How stronger would a surviving German Empire be compared to the Third Reich?

No, but you implied it would be so.

Did I? All I meant was that it could turn into a serious problem.

Yeah, but the situation could last for decades before things fall apart (see Warshaw Pact), and that outcome isn`t all that certain.

True.

only for Germany acceptable territorial losses (Posen goes to Poland, Percival-de Marinis for Silesia, Alsace-Lorraine returns to France, colonies are lost)

Do you claim this was the maximum that might have been truly accepted? Surely the temporary loss of the Saarland surely wasn’t so bad. If Posen was an acceptable loss, what was intolerable about a smaller slice of West Prussian farmland? If ceding one small area of Upper Silesia was tolerable, why not another more industrialized, but equally small one?
 
Last edited:
wiking, but your claims about Entente finance falling apart in 1917 are wrong - doesn't reality rather conflict with your finance claim? After all, IOTL American Entente supplies continued until 1918.


This link says American Liberty Bonds were used as collateral instead.
So, what problem? After all, we could afford it best.

So, I repeat what I said before - we weren't about to skate out on the Entente, no matter what the Central Powers wankers of AH might wish.
 
wiking, but your claims about Entente finance falling apart in 1917 are wrong - doesn't reality rather conflict with your finance claim? After all, IOTL American Entente supplies continued until 1918.


This link says American Liberty Bonds were used as collateral instead.
So, what problem? After all, we could afford it best.

So, I repeat what I said before - we weren't about to skate out on the Entente, no matter what the Central Powers wankers of AH might wish.

The existence of American Liberty Bonds is contingent on America joining the war. As has been repeated stated in this thread and elsewhere, without America joining the war, no collateral exists anymore for the Entente to use as security for loans. The minor issue of America joining the war being directly contradicted by the most probable POD makes it distinctly unlikely that this will happen.
 

Deleted member 1487

wiking, but your claims about Entente finance falling apart in 1917 are wrong - doesn't reality rather conflict with your finance claim? After all, IOTL American Entente supplies continued until 1918.


This link says American Liberty Bonds were used as collateral instead.
So, what problem? After all, we could afford it best.

So, I repeat what I said before - we weren't about to skate out on the Entente, no matter what the Central Powers wankers of AH might wish.

As was already stated, continuing US money was contingent on the US entering the war. IOTL the US entered the war, so the money started flowing again after being virtually cut off in March 1917; in fact the British credit account was tens of million of 1917 dollars in arrears and was being closed up. The US entry into the war in April suddenly turned on the spigot ten times more than it had been open previously.
There would be no liberty bonds without US war entry and there would be no US entry into the war without first having the Germans resume undeclared submarine warfare AND having the Zimmermann Note sent (though this just hastened the DoW and made it far less contentious an issue of the public).

I suggest you read some of the sources I posted earlier in this thread about why and how the Entente was going to run out of money for US goods.
Note: I'm not say the Entente would run out of money, they would run out of dollars and with it US goods. The problem is that the Entente depended on those goods and promises of post-war US loans. The British Empire wasn't furnishing enough food on its own for the British war effort, so they relied on US food to plug the gap. France to a much greater degree also relied on US food. France was virtually totally dependent on US steel. Both France and Britain were virtually dependent on US oil. There were other issues too, but the main ones were food, oil, and steel, without which the Entente is going to see their war effort seriously wind down. The French would actually starve without US food, though Britain can resort to very strict rationing. Explosives were another issue, as was US gun cotton, but these were somewhat less crucial other than they expanded Entente munition production; without it the Entente could still produce munitions, just a lot less of it, which was a major advantage they had over the Germans; if that advantage dried up, then the Entente is going to take many more casualties.

I mean we could go on, but I think I've made my point.
 
What you presented in the OP is a clear victory for Germany.

A clear victory for Germany would mean the Ukraine and Belarus in the German economic sphere, France being a German economic appendage, Belgium being puppetized, the HSF being bigger than the RN, and all German colonial posessions across the globe quintupled.

So, I repeat what I said before - we weren't about to skate out on the Entente, no matter what the Central Powers wankers of AH might wish.

Do you think you could manage to make your point while being civil?
 
So, you're right - I didn't realize.

BUT why think we wouldn't've passed Liberty Bonds anyway, given that the alternative was the ruin of the American economy with the inevitable consequences for its people and the next election? Or maybe he would've declared war to keep the world safe for our banks... ;-)

EDITED: I do apologize for my crank - it was wrong. I should know better than to comment on these - they make me cranky because everybody's either mistaught or taught almost nothing about it, because only Japanese were happy enough with how they did that their historians are interested and tell the truth. And this time I let myself get overextend ed into three.
 
Last edited:
So, you're right - I didn't realize.

BUT why think we wouldn't've passed Liberty Bonds anyway, given that
the alternative was the ruin of the American economy with the inevitable consequences for its people and the next election? Or maybe he would've declared war to keep the world safe for our banks... ;-)

Why bother?

Surely simpler by far to announce an increase in America's own armed forces "due to the perilous world situation" and buy the munitions for America's own arsenals. Since the money loaned to the Allies was spent on purchases in America, this simply "eliminates the middleman". The money stays in America instead of going (notionally) across the Atlantic and then coming back again.

After all, the war couldn't last forever, and when it ended, the munitions sales would dry up, regardless of which side won. So a recession was unavoidable. The only question was its date, and from a political standpoint 1917, directly after an election, would be a lesser evil than say 1919/20, in the runup to one.

BTW, as has been repeatedly pointed out, all loans up to 1917 had been secured ones, so American banks were in no danger of losing their money whatever happened in Europe. Had they given unsecured loans they would have been in danger, but Wilson and the Fed were well aware of this, hence their emphatic opposition to such loans.



EDITED: I do apologize for my crank - it was wrong. I should know better than to comment on these - they make me cranky because everybody's either mistaught or taught almost nothing about it, because only Japanese were happy enough with how they did that their historians are interested and tell the truth. And this time I let myself get overextended into three.


Who is being "mistaught" on the importance (esp economic) of US participation?

I became aware of it through a book by Lord Justice Devlin, a British judge with no particular pro-German leanings that I'm aware of, and who lost a cousin in WW1. The book, incidentally, was written in 1968, long before there was even an internet. let alone an AH website.
 
Did I? All I meant was that it could turn into a serious problem.

"Multiple 'police actions' from Estonia to the Middle East" sounds like they are all happening at the same time, which I found a bit absurd.

After all, we could afford it best.

So, I repeat what I said before - we weren't about to skate out on the Entente, no matter what the Central Powers wankers of AH might wish.
So, you're right - I didn't realize.

BUT why think we wouldn't've passed Liberty Bonds anyway, given that the alternative was the ruin of the American economy with the inevitable consequences for its people and the next election? Or maybe he would've declared war to keep the world safe for our banks... ;-)

Who is "we"? I wasn`t aware you lived during WWI. Actually, I`m pretty sure you didn`t.

EDITED: I do apologize for my crank - it was wrong. I should know better than to comment on these - they make me cranky because everybody's either mistaught or taught almost nothing about it, because only Japanese were happy enough with how they did that their historians are interested and tell the truth. And this time I let myself get overextend ed into three.

So your reaction to being proven wrong by people who quote multiple sources as the basis for their statements is basically "I know more about the issue at hand than all of you", despite being wrong the whole time?

Good form, sir, good form.
 
Last edited:
Top