No, mobility had not been restored, and what
new tactics are you speaking of?




WW1 tanks could move scarcely faster than
a marching soldier (7km/hr tops).




It was just as bogged until the Germans made
use of several 100k soldiers transferred from the
East to break through.

After the German offensive was halted tanks
were put to good use in the allied counterattack.
However, they were useful not because they
were more mobile than a soldier on foot but
because they were protected from shrapnel
and small arms fire.




German aims vis a vis France were identical in both
world wars, namely, permanent elimination of France
as a military threat. Having attained this Germany
would not have considered giving it up just to get
the UK out of the war. And the UK was not getting
out with any part of France or Belgium still occupied
by Germany.




Excuse me, but Ukraine is the second largest
European country, and was also the Russian Empire's
best agricultural land, and also contained European
Russia's largest supplies of coal. Throw in Belarus,
Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russian
Poland and you have a staggering territorial loss
even if no specifically Russian land was ceded.

Citing this as an example of German moderation
is nonsense.



Well, all territory occupied by Germany in the West
was part of France and Belgium "proper", and success
in 1918 would have put it in possession of a lot more
French territory "proper". Furthermore, the percentage
of pre-war territory occupied would have been very
much greater in France's case than in the case of the
Russian empire.




You have been lambasting the French throughout
this thread for their reparations demands, and here
you are defending the notion of German reparation
demands on top of territorial demands! You have
now passed the edge of unwitting self-parody.




Well work on your imagination a bit more, OK?




Prostrate, and having a gun at its head,
France would have been in no position
to reject any German conditions.




From my post #22:

"Under my more realistic scenario Germany would
in 1918 have had everything in France that it had
in 1940. With Russia out of the war and with Turkey
allied its relative strength would have in 1918 been
very much greater.

...Germany would have been euphoric rather than
exhausted after victory both East and West in 1918.
Every year it had 100s k young men reaching military
age. It would certainly have gone on conquering until
Italy and Greece had been forced to surrender.
With all Europe less Russia under its hegemony supply
and finance would have been a snap."

Also:

The only thing left for such a Germany to deal with
on the European continent would have been Russia,
which would have been an easy mark at any time
lacking the territory ceded at Brest.

Even a UK-USA alliance might not have been able
to dislodge it.

I do not think that would have been a pretty sight,
and I do think it was worth going to war to prevent.




No he did not. He considered them "Nordic", not German.




This imputes war guilt to Churchill rather than Hitler
and is an intellectuallty disgraceful statement.

It seems you would have aggression rewarded by
recognizing every single one of its gains.

Not only that, the aggressor would have had the
go-ahead to try and more than double his territory
and resources in the East. Success there would
have produced an truly gargantuan colossus,
greater even than the USSR at its height, and fully
capable of turning back against the British Isles
at its pleasure.

If your advice had been followed, Gracchus, then
what Churchill feared and was fighting against might
well have come to pass:

If we fail, then the whole world, including the United States,
including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss
of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted,
by the lights of perverted science

I do not hope to convince someone with your
worm's eye view of history. I will be damned if
you intellectually barren pontifications are going
to get the last word here, though.

I do not feel like going into your specious parallels
with our own day. Maybe later, maybe not. You
have plenty of wounds to lick as is.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord, deliver us.

Why is it, that whenever the United States Government makes some sort of mistake, the person pointing that mistake out is an an America-hating pinko-commie flag-burner?

Why is it not possible to accuse the government of doing something without implicating the people in it? I hated the government of Soviet Russia, I think Stalin was a murderous genocidal maniac, but I bear no ill will towards the Russian people as a result of this. Why can't this standard apply also to the United States? Why can't I criticize my government but still love my country?

Believe it or not, no one is blaming "those terrible Americans" for anything, instead the American government and its actions have been called into question, with no mention whatsoever of the character of the American people.

__________________