Why is America's role in WWI do underrated? Without America

>>1899768

it isnt underrated, its general consensus that america joining the war won the war for the allies

>>1899768
Because America missed most of the suffering which the media focuses on. They pretty much came at the end of the war for the land few offensives.

>>1899768
What defeat germany was the bristish navy and the endless shitstorm of the western front, it was an attrition war and the german loose it, america just came at the end when the german were already defeated.

>>1899783
This. With Russia out of the war, France on the verge of mass mutiny, and the British being the British, the German Spring Offensive would have taken Paris and decided the war in spring 1918. Or, who knows what might have happened had America not entered the war. Germany could have decided to reinforce Austria, knock Greece out of the war, and break through to the Ottoman Empire. Or they could have helped Austria win after Caporetto. Or waited and reaped the gains from the territories occupied by Brest-Litovsk, which would have included grain and food for the German people.

Really, there isn't any historical doubt that German desperation brought on by the imminent arrival of US forces brought on the Spring Offensive, and their ultimate defeat.

>>1899768
their arrival was decisive but they still didn't do nearly as much as the other powers who had already been fighting for years

>>1899768
If anything it is overrated.

The USA tipped the scales in clear favor of the allies, but they didn't do the heavy lifting.

>>1901701
>If anything it is overrated.
It's underrated. Without Wilson's interference, the Europeans would have to come to an eventual mutually agreeable peace terms. Instead, we got WW2,& the Cold War (arguably).

>>1901696
>Germany
>launching an offensive against Italy
They would have been defeated even harder than Austria Hungray

>>1901696
but the spring offensive failed, indeed the spring offensive never could have succeeded.

it placed far to much reliance on the stormtroopers, who were limited in number and suffered the majority of the germans casualties, it failed to break the british armies morale and squandered its momentum in a desperate attempt to grab territory while failing to take any of its strategic objectives.

as for germanys defeat, that was inevitable once the french and english had worked out the tactics of coordinating short violent artillery barrages with tank supported infantry attacks, this was shown in the summer offensive where they punched out all the territory the germans had taken in the spring before proceeding to punch in the the hindenburg line across a significant portion of its length.

america failing to enter the war mean the campaign is fought in spring of 1919 after the germans endure a starvation winter.

in military terms the american contribution was slight and non critical

>>1899768
>AMERICA ONLY JOINED THE WAR 18 MONTHS BEFORE IT ENDED!! THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!
Corrections: The Americans joined the war and it ended 18 months later.

>>1899768

>Without them the allies would have lost.
>people actually believe this

>>1901925

More importantly, England started taking the war seriously in 1917 and that was when those new tactics became feasible.

If the US didn't intervene then England would just send more shells and end the war.

America sped up the victory, without them the war would have probably continued for a year max and it would have still had the same outcome.

The Royal Navy blockade couldn't be broken and the Germans were starving. The winter would have basically destroyed them from within.

France, Italy and Britain could afford to drag the war on for years.

If you're going to fight a war of attrition, don't have less troops and supplies than your fucking enemy.

>>1901952
To be fair, the original German plan was to force the French to surrender after only a few weeks of fighting so they could pivot to the Eastern Front and focus on fighting Russia. They never wanted to fight a war of attrition, and were probably acutely aware that they couldn't win a long, drawn-out war in the West.

>>1901971
True. The moment they clashed with French/British troops and started digging trenches the war was basically over for them to be honest.

>>1901952
This guys got it.

>>1901741
>Italians
>winning against Germans
kek

I have to admit I would have loved to see this happen

>>1901925
>the french and english had worked out the tactics of coordinating short violent artillery barrages with tank supported infantry attacks, this was shown in the summer offensive where they punched out all the territory the germans had taken in the spring before proceeding to punch in the the hindenburg line across a significant portion of its length.
This is historically inaccurate.
It was a tactical stalemate. It was a strategic (i.e. Royal Navy blockade) victory.

>>1899768
Without America both sides would have agreed to a peace agreement

>>1902003
The terms of the peace agreement would have been much less harsh on Germany but they still would have had to concede defeat

>>1899768
>Why is America's role in WWI do underrated? Without America bringing in two million men the allies shouldn't have had enough men to take part in the final offensive.

They would have, as they could have brought reserves from their holdings all over. Much more slowly than a dedicated stream of manpower from the US.

