Languish.org

If Germany does not renew unrestricted submarine warfare and provoke the US into the war, who wins?

I say the Central Powers. Britain and France go broke without American loans and have to come to the negotiating table.

US entry merely accelerated Germany's defeat. It was already a done deal. It turned "we're gonna lose" into "oh fuck make it stop right now" for the Kaiser. No change.

Unless you think the League of Nations did anything...

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 04:20:14 AM
If Germany does not renew unrestricted submarine warfare and provoke the US into the war, who wins?

I say the Central Powers. Britain and France go broke without American loans and have to come to the negotiating table.

How do Britain and France, the very centres of international finance, go broke before a blockaded and starved Germany?

The loss of the psychological and military impact of American manpower is a telling blow for sure, but Germany's game is up regardless.

Quote from: Warspite on April 30, 2011, 04:26:33 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 04:20:14 AM
If Germany does not renew unrestricted submarine warfare and provoke the US into the war, who wins?

I say the Central Powers. Britain and France go broke without American loans and have to come to the negotiating table.

How do Britain and France, the very centres of international finance, go broke before a blockaded and starved Germany?

Britain and France were importing vast amounts of food, raw material and weapons/munitions and Germany was not. American loans were drying up and without American entry into the war would have stopped.

I think you are underestimating the moral factor of the US entry. The French army was pulled back from the brink of collapse a couple of times by the time of the Yankee entry.

Of course, if the Entente moral held up, Germany would had been done for due to the blockade. But both sides were severly exhausted moral-wise

Quote from: Warspite on April 30, 2011, 04:26:33 AM
How do Britain and France, the very centres of international finance, go broke before a blockaded and starved Germany?

The loss of the psychological and military impact of American manpower is a telling blow for sure, but Germany's game is up regardless.

This.  Had the US not entered and Grmany come up with Stosstactics a year earlier, I would vote the other way.  By 1917/1918, it was too late.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 04:34:31 AM

Quote from: Warspite on April 30, 2011, 04:26:33 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 04:20:14 AM
If Germany does not renew unrestricted submarine warfare and provoke the US into the war, who wins?

I say the Central Powers. Britain and France go broke without American loans and have to come to the negotiating table.

How do Britain and France, the very centres of international finance, go broke before a blockaded and starved Germany?

Britain and France were importing vast amounts of food, raw material and weapons/munitions and Germany was not. American loans were drying up and without American entry into the war would have stopped.

Germany had an autarkic economy in WW1? This is news to me.

I don't see any logic in Germany's inability to import (due to the British blockade) being regarded as a plus point for the Central Powers.

Quote from: Warspite on April 30, 2011, 04:58:45 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 04:34:31 AM

Quote from: Warspite on April 30, 2011, 04:26:33 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 04:20:14 AM
If Germany does not renew unrestricted submarine warfare and provoke the US into the war, who wins?

I say the Central Powers. Britain and France go broke without American loans and have to come to the negotiating table.

How do Britain and France, the very centres of international finance, go broke before a blockaded and starved Germany?

Britain and France were importing vast amounts of food, raw material and weapons/munitions and Germany was not. American loans were drying up and without American entry into the war would have stopped.

Germany had an autarkic economy in WW1? This is news to me.

Of course it wasn't. However French credit had collapsed. By 1917 the British were to a great extent subsidizing the French war effort. With the exhaustion of British collateral, loans from America would have ceased and the British would not be able to subsidize the French anymore.

Britain and France could still get loans and goods from the US, US in the war or not.

It would be the entente. Germany was on the ropes, it was absolutely screwed. France was also looking a bit shakey but I think it could hold out long enough.

Quote from: Tyr on April 30, 2011, 05:56:50 AM
Britain and France could still get loans and goods from the US, US in the war or not.

It would be the entente. Germany was on the ropes, it was absolutely screwed. France was also looking a bit shakey but I think it could hold out long enough.

US banks weren't gonna take IOUs.
The US guaranteed loans to Britain and France when they entered the war, that won't happen here.

