Central powers managed to knock out Romania and Russia out of the war. They also won a decisive battle in Italy. Now all they had to do is to throw everything they got in the Western front. Despite the initial success, Central powers failed to break the allies.
My question is, did the central powers have any chance of winning the war at the beginning of 1918 Spring offensive? Or at least give them upper hand during the negotiations.
Bonus question: Do you think American army had significant role in stopping the German army during this time?
Thomas Baker
Germany's loss was more due to internal political factors than the battlefield.
Joseph Parker
Sure Must be the kikes, Hitler said so
Kayden Phillips
>My question is, did the central powers have any chance of winning the war at the beginning of 1918 Spring offensive? Or at least give them upper hand during the negotiations. Winning the war? Certainly not. Most of the ground they gained was either useless, or bought at too high a cost -- which is extremely important, because at this point in time, they do not have manpower reserves, supplies, food, you name it, they don't have it. Also remember that at this point the mutinies are a thing of the past and the French morale is quite vigorous, the quote about fighting in front of/in/behind Paris by Foch (or Clemenceau, nobody really knows) is a good illustration of the spirit at the time. What the Germans might have done is push a few (dozen) miles further, but in that they would only exacerbate the problems they were facing -- troops would outrun supply and communication and suffer even more casualties.
>Bonus question: Do you think American army had significant role in stopping the German army during this time? No. Not "in stopping" the Germans, there were rather few American boots on the ground so to speak. What it did, however, was speed up German decisionmaking -- one of the reasons for the offensive (or timing thereof) was knowing American troops would soon show up en masse. Furthermore, American entry meant great manpower reserves which in turn meant that the allied powers could relatively swiftly mount offensives of their own, speeding up the resolution of the war, as opposed to a more careful build up if they had to rely and maintain solely their own manpower reserve.
Henry Johnson
>MUH DOLCHSTOSS A Y Y Y Y Y Y
Germany's loss was due to them antagonizing and fighting a war with a coalition of powers they had pretty much no possibility of beating in the long run.
Hmm, that sounds familiar.
James Bell
Why are you guys sperging out about the jews?
>In northern Germany, the end of October 1918 saw the beginning of the German Revolution of 1918–1919. Units of the German Navy refused to set sail for a last, large-scale operation in a war which they saw as good as lost; this initiated the uprising. The sailors' revolt which then ensued in the naval ports of Wilhelmshaven and Kiel spread across the whole country within days and led to the proclamation of a republic on 9 November 1918 and shortly thereafter to the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Literally nothing to do with Jews.
Jack Peterson
How about the failure of the Spring Offensive, the allied advance of the Hundred Days Offensive, the subsequent German retreat, the German high command literally telling the government the war situation is "hopeless", the demands from the military for a peace, the laughably easy breaking of the Hindenburg Line etc., all of which happened months/weeks before the sailors' mutiny...
Unless those were events orchestrated by timetravelling saboteurs hell-bent on destroying Germany from within, because after all Germany could not possibly have lost the war on the battlefield unless there were insidious "internal political factors"! At last I truly see!
Christian Wilson
>the end of October >Spring Offensive - March-July >Hundred Days Offensive - August - early November (Amiens - 8-12 August)
>On 8 October, the First and Third British Armies broke through the Hindenburg Line at the Second Battle of Cambrai.[19] This collapse forced the German High Command to accept that the war had to be ended.
Nicholas Nguyen
Americas entry into the war was damming for the Germans. If the war continued it would be an inevitable defeat for the Germans. At the time the US was the fourth most populous country on the planet with 120,000,000 people, and about 10% of this being prime fighting stock. Furthermore America's economy was incredibly strong. American soldiers were well equipped and compared to their contemporaries, lavishly fed and outstandingly well paid. The American troops, although green, had incredibly high morale and effective training.
In fact although America's military footprint was small it's short tenure in the war saw it perform amazingly well. German accounts of American soldiers were that they were reckless, aggressive, in high spirits and always ready to fight. The war weary Germans loathed facing Americans because unlike the French or British who had spent the last three years learning that discretion is the better part of valor, this lesson was unlearned by US troops. They would often take an objective with horrible losses, but the follow up would be so fast as to overrun the now retreating Germans before they could establish a new defensive line. The tenacity of these green troops surprised the French and British as well, who expected the American offensives to grind to s halt, rather than plowing through German defensive lines by men who seemingly thought they were bulletproof. Had the war lasted I think the American military would have cooled down a bit, but with the reckless abandonment this new army fought, combined with the increasingly hopeless economic situation on the Homefront, even the most stubborn of the Prussian generals had to admit defeat.
