WW1 was Britain's chief geopolitical mistake? Britain transformed a smaller continental war into real World War, and weakened her own global position

May 2019
259
Northern and Western hemispheres
Yeah, I mean, agree or disagree with this article's conclusions, it's still worth taking a look at, IMHO.
I'm stuck on whether or not WWI would have ended in a stalemate if the U.S.A. had stayed out. Personally, I think the Entente still could have one. As an anti-war person or a pacifist( whichever term is more accurate) I agree that WWII wasn't 100% percent black and white and appreciated that the article didn't get into Axisbooism and WWII revisionism.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,446
SoCal
I'm stuck on whether or not WWI would have ended in a stalemate if the U.S.A. had stayed out. Personally, I think the Entente still could have one. As an anti-war person or a pacifist( whichever term is more accurate) I agree that WWII wasn't 100% percent black and white and appreciated that the article didn't get into Axisbooism and WWII revisionism.
Won, not one. Also, I think that a lot might depend on this question--would the German home front have still collapsed in late 1918 without US involvement in WWII? On the one hand, Germany would have still experienced severe food problems (though ironically not as severe as in the several months after the armistice); on the other hand, though, there simply won't be the fear of millions of American doughboys arriving in Europe in 1919 and, if necessary, 1920 as well. So, maybe there'd be more hope in Germany that they could successfully reach a negotiated peace as opposed to an Entente diktat.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,970
Have you ever considered that the French retreat at the start of WWI might have been done on purpose? After all, the closer that the French would be to Paris's railroad system, the easier it might be for them to counterattack.
It was not. French had predicted much of the German plan but felt their more direct attack would be successful and focre the Germans to stop and deal with their Offensive. The repsonse of withdrawing and redeploying was an act of desperation , not a planned operation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky and Futurist

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,083
Iowa USA
It was not. French had predicted much of the German plan but felt their more direct attack would be successful and focre the Germans to stop and deal with their Offensive. The repsonse of withdrawing and redeploying was an act of desperation , not a planned operation.
If it works, it works.

I'd recommend Holwig Herger's 2010 book on the Marne offensive.

Both militaries were pushing their systems to the limit. My opinion is that this was a campaign determined by the quality of senior leadership.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,446
SoCal
It was not. French had predicted much of the German plan but felt their more direct attack would be successful and focre the Germans to stop and deal with their Offensive. The repsonse of withdrawing and redeploying was an act of desperation , not a planned operation.
Thanks. FWIW, I was actually talking about the choice to fight against Germany near Paris as opposed to near the Belgian border. Obviously I'm well-aware of the mauling that the French got at the Battle of the Frontiers. I simply wanted to see if there was a conscious decision on the part of the French to make their main battle near Paris as opposed to near the Belgian border once it became clear that the French offensive in Alsace-Lorraine is not going to deter the Germans from implementing their own plan.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,970
Won, not one. Also, I think that a lot might depend on this question--would the German home front have still collapsed in late 1918 without US involvement in WWII? On the one hand, Germany would have still experienced severe food problems (though ironically not as severe as in the several months after the armistice); on the other hand, though, there simply won't be the fear of millions of American doughboys arriving in Europe in 1919 and, if necessary, 1920 as well. So, maybe there'd be more hope in Germany that they could successfully reach a negotiated peace as opposed to an Entente diktat.
Actual US involvement in the fighting was minimal and the Lack of AEF would not directly chnage anything much.

However there are two bigger issues

(a) without the pressure of US entry into war and the immense amount of fresh troops the Germans may not have embarked on their massive 1918 offensives which broke the German army as a fighting force.

(b) with US credit, large amounts of material woudl not have been soucred from the USA. Purchaused would not have totally stopped as godl exports and other exports would have been enough to pay for significnat but much smaller amount of imports from the USA. (mostly likely causing a recession in the USA) This would have greatly reduced the abilty of the Entente to make large scale ofensives on the western front.

but the lack of US entry into war would not have changed much for the Ottomans, Bulgarians and Austria-Hungarains whuch would haver collasped and sought pecae on any terms inlate 1918 anyway, freeing up significnat Entente resources.

US Entry would also have had an upside, million tons of Entente shipping freed up form transportingt and supplying AEF in 1917, and 2 million tons in 1918. France and Britain equiped the AEF with artillery, machine guns, tanks and aircraft , the decrease in resources froml;ack of US material would be signifnctaly offset by these savings (though I;m pretty sure a significant deficit would remain,)

So in an 1918-19 where the Germans hodl the Hindenberg line in greater strnegth and the Entente is unable to resource large scale offensives, what does the stalmate mean for both sides. Well the Central powers economic collapse is much more prounced and woudl be reduced to just Germany which would feeling internal stability problems.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,970
If it works, it works.

I'd recommend Holwig Herger's 2010 book on the Marne offensive.

Both militaries were pushing their systems to the limit. My opinion is that this was a campaign determined by the quality of senior leadership.
Two main factors
(1) the Germans were along way form their logistcal base which was increasingly a problem.
(2) The German commanders were left to their own devices and Gemran surpreame HQ failed to provide much leadership or direction, while the French commanders and GHQ provided better leadership.