@@jiveassturkey8849 Its the British Navy the same Navy that ruled the waves for centuries. they had a lot of money back then and the navy was already by far the biggest in the world before the war even started.
@@Nonukes2024 soviets literally did most of the job without USA's support, they sacrifised 26 million people so your country can fight easier with less manpower than the other allied nations
I'm making this comment before watching the video but the United states contributed 3 key factors: 1. Raw resources could still be extracted here en masse that were free from being threatened by the war 2. in 1918 Americans were arriving at 250,000 per month, vastly tipping the power balance against the central powers 3. America was a very large creditor in the war. The scale of what we owed Europe at the start of the war to what they owed us at the end (in money) is something like 1:250. Also if you want a 4th 4. America was the largest source of humanitarian aid both pre and post entry into the war, with many militaries coming to depend on the American Red Cross's santiation and training programs to have the care required. The American combat role is often overstated, but the American role was pivotal anyway. Canada was the decisive combat power.
As an American, this whole presentation is an embarrassment. Both the Canadians and the Australians/New Zealanders had more of a role in the Entente victory than we did. Arguably, the Indians too. Even in 1918, they took more German-held territory than we did. I understand the American potential for 1919 is part of what convinced German leadership to surrender, but this dude is trying to argue that it was American combat actions that forced the surrender which is just wrong. We were still a second-rate army in autumn 1918, and fought like it. At best, the American potential gave the British and French the fortitude to hold back the German 1918 offensives. But "we" didn't physically do that. They did.
He kind of dodges the question about the "Black Day of the German Army" and the combined arms tactics of the other allies in the last 100 days. He also ignores the fact that the German troops and civilians were starving and morale was close to cracking. It could well have cracked if the British, French, Canadians and Australians had withstood the final German offensives and counterattacked with the new tactics. It could well have happened without the US but it would have been a near run thing.
The French army was falling apart and experiencing mutinies, the Germans would have doubled their presence on the front, while the allies would have been reduced by 50% and surrounded. The timing was key.
@@TomYawns You forgot the British blockade. Also, as Hindenburg says, the Americans tipped the balance. A balance that was achieved with millions of French, British, Indian, Canadian, Australian, South African, North African and sub-Saharan African troops. 58,000 American dead rather proves my point compared to 1.4 million French and a million British Empire dead.
@@TomYawns You mixed up 1917 and 1918 . There were mutinies in french Army in 1917 after the offensive of "Chemin des Dames" in April 1917 but not at all in 1918 . And the germans didn't double their presence . The number of divisions on the western front increased from 150 divisions to 210 divisions ...
@@TomYawns the mutinies were against the Nivelle slaughter, they were not (or minimally) representative of a general loss of morale. To wit, they pretty much stopped once the root of the problem was addressed.
Wow, the yanks came in and saved the day. Did he have a dream and think it’s reality. I can understand why a US museum would want to promote positive US involvement which it certainly did but at least tell the truth, the Germans were finished before the US shot a rifle is the more accurate picture.
Next time, try listening to the talk before making such ignorant comments. If the Germans were finished before we shot a rifle, why did we have to shoot any rifles?
Had the US not declared war in April of 1917 it is doubtful that the Entente could have continued beyond June. In April both the British and French were one to two months away from financial collapse.
