Political Crossfire Forums

[Felix]

Blogotron wrote: Anyone recall the book ( perhaps 5 years old now) that proposes that it was the US that was the deciding factor in WWI and without the Americans the Axis powers would have surely won?

Are you talking about 'The Myth of the Great War' by John Mosier?

Also, the alliance opposing the Entente in World War One was called the Central Powers, consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungrary, Bulgaria and the Ottomon Empire. The Axis alliance didn't exist until after WWI.

[thundertaker]

BobbyO wrote: The United States.

In the spring of 1918 was not analogous with the spring of 1945. Germany could have still have won the war had their 1918 offensive succeeded. Both sides were exhausted and it was fresh American troops who bucked up the allies and and pushed the Germans out of gas.

Germany was losing the war of Attrition. Again, the Royal Navy was perhaps the most important player in this war. She blocked Germany from being able to receive any supplies from overseas, whilst the U-boat campaign failed to starve the allies in turn.
The 1918 Spring Offensive was initiated as a desperate gamble by the German High Command precisely because the americans had joined the war and they needed to try and destroy the the allied armies in France before the Americans arrived in significant numbers, otherwise they were certainly doomed.
The gamble didn't pay off. It was halted mainly by French and British troops and then US soldiers arrived in numbers that were impossible for the Germans to overcome. They had no choice but to surrender at that point.
However, if the americans hadn't entered the war, Britain and France would still have won the war because they had way more access to resources.....

[Eton]

I think Thunders first post just about sums it all up, splitting hairs and all.
However, I would downplay the RN's role, since the Germans were synthasising most of the materials they could not get from overseas.
Furthermore as regards to the US role, we know from diaries and official reports on the German side, that the average German soldier was demoralised as hell because just when they had finished off the Russians and were ready to give the kiss of death to the western allies the Americans entered, so I would argue that it was the demoralising factor of having to face millions of yanks in 1919 that finally compelled the Germans to give up. The 1918 spring offensive was a last throw of the dice to end it all before US troops arrived in sufficiently large numbers. The British/French armies defeated it through Petain's 'elastic defence' tactics.

One thing is for sure, is that Japan definately did not bring about the destruction of imperial Germany.

[thundertaker]

Quote: Furthermore as regards to the US role, we know from diaries and official reports on the German side, that the average German soldier was demoralised as hell because just when they had finished off the Russians and were ready to give the kiss of death to the western allies the Americans entered

The Americans entered the war in April 1917, the Russians did not suspend military activities on the Eastern Front until after the October/November Revolution.....

The Royal Navy's role should not be downplayed. Many Germans were forced to survive on potato peelings due to the British blockade. It severely hampered Germany's industrial output, and Germany was in no position to out-produce or out-manufacture France or Britain after the Battle of Jutland in 1915......

Edit:- Interesting essay on the subject....

[Eton]

thundertaker wrote: Quote: Furthermore as regards to the US role, we know from diaries and official reports on the German side, that the average German soldier was demoralised as hell because just when they had finished off the Russians and were ready to give the kiss of death to the western allies the Americans entered

The Americans entered the war in April 1917, the Russians did not suspend military activities on the Eastern Front until after the October/November Revolution.....

The Royal Navy's role should not be downplayed. Many Germans were forced to survive on potato peelings due to the British blockade. It severely hampered Germany's industrial output, and Germany was in no position to out-produce or out-manufacture France or Britain after the Battle of Jutland in 1915......

Edit:- Interesting essay on the subject....

OK OK, but real American pressure was only felt in mid 1918, the Germans knew that there was a short window of opportunity to win the war, when the British and French armies defeated the spring offensive they could not face the idea of a prolonged was of attrition against the yanks.

[Eton]

On a side note, sweet jesus those Germans really knew how to fight wars, lucky for us they were absolutely crap at choosing worthy allies. Makes me think that a united EU defense force should be led by the Germans while the diplomacy is left to the Brits.

[Simon De Montfort]

I would have to with France. Without the French Army to engage the bulk of the German Army Germany could have taken the resources they neeed from Russia. Thus rendering the RN blockade moot.

I made the same mistake John Galt did and misread the title of the thread and voted for Russia. :!oops:

[Andromedos]

This is a good question, but hard to answer. While France payed a tremendrous price in blood and land for the victory, it could most likely not have hold out if Germany had not been forced to fight Russia at the same time. But of course, the efficency of the Royal Navy blockade is not to be underestimated. While the Germans were quite ingenious in finding and synthesizing replacements for necessary industrial raw materials, the blockade also stopped any food import. And since the imperial German gouvernment completely failed to organise the national food production (thanks to the landowning nobility who stopped any effort to organise food production), Germany slowly starved too death. While the soldiers had more or less enough to eat most of the time, it was the civilian population, and also the POWs, who suffered most. In the end, more German civilians died due to the british blockade than in WWII due to the bombing raids.
This lack of food and other necessary goods destroyed the moral of the German people, which in the end led to the German revolution.


