Some Americans are fond of saying that the USA saved Europe in two world wars. I am of a different meaning for two reasons. What do you think?

It is evident to me that the USA made a huge difference in beating the evil Nazi-Germany in WWII, but WWI was a different story.

The USA declared war on Germany in 1917, but the first American troops did not arrive until after the faliure of General Ludendorff's giant attacks in the spring of 1918. The Brits and French managed to beat these German attacks. The Western Front had already started to move towards the German border before the arrival of the US troops. Britain had already beaten Turkey in the Middle East. Maybe the Central powers surrendered earlier than they would otherwise have done with the help of the Americans.

It was known in the General Staff of Germany even before the war that there would be a slim chance of winning against France if Britain would join France. Some historians say that if Britain would have expressly stated that she would support France earlier in the July crisis of 1914, there would never have been a war.

So, I claim that Britain and France would most likely have won without the USA.

The second pion is this. If Germany would have won, would it have been bad? I do not believe so. Germany at the time was a democracy. Its prime ally, Austria-Hungary, was already working on a new constitution before the war that was enacted in 1916 and would come to use as soon as the war was over, giving all the citizens of the multi-ethnic empire equal rights. What was it the USA saved Europe from? Well, a different future, not a worse future.

By the way, the Armenians and Greeks in Turkish territory are probably sad that the US Senate turned the peace treaty making after WWI down, otherwise the USA would have gotten control over the Turkish part of Armenia, which is about double the size of present day (former USSR state) Armenia, and Constantinople with surrounding countryside. If the USA would not have participated in WWI, some or all of this might have been mandates of some other Entente country.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

This should be an interesting thread...

__________________
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

Agreed.

Agreed.

Not agreed - and purely fanciful. Germany could not have won. Indeed, Ludendorf's last great break out victory dash for Paris is what cause the German loss. (once you cross no-man's-land, you are cut off from supply).

For the Germans to have won, they would have needed to reverse the dynamic and get the French/Brits to launch a huge successful offense - something that the French/Brits had proven repeatedly completely incapable of doing.

Germany won the battle and thus lost the war.

Not bloody likely. The first page or two maybe, but after that, I suspect it will deteriorate quickly.

I agree. We'll get some interesting comments and opinions, then a bunch of angry Americans who think we're talking about WWII.

__________________
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

This answer seems to be answering something else than my quote. The object of alternate history-discussions is to discus what might have happened, not necessarily how likely it would have been that this would have happened.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Actually this issue isn't did we make a difference in WWI, we didn't other than morale perhaps. What our entry in WWI did however was get the US in the frame of mind to think of ourselves globally. Before that and to a degree after that we were fairly isolationist. If it wasn't in the western hemisphere we didn't care. I suspect without the US getting involved in WWI it would have been even more difficult to get us involved in WWII in Europe at least. After being attacked by Japan, assuming that occured in this discussion of alternate history, we would have certainly gone to war in the pacific.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

I have never heard anyone say America saved Europe in two wars. And I have lived here for 41 years.

__________________

The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity; where everything is made simple, and in that simplification the truth is lost.

I find the thread subject to be mildly offensive. It subtracts from the laurels of people who have died and sacrificed for the freedom of France and England.

That being said, I will briefly address it nonetheless. I think that perhaps Germany would have been able to launch a more effective Spring offensive in 1918 had it not been for the fact that they knew that American reinforcements (250,000 by March as it turned out to be) were soon going to arrive. Germany at the time was recently buoyed by the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Russia, which freed some 60 regiments (IIRC) from Russia and allowed them to be used on the Western Front. Had Germany not been pressed by the urgency of the US entry into the war and thus been forced to dash for Paris, I think they could have made a better offensive, and possibly worn France down.

I think that the major problem facing the Germans was really that created by the British blockade on Germany and the shortages of food and other necessities this created on the home front in Germany.


