American Expeditionary Force

[VonMudra]

Wiki is iffy on WW1.

@ Tiemann:  The hundred days offensive refers to multiple allied assaults.  The first ones simply closed the Germans back to their starting positions, following the Germans as they retreated back.  The first offensive against the actual line was the Meuse Argonne.  its success at St Mihel, and the capture of those rail lines by the AEF, was what led to the german withdrawal along the entire line, as their soldiers were unable to be supplied with food, replacements, and ammunition.  The german plan had been to retreat to the german border, shortening their line, being able to once again bring in fresh supplies and troops, as well as shorten their line against what would then be an exhausted allied army, however the revolution in Germany, along with the collapse of her allies, called it quits for them.

[Coca-Cola]

Here's something that I used to write an AEF paper for my American-history course(it's the stars and stripes published while it was over in France). If somebody already posted it, I scanned the thread so oops.:
http://memory.loc.gov/phpdata/issuedisplay.php?collection=sgpsas&aggregate=sgpsas

[Hockeywarrior]

Try to ask Meadow.

Or make a thread here or PM someone (like Leo):

http://www.verdun-online.com/forum/

Hah, Meadow? As if he actually hangs around this forum? I can't even remember the last time I saw him post ...

[Cory the Otter]

Ask Mudra and he will do it for you xD

Well, you have a library in your town? Or maybe a University, those librarys are superb
It’s a good time to learn how to find books and use them  

my library has two books on WWI, both fiction.

[General Tso]

I would start with a good reference book (it can be online) in your school library.  There should be at least a basic overview of the AEF somewhere there.  From there, you can develop search strategies and your thesis statement.

How long of a paper does this have to be?  Is the prof picky on types of sources (books, journal articles, web, etc.)?

http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=%22american+expeditionary+force%22

Those are some books with AEF as a keyword.  Hopefully, some of these will be available where you are.

Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22american+expeditionary+force%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000000000001

Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22american+expeditionary+force%22

I'm a reference librarian at a university library, so if you need any more general help let me know.

[Meadow]

In short: it's not what the American troops DID that won the war, it's that they were arriving. That's what made Operation Michael get rushed into action a year before it was really ready (troop redeployments from the Eastern Front et cetera) and run out of steam. What the AEF did from September 1918 onwards is admirable and tactically important, but realistically speaking the Germans lost the war when they launched Michael in March 1918.

Then again, I'm one of those crazies that says they lost the war in September 1914 when they were forced into a full engagement on the Marne...

[VonMudra]

Nah, the Marne was basically a myth dreamt up by French propaganda to explain the german withdrawal.  The place they lost during the time period of the fabled Marne was actually all the way over in Verdun, where they failed to pinch off the salient.  When they couldn't secure the pivot point of their offensive, they had no choice but to retreat.  IMO though, that still doesn't mean a loss of the war.  The moment the USA declared war, that was when they lost it.  Michael, had the USA never declared war, would have meant a german victory.  No belleau wood, no 2,000,000 American troops.

[Kelmola]

The war in Europe was basically a stalemate before the US entry into the war - otherwise, the front would have advanced somewhere after 1914 instead of the basically same trenches with an occasional counterattack or two which stalled sooner or later. The combatants' losses had been so high that eg. 20 years later during the next round, French army was still suffering manpower shortages. Now, German East Front troops gained from the peace with Soviet Russia MIGHT have been the decisive factor, if the US had stayed out of the war.

However, the Germans knew that even with Ostfront reinforcements, their troops would not be nearly enough against the US, so victory - or at least a good negotiation position - would have to be reached before US forces appeared in full strength. Hence the premature offensive. And even this assumption relied on the idea that the US would not attempt an invasion from Britain. But after the German spring offensive failed to provide a quick victory it was all but over, due to the massive amount of US soldiers arriving to the front daily. If the enemy gains several fresh soldiers for every dead soldier of yours, then it's time to call it quits.

Of course, there's always the l33t gamer typing in the text chat:

Code: [Select]

LCpl_Schickelgruber> no wai we give up! we has soooo many tickets left! lame n00b quitters!And determined NOT to give up in the next map if he has anything to say, even if the tickets were 500-100 and the bleed on for his team.

[Captain Pyjama Shark]

I would start with a good reference book (it can be online) in your school library.  There should be at least a basic overview of the AEF somewhere there.  From there, you can develop search strategies and your thesis statement.

How long of a paper does this have to be?  Is the prof picky on types of sources (books, journal articles, web, etc.)?

http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=%22american+expeditionary+force%22

Those are some books with AEF as a keyword.  Hopefully, some of these will be available where you are.

Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22american+expeditionary+force%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000000000001

Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22american+expeditionary+force%22

I'm a reference librarian at a university library, so if you need any more general help let me know.

Gah!  I know how to use a library!  Just asking here for any facts, opinions, anyone had to mention that would be different from the books I've been reading.

[General Tso]

I would start with a good reference book (it can be online) in your school library.  There should be at least a basic overview of the AEF somewhere there.  From there, you can develop search strategies and your thesis statement.

How long of a paper does this have to be?  Is the prof picky on types of sources (books, journal articles, web, etc.)?

http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=%22american+expeditionary+force%22

Those are some books with AEF as a keyword.  Hopefully, some of these will be available where you are.

Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22american+expeditionary+force%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000000000001

Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22american+expeditionary+force%22

I'm a reference librarian at a university library, so if you need any more general help let me know.

Gah!  I know how to use a library!  Just asking here for any facts, opinions, anyone had to mention that would be different from the books I've been reading.

Sorry, I just thought another angle might be useful.  Good luck.

[Meadow]

Nah, the Marne was basically a myth dreamt up by French propaganda to explain the german withdrawal.  The place they lost during the time period of the fabled Marne was actually all the way over in Verdun, where they failed to pinch off the salient.  When they couldn't secure the pivot point of their offensive, they had no choice but to retreat.  IMO though, that still doesn't mean a loss of the war.  The moment the USA declared war, that was when they lost it.  Michael, had the USA never declared war, would have meant a german victory.  No belleau wood, no 2,000,000 American troops.

Nah, that's not correct. I'm not talking about them losing on the Marne. I'm talking about them having to fight on the Marne. That's what lost them the war - the moment the Schlieffen plan failed, they were going to lose. Germany wasn't cut out for a two-front war and yes, Michael without the Americans would have gone differently, but as it happened the Americans were a part of it. Therefore to use only one point of divergence, the Germans having to fight on the Marne was what lost them the war - a decisive head-on confrontation with large-scale armies is what inevitably forced them into the stalemate that they would eventually lose.

[Kelmola]

Full support to Meadow's statement.

Considering the fact that the US were already committed, any German offensive began as late as 1918 was essentially doomed to begin with in the long run. Knocking both UK and France out of the war was not very likely, as both knew that the US was coming to their aid; whatever territory was lost could be retaken. Only a total collapse of front due to desertions and surrenders would have accomplished this. Lacking that, an all-out breakthrough and envelopment of entire armies was not really technically feasible with the technology of the time (no panzer formations accompanied by mechanized infantry) so at most, the Germans would have succeeded driving the front a couple of hundred kilometers further back than they historically did. Capturing all of France and her ports (thus preventing US entry) simply would not have been possible in the timeframe they had - little over a month at most (by May, there were already 300+ thousand US soldiers in France, with ~300 thousands arriving monthly thereafter).

[VonMudra]

Nah, the Marne was basically a myth dreamt up by French propaganda to explain the german withdrawal.  The place they lost during the time period of the fabled Marne was actually all the way over in Verdun, where they failed to pinch off the salient.  When they couldn't secure the pivot point of their offensive, they had no choice but to retreat.  IMO though, that still doesn't mean a loss of the war.  The moment the USA declared war, that was when they lost it.  Michael, had the USA never declared war, would have meant a german victory.  No belleau wood, no 2,000,000 American troops.

Nah, that's not correct. I'm not talking about them losing on the Marne. I'm talking about them having to fight on the Marne. That's what lost them the war - the moment the Schlieffen plan failed, they were going to lose. Germany wasn't cut out for a two-front war and yes, Michael without the Americans would have gone differently, but as it happened the Americans were a part of it. Therefore to use only one point of divergence, the Germans having to fight on the Marne was what lost them the war - a decisive head-on confrontation with large-scale armies is what inevitably forced them into the stalemate that they would eventually lose.

Problem is they never actually fought on the Marne.  This is more a difference in terms.  The "battle of the Marne" is actually 4 or 5 different battles that the French rolled into one massive battle for a propaganda coup.  Reality is that the germans won in on the battles that occured near the marne, but lost at their attempts to pinch off Verdun, way on the other side of the front.  The inability to pinch it off left an incredibly dangerous salient, making the rest of the advance completly untenable, causing their falling back to the highground in northern france.

And the problem is, yes, losing there did cause them to lose the war because of american involvement. but the thing is that if the americans hadn't gotten in, the germans would easily have forced a peace settlement with Michael.  Not some resounding victory where they annex france or such like in WW2 (not that they ever wanted to do that in the first place), but they would have been able to force their original 1917 peace talks ideas, of reparations by both sides, new rules for going through Belgium, and suitable punishment of Serbia.  As it happened, America DID enter the war.  Saying that the failure of the Schlieffen plan lost them the war simply can't be taken as correct, as noted, they would have easily forced a favourable peace without american involvement.  It was the USA that was the deciding factor.

[Jobabb Jobabbsen]

I dont know so much as you guys about the subject. But i have one documentary who say america only contributed to the victory morally (by the fact that the germans knew they were coming). But not by any significant degree in the battles, though it do mention some american victories.
   Ospray Publishing " War on the Western Front " by dr. Gary Sheffield (which i think appears very reasonable and correct) say its still beeing debated and its very hard to see in what degree their involvement influenced the outcome of the war.

  It have some funny descriptions of the american doughboy though. That they threw grenades like crazy, and many were quite good cause of baseball playing. It happened more than one time that grenades bounced back from trees or other obstacles and injured the thrower himself. But theyre supposed to have had given a major moral boost for the french and british troops. So that by itself could be more important than many realise.

[VonMudra]

Itniw a gnarl popular myth that the US did not contribute much on the battlefield during world war 1...this is a myth that has been generally overturned in the same idea as polish cavalry charging German tanks. the myth lives on, despite it's falsehood.