If the US did not enter WW1, would Germany win?

[Burton K Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

3) That doesn't jive with what I've read about his offensives, which comes from modern sources. I keep asking for citations that this historically negationist viewpoint is valid and I keep seeing jack shit to justify them, so I'm going to assume that it's not just 67th Tigers who engages in a certain variety of "history" concerning some societies of the past.

Oh look, an entire page of Snake Featherston posting massive walls of text trying to force someone to concede his point about some irrelevant detail, complete with repeated personal attacks.

You know the drill by now, kicked for a week, &c, &c

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

This is in response to both posts: so if the USA really did do this, and I would like to see more citations on it, why is the USA going to decide against making more money from WWI when it's possible to do that for the benefit of Germany and Austria-Hungary?

Because they wouldn't be making money from the Entente. The Entente were only able to pay for all of this by taking out loans from US banks and they didn't have any more collateral for loans by 1917, so no more loans. Giving out unsecured loans have to stem from the US government intervening in the financial sector, something unprecedented at the time, and actually guarantee further loans, something they never wanted to do until they declared war.
Its not for the benefit of the CPs that they wouldn't be giving out more loans, its to the benefit of the US NOT to offer the Entente loans with no collateral whatsoever and have no guarantee of being paid back. Plus the war was going to be over eventually, so why not divest the economy now when there was no financial exposure rather than later when there was via unsecured loans and the economy takes a bigger hit when the war spending ends.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Israel is a society that's absorbed Jews from literally all around the world, and this creates continual issues in their society, with things like for instance not recognizing the Beta Israel as real Jews. The statement was intended as a commentary on the idea that a diverse society cannot impose a simple language of command, the Germans evidently managed to direct Slavic and Italian soldiers Auf Deutsch just fine, why can't the A-Hs do the same thing if it comes down to running a war-waging army efficiently? Of course the real reason is that doing this ends the existence of the A-H monarchy, but that just goes back to why Franz Josef's armies were made of failure.

Except they learn Hebrew in school or in the IDF. Everyone learns Hebrew. In the AH the soldiers DID NOT learn German. They learned 200 words of German and got to speak their native language. The Austrians and Hungarians did not command in German or Magyar, but in the language of the regiment, with some having 3-4 languages. In fact there was at least one case of a regiment being commanded in English because it was the only common language the officers spoke with each other.

[kalamona]

Originally Posted by miketr

Even the single language of command was only 200 words or so. That is not a substitute for a single language. A Regiment might have 2 or 3 different languages.

Michael

Somewhere on the internet there is an almost complete "Army-hungarian dictionary", but at the end of this blogpost some examples:

http://nemfelejtjuk.blog.hu/2009/01/24/bakanyelv

The interesting thing: may of these words are still alive in the hungarian language.

"Benje schaisen!"

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by miketr

Even the single language of command was only 200 words or so. That is not a substitute for a single language. A Regiment might have 2 or 3 different languages.

Why did they chose such a low number? They had a two year period to train them, and I can't see heavy winter maneuvers. Why not use the inevitable down time to get them up to several thousand words of German? Or just have a few weeks at the beginning to train them in German. In a military setting there are so many words in a language that are not needed - Romantic words, artistic words, culinary words, etc - 3000 word vocabulary is probably functional for an enlisted man in a military environment.

My uncle and his civilian wife was stationed in Germany for about two years, and they spoke a lot more than 200 words of German by the end of the tour, and they never received any formal German training by the military.

Is this just because of the political issues related to language in A-H?

[miketr]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Why did they chose such a low number? They had a two year period to train them, and I can't see heavy winter maneuvers. Why not use the inevitable down time to get them up to several thousand words of German? Or just have a few weeks at the beginning to train them in German. In a military setting there are so many words in a language that are not needed - Romantic words, artistic words, culinary words, etc - 3000 word vocabulary is probably functional for an enlisted man in a military environment.

My uncle and his civilian wife was stationed in Germany for about two years, and they spoke a lot more than 200 words of German by the end of the tour, and they never received any formal German training by the military.

Your uncle and aunt were as you said stationed in Germany. The national language of is of course German. So off the base they were subjected to totally immersion in German language.

In the KuK the units would ONLY speak the command words when on military business. Outside of that and even when on duty they would still use their national languages most of the time.

