on the battlefield itself ? not a single one
diplomatically ? a ton, germany realising now the US got fricking involved they decided to fricking quit and accepted the truce, of course the 4 years of non stop warfare also did a lot on the soldier and civilian morale to the point that everyone except the US started to question what was the point of this war.
if the US intervened before it wouldn't have the same effect and germany would have kept going with the fight
>it was a done deal! >the french were totally not on the verge of a revolution after the failure of Nivelle Offensive! >the british were not in the middle of a manpower shortage in part to draft riots in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. >ammo shortage??? what ammo shortage?
🙂
Oh for sure. An exhausted, tattered, depleted German army literally starving and with no artillery support sitting on Amiens wold have caused the Allies to quit.
>it was a done deal! >the french were totally not on the verge of a revolution after the failure of Nivelle Offensive! >the british were not in the middle of a manpower shortage in part to draft riots in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. >ammo shortage??? what ammo shortage?
🙂
The real question to be answered is if American involvement won 2nd Marne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_the_Marne
If the Entente could have won this battle without America then it naturally follows they would be able to win the war shortly afterwards
If not, then many other factors must be considered
Overall I would lean towards suggesting that the Entente were positioned for a victory at this battle regardless of American troops, and therefore victory in the war.
Certainly Austria-Hungary was not going to last much longer no matter what, and that gives Germany an enormous strategic headache in the form of a brand new front to have to cover late in 1918 if the war is still going strong at that point.
France and Britain were actively being pushed back when the US arrived. As much as Euros like to cope, we DID save them twice in the same century.
They achieved tactical success and the Allied high command realised they would run out of steam and let them do it. There were 600,000 fully-trained fully-equipped troops in England being held in reserve for the offensive. The Kaiserschlacht shortened the war, just like the Battle of the Bulge in WWII. Americans had little to do with it.
Not much, but the allied powers getting new fresh troops helped morale while the central powers getting frick all crushed morale. Also as pointed out earlier it forced the central powers to get to the table much faster.
American forces fought continuously, in increasing numbers, all across the Western Front from April 1917 to the end of the war. Most notably, the AEF contributed significantly to the Hundred Days offensive in summer and fall 1918, fighting major actions in both the British and French sectors and putting millions of fresh troops into the line.
The majority of US forces in Europe were still training when the war ended. The ones that did see combat had a reputation for taking excessive casualties, making all the mistakes everyone else made in 1914. The effect of US strength of arms on the battlefield was much much less than Canada's. So it wasn't even the primary combatant from North America.
However the promise of millions of fresh soldiers entering the war on the entantes side put a timer on German victory conditions. Leading them to the folly of the spring offensive, and subsequent defeat in the 100 days campaign.
tldr: the US was inconsequential on the battlefield, but their entry shortened the war anyway.
The US put more men into a single battle (Meuse-Argonne) than Canada put into the Western Front in four years. With no disrespect intended to the Canadians, who fought very hard, the arrival of American forces absolutely had a battlefield effect.
This is correct.
The AEF arrived in Europe with practically no equipment, sometimes not even rifles. The French and British had to give them everything from helmets to tanks. But the fact they WERE arriving in ever-increasing numbers forced the Germans' hand. If the war dragged on into 1919 they would be literally starving to death from the British naval blockade and heavily outnumbered in the field.
>The majority of US forces in Europe were still training when the war ended.
True. That still meant a million Americans were on the frontline in November 1918.
The entente had reach a proto operational doctrine, with new artillery tactics and the use of tanks and recon from planes. With the failure of the Kaiserslacht, Germany had burn any hope of winning on the western front and 4 years of blocus were finally biting back the German in the ass. The collapse of the Bulgarian front and Austria in general was basically irrecoverable.
While US involvement was significant from an economic standpoint (they build their current prosperity out of it), and psychological standpoint, ruining german moral, rising entente's one, the US forces arrived too late on the battlefield in significant number too have much impact on it.
Had the US cut off trade with Europe in 1914, the war would have ended in 1915. If the US hadn't entered the war in 1917, the war would have ended in 1918-19, likely with multiple revolutions on the Allied side. So the US was the critical factor in all cases. To the negative, I might add.
