CaliGuy
Banned
Well, find someone anti-war who isn't such a loser (no offense to Mr Bryan, of course)!of course he was, but he was strongly anti-war, so...
Well, find someone anti-war who isn't such a loser (no offense to Mr Bryan, of course)!of course he was, but he was strongly anti-war, so...
Yeah; indeed, if Britain couldn't do that, I doubt that France would have been able to do that by itself!Plus you have to open a supply line to Russia which brings up Gallipoli. I'm sure that one's been hashed to death.
What Offense?Well, find someone anti-war who isn't such a loser (no offense to Mr. Bryan, of course)!
Yeah; indeed, if Britain couldn't do that, I doubt that France would have been able to do that by itself!![]()
Well, I called him a loser, so ...What Offense?
![]()
Hi, guys, My name is William Jennings Bryan, I can talk real fast and am responsible for both the democratic Progressives and the Christian Right, Basically, I am everyone's dad politically but no one wants to admit it
Agreed.If you open up the Dardanelles you have evil butterflies swarming like crazy.
However, a successful Gallipoli would result in the war becoming more in favor of the Entente--not the Central Powers!
By Napoleonic strategy, do you mean sending very few troops to France and instead focusing almost exclusively on the Straits?Definitely makes things better for them. But the question is could it be done. I think if the British were following a Napoleonic type strategy it might be. Indeed it seems to be a much higher priority then and really suits traditional British behaviour.
By the way, I'm not saying either side is wrong, I was just making a joke about how he basically steered the democrats to start going more left (i.e The commoner) but was also extremely pro-Church and against Secularization (Scopes Monkey Trial, anti-gay)Well, I called him a loser, so ...
Well, find someone anti-war who isn't such a loser (no offense to Mr Bryan, of course)!
By Napoleonic strategy, do you mean sending very few troops to France and instead focusing almost exclusively on the Straits?
The problem with such a strategy in WWI appears to have been this: Russia and France were too weak to defeat Germany by themselves (or even with Italy's help, for that matter). Indeed, without large-scale British militarily assistance, I suspect that France would have fallen in either 1917 or 1918!![]()
Without the 5 armies of the BEF the Germans would have superiority on the western front which isn't a recipe for entente victory.
Wasn't pretty much everyone in the U.S. anti-gay back then, though?By the way, I'm not saying either side is wrong, I was just making a joke about how he basically steered the democrats to start going more left (i.e The commoner) but was also extremely pro-Church and against Secularization (Scopes Monkey Trial, anti-gay)
Traditional rules don't work when the country whom you're fighting is "Uber Alles," though!Whether it would have worked is another matter, but it is what the British traditionally did.
Well...Wasn't pretty much everyone in the U.S. anti-gay back then, though?
Completely agreed.Without the 5 armies of the BEF the Germans would have superiority on the western front which isn't a recipe for entente victory.
OK; however, this would nevertheless ultimately be a losing strategy for Britain and for the Entente.Napoleonic, maintain the naval blockade, subsidise their allies, limited contribution to the main fighting and focus on the peripheries such as the straights, the Balkans, middle east etc.