What if the US had stayed out of The Great War?

[Mr. Excellent]

As the question says - we've debated World War 2 to heck and gone on this board , but what about the first stab at a world war? Was the American contribution to WWI as important as our intervention in WW2? Or would the war have ended much the same if we'd stayed home?

[XT]

Well, a lot of American's would not have died for nothing. Other than that...it's hard to say I think. I believe that the war was poised on a knife edge at the point we entered the war, with both sides on the verge of collapse. Probably the Germans would still have been the first to collapse...but it's possible that had the US not gotten involved they all would have fallen down.

I have no problem with that...I think the US should have stayed out of what was a purely European affair (ed) with the exception of perhaps using our navy more vigorously to protect our merchant fleet. And I think that had we stayed out of it, perhaps there wouldn't have been yet another European blood bath a few decades down the pike from WWI.

-XT

[Kozmik]

It wouldn't have been so "Great".


Seriously, I do wonder if we had stayed out of WWI, we wouldn't have been involved in WWII (no Pearl Harbor). It could be argued that World War II was a continuation of the Great War. Anyway, Woodrow Wilson wouldn't have been involved in the Paris peace conference.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Seriously, I do wonder if we had stayed out of WWI, we wouldn't have been involved in WWII (no Pearl Harbor).

It depends on whether or not the U.S. would have built up a navy that could be seen as a rival by the Japanese.

[chowder]

<slight hijack>

It's my opinion that Americas entry into WW1 was the start of what could loosely be called the American Empire. WW2 accelerated the process.

I realise that the USA never set out to gain an empire but this is exactly what you've done, a country born out of revolution and seccesion from empire, ends up with one whether you like it or not.

I've often thought that Americas interests would be best served if it tossed aside the global hegomany and decided to fight only in its own defence of liberty.

In other words, be friends with all but allied to none

[Siam Sam]

Originally Posted by chowder

<slight hijack>

It's my opinion that Americas entry into WW1 was the start of what could loosely be called the American Empire. WW2 accelerated the process.

I'd peg it 20 years before with the Spanish-American War. We got the Philippines in that one.

[BMalion]

Originally Posted by chowder

<slight hijack>

It's my opinion that Americas entry into WW1 was the start of what could loosely be called the American Empire. WW2 accelerated the process.

I realise that the USA never set out to gain an empire but this is exactly what you've done, a country born out of revolution and seccesion from empire, ends up with one whether you like it or not.

I've often thought that Americas interests would be best served if it tossed aside the global hegomany and decided to fight only in its own defence of liberty.

In other words, be friends with all but allied to none

Your statement seems simplistic and niave but I can't help thinking you're on to something.

So what would happen in the world if we pulled back now and became isolationist? Is it even possible with trade the way it is?

[Tristan]

I was always under the impression that one of the reasons the Versaille Treaty was so flawed was that it was a rush job.

The Russian front had collapsed (one of the dominoes of the Russian Revolution) and something like a million veteran troops where on their way to the trenches.

This, combined with growing numbers of tanks and growing effectiveness meant that if the Allies hadn't managed to get the Germans to sign the V-Treaty, another round of offensives would have sprung up.

I could, of course, be wrong.

All that being said, I'm not sure of what the American contribution was to the war effort, or if our manpower was really used to all that much effect. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of The War to End All Wars will stroll through here shortly....

[Burton]

England, France and Germany had all suffered huge losses, but the French Army was demoralized and mutinous, the British Army ineffective and had thrown away countless lives without progress.

I believe it could have ended on terms favorable to Germany. Whether they have been favorable enough to stem the rise of Adolf Hitler is anyone's guess.

[chowder]

Originally Posted by BMalion

Your statement seems simplistic and niave but I can't help thinking you're on to something.

So what would happen in the world if we pulled back now and became isolationist? Is it even possible with trade the way it is?

Simplistic, yes, naive, maybe.

Despite what I posted above, it is no longer possible for America to adopt an isolationist stance for a number of reasons.

Primarily trade but most importantly oil.

A sad fact of todays modern lifestyle is that we depend so much on oil that we tend to overlook the effect that this dependancy has world wide.

We in the west are the "haves" there are many countries who are the "have nots" and unfortunately this situation will not change, not during my life anyway

[Martini Enfield]

If the US had stayed out of WWI, then there would have been a million German soldiers released from the Eastern Front and able to go and fight the British and the French on the Western Front...

...Where they would be cut to pieces by Vickers and Hotchkiss Machine-Guns as soon as they climbed out of their trenches.

IMHO, WWI would have dragged on until 1920 or so with an impassable stalemate on the Western Front before both sides decided to simply call it a day and re-draw the international borders. The war in the Middle East would still end with an Allied Victory, though- that was pretty much a done deal by 1917 anyway.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by Martini Enfield

If the US had stayed out of WWI, then there would have been a million German soldiers released from the Eastern Front and able to go and fight the British and the French on the Western Front...

