 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
How important was the US military involvement (as apart from the economic and political) in WW1 really?
The German Spring offensive was broken by the Second Marne, and that battle was fought by the French and British with, at best, minimal US support. As far as I know, American forces did not begin arriving in quantity by may and june 1918. Also, Germany faced far greater economic pressures than either the Uk or France. After the 1917 mutinies, the French seemed more compossed,and in the west they did not face the creeping starvation one saw in Germany or the Habsburg empire. |
The United States had about 500,000 men in France by the end of March 1918. The combat units were technically organized into 5 divisions, but the Allied high command demanded that these troops be distributed among British and French formations. The US was not allowed to field a division sized unit until late April, 1918. The Germans actually launched 5 seperate offensives in the spring of 1918, the last starting in June. US forces in divisional strength were deployed against this offensive and were instrumental in stopping it. By the end of summer 1918 the US had more than one million men in France. Until Americans began arriving in large numbers in the summer of 1918 German troop strength had actually exceeded Allied troop strength on the western front, even after the failed offensives, so it is unlikely that without American reinforcements that the allies would have been able to stage successful counter offensives in 1918. Mind you the high command would have felt obligated to attempt some sort of response to German gains earlier in the year. One wonders what would have happened if the allies had launched inadequately supported offensives in the summer of 1918?
American food definitely helped keep the western allies afloat. Combined Franco-British agriculture by the later years of the war declined. It's hard to say what would have happened if the year of 1918 had been a military disaster for the allies due to a lack of reinforcements AND the allied home economies had not had the addtitional support from the USA. People in Britain and France might not have beeen as famished as the Germans, but in the absence of success they might have become just as desparate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:25
|
|
Oerdin's history plays fast and loose with facts- the Hundred Years' War after all ended decidely in France's favour, with the 'English'/Plantagenet monarchy becoming a non-mainland monarchy, with the loss of Gascony, Aquitaine and other rich provinces, that had meant so much to the 'English' crown since the days of Eleanore of Aquitaine, and that had provided easy access to Mediterranean art and influences. It ensured a French 'geographical' unity on a par with the Spanish Reconquista, and certainly foreshadowed the French hegemony under Louis Quatorze.
As for France not being a main participant in the Thirty Years War- that must be a relatively new, revisionist finding by some little known historian- one wonders after all, who smashed the power of the Spanish tercios at Rocroi, if not the French? And who ensured the collapse of Spanish power, and ended all hopes of Habsburg domination of Europe, if not Marechal Turenne fighting for Louis Treize and Cardinal Richelieu?
A certain Charles de Gaulle also formulated the idea of 'blitzkrieg' before the Germans, and any list of great military leaders that excluded Turenne or Napoleon (amongst others) would be a list not worth compiling.
Reasons to love France:
Francois Villon, Rabelais, Flaubert, Camembert, Roquefort, flan breton, calvados, Erik Satie, Matisse, Colette, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean Anouilh, Moliere, Rameau, Charpentier, the Auvergne, Cezanne, Degas, Toulouse Lautrec, Victor Hugo, the Quai d'Orsay, brie, madeleines, Edith Piaf, Claude Chabrol, Melville, Albert Camus, Fanny Ardant, Isabelle Huppert, Abelard, Guillaume de Machaut, Eleanor of Aquitaine, bouillabaisse, Georges de la Tour, Chardin, Watteau, Fragonard, l'Orangerie, Monet's garden, Francois Truffaut, fields of lavender in Provence, Les Negresses Vertes, Voltaire, Mont St. Michel, et cetera et cetera...
...and Serge Gainsbourg defiantly singing a reggae version of 'la Marseillaise' despite death threats from right wing elements. Vive la belle France.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
The United States had about 500,000 men in France by the end of March 1918. The combat units were technically organized into 5 divisions, but the Allied high command demanded that these troops be distributed among British and French formations. The US was not allowed to field a division sized unit until late April, 1918. The Germans actually launched 5 seperate offensives in the spring of 1918, the last starting in June. US forces in divisional strength were deployed against this offensive and were instrumental in stopping it. |
It has always been my understanding that the German offensives became less effective as time went by as they became more desperate to claw a victory. I don't see how American troops could be 'instrumental' against what were effectively last ditch desperate measures. The casualties from these offensives were immense, often 50% of their elite troops. Each offensive sealed their doom even more.
quote:
By the end of summer 1918 the US had more than one million men in France. Until Americans began arriving in large numbers in the summer of 1918 German troop strength had actually exceeded Allied troop strength on the western front, even after the failed offensives, so it is unlikely that without American reinforcements that the allies would have been able to stage successful counter offensives in 1918. Mind you the high command would have felt obligated to attempt some sort of response to German gains earlier in the year. One wonders what would have happened if the allies had launched inadequately supported offensives in the summer of 1918? |
I disagree. The Allies had overwhelming artillery, tank and aircraft superiority, which at this point is the deciding factor. If manpower is so all-important, then it would have taken more than a million Americans to put the Allies in complete numerical supremacy, and thus in your view, 'adequately' support offensives.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maroule
|
|
thanks Molly and Alexander Horse!
don't worry too much though, 'les chiens aboient et la caravane passe '
('the dogs are barking but the caravan still moves along')
I felt bad some time ago to see some French stupidly and crassly anti-americans, but I now see that moronic stereotypes are duly spread around 
As for the debate on US contribution on WWI, that's another point, and interesting one. Economic support was certainly vital, and that alone justifies gratitude. I'm not so sure about the military support, though, but it's a moot point. The essential issue, however, is how the US 'lost' the post war, and how Wilson's dream was destroyed by a reactionnary Congress and isolationnist policies that ended up by costing everybody a great deal of harm... At least this point wasn't lost on Marshall.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
I disagree. The Allies had overwhelming artillery, tank and aircraft superiority, which at this point is the deciding factor. If manpower is so all-important, then it would have taken more than a million Americans to put the Allies in complete numerical supremacy, and thus in your view, 'adequately' support offensives. |
Uhhhhh........ Did I not make it clear that by the summer of 1918 the US did indeed have more than one million troops in France?
The allies had numerical superiority on the western front from 1915 to 1917 and still broke division after division attacking German lines. At this time the available instruments of warfare favored the defensive. Tanks were still far too unreliable to be effective weapons. Most broke down within a few miles of their start points. Tanks also suffered from severe command control problems as there was virtually no way that tasnks could communicate between each other or with command in battle. Tanks that managed to keep running by the time they hit enemy lines often then wandered aimlessly and ineffectively until they inevitabley broke down. Airplanes still were unable to effectively bomb as they could carry only a few hundred pounds of bombs, and still had no bombsights. Straffing wasn't very effective either, as the planes could not dive steeply enough to target the ground without risking a fatal loss of control.
Let's also not forget that even before the US entered the war the government of Great Britain had gone bankrupt, and became dependent upon American financial aid. By 1917 it could be said that the US was effectively paying for the allied war effort. Without US financial support the allies would have been orced to pay their troops and suppliers in inflated currency that would haver been essentially worhtles. Given all three factors which would have entered operation if the US had not been on the allied side: lack of sufficient reinforcements needed to stage counter-offensives, lack of food supplies to stave off starvation, and lack of money to pay troops and munitions suppliers I think you can understand that by the end of 1918 it might very well have been the allies who would have had to call off the war due to spreading rebellions in their cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
|
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
Yes, I did get it that there were more than a million American troops by summer 1918. My point is that this was not enough to put the Allies in total numerical supremacy. It would have taken another million or two to do this.
Besides, if the weapons still favoured a defensive stance as you seem to be suggesting, then the American troops would have very little effect.
Tanks were not a war-winner, but they had evolved considerably during the war, and by the summer of 1918 were becoming more formidable. They certainly did outrun their communications; just like the infantry.
The German airforce was virtually grounded by the end of the war due to a lack of spare parts. Whilst the offensive role of planes was very limited, the Germans undoubtably suffered from being unable to observe Allied movements.
Advances in artilley played a large role, with Allied artillery being far better than the German at this point. New tactics, such as the creeping barrage, and superior counter-battery fire reduced the dominance of the defensive posture.
I've never heard of Britain being bankrupt by 1918. Regardless, even if the US had not entered the war, the credit and food would still have been available, and was certainly very welcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maroule
thanks Molly and Alexander Horse!
don't worry too much though, 'les chiens aboient et la caravane passe '
('the dogs are barking but the caravan still moves along')
I felt bad some time ago to see some French stupidly and crassly anti-americans, but I now see that moronic stereotypes are duly spread around
|
De rien.
I forgot to mention Catherine Deneuve, Yves Montand, Boucher, Massenet, Charles Trenet, Jacques Tati, Bertrand Tavernier, Berlioz, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Violette le Duc, Arletty, Jean Genet, Jean Vigo, Louis Malle, Francoise Hardy, Juliette Greco, Delphine Seyrig, Fontainebleau, Beauvais, Chartres, Moissac, Aix-en-Provence, Raymond Radiguet, Sarah Bernhardt, 'Le Samourai', Alain Delon....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
Yes, I did get it that there were more than a million American troops by summer 1918. My point is that this was not enough to put the Allies in total numerical supremacy. It would have taken another million or two to do this.
|
Yes it was, because by July 1918 the allies DID have a numerical superiority on the western front. Statistically the British and French were not even able to completely replace their losses in the spring of 1918. The bulk of replacements arriving on the western front in the summer of 1918 were Americans, some 600,000 disembarking in June and July alone!quote:
I've never heard of Britain being bankrupt by 1918. Regardless, even if the US had not entered the war, the credit and food would still have been available, and was certainly very welcome. |
I think the crisis actually occured in 1916! The British government was about to default on its obligations (payrolls, payments, and loans) when Wall Street stepped in at the request of Pennsylavannia Ave and Downing St.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
ZNet Commentary
The Friendly French Resistance February 18, 2003
By Diana Johnstone
Only George W. Bush can match Jean-Marie Le Pen when it comes to bringing protesters into the streets of Paris. The estimated 250,000 people who demonstrated in the French capital on February 15 were clearly a cross section of the whole population, united in a rare consensus against U.S. plans to make war against Iraq.
Several thousand "Americans against the Bush war" joined the good-natured march down the boulevards, basking in the winter sunshine and the warm applause that greeted the "good Americans" all along the the boulevards from the Latin Quarter to the Bastille. "French anti-Americanism" as decried in U.S. newspapers is largely an invention pro-war propagandists trying to discredit any source of criticism by attributing it to dark sentiments such as anti-semitism. "USA we love you -- listen to us!" was the characteristic message on one of numerous home-made signs.
Anti-American no, anti-Bush yes! "War begins with Dubya", "Bush-Sharon assassins", "Bush, l'empire du pire", "Stop la Busherie" (a play on the word "butchery" in French), "Cowboy go back to your ranch"... Very many demonstrators were calling for "justice for Palestine" and for an "alternative globalisation".
A big banner showed photos of Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush side by side, the first labelled "Iraqi dictator", the second "world dictator". This may sum up the dominant sentiment behind the extraordinary worldwide protest on February 15: the perception the greatest threat to world peace today is the arsenal of weapons of mass destruction brandished by a leader who may not be a dictator at home but whose ambition to impose a "New Order" on the world unconsciously echoes Adolf Hitler.
While Jay Leno recycles ancient racist stereotypes of the "cowardly" French, in Europe it is obvious that today it takes far more courage to resist U.S. dictates than to go along with them -- especially in France, certain to serve as whipping boy of culturally challenged Americans.
It is hard to escape noticing that people do not oppose war because they are bullied by Saddam, but rather because they don't want to be bullied by the United States into supporting a war against a battered, disarmed, sanctioned and regularly bombed Arab country, a war the U.S. is sure to win... and then what? The happy end envisaged by the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Perle crowd is perceived elsewhere as delirium.
The French reaction has been very unruffled to the openly contemptuous attitude of the Bush administration, notably the famous distinction between "old Europe" and "new Europe" made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Europeans can be simply amused by being called "old", considering "old" goes with "wise".
However, the joke turned serious a week after Rumsfeld's snide remark, when the "new" Europe stood up to be counted in the form of a statement in the Wall Street Journal signed by the leaders of eight countries: Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark. Citing "shared values", the eight proclaimed their fidelity to Washington on grounds of gratitude -- a sort of new feudalism in international relations.
This open split within Europe put a sudden end to the longstanding illusion that the European Union was gradually developing a "common foreign policy". The hawks in Washington could chortle at having "isolated" Paris and Berlin. But the main point was that this gambit brought out into the open a heretofore unmentionable reality: that the United States is using the eastward expansion of both NATO and the European Union to cripple western Europe politically.
The intrusive U.S. insistence that the European Union should include Turkey goes in the same direction: a "Union" so divided in basic political outlook will never be able to offer coherent resistance to U.S. policy dictates.
For reasons of tact and diplomatic courtesy to the United States, this has been a nearly tabou subject in European political discussion. The tabou has been brutally broken by Rumsfeld and the manoeuvre of the eight "new" Europeans. The U.S. effort to divide and dominate Europe is now open and obvious, and there is no more point in being discreet about it. Tony Blair's self-proclaimed role as "mediator" turns out to be that of helping the United States divide and rule the continent.
