NationStates Jolt Archive

I am an American. I will say that flat out. I come from Illinois, and am a liberal. Having said that, I would like to address an issue which I find a failure of world-wide (including American) education systems.

Many people, especially in Europe and Asia, fail to understand the importance of American interventions in both World Wars as to defeating the Central and Axis powers.

This is for World War 1. I will also say that this is not a rant against Germany. Germany was no worse than France or the United Kingdom towards starting the war. I am part of the school of thought that the world would in fact be a BETTER place if Germany had victored. However, that is out of the topic.

During 1917, the powers were in a stalemate. Russia had dropped out of the war because of the October Revolution, and the German forces from the east front were reorganizing on the western front for an offensive. German U-Boats consistantly sink supply ships from the USA towards the UK that, in all likelyhood, contain war supplies. The US declares war on Germany. Now the German High Command must decide between continuing the buildup of forces for a very strong push, but have the chance of fighting large nunbers of Americans, or pushing now, and have minimal fighting against American forces. They went with the latter. The attack failed, because Canadians, Australians, and several American divisions. The British in the north and the French in the south had fallen back. By this time, Italy was practically out of the war because of Caparetto. Now, once American forces had arrived, the Allies had enough manpower to push back the Germans.

World War 2: Germany controlled large portions of Europe, and Japan controlled large portions of Asia and Oceania. Soviet forces had defeated the Germans at Stalingrad, and were pushing them back. Anglo-Canadian-American forces were building up in England. British and American forces had defeated the Afrikakorps in North Africa. Most historians believe that if Normandy had never occured, Germany would have been able to stop the Soviets in Poland, and force the fighting to a stalemate. However, the landing, and the inward invasion afterwards, caused the Germans to redeploy needed troops. Also, even if the Soviets had been able to take Germany without the US, is that what you would have wanted? All of Germany would have then been communist, as well as Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and possibly France.

Many of us agree with the actions of the US in these two wars; we just think that their actions in Vietnam and now Iraq are kind of pointless...

Only in WWII. We arrived too late to do much more than tip the balance in WWI. Our entry into that conflict did scare the Germans as they were then outnumbered.

only in WW2 in the asian part of the world

World War One had been lost to the Germans since 1914. When they failed to capture Paris during the initial assault, a German general (whos name eludes me...anyone?) said that the war was already over for the Central Powers.

In WW2, US involvement made all the difference though.

Sirs, Germany was always outnumbered but simply had the better strategies and war tacticians. Not that I am extremely proud of it, but I think that it took 4 super powers in WW2 to defeat Germany - a rather small European nation after all - shows just how potent the German people were back then and how efficient the war tactics were, despite numerous shortcomings and a few crucial failures which had more effect on the war than the victors of WW2 want to give them credit for - namely the catastrophic loss before Stalingrad which practically sealed the fate of Germany then.

WWI: The arrival of US forces had no decisive impact on the field of battle itself. However, the prospect of facing near unlimited numbers of fresh, well supplied troops from the United States broke the will of the exhausted German military, and thereby hastened the end of a largely decided war.

WWII: The United states had a decisive impact in both the European and Pacific Theatres of WWII.

Let me just say that WW1 was pointless.
The Austro-hungarian empire just got mad at something not that important when you look at it with a sane eye.

World War One had been lost to the Germans since 1914. When they failed to capture Paris during the initial assault, a German general (whos name eludes me...anyone?) said that the war was already over for the Central Powers..
You forget that Germany was able to push Russia out after the Communists "revolution" and forced a peace on them (Brest-Litovsk: March 1918). Therefore it was able to draw the troops to the Western front. Though due to the fresh American troops the allies were still able to launch an offensive. Without that the war would have at least lasted for a few more years.


In WW2, US involvement made all the difference though.
I can´t argue with that though. World War II was after all also fought in East Asia and the Pacific. And there the US really did almost alone the job.

Sirs, Germany was always outnumbered but simply had the better strategies and war tacticians. Not that I am extremely proud of it, but I think that it took 4 super powers in WW2 to defeat Germany - a rather small European nation after all - shows just how potent the German people were back then and how efficient the war tactics were, despite numerous shortcomings and a few crucial failures which had more effect on the war than the victors of WW2 want to give them credit for - namely the catastrophic loss before Stalingrad which practically sealed the fate of Germany then.
They were 10 years ahead in terms of technological advance.

I can´t argue with that though. World War II was after all also fought in East Asia and the Pacific. And there the US really did almost alone the job.China did help a lot.

China did help a lot.
They did what they could though it was rather limitted due to their lack of technology.

4 Superpowers?

Britain had virtually no military to speak of, being in the grip of the Depression as deeply as any other nation. Russia had, essentially, weight of numbers (and a few good tank designs, I'll give them that) and an intense national winter that the Germans weren't prepared for. America you could theoretically classify a superpower, considering their industrial capacity comparative to the other nations, so I'll give you the US.

What other power was fighting Hitler that you could consider a "superpower"?

The Great Nation of Yugoslavia.

I would say 4 superpowers makes sense in WW1, not WW2.

