WW-II: Normandy landing

[Simon9]

Both you and Waylander admit the doughboys are what broke the camels back. If the US hadn't entered the war the fight would have kept on going. The British tanks, while innovative, were by FAR from effective. It would have been years of trench warfare until one side gave up. I didn't say the US did it's share of fighting but there is something you should realize from an American perspective. In that era the US were EXTREME isolationists. All they cared about was what happened 10 miles from their house. It wasn't until they turned on the radio from reports of Gallipoli that they realized the true cost of that war. The thousands of ANZACs being wasted to do the bidding of the Imperial whip infuriated many. With these detailed battle reports coming in American sentiment began to turn. With the resulting indiscriminate actions of the Kriegsmarine the rest is history. As Waylander said it is the "millions of fresh troops" that made the difference. Wether they actually fought is of little concern when it was what influenced the Chancellor to surrender.

No, that's not what I said. I said they were a major factor, but the war would have ended within a few months anyway because the British defeated the German Army in the field, and the British Navy effectively starved the German civilian population.

The biggest contribution the US made was forcing the Germans to launch their 1918 Spring Offensives before the bulk of the US forces arrived. They had to try and force an issue before the US troops made their presence felt.

This probably ended the war some months early because the Germans lost massive numbers of troops (I don't recall exact numbers but I'm thinking 450,000 casualties) which they could not replace. But the Germans WOULD have been defeated without the US troops for the reasons I already mentioned.

The biggest US contribution was in shortening the war, and like you said in the potential they represented. In that, you are correct, it doesn't matter that few of them actually fought.

It must also be said that the US forces, by the end, had adapted remarkably quickly and were on par with the British and French. Had the war continued a few more months, into 1919, the Americans would have become the decisive force in the West. But the combination of factors I've already mentioned (one of which was American potential) meant Germany surrendered in 1918.

 

[FutureTank]

a noble cause

Just so we get this right, WW1 has another name which better describes this cause...War of Serbian Independence.

Do you think USA in 1918 supported Serbian Independence?

 

[RubiconNZ]

It must also be said that the US forces, by the end, had adapted remarkably quickly and were on par with the British and French.

Give them a bit more time with the Anzacs and they may of even got to our standard

 

[Big-E]

Lusitania was a God-sent to US, and a blunder by Germans. The US public was generally NOT in support of participation in the European war. For US to enter the war, it had to be a 'good war' cause, and sinking of Lusitania made it that. Public opinion changed overnight.

I'm glad you see the truth but didn't you just say in this thread that:

The simple truth is that someone in the Administration realised that Allies are going to win, and that it would be useful to be on the winning side when bidding for reconstruction contracts.

You said it so I ask you to back it up if you believe it.

Finally after December 7, 1941 US was forced into a war by denying Japan access to scrap metal.

Your argiment that Japan had sufficient access to iron ore is not convincing... iron ore in Manchuria was low grade as I recall.

They had varying degrees of ore, the fact they had 4450 million metric tons of any quality ore in Manchuria is more than enough to fuel the war effort. It was their low quality smelting process that inhibited production. The embargo for scrap metal was placed on them as a result of allying with Hitler. All they had to do was remain autonomous from the Third Reich and the US wouldn't have placed any embargo on them. The Japanese had several paths that lead to NOT attacking America. It was certainly there biggest mistake. They could have found other resources or slowed down their war efforts to appease the US, they had no internal threats to speak of. The US seemed more than content with letting the Japanese rule SEA as long as they didn't touch US/AU interests. There is nothing we could have done to prevent the attack on Pearl. The US didn't back them into a corner... they were hell bent on taking over the world, US be damned.

Now, are you old enough to remember the 1973 oil crisis first began on October 17, 1973? It was in fact an oil embargo on the USA. Do you remeber Washington saying 'never again'? Do you remember why US-led forces liberated Kuwait in 1991?

