How could Germany have won World War 1 (WWI)?
545158
If they had used the tactics they used in WW2.  Namely faster more mobile mechanized warfare (blitzkrieg) instead of getting bogged down in trench warfare and attrition.\n\nAirplanes and tanks were being developed and refined.  The tools and technology were there, they just hadn't learned how to use them effectively yet.\n\nThe Allies were the first to figure out that tanks could be used to pass over the trenches and that air support meant more than just reconnaisance.\n\nBy giving the Americans time to mobilize and enter the war, the Germans sealed their fate.  This is not to say that the Americans alone defeated the Germans but they did tip the scale in favor of the Allies and I'm grateful they did.
411201
which world war? there was two. if it was world war I then ok; world war 1 started on 1914, ended in 1918. June 28, 1914, reason why? Archduke Franz Ferdinand (of Austria) was assassinated by a team of \nSerbian nationalists while he was in Sarajevo to assert\nAustrian imperial authority over Bosnia, a Slavic territory.\n\nThis assassination triggered the cascade of events that quickly produced war world 1, which were fought by; 2 sides \n\nThe Allied Powers\n-\n led by the United Kingdom, France and until 1917 Russia , and, after 1917, the United States entered war.\n\nthe Central Powers (this side lost) \n-\nled by the German Empire,Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (aka turkey dinasty.) \nThis is how it went;\nArchduke Franz Ferdinand was assesinated by a group of serbian nationalist while trying to assert austrias control of bosnia.\nAustria extremely mad about this, backed by Berlin, attacked Serbia on July 29 in retaliation, and Germany (a big austrian backer at that time, which secretly wanted a bigger presence in europe) invaded Belgium on August 3. Thus, the war commenced; also Germany and Austria-Hungary are seen as the initial aggressors, and thus, responsible for the outbreak of war world 1. Germany was assigned the guilt although, it was humiliated in 1920 by The War Guilt clause, or Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles/Treaty of Trianon, (proclaimed as the initial AGGRESORS) and required to pay war reparations and all future costs, such as pensions for all the Allied veterans. these payments were stopped however by hitler in 1933, the same year he became chancellor (not fuhrer yet). this war ended in 1918 shortly after the U.S joined-in, in 1917, and the Allied powers defeated the central.\n-\nnow world war II;\ntook place between 1939 and 1945. it IS to this day the biggest, largest and deadliest war ever seen.\nJapan had been fighting china for many years, but the "world" war is said to have begun on September 1, 1939 when as you know Germany with the soviet union (through a secret war pact before the war.) invaded Poland.  two days later france and britain declared war on germany. The "allies" (Poland, British Commonwealth, France) left battles strictly in poland untill May, 1940 Germany invaded Western Europe, taking on the British and French militaries. Six weeks later, france surrendered to germa. \n3months later, Germ, Italy,& Jap signed a mutual defense agreement, Tripartite Pact, and were known as the Axis Powers. soviet union got into the war, when germany double-crossed them and invaded soviet land. forcing unwillingly the soviets to the allied camp. In December 1941, Japan attacked the United States (pearl harbor) bringing it too into the war on the Allied side. japan was on axis powers side (nazi side) after these events china instantly joined the allied side, as most of the rest of the world after  1940\nin 1942 Britain, USA, USSR, were fighting Germany and Italy; and all allies (except USSR) were fighting Japan. From then through August 1945, battles raged across all of Europe, in the North Atlantic Ocean, across North Africa, throughout Southeast Asia, throughout China, across the Pacific Ocean and, by air, in Japan.\nItaly surrendered in September 1943, Germany in May 1945. The surrender of Japan marked the end of the war, on September 2, 1945.\nHitler killed himself, along with his wife Eva braun (who he married few days before) and his 2 dogs on April 30, 1945 in a underground bunker there bodies were incinerated by servants by request; because of hitlers fear that what happend to mussolini (hanged by his toes) they would also do to his corpse.\nnote an estimated 60 million people died in this war estimates vary; About 64% of all casualties were civilians.\n3 million of them were polish jews, and 2 million polish "gentiles"
861268
After WWI, Germany was feeling very low. They needed a leader to raise their spirits, their nation's pride. Then, somehow, an Austrian born got the power (of course not with democratic way, but seeming legal) and re-established the pride in the minds of the masses.
