Why do you think germans defeated in WW1

discuss.

2GET

They failed to capture Paris(&northern France) in one swoop as the plans dictated, and russians mobilized surprisingly quickly, forcing them to divide their forces. America came too late to cause the germans to lose, but it did facilitate the french to make irresponsible demands which they in the end couldn't enforce.

One word, the Tank.

the germans always start strong but they can never finish it

needs more viagra

Was the germans troops outnumbered or something

from what i learnt, tanks didnt have much role in WW1 did it

The British tank had alot of influence in the later stages of the war (the name "Tank came about because the project to create them was so secret the workers who made them thought they were constructing water tanks to store rain water).

When they worked out how to use the tank effectivly the allies remained pretty much undefeated in any offensive in which they were used, so yes, the tank really did alot to win WW1.

Before the US intervened, the Germans were deadlocked with the Russians, French, and British.  The French would have folded up even faster than they did in 1871 if the British hadn't bailed them out in 1914.

In all four countries, the war chewed up most of the current generation of young men.  If the US had not entered the war--and in my opinion, from the US perspective, there was no compelling reason (other than the yellow journalism of the British press, which spent four years accusing the "Huns" of everything short of eating babies) to get involved, as in 1914 the US had friendly relations with all the powers involved and none of them declared war on the US--it would probably have gone on for decades and sent every industrialized society in Europe back to the Stone Age.  The sudden entry of the US in the war, with vastly greater reserves of manpower, industrial capacity, and natural resources than all of Europe put together at the time, tipped the balance in favor of the Allies at the time that everyone involved was near the breaking point.

Meh.  In 1914 there were too many mediocrities and out-and-out fools in positions of power in Europe, due (in my opinion) in large part to the corrupting influence of hereditary aristocracies.  There was no good reason for war to start in 1914, other than maybe the jingoistic French desire to avenge the drubbing the Germans handed them in 1871--that, and the Kaiser's generals rubbing their hands gleefully, hoping for a rematch where they'd be able to take Paris this time.

french are pussy

>>8
I wouldn't call the Kaiser an 'out-and-out fool' by any means. However, I totally agree with the destructive impact of aristocracy; that's why alot of that changed after the war, what with the Revolution and all.

the US caused WWII. if the US hadn't intervened WWI would have ended with a peace treaty and Germany wouldn't have been a mess causing them to elect Hitler who started WWII

oh please >>11

if it wasnt for the historic germanic conquorer drive that traces back to ostrogothic visigothic traditions..... there would have been no world war I... and yes, world war II was just a continuation

america came out on top because not a single battle was waged on its soil, it was terra nova... europe was completely destroyed, partially out of their inability to come to terms with the culture shock of mechanization and industrialization and therefore felt a need to tear it all down

this leads us to today... but history marches forward, it is claimed this is the asian century

>>10
I would.  He spent most of 1914 watching his generals happily preparing for the war he didn't want.  When the troop trains began rolling west and they began calling up the reservists, he finally made a half-hearted attempt at personal intervention, only to be told by his own generals, "Once the trains begin rolling, nothing can be done."

He was worse than a villain.  He was a moron.

The Germans weren't defeated. Not their army, at least. The government(after the moron of a Kaiser fled) that took over was cocered into a diktat by the Allies(Or rather, the French). Also, many Germans at that time believed that their government betrayed them at the height of German superiority.
Therefore the reason why the Germans were defeated was because of the 'backstabbing' government.

Before the entrance of the US into the war, the Central Powers and the Allies were in a stalmated situation of trench warfare that was killing off so many young men that it would eventually have destroyed all the participating societies.

When the US entered the war, with tremendous reserves of manpower, industrial capacity, and natural resources, it tipped the balance and the Germans were slowly but surely being ground to dust by attrition.

Recall that large portions of the German military soon mutinied and refused to fight soon after the entry of the US into the war.

Ironically, this was a war in which the US had nothing at stake.  Neither Germany the Austro-Hungarian Empire had been hostile to the US before the war.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

Nothing happening in Europe between 1914 and 1918 was important enough to merit shedding one drop of American blood.

>>16
european consolidation of power would have eventually run up against american interests.... 1914-1918 or 1940-1945 makes no difference... it would have happened sooner or later

>>17
That may happen soon enough, as the EU gains more and more powerful. It would be interesting to see a unified Europe... with a hole where Switzerland is, those bastards :/

>>18
eu has massive internal problems, just adding up the individual countries gdps on paper and claiming a 'united europe' with larger financial power than the united states is quite an overstatement

the member countries still havent even voted on drafting a unified constitution, the first vote in the eu was just held in spain, and it was only a vote on 'would you like to draft an eu constitution'

long way to go for the eu to find equilibrium.... the western countries are rich, the eastern countries are poor.. they have cheap labor in the eastern countries that kills the job wages in the western countries

poland is germany's mexico, etc etc....

Bleh. Those germ's (errr, wait, i meant germans :p) should ve opend another can of those wh00pass Rommel mark II Fieldcommander chaps from their clone factory!

Ow wait? WW I? *bummer*

Post numero 8+15: I dont know what kind of twisted version of history you read, but it sure is funny to read commicbook versions of history eh? The only thing that happend was, you dropped in when everyone had shot everyone to smithereens and claimed victory. History, however, seems to repeat itself.

Post numero 18: Well, im sure we can build some kind of dam around them and make a giant powerplant out of Switzerland. That would most likely solve our Kyoto problem! Hey, filling up the map and beeing enviromentally friendly at the same time! Or else we can use it as a test site for new Ariane missles. There are about 450+ million ppl here, im sure atleast one of em has a creative idea on how to tackle the problem :P.

19: True. We are not one. Yet. We have a long way to go, but we also already have a long way behind us. It is not a question whether we will make it to the end, only how many detours we wish to make. I guess (and my guess is as good as anyones) that it will most likely take atleast 2 human lifetimes to get anywhere. People are affraid of change, but the change is imminent. The world of today, is on its last breath.

>>19

I would prefer they only had economic laws, and no union-wide constitution. Elsewise you'll wind up with the same problem some US states have when their laws don't match federal guidelines. EU should drop the constitution idea and focus on making the entire place a socio-centrist paradise, before they decide to choose sides on any pitiful 'moral' battles. Get the loot first dammit. Get some bigass tunneling machines and swipe some African emeralds and diamonds too, while we're at it.

WTF is with naming WWI as a world war? It only involved freaking Europe but becuase europeans think that the world revolved around them at the time such that when they are at war, it means the WHOLE world is at war.

World War 2 should have been relabeled World War I instead

It was originally called the Great War.

I have no idea why it was named WWI. Perhaps because at that time Europe controlled a large chunk of the world, and was calling in resources from around the globe.

Unless you think Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, most of Africa, parts of Asia, etc, are all Europe.

Personally I only refer to the second as a "World War." I thought ALL the discussion was focusing on that until I actually went to a library on the subject. Maybe they erroneously include conflicts outside their sphere like the Russian-Japanese war that occured around the same timeframe?

>>24
23 is more likely right. The colonies from around the world that were run by European countries are probably why it was a called a world war.

bump