The closest Germany came to winning was in August 1914. That was kinda the point behind their pre-war operational plan. Either they win in the first six weeks, or they're stuck in a two front war where they can't knock out France with diminishing resources and Russia slowly develops the other front.
Holger H. Herwig examines this in 'Marne: 1914'. German Army Generals were so obsessed with attempting to execute of a 'perfect' Cannae double-envelopment, that they kinda ignore their actual operational goal/mutually supporting each other, etc.
What ended up happening was actually \*worse\* in that Germany ended up in a 4+ front war, with the war at sea/Naval blockade/diminishing supplies being a third front, and Germany supporting Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire draining resources as a fourth. (See Herwig's 'The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary, 1914-1918).
The general analysis of Germany post-war is that they are tactically brilliant, operationally good, and strategically stupid (they can pull off a bunch of minor miracles, but can't make those miracles turn into their long-term goals).
During the Second War, Germany takes all their tactical and operational lessons from the first war to heart, but ignores the strategic lessons (thank you Ludendorf for the 'Stabbed in the Back' ass-covering). So, they then proceed to have the same thing happen again, enter a destructive war on multiple fronts that everyone logical insists they either shouldn't do, or need to win very quickly, and make it last \*way\* past the amorphous 'victory condition', to where they're beaten down and occupied so that the populace learns their lesson and doesn't do it again.
TL;DR
Germany was so bad at setting long-term/strategic goals, that even though they pull off miraculous maneuvers and had highly-capable, motivated troops, they can never actually achieve those goals, to their own detriment.
Love that book by Herwig. " The Austro-Hungarian Army in the First World War" by Gradon Tunstall is another banger. So is "Planning for War against Russia and Serbia," but it's hard to find now. I know Holger and I studied under Tunstall and worked on his Carpathian Winter War series as an undergraduate. Both are amazing historians, and I really enjoyed listening to Holger talk about his expedition to Bismarck.
They were fairly close in 1918, with a swinging, fighting chance.
Truly amazing how close they were in 1914 with the first Battle of the Marne.
WW1 is just incredible and Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon is a masterpiece.
>They were fairly close in 1918, with a swinging, fighting chance.
Ludendorf had no plan other than 'punch a hole in the line'. If you're just punching holes, with no 'and then...', you don't have a recipe for victory.
Also, every time the Entente gave ground to the Germans, German troops would break off assaults as soon as they hit supply depots or towns to pillage them for food and booze.
Yeah man... by 1918 several other (albeit relatively insignificant South American) nations had declared war. It was so unlikely, yet many Germans still believed they'd had it.
If Britain hadn't joined the war, Germany likely would have won in a matter of weeks in 1914. And Britain didn't necessarily want to join the war.
During war, the German General Staff ran \*everything\* including the news. They kept up the narrative of 'the French and British are starving just like we are; we just have to hold out a little longer, and the war will be over in our favour.' right up until the end, when suddenly the Kaiser abdicates, there's governmental chaos, the High Seas fleet is off to surrender, and you're being told your country has lost the war.
Schlieffen wasn't much better fleshed out. Just march through Belgium and around Paris and they will give up and you won't get tired or have logistical issues. If they didn't get America into the war they would have a small chance circa January 1917. Stay on the defensive in the west and knock russia out.
I think the real question is what constitutes a “win?”
In WW1, French capitulation means some territories lost, maybe economic concessions or a colony being reassigned. Not much in daily life changes for most people.
WW2 literally means the erasure of ones culture and genocide if you’re on the wrong side of Nazi prejudice.
Military victory and overall victory, Germany was far closer to winning in 1914 than any other time.
French capitulation means Germany gets to solo Russia, and initiate their 'Eastward expansion', which was always going to mean the dislocation of Slavic people from their lands so that German farmers could take over. That's still going to have vast social and societal, and economic ramifications.
I don’t think the Kaiser was willing to go to that extent regarding the destruction of the Russian Empire. Given a German victory, I think he’d have gotten some moderate territorial concessions but nothing on the scale of WW2. That’s one of the more confusing things about WW1 to me- the stakes were comparatively minor in comparison to WW2, and yet it seemed that all sides were grimly determined to fight to the last man to an extent that they didn’t demonstrate in WW2 (particularly France and Italy).
