The Great War - Myths and Fiction

[Grythius Avalorius]

This is a continuation thread to discuss what terribly wrong info were were force fed during our education. Did the United States really win the war? Were the Germans the first to use gas? Just how much manure hit the fan during the Somme? These questions answered, and much more! (We hope)

[King Sama]

Well I guess I'll continue here:

Don't even get me started on my 7th grade education. It's pathetic. Every year in history, we learn the same thing in a slightly different way: colonization of North America. It was fun in grade 3, but when you do it 4 years in a row it just gets repetitive. If you ask anybody in my class who Napoleon was, you get this answer: wasn't he the short guy with a wig and a tall hat. An that's one of the best ones. It drives me crazy! Especially when I have to correct my teachers. The only wars that have ever been mentioned are the war of 1812 and the seven years war. To get a real dose of history in school, I have to right a history essay in language.

You have no idea how much I hated US history before I got to middle school It was realy just a bunch of BS and propoganda, not to mention repetitive as hell

I was quite excited to learn about the romans in 6th grade though...

[EmperorBatman999]

I thought the Russians were the first to use gas, but it wasn't effective due to no trench warfare on the eastern front.

[Silius Saurus]

Yes, the Germans were the first to use poison gas. They used it first on the Russians, and for the first time in a large scale attack against the Ypres Salient. The French Colonial Division (Martinique) got the worst of it, which opened up a huge gap on the left flank of the Canadian Corps, which was appearing in it's first battle. The Canadian 1st Division and the remnants of the French units rallied and stopped the German advance. The Germans used it against the Canadians the next day; made some gains but the Canadians held them off.

My Grandad was a WWI vet - he had been gassed during the 100 Days campaign; it contributed to his dying of emphysema at about age 60. Three years before I was born, so I never knew him.

The US did not "win the war". They helped, of course, and their being there ensured that the Allies would not lose it, but no, in no real sense did they win the war. The naval blockade and the shattering of the German Army by the Allies during the 100 Days Campaign was how the war was won. The German generals were able to escape blame by shifting the responsibility to the civilian government for losing the war, hence the myth of "the stab in the back". In retrospect, the Allies should have stormed across the Rhine and marched into Berlin. Then there would have been no WW2. But they didn't, so here we are.

I'm assuming that you are talking about the losses at the Battle of The Somme. Well, if you consider 60,000 casualties on one day (20,000 dead) "the manure hitting the fan", then I suppose you could call it that. I tend to think that the 3rd Battle of Ypres (Passchendaele) was in the long run even more damaging to the BEF than the Somme was. The Somme, however, remains a deep wound on the British national psyche and it can be argued that it was there that the British Empire started it's march down the road to ruin.

[Whukid]

This is a continuation thread to discuss what terribly wrong info were were force fed during our education. Did the United States really win the war? Were the Germans the first to use gas? Just how much manure hit the fan during the Somme? These questions answered, and much more! (We hope)

The AEF is the single most definitive cause of victory in World War 1. With the exception of Great Britain(commonwealth included), every other Allied nation involved in World War 1 was dealing with massed mutinies on the battlefield. Not only that, it wasn't until 1918 that the Germans fought the West with both hands and came very close to winning, save for one division in the Second Battle of the Marne.

The 1st Battle of the Somme was a complete and utter catastrophe. In fact, it effectively kept the BEF out of any major offensives for a whole year, and this is after they got whooped by a bunch of National Guard (landwehr) in Antwerp.

Yes, the Germans were the first to use poison gas. They used it first on the Russians, and for the first time in a large scale attack against the Ypres Salient. The French Colonial Division (Martinique) got the worst of it, which opened up a huge gap on the left flank of the Canadian Corps, which was appearing in it's first battle. The Canadian 1st Division and the remnants of the French units rallied and stopped the German advance. The Germans used it against the Canadians the next day; made some gains but the Canadians held them off.

My Grandad was a WWI vet - he had been gassed during the 100 Days campaign; it contributed to his dying of emphysema at about age 60. Three years before I was born, so I never knew him.

The US did not "win the war". They helped, of course, and their being there ensured that the Allies would not lose it, but no, in no real sense did they win the war. The naval blockade and the shattering of the German Army by the Allies during the 100 Days Campaign was how the war was won. The German generals were able to escape blame by shifting the responsibility to the civilian government for losing the war, hence the myth of "the stab in the back". In retrospect, the Allies should have stormed across the Rhine and marched into Berlin. Then there would have been no WW2. But they didn't, so here we are.

