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

Jan 2019
180
Finland
This seems like a thorny issue and it's more a matter of framing and focus as it can be said that without the American contribution the war might have gone differently in a manner disadvantegous to the Entente. But it's like having a structure with a number of load bearing colums and focusing solely on one of them and declaring that specific one the key even if it bears a lesser weight than the other columns. I'd say that if anyone's contribution is overlooked in the Anglophone sphere it's the French, and perhaps the Russians, most of the focus being on the British and Americans.
 
May 2019
205
Northern and Western hemispheres
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.
Great post. Its important to be open-minded when looking back at things historically and try our best to avoid agenda driven writings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
May 2019
205
Northern and Western hemispheres
This seems like a thorny issue and it's more a matter of framing and focus as it can be said that without the American contribution the war might have gone differently in a manner disadvantegous to the Entente. But it's like having a structure with a number of load bearing colums and focusing solely on one of them and declaring that specific one the key even if it bears a lesser weight than the other columns. I'd say that if anyone's contribution is overlooked in the Anglophone sphere it's the French, and perhaps the Russians, most of the focus being on the British and Americans.
The Americans had a fairly negligible role in WWI. I haven't seen any films about the AEF.
 
Mar 2014
54
Paris (France)
One should keep in mind that on the eve of the second battle of the Marne (so on the shifting point of the war), there was only 20 US division on French soil, 7 on the front line (and among them, only 2/3 on active part of the front) and 15 on reserve. Cartographie 1914 - 1918 - Carte des positions au 15 juillet 1918
And less than 10 on the 8th of august.
This is so negligible.
In addition, the US troops were supported French artillery and the half the tank they used were provided by France with French crew. These facts actually reduced the efficiency of French troops late on the war as there was less artillery and tanks available for French offensives. On the strictly military matters, the US involvement actually heavily hampered the French (in terms of troops and materials) and one may even argue that it actually hampered the whole front (many trained and effficient troops were picked from the frontline to train and support the inexperienced US troops).

The first front to break was the macedonian one were no us troops were present. If the western front didn’t collapse, Germany would have to fight on the south (Munich) while the Austrian would have also collapse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Mar 2011
604
One should keep in mind that on the eve of the second battle of the Marne (so on the shifting point of the war), there was only 20 US division on French soil, 7 on the front line (and among them, only 2/3 on active part of the front) and 15 on reserve. Cartographie 1914 - 1918 - Carte des positions au 15 juillet 1918
And less than 10 on the 8th of august.
This is so negligible.
In addition, the US troops were supported French artillery and the half the tank they used were provided by France with French crew. These facts actually reduced the efficiency of French troops late on the war as there was less artillery and tanks available for French offensives. On the strictly military matters, the US involvement actually heavily hampered the French (in terms of troops and materials) and one may even argue that it actually hampered the whole front (many trained and effficient troops were picked from the frontline to train and support the inexperienced US troops).

The first front to break was the macedonian one were no us troops were present. If the western front didn’t collapse, Germany would have to fight on the south (Munich) while the Austrian would have also collapse.
You forgot a few things
-us divisions in 1918 were almost twice as large (over 28000 soldiers) as a british/french division depending on how exhausted it was..
-the turning point was psichologically middle of july (largely thanks to us entry) but the frontline was in end of september still roughly the same as before the german spring offensive.. So still no strategic advance at the frontlines
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,760
You forgot a few things
-us divisions in 1918 were almost twice as large (over 28000 soldiers) as a british/french division depending on how exhausted it was..
-the turning point was psichologically middle of july (largely thanks to us entry) but the frontline was in end of september still roughly the same as before the german spring offensive.. So still no strategic advance at the frontlines
Juts another example of US pig headed refusal to learn and over emphasizing riflemen at the cost of combined arms, and artillery support. Just anotehr reason why 100,000 Amercians were less effetcive than 100l000 british of French. beisdes the poor leadership, poor trianing, poor doctrine.
 
Mar 2011
604
Juts another example of US pig headed refusal to learn and over emphasizing riflemen at the cost of combined arms, and artillery support. Just anotehr reason why 100,000 Amercians were less effetcive than 100l000 british of French. beisdes the poor leadership, poor trianing, poor doctrine.
-So whats the point of debating if you ignore the facts?
-i did not emphasised riflemen just the size of an american/french division
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,760
You forgot a few things
-us divisions in 1918 were almost twice as large (over 28000 soldiers) as a british/french division depending on how exhausted it was..
-the turning point was psichologically middle of july (largely thanks to us entry) but the frontline was in end of september still roughly the same as before the german spring offensive.. So still no strategic advance at the frontlines
The front line psoition is only one way of looking at thiungs and a ratehr limited one. The Germans had lareg manpower reserves before the Sring offenive began. After tthey had almost none. And the caualties in teh offensives were their best troops. The Morale of the German sodilers had also been sharply reduced. Their advances had them often holding worst positon than before the offensives. They were exhursted, over extened and without real reserves. These factors meant a lot mopre than just looking at where teh lines were on the map.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,855
At present SD, USA
-So whats the point of debating if you ignore the facts?
-i did not emphasised riflemen just the size of an american/french division
But much of the reason for the larger size of the American divisions was to allow for more riflemen. For if you're not attacking with more armored formations or artillery in support, you need rifleman to hold territory, which would then risk higher casualties, something the British and French learned in 1914-1915 the hard way.