Why did germany fail on the westfront in ww1? Pic unrelated

Why did germany fail on the westfront in ww1? Pic unrelated

They lost the war of attrition, ran out of supplies, and crippled their ability to defend their own lines by fucking up the Spring Offensive.

They had less humans, less factories, less farms, less food, less allies, less everything.

They had less stuff, and at the very tail end, they got sick and started to Commie up.

They never actually got pushed out of France, so the Allies never really got a decisive tactical victory.

>so the Allies never really got a decisive tactical victory.
they most certainly did
the allies had been rolling up the germans for months straight by the end of the war
basically breaking into their lines at will and having them retreat or surrender en masse
that they did not push germans out of france was not because they could not - but because they did not need to

and strictly speaking they did push them out of france (and then some)
it is just that they had driven germany into a corner so much they did not have to achieve the above by force of arms

NEVER PUSHED OUT OF FRANCE

#THEY WON

More like "We got ten shots on goal before losing 1:5! #WeWon"

Interesting image. Somehow, the European Union is choking the German, even though he reaps all the profits from it.

Is this another one of their melodramatic moments of self-lamentation?

That's the same stupidity Americans use for Vietnam.
Germany didn't conquer Paris and the Entente didn't surender so no german victory. Germany had to surender and sign a bad peace so Germany lost

>unbeaten german army! the jewish bankers lost us the war, we were winning!!

Good to see imperial german propaganda is still strong a century later.

They didnt follow the plan. They withdraw crucial troops from the west to the east, creating an opening that resulted in the ensuing trench warfare.

A couple of times they came close to breaking allied will power during the various offensives but at the end of the day, poor strategic decisions in targeting merchant ships, the zimmerman telegraph and being unable to break the blockage meant that the western front was unwinnable due to allied access to global manpower and resources.

>austria can't conquer serbia
Fuck, gotta move soldiers, equipment and commanders there.
>russia steamrolls austria
Fuck, gotta move soldiers, equipment and commanders there.
>italy attacking austria in the mountains
Fuck, gotta move soldiers, equipment and commanders there.
>romania enters the war
Fuck, gotta move soldiers, equipment and commanders there.
>turkey about to collapse in asia
Fuck, gotta move soldiers, equipment and commanders there.
>civil war about to break out at home
Fuck, gotta move soldiers, equipment and commanders there.

Oh shit, how come we don't have enough soldiers, equipment and commanders on the western front, what the hell? Jews?!?!

That's not even imperial propaganda that's just Ludendorf covering up his fuck up

>my offense where i lost half the army trying to break a castle by throwing people at it? oh, its part of my master plan to win the war of attrition, we will bleed out the frenchies!!

What did german command mean by this?

>offensives on the west front cause huge amounts of casualties due to the nature of trench warfare and aside from minor territorial gains they don't give much benefits to the victor
>german army gets huge manpower shortage problem
>be Ludendorf
>go for big 1918 offensives
Why the hell didn't they try to come up with some arrangement with the french and the UK in 1917 after defeating Russia instead?

I think because they were "so" close to Paris and thought be conquering the city they could dictate a peace + having "fresh" troops from the east

>fresh germans troops from the russian front

Such a meme. Is there ever a point in history where you can get "fresh" troops from the fucking russian front?
No roads, no food, no bridges, no houses, mud everywhere, partisans and guerillas everywhere, fucking mongols charging you with wooden clubs with nails on them all night in the trench. Fresh as fuck.

That's the reason why I put the fresh in quotation marks.

Why would the French and British be incentivized to enter into peace agreements with Germany when the US had sworn them that they'd inflate their armies with their soldiers?

Would've been a waste really, and the Germans knew that the Entente would be tied to that state of mind, and that they'd have to exhort a peace from France and Britain before the US might arrive.

>"fresh" troops from the fucking russian front?
The Eastern front was apparently pretty cosy for the Germans in WWI though, and contributed to swaying the Germans into believing that Barbarossa would be easy enough. Remarque describes being deployed to the Eastern front as a "relief" in his work.

Sure, they weren't fresh Americans either, but tney weren't exhausted to the bone either.

>The Eastern front was apparently pretty cosy for the Germans in WWI though

Weren't parents at the train station celebrating to see their sons go to the western front in uniform and flowers, and crying to see them going to the eastern one?

Wasn't the american contribution to WWI to be canon fodder when they came and deployed pre-war tactics without listening to advice against it?
From what I remember reading, the americans aided for offense by being shot a lot while the french advanced.

Ah I really couldn't say, and I can concede that I base too much of what I assent on here on what Remarque had to say.

If those transpired throughout the earlier stages of the war, in which each side entertained the delusion that they'd urge an easy victory from the easy, maybe it was that parents were more proud that their children would contribute to bringing down the "honhon old and venerable, but still civilized enemy" France, and "muh peak of civilization" Britain, while to them fighting a war against Russia was to enter in a struggle with the untermenschen?

It might've been that they earnestly believed that the Western front would be a "peaceful and jolly affair", with their children riding beautiful horses, and skirmishing sword in haand against some French, while to be on the Eastern front would insinuate that you'd be fighting against some "eeeeeevil" Russians who didn't take prisoners, and used all forms of treachery to fight. I suppose that's what the Germans maybe thought of their enemies at the time.

Hey man I really haven't got any clue, but I'd still say that the Eastern front wasn't half as horrible for a German as the Western front, knowing that they'd entered a stalemate by 1916 anyways that pacified the front all throughout.

Well hell, the American threat of them disembarking on French soil weighed even more than their actual fighting, with how it brought Luddendorff to chase after a quick victory, which when interrumpted, left the German army outmanned and outgunned.

But I don't actually know how well they fought in itself ._.

Disastrous choice of allies, they've repeated the same mistake in World War II.

If that were true, then German soldiers wouldn't have said that the hardest resistance they've ever faced was put up by Russian soldiers.

>get held up in Belgium too long to swiftly invade France
>have shitty allies who are often just a liability
>start having all sorts of economic issues due to the blockade
>after winning eastern front, move all your troops to the west giving up your defensive posturing for a final offensive
>overstretch your limited supplies and completely exhaust your army
>start getting pushed out of France and Belgium
>U.S sends in a shit load of troops completely shattering all hope of halting the allied counteroffensive
>useless allies continue to be useless
>revolts start breaking out in Germany

Why do people always act like Germany is the country behind the EU and it's current situation?
Isn't half of it France's doing?

All the pre-war German thinkers new Germany could only win a quick war.

>Germany proceeds to fuck up the Schlieffen Plan and gets bogged down fighting a war on multiple separate fronts.
>Falkenhayn's attrition strategy at Verdun was misguided.He thought Germany had a much better KDR than reality.
>Verdun, Somme in 1916 and Third Ypres in 1917 severely drained German manpower.
>Cluster of 1918 Spring Offensives. Their best chance was Operation Michael which started on 21st March. What they did was take a shit load of strategically useless territory. (The old Somme battleground.) One of their biggest mistakes was trying to take Arras in the North where the Brits annihilated them as opposed to pushing closer to Amiens much sooner.
>By June 1918, Germany didn't have the manpower to deal with its losses. Start of the 100 Days.

>Die Kaiserschlacht

After that, it was pretty much over for the German army of 1918

That's what the nazis said.
You germans never change, same old punks.

BTW, got backed by Ottoman empire & Austro-Hungarian one, so not pushing through after years and losing battles and the war is not really a victory.

That's because for the first time in History since before WW1, Germany isn't just plain shit. This won't last for long as you can read.

Germany lost the war when the French stopped their advance at the First Marne

France invented the EU, then Germany shat it up

Logistics. Germany simply didn't have the supplies and manpower that the allies did. They came pretty close to pulling it off a couple times, but in the end they were just stretched too thin.

The entente would never agree to a truce in 1917. Even trying to negotiate would signal that Germany was close to collapsing and would stiffen their resolve. Total victory was the only option to Britain and France.

Well, yes and no. They weren't being defeated by the Germans, but their casualties were extremely high because they used tactics and ideas from the beginning of the war.