>Without them the allies would have lost.

No.

>>1902002
>This is historically inaccurate.
u wot
the allies literally broke the german lines at will late in the war
it was not a tactical stalemate if you keep breaking the enemy lines and they keep surrendering

>>1901696
>France on the verge of mass mutiny
ebin meme

>>1901741
The last time Germans got sent to fight Italy it wasn't even close like 3 divisions crushed them in the 12th battle of the Isonzo. Their military tactics were more outdated than the Russians and were shit troops. If Germany could have prevented the US from coming in it could have knocked out Italy in a month.

>>1902031
>the allies literally broke the german lines at will late in the war
It was a staged, strategic withdrawal to more easily defended, fixed positions.

>>1902074
i'm sort of confused here

are you talking about the german retreat to the hindeburg line which was necessitated by allied successes and the untenable position on the frontline

or are you talking about the breaking of the hindeburg line which was broken in a manner of days

Nah dude, we just dealt arms.
We saw Euros doing Euro things on a massive scale so we decided to just sit over here and quite literally watch the world burn.

File: 1477587428939.png (21KB, 478x404px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 478x404px

>>1899768
Not underrrated by Americans at least

>>1901925
>tactics of coordinating short violent artillery barrages with tank supported infantry
tactics
WW1 was a War of` ATTRITION, not battle tactics.
The front lines did not move until the entire supply apparatus of the country was drained to exhaustion.

>>1901971
This
Germany lost when the French stopped them at the First Marne

>>1902093
Late war that was not the case. Allied French and German lead offensives were highly tactical. Lightning barrages mechanized units on allied side and storm troopers with intermixed mass gas on the german side. Both had mastered the creeping barrage and infiltration atics were becoming extremely useful.

File: hqdefault (2).jpg (8KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x360px

>>1901971
That fuck didn't put enough troops in the belgium offensive.

>muhhh schlieffen plan
>reeee

>>1902111
>Both had mastered the creeping barrage and infiltration atics were becoming extremely useful.
They ran out of dumb asses willing to trade their lives for a couple of feet of foreign dirt.

>>1902111
The creeping barrage was a meme

>>1901925
But the Spring Offensive only happened because the Americans were in their way; Ludendorff felt the need for a final knock out punch to win the war before several million fresh troops showed up to support the Entente.

With no American intervention (or delayed American intervention), it's quite possible that the Germans would have been content to take a more defensive posture. Send some of the men from the eastern front to the west, but send others to beef up the Austrians, or their Allies in the Balkans. Try to use the gains in the east to create something approaching a stable civilian food supply.

Meanwhile, what would the Entente be able to do? True, the French army wasn't really on the brink of collapse, but they were no longer capable of offensive action. Pétain promised no more offensives until the arrival of tanks AND Americans. That sense of inevitable victory once the Yankees showed up is partially to thank for the mutinies not getting worse.

And the British? Sure, they were in a pretty good place, but how long is the public going to support a war where one Ally has already collapsed, one is unwilling to attack, and a third is tragically Italian?

If Germany offered some sort of truce, selling out the Ottomans in exchange for it's eastern European gains, the war may have petered out. The Americans didn't stop the Entente losing, but they did guarantee the W.

>>1902088
this honestly upsets me

File: 1476868244746g.png (23KB, 401x485px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 401x485px

>>1902317
Here's how many troops the British and French Empires used in total for the war (around 8 millions each)

File: ppll.jpg (174KB, 700x1192px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 700x1192px

>>1902332
And here's the total population they had
390 millions people in the British Empire
They could easily have done without US troops

>>1902334
American Industry really did help, though. The real moment the war was won was Vittorio Veneto. Germany realised they could not win while propping up Austria

>>1902002
no it wasnt, the german army collapsed in the face of repeated oddensives breaking the hindenburg line at will.

>>1902074
it wasnt exactly staged, they fought a series of battles falling back on the hindenburg line coming off the worse at each enounter, then had their shit truly pushed in when the allies attacked the hindenburg line (the last and strongest line before the fighting started being in germany) the allied attack broke the line.

>>1902093
any tactic that allows you to radically alter the rate of exchange in a war of attrition is important, hell any change that allows you to alter the rate of exchange is significant.

if I have 100'000 men and the other guys has the same i want to make sure that each one of mine can account for more than one of his, tactical changes like tanks and short artillery barrages or stormtroopers do have this effect.