Quote: On a side note, sweet jesus those Germans really knew how to fight wars, lucky for us they were absolutely crap at choosing worthy allies. Makes me think that a united EU defense force should be led by the Germans while the diplomacy is left to the Brits.

From what I read, and from what friends, in the German army told me, the pillars of the German army were disciplin, education, and comradeship.
Disciplin would make the soldiers do what theys were ordered to do. Education ensured that they could do what they had to do most efficently. It was, for example a great advantage that all German soldiers could read, contrary to for example many illiterate Russian soldiers. Also, the soldiers were able to finish the job themselves in case their commanding officier got killed.
And finally, comradeship made sure the soldiers cared about making the mission a succcess.

About the Germans choosing crappy allies: I read a story a while ago in which Germany and Britain came over their differences in the early 20th century, and formed an alliance. It's quite a good read.

http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/ASHATW.htm

[ToonArmyIsComing]

I have to disagree with everyone here. Germany defeated itself in this war by its disastrous strategic mistakes.

[BobbyO]

thundertaker wrote: BobbyO wrote: The United States.

In the spring of 1918 was not analogous with the spring of 1945. Germany could have still have won the war had their 1918 offensive succeeded. Both sides were exhausted and it was fresh American troops who bucked up the allies and and pushed the Germans out of gas.

Germany was losing the war of Attrition. Again, the Royal Navy was perhaps the most important player in this war. She blocked Germany from being able to receive any supplies from overseas, whilst the U-boat campaign failed to starve the allies in turn.
The 1918 Spring Offensive was initiated as a desperate gamble by the German High Command precisely because the americans had joined the war and they needed to try and destroy the the allied armies in France before the Americans arrived in significant numbers, otherwise they were certainly doomed.
The gamble didn't pay off. It was halted mainly by French and British troops and then US soldiers arrived in numbers that were impossible for the Germans to overcome. They had no choice but to surrender at that point.
However, if the americans hadn't entered the war, Britain and France would still have won the war because they had way more access to resources.....

And the French millitary was alos facing revolt.

By 1918 it was not just a question of resources, but will and endurance. Had the German offensive succeeded, the allies would have collapsed.

[Canadian-kid]

Canadian-kid wrote: well it's difficult to say, Britian did a strong job defending agaisnt the german navy and many nations pilots including a large amount of Canadians held back the Lufawafa (sp?) the United States contributed a great amount in D-day as did many nations. I gave my vote to the soviets for how much man power they put into holding back the germans and ocupying so muhc of their attention as to make D-day not only possible but a huge success.

frig I have to start reading the topics a little longer and stop skimming them. Okay WW1 not 2 hmmmmmm let's see. That's a tough question alot of countries contributed to it. My vote which I acidentally gave to russia would go to Canada, we contributed greatly to the defeat of the Germans at the battle of Vimmy Ridge taking out their four trenches in a matter of hours using incredibly battle strategy to defeat the Germans. Also early on in the war we made a bold stand at ypres holding the line for two days agaisnt german gas attacks before gas masks were standard issue.

[psholtz]

Where was Germany getting its oil during WWI?

I actually don't know the answer to that question, although I'm sure it's pretty key to answering such a question. The Germans were busy building a railroad to Mosul/Baghdad just before WWI, but the possibility of oil in Mosul was only a hunch in 1914.. Oil wasn't actually struck in Mesopotamia until the 1920s, and it wasn't discovered in the Saudi kingdom until the 1930s.

Britain had oil coming in from Persia, and more distantly from Mexico. The Dutch (more or less allied w/ UK viz Royal-Dutch Shell) had oil from the Dutch colonies in Indonesia, and the US had domestic sources, not to mention the fact that Rockefeller had been angling to get a handle on the Baku fields in the Capsian Sea, which he basically did after the Russian Revolution in 1917 (at least, until Stalin came to power).

But I'm not sure where Germany (or for that matter, France) was getting its oil.. :think:

[euro]

Britain and France weathered the storm beginning to end and commited huge wads of military resources absolutely essential to the defeat of Germany. Russia did its bit by fighting off troops that would have otherwised allowed Germany to overrun France (i.e. Austria-Hungary), and by mobilizing much faster than Germany had thought possible. American troops had been vital in 1918 at stopping the Germay Spring Offensive which managed to swing around to withing 100kms of Paris.

Essentially however Germany lost WWI 14 days into it at Liege when they abandoned the Schlieffen plan, and the internal political disunity within Germany did not help either.

[Snow Patrol]

euro wrote: Britain and France weathered the storm beginning to end and commited huge wads of military resources absolutely essential to the defeat of Germany. Russia did its bit by fighting off troops that would have otherwised allowed Germany to overrun France (i.e. Austria-Hungary), and by mobilizing much faster than Germany had thought possible. American troops had been vital in 1918 at stopping the Germay Spring Offensive which managed to swing around to withing 100kms of Paris.

