• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

100 Years Ago on this day, WWI was brought to an end.

US troops might well have been greatly appreciated but they weren't necessary for the allied victory.

Over 2 million US troops manned about 20% of the active front line and certainly were necessary for the allied victory.

Google the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in one window, the Battle of Saint-Mihiel in another window, and a map of the Western Front in another window and figure it out.
 
Small scale warfare with defensive positions that could be flanked or by-passed.

Look at pictures a decade earlier from the siege of Sevastopol and you'll see similar earthworks...hell you could go back to Caesar at Alesia for examples of earthworks winning battle.


But WWI was on a completely different scale.

There was no flank to turn...not way to bypass. The breakthrough was the only option.

I'll grant you that.
 
This is nonsense.

The US contributed 500k troops to the 100 day offensive alone, and their contributions during the 2nd Marne were greatly appreciated. Without the US there might not have even been a 1918 Allied offensive.

No, there wouldn't have been an 1918 Allied Offensive, it would've been a 1919 Allied Offensive.
 
The French were outmaneuvered though and lost the will to fight on very quickly. The Germans, by contrast, were highly motivated.

The French surrendered because they had lost the any ability to meaningfully resist the Germans. The Battle of France was over at the Battle of Sedan.
 
US Grant and RE Lee did.


Grant was actually the perfect example of it.

The Union conducted it's campaigns against the South in a manner that the Entente would've done well to heed. Too many Generals in WWI, Foch, Pershing, Ludendorf, placed too much emphasis on the breakthrough, a singular decisive breach to turn the tide of the war. This was repeatedly shown to not be the case. What Petain and Falkenhayn realized was that the best way to defeat the enemy was to overwhelm him across the entire front; force him to disperse his reserves rather than concentrate them, dilute his combat power. Piecemeal rather than trying to take a large bite.
 
Grant was actually the perfect example of it.

The Union conducted it's campaigns against the South in a manner that the Entente would've done well to heed. Too many Generals in WWI, Foch, Pershing, Ludendorf, placed too much emphasis on the breakthrough, a singular decisive breach to turn the tide of the war. This was repeatedly shown to not be the case. What Petain and Falkenhayn realized was that the best way to defeat the enemy was to overwhelm him across the entire front; force him to disperse his reserves rather than concentrate them, dilute his combat power. Piecemeal rather than trying to take a large bite.

Hmmm.
It was Falkenhayn, at Verdun, who created the "mincing machine." And it was Petain, also at Verdun, who said: "They shall not pass."
Ludendorf had considerable success with breakthroughs in the East.
 
Hmmm.
It was Falkenhayn, at Verdun, who created the "mincing machine." And it was Petain, also at Verdun, who said: "They shall not pass."
Ludendorf had considerable success with breakthroughs in the East.

Falkenhayn's goal at Verdun wasn't a breakthrough; it was to kill as many French troops as possible. By bleeding the French white at Verdun the entire French strategic position would be undermined.

Petain likewise knew that unhinging French defenses at Verdun placed the entire French strategy in an increasingly bad position. Verdun was a battle with almost entirely strategic aims in mind.

In a letter to the Kaiser, Falkenhyn said

"The string in France has reached breaking point. A mass breakthrough—which in any case is beyond our means—is unnecessary. Within our reach there are objectives for the retention of which the French General Staff would be compelled to throw in every man they have. If they do so the forces of France will bleed to death."

As for Ludendorf, that's exactly the problem. Ludendorf spent almost the entire war in the East, where the Germans were fighting an opponent they had such a conventional superiority over they just needed to smash the Russians over and over again until the weight of their defeats, coupled with their collapsing society, crumbled.

This came back to bite the Germans in the west, where they needed a comprehensive, detailed plan to defeat the British and French armies but instead all the Germans got from Ludendorf was a generic "attack in the direction of the enemy" come Spring 1918. It's why the Germans fell apart so quickly once the 100 Days Offensive began.
 
Falkenhayn's goal at Verdun wasn't a breakthrough; it was to kill as many French troops as possible. By bleeding the French white at Verdun the entire French strategic position would be undermined.

