[TimoDass]

It were the british tanks that were decisive for the allied victory in the war.

So, if help from the USA wasn´t necessary for developing and manufacturing the tanks, then IMHO the british and french would have won WW1 even without help from the USA.

The german general staff discovered too late how useful tanks were (they were too conservative in their strategical thinking) and therefore less than 20 of our own A7V were produced (not enoughn against gthe several hundreds of allied tanks in the field [although we were able to build a few tank companies around captured british tanks])

[Ettiominiw]

I remember reading that at the time the US entered the war, the French military was very close to out and out mutiny. It was the relieving of French soldiers by fresh Americans that may have staved that off.

[swissloveone]

Originally posted by lord of the mark OTOH if US neutral, Germany probably doesnt launch spring offensive, which was motivated by last chance to win before US comes in in force.

Instead Germans release troops (and horses) back to agriculture, plus exploit Ukraine. The Brits and French cant launch a land attack, but they can keep up the blockade.

Toss up, AFAICT. I agree with you, LoTM. The Germans stay on the defensive in the West and expolit the agricultural bounties of their newly won Eastern territories. I could imagine a peace in 1919 based on status quo ante in the West and Brest-Litovsk in the East.

However, if the Ukraine gave Germany a substantial boost in staying power (as opposed to just enough to prevent starvation), then the Germans may have ended up solidifying their hold over Luxembourg, and in the end may have annexed it outright (along with German speaking Belgium).

[gooseCile]

1) Germany still falls apart at the seams due to revolution at home.

2) If Germany doesn't fall apart, the U-Boat campaign may have caused England to sue for peace. I read this somewhere long ago.

[VogsHoock]

Germany would have won.

Frankly, if Wilson hadn't been a Germanphobe to begin with and had forbidden the sale of all arms and war material from the get-go like a true neutral would have, Britain and France would have collpsed very quickly.

The British and the French screwed up by the numbers throughout the war...even when Germany was on the offensive (with rough manpower parity in the army on the French Front) the Western Allies were losing 5 to every 2 Germans...this was just in the first year of the war when Germany was still driving forward, and hadn't set up a holding pattern.


The Myth of the Great War is an excellant read, showing how France and Britain ****ed up by the numbers and Germany did everything they could have possibly done right...right down to equipment, officer corps, and training. And oh, by the way, Britain and France decided to just ignore the lessons of the Balkans Wars that artillery shells are always going to be expended at a faster rate and didn't even have enough for peacetime practice, much less wartime useage. Plus no one took into account that most of the industrial chemicals that Europe used at that time came from Germany, which is why even when they had the guns they didn't have the ammo.

And the guns they had sucked. The French, by 1914 had one, count 'em, one artillery piece with a recoil mechanism (the 75mm) and it couldn't even be utilized in indirect fire. The Germans knew they wouldn't have the manpower to win a war(early) with France, so they opted for firepower, and introduced the idea of "shock and awe" with portable heavy arty that was accurate, rapid, and could be used in plunging fire. The "indirect" French and British pieces were too heavy to be considered portable, and in the French case, they designs dated back to the 1870s.

This was all in the first year of the war. It got progressive worse for the Allies until the Americans showed up in numbers and the interest rates on Americna loans suddenly dropped like a rock.

[Butiqueso]

Originally posted by Dis
I think by this thread we can conclude France is responsible for ww2. Fixed.

[htDgExh8]

Germany would have fought on for longer, but would have collapsed in the end.

Releasing troops for agriculture wouldn't help them very much. They were starving, and there was another winter on the way. The wisdom of pulling troops off the frontline at a time when the Western Allies are gaining a decisive technological advantage is also questionable.

[Maserati]

Originally posted by Sandman
Germany would have fought on for longer, but would have collapsed in the end.

Releasing troops for agriculture wouldn't help them very much. They were starving, and there was another winter on the way. The wisdom of pulling troops off the frontline at a time when the Western Allies are gaining a decisive technological advantage is also questionable. Also, I am thinking here that you are thinking late 1918. But, the real threat to Britain appeared to be the U-boat campaign that America helped with enormously, it appears, when it entered the war. Without America's help, it appears that Britain would have collapsed in 1917 at a time when Germany was still very powerful.

[Beragagnu]

No doubt. There are multiple ways Britain would have collapsed in 1917 had we not ridden to the rescue. Germany reached the end of her rope more than one year later.

[russianstallian]

B, but the German U-boat campaign was just as effective against Britain.

As Strangelove has noted, had the US not came in when it did, Britain may have collapsed a lot sooner than the Germans did.

[IdomeoreTew]

Germany had the second biggest economy in the world, and, incidently, the number one chemical industry. They had the vast majority of the war material and cash they needed, and the British blockade was a joke.

[leareliovag]

Probably not as important as in WW2.

Most of the long range troop movements took place in trains (which were the reason why germany was very efficient in bringing troops to the front as germany had a good rail network).

Therefore I think coal was a little bit more important (for powering of trains as well as production of steel) and germany had coal in abundance thanks to the mines in ruhr valley

The highest usage of oil probably was in the navy (submarines) and the airforce (planes)

[mplawssix]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Germany would have won.

Frankly, if Wilson hadn't been a Germanphobe to begin with and had forbidden the sale of all arms and war material from the get-go like a true neutral would have, Britain and France would have collpsed very quickly. But remember, Wilson was leading the holy crusade against Imperialism... by allying with the two largest empires on Earth...

