The ANZACs- myth and reality

[Grovetown]

It's an interesting question Terry - and one that, being so hypothetical, doesn't lend itself to an easy or definitive answer. Yet one that can hopefully be addressed without displaying nationalistic myopia, flashes of which can be seen elsewhere.

The question perhaps has two parts:

1. How long could the allies have maintained an effective war footing without American support, even if just in materiel?

And:

2. Regardless of 1., how long could Germany maintain its defence - if not offence - in the face of the strictures it was subject to, at home, let alone on the battlefield?

How long is a piece of string?

We could argue the logistical and motivational strengths of the opposing forces until the cows come home; but it seems likely that the attritional depletions suffered by Germany as a consequence of the blockade would have proved too much to bear within perhaps another two years (a guess, of course).

The allies may not have had much in the way of offensive capability in such a protracted period; but their lock on Germany would have at least seen it sue for peace in time.

Whether this would have been acceptable to the allies on terms, or whether they would have pressed for an unconditional capitulation based on a sense of their own 'longevity' in a prolonged conflict is highly moot; but it was only going to end one way.

This is also being discussed here, with a few hints of temper too:

Board Message

Best wishes,

GT.

[Taz]

GT- Your response pretty much agrees with what I was thinking. Sometime in the late 1919-1920 timeframe. Very hypothetical, of course.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[NeilE]

Originally Posted by Jenny

One of my all-time favorite books. And I love Graves poetry as well. He may have been right Re. trench-foot. We now know that a person's moral can play havoc with the immune system. Poor discipline can, lead to poor moral, and vice versa. There is plenty of anecdotal information out there on how one's personal outlook affects one's health. Whether this is due to seratonin levels, or something else ought to be studied. There is a definite mind/body connection, and when you throw in the generalized stress of trench warfare, poor living conditions, etc., one could certainly go into a downward slide culminating in trench-foot.
Now how would one set up such a study? Or would one rely on retrospective evidence? Wonder if the Journal of Military Medicine might be interested? Are there articles of the epidemiology of trench-foot? I wonder if my local SPH would know? I need to find a psychiatrist specializing in brain biochemistry, and infantry related military medicine. Here's a question: What is the effect of serotonin levels on the development of trench-foot? If high serotonin levels prevent the development of trench-foot, could/should one give troops in the field doses of Prozac , or similar drugs to up the saratonin levels? Under battlefield conditions, how would you administer said drug? Pill, patch, long-lasting injections? Sorry about the tangent, but this might be worth a f/u. Jenny. I may get my call from Stockholm yet!

I don't buy Graves' arguments about trench foot. Trench foot was caused by long periods of immersion of a soldier's foot in wet or damp conditions (in a trench or elsewhere), inadequate foot wear, and a lack of dry socks and boots and mostly useless treatment/preventative measures. The common treatments and preventatives for it - whale oil etc were somewhat effective but only for short periods of time. If you were exposed to poorly sighted, badly drained trenches for prolonged periods you were likely to get some trench foot, no matter who good or bad your morale was. There was a tendency in The Great War (as at times in World War II) to blame the infantryman for the problems he suffered - trench foot, shell shock, trench fever, to name a few were all seen as the result of some sort of individual deficit, rather than the result of the environment and system the men found themselves in.

As for the relationship between chemical imbalances and morale, this should be recast as the relationship between chemical changes in the brain as a result of exposure to prolonged trauma - much of this has been studied already and has largely been accepted (so no trip to Stockholm for you!) as being mostly valid within certain parameters. Such changes are mostly temporary but in some cases it can continue for years after the trauma exposure. However, it is only one of a number of possible causes of behavioural changes as a result of exposure to trauma. It is a relatively deterministic explanation and one that does not always fit the evidence we have re recovery from battle trauma - given that cognitive-emotional treatments can be equally effective.

As for giving troops anti-depressants - it would have been ill advisable and pointless, given that sharp reflexes were one of the few things that help keep you alive on the Western front. Also any such drugs given may well get in the way of the soldier's cognitive abilities to process the trauma in the short term, probably increasing trauma reactions rather than reducing them.

So don't buy your ticket to Sweden just yet....

cheers

neil

[RussGannon]

Neil

Yeah it is just convienient to use 'British' rather than British & Empire. The was also the US 30 Div under Fourth Army command and they likely too were responsible for some of that list.

Alex

There was a comprehensive bombardement plan for Normandy but the defences were largely built with the aim of enflinade fire and as such had thick casements towards the sea. An after battle inspection showed that only 17% of the defenses were taken out by the naval barrages.

