Would Germany win ww1 if the US never intervened?

Are you saying Britain didn't pay the U.S. back?!

Not with Australians opposing them

this
Germans had no reason to keep fighting in the West until Americans joined so they were forced to keep fighting

US economic contribution as a neutral (loans, arms shipments, food supplies) was greater than its military contribution as an Entente member.

American entry into WW1 wasn't a determinant factor. Germany was exhausted by then, the Schlieffen Plan had failed, the food blockade was starving its population, and morale was extremely low.

Go to bed Winston we already heard your version of history

What if Germans ally with the Emu?

>The U.S. was heavily aiding the British before ever officially joining the war

I know the U.S provided a lot of loans for the British but did they actually send troops or weapons at the expense of the country?

>did they actually send troops or weapons at the expense of the country?
You don't necessarily have to send weapons at the expense of the country to aid someone. You can still be of immense aid to a foreign country if you send weapons while profiting from the trade.

The US wasn't playing sides in ww1. Its just that they literally couldn't send loans to Germany because of the blockade.

autism

If America was serious about being neutral, they would have declared war on Britain over the blockade on the grounds that it was inferring with the rights of American businessmen to trade with whomever they wanted.

Imagine the world today if the U.S had aided and fought on the side of the Central Powers. Might b cool.

America did in fact bitch about the blockade, but that's as far as it got.

Yea it is kinda fucked up how the British were allowed to starve Germany. Then when Germany responds in the form of unrestricted submarine warfare is when the U.S draws the line. Had it not been for the British blockade and resulting German hunger I think Germany would've won the war of attrition

That would be a different story

No, the blockade was starving them out quite well and they would have given up in a year or so, however US troops did bring about their end quite a bit quicker with their fresh manpower/morale effect on the French.

What would have won WW1 for the Germans was staying the fuck out of Belgium and respecting their neutrality. By doing this they could have kept the UK out of the war at least in the initial phases giving them time to Franco-Prussian the French or at least a fighting chance of doing so.

>What would have won WW1 for the Germans was staying the fuck out of Belgium and respecting their neutrality. By doing this they could have kept the UK out of the war at least in the initial phases giving them time to Franco-Prussian the French or at least a fighting chance of doing so.

Retard

1.Britain was part of the Triple Entente and would still have joined without the stuff in Belgium

2. Britain didn't become relevant on the Western front until 1916
So even if they stay out of the "initial phases", France would still hold until they join

French or American, which are you? Because much as Italy did not join the war with the Central Powers the Uk would not have joined with the Ententes war with Russia and France. It was the violation of Belgian neutrality that served as the casus belli for the UK. As for the UK military, it was the main force that halted the race to the sea, repulsing the german offensive in the north and preventing the northern front from collapsing. The UK navy also smashed the German Baltic fleet to bits and prevented the German colonial troops from taking part in the war in Europe.

that's fucking stupid

>Because much as Italy did not join the war with the Central Powers the Uk would not have joined with the Ententes war with Russia and France.
Wrong
Italy simply had no interest in joining on Central Powers side because their main rival (A-H) was on that side too
Britain's main rival was Germany and they definitly would have joined regardless

>It was the violation of Belgian neutrality that served as the casus belli for the UK.
That was a convenient excuse so Brits jumped on that, but that doesnt mean they wouldn't have joined without that
If you unironically think Britain joined WW1 for Belgium rather than to put Germany's power growth in check, you need to stop watching Disney movies

>As for the UK military, it was the main force that halted the race to the sea, repulsing the german offensive in the north and preventing the northern front from collapsing.
You're deluded af, m8
At the First Battle of Ypres (which ended the race to the sea), France had 4 millions troops while Brits had 163,000...
Even fucking Belgians had more troops (247,000)

>Czechoslovak legion won Entete the war when they captured the Trans-Siberian railway so CP werent able to transport hundreds of thousands of POW´s from Russia to support the Spring Offensive.

Nonesense, the Whites got in control of parts of the Trans-Siberian railway in May 1918, the Spring Offensive started two months earlier. At that point, the Central Powers and Soviet Russia had not yet finished the negotiations about the return of the prisoners, only in summer 1918 the parties finally came to an agreement. By November 1918, about 800,000 Central Powers POWs, a large majority of whom were Austro-Hungarians, had returned from Russia. They were obviously not fit to fight on the front again immediately, so the former POWs did not see any action anymore.

>if the US never intervened

American delusion

The winner (France) was already decided when German lost the Battle of the Marne.

Those who were decisive were the Belgians, fighting for glory even while vastly defeated, they delayed the German advance for few days, and starting from there you could say the war was over.
US showed up at the end of the feast because their officiers wanted some easy medals and because their bankers wanted to be sure their loans were monitored.

This is true. If the Belgians had simply let the Germans through without a fight, then Belgium would have suffered far less during the war, but Germany would have won the war. Belgium's decision to fight against an overwhelmingly superior force bought France time to mobilize, ruining the Schlieffen plan. The first 40 days of the war were absolutely critical for Germany, and Belgians caused just enough of a delay during that critical period to fuck everything up.

