A popular topic amongst popular culture is the idea of Germany winning WWII, and the fallout that would ensue from that. However, less often toyed with is the repercussions of Germany winning WWI.
So, what do you think /his/, do you think that the Germans could have actually won WWI? What would've had to change to make this possible, if it is at all? And what would be the repercussions of this?
Honestly, I would predict that Germany would now be the dominant world power, with imperialism never ending, due to WWII not disillusioning the world with the concept. Greatly expanded overseas German Empire, potentially Fascist France rising up around the time that Hitler did in our time, Austro-Hungary surviving, liberalizing, and becoming the Danubian Federation. Isolationist US, and a stable Middle East, due to Ottoman Empire not being carved up by the British and French.
>>342350
>do you think that the Germans could have actually won WWI
Nope. Not while fighting so many countries at the same time. They were bound to drop dead sooner or later out of sheer exhaustion.
Willy II fucked up the foreign policy so bad it's painful to watch.
>>342376
Breaking the alliance with Russia *shudder*. He even fired Bismarck, the greatest statesman of all time!
But what if the Schlieffen plan succeeded? Germany could've then pivoted towards Russia and focused their efforts there, with the Empire likely collapsing if the revolution continued as per normal. The rapid fall of France could've dissuaded Britain. Of if the U.K chose not to intervene for other reasons?
>>342350
They couldn't have one. Before the Armistice was signed the new government asked the military high command, (Hindenburg and Ludendorff) if they could win the war and they said they couldn't because they had exhausted pretty much all their man power.
>>342397 Jesus christ I'm an idiot. *won
>>342350
Allied with France and Britain, sure.
They lost the moment USA got into a war.
Europe might not be a pathetic shadow of itself if Germany had won. The balance of power would have been maintained, Austria Hungary would have stayed in one piece, the French and British wouldn't have let their power slack. A lot of our problems today are the result of western Europeans thinking that the world was theirs forever with no effort from that point on.
>>342425
>The balance of power would have been maintained
by balance of power you mean Germany leeching out everything of value from protectorates around itself?
Couple of things could have happened.
Chancellor Bulow could have accepted Joe Chamberlain's offer of an alliance instead of holding in the mistaken belief that the GB had no where else to turn and wringing colonial concessions was possible.
In this case, GB has less motivation to enter into the Entente agreements and align itself with France and Russia, though things might change in the politically charged atmosphere leading up the war (Italy had little qualms about severing their alliance with the central powers for instance, a German invasion of Belgium might still be cause enough for Britain's entry into the war)
Another unlikely diplomatic scenario is that Germany drops its alliance with Austria in favor of Russia (the two were principle antagonists so it was either one or the other), in such a case WW1 would be so totally different or may even never happen that it's impossible to guess at the outcome
Germany might also have held a defensive line against France and concentrated its efforts on Russia who was less resilient because of internal turmoil than was guessed at before the war, there was no way for Germany to know this however. Also, a fight into Russia would have only made it easier for the Russian army to handle its chronic supply and logistic problems.
There's a long-shot that Germany might win a surprise naval engagement, a decisive enough contest would spring them free of the British naval blockade and change their fortunes, but such a case would be a miracle.
Germany might have had better intelligence to launch an offensive during the French mutinies, but the ability to transform that into a decisive blow that would crumple the French resistance is questionable.
>>342393
>But what if the Schlieffen plan succeeded?
It had no chance to succeed. Historians are actually debating whether there was an actual plan or simply a thought exercise by Schlieffen which actually showed that such invasion was impossible. As far as I know, the original Schlieffen plan cheated. It assumed that there is more roads and railroads than really existed to transport troops and supplies. It also assumed that several additional German army corps appear out of thin air in crucial moments in the right place.
>>342350
WW1 "German Victory" is eerily similar to WW2 - after the failure of an initial invasion meant upon which many hopes were pinned - Barbarossa/the push towards Paris - you just have a hard time imagining them winning. In WW2 Soviet Union enduring the initial onslaught set the stage for a prolonged conflict Germany was not ready for. In WW1 it meant a prolonged two front war, which is what they wanted to avoid in the first place, even if they were on the defensive in the west.