@@hypothebai4634 Yet the Central Powers were even closer. Worse, the Central Powers were short of almost every strategic resource mentionable. Oil, rubber, iron, food (Germany and Austria-Hungary were suffering major food issues by 1916). So not only were they in serious financial trouble, far worse than the Entante, they were also suffering from shortages that had very real impacts not only on their ability to supply their armies, but on their ability to feed their population. The Central Powers had been on the verge of financial collapse for *months* by mid 1917. So how do you come to the conclusion that the Entante would have collapsed financially before the Central Powers which were in an even WORSE position? Is it not strange how you accept the fact that the Central Powers were able to fight until November 1918, yet deem that without US aid the Entante, which was economically in a far better position than the Central Powers, would have collapsed so much earlier? Wishful thinking perhaps? Britain and France, given their better Economic positions could have carried on fighting at LEAST as long as Germany did, and probably for longer. In other words, right the way through to November 1918. I also dispute this statement that the arrival of the Americans forced Germany to take the offensive in 1918. Sorry, but that was ALWAYS the reality. Germany was collapsing not only financially, but more importantly, socially. It HAD to win the war in 1918 because its leadership knew it would be very unlikely to be able to last another winter. Initial planning for the Spring Offensives had started *before* the US joined the war. What US involvement did was accelerate those plans. It did not kickstart them. What US involvement *did* assure, was an end to the war in 1918 through a decisive military victory. And it *was* a decisive military victory, despite what some may say. The German Army on the Western Front was comprehensively smashed during 1918. The Spring Offensives, for all their Tactical Success were, Operationally and Strategically an utter failure. They ran into the same issues British and French attacks in 1916 and 1917 had run into. They ran out of steam. Even worse, the Germans had massed their best troops into the Stosstruppen Divisions which suffered hideous casualties. Britain and France suffered a combined 1 million casualties during the Spring Offensives, what people generally ignore is that Germany suffered the same number, and Germany coudl not replace those men. Had the US not joined the war, then we would have likely seen an inconclusive Entante 'victory' in 1919 and an acceleration in the collapse of the Western European Empires (though make no mistake, they were already dying by this point). Without the US the Entante Victory would have been less clear cut, there would have been no League of Nations (and possibly no UN later), and the next war would have looked very different. Because make no mistake, the next war WOULD have happened. The roots of WWII were in the social and economic upheavals of the 1930's, not in the Treaty of Versailles....
@@ScorpionZam It was already ending due to the blockade by Britain which starved Germany from food and other materials so they where going to surrender anyway and in a last desperate attempt they tried to invade France and then that failed so they surrendered knowing they would starve or die to the allies. You should actually learn history before commenting on it.
@@ScorpionZam Look up the Keil mutiny and the Royal Navy blockade. USA had very little to do with the end of WW1, the front lines were still in France when the war ended, remember.
@@ScorpionZam The first world war ended at the conclusion of a series of battles called the 100 day offensive. This offensive started on the 8th of August 1918. It was conducted by the British 4th army. The British 4th army comprised 4 Canadian divisions, 5 Australian divisions, 4 british divisions and yes 2 double strength American divisions. The us division were no better or worse than any of the others. They were inexperienced of course resulting in higher casulties, but enthusiastic and willing. They were highly rated by the elite Australian and Canadian divisions which is a big compliment. I recommend you to a recent book called 1918 which details in depth the last 100 days of the war.
I liked this lecture despite it's obvious flaw in the title and the subsequent poor reasoning afterwards. Nobody can argue about the potential of the US army when they arrived and what a great addition it was, but this war was won before the US army even had time to take it's trousers off. I'm a Brit and will frankly suggest Canada did more to win WW1 than the US ever could. Wawro reasons the US won the war themselves simply out of fear and morale. I don't doubt this helped matters, however by the time The Meuse-Argonne was getting underway, the war had essentially already been won. Indeed his dodging of the battle of Amiens topic in the first question shows this, and earlier he stated that by October - Nov 6th 1918, the allied offensives in north had "lost steam" yet fails to suggest why (hint - war was over). Nevertheless I love these lectures and I would love to hear more of Wawro, despite this faux pas.
Look, no one is suggesting that the AEF made a contribution to the fight that was in any way comparable to what the BEF, the French, the Aussies, the Candians or hell, even the Italians. The point is just that the Germans were ambivalent about seeking an armistice through the summer and into the fall of 1918. They knew that they had had the shit kicked out of them but so had the allies. If the Germans had been given a little more time to reap the rewards of Brest-Litovsk, they might have turned it around in 1919. They just didnt know. But the arrival of 250,000 Americans every month with the promise of 4 million or more by 1919, convinced them that the war was unwinnable. It was not the presence or performance of the AEF, it was the promise of what they would do. Speaking as one American, I take my hat off to all the soldiers of the British Commonwealth. At one point they were the ONLY army that could be depended upon. They were breathtakingly brave men. But they needed the Americans to push it over the goal line.
Look up the Battle of Amiens, August 8 1918 which Ludendorff called the Black day of the German army in the war. The Australian and Canadian corps advanced 8 miles in a day and began the 100 day advance which ended with the armistice on November 11.
