Why did Germany lose WWI

literally because of the jews
>being this american
WWI isn't the one with hitler asshole

I really do love American posting

Attached: 3qsrmtix96t01.png (1000x1000, 460K)

Germans were always pretty lousy at picking allies.

western allies still numerically outnumbered germans in ww2, but the german tactics actually worked there as compared to ww1. The german generals wanted to take Paris in a breezy spring/summer campaign in 1914 and be home for a victory parade in fall. didn't work

You fucking mutt

Attached: 2l0ahe.jpg (415x470, 39K)

They still left a substantial amount to guard and occupy it. Germany was undergoing massive unrest and economic disruption caused by Jewish agitators; for proof look no further then WW2 as that problem was taken care of then. The faction that signed the treaty wanted to make peace at any cost because all they wanted was to make Germany into a republic. There surrender was due to there no longer being a way for them to win and the entente's will to pursue no matter the cost in their men's lives.

when germany went after the USSR the length of the front increased 3x... and then russian winter with low petrol and allied air power

Byron and Hitler both realized WWI was an organized culling of the herd, Hitler was just so autistic he dedicated life to revenge and allied with the same (((people))) who orcastrated it...tbqh it’s astonishing nobody has questioned why he was released from prison after only 9 months...(((who))) do you think got him out?

As other anons have commented it is because of the manpower disparity created by years of bloody conflict and the US entering the war and the blockade choking the life out of them.

Holy fuck have none of you newfags never read Mein Kampf? Germany collapsed FROM WITHIN due to a jew-led bolshevik rebellion that took place right when Germany was about to win. That’s why Hitler hated jews so much. They’ll fucking let anyone into pol these days.

Attached: ww2zerg.jpg (680x642, 91K)

Remember that time a bunch of British convicts and gas huffing Abos kicked the shit out of the “Glorious” Ottoman Empire so they could give Jerusalem to the Jews? Top kek WWI was hilarious

Dear golly dammit

Attached: 98C7C97B-B30E-44AC-853D-143589383F58.jpg (220x293, 14K)

I've actually researched quite a lot into this topic at university (did 2 modules and a 12,000 dissertation).

The primary reason Germany lost WW1 was, honest and truthfully, the complete collapse of their home front in tandem with the British Army's (note, not the American or French) development of an effective, non-costly modern combined arms doctrine.

A wider question to ask would be why did the Axis lose WW1 to which I'd say the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire on the Italian/Russian Front and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the Arabian theatre put ever-growing pressures on the German Empire to pick up the pieces, resulting ultimately in the collapse of the German home-front.

I can go into more detail on anything you want OP, just ask, I'll be up for a while.

here you go

Attached: mutt education.png (838x436, 105K)

What are the details on the combined arms doctrine? Is that just the implementation of tanks?

I thought that towards the end of WWII on the western front the western allies and the Germans were roughly equal in numbers but the Germans were getting fucked up by Allied air domination + all Germany had at that point were teenagers, old men, and guys not really fit for the army + they didn't really have anything other than infantry at that point whearas the allies had tanks, mechanized, mobilized, shit tons of artillery basically everything you could want

Also most of the German army was still trying to hold the Russians back
Do you know how much of the German army was out east even after the treaty? I read that after the armistice with the western allies that the German army was pulling out so it makes sense that they would be there then

Yeah I read that all of Germany's allies collapsed before Germany finally did, and the Allies were invading all their allies too so Germany tried to bail them out

It just baffles me that even after beating Russia they still lost, in WWII if Russia went down it was GG NO RE

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 157K)

They had no objectives in the west. They used up their best troops in the first waves blah blah

> From what I'm reading Germany wasn't beaten militarily in the same way they were in WWII

This is a common misconception and I can understand the ignorance but it is just not true in any serious way.

Tbf they came within, what, 15 km? It’s a shame that Von Molke was a spineless fuck and didn’t listen to intelligence reports before the Marne

The German army in 1914 was bigger than the German army in 1939.

Juno was a sandy hill guarded by starving Soviet POW’s and Hitler youth...thanks for Kandahar, faggots

Just last year there was renewed discussion in Germany about wether WW1 was actually lost militarily or from within. It was even on public broadcasting. So thats not a closed subject by any means.

