U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-23-2015, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Bronx
16,231 posts, read 19,962,626 times
Reputation: 8236

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by xander.XVII View Post
It's also noteworthy that Germans were literally starving to death in at the beginning of 1918: a big reason to rush the offensive in the West.
While the French Army suffered mutinies (which never translated in "deserted sectors"), France in 1918 held the majority of the line, had the majority of troops, tanks and guns, produced the majority of Allied equipments and fought as hard as Great Britain (with the slight difference that France had been fighting non-stop since 1914, while Britain had to build up her strength).
Britain main military might was in her Navy and the Royal Marines. Britain might was not with her army. Britain had a large empire, and controlled global trade routes which required a large Navy, and marines to invade incase of hostilities. When Britain got involved due the Germany violating Belgian sovereignty, Britain had to send an expeditionary army who thought the war would be over by Xmas and Germany would be pushed back. Britain will also make that same mistake during the 2nd World War.


Remember Britain pride is not with the army, but with its Navy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2015, 08:25 PM
 
Location: On the road
2,778 posts, read 2,191,511 times
Reputation: 3147
Both sides of the conflict were worn out and sick of the thing by the time American joined in.
It has been suggested several times that whichever side the Americans threw in with could have gained an advantage and forced the Armistice, and gained the better position during negotiations.
Though as stated above, getting troops and supplies from the US to the Central powers would have been far more difficult, and our sympathies were leaning more towards the Allies.
Had we stayed out of it, the armistice would have likely happened sooner, and with neither side having the advantage to force such difficulties on the other as were forced upon the Central nations.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2015, 04:49 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 16,077,679 times
Reputation: 13743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese View Post
Britain main military might was in her Navy and the Royal Marines. Britain might was not with her army. Britain had a large empire, and controlled global trade routes which required a large Navy, and marines to invade incase of hostilities. When Britain got involved due the Germany violating Belgian sovereignty, Britain had to send an expeditionary army who thought the war would be over by Xmas and Germany would be pushed back. Britain will also make that same mistake during the 2nd World War.


Remember Britain pride is not with the army, but with its Navy.
Your comment was true in 1914. However, by 1918, the British Army was four million strong and played a decisive role in the German defeat.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2015, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,852 posts, read 1,849,359 times
Reputation: 4532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
Your comment was true in 1914. However, by 1918, the British Army was four million strong and played a decisive role in the German defeat.
And they just started tapping into their colonial manpower.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2015, 12:56 AM
 
Location: Bronx
16,231 posts, read 19,962,626 times
Reputation: 8236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
Your comment was true in 1914. However, by 1918, the British Army was four million strong and played a decisive role in the German defeat.
British army also helped break the deadlock on the front with the invention of the tank.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2015, 11:03 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,423 posts, read 10,636,776 times
Reputation: 6978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese View Post
If the US shifted its support to Germany, probably Germany would have had a chance at Victory. The US wanted to remain neutral but public opinion, America's Anglo heritage and the business class wanted to support Britain and its Empire, the very same organization that the US has a colony chased out 140 years prior. Germany could have won World War 1, but Germany suffered from a poor alliance system. Italy did not want to fight for the Alliance and did not intervene in the war. Austria was a declining power in all regards, and the Ottoman Empire was also on the decline and was the sick-man of Europe. Both Austria and Ottoman Empire suffered from constant ethnic rebellions that saw their Empire's shrink. Also Britain controlled trade routes. One of the routes Britain controlled was Mediterranean, Britain controlled its entrance off the coast of Spain by Gibraltar, they controlled Malta, they controlled Cyprus, and the Suez Canal. Any American goods that need to get to Austrian and Turkish ports would be impossible. Also American ships would have to pass through the English Channel to get to Germany again Britain controlled that shipping lane. In order for US to help Germany. The US needs to build a Navy that can not only match but out match Mother Britain. The US wont surpass the British Navy Until World War 2.
Not to go off topic too much but I have always wondered what would have happened if the USA had tried to break the British blockade of Germany in WW1. Or at least insisted that food, medicine and clothing would be allowed to go through on neutral shipping.

In real life, the Americans did protest to the British but the German Uboat campaign gradually became more of an issue to the Americans then the British blockade.

In any case, if the Americans entered the war somehow on Germany's side (extremely unlikely), I think the Central Powers would have won.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2015, 11:51 AM
 
14,256 posts, read 16,077,679 times
Reputation: 13743
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Not to go off topic too much but I have always wondered what would have happened if the USA had tried to break the British blockade of Germany in WW1. Or at least insisted that food, medicine and clothing would be allowed to go through on neutral shipping.

In real life, the Americans did protest to the British but the German Uboat campaign gradually became more of an issue to the Americans then the British blockade.

In any case, if the Americans entered the war somehow on Germany's side (extremely unlikely), I think the Central Powers would have won.
But could the Americans have broken the British blockade sufficiently to allow large quantities of men, equipment and other supplies to get to Germany before Britain and France struck decisively on the Western Front? In addition, much of the equipment used by the AEF was supplied by Britain and France. Would Germany have had the means to equip the AEF to the same extent?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2015, 02:53 PM
 
Location: SE UK
8,887 posts, read 7,565,557 times
Reputation: 6196
People seem to be forgetting just how desperate the people in Germany were in 1918, they were starving to death on the streets, how typical of Americans to say something like 'if we joined the central powers they would have won'!! THE problem for Germany at that time was the naval blockade, if the US decided to join the central powers it would have made no difference to the Germans seeing sense first and 'throwing in the towel' because it would not have stopped the innocent population back home from starving to death, by 1918 the writing was already on the wall on this one.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2015, 03:43 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 16,077,679 times
Reputation: 13743
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome View Post
People seem to be forgetting just how desperate the people in Germany were in 1918, they were starving to death on the streets, how typical of Americans to say something like 'if we joined the central powers they would have won'!! THE problem for Germany at that time was the naval blockade, if the US decided to join the central powers it would have made no difference to the Germans seeing sense first and 'throwing in the towel' because it would not have stopped the innocent population back home from starving to death, by 1918 the writing was already on the wall on this one.
Also, breaking the blockade was easier said than done. The Royal Navy was bigger than the German and US navies put together. It is far from certain that American intervention could have broken the blockade or that American troops and equipment would have reached Germany.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2015, 01:32 AM
 
Location: Bronx
16,231 posts, read 19,962,626 times
Reputation: 8236
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Not to go off topic too much but I have always wondered what would have happened if the USA had tried to break the British blockade of Germany in WW1. Or at least insisted that food, medicine and clothing would be allowed to go through on neutral shipping.

In real life, the Americans did protest to the British but the German Uboat campaign gradually became more of an issue to the Americans then the British blockade.

In any case, if the Americans entered the war somehow on Germany's side (extremely unlikely), I think the Central Powers would have won.
If the US declared war against former colonial master Britain during World War 1. The US first military engagement with the British wont be in Europe, or even on the high seas. It would result with the invasion of Canada and occupation. Also the US would also invade all of Britain's Caribbean holdings such as Bahamas, Jamaica, Bermuda which are not far from the US. Also another tactic would be is to persuade Latin America to go against Great Britain.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:24 AM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top