WW1:
Britain
France
Russia
United States

4 Superpowers?
I think the term super power is inappropiate. That is only appropiate for the period after 1945 (the nuclear age) when we having two and today one super power.
Though Britain, France and Soviet Russia were great powers. And Germany was that as well. Going against all of them was very stupid to say the least. And to underestimate the US factor as well.

in WW2, the superpowers were Germany and the USSR

in WW2, the superpowers were Germany and the USSR

What about the United States? Japan?

What about the United States? Japan?I think they were not superpowers back then.
Maybe I'm mistaken?

in WW2, the superpowers were Germany and the USSR
They were the totalitarian super powers fighting each other after they were actually allied between 1939-41.
Another super power them both down - both the biggest threats for Europe in the 20 th century: Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia.
Well: and the US took down the biggest threat for east Asia: Imperialistic Japan.
And today there are two other totalitarian challenges: Islamists terrorism and possibly Communists China.
I´ve fight in the US to deal with this challenges as well.

I think they were not superpowers back then.
Maybe I'm mistaken?

The United States had the largest industrial base in WW1, let alone WW2. Japan was the most powerful nation, nary the United States, in Asia.

Also, Imperial Japan, not Imperialistic.

You forget that Germany was able to push Russia out after the Communists "revolution" and forced a peace on them (Brest-Litovsk: March 1918).
Semantic argument coming up:
First off, why is "revolution" in quotation marks? It was a revolution: the people revolted, threw out one regime, and put in another system. It was pretty quick, too. It's no different from the American Revolution, except the goal was different, so why "revolution", which tends to indicate some sarcasm?
Second off. One of the main causes of the revolution was involvement in the Imperialist World War. More or less, people don't like getting shot so the Czar can do alright in a pissing contest with his relatives (You know, the King of England, the Kaiser, and so forth.). So, once the Bolsheviks came into power, they were hardly likely to stay in the war, which was one of the reasons they overthrew the previous government to begin with, so to say that the Germans forced a peace is a simplistic, although the Russians were already losing the war, because the peace was also in large part due to internal, political factors as opposed to solely military strategy.

You forget that Germany was able to push Russia out after the Communists "revolution" and forced a peace on them (Brest-Litovsk: March 1918). Therefore it was able to draw the troops to the Western front. Though due to the fresh American troops the allies were still able to launch an offensive. Without that the war would have at least lasted for a few more years.

I didn't forget that, but they wouldn't have been able to break through the Allied lines regardless even if the US hadn't involved themselves.

I can´t argue with that though. World War II was after all also fought in East Asia and the Pacific. And there the US really did almost alone the job.

Well, there was Papua New Guinea where our soldiers were off getting jungle rot beating back the Japanese (and winning), and the Americans came and shagged our women for most of the time.

Semantic argument coming up:
First off, why is "revolution" in quotation marks? It was a revolution: the people revolted, threw out one regime, and put in another system. It was pretty quick, too. It's no different from the American Revolution, except the goal was different, so why "revolution", which tends to indicate some sarcasm?
Second off. One of the main causes of the revolution was involvement in the Imperialist World War. More or less, people don't like getting shot so the Czar can do alright in a pissing contest with his relatives (You know, the King of England, the Kaiser, and so forth.). So, once the Bolsheviks came into power, they were hardly likely to stay in the war, which was one of the reasons they overthrew the previous government to begin with, so to say that the Germans forced a peace is a simplistic, although the Russians were already losing the war, because the peace was also in large part due to internal, political factors as opposed to solely military strategy.

It wasn't a Communist Revolution. The greatest party was a democratic one. Lenin destroyed the "Whites" though, and put the "Reds" into power. Also, Russia was definately losing the war, having lost much of its Polish territory. I don't beleive Russia had won a single battle during the war.

I didn't forget that, but they wouldn't have been able to break through the Allied lines regardless even if the US hadn't involved themselves.

Are you so confident about that? If the US had not declared war, the offensive would have happened in 1918.

I don't beleive Russia had won a single battle during the war.

They had a number of early victories that really worried the Germans and Austrians, but the battles of Tannenburg and the Marsurian Lakes were what doomed them.

Are you so confident about that? If the US had not declared war, the offensive would have happened in 1918.

Yes. I think the offensive would have proved a bloody stalemate.

Yes. I think the offensive would have proved a bloody stalemate.

The goal of the offensive was to split the lines and separate the British and French... if it had not been rushed as in 1917, I beleive it may have been successful. The Allies thought it would have been, at least.

It wasn't a Communist Revolution. The greatest party was a democratic one. Lenin destroyed the "Whites" though, and put the "Reds" into power. Also, Russia was definately losing the war, having lost much of its Polish territory. I don't beleive Russia had won a single battle during the war.
But the post I'm refering to said Communist "Revolution". If you're arguing that the revolution was democratic, then the word "Communist" should be in the quotation marks, not the word "Revolution". Is this a trivial, petty argument on my part? Yes. Am I going to let it die? No.
I don't disagree that the war was being lost, but there were also significant internal factors contributing to the surrender, so Germany can't take all the credit.