...Where they would be cut to pieces by Vickers and Hotchkiss Machine-Guns as soon as they climbed out of their trenches.

IMHO, WWI would have dragged on until 1920 or so with an impassable stalemate on the Western Front before both sides decided to simply call it a day and re-draw the international borders. The war in the Middle East would still end with an Allied Victory, though- that was pretty much a done deal by 1917 anyway.

Huge slaughters like you are describing were more of a feature of the early days of the war. In the latter days, the Germans were having great success with their storm troops and both sides were on to the idea of armored vehicles. The troops freed up from the Russian front might well have tipped things to a German victory.

[Burton]

The Germans had machine guns too. The way it ended was American Marines came in and took huge losses against those guns at Marne/Chateau-Thierry/Belleau Wood stopping the Germans 50 miles away from Paris. By the end of the summer, the Americans 900,000 strong and finally organized were too much for Germany they were mainly trying to negotiate good terms from that point until they had to surrender nearly unconditionally in Novermber.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by Tristan

I was always under the impression that one of the reasons the Versaille Treaty was so flawed was that it was a rush job.

The Treaty of Versailles was flawed because it was imposed upon the Germans while they were still holding French land. With that in mind, the treaty was extraordinarily punitive to a people that didn't think that they had lost. This in turn caused so much resentment that the first chance they had to tell their enemies to go to hell they pounced on it.

Hitler could not have existed without the Treaty of Versailles. If the terms had been status quo antebellum he couldn't have fostered the kind of resentment that he needed to gain power. He couldn't have gained capital by flaunting his public repudiation of the terms. In doing so, he found that nobody would raise a finger to stop him, which led him into Czechoslovakia and Austria, and ultimately into Poland.

We created that monster, and we did it consciously and with full intention.

[Burton]

The German populace was never told the truth about status of the war either, then suddenly the Kaiser fled the country and they agreed to the Armistice.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

We created that monster, and we did it consciously and with full intention.

I very much doubt Wilson was expecting the Versailles Treaty to lead to a German nationalist resurgence, let alone an aggressive dictatorship.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I very much doubt Wilson was expecting the Versailles Treaty to lead to a German nationalist resurgence, let alone an aggressive dictatorship.

I'll bet he did expect it.

The United States Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, making it invalid in the United States and effectively hamstringing the nascent League of Nations envisioned by Wilson. The largest obstacle faced in the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles was the opposition of Henry Cabot Lodge. It has also been said that Wilson himself was the second-largest obstacle, primarily because he refused to support the treaty with any of the alterations proposed by the United States Senate. As a result, the United States did not join the League of Nations, despite Wilson claiming that he could

"...predict with absolute certainty that within another generation there will be another world war if the nations of the world do not concert the method by which to prevent it."

[mlees]

It's possible that the American entry into WW1 gave the governments of France and Britain a much needed morale boost, enough to tough it out a little longer.

The German spring offensive in 1918 might have succeeded in pushing those governments to the negotiating table earlier had the Americans not been around. (Would everyone have accepted a return to the status quo? Hmmm... probably not. Too much blood had been spilled.)

However, the war was devastating to Germany, even a victorious one. I am going to guess that Germany in the 20's would still have had some internal unrest from the Communist and Socialist movements. Germany would still have suffered from war debt, and loss of overseas markets. This, I think, would still have lead to some economic problems (as it did to most of the other combatants, even the "victors" like France and Great Britain). Change was in the wind. It would have taken a slightly different form in Germany than it historically did. I think the Kaiser would have had to cede some of his power to the Reichstagg, for example. No Hitler, but a different Germany in 1930.

The Russian Civil War might have gone a little differently, dunno. But Germany and the Soviet Union would have clashed in war eventually.

Japan attacked the US in 1941 for her own reasons, that had little to do with the outcome of war in Europe in 1918.

The Anglo-Japanese alliance ended in 1923. It might have ended earlier, if Germany was victorious and demanded it. (Not clear if Japan could have been forced to return the territories it took from Germany in the Pacific.) In any case, I think Japan was seeing itself marginalised in various ways by the other Great Powers, and this still would have lead to conflict.

The Phillippines and Guam were uncomfortably close to Japan, and any "adventures" in China would still have lead to friction with the USA, if not others. (The US wanted China to be open to US buisness interests.) The US always intended to build a navy powerful enough to deter Japan (and was one of the hidden messages behind the cruise of the Great White Fleet, to show that the US Navy could sail anywhere, anytime, if needed), and this would have been, as it historically was, seen as a threat by Japan. War may not have been inevitable, but it didnt start because Germany lost in WW1.

[BlinkingDuck]

Originally Posted by Tristan

I was always under the impression that one of the reasons the Versaille Treaty was so flawed was that it was a rush job.

The Russian front had collapsed (one of the dominoes of the Russian Revolution) and something like a million veteran troops where on their way to the trenches.