I remeber instead of invading they issued gas rationing cards. We were such an aggressive monster... :devil

Why do you think Japanese would respond differently to being starved of oil just when their Empire is growing nicely and European colonies are collapsing under their strategy?

They starved themselves by siding with Hitler and being greedy with their land grab. The US didn't make them do anything.

Failure to achieve damage on US carriers was just a tactical failure. It was a failure, but in Japanese view acceptable

It was a strategic failure, not tactical. They planned to knock out PACFLT for 18 months, they were in full swing in 60 days. That in their view was not acceptable.

Now I suggest you calm down, have a :drunk1 and do a bit more reading then :usa waving

I suggest you learn the complacency of America... we didn't force Japan to attack us, they brought it on themselves. We didn't attack the ME when OPEC forced us to gas rationing. We really like to mind our own business despite what politicians want, only the two wars that were actually lost came from prefabricated evidence.

 

[Big-E]

No, that's not what I said. I said they were a major factor, but the war would have ended within a few months anyway because the British defeated the German Army in the field, and the British Navy effectively starved the German civilian population.

I ask you to paint me the picture you see if the US did nothing. I might be wrong but the battle of Jutland was no where near decisive. If the Germans were starving to death eventually they would attempt to break the blockade at some point. The cause of the Kiel mutinty was not that the men were cowards but that the US entry into the war made a break futile as they would lose anyway. If they didn't see the war as lost they would have sallied forth like true Germans and fought the Grand Fleet to a standstill. Like you said if the US hadn't come they wouldn't have launched the "Spring Offensive" and lost half a million men. Thats that many left in the trenches to kill Allies. By this time the Bolshevik government was begging for peace. If the US had told the Brits to go wank off they would have been the ones starving for food, ammo and supplies.

 

[FutureTank]

It would have been years of trench warfare until one side gave up.

Hmmm...Germany gave up
German territory was never invaded by the Allies.

The thousands of ANZACs being wasted to do the bidding of the Imperial whip infuriated many.

Oh really?! The ANZAC Corps was an all-volunteer formation. The Australian population, while independent since 1901 was still very much a part of the Empire culturally, and the pound remained as currency into the 60s. There was no talk of the 'Imperail whip' in Australia that I know of, and opponents to war were seen as traitors and Communists. The Corps represented the entire cross-section of Australian and New Zealand society from politicians to labourers, and public servants to farmers. Only towards the end of the war was conscription seen as something that may be required because the contribution of Australia and New Zealand to the war far exceeded what could have been expected from an all-volunteer forces considering the population sizes they came from.

Was the US Army all volunteer?
From US Archives:
Fall 1998, Vol. 30, No. 3
They Answered the Call
Military Service in the United States Army During World War I, 1917-1919
By Mitchell Yockelson
More than 24 million men registered for the draft, and almost 2.7 million men were furnished to the U.S. Army by conscription. The number of volunteer enlistments was slightly over 300,000. The US Regular Army numbered about 200,000 in 1917.

Now consider this figure:
For Australia, as for many nations, the First World War remains the most costly conflict ever in terms of deaths and casualties. From a population of fewer than five million, 300,000 men enlisted, of which over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner. http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/ww1.htm
Australia total served 330,000, 59,000KIA, 152,000WIA, total 211,000 (64%)
New Zealand served 110,000, 18,000KIA, 55,000WIA, total 73,000 (66%)

So how is it that US suffered double the Australian casualties in such a short time. It seems you are using selective sources. Consider this:
53,402 KIA + 63,114 other deaths = 116,516 (DoD; 1991)
126,000 (S&S; Eckhardt)
USA* served 4,272,500 (includes Navy and Marines), 117,000 (given as KIA but note above) 204,000 (non-combat related) total 321,000 (8%)

So in the few months of WW1 at its end US suffered 53,402 KIAs. How? Well, even this figure can be further understood by looking at this table
Cause of Death Overseas Domestic Total
Killed in Action 36,926 5 36,931
Died of Wounds 13,628 45 13,673
Died of Accident 2,557 1,946 4,503
Drowned 328 399 727
Committed Suicide 296 671 967
Murdered 159 159 318
Executed 11 25 36
Other Deaths 131 190 321
Total 54,036 3,440 57,476

So the actual combat loss should be 50,604. However the American Battle Monuments Commission "only have records of those casualties that are buried in our cemeteries or listed on the Walls of the Missing -- a total of 33,717 records." This is lower then even the KIA figure.