But the post I'm refering to said Communist "Revolution". If you're arguing that the revolution was democratic, then the word "Communist" should be in the quotation marks, not the word "Revolution". Is this a trivial, petty argument on my part? Yes. Am I going to let it die? No.
I don't disagree that the war was being lost, but there were also significant internal factors contributing to the surrender, so Germany can't take all the credit.

Well, the German's helped, destroying the Russian War Machine, and implanting Lenin.

I think the term super power is inappropiate. That is only appropiate for the period after 1945 (the nuclear age) when we having two and today one super power.

Much as it pains me to admit it...* I think Kybernetica hit the nail right on the head here.








* joke.

Was it not at Verdun where the Germans added up their population and that of the French/British facing them and deduced that by virtue of having a larger population that by keeping at LEAST a 1 to 1 kill ratio they would eventually win?

I read this somewhere once and found it shocking.

Was it not at Verdun where the Germans added up their population and that of the French/British facing them and deduced that by virtue of having a larger population that by keeping at LEAST a 1 to 1 kill ratio they would eventually win?

I read this somewhere once and found it shocking.

I don't know about the correct figures for the World War I timeframe, but the maths doesn't work out with todays national populations - Germany ~80 million, France & UK ~57 million & ~57 milion. As I say, I don't know whether these figures were in the same proportional relation to each other 90 years ago.

I don't know about the correct figures for the World War I timeframe, but the maths doesn't work out with todays national populations - Germany ~80 million, France & UK ~57 million & ~57 milion. As I say, I don't know whether these figures were in the same proportional relation to each other 90 years ago.
I think he is referring to the battle of Verdun specifically, in which case the size of the German army was greater than the French facing them.

I don't know about the correct figures for the World War I timeframe, but the maths doesn't work out with todays national populations - Germany ~80 million, France & UK ~57 million & ~57 milion. As I say, I don't know whether these figures were in the same proportional relation to each other 90 years ago.

They may very have been. I do know that verdun was a series of underground forts and many thousands of men were sent in from both sides knowing they would not be coming out.

http://www.war1418.com/battleverdun/

I think he is referring to the battle of Verdun specifically, in which case the size of the German army was greater than the French facing them.

No, the Generals were looking at populations....whereby Germany had more men than France/Britain.

The Germans had a 2:1 kill average (2 Allied for 1 Central) throught both wars.

No, the Generals were looking at populations....whereby Germany had more men than France/Britain.

Actually in WWI Germany had less people than France and England combined.

Let me clear up a little confusion over WW1, as the Second War appears to be pretty well covered in how the American's were important in both theatres.

Post-Russian Revolution World War One

The German Empire, having concluded the treaty of Brest-Litovsk had just gained, by the terms of the treaty, territory including the Ukraine, Poland, Belorussia, and large swathes of the Baltic Terrorities. The result of this alone (not including soldiers) would have been three fold. One the largely starving German people, having been cut off from outside food sources via the British blockade, would suddenly have the massively productive Ukraine and Belorussian feeding them wheat and grain and other produce, while secondly at the same time a whole new work force would become available for the Germans, as their remaining overburdened workers would be relieved by the influx of produce and other material from the former Russian terrorities. Thirdly, this relief of workers, coupled with the extra divisions which wouldn't be needed to garrison the Russian terrorities (would be garrisoned by the weaker units, green, older, etc) giving the Western Front a massive influx of battle hardened veterans, with a massive morale boost thanks to their increased supplies (always more of a problem for the Germans than the Allies).

At the same time the French in the midst of their dissension, wherein they refused to take the offensive, in many cases refused to take any orders, refused to take sentry duty or wire repair duty, etc, would be forced to face a massively reinforced, and well supplied army. The French at this time had already suffered massive casualties (7,500,000 mobilized, 1,385,000 killed, 4,266,000 wounded, 5,651,000 total casualties, 75% of total mobilizec forces, note that the 7,500,000 ecompasses the total amount the Empire could raise, there was no more to be had) while the English were also running out of men, if not dealing with the same dissension (5,397,000 mobilized, 703,000 killed, 1,663,000 wounded, 2,367,000 total casualties, 44% percent of mobilizable force). The Austro-Hungarians, who had suffered along basically the exact same figures as the French proportionally, would suddenly be bolstered by more German troops, again men from the Eastern Front, allowing them to finish their Serbian commitments, help the Ottoman's deal with the British forces, and reinforce what was largely a stale mate (by this point) with Italy, Italy having lost its advantage through poorly planned attacks, a long supply line, and poor morale. German forces would thereby have faced an exhausted France, an overcommited England, and an Italy with no way to attack it. With the reinforcements in hand, a long term systematic offensive could begin, without the anxiety of an American intervention, slowly draining the French of its remaining unwilling soldiers, whilest forcing Britain to either give up on its other fronts (Ottoman, Greece, colonial, etc) or face being overwhelmed, either of which would leave the German's in clear numerical superiority, as it would free up their allies troops.

