Tango01 | 30 Nov 2016 3:49 p.m. PST |
"Germany went into the First World War with the advantage of a very large, very well-trained, and very well-equipped army. One-on-one, they could almost certainly have defeated any other country in the world – but they weren't fighting just one enemy. They were outnumbered, and their opponents had access to much greater resources. Therefore, Germany's best hope of winning was a rapid knock-out blow, destroying their enemies' armies quickly and then forcing a peace. If the war bogged down in stalemate, then the Allies' greater depth of resources would allow them to grind Germany down through attrition and defeat them. In effect, that's what happened. So, Germany lost WW1 because the French army was able to escape the trap set for them by the Schlieffen Plan, redeploy their forces to the Marne, and halt the German advance in September 1914. After that failed, the odds were always going to be against Germany. Still, German defeat wasn't assured. After the end of the War of Movement in 1914, though, their best hope became outlasting their enemies. That is, hoping that the constant drain of dead and wounded soldiers, and the ever-increasing financial cost of the war, would eventually cause their opponents to throw up their hands and say, "This isn't worth it, we quit"…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
jurgenation | 30 Nov 2016 7:43 p.m. PST |
After Jutland ..the Navy and country were Blockaded..Checkmate…just a matter of time. |
Ottoathome | 30 Nov 2016 10:30 p.m. PST |
Very simple. The Strategic judgements and logic of 1914 were rendered invalid by the constantly changing nature of the war and the combatants. As these conditions changed, year by year, sometimes month by month, ALL sides were unsuited to handle these changed conditions. The old strategic verities were not applicable any more and the very nature of "realpolitik" on the one hand and ideologies on the other had changed. All of this was foreseen, by the Athenian envoys to the Spartan ephors at the start of the Peloponnesian wars back 400 years before Christ was born. "Do not be hasty in involving yourselves in the quarrels of others. Remember while there is still time the inscrutable nature of war and how, when prolonged, it often ends as a matter of mere chance. " Had the Germans known about the French mutinies after the Nivelle offensives of 1917 they might have bashed through. Had they known how weak Russia was they might have adopted the Waldersee plan and held pat on the Western front. HAD, had had, if, if, if, in the end events overtook all the participants of the war and that the allies won is a matter of mere chance. Nothing is simple in human history, nor certain. Twenty years later the best and brightest and in many cases the most upright men took seriously a syphilitic, deranged hypochondriac vegan who told the world EXACTLY what crimes he intended to committ against humanity 15 years before he did them, rather than dismissing him as the buffoon and piece of gutter trash he was. Chance. |
ochoin | 01 Dec 2016 3:11 a.m. PST |
Twenty years later the best and brightest and in many cases the most upright men took seriously a syphilitic, deranged hypochondriac vegan who told the world EXACTLY what crimes he intended to committ against humanity 15 years before he did them, rather than dismissing him as the buffoon and piece of gutter trash he was. No,that's far too simplistic. The Germans (or some of them) elected to follow a war hero who offered them hope during hard economic times and the chance to restore national pride. Hindsight is a wonderful thing & certainly can make you feel superior but the person in question had a marvellous PR man, snazzy uniforms & a book so long, so badly written &, really, so implausible no one read it or if they did, didn't take it seriously. The sobering truth of German guilt for the Nazis isn't they were deluded Germans but they were deluded people and any of us could potentially be seduced by a fast talking liar with a larger than life political persona. So, not Chance but the opposite. Calculation. |
Grelber | 01 Dec 2016 5:34 a.m. PST |
