did america help the allies win ww1?

Lord Dom

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
77
Location
Houston Texas
i have been having a series of debates wiv cheezy the wizz about whether america helped the allies win the war or simply helped speed up the end. i'd like to hear ur viewpoints.
 
I'll copy my last post from the Greatest POTUS thread, to reiterate.

what are u talking about not propspering after ww1 from the arms trade, it plunged the us headlong into the roaring twenties, u cannot deny the economic facts that arms and production to the allies gave tons of money to the us economy and temporaroly kept the farmes quiet about their plight.

The Roaring Twenties were not a product of wartime trade, they were the natural result of America being the only Western country not completely raped by World War I. But either way, you said that America gave the Allies war material, which is untrue before 1918. The United States traded with both sides; it was the British blockade of the North Sea that prevented most German trade ships from getting to America to trade. And if a German ship did get to America and get a load of food or whatever peaceful products they came for, it was unlikely they would get back to Germany; the British siezed every ship bound for a Central Powers port; that includes American ships, of which they siezed many tons of goods. If you want to blame anyone for America not helping the Germans, it's the British for interfering with American shipping, not the Americans for being Pro-Allies.

true the us navy was large enough to quarel with the british, but ever since the venezuela border dispute, in which britain backed away to its borde claim, the diplomatic situation changed from tugging the lions tale to patting the eagles head. n the outset of the war most americans were pro allies from the outset, except for the immigrant irish and german, which were hated by their fellow anglo-saxon americans. also the us had more ties with the english speaking british than the "germans". also german industrial sabatoging, unrestricted warfare, betrayal of the sussex pledge, and the zimmerman note made most american opinion anti-german. why is it congress voted to go to war with germany and not britain, because britain never did anything harmful to the us in the late 19th century.
I'm familiar with the many reasons for popular support for the Allies, but despite the fact that many Americans may have been rooting for the Entente, it was done so with the mentality of doing it from the sidelines; Americans by and large wanted nothing to do with a European war; we had learned our lesson in the Phillipines and Cuba; bloodied our hands, and been reminded of warfare. The European generation that went to war in the 1910s were by and large removed from the reality of warfare, there not having been a major conflict in Europe since Napoleon, if you discount the rather short Prussian wars. Americans were a slight more familiar with it, not that we had experienced a major war either, but American losses in the Spanish-American War and the Phillipine Insurrection seemed to affect public opinion about war much more than the Boer War or the Voulet-Chanoine Mission did in England or France, respectively.

what is this with monetary loans not amounting to military aid. how are u suppose to buy weapons, food, uniforms, gasoline, pay wages, and exc... without money. money is the one of the most important things neede to fight a war next to manpower and industry. the alied war effort was floating on money from us bankers like j.p morgan. the allies had all their able bodied men at the front, and the fact they had closer ties to the us in trade allowed them to send all their men to fight whie they imported weapons and food products from the us. hence the supply problem on the german front. also in a way the only time we were an arsenal of democracy was in ww1 for when we entered russia left unlike in ww2.

As I said, Americans invested in and traded with both sides before their entry in 1918. We did not supply the Allied or Central Powers with tools of war in any measureable amount. Money, yes, can be used for war, but so can food, or clothing, or really anything. So any sort of trade is considered military aid. This was, in fact, the reasoning behind the British siezure of all trade bound for Central Powers ports, as I said, including American shipping. As you may recall, this did not go over well with the Yanks at all, especially with Wilson, Mr. Freedom of the Seas, at the helm.

and now to ur last point. u have to look at it from the soldiers point of view, they have been fighting 4 years in horrable conditions that made four years seem like four hundred, they had lost the joyful vigor of going to war that they had at the onset of the war they were weary and daze. but the americans who joined the fight haden't been on the front for four years, they had the vigor that all the other soldiers had, and when the germans saw that on tp of fighting the english and french, they now had to fight energetic americans their hearts dropped for they knew that there was no way to fight this new vast amount of fresh troops. it was when the germans saw the americans, when they knew they were truely screwed. also the german spring offensive was timed in a manner to try to avoid the arrival of american troops. so the fear of the americans went from the lowest to the highest point of the chain of command.
I know that the Second Ardenne Offensive was designed to make lasting gains before the bulk of the AEF landed in France, in fact, the Germans tried to hit the American landing zones in France, but failed to cause the sheer crazyness they sought to. Germany might have known it was screwed when the Americans got there, but it was also a point in the war that it could not have hoped to win, even without American intervention. As aelf explained, the capability of the Second Reich had already reached and fallen from it's high water mark; the British blockade was working, and the German people were suffering on the home front from rationing, and of more things than just food. The war might have continued into the Twenties had the Americans not entered the war, but it would have still most likely have still been an Allied victory.
 
The allies would win eventually, but on what terms? Germany would not be crushed without US intervention; it would have to pay some reparations and give back some land, but it would never be so utterly defeated that something like Versailles could have happened (Ironically the americans never wanted to impose harsh conditions on Germany).
 
In my opinion the americans help prevent the last great push towards paris. I believe the socond ardennes offensive.
 
The way I see it, America was the equal to the British Fleet stationed in the Baltic Sea during the Great Northern War.

A potential enemy but for now ya cant be sure.

The US's biggest contribution to the allies in my opinion is the boost in morale and the collapse of enemy morale. The Germans were sick of war. Now they had to face a bunch of feiry yanks entering the game near the end to salvage what they could.
 
Well, the last German all or nothing offenses were only made because of the US coming in. That did not work as the US came in the last moment. It was too late. However if the US did not enter the war the war would have been over that year too and without a German collapse. Many say Germany was not having much power. True! Very true. However that was still more than the Brits and French had. Without the US help they would not hold out as long. In 1917 there was a mutiny in the French army only stopped because being promised that the US would enter soon. If they did not do that in 1917 another mutinity would have been highly propable leading to an end of ww1. Germany might have been at the end but France was even worse. And Britian did not look good as well because of the Uboats.

Adler
 
More then the American intervention, was the situation on the German homefront a decisive factor in the German defeat. Many soldiers on the eastfront have witnessed the Russian revolution and being laborers themselfs they could sympathise with the cause. They took their experiences with them home and to the western front.

The agitation caused by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht putted fear with the german establishment that a communist revolution would spread in Germany also. This instability and the drop in morale with German soldiers was the main cause for the end of WW1
 
Without the US help they would not hold out as long. In 1917 there was a mutiny in the French army only stopped because being promised that the US would enter soon.
Actually the revolt was crushed by Petain\'s use of force. However, the point is well made - the Allies would have bashed themselves to death at Ypres and against the Hindenburg Line as per usual in 1917 while Russia falls apart; then the Germans could have easily negotiated a treaty in early 1918 or later in the year after more Allied attacks failed.

However, advances on other fronts had a pull of their own. In Salonika, the Greeks probably still would have gotten into the war, since Constantine was definitely out and Alexander and Venizelos were in; similarly, Britain would have been able to redeem themselves in Mesopotamia and in Palestine with Allenby and Maude in command. Likely as not, the Ottomans would still collapse in 1918; that collapse could possibly be conditioned by a Greek landing at Smyrna and actual Allied advance into Anatolia. The end of the Ottomans and the subsequent threat to the Habsburgs would probably draw the Germans to the negotiating table for a compromise peace no one would really want.
 
Actually the revolt was crushed by Petain\'s use of force. However, the point is well made - the Allies would have bashed themselves to death at Ypres and against the Hindenburg Line as per usual in 1917 while Russia falls apart; then the Germans could have easily negotiated a treaty in early 1918 or later in the year after more Allied attacks failed.
What Pétain did was to use a combination of stick and carrot. 2000 death sentences were issued, some 50 or so carried out. That's the stick. The carrot was fixing things like to implement troop rotations, regular leave, as ok medical facilites as could be organised under the circumstances, all stuff designed to make the men feel they weren't just being killed needlessly and for no purpose. And a biggie in that was of course to scratch all offensive operations until the US got into it in force.

Which left the French army with a bit of a dilemma. Clearly Pétains regimen worked. Unfortunately it would stalemate the war entirely, and the onus was on the French to evict the German army from French soil.

So, even Pétain had to adapt his definsive style for offensive warfare, and by the summer of 1917 the French army was again planning offensive operations. What they opted for is kind of interesting.

What they had worked out was how to win big in limited tactical operations. Pétain straightened out the defence at Verdun in 1916, and as soon as the situation was stable, Nivelle went in and in a series of tactial operations chucked the Germans out of their positions at Verdun with moderate casualties. So now the French new how to tactically use artillery supriority to win limited engagements.

Nivelle's (and Alençon's) big mistake was to think that all they had to do was scale-up the kind of tactics used at Verdun, and Presto! Victory in WWI. That generated the 1917 Chemin-des-dames offensive which damn near broke the back of the French army.

So by summer 1917 it was Pétain who launched the Malmaison offensive as exactly the kind of limited tactical objective designed to let the French troops win easy and big, to buck up moral, but in a limited format. It worked too. The German to French casualty rate was 3.5/1, 14.000 French to 50.000 Germans, and it was accomplished by massing insane amounts of arty, aircraft and tanks against a limited salient. Pétain had the French arty take out the German batteries in the sector properly, before sending in tanks, behind which six French infantry divisions advanced pretty much unopposed.

This would likely have been how the French would have played it, Americans or no. A continuous build up of the French mechanical and fire-power superiority which was already in place by mid 1917. Limited offensive operations with clearly disporportionate casualty rates. (By comparison German storm-trooper tactics was very expensive in lives, but much more rapid.) It required stopping any German offensive of course. And it would have meant a very long war, with the French grinding away piecemeal at the German positions minimising their own casualties. Given enough time the material superiority would likely have meant a final French victory.