>>1902334
Why didn't British just conscript Indians?

>>1902317
with no american intervention the allies wait and attack in the spring of 1919, they knew they could win, they knew that their offensive techniques could overcome the germans defensive techniques

>>1902367

We did, I think we sent 250,000 to the Western Front and half a million or so to the Middle Eastern front

>>1902367
They did use many of them
Basically every medics in the British army were Indian

>>1902392
>>1902393
Those are just professionals not conscripts, if Britain conscripted India they could have just spammed no mans land with millions of Indians and Germany would have been fucked.

>>1902372
But waiting until 1919, a full year, also gives the Germans plenty of opportunity to rest, refit, and unfuck their logistics. It gives them time to dig in even more so, and it means they haven't thrown away all their best trained, best equipped, and best motivated troops during operation Michael.

It also gives them a year to negotiate a half decent peace. And it gives an extra year of butterflies flapping their wings in ways we can't guess at. I've never denied that the Entente would ultimately win, if they put their back into it. My question is, would they bother?

>>1901696
>France on the verge of mass mutiny
Pétain pretty much fixed everything in the summer of 1917.

>>1902352
>American Industry really did help, though
No it did not. When the american entered the war, they had no military industry and bought artillery and other weapons from the french.

>>1902405

>if Britain conscripted India they could have just spammed no mans land with millions of Indians and Germany would have been fucked.

i'm not sure you understand how military logistics work

>>1902480
I am not sure you understand how using millions of indians as cannon fodder work

>>1902494
First, bringing million of guy from india to France is harder than you think, then remember they were from a colonial nation, arming them in mass is at best risky.

>>1902529
They managed to Bring hundreds of thousands of people from around the world to fight I am sure they manage it in India given they had four years.

>>1899768
It's overrated actually.
In the end of the war, Germans were starved, their reserves depleted and they simply couldn't supply their war machinery anymore.
While on the other hand, British and French could do that.
Germans would have lost with or without American influence.

>>1902317
you seem to be unaware of the absolutely shambolic state of Germany in 1918
if the Americans were not on their way, and the Germans waited, they would have starved and lost anyway
if the Americans were not coming, I dare say the French leadership would not have counted on their coming
besides, the French did mount offensives even after the mutinies
so
>what would the Entente be able to do?
grow in strength, tap into colonial/commonwealth reserves, keep strangling Germany even further while building up with their superior economies and industries

>>1899768
Actually the role of USA in WW1 is highly underlined, at least in my history books.

>>1902093
>WW1 was a War of` ATTRITION
The only battles that could be properly described as primarily attritional were Verdun and maybe the Italian campaigns. As in, the express purpose was to kill as many enemy as possible rather than gain an objective.

>>1902795
The purpose of Verdun was to capture Verdun and open a road to Paris
But it miserably failed and the German general in charge made up excuses

>>1902852
Paris was never the goal hell later in the war they walked right past it. Paris was meaningless.

>>1899768
>amerifats being effective and valuable in war
sorry never happened. now watch some more fantasy movies.

>>1899768
How is it underrated?
We were merchants and just helped at the very last second.
T. American

>>1902862
>Paris was meaningless.
You know that the economic and politic capital of france, also it's a huge moral boost.

>>1902862
>Paris was never the goal hell later in the war
It was
Taking Paris = defeating France = killing the Entente

>hell later in the war they walked right past it.
What are you talking about, fucking retard?

Americentrism gets worse by the year.

>>1899768
Because they entered the war at the very end. Sure their entrance helped tip the balance but they fought very little.

>>1902985
We didn't enter at the war, it ended because we entered it. Stay weak, Europe

>>1902912
>>1902902
Paris was a meme city and was evacuated when the Germans were within 80 miles of the city. If the Germans weren't going full retard because of the Americans coming they would have never even attempted for it because it was pointless. You are never going to beat France by taking 1 city or Germany would have focused on it harder already. Every fight had been a mass offensive or a battle to force a fight and later in the war just to hold onto gains.