Jews were surprised by that shit working out, too. I think the jews pryor to the 20th century were more banking on Austria-Hungary, the archenemy of Ottoman, to push their shit in and giving the jews a slice of Palestine. That's why the jewish population in Vienna and their favorability to Austria was always enormous.
Plan B for the jews would probably be the russian empire, where they too had a huge presence, as they figured maybe the Russians want to take Constantinople back one day and thus finishing off the Turks and occupation of Palestine.....
That it was the brits was not really on their radar for a long time. oh well

basically Germany played their Lenin hand and got the Russians to surrender. Unfortunately this revolutionary fire soon spread to their own homeland. Plus the British blockade, French troops, and A-H being mindboggingly retarded since 1914 sent them packing. It’s amazing they did as well as they did for four fucking years

Attached: ww1.jpg (1920x1080, 489K)

This.

The Weimar Revolution you ignoramus.

Why does Germany always have completely fucking useless allies?

I mean there was no way the German army could launch any fresh offensives after the spring offensives of 1918, right? They would’ve defended the fatherland to the last but they slowly would’ve been worn down by the allies once A-H capitulated.

Greatest mistake of Germany foreign policy was losing your grasp on Russia once Wilhelm took over

*fresh us troops

Thus.

>Plan B for the jews would probably be the russian empire, where they too had a huge presence, as they figured maybe the Russians want to take Constantinople back one day and thus finishing off the Turks and occupation of Palestine.....
fake and gay unless you mean before the 19th century, russia was anti-jew

Are you fucking retarded? GERMANY LED LENIN FROM SWITZERLAND TO RUSSIA. This was always a possibility. They just hoped to finish the western campaign before shit at home hit the fan

WW1. Learn comprehension faggot.

1918 has to be one of the most interesting years in military history. Few know, but the Germans could have won easily. Just bad strategy. Instead of one sustained offensive in the West aimed at destroying the British forces (as they did in 1940 in France, cutting off the British from the French), they squandered their resources on four separate offensives, never achieving their objectives in any.

Of course, what the Germans did accomplish in 1918 was remarkable, regardless, because they quickly broke the static, trench warfare of the previous three years. They gained far more territory, took more prisoners in the Spring of 1918 than the French and British did w/ every advantage in manpower and firepower from 1915 to 1917.

>Why did Germany lose WWI
Jews, yes it was the kike from within. lrn2history.

Explain. You mean to tell me Germany won WW1 and because of jewish subversion they lost territory?

I think the better question is:

Would the British have remained neutral if Germany didn’t violate Belgian neutrality in 1914?

Firstly, Germany was pretty much facing the entire world and their allies were two weak empires in shambles and a balkan country. If they'd been an older country they would've had more allies but the way things happened it's possible to assume they never even had a fighting chance.

Some historians will argue that the creation of a powerful navy was what caused their relation with the British Empire to sour. This isn't that farfetched either. There's also the Schlieffen plan, an old and ineffective plan created 20 years before it could be implemented. The Moltke plan of a defensive western front was probably more feasible.

But Germany did get close: before the battle of the Marne they were about to break the French, they dealt with the Russians spectacularly and they were having the upper hand before Kaiserschlacht had happened, an unfocused offensive that drained the Germans in one sweeping move. Research that more if you want info on why they lost tactically.

kill yourself mutt.

That was just an excuse. They were never going to just let the French get stomped, they wanted to maintain the balance of power in Europe.

Probably
>piss small army
>took Belgians and French begging to get Britain to hold their word
I wonder what the world would look like today if Asquith wasn't a capitulating ballsack

> What are the details on the combined arms doctrine? Is that just the implementation of tanks?

The level of development of a combined arms doctrine in the British Army went considerably further than tanks and was frankly in another era.

The Infantry totally changed their equipment and tactics.

Primarily on the equipment side were the implementing weapons such as rifles with scopes (snipers), masses of new grenades (rifle grenades), mobile motors. While the Germans were capable of matching in the snipers (they had, for a long time, the advantage in these) and grenades, they were not as capable in matching the motors nor were the ammunition to supply any potential motors. The introduction of machine guns (Vickers for the British) was also a major point, but the Germans again started the war with vastly more than the British so it's moot when trying to understand the question at hand.

Other weapons such as tunnelling to place dynamite, flamethrowers, body armour etc all occurred, but they were all just oddities and nothing serious.

The primary advancements came in the form of artillery. The British repeatedly matched any German attempts to gain the upper-hand in shell types (explosive, gas etc) and developed the 'Creeping Barrage' in combination with the 'Bite and Hold' tactics.

