What if America had never gotten involved in WWI? (generals, 1930's, Hitler)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not quite, my friend, only that both sides were exhausted and the Germans could see the handwriting on the wall when green, untested Americans began arriving and Germany had no comparable reserves to throw against them. In a few months those Americans would no longer be green and untested and by the spring of 1919 they would be pushing the Western Front back into Germany. In many ways a great-uncle of mine perfectly typified America's experience in World War I: He arrived at a turnip field on the Western Front, spent one night there, and the next day the war was over and he went Back Home.
The Battle of Amiens, which began on 8 August 1918, was the opening phase of the Allied offensive later known as the Hundred Days Offensive that ultimately led to the end of the First World War. Allied forces advanced over 11 kilometres (7 mi) on the first day, one of the greatest advances of the war, with Henry Rawlinson's British Fourth Army playing the decisive role. The battle is also notable for its effects on both sides' morale and the large number of surrendering German forces. This led Erich Ludendorff to describe the first day of the battle as "the black day of the German Army". Amiens was one of the first major battles involving armoured warfare and marked the end of trench warfare on the Western Front, fighting becoming mobile once again until the armistice was signed on 11 November 1918.
Amiens was a predominantly British Empire operation and was the first use of combined forces of tanks, artillery, aircraft (600), infantry, etc, - Blitzkrieg. It was total surprise. One British tank ran for 9 hours in the German lines causing havoc before the Germans levelled an artillery gun that happen to hit it.
USA involvement in the military aspect was minimal to say the least. The only point of US involvement that might have swayed the Germans was that there was another army to face. OK green and using outdated US Civil War tactics, but they needed to get men and equip them to face this army.
And the tactics weren't the worst of it. About half the AEF's Corps commanders launched attacks after the signing of the Armistice, ie to take trenches which the Germans had already agreed to evacuate.
Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett was not a purely British phenomenon.
And the tactics weren't the worst of it. About half the AEF's Corps commanders launched attacks after the signing of the Armistice, ie to take trenches which the Germans had already agreed to evacuate.
Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett was not a purely British phenomenon.
US general, Pershing, lost about 3,000 men fighting for trenches he could have walked into in a few days time. How idiotic!
Did any of you hear the theory that if the US didn't enter WWI, then Britain and Germany would have come to a stalemate and everything would have went to the way it was before, and then the unfair Treaty of Versailles and WWII would never have happened? If this is true, then the US is indirectly responsible for starting WWII and the 50-70 million casualties that resulted from it.
That's what this popular online philosopher named Stefan Molyneux says. Check out his explanation in his videos here. What do you think?
Did any of you hear the theory that if the US didn't enter WWI, then Britain and Germany would have come to a stalemate and everything would have went to the way it was before, and then the unfair Treaty of Versailles and WWII would never have happened? If this is true, then the US is indirectly responsible for starting WWII and the 50-70 million casualties that resulted from it.
That's what this popular online philosopher named Stefan Molyneux says. Check out his explanation in his videos here. What do you think?
Somewhere in this thread I agreed that if the United States did not enter the War then there may very well have been a stalemate lasting until 1919 or even 1920. No way to really tell, its just guessing.
However all of the Allies combined to defeat Germany in WW1 so the idea that the United States is somehow more responsible for Hitler is preposterous. Actually, I would think the Germans themselves had something to do with the rise of Hitler? Just saying.
However all of the Allies combined to defeat Germany in WW1 so the idea that the United States is somehow more responsible for Hitler is preposterous. Actually, I would think the Germans themselves had something to do with the rise of Hitler? Just saying.
Read The Wages of Destruction - The Making andf Breaking of the NAZI Economy by Adam Tooze - 2006
Tooze: Preface xxiiv: "America should provide the pivot for our understanding of the Third Reich. In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler's aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the USA as the global superpower."
Tooze: Preface xxvi:
"Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the USA"
Tooze emphasises how backward German agriculture was. Tooze describes Germany as a medium sized workshop economy dependent on imported food.
Hitler feared the rise of the USA, whose industrial and economical influence was felt in Germany. Hitler specifically mentioned the efficient US vehicle industry. He feared efficient US industry would wipe out European industry.To counter the USA, Hitler wanted Germany to control the Continent, the British the other parts of the world. He admired the British empire stating Germany could never have done it better than the British. He thought this was the only way to preserve European culture being self contained with no indirect economical control from the USA. Fighting the British was not a part of his view, hence wanting a Germany/UK/France alliance in the 1930s. He gave out many feelers for peace after September 1939.
