Could Kaiser Germany have conquered the world?

Quote:

---

Without the influx of fresh troops from the U.S. (as well as the British blockade), Germany could defenitely have forced favorable terms for peace on the Western front. Keep in mind that in 1918, they launched last gasp offensives along the Western front (with new tactics) that pushed the French and English back more miles than all of the fighting in the years before had done in total

---

...and which were halted and turned into retreat by UK/French troops before material US forces were in the field.

US forces made German defeat in 1919 inevitable. With all due respect to them I don't agree they had a material impact on the fighting in 1918. By then both sides had largely solved the tactical problems of assaulting modern infantry in prepared defensive positions. (Although problems of exploitation remained, as the Germans found out.) With that tactical problem solved, strategic factors such as the greater manpower and material resources of France and the UK would inevitably tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

...and which were halted and turned into retreat by UK/French troops before material US forces were in the field.

US forces made German defeat in 1919 inevitable. With all due respect to them I don't agree they had a material impact on the fighting in 1918. By then both sides had largely solved the tactical problems of assaulting modern infantry in prepared defensive positions. (Although problems of exploitation remained, as the Germans found out.) With that tactical problem solved, strategic factors such as the greater manpower and material resources of France and the UK would inevitably tell.

---

You are correct in that Britain and France stopped the 1918 offensives with only limited aid (or less) from the USA. Chateau Thierry/Belleau Wood is the only engagement that US forces took any significant role in (USMC -- one of our few "old sweat" formations -- kicked boche tail), and it could be argued that this action was one of the early counter-attacks following the Aisne Offensive more than a part of the stopping of those offensives.

However, US offensives in the Argonne and the salient of St. Mihiel in 1918 were instrumental in precipitating the armistice. I agree that they accomplished only limited advances and, since we were relatively new at the game we were learning some bloody lessons, but it was this display of increasing offensive power that helped push German sentiment beyond the recovery point. In the USA, we like to style ourselves the "saviors" of France -- cavalry to the rescue sort of thing -- but you are quite correct in dismissing that. Our substantive accomplishments in 1918 were there, but the implicit threat of 1919 was greater.

Exploitation always was the problem in that war. Cavalry could not punch through gaps to exploit, and couldn't face an MG defense -- and it was simply too easy to get a couple of MG's and a platoon of rifles to plug any gaps. The strosstruppen were brilliant, but took high casualties for their successes and couldn't overcome the "friction" of the defense completely. Had an Allied Spring 1919 offensive happened, it would have been interesting to see if tech/training would really have allowed JFC Fuller to inaugurate the Blitzkreig early.

SF: no real argument with the comments on US forces you make. I would never argue the US made no battlefield contribution in 1918.

Its speculation, but IMHO the 1919 campaign would have been a series of bite and hold attacks, much the same as 1918, but on a bigger scale. The limiting factor, I suspect, would always have been that once you outran the range of your supporting artillery, life got much harder, and WW1 artillery was not rapidly mobile. I can't see that the technology would have allowed blitzkreig tactics, since even the light tanks were not that fast, had not that much range, and broke down/got knocked out a lot. In other words, just like better infantry and artillery tactics, they were good at the break in, but not that good at the break out.

(Digressing, I reckon you not only needed more reliable tanks/transport, but also far better tactical air support in the place of artillery, for blitzkreig to be possible. Fuller might/might not have seen the vision but I don't think he could have achieved it)

But break ins would have been enough. The Germans were only going backwards after they were stopped in the second battle of the marne, and that was achieved without ever making a breakthrough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

Actually, as DukeofSerbia said, france was allied with russia. And of course they wanted an Empire, but it's not like germany started that war, they were mostly interested in Colonies (of course they came a bit late with that idea, i mean every halfrespectable european state had some kind of colony somewhere on the planet)

---

Allies aren't obligated to help. The Italians were allies with the Austro-Hungarians and Germans at the beginning of WWI, but ended up joining the allied side. No, Germany wanted European domination, not some colonies elsewhere. Germany already had some colonies, unlike what you imply.

Germany didn't start the war on her own, no. But Germany did launch the Schlieffen Plan. Also, Germany's dreadnought-building race with Britain didn't help prevent the war either, both wanting naval domination. The war was began by all sides, making secret treaties, having imperial ambitions and building up of armies. Germany wasn't all innocent as you imply.

Also, just to throw this in,
Wasn't the Kaiser an unstable person, not mentally but politically, and had a very mercurial personality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Also, just to throw this in,
Wasn't the Kaiser an unstable person, not mentally but politically, and had a very mercurial personality?

---

Darn tootin'! Loved England, felt threatened by England and Edward VII the most. Fired Bizmarck, backed Tirpitz' plan for a navy -- against the advice of Bizmarck and most of his "cabinet." Tried to break up the alliance of France and Russia -- but always treated Nicholas as an idiot (possibly true, but poor politics). Panicked over East Prussia despite being fully aware of the Schlieffen plan's goals and thrust. Threatened ambassadors from neighboring countries for no reason. Bit of an idiot vis-a-vis political skills, even for a regime not exactly renowned for foreign policy finesse.

Yes you're right, the British and French beat back the German offenses after adapting to the new tactics and intial shock. I supose that's a even bigger sign that the German forces had simply ran out of manpower and resources - had they adopted these tactics and strategies even a year earlier, things might have changed significantly.

They could have forced a favorable armistice in the west - and they were trying to. The offensive was done in hopes that they could either force France to capitulate (with the reasoning that it would cause mutiny among the French soldiers, which had increasingly occured after the Nivelle Offensive) or to buy time while the Germans built permanent defensive fortifications along the line to hold the Allies back.

In the end though, it is amazing with what carnage Trench Warfare in World War I did. In 1916, before the Battle of the Somme, the British were engaged in no major battles and still suffered over 100,000+ casualties.