Why did US troops suffered such high casualties in the little time they spent in combat? Pershing ordered the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British Empire and French commanders because of the large loss of life sustained throughout the war.

Here is a very brief look at casualties in perspective of the timeline of last few months of the war.

June, 1917
7 General Staff issues plan to ship American forces at a rate of
120,000 per month beginning in August; this rate of dispatch
would not be realized until April 1918
14 Wilson, in his Flag Day Address, declares that the initial
American Expeditionary Force will be followed by more soldiers
as quickly as possible, and that these soldiers will not be
held in the US for training
26 First US troops (1st Division) arrive in France
July, 1917
2 Pershing makes first request for a US army of 1,000,000
11 Pershing suggests that figure of 1,000,000 is only initial
size, and a total force of 3,000,000 should be the goal
31 Passchendaele offensive (Third Battle of Ypres) opens in
Flanders
September, 1917
1 Pershing establishes his general headquarters at Chaumont
October, 1917
20 British launch surprise tank attack at Cambrai
December, 1917
7 United States and Austria-Hungary at war
March, 1918
21 Germans launch first of their great 1918 assaults against
British (Battle of Picardy)
April, 1918
9 Germans launch second assault of their 1918 offensive (Battle
of the Lys) in British sector of Armentieres
May, 1918
27 Third phase of 1918 German offensive (Third Battle of the
Aisne) begins in French sector along Chemin des Dames
28 28th Regiment of US 1st Division goes into action at town of
Cantigny
June, 1918
6 2nd Division captures Bouresches and southern part of Belleau
Wood (US casualties 1,811)
9 Opening of fourth phase of 1918 German offensive (Battle of
the Matz) in French sector between Noyon and Montdider

July, 1918
15 Opening of last phase of German offensive (Second Battle of the Marne)
18 Allied counterattack seizes strategical initiative from Germans; nine US divisions participate
August, 1918
8 Battle of Amiens opens; Ludendorf's "Black Day" for German army
10 1st US Army organized under Pershing
September, 1918
12 United States launches St. Mihiel offensive
26 Meuse-Argonne offensive opens; greatest offensive of war for US forces
October, 1918
3-4 Germans and Austrians send notes to Wilson requesting an armistice
12 Pershing forms 2nd Army under command of General Bullard
November, 1918
11 Armistice goes into effect at 11 AM, the eleventh day of the eleventh month

Cantigny in 28 May 1918 A regiment of the American 1st Division (some 4,000 troops), under Major-General Robert Lee Bullard, captured the village of Cantigny with the loss of 1,067 casualties

Chateau-Thierry from 3-4 June 1918 U.S. Second and Third Divisions at the behest of the French, counter-attack with the assistance of the French Tenth Colonial Division

Belleau Wood 6-26 June 1918 Second Division forces (Marine Corps, under James Harbord); wood was first taken by the Marines (and Third Infantry Brigade), then ceded back to the Germans - and again taken by the U.S. forces a total of six times before the Germans were finally expelled. Also captured were the nearby villages of Vaux and Bouresche. U.S. forces suffer 9,777 casualties, of which 1,811 were fatal.

131st and 132nd Regiments (33rd Division) saw action at the Battle of Le Hamel on July 4, 1918 while attached for training purposes to the Australian 4th Division.