This, combined with growing numbers of tanks and growing effectiveness meant that if the Allies hadn't managed to get the Germans to sign the V-Treaty, another round of offensives would have sprung up.

I could, of course, be wrong.

All that being said, I'm not sure of what the American contribution was to the war effort, or if our manpower was really used to all that much effect. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of The War to End All Wars will stroll through here shortly....

That had already happened.

Germany had already blew her resources in the 1918 offensives. The 'freed from the Eastern front' bonus was spent. France and Britain held.

The question is...would they have held if the U.S. was not in?

I think so. Germany was more closer to the edge than the Allies and would still have lost.

Another question is...would it have stopped WWII? Without the U.S., France and England may have been more ruthless in hurting Germany after the war. However, the problem was that England (somewhat) and France (most definitely)were in relative decline. Germany would still have some inherent strength and I still think they would have come back for a second shot.

So, yes, I do think the U.S should have stayed out of it. WWI was a European matter. WWII, on the other hand, we should have pitched in earlier.

[villa]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

That had already happened.

Germany had already blew her resources in the 1918 offensives. The 'freed from the Eastern front' bonus was spent. France and Britain held.

This I agree with - there was a morale effect of the knowledge that US troops were coming, but the 1918 offensive has been overstated, in particular by Liddell Hart. The Germans overran their supplies - the classic problem of WW1. As they moved forward, the Allies were getting closer to their supply bases, and the German's further from theirs. Even as German supplies moved up, they were forced to traverse land destroyed by over three years of trench warfare. The Spring Offensive was interesting, but I don't think carried the danger of the Allies losing the war.

The Allied breakthroughs in 1918 did not win the war, they confirmed the war was won. WW1, like other modern wars (US Civil War, WW2) was won by attrition. The war had essentially been won on the Western Front in 1916 and 1917, bust as WW2 was won in the East as the Russians destroyed German capacity to fight.

Had the war continued, Germany was going to collapse. The naval blockade was causing massive deprivation at home. German soldiers in the Spring Offensive are reported as being stunned by the foods etc available to Allied soldiers, much as earlier on Allied soldiers were amazed at how much better the German trenches were...

[MichaelQReilly]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

That had already happened.

Germany had already blew her resources in the 1918 offensives. The 'freed from the Eastern front' bonus was spent. France and Britain held.

The question is...would they have held if the U.S. was not in?

I think so. Germany was more closer to the edge than the Allies and would still have lost.

Another question is...would it have stopped WWII? Without the U.S., France and England may have been more ruthless in hurting Germany after the war. However, the problem was that England (somewhat) and France (most definitely)were in relative decline. Germany would still have some inherent strength and I still think they would have come back for a second shot.

So, yes, I do think the U.S should have stayed out of it. WWI was a European matter. WWII, on the other hand, we should have pitched in earlier.

I think it would have been a close run thin, but in the end I think you are probably right. The British blockade was probably the difference. Germany's population was on the verge of starvation. If things got much worse there probably would have been some kind of revolt that knocked Germany out much like happened in Russia.

[MichaelQReilly]

Originally Posted by villa

This I agree with - there was a morale effect of the knowledge that US troops were coming, but the 1918 offensive has been overstated, in particular by Liddell Hart. The Germans overran their supplies - the classic problem of WW1. As they moved forward, the Allies were getting closer to their supply bases, and the German's further from theirs. Even as German supplies moved up, they were forced to traverse land destroyed by over three years of trench warfare. The Spring Offensive was interesting, but I don't think carried the danger of the Allies losing the war.

The Allied breakthroughs in 1918 did not win the war, they confirmed the war was won. WW1, like other modern wars (US Civil War, WW2) was won by attrition. The war had essentially been won on the Western Front in 1916 and 1917, bust as WW2 was won in the East as the Russians destroyed German capacity to fight.

Had the war continued, Germany was going to collapse. The naval blockade was causing massive deprivation at home. German soldiers in the Spring Offensive are reported as being stunned by the foods etc available to Allied soldiers, much as earlier on Allied soldiers were amazed at how much better the German trenches were...

Beat me to it!

[Slithy Tove]

IMHO, the war had three phases:

The first few months, including the Batle of the Frontiers and First Marne, the "Kindermord" after which everyone was shocked at the casualties, but instead of backing-off and negotiating peace, they dug trenches

1915-16, the meat-gridners of Verdun, the Somme, Caporetto and Roumania: the realization that digging-in only made things worse, and there was no way out except a hard-fought victory through attrition.

The third phase, after the exit of Russia and the debatable near-victory of the Ludendorf Offensive, is where the American military's contribution is also debatable. (itwould be fun, but I'm not going to contribute to that debate)

The Great Debate here lies in the scond phase, not the third, when the Allies could blockade Germany, but the Germans couldn't blockade the Allies without U-boats; which angered the US population. Much more significant than the later contibution of American troops, the big difference was made by American money and material. Money migrates to wherever it can grow, and that's what happened to the First World War.

