Would it have been better if America joined the Central Powers in World War 1?

Would it have been better if America joined the Central Powers in World War 1?

Would we have won?

Would Nazi Germany ever have existed?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kS2AlIJ621c
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Dont be sad because its over, be happy because it happened. National Socialist Germany warned us about the dangers of international Jewry and what is happening around us because of it.

The best America could hope to accomplish by joining the central powers is to harass Britain until they get out of the war, then leaving France wide open to Germany. So maybe that would have led to a central powers victory.

No, no, yes. Youre forgetting the brits still ruled over 500m people. Our small 80m population didnt really effect the outcome other than speeding up the inevitable

I'm sure the british could have mustered and armed a formidable army of mudhut-dwelling parjeets half a globe away.

daily reminder that all of the worlds problems can be traced back to the bongs trying to take our guns

America played no main role in neither WWI nor WWII , you couldn't directly influence the outcome of the war because you came in last minute when everything was settled.

You mean like the million Indians that actually fought in WW1?

>An agricultural society thousands of miles away from the center of the british empire's industry and war front would turn the tide in an anglo-american war.

Fuck you retard.

Maybe. Britain could put troops pretty much anywhere it wanted during 1914-1918.

>America played no main role in neither WWI nor WWII
When will this meme die? The Great War I can understand, but you'd be speaking Japanese today if not for our insignificant role in the sequel. In retrospect, we really should have left you to them.

Yes and they should've. Britain was their first enemy and most Americans were of German descent.

The hypothetical op posed, was based on america joining the central powers. You barely avoided being starved out by the uboats even with american material aid to you.

So yeah, good luck with that.

You left them to the communists instead and they were forced to flea to Taiwan which they only managed to keep.

Most of them fought in and around india though. Very few actually made the trip to the front lines of europe. I mean they were basically a token force under british rule.

It would have been glorious.

It would've been better if we weren't involved, I know our losses were a drop in the buckey compared to Europe but no losses wouldve been better than 53k and giving that traitor Wilson an excuse to establish the Federal Reserve.

It's a damn shame Hitler decided to ally himself with the Japs in WWII, maybe then we wouldn't have gone to war in Europe and spent most of the time curb stomping the damn Japs

While we did come in late to WW I, our entry was decisive in the wrong way: the threat of untapped hordes of fresh troops tipped the peace from what would likely have been a grudging armistice to the lopsided postwar treaties Europe ended up with. Wilson shot himself in the foot by even joining the war considering he wanted fair terms for the Krauts.
>tfw we worsened the impacts of an already fratricidal and impericidal war among whites

>Would we have won?

Easily. Just US joining Germans would have totally turned around balance of power. UK would have probably surrendered immediately. While it took in both real history and this scenario almost year for US become even marginally combat effective. Just declaration of war would have had massive effect.

US trade was far more important than actual combat effort in WWI.

>Would Nazi Germany ever have existed?

Unlikely, as German Empire would have triumphed it would have remained politically stable, but UK and/or France could have turned into fascism or communism as reaction to losing war.

>No, no, yes. Youre forgetting the brits still ruled over 500m people. Our small 80m population didnt really effect the outcome other than speeding up the inevitable

Yes, it did. US went trough a massive period of industrialization during war, while US produced mostly shit, it got industry fully paid by Brits, French and Russians in cash. US food supply kept French and Brits fighting.

>America played no main role in neither WWI nor WWII
>WWII

Allied economy relied on US production in WWII.

In and around India in WWI?
>american_education.jpg

the brits had a massive indian army but most of that had to be used in india itself to assert control over the indians (those pajeets were quite rowdy) or to defend the afghan border against raiding parties

this isn't hearts of iron where you can empty india of troops to throw them at the germans

not true. I played Battlefield 1 and a significant portion of the british army is depicted as Indian.

>When will this meme die?
>you'd be speaking Japanese today
speaking of memes.

youtube.com/watch?v=kS2AlIJ621c
tl;dw even the British planners of the time held no hope of actually holding their North American possessions in the event of war with us. They would only have been able to keep us from taking their overseas shit.

I'd say the U-entry certainly speeded up the war

the germans literally threw everything they had in a spring offensive in a last ditch effort to knock out the french before the americans could arrive in force

without that threat those troops could have been used elsewhere (like the italian front or the macedonian front)

>even the British planners of the time held no hope of actually holding their North American possessions in the event of war with us.
so you'd conquer canada, which was populated by 3 drunk indians and a farmer at the time.

>They would only have been able to keep us from taking their overseas shit.
the ones that actually mattered

Or just stay neutral. There was nothing at stake for the US anyway.

I never claimed this to be a grand victory for America, I was using it to point out that the Brits didn't think think they could or should try to use their vast reserves of manpower in India to challenge us on our own continent. It would basically be a stalemate, albeit one that netted us a shitload of land and syrup.

Memes aside, Germany failed because of the Schlieffen Plan. It had nothing to do with USA.

The entire German war effort was planned around the idea that they could conquer France in 40 days before Russia could mobilize its army. It was not a viable plan, this was impossible to do in the era of trench warfare before blitzkrieg became a thing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan

40 days in the West!
Insane.

Once Russia mobilized and Italy switched sides it became a matter of time.

Indians had huge military presence in middle-eastern theater and quite significant contribution in western front as well. Same applies to French colonies as well.

Actually Great War would have changed everything in regards to China.

Assuming Japanese involvement in war would have been limited to clearing out German posesions in Asia and escorting shipping from allied colonies to Mediterranean.. Taiwan probably would be called Formosa and it would be totally Japanized by this point. Probably only unknown is would US have taken a pick on Japanese controlled parts of China.

US army was tiny at starts of both world wars. In case of war US impact in combat was rather small, but in WWII it took essentially three years for US build actual Army. Like UK, US was sea power, good Navy, 'muhreens spank banana states with and army good for keeping Mexican government behind border.

In north it is possible that Canada would have military superiority due to earlier entry to war. They might try quick land grab before US can really enter war, unless just declaration of war scares 'em to surrender.

Then they released Lenin to knock out Russia out of the Great War. The big question after that was: Can Germany handle the western front before US becomes effective combatant? Answer was that Brits and French could handle most of it, but without US food and non-combat material support... It would have been unlikely to happen. While US was industrial powerhouse, their own military ironically depended a lot on British and French military equipment. Essentially all of their heavy weapons were British and French.

US industrial planning during WWI was unmitigated disaster for most parts. There is a good reason why pic related spent most interwar years doing planning and why he is by far the most important US military leader of all time. Without him US participation in WWI would have been military disaster as he is the guy who had to learn what French and Bongs had learned from logistics in previous three years in matter of months after Pershing refused to listen to common sense.

bump

nice post

Hahaha oh wow please be trolling

Look at number 19, does this mean slavery never existed? Holy shit. We've been bamboozled by the jews once again.