Jump to content


Did America really save the Allies in WWI?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
79 replies to this topic

Crazedtiger77 #41 Posted 29 June 2016 - 07:43 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 29 June 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

k but still nonsense

 

Ok, but why?


Tiberius67 #42 Posted 09 September 2016 - 06:27 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 9329 battles
  • 1,351
  • [PIGS]
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 27 May 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

*snip*

 

Save them from defeat? Not likely. Shorten the war and save lives.....yeah. If we had stayed out the War would have gone into 1919 for sure, and possibly into 1920 before the Germans finally threw in the towel.

 

Edit...sorry for the necro, didn't look at the dates before I replied.



Sqn Ldr B #43 Posted 09 September 2016 - 06:42 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTiberius67, on 09 September 2016 - 07:27 AM, said:

 

Save them from defeat? Not likely. Shorten the war and save lives.....yeah. If we had stayed out the War would have gone into 1919 for sure, and possibly into 1920 before the Germans finally threw in the towel.

 

Edit...sorry for the necro, didn't look at the dates before I replied.

 

With the state of the German economy due to the blockade, that country was not going to last long enough to see 1920. There were mutinies and revolutions in Germany even before the armistice was signed, the whole thing would have collapsed within about six months of November 1918 if the war was still going on.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Tiberius67 #44 Posted 09 September 2016 - 08:05 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 9329 battles
  • 1,351
  • [PIGS]
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 09 September 2016 - 12:42 AM, said:

 

With the state of the German economy due to the blockade, that country was not going to last long enough to see 1920. There were mutinies and revolutions in Germany even before the armistice was signed, the whole thing would have collapsed within about six months of November 1918 if the war was still going on.

 

you're certainly right that they were in trouble, but without the AEF showing up in France, things wouldn't have been as bad for them. I think it would be hard to predict how 1917 and 1918 would have gone if there was no prospect of increasing numbers of fresh troops showing up to face them on the Western Front (or in the case of the allies getting much needed reinforcements). One of the reasons for the last big German offensive was to try to change the game before enough US troops arrived to really make a difference. I believe the Allies would still have eventually won, but it could well have taken longer, and the Allies had their own morale problems as well...the French mutinied, at least as far as offensives went. It would all come down to the decisions made on both sides without the US being a factor. 

 

I'm not married to the war lasting until 1920, but I think it's possible, depending on what use the Germans made of the troops they got from the East and how the planned 1919 Allied Offensive went. If the Germans proved able to blunt it's success, perhaps the French mutiny might be repeated, or spread to the British. Or it could finally break through and overrun Germany. Hard to tell.  



amanwiththree #45 Posted 09 September 2016 - 08:29 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 30411 battles
  • 1,934
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

No. But with conditions.

Germany was spent economically and had run out of hard currency with which to buy essential war materiel.

Nothing got in and out of Germany via the sea due to our blockade.

The people were starving, war-weary, and on the verge of revolution having been promised a quick victory. Their support for the war was waning.

 

When Russia was finished with, in 1918 the Germans had a massive boost in manpower which led to the 1918 spring offensive where they made huge gains in territory.

This offensive was partially because the Germans wanted to win the war before the Americans joined in, or get the French to the negotiating table. 

But this offensive so depleted the German army that defeat was inevitable. 

 

So as a threat the Americans were important, but on the whole their military input was negligible.

Germany was spent before the Americans arrived.

 

 

 

 


 

Camping is killing this game

 

 


FromBravo2Kilo #46 Posted 09 September 2016 - 10:05 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 22268 battles
  • 2,555
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    12-23-2015

My opinion is it took too long for Germany to defeat Russia.



 


MrWuvems #47 Posted 09 September 2016 - 03:27 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

My opinion is that the US applied a finger on the scale to the Entente via economic means and its potential to join. American neutrality in the 20th century was pretty much always a sort of a joke. It was American strategy to support mama and papa (France and the UK) in such a way that they were materially and obviously helping but it would take an act of war that would be seen as an unwarranted act of aggression to get them to stop.

 

This repeated, btw, during WW2.

 

Militarily though, haha no.

 

Semantic note: "Allies" refers generally to what is also referred to as the Central Powers. So no, definitely not.


Edited by MrWuvems, 09 September 2016 - 03:30 PM.


Sgt Bull 1943 #48 Posted 09 September 2016 - 04:59 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 11337 battles
  • 431
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
America won the the supply war for the allies . Though , we should have let France starve .

