There is a lot of theories as to what gave the Allies the advantage in WWI. I shall list some: Manfred Von Richtofen shot down. Allies use of tanks. U.S. troops. Not enough Germans to continue the war. Determined commanders. So what in your opinion (or in the facts you found) gave the Allies the advantage?
I don't think there was single reason (the same way there wasn't really a single reason for it to start), but the Wiki page (okay I had to start somewhere: WWI was never part of my reading) lists a number of things: Bulgaria signing a separate treaty, Ludendorff's breakdown, the collapse of the Balkans (and subsequent loss of oil and food while the USA was still pouring in huge numbers of men)... With regard to the use of tanks (which in the majority of cases tended to be more of a spectacle than an effective military "win") it has been written* that their introduction supplied the "excuse" that exhausted German troops were looking for to not fight any more. I.e. they didn't win the war militarily but they did provide a psychological lever to tip the balance. * Although for the life of me I can't remember where, even though it's been mooted in a number of books. Maybe one of David Fletcher's tomes, or Smithers'. :shrug:
Yeah, tanks did do alot psychologically. Even though if we saw them today we'd think they were boxes on wheels (a reference to the German tanks). I agree that there wasn't a single reason. But which do you think was probably the most impacting?
US troops- a fresh supply of an army to join the war gave us the edge. Luckily no one has tried to take over the world and won yet- the underdog prevails...
I think Italy's choice of which side to join was the decisive act in WW1. Italy was going to join the war but had to decide on which side. Had the Italians joined the Central Powers the Austrians and Bulgarians would have defeated the Serbs quickly and Greece would have stayed out of the War. After the Russians quit the War the Central powers would have been able to give more help to the Turks against the British. The Italians would have pulled some French forces to the Southern front. The USA would have stayed out of the War or would have joined on the side of the Central powers because the US wanted to be on the side that would win. Think of all British and French colonies that the USA could take over if they joined the winning Central Powers. It would be just like the Spanish American war but with more spoils than just the Philippines and Puerto Rico.
I disagree. America joined because of the sinking of the Luinstintania and the Zimmerman Telegram. That's what got us into the war. We would have still joined unless these events didn't happen. To add we would have fought the powers for two reasons: 1. We were friends with the British and French, so naturally we'd help them. 2. If both of the mentioned events happened there is no way we would have joined them.
Just for future reference, it is Manfred von Richthofen, not Erich von Richtofen. Prehaps you got it confused with the top ace of all time Erich "Bubi" Hartmann ( in World War II ). Erich claimed to have never been shot down.
The number of aircraft and our anti-air defenses. We gained air superiority over them near the end of the war.
Not just their ace, their aces. Mind the plural. Richthofen's Circus was also suffering loses like never before. The allies had slight aerial superiority even before Richthofen got killed. Mind that he wasn't shot down, he was killed, there is a difference, being that he wasn't killed because hid aircraft got blow to pieces, it was because a bullet hit him in a vital point.
I read about that. Nobody was really sure who fired the bullet. It was either the Canadian in the plane, or the Australian with the Machine Gun. More evidence points towards the Australian Machine Gunner as being the one who fired the shot, as thebullet pierced the lung and heart at an upward angle.
Also, if it was the Canadian, then he would not have been in pursue of another Canadian for as long as he did. Canadians like to think its us, but I don't think it was us. He actually managed to land the plane before he died Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He was either brain damaged or is having a combat stress reaction ( shell shock ), because his judgment is not nearly as clear as it should be. Numerous aces died the same way on both sides.
At one level, there is only one answer to this question: once the USA had entered the war there was only one possible outcome. The interest and controversy lie in how this was brought about. In 1914, almost everyone in the USA wanted no part in the war, and pro-German sentiment was probably stronger than pro-British sentiment. (The Boer War had caused much bitterness and outrage against the British.) Omega133 correctly points to the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmermann telegram. Question is: what are the real stories behind these two events? How did the Jews manage to contrive them as payment for the Balfour declaration?
The Red Baron. During his last battle, his was a lot worse the usual, his judgment was not clear, and overall, he wasn't as nearly as good as he usually is. His performance was poor ( compared to his usual performance ) during his last battle.
The most plausible explanations are brain damage and combat stress reaction. Similar scenarios have happened to allied aces in WWI.
Canada couldn't have won it alone. Just as how America couldn't have won it alone. Or Britain. Possibly Russia.
