PDA

View Full Version : Civil War - what if...



Bremspropeller
05-25-2006, 05:36 AM
...America lost ?

stathem
05-25-2006, 06:14 AM
Maybe you should define which civil war you are talking about. There's been a few over the years.

Bearcat99
05-25-2006, 06:24 AM
America did loose.... The Civil War was our most costly war to date.

Just in case you missed something and arent trolling.... keep in mind that the Civil War was between the North and the South.... United States.. not North America & South America... So do you mean what if the south had won? I think if the south had won the U.S. would not have achieved the level of dominance in the world it did.....

Von_Rat
05-25-2006, 01:13 PM
read harry turtledove for some good fiction on possiable conseqenses of the south winning civil war.

one of the most interesting is that if england and france had interfered in civil war, giving the south victory. then when world war one rolls around the north is a bitter enemy of england and france, leading to eventual german victory.

he has ww1 being fought on us soil beteewn the north and south also. this i doubt would happen.

but i think hes right about one thing, if britain and france had interfered on the souths behalf in the civil war, they would of received little or no aid in ww1 from the north, and probaly not much from the south either, most factorys would still be in north, though if south was independent they may have industrialized more. if they had interfered and the north still won, well they'd be lucky if u.s didnt declare war on them in 1914, or at least a arms embargo.

the bottom line is they made a very smart move by not interfering, it might of cost them victory in ww1 if they did.

its usually a good idea to stay out of others civil war.

Megile_
05-25-2006, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Maybe you should define which civil war you are talking about. There's been a few over the years.

presumably one America took part in?

Very good Brems... 7/10 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Bearcat99
05-25-2006, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
read harry turtledove for some good fiction on possiable conseqenses of the south winning civil war.

one of the most interesting is that if england and france had interfered in civil war, giving the south victory. then when world war one rolls around the north is a bitter enemy of england and france, leading to eventual german victory.

he has ww1 being fought on us soil beteewn the north and south also. this i doubt would happen.

but i think hes right about one thing, if britain and france had interfered on the souths behalf in the civil war, they would of received little or no aid in ww1 from the north, and probaly not much from the south either, most factorys would still be in north, though if south was independent they may have industrialized more. if they had interfered and the north still won, well they'd be lucky if u.s didnt declare war on them in 1914, or at least a arms embargo.

the bottom line is they made a very smart move by not interfering, it might of cost them victory in ww1 if they did.

its usually a good idea to stay out of others civil war.

Not that they knew all that.. but the bottom line was the south didnt have the industrial might to compete. The southern ause was one fought with heart and passion... but the northern war was fought with iron and steel. When it comes to a battle between an agrarian society and an indistrial one, barring and act of GOD the industrial one (Or should I say the most indistrious one.) will win every time.

Von_Rat
05-25-2006, 02:47 PM
i agree.

but england and france certainly had industrial muscle. whether it would be enough to make south win is debatable of course.

imo even if england and france declared war on union, i doubt that they would want to pay the cost in treasure and blood to stop north from winning.

Xiolablu3
05-25-2006, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i agree.

but england and france certainly had industrial muscle. whether it would be enough to make south win is debatable of course.

Britain would never have joined the South, they were very much opposed to slavery by that time.

Its much more likely that they would join the North if Lincoln had asked for help.

Von_Rat
05-25-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i agree.

but england and france certainly had industrial muscle. whether it would be enough to make south win is debatable of course.

Britain would never have joined the South, they were very much opposed to slavery by that time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think your correct, but i was speaking of a what if.

btw some classes did support helping south, but whether that would ever be enough to change englands more or less neutral position is doubtful. england did supply alot of support, somwhat covert to the south in real life.

alot of people are of the opinion that the emacipation proclamation stopped any thought of england entering war. england didnt want to appear pro slavery.

Irish_Rogues
05-25-2006, 03:04 PM
Britain would never have joined the South, they were very much opposed to slavery by that time.

Britain was also very tied to Southern cotton feeding their textile mills, the base of Britian's economic muscle at the time. Money can act as a morale band-aide sometimes, it happened during WWII.

VW-IceFire
05-25-2006, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
read harry turtledove for some good fiction on possiable conseqenses of the south winning civil war.

one of the most interesting is that if england and france had interfered in civil war, giving the south victory. then when world war one rolls around the north is a bitter enemy of england and france, leading to eventual german victory.

he has ww1 being fought on us soil beteewn the north and south also. this i doubt would happen.

but i think hes right about one thing, if britain and france had interfered on the souths behalf in the civil war, they would of received little or no aid in ww1 from the north, and probaly not much from the south either, most factorys would still be in north, though if south was independent they may have industrialized more. if they had interfered and the north still won, well they'd be lucky if u.s didnt declare war on them in 1914, or at least a arms embargo.

the bottom line is they made a very smart move by not interfering, it might of cost them victory in ww1 if they did.

its usually a good idea to stay out of others civil war.
See I don't buy that. WWI was mostly a European affair and the United States are not involved in the war in much of any way until 1917 and by then the writing was on the wall that the war was over.

I forget what the economic transaction was...and I know there was one...but American shiping was not traveling across the Atlantic in any huge way.

By the time the US did enter WWI the problems at home in Germany were getting worse and the Americans joining the fight was a sort of moot point. It took the better part of the first yeawr that the US was at war in Europe during WWI to even get the army over and assembled in any great fashion. WWI was won purely by attrition and France and England were winning that particular battle....barely...but they were.

So if the US was hostile to the Western Allies...yes there would be impact but I'm not sure if it would be a tipping point for WWI or not. In WWII the situation is completely different and yes I think it would make a huge impact.

MLudner
05-25-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i agree.

but england and france certainly had industrial muscle. whether it would be enough to make south win is debatable of course.

Britain would never have joined the South, they were very much opposed to slavery by that time.

Its much more likely that they would join the North if Lincoln had asked for help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

England was almost as torn by the War of Secession as was the US. All that kept them from declaring for the Confederacy was slavery. They still did as much as they dared to in support of the Confederacy. The CSS Alabama, for example, was built in British shipyards.

"We'll have a spree with Johnny Bull,
Perhaps some day or other,
"And won't he have his fingers full,
if not a deal of bother!
"For Yankee boys are just the lads,
upon the land or water!
"And won't we have a bully fight,
and don't you think we ought-er;
"If he is caught - at any time -
insulting Abraham's Daughter!"

- "Abraham's Daughter" by Septimus Winner.

That verse sums up US feelings toward the British at the time due to what meddling there was. (What Mr. Winner meant by "Abraham's Daughter" is the US, incidentally)

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-25-2006, 03:21 PM
Putting the unlikely possibility of direct military involvement aside, I think the British would have got an earlier wake up call than the one they got in South Africa. The French would have learnt lessons that would have been put to good use against Germany. Certainly, neither would have got much help from a resentful north in later wars against other European countries. Could the south have hoped for anything more than an uneasy truce? Would some latter day John Paul Jones have terrorised (in the 19th century perception) the British coast? Would the anti-slaverly lobby in Britain lead a popular revolt? Would Germany (assuming matters dragged on) take advantage of her distracted colonial rivals and carve out even larger parts of Africa? Some interesting what ifs...

MLudner
05-25-2006, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von_Rat:
read harry turtledove for some good fiction on possiable conseqenses of the south winning civil war.

one of the most interesting is that if england and france had interfered in civil war, giving the south victory. then when world war one rolls around the north is a bitter enemy of england and france, leading to eventual german victory.

he has ww1 being fought on us soil beteewn the north and south also. this i doubt would happen.

but i think hes right about one thing, if britain and france had interfered on the souths behalf in the civil war, they would of received little or no aid in ww1 from the north, and probaly not much from the south either, most factorys would still be in north, though if south was independent they may have industrialized more. if they had interfered and the north still won, well they'd be lucky if u.s didnt declare war on them in 1914, or at least a arms embargo.

the bottom line is they made a very smart move by not interfering, it might of cost them victory in ww1 if they did.

its usually a good idea to stay out of others civil war.

