ValeVelKal
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,605
That's yet another non-sensical statement. The blockade just meant that Germany was fighting against a ticking clock - it does not mean that they were bound to lose. Germany HAD serious problems with getting food, but it is due almost as much to organisational issues (the farmers, horses and transportations were used on or for the front, while France solved the issue by importing from countries not at war) as to the blockade. The peak was winter 1916 - 1917 (even for the soldiers, to a lesser extent), not later, and for a very simple reason - Ukraine was in German hands (or under its indirect control, depending of the moment) so the issue was solveable, esp. with a quicker victory on the Eastern Front.
As for raw materials, the issue was the direst in 1918, but quite manageable before. A better diplomacy (for instance) toward the Nordic states could have helped tremendously - the English blockade could NOT blockade the Baltic, and the Russian fleet was inferior to the German fleet (both had coal issues, though). Poor organisation of A-H (with significant mines) and its incapacity to organise its "war economy" on the scale of France, UK or Germany is also at fault.
TLDR : the blockade was a constraint for Germany, not a war-winner for the Entente.
Conclusion : All options were opened about who wins and who loses until the very final months of WWI. Unlike WWII, btw.
