Ww1 discussion

[Guest]

I'm extracting this from the Iraq thread where it doesn't belong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ 13 2003,20:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America strongly resisted entrance into WW1. Europe called repeatedly on our participation. American leadership used the rather thin excuse of the death of 124 American's aboard the Lusitania, to push for War. By wars end the American Expeditionary Force was at 2 million men on the ground in Europe. Would it be unfair to say that US entrance was the turning point in the War?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 13 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Yes it would be extremely unfair. Americas participation in WW1 was minimal and irrelevant. You say that you sent 2 million men? Try 30,000 men for the first few months - later when the situation setteled down, you sent more.  This in a war where individual battles could kill over 300,000 men. The total number of casualties of ww1 were in the range of 20 million. There were about 53,000 American casualties most that occured in the single larger battle that you were involved in (Meuse-Argonne).

So America's role in WW1 was truly irrelevant - the Aussies for instance did much more. It's a grave distortion of history saying that you saved France's butt in WW1.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 14 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Yes it would be extremely unfair. Americas participation in WW1 was minimal and irrelevant. You say that you sent 2 million men? Try 30,000 men for the first few months - later when the situation setteled down, you sent more. This in a war where individual battles could kill over 300,000 men. The total number of casualties of ww1 were in the range of 20 million. There were about 53,000 American casualties most that occured in the single larger battle that you were involved in (Meuse-Argonne).<span id='postcolor'>

Someone should have paid more attention in history class. While the AEF’s contribution was insignificant quantitatively, the yanks couldn’t have been more important qualitatively (do Chateau-Thierry or Belleau Wood ring a bell?). By early 1918, the British and French forces were on their last legs. French troops more often then not refused to attack, preferring to defend their trenches (can’t say I blame them, considering the meatgrinder their idiotic commanders had been feeding them through). Also, the British simply did not have the will or the ability to take the additional massive casualties needed to bring the war to any decisive juncture- they’d bled too much already.

Meanwhile, Germany had been victorious on their Eastern front, freeing up thousands of troops to head West. This gave rise to the Luddendorf offensives in May, which were to be the decisive thrusts that would break the Western stalemate and finally achieve victory. The sudden attack towards Paris through the Marne river valley and a simultaneous flanking action against British forces to the north left an enormous gap in Allied lines right near an area that encompassed Vaux, Chateau-Thierry, and Belleau Wood. American forces plugged that gap, and stopped the German offensive cold, incurring 30,000 thousand casualties along the way (did I mention that your numbers were fucked up Denoir? Because they are). This quote fairly well sums up the American’s role during the Second Battle of the Marne:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> ...All [German] divisions [along the Marne] achieved brilliant successes, with the exception of the one division on our right wing. This encountered American units! Here only did the Seventh Army, In the course of the first day of the offensive, confront serious difficulties. It met with the unexpectedly stubborn and active resistance of fresh American troops.

While the rest of the divisions of the Seventh Army succeeded in gaining ground and gaining tremendous booty, it proved impossible for us to move the right apex of our line, to the south of the Marne, into a position advantageous for the development of the ensuing fight. The check we thus received was one result of the stupendous fighting between our 10th Division of infantry and American troops...

Erich von Ludendorff, Quartermaster General<span id='postcolor'>

Although the number of Americans involved in WWI were comparatively small, it is undeniable that their intervention came at a critical time. In fact, it is not out of the realm of possibility that if the Americans had not been present to stop the German offensives of May-June 1918, that the Germans would have won WWI. But to say that is moving into the realm of speculation- still, that doesn’t change the fact that the American involvement in WWI was not only significant, but pivotal. We were in the right place at the right time with fresh troops, and that made all the difference.  Besides, you can’t really argue with the timeline- 1914-mid 1917: no Americans, no victory. Late 1917-1918, Americans; victory.  A bit simplistic, but hey, I ain’t lying. Besides, Americans bled almost everywhere the Brits and French bled: Flanders, the Somme, Suresnes, Oise-Aisne, St. Mihiel, the list goes on.

136,516 Americans lost their lives during World War I. I think Denoir’s failure to report accurate numbers is a case-in-point as to the veracity of his analysis of the American contribution. Draw your own conclusions.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 14 2003,05:53 )</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 14 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">136,516 Americans lost their lives during World War I. I think Denoir’s failure to report accurate numbers is a case-in-point as to the veracity of his analysis of the American contribution. Draw your own conclusions.<span id='postcolor'>

I beg to differ.

I've seen US deaths in WWI listed from 58,000 to around 120,000.