Germany was clearly poised to end the war in a victory for itself, it had the men, it had gained the resources, and it had the morale, bolstered by finally finding decent generals. Whereas the French would only be able to fight so much longer, with poor morale, few to no reserves, and supplies running low, with no hope of reinforcement from Britain, the Germans would be able to take down their remaining enemies at their leisure, with no fear of being turned back. At the very worst, Germany's offensives would fail, and they wouldn't be able to gain any more territory, forcing the final peace settlement to be slightly less in their favor. However, there was nothing else that could have stopped them from winning the war, but the sudden intervention of virtually endless streams of men from the Americans whom could mobilize more, if less experienced, troops than any other power currently engaged in the war, thereby forcing them to attack faster, with less planning, and forgoing their advantages in supplies and morale.

You forget that Germany was able to push Russia out after the Communists "revolution" and forced a peace on them (Brest-Litovsk: March 1918). Therefore it was able to draw the troops to the Western front. Though due to the fresh American troops the allies were still able to launch an offensive. Without that the war would have at least lasted for a few more years.


.

Wrong again.
The worshipping of your US masters is now making you saying pure nonsense.
The Kaiserschlacht offensive took was done withouth US troops and no, they did not ake sure that the French and UK could replace troops. The offensive was allready planned before the arrival of the US in France in would have had the same result even when the US did not join the war. Only difference would be that the war would perhaps end 2 weeks later, that is all the difference the US troops made in WWI instead of a "few more years".

But we all know why you post that bullshit that exagerates the role of the US in WWI, since all of your posts have to be seen as a part of your anti French and anti EU discours.

WWII: big difference then with the lend lease act and the amount of troops involved on EU soil.

Actually in WWI Germany had less people than France and England combined.
Actually by the end of the war the difference between Germany the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungary's remaining men and those of England, France, and Italy combined was less than 2 million men, and that is without mentioning the fact that after Russia was forced to leave the war, the widespread English would be at a numerical disadvantage everywhere, the Ottomans being able to concentrate solely on them, the Italians were unable to continue an offensive due to poor supplies, poor management, and poor morale, and the French were just about ready to collapse following the troops riots. The fact is that at this juncture in the war, the populations no longer mattered, the supply and morale did, and Germany had a vast edge with both.

Wrong again.
The worshipping of your US masters is now making you saying pure nonsense.
The Kaiserschlacht offensive took was done withouth US troops and no, they did not ake sure that the French and UK could replace troops. The offensive was allready planned before the arrival of the US in France in would have had the same result even when the US did not join the war. Only difference would be that the war would perhaps end 2 weeks later, that is all the difference the US troops made in WWI instead of a "few more years".

But we all know why you post that bullshit that exagerates the role of the US in WWI, since all of your posts have to be seen as a part of your anti French and anti EU discours.

WWII: big difference then with the lend lease act and the amount of troops involved on EU soil.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. The Kaiserschlacht offensive was planned TO AVOID HAVING TO FIGHT THE AMERICANS! If the Americans had not entered into the equation, the Germans would have been at their leisure to take an offensive campaign of attrition against their remaining enemies, whom in the case of the French had already mutinied once against their commanders, and refused to take the offensive again, only fighting to defend, and the English whom were committed in so many places as to no longer be able to reinforce any of them with any great effect. If Germany had had the time to harness the Russian territories it had acquired its supply problems would have been removed, thereby nullifying the last true advantage of the Allies in their blockade. Frankly, stating that Germany could have been defeated without American intervention doesn't make sense on any level, as everything was pointing in Germany's favor, supplies, troops, morale, ability to raise reserves, allies with men capable of deployment...you name it.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. The Kaiserschlacht offensive was planned TO AVOID HAVING TO FIGHT THE AMERICANS! If the Americans had not entered into the equation, .blablabla, lies, propaganda.

WRONG WRONG WRONG, see all non revisionist books about WWI. It was planed long before the arrival of the US troops and the US troops made difference in the end of about 2 months, not more. To bad for ya.

. Frankly, stating that Germany could have been defeated without American intervention doesn't make sense on any level, as everything was pointing in Germany's favor, supplies, troops, morale, ability to raise reserves, allies with men capable of deployment...you name it.

Frankly, stating that the US had a important role in the defeat of the German empire is does not make sense, that is pure anti EU hate (your only purpose) and a rewriting of history. For fucks sake read a book or watch a non biased site. The US was important in WWII, not in WWI even not in shortening the war with a important length.

. Frankly, stating that Germany could have been defeated without American intervention doesn't make sense on any level,.

Wrong, you are mixing things up between WWI and WWII. Germany would have been defeated witouth the US in WWIn, since the production capabilities of the French and Brittish Empire (1/5th of the world was still Brittish then) was much bigger then that of the German Empire that had to deal with the blokade of the Brittish and French fleet.

Can I just ask for clarification here: Bushrepublican liars is a puppet of Mr Basil Fawlty? Yes/No?

Remember the Zimmermann telegram...

Germany wired a message to MEXICO and offered them huge aid if they pre-emptively struck America (who Germany realized would sooner or later join the war). The US affected the war by its very existance.