I worked with a lady from Remagen who claimed the Germans got into trouble because the British were so very good at propaganda. I didn't disillusion her by pointing out that, if you continuously provide your enemy with incredible stories like Edith Cavell or the Zimmerman Telegram, they don't have to be particularly good. Grelber |
Blutarski | 01 Dec 2016 5:59 a.m. PST |
With all due respect, Otto, I think it is a dangerous thing to ridicule and disparage individuals like Hitler. He was a man who, in a little more than ten years, propelled himself from a face in a Munich crowd photo to leadership of one of the most powerful nations on the planet. However evil or twisted, he was a man with great charisma, oratorical skills, political acumen, a plan, and the ability to attract skilled operatives and substantial funding to his cause. The above is not a flattery exercise; it is a sober appreciation of the person that was Adolf Hitler. To dismiss or deprecate such individuals is to leave the door unlocked for the next one to appear on the scene. We would do so at our own peril. Strictly my opinion and somewhat off-topic, but it needs saying. B |
Zargon | 01 Dec 2016 9:15 a.m. PST |
Not enough corduroy pants for the Bavarian contingent of Stormtroopers. Hindsight history, take your pick all are right all are wrong but its fun to debate. That Munich crowd photo still fascinates and horrors me. |
Ottoathome | 01 Dec 2016 9:44 a.m. PST |
No Blutarski He was a man who everyone who came within 3 feet of him became thoroughly disgusted with him, his character, his histrionics, and his halitosis. He was a man with no plan, no vison, incredibly lazy, and with no ability for steady work. Even Goering and his intimate toadies despised him but were corrupt enough to go along. As for his own character it is summed up by the incident when England declared War on Germany over Poland, Hitler summoned Ribbentrop into his presence and subjected HIM to a typical Hitlerian Tirade and demanded to know "HOW WE GOT INTO THIS POSITIION." Read any of the biographies of Hitler by Toland or others and "On Borrowed Time" by Mosley. Then read Richard Evans' "The Third Reich" in power to see what a colossal fraud Nazi Germany was. |
Lion in the Stars | 01 Dec 2016 12:12 p.m. PST |
But Adolf was a brilliant orator. His speeches sucked, if you read them in a newspaper. But his delivery was excellent. Sure, if you got within 3 feet of him you wanted him dead. But if the closest you got was 30 feet, he made people want to follow his lead. Germany lost WW1 because they were ground down into nothing. Every assault they made killed more and more veteran troops, instead of rotating the veterans back to train the new troops up to a higher standard. |
ochoin | 01 Dec 2016 12:43 p.m. PST |
But Adolf was a brilliant orator. His speeches sucked, if you read them in a newspaper. But his delivery was excellent. Sure, if you got within 3 feet of him you wanted him dead. But if the closest you got was 30 feet, he made people want to follow his lead. Nicely put. And as for those "within 3 feet", the inner circle were opportunists & not friends. It's unbelievably naïve to see things otherwise. And dangerous. This book is far better for charting his rise & popularity than the ones that just claim "monster" & sadly shake their heads. link |
Dynaman8789 | 01 Dec 2016 1:58 p.m. PST |
Problem number one was allying with Austria-Hungary. Everything else kinda snowballs from there. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 01 Dec 2016 4:41 p.m. PST |
Problem number one was trying to build a navy to rival the RN. Until then, chances are Britain would have been on Germany's side or stayed neutral. |
Blutarski | 01 Dec 2016 7:26 p.m. PST |
Well, Otto ….. I too have read in depth and studied the phenomena of National Socialism and Bolshevism and their respective ascents to power for a rather long time. I had the opportunity as well to spend time in Germany with people who were alive during the Nazi period (all sadly departed now). One of them, a retired Siemens executive, described Hitler as "the German Bill Clinton". Let's just say that you and I will have to disagree on this matter. B |
Supercilius Maximus | 02 Dec 2016 12:33 a.m. PST |
One of them, a retired Siemens executive, described Hitler as "the German Bill Clinton". But with a much nicer wife? |
Blutarski | 02 Dec 2016 6:46 a.m. PST |
SM – Are you offering me a hand grenade to play with? ;-) B |
