Pershing & the 100 days.Egoist,Pro or deranged?

[59165]

Bill,

check this out;

I take it thats 'Osama' on the left .

Do you know of a good book that covers Mexico?

Photo from the same site as the other Pershing shots.

[59165]

Dave,

Regarding 'scuppered by mid 1915'. It's a theme I have outlined on several other threads without arousing much disagreement, possibly because the financial aspects of the war are pretty boring to most folks. Nevertheless without the readies you just can't fight a war!

You should expand upon the financial aspects here,Bill.I'd like to see some figures & dates,for one.

Regarding your reply that the US had to have troop in France to call the Germans bluff. Something that happened the day might just may prove your point. At breakfast my long suffering wife threatened me with divorce if I kept ignoring her in favor of this Forum. I laughed it off. It wasn't until she marched into my study and pulled the plug on my PC and demanded attention that I took her threat seriously!

As to your good lady,pullin a plug is one thing but look at this.

I've entitled it 'burn the bangers on the bbq & you know what'll happen'.

To sort of keep on topic,this is an 1918 Brit Lee En 3*.

& here's your budgie that I really liked;

Dave

[4thGordons]

Hey Chris,

Would you believe the book is considered revisionist and radical (and downright un American) by many here in the US? 'The Illusion of Victory' by Thomas Fleming, another book which challenges conventional thought (although this one rankles the British rather than Americans) is another that I can reccommend.

Cheers, BIll

Bill - yes! As I live and work in the US currently I get that side of things! I have only read extracts of Fleming and I was less than impressed with the sections (perhaps that's the British bit) but I should withhold judgment until I have given it a proper go. I have it on my shelf ready for the spare couple of days! ( right!) My initial impression was rather like the one I had by the end (actually quite near the front!) of the Mosier's book.

Regarding the US contribution....(esp the finance) there may well have been an important "side effect" of the financial element - although we could debate the dependence of the allies on US funding (and particular dates), it does not alter the fact that by late 1916 the Allies (esp Britain and France) were so indebted to the United States (and US interests as well as the formal Govt.) that it might well be argued that it is this factor that pushes the US into the war on the side of the Allies. US capital interested simply cold not afford to allow the allies to lose and therefore jeopardize their "investment" It is quite instructive to look at the changing investment/trade/loan pattens between the nominally neutral US and the Allies, compared to those between the US and the central powers in this regard.

not wanting to further imperil Bill's marriage I will cut this response short!

Chris

[Pete1052]

Regarding the authenticity of the painting of the Harlem Hellfighters, much of the Meuse-Argonne is said to have been forested in 1918--the Argonne Forest was certainly that way. The terrain there with its woods, hills, valleys and gullies suited the defender and was a problem during the 1918 offensive. However, I read that not much fighting had taken place there between the engagements of 1914-15 and the offensive in 1918. The trees utterly destroyed by shellfire in the painting might be more the artist's idea of how he thought the area appeared rather than the way it was.

[dutchbarge]

by late 1916 the Allies (esp Britain and France) were so indebted to the United States (and US interests as well as the formal Govt.) that it might well be argued that it is this factor that pushes the US into the war on the side of the Allies. US capital interested simply cold not afford to allow the allies to lose and therefore jeopardize their "investment" It is quite instructive to look at the changing investment/trade/loan pattens between the nominally neutral US and the Allies, compared to those between the US and the central powers in this regard.

Chris

Chris,

I have posted similar opinions on several earlier threads.............gratifying to find someone who agrees with me! (Ironically, karma being karma, the Allies defaulted on their war debts and it was the US taxpayer who made up the losses)

Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

Bill,

check this out;

I take it thats 'Osama' on the left .

Do you know of a good book that covers Mexico?

Photo from the same site as the other Pershing shots.

Hello Dave,

The cartoon illustrates what many US jingoists believed, namely Pershing's claim that had he been given free reign 'to go as far as Mexico City if needs be' he could have captured Villa. A good book on the subject is 'The General and the Jaguar, Pershing's hunt for Pancho Villa' by Eileen Welsome.

Cheers, BIll

PS: Great photo of the BarBQue Guard. Where would be be without our better halves!?

[dutchbarge]

You should expand upon the financial aspects here,Bill.I'd like to see some figures & dates,for one.