Michael

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by AdA

You seem to be stuck in the kind of perception that comes from reading a few books writen by civilians and playing a lot of COD.
Take a simple thing like dealing with a strong, plattoon held position. Modern way is get the tank platoon your company is working with to provide supressive fire. That doesn't work get a tank with a heavier gun. That doesn't work call in a few observed shells of 155mm. Clean up the resulting mess.
That was the french way in 1918. With a BCL getting operational every four days (as in every four days the French increased their armour strengh with twice the number of tanks the Germans built for the whole war) Infantry/Tank cooperation was becoming the norm.
The British had a different type of tank, more suited to being used as a modern war elephant, to lead the way so the Infantry could follow, and cooperation suffered as a result.
German integration of firepower was more planned, the Artillery executing a pre(well)planned barrage and the attacking infantry relliyng more in what they could drag along. (and lacking specialized weapons, such as the handy 37mm portable gun that was so useful for 1918 conditions)
Infiltration tactics also created problems, requiring FoF to clean up the resulting focus of resistence, with the problem that having several units fightint its way along the same axis messes up logistics a lot.
Germans though in terms of seizing ground and mopping up. French thought in terms of destroying the unit in front of you. 1918 was an attriction war and lack of motorization meant that German penetrations could not be exploited and only generated salients.
Infiltration tactics are good if your openent looses its nerves. To break a strong minded ressourcefull oponent you need "demolition" tactics.
A good historica parallel would be Lannes revision of Attack tactics in the 2nd siege of Saragossa.
If you want a German POV, I sugest reading the boring WW1 analysis of Guderian's "Atchung Panzers" rather than the racy "lets do this next time" bits...
In essence its supported Infantry (Germans) vs Integrated all Arms effort (French)

Wiking is right on the issues you list, and your post in generally wrong. You are applying too many WW2 ideas to equipment in WW1 that will not work that way.

1) The Germans regularly moved their armor units up to 250 miles over night to achieve local surprise. In WW1, you were lucky if you could drive a tank 10 miles without it breaking down.

2) Actung Panzer tactics require the reliable tanks of #1, and they require trucks to move infantry and trucks to move fuel and ammo for the tanks. What happened in WW1 is that tanks could achieve a local break through and advance a few miles. This could also be accomplished by skilled infantry or skilled local commanders who wisely select a place to attack. Until you have the trucks or the other side runs out of reserves, any advance remain local advance not general advance or enveloping actions.

3) Germany was into combined arms (infantry, artillery, engineers, airplanes, etc.) They did lag a year or so on tanks, but in a longer war, the Germans will also incorporate these vehicles in the combine arms attack.

4) As to French only attacking to destroy units and the Germans not, you statement is wrong. Verdun was entirely about destroying French military units. The French often attacked to try to gain land. Both sides attacked for both reasons.

5) As to German anti-tank guns, when trained units of artillery met tanks, the Germans did well. Untrained did not do so well. This is a temporary issue the Germans would have corrected over time. The Germans didnot go all out with anti-tank weapons because there was not a need. Until the very end when they ran out of reserves, the Germans generally were able to blunt tank attacks and regain land with an infantry counter attack.

6) Without steel, the tanks you want to use will not exist. Without oil, even if the exist due to ASB reasons, they will not be able to attack.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by miketr

I don't think it was even that ambitious; knockem back with minimal force possible I have the impression. I got the info from a blurb that General Hermann von Kuhl had in a report to the Reichstag on why the spring offensive failed. Section on the strategic background to the offensive and other choices considered.

Michael

Thanks

That is even easier to see. Probably a knock them back 10 or so miles and gains some better terrain to defend. It sounds like a series of corp level attacks that the Germans often did.

[Vnix]

Originally Posted by AdA

You seem to be stuck in the kind of perception that comes from reading a few books writen by civilians and playing a lot of COD.
Take a simple thing like dealing with a strong, plattoon held position. Modern way is get the tank platoon your company is working with to provide supressive fire. That doesn't work get a tank with a heavier gun. That doesn't work call in a few observed shells of 155mm. Clean up the resulting mess.
That was the french way in 1918. With a BCL getting operational every four days (as in every four days the French increased their armour strengh with twice the number of tanks the Germans built for the whole war) Infantry/Tank cooperation was becoming the norm.
The British had a different type of tank, more suited to being used as a modern war elephant, to lead the way so the Infantry could follow, and cooperation suffered as a result.
German integration of firepower was more planned, the Artillery executing a pre(well)planned barrage and the attacking infantry relliyng more in what they could drag along. (and lacking specialized weapons, such as the handy 37mm portable gun that was so useful for 1918 conditions)
Infiltration tactics also created problems, requiring FoF to clean up the resulting focus of resistence, with the problem that having several units fightint its way along the same axis messes up logistics a lot.
Germans though in terms of seizing ground and mopping up. French thought in terms of destroying the unit in front of you. 1918 was an attriction war and lack of motorization meant that German penetrations could not be exploited and only generated salients.
Infiltration tactics are good if your openent looses its nerves. To break a strong minded ressourcefull oponent you need "demolition" tactics.
A good historica parallel would be Lannes revision of Attack tactics in the 2nd siege of Saragossa.
If you want a German POV, I sugest reading the boring WW1 analysis of Guderian's "Atchung Panzers" rather than the racy "lets do this next time" bits...
In essence its supported Infantry (Germans) vs Integrated all Arms effort (French)

please take a good long look at the previous posts... Wiking studied these things in Vienna, the former capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If any place has information about wars and army performence, then I can bet you that Vienna has got it.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by miketr

