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.
The relevance any of this has on my original post/question?
In a nutshell then the trenches the Doughboys existed in were exactly like those of the Germans, French British and Canadians. Mother nature didnt favour any nation when it came to p*****g down on the troops, rats were as happy in American trenches as they were in the rest and so was trench foot. The only difference i could imagine were that the Americans brewed coffee and smoked cigars as opposed to tea and cigarettes. The sense of fear was mutual and when an American had to crap in whatever crude facility was provided for it stunk exactly the same as British, French, Canadian and German crap and in hot weather the flies loved it exactly the same
In a nutshell then the trenches the Doughboys existed in were exactly like those of the Germans, French British and Canadians. Mother nature didnt favour any nation when it came to p*****g down on the troops, rats were as happy in American trenches as they were in the rest and so was trench foot. The only difference i could imagine were that the Americans brewed coffee and smoked cigars as opposed to tea and cigarettes. The sense of fear was mutual and when an American had to crap in whatever crude facility was provided for it stunk exactly the same as British, French, Canadian and German crap and in hot weather the flies loved it exactly the same
Hope that helps a bit
Well no not really, because there isn't a lot of information for how long the Americans spent in them given that the bulk of their forces didn't arrive until the last few months before the armistice whereas we know the British, French and Germans were there for years on end. Not to mention, the salients that many of the regular US Army units were in as early as late 1917 (near Verdun) may not have gotten hit by as much artillery and may not have gotten as much rainy weather for example. None of this we can know because there's so much less information about the US military involvement in WWI.
Well no not really, because there isn't a lot of information for how long the Americans spent in them given that the bulk of their forces didn't arrive until the last few months before the armistice whereas we know the British, French and Germans were there for years on end. Not to mention, the salients that many of the regular US Army units were in as early as late 1917 (near Verdun) may not have gotten hit by as much artillery and may not have gotten as much rainy weather for example. None of this we can know because there's so much less information about the US military involvement in WWI.
Lloyd George detested King George, referring to him as "my little German friend." He missed appointments with the king and did not respond sometimes to the king. The PM simply disdained the king and would not have listened to him and perhaps might have seen him as a German sympathizer.
I wonder if Lloyd George ever paid a visit to the western front. Maybe crouched in a trench under an onslaught of enemy artillery with big clods of earth falling on his little Welsh head might have served some use as an education.
At least during WW2 Winston Churchill paid visits to combat zones several times
Is it possible to ever conduct a major research study on the US military involvement in WWI without a British person coming along to compare it to the other belligerents involvement and blame someone for not stepping up until later on despite the fact that most of the British forces themselves didn’t show up on the Western Front until spring-early summer 1916 whereas the French army had all been there since day 1 back in August 1914?
WW1 ordinary soldiers and junior officers all had a similar experience, as for the US soldiers they were only there for the last part of the war, and did not endure the same experience for any where near as long.
I therefore really don't know why your thread isn't just about the experience of the average WW1 soldier rather than merely American service personnel, who were only unique in the fact that they escaped three quarters of the war and therefore spent less time on the front line and had far fewer casualties as a result.
As for comparisons, Europeans often find it impossible to discuss the World Wars without some American claiming we saved your asses and other such nonsense.
I wonder if Lloyd George ever paid a visit to the western front. Maybe crouched in a trench under an onslaught of enemy artillery with big clods of earth falling on his little Welsh head might have served some use as an education.
At least during WW2 Winston Churchill paid visits to combat zones several times
King George visited troops in France, making five trips which included visiting the wounded. Once he was severely injured when thrown from his horse. Lloyd George made trips to the front, don't know how many:
King George visited troops in France, making five trips which included visiting the wounded. Once he was severely injured when thrown from his horse. Lloyd George made trips to the front, don't know how many:
WW1 ordinary soldiers and junior officers all had a similar experience, as for the US soldiers they were only there for the last part of the war, and did not endure the same experience for any where near as long.
I therefore really don't know why your thread isn't just about the experience of the average WW1 soldier rather than merely American service personnel, who were only unique in the fact that they escaped three quarters of the war and therefore spent less time on the front line and had far fewer casualties as a result.
As for comparisons, Europeans often find it impossible to discuss the World Wars without some American claiming we saved your asses and other such nonsense.
Putting the word "Saved" aside the fact is that without American intervention in the war in Europe Operation Torch would not have taken place, the landing in Sicily and the Italian mainland a non event. D-Day also a non starter. Britain and it's Commonwealth forces simply did not have the manpower or the materiel to carry out such major operations so the war would have taken a totally different turn.
Churchill's decision to fight on in June 1940 paved the way for the future liberation of Europe four years later.
In short the British-American alliance was a success of gigantic proportions. Lets just leave it at that.
All the more reason that they should have declared a truce and set about talks towards an end to that disgraceful war
I actually mistook one of the posts on here to be yours when it was actually that of Brave New World. It's just you two both wrote in a similar style which is why I was confused. If you were wondering why our conservation went the direction it did, that's why.
As for comparisons, Europeans often find it impossible to discuss the World Wars without some American claiming we saved your asses and other such nonsense.
Europeans (though really only British people) always make this claim, but can never actually give a direct example. I'd also be curious how this has anything remotely relevant to anything this thread is about.
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.
