>"could the german empire have won WW1?"
>"yes absolutely, they were pretty close, it's totally possible"
>"could germany have won ww2?"
>"no absolutely not, it was doomed from the start, there was no hope, etc"
i know this is *probably* true, but why? why is the popular consensus so incredibly different? is it just people downplaying the odds of german victory in WW2 because of the horrible implications, or is it accurate to the situation?

>>17772045 (OP)
Because we know in retrospect that Russia was going to fold in 1917 so Germany could have won by amassing troops on the Western front while the same isn't true for WWII.

>>17772045 (OP)
I don't even think Germany had any chance at winning World War 1 either to be honest. They were basically fucked over by a single French Naval blockade. World War II was a different animal entirely because not only did Germany end up fighting a two-front war but the US was able to build air superiority completely unperturbed by German agression in Europe fucking everyone else over logistically.

>>17772045 (OP)
in 1914, 90% of russia was unchanged since the medieval period. in 1939, russia was so rapidly industrialized that germany could never have hoped to beat them alone, much less with awful allies dragging them down.
this is the difference.

>>17772056
that's pretty retarded. all it would have taken for germany to win was france to surrender. there are many ways that could have happened. even if it's not likely, it's definitely a chance. versus in WW2 where even if hitler had a genie bottle to magically destroy britain or the USSR, they still probably wouldn't have won.

The jew masters would've never let their golems rest until the German Reich was brought to heel.

>>17772065
>all it would have taken for germany to win was france to surrender.
Which wasn't going to happen. Germany's attempt to invade Paris was mostly a disaster. They had little hope against the Triple Entente

>>17772068
>let Germany invade and occupy you or you're jewish
I don't think this rhetoric is having the desired effect you want it to, anon.

>>17772071
not true, they came appreciably close multiple times even with severe setbacks and mistakes.

>>17772082
The French and Brits suffered minor setbacks at best, the superior command of the French army was able to reinforce their positions in under a month and Germany never got within 25 miles of the city

>>17772068
>Come on brave American christians, don't you want to deus vult?!

OP creates a false premise by saying "everyone" argues that Germany could have won ww1.

The Germans themselves knew they were fucked when the Schlieffen plan failed. Wilhelm was quick to sack every general involved.

Yeah Russia collapsed from the pressure of the war, but so did Austria and Germany.

>>17772080
>>let Germany invade and occupy you or you're jewish
Germany was never going to cross the Atlantic and set up shop on US soil, retard

>>17772045 (OP)
Germany during WW1 wasn't a inherently failed state. They also had a actual chance of winning the naval war, though not a big one.

>>17772045 (OP)
Because its two complete different situation you poltranny
Germany beat russia in WW1 and was focused on France/UK
It was possible
However in WW2, it was impossible to beat USRR/UK/US while alone

>>17772133
Do you think that all the lies you tell won't come back to twist your tongue into a crude shape incapable of producing intelligible sound? I guess it's not a problem for neoNazis who don't believe in God.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Station_Kurt

>>17772045 (OP)
The reverse is true. Germany easily could have won WW2 without American involvement, whereas they were probably going to lose WW1 regardless of American involvement. But both times the outcome became determined upon America's entrance.

>>17772218
Germany never had a chance during world war 2 even without German involvement. They were in consistently worse shape than the USSR and the British Empire alone would have rolled over them before long.

>>17772220
The Red Army suffered 30 million casualties even with America aggressively backing them. They just suck at war

>>17772220
*Even without USA involvement.

>>17772045 (OP)
>why is the popular consensus
I've never heard of this before. There's only been one person to my knowledge that thought WW1 Germany could win while it's almost taken for granted that they nearly won WW2.

>>17772226
They mostly suffered those because the Nazis were gunning down unnamed civilians like it was going out of style. It's very easy to inflate your kill death ratio when you massacre the occasional village of random people only armed with a pitchfork.

Nazi Germany was consistently suffering from teh exact same issues as the USSR but far, FAR worse. The war was effectively over after Stalingrad as the entire Nazi regime, no longer able to obtain new sources of plunder, started to collapse in on itself. The most important job of the USA in all of this was largely just opening new fronts and giving new weapons. Both were important, to be sure. But the former would have largely been handled by the British (Who were plotting to invade Italy) and the latter was in no way necessary for them to win. The USSR outproduced Germany, especially as most equipment not just stolen from the Czechs generally proved to be unreliable trash due to being made in a inherently failed state. So, eventually, they would have won and without USA involvement this would have most likely involved them occupying all of continental Europe. Largely winning the cold war right off the bat as all of Europe is turned into Communist puppet states.

>>17772258
No, the 30 million number is just the casualties for soldiers

>>17772263
Most of these were either wounded or sick. Regardless, manpower was something the USSR generally had in abundance. Germany did not. Which was pretty much the case for everything.

>>17772269
>many of these casualties were merely wounded
yes... that's what casualties means. picrel very clearly says 8 million combat deaths, 7 million disease deaths, and 14 million wounded.
>well they had a lot of manpower
the USSR has 170 million in 1939, 30/170 = 17%, 17% of of your population becoming casualties is a big deal even and especially because of the size of their population.

>>17772045 (OP)
Its not complicated at all, I dont feel like skimming the 19 posts but someone has probably already said this
In 1917 the Russian Empire collapsed and the Eastern Front for Germany essentially ceased to exist (they left a skeleton crew to defend the new territories, it was literally 7 divisions, most if not all reserves)
If the United States hadnt entered the war in late 1917/early 1918 the 30+ divisions of battle hardened veterans shifting to the Western trenches would have allowed OHL to curb stomp the French and Brits, who were completely spent
The popular narrative, which is almost always wrong, is that the US jumped in at the very end and claimed victory without doing anything, it is agreed by almost all historians of this era of European history that the Germans would have broken through to Paris and pushed the Brits to the Channel ports without American reinforcements
In WWII the Russian state, this time the USSR, was on the ropes for a time, but then rallied and pushed the Germans back to Berlin

>>17772065
>I would have merely got France to surrender.