I don't know about the correct figures for the World War I timeframe, but the maths doesn't work out with todays national populations - Germany ~80 million, France & UK ~57 million & ~57 milion. As I say, I don't know whether these figures were in the same proportional relation to each other 90 years ago.
Not sure about France and Britain. But I guess it was 40 something million.
Germany by 1914 had about 63 million people.

only in WW2 in the asian part of the world
^ what he said

Sirs, Germany was always outnumbered but simply had the better strategies and war tacticians. Not that I am extremely proud of it, but I think that it took 4 super powers in WW2 to defeat Germany - a rather small European nation after all
It's not like Germany had no allies in WWII. Also, it wasn't a small nation. It was a superpower that controlled most of continental Europe.

It's not like Germany had no allies in WWII. Also, it wasn't a small nation. It was a superpower that controlled most of continental Europe.
With the exception of Japan in WW2 Germany always for some reason managed to choose extremely weak allies. German troops in Palestinia had to come to the aid of the Ottomans to keep the Australians and other Commonwealth troops at bay. German troops had to assist Austria in squashing Serbia. While all the while they also had to tend to their own fronts. WW2, Germany always had to come to the Italians aid.

WW2, Germany always had to come to the Italians aid.

Not always: in North Africa more than once it was the Italian infantry that held the line when the Germans routed.

Not always: in North Africa more than once it was the Italian infantry that held the line when the Germans routed.
Still, without Rommel and the Africa corps showing up when they did the Italians would long have been defeated. When they invaded Egypt they had about a 4 to 1 advantage. After only 50 Km their supply lines broke down and they lost some 110,000 troops during the withdrawl. Nearly half the number with which they started out. And the serie of defeats didn't stop untill Rommel and his troops arrived and the Italian soldiers finally got a competent commander.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. The Kaiserschlacht offensive was planned TO AVOID HAVING TO FIGHT THE AMERICANS! If the Americans had not entered into the equation, the Germans would have been at their leisure to take an offensive campaign of attrition against their remaining enemies, whom in the case of the French had already mutinied once against their commanders, and refused to take the offensive again, only fighting to defend, and the English whom were committed in so many places as to no longer be able to reinforce any of them with any great effect. If Germany had had the time to harness the Russian territories it had acquired its supply problems would have been removed, thereby nullifying the last true advantage of the Allies in their blockade. Frankly, stating that Germany could have been defeated without American intervention doesn't make sense on any level, as everything was pointing in Germany's favor, supplies, troops, morale, ability to raise reserves, allies with men capable of deployment...you name it.

This is almost right. One of the main reasons was to take the Americans out of the equation. The other was that the Germans were running desperately short of raw materials, specifically iron and steel with which to make guns and munitions because of the blockade (IIRC, the Germans were pulling up their rail lines and scuttling some of their older ships to make bullets. This is also why they went out of their way in WW2 to bring Sweden into favorable trading status: they needed Swedish iron deposits in order to keep their military-industrial complex humming). If you have a limited supply of expendable munitions, a war of attrition is the last thing you want. Now, it could be argued that they could get some help from the Russians and Ukrainians, but firstly they didn't have much in the way of munitions plants to begin with, and secondly I'm not sure the Germans would have wanted to rely on the Russians to provide for them.

That being said, while if my recollection is correct and they would have needed a rapid push irrespective of U.S. involvement, what should not be discounted is the incredible efforts of those U.S. forces already in France to stop the German advance once it was underway. The Germans managed to drive right through the French line and came within 40 miles of Paris when the "inexperienced", albeit incredibly well-trained American Marines absolutely cold-cocked the most experienced and disciplined army in the World and drove them right back. German snipers were trained to be able to shoot to kill at 300 yards. At Belleau(sp?) Wood, American Marines were routinely hitting Germans from 500-600 yards away. Their fire was so effective that the Germans thought the Americans must have some kind of supersniper gun, because the idea that anyone could be that crack with a rifle was mindboggling to them. Americans were crucial to stopping the German advance, and it was their skill, tenacity, and resolve as much as the prospect of being in the sights of 5-6 million more Americans just like them that brought about the surrender.

. Frankly, stating that Germany could have been defeated without American intervention doesn't make sense on any level, as everything was pointing in Germany's favor, supplies, troops, morale, ability to raise reserves, allies with men capable of deployment...you name it.


Wrong, here some historical facts from a specialised in WWI and WWII US administrated site:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=33190&highlight=kaiserschlacht

Can I just ask for clarification here: Bushrepublican liars is a puppet of Mr Basil Fawlty? Yes/No?

NOOP, but I am ;)
BTW, the half of the posters don't agree with option 1 in the poll.

This is almost right. One of the main reasons was to take the Americans out of the equation. The other was that the Germans were running desperately short of raw materials, specifically iron and steel with which to make guns and munitions because of the blockade (IIRC, the Germans were pulling up their rail lines and scuttling some of their older ships to make bullets. This is also why they went out of their way in WW2 to bring Sweden into favorable trading status: they needed Swedish iron deposits in order to keep their military-industrial complex humming). If you have a limited supply of expendable munitions, a war of attrition is the last thing you want. Now, it could be argued that they could get some help from the Russians and Ukrainians, but firstly they didn't have much in the way of munitions plants to begin with, and secondly I'm not sure the Germans would have wanted to rely on the Russians to provide for them.

That being said, while if my recollection is correct and they would have needed a rapid push irrespective of U.S. involvement, what should not be discounted is the incredible efforts of those U.S. forces already in France to stop the German advance once it was underway. The Germans managed to drive right through the French line and came within 40 miles of Paris when the "inexperienced", albeit incredibly well-trained American Marines absolutely cold-cocked the most experienced and disciplined army in the World and drove them right back. German snipers were trained to be able to shoot to kill at 300 yards. At Belleau(sp?) Wood, American Marines were routinely hitting Germans from 500-600 yards away. Their fire was so effective that the Germans thought the Americans must have some kind of supersniper gun, because the idea that anyone could be that crack with a rifle was mindboggling to them. Americans were crucial to stopping the German advance, and it was their skill, tenacity, and resolve as much as the prospect of being in the sights of 5-6 million more Americans just like them that brought about the surrender.
I'm going to address this before I address Basil the Faulty, your main point involves the need for munitions and guns, and the fact that the Germans may not have wanted to rely on Ukrainian and Russian workers to build them. What you are forgetting is that prior to Brest-Livostk the German industrial base was stretched to its limit. They had too many people needed in too many places. Germany had its people split between agriculture, arms manufacturing, etc, and they couldn't handle it. With the gain of the vast agricultural megaproducer that is the Ukraine and Belorussian plain/steppe, they would have been able to use their native population more exclusively in the arms manufacturing, as well as finally utilize Silesia to its max extent having gained the rest of it from Russia. Frankly, supply problems wouldn't have been that big an issue, and as was widely reported at the time, and has been confirmed over the years, the German's main problem was a lack of food. Having the time to harness the Ukraine would have nullified that.

NOOP, but I am ;)
BTW, the half of the posters don't agree with option 1 in the poll.
Yes, and the majority of people whom post here are morons, just look at all the so-called nazis, communists, anarchists, ect, so whats your point?

I'm going to address this before I address Basil the Faulty, your main point involves the need for munitions and guns,

So what is your point? *waiting* What about the US WWI topic full of US posters that counterspeak you? Any arguements? BTW, your post about Ukrain, Brest Litovsk aso won't help you in WORLD WAR I!

PS,Tremalfake, it is MR Basil Fawlty for ya. ;)

Again:http://forum.axishistory.com/viewto...=kaiserschlacht
How can people compare the US involvemend in WWI to that of WWII? Completely overated and anti UK and French soldiers that fought for freedom.
BTW, I knoiw the help and apreciate it but historical deniel and overating the US in WWI is as bad as holocaust denial for me. Just count the numbers of the fallen Brits, French, Belgians. A complete generation spoiled.

Lying about WWI to make US republicans bigger (they are the guys that spread such nonsense here, as disabled they are in the knowledge of history) and having the purpose of making the gap between the US and EU widder is as bad as holocaust denial.

Wrong, here some historical facts from a specialised in WWI and WWII US administrated site:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=33190&highlight=kaiserschlacht
Okay, so you sent me to a forum featuring even more blatant nazis then the one I'm already in? Amazing. Well those "historical facts" are for the most part ridiculous. They claim German morale was fading...German morale sky-rocketed after the defeat of the Russians, and the coming of major reinforcments to the East, while the Allies would have no major forces to counter with. It was the intervention of the Americans, whom could provide that major forces to counter the German's rearranged force that truly shook their morale.

Next they claim the Allies understood how effective a tank could be. The Allies never, not even Churchill who loved his "Iron Caterpillars" (his term, not mine) had ever imagined Blitzkrieg. He ardently supported their use...as infantry support weapons. Furthermore, the Allies were not at that time producing "massive formations of tanks", they were producing them in very limited quantities, with even less application by the generals in the field, whom for the most part distrusted them (read any legit history on this fact, the officers of world war one just didn't trust the tank)

They even claim the Germans had no "Offensive strength left". Somehow they seem to be forgetting that with the fall of the Russians, the Germans suddenly had hundreds of thousands, literally, of veteran troops to commit to the Western Front, which the Allies could not match. The English "Buddy Armies" were spent, England could no longer produce more of them, and Churchill was pressing for further attacks on the Ottomans, whom suddenly only needed to fight the British with the fall of Russia.

They also claim that because the Americans did not have a majority of troops in the Hundred Days Offensive, they didn't actually do anything. This is blind for two reasons. A) The Hundred Days Offensive could only occur after the German offensive, which was, admittedly hurried to avoid fighting the Americans. If they had the time for a campaign of attrition, the morale weakened French would have either capitulated, or a stalemate would have been reached, without hope of breaking. You seem to be conviently forgetting how the French army mutinied, refusing to go forward, and was only brought under control with great care and persuasion. B) The only reason the Germans accepted the Armistice in the end was that there morale had finally collapsed to the inevitable. They were faced with two million American soldiers crossing the Atlantic, with more in training, They still had the men, and the defensive lines to continue the fighting, it was only the fact they thought they could have a just peace that they stopped. Without the Americans, neither A nor B could have happened, the Hundred Days Offensive wouldn't have happened, the Germans would have kept fighting, there is no way around it. The logic pinpoints things that are meaningless, like total troops in the war at the time, it isn't about those in the war, it was about those about to be brought into it, and what it forced the German military to do.