Your uncle and aunt were as you said stationed in Germany. The national language of is of course German. So off the base they were subjected to totally immersion in German language.

In the KuK the units would ONLY speak the command words when on military business. Outside of that and even when on duty they would still use their national languages most of the time.

Michael

Ok, here is why it sounds so strange to me. I went to USA artillery school. We use French terms for parts of the shell and gun, so I learned 10 French military terms back in the day in just a hour or two. At one time, I could do the entire Halt, Challenge and Password in Spanish, again, it was less than an hour training. I was given live ammo on a Honduras military base and they did not want me to shoot a Honduran soldier because he did not understand English. Learning two hundred words, especially if repeated in training is literally a day or two work.

I guess is what I am asking more this. In peace time, why not teach more German words? I understand why Magyarization cause real issues, but why would teaching 500 not 200 German words cause domestic political issues?

Even just having them use the German names for all the equipment would simply logistics, and it is not that hard. Then teach them to count to 100, how to say unit size in German (regiment), how to do marching commands in German, then teach them a few common verbs in case a German speaking officer or NCO has to take command. (Attack, retreat, fire, cease fire, cover, reload). I understand that a lot of training and some of the more complicated task will need to be done in say Croatian, but speaking extra German is a nice backup. Not to mention if there are instructions in multiple languages and the solider can read, he will pick up a bunch more words.

And many of these people are tri or quad lingual anyway. It is my understanding that the average A-H citizen spoke 3-4 languages, and in the least fluent language they spoke at least several thousand words. Just from an American perspective a few hundred years later, the decision seems bizarre. It would be like the US Army having Spanish only units for people from El Paso and other border towns.

[Vnix]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Ok, here is why it sounds so strange to me. I went to USA artillery school. We use French terms for parts of the shell and gun, so I learned 10 French military terms back in the day in just a hour or two. At one time, I could do the entire Halt, Challenge and Password in Spanish, again, it was less than an hour training. I was given live ammo on a Honduras military base and they did not want me to shoot a Honduran soldier because he did not understand English. Learning two hundred words, especially if repeated in training is literally a day or two work.

I guess is what I am asking more this. In peace time, why not teach more German words? I understand why Magyarization cause real issues, but why would teaching 500 not 200 German words cause domestic political issues?

Even just having them use the German names for all the equipment would simply logistics, and it is not that hard. Then teach them to count to 100, how to say unit size in German (regiment), how to do marching commands in German, then teach them a few common verbs in case a German speaking officer or NCO has to take command. (Attack, retreat, fire, cease fire, cover, reload). I understand that a lot of training and some of the more complicated task will need to be done in say Croatian, but speaking extra German is a nice backup. Not to mention if there are instructions in multiple languages and the solider can read, he will pick up a bunch more words.

And many of these people are tri or quad lingual anyway. It is my understanding that the average A-H citizen spoke 3-4 languages, and in the least fluent language they spoke at least several thousand words. Just from an American perspective a few hundred years later, the decision seems bizarre. It would be like the US Army having Spanish only units for people from El Paso and other border towns.

implementing this allone would be an interesting PoD that can cause allot of butterflies over the years. Even if the Army is devided into a Cisleithanian and Hungarian one (one teaching those things in German and the other in Hungarian), it would create a better integrated army, which theoretically could do allot better on the battlefield.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Vnix

please take a good long look at the previous posts... Wiking studied these things in Vienna, the former capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If any place has information about wars and army performence, then I can bet you that Vienna has got it.

I appreciate the support, but my time in Vienna provided little perspective on the Western front, which is the issue that Ada is writing about.
BlondeBC critiqued Ada's post pretty well IMHO.

Vienna though was hugely informative about matters on the Eastern Front in WW1 and a bit in WW2. The military museum there is phenomenal. If you have any interest in WW1 I suggest you visit if you can...especially as they have Franz Ferdinand's car with bullet holes and FF's bloody uniform that he died in. Their collection of WW1 artillery is interesting, but alas no Skoda 350mm mortar...but I was able to get a copy of the huge tome they publish about AH artillery from 1867-1918, which is definitely worth the price.
The collection of trench warfare hand-to-hand weapons is something to see too.

