Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, Murph said:

Wow, some really good points, but again, I think US logistical support is overstated somewhat.

Not necessarily with finished products, but important it was: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17011607

"France's transformation of its armaments production was even more successful. By importing coal from Britain and steel from the United States, releasing 350,000 soldiers to the war industries, and bolstering them with more than 470,000 women, it was able to increase its daily output of 75mm shells from 4,000 in October 1914 to 151,000 in June 1916, and that of 155mm shells from 235 to 17,000. In 1917 it produced more shells and artillery pieces per day than Britain."

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted
2 hours ago, seahawk said:

I am not convinced the moral would be there without US involvement. US involvement meant that it was only a matter of time before things got better for the Allies. With no Americans coming, Germany does not need to rush the use of the troops from the Eastern front.

As the saying  goes, there is an Ap for that...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919

Good alternative history novel fodder I think. 

 

Posted
15 hours ago, seahawk said:

With no US involvement the Allies would not win.

The Allies would be much shorter on shipping, raw materials and food supplies, while the Germans would be in no hurry to end the war in the west after Russia surrenders. And then there is huge impact the US troops had on the morale on both sides. They also added a big number of actually working trucks to the Allies arsenal that improved the logistics situation by a lot and formed the basis for the successful attacks at the end of the year. Now the Allies could press an attack, even if they railroads could not keep up. The war weary troops of the allies, would probably not be to eager to keep assaulting German lines without US troops arriving and without the Germans being weakened by the Spring offensive of 1918.


Shipping - no, in WWI America's war effort was a net consumer of shipping ton-miles not a contributor. Her merchant yards were already at capacity to UK/French orders, so declaring war just changed the flag those ships sailed under, while the AEF naturally added a massive new load to the system. So the AEF, along with the bulk of its logistics was carried in UK tonnage.  Yes the US launched a MASSIVE merchant ship building program when they entered WWI, but as with so many of her efforts, the war ended before it could kick in - and it still would have taken years to compensate for her added demand.  
US adding to Entente moral - agreed, this was a great boost. 
Trucks - As with ships, the US industry was already at capacity to export orders. If anything raising and fielding the AEF reduced the truck supply until new capacity came on line in mid 1918.

Everyone's troops were tired in 1918. But none of the Armies on either side of the Western Front were so far gone they would not have kept going for another year or maybe more - if their parent societies could sustain them. The UK and France with access to the world could keep going. But Germany was not going to last another 12 months of blockade Brest-Litovsk or not. If Tooze & Co has it right the Germany Army was stabbed in the back. By their own General's criminal mis-management of every economy they came anywhere near, starting with their own. I would suggest the two sides could have sat in their trenches and exchanged nothing but angry words from mid 1917 onwards and war still would have been over by 1920 with starvation in Berlin and Vienna. 

Posted

Perceptive point, I agree Germany and the Austro Hungarians were on their last legs and all the Allies pretty much had to do was sit and wait.  I think that the Ottomans would have fallen to internal revolution rather sooner than later as well.

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, seahawk said:

But the Germans attacked because the Americans were coming and it was obvious that it was either win now or loose later. Without the US, the Allies do not get that manpower growth, they do not get the industrial output and are much less well off when it comes to supplies. So, Germany could afford to wait for negotiations, because as much as Germany and the Axis were unable to reach Paris, the Allies were unable to reach Berlin or even the German border.

So Germany can simply hold. Which either means the Allies try one final attack or it will lead to a negotiated settlement, as both sides are running out of steam and the morale of the troops is hitting rock bottom. The French had mutinies in spring and early summer 1917, do you think they will end with less supplies and less hope?

WWI isn't WWII.

Raising the AEF absorbed American industrial output, it reduced the amount available for export. Further more the French and British provided massive amounts of equipment to  fill out AEF units with things America wasn't able to supply in quantity, like artillery, machineguns and tanks.  If America had not raised the AEF, then the French and British Armies in Europe would have had as much materiel, if not more, than they had historically.   <edit> if the war had gone on into 1919 and 1920, then yes American industry would expanded to meet demand and unleashed a flood of materiel, but that was not 1917-18. 

The French had their crisis in 1917. But as you point out, the Germany Army was long way from Germany. Nobody in France really liked that, they may have had mixed feelings about taking the bits Occupied back, but there wasn't much question about letting the Kaiser have any more. Without the promise of the AEF I don't doubt the French would have been more conservative in their offensives. But that's a long way from quitting, and the French did only need to hold on to win.  