"See I don't buy that. WWI was mostly a European affair and the United States are not involved in the war in much of any way until 1917 and by then the writing was on the wall that the war was over."


In a German victory. The Western Allies were teetering on the brink, especially after the Bolsheviks over-threw Karinsky and the incipient Russian Republic and withdrew from the war precipitately, thus bringing numerous and fresh German forces to bear on the Western Front. The US joined in just in the nick of time.

Von_Rat
05-25-2006, 03:37 PM
See I don't buy that. WWI was mostly a European affair and the United States are not involved in the war in much of any way until 1917 and by then the writing was on the wall that the war was over.

I forget what the economic transaction was...and I know there was one...but American shiping was not traveling across the Atlantic in any huge way.
__________________________________________________ _______


there were a million us soldiers in europe by nov 11th 1918 i beleieve, ill have to look it up.

your forgeting that germany came close to winning in spring of 1918 so the writing wasnt on the wall in 1917.

while its debatable whether us soldiers were critical in allies victory in ww1, whats not debatable is the huge amount of money and supplys that were sent to the allies in ww1. in may not have been sent in us ships, but it was sent never the less. this money and supplies in my opinion were very important to allied victory.

the money alone was so much that both britain and france defaulted on the loans, this was part of the reason for us foot dragging in entering ww2.


any way you slice it, having the u.s. as a enemy in ww1 would be bad news for allies.


edit,,,, i was wrong, there were 1 million american soldiers in france in june 1918. by the end of the year there were 2 million.

this had to be very important in convincing germans to ask for armistice.

i also have some figures on the hughe amount of explosives sent to allies.

Xiolablu3
05-25-2006, 04:04 PM
It was the lack of food for civilians which caused the surrender, the soldiers never really lost.

Zeus-cat
05-25-2006, 04:06 PM
I have to disagree with Bearcat. I think a "victory" by the south would have been possible. There is no way the Confederates could have achieved a victory like the Union troops eventually did, but they might have achieved a stalemate if Lee had been able to occupy Washington or other important northern cities.

If that happened, there may have been a peace treaty splitting the country, at least for a time. I think a war of reunification would have followed, once the North really got its act together.

You can play "what if" all day long and never really prove anything. Its fun to speculate, but it proves nothing. Sorta like the History Channel.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-25-2006, 04:10 PM
You can play "what if" all day long and never really prove anything. Its fun to speculate, but it proves nothing. Sorta like the History Channel.

True. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Aaron_GT
05-25-2006, 04:27 PM
England was almost as torn by the War of Secession as was the US. All that kept them from declaring for the Confederacy was slavery. They still did as much as they dared to in support of the Confederacy. The CSS Alabama, for example, was built in British shipyards.

This is where I think Lincoln was shrewd. With the Emancipation proclamation it made the war almost explicitly based on slavery (at least in the public mind) and British support for the Confederacy became much more difficult thereafter.

Von_Rat
05-25-2006, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was the lack of food for civilians which caused the surrender, the soldiers never really lost.

the food shortage was a self inflicted wound, caused by mismangement not just blockade.

it was a cause but not the only one. i tend to think that a fresh army of 2 million men had somthing to do with it as well.

as for the soldiers never having lost, alot of people beleive thats a myth.

be that as it may,,,if they hadnt really lost by nov11th 1918, they sure as heck were going to lose in 1919 or 1920, even without a food shortage.


as i said before having the u.s as enemy in ww1 would be bad news for allies. imagine britain having to defend canada against 2 million or more american soldiers. of course thats supposing that their attempt to help south failed, but caused lasting hatred in u.s.