Originally Posted by Vnix

implementing this allone would be an interesting PoD that can cause allot of butterflies over the years. Even if the Army is devided into a Cisleithanian and Hungarian one (one teaching those things in German and the other in Hungarian), it would create a better integrated army, which theoretically could do allot better on the battlefield.

The army was basically in three part: the K.u.K. army with its 200 words of German plus regimental languages to appease various ethnic demands and men from all over the realm, the Landwehr which was totally German and made up of men from only Cisleithania, and the Honved which was the Landwehr in Hungary with only Hungarian spoken. Each was a first line army, not a reserve, as would be the case in Germany or any other army. So AH had 3 separate armies because of their political gridlock that wouldn't properly fund or staff the Combined Army, so they created separate armies for each half of the Empire and restricted the size of artillery the separate armies could have.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

And many of these people are tri or quad lingual anyway. It is my understanding that the average A-H citizen spoke 3-4 languages, and in the least fluent language they spoke at least several thousand words. Just from an American perspective a few hundred years later, the decision seems bizarre. It would be like the US Army having Spanish only units for people from El Paso and other border towns.

Education was very poor in the AH empire outside the major cities and developed parts of the empire like Austria and Bohemia. Most did not speak more than 1-2 languages and learned those mostly through need. The draft mostly picked up the poor peasants that couldn't find a way out of the draft, either through bribery or some other scheme, so were generally the least educated and cosmopolitan elements of the empire. They were generally Slavs in the infantry, the bulk of the army, with the technical branches being mostly German, Hungarian, and Czech, who all were educated and spoke or understood German anyway, but didn't have to speak it for political reasons in the army.

[Grey Wolf]

I'm not sure where arguing whether or not the KuK Armee was well-led, or polygot, or so on actually has much bearing on the economic situation for the ALLIES.

It is undeniable that Austria-Hungary felt the strain severely but it is also well-known that the actual army collapse did not happen until the last weeks of the war when it was obviously lost on every front. IIRC Italian units were still fighting in the KuK Armee almost right up to the surrender.

German control of Austrian industry surely is a POSITIVE for the CP side of this equation as it was working to boost overall CP output.

And if the Americans are NOT coming, then instead of a morale boost, you have a morale COLLAPSE in the West because disaster is following disaster - Serbia knocked out, Romania knocked out, Russian knocked out.

German forces are stiffening Ottoman resistance, and the Turks know that if they emerge on the winning side then it is pretty much irrelevant how much territory they have lost to enemy control during the war. Thus joint German-Ottoman strategy would have been to continue a fighting withdrawal to Anatolia, because it is feasible and defensible, and it prevents the front from collapsing.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Vnix]

Originally Posted by wiking

Vienna though was hugely informative about matters on the Eastern Front in WW1 and a bit in WW2. The military museum there is phenomenal. If you have any interest in WW1 I suggest you visit if you can...especially as they have Franz Ferdinand's car with bullet holes and FF's bloody uniform that he died in. Their collection of WW1 artillery is interesting, but alas no Skoda 350mm mortar...but I was able to get a copy of the huge tome they publish about AH artillery from 1867-1918, which is definitely worth the price.
The collection of trench warfare hand-to-hand weapons is something to see too.

Will do that one day, though I am more interested in the various Dutch Colonial Wars

Education was very poor in the AH empire outside the major cities and developed parts of the empire like Austria and Bohemia. Most did not speak more than 1-2 languages and learned those mostly through need. The draft mostly picked up the poor peasants that couldn't find a way out of the draft, either through bribery or some other scheme, so were generally the least educated and cosmopolitan elements of the empire. They were generally Slavs in the infantry, the bulk of the army, with the technical branches being mostly German, Hungarian, and Czech, who all were educated and spoke or understood German anyway, but didn't have to speak it for political reasons in the army.

As such it would be an interesting change if those drafted soldiers are taught German and are educated a bit more, since that will on the one hand improve the army but on the other hand also gives AH new german and/or hungarian speakers and could possibly enhance unity.

[miketr]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

It is undeniable that Austria-Hungary felt the strain severely but it is also well-known that the actual army collapse did not happen until the last weeks of the war when it was obviously lost on every front. IIRC Italian units were still fighting in the KuK Armee almost right up to the surrender.

German control of Austrian industry surely is a POSITIVE for the CP side of this equation as it was working to boost overall CP output.

