First World War

 

Well first off, the Axis Powers were not until World War II, in World War I they were the Central Powers. Secondly, the US was an Ally in both wars, declaring war on both the Axis and Central Powers in each war. Thirdly, the fact is the United States as a whole saved World War I in the name of the Allies, not with soldiers, weaponry, and brave regiments but with things that the Allies desperately needed: credit, food, clothing, etc. American soldiers in World War I weren't even equipped with their own guns and masks, they wore French masks and used French artillery. World War I was much closer than World War II especially after the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, as Germany "annexed" the Ukraine, and the Eastern front became "closed". They were assured a mass supply of grain, they had been eating turnip and turnip subsititute so vile that it made them sick to eat it, and with this grain they could feed all the soldiers they wanted. The fact was, the Eastern front became worse as the Ukranians wouldn't give up their grain peacefully and soldiers were sent there to maintain order. Austria-Hungary was even more starving than Germany and Hungary shut off its borders with Austria to maintain food for itself. This befuddled Austria and Germany once again had to assist its sub-par ally. So while Germany was suffering to maintain the balance of its allies as well as the balance of its own soldiers, allied soldiers were equipped with new weapons and armor due to credit, massive amounts of food and clothes, and ways to keep the trenches sanitary. Think about it, Germany did not lose once inch of German soil yet it lost the war, and this is why. Also the English definitely have the most well-trained soldiers next to the Germans, but I would say the French did have good soldiers and the French and English fought equally; let us not forget bloody Verdun was just as bad perhaps worse than the Somme and they both suffered in Operation Michael, in which the Germans tried one last hoorah. In World War I, the naval blockade of the English was essential and without it, the Central Powers would have won, but it wouldn't have been sustained without the entrance of the United States. In World War II the Red Army is without a doubt the most essential force, even though Hitler may have defeated them if he had closed the Battle of Britain. The fact is their sheer numbers and constant over-extension of German Lines, ill-equipment of German soldiers in harsh weather conditions, and vanity of Hitler allowed the Red Army to become the most decisive fighting force in World War II. Also in World War II, Soviet leadership was just as good as English in 1944, Zhukov? Rokossovsky? Men who disagreed with the words of Stalin and did their own thing when it was punishable perhaps by death. Zhukov is just every bit as good as Monty if not better.

 

 

 

says the man with the william the conqueror av, a little bias eh? nah just kidding , I agree with what you said. France definitely contributed the most when it came to manpower, weaponry, sheer bravery and mettle, etc. Let me revise my theory, the United States decided the fate of World War I with its crucial contribution but without the French backbone and application of those resources,  that contribution would have been useless.

 

Germany was defeated on the battlefield in WW I.

 

After the withdrawl of Russia from the war in 1917 Germany was able to redeploy most of its' forces in the west for a spring offensive in 1918. This offensive came close to capturing Paris and probably knocking the French out of the war. It was eventually stopped with the help of the fresh American troops and the presense of a growing number of tanks on the battlefield. It was in this period that Allied tanks began showing up in the thousands, while Germany only produced a few dozen tanks for the entire war.

 

Allied offensives throughout the summer of 1918 caused severe damaged to the German army and it was only a matter of time before it collapsed, it wasn't going to go on the offensive again in WW I.

 

After the war the German armed forces were largley disbanded and prevented from developing beyond a very limited size and ability. The German U-boat and High Seas fleet were turned over to the Allies, many captains prefering to scuttle their craft.

 

You're repeating some of the same propaganda that was used by the Nazis to justify fighting another world war.

Originally posted by DukeC Germany was defeated on the battlefield in WW I.   After the withdrawl of Russia from the war in 1917 Germany was able to redeploy most of its' forces in the west for a spring offensive in 1918. This offensive came close to capturing Paris and probably knocking the French out of the war. It was eventually stopped with the help of the fresh American troops and the presense of a growing number of tanks on the battlefield. It was in this period that Allied tanks began showing up in the thousands, while Germany only produced a few dozen tanks for the entire war.   Allied offensives throughout the summer of 1918 caused severe damaged to the German army and it was only a matter of time before it collapsed, it wasn't going to go on the offensive again in WW I.   After the war the German armed forces were largley disbanded and prevented from developing beyond a very limited size and ability. The German U-boat and High Seas fleet were turned over to the Allies, many captains prefering to scuttle their craft.

It maybe true that Allies had a successful offenisve, however it doesn't mean that Germany would have been knocked out of the war.

Originally posted by DukeC You're repeating some of the same propaganda that was used by the Nazis to justify fighting another world war.

I am repeating what I have learned in class, and my professor is Jewish not a Nazi sympathiser...

 

I would say a march on Paris and to force it into submission once again. I can see what you're saying as before the war their only objective was to defend themselves against the growing revanchism and Allied alliances and that they still succeeded in this defense because they did not lose any of their own territory; but why would the Germans create the Schlieffen Plan if they had no aims to put France to bed once and for all? They might as well have just waited at the Franco-German border and played the defensive, but instead they went on the offensive. I believe the military elite had too much power in Germany and they were just about tired of France and wanted to advance in there and havoc the place, perhaps even take French colonies in Africa (Bismarck years earlier wished to expand outside of Europe to avoid anymore European wars, he once said something to the effect of "who wants more Frenchman or Poles in the German Empire") whereas the common soldier just wished to fight in the defense of his homeland. I can totally see where you're coming from as they did succeed in the defense of their home land and I totally agree, however, I think the higher-ups failed in some of their ambitions.