NorthernGent
Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I will point out that MacArthur left most of the Japanese administrations in charge of conquered Asian territories, that didnt help, and that many Americans carried French or English weaponry during the war.
So, a mixed bag as always when you talk history.
Perhaps those are the small details.
I'm not so sure about WW2 but it's well documented that in 1916 the United States was not geared up to fight any sort of war in terms of the quality of its weapons and the size of its standing army, but it was American money, loaned not handed over granted, but then there's no such thing as something for nothing in this world; that enabled the British to borrow huge amounts from them to pass to the French and Italians to keep them fighting.
Certainly American resources played a significant role in the outcome of both wars.
And, we shouldn't forget that the Russians were being steam-rollered by the Germans. The two biggest encirclements of an army in history occurring outside Moscow and Kiev, and without American food and equipment to keep them going and the associated impact upon morale? Could have been the end.
Yes we went into WWI unable to provide much beyond freash bodies. The one reasorce that everyone els was short of.
Money and fresh bodies was not a problem for the Americans.
And, Ludendorff is on record as stating we must end the war before the Americans enter. Whatever the contribution of US forces, which is open to debate, the Germans were certainly concerned at the prospect of another million Allied soldiers.
For me, the war hinged on three things:
Firstly, a small British Army destroying a much larger German Army at Mons in 1914. The Germans did not expect the British Army, only 100,000 strong compared with millions of German, French, Russian soldiers to be so strong. But, small though it was, the British Army was the best trained army in the world at that time. As per usual, the Germans didn't do their homework. And, for a nation that is generally deemed to be characterised by organisation, they have proved themselves to be very poor organisers and planners over the years. The first thing you do is know your enemy. And so, it put doubt in the minds of a people and army who viewed the British as no more of a threat than 'a nation of shop-keepers' - a phrase borrowed from Napoleon.
Secondly, the French ability to keep fighting. It shouldn't be underestimated that France then was still largely a peasant society, unlike Germany and Britain, but they kept at the task with fewer resources. 335,000 died at Verdun alone on both sides.
Thirdly, American money. It kept the French fighting, loaned to Britain passed on to France.
By 1916, the Germans had largely ceased to go on the offensive bar the odd foray and for me it was matter of when not if.
Yes, when the Russians sued for peace the Germans had divisions to move West but by that time the British Army, including Empire forces, was not the novice of 1914 and 1915 and so a lot more men were trained and in the fight - I think from 1916, after Verdun, the outcome was inevitable.
< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 12/9/2015 12:42:16 PM >
_____________________________
I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.
Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.
|
RE: Pearl Harbor Day - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread