming any local resistance. It is thought the loss of New York would cause American to immediately sue for peace, accepting any condition the Kaiser care to impose, thus bring the German-American war to a successful conclusion in an expeditious manner without taking even a single German corp out of the European stand off.

Have you ever watched the 1978 film Riddle of the sands? (not that i'm denying that the Germans (sorry, the Kaiser) would come up with such a scheme) It should be remembered that he was surronded by a lot of sycophants in his court (like who thought they could hire these 'foreign ships'). Although i'm not sure of US Army strength at the time, it sounds like it would never have succeeded.

[JWintjes]

As far back as 1900, Germany had prepared war plans against the US. It should be pointed out that Spanish-American war and the charge up San Juan hill did not impress the Germans of American fighting ability and the will to resist. The German war plan stipulated that at the onset of war, Germany would transport 30,000 troops, on chartered foreign ships no less, to New York. Once there these 30,000 troops would seize New York, apparently overwhelming any local resistance. It is thought the loss of New York would cause American to immediately sue for peace, accepting any condition the Kaiser care to impose, thus bring the German-American war to a successful conclusion in an expeditious manner without taking even a single German corp out of the European stand off.

Have you ever watched the 1978 film Riddle of the sands? (not that i'm denying that the Germans (sorry, the Kaiser) would come up with such a scheme) It should be remembered that he was surronded by a lot of sycophants in his court (like who thought they could hire these 'foreign ships'). Although i'm not sure of US Army strength at the time, it sounds like it would never have succeeded.

Ok, a couple of things.

1) "Riddle of the Sands" is a 1903 piece of fiction by Erskine Childers - I strongly suggest reading it, it's fantastic fun, and both the film and the TV series they made out of it pale into insignificance in comparison. It was hugely successful at the time, particularly as it arrived on the market when there was a (or rather another) invasion scare going on in Britain.

2) Proper German invasion planning for the US was never done. What we have are some studies that were written by one low-ranking German navy officer in particular; while these caused some interest among higher-ranking circles there was never something like a "attack plan USA". Don't forget that academic papers are written all the time by aspiring young officers as well as established ones - there is a nice piece of Schlieffen on the Battle of Cannae. This doesn't mean they even remotely think about putting that into practice.

3) While the political relationship between Germany and the USA was indeed strained around the turn of the century, there would have been no invasion even if war had actually broken out, which in itself is not exactly likely.

4) I know it is quite popular to think of German pre-war policy as being essentially the Kaiser stumbling around totally and utterly clueless. Nothing could be further from the truth. While German foreign policy ultimately failed - or not, depending on whether you believe that they actually wanted the war - people by and large knew what they did. And invading the USA was most certainly not in.

Jorit

[chuck]

That's not fair, you said you only had a couple of points.

I know the 30000 troop New York invasion plan can't be a serious , sanctioned war plan, but it's a good story that had a grain of truth in it. When a story is good, even if it is not entirely true, it ought to be told like it is!

[ASFC]

1) "Riddle of the Sands" is a 1903 piece of fiction by Erskine Childers - I strongly suggest reading it, it's fantastic fun, and both the film and the TV series they made out of it pale into insignificance in comparison. It was hugely successful at the time, particularly as it arrived on the market when there was a (or rather another) invasion scare going on in Britain.

Done all three, its just the film seems more readily available round my part of the world at the moment, hence i suggested it.

4) I know it is quite popular to think of German pre-war policy as being essentially the Kaiser stumbling around totally and utterly clueless.

You are putting words into my mouth! I said he was surronded by plenty of sycophants in his court, who would do anything to gain favour (evidence of this can be seen by the fact that Caprivi gave up after four years of being Chancellor and then followed several ineffective German Chancellors (although none as strong as Bismarck)), not that he was an idiot! My point being is that from a military point of view, the Kaiser would have been best placed with his military background to judge these things, but that politically these things would be considered by those in high up circles because they felt the need to please him with their next scheme in 'Weltpolitik'.

[JWintjes]

That's not fair, you said you only had a couple of points.

Actually, I had a couple of things. "Things" imply a multiple - so a couple of things could well be 4 in all...

I know the 30000 troop New York invasion plan can't be a serious , sanctioned war plan, but it's a good story that had a grain of truth in it. When a story is good, even if it is not entirely true, it ought to be told like it is!

Applied to the famous 30,000 men executed per year by the French during WW1 this means what?



Jorit

[JWintjes]

You are putting words into my mouth! I said he was surronded by plenty of sycophants in his court, who would do anything to gain favour (evidence of this can be seen by the fact that Caprivi gave up after four years of being Chancellor and then followed several ineffective German Chancellors (although none as strong as Bismarck)), not that he was an idiot! My point being is that from a military point of view, the Kaiser would have been best placed with his military background to judge these things, but that politically these things would be considered by those in high up circles because they felt the need to please him with their next scheme in 'Weltpolitik'.

Sorry, that wasn't in any way aimed at you personally - just a general gruntling sound if disagreement.

What I meant was that the role the Kaiser actually played in formulating Germany's foreign policy is very often immensely overrated. While he could do nice things like giving interviews which sent the people at the Wilhelmstrasse into hyperdrive, he couldn't actively make foreign policy, nor could he decide on matters of war and peace.

Jorit

[Gone Asiatic]

As far back as 1900, Germany had prepared war plans against the US. It should be pointed out that Spanish-American war and the charge up San Juan hill did not impress the Germans of American fighting ability and the will to resist.

The Kaiser-dude probably was impressed with the USMC at Bellauwood

The German war plan stipulated that at the onset of war, Germany would transport 30,000 troops, on chartered foreign ships no less, to New York. Once there these 30,000 troops would seize New York, apparently overwhelming any local resistance. It is thought the loss of New York would cause American to immediately sue for peace, accepting any condition the Kaiser care to impose, thus bring the German-American war to a successful conclusion in an expeditious manner without taking even a single German corp out of the European stand off.

The Kaiser-dude evidently knew nothing of the 1812 War. Didn`t the Kaiser-dude quip that should the British army land in Europe he would "dispatch the constabalry to arrest it." (?)

[JWintjes]

As far back as 1900, Germany had prepared war plans against the US. It should be pointed out that Spanish-American war and the charge up San Juan hill did not impress the Germans of American fighting ability and the will to resist.

The Kaiser-dude probably was impressed with the USMC at Bellauwood

The German war plan stipulated that at the onset of war, Germany would transport 30,000 troops, on chartered foreign ships no less, to New York. Once there these 30,000 troops would seize New York, apparently overwhelming any local resistance. It is thought the loss of New York would cause American to immediately sue for peace, accepting any condition the Kaiser care to impose, thus bring the German-American war to a successful conclusion in an expeditious manner without taking even a single German corp out of the European stand off.

The Kaiser-dude evidently knew nothing of the 1812 War. Didn`t the Kaiser-dude quip that should the British army land in Europe he would "dispatch the constabalry to arrest it." (?)

Chances are the Kaiser was never aware of these plans. As I said, they originated with an academic paper written up by a fairly junior officer.

Jorit