Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10975360-20131129121937/@comment-32656-20141204044856

...Why, pray tell, did you think that was ok to do, River? Was not.

Sorry to say, GB, your posts here ignore much of what went before them. Not new, happens in most of these threads when you're arguing.

Had the war ended after a couple of months, there would have been no reason for it to be called such a thing. You'd have seen just a short European war.

No, it is actually not unrealistic. What is unrealistic, is the Septemberprogramm. No government would have ever agreed to it. Such demands would have kept them fighting, and gotten more powers involved. That makes the otl Versailles agreement look reasonable, ffs.

Should have included "allowing" Luxembourg to join the German empire in that, mind - forgot about them. More colonial adjustments than that - almost every dispute between the Germans and the Entente in Africa would have been changed into their favor. Maybe a slice of Morocco.

Wrong - it is true. Most of those American soldiers were actually off training in France through that period of time. There is a reason why ~half of the US soldiers in France never saw combat. So, yes - basically nothing.

...Except he did not do that. On a couple occasions he did ask for them to help French troops, but not the Brits. British left flank there has more Brits on it, fyi, or Commonwealth troops.

You are simply wrong about the war effort and the mutinies. The end of the mutinies had everything to do with a new overall commander, and a promise to end idiotic suicide attacks. Not one iota to do with the Americans.

Very few American troops were involved with stopping that German offensive. It's going to fail with, or without, them. Logistics is part of it, but even more so there is shortages of most items, including food, throughout Germany. Even with regards to raw materials for industry this was true - it has been shown since the war that had the Germans not captured some French iron mines, they would have ran out of that material in about 1915. They were also scraping the proverbial bottom of the barrel with regards to manpower - the number of new troops they got per month was something like an eighth of what they needed. Even with no Americans, the Allies were nowhere near that bad. The crazy losses the Germans took in that offensive only made it worse.

In essence, the German economy was falling apart, and that of the Entente was not. FFS, this is why they needed to quit otl.

Sorry, only thing that could have caused it in 1916 is some sort of Russian collapse, and I doubt even that would have done it. 1917, no longer possible. You are incredibly wrong, and failing to grasp the concept, if you believe that.

Guns, in WW1, the US was below Canada and the Aussies (NZ, not so present) Even the Newfies did more, proportionately. Bit player, little impact.

Loans from the US did not really occur until late in the war, around their entry. Was offered to the Germans as well, fyi, and they even took out some small ones - just did little good, as they could not use them in any significant way, unlike the Allies. Overall, the loans would have happened one way or the other, and were of little consequence. Had jack to do with keeping them in the field.

The idea that something like "Lend-Lease" was done is false as well, fyi.

Russians threatened it a couple more times after Tannenburg, and they definitely threatened the rest of the CP. Right about the logistics, mind... something they fixed for the next round.

British plans for Ireland, in the event of not being able to put it down (not that they could have revolted again after the Rising) was to retreat to Ulster, and take the rebels out after the end of the war.

Wrong about the leadership, Nk. Had far more to do with the US troops being "green" to the fighting, unlike the other involved powers. Green troops = high dead.

Yeah, the Commonwealth states were used as shock troops, quite deservedly. There is a reason why the 1918 German offensive avoided them, imo.

The empire was profitable until roughly the late 1920s, and even that was more from defense commitments than anything. The civil administrators were still running at a plus. Reason for later troubles is that the balance sheets changed with the war, and Labor instituted expensive policies in the UK itself.

Brits were indeed the premier economic power until late in the war.

Unlike the Brits, the German colonies were a massive drain on their finances. Such "thinking" is not even remotely close to being "right."

Again, you are wrong about the loans.

That note about War Plan Red, irrelevant. They had plans for many, many, countries, imo. Sound defensive planning.

Nothing could have made A-H into something effective, and thinking such is foolish, at best. Romania's supplies, fyi, amounted to a drop of water falling in the desert.

Second you add ASB butterflies, like that rain bit, you lose the scenario.