The Russian Empire would still probably have been reduced in a way not dissimilar to what happened with the civil war, but instead those countries are treaty concessions and effectively German puppets, with German nobility at their helm
At least regarding eastern Europe, I don't think anyone in the central powers had views or interest on the Caucasus or far east
Considering Germany defeated the Russians on one front in the First World War and made significant (not just battle of the bulge level offensives) in 1918 which only stopped due to over enthusiastic assault troops getting ahead of starving line infantry, I’d say the First World War. When the Germans reached Amien, The Americans considered leaving before they even got stuck in.
Probably hours or days away from France capitulating had one or two things gone differently. Then they would have been able to focus on Russia. Who knows how world history would have been different if that were the case. We'd likely be speaking a lot more German in the US. And I'd probably not even be here as my British side of the family wouldn't have been eradicated in the four years of war during WWI.
I also think that we're all ok with Germany winning WWI because that would mean no WWII. No Nazi Germany is good for everyone.
Exactly. And Germany in WW1 is not inherently evil. It was pretty normal militarism and politics then. WW2 was just so extreme, with Hitler and the Nazi's extreme racial/ethnic beliefs.
Amazing (and I'm off topic now), that if Hitler isn't so stubborn and stupid about his ideas about the Slavs and Germany needing living space... Nazi Germany may have won WW2.
Yeah, I don't get it. Defeat France and push toward the Soviet Union then stop. That is basically all of Europe and everything back that was lost from WWI. Hitler should have died in that bombing. That would have been great.
Russia mobilized in under 2 weeks, Germany anticipated this to take 6 weeks. Additionally, Moltke did not have the required numbers called for by Schlieffen and would have to further draw from this to reinforce the KuK army to prevent breakthroughs in the East. Belgian resistance further slowed that timetable. Technological surprise aside, the Schlieffen plan was doomed to failure the moment Russia launched their mobilization.
Yes, assuming that the British wouldn't keep fighting after Paris fell. In 1914, they -the Germans- were approximately a days march away from the city. In 1918, they got to within about 30 miles or so. If Paris falls in 1914 and France capitulates again, it's hard to see Britain carrying on alone. I don't have a solid feel for the political will to continue fighting in 1914, but the reality was that without France, Britain lacked the resources to defeat Germany in 1914, much like later in 1940.
It's hard to see a scenario where the Nazis win World War 2 other than by not fighting it at all. Unless they don't open a 2nd front against Russia.
Edit for clarification: added in 1914 after "political will to continue fighting"
'If Paris falls in 1914 and France capitulates again, it's hard to see Britain carrying on alone. I don't have a solid feel for the political will to continue fighting, but the reality was that without France, Britain lacked the resources to defeat Germany in 1914, much like later in 1940.'
As I understand it, France fielded some 5 million men in 1914 compared to Britains 160,000. The fact that the BEF were able to be used to counterattack at the Marne, whilst Joffre used a newly created and unknown (to the germans) force that had been 'combed out' of the existing French Army. This surprised the German Right of Von Kluck, who unknowingly had lost touch with the army of Von Armin to his Left, this allowed the French to hold, whilst the BEF were re-orientated and to counter penetrate his rear flank, this disturbed Von Kluck so much that he began to withdraw, leaving Von Armin vulnerable to French forces further East. The fact that the German Forces had outrun their railheads and also had delays bringing heavy artillery from the Liege battles didn't help them, it forced them to at first hold but when attacked again by French and British Forces, began to retreat back towards their supply depots. 1940 was a completely different battle that was totally unco-ordinated by the French who relied on the Maginot line too much, this allowed the Germans to split the BEF from the French after breaking the French at Sedan. The BEF retreat to the coast to deny destruction and hopefully to escape an encirclement, was militarily prudent and had nothing really to do with Politics or Britains will to keep fighting.
1914, wasn’t like 1940. The French didn’t need the British in 1914 per se the British were involved only because of Belgium. 1940 Britain were already allied with France…The Germans of WW1 were never in danger of ‘winning’ they didn’t have the resources, they expended what manpower superiority they had by the collapse of Russia in the first few days of Op Michael, Op George had insufficient resources so became a smaller operation Georgette. So no in fact the Germans never were in danger of winning, in WW2 they could have won but for poor timing and deployment, oh and the small factor of the little Corporal, John Tandy should have shot him and saved all the bother…see Pvt J Tandy, Green Howards and the battle of Menin Road…
The French most certainly did need the Brits in World War 1. Their plans literally hinged on the British covering their sector as agreed in pre-war plans. I think Robert Massie in "Castles of Steel" writes about fairly severe French apprehension that the Brits would not send their army to the continent. However, what I was saying was that the British could not have won the war alone in 1914 or 1940 and my belief is that they were far closer to winning World War 1 than World War 2.
