"America won WW1."

Also Japan

>What is Japan

You consider yourself a historian?

The "Allies" won you ass. WW1 began in 1914, and America joined in 1917, because of three main factors: the Zimmerman Telegram (Germany), unrestricted submarine warfare (Germany), and finally the sinking of the Lusitania (Germany).

All we did was simply "help" out in winning the war. Were we there for three years like the rest of our allies? No. We were there for a year. All we did is make one hell of a contribution for the Allies to win the war.

So in the end, the "allies" won, not America, the allies.

>You consider yourself a historian?
No

They sent a relatively underarmed force that had to be be given guns by the other allied powers to help with the mopping up. That was their only contribution.

She's a beauty

America came out "ahead" simply by losing the least

it helped to offset the absurd amount of Americans that died during the Civil War, which nobody took a page from before they entered WW1

Cool, I didn't know America had a civil war.

Nobody won WW1.

I wish they had been more involved, maybe then you wouldn't have a bunch of pissy eurotrash deciding terms intent, not on ensuring peace, but to pass the blame, thereby ensuring millions of deaths in future conflict.

Why are you complaining? America made a quick buck from WW2 as well.

The Union army alone was larger than our WWI military in % of population fighting it.

>laughing_Takashi.webm

They definitely didn't lose it.

>The Union army alone was larger than our WWI military in % of population fighting it.
Always thought America was a unified country. What's the tl:dr version of why you guys fought a civil war?

False and I'm American. We just sent French and Brits more supplies near the end. What bullshit are you reading OP?

America benefited financially from the war. In terms of combat, they did nothing important.

Fucking pussy. We kicked ass in WW1, just as we did in WW2.

>America made a quick buck from WW2 as well.

youtube.com/watch?v=erJEaFpS9ls

We were already the most powerful country in the world in most metrics, we just didn't have a large army or the military industrial complex that made us a "superpower", and the latter has only hindered our potential since.

The southern states at the time thought that Abe Lincoln was going to be slavery, so they formed their own country. North sent troops in. Long and Bloody, but from the beginning the south didn't stand a chance.

slaves

Yanks wanted to end slavery and centralise shit
Dixs wanted to not end slavery and not centralise shit

South was being uppity and the north was playing Big Dawg. Only so many compromises can be made before a decisive decisionn gets made.

In the same way Greece won WWI.

The South was like "We want these new states to have slaves" and they were also like "Ooga booga states rights so you can't take away slavery" and the North was like "Ok" for the first one but like "Nuh uh nigga" for the second and then Abe Lincoln was elected even though he wasn't on the ballot in the South and they thought he was gonna ban slavery so they separated and got together to form the CSA and then assaulted an USA fort and started the worst war in American history

Do people outside the states really not know about the civil war? Most Americans barely know there were any civil wars EXCEPT for ours (granted, they are very very stupid).

Why would you pay attention to other country's civil wars especially if other country's had their own? Doesn't effect them unless it's to sell arms to one side.

US Civil War is p cool. South had some amazing generals like "Stonewall" Jackson who were super ancient-historyboos and loved Hannibal and such

it's one of the biggest parts of US history, so Americans think it's really important. Everyone basically knows American Revolution...????...Civil War...World War 2...???...the 60s-80s...today

>Always thought America was a unified country
Are you kidding? America was barely more than a confederation (even after the federalization of the U.S. following the adoption of the Constitution) until the 1890's or so. Despite Union victory in 1865, the country remained practically disunified until almost the turn of the century. There's still a reasonably sized amount of Southerners that still have feelings of resentment toward the rest of the country and not just over the Civil War. We're far more unified today than any other period outside of the 1940's though.

Well I'm sure it's important even for their nation. It's not important for other countries.

Because they're still important to world history?

Who the hell focuses only on the history of the country they're from?

>It's not important for other countries
>the war that set the precedent for total war is not important for other countries
This is why the U.S. and a handful of European generals that watched and studied the American Civil War from afar understood why WWI was going to be a long arduous conflict that would not resolve itself by Christmas 1914 as everyone else hoped.

The civil war and WW1 had nothing to do with each other.

No, just a fan of history!

I only focus on european history, which is to say I focus on world history

Pretty much true that US intervention made it end in 1918, despite eternal European butthurt. If they hadn't joined the war would have just gone on longer than 4 years and probably would have ended with a peace treaty instead Germany getting BTFO'd so hard and surrendering

But the British and French didn't manage kek

Neat picture user

Muh states Muh Union Muh slaves

Japan literally was told to fuck off being a colonizing shitling in Versailles, starting the Butthurt Locomotive on the way to Ultranationalism.

Longer, yes, but not by much. Germany was in an absolutely critical position both on the frontlines and on the homefront. By 1918 you have the Allies breaking into enemy lines virtually at will, while the Germans are retreating for weeks or months on end, instances of surrenders spiking, no manpower, extreme food and resource shortages, and civil unrest is brewing.

>Define "America"
Harlem Hellfighters

>Define "won"
Showed whitey who's the boss

>"America won WW1."
>True or false?

"America was on the winning side in that war."
True.

"America is the reason for the victory and/or won the war singlehandedly or somesuch BS."
False.

You forgot
>Define "WW1"
The Middle Eastern Theatre

America came in the last 30 seconds of the war, had a couple of battles and fucked off again

>Germans starving to death at home
>New tank technology slicing through defenses like a hot knife through butter
>Royal Navy blockading German supply routes even though the cheating Kraut turned to submarine warfare

Yeah I'm sure they could have held on longer bud. Germany stronk, Germany superior, Germany don't need no food or supplies.

they didn't lose WW1 if that's what you're trying to say.

>>New tank technology slicing through defenses like a hot knife through butter
I still find it hilarious that the Germans deployed more captured thanks than they had built themselves. (The former not being particularly difficult since they only built 20 of the latter.)

>war where they bombed cities and gassed each other
>allies cry about submarines

serious question, why did the Royal Navy not also get into sub warfare?

yes, because of the US joining the war, they tipped the scales just enough to break the stalemate

They were on the side that won yes.

That and the unlimited credit and new supply lines and the navy helping with the convoy system.

Oh, and the massive morale boost of a fresh great power with millions of soldiers entering the war. A morale boost so large ut literally helped to put an end to the French mutinies. Oh, and forcing the Germans to launch operation Michael, which was so brutally expensive that it destroyed their ability to wage war, even with the reinforcements from Russia.

Hardly anything.

True? I mean Germany were forced to pay up for all the damages and shit.

Without America they would have lost. GB basically was broke by 1 year of full contact fighting the US funded almost their entire war effort from that point.

>tfw Americans saved our ass twice
how do I deal with this m8s? it's making me butthurt

They did, to a limited extent. The Royal Navy had submarines as early as 1901, with the Holland class. The first British-designed came already in 1902, with the A-class petrol engined sub. They had subs.

But consider what the goal of British naval operations was. It was to blockade ports, starve out the Germans, and generally be a dominant controlling force at sea. There is no room for the type of submarine warfare the Germans favoured, which was directed against freighters, tankers and the like.

Germany and Britain were in two very different situations, and with different goals. Britain had the capabilities to do German-style submarine warfare, but no reason to do so.

Nobody won WWI

They had no need to use submarines. Submarines were used by the German navy because they realised that they couldn't fight effective surface to surface naval battles with the Royal Navy.

The Germans managed to sink more British ships at the Battle of Jutland (primarily blamed on stupid decisions from the admirals but that's a different story) but the Grand Fleet was still too big to destroy.

Unrestricted submarine warfare was a desperate move, just like using lethal gas.

Tell this to a Kaiserboo though and he'll have a fucking stroke. Perfidious Albion are apparently the worst but muh precious Germany can break the rules all they want for their own benefit.

every time you mention America and ww1 in the same sentence a ww1 veteran dies

The war was won when Luddendorf's last lunge into France was repelled at the Second Battle of the Marne, and from there onwards Foch urged the french, british and belgians into advances into the german frontlines which were gradually surrendering from tarnished morale, lack of supplies, and news about the revolts occurring in Germany.

What had indeed summoned Luddendorf to so daringly risk it all was that the american troops were ok the brink of embarking to swell allied troops, and he meant to strike before then, but the french held on regardless. The americans were also involved in Foch's offensive, but at the rate at which german trenches were surrendering, they weren't vital either.

So americans weighed more in how they maintained supplies coming for the Allies by the end, and the threat they posed by their intervention drawing the germans into foolish mistakes.
So thanks Americans but I would rather say that it was the french, the british, the belgians, the russians, the serbians, the romanians, and the italians that won this war.

no you didnt 'kick ass'

you showed up and you did attack so credit for that.

but man for man your troops were the least effective of the allies, largely because they refused to listen to the advice of the british and french on the basis that the british and french had been fighting for years, subsequently american attacks bore more resemblence to 1914-1915 tactics than 1918, and american losses were excessive for the gains made

Germany was going to lose, US just pushed them over the edge. It really what the US did in both World Wars. Hang back for the first few years and then finally decide to join and end up being the sandbag thrown on after the straw that broke the germans back for good measure.

The US was one of the handful of nations to profit immensely from WWI. With Europe in shambles, America's path to ascendancy was cemented.

>The Germans managed to sink more British ships at the Battle of Jutland (primarily blamed on stupid decisions from the admirals but that's a different story) but the Grand Fleet was still too big to destroy.

its not so much that the grand fleet was to big to destroy, more that the grand fleet won the battleship engagement handily and left the germans with a choice of run or die.

the british battlecruisers lost heavily due to poor flash protection and insane in retrospect ammo handling practices, weakness not present in the british battleships, which were both more numerous and better armed than the german battleships.

the battle of jutland

>serious question, why did the Royal Navy not also get into sub warfare?
targeting what exactly?

the non existent german merchant shipping? or the permanently port bound german surface fleet, the RN had subs and the infamous 'K' class aside pretty good subs at that, but those subs had rather limited utility in the kind of war the RN found itself fighting in ww1 and not a great deal of use in ww2 although they did get used extensively in the med

Romania and Polan won

I mean, USA was there fighting when it was won, so they won... as did France and England.

USA came in as reinforcements so that the French and Brits could win. There was no single victor.

True. The Entente would've at least had a far harder time winning without American help, by 1917 they were demoralized and deeply in debt before America intervened.

It's not even out yet tho

>Brazil was there fighting when WW2 was won, so they won... as did America and the USSR