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.
User avatar
The Ibis
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 01:06
Location: The interwebs

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

Post by The Ibis » 06 Dec 2017 06:07

You are quoting George Seldes. I would assume the forum rules require attribution (for future reference). Anyway, the quote is nonsense. Hindenburg was being polite to a journalist. He wanted to make friends for Germany in the US. What better way than praise the Doughboys. Hindenburg was not half the dummy people make him out to have been.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

User avatar
Mbowden23
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 23:12
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas USA

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

Post by Mbowden23 » 06 Dec 2017 06:13

The Ibis wrote:The Marne was not a draw. I dont know why this is controversial. Credit the French. Or the BEF for turning up. Or blame whomever you want - Moltke, Hentsch, Bulow, Kluck. Bottom line, the French won the battle. The Germans retreated and had to figure out how to win a long war - which they could never do.
Credit the French with marshaling forces at a point that put stress on the German right? of course. Credit the BEF? with what? they had the opportunity to truly win the battle but they were unable to do so. The speed of their advance alone from the 6-8 proves how impotent they were. IX Armee Korps covered 75 miles in 48 hours. The BEF CAVALRY covered an average of 9 miles per day from 6th-9th.
-Matt Bowden-
Arlington, Texas USA

User avatar
Mbowden23
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 23:12
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas USA

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

Post by Mbowden23 » 06 Dec 2017 06:17

The Ibis wrote:You are quoting George Seldes. I would assume the forum rules require attribution (for future reference). Anyway, the quote is nonsense. Hindenburg was being polite to a journalist. He wanted to make friends for Germany in the US. What better way than praise the Doughboys. Hindenburg was not half the dummy people make him out to have been.
Speculation. Considering that each of his points all make sense. Do anglophiles seriously think the Franco-British offensives during the 100 days would have gone down the way they did without the presence of American troops on the continent. Perhaps they believe yet another purely French attempt in the Champagne/Argonne would have worked out differently? Funny.
-Matt Bowden-
Arlington, Texas USA

Aber
Member
Posts: 760
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

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

Post by Aber » 06 Dec 2017 06:34

Mbowden23 wrote: Speculation. Considering that each of his points all make sense.
Look for the omissions.

No mention of 8th August, 2nd Somme, the breach of the Hindenberg line...

User avatar
Mbowden23
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 23:12
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas USA

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

Post by Mbowden23 » 06 Dec 2017 06:43

German deployments would have been different if there was no AEF present on the continent.
-Matt Bowden-
Arlington, Texas USA

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5550
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 Dec 2017 07:12

Mbowden23 wrote:No-one, including Mosier, says the Germans won all the battles. That's a strawman argument.
His book carries the words 'How the Germans won the battles and the Americans saved the Allies' so he clearly states the Germans won the battles, despite their notable loss at the Marne. Guise-St Quentin was intended as a holding attack, it threw the German generals into chaos, the same generals who had been claiming such magnificent victories it led their own commander to ask the question 'Where are the prisoners, where are the guns' and telling the high command the French were no longer able to resist.
Mbowden23 wrote:tactically the Germans weren't defeated at any point.
Cambrai, Amiens, Vimy Ridge.
Mbowden23 wrote:Regarding the soviets deciding the war in the pacific, I would say soviet entry into the war is what brought Japan to the table. ALL of the internal Japanese communiques as well as American intelligence reports from January 46 that revisited the question all agree to this. I wouldn't say that the Soviets "won it" but they ended it. Same with the Americans in 1918. It is highly likely the Entente would have eventually won thanks only to the British blockade, but this would have occurred later than November 1918 in a scenario where the US remains neutral.
The poster agreeing with you is actually claiming the US did all the heavy lifting, pretty much the same sad little boast that has been trotted out so often and is well known to be wrong. I posted about the USSR's Manchuria operation because it is similar, they just took part when one side was already defeated, and handing them the laurels for victory is incorrect. The Japanese had been looking to surrender for quite some time, their one 'unreasonable wish' being to keep their emperor, something that became acceptable after the new toys to scare the Russians had been demonstrated. You hit the mark when you say the blockade would have ended the war, it is a slow process, but one that works well which was a lesson sadly forgotten from the Napoleonic Wars. The US involvement was mostly a morale boost, actual impact in combat was minimal.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5550
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 Dec 2017 07:14

Mbowden23 wrote:German deployments would have been different if there was no AEF present on the continent.
If there had been a different US position on trade or even possible involvement, the Entente would also have fought very differently almost from the outset. This still comes back to the smaller, less resource rich power, blockaded from the markets of the world, being the one to run out of men, money, and morale first.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5550
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 Dec 2017 07:28

Mbowden23 wrote:Credit the French with marshaling forces at a point that put stress on the German right? of course. Credit the BEF? with what? they had the opportunity to truly win the battle but they were unable to do so. The speed of their advance alone from the 6-8 proves how impotent they were. IX Armee Korps covered 75 miles in 48 hours. The BEF CAVALRY covered an average of 9 miles per day from 6th-9th.
The importance of the BEF was in their location, effectively flanking two German armies who could not mutually support each other. The entire German front is full of gaps, not just on the right, and the only way to fix this was to retire as soon as the French counterattacked. The French forces had marched somewhat further than the Germans, most of the time under conditions very bad for morale, and turned and defeated the Germans at the Marne. A victorious force does not retreat so far or so fast, let alone dig in and pretty much abandon all offensive operations for the next three years. From memory, IX Korps had 25% of its men drop out en-route, and if it had been only a few hours later, the entire Aisne position would have been unviable. This is not the behaviour to be expected of an army that had not been defeated.

Why do you believe Hentsch ordered the retreat after visiting all the army HQ's and listening to what the commanders (except Kluck who was already trying to blame others for his own mistakes and had made himself absent) told him was happening and of their problems.

There is some really strange problem with accepting the French army defeated the Germans, quite why giving them credit for their performance is beyond me. The Germans were not supermen in either war, and if they were as good as people (mostly Americans for some reason) say, then neither war would have lasted anywhere near as long as it did.

User avatar
Mbowden23
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 23:12
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas USA

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

Post by Mbowden23 » 06 Dec 2017 07:34

Terry Duncan wrote:
Mbowden23 wrote:No-one, including Mosier, says the Germans won all the battles. That's a strawman argument.
His book carries the words 'How the Germans won the battles and the Americans saved the Allies' so he clearly states the Germans won the battles, despite their notable loss at the Marne. Guise-St Quentin was intended as a holding attack, it threw the German generals into chaos, the same generals who had been claiming such magnificent victories it led their own commander to ask the question 'Where are the prisoners, where are the guns' and telling the high command the French were no longer able to resist.
Mbowden23 wrote:tactically the Germans weren't defeated at any point.
Cambrai, Amiens, Vimy Ridge.
Mbowden23 wrote:Regarding the soviets deciding the war in the pacific, I would say soviet entry into the war is what brought Japan to the table. ALL of the internal Japanese communiques as well as American intelligence reports from January 46 that revisited the question all agree to this. I wouldn't say that the Soviets "won it" but they ended it. Same with the Americans in 1918. It is highly likely the Entente would have eventually won thanks only to the British blockade, but this would have occurred later than November 1918 in a scenario where the US remains neutral.
The poster agreeing with you is actually claiming the US did all the heavy lifting, pretty much the same sad little boast that has been trotted out so often and is well known to be wrong. I posted about the USSR's Manchuria operation because it is similar, they just took part when one side was already defeated, and handing them the laurels for victory is incorrect. The Japanese had been looking to surrender for quite some time, their one 'unreasonable wish' being to keep their emperor, something that became acceptable after the new toys to scare the Russians had been demonstrated. You hit the mark when you say the blockade would have ended the war, it is a slow process, but one that works well which was a lesson sadly forgotten from the Napoleonic Wars. The US involvement was mostly a morale boost, actual impact in combat was minimal.
The quote "where are the prisoners, where are the guns..." is from Falkenhayn (War Minister at the time). The action at Guise bought some time but it was French Fifth Army who once again got badly handled (not the other way around). The tactical superiority of the Germans and d'Esperey's delay combined to guarantee that the action was no French victory.

My quote of "tactically the Germans weren't defeated at any point" was in regards to the Marne.

US involvement only a morale boost? Yeah, that whole Meuse-Argonne offensive had zero operational and strategic consequences...
Last edited by Mbowden23 on 06 Dec 2017 07:59, edited 1 time in total.
-Matt Bowden-
Arlington, Texas USA

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9464
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 06 Dec 2017 07:51

Plain Old Dave wrote:
Mbowden23 wrote:Mosier's attention to detail leaves something to be desired but his thesis that the "Germans won the battles and the Americans saved the Allies" isn't controversial by any stretch (at least to any non-Anglophile)
This.

The US had been keeping the Allies financially solvent since 1916 when Britain ran out of money

Britain never ran out of money.

User avatar
Mbowden23
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 23:12
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas USA

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

Post by Mbowden23 » 06 Dec 2017 07:57

Terry Duncan wrote:
Mbowden23 wrote:Credit the French with marshaling forces at a point that put stress on the German right? of course. Credit the BEF? with what? they had the opportunity to truly win the battle but they were unable to do so. The speed of their advance alone from the 6-8 proves how impotent they were. IX Armee Korps covered 75 miles in 48 hours. The BEF CAVALRY covered an average of 9 miles per day from 6th-9th.
The importance of the BEF was in their location, effectively flanking two German armies who could not mutually support each other. The entire German front is full of gaps, not just on the right, and the only way to fix this was to retire as soon as the French counterattacked. The French forces had marched somewhat further than the Germans, most of the time under conditions very bad for morale, and turned and defeated the Germans at the Marne. A victorious force does not retreat so far or so fast, let alone dig in and pretty much abandon all offensive operations for the next three years. From memory, IX Korps had 25% of its men drop out en-route, and if it had been only a few hours later, the entire Aisne position would have been unviable. This is not the behaviour to be expected of an army that had not been defeated.

Why do you believe Hentsch ordered the retreat after visiting all the army HQ's and listening to what the commanders (except Kluck who was already trying to blame others for his own mistakes and had made himself absent) told him was happening and of their problems.

There is some really strange problem with accepting the French army defeated the Germans, quite why giving them credit for their performance is beyond me. The Germans were not supermen in either war, and if they were as good as people (mostly Americans for some reason) say, then neither war would have lasted anywhere near as long as it did.
So give the BEF credit for taking up space? okay. The point remains that if they had been even slightly aggressive they could have really caused problems and guaranteed that a German retreat would continue well beyond the Aisne.

My citing of IX Korps is regarding the 7th-morning of the 9th before their attack. (an attack that would have enveloped Sixth Army had it been allowed to proceed) Both First and Third Army's right wing groups were in the process of throwing back the enemy when the order to halt and prepare to withdraw was delivered.

If the army was defeated as you claim, the Aisne would have gone down much differently. Also consider the "defeated" Germans were disorganized/undersupplied/etc. Perhaps our disagreement is centered around our respective definitions of "defeated." I believe this is likely the case.

Hentsch indeed never spoke to Kluck. His reaction, however, upon hearing Kuhl and Bergmann's report of the situation is evidence as to how clueless OHL was. Of course, Hentsch could have motored to First Army HQ first. Or, he could have split his two car entourage up and met at Second Army HQ that evening and made a decision based upon the reality of the situation and not speculation. Hentsch really isn't the problem. More importantly, Moltke could have done a number of things to avert the crisis but failed to do so. This all could of course be discussed ad-nauseum.

Germans= "supermen"? No. Germans= tactically superior? yes.
-Matt Bowden-
Arlington, Texas USA

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

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

Post by South » 06 Dec 2017 08:36

Good morning Mbowden 23 / Matt,

Re: "tactically the Germans weren't defeated at any point";

The Battle of the Jutland Sound - both tactically and strategically ........KIA, WIA, missing, tonnage sunk not relevant to the overall political goal........was a German loss. The Brits bottled up their enemy's fleet for the duration.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5550
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 Dec 2017 11:21

Mbowden23 wrote:US involvement only a morale boost? Yeah, that whole Meuse-Argonne offensive had zero operational and strategic consequences...
It was a US victory, but the war was already won at that point, the Germans were in full retreat further to the north and running out of ammunition and supplies too. Meuse-Argonne took some territory but it was not the defeat that meant there was no coming back for Germany.
Mbowden23 wrote:The quote "where are the prisoners, where are the guns..." is from Falkenhayn (War Minister at the time).
Possibly, I have seen it attributed both ways in the past. However, it illustrates perfectly that the massive and crushing victories the armies were reporting were no such thing and the French were simply retreating on to a planned position whilst redeploying troops to their left wing.
Mbowden23 wrote:The action at Guise bought some time but it was French Fifth Army who once again got badly handled (not the other way around). The tactical superiority of the Germans and d'Esperey's delay combined to guarantee that the action was no French victory.
It directly led to Bulow calling on the far from obedient Kluck to come to his aide, something Kluck was unable to do as he had got his own army into trouble with the French forces appearing on his own flank, just as Schlieffen's planning and wargaming of this scenario had predicted. Just looking at the figures does not tell the entire story. A battle that saw the unravelling of the German attack is hardly anything other than a strategic French victory.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9464
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 06 Dec 2017 11:38

Mbowden23 wrote:
More importantly, Moltke could have done a number of things to avert the crisis but failed to do so.

.

Things as ?

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5550
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 Dec 2017 11:54

Mbowden23 wrote:Do anglophiles seriously think the Franco-British offensives during the 100 days would have gone down the way they did without the presence of American troops on the continent. Perhaps they believe yet another purely French attempt in the Champagne/Argonne would have worked out differently? Funny.
You seem to be mistaking everyone else suggesting it was an effort on behalf of all the nations involved with your contention that the US did 'all the heavy lifting' which is not the case. No single nation won the war on its own, though for the efforts on land for the majority of the war the French and Russians give them the greater share of resposibility for the land victory, whilst the British performed the majority of the war at sea. The Entente and Associated Powers and Allies won the war, it only gets contentious when people try to suggest it was all down to one power mostly.

Return to “What if”