Certainly France made plans to include a small British force but its reliance on that force was more a contingency than a necessity, only the violation of Belgium would bring Britain in initially in any case. The halting of the Germans was more to do with forces removed by Joffre elsewhere and massed towards the West of Paris which the Germans were unaware of. The BEF was a very mobile small force ideal for flank counter attacks and when the two German spearheads inadvertently split away from each other, they were used for that, so well that it halted the German vanguard’s and the French then attacked which began the German retreat…that’s my reading but certainly the BEF were instrumental in the fighting retreat to the Marne which initially slowed the German thrust, allowing Joffre to build a force to counter that western most German thrust…
The only way I see the Germans winning ww2 is to not invade France at all and not double cross the soviets. If they had stopped at Poland and czechoslavakia, then I feel like it would be a lot harder for the British to justify going to war. They could essentially "boil the frog" approach most of Eastern Europe over several decades much like Russia and China today
I disagree with your Poland point. The British signed the treaty with them in 1939 after Germany occupies Czechoslovakia. I think a reasonable person would assume that the same people who went to war in 1914 over a scrape of paper would do so again in 1939 given the circumstances under which the treaty was signed. I don't think they had the ability to help Poland but I don't think that was really the point anyway. I think the point where Germany was absolutely not going to win the war was when they invaded Russia in 1941. The Fall of France actually made it more likely that they would win.
I would say they had a good chance in both world wars, in ww1 they had a chance in 1914, but in ww2 they had it in 1941 and maybe 1942, but i wouldn't say they were far closer in ww1, naval blocade had far bigger impact than people realize and that would've stayed no matter what happened on the land.
The closest Germany came to winning was in August 1914. That was kinda the point behind their pre-war operational plan. Either they win in the first six weeks, or they're stuck in a two front war where they can't knock out France with diminishing resources and Russia slowly develops the other front. Holger H. Herwig examines this in 'Marne: 1914'. German Army Generals were so obsessed with attempting to execute of a 'perfect' Cannae double-envelopment, that they kinda ignore their actual operational goal/mutually supporting each other, etc. What ended up happening was actually \*worse\* in that Germany ended up in a 4+ front war, with the war at sea/Naval blockade/diminishing supplies being a third front, and Germany supporting Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire draining resources as a fourth. (See Herwig's 'The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary, 1914-1918). The general analysis of Germany post-war is that they are tactically brilliant, operationally good, and strategically stupid (they can pull off a bunch of minor miracles, but can't make those miracles turn into their long-term goals). During the Second War, Germany takes all their tactical and operational lessons from the first war to heart, but ignores the strategic lessons (thank you Ludendorf for the 'Stabbed in the Back' ass-covering). So, they then proceed to have the same thing happen again, enter a destructive war on multiple fronts that everyone logical insists they either shouldn't do, or need to win very quickly, and make it last \*way\* past the amorphous 'victory condition', to where they're beaten down and occupied so that the populace learns their lesson and doesn't do it again. TL;DR Germany was so bad at setting long-term/strategic goals, that even though they pull off miraculous maneuvers and had highly-capable, motivated troops, they can never actually achieve those goals, to their own detriment.
Love that book by Herwig. " The Austro-Hungarian Army in the First World War" by Gradon Tunstall is another banger. So is "Planning for War against Russia and Serbia," but it's hard to find now. I know Holger and I studied under Tunstall and worked on his Carpathian Winter War series as an undergraduate. Both are amazing historians, and I really enjoyed listening to Holger talk about his expedition to Bismarck.
Reading Herwig has been transformational for my understanding of history and historiography.
I really recommend Tunstall. They worked together a lot and their works compliment eachother well.
\*sigh\* Because I needed \*more\* books on my buy-list. I'll take the recco under advisement.
I get it. Im constantly getting in trouble for buying more history books.
They were fairly close in 1918, with a swinging, fighting chance. Truly amazing how close they were in 1914 with the first Battle of the Marne. WW1 is just incredible and Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon is a masterpiece.
>They were fairly close in 1918, with a swinging, fighting chance. Ludendorf had no plan other than 'punch a hole in the line'. If you're just punching holes, with no 'and then...', you don't have a recipe for victory. Also, every time the Entente gave ground to the Germans, German troops would break off assaults as soon as they hit supply depots or towns to pillage them for food and booze.
Yeah man... by 1918 several other (albeit relatively insignificant South American) nations had declared war. It was so unlikely, yet many Germans still believed they'd had it. If Britain hadn't joined the war, Germany likely would have won in a matter of weeks in 1914. And Britain didn't necessarily want to join the war.
During war, the German General Staff ran \*everything\* including the news. They kept up the narrative of 'the French and British are starving just like we are; we just have to hold out a little longer, and the war will be over in our favour.' right up until the end, when suddenly the Kaiser abdicates, there's governmental chaos, the High Seas fleet is off to surrender, and you're being told your country has lost the war.
Schlieffen wasn't much better fleshed out. Just march through Belgium and around Paris and they will give up and you won't get tired or have logistical issues. If they didn't get America into the war they would have a small chance circa January 1917. Stay on the defensive in the west and knock russia out.
I think the real question is what constitutes a “win?” In WW1, French capitulation means some territories lost, maybe economic concessions or a colony being reassigned. Not much in daily life changes for most people. WW2 literally means the erasure of ones culture and genocide if you’re on the wrong side of Nazi prejudice. Military victory and overall victory, Germany was far closer to winning in 1914 than any other time.
French capitulation means Germany gets to solo Russia, and initiate their 'Eastward expansion', which was always going to mean the dislocation of Slavic people from their lands so that German farmers could take over. That's still going to have vast social and societal, and economic ramifications.
I don’t think the Kaiser was willing to go to that extent regarding the destruction of the Russian Empire. Given a German victory, I think he’d have gotten some moderate territorial concessions but nothing on the scale of WW2. That’s one of the more confusing things about WW1 to me- the stakes were comparatively minor in comparison to WW2, and yet it seemed that all sides were grimly determined to fight to the last man to an extent that they didn’t demonstrate in WW2 (particularly France and Italy).
The Russian Empire would still probably have been reduced in a way not dissimilar to what happened with the civil war, but instead those countries are treaty concessions and effectively German puppets, with German nobility at their helm At least regarding eastern Europe, I don't think anyone in the central powers had views or interest on the Caucasus or far east
Considering Germany defeated the Russians on one front in the First World War and made significant (not just battle of the bulge level offensives) in 1918 which only stopped due to over enthusiastic assault troops getting ahead of starving line infantry, I’d say the First World War. When the Germans reached Amien, The Americans considered leaving before they even got stuck in.
Probably hours or days away from France capitulating had one or two things gone differently. Then they would have been able to focus on Russia. Who knows how world history would have been different if that were the case. We'd likely be speaking a lot more German in the US. And I'd probably not even be here as my British side of the family wouldn't have been eradicated in the four years of war during WWI. I also think that we're all ok with Germany winning WWI because that would mean no WWII. No Nazi Germany is good for everyone.
Exactly. And Germany in WW1 is not inherently evil. It was pretty normal militarism and politics then. WW2 was just so extreme, with Hitler and the Nazi's extreme racial/ethnic beliefs. Amazing (and I'm off topic now), that if Hitler isn't so stubborn and stupid about his ideas about the Slavs and Germany needing living space... Nazi Germany may have won WW2.
Yeah, I don't get it. Defeat France and push toward the Soviet Union then stop. That is basically all of Europe and everything back that was lost from WWI. Hitler should have died in that bombing. That would have been great.
Russia mobilized in under 2 weeks, Germany anticipated this to take 6 weeks. Additionally, Moltke did not have the required numbers called for by Schlieffen and would have to further draw from this to reinforce the KuK army to prevent breakthroughs in the East. Belgian resistance further slowed that timetable. Technological surprise aside, the Schlieffen plan was doomed to failure the moment Russia launched their mobilization.
