The First World War

[palo5]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Dampers - this is one issue you will never convince Palo about. He refuses to accept that the BEF in 1918 was the Army that beat the Germans. I have in the past drawn his attention to M,B&P, and to Gary Sheffields 'Forgotten Victory The First World War Myths and Realities'

I have read some of those from-reality-dislocated books, but they aren't convincing. The fact is that the English did not have enough of anything to beat Germany on their own, on land. I think they'd have lost in 1914, if Germany didn't have so many troops in the East

Palo just refuses to accept that anyone but the Americans could beat the Boche...

American supplies, American money, and millions of American troops - which Germany couldn't match - were what made the big difference to Germans

Likewise his comment about the RN only needing a draw..

It's true, that's all they needed, and it's what they got. Why do you have to win a battle when the enemy can't beat you? The best battle is the battle not fought

But they did eventually win against the U-Boats. That was important, like in WW2

Previously in this thread Palo has admitted that the blockade starved Germany into a perilous position. He forgets that this blockade was imposed by the Royal Navy

I have always believed that the blockade was one of the major reasons Germany gave up. It had an awful effect on Germany, seriously

Concerning finance, Britain needed loans from USA, because it was financing France, which in turn was financing Russia etc etc. - Take USA out and you have an unsustainable model

So no, I don't think the BEF beat Germany on their lonesome. They never had the ability or the manpower to do it. If you were a realistic German, you would blame it on the Blockade and the Americans

[palo5]

Originally Posted by damp-patch

...there was no 'crash through the Allied lines like they were made of paper'...

The British were in panic. And the French. No one had crashed through lines like that in the entire war

Some British dream they won the war on their lonesome in some of these comic books. Do they actually know how few men they had in France in 1918?

No one will love me for saying this, but you have brains, comrades - think for yourselves, don't rely on pop-history!

[richardoe]

Well if Britain had so few men in France in 1918 how did we win? Were the Germans that bad? Dont foget that Britain was fighting in the middle east, and on the north west frontier in 1918.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by richardoe

Well if Britain had so few men in France in 1918 how did we win?

You didn't win, nobody won. See WW2

But why the Germans stopped fighting? - because of the Americans and the Blockade

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by palo5

You didn't win, nobody won. See WW2

But why the Germans stopped fighting? - because of the Americans and the Blockade

We won,the Kaiser was deposed,exiled,the Austro Hungarian empire was destroyed likewise the Ottoman empire.The Germans made peace to avoid Their country being invaded ,Their people subjected to what They had done in France and especially in Belgium.

[knobby109]

The British Army was thinned in 1918 because of a political miscalculation and 1.2 million troops were held back in the UK.Because of this the German advance was initially successful but was eventually halted.As mentioned earlier , the RN blockade had been gradually strangling Germany , when the advancing troops found plentiful Allied supplies it did their morale no good at all. Plus they captured lots of alcohol and decided to enjoy it!
Winston Churchill in his "World Crisis" book tabulated German losses and resulting strength.It was clear that the German Army had overstretched itself and could not make good their losses.
Regarding Palo's claim that Britain planned withdrawal in May 1918 . utter claptrap.Churchill was minister of Munitions and was busy planning the 1919 Programme of increased armaments production.As he says "thankfully it was never required"
The reinforced British Army, now with integrated artillery,tank and air support , was now able to take the offensive and roll up the German Army , making advances unimaginable during the earlier stages of the war. The French, though still very strong, had been bled white earlier in the war and had let the British take the strain after 1916.
Yes, American support was important but hadn't really got its act together yet.But the threat was there for the future.
Also, the British were rolling up the Turkish Empire which capitulated as did another German ally, Bulgaria.Then the Austro Hungarian Empire sued for peace after which Germany was without allies.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by richardoe

How could the British army of wwi be class bound when for most of wwi the professional head was from a working class background? As for the RAF, sorry to spoil a myth but most officers at the start of wwii were from an upper class background.

If you mean Field Marshal Haig, his family owned the Haig distillery and his own father ran it and drew £10,000 a year from the business; his mother was from the landed gentry. Not exactly straight out of Look Back in Anger.

The RAF had strict educational entrance requirements and of course physical fitness and excellent eyesight were necessary. You were obviously more likely to meet these requirements if you came from an affluent background and were privately educated. But the service was genuinely open to applicants who met the entrance requirements. Officers had batmen, a sort of valet; that was a very upper-class idea, although by the time an officer cadet became an officer, he would have been quite capable of tying his own shoelaces. There was rapid expansion of the RAF after 1935 and this included the recruitment of hundreds of pilots from relatively humble origins, men who had previously been low paid clerical workers and the like; the educated poor. Mostly, such men were inducted at Sergeant Pilot level; they were usually promoted to Pilot Officer after a while, if they rendered good service and did not do anything too outrageous. The RAF, particularly after the war started, was open minded on matters of individual indiscipline, taking each case on its merits. When in command of 617 Squadron, Group Captain Leonard Cheshire punished a newly arrived bomber crew who had piddled out the officers' mess window because it was blackout, they had just arrived they couldn't find the lavatories.

Gentlemen, if you are good at your jobs, you can get away with a lot of things in this unit. But you cannot get away with pissing on the Group Captain...

Apparently the rest of the squadron thought that their aim was pretty good, from a second floor window.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

We won...

Won? That's why they were back at your throats less than a generation later. And once again without the Americans you would have... well, looked unhappy

But this time, you had a friend who would destroy 80% of your enemy for you

Clearly, if there is a God, he favors you

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

...
The RAF had strict educational entrance requirements and of course physical fitness and excellent eyesight were necessary...

Physical fitness? It wasn't WW1, but as far as I know you could be in the RAF without any legs, if you were brave enough

[richardoe]

Scoundrelthe professional head of the British army for most of wwi was General Sir William Robertson. AFAIK Haig was never CIGS.

As for Douglas Bader, he was invalided out after he disobeyed orders. If he hadnt lost his legs chances are he would have been court-martialled and cashiered. At the start of wwii he was recalled, and there was another RAF pilot with no legs.