Without a US intervention in WWI, what would have happened?

[Willhelm Gruber II]

Monash may have been a Week end Warrior (reserve) and a colonial, but a was a piece of justice to the Aussies in a War full of injustices, the ANZAC's loved him because he was one, not a tea sipping bugger like Hague and the others who sent Aussies to die at Gallipoli and Flanders, at one stage the Anzacs held 30% of british lines during the michael offensive

[sid guttridge]

Hi WG,

Monash sent men to their deaths just like "tea-sipping" generals. He necessarily had the same hardness as them or he couldn't have got the results he did. If I remember rightly, Australian casualties in WWI were proportionally higher than the British, even with Monash leading the former and Haigh the latter. The difference was that Monash was much more intelligent and skillful than almost all his contemporaries and got better battlefield results in return for his losses.

Gallipoli was actually well conceived strategically but poorly executed tactically. Haigh have nothing to do with either aspect. Furthermore, it is often forgotten that ANZAC losses there were only a small proportion of the whole. Gallipoli was overwhelmingly a British battle, however large it looms in the Australian historical psyche.

Finally, I find it unlikely in the extreme that the ANZACs held "30% of the British lines during the Michael Offensive". Firstly, I doubt the Michael Offensive fell on 30% of the British line. Secondly, I think the ANZACs weren't even in the line at its start. It is possible that at one brief stage the ANZACs held 30% of the British line immediately opposite the Michael Offensive, but this could probably be said of several British corps at various stages.

I personally think the ANZACs were the best large British or Dominion formation in WWI, and possibly the best on either side. However, it doesn't serve their historical memory well to exaggerate their already good performance.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Willhelm Gruber II]

point well taken forgive me i was drinking when i wrote that lol gotta stop doin that

also i think it just one of them Aussie legends, we like to have legends because we never get credit for anything in war so yea



-Willie

[sid guttridge]

Hi WG II,

We all have national myths. Newer countries are just unfortunate that their myths are recently formed and therefore more easily open to double checking.

However one looks at it, Gallipoli saw a coming of age for Australia in particular.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Willhelm Gruber II]

that is it infact what we say here, that the First World War was Australias coming of age as it was the First major conflict where we were involved since becoming a nation

we fought in the Sudan and Bore war but that was when we were still a colony before 1901, allthough we are still part of the British Empire


hmmm im rambling again..... sorry

-Willie

[Pirx]

Russia did lost WWI in 1917-1918, and Germans got some territories on east. But those was only territories. They needed recruits, so they declared brotherhood to Poles, Ukrainians others. Space on east gives them nothing without materials. Remember that in 1918 those regions were not as industrialized as in 1941. Some units could go to west, but they still must keep large army to control this huge area. So no rescue for kaiser in my opinion.

Igorn. Bolsheviks that not only Jews, Tatars or Latvians. Russians too. And it's hard to separate bolsheviks from russian army in 1917. Tukhachevski was officer in regular tsar's army and later in red army. Also Dubinski, Raskolnikov and many many more.

[phylo_roadking]

Pirx, nearly all the freed-up German units were moved West. There was nothing to protect against as the rump of the Russian army - what wasn't just going home or still on the ground starving or their feet rotting off - was heading to Moscow etc with their new Red banners flying. The Soviets WANTED Brest-Litovsk, there was NO way they were going to abrogate it.

[Pirx]

I agree, that Germans left east. So Poland, Baltic States, part of Ukraine fill up those emptines. And that countries don't even think to support Germany.
I just want to say that if Germany wants some profits from area conquested on east, they should left large occupation army.

P.S. I don't understand that:

The Soviets WANTED Brest-Litovsk, there was NO way they were going to abrogate it.

That means Lenin wants that town?

[phylo_roadking]

No, I mean he/they wanted the TREATY that bears its name.

Germany didnt want and knew it couldnt even think to exploit the areas you named. They were settling for short-term military gain, yes, but THAT was what was important right then.

[Torquez]

Russia did lost WWI in 1917-1918, and Germans got some territories on east. But those was only territories. They needed recruits, so they declared brotherhood to Poles, Ukrainians others.

Actually this was just a gesture, real German plans developed by Ludendorff called for annexation of 30,000 km2 of territory of former Congress Poland and expulsion of Polish and Jewish population from those territories as well as territories of Poznan. All economic and political control was to remain in German hands and created countries were to become German satelittes as declared in Bethmann-Hollweg's September Program .
You can read more on German goals in respect to Poland and Eastern Europe in "Der polnische Grenzstreifen 1914-1918" by German historian Imanuel Geiss.

Germany didnt want and knew it couldnt even think to exploit the areas you named.

German war aims in 1914 included exploitation of Eastern Europe
http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyC2.html

In early September 1914, while the German armies still seemed victorious, Bethmann drafted a list of war aims.(...)
German Conservatives were more interested in Eastern expansion. They hoped to drive Russia back from the German border and to create a belt of buffer states in Eastern Europe. The army leaders, still in shock about the fast Russian advances into German territory in August 1914, supported these aims. The Conservatives also hoped to resettle Polish farmers further east in order to stop the growth of the Polish population in those parts of Poland that belonged to the German Empire. To the Conservatives an overwhelming victory with large annexations further promised to fan nationalism to such a degree that the existing social and political order could be stabilized.

[phylo_roadking]

And German war aims in 1914 are pertinent to a thread about 1917 and on...how?

[Torquez]

And German war aims in 1914 are pertinent to a thread about 1917 and on...how?

Well it is always nice to know what was avoided. Anyway, actually in 1917 German war aims in regards to East became even more extreme, with Luddendorff getting more and more influence. It was Ludendorff who pressed for annexations the hardest.

[phylo_roadking]

Nothing to do with the matter in hand. Thanks anyway. We're chatting about EVENTS in the east freeing up German forces for the Western Front.

[Torquez]

Yes, and the issue of supposed liberation of Poland appeared. I only pointed out, that it was for show only, and true intentions of Imperial Germany weren't so favourable to Polish population.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

Intresting topic, although unfortuantely some members went off topic.

Anyway ,about Germany's situation in 1918. With Russia temporarily out and tearing itself apart in the civil war and the USA not joining in, the U Boat fleet would have had a much easier time in the Atlantic facing 1 rather than 2 enemies, which would have resulted in continued British food shortages. And historically in 1918, because of the fear of American early intervention, Ludendorff splattered a few large offensives, gaining a lot of ground but losing tens of thousands of men in progress. However without this fear of the US Army, Ludendorff could use more time to build up an even larger, huge force of millions of men and thousands of guns to smash his way to Paris, even if casualties would be very heavy. And after a capture of Paris, Germany could safely negotiate a peace treaty with the Allies, perhaps at best a status quo.

Germany after the war would sooner or later become a consitutional monarchy similar to Britain considering the power of the social democrats. And about Germany and the Bolsheviks, Germany itself probably didn't really trust them either. I remember in March 1918 the Kaiser made a speech against communists, which hardly represents German friendship with the Bolsheviks, and add on the fact that the German ambassador to Moscow was assasinated in August 1918, which nearly resulted in war. The Allies helped the Whites yes, but not fulyl sicne it was dealing with Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. With a status quo treaty, Germany could send troops in to help the Whites, just as the Freikorps historically did at the Baltics and so did the Allies historically, which could have resulted in a restored monarchy in Russia.

Just my guesses.

K