U.S. Non -- Involvement ?

[R011]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You were, in fairness, tooling up to build components for the Liberty tank, which would have been a major shot in the arm in 1919. But of course, the war ended and it ever reached the battlefield.

 

Which is pretty much the story behind the American arms industry in that war.  1919 would have been the year that all the crash investment would have started to pay off, mostly by equipping a gigantic AEF as big or bigger than the BEF and French Army combined..

[seahawk]

But this ignores an important thing about WW1. Unlike WW2 WW1 did not end with a total military victory and Allied troops completely destroying the enemy forces and occupying the Entente territories, it ended with a negotiated settlement that became possible because the Entente no longer believed that they would win or not loose. For this those American troops and guns did not actually need to reach the frontlines, the knowledge of them coming was enough.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, seahawk said:

But this ignores an important thing about WW1. Unlike WW2 WW1 did not end with a total military victory and Allied troops completely destroying the enemy forces and occupying the Entente territories, it ended with a negotiated settlement that became possible because the Entente no longer believed that they would win or not loose. For this those American troops and guns did not actually need to reach the frontlines, the knowledge of them coming was enough.

Not at all

The war ended in an Armistice because Entante had no doubt at all that if the fighting continued they could and would win, while Germany was equally certain they would lose. The point was not have to do that fighting. There were any number of motives for not wanting to fight it out to the finish, and each nation had it own mix of them. But there was no illusions anywhere about the balance of military force at the end. The growing American presence was massively influential, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. But as a counterfactual, removing them only lifts weight from the Entante side of the scales, it adds nothing to the Allied side and the balance had already shifted against them. 
 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Argus

[DB]

It has, I think, been argued that no November armistice might have been better overall for 20th Century Europe as the consequent invasion of Germany and it's likely utter devastation would have been a more potent lesson than the Versailles treaty conditions.

Not sure about that, but perhaps it's worth discussing?

[R011]

51 minutes ago, DB said:

It has, I think, been argued that no November armistice might have been better overall for 20th Century Europe as the consequent invasion of Germany and it's likely utter devastation would have been a more potent lesson than the Versailles treaty conditions.

Not sure about that, but perhaps it's worth discussing?

The Kaiser wasn't as big a lunatic as Hitler.  Neither were his generals or ministers.  They could tell when they were beaten and had no granadiose ideas of Gotterdammerung.

[seahawk]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

Not at all

The war ended in an Armistice because Entante had no doubt at all that if the fighting continued they could and would win, while Germany was equally certain they would lose. The point was not have to do that fighting. There were any number of motives for not wanting to fight it out to the finish, and each nation had it own mix of them. But there was no illusions anywhere about the balance of military force at the end. The growing American presence was massively influential, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. But as a counterfactual, removing them only lifts weight from the Entante side of the scales, it adds nothing to the Allied side and the balance had already shifted against them. 
 

But that is exactly what I am saying. US troops did not need to arrive to change the strategic outlook for both sides. It does not matter they would only arrive in full force in 1919, the knowledge that they will arrive shaped the war already in 1917.

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, R011 said:

Which is pretty much the story behind the American arms industry in that war.  1919 would have been the year that all the crash investment would have started to pay off, mostly by equipping a gigantic AEF as big or bigger than the BEF and French Army combined..

Yeah, I agree. The US Army would, (along with Plan 1919), break the back of the German Army in 1919. And the Germans knew it too.

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, seahawk said:

But this ignores an important thing about WW1. Unlike WW2 WW1 did not end with a total military victory and Allied troops completely destroying the enemy forces and occupying the Entente territories, it ended with a negotiated settlement that became possible because the Entente no longer believed that they would win or not loose. For this those American troops and guns did not actually need to reach the frontlines, the knowledge of them coming was enough.

But even assuming they knew they were NOT coming, they knew their equipment was. And if the German Army couldnt break the allies when they had them on the hop in 1918, they were not going to do it in 1919 with their morale broken.