The Canadian corps was a extremely affected fighting force under General Currie. In Sir John Monash books he gives high praise to the Canadians who with the Aussie took the brunt of the Germans offensive
Were the French really the spearhead of the allied offensive ? On the Western Front, the 1 November 1918 : French Army : - 102 infantry divisions, 6 cavalry divisions - 2,659,084 men , 630,440 horses and 80,000 trucks. - 5,578 heavy guns and 1,626 trench guns - 50,700 chauchats and 30,664 heavy MG's - 1,272 tanks - 3,609 planes British Army : - 60 infantry divisions and 3 cavalry divisions - 1,721,890 men, 388,00 horses and 19,000 trucks. - 2,197 heavy guns and 2,570 trench guns - 20,000 lewis and 4,632 heavy MG's - 611 tanks - 1,678 planes (!!!) American Army : - 31 infantry divisions and no cavalry division - 1,821,449 men and 151,250 horses - 746 trench guns and 406 heavy guns - 18,465 light MG's (most of them being chauchat CSRG 1918 and the rest being BAR's) and 6,239 heavy MG's - 91 tanks (lol) - 2,032 planes
I am really disappointed with your comments as a Aussie who young men were dying from 1914-1918 where were the USA? When the USA did get to the war unroll june 1917 they were not allowed to go into battle till April 1918. They were put in the quiet part of the trenches in the south. Germany was trying to get to the ports through Belgian. On July 4 AUSTRALIAN general John Monash came up with a plan to take the rail junction of Amens Using thanks planes artillery troops all in a corndinated attack the first time it was done he said the attract should take 90m it took 94m and a complete success. The Germans new the end was close.There were 4 US divisions in the attack request by monash but Persing wanted them not to fight again. 1 In
If the Americans were ineffectual why the notes from the French and British archives about how imperative it was to get the us in the way. I mean, if as you say, the commonwealth had everything unter kontrolle, l
The reason why they say that is the US had over 1million fresh troops. With there extra troops and the Allies Germany was going to be overwhelmed. But if they were there at the start of the war 1914 like rest of the Allies the war would have been over very quickly so why weren't they? Whey did they let the Allies fight the Germans,Austo Hungary,and turkish empire by themselves. We also had troops in the middle east fighting the turkey with British again were were the US?
@@raymondhorvath2406why would anyone expect us (the US) to be directly involved in a European land war in 1914? That was considered anathema by the US public at that point. It took German unrestricted submarine warfare to change that.
The list of athletes, aristocrats and celebrities who served in the war is interesting but not remarkable. In at least four US wars - Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II - members of the upper classes gladly served in the military and some with distinction.
Excellent Presentation. Don’t know why there are so many snarky comments here. I guess some people do not want to give the Americans credit for anything. Clearly, without the extraordinary intervention, sacrifice of the Americans, it would be Germany’s Europe.
Because the presentation is heavily flawed if not outright wrong at points. It consistently emphasises the issues the Entente faced without doing the same for the Central powers whilst the strengths of the Germans (but not the Austro-Hungarians or Ottomans who had to be heavily supported by them) but not that of the Entente; this misrepresents the real situation by painting it in the worst possible light. Wawro is outright wrong regarding the battle of Belleau Wood and his emphasis on it does not reflect well upon him nor his study. Operation Blucher was halted the day prior to the battle and German documents (which he should have read during this archival work) are consistent in that the drive towards Paris a diversionary attack intended to divert reserves south to make way for Operation Hagen. It is also worth noting that the division the Americans faced was a defensive one, neither trained nor equipped for offensive action unlike storm trooper divisions, further emphasising that the action in that area was not offensive in mind, again undermining the notion that this was an attack towards Paris and the French line. There's also flaw in the logic of the argument; if the Americans were as green and poorly trained as he says they were, then how bad a shape must the Germans have been to be defeated by such a force? And if that is so, then were the Entente is such a bad position to begin with? That his colleagues such as Scott Stephenson or Richard Faulkner when they talk of American involvement take a far more balanced and less chauvinistic view is perhaps telling of why he's provoked such a reaction.
That’s actually not true. Germany was not “losing the war” in April 1917. Germany began 1918 in actually quite a strong position, with Russia out of the war they actually managed to briefly outnumber the Allies on the Western Front. And with all due respect, your being a combat infantryman has zero bearing on the point you’re trying to make.
