Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

USA in World war one

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162
  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: USA in World war one
    Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 07:42

I mentioned some points in another  thread regarding the Us involvement in World war one.

Here are some points for discussion if you care to do so.

 The US loaned Britain some $10bn, $8.7bn Britain then loaned to her allies.

US trade with Germany between 1900 - 1914 was between $1bn and $2bn each year

U.S. exports to Europe rose from $1.479 billion dollars in 1913 to $4.062 billion in 1917

 Soon after the war began Britain, France, and their allies set up a naval blockade of Germany and Austria. Even food was contraband. The Wilson Administration complained bitterly.

 In 1917, the U.S. Congress gave U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans so they could fight the war.

 When the US 1st, 2nd, 26th and 42nd divisions arrived in  1917 they went to the Lorranie region of French  to learn the basics of soldiering.

Many did not even have rifles.

Only in January 1918 were they sent to the trenches and that a quite sector, there to train in trench warfare, this was by the French 47th Chasseur Alpine Division.

Pershing had sent single battalion at a time to the "front line" for experience. For 10 days at a time, 3 US soldiers were killed.

 American industry could not (initially) retool for production of  planes, tanks or heavy guns. These were supplied by  the French and British.

Of the 3,500 heavy guns the AEF had in France 477 were American made.( and only 130 of those were actually used)

The AEF was armed almost exclusively with French Machine guns and rifles until July 1918, when the BAR came into service.

 The Americans  were NOT British/French allies, and initially refused to amalgamate their troops with them.

March 21st 1918 the German big push at the Somme failed ( just) with horrific casualties on both sides.

The US army did nothing to assist the British, A division was sent to replace a French Division from a quiet sector, that HAD gone to aid the British.

 In April 1918 The US held a quiet sector in St.Mihiel, the Germans attacked, the Americans performed so badly Pershing was infuriated.

 The Meuse-argonne offensive was the largest U.S. engagement. It began 26 September 1918 and ended 11 November 1918. In the three weeks fighting, the battle deaths of Americans numbered 18,000, a daily average of about 1,000

 The USA was only involved in heavy fighting for 110 days

Total casualties:      USA        205,690.

                                   France 4,266,000

                                   Britain  1,663,435

 

Total Dead:      USA       116,708

                              France 1,397,800

                                Britain     886,939

 I don't denigrate in ANYWAY the bravery of the US troops, the suffering and misery  they were subjected too was horrific.

 As for

Originally posted by red clay

I would like to hear you state the same things, standing where I stood, looking at the thousands of white crosses most of them American.  Men who never came home. 

 I lived and worked in Belgium for some time, I suspect I visited these cemeteries far more times than your good self.

I was and will always be very moved.



Edited by Azita - 03-Mar-2013 at 19:48
I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'.
Back to Top
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162
  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 07:46
Oh why do i seem to have 2 embedded links for ipads!!!!!
Not my doing i assure you.

I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10112
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 09:44
What is the source your using here?
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162
  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 10:44
Aside from my own MA studies.

Professor John Ramsden

Professor Timothy Taylor

Professor  Niall Ferguson

Professor David Stevenson

The teaching company

The modern scholar

Wikipedia 

And a few other lectures and courses i have on my computer.

If members were interested i have some of these works in PDF format.

Can i post files?


 


I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 10:53
Send RC an example of said link viz pm. If he approves...then your best bet is to either insert same link, when appropriate, to thread content or to establish a nexus to your comments in the thread. Or start a thread in the generic sub forum identifying it as a depository for info-links-sources etc on a specific subject.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 13:04
Azita, some points:

 Your:  "In 1917, the U.S. Congress gave U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans so they could fight the war."

Well, that was part of it. But it was more closely related to the defense of the Panama Canal and came as a result of lobbying on the part of the Island's pro-American parties. No Puertorrican units served in Europe in WWI.

Your: " The Americans  were NOT British/French allies, and refused to amalgamate their troops with them."

Untrue: Several Black American regiments were placed under French command shortly after their arrival and were well regarded by the French. Also, the Second American Corps (27th and 30th Inf Divs) was paired with the Australian Corps for the assault on the Hindenburg Line in 1918, serving under General Monash, an Australian General. (Source for the latter: "With Guts and Bayonets" Yves Fohlen, Publishing Services press, 2001)  Also, troops were generally not"amalgamated" in WWI. Each nation had its assigned sectors and it forces generally fought in those sectors.

