myths of the great war

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

IF the Germans had attacked the French in 1917 while the French Army was mutinous and fragile I believe they could have forced a political solution. The BEF could not have covered the amount of front line required, frankly the Western Allies were lucky. Other than that time, the chance of anyone forcing a strategic military reverse on their opponents was just not possible, a bloody war of attrition was the only method. the arrival of the AEF and the subsequant allies attacks and continuing naval blockade proved that Germany was out of options.

one of the advantages of the AEF was that it was green and eager, it took somewhat higher casulties because it was not as jaded as the Brits & French who had already seen three hard years of fighting and massive losses. No amount of training could fully prepare the doughboys for what they had to experience.

Thanks oi_you_nutter,[8D]

My fault for not expressing myself better as to why I think Germany would have won - but your post crystallized it.[8|]

Germany did come close in 1917. What I suggest is simply that if the USA didn't get in in 1917 (100,000 in France that summer just to show the flag) there would have been no prospect for France and Italy to recover their morale with no help in sight. The outlook for 1918 would therefore have been vastly worse, and under those conditions and I do believe the French Gov could have been forced out of the war(as in the 1870 Franco Prussian War). If that had happened - which I think is a great likelihood given those conditions - that would have left Britain alone on the continent, which would have been untenable.[X(]

We haven't even touched on what the ramifications would have been of an actually Neutral USA - because the USA was a co-belligerent of the Allies from 1914 on. The USA provided billions in financing, masses of munitions, etc. (to the Allies - only) from day one...hardly the acts of a neural.[:-]

B

[oi_you_nutter]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

IF the Germans had attacked the French in 1917 while the French Army was mutinous and fragile I believe they could have forced a political solution. The BEF could not have covered the amount of front line required, frankly the Western Allies were lucky. Other than that time, the chance of anyone forcing a strategic military reverse on their opponents was just not possible, a bloody war of attrition was the only method. the arrival of the AEF and the subsequant allies attacks and continuing naval blockade proved that Germany was out of options.

one of the advantages of the AEF was that it was green and eager, it took somewhat higher casulties because it was not as jaded as the Brits & French who had already seen three hard years of fighting and massive losses. No amount of training could fully prepare the doughboys for what they had to experience.

Thanks oi_you_nutter,[8D]

My fault for not expressing myself better as to why I think Germany would have won - but your post crystallized it.[8|]

Germany did come close in 1917. What I suggest is simply that if the USA didn't get in in 1917 (100,000 in France that summer just to show the flag) there would have been no prospect for France and Italy to recover their morale with no help in sight. The outlook for 1918 would therefore have been vastly worse, and under those conditions and I do believe the French Gov could have been forced out of the war(as in the 1870 Franco Prussian War). If that had happened - which I think is a great likelihood given those conditions - that would have left Britain alone on the continent, which would have been untenable.[X(]

We haven't even touched on what the ramifications would have been of an actually Neutral USA - because the USA was a co-belligerent of the Allies from 1914 on. The USA provided billions in financing, masses of munitions, etc. (to the Allies - only) from day one...hardly the acts of a neural.[:-]

B

(call me a bit cynical) but a true neutral democracy would have sold arms to both sides [:D]

another good what-if is whether the USA would have been so pro the western powers if the unrestricted U-boat warfare policy was not applied. angering the USA probably did not harm to Germany in the long run than sinking a few more ships.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter
....

(call me a bit cynical) but a true neutral democracy would have sold arms to both sides [:D]

....

Ok I will, "Your a bit cynical!" But so am I[:D]

[Tête de Porc]

Off topic but does anyone know if Germany was expecting that the recently captured Russian territory would make them self-sufficient in foodstuffs (kind of a precursor to the Lebensraum idea) or was it irrelevant because of transport problems?

It wasn't just the precursor to the Lebensraum idea - it was the same concept.

For understandable reasons it has been fashionable to attribut everything that's evil and expansionist to Herr Hitler, but most of his ideas were already in place when he appeared. The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was extremely harsh, and puts a different spin to subsequent German moaning about the Versailles treaty.