A major difference I think lies in what would have happened had the above succeeded, while in WW1 I can see the western allies being knocked out by a successful drive to Paris, in WW2 taking Moscow would have just meant losing a railway hub after prolonged, bitter urban fighting, mind you, so I could easily see the Soviets going on like in real life.
also
>German victory
>with willy at the helm
>>342479
Willy gets more shit than he deserves.
His worst mistakes were diplomatic gaffes and faux pas stemming from his urges of extravagant display, like the Kruger telegram or the Daily Mail interview. Which were national embarrassments, but their effect on international relations was manageable. He catches a lot of crap for ditching Bismarck, even though Bismarck sort of asked for it by tendering his own resignation as a political ploy thinking there was no way Wilhelm would accept it. Threatening his resignation was something he did on multiple occasions with both Wilhelms to get his way, the last time it would backfire. For the most part he was putty in the hands of his Chancellors Bulow and Bethmann-Holweg who themselves controlled foreign policy and who knew how to work him like a fiddle
Then there's his naval obsession which arguably alienated GB away from Germany (though initially it didn't stop GB from courting Germany for an alliance which Chancellor Bulow gave a lukewarm reception to) and was probably the most damaging form of influence he had on the country, but to place all the blame on him and the navy is myopic.
>>342350
Yes, as a matter of fact up until the very tail end of the war a German victory was very possible.
The main thing holding the Germans back from winning was the fact that they were being way too ambitious with their plans of total European hegemony. Had they set their sights much lower they could have left the war with their borders fully intact and some of their gains from the eastern front preserved.
Also, it's worth considering that had it not been for much of their army being tied up occupying Russia, and the fact that Germany was coming down with revolutions, the war would have gone on for a very long time considering the western front was a slow grinding war of attrition. Even if they couldn't take Paris and "win", sooner or later the British probably would have started coming down with revolutions too out of pure war exhaustion and the heavy communist presence in Britain in the early 20th century.
>>342532
>very possible
elaborate
even after knocking out the russians and shipping millions of troops to the west, their last gasp offensives achieved virtually nothing
>>342350
>Could Germany have won WWI?
Yes, most definitely.
Two possible scenarios would be one where Schlieffen's plan succeeds and another one where Russia agrees to separate peace talks after their devastating defeat at Gorlice-Tarnow in 1915.
>>342548
>where Schlieffen's plan succeeds
ha ha ha
>>342559
This wasn't all too unlikely. Had the Bavarians not brought the French advance to a halt but fallen back and let them proceed as planned, then Joffre couldn't have relocated the troops on time to stop the Prussian advance on Paris.
>>342425
Except Europe's downfall started after WW2
Blame Hitler for chimping out
Was Germany able to sur for peace before the US got involved? I'd think if they sued the UK for peace, or stop the US involving themselves, then they could move their men to the eastern front. That's where the war really would have mattered. When they lose to much make them sue for peace. You now have a relatively stable Europe, withou communism.
Also, would this be able to happen? I just woke up and am so fucking tired right now.
>>342571
No. WW1 marked the end of European predominance.
>>342570
would the allies have accepted those modest terms however?
some of the most important economic regions of france suffered greatly
i really do not think they would agree to modest terms, assuming modest you mean noticeably less than versailles
>>342577
It didn't, the brief moment between the wars was the pinnacle of Anglo-French dominance. Even if every other country was left an irrelevant pile of rubble those two came out looking good.
>>342574
two things:
1) You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
2) are you even aware of the basic timeline of ww1 with regards to events such as: american entry into the war and the defeat of russia
They won. They offered an status quo ante to Britain, but Lousitania's false flag put USA into the war, and after many years of war Germany couldn't won.
>>342588
Not really. WW1 took a heavy toll. The US became the law-maker of international politics.
>>342588
Britain spent their whole fortune fighting the war and almost all of it flew right to New York.
>>342595
But that's wrong, you deluded mong
The US didn't dominate shit during the inter-war, they were the equivalent of current Turkey in term of geopolitical weight
That's the reason why both Germany and Japan underestimated them
>>342594
... what does this post even mean
>>342602
No, that's completely right. It's not my fault that you didn't pay attention in class.
>>342596
the economic status of britain is very interesting with regard to ww1
they pretty much went from the biggest lender to biggest borrower "overnight"!