Your "The AEF was armed almost exclusively with French Machine guns and rifles until July 1918, when the BAR came into service."

True: The Lewis machingun had been invented by an American (as had the Maxim/Vickers), but the Chief of Ordnance despised and loathed the inventor and did everything to block its adoption. The result was that American forcesgenerally used inferior French light machineguns. 

Your:  The US army did nothing to assist the British, A division was sent to replace a French Division from a quiet sector, that HAD gone to aid the British. 

Again, the "Guts and Bayonets" book  above. Obviously your source erred. The idea to pair the Aussies and American came from the British Fourth Army, GEN Henry Rawlinson.

Oh, you forgot to mention that the great majority of American dead died from Influenza, and not combat. 


Edited by lirelou - 03-Mar-2013 at 13:08
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15089
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 14:04
...became super power.
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 19:17
There were also American pilots who flew under French command: the Lafayette Squadron
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 20:51
Nick, while your post is correct on its face the Americans in the Lafayette squadron were legally members of the French Air Force, subject to all their laws,etc.  Their status was no different from Americans enlisted in the Foreign Legion, i.e., Cole Porter. They were thus part of the French effort, and not the American one.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2013 at 13:56
I guess we all agree that in WW1, US aid came to Europe just a few months before the end of the war... 
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2013 at 19:07
Originally posted by TITAN_

I guess we all agree that in WW1, US aid came to Europe just a few months before the end of the war... 

True, but they still played a vital role by overwhelming the Germans
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162
  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 07:29
Originally posted by medenaywe

...became super power.


That is of course undoubted.
DO you consider the "method" that the USA achieved this honourable?

Or do the ends justify the means?


Nick, i thought i had demonstrated that in fact militarily the USA were NOT vital in the defeat of Germany.




Edited by Azita - 05-Mar-2013 at 07:31
I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 10:03
For evaluation and research efforts about American prescence and contributions, see:
 
Ions, Edmund, Woodrow Wilson - The Politics of Peace and War (1977).
 
Kennedy, David, M., Over Here: The First World War and American Society (1980).
 
 
 


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 05-Mar-2013 at 10:03
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 10:50
" The Americans  were NOT British/French allies, and initially refused to amalgamate their troops with them."

It wasn't a question of being an ally; it was issues about who would command that got in the way.

Given the horrendous track record of the French, American commanders were reluctant to be commanded by the French generals.  Can't say I blame them.  The French army, after all, was mutinying over the staggering casualty rates that yielded nothing.

A great deal of effort has been given to pointing out that America came in during the final days of the war, and implying that we were therefore not supportive, or that we somehow didn't "measure up".  Some points that need to be kept in mind:

1.  It wasn't our war in the first place; therefore, we were under no obligation whatsoever to get involved at all.

2.
Woodrow Wilson ran on an isolationist platform, and he risked angering the American people, still very isolationist, by dragging them into a foreign war they did not want.

3. Unless there were clairvoyants everywhere with crystal balls, no one knew at the time when the war would end.  It could have gone on much longer for all the Allies knew, which was why the French and Britsh were so desperate to bring in America,  a source of fresh bodies for the meat grinder.

4. The blame for the staggering losses and poor results lies entirely with France and Britain, nations mired in outmoded tactics and unable to adapt to the realities of the new, modern warfare.  The inability of the Allies to defeat Germany on two fronts and despite a crippling naval blockade is a damning indictment of their failures, not America's.

There is a classic statement that bears remembering and repeating:  "The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over again and expecting to get different results"

Millions and millions of fine young men were lost because of the sheer insanity of the French and British leadership. And although America came late to the war, American soldiers performed admirably, winning not just battles but the admiration of the French and British soldiers as well.

But few stop to realize that the reason American soldiers did so well was precisely because we were not a part of the stagnant military thinking of the European armies, and were therefore able to adapt to the new technologies better.  We did not have to un-invent the wheel in order to re-invent it.,

Without American intervention, WWI would have dragged on a lot longer, and probably would have collapsed with all sides unable to continue due to the losses and the sheer costs.  However, a continuing stalemate would most likely have led to a settlement other than the disgraceful Treaty of Versaille, and might have avoided WWII in the end.  So Britain and France sowed the seeds for their own involvement in a second World War by demanding the entrance of America.  As the Chinese so elegantly put it; "Be careful.  You may get what you wish for."

 


Edited by Mountain Man - 05-Mar-2013 at 13:23
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162
  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 11:47
if Britain and France were so inept, why did the usa get their troops trained by the French in their tactics?

Wilson sat back , made the Usa rich on the war, complained the Usa couldn't trade with Germany
then when it was clear who would win the war, jumped in with his untrained ill equipped army to get a seat at the big table, which he then ran away from.

How well would you access the Us troops performance In April 1918 at St.Mihiel?


I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'.
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 13:56
Originally posted by Azita

if Britain and France were so inept, why did the usa get their troops trained by the French in their tactics?

French soil, and the French had been in the war the longest.  Politics is a large part of war.  Besides, somebody had to teach, right?  And the British were guests on French soil themselves.

Wilson sat back , made the Usa rich on the war, complained the Usa couldn't trade with Germany
then when it was clear who would win the war, jumped in with his untrained ill equipped army to get a seat at the big table, which he then ran away from.

Not so.  If you want to be overly judgemental about national leaders, you need to direct your attention to France and Great Britain.

Wilson was isolationist and so was America, and he wasn't the most competent wartime leader, but he never intended to be, either. 

Profits?  You must be thinking of the mutual profiteering of Britain and Germany from killing each other using ammo and weaponry manufactured under mutual licensing and royalty agreements.  Krupp made huge amounts of money from the deaths of German soldiers killed by British shells and bullets.  Read The Arms Of Krupp.


Did American companies make profits?  Of course.  We were not under any obligation to give stuff away for nothing.  British, French and German manufacturers also made a lot of money off the war. 

How well would you access the Us troops performance In April 1918 at St.Mihiel?

17,000 prisoners and 275 guns for 7,000 casualties?  A good first effort by any Allied standard for an unseasoned force during WWI.  But how would you evaluate Belleau Wood?  The Marne?  Cantigny?  How would you honestly evaluate the insane tactics of the Allied European nations?  Marching into massed machine gun fire? Again and again because it didn't work last time?  Horse cavalry on battlefields dominated by machine guns? That's the classic definition of both insanity and sheer military incompetence.

Americans, unlike the other Allies, were quick learners, although you wouldn't think so when we look at our tactics in WWII - another discussion entirely.




When evaluating America in WWI we must remember at all times that America never wanted to be in that war in the first place.  When Wilson reluctantly agreed to take America into the war in defiance of the will of the America people, there was a great deal of catching up to be done before we could even consider getting started.  We did quite well under the circumstances.


Edited by Mountain Man - 05-Mar-2013 at 13:59
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162
  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 09:44
Originally posted by Mountain Man

, somebody had to teach, right?

So we agree then that the usa sent untrained troops to fight in the war
which was one of the points i made.

Originally posted by Mountain Man

If you want to be overly judgemental about national leaders, you need to direct your attention to France and Great Britain.

but this thread is about america.

Originally posted by Mountain Man

Wilson was isolationist and so was America,

so the usa did sit back and watch whilst making money, again that was my point

 
Originally posted by Mountain Man

Read The Arms Of Krupp.

i have, and you are correct in what you say, but THIS  thread is about america.

Originally posted by Mountain Man

Did American companies make profits? Of course

So the usa did use the war to make profit, whilst millions died.

Originally posted by Mountain Man

17,000 prisoners and 275 guns for 7,000 casualties?  A good first effort by any Allied standard for an unseasoned force during WWI. 

So why was Pershing so angry then?

Originally posted by Mountain Man

But how would you evaluate Belleau Wood?  The Marne?  Cantigny?

This thread is about the usa

Originally posted by Mountain Man

When evaluating America in WWI we must remember at all times that America never wanted to be in that war in the first place.

Agreed, america just wanted to profit from the war , without having its men die. which was my point.