There was simply no way they could face another 12 million troops, and no way for them to end the war before America could bring this army to bear. Or any way to prevent the imminent economic collapse that would have still occurred even without American involvement.
Jeremiah Nguyen
It was the revolution that ended the war, though. Those events were just the final spark of years of German unrest.
Also why are you talking to me like im some kind of Germany lover? I have no bias for or against Germany and am pretty neutral when talking about history. The revolution in October is a fact and the war could not have continued much longer after it.
Aiden Rogers
The Spring Offensive was a suicidal last ditch effort to gain something, anything to bring to the bargaining table with. Germany lost the war in 1914 when they failed to take Paris, everything after this was just an attempt to delay the inevitable.
American armies marching through Europe was not the final nail in Germany's coffin. No, the final nail had been hammered long before this.
America's entry was in essence, beating the dead horse that was Germany's ambition. Overkill in the surest sense of the word.
Mason Peterson
Another thing, if you think everyone talking about the 1918 German revolution or the obvious unrest in Germany during the war is a jew hating nazi you need to be thinking less politically when talking about history.
Brody Cook
Literally speaking, the only way that the Spring Offensive succeeds is if the US doesn't enter the war. I don't even mean it in a military superiority way like means. The reality of the Spring Offensive was that it was an extremely rushed offensive, both in planning and logistics (rather often the offensive stalled because the troops outran the supply train which was unheard of in WWI), which doomed it to failure. Had the US not entered the war, the Germans may have taken a bit more time to set up proper logistics for it while doing a little more tactical planning it might have succeeded in breaking the French or at least bringing about a white peace. American entry into the war meant that the Germans no longer had the ability to take their time with setting up the offensive and instead turned it into a bumrush. That's just my two cents anyways.
Logan James
>it's short tenure in the war saw it perform amazingly well Good heavens, not at all. The Americans thought they knew better than their allies - but they didn't. They refused tactical developments of some four years of ever changing warfare and suffered high casualties as a result. I mean you talk about it yourself in the following sentences! Tenacity is all well and nice but how can you say they performed "amazingly well" while saying they suffered "horrible losses" at the same time
Levi Ward
>The American troops, although green, had incredibly high morale and effective training. He's essentially saying that they had enthusiasm but lacked experience, and performed better than you'd expect.
Samuel Morris
Not him, but the difference is that we took ground and were the first to break into the Hindenburg line. American sentiment in WWI and WWII (until late 44 anyways) usually meant casualties be damned as long as we took the objective. See: Monte Cassino, Sicily, Meuse-Argonne, etc. Everyone was rather surprised that we took the Meuse-Argonne as quickly as we did, particularly at Somme-Py.
Ryan Cooper
>Had the US not entered the war, the Germans may have taken a bit more time to set up proper logistics for it while doing a little more tactical planning it might have succeeded in breaking the French or at least bringing about a white peace. That's doubtful, since with every passing day they were losing the "economic war" so to speak. Waiting longer just means growing weaker.
Thomas Thomas
>since with every passing day they were losing the "economic war" so to speak Which is why setting up proper logistics for the offensive was so crucial, not to mention assistance from the Brest-Litovsk concessions.
Dylan Howard
They performed amazingly well in that they took their objectives and advanced. They broke nearly every German defensive line they attempted, even the heavily fortified southern sector the French and British considered impregnable. The Anericans were sent there for trial by fire, and instead of failing and learning from their failure as expected, they broke through an entire German army that had been immovable for two years.
They did this at great loss of life, but also inflicted extremely heavy losses on the Germans. Many of these POWs because, again, Anerican soldiers displayed reckless aggression unheard of in an army by 1918, and often overran fleeing army elements.
In spite of poor strategy, inexperienced soldiers, and intense fortifications the Americans beat the Germans in most battles. Of course this has much to do with the depleted war materiel Germany had left to fight with, I think this largely goes to show the importance of morale.
