WW1, the short and easy way

[grumbler]

Your opinion was certainly a popular one in the 1920s and 30s.  I think saving Britain and France was worth it myself even if the fuckers did take the opportunity to expand their stupid empires.

Your opinion was certainly a popular one in the 1950s and 1960s.  I think France and Britain needed no saving in 1917/18, and the peace that followed may have been negotiated instead of those fuckers imposing one that set themselves up to do it again in 20 years.

[grumbler]

Well considering the US entered the war so long before the end, April 1917, it is hard to guess as to how things might have been different.  Germany certainly would have acted differently under that calculus.

Effective US involvement didn't begin until 1918, though.  Germany may have been able to obtain terms for a peace to a war that nno one really wanted, had no the French and British been emboldened to hold out for a peace that they could impose upon a defeated Germany.  As you say, the calculus would have changed, and almost any change would have been for the better.

[grumbler]

There is also the case that we were all losers as a result of the unsatisfactory peace treaty.

That is certainly my contention.

[grumbler]

I sometimes think that Britain should have taken that view as well 

That is certainly an arguable position.

[grumbler]

In terms of winners we should probably also consider those countries that gained their independence.

But almost all of them got "independence" that included a poison pill.

[grumbler]

I bet the Tsar felt that way on the 17th of June 1918 to.

'You know what I should have said?  Fook Serbia that's what.'

I am not sure the evidence indicates an intelligence strong enough for those kinds of cause and effect calculations, but it is possible.

[PDH]

I am not sure the evidence indicates an intelligence strong enough for those kinds of cause and effect calculations, but it is possible.

Q: What was the last thing that went throught the Tsar's mind?
A: A 7.63 Mauser round.

[Jaron]

I am not sure the evidence indicates an intelligence strong enough for those kinds of cause and effect calculations, but it is possible.

Q: What was the last thing that went throught the Tsar's mind?
A: A 7.63 Mauser round.

[jimmy olsen]

Your opinion was certainly a popular one in the 1920s and 30s.  I think saving Britain and France was worth it myself even if the fuckers did take the opportunity to expand their stupid empires.

Your opinion was certainly a popular one in the 1950s and 1960s.  I think France and Britain needed no saving in 1917/18, and the peace that followed may have been negotiated instead of those fuckers imposing one that set themselves up to do it again in 20 years.

But isn't it likely that in the aftermath of an Entente victory, without Wilson's moderating presence, an even harsher peace would have been enforced?

[LaCroix]

Your opinion was certainly a popular one in the 1920s and 30s.  I think saving Britain and France was worth it myself even if the fuckers did take the opportunity to expand their stupid empires.

Your opinion was certainly a popular one in the 1950s and 1960s.  I think France and Britain needed no saving in 1917/18, and the peace that followed may have been negotiated instead of those fuckers imposing one that set themselves up to do it again in 20 years.

But isn't it likely that in the aftermath of an Entente victory, without Wilson's moderating presence, an even harsher peace would have been enforced?

though i do not pretend to hold as much knowledge of ww1 as perhaps some of the people here, i can only assume that grumbler meant that if there was no u.s. intervention, there would not be a 1918 spring offensive, and that both sides would keep to the stalemate that had lasted throughout the war until the revolutionary elements forced one side (or both) to eventually offer a truce that returned the borders to their pre-war status. whether this would have created an even further bone of contention between france and germany in the future over alsace-lorraine, i do not know. the fate of the bretz-litovsk treaty might also remain a question. i do not think that the entente would have captured ultimate, non-conditional victory without the united states

[jimmy olsen]

Wasn't Germany starving to death because of the British blockade though? They would have had to give up, just like they did in our timeline.

[LaCroix]

i don't know much about the blockade, to be honest, they could have been though. hence the question from other members on the site. i always figured the surrender was more due to the utter hopeless of the loss of the spring offensive, but if they really were as starved for material and supply as you say, then that could have been a major factor. however, weren't the british rather strapped for resources, due to the german submersibles, as well? if we are to propose that the americans enter a neutral stance, in this hypothetical, do we also assume that they did not supply the entente with crucial war supplies?

[Syt]

Stevenson's "1914 - 1918" (excellent book if you're interested in a broader scope than just the military campaigns) posits that it was a combination of failed 1918 offensives, blockade, Americans arriving in force and Bulgaria collapsing that pushed Ludendorff over the edge demanding the war be ended and asking the politicians to take care of that.

Later he supposedly regretted that breakdown, and went on to buy into the backstab legend.

[The Brain]

In terms of winners we should probably also consider those countries that gained their independence.

Careful. Martim hates Finland.

[Martinus]

So the USA won the war? WTF?

Yes.  A thank you would be appreciated BTW.

Hey, we have Wilson's square in Warsaw.