True decisive battles in WORLD HISTORY

Mott the Hoople said:
Balanced certainly. Fair? I’m not so sure. Much of the support of Haig is based on Allied Victory in WW1. The problem with that is that without the bolstering in manpower the Allies desperately needed from America’s entry into the war the Allies almost certainly would have lost the war during the Spring Offensive of 1918.

Also, the victory was phyrric as the Allied Victory in WW1 was inconclusive and had to be fought again twenty years later. Britain’s era of Imperial Empire had ended and the Edwardian class system had crumbled.

Much of what was stated in the link you provided is true. Haig was certainly qualified to command, competent by the measure of that time, faced with extraordinary circumstances no Britsh Commander had ever faced and at the end he stood among the Allies as a victor.

That doesn’t mitigate his great failings as a General. His lack of imagination, his inability to accept facts that contradicted his beliefs, his callousness towards his men and casualties and his inability to learn lessons from mistakes. For example during the American Civil War US Grant sent men in uniform lines to attack a fixed defensive position at Cold Harbor. Within a few hours Grant Lost 7000 men and the Confederates didn’t even have machine guns or high explosive artillary. Grant recognized it as a huge mistake and never repeated it again. Haig made an even bigger mistake at the first day of the Somme and repeated the same mistake nearly 160 times before weather ended it for him.

Ultimately though Haigs defenders are silenced by the weight of opinion of esteemed military historians as Winston Churchill, B.H. Liddel-Hart, J.F.C. Fuller and John Keegan in that though Haig was certainly no donkey, a great commander he was not.

J.F.C. Fuller and John Keegan in that though Haig was certainly no donkey, a great commander he was not.
Click to expand...

We have been throughout this before, they wouldn't have lost the war. Yes, the entry of the Americans was a moral booster but ultimately the only real effect was to shorten the war. The Germans were being starved out and I believe there would have been a bloody revolution sooner or later.

The technology of the war was also against the Germans. Yes, their storm troopers were amazingly effective, but this tactic was also being adopted on a mass scale by the British and French. The allies began to have superiority in aircraft and the tanks produced were of far better quality and in vastly superior numbers.

Without the US, Germany would have probably had better armistice terms than when the US ensured the certainty of defeat. The intervention of the US may very well have sown the seeds for Germany's total humiliation and the subsequent rise of the Nazis. However I very much doubt that any American historian would tell you that.
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
We have been throughout this before, they wouldn't have lost the war. Yes, the entry of the Americans was a moral booster but ultimately the only real effect was to shorten the war. The Germans were being starved out and I believe there would have been a bloody revolution sooner or later.

The technology of the war was also against the Germans. Yes, their storm troopers were amazingly effective, but this tactic was also being adopted on a mass scale by the British and French. The allies began to have superiority in aircraft and the tanks produced were of far better quality and in vastly superior numbers.

Without the US, Germany would have probably had better armistice terms than when the US ensured the certainty of defeat. The intervention of the US may very well have sown the seeds for Germany's total humiliation and the subsequent rise of the Nazis. However I very much doubt that any American historian would tell you that.
Click to expand...
Probably because it’s not true. The Americans argued for unconditional surrender as they did in WWII. The Allies disagreed and an armistice was agreed to. This armistice is what permitted the great lie in Germany that the German army had not been defeated but betrayed by fifth columns, particularly Jews, which was one of the key reasons for the rise of the NAZI’s.

The numbers clearly show the Allies very likly would have lost the Spring Offensive of 1918 without American manpower. They nearly lost it with American manpower. If America had not entered the war Germany would have had nearly a 100 division superiority in manpower due to Russia’s collapse. It’s doubtful that the French and Britts alone could have stopped them.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Probably because it’s not true. The Americans argued for unconditional surrender as they did in WWII. The Allies disagreed and an armistice was agreed to. This armistice is what permitted the great lie in Germany that the German army had not been defeated but betrayed by fifth columns, particularly Jews, which was one of the key reasons for the rise of the NAZI’s.

The numbers clearly show the Allies very likly would have lost the Spring Offensive of 1918 without American manpower. They nearly lost it with American manpower. If America had not entered the war Germany would have had nearly a 100 division superiority in manpower due to Russia’s collapse. It’s doubtful that the French and Britts alone could have stopped them.
Click to expand...

The US army was very inefficient back then and the army was small, untrained but the US had a very efficient arms industry. The first ground engagement, the Battle of Cantigny, only took place in mid 1918 and was not a great success. In fact almost all battles fought under the command of Pershing were ineffective. You are allowing misplaced national pride to cloud your judgement. Do yourself a favour and read AJP Taylor, there is no historian that knew more than him on the subject.