Lastly I will commment on your Britain+France=More than Germany in terms of production. What you are unfortunately forgetting here, is that in this war production had to be close, so as to be usable. African colonies couldn't mass produce arms, nor could they ship food. They weren't a help. India couldn't ship food, and its people had lost the will to fight for an empire that held one of the most oppressive regimes in the area's history. Furthermore,India's manufactoring was almost entirely cloth based, with little chance nor ability to get the heavy machinery needed to process Iron ore, or create ammunition. Australia had the same problems, coupled with a small population. Canada was across the Atlantic, and it had to avoid the U-Boats.

The site I used to have which gave industrial output figures for purely France, England, Germany, America, Russia, Italy, AH, and the Ottoman Empire has unfortunately been shut down. However let it be known that England, the island, along with continental France could only barely match Germany's output, due to its massive trachts of Iron ore, copper ore, coal, etc. France was largely agricultural at this time, and England was largely still a mercantile power, not dealing in arms besides those for ships. Germany on the other hand was a massive chemical, industrial, and resource driven economy. They could hold their own, especially adding in the Ukraine and Belorussia for agriculture.

Okay, so you sent me to a forum featuring even more blatant nazis then the one I'm already in? .

Just read enough, will read the rest once when you have done your best to read something of the forum. You must be the first moron to say that that is a Nazi forum. Even neo con Israeli and US republicans use it as a source :rolleyes: Better watch and learn a bit before you deserve an answer.

Are you really dumb or just crazy? This is the WWI and WWII site that is cited in most US newspapers like the NY Times, Washington Post and EU papers like Le Monde, El Pais aso... Just look at the statement about hollocaust denying and the forum rules.

Once you're less drunk or start reasoning again, I will read the rest of your post,and give you an answer.

calling that site a Nazi site only ridiculises yourself and gave proof that you have not read it. BTW, most posters are from your country, following your logic, thois makes your country a Nazi state :rolleyes:

You are more intelligent then that, just see it and forget your stupid words. It is a history site and I think that it is the best visited around the globe about the Wars.(10.000's of member posters since it started)

So what is your point? *waiting* What about the US WWI topic full of US posters that counterspeak you? Any arguements? BTW, your post about Ukrain, Brest Litovsk aso won't help you in WORLD WAR I!

PS,Tremalfake, it is MR Basil Fawlty for ya. ;)
Um...yes it will. Brest Litovsk happened a handful of months after the October Revolution, the harvest of 1918 was expected to be a good one, and one that could adequately supply the German population and Army quite adequately, by itself, through 1919. What US posters counter my points besides those whom make three sentence posts with no proof. I have backed my points through facts, obvious deductions, reasoning, and statistical evidence. You have provided a website that for the most part contradicts itself, or points out the false claims made by those whom say the American's weren't a factor.

They love to talk of the combined 160 British and French Division, they hate when its mentioned those Divisions were under the reworked system of 3 versus 4 (if you don't know what I'm talking about here, please read into late 1915-16 and the changes implemented to increase divisional numbers), meaning in terms of full strength divisions, only around 113 were actually there. However, the Germans were forced to do the same, so this really comes into play when you remember that the American divisions were 4s, not 3s like the other nation's.

Now for the real numbers. By early 1918 the German West Front had approximately 177 divisions ready for battle. 110 were in the front line, 50 of which were positioned against the short British line. 67 were held in reserve with 31 of those reinforcing the 50 facing the British.

Thereby facing the combined 160 British and French divisions (whose weaknesses I have already mentioned in length, and need not be repeated for sake of length) was approximately 177 battle hardened divisions. In fact, at this time the combined Allied Armies totalled closer to 150 divisions, as elements from the British empire, which would arrive later, had not yet arrived, and certain French units were in such disarray as to be deemed "Not Combat Ready".

Without the threat of massive American intervention in late 1918, what could have stopped this numerical superiority from winning a battle of attrition, one the French and British both wanted to avoid, and one where the Germans had enjoyed a 2:1 kill ratio the entire war?


EDIT: (Note how I point out I'm editting what I wrote, and that this is the editted section?)

I just noticed your little Tremalfake...joke perhaps? What you seem to be missing is that I was playing off of your name, Basil Fawlty, which easily becomes Basil Faulty...its not uncommon to do this, whereas you just inserted something into my name. I'm sure you could do better. Tresmal perhaps, even Treemilker if your lazy and unimaginative.

The site I used to have which gave industrial output figures for purely France, England, Germany, America, Russia, Italy, AH, and the Ottoman Empire has unfortunately been shut down. .


Wich one?

Just read enough, will read the rest once when you have done your best to read something of the forum. You must be the first moron to say that that is a Nazi forum. Even neo con Israeli and US republicans use it as a source :rolleyes: Better watch and learn a bit before you deserve an answer.

