Languish.org

For whatever reason, America doesn't enter The Great War. Who wins?

I need to contemplate this on the Tree of Woe.

Austria and Ottomans were already broken. The questions need to be

1. would the Ludendorff offensives happened with no US entry?
2. was Bellau Wood necessary to stop the Ludendorff offensives?
3. would the requirement to man front sections held by the US have hobbled the 100 days offensive?

The thing is Germany was also broken. They were starving. I think Ludendorff happens regardless to try and end the war.

The americans did not stop the offensive, the death and incapacitation of the storm troopers, the lack of plan and direction from ludendorff and crappy german logistics killed it. The americans just ended it earlier.

The 100 days was very very very bloody due to most of it being trenchless combat. At that point I think the german army was broken. Americans not required.

I think the americans end the war quicker and cleaner. The americans also mean that proper revenge is not take and the germans don't feel themselves subudued. So, perhaps no hitler?

When you say "does not enter WW1", do you mean militarily? Or also not giving financial and economic aid to the Entente?

Quote from: Syt on May 25, 2014, 09:15:26 AM
When you say "does not enter WW1", do you mean militarily? Or also not giving financial and economic aid to the Entente?

The Federal Reserve strongly advised against making loans to Britain that were not secured with collateral in November 1916. They only changed their tune when America joined the war and the British had to beg them to. So, no war, no loans...unless they're willing to put up some Caribbean islands for collateral or something like that.

Nobody wins World War 1 :contract:

Or rather the entente of course. As bad as things looked to be getting for the entente economy and morale, the allies were already beyond fucked.

Quote from: Viking on May 25, 2014, 08:39:18 AM
I think the americans end the war quicker and cleaner. The americans also mean that proper revenge is not take and the germans don't feel themselves subudued. So, perhaps no hitler?

Yep that's roughly my view. I don't think the Americans determined who won the war but they did speed it up.

And then there's Wilson :bleeding:

Maude. :contract:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2014, 11:07:40 AM

Quote from: Viking on May 25, 2014, 08:39:18 AM
I think the americans end the war quicker and cleaner. The americans also mean that proper revenge is not take and the germans don't feel themselves subudued. So, perhaps no hitler?

Yep that's roughly my view. I don't think the Americans determined who won the war but they did speed it up.

And then there's Wilson :bleeding:

Agreed.  The Allies were breaking, but the Central Powers were broken.

And you are right that adding Wilson to Lloyd-George is turning a cretin's presence into a cretin's congress.  Without Wilson present in Paris, DLG and Clemenceau would have created a treaty not even their own people could sign off on.  Certainly, there would have been none of the League of Nations bullshit, and so no delusions about the efficacy of "collective security."  Eventually, as at Vienna, the losers would have to be allowed to sit at the table, and the resulting negotiations could have led to a real peace, rather than the mere armistice that came out of the historical Versailles Diktat.

The Wilson-hatred on Languish is almost as thick as the Liberal Arts-hating and black people-hating.  Goddamned shame.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:02:44 PM
The Wilson-hatred on Languish is almost as thick as the Liberal Arts-hating and black people-hating.  Goddamned shame.

Disliking Wilson is just common sense.

Anti-American Exceptionalism faggits.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:02:44 PM
The Wilson-hatred on Languish is almost as thick as the Liberal Arts-hating and black people-hating.  Goddamned shame.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-wYCLLPlGKWk%2FTzDQ15iaHOI%2FAAAAAAAAAI8%2F0RFC9A7FISk%2Fs1600%2FWilson.jpg&hash=f68061456d087077ec794e19d44ec7e362e26a19)

I see somebody got to the Zimas in garage fridge already.

:lol:

Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

Quote from: Jaron on May 25, 2014, 03:15:10 PM
Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

You're just mad because there is no Jaron option!  :lol:







Actually, so am I.

Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2014, 12:59:58 PM
Agreed.  The Allies were breaking, but the Central Powers were broken.

And you are right that adding Wilson to Lloyd-George is turning a cretin's presence into a cretin's congress.  Without Wilson present in Paris, DLG and Clemenceau would have created a treaty not even their own people could sign off on.  Certainly, there would have been none of the League of Nations bullshit, and so no delusions about the efficacy of "collective security."  Eventually, as at Vienna, the losers would have to be allowed to sit at the table, and the resulting negotiations could have led to a real peace, rather than the mere armistice that came out of the historical Versailles Diktat.

Clemenceau's no cretin :P

But I think you're right. There's a great story of the negotiations that led to Irish independence. Eamon de Valera met with Sir James Craig, leader of the Ulster Unionists, who asked him 'are you going to see Lloyd George alone?'

'Yes', replied Dev.