Sqn Ldr B #49 Posted 09 September 2016 - 06:17 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTiberius67, on 09 September 2016 - 09:05 AM, said:

...the French mutinied, at least as far as offensives went.

The French have never been reliable anyway.

View PostFromBravo2Kilo, on 09 September 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:

My opinion is it took too long for Germany to defeat Russia.

If Russia didn't have the massive issues with its political and social situation and less incompetent leadership at home it might well have beaten the Germans. The Russian army during WW1 isn't as useless as it's often made out to be, it did surprisingly well in the early days up until about mid-1915. Then things started to fall apart at home and the whole thing just came down.

View PostSgt Bull 1943, on 09 September 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

America won the the supply war for the allies . Though , we should have let France starve .

 

I don't see how letting France starve is a good idea. That would lead France to collapse, and with France out of the game you essentially lose the only practical land front against the Germans. The Balkans were just a mess and the Italian mountains aren't the place to be sending whole armies not trained in mountain fighting. And then you get all the Germans shifting their western troops over to the east and beating the last properly large front against the Central Powers, Russia, even more than they did in real life. Even having the biggest navy in the whole world Britain couldn't swing it against the Germans without boots on the ground, no one can. That just ends with a long, long, and very difficult offensive through the Middle East, through Turkey, into the Balkans, through Bulgaria and on through Austria-Hungary and then finally into Germany. Which isn't a great idea.

 

Oh, and I wouldn't say that the Americans won the supply war during WW1, not like it did during WW2.


"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


NSW Mntd Rifles #50 Posted 10 September 2016 - 07:34 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39385 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

There is a little regarded aspect to the defeat of Germany in The Great War that I had been meaning to put in a completely new thread. I'll raise it here anyway. In his book "Achtung-Panzer: The Development of Tank Warfare" Heinz Guderian acknowledged the supreme importance of the Allied battle plans developed for their offensives at Le Hamel and Amiens in 1918. The Amiens offensive in particular was the catalyst that led to the German High Command desperately seeking an armistice. The Battle of Amiens took place form 8 August 1918. In this battle a force of 102,000 Australians with the support of Canadian troops defeated sixteen divisions (the equivalent of two German armies ) in the space of 48 hours. In 1937 Adolf Hitler said of the battle plan for Amiens: "That is what I want! And that is what I shall have!" There is no doubt that Amiens sealed Germany's fate in the Great War.

 

Little did Hitler know in 1937 that the battle plans for both Hamel and Amiens were developed by an Australian part time soldier of German Jewish background. John Monash, an engineer and lawyer, who had served in the Victorian and later Australian Militia as a part time artillery officer was the architect of these battles. Monash revolutionised warfare by effectively combining tanks, aircraft, artillery and infantry to create an overwhelming combination. His tactics were proven at Hamel (in which Americans participated under Australian command against the wishes of General Pershing) and after Amiens he was knighted in the field by King George V. 

 

Unlike almost any other British military leader in World War I Monash was a meticulous planner who allowed for every eventuality and whose aim was to preserve his troops. As a field commander on Gallipoli and in Flanders he had seen the wastage that had accrued from ill-formed battle planning and, when he was made commander of the Australian Corps in 1918, he made sure that his planning was thorough and that he would use every technological advantage to ensure the victory of his forces with the least casualties. 

 

The Australian troops who fought at Amiens were almost a spent force. An all volunteer army that had been totally worn down by constant use as shock troops under British command. Numbers in each battalion were greatly diminished yet with Monash's tactics they prevailed against superior numbers.

 

In 1918 Monash changed the game in a most dramatic way and he brought a new way of military thinking that forced the Germans to sue for peace. This is not just my opinion but military analysts such as Basil Liddell-Hart regarded him as the greatest general to emerge from World War I. It can be argued that he was the father of Blitzkrieg. After the war he returned to his engineering practice in Australia and was largely forgotten, expect by military analysts, the troops he had led and the British Royal Family. 

 

Anyone who wants to understand the sudden defeat of Germany in 1918 should read Roland Perry's biography of Monash: It is titled "Monash. The outsider who won a war." 



UPGRA1D #51 Posted 08 March 2017 - 11:01 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11819 battles
  • 10
  • [EDP]
  • Member since:
    03-15-2016

If you'll forgive me saying so, the OP sounds like a bit of a straw man. I'm an American born in 1964, and I've never heard anyone make that argument about WWI. 