Are you really dumb or just crazy? This is the WWI and WWII site that is cited in most US newspapers like the NY Times, Washington Post and EU papers like Le Monde, El Pais aso... Just look at the statement about hollocaust denying and the forum rules.

Once you're less drunk or start reasoning again, I will read the rest of your post,and give you an answer.

calling that site a Nazi site only ridiculises yourself and gave proof that you have not read it. BTW, most posters are from your country, following your logic, thois makes your country a Nazi state :rolleyes:

You are more intelligent then that, just see it and forget your stupid words. It is a history site and I think that it is the best visited around the globe about the Wars.(10.000's of member posters since it started)
So you admit your wrong then? You don't counter my points, you can't argue my numbers, you can't argue the obvious state of both effective armies and their nations...so you fall into the greater pitfall of ridiculous claims.
(Also, FYI, your last minute editting of your post has rendered your link useless, so, feel free to fix it)

I have never seen it as a source, and in fact, NO MAJOR NEWSPAPER USES WEBSITE FORUMS AS A SOURCE. To do so wouldn't just be foolish, it would be downright insanity. A public forum is not a place to base any kind of argument. I have read all the papers you've mentioned, minus El Pais (I only speak French, English, a bit of German, and a bit of Russian, so the Spanish one is just too hard) and never have I seen a website used as a source...EVER. You point out the holocaust denying statement, it proves that forum has holocaust deniars!

I checked its statistics, and this is what I found:
New Posts Each Day: 561.53
New Topics Each Day: 55.43
Users Per Day: 11.21

Those numbers are truly pathetic, and there is no way such a small site would have any chance at ever being mentioned, nor have any of the fame you attribute to it without it being a restricted forum frequented by noted historians. We aren't talking Sons of Sam Horn here (any of you whom know Baseball will know SoSH as a Boston Red Sox site frequented by multiple syndicated sports writers, occasional professional players, and in its protected regions even General Managers, the club Owner, and others). We are talking a public forum, without much content. Your claims do not make sense, and they are a mere divertment from the fact you cannot beat my points, and your not even trying to.

Wich one?
WWW.WW1StatsandNumbers.com

Looks like they don't own the registration anymore, ask I checked into it and its available now. Who knows, went out of business? Privately run? Still, those numbers should be available in your local library somewhere, I'll try and find them elsewhere.

In WW1 America only tipped the scales sooner, and if they hadn't been in the war, bitter fighting would rage in Germany for years after words.

WW2:America was an important assest. Russia bought most of their supplies from America(Trust me, you may not think it, but a military without a good supply, is an army that is going to lose), now one of these and the most important of all supplies America sent to Russia is railroad materials. Think about it, Stalingrad would have been a German victory, if the Soviet troops were forced to march the whole way, and by the time they got there, the battle would have been over. America was most important though, in Asia. Briton could have never diverted enough troops to fight the Japanese. You may say they did, but they didn't. I'm willling to bet most soilders from the British army captured by Japanese, could not even speak English, and were from India. Australia would have been captured by Japan if America hadn't interved. No one would have stood in the way. In truth Germany could have won the whole thing, had they not attacked Russia. England was near the breaking point after the Battle of Briton.

I have read your message and think I have understood it. However this leads nowhere if we don't agree upon what constitutes a significant contribution.
In my mind a significant must be large enough to change the course of war. Therefore we need to play a mind game. We need to place England and France in grave danger of defeat. Let us imagine the Germans actually managed to make a Spähwagen and a tank that could go more than 5 miles without breaking down. Lets assume that they managed to perfect their envisioned tactic of punching a hole in the trenchlines with them and pour cavalry through and restart the "war of movement". Let us say they capture Paris and flank the British.
Now we ask, would the Americans be enough to tip the scale? First of all USA was still operating under the Monroe doctrine and very reluctant to join the war where it was. It is not likely that they would even have joined. However we are playing a mind game after all. USA was not the military superpower of today. They would have to mobilize (in time) and ship troops to England and land them in France. With WWI battle ethics and rules of engagement? Outnumbered until mobilization could commence? I may think too little of the US Army of 1917, but I just don't think they were up to it. Sorry chums, but I don't.
The US played a minor role in WWI. They were bossed around by Britain and France during the Versailles negotiation. Neither of the two were even remotely interested in the League of Nations or giving way on their respective colonial empires. The US was a small dog during and immidiately after WWI.
As far as I am informed the US Army wasn't very big in 1939 either.

As for WWII. USA played a very significant role in the Pacific theatre. There cannot be a shred of doubt that the Empire of Japan would have been able to consolidate a large portion of the occupied areas. They may have had to sign a mutual agreement of seperate peace with Australia and create a few buffer zones with vassal states on the perimeter "Stalin style", but that is of little importance.

Britain played a significant role in Africa. No doubt there either.

Now for the big cracker. Europe. USA played a significant role liberating Europe from COMMUNISM, but a minor role in defeating Nazi Germany. However, lest we forget, USA did supply Russia with materials to wage war. I am a bit conflicted here because I can never be convinced that materials are more important than human life. At the very least let me say that I am eternally grateful for the American intervention in the European theatre. Saved me from living the first 15 years of my life under the yoke of communism.