NationStates Jolt Archive

To stop the over-ongoing debates over WWI, French History, and WWII I have created this thread, please continue your debates here.

To stop the over-ongoing debates over WWI, French History, and WWII I have created this thread, please continue your debates here.

WWI stalled in France until the USA came to help! If the US hadn't come along, and most historians agree on this, WWI probably would've grounded to a halt there.

WWI stalled in France until the USA came to help! If the US hadn't come along, and most historians agree on this, WWI probably would've grounded to a halt there.

What historians are that, the US contribution to the war was nil in terms of military equipment and men. The French would've probably beaten the Germans without US help in 1918.

WWI stalled in France until the USA came to help! If the US hadn't come along, and most historians agree on this, WWI probably would've grounded to a halt there.
Bullshit. Practiacally ever historian agrees that the American were unneeded for the first world war. Those that think the Americans did play an key part obviously overlook the other things that led to the Armistice.

Almost 90 years on and your are still going on about technicalities. Who carse who did what as long as the Nazis were defeated. Want theat the point afterall?

What historians are that, the US contribution to the war was nil in terms of military equipment and men. The French would've probably beaten the Germans without US help in 1918.

OK just to get the talks going.

With what? They were pretty well bleed dry.

Almost 90 years on and your are still going on about technicalities. Who carse who did what as long as the Nazis were defeated. Want theat the point afterall?
Wrong war dear.

Almost 90 years on and your are still going on about technicalities. Who carse who did what as long as the Nazis were defeated. Want theat the point afterall?

Wrong war

What historians are that, the US contribution to the war was nil in terms of military equipment and men. The French would've probably beaten the Germans without US help in 1918.

I at least partly agree. From my knowledge, the US were as bad as the french and british were during the early stages of the Somme - which is partly because they were inexperienced - but i'm pretty sure they managed to blow themselves up as much as the Germans. It was definately the British and French that delivered the most to the allied victory of WW1.

Almost 90 years on and your are still going on about technicalities. Who carse who did what as long as the Nazis were defeated. Want theat the point afterall?

You mean the Kaiser! Nazi Germany wasn't around until 1933 and was defeated in 1945 in WWII!

OK just to get the talks going.

With what? They were pretty well bleed dry.

The German's overextended their supply lines so that the troops at the front were left with inadequete supplies.

Their was a serious 'flu epidemic in Germany.

The Germans were literally being starved out of their country by the nazy blockade preventing anything coming in.

PS. The allies were bleed dry, but so were the Germans. To a greater extent even.

OK just to get the talks going.

With what? They were pretty well bleed dry.

As were the Germans, and after Kaiserschlacht was defeated the Germans had no hope of winning on the Western Front, just falling back. The German homeland was coming apart due to the war and blockade.

WWI stalled in France until the USA came to help! If the US hadn't come along, and most historians agree on this, WWI probably would've grounded to a halt there.



Not correct. The allies (Britain /France) were on the offensive when the USA entered the war....(because of the sinking of one of her ships). The German's knew their war was over because they just did not have the manpower to continue, and seeing the fresh and countless USA soldiers really was the last straw.

The German's overextended their supply lines so that the troops at the front were left with inadequete supplies.

Their was a serious 'flu epidemic in Germany.

The Germans were literally being starved out of their country by the nazy blockade preventing anything coming in.

There was also a food shortage in germany near the end of the war, before the british navy blockade.

The Germans very nearly did win though, the reason their supply lines were stretched was because of the Kaiserslauten offensive, which took the frontlines all the way back to within a few miles of paris. Then the germans ran out of supplies and lost.

As were the Germans, and after Kaiserschlacht was defeated the Germans had no hope of winning on the Western Front, just falling back. The German homeland was coming apart due to the war and blockade.

True but both sides were very well drained. Kaiser Bill didn't want to upset America so he never really did anything to America. However, there was the thing called the Zimmerman note that really pissed us off. That was one reason why we got involved in WWI!

True but both sides were very well drained. Kaiser Bill didn't want to upset America so he never really did anything to America. However, there was the thing called the Zimmerman note that really pissed us off. That was one reason why we got involved in WWI!

But the French and British were less drained than the Germans, they could make well their material losses (though not entirely their manpower losses). The Germans had no manpower to draw from, and their industry was beginning to crash due to lack of material, ersatz material can only go so far.

There was also a food shortage in germany near the end of the war, before the british navy blockade.

The Germans very nearly did win though, the reason their supply lines were stretched was because of the Kaiserslauten offensive, which took the frontlines all the way back to within a few miles of paris. Then the germans ran out of supplies and lost.
I realise that. Oh the irony, if they had used that tactic at the beginning of the war, it may have been different.