Aaron_GT
05-25-2006, 04:32 PM
while its debatable whether us soldiers were critical in allies victory in ww1, whats not debatable is the huge amount of money and supplys that were sent to the allies in ww1

Supplies, yes, money, no, as the supplies to the allies (as opposed to US troops themselves, obviously) had to be paid for, typically in gold.

In November 1918 the mass of US troops still weren't fully trained to full strength for combat, but they were fresh, and there were a lot of them. Thye would have been absolutely decisive in 1919. Germany collapsed before they got a chance to show this fully, but I think the Kaiser was well aware the game was up by the end of 1918.

han freak solo
05-25-2006, 04:49 PM
I want Combat Flight Simulator-American Civil War.

Balloons with snipers.

Talk about fast paced action.

Von_Rat
05-25-2006, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">while its debatable whether us soldiers were critical in allies victory in ww1, whats not debatable is the huge amount of money and supplys that were sent to the allies in ww1

Supplies, yes, money, no, as the supplies to the allies (as opposed to US troops themselves, obviously) had to be paid for, typically in gold.

In November 1918 the mass of US troops still weren't fully trained to full strength for combat, but they were fresh, and there were a lot of them. Thye would have been absolutely decisive in 1919. Germany collapsed before they got a chance to show this fully, but I think the Kaiser was well aware the game was up by the end of 1918. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

money was very important heres, some figures.

during the course of the war the allies borrowed $10.5 billion from us.
to put this in context in 1914 britains and frances combined defence budgets were only $671 million.

britains national debt was 7.5 billion pounds in 1919, of which 1.2 billion was owed to america. they were obviously borrowing hugh sums to pay for supplies.

anyway you slice it it was alot of money, and money is critical to fighting wars. a point often overlooked by armchair generals like myself.

bazzaah2
05-25-2006, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
I want Combat Flight Simulator-American Civil War.

Balloons with snipers.

Talk about fast paced action.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

telsono
05-25-2006, 05:14 PM
France was already involved in North America via the establishment in Mexico of Maximillian as the Emperor there. This was patently against the Monroe Doctrine and made the Union question deeply French plans.

This is part of a letter of instructions from Secratary fo State Seward to the US Ambassador to France concerning matters in Mexico in 1863:

"The subject upon which I propose to remark, in the second place, is the relation of France towards Mexico. The United States hold, in regard to Mexico, the same principles that they hold in regard to all other nations. They have neither a right nor a disposition to intervene by force in the internal affairs of Mexico, whether to establish and maintain a republic or even a domestic government there, or to overthrow an imperial or a foreign one, if Mexico chooses to establish or accept it. The United States have neither the right nor the disposition to intervene by force on either side in the lamentable war which is going on between France and Mexico. On the contrary, they practice in regard to Mexico, in every phase of that war, the non-intervention which they require all foreign powers to observe in regard to the United States. But notwithstanding this self-restraint, this government knows full well that the inherent normal opinion of Mexico favors a government there republican in form and domestic in its organization, in preference to any monarchical institutions to be imposed from abroad. This government knows, also, that this normal opinion of the people of Mexico resulted largely from the, influence of popular opinion in this country, and is continually invigorated by it. "

The Confederacy was hoping that "King Cotton" would sway the Britsh Empire to support them. There was strange politics going on at that time and the map of Europe was far from quiet on top of that. Garibaldi was unifying Italy. Europe was on a knife's edge with problems in many quarters. Intervention by the major European powers into the War of Succession would have its own problems and realities.

luftluuver
05-25-2006, 06:10 PM
Would there be a North if the South was victorious? Would the Brits pull a land grab of the States bordering eastern Canada? It had only been 50 years since the War of 1812.

han freak solo
05-25-2006, 08:27 PM
"To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country-the young men." - Sam Houston

VW-IceFire
05-25-2006, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was the lack of food for civilians which caused the surrender, the soldiers never really lost.
The German government was crumbling at this period. I think even if they had won a succession of military victories...the regime was crumbling and it was finished. France wasn't in a much better state either but I think Germany was pretty much finished no matter how you slice it. For WWI of course.

stathem
05-26-2006, 04:59 AM
Yes, the arrival of millions of Americans in France was a major reason why the Germans sued for peace, but they weren't the ones who stopped the Spring 1918 offensive (that being British steel and French Brandy), nor did they have much part in chasing them back towards the Rhine.

