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.
Hypothetically, what if during WWI America had never gotten involved at all in WWI. Whether it be sending troops or supplies or support of any kind? Would there have been a stalemate? Would the Central Powers eventually succeeded, or do you think the Allies would've still eventually won albeit with more casualties?
I think the deciding factor would be if Germany could produce enough subs to blockade England, a large enough fleet of surface ships to contain the British Fleet. Then it could strictly be a war of attrition until one side either ran out of bodies, bullets or the will.
It would all come down to who has the resources to produce more than the other side, the means to get it to the battle, and the men to use it, without ships, the British would be hurting on all three, and France on getting resources.
Hypothetically, what if during WWI America had never gotten involved at all in WWI. Whether it be sending troops or supplies or support of any kind? Would there have been a stalemate? Would the Central Powers eventually succeeded, or do you think the Allies would've still eventually won albeit with more casualties?
It would still be going on.
Actually no, I think the Germans probably would have won. Had it not been for the Americans, who while I don't think won the war, played a decisive role in winning war though the addition of fresh troops that made the Germans desperate. I look at the Spring 1918 offensive and see that without the Americans, a less-desperate Germany high command might have come up with more sound strategic goals and they wouldn't have seen their advantage in divisions on the Western Front ebb away thanks to the arrival of the Americans. Even though the Kaiser seemed to think little of the Americans' fighting ability, their numbers and the advantage they would give the allies once at full strength no doubt made the German high command nervous and played a huge role in making the 1918 offensive strategically aimless in nature. Then again, I can see, based upon the successes of the British offensives of 1917 how the Allies could have won too. Either way, I think it would have been close, but overall, I think without the addition of the Americans, the Germans could have delivered a more decisive blow in 1918 and wouldn't have been in such a hurry to launch their offensive, which was a tactical success but strategic failure. Just my opinion.
America didn't win either World War in some kind of epic Hollywood history way, and in respect of WW1 US involvement was minimal compared to most nations, and real American involvement didn't occur until March 1918. The Central Powers were already broken, impoverished and war weary from fighting the Allied powers from 1914. The same is true of WW2 with the Russians playing the most significant role and suffering horrendous casualties in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey Wheatcroft - The National Interest
The idea that the United States was the savior of Europe in World Wars I and II is popular in some circles on both sides of the Atlantic, but is demonstrably false. Between the formal entry of the United States into the Great War in April 1917 and the last German offensive in March 1918, hundreds of thousands of Entente soldiers were killed, mainly British in the summer and autumn of 1917 after the frightful slaughter of the French army in the spring; and in that period of nearly a year, fewer than two hundred Americans died. In the course of that war, the Frenchmen killed defending their country were twice as numerous as all the Americans who have died in every foreign war taken together from 1776 until today.
As a matter of historical fact, the Third Reich was defeated by the Red Army and not by the Western democracies. Even though over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day and V-E day, more than half a million Russians were killed.
The United States did enter the Great War in April 1917, and the U.S. Army did take part in serious fighting on the Western Front from the following March (though not before). By the end of the war many Americans had had quite enough. The United States retreated inward, with the Senate vetoing membership in the League of Nations, Woodrow Wilson’s brainchild, and also slammed America’s doors shut on immigrants for decades to come.
After twenty isolated years the United States entered the next great conflict as well, but only in December 1941, when Great Britain had been at war for two-and-a-quarter years, and then because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the United States (and not the other way round, be it remembered). In his most exalted “special relationship” mode after 9/11, Blair told the people of New York that:
My father’s generation went through the Blitz. They know what it is like to suffer this deep tragedy and attack. There was one country and one people which stood by us at that time. That country was America and those people were the American people.
This was wondrously rewritten history even by his standards. During the bombing of London and other British cities from the autumn of 1940 until the spring of 1941 which we called the Blitz, very many people stood side by side with the British: the Commonwealth countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa; the great Indian Army entirely composed of volunteers; the conquered and occupied countries whose governments were exiled in London and whose fighting forces were shedding blood alongside their British comrades; and far from least, Greece, which was heroically defending its soil against the Axis that winter.
All in all, and with the notable exception of Soviet Russia, that other sleeping giant that wanted only to be left alone, it’s hard to recall any important country that didn’t stand “by us” that winter apart from the United States, conspicuously and profitably neutral. Blair’s preposterous words would not matter so much if they had not underlain the gravest decision and worst mistake by any prime minister in generations.
