Why were Germany and Her Allies Unsuccessful in World War I

On November the 11^th of the year 1918 the Central Power participants of World War I gave up, put down their weapons and signed an armistice, signalling the end of one of the two greatest wars to ever occur in the history of the world. It was a surrender not so shocking based on the then recent events of the Central Powers. In this incredibly epic war, it seemed that Germany was pushed into it when they gave Austria Hungary the blank cheque who then decided to provide Serbia with an ultimatum. It was soon proved that this may have been, perhaps, the most crucial mistake which could have potentially, if not enacted, avoided two World Wars as a whole. Still, even at war, the Central Powers continuously found themselves making the same crucial mistakes, leading to their downfall. Germany and her allies were unsuccessful in World War I mainly due to the weakness of their propaganda, the lack of good alternative strategies, the limitations of the German’s economy and geography and the entry of the US.

It is a well published fact that Great Britain had the most powerful propaganda at the time of World War I. Great Britain had put George Krill in charge of all of the British Propaganda, both designing and promoting. With only one person controlling it, confusion was avoided and organization was maintained. Germany, on the other hand, had propaganda coming out of all corners and therefore no united idea on what to portray. With random people promoting whatever they wanted, complete chaos was sure to occur. When Germany had come up with what proved to be the failure that was the Von Schlieffen plan Great Britain had initiated the “Poor Little Belgium” campaign. When Germany had invaded Belgium in a desperate attempt to defeat France there was evidence of civilians and children being killed and women being raped. “Poor Little Belgium” became, what appeared to be, a global campaign. Political cartoons of Germans portrayed as gorillas (like that of King Kong) began being published worldwide, pinning the world against these “monsters”. Even Hitler had said that the Germans defeat was because of their own terrible organization of propaganda, a lesson he later drew from and effectively developed Germany’s propaganda for World War II. In an attempt to spare their nation the Germans began developing a psychologically vicious attack on the British. The Germans could see the British as a group of “lesser” peoples, rather than a nation to be feared. This strategy proved to be successful as the Germans were psychologically prepared, however, as were the British. The British went to war in complete preparation to battle the arrogant Germans.

Germany, as well as her allies, lacked sufficient alternative strategies in both defensive and attacking plans. The Germans had no real specific battle structure, simply a series of high risk attacks. They waited and looked for the event that was going to allow them to attack, almost always in a high risk situation, leading to catastrophe. The Allies, on the other hand, sustained the existence of a “United Allied Front,” that is to say, a well organized, well communicative alliance. In the case of the Allies, the leaders at the time were Haig, for the British, and Foch, for the French, who communicated and worked together leading to excellent results. Foch, in actuality, was in charge of Haig proving to be even more effective as only one leader controlled the armies, keeping everything organized and avoiding the confusion of the different tactics of diverse generals. Even with the entrance of the US, the American’s knew they were to send troops to be given orders by Foch. The Allies displayed a heavy amount of cohesive effort to win the war. The Germans have a leader by the name of Ludendorff, but he had almost no communication with the Austrians, leading to a crowd of generals each doing their own things, and leading to uncertainty and disorder.

The economy and geography of Germany was an exceedingly terrible drawback. At the time Germany had no national tax system. Essentially, they were simply asking their people to give everything they can to help the war. In places like the US, private companies design and construct weapons and then sell them to the military. In other cases, like that of France, the government structure companies build the weapons they need. Germany had no one to make these weapons for them so they had a lot of trouble finding military supplies. Geographically, Germany wasn’t in the best place either. With Russia to their right and France to their left, (even including Great Britain and Russia in very close proximity) Germany found herself completely surrounded. Her only allies in that area were Austria-Hungary and Italy. In addition, since the mileage of Germany’s coast was so minimal, they were given only a limited amount of naval ships. Britain, on the other hand, had the largest navy, due to their remarkably great coastline. They even went on to develop the “Dreadnought,” a brilliantly powerful submarine capable of massive destruction. Germany, on the other hand, only had their Gdansk port (in modern day Poland) which was considered the best one, still not allowing them to import enough supplies like materials, weapons and food.

The entry of the USA could be argued to have determined the outcome of the war, despite the fact that the allies were not doing so well already, their participation did them no good. Germany attempts to push their hardest in hopes that they could attack France and eliminate them before the US finishes arming their military. As per usual, this plan is extremely high risk and again, as usual, fails to a great extent. Suddenly, the US enters the war with their plentiful soldiers, supplies and money completely obliterating the Germans with their shipping of 250,000 troops every month. Germany can’t keep up with America’s numbers. It’s clear that Germany should have done more to keep the US neutral in hopes that it could buy them time in defeating the French and dealing with the American’s with ease.

Germany and her allies was almost completely ineffective in the Great War mostly because of their weakness in propaganda, their lack of good alternative strategies, the restrictions of the German’s economy and geography and the entry of the US. Perhaps, the evidence supports that in fact the Central Powers did not in actuality lose, instead the Allies simply won. However, the Central Powers were forced to eventually surrender when Germany’s allies began giving into the war, leaving them with the inevitable choice of surrendering as well. There is no question about it that the Central Powers in fact had certain things to their advantage. Despite the fact that many of their strategies and supplies didn’t aid with the war they did have some successes. One of the most known example being the effectiveness of poisonous gas. However, even that seemed to be a very short lived victory for soon enough gas masks were developed leaving the gas as a pointless weapon. Even with a weapon as powerful as the “invisible killer” that was the poisonous gas there was no escaping the powerful numbers of the American’s. Even if their troops weren’t so valuable, they had enough to make up for it. The Central Powers had a lot of trouble fighting against their great amounts of troops, supplies and food. Perhaps, it seems that the Powers could have continued to fight and won the war had it not been for the US. On the other hand, Germany certainly didn’t make only a few mistakes, but ended up losing quite a lot, even the psychological wars. Had Germany not given Austria-Hungary the “black cheque” perhaps they could have had only a mild participation and an even smaller failure during the Great War.

What was the leading cause of WWI?

The British wartime Prime Minister, David Lloyd-George, wrote after the conclusion of the war that the nations of Europe “slithered over the brink” of war, meaning that the decisions to go to war had emerged from a mess of miscalculation and muddle. The long term causes of World War I can be broadly categorized under nationalism, imperialism, militarism and the system of alliances. All of these causes were interrelated and operative at the same time and each had its contributory effect to the outbreak of the war. In addition there was a short term cause, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, that sparked the outbreak of hostilities. Every country that took up arms had its own reasons whether it was to repel an attack, to fulfill an obligation, or to protect national interests and prestige. More than anything else, however, the root cause of the war was the changes that took place in the map of Europe during the late 19^th Century that increased the friction between the major powers and fueled intense nationalistic fervor among the populations of Europe. In essence it was the intense antagonism between the major powers of Europe that resulted in the systems of alliances, imperialism, militarism, and, most importantly, nationalism, catalyzed by the Balkan Crisis, that led to the outbreak of war in 1914.

The system of alliances that split Europe broadly into two camps prior to World War I had evolved from the events that happened in the late 19^th Century. French antagonism toward Germany had existed since the Treaty of Frankfurt (1871). The forcible surrender of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany had fueled French nationalism and caused the formation of the Franco-Russian alliance of 1894 in an effort by France to ensure that in a future war it could regain the lost territory. Germany on the other hand was united under Bismarck on a platform of nationalistic unity of all Germanic people (Pan-Germanism) and was thus allied with Austria-Hungary, the main rival of Russia. Later on Britain emerged from their “Splendid Isolation” to eventually join France and Russia and form the Triple Entente of 1907. Another factor to consider in how the Alliances had evolved is the Pan-Slavism movement which sought to unite all Slavic people under Russian tutelage.

The antagonism between the major powers of Europe was not restricted to the continent but was carried overseas to their colonies. The main reason for the imperialistic policies was the intense rivalry for economic development through finding overseas markets for their industrial products on the one hand, and procuring cheap raw materials for their industries. However, countries were also motivated by national pride and the need to maintain the strong nationalistic sentiment at home necessary for the mobilization in war. In this context, a number of crises served to heighten the antagonism between the major allied blocks. For example, the Moroccan Crisis in 1904 between France and Britain, and Germany on the other hand and the Bosnian Crisis in 1908 between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, an ally of Russia. The political elites, in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, aroused nationalism through an aggressive foreign policy in order to consolidate their authority in their countries.

It was inevitable that the intense rivalry of the major powers in Europe would lead to militarism which in turn led to a frantic arms race and the development of huge armies on the continent. All the countries adopted systems of universal conscription at the end of the 1870s which required that citizens would swell the armies to huge sizes. The political elites and the military establishment needed to fuel nationalistic passions in order to conscript huge numbers of people who joined the armies enthusiastically. In turn these nationalistic passions made it inevitable that militarism would eventually lead to armed confrontation between the powers. The armies of both France and Germany had both doubled between 1870 and 1914 and there was a fierce competition between Britain and Germany for mastery of the seas (e.g. development of the Dreadnought battle ship by Britain and corresponding battleship by Germany). Everyone assumed that war was inevitable and the Germans drew up attack plans against France through Belgium, if they were attacked by Russia. Arguments of military urgency and expediency took over the mentality of soldiers.

