How could Germany fought two fronts, but still managed to

>>1585634

Russia has always kinda sucked.

Even when they win, they getting beaten up real bad in the process.

>imperial Russian """""""""""""army """""""""""""

File: general_franz_graf_conrad_von.jpg (78KB, 416x550px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 416x550px

Austria carried them.

>>1585634

Russia collapsed internally from the stresses of the war. It wasn't like you had German troops marching through Moscow and St Petersburg.

>>1585647


lol

>>1585634
Ww1 russian army was one of the if not the most backwards armies of the conflict.
Plus russian people had a lot of discontent as we all know

>>1585675
>Ww1 russian army was one of the if not the most backwards armies of the conflict.

When will this stale meme die? The Germans almost got rekt in the opening stages of the war, their superior train networks saved them.

>>1585675

That's actually not quite true. They did win a lot more than they lost against the Austro-Hungarians and the Turks.

>>1585690
True, I forgot about A&H and the Ottos
Basically Russia got kicked in the face by Germany and... Russia herself

>>1585647
Literally other way around

>>1585634
That map does not show the sides in 1914. Romania, Greece, Italy and Bulgaria were not in the war you retarded fuck.

>>1585790
And Portugal too, sorry, your Autism was spreading too me.

>>1585643
More like Imperial Russian Bodybags.

>>1585796
And Iran wasn't in the Central powers you waste of space

>>1585634
German military-industrial complex and the military machine were absolutely insane and unparalleled in 1914. Germans could have steamrolled any one nation without even trying and they could have even won against groups of nations. They even won in a land war in Russia as the invaders through three winters while fighting a two front war, something not even Napoleon ever did.The reason Entente won in WW1 is because they starved Germans to death by permanent naval blockade of Europe that Germans couldn't break.

Sadly Germany in 1914 even had larger navy (though significantly less experienced one with significantly shittier officer corps) than Britain but they never committed it anywhere but to one irrelevant battle in 1916 and the navy got sunk because of Versailles because Brits were terrified of Germany that also could achieve naval superiority.

>>1585820

>They even won in a land war in Russia as the invaders through three winters while fighting a two front war,

They didn't actually do that you know. Most of the Eastern Front of WW1 was in what's modern day Poland.

>The reason Entente won in WW1 is because they starved Germans to death by permanent naval blockade of Europe that Germans couldn't break.

Well, that and bleed them dry on the Western Front and start rolling them back come mid 1918. Don't get me wrong, the blockade was a big deal, but they lost the war because they lost the war on the ground, not because of the resources shortages.

>Sadly Germany in 1914 even had larger navy (though significantly less experienced one with significantly shittier officer corps)

That's just wrong.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/causes-of-world-war-one/the-naval-race-1906-to-1914/

>) than Britain but they never committed it anywhere but to one irrelevant battle in 1916

In large part because they didn't stand a chance against the Home fleet.

>>1585831
>Most of the Eastern Front of WW1 was in what's modern day Poland.
And? They still won a land war against Russia through three winters.

>Don't get me wrong, the blockade was a big deal, but they lost the war because they lost the war on the ground, not because of the resources shortages.
Considering Germans lost because of the November Revolution and considering the revolution happened because of atrocious situation in Germany, yes, they did actually lose because of food shortages and other resource shortages. Entente had full control of the sea meaning Central Powers were completely cut off from the global economy for the full duration of the war.

I admit I was wrong about the fleet, though. Still, considering the Brits passed a law that required The Royal Navy to be larger than the next two navies combined and considering how traditionally Germans aren't a naval power (with the exception of Hanseatic cities on the Baltic sea) that's quite impressive.

>>1585820
>They even won in a land war in Russia as the invaders

Dont compare that to Napoleon, fag
It was in Poland, not in the heart of Russia
If anything it's comparable to the Crimean War or the War of the Fourth Coalition

>>1585894

>And? They still won a land war against Russia through three winters.

But they didn't invade into metropolitan Russia and face the infamous Russian winter.

>Considering Germans lost because of the November Revolution and considering the revolution happened because of atrocious situation in Germany, yes, they did actually lose because of food shortages and other resource shortages.

Yeah, and the news from the front, the collapsing military sitaution, the navy wanting to go out in a blaze of glory because they realized the war was over and hadn't properly fought, and the millions of dead and wounded who were no longer available for agricultural production had nothing to do with it, amirite?

You're an idiot.