Would Germany win ww1 if it wasn't for unrestricted submarine warfare?

Would Germany win ww1 if it wasn't for unrestricted submarine warfare?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/XT8YfWzd_zQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania#Background
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Murderers all get judged do they not? So how can a murderer judge others?

>America was in any way relevant in WWI

youtu.be/XT8YfWzd_zQ

>brainletwojak0856.jpeg

Yeah but the problem was that America was now im the war and would only get stronger industrial wise if the war went on America would bring a lot more to the war effort

Reminder that Crowley, not Germany, sunk the Lusitania

Reminder that the Lusitania had it coming
>At the time she was sunk, she was carrying over 4 million rounds of small-arms ammunition (.303 caliber), almost 5,000 shrapnel shell casings (for a total of some 50 tons), and 3,240 brass percussion fuses, in addition to 1,266 passengers and a crew of 696.[2][3]

America’s timing was their biggest contribution. America arrived at one of the most critical points in the War

>this evidence that the Germans could not have possibly known about absolves them of all blame

>When Lusitania was built, her construction and operating expenses were subsidised by the British government, with the provision that she could be converted to an Armed Merchant Cruiser if need be. At the outbreak of the First World War, the British Admiralty considered her for requisition as an armed merchant cruiser, and she was put on the official list of AMCs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania#Background

And the fact that America was basically funding the Entente by this point in the war, and her armies (while inexperienced) were large enough to matter and completely fresh.

>the German navy did not get the info from the Royal Navy in order to have it sunk and to force the US into a war

If America never entered the war then the Germans would adopt a defensive stance in 1918 and secured Ukrainian grain

>implying they even had any grain

That was before the harvest, also Germanys situation would be better since America wouldn't classify grain as a war material.

>implying that's the reason they went to war

No. America entering the war would have found another excuse. It was as much given as GB declaring war on Germany even without Belgium.

If that's actually true, America would immediately declare war on the same day the Zimmerman telegram was sent.

I really hope you're not this retarded.

WW1 had no bad guys or good guys. It was just a dick waving contest gone wrong.

WW2 was good guys vs bad guys with the Soviets pretending to be the goos guys. This ia a fact.

...

Can’t lie tho, WW1 was the war that shaped the leadears of WW2

>America waits until fucking 1917 to declare war after all the most famous battles (Verdun, Tannenberg, Jutland, Gallipoli) have already fizzled out.
>Somehow this proves that America was itching to get into the war even though they waited until it was basically already over.

Russia and France did nothing except defend their own territory the entire fucking war. There is no moral equivalence between them and the Central Powers, who started the war for opportunistic reasons and committed a genocide in the process.

>the CP started ww1

You know the Russians and French wanted a war as bad as the Germans. Everyone was itching for an excuse to fight.

>Serbia didn't agree to all but one of AH's requests

I think it was wise not to rush into this war, America had the only justifiable reason of any party to put its energies towards belligerence.

used to think this as well until i read 100 days by Nick Lloyd
let me describe the Entente's western front situation in 1918 for you:
>France is utterly bled white, they constantly have to narrow their area of operations because of severe manpower shortage
>Britain is doing better, but not by much. They're not facing severe manpower issues yet, but the fact that Churchill ramped up artillery and tank production for 1919 meant they were getting close.
enter the Americans:
>plentiful
>eager to prove themselves
>no war weariness
>their only downside is that even with Euro training, they still lack the 4 years of the experience French and British had
US involvement didn't decide the war, but it sure as hell made it a lot less painful for the Entente.

Umm Russia was trying to expand its sphere of influence into eastern europe at the expense of Austria. They certainly weren't being good Samaritans. Also Britain and France planned to divide the entire middle East after defeating the Ottomans, creating new colonies.

>Austria was trying to expand its sphere of influence into eastern europe at the expense of Russia

Fixed it.

>Also Britain and France planned to divide the entire middle East after defeating the Ottomans, creating new colonies.

So? During WW1, the Ottomans engaged in what could only be described as the most horrific actions by any government during the 20th century. Damn straight they needed to be split up.

France literally did nothing to cause WW1. There are places in France that are still uninhabitable because of poisonous gas attacks. Do you think they wanted that to happen?

Unrelated, but to what extent was Britain rationing in WW1? How did it compare to the British ration programs throughout the 40s and WW2? Was WW1 era Britain any less dependent on food imports than in WW2?

For asking to be spoonfed I contribute spooky machine gunners.

Of course they didn't want uninhabitable areas, but they wanted a war. They wanted to take Alsace back from the Germans, and get revenge for the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War.

>but they wanted a war

It was Austria and Germany who actually pulled the trigger and initiated the conflict. The Triple Entente was a purely defensive alliance based on mutual concern over Austria-German expansionism.

>The Triple Entente was a purely defensive alliance based on mutual concern over Austria-German expansionism.
rosbif this is pathetic

>x could not possibly want y to happen because of unintended results of y

Are you literally retarded?

It was Austria, not Germany. Germany was the third major power to mobilize.