WEB

I understand your point, but I don't think that it is an argument to consider when it comes to discussions on history or any other subject. People can always be offended by what you say, I respect that, but I will not keep quiet because of it. It is by no means my meaning to subtract anything from the laurels of people who died for what they believed in.

Interesting points.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I feel like I have to comment on this as well. The Brits invented the tank and they managed to launch several successful offensives towars the end of the war.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

[QUOTE=DGG;785294] Which Americans are you talking about? I have never heard an American say that the US "saved" Europe in regards to World War I. Certainly the US played a major role in the second world war.

I would agree. So would most Americans.

I would say this is probably accurate. Germany had essentially won the war in the east; the Russia of the Czars had been destroyed as a military power. (I wonder if the Kaiser really desired the destruction of the Romanovs, who were so closely related to so many "royals" throughout Europe - his cousin 'Nicky' and Alexandra, granddaughter of Queen Victoria? But that is another question...)

In the west, the stalemate was beginning to break. The entrance of the US into the war, with its untapped financial resources and its manpower, was probably perceived as a psychological blow to the Germans and helped to destroy any long-term plans of success they still hoped for.

Always an interesting question. The origins of the first world war remain a great riddle without a full answer. Endlessly fascinating.

Probably yes - but the losses were curtailed. Ludendorff's final push in the Srring of 1918 failed; after that it became clear that defeat would eventually follow.

Certainly the Germany of 1918 was a democracy and very far from a dictatorship, but it would hardly be perceived as the benevolent ruler for Belgium. Its government combined the structure of a democracy with a powerful military and the Hohenzollern ruling elite.

However, at that point, the Kaiser was on the verge of abdicating as his credibility had almost vanished. There is no way of knowing who would have replaced him had the Germans won the war: certainly the traditional, Prussian based military/aristocracy would have seen their power greatly enhanced.

In terms of Russia, you may have been right: It is certain that the Germans of 1918 would have been more benevolent rulers than the ferocious and sadistic Bolsheviks, who proceeded to turn post-revlutionary Russia into a hell on earth.

Another interesting question. The Austrian Empire had survived a millenium of change and compromise. Perhaps it could have survived in another form.

Quite absurd. You assume the truth of your own statement and then proceed to draw conclusions from it.

So therefore Americans are somehow responsible for part of the mess in Turkey and Armenia that resulted from the first world war? Rubbish - justy trendy anti-American nonsense.

The topic as a whole, however, is quite interesting - even thoughI reject your assumptions about Americans.

Sorry for off-topic posting, but do you always find it offensive, when people have opinions on past wars or other historical events that killed a lot of people? I mean in most wars both or atleast on side fights for freedom, but there tend to be differenting opinions about the effects of certain actions on the outcome. So do you think we shouldnt be able to discuss any past wars because someones opinion might subtract from the people who fought in those wars?

I really am not an expert on WWI so Im dont have much wisdom to share on the actual issue. But I hope you people keep discussing, because thats a good way to learn. And learn many sides of the story as there tends to be a different view on history on other sides of the globe.

[QUOTE=Tim;786873]Well, I said some, not all or even most. There are about 280 million Americans, aren't there? Is it hard to conceive that some of these may have this opinion on WWI?

I am certain a victorious Germany would have evacuated Belgium after the war and a peace treaty. Belgium surely would not lose much territory to Germany, if any.

If Germany would have won the war, I do not think the Emperor would have abdicated. Many Germans were in favour of the monarchy even after losing the war.

No, I would never claim that anybody is responsible for not acting under such circumstances. I am also opposed to fashionable anti-Americanism. Consider that most anti-Americans are opposed to "American imperialism", the fact that the USA did not seize Armenia and Constantinople as mandates is probably one of the few things such anti-Americans believe the USA did right, if they know about it at all. I, for my part, think it would have been better, had the USA seized these areas, but I would never blame America or Americans for the fact that the USA did not do this.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I consider alternate-history discussions to be silly.

My apologies for interfering.