Wilson was much more focused on diplomacy throughout the war until the Lusitania and Zimmerman letter happened. Most Americans didn’t give a shit and didn’t want to get involved in some petty bloodbath of a monarch squabble, hell before 1917 the US Army wasn’t even 100,000 strong, and even the navy wasn’t all that much comparitively speaking. That said to suggest that the AEF didn’t significantly shorten the potential duration of the war is moronic, the tactical situation could have easily gone either way and by 1917/1918 both the Entente and Alliance were beyond exhausted and facing significant pressures at home regardless of which country you fought for. Hundreds of thousands of fresh dough boys arriving in all at once was a major force multiplier. And if you want to be cheeky about it, aside from economic support, the Lewis Gun was also invented by an American. And that weapon is pretty much the face of WW1 and Britain to this day.
Jack Pershing got a lot of American troops killed unnecessarily by refusing to heed any advice from experienced British or French commanders and repeating early-war tactics. The butcher's bill would have been a lot lighter if it were not for his pride.
What the frick am I reading? It looks like a variation of the running professor out of Classroom meme but I literally don't understand anything that was written here.
I don't have anything to add, but my old unit worships the Battle of Belleau Wood and how a German advance threatening Paris was halted by the Marines. Knowing the Marines this is probably glamorized a bit, but I like the mythos of things like this in the same way of how the Romans have Romulus and Remus, and the Aeneid.
No.
Yes.
I don't know. Can you repeat the question?
You're not the boss of me now.
And you're not so big
Maybe.
on the battlefield itself ? not a single one
diplomatically ? a ton, germany realising now the US got fricking involved they decided to fricking quit and accepted the truce, of course the 4 years of non stop warfare also did a lot on the soldier and civilian morale to the point that everyone except the US started to question what was the point of this war.
if the US intervened before it wouldn't have the same effect and germany would have kept going with the fight
couldn't you also say Germany knew before they even got involved, the whole Mexico thing trying to get them preoccupied?
>on the battlefield itself ? not a single one
Ironically, America saved the Eurangutans' asses in 1917-18 just as much - if not more so - than they did in 41-45.
Nah, it was a done deal even before the Americans arrived.
>it was a done deal!
>the french were totally not on the verge of a revolution after the failure of Nivelle Offensive!
>the british were not in the middle of a manpower shortage in part to draft riots in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
>ammo shortage??? what ammo shortage?
🙂
no he's right it was a done deal, they'd figured out combined arms by then
you can cope & seethe now btw idc im closing the thread
>ammo shortage
Nobody was reloading on the battlefield.
The US made a logistical contribution, for which they were paid very well.
The fact the Americans were coming made the krauts spaghetti and blow what shots they had left
They almost managed to take a strategic railhead that could have won them the war right as Americans started flooding in didn't they?
Oh for sure. An exhausted, tattered, depleted German army literally starving and with no artillery support sitting on Amiens wold have caused the Allies to quit.
The real question to be answered is if American involvement won 2nd Marne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_the_Marne
If the Entente could have won this battle without America then it naturally follows they would be able to win the war shortly afterwards
If not, then many other factors must be considered
Overall I would lean towards suggesting that the Entente were positioned for a victory at this battle regardless of American troops, and therefore victory in the war.
Certainly Austria-Hungary was not going to last much longer no matter what, and that gives Germany an enormous strategic headache in the form of a brand new front to have to cover late in 1918 if the war is still going strong at that point.
They achieved tactical success and the Allied high command realised they would run out of steam and let them do it. There were 600,000 fully-trained fully-equipped troops in England being held in reserve for the offensive. The Kaiserschlacht shortened the war, just like the Battle of the Bulge in WWII. Americans had little to do with it.
>We have an entire fricking army group which we aren't using for reasons
They were the reserve to take the offensive in 1918 and win the war. Which is what happened.
France and Britain were actively being pushed back when the US arrived. As much as Euros like to cope, we DID save them twice in the same century.
Not much, but the allied powers getting new fresh troops helped morale while the central powers getting frick all crushed morale. Also as pointed out earlier it forced the central powers to get to the table much faster.
They showed up, and the Germans said frick it then left.
