The First World War

Was it really? I would argue that the axis would always win World War One until the entry of America.

Like in...Well do I even have to say it?

Please, don't. I was hard enough for me to admit the truth about World War One!

The Entente could have beat Germany by themselves, perhaps if the Russians had gotten their act together.

That revolution really fucked shit up for them, didn't it!

Yeah...

Poor tsar....

What do you think would have happened if the Germans had carried out a massive tactical bombing campaign, before the final offencive and in the Italian theatre Venice had been taken and France was at risk of being assualted from both South and North.

What do you mean "tactical bombing"? There were no bombers what so ever during WW1, and Italy was on the Entente's side, so that is impossible what you are saying.

Yet:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/bombers_gotha_giant.htm
A more successful bomber force of 36 airplanes was organized in the Bruges region, which carried out its first night raid, against Dunkirk, in January of 1915. This unit was planning to run raids against Britain, but before they could about half of them were transferred to the Eastern Front and provided tactical support to the German breakthrough at Gorlice-Tarnow.

The Germans also bombed London with Zeppelins if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, there was something on the WWI site about that.

The zepplins were extremely unnecessary after the AA batteries were placed in London, they would have sunk the Germans airforce faster then thy could rebuild them.

I searched brony... I got this.

Can't I get a proper Brony thread on these forums ?

Why revive this thread? WHY?

In any case, I guess we should get back to it.

It wasn't AA guns that got the zeppelins, it was fighters as they were slowly built. And yes there were bombers in WW1, they just weren't proper bombers. It was a bunch of fighters flying around with miniature bombs to throw out of their airplanes when they saw a good target. Later on in the war, proper bombers like the Gotha G.V were developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotha_G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_I

Then the French would have been under attack from the South and North. Once the Germans had beat the Russians, they could have finished off the Italians and launched assaults into Southern French. However, a stalemate would probably have developed quickly down there too. So, the war might have been prolonged, and maybe the Germans would have forced a white peace. But I don't think the Germans could have won without taking Paris. MAYBE, the French forces would have been spread out enough that the Germans take Paris, in which case the Germans of course win.

Come on Mosh. In this scenario, then the American forces actually have some significance and actually play a part in this war. American troops could fill in the gaps left by troops lost from the strategic bombing, or even gone and covered the Italian front if the Italians were overrun, which I highly doubt considering the Germans never sent troops to the Italian front and I don't see why they would now. If they did, I still don't know. I don't really know the quality of the German mountain troops, but I assume it wasn't on the level of the Austrians, and the Austrians were having a difficult time advancing into Italy. Also, you forget the blockade of Germany and Austria and the collapse of the Ottomans which would have led to a new possible front against Austria in Greece. So yeah. I still find the scenario highly unlikely.

Why are we restarting this thread? All that this thread was about was "really" won the war. And I think we all can agree that the Allies won it. Thread Closed. Hopefully.

I still don't get the reason the OP thought the Central Powers won. They didn't win.

That's what I think. I don't really see how anyone can think that the Central powers won the war.
It's like saying the South won the Civil war because they inflicted more casualties on the North.