Perhaps if you can explain the discrepancies, I'll take your figures with less than a grain of salt

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 14 2003,06:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WW1 Casualties

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The precise numbers remain shrouded in the passing of time compounded by the incompleteness of available records.  In the heat of action accurate records were not always kept, and where they were, these were not uncommonly lost in subsequent actions, such were the conditions of trench warfare.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister 5 @ Mar. 14 2003,06:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Encarta sez:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States lost about 112,000 people, many to disease, including a treacherous influenza epidemic in 1918 that claimed 20 million lives worldwide. European losses were far higher. According to some estimates, World War I killed close to 10 million military personnel.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 14 2003,06:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, it's basically six, five and pick 'em as far as truly accurate numbers are concerned. The 100,000+ numbers are backed up by numbers of graves, and by the US military itself. Even if I am off, I am certain that 50,000 is far less accurate than my number.

edit: of course, the influenza pandemic seemed to have killed a large number of doughboys... does that count, if they are in the theater of operations but didn't die in combat? That could be a main reason for the huge discrepencies

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 14 2003,07:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 14 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">136,516 Americans lost their lives during World War I. I think Denoir’s failure to report accurate numbers is a case-in-point as to the veracity of his analysis of the American contribution. Draw your own conclusions.<span id='postcolor'>

Source 1

Source 2

Wow, Tex I didn't know you were such a fan of revisionist history. The Germans didn't lose the war because of the American joining - as a matter of fact, that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The German side of the western front had already frozen and was on the verge collapse when US troops entered the conflict.

Why did the Germans lose?

1. the Russians forced the Germans to fight a war on two fronts, east and west, until the beginning of 1918;

2. the French stopped the German advance on Paris in 1914, and refused to be defeated at Verdun in 1916;

3. the British inflicted the first major defeat on the Germans at the Somme in 1916;

4. improvements in Allied artillery technology and tactics by the beginning of 1918 made trench warfare obsolete, and this gave the Allies a huge advantage over the outnumbered Germans

5. the Allied blockade of Germany forced the Germans to endure terrible shortages throughout the war, and by the end of October 1918 the German people were ready for revolution; their army had been fighting a defensive war for the past two years, and it was obvious that the Allies were going to win sooner rather than later.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, you can’t really argue with the timeline- 1914-mid 1917: no Americans, no victory. Late 1917-1918, Americans; victory.  A bit simplistic, but hey, I ain’t lying.<span id='postcolor'>

That is probably the most stupid thing I have heard from you. A bit simplistic??  

I am sorry if it hurts your national pride, but take some history lessons. America's contribution to WW1 was just symbolic. And you don't need to make any special interpretations. Look at the facts. Even if we take your 100,000 figure, that's just a drop in the ocean. Take the third battle of Ypres (passchendaele) for instance. It was after the Americans joined in. That battle cost over 325,000 British soldiers. That's one of many battles, and you are whining over your 100,000?  

The war was lost on the German part in march 1917 when they ran back to the Hindenburg line. After that it was only a question of time before Germany would lose. It was the beginning of the end.

While I have the highest respect for the US soldiers that did fight in WW1, claiming that they made any strategical difference is just bollocks. It's like claiming that the American Revolutionary War would have been lost without Sweden's help. We sent a couple of hundred of officers and soldiers in 1781 - an whopisdoo! The war started going well for the Americans!<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 14 2003,08:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow, Tex I didn't know you were such a fan of revisionist history. The Germans didn't lose the war because of the American joining - as a matter of fact, that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. <span id='postcolor'>

Here we go. Now, did I ever say that the Germans lost because of American troops? Nope. I did however say that the Ludendorf offensives which potentially could have won the war for Germany were stopped in large part due to American troops. An ounce of reading comprehension prevents a pound of me having to re-explain my posts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The German side of the western front had already frozen and was on the verge collapse when US troops entered the conflict.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not any more close to collapse than the Allies were, plus Germany was able to bring in troops from the Eastern front giving them the advantage- not necessarily in numbers, but certainly an advantage in troop quality.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. the Russians forced the Germans to fight a war on two fronts, east and west, until the beginning of 1918;

<span id='postcolor'>

And when Russia collapsed (although the armistic was signed in Dec. 1917, not much more than token resistance had been given since the start of the Bolshevik Revolution), Germany was able to bring its full infantry force to bear in the offensives of May-June 1918. Those offensives were bled dry, in large part to the timely intervention of American troops on the Marne River Line preventing a collapse of the remaining Entente Powers. To call this revisionist history is ridiculous and childish.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. the French stopped the German advance on Paris in 1914, and refused to be defeated at Verdun in 1916;

