Anyway, in the spirit of my area of study, how important was the United States participation in the Great War? Was American participation integral to the Allied victory or could the war have been won without them? How might the war have progressed if the United States stayed neutral?
Well you've got to understand a bit about what had happened prior to the US entering the war both sides had suffered huge losses and were at a virtual standstill. The entry of the US changed that in favor of the allies. By bringing fresh troops although the US force was not sufficient in size to take part in any major operation until 1917 ( they entered the war in 1916).
But had the US not entered the war the Germans would have had the advantage in that the ludendorf offensive in 1918 ( The German troops that had previously been fighting the Russians on the Eastern front which were brought over to head the last great German offensive of the war). The offensive would have had a much higher chance of succeeding but in all likelihood would ended due to the same logistic problems that stopped it originally. At the very least the war would have continued for another year. It is hard to say what would have happened if the US hadn't entered the war but i would say the Germans had a better chance of winning
My Credentials
Out of respect for 10KI I use this spoiler to hide my proof of identity
I'm here for fun although serious discussions are possible
Post by Lakenburgh on Jul 20, 2010 22:41:50 GMT -5
I always thought the term "neutral" is rather misleading. Is a country that if it's not fighting me directly, but delivering (even if it's for money) war relevant goods to my enemy really neutral? That may be the high diplomatic viewpoint to make everyone feel better, but to be honest the USA never were neutral in both wars. As soon as you support one of the factions with supplies they need to keep on fighting, even if you support both, you kinda lose the neutral status in my opinion, because you become an important part of keeping the war going.
So from this viewpoint the USA were an integral part of the German defeat, by making it possible for especially GB to keep on fighting even during the worst of times. That in the end they joined the fray and sealed the downfall, because of the huge amount of fresh troops and even more supplies they brought to the war arena, is just part of the whole.
Post by Pompadoodle on Jul 21, 2010 17:45:39 GMT -5
Hmm...looks like I'm a bit late for class. Empierium and Lakenburgh have covered the issue very well between them.
I especially like the final point that Lakenburgh makes:
So from this viewpoint the USA were an integral part of the German defeat, by making it possible for especially GB to keep on fighting even during the worst of times. That in the end they joined the fray and sealed the downfall, because of the huge amount of fresh troops and even more supplies they brought to the war arena, is just part of the whole.
Yep. The most important contribution that the US made was economic. And once they were in the war, the Central Powers had to win fast, before the enormous industrial and demographic strength of America could be brought to bear. The Ludendorff offensive was do-or-die, and they presumably knew it.
So heres another question:
Was the Allied victory in WW1 a foregone conclusion? Could the Central Powers have won, and if so what bad decisions on their part led to their defeat?
Was the Allied victory in WW1 a foregone conclusion? Could the Central Powers have won, and if so what bad decisions on their part led to their defeat?
No the allies actually were more at a disadvantage They Allied forces were commanded by generals miles away from the fighting who were unwilling to make any decisions that were not specifically mentioned in the battle plan. On the other hand the German's were commanded by officers who were actually leading the troops against the enemy trenches and who were authorized to and trained to make decisions on how to fight when to commit reserves and not forced to follow a battle plan that was drawn up by someone who Had no idea what it was like to advance through a hail of machine gun fire towards an enemy trench
Yes the central powers could have won
No bad decisions really if you look at the Ludendorf offensive it only failed because it was too successfully (I could explain more if you want)
My Credentials
Out of respect for 10KI I use this spoiler to hide my proof of identity
I'm here for fun although serious discussions are possible
Post by Lakenburgh on Jul 21, 2010 20:28:15 GMT -5
I think I have to disagree here for mainly two reasons.
1. Geographical the Situation for the central alliance was a lot worse. Sure they were neighbouring countries, but they had to fight on several fronts at the same time. East and west in the beginning and after Italy decided to change allegiance, they had to fight in the south too. Which always is a logistical nightmare and don't forget, we don't talk about modern methods and infrastructure for transportation, but the one at the beginning of the last century.
2. The discrepancy between military technology and military tactics. Artillery, defensive technology, weapons everything had improved, but the tactics hadn't developed along with it, which is imo the reason why it ended in those brutal trench wars with people just getting slaughtered. Frontal attacks weren't a viable method anymore thanks too barbed wire, machine gun fire and artillery bombardment. With the loss of mobility it became a war of attrition, both sides couldn't make significant advances so it all came down to "who can supply the troops better and keep it up longer" and the allied forces with Britain and especially America were in a far superior position for this. Germany simply couldn't keep up in the long run, which they knew and so they tried to intensify the naval warfare. Sadly for them although it certainly helped for a while, it also made it possible for America to join full force and by that finally made it impossible to win.
How important this factor was can easily be seen in WW2. Having recognized the problems and errors with the old tactics the general staff in Germany developed new strategies with focus on tanks and utmost mobility as a top priority and by that created the so called Blitzkrieg. Which, although we lost in the end, was highly successful on every front till, what a fine irony, they overstretched it so far, once again the lack of supplies proved their undoing.
Last Edit: Jul 22, 2010 9:53:06 GMT -5 by Lakenburgh
We've mentioned the war degenerating into a war of attrition int he trenches. Scores of soldiers were cut down in brutal frontal assaults against heavily defended positions. Barbed wire, machine gun emplacements, and artillery made crossing No Man's Land almost impossible. Then came the tank. What effect did the tank have on trench warfare and what role, if any, did it play in ending the war?
Post by Lakenburgh on Jul 22, 2010 13:44:15 GMT -5
I don't think there was much of an influence at all during WW1, simply because the first models were highly unreliable, not very mobile and there was no real effective strategy on using them. I'm not quite sure, but if I remember correctly at least Germany only built about a dozen of them during WW1.
Post by Pompadoodle on Jul 22, 2010 14:01:53 GMT -5
Germany did only build a few tanks in WW1. The Allies built a lot more- and used them to break through the defensive lines. Machine guns are great for slaughtering oncoming waves of infantry, but useless against tank armour.
The German equivalent of the allied tanks was the infiltration tactics that they developed towards the end of the war- and used with such great effect in the Ludendorf offensive. Both sides were desperately trying to find a way of breaking the deadlock, and they came up with different solutions.
Post by Lakenburgh on Jul 22, 2010 16:49:50 GMT -5
Still the effect can't have been that great, since it didn't gave the Allies a decisive advantage and Germany obviously didn't feel the need to build a lots more of them to use it themselves or even counter the allied ones. Think it's a bit like poison gas, it was used but didn't prove effective enough to make a real impact (well obviously except for the people killed by it).
Post by Pompadoodle on Jul 23, 2010 7:02:15 GMT -5
Tend to agree with you on this one. Allied tanks and German infilitration tactics made the war situation more fluid, in that they diminished the advantage of defence. However, they weren't decisive. What decided things in the end was imo the greater economic/ financial/ industrial strength of the Allies.
To return to an earlier point:
Imo the crucial error that the Germans nade was the Schlieffen Plan. The German general staff gravely underestimated the impact of technology (especially machine-guns), which gave defence such an advantage. Because defence was superior to attack over a relatively narrow front, they were never going to get a quick victory in France. Taking out Russia first would have been much more sensible.
Actually Tanks made a huge impact at first. When the German soldiers saw them coming they were so scared they ran away. Allowing allied troops to get behind the lines and penetrate several miles into German trenches. And when used to spearhead an assault especially using the faster tanks of the day with a top speed of 20 miles an hour during the last few months of the war they were extremely effective.
My Credentials
Out of respect for 10KI I use this spoiler to hide my proof of identity
I'm here for fun although serious discussions are possible