Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.

[imported_Rannug]

"-- Certainly not having troops in French territory, in both wars I believe it was France which first declared war on Germany. In WWI the sequence was something like --

Austria DOW Serbia

Russia DOW Austria

Germany DOW Russia

France DOW Germany"

This is not what happend......

Correct version without details..

Austria DOW Serbia

Russia mobilizes

Germany DOW Russia

Germany DOW France(since they are allies with Russia)

Germany DOW Belgium

UK DOW Germany

[ChrisND]

Interesting thread,

Next summer as a university program I will be living in Germany for the summer, taking college courses on Nazi Germany and especially focusing on the factors that allowed the Nazi Party to ascend to and stay in power. Looking forward to it, should be really interesting.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Ragnuts --- Absolutely correct About time some recognized the truth. Everybody else, put down your Bunta buttons & take a history class.

Dude gets shot.

Austria DOW Serbia

Buntas go nuts

[Ottosmops]

xwormwood,

Of course I didn't want to take away any credit from the founders of the Jewish state.

They had their plans and it is remarkable what they accomplished.

My objections go in two directions:

1) I have the impression, that Rambo tries to prove the authority of the bible by its successful prophecies.

In the case of Israel, that's a logical error, IMO.

So I ask Rambo to use better arguments.

2) Generally, I think it isn't a good idea to take old books and myths and prophecies as the source to construct the future.

As we have seen, prophecies may become true.

And there are a lot of disastrous ideas in the lore. :eek:

I think it's better to be open-minded and in touch with todays reality than to rely on the ideas of other people from long ago.

[Ottosmops]

@ Rambo,

You let history start where it fits to you, right?

There were causes, why Austria DOW Serbia.

In modern terminology: Serbia supported terrorists.

And we know what the larger countries do in such a case. :cool:

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

There are multiple reasons why Germany lost WW1.. and most of these are related to each other.

- The german Kaiser fired Bismarck in 1888 and didn`t prolong Bismarck`s treaty system, i.e. with Russia

- The fleet Build up & struggle for Colonies scared the UK and France, but was a massive mistake.. lots of ressources for almost nothing. Putting all the money, manpower & steel into the Army would have smashed the froggies most likely

- The Schlieffen Plan was old and not updated to 1914 circumstances... originally the right wing of the attacking forces should outnumber the left flank 7:1, but it was just 3:1 in 1914 which was not enough (Marne Battle)

- Moltke (Chief of the OHL in 1914) wasn`t as good as his uncle who commanded in 1866 and 1870/71

- Germany thought the Russian mobilization would take much longer, but it took the Russian just a few weeks. So some troops had to be redirected to the east; these troops where missing in the west

- there was an Austrian traitor who told much about the Austrian military to Russia... this is why the K&k military was not as valuable as Germany thought (see Oberst Redl in Wikipedia)

- the UK blocaded all naval traffic to Germany, and this was against international naval law. So Germany started to use U-Boats and attack merchant ships.. this brought the US in the war. Without the war entry of the US in late 1917 the result would have been different.. maybe armistice negotiations in 1919 or 1920.

I`m pretty sure the list is much longer..

[ July 19, 2007, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Hyazinth von Strachwitz ]

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Rannug:

"-- Certainly not having troops in French territory, in both wars I believe it was France which first declared war on Germany. In WWI the sequence was something like --

Austria DOW Serbia

Russia DOW Austria

Germany DOW Russia

France DOW Germany"

This is not what happend......

Correct version without details..

Austria DOW Serbia

Russia mobilizes

Germany DOW Russia

Germany DOW France(since they are allies with Russia)

Germany DOW Belgium

UK DOW Germany

The technicality of which country DOW'd on which date is, in this case, irrelevant because the treaties dictated that everything had to move in a single direction. Once Austria was at war with Serbia Germany and Russia had to be at war with each other and France had to be at war with Germany.

The only option was that could have been avoided was invading Belgium. Germany didn't have to do that but presumably the fear was if they didn't France had the option of doing so in order to get to Germany.

It would have been much better for Germany to not invade Belgium and to not pull Britain into the war.

Even the Kaiser understood that when everything was being set into motion and he actually suggested to von Moltke that it would be better to not violate Belgium's neutrality and to concentrate on Russia first. The prospect of readjusting all the general staff's mobilization plans and reversing the plan seems to have led to a mental collapse on Moltke's part and the subsequent lack of top leadership is one of the reasons things subsequently went wrong in the field; von Moltke resorted to command by proxie, in the end the decision outside Paris was made by a staff officer major acting with Moltke's authority; he made an on the spot decision to not flank Paris but to march on it instead from the northwest. More than a little bit ludicrous.

jon_j_rambo

@Ragnuts --- Absolutely correct About time some recognized the truth. Everybody else, put down your Bunta buttons & take a history class.

Dude gets shot.

Austria DOW Serbia

Buntas go nuts

Thank you, Brother Rambo, but I said all of that fifteen posts ago. We were trying to set the details straight. Now I remember why I stopped posting here and will probably go back to lurking.

