How important was American reinforcements to defeating the Germans in World War 1?

Question

I notice in British Academia today, they seem to downplay, if not ignore the American contributions to victory. In particular they seem to have a belief if American didn't send soldiers to aid in the final years of 1917-18, it wouldn't have mattered. The Allies still would have won the war because the British had blockaded every major German port and both the British and French were going to be reinforced by foreign soldiers from their colonies. That the American contribution was miniscule at best and the French and British didn't even need American supply aid because they simply would have grabbed supplies from their own colonies.

But in American Academia, they emphasize that AMERICAN AID was essential to defeating the Germans. Not only aid in supplies, but American military scientists and historians emphasize that WITHOUT American soldiers backing the French trenches during the final years of the war, the French line would have cracked and the British would be in a vulnerable position. Possibly the British army would be wiped out and the Germans would march into Paris.

These are the two extremes I've seen. In between there is the French view who not only generally praise the American soldier and are grateful for the American aid but they even admitted they doubt without American soldiers that they would have been able to hold off the final assault.

Answer 1

World war one was the Great War, the War to End all Wars, the Liars War. More and better liars were told, than all the american wars combined, including Vietnam.



First, the US was not neutral. In 1914 the British Army needed 3 million riffles. Guess were they got them. Enfield peddler rifles were manufactured in the US, shipped to Britain as "parts" and assembled with a screw driver. By January 1917 the US was providing half of all French TNT, and most of the steel for the French armament industry. Plus food for British and French workers. US banks and investors held 1/3 of all allied war debt. None of this was in the newspapers at the time.



The British and French press lords did the greatest service new paper men could ever do for their country. They Lied like dogs. In Germany the press was controlled, so nobody believed them. But Britain and France had the freest press in the world, everyone believed them, and they lied just about everything. The Entente would have lost the first year, if not for the press.



The British and French press lords did a deal deal with american newspapers. You report the war as we tell you, or we will cut you off from all news, and get your advertisers who are making tons of money off this to cut you off as well. Who would buy a newspaper with two week old news, so almost everyone fell into line. The fact the Lusitania was blown up 20 feet out of the water before she sank was hidden.



The press was so good, even the French and British generals believed it. Why do you think they kept on attacking in a suicidal way. Because according to the newspaper reports, the attacks were brilliant. One more push and it's on to Berlin.



As late as the 1970's, american high school history books repeated allied propaganda. The fact is the Germans were slaughtering allied soldiers at a rate of three to one for most of the war.



The French viewpoint is based on the fact that France would have been beaten with out the British and the Americans. Things were so bad, the French put Marshall Petain in charge, the only senior general who studied the american civil war. Petain rejected all military doctrine, because it did not work, and developed new tactics at Verdun, which took the British two years to adopt.



An interesting point. Most american officers studied the Franco Prussian war in collage. Most German officers studied the american civil war in collage. But the French and British did not study the american civil war in collage. In 1914 only two countries had modern artillery schools, Germany and the US. and most of the american text books were ripped off from the Germans.

Answer 2

The Russian Empire did not official stop fighting until early 1918, following which they redeployed troops to the Western Front and launched the Spring Offensive. By the time this offensive was launched, Germany was in a state. There was an increase in number of German troops being redeployed west that were going Awol. The Spanish Flu was effecting the frontline troops in the west. The blockade, while perhaps not war winning by itself, was causing a lot of pressure on the German population and there was an increase in industrial strikes and food riots. The German navy mutinied and Germany was on the verge of revolution. The American entry into the war did not cause these, or increase them. These were long term problems effecting Germany that had been caused by a war that was being waged for four years: that is not British or European revisionism.



The German Spring Offensive did not inflict a decisive defeat on either British, French, or Americans and ran out of steam and reinforcements before they could fully breech the lines. I personally doubt Paris was in danger, and too much damage and death had been inflicted on the French for them to bow out the war on the hypothetical loss of their capital. The British and French were able to deploy reserves and transfer fresh troops from other theaters and utilized these along with American troops to defeat the now overstretched German military who lacked any formidable reserves.



At any rate, my understanding is that there was not any formidable American force on the frontline - or spread out over the front in smaller units - during the time of the Spring Offensive and it was only as the year progressed that American numbers started to be felt. By which time, the Hundred Days Offensive had already been launched. A mere ten per cent of casualties during the latter offensive were American, which to a degree highlights that they played a smaller role compared to the British and French empires. One should not overplay the American military contribution (they clearly did not win the war in 1918 by themselves), but one shouldn't downplay it either (earlier industrial and financial support, the morale boost by their entry, and their military support during 1918).

Answer 3

If u . s . a . of america hadn't gotten into the wars, Britain would've been conquered. and no one disputes that. call it what you want. ADDENDUM: truly, bypass back and browse what Churchill develop into affirming on the time. He develop into on his knees praying that u . s . a . of america would get contained in the conflict. And even as the eastern bombed Pearl Harbor, Churchill develop into relieved, because he knew u . s . a . of america would get into the conflict, and that the Allies would win. He had no illusions and no pretend delight. and that i'm no longer insulting the British. Britain has executed tons for this international, together with being the in reality us of a contained in the international (at one factor) who develop into resisting the Nazis. although that is a reality. Britain did no longer have the generating base to save up with the Germans, nor might want to they take care of their delivery antagonistic to the U-boats, maximum extremely, adequate to import each and each and every of the textile they required. So American production and delivery helped the British, possibly as a lot as American troops. no one is affirming that American troops fought better acceptable or were braver. i imagine you're determining on a wrestle that no one needs to wrestle.

Answer 4

Actually the presence of the American troops to throw into the breach created when the French front line collapsed during the Ludendorff Offensive in 1918 saved the day. If the green Americans had not stopped the veteran Germans Paris would have fallen knocking France out of the war, and forcing the British to come to terms with the victorious Germans.



When I worked offshore in the North Sea in the late 70s I came across this British attitude that the US had not contributed much to the victory of WW I. There are America-bashers today who are trying to say we did not really contribute much to WW II either, and just road the victorious coattails of the British/Soviet victories.



Mostly these are just attempts to diminish the American contribution to the history of the twentieth-century, and "put us in our place" as a bunch of second-rate braggarts who are just self-important. This is a left-wing liberal (or British nationalist) revisionist account of history.

Answer 5

In November 1917 Germans had major success - Russia had capitulated and even agreed to support Germany with natural resources as the condition of the peace treaty.



So much for British blockade. Germany could win that war at that point.



Even Ottoman Empire could recover much of the lost territory when Russian forces went home from the front lines.



If US with her unlimited resources would not compensated Entente the loss of Russian Empire with her unlimited resources, Entente would lose.

Answer 6

France and Britain were running out of men, money, and energy. They might have outlasted the Germans, who were doing the same, but that's very speculative. Not only did the reputation of the USMC take huge strides for its performance, and the US Army fill a strong spot in the line, but the strategic implications of having a new source of manpower and money have to be even more important.