<span id='postcolor'>

The First Marne and Verdun merely had the effect of bleeding the two armies involved dry- neither was decisive. The First World War was all about attrition. The Allies lost alot, the Germans lost alot. repeat process for several years. However, suddenly, Germany is able to bring to bear a large number of fresh shock troops that neither Britain nor France can effectively deal with. However, the newly arrived Americans are able to hold the line at the key juncture to prevent the collapse of the status quo in Germany's favor.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. the British inflicted the first major defeat on the Germans at the Somme in 1916; <span id='postcolor'>

Who's dealing in revisionist history now? The Somme a British victory? At the most, Allied gains were 12 kilometers. TWELVE. At what cost? 420,000 British casualties (58,000 of those on one day), and nearly 200,000 French casualties.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4. improvements in Allied artillery technology and tactics by the beginning of 1918 made trench warfare obsolete, and this gave the Allies a huge advantage over the outnumbered Germans

<span id='postcolor'>

Finally, you are correct. However, this was not decisive in and of itself. To follow up on the advantage this technology supplied, the Allies needed fresh troops who wouldn't mutiny at the mention of an offensive. Enter the doughboys. Americans provided those fresh troops, and were the reason the Allies gained their second wind, while the Germans sputtered out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5. the Allied blockade of Germany forced the Germans to endure terrible shortages throughout the war, and by the end of October 1918 the German people were ready for revolution; their army had been fighting a defensive war for the past two years, and it was obvious that the Allies were going to win sooner rather than later.

<span id='postcolor'>

But a success in mid 1918 could have changed all that. Capture Paris, negotiate a favorable peace, end the war in a way that favored the Germans. But American actions against the Ludendorf offensives were decisive in maintaining the status quo that allowed the Allies to ultimately win.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is probably the most stupid thing I have heard from you. A bit simplistic??  

<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, I'm learning from the master. Your lack of understanding of the overall situation circa 1918 is something I can only aspire to.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am sorry if it hurts your national pride, but take some history lessons. America's contribution to WW1 was just symbolic. And you don't need to make any special interpretations. Look at the facts. Even if we take your 100,000 figure, that's just a drop in the ocean. Take the third battle of Ypres (passchendaele) for instance. It was after the Americans joined in. That battle cost over 325,000 British soldiers. That's one of many battles, and you are whining over your 100,000?  

<span id='postcolor'>

As much as I hate to say it, many of the soldiers that died during the battles of 1915-1917 died absolutely meaningless deaths. They fought and bled for yards of ground that would not decide the war. So, simply because a country lost more men due to command stupidity and obsolete tactics does not mean they helped win. When you get to that point, you look at a situation like Russia or Austria-Hungary: both lost millions of men, but since they weren't ahead when time ran out, they had nothing to show for it. It is tragic, but it's the truth. Americans had the good fortune of being put in the right place at the right time to help seal the end of the war. Did we do it alone? No. Did other countries shed more blood than us? Yes. But fighting a war is not simply a contest of which country can slit its wrists more often, or who can make a larger cut in his own throat. Rather, it is more about who is willing to take the necessary losses to achieve a real victory, and who has the wisdom to recognize a situation when human life is merely being thrown away like so much garbage. Simply because other countries were more adept at slaughtering their own youths does not diminish America's role in stopping the German's final push, or America's own little stake in the attrition war at Meuse-Argonne. To say that this role is insignificant or merely symbolic is simply untrue.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The war was lost on the German part in march 1917 when they ran back to the Hindenburg line. After that it was only a question of time before Germany would lose. It was the beginning of the end.

<span id='postcolor'>

Hardly. If anything, that withdrawal kept the German war effort going for months. Consolidation during a war of attrition is not only smart, but necessary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While I have the highest respect for the US soldiers that did fight in WW1, claiming that they made any strategical difference is just bollocks.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on, stop hedging. If you say that the American war effort was insignificant, you are automatically paying your disrespect to all the Americans that died for a European cause. You simply cannot say two mutually exclusive things and hope for anyone to believe you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's like claiming that the American Revolutionary War would have been lost without Sweden's help. We sent a couple of hundred of officers and soldiers in 1781 - an whopisdoo! The war started going well for the Americans!<span id='postcolor'>

There were Swedes involved in the Revolutionary War? Well, I suppose you learn something new every day. Too bad this was about the only truly edifying thing in your entire post.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Your move I guess.