>>342589
I mean attempt to defeat Russia AND stop the US from joining. Basically, I support the idea from that one guy up there with saying sue for peace on reasonable terms. I view the problem with the same as fucking Hitler on how he wanted, "The entire world!" As my history teacher said.If he managed to just fucking hold Europe and have a luftwaffe capable of stopping enemy ships, then they could have kept the war on for some time.Oh yeah, and as usial, make sure the US does nothing more than supply arms. The moment they get involved is a death sentence. Just tell the Japs to get their oil from Manchuria and NOT TO BOMB AMERICA. Stupid fucking gooks.
1. How did the one month delay between the Ferdinand's assasination and the outbreak of the war effect the outcome? What if Austria-Hungary decided to go to war immediately?
2. Could the American entry into the war have been prevented? If so, what would have happened then?
>>342584
Britain definitely would have, the war was absolute hell. It left almost a million people dead, communist agitation was at an all time high, and the labour force was stretched very thin. Not to mention the war with Germany was a slow grinding one that seemed almost like it would never end.
Of course France wasn't enjoying it either, but they went into the war with pure revanchist gusto that only intensified as the war drew on. Were Britain to pull out they'd be left in a very awkward position.
>>342613
>2. Could the American entry into the war have been prevented? If so, what would have happened then?
War ends the same way it did only in 1919-20 with tens (hundreds?) of thousands more dead on both sides. Germany was done by the time of the (un)realized American entry into the war.
>>342393
>He even fired Bismarck, the greatest statesman of all time!
"I hate krauts who disagree with me but I hate other countries even more."
t. Bismarck.
>>342616
>but they went into the war with pure revanchist gusto
But that's not true - the French government literally did not want war.
>>342350
>due to Ottoman Empire not being carved up by the British and French.
The British spent the entire 19th century propping up the Ottoman Empire, it was going to collapse regardless of who won.
>>342613
>1. How did the one month delay between the Ferdinand's assasination and the outbreak of the war effect the outcome? What if Austria-Hungary decided to go to war immediately?
The idea was to march in and confront the other powers with the status quo before they could react - kinda like Russia did in Ukraine. Whether that could have worked is questionable though.
>>342616
I'm fairly certain there was also a mindset of "after all this we can't afford to present our people anything but victory". After all those losses, peace talks could have resulted in revolutions which the people in charge likely wouldn't have wanted. Perhaps if Russia agreed to peace talks in 1915, but approaching the end of the war the losses piled just to high to accept anything but victory.
>>342626
They did though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I#French_domestic_politics
They were in fact close to winning, you see the economy of france was devastated by the war and the UK decided to ease their burden by tying their economies together more. Because of this by the end of the war inflation was rising in both the UK and france and would have made their economies collapse if the war lasted longer(and if there wasn't a US intervention). I seriously think the allies could have lost if it wasn't for the US, germany could hold the line for quite a while longer I believe(if they didn't try any stupid offensive)
Although they would never be able to get any further than holding the line, so the peace would be meager for germany.
>>342616
>Britain definitely would have
but that's going against what the british have said themselves during the war, that there would be no separate peace
also their war fortunes were not at any point particularly close to completely breaking, all the while slowly securing and improving their own position
even in terms of pure realpolitik and calculations a separate peace would have not been realistic, seeing as it would see britain achieve absolutely nothing and give up everything of its political or strategic goals such as preserving the likes of belgium or preventing a german buildup
>>342425
>empireboo
German victory secures the existence of three unstable empires whilst having a devastating effect on two relatively stable colonial empires, and you're saying this would somehow preserve european power?
Germanboos are dumbfucks.
>>342634
>[citation needed][citation needed][citation needed]
The French government was staunchly socialist and firmly anti war. See Doughty: Pyrrhic Victory or Weber: Peasants into Frenchmen or Strachan: The First World War or any WW1 book published in the last 40 years or so really.