Hitler did not want Germany being a sub-set economy. Hitler wanted to be alongside the USA and Britain as world economic powers. He also wanted Germany to be an influential power in the world. Hitler could see how the UK was influential because it possessed the largest empire ever seen, and he accepted that. However he could not accept the upstart USA being a world economic power spreading its culture too. Both the British Empire and the USA had access to large natural resources, while Germany did not.
The standard of living in the USA, Germany could not match. Even if Germans enjoyed a higher standard of living than the USA without stealing land in the east, that would still not be acceptable to Hitler as their economy was a sub-set and foreign industry was setup in Germany.
Hitler was attempting to put Germany, a relatively new nation, in a world economic position without having built anything up as the British had over centuries, and without any significant natural resources, as the USA had. To do that he had to steal from others. The place that had resouces was to the east of Germany. It was populated with few resource surpluses. Expanding Germany into the east and removing the populations would give resource surplusses for Germany to make her compete on a world stage.
Germany had industrialised in the late 1800s/early 1900s, however was still largely an agricultural country with outdated agriculture which contrasted sharply with some of its top-line industries. It could not feed itself without importing food - animal and human. It had no control of the imported food production and not full control of the souce distribution of its imported food. The world was moving away from coal as the prime fuel and turning to the magic oil, which also contained many properties to extract for other valuable products. The USA had an abundance of oil extracted mainly from the stolen territory in the west, the UK had oil in its empire, Germany had none.
The UK became a world player over centuries building up an empire and world trade routes. The USA did it by expanding west taking land. The precedence of the USA in taking land and removing the populations was one way Germany could be a major economy, major power, self sufficient in most aspects and have influence.
1. The German mentality was one of being a world economic player longside the UK and USA.
2. The precedence of the USA's rapid rise to a world economic power, based on land acquisition by force from indigenous people and the Mexicans, and largely eliminating the indigenous populations convinced the Germans they could do the same to their east.
Did any of you hear the theory that if the US didn't enter WWI, then Britain and Germany would have come to a stalemate and everything would have went to the way it was before, and then the unfair Treaty of Versailles and WWII would never have happened? If this is true, then the US is indirectly responsible for starting WWII and the 50-70 million casualties that resulted from it.
Problem with this is that, absent US intervention, a stalemate is a win for the Central Powers.
They are standing on enemy territory everywhere, save a corner of Upper Alsace, another corner of Eastern Galicia and (from 1917) two corners of the Ottoman Empire. These, plus Germany's worthless scraps of colonial territory, are all the Entente has in the way of bargaining chips. So in any "compromise" settlement it is the Entente who will have to do most of the compromising.
And even that's a bit theoretical. When the Poilus learn that their government is accepting a peace with no Alsace-Lorraine, no reparations, and generally no nothing, morale (shaky already) is liable to collapse, opening the way to an outright CP victory. So the move for a compromise peace actually leads to a dictated peace.
The precedence of the USA's rapid rise to a world economic power, based on land acquisition by force from indigenous people and the Mexicans, and largely eliminating the indigenous populations convinced the Germans they could do the same to their east.
That's what AJP Taylor said in The Course of German History -
"If the Germans had succeeded in exterminating the peoples to their east, as the white settlers did the American Indians, this would have the same effect on them that it has had on the Americans. The Germans would have become apostles of international brotherhood and goodwill".
That's what AJP Taylor said in The Course of German History -
"If the Germans had succeeded in exterminating the peoples to their east, as the white settlers did the American Indians, this would have the same effect on them that it has had on the Americans. The Germans would have become apostles of international brotherhood and goodwill".
Problem with this is that, absent US intervention, a stalemate is a win for the Central Powers.
They are standing on enemy territory everywhere, save a corner of Upper Alsace, another corner of Eastern Galicia and (from 1917) two corners of the Ottoman Empire. These, plus Germany's worthless scraps of colonial territory, are all the Entente has in the way of bargaining chips. So in any "compromise" settlement it is the Entente who will have to do most of the compromising.
And even that's a bit theoretical. When the Poilus learn that their government is accepting a peace with no Alsace-Lorraine, no reparations, and generally no nothing, morale (shaky already) is liable to collapse, opening the way to an outright CP victory. So the move for a compromise peace actually leads to a dictated peace.
Let's say you're right and the final outcome is a "win" for the CP, it is at best a Pyrrhic win and the upside is that the Germans should be satisfied by the outcome for at least a generation. After all they would have their hands full incorporating the land they got from Brest-Litovsk.
The Austrians and the Ottomans were bound to collapse regardless due to the rise of nationalism so Germany is the only CP to come out ahead.
I for one do not give a rat's ass who emerges victorious at the end of the Great War. After the third year I doubt any of the soldiers on any side knows what the war was about. The German Empire while autocratic is nothing like the Nazis and Europe at least would be better off if it had remained in power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just saying.