It's easy to get bogged down in the details. The important facts are that a good part of the French army refused in 1917--i believe it was half-- to take part in offensive operations and that David Lloyd George refused to give Haig any more troops in 1918 for fear he would fritter them away and cause domestic discontent. Without the injection of American military supplies, loans and troops the Allies would not have been able to push Germany back because their ability to go on the offensive (without American troops) was, well, kaput. Therefore, the Allies would not have won. We'll stipulate that Britain and France and maybe even Canada made a larger contribution over 4 years than the US. But our contribution was decisive.

It is not about glorifying the US. But a lot of liberals/leftists have are not aware of all the pertinent history and this allows them to sort of be hypercritical of the US and equate it with countries like China and Russia. Or even say the US is worse! It is important to acknowledge the contributions of the US while criticizing it when it has erred. Western Europe would look very, very different (meaning be in a lot worse condition) without the actions of the US in WWI, WWII and the Cold War.

The US was certainly late to the party for both WWI and WWII. However, if we didn't arrive for WWII, my best guess is that Europe, most of Africa, and most of Asia would be either fascist or communist right now. I think you can credit the UK as it relates to Europe and Africa (and Churchill himself for managing the US). That's about 60% to 80% of the world's population that would be under tyranny or worse right now. Yes the US is bumbling, but the nature of fascism and communism is of a brutality that you can't understand unless you live in it. Canada and French resistance contributions were incredibly important and this is no slight against them. But the US made the difference in WWII.

(For those of you who are interested in counter-factual history, I highly recommend Man in the High Castle.)

freeman3

Without the injection of American military supplies, loans and troops the Allies would not have been able to push Germany back because their ability to go on the offensive (without American troops) was, well, kaput

First: The AEF used French and British equipment. Particularly appreciated were the French canon de 75 modèle 1897, the canon de 155 C modèle 1917 Schneider, and the canon de 155mm GPF. American aviation units received the SPAD XIII and Nieuport 28 fighters, and the U.S. Army tank corps used French Renault FT light tanks. Pershing established facilities in France to train new arrivals with their new weapons.

Second: How can you say this when you know this to be true?

The Meussse Argonne was only part of a general offensive move along the whole front. The rest of the Allies, including France, Britain and its dominion and imperial armies (mainly Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), and Belgium contributed to major battles in other sectors across the whole front.On September 26, the Americans began their strike north towards Sedan. The next day, British and Belgian divisions drove towards Ghent (Belgium). British and French armies attacked across northern France on September 28.

They were on the offensive at the same time as the Meusse Argonne movement. So obviously were quite capable of going on the attack.
And had been on the offensive for three months previous ...
It was the battle of Arras in August that the German high command said broke their back.

freeman3

It's easy to get bogged down in the details.

Its easier to ignore the facts where they seem to contradict the myth.

freeman3

But a lot of liberals/leftists have are not aware of all the pertinent history and this allows them to sort of be hypercritical of the US and equate it with countries like China and Russia.

I doubt that Americans are aware of the perspective of the peoples that they got involved with ...
How many Americans understand that the Vietnamese consider that they fought a 10,000 day war of national liberation against serial imperialists? (Chinese, French, Japanese, French again and finally the US).
How many Americans are aware that both Syria and Iran had democratically elected governments before the CIA got involved?
I doubt very many Americans can name the countries that make up Central America let alone understand what American military involvement did to the peoples of the region.

But I'll leave it by suggesting that, once again, its about perspective. One reason that the US found it hard to establish a credible alliance when they decided to invade Iraq based on the WMD fiasco was that there is a genuinely earned skepticism about American motivations. It has developed over a long period of time. The 8 years of Obama seem to have renovated the perceptions a fair amount ... and then came Trump.

rayjay

However, if we didn't arrive for WWII, my best guess is that Europe, most of Africa, and most of Asia would be either fascist or communist right now.

Germany was never going to win the war against the UK unless they won
1) the air war over England
2) the battle of the North Atlantic.

Although it served the purpose to say that the UK and allied air forces barely won the Battle of Britain, what was later learned was that the german airforce badly lost the war of attrition in the air war. Not airships. Trained pilots. Whereas the Commonwealth air training program was delivering well trained air crews at a rate 50% above replacement Germany never managed to replace their crews properly.