>>342574
except the fact that the kaiser imported lenin into russia after the had been overthrown already lel. though i guess he did that to put the final nail on the coffin of russia's war effort
>>342637
>Because of this by the end of the war inflation was rising in both the UK and france and would have made their economies collapse if the war lasted longer(and if there wasn't a US intervention).
i... uh... if you paint the economic situation of the allies as untenable, then the german one is purgatory, hell and death rolled into one
yes certainly the war was taking its toll on the french and british industries, but NOWHERE NEAR the absolute shambles that was germany
> I seriously think the allies could have lost if it wasn't for the US, germany could hold the line for quite a while longer I believe(if they didn't try any stupid offensive)
your belief is simply incorrect - there is no other way to put it
the germans were running out of men, resources and supplies at an alarming rate, their last gasp offensives achieved nothing and only further expended an army which could not afford such expenditure
heck even the early days of the 100 days offensives - which saw the german forces rolled up and on basically a constant retreat - were achieved without any significant american boots on the ground
>>342632
Revolution from jingoistic parts of the population in the event of a peace settlement wouldn't really be a problem outside of France where public opinion about Germany was radically polarized.
In Britain's case a lukewarm victory would be satisfactory. The general public didn't have the same long-standing vendetta with Germany and if they were able to secure
A) Belgium's unconditional independence
B) Reverse German gains in the east just enough that the balance of power is largely preserved.
They can say that they've basically accomplished their war goals.
>>342654
Britain could not have peaced out without France because they would be diplomatically isolated in Europe, which was exactly the fear of the foreign office prior to the first world war.
>>342654
>A) Belgium's unconditional independence
>B) Reverse German gains in the east just enough that the balance of power is largely preserved.
While those would perhaps be acceptable to the British (who had, however, actually rejected the idea of a separate peace), those things are surely not by any means a "lukewarm victory" in the context of how WW1 developed...
>>342350
The knockout blow against France wasn't that far from succeeding.
But in a protracted war they were pretty much fucked against Britain's navy
>>342644
It wasn't though. The main French leaders were anti-German to the max.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Poincar%C3%A9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Clemenceau
>>342647
They were still loosing millions. Just some way to stop communism? Any possible more, say, right wing man Russia had in exile that Germany could have imported to them? If they just cause the Tsars to break down, that should work, right? Also, what would it have been like if the Germans bunkered down and played defensive on the eastern front? Is that also wrong, because I'm not really educated there on their war. Just the western front, and that's all #trenchfoot apparently.
>>342671
But it was. Your own links support that.
>... and immediately attempted to stop matters from escalating into war...
>French government... [refused] a request from Marshal Joseph Joffre to order French mobilization
>With Poincaré's full approval Viviani sent a telegram to Nicholas stating: "[Russia] ... should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany a pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces".
>Additionally, orders were given for French forces to pull back six miles from the frontier with Germany
Really, you dropping wikipedia links - without realizing they contradict your claims - leads me to believe you don't really know much about this particular bit of history, only a vague but ultimately incorrect reading of 'popular history' of the topic. But simply read any history book about WW1 from the last couple of decades and you will see that the French government did not want war.
>>342690
My original claim was that France entered the war with revanchism on the brain. Which is very much true.
>He believed the Armistice happened too soon and that the French Army should have penetrated Germany far more.[53] At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, negotiating the Treaty of Versailles, he wanted France to wrest the Rhineland from Germany to put it under Allied military control.[54] Poincaré wrote a memorandum for the conference, saying that after the Franco-Prussian War Germany occupied various French provinces and did not leave until it received all of the indemnity, whereas France wanted reparations for damage caused
>>342725
But that quote says literally nothing about "France entering the war with revanchism on their mind".
>>342725
Not the guy you're replying to but you realise you're posting descriptions of events at the end of WW1, to explain feelings before WW1?
Of course by the end of the most devastating war of all time the victorious forces who have had their home used as a battlefield will want to push on, but I don't think anybody in 1914 could see into the future?
>>342735
They don't need to see into the future because it literally says right there half the reason the French were so demanding was because Germany did the exact same thing in the Franco Prussian war.
>saying that after the Franco-Prussian War Germany occupied various French provinces and did not leave until it received all of the indemnity,
Additionally from an earlier link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I#French_domestic_politics
>on the right like Paul Déroulède who called for revenge against Germany.
>The leadership was prepared to fight Germany and attempt to gain back the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine lost in 1871.
>>342763
That still says literally nothing about the French wanting to go to war.
Unlike the books mentioned.
Or unlike the content (with citations) of other articles you yourself linked.