In 2003, Hague likewise spoke of the United States as the savior of mankind for its role in World War II: “Without America, France would have lived under dictatorship for decades. Without America, the Germans would not have rescued themselves from a racist ideology.” This is more nonsense. The simple truth that the Third Reich was defeated by the Red Army is now acknowledged by all serious military historians. That includes Roberts, whose next (and grown-up) book, Masters and Commanders, shows how great were the tension and rivalry between American and British leaders during that war.
America didn't win either World War in some kind of epic Hollywood history way, and in respect of WW1 US involvement was minimal compared to most nations, and real American involvement didn't occur until March 1918. The Central Powers were already broken, impoverished and war weary from fighting the Allied powers from 1914. The same is true of WW2 with the Russians playing the most significant role and suffering horrendous casualties in the process.
[..] A Love Lost Over the Atlantic | NSPM in English
A good article. I detested Thatcher, but she was direct and upfront with Reagan and he respected her for that. Americans like direct leaders so they got along well.
The French, British and Russians were just too big.
US involvement in WW1 was not even worth mentioning. The push had already started that ended the war.
The first waves of US troops were mauled badly.
"Blitzkrieg", combined forces, was first used by the British as the Battle of Amiens.
The Royal Navy blockade of Germany was starving the people - literally.
Except of course that the Entente wouldn't have had the $7.5 billion in unsecured loans that they received as a result of the US declaration of war. That means losing the imports of food and other vital materials which these sums purchased. Given that the battles of March/April 1918 were decidedly "nip and tuck even as things were, you probably get a German win.
BTW, the blockade owed a lot of its effectiveness to US intervention. The Northern Neutrals, which were the principal loophole in it, got most of their imports from the US, so that one America entered the war, these could be controlled at source.
The French, British and Russians were just too big.
US involvement in WW1 was not even worth mentioning. The push had already started that ended the war.
The first waves of US troops were mauled badly.
"Blitzkrieg", combined forces, was first used by the British as the Battle of Amiens.
The Royal Navy blockade of Germany was starving the people - literally.
The Russians were out of the war by 1918, surrendering to Germany and Austria. France would probably not have sustained a well planned offensive later in 1918. Their troops had mutinied in 1917 and might have again. If the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had been more lenient, the Germans would not have needed to keep 1 million troops in the conquered territories which Russia was forced to surrender. By 1918, Hindenburg was afraid to transfer many Eastern front veterans to France because the Bolsheviks had been encouraging them to revolt. And they might have.
By forcing Germany's hand in early 1918, America probably did save France from defeat. Aided by Germany's own actions.
With Russia's capitulation, the Germans could have had the forces to at least push France and England into a cease fire treaty.
All sides were exhausted, basically out of troops and supplies so it was just a matter of time until the civilian populations of all involved countries would have demanded an end.
The influx of American troops and supplies put pressure on Germany, and much like the Star Wars program of the 80's when Russia couldn't match the resources of the US, Germany couldn't replace it's men and materials to counter the threat.
Perhaps if the US hadn't become involved, there would have been a brokered peace agreement similar to the end of the Russian-Japanese war a few years before.
Of course, that could have meant that the Kaiser would have remained on the throne, Hitler wouldn't have risen, and there is the distinct possiblity that western Europe including Germany and Austria would have allied with France and England against the anti-monarchist communists in Russia for the 2nd world war.
Who knows for certain? All we know is what did happen, but the possible historical twists are interesting to speculate on
The French, British and Russians were just too big.
US involvement in WW1 was not even worth mentioning. The push had already started that ended the war.
The first waves of US troops were mauled badly.
"Blitzkrieg", combined forces, was first used by the British as the Battle of Amiens.
The Royal Navy blockade of Germany was starving the people - literally.
Yeah the mighty Russians were too powerful for the Germans. The Treaty of Brest Litovsk proved that.
Had it not been for U.S. entry, the German spring offensive never would have occurred. The Germans had a manpower advantage over France and Britain in early 1918, and would have worn them down eventually. It was the arrival of millions of fresh American troops that tipped the scales in favor of the Allies.
The breakthroughs began to occur as U.S. troops poured into the lines and resumed frontal assault tactics. The British and French had abandoned frontal assault tactics as they sustained high casualties earlier in the war. It was the U.S. frontal assaults that won the war. The British successes were made possible by U.S. actions.
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.