Pete

If you are inclined the book was the 'Waterloo Letters' by Maj Gen Siborne first published 1891. It was a compilation of replies sent to the author's father 1835-45: Capt W Siborne whom had been commisioned to bulid the Waterloo dioramas. I'm interested because I thought I'd read all the first hand accounts and have never come across anything intimating a route of any of the 1/95th.

As a general point we must not forget that the 51st Highland Div, the 1st Armoured Div, the so called Beauman Div (a composite) and even the 52nd Lowland Div (one brigade) all fought south of the Somme and in Normandy post Dunkirk.

Cheers to all.

[Pete Hill]

Hi Jenny,
very interesting point! Having read neil's comments, I tend to agree to a point as there must have been times such as during the height of the bad weather at Third Ypres or towards the end of the battle of the Somme when it would have been impossible not to get some degree of Trench foot. However there were times when conditions were more mild when there were units that still had large numbers of Trench foot cases. In this latter case, I agree with Graves that it was a reflection on poor morale rather than on the conditions.
Regarding the connections between morale and body, I have never studied psychology. But I do believe that our behaviour and our body's functions can change when exposed to degrees of trauma and severe stress. One example is during the latter stages of the siege of the German sixth army at Stalingrad during the winter of 1942/43. I have read a number of accounts that describe large numbers of Germans exhibiting severe lethargy. One could argue that it was solely the effects of cold and malnutrition but from what I have read, the men's mental state had a lot to do with it as well. They had lost all hope of victory or rescue and many of them were reduced to extreme in-activity and apathy. I had read where men would not even bother to light a fire even when there was fuel available, would toss their weapons away, would not care that the man they were lying next to was dead or dying, not even bother to write final letters to loved ones. Their trauma and despair reduced them to a blank, lethargic numbness.
To Taz,
Cool! I love What If....questions. (I am a big fan of 'alternative history' authors like Harry Turtledove). Regarding your question which is a very good one, I would say that I doubt if the war would have progressed beyond 1919. It is impossible to predict of course but the German army was, by November 1918, a shadow of its former self. True, many of the fragments that remained were in good condition and were still highly motivated and disciplined but even they could not have maintained a hold on the front. Not when the flow of Allied supplies and resources was being maintained and those of the Germans were dwindling rapidly. And I doubt if the German civilian population could have endured another year of privation and un-rest.
Another point is the Influenza epidemic of 1919. With the war still progressing at the same time, thus impeding efforts to contain the spread of the disease, I fear the death-toll would have been even worse than it was. It could have even spread to the trenches and influenza in 1919 could have been to the British army in France what cholera was to its army in the Crimea in 1854.
There would have been still considerable fighting to be endured. I believe the British and French armies would have kept going but with increasing war-weariness and maybe an increasing tendency to be a little slower and more 'plodding' in their advances. They would have also become bottom-heavy with younger raw replacements as the more experienced men were made casualties or sent home afflicted with battle fatigue. The armies would have relied more heavily on firepower and the growing RFC would have played a bigger role in ground-attack.
Many of the RFC's Sopwith Camel squadrons would have been re-equipped with Snipes or Dolphins whilst more Fokker DVIII monoplanes would have been encountered over the front. The Handley-Page 0400 would have got to play a bigger role also.
The American army would have had to shoulder an increasingly heavier burden of the fighting to take some of the load off the exhausted British and French units. Consequently, US casualties would have been higher. It would have been interesting to see if the larger death-toll would have impacted on the US home-front's morale and attitudes as the US entry into the war was opposed by many Americans at the start. However, the US army would have emerged from the war with more battle-experience and greater tactical knowledge & skills which would have perhaps impacted on the army's development in the decades before WW2.
The Australian divisions would have continued to shrink. With two referendums on conscription in Australia ending in favour of the 'No' vote, the supply of replacements, already reduced to a trickle by late 1918, would have dried up even further in 1919. And the veterans, as fine and highly motivated soldiers they were, would have been increasingly war-weary and perhaps not a little bitter and resentful at the thought of many thousands of young fit men back home being allowed to stay in civilian clothes. There could have been some serious morale and discipline problems and it is likely that some battalions would have been disbanded so the men could replace the gaps in other units.
And what if men like Adolf Hitler, Harry Truman, Anthony Eden and George S Patton didn't survive because they fell in the fighting in 1919?
Its like wondering if the Second World war had dragged on into 1946 because the Allies decided to stage a conventional invasion of Japan instead of using the A-bombs. A completely devastated Japan, perhaps a Soviet invasion and part of Japan ending up like East Germany, a Japanese economy that took longer to recover and develop, a higher US casualty list, a Britain even more finiancially bankrupt that it already was, fewer Allied POW survivors, the list goes on. Its like dropping a pebble onto the surface of a pond and watching the ripples multiply.
Regards Pete

