Why did Germany do so well in WW1?

It was able to keep the combined might of France and the British Empire at bay while at the same time destroying Russian forces on a completely different front. It also arguably could have won in 1918 had a more detailed plan been made. It did all this while enduring a British blockade and terrible famines. What made Germany able to last as long as it did and do so well militarily? Was it just sheer German brilliance?
 

Garrison

Donor
It was able to keep the combined might of France and the British Empire at bay while at the same time destroying Russian forces on a completely different front. It also arguably could have won in 1918 had a more detailed plan been made. It did all this while enduring a British blockade and terrible famines. What made Germany able to last as long as it did and do so well militarily? Was it just sheer German brilliance?

Who says they did well? they mounted three major offensives in the West and failed disastrously each time. In the East they faced an utterly disorganized and ill-equipped enemy. Politically they provoked first Britain and then the USA into war by their ham-fisted efforts. They lasted as long as they did because they conducted a primarily defensive campaign in the West at a time when the advantages lay overwhelemingly with the defender.
 
Bingo. The fact it never happened upon anyone that defense essentially won the day is sort of stupid in hindsight. The Germans perfected stormtrooper tactics in the East. They could have just avoided the delusion they could have blockaded the UK out of the war with a few submarines, force the British and French to come at them, and beat back any Allied advances with localized counter-offensives exploiting the stormtrooper tactics that were so successful.

They would have had a position of strength in negotiations, being that they were sitting on a ton of France and all of Belgium. In exchange for ceding French and Belgian territory back to the rightful owners, the Germans would get reparations from those two countries and the blockade lifted from Britain (for their worthless overseas colonies). Plus, they would be sitting upon expanded holdings in former Russian territory. It would have been a win by anyone's book and left Germany the uncontested master of Europe, until the next war and tangle of alliances comes about.
 

Garrison

Donor
Bingo. The fact it never happened upon anyone that defense essentially won the day is sort of stupid in hindsight. The Germans perfected stormtrooper tactics in the East. They could have just avoided the delusion they could have blockaded the UK out of the war with a few submarines, force the British and French to come at them, and beat back any Allied advances with localized counter-offensives exploiting the stormtrooper tactics that were so successful.

Well the effect of the tactics were magnified by the fact that the British were undergoing a major reorganization at the time of the Michael Offensive, and German tactics were married to a hopeless strategy and poor leadership at the top. Hindenberg and Ludenndorf were no better than their predecessors, none of who had a clue how to actually prosecute the war once the Schliefen plan failed, and that plan was sufficiently unrealistic to doubt whether it could ever have succeeded.

In the end Germany had to launch a large scale offensive in the west or lose, their victories in the East would have become just another drain on resources, and once the USA entered the war there was no winning strategy.

Sticking to the OPs question, I'm sticking with the answer; they didn't.
 
They did well, considering what was piled up against them. But they didn't crush the Russian army. The Russians squandered their potential in a bunch of offensives which were contrary to established Russian strategy (withdraw and let the country/weather kill the invader). In the west, the were slightly better than their opponents, but not enough so to compensate the numerical and material superiority of the Entente.
That the Entente offensives of 1915-17 didn't succeed has more to do with Entente inaptitude than German prowess. In that, they really did well, but only because their opponents were much worse.
 

Deleted member 1487

Who says they did well? they mounted three major offensives in the West and failed disastrously each time. In the East they faced an utterly disorganized and ill-equipped enemy. Politically they provoked first Britain and then the USA into war by their ham-fisted efforts. They lasted as long as they did because they conducted a primarily defensive campaign in the West at a time when the advantages lay overwhelemingly with the defender.

:confused:
They inflicted heavy losses in the West in 1914, much higher than they received themselves, overrunning most of France's raw material base and much of her industry outside of Paris, while preserving a higher percentage of her pre-war army than any nation in the war. In the East the Russians had a very good army, better equipped than the Austrians by far and in fact having a better artillery part per division and corps than anyone but the Germans. The Russians really weren't that disorganized either; Tannenberg was a mess, but most of the problems the Russians had was strategic and morale-wise, rather than tactical or even necessarily operational.