The US, in fact, is responsible for Allied victory in World War 1. The Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders , French, British, and every other Entente related country got steamrolled by the Germans through out the war. By 1917, the French Army had dangerously high amounts of soldiers who would rather face a firing squad than the machineguns of the Germans, and with good reason; by the time of US arrival and deployment, the Allies had exactly one victory against the Germans (Petain's triple offensive). As I previously stated, it was the 2nd Battle of the Marne that saved Paris, and was won by the hardpressed 3rd Division. Had the US not been in the theatre, the Germans would've plowed through French conscripts and sacked Paris. This would've caused a massive mutiny (if it hadn't already happened) and a staccato of treaties, starting with France and ending with Great Britain.

The Naval Blockade imposed by the British was effective, however had no input on the ground war whatsoever; 4 years after it was imposed, the Germans were still mounting successful offensives against the British and French forces. In fact, the whole point of the blockade was to limit the amount of heavy munitions flowing to the trenches, of which took very little effect; Even in 1918, the Germans still had extreme Artillery superiority.

I am not saying that the French and British Commonwealth didn't have good soldiers, rather they lacked decent leadership (excluding the Canadians and Australians, who really didn't take a whole lot of ground)

I'm assuming that you are talking about the losses at the Battle of The Somme. Well, if you consider 60,000 casualties on one day (20,000 dead) "the manure hitting the fan", then I suppose you could call it that. I tend to think that the 3rd Battle of Ypres (Passchendaele) was in the long run even more damaging to the BEF than the Somme was. The Somme, however, remains a deep wound on the British national psyche and it can be argued that it was there that the British Empire started it's march down the road to ruin.

This is very true. The BEF got the crap kicked out of it once per year to the point that it had to be completely reformed three times by 1917. The catastrophic losses are due to an aristocratic Army Leadership and a refusal to change from suicide tactics [bombarding the Germans for days with little or no effect followed up by a massed charge across no-man's land into waiting Machine gun positions and minefields]

[Silius Saurus]

You are completely out to lunch on the contributions of the AEF. They took part in one major offensive. ONE. That does not win a war. The most effective army at the end of the war was the BEF. And they didn't get steamrolled. One part of the BEF was bent during the March offensives, but they took a heavy toll of the Strosstruppen and eventually stopped them. The "Black Day" of the German army was totally due to the BEF and it's "sharp end". The CEF and the ANZACs.

Either you are blinded by patriotism or you are completely (perhaps wilfully) ignorant of the impact that the 100 Days offensive had on the German army - Ludendorff himself said that the war was lost, and it wasn't because of the Americans. They were in an entirely different sector of the final phase of the war.

The BEF never collapsed during the war, They were never "steamrolled". Even when they were retreating, as at Mons in '14 or in the Spring offensives, the Germans never fought the BEF with impunity. They suffered huge losses.

The AEF didn't launch a major operation on their own until September of '18. How do you distil an American "we won the war" out of that? Come on.

Time to hit the books, bud. Your post shows a very limited knowledge of the great war.

[King Sama]

You are completely out to lunch on the contributions of the AEF. They took part in one major offensive. ONE. That does not win a war. The most effective army at the end of the war was the BEF. And they didn't get steamrolled. One part of the BEF was bent during the March offensives, but they took a heavy toll of the Strosstruppen and eventually stopped them. The "Black Day" of the German army was totally due to the BEF and it's "sharp end". The CEF and the ANZACs.

Either you are blinded by patriotism or you are completely (perhaps wilfully) ignorant of the impact that the 100 Days offensive had on the German army - Ludendorff himself said that the war was lost, and it wasn't because of the Americans. They were in an entirely different sector of the final phase of the war.

Time to hit the books, bud. Your post shows a very limited knowledge of the great war.

I haven't read all of Whukid's post, so bear with me, but from my (limited) knowledge of the war, I would say the AEF's arrival was essential to the war's outcome. That said, the same holds true for the British. Regardless of who was more effective, both armies were necesary for winning the war. In any case, had the American's not joined in, you would not have seen the same results in the war as did happen, I doubt very much germany would have accepted such terms as were imposed upon them.

[Silius Saurus]

I haven't read all of Whukid's post, so bear with me, but from my (limited) knowledge of the war, I would say the AEF's arrival was essential to the war's outcome. That said, the same holds true for the British. Regardless of who was more effective, both armies were necesary for winning the war. In any case, had the American's not joined in, you would not have seen the same results in the war as did happen, I doubt very much germany would have accepted such terms as were imposed upon them.

Yes, and if you read my post, I wrote that the arrival of the AEF guaranteed that we would not lose. That's not the same as winning the war. He is claiming that the US won the war, which is patently incorrect.

