Why Germany-Ottoman-Austria lose at the first world war (1914-18) ?

[Iamcoming]

[BCA6010]

You could spend literal hours on this subject.

Of those countries, Germany was the only one actually ready to fight (which was ironic because the Kaiser didn't actually want a war at the time), and ended up hard carrying both the eastern and western fronts. Austria took months to mobilize, and they underperformed pretty badly in all theaters without direct support from Germany, despite being considered a major world power. The Ottomans came late and took massive losses even where they won, Bulgaria came even later, and Italy switched sides. Time was ultimately not on the central powers' side either, and many convenient flounders contributed to their defeat:

Even though Wilson always supported the Entente, the general public (made up mostly of Irish and German immigrants at the time) in the US favored the central powers and otherwise opposed having anything to do with the war, and so avoided the war for years. The US had also only been truly recognized as a major power for less than two decades at this point, so its potential was greatly underestimated.

Italy switching sides very likely is the main reason the central powers ultimately lose. They had a huge military that, despite being pretty inept, bogged down Austria in a brutal alpine front (which eventually broke through and ultimately toppled the empire), and also allowed the Royal Navy easier access to Turkish waters for blockades, the Suez, and the disastrous Gibraltar campaign.

Russia is effectively the reason the war even escalates in the first place, and ultimately it destroys their empire, paving the road for the revolution. If they had surrended even a month or two sooner however, Germany would've had significantly more troops to commit to the 1918 Spring Offensive that ultimately fell flat. If it had been successful though, it likely could've ended the war a bit sooner with an armistice favorable to Germany, rather than a slow defeat over the rest of the year.

A war of attrition also greatly favored the Entente, especially as support from the US increased over time. They had more bodies, more resources, didn't have their ports blockaded, and didn't have the same domestic problems such as food shortages and internal collapse that crippled all of the central powers as well as Russia.

[lasher7777]

I read a lot about the world wars. While the second world war is much more my specialty I know quite a bit about the first one. I was reading a book on World war I one time and there was a chapter that said it all and it cracked me up. The chapter was entitled "shackled to a corpse". Now if you already know where this is going then you know World war I a little bit. Or a good amount. Austria hungary Empire was not the best ally to have. They military was inept and incapable of doing what it was supposed to do. It was more of a liability to Germany than it was help. Germany was enclosed and they were blockaded the whole war. The homefront people were starving. On the front the soldiers were starving.

They were eating rats and cooking shoe leather to eat. But still a lot of them wanted to continue fighting and not give up. The Germans were tough warriors. Germany got a bad treaty at the end of World war I. The war was not their fault any more than it was the allies. The treaty of Versailles said such draconic policies that it embittered the Germans. It was like the Allies were just asking for a second World war. Now I'm not saying that there was necessarily going to be a second world war say if Hitler didn't come along. But it didn't help the odds any the way that Germany was treated after the first World war.

It doesn't justify starting a second one after we witnessed how Germany behaved during that war. But you could almost justify it because of the way they were treated at the end of World war I if they didn't do all the camps and all the racial cleansing and all that garbage. The police state activity and all that. If they were more like Germany during World war I they would have had a case almost to fight a second World war. But the death camps pretty much were a deal-breaker for any kind of justification for Germany to have fought a war.

[Anonymous]

Trade and industrial production. The Central powers of Germany, Austria and Ottoman empire were essentially blockaded from global trade so unable to obtain the resources they needed to fight. Germany was an industrial powerhouse but it lacked a lot of key resources and Austria and the Ottoman empire were not major economic powers. The seas were basically controlled by the French and Royal navies who were two out of the 3 biggest navies in the world and with Italy joining Britain and France along with Russia they could not break the blockade or reach German colonies in Africa.

All the countries involved could field sizeable armies of men but being able to supply them and feed them only Britain and France could do. Britain and France were able to call up extra manpower from their colonies. The US joined the war but most of their troops would never see service in WW1 and didn't make a big impact, but what did make an impact was that France and Britain were able to buy food, bullets, shells, rifles, parts etc from America in massive quantities. The only reason the US intervened in ww1 was because it looked like France might fall and the French owed money, Russia was embroiled in civil war so they were never going to pay back war loans.

So why did they lose? They were outproduced, the Ottoman army collapsed due to lack of ammunition and food. Germany was starving and had been pushed back all the way to the German boarder in the 100 day offensive with their lines collapsing. The Allies using new technology and tactics on a vast industrial scale to achieve this.

Why Germany loss was a major factor of why Hitler went to war in 1939. A fear of Germany being defeated, crippled and controlled by foreign powers due to a lack of economic resources and he believed they would find them in Russia. By 1939 the German economy was collapsing and they were running out of strategic resources.

[Iamcoming]

You have very much knowledges do you like research history and which country are you from

[JamesDiaz11]

A combination of things- they wasted nearly a million men trying to break the defensive lines of the Triple Entente, which weren't breakable given their technology/ tactics, and eventually their resources (including in manpower) made further conflict useless. On top of this the Americans threw another million men against them, which made any thoughts of them overwhelming the allies frivolous.

[NamerOfStars]

Because Hindenberg and Ludendorf were idiots, but Wilson was a bigger one, who just happened to be leading the most isolated power in the world at the time.

[Jersey2]

Because the used a plan developed in 1905. They weapons changed along with tactics. The plan called for 90 days to success. Once past that it became a war of attrition and Germany was doomed.

[Still-alive]

they were pretty much on the decline already. they were called the "sick man of Europe' by everyone else lol.

[OddBeMe]

They pissed off the wrong western country and then Americans brought the Spanish Flu over to Europe. Should be called the Kansas City Flu.

[andreasderjuengere]

... to get ready for the second war?

[lasher7777]

No they planned on winning the first one. The way Germany was they would have wanted to win both of them. They in no way wanted to lose the first World war. They hated the loss and they hated even more the draconic treaty that was hoisted upon them at the end of the war. They were treated terribly and it embedded Germans. The allies can blame themselves partially for the second world war because of the treaty after the first. If Germany hadn't have behaved so terribly during the second World war you could make a case for them fighting it. Because of the unfairness of the Versailles treaty at the end of World war I. It was bullshit.