[NeilE]

Hi Pete;

Soldiers in The Great War exposed to prolonged artillery barrages exhibited similar behaviour to those you described for soldiers in Stalingrad. Germans who survived the seven day barrage before the 1st of July described similar symptoms occurring as did some Australians after Pozieres.

Trench foot could be ascribed to poor foot maintainance but the circulatory problems it was often caused by had a lot to do with the boots they wore and lack of sock changes etc. Regular foot inspections helped and certainly apathy contributed but there were a complex of reasons for it I think.

I've been browsing the digitized soldiers records in the National Archives website lately and it surprised me the numbers of soldiers sent home sick or accidently injured over the course of the war. In my browsing so far sickness has predominated over battle wounds in reason why shipped back to Australia. There is no system to my browsing, its just random. Most common illnesses have been rheumatism/rheumatic fever, and strangely, nephritis (kidney disease). Reading some of the terse comments from MO's following examinations deciding to send them back to Australia, I get the impression that shirking was suspected in some of these illness cases. On a different note, one poor fellow fought through Gallipoli as a Light Horse Engineer, then fell off his horse in Egypt, contracted a chronic stomach complaint while in hospital, was scheduled to return to Australia, and then died of what may have been influenza on the troop ship near Mauritius and was buried at sea...

And then there were the VAD cases... Venereal disease, the curse of the common soldier. Soldiers with VD were treated very harshly as it was seen as a self inflicted injury - nevermind that soldiers were issued no forms of protection and were encouraged to attend official brothels (where despite denials from the brass, soldiers often regarded as being rife with STD's). I reminded by Patsy Adam-Smith's chapters on the treatment of VD cases in "The ANZACS".

Overall, as I said there was a tendency, born out of ignorance, to blame soldiers for some of the afflictions they suffered as a result of their service. Shellshock, desertion, illnesses, skin complaints were all seen as the individual soldier's fault - a small part of these things may have been true but in the majority it was clearly not.

cheers

neil

[Jenny]

I too occasionally play "What if?" I will elaborate later as I am involved in putting on a fashion show that runs tonight, and I don't have much time this AM. Walther Rathnau, "As great a German nationalist as there ever was" says my Dad, was responsible managing food distribution. He squeezed the civilian population, so that the Army could fight. Had Rathnau not been running things on that end, the military would not have lasted as long as is did. I'd say another year. Remember, the blockade continued until the treaty was signed, so for many people it was as though the war was still going on.

Ah influenza. There is a hypotheses that it came out of the transit station/depot in Etaples, France. There was a documentry to that effect that ran a year or so back. Better bet, Haskel County Kansas. For more information, Read "The Great Influenza", by John M. Barry. Brillant book. By the way, I was not aware that Australia had no conscription. Gee, the things you don't learn from watching Aussie WW1 War films. In October, 1918, the US Government had issued an order extending conscription to all men 18-45. FDR was planning to enlist in the Navy. Jenny

[NeilE]

Originally Posted by Taz

Neil, Alex, Pete- As an intellectual exercise, what would have happened in WWI if the US had remained neutral? There was adequate reason to remain so with a large German population and large numbers of Irish who hated the English with a passion. The War of 1812 was still remembered and was not much more distant than WWI is today. There was a large affinity for the French, but that could have been ignored. Manpower was being drained rapidly on the Continent and, as already mentioned, Australian, and likely other Commonwealth nations, recruitment had fallen off as the casualty rates and horrors of trench warfare became known. French and English draftee numbers were falling off as only those who came of age had not already been inducted.

Most of the gasoline and a large amount of raw materials was supplied by America. If not for the British naval blockade, America could have gotten rich supplying both sides by remaining neutral. As it was the war was the beginning of the end of Great Britain as a world power because nearly a whole generation of poets, engineers, philosophers, leaders, inventors and workers were lost in the trenches or elsewhere. WWII would finish the job.

Would the war have carried on until 1919 or 1920 without the influx of men and material beginning in 1917? No statistically significant number of Americans really fought until Spring/Summer 1918, but the flow of raw materials, gasoline and other products surged in 1917. So what do you think? How much longer would the war have lasted?