The Germans outperformed in 1914 due to having a better army and preserving so much of it until 1916 and the Somme. Then Germany was badly outnumbered and was keeping its collapsing ally in the war from 1914 on. The issues with getting the US into the war stemmed from faulty intelligence about the political situation in the US and would have been rational (other than Zimmermann admitted his telegram was real) had their read of US politics been correct. Really if you want to know why Germany did so well after 1914, as in 1914 they were on the offensive in the west and did better than anyone else during the entire course of the war in that year, it wasn't just that they were sitting on the defensive; it was that they got their industry organized first to produce sufficient artillery shells, had siege warfare equipment pre-war that really worked well in trench warfare (howitzers/mortars), seized an awesome defensive line on the Aisne and withdrew to it, adapted their defensive doctrine to the realities of the situation as the war progressed, were willing to give up ground to disjoint Entente offensives (1917), and just had a low quality series of enemies in the West until 1917. If anything the question should be why did the Entente do so poorly until they developed a numerical and material advantage in 1917?
 
Germany was THE hitech, scientific and industrial leader before WWI. It was likely the only country in the world that could have ramped up the Haber process (for fixing nitrates, in particular for explosives). That's one reason it punched above its weight.
 
Yes, without the Haber process for synthesis of nitrates, the Allied blockade of South American nitrate shipments to Germany would have resulted in Germany exhausting its pre-war stockpile of nitrates in something like 2-3 months. I'm having trouble finding the exact figure, but it's such an oft mentioned point on this site that you should be able to look it up easily.
 
Considering they were surrounded and propping up the Austrians, I'd say Germany did pretty well by lasting four years. In the west, they just managed to get the jump on France, and when the war ground to a halt, the trenches were all inside France and would mostly remain there until 1918.
 

John Farson

Banned
Who says they did well? they mounted three major offensives in the West and failed disastrously each time. In the East they faced an utterly disorganized and ill-equipped enemy.

And noticeably, even against the utterly disorganized and ill-equipped Russian Army the war in the East lasted over three years, only ending through political collapse and revolution rather than any decisive German breakthrough. And the territorial gains they made were ultimately useless in the end. By the time of the Armistice Germany's rail network couldn't distribute the food already in Germany let alone import more food from the East into Germany. The system had seen very heavy incessant use due to war demands, vital maintenance had been put off or skimped on, and there was no longer enough coal to meet fuel requirements.
 

Deleted member 1487

Considering they were surrounded and propping up the Austrians, I'd say Germany did pretty well by lasting four years. In the west, they just managed to get the jump on France, and when the war ground to a halt, the trenches were all inside France and would mostly remain there until 1918.

I'd just add that the French actually invaded Germany first, as the Germans were caught up in Belgium. To qualify my earlier post it should be noted that the French screwed up really badly with their doctrine and uniform pre-war, so they massacred very badly in 1914; in fact in the first two months of the war the French lost more people killed than the US did in all of WW2 (with 30% of the population of 1940 USA). In fact the losses were so bad that their are still classified today, though they might be declassified this year, as we are at the 100 anniversary of 1914, so usually declassifications happen about then; the 1917 mutiny files are scheduled to be declassified in 2017...
 
Well the effect of the tactics were magnified by the fact that the British were undergoing a major reorganization at the time of the Michael Offensive, and German tactics were married to a hopeless strategy and poor leadership at the top. Hindenberg and Ludenndorf were no better than their predecessors, none of who had a clue how to actually prosecute the war once the Schliefen plan failed, and that plan was sufficiently unrealistic to doubt whether it could ever have succeeded.

In the end Germany had to launch a large scale offensive in the west or lose, their victories in the East would have become just another drain on resources, and once the USA entered the war there was no winning strategy.

Sticking to the OPs question, I'm sticking with the answer; they didn't.

I'm not sure if I adequately explained myself. The point is that the Germans did not even understand their own strength. An all defensive strategy would have essentially won them the war once Russia collapse. However, they pursued a fruitless strategy of strangling an island nation with a navy 5 times more powerful than theirs, which in effect dragged in the biggest economy in the world against them, and on top of this forfeited their defensive advantages by going on the offensive.

So, yes, totally a failure of strategy on Germany's part.
 
I'm not sure if I adequately explained myself. The point is that the Germans did not even understand their own strength. An all defensive strategy would have essentially won them the war once Russia collapse. However, they pursued a fruitless strategy of strangling an island nation with a navy 5 times more powerful than theirs, which in effect dragged in the biggest economy in the world against them, and on top of this forfeited their defensive advantages by going on the offensive.

So, yes, totally a failure of strategy on Germany's part.

They were starving and it was their last gamble. If they just turtled their population would continue starving. A POD before OTL ww1 that fixes the food situation could mean Germany could well Turtle and beat their enemies.
 
