Started By
Message

re: How long could Germany have fought in WW1 if food wasn't a problem?

Posted on 1/29/18 at 9:06 am to
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
74661 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 9:06 am to
How about you go frick yourself?
Posted by Jor Jor The Dinosaur
Chicago, IL
Member since Nov 2014
7581 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 9:29 am to
quote:



True OT 10 gif
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
58875 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 9:44 am to
except the Kaiser was so arrogant he was completely clueless. I've wondered if he was on the autism spectrum when you read about how he dealt with people and almost instantly made everyone around him angry every time he opened his mouth. It's almost as if he had no clue as to how other people, including his equals, thought.
Posted by RandySavage
9 Time Natty Winner
Member since May 2012
35823 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 11:16 am to
Another thing to consider is that while all the European armies were decimated the war was being fought in France. It was much worse on their civilian population (if the Germans had food) and on their landscape. The country was literally being destroyed.

Also, if it came down to a defensive battle of attrition the Germans had far superior trench systems compared to the Allies.
Posted by WestCoastAg
Member since Oct 2012
151086 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 11:29 am to
quote:


Also, if it came down to a defensive battle of attrition the Germans had far superior trench systems compared to the Allies.
which would have changed the minute that the world's most powerful country fully mobilized and entered the picture. The Germans understood this which is why the spring offensive happened
This post was edited on 1/29/18 at 11:30 am
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
58875 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 11:40 am to
We weren’t the most powerful then
Posted by dawg4lyfe
Member since May 2012
11662 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 11:42 am to
Posted by WestCoastAg
Member since Oct 2012
151086 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 11:48 am to
we had the worlds strongest economy and were the worlds dominant industrial power, by far. we absolutely were the strongest country in the world in 1914 and we arent even going to consider how much stronger we were in 1918
This post was edited on 1/29/18 at 11:49 am
Posted by Tigeralum2008
Yankees Fan
Member since Apr 2012
17754 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 12:40 pm to
quote:

we had the worlds strongest economy and were the worlds dominant industrial power, by far. we absolutely were the strongest country in the world in 1914 and we arent even going to consider how much stronger we were in 1918


Our Army was ragtag, our air corps was metaphorically nonexistent

When we entered WWI, all of Europe (allies included) had no respect for the American military

The most recent war we fought was against a dying Spanish empire
This post was edited on 1/29/18 at 12:43 pm
Posted by WestCoastAg
Member since Oct 2012
151086 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 1:37 pm to
quote:

Our Army was ragtag, our air corps was metaphorically nonexistent

When we entered WWI, all of Europe (allies included) had no respect for the American military

The most recent war we fought was against a dying Spanish empire
they didn't have respect for our military in its current form. But the allies and the Germans fully understood what would happen to our military when we fully mobilized because they all completely understood and respected the type of weight we would throw adound once we got our economy and industry and untapped manpower involved
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
38540 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 1:49 pm to
German capacity was stretched by the summer of 1918 all over . They had fought a two front war, They were barely doing well in te East until the Russians dropped a gift in their lap with the Communist Revolution.

Fuel was becoming a problem for the Germans more than anything else. The English and the Americans had big supplies of petroleum.....The English from Persia and Indonesia (Shell) and the US was pumpimg out ridiculous amounts domestically. The Germans only supply was coming out of Romania and British commandos went in and destroyed the production facilities and set fire to the fields.

By the time the US came in, it was essentially mop up duty.....the British and the French had done much of the hard stuff

There was also the problem of runaway infation
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
38540 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 2:00 pm to
quote:

the germans should have bargained from a relative position of strength for a peace that was a relatively whole lot more kind to them.


The truth is guys like Hindenberg wanted to t do this and to a certain extent Wilhelm was amenable to a negotiated peace. It did not hurt, that Wilhelm was first cousin to George of England and an English noble in his own right due to being Victoria's grandson.

The problem was that much of parliament was not open to it and the French were vehemently opposed to it since most of the fighting was done in France and the French had lost millions of people in the war....they wanted blood and destruction for the Germans

The Allies basically said no to a negotiated peace and the Germans felt that they had no other choice than to go for broke in the Spring offensive. Essentially Georgie screwed over cousin Willie...so to speak. The war on the Western Front was a war that really did not need to be fought....since the ignition of the war was in the Balkans.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
71200 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 2:11 pm to
quote:

Help Japan expand into east Asia and overthrow the Chinese communists.


China was a capitalist democracy up until after WWII when the Communist Revolutionaries succeeded in forcing the government off the mainland to Taiwan.

quote:

Could have actually worked out


Hind Sight 20/20. Blame our progressive proto-communist Woodrow Wilson.
Posted by 19
Flux Capacitor, Fluxing
Member since Nov 2007
35690 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 2:14 pm to
quote:

Fuel was becoming a problem for the Germans


...along with raw materials across the board. They were melting down 1000-year-old churchbells for ammo.
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
38540 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 3:11 pm to
In reality, the war for the Germans was probably lost in the First Battle of the Marne when the Germans could not take Paris. The Germans only hope was to make a quick and decisive victory against the French and maybe laying siege to Paris. I think the Germans were always surprised at the speed in which the English were able to mobilize their far flung forces
Posted by WestCoastAg
Member since Oct 2012
151086 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 3:15 pm to
i really think germany wins the war if the british and french dont unite their forces under a single command after the initial onslaught of the spring offensive. the germans had a manpower advantage and were super close to breaking out
This post was edited on 1/29/18 at 3:16 pm
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
38540 posts
Posted on 1/29/18 at 3:32 pm to
quote:

really think germany wins the war if the british and french dont unite their forces under a single command after the initial onslaught of the spring offensive. the germans had a manpower advantage and were super close to breaking out



I think you have a point at least in terms of Command and Control structure. But after the Marne, the full force of the British Empire was pouring into France and the Middle East. Close to a million men started showing up in Southern France from India, mostly by late 1914 and the French were moving in troops from their African colonies as well. The Germans don't really have that luxury and David Lloyd George knows this.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram