Could the Germans have Won the WWI?

what's a "Kaisermarine"?

Originally posted by Al Jassas Come on, Jutland showed that the germans were no match for the RN, only Jellicoe's stupidity prevented the total annihilation of the Kaisermarine

The Allies were not across the Rhine in Nov 1918. Indeed, except in the corner of Upper Alsace which they had held since the beginning of the war, they weren't even close to it. They weren't even across the German frontier.

Allied forces reached the Rhine only after hostilities had ceased - and even then, advancing unopposed, it took them a month or so to get there

Edited by Mikestone8 - 17-Mar-2014 at 17:55

With the arrival of the USA was the war decided. maybe there would have been a drawn without them, but with their arrival the war was finished.

Originally posted by beorna With the arrival of the USA was the war decided. maybe there would have been a drawn without them, but with their arrival the war was finished.

Don't know about a draw. Both sides were so committed to victory that they wouldn't seek peace on other terms until they are clearly losing - by which time it will be too late.

I certainly agree, though, that US intervention was decisive - for economic reasons even more than military ones. Their financial support was crucial.

Edited by Mikestone8 - 21-Mar-2014 at 03:05

Germany had a navy more than equal to Britain's, but suffered from a reluctance to lose any of its capital warships.  Thing about navies is that all that hardware is either expendable for the cause, or it's a waste of money.

Germany also took on the war on way too many fronts, as mistake it made again during the Second World War.

Finally, Germany suffered from being led by the Kaiser, an ineffectual and worthless wartime leader.

Originally posted by beorna It was not at all equal. Britain had 20 battleships, germany 15, Britain had 9 battle cruisers, germany 5, britain had 40 pre-dreadnought battleships, germany 22. britain had 34 armored cruisers, germany 9. britain had 73 cruisers, germany 41, britain had  256 destroyers, germany 149 and britain had 78 submarines, germany 28 in 1914. And that ignores already the French and all other entente navies as well. Russia and france mobilized before germany. It was not germany's decision to go on war on both sides. No, one can blame William for the desasterous politics that led germany into the situation it faced in 1914, but to blame him as worthless war time leader is not correct.

Numbers aren't the yardstick. German ships stood up to punishment better than Britain's often did.  Remember Fisher's infamous comment during Jutland: "Something seems to be wrong with our bloody ships today" after observing yet another battle cruiser blow up.  Remember also the debacle involving the Cressy, Hoague and Aboukir.

Germany was involved on the Eastern Front, the Western Front, the Far Eastern Front, Africa and everywhere in between.  Any competent military leader will tell you that no one can successfully fight a war on too many fronts.

Many historians blame the Kaiser for his ineffectual leadership, as do a number of his generals in various correspondences and memoirs.

Germany made some fatal errors that led to ultimate defeat.  Absent those errors, victory was entirely possible, especially given the homicidal incompetence of the British and French high commands, still planning cavalry charges and bleeding their own forces white.

As they did again in WWII, the Germans led everyone in technical innovations and changes in warfare to which the Allies were too slow to adapt - the proper use of the machine gun, poison gas, submarines, advanced aircraft designs, commerce raiders, advanced front line shelter techniques that rendered British and Ferench bombardments ineffectual, Zeppelin warfare, etc., etc.

"Born out of necessity"?  That makes it worse.  The British lost 20,000 men in four hours during the battle of the Somme - THAT is "necessity", yet the innovations that killed them were put into effect by the Germans.  The british wwere still hoping for a breakthrough opportunity for the bloody cavalry, for crying out loud.

Yes, the Kaiser is to blame.  He was the leader of Germany at the time, and that makes him responsible, period.  Tying to claim otherwise merely accentuates his incompetence and lack of worth.  You might as well claim that the Czar didn't rule Russia, either.

British warships had serious problems with armor, lack of proper naval gunnery training and a number of other issues.  Had the German fleet pressed the issue when the Grand Fleet made it's infamous blunder, they could have prevailed.  They had better gunnery and the British battle cruisers were sitting ducks with their light armor and lack of sufficient deck armor to protect against plunging fire, and the insane British practice of speeding up their firing rate by opening all of their safety doors and piling up charges beneath the turrets and handling rooms.  Those safeties were conceived and built for very specific reasons, and the British were idiots to bypass them in combat.  The British also used to pitch the shells over the side rather than fire them during gunnery practice because the blast of the large caliber naval rifles ruined the paintwork and caused cracks in the superstructures.  Take a look at the number of shells fired per actual hit and you will see how badly that affected the Royal Navy's ability to fight at Jutland.

Remember to consider the debacle that resulted in not using wireless to tell the Grand Fleet what was going on when visibility was too poor to read the flag signals.  The British put on a poor performance by ewvery standard in the book at Jutland, largely due to their inability to adapt to new methods and technologies. just like their brethren on the ground and in the air.

According to history, the British shifted significant numbers of troops and materials to Africa to combat a German enemy that you say didn't really exist.  I would be interested to see proof of that assumption.  Meanwhile, the Germans were fighting on too many continents against too many enemies, a clear violation of military principles even to this day.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over again in the expectation that the results will change.  Both Britain and France were undeniably insane based on their tactics alone.

Apparently, having failed to convince me, you're still trying to convince yourself.

The British leadership suffered from hidebound concepts and the Not Invented Here syndrome to a fatal degree.

Had America, with its fresh troops and vast manufacturing capabilities, not entered the war, both Britain and France would have lost.  French forces were already utinying, and British forces were on the verge, and the war was terribly unpopular at home in both nations, causing a surge in Communism that threatened to bring down their governments.

It appears that someone know very little about WWI and Britain in particular.

The USA did not come to the rescue, they actually did comparatively little, what was important is what they would do in 1919 and that convinced the Germans to try and end the war in 1918, they failed.

Interesting interpretation of the Royal Navy not being innovative and their command being unable to understand trench warfare.

Who first built Dreadnoughts? who invented the Tank? who established the first Air Force? who won?