The decisive factor would be if the Germans could have managed a breakthrough. They tried it before the US got into the war in force, but failed. They might have done better if they hadn't been hurried by the US entry of course, but on the other hand the British-French superiority in guns, tanks and planes was ever increasing, so it's hardly self-evident they would have been in a better position later.

And to adress the OP: The US clearly aided and speeded the victory. It's just not a given that victory would have been impossible without them.
 
Don't forget that the British naval blockade was hurting Germany's industrial output. If the French didn't have the will and the means to bring the war to a quick end, neither did the Germans. And things seemed to be favouring the Allies as they learned to break the deadlock of trench warfare (the tank being one instrument to achieve this).

Of course, it could still possibly go the other way. We'd never really know. But chances are the Allies would still have won. Stating that the US saved Britain and France is exaggerating.
 
The American contribution was as a trading partner that could supply the Allies the munitions required to fight the War, had it been otherwise the Allies would have been in a sticky spot in 1915 AD.

The actual military contribution was more in terms of the certainty that American military resources were to all intents and purposes inexhaustible and could not be hurt by any action the Germans could opt for.
 
Well, the last German all or nothing offenses were only made because of the US coming in. That did not work as the US came in the last moment. It was too late. However if the US did not enter the war the war would have been over that year too and without a German collapse. Many say Germany was not having much power. True! Very true. However that was still more than the Brits and French had. Without the US help they would not hold out as long. In 1917 there was a mutiny in the French army only stopped because being promised that the US would enter soon. If they did not do that in 1917 another mutinity would have been highly propable leading to an end of ww1. Germany might have been at the end but France was even worse. And Britian did not look good as well because of the Uboats.

Adler
Is this the standard German Interperetation?
In my opinion the americans help prevent the last great push towards paris. I believe the socond ardennes offensive.
The second ardennes offensive was in WW2 and was aimed at the Channel, not Paris.
 
The second ardennes offensive was in WW2 and was aimed at the Channel, not Paris.
It might be a reference to the second battle of the Marne. It involved two US divisions. The French committed a couple of armies to it, and 470 tanks, but never mind what they did...;)
 
I don't think there's any conflict in saying that the US helped the Allies win WWI and that the Allies would (or at least may) have won without the help of the United States.
 
The Allies would still have won without the United States (Germany and the rest of the Central powers were exthusted and ready to surrender, especially Germany which suffered from the British naval blockade) but the war could last longer, and with more favourable terms for the Central Powers.
 
I believe that the US would've been a deciding factor in the way the war was 1917 onwards. Firstly, supplies for Britain and France = increased morale and supplies = demoralized enemy. Second, the Army added some more muscle in Allied attacks. Third, the decrease in enemy morale was pretty good for the Allies.

If the US didn't intervene, Russia was knocked out due to the revolution. Italy was in a stalemate, nothing really changing borders besides mountains. Austria-Hungary basically controlled the Balkans and was at the stalemate with Italy. Ottoman Empire could've easily broke the British and French colonies if they tried, and Russia was knocked out so no attacks from the north. Germany was suffering the blockade, but the U-boats and troops were still good. France was good, but demoralized. If it lasted into 1919, there probably would've been another mutiny. Britain had Uboats against it, not good. The troops were experienced, but low in numbers. The Central Powers probably would've gotten better terms, as the war would be a stalemate.
 
Ottoman Empire could've easily broke the British and French colonies if they tried.

The Ottoman Empire was already collapsing before the war, entering the war pretty much screwed them. And I do believe they tried, but lost at the Suez Canal.

The situation was tthe opposite I believe, had the British and French have tried much harder, well, the Turks could have been knocked out pretty fast.
 
The US has become the largest maritime power in the world by early 20th century. Therefore, the US modus operandi is such that she will not accept someone disrupting control over maritime trade. Well ... the Germans and their subs would have antagonized the Americans. Which was what happened in 1917. (The same MO still holds to this day. The US will not accept someone else challenging her naval superiority.)
 
neutrino, the US had a large number of battleships but was lacking any other smaller ships when they entered the war. They had nearly no light cruiser, the armoured cruiser were obsolete and only a few destroyer for the high seas duty. It was not such a balanced fleet.
Anyway what would happened if the US did not declare war? The British blockade continues. Russia falls in any ways thus mobilizing the armies from the east for the west. France would have been near to suffer another mutinity. So no morale bonus. Germany would have suffered from the blockade but it would have been critical (in means of uproar) not before 1919. A better planned and executed Operation Michael would have lead to a severe crise of the French. Either Paris was taken or just again saved. But having in mind the low morale this would have made the possibility of another mutinity higher. In any ways a peace was likely in 1919. As all were exhausted. But some a bit more than others. And such a peace would not have been Versailles.

Adler
 
I don't german moral was to great.
 
Top Bottom