Americas Contribution to Victory

[Dirtdog20]

Does the game in any way show the huge influence American money/industry had on the war effort? I recall that at one point half of the British munitions being used in 1916 were purchased from American industry using American loans. It was becoming a point of concern for the British because so much of thier capital was coming under American control to pay for the munitions. The French were in simular conditions and were able to pay off some of thiers by selling Spads, 75's and misbored Cho - cho's back to the Americans.

Just a wonder on my part to try and get a feel on how deep the outside factors are an influence on the game.

[FrankHunter]

No, except that Britain needs to keep shipping in the North Atlantic to keep its economy going. I don't believe American industry was as big a factor as it was in WW2.

[Dirtdog20]

Thank you for the answer.

As for the rest we will have to agree to disagree on the point. [8D]

[CSSS]

Well the disparity between american production values of the two wars is readily apparant. In WWI American production of munition for the entente was very critical. Simply put the alies could not have held without the orders of munitions from America. However small the actual contribution the Americans had in the fighting there arrival in France was enough moral boost to allow the entente not to collapse or seek armistance terms. Remember in 1918 despite the extreme severity of the British blockade.The Italians had not recover from Capporetto. The Russians had been knocked out and the germans had freed up about a million troops for the western front , in as well as the Kiaser held the capitals of no less than FIVE capitals of europe conquered, the allies none.The Yanks had really no artillery, or planes , or tanks but they had fresh millions of men. America produce vast ammounts of munitions, France and great britain produce the weapons that used them.Also the spanish influenza hit in the sring on 1918 and killed 26 MILLION europeans drained from 4 years of war , the healthier americans only lost 500,000 to this out break. The war only killed 5 million germans over 4 years. You need to look at the grand strategic scope to appriciate how close this war was.

[Dirtdog20]

CSS,

If I read you correctly we are of the same thoughts on this. The AEF after the Marne and Chateu Therry (SP) didn't have a decisive effect on the battle front. I only say that because if the 2nd and 3rd Div dont hold there is nothing behind them but open country. Yes they took a portion of the line but they had to learn all the lessons from the French and English in the attack. It was late 1918 before they were really starting to the hang of it.

IMO it was because the Allies were so deep in debt to American industry that Wilson was able to push his 14 points as well as he was.

[FrankHunter]

Agreed, everyone in that war in Europe was exhausted. And yes the US arrival in 1918 was a big morale boost to the French and Empire.

A point about the million German troops that came west after Russia's collapse. I read they were "infected" with some of the revolutionary spirit of their opponents and therefore they weren't as steady as western troops. I don't cover that in the game, just thought it interesting.

[anarchyintheuk]

I read somewhere that those troops coming from Russia took some time to acclimatize/appreciate the differences in the denseness of the front (number of men per mile) and the power of the allied artillery compared to that of the east. Wish i could remember the book.

[CSSS]

Yes Wilsons 14 points had a major impact on the Germans disire for an armistce, how ever if Wiloson had stayed in Washington he could , have forced the entente to in effect sign an armistance based on this, by threating to sign a separte peace with Germany. When he came to France and delt with his POLITICAL superiors in Clemensau an Loyd George , he was out classed.....completely. The result was the treaty of Vesallies and a guarateed World War part II.

[FrankHunter]

Ever read Macmillan's book, Paris 1919? I thought it fascinating.

As for the million German troops from the east, I think the time for peace may have been before they were actually thrown against the allies.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: CSS

When he came to France and delt with his POLITICAL superiors in Clemensau an Loyd George , he was out classed.....completely.

Hi!

I'm not sure if I would word it quite that way. I would use the word outmaneuvered. France and Britain wanted blood (because so much had been spilt)... Wilson wanted "Peace without Victory."

Ray (alias Lava)

[wodin]

If America had stayed neutral the Germany would not have launched the March offensive, which in the end finished them off. With all the extra men they could have kept the war going and eventually made a peace deal which wouldnt have been as harsh as the Versaille Treaty. Then WW2 might never have happened and Hitler would have been a most likely a failed artist who would have been forgotten a long time ago.

[CSSS]

I wll have to disagree Wodin, they did need to end the war the blockade was taking a terrible toll. But you are right in the fact a much better armistance would have been had.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: wodin

If America had stayed neutral..

Hi!

