[Thompson_NCL]

US involvement was critical to allied victory. If the US had stayed out of the war, then barring US entry, German victory was almost certain by April 1917. Few American soldiers arrived in Europe in 1917, but the US declaration of war was critical to sustaining allied morale after the collapse of the Russian war effort. Italy would probably have broken quickly following Romania in suing for a separate peace.

Although I agree there was an obvious morale boon from American entry into the war, it was hardly critical in the West. A Romanian collapse was irrelevant and the Italians were committed to the war; look at their objection to Austrian peace overtures.

The reality is that Germany was already collapsing economically by 1917; it was outnumbered and overstretched, unable to capitalise on any successes. Their push towards Paris in 1918 is a perfect example of how hollowed out they were, all it did was expose their weakness.

Assuming the general parameters of the war remained the same, I just don't see how Germany could have ever won WW1. Maybe if Russia has been knocked out early on the Germans would have been able to capture Paris. But the longer the war lasted, the more of a mountain the Germans had to climb.

Consider this detail: Britain's economy grew 7% during WW1 and Germanys shrank 30%. French production was sufficient to arm themselves AND the United States, whilst Germans were starving in soup kitchens.

[fuser]

By the time of US entry, allied blockade of Germany was taking a massive toll, its no surprise that German army surrendered rather than opting to fight on German Land. Plus every single German ally was as good as dead before US entry. Brusilov offensive broke Austria and Arab revolts and Mesopotamian campaign broke Ottomans.

There's simply no way Germany could had won in any sense since end of 1916 but then Rich's lala historical land where Germany "very stronk" has always been ludicrous.

[david.findley]

I'll just conclude by suggesting that everybody who made a point, either way, please remember to keep an open mind and reconsider your positions. Redouble your investigation to confirm your belief-set.

The Truth, after all, is what we're really after.

[pugsville]

i replied to you at length how your OP was riddled with historical errors that can be easily quickly researched. The OP is ridiculous in many of it's statements. This is easily verified with a very little time.


Why haven you bothered to check the facts?

[Rich]

There's simply no way Germany could had won in any sense since end of 1916 but then Rich's lala historical land where Germany "very stronk" has always been ludicrous.

I have spent significant time arguing with you that the conventional perception over rates German's strength in 39 / 40. The complete opposite of the "Germany is very strong" argument. I think your problem is that because you are so ideological driven and hence intellectually dishonest yourself, because you always start with the conclusion and then seek arguments to support the conclusion, you presume that those you argue with must have some simplistic ideological agenda. To be fair that does apply to a lot of people on the forum.

Its my view that the First World War, viewed as a system was far less stable than generally imagined. So I believe that relatively small changes in input could have significantly changed the outcome. So although I believe that German defeat was not ordained, I also think Germany could have lost a lot quicker if the Ottomans and Bulgaria had not entered the war or even worse had both entered on the side of the allies. Alternatively if Italy and Romania had entered the war on the side of the allies in August 1914, a Central Powers collapse in 1914 was not beyond the bounds of possibility. I believe the war might really have ended by Christmas.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

US involvement was critical to allied victory. If the US had stayed out of the war, then barring US entry, German victory was almost certain by April 1917. Few American soldiers arrived in Europe in 1917, but the US declaration of war was critical to sustaining allied morale after the collapse of the Russian war effort. Italy would probably have broken quickly following Romania in suing for a separate peace.

But the Provisional Government carried the war on, and launched the Kerensky Offensive in July 1917. German victory hadn't looked at all inevitable in April 1917; it had been their resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917 (along with the Zimmermann Telegram) that had brought the USA into the war, and it was a tactic of desperation because the British blockade was causing Germany so many problems.

[Rich]

But the Provisional Government carried the war on, and launched the Kerensky Offensive in July 1917. German victory hadn't looked at all inevitable in April 1917; it had been their resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917 (along with the Zimmermann Telegram) that had brought the USA into the war, and it was a tactic of desperation because the British blockade was causing Germany so many problems.

Oh sure. My argument was that Germany would have won the war, without American entry (assuming no other balancing change in this alternative history proposition) not that it would have been obvious before the July offensive. Initially it was hoped by many both inside and out side Russia that the February revolution would strengthen Russia's war effort not weaken it. It seems to escape most people that I'm not just supporting any of the main WWI narratives.

So the Nazis and their fellow nationalist discontents may have been right that American entry into the war stopped their victory. They might be right that Jewish influence was critical in this (although I have never made that contention), but they also failed to give credit to the Jewish Marxists who undermined the Russian war effort and hence strengthened the German one. I argue that Allied victory was contingent on American entry, but in an alternative world where America had not entered into the war and Germany had won, that victory would itself been contingent on many factors.