Define the adjective as you see fit.
I wrote that it was decisive in a Wikipedia article, FWIW, and was surprised how quickly that was challenged. I’ve read pretty widely on military history and never thought that would be a particularly controversial/debatable proposition.
Without my cites at hand, it probably was. You can’t replay history, but the facts are that
However, there is an argument to be made the other way. I don’t necessarily agree with it but let me play devil’s advocate:
Despite entering the war in 1917, the U.S. had no significant presence in Europe for quite some time. It was not until March 1918 that the AEF had even three divisions in France, which represented a very small part of the Allied front - probably less than five percent - and were very green and in many cases underequipped troops. The AEF at that point in the war wasn’t a tenth the fighting presence that the Canadian Corps was, and the Canadian Corps was a small part of the British force, which in turn wasn’t as big as the French Army.
Later in the year the AEF got very large and engaged in massive combat operations against Germany; by September, to continue with the comparison, the AEF was five times bigger than the Canadian Corps, had battle experience and was kicking ass and taking names in what had become a war of manoevre. So the question is, when was the war decided? One could argue that the war was effectively decided by the failure of the German offensive in March, and that once that failed they’re pretty much shot their load and were doomed to defeat. If you buy that, then you can argue American troops were not a decisive factor. But if you argue the Germans could still have fought the Allies to a standstill, it’s impossible to dismiss the contribution of a gigantic field army that engaged in combat operations on a scale never seen before.
It all boils down to how decisive you think the failure of the German offensive in March was. If you believe that that doomed Germany, and that civil unrest and the fall of the Kaiser were inevitable once Paris couldn’t be taken, then you can fairly reasonably conclude that the AEF just sped up the end of the war, rather than deciding it.
If on the other hand you think a failure of ALLIED offensive in the middle of 1918 would have allowed the Germans to conclude a favourable peace - there’s no doubt in my mind the war was going to end no later in 1919, no matter what - then the sher volume of U.S. troops was undoubtedly indecisive. John Keegan comments tha tthe sudden arrival of the Americans was disheartening to a lot of German troops, as you can certainly imagine; here they’re crushed the Russian Empire, have damn near beaten the French and the British, victory’s at hand, and along comes a fresh new army with a seemingly limitless number of men. It’d be like winning a tough boxing match through fourteen bloody rounds and then in the middle of the last round they send a brand new guy out to start punching you. Keegn doesn’t really support how much this demoralization meant, though, and it’s hard for me to believe battle-hardened German troops would just give up. They fought hard enoguh to kill fifty thousand American soldiers, so they sure weren’t going easy.
All of the major nations in the conflict were poised on the knife edge of collapse by 1918. It was just a matter of who collapsed first. Sort of like a house of cards that has had cards systematically removed until it’s poised to fall. The US was like the slight breeze that causes the collapse.
So, were we ‘decisive’? I’d say yes…we were the final straw that broke Germany’s back and ended the war. This isn’t to say that we played a great role in WWI, since we didn’t. But by the time we entered the war the Euro’s had basically pounded each other nearly into scrap, and any injection of fresh troops and material was going to be decisive at that point.
-XT
Yes, the simple addition of US manpower and resources was decisive. WWI was simply a war of who could keep throwing the most soldiers into the meatgrinder, when the US entered Germany basically was forced to realize that it just couldn’t keep up, so to speak. Decisive doesn’t mean the US won the war by itself, of course. It would be no diferent than a tug-of-war stalemate and then one side suddenly gets Mark McGwire pulling for their side.
I have always thought that WWI was far more interesting than WWII, but it doesn’t have a convenient bogeyman like the Nazis and there isn’t the black and white footage so most folks know little about it.
I think it was the injection of material and capital as much as manpower that tipped the balance. I remember reading somewhere that towards the end the Germans were digging up the sewer and water systems in their towns for the metals in the pipes…that’s how strapped for materials they were becoming. The French and Brits were also on the ragged edge of economic collapse towards the end. It was only a matter of time before one (or all) of them simple fell apart. By the injection of fresh American troops, of supplies and material, the scales tipped oh so slightly towards the allies and Germany flew apart.
From our perspective, I’m still unsure that entering the war was necessary or even desirable.
-XT
Another factor to consider too, is that the German Spring Offensive was in large part because the Americans had entered the war, and the Germans wanted to end the war before significant American troops could strengthen the Allied lines. So, without American entry, the Germans might not have decided to risk everything on one last offensive.
I think American troops were decisive but mostly in a psychological way. Their actual role in the field was relatively minor but the fact that they were there at all and everyone knew they would soon be coming in much larger numbers caused the German collapse.
Perhaps “crucial” would have been less controversial that “decisive”. The latter term may have been taken by some to imply that US involvement reversed an Allied disadvantage as opposed to tilting the balance in their favor.
I doubt the Germans would have foregone their spring offensive absent US intervention – Their pain under the blockade, plus the availability of troops from the east, argued heavily in favor of a major offensive.
This is my understanding as well.
In 1917, the US produced over half of the global food exports. Once the US entered the war this became available to the Allies. And the US spent $17.1 billion in just the 18 or so months it was at war. Compare this to the British Empire which spent $23 billion over all four years, or Germany which spent $19.9 billion total for the war. Compared to the vast contribution in material, the 3 million plus men the US provided were much less important. The arms, shipping, food, etc. were all vital. Without it the Allies may not have been able to force a decision.
Wouldn’t the blockade have made eventual German defeat inevitable, once they were past the stage of being able to launch a major offensive. The Germans needed to break the allied lines. The allies just needed to stay put and wait.
The Germans were already being blockaded, so that wouldn’t have changed. I also don’t think the allies could have just waited them out either…their own economies were on the verge of collapse as well. It was just a matter of who was going to fold their hand first.
-XT
It would be an interesting what-if scenario to consider what would have happened if the US had not entered the war, or if the Germans’ last offensive had been successful. It should probably get its own thread, I suppose.
NJTT and Umbriel2 have it pretty right- the blockade had so weakened Germany that the offensive (Operation Michael) was necessary in March 1918. The population was starving and there were crucial shortages of everything. There were no phosphates available for fertilizers hence food production was diminished, aircraft flying hours were curtailed due to lack of petroleum, and the fleet was very close to mutiny (which eventually happened).
I’m not convinced that the entry of the USA was psychologically damaging to Germany . Remember it was Germany who provoked the USA into entering the conflict so it was hardly a surprise.
Was the US intervention decisive? Probably not, but it sure helped.
Fascinating! Thanks.
That was very interesting indeed - thanks. I think he’s wrong about Hitler not necessarily intending Germans to be a new Master Race, and he seems oddly equable about Nazism generally, but it was a good read.
American intervention meant the difference between stopping the Germans and actually beating them. The 1918 offensives sputtered out before the US was really there in force, but having the manpower to take the offensive meant that Germany couldn’t just sit and defend what it had and hope for good terms when all sides cracked.