>Additionally from an earlier link
... with no sources
... citing Deroulede who died half a year before the July crisis
>>342725
France was literally attacked by Germany in WW1
Even without the revanchism, it's normal they wanted Germany to stop being a threat after the war
>>342774
Yeah you're right.
>>342786
>France was literally attacked by Germany in WW1
That isn't true.
Germany attacked Russia who was France's ally.
>>342350
Fuck winning a war, we should have stayed out of a war in the first place, our economic and scientific trajectory at the time meant that we would have become the primary superpower anyways if we hadn't been cursed by Wilhelm and his bullshit.
>>342350
They practically went it alone against the UK, France, Russia (partially), Italy, and for a short period America and then on top of that a lot of smaller nations, and then had a socialist revolution at home. Theres no way they could have won
>>342800
>>France was literally attacked by Germany in WW1
>That isn't true.
/his/tory board of 4chan, ladies and gentlemen
Wilhelm is a permanent reminder to the world why monarchism is fucking stupid.
>>342605
Let me try again. Germany won the WW1. They humilliated Britain and France, but even if they won they offered a "status quo ante bellum" to Britain.
The RMS Lusitania attack was a falseflag to involve USA in the war, without USA Germany would have won definitely.
>>342839
What exotic country do you come from?
If the Schlieffen plan hadn't been attempted there was a chance. Britain's entry into the war was actually a very close-run thing, the pro-war faction saw Belgium as an excuse but for the rest it was certainly not. Without 'poor little Belgium' it's very plausible that Britain remains neutral (to an extent, it would still be favourable to France and Russia)
>>342842
One were you can read the truth.
>>342611
>Oh yeah, and as usial, make sure the US does nothing more than supply arms. The moment they get involved is a death sentence. Just tell the Japs to get their oil from Manchuria and NOT TO BOMB AMERICA.
well either that or just tell himself not to declare war on the US in response to the japanese bombing america
>>342839
>Germany won the WW1.
ueueuaheheuehu
>>342839
>The RMS Lusitania attack was a falseflag to involve USA in the war
>falseflag
>the Germans debated and changed minds frequently on using their navy to sink merchant ships, as they were aware of the potential consequences
>and the sinking of the Lusitania was a false flag
Alright.
>>342800
>Germany attacked Russia who was France's ally.
And then attacked France
Are you 10?
Why do you even post if you arent informed on the most basic events of the period you're discussing?
Pic related, WW1 outbreak timeline
>>342966
That list conveniently leaves out that Germany set an ultimatum to France to declare themselves neutral. Had France not had any intentions of hostility they could have done so.
>>342850
That could work, but I'll make sure they stay alive. If they hold Manchuria and could continue Island Hopping, I wouldn't be surprised if they made a sizeable force to be reckoned with.
>>342350
>So, what do you think /his/, do you think that the Germans could have actually won WWI? What would've had to change to make this possible, if it is at all?
Pic related goes on about how if Wilhelm was less risk-averse with his navy, he'd have probably won the war if he could have nutted up enough to send the High Seas Fleet on a suicide cruise into the Channel when war broke out.
Delay the BEF landing by sinking transports in the water and shelling port facilities, and you have a vastly different condition on the ground when you're trying to make the Schlieffen plan work.
> And what would be the repercussions of this?
Probably a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war, with additional concessions out of Russia. German confirmed for hegemonic European power, but will have trouble being a colonial power, having just sent its fleet to the bottom. Probably demand large reparations to rebuild its navy.
>Honestly, I would predict that Germany would now be the dominant world power,
I have trouble with this. The U.S. had passed Germany in economics a long time before. They're the natural world hegemon, as soon as they leave their self-imposed isolation. More men, more money, more resources, it matters.
so here's a more interesting question to me, if Germany hadn't attacked Belgium would the UK have remained neutral?
>Danubian Federation
gb2 /gsg/
>>343826
Personally, I doubt it. UK foreign policy for the last 300 years was "Make sure nobody gets too strong on the continent".
They can't afford to have any clearly dominant European power, and in 1914, Germany's the obvious candidate for that role. They might not intervene immediately, but they will, sooner or later.
