10 interpretations of who started WW1

[Ed Anger]

Strosstruppen gives me a boner

[grumbler]

Indeed. My understanding is that Germany adapted tactically (as did France and Britain) but were really still pursuing the same sort of strategy in 1918 that they were in 1914 and weren't clear about the objectives beyond 'breakthrough'. Also I don't think the German military had really solved their logistical problems (which cursed them throughout the war) to quite the same extent that the allies had.

Indeed, this is a key element that people tend to forget about; German logistics started to fail them in the first two weeks of the war, and they never really recovered.  The Germans consistently underestimated the resources required by their plans, and consistently over-estimated their ability to move materiel.  And this wasn't just on the battlefield; their economic plans for the home front showed the same weaknesses.

Allied generals learned to estimate maximum requirements, and then double them.

I don't think the Schliefen Plan had a hope of succeeding by 1914, but the German generals just changed their assumptions time and again to make it sound plausible.  the disconnect between political/military realities and military assumptions doomed Germany from the start.  then, again, I don't know of a plan that could have worked.  Certainly the reverse-Schliefen plan to try to defeat Russia with only half the German Army doesn't sound very plausible based on what the Germans knew at the time.  The Russians wouldn't have had to rush their First and Second Armies forward to destruction if France isn't in extremis, and that changes the East Front calculus quite a bit.

[Warspite]

The Germans were really very bad at total war, and yet interestingly they didn't get much better at it the second go.

Third time lucky?

[Solmyr]

All this talk makes me want to play Victoria 2.

[Neil]

The Germans were really very bad at total war, and yet interestingly they didn't get much better at it the second go.

Third time lucky?

I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it.  The problem is that they keep trying to do it in every direction at once.  What Germany is bad at is diplomacy, even to this day.

At any rate, there's lots of blame to be shared.  Germany for bungling their diplomacy at every turn, Austria for being indecisive with Serbia, Russia for realizing that they needed to go all in, but choosing the most evil cause possible to go all in for, France for maintaining the war climate in Europe.  Of course Serbia for being a bunch of villains.  Britain was good though.

[jimmy olsen]

The Germans were really very bad at total war, and yet interestingly they didn't get much better at it the second go.

Third time lucky?

Well, they did crush France quickly the second time around. The problem was that this time the Russians were as strong as they had feared the first time around.

[Warspite]

I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it. 

Operationally they were very good but at the grand strategic level, which is where total war is won, they failed to build winning coalitions, out-produce the opposition, or coherently use all assets of national power.

[Neil]

I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it. 

Operationally they were very good but at the grand strategic level, which is where total war is won, they failed to build winning coalitions, out-produce the opposition, or coherently use all assets of national power.

The Germans were put in an impossible position by their geography.  Obviously, a winning coalition wasn't available to them, since the English-speaking nations were committed to preventing one country from dominating Europe, and their position in Central Europe allowed them to be easily cut off from the world market by Britain.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it. 

Operationally they were very good but at the grand strategic level, which is where total war is won, they failed to build winning coalitions, out-produce the opposition, or coherently use all assets of national power.

The Germans were put in an impossible position by their geography.  Obviously, a winning coalition wasn't available to them, since the English-speaking nations were committed to preventing one country from dominating Europe, and their position in Central Europe allowed them to be easily cut off from the world market by Britain.

Meh, if they had not let their alliance with Russia lapse, allowing the French to create stronger ties with Russia, their geographical problem would have been solved. 

[jimmy olsen]

I wouldn't call it an impossible position. The first war was a toss up they could have won if different decisions had been made.

[Neil]

I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it. 

Operationally they were very good but at the grand strategic level, which is where total war is won, they failed to build winning coalitions, out-produce the opposition, or coherently use all assets of national power.

The Germans were put in an impossible position by their geography.  Obviously, a winning coalition wasn't available to them, since the English-speaking nations were committed to preventing one country from dominating Europe, and their position in Central Europe allowed them to be easily cut off from the world market by Britain.

Meh, if they had not let their alliance with Russia lapse, allowing the French to create stronger ties with Russia, their geographical problem would have been solved.

I don't think that it would have been possible to maintain that alliance in the long term.  Russia was interested in maintaining her relative power and position, whereas Germany has been interested in dominating Eastern Europe.  It would certainly make for a tense relationship, with the two countries competing economically for the same area.  Now, it might have been a wise move to trade economic influence for security, but that wasn't going to happen in climate of the recently-unified German Empire.

[Neil]

I wouldn't call it an impossible position. The first war was a toss up they could have won if different decisions had been made.

What sort of decisions?

[grumbler]

Meh, if they had not let their alliance with Russia lapse, allowing the French to create stronger ties with Russia, their geographical problem would have been solved. 

Agree.  Germany and Russia had no fundamental conflicts of interest, and, in fact, Germany had more to gain by allying with Russia against Austria than vice-versa.  Throughout the Nineteenth Century, Germany had understood this, and the usual diplomatic alliances were Prussia and Russia against France and Austria.  Wilhelm II was a moron for buying off on that romantic nonsense about the Slavs and Germans being traditional and eternal enemies.  His country's self-interest clearly lay with a Russian alliance.  A Russo-German alliance in 1914 would be unbeatable, no matter what the British did.

[Neil]

I don't know.  Russia and Germany versus France, Britain, Italy and Austria would still have a rough time of it.  They still end up blockaded.

[grumbler]

I don't know.  Russia and Germany versus France, Britain, Italy and Austria would still have a rough time of it.  They still end up blockaded.

The blockade would mean a lot less with access to Russia's resources.  Italy would be a non-factor, or possibly a German ally (they went to war against Austria in 1915).  They would probably stay out of this war, though.  Austria would be crushed by the Russians, and Germany would arguably be a lot stronger in the west with only some mountain passes to hold for most of their border with Austria-Hungary.  They'd need to defend Bavaria for the time it took Austria-Hungary to crumble, but the Austrians would probably be on the defensive on that front, too.