If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#136

Post by pugsville » 22 Nov 2017, 06:43

In 1917 the US built 1 million tons of shipping,.
In 1918 the AEF required at least 2 million tons of shipping and was requiring a further 1.2 million tons.
The AEF was a serious drain on shipping resources.

source page 199. "Allied Shipping Control" - J A Salter.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#137

Post by Plain Old Dave » 22 Nov 2017, 13:24

pugsville wrote:
Hmm my copy only runs 350 odd pages.(maybe you have a latter edition) Could you please quote when you say a source supports some claim and present some argument of why this does.
Last 2 appendices. One is a chart showing shipping losses and the other is a chart showing shipbuilding. U-boats were sinking more shipping than was being built.

Just had a thought: Here's a wildly impossible way to have the war go to 1919. Leonard Wood as head of the AEF, and the AEF "mutinies", refusing to fight to an armistice. Instead, the "big dog on the porch" forces the Allies to fight to unconditional surrender of the Central Powers. Given that Russia was out, France was broken from nearly a million casualties, and the British Empire was nearly flat broke it's hard to see a 1919 Central European Campaign as anything other than a virtually exclusively American show, with maybe the Canadians and French colonial troops.


pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#138

Post by pugsville » 23 Nov 2017, 09:21

Read most of salter's book. The US contributed nothing to the General Shipping pool despite the building;lding on much shipping, it was all used for US needs. The US intervention decreased the pool of available shipping as British ships were diverted to support the AEF. Without the US intervention the Entente would be better off in terms of tonnage of available for shipping.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#139

Post by Plain Old Dave » 23 Nov 2017, 16:19

Without the US, the Entente was roughly two months from not having ANY British shipping. Again, Sims Appendices 8-9. Pages 400-401 in the mid 80s Naval Institute Press version.

Bears repeating:

Without the US, there appears to be no way for the war to continue past the Summer or possibly Fall of 1917. France would be standing alone by July.

WITH the US, the only way the OP's scenario works is with Leonard Wood (one of the final choices for Commander) as head of the AEF and the US refuses to support an armistice, insisting instead on total victory and unconditional surrender.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#140

Post by pugsville » 23 Nov 2017, 23:17

Plain Old Dave wrote:Without the US, the Entente was roughly two months from not having ANY British shipping. Again, Sims Appendices 8-9. Pages 400-401 in the mid 80s Naval Institute Press version.
blatant hyperbole Brtisn had 10,milliontons at the start of 1917 lost 850,0000 british tonnahge 1st quarter 1917 the British built 490,000 tons 1st quarter 1917 nest loss 360,000 take 10 years for the british to have no tonnage.

Introduction of the convoy system solved the Problem.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#141

Post by Plain Old Dave » 24 Nov 2017, 03:00

pugsville wrote:
Plain Old Dave wrote:Without the US, the Entente was roughly two months from not having ANY British shipping. Again, Sims Appendices 8-9. Pages 400-401 in the mid 80s Naval Institute Press version.
blatant hyperbole Brtisn had 10,milliontons at the start of 1917 lost 850,0000 british tonnahge 1st quarter 1917 the British built 490,000 tons 1st quarter 1917 nest loss 360,000 take 10 years for the british to have no tonnage.

Introduction of the convoy system solved the Problem.
I have quoted the citations numerous times. Admiral Sims, the Germans, and virtually the entire British political military establishment were fully convinced England would have to withdraw from the War in about two months based on a lot more intel than a few books mostly written by people who weren't there. Given ADM Sims' book was approved by the Department of the Navy, we can also say the US Government was also convinced that Spring 1917 was a critical period. Further, without the USN, there weren't enough destroyers to work the convoy system. See the last two Appendices to Victory.

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 02:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#142

Post by The Ibis » 24 Nov 2017, 20:44

Plain Old Dave wrote:
pugsville wrote:
Plain Old Dave wrote:Without the US, the Entente was roughly two months from not having ANY British shipping. Again, Sims Appendices 8-9. Pages 400-401 in the mid 80s Naval Institute Press version.
blatant hyperbole Brtisn had 10,milliontons at the start of 1917 lost 850,0000 british tonnahge 1st quarter 1917 the British built 490,000 tons 1st quarter 1917 nest loss 360,000 take 10 years for the british to have no tonnage.

Introduction of the convoy system solved the Problem.
I have quoted the citations numerous times.
And each time you do, you've been told you should dig deeper and do more research. You need to look at the numerous histories written by people who have had access to far more information than Sims and who could take a step back and look dispassionately. Seriously, just how bad off do you think the British could have been when "as the U-boat historian Bodo Herzog has shown, at no time in the war did London reduce even the oats for its race horses!" Herwig, Total Rhetoric, Limited War: Germany's U-Boat Campaign 1917-1918, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. The Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (Spring 1998).
Admiral Sims, the Germans, and virtually the entire British political military establishment were fully convinced England would have to withdraw from the War in about two months ...
Irrelevant, mostly because they were wrong and weren't going to give up when the solution to their problem was already known.
based on a lot more intel than a few books mostly written by people who weren't there
Actually, historians have just as much information. Indeed, they have more access because they can look at German data too. Memoirs and near-contemporary histories are fine for what they are. They should rarely, if ever, represent the last word on anything. Oh
Given ADM Sims' book was approved by the Department of the Navy, we can also say the US Government was also convinced that Spring 1917 was a critical period.
No, we can't. We can say only that they Navy had no problem with Sims stating his opinion.

Look up Jan Breemer's "Defeating the U-boat. Inventing Antisubmarine Warfare." Its online - a Naval Press publication if that matters. It starts off with all Dave's favorite quotes and portents of doom from the all-knowing Admiral Sims. It then goes on to destroy Dave's argument brick by brick by brick. The following is worth quoting, not that Dave will acknowledge it.
One of those “facts” was, of course, the shortage of escorts, destroyers and otherwise. Jellicoe and others have claimed that the Admiralty’s timing of the convoy decision made perfect sense in light of the prospect of American assistance. Yet the U.S. Navy’s contribution to the convoy system was quite small compared with that of the British. For example, according to a report prepared by Sims’s headquarters in London in the summer of 1918, U.S. Navy forces engaged in antisubmarine operations in British and eastern Atlantic waters at the time amounted to less than 5 percent of the British contribution. Seventy percent of all transatlantic convoys were escorted by British destroyers, 27 percent by American warships.33 It should be added also that even though the vast majority of the U.S. destroyers on escort duty were committed to protecting the troop convoys that brought the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) to Europe, much of the escort load fell on British destroyers.34 In fact, an internal Admiralty memorandum prepared for the First Lord on the eve of a visit with U.S. Navy officials in Washington, D.C., stressed that the American entry into the war had actually put more strain on British ASW resources. The document is worth quoting, in part for what it reveals about the persisting attitude toward convoying as a misuse of destroyers at the expense of their “proper” purpose, hunting U-boats:
When the U.S. came into the war the immediate result—and a very welcome result—was the addition of their destroyers to European waters. As the American Army began to appear in France, however, . . . instead of the U.S. advent into the war causing a net augmentation to the Naval Forces of the Alliance, the demands for safeguarding American seaborne traffic increased so enormously that, looking at the matter purely from a Naval point of view, they have become a tax on the Alliance. That tax has entirely fallen upon the British with the result that we have had to utilize essential forces, intended for hunting the submarine, in order to escort the American supplies across the seas; and although it was a quite unavoidable development, the figures of enemy submarines sunk and submarines in commission at the present moment are a striking commentary on this subject.35
In terms of sheer numbers, there never was a dearth of potential British and allied escorts. The problem was that even as the convoy system came into full bloom, most escort-capable ships were still committed to wasteful hunt-and-kill and “protected lane” patrols. According to one source, only 257 out of a fleetwide total of 5,018 allied warships, or 5.1 percent, were committed to escort duties.36 It is tempting to speculate that the Admiralty seized on the prospect of American destroyers as a way to preserve its professional self-esteem in agreeing to a decision it knew at this point would be made with or without it.
Further, without the USN, there weren't enough destroyers to work the convoy system. See the last two Appendices to Victory.
You're just wrong. Please, please, stop repeating this. Its unbelievably tiresome.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#143

Post by Plain Old Dave » 25 Nov 2017, 02:42

The Ibis wrote:
You're just wrong. Please, please, stop repeating this. Its unbelievably tiresome.
Nope. YOU'RE wrong, and the only mistake American historians made was abandoning the narrative of the Great War to globalist Europeans. There's almost no accurate history of WW1 written after @1925-30. Mosier's "Myth..." is virtually the only correct history of WW1 written in the last 25 years.