>>342574
>have a relatively stable Europe, withou communism.
why do people still think this? Marxist revolutionaries and marxist thought was still going to become more popular and widespread with time regardless. You're assuming France wouldn't be the one to accept communism rather than Facism
>>343826
No, they would have otten involved regardless
Britain had an alliance with both France and Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Entente
They simply used Belgium as pretyext better it was a better way to gain support from the people than "Hey lads, we're gonna fight a war with Europe's most powerful empire to help our former enemies France and Russia, enlist pls"
Most of the involved powers were looking to end the war by 1916 and active talks were in full force by 17. A white peace, or even a peace with few concessions was entirely possible but everyone wants the world and couldn't settle for the house.
Could the intervention of neutral powers on the side of Germany have switched things into Britain's favour? Surely Spain opening up a second front against France/Britain (in Gibraltar) would have dramatically changed the outcome of the war?
Germany could have won the war, but its a window between Russia's defeat and before American Entry. Pretty much during this time is not sink American shipping in the Atlantic, as this gives the Americans a reason to join, plus the Zimmerman telegram, plus the Lusitania. Avoid those three things and the Entante go broke before the war is over and Germany can negotiate a peace. The only thing they will gain is what they get from Brest-Litovsk.
They wont get any new colonies cause they would have to actually soundly defeat the French and British Empires, which is near impossible because lolroyalnavy. Now we have a world where imperialism is still around and after that I cant even guess honestly. Only thing I can think is Poland and most of Eastern Europe would be ethnically German now.
Then you get a 3 headed
>>342350
Yes definitely if they had stuck to the schlifen plan early war but also they would have had a decent chance at the end if not for the American intervention
>>342350
No, otherwise they would have
Regardless of whether they could have won, assuming they did, what would Europe look like?
>>342626
Entering into secret alliances is a funny way of trying to avoid war.
>>342350
If only...
>>344360
The stupidity of this board amazes me.
>>344545
He was pretty much right except for:
>Only thing I can think is Poland and most of Eastern Europe would be ethnically German now.
>>344568
The Entente going broke before the Central Powers is a meme i've not seen anywhere else apart from this board. Germany was blockaded, Britain still had goods flowing. Which system was going to collapse first?
>>344579
France and Britain were amassing a massive amount of debt with the United States. Granted, this isn't going to be a big of a problem until the American elites think that Germany is on the verge on winning and will push for the United States to call on the Entente debt, ruining France and Britain's economy When Germany gets the Ukraine, food won't be as big of an issue.
>>343826
No
>>342973
And you also forget that this ultimatum asked France to surrender the towns of Toul and Verdun, something the French couldn't do. The Germans weren't dumb enough to fight Russia with France as a potential threat. When the war against Russia was decided, Germany had to beat France, it doesn't matter if France was agressive or not.
>>343819
>Delay the BEF landing by sinking transports in the water and shelling port facilities, and you have a vastly different condition on the ground when you're trying to make the Schlieffen plan work.
What a retard. Thanks for keeping me from ever buying this guy's books.
>>342350
Yes, they could've, but the idea that they made mistakes with throw krautboos into a temper tantrum.
>>344867
>krautboo here
Made me kek, but that's inaccurate. What most krautboos absolutely hate are "determinists"-those that say Germany had absolutely no chance of winning any war
>>342443
but that is no different to modern day EU
>>342566
But in reality the loss of Paris would have been a blow to France but you are making the assumption that this wouldn't just over stretch the Germans.
Would France surrender if the initial push for Paris succeeded?
>>345110
Yes
France is an extremely centralized country
Take Paris and you defeat them
>>345089
>>344536
>Austro-Hungarian Empire still get Balkanized
>>345134
The game starts in 1936. Hungary is still in a PU with Austria, Bohemia and Bosnia are Austrian satellites, Croatia is a satellite of Hungary
>>342602
You British faggot. Homosexual. Read Horne's book on the Fall of France, and realize how much those two faggot countries were counting on America coming in to save them even in 1940.
Britain and France knew they were the bottom bitches during the interwar period, they had been economically destroyed by the war and the depression and were weak - though not as weak as they were post 1945. They were dependent on loans and even military equipment from the USA, the isolationist homosexual country with an army smaller than Belgium and Romania.
On maps the British and French gay Empires may have been at their apogee, but in terms of hard power both countries knew that they were benders, poofs, with shaky economics and a severe case of overstretch, like the anus of a homosexual.