By 1918 most German soldiers knew they had lost and just wanted to go home. They didn't want to fight any more. the Americans on the other hand were battle hungry, and more than willing to fight. And above all, well equipped and supported to do so. War is 99% planning, combat is 99% morale to carry out these plans or die trying.
Anthony Kelly
>we Speaking as an American, you should break yourself of this habit. If you aren't referring to your own generation you shouldn't be including yourself with the actions of your forefathers.
Plus, on a note specific to us in particular, outing yourself as an American just leads to cheap shots by idiots who think they can win an argument by calling you an American.
Joseph Robinson
>Speaking as an American, you should break yourself of this habit. If you aren't referring to your own generation you shouldn't be including yourself with the actions of your forefathers Go fuck yourself. Be proud of your nation and heritage instead of being a removed globalist faggot.
>Plus, on a note specific to us in particular, outing yourself as an American just leads to cheap shots by idiots who think they can win an argument by calling you an American Who cares. Shart in mart and MUH RICE FARMERS only comes from envious retards.
Jacob Johnson
>be proud of your nation and heritage Typical Wewuzian.
Jose Reed
Another guy here. Personally I feel like saying 'we' is disrespectful to the deceased. The whole claiming your ancestry thing in general bothers me. They're not 'my' ancestors I'm their descendant. If anything they have indirect ownership of me. I'm proud to be an American, but I didn't do shit to earn that. I got lucky. I'm lucky to have this rich, inspirational history to look back on, and I will admit I am prideful of it, but I feel I should not be. Because again, I did not accomplish any of it, I merely profit off of it.
What looking back on this history makes me want to do above all is add to it. I cannot truly honor the dead, but I can honor the legacy they left for us.
Daniel Hughes
>literally have the GI Browning Auto-5 your great grandfather carried into the trenches to kill huns >wewuzian You can go fuck yourself too.
That is because you live in the era of post-nationalism where taking pride in national accomplishment is demonized. You should feel pride for these things, no matter if you are personally "removed". It's something that you accomplished as a community and every little bit counts. Your nation fought so you could not only exist, but reap those benefits. You should take pride in their hardfought cause and their foresight. The self-removal of oneself from national accomplishment is really the self-removal of oneself from the nation. If you want to be the individualist globalist cocksucker so be it. Not all of us are so inclined to sell ourselves, our past and our community to such horseshit.
Charles Garcia
how can you possibly be proud of something you didnt do
Jordan Collins
>taking pride in your forefathers accomplishment is the same as taking pride for yourself Literally kys.
Lincoln Reyes
>My question is, did the central powers have any chance of winning the war at the beginning of 1918 Spring offensive? Okay, look at where they've attacked during it.
Did they try to cut off BEF out of Dunkirk and Calais(two most important ports in their supply chain)? No. In fact they knew they won't get too far in British parts of the front hence it was more or less ignored.
What they hoped for is that the offensive would take Paris and strike the final blow to French morale which was seen as poor at the time. It wasn't however something in realms of "it MAY work" like Schleiffen plan or Battle of Bulge, it was desperate attempt for ANY victory before Americans would arrive in even bigger numbers and progressively get "hardened" in battle and turning into more competent fighting force.
When the offensive has ended German Army simply was no more. They were out of every imaginable resource, the supply routes were cut and needed to be rebuilt(for which they lacked resources), their last reserves were out, average weight of German soldier has fallen to more than 10 kilos below the weight of allied soldier(either because of starvation or drafting teenage boys) they've stopped in not-so-easily defensible positions etc. etc. etc. While the revolution was de-facto reason for why did they sign peace the only alternative was collapse of German army succeeded by occupation of Germany. And harsher peace terms. The Army/Navy staff refused to acknowledge the defeat(navy wanted to fight second battle of Jutland, now with Americans, British and French who started to transfer some of their ships after A-H collapse and the only thing that saved the sailors from dying in that suicidal attempt at saving face was their uprising) so they've started spewing about how they totally didn't lose on the battlefield. They did. The collapse was imminent and every single one of them knew it.
Aaron Ortiz
I do not believe that is why I feel wrong in being prideful for Washington crossing the Delaware. I feel wrong for that because I did not plan it, partake in it, or exist when it happened. I read about it 200 years later. I am not ashamed of my heritage. For the good and the bad. Because I did nothing to shape it in any which way. The Sins of our Fathers is as ridiculous a notion to me as the Saints of our Fathers.
