WW1 the Germans fight on...

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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?
 

Susano

Banned
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 that ;) But in any case, whats your point?
 
I think the question being posed is would the Allies continue to persecute the war when Germany is agreeing to the Fourteen Points and the US is withdrawing support(military and economic) and putting pressure on the allies to accept the peace.

Certainly this would make a couple of corporals less influentual in the postwar world.

I could actually see Wilson giving a speech about the changing face of evil and how the allies had fallen to the ways of belligerance just as their neighboors had.

True the United States wasn't a super power(although a definitely a great power at this time), but the question stands. Would France and Britain really object in the face of US opposition? Russia's going to take whatever peace they can get, and I'm sure Italy would support this initiative.
 

MrP

Banned
Could you explain please?
I must confess to a certain playfulness in those points. ;) That said, upsetting/not upsetting Stalin can be clarified swiftly - someone had to take over the Allied Sectors of Berlin. Or so I would think. I confess I haven't looked into it.
And some thought Josephine Baker was still at the Nelson?

Mm, Josephine Baker. :)

Hang on, has anyone ever posted a WI with her?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Baker

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'm sure Italy would support this initiative.
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.

Russia's going to take whatever peace they can get
The entente openly supported the whites, Russia wont accept peace until ether the whites or reds are dead.
 
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.

The point is not Germany's willingness to fight; it's Germany's ability to. By the Armistice they had maybe four months of organized resistance left in them. The home front was collapsing, the low-grade famine Germany had been suffering from for the last four years was about to really kick into gear, they'd long since stopped scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower and taken the barrel apart for scrap, they were suffering from material shortages in every war-material you could think of and all the ones you can't too, their strategic situation had gone from "mostly surrounded" to "inside the tightening ring of fire and iron", and the Entente had finally discovered a successful tactical doctrine. In short, Germany, will to fight or no will to fight, was screwed.
 
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.
 

MrP

Banned
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.

I think people tend to get a bit too caught up in one or two aspects of this, and, as you say, fail to look at it holistically. The Kaiserschlacht was a failed attempt to knock out the Entente before the Americans could arrive in numbers. This cost the German army many of its most vital and energetic personnel, who died in the assault units, which has a significant impact on the Army's subsequent defensive capabilities. There are probably parallels to be drawn between how the French Army's morale collapsed post-Nivelle (who had promised a final decisive campaign and failed to deliver) and the resignation of the German Army post-Kaiserschlacht.

I disagree with the way the American units were deployed, since the British and French had had several years' experience (both tactically and in staff level stuff), which could have been better transmitted to the Americans had they been consistently dispersed. But a) that was politically tricky, b) Pershing was opposed to it, and c) Joffre supported Pershing.

A point worth mentioning in passing is the question of supplying the American forces newly arrived in France. Much equipment was supplied by their allies - the French Chauchat, for instance - which could otherwise have augmented the offensive/defensive power of Entente troops already in France.
 
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 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.
 

MrP

Banned
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.

I wouldn't say the French were on the verge of surrender* - on a related note, it's interesting that during the worst parts of the Kaiserschlacht Haig wavers quite a bit. The psychological blows struck appear to me even more important than any military achievements the American Army made. The French and British were delighted at the influx of men, and the Germans dismayed. It was the huge threat and vast manpower and industrial capabilities of America that informed the strategic thinking of 1918.

Whether the Americans did as well on the field man-for-man as their allies really didn't matter. What mattered was that Germany had been bled white by years of warfare, tried one last desperate roll of the dice, failed, and then was up the proverbial creek, vastly outnumbered and horribly lacking in supplies. As you say, the stream of American soldiers was also rather helpful in reducing the strain on the British and French.

EDIT: * Though all I've read on late war French strategy is Doughty, so I could be wrong.
 
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.
 
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.

In preparation of the Hundred Days Offensive Lloyd-George had finally released reserve divisions to the western front. There was also the arrival of veterans just back from laying the smackdown on the Ottomans and also a few divisions from Italy. The British were in no way depleted.
I also mentioned the Meuse-Argonne Offensive and as I said before that was the largest US operation in the war and they stilled played second fiddle to the French. The US contributed 22 division while the French had 31. The vast majority of the heavy equipment was also French.
 

Deleted member 1487

This is all very true. The allies by now have a huge material advantage. But without American manpower, things get a bit dicey. The French have dropped from a peak 1918 manpower of 2.6 million to about 1.6 million after the 100 days. The British have suffered with over 400,000 casualties. They are going to have to be the main force behind the attack without the Americans. French moral was shot and would not sustain many more casualties before breaking. Proportionally they have suffered worse than the Germans.

