3 ms·

Well, Germany one, initially one front each per world war. All it took for the stalemate in the West to settle in was the British being allied with the French,

by hef19898 3y ago

Well, Germany one, initially one front each per world war. All it took for the stalemate in the West to settle in was the British being allied with the French, and then Germany couldn't realistically win in the West anymore. But yeah, had the Germans played it smarter, things could have ended differently in 1914. Thing is, they didn't. Also, the US played a much smaller role in WW1 than people think, Germany lost too early for the USmilitary and numbers to make much of a difference. Most, almost all, of the fighting by the Entente in West was done by the French and British.

panick21_ 3y ago
> then Germany couldn't realistically win in the West anymore. They don't need to win in the West. That's my point. Germany has no interest in the West. The only thing they care about is stopping the French from passing over the border. > Thing is, they didn't. My point was, the analysis that 'Germany couldn't win a 2 Front war' is wrong. Its central to German conception of strategy in that period and it was incorrect. The overestimated both France and Russia in terms of their abilities. > US played a much smaller role in WW1 than people think Actually is played a much bigger role. Read Adam Tooze book 'The Deluge'. The US economy was essentially fully mobilized by Britain with the help of JP Morgan. And once they joined they provided even more. That's why after WW1 the US was basically a financial super-power. And the military reserves were very important, and influenced allied strategy.
- hef19898 3y ago
  There is some truth to it. In WW1, they had a lot to loose in the West and little to win. They tried anyway (maybe because to preempt any invasion from France, no idea...). In WW2, if it wasn't for ideological reason, they had little to win in the East. I forgot who said it, but there truths to it: The Germans are tactically brilliant, operationally lacking and strategically bankcrupt. I am German, working in international environments, and I see parallels in industry.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > maybe because They simply believed they couldn't win a 2 Front war, they misunderstood their own strength. But this cost them because it made sure that Britain would be fully on the side of France. > The Germans are tactically brilliant, operationally lacking and strategically bankcrupt It always depends on the leadership. But yes in WW1/WW2 it was mostly true. Operationally lacking is sometimes true, they also pulled of some of the best operations ever.

panick21_ 3y ago

> then Germany couldn't realistically win in the West anymore. They don't need to win in the West. That's my point. Germany has no interest in the West. The only thing they care about is stopping the French from passing over the border. > Thing is, they didn't. My point was, the analysis that 'Germany couldn't win a 2 Front war' is wrong. Its central to German conception of strategy in that period and it was incorrect. The overestimated both France and Russia in terms of their abilities. > US played a much smaller role in WW1 than people think Actually is played a much bigger role. Read Adam Tooze book 'The Deluge'. The US economy was essentially fully mobilized by Britain with the help of JP Morgan. And once they joined they provided even more. That's why after WW1 the US was basically a financial super-power. And the military reserves were very important, and influenced allied strategy.

hef19898 3y ago
There is some truth to it. In WW1, they had a lot to loose in the West and little to win. They tried anyway (maybe because to preempt any invasion from France, no idea...). In WW2, if it wasn't for ideological reason, they had little to win in the East. I forgot who said it, but there truths to it: The Germans are tactically brilliant, operationally lacking and strategically bankcrupt. I am German, working in international environments, and I see parallels in industry.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > maybe because They simply believed they couldn't win a 2 Front war, they misunderstood their own strength. But this cost them because it made sure that Britain would be fully on the side of France. > The Germans are tactically brilliant, operationally lacking and strategically bankcrupt It always depends on the leadership. But yes in WW1/WW2 it was mostly true. Operationally lacking is sometimes true, they also pulled of some of the best operations ever.