The First World War

[haroldeye]

The figures suggest something else.

From the launch of the Marne Offensive in July to the Armistice being called in November the;

British and Empire troops took 188,700 prisoners and 2840 guns
French Troops took 139,000 1880
US troops took 43,000 1421
Belgian troops took 14,500 474

Hardly the results gained by armies that were incapable of mounting an offensive or indeed capable of probably holding out.

The impact of the Americans was to let the Germans know that the allies were getting stronger and the Germans could only get weaker. Having said that the German Army carried out a vigorous and deadly rearguard campaign.

As to the American casualties a good deal of blame must be laid on the American commanders, especially Black Jack himself, who ignored the advice of British and French Officers and then proceeded to make the same mistakes that we had made in 1915 - 1917. One Division was actually in trouble for training with the Aussies in combined arms operations. A lot of young Americans died because of their Generals arrogance.

Pershing was right on one matter, he believed that the allies should have chased the Germans back into Germany and completley defeated their armys. To do otherwise would be storing up trouble for the future.

[Ennath]

One of the main reasons for American reliance on 1916 style attacks was that the rapid expansion of the army on entering the war led to a shortage of officers relative to the number of troops. This in turn led to oversized US divisions with the standard number of officers, responsible for commanding more men. The big divisions were not suitable for anything other than battering frontal attacks.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

The figures suggest something else.

From the launch of the Marne Offensive in July to the Armistice being called in November the;

British and Empire troops took 188,700 prisoners and 2840 guns
French Troops took 139,000 1880
US troops took 43,000 1421
Belgian troops took 14,500 474

Hardly the results gained by armies that were incapable of mounting an offensive or indeed capable of probably holding out.

I know you can argue that, and it's true that the numbers are impressive. But what it really shows is an army that knows it can't win, and the reason for that is not that Allied soldiers turned into supermen or that the Germans turned into weaklings overnight. The reason was the Americans

Yes, I know there are revisionist books that tell you different, so let me put it another way

You'd spent 4 years fighting the Germans without success, and that was when you had millions of Russians on your side. Suddenly the Russians are beaten, and those millions are no longer fighting with you. At the same time, the Germans can release half its eastern force, or about a million men, to deal with you in the west

Without the Americans, I'd put your chances at close to zero. But with the Americans you have a trump the Germans cannot match. The whole German army knew that too. And that's why the Germans stopped fighting. You shouldn't need to think long about this

Although I admit, if you're British or French, the revisionist books must make better reading

[Ernesto75]

Palo

I am no revisionnist but I think Haroldeye has a good point.
His arguments are convincing.

In fact you two are right.

Without the Americans we still could win.

Do not forget the Germans did not have lots of food when we had more.
And we were enraged ; we wanted to fight to the last.
We prooved it, the English and the French alike.

The Germans were more discouraged than us.

The Americans were still learning the trade at the end of 1918.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by palo5

Although I admit, if you're British or French, the revisionist books must make better reading

If You're Russian,There's no amount of revisionism that can make Russia's part in that war better reading..

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

If You're Russian,There's no amount of revisionism that can make Russia's part in that war better reading..

Revisionism is good if it helps discover truth. But in this case, I don't think Russia needs it

The truth is that the war was badly led, and we lost it. But in the end we removed the Tsar who should have stopped us getting into it in the first place. This was known at the time, and is still known today

[Mal Hombre]

If He'd only listened to another charismatic Siberian..

[rupertramjet]

This debate is pointless! As far as palo is concerned, Britain in its usual pathetic way, pretended to fight against the Germans, the big bad Russians of course took all the fighting. Then when the Russians sued for peace, stabbing her allies in the back, the pathetic British and French Armies took the brunt of massive attacks, using the million odd troops released from the East, and using new methods of warfare, which in the early part of the offensive led to advances winning ground.

However the pathetic western allies, turned that around and actually won back the ground and advanced further. OK it cost a mere 860,000 casualties, against 690000 German casualties.

Nobody disputes the role played by the US, but you fail to take into account that Britain had lost a whole generation already, Yes poor leadership, yes poor command decisions, but we fought through the whole war. But your dismissal of our efforts in both wars, goes a bit beyond the pail.

[britfan999]

Originally Posted by palo5

I know you can argue that, and it's true that the numbers are impressive. But what it really shows is an army that knows it can't win, and the reason for that is not that Allied soldiers turned into supermen or that the Germans turned into weaklings overnight. The reason was the Americans

Yes, I know there are revisionist books that tell you different, so let me put it another way

You'd spent 4 years fighting the Germans without success, and that was when you had millions of Russians on your side. Suddenly the Russians are beaten, and those millions are no longer fighting with you. At the same time, the Germans can release half its eastern force, or about a million men, to deal with you in the west

Without the Americans, I'd put your chances at close to zero. But with the Americans you have a trump the Germans cannot match. The whole German army knew that too. And that's why the Germans stopped fighting. You shouldn't need to think long about this

Although I admit, if you're British or French, the revisionist books must make better reading

Rhetorical twaddle.

[Old Jud]

The Americans expected the war to carry in to the 1920's.
I read somewhere that they expected to have four million troops in Europe by 1923?