America has a wonderful history if you ask me. For that reason I want to have it continue being wonderful, I want to add to it in ways that would make the Forefathers of our country proud. I will never be proud of them, I will be proud of myself if at the end of my life If I accomplished something to merit me calling myself an American as these great men once called themselves.
Oliver Ward
>fathers can't be proud of their sons >sons can't be proud of their fathers
Jacob Collins
>implying fathers don't do their sons I mean at this point I think we need to change the terminology a bit but yeah, I don't see why fathers can't be proud of their sons since the son is 50% dad genes.
Daniel King
That's only half of what i said I was very proud of my mom when se beat her drug addiction, even tho i had no part in it at all
John Barnes
Well, who drove her to those drugs in the first place? Give yourself a pat yourself on the back, user.
Cameron Nelson
>Germany lost the war in 1914 when they failed to take Paris Eh this is little bit of an overstatement.
Germany lost the war in 1916. The casualties they've taken during the battle of Verdun, Somme and Brusilov offensive, coupled with the additional manpower drain caused by A-H loses(which from now on had to be supplemented with Germans) and Romanian occupation were damning in long term. Had they focused more on the Eastern Front that year and they would be in much better situation. I'll just give you this - between those 3 campaigns/battles Germans lost up to 434k men in Verdun up to 600k in Somme and between that million there were the most experienced troops Germany had, as well as 350k in Brusilov offensive(that on top of 1 million A-H casualties that couldn't be replaced so the Austrian army needed to be supported by Germans on every step from now on).
On top that they've had to send their troops on the Isonzo front and to Romania.
Between all those there was like 2-3 millions conscripts that were sent to die or to hospital or to reinforce Austro-Hungarian Army instead of doing something useful in 1916. Even the direct 1 million of casualties on the Western front - it's the size of American Army in France in 1918, it's a huge number that was wasted all for nothing - French/British took very similar casualties in both of those battles, it was even.
At this point we're getting into heavy "what-if" region but had German staff applied similar strategy as they've used in 1915 and they would be set-up for a much easier 1917. With ability to send reserves on Italian front to exploit the breakthrough after Caporetto better for instance. Or to bring Russians down faster/less costly. Maybe even sway Romania on their side(after all, if it wasn't for Brusilov's success they wouldn't join the entente). It obviously boils down to pre-war assumption that France was easier nut to crack than Russia.
Brayden Flores
I had no direct involvemente whatsoever in her getting into or out of it
Nathaniel Price
Set up proper logistics how? With every passing day, their problems worsened. They did not have food, they did not have metals, they did not have manpower. Time was against them, and spending more time doing nothing on the frontlines means their situation gets ever more precarious.
Michael Edwards
Are you sure you didn't? You had the same involvement in it that you did the First World War, that is, through magical time displacement.
Henry Hall
False. Just because their army didn't disintegrate doesn't mean they weren't defeated. Spring Offensive was followed by Entente offensive but of course a historically illiterate nigger Hitlerboo like you never heard of it.
Cooper Jenkins
I had absolutely no involvement in WWI. Im not even the american guy. My country was neutral during both world wars
Parker Robinson
Germany knew that total victory was out of their grasp by the spring offensive, they were too exhausted to outright conquer France and throw Britain out of the war, which by this time has brought the full power of its empire to bear. But it was one large effort to have the advantage at the bargaining table when the peace talks started. To have a large portion of Northern France in German hands to hold against them when signing the armistice.
When Germany called for an end to the fighting, they fully believed they were going to negotiate a peace with leverage on their side, hence why they called for armistice and not surrendering.
But the German revolutions that erupted because of the abysmal state German food and a revolting armed forces forced the Kaiser to abdicate, and all leverage for the talks disappeared as the German Empire buckled and collapsed.
and the Central Powers failure to close the Italian front was a death sentence for the Austro-Hungarians. The Central Powers won a victory at Caporetto, but the Italians regrouped and smashed A-H's forces at the Piave and Vittorio Veneto, with what was left of the Austro-Hungarian army captured at Vittorio, there was almost no forces to resist the nationalist rebellions throughout the empire, tearing it into pieces.
