Germany Could Have Won World War I

So sorry for this being so late. I have company over and thus must keep my argument brief. However I will do more expansion in the next two rounds.First I want to thank Subutai for this debate. I think this will be interesting. I also think that this debate will be a good history refresher.Argument 1: Germany could not have won the war this particular way.When the resolution is worded, "Germany Could Have Won World War I" most if not all would assume that this means Con must prove decisively that Germany never could have won the war. I am going to as Con say that is unreasonable. Under numerous different circumstances, Germany may have won the war. But I as Con only have to prove that Pro's specific alternative strategy would be unsuccessful. I want to clear up now that I am arguing a U-Boat change could not have feasibly helped Germany win the war. I will not be arguing that Germany never could have won the war. Because I am not required to.That being said, let's dive into some surface deep observations of this strategy. First I find the focus to be quite narrow by Pro and avoiding the consideration of factor's such as weapons in development, extended periods of time, attrition, political diplomats dying, and others. The only factors that Pro seems to consider are U-Boats, American power, and the Second Marne battle. These factors simply do not provide enough explanation. What if the Triple Entente in this alternate universe was able to win the Second Marne? Would Pro's strategy work? What if Austria-Hungary turned on Germany midway through from suffering unsustainable losses? Would Germany have lost? Most certainly.Argument 2: US Involvement.My opponent's argument clearly hinges upon whether the US joins the war or not. I will attempt to decisively prove that the US would enter the war, no matter what. I will also explain why a curtailed U-Boat policy would be highly detrimental to Germany.When the US voted at presidential ballots in 1912 they voted for a pacifist president. That being Woodrow Wilson. Specifically, they were highly isolationist and even though they saw a war brewing in Europe, did not see it as their national problem. However, as time went on, the US began to take advantage of the war to make a profit in shipping aid to the Triple Entente which hurt Germany. According to this website: http://www.history-of-american-wars.com... The US obviously was shipping against Germany's policy. "Nevertheless there was a growing sentiment favoring Great Britain and France. Both countries were significant trading partners. The German policy (February 1, 1917) placed all neutral shipping at risk. American ships were fair game to German submarines. On February 3, the American freighter, Housatanic was sunk. On April 1, the Aztec was sunk with 28 Americans lost. Between those two hostile events, the German Ambassador to Mexico, Zimmerman, in a coded telegram (March 1), promised Mexico financial support and return of lost territories if they would declare war against the United States. British intelligence had decoded the message and passed it to the Americans. The note was published in the United States and public opinion immediately pressed the administration for a war against Germany. President Wilson was about to make a 180 degree turn. While the war raged on three continents, Wilson intentionally had maintained a small army of just over 100,000 men. This was his way of dampening the calls for intervention. Circumstances now called for a new principle. Wilson had preached, during his first term, a principle that kept Americans safe from a foreign war. The new policy required American intervention to keep the world "safe for democracy". President Wilson sent a war request to Congress (April 2, 1917) which was overwhelmingly adopted."Now there are several important things to note here. Germany was attritiously being fought in a supply war by US public sentiments and shipping. So the US was already dangerously on the edge. If Germany ignored the shipping then Germany would have lost the war due to Britain and France being outsupplied. But even if they managed to overcome that, because the Zimmerman note existed that showed Germany was being aggressive toward the US to the point of making Mexico declare war, the US would enter the war.Because my opponent never said the Zimmerman telegram would not have been sent, it must be considered sent in this debate.Argument 3: US involvement meant doom for Germany.This argument can be summed up simply by saying that the Zimmerman telegram gets the US involved. Which then introduces tanks which crush the Maginot Line resistance, which then allow for a triple offensive which breaks Germany's back, makes Austro-Hungaria desert, and makes the Axis be destroyed.Numerous US techs caused Germany pain, such as tanks, machine guns, and the fact that US troops were simply well fed and trained. Therefore Germany never stood a chance with a US that would always have been in the war.Conclusion:What I am saying is that without a complete wiping of all German aggressiveness on the US, could the US public sentiment be kept in isolation. But because the Germans continually targeted British ships with Americans on them {(an inicident on several occasions)(specifically the Lusitania was a British ship and thus was a liable target under my opponent's policy https://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_I))(Under the RMS Lusitania section, first line)} and the fact that Germany tried to start a proxy war to keep America busy. Meant that the US would always be in the war. Since my opponent conceded the US was the difference Germany loses the war under my opponent's plan.With this I rest my case, and I am sorry the argument is not longer.-42