>>1903843
>Paris was a meme city and was evacuated when the Germans were within 80 miles of the city
Paris was never evacuated, retard

>If the Germans weren't going full retard because of the Americans coming they would have never even attempted for it because it was pointless
Their main attempt to take it was in 1914, when no Americans were in sight

>You are never going to beat France by taking 1 city or Germany would have focused on it harder already
It was the entire German plan in the West until the French stopped their offensive at the First Marne

Are you trolling or what?

American battlefield contributions were not significant but their strategic presence certainly was. The entry of another large nation with fresh economic and manpower resources destroyed any hope Germany had of winning an attrition war and forced them to spend the last of their strength on a doomed, last-ditch offensive.

Would the Entente have won without US assistance? Probably, they were in a better condition to endure a war of attrition but you can never discount the possibility of some unexpected occurrence somewhere in the world that could have led to a different outcome. It's all pointless speculation in the end.

To say that without America the Allies would have lost, or that the Americans won the war is silly, but they certainly did make a decisive contribution to the resolution of the conflict.

>>1899768
Because it doesn't fit the nationalistic narrative of the unimportant European shitholes that would have been torn a new one by Germany if it weren't for American aid.

American role in ww1 is something You would never expect.

Lets fast forward to WW2 and maginot line.

In ww1 the biggest threat to Political gain was the hesitant nature of the human when it came to a forced charge against the enemy lines.

If You where in the place of any of those people. At that time, You would not be willing to invade the enemy lines

this is the truth, Fuck the Mainstream media, Fuck the 1%.

On a side note, if I was a french soldier in WW1 and I was told my attack is going to kill the top 1%, I would charge and nothing else.

>>1904291
America always wins

>>1902912
>Taking Paris = defeating France = killing the Entente
this seems to be pulled straight out of your ass, seeing the government and military leadership had on many times confirmed their resolve to fight even should paris be threatened or taken later in the war

>>1904291
>this entire post
wtf

>>1903604
>we wuz winrars an shiet

>>1901696
You are wrong. The spring offensive was the end of Germany they never stood a chance. And the counter offensive in the 100 days would have worked without the Americans.

File: 100 days.png (23KB, 322x623px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 322x623px

>>1906530
We were more relevant than Brits

>>1906607
>america spammed boyscouts for the final offensive

we won the war n sheeeit

>>1906607

>meaningless numbers devoid of any situational context

i guess you'll agree the PLA is better and more relevant than the US army then

>>1899768
Why are we still posting in this thread?
We have already gone over that America's role was minimal other than selling supplies to both sides, the more to Britain and France with the blockades and all. Provided troops, most of which didn't fight well and weren't ready, there were a few units that did well but not many. The best you could say about most of them is that they could street fight.
T. American

>>1902393
Is this a BF1 reference?

>>1906710
It was the final offensive because America was there. If it depended on britcucks and frogs the offensive would fail miserably and the war would drag on a bit more, until Germany's victory.

>>1907047
No. Germany was totally exhausted and had lost all offensive capacity after the failure of the Spring offensive, which was their last gasp. The British blockade was killing them. Without the Americans, the Allies would have won in spring 1919.

>>1907047
Why would it fail? Because American boyscouts weren't there to surrender?

>>1902570
you do realize that the WW1 BIA was in shambles because they were geared up to ensure that it was not rebelling against the english ALA 1857. Nearly all the command staff was anglo in origin and troops often had to work under commanders that had never commanded colonial soldiers before. They gave a good account of themselves because they were professional soldiers, but once the junior officers started dropping out, their effectiveness dropped.

The brits reorganized the BIA after WW1 and actually began recruiting indians as commissioned officers in the army. Several officers that would go up against each other in the indo pakistani wars were trained together in england.

>>1907047
>until Germany's victory.
ayayayayayyyy

>>1899768
Germany had already lost the war when the Schlieffen Plan failed

>>1906607
you had more numbers than the british, although it should be pointed out that the british also had troops deployed in italy, the balklans and the middle east as well as the 1.8 million on the western front so their total contribution exceeded the US numbers in numerical terms.

however sheer numbers dont tell the entire story, what your image leaves out is the section below strength which lists each sides losses, the germans side is helpfully divided by which nation inflicted what losses, and while america contributed the second highest component in terms of numbers they did the third highest total in terms of damage to the germans.

the 'scores' are as follows, the belgians took 14500 prisoners and 414 guns captured taking 4th place in the table, the americans in third took 44142 prisoners and 1481 guns, the french take second with 139000 prisoners and 1880 guns and the british take first with 188700 prisoners and 2840 guns.

so its hard to argue with the conclusion that militarily speaking the american forces were less effective than the british or french and that their contribution to the final offensive was in fact dwarfed by the british and the french despite both nations having already fought constantly for 4 years.