Petain likewise knew that unhinging French defenses at Verdun placed the entire French strategy in an increasingly bad position. Verdun was a battle with almost entirely strategic aims in mind.

In a letter to the Kaiser, Falkenhyn said

"The string in France has reached breaking point. A mass breakthrough—which in any case is beyond our means—is unnecessary. Within our reach there are objectives for the retention of which the French General Staff would be compelled to throw in every man they have. If they do so the forces of France will bleed to death.". . . .

Yes, and your #57 stands in contradiction to your #55.
 
No, there wouldn't have been an 1918 Allied Offensive, it would've been a 1919 Allied Offensive.

Without those 2 million US troops there would have been no allied offensive in 1918, in 1919, or in any other year.
 
Yes, and your #57 stands in contradiction to your #55.

Not really. It may have been more accurate to say the Union instead of just Grant however, as the Union didn't focus on winning just one battlefield, it overwhelmed the Confederacy across numerous theaters; blockade, seizing the Mississippi, the eastern theatre.
 
Without those 2 million US troops there would have been no allied offensive in 1918, in 1919, or in any other year.

Sure there would have been.

Without US intervention the 100 Days Offensive doesn't happen, but that doesn't grant Germany a victory. That doesn't solve the British blockade, the German starvation, the collapse of the Central Powers, or Germany's poor positioning at the end of the Spring offensives.
 
Not really. It may have been more accurate to say the Union instead of just Grant however, as the Union didn't focus on winning just one battlefield, it overwhelmed the Confederacy across numerous theaters; blockade, seizing the Mississippi, the eastern theatre.

The contradiction was regarding Falkenhayn and Petain, who epitomized concentration, not expansion of the front.
 
The contradiction was regarding Falkenhayn and Petain, who epitomized concentration, not expansion of the front.

Concentration of force and the breakthrough are not synonymous military concepts.
 
Concentration of force and the breakthrough are not synonymous military concepts.

From your #55, the opposite of Verdun.

What Petain and Falkenhayn realized was that the best way to defeat the enemy was to overwhelm him across the entire front; force him to disperse his reserves rather than concentrate them, dilute his combat power. Piecemeal rather than trying to take a large bite.
 
From your #55, the opposite of Verdun.

What Petain and Falkenhayn realized was that the best way to defeat the enemy was to overwhelm him across the entire front; force him to disperse his reserves rather than concentrate them, dilute his combat power. Piecemeal rather than trying to take a large bite.

You're missing the point entirely. Yes, Verdun was a battle. Fighting a single battle does not mean that an overall strategy isn't being implemented. The purpose of Verdun was not to achieve a decisive breakthrough, but to bleed the French white so they're overall position would be compromised.

Verdun was the run up to the big push, not the push itself.
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point entirely. Yes, Here in was a battle. Fighting a single battle does not mean that an overall strategy isn't being implemented. The purpose of Verdun was not to achieve a decisive breakthrough, but to bleed the French white so they're overall position would be compromised.

Yes, that was why Falkenhayn described the "mincing machine." But you claimed a broad front and Verdun was the opposite.
 
Yes, that was why Falkenhayn described the "mincing machine." But you claimed a broad front and Verdun was the opposite.

Because it wasnt the big push. It was the build up that was supposed to set the ground work for the big offensive.
 
It was a concentrated battle, not a broad front offensive.

I don't see how I can break this down any easier for you.

Verdun was not the big push. It was never supposed to be. The Germans couldn't just walk out of their trenches and attack the Entrnte. Verdun was a necessary step towards paving the way for a broad front offensive by killing tons of French troops.
 
I don't see how I can break this down any easier for you.

Verdun was not the big push. It was never supposed to be. The Germans couldn't just walk out of their trenches and attack the Entrnte. Verdun was a necessary step towards paving the way for a broad front offensive by killing tons of French troops.

Verdun led nowhere, and Falkenhayn was removed because of the battle's failure.
 
Back
Top Bottom