Under Brest-Litovsk Germany annexed Belarus and the Ukraine, with a definite view towards German settlement and colonization.

[EUBanana]

The blockade had really ruined Germany, I read that their industrial potential was down to 50% of pre war levels in 1918.

I reckon they'd had it. They just didn't have the people. The AEFs presence shortened the war and concentrated the minds of the German politicians - but militarily, the Germans were routed at Amiens, and the AEF had almost nothing to do with that.

They knew they'd had it, which is why the High Seas Fleet mutinied rather than fight the Royal Navy in 1918.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

The blockade had really ruined Germany, I read that their industrial potential was down to 50% of pre war levels in 1918.

I reckon they'd had it. They just didn't have the people. The AEFs presence shortened the war and concentrated the minds of the German politicians - but militarily, the Germans were routed at Amiens, and the AEF had almost nothing to do with that.

They knew they'd had it, which is why the High Seas Fleet mutinied rather than fight the Royal Navy in 1918.

I disagree, Germany certainly did have the people in 1918 - over 4 million on the Western Front.

The German Michael offensive in Flanders was not aimed at defeating the British army and crushing it - it was aimed at crippling the British Army and pushing it aside so they would be free to deliver the death blow to the French Army - and that they did perfectly well.

Most British historians think that because they weathered the German storm, THAT somehow defeated the German plan - proving that Germany could never have defeated Britain.

That misses the point completely - as defeating the British Army outright was not a German goal at all - Crippling the British Army so they would be free to deal with the French Army undisturbed is what Michael was all about - and the Germans pulled it off flawlessly - until it came time to defeat the French in May/June 1918.

As I recall reading the High Seas Fleet did mutiny - but that was at the end of the war - the exact date of which I can't remember right now, but I believe it was already Sep - Oct 1918.

The point is that the Navy mutinied because the war was clearly over and they did not wish to die for some admirals vanity - not because the Royal Navy blockade had already finished Germany.

Unfortunately - I think this topic always tends to ruffle peoples feathers because everyone's sense of national pride seems to be under assault.
For me, I love the British and I am something of an Anglophile - but when discussing 'who did what' in The Great War, I always get the feeling it's a sensitive topic and it's like walking on eggshells...

B

[oi_you_nutter]

the BEF and Commonwealth forces were not crushed and crippled after the Kaiserslacht, bruised and battered yes, but not out of the fight

together with the French they suceeded around Amiens in August 1918

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

the BEF and Commonwealth forces were not crushed and crippled after the Kaiserslacht, bruised and battered yes, but not out of the fight

together with the French they suceeded around Amiens in August 1918

Yes, they rebounded splendidly by Summer 1918, no argument.

However the German goal was to batter them sufficiently to keep them at bey while they took out the French - before the Americans could effectively intervine - in this they failed because there were far too many Americans in France by spring 1918...a bit of a German miscalculation to say the least.

Please don't misunderstand me - I am not saying the British army was destroyed, it's just that the German offensive was designed to bruise them sufficiently to have a free hand while they thrusted down south to Paris, that's where they saw their chance to pull a knock-out blow would come.

Again I am not trying to bruise any British pride - I just think it's been mis-represented or misinterrupted for a long time.

Cheers mates!

B

[oi_you_nutter]

what reserves and resources did they have to turn the Kaisersclacht against the French, after they forced the BEF onto the defensive ?

was it just wishfull thinking by the Germans that they could push one of the Western Allies forces aside (the Brits and Commonwealth), and then turn their full attention on the another (the French) ... i think so.
they were spent and exhausted themselves. game over, you lose

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

what reserves and resources did they have to turn the Kaisersclacht against the French, after they forced the BEF onto the defensive ?

Well, the reserves and resources the Germans had to use against the French - were the troops that launched the third German Spring offensive on May 27th, Third Battle of the Aisne in the French sector along Chemin des Dames. It went all the way to the Marne, they brought out the Paris Gun, threw them all into a panic..

