Who should have won WW1?

Wilhelm should've renewed his treaty with Russia instead of Austria. It would've meant that the war would not have happened, and if it did it'd be a quick war in which Germany and Russia push France/Turkey's shit in. Germany and Russia were the superior monarchs and were the only ones not cucked by liberalism, democracy or jews.

>The stab in the back is indeed myth to cope with the fact that Germany lost.
>Third Reich and Axis was genocidal

Shalom!

The sides were not the same at all.

In WW1 Italy and Japan fought against the Central Powers.

In WW2, Italy and Japan were both part of the Axis, and Turkey was neutral.

Please learn history properly before writing nonsense.

>1) WW1 was a result of entangling alliances rather than territorial and geopolitical ambitions like in WW2. There was no grand plan for a new world order like Hitler had. It was a mess of a war that no one actually planned for.
not true, Germany did plan the war and had concrete plans of permanently weakening France and Russia to establish itself as uncontested hegemonic power in Europe. Mosts other countries had concrete ambitions as well.
>2) As far as Germany and the Ottoman Empire being Allies. German and Turkey have always been natural allies and always had a cordial relationship for many reasons. Always have, always will.
wrong, Germany and the Ottoman Empire were not "natural allies" and only cooperated from the late 19th century.
>3) The stab in the back is indeed myth to cope with the fact that Germany lost. While Germany could have fought on for some time longer, all it would have done was prolong the inevitable, except with millions more dead on all sides. Once the US got involved it broke the stalemate.
correct
>4) If any nation was disloyal in this conflict it was Italy, which basically left the central powers and joined the Triple Entente, with France, Britain, and Russia. Had Italy remained with the central powers it is my view that the central powers could have won, but it is not certain. Italy's performance in WW1 was much better compared to its atrocious performance in WW2. This is in part due to the technology, battle tactics of the time(trench warfare) which made it a more even playing field for all, and the fact that Italy's heart was more in this war, rather than in WW2 for various reasons.
correct, tho Austria-Hungary was aware that Italy was hostile despite the "alliance", and Italy waited until its defensive alliance with A-H and Germany expired (1915) before it declared war and joined the Entente.

Ye, true. I didn't mean it on the level of countries.

(((They))) who turned these countries against each other wanted to destroy the monarchy.

I just say that if the Central Powers win in 1918 than the monarchy as a system wouldn't have been destroyed.

Muh Baste Reich

Attached: Reichkikes btfo.png (1488x1488, 809.37K)

Please don't be butthurt.

There was no way the Central Powers could face Britain, France, USA, Italy, and the rest of the Alliance successfully, even considering the fact that Russia was out of the war by the end. Germany was depleted and a tiny nation facing 3 behemoth empire states(USA, Britain, France).

>the Third Reich and Axis was genocidal and racist
Sound like the good guys to me

Yas Forums isn't the right place for you tbqh, too many brainlets and schizos
try /his/ or Yas Forums or unironically Reddit

You are not in the position to lecture anyone about schizophrenia Shlomo

What I meant was that it didn't have a global plan for domination like the Third Reich did. WW1 was not necessarily desired by Germany, while in WW2 Hitler was actively taking steps towards conflict which would inevitably lead to war.

With respect to Turkey and Germany I just disagree. Of course they only cooperated since the 19th century. The two states had no way of having any meaningful contact and relationship prior to that. Germany was not even a state several centuries ago.

The fact remains that the two peoples are natural partner nations. Their people's will never truly hate each other. It's why to this day Germans vacation in Turkey so much.

Not to me. And my side won. So that makes you the loser :)

Yeah, I feel you.

I think from time to time it may educate someone, but who knows. I enjoy it regardless, as it helps keep me sharp as well.