151783
This sounds like a homework question.   But maybe this will help.\n\nEnding the War\n\nExpectations were simply too high on all sides because of the intense, brutal years of war which preceded the peace conference. WWI as the World’s first “total war” in which all segments of society, military and civilian, were deeply affected by the war\n\nAllies (Britain and France especially) wanted revenge and hoped to punish/weaken Germany and its allies substantially. Germany thought it would be treated as a equal power at the negotiations.\n\n\nVersailles Peace Treaty-1919\n\nWilson’s “14 Points” are almost completely rejected\n\nTerritory: Germany is forced to surrender roughly 15% of its pre-war state to the allies or new countries like Poland; many important mining and industrial areas put under Allied occupation\n\nMilitary: Few limits on victor powers; Germany forced to a 100,000 man army, few modern weapons, and almost no navy\n\nFinancial: In effect, forced Germany to hand the Allies a blank check; repayment of war penalties was not fixed at the conference and Germany was left to repay an incredibly large sum over years. \n\nA very bad treaty: satisfies almost no one, including the victors, and deeply angers Germany and leaves a strong sense of resentment about the lost war.
106566
I’m getting too old, I can’t believe anyone would need to ask such a question.\nWorld War I, 1914–18, also known as the Great War, conflict, chiefly in Europe, among most of the great Western powers. It was the largest war the world had yet seen.Causes \nWorld War I was immediately precipitated by the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by a Serbian nationalist in 1914. There were, however, many factors that had led toward war. Prominent causes were the imperialistic, territorial, and economic rivalries that had been intensifying from the late 19th cent., particularly among Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Austria-Hungary.\nOf equal importance was the rampant spirit of nationalism, especially unsettling in the empire of Austria-Hungary and perhaps also in France. Nationalism had brought the unification of Germany by blood and iron, and France, deprived of Alsace and Lorraine by the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, had been left with its own nationalistic cult seeking revenge against Germany. While French nationalists were hostile to Germany, which sought to maintain its gains by militarism and alliances, nationalism was creating violent tensions in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy; there the large Slavic national groups had grown increasingly restive, and Serbia as well as Russia fanned Slavic hopes for freedom and Pan-Slavism.\nImperialist rivalry had grown more intense with the new imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th cent. The great powers had come into conflict over spheres of influence in China and over territories in Africa, and the Eastern Question, created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire, had produced several disturbing controversies. Particularly unsettling was the policy of Germany. It embarked late but aggressively on colonial expansion under Emperor William II, came into conflict with France over Morocco, and seemed to threaten Great Britain by its rapid naval expansion.\nThese issues, imperialist and nationalist, resulted in a hardening of alliance systems in the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente and in a general armaments race. Nonetheless, a false optimism regarding peace prevailed almost until the onset of the war, an optimism stimulated by the long period during which major wars had been avoided, by the close dynastic ties and cultural intercourse in Europe, and by the advance of industrialization and economic prosperity. Many Europeans counted on the deterrent of war's destructiveness to preserve the peace.\nWar's Outbreak \nThe Austrian annexation (1908) of Bosnia and Hercegovina created an international crisis, but war was avoided. The Balkan Wars (1912–13) remained localized but increased Austria's concern for its territorial integrity, while the solidification of the Triple Alliance made Germany more yielding to the demands of Austria, now its one close ally. The assassination (June 28, 1914) of Archduke Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo set in motion the diplomatic maneuvers that ended in war.\nThe Austrian military party, headed by Count Berchtold, won over the government to a punitive policy toward Serbia. On July 23, Serbia was given a nearly unacceptable ultimatum. With Russian support assured by Sergei Sazonov, Serbia accepted some of the terms but hedged on others and rejected those infringing upon its sovereignty. Austria-Hungary, supported by Germany, rejected the British proposal of Sir Edward Grey (later Lord Grey of Fallodon) and declared war (July 28) on Serbia.\nRussian mobilization precipitated a German ultimatum (July 31) that, when unanswered, was followed by a German declaration of war on Russia (Aug. 1). Convinced that France was about to attack its western frontier, Germany declared war (Aug. 3) on France and sent troops against France through Belgium and Luxembourg. Germany had hoped for British neutrality, but German violation of Belgian neutrality gave the British government the pretext and popular support necessary fo
618764
Actually, some of your assertions are just incorrect, specifically the idea that the combatants in Europe were ready to give up and have a victor-less peace. I have read in at least two different places that, had the USA not brought in fresh troops, the Western Allies were willing to last until at least 1921 before another major offensive.\n\nThe impetus that brought the USA into the war, the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, was ordered by Field Marshall Hindenburg over the objection of both the Kaiser and the Reichstag. This was not a 'few petty ships' but had serious loss of life and was a direct challenge to the concept of both the rules of war on the sea and the rights of neutral nations (this is applicable even today, note the United States re-flagging of Kuwaiti tankers).\n\nIf Germany was ready for a victor-less peace as you suggest, they were in a perfect position to lead by example at Brest-Litovsk. Instead, Germany had set up a system of puppet governments along Russia's western frontier with the intention of the war lasting many years longer. The terms at Brest Litovsk were far more harsh than the terms at Versailles, regardless of what anyone claims, and if the Germans had spent less money and energy on cheating (yes, cheating before Hitler came to power!), Germany could have met its obligations with much fewer repercussions. The entry of the United States did not make German defeat a certainty because the amount of troops the United States would put into the field (2 million) would not replace the amount of soldiers withdrawn from the war with the surrender of Soviet Russia and the crushing of Rumania and Serbia. Ludendorf had ordered the 1918 offensive out of panic, and had directed it just as badly. If, instead, he had rescinded the order for War Socialism and allowed German industry to make windfall profits off of the war again as they had before 1916, Germany would have been fine.\n\nIn 1914, Russia had not yet declared war on anyone, but had instead issued an order for a partial mobilization supporting Serbia which freaked everyone out. When Nicholas refused to back down, that was when Germany declared war on Russia, not the other way around.\n\nHowever, three German judges in 1923 could have averted World War II, and they had all the evidence they needed to do it. Hitler had repeatedly said that the Weimar Republic had to be destroyed, and he took action in his Putsch. The first charge leveled against Hitler in the aftermath was treason, which as an Austrian national would have required Hitler to be deported immediately. By his words and by his actions, he was most certainly guilty, but one of the three judges was an admirer of Hitler's.
523272
Russia entered WWI against Germany and Germany snuck Lenin back into Russia after he had been exiled.  This allowed Lenin to start the Bolshevik revolution.  Is that what you wanted?
658274
Germany had been brought to its knees economically and militarily at the end of WWI with the signing in the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was an outstanding orator, and because of the state of the country at that time and because he promised to restore Germany to world prominence economically and militarily, the German people believed him. He played upon the their worst instincts as he worked to create a superior race. He gave the Germans back their pride and national spirit. He came along at the right time when the country and its people desperately needed a strong leader. He filled that void for them. Unfortunately, he was insane!!
547633
You can post this question as many times as you want, you're still wrong.  Wrong on so many levels;\n\nWilson did not "force" the US into WW1.  War was declared as set out in the Constitution.  Wilson was elected President and given authority to take exactly those decisions.  Given the behaviour of German submarines while the US was still neutral the general view is that he behaved with remarkable restraint. Certainly the idea that he wanted a war is BS.\n\nIf the US had not declared war the most likely outcome would have been for the Germans to over run northern France and then the Allies would have sued for peace.  If you remember the Russians had recently signed their own peace treaty with Germany following the revolution.  Several million German troops were heading for the western front at the point the US entered the war.\n\nSuggesting that the Nazi Party just wanted "Redemption of Germany" is a particularly revolting smear on the memory of all the people murdered by Hitler's regime.  What the Nazi Party wanted is set out in black and white in Mein Kampf, published before Hitler came to power.  It's all there if you bother to read it.  How you can possibly equate the murder of 6 million plus innocents and the invasion of a dozen European countries with payback for the WW1 peace treaty is beyond me.\n\nThe Serbian state did not assassinate anyone.  It was the work of an extremist political group.  And the idea that the assassination "forced" Germany to invade Belgium is truly pathetic.
670765
Absolutely. The US was able to apply resources that the British and the Russians struggled to supply. The Russians fought an incredibly bitter war and in many cases the Nazis were known to prefer fighting against the US and the UK than the Russians. However, it was the sheer scale of the entrance of the US to WW2 that put Hitler firmly on the backfoot. To sum up - The British won the war because they stood fast against a superior army, the Russians won the war through sheer sacrifice of numbers and grim determination, and the US won the war because although they were more interested in sorting out the Japanese (Pearl Harbour), they pumped billions of dollars worth of aircraft, man power and ammunition into the effort.
