Also, the Versailles treaty did not push the nascent USSR's borders eastwards, that would be the Treaty of Riga between the Soviets and the Poles, following the Red Army's defefat in the Russo-Polish war of 1920 (and if they couldn't defeat the rapidly improvised ragtag Polish army, they sure as hell weren't going to do well against the German army, even in its blood drained state).
But then it's not clear to me that the American intervention was decisive. With or without it, the Germans were screwed if their last ditch offensives in the spring and summer failed to end the war successfully. The cumulative effect of the blockade and the slaughter had already brought Germany to its knees. It simply couldn't make it through another winter of war - think of what the state of Germany was in the winter of 1918-1919 even without the need to feed the war machine with fresh flesh and supplies - complete socio-economic collapse. Waging a war of attrition on a mass scale against opponents with larger populations, economies, and better access to resources is not a good idea.
It's actually pretty impressive how well Germany held up in WWI. Its combined population and economic size was much lower than the combined strengths of Britain, France, and the Dominions, while it had to a greater share of its strength outside the Western Front than the Brits. Their military-industrial machine was very, very well run and they managed to keep their losses on the Western Front below those of their opponents. Then again the performance of the other countries was striking as well. Of course you need to try to forget about what exactly this was all about - the mass slaughter of a generation of European men, and the intense effort of everyone else to enable the destruction, if you don't I'm not sure if 'impressive' is really the right word.
French Army Mutinies (1917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The French armies at Chemin des Dames had suffered a steadily growing number of desertions since the end of April.[2] On May 27, those desertions turned to mutiny. Up to 30,000 soldiers left the front line and reserve trenches and returned to the rear.[2] Even in regiments where there was direct confrontation, such as the 74th Infantry Regiment, the men "wished their officers no harm"; they just refused "to return to the trenches".[1] The mutinies "were not a refusal of war" simply "a certain way of waging it".[3] In the behind-the-lines towns of Soissons, Villers-Cotterets, Fère-en-Tardenois, and Coeuvres, they refused to obey their officers' orders and refused to go to the Front.[2] On June 1, a French infantry regiment took over the town of Missy-aux-Bois. [2] The mutinies were "widespread and persistent", involving more than half the divisions in the French army.[3] On June 7, General Pétain and Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig (the British commander-in-chief in France) had a "private talk": Pétain told Haig that "two French Divisions had refused to go and relieve Two Divisions in the front line".[4] The true figure was over fifty. [5]
The French armies at Chemin des Dames had suffered a steadily growing number of desertions since the end of April.[2] On May 27, those desertions turned to mutiny. Up to 30,000 soldiers left the front line and reserve trenches and returned to the rear.[2] Even in regiments where there was direct confrontation, such as the 74th Infantry Regiment, the men "wished their officers no harm"; they just refused "to return to the trenches".[1] The mutinies "were not a refusal of war" simply "a certain way of waging it".[3]
In the behind-the-lines towns of Soissons, Villers-Cotterets, Fère-en-Tardenois, and Coeuvres, they refused to obey their officers' orders and refused to go to the Front.[2] On June 1, a French infantry regiment took over the town of Missy-aux-Bois. [2] The mutinies were "widespread and persistent", involving more than half the divisions in the French army.[3] On June 7, General Pétain and Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig (the British commander-in-chief in France) had a "private talk": Pétain told Haig that "two French Divisions had refused to go and relieve Two Divisions in the front line".[4] The true figure was over fifty. [5]
It was struck down:
On about June 8, the military authorities took swift and decisive action: mass arrests were followed by mass trials. [2] Those arrested were selected by their own officers and NCOs, "with the implicit consent of the rank and file".[1] There were 3,427[1] Conseils de guerre ("courts-martial"), at which 23,385 men were convicted of mutinous behaviours of one sort or another [2]; 554 men were sentenced to death[1]; 49 men were "actually shot"[1]; and the rest sentenced to penal servitude.[2]
Without the German losses on the western front during the hundred days offensive the risk of revolution in Germany would have been less. Without the US involvement, I would put the odds at about even for France or Germany to leave the war due to revolution. And if France had a revolution, I think Germany the Central Powers and Britain would have had come to a peace arrangment. With its two main continental allies gone, I think Britain would have wanted out. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