Faulkner and Scott are much much more credible than this dufus. Both Scott and Faulkner put things into perspective. The impending threat of American manpower and industrial output would have been an overwhelming addition to the allied or associated side. The Germans particularly Lundendorph spent most of the last German reserves trying to defeat the allies prior to American involvement becoming decisive. Lundendorph failed. Foch and Haig realized, the Germans were spent, The combined French and British 100 day counter attack, sealed the deal. The Germans reached out to Wilson hoping for a more lenient or favourable terms from Wilson. They were probably right, The French were not very forgiving. American involvement earned American seat at the peace conference. Wilson probably the most influential leader there. The war ended very much on Terms moderated by Wilson, his 14 points provided hope for people’s all over the world. Many of who are still hoping. But the Armistice was in place before American involvement became decisive. The biggest error in this guys version. The French Army was still attacking right up until 1100 on the 11th month 1918. Haig received the the men he required from Lloyd George. Haig would return home, the victorious hero, Retiring to spend his days campaigning for fair treatment of his veterans. After his death, his reputation would be shattered as the man who is blamed for the horrendous death toll suffered by the BEF and its Dominion Corps. By the 1930’s the British were in no mood for another victory like it. The French even more horrified by the prospects of another war. Neither had recovered from their victory. Many German veterans never accepted they were defeated. They supported a hard core right wing nationalist party and dictatorship. Which re armed. 1939 round 2 started. The French were quickly defeated. The British were exhausted. The Americans, industry and power fully mobilized. The Americans, won round 2 in the West. Even so without the Russians. It would have been 4 times harder.
+Hypo Thebai 1) To change from economic world power into political / diplomatic world power; 2) To show the old powers that the US did become a competing and relevant world power 3) To literally 'bleed the way to the peace table', having a say in the new world order after the war; 4) Not the least, to ensure that all the loans the USA had granted to the UK and France would have been able to be repaid. 5) and haven't you seen the movie / the song: "For democracy, any man would give his only begotten son".
@@Tuning3434 sounds like iraq. Expect we lost infinitely more lives in europe then the middle east. It was a mistake to start getting involved in european affairs. . .
We became involved because of the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare & the Zimmerman Telegram. Those 2 events perpetrated by Germany did what TR and others could not, drag the US kicking & screaming, into the war.
@@Tuning3434 But if the US had not have entered in April the Entente would have sued for peace in July. When we entered we found that the British were about one month away from financial collapse.
It is funny when Brits and Canadians whine in the comments about videos like this because they are so salty about America saving them, you guys did your part in holding the line for four years! Thank you for that! I am more capable of showing gratitude then your entire countries are. Get over yourselves.
WW2? That may be argued? Although the Russians might have something to say on that matter? WW1? What planet are you on? I'm sure there are some simple cartoons on WW1 to help you understand?
If you think the British and Canadians (and Australians?) are “salty” on this very typical American WW1 perspective, think yourself lucky the French haven’t got to this video yet
I had been really enjoying this series of lectures but they are very difficult to take seriously after watching this one
Seems like you’re venting a political agenda. Why don’t you point out the inaccuracies?
Simple, they joined the winning team.
The French tried to take Verdun....ehm, I thought it was the Germans that attacked. Did I miss something?
Man its America talking about how they "won". Dont listen to a word they say.
The Americans did not win the war for the Allied powers. They guaranteed that they would not lose.
Pretty succinct.
There were only two U.S. divisions fighting the Germans when the Spring offensives were halted. The U.S. Army did not win WW1.
Hamilton Coolidge The UK was the one that won WWI. Without the blockade, there’s no race against time for germany
InspectorToxy where did the finances for the ships making up that blockade come from?? 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
@@jiveassturkey8849 Its the British Navy the same Navy that ruled the waves for centuries. they had a lot of money back then and the navy was already by far the biggest in the world before the war even started.
@@Nonukes2024 soviets literally did most of the job without USA's support, they sacrifised 26 million people so your country can fight easier with less manpower than the other allied nations
I'm making this comment before watching the video but the United states contributed 3 key factors:
1. Raw resources could still be extracted here en masse that were free from being threatened by the war
2. in 1918 Americans were arriving at 250,000 per month, vastly tipping the power balance against the central powers
3. America was a very large creditor in the war. The scale of what we owed Europe at the start of the war to what they owed us at the end (in money) is something like 1:250.
Also if you want a 4th
4. America was the largest source of humanitarian aid both pre and post entry into the war, with many militaries coming to depend on the American Red Cross's santiation and training programs to have the care required.
The American combat role is often overstated, but the American role was pivotal anyway. Canada was the decisive combat power.
He forgot Snoopy.
As an American, this whole presentation is an embarrassment. Both the Canadians and the Australians/New Zealanders had more of a role in the Entente victory than we did. Arguably, the Indians too.
