The Power of France

[unmerged(25696)]

Fair enough. I would rank France 4th in the Powers, (Britain, Germany, and the US are obviously ahead), But that still leaves her being a Great Power.

EDIT: Yakman: Why did you change your avatar? I was looking for the Tibetan shield.

Steele

I wouldn't put US third until the end of WWI. At the beginning, they were hardly 4th-5th, having just battled Spain (which had gotten 'second-rate') in a 'low intensity war' ten years before (and poor Mexico 70 years earlier). They had kept to themselves until then (Monroe doctrine). I would rate them on the same scale than Japan (which had beaten Russia), as promising rising countries, just before AH and Russia, decaying empires (Italy, Ottoman Empire still farther).

My apologies for the size of the US divisions. Speaking in numbers : France had mobilised more than 8 millions men, US hardly half as many. Of which only 1.8 millions were in action, or near the action. Most of them were raw recruits just coming from the States, unwary and inexperienced, were most of the french and british (and, consequently, german) soldiers were experienced veterans in 1917. As of losses : hadly 110.000 KIA, where France had ten times as much (the flue epidemy in US would kill more than 500.000). In WWI, US help was helpful, but late and unneeded, as Germany was exhausted, even while Russia had been pulled off the war. Quite different from WWII, you must be careful not to confuse both war's specificities.

As for the relative economic strenght of Germany and France : german industry was a bit better, but raw materials were lacking, where France had its colonies (and huge reserve of manpower there too). The situation would be worse 25 years later, but the premice were there already. Germany's population was 50% higher than metropolitan France's was, but think of its colonies, and the fact that France was more unified than Germany (the Reich was created 40 years before, and internally fragile). Germany only mobilised 10-11 millions of soldiers, slightly more than France.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Lawkeeper: No-one is saying that the US entry in the war was key to the Allied victory, nor that the US singlehandedly won the war. What I (and I think Yakman as well) are saying is that the US did contribute a significant amount of men to the Allied armies in a short amount of time.

However, to compare the US to Japan is like comparing a tank to a cardboard knife. The US had more industrial capacity than any other country in the world, about 12 times that of Japan. That is why I rank the US as third, it's industrial base, which was (even in 1914) the largest in the world, by far.

Steele

 

[unmerged(25696)]

Lawkeeper: No-one is saying that the US entry in the war was key to the Allied victory, nor that the US singlehandedly won the war. What I (and I think Yakman as well) are saying is that the US did contribute a significant amount of men to the Allied armies in a short amount of time.

They levied a huge army (of 4 millions on a population of 90 millions) in a short time, but they needed more than a year to bring more than 100.000 of them to the front, where they stood (valiantly, if not always as efficiently as veterans, but latter part is normal) for a couple of months (less than six).

I may appear stubborn and sensitive about this, but I've seen, read and heard too many times that USA had single-handedly defended half of Europe in TWO WW, that I've become eager to deter any such misconceptions (like the one that long endured regarding Belgium's "own" independence).

However, to compare the US to Japan is like comparing a tank to a cardboard knife. The US had more industrial capacity than any other country in the world, about 12 times that of Japan. That is why I rank the US as third, it's industrial base, which was (even in 1914) the largest in the world, by far.

Purely industrially speaking, ok, they weren't on the same scale as Japan. But Japan didn't benefit from a steady flow of immigrants, nor of as many raw materials on the national soil (and cheap coal and oil).

But we were talking of military power, not industrial power.

 

[SecondReich]

No, not as much. Only 10%. Germany and Austria-Hungary lost also almost 10%. UK, Russia and Italy had between 5 and 6%.

And Belgium 1.9%.

And German economy was really in the worse state since a long, long time ago.

And before you ask, the USA troops represented less than 10% of the total troops mobilised, so not really that great help.

Only 10% of their manpower? We must have conflicting sources lawkeeper, because I would almost swear I have read 1/3 before. C'est la vie...

 

[unmerged(25696)]

Only 10% of their manpower? We must have conflicting sources lawkeeper, because I would almost swear I have read 1/3 before. C'est la vie...

France lost 3.55% of their population. That's a big lesser. And it's historical and official (and cross-checked) sources.

The 10% (and the similar numbers given in my post) apply to the active male population.

1/3. How would a country suffering of such a loss recover ? Well, apart of USSR.

I should say 1/3 represents the amount of young men of 20-25 years killed. But it's still a huge number, and maybe takes into account the wounded too. Some regions lost more, and some other less. And a few villages lost ALL of their youngsters. It has been a tragedy, but not THAT big. Hopefully.