What German expansionism are you referring to? I get the Austrian part, but Germany wasn't looking to expand in Europe. Germany got all it wanted from France, and there wasn't much in Russia that it could have gotten besides more rebellious Poles.

Also, France wanted a war. It doesn't matter if they didn't initiate the conflict, they wanted a war to reclaim their "rightful territory" and to get revenge for the humiliation they suffered during the Franco-Prussian War.

short answer: no
long answer: fuck no

You should be asking the opposite - What if Germany went all out in blockading the UK? A more effective submarine blockade that blocked Argentine, Canadian and American food shipments into the British Isles could have starved Britain into submission.

80% of the beef consumed in the British Isles came from Argentina, and 70% of the wheat came from overseas as well (mostly from Canada, Argentina and the US - in that order).

IIRC Germany only sank two Argentine ships during the war, and agreed to pay reparations and apologized for it - ensuring Argentine neutrality in the war (it was also shipping food for Germany).

However, after 1917 Argentine policy shifted into one called "benevolent neutrality", which pledged itself to the Continental Blockade and greatly favoured the Entente with loans and economic assistance.

What if the Germany had been more aggressive towards neutrals like Argentina in enforcing the blockade?

>What if Germany went all out in blockading the UK?
>implying that's fucking possible

No brainlet, Peter was calling for peace conferences and demilitarization because he knew that Russia couldn't keep up with the other countries.

So why did they mobilize when no one was threatening them? If they didn't want a war they wouldn't have mobilized.

Do you mean Nicholas?

>Also, France wanted a war. It doesn't matter if they didn't initiate the conflict, they wanted a war
So did the bongs, who egged them on and postured dispassionate until they were sure the frogs and slavs were committed to fight for them, then they jumped in. Perfidious Albion.

>France wanted a war.

Yes, remember when France invade Germany through Belgium? Oh wait, the exact opposite happened.

>It doesn't matter if they didn't initiate the conflict

It matters a great deal.

>Germany wasn't looking to expand in Europe.

Germany was trying to dismantle Russia and her allies, particularly Serbia.

>they wanted a war to reclaim their "rightful territory"

This is a meme. The Franco-Prussian war of 1870 was over 40 years in the past during the events of the July Crisis of 1914. During this period of 4 decades, the French movement to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine had fizzled out. It didn't hold any sway over French politics or foreign policy.

That doesn't change anything. The French wanted a war, but the Germans had planned in advance how to take them out since they knew they would fight the French again. The Germans just had better plans.

It doesn't really matter. They didn't start the war, but they were happy to honor their alliance with Russia. They were eager for a war, but didn't want to look like the aggressors.

There is a difference between dismantling rivals and being expansionist. Unless they were planning to annex Russian lands, which they weren't, it isn't expansionistic. Honestly, a breakup of Russia would have been a good thing. Giving the Baltic peoples, Poles, and other minorities their own states is an admirable thing. Even if it's to the benefit of Germany.

It's not a meme. At the beginning of the war, the French stated to advance into Alsace and they told the people they were there to liberate them. They made a pretty bi deal out of it.

>The French wanted a war

You keep saying this. You still haven't given a single fact to support this theory of yours.

>It doesn't really matter.

It matters a great deal.

>They were eager for a war.

Still waiting for evidence. What specific actions did France take in order to initiate the war? Throughout the war, France was only defending its own territory.

>they were happy to honor their alliance with Russia.

And why wouldn't they be? The Russo-French alliance was very important for their national security.

>At the beginning of the war, the French stated to advance into Alsace

And? That's the only way the French army realistically could have gone without violating Belgium's neutrality.

>Honestly, a breakup of Russia would have been a good thing.

From the German point of view. The Russians obviously disagreed, which is why they mobilized in self-defense against the aggressors, Germany and Austria.

My b

Do you actually know what the blockade was for?
It was for prohibiting any food from being transferred from colonies.

Britain still had India, which produces more food than any other nation, so starvation was nonexistent.

India was never a food exporter

>he doesn't realize the entente had almost entirely depleted its manpower and was on the brink of bankruptcy and mutiny by 1918
>he doesn't realize American loans saved the Entente economies
>he doesn't realize America's military contribution was far more important in salvaging British and French morale in 1918
France would have shattered Kaiserreich-style if the US hadn't intervened

I have given examples. The French wanted to get Alsace and their pride back.

It doesn't.

They didn't initiate the war, but they were eager. You can be eager for a war, but not initiate it.

France was involved in Gallipoli, the Italian Front, and the beginning of the African front. They also invaded Alsace at he beginning of the war. They weren't only defending their territory the entire war.

They didn't need an alliance with Russia to protect their national security. They weren't in danger, since Germany got what it wanted. Alsace was the only French territory the Germans ever wanted before the war.

When referring to the invasion of Alsace in my previous comment, I was using it as an example of how the French still wanted it a great deal. The French made a huge deal out of coming back. They handed out flyers and paraded around and told the people that they were there to "liberate" them.

A breakup of Russia would have been a good thing from everyone's point of view but the Russians. Giving all the nationalities in Russia their own states is good, right? At least, I think so.

