With the US, the allies didn't enter German territory to enforce a surrender. With no US, equal strengths and stalemate gave allies no ability to make Germany do anything.  Its position in 1918 could have been pushed as the Kaiser's success. The rise in German morale would resemble Nazi power of 1940.

3000km from Calais to Rostov is what Mr Adolf gave to Germany and was not a bad deal for the Kaiser in 1918. He would have the Atlantic and Black Sea for his navy and boots on the ground.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 31^st, 2024 at 1:26pm:

That's the basis for your comments. How could a 'stalemate' allow Uk France to force Germany out? By definition, no-one would have an advantage.

intervene 'take part in something so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.'

stalemate 'a situation in which further action or progress by opposing or competing parties seems impossible'.

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/move_the_goalposts

'Not intervening, as in boots on the ground, doesn't mean the US would not provide materiel support to the UK and France'.
'so, had the US not intervened in WW1 : The war ends in a stalemate'.
'The US could easily have remained out of the war but supplied Britain, France and Russia with arms to ensure Germany would be forced to return to its pre-war borders.'
'With the threat of the Allies capable of further prosecuting the war with materiel supplied by the US.'


I'm just a little bit confused here.  The US was in the war by supplying arms but that's not intervening in the war.  The supply would make a stalemate and ensure Germany is forced back by further war breaking the stalemate.  

Would you be confused if road-works has a man with one sign saying Stop and another sign saying Slow at the same time?

'Not intervening, as in boots on the ground, doesn't mean the US would not provide materiel support to the UK and France'. Not intervening means providing materiel and not intervening means not providing materiel.
'Intervening means boots on the ground or weapons specifically used by a state against another'.
Stop . Go.  which one?

'The US and NATO are supplying Ukraine with materiel. Russia cannot claim they are intervening'.
 A website says 'NATO prepares direct intervention into Russia-Ukraine war.
“Russia can and must suffer strategic defeat in Ukraine,” the Sofia communiqué declared. It called for a “clearly stated strategy premised on the goal that Ukraine must be provided with all that it needs, as quickly as possible and for as long as it takes for it to win.” The Sofia communiqué advocated “lifting some restrictions on the use of weapons provided by NATO Allies to strike legitimate targets in Russia.” 
(You need to have a talk with Meister Eckhart, urgently).