Was the Germans actually been defeated MILITARILY during world war One?

Answer 1

Well, Jason, you have received some completely different opinions (and alleged “facts”) in response to this question.

The only reasons that Germany’s military defeat in WW1 might be a “matter of opinion”, rather than no-argument historical fact are: -
[a] That the Allies accepted Germany’s plea for an armistice instead of carrying on to Berlin;
[b] That, at the same time as Germany’s armies on the Western Front were collapsing, revolution and military mutinies broke out back home in Germany;
which allowed ...
[c] German militarists and Nazis subsequently to claim that the German army had NOT been defeated by the Allies, but had been betrayed by the “stab in the back” from the cowardly politicians and civilians at home.

But, if we examine the evidence instead of believing the propaganda, there is no doubt at all that the German army was beaten, no longer able to defend itself and hold its positions, let alone to mount any sort of offensive.

These so-called facts in “Smart guy’s” answer are all news to me: -

• “there were no signs of defeat among their lines”. Wrong! There are many, many records of mass desertions (150,000 men mentioned in one report). If that isn’t a sign of defeat, I don’t know what is.

• “The allied invasion on Hindenburg line ended as a catastrophe”. Nonsense! The British breached the Hindenburg line at the beginning of September 1918, followed by the Americans and French in their sectors later that same month. If that was a catastrophe, it was a German catastrophe.

• “and Germans were deploying new weapons and tactics”. No, they were not. They had tried their “new” tactics (storm-troops) back in their Spring 1918 offensive, and had thereby gained a lot of non-strategic ground. But the Allies had adjusted to those tactics and found the methods to cope with them, in the process wiping out the elite storm-troop formations. As for “new weapons”, Germany was deploying no new weapons in late 1918, apart from a few rather ordinary aircraft types that were mainly devoted to home defense against Allied air raids ... and so could have no impact on front-line fighting.

• “they had more manpower because they could pull all the troops from the east to the west when the Russia got out of the war”. No, they could not: or at least, the Germans themselves decided that they should not pull ALL of their troops from the east. Germany retained substantial forces in the East, because they wanted to keep control of Poland and the Ukraine, and because they wanted to pressure the Bolsheviks to keep making more concessions. But they DID bring back all the youngest, fittest soldiers from the East for their Spring 1918 offensives ... and there lost them in their hundreds of thousands. By late 1918, Germany had no effective reinforcements to bring to the West.

• “and the morale was high.” Utter nonsense! Morale in the German army began to fail with the failure of their Spring offensives, and collapsed from August 1918 onwards when the Allies resumed their offensives. Evidence of this? Apart from the desertions mentioned above: numerous reports of troops en route to the Western Front refusing to obey orders to mount counter-attacks; jeering at front-line soldiers going back to rest positions as “strike breakers”; wholesale surrenders of complete, intact regiments to advancing Allied troops; Ludendorff’s own breakdown “the war is lost ... we must seek peace immediately!”

If Germany had not begged for and obtained an armistice when it did, the Allies would have been on the Rhine within a few months if not weeks.

If anyone seriously believes that the German army was not beaten, why was it that Germany accepted the Allied demands for:
the surrender of all remaining occupied territory?
the surrender of essentially the whole navy and air force, heavy weapons, etc?
Allied armies of occupation to take over the Rhineland, with bridgeheads across too?

Accepting terms such as those are not the actions of an army still capable of defending its homeland.

Answer 2

No,and there were no signs of defeat among their lines.The allied invasion on Hindenburg line ended as a catastrophe and Germans were deploying new weapons and tactics,they had more manpower because they could pull all the troops from the east to the west when the Russia got out of the war and the morale was high.Nevertheless the German economy was crumbling and there were not enough supplies for civilians,not enough food etc. so they had no other option than surrender.

Answer 3

They were on the brink of miltary defeat - and that would have come in 1919, when the full effect of the USA's involvement would have been felt - which is why Germany agreed to an Armistice.

Answer 4

They were not ROUTED, but were certainly defeated. The tank corps in the Battle of Amiens caved their front in to a depth of miles and they began a retreat which the allies forced them to continue till the Armistice.

Answer 5

Nope. Thats why when the Germans went home they blamed their countrymen for their defeat which led to the Holocaust against the Jewish "traitors"

Answer 6

That why they made sure that Germany was crushed during the second world war so they wouldn't be complaining that the didn't really lose again.

Answer 7

No, but they were about to.