The combination of this 'Creeping Barrage' and 'Bite and Hold' just became unbearable for the Germans to cope with. The land would be systematically shelled with high explosive artillery shots that slowly crept up to the German lines forcing German soldiers to either retreat or hide underground. While this happened, British infantry would follow the barrage just behind and seize any trench once the shelling stopped and before the Germans could effectively re-arm the defences.

This would be done in tiny segments to prevent the Germans from launching a counter attack, but just enough to make their defences awkward.

Jews would have tolerated Russia being anti jew, as long as Russia would have destroyed the Turks and broke it apart, which the Russians aimed for at one point. Jews always take for granted that everyone is fundamentally anti jew (perk of being latently schitzophrenic paranoid on a cultural level), but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't use them as a tool or make swindling contracts with them, or even support them if it benefits

The germans had no chance of making a breakthrough, they had eat all their horses in 1917 and didnt have the flexibility of speed and unlike against the Russians, the allies could always call on massive amounts of firepower.

The germans were always going to lose a european war due to the effects of attrition

Attached: 800px-BL_9.2_inch_Railway_Gun_Maricourt_September_1916.jpg (800x483, 69K)

Obviously not. Just look at the US. The Anglos were itching for any angle to get into the war.

It's hard to continue fighting when the boys at home are being taught faggot shit by 'labour union activists' in their urban centres.

>what was killing Germany was the two front war
Just because they weren't fighting two fronts by the end, doesn't change the fact that they had been from more or less the start.
Even then, Germany always maintained an unusually high occupation force in its captured territory for some reason. It likely greatly weakened the effectiveness of the Kaiserschlacht.
The biggest killer of all is the blockade.

ONE NOTHING WRONG WITH ME

think about it this way:
germany was winning the war on military terms.
for an army to run you need equipment, recruits and a secure supply route.
germany had an unstable government as the kaiser was seen as a puppet(which he was) of the military. the kaiser was incompetent and the military did a pretty good job but the people were unhappy. add to that starvation

now imagine the jews (literally the richest race in the world) start financing a revolution, using the bad conditions as kindling.
if you have a revolution supplies aren't produced and they aren't sent to the front, if you don't have a stable government you can't establish a proper chain of command and set objectives.
this leads to losing the war

seems legit, but wouldn't the russians end up shoahing israel if they won, industrialized and remained antisemitic or possibly fascist?

They were afraid if they brought over the eastern front soldiers en masse they'd bring over all the commie shit and the front would collapse. Not joking, that was their reason.

Great post^

Young men not in battle moved to urban centres during that war in order to find work. 14 year olds absent father figures turn into 18 year olds who won't fight.

>Some historians will argue that the creation of a powerful navy was what caused their relation with the British Empire to sour.

It's hard to truly argue that the High Seas Fleet was anything vaguely like a legitimate threat to the Royal Navy as Germany neither had the logistical force necessary nor the sheer number of ships required to do anything outside of the North Sea.

i don t know. but i m sure jews were happy when WW1 started

That map makes no sense - Russia did not had Romania for them to give. The front was on the red line being stabilized in summer 1917.

For the morons out there, Romania stopped Central Powers in 1917. We lost +300k men and half of the territory of those days, but we stopped them.

Fucking Russians sued for peace with them and we had to sign for an armistice too. They also "forgot" to return our gold, 120 tonnes, to this day. I bet History Channel did not made a documentary about that.

fuck meme flags too

Continue.

The introduction of tanks was a relatively unimportant feature as all it did was further enhance the already winning strategy laid down by the artillery. Even by the last offensive, called the '100 Days Offensive', tanks still regularly, on mass, broke down and not as a result of enemy fire but just because they were dodgy pieces of hardware at the time.

That's not to say they weren't valuable ofc. Tanks became very important tools to clear the masses of barbed wire that had been laid by the German defenders. This task had previously been given to the artillery with the high-explosive shells, but they were not a guaranteed clearer (often times they did not clear the wires at all), so the introduction of the tank really helped the infantry advance as they no longer had to cut through fuckloads of wire, while being fired on. Now the infantry could just advance behind the tanks, sometimes keeping close to be protected from enemy fire, sometimes far away if the tank was being shelled. It varied a bit but you get the gist, it helped the infantry advance and break through more easily in places that were heavily fortified.

