Print Page | Close Window

What would happen if the U.S never entered WWI

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Description: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc...
Moderators: Constantine XI, Byzantine Emperor, Knights, Sparten, Temujin
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=1053
Printed Date: 16-Oct-2018 at 15:11
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: What would happen if the U.S never entered WWI
Posted By: Slickmeister
Subject: What would happen if the U.S never entered WWI
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2004 at 20:02
What would be the war's results if America never entered the war.



Replies:
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2004 at 22:36
Same as today, Italy probably would've gotten a better peace deal.

-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2004 at 00:01

It's got to be remembered that Germany wasn't defeated by anything that happened on the ground in WWI. In fact in 1918 it was at it's strongest on the western front since 1914. In 1914 Germany had outnumbered the allies, however an increasing number of British troops and the defeat of Austria by Russia meant that they fell behind in numbers gradually from 1915 onwards. By 1917 Britain and France outnumbered the Germans by 5/4. In 1918 even with the few Americans that saw combat, with the pulling out of the war by Russia the advantage swung to Germany who developed a huge 3/2 advantage on the western front.

Germany was defeated by food shortages caused by a 4 year blockade of the country and disasterous harvest in 1917 that left people in Germany starving as they directed what little food towards the army. This caused resentment of the war by the populous. In Russia people had just overthrown the Tsar and now agitators were calling for a similar overthrow of the Kaiser, using the famine and widespread dislike of the war to create strikes and civil unrest. THe German government was forced to call a halt to the war before the country collapsed into anarchy.

In 1918 the Americans arrived and but due to poor training (many US troops arrived in England untrained, were given a weeks basic training and then shipped to France) and equipment shortages, very small numbers ever saw combat. Those that did were lead by a moron, Pershing who refused to listen to British and French advice about the effectiveness of German machine guns and use trenches. Instead he used an ACW drillbook and marched then in lines across field. The US actually has the highest casualty rate per troop that saw combat of all armies of the war. In reality the American would have become an effective fighting force by 1919 having solved their equipment problems and inexperience, but never got the chance. 



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2004 at 00:04
Germany still would have lost due to blokade as mentioned, they however, probably would  not have lost int eh same way.  As in the Kasier and government would stay on and they might just have to give back Alsace-Lorraine or soemthing.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Slickmeister
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2004 at 07:16
My bet is that at the end, Germany would become a
superpower therefore Adolf Hitler would not rise to
power and start WWII. France, would have broken,
Iraq would have to fight for their independence from
the Ottoman Empire, Czar Nicholas II would have
still fallen and the USSR would rise.

Because no WWII, the Chinese, Koreans, and others
would not have U.S assistance fighting back the
Japanese. Delaying where it is to be now if at all.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2004 at 11:38
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

It's got to be remembered that Germany wasn't defeated by anything that happened on the ground in WWI. In fact in 1918 it was at it's strongest on the western front since 1914. In 1914 Germany had outnumbered the allies, however an increasing number of British troops and the defeat of Austria by Russia meant that they fell behind in numbers gradually from 1915 onwards. By 1917 Britain and France outnumbered the Germans by 5/4. In 1918 even with the few Americans that saw combat, with the pulling out of the war by Russia the advantage swung to Germany who developed a huge 3/2 advantage on the western front.

Germany was defeated by food shortages caused by a 4 year blockade of the country and disasterous harvest in 1917 that left people in Germany starving as they directed what little food towards the army. This caused resentment of the war by the populous. In Russia people had just overthrown the Tsar and now agitators were calling for a similar overthrow of the Kaiser, using the famine and widespread dislike of the war to create strikes and civil unrest. THe German government was forced to call a halt to the war before the country collapsed into anarchy.

In 1918 the Americans arrived and but due to poor training (many US troops arrived in England untrained, were given a weeks basic training and then shipped to France) and equipment shortages, very small numbers ever saw combat. Those that did were lead by a moron, Pershing who refused to listen to British and French advice about the effectiveness of German machine guns and use trenches. Instead he used an ACW drillbook and marched then in lines across field. The US actually has the highest casualty rate per troop that saw combat of all armies of the war. In reality the American would have become an effective fighting force by 1919 having solved their equipment problems and inexperience, but never got the chance. 

very good, couldn't have said it better!