Bullshit. Practiacally ever historian agrees that the American were unneeded for the first world war. Those that think the Americans did play an key part obviously overlook the other things that led to the Armistice.

The only thing that all us historians agree upon is that we have no idea how anything would have turned out except for how they turned out. We can parade around all the "What Ifs" until our ears bleed, but we have no bloody clue how the war would have turned out if America didn't join in. We can theorize, but the only way we could know for sure is for someone to go back in time and prevent America from entering. The "practically every historian agrees" is crap because historians don't agree on anything.

The only thing that all us historians agree upon is that we have no idea how anything would have turned out except for how they turned out. We can parade around all the "What Ifs" until our ears bleed, but we have no bloody clue how the war would have turned out if America didn't join in. We can theorize, but the only way we could know for sure is for someone to go back in time and prevent America from entering. The "practically every historian agrees" is crap because historians don't agree on anything.
Well said. I might accept "the concensus of historians is ..." for several things though, but not "what ifs".

The only thing that all us historians agree upon is that we have no idea how anything would have turned out except for how they turned out. We can parade around all the "What Ifs" until our ears bleed, but we have no bloody clue how the war would have turned out if America didn't join in. We can theorize, but the only way we could know for sure is for someone to go back in time and prevent America from entering. The "practically every historian agrees" is crap because historians don't agree on anything.

True, but considering the US joined the war so late, and partly because of this only had a relatively small number of troops fighting, i find it hard to believe that if the US had not joined the war, that there would have been any major difference in the outcome.

True, but considering the US joined the war so late, and partly because of this only had a relatively small number of troops fighting, i find it hard to believe that if the US had not joined the war, that there would have been any major difference in the outcome.

Yeah, but there are more intangible benefits of the US joining the war. The arrival of a new ally revitalized British and French troops, because for the first time it looked like they might be able to win the war. This morale boost was extremely important on the Western Front for troops that had experienced nothing but misery for 3 years in the trenches.

Like I said, there's no way of knowing for sure what would have happened if America hadn't entered the war. For every argument that says America did not affect the outcome whatsoever, there's an argument that says America was the catalyst for the Allied victory.

point taken.

Look, i'm pretty sure we've worn the whole US involvement with WW1 dry. Maybe we should start another historical argument...

The only thing that all us historians agree upon is that we have no idea how anything would have turned out except for how they turned out. We can parade around all the "What Ifs" until our ears bleed, but we have no bloody clue how the war would have turned out if America didn't join in. We can theorize, but the only way we could know for sure is for someone to go back in time and prevent America from entering. The "practically every historian agrees" is crap because historians don't agree on anything.
Granted.

I was actually wondering if anyone would pick up on the "practically every historian agrees" line. I know it is crap. It has been pointed out by too many teachers (1) that you can never get away with that in a proper essay.

However, I still believe that the Germans would have lost anyway. Although i admit that the Americans provided a moral boost, but I do not think it was a key factor to the war.

point taken.

Look, i'm pretty sure we've worn the whole US involvement with WW1 dry. Maybe we should start another historical argument...

How about, was Napoleon a brilliant general as he is made out to be.?

Hmm, my knowledge of Napolean is pretty slim... in fact the only real thing i can remember about it is that he had a really good memory for names. hehe

He would also only promote officers he thought were lucky.

I know one we can be frankophobe about:

"Was France justified in blocking Britains membership to the EEC (now EU).?"

I know he went from Lieutenant to General at the age of 24. That was after the siege of Toulon if i'm not mistaken. So he must have done something very important there or he was very lucky and had a friend in higher military circles

at a lecture a year or two back a friend of my family and also the former director of the military museum in Copenhagen.. and currently the director of the defenses publick affairs.. said(roughly)

well if the Us hadnt interveened the french would have gotten squashed sooner or later.. the Us reqonised this and sent troops atleast partly because they wouldnt wanner risk loosing the money that were owed to them..

and after world war one supricingly enough there were speculations of Denmark starting a ww2..

(we had a very bloated military budget a few years back then... like 10% were used solely on a single military instalation.. wich btw currently make exelent mushroom cellers.. and a single wine celler also)

hope that wraps it upp...

I know one we can be frankophobe about:

"Was France justified in blocking Britains membership to the EEC (now EU).?"
Given how the Brits always moan and bitch about the EU. Yes.

The US did not make a major part in WWI - although what they did was pivotal for morale on both sides. Napoleon was a great general, but he got too power hungry.

French Army rifle for sale, Never been fired, dropped only once.
The last great winner of war for France was Nepolean, and he wasn't French.
He was from Corsica.

Granted.

I was actually wondering if anyone would pick up on the "practically every historian agrees" line. I know it is crap. It has been pointed out by too many teachers (1) that you can never get away with that in a proper essay.