Royston Papworth | 02 Dec 2016 9:53 a.m. PST |
As Jackie Fisher said, "with the great harbour in the north and the narrow seas in the south, we truly are God's chosen people" It all boiled down to geography and, as Fuller (I think it was) put it "the deadliest weapon any nation has wielded throughout history" unless the Germans had managed to win by Christmas 1914, the best they could have hoped for was a negotiated settlement and the longer the war went on, the less likely that was….. |
Jcfrog | 03 Dec 2016 3:28 p.m. PST |
And so why did Tudeskland lose Ww1? One or two million Americans launched in at the nick of time, might have done more than generally thought of. |
grtbrt | 03 Dec 2016 8:55 p.m. PST |
OK that ( The Americans ) and as stated before -they had the Austrian handicap . as one of my favorite titles puts it " Handcuffed to a Corpse" |
Supercilius Maximus | 04 Dec 2016 2:54 a.m. PST |
SM – Are you offering me a hand grenade to play with? Just remember – when the pin is out, Mr Grenade is not our friend….. ;^) |
KTravlos | 04 Dec 2016 11:01 a.m. PST |
Correction on off topic claims on Hitler's ascent to power The Germans did not elect Adolf Hitler Results of last free election in 1932 Nazis 33.09% Social Democrats 20.43% Communists 16.86% Center 11.93% Nationalist Conservatives of DNVP 8.34% Bavarian Conservative BVP 3.09% If the claim is that the majority of the German electorate voted for parties determined to destroy the Republic (Nazis, Communists, Nationalist Conservatives) then one is right.56% of the German electorate decided to destroy the Weimar Republic. They were divided though on how. If the claim is that the majority of German voted for Hitler that is wrong. Only 33% did so. The majority voted for other parties. The Junkers, Monarchists, and rabid Nationalists of the DNVP made Hitler chancellor. Not the German people. Never forget that |
Chouan | 14 Dec 2016 4:58 a.m. PST |
The beastly hun was always going to lose the war. The blockade meant that effectively whatever they did, they would lose in the end. |
GreenLeader | 22 Dec 2016 9:21 a.m. PST |
So they weren't 'stabbed in the back by Jews and Communists' afterall? Who'd have thunk it! |
GreenLeader | 22 Dec 2016 9:28 a.m. PST |
KTravlos 'Elected' is not necessarily the same as winning more than 50% of the votes, however. Donald Trump has just been elected in America despite not getting more than 50% of the votes. But, by the rules of that country and – as far as anyone can tell – fairly and squarely, he has been elected nonetheless. |
Blutarski | 22 Dec 2016 2:53 p.m. PST |
Technically speaking – Adolf was not "elected" Chancellor. He was appointed to the office by a reluctant President von Hindenburg after several other chancellors had proven unable to form coalition governments over the preceding year or so since the 1932 national election. Hitler's political power, whereby he refused to commit the NSDAP to a ruling coalition unless he was named chancellor, did however derive from the fact that the NSDAP had pretty convincingly won a plurality of the vote. This sort of plurality/minority coalition government impasse was not unique to Hitler's rise to power in Germany; it is (IMO) a flaw in any political system that features a multiplicity of political parties across a fragmented political spectrum. France and Italy are instructive examples of this. B |
Blutarski | 22 Dec 2016 2:55 p.m. PST |
"Donald Trump has just been elected in America despite not getting more than 50% of the votes. But, by the rules of that country and – as far as anyone can tell – fairly and squarely, he has been elected nonetheless." ….. As was Bill Clinton, who won one presidential election with only 43pct of the popular vote. B |
GreenLeader | 22 Dec 2016 4:37 p.m. PST |
Blutarski You put the point about Hitler coming to power much better than I did. And yes, as you point out with Clinton: it is hardly unique for a 'democratically elected' head of state to get much less than half of the votes cast. Blair's 'landslide' election win in 1997 saw him get just 43.2% of the votes cast… by the time of his last election victory (2005), he won just 35.2% of the votes cast (which was just 22% of the electorate as whole) – and yet was still fairly and squarely the democratically elected Prime Minister of the UK. |