Come to think of it that's the right decision. There's too much arguing for the sake of arguing, which consumes a lot of time and doesn't get anywhere.

See you all later.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Thank you, Brother Rambo, but I said all of that fifteen posts ago. We were trying to set the details straight. Now I remember why I stopped posting here and will probably go back to lurking.

Come to think of it that's the right decision. There's too much arguing for the sake of arguing, which consumes a lot of time and doesn't get anywhere.

See you all later. [/QB]

@ Jersey John: I think it is clearly visible to most spectators who trying to have a normal discussion and who`s not. In my eyes you belong to the people who simply want to have a good discussion, i.e. clarifying details without unneccessary arguing. I made similar experiences with certain other people in this forum. There is a famous saying in Germany which might help you a bit:

Don`t argue with fools, a neutral spectator won`t see the difference.

If I see some people having a discussion in here, I try to add some facts/details. If certain other people enter, I abstain.. always the same nonsense. Esp. political discussions should be banned from that forum.. just my personal opinion.

[ July 19, 2007, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: Hyazinth von Strachwitz ]

[JerseyJohn]

Hyazinth von Strachwitz,

Many thanks, very much appreciated. We're the same kind of forum member. :cool:

I wrote that post at 5:20 a.m. my time, just woke up and was obviously a little cranky.

What you're saying about political discussions is definitely true, they do seem to always lead to hot feelings getting nowhere, same as discussions on religion. Speaking of old sayings, there's another one about never talking about religion or politics.

In theory those things aren't supposed to be discussed in these threads but it's hard to determine where a discussion crosses the line. Can't really discuss WWII without getting into politics and, since the Hollocaust took place during the war, religion invariably enters in as well.

Personally I think it's okay to discuss anything but, as we've both seen, it becomes frustrating when posts go around in circles rather than making progress.

Thanks again. From now on I'll wait till after breakfast before I start posting.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Sir Jersey --- It's no big deal, getting upset on the internet over history isn't worth the blood pressure. Especially something so insignificant as WW-1, was nearly 100 years ago. All those people died in that war for what? Nothing. Temporal issues are just that. The countries of this world are as drops of water in a bucket in the universal scheme of things.

No wonder there are so many wars, people get bent on the internet, road rage on the highway, get upset at the slightess things.

You don't see the Legend getting upset because they don't believe the book (whether it be history, secular, or the KJV).

Great peace unto them that love thy law & nothing shall affend thee.

"This mission is over Rambo" --- Col. Troutman

[ July 19, 2007, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

[JerseyJohn]

We're in complete agreement, Brother Rambo. :cool:

-- Except for all those guys having died for nothing in WWI, but, as you said, there's no point raising the blood pressure over it almost 100 years later.

[jon_j_rambo]

True, I'm sure some of those dudes didn't die in vain for WW-1. Just depends an invididuals relative point in life...and what they were moved to do. We think as men, I wonder what God's opinion of WW-1 is?

[JerseyJohn]

I'd imagine He's as disgusted and confused by it as the rest of us.

-- The propaganda slogans for all countries on both sides in that war claimed God as supporting their cause.

[letifer]

War largely happened because Austria wanted it, and the reason they wanted it was to butress their failing influence in the Balkans. The Austrian July ultimatum was so overbearing that it virtually gauranteed war. It spread because Germany agreed to enter a war on Austria's side EVEN if Austria started it. From which we can infer that the Kaiser wasn't all that opposed the idea. Note that Italy had treaties with both Germany and Austria, but declined side with them. Call it prudence, cowardice, or even fair play, but Germany could have done the same - and on the very good grounds that Austia was using the asassination as an excuse for the expansion of its own power.

As to the charge that Serbia was supporting terrorism, I can find no evidence of it. Certainly nationalism was on the rise in the area, but there is no evidence for official Serbian colusion, and Serbia agreed to all the July ultimatum points that had to do with bringing the miscreants to justice.

[JerseyJohn]

letifer,

Welcome aboard, hope you'll be putting up a lot more posts like that first one. :cool:

What really gets me is Serbia agreed to all those points and Austria declared war on them anyway!

-- It's like when Trajan demanded the Parthians return the old eagles they took from slaughtering the Crassus expedition 150 or so years earlier. No one knew where they were kept but, after a frantic search they recovered the things and brought them to Trajan who said something like, "Too late now," and invaded them anyway. :confused: He wound up winning the war, which surprised no one, conquering nearly all of the present day Middle East to Rome's borders and was promptly retired by some poison administered by his successor, Hadrian, who promptly pulled back to the original borders and even started building walls like the one in Scotland, presumably to keep Romans in more than to keep the barbarians out.

I don't think anything could have saved either the Austrian or Ottoman Empires, they were too far in decline even before the start of war. Two inept and repressive czars in a row probably guranteed that Russia would have had some sort of revolution before too much longer. All three were doomed by the war, of course. Probably Austria was clutching at straws, it was falling apart from within. Perhaps the idea was a quick glorious war, aside from regaining Serbia, might help keep the falling ediface propped up. I doubt it would have worked even if they'd managed to do so without involving Russia.