>>1907047
>If it depended on britcucks and frogs the offensive would fail miserably
the final offensive did depend largely on the british and french, it was a complete success, it shattered the hindenburg line and brought about a complete collapse of the german army

>>1899768
without them we would've had an ending to the war which didn't include humilating germany and giving rise to the second world war... europe would've helped the Czars defeat the communists a lot earlier because of the sustaining of monarchies, the european empires would not have fallen and we wouldn't have had a second world war... ggnorethxtoamericunts

>>1901692
your grammar gave me trenchfoot.

>>1901696

But the Germans failed to take Paris before the Americans really got involved. They just didn't have the supply lines to do it.

>>1902424

To be fair, if Germany had negotiated a better peace deal, then we wouldn't have gotten the Nazis and WW2.

So yeah. We fucked that one up.

File: 1478042616309s.jpg (2KB, 125x83px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x83px

>>1908724
the treaty of versailles is the fault of Germany for not standing their ground and for the allies for being cunts.

its everyones fault

>>1908746
>the treaty of versailles is the fault of Germany for not standing their ground
how could they when their army couldnt stand another offensive, their navy mutinied rather than fight and they were going to start seeing actual famine if they went through one more winter under blockade.

> and for the allies for being cunts.
the germans had just deliberately encouraged the worst war in history (up until that point) and had planed to annex huge parts of france, of course the allies were punitive with hindsight they should have either been more punitive to ensure germany never rose again, or substantially more lenient to ensure germany didnt rise again with a grudge

>>1908772

You are ignoring the elephant in the Room.

A strong Imperial Germany would have contained the Soviets.

Without either Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany, the Soviets would have walked over whatever was left of Germany at the time and possibly over France.

They merely ended the war sooner for the Allies. It's not like the US saved Europe. In fact Wilson's presence fucked up the peace negotiations. So fuck you USA.

>>1908789
wasnt so much ignoring, as it was completely irrelevant to the point at hand, that the treaty of versailles wasnt harsher than reasonable under the circumstances, and that the germans had little choice but to accept terms.

however

>A strong Imperial Germany would have contained the Soviets.
you werent getting a strong imperial germany after the first world war no matter what the terms were, part of the reason for the german collapse was the german revolution, the government that negotiated the treaty was not the imperial government but the first democratic one

>>1908869

We are talking about the scenario where the Germans get a favorable peace deal before the German revolution.

Either way, a weakened Germany would have steamrolled by the Soviets.

>>1908925
the german revolution began before the armistice, let alone the treaty negotiations, it began on the 29th of october 1918.

the germans couldnt get a favourable peace deal before they were willing to come to the peace table, they werent willing to do that until the government and army (essentially the same thing) collapsed

>>1901713
>Without Wilson's interference, the Europeans would have to come to an eventual mutually agreeable peace terms
What? Wilson was the main proponent for fair and reasonable peace terms to Germany, the French in particular wanted to forever destroy Germany economically and militarily.

Granted, WW2 may indeed have been prevented by Wilson not interfering, but that would be because France would've left Germany as an impotent bankrupt rump state.

>>1902088
Damnit, I'm American and I wouldn't give us that much credit. We helped at the end and the prospect of us entering the war helped to hasten German surrender, but France and Britain were the ones who toughed it out through the slog. They deserve most of the credit for that.

>>1908793
Wrong. Without shipments of food and goods from the USA, England would have starved. The early phases of submarine warfare sank most of the 5000-plus ships lost, totaling hundreds of thousands of tons of food, medicine, ammunition, etc. An army marches on its stomach.

>>1902119
>They ran out of dumb asses willing to trade their lives for a couple of feet of foreign dirt.
It was domestic dirt for the French

>>1902898
>World War 2
>Korea
>All the other wars we fought by ourselves
Don't be a pretentious prick, we get shit done usually

>inb4 Russia won WW2 singlehandedly

Don't wanna hurt British feelings because they lost 1000000000000000000000000 men in one day at the Somme lol

>>1909503
That sort of happens when you fight in the first world war desu

>>1909293
>ww2
>We put on pretty pink aprons and made tools for the big strong russians!
>korea
>lost

>>1908724
a "better peace deal" would have magically prevented the Great Depression? huh!