 

[Yakman]

I for one would argue that American participation was crucial to ending the war in 1918 with the Allies victorious. Britain and France had been conserving their manpower since after the 3rd Battle of Ypres, with the knowledge that the Americans would enter the war. This reserve of men and resources [many of them American built, and given or sold on the cheap to the Allies] were crucial to stopping the German offensives of 1918. Moreover, the enormous amount of war material produced for the allies in the US throughout the whole war enabled the Allied victory. After all, the only plants capable of producing the explosive compounds used in British shells WERE IN GERMANY. The Brits had to buy American shells from 1914 onwards [they started using TNT explosives later] as did France and all the other Allied powers. The Lusitania was carrying munitions you know.

Moreover, the entry of the Americans had a positive morale boost on the Allies, and a negative effect on the Germans. Americans were, after all, cowboys and the Germans had grown up reading stories of cowboys and indians and such. It was very disheartening knowing that hundreds of thousands of additional reinforcements were entering the war on the enemy side, nullifying any potential benefit from destroying even entire armies of French and British soldiers.

On the battlefield Americans played an important, though not decisive role. However, the strategic impact of American entry was decisive.

Steele: someone else on another forum was using the Tibet shield... monophysitism or something like that. I figured no one else used the Aq Quyonlu shield, and I'm not some Tibetan Buddhist type or even believes most of that pro-Tibetan bullshit people hawk [although Tibet should be free, or at least autonomous] so I figured I'd change to something else [this one even has a horned quadroped!]

edit: but then I thought: hey! Yaks are dark animals! I should be the Qara Qoyonlu! And so it happened... that I looked at the avatars and the EU2 natives shield looks like a Yak head! So wallah, here is the new Yakman Avatar! Not that anyone cares of course

 

[unmerged(2920)]

if i may
rating a power is not watching numbers.
to explain i would put some things. for me there are no 1st power and 2nd power but regional power, world power and following power. there is no super power before 1945 and the beginning of the cold war.
in 1914 as stated before US is at the same rate than japan (and in my view i would still put japan a bit highter but it is a personnal point of view with no real reason) : regional power. they can project a little bit of power but not much outside their natural region. they had little to no influence outside america a fleet not really important and an army close to nothing. they however had a great possibility to take a rise (wich japan doesn't have) with their industrial power and their manpower. but having possibilities to expand is not being expanded. in 1914 US is then only a regional power, they raised to a world power in 1918 (and if i may not by industrial por military way but diplomatical way) that is the rise wich is impressive and it is not dishonorable to be a regional power
france is in 1914 a world power. they have bases all around the world (coaling stations important for projecting power), a prime political power, a big army (in fact in term of population it is ennormous. our army before 1870 was 120 000 men, in 1914 it is 800 000, it could give you the idea of how "militarised" was france, a country wich is not traditionnaly militarised) a big fleet (even if not as big as the 2 strongest power UK and germany) .... France is a world power in 1914 and will stay until 1940. the biggest problem of france is industrial power. still it is fairly enought to be a world power, it is not france wich is badly industrialised, it is US, UK and germany wich are much more industrialised.
the world power in 1914 are : UK, germany, france
regional power are : US, japan, russia (no more a world power since 1905, wich disabled her fleet and her fame)
following power are : italie (following may not be appropriate since they are so...unpredictable but they are on this catégory), belgium, austria hungary.

in a large sens you can maybee add as a folowing power the ottoman empire, i hesitated but decided that i think not.

in 1919 the shema is totaly changed
world power : UK, US, france
regional power : USSR (not in1919 but soon they will be one) japan,
following power : italie

the rest fell and is no more a power or even doesn't exist anymore like autria hungary. some will recover like germany wich will be again a regional power in the 30's.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

Yakman : the War would have ended in 1919 if US didn't help, because in March-April 1918, the last major german offensive was repelled with nearly no GIs involved. German military forces were exhausted, due to the fight they had to do in place of the Austrians in the East. Their forces were skeletal, with few reserves, the Allied blocus were seriously depleting their stocks of raw materials, dissenssions arised (due to bolchevik underworks and under-nationalism), and Richthoffen was shot down. US helped finish it a little earlier, but that's all, and their logistic help was not 'free', they were paid, hard cash or else ; moreover, in 1932, Roosevelt will cancel the german debts, but not the Allied's debts (only paid in part by Germany).

 

[Yakman]

The US gave enormous loans to the allies to buy American war materials they wouldn't have been able to purchase otherwise.

I question if the German offensives would have been stopped if the US hadn't entered the war, because there was a year after the American declaration and the Spring Offensives. During that year a tremendous flow of materials crossed the Atlantic. It restored the reserves of the Allied powers, fed them, gave them confidence. Why do you think the Allied forces were eating so well??? American warships, moreover, were crucial to the "convoy" system, which was nearly 100% effective in stopping German U-Boat attacks, which were the reason for the war declaration in the first place [that and Wilson's misguided ideologies...]

The British and French might have even sued for a truce if the US had not interevened after Russia fell. The US declaration came in the spring of 1917, but the Russians did not exit the war until early 1918. Had America not declared war, would the Allies have decided not to continue the fight with Russia out of the picture, and running out of money? I wonder...

 

[unmerged(8540)]

Double Post

 

[unmerged(25696)]

The US gave enormous loans to the allies to buy American war materials they wouldn't have been able to purchase otherwise.

Loans were repaid, with interest. And all this money was used to buy ... american goods. So I bet the money never crossed the Atlantic, except one-way after the war.

I guess you don't know much about international trade, do you ? When a nation loans money that serves to buy goods from the lender, the real beneficiary is the lender's economy. It was true in the past, and it is still true now.

Additionally, it was to the US interests that war lasted a little longer : they had no competition during that time, so big time for US economy. Just take a look at the tariffs during the 1914-1918 years, and then to the tariffs of the earlier and later periods.

I question if the German offensives would have been stopped if the US hadn't entered the war, because there was a year after the American declaration and the Spring Offensives. During that year a tremendous flow of materials crossed the Atlantic. It restored the reserves of the Allied powers, fed them, gave them confidence. Why do you think the Allied forces were eating so well??? American warships, moreover, were crucial to the "convoy" system, which was nearly 100% effective in stopping German U-Boat attacks, which were the reason for the war declaration in the first place [that and Wilson's misguided ideologies...]

American materials ? Haha. France built and gave to those same Americans some 4000 airplanes, 4000 artillery guns, 240 tanks,... USA had near to none military industry at that time, and received half of the help France was giving to its allies. Food ? US were already exporting food before the War, so it didn't change much. American warships ? US Navy was far from the Royal Navy or of the Royale ; Royal Navy alone had at least three or four times the amount of ships of the USA, and would still have more than twice in 1940. The material shipped was useful, but couldn't hold the Germans back alone. BTW, Germany didn't make any offensive during 1917, and THAT had much more effect on the final outcome than American help.

The British and French might have even sued for a truce if the US had not interevened after Russia fell. The US declaration came in the spring of 1917, but the Russians did not exit the war until early 1918. Had America not declared war, would the Allies have decided not to continue the fight with Russia out of the picture, and running out of money? I wonder...

That's why Wilson tried to bring the belligerent to peace in 1917 (IIRC), I suppose ? The peace negociations failed, but not due to Wilson. It was the influence of Clemenceau, who would become a few months later President of the Council. Russia was out of the game, but so was Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman empire was crumbling too. And Italians were beginning to win some fights in 1918. There were mutiny and rebellion in the early part of 1917 in the French army, but much more in the German army and, more importantly, in German territory. The Germans recovered few troops from the East Front. Greece joined the Allies in 1917 too, openning a new front. Austria-Hungary was already suing for peace for quite a time...

In end of Summer 1918, Germany had barely 500.000 combatants, and a total of soldiers of 3.8 millions, to the 9.3 millions of the Allies, which had a higher proportion of combatants. Less 1.8 millions of Americans, it still makes more than twice the numbers of the Germans, and it counts only the Western front.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Lawkeeper: That is what a loan is. The fact that they were repaid doesn't mean they didn't help hugely. Plus, the interests rates were so immensly low for Britain and France that they may as well not have been there.

The heavy weapons used by the Americans were predominatly of French or British deisgn, although some 2500 French artilery pieces were license-built in America. Ammunition and food, however, is different. The US supplied most of the food eaten by the Allies (military and civilian alike), and it manufactured a huge amount of ammunition (after joining the war, almost all Allied ammunition came from the US).

Of course the US had few troops in France. They had not been long at war, and there was a four thousand mile ocean to cross. No-one is saying the US won the war singlehandedly, but don't try to minimize the US investment in the war.

Now, it seems to me that this thread has gotten a little off-topic...

Steele

 

[ZhugeKongming]

I want to know why people are so severely underestimating the U.S. in 1914. Sure, the military was miniscule, but so what? The most important facet of warfare is the economic one. With a strong industrial base and lots of natural resources, both of which the U.S. had in great abundance, a strong military can be forged. Absolute military power is irrelevant; even doctrine, training, and equipment take a backseat to the economic aspects.

