America played the key role in German defeat in World War I

Oct 2013
12,766
Europix
A bare majority of responses to this thread.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk


Ok, I suppose that's an answer and I should interpret it as: I would be the Eurotroll.

1. I am sorry for having been a bit abrupt in my comments: I honestly believe that it's totally absurd to sustain that "America played the key role in German defeat in World War I". And I do believe that till now, You haven't brought any valuable argument to sustain that allegation (and You will not, because You can't, as there isn't any argument to be brought for sustaining that). And Sam as others had demonstrated it way too well for me to interfere anymore. It would be redundant.

2. I suggested You one link on the situation in Germany, as I thought it would be usefull to look a bit into it, and as I wanted to let draw Your conclusions by Yourself, and afterwards (maybe ...) discus it. (it was here, like that You don't need to search):

"To be honest, that analysis, is lacking a fundamental aspect: Germany. Reading it, one would say that allies were on the brink of collapse, while Germany (and Austro-Hungary) were turning flawlessly, at full speed. Which is utterly false. The mutinies were mentioned previously in this thread. There was more than just mutinies in armies. I suggest to begin with this small study (it is in English) on one of the aspects of the war in Germany, rarely mentioned, although more than important: Labour Movements and Strikes, Social Conflict and Control, Protest and Repression (Germany) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)"

I responded in the same line (lack of information) to Martin's post (post #78) and I suggested reading Food and Nutrition (Germany) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)).

Out of curiosity: did You opened those links, did You red them?
 
Last edited:
Likes: Gvelion

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,735
At present SD, USA
Nope. Eurotrolling isn't worthy of response.
First: I was born in Bismarck, North Dakota. I went to elementary school in Harker Heights, Texas (outside of Fort Hood), I went to middle school and high school in Belle Fourche, South Dakota, and I went to college in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. I AM an American and I find your arguments weak and unsupported.

Second: History and the discussion of it is something that's going to involve some element of actual discussion and addressing questions that poke holes in your argument is going to be required if you're going to convince anyone. Especially as this site is not for Americans only. And yet whenever someone has pointed out a hole in your argument, you either A) ignore the question, B) repeat some lie you've stated earlier ("But Sims said..." "but Pershing's G-2 said..."), C) launched some personal attack against the poster as having not read enough, being a "Euro troll," or some other insult that doesn't address the argument, or D) all of the above in one.

You aren't convincing ANYONE and your behavior is rude. If anyone has been "intellectually dishonest" or a "troll" here, it is you. You want to convince people... address the points that poke holes in your argument and provide evidence that goes beyond "but Sims said..."
 
Likes: Gvelion

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,735
At present SD, USA
A bare majority of responses to this thread.
If anyone has been a troll in this thread... it has been you.

You repeat the same claim over and over, even when that claim is found to have multiple holes in it. And when called out on that claim, you don't try to explain its context, but attack the person poking holes in your argument.
 
Likes: Gvelion
Sep 2012
918
Spring, Texas
I read both articles and noticed something missing. The Mobilization of railways and draft animals meant much of the harvest rotted because of the lack of farm labor and transport.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
I read both articles and noticed something missing. The Mobilization of railways and draft animals meant much of the harvest rotted because of the lack of farm labor and transport.
I'm not so sure.

I always thought One of the Reasons for the Austrians delay in sending their note was to wait for the harvest to be in. Though of course different crops and places and different harvest times.

But other things also impacted teh agrricultue beisides, railways and men.

Also most Nations also conscripted a lot of the horses for the army,. not just men.

Germany also diverted almost all their nitrates into explosive production, leaidng to a masisve shortage of fetrilizaer , in ww2 they made sure to keep some for agriculture.
 
Sep 2012
918
Spring, Texas
Lack of Draft horses and Rail Engines meant the harvest could not move to a station or to a distribution point. What was a problem in 1914 got worse every year. The A-H Empire's problems started when they changed the Mobilization Plan several times. First they wanted to send the most troops to the Serbian Front. Then they tried to send them North through the trains still coming South. Then the CIC changed his mind again! The A-H CIC was incompetent, to put it mildly. The A-H Army also tried to invade Serbia while they were having a Typhus Epidemic. All the Serb Doctors had been called up and there were no Medical people to stop the Epidemic. It is hard to take the A-H Army seriously, they went to war in their Parade uniforms. This let Serb Riflemen pick off the officers easily.
 
Nov 2018
101
Idaho
I seriously doubt the Allies could have imposed their punitive peace and starvation blockade without American help. Without the American promise of help they would have sued for peace sooner. If the English weren't all pirates with delusions of grandeur, the whole thing could have been avoided.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,127
Republika Srpska
Without the American promise of help they would have sued for peace sooner.
If by they you mean the Allies I don't see a reason why they would give up in 1918. Germany was successful on many battlefields in 1917, but it was crumbling from inside, the British blockade was causing starvation and even without America, the Allies had far bigger resources than the Central Powers. Plus, even without America, other Central Powers would still collapse in 1918.
 
Last edited:
May 2011
13,553
Navan, Ireland
I seriously doubt the Allies could have imposed their punitive peace and starvation blockade without American help. .
Why? because it was the Royal Navy that was blockading Germany.

Without the American promise of help they would have sued for peace sooner. .
Why on earth would they do that when they were winning (or certainly not facing defeat)


If the English weren't all pirates with delusions of grandeur, the whole thing could have been avoided .
Really how so?

Should the British have just allowed Germany to destroy France and Belgium? how is that a good or even wise thing?
 
I seriously doubt the Allies could have imposed their punitive peace and starvation blockade without American help. Without the American promise of help they would have sued for peace sooner. If the English weren't all pirates with delusions of grandeur, the whole thing could have been avoided.
Yes because it was those damn British pirates that shot Franz Ferdinand , and the British that made Germany violate Belgian neutrality.