Taz
Terry Phillips

Terry;

Interesting question... would the Kaiserschlact have happened if the US had not entered the war? One wonders... 50+ fresh divisions? I think a version of it probably would as Ludendorff was itching to use them in a major offensive. probably the outcomes would have been similar (or even worse for the Germans, given the Fifth Army's defences may have been better developed if the offensive was in late April or May...).

The war might have dragged into 1919 and beyond for sure. It is likely that the combatants would have been able to draw on the drafts of 1920 - probably a million + new men for the French, British, and Germans. I think also if the war had dragged on, there would have been another conscription referendum in Australia and its my belief that it may have been successful this time. If so this would have replenished the Australian battalions and then some.

If the Allies had been able to go on the offensive post-Kaiserschlact, with similar weapons combinations employed at Hamel and Amiens, it is likely that they would have reached the Hindenburg Line by early-mid 1919. Given that Lloyd-George was wanting to replace Haig, and up and coming generals like Macksey and Monash had caught the politicians' imaginations (plus the fact that Haig kept trying to obstruct Foch), it is likely that one of these commanders may have replaced Haig, or if not them, then Rawlinson (who whilst similar to Haig was more flexible in tactical matters than Haig).

With the French (who by 1918 were assessed by the British as having recovered from the mutinies and Chemin De Dames) going on the offensive in 1919 alongside the British, and the Royal Navy's blockade biting harder, crops failing in the East, and increasing political agitation at home, morale for the Germans begins to seriously deteriorate by mid 1919.

Also in mid 1919, Herman Goering, in a rare combat sortie, is shot down in flames by the crew of a DH-9a - two South African second lieutenants on their third combat mission. Meanwhile Rene Fonck, that scientific accumulator, has chalked up his 138th victory.

In late 1919, the revitalised Commonwealth forces under Monash (okay I'm biased!) attack the Hindenburg Line and after hard fighting, turn its left flank, making the German's position in Northern France untenable and forcing a 'race to the border'. The German Armies structure deteriorates in retreat and the first Commonwealth forces cross into Germany by early 1920. Meanwhile the French break through the Ardennes, forcing the German's northwards.

A successful Socialist uprising in Berlin and other urban centres, funded by the Russians, forces the Kaiser to flee to Holland, Ludendorff commits suicide and a lowly Austrian corporal is bayoneted by a Canadian Sargeant in the last throes of fighting in the Rhineland. By mid 1920, the fighting is over as Germany signs an armistice.

On the Italian Front, the Italian forces reinforced by the newly arrived army of Spain (who declared war on the Triple Alliance in January 1919 ), pushed northwards driving the Austrians out of Italy. Following a decimating defeat near the Italian Border, the Austrians sue for peace. Following the Austrian collapse, a revolution in Turkey ousts the Young Turks and the Sultan and they are replaced by a Governmment of National Unity lead by Ataturk. He pulls all Turkish troops back to the homeland and declares a unilateral ceasefire on all fronts.

The peace conference is another thread in itself...

[Grovetown]

I have to say that I'm not a great fan of 'alternate history' - finding it a bit of a parlour game - but that is a top post Neil!

GT.

[Taz]

Pete, Jenny- No doubt the "Spanish Lady" would have had a great impact if the war had continued into 1919. I forget how many times I have read of a British officer surviving four years of warfare only to die in the epidemic of Winter 1918/1919. I believe it killed quite a few famous Germans like Bernert, as well.

The extra casualties who would have missed their future greatness or infamy caused by extending the war is another interesting thought. Possibly no Churchill, no Hitler, no Roosevelt etc. We have several novels on what would have happened if the Confederacy had won our Civil War with very interesting outcomes, some affecting relations with GB, still not too good in the 1860s with the War of 1812 only 50 years ago.

The US went through another isolationist period following WWI and did not even join the League of Nations. If we had remained neutral longer and come into the war later, would the Treaty of Versailles have been different with the US having a bigger say? We had virtually no impact on that treaty. As written, it was so punishing it gave the far right a chance to take over in Germany, helped by the worldwide depression and run-away inflation. Maybe there would have been no Great Depression and no WWII. Who knows, but makes for interesting speculation. With no WWII, the Russians might have remained mired in the 19th Century and possibly there would have been no cold war. No WWII and there might have been a much later development of nuclear weapons and nuclear power generation.

Better get back to looking at Triplane photos and get something done. Thanks for the insights.

Taz
Terry Phillips