| Welcome to Forgotten Hope. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you can use many member-only features such as role playing, trolling, and more. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Homefront aka 'We wanna be like Red Dawn' | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 16 2010, 12:29 PM (598 Views) | |
| Macht | Jul 18 2010, 03:57 PM Post #46 |
![]()
|
Which British soldiers were living off American goods to survive. If the so-called German soldiers was faring worse than the British soldier, then why did they do the Spring Offensive? If they had less of everything, how come they pushed hard into territory? Irregardless the presence of American troops forced capitulated the German Empire with the 100 Days Offensive. If they weren't there, there would be have been exhausted and depleted reserves present instead. That does total wonders for the morale, 'let's keep pushing, looks like no end in sight!' Even after the Spring Offensive, Lloyd George said the Allies were going to lose the war and then proceeded onwards to blame everybody else. And the Germans starving? If the United States never entered the war, the war wouldn't have ended by 1918. Germany's transportation network far outclassed anything in the World (maybe except the United States), and with their gains by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, by that Autumn of 1918 could have harvested those crops and fed their soldiers sufficiently. The British blockade of Germany itself was inconclusive since a) everybody in Germany was already on a rationing system, and b) if given longer time it would have been decisive, but it wasn't. I'll agree with you that a victory for the Central Powers was unlikely, but they still had the advantage to push more or less a status quo antebellum rather than a surrender or unconditional surrender. Britain on the other hand, if France lost they could have backed out easily instead of fighting on. The royal families were intertwined, and yes Germany posed a significant threat but what was worse was that without the Zimmerman telegram or even the unrestricted submarine warfare, the United States owed Germany much more interest because of their industrial bonds. We could have easily sat there and watch the British Empire and German Empire duke it out, not caring. By this time the United States was already the preeminent industrial power and fast approaching to surpass the British Empire in becoming the financial capital of the World (e.g. Rockefeller at the height of Standard Oil controlled a good 40% or so of the oil produced in the World, by himself. If there was no Sherman Anti-Trust, we would all be buying from the same oil corporation regardless of nationality. Rockefeller literally burned down oil refineries to get to the top). The Battle of Amiens wouldn't have been won without American goods once more. We weren't supplying the civilians only, but the military too. I mean, fuck, why did the Germans implement unrestricted submarine warfare if our supplies had no effect on the war? They clearly weren't that stupid. As for the United States becoming frightened? Please. We told the world to fuck off because we knew our goods and even our presence forced the Central Powers to capitulate and we presented our ideas. We got blown off at Versailles basically, so fuck it. That is why we became isolationists. Dammed lucky the Japanese hit us at Pearl Harbor because I guaranteed you nobody in the US government would have intervened on Britain's behalf military-wise even if the Isles themselves were invaded. Britain couldn't have taken Nazi Germany down by itself on the Western Front, and with that more soldiers could have been sent East thereby changing the entire Front as we know it. And if you want my final conclusion on who won World War I, it's the Germans. The position Germany was in post World War I was far better than pre-war. Push-over states in Eastern Europe? A communist Russia refusing to talk to the rest of Europe now? A United States going isolationist? No occupation of Germany post-war to oversee disarmament? The direct losers: Britain. They failed to address the German problem and would be forced to deal with it again. They kept Germany together, and the divisions they made onto Germany only fueled ethnic tensions that would ultimately spawn into the Holocaust. |
![]() |
|
| Mr Tom | Jul 18 2010, 04:09 PM Post #47 |
|
Hey I never said the US wasn't providing these supplies to Britain but I meant that Britain had the supplies to distribute to its soldiers, the Germans didn't even have that. The German offensive was a last ditch one, they knew they had to end the war as soon as because they didn't have the food supply. When your able to get your rations and needs to you daily then your more content, also British soldiers got more than either the French or the Germans; I suspect the American soldiers got probably the same or more than the British ones. Also given Britain was bearing more of the responsibility for the war in the second half I think that would have been significant, the French soldier's morale was poor even in 1917 so you probably have a point in the state of the reserves, but I think as a whole that'd have just meant a slower advance and higher casaulties. That would have been the case were it not for the state of the land having grown significantly worse through the duration of the war and the lack of machinery for the harvesting itself as well as a lack of manpower to perform the harvesting. Lloyd George wasn't a military man, neither are you or I but we have the benefit of hindsight and we can know the Germans were starving worse than we were.
Add the conditions the soldiers were serving in and the quality y of the food it adds up to the physiological effect and general health of the men A Treaty of Ghent type result would have been the preferable outcome IMO, the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have collapsed regardless. I'll address both. My thinking is that it'll have been mostly munitions for the directly UK & Australian troops and arms & munitions for the rest on the supplied goods because ther'ed have been a logistical nightmare otherwise. On the issue of submarine warfare, the Germans couldn't beat the blockade because of the Battle of Jutland (Tactical advantage Germany in the battle strategically British) and they needed a way to try win the war of attrition submarine warfare was the way for them, so I will concede that they knew the threat of American supplies coming through.
We could have won in the Desert. But that's about it. Quick question if Germany had not declared war on the US but Japan still attacked Britain do you think the US would have joined in against Japan's- de jure in this case- ally, Germany?
I'm aware of a brief time of occupation post war from watching a few programs on the memories of the last veterans (repeats of course but still) I actually think if anyone was the winner it was the US; the Germans real 1930s political victories came from the lack of any desire to take a firm hand against Germany for fear of war and the general mood that Germans lived their and/or it was former German land taken by a harsh treaty.
Well I'm not going to bother disputing that but I'd have to point out it was the French desire for harsh treatment that led to the actual treaty and a sort of public pressure to get Germany to pay for the war in Britain that led to it, the Government as we both know wanted Germany to be economically sound because they were a good trading partner. Responsibility for world war 2 lands to some extent with that German Napoleon Ludendorf who said Germany was never military beaten; hardly what either of us would call a good influence on several former German soldiers in 1919. Also off the point is have you got Call of Pripyat and is it worth getting? |
![]() |
|
| Dukka | Jul 18 2010, 04:20 PM Post #48 |
![]()
|
this thread fucking sucks |
![]() |
|
| Mr Tom | Jul 18 2010, 04:27 PM Post #49 |
|
Not as much as your mother. |
![]() |
|
| Liroro | Jul 18 2010, 04:45 PM Post #50 |
|
Administrator
|
^ |
![]() |
|
| Macht | Jul 18 2010, 05:14 PM Post #51 |
![]()
|
I LOL'D LOL |
![]() |
|
| Liroro | Jul 18 2010, 05:35 PM Post #52 |
|
Administrator
|
Hey MACHT INSTEAD OF POSTING BIG HISTORY DEBATES POST SOME SCI-FI PORN |
![]() |
|
| Mr Tom | Jul 18 2010, 05:47 PM Post #53 |
|
Don't you'll arouse him more than a Nazi gets turned on by blonde men with muscles. |
![]() |
|
| Macht | Jul 18 2010, 08:29 PM Post #54 |
![]()
|
brb google searching |
![]() |
|
| Macht | Jul 18 2010, 08:57 PM Post #55 |
![]()
|
anyways i saw inception im going to steal the whole concept (i was going to anyways but never developed it yet) of infiltrating the dreams just to add depth to characters. and also to explain more of the conspiracy instead of a select few characters but as something even deeper than before. that people unknowingly voted for the 'conspirator' not by fraud or anything else. you know the whole concept of 'controlling the mind'. fuck yeah humanity |
![]() |
|
| Conflict | Jul 18 2010, 10:44 PM Post #56 |
![]()
|
Well F. Ah well! As you mingle with corruption, we're the responsible adults here and are pushing forward into the stars. And don't you worry. We'll have the resources, manpower and overall ability to annihilate your government. :) |
![]() |
|
| Liroro | Jul 18 2010, 11:00 PM Post #57 |
|
Administrator
|
BEWARE OF HIS MINING TRAWLER. |
![]() |
|
| Emperor | Jul 18 2010, 11:10 PM Post #58 |
|
Damn humans are getting weird. |
![]() |
|
| Macht | Jul 18 2010, 11:33 PM Post #59 |
![]()
|
I pissed myself in fear |
![]() |
|
| Mr Tom | Jul 18 2010, 11:52 PM Post #60 |
|
I just LOL'd. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Off Topic · Next Topic » |










7:45 PM Jul 10