The German Army was done. They knew it. All they had left was the opportunity to do a fighting withdrawl to Berlin, and with the spectre of Socialism and what it had done to the Russian Empire, I dont really see them as giving it a chance, do you?

The real change if change they could be, was the lack of impetus of the Americans not arriving driving the March offensive. They could have sat down, prepared, built more tanks, trained up more stormtroopers. Would it have made a difference? Probably not, no. We just had more warm bodies and equipment to throw at the problem than they did. The Americans arriving made that threat more apparent, but it wasnt going to stop all those French African soldiers or Indian Soldiers arriving if they did not.

 

[seahawk]

Imho it is not that easy. The entry of the USA had a huge impact on Entente morale, as it meant. Victory before the US arrives in numbers or certain defeat. So the Entente had to push for a final victory even though they were already short on everything. And those final offensives ate badly in the remaining stockpiles of resources and manpower reserves they had.

The US entry to the war however made one option impossible and that was to hold and wait for an acceptable deal with the Allies.

On the Allied side the US entry also meant that the defeat of the Russians was not that bad, as a much stronger Ally was now joining the war. Imho the outlook would have been different without the US war entry.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Imho it is not that easy. The entry of the USA had a huge impact on Entente morale, as it meant. Victory before the US arrives in numbers or certain defeat. So the Entente had to push for a final victory even though they were already short on everything. And those final offensives ate badly in the remaining stockpiles of resources and manpower reserves they had.

The US entry to the war however made one option impossible and that was to hold and wait for an acceptable deal with the Allies.

On the Allied side the US entry also meant that the defeat of the Russians was not that bad, as a much stronger Ally was now joining the war. Imho the outlook would have been different without the US war entry.

There is a story Basil Liddell Hart relates about the March offensive. When the Germans broke through, they ran into allied Depots. Which were full of everything, from new boots, belts, guns, ammunition, jackets, food and most importantly, Whiskey. This was an army that in 1918 had suffered from 4 years of blockade, and had been able to get whatever it wanted, even before the Americans entered the war. And they realised, finally, that no matter how far they went, the Allies would inevitably win because they could throw near infinite supply, of everything, at them, and they were doomed to lose because they were still using jackets recovered from dead servicemen.

Its not just about morale, though for the Germans that was collapsing. Its about recognising, as in WW2, war is a supply/consumption problem. You keep dumping supply at a problem, it doesnt matter if you make mistakes, you are probably at length going to win.

So the Germans had poor supply. They had poor morale. What precisely did they have going for them? Their people were already on the brink of starvation. Another year of war would make it a reality.

 

I guess we are going to continue to disagree, and thats fine.

[seahawk]

The funny thing is that you use the same arguments, as I use. The supply situation decided the war, but the direct involvement of the Americans had a measurable influence on that situation and the morale of the fighting forces - enemy and friendly. This is not such a big problem for the British, who were doing well on their own, it was more important for the French but even more important for the Italians.

Just read the public reactions of the time in France and Italy when the US entry into the war was announced. And that happened directly after the morale in the French army hit a low after the Nivelle offensive. Now imagine how Pétain could promise  more regular and longer leave and an end to grand offensives "until the arrival of tanks and Americans on the front", without the Americans coming.

Later we have the Russian mutiny in France, which also removed about 10.000 troops from the available troops.

Or just read what one US regiment did in Italy: https://armyhistory.org/viva-lamerica-the-332d-infantry-on-the-italian-front/

How the Italians welcomed them and what the Austrians believed they were facing.

Edited December 16, 2022 by seahawk

[Rick]

I have always been amazed how one assassination in the Balkans led to a massive European failure in diplomacy. 

[RETAC21]

7 hours ago, DB said:

It has, I think, been argued that no November armistice might have been better overall for 20th Century Europe as the consequent invasion of Germany and it's likely utter devastation would have been a more potent lesson than the Versailles treaty conditions.

Not sure about that, but perhaps it's worth discussing?