And the U boats scored successes but fully 97% of all cargo that left Halifax in convoy and later the US got through to England. Although the losses were terrible they were never crippling. At the same time, German shortages were difficult. Especially oil - which was a major consideration for the Eastern invasion...

The scenario you describe is somewhat far fetched. It considers that Germany would have invaded Russia and been pushed back as actually occurred. Its impossible to understand how much tougher and longer it would have taken Russia without pressure from other fronts or the assistance particularly in the supply of trucks. (This may have been the essential contribution to the eastern front by the US... about 35% of all trucks used by Russia were American. Russia concentrated on making armaments. )
The other thing. Communism is a bankrupt, inefficient, unworkable system of governance. It crumbled of its own accord or in the case of China morphed into a kind of mercantilist/capatalist system that actually resembles Chinese governance of centuries to an extent.
I think the one thing westerners forget about China is that they could care less about converting other nations to their way of governing or operating. They don't want to own you - they just want to make a profit from you. They don't demand you convert, only that you allow them to sell their goods and services to you at a profit.

Its a different kind of threat then the USSR. And frankly, more likely to succeed too well if the world doesn't form enough of a common front to force China into observing certain boundaries.

Ricky, yes, the US did use some foreign military weapons but so what? The US was sending massive amounts of supplies (oil, raw materias, food', etc.) which the Allies could no longer pay for. (it is really hard to find how much military supplies were sent but there was at least some). In any case, France and Great Britain would have been in very bad straits without US economic help in 1917-1918.

Saying the French were able to go on the offensive (with American help) is not the same saying as saying the French could have gone on the offensive themselves. Their demoralization in 1917 clearly indicates otherwise. The fact that American troops were coming helped in two ways with regard to the French willing to go on the offensive again : (1) it gave them the psychological boost that the war could be won, so that losses would be worth it, (2) and of course they would not have to shoulder the whole load, with American troops taking some of the losses. The French Poilus had lost hope by 1917 of beating the Germans by themselves (well, just with British help who occupied different sectors of the line, anyway).

I agree with RJ about WWII. I am not really quite sure what exact point Ricky is trying to make.

Ricky:

I think the one thing westerners forget about China is that they could care less about converting other nations to their way of governing or operating. They don't want to own you - they just want to make a profit from you. They don't demand you convert, only that you allow them to sell their goods and services to you at a profit.

What I saw in Africa is that they lend money to governments knowing that it will not be paid back. No lender would rationally make these loans. Their game is that down the road the foreign government will owe them something intangible to obtain loan forgiveness.

Ricky:

The other thing. Communism is a bankrupt, inefficient, unworkable system of governance. It crumbled of its own accord

I strongly agree with the vast majority of this statement. What you are not considering is that despots use their power to stay in power at all costs, regardless of what it means for their people. North Korea has been communist for a long time and you have argued on these pages that it will stay in power since they have nukes. Venezuela also seem to be hanging in there against all odds.

Ricky:

I doubt very many Americans can name the countries that make up Central America

Ricky, you are way too arrogant for someone with your level of intelligence. Out of our population of over 300 million I'm sure you can find several of us who know something about basic geography and history. No doubt you would be offended by derogatory remarks against women, blacks, gays, etc., but when it comes to insulting a few hundred million people of a certain nationality, you could care less.

Ricky:

rayjay

However, if we didn't arrive for WWII, my best guess is that Europe, most of Africa, and most of Asia would be either fascist or communist right now.

Germany was never going to win the war against the UK unless they won
1) the air war over England
2) the battle of the North Atlantic.

Who really knows? When I said "Europe" I wasn't including the UK.

My statement stands. If the US was truly neutral, one should surmise that the continent Europe and North Africa, and much of Russia (without lend lease and with Germany not having to worry about its western front) would have fallen. In Asia, Japan would have subdued the population centers of China, and southeast Asia. Maybe India would have survived as a British colony, maybe not.

I would have also expected that Germany would have developed nuclear weapons by 1946 or 1947. They were much closer than the US before the war, but Germany lost some very important scientists as a result of their racial policies. (Fermi wasn't Jewish, but his wife was, so he had to flee Europe. Their loss and the world's gain.) There were many top notch German scientists who would willingly work for the Reich. A nuke on London or Moscow would have changed the balance of power.

rayjay

Out of our population of over 300 million I'm sure you can find several of us who know something about basic geography and history

Which would equate to not very many. You seem to be agreeing with me..