 

sot he answer to the original question is: the entry of the US was in fact insignificant for Europe but in fact it was important for the US herself, the US from then on violated her own monroe doctrine and interfered with Eurasian politics and interests ever since, a habit still practiced to this day...



Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2004 at 14:22
So if America would not have sent his minimal and untrained forces, he would not have had that major effect on foreign politics in the later years and today??? Because of this one move, the US got a piece of Versaille treaty and rose from there into the future superpower??? News indeed, i had always thought that the Americans had a major role to play in the war. Good to know actually.

-------------
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2004 at 14:26
American financial and industrial help was very important, and one of the reasons the Germans asked for an armistice was because of the fact that they knew about 3 million US troops would arrive in France in 1919, and that their experience in 1918 would make them a fighting force on par with the other European powers.

-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2004 at 15:05
3 million?  That seems a bit much...

And where are the supply lines going to run from?  Britain and France already have their troops to support.  The supply lines from America to the German front would have to be huge!  Which would have been impossible in 1919 without more advanced airplanes.


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2004 at 19:09

America had a great amount of ships and would probably spend much of late 1918 and early 1919 building up stockpiles in France.



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2004 at 00:37
Us involvement inn balltes was insignificant, but the knowedge of a vast fresh pool of millions of men about to be added to the aliies was incredibly significant, it showed that after the failure of the Lunderdorf offensive Germany had no hoes because the allies could draw upon a whol enew source of power, heras the central powers could not. 

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2004 at 16:42

Originally posted by Kubrat Kubrat wrote:

3 million?  That seems a bit much...

And where are the supply lines going to run from?  Britain and France already have their troops to support.  The supply lines from America to the German front would have to be huge!  Which would have been impossible in 1919 without more advanced airplanes.

US had mobilised 4 1/2 million men by the end of the war and nearly 1/2 million were on the western front. They had not only the US merchant fleet, but the British and French merchant fleets too at there disposal to ship men.

The problem is, this would still only have evened up numbers with the Germans.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Imperatore Dario I
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2004 at 05:52

Originally posted by JanusRook JanusRook wrote:

Same as today, Italy probably would've gotten a better peace deal.

Which would have probably helped prevent World War II!



-------------

“Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.”- Virgil's Aeneid


Posted By: TheOrcRemix
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2005 at 23:23


-------------
True peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice.
Sir Francis Drake is the REAL Pirate of the Caribbean


Posted By: Tiamatty
Date Posted: 26-May-2005 at 08:58
Germany still would've lost. America made Germany give up more quickly, but the Allied forces were already winning the war, and America didn't really take part in any important battles. Frankly, the Americans ended up being little more than cannon fodder. But the Germans were broken regardless.

-------------
http://www.fair.org/index.php - Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting - FAIR.org
http://www.commondreams.org/ - CommonDream.org


Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 27-May-2005 at 13:52


Germany was interested to keep the US busy and tried to create a war between Mexico and the US

( Columbus, Santa Isabel affair, US Punitive Expedition in Mexico 1917, San Diego Plan, Zimmerman Telegram ).

By having to the US involved in Europe, gave us a break to end the revolution and implement the oil expropiation.


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2005 at 20:13

Quote Those that did were lead by a moron, Pershing

 

Pershing's organization of American troops was brilliant to say the least.  The famed British military theorist/historian had this to say of Pershing,

 

"It is sufficient to say that there was probably no other man who would or could have built the structure of the American Army on the scale he planned. And without that army the war could hardly have been saved and could not have been won."

 

This is a man who managed to create an integrated fighting force of 2 million men in under 18 months!

 

Quote who refused to listen to British and French advice about the effectiveness of German machine guns and use trenches. Instead he used an ACW drillbook and marched then in lines across field.

 

While much of your post may be worthwhile this is pure nonsence.  Pershing might have utilized a drillbook formed from experiences in the ACW but he most certainly did not march his troops across the field in lines.  The question was whether or not an agressive mobile strategy could be pursued.  Though his tactics may have resulted in higher casualties they were vindicated by the successful drive on the St. Mihiel salient and an impressive breakthrough in the Muesse-Argonne forrest which cut the German lines of communication.   Pershing was arguably the finest Allied officer of the First World War.



Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2005 at 22:16

My wild guess: France or Germany agrees to a conditional surrender, and the Treaty of Versailles would not have existed.