Great Britain and France still had a reserve of manpower from their overseas empires, but not a lot of industrial bases to draw upon out there. The whole idea of colonialism was to take raw materials from outside, proces it inside and sell the finsihed product back to the natives. So the Allies and the Central Powers were pretty much evenly matched in the battle of the factories. This is where the US made the difference, and encouraged the Allies to keep going beyond 1916.

[mlees]

I think the US contribution in the morale department was crucial, here.

Originally Posted by villa

there was a morale effect of the knowledge that US troops were coming, but the 1918 offensive has been overstated, in particular by Liddell Hart. The Germans overran their supplies - the classic problem of WW1.

The problem is that the Allies did not have a crystal ball. All they know is that the Germans are pushing the lines towards Paris again, almost as close as they did in 1914. (The Paris government evacuated to Beaurdeux, if I recall.)

The Germans might have been in trouble with the blockade, but the Allies didn't know how much until after the war.

The point I am trying to make is that the Germans could have broken the Allied leadership's "will to fight". Much as the Germans did to the French in 1940. Through bluff and bluster, the Allies might have been convinced that to continue was futile. While the 1918 offensive was Germany's last gasp, the Allies can't know that.

A HUGE part of winning wars is to convince the other guy to give up.

[kingpengvin]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

The Treaty of Versailles was flawed because it was imposed upon the Germans while they were still holding French land. With that in mind, the treaty was extraordinarily punitive to a people that didn't think that they had lost. This in turn caused so much resentment that the first chance they had to tell their enemies to go to hell they pounced on it.

Hitler could not have existed without the Treaty of Versailles. If the terms had been status quo antebellum he couldn't have fostered the kind of resentment that he needed to gain power. He couldn't have gained capital by flaunting his public repudiation of the terms. In doing so, he found that nobody would raise a finger to stop him, which led him into Czechoslovakia and Austria, and ultimately into Poland.

We created that monster, and we did it consciously and with full intention.

I'm not so sure it is as cut and dry as that.
I mean do you really think that Hitler's stab in the back theory really has validity?

Germany was defeated, sure they occupied French territory when the armistice was signed but you must note it was signed when it was because the German leadership knew it was only a matter of time before they would be facing the allies on German territory.

The conditions at home were a mess, there were riots and huge shortages. There were a few mutinies on German ships and there was no possible way Germany could have gone on. They threw away their last chance at defence with one last big push which temporarily worked but floundered when the exhausted and ill equiped troops stopped to feed themselves with food found in allied trenches.

The Punitive nature of the treaty was to punish the agressor nation and to have it pay for the destruction to the French countryside it cost. It also tried to disarm a beligerent and agressive nation to prevent another conflict.

This belief that Germany was not to blame for WWI was the nonsense fed to the German people to dispute the legitimacy of the Treaty. When the Fischer Thesis was published in the 1960s there was such a violent reaction against the notion that Germany had blame for the First World War in Germany.

Their actions from Unification to 1914 were not that of a peacful nation. At least under Bismarck there was an attempt to keep balance and keep out of the colonial game to keep tensions down in Europe. Once Willie took the reigns that was thrown out the door and Germany belligerently tried to force their way onton the stage.

The Treaty itself had worked. From 1919 to 1932 that Treaty was enforced including an occupation of the Rhur by the French when the German government tried to end reparations. Germany even had a brief period of prosperty and normallacy in the late 20s despite the Treaty. It was not all hyperinflation and poverty(That existed because of the collapse after the war, not just because of the treatys repiration stipulations). Had the depression not hit Germany could very well have developed into a peacful democarcy.

Unfortunately that was not to be and with another economic collapse it was easy for those on the fringe to blame it all on the treaty (and the Jews).

Up to that point France was being pressured by England to ease up on the Treaty up to the point where Hitler gambled and successfully reoccupied the Rhineland.

Had the French put up troops to enforce the treaty that would have likely been it for Hitler as the Generals would have retreated the lesser army (Rememeber the French had the largest well equiped Army at that particular time While Germany had nothing but what the Treaty had allowed them). It was the lack of enforcement of the Treaty due to the belief that somehow it was unfair that lead to the 2nd World war.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

It's not about the reality, it's the perception. The Germans bought the Dolchstoßlegende hook, line and sinker because they thought that they were betrayed by their leadership and made to pay while they were still winning. You know it's not true, I know it's not true, but when a guy with a lot of charisma tells you that it is true, tells you who to blame, and digs you out of the huge hole you've been in for 15 years, you tend to believe everything he says.

[BMalion]

Originally Posted by BlackAdder Goes Forth

Edmund: Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?
Darling: How can you possibly know that, Blackadder? It's classified information!
Edmund: It's the same plan that we used last time, and the seventeen times before that.
Melchett: Exactly! And that is what so brilliant about it! We will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard! Doing precisely what we have done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they'll expect us to do this time! There is, however, one small problem.
Edmund: That everyone always gets slaughtered the first ten seconds.
Melchett: That's right! And Field Marshal Haig is worried that this may be depressing the men a tadge. So, he's looking to find a way to cheer them up.
Edmund: Well, his resignation and suicide would seem the obvious solution.
Melchett: Interesting thought. Make a note of it, Darling!

You're welcome.

[villa]

Originally Posted by mlees

I think the US contribution in the morale department was crucial, here.



The problem is that the Allies did not have a crystal ball. All they know is that the Germans are pushing the lines towards Paris again, almost as close as they did in 1914. (The Paris government evacuated to Beaurdeux, if I recall.)

The Germans might have been in trouble with the blockade, but the Allies didn't know how much until after the war.

The point I am trying to make is that the Germans could have broken the Allied leadership's "will to fight". Much as the Germans did to the French in 1940. Through bluff and bluster, the Allies might have been convinced that to continue was futile. While the 1918 offensive was Germany's last gasp, the Allies can't know that.

A HUGE part of winning wars is to convince the other guy to give up.

I've seen no evidence of negative effects on Allied will to fight as a result of the Spring Offensive. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that I have seen none of it. Certainly the morale of the armies was much higher than in 1917 (epecially the French) and that is an area in which US involvement may well have played a very important role.

I would imagine the effect of the blockade was pretty widely known amongst the Allies. It was known by the German front line troops, and therefore you can assume it was known by Allied troops. Also, the British knew the Royal Navy had command of the seas, which was a pretty good indicator of the success.

I just haven't seen any indication to justify the idea that the Spring Offensive put the Germans close to victory. Lidell Hart seems to think so, but he had his own reasons for writing as he did.

[kingpengvin]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

It's not about the reality, it's the perception. The Germans bought the Dolchstoßlegende hook, line and sinker because they thought that they were betrayed by their leadership and made to pay while they were still winning. You know it's not true, I know it's not true, but when a guy with a lot of charisma tells you that it is true, tells you who to blame, and digs you out of the huge hole you've been in for 15 years, you tend to believe everything he says.

That I can go with you on. Sorry I had mistakenly thought you were agreeing the theory that Germany was unfairy punished while winning.

Truth is the Treaty in itself was not the flaw, it was the weakening of the stipulations and lack of will to enforce it.

I'm pretty convinced that had there been afew French tanks Sent to the Rhine on March 7 1936 Hitler and the Nazis might have been a historical sidenote.

[smiling bandit]

Airman, I'm a little (OK, a lot) confused when you say 'we created this monster with knowledge and intention.' [paraphrased]

First off, who's this "we", white man? Wilson was opposed to the Versailles Treaty. England and France virtually kicked us out of negotiations when we refused to back their demands. Wilson did at least fear the consequences, and it was one reason why he opposed the relentlessly punitive demands of Versailles. He also probably realized that the Kaiser != Germany and that England and France were not much less to blame than the Kaiser.

But that's the exact opposite of creating and intending to create a resurgent hyper-nationalist Germany. WIlson clearly wanted to avoid that possibility. The Senate didn't agree with him on everything, but it was clear that they shared a suspicion of European politics and wanted to stay out of them. It's the same overall understanding but a different goal. And America in later years came to Germany's aid with debt relief and financial assistance to Weimar.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by villa

I've seen no evidence of negative effects on Allied will to fight as a result of the Spring Offensive.

I attribute that to the knowledge (in the minds of the French and British) that the Yanks were/are coming. If the Yanks didn't throw their hat in the ring in 1917, who knows how demoralised the leadership would have been in the spring of 1918, with the Germans obviously pushing forward from the lines that had been relatively static since 1915.

I would imagine the effect of the blockade was pretty widely known amongst the Allies. It was known by the German front line troops, and therefore you can assume it was known by Allied troops. Also, the British knew the Royal Navy had command of the seas, which was a pretty good indicator of the success.

The Royal Navy controlled the seas. Yup. But there was little indication on how much that it was hurting Germany.

The Allies could capture troops and interrogate them about the conditions behind the lines, but balance that on the ability of the Germans to hang on year (1915) after year (1916) after year (1917), and there may be doubts creeping into the minds of some of the leadership. With a new offensive pushing the Allies back, the leadership could have assumed that the Germans had found new reserves of troops, resources (including food), and morale from the collapse of Russia. The Allies would have (possibly) not have found that thought very inspiring.

I just haven't seen any indication to justify the idea that the Spring Offensive put the Germans close to victory. Lidell Hart seems to think so, but he had his own reasons for writing as he did.

Again, your looking at the way it really happened, with American troops (as few as were there in early 1918), money, supplies, and the hope all that brought with it.

In my humble opinion, that morale booster might have made all the difference in the world.

[villa]

I did state in my last post that in the area of military morale at least, "that is an area in which US involvement may well have played a very important role"

All I am saying is that I have never seen any evidence that the Allies were close to collapse as a result of the Spring Offensive, either in a miitary or "will to fight" sense.