Dave

Gee Whiz Dave, you're actually not asking me to back up my remarks? OK. I've covered this on several other threads and am too lazy tonight to give the topic full justice, but here is a rough outline. In 1914 Britian had a small professional army which was not suited for a general European war. US industrial and agricultural capacity was so vast that private US interests were, from the very beginning of the war, able to provide Britian (and France) the material immediately needed to enlarge the army, build up armament production and prosecute the war (and feed the home fronts). Beef, cotton, copper ingots, barbed wire, munitions, pork, steel, wheat, etc). Early on this was all done on a cash and carry basis. By mid 1915 France, Russia and Italy had ran out of foreign exchange or credit and had to be carried by Britian. As America claimed to be neutral US banks were prohibited from loaning money to Britian ( or France). However, it was worked out that giving the Allies 'credits' to purchase US goods was not the same as making loans (although in practice it amounted to exactly the same thing) and from mid 1915 US financiers were lending the Allies enough to supply approximately 40% of their war/domestic material imports. While America's 'help' to the Allies was profit motivated, arguments have been made that it was the US gov't's pro Allied sympathies that caused them to turn a blind eye and invent ways around her declared neutrality (others claim it was bribes to senators and congressmen from US business/financial interests which did it). Whatever the reason it is unlikely that without US support the Allies could have carried on thru mid 1915. By the time of America's entry into the war the Bank of England was effectively bankrupt. It was only the US Treasury Department's loans which kept the Allies going. It is often claimed that it was the fear of all those loans goin' south should the Allies lose that led America into the war. Certainly that fear motivated many influential men. But there were other motivations as well. Egotistical vanity on Wilson's part to be at the 'Helm of World Affaris'. Political pressure to expand US influence and commerce. Blending of hyphenated Americans into a one nation thru military service/national sacrifice. Lots of reasons. Cheers, Bill

[Torrey McLean]

Regarding the authenticity of the painting of the Harlem Hellfighters, much of the Meuse-Argonne is said to have been forested in 1918--the Argonne Forest was certainly that way. The terrain there with its woods, hills, valleys and gullies suited the defender and was a problem during the 1918 offensive. However, I read that not much fighting had taken place there between the engagements of 1914-15 and the offensive in 1918. The trees utterly destroyed by shellfire in the painting might be more the artist's idea of how he thought the area appeared rather than the way it was.

Hello, Pete - In reality, the 369th (serving as part of the French 161st Division) did not fight in the Argonne, but in the eastern part of the Champagne. [The villages captured by the 369th - Ripont, Fontaine-en-Dormois, and Sechault - all are in the Champagne, and there is a monument to the 369th in Sechault.] Since the 369th's attacks occurred during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, I guess that people assumed that the the Harlem Hellfighters were in the Argonne.

For what it's worth, I've visited the Sechault area and the terrain that I saw in the areas that I visited was nothing like the terrain in the painting. I think that you are correct in your assumption that the artist used "artistic license" in his painting of the terrain.

Regards, Torrey

[truthergw]

Gee Whiz Dave, you're actually not asking me to back up my remarks? OK. I've covered this on several other threads and am too lazy tonight to give the topic full justice, but here is a rough outline. ......................................

Cheers, Bill

A very interesting post. Britain was certainly making large payments to other allies, so might have been looking to be re-imbursed after the war and so able to repay the loans from U.S. I'm not sure that a country can be bankrupt, particularly the wealthiest country in the world which Britain was, at that time. Any ideas as to who was bankrolling Germany?

[59165]

Gee Whiz Dave, you're actually not asking me to back up my remarks?

Heh.I love puttin people on the spot

As America claimed to be neutral US banks were prohibited from loaning money to Britian ( or France).

Is it written officially anywhere that the USA broke neutrality?Not that neutrality ever did any good for say...Belgium.Twice.

[59165]

For what it's worth, I've visited the Sechault area and the terrain that I saw in the areas that I visited was nothing like the terrain in the painting. I think that you are correct in your assumption that the artist used "artistic license" in his painting of the terrain.

Regards, Torrey

Hiya,Torrey.

Agreed on the artistic license.Probably doubtful if the artist was ever anywhere near the battlefields.

The whole strip of land from the Rhine down to Reims is beautiful & I can recommend it to anyone for a visit.

Dave.

[59165]

I'm not sure that a country can be bankrupt, particularly the wealthiest country in the world which Britain was, at that time. Any ideas as to who was bankrolling Germany?

Hiya Tom.

I guess after the Victorian boom time,we must have been about the richest country going.I cant see that one year of war made us fall so low financially.It just doesn't make sense to my feeble mind.