Essentially however Germany lost WWI 14 days into it at Liege when they abandoned the Schlieffen plan, and the internal political disunity within Germany did not help either.
I don't understand your Austro-Hungarian reference, it seems completly out of context to me.

Also, of the people voting for the US, anyone care to justify why, without getting confused with WW2? :wink:

[psholtz]

sherborne wrote: Blatantly Britain all the way. If it wasnt for Britain then the following would/would not have happened
You're correct, in that if it wasn't for Britain, WWI would never have happened.. :lol:

But, more to the point, yes the British did win the war, but they won the war using American money (specifically, JP Morgan's money). The U.S. emerged from WWI relatively debt-free, while Britain emerged from WWI deeply, deeply in debt to the U.S..

Something to consider..

[thundertaker]

psholtz wrote: sherborne wrote: Blatantly Britain all the way. If it wasnt for Britain then the following would/would not have happened
You're correct, in that if it wasn't for Britain, WWI would never have happened.. :lol:

But, more to the point, yes the British did win the war, but they won the war using American money (specifically, JP Morgan's money). The U.S. emerged from WWI relatively debt-free, while Britain emerged from WWI deeply, deeply in debt to the U.S..

Something to consider..

Which only goes to show how the idea that Britain deliberately started this war and the next one to increase it's standing in the world is a bit daft.......

[psholtz]

thundertaker wrote: psholtz wrote: sherborne wrote: Blatantly Britain all the way. If it wasnt for Britain then the following would/would not have happened
You're correct, in that if it wasn't for Britain, WWI would never have happened.. :lol:

But, more to the point, yes the British did win the war, but they won the war using American money (specifically, JP Morgan's money). The U.S. emerged from WWI relatively debt-free, while Britain emerged from WWI deeply, deeply in debt to the U.S..

Something to consider..

Which only goes to show how the idea that Britain deliberately started this war and the next one to increase it's standing in the world is a bit daft.......
Britain deliberately started the war to knock out the Baghdad-Berlin Railway, a goal they were willing to pay price to attain..

Please try to keep up w/ the rest of us.. :wink:

[euro]

Snow Patrol wrote: euro wrote: Britain and France weathered the storm beginning to end and commited huge wads of military resources absolutely essential to the defeat of Germany. Russia did its bit by fighting off troops that would have otherwised allowed Germany to overrun France (i.e. Austria-Hungary), and by mobilizing much faster than Germany had thought possible. American troops had been vital in 1918 at stopping the Germay Spring Offensive which managed to swing around to withing 100kms of Paris.

Essentially however Germany lost WWI 14 days into it at Liege when they abandoned the Schlieffen plan, and the internal political disunity within Germany did not help either.
I don't understand your Austro-Hungarian reference, it seems completly out of context to me.

Also, of the people voting for the US, anyone care to justify why, without getting confused with WW2? :wink:

Well Austria-Hungary sent its troops into the Baulkans and then to the Russian Empire, if Russia had not entered the war the Baulkans would have been crushed and Austria-Hungary's troops would have been used on the Western Front.

As for the US, anybody who thinks that they contributed the MOST is a total idiot. I like to approach of Leopold von Ranke to history, in other words "what did happen" not opinions, the people who voted USA have opinons not worthy of a personal narrative or a fantasy book. In WWI and WWII there were far more important countries than the USA, especially since the USA never fought the full duration of either wars.

[Snow Patrol]

euro wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: euro wrote: Britain and France weathered the storm beginning to end and commited huge wads of military resources absolutely essential to the defeat of Germany. Russia did its bit by fighting off troops that would have otherwised allowed Germany to overrun France (i.e. Austria-Hungary), and by mobilizing much faster than Germany had thought possible. American troops had been vital in 1918 at stopping the Germay Spring Offensive which managed to swing around to withing 100kms of Paris.

Essentially however Germany lost WWI 14 days into it at Liege when they abandoned the Schlieffen plan, and the internal political disunity within Germany did not help either.
I don't understand your Austro-Hungarian reference, it seems completly out of context to me.

Also, of the people voting for the US, anyone care to justify why, without getting confused with WW2? :wink:

Well Austria-Hungary sent its troops into the Baulkans and then to the Russian Empire, if Russia had not entered the war the Baulkans would have been crushed and Austria-Hungary's troops would have been used on the Western Front.
If Russia hadn't entered the war, then France wouldn't have entered either. Since there would be no German invasion of Belguim, Britain wouldn't have been involved, meaning there would have been no western front for the Austro-Hungarians to enter.

[thundertaker]

psholtz wrote:
Britain deliberately started the war to knock out the Baghdad-Berlin Railway, a goal they were willing to pay price to attain..

Please try to keep up w/ the rest of us.. :wink:

Willing to destroy Britian's position as the world's most powerful nation and be supplanted by the United States, whom she would be heavily indebted to?!?

Cui Bono Psholtz?