I grew up on John Wayne WWII war movies, which led me to believe that America won WWII almost single-handedly. Of course, I'm older now and I realize how misguided and arrogant that view is. But many of my generation, if they think about it at all, believe it's true. 

  As far as WWI goes, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of Americans think that was where Snoopy shot down the Red Baron.

 Maybe a better question would be, "Why did Europe keep starting wars and dragging us into them? And then accuse us of being late and not contributing enough?"



Uranprojekt #52 Posted 08 March 2017 - 12:39 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostUPGRA1D, on 08 March 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

If you'll forgive me saying so, the OP sounds like a bit of a straw man. I'm an American born in 1964, and I've never heard anyone make that argument about WWI. 

I grew up on John Wayne WWII war movies, which led me to believe that America won WWII almost single-handedly. Of course, I'm older now and I realize how misguided and arrogant that view is. But many of my generation, if they think about it at all, believe it's true. 

  As far as WWI goes, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of Americans think that was where Snoopy shot down the Red Baron.

 Maybe a better question would be, "Why did Europe keep starting wars and dragging us into them? And then accuse us of being late and not contributing enough?"

 

You've grown up and realised that your view on World War Two was arrogant and misguided, then immediately contradict that realisation by putting forth an arrogant and misguided question. My, my, what a fast turnaround.

 

Maybe you just aren't aware of how volatile the geopolitical situation in Europe was (and still is, though to a less detrimental, costly and deadly end)?

Since the end of the American Civil War; i.e. when America became the unified nation it's better known as today; there have been two wars in continental Europe that America was "dragged" into (excluding peacekeeping operations, such as Kosovo) and those were the World Wars. I'd suggest that you go and do some reading, but I'll give you two quick pointers:

  1. Germany declared a resumption in unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917, making any and all shipping in the Atlantic a target for German submarines.
  2. Germany sought an alliance with Mexico (see; Zimmerman Telegram).

 

Hmm... there appears to be a common link between those two pointers...


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


I3iggus Nickus #53 Posted 08 March 2017 - 12:54 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34187 battles
  • 4,813
  • [ACES]
  • Member since:
    03-17-2014

View PostUPGRA1D, on 08 March 2017 - 05:01 AM, said:

If you'll forgive me saying so, the OP sounds like a bit of a straw man. I'm an American born in 1964, and I've never heard anyone make that argument about WWI. 

I grew up on John Wayne WWII war movies, which led me to believe that America won WWII almost single-handedly. Of course, I'm older now and I realize how misguided and arrogant that view is. But many of my generation, if they think about it at all, believe it's true. 

  As far as WWI goes, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of Americans think that was where Snoopy shot down the Red Baron.

 Maybe a better question would be, "Why did Europe keep starting wars and dragging us into them? And then accuse us of being late and not contributing enough?"

 

:teethhappy:

​Member of the Senior Technical Engineer Club [ACES] Armoured Aces "Louder than God's revolver and twice as shiny"

1: A leap of faith. An unproveable belief in a reality beyond this world. 2: suicide. Escaping a pointless existence. 3: acceptance of an Absurd existence, and the freedom that comes with creating your own meaning.

"He who snipes snipers, runs the risk of becoming the sniper himself. If you gaze into the scope, the scope gazes back"


killer etzi0 #54 Posted 08 March 2017 - 01:05 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 59686 battles
  • 19,181
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    06-20-2014

I wonder how many glance at this topic and think the subject is about WWII and not WWI..........

 

Mainly because in WWI the good guys where referred to as "Allied Powers"  and in WWII the good guys where referred to as "Allies"


"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat."

 

Ronald Reagan
 

 


Beavis37 #55 Posted 09 March 2017 - 07:52 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21195 battles
  • 1,020
  • Member since:
    02-08-2014

View PostSlummyZeru, on 27 May 2016 - 11:24 PM, said:

I wouldn't mind playing a canadian in that BF1 deal cause apparently axis thought canadians were badass and they tricked them by pretending they on one flank while they moved so.

 

The Germans called the Canadians "storm troopers" because if the weather was nasty they could almost be assured of an assault. Great book I read on ww1 called "all quiet on the western front" gives a German perspective of ww1. Good day.:izmena:


Edited by Beavis37, 09 March 2017 - 09:19 PM.

signature.png

aGundamDownHere #56 Posted 10 March 2017 - 01:23 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16524 battles
  • 2,670
  • Member since:
    02-24-2014

View PostUranprojekt, on 08 March 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

 

Since the end of the American Civil War; i.e. when America became the unified nation it's better known as today; there have been two wars in continental Europe that America was "dragged" into (excluding peacekeeping operations, such as Kosovo) and those were the World Wars.

