a) What Steffen said.
b) To take up positions previously agreed.
c) So as not to upset Stalin.
d) So as to upset Stalin.
e) A spot of exercise for the men.
f) They were at a loose end . . .
And some thought Josephine Baker was still at the Nelson?
a) What Steffen said.
b) To take up positions previously agreed.
c) So as not to upset Stalin.
d) So as to upset Stalin.
e) A spot of exercise for the men.
f) They were at a loose end . . .
Fascinating book about this period: Georg Maercker: Vom Kaiserheer zur Reichswehr. Geschichte des freiwilligen Landesjägerkorps. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Revolution. Leipzig, 1921
Maercker was a regular army general whose Freikorps protected the Weimar National Assembly
Written by a particpant in 1921? Hm, I see problems with thatBut in any case, whats your point?
I must confess to a certain playfulness in those points.Could you explain please?
And some thought Josephine Baker was still at the Nelson?
Baker also worked with the NAACP.[10] In 1963, she spoke at the March on Washington at the side of Martin Luther King, Jr.[11] Wearing her Free French uniform emblazoned with her medal of the Légion d'honneur, she was the only woman to speak at the rally.[12] After King's assassination his widow, Coretta Scott King, approached Baker in Holland to ask if she would take her husband's place as leader of the American Civil Rights Movement. After many days of thinking it over, Baker declined, saying her children were "… too young to lose their mother."[13]
I dont know, the mentions of Italy in the 14 points were sort of vague. And dont seem to be much better than Italy got in rl. I think we still get a angry corporal there.I'm sure Italy would support this initiative.
The entente openly supported the whites, Russia wont accept peace until ether the whites or reds are dead.Russia's going to take whatever peace they can get
However if French Troops enter germany dont you think the German people will find a common ground and fight on. While the war is being fought in another country people aren't as prone to support, however if the war is defensive in nature it might rally people to the cause.
I will say this, even if the Allies dont get the benefit of US troops the Germans are screwed, American involvment was in-consequencial.
This is not true. American involvement at the end of the war provided a critical component to the allies victory: Manpower. Without America's manpower thrown behind them, Germany indeed may not have necessarily lost the war. They would not have won it, but they could force the Entente to make a far more compromising peace.
The Hundred Days Offensive would most certainly not be possible without American troops. The idea that America did not play a decisive role in their late but nevertheless crucial involvement in the Great War is a myth.
Now, mind you, a more compromising peace may not have necessarily been a bad thing, so a Great War with no United States may have had an altogether better outcome than the one we know.
That's just wishful thinking. The largest US operation in the war was at Argonne forest and even there they played second fiddle to the French. The BEF captured more German guns and took more German prisoners than the Americans and French combined. Even John Pershing said Haig was 'the man who won the war.' Britain and France would have won the war regardless of what the US did.This is not true. American involvement at the end of the war provided a critical component to the allies victory: Manpower. Without America's manpower thrown behind them, Germany indeed may not have necessarily lost the war. They would not have won it, but they could force the Entente to make a far more compromising peace.
The Hundred Days Offensive would most certainly not be possible without American troops. The idea that America did not play a decisive role in their late but nevertheless crucial involvement in the Great War is a myth.
That's just wishful thinking. The largest US operation in the war was at Argonne forest and even there they played second fiddle to the French. The BEF captured more German guns and took more German prisoners than the Americans and French combined. Even John Pershing said Haig was 'the man who won the war.' Britain and France would have won the war regardless of what the US did.
That's incorrect I'm afraid. The French were on the verge of throwing in the towel as MrP states correctly. Following the spring offensive, both the French AND British were severely depleted, and their lines were becoming increasingly thin. They absolutely could not have launched any kind of sustained offensive against Germany. It would have been a bloodbath.
You're underestimating the vital strategic asset that millions of American bodies provided to the allies during the Hundred Days Offensive. To say that the allies would have been fine without this is quite naive, no offense of course. You discount important battles such as the Meuse-Argonne Offensive which were only possible thanks to American manpower.
Yes, the British Commanders were good, but they were about out of men to command in 1918, and without American manpower, they wouldn't have been able to launch that crucial offensive that won them the war.
Even if that were true, keep in mind that Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria are all gone by the end. In any case Britain and France will stop the Spring Offensive but after that Germany has lost all of its offensive capacity, is still blockaded, and soon to be alone. After that French and British troops on other fronts can move to the Western Front all while Germany is starved to death. It's true that the 100 day Offensive can't play a historically recognizable role without the US, but in the Allies will still be able to crush Germany even if does take a little longer.Yes, the British Commanders were good, but they were about out of men to command in 1918, and without American manpower, they wouldn't have been able to launch that crucial offensive that won them the war.
That's incorrect I'm afraid. The French were on the verge of throwing in the towel as MrP states correctly. Following the spring offensive, both the French AND British were severely depleted, and their lines were becoming increasingly thin. They absolutely could not have launched any kind of sustained offensive against Germany. It would have been a bloodbath.
You're underestimating the vital strategic asset that millions of American bodies provided to the allies during the Hundred Days Offensive. To say that the allies would have been fine without this is quite naive, no offense of course. You discount important battles such as the Meuse-Argonne Offensive which were only possible thanks to American manpower.
Even if that were true, keep in mind that Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria are all gone by the end. In any case Britain and France will stop the Spring Offensive but after that Germany has lost all of its offensive capacity, is still blockaded, and soon to be alone. After that French and British troops on other fronts can move to the Western Front all while Germany is starved to death. It's true that the 100 day Offensive can't play a historically recognizable role without the US, but in the Allies will still be able to crush Germany even if does take a little longer.
a great book on this is the myth of the great war by john mosier
the the french and brittish couldnt beat the germans in 4 years they only made progress when supplemented by the americans.
if the americans are out then the french and brittish are in just as bad shape as the germans and would have to make peace. they didnt have the political will to keep fighting anymore
see mutinys in 1917 for example or brittish indiscipline after 3rd ypres
the french did primarily equip the americans but it was a faire deal. americans got the weapons for providing the raw materials and brittian was totally dependant on the us for everything from smokeless powder, to rifles, to artillery pieces
if the americans are out then the french and brittish are in just as bad shape as the germans