>>1909262
>90% of literal bullshit: the post

>>1899768
If USA didnt get in i think after 1 more year and several more disasterous offensives it would end like the War of 1812 and both sides would declare victory with minimal consequences for . this would of course be pushed by the people and not the generals.

>>1911092
Germany did not have "1 more year". They were putting sawdust into bread, they were melting bells and churches, they needed something like ten times the soldiers/replacement a month than they were actually getting. In fact it was the German generals who first came up with the idea of, you know, how about we surrender because we have lost.

File: normans leave.jpg (77KB, 800x780px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x780px

WHY WERE THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIANS SO FUCKING BAD AT WARFARE?

>>1911109
>In fact it was the German generals who first came up with the idea of, you know, how about we surrender because we have lost.
This is false, the german army considered itself more than capable of winning, and felt betrayed by the leaders and civilians back home for surrendering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

>>1911122
You realize it's called the stab-in-the-back myth, because it is a MYTH, right?

They said that only after the war, but in reality Ludendorff had recommended surrender as early as 29 September. He resigned in late October because he didn't want to have to take responsibility for the armistice, even though he knew it was necessary.

>>1911133
I didn't say they were right, only that they believed they could've won and were betrayed by a cowardly civilian government and thusly weren't in favor of a surrender. You may be right about Ludendorff's recommendation though, I don't know about that part.

>>1911115
Every time you ponder that remember:

The Italians were somehow worse.

>>1911146
the Italians were never good at war though, Austrians come from a Germanic warrior-stock. They have more to live up to.

>>1911144
They didn't believe that though. They claimed they did after the war, but really they knew they couldn't win. They just created the myth to create excuses for themselves and de-legitimize the Weimar Republic which most of them disliked.

>>1911122
>This is false
>posts the dolchstoss legend
A Y Y Y
kys pls
Ludendorff & co literally went running to the gubmint to tell them they dun goofed and lost.

File: austriad.png (293KB, 1254x1107px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1254x1107px

>>1911115
Austrians have always been bad at war desu

>>1911210
>This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.
>a possibly apocryphal — friendly fire incident
>The earliest major source detailing this battle ... written 59 years after the battle's supposed occurrence

File: ameriblob.jpg (88KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 768x1024px

>>1909262
>An army marches on its stomach.

whereas the american one uses motorised scooters.

>>1901696
Britain and France stopped Jerry alone. By the time Yanks got into France the counteroffensive had started

>>1909262
You do know we owned India at that point and have full access and control of the med?

Wasn't the German war machine basically dead in its tracks by the time the Americans pitched in?

>>1911278
France stopped the Germans alone (First Marne)
Then France and Britain held the stalemate (Somme, Verdun...etc)
Then France, Britain and the US managed to break the German lines and advance toward Germany (100 Days Offensive)

>>1911398
well, "not yet" at the moment when the americans did actually join first, but "pretty much last gasp yeah" when they were committed to the front in significant numbers

that is not to downplay their involvement, they provided a great reserve of men at short notice and were instrumental in how swiftly the war was concluded, but the narrative of them saving a losing war is obviously misguided

>>1911092
>If USA didnt get in i think after 1 more year and several more disasterous offensives

the biggest issue with that somewhat ridiculous statement is that the anglo-french offensives were anything but disastrous in 1918 the tactical combination of lightening barrages and tank/infantry assaults proved more than capable of defeating the best defenses the germans could muster, that and the germans allies were all collapsing freeing more allied troops to man the western front

>>1911122
MYTH
myth
mJθ/Submit
noun
1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
"ancient Celtic myths"
synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore, folklore; More
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
"the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists" 'the belief that the german army considered itself more than capable of winning and felt betrayed by the leaders and civilians back home for surrendering' is a myth, the german army was surrendering in huge numbers at every offensive and most soldiers believed they could not win, the myth arose after the war and was encouraged by the german right wing to restore pride in germany and scapegoat their political enemies

>>1902088
eternal anglo strikes again

>>1899768
>Without them the allies would have lost.
No.
They would just take longer to win, Germany lost the moment they declared war on all of Europe.