Was Imperial Germany likely to defeat any Allied country 1 vs 1?

>>35044261
They probably could have defeated either France or Russia on their own, which is why the USA was dragged into the war.

Germany had an Armed forces that had over 13 million men go through its ranks over the course of the entire war--the most of any country. In addition, the Kaiserliche Marine was second only to the Royal Navy. I think they could have definitly were the likely winner in any one on one conflict.

>>35044261
France, Russia and Belgium if Britain and the US didn't get involved.

File: 1500799089907.jpg (41KB, 501x768px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 501x768px

>>35044275
YUP

Alfred von Schlieffen had a rule later called the Schlieffen Plan.

dont fight both the French and the Russians

Both are hard on their own, russia can throw numbers at you and france is the only country that will arm its civilians.

Germany fucked up even harder when they were told to not fuck with belgium....they fucked with belgium and now had pretty much everyone pissed off.

Germany could take just about anyone one on one......but i doubt they could defeat the US. Germany could never match are industrial power or are experience with modern war.

also America is a beautiful place, in Europe the people go to war for their leaders in America the leaders go to war for their people.(not so much anymore).

>>35044399
>Belgium
thats not saying much, although Belgium did a beautiful fucking job. Absolutely note worthy.

>>35044534
American education right here

File: 1484697259586.gif (729KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 267x200px

>>35044534
>misusing "are" when you needed to type "our"
>talking about America's experience with "modern war" in a thread about Imperial Germany
>Having literally 0 valid points in any one of the lines of text you just typed

>>35044574
dont just say things, only idiots point fingers without counter points.

>>35044592
>misusing "are" when you needed to type "our"
huuurrr durrrr spelling.

America was fresh off of spains ass and had fought the civil war. Which was comperable to WWI tactics.

not to mention fighting guerillas in the philipines.

Germany became one of the if not THE strongest country after the German confederation. They had some of the brilliant minds and had wrote out plans for just about situation that could happen. They maps on maps of maps with careful laid plans.

every soldier had a place and time and their army marched for miles on end in unison.

>>35044261
Germany could've easily defeated France or Russia alone.

They probably couldn't have "defeated" Britain since they didn't have the navy/tech/training to invade.

>>35044631
are you drunk?

>>35044719
none of your businesss, you got a point to make?

or are you still pointing fingers?

>>35044719
Not the guy your talking talk but you are blowing things out of proportion

>>35044261
Probably.
The problem is the fact that they tended to piss everyone off at the same time.
This goes for WW1 AND WW2.

>>35044261

I'm assuming that you're talking about an allied country as is without alliances. If that's the case then Germany would probably stomp most of them except Britain and the States. Both of those countries have natural barriers that would make an attempt at landing an invasion pretty difficult.

>>35044275
What? The US entered the war because of unrestricted submarine warfare and the zimmermann telegram.

>>35044261
Yes

>>35046427
>unrestricted submarine warfare

I'm going to fill this ship with ammunition for the UK and send it off through your blockade, but you better not shoot it!

File: IMG_1968.jpg (75KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 853x480px

>>35048264
>im going to kill a bunch of civilians because im a dirty fucking german

>Allied
You mean WW2 France, Britain, or USA? No, I doubt it.

File: ah yes.png (34KB, 748x284px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 748x284px

>>35048330
>I'm going to fill a ship with military supplies and try to use civilians as literal human shields!

Well done lad, well done

>>35048353
Of course Germany could defeat France 1v1, even if just a matter of numbers.

against Germany it would be more of a stalemate, because neither nation would be able to get a decisive land advantage on their own.

>>35048330
>justifying the use of human shields

>>35048366
>WW2 France

>>35048354
>implying the munitions were not for civilian use
SHALL NOT

File: 1483550091174.png (426KB, 708x738px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 708x738px

>>35044574
O B S E S S E D

Pro-Tip: 'Germany' has lost Every War it ever initiated in the previous 2000 years

>>35048603
>Franco-Prussian War
>the German Visigoths overran Rome less than 2,000 years ago
>won several colonial wars
>the seven years war ended in a draw

>>35048717
Oops I meant thirty years War ended in a war. Germans were amongst the victors of the seven years war

>>35048725
ended in a draw* fuck spell check BS

>>35044631
You're a fucking moron. The US Civil war was nothing like WWI, despite happening not all that long before.

>>35044631
Spanish-american war and the civil war were comparable to world war one? what sort of crackpot bootleg history channel 2 have you been watching

>>35046427
the US mostly entered the war because they had given the allies a silly amount of credit which wouldve been void had the germans won the war.

you can talk about its justifications all you want, but that is undoubtably the main reason.

>>35048759
First major war where machine guns, telegraph, and rail saw military usage. Trench warfare made a debut. Just a few things I can think off the top of my head.

>>35048420
>British citizens
>using munitions

>>35044631
The US beat Spain because Spain was more incompetent and poorly led then the US was at the time, if it had been a true European power like the UK or Austria-Hungary we most likely would have lost. Spain was a train wreck at the time, and was desperately trying to retain what little bit of its empire was still left, the seeds of the Spanish Civil War were planted with the loss to the US, don't make it into some great victory because it really wasn't.

>>35048264
Exactly, you can't claim neutrality and then start supplying one of the belligerents.