[Whukid]

You are completely out to lunch on the contributions of the AEF. They took part in one major offensive. ONE. That does not win a war. The most effective army at the end of the war was the BEF. And they didn't get steamrolled. One part of the BEF was bent during the March offensives, but they took a heavy toll of the Strosstruppen and eventually stopped them. The "Black Day" of the German army was totally due to the BEF and it's "sharp end". The CEF and the ANZACs.

Either you are blinded by patriotism or you are completely (perhaps wilfully) ignorant of the impact that the 100 Days offensive had on the German army - Ludendorff himself said that the war was lost, and it wasn't because of the Americans. They were in an entirely different sector of the final phase of the war.

The BEF never collapsed during the war, They were never "steamrolled". Even when they were retreating, as at Mons in '14 or in the Spring offensives, the Germans never fought the BEF with impunity. They suffered huge losses.

The AEF didn't launch a major operation on their own until September of '18. How do you distil an American "we won the war" out of that? Come on.

Time to hit the books, bud. Your post shows a very limited knowledge of the great war.

First off, I'd appreciate it if you kept this civil. The moment you divulge into personal attacks, you lose the argument completely. It shows immaturity, lack of information, and arrogance.

The AEF participated in multiple major defensive operations and more than one offensive operation. They singlehandedly (<- please notice) took back the Argonne forest, St. Mihiel, stopped the Germans at Belleau Wood, the Marne, and gained more ground in 8 months than the French had gained in the entire war. By the way, its how we won

The BEF got mauled on multiple occasions. The three major reformations came after the Somme's and Antwerp because casualty numbers were so horrendous. I never said the Germans didn't take casualties, however the numbers you seem to believe account for over half of the in-theatre army. The Germans took the British on even though they were fighting on multiple fronts and pushed them and the Belgians back with heavy losses while suffering minimal losses of their own [in 1914-1916].

The march offensive was stopped after the Germans became pinned down and out of friendly artillery range. If you notice, they pushed through the British lines with the help of artillery bombardment; that would be the whole point behind stormtroopers. By this time the British were throwing reserve units into the melee by the ten's with the desperate hope that numbers alone could stop the onslaught.

What exactly did Ludendorff say? Because after the war, he and the German high command credited the defeat to the AEF.

Moving on..

Here is a question: Was the Zimmermann Telegram really sent from the Germans, or was it fabricated by the British in an effort to gain America's full support?

Also, was the sinking of the Lusitania 'wrong' and if so, who was actually in the wrong? the German U-Boat for targeting the ship, or the owner of the ship for trying to use the passengers as human shields so they could transport arms from US to Britain?

From what I understand, the Zimmerman telegram was nothing but a myth; they have no factual evidence to prove its existence. The Lusitania was a crappy excuse to get the Americans in the war. The Germans had warned the world that it was targetting British ships with it's submarine force. Not only that, but the Lusitania was carrying Arms in her forward hold, meaning it was fair game. I believe it's common knowledge that such an incident would never have such an effect in the modern world.

Numbers from the offensive that broke the back of the German army in the fall of '18. Numbers don't lie.

British forces took 188,700 prisoners and captured 2,840 guns

French forces took 139,000 prisoners and captured 1,880 guns

American forces took 44,142 prisoners and captured 1,481 guns

Belgian forces took 14,500 prisoners and captured 414 guns

So from a pure "butcher's bill" POV the BEF nearly took out more Germans than the rest of the Allies combined.

Numbers may not lie, however the person writing them down is a completely different story. Where did you get this information? Today, it's recognized by most all major World War 1 author's that the best source for German casualty numbers is via the German Red Cross reports. For example, the BEF recorded a "Smashing Victory" against the Germans at the 1st Marne and supposedly caused "heavy casualties to a fleeing enemy". The reality was the Germans realized their left flank was vulnerable so they pulled back in a tactical retreat. The BEF "slammed" into skirmish units of the rear guard.

[Comrade_Rory]

I'm going to go for teaching history lol

That's cool, i reckon i'll end up teaching history, i just don't want to end up teaching history to 12-17 year olds, because most people i've ever known of that age range here... are completely ignorant to history, it really annoys me haha.

You should embrace the "if it wasn't for us" line, because it's true for both world wars. The first world war was won by US presence, if nothing else. The battered, mutinous French and Italian troops had a huge raise in moral which saved the front. The same effect was granted to the British/French at the arrival of the Italians two years earlier. The difference was, the US actually won the battles.

