Why did the Central Powers ultimately lose the war?

[chuck]

The Belgians and the Dutch. They are hard to tell apart. Mistakes happen. All of a sudden spiked helmets started goose stepping down the red light district in Amsterdam. But it was all a mistake, I assure you. We will leave with your women as soon as the war is won.

[kennylibben]

due to some confusion about how Germany's untrustworthy Italian allies would act.

Unless I'm mistaken, Italy was never an ally of Germany during WWI. While politically she sided with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, she was never obligated to them. When war broke out, they waited a bit and then joined forces with the Triple Entente.

[chuck]

due to some confusion about how Germany's untrustworthy Italian allies would act.

Unless I'm mistaken, Italy was never an ally of Germany during WWI. While politically she sided with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, she was never obligated to them. When war broke out, they waited a bit and then joined forces with the Triple Entente.

Not during WWI, because Italy openly reneged on her triple alliance pact with Germany and Austria-Hungary, which she entered into on May 20, 1882, at the beginning of WWI.

In fact Italy's treachery had been in the works for some time. Inspite of her formal obligations under the triple alliance, in 1902 Italy had secretly offered guarantees to France to the effect that Italy would not fight France regardless of the terms of the triple alliance. Her treachery continued after the start of the war. Although she failed to declare war on the Entent powers, Italy had assured her former partners in the triple alliance of her political support. But she nevertheless declared war on Austria in 1915 and Germany in 1916.

[Gerarddm]

John Keegan points out that the Plan was A) badly modified by Moltke, who did NOT "keep the right wing strong", and B) even if he had, it was physically impossible to cram and move as many divisions as the Plan required over the available space in the planned time. Period.

[drdemented]

given the above choices, i would say "none of the above"

the central powers' failure at the beginning of ww1, was due in large part to the failure of the schlieffen plan. though the plan itself was sound, a number of contingencies arose, which the plan failed to foresee:

1. russian mobilization -- the germans assumed that the massive russian army would take some time to mobilize. however, the russians managed to mobilize very quickly, and they posed a direct threat to berlin. thus, the germans were forced to divert significant forces intended for their lightning thrust into france in order to counter the russians.

2. belgium -- the schlieffen plan assumed that the french would try for the immediate recapture of alsace-lorraine. thus, the germans would outflank the french, racing through neutral belgium. however, the germans did not expect that the belgians would actually try to defend their neutrality. in fact, they manage to stall the germans for a full month (they expected to be in paris within 40 or 50 days). furthermore, the violation of belgian neutrality was the direct cause for britain's entry into the war. the germans now had to contend with the british expeditionary force, as well as the french and belgians, on the western front.

3. schlieffen plan modifications -- because the french managed to make some in-roads into the alsace-lorraine area, the germans redeployed forces from its main attack to defend the area (schlieffen planned for only minimal forces in order to draw the french further in so that the would be enveloped by the main attack). the reinforcements were sufficient to drive the french back. however, it had the unintended effect of putting the french in a better position to redeploy those forces for defense.

all of this set up the miracle at the marne, at which the allies were able to set up a final defense line against an attacking force which had been weakened from its intended strength by force redeployments. once the war had degenerated into the quagmire that was trench warfare, it became "anyone's ballgame."

[Filipe Ramires]

Jorit, is any of your students voting on this poll??? I just noticed that someone voted for Option 8!!!

[kennylibben]

I didn't vote because I feel the major reason was the fact that Germany violated Belgian neutrality... drawing Great Britain into the war. Many sources I looked at while researching for some classes pointed to Britain having no intentions of upholding it's agreements with France until the German army entered Belgium.

[chuck]

You think Britain would stand by while France and Russia falls and a single continental power with resources far greater than Britain materialize on the other side of channel?

[JWintjes]

Ouch - again I have to agree with Chuck...

I see no possible scenario where Britain would carry on the fight against a Germany victorious over France and Russia - the Germans would probably have bought the peace if necessary.

"Want Calais and Dunkirk back which the treacherous frog stole from you the day before yesterday?" ...

Jorit

[kennylibben]

I didn't say they wouldn't EVER come... chances are France and Russia would still be able to put up a good fight. After a few years, Britain might be persuaded to join. You have to remember, Britain and France were not buddies back then ... and nobody wanted a war.

And this war wasn't about conquest as was the case with WWII... it was about stopping a war (ironically).

[chuck]

You think Britain would wait while Germany ground down the French army - the only army in the world that can be spoken of in the same breath as the German army BTW - so that Britain can shoulder an even greater proportion of the landing fighting against the Germans later?