[Guest]

Ok, where to begin? I'll focus on your claim that American involvement was crucial in stopping the Marne offensive in March 1918. You furher claim that US troops were essential in stopping the Ludendorff offensives (which you also controverisally claim could have won the war).

Ok, step by step. First, the second battle of Marne was not in any way special. It was one of several fought within a short timeframe in the last breath of the Ludendroff offensives. Nevertheless it was an important one, but trying to write it off as a US victory is wrong. The Americans had only nine divisions and they were split up under the command of the Sixhth French Army and the British Expeditionary Force. Contrary to your statement, the Germans broke through the American/French lines and crossed Marne and established a bridghead. The offensive was halted 17th july by the French Ninth Army with the support of British and Italian troops. There were very few Americans in the 9th French Army (about 1/2 division that transferred from the 6th Frech Army).

After the 9th army managed to stop the Gernan advance, the 10th FA and 6th FA ( + American units) tried to counterattack. The Germans called for a retreat and moved back to the well-entrenched pre-offensive position and effectivly halted the counterattack.

The casualties were high: France - 95,000 casualties, Germany - 168,000, Britain -13,000, U.S - 12,000.

Now so what was the American role in the second battle for Marne? Well, the nine US divisions were under the command of the 6th French Army (9 american divisions 24 French 12 British 4 Canadian 5 Australian) which failed to stop the German breakthrough. The 6th army also later chased back the German to their original positions.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, step by step. First, the second battle of Marne was not in any way special.<span id='postcolor'>

This caught my eye. Not in any way special? All historical accounts I've read acknowledge the 2nd Marne as one of the decisive turning points of the war. It was the last serious offensive mounted by German forces, and considering they had the aggressive Luddendorf in command, this counts for something.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nevertheless it was an important one, but trying to write it off as a US victory is wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Not solely a US victory; can't you grasp the concept that the Americans could have played a significant role without giving them sole credit? The entire concept I'm trying to get across is that the American troops provided the edge of freshness and determination that allowed them to play the role of shock troops that the Allies had decidedly lacked over the past 2 years. The comparatively few Americans tipped the spear of French numbers, and allowed the Allies to achieve a decisive (at least in WWI terms) victory.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The offensive was halted 17th july by the French Ninth Army with the support of British and Italian troops. <span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. The July 15th offensive was directed at the French 4th and 5th Army sectors. American forces in the immediate area comprised of the 42 and 30th divisions along with other elements. the 38th Regiment of the 30th Division earned the nickname "Rock of the Marne" for its actions on the 15th. This prevented a German breakthrough on the French's right flank, and allowed reserves to be built up for a counterattack, rather than used in shoring up battle lines.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There were very few Americans in the 9th French Army (about 1/2 division that transferred from the 6th Frech Army).

<span id='postcolor'>

This would figure, considering the 9th French Army did not play a very large role in the 2nd Battle of the Marne. It's role mainly included mopping up the southern end of the salient after the 18th of July in conjunction with the 5th Army.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the 10th FA and 6th FA ( + American units) tried to counterattack. The Germans called for a retreat and moved back to the well-entrenched pre-offensive position and effectivly halted the counterattack.

<span id='postcolor'>

To elaborate: on the 18th the 10th Army, spearheaded by the American 1st Division, 2nd Division, a Moroccan Division and armor drove into the western base of the salient(on the opposite side from Reims), and by the 22nd they had driven 7 miles, effectively collapsing the Marne salient. Simultaneously, the 4th and 5th Armies (with leading elements of Americans) retook all previous losses and began driving into the salient itself. The 6th Army, in cooperation with the 26th American Division captured Torcy, Givry, and Belleau Village, while their Frecnh counterparts took Hill 204, which effectively split the Southwest portion of the salient in half. By the 22nd, the 1st US Division had driven 7 miles into the western base of the salient, forcing all remaining Germans in the Marne salient to beat feet to the north of become enveloped. Meanwhile, the 6th, 5th, and 4th Armies collapsed the remainder of the salient, ending the Second Battle of the Marne.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now so what was the American role in the second battle for Marne? Well, the nine US divisions were under the command of the 6th French Army (9 american divisions 24 French 12 British 4 Canadian 5 Australian) which failed to stop the German breakthrough. The 6th army also later chased back the German to their original positions.<span id='postcolor'>

This is only half right. There were a comparatively small number of Americans as compared to French, however, the Americans played prominent roles in most of the notable defenses of the early portion of the battle as well as the counterattacks of the latter half of the battle. Now, you can speculate all day long as to whether the same results could have been achieved without the American assistance, or you can simply recognize that the relatively few numbers of Americans played a relatively large part in the turning of the tide.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 14 2003,10:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, step by step. First, the second battle of Marne was not in any way special.<span id='postcolor'>