Even in 1918, they took more German-held territory than we did. I understand the American potential for 1919 is part of what convinced German leadership to surrender, but this dude is trying to argue that it was American combat actions that forced the surrender which is just wrong. We were still a second-rate army in autumn 1918, and fought like it. At best, the American potential gave the British and French the fortitude to hold back the German 1918 offensives. But "we" didn't physically do that. They did.
He kind of dodges the question about the "Black Day of the German Army" and the combined arms tactics of the other allies in the last 100 days. He also ignores the fact that the German troops and civilians were starving and morale was close to cracking. It could well have cracked if the British, French, Canadians and Australians had withstood the final German offensives and counterattacked with the new tactics. It could well have happened without the US but it would have been a near run thing.
The French army was falling apart and experiencing mutinies, the Germans would have doubled their presence on the front, while the allies would have been reduced by 50% and surrounded. The timing was key.
@@TomYawns You forgot the British blockade. Also, as Hindenburg says, the Americans tipped the balance. A balance that was achieved with millions of French, British, Indian, Canadian, Australian, South African, North African and sub-Saharan African troops. 58,000 American dead rather proves my point compared to 1.4 million French and a million British Empire dead.
@@TomYawns You mixed up 1917 and 1918 . There were mutinies in french Army in 1917 after the offensive of "Chemin des Dames" in April 1917 but not at all in 1918 . And the germans didn't double their presence . The number of divisions on the western front increased from 150 divisions to 210 divisions ...
@@TomYawns the mutinies were against the Nivelle slaughter, they were not (or minimally) representative of a general loss of morale. To wit, they pretty much stopped once the root of the problem was addressed.
You never answered the question re: the 100 Days Offensive. Do you consider the contributions of the Canadians and Australians unimportant?
Not only do Americans consider it unimportant, they do not even know that it happened much less who was involved.
Moderator: "questions not statements"
First person on the mic: "let me tell you everything I know and hide a question in my long diatribe"
Wow, the yanks came in and saved the day. Did he have a dream and think it’s reality. I can understand why a US museum would want to promote positive US involvement which it certainly did but at least tell the truth, the Germans were finished before the US shot a rifle is the more accurate picture.
Next time, try listening to the talk before making such ignorant comments. If the Germans were finished before we shot a rifle, why did we have to shoot any rifles?
Had the US not declared war in April of 1917 it is doubtful that the Entente could have continued beyond June. In April both the British and French were one to two months away from financial collapse.
@@hypothebai4634 Yet the Central Powers were even closer. Worse, the Central Powers were short of almost every strategic resource mentionable. Oil, rubber, iron, food (Germany and Austria-Hungary were suffering major food issues by 1916). So not only were they in serious financial trouble, far worse than the Entante, they were also suffering from shortages that had very real impacts not only on their ability to supply their armies, but on their ability to feed their population. The Central Powers had been on the verge of financial collapse for *months* by mid 1917.
So how do you come to the conclusion that the Entante would have collapsed financially before the Central Powers which were in an even WORSE position?
Is it not strange how you accept the fact that the Central Powers were able to fight until November 1918, yet deem that without US aid the Entante, which was economically in a far better position than the Central Powers, would have collapsed so much earlier? Wishful thinking perhaps? Britain and France, given their better Economic positions could have carried on fighting at LEAST as long as Germany did, and probably for longer. In other words, right the way through to November 1918.
I also dispute this statement that the arrival of the Americans forced Germany to take the offensive in 1918. Sorry, but that was ALWAYS the reality. Germany was collapsing not only financially, but more importantly, socially. It HAD to win the war in 1918 because its leadership knew it would be very unlikely to be able to last another winter. Initial planning for the Spring Offensives had started *before* the US joined the war. What US involvement did was accelerate those plans. It did not kickstart them.
What US involvement *did* assure, was an end to the war in 1918 through a decisive military victory. And it *was* a decisive military victory, despite what some may say. The German Army on the Western Front was comprehensively smashed during 1918. The Spring Offensives, for all their Tactical Success were, Operationally and Strategically an utter failure. They ran into the same issues British and French attacks in 1916 and 1917 had run into. They ran out of steam. Even worse, the Germans had massed their best troops into the Stosstruppen Divisions which suffered hideous casualties. Britain and France suffered a combined 1 million casualties during the Spring Offensives, what people generally ignore is that Germany suffered the same number, and Germany coudl not replace those men.
Had the US not joined the war, then we would have likely seen an inconclusive Entante 'victory' in 1919 and an acceleration in the collapse of the Western European Empires (though make no mistake, they were already dying by this point). Without the US the Entante Victory would have been less clear cut, there would have been no League of Nations (and possibly no UN later), and the next war would have looked very different.
Because make no mistake, the next war WOULD have happened. The roots of WWII were in the social and economic upheavals of the 1930's, not in the Treaty of Versailles....
Michael Sommers , I did listen, hence my comment which was correct.
Hypo Thebai Nonsense, the Central Powers were in vastly worse economic shape than the Entente.
I suspect taking part in battles in the final 3 months of a 4 year war meant you didn't 'win' it.
keith mitchell why do you think it ended so quickly after the U.S. joined?
@@ScorpionZam It was already ending due to the blockade by Britain which starved Germany from food and other materials so they where going to surrender anyway and in a last desperate attempt they tried to invade France and then that failed so they surrendered knowing they would starve or die to the allies. You should actually learn history before commenting on it.
@@ScorpionZam Look up the Keil mutiny and the Royal Navy blockade. USA had very little to do with the end of WW1, the front lines were still in France when the war ended, remember.
@@montymf7429 Look up FM Hindenburg's interview shortly after the Armistice. He stated that the US Army was the decisive factor in Germany's defeat.
@@ScorpionZam
The first world war ended at the conclusion of a series of battles called the 100 day offensive.
This offensive started on the 8th of August 1918. It was conducted by the British 4th army.
The British 4th army comprised 4 Canadian divisions, 5 Australian divisions, 4 british divisions and yes 2 double strength American divisions. The us division were no better or worse than any of the others. They were inexperienced of course resulting in higher casulties, but enthusiastic and willing. They were highly rated by the elite Australian and Canadian divisions which is a big compliment. I recommend you to a recent book called 1918 which details in depth the last 100 days of the war.
A shockingly obnoxious and misleading title and a presentation full of mistakes. Rather sums up the current state of American scholarship.
Look away
compete disregard for factual accuracy, full of hyperbolic statements which are just wrong.
Please point out which ones.
I liked this lecture despite it's obvious flaw in the title and the subsequent poor reasoning afterwards. Nobody can argue about the potential of the US army when they arrived and what a great addition it was, but this war was won before the US army even had time to take it's trousers off. I'm a Brit and will frankly suggest Canada did more to win WW1 than the US ever could.
Wawro reasons the US won the war themselves simply out of fear and morale. I don't doubt this helped matters, however by the time The Meuse-Argonne was getting underway, the war had essentially already been won. Indeed his dodging of the battle of Amiens topic in the first question shows this, and earlier he stated that by October - Nov 6th 1918, the allied offensives in north had "lost steam" yet fails to suggest why (hint - war was over). Nevertheless I love these lectures and I would love to hear more of Wawro, despite this faux pas.
the americans had the rainbow division to which the canadians replied yeah the rainbow division got over here when the storm was over.
Kaiser Wilhelm gives a speech from exile, (it's on TH-cam) around 1929 where he states Germany would have won without the intervention of the USA
Look, no one is suggesting that the AEF made a contribution to the fight that was in any way comparable to what the BEF, the French, the Aussies, the Candians or hell, even the Italians. The point is just that the Germans were ambivalent about seeking an armistice through the summer and into the fall of 1918. They knew that they had had the shit kicked out of them but so had the allies. If the Germans had been given a little more time to reap the rewards of Brest-Litovsk, they might have turned it around in 1919. They just didnt know. But the arrival of 250,000 Americans every month with the promise of 4 million or more by 1919, convinced them that the war was unwinnable. It was not the presence or performance of the AEF, it was the promise of what they would do. Speaking as one American, I take my hat off to all the soldiers of the British Commonwealth. At one point they were the ONLY army that could be depended upon. They were breathtakingly brave men. But they needed the Americans to push it over the goal line.
@Fred P _"It's not England. It's The United Kingdom."_
The UK is just England's first empire.
Funny, I don't recall Lloyd George and Clemenceau telling Wilson not to bother sending an army to Europe because they had it covered.
Look up the Battle of Amiens, August 8 1918 which Ludendorff called the Black day of the German army in the war. The Australian and Canadian corps advanced 8 miles in a day and began the 100 day advance which ended with the armistice on November 11.
The Canadian Corps alone achieved more in the last 100 days than the whole AEF FFS
Then the US could have just stayed home.