[kennylibben]

Well considering the Germans had no intentions of attacking Britain... or even maintaining control of Europe like Napoleon did (as far as we know)... there is definitely a possibility. Not to mention, that France and Russia would grind down the German army as well - it's not like Germany would go unscathed and be TOUGHER against Britain than they were against France (except for the experienced soldiers aspect).

If you don't quite understand, it's a slightly similiar situation as to why Horatius of Rome was able to defeat the Curiatii of Alba Longa.

The problem with your theories are that for some reason you feel that world domination is the goal of every war... at least for one side. Not the case, especially with World War I.

[JWintjes]

Well considering the Germans had no intentions of attacking Britain... or even maintaining control of Europe like Napoleon did (as far as we know)... there is definitely a possibility. Not to mention, that France and Russia would grind down the German army as well - it's not like Germany would go unscathed and be TOUGHER against Britain than they were against France (except for the experienced soldiers aspect).

If you don't quite understand, it's a slightly similiar situation as to why Horatius of Rome was able to defeat the Curiatii of Alba Longa.

Ehm, one, I'd be careful with analogies taken from mythology - particularly if there were actually three Horatii...

Two, the whole point of the Schlieffen plan is to kick out France quickly, without the need ofr any grinding down. Granted, during a victorious war against Russia Germany would have suffered, but don't underestimate what they tend to call the spoils of war.

Oh, and three - I hate you.

Because you make me actually defend Chuck!!!



Jorit

[kennylibben]

Hey, you don't have to defend him! I'm not attacking him, I'm defending my own views which came under attack - I was simply answering the question... and I still believe my answer.

Both of you have failed to attack my true point in any meaning whatsoever.

As for as the Schlieffen plan goes, it may have worked if not for Britain joining... at least do a degree.

And as for the Horatius, I know there were three... my point was, the Curiatii were seriously wounded by the two slain Horatii ... allowing Horatius to kill them, something he wouldn't have been able to do had they not been injured. My point here is, France - and perhaps Russia - would be the slain brothers of Horaitus ... with Germany - and perhaps Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans - as the injured Curiatii ... I think it works out just fine.

[JWintjes]

Hey, you don't have to defend him! I'm not attacking him, I'm defending my own views which came under attack - I was simply answering the question... and I still believe my answer.

Both of you have failed to attack my true point in any meaning whatsoever.

As for as the Schlieffen plan goes, it may have worked if not for Britain joining... at least do a degree.

And as for the Horatius, I know there were three... my point was, the Curiatii were seriously wounded by the two slain Horatii ... allowing Horatius to kill them, something he wouldn't have been able to do had they not been injured. My point here is, France - and perhaps Russia - would be the slain brothers of Horaitus ... with Germany - and perhaps Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans - as the injured Curiatii ... I think it works out just fine.

So England would set out and kill Germany, the Ottoman Empire and Austria?

With what, if I may ask?

I think you are dramatically overestimating the military capability of the British army of the pre-Kitchener years. Assuming Schlieffen had worked somehow, the war would have been over, say, in the latter half of 1915 at latest, which means Britain would still have fielded its highly professional yet really small army.

Somehow I have, uhem, difficulties imagining how they would have been able to take on Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire...

Jorit

[kennylibben]

No, I'm not saying they would at all... just saying it would be easier to defeat Germany... and I'm not even proposing a conquest... just defeat them in the field. I have no reason to believe that Britain had any quarrel with Austro-Hungary, especially not with the Ottomans (not enough to warrant a war on the scale that took place at least).

I'm simply saying the main reason Britain participated was because they were obligated to as the protector of Belgian neutrality... you guys are taking way too much out of what I've stated (although Jorit, you're last post is somewhat understandable given my comparison).


I'm done arguing this, I've answered the question and nothing I'm accused of will make me change my mind, the only route is to show me hard evidence that Britain fully planned on participating in the thick of action well before the von Schlieffen plan was put into effect. Hell, look at the '30s. Britain didn't take any real action (or France for that matter) until Hitler had control of at least 4 different regions. Had Hitler straight out drove for France, before perfecting any maneuvers, gaining experience for his troops, or anything of the sort - I doubt Britain would have dedicated much to the effort at first. Can't blame them either, theoretically France should have kicked Germany's butt.

[chuck]

Because you make me actually defend Chuck!!!

Jorit

You don't know the power of the Dark Side!

[JWintjes]

Because you make me actually defend Chuck!!!

Jorit

You don't know the power of the Dark Side!

So in order to draw me on your side you actually exert your detrimental influence over young Kenny.

The evil mastermind at work...



Jorit

[chuck]

The influence of the Dark Side can't be more detrimental to Kenny than those of his shorts.

[Werner]

The influence of the Dark Side can't be more detrimental to Kenny than those of his shorts.

Depends on the smell...