However, I still believe that the Germans would have lost anyway. Although i admit that the Americans provided a moral boost, but I do not think it was a key factor to the war.

You forget the Russian factor. Russia collapsed in the end of 1917. Germany supported the Communists because it thought it could dictate them peace conditions. Which actually happen. In March 1918 they were able to reach a seperate peace with the Bolsheviki. That made it able to sent troops from the east front to the west.
That couldn´t change anything due to the huge arrivals of fresh American troops. But without them (hypothetically assuming that the US wouldn´t entered the war))?????
For thing can be said. The war wouldn´t very likely not have ended in 1918 then.
However: given the logistical support by the US it can be assumed that in the long run the Entente had the bigger resources.
None the less: it may have taken longer for them. And that could have led to diplomatic initiatives which might have created a deal between the parties involved.

No American troops and Von Hutier and Bruchmuller on the Western front. I'd bet my money on a German victory. It would mean, not Versailles and no Hitler in power in '33.

No American troops and Von Hutier and Bruchmuller on the Western front. I'd bet my money on a German victory. It would mean, not Versailles and no Hitler in power in '33.
I disagree with you. I think it would be much of a draw actually. However: from the resources the entente was stronger. But probably they would have been a deal because France and Britain wouldn´t have the prospect of a victory in a foreable timeframe.

I know one we can be frankophobe about:

"Was France justified in blocking Britains membership to the EEC (now EU).?"
Looking to the fact the question is rather whether Britain wants to be a member of the EU. It failed to participate in the first steps in the 1950s and shortly after it joins there was already a referendum about leaving it again.
So: the British (actually the English) intransigence towards the EU is much bigger than any French negative feelings towards Britain which may exist - I know they do - after all: almost every nation in Europe has had wars with each other - so almost everybody has some reasons not to like the other.

Really the War was ended by diplomatic initiatives. Althought the threat of invasion hung over the new Weimar Republic, it was more of a bargining tool to make them sign the Treaty of Versailles. During the next decade or so there was a feeling that Germany and especially it's soldiers had been stabbed in the back by Ebert and his ministers, due to the fact that Germany wasn't invaded. Coupled with the belief that the German military was invincible and could have won, if it had been given a little bit more time.

The antipathy generated over Versailles (especially the War Guilt clause and the reparations) helped Hitler get to power with the promise that he reverse the hated treaty.

The French also weren't much help, only adding to the problems by invading the Ruhr when the Germans fell behind with their reparations.

However back on topic. Even though the Russian Revolution eliminated one front that needed to be fought, the German War machine was falling to pieces. Due to war commitment factory workers and labourers had to fight, removing them from factories and farms. Although the situation was similar in Britain, empty places could be filled by literally importing labour from the colonies (especially the Caribbean). Also the Empire and the position of the island meant that Britain was never seriously short of anything.

Germany, on the other could not. The Naval blockade meant that it was starved and lacked resources.

Looking to the fact the question is rather whether Britain wants to be a member of the EU. It failed to participate in the first steps in the 1950s and shortly after it joins there was already a referendum about leaving it again.
So: the British (actually the English) intransigence towards the EU is much bigger than any French negative feelings towards Britain which may exist - I know they do - after all: almost every nation in Europe has had wars with each other - so almost everybody has some reasons not to like the other.
Originally the British Government felt that it didn't need to belong to it, as it had the Empire to trade with and a special relationship with US. However it became clear that not being in the EEC was depriving it of a huge market and a lot of money. However the first two time that Britain tried to join, De Gualle blocked the membership, it was only after he was gone we were able to join.

I actually forget the reason why he didn't want Britain to join.

European history of the 19 th and the first half of the 20 th century is actually a complete mess.
After the French revolution in 1789 the coalition (England, Russia, Prussia, Austria) tried to reestablish the monarchy. It failed with its attempts in the 1790s.
Napoleon aimed French hegemony in Europe, destroying the Holy Roman Empire (which was headed by the Austrian king) in 1806 which has been around for more than thousand years (800-1806), defeated Austria and Prussia and forced upon them humiliating peace treaties. France for example annexed huge territories on the Rhein (not only the French speaking once by the way) and Prussia lost half ot its territory and the Austrian Empire its access to the Mediterranean.

In 1870/71 the Prussians took revenge for that, annexing Alsace-Lorraine and declaring the unification of Germany in the mirror room of the castle in Versailles. In the same room Germany was forced to sign the Versaille treaty of 1919 which ended formally the war.
This arch-enemieship between France and Germany was one cause of many mischief in Europe. Aside the other rivalries in Europe (for example on the Balkans and about colonies overseas).

