Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Addendum

[Okeefenokee]

Ten cent history did a series of shows covering all of the times England intervened to make sure there was no power in complete control of the continent. Fighting with Germanic states sometimes, and against them other times. They didn't want one power controlling all of Europe.

It's doubtful they would have sided with Germany.

[GloryofGreece]

Ten cent history did a series of shows covering all of the times England intervened to make sure there was no power in complete control of the continent. Fighting with Germanic states sometimes, and against them other times. They didn't want one power controlling all of Europe.

It's doubtful they would have sided with Germany.

I get that they didn't really want a unified continental Europe for their geo political concerns and grand strategy, but what if they had just opted out and remained neutral in the First World War? They'd still be a damn first rate power and control the seas for a lot longer. They would have given their "Empire" up most likely in most scenarios but their economic influence would be grander than it now id think. And a whole lot less dead Englishmen. We wouldn't have instantly went from a debtor nation to a creditor to the extent that we did during WWI. They would be the financial juggernaut for a good while, and who knows would they have aligned with Germania against the Soviet to crush them in the 1920s? Would Germany later on play Britain off the U.S. and vice versa, would the we align with Britain after the above scenario to go against Germania in the 1950s or whenever? What would the world look like now? Better overall...maybe...just too many variables to go down to far with hypothetical situations. But its fun to play.

[Okeefenokee]

Hard to see Britain not losing face sitting it out.

WW1 probably is just as brutal without the British. I'd wager a government change gets Britain into the war sooner or later no matter what.

[GloryofGreece]

Hard to see Britain not losing face sitting it out.

WW1 probably is just as brutal without the British. I'd wager a government change gets Britain into the war sooner or later no matter what.

Neil Ferguson argues for Britain sitting out. And do you mean a Parliament majority change in Britain at some points decides to wage war? I do think had Britain not got involved the German defeat France and Russia sooner. Hence less people die. Still millions dead. Still the worse war up until that point but not as total or devastating. And if there is no Nazi rise to power and no WWII that stops some killing. But then what happens in Russia after Germany annexes Ukraine and the Baltic states and it goes Communist? What does Germany do about Japan taking their Pacific holdings? Interesting to think about.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Why would we assume that Britain's involvement stopped the Germans from sweeping Europe in WWI? Sure, the BEF was effective, but stopping the entire German war machine? Hardly.

[Okeefenokee]

Why would we assume that Britain's involvement stopped the Germans from sweeping Europe in WWI? Sure, the BEF was effective, but stopping the entire German war machine? Hardly.

The naval blockade that had them starving.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Why would we assume that Britain's involvement stopped the Germans from sweeping Europe in WWI? Sure, the BEF was effective, but stopping the entire German war machine? Hardly.

The naval blockade that had them starving.

Which ended the war sooner, but it never changed the stalemate on the lines. It’s not like they would have overcome trench defense with more supplies and food.

I’ll grant that they might have gotten better terms, though. That alone could have saved the world.

[Okeefenokee]

Why would we assume that Britain's involvement stopped the Germans from sweeping Europe in WWI? Sure, the BEF was effective, but stopping the entire German war machine? Hardly.

The naval blockade that had them starving.

Which ended the war sooner, but it never changed the stalemate on the lines. It’s not like they would have overcome trench defense with more supplies and food.

I’ll grant that they might have gotten better terms, though. That alone could have saved the world.

Shows how little you know. Typical know nothing liberal. The stalemate on the lines was never broken. Germany surrendered because Germany was starving.

It's really telling how little you know that you think a trench breakthrough had fuck all to do with the end of the war. There was no breakthrough. Germany surrendered while holding vast tracts of enemy territory. They were fucking starving, and that was due to the Royal Navy.

Fucking idiot piss puss and his eternal lack of knowledge.

[Montegriffo]

The stalemate on the lines was broken by the introduction of the tank and American soldiers joining the fight.

[Smitty-48]

The stalemate on the lines was never broken, upon declaration of the armistice on 11 November 1918, the German line was at Mons in Belgium, exactly where the Western Front had been four years before.

The Operation Michael offensive failed, and was then driven back by The Hundred Days counteroffensive, but it only drove the Germans back to the start line, the German line was never broken before the new German government signed the armistice.

Hence why the Nazis claimed that they never lost the war, but were rather "stabbed in the back by the November Criminals".