Originally posted by Curval:
...tanks won the war, not a few Americans holding out in the woods...
That is not true. Tanks were barely able to break defence once when they were not expected. After that anti-tank defences like trenches and artillery had no problem dealing with those that did not break up by themselves.
In no way were tanks ready to do deep raids which made them strategical force in WWII.
In fact, introduction of a flamethrower made much deeper impression on people at that time then half-baked tanks or even poison gas.
In fact the failure of the german offencive in 1918 (may well have been due to americans holding out) prompted german high command to advise government to ask for armistice. When in a few days Ludendorf realized the situation is no way as bad as it appeared and the war could be prolonged on the new stable front (still in the enemy territory), it was too late - the home front morale collapsed, govermnent fell, revolution started, etc...
Read memoirs of german soldiers - many believe that if not for the home politics, the war was far from over.
Germans could have held for quite a while longer and gotten much better surrender terms.
Of course they had a new Southern Front with the collapse of Austria, but the allies had not yet started to exploit it.
Austria was out of the war but so was Russia. In fact russian bolshevics were interested in prolonging the world war. For that reason not only did they unilateraly signed peace with Germany and refused to participate in the spoils of inevitable allied victory, they gave up almost the whole Ukraine with lots of resources and paid lot of gold to Germany - just so that germany could continue the war.
If Ludendorf did not broke his own country morale, the world map could have been much different today.
If you need more details on that, check "Strategy" by Liddel Hart.
miko