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

was it just wishfull thinking by the Germans that they could push one of the Western Allies forces aside (the Brits and Commonwealth), and then turn their full attention on the another (the French) ... i think so.
they were spent and exhausted themselves. game over, you lose

It may have turned into wishful thinking in the long run, but I don't think the idea was too far fetched in Jan 1918.
It was the similar in concept to Napoleons' 100 Days' campaign - his idea being to split the allied forces, push Blucher aside, and then concentrate and turn on Wellington...remember the Germans had gained numerical superiority on the Western Front at the start of 1918.

Also, I think it's important to realize that crushing the French or British armies was not necessary for the German plan - all they needed to do (they thought) was to quickly crush the will of the French Gov - which appeared to be a reasonable prospect at the beginning of 1918. With France out of the war (politcally) they could deal with Britain alone on the continent (not that Britain would or could have been invaded).

Of course I'm loosing the point - I agree with you - it was ALL wishful thinking with the realities of 1918.
Had the USA been as slow to get across the Atlantic as the Germans hoped - maybe it might of worked - but that was not the way it was.

B

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

.................. Western Allies forces aside (the Brits and Commonwealth)

I would rather not be refered to as simply the "Commonwealth" , AIF or even ANZAC if you don't mind.[:-]


[;)]

[oi_you_nutter]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

.................. Western Allies forces aside (the Brits and Commonwealth)

I would rather not be refered to as simply the "Commonwealth" , AIF or even ANZAC if you don't mind.[:-]


[;)]

opps sorry old bean, I have been caught using the modern vernacular, instead of "Brits and Commonwealth" I should have said something like individuals and units from the British Empire and its Dominians, Colonies, and Protectorates. After googling for a while I was unable to find a detailed list of the countries who were Empire members in 1914 but instead I did find an interesting list of Empire & Commonwealth members past and present, with dates and other details.


