Lord Dom
Chieftain
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Is this the standard German Interperetation?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
The second ardennes offensive was in WW2 and was aimed at the Channel, not Paris.In my opinion the americans help prevent the last great push towards paris. I believe the socond ardennes offensive.
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...The second ardennes offensive was in WW2 and was aimed at the Channel, not Paris.
Ottoman Empire could've easily broke the British and French colonies if they tried.