There is a video up on youtube alleging that in 1916 Germany could have and should have won the war, due to dramatic technological superiority over all foes in that year. Is the thesis correct?
2 Likes
No
Also, it would be nice to know specifically what you’re talking about.
And there’s probably a decent amount of video’s on youtube that will debunk that one
1 Like
Ultimately “could have but didn’t” is meaningless. The fact is that even if they did end up with an advantage, they didn’t press it and were unable/unwilling to use it to win. Given the chaos of the next few years, alternate histories are really pretty meaningless because there’s no way to even come close to know what would have or could have been.
2 Likes
Agree, and it is not that the Germans did not try enough in 1916. The vid sounds like controversy to generate clickbait. Not sure if the Germans did have supertech, all sides were learning and the Allies introduced the tank, nasty flame projectors and other stuff as well.
Notably the Allies with their resources still had the upper had in the long term, I don’t see any sweeping fast victories.
1 Like
I completely agree with you. Both sides tried really hard not only in 1916 but throughout the war. And how many casualties both sides had taken by 1916 everyone want to end the war in victory on there side but really did not know how to do it.
1 Like
It turns out that I have watched the vid on youtube more carefully. The thesis of the vid actually is that the Allies should have defeated the central powers in 1916 and that they blundered away their opportunity at the battle of the Somme, just after the French had been defeating the Germans, and then the French decided to take a break from the attack, allowing the Germans to recuperate and draw up new defensive positions and tactics, while the French simultaneously, allegedly, insisted on the UK continuing their attack despite a bad position and heavy losses.
1 Like