Kaiser Wilhelm II was a strange case. He loved strutting around in his uniforms, made his oldest son a field marshall (he seems to have been a pretty competant general at least) but once the war started the emperror promptly withdrew from the map rooms except to pose from time to time with his top commanders. In the end he wanted to accept the Anglo-French peace offering that would have recognized Germany's gains in eastern Europe and Russia but he backed down when Hindenburg and Ludendorff said they wanted to continue the war. At the start of the war he gave Austria a blank check, as you said, but he seemed somehow to be taken by surprise as the inevitable events unfolded.

-- The Nickie-Willie telegrams exchanged in the early summer of 1914 would be laughable if they didn't lead to such tragic events. Toward the end Nicholas said something like, "If only grandma-ma (Queen Victoria) were alive, she would not have allowed any of this."

I tend to agree with an earlier post, I think it was by Arado, that if the assassination of the archduke didn't start WWI something else would have. There were just too many unmanageable entanglements.

-- I think Italy was smart to stay out of the war, initially. But a year or so later they offered their services to the highest bidder, which turned out to be the French and British. When the war ended, though, they promptly forgot their promises and turned their backs on the Italians, Arabs and Russians even while forging that masterpiece of stupidity at Versailles.

[arado234]

letifer if germany didnt back austria im sure the rest of the warring parties especially france would have seen it as a sign of weakness.Remember ALL the major warring countries had massive armies and couldnt wait to use them.Do you really think that if russia had"started"it france would have abandoned them.I bet not.They probably would have seen this a great chance to get back alsace-lorraine which is what they really wanted anyway.

[Guest Mike]

Serbia did not agree to ALL the points - they refued to allow Austro-hungarian participation in the enquiry as per item 6.

However the AH ambassador had apparently been instructed that any Serbian response would be considered unacceptable regardless of it's content, so the point is kind-of moot.

Interesting stories about Trajan JJ - a shame they have no evidence to back them up. tehre has never been a serious suggestion that Hadrian poisoned Trajan - there are certainly questions about teh time-line of Hadrian's accession, but Trajan's death has never been laid at his door.

And of course Crassus's 3 eagles were recovered 135 years before Trajan's expedition - by Augustus in 20BC...through negotiations not war!

[ July 19, 2007, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[imported_Rannug]

Italy was allied to Germany and Austria before the war but the deal was that if any one of the 3 was DOW, the others would join in. Now since it was Germany and Austria that made the DOW's Italy was not "forced" to join the war. So the fact who DOWed who does matter a bit even if it's true the all the major nations are to blame why it turned out to be global conflict.

[Blashy]

I wonder how long and if Germany could have eventually sued for peace or armistice if they had started to max produce in 1939 like they did in 1944.

That is probably Germany's biggest flaw in WW2, as JJ put it they had no goal or idea of what they were going to do.

Check 1944 productions and manpower here:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm

[arado234]

Blashy from what ive read hitlers economists believe it or not warned him about going onto a full war time production because it would bankrupt the country.How stupid was that.Thats why the brits could out produce germany.Lucky hitler listened untill it was to late.

[arado234]

Blashy it kind of makes you wonder what the hell the axis(especially japan)were thinking(or not).I cant believe the production figures.If germany had gone flatout right away it may have made a difference;probably not.The axis had to win quick or come up with some super weapon that would negate the allies vastly superior numbers.I now see why you keep saying this game doesnt come close to representing allied(american output).If it did then who would want to be the axis.The only way germany would have ANY hope would be to totaly take out england and have a possibility in this game for russia to join the germans.Otherwise goodbye germans.

[Blashy]

Well if we gave USA proper MPP representation the victory conditions for Axis would need to be changed.

This is what I do in my historical MPP mod.

As you can see, even at full tilt USA still easily outproduced Germany and it did not fully mobilize its manpower (Industry yes), add in UK and USSR... they never had a chance. Best bet would have been to hold on long enough to get peace or armistice on "their" terms.

[arado234]

Blashy where can i find your mod?

[letifer]

Thanks for the welcome JerseyJohn. Been lurking for a while ...

I agree with your points - especially with regards to the Romans. Yes, Trajan was looking for an excuse. If you start something with the Romans you had better be able to finish it! Carthegenians found out the hard way.

Actually the 2nd Punic war is a good illustration for this thread - Hannibal was able to invade Italy, beat the Romans silly up and down the penninsula for several years, but still lost. A critical weakness can doom a vastly superior army. In Hannibal's case it was his army's deficiency in siege warefare. He had the run of Italy, but was unable to take any cities.

I guess my point is that everyone makes mistakes in war, usually fairly serious ones, but they are seldom fatal; very often there is some overarching weakness in strategy, tactics or even equipment that turns the tide. So discounting individual German mistakes, is there something such that if the Germans were better they would have won despite their mistakes. For instance, if they had had long range fighters and heavy bombers in quantity would that enabled them to overcome Russia?