Did the Americans win WW1?

[King]

America was porbably the only winner out of World war II. Clearly the looser lost but as people have already pointed out most of the "winners" didn't exactly win either. The US ended the war much stronger than it started, in control of its own finiances (in 1914 it was still a net debtor nation) and it had gained a mssive share of world trade. Also everyone else was alot weaker. All in all good posisition to be in.

On the actual war front the US contribution was mixed. On the finiacial side, the US contribution (espically credits) was certainlly very helpoful to the allies and took alot of the strain on that front. On the actual comitment of combat soldiers I think the allies could of won without US help, however the allies were exhausted and as such US help made things a lot easier.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Hardu
Not so fast King.

American credit helped pay the munitions made and purchased in the US and the necessary investments in munitons production in France and Britain. Without access to US manufacturing capacity Germany would have outproiduced Britain and France.

(Prior to the war Britain and France imported the coal tar needed to make the amatol explosive from Germany - WWI was really an accident ...)

Considering the dire straits the German economy was in by 1918, I am not so sure. However assumming your call is right all that would mean would be that the great allied offensives of 1915 & 1916 would of been delayed a few months. I really do not see this as changing the outcome of the war. The two offensives which did most damage to the German Army were Verdun (which the Germans launched) and Paschendale (but the British army could of done without that too).

Additionally US manufacturing capacity was not really used to build war material, The British had to help equip the US armies arriving in France because the US could not. The US help was mainly confined to raw materials and money. The US supplied this help primarly so it could regain control of its own debt, rather that to help the allies win (that was just a nice side effect).

 

[King]

Originally posted by Rocky Horror
Okay, you're a German. For four years you've been in France; you've won some, you've lost some, but you're still fighting in France and the French and British are still dying twice as fast as you are. Your morale, all things considered, isn't as high as in 1914, but any major push into Deutschland is going to get you right back to that righteous anger.

Now. You possibly grew up with tales of the American Wild West, and have an image of America as a place where the average farmhouse has more rifles than some German platoons.

Are you going to be able to maintain morale when an American Army two million strong lands in France and starts slowly beating you back?

No.

And the Germans caved.

I do have a couple of points to throw into this arguement here.

One, the British and French armies were both bigger than the American Army.

Two, tales of the American West didn't become big till after the war.

Three, British and French also did some beating back as well.

Four, it was Ludendorf who folded and then changed his mind, but by that time it was too late.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Rocky Horror
My point: Okay, the Germans were holding back, barely, giving a few kilometers here and there, Britain and France.

Then an entirely new, fresh, high morale army roughly the size of the BEF wanders onto the continent and starts kicking your teeth in.

That's a brown-trousers time.

I do not think a two million man army was the size of the BEF. The British forces lost 600,000 men on the Somme, and 325,000 at Paschendale. There were still enough men to man a fair ammount of the line. The American soldiers also performed very poorly at the intial battles. The real reason the allied offensive on 1918 was so successful was because the Germans had lost a lot of men in their offensive earlier (Britain suffer too as they were the main focus of the attacks) and second because of the allies tactics. The allies kept switing the focus of their attacks everytime German resistance stiffened.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Classique


Those numbers are just mind-boggling.....

The casulty figures for World War I are horrendous. If the US army did win it, it was because the allies had already paid the price in blood for this to happen.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Ivan the Mad
I think the better question is what had happened if the US sent no economic support...

Unlike in World War II, it was in the US's direct interests to support the allies. The US was a net debtor nation, mainly to Britain. By supporting Britain they a allowed Britian to sell their US owned assets to other people (effectively Americans) and they also build up their own portfolio of US owned assets abroad. As a by product the world finacial hub moved from London to New York. So why should the US not provide Economic support?