I'm pretty sure that America wins.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 06:01:58 AM

Quote from: Tyr on April 30, 2011, 05:56:50 AM
Britain and France could still get loans and goods from the US, US in the war or not.

It would be the entente. Germany was on the ropes, it was absolutely screwed. France was also looking a bit shakey but I think it could hold out long enough.

US banks weren't gonna take IOUs.

Aint that how loans work?

Quote from: Scipio on April 30, 2011, 06:02:39 AM
I'm pretty sure that America wins.

:yes:

Dead Euros and raking in the cash? Win win.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 06:01:58 AM

Quote from: Tyr on April 30, 2011, 05:56:50 AM
Britain and France could still get loans and goods from the US, US in the war or not.

It would be the entente. Germany was on the ropes, it was absolutely screwed. France was also looking a bit shakey but I think it could hold out long enough.

US banks weren't gonna take IOUs.
The US guaranteed loans to Britain and France when they entered the war, that won't happen here.

This wasn't some discretionary expeditionary endeavour. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation, and the UK and France were willing to do what it took to raise the funds somehow, anyhow. Meanwhile, German calorie consumption is sinking and the nation is awash with ersatz foodstuffs.

What probably happens is that the post-war settlement is even more punishing for Germany, because the Entente are even worse off than historically.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 06:01:58 AM
US banks weren't gonna take IOUs.
The US guaranteed loans to Britain and France when they entered the war, that won't happen here.

Are you just making stuff up here?  "US banks weren't gonna take IOUs" for loans?  What do you think a loan is, if not an IOU?  The financial position of Britain and France was certainly eased by the US government's guarantee of their loans, but British and French credit was by no means exhausted.  The issue was the terms of further loans, not the possibility of them.

Maybe you should restrict your fiction to your maps.  Those are always fun.

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 06:31:00 AM


Maybe you should restrict your fiction to your maps. Those are always fun.

WHAT THE HELL. You so crazy.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2011, 06:32:43 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 06:31:00 AM


Maybe you should restrict your fiction to your maps. Those are always fun.

WHAT THE HELL. You so crazy.

When has he shown one of his maps without hilarity ensuing? :contract:

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 06:31:00 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 06:01:58 AM
US banks weren't gonna take IOUs.
The US guaranteed loans to Britain and France when they entered the war, that won't happen here.

Are you just making stuff up here?  "US banks weren't gonna take IOUs" for loans?  What do you think a loan is, if not an IOU? 

Normally that is the case, however the risk here was much higher than normal. If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back. The Brits put up collateral in the form of property (railroad lines and the like) to guarantee their war loans between 1914-early 1917. They were out of collateral at that point but the US entered the war and the Fed guaranteed loans to the Entente. Without that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 06:51:57 AM
If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back.

Cite?

QuoteThey were out of collateral at that point

Cite?

QuoteWithout that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

It would be more expensive, yes.  Your argument is that it would be impossible.  I have yet to see you offer evidence for such a claim.

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 06:56:46 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 06:51:57 AM
If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back.

Cite?

QuoteThey were out of collateral at that point

Cite?

QuoteWithout that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

It would be more expensive, yes.  Your argument is that it would be impossible.  I have yet to see you offer evidence for such a claim.

1. Britain won and still defaulted on its war loans, it's not exactly rocket science to suspect that if things go bad for them that they might not be able to repay what it owes.

2 & 3 - All my searches are bringing up Jstor and Muse articles. <_<

I'm reduced to looking through Googlebooks. This might take a while, so please be patient.

I honestly wish we had access to all the archives to all the board systems we've used for Languish, so I can demonstrate with raw data that Timmay has started this thread 27 times since 2003.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 07:05:43 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 06:56:46 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 06:51:57 AM
If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back.

Cite?

QuoteThey were out of collateral at that point

Cite?

QuoteWithout that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

It would be more expensive, yes.  Your argument is that it would be impossible.  I have yet to see you offer evidence for such a claim.