American forces fought continuously, in increasing numbers, all across the Western Front from April 1917 to the end of the war. Most notably, the AEF contributed significantly to the Hundred Days offensive in summer and fall 1918, fighting major actions in both the British and French sectors and putting millions of fresh troops into the line.
>on the battlefield in WWI?
No.
The majority of US forces in Europe were still training when the war ended. The ones that did see combat had a reputation for taking excessive casualties, making all the mistakes everyone else made in 1914. The effect of US strength of arms on the battlefield was much much less than Canada's. So it wasn't even the primary combatant from North America.
However the promise of millions of fresh soldiers entering the war on the entantes side put a timer on German victory conditions. Leading them to the folly of the spring offensive, and subsequent defeat in the 100 days campaign.
tldr: the US was inconsequential on the battlefield, but their entry shortened the war anyway.
The US put more men into a single battle (Meuse-Argonne) than Canada put into the Western Front in four years. With no disrespect intended to the Canadians, who fought very hard, the arrival of American forces absolutely had a battlefield effect.
OP says significant, and the answer is no.
This is correct.
The AEF arrived in Europe with practically no equipment, sometimes not even rifles. The French and British had to give them everything from helmets to tanks. But the fact they WERE arriving in ever-increasing numbers forced the Germans' hand. If the war dragged on into 1919 they would be literally starving to death from the British naval blockade and heavily outnumbered in the field.
>The majority of US forces in Europe were still training when the war ended.
True. That still meant a million Americans were on the frontline in November 1918.
How much food and material did the US send to the allied powers?
Did they send any aid before they entered the war?
>aid
No. I don't believe they ever did. The US did very well in sales, becoming a globally relevant power after the Great War.
>troony tank
Real question is how to tell the difference between US and british uniforms/gear
Look for a rigid collar
The entente had reach a proto operational doctrine, with new artillery tactics and the use of tanks and recon from planes. With the failure of the Kaiserslacht, Germany had burn any hope of winning on the western front and 4 years of blocus were finally biting back the German in the ass. The collapse of the Bulgarian front and Austria in general was basically irrecoverable.
While US involvement was significant from an economic standpoint (they build their current prosperity out of it), and psychological standpoint, ruining german moral, rising entente's one, the US forces arrived too late on the battlefield in significant number too have much impact on it.
No.
The outcome was inevitable, but having fresh Americans to throw at the problem was incredibly appreciated and expedited the war.
Had the US cut off trade with Europe in 1914, the war would have ended in 1915. If the US hadn't entered the war in 1917, the war would have ended in 1918-19, likely with multiple revolutions on the Allied side. So the US was the critical factor in all cases. To the negative, I might add.
Wilson was much more focused on diplomacy throughout the war until the Lusitania and Zimmerman letter happened. Most Americans didn’t give a shit and didn’t want to get involved in some petty bloodbath of a monarch squabble, hell before 1917 the US Army wasn’t even 100,000 strong, and even the navy wasn’t all that much comparitively speaking. That said to suggest that the AEF didn’t significantly shorten the potential duration of the war is moronic, the tactical situation could have easily gone either way and by 1917/1918 both the Entente and Alliance were beyond exhausted and facing significant pressures at home regardless of which country you fought for. Hundreds of thousands of fresh dough boys arriving in all at once was a major force multiplier. And if you want to be cheeky about it, aside from economic support, the Lewis Gun was also invented by an American. And that weapon is pretty much the face of WW1 and Britain to this day.
Jack Pershing got a lot of American troops killed unnecessarily by refusing to heed any advice from experienced British or French commanders and repeating early-war tactics. The butcher's bill would have been a lot lighter if it were not for his pride.
>who today live in such luxury most can afford sex changes
Never really thought of it like that.
What the frick am I reading? It looks like a variation of the running professor out of Classroom meme but I literally don't understand anything that was written here.
No
Enough to get the Krauts to try and redefine what a warcrime is.
>"attends les chars et les Américains"
>(I am waiting for the tanks and the Americans)
>Philippe Pétain, Marshal of France
I don't have anything to add, but my old unit worships the Battle of Belleau Wood and how a German advance threatening Paris was halted by the Marines. Knowing the Marines this is probably glamorized a bit, but I like the mythos of things like this in the same way of how the Romans have Romulus and Remus, and the Aeneid.