In 1914, the U.S. was unparalleled in industrial strength, and certainly very strong with regards to natural resources. But Calanctus, you say, the U.S. in 1914 was a local power, incapable of projecting influence beyond its own continent. The U.S. had incredible military potential, and as we all know, influence can be acquired, whether with currency or bombs. Therefore, I say the U.S. was the most powerful country in the world after the late-18th century. It's just that nobody would know it until 1945.

Additionally, lawkeeper, I have a problem with one of your presumptions. You vastly underrate Germany's military-industrial capacity in 1914. Paul Kennedy's figures in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (and I apologize for not having them on me) indicate that German industrial power was not slightly more than France's; it was considerably higher than every other country's, with the obvious exception of the U.S. It's true that the Second Reich suffered from resource shortages, but in 1914, Germany was in every way, shape, and form more suited to fighting a war with France, whether you want to look at equipment, doctrine, training, or manpower.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

I want to know why people are so severely underestimating the U.S. in 1914. Sure, the military was miniscule, but so what? The most important facet of warfare is the economic one. With a strong industrial base and lots of natural resources, both of which the U.S. had in great abundance, a strong military can be forged. Absolute military power is irrelevant; even doctrine, training, and equipment take a backseat to the economic aspects.

I agree that it is the more important facet of warfare, but not the only facet. Stronger economical powers don't always win : see the Roman Empire vs Franks & Germans ; France in 1940, wich was much more rich than Germany ; Kuwait in 1990 ; France and USA in Indochina/Viet-Nam ; ...

In 1914, the U.S. was unparalleled in industrial strength, and certainly very strong with regards to natural resources. But Calanctus, you say, the U.S. in 1914 was a local power, incapable of projecting influence beyond its own continent. The U.S. had incredible military potential, and as we all know, influence can be acquired, whether with currency or bombs. Therefore, I say the U.S. was the most powerful country in the world after the late-18th century. It's just that nobody would know it until 1945.

Most powerful country since 1800 ? Guy, you ought to go back to school. Half of Europe was heavily industrialized before the US, including England, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany. Most of US wealth is due to the immigrants, thanks to their cheap manpower, and to slaves, another kind of cheap manpower. Both advantages European powers didn't have anymore for a long time. But in 1865, they were still importing finished goods from Europe, while exporting raw materials (cotton). During Napoleon's era, they benefitted of the conflict to buy, for almost nothing, Louisiana, which extended all the way to Canada ; without this, what would the States look like ? What if the Secession War had evolved differently (some European states were close to help the Confederates) ?

Having an incredible potential doesn't mean you'll surely achieve it. Real influence needs proofs, and as I said, the only medal USA had was earned on the back of a decaying Spain, which had lost it's leadership for two centuries. And AFAIK all the battles were fought in America.

Additionally, lawkeeper, I have a problem with one of your presumptions. You vastly underrate Germany's military-industrial capacity in 1914. Paul Kennedy's figures in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (and I apologize for not having them on me) indicate that German industrial power was not slightly more than France's; it was considerably higher than every other country's, with the obvious exception of the U.S. It's true that the Second Reich suffered from resource shortages, but in 1914, Germany was in every way, shape, and form more suited to fighting a war with France, whether you want to look at equipment, doctrine, training, or manpower.

What were the natural resources of Germany without its colonies ? Coal and iron, yes, but not much else. So they knew that against United Kingdom, they were doomed if the war longed. OTOH, France, allied with UK, had an easy supply from its own colonies. IIRC, Kennedy was rather near-sighted, and was only taking into accounts some 'parts' of industrialization, those parts that were in accord with his theories.
Moreover, if you look at the war, you can see that the most-heavily industrialized regions of France were the fields of battle, while Germany saw no fighting on its ground. But France's economy and unity didn't break.
Both Reich suffered of the same resource shortages, even if slightly different in intensity.

 

[unmerged(2920)]

I want to know why people are so severely underestimating the U.S. in 1914. Sure, the military was miniscule, but so what? The most important facet of warfare is the economic one. With a strong industrial base and lots of natural resources, both of which the U.S. had in great abundance, a strong military can be forged. Absolute military power is irrelevant; even doctrine, training, and equipment take a backseat to the economic aspects.

In 1914, the U.S. was unparalleled in industrial strength, and certainly very strong with regards to natural resources. But Calanctus, you say, the U.S. in 1914 was a local power, incapable of projecting influence beyond its own continent. The U.S. had incredible military potential, and as we all know, influence can be acquired, whether with currency or bombs. Therefore, I say the U.S. was the most powerful country in the world after the late-18th century. It's just that nobody would know it until 1945.