Germany on the other hand could not hold on forever.  I think it's rather telling that the Spring offensives of 1918 were driven by concern for the Americans coming in, rather than the looming economic collapse at home. But that collapse was coming and it was not conditional on the US doing anything it wasn't doing in 1915 or 16.  Rather it was all down to a lack of Junkers in the Prussian Army - the German General Staff did not know sh1t about farming, rural economics and prudent housekeeping.  The Ukraine is a breadbasket! Yeah, sure in peacetime, but in 1917/18 its a peasant farming economy with no fighting-age males left in it and precious few draft animals. The woman and old folks can feed themselves and maybe produce a small surplus, but... funny Germany made the same mistake in WWII too. 

Edited by Argus
Posted

Plus you have the mutinies in the High Seas Fleet to contend with, the Reds raising issues in the bigger cities, the over unpopularity of the Kaiser by 1918, and it starts to add up.   Give FDR one thing, he managed (somehow) to get the US Military-Industrial complex moving pre-war.  

Posted

That he did, plus the Anglo-French orders put in the money to get the whole machine up and running. 

I think it telling that the US Army had an 'Industrial Collage' after WWI, hung onto it all through the depression and ran regular national industrial audits. I don't know if they still do, but success of WWII was based very firmly on experience of WWI. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, Argus said:

That he did, plus the Anglo-French orders put in the money to get the whole machine up and running. 

I think it telling that the US Army had an 'Industrial Collage' after WWI, hung onto it all through the depression and ran regular national industrial audits. I don't know if they still do, but success of WWII was based very firmly on experience of WWI. 

And the lessons learned from WWI by George Marshal and others.  But it was a near run thing.  I am reading; The Rise of the G.I. Army 1940-1941 right now.  

Posted

The Reds will win anyway, a lack of equipment to dump on the Reds makes that even more likely. Ironically the Germans hanging on into 1919/20 makes Poland more secure. The civil war will largely be over by the time the Germans give up all their territory, so there is no easy justification for the Reds declaring war on the Poles as a harbour for White Russians or Ukrainian nationalists. Conceivably even Ukraine might be able to stand up as well, particularly if the Germans recognise they are a very useful bulwark at keeping the Reds away from Germany.

All we can say is that its going to be even more confused, and the reality was confusing enough.

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

And  with the US entering the war they still needed to pay for those supplies, it was done through war bonds and public debt. Lend lease only applied to WW2. The Uk only finished paying for the war in 2015: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-30306579

Even Russia paid out its WW1 debt: https://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?page=imprimer&id_article=15275

You underestimate the "Liberty Bonds". The US raised lots of money that not only allowed them to raise an army, it also benefited the Allies. For example: Instead of paying the US for Steel and raw materials and turn them into weapons, a lot of those weapons were now purchased by the Americans. I have no doubts the French would keep fighting till they kicked the Germans out of France, but after that?

Edited by seahawk
Posted

Define France. Remember Alsace/Lorraine. They would keep fighting for that at least. If they got that far, I dont see they would stop till they took the Ruhr.

Britain would keep fighting at the very least till Belgium was liberated. Considering how many we lost, I dont see us stopping till Prussian Militarism was throttled in its crib. At the very least, removing the German fleet from the map.

Posted
3 hours ago, seahawk said:

You underestimate the "Liberty Bonds". The US raised lots of money that not only allowed them to raise an army, it also benefited the Allies. For example: Instead of paying the US for Steel and raw materials and turn them into weapons, a lot of those weapons were now purchased by the Americans. I have no doubts the French would keep fighting till they kicked the Germans out of France, but after that?

Sure, the same sunk cost fallacy that is hitting the Russians today will practically force it: for all the losses sustained we have little to show, so we must go on until final surrender. Remember, the last big war on record were the napoleonic wars and all leaders had been brought up with that knowledge. Even winning may not be enough, see Italy and its frustration.

Posted
8 hours ago, rohala said:

How do you think a prolongation of the world war affects the Russian Civil War? 

I think the Reds will win in the end, despite the Kerensky government trying to do a good job.  I doubt there will be any change in outcome.

Posted
3 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Sure, the same sunk cost fallacy that is hitting the Russians today will practically force it: for all the losses sustained we have little to show, so we must go on until final surrender. Remember, the last big war on record were the napoleonic wars and all leaders had been brought up with that knowledge. Even winning may not be enough, see Italy and its frustration.

Could you expand on this please?  

Posted
2 hours ago, Murph said:

Could you expand on this please?  

Sure, the initial war aims of each power in 1914 were rather fuzzy, the Germans wanted Mittleuropa and to eliminate the perceived Russian menace, the Austrians wanted to destroy Serbia, the French wanted Alsace and Lorraine back and the British wanted everything to remain as it was after destroying the German fleet. German colonies with one exception were quickly wrapped up, but as the losses mounted, these aims became more defined and more ambitious, see for example: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_aims_and_war_aims_discussions_germany

These were mirrored elsewhere, like in France: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_aims_and_war_aims_discussions_france#:~:text=The main goal pursued by,of alliances or collective security). 

