Could the Axis have won WW1 if they didn't all surrender

What did they teach you at school?

The USA were pouring in millions of fresh troops.

The German population was starving and Germany was likely weeks away from a communist revolution as happened in Russia the year before.

The newly created Royal Airforce was starting to terror bomb Berlin, something no city on Earth had had any real experience of before.

The last, desperate offensive by the Germany army had just been snuffed out.

The Axis powers could not have won, but it would have been better if they had fought on perhaps, because they got absolutely devastated by the treaty of Versailles, and if they had fought on and been counquered as in WW2, Hitler would never have been able to use the 'we were stabbed in the back' myth to gain power (in fact, Hitler would likely have been killed in the fighting).

I learnt about WW1 in school but not in amazing detail. That is why I'm learning all about the wars now. I was thinking of going to a college or something for it. Does anyone know any backdoor to get into a phd or at least a masters in history?

Axis? Wrong war.

The Germans had it won before they were betrayed by The Bankers

Why go to college when you can go to YouTube.

https://youtu.be/SLj5r2nZHB8

You need to go to college. The piece of paper you get at the end is what helps you get any job. Google won't look at you if you send your resume and tell them you have watched videos on youtube and know everything.

Banana Bread wrote:

I learnt about WW1 in school but not in amazing detail. That is why I'm learning all about the wars now. I was thinking of going to a college or something for it. Does anyone know any backdoor to get into a phd or at least a masters in history?

So what do you want to be when you grow up?

Can you please post a pic of that barista you were chasing? Just a quick photo of her behind the counter?

Thanks!

That's funny, because I worked at Google and Amazon as an engineer with no college degree. Self taught programmers that are actually good can and do make it in IT.

The reason I clicked in this thread is I have a general interest in WW1, but don't have a lot to add to what Coevett said. The three biggest issues for Germany were starving populace, generally demoralized troops and the USA finally "hitting its stride". All of Europe knew the could not compete with the US when it came to resources.

Had they fought on, they likely would have been in an even worse situation than the treaty of Versailles gave them.

There is a great 5 or 6 part "podcast" from Dan Carlin on this, called Blueprint for Armageddon. I highly recommend it. I say podcast, but each episode is 3 to 5 hours long. It's very insightful. You could also read the book "Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman if you want to know exactly why a single assassination caused most of the world's powers to "throw haymakers" from the start.

Oh Please wrote:

There is a great 5 or 6 part "podcast" from Dan Carlin on this, called Blueprint for Armageddon. I highly recommend it. I say podcast, but each episode is 3 to 5 hours long. It's very insightful. You could also read the book "Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman if you want to know exactly why a single assassination caused most of the world's powers to "throw haymakers" from the start.

Two excellent suggestions. Dan Carlin's podcast about WWI is GREAT. It's very long and detailed, but it really brings home how horrible that war was. "Guns of August" is the definitive WWI reference. A must read IF you are interested in WWI.

Coevett summed it up well. It really came down to whose society and economy could keep going under the pressure of the war rather than whose military could out fight the other. The arrival of the Americans was the tipping point. It wasn't their military contribution, which in fact was very small, but rather their huge economy, untouched by war, that hastened the end.

I also agree that the Treaty of Versailles was way too vindictive. Had the victors been more magnanimous then the culture that brought around the rise of fascism may not have formed. I am not sure though that continuing the war until the German forces had been crushed completely and Allied troops marched into Berlin would have changed Versailles though. I think we would have ended up with much the same treaty buy a lot more dead bodies. Interesting "what if" though.

They were the Central Powers. And, no. They did not have the resources, stability, or manpower to prevail.

Hey Banana Baby. Now that my coffee shop is closed, I have a lot of free time.

Netflix and chill?

May/June, 1918, a few thousand U.S.M.C. arrived in Europe. Marines took the level of fighting to another level. Once Marines arrived, it was not if Germany was going to surrender, but when.

Side note: A couple years back I learned that the most battlefield casualties in the Great War were caused, not by machine guns or snipers, etc., but by artillery.

It made it easier for me to understand the "shell shock" (known in a later war as "combat fatigue") of WWI combatants: Courage or cleverness really had no say; death or disfigurement was simply random, and you had to cope with the knowledge that your number could be up at any time, regardless of any anything you did (or didn't do).

Yeah, about that... wrote:

Side note: A couple years back I learned that the most battlefield casualties in the Great War were caused, not by machine guns or snipers, etc., but by artillery.

It made it easier for me to understand the "shell shock" (known in a later war as "combat fatigue") of WWI combatants: Courage or cleverness really had no say; death or disfigurement was simply random, and you had to cope with the knowledge that your number could be up at any time, regardless of any anything you did (or didn't do).

Most soldiers fighting between the Soviet Union and Germany in WW2 were also killed by artillery.

The Germans and their allies were known as the Central Powers in WW1. No they couldn't have won. They were all starving, both civilians and soldiers, and with the mass influx of US soldiers Germany had zero chance of moving any of the front lines.

Germany might’ve won a quick war if they had stuck to the original Schlieffen plan. Instead they gave into the demands of the Bavarian Prince (among others) and diverted too many troops from the main surge into western France