Yes, but how would they know that? after 4 years of mass death as had never been seen or thought before, you cannot blame the allies for accepting an armistice, that on the other hand was anything but lenient with Germany and Austria-Hungary.

It can be argued more accurately that the war was won but the peace was lost, but to be fair, that  only happened because Mussolini and Hilter were allowed to reach power and then go on to set up aggressive dictatorships that were confronted too late.  To put the blame on WW1 politicians is rather unfair.

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

The funny thing is that you use the same arguments, as I use. The supply situation decided the war, but the direct involvement of the Americans had a measurable influence on that situation and the morale of the fighting forces - enemy and friendly. This is not such a big problem for the British, who were doing well on their own, it was more important for the French but even more important for the Italians.

Just read the public reactions of the time in France and Italy when the US entry into the war was announced. And that happened directly after the morale in the French army hit a low after the Nivelle offensive. Now imagine how Pétain could promise  more regular and longer leave and an end to grand offensives "until the arrival of tanks and Americans on the front", without the Americans coming.

Later we have the Russian mutiny in France, which also removed about 10.000 troops from the available troops.

Or just read what one US regiment did in Italy: https://armyhistory.org/viva-lamerica-the-332d-infantry-on-the-italian-front/

How the Italians welcomed them and what the Austrians believed they were facing.

Where you both are diverging is not in the cause, but in the effect. You are saying the war was won because the US joined the war, while everyone else is saying that the war would be won irrespective of the US joining the war, but that the US joining accelerated the end of the war at the price of an uneasy peace (the 14 points, which created more trouble later on than they solved)

[RETAC21]

23 minutes ago, Rick said:

I have always been amazed how one assassination in the Balkans led to a massive European failure in diplomacy. 

It wasn't a failure of diplomacy, the assasination was an excuse to implement war as a solution to internal problems in Austria, which led to the Russians stepping in to avoid humiltiation which could have meant instability in Russia.

Since Germany couldn't let A-H be steamrolled without losing their position they had to join, but couldn't do so without defeating the French, which leads to the invasion of Belgium, giving excuse to the UK to join in to eliminate Germany as a naval power.

The only power that joined out of an opportunistic inclination and that could have profitably sit out the war was Italy.

Poor planning did the rest.

[Rick]

39 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

It wasn't a failure of diplomacy, the assasination was an excuse to implement war as a solution to internal problems in Austria, which led to the Russians stepping in to avoid humiltiation which could have meant instability in Russia.

Since Germany couldn't let A-H be steamrolled without losing their position they had to join, but couldn't do so without defeating the French, which leads to the invasion of Belgium, giving excuse to the UK to join in to eliminate Germany as a naval power.

The only power that joined out of an opportunistic inclination and that could have profitably sit out the war was Italy.

Poor planning did the rest.

I admit to not knowing much about W.W.1 and the conditions leading up to it. I shake my head in disbelief in, as you stated:

"... excuse to implement war as a solution to internal problems in Austria,..."

"... Russians stepping in to avoid humiltiation which could have meant instability in Russia."

"...Germany couldn't let A-H be steamrolled without losing their position..."

"... but couldn't do so without defeating the French..."

Looks like continental suicide. 

[RETAC21]

6 minutes ago, Rick said:

I admit to not knowing much about W.W.1 and the conditions leading up to it. I shake my head in disbelief in, as you stated:

"... excuse to implement war as a solution to internal problems in Austria,..."

"... Russians stepping in to avoid humiltiation which could have meant instability in Russia."

"...Germany couldn't let A-H be steamrolled without losing their position..."

"... but couldn't do so without defeating the French..."

Looks like continental suicide. 

Pretty much, this is a consequence of a century without continental wide wars, technology innovations that changed the nature of war but were not properly understood by the militaries and colonial wars which were "cheap" and "glorious", so the war wasn't thought as something intrinisically bad but as an opportunity to purify the spirit of the nation. The same misconceptions led Russia to invade Ukraine this year, the more things change...