[MarcusF]

Originally Posted by BlackAdder Goes Forth
Edmund: Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?
Darling: How can you possibly know that, Blackadder? It's classified information!
Edmund: It's the same plan that we used last time, and the seventeen times before that.
Melchett: Exactly! And that is what so brilliant about it! We will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard! Doing precisely what we have done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they'll expect us to do this time! There is, however, one small problem.
Edmund: That everyone always gets slaughtered the first ten seconds.
Melchett: That's right! And Field Marshal Haig is worried that this may be depressing the men a tadge. So, he's looking to find a way to cheer them up.
Edmund: Well, his resignation and suicide would seem the obvious solution.
Melchett: Interesting thought. Make a note of it, Darling!

Great comedy - pity it has nothing to do with the reality of WW1.

[Bryan Ekers]

Yanks, shmanks. The whole thing was over when Canadians took Vimy Ridge. After that, it was just mop-up.

[ralph124c]

-Germany was exhausted-the 1918 Offensive was the last gasp. german civilians were starving-and the troops were fed up (when they overran the British lines, they saw how well fed the Allied troops were). I expect Kaiser Wilhelm would have abdicated.
-The allies didn't eally need to do anything (except fend off attacks) Time was on their side
-A Communist revolution would have broken out in Germany. Interestinly, lenin was sending communist agents into germany-in the reverse (of how HE was sent in to infect russia)
The net effect; the war would have ended by 1920. Probably a less punitive armistice, and no Adolf Hitler.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

The First World War was not ended by anything soldiers or diplomats did, it was ended by the Spanish Influenza 1918,

Spanish 1918 killed more soldiers, in all armies, than the entire war did.
And devastated civilians, to boot.

War production, food production, transport... it was all deeply effected.

Spanish 1918 sapped the will of the political leaders, as it often took weeks or months to recover one's health afterwards, & most of the war leaders caught it.

[flurb]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

Wilson was opposed to the Versailles Treaty.

Huh? I think you can say he was disappointed in some of the provisions, but he certainly did not oppose the treaty. He basically killed himself barnstorming the country to drum up public support for Senate ratification of the Treaty.

[Dinsdale]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Well, a lot of American's would not have died for nothing.

I assume you are referring to deaths from influenza?

Seriously, the great flu pandemic is widely thought to have arisen in Kansas in early 1918, and to have spread largely through the concentration and movement of soldiers in and among training camps and the world.

Of course, the initial wave of influenza is credited with contributing towarads Germany's failure to complete it's April-May 1918 offensive. I wonder what Rev. Wright might have to say on the subject?

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by flurb

Huh? I think you can say he was disappointed in some of the provisions, but he certainly did not oppose the treaty. He basically killed himself barnstorming the country to drum up public support for Senate ratification of the Treaty.

That was not for the treaty itself. He was opposed to the pertinent provisions, but once it was a done deal, he supported it on the grounds of the League of nations, his pet project.

Edit: the "pertinent provisions" being those affecting Germany.

[Cerowyn]

From inter-war books, there little evidence that the imminent arrival of the Americans in WWI was much of a morale booster at all. The Americans had virtually no veteran forces (aside from a few thousand that had chased Pancho Villa around Mexico under General Pershing), and hundreds of British NCO's were brought over to train them. The U.S. military had very little in the way of logistics infrastructure or field deployment experience. The other Allies felt that the Americans could really only contribute as replacement soldiers to step into depleted veteran units. It was Pershing himself, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, that insisted that the Americans be allowed to fight as a coherent force.

It's really hard to say what would have happened if the US had stayed out of the Great War. It's true that more than 117,000 Americans lost their lives in the war, but the other participants suffered far, far worse (even if only compared to their own population, although most suffered greater absolute losses as well), so there was no great set-back to America's ascension as a world player. Indeed, the radical overhaul and modernization of the US military was instrumental to America's strong influence and rise as a superpower.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Cerowyn

From inter-war books, there little evidence that the imminent arrival of the Americans in WWI was much of a morale booster at all.

Interesting. Why were the allies (especially the Brits) trying so hard to bring the US into the war then? From my own readings in the past I'd say that the allies desperately wanted the US in the war for our fresh man power and industrial might...and that they were thrilled that there would be fresh troops to fight the Germans with instead of their own ragged and war weary ones.

Originally Posted by Cerowyn

The Americans had virtually no veteran forces (aside from a few thousand that had chased Pancho Villa around Mexico under General Pershing), and hundreds of British NCO's were brought over to train them. The U.S. military had very little in the way of logistics infrastructure or field deployment experience.

While I don't disagree with you that the US Army at the time was green, how well trained were the allies armies at that point...considering the massive losses they had incurred throughout the war? What kind of advanced training do you suppose it took to charge machine guns and trenches? AFAIK, only the Germans were highly trained at the squad level at this point in the war...and even they had sustained such massive losses that I would guess they were using troops just as green as the Americans for the most part, interspersed with a few surviving veterans. The fact that the Americans did fairly well against the Germans (because of or perhaps in spite of the training by the allies) kind of speaks to this point.

As for logistics...well, up to the intervention by the US the front was mainly static. So tactical logistics were pretty easy as you didn't have highly mobile forces. From a strategic perspective....well, who do you think was supplying the allies with much of their war material up to that point??

Again, I agree that the US Army was woefully under trained, under equipped and green as grass (as it was in WWII and even Korea before we finally learned our lesson about sending green, poorly trained and poorly equipped and lead boys to their deaths)...but I think the nature of the conflict minimized the urgency of refined training. Had the war been one of high mobility you may have a point...but it wasn't. I think the lack of US training is counterbalanced by the large numbers of fresh troops who weren't weary from years of slaughter. And I think this had a serious positive impact on the allies...if not at the troop level (though I would need a cite to convince me they weren't positive about fresh US troops, if for no other reason than it would give the Germans someone new to shoot at) then at the higher levels.

Originally Posted by Cerowyn

It was Pershing himself, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, that insisted that the Americans be allowed to fight as a coherent force.

Yes he did...and damned good thing to considering what the allies had done with THEIR men throughout the war.

Originally Posted by Cerowyn

It's really hard to say what would have happened if the US had stayed out of the Great War. It's true that more than 117,000 Americans lost their lives in the war, but the other participants suffered far, far worse (even if only compared to their own population, although most suffered greater absolute losses as well), so there was no great set-back to America's ascension as a world player. Indeed, the radical overhaul and modernization of the US military was instrumental to America's strong influence and rise as a superpower.

Two points. First off, it wasn't our fight...the fact that the Europeans suffered more is a direct consequence of the fact that it was THEIR fight. They brought it on themselves. There shouldn't have been ANY US ground combat deaths at all (we would have lost some people through naval actions even if we stayed out of the war...as we should have)...let alone a hundred thousand.

Secondly, I don't think American ascension as a world power came about because of WWI...at least not from a military perspective. Nor did the US military modernize or become a strong military power post WWI (except perhaps our Navy). It wasn't until after WWII that the US became a true modern military and world power form a military perspective. That's one of the big reasons we got dragged into yet another European bloodbath unprepared...because we DIDN'T learn any lessons and DIDN'T attempt to modernize or even train and equip a modern military (again, with the exception of the Navy...and even there I would rank us as perhaps a second rate power...perhaps number 4 or 5 of the world navies).

-XT

[mlees]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Interesting.

<snip>

(again, with the exception of the Navy...and even there I would rank us as perhaps a second rate power...perhaps number 4 or 5 of the world navies).

-XT

I disagree with your very last point.

The USN was #2 in size (a hair behind Great Britain). This was set up by treaty in 1922 and 1930.

The USN was #2 in tactics (a little behind Japan), due to the potential of the carrier being underestimated until after Pearl Harbor. (Although, the move to use submarines in an anti-commerce role instead of a fleet scout role was made very quickly, speaking to a flexibilty in the command structure and strategic thinking groups that Japan lacked...)

In my opinion, of course.

[XT]

I'm ex-Navy so I'm bending over backwards to try and be fair here...I'm obviously biased. I would think that the French Navy, (perhaps) Italian Navy and certainly the Brits RN were superior if not in shear numbers than in quality of naval units. But I admit...I don't know. There were also the Japanese navy and the Russian navy in there somewhere as well.

-XT

[mlees]

Originally Posted by xtisme

I'm ex-Navy so I'm bending over backwards to try and be fair here...I'm obviously biased. I would think that the French Navy, (perhaps) Italian Navy and certainly the Brits RN were superior if not in shear numbers than in quality of naval units. But I admit...I don't know. There were also the Japanese navy and the Russian navy in there somewhere as well.

-XT

It's difficult to judge the Italian and Russian ships directly with the American ones.

The Italians and Russians did not have to devote as much tonnage to long distance steaming endurance. Their overall strategy didn't need it. (The Italians did not expect to have to work very much outside of the Med, let alone European waters, for example.)

Thus, they could devote more tonnage to different ship qualities. (Say, speed, or maybe just realise a savings in ship size and cost.)

The Japanese emphasized speed and hitting power over protection a little bit more than the US/UK did. They knew that they could not outproduce both the US and UK, so they wanted their ships to hit harder sooner. (Massive torpedo salvos, for example.)

The closest analogs to the American ships are the British designs, due to similar philosophies and world strategy needs, but the British were saddled with an older (first generation) aircraft carrier force, designed with the assumption of operating within European waters and augmented by shore based aircraft.

The French built their ships to be superior in qualities to the Italian and German ships, who they saw as the most likely foes in the next war.

Nuthin's ever easy... huh?

[XT]

If it were easy then they'd be talking about this on another board.