-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ďż˝   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2005 at 01:46
Originally posted by poirot poirot wrote:

My wild guess: France or Germany agrees to a conditional surrender, and the Treaty of Versailles would not have existed.

Bloody nonsense, there is no way France would have surrendered by 1918. Conditional surrender was nonsense,  in fact the treaty of versaille was the worst piece of sh!t ever. why the fvck would you let the enemy surrender before you even invade his country. An abomination to french and british deaths. fvcking america. I hope one day we have our revenge, WW1 was supposed to be our last war.



-------------
Creativity is key


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2005 at 22:44

I must say, despite Pauls great and generally correct posts, Pershing was not quite that bad.

But I must also say it would have been better for the entire world if the Allies had followed all the major generals advice to keep pushing until they got a REAL peace treaty.  Germany's infrastructure was broken, they had very few reserves left, and the allies had America to draw troops from.  Had the allies kept the war up for a few months to another year Germany may have suffered a complete and total coollapse, then the country could have been properly dealt with and made to realize their full defeat, sparing us possibly from a second world war in Europe.  I beleive when you fight an enemy, you must destroy them utterly to truly win, the allies id not do that in WWI, and it came back to get them.



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 00:54

Quote Bloody nonsense, there is no way France would have surrendered by 1918. Conditional surrender was nonsense,  in fact the treaty of versaille was the worst piece of sh!t ever. why the fvck would you let the enemy surrender before you even invade his country. An abomination to french and british deaths. fvcking america. I hope one day we have our revenge, WW1 was supposed to be our last war.


How exactly was it America's fault?  There wasn't much the British and French could do with rapidly increasing anti war sentiment and depleting manpower.  Also It could easily be argued that a treaty with some moderation might have allowed peaceful and successful solution to a horrifically pointless war.   It was the greed of the Western European that would doom Europe again.



Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 01:23

not that bad?  Pershings mobilization of the American army was stunning to say the least, it was a masterpiece of organization especially when considering how well it fought.  Fresh to the front American soldiers tended to have a dash and elan which had been sapped from their European counterparts after 4 years of trench fighting, their spirited attacks made up for their lack of training and equipment.  Of course this agressiveness contributed to comparatively high casualty rates(the primary reason was the bad weather which limited the use of tanks in the Muese Argonne offensive.  One statement I'd like to add in defense of Pershing is that the man proved to be extremely capable of adapting to new tactics.  Almost immediately he recognized the potential of the Battletank and insisted upon the creation of an American tank corps of which he placed under the command of a ferocious young cavalry officer, George S Patton.  The "cavalry" tactics utilized by Patton were strikingly similar to the dreaded blitzkrieg of WWII.  With Patton's armored corp as his sword I have no doubt that Pershing would have slashed into the German interior and stood head and shoulders above his counterparts on the pedestal of history.

 

One final point I'd like  to make is that the American army had a massive advantage over its allies and enemies.  Since it had been formed so rapidly many talented, innovative and agressive young officers were able to rise to positions of power and influence.  This state of affaris contrasts with the older more established militaries of Europe which had an overwhelmingly conservative obsession with tradition.  Had the United States a large established military before the war would the United States have had an officer as capable as Patton commanding the American Armored corp?



Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 01:33
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl Quetzalcoatl wrote:

Originally posted by poirot poirot wrote:

My wild guess: France or Germany agrees to a conditional surrender, and the Treaty of Versailles would not have existed.

Bloody nonsense, there is no way France would have surrendered by 1918. Conditional surrender was nonsense,  in fact the treaty of versaille was the worst piece of sh!t ever. why the fvck would you let the enemy surrender before you even invade his country. An abomination to french and british deaths. fvcking america. I hope one day we have our revenge, WW1 was supposed to be our last war.



Why would you let an enemy surrender before you could invade his land??

If they surrender, that means you WON. You won the war and can impose what punishments you want on the enemy.

So, you can end the war then and SAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES by not having to invade Germany, or you could invade, get thousands of your soldiers killed and come out with the SAME end result.

Ending the war this way saved thousands of Allied soldiers from death.




Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2005 at 15:17
actually it was the humilating and way too exaggerated Versaille peace treaty is what got WW2 started, a military conquest of Germany wouldn't have changed the treaty a bit, on the contrary...


Posted By: blake79
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 10:29

The Allies could not have won without the massive amount of American aid that poured into west europe in 1917-1918. True the American army was untrained and untested but by the time 1918 rolled around the American army was in fairly good shape and even provented the Germans from breaking through to Paris.  Then when the Allies went on the offencive it was the Americans who spareheaded the attack.

I don't understand why so many in Britian and France forget that it was they who did everything to drag America into the war. The British even went so far as to edit messages between Germany and Mexico to make it appear that Germany was wanting to insite a war between the United States and Mexico.      

Britian and France would have been bankrupted by 1916 had America not loaned them money, which they have yet to repay even today. I'm not saying America won the first world war but I will say that America decided the outcome and all but assured Germany's defeat.

 



-------------
All Rise!


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 10:38
The Germans did not try and reach Paris in their offensive of 1918, their aim was Amiens, proof enough of the absolute exhaustion that they had to make piecemeal gains for the sake of at least seeming tactically a force to be reckoned with.

The Germans broke their own back in that offensive, the vast bulk of Allied resistance to it was provided by the French and British. With the failure of that venture the Germans found themselves overstretched and morally on the point of collapse. The drive to Amiens broke down in many cases because German soldiers, stricken by months of exhaustion and deprivation, simply abandoned their officers plans to raid French civilian buildings to satisfy their severe shortages in common necessities. The Americans arrived in force only after the decisive defeat of the Amiens offensive, by which time the British and French were finishing off a job they had been doing by themselves for the past several years.

Success in other theaters of the war was similar to that on the Western Front, except the Allies who entered the war at its beginning could claim sole credit rather than the overwhelming mass of credit for the victories in those areas.


-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: warhead
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 13:18

"Because no WWII, the Chinese, Koreans, and others
would not have U.S assistance fighting back the
Japanese. Delaying where it is to be now if at all. "

 

Japanese ambitions have nothing to do with Germany, World War 2 in Asia started as early as 1937 before Germany invaded Poland.



Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 17:23
In fact nothing would chnage if USA didn't enter in WW1.Germany was almost defeated and us army fought in only one important battle(it wasn't so important).Probably Italy and France would have better peace deals.


Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 21:41
Nothing would have changed.  The US military involvement had little effect.  It was the massive British and French victories in august 1918 that finally broke the German army.  The German high command needed the surrender to avoid the total destruction of the army.  All Versaille did was create a twenty year ceasefire.  WW2 finished the job in europe. 
 
The help that did matter was the financial and economic assistance the US gave to the allies.  OK neither France or the UK got that close to bankruptsy but the assistance from the US aided in easing the burden on their economies.  The repeated claim by the US that they won both world wars is wrong.  Yes they helped in WW1 and their assistance was needed in WW2, but in neither war did their precence win it.


Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 01:03
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on ww2 The US role was a decisive factor. At the beginning of the war,the US produced 30% of the worlds industrial production. By the end, the US produced 50%. The US raised 100 divisions of men and fed (supplied, provided for) 1,000-2,000 more divisions. (assuming each division is 14,000 men). We supplied tanks, food, clothing, oil, etc. to Britain, the Mediteranian, Russia, China, Burma, (remember the flying tigers).

all in all The other Allied countries could have pulled it off, but the war would have prolly gone on for another 5 yrs. Britain and Canada would have never been able to pull off Normandy and the Western front without U.S. manpower.



-------------
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu


Posted By: antonioM
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 16:17
I think it would have ended in a stalemate or a slight Central Powers victory.

Both sides were exhausted. The US entry to the war, with fresh American troops on the Allied side, had the psychological effect of boosting the wearied Allied and a cold shower to the Central Powers, convincing the Allied to go the extra mile.

It could also have ended up with a Central Powers victory. The wearied French army was close to mutiny and with the Central Powers knocking off Russia and therefore able to concentrate its forces to the Western front along with resources in Russia, that would have been enough for the French army to break down. Without the French backing the Allied, the Allied would have to sue for peace.


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 10:28
The French army had mutinied in 1917. BY a sensible approach Petain restored it to a good fighting level. The Central Powers did knock out Russia and then failed in their assaults in the West. Not sure of AntonioM's last sentence. The France was the country which was being backed by the Allies not the other way around.


Posted By: antonioM
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 15:11
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

The French army had mutinied in 1917. BY a sensible approach Petain restored it to a good fighting level.


PĂ©tain was able to do that by promising that the army would be used for defense only, not for large-scale attacks. It was the arrival of fresh American troops that convinced the French to carry on, which they did.

Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

The Central Powers did knock out Russia and then failed in their assaults in the West.


No. They were winning. They knocked out Italy during the Battle of Caporetto and their Spring Offensive was a tactical victory for the Central Powers. It became  a stategic stalement after American troops supported the wearied Allied. Afterwards, the French led an Allied offensive with American troops  that eventually led to the surrender of the Central Powers. Without American aid, all this would not have been possible


Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Not sure of AntonioM's last sentence. The France was the country which was being backed by the Allies not the other way around.


It is simple. France was country that fought the most battles, the most important battles, and suffered the most casualties for the Allied side from the beginning of the war to the end. They were the backbone of the Allied forces. Without American aid, the French mutiny would have been a success and they andf the Allied would have had to sue for peace.


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 15:23
No I think not.Petain had already sorted out the French army. In any event even at the height of the mutiny they were still perfectly prepared to defend against any attacks. The French mutiny's cure had nothing to do with American aid.
 
As to the rest, Italy was not knocked out. True it had received a heavy defeat but Italy recovered.
 
Apart from one minor part of the Spring Offensive, the Central powers had been stopped by the French and British armies.
 
Whilst the arrival of American troops heartened the Allies and disheartened the Central Powers, there was no stalemate. The Allies prepared their big offensive for later in 1918 which lead to the Central Powers suing for peace


Posted By: antonioM
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 03:52
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

No I think not.Petain had already sorted out the French army. In any event even at the height of the mutiny they were still perfectly prepared to defend against any attacks. The French mutiny's cure had nothing to do with American aid.
 
that is not what historians say. Although they disagree about the extent of the mutiny, most agree that the mutiny was serious and that it may even have reached 50% of the French armies.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Apart from one minor part of the Spring Offensive,


What minor part? The Central Powers gained a lot of territory during the Spring Offensive, more than they had gained during the war. And Germany would not have launched the Spring Offensive if the American troops were not already on their way to assist the Allied, and in fact, were already there.

Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

the Central powers had been stopped by the French and British armies.


You left out the Americans who were already there. There were other nationalities there. It reached a stalemate.

Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Whilst the arrival of American troops heartened the Allies and disheartened the Central Powers, there was no stalemate.


Yes, there was. The Allied were too battered to launch a major offensive same as the Central Powers whose Spring Offensive petered out because of exhaustion. Stalemate without the fresh American troops assisting the Allied.

Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

The Allies prepared their big offensive for later in 1918 which lead to the Central Powers suing for peace


Don't forget the Americans who played a big part in the offensive and who invigorated the Allied in their offensive. Without the Americans, no offensive and therefore, stalemate, or a possible slight Central Powers victory.


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 08:32
Most historians agree that there was a serious mutiny amongst the French. Most historians agree that the majority of the French Units involved were prepared to defend against any German attack but not launch any more bloody offensives. Most historians agree that Petain sorted out the mutinies not by appeasememnt but by redressing the perfectly reasonable grievances of the French troops and bringing them up to a state where they could once more be fully relied upon.
 
In the big Spring Offensive the Germans were in the main stopped by the French and British and Commonwealth armies. The US were still basically organising their army at that time but did send some supporting troops to help. The Americans did then play their part in the subsequent allied advance.
 
After the failure of their Spring Offensive, Germany as you rightly noticed was exhausted and had nothing left to offer except a defense against the allied counter-offensive which would have taken place anyway.
 
Given the general state of Germany and the Central Powers there was no hope of any real victory for them


Posted By: antonioM
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 15:29
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Most historians agree that there was a serious mutiny amongst the French. Most historians agree that the majority of the French Units involved were prepared to defend against any German attack but not launch any more bloody offensives. Most historians agree that Petain sorted out the mutinies not by appeasememnt but by redressing the perfectly reasonable grievances of the French troops and bringing them up to a state where they could once more be fully relied upon.


That is what I said. You are just repeating what I said. However, PĂ©tain did not deserve all the credit. The arrival of American troops boosted the morale of the French and the other Allied. The French then led the upcoming Allied Offensive despite PĂ©tain's promises that the French army would only be used for defense. The French were able to do that because they had fresh American troops backing them up.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

After the failure of their Spring Offensive, Germany as you rightly noticed was exhausted and had nothing left to offer except a defense against the allied counter-offensive which would have taken place anyway.


It would not have taken place without the Americans assisting the offensivie. Explain how you think the Allied Offensive, (which by the way was in response to the Spring Offensive which by the way would not have taken place if the Americans were not coming to assst the Allied) would have been carried out without fresh American troops?

And the Spring Offensive were certainly not a failure for Germany. Germany pushed back the Allied and gained much territory before being stopped. It was a stalemate. A stalemate broken by the arrival of American troops.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Given the general state of Germany and the Central Powers there was no hope of any real victory for them


So were the Allied without American troops assisting them. that was the point of this discussion. The Allied would not have won without American assistance.


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 15:46
Originally posted by antonioM antonioM wrote:

Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Most historians agree that there was a serious mutiny amongst the French. Most historians agree that the majority of the French Units involved were prepared to defend against any German attack but not launch any more bloody offensives. Most historians agree that Petain sorted out the mutinies not by appeasememnt but by redressing the perfectly reasonable grievances of the French troops and bringing them up to a state where they could once more be fully relied upon.


That is what I said. You are just repeating what I said. However, PĂ©tain did not deserve all the credit. The arrival of American troops boosted the morale of the French and the other Allied. The French then led the upcoming Allied Offensive despite PĂ©tain's promises that the French army would only be used for defense. The French were able to do that because they had fresh American troops backing them up.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

After the failure of their Spring Offensive, Germany as you rightly noticed was exhausted and had nothing left to offer except a defense against the allied counter-offensive which would have taken place anyway.


It would not have taken place without the Americans assisting the offensivie. Explain how you think the Allied Offensive, (which by the way was in response to the Spring Offensive which by the way would not have taken place if the Americans were not coming to assst the Allied) would have been carried out without fresh American troops?

And the Spring Offensive were certainly not a failure for Germany. Germany pushed back the Allied and gained much territory before being stopped. It was a stalemate. A stalemate broken by the arrival of American troops.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Given the general state of Germany and the Central Powers there was no hope of any real victory for them


So were the Allied without American troops assisting them. that was the point of this discussion. The Allied would not have won without American assistance.
 
No your comments on the French mutinies was not quite the same as mine. Yes Petain did deserve the credit for getting the troops back into fighting mode nor did he ever make a blanket promise that they would never be used for an offensive.
 
I will agree that the German Spring Offensive was designed to take place before the major US forces arrived. It was designed to break the French and British armies. Despite gaining a fair bit of ground it utterly failed to do that. If you are attacking an enemy and fail to achieve your goal, you've lost. The French and British armies bore the vast majority of this thrust and they stopped it. US troops were involved in this but to a far lesser extent.
 
The Allies had the the resource to launch their offensive. Their artillery and armour had reached their peak and they had at last created the combined arms tactics which defeated the Germans. Yes the US were there and yes they took a good part in the offensive. Their influence on Allied morale as a result of their presence was great. However, it is too much to say the Allies would not have won without them. The Central Powers were far too close to collapse internally. This was not reflected in the Allies


Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 25-May-2009 at 22:29
The main allied attacks in 1918 were led by British and French forces.  The US army had very little effect on those attacks.  The German army was smashed in Early August 1918, by the French and British.  The whole reason the German military sought the armistice was to avoid a total defeat, which is what would have happened in the allies continued attacking.  This was not effected by the US army, there were not enough troops involved. 
 
As for the French Mutiny, that was solve well before the US came into the war.  Petain had gained back control of the army, and was already planning the 1918 offensives.  Again the US was not needed militarly to solve that.


Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 26-May-2009 at 00:42
Originally posted by poirot poirot wrote:

My wild guess: France or Germany agrees to a conditional surrender, and the Treaty of Versailles would not have existed.

 
Logically yes. In reality, it would've never happened or it would've happened in 1915 when both sides' generals looked at each other and said "well that didnt work, what do we do now?"
 
Both sides had already poured too many resources and human lives into this war, demonizing the other to the point of heaven versus hell that. In this way, no government could agree to anything but outright surrender from the opposing side because they would be unable to justify the war they entered in the first place. Both sides believed that attaining victory would attain some sort of reward.
 
As for Pershing: this happens way too often on forums, a general regarded as "brilliant" is immediately degraded to "worthless" because they do not agree on his current reputation. He may not be as skilled as many think but this doesn't mean he's at the opposite end of the spectrum. Pershing's organizational skills were excellent.
 