The Spring 1918 offensive was blown. OTOH the allied offensive achieved breakthrough across the whole front and the Germans were running so fast sometimes the allies couldn't keep up with them.

whiteladder
05-26-2006, 05:28 AM
Britains involvement in the American Civil War was greater than I first realised have a look here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A912386

WWMaxGunz
05-26-2006, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Not that they knew all that.. but the bottom line was the south didnt have the industrial might to compete. The southern ause was one fought with heart and passion... but the northern war was fought with iron and steel. When it comes to a battle between an agrarian society and an indistrial one, barring and act of GOD the industrial one (Or should I say the most indistrious one.) will win every time.

The North came very close to losing due to lack of troops before the issue changed from keep
the Union together to abolishing slavery. When the issue changed, the abolisionists and the
churches in the west and north got very active on recruitment. After that it became numbers
and equipment versus experience and eventually, burned cities. A very horrible war. The
South was devastated in places while the North was not untouched in that a LOT of men did not
live to go home and support their families and holdings. You get less growing season north
to put it mildly and there was a lot of ruination and exploitation of it north and south.
Even the west got hit bad for a long time when some armed remnants of the South turned to
raiding and looting and general violence. The James Gang was the most famous such I know
of. There are repercussions today still poisoning our society and giving outside enemies
a handle on hate and trouble here.

Yeah, America lost a lot. Still does.

mandrill7
05-26-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Would there be a North if the South was victorious? Would the Brits pull a land grab of the States bordering eastern Canada? It had only been 50 years since the War of 1812.

The War of 1812 was largely defensive in its early stages and fairly desperate from the Brit-Canadian pov. How to keep a far larger, aggressive US army from over-running British North America. In the last year of so, the British took the offensive, but in a series of punitive expeditions which had no intention of taking territory.

By the 1860's, the British were even less expansionist and even more wary of tangling with the US. In fact Canadian "independence" in 1867 (very limited in fact) was largely a ploy by GB to make Canada financially responsible for defending itself from any US invasion that might come. There was no way, GB could have held Canada from a large and determined, battle-hardened US army.

Worf101
05-26-2006, 09:41 AM
Well, there's another series of "What If" books by Harry Harrison. In this the Brits DO enter the war on the Southern side, initially, but due to a navigation error they wind up attacking a Southern Port. This causes the two sides North and South to temporarily reunite to fight a far greater enemy. The first book "The Stars and Stripes Forever" was great the second sucked.

Britain was defeated due to superior weaponry, when the British fleet sailed up the Potomac to burn Washington for the second time they were met by Union Ironclads with breach loading canon. Their ground troops were slaughtered by Henry and Winchester repeating rifles.

In the second book, England, now rearmed tried to invade America from the South as they'd lost Canada in the first engagement. America countered this by sending an expiditionary force to free Ireland. American and English ironclads clash off the coast. Interesting stuff.

Da Worfster

Aaron_GT
05-26-2006, 11:24 AM
Henry and Winchester repeating rifles.

Well no doubt the British would have lost in this case as the US forces would also have had to have had access to time travel since the Winchester repeating rifle didn't exist at the time! (The Henry did, at least).

Von_Rat
05-26-2006, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Yes, the arrival of millions of Americans in France was a major reason why the Germans sued for peace, but they weren't the ones who stopped the Spring 1918 offensive (that being British steel and French Brandy), nor did they have much part in chasing them back towards the Rhine.

The Spring 1918 offensive was blown. OTOH the allied offensive achieved breakthrough across the whole front and the Germans were running so fast sometimes the allies couldn't keep up with them.

its true that the AEF didnt stop 1918 german offensive. but they still played a important part in chasing the germans to the rhine, as you put it.
heres some facts.

in early july BEF front was 148km long.
AEFS front was 100km.

in sept. BEFS front was 140km
AEFS was 157km.

note in sept, the AEF was invovled in intense combat. in just wasnt holding quite sectors.

bef had 100,000 losses in sept. aef had 60,000. true befs losses are higher but american losses are hi enough to say they played a important part in chasing germans to rhine.

in oct. the nominal combat strengths of the 3 allied armies on western front was nearly equal.

total dead on western front for whole war, bef 750,000,
aef 85,000, quite a lot considering short time they were in action.

MLudner
05-26-2006, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Henry and Winchester repeating rifles.

Well no doubt the British would have lost in this case as the US forces would also have had to have had access to time travel since the Winchester repeating rifle didn't exist at the time! (The Henry did, at least). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Henry did and some US troops were equipped with them - though, not many.

Sharps produced a breechloading rifle that was primarily used by US Sharpshooters.

There were also the Spencer Rifles and Carbines, which were 7 shot repeaters. They equipped the famed "Lightning" Brigade in the West (Mule mounted infantry as stubborn as the animals they rode).

I'm gonna be busy in this thread soon .... I can tell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
05-27-2006, 12:52 AM
I know, I was just being pedantic about the Winchester reference, which appeared in 1866, too late for the US Civil War.

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2006, 02:17 AM
The appearance of a large force of new fresh reserves on one side of a prolonged battle
has to change everything for the other side.

stathem
05-27-2006, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Yes, the arrival of millions of Americans in France was a major reason why the Germans sued for peace, but they weren't the ones who stopped the Spring 1918 offensive (that being British steel and French Brandy), nor did they have much part in chasing them back towards the Rhine.

The Spring 1918 offensive was blown. OTOH the allied offensive achieved breakthrough across the whole front and the Germans were running so fast sometimes the allies couldn't keep up with them.

its true that the AEF didnt stop 1918 german offensive. but they still played a important part in chasing the germans to the rhine, as you put it.
heres some facts.

in early july BEF front was 148km long.
AEFS front was 100km.

in sept. BEFS front was 140km
AEFS was 157km.

note in sept, the AEF was invovled in intense combat. in just wasnt holding quite sectors.

bef had 100,000 losses in sept. aef had 60,000. true befs losses are higher but american losses are hi enough to say they played a important part in chasing germans to rhine.

in oct. the nominal combat strengths of the 3 allied armies on western front was nearly equal.

total dead on western front for whole war, bef 750,000,
aef 85,000, quite a lot considering short time they were in action. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when have pure casuality figures been the sole decisive factor in military operations? For instance one of the most important breakthoroughs of the Western front was the carrying of the Hindenburg line in the region of the St.Quentin canal and the capture of the bridge at Riqueval by the 46th (North Midland) Division of the Fourth Army for the cost of a 'mere' 800 casualties. This, along with the capture of the defences of the Canal du Nord by the Canadian Corps also on the 29th September are the two knife thrusts which did more to break the front than any other.

Why do you focus purley on the BEF? What about the area of the western front held by the French and Belgians, or the British 2nd Army and the French fighting alongside the Italians on the Austro-Hungarian front, the Greeks winning on the Bulgarian front, the Indian armies on the Palestine front. How many Doughboys were with them? Military defeat of all these nations allied to Germany was also very critcal in making the Kaiser throw the towel in. You also have to factor in the effects of the mutiny by the sailors of the Imperial fleet when ordered to give it one last go against the RN.