-XT

[Lust4Life]

IMO politics aside there was a good case for Britain not getting involved in a European war at all back then.

Britains main interest at that time was trade and her world empire and probably most people didn't even know where Serbia was or cared less.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

IMO politics aside there was a good case for Britain not getting involved in a European war at all back then.

Britains main interest at that time was trade and her world empire and probably most people didn't even know where Serbia was or cared less.

It was in large part halfway much a huge misunderstanding anyway. Everyone just knew a war was coming. And it did, partly by expectations, but mostly because of sheer tension. The entire Continent was ready to go up in flames.

Austria made a huge grab for Serbia and that got Russia involved. ussia pulled in France. France pulled in England. Actually, England and France might not have been involved except for two factors: the Prussian General Staff and the Kaiser were dimwitted baboons. Back in the day, a plan had been created for the worst-case scenario: a land war from both east and west. The assumption had been made under the cicumstances 50 years ago, nd the short version was that the guy who wrote it figured they had to knock out France fast before they armed up too much. Then hit Russia before they got five million Colorless 1/1 Soldier tokens pumped out (Magic: tG reference).

Thing was, France wasn't that interested in war in 1914. If the Kaiser hadn't invaded, they almost certainly would have sat it out. England definitely would have. And Germany could have fielded a sufficient defensive force.

[MichaelQReilly]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

It was in large part halfway much a huge misunderstanding anyway. Everyone just knew a war was coming. And it did, partly by expectations, but mostly because of sheer tension. The entire Continent was ready to go up in flames.

Austria made a huge grab for Serbia and that got Russia involved. ussia pulled in France. France pulled in England. Actually, England and France might not have been involved except for two factors: the Prussian General Staff and the Kaiser were dimwitted baboons. Back in the day, a plan had been created for the worst-case scenario: a land war from both east and west. The assumption had been made under the cicumstances 50 years ago, nd the short version was that the guy who wrote it figured they had to knock out France fast before they armed up too much. Then hit Russia before they got five million Colorless 1/1 Soldier tokens pumped out (Magic: tG reference).

Thing was, France wasn't that interested in war in 1914. If the Kaiser hadn't invaded, they almost certainly would have sat it out. England definitely would have. And Germany could have fielded a sufficient defensive force.

Slight Hijack:
I wonder how much different the world would have been if the UK managed to sit out WWI. Germany would have no doubt won the war and become the dominant power on the continent. Without England, the US never enters the war. Would England have managed to postpone its decline as a world power? In retrospect, England's interests on the continent were not that important compared to their primary need to maintain a global military. If they stayed out could they have done a better job building a military that could protect their overseas interests? Would war between England and Germany been inevitable if Germany became significantly more powerful on the continent (basically a repeat of the Napoleonic Wars)?

[flurb]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

Thing was, France wasn't that interested in war in 1914. If the Kaiser hadn't invaded, they almost certainly would have sat it out. England definitely would have. And Germany could have fielded a sufficient defensive force.

There is absolutely no possibility that France would have sat out a war between Russia and Germany/Austria. Under the Franco-Russian military convention, France was obligated to immediately attack Germany should Russia be attacked by Germany or by Austria supported by Germany (likewise, Russia agreed to attack Germany if France were attacked by Germany or Italy supported by Germany). The whole point of the convention was that both France and Russia realized that Germany could roll over either one of them individually, and so it was in both their interest to force Germany to confront them both at the same time. While France certainly didn't want war, they were absolutely committed to it in the event of a German invasion of Russia and had begun mobilization as the confrontation grew on the Eastern front.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

IMO politics aside there was a good case for Britain not getting involved in a European war at all back then.

I don't think that was ever seriously in the cards. Britain's own treaty obligations are what brought her into the war...and I doubt she ever seriously considered getting out of them. For one thing the UK was starting to be a bit alarmed about the growing German Navy...as well as Germany's growing over seas colonial empire. Germany was perceived as becoming a serious threat...so the war just gave the Brits the excuse to go to war (just like most of the other major powers in Europe...it was a set of dominoes that invariably lead each nation into the conflict). Besides, I don't think anyone foresaw exactly what this war would be like (had they paid more attention to the US Civil War they would have at least had an inkling...though they should have known anyway from their own conflicts).

IIRC the British population (not unlike the populations of the other major powers) were pretty enthusiastic about the war and the prospects for victory. My guess is that each sides military high command were equally confident of a swift and crushing victory. It wasn't until they were hip deep in the war (and so were stuck) that the realization (eventually...these folk were pretty thick) that this was not going to be over by Christmas....


The US on the other hand COULD have stayed safely out of it. We were under no treaty obligations after all. Sure, the Germans had given us Casus Bellum...but we didn't HAVE to take them. Or, we could have waged a more limited naval war instead, supplying the Allied powers with war material while protecting the convoys....and letting the Euro's do what they do best, slaughter each other in job lots...while keeping our ground troops completely out of the conflict.

-XT