May 10

[Karl Heidenreich]

The russians got an incredible victory at Stralingrad: they destroyed 6th Army, build a breach into the German front, captured a real Field Marshall and won the turning point in the greatest war front in History.
At Verdun the french got 600,000 killed and at the end the Germans still hold thousands of square kilometers of french soil until US came and won the war. Since Quatre Bras in 1815 the french had never won a significant battle against european armies, specially Germans. Verdun was, at it´s best, a draw and you folks know it.

Best regards

[iankw]

I don't think we should write off the significance of Verdun from the German perspective. Originally conceived as a battle to "bleed the French army white" it undoubtedly succeeded but, what I think was unforeseen at the time, it also bled the German army white too. Imo neither army was capable of a substantial offensive after this time. Of course Verdun lead to the Somme offensive, which did a pretty good number on the "British" army too.

Ian

[RF]

The Soviet victory at Stalingrad was entirely down to one person - Adolf Hitler. It was an entirely avoidable disaster, and not just for the Germans, as the Roumanians lost two thirds of their army defending the German flanks, together with substantial losses to the Hungarians, Italians and Croats.

Zhukov's role was merely to exploit the situation given to him, and whilst Stalingrad was a Soviet victory the second part of the Soviet offensive became the Soviets last land battle defeat in WW2.

[RF]

At Verdun the french got 600,000 killed and at the end the Germans still hold thousands of square kilometers of french soil until US came and won the war. Since Quatre Bras in 1815 the french had never won a significant battle against european armies, specially Germans. Verdun was, at it´s best, a draw and you folks know it.

Best regards

As iankw rightly says one feature of the Battle of Verdun was that it bled the German army, such that there were no further German offensives until the Kaiserschlact launched in March 1918 using largely troops drawn from the eastern front.

The French did win at the Battle of the Marne in 1914 and managed to overunn the German colony of Kamerun without any help from the British.
The French forces in Greece in September 1918 played a key role in the surrender of Bulgaria and the liberation of Serbia, largely leading to the breakup and capitulation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Free French forces participated in many successfull operations against both Italian and German forces during 1940-45, including the final operations in spring 1945 when the French First Army overan Bade-Baden and part of Bavaria, largely in pursuit of the fleeing Petain and Laval.

Can I finally point out that the US army under Pershing did not in itself win WW1. Although there were more than 1 million US troops in France by the summer of 1918, what defeated the Germans and led to the Armistice of 11 November 1918 was firstly the cumulative effects of the British blockade of Germany and secondly the British army campaign from August to November 1918 which finally broke through the Hindenburg Line and recovered much of the territory of France and Belguim that had been lost in 1914.

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

As always your points are very good. But I cannot regard Verdun as a victory in the objective sense:
Agincourt was a British victory over the French
Little Big Horn was an Indian victory over USA
Trafalgar was a British victory over Napoleon
Gettysburg was a northern victory over the South
Stalingrad or Kursk was a victory of the ruskies over the Germans
As McArthur said: "In war there is no substitute for victory"

But my point is that, even, with the fail of the German plan, we can hardly call Verdun a French Victory as we cannot call Somme a British victory or the Summer 1918 German Offensives as a German victory.
But the Argonne Forest and the late offensives in 1918 can be called victorious.
The US won the WWI because the allies were in no shape to win it without them. Remember that the French Army had mutinies earlier and that all sides were exhausted. When the Germans attacked the western front in 1918 they had the new forces from their victory over the russians and they would have succeded not being for the presence and help of the USA in the theatre. And the allies would have been uncapable of launching their own offensives not being the USA present in the field.

And, after all, when the war ended on November 11th, the German still hold French territory...

Remember what Gallieni, the hero of the Marne answered when questioned about that "battle": "Was there a battle at the Marne...???"

[RF]

Karl,

Agincourt was an English victory not a British one, as Wales was not joined to England until 1536 and Scotland formed a Union with England in 1707. Britain as a nation only came into being as such from that year. The whole of the island of Ireland was brought into that Union in 1801.

