(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg138.imageshack.us%2Fimg138%2F2849%2F45665893.jpg&hash=1e86b9ce74dce3d756d69ceee8c917dc94c57e3c)
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2849/45665893.jpg
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg406.imageshack.us%2Fimg406%2F5968%2F78083211.jpg&hash=b3bed0ab2c29df6a06933775923db201368fcc2a)
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5968/78083211.jpg
I want to know how it ends. :(
1. Russia was more important for escalation into full war than France.
2. The Germans erected the trench systems when they retreated after the Marne.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg710.imageshack.us%2Fimg710%2F9481%2F30357357.jpg&hash=22b03877ab670a8c0d444f7e280b48246b06c606)
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/9481/30357357.jpg
So the USA won the war? WTF?
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2009, 11:33:17 AM
So the USA won the war? WTF?
No they brought an end to war, by making it clear to German that they couldnt win the war, before they ran out of time, men and food...
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2009, 11:33:17 AM
So the USA won the war? WTF?
Have you ever played tug of war?
What's the source for this? It looks like /tg/'s handiwork, but it is out of their field, i'd think.
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2009, 11:33:17 AM
So the USA won the war? WTF?
Yes. A thank you would be appreciated BTW.
Quote from: Lettow77 on December 04, 2009, 12:06:45 PM
What's the source for this? It looks like /tg/'s handiwork, but it is out of their field, i'd think.
Angus McLeod. Did a WWII comic also
http://angusmcleod.deviantart.com/art/World-War-Two-Simple-Version-73625561
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 04, 2009, 12:15:04 PM
Angus McLeod. Did a WWII comic also
http://angusmcleod.deviantart.com/art/World-War-Two-Simple-Version-73625561
Yeah the WWII one was funnier. He gets his history mostly wrong in this one besides the US winning it in the end of course :whistle:
:blink: wow American schools teach a odd version of history.
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2009, 12:32:11 PM
:blink: wow American schools teach a odd version of history.
Who won WWI then?
British schools sucks btw. September is Autumn, Pah!
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2009, 12:32:11 PM
:blink: wow American schools teach a odd version of history.
American schools didn't teach me that. I thought it was fairly obvious. The coming millions of men from our endless well of manpower was a decisive factor.
That does not mean the French and the British did not do the heavy lifting even right at the end. It took us forever to get our military built up in WWI.
The USA was the clear winner of WW1.
The British Empire was close to bankruptcy, the French were so buggered that they just rolled over in 1940, the Russians had the communists, Austria-Hungary was dismantled, Italy irrelevant and Germany humiliated.
Throwing your weight into the balance towards the end of a long war served the USA very well in the first half of the 20th century.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 04, 2009, 12:45:06 PM
The USA was the clear winner of WW1.
The British Empire was close to bankruptcy, the French were so buggered that they just rolled over in 1940, the Russians had the communists, Austria-Hungary was dismantled, Italy irrelevant and Germany humiliated.
Throwing your weight into the balance towards the end of a long war served the USA very well in the first half of the 20th century.
Disagree. The US lost less severely than the other nations you mention, but gained nothing from entering WW1 (save, perhaps, avoiding the spectre of a British or French bankruptcy). The US would have been better-off staying out of the war.
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2009, 12:32:11 PM
:blink: wow American schools teach a odd version of history.
:blink: wow, someone taught you to leap to delusions!
McLeod is Canadian. Canadians don't attend American schools.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 01:00:43 PM
Disagree. The US lost less severely than the other nations you mention, but gained nothing from entering WW1 (save, perhaps, avoiding the spectre of a British or French bankruptcy). The US would have been better-off staying out of the war.
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.
Which raises the question of whether the Germans could have defeated the British and French without US involvement.
I would say that they couldn't; the British army had actually become a powerful instrument by the end of 1917. So, it probably comes down to which country caves in first from sheer exhaustion......again, Germany?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 04, 2009, 01:26:42 PM
Which raises the question of whether the Germans could have defeated the British and French without US involvement.
I would say that they couldn't; the British army had actually become a powerful instrument by the end of 1917. So, it probably comes down to which country caves in first from sheer exhaustion......again, Germany.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 01:03:10 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2009, 12:32:11 PM
:blink: wow American schools teach a odd version of history.
:blink: wow, someone taught you to leap to delusions!
McLeod is Canadian. Canadians don't attend American schools.
Who on earth is McLeod?
I'm pretty sure the posters who replied to me were Americans.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 01:00:43 PM
The US would have been better-off staying out of the war.
Darn right. Fuck Europe.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 04, 2009, 01:26:42 PM
Which raises the question of whether the Germans could have defeated the British and French without US involvement.
I would say that they couldn't; the British army had actually become a powerful instrument by the end of 1917. So, it probably comes down to which country caves in first from sheer exhaustion......again, Germany.
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.
I think that the orthodox view is that the Germans responded to American entry with the big offensive in spring 1918 (before the mass arrival of American troops) to try and win the war with a knockout blow. That offensive failed and there is no particular reason to believe that later offensives would have stood a better chance, the blockade was biting.
Oh well, we are entering Turtledove territory :huh:
There is also the case that we were all losers as a result of the unsatisfactory peace treaty.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 04, 2009, 01:36:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 01:00:43 PM
The US would have been better-off staying out of the war.
Darn right. Fuck Europe.
I sometimes think that Britain should have taken that view as well :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 04, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 04, 2009, 01:36:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 01:00:43 PM
The US would have been better-off staying out of the war.
Darn right. Fuck Europe.
I sometimes think that Britain should have taken that view as well :huh:
Well, why not, their royal family was descended from a bunch of krauts...
If the question is who gained the most relative to their effort, the answer is obviously Japan.
If the question is which remaining power saw its relative power increase the most because all the others were fooked, that's the US. That seems to be Tricky's calculus. But as grumbler pointed out, the same would have been true if the US stayed out.
In terms of winners we should probably also consider those countries that gained their independence.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 04, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 04, 2009, 01:36:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 01:00:43 PM
The US would have been better-off staying out of the war.
Darn right. Fuck Europe.
I sometimes think that Britain should have taken that view as well :huh:
Certainly would have been better than expending those men on the Somme for the Frogs.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 04, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
I sometimes think that Britain should have taken that view as well :huh:
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.'
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 01:05:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 01:28:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 04, 2009, 01:42:33 PM
There is also the case that we were all losers as a result of the unsatisfactory peace treaty.
That is certainly my contention.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 04, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
I sometimes think that Britain should have taken that view as well :huh:
That is certainly an arguable position.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 01:49:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 01:58:08 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 02:15:19 PM
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.
Quote from: PDH on December 04, 2009, 08:55:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 02:15:19 PM
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.
^_^
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 01:05:03 PM
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?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2009, 01:20:20 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 01:05:03 PM
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
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 01:49:57 PM
In terms of winners we should probably also consider those countries that gained their independence.
Careful. Martim hates Finland.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 12:10:17 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2009, 11:33:17 AM
So the USA won the war? WTF?
Yes. A thank you would be appreciated BTW.
Hey, we have Wilson's square in Warsaw. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 05:37:44 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 12:10:17 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2009, 11:33:17 AM
So the USA won the war? WTF?
Yes. A thank you would be appreciated BTW.
Hey, we have Wilson's square in Warsaw. :P
There's also hospitals and stuff named after FDR in Slovakia. :unsure:
Actually, Poland was a clear winner of WWI. First we sided with the Germans and kicked out the Russians, then when Germans were losing we turned on them and kicked them out as well. We got our independence, a country relatively untouched by war both in infrastructure and population terms, and when the Soviets came a calling in 1918, they were so weakened we kicked them back and captured half of the modern day Ukraine and Belarus.
Compared to the outcome of WWII, this was a fucking miracle.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2009, 02:07:37 AM
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.
Germany had captured the Ukraine. As the war went on, the situation would improve. I think that the collapse of Russia without the addition of the US would result in some negotiations, although German overconfidance might cause problems with those, unless the German domestic situation was critical.
Nevertheless, it doesn't matter. The US entered the war on the side of state terror, and so karma gave them 9/11.
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 05:42:59 AM
Actually, Poland was a clear winner of WWI. First we sided with the Germans and kicked out the Russians, then when Germans were losing we turned on them and kicked them out as well. We got our independence, a country relatively untouched by war both in infrastructure and population terms, and when the Soviets came a calling in 1918, they were so weakened we kicked them back and captured half of the modern day Ukraine and Belarus.
Compared to the outcome of WWII, this was a fucking miracle.
Serbia did better. They got subject peoples to rule, and they also became independent in such a way that they weren't dismembered and annihilated as a people a generation later.
The Czechs did also come out on top, French and England was very busy giving them land areas with right type of industry and resources, that in the end did the Czech only make up just about 52% of the population in their new state...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 05, 2009, 08:51:51 AM
The Czechs did also come out on top, French and England was very busy giving them land areas with right type of industry and resources, that in the end did the Czech only make up just about 52% of the population in their new state...
Yes, and that served them so well over the next 30 years that the term Sudetenland has become synonymous with "utopia." :P
Seriously, people, do you really think that a country "wins" if it gets a temporary independence that carries with it the seeds of the destruction of the country? Think about the long-term implications of the "victories" you are proposing.
In re: the US not joining the war, if the US doesn't join, it is pretty much as Neil proposes: Germany retrenches with her control over Ukraine, thus stopping a great deal of the hunger, and the Entente loses Russia without a counterbalancing gain. At that point, the Alllies would probably be willing to deal, and if the Kaiser could be shut away someplace or convinced to keep his fucking mouth shut, a negotiated peace could have been achieved. It is possible that it wouldn't, but the worst-case result for the US non-intervention is better than what historically occurred
with US intervention, so I will continue to hold that US intervention was a mistake.
Quote from: grumbler on December 05, 2009, 09:05:51 AM
I will continue to hold that US intervention was a mistake.
But then, the question has to be asked...why in the hell did you vote for Wilson TWO TIMES, sir!?
Quote from: PDH on December 05, 2009, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 05, 2009, 09:05:51 AM
I will continue to hold that US intervention was a mistake.
But then, the question has to be asked...why in the hell did you vote for Wilson TWO TIMES, sir!?
:lmfao:
Quote from: Syt on December 05, 2009, 03:16:21 AM
Later he supposedly regretted that breakdown, and went on to buy into the backstab legend.
He and Hindenburg were such tremendous assholes after the war, saying all that shit when they knew damn well it wasn't true and they had lost the war. Another reason I am glad the US intervened, it would have been horrible if those two fucks got to be known as great heroes.
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2009, 01:18:39 PM
it would have been horrible if those two fucks got to be known as great heroes.
You mean like Hindenburg becomin president of Germany, or Ludendorff becoming an arbiter of the Nazis?
Arbiter macht frei.
Quote from: Syt on December 05, 2009, 01:23:20 PM
You mean like Hindenburg becomin president of Germany, or Ludendorff becoming an arbiter of the Nazis?
I meant in history not in post-war Germany :P
Where is the: Ottoman Empire?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on December 05, 2009, 04:21:56 PM
Where is the: Ottoman Empire?
In the second image, which doesn't seem to be displaying right now. Check this link:
http://angusmcleod.deviantart.com/art/World-War-One-Simple-Version-128505446
Quote from: grumbler on December 05, 2009, 09:05:51 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 05, 2009, 08:51:51 AM
The Czechs did also come out on top, French and England was very busy giving them land areas with right type of industry and resources, that in the end did the Czech only make up just about 52% of the population in their new state...
Yes, and that served them so well over the next 30 years that the term Sudetenland has become synonymous with "utopia." :P
Seriously, people, do you really think that a country "wins" if it gets a temporary independence that carries with it the seeds of the destruction of the country? Think about the long-term implications of the "victories" you are proposing.
In re: the US not joining the war, if the US doesn't join, it is pretty much as Neil proposes: Germany retrenches with her control over Ukraine, thus stopping a great deal of the hunger, and the Entente loses Russia without a counterbalancing gain. At that point, the Alllies would probably be willing to deal, and if the Kaiser could be shut away someplace or convinced to keep his fucking mouth shut, a negotiated peace could have been achieved. It is possible that it wouldn't, but the worst-case result for the US non-intervention is better than what historically occurred with US intervention, so I will continue to hold that US intervention was a mistake.
It's hard to see what would happen 20 years in the future. Though from one point a view the situation worked out well for the US. All of it's potential rivals in Europe were destroyed along with Japan. The only one that could potentially rival the US was grievously wounded by two world wars assorted self inflicted injuries that it limped along for 40 years before finally just giving up the ghost.
Quote from: PDH on December 05, 2009, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 05, 2009, 09:05:51 AM
I will continue to hold that US intervention was a mistake.
But then, the question has to be asked...why in the hell did you vote for Wilson TWO TIMES, sir!?
That was
Henry Braid Wilson. Not Woodrow.
Quote from: grumbler on December 05, 2009, 09:05:51 AM
In re: the US not joining the war, if the US doesn't join, it is pretty much as Neil proposes: Germany retrenches with her control over Ukraine, thus stopping a great deal of the hunger, and the Entente loses Russia without a counterbalancing gain. At that point, the Alllies would probably be willing to deal, and if the Kaiser could be shut away someplace or convinced to keep his fucking mouth shut, a negotiated peace could have been achieved. It is possible that it wouldn't, but the worst-case result for the US non-intervention is better than what historically occurred with US intervention, so I will continue to hold that US intervention was a mistake.
I'm not so sure. Let's say they "retrench" in the Ukraine. It's not clear to me they'll be able to get any grain out of the place; they had trouble doing so OTL, after all; even the Third Reich, which had far fewer compunctions about letting the Slavs starve, couldn't really manage it.
Meanwhile, the blockade is still in place. And the Allies are learning how to use tanks.
I admit an even more dramatic defeat might help the Germans.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 05, 2009, 10:42:09 PM
even the Third Reich, which had far fewer compunctions about letting the Slavs starve, couldn't really manage it.
Which is a big part of why the Nazis could never get anything out of it.