>K-keep......the rright wing......strong.......*dies*

>Czechoslovak legion won Entete the war when they captured the Trans-Siberian railway so CP werent able to transport hundreds of thousands of POW´s from Russia to support the Spring Offensive.

You know that Czechoslovaks rebelled in May 1918, while the Spring Offensive started in March?

>they would have declared war on Britain

That would be absolutely retarded

>The winner (France) was already decided
The Entente. And you can tell that to the millions of dead after 1914.

>we want to be neutral
>so let's declare war on somebody now
i hope you're trolling because that has got to be the most retarded shit I've read on this board for months

with Germany gaining access to the resources in the East after Brest Litovsk, they might have stood a chance

Brest-Litovsk immediately produced an uproar in the communities that it affected which had no desire to cooperate at all. And even though the Bolsheviks agreed to pull out of the war, they made it clear that they'd resist any attempt to enforce the terms of the treaty. Germany could have subdued the relevant territories, given enough time, but time had already run out, and shifting troops eastward to try and subdue the territories wasn't a viable option.

>the Spring Offensive started two months earlier
I didnt knew that you cant use reserved during the war and you have to deploy all units first on the front before starting the offensive.

France*
These millions died because of German stubborness

Germans never won in a fair and square manner against the French, they had lost the the moment their perfidious strike was stopped

>Brest-Litovsk immediately produced an uproar in the communities that it affected which had no desire to cooperate at all.

It produced an uproar in Poland because under Brest-Litovsk the Ukraine got territories that were demanded by the Poles. The Ukrainian government agreed to comprehensive food deliveries, which were however only partly realized because of internal turmoil and previous plunder by the Bolsheviks.

>And even though the Bolsheviks agreed to pull out of the war, they made it clear that they'd resist any attempt to enforce the terms of the treaty.

The treaty was enforced, Soviet Russia ceded the Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland and parts of Belarus. Only some time after the German capitulation they could try to win them back.

>but time had already run out

Since we're assuming here that the Americans stay out of the war, the Germans actually have time and can actually use more troops to help the government of Ukraine to restore order in Ukraine and elsewhere to ensure a growing supply of food and raw materials.

The only war Germs ever won in their history was in 1871 against the French. Still they somehow got memed as a war machine.

>Soviet Russia ceded the Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland and parts of Belarus

The Bolsheviks had a policy called "No War, No Peace." This meant that they would officially withdraw from the war and make no further attempts to attack Germany, but they would still defend themselves if attacked by Germany. They would have treated any attempt to enforce the terms of Brest-Litovsk as an attack by Germany.

It was Germany's enemies who created that meme to justify her destruction.

Man, the Spring Offensives ended mid-July, the more promising first offensive much earlier. No returned POWs could have been ready by then, especially since repatriations had just started in June.

It was Frederick the Great turning Prussia into his personal barracks.

>The Bolsheviks had a policy called "No War, No Peace."

This was Trotsky's foolish stance before Brest-Litovsk. Then Operation Faustschlag happened and the Soviets had to sign the treaty.

>They would have treated any attempt to enforce the terms of Brest-Litovsk as an attack by Germany.

How was Brest-Litovsk not enforced? The Soviets were pushed out of their Western territories and had to accept the installation of more or less German-aligned governments there.

>Germans had no reason to fight in the west

Why?

Because they already controlled France's industrial core. Basically, they already had all the parts of France that they wanted to annex. They were less interested in the rural regions of France.

This doesn't seem like a useful way to think about, since it implies that the book has a set length. At the very least the US shortened the conflict by entering the war. For all we know it could have been a 1000 page book with a completely different ending.

Did Germany even had any plans to annex territories in the west? AFAIK they only wanted Lebensraum in the east from the Russians

They wouldn't have won, but they probably wouldn't have had such a harsh peace either.

>they probably wouldn't have had such a harsh peace either
?
USA forced the softest treaty...

Iirc they wanted to annex Luxemburg, set Belgium up as a proxy and have a strip of Western France demilitarized.

>Had it not been for the British blockade and resulting German hunger I think Germany would've won the war of attrition
>Had it not been for German attrition Germany would've won the war of attrition

>Hey guy stop fighting we got the land.
>French attack us, well stop figthing too.
>Let just back a little.
>Yeah Hinderburg line is useless still don't fight.
Well they did stop fight in the west at the end.

Look, Americunts, you barely did shit in World War 1, we don't hold that against you, there wasn't any good reason to, but stop acting like you won it. Acting like you're the good guys... You actually made a profit from the war, which fucked everyone who actually participated.

I'm bong but this is what I've heard as well. Wilson was pushing for peace

Hey faggots does anybody have the link for that ~10 minute YouTube video on the war? The music is super ominous and there are a bunch of shots of people suffering from shell shock. I'm kicking myself for not saving it

>Germans never won in a fair and square manner
What's fair and square in war?

No.

Germany would have won WW1 if they had fought a conventional two-fronts war against France and Russia without British intervention.

>Did Germany even had any plans
Germany had no real plans when they entered WW1. Most of their plans were made during the war. They only had plans for how to fight a war but they had no real plans on what to do if they actually won.

I got you my dude
youtube.com/watch?v=k4Pd527GN48

Oh fuck yes - thanks amigo!!