This caught my eye. Not in any way special? All historical accounts I've read acknowledge the 2nd Marne as one of the decisive turning points of the war. It was the last serious offensive mounted by German forces, and considering they had the aggressive Luddendorf in command, this counts for something.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not in anyway special meaning that it was one of many similar battles faught. There was nothing magic about this one even though the by God blessed American troops participated.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nevertheless it was an important one, but trying to write it off as a US victory is wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Not solely a US victory; can't you grasp the concept that the Americans could have played a significant role without giving them sole credit? The entire concept I'm trying to get across is that the American troops provided the edge of freshness and determination that allowed them to play the role of shock troops that the Allies had decidedly lacked over the past 2 years. The comparatively few Americans tipped the spear of French numbers, and allowed the Allies to achieve a decisive (at least in WWI terms) victory.

<span id='postcolor'>

You are trying to make it look like the American participation was essential to winning the war. I'm telling you, just look at the numbers. Even if each American soldier killed 100 German ones it would have not been enough to stop the offensive. The Americans were under French command fighting together with French, British, Canadian and Australian soldiers. Trying to take the credit for "tipping the spear" is pissing on the graves of those that achieved the victory through enormous sacrifices in war that was exclusivly based on "meatgrinder tactics" as you put it. The Americans didn't use any secret super weapons or any other tactics for that matter. They were just a small part of a massive effort whose principle was to caugh up more men that could get killed then the enemy could.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wrong. The July 15th offensive was directed at the French 4th and 5th Army sectors. American forces in the immediate area comprised of the 42 and 30th divisions along with other elements. the 38th Regiment of the 30th Division earned the nickname "Rock of the Marne" for its actions on the 15th. This prevented a German breakthrough on the French's right flank, and allowed reserves to be built up for a counterattack, rather than used in shoring up battle lines.

<span id='postcolor'>

26th May: Pre offense border

5th July: The German break through west of Reims. The position of about 290,000 men of the 4th and 5th French Army, including the men of the 30th division hold their ground on the right flank. The Americans constitute less then 10% of the force there btw.

13th July: Germany continues to gain territorry, but at horrible losses:

18th July: French 9th Army starts a succesful counteroffensive.

23rd July

6th August:

The Americans fought side by side with the French, and trying to single them out as something exceptional is pointless. Even if they were very good soldiers, they were still just a drop in the ocean.

[Tales_From_Topographic_Oceans 0]

Here is a photo of my granduncle, Felix G. Whitlock, in World War 1. He was 18 years old in 1917.

Here is a link to the photo: http://www.geocities.com/yes_album/fg4.jpg

The rest of my military collection is at http://www.geocities.com/yes_album/

I encourage all of you to research your family history.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Germany didn't lose the war, apart from the first year on the Ostfront, not ONE single rifle bullet was fired on German territory in the course of the war.

In fact, Germany WON the war by not only sending the Russkies packing back to Moscow, but also by holding the Western Front against the French, the Brits and the Anzac forces and in early '18 by even pushing them back!

Germany lost politically in Versailles, but not on the battlefield.

The people knew that, which is why returning German soldiers were cheered at as victors. Then Versailles came and the shock and anger of Versailles was taken by Mr. Hitler and transformed into a deadly force and energy that brought about WW2 and managed to destroy most of Europe.

[DarkLight 0]

Let's cut the crap...

I live in central europe, Belgium to be exact, a nice little country that has been through some fights in it's history.  Some people might know it from Band of Brothers, i bet we can all remember Bastogne.  Others might remember Ypres (or Ieper in Dutch) where mustardgas was used for the first time and where farmers still find a huge amount of bombs every day, blah blah blah.

I've always been interested in the word wars, especially because i'm so connected to it, my grandfather was in the resistance and escaped execution several times, he knows stuff that only one other person on this fucking planet knows.  We also found ammo in the roof of a little cabin that was in our garden, the germans used the house where i'm sitting in right now as one of their headquarters, they actually used to eat here.  

This might all be off topic and totally useless information, i just wanted to show all of you that the war is still here, it might've ended a couple years ago but it's traces are still here.  Maybe that's why i get angry when some countries think that they won the war, let's just get this straight.  Personally i don't think the amount of French, British, American, German, Dutch, Belgian,... ppl who died on the battlefiel called Europe is of any importance when talking about what country 'won' the war.