Second Battle of the Marne 85,000 U.S. forces ((of 250,000 men available) 30,000 killed and wounded) plus troops from Sir Douglas Haig's British Expeditionary Force (BEF)
Phase I: July 15 - 17, 1918
3rd Division
28th Division
42nd Division
Phase II: July 18 - August 17, 1918
1st Division The 1st Division suffered 7,000 casualties, of whom it is believed that not one was a prisoner. Sixty per cent of it's infantry officers were killed or wounded
2nd Division The 2nd Division advanced 8 kilometers in the first 26 hours. This Division suffered some 4,000 casualties and, as it had made exhausting marches to reach the battlefield, and having recently been withdrawn from it's desperate fighting at Chateau-Thierry, the Division was relieved after the second day.
3rd Division finally on July 30th was relieved by the 32nd Division after having suffered a total loss, in the defense of the Marne and in crushing the German resistance
4th Division 4th Division now relieved the 42nd, on August 6th
26th Division The 26th Division was just northwest of Chateau-Thierry and together with the 167th French Division formed the 1st American Corps, which was the first American corps to exercise tactical command. lost 5,300 officers and soldiers
28th Division
32nd Division (KIA-2,250; WIA-11,011).
42nd Division lost some 5,500 officers and men
Phase III: August 18 - September 16, 1918
28th Division
32nd Division
77th Division
Battle of St. Mihiel September 12 - 16 - 7,000 casualties

Meuse-Argonne Offensive 25 September - 11 November 1918
objective was the capture of the railroad hub at Sedan
Ten American divisions of 26,000 men each (actually total authorized strength of new TO&E was 27,120 officers and enlisted men)
28th Division
35nd Division
77th Division
91st Division
37th Division
79th Division
4th Division
80th Division
33rd Division
92nd Division (under French control)
26,277 killed and 95,786 wounded

As can be seen the bulk of US battle casualties were suffered in the last two weeks of the war.
Of course you may want to challenge this finding with your own figures.

 

[Big-E]

Hmmm...Germany gave up

Because America intervened and they surrendered... that's my point, duh

Oh really?! The ANZAC Corps was an all-volunteer formation. The Australian population, while independent since 1901 was still very much a part of the Empire culturally, and the pound remained as currency into the 60s. There was no talk of the 'Imperail whip' in Australia that I know of, and opponents to war were seen as traitors and Communists.

The war initially was highly popular in Oz... it wasn't so much so after Gallipoli. After experiencing blunders and misteps led from London Australia began to realize the need to identify themselves as something different from the Imperial cloak. The baptism of fire for the ANZACS was really a baptism of fire for Australian identity as well. They were no longer relying on the heritage of the Britsh Empire but formed their own heritage by never bowing to military discipline but being fearless in battle and to top it off with a good beer at the end of the day. Gallipoli was a birth of a national identity.

 

[FutureTank]

Because American intervened and they surrendered... that's my point, duh

I DO see that this is YOUR point, but that does not make it true

The war initially was highly popular in Oz... it wasn't so much so after Gallipoli. After experiencing blunders and misteps led from London Australia began to realize the need to identify themselves as something different from the Imperial cloak. The baptism of fire for the ANZACS was really a baptism of fire for Australian identity as well. They were no longer relying on the heritage of the Britsh Empire but formed their own heritage by never bowing to military discipline but being fearless in battle and top it off with a good beer at the end of the day. Gallipoli was a birth of a national identity.

I think you are confused, but this is not surprising because recently some Australian political figures made same mistakes.

However I don't think this thread is the place to discuss Australian national identity other then by saying that Federation in 1901 was that time of its creation.
Where do you get that Australians "never bowed to military discipline"? There is just a difference between mindless obedience and carrying out orders. Australians were great at the later.
Nor were they "fearless in battle". Only people that have something wrong with them are so "fearless".
It seems to me you are speaking from very stereotypical points of view.

By the way, have you ever wondered why the term GI was adopted by US Army instead of doughboy? One theory given to me was that when Australians first encountered Americans they were big, white and 'virgin' at soldiering (soft). Australians, who by this time had lost much weight and replaced it with muscle, were veterans with a complection that compared quite well to the French Colonial troops
However this was NOT a derogative term. Just a reflection on the contrast.