Additionally, lawkeeper, I have a problem with one of your presumptions. You vastly underrate Germany's military-industrial capacity in 1914. Paul Kennedy's figures in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (and I apologize for not having them on me) indicate that German industrial power was not slightly more than France's; it was considerably higher than every other country's, with the obvious exception of the U.S. It's true that the Second Reich suffered from resource shortages, but in 1914, Germany was in every way, shape, and form more suited to fighting a war with France, whether you want to look at equipment, doctrine, training, or manpower.

a strong military can be forged but will not be done in a small time. even in 1917 they had to be equiped by the french wich where with the english a lot more in advance in all war things (tanks, planes,....) having the possibility to forge a military and having one is not the same thing. they didn't have any military potential outside america except in some few places like phillipina (due to the war with spain). they can not project power at a long scale (remember that for doing so you need at that time coaling station on the way for your ships, russia needed the help of france for her ship to go from the baltics to the pacific in 1905). they have no influences in europe also and almost non in asia (no port in china just a legation at shangai, japan can defend himself, russia is not inflenced and the rest is inflenced by england or france).
you say influence can be acquired, but if so why is it not the wealthiest that is the most powerfull? politicis and country relation is not reduced to money.

 

[arcorelli]

In 1914, the U.S. was unparalleled in industrial strength, and certainly very strong with regards to natural resources. But Calanctus, you say, the U.S. in 1914 was a local power, incapable of projecting influence beyond its own continent. The U.S. had incredible military potential, and as we all know, influence can be acquired, whether with currency or bombs. Therefore, I say the U.S. was the most powerful country in the world after the late-18th century. It's just that nobody would know it until 1945.

Minor nitpicking, but I guess late-18th century should be replaced by late-19th century. The 1890s' US is a very different nation that the 1790's US.

 

[unmerged(2920)]

Minor nitpicking, but I guess late-18th century should be replaced by late-19th century. The 1890s' US is a very different nation that the 1790's US.

still US's in 1890 are far from a world power. you can see in 1914 influence in a various way all around the world of UK, France and Germany but almost none of the US outside of the american continent (philipinna and shangai mostly)

 

[unmerged(5459)]

Additionally, lawkeeper, I have a problem with one of your presumptions. You vastly underrate Germany's military-industrial capacity in 1914. Paul Kennedy's figures in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (and I apologize for not having them on me) indicate that German industrial power was not slightly more than France's; it was considerably higher than every other country's, with the obvious exception of the U.S. It's true that the Second Reich suffered from resource shortages, but in 1914, Germany was in every way, shape, and form more suited to fighting a war with France, whether you want to look at equipment, doctrine, training, or manpower.

We've been studying WWI for History, and one aspect is how effectively economies were mobilised.
It seems, from what we've read, German economic mobilisation was very effective and comprehensive from the word go, bringing munitions, agriculture, trade and industry under state control.
Britain was also very effective, but only came into play in 1915 when the war started to strain things.
France, on the other hand, recovered remarkably well after the initial shock (75% of lost production is recovered by 1915), but it lacked real direction and drive.

So this in a sense supports what Calanctus says, though one must add that the German economy could not cope with fighting two fronts and being cut off from resources and food for so long.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

We've been studying WWI for History, and one aspect is how effectively economies were mobilised.
It seems, from what we've read, German economic mobilisation was very effective and comprehensive from the word go, bringing munitions, agriculture, trade and industry under state control.
Britain was also very effective, but only came into play in 1915 when the war started to strain things.
France, on the other hand, recovered remarkably well after the initial shock (75% of lost production is recovered by 1915), but it lacked real direction and drive.

So this in a sense supports what Calanctus says, though one must add that the German economy could not cope with fighting two fronts and being cut off from resources and food for so long.

Well, as I sais, I suppose this leakage is due to France's prime industrial regions being occupied and/or plundered by Germany ?

Besides, I don't exactly understand what you say about real direction and drive ? IIRC, France's industry was much more dirigist than Britain's, while still less than Germany's. And if drive is motives, they had to free their own country, so I guess it's was greater motives than Britains' ?

 

[arcorelli]

still US's in 1890 are far from a world power. you can see in 1914 influence in a various way all around the world of UK, France and Germany but almost none of the US outside of the american continent (philipinna and shangai mostly)

That is true, but US was an economic powerhouse at the beginning of the XX century. Being a world power was simply a matter of time. (between the motives for launch the 1918 german offensives it was the fact of try to win the war before the US weight could be felt)