There's one thing i'll always defend, the Allies won the war, not the British, not the Americans, not any other country, it were the Allies.  Sure, some countries haven't sacrificed a lot of lifes, look at my country, nobody ever mentions our ppl that died.  Sure, it weren't a lot of people but still, they are also dead, just like that one American or British soldier that every little kid admires.

We should be thankful to the American soldiers that they came here to fight, but we shouldn't thank them more than we should thank any other country.

America's support was very welcome, and yes, after the Americans came the German army was 'defeated', but i seriously doubt that it had a lot to do with the American soldiers their support.  If you look at how many american soldiers came here, it weren't that much soldiers at all.  

Now before everyone starts bashing me, i'll repeat this sentence again:  "but i seriously doubt that it had A LOT to do with the American soldiers their support."

Let's get back to this, the American support probable made some difference, but not that much that it has changed the whole war, as always the circumstances were probable just good enough so the allies could win.

Just like in World War 2, where Hitler sent a large amount of his army to the East, while the ALLIES invaded from the West, the Allied soldiers landed on a beach that is less defended than some others.  All this stuff and a lot more had a lot to do with our victory.  Sad enough, the popular countries get all the fame while the underdogs who also did a huge part get no credit at all.

The American support made a difference, the British support made a difference, the Belgian support made a difference, the Dutch support made a difference, the French support made a difference, the Canadian support made a difference,...

This list goes on and on...

Let's not forget that every country has sacrificed it's men.

Just stop nagging about who's the best and who's not good enough.  We already have enough of bullshit hollywood films claiming that America won the war while the french were boozing wine (for example). I know this is bullshit, and i sure hope you know this too...

[Placebo 29]

Excellent post Darklight, I knew it would happen eventually

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Mar. 13 2003,19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Excellent post Darklight, I knew it would happen eventually <span id='postcolor'>

So... Am i still on your soon to be banned list?

[Placebo 29]

I think that post can move you down to no.3 now

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Mar. 13 2003,20:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that post can move you down to no.3 now <span id='postcolor'>

Wow not bad, hard to imagine that i once was number 1 AND 2

Anyway, better get back on topic, before i get back to my good ol' spots...

[Winters 1]

Darklight,

You took the words right out of my mouth. it was an "ALLIED" Victory not any individual countries victory. People will always feel a need to get bragadocious about what there country may or may not have done but i know if you ask the vets who fought in it they would say it was a victory for the allies.

And someone really needs to tell Steven Spielberg that WW2 was more than just America v Germany. I swear that man has never acknowledged any other countries participation in the war. and all it does is give young people a severly distorted view of history.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Mar. 14 2003,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's cut the crap...

I live in central europe, Belgium to be exact, a nice little country that has been through some fights in it's history.  Some people might know it from Band of Brothers, i bet we can all remember Bastogne.  Others might remember Ypres (or Ieper in Dutch) where mustardgas was used for the first time and where farmers still find a huge amount of bombs every day, blah blah blah.

I've always been interested in the word wars, especially because i'm so connected to it, my grandfather was in the resistance and escaped execution several times, he knows stuff that only one other person on this fucking planet knows.  We also found ammo in the roof of a little cabin that was in our garden, the germans used the house where i'm sitting in right now as one of their headquarters, they actually used to eat here.  

This might all be off topic and totally useless information, i just wanted to show all of you that the war is still here, it might've ended a couple years ago but it's traces are still here.  Maybe that's why i get angry when some countries think that they won the war, let's just get this straight.  Personally i don't think the amount of French, British, American, German, Dutch, Belgian,... ppl who died on the battlefiel called Europe is of any importance when talking about what country 'won' the war.<span id='postcolor'>

belgium paid a heavy tribute to WW1 , i remind reading about some german exactions against belgian population and the way the king Albert the 1rst answered to the german ultimatum by the negative

i've once seen a picture , the men on it were wearing leather hats , the text with the picture said that they were belgians , but do you have any idea of what they are exactly ?

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Mar. 14 2003,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that post can move you down to no.3 now <span id='postcolor'>

am I on your list ?

=edit= :

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are trying to make it look like the American participation was essential to winning the war. I'm telling you, just look at the numbers. Even if each American soldier killed 100 German ones it would have not been enough to stop the offensive. The Americans were under French command fighting together with French, British, Canadian and Australian soldiers. Trying to take the credit for "tipping the spear" is pissing on the graves of those that achieved the victory through enormous sacrifices in war that was exclusivly based on "meatgrinder tactics" as you put it. The Americans didn't use any secret super weapons or any other tactics for that matter. They were just a small part of a massive effort whose principle was to caugh up more men that could get killed then the enemy could.