'Are you mad?' said Craig, 'Take a witness. Lloyd George will give any account of the interview that comes into his mind or that suits him.'

In retrospect he was correct.

BTW, Churchill said in The World Crisis that, absent a US entry into the war, the Germans would have won.

QuoteIf the Russian Revolution had occurred in January instead of in March, or if, alternatively, the Germans had waited to declare unlimited U-boat war until the summer, there would have been no unlimited U-boat war and consequently no intervention of the United States. If the allies had been left to face the collapse of Russia without being sustained by the intervention of the United States, it seems certain that France could not have survived the year, and the war would have ended in a Peace by negotiation or, in other words, a German victory.  Had Russia lasted two months less, had Germany refrained for two months more, the whole course of events would have been revolutionized.  In this sequence we see the footprints of Destiny.  Either Russian endurance or German impatience was required to secure the entry of the United States and both were forthcoming.

p. 684

Quote from: Jaron on May 25, 2014, 03:15:10 PM
Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

You sure?
Ask all the winners throughout history.
I fuckinguarantee you they will not agree with you.

Quote from: Siege on May 25, 2014, 06:49:30 PM

Quote from: Jaron on May 25, 2014, 03:15:10 PM
Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

You sure?
Ask all the winners throughout history.
I fuckinguarantee you they will not agree with you.

And even if they do I bet the losers wouldn't.

Quote from: Siege on May 25, 2014, 06:49:30 PM

Quote from: Jaron on May 25, 2014, 03:15:10 PM
Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

You sure?
Ask all the winners throughout history.
I fuckinguarantee you they will not agree with you.

Most, maybe. Not all though.

A bunch of winners (Americans) are arguing in Raz's thread that we shouldn't have fought in WWI.

We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.  IMO the Germans just should have figured it was inevitable and went whole hog with the U-Boat campaign, though I guess that plan didn't work that great in WWII.

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2014, 10:12:30 PM
We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Habbaku on May 25, 2014, 10:27:53 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2014, 10:12:30 PM
We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.

:rolleyes:

Seriously?  This is all I get after all these years?  Not even the decency of explaining your position?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 09:42:58 PM
A bunch of winners (Americans) are arguing in Raz's thread that we shouldn't have fought in WWI.

Because the argument could be made that we bandwagoned and did not actually "win" WWI.

Yes, there was the submarine warfare.  But the Zimmermann telegram amounted to a fait accompli- the Germans couldn't afford the offer they made to the Mexicans, and they had to have realized the disparity in military between our two countries.  At best, if the Mexicans accepted, it might have been a stall tactic.

Personally, I believe the Allies' resources had been exhausted far too greatly by the time of our entry into WWI for our involvement to even have had an accelerating effect.  So the American narrative painting us among the "winners" of WWI is pure hubris.

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2014, 10:30:27 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 25, 2014, 10:27:53 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2014, 10:12:30 PM
We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.

:rolleyes:

Seriously?  This is all I get after all these years?  Not even the decency of explaining your position?

:rolleyes:


JK. :hug:

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2014, 10:30:27 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 25, 2014, 10:27:53 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2014, 10:12:30 PM
We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.

:rolleyes:

Seriously?  This is all I get after all these years?  Not even the decency of explaining your position?

I was on my iPad at the time.   :P

The Zimmermann Telegram as an excuse to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers overseas and to expend billions of dollars doesn't pass the smell test for me.  Do you really view Mexico as a serious threat to US security at the time, enough to where we need to send troops to France to fight them?  The Germans were making an attempt to push the USA out of the quasi-war we were already in--what with our massive support of the Entente--with them and were grasping at straws in an attempt to do so.  The threat simply wasn't credible and the Germans absolutely did "leave us a choice."  It's the same choice the USA always has--whether going to war with a perceived threat is worth it or not. 

Going to war over a farce like Zimmermann simply wasn't worth the cost and did not contribute to our security in any meaningful way.

Zimmermann Telegram wacked Martin.

 :lol: Lulz, good one, Siegey.

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman Telegram: "-.-- . .- ...."
Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that."

haven't seen this mentioned yet: the giant ants of Brest-Litovsk

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2014, 09:44:55 AM
:lol: Lulz, good one, Siegey.

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman Telegram: "-.-- . .- ...."
Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that."

^_^

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 26, 2014, 02:57:24 PM
haven't seen this mentioned yet: the giant ants of Brest-Litovsk

it's been a while...

Quote from: Siege on May 26, 2014, 09:36:25 AM
Zimmermann Telegram wacked Martin.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2014, 09:44:55 AM
:lol: Lulz, good one, Siegey.

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman Telegram: "-.-- . .- ...."
Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that."

:lmfao: