StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How important was the US intervention in WW1? Was it necessary for the victory of the Entente powers? If all it did was hasten the end, how much did it hasten it?

How effective was German submarine warfare?

Germany would've eventually lost. Direct US intervention certainly aided, and sped things up a great deal. US materiel was greatly appreciated as well.

After the "Miracle" on the Marne and the Battle of Verdun, German offensive strikes really never picked up again, but Germany had incredibly strong defenses, and the allies had incredibly incompetent leaders.

There were two overlying strategies, all relying on time. The allies thought to bleed the Germans out. They knew that they could outproduce and outfield the Germans. The Germans knew they could outfight the allies and make the war costly enough to sue for peace. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Germans were also caught up in a many fronted war thanks to worthless allies. So the Germans were at a distinct disadvantage.

In the beginning of the war, the British Expeditionary Force was all but wiped out entirely, but they replenished it and kept sending their men through the mill long before the US got there.

The French, after General Nivelle screwed the pooch big time went mutinous and never lead an offensive again.

Overseas battles in the colony were pretty one sided, except in Africa where a SMALL German force slapped the allied forces silly, and a beachhead in Turkey bled the allied forces for a while as well.

All of this was before US intervention.

The German surface fleet was tied up by the Kaisers paranoia after Jutland.

Submarine warfare was losing its effectiveness thanks to the convoy system and the cracking of their code, and the German high command knew that they could not win through their submarine warfare.

So when the Americans finally did come around, all they did was to help tip the domino.

In April of 1917, when the US declared war, Britain was a few weeks from a critical situation due to unrestricted submarine warfare. This fact was kept from the US until Rear Admiral Sims arrived in London and reported the actual state of affairs to Washington.
U-Boat attacks on British shipping were causing catastrophic losses during April-May 1917, the convoy system wasn't implemented until late in May. Even then, it was in large part due to US tonnage and building rates that Britain was able to keep in the war, losses remined very high practically up until the end.

Had the US not entered the war, it could have ended a year or more earlier than it did, and Britain could have been at the bargaining table with Germany discussing completely different terms than Churchill imagined when he made his remarks about US involvement prolonging the war some years later.

GREAT i guess Canada's part in this war doesn't count

Montcalm wrote:GREAT i guess Canada's part in this war doesn't count

Given that the question was about US intervention in the war, I don't see why you're getting your panties in a bunch.

Frank Hipper wrote:In April of 1917, when the US declared war, Britain was a few weeks from a critical situation due to unrestricted submarine warfare. This fact was kept from the US until Rear Admiral Sims arrived in London and reported the actual state of affairs to Washington.
U-Boat attacks on British shipping were causing catastrophic losses during April-May 1917, the convoy system wasn't implemented until late in May. Even then, it was in large part due to US tonnage and building rates that Britain was able to keep in the war, losses remined very high practically up until the end.

Wrong war. The fact remains that the US merchant marine only consisted of up to 10% of the ships.

I don't think that the Entente powers could realistically DEFEAT Germany without the US jumping in with them, but the two sides would have worked themselves out eventually. They simply didn't have that many more men to send up to the front lines.

Master of Ossus wrote:I don't think that the Entente powers could realistically DEFEAT Germany without the US jumping in with them, but the two sides would have worked themselves out eventually. They simply didn't have that many more men to send up to the front lines.

Well they can replace able men at the rear with women and the very young and old, but eventually things will grind to a halt.(Quite some time) Also, that mens less citizens to man the home front. That assumes the US won't intervene I think both sides won't want to squander what little manpower they have left. The men may also choose mutiny if faced with death as some French troops did.

I don't think that the Entente powers could realistically DEFEAT Germany without the US jumping in with them, but the two sides would have worked themselves out eventually. They simply didn't have that many more men to send up to the front lines.

I don't know about every source, but most of the sources I have looked at show the vast superiority of Germany and the Central Powers. The Germans were quite successful compared to the Allied powers, for they had better leaders, and good tactics. I think one book I have shows a majority of offensive victories fell into their hands due to this benefit.

They also said France was not faring too well, and since russia pulled out, Germany could concentrate all firepower forward.

I don't think the Allies would have been able defeat the Central powers w/out the support of the United States. The US did not engage in MUCH conflict, and most of the time, they fought under foreign unit's banners, but morally and economically, the US turned the tide of the war.