 

I feel compelled to point out that after World War II, America has only been in a single war: the Afghanistan-Iraq War. Presidents don't have the Constitutional authority to declare war; that power is reserved for Congress. And 2001 is literally the only time since WWII where the president, in this case George W. Bush, went to the American Congress and asked them to make an official declaration of war. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc., are all misnomers, because none of the administrations involved ever went to Congress, who in turn never gave the administrations the right to wage war. They were all peacekeeping operations, interventions, or whatever name the sitting president could come up with that wasn't "war."

 

And technically, even the American Civil War wasn't officially a war. Lincoln never referred to it as the Civil War, because a war is a conflict fought between nations. He never recognized the Confederacy's succession, meaning he never recognized them as a separate country, and therefore he wasn't fighting a war. His official stance was that it was an American Civil Insurrection, not an American Civil War.

 

P.S. Although presidents don't have the power to declare war, as Commanders-in-Chief they can engage in armed military operations for up to 90 continuous days before having to seek Congressional approval to continue the conflict.


Be verbose - you have a vocabulary for a reason.

 

Good with words; bad with tanks. At least I can talk you to death.

 

Required Reading: https://leadershipfr...-like-a-leader/


Niles Y93 #57 Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:00 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10040 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostaGundamDownHere, on 10 March 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:   

P.S. Although presidents don't have the power to declare war, as Commanders-in-Chief they can engage in armed military operations for up to 90 continuous days before having to seek Congressional approval to continue the conflict.

That was the sticking point in the Libyan Incursion (as I call it) seeing as our involvement lasted more than 90 days.



PLK180W #58 Posted 12 March 2017 - 08:29 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 61 battles
  • 7,944
  • Member since:
    10-29-2014

Germany was defeated in WWI in the same way as they were defeated in WW2.

 

Years of pointless warfare which left them with depleted manpower and depleted resources,  facing enemies with relatively unlimited resources of both.

 


Through The Mud And Blood To The Green Fields Beyond

Big Yeash #59 Posted 12 March 2017 - 12:53 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21675 battles
  • 2,941
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    08-25-2015

The American contribution was certainly not meaningless. America's first major battles in the war in 1917, and several in 1918, caused shock among the Germans where the Americans proved themselves to be adaptable and courageous under fire, where it was thought these inexperienced "doughboys" facing battle-hardened and highly experienced combat troops would just break and run.

 

However, by early 1917, British and French forces had already begun to adapt with what we now know as "combined arms" tactics - the teaming of armour, air power and artillery to support infantry, and improving infantry tactics themselves to break enemy lines and push. There is always the possibility the war would not have ended when it did had the Americans not joined - they certainly didn't "save Europe", since Germany was very much on the back foot by this point and under increasing pressure at home.

 

Remember at the end of the war that the German Navy mutinied en masse.


Edited by Big Yeash, 12 March 2017 - 12:53 PM.

3MOE - T29*** - AMX ELC bis***, AMX 13 75***Skoda T24*** - Fave 2MOE;

Pershing**, T32**, M103**, T25/2** - Centurion 7/1**, Excelsior**, Conqueror** - Champion**, E-75**, Ferdinand**, WT auf Pz.IV** - AMX 13 90** - MT-25**, T-44**, T-54**, Fatherland**, T-10**, ISU-152** - Skoda T25**


Big Yeash #60 Posted 12 March 2017 - 12:55 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21675 battles
  • 2,941
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    08-25-2015

View Postkiller etzi0, on 08 March 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

I wonder how many glance at this topic and think the subject is about WWII and not WWI..........

 

Mainly because in WWI the good guys where referred to as "Allied Powers"  and in WWII the good guys where referred to as "Allies"

 

>wwi

>"good guys"

>pick one

 

I've actually rarely heard "allied powers" used to describe the "allies" in WWI - the official name of the original "allies", so I thought, was the Entente, which I believe was Britain, France and Belgium.


3MOE - T29*** - AMX ELC bis***, AMX 13 75***Skoda T24*** - Fave 2MOE;

Pershing**, T32**, M103**, T25/2** - Centurion 7/1**, Excelsior**, Conqueror** - Champion**, E-75**, Ferdinand**, WT auf Pz.IV** - AMX 13 90** - MT-25**, T-44**, T-54**, Fatherland**, T-10**, ISU-152** - Skoda T25**





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users