BASED HITLER SHOULD'VE WON CAUSE IN HIS BOOK, HE SAYS HE HATES THE JEWS. FUCKING BASED!!!
THEN HE ROUNDED UP ALL THE JEWS IN EUROPE AND PUT THEM IN CAMPS. THAT'S THE JEWS WHO DIDN'T LEAVE EUROPE, CAUSE HITLER GAVE JEWS FREEDOM TO LEAVE EUROPE BEFORE THE WAR HE STARTED, STARTED
FUCKING BASED.
HITLER IS FUCKING BASED BECAUSE HE SAID HE HATES JEWS IN HIS BOOK, THEN PROVIDED THEM LUXURY CAMPS AND SAVED THE JEWISH RACE WHILE HE WENT TO WAR WITH WHITE PEOPLE IN EUROPE
FUCKING BASED HITLER

Attached: 1582630999981.png (598x750, 217.71K)

Imagine taking credit for a victory that happened before you were born

Germans are incapable to win

Once per 1000 years they have great leader who creates empire, each time they fuck up very fast

last time Bismarck created an empire, germans used his creation to ruin europe and kill europeans twice

they were so afraid that russia and france will partition them after victory that they even helped communistic jews like Lenin lol

Muh rayciss
/his/ would say that basd Hadrian didn't do enough against jews.

>What I meant was that it didn't have a global plan for domination like the Third Reich did. WW1 was not necessarily desired by Germany, while in WW2 Hitler was actively taking steps towards conflict which would inevitably lead to war.
yes it was actively pursued by Germany, Germany had concrete plans for war (Schlieffen plan) and actively encouraged A-H into kicking it off by attacking Serbia. Germany did have the ambition for world power status by permanently weakening France and Russia.
>With respect to Turkey and Germany I just disagree. Of course they only cooperated since the 19th century. The two states had no way of having any meaningful contact and relationship prior to that. Germany was not even a state several centuries ago.
so it's stupid to call them "natural allies". Germany and the Ottoman Empire had common interests and enemies just before and during WW1, that alliance and cooperation lasted about 20 years and wasn't particularly intense either, if you call that a "natural alliance", you'd have to call any cooperation between states that. In fact, German states historically more often fought against the Turks than against them (Ottoman-Habsburg wars)
>The fact remains that the two peoples are natural partner nations.
that makes no sense
>Their people's will never truly hate each other.
I'm German and the recent attack in Hanau or the behavior of many Turkish immigrants prove you wrong
>It's why to this day Germans vacation in Turkey so much.
Germans vacation all across the Mediterranean, not just Turkey

>German states historically more often fought against the Turks than against them
*than with them

I have no idea, but I know that Russia was on the wrong side due to the tsar-moron.

Not taking credit, and only a moron(like you) would assume I did.

Just saying that it's the side I'm on (the non-racist, non genocidal side).

Technically it could be referred to as "my side" anyways, as I'm American lol. This is how normal humans speak colloquially, but I assume you don't engage in that in the real world as that would actually mean your loser ass was social in the real world.

Me.

youtube.com/watch?v=aY1XpTzLn0A

A german-led world is a beaurocratic thoughtcrime nightmare, just look at the EU

‘Your side’ was neither non-racist nor was it non-genocidal
Americans had no problem rounding Japanese up into camps or calling black people niggers and segregating them or giving them less rights
The British had no problem letting millions of Indians die in famine
If any of the 1945 era Allies were around they would presumably call you a faggot

Doesn't matter who should have won. Any "victory" would be pyrrhic, no matter what. Only Japan and the US benefited from that shit show.

>Americans had no problem rounding Japanese up into camps or calling black people niggers and segregating them or giving them less rights
>The British had no problem letting millions of Indians die in famine
laughable whataboutism to try to equate this with the crimes of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan

I would prefer to see alliances in the form of Germany-Russia-Italy against Britain-France-Austria-Ottomans. I think in this reality I would have nothing against the german victory. In general the confrontation between our two peoples is the greatest tragedy because we had almost nothing to share

Attached: 1489780175_1.jpg (1200x675, 103.89K)

Are you stupid? Why would Russia allow the austrians a free hand in the balkans and the germans taking over western Europe? This would only weaken Russian's position in Europe.

>the non-racist
So I guess the CSA and segregation weren't a thing? Apartheid in South Africa apparently wasn't a thing either?

>non genocidal
Perhaps the Circassian genocide never happened? Much like all the genocidal famines in British India? Or the genocide of the Native Americans by the US government?