And I'm saying something that many American scholars, and commentators don't also say... And which there isn't abundant evidence. For example:

The global literacy survey asked 1,203 young adults 75 questions about geography, current events, and economics and trade. Among 18-to-26-year-olds who attend or have attended a two- or four-year college in the United States, the average score on the survey was just 55 percent—a failing grade in most U.S. classrooms.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -students/

Now the above cohort are the creme de la creme. How do you think the majority of trump voters would do?

freeman3

Saying the French were able to go on the offensive (with American help) is not the same saying as saying the French could have gone on the offensive themselves.

From the start of the Meusse Argonne offensive, all along the western front, there were 8,000,000 French, British and other Entente forces attacking German positions. . Only 500,000 were American.
How dose that make the 7% who were Americans essential or key?
You keep repeating the myths, despite contrary evidence..

freeman3

The US was sending massive amounts of supplies (oil, raw materias, food', etc.) which the Allies could no longer pay for.

Just to stipulate. Everything was eventually paid for, and the US profited.

rayjay

My statement stands. If the US was truly neutral, one should surmise that the continent Europe and North Africa, and much of Russia (without lend lease and with Germany not having to worry about its western front) would have fallen. In Asia, Japan would have subdued the population centers of China, and southeast Asia. Maybe India would have survived as a British colony, maybe not.

Russia would never have sued for peace. Neither would the UK. Germany did not have the resources to defeat a determined Russia though they could have held on for several years longer than they did. As in WWI, the Royal Navy was choking Germany who could not get the raw materials required of a modern war effort.
There would have been a danger of greater Communist control of Europe. However I think it was inevitable that the US were going to be forced into the war by Japan.

rayjay

I would have also expected that Germany would have developed nuclear weapons by 1946 or 1947

Tube Alloys was the code name of the research and development programme authorised by the United Kingdom, with participation from Canada, to develop nuclear weapons during the Second World War. Starting before the Manhattan Project in the United States, the British efforts were kept classified, and as such had to be referred to by code even within the highest circles of government.
The possibility of nuclear weapons was acknowledged early in the war. At the University of Birmingham, Rudolf Peierls and Otto Frisch co-wrote a memorandum explaining that a small mass of pure uranium-235 could be used to produce a chain reaction in a bomb with the power of thousands of tons of TNT. This led to the formation of the MAUD Committee, which called for an all-out effort to develop nuclear weapons. Wallace Akers, who oversaw the project, chose the deliberately misleading name "Tube Alloys". His Tube Alloys Directorate was part of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
The Tube Alloys programme in Britain and Canada was the first nuclear weapons project. Due to the high costs, and the fact that Britain was fighting a war within bombing range of its enemies, Tube Alloys was ultimately subsumed into the Manhattan Project by the Quebec Agreement with the United States, under which the two nations agreed to share nuclear weapons technology, and to refrain from using it against each other, or against other countries without mutual consent; but the United States did not provide complete details of the results of the Manhattan Project to the United Kingdom. The Soviet Union gained valuable information through its atomic spies, who had infiltrated both the British and American projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Th ... ators.html

http://www.progressivewritersbloc.com/D ... tators.htm

rayjay

What you are not considering is that despots use their power to stay in power at all costs, regardless of what it means for their people.

Oh I do though. Including the list of despots linked above...)one of them should work.

Who got into power or were sustained in power with either direct American intervention or assistance.(not just American for some of them).
So, just being despotic doesn't define one as friend or foe... does it?

Do you not really read what other people write? I dont know where you are getting that 500,000 figure, anyway. There were two million American troops in France by the end. More arriving all the time. The French mutinied in 1917 against attacking any longer. David Lloyd George refused to give Haig any more troops because he was worried that if significant losses occurred without gain there could be social unrest. And you still think that they could have pushed Germany back without American help? And your point about loans being eventually paid back...so what? They got money and supplies when they NEEDED it. It wasnt like it was some kind of great deal for America. They saved France and Britain and there was no reason that France and Britain could not pay it back when they could.