"Clemenceau de facto toed the same line and refused any parliamentary debate over France’s war aims.[10] He knew that the Allies had different positions and he preferred to defer debate until after the war. He outlined his policy in a speech on 8 March 1918: “My foreign policy and my home policy are the same. At home I wage war. Abroad, I wage war...I shall go on waging war.” He would not back down. France approved Wilson’s Fourteen Points, announced on 8 January 1918, since they included the return of Alsace-Lorraine. Clemenceau agreed with the fact that democracy was a condition for peace; he supported the right of peoples to self-determination, but remained sceptical of the League of Nations project."

Only Wilson was pushing for a moderation of war aims, and note that the British, whose aims did not expand from 1914, despite substantial acquisitions in the Middle East, were disappointed when they finally achieved them: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_aims_and_war_aims_discussions_great_britain_and_ireland#:~:text=When Britain entered the First,war aims did not change.

 

Posted

Thank you.   Now here is something interesting to think about: Would Great Britain have gotten involved if Germany HAD NOT invaded Belgium, and if they did not, what would have been the outcome of the war?   Would Kaiser Willy II have kept at the UK with his ship building program, until the RN HAD to swat him down?  Or would he have crushed France like a grape, and then demanded French colonies as forfeit?  

Posted
59 minutes ago, Murph said:

Thank you.   Now here is something interesting to think about: Would Great Britain have gotten involved if Germany HAD NOT invaded Belgium, and if they did not, what would have been the outcome of the war?   Would Kaiser Willy II have kept at the UK with his ship building program, until the RN HAD to swat him down?  Or would he have crushed France like a grape, and then demanded French colonies as forfeit?  

Without the German Army going through Belgium, the frontage should have been short enough for France to hold it by themselves.

As for Britain, Wilhelmine Germany had a real talent for pissing off people.  Chances are good, IMO, that they'd do something to bring the UK into the war at some point.  Look how they alienated the United States.

Posted
20 minutes ago, R011 said:

Without the German Army going through Belgium, the frontage should have been short enough for France to hold it by themselves.

As for Britain, Wilhelmine Germany had a real talent for pissing off people.  Chances are good, IMO, that they'd do something to bring the UK into the war at some point.  Look how they alienated the United States.

Can we then also assume that the Germans would be able to hold that short front should they decide not to go on the offensive in the west?

Posted

RETAC - agreed, at least in principal. To me it looks like after the opening battles, everyone looked around and realised the initial war aims they had taken into the conflict couldn't justified the price already paid.  They had already paid too much blood for their 'reasonable' aims, and the more blood paid the harder it was to settle for anything less than total victory.  

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, wendist said:

Can we then also assume that the Germans would be able to hold that short front should they decide not to go on the offensive in the west?

Yes

There'd be a bloody 1914 while everyone came to grips with the new reality. As there was historically, 1914 was the bloodiest few months of the war. But the Germans could have stood on the defensive with every chance of success. Just as if the French had stood on the defence in 1914, rather than attacking into Alsace/Lorraine, they'd have saved themselves a lot of manpower. Too bad no one had a crystal ball. 

Edited by Argus
Posted
2 hours ago, wendist said:

Can we then also assume that the Germans would be able to hold that short front should they decide not to go on the offensive in the west?

I see no reason why not.  Indeed, if they aren't going to go on the offensive, there is a very small chance they might not have war with France at all.

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Murph said:

Thank you.   Now here is something interesting to think about: Would Great Britain have gotten involved if Germany HAD NOT invaded Belgium, and if they did not, what would have been the outcome of the war?   Would Kaiser Willy II have kept at the UK with his ship building program, until the RN HAD to swat him down?  Or would he have crushed France like a grape, and then demanded French colonies as forfeit?  

There was supposedly an argument in Cabinet in the lead up to war, about whether Britain would abide by its treaty with France (which France after all had made itself all but indefensible along its north coast in the expectation Britain would pick up the slack), or just let them get on with it as they had in 1870. Im not sure exactly what they discussed in detail, but I suspect the thought of a German naval base on the Northern coast of France was a concern. It was certainly a concern that jumped into mind when Belgium was invaded. I suspect even if we didnt have a treaty with Belgium, that thought would have driven our requirement to intervene. Everyone Im sure had 'Riddle of the Sands' at the back of their mind.

I think at the very least if he hadnt invaded Belgium we would have thrown arms at France as if it was going out of style. And as already said, it seems likely the Kaiser would ahve done something to piss off the British, just as he latterly pissed off the Americans. It was an unerring knack of his.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...