|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2021 3:58:25 GMT
In rural areas, Movement was weak. Alright thank you Urban areas house much more people A movement can survive without the support of rural areas, like the Soviets Rural areas have double the people im Urban Areas in India even today. At that time, percentage of people living in rural areas was almost (probably more than it) 90 percent. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jun 14, 2021 1:50:01 GMT
Francisco Franco , That was only during ONE battle. Plus, France would have had to divert troops to the south to protect against the Italians/Spanish. The American navy was quite large at the time, not as large as the Royal Navy, but combined with the Kriegsmarine and the Regia Marina, they could beat them. Remember that the Royal Navy would be split apart, fighting on multiple fronts of the war, so it would be pretty easy for those combined navies to beat them. The Americans could easily lift the North Sea blockade, by forcing the brits to divert ships. (Also remember that the germans have U-Boats) The Swedes are also on the Central Powers, no? So, the brits would have to divert them there as well. Because the US is huge, and the atlantic ocean is big, and during that time a journey took a month. The AEF (US force in WW1) was nothing compared to the full amount of men they could mobilize. There were quite a few independence activists, like Rash Behari Bose. There was also a plot to start a mutiny, called the ''Ghadar Mutiny''. They could have easily incited the population to revolt against the Brits, who were never popular in the first place. Saying battle of Marne was one battle is like saying battle of Somme was one battle. Spain was too weak to be of any real significance, Italy will have to attack through mountains which are great for defenders. French can divert their reserves to fight against Spainish and Italian. Germany did not launched any large offensive against French after Battle of Marne till battle of Verdun. And till French hold out, your other points are irrelevant. Though, Central powers will win, victory will not be as absolute as you are claiming. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodolfo Graziani on Sept 7, 2021 17:12:36 GMT
What if US never got involved in WW1?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodolfo Graziani on Sept 7, 2021 17:14:31 GMT
Hope that hasn't been done before
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 7, 2021 17:24:19 GMT
*Insert all of Kaiserreich*
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodolfo Graziani on Sept 7, 2021 17:59:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 7, 2021 19:28:07 GMT
It's a joke on Me having the name of Gerd von Rundstedt, and the pfp of Rodolfo Graziani. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodolfo Graziani on Sept 7, 2021 19:41:53 GMT
It's a joke on Me having the name of Gerd von Rundstedt, and the pfp of Rodolfo Graziani. Oh yeah i remember that joke |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Sept 8, 2021 3:09:55 GMT
What if US never got involved in WW1? I don't see a major difference if US didn't enter in the war. The attrition would have lasted. Maybe Germans would advance a bit more, but would've been stopped again. Eventually, they would still give up as they were running low on resources. |
|
|
|
Post by Thortilla on Sept 8, 2021 3:36:44 GMT
USA in this Alternate History:  USA in Real History: |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Sept 8, 2021 7:57:33 GMT
What if US never got involved in WW1? Only militarily or completely? |
|
|
|
Post by Rodolfo Graziani on Sept 8, 2021 16:31:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Sept 9, 2021 3:42:39 GMT
To make long story short: Germans rule Europe- Germany rules da world |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 9, 2021 4:55:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Sept 9, 2021 5:02:44 GMT
|
|