RJ is right. Russia and Great Britain could not have beaten Gernany by themselves. Germany was developing sophisticated weapons at a dizzying pace by the end of war (V1, V2 rockets; Me-262 jet; Tiger tank,etc; advanced submarines, etc). They probably would have developed a nuclear bomb with more time. By 1943 Albert Speer was really turning Germany into a war economy but this was offset by American's strategic bombing of their industry. Britain bombed only at night and took much fewer losses but of course they did not have as many bombers and bombing at night was not as effective. It is extremely unlikely that Britain would have been able to bomb Germany effectively without American help. And of course Russia got a lot of aid from the US. And Germany had long lines to defend with America in the war, requiring many troops. They also had to use many fighters to stop Americsn bombers. Without America in the war, a lot more troops, weapons, planes, etx. could have been sent to the Easten Front.

Britain would have been an annoyance to Germany and thus Germany facing Russia essentially alone and with advanced weapons and with industry turning out a huge number of armaments unhindered by America's strategic bombing campaign they could have fended Russia off if not won (who knows?) until they got a nuclear bomb. There is no certainty here but it is not a question we would have to liked to have had an answer to.

Ah yes, how bad the US is for dealing with a laundry list of dictators. Not nearly as bad as communism, man. You dont always have great choices to make in life. How do you think Central and South America would look if it became all communist? I am a liberal, I am quite aware of the mistakes we made. Of the dictators we supported. But that has to be compared with the fact that Russia was seeking to export communism everywhere and it was the US that stopped them in the Cold War. And the world is a lot better off that the US won that battle.

freeman3

Do you not really read what other people write? I dont know where you are getting that 500,000 figure, anyway. There were two million American troops in France by the end.

I do.
At the time of the Meusse Argonne offensive. There were 2,000,000 US in France. 1,000,000 in camps. 500,000 in transit or rear echelon.
And 500,000 in the front lines actually involved in combat and part of the Meusse Argonne offensive. Do you dispute that? I have linked you to sources.


freeman3

The French mutinied in 1917 against attacking any longer.

And yet after that the French DID attack on a great many occasions.
During the summer of 1918, after the decisive defeat of the Germans at the second Battle of the Marne, Foch ordered an offensive against Amiens. Some French units participated in this battle. Then, a general offensive was launched against the German positions in France. The French First Army helped the British troops in the north, while eight French field armies formed the center of the offensive. An additional army was sent to help the Americans. The French forces were the most numerous of all the allied troops.
Including as the majority force in the Meusse Argonne offensive and all along the western front . (I'm repeating myself here, I know. But then you aren't acknowledging any of these facts and keep making the same claims without support.

Freeman3
.

And you still think that they could have pushed Germany back without American help?

The Germans were starving Freeman. They had mobilized the old and the very young. They had no more reserves. . When their last offensive stalled, they were done for... Austria was done, there was nothing to stop its capture, and two provinces of Greater Germany switched sides..
There was no question of them winning, and little chance they could defend a determined push. The Hundred days took place across most of the Western front, not just the Meusse Argonne...Most of it could still have occurred without the 500,000 Americans. And it would have been just as successful.

There might have been a different peace settlement if not for American involvement, because the active participation of half a million US troops, and the presence of another 1.5 million made clear the outcome and the futility of continuing... So a complete capitulation versus a more negotiated peace were the outcome. (And maybe the former might have been preferred in retrospect)

freeman3

You dont always have great choices to make in life. How do you think Central and South America would look if it became all communist?

Who says it would have become Communist? And if free and democratic elections had chosen socialism or communism .... why couldn't that decision be allowed to stand?

The United States� interventions in Central America have ranged from creating and arming right-wing death squads to propping up some of history's most bloody dictatorships. The United States has over and over again put its ideals before the lives and well-being of the various peoples living throughout Central America, and because of that, much of the history of Central America has been that of violence, civil wars, and revolts.

Here's the result of those decades of support for dictators and military juntas...

.The vast majority of Central Americans today live in perpetual misery alongside tiny elites that enjoy unparalleled prosperity. The average cat in [the U.S.] eats more beef than the average Central American. In Nicaragua, 54 percent of the people have no safe drinking water. In Guatemala, 44 percent are illiterate, and Indians, who constitute half of the country's population, have an average life-span of forty-eight years. Seven out of ten Hondurans live in desperate poverty, only one rural resident in ten has electricity, and less than two in ten have access to safe drinking water. Infant mortality was seventy per 1,000 births in 1990, compared to less than nine per 1,000 in the United States."

- from the chapter "Central Americans: Intervention Comes Home to Roost" in Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America by Juan Gonzalez
http://www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_pro ... a/main.htm