<span id='postcolor'>

One phrase has come up a few times in my posts: status quo. The American intervention helped the Allied forces hold and then counterattack during the most serious German offensives since Verdun. Nothing more, nothing less. We have a divergent view of the situation- I'm looking at the situation from the tactical view on up; you are taking a strictly strategic viewpoint. The point I'm trying to get across is that American troops were important to the maintenance of the Marne-Aisne salient from May 27 until the end of the offensive. American troops were at key points that limited the size of the salient base in the early stages of the campaign; American troops were right in the middle at Chateau-Thierry and were instrumental in halting the first Ludendorf offensives. Eventually, yes, Chateau-Thierry was taken, but during its time of supreme importance, when it offered a path through a giant rip in the French 5th and 6th Armies, the Americans were there and sealed the gap. This is historical fact- the only thing to debate is how much larger the Marne salient would have become if these first offensives had been more successful. This and a hundred other relatively small engagements played a disproportionately large role due to the tactical and strategic importance of their locations. Just details, you say. Well, any overall picture is composed entirely of details. Please, dispel any ideas of me having "USA R0XX0Rz" motives, I'm just trying to give credit where credit is due. Not once have I said anything like "We Amuricans saved yer asses at the Second Marne" or that Europe was indebted to America's single-handed ending of the Great War. What I have done is dispel the idea that America's contribution was insignificant. By being at key points in the line (specifically the tip and bases of the salient), and holding for enough time for French commanders to make the necessary adjustments, they did their part in turning the momentum of the war. And considering the relatively small number of Americans in the area of operations, we did as much bleeding per capita as the other countries involved.

Did we win the battle or the war singlehandedly? No. Did we even do most of the fighting that won the battle or the war? No. Did we play more than an "insignificant" role? Yes. All historical interpretations I've ever seen concur on that point. If I didn't have solid historical sources to draw from, I wouldn't be arguing this.

Incidentally, on your fourth map:

That particular counterattack is not the French 9th Army- rather, it is the 6th Army with American attachments. The 9th Army assisted the 5th Army in driving back to the Marne the mini-salient that had been formed on July 15. From there, a force consisting largely of American troops attached to the 5th Army continued the attack across the river to keep the Germans on the run (not that it really mattered, as the attacks by the 10th Army on the salient's Western base was a huge impetus for Germans to vacate the remaining salient, which was being rapidly rolled up by the 6th Army).

[Guest]

No, it wasn't the 6:th army. It was holding the lines after getting kicked out of Chateau-Thierry. It was the 9th with fresh French reinforcements that joined the battle. You can see the positions of the defending armies marked on the map (10th, 6th, 5th and 4th). The 9th stopped the counterattack and then with the 6th, 10th and 5th joined in on the counter-offensive. The Americans were with the 6th and the 4th. The 6th went after the Germans to the pre-offensive line while the 4th didn't move. They were apparently good at holding ground but utterly worthless at taking it.

Reference:

Smedberg, Marco, Militär Ledning : Frĺn Napoleonkrigen Till Bosnienkrisen, p 823-827 (Andra slaget om Marne, kontraoffensiven)

and

Keegan, John/Forsman, Lennart, Första Världskriget, maps on p 117-119

[Winters 1]

John Keegan wrote a very good book called "The Second World War" it starts off as all good books about WW2 should start at, the end of WW1.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, it wasn't the 6:th army. It was holding the lines after getting kicked out of Chateau-Thierry. It was the 9th with fresh French reinforcements that joined the battle. You can see the positions of the defending armies marked on the map (10th, 6th, 5th and 4th). The 9th stopped the counterattack and then with the 6th, 10th and 5th joined in on the counter-offensive. The Americans were with the 6th and the 4th. The 6th went after the Germans to the pre-offensive line while the 4th didn't move. They were apparently good at holding ground but utterly worthless at taking it.

<span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm. My source (A.H. History of WWI- S.L.A. Marshall, Simon&Schuster Inc.), has the French 10th Army, under the command of French General Mangin, leading the counterattack against the German 9th Army in the Chateau-Thierry/Soissons area. The French 9th Army, does figure into the offensive, however its operations took place in the area east of Chateau Thierry, regaining the territory lost to the Germans south of the Marne. And American divisions were with the 10th, 6th, 5th, and 4th. In other words, they were all over the salient, and factored into the counteroffensives.

