Germany Could Have Won World War I

I. A Curtailment of U-Boat WarfareAs is well known, Germany pursued a policy of aggressive U-boat warfare, targeting any merchant ship that sailed within waters it deemed restricted, due to the potential for such ships to trade with its enemies. This was most famously seen in the sinking of the Lusitania, but many other ships were also targeted as a result of such a policy. It became particularly apparent in late 1916 and early 1917, when Germany adopted a policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare, which sunk even more neutral shipping. The U. S. did not enter the war due to Germany’s first infractions in this manner. It was only when Germany adopted its policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare that the U. S. entered the war. For, as a result of Germany’s new policy, the U. S. broke off diplomatic relations with Germany in an attempt to get them to double down. However, Germany refused, and even sent Mexico the Zimmerman telegram, suggesting that Mexico could attack the U. S. with Germany’s support if the U. S. chose to enter WWI. Germany’s refusal to change their U-boat policy and the Zimmerman telegram together all but forced the U. S. to enter WWI on the side of the Triple Entente. [1][2]But Germany’s policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare did have its benefits. In fact, had the U. S. not entered the war, it is more than possible that the Germans could have caused the British to capitulate as a result. However, due to the U. S’s entry with its vast amount of destroyers and huge production power, German U-boat quickly became a significantly less formidable threat. It obviously failed to cause Britain to surrender. Thus, while unrestricted U-boat warfare was effective against the Triple Entente itself, the introduction of the U. S. , as a result of such a policy, prevented it from being effective. [3]Therefore, one of the things I would have done differently is not adopt a policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare, and the U-boat attacks that would happen would abide by America’s demands that safeguarded its own interests. This would have likely persuaded the U. S. to not enter the war. Sure, this would have destroyed a lot less British shipping, but, as I mentioned, unrestricted U-boat warfare could never have lasted long. II. The Second Battle of the MarneAs a result of the Russian Revolution, the newly formed Soviet Union withdrew from WWI, causing one entire front for the Germans to be closed, allowing millions of German troops to be stationed to the west. At that time, the Western Front was at a stalemate, and, as a result of the Battles of the Somme and Verdun (which caused over a million German casualties), the stalemate was turning into an advantage for the British and French. These fresh German troops threw the advantage into the hands of the Germans. The Second Battle of the Marne turned out to be Germany’s last offensive of the war. However, the Germans didn’t know that, and with many fresh troops with high morale, the odds looked to be in Germany’s favor. The battle started off well, as the German’s brushed aside the French forces, but with a combined counteroffensive of British, Italian, and particularly American forces, Germany’s initial successes were reversed, and they finished right back where they started. [4][5]The American forces were particularly decisive in the battle. The 3rd U. S. Infantry Division was even known as the “Rock of the Marne” afterwards as a result of their stalwart defense of their position. The British and reverse French forces that joined them, while more experienced, were also very exhausted as a result of over three years of continuous warfare, and two days of particularly intense battle beforehand. The American forces, however, were new and untested, and thus had much greater strength and morale. And truth be told, their presence proved decisive in pushing back the Germans. [4][5]Considering that, under my grand strategy, the U. S. would not have entered the war, it seems likely that my strategy would give the Germans a decisive victory here. Even though none of the Germans’ direct objectives at the Second Battle of the Marne were the capitulation of France, a German victory at the Second Battle of the Marne would certainly have gone a long way towards precipitating such a result. III. Later German OffensivesAfter the Second Battle of the Marne, the British and French would hardly have been in a position to launch a counteroffensive, and would be hard pressed at best to put together a defensive line to protect Paris. While the specific tactics here are obviously nearly impossible to put together, it is likely that, after the Second Battle of the Marne, the Germans would have been able to capture Paris, causing the surrender of France. And with France knocked out, the Germans could make short work of the British forces remaining on the field, and would be in a position to make negotiations with the British that would favor them greatly. ConclusionThus, with the simple change of a great reduction in the use of U-boats, particularly against neutral shipping, the Germans would have been able to persuade the U. S. to not enter the war, which, when coupled with Russia’s surrender, would have put the Germans in a position to defeat the British and French forces on the Western front as a result of their inevitable victory at the Battle of the Marne coupled with additional offensives afterwards. Thus, with all of its enemies out of the way, the Germans could claim victory. There are doubtless other, more grandiose strategies that may have made shorter and easier work of the Triple Entente, but these must be much more detailed in explaining, given that they’d require a significant revision of the course of WWI. My strategy works just as well at giving Germany the victory as any of these alternate strategies. Sources[1]: . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[2]: . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[3]: . http://www.iwm.org.uk...[4]: . http://www.nytimes.com...[5]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...