How the U.S. Army Won World War I - Geoffrey Wawro

The Allies were on the brink of defeat in 1917. Russia and Italy were beaten, and the French and British reverses on the Chemin des Dames and Passchendaele led to the French army mutiny—never entirely solved—and a British manpower crisis as extreme as the French. Had the U.S. not intervened in 1917, the Germans might not have launched their 1918 offensives on the Western Front. They would have forced the Allies to attack the Hindenburg Line and exhaust the last of their manpower or accept German annexation of Belgium and northern France. However, with the Americans coming in force in 1918, the Germans had to attack. They nearly broke through to Calais and Paris. It was the Americans who saved the crumbling French army in the Second Battle of the Marne, and it was the Americans who delivered the decisive blow that won the war: the offensives at Saint-Mihiel and the Meuse-Argonne, which cut the principal German line of supply and retreat and forced Hindenburg's surrender in November 1918.

Dr. Geoffrey Wawro, Professor of History and Director of the Military History Center at the University of North Texas

Lecture given as part of the National WWI Museum and Memorial's 2018 Symposium, 1918: Crucible of War.

[kenhutcherson]

The Americans did not win the war for the Allied powers. They guaranteed that they would not lose.

[maryannedouglas]

The French tried to take Verdun....ehm, I thought it was the Germans that attacked. Did I miss something?

[ehs]

Simple, they joined the winning team.

[PolakInHolland]

A shockingly obnoxious and misleading title and a presentation full of mistakes. Rather sums up the current state of American scholarship.

[ChrisHodgsonCorben-Dallas]

I had been really enjoying this series of lectures but they are very difficult to take seriously after watching this one

[Cotswolds]

There were only two U.S. divisions fighting the Germans when the Spring offensives were halted. The U.S. Army did not win WW1.

[logjam]

You never answered the question re: the 100 Days Offensive. Do you consider the contributions of the Canadians and Australians unimportant?

[jt-ffyx]

Moderator: "questions not statements"

First person on the mic: "let me tell you everything I know and hide a question in my long diatribe"

[jamesseiter]

As an American, this whole presentation is an embarrassment. Both the Canadians and the Australians/New Zealanders had more of a role in the Entente victory than we did. Arguably, the Indians too.

Even in 1918, they took more German-held territory than we did. I understand the American potential for 1919 is part of what convinced German leadership to surrender, but this dude is trying to argue that it was American combat actions that forced the surrender which is just wrong. We were still a second-rate army in autumn 1918, and fought like it. At best, the American potential gave the British and French the fortitude to hold back the German 1918 offensives. But "we" didn't physically do that. They did.

[keithmitchell]

I suspect taking part in battles in the final 3 months of a 4 year war meant you didn't 'win' it.

[Isclachau]

Wow, the yanks came in and saved the day. Did he have a dream and think it’s reality. I can understand why a US museum would want to promote positive US involvement which it certainly did but at least tell the truth, the Germans were finished before the US shot a rifle is the more accurate picture.

[raymondhorvath]

I am really disappointed with your comments as a Aussie who young men were dying from 1914-1918 where were the USA?
When the USA did get to the war unroll june 1917 they were not allowed to go into battle till April 1918.
They were put in the quiet part of the trenches in the south.
Germany was trying to get to the ports through Belgian.
On July 4 AUSTRALIAN general John Monash came up with a plan to take the rail junction of Amens
Using thanks planes artillery troops all in a corndinated attack the first time it was done he said the attract should take 90m it took 94m and a complete success.
The Germans new the end was close.There were 4 US divisions in the attack request by monash but Persing wanted them not to fight again.

1 In

[DavidRinglis]

compete disregard for factual accuracy, full of hyperbolic statements which are just wrong.

[castlerock]

He kind of dodges the question about the "Black Day of the German Army" and the combined arms tactics of the other allies in the last 100 days. He also ignores the fact that the German troops and civilians were starving and morale was close to cracking. It could well have cracked if the British, French, Canadians and Australians had withstood the final German offensives and counterattacked with the new tactics. It could well have happened without the US but it would have been a near run thing.

[pshehan]

Look up the Battle of Amiens, August 8 1918 which Ludendorff called the Black day of the German army in the war. The Australian and Canadian corps advanced 8 miles in a day and began the 100 day advance which ended with the armistice on November 11.

[SgtMjr]

The Canadian Corps alone achieved more in the last 100 days than the whole AEF FFS

[donathandorko]

I liked this lecture despite it's obvious flaw in the title and the subsequent poor reasoning afterwards. Nobody can argue about the potential of the US army when they arrived and what a great addition it was, but this war was won before the US army even had time to take it's trousers off. I'm a Brit and will frankly suggest Canada did more to win WW1 than the US ever could.

Wawro reasons the US won the war themselves simply out of fear and morale. I don't doubt this helped matters, however by the time The Meuse-Argonne was getting underway, the war had essentially already been won. Indeed his dodging of the battle of Amiens topic in the first question shows this, and earlier he stated that by October - Nov 6th 1918, the allied offensives in north had "lost steam" yet fails to suggest why (hint - war was over). Nevertheless I love these lectures and I would love to hear more of Wawro, despite this faux pas.

[davidchardon]

Were the French really the spearhead of the allied offensive ?

On the Western Front, the 1 November 1918 :

French Army :

- 102 infantry divisions, 6 cavalry divisions
- 2, 659, 084 men, 630, 440 horses and 80, 000 trucks.
- 5, 578 heavy guns and 1, 626 trench guns
- 50, 700 chauchats and 30, 664 heavy MG's
- 1, 272 tanks
- 3, 609 planes

British Army :

- 60 infantry divisions and 3 cavalry divisions
- 1, 721, 890 men, 388, 00 horses and 19, 000 trucks.
- 2, 197 heavy guns and 2, 570 trench guns
- 20, 000 lewis and 4, 632 heavy MG's
- 611 tanks
- 1, 678 planes (!!!)

American Army :

- 31 infantry divisions and no cavalry division
- 1, 821, 449 men and 151, 250 horses
- 746 trench guns and 406 heavy guns
- 18, 465 light MG's (most of them being chauchat CSRG 1918 and the rest being BAR's) and 6, 239 heavy MG's
- 91 tanks (lol)
- 2, 032 planes

[michaelhenry]

I’m a combat infantry veteran and with all due respect America stepped in as Germany was losing the war.

[johnduchesneau]

The list of athletes, aristocrats and celebrities who served in the war is interesting but not remarkable. In at least four US wars - Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II - members of the upper classes gladly served in the military and some with distinction.