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 02:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#144

Post by The Ibis » 25 Nov 2017, 19:17

Image
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#145

Post by BDV » 30 Nov 2017, 16:38

The Ibis wrote:"as the U-boat historian Bodo Herzog has shown, at no time in the war did London reduce even the oats for its race horses!" Herwig, Total Rhetoric, Limited War: Germany's U-Boat Campaign 1917-1918, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. The Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (Spring 1998).
Yes, but what about citrics? With UK deprived of critical vitamin C source, Final Victory! is at hand.

Durch Scorbut zum Endsieg!
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#146

Post by Orwell1984 » 30 Nov 2017, 17:07

BDV wrote:
The Ibis wrote:"as the U-boat historian Bodo Herzog has shown, at no time in the war did London reduce even the oats for its race horses!" Herwig, Total Rhetoric, Limited War: Germany's U-Boat Campaign 1917-1918, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. The Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (Spring 1998).
Yes, but what about citrics? With UK deprived of critical vitamin C source, Final Victory! is at hand.

Durch Scorbut zum Endsieg!
I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not but the British Isles had enough sources of native Vitamin C to get by without importing it.

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Vitam ... fessional/
Fruits and vegetables are the best sources of vitamin C (see Table 2) [12]. Citrus fruits, tomatoes and tomato juice, and potatoes are major contributors of vitamin C to the American diet [8]. Other good food sources include red and green peppers, kiwifruit, broccoli, strawberries, Brussels sprouts, and cantaloupe
As can be seen a number of sources of Vitamin C are easily available in the UK as I can attest from the many servings of Brussels sprouts I've eaten. Citrics get attention because of their connection to the Royal Navy but the UK wasn't particularly scurvy ridden in the years before access to those fruits was widespread. With enough locally grown fruits and veggies, they'd do okay and they were definitely growing a large number of Vitamin C sources.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#147

Post by South » 01 Dec 2017, 14:12

Good morning all,

At this late date on the thread, my 2 pfennigs worth.......

Re:
- if WWI continued into 1919 -
- a resemblance closer to the 1914-16 episode or WW 2 (1939-45 [with many not provided here footnotes of actual start]);

After 1918, the war DID continue for the US Army and US Navy. Some 5.600 US troops of the American North Russian Expeditionary Force (ANREF) - the "Polar Bears" - deployed to Vladivostok (and Archangel). One major embarkation was from the US (Manila) to Vladivostok.

Looking at the soldiers' equipment eg the vehicle ambulances, the uniforms, the small arms, .......all recognizable and a mimic of what was used in Europe.

In 1945, think of the B-29 aircraft laden with atomic ordnance.

As far as resemblances go, 1919-1920 closely related more to WW One years and not WW Two years.

Of course, besides the Thompson submachine gun, the Springfield 1903, the leggings and distinctive helmet, the administration of war and the supporting industrial base used by the military also changed. This thread heavily involves time lines and the developments made, from military medical care to codes.

Again, my 2 pfennigs....er...rubles...worth.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#148

Post by Plain Old Dave » 02 Dec 2017, 03:52

The Ibis wrote:
And each time you do, you've been told you should dig deeper and do more research. You need to look at the numerous histories written by people who have had access to far more information than Sims and who could take a step back and look dispassionately. Seriously, just how bad off do you think the British could have been when "as the U-boat historian Bodo Herzog has shown, at no time in the war did London reduce even the oats for its race horses!" Herwig, Total Rhetoric, Limited War: Germany's U-Boat Campaign 1917-1918, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. The Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (Spring 1998).
Reading can be diverting, and occasionally entertaining. I strongly recommend it. In this case, find a collection of H.L. Mencken's essays including "Notes On Victuals." Even without a war going on, the best fed mammals in Britain when Mencken was there before WW1 were the sheep. I hate to think what things looked like once the U-boats "spit in their hands and started slitting throats" with unrestricted submarine warfare.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#149

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Dec 2017, 17:58

Plain Old Dave wrote:Without the US, the Entente was roughly two months from not having ANY British shipping.
As others have pointed out, this is complete rubbish. The British merchant marine entered the war as the largest in the world, and it ended the war still in that position. The Germans sank a large percentage of the existing ships, but as pugsville has pointed out, the relative difference between the ships being built and ships being sunk means it would take a decade or so from 1917 for Britain to run out of ships.
Plain Old Dave wrote:Again, Sims Appendices 8-9. Pages 400-401 in the mid 80s Naval Institute Press version.
It is quaint to see the importance you place on Sims incorrect opinion especially as others have already posted what should be enough for anyone interested in truth to actually go and check a few other sources on this matter. Have you read Marder 'From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow (in this case Vol IV) as he covers this subject in some detail, and was an American.
Plain Old Dave wrote:Without the US, there appears to be no way for the war to continue past the Summer or possibly Fall of 1917.
Given the US contributed relatively very little by the summer or autumn of 1917, it should be glaringly obvious that the war could and would go on into 1918.
Plain Old Dave wrote: France would be standing alone by July.
The French were significantly worse off when compared to Britain in 1917/18, so it is amusing to see you feel they would last longer than Britain. Have you ever tried looking at how many troops Britain was using in what were effectively side shows to the Western Front, all of which could have been deployed to Europe if it really became necessary, and when you add in the French troops also fighting in the same theatres, it would be possible for the Entente to place about an extra 500,000 - 1,000,000 men directly against Germany. In 1918 despite Lloyd-George's protests about having no men to send to France, when the French pushed on the subject he found 140,000 men deployed in the South East of England alone,and a total of about 300,000 men that could be shipped to France. Germany had no more men, and a large proportion that she did have were classified by the Germans themselves as unreliable for offensives, hence their categorisation a static/defensive units in March 1918.
Plain Old Dave wrote:WITH the US, the only way the OP's scenario works is with Leonard Wood (one of the final choices for Commander) as head of the AEF and the US refuses to support an armistice, insisting instead on total victory and unconditional surrender.
If Britain and France decide they wish to end the war with an armistice in 1918, the US cannot force the issue without them.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#150

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Dec 2017, 18:18

Plain Old Dave wrote:You're just wrong. Please, please, stop repeating this. Its unbelievably tiresome.
Then why dont you prove us all wrong by supplying sources other than Sims opinion to show why we are all wrong, and how the war ended in Jan 1918 when Britain ran out of ships and men. Reality indicates the war continued, and the numbers of US troops in action by the end of 1917, the numbers of US ships employed on active duties against Germany, and even casualty returns show that it was very easy to continue the war into 1918, and almost certainly into 1919 too. Despite all the problems you believe the Entente nations were suffering, you seem to wilfully ignore that the Germans were worse off by quite some margin. Britain only introduced rationing in March/April 1918, and even then only on selected items, unlike WWII. Maybe you can tell us when Germany introduced rationing, and indeed what they thought about the blockade?
Plain Old Dave wrote:Nope. YOU'RE wrong, and the only mistake American historians made was abandoning the narrative of the Great War to globalist Europeans.
Do you mean that you view it as a mistake that the US didnt try peddling the 'we won it with only minimal assistance from anyone else' line and accepted reality?
Plain Old Dave wrote:There's almost no accurate history of WW1 written after @1925-30. Mosier's "Myth..." is virtually the only correct history of WW1 written in the last 25 years.
Seriously? If you really try to maintain this line you will quickly forfeit all right to be taken seriously on the subject of WWI. Mosier is an English professor whos forays into the historical field are regarded by most academics as a joke. In the very book you reference he doesnt even get close to proving the claim made in the title, maybe one of the reasons it is considred the worst book on WWI. Can you find any universities that cite this book as recommended reading for their courses? Maybe you sould read H E Barnes on WWI, he had some 'interesting' viewpoints on the subject too.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”