Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10975360-20131129121937/@comment-3428312-20141204060105

Lordganon wrote:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. ...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.

6. 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.

7. Very few American troops were involved with stopping that German offensive. It's going to fail with, or without, them.

8. 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.

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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Loans from the US did not really occur until late in the war, around their entry.

13. 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.

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

15. 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.

16. 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.

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

18. 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.

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

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

21. Again, you are wrong about the loans.

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

23. 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.

24. Second you add ASB butterflies, like that rain bit, you lose the scenario. 1. Again I state, just because people posted before me, doesn't make false statements true.

2. If you had read my posts, I had already stated I was willing to concede on this point.

3. Again, you clearly failed to read my posts. I specifically stated that Germany would be unlikely to get all of what was proposed, but it does give a clear refutation to your bizarre assertion that Germany would just annex a few odds in ends despite controling Paris.

4. While it is true some training occurred in France, to suggest that is all the AEF did is completely false and borderline offensive.

5. Hmm, it is thus possible I misread French for British, and thus will concede on this point unless I can find a source that says otherwise.

6. Except, you know, where one of the reforms he did was not launch any major attacks until fresh American troops arrive.

7. The Germans were still making strong pushes into July (Second Marne), by which time American forces had long since been engaged.

8. Was the draft classes become smaller? Yes, but was Germany reaching the bottom of the barrel? No, and in fact they had even sent around 1 Million men home in 1917 to work in factories and tend the fields. The Anglo-French were in a similar situation as well, with France being the worst off among the three. There's a reason they had to practice Pro-family policies when Germany and Britain didn't,

9. I never said anything to the contray, so I'm not sure what the issue is with this one.

10. I think the problem here is that you refuse to believe anything but what you think is correct. As I outlined, it was entirely possible to engineer an Entente collapse in 1917. Butterfly away the Brusilov Offensive, and the Asiago Offensive could've knocked Italy out of the war while the Germans could probably bleed the French at Verdun. Do both, while keeping Romania neutral ensures a CP Victory.

11. Those 250,000 US troops in early 1918 were what, three times the ENTIRE population of Newfoundland? Please be realistic.

12. LG, this is another completely false claim. Just about any history book that covers the economics of the war will outline to you clearly that the US had been offering loans since nearly the begins. To suggest otherwise is to admit a failure to do research upon the topic.

13. Except, you know, for keeping the troops paid and equipped for one? As well as keeping their economies stable and producing war goods? Again, another false claim that even a simple google search will dissprove.

14. It wasn't called Lend Lease, but the US supplied a large number of supplies to the Entente (Explosives in particular, IIRC the Lusitania was carrying several tons of materials to make them for example).

15. They never came close to threatening Germany after Tannenberg.

16. I'm not sure what you're attempting to suggest with this one. Would you please elaborate so that I may respond? My apologies.

17. Except for the multiple offensives launched directly at them?

18. Except it wasn't, which is why we saw the multitude of problems occur. The British Empire had quit being profitable for a while now, which is why you saw the debate over Imperial Prefence. That debate had been around since the turn of the century, but gained particular notice after WWI because Britain was just so economically weak after the war it needed to reduce the expenses.

19. They had been surpased by the United States in the 1870s or 1880s, they just remained a major creditor nation until the war along with the Sterling remaining the world reserve currency to create this perception.

20. Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest here.

21. I'm afraid that's not the case.

22. It was meant as an interesting aside, and just because you casually throw away my pointing out the fact it was written during one of the "spats" does not make it less so.

23. A lot of the early war problems of the KuK is traced to Conrad Hotzendorff, who screwed up their mobilization. Despite this, the KuK was able to remain a somewhat efficent force until it came under the twin blows of Brusilov and Romania's entry into the war within a few short months. To suggest otherwise is false.

24. I've not lost anything here, and I would contest on the rain bit. To deny the potential for a change in weather is to deny the basics of the butterfly theory.