1. Britain won and still defaulted on its war loans, it's not exactly rocket science to suspect that if things go bad for them that they might not be able to repay what it owes.

So, the risk adjuster in the alternative universe 1916 knows that in the real universe 1932, the UK defaults on Inter-Allied Debt - itself in response to Germany halting its own payments - in the midst of an unprecedented global depression? And it is on this basis that the UK's ability to fight a total war is going to dry up?

Quote from: Warspite on April 30, 2011, 07:17:55 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 07:05:43 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 06:56:46 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 06:51:57 AM
If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back.

Cite?

QuoteThey were out of collateral at that point

Cite?

QuoteWithout that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

It would be more expensive, yes.  Your argument is that it would be impossible.  I have yet to see you offer evidence for such a claim.

1. Britain won and still defaulted on its war loans, it's not exactly rocket science to suspect that if things go bad for them that they might not be able to repay what it owes.

So, the risk adjuster in the alternative universe 1916 knows that in the real universe 1932, the UK defaults on Inter-Allied Debt - itself in response to Germany halting its own payments - in the midst of an unprecedented global depression? And it is on this basis that the UK's ability to fight a total war is going to dry up?

The Federal Reserve strongly warned US banks not to take unsecured loans on Nov 27, 1916. No hindsight was necessary.

My understanding is that the occupation of the Ukraine came too late iin 1917 for that year's harvest to feed Germany.  Theoretically the food situation should have eased in 1918, although still no coffee.  (Germans are a naturally crabby people--can you imagine what they were like after four years of no coffee?)  What a US abstention from the war probably wouldn't change however is the the collapse of Austria Hungary in the Balkans.

The US entry into the war caused the Germans to take rash decisions to end the war. The 1918 offensive was the quickest and best way to kill off the most motivated and best trained German soldiers. The allied counter attack (Combined Arms beats Stormtroopers) took the land lost back at far lower casualties, not to mention not getting stalled. All of this was done without important US contributions, this was basically the war winning move.

So the question is really what if Germany had not been forced by US entry to launch the 1918 offensives or if Germany had not tried to maintain a blockade of the UK. Either case, Germany not provoking the US or the US refusing to be provoked by Germany, the question remains the same. Could the Germans have broken the French Army in 1918 or 1919 without US help to the allies. I can't help but think that the question remains the same with or without US entry into the war. By 1918 the Western Allies had solved the trench warfare issue technologically and tactically, while the Germans had an improvised tactical solution without technical support. The allies tank and aircraft superiority meant that the allies could mount methodical and well organized attacks that almost guaranteed victory when done with much preparation while the germans had to mount risky and costly attacks provided they had enough trained manpower left.

If the Germans do not blockade the UK they will need to mount this last ditch attempt at victory earlier, rather than later. Germany is crashing, while the Entents worst problem is a strike in the French army where the soldiers refuse to make suicidal attacks, but will defend tenaciously. In late 1918 Entente attacks are no longer suicidal and pointless, they are quick, successful and reasonably cheap in blood.

So I don't think the US entry really did anything to change the outcome of the war, it merely forced the germans hand in 1918 since in 1919 the germans would be badly outnumbered on the western front with the US joining.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2011, 07:11:40 AM
I honestly wish we had access to all the archives to all the board systems we've used for Languish, so I can demonstrate with raw data that Timmay has started this thread 27 times since 2003.

:lmfao:

There's always more collateral.  You can take loans using the fleet as collateral, and then when you can't pay, crawfish and tell the Americans to get fucked.

At any rate, it was too late.  The British were already working their way inexorably through Belgium towards Germany, whether or not newly minted US troops are throwing themselves face-first onto machine gun nests in France.  In the meantime, the German homefront is trying to decide what inedible things they're going to eat in order to scrape by enough calories to keep their bodies running.  Jellicoe is the hero of the war.

Would the food situation in Germany have improved with the Ukraine in the German camp?  I don't think the morale factor should be discarded though.  Still, even without the US the hundred days offensive would probably still have gutted Germany.  If Entente morale was high enough to do it, the war would still likely go to the Entente.

British finances were on the verge of collapse if the Americans didn't enter the war.

QuoteGreat Britain found itself nearly bankrupt in 1917, a sharp contrast to its dominant position in international finance in the prewar years. It owed $400 million on a maturing loan to JP Morgan and Co., but the US advanced almost $700 million to Great Britain allowing it to continue the war effort.

page 78
link (http://books.google.com/books?id=YRjmQLOscGoC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Britain+world+war+one+loans+collateral&source=bl&ots=U2gJ5G9lsV&sig=CnSnj0qkahs96bYctTXn-GP1XoQ&hl=en&ei=wfq7TdCWGoSGvgOB_ZTKBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Britain%20world%20war%20one%20loans%20collateral&f=false)

Also look here, page 197-98. At the end of August 1916 Britain floated a $250 million dollar loan with $300 million in collateral and were only able to raise $200 million. 
link (http://books.google.com/books?id=c6xFCkUY-CAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Financing+the+First+World+War&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=JgW8TZ2KAYPevQOJ6tTXBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Page 199 of the above book

QuoteIn the five months ending on 30 September 1916, three fifths of British spending in America had been covered by gold or existing British investments in the United States, and two fifth by loans.

The allied agreement to raise £100 million in gold could contribute $500 million towards the $1,500 million required, but prudence required that half this gold should be kept back. Thus perhaps five-sixths of allied spending over the next half year would have to be founded by loans, a total of $1,250 million.

Borrowing on this scale would clog the market as each issue would compete with the last. The principle problem was its pace: "the question" as Keynes, "is whether the money can be turned over in America and brought back to us in the form of loans as fast as we can spend it. Furthermore, nobody had any idea how the war could be financed beyond April 1917. McKenna, reflecting advice from Keynes, reckoned that by July 1917 the United States would be in position to dictate terms.

The one other thing I can think of is the major German offensives in 1918, would they still have happened (and at the same scope) if the US had not entered the war?

This conversation is interesting because I've always thought that Germany had a better shot of winning WW1 than WW2. This might still be true, but only in the sense that in the Great War the odds were slim whereas in WW2 the odds were hopeless.

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 07:23:16 AM
The Federal Reserve strongly warned US banks not to take unsecured loans on Nov 27, 1916. No hindsight was necessary.

Got a cite for that?  All I can find is a Fed warning that the British Treasury Bills would likely not be redeemable in three months as advertised. (Mobilization for total war: the Canadian, American, and British experience By Nándor F. Dreisziger p. 33  - see Google Books).

Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2011, 07:34:31 AM
The US entry into the war caused the Germans to take rash decisions to end the war. The 1918 offensive was the quickest and best way to kill off the most motivated and best trained German soldiers. The allied counter attack (Combined Arms beats Stormtroopers) took the land lost back at far lower casualties, not to mention not getting stalled. All of this was done without important US contributions, this was basically the war winning move. 

Gonna need some evidence for that, given that there were 1.5 million US troops in France when the Allied offensive began.  What were they doing, given your assertion that none of them were doing anything "important?"

I also don't think the Germans would have acted any different in the spring of 1918 if the US hadn't entered the war.  The German people were starving to death.  That created a need to end the war by the summer of 1918 independent of anything the US did.

I agree with your conclusion that Germany had lost the war bu 1918, but I don't agree with your arguments.  I think they ignore the effects of the blockade on Germany and the effects of a million and a half American troops in allowing the British and French to concentrate the troops they needed for the Hundred days Offensive.

Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2011, 09:34:00 AM
This conversation is interesting because I've always thought that Germany had a better shot of winning WW1 than WW2. This might still be true, but only in the sense that in the Great War the odds were slim whereas in WW2 the odds were hopeless.

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

I've always suspected Hitler could've negotiated a peace if he'd entirely given up France and the Low Countries.  Poland would've been enough to digest anyway.  I might be wrong, though; did the stuff that was rumored to allude to a negotiated peace on Britain's part ever get unclassified? :unsure:

The thing about WWI I never got was how a country that wasn't self-sufficient in food and depended upon waterborne imports could even consider going up against the Royal Navy.

Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2011, 09:34:00 AM
This conversation is interesting because I've always thought that Germany had a better shot of winning WW1 than WW2. This might still be true, but only in the sense that in the Great War the odds were slim whereas in WW2 the odds were hopeless.

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

As I mentioned above, earlier development of Stosstactics was probably the bast (and maybe only) shot Germany had to win the war.

Whoever got their war status cards out quicker.

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 09:39:50 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 07:23:16 AM
The Federal Reserve strongly warned US banks not to take unsecured loans on Nov 27, 1916. No hindsight was necessary.

Got a cite for that?  All I can find is a Fed warning that the British Treasury Bills would likely not be redeemable in three months as advertised. (Mobilization for total war: the Canadian, American, and British experience By Nándor F. Dreisziger p. 33  - see Google Books).

QuoteThe announcement also carried an injunction to private investors to consider carefully the nature of their overseas investments, particularly in the case of overseas unsecured loans. Allied shares fell sharply, and $1,000 million was wiped of the stock market in a week. The ensuing run on the pound could only be staunched with the shipment of more gold. To save its exchange, Britain stopped its American orders and tried to curb those of its allies.

link (http://books.google.com/books?id=c6xFCkUY-CAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Financing+the+First+World+War&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=JgW8TZ2KAYPevQOJ6tTXBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Any objections to my citations in reply #29? How is Britain going to continue to finance the war if America stays neutral?

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 09:52:13 AM
I also don't think the Germans would have acted any different in the spring of 1918 if the US hadn't entered the war.  The German people were starving to death.  That created a need to end the war by the summer of 1918 independent of anything the US did.

And this is what's key.  Allied finances were troublesome, but they weren't going to end the war as the Allies still had resources to tap.  German starvation was still going to result in the disintegration of the Germany as a country, no matter what the military situation.

Just so, Britain was running short of gold but Germany was running out of turnips.

Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2011, 09:34:00 AM
Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

Yes. By staying away from Dolchstosstactics.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 10:20:02 AM
Any objections to my citations in reply #29? How is Britain going to continue to finance the war if America stays neutral?

I am waiting for a cite that says that

QuoteBritain and France go broke without American loans and have to come to the negotiating table.

or

Quoteloans from America would have ceased

Mere assertion is not evidence, and citations that don't say what you say or even support your assertions do not advance your case.

That Britain and France would have paid more for their loans is my argument, so don't try to convert your argument that they couldn't have gotten loans into an argument that it would simply have been harder.  Even if your point were true, Britain and France would be, at worst, reduced to the financial position that Germany was already in.

Quote from: Neil on April 30, 2011, 10:34:05 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 09:52:13 AM
I also don't think the Germans would have acted any different in the spring of 1918 if the US hadn't entered the war.  The German people were starving to death.  That created a need to end the war by the summer of 1918 independent of anything the US did.

And this is what's key.  Allied finances were troublesome, but they weren't going to end the war as the Allies still had resources to tap.  German starvation was still going to result in the disintegration of the Germany as a country, no matter what the military situation.

Is there any chance the food situation would have improved in 1919 with Russia out and the Ukraine under German control?

Only thing that surprises me with this thread is why Timmys is asking it here. Its a question that has been discussed to death on the other forum you frequent by people who are a lot more knowledgable than the trollers on languish.

What other forum does he frequent?  The Alternative History forum?

Quote from: Cecil on April 30, 2011, 11:08:54 AM
Only thing that surprises me with this thread is why Timmys is asking it here. Its a question that has been discussed to death on the other forum you frequent by people who are a lot more knowledgable than the trollers on languish.