And World War II was of course even more desasterous for Europe and the world than the first one - although - I think a British historian - said correctly on the begining of World War I that the lights in Europe are switched of and it is going to need a long time till we switch them on.

Actually: only with the end of the Cold War in 1990 there is the opportunity to switch it on again.
The enlargement of EU and Nato are important steps in that direction.

In 1870/71 the Prussians took revenge for that, annexing Alsace-Lorraine and declaring the unification of Germany in the mirror room of the castle in Versailles.
Was this the war between France and Germany which was started by the French because they were tricked into it by the Germans?

I think it is time for me to dig out my old French History books.

I actually forget the reason why he didn't want Britain to join.

Well: the Entente collapsed actually soon after the victory. It was considered by Britain and the US to appoint a miliary commander to rule over France. De Gaulle was of course very angry about it. So already at the last phase of world war II there were some disagreements (and tensions) between France and US-UK.
The last military action between the UK and France which can be considered as part of the Entente - to my knowledge - was the occupation of the Suez channel in 1956 - which was both rejected by the USA and the USSR.
After that this partnership ended. The UK chose to be junior partner of the US and France tried some kind of "independence strategy".
On step was the reconciliation with Germany. The Elysee treaty of 1963 (already under de Gaulle) actually laid the basis for the reconciliation between the nations and for a strategic alliance between the two which still exists today. This dominated the EEC (at that time there were only 6 members after all) and especially France had a dominating role. He certainly feared that this would be challenged by Britain.
Well: and he feared the British would be a trojanic horse of the US.

Well: the Entente collapsed actually soon after the victory. It was considered by Britain and the US to appoint a miliary commander to rule over France. De Gaulle was of course very angry about it. So already at the last phase of world war II there were some disagreements (and tensions) between France and US-UK.
The last military action between the UK and France which can be considered as part of the Entente - to my knowledge - was the occupation of the Suez channel in 1956 - which was both rejected by the USA and the USSR.
After that this partnership ended. The UK chose to be junior partner of the US and France tried some kind of "independence strategy".
On step was the reconciliation with Germany. The Elysee treaty of 1963 (already under de Gaulle) actually laid the basis for the reconciliation between the nations and for a strategic alliance between the two which still exists today. This dominated the EEC (at that time there were only 6 members after all) and especially France had a dominating role. He certainly feared that this would be challenged by Britain.
Well: and he feared the British would be a trojanic horse of the US.
I think that might be it. The embarasing thing about this is that I had to learn it last semester.

However in the eyes of our Governments the Entente is still strong. Recently there was a 'celebration'* of the Entente's centenerary.



*Celebration may be a bit strong, it wasn't as if there was dancing in the streets over it.

WWI stalled in France until the USA came to help! If the US hadn't come along, and most historians agree on this, WWI probably would've grounded to a halt there.
Yea. Europe was in a stalemate, and we came in and kicked some ass and ended the war. w00t.

Yea. Europe was in a stalemate, and we came in and kicked some ass and ended the war. w00t.
Did you read the thread. The amount of ass kicked by the US was minimal. It is doubtful that joining the war broke the stalemate.

WWII is a different kettle of fish though.

Yes, but it were the Prussians under von Bismarck. And the French were stupid enough to go in this trap.
The reason was rather to finally unify Germany.
There were three wars (Prussia/Austria - Denmark for Schleswig-Holstein in 1862, 1866 and 1870/71.)

After the German war in 1866 between Prussia and Austria (leadership row) which was won by Prussia the so called German Confederation was cancelled and Austria had to give up all ambitions in the north. Prussia founded the North German Federation, including all states north of the Main river (everything except South Germany).
Only Baden, Würtenberg, Bavaria (and a few mini states) were left. The only obstacle for a final unification was France.
And by provocing France he forced the South German states to join the Prussians in the fight and to agree to the unification under Prussian leadership.
Btw: Austria remained neutral (Prussia had not taken away territories in 1866)
and afterwards the German-Austrian alliance was formed.
So: diplomaticly a great work as well.

Technically, the American forces although pivotal to the victory that the Allies secured would not have occurred if the Germans stayed instead on the defense and not squandered a strong army in their final last ditch attack. Instead, the war would have stayed in stalement for an extended period of time.

In 1870/71 the Prussians took revenge for that, annexing Alsace-Lorraine and declaring the unification of Germany in the mirror room of the castle in Versailles.

Was this the war between France and Germany which was started by the French because they were tricked into it by the Germans?

I think it is time for me to dig out my old French History books.

Correct. Due to a cleverly altered telegram message by the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the French was manuevered into a war that it could not win...

Ahh good, I'm not going delerious.

I thought it was Bismarck, but wasn't 100%