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

[Plain Old Dave]

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.

The Allies were able to make the convoy system work almost exclusively due to the US Navy's contribution; besides the DDs at Queenstown, American battleships performed convoy escort duty. Sims was Theater Commander, and there is no need for further documentation.

you seem to wilfully ignore that the Germans were worse off by quite some margin.

It's... curious that an Axis History Forum is so resistant to an opinion that Germany at one point was actually and demonstrably close to WINNING WW1. While Mencken was easily the best friend Germany had in the US in the era, making the entire country into a Potemkin village was simply beyond the capabilities of Wilhelmine Germany. Even stage-managing the visit of a friendly neutral correspondent like Mencken would be a considerable stretch. Find his "The Diary of a Retreat." Several essays long, it's the narrative of his visit to Germany in the Winter of 1916/Spring of 1917. There was no panic whatever in Germany, and no real shortages either. A link to Chapter One is provided herewith.

http://storyoftheweek.loa.org/2017/01/t ... treat.html

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?

The plain fact is we DID most of the heavy lifting in 1918, but that's not the point here. After the American Battle Monuments Commission completed their work in the 1920s, we basically abandoned the narrative to the Anglophiles. THAT was the mistake.

[Terry Duncan]

The Allies were able to make the convoy system work almost exclusively due to the US Navy's contribution;

The US destroyers were helpful, but the convoy system worked well enough from the moment the overestimate of ships needed was noticed. Please note, the US ships involved were minimal and almost exclusively in the Western Approaches, whilst Britain was still managing the convoys in all theaters as well as still having enough for the Grand Fleet too.

American battleships performed convoy escort duty.

Because when they turned up at Scapa Flow it turned out they had never fired on moving targets and were quickly put onto duties where they could look like they were doing something until they had learned gunnery properly. Battleships are bloody awful convoy escorts against submarines.

Sims was Theater Commander, and there is no need for further documentation.

Jellicoe and then Beatty were the theater commanders, Sims 'theater' consisted of the Western Approaches, so yes, you do need more than just his opinion as the opion of an admiral unsupported is useless.

It's... curious that an Axis History Forum is so resistant to an opinion that Germany at one point was actually and demonstrably close to WINNING WW1. While Mencken was easily the best friend Germany had in the US in the era, making the entire country into a Potemkin village was simply beyond the capabilities of Wilhelmine Germany. Even stage-managing the visit of a friendly neutral correspondent like Mencken would be a considerable stretch. Find his "The Diary of a Retreat." Several essays long, it's the narrative of his visit to Germany in the Winter of 1916/Spring of 1917. There was no panic whatever in Germany, and no real shortages either. A link to Chapter One is provided herewith.

http://storyoftheweek.loa.org/2017/01/t ... treat.html

The name does not imply that the Axis or Central Powers had the ability to win either war, the origins of the name are explained on the site if you wish to look, though ti appears you do not like sources from other than your own limited repetoire. We have full details now of how much the Germans were reducing the rations to civillians and even to the military - one of their complaints in the inter-war years was about the hunger blockade, so maybe you need to look elsewhere than propaganda visits?

The plain fact is we DID most of the heavy lifting in 1918

No the US did nothing of the sort, very few of its troops were even depployed to the front lines until after the Germans were being driven back and had already lost the war.

After the American Battle Monuments Commission completed their work in the 1920s, we basically abandoned the narrative to the Anglophiles. THAT was the mistake.

Idiocy is no substitute for knowledge, try looking at how many men the US lost in combat for example, as unless they had somehow found a method of making bullet proof soldiers, it is clear they did not even close to the 'heavy lifting' and all you are doing is attempting to steal the credit others deserve far more.

[Aber]

try looking at how many men the US lost in combat for example,

List of Entente countries with more WW1 combat deaths than the USA:

Russian Empire
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Romania
Serbia
India
Australia
Canada

The US Marines had fewer combat deaths than Montenegro.

[pugsville]

The Allies were able to make the convoy system work almost exclusively due to the US Navy's contribution; besides the DDs at Queenstown, American battleships performed convoy escort duty. Sims was Theater Commander, and there is no need for further documentation.

I already shown you that the British had twice as many destroyers on convoy escort in the Atlantic than the US. As well as escort sion the Mediterrain, French, Italian, japanese destroyers.

Total numbers of destroyers for the entente over 300 , 36 USN destroyers is not massive game changer.

It's... curious that an Axis History Forum is so resistant to an opinion that Germany at one point was actually and demonstrably close to WINNING WW1. While Mencken was easily the best friend Germany had in the US in the era, making the entire country into a Potemkin village was simply beyond the capabilities of Wilhelmine Germany. Even stage-managing the visit of a friendly neutral correspondent like Mencken would be a considerable stretch. Find his "The Diary of a Retreat." Several essays long, it's the narrative of his visit to Germany in the Winter of 1916/Spring of 1917. There was no panic whatever in Germany, and no real shortages either. A link to Chapter One is provided herewith.

One journalist wandering about seeing what the Germans wanted him to see. Industrial production, Manpower, Food production, are you claiming Mencken had any real detailed knowledge?

The plain fact is we DID most of the heavy lifting in 1918, but that's not the point here. After the American Battle Monuments Commission completed their work in the 1920s, we basically abandoned the narrative to the Anglophiles. THAT was the mistake.

As the US forces actually committed to battle were very small, and performed sub standard to British and French forces, who equiped , trained and shipped them. On what possible basis do you make the claim that they did the "heavy lifting".

[Orwell1984]

It's interesting that HL Mencken is cited as an irreproachable resource, considering his well known pro-German bias.

Here's an article from the Atlantic, publisher of many of his articles at the time, reviewing his writing prior to the United States' entry into the First World War:
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainme ... ic/378513/

An excerpt

As the piece continued, it gradually became a celebration of Germany's rise from "boorish bumptiousness" to fierce military prowess. Mencken's final paragraphs evoked visions of "grave, blond warriors ... afoot for new conquests, a new tearing down, a new building up." To the American people, poised to enter a war with "Teuton," Mencken issued an unsettling warning: "Let us not assume his downfall too lightly: it will take staggering blows to break him. And let us not be alarmed by his possible triumph. What did Rome ever produce to match the Fifth Symphony?"

Statements like these revealed a lifelong paradox about H. L. Mencken. Though in many ways the quintessential American newspaperman, Mencken strongly identified with his German heritage even when American sentiment was solidly against Germany. In the spring of 1915, The Atlantic's editor Ellery Sedgwick sent a tormented response to one of Mencken's submissions. "I am writhing and twisting inside," he wrote. "Your reprehensible paper is damnably effective.... However, it is within the bounds of possibility that we shall have war with Germany before this paper can be printed, and, of course, I have no desire to foment treason." The "paper," a strongly pro-German piece about the war in Europe, had been submitted just a few days after German U-boats sank the Lusitania on its voyage from New York Harbor.

Mencken's hagiographic portrait of Ludendorff:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ff/376215/

Any claims made in Mencken's articles should be taken with massive grains of salt or backed up by other evidence to have any credibility.

Please note that this post is for the reference of other members of the forum as I know it will make no impact on the opinion of the member who introduced Mencken into the debate as he is happy and secure in his own bias bubble.

[Plain Old Dave]

Any claims made in Mencken's articles should be taken with massive grains of salt or backed up by other evidence to have any credibility.

Please note that this post is for the reference of other members of the forum as I know it will make no impact on the opinion of the member who introduced Mencken into the debate as he is happy and secure in his own bias bubble.

Common sense time. Assuming Wilhelmine Germany could make the entire country a Potemkin village or even that they had intent or capability to fabricate a Soviet-style "planned visit" is more deus ex machina than many of the wild claims made for WW2 German wonder weapons in this forum.

Mencken was there and you (nor the vast majority of the pointy-headed academicians that the posters in this thread seem intent on trotting out) weren't.

It's truly baffling, this intent of dismissing a theory that Germany was actually WINNING WW1 at one point.

[Plain Old Dave]

Any claims made in Mencken's articles should be taken with massive grains of salt or backed up by other evidence to have any credibility.

Please note that this post is for the reference of other members of the forum as I know it will make no impact on the opinion of the member who introduced Mencken into the debate as he is happy and secure in his own bias bubble.

Common sense time. Assuming Wilhelmine Germany could make the entire country a Potemkin village or even that they had intent or capability to fabricate a Soviet-style "planned visit" is more deus ex machina than many of the wild claims made for WW2 German wonder weapons in this forum.

Mencken was there and you (nor the vast majority of the pointy-headed academicians that the posters in this thread seem intent on trotting out) weren't.

It's truly baffling, this intent of dismissing a theory that Germany was actually WINNING WW1 at one point.

EDIT: Read the linked Ludendorff article, and it's a good example of Mencken at his best; the American language (the term is used consciously, as possibly his greatest contribution to letters is his classic The American Language) was, to the Sage of Baltimore, what a cello is to Yo-Yo Ma or a sniper rifle was to Chris Kyle. An instrument in the hands of a virtuoso, and a pull is actually relevant to the matter at hand:

...the prime obstacle to its (the food crisis) solution is not an actual shortage of food, but a failure in discipline.

[Terry Duncan]

Common sense time. Assuming Wilhelmine Germany could make the entire country a Potemkin village or even that they had intent or capability to fabricate a Soviet-style "planned visit" is more deus ex machina than many of the wild claims made for WW2 German wonder weapons in this forum.

So Wilhelmine Germany was incapable of propaganda, presumably incapable of building large unarmed cargo submarines, running them to the US and then making this a propaganda campaign? Have you read Avner Offer on the food situation in Germany in WWI, or looked up what the bread the working class had access to was made from? Why did the Germans call the blockade a 'hunger blockade' if it were not causing them hunger? Why do we have pictures of German citizens butchering a horse that has dropped dead in the street? Do you have a similar picture from London or claim such action was normal in Germany anyhow?

It's truly baffling, this intent of dismissing a theory that Germany was actually WINNING WW1 at one point.

Maybe because the theory is wrong, unsupported, and mostly uninformed. Please cite a point where you believe Germany was winning? The Marne? Verdun? 3rd Ypres, Operation Michael, Amiens?

[Plain Old Dave]

Please cite a point where you believe Germany was winning? The Marne? Verdun? 3rd Ypres, Operation Michael, Amiens?

Spring of 1917. Unrestricted submarine warfare was succeeding, Russia was in chaos and had been curbstomped in the only major battle on the Eastern Front (Tannenberg) and had virtually withdrawn from the war; Brest-Litovsk was a formality. The French had already mutinied, and the British were bankrupt and almost completely dependent on US financiers to keep the war effort going. Mencken (who, again, was actually in Germany at the time) reported the only real problem was resource prioritization and there were no food shortages. Without direct intervention by the US, it's difficult to see the Entente maintaining a war effort past the Summer/Fall of 1917.

[Terry Duncan]

Spring of 1917. Unrestricted submarine warfare was succeeding,

The only 'success' was to bring the US into the war, the estimate the entire USW campaign had been based on was faulty, the Germans needed to sink about twice as much tonnage as they achieved at their best to even come vaguely close, something impossible without more submarines and even less likely once the convoy system was reintroduced. Convoys had been rejected as being too defensive and on the basis that merchant captains would never be able to steam in formation. Both reasons were clearly incorrect, and there was even talk of unescorted convoys if needed though this was seen as a likely terrible blow to morale. So in Spring 1917 the Germans had just added to their enemies, Russia was still fighting even after a change in government (and without the folly of Karensky's offensive may well have stayed in until well into 1918). So despite your really rather wide 'Spring 1917' definition of a precise moment, you really offer little as to Germany winning, and for fairly obvious reasons dont bother to remember than Austria was by thins point desperate to get out of the war and negotiating with the French behind the Germans back. The Central Powers were doing so well one had taken to trying to stab the other in the back just to survive!

Russia was in chaos and had been curbstomped in the only major battle on the Eastern Front (Tannenberg)

An amusing display of almost total lack of knowledge on this subject. Gorlice-Tarnow was a far greater German victory than Tannenberg, though as Tannenberg was in 1914, and Gorlice-Tarnow 1915, neither are of any real relevence to early 1917. Of greater relevence would have been Mackensen's campaign in Romania, but again, no doubt too obscure for you to know about.

and had virtually withdrawn from the war; Brest-Litovsk was a formality.

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was in 1918 and had the effect of hardening attitudes against Germany in Britain and France, with the fairly accurate presumption being that the Germans would attempt such punitive terms for a negotiated peace that fighting on until utter defeat offered no worse a settlement.

The French had already mutinied,

And they had recovered too, though it was less than half the divisions of the French army that were involved, and even some divisions were minimally involved.

the British were bankrupt and almost completely dependent on US financiers to keep the war effort going.

By this token Germany had been bankrupt from about 1915 onwards, Britain could still resort to raising money by public subscription as Germany was doing, so it was simply one means of finance that was nearing exhaustion.

Mencken (who, again, was actually in Germany at the time) reported the only real problem was resource prioritization and there were no food shortages. Without direct intervention by the US, it's difficult to see the Entente maintaining a war effort past the Summer/Fall of 1917.

To be honest I really dont give a damn what Mencken believed or was told, we have access to the actual German government documents, and 100 years of scholarship into what shortages applied in what nations. Maybe you can enlighten us as to what date Germany initiated rationing? I have already told you when Britain did so (Spring 1918) so your refusal to address this point indicates you know it is a very unfavourable comparison for your case. If Britain did not need to ration anything until Feb-April 1918 the USW campaign was obviously not working well enough in Spring 1917 (let alone being weeks away from succeeding), and based on the curious assumption that although the German people could accept rationing, it would be impossible to introduce in Britain as the public would never accept it.

Without direct intervention by the US, it's difficult to see the Entente maintaining a war effort past the Summer/Fall of 1917.

All the US had achieved by this point was to be a major drain on Entente resources and to boost morale, they had almost no impact on the war itself in this time period as they were simply not involved on the front line.

So far you have quoted the opinion of an admiral with nothing to support it, and a journalist with highly partisan opinions to be polite, again with nothing to support what he claimed (George Bernad Shaw visited the USSR at the height of the Holodomor and said there were no shortages of food, and we all know how that looked when actual facts became available). I have asked you if you have read Marder's 'From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow Vol IV' on the USW campaign and how close Britain really was to losing, or even Avner Offer 'The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation' as both are fairly standard works on these matters, just to know exactly what information you are using to base your opinions upon. If you are simply accepting Sims and Mencken at their word and have done little to no other research, there is little reason for anyone to take anything you write here with anything but disdain and humour. I am not a great fan of the 'my book is better than your book' line of argument, but if one person happens to be using the only book he has ever read on the subject he is wasting the time of others or trolling.

[ljadw]

It's truly baffling, this intent of dismissing a theory that Germany was actually WINNING WW1 at one point.

Germany had already lost WWI BEFORE the Marne battle : Moltke admitting that his plan had failed, Falkenhayn also said after First ypres that Germany no longer could win the war .

[South]

Good morning Plain Old Dave,

Brest-Litovsk might have been merely a formality but Rapello was not. Rapello was sotto voce ie secret.

Actually both documents worked meeting the authors' intended requirements.

~ Bob

Neighbor, ... eastern Virginia

[Terry Duncan]

It's truly baffling, this intent of dismissing a theory that Germany was actually WINNING WW1 at one point.

Germany had already lost WWI BEFORE the Marne battle : Moltke admitting that his plan had failed, Falkenhayn also said after First ypres that Germany no longer could win the war .

Although it is unpopular to say so, I think Moltke probably came about as close to winning as was possible for Germany (St Schlieffen with his plan for an army almost 50% larger than the one he commanded and fighting on a single front only still did not manage to win reliably in his wargamed tests, and admitted he had no answer to what to do if the French retreated deeper into France beyond the Marne, Zuber names the position but I have forgotten it) though there does seem to have been some decision to stand on the Aisne position before the Marne and possibly in the planning stage as Zuber seemed to believe. Falkenhayn seems to have had the better grasp of what was needed, though the need to prevent the Russians totally destroying Austria prevented him taking the chance in the west that may have kept the front there mobile. After that point, the artillery/attritional offensive was also possibly the only way Germany had of forcing the Entente to negotiate.

As to when did Germany really lose the war, I would say a very good case can be made for the moment she opted for war in the west, though I am sure that would not be popular with the people who never consider Germany could run out of money or men long before the richer and far larger Entente.

[ljadw]

On 4 september 1914 (thus before the start of the Marne Battle) Moltke said : the worst has still to come and that the French were withdrawing following plan and order,while following the German plan the French had to be on the run, pursued by a victorious German army .

And Stahel wrote in 2009 in "Operation Barbarossa and Germany's defeat in the East PP445/446) that the Clausewitzian culminating point(=a theoretical point at which the strength of the defendr surpasses that of an attacker) of the Geman offensive occurred BEFORE the Marne Battle ).

IOW: France was stronger on 4 september than on 4 august ,while for Germany it was the opposite .

[South]

Good morning Plain Old Dave, Terry and all,

Only because it's already been introduced will I add 2 more of my pfennigs....actually US Trade Dollars.....to the discussion.

Re: "that Germany was actually WINNING WW1 at one point...";

Re: "when...Germany really lose the war...the moment she opted for war in the west,..";

The discussion question, until Terry introduced the broader phrase, was with a pure military flavor.

Germany lost the war regardless of military campaigns.

Two big events of global significance came about circa this time: 1. The new US central bank, the Federal Reserve System, had a Regulation B the Fed was obliged to exercise. (Some time lapses involved in its enactment and its exercise but the plan was in place) Reg B created a market for Bankers' Acceptances. Omitting much, this shifted world trade financing from London to New York City. Although London was obviously no alley of the Kaiser, it was the US not wanting Germany to dominate the continent - especially with a focus on Germany's steel production. The other major event was the 1914 opening of the Panama Canal.

Just follow the money.

Much of the recent discussion here reminds me of analysis of the US-Vietnam War (Second Indochina War). A US strategist, Col Harry Summers, went to Hanoi after the war and met with a counterpart colonel of the PAVN. Col Summers said that the war's outcome was somewhat surprising because the US won all the major MILITARY events (actually not correct). The PAVN Col replied: "That may be so but it is irrelevant".

Even if the Kaiser's military machine won the military events, the economic vice determined that the US would not have a powerhouse Germany running the continent.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA