History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedWhat would happen if the U.S never entered WWI

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Post Options Post Options   Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What would happen if the U.S never entered WWI
    Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 00:54

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.

Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Post Options Post Options   Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?



Edited by Laelius
Back to Top
Illuminati View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
Post Options Post Options   Quote Illuminati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 01:33
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Originally posted by poirot

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.




Edited by Illuminati
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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...
Back to Top
blake79 View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 24-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote blake79 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5713
Post Options Post Options   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Post Options Post Options   Quote warhead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Desimir View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 13-Sep-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
Post Options Post Options   Quote Desimir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
Post Options Post Options   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
Post Options Post Options   Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 579
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
Post Options Post Options   Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2009 at 15:11
Originally posted by Peteratwar

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


Pétain 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

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

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.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 579
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
Post Options Post Options   Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 03:52
Originally posted by Peteratwar

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

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

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

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

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.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 579
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
Post Options Post Options   Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 15:29
Originally posted by Peteratwar

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, Pétain 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 Pétain'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

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

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.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 579
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 15:46
Originally posted by antonioM

Originally posted by Peteratwar

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, Pétain 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 Pétain'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

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

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
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
Post Options Post Options   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2009 at 00:42
Originally posted by poirot

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.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.