>>17772600
>The popular narrative, which is almost always wrong, is that the US jumped in at the very end and claimed victory without doing anything, it is agreed by almost all historians of this era of European history that the Germans would have broken through to Paris and pushed the Brits to the Channel ports without American reinforcements
elaborate on this? i'm not saying you're wrong, but i mean, i was literally taught in american high school that the americans contributed nothing of significance

>>17772210
>a tent with a radio in on the very northern tip of Canada it is the same as invading and occupying the United States

>>17772589
>17% of of your population becoming casualties is a big deal even and especially because of the size of their population
This didn't stop Rome and it sure as shit wasn't gonna stop the Russians

>>17772058
Russia was industrialising so rapidly that the Great Britain was starting secret negotiations to ally with Germany, ultimately broken by the violation of Belgian neutrality.
Also despite the massive advancement in fertilizers during the interwar era and mechanisation programmes being a staple of USSRs agricultural policy the harvests of 1913 remained an unachievable high throughout its existence. If that's what medieval peasants can do it doesn't bode well for the scientific planning types.

>>17772655
Why does Russia always compare itself to Rome? Rome was a competent Western empire unlike Moscow and whatever it's trying to do

>>17772133
You're wrong, just look at the documentary The Man in the High Castle. Germany was absolutely gonna conquer the US.

>>17772055
>so Germany could have won by amassing troops on the Western front while the same isn't true for WWII.
By then, it was spring 1918.
Austria was doing poorly and the Ottoman Empire was in the process of giving up as well.

The Germans could have taken Paris had the dispirited French failed to hold the line, but then? What prevents an Anglo-French-American counterattack?
Hell, even Portugal and Italy would have sent far more troops than they did if Paris itself had been in danger (or in urgent need of being reconquered as soon as possible)

And if Paris does fall, the frontline gets broader, which favours larger armies, and the supply lines become shorter for the Entente and longer for the Germans.

Oh, did I mention only the Entente had tanks and Eastern Europe was still a mess that needed to be policed with a large amount of soldiers, especially since the Germans did not really trust Bolsheviks?

>>17773703
>documentary
>historical fiction

>>17773786
He's being cheeky

>>17772630
https://time.com/5406235/everything-you-know-about-how-world-war-i-ended-is-wrong/

I would give this excerpt from Wawro's Sons of Freedom a read, I haven't read the book

In the article there are some things that I would quibble with, he breezily mentions that there was a "mutiny" in the French army in 1917 and that they "refused to attack" these are gross oversimplifications of what was going on the French portion of the line in 1917, firstly, two of the French armies had almost no unrest, however two others, I think it was the second and fourth or third, there was quite a bit of trouble and it ended with over 200 men being sentenced to death after court martial, however most of those were stayed

The concept of the "mutinies" is much more complex and I cant fit it into this post, the better term for what happened is they were strikes, portions of two French armies on the front in 1917 basically went on strike, there was some violence but it was very rare, they wanted better conditions at the front, more leave, better equipment, all reasonable requests given the circumstances and after the strikes and the court martials GQG did actually make things better for the front line French soldier

But back to your larger question, what did the Americans do that was so special, these were projections in 1917 but reasonable people on both sides of the Atlantic estimated that the Americans could potentially put 4 million fighting men in Western Europe in the space of less than 2 years
The US was already essentially feeding both England and France, even before they entered the war, by June 1918 the Americans were putting 250,000 men into the field every 30 days, at that point the numerical and industrial advantage tipped completely into the allies favor, it wasnt close either, if the war had dragged on for another couple of years and the full might of US industrial capacity would have been realized, the AEF would have outnumbered the Imperial German army by itself

>>17772630
I highly recommend John Keegan's The First World War
Highly detailed military history of that conflict, considered by some to be the best single volume history of the 14-18 war

Pop history is usually trash and people look at the death tolls of France and the UK, combined dead in 14-18 almost 3 million and go "oh well they won the war" versus the Americans 300,000, without looking into how that came to be

Also what people fail to realize about the conflict, specifically in 1918 was, because of the initial German advance, they got within 50 miles of Paris, twice, once in 14 and again in 18, when they fell back and trench warfare started, they got to choose the best ground for defense, they generally always had the high ground over the most crucial sectors, Somme, Ypres, Meuse, Vimy ridge is a great example of this, which meant that even if the French and Brits had stemmed their losses in 15, 16 and 17 by not launching all of those asinine, meat grinder offensives that were destined from the start to fail, they probably never would have been able to break through the German lines anyway, because again, the Germans had more industrial capacity and men under arms than the French and Brits (ANZAC, Indians etc) combined.

Its always easy to criticize looking back of course, but the initial allied plan was insane, basically the French and the Brits were counting on the Russians, who had just been defeated soundly by the Japanese a decade earlier, to not just battle to a draw, but defeat the Imperial German army and drive on Berlin, forcing the Germans to essentially evacuate the trenches and retreat to protect their rear

The plan, from the start, should have been to play defense and wait for the Americans, the French got it in their heads that they could force the Germans back across the Rhine and they paid dearly for it, 1,700,000 French dead in four years of fighting, virtually none of those deaths were civilians, all front line soldiers