The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
o England
o Wales
o Scotland
o Ireland, independent 1921, Republic 1938, leaves Commonwealth 1949
+ Northern Ireland
* Isle of Man
* Channel Islands (Duchy of Normandy)
o Jersey
o Guernsey
o Alderney
o Sark
* Gibraltar, seized 1704, ceded by Spain 1713
* Heligoland, 1807, to Germany 1890
* Hanover, 1714, independent 1837, to Prussia 1866
* Ionian Islands, 1809, to Greece 1864
* Minorca, 1708-1756, 1763-1782, 1798-1802, from & to Spain
* Malta, 1800, independent 1964, republic 1974
* Cyprus, 1878, independent 1960, Turkish invasion, occupation of northern Cyprus 1974
* Egypt, shares of Suez Canal purchased 1875, country occupied 1882, protectorate 1914, independent 1922, Suez Canal occupied until 1956, Canal nationalized 1956
o Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, condominium 1898-1956, independent 1956
* Palestine, occupied 1917, mandate 1921, independent 1948 (Israel; Palestine to Jordan & Egypt, territories occupied by Israel 1967)
* Transjordan, occupied 1917, mandate 1921-1946, independent 1946 (Jordan 1949)
* Iraq, occupied 1918, mandate 1921-1932, independent 1932
* Kuwait, protectorate 1904, independent 1961
* Bahrain, protectorate 1882, independent 1971
* Muscat & Oman, Treaty 1798, independent 1971
* Qatar, protectorate 1916, independent 1971
* Trucial States(/Coast/Oman), protectorate 1820, independent 1971 (United Arab Emirates)
o Abu Dhabi
o Ajman
o Dubai
o Al Sharqah
o Umm al Qawain
o Ras al Khaimah
o Fujairah
* Aden, 1839, independent 1967 (South Yemen)
o Socotra Island
* Afghanistan, First Afghan War 1838-1842, Second Afghan War 1878-1880, protectorate 1880-1921, Third Afghan War 1919-1921, Soviet Russian occupation 1979-1989
* India, independent 1947 (Bharat, Pakistan [out of Commonwealth 1972-1989], Bangladesh 1971)
o Princely States (Protectorates of British India)
+ Hyderadbad
+ Jammu & Kashmir
+ Mysore
+ Orchha
+ Bahawalpur
+ Travancore
+ Rajputana (23 states)
# Jodhpur
# Jaisalmer
# Bikaner
# Jaipur
# Udaipur
+ Raigarh
+ Dir
+ Patna
+ Khairpur
+ Palanpur
+ Las Bela
+ Morvi
+ Partabgarh
+ Surguja
+ Changbhakar
+ Korea
+ Kolhapur
+ Bundi
+ Bastar
+ Narsinghgarh
+ Porbandar
+ Sheopur
+ Bahawalpur
+ Saraikela
+ Rajkot
+ Kapurthala
+ Rewa
+ Dhenkanal
+ Raj Nandgaon
+ Bharatpur
+ Jhabua
o Andaman Islands
o Nicobar Islands
o Sikkim, protectorate of India, 1950, annexed by India, 1974
o Bhutan, British protectorate, 1910, Protectorte of India, 1949
* Burma, 1826 (Arakan) 1852 (Lower Burma) 1886 (Upper Burma), independent 1948 (Myanmar 1991)
* Ceylon, 1795, independent 1948 (Sri Lanka)
* Seychelles, 1810, independent 1975
o Mahé Island
o Amriante Isles
o Farquhar Group
o Cosmoledo Group
* British Indian Ocean Territory, created 1965
o Chagos Archipelago
+ Salomon Islands
+ Peros Banhos Atoll
+ Three Brothers, Eagle, and Danger Islands
+ The Egmont Islands
+ Diego Garcia
* Maldives, 1887, independent 1965
* Mauritius, 1810, independent 1968
o Rodrigues
o Cargados Carajos Shoals
o Agalega Island
* Malaysia, created and independent 1963
o Straits Settlements, Crown colony 1867
+ Singapore 1819, to Malaysia 1963, independent 1965
+ Penang 1786, to Malaya 1948, to Malaysia 1963
+ Malacca 1824, to Malaya 1948, Malaysia 1963
+ Labuan, 1846, to North Bornea 1890, to Singapore 1907, to Straits Settlements 1912, to North Borneo 1946
o Malaya, Federation 1957, independent 1963 as Malaysia
+ Johore
+ Kedah
+ Kelantan
+ Negri Sembilan
+ Pahang
+ Perak
+ Perlis
+ Selangor
+ Trengganu
o British North Borneo, 1877, to Malaysia 1963 (Sabah)
o Sarawak, to James Brooke 1841, Crown Colony 1946, to Malaysia 1963
* Brunei, protectorate 1888, independent 1984
* Weihai Wei, 1898, to China 1930
* Hong Kong, 1841, to China 1997
* British North America
o Canada, dominion 1867
+ Ontario (Upper Canada), 1759, autonomous 1840
+ Quebec (Lower Canada), 1759, autonomous 1840
+ Nova Scotia, 1717, autonomous 1854
+ New Brunswick, 1759, autonomous 1854
+ Prince Edward Island, 1759, autonomous 1854
+ Northwest Territories
+ Yukon Territory
+ Manitoba
+ Alberta
+ Saskatchewan
+ British Columbia, 1849 (Vancouver Island) 1858
o Newfoundland, 1583, to Canada 1949
o United States, independent 1783
+ New Hampshire, 1680
+ Massachusetts, 1629
+ Delaware, 1664
+ Pennsylvania, 1681
+ New Jersey, 1664
+ New York, 1664
+ Georgia, 1732
+ Connecticut, 1639
+ Maryland, 1632
+ South Carolina, 1665
+ North Carolina, 1663
+ Virginia, 1607
+ Rhode Island, 1636
+ Vermont
+ Florida, 1763, to Spain 1783, to United States 1819
* Mosquito Coast, 1655, to Nicaragua 1855
* Surinam, 1651, Dutch Guiana 1668
* British Guiana, 1796/1815, independent 1966 (Guyana)
