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

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Plain Old Dave,

You post, "French and British inability to stop German offensives is well documented."

In that case, presumably, the Germans weren't stopped and went on to win WWI?

The fact of the matter is that the German Spring 1918 offensives were largely stopped by the French and British. In WWI all armies, not just the German, had problems sustaining a moving front and, in attacking, the Germans, like everyone else, should have factored this in. What really did for the Germans was their very heavy battle casualties, which were actually slightly higher than those of their opponents. Their remaining qualitative advantage drained away during the spring offensives. When the German offensives came to a standstill, the French and British (and increasingly US) armies were still in front of them. Not only that, but they were in a condition to force the German Army to ask for an armistice within six months.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Jon Clarke]

As it was, US merchant marine transported high 40s of AEF. Shipbuilding went into high gear by 1918. Easily 70% US transported by mid-1919.

If US shipbuilding 'went into high gear by 1918', can you explain why prior to May 1918, 61% of all troops sent to Europe sailed on US ships but from May onwards this figure drops to 41%? Surely this figure should have increased rather than decreased if your claim was correct? Fortunately Britain was able (despite its losses) to increase its proportion from 37% prior to May to 56% afterwards to offset this drop.

According to the figures provided by Vice Admiral Gleaves in A History Of The Transport Service, the totals for the war of US troops carried were: US - 952,581, British - 1,075,233, other - 52,066. Even this isn't a true reflection of the US shipbuilding contribution as the majority of the troops sailing on 'USN transport' ships actually sailed on ex-German ships like the USS President Lincoln mentioned above - 20 such ships carried 557,788 troops to Europe.

Whilst the US was able to transport the majority of its troops back using its 'own' resources, this still relied heavily on the ex-German ships (55% of the US total). So it appears that even in 1919, US shipbuilding capacity was nowhere near able to meet the 70% you claim it would be able to achieve.

[Plain Old Dave]

Minor correction. Operation Michael destroyed Gough's Fifth Army, Wawro, 118.

Ludendorff's 1918 offensives can easily be compared to the scene in Captain America where the 98 pound weakling Steve Rogers as the Allied Powers is getting the you know what beat out of him in the alley. Then Sebastian Stan's Bucky, standing in for the AEF, saves the day.

Said it before, will do so again. The AEF was the only armed force in Europe in 1918 capable of sustainable offensive operations. And whether England and France could even support a 1919 Central European Campaign is a serious concern, as reflected by the AEF's after action reports.

We saved Europe's bacon three times in the 20th Century. The sustained, obstinate ingratitude expressed here is baffling.

[antwony]

Ludendorff's 1918 offensives can easily be compared to the scene in Captain America where the 98 pound weakling Steve Rogers as the Allied Powers is getting the you know what beat out of him in the alley. Then Sebastian Stan's Bucky, standing in for the AEF, saves the day.

Just stop, you're an embarrassment.

We saved Europe's bacon three times in the 20th Century. The sustained, obstinate ingratitude expressed here is baffling.

Although, just for the laughs, would be interested in what your third time was. WW's 1 & 2 + ???.

Minor correction. Operation Michael destroyed Gough's Fifth Army, Wawro, 118.

V Corps to 5th. Army is quite a bit more than a minor correction. But, if that was Wawro's point, he's clearly a writer writing for people of your intellectual level.

Yes, the 5th. Army was no more/ was "destroyed" when it's name got changed to the 4th. Army, which went on to spearhead the war winning Hundreds Days offensive at Amiens.

P.S. Apologies for using the DWG phrase as, in my experience, it's almost exclusively used by a***oles. But have found it's only really American academic's who continue to describe units as "Unit Name" i.e. V Corps preceded/ followed by the name of a "dead white guy". As in Gough's Fifth Army. Suspect American authors/ readers, still have a lot of "fanboi-ism" going on with their military history. This, most definitely, is not a purely American thing, however

[Plain Old Dave]

1) WW1. Unbiased history is clear that Germany was winning before we got directly involved.

2) WW2.

3) The Cold War. Ronald Reagan, the greatest American that has yet lived, defeated the Evil Empire without firing a shot.

We're digressing, though.

On topic.

Yes, the 5th. Army was no more/ was "destroyed" when it's name got changed to the 4th. Army, which went on to spearhead the war winning Hundreds Days offensive at Amiens.

My turn. Please, stop perpetuating this ... mistruth. The German Army didn't collapse on August 8, the so-called Black Day. It collapsed in mid-October under unrelenting American pressure in the Argonne Forest, and the war was won by the AEF when Pershing's Doughboys and Marines cut off the main German avenue of retreat, effectively surrounding the German Army in France.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi POD,

You post, "The AEF was the only armed force in Europe in 1918 capable of sustainable offensive operations."

Hardly. All Allied forces on the Western Front were already undertaking "sustainable offensive operations" in the second half of 1918. There is no reason to think they wouldn't all be doing so in 1919, though with the US Army playing a bigger role than it had in 1918.

I am not sure how AEF after action reports from the Western Front, which were essentially tactical and operational, could inform a judgement on somebody else's strategic ability to undertake operations in Central Europe in 1919.

You post, "We saved Europe's bacon three times in the 20th Century." Well, no. The US intervention in WWI was not decisive, though the threat of a much larger and more effective US contribution in 1919 was certainly a major factor in the Germans suing for peace in 1918, before it could be fully brought to bear.

Nor am I entirely sure that the USA saved Europe in WWII, given that 80% of German casualties were inflicted by the Red Army and half the rest by other armies than the US. Even the British held more German prisoners at the end of the war than did the much larger US Army.

Given that the Cold War was never a hot war, it is also difficult to sustain the argument that the USA saved Europe during it. However, as in WWI, the threat of a US intervention, this time via NATO obligations, was certainly a decisive factor in it never becoming "hot".

If Ronald Reagan was really "the greatest American that has yet lived" then the bar must have been set unnecessarily low, or the US has a dearth of great men (which I doubt). That said, Reagan's presidency was undoubtedly a great success in geo-political terms, so hats off to a somewhat limited man who recognized his moment when it came.

You post, "The sustained, obstinate ingratitude expressed here is baffling." Why is it baffling? Nobody with any pride finds it easy to admit to being beholden to others, especially if the justification is somewhat questionable.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Plain Old Dave]

Re: US in WW1. Absolutely decisive. Rescued allies from imminent disaster at least twice.

Re: WW2. Was not won by illiterate Slav peasants. Was won on American assembly lines.

Re: cold war. Lady Thatcher, one of the greatest Britons of all time, directly stated Ronaldus Magnus, the Great Liberator, won the Cold War without firing a shot. Said it at his eulogy. Public record.

More tonight.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi POD,

The US was a bit player in the fighting in WWI. I doubt it inflicted 4% of German (and perhaps 2%? of Central Powers) casualties, which is even less than in WWII. Somebody else was clearly doing the heavy lifting over 1914-1918. Its contribution was overwhelmingly the threat of its potential, not what it actually did on the ground in the limited time available to it. 1919 might well have been its year - but only in combination with the other Western Allies.

Yup. WWII was largely won by the sacrifice of mostly Soviet Slavs, though they were not "illiterate" thanks largely to the Soviet education system.(Whether they had much variety of anything to exercise their new-found literacy upon is another matter.) As for American assembly lines - the USA was certainly the "arsenal of democracy", but it provided only one of the armies of the Allies and inflicted at best 10% of German casualties.

A eulogy is, by definition, a positive assessment of an individual (hence the "eu-" bit). Margaret Thatcher was hardly likely to give a balanced view of her amiable friend Reagan in a eulogy. History is a bit more detached.

I look forward to tonight. Should I dress up, or is it informal?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Plain Old Dave]

Hi POD,

The US was a bit player in the fighting in WWI. I doubt it inflicted 4% of German (and perhaps 2%? of Central Powers) casualties, which is even less than in WWII. Somebody else was clearly doing the heavy lifting over 1914-1918. Its contribution was overwhelmingly the threat of its potential, not what it actually did on the ground in the limited time available to it. 1919 might well have been its year - but only in combination with the other Western Allies.

Been through this already.

1917- U boat crisis. Allies incapable of replacing shipping losses from U boats. Sims and his destroyermen saved England by making the convoy system workable.

1918- German offensives mauled the Allies. Only failed due to German inability to support advance. Tide of war turned by Marines at Belleau Wood. German Army didn't collapse on August 8. Collapsed in the Argonne under unrelenting American pressure. War won when AEF cut off main German avenue of retreat.

Yup. WWII was largely won by the sacrifice of mostly Soviet Slavs, though they were not "illiterate" thanks largely to the Soviet education system.(Whether they had much variety of anything to exercise their new-found literacy upon is another matter.) As for American assembly lines - the USA was certainly the "arsenal of democracy", but it provided only one of the armies of the Allies and inflicted at best 10% of German casualties.

Aluminum overcast of B17s and B24s pounded the Reich. Waves of Shermans, and finally what the Heer called the best equipped troops of the war, virtually ALL equipped with the most advanced shoulder arm of the war (M1), led by one of the greatest tacticians of all time (Patton).

A eulogy is, by definition, a positive assessment of an individual (hence the "eu-" bit). Margaret Thatcher was hardly likely to give a balanced view of her amiable friend Reagan in a eulogy. History is a bit more detached.

The USSR only collapsed under Western pressure, led by Reagan and enthusiastically supported by Baroness Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.

[Terry Duncan]

Plain Old Dave,

Your point 1. Repeating rubbish will make it no more correct than the first time you posted it. You have offered no rebuttal to the posts others have made pointing out why you are wrong on this, so clearly you have no interest in finding out the correct details.

2. The most advanced rifle of WWII was probably the STG-44, though the FG-42 could also possibly claim that title. It certainly wasn't the M1 Garrand. As to the greatest tactician of WWII, Manstein, Model, Rundstedt, Guderian, and maybe at least a dozen others would come in before Patton. Patton may have been the most aggressive US commander, but that hardly says much in such a large war.

3. With the right treatment, it might have been possible to end the Cold War in the days of Khrushchev or even earlier (Beria was a great admirer of the US and was in favour of better relations). Then again, having an enemy you can point to does allow for massive spending in certain areas that would otherwise see a public outcry.

Also, Re your post here No 247, I seriously suggest you change the wording on the comments you made about WWII as such derogatory comments are often unappreciated here.

[Plain Old Dave]

Plain Old Dave,

Your point 1. Repeating rubbish will make it no more correct than the first time you posted it. You have offered no rebuttal to the posts others have made pointing out why you are wrong on this, so clearly you have no interest in finding out the correct details.

The mild problem is I'm not wrong.

2. The most advanced rifle of WWII was probably the STG-44, though the FG-42 could also possibly claim that title. It certainly wasn't the M1 Garrand. As to the greatest tactician of WWII, Manstein, Model, Rundstedt, Guderian, and maybe at least a dozen others would come in before Patton. Patton may have been the most aggressive US commander, but that hardly says much in such a large war

1) The US Rifle, Caliber 30M1 was the general issue long arm of the United States military in WW2. The REAL "right arm of the Free World," it was eventually used by over 40 nations in literally every climate on Earth, and Was a second echelon arm in the US military til the later 1960s; the National Guardsmen called out to suppress riots in the Civil Rights and Vietnam era did so with Garands.. Hardly a dead end like the StG the German fans BANG on about; while only special troops had them, virtually every American soldier and Marine in WW2 carried one by 1944; special troops in the US military DIDN'T have Garands.

British Empire General issue long arm: 1888
Italian: 1891
Soviet, 1891
German: 189
US; 1936

While most combatant nations saddled their poor infantryman with obsolete iron, Dr. Win The War got a state of the art battle rifle in the hands of virtually every American GI.
Re: Patton- he WON. Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Also, Re your post here No 247, I seriously suggest you change the wording on the comments you made about WWII as such derogatory comments are often unappreciated here.

Can't edit old posts. The point is the Red Army is an exceptionally overstated enemy. The Finns curbstomped them with an almost criminally underprepared military.

[Futurist]

3. With the right treatment, it might have been possible to end the Cold War in the days of Khrushchev or even earlier (Beria was a great admirer of the US and was in favour of better relations). Then again, having an enemy you can point to does allow for massive spending in certain areas that would otherwise see a public outcry.

Would an earlier end to the Cold War have allowed the Soviet Union to survive? If so, I can't imagine it being very good for Kazakhs since they had to deal with Russian domination.

[Terry Duncan]

The mild problem is I'm not wrong.

Then you should be able to post a rebuttal of what others have posted, rather than just repetition. Either way a dead point here really.

1) The US Rifle, Caliber 30M1 was the general issue long arm of the United States military in WW2.

So what? The Garrand was still not as advanced as the STG-44. Your claim was;

virtually ALL equipped with the most advanced shoulder arm of the war (M1)

The STG-44 is the first assault rifle, though the FG-42 could possibly claim to be the prototype, and all modern armies use such guns, not Garands. Just because it is American does not make it the most advanced.

Re: Patton- he WON. Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Winning does not make you the best or most capable general, Hannibal is generally considered one of the greatest leaders ever, but he lost the war in the end. The German leaders I listed all commanded in offensive and defensive actions, usually with the odds against them and they still got results. Patton did not really face adverse odds, yet came to a long halt outside Metz iirc. Given the US military adopted much of the German practices after WWII indicates they thought them somewhat worth copying, hardly likely if the losers were inept.

Can't edit old posts. The point is the Red Army is an exceptionally overstated enemy. The Finns curbstomped them with an almost criminally underprepared military.

The Bagration and Manchurian offensives show the Red Army learned from its mistakes and became a really formidable force by 1945. As to editing old posts, that is regrettable, you really should avoid posting insulting terms about any forces, it is perfectly possible to make a point without using terms that could be considered borderline racist. I will ask Andy H to edit the post if I am unable to do so here, hopefully before any senior mods see it.

[Plain Old Dave]

The StG was not a general issue arm. The M1 WAS. The US was the only armed force in WW2 that fielded a reliable General issue semiautomatic long arm. In the 1919 context, John Pedersen's Device would give a US infantry company a similar,advantage. Bolt actions vs. Selfloaders? Never mind Germany never fielded an automatic rifle.

[Plain Old Dave]

Correction and clarification.

Re: US in WW1. Absolutely decisive. Rescued allies from imminent disaster at least twice.

Re: WW2. Was not won by the Red Army. Was won on American assembly lines; more Liberty Ships than all the U boats in the Kriegsmarine could sink, an aluminum overcast of P47s, P51s, B24s and B17s followed by waves of Sherman's tanks and what by all reports were the best equipped troops of the war: American GIs, almost universally equipped with the most advanced General issue shoulder arm of the war, the M1 Garand.

Re: cold war. Lady Thatcher, one of the greatest Britons of all time, directly stated Ronaldus Magnus, the Great Liberator, won the Cold War without firing a shot. Said it at his eulogy. Public record.

More tonight.