[Rick]

1 minute ago, RETAC21 said:

Pretty much, this is a consequence of a century without continental wide wars, technology innovations that changed the nature of war but were not properly understood by the militaries and colonial wars which were "cheap" and "glorious", so the war wasn't thought as something intrinisically bad but as an opportunity to purify the spirit of the nation. The same misconceptions led Russia to invade Ukraine this year, the more things change...

"... the more things change..."  Good point. 

[seahawk]

15 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Where you both are diverging is not in the cause, but in the effect. You are saying the war was won because the US joined the war, while everyone else is saying that the war would be won irrespective of the US joining the war, but that the US joining accelerated the end of the war at the price of an uneasy peace (the 14 points, which created more trouble later on than they solved)

I think it is hard to predict the outcome without US intervention, well except from a German victory that is, as this was not possible by 1917 no matter what. Or to be more precise that we need to forget anything that happened after the US joined, as the US joining had a huge influence on all parties and it massively influenced strategies, options and morale for all parties. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Where you both are diverging is not in the cause, but in the effect. You are saying the war was won because the US joined the war, while everyone else is saying that the war would be won irrespective of the US joining the war, but that the US joining accelerated the end of the war at the price of an uneasy peace (the 14 points, which created more trouble later on than they solved)

Yes, Id entirely agree with that.

[RETAC21]

5 hours ago, seahawk said:

I think it is hard to predict the outcome without US intervention, well except from a German victory that is, as this was not possible by 1917 no matter what. Or to be more precise that we need to forget anything that happened after the US joined, as the US joining had a huge influence on all parties and it massively influenced strategies, options and morale for all parties. 

I don't agree, I can't think of any situation that would see the Germans getting a better way out than they got. Before the US joined, both Turkey and A-H were about to collapse and the US entry didn't change anything unless to delay A-H surrender as Kaiser Karl hoped for US mediation, but the Italians needed to recoup their losses and that could only happen in the battlefield.

If anything, the biggest impact would be in Russia as they would get an additional year of German occupation before the Civil war kicks in earnest.

[RETAC21]

Must see

 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

I don't agree, I can't think of any situation that would see the Germans getting a better way out than they got. Before the US joined, both Turkey and A-H were about to collapse and the US entry didn't change anything unless to delay A-H surrender as Kaiser Karl hoped for US mediation, but the Italians needed to recoup their losses and that could only happen in the battlefield.

If anything, the biggest impact would be in Russia as they would get an additional year of German occupation before the Civil war kicks in earnest.

I think the most likely thing to stay the same is that Russia leaves the war this frees up German troops and I think it is likely that they would still try to get Italy out of the war too. So Caporetto could happen.

We would then have to see if France and Italy stabilize their armies as quickly as they did with no promise of US troops coming. If they do not Germany has a chance for a better outcome, if they do the tank offensives in the West will still happen and Germany won´t have any means to stop them either. Then the Allies could decide to break up Germany into Prussia, Bavaria and a few other states. This could avoid WW2.

[RETAC21]

10 minutes ago, seahawk said:

I think the most likely thing to stay the same is that Russia leaves the war this frees up German troops and I think it is likely that they would still try to get Italy out of the war too. So Caporetto could happen.

We would then have to see if France and Italy stabilize their armies as quickly as they did with no promise of US troops coming. If they do not Germany has a chance for a better outcome, if they do the tank offensives in the West will still happen and Germany won´t have any means to stop them either. Then the Allies could decide to break up Germany into Prussia, Bavaria and a few other states. This could avoid WW2.

Oh, I agree, I don't see 1917 playing any different, but US entry in the war meant it ended in 1918 rather than 1919

[seahawk]

Most likely you right, especially as it would need a level of diplomatic and political cleverness to use increased problems of the Italians and French to Germany's advantage, a cleverness the Kaiser had not shown during the whole conflict. He would needed to have understood that he will loose, if he does not agree on a deal. And that would have meant to offer peace and concessions after German victories on the battlefield.