The overwhelming majority of combat deaths in the Great War were, I believe, caused by artillery. My source here is John Terraine’s “The Smoke and the Fire,” but unfortunately my copy is at home and I am at work. I also remember that disease was another huge killer. Neither of these were invented in the US.
As for the attacks on generals, well, I have said before that while there were certainly major mistakes made, I don’t see the British generals had many other options to the tactics of winning the war through attrition.
But without the Somme (and arguably Third Ypres) there would not have been the breakthroughs in 1918. Or if they had occurred, they would have been rolled back pretty fast by the German reserves. By the time it came to 1917-18, the reserves that Germany could have used to block the holes in the line were rotting in the mud of the Western front.
The French mutinies were massed acts of disobedience which were solved, for the most part, by French commanders giving their soldiers more allowance and benefits (e.g. more leave and a dedication to finding better ways to fight) not something that an officer could quell with a pistol. They also weren’t full blown mutiny, just a refusal to participate in pointless offensives… French soldiers continued to defend French soil with ferocious tenacity.
Thanks for the great responses! (Sending the link to this thread to my friend as we speak. Not that he’s still likely to believe).
Agree completely. Whatever we could have put in the field at the beginning of the war would have essentially evaporated in some of those early battles. Logistically we just couldn’t have put enough over the big pond to make even a small difference early on. The only reason we had any impact at all is because the European powers were basically exhausted by then…and we had years to prepare (even so, our troops were poorly equipped and trained, relying on often horrible European weapons and tactics).
Wasn’t me afaik. This was the first time I ever heard anyone make this argument. Also, to clarify…he wasn’t saying that America is to blame for WWI, he was saying that America was to blame for the slaughter that occurred during the war. I find both positions pretty weak (as I told him at the time), but there is a distinction. He freely acknowledges that it was the various European powers and the treaty system that is at fault for the root causes of the war…he just felt that the war would have gone much differently without all those damned American inventions, that the war would have been more decisive and short (with France and the UK winning easily of course), with a lot less slaughter and horror.
I certainly don’t see how Woodrow Wilson is to blame for WWII OR Viet-nam to be honest. Mind, I’m no big fan of Wilson myself, but I don’t see how you could reasonably put all that on his shoulders. I’d be interested if you can find that thread as to what the reasoning was there.
On other subjects he is actually quite an intelligent man. He’s a very nationalistic Frenchman who doesn’t like the US…and on that subject he has some very strong feelings that aren’t always reality based (though sometimes they are when he’s talking about more current politics).
I’ve never heard this before either, so my guess is that this isn’t a widely popular belief in Europe (to understate things greatly)…limited perhaps just to my friend and a couple of people in his family (his father mainly I take it) and his SO.
Anyone want to take a shot at the the other part of my OP? Namely speculation on how many of these weapons would have been developed anyway, regardless of if they were first invented in the US? Also, what impact on the war if Maxium’s machine gun wasn’t invented and developed before the war? The air plane? Submarine? Barbed wire? Wouldn’t the Europeans STILL have had to go to the trench system because of bolt action rifles and artillery? Wouldn’t grand cavalry maneuvering STILL have been a losing proposition and wouldn’t the war still have dragged on (maybe longer?)?
A very weak argument has been put forth regarding the Vietnam claim. Ho Chi Minh approached Wilson, (as the representative of the first powerful, self-declared democracy that set an example for throwing off colonial rule), looking for help in getting recognition that the European colonial powers should beging freeing their colonies. Wilson rebuffed him.
Wilson was known to be pretty racist, and that is often the reason put forth for Wilson ignoring the request of an Asian. There is probably also a fair amount of truth to the notion that Wilson bought into the concept of the White Man’s Burden. However, putting the blame for the Vietnam War (the big one, not just the U.S. involvement later on), fails for the same reason that the claims about Wilson being responsible for WWII fail: Wilson was prety much ignored at Versailles. There was a bit of lip service toward his “ideals,” but the rest of the European powers hammered out their own deals and imposed their own rules without regard to Wilson. Had he actually gone against his own beliefs and promoted the end of colonial rule, they would not have even given him the courtesy of polite applause at his requests.
I’d be very curious to know whether the OP’s friend could make a case that the United States is somehow responsible for the bloodshed during the Napoleonic wars, especially the invasion of Russia. It seems that Europe is perfectly capable of killing their fellow Continent-dwellers on a dramatic scale without the benefit of “American” technology. The insanity of war is indeed reflected in the ruthless efficiency of killing machines, but the madness principally resides in the leadership and the causes that claim to make the war necessary.
Weeeeel, since the Spanish Flu was first observed among soldiers at Ft Riley, Kansas, and was brought to Europe along with the soldiers, there’d be some room for a claim that it was “invented” in the US.
Funny you should mention this, as in fact we have discussed this in the past. His contention on this point is that had France not poured in massive amounts of money to prop up the US revolutionaries it wouldn’t have bankrupted the French monarchy…and so there would have BEEN no continent wide Napoleonic Wars, no French Revolution (when and how it happened…he thinks the French would eventually have adopted something like what the English have though he bases this on nothing more than wishful thinking IMHO).
He then goes on to contend that, having bankrupted the French economy to help us with our revolution we turned our backs on the French later on when they disparately needed OUR help against the British (there actually is at least a glimmer of merit to this claim).
I didn’t know that. Why is it called the Spanish Flu if it originated in Kansas?
Disease wasn’t one of the things my friend mentioned as our fault…but then, like me, he might not be aware that the Spanish Flu originated here in the US either.
Like Struan, I think your friend’s pulling your chain more than he’s being serious. You can connect virtually every event that has ever happened to any important country that existed at the time. Next he’ll be telling you the Cultural Revolution, the AIDS crisis, and the GUlags were all the fault of the USA… as long as you keep arguing with him.
Yeah, he’s got to be pulling your chain. If France spends its money recklessly, then there’s nobody to blame but France. That’d be like blaming French mirror-makers for the high cost of building Versailles, which led to revolution decades later.
And besides, we all know that it is the damn Flemish who are behind everything that’s wrong with the world. If only the Walloons could contain the horrible influence of the flatlanders, there would be no Osama bin Laden or global warming.
Well, I don’t want to get into a hijack of the thread (in case anyone else wants to make some comments on other aspects of the OP). I think my friend is completely serious about his positions. Granted, I’ll argue about anything and from either side…I love to argue and debate…so its possible he’s just having a go at me. However, even before we became close friends he was talking about the French Revolution stuff (the WWI thing was new).
At any rate, I’ll just leave it there…he could be pulling my chain, I think he’s serious, but it doesn’t really impact the OP and whats under discussion. Most of what’s been said thus far in the OP is pretty much the same points I used in our discussion (though I didn’t know about the Spanish Flu bit).
-corroborates the relevant portion of my original post. Very interesting story.
Isn’t it though? Given the scope of the Manhatten project, I’m sure someone of the fairer sex played a key role in there somewhere, but I was thinking more along the lines of a singe inventor. I’d wager that it has happened, but find it surprising that no attributions/connections (however tenuous) come to mind.
[Noob question]
How does one present a link without the address of the website appearing?
[/Noob question]
The machine gun, submarine and airplane were “inventions whose time had come”, and in fact France still claims a Frenchman invented the airplane (and it was close). The Gatling gun was a step forward but the true inventor of the MG was Maxim, who was born in America but was a naturalized Briton. But it matters not, if you went back in time and assasinated the Wright Brothers, Gating and Maxim, they still would have had airplanes and machineguns by WWI. Exactly who “invented” the submarine is debatable, but still, there would have been subs.
Pretty much you can lay Barbed wire 100% on Americans, however. Europeans had no reason to invent it.
WWI was just another European war, in a long series of such. It just was bigger than it’s immediate predessors, that’s all.
Rifling: actually a US Civil War timeline is not far off. Although certainly rifling had been invented and used before that time, it was very very slow to load, thus wasn’t practical. The Minie projectile is what revolutionalized the change from smoothbores to rilfes as a standard issue weapon.
Exactly. I don’t know for sure, but at a guess the principals of gas operated re-cocking devices were under study in Europe at the same time there were here…and if it hadn’t been Maxim it would have just been someone else who did it prior to the war. I suppose its possible that whoever it was wouldn’t have sold it to every European nation (as Maxim did), but I don’t think you could have kept it secret in any case.
As to the air plane, again, I think that several inventors in Europe were right on the verge of powered flight before the Wrights. I know that after the Wrights first flew there was a huge amount of development in Europe toward powered flight. And the sub was pretty much already in development…I don’t think the US’s role in the early stages of that were at all significant.
True. However, IIRC we didn’t use it for any military applications before the war…it was simply used to fence in livestock and such. Granted, the combination of barbed wire and machine guns that could continuously fire at 400+ rounds per second (indefinitely…well as long as you had cold water to circulate around the barrel at least) is what made trench warfare so brutal. However, I’m pretty sure that if barbed wire wasn’t around something else would have been used to slow troops up to give the guns more time to kill.
I don’t think that any of these inventions were unique to the US…all of them would have been there in WWI with or without us. If Maxim wasn’t around then someone else would have invented a gas operated water cooled killing machine. If the Wrights hadn’t been someone else would have simply been the first for powered flight (I don’t think the Wrights had much to do with military aviation development at all). The sub I don’t think was really American at all. Rifling was in Europe long before the US…and even multi-shot rifles and pistols weren’t invented here.
All in all the claim is BS (as others have said)…and I think the core question I was asking, i.e. wouldn’t those weapons have been there anyway is answered…yes, they would have been there regardless.