>3) The stab in the back is indeed myth to cope with the fact that Germany lost. While Germany could have fought on for some time longer, all it would have done was prolong the inevitable, except with millions more dead on all sides. Once the US got involved it broke the stalemate.
The stab in the back is on the subject "Germany could still win" totally wrong but on the subject with the peace negotiation partially right.
The peace negotiation wouldn't be so fatal if Germany have at least some sort of ground for negotiation instead the complete total capitulation which led to the Treaty of Versailles and the second World War.

When the communist try to take control in 1919 in Germany, this entire thing got extremely reinforce.

As long as a German nation state has existed it has either been in alliance, or on positive terms with the Ottomans/Turks. I am not talking about individual Germanic territories/states, but the nation-state of ONE Germany.

Your personal opinion on Turks in Germany means literally nothing. You are one person. Even if 10 of your friends and family members thought that way it would still mean nothing. The attack in Hanau also means nothing, that is one man (a rather mentally unstable one at that). In Germany live 80 million people. All that matters in this discussion is the collective opinion.

All states in war have post-war plans, but there was no grand global order planned by Germany. It was only thinking to become stronger power (all nations do this).

He’s a retard Prussiaboo

Kek last time they had a Prussian king it nearly ended the empire, until based Empress came along

I know, Russia could have literally solved the german problem even before the french revolution

What made you think I was trying to equate them with the crimes of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan
Keep your schizoid delusion in you own head Shlomo, don’t share them with us

While of course USA/Allies of the 1940's had racism, the cause they were fighting for wasn't racist.

"If any of the 1945 Allies"

We're in 2020. Many British in the 1800s would probably call the Brits of the 1900 fags, and so on. You roll with the times or you die out (like you will).

Those who can roll and adapt, survive. Those who can't perish, like your Nazi heroes.

You lose again, just like your heroes :)

All those things were a thing.

What does that have to do with the Axis vs. Allies in WW2. The Axis clearly had a different view on race/ethnicity than the Allies did. You're literally a moron if you're trying to draw equivalence. The Nazis were OBSESSED with race. The Japanese also believed themselves to be the true master race.

Face it. Your pathetic wannabe ethno-powers got wrecked.

neither the American treatment of Japanese-Americans nor the British neglect of food supply in British India during WW2 were a genocide. You trying to portray it as such clearly implies your attempt to play down the crimes of the other side.

What makes you think I am a nazi?
Just because I try to fix your Hollywood brain that taught you WW2 was a crusade of non-racists versus the racists that wanted to take over the world?
Maybe stop getting so personally affected and learn something outside of movies and High School Holocaust class

It absolutely mattered who won World War I, just like it mattered who won World War II. But, regardless of who won the World Wars, it ends the same way: With the Americans swooping in and dismantling the remainder of European's imperial system.

If you are not, you at least sympathize with them, and thus I see no need to draw a distinction.

WW2 was not a crusade of non-racists, why would it be? Preventing ethnic extermination was not a stated goal of the US intervention in WW2, but it was at the end of the day a secondary factor. If it wasn't then the Americans would have simply permitted the Germans to carry on with their extermination policy after they liberated the camps and established a post war order. If "both sides were equally racist" like you delusional nazi sympathizers like to claim then why didn't the Allies simply continue the policy of extermination? That's right, because both sides were not equal.

It was a huge struggle in which at the very least the more evil side which would exterminate people simply for being born with certain DNA and existing, was defeated.

If the Allies (USA) wanted to actually take over the world they could have very easily done so in the immediate aftermath of WW2. They had such an overwhelming advantage that it would not have been difficult. That they didn't shows they were pretty benevolent and had enormous restraint and were indeed truly deserving of being the global hegemon, while the Nazi's would have eventually just exterminated everybody.

I am not personally affected by WW2, and have very little bias in terms of my personal background. I am not above criticizing US foreign policy actions at all.

There are certain aspects of both sides I can appreciate. For example, I am pretty certain that the Axis would have better protected the environment, rather than the current highly consumerist USA, but that still doesn't negate the fact that AT THE TIME the correct thing to do was stop Hitler from his never-ending goal of expansion.