Imagine fighting for several years, and you are defeating your oponents in the East and in the West through brilliant leadership and attrition. Suddenly, a new nation..a rising power econimcally and militarilly, rushes into the conflict unscaythed, not demoralized due to long war, and bristiling with economic power and new troops ready to fight. Not to mention you cannot get at their homeland easily like you can mainland european powers.

The German surface fleet was tied up by the Kaisers paranoia after Jutland.

I never really understood this decision. Why not sent them out to go "merchant raiding". They weren't doing Germany any good sitting in port.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:

The German surface fleet was tied up by the Kaisers paranoia after Jutland.

I never really understood this decision. Why not sent them out to go "merchant raiding". They weren't doing Germany any good sitting in port.

This seems to be a characteristic with nations which aren't "natural" maritime powers or led by people who don't understand what a navy exists for. Those grand battleships take on the role of national status symbols. To lose any of them is deemed a disaster; a blow to national "honour" and a source of demoralisation. No, it's not sensible but such attitudes have been known to exist to the extent that they override military logic. The leaders become so obsessed with not losing part or all of their grand fleets that they lose sight of how to win the war at sea. They tend to think entirely in defensive terms to the exclusion of all other considerations; using the fleet as a floating deterrent line instead of employing it effectively against the enemy, or they will only risk a battle at sea if they can be assured of having an utterly overwhelming advantage. As a result of this philosophy, Kaiser Wilhelm hamstrung his admirals and destroyed the morale of the navy and, barring the U-boat force, removed it from the equation after Jutland.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
I never really understood this decision. Why not sent them out to go "merchant raiding". They weren't doing Germany any good sitting in port.

There loss would be a huge morale blow, and well into 1918 Germany still had a chance of winning the war or at least getting a favorable negotiated peace, losing the fleet would weaken Germanys position at the negotiating table and postwar. Besides that, with the exception of some cruisers German warships where designed for missions closed to home. They had horribly cramped living facilities and small stores capacities, and while many had fairly good range in terms of fuel capacity, even 8000 miles doesn't go very far when your heading into the Atlantic (and that's at the rather slow speed of 10 knots), and these are coal fired warships, you cannot refuel them at sea, refueling coal fired warships is hard enough in port. They also lack decent sea keeping capability with there low freeboards. So sending the High Seas Fleet into the Atlantic would be a deathride.

In 1918 the High Seas Fleet however did make one sortie to attack a rather more practical objective in the form of a convoy from Norway (several pervious convoys had been attacked with cruisers, leading to them being escorted by capital warships). But several things went wrong, first there intelligence was wrong and the convoy had already reached Britain, though they didn't know that. More importantly one dreadnought struck a mine and broke radio silence, thus alerting the Royal Navy. That blew the mission and the fleet returned to port. The next time it was ordered to sortie, for a death ride, though one against the Grand Fleet, it mutinied and the rest is history.

PainRack wrote: Wrong war. The fact remains that the US merchant marine only consisted of up to 10% of the ships.

Hardly, the US had 12 million tons of shipping by the end of the war. The rest of the allies did not have 120 million tons of shipping, not by a longshot. On top of that the US's 4 million tons of new construction from 1917-1918 was nearly equal to all new British construction during the entire war.

Thirdfain wrote:How important was the US intervention in WW1? Was it necessary for the victory of the Entente powers? If all it did was hasten the end, how much did it hasten it?

How effective was German submarine warfare?

It'll be very close, without those extra US troops and supplies. It depends whether allied incompetence will lose the war before Germany runs out of supplies and begs for peace.

Boo! Fuck the Kaiser! Prick ran my mother's family outta Germany when he seized their shoe factory!

Of course, if he hadn't, I wouldn't exist now... But "Boo!" nonetheless!

The way I understood it was that if America hadn't come into the war the Allies would simply have lacked the man power to force the Germans out of France and Belgium, and that you'd have a treaty like 1870 setting the currently held lines as the new boundaries. Germany might demand some economic aid (if I recall correctly the government refused to raise taxes throughout the war,) but other than that not much else.

I seem to remember Churchill once saying that if the Americans had stayed out the war would have ended in a draw relativly quickly, but I don't remember the reasons and can't find the quote.