The presence of the American troops (250,000 coming in per month) would have decisivelt defeated Germany in 1919 if it had come to that.


-------------
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 26-May-2009 at 18:42
Originally posted by Jonathan4290 Jonathan4290 wrote:

Both sides had already poured too many resources and human lives into this war, demonizing the other to the point of heaven versus hell that. In this way, no government could agree to anything but outright surrender from the opposing side because they would be unable to justify the war they entered in the first place.
Both sides wanted to fight until total victory. But... the population of both sides was exhausted. In addition, neither side had a large enough military or technological advantage to force strategic victories.
 
My guess is that without the USA, Britiana and France would slowly force Germany to a negotiated peace by Spring 1919. The terms would not be as harsh as Versaille, but wpould include the loss of all German colonies and Alsace Lorraine.  


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 26-May-2009 at 20:40

Germany didn't have the capacity to sustain war any longer, whether the Americans arrived or not. Their allies in Austro-Hungaria had already collapsed. They had no food, they were using sawdust for flour in ersatz foods due to the British blockade. During the Spring Offensive, timetables couldn't be met because troops often refused to advance from captured positions; they were busy eating provisions that were left behind. By 1918, a major famine was underway in Germany and not just among civilians.

Then came the Spanish flu.

Germany didn't stand a chance to continue. Had the November Revolution not happened, Germany may have pushed itself forward to a disastrous conclusion. But the November Revolution did happen, and once it did, the war would have been concluded even if Germany had been doing better than it was.



Posted By: Bertucat
Date Posted: 27-May-2009 at 08:31

General Petain never promised that french army will only fight in defense, He restored the trust of the soldiers by eliminating the tactics which, expensive in human blood, did not look of good results.

The mutinies arrived logically : with a napoleonic tactic, french generals et colonel sent soldiers to attack with bayonets in squeezed row in front of the german machineguns without artillery support. For all the war, France lost 1.500 000 men died in battle, and 600 000 of them were lost only in the first monthes ( from august 1914 to early 1915). Explain why french generals were so bad at the beginning of this war is too difficult and complex, because it concerns the French domestic policy of period 1895-1914.
 
Then, the French artillery remaining weaker than the German artillery, the French soldiers often had to attack without support, while they saw that opposite the Germans were better supported. General Nivelle counted on the breasts of his soldiers to overcome the German artillery and the machine guns. He underestimated his opponents, etc. There is a lot of exemples of this kind of things, where french soldiers were sent to attack without ou unsignifiant artillery support.
 
French soldiers fought in northern France, 100 to 150 kilometers from the border, so a lot of soldiers didn't know anything about their families, and all others were offended by the fact that they did not manage to push away, after 3 years of war,  the Germans of France. Furthermore, the provisioning was inferior, the insufficient rests and there were no permissions.
 
PĂ©tain restored the trust of soldiers with promising that all attacks will be supported by artillery, and ordered that only useful attacks be done. After 1917, the french army is more powerfull and effective as it never war during this war : good commanders, experimented soldiers, artillery.
 
The rĂ´le of United State army (regardeless the logistic support to Allies) is not very important, because Germans asked for armistice before the US Army gives all its power. Hindenburg and Ludendorff asked Wialliam II to ask armistice after 1918, august the 12, because they knowed that it was already possible to ask it ; for know, the military defeat was far to be total : german army was on rearwalk, but still in France. Waiting only few monthes and allied will be on the road of Berlin : PĂ©tain and Pershing thought that the armistice have to be signed after the german army pushed back in Germany. They prepared a great attack in Lorraine for november, but the armistice of 11/11 stopped this project. If sucessfull, this attack would be the start of the big end of german army.
 
For me, the question is not "what would happened if US dis not enter the war", but "what would happened if Allies wait that US army was at its higher level, for attack in automn 1918 and refused the armistice of 11/11". For me, the war would be ended in 1919, and not in 1945.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 29-May-2009 at 23:16
Originally posted by Bertucat Bertucat wrote:

 Explain why french generals were so bad at the beginning of this war is too difficult and complex, because it concerns the French domestic policy of period 1895-1914.
No country and no generals were prepared for 1914.  The Germans, French, British, Russians etc. all fought with the same Naploeonic tactics.  For example, tens of thousands of untrained German university students died making bayonet charges against British regulars in September 1914. German historians call it the "Slaughter of the Innocents".
 
