The Keiserschlacht or Emperor's Battle

The German Command, in planning for a short and swift war, found themselves in a bind when the war started to prolong itself. From the very beginning, their plan started to fall apart, as Belgium, who they assumed would just let them march through to France, took up arms in resisting their approaches (Hull, 2005). The war would get longer and longer and seemed farther away from its conclusion as the months grew colder. As a result of this as well as their Prussian roots, they resorted to dangerously risky and destructive tactics, trying to bring the war to a quicker end while putting more of their resources in jeopardy, a move that eventually did not pay off and ended up leading to the German Empire’s demise (Hull, 2005).

The First Battle of the Marne was the first major battle of World War I. Fought in September of 1914, the battle marked the end of the German advance toward Paris and the beginning of trench warfare. The battle exhibited a number of firsts in the history of warfare, motorized movement of troops and interception of radio communications. It indicated that the war would not be a quick victory for Germany (Klein, 2014). Joseph Joffre, the French Commander in Chief, exhibited ingenuity and leadership to yield a significant victory while the Helmuth von Moltke the younger, the German chief of staff, demonstrated a failure of mission command resulting in defeat.

During World War II, Germany’s military was superior to anyone else in the world, with far more advanced technology, tactics, and weaponry. They had a fearless leader who would stop at nothing to make his country great again. Their closest rival, the Soviet Union, was almost out of the picture with a death toll of over 26 million. On top of that, Germany had nothing to lose, and would not conceivably stop. So how then, with all odds against them, did the Allies win the war? A combination of factors affected Germany’s downfall, such as lack of morale, unwieldy weapons, and failure to work with its so-called allies.

The Schlieffen Plan is commonly – though misleadingy – identified with the German western offensive at the start of the First World War in August 1914, which began as a campaign of rapid movement but ended in deadlock and trench warfare. The plan is generally seen as a desperate gamble almost certain to fail, and its recklessness is counted as part of Germany’s war guilt – the plan held out the false promise of a quick victory, and so it underpinned the “short war illusion” that led Germany into a long war of attrition, ending with her defeat and collapse in 1918. This analysis confuses two quite different moments in history. The Schlieffen Plan was not designed to meet the strategic challenge Germany faced in 1914,

The Allies rallied an offensive for the liberation of France in late September 1915. This resulted in a stalemate between the powers, inflicting heavy casualties on the Allied and Central Powers. This fierce battling with no progression continued into late 1916, when the Germans became concerned at the amount of the allied forces on the western front and the invention of the tank - technology that Germany

<br>During the early stages of the war, most of Germany's victories were because of the success of blitzkrieg, or lightening war. Blitzkrieg

> When WW1 was finished in November 11 1918, the Allied Powers signed the Treaty of Versie in which blamed the Germans for the war. This treaty made them lose territory, pay for the expenses of the war, and lose military control in which left them in a disastrous state. In the late 1930s, WW2 was about to occur amounting to a tragic event that would later go down in history. A German leader named Adolf Hitler wanted to conquer the world, but primarily he wanted to take Germany out of the misery that was put upon them. He boasted his military without the Allied powers noticing and he gained different territory. Most of all he put ideologies in the German people's minds. He made them believe that the ones that caused all of their defalts and

When most people talk about World War I, they typically only talk about the Western front. The Eastern front was entirely different compared to the Western front but equally as ghastly. Nonetheless, the one thing both fronts had in common was the vitality of the German army, which was the only country that fought a two-front war, as it had to fight in the West against the Entrance powers of France and Great Britain and in the East against the Russia. Germany had to bear the brunt of the fighting on both fronts as Austria-Hungry proved incapable of resisting Russian offensives without German support. The support of the Entrance and Central powers’ home fronts were essential to the war efforts and came in multiple forms such as economic assistance or social acceptance. For instance, the West proved to be an effective adversary against the Central Powers as the Entrance Powers’ approach to economic warfare disheartened the Central Powers’ armies and helped undermined their ability to wage total war. Total war demanded total mobilization of all a nation's resources, but what the most important resources were, differed between the two fronts. For example, vast munitions industries had to be built to provide supplies for the stalled armies on the Western front but in the East, providing transportation and the mobility of such transportation was the most significant challenge. While both fronts faced their own unique challenges, overcoming such challenges was key to military