@@michaelsommers2356 yeah you should, then it would save us hearing the ‘we saved ur ass’ cliche every 5 minutes
The Canadian corps was a extremely affected fighting force under General Currie.
In Sir John Monash books he gives high praise to the Canadians who with the Aussie took the brunt of the Germans offensive
Were the French really the spearhead of the allied offensive ?
On the Western Front, the 1 November 1918 :
French Army :
- 102 infantry divisions, 6 cavalry divisions
- 2,659,084 men , 630,440 horses and 80,000 trucks.
- 5,578 heavy guns and 1,626 trench guns
- 50,700 chauchats and 30,664 heavy MG's
- 1,272 tanks
- 3,609 planes
British Army :
- 60 infantry divisions and 3 cavalry divisions
- 1,721,890 men, 388,00 horses and 19,000 trucks.
- 2,197 heavy guns and 2,570 trench guns
- 20,000 lewis and 4,632 heavy MG's
- 611 tanks
- 1,678 planes (!!!)
American Army :
- 31 infantry divisions and no cavalry division
- 1,821,449 men and 151,250 horses
- 746 trench guns and 406 heavy guns
- 18,465 light MG's (most of them being chauchat CSRG 1918 and the rest being BAR's) and 6,239 heavy MG's
- 91 tanks (lol)
- 2,032 planes
Best lecture so far.
I am really disappointed with your comments as a Aussie who young men were dying from 1914-1918 where were the USA?
When the USA did get to the war unroll june 1917 they were not allowed to go into battle till April 1918.
They were put in the quiet part of the trenches in the south.
Germany was trying to get to the ports through Belgian.
On July 4 AUSTRALIAN general John Monash came up with a plan to take the rail junction of Amens
Using thanks planes artillery troops all in a corndinated attack the first time it was done he said the attract should take 90m it took 94m and a complete success.
The Germans new the end was close.There were 4 US divisions in the attack request by monash but Persing wanted them not to fight again.
1 In
If the Americans were ineffectual why the notes from the French and British archives about how imperative it was to get the us in the way. I mean, if as you say, the commonwealth had everything unter kontrolle, l
The reason why they say that is the US had over 1million fresh troops.
With there extra troops and the Allies Germany was going to be overwhelmed.
But if they were there at the start of the war 1914 like rest of the Allies the war would have been over very quickly so why weren't they?
Whey did they let the Allies fight the Germans,Austo Hungary,and turkish empire by themselves.
We also had troops in the middle east fighting the turkey with British again were were the US?
@@raymondhorvath2406why would anyone expect us (the US) to be directly involved in a European land war in 1914? That was considered anathema by the US public at that point. It took German unrestricted submarine warfare to change that.
My oh my. Dr. Kuehn sounded a little feisty there. Lol
The list of athletes, aristocrats and celebrities who served in the war is interesting but not remarkable. In at least four US wars - Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II - members of the upper classes gladly served in the military and some with distinction.
Excellent Presentation. Don’t know why there are so many snarky comments here. I guess some people do not want to give the Americans credit for anything. Clearly, without the extraordinary intervention, sacrifice of the Americans, it would be Germany’s Europe.
Because the presentation is heavily flawed if not outright wrong at points. It consistently emphasises the issues the Entente faced without doing the same for the Central powers whilst the strengths of the Germans (but not the Austro-Hungarians or Ottomans who had to be heavily supported by them) but not that of the Entente; this misrepresents the real situation by painting it in the worst possible light.
Wawro is outright wrong regarding the battle of Belleau Wood and his emphasis on it does not reflect well upon him nor his study. Operation Blucher was halted the day prior to the battle and German documents (which he should have read during this archival work) are consistent in that the drive towards Paris a diversionary attack intended to divert reserves south to make way for Operation Hagen. It is also worth noting that the division the Americans faced was a defensive one, neither trained nor equipped for offensive action unlike storm trooper divisions, further emphasising that the action in that area was not offensive in mind, again undermining the notion that this was an attack towards Paris and the French line.
There's also flaw in the logic of the argument; if the Americans were as green and poorly trained as he says they were, then how bad a shape must the Germans have been to be defeated by such a force? And if that is so, then were the Entente is such a bad position to begin with?
That his colleagues such as Scott Stephenson or Richard Faulkner when they talk of American involvement take a far more balanced and less chauvinistic view is perhaps telling of why he's provoked such a reaction.
Must have been an April 1st lecture.
He's right - proof 1940; French roll over & the Brits get out
To serve is to lead, "Cui servire est regnare", is actually the motto of Groton School, where Theodore Roosevelt's sons went.
I’m a combat infantry veteran and with all due respect America stepped in as Germany was losing the war.
And with no Americans would Germany quit while still in France?
That’s actually not true. Germany was not “losing the war” in April 1917. Germany began 1918 in actually quite a strong position, with Russia out of the war they actually managed to briefly outnumber the Allies on the Western Front. And with all due respect, your being a combat infantryman has zero bearing on the point you’re trying to make.
He forgot Hobie Baker
10:00 to skip all the name drops.
Academic version of "The Frenchmen think they won the war/By standing 'round the cafe door/Hinky-Dinky-Parlay-Voo!"
Faulkner and Scott are much much more credible than this dufus.
Both Scott and Faulkner put things into perspective.
The impending threat of American manpower and industrial output would have been an overwhelming addition to the allied or associated side.
The Germans particularly Lundendorph spent most of the last German reserves trying to defeat the allies prior to American involvement becoming decisive.
Lundendorph failed.
Foch and Haig realized, the Germans were spent, The combined French and British 100 day counter attack, sealed the deal.
The Germans reached out to Wilson hoping for a more lenient or favourable terms from Wilson.
They were probably right, The French were not very forgiving.
American involvement earned American seat at the peace conference. Wilson probably the most influential leader there.
The war ended very much on Terms moderated by Wilson, his 14 points provided hope for people’s all over the world. Many of who are still hoping.
But the Armistice was in place before American involvement became decisive.
The biggest error in this guys version. The French Army was still attacking right up until 1100 on the 11th month 1918.
Haig received the the men he required from Lloyd George.
Haig would return home, the victorious hero, Retiring to spend his days campaigning for fair treatment of his veterans.
After his death, his reputation would be shattered as the man who is blamed for the horrendous death toll suffered by the BEF and its Dominion Corps.
By the 1930’s the British were in no mood for another victory like it.
The French even more horrified by the prospects of another war.
Neither had recovered from their victory.
Many German veterans never accepted they were defeated. They supported a hard core right wing nationalist party and dictatorship. Which re armed.
1939 round 2 started.
The French were quickly defeated.
The British were exhausted.
The Americans, industry and power fully mobilized.
The Americans, won round 2 in the West.
Even so without the Russians. It would have been 4 times harder.
If one wanted to argue that the US won the war, and it did not, one should look at the US Navy. The AEF didn’t show up until the end.
Skip the first 15 minutes. It is about baseball stars. 😆😆😆
The title is bound to trigger a few patiots :-D
I get it. He's just trying to promote his book.
Our involvement in WWI was a strategic mistake much bigger than our invasion of Iraq. Its difficult for me to understand why we got involved.
+Hypo Thebai
1) To change from economic world power into political / diplomatic world power;
2) To show the old powers that the US did become a competing and relevant world power
3) To literally 'bleed the way to the peace table', having a say in the new world order after the war;
4) Not the least, to ensure that all the loans the USA had granted to the UK and France would have been able to be repaid.
5) and haven't you seen the movie / the song: "For democracy, any man would give his only begotten son".
@@Tuning3434 sounds like iraq. Expect we lost infinitely more lives in europe then the middle east.
It was a mistake to start getting involved in european affairs. . .
We became involved because of the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare & the Zimmerman Telegram. Those 2 events perpetrated by Germany did what TR and others could not, drag the US kicking & screaming, into the war.
@@shoofly529 Most of the histories I've read have focused on Canada as the reason that we declared war.
@@Tuning3434 But if the US had not have entered in April the Entente would have sued for peace in July. When we entered we found that the British were about one month away from financial collapse.
There was no way he was alive back then
Win World War 1... ?
They did!.
Sure would be a good book in any Trumpian library.
We could be talking about waterloo and you guys would be bringing Trump into it
It is funny when Brits and Canadians whine in the comments about videos like this because they are so salty about America saving them, you guys did your part in holding the line for four years! Thank you for that! I am more capable of showing gratitude then your entire countries are. Get over yourselves.
WW2? That may be argued? Although the Russians might have something to say on that matter?
WW1? What planet are you on? I'm sure there are some simple cartoons on WW1 to help you understand?
If you think the British and Canadians (and Australians?) are “salty” on this very typical American WW1 perspective, think yourself lucky the French haven’t got to this video yet
And there we have it, "we saved your asses in two world wars". Did our part? Could you be any more offensive?