The main factor seems to be the huge size of the armies.  With the exception of the British, all other European nations had millions of men in the reserves. The slogan "Every man a citizen, Every citizen a soldier" was the rule of the day.  The vast magority of these men could not be trained in anything other than parade ground drills. When millions of these men marched off the parade ground and into machine guns and 75mm cannon fire, the result was a disaster 
 
  


Posted By: WolfHound85
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 00:05
Hmm this it tricky but its still very possible for either the Soviets to conquer all of Europe, or the Nazis have a bitter peace with the Russians thus the Russians acquire land all the way up to the Oder-Neisse line.

-------------
College Student


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 08:01
Originally posted by WolfHound85 WolfHound85 wrote:

Hmm this it tricky but its still very possible for either the Soviets to conquer all of Europe, or the Nazis have a bitter peace with the Russians thus the Russians acquire land all the way up to the Oder-Neisse line.
 
We seem to be confusing WWI with WWII here!


Posted By: Bertucat
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 07:58
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Originally posted by Bertucat Bertucat wrote:

 Explain why french generals were so bad at the beginning of this war is too difficult and complex, because it concerns the French domestic policy of period 1895-1914.
No country and no generals were prepared for 1914.  The Germans, French, British, Russians etc. all fought with the same Naploeonic tactics.  For example, tens of thousands of untrained German university students died making bayonet charges against British regulars in September 1914. German historians call it the "Slaughter of the Innocents".
 
The main factor seems to be the huge size of the armies.  With the exception of the British, all other European nations had millions of men in the reserves. The slogan "Every man a citizen, Every citizen a soldier" was the rule of the day.  The vast magority of these men could not be trained in anything other than parade ground drills. When millions of these men marched off the parade ground and into machine guns and 75mm cannon fire, the result was a disaster 
 
  
 
I agree, but there are some specific things for France. I think that the disasters of 1914 would have been able to be less grave if certain generals had not been pushed aside for coarse reasons.
 
On the other hand, after the desasters of 1914, other nations were not so slow to change, and they did not benefit from the striking experience of 1870 as France. If you can read French, about it : http://gustave.club.fr/doctrine_militaire.htm - http://gustave.club.fr/doctrine_militaire.htm
 
 


Posted By: Hypocrisy
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 09:59
The participation of the USA in WWI was the first step to spread out the gravest plague called "Liberalism" across the world. If the USA never entered WWI, Liberalism which implants incoherent thoughts into people's mind would not exist. Otherwise, the like of liberalism would come out as well.

Besides, i don't see Germany resisting against the Allied powers any longer, since she was in a pathetic status for a prolonged battle. Russia's socialism takes over the seat of liberalism and covering all the way up to the western Europe, as the USA is absent. Germany could not have recovered herself due to probable ongoing retaliation of the Allied powers. She ends up annexed to France.

America vs. Socialist Europe, i have no idea which one of them wins out. A conditional armistice signed in favour of Europe might finish the devastating bloodshed. Another story is that they somehow manage to get along well in peace in the first place. They obviously, sooner or later, discern that the truce can not be maintained for so long.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 10:46
I really don't understand that, even allowing for the probability that Hypocrisy is mixing up his world wars.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Hypocrisy
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 12:22
I've made a general assumption, regardless of WWI or WWII, on what world would be like if the U.S didn't play a decisive role in the recent history.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 15:16
You mean there's a rising sun flag flying over California, Oregon and Washington?

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 15:44
Originally posted by Hypocrisy Hypocrisy wrote:

I've made a general assumption, regardless of WWI or WWII, on what world would be like if the U.S didn't play a decisive role in the recent history.
 
The assumption seems pointless.  Either the time machine has to go back to 1491, or the Western Hemisphere doesn't exist - there is nothing from Land's End to the Land of the rising Sun.
 
That isn't history.
 
 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 16:05
What collapsed on 11 November 1918 was not Germany but the historical epoch and dynamic known as the "Age of Imperialism". The economic and social exhaustion of Europe as a whole was already fact in 1918 and did not require 1945 to confirm it. Nevertheless, the posit behind this thread is as fruitless as that other game with history, "[W]hat if the South had won the Civil War?".


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 19:18
i would have already moved this thread to Historical Amusement, where it belongs, but a bug in the forum software that affects older threads prevents me from doing so.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net