> Britain starving a population to kill off anti colonialist protests isn't genocide

Yes indeed your faux intellectualism does belong on reddit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
>not a single mention of the word "genocide"
maybe you do a bit more reading before posting bullshit

>"both sides were equally racist" like you delusional nazi sympathizers like to claim
Who are you quoting?

>Your side’ was neither non-racist nor was it non-genocidal

You said this in response as a counter to my pointing out that the Germans were racist and genocidal. The implication here is that because the Allies also had racism in their society/policies that it somehow negates the evil ethnic extermination views and policies of the Axis.

It does not. Cope harder.

Having war plans does not mean you wish to go to war, by that logic America wanted to go to war with Britain, Italy, Japan, Germany, Mexico, France and China because they created War Plan Red, Crimson, Ruby, Garnet, Scarlet, Orange, Green, Yellow, Gold and Black.
Germany did not encourage Austria-Hungry to go to war and nor did they think Austria would go to war such as in the Willy–Nicky correspondence and the fact that Serbia accepted all demands except one. The only ones that wanted to go to war were the Austrian generals which is why they deliberately chose inflammatory demands.
The stab in the back was not a myth you schizo jew, you can’t have jews lead multiple uprisings against the German government such as the Spartacus Uprisings and the Bavarian Soviet Republic and then claim that the Jews dindu nuffin.

the entente obviously since they actually won in reality.

There is no victory when you have to slaughter millions of white people on either side.

Which Empress?

>The Axis clearly had a different view on race/ethnicity than the Allies did.
"I believe in the ultimate partition of China — I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph." -Winston Churchill
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." -Winston Churchill
"There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press." -George S. Patton

"We are turning over several hundred thousand prisoners of war to be used as slave labor in France. It is amusing to recall thagt we fought the Revolution in defense of the rights of man and the Civil war to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles." -George S. Patton

Fuck krauts

Attached: 1582407496528.jpg (498x671, 97.64K)

You morons, Nicholas did everything right. Russia almost won the war, that's why krauts and anglos did everything to destroy it from the inside.

Attached: 4bec8wqZA1E.jpg (656x656, 111.17K)

He was a fag

Attached: 2b7.jpg (600x900, 37.6K)

Based axis fren.

British Empire should have sided with its natural ally Germany instead of their natural enemy France. An Anglo-Germanic alliance against the Franco-Russian shitfest would have been beautiful.

Hello Carpathia.

shalom

>What I meant was that it didn't have a global plan for domination like the Third Reich did.
There is far less evidence that the Third Reich wanted world domination than that the Second Reich wanted world domination, and literally every historian agrees that the Second Reich didn't want world domination. The Kaiser was on the path to becoming the leading power in continental Europe, and the British Empire are fucking retarded and they decided that this could be allowed because fuck Germany (even though the royal family was and still is German). The Kaiser said that King Edward was a Satan and he was absolutely right. King Edward fucked up everything by making British aristocrats think Germany shouldn't be ally #1.

>this could be allowed
couldn't
Fuck Churchill

The usual take on it is that without American intervention there would eventually have to be peace after the ongoing stalemate. Niall Ferguson even goes so far as to argue that Britain should not have intervened at all, with the worst possible outcome being a German victory over France. Would the Germans have enacted as harsh a peace as negotiated at Paris? Maybe they would be hesitant to frighten Britain in this regard.

In the end the worst outcome was the destruction of the old order paving the way for nationalism and mass democracy, which the Germans were the greatest victims of. The Reich became smaller, more centralized and democratized, but outside of its borders Germans would be disenfranchised over night. Like Jews Germans in Eastern Europe were suddenly an alien element, a fifth column of sorts.
As the Balkan Wars in the beginning of the 20th century were an attempt to cleanse their countries of Turks, so Germans were displaced, with the greatest expulsion happening after the second part of the war also referred to as WWII.

Sam Dickson likes to call the world wars the Peloponnesian War of Europe as reference to Sparta's fear about Athens gaining supremacy. It destroyed not only the political order, but basically Christianity with it and opened the doors to totalitarian ideologies and more war.

Attached: GOTT_MIT_UNS.jpg (462x601, 302.42K)