The second world war was as good as lost until US arrival. Great Britain was doing no more than firebombing German civilians and the Russians were losing millions in the battle for Moscow. I'm going to explain myself in two points;

Great Britain
At the time of US arrival, the British had nothing to compete against the Wehrmacht. In fact, it was the US merchant marine and Lend Lease which saved them in the first place (I dont know if you want to call it "saving" though. according to General Student, of the Fallschimjager, Hitler never really intended to invade, rather to make amends and kill Russians). Churchill had placed the highest priority on U-Boat killing for this specific reason.
In North Africa, the British used American made tanks and planes to halt Rommel at the Battle of El Alemein. The M3 Lee was a godsend to the 8th Army in its fight against the dreaded 88mm Flak gun; the M3's 75mm gun could fire the much needed HE (high explosive, as to AP, or Armor Piercing) shells, which make killing an AT gun crew much easier. At the time, the British didn't have any tanks capable of using HE.
A major portion of the war was fought in the Air, and cost Germany her factories. The RAF didn't have, and would never have, the capability to pound the industrial might of Germany into the ground without help. This means that the Germans never run out of ball bearings, oil refineries, tanks, bullets, machineguns, ect. and are able to adequatly reinforce the Luftwaffe, of which would've denied French Airspace to the RAF.

In short, the British lose or capitulate and help fight Russia.

The first world war was slowly being won without the Americans, they just helped.

In world war 2, the Battle of Britain took place almost exactly a year before America joined the war... the Battle of Britain is the point where Germany cancelled all plans to invade Britain.
Lending vehicles and equipment to another country is not the same as winning the war, it isn't the weapons which win the war, it's the men using them.

Germany would have lost the war eventually, they could never have invaded Britain and would have never defeated Russia. Even if they had invaded Russia and Britain, they couldn't have held onto them for long.

['Gunny]

Here is a question: Was the Zimmermann Telegram really sent from the Germans, or was it fabricated by the British in an effort to gain America's full support?

Also, was the sinking of the Lusitania 'wrong' and if so, who was actually in the wrong? the German U-Boat for targeting the ship, or the owner of the ship for trying to use the passengers as human shields so they could transport arms from US to Britain?

[Silius Saurus]

Numbers from the offensive that broke the back of the German army in the fall of '18. Numbers don't lie.

British forces took 188,700 prisoners and captured 2,840 guns

French forces took 139,000 prisoners and captured 1,880 guns

American forces took 44,142 prisoners and captured 1,481 guns

Belgian forces took 14,500 prisoners and captured 414 guns

So from a pure "butcher's bill" POV the BEF nearly took out more Germans than the rest of the Allies combined.

[King Sama]

Also, was the sinking of the Lusitania 'wrong' and if so, who was actually in the wrong? the German U-Boat for targeting the ship, or the owner of the ship for trying to use the passengers as human shields so they could transport arms from US to Britain?

No, it was not wrong... it was a poor reason to blame germany, and poor judgement to even get on that ship. Now, unrestricted submarine warfare may be less justified, even if announced prior, but I wouldn't say it is any less 'wrong' than shelling, or later, bombing civilian areas.

Yes, and if you read my post, I wrote that the arrival of the AEF guaranteed that we would not lose. That's not the same as winning the war. He is claiming that the US won the war, which is patently incorrect.

Ah, yes, I am agree then

[a tw player]

Operationally, The Americans really had not much bearing on the outcome of the war. It was however, the potential of the USA which played a large part. It was the large manpower pool which meant that Germany would have to take a gamble in the Michael Offensive and try to win the war before the Americans became a force in Europe.

It certainly is impossible to say what did win the war, as it was a combination of many things. What I can definitely say though is that the USA did not simply ride in and win the war for the allies, I'm not sure what kind of propaganda is being fed in American education :/

To be perfectly honest, from the moment Germany could not win a fast victory and follow the Schlieffen plan, it was doomed. Industrial output, resources, manpower was all in allied favour and (the naval blockade of the royal navy helped this greatly) by 1918 Germany society was tearing itself apart from the inside out. People were going hungry, "civilian" things such as piping were being torn away and put into the war effort due to the shortage of resources, uprisings against the Kaiser became common etc etc. An often overlooked aspect also was the incompetence of Austria-Hungary, they actually became more of a hindrance than a help for Germany.

Rushed this post, but basically the subject is far too complex to discuss without writing a novel

On the Somme, it was a complete and utter disaster for the BEF, no way getting around that. I have no idea why the "walk to their trenches" command was given, perhaps troops may have reached the German trenches before they took all their defensive positions if that command was given, I'm not sure though. Saying the above however, the Somme I suppose did achieve it's main goal (the goal which eventually came up when it largely became a British operation, rather than a combined one), and that was to prevent the French from collapse at Verdun. In ground gained terms, it was a complete failure, in general strategic terms, it may have saved the war effort. The sacrifice however, I am unsure whether the horrendous loss of life was justified.