 

[Big-E]

Where do you get that Australians "never bowed to military discipline"? There is just a difference between mindless obedience and carrying out orders.

For example: Diggers rarely if ever saluted the British officers

Nor were they "fearless in battle". Only people that have something wrong with them are so "fearless". It seems to me you are speaking from very stereotypical points of view.

If I deem to characterize Diggers at Gallipoli fearless then sue me. They won't shed any tears if I stereo-type them as such.

By the way, have you ever wondered why the term GI was adopted by US Army instead of doughboy? One theory given to me was that when Australians first encountered Americans they were big, white and 'virgin' at soldiering (soft). Australians, who by this time had lost much weight and replaced it with muscle, were veterans with a complection that compared quite well to the French Colonial troops
However this was NOT a derogative term. Just a reflection on the contrast.

That doesn't make any sense... GI origanly stood for Galvanized Iron when refering to troops but later became confused with Government Issue of equipment. US doughboys were generally big Southern farmers who could kick your ass.

 

[Whiskyjack]

For example: Diggers rarely if ever saluted the British officers

Yes but like the Kiwi's if the officer in question waved they did wave back.

 

[FutureTank]

For example: Diggers rarely if ever saluted the British officers.

This was partly to save their lives (snipers)
and partly because Australians believe respect is earned and not given.

The process of "sue me" is a legal means of establishing either party being 'right'. I think its unnecessary
It just seems to me its a very 'paper' term.

That doesn't make any sense... GI origanly stood for Galvanized Iron when refering to troops but later became confused with Government Issue of equipment. US doughboys were generally big Southern farmers who could kick your ass.

Well, I learned something new The meaning of GI and that US Army was made up of Southern Farmers

Now, is the ability to "kick ass" an official US Army measure of combat proficiency during WW1?

 

[FutureTank]

Yes but like the Kiwi's if the officer in question waved they did wave back.

Australians were much kinder then Kiwis
If a British officer waved they jumped in and dragged them out of the surf nfloorl:

Still pulling Poms out of it every year at Bondi

 

[Simon9]

I ask you to paint me the picture you see if the US did nothing. I might be wrong but the battle of Jutland was no where near decisive. If the Germans were starving to death eventually they would attempt to break the blockade at some point. The cause of the Kiel mutinty was not that the men were cowards but that the US entry into the war made a break futile as they would lose anyway. If they didn't see the war as lost they would have sallied forth like true Germans and fought the Grand Fleet to a standstill. Like you said if the US hadn't come they wouldn't have launched the "Spring Offensive" and lost half a million men. Thats that many left in the trenches to kill Allies. By this time the Bolshevik government was begging for peace. If the US had told the Brits to go wank off they would have been the ones starving for food, ammo and supplies.

I believe the Kiel mutiny was the result of a last desperate attempt to sortie to break the Allied blockade and restore honour to the German Navy. The men knew it was futile and suicidal, because the chance of them defeating the Grand Fleet was practically zero. So the men mutinied. They weren't scared of the US forces - they were scared of the British Grand Fleet, with good reason. Even though Jutland was a minor victory to the Germans, tactically, it wasn't enough of a victory to give a reasonable chance of success in the rematch. There were a few US battleships in the Grand Fleet by this time, but it was overwhelmingly the Royal Navy that was about to annhilate them if they sortied.

The picture I see, if the US did nothing, is that the war probably would have extended a few months into early 1919. But that's about all. The Germans would probably have launched offensives in the West anyway because they had a massive transfer of troops from the East after the collapse of Russia. The British were not dangerously short of food or supplies by that time because the introduction of convoying and Q-ships had substantially won the U-boat war. Eventually the German home front would have revolted, and the British and French would have defeated the German Army in the field just as they did in 1918.

