stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836 
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Aug 6, 2021 9:22:48 GMT
Steve, That is predicated on the German defences being able to hold. They weren’t. Now, before their over extension of the Spring Offensive, were the Germans in a theoretically stronger position defensively? Yes. However, it was not impregnable and was smashed open in @. It might not take a hundred days, but it will be done.
I agree it can be done but without sapping German reserves by their spring offensives and by declaring a willingness to end to war and committing to the defensive if it continues - which will stablise morale behind the government its going to be a hell of a lot costlier for the allies. Will any one of them break i.e. France because its near the end of its tether and has the chance to regain all its occupied lands without further losses. Or the US because it has no idea what sort of bloodbath its going to descend into and throwing relatively raw recruits against powerful defences will see horrendous losses, probably worse than the French losses in the Battle of the Frontiers in autumn 1914. Or even Britain that although it will have avoided its own heavy losses in spring 1918 without the German offensives will face more very heavy losses.
As I say IF the allies and US push the war to the bitter end they will win. However I'm not sure that would happen in those circumstances and its the only real chance that Germany has from the start of 1918.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 6, 2021 9:30:08 GMT
It only seems a sensible option from a century away, without the factors and mindsets of the time.
In 1918, the blockade is really, really starting to hurt and Germany industrial production is starting to be swamped by Britain and France alone, even before the USA is fully mobilising. Germany’s allies are on the backfoot and, in some cases, on the verge of collapse. The potential strength of the USA is known in general terms and the most logical course of action was to try and win through a last roll of the dice.
A Germany faced with the predicament of early 1918 cannot try and adopt the strategic posture of earlier in the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Aug 6, 2021 10:30:18 GMT
Even 2 months change will mean that US troops are in France in decent numbers from earlier in 1918, so, yes, it has a bearing. But Germany would still be in the fight, it will take some months before the United States are in the fight for real with any numbers, also Germany is still in 1916 and 1917 fighting a two front war, would this help the Russians ore is the Russian Revolution going to happen no matter a earlier entry of the United States. The Russian Revolution was always going to happen. There is a school of thought that Imperial Germany helped to push the Russian Empire over the edge with funding Bolshevik causes and ensuring Lenin's safe return to the Motherland - the primary goal - knock the Russians out of the war. In 1914 in OTL Germany underestimated Russia's ability to mobilise. Berlin considered that Russia was too vast and her troops spread out across the country thus Moscow would not be able to quickly mobilise her forces. The shock came when Russia launched an attack on Tannenberg, East Prussia albeit the attack was an unmitigated disaster for Russia, it did if you can any sort of positive spin on the loss of life suffered by Russia, frightened Germany in to redeploying troops to the east. This only served to aggravate an existing problem - not enough troops. Germany managed to hold on but only just and yes it did make some gains later on in the war being able to transfer 500,000 troops to the western front and introducing an early form of Blitzkrieg (just without tanks) which saw them break the grinding deadlock of trench warfare. This was even with the American presence. However by 1918 the effects of the British Navy's blockade of Germany was taking hold with up to 400,000 German deaths and a dire shortage of materials to continue to fight the war. If the Americans were able to speed up deployment of their troops and earlier intervention may see American ships being used to assist in the blockade of Germany increasing the ever tightening grip around the neck of the German war machine choking it of much needed supplies and German civilians of food and medicines. World War I was effectively a war of attrition had it not been for trench warfare and the blockade Germany may very well have succeeded in their aims to establish Germany as the dominant force on the continent. If only they had not invaded neutral Belgium... |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Aug 6, 2021 11:28:08 GMT
But Germany would still be in the fight, it will take some months before the United States are in the fight for real with any numbers, also Germany is still in 1916 and 1917 fighting a two front war, would this help the Russians ore is the Russian Revolution going to happen no matter a earlier entry of the United States. The Russian Revolution was always going to happen. There is a school of thought that Imperial Germany helped to push the Russian Empire over the edge with funding Bolshevik causes and ensuring Lenin's safe return to the Motherland - the primary goal - knock the Russians out of the war. In 1914 in OTL Germany underestimated Russia's ability to mobilise. Berlin considered that Russia was too vast and her troops spread out across the country thus Moscow would not be able to quickly mobilise her forces. The shock came when Russia launched an attack on Tannenberg, East Prussia albeit the attack was an unmitigated disaster for Russia, it did if you can any sort of positive spin on the loss of life suffered by Russia, frightened Germany in to redeploying troops to the east. This only served to aggravate an existing problem - not enough troops. Germany managed to hold on but only just and yes it did make some gains later on in the war being able to transfer 500,000 troops to the western front and introducing an early form of Blitzkrieg (just without tanks) which saw them break the grinding deadlock of trench warfare. This was even with the American presence. However by 1918 the effects of the British Navy's blockade of Germany was taking hold with up to 400,000 German deaths and a dire shortage of materials to continue to fight the war. If the Americans were able to speed up deployment of their troops and earlier intervention may see American ships being used to assist in the blockade of Germany increasing the ever tightening grip around the neck of the German war machine choking it of much needed supplies and German civilians of food and medicines. World War I was effectively a war of attrition had it not been for trench warfare and the blockade Germany may very well have succeeded in their aims to establish Germany as the dominant force on the continent. If only they had not invaded neutral Belgium...
Good point on the blockade as once they joined the conflict the US went from being one of its most vocal opponents to a fervent supporter and it was tightened further. Doing that earlier will tighten the noose quicker on the German economy.
Agree that by this point unless they get lucky Russia is in for a world of hurt. The revolution in Feb/Mar is too weak to really survive and become stable unless it ends the war with Germany which it is unwilling to do.
A couple of months earlier deployment of US forces won't make a massive difference to the German spring offensives as Pershing's insistence US forces wouldn't be deployed in large numbers until he had a full army under his own command means that they will only see action at the end of this at the most. However likely to have the AEF see a lot more action before the Germans are defeated.
The USN did send a battle squadron to join the Grand Fleet OTL so that's likely to happen again. It was mostly the availability of a lot of smaller units that helped with the final decision to fully deploy a convoy system.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 6, 2021 12:01:32 GMT
Steve,
One of my main points is that, with an earlier DoW by the USA, the date of AEF independent action (by corps) is pushed back from June to March/April, or perhaps a bit earlier; there was a slowing of transport over the winter of 1917/18 in the American buildup. This puts them on the ground in big and useful numbers at the beginning of the Spring Offensive, rather than its end.
Good point on the role of the USN destroyer force in convoying.
Overall, for US involvement to have a more decisive role, it needs to be accelerated by 6-8 months. Then things start to get interesting.
The flipside of that is that online American AH commentators in this different universe will be even more vocal and pronounced that Allied victory was "all down to them".
|
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Aug 13, 2021 15:40:04 GMT
As per the Monroe Doctrine, such is unacceptable for the United States which would declare war on Germany.
|
|