They were starving and it was their last gamble. If they just turtled their population would continue starving. A POD before OTL ww1 that fixes the food situation could mean Germany could well Turtle and beat their enemies.
No the were ruled by a military leadership with poor understanding of economics. Anyone being aware of the larger picture would have seen, that despite the Royal Navy ruling the waves, their economy was also feeling the strain of the war.
In 1918 turtling would indeed have resulted in disaster for Germany, but turtling in the West from 1916 on and avoiding US war entry would not just have avoided US troops in Europe. It would also have avoided unsecured loans for the Entente resulting in an Entente home front in just as bad position as Germanys - without the massive success in the East to show for.
Given that bankers and stockbrokers gossip like fishwives, I very much doubt the Entente financal situation was any kind of secret in Banking Circles in neutral counties and could easily have been found out if only the interest to pay attention had been there in the first place.
 

Garrison

Donor
I'm not sure if I adequately explained myself. The point is that the Germans did not even understand their own strength. An all defensive strategy would have essentially won them the war once Russia collapse.

I understood, I simply disagree with you. Germany was massively overextended after the fall of Russia. The Ukraine would have turned into a disaster area as the Germans looted it to try and feed their own people and the entry of the USA into the war banished any hope that Germany could win a war of attrition and by 1918 the Entente was aquiring the weaponry and tactics needed to break the stalemate. Germany's failures politically, dilpolmatically, and strategically were systemic and not easily changed. Storm trooper tactics might have worked for a little while but as with everything else Germany pinned its hopes on the Entente would have adapted to them.
 
:confused:
They inflicted heavy losses in the West in 1914, much higher than they received themselves, overrunning most of France's raw material base and much of her industry outside of Paris, while preserving a higher percentage of her pre-war army than any nation in the war. In the East the Russians had a very good army, better equipped than the Austrians by far and in fact having a better artillery part per division and corps than anyone but the Germans. The Russians really weren't that disorganized either; Tannenberg was a mess, but most of the problems the Russians had was strategic and morale-wise, rather than tactical or even necessarily operational.

The Germans outperformed in 1914 due to having a better army and preserving so much of it until 1916 and the Somme. Then Germany was badly outnumbered and was keeping its collapsing ally in the war from 1914 on. The issues with getting the US into the war stemmed from faulty intelligence about the political situation in the US and would have been rational (other than Zimmermann admitted his telegram was real) had their read of US politics been correct. Really if you want to know why Germany did so well after 1914, as in 1914 they were on the offensive in the west and did better than anyone else during the entire course of the war in that year, it wasn't just that they were sitting on the defensive; it was that they got their industry organized first to produce sufficient artillery shells, had siege warfare equipment pre-war that really worked well in trench warfare (howitzers/mortars), seized an awesome defensive line on the Aisne and withdrew to it, adapted their defensive doctrine to the realities of the situation as the war progressed, were willing to give up ground to disjoint Entente offensives (1917), and just had a low quality series of enemies in the West until 1917. If anything the question should be why did the Entente do so poorly until they developed a numerical and material advantage in 1917?

Germany had a very good continental army in 1914

France also had one in 1914 but by Verdun it was bled white forcing the British Commonwealth Army which was not ready and many of the new Divisions were green, to attack at the Somme in order to take the pressure off the French - which it succeeded in doing at horrific cost to both itself and Germany.

It took until 1917/18 for the British Empire to raise train and equip a continental force that could match the German Army - 3 years to match it and 4 to better it

I don't think it was low quality armies that stopped Germany from winning in 1914 - First by defeating the initial attack through Belgium and Northern France and then by winning the race for the sea took quite skillful opponents - if they were not then Germany would have won.

Once 1st Ypres was finished and the opposing armies dug in Germany could no longer win and due to the land occupied the Entente would not and could not seek terms from a position of territorial weakness.

Stalemate until as you say - The British finished building their army and the Americans started arriving.
 
I always felt bad for the French being considered the losers of Europe military speaking, considering they were on the winning side twice. :p

The army of our "cousins" was thouroughly grinded like hell in WWI, bled seriously... They had to fight like hell, and did so. For sure not 'loosers' in the sense of wimps and cowards.

Which explain also to a point the actions of France (and UK) at the 'Phoney War' start of WWII...
 
The army of our "cousins" was thouroughly grinded like hell in WWI, bled seriously... They had to fight like hell, and did so. For sure not 'loosers' in the sense of wimps and cowards.

Which explain also to a point the actions of France (and UK) at the 'Phoney War' start of WWII...

I mean the whole French Surrender thing, considering how grimly they fought they always get a bad rap.
 
Top