Futuretank: Can you explain why there is such a massive difference between the two US war deaths figures of ca. 50,000 and ca. 130,000? Or which figure is right? I've seen both figures in multiple places. It seems bizarre when the Australian figure is known almost to the exact man.

 

[FutureTank]

The Germans would probably have launched offensives in the West anyway because they had a massive transfer of troops from the East after the collapse of Russia. .

No, Germany's last offensive was it in terms of manpower. They had staggering losses, and had literally run out of metal.

Futuretank: Can you explain why there is such a massive difference between the two US war deaths figures of ca. 50,000 and ca. 130,000? Or which figure is right? I've seen both figures in multiple places. It seems bizarre when the Australian figure is known almost to the exact man.

Its ahrd to get good figures because many records were destroyed in a fire during the 60s.
Its also difficult to establish casualties. The 127,00 figure often quoted is total casualties, but includes ALL types of casualties as you see form the table (which is a bit hard to read). For example Australian records for wounded only show non-returned wounded because many troops were wounded and returned (some many times). Given recovery time, it is probable that regardless of degree of wound none of the US wounded returned before the end of war, so they are all shown as non-returned casualties. This makes it difficult to know actual combat casualties which are KIA+non-returned wounded.
I am far from expert on American WW1 statistics, and the idea here is not to debate who bled most. The point is that US casualties were neither reflecting of the style of fighting, nor decisiveness of US participation. The quantity of casualties incurred in the last two weeks also suggests that either the German resistance was greater then during the rest of the war encountered by other Allied contingents, or that tactics used were faulty. Based on my reading of Australian, New Zealand and British expereince I would tentitively suggest that German resistance was not different in the last two weeks when compared to combat over the previous two years. It leads me to conclude that the tactics employed by the US troops were responsible for the casualties.

 

[Simon9]

No, Germany's last offensive was it in terms of manpower. They had staggering losses, and had literally run out of metal.

You misunderstood me, sorry - I meant, if the US had not entered the war, Germany would still have launched its offensives in the West as a final gamble before the pressure of the blockade became overwhelming. It would not have just used the extra transfer of men to go on the defensive in the West because the blockade was too pressing an issue.

By the end of the fifth 1918 offensive Germany was spent.

Its ahrd to get good figures because many records were destroyed in a fire during the 60s.
Its also difficult to establish casualties. The 127,00 figure often quoted is total casualties, but includes ALL types of casualties as you see form the table (which is a bit hard to read).

So the 127,000 figure is killed AND wounded? I thought this was correct but wiki and other sources I've seen cite 127,000 as the total killed.

EDIT - I just check again and the 53,000 KIA and 63,000 'non-theatre' deaths which I suppose probably takes into account the deaths from Spanish Flu.

 

[FutureTank]

You misunderstood me, sorry - I meant...By the end of the fifth 1918 offensive Germany was spent.

So the 127,000 figure is killed AND wounded? I thought this was correct but wiki and other sources I've seen cite 127,000 as the total killed.

Ok sorry, yes you are right.

The 127,000 is usually given as 'casualties'. This, as can be seen in the table includes deserters hanged in USA among others. Statistics is a 'bitch'

Actual KIA in the theatre were what the US equivalent of our war graves commission says, which is just over 33,000 (including missing).
I would suggest that of the rest, unreturned wounded were probably in proportion to other armies (I don't have figures ready), but are not 94,000. At a guess I would say 23,500.
If anyone has better figures please post.

 

[Big-E]

The cause of the Kiel mutinty was not that the men were cowards but that the US entry into the war made a break futile as they would lose anyway. If they didn't see the war as lost they would have sallied forth like true Germans and fought the Grand Fleet to a standstill.