Ah, the old "you guys are trolls" troll!  :lol:

That one hasn't worked here in ages.  :cool:

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 11:17:41 AM

Quote from: Cecil on April 30, 2011, 11:08:54 AM
Only thing that surprises me with this thread is why Timmys is asking it here. Its a question that has been discussed to death on the other forum you frequent by people who are a lot more knowledgable than the trollers on languish.

Ah, the old "you guys are trolls" troll!  :lol:

That one hasn't worked here in ages.  :cool:

I guess that sounded better in your head.

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 10:02:22 AM

Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2011, 09:34:00 AM
This conversation is interesting because I've always thought that Germany had a better shot of winning WW1 than WW2. This might still be true, but only in the sense that in the Great War the odds were slim whereas in WW2 the odds were hopeless.

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

As I mentioned above, earlier development of Stosstactics was probably the bast (and maybe only) shot Germany had to win the war.

This seems a bit unlikely, doesn't it? It requires Germany to make a leap in military tactics much quicker than it did historically, and the tactics seemed to develop gradually. Or am I wrong?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 08:44:58 AM

British finances were on the verge of collapse if the Americans didn't enter the war.

Pretty big exaggeration.

First of all, the UK was a net creditor during WW2, not a not debtor.  That is, looked at on a holistic basis, borrowing from the US was not used to fund the UK war effort, but rather to fund the UK's financing of the Russian and Italian war efforts.  Basically, the UK acted as an investment banker for the allies, using its privileged position in the NY money market to secure better terms for its financially weaker allies.  Second, total US financing of 1 billion pounds was significant, but still only about 10% of UK war expenditure, even not including the overseas sterling loans to allies.  In comparison to WW2, the UK made less use of income taxation (and taxation in general) to finance the general budget.  Third, UK financial policy in ww1 was oriented around maintaining the value of sterling vs. the dollar and this is what practically limited dollar financing prior to US entry,  Fourth the UK in ww1 did not use the rationing and administrative measures resorted to in WW2.

Thus the probably result of no US entry on UK finances likely would have been higher taxes, a decline in the value of sterling, less lending to the Russian provisional government and to Italy, and possibly some form of rationing.  This would have been perceived as painful and unprecedented, but well short of "collapse:"

Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2011, 11:31:18 AM
This seems a bit unlikely, doesn't it? It requires Germany to make a leap in military tactics much quicker than it did historically, and the tactics seemed to develop gradually. Or am I wrong?

Yes, it seems unlikely to me, as well.  Basically, it would have needed someone to come up with the plan, and then some mechanism to convince the army leadership to adopt it before the need for new tactics was clearly visible. 

Quote from: The Brain on April 30, 2011, 10:46:37 AM

Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2011, 09:34:00 AM
Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

Yes. By staying away from Dolchstosstactics.

^_^

Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2011, 10:01:49 AMThe thing about WWI I never got was how a country that wasn't self-sufficient in food and depended upon waterborne imports could even consider going up against the Royal Navy.

I think the idea was that the war would be over by Christmas, not that it would last for four years. AFAIK, there was no starvation in the first year or two of the war.

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 09:52:13 AM
I also don't think the Germans would have acted any different in the spring of 1918 if the US hadn't entered the war.  The German people were starving to death.  That created a need to end the war by the summer of 1918 independent of anything the US did.

I agree with your conclusion that Germany had lost the war bu 1918, but I don't agree with your arguments.  I think they ignore the effects of the blockade on Germany and the effects of a million and a half American troops in allowing the British and French to concentrate the troops they needed for the Hundred days Offensive.

I'm in general agreement with grumbler here.  I'm not sure that the German plans for 1918 would have been exactly the same if America hadn't entered the war, but one way or another, the Germans needed the war to end before the end of 1918.

Quote from: Ideologue
The thing about WWI I never got was how a country that wasn't self-sufficient in food and depended upon waterborne imports could even consider going up against the Royal Navy.

They didn't think that the war would last long enough for the effects of the blockade to be felt.  Remember, they intended to capture Paris and knock France out of the war in the opening campaign, after which Britian and Russia would magically make peace too.