Nationalism, for all intents and purposes, seems to be the root of the tensions that eventually led to the break out of World War I. Nationalism is defined as the ideology of passionate support of the rights and interests of one’s country without consideration toward the rights of other countries. Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism were exclusively nationalistic movements that served the interests of uniting Germanic peoples under Germany and Slavic people under Russian rule. The British policy at the time, (Splendid Isolation) was a nationalistic ideology and France had its very own nationalistic motivations to recover the lost territory of Alsace-Lorraine. Also, other nationalistic movements, including the Balkan states seeking to overthrow Ottoman rule, added to the tensions.

Whilst all the key causes mentioned above can be considered as long term causes of the World War because they had climaxed since the 1870s, the war was sparked by the Bosnian Crisis. In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina which dismayed the Serbs and their Russian allies. In 1914, the Archduke Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria, was assassinated by a Serbian Nationalist initiating a series of events that led to the outbreak of war across the entire continent. The Austrians, determined to crush Serbia, relied on the German “Blank Check” (unconditional support) to issue an ultimatum to the Serbs which was rejected. Austria declared war on Serbia which caused Russia to quickly mobilize its army on the German as well as the Austrian frontier. Germany declared war on Russia and believing that France would join, they also declared war on France. Germany’s advance through Belgium (in order to escape the trenches built by the French) brought England into the war against Germany because of the Treaty of Neutrality (1839).

In conclusion, the intense antagonism between the major powers of Europe that resulted in the systems of alliances, imperialism, and militarism was underpinned by intense nationalistic passions. Essentially, it was a struggle for predominance between the major powers of Europe, each pursuing its nationalistic goals. Nationalism was clearly at the root of all the key causes of the Great War. Had the ideology of nationalism never have arisen perhaps the World War could have been avoided.

I. Introduction

a. Origins of the rivalry between Germany and Europe.

b. Thesis

II. Domestic policies and foreign policies

a. Colonial expansion

b. Creation of a German dominated economic zone

c. Strengthening of the navy

III. Socioeconomic developments in Germany and Europe

a. Rapid industrialization

b. The evolution of the political structures

IV. Main incidents

a. Daily Telegraph Affair

b. First Moroccan Crisis

c. Second Moroccan Crisis

d. Balkan Crisis

V. Conclusion

The Unification of Germany and Bismarck's Role

_._._._._It seems to be clear that without the unification of Germany two world wars could have been avoided and Hitler would have never risen to power. There was no single act that caused all the independent states to unify into one empire. Germany’s unification of at least 350 states was a long and lengthily process of which some historians may argue was often times not planned and unintentional. Otto Von Bismarck was appointed Minister-President by recommendation of Prussia’s War Minister, Albrecht Theodor Emil Graf Von Roon. Bismarck has even said himself that when making decisions he does not look to the effect they will have on the future but rather how beneficial it is at that instant. However, without the actions of Otto von Bismarck there is no doubt the unification of Germany would have never occurred._._._._._Even, possibly, without being aware of the fact, Otto Von Bismarck’s actions had led to the unification of Germany. He has even been noted to have said that the choices he makes are the ones that will be most beneficial in that specific instant. “He said once: “Politics are not a science based on logic; they are the capacity of always choosing at each instant, in constantly changing situations, the least harmful, the most useful (Source 11).” Bismarck clearly knows that the choices he has made, even the plentiful mistakes, were with less regard for the future and more toward the best choice for that time and situation. Even if Bismarck’s aim was never to actually unify Germany he certainly took the steps to do so, whether he knew it or not. However, it is important to note that he was not the only one that pushed Germany closer to its unification. For example, without Napoleon’s victory, the German states would not have gone from the many 350 states to just 39. In more than on occurrence Bismarck attempted to weaken Austria in order to leave Prussia the dominant state. For example, in the Crimean War, by faltering between offering support to Russian and to Britain and France, Austria lost the support of its allies and was left isolated, making it easy for Bismarck to manipulate them and for Prussia to defeat them in The Seven Weeks War. At that point, Austria was forced to accept Prussian dominance in Germany and the creation of a North German Confederation. In addition to, due to the Franco Prussian war, provoked by Bismarck when he altered the telegram sent to him by Kaiser Wilhelm to make it seem like Wilhelm did not like France, Germany and France became sworn enemies. France even swore to seek revenge on the territory they lost to Germany. Had this not occurred, the independent states would have not feared further conflict with their new enemy and considered it best to unite and face sure victory if ever they found themselves in another war with France.

_._._._._It is very obvious that Bismarck didn’t have a vision for the future when making certain choices but instead made them simply to gain a benefit from that situation, even saying so himself. In his attempts to make Prussia the dominant state he aimed to weaken Austria. By weakening Austria he, perhaps unknowingly, led Germany to its unification. Without the weakening of Austria there would be no North German Confederation. Lacking Bismarck’s attempt to provoke France there would be no Franco Prussian war, therefore no victory, and ultimately no need to unify in order to stay strong in case of a counter attack. It is clear that without Bismarck’s actions and choices the unification of Germany would have never occurred.