* British Honduras, 1638/1786, independent 1981 (Belize)
* Bahama Islands, 1670, independent 1973
o Turks & Caicos Islands, 1678, to Bahamas 1799, to Jamaica 1873, admnistered by Bahamas 1965-1973
+ Grand Turk Island
+ Salt Cay
+ Grand Caicos Island
* Bermuda, 1609, to Virginia 1612, separate 1684
* Cayman Islands, 1655
* British Virgin Islands, 1666
* West Indies Federation, federated 1956
o Leeward Islands, federated 1871
+ Anguilla, 1650
+ Montserrat, 1632
+ Antigua, 1632, & Barbuda, 1628, independent 1981
+ St. Kitts, 1624, & Nevis, 1628, independent 1983
o Windward Islands
+ St. Lucia, 1815, independent 1979
+ Grenada, 1763, independent 1974
+ St. Vincent, 1763, & the Grenadines, independent 1979
+ Dominica, 1763, independent 1978
o Barbados, 1627, independent 1966
o Jamaica, 1655, independent 1962
o Trinidad, 1797, & Tobago, 1763, independent 1962
* Australia, Commonwealth 1901
o Queensland, autonomous 1859
o New South Wales, 1788, autonomous 1855
o Victoria, autonomous 1855
o South Australia, autonomous 1855
o Western Australia, 1829, autonomous 1890
o Tasmania, 1825, autonomous 1855
o Northern Territory
o Coral Sea Islands Territory
o Norfolk Island & Philip Island
o Lord Howe Island & Ball's Pyramid
o Cocos (Keeling) Islands & Christmas Island
o McDonald Islands, Shag Island, & Heard Island
o Nauru, 1914, trustee of Aus, NZ, & UK, 1947, independent 1968
o Papua-New Guinea, independent 1964
+ Papua, Queensland 1883, Australia 1901, to Papua-New Guinea
+ New Guinea & Bismark Archipelago, from Germany 1914, Australia Trust Territory 1919, to Papua-New Guinea
* Solomon Islands, protectorate 1893, independent 1978
* Fiji, 1874, independent 1970, leaves Commonwealth 1987
* New Zealand, 1769, autonomous 1853
o Cook Islands, etc.
+ Cook Islands
# Rarotonga
# Aitutaki
# Atiu
# Mitiaro
# Mangaia
+ Suwarrow Atoll
+ Nassau
+ Palmerston Atoll
o Niue Island
o Tokelau Islands, etc.
+ Tokelau Islands (Union Group)
# Atafu
# Nukunono
# Fakaofo
+ Rakahanga (Tongareva) Atoll
+ Penrhyn Atoll
+ Manihiki Atoll
o Auckland Islands & Campbell Island
o Antipodes Islands
o Bounty Islands
o Chatham Islands
o Kermadec Islands
+ Raoul (Sunday) Island
+ Macauley Island
+ Curtis Island
+ L'Esperance Rock
o Western Samoa, from Germany 1914, independent 1962 (Samoa)
* Tonga, protectorate 1900, independent 1970
* Hew Hebrides, 1887, Anglo-French Condominium 1906-1980, independent (Vanuatu)
* Gilbert Islands, 1892, independent 1979 (Kiribati)
* Elice Islands, 1892, independent 1978 (Tuvalu)
* Pitcairn Island, 1838
o Oeno Island
o Henderson Island
o Ducie Island
* Phoenix Islands, etc.
o Phoenix Group
+ Phoenix Island
+ Sydney Island
+ Hull Island
+ Gardner Island
+ Canton Island, US-UK condominium
+ Enderbury Island, US-UK condominium
o Christmas Island
o Fanning Island
o Washington Island
o Starbuck Island
o Malden Island
* Union of South Africa, 1910, Republic of South Africa, out of Commonwealth 1961-1994, rejoins Commonwealth 1994
o Cape Colony, 1795
o Natal, 1843
o Orange Free State, protectorate 1848, independent 1854, annexed 1902
o Transvaal, protectorate 1877, independent 1881, annexed 1902
o Prince Edward Islands
o Walvis Bay, 1884, to Southwest Africa
o Southwest Africa, from Germany 1915, independent 1990 (Namibia)
* Swaziland, 1890, independent 1968
* Basutoland, 1868, independent 1966 (Lesotho)
* Bechuanaland, 1885, independent 1966 (Botswana)
* Mosambique, former Portuguese colony, joins Commonwealth 1995
* East Africa
o Kenya, 1887, independent 1963
o Tananyika, from Germany 1917, independent 1961 (Tanzania 1964)
o Zanzibar, 1890, independent 1963 (Tanzania 1964)
o Uganda, 1888, independent 1962
* Rhodesia & Nyasaland
o Northern Rhodesia, 1889, independent 1964 (Zambia)
o Southern Rhodesia, 1888, revolt 1965-1980 (Rhodesia), independent 1980 (Zimbabwe)
o Nyasaland, 1889, independent 1964 (Malawi)
* British Somaliland, 1884, to Somalia 1960
* Eritrea, 1941-1952, to Ethiopia 1952
* West Africa
o Sierra Leone, 1787, independent 1961
o Gold Coast, 1662, independent 1957 (Ghana)
o The Gambia, 1661, independent 1965
o Nigeria, 1861, independent 1960
o Cameroon, former German colony & French mandate, joins Commonwealth 1995
+ British Cameroon, from Germany 1919, to Nigeria & Cameroon 1961
* St. Helena & Dependencies
o St. Helena Island, 1659
o Ascension Island, 1815
o Tristan da Cunha Group
+ Tristan da Cunha Island, 1816
+ Inaccessible Island
+ Nightingale Island
o Gough (Diego Alvarez) Island
* Falkland Islands, 1765
o South Sandwich Islands, 1775, separate from Falklands 1985
o South Georgia, 1775, separate from Falklands 1985
* British Antarctic Territory
o South Shetland Islands
o South Orkney Islands
o Antarctic Peninsula

