Would've avoided WW1?
>>17438925No, he would've won WWI.
yes and this is common knowledge, his own cabinet actively undermined his own diplomatic attempts until diplomacy was essentially impossible
>>17438937Elaborate.
WW1 was hard scripted and physically unavoidable, even the most absurd maneuvers to attempt to avoid war would fail and various countries would randomly declare war on Germany anyway
>>17438925Delayed at most, WWI got slowly build though decades. The balance of power was completely broken in Europe, countries were afraid of someone and losing their position, everybody was more than willing to beat each other up and nobody to cooperate. This sort of thing only gets fixed with blood spill.What could have been completely avoided is WW2.
>>17438939ban every subhuman retard that posts this shitwhy don't you READ A FUCKING BOOK ABOUT HISTORY INSTEAD OF BEGGING TO BE SPOONFEDyou, specifically, are the cancer that's been making out with the corpse of /his/
>>17439672>NOOOOO! WHY ARE YOU DISCUSSING FURTHER POINTS MADE IN AN ONLINE FORUM!!!! BAN THEM!!!
>>17438925He was aware that a new war was on the horizon, France was butthurt and Britain wasn't keen on a rival growing stronger. Bismarck wasn't keen on a war, but he prepared for it. It would likely still have happened, but he might have succeeded at isolating France and remaining allied with Russia, thereby preventing what Germans back then knew would be disastrous: a war on two fronts. With Bismarck on the stage for longer, WW1 would have been a very different thing. I doubt he would have culled France and Britain enough to be okay with Germany, and he also had inner-German ambitions (colonial) to battle, obviously ... but he would have built a different situation
>>17439072>What could have been completely avoided is WW2.Not if you let the Soviet Union form.
>>17441294I don't think the two front aspect really mattered that much in WW1, Germany was able to handle Russia fine and I don't see why it would imply the west goes better
>>17438925Yeah. English and French ass would be grass. Total victory
>>17441497the Russian front still diverted men and resources away from the west. With those maybe the Germans win.
>>17439672Your comment was one sentence and it wasn't noteworthy nor did it make any attempt to be particularly elaborate like the other anon said. You're just screaming up a shit storm like an unhinged tranny hence why he's right. Ywnbaw.
>>17441539All they had to do was keep Britain out and they would have won both fronts. There is no way Bismarck would have let Germany make themselves an enemy of Britain. Even with their strong industry and strong economy, without a navy or colonies there would have been zero reason for Britain to fear Germany more than France or Russia.
>>17441309If Germany had won and set up puppet governments in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Caucuses the Soviets would have been an irrelevant backwater incapable of touching the new German Mitteleuropa
>>17441539You can't just funnel an infinite amount of men and weapons into a small area and have that translate to better performance. I'm baffled the western front even functioned as it did.
>>17441595surely more reserves or fresh men to throw into the meat grinder at a critical point would have helped somewhere. With no eastern front to occupy AH maybe Italy doesn't get involved and you have no alpine fronts at all.
>>17439672You can just say you can't answer the question, midwit.
>>17441309The Soviets would have fallen to Hitler had the USA stayed out of WW2.
>>17441595you literally can
>>17441665They could've added more, it's not like they ever ran out