[VotsUtegems]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Germany had the second biggest economy in the world, and, incidently, the number one chemical industry. They had the vast majority of the war material and cash they needed, and the British blockade was a joke. actually the blockade was fairly effective, but Germany was able to adjust. The effectiveness of the blockade was one reason they didnt need cash - they couldnt have bought much anyway, since they couldnt get it through the blockade.


The CP economies WERE suffering badly, and thats one of the reasons for the collaps of Austria, and the revolution in Germany.

[georgshult]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Geez, guys, Wilson wasnt a Germanophobe. TR had been pushing for intervention on the allied side for a long time. Wilson had been opposed to that, and kept the US neutral. The Germans finally made it impossible to keep that up, and the March rev in Russia took away one of the moral arguements against supporting the allies.

And Wilson wasnt for ending imperialism everywhere immediately, like lots of folks then he felt that peoples in africa and asia werent ready for independence. He certainly had it in for the German government:

"Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth insure the observance of those principles.

Neutrality is no longer feasible or desirable where the peace of the world is involved and the freedom of its people, and the menace to that peace and freedom lies in the existence of autocratic governments backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their will, not by the will of their people.

We have seen the last of neutrality in such circumstances. We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states.

We have no quarrel with the German people. We have no feeling towards them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was not upon their impulse that their government acted in entering this war. It was not with their previous knowledge or approval.

It was a war determined upon as wars used to be determined upon in the old, unhappy days when peoples were nowhere consulted by their rules and wars were provoked and waged in the interest of dynasties or of little groups of ambitious men who were accustomed to use their fellow men as pawns and tools.

We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a Government, following such methods, we can never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what purpose, there can be no assured security for the democratic Governments of the world.

We are now about to accept gauge of battle with this natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of the nation to check and nullify its pretensions and its power. We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretence about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience.

The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.

Just because we fight without rancour and without selfish object, seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share with all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe with proud punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be fighting for.

I have said nothing of the Governments allied with the Imperial Government of Germany because they have not made war upon us or challenged us to defend our right and our honour. The Austro-Hungarian Government has, indeed, avowed its unqualified endorsement and acceptance of the reckless and lawless submarine warfare adopted now without disguise by the Imperial German Government, and it has therefore not been possible for this Government to receive Count Tarnowski, the Ambassador recently accredited to this Government by the Imperial and Royal Government of Austria-Hungary; but that Government has not actually engaged in warfare against citizens of the Unites States on the seas, and I take the liberty, for the present at least, of postponing a discussion of our relations with the authorities at Vienna. We enter this war only where we are clearly forced into it because there are not other means of defending our rights.

It will be all the easier for us to conduct ourselves as belligerents in a high spirit of right and fairness because we act without animus, not in enmity towards a people or with the desire to bring any injury or disadvantage upon them, but only in armed opposition to an irresponsible government which has thrown aside all considerations of humanity and of right and is running amuck.

We are, let me say again, the sincerer friends of the German people, and shall desire nothing so much as the early reestablishment of intimate relations of mutual advantage between us - however hard it may be for them, for the time being, to believe that this is spoken from our hearts. We have borne with their present Government through all these bitter months because of that friendship - exercising a patience and forbearance which would otherwise have been impossible.

We shall, happily, still have an opportunity to prove that friendship in our daily attitude and actions towards the millions of men and women of German birth and native sympathy who live amongst us and share our life, and we shall be proud to prove it towards all who are in fact loyal to their neighbours and to the Government in the hour of test.

They are, most of them, as true and loyal Americans as if they had never known any other fealty or allegiance. They will be prompt to stand with us in rebuking and restraining the few who may be of a different mind and purpose. If there should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with with a firm hand of stern repression; but, if it lifts its head at all, it will lift it only here and there and without countenance except from a lawless and malignant few.

It is a distressing and oppressive duty, Gentlemen of the Congress, which I have performed in thus addressing you. There are, it may be, many months of fiery trial and sacrifice ahead of us. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance.

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts - for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.

To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other."

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/...eclaration.htm

[ligeplodore]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Germany had the second biggest economy in the world, and, incidently, the number one chemical industry. They had the vast majority of the war material and cash they needed, and the British blockade was a joke. Britain had a more developed finance system than Germany, and financed the war with taxation, loans and sale of assets. Germany printed money.

[JacomoR]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
yeah, when we friggin declared war.

Have we ever DOWED someone while saying how delightful their govt was?

You some kinda commie traitor? I think Wilson was biased against Germany because of its government. The Germans thought so too, as they turned the government over to the Reichstag in 1918 in order to get a peace deal with Wilson.

[lapyignipinge]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Germany also didn't have to burn cash paying for chemicals and material needed from outside sources, either. That's nice. Regardless, by the end of 1917, their economy had shrunk to 57% of its 1913 size.

[cheapphenonline]

They didn't move half a million men from the Western front to crush Romania. Most of the troops for that campaign were supplied by Bulgaria and the Ottomans, even if the German units did most of the legwork.

[hellenmoranov]

I think people forget that the US joined the war in April 1917, NOT 1918. Even if American forces did not make any significant impact militarily until late 1918, knowing that American forces would have an impact, or knowing that American financing was a possibility or likelyhood certainly affected the military, financial, and more importantly political situation on the ground.

Had the US not joined, I would say that the war would have had to end in a stalemate or a light German victory, assuming of course the collapse of Russia and the Germans gaining the agricultural production of the Ukraine.

Tanks in WW1 were still too technically backwards for them to be a real breaktrough weapon. The German innovations in infantry tactics and how to support them with artillery was certainly more important in terms of breaking the stalemate, as the huge and innitially crushing German spring offensive of 1918 shows.