Regarding the US role in WW1, yes the American Expeditionary Force under Pershing was significant, the French had been bled, but I think it is a matter of historical record that the British offensives of August to November 1918 launched by Douglas Haig which finally defeated the German army and left Germany on the point of revolution.

[RF]

Little Big Horn was an Indian victory over USA

Interesting that you mention this.

A couple of years ago there was a re-examination of this battle which put Custer in rather a less than favourable light. The re-examination was put into a television documentary and re-enacted the Battle using Sioux and Commanche sources. Apparently their main weapons were not bow and arrow but captured US Army Winchester and Springfield rifles, so Custer was outgunned as well as outnumbered, most of his soldiers were shot down.....

Alternatively you could see Little Big Horn and the Indian wars as another form of civil war, as the Indians are Americans - they were there before the Europeans....

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

I stand corrected about "English" at Agincourt. Always a favorite since I read Shakespeare´s play about Henry V.

Douglas Haig´s name came to my mind (as with Foch, the German Crown Prince, Nivelle, Petain and the others) not much as a general but as a butcher that followed a doctrine dead since the Pickett´s Charge in 1863.

About Little Big Horn (june 25th, 1876), well, Custer was a damm fool and got himself and 200 of his men surrounded by 2,000 very angry "warriors". There was a movie called "Son of the morning star" in which the indians are potrayed better armed than the US Army in that particular battle.
Do you know that General Sheridan offered Custer three gatlin machine guns for his expedition and that he refused?

Best regards...

[RF]

And, after all, when the war ended on November 11th, the German still hold French territory...

True - but only half of the French territory they had three months earlier!

They also still held the whole of Luxembourg and two-thirds of Belgium (down from the 98% in August 1918, the other 2% was the Ypres salient held by the British throughout the war) and a large part of western Russia.

But again on May 7th 1945 the Germans were still in occupation of part of Britain (the Channel Islands) and several Biscay ports, pus virtually all of Norway and Denmark.

And on 14th August 1945 Japan still held the majority of the territory seized in 1941/42.....


Incidently, coming back to the French - under Plan 17 in August 1914 they invaded Alsace and got as far as Mulhouse. The Germans retook Mulhouse but about a quarter of Alsace was held by the French Army right up to the end of WW1.

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

About Plan 17. The German High Command knew about that move and they let them do it because it helped the Schliefen Plan: they want every french unit using the Plan 17 in order to free the north (Belgium) of enemy resistance like in Namur or those places. So Mulhouse was not "taken", was "given".

The situation in 1918 and in 1845 were quite different: in 1945 almost all Germany was occupied by:
Russians
Americans
British
and some other allied forces while Hitler´s bunker was surrounded by some 1,000,000 angry ruskies. Patton was on the other side beggin Ike to let him finish the enemy. Of course there were still intact German troops in Norway. It was Doenitz desicion not to use them to continue the war from there. But, basically, the Third Reich was destroyed, Germany occupied, and at the mercy of their conquerors.
In 1918 the German Army was still undefeated unless the sectors attacked by the AEF and the BEF that breached the front. The call for the armitice came from within political dissent and revolts inside Germany (and the sailors of the HSF), not from a complete military defeat as in 1945. That´s why a WWII started, because WWI wasn´t finished.

[RF]

Karl,

This is the whole argument isn't it, about the alleged ''stab in the back'' that helped Hitler come to power, that Germany wasn't really defeated....

Ludendorff knew the position - Germany could not continue to fight the war, hence the Armistice. So Germany was defeated. It wasn't ''politically correct'' in those days to admit it.

[RF]

It hardly seems five minutes since I started this thread, yet time has turned and this anniversary has come again.

[Karl Heidenreich]

[RF]

It hardly seems five minutes since I started this thread, yet time has turned and this anniversary has come again.

And again.....

[Karl Heidenreich]

Yes... and still the French defeat rings echoes...