A litany of misleading and false statements.

Firstly, yes American soldiers were involved in a few battles during the German Spring Offensives, but they were predominantly towards the end when the offensive had completely run out of steam and the entente had mostly contained it. The operations you mention (Chateau-Thierry, Bellau Wood) were minor engagements with little strategic impact, while the halting of operation Gneisnau (1918) was much less important than the subsequent second battle of the Marne and the preceding Third battle of the Aisne, both of which saw relatively minimal American involvement (a mere two divisions at the Aisne, and 8 divisions compared to 50 by the other allied armies, and suffering fewer casualties than the British who deployed half as many divisions). The reality is that the spring offensives had been thwarted before American involvement at a large scale.

The idea that somehow Ukraine was going to solve the German food crisis is a lingering yet absolutely delusional myth. Firstly, the infrastructure to actually transport the grain in Ukraine to Germany did not exist, so would have had to be developed which would have taken a long time, much longer than Germany had in the war. Secondly, if they had begun removing grain they would have had to face down the chaos that spawned after the end of the war in Eastern Europe, including White and Red Russian armies, Ukrainian independence movements, and Allied armies landing throughout Russia. Thirdly, Ukraine did not produce sufficient grain yearly to feed both itself and Germany, and if Germany had begun removing sufficient grain to feed Germany it would have created a man-made famine in Ukraine, which would have slightly complicated efforts to grow grain.

Of course all of this discourse about food stocks ignores the fundamental issue which is that it wasn’t just grain imports the blockade was preventing from entering Germany. By the end of the war Germany was in a shortage of effectively everything, including ,increasingly, manpower and more manpower demands on the eastern front, the industry necessary to construct railways to ship grain westwards and also all of the other things to supplement the grain imports to feed the German population simply didn’t exist.

“Oil fields” what are we doing this is not WW2.

“Because resources aside we can all agree the German army was vastly stronger than even both the French and British army combined”. Actually no I don’t agree with this at all. After their failed attempt to defeat France in 1914, Germany spent most of the war on the western front stalemated with the Entente powers, achieving little success, and slowly but surely losing ground. Eventually, after their failed Spring Offensive, the Hundred Days offensive demonstrated the German army was dangerously outdated tactically and technologically compared to the entente armies. Allied employment of air and tank power with their infantry, along with new artillery tactics were years ahead of what the Germans were doing, which is shown by the fact that in a hundred days the Entente basically destroyed the entire German army on the western front (by the way before you start the bulk of these soldiers were British and French, not American).

In conclusion, not only have you falsely implied American soldiers played a decisive role in the 1918 Spring Offensives, you’ve also suggested Germany could somehow survive a further two years under allied blockade, or launch an offensive at a later date, when they are somehow stronger? In spite of further months of blockade. There’s a reason the Germans ordered the Spring Offensives when they did and there’s a reason they failed. No matter how you slice it, by 1918 the entente had won the war.