What Germany really needed was someone to say, "Make peace you fools!" in late 1914.  What I don't understand is why that didn't happen;  actually, all the German leadership should have been thinking along those lines.  Plan A to win the war had failed, and there was no Plan B.

Quote from: dps on April 30, 2011, 02:46:20 PM
They didn't think that the war would last long enough for the effects of the blockade to be felt.  Remember, they intended to capture Paris and knock France out of the war in the opening campaign, after which Britian and Russia would magically make peace too.

It was the lack of imported fertilizers, not imported food, that doomed Germany.  Field Marshals and Kaisers don't tend to think of the important shit; they thought it would be over by Christmas).

QuoteWhat Germany really needed was someone to say, "Make peace you fools!" in late 1914.  What I don't understand is why that didn't happen;  actually, all the German leadership should have been thinking along those lines.  Plan A to win the war had failed, and there was no Plan B.

I've never understood this myself, except in the possible sense that the Kaiser's personal rule would not survive the consequences of getting Germany into a war it could not win.  No one in a position of power would then have been in a position to survive those political consequences, so they perhaps preferred to gamble for a miracle.

Quote from: Cecil on April 30, 2011, 11:08:54 AM
Only thing that surprises me with this thread is why Timmys is asking it here. Its a question that has been discussed to death on the other forum you frequent by people who are a lot more knowledgable than the trollers on languish.

Unless that forum is the Association of University History Proffessors then no they weren't more knowledgable.

Altho, yes we are all trolls.

Yeah, that's what I meant.  I can sort of understand going to war, but not quitting once they failed to knock out France.  I guess g's answer is about as good as any.

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 03:50:42 PM
It was the lack of imported fertilizers, not imported food, that doomed Germany.  Field Marshals and Kaisers don't tend to think of the important shit

^_^

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 03:50:42 PMI've never understood this myself, except in the possible sense that the Kaiser's personal rule would not survive the consequences of getting Germany into a war it could not win.  No one in a position of power would then have been in a position to survive those political consequences, so they perhaps preferred to gamble for a miracle.

Was it obvious to everyone that Germany was losing before 1918? There were still no foreign troops on German soil...

Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2011, 07:06:47 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2011, 03:50:42 PMI've never understood this myself, except in the possible sense that the Kaiser's personal rule would not survive the consequences of getting Germany into a war it could not win.  No one in a position of power would then have been in a position to survive those political consequences, so they perhaps preferred to gamble for a miracle.

Was it obvious to everyone that Germany was losing before 1918?

No.

Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2011, 07:06:47 PM
Was it obvious to everyone that Germany was losing before 1918? There were still no foreign troops on German soil...

It was obvious to the Germans.  They were eating strange things and caloric intake was plummeting.  Artillery tubes were worn out and German artillery was dropping shells on their own troops. I don't know how good Allied intel was on the German home front or amongst the German troops.  I seem to recall that it was good enough to know that the German fleet would rebel if ordered to sail in 1918, but don't know about the preceding year(s).

Stalemate, by that meaning negotiated peace.  No US=no ability/will to launch the required offensives to cripple the Germans soon enough.  If the US was for certain a neutral and took careful steps to avoid being sucked down by either side losing the Entente is in much worse shape to win the war.  Germany cannot win the war BUT no US=no war guilt clause, no technology restrictions and far less detached lands (france will regain theirs, germany forfeit russian lands but their pre-ww1 borders likely stay the same in the east absent a few random Polish towns/villages.)  Colonies/fleets still lost and the UK would be happy to end the war on such a note almost certainly. Though fleets would be lost and rebuilding monitored at first they will almost certainly face no restrictions inside 3-5 years.  Not like Germany could rebuild their navy at such a time anyways.  Germany's allies still die and post war is still enough of a mess that some twisted WW2 still happens and the Kaiser still falls.  The other treaties with lost central powers are probably a bit more fair as well. 

On paper Germany still losses but compared to what actually happened it will seem like a white peace.