crossing the Rhine River as they captured hundreds of thousands of the Germany’s Army Group B troops (Murphy & Bailey, 1997). Meanwhile, the Red Army had accessed Australia, and both fronts swiftly entered Berlin. As a result, the German territory got pounded by the Allied aircraft’s strategic bombing campaigns, which destroyed several cities at night (Stern & Weinberg, 1995). Germany placed a fierce defense in the first several months of 1945 but quickly lost territory as a result of running out of supplies and exhausting its options (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003). The Allied forces then, in April 1945, pushed through the German defensive front in Italy. What followed was the East meeting the West on 25th April 1945 on River Elbe, the point at which the American Troops met the Soviet near Torgau in Germany (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003). As a result, the Third Reich came to an end, and the Soviet took Berlin (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003; Stern & Weinberg, 1995).

Leading into the Fall of 1914, tactics on both sides of the line involved the rapid mobilization, maneuver and envelopment of the opposing side.10 Pre-1914 doctrine took little into account the effects of emerging new technology and their impact on both defensive and offensive operations. This disconnect between doctrine and technology contributed to the failure of early offensive operations in the Fall of 1914 and resulted in staggering casualties.11 Both sides developed doctrine that took into effect the unique terrain and technology that had been developed prior and during World War I. However by the end of the war, a combination of flexibility, decentralized control, and counterattack at every echelon made the German defensive system the most effective.12 This “elastic defense” had three unique characteristics; dedicated counter-attack force at all levels, decentralized command and control, fluid defensive belts and integrated artillery support at the Division level. Under this new doctrine, Corps headquarters had the role sustaining subordinate units, but not directing their actions during battle.13 This defense-in-depth and the lessons learned during the Verdun battles of 1918 were so successful that British forces adopted many of the German tactics with a special emphasis on their counterattack capability.10 Utilizing the new doctrine, by August 1918, Germany had made substantial gains, however had

Napoleon was not only a great leader, but also a great commander who like Alexander the Great mastered generalship and all that implies. His ability to win tactical engagements against his enemies by effectively utilizing all the principles of war in his battles has had an influence on future commanders and the way they approach warfare. The Battle of Austerlitz or the Battle of the Three Emperors did two things: It brought an end to the Third Coalition and established the creation of the French Empire under Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. Victory at Austerlitz was a tactical success for Napoleon. Therefore, during the Battle of Austerlitz Napoleon utilized all the Principles of War including mass, maneuver, surprise, security, simplicity, economy

Germany was not able to claim victory during World War II due to poor military guidance. Hitler’s military tactics led

Germany went into WWI with the upside of an expansive, extremely all around prepared, and exceptionally very much prepared armed force. One-on-one, they could in all likelihood have crushed some other nation on the planet, yet they weren't simply battling one adversary. They were dwarfed, and their rivals had admittance to much more noteworthy assets. In the event that the Schlieffen Plan had been executed legitimately in august 1914, Paris would have been caught, and the French would probably have requested a peace negotiation. in this way finishing the war rapidly and to support Germany. They likewise could have won if in 1918,Germany had exploited Russia's withdrawal from the war so that they would move every one of their troops and assets

Why Germany lost the war (despite its early tactical successes) is a simple question with a complex answer. And, over the years since Germany’s surrender at Reims, France on May 7, 1945, scholars and historians have provided a number of arguments to warrant their perspective answers. Consequently there are a

During the early stages of the war, most of Germany’s victories were because of the success of blitzkrieg, or lightening war. Blitzkrieg tactics