In the sense that it wasn't zero? Sure. But the production totals for a nation the size of A-H aren't all that impressive. Worse the totals stagnated and latter dropped; this is a generalization of course.

Germany had to provide cash, raw materials, weapons and food to support A-H.

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

And if the Americans are NOT coming, then instead of a morale boost, you have a morale COLLAPSE in the West because disaster is following disaster - Serbia knocked out, Romania knocked out, Russian knocked out.

That is the key point.

Michael

[Zulufoxtrot]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

And if the Americans are NOT coming, then instead of a morale boost, you have a morale COLLAPSE in the West because disaster is following disaster - Serbia knocked out, Romania knocked out, Russian knocked out.

Would Serbia have stayed knocked out? The Macedonian Front was going pretty well for the Allies in 1918 from everything I've read. How would this front play out without the United States? I've read that the Allied success was mostly due to problems that Bulgaria was having, but I've haven't seen anything that really explained why Bulgarian morale was so low. It doesn't seem to a very talked about portion of the war.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by miketr

In the sense that it wasn't zero? Sure. But the production totals for a nation the size of A-H aren't all that impressive. Worse the totals stagnated and latter dropped; this is a generalization of course.

Germany had to provide cash, raw materials, weapons and food to support A-H.

After Italy drops out, if it drops out early AH doesn't have to stay mobilized and her subsidies can be cut down or off. Instead AH production can be used to produce what was it export: food. Even if that food just stays in AH, which it won't, because Hungary was selling its surplus to Germany rather than Austria, at least the Austrians can bring Galicia back into agriculture production and feed itself.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Zulufoxtrot

Would Serbia have stayed knocked out? The Macedonian Front was going pretty well for the Allies in 1918 from everything I've read. How would this front play out without the United States? I've read that the Allied success was mostly due to problems that Bulgaria was having, but I've haven't seen anything that really explained why Bulgarian morale was so low. It doesn't seem to a very talked about portion of the war.

It was going awful for the Allies until September 1918. Prior every attack had failed badly and half of the troops there caught malaria. Without the US the Macedonian front is closed down and the manpower shipped where it was needed more: France. The cost of maintaining Salonika was a luxury that could only be afforded with the US in the picture.


In September 1918 the front collapsed because of the pressure on the Bulgarian economy due to the blockade and the problem of keeping a farmer nation mobilized for so long, the troops were the farmers and they weren't farming.
That and the Allies finally were able to bring up enough trucks, artillery, and airplanes to outgun the Bulgarians, whose infrastructure had degraded over the years of wear and tear without replacement.

[miketr]

Originally Posted by wiking

After Italy drops out, if it drops out early AH doesn't have to stay mobilized and her subsidies can be cut down or off. Instead AH production can be used to produce what was it export: food. Even if that food just stays in AH, which it won't, because Hungary was selling its surplus to Germany rather than Austria, at least the Austrians can bring Galicia back into agriculture production and feed itself.

What you say IS possible but it depends on many factors. I have said up thread a number of times that I favored an Italian blow rather than a French one in 1918. That said its not a given that this would happen. There are also real problems with attempting it. The ground and logistical support. Also France is where the Germans can achieve the knock out blow, Italy is longer game.

Its certainly possible that IF the Germans give it a high level of support a victory could be achieved. Would it be another Battle of Caporetto? Does it actually need to be?

What moves do the western Entente make with no US entry? There would be ripples from that POD for both sides.

Michael

[wiking]

Originally Posted by miketr

What you say IS possible but it depends on many factors. I have said up thread a number of times that I favored an Italian blow rather than a French one in 1918. That said its not a given that this would happen. There are also real problems with attempting it. The ground and logistical support. Also France is where the Germans can achieve the knock out blow, Italy is longer game.

Its certainly possible that IF the Germans give it a high level of support a victory could be achieved. Would it be another Battle of Caporetto? Does it actually need to be?

What moves do the western Entente make with no US entry? There would be ripples from that POD for both sides.

Michael

As I've said upthread the Italians would probably exit the war without the US in it when the Caporetto analogue plays out ITTL. So that means Italy is out in 1917. AH is not beyond hope in 1917 especially without the Kerensky offensive. Especially if Russia exits the war in Summer than the Germans will have extra troops to play with and the Caporetto analogue will have two prongs like they wanted IOTL, which will mean that the Piave line is turned from the beginning by an offensive out of South Tyrol simulanteously as the AHs and German are attacking out of Caporetto.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/maps/gr...tto_(1600).jpg
You can see in this map of the Caporetto offensive that a weak attack was launched out of South Tyrol OTL. ITTL a stronger one was possible and would have cut off three Italians armies, ending their ability to fight.