That is an excellent, and realistic, "what if" question.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Telsor1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

If America had stayed neutral the Germany would not have launched the March offensive, which in the end finished them off. With all the extra men they could have kept the war going and eventually made a peace deal which wouldnt have been as harsh as the Versaille Treaty. Then WW2 might never have happened and Hitler would have been a most likely a failed artist who would have been forgotten a long time ago.

Maybe not the march offensive, but certainly an offensive that summer. remember that even though that attack came short of expectations, it almost won the war....the British army broke and barely recovered int ime, and when it did it was largely due to Australian/Canadian and US troops filling the gaps int he line.

As for WW2 not happening, if Versailes hadn't been so tough, there would probably have been imperial conflicts either unresolved or still to develop giving plenty of opportunity for another war.

As for the US not joining the war..well, 2 options.

1. Germany didn't have unrestricted sub warfare.
This almost certainly would have delayed US entry, but at the cost of bolstering the British ( and to a lesser extrent, French ) war effort.

2. The US didn't respond to unrestricted warfare...Not all that likely, but if it did happen, or even if the US delayed significantly, the Brits would have had some major problems with their overseas trade. The Germans were a month or two away from getting into the 'vital' part of trade ( as opposed to causing restrictions on luxury goods and the like ). In 6 months, British industry ( and American arms sales ) would have been cut severely.

[wodin]

True but the Germans knew that they had to risk everything in one big offensive to capture Paris. They would never have done this if the USA wasnt involved. For awhile before the Germans were relying on an armistace (as all sides knew that an all out victory wasnt really possible) and needed as much of France and Belgium to bargain with. The offensive also hit the Portugese line which was well known to be very weak. As for the offensive. Well that slowley came to an end due to severe casualties suffered and also a huge drop in moral. Also the Allies finally got their act together and held them up just outside Amiens. The famous black day 8th August when the British/Australian/Canadian and French launched their counter offensive and the battle swung into the Allies favour. From then on it the Allies advanced to the end of the War.

As for the blockade yes this was taking a serious toll. However the Germans could have held on far longer by not launching such a big offensive and finally sought an Armistace with more favourable conditions. That had been their Idea for a long time before March 1918.

[Kevinugly]

Being cynical, it could be argued that the USA entered the war to protect its financial position. By late 1916 it was obvious that Russia was on the brink of collapse and that Germany would then turn its full military might westwards. Britain and France, already heavily in debt to the USA, would be hard pressed to hold off a major offensive. At best, they would be forced to agree to a peace treaty at less than favourable terms, jeopardising the repayment of debts owed. The resumption of the unrestricted u-boat campaign by Germany just gave America a convenient excuse to safeguard their investments. Thoughts?

[Telsor1]

An interesting argument that...

I do tend to believe in the idea that nations act in their best interest, and that 'moral' arguments are usually more of an afterthought, so the idea has appeal to me. Not sure how valid it is, but I wont rule it out...as a contributing factor at least.

[anarchyintheuk]

If it were anyone else but Wilson as president I'd say you had an interesting argument. Anyone so idealistic that he came up with the 14 points and actually expected everyone to say "hey, sounds good to me" seems less than likely to declare war over debt owed to corporations.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

If it were anyone else but Wilson as president I'd say you had an interesting argument. Anyone so idealistic that he came up with the 14 points and actually expected everyone to say "hey, sounds good to me" seems less than likely to declare war over debt owed to corporations.

It's a difficult one I admit but Wilson had been touting those 'fourteen points' for a while. I just wonder what motivated Congress? American citizens had been dying in 'accidents' for a while, the 'Lusitania incident' occured in 1915, those who favoured entry into the war (Theodore Roosevelt for example) had long been campaigning for it. Was it the u-boat campaign, the Zimmerman telegraph or the financial ramifications of a German victory that finally pushed America into war? It's the timing of the entry that makes me suspicious.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Being cynical, it could be argued that the USA entered the war to protect its financial position. By late 1916 it was obvious that Russia was on the brink of collapse and that Germany would then turn its full military might westwards. Britain and France, already heavily in debt to the USA, would be hard pressed to hold off a major offensive. At best, they would be forced to agree to a peace treaty at less than favourable terms, jeopardising the repayment of debts owed. The resumption of the unrestricted u-boat campaign by Germany just gave America a convenient excuse to safeguard their investments. Thoughts?

A point Ive heard before and I expect is most likely true. Im sure they werent to happy about the Germans trying to start a war between themsleves and Mexico though. However many things boil down to money in the end.