How America won WWI for the Entente Powers - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14746622
as I investigate the notion that 'the German army was stabbed in the back' when the country surrendered, I came across this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Offensive

..It seems that, first of all, the German revolution that overthrew the original government to install a parliament was the first step. This nature and cause of this revolt is highly suspect. We understand that the Russians, just a year earlier, were forced to surrender after western-backed (Banker-backed,) Bolsheviks overthrew their own country. It is reasonable to assume that the same powers employed the same methods in Germany.

But here we learn that, even after that revolution, the German army out-numbered entente on the western front as was on the winning side of a stalemate -- especially considering the recent surrender of Russia on Germany's eastern front. Securing the eastern front would, presumably, bolster the western substantially.

HOWEVER, the US enters the war. This forces the German Army to charge the front before the American's arrive, but consequently lose the push. Soon after, 1-2 million American soldiers would arrive.

So there you have it. The Entente only won because the International Bankers were primarily English and American, and pushed the US into the war.
#14746885
Americans believe some real shit about the first world war. You didn't even make the main contribution to winning your own war of independence (the French more or less won the revolutionary war for you) and you come here claiming to have won the First World War? :lol:
#14746895
no, look at what I am saying:

Germany's eastern front is won. The Russians have succumbed to the banker-backed Bolsheviks.

Now, the western front, (where Germany already outmans the entente by 50 divisions,) is going to be strengthened. Germany no longer has two opposite fronts.

The stalemate on the western front looks like it will swing into Germany's favour.

..and so American's declare war.

Also consider, if it wasn't necessary for the American's to enter the war, then they wouldn't have.
#14746897
FUSER -- there is more than substantial evidence on the fact that the Bolsheviks were backed, (and really only won because of,) international capitalists.

try this:




also, specifically, it was Jacob Schiff who was bankrolling them. (ok, go, you're responsibility to do the investigation from here on.)
#14746918
no, look at what I am saying:

Germany's eastern front is won. The Russians have succumbed to the banker-backed Bolsheviks.

Now, the western front, (where Germany already outmans the entente by 50 divisions,) is going to be strengthened. Germany no longer has two opposite fronts.

The stalemate on the western front looks like it will swing into Germany's favour.


The same Germany that was nearly starving to death due to the Royal Navy blockade, I don't think so. :lol: I shouldn't tease you really, you must have went to an American "school" so it isn't really your fault you believe all this nonsense, I bet you think the world is 6000 years old too.
#14746977
Now this thread just belongs in conspiracy theory. :lol:

Anyway Germany never had 50 more divisions in western front, at the time of operation micheal they had about 15-20 more divisions but numerically both sides were similar because at that point German divisions were smaller.

Plus at 100 days offensive Franco-British army alone were outnumbering a demoralized, "starved of food and war-materials" German Army with all her allies no longer in any condition to fight.

If anything allied blockade of Germany was the most effective tool of the war.
#14747008
Why would international bankers back the Bolsheviks, who wanted to put them all in jail and end capitalism? It doesn't make any sense to me. Also does WW1 carry some kind of special significance in your conspiracy theory or something, because you are mighty obsessed with something that happened a century ago.
#14747010
Yes because Hitler was such an authentic and expert source on ww1. :lol: :lol:

You would be better served by reading some actual history books rather than conspiracy theory bonkers.

Blockade of Germany wrote:The German Board of Public Health in December 1918 claimed that 763,000 German civilians died from starvation and disease caused by the blockade up until the end of December 1918. An academic study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000.

the blockade made a large contribution to the outcome of the war; by 1915, Germany′s imports had already fallen by 55% from their prewar levels and the exports were 53% of what they were in 1914. Apart from leading to shortages in vital raw materials such as coal and non-ferrous metals, the blockade also deprived Germany of supplies of fertiliser that were vital to agriculture. This latter led to staples such as grain, potatoes, meat, and dairy products becoming so scarce by the end of 1916 that many people were obliged to instead consume ersatz products including Kriegsbrot ("war bread") and powdered milk. The food shortages caused looting and riots, not only in Germany, but also in Vienna and Budapest. The food shortages got so bad that Austria-Hungary hijacked ships on the Danube that were meant to deliver food to Germany.
#14747078
fuser wrote:If anything allied blockade of Germany was the most effective tool of the war.

It might have been most effective in terms of allied lives, but what ever it depended on the US. The US meekly accepted the allied blockade like good beta-cucks while refusing to respect the Central powers blockade of the allies.

Whether "International Jewry" was critical to getting America into the war, the allies most certainly believed it was. The Balfour declaration was payment for this. The Balfour declaration caused huge damage to the war effort against the Ottomans and threatened to destabilise the substantial Muslim populations of the British and French empires. Britain and France's governments clearly believed this was a price worth paying, rather than risk the ire of International Jewry, by reneging on their side of the deal.

And before any of you start screaming conspiracy theory perhaps you'd like to explain why you think the allies did the Balfour declaration, do you imagine Britain and France's elites just so loved the Jews that they couldn't even wait until the Ottomans were defeated before gifting Palestine to the Jews? How did Jews acquire such power?

[youtube]qv0lY6PeHUQ[/youtube]
#14747146
In fairness, the British also promised the same land in the Balfour Declaration to the [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence]Arabs in exchange for the Arab Revolt[/url].

They also agreed to divide the area with the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement]French.[/url]

Less likely than a Jewish conspiracy is that the Brits wanted the Americans in the war, Americans are suckers for homeland nationalism promises, and the Brits were willing to promise everyone everything until the war was over because they're slippery bastards.

In one of the great troll moves of history, Lenin had the secret agreements published during the war.
#14747151
Americans believe some real shit about the first world war. You didn't even make the main contribution to winning your own war of independence (the French more or less won the revolutionary war for you) and you come here claiming to have won the First World War?


Yeah, well we defeated you in the war of 1812 without winning a single battle until the war was over. :lol:
#14747152
Less likely than a Jewish conspiracy is that the Brits wanted the Americans in the war, Americans are suckers for homeland nationalism promises, and the Brits were willing to promise everyone everything until the war was over because they're slippery bastards.

^ This. The Brits were willing to do anything to win WWI. In fact, the primary motive for the Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War was to install a government in Russia which would bring the country back into the War on our side. If the Bolsheviks had promised to do this, then we would happily have sided with them against the Whites. Lying to our 'friends' by promising the same plot of land to multiple parties (rather like Max Bialystock promising the same shares in a Broadway musical to multiple people in The Producers) was the least of it.

In one of the great troll moves of history, Lenin had the secret agreements published during the war.

Lol. Indeed. The Bolsheviks' insistence on publishing all of the secret protocols of the Great Powers' horse-trading in smoke-filled rooms was one of the reasons the Western Allies refused to recognise the legitimacy of the Bolshevik government. Well, that and the whole 'dictatorship of the proletariat' thing, of course. ;)

Of course, after another few years in power, the Bolsheviks quickly realised their mistake and they stopped publishing the embarrassing details of the deals they made with the evil capitalist-imperialist Powers. Their brains had collided with reality, and reality proved to be harder. After all, the biggest troll is reality itself, no?
#14747298
Rich wrote:It might have been most effective in terms of allied lives, but what ever it depended on the US. The US meekly accepted the allied blockade like good beta-cucks while refusing to respect the Central powers blockade of the allies.


You have to understand, (a) the German blockade was Killing US citizens, maybe not many, but that did not go down well with the US public, (b) Britain dominated US investment, (about 65% of all foreign investment in the US) Britain was well positioned to buy vast amounts of stuff from the US in a way the central powers were not. Britian was doing business on vast scale which was very profitable for the US. (c) The Base of the British Blockade was legal, the base of the unrestricted submarine warfare was not.

SO
(a) emotionally the German blockade was much worse
(b) finically the British were a m8ch superior trading partner
(c) Legally the British had a much better case.
#14747553
david.findley wrote:no where have I ever read, from any source, that the blockade was so severe an impact that the 'germans were starving'. not from hitler himself, not fro Prof Quigley, not from anybody.

I think you're overstating 'starvation'.


Americans really do make me laugh. Fuser is correct, the blockade of Germany was a far bigger factor in the German surrender than anything the yanks did (once they finally turned up). Tell me have you ever read a book Dave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip_Winter

For the duration of World War I, Germany was constantly under threat of starvation due to the success of the British Naval blockade. Whatever meager rations remained were sent to the troops fighting the war, so the civilian population faced the brunt of the famine.
#14747556
For the duration of World War I, Germany was constantly under threat of starvation due to the success of the British Naval blockade. Whatever meager rations remained were sent to the troops fighting the war, so the civilian population faced the brunt of the famine.


This is false. No German would surrender due to mere starvation. Only the sight of the huge, beautiful, male Adonis soldiers of the US could instill such fear. Decky, I find your comments very unAmerican and nothing is worse than that. ;)
The Popular Vote...

Do you have an argument, or is it more of this, &q[…]

And now you are assuming that your arguments are […]

That'll Just About Do It For Beto...

I doubt it. This will probably help more than hur[…]

So having electricity for all for free, because e[…]