re: The stupidity of World War I

quote:

---

Good analysis - and, without Britain in the War, I cut the chance that we enter in half. Yeah, "Lafayette, we are here!" - and all of that jazz, but without Britain, it is not certain we entered the war - as it is, we waited until 1917 - and, as you suggest, the war might have been over by the time we overcame isolationist opposition.

---

IMO without the British in the war, there's zero chance we'd get into the war. For starters, without Britain, the war probably would not have lasted past the Spring of 1915 at the latest. Also, without Britain in the war there never would have been an effort by Germany to blockaid GB via submarine warfare which was one of the main things that led to the U.S. entering the war.

Another interesting aspect of this "what if" rabbit hole we've gone down, speculating the ramifications of GB staying out of the war; What would the U.S. have looked like today had WWI been a short war? For starters, the U.S. would never have seen the massive amount of wealth flood into it's borders via wartime expenditures of war material. GB, Russia, & France would have never drained their treasuries dry over four long years buying arms, ammo, and supplies from the U.S. This means with Europe not up to it's eyeballs in debt to the U.S., there's a good chance that America would never have emerged as the world power we are today. We'd still be a major economic power, we were already emerging as one even before WWI. But with the major powers of Europe not driving themselves into bankruptcy and collapse via a long, expensive, and bloody war, the U.S. would not have been left as the strongest and richest country in the world like we saw at the end of WWI. What would that world look like today?

quote:

---

IMHO, it is a prejudiced/biased opinion to come away from WWI with this impression, when it's solely applied to the French Army.

There were instances during WWI in which British and German army Soldiers "wilted as they continued to take casualties".

The French army experiences have been better documented and were on a larger scale, but, French units were not the only ones to degrade in combat effectiveness.

At the Marne, the British commander felt that his own troops had had enough. That's a form of "wilting", IMHO.

On the Black Day of the German Army in August of 1918, German units under attack collapsed into headlong rout. This was certainly "wilting".

So, IMHO, "wilting" under sustained combat is a threat to any unit in any army at any time. The Commander's task is to manage his units so that such wilting or collapse is avoided. It's a problem that's shared by every army at all historical times.

Link to August, 1918, and the Black Day of the German Army

LINK

---

You make a good point about the French and their performance in the war. They fought as hard or harder and suffered losses that were only Russia & Germany surpassed. But let's also not forget that in 1917 for all intents ans purpose the French Army all but collapsed and even mutinied. The only thing that kept Germany from winning the war then and there was they had no idea what was going on in the French rear. I still don't get how they could have missed this.

I will say this though. It does say something about the French of WWI that they could go through the mutinies of 1917 and keep on fighting for another year and eventually gaining victory, albeit with a lot of help from her Allies.

I never knew I could be so interested in WWI. Thanks to everyone for all of the analysis because I admit I know so little about any of this stuff.

If the British had not entered the war and if it had ended sooner leaving Germany as the major power then there wouldn't be any war reparations, loss of colonies, etc... The Nazi propaganda wouldn't have started up right? How you think this would have played out over the 20th century with no Hitler. Does WWII still happen? Do we just have a war with Japan? Sorry if dumb question.

quote:

---

WWII may never happen.

---

Well, it's very unlikely it would have happened as it did if Germany hadn't lost WWI and signed the abusive Treaty of Versailles. A young Bavarian Reserve corporal (native Austrian), blinded from a French gas attack, recovering in a hospital heard the news of the surrender and vowed, that day, to reverse that loss and humiliation. Ironic that he was in Munich, at least partially because he was dodging Hapsburg service, when war broke out and he volunteered to serve in the Bavarian military as an Austrian citizen.

quote:

---

IMHO, if WWI had been settled early with a negotiated peace on conditions close to status quo antebellum, there would have been no German Nazi Party, because the terrible conditions that gave legitimacy to such a radical revolutionary political party would not have existed.

---

Agree. The Nazis were a direct result of the defeat and total collapse of the German political system in Germany that followed that defeat. Had Germany won the war, especially if was a short, relevantly "easy" war, the monarchy in Germany would have emerged stronger than ever.

quote:

---

Kaiser Wilhelm II was not a good national leader, but, once Imperial Germany got past him around 1940, perhaps the next Kaiser may have presided over a very prosperous and peaceful Imperial Germany from 1940 or so to present times. Who knows?

---

I'd imagine the monarchy in Germany over time would have morphed into something akin to what we see in Britain today. I think the Kaisers would still retain some political power though instead of being mostly ceremonial in nature.

I wonder how the monarchy in Russia would have fared after a short WWI where they were on the losing end of a negotiated peace. I think the monarchy would have survived, but in what form? Remember, the Czar, unlike George V in GB, & the Kaiser in Germany was an absolute monarch who ruled by decree. Would this system have been able to survive losing to Germany? Remember there was already strong unrest and turmoil in Russia even before 1914. And then there's the matter of a heir to the throne of Russia. Nicholas only had one son and he was, to put it mildly, quite "sickly".

quote:

---

With no Nazi Germany attacking the Soviet Union in 1941, Japan probably doesn't attack the USA in December, 1941. Japan's grand strategy heavily relied on Hitler's assurance that he would continue the war against Stalin until final victory.

From 1939 to 1941, the Soviet Union was a threat to Japan's West flank that Hitler neutralized, giving Japan the strategic freedom to pursue aggression to their East.

---

Perhaps, but remember that Japan was an emerging world power with aspirations of empire in the Pacific and on the Asian mainland. They'd already defeated Russia in humiliating fashion at the turn of the century. Likewise, the U.S. had it's own concerns in the Pacific. I think even independent of WWII, it was only a matter of time before the U.S. and Japan faced off against one another.

One interesting thing to consider here is what would be the position of Great Britain if this were to happen? Remember, the British were a major player in the Far East. Who would the British have seen as their main rival? Could the Japanese have forged and alliance with the Brits against the U.S.? And what about Germany? If they were still a major world pier after defeating France and Russia, I'm sure they'd have something to say about things in the Pacific. Remember that almost as soon as war broke out in 1914, Japan pounced on German holdings there. They'd remember that. I think it's possible there could have been a conflict with Japan and GB facing Germany and the U.S. Now that would have been interesting.

quote:

---

Could the Japanese have forged and alliance with the Brits against the U.S.?

---

Highly unlikely. Natural resources aside, the Brits were already suffering from colonial "fatigue" by the 1920s. The U.S., U.K. and Japan were all allies during WWI. By the time of the Washington Treaty (1922), the Brits were distancing themselves from Japan and recognizing the U.S. as a naval equal. Egypt had been granted independence the same year, and the Dominions were recognized as having the ability to set their own foreign policy at the Imperial Conference in 1923. The Balfour was just 3 years later in 1926.

How much of this was triggered or influenced by WWI? Certainly some, but it appears that anti-colonialism was taking hold in the U.K. quite early. By the late 1930s, certainly they would have been in favor of free flow of trade, and particularly Hong Kong and Singapore, but would they have sided with an militaristic, expansionist Japan over the U.S. at that point? Unlikely.

I agree that a UK/Japanese alliance against the USA would have been unlikely in all circumstances.

However, I think that you would agree that the UK WOULD pursue its own best interests in all circumstances, with no regard for any sentimental fondness for the USA, which the UK would abandon when dictated by the best interests of the UK.

It's just that it's very unlikely that US and UK "best interests" would ever diverge to such a great extent.

quote:

---

Thanks a lot Brits, because of you we had to drop nukes.

---