They never mobilized in defense. Austria mobilized against Serbia, with no intentions of attacking Russia. The Russians wanted a war, so they mobilized without being threatened.

Sugar, coffee and tea

Those are cash crops, not "food".
Britain could do without those.

>They didn't initiate the war
They might as well have with the amount of pressure they placed on Russia to intervene in Serbia.

>the same post that mentions the battle of Tannenberg claims Russia only defended her own territory throughout the war

>India, which produces more food than any other nation

Um, they had rice, spices, curry not to mention, cotton and tea.

>Britain could do without tea

What planet are you from?

>They didn't need an alliance with Russia to protect their national security.

Lol, what nonsense is this? France would have gotten steamrolled without their alliance, and they were perfectly aware of this.

>A breakup of Russia would have been a good thing from everyone's point of view but the Russians.

Clearly France disagreed.

>Giving all the nationalities in Russia their own states is good, right?

Why is creating a bunch of tiny meme countries so desirable that it is worth allowing Germany to drag the entire world into a war?

>Austria mobilized against Serbia

Correct. Austria was mobilizing to invade Serbia, which was a direct challenge to Russia's interests in the Balkans.

>The Russians wanted a war

Russia did not want a war. Nicholas delayed mobilization until it was clear that Austria couldn't be dissuaded from attacking Serbia by any other means.

Appeasement never works. Austria's attack on Serbia was a clear act of aggression that required a forceful response from the international community.

Of those only tea was exported.
India is not and was not a major food exporter and tea is not a food.

>Austria mobilized against Serbia, with no intentions of attacking Russia.
Except that Russia made it crystal clear that they would go to war with Austria if they invaded Serbia, so the austrian decision would either include that knowledge or the austrians thought it was a bluff

i love how german great war revisionism always comes down to the same thing.
>they didn't want war but they should have

France didn't need an alliance at all. If they weren't so eager for war, they would have realized that no one was going to attack them unless they or one of their allies did something. They formed alliances with the intention of fighting, instead of forming alliances to ward off conflict.

I correct myself. Everyone but the Russians and the French would think a breakup of Russia a good thing.

I'm not saying it's worth going to war over. It's good to give the minorities in Russia their own states, but those were goals the Germans had during the war. I don't even think the Germans had any plans for what to do with Russian lands before the war started.

Ok. Russian interests in the Balkans were threatened. Russian interests and Russia itself are very different. America's interests in Syria are threatened by the Turks attacking the Kurds, but since the Americans aren't looking for a war they won't start something. The Russians weren't threatened, but they took their interests being threatened as a reason for war since they wanted one.

The Russians wanted a war. Why is that? Well, they used Serbia as a CB. Anyone that wasn't looking for a war would realize that Serbia isn't worth fighting a war over.

Who said that? Who said anything close to that in this thread?

So many people miss this point

The splitting up of the ottomans is why the middle east is the shit show it is now that and there Enlightenment being screwed up by the Mongolians.

>Anyone that wasn't looking for a war would realize that Serbia isn't worth fighting a war over.

Replace "Serbia" with "Belgium" or "Poland" or even "Kuwait" and the inherent problem with this statement should readily apparent. States have interests that extend beyond their own borders, and the fact that Russia mobilized to defend their foothold in the Balkans doesn't somehow prove that Russia was desperate for a war. Austria's behavior, however, does show a great deal of desperation for a war. Specifically, Austria's army chief of staff requested permission to invade Serbia no fewer than 25 times during 1913 alone. 25 times in the span of a single year! This shows a clear desire to start a war. This is damning evidence that Austria conspired to start a war and succeeded in doing so.

>France didn't need an alliance at all.

Everybody needs alliances, its a normal part of statecraft. It doesn't require any special justification.

The eternal bulgar

Boulangism was still quite prevalent in French foreign policy in the 1910's.
>pic related

And please stop reddit spacing

not so much rationing or famine, but very sharp spike in food prices due to military use as well as reduced production due to mobilization.

no, also unless Zimmerman also grew a brain the US would still enter the war, not that the US was decisive in the victory, it moved it forward by 6-12 months but germany was already in dire straits prior to US entry

> Russians wanted a war.
that was the German high command, read up on the july incident and read up on the letters the kaiser wrote to Russia.

American combat contributions were minimal, but the fact that they put 2mil fresh troops into the western front by 1918 and were only growing stronger in industry and manpower made an Entante victory guaranteed. the timing of the American beginnings of large scale combat at that point in the war led to a direct victory in 1918, whether or not the Entante would have won inevitably in 1919 or 1920

the propaganda of the war made it inevitable for people to come to see Germans as evil after Versailles, but since the centenary of the war has again made it a relevant topic of discussion, more and more people are coming to the conclusion that the war itself was a massive disaster with no real moral purpose. it was a clash of great empires that got way out of hand caused by complicated tangles of conspicuous alliances, self interest on all sides, and made massively destructive by new weapons of war that were being pumped out at new standards of speed and efficiency. The fact that it dragged on for years even when no one new how to achieve a conclusive victory is just a fucking tragedy