FWIW if you start a thread about Britain & France in WW1, i would enjoy that, and i suspect agree with much of what you say regarding them.

But this thread was about america.

Please dont take it so personally, the large bold print is easyer to read, but i get the feeling it is an expression of anger, there really is no need.

Regards

Azita

 

I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'.
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15089
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 09:56
Originally posted by Azita

Originally posted by medenaywe

...became super power.


That is of course undoubted.
DO you consider the "method" that the USA achieved this honourable?

Or do the ends justify the means?


Nick, i thought i had demonstrated that in fact militarily the USA were NOT vital in the defeat of Germany.



 There is no appearance in screenplay without former predictive end Azita.Screenplay writers have been main "actors" in history till it's beginning.Names are those we are missing here.Big smileGuessing game is your topic here.Let us guess it!
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 12:00
''So we agree then that the us sent untrained troops to fight in the war
which was one of the points i made.''
No..... the following is what you posited.
 
''if Britain and France were so inept, why did the us get their troops trained by the French in their tactics?''
 
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The difference for the amateur is subtle, Misleading and generally or deliberately leads to revisionist efforts and presentation, based on a desire to support a prior bias or agenda.
 
 
Not for the professional military historian or Combat Arms Officer however.
 
 
And the answer is obvious; presuming; you did any research on the recent, prior WW1, operational record of  US forces. You should probably begin with post ACW and concentrate on the Indian Campaigns. And then the expansionism of US interests in the Cuba and Puerto Rico campaigns during the Spanish-American War. The campaign in the Philippines. US Marine operations in the 'Banana Wars' etc.
 
Consequently the glaring and, again obvious conclusion, is that; during those most recent campaigns the tactics-doctrine were not the same. Nor was the operational capability and doctrinal concepts of mobility and manuever limted, to a damaging signficance, given the  varying terrain and lack of use of extensive field fortifications. Even though, in certain circumstances terrain and weather, climate, disease and sanitary conditions and resultant casualties; did prove daunting. And in certain incidences the armaments and tech used. And especially by US opponents. 
 
As a result, A retraining for operations in Europe, to be more historically accurate, and in particular 'trench warfare' operations in western Europe became a necessity. Which, by Americans, had not been extensively conducted since the ACW...and developing doctrine had subsequently avoided for mobility and non static operational concepts. That those on the scene practicing it; would become trainers needs no further qualification. Whether they were correct doctrinal and tactical concepts is  another thread.
 
To assume US forces were not trained however in the standard doctrine and tactics of the day insofar as their military experience had developed, in the theaters in which they operated, is insulting to the force standardization efforts of the day. Thus your conjecture-statement that they were not trained, which by inference, includes; basic soldier skills, drill, marksmanship, and the use of combined arms operations, engineering operations, use of artillery and the ongoing development of air assets is false.
 
Why?
 
Because your overgeneralizing...in an effort to support your premise.
 
 
Inadequate research is no apologia.
 
 
But an objective comparative analysis of the force operational record is.
 
You posed: ''How well would you access the Us troops performance In April 1918 at St.Mihiel?''
He responded. He then further gave you examples of excellent performance viz ''But how would you evaluate Belleau Wood? The Marne? Cantigny?''. You attempted counter with: ''This thread is about the usa''.
 
And?
 
Those fights included US Troops.
 
Consequently your either avoiding his contention that their performance was good, given the short time they were in theater and also as a result of retraining in allied and conventional theater operational doctrine; all the while maintaining  their own concepts of unity of command, mobility and non static ops where practicable......or you should review your history.
 
Either way once again your anti-americanism bias is showing.
 
 
Why?
 
 
1. ''Because your overgeneralizing...in an effort to support your premise.
2.  ''Inadequate research is no apologia.''
 
3. '' The difference for the amateur is subtle. Misleading and generally or deliberately leads to revisionist efforts and presentation based on a desire to support a prior bias or agenda.


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 06-Mar-2013 at 12:20
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162
  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 12:19
Originally posted by medenaywe


  There is no appearance in screenplay without former predictive end Azita.Screenplay writers have been main "actors" in history till it's beginning.Names are those we are missing here.Big smileGuessing game is your topic here.Let us guess it!


Forgive me , i genuinely don't understand you here.
I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.