Edit - Just to make sure, I am not trying to convey any sort of anti-american sentiment here

[Silius Saurus]

Operationally, The Americans really had not much bearing on the outcome of the war. It was however, the potential of the USA which played a large part. It was the large manpower pool which meant that Germany would have to take a gamble in the Michael Offensive and try to win the war before the Americans became a force in Europe.

It certainly is impossible to say what did win the war, as it was a combination of many things. What I can definitely say though is that the USA did not simply ride in and win the war for the allies, I'm not sure what kind of propaganda is being fed in American education :/

To be perfectly honest, from the moment Germany could not win a fast victory and follow the Schlieffen plan, it was doomed. Industrial output, resources, manpower was all in allied favour and (the naval blockade of the royal navy helped this greatly) by 1918 Germany society was tearing itself apart from the inside out. People were going hungry, "civilian" things such as piping were being torn away and put into the war effort due to the shortage of resources, uprisings against the Kaiser became common etc etc. An often overlooked aspect also was the incompetence of Austria-Hungary, they actually became more of a hindrance than a help for Germany.

Yeah, pretty much. Now all we have to do is re-educate tens of millions of Americans.

[Achea]

Yes, and if you read my post, I wrote that the arrival of the AEF guaranteed that we would not lose. That's not the same as winning the war. He is claiming that the US won the war, which is patently incorrect.

Operationally, The Americans really had not much bearing on the outcome of the war. It was however, the potential of the USA which played a large part.

This exactly.

You have no idea how much I hated US history before I got to middle school It was realy just a bunch of BS and propoganda, not to mention repetitive as hell

I was quite excited to learn about the romans in 6th grade though...

Pretty much the Canadian experience, with different material (mostly aborigonals). Got to learn about the Greeks and ever so briefly China in Grade 6, then back to the ever engrossing fur trade and the purchase of rupert's land in grade 7.

[jorkka]

Germany lost their chance for victory no later than in 1914 by getting themselves bogged down in two front war with craptastic allies against both Russia and GB. Whereas Russia proved to be more of a pushover, the time still worked for Ententes favour with their clear naval superiority and global empires to draw resources from. Only way Central Powers could've shifter the scales back on their favour would've been a highly unlikely decisive naval victory. With high seas fleet stationed unopposed on the Channel, Brits would've made immediate peace whatever the cost, leaving only mutinous Frenchmen fighting in Europe.
All US involvement resulted in was Germany panicing and wasting their reserves in pointless offensive, thus reducing the duration of war. And yeah, 2nd Battle of Marne was by no means a decisive battle meant to deal a fatal blow bringing the whole freaking war to conclusion. It was a mere weak diversionary attack with no clear objectives and no potential decisive strategic importance, contrary to it's earlier namesake.

Just my two cents

['Gunny]

Im going for a History Degree. If I cant get into West Point or Annapolis (my dream, but a far off one) I'm going to go for teaching history lol

[King Sama]

I really dislike this opinion that the US rode in on a red and white striped horse with stars for eyes and saved Europe.
Especially the "if it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking German" line... it really gets to me.
Yes America helped in both wars but it's common knowledge that the first world war would have been won with or without American help...

Even the second world war would have been won without American help, it may have taken a hell of alot longer but the Russians (who actually won the second world war) would have done it eventually.

My opinion is that without the US, in the first world war, germany would have eventually reached a relatively even peace. In the second world war, germany would have possible invaded britain, while slowly fighting a brutal war against the soviets, until the reich collapsed internally. Thats just my thoughts, of course.

Im going for a History Degree. If I cant get into West Point or Annapolis (my dream, but a far off one) I'm going to go for teaching history lol

Annapolis? I didn't know there was anything there besides crabcake restaurants and the state legislature... but good luck on West Point (I have heard of that lol)

[The Stig]

In 1918 Germany was crumbling at home. In the field things couldn't have been better, they had taken out Russia and were preparing to defeat France in one final offensive. But Austria-Hungary was breaking apart, Bulgaria was being invaded, the Ottomans were a joke. Germany had to win. FAST. The goverment promised one last glorious attack to take France out of the war. The AEF stopped them. When the Kaiser decided that the Navy should share in this amazing heroism, the people got pissed and decided to toss him out. Germany was on the defensive for the first time, but they still held much of France and Belgium.

Without French and British troops stemming the German tide, the Allies would have lost.
Without Russia tying down huge numbers of German troops, the Allies would have lost.
Without America defeating Operation Mihel, the Allies would have lost.
Without the German people wisening up, the Allies probably would have, at least, a way harder job to do.