The long term repercussions of this open sabotage of European unity in favor of the American empire are unforeseeable. The first open act of resistance followed rapidly when Germany, France and Belgium balked at playing along with the U.S. ploy of calling for NATO measures to "defend Turkey from the threat of attack from Iraq" -- a blatant pretext to involve NATO officially in the war preparations. Accustomed to having its vassals credulously bow to every pretext it offers in pursuit of its aims, the bully was furious. The Bushites stormed that the laggards were completely "isolated".
The millions who marched in London, Rome and Madrid on February 15 made it clear that the leaders isolated from their own people were the ones who had proclaimed their allegiance to Emperor Bush II. Even before anti-war sentiment got a fresh boost from the UN Security Council meeting and the demonstrations, opinion polls all across Europe were showing overwhelming majorities -- from 70% to 90% -- opposed to war without, or even with, a U.N. Security Council mandate. Some of the strongest opposition was in Rumsfeld's "new Europe" -- Britain (90%), Spain (91%), Poland (72%), Hungary (82%).
The most politically significant message of the Paris demonstration, expressed on many signs and banners, was the demand that France use its Security Council veto to block a new resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. Rather by accident, France has found itself speaking for an enormous groundswell of world public opinion. Originally, president Jacques Chirac may (as his outraged critics in U.S. punditry allege) have intended merely to strut and fret his hour upon the stage, before following the U.S. into the war as Mitterrand did in the first Gulf War: "to preserve France's place at the peace settlement". That is clearly what the U.S. administration expected. That is what very many French people and European observers also expected of a Chirac who is considered jovial but vacillating and opportunist.
French diplomacy made an important contribution to drafting U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 adopted last November 8, calling for fresh U.N. inspections to make sure Iraq is rid of all weapons of mass destruction. The resolution was ambiguous enough to be seen merely as a method to justify war, as there were countless possibilities to declare non-compliance and no clear definition of compliance.
Perhaps, if the Iraqis had been less cooperative, the United States less arrogant, and public opinion more indifferent, France would have accepted a U.S. declaration of non-compliance and gone along with war, even reluctantly. That is what the United States expected. Instead, France has insisted that disarming Iraq is the real goal -- taking Resolution 1441 literally. The Bush administration, whose real goal all along was regime change, not mere disarmament, feels betrayed.
However, France, like the hero who discovers his unexpected valor in the heat of crisis, has been taking its role more and more seriously. The brutal contempt of the Bush team has had an impact. The unusual burst of applause greeting French foreign minister Dominique Villepin's brilliant Valentine Day speech to the Security Council was a strong signal. Surprisingly, France now actually finds itself in a position of moral leadership -- a position that has been stunningly vacant for many years.
The latest French public opinion poll shows 71% calling on their government to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block any pro-war resolution. French political leaders are aware that France's Security Council veto, like its nuclear force de frappe, can be "a good deterrent so long as we don't use it".
The French example may already have encouraged more timid Security Council members to vote against a war resolution, so that no veto would be necessary. Concluding a television round table that included Richard Perle, former prime minister Raymond Barre advised his countrymen not to be overly impressed by the furious boycotts of French products that will follow France's refusal to go along with the U.S. adventure. After conquering Iraq, the United States will find itself in such a mess that it will need all the friends it can get. And by trying to warn the United States of the historic mistake it is making, France is as good a friend as one can find in international relations. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
|
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Yes it was, because by July 1918 the allies DID have a numerical superiority on the western front. Statistically the British and French were not even able to completely replace their losses in the spring of 1918. The bulk of replacements arriving on the western front in the summer of 1918 were Americans, some 600,000 disembarking in June and July alone! |
I said supremacy, not superiority. How could 'over one million' have made such a difference between victory and defeat, given your assertion that defensive weaponry was still paramount and the millions already on the front? Apart from the marines, the American troops were inexperienced, and had to be supplied with Allied artillery, tanks and planes. The AEF was also still much smaller than the French or British armies.
quote:
I think the crisis actually occured in 1916! The British government was about to default on its obligations (payrolls, payments, and loans) when Wall Street stepped in at the request of Pennsylavannia Ave and Downing St. |
I can't find any reference to this on the internet. Could you provide a source pleae?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-02-2003 22:34
If you say "Bonjour... Pouvez vous m'aider" (Hello, could you help me ?) to a Frenchman, he'll immediately love you, even if you continue the discussion in English 
.
Probably they were too far ahead of you 
|