You don't seem to understand the shock to the national psyche that the occupation of the Rhineland had, that and the onerous reparations demanded by the French. I am not sure what you mean by unconditional surrender but that was pretty damn close in my estimation.
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
The US army was very inefficient back then and the army was small, untrained but the US had a very efficient arms industry. The first ground engagement, the Battle of Cantigny, only took place in mid 1918 and was not a great success. In fact almost all battles fought under the command of Pershing were ineffective. You are allowing misplaced national pride to cloud your judgement. Do yourself a favour and read AJP Taylor, there is no historian that knew more than him on the subject.

You don't seem to understand the shock to the national psyche that the occupation of the Rhineland had, that and the onerous reparations demanded by the French. I am not sure what you mean by unconditional surrender but that was pretty damn close in my estimation.
Click to expand...

Oh The US Army was pathetic back then. The Allies had every right to be skeptical and condescending about its capabilities. What my reading has indicated that what infuriated the Allies is that the US was more than willing to supply war materials, food, munitions and even money to help the Allies out but that's not what the Allies really needed. Both France and England had smooth running war industries supplied with raw materials and food stuffs from their Imperial Colonies. What the Allies needed desperately was manpower which the US had in abundance but was hesitant, and understandably so, to provide.

The US had no understanding of modern trench warfare tactics, no training infrastructure, no staff capabilities, few modern weapons and as an independent Army the US forces were in pathetic condition by the Spring of 1918 in spite of the US having declared war a year earlier on Germany. The US Army was indeed ineffective on its own. So that's where a compromise on amalgamation occurred. Instead of doing it at the unit level, which is what Britain and France wanted, the US thought such a piecemeal approach a bad idea and not in US National interest but they did compromise on amalgamation at the division and corp level instead. That way the US Army has a recognizable presence on the battle field, US Soldiers stayed under the command of US officers and the Allies got the American troops trained and into combat quicker, effectively and in time to repel the Spring Offensive of 1918 which, as I stated earlier, they probably would have lost without US Manpower.

By unconditional surrender I mean like how the Germans were forced to surrender without conditions after WWII. Though the terms of the Armistice were tough with loss of national territory and massive indemnities and were close to an unconditional surrender. The big mistake was that the terms of the Armistice did not force the German Government and Military to admit that they had been soundly defeated on the battle field and this eventually had catastrophic consequences.

The great lie that the NAZI's sold the German people on in their rise to power was that the German people had not been defeated on the field of battle but had been betrayed by their Generals and fifth column elements, like the Jews and Communists, etc,. To propagate the great lie they only had to point to armistice agreements in the Treaty of Versailles where the German delegates never admitted to military defeat.

We now know with 20:20 hindsight that was a catastrophic mistake and that the Allies should have required "Unconditional Surrender" from the Germans and forced them to admit military defeat, as the Germans has lost on the battlefield, and if the Allies continued fighting the Germans would have been forced to such a capitulation anyway.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh The US Army was pathetic back then. The Allies had every right to be skeptical and condescending about its capabilities. What my reading has indicated that what infuriated the Allies is that the US was more than willing to supply war materials, food, munitions and even money to help the Allies out but that's not what the Allies really needed. Both France and England had smooth running war industries supplied with raw materials and food stuffs from their Imperial Colonies. What the Allies needed desperately was manpower which the US had in abundance but was hesitant, and understandably so, to provide.

The US had no understanding of modern trench warfare tactics, no training infrastructure, no staff capabilities, few modern weapons and as an independent Army the US forces were in pathetic condition by the Spring of 1918 in spite of the US having declared war a year earlier on Germany. The US Army was indeed ineffective on its own. So that's where a compromise on amalgamation occurred. Instead of doing it at the unit level, which is what Britain and France wanted, the US thought such a piecemeal approach a bad idea and not in US National interest but they did compromise on amalgamation at the division and corp level instead. That way the US Army has a recognizable presence on the battle field, US Soldiers stayed under the command of US officers and the Allies got the American troops trained and into combat quicker, effectively and in time to repel the Spring Offensive of 1918 which, as I stated earlier, they probably would have lost without US Manpower.

By unconditional surrender I mean like how the Germans were forced to surrender without conditions after WWII. Though the terms of the Armistice were tough with loss of national territory and massive indemnities and were close to an unconditional surrender. The big mistake was that the terms of the Armistice did not force the German Government and Military to admit that they had been soundly defeated on the battle field and this eventually had catastrophic consequences.

The great lie that the NAZI's sold the German people on in their rise to power was that the German people had not been defeated on the field of battle but had been betrayed by their Generals and fifth column elements, like the Jews and Communists, etc,. To propagate the great lie they only had to point to armistice agreements in the Treaty of Versailles where the German delegates never admitted to military defeat.

We now know with 20:20 hindsight that was a catastrophic mistake and that the Allies should have required "Unconditional Surrender" from the Germans and forced them to admit military defeat, as the Germans has lost on the battlefield, and if the Allies continued fighting the Germans would have been forced to such a capitulation anyway.
Click to expand...

It was humiliation that fuelled the rise of the Nazis, what you seem to be saying is that total humiliation would have stopped them. I frankly cannot follow that logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top