list found HERE

from now on I will use the full list, when refering to the Empire contributions to the Great War, to ensure that I do not offend anyone. [:D]

[Dirtdog20]

Actually since Tennessee was formed out of North Carolina I am offended that our fair state was ommited from the list. I am hopefull that this oversight will be corrected or I will contact one of the ninny PC boards in your goverment and have them correct it for you.

Thank You and have a wonderful day! [:D]

[oi_you_nutter]

ORIGINAL: Dirtdog20

Actually since Tennessee was formed out of North Carolina I am offended that our fair state was ommited from the list. I am hopefull that this oversight will be corrected or I will contact one of the ninny PC boards in your goverment and have them correct it for you.

Thank You and have a wonderful day! [:D]

Dirtdog20
agreed that Tennessee was formed from North Carolina as the 16th state in 1796. this was after a change of ownership that took place in 1783, hence the reason for its omission from the list.
if any state are willing to rejoin the Commonwealth then I will gladly add you back in the list. [:D]

(and btw I live in Kalifornia [;)])

[Dirtdog20]

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

ORIGINAL: Dirtdog20

Actually since Tennessee was formed out of North Carolina I am offended that our fair state was ommited from the list. I am hopefull that this oversight will be corrected or I will contact one of the ninny PC boards in your goverment and have them correct it for you.

Thank You and have a wonderful day! [:D]

Dirtdog20
agreed that Tennessee was formed from North Carolina as the 16th state in 1796. this was after a change of ownership that took place in 1783, hence the reason for its omission from the list.
if any state are willing to rejoin the Commonwealth then I will gladly add you back in the list. [:D]

(and btw I live in Kalifornia [;)])

Aw spit and hales of derisive laughter!!! We are still waiting on parts of California to realise they arent thier own little republics.

Since you gave a satisfactory explination, and the extenuating circumstances, I wont do what I said I was going to do at an earlier time.

Anyway, anyone who has Sir W. Churchill as thier avatar is OK by me.

[Skyros]

Well when your done with this discussion we can talk about his other book "The Blitzkreig Myth"!

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Well when your done with this discussion we can talk about his other book "The Blitzkreig Myth"!

????

[Skyros]

Big B, its his sequel where he debunks the effectivness of the Blitzkreig.