690302
This is always kind of a tricky question, because the implication is that the US did not do enough by trying to win the war as soon as possible. And remember, the final solution did not begin until 1943, so pre-war relaxation of immigration standards would not count. I don't accept that premise but try this out.\n\nThe American and British bomber air forces could have shifted their attacks from economic targets to the transportation network supplying the camps with victims. This might have slowed the number of murders, but would also have allowed the German military to defend Germany (and thus the camp network) better and longer ending with more American casualties and a considerably later end to the war with therefor very little difference in the total number of murders.\n\nThe United States could have made a point of broadcasting the unconfirmed reports of attrocities in German occupied Poland with a propaganda effort to strengthen recruiting of people in the occupied territories for underground resistance. The result would probably have been lukewarm at best. The only successful underground movements in occupied Europe were the Communists; this was not because they were more patriotic, but before the war they were already made criminals and were the only ones used to acting clandestinely. Besides, in 1943 at the Katyn Forest in eastern Poland, the Germans discovered a pit with the bodies of 10,000 Polish officers murdered by the Red Army when they occupied in 1939; because of this, when the Russians began liberating death camps in Byelorussia in 1944 no one believed the reports.\n\nThe USA could have exchanged German prisoners for concentration inmates. This might have had some limited success. Early in the war (about 1940-41) some labor camp prisoners were allowed to go to Switzerland in exchange for the repatriation from Uruguay of the crew of the pocket battleship Graff Spee. By late 1943, the Western allies had captured some U-boat crews and the Afrika Korps in Tunisia. The end result, because these were highly trained (U-boat) and highly motivated (Afrika Korps) soldiers, they could have been returned to very successful active duty instead of using younger and less trained replacements. If the West Wall had been manned with the Afrikan veterans instead of so many Ukrainian and Silesian slave soldiers, there could have been a great difference in the end of the war.\n\nAnyways, try those on for size.
1134650
The fault lies mostly with Adolf Hitler, although the German people willingly followed where he led.  The Treaty of Versailles in retrospect was too harsh, but that is hindsight, which is always 20/20.  The Allies at the end of WWI did the best they could to get the various countries to come up with a workable treaty.
250414
Not too good truth be told.\n\nAfter World War One the rest of the world really screwed germany. They made all kinds of outragous claims on German lands and money. The economy was in the crapper and the politics of the day were doing nothing to change the situation. \n\nThere were millions with out work and inflation was sometimes 700% a day. Money had no real meaning and the masses were living under the boot of the Allies.\n\nThen in 1932 all hell broke loose.\n\nWhen the Nazi party came into power the first things they did was tell the allies to kiss off. They rebuilt their army and restored a national pride. These things helped feed the people and get the country back up on it's feet. \n\nI have been told that you would not worry about the politcs of the man who feeds you when you are starving. And the Nazi rule in Germany showed this.\n\nWhen you are full, happy and have your pride you can do much. And they did. But as history shows things got WAY out of hand and the now proud people were lead to a very scary place by some very scary people.\n\nTaking Cezch was easy and the invasion of poland wasn't that hard. But what was to come was a real wake up call for the world.\n\nSo the 1930's was a great time of change in Germany. In those 10 years germany would go from a beaten nation steped on and looted by the world to a superpower that almost took over europe.
1002580
Germany would be the one.
32368
The WWI(1914-1918) began as a clash between two coalitions of European countries. The first coalition, known as the Allied Powers, included the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, and the Russian Empire, japan, and Italy\nThe Central Powers, which opposed them, consisted of the empires of Germany and Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire and  Bulgaria .\nAlthough the United States initially remained neutral, it joined the Allies in 1917.
811458
Actually, due to the treaty of Versailles, post WWI Germany was susceptible to many forms of totalitarianism.  There were communist, socialist as well as the group that finally won out, the National Socialist.  While the Nazis sounds like a left leaning organization, they were in fact a right leaning fascist party.  In fact, the Germans had units fighting in Spain, during the Spanish Civil war fighting for Franco and his group.
1146687
germany did fought a hard battle but they didn´t cheated!!!