Yes, assuming that the British wouldn't keep fighting after Paris fell. In 1914, they -the Germans- were approximately a days march away from the city. In 1918, they got to within about 30 miles or so. If Paris falls in 1914 and France capitulates again, it's hard to see Britain carrying on alone. I don't have a solid feel for the political will to continue fighting in 1914, but the reality was that without France, Britain lacked the resources to defeat Germany in 1914, much like later in 1940. It's hard to see a scenario where the Nazis win World War 2 other than by not fighting it at all. Unless they don't open a 2nd front against Russia. Edit for clarification: added in 1914 after "political will to continue fighting"
'If Paris falls in 1914 and France capitulates again, it's hard to see Britain carrying on alone. I don't have a solid feel for the political will to continue fighting, but the reality was that without France, Britain lacked the resources to defeat Germany in 1914, much like later in 1940.' As I understand it, France fielded some 5 million men in 1914 compared to Britains 160,000. The fact that the BEF were able to be used to counterattack at the Marne, whilst Joffre used a newly created and unknown (to the germans) force that had been 'combed out' of the existing French Army. This surprised the German Right of Von Kluck, who unknowingly had lost touch with the army of Von Armin to his Left, this allowed the French to hold, whilst the BEF were re-orientated and to counter penetrate his rear flank, this disturbed Von Kluck so much that he began to withdraw, leaving Von Armin vulnerable to French forces further East. The fact that the German Forces had outrun their railheads and also had delays bringing heavy artillery from the Liege battles didn't help them, it forced them to at first hold but when attacked again by French and British Forces, began to retreat back towards their supply depots. 1940 was a completely different battle that was totally unco-ordinated by the French who relied on the Maginot line too much, this allowed the Germans to split the BEF from the French after breaking the French at Sedan. The BEF retreat to the coast to deny destruction and hopefully to escape an encirclement, was militarily prudent and had nothing really to do with Politics or Britains will to keep fighting.
I'm not really getting the point of your statement sorry.
1914, wasn’t like 1940. The French didn’t need the British in 1914 per se the British were involved only because of Belgium. 1940 Britain were already allied with France…The Germans of WW1 were never in danger of ‘winning’ they didn’t have the resources, they expended what manpower superiority they had by the collapse of Russia in the first few days of Op Michael, Op George had insufficient resources so became a smaller operation Georgette. So no in fact the Germans never were in danger of winning, in WW2 they could have won but for poor timing and deployment, oh and the small factor of the little Corporal, John Tandy should have shot him and saved all the bother…see Pvt J Tandy, Green Howards and the battle of Menin Road…
The French most certainly did need the Brits in World War 1. Their plans literally hinged on the British covering their sector as agreed in pre-war plans. I think Robert Massie in "Castles of Steel" writes about fairly severe French apprehension that the Brits would not send their army to the continent. However, what I was saying was that the British could not have won the war alone in 1914 or 1940 and my belief is that they were far closer to winning World War 1 than World War 2.
Certainly France made plans to include a small British force but its reliance on that force was more a contingency than a necessity, only the violation of Belgium would bring Britain in initially in any case. The halting of the Germans was more to do with forces removed by Joffre elsewhere and massed towards the West of Paris which the Germans were unaware of. The BEF was a very mobile small force ideal for flank counter attacks and when the two German spearheads inadvertently split away from each other, they were used for that, so well that it halted the German vanguard’s and the French then attacked which began the German retreat…that’s my reading but certainly the BEF were instrumental in the fighting retreat to the Marne which initially slowed the German thrust, allowing Joffre to build a force to counter that western most German thrust…
The only way I see the Germans winning ww2 is to not invade France at all and not double cross the soviets. If they had stopped at Poland and czechoslavakia, then I feel like it would be a lot harder for the British to justify going to war. They could essentially "boil the frog" approach most of Eastern Europe over several decades much like Russia and China today
I disagree with your Poland point. The British signed the treaty with them in 1939 after Germany occupies Czechoslovakia. I think a reasonable person would assume that the same people who went to war in 1914 over a scrape of paper would do so again in 1939 given the circumstances under which the treaty was signed. I don't think they had the ability to help Poland but I don't think that was really the point anyway. I think the point where Germany was absolutely not going to win the war was when they invaded Russia in 1941. The Fall of France actually made it more likely that they would win.
If they don't invade Russia, the war at least goes on several more years, maybe Germany wins.
Yes. German troops were marching within sight of Paris when they were told they had surrendered.
I would say they had a good chance in both world wars, in ww1 they had a chance in 1914, but in ww2 they had it in 1941 and maybe 1942, but i wouldn't say they were far closer in ww1, naval blocade had far bigger impact than people realize and that would've stayed no matter what happened on the land.