- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 2/19/23 at 10:14 am to ClientNumber9
quote:
3) Germany, France and England eventually are all bled dry and/or bankrupted by 1920 and the war weary nations sign an armistice that essentially returns to the pre-war borders.
This
The biggest drain on wars is the loss of the minds of the next generations. WW I and WW II were the last wars where rich and poor went to fight. Now folks with money get weekend warrior status or get out with bone spurs, the rest flee to Canada.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 10:22 am to alajones
quote:
odds are fascism still rises in Europe, just maybe somewhere besides Germany.
Well, since it started in Italy, who was allied against Germany in WWI, that's an easy call to make.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 10:30 am to SWCBonfire
quote:
Don't know why folks are downvoting this with the malnutrition levels (especially among Central powers), it might have wiped out the combatants to where they couldn't fight anymore.
Because we don't believe in viruses or pandemics anymore.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 10:36 am to CCT
quote:
I didn’t know about the French revolts against WW1. What’s a good read on this?
Time Ghost has a good, week by week, series on that war and WWII. The various mutinies are discussed, and there were several.
WWI was just senseless slaughter on the western and Italian fronts. Germany might have joined had we not come in, but all the participants were struggling. They were bleeding each other dry for very little gain.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 11:22 am to ClientNumber9
Germany still would have lost. At best it would have been a return to the status quo.
The blockade that the Royal Navy had imposed on Germany in 1914 was creating a supply and food shortage in Germany and literally thousands of people on the home front were starting to die of starvation. The Spanish Flu also was running rampant by the summer of 1918 and it was having a disproportionate effect on the Central Powers considering they were malnourished by that point. Also the Spring Offensive of 1918 would have failed even without U.S. intervention. We merely provided the reserves for the Entente to launch a counteroffensive in the summer. The Germans used everything they had left in the Spring Offensive.
Also...if the Western Front would have remained stagnant, the Macedonian Front and Italian Front would not have. The Austrians and the Bulgarians were absolutely ready to crumble by the beginning of 1918.
The blockade that the Royal Navy had imposed on Germany in 1914 was creating a supply and food shortage in Germany and literally thousands of people on the home front were starting to die of starvation. The Spanish Flu also was running rampant by the summer of 1918 and it was having a disproportionate effect on the Central Powers considering they were malnourished by that point. Also the Spring Offensive of 1918 would have failed even without U.S. intervention. We merely provided the reserves for the Entente to launch a counteroffensive in the summer. The Germans used everything they had left in the Spring Offensive.
Also...if the Western Front would have remained stagnant, the Macedonian Front and Italian Front would not have. The Austrians and the Bulgarians were absolutely ready to crumble by the beginning of 1918.
This post was edited on 2/19/23 at 11:24 am
Posted on 2/20/23 at 11:57 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
I think it is less Germany losing, but more how France and UK punished and humiliated the Germans. How they arbitrarily drew borders on the map forming new countries.
Germany got off super easy compared to WWII.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:40 am to ClientNumber9
Sometimes I think the euros would have been a better place with Germany winning ww1. But then the US would have never became a super power.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 6:52 am to GREENHEAD22
quote:.
Germany winning would have been beneficial for the world then and now.
Probably wouldn't have to see these gay arse threads about how much better the German Mardi Gras is than New Orleans.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 7:21 am to Burhead
The reality is that the Russian Empire was living on borrowed time even in 1914. There had been uprisings, protests,riots from the late 1890s on. You had military mutinies in the wake of the Russo Japanese War.
Russia was woefully mismanaged and Nicholas was not a strong leader and he made the fatal mistake of leaving St Petersburg during the war to direct things at the front.
Russia was woefully mismanaged and Nicholas was not a strong leader and he made the fatal mistake of leaving St Petersburg during the war to direct things at the front.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 7:22 am to ClientNumber9
Eventually some form of 3…
Which probably led to another war in the 30s but the question would be how much tech would’ve been discovered
Germany’s loss and eventual rise back to the top was the catalyst for so much discovery
Which probably led to another war in the 30s but the question would be how much tech would’ve been discovered
Germany’s loss and eventual rise back to the top was the catalyst for so much discovery
Posted on 2/21/23 at 7:29 am to Burhead
quote:
I think a more interesting hypothetical is what happens if the Russian Empire doesn't collapse in 1917?
This was basically inevitable after Japan sank damn near their entire navy at Tsushima in 1905.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 7:33 am to tigahbruh
quote:
I find it interesting that a historian as well known as Niall Ferguson is fairly adamant that the UK should not have entered the war at all and everyone would have been better off (wouldve meant no US involvement either).
Literally the first response in the thread
Posted on 2/21/23 at 7:35 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Nazism was the German version of fascism. Without the harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles, Nazism (fascism) probably never takes hold in Germany.
Well, since it started in Italy, who was allied against Germany in WWI, that's an easy call to make.
This post was edited on 2/21/23 at 7:36 am
Posted on 2/21/23 at 8:37 am to ClientNumber9
If the Germans won, we would've had an Adolphe Hitlére come out of France, so I think it's a wash
Posted on 2/21/23 at 9:51 am to Stealth Matrix
And who knows which country would have first developed nukes.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 3:40 am to Jim Rockford
quote:I don't think there's more than a 10% chance of it happening in that timeline.
A German victory all but assures revolution in France, England, or both. The IRA already had its Bolshevik faction, so you may get a Red Ireland in this timeline too. You can spin any number of other scenarios from all that, few of them good.
Since the assessment that it would have saved us from WWII seems to be the consensus, I think another variable should be considered. Let's say not much changes if the US doesn't enter the war compared to OTL. Does a "neutral" United States decide on the terms of an armistice?
Changing the question slightly... What if Wilson got his way and the LON actually became as powerful as the UN has. What does this do when Japan starts trying to expand around SE Asia? Would they dare going it alone in WWII against the colonial powers (who aren't preoccupied with Hitler)?
Posted on 2/22/23 at 4:00 am to RollTide1987
quote:There are theories out there that the flu started here and with heavily packed military ships it was spread like wildfire on those ships and then onto the other countries' troops in the trenches.
The Spanish Flu also was running rampant by the summer of 1918
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News