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.
Beat me to it!
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.
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’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.
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.
You’re welcome.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great comedy - pity it has nothing to do with the reality of WW1.
Yanks, shmanks. The whole thing was over when Canadians took Vimy Ridge. After that, it was just mop-up.
-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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.