Now, what is going to be interesting is what happens with all the troops taken from the Balkans and the Middle East. Some have to stay for occupation duty, to make sure that the massive gains in colonies and protectorates stay in their control. But how are they going to get them 'round the German rear? The Austrians found out that supplying troops across the Alps was very difficult, as after Caporetto, they couldn't sustain any offensive with the limited rail lines bringing in munitions. Also, the Allies would be running into the mess that is the corpse of the Austrian empire. Going through Yugoslavia would mean dealing with the Italian-Yugoslav mess. Further north means going through Austria using Italian ports, which gets into the Austrian mess with the Yugoslavs in Slovenia and in Czechoslovakia. The Austrians are also starving, so using their railways is going to require a kickback to the inhabitants.

Once there, the Germans are going to be operating on home turf, again defending in the mountains. The allies are having to ship in supplies. If the homeland is being invaded and the blockade is being maintained to starve the Germans into signing a harsh peace, I think the people would be willing to fight instead of revolting. I am sure too that there still would be communist uprisings, but the average person is going to be willing to fight against what is likely to be viewed as a war of annihilation. The Allies are maintaining the starvation blockade, so that is the reason for resumed hostilities, as per OP. I have the feeling that the homefront is going to be willing to fight if they feel that they are being crushed instead of negotiated with. The reason that they people wanted peace OTL was that they thought they were getting Wilson's 14 points, which in this TL, the people realize, or are made to realize, that the Allies are not giving them the 14 points. Remember that the Germans were able to fight a civil war and in Eastern Europe while the blockade still on, also have their industrial centers on the Rhine occupied, and having to pay out the ass with their remaining supplies to the Allies.

If organized resistance still were to go on against just the Europeans, the fight is going to be bloody. The Germans managed to inflict over 1 million casualties on the allies during the Hundred Days with less material and having their army surrender. Taking out the prisoners on both sides, the Germans actually achieved a superiority in killed and wounded during this period. So if the exhausted Allies want to attack without the Americans, they might run into trouble, especially on the Rhine. Don't forget that the Eastern European allies like Poland and the Czechs are busy fighting communists themselves and the Allies still need to send supplies and men to Russia to back up the Whites.

What about public opinion in Britain and France? Are they going to be willing to keep taking casualties and fight a war of conquest?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive
 
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.

Spring Offensive? What Spring Offensive?

You do understand that without America there would be no rush to make an offensive against the west like there was IOTL. The Spring Offensive was rather hastily thrown together as an attempt to force the allies into making peace before too many American divisions arrived in France.

If there is no America in the war, they would have no need for this, and this has a massive effect on the course of the war. Germany would still have it's irreplaceable specialists which, IOTL, it lost in the Spring Offensive in the infamous assaults on the allied lines. Without the imminent threat of millions of fresh troops arriving, Germany would take more time to prepare, allowing more troops from the East to arrive, and THEN launch a much harder offensive in the west.
 

MrP

Banned
I agree with HSB. Without the American threat the Germans have less to worry about on the Western Front, and there's no saying they'll even launch an assault, even less that it'll resemble that of OTL.
 
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
 

MrP

Banned
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

As much as I won't dismiss the Americans out of hand, like some, nor will I dismiss the people who did the majority of the fighting, wore the Germans down, and still provided the majority of the soldiery in the final year of the war.
 
if the americans are out then the french and brittish are in just as bad shape as the germans

Actually not quite, provided US raw materials are still available.

OTL, by the end of the war, Germans had mobilised classes 1918, 1919 and 1920 ( ie 16 year old ), France had mobilised classes 1918 and 1919 and Uk only class 1918.

So manpowerwise, the entente had a little more reserves than Germany.

Considering food production, the crisis that Germany had OTL will not go away and has no equivalent on the entente.

So, yes, it's bad for the entente if US manpower is not known to be available soon ( esp on a morale level, unless an alternative is found, see below ), but the situation is not as bad as it is for Germany.

Finally, there's a ressource the entente didn't fully tap OTL but which they may have to if US is not seen as coming. the colonies. The entente never introced full conscription in the colonies ( commonwealth excluded ). Even a partial conscription would have given enough manpower reserve to equal anything the US did OTL. Of course, there would be a sharp political price to pay after the war. But after the war is after the war.
 
Top