America played the key role in German defeat in World War I

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,932
Was Petain a political figure during the Great War?
All senior commanders were HIGHLY political in WWI. Joffre, Haig, Nivelle, Pétain, Foch, Pershing etc. Ludendorff effectively ended up running Germany (and since the Austrian armies were put under German direction more or less them as well).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abraham95

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,932
The French were paralyzed with demoralization ever since the Nivelle Offensive and subsequent mutiny (1917). There was no way they would have been able to go on the offensive without American assistance.
No they weren't, and they certainly could and did, beginning with this:

Worst thing one can say about it that it was probably the most over-insured battle in WWI, since the French left nothing to chance as it absolutely had to succeed. So 150 000 French attacked 100 000 dug-in Germans, reduced the salient suffering less than 10% total casualties for a German rate of 50%.
 
Mar 2011
605
It was, but it had allies, primarily Britain. Also, while the French were exhausted, they still fought and attacked in 1918. Keep in mind that the collapse of other Central Powers was also inevitable so that would also worsen Germany's position.
-
No they weren't, and they certainly could and did, beginning with this:

Worst thing one can say about it that it was probably the most over-insured battle in WWI, since the French left nothing to chance as it absolutely had to succeed. So 150 000 French attacked 100 000 dug-in Germans, reduced the salient suffering less than 10% total casualties for a German rate of 50%.
So that proves france was not exhausted just as germany or more? (i highly doubt german casualities germán wiki says 28 k)

GB probably was not as exhausted but held only a small section of the western front.. And still they weren t able to keep their armies in full strenght (operation michael)
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,932
So no concrete numbers just your bet..
Read up on the battle and you'll find all the figures you need.
Les statistiques permettent de déduire que l'ennemi dut compter, en regard de ces 8000 tués, environ 30000 blessés.
D'autre part, nos troupes avaient ramené plus de 11500 prisonniers, ce qui porte à près de 50000 le chiffre global des pertes infligées à nos adversaires.

En regard, les pertes françaises s'élevaient à 14000 hommes, blessés légers compris.

Le matériel enlevé comprenait 200 canons, 222 minenwerfer, 720 mitrailleuses; et il est difficile d'apprécier les quantités détruites ou mises hors d'usage, et néanmoins emmenées par les Allemands dans leur retraite.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,855
At present SD, USA
The French were paralyzed with demoralization ever since the Nivelle Offensive and subsequent mutiny (1917). There was no way they would have been able to go on the offensive without American assistance.
The French would take up the offensive again in 1917, in roughly the same place where Neville had attacked earlier in the year at La Malmaison and won. So... while, yes the mutinies hurt in the early summer of 1917, by the late summer to fall in 1917, with Petain in command of the French army, they had recovered and were more than ready and able to go on the offensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abraham95

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,855
At present SD, USA
But that was only because the Americans came. Petain said "J'attends les chars et les américains." Even Clemenceau agreed with him on that point.
This was said in late 1917 after the Russians dropped out of the war and had more to do with being ready defensively for what was expected to be coming. It had nothing to do with the mutiny in the early summer. It should also be remembered that the tanks that Petain was waiting for were French Renault FT 17s... along with additional French heavy tank models. America wouldn't have its own tank design until late 1918 and never saw combat or early 1919 and missed the war entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abraham95

Lee-Sensei

Ad Honorem
Aug 2012
2,138
It was THE strategic defeat of the German Army. It broke the German Army., It coul dnot sustain tyhe losses, which was mostly their best troops. It showed the troops how futile the war was from the German perspective. (Not least the wealth of Allied supply dumps) For al it;s opertaional tactical brillance, it was deeply flawed strategically, and while it took plenty of ground none of it mattered. The Allies had a couple of wobbly moments psychologically but once the smoke cleared teh Germans were done, and them were than smashed by the Entente Armies.

The AEF did very veyr little to stop teh GErmna offenisve and without them stoppingthe offensive was a certinaly. Thier contribution was so small otehr troops coul dhave been found and they would have performed better. On teh Offensive the US did less than 10% of the fighting. It simply was not enoug hto make or break the offensive. Teh Bootom line was the PSirng offensive had pretty much brokenthe German army and it performance dropped markedly.

The US entry framed the cotext of 1918 to large degree. It made the idea of Inevitable Entente victory. Though the other central powers, Turkey, Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary were done anyway. If the Germans had hunkered down on the Hindenburg line they would have lasted into 1919, but their economy was falling paart and their allies would have made peace anyway.

Teh Allies would have easily stopped the German offensive
IRRC, Ludendorff wrote in his memoirs that he had wanted to drag the war into 1919 for better peace terms, but the surrender of Austria-Hungary convinced the German high command to surrender near the end of 1918. They wouldn't have continued to fight without their allies.
 
Feb 2019
1,039
Serbia
This is an old thread and I don't have much else to say which hasn't been said already. The starting point is obviously a drivel driven by an agenda of jingoism with the OP disregarding anything that contradicts him.

I believe that the U.S. certainly sped up the end of the war, but to claim they somehow singe-highhandedly saved the Entente and that all would've been lost without them is a nationalist fantasy. Without them the war would've gone on for a bit longer but I don't think Germany had any chance to win.
 
Feb 2019
1,039
Serbia
Sims' book, like all publications by serving Naval officers of the era, was approved for publication by Secretary Daniels. It therefore can be considered an official document.
Yes, but that does not make it a reliable source in any way, shape or form. All official histories of anything should be taken with heavy skepticism as they are, as their name suggests, commissioned as an official narrative of events from that nation's perspective and are often written shortly after those events happen. As such the ones that write it have limited access to sources from the other side and in this case likely try to inflate their own and their nation's contribution to winning the war. They're not the best sources for this kind of discussions and shouldn't be taken at face value.