On the Western front, between the opening of the offensive on the 26th by the American first and French fourth armies, and the assaults on the 29th, 12 Armies assaulted the Germans, one of which was American, to be joined later by a second American army.

However the area of the Argonne attacked by the Americans and the French was a very difficult area to assault; even though there was intial success in capturing the town of Varennes by one Lt-Col G.Patton, for the rest of October that area of the front was stalemated. It only acheved momentum on the 1st November after the addition of the American second army and reoganisation by General Hunter Ligget. (At which point the whole of the front North west of there between Verdun and the Channel was in dissary and ful flight.)

If we look at maps of the Front September to November 1918, we can see that the American's 1st and 2nd in the area north east of Verdun advanced little more than 3 or 4 miles against Army Group Gallwitz. This is in contrast to the spectacular advances by the British first to fifth armies, and the French first, third, fourth and fifth (not forgetting the Belgians on the coast) of depths of up to 90 miles, from the line Ypres-Arras-Soission to the Armistice line Ghent-Mons-Sedan. Again I'll re-iterate that the US 1st army was given a very difficult area to assault.

Now, this is not to belittle the American contributon, or to say that they did not fight bravely, effectively or well. As I say, politically they were hugely important, and militarily they weren't insignificant. I've written this to support my statement, and because Mludner claimed that if they hadn't have joined, the allies would have lost. I hope you can see that that preposition is completey false, particularly in the military sense.

(main source, The Book of 1918, Malcom Brown).

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2006, 07:17 AM
If a lot of your troops ties up a lot of the nme troops and by attrition you lose a smaller
percent than the nme it doesn't have to go anywhere or take new ground. I do recall that
at least for one period the French troops were close to mass mutiny and abandonment of the
front.

When the bread contains sawdust and the other side eats without filler, writing is on the wall.
That is what Germany had.

stathem
05-27-2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If a lot of your troops ties up a lot of the nme troops and by attrition you lose a smaller
percent than the nme it doesn't have to go anywhere or take new ground.

Yep, an argument often mentioned in connection with the break-out from Normandy 1944. I was toying with the idea of making that comparison in the post. But still, 1 out of 12 armies. And the position in the Argonne was naturally defensable, it did not neccesarily cost teh Germans a huge quantity of troops to defend.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I do recall that
at least for one period the French troops were close to mass mutiny and abandonment of the
front.

Yep, in 1917. Which led to a massive British offensive (and losses exceeding that of the Somme) around Passchendale (3rd Ypres) in order to divert German attention.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
When the bread contains sawdust and the other side eats without filler, writing is on the wall.
That is what Germany had.

And the RN had a huge hand in that.

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2006, 07:39 AM
From one historian I understand that the Prussian "lords" had a great deal to do with it.
No, really! They had been keeping the farming of wheat and rye down to create a supply
and demand situation that kept the price of pumpernickel high and profited them heavily.
I did not make that up and don't see why... who was that guy that did the Connections
series, Burke I think it was in the first edition used that point as part of a chain that
led eventually to some major invention.

Anywho, if they'd had a surplus and going effort cause it does take harvesters and all
then maybe there would have been more bread.

stathem
05-27-2006, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
From one historian I understand that the Prussian "lords" had a great deal to do with it.
No, really! They had been keeping the farming of wheat and rye down to create a supply
and demand situation that kept the price of pumpernickel high and profited them heavily.
I did not make that up and don't see why... who was that guy that did the Connections
series, Burke I think it was in the first edition used that point as part of a chain that
led eventually to some major invention.

Anywho, if they'd had a surplus and going effort cause it does take harvesters and all
then maybe there would have been more bread.

Oh, I've no doubt that there where a myriad of inter-connnected reasons for the shortages in Germany in 1918. Mind you, that one smacks heavily of the sort of thing that was over-emphasised by the Nazis during their rise to power: the "Germany was defeated by traitorous elements within rather than external force of arms" BS.