I believe the Kiel mutiny was the result of a last desperate attempt to sortie to break the Allied blockade and restore honour to the German Navy. The men knew it was futile and suicidal, because the chance of them defeating the Grand Fleet was practically zero. So the men mutinied. They weren't scared of the US forces - they were scared of the British Grand Fleet, with good reason. Even though Jutland was a minor victory to the Germans, tactically, it wasn't enough of a victory to give a reasonable chance of success in the rematch. There were a few US battleships in the Grand Fleet by this time, but it was overwhelmingly the Royal Navy that was about to annhilate them if they sortied.

Considering Waylander is from Kiel I would love to hear what he has to say about it.

The picture I see, if the US did nothing, is that the war probably would have extended a few months into early 1919. But that's about all. The Germans would probably have launched offensives in the West anyway because they had a massive transfer of troops from the East after the collapse of Russia.

How many German invasions had been of that scope? It wasn't a typical German offensive, it was one of desperation that allowed Allied troops to mow them down. That desperation IMO was brought on by the Doughboys.

The British were not dangerously short of food or supplies by that time because the introduction of convoying and Q-ships had substantially won the U-boat war.

Well the Q ships didn't do much of jack squat. I remind you that it was the US lend lease on destroyers that enabled the Fleet to successfly initiate convoy duty. Without the US to bolster the convoys the U-Boats probably would have won the battle of the Atlantic... a Dreadnought is pretty useless against one. Without US aid and supplies I don't see how the British could have carried on the war.

Eventually the German home front would have revolted, and the British and French would have defeated the German Army in the field just as they did in 1918.

Without the US supplying the war effort what would France be able to do? They might not have been the "Arsenal of Democracy" just yet but their contribution to warstuffs and food goods is incalculable.

 

[Simon9]

How many German invasions had been of that scope? It wasn't a typical German offensive, it was one of desperation that allowed Allied troops to mow them down. That desperation IMO was brought on by the Doughboys.

The Germans didn't launch offensives much at all after Verdun, because they were fighting a two-front war and were on the strategic defensive. Allied troops certainly did not mow down the Michael Offensive of 1918. It was by far the most successful attack of the entire war, by either side. It pushed the Allies nearly back to Paris, and it nearly succeeded. It was stopped by determined British and French resistance, and then a series of counterattacks including the famous Australian attack at Villers-Bretonneux.

If you want to argue that the timing of the offensive was hastened by the the threat of American troops, I think that's a fair point. Whether that had any effect on its failure, I don't know. I have my doubts that it increased their desperation - it may have reduced their preparedness though.

Well the Q ships didn't do much of jack squat. I remind you that it was the US lend lease on destroyers that enabled the Fleet to successfly initiate convoy duty. Without the US to bolster the convoys the U-Boats probably would have won the battle of the Atlantic... a Dreadnought is pretty useless against one. Without US aid and supplies I don't see how the British could have carried on the war.

I think you are mixing up WWI and WWII here. Convoys and Q ships were the major factor in WWI. And the US lend lease destroyers were in WWII. The destroyers, even then, weren't much help because they were so old - but that is another story for another time. Most of the escort vessels in the critical part of both WWI and WWII were British. If you read up on it you will see that the British won the Battle of the Atlantic in both world wars. By the time American naval help became substantial the battle was over. It was escorted convoys that won it in World War I.

Without the US supplying the war effort what would France be able to do? They might not have been the "Arsenal of Democracy" just yet but their contribution to warstuffs and food goods is incalculable.

US supplies in WWI were substantial but nowhere near as much as in WWII. In fact if you read up on it you'll find that the French actually supplied the Americans with many of their weapons. SPAD aircraft and the terrible Chauchat machine guns, in particular, as well as nearly all their field artillery (the famous 75mm).

 

[Waylander]

The revolt of the naval personal in Kiel was due to the fact that the soldiers did not wanted to participate in a useless battle just for the "honour".

That's just like you said it.
Even if there would have been no american ships it would have still been a useless battle with thousands of deaths for nothing.
They would have revolted anyway.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I meant Garry... you should feel honored I confused you with him.

OK, I've missed out on something - what was meant for me?

now I am confused....