Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Addendum

[Montegriffo]

Stalemate implies that neither side was winning. With an unlimited supply of fresh troops and the technological breakthrough that was the tank it seems to me that the writing was on the wall for the Hun and surrender before inevitable defeat was their only real option.
At least the November traitors were not prepared to see the total destruction of their nation rather than admit defeat.
At the end Adolf blamed his own men for failure rather than owning it himself.

[Hastur]

It was the Naval blokade. Period. The clock was ticking for the Germans and they didn’t manage to win the war before their resources ran out. Why didn’t they build tanks of their own? Lack of resources is the answer. All steel had to go to other munitions. They lacked everything at the end while the allies rolled in raw materials and dollars.
Here’s a nice little article about German WWI Ersatz Goods.
http://www.reenactor.net/ww1/morsels/fs ... front.html

[Montegriffo]

I wasn't aware anyone other than the British had even though of building tanks.
The legend is that Churchill, coming to the trenches from the Navy, saw the possibilities in using naval armour plating on land.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The naval blockade that had them starving.

Which ended the war sooner, but it never changed the stalemate on the lines. It’s not like they would have overcome trench defense with more supplies and food.

I’ll grant that they might have gotten better terms, though. That alone could have saved the world.

Shows how little you know. Typical know nothing liberal. The stalemate on the lines was never broken. Germany surrendered because Germany was starving.

It's really telling how little you know that you think a trench breakthrough had fuck all to do with the end of the war. There was no breakthrough. Germany surrendered while holding vast tracts of enemy territory. They were fucking starving, and that was due to the Royal Navy.

Fucking idiot piss puss and his eternal lack of knowledge.

Go back and reread my post. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Again.

[Smitty-48]

The tank did not break the stalemate on the Western Front, the tank was relatively ineffective against the German defense in depth concept of operations adopted in 1916, no campaign on the Western Front was decided by the tank, the tanks of the day lacked the mobility to exploit what limited penetrations they were able to achieve.

The Hundred Day's offensive is called Canada's Hundred Days because it was led the whole way by the Canadian Corps, which was an infantry corps not an armored corps.

There was also not an endless supply of troops in 1918, the French and British feared a Bolshevik uprising at home, the Americans were clambering for the war to be over as soon as possible.

In term so logistics, the German Army still had plenty of fight left in it on 11 November 1918, the Germans were starving at home because all available resources were being diverted to the front.

It was the naval blockade which brought the war to an end, which was in fact the British strategy to win the war the whole time, the Germans lost the war at Jutland, not Mons.

[Okeefenokee]

Like I said. They were starving.

The German army was manned, armed, and dug in, holding enemy territory.

The people were starving.

Revolution in the rear, Germany surrenders.

[Smitty-48]

Germany didn't surrender, the armistice was not a surrender, in the wake of the armistice the Kaiser was deposed by the revolution bringing the whole German Empire down, but the German Army never actually capitulated, that part the Nazis had exactly right, and this is why in the Second World War the Allies demanded unconditional surrender or bust, as the failure to have forced a German surrender in the First World War, was the driving force in the Nazis rise to power inciting the Second World War.

If the German Army had actually capitulated in the field, then Germany would have been occupied, and there would have been no Treaty of Versailles, no Stabbed in the Back by the November Criminals, and no Jewish Bolshevik Conspiracy for the Nazis to run on.

[Okeefenokee]

Fair enough.

[Smitty-48]

It's true that the Germans were exhausted, but so was the Entente Cordiale, and as much as the Americans jumping in gave everybody a boost, it wasn't actually that decisive, one, because the Americans never really brought their full force to bear, and two, the American public was not actually up for a prolonged war, and the Americans immediately started suffering heavy casualties, so Wilson was under pressure to get this wrapped up as soon as possible, so when the German high command was deposed and the new German government agreed to the armistice, the Entente jumped at it right away, because politically, they were desperate for the war to end as well.

Where Germany really lost out, was later at Versailles, when Germany was no longer in the field able to leverage the Entente, and the Entente had recovered their footing and were back in a position to dictate terms without having to do so by military force anymore.

[Smitty-48]

Reality was tho, the Germans were such masters of defensive warfare and doing more with less, that if they had had the kind of totalitarian control that the Nazis had, they could have done as the Nazis did, and prolonged the war for another year or more in a relentless defensive slugfest to the last man standing, the Entente wasn't actually expecting the war to end in 1918, they were planning to have to fight on into 1919, it was the sudden deposition of the German high command by the de facto revolution which saved them from a long and bloody struggle to the bitter end.

The Hundred Days gets you back to Mons where your started, but it doesn't get you to Berlin, if the Entente had had to go over the to the offensive into German territory, then it would have been their supply lines which would have started to stretch, and the momentum would have dissipated in the face of the German supply lines and defensive perimeter shortening, the advantage was entirely to the defender, against the Michael offensive they were bleeding the Germans in depth, but if they had tried to advance beyond Mons, that would have switched over to the other foot,

This back and forth was the very nature of the stalemate on the Western Front, the attacker could go on for awhile until the supply lines were stretched into enemy territory, then they would collapse back to where they started, then when the other side attempted to advance into enemy territory, the same thing happened to them, so getting back to Mons on 11 November 1918 was still all within this cycle of stalemate, they hadn't advanced anywhere yet, they had simply beaten the Germans back to the start line.

1915; failed German offensive in the face of Entente counteroffensive.

1916; failed Entente offensive in the face of German counteroffensive.

1917; failed Entente offensive in the face of German counteroffensive.

1918; failed German offensive in the face of Entente counteroffensive.

The cycle had not been broken.