[interstat 0]

Being a history graduate, it amuses me when people use politics for their own ends, especially politicians. Over the past months politicians have used Saddam as some sort of Hitler figure and rate them as an equal threat. Well, I could rebuff that for hours, but I won't.

In relation to WWI and America, what I would add is that troop numbers were not the over-riding factor that won the war. New tactics won the war as well, not just masses of Americans.

O.K with the influx of cannon fodder from america, the allies had a resource that would probably ahve come into real effect if the war had continue on into 1919. But the real breakthrough's at the end of WW1 came from new battle tactics, such as tanks, combined air and artillery recon, moving barrages, and so forth. If you look at the battle of Cambrai in 1917 we see the first signs of these new battle tactics, immense gains by the allies. Unfortunatley, the Germans quickly counterattacked and the gains were lost. But the signs were there.

As for revisionist history, its all good and well as long as the historical study is purely objective, not motivated by some political ideology or politically correct mantra. It seems this whole American argument of saving the poor old Europeans from defeat and enslavement is old hat and predjudiced, largely coming from recently annoyed americans because we won't play ball over Iraq (we have seen the consequences of bloodshed for the past 3000 years, unlike America who has only had 500 years of seeing it). History is a far more complex subject than the idea of Troop numbers.

WW1 and WW2 have been won, why squablle over who paid the most in blood. What we should learn from history is to learn from it, and not to abuse it. Unfortunatley, the human species has this knack of repeating itself.

Hitler is Saddam, yeah right, Jew hating, Racially ruthless dictator who has invaded 3 countries? I don't think so. Blair and Bush should read their History before opening their big dumb mouths.

[Guest]

Here is another source (web source)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the day of the offensive's launch, on 15 July, 23 German divisions of the First and Third Armies, under Mudra and Einem, attacked the French First Army (commanded by Gouraud) to the east of Reims, while a further 17 divisions of the Seventh Army, under Boehm, assisted by the new Ninth Army under Eben, attacked the French Sixth Army (Degoutte) in the west.

In attacking Reims in this way, Ludendorff aimed to split the French forces. Joining the French were 85,000 U.S. forces plus troops from Sir Douglas Haig's British Expeditionary Force (BEF), although the majority of the latter's forces were located further north in Flanders.

The attack to the east quickly proved a failure and was halted at 11 am on the first day without being resumed.

However the offensive to the west of Reims was more successful, breaking through the French Sixth Army and crossing the Marne at Dormans. Boehm, with the aid of six divisions, established a bridgehead nine miles in length and four in depth before the French Ninth Army, commanded by De Mitry and supported by British, American and Italian troops, halted his advance on 17 July.

With the Germans having ultimately failed in their efforts to break through, Ferdinand Foch, the Allied Supreme Commander, authorised a counter-offensive on 18 July, launching 24 divisions of the French army alone, in addition to U.S., British and Italian troops and some 350 tanks.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 14 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">O.K with the influx of cannon fodder from america, the allies had a resource that would probably ahve come into real effect if the war had continue on into 1919.  <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, this I agree with entirely (as with the rest of your post). The American support was important from a psychological point of view. Suddenly the allies had potentially more cannon fodder. This never however became reality since the Germans surrendered before the number of US troops became significant.

[interstat 0]

Cannon Fodder is SUCH a HARSH word, don't you think?

I have just finished reading a book compiled by the Imperial War museum of WW1 accounts from all sorts of soldiers, allies and Germans. F**k, it really brings home to you teh sheer cruelty, barbarity and waste of modern warfare!

The men that lived at that time most of been made of different suff, than the people who only seem to care about mobile phones and celebs nowadays.

[Guest]

It is a harsh word, but I think it is an accurate description of their role. The trench-war tactics was about little less then wearing down the enemy. First you rush our trenches and we machine gun you down, then we rush your trenches and you mow us down. Throw in some chemical attacks now and then.

The number of people killed is incomperhensible. The third battle of Ypres took 700,000 lives! To me that's just unimaginable.

[interstat 0]

There was program on BBC2 a few weeks ago about WW1 and it was pointing to an unfortunate combination of circumstances, such as inventions and the way people fought wars up until WW1. Invention of barbed wire, machine guns, massive artillery, mixed with battle tactics still used in the Boer war, or even the American Civil War.

Bully beef, food that could be stored all year, also had an impact. This allowed troops to stay in field all year round, not having to make camp for winter like previously.

Studying WW1 is just studying a catalogue of death over and over again, with little successes of a major nature. Tyhe whole Gallipoli adventure is a prime example of these unfortunate circumstances coming together.