Aircraft were much the same as tanks in that their role was limited to essentially working with artillery for spotting enemy positions and earthworks. Occasionally, aircraft would fly down enemy trenches and strafe/harass the soldiers below, but it was uncommon and not effective. The best use for them was to strap cameras to them and take pictures so the artillery knew what they were aiming at/for.

It's an open question. The first offensive, Michael, broke the British 5th Army and left a huge gap in the line as the British retreated. Instead of planning on for four offensives, had the Germans planned for just this one-gotten their logistics and troops in order to follow through an initial opening, the allies would have been in trouble.

Remember, the British and French troops were in no mood for fighting by 1918. If they German had properly prepared for a concerted attack w/ ALL their forces, I think it's just as likely the British and/or French would have sought an armistice as not.

>Russia did not had Romania for them to give
this is a lie, the romanian government was a rump for most of the war and the territory was administered by russia and then austria hungary once russia lost
>but we stopped them.
sure, and you only had moldova left

Post a link to your work on this subject. I'd be interested to read it.

>wouldn't the russians end up shoahing israel if they won, industrialized and remained antisemitic or possibly fascist?
yeah, now you start to think like a jew on this and I'm sure the jews knew they would have to immediately switch and betray on the russians after a possible Ottoman defeat. With Austria-Hungary they could have had a little more time but need to do the same. On the good old british empire they did the same eventually, did they not? And the americans will also one day soon experience this

>Remember, the British troops were in no mood for fighting

German losses in Operation Michael were 250,000 men, many of them irreplaceable élite troops.

Aircraft completely changed the course of the war. Molke refuses to listen to aerial recon reports of a new 6th army being formed outside of Paris on the eve of the battle of the Marne. Had he, he could’ve corralled 2nd and 3rd armies to tighten their formations and prepare for the attack

The war could’ve been over in September 1914

Who says the French would have given up after the fall of Paris? This was not WW2, they were ready to fight.

The presence of American troops in Europe pretty much forced Germany to sign whatever Britain and France put in front of them. They weren't actually represented in the talks at Versailles

they wouldn't have had enough time to turn on the austro-hungarians before they collapsed on their own, but I think they would have liked to keep britain as their golem. like they keep america now. but since everything the jew touches rots away I suppose your right.

> It just baffles me that even after beating Russia they still lost, in WWII if Russia went down it was GG NO RE

Well the major problem was that it wasn't a simple situation. There was still massive amounts of fighting going on in the Eastern Theatre even as the official armistice between Germany and Russia was signed.

The White, Red and Green armies of the Russian Empire were still engaging in a massive civil-war within European Imperial-Russia to which Allied forces were involved, be it minimally. This was in addition to nationalist forces emerging from Poland, Ukraine and the Caucasus that threatened to constantly spill over and attack the German Empire's newly acquired lands.

What problems did that make? Well it meant that the German army had to continue to station masses of men (I believe the figure is some 1 million) in the Eastern Theatre even though hostilities had been 'officially' ended. The German government was trying desperately to extract food resources from Ukraine in order to stop the literal starvation happening on the streets of Vienna and Berlin which meant even more soliders were necessary to help administer the procurement of said food resources and help ensure it was delivered to the Axis homelands.

It was a total clusterfuck and not as simple as it seems. The only sizable difference that ending the Russian theatre actually brought the Axis was the moving of heavy artillery pieces (some 200 out of the 450-odd guns in the German Army) along with whatever shells remained to fire from them. The soldiers, the things that Germany really needed back on the Western Front in addition to those heavy guns? Many simply had to stay in Eastern Europe.

Sorry to say, but I share a flag with that moron.

Anyway...
Hitler was right when he said that the Jews subverted from within, and caused a victory to be turned into a failure.

The eastern front was resolved. Not one US, UK, French soldier was on German territory when Germany capitulated.

For the real, unvarnished truth, look up the 1 hour Benjamin Freedman video on Youtube. There is no refuting someone that was a part of the conspiracy of Juden.

Attached: 1539831694629.png (916x513, 909K)

You didn't need the elite storm troopers after the initial breakthrough. You needed movement, getting into the open country, getting to the coast and isolating the British and Belgian forces.

An argument can be made that the Germans destruction and scorched earth strategy when they retreated to the Hindenburg line in 1917 came back to haunt them a year later. The roads and infrastructure they could have used in 1918 to press on their offensive were no longer there.

