Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10975360-20131129121937/@comment-3428312-20141204010458

GunsnadGlory wrote:   1. I meant militarily. Even, then, not quite true- the Brits had the Empire, which at this point was still hugely lucrative, and to a slightly lesser extent, so did the French- the Germans did NOT, and that would have told eventually.

2. It might have taken longer, but the Brits and French had the economic power to outlast the Germans- if you don't believe me, there are several sources that back this up.

3. In any case, the Americans would be working DIRECTLY against their own interests by remaining economically neutral. At this point, the British Empire was still the premier economic power on Earth, something that would only change AFTER the war.

4. Honestly, once the Germans invaded Belgium, they had at most a couple of months to beat the French. Once that was gone, they were NOT winning, except by a massive stroke of luck. Please forgive me if this format is confusing!

1. By 1914, the colonies had become a money sink for all involved. The Brits in particular were feeling this, which is why we saw the intense debates upon free trade or the establishing of an imperial preference to shore up the Empire. It's been argued that Germany was better off having a smaller colonial sphere, and then losing it in terms of the economical price. As OTL showed, this thinking is probably right.

2. Up until 1917, the Entente had been able to seek loans and secure them with assets (Hard currency and such). However in early 1917, they literally had nothing left to use besides selling off territory (IIRC, there was discussion about trading the Bahamas to the US for a large sum). It was only the US entrance into war, which allowed President Wilson to make unsecured loans to our new allies, they allowed them to fiancial continued the conflict. The severe Anglo-French economic troubles Post-War have largely been overshadowed by those of Germany but were just as serious. It's very interesting to note that War Plan Red was wrote when we were in a bit of a spat with the British over their failure to repay loans.

3. The US had already surpassed Britain in basically all respects with regards to economics then. As previously mentioned, all loans made up to that point had been secure as well. Thus, the United States had nothing to lose if it quit offering loans (and munitions as well, if so desired).

4. Personally, I think 1916 offered the best chance for victory for the Central Powers. 1916, in particular, was very a critical year in terms of events. An even better German defense against the Russians during their Lake Naroch Offensive would lead to the cancellation of the Brusilov Offense and that in turn would keep Romania neutral. Thus, the CP would still be recieving Romania's 1 million tons of cereal grains, and the Austro-Hungarians would remain an effective fighting partner for Germans. The Battle of Asiago could've become an earlier Caporetto, and the Germans could've achieved their goals at Verdun (Namely bleed the French white). Butterflies could prevent the rains that caused the devestating Potato Famine within Germany that year. With the war going better, there is very likely no unrestricted submarine warfare which would keep the US neutral. The CPs then achieve victory in 1917.