The idea was the smash the French armies against the border fortresses. It probably would’ve been like 1870-1871 - Francoteurs, but the true fighting in the west would’ve been finished. No Italy joining the war etc. snowball effect.

The British were preparing to fall back to the channel to return home before they wedd convinced to stand and fight at the Marne.

It sounds like your saying that just because the two front situation ended it didnt undo the damage that it had caused over almost 4 years

Can anyone answer post related Also thoughts on pic rel?
I think its only partially right, I think what Germany wanted IRL was basically Kaiserreich from HOI4

Attached: WWI propaganda.jpg (3420x2316, 871K)

Benjamin fredman was part of the British parliament right?

Jews always harbor communist revolutions in nations be warned its coming to America.

>It just baffles me that even after beating Russia they still lost, in WWII if Russia went down it was GG NO RE

That's because you simply don't understand that WWI and WWII were very different conflicts with different states

Some fine rifles made in that era by almost all of the major powers.

Typos gg am drunk

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Well shit that basically explains everything then
Why is this like never talked about? Also did the German army actually engage in any combat out east after the armistice?

>the territory was administered by russia and then austria hungary once russia lost
what? no
>you only had moldova left
yes. but at least we fought, not ran away like pussies.

>what? no
the only military in the country defending it was the russian and they were de facto in control, it was a rump government
>yes. but at least we fought, not ran away like pussies.
of a rump state

oop looks like I have my answer for the pic

Attached: sauceonUSpropaganda.png (2687x237, 1.1M)

Austria-Hungary was a mishmash empire consisting of some stupid number of languages and people, many of which the Austrians had been oppressing for literally decades. It wasn't a shocker when it turned out they could unify for shit and their army lacked total cohesion throughout the war. This is leaving aside how abysmal the production of artillery shells, boots, clothing etc was by the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Although their failings nearly pale in comparison to the Ottoman's. They were led be complete, genuine low IQ fuckwits who had no idea what they were doing in 9/10 situations.

Take Enver Pasha for example, he literally led 120,000 (some reports put it at 150,000) Ottoman soldiers into the Caucasus's over the 1914-1915 winter with the intention of destroying all Russian forces there and creating some massive push through the Caucasus's. He didn't take into account any proper logistics of the situation, led him men into blizzards and promptly saw his 120,000 men defeated with the Germans who were with him reporting up to 90,000 dead. Literally, 30,000 were found frozen to death by the Russians. It was incompetent to such a high degree that it had likely never even been seen before then.

Conclusion? Germany had shit allies to choose from, chose the only ones they could.

The german 8th army was emplyed by the allies to protect the baltic states from the bolsheviks

I meant after the armistice with Russia
Also capped

Attached: GermanylostWWIexplanation.png (1866x258, 45K)

No one said Russians didn't had a big role but to say there wasn't a Romanian army...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mărășești

empires like russia and austria-hungary are always two steps aways from collapse, actually a perfect golem to be used and destroyed, although you need vast amounts of money still.
A british world empire would have definitely made the jews uneasy as hell too. You're still dealing with germanic-nordic-celts and they cause problems if too powerful. You're always just one next red pilled king/queen away from getting shoad.
An open republic, powerful but far away, like the US is much preferable. Perfect shabbos police man, but will still get dumped on, we can even see the beginning stages right before our eyes. I call it now, they'll do it by somehow bringing down the dollar

>hitler supreme commander in WW1

Attached: 2IQ.gif (463x698, 204K)

I'm afraid it's not uploaded anywhere online, comes in I think 5 difference papers (4000 words x 5 + the 12,000 dissertation on British Combined Arms) all of which are on my old laptop that is currently under my bed :/

If it's any consolation, I'm not a writer who's terribly enjoyable to read when I have to write it in a certain way to attain X grades.

If by after the armistice you are referring to Brest Litovsk treaty then yes but it was only minor skirmishes with partisan nationalist forces or marauding armies from the Russian Civil War. It was nothing too serious from what we can tell given the German Army deemed it was OK to move their heavy-guns to the Western Front.

Russia literally fell apart at the beginning of the war. There wasn’t the same amount of men and material on the German side as in WWII. The Germans focused on a staunch defense because of the brutal trench warfare on the western front and basically stalled the western powers until armistice. The Germans had good fortifications but no plan to take allied positions and with the advent of the tank and aggressive allied offensives it was a matter of time until their back was broken. Then they sued for peace and ended up losing the negotiable position.