As to who was bankrolling Germany?They were doing quite well leading up to the war,weren't they.Wasn't it Krupp who built a whole city to house the workers at his plants?

Dave.Not at all rich

[4thGordons]

Couple of figures to illustrate some points made above.

The contribution of US (Merchant) shipping to maintaining the size of the Allied fleet

and pre and post war economic figures.

(Both from Ayres "The War With Germany a Statistical Survey" 1919)

[truthergw]

A great deal of the wealth represented in the American Stock Markets was in fact owned by British companies. One of the largest real estate companies in the Texas Panhandle was owned by a group of industrialists in Dundee. This was financed by their profits from the textile trade in that city. Dundee, where most of the sandbags on the Western Front were made, was known for low paid workers and particularly horrendous slums. The last of the UK board members transferred his stake to a US interest in the 1970's. There was quite a tradition of UK ownership of large cattle ranches with Scottish managers looking after the board's interests. Ironic to think that a lot of the iconic American cowpokes were employed by British companies. Of course I am not referring here, to large concerns owned by British men who were to all intents and purposes naturalised Americans, as for instance Peabody of coal mines and Carnegie of the steel industry. Much of their wealth also ended up back in Britain through charitable bequests.

[4thGordons]

Very good points Truthergw.

If anyone is interested in this aspect of the war there are a couple of fairly recent books:

Britain, France, and the Financing of the First World War by Martin Horn McGill-Queen's University Press (1 April 2002) ISBN-10: 077352293X

Financing the First World War by Hew Strachan OUP Oxford (14 Oct 2004) ISBN-10: 0199257272

I must admit I have only read sections.

Chris

[jdajd]

Hiya,Torrey.

Agreed on the artistic license.Probably doubtful if the artist was ever anywhere near the battlefields.

The whole strip of land from the Rhine down to Reims is beautiful & I can recommend it to anyone for a visit.

Dave.

Forget the trees. It seems unlikely that the artist even saw pics of the Hellfighters who were equipped by the French:

[dutchbarge]

I'm not sure that a country can be bankrupt, particularly the wealthiest country in the world which Britain was, at that time.

By mid 1917 Britian had exhausted her foreign exchange, gold and credit. While still possessing vast wealth Britian didn't have the readies (or credit) to continue purchasing from outside the Empire. Without loans by the US Treasury Dept. the allies would have lost approximately 40% of their war supplies.

At the risk of revealing some socialist leanings, I think it very odd that while one often hears complaints from the British that the US entered the war much too late, profited obscenely from it, and only entered to protect their investment, they don't make much of the of the fact that had the US gov't adhered strictly to its stated policy of neutrality (a course favored by US citizens) the Great War might very well have been settled by treaty very early on thus sparing the world the tragic consequences of the following 50 years.

Cheers, BIll

[dutchbarge]

Couple of figures to illustrate some points made above.

The contribution of US (Merchant) shipping to maintaining the size of the Allied fleet

(Both from Ayres "The War With Germany a Statistical Survey" 1919)

Great charts, thanks for posting them. I've seen the wealth/debt chart before but not the martime one. Very interesting. Everytime I see the pre war national wealth of the US being roughly equal the combined wealth of Britian, Germany and France I've thought (as Truthergw points out) that the US figure must certainly include foreign held assets. But I also think of James Morris's remarks in 'Farewell the Trumpets' to the effect that the British Empire's wealth might have been a bit of an illusion ....for while vast wealth certainly flowed in from the Empire an equally vast amount went out to maintain it.

Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

A great deal of the wealth represented in the American Stock Markets was in fact owned by British companies. One of the largest real estate companies in the Texas Panhandle was owned by a group of industrialists in Dundee. This was financed by their profits from the textile trade in that city. Dundee, where most of the sandbags on the Western Front were made, was known for low paid workers and particularly horrendous slums. The last of the UK board members transferred his stake to a US interest in the 1970's. There was quite a tradition of UK ownership of large cattle ranches with Scottish managers looking after the board's interests. Ironic to think that a lot of the iconic American cowpokes were employed by British companies. Of course I am not referring here, to large concerns owned by British men who were to all intents and purposes naturalised Americans, as for instance Peabody of coal mines and Carnegie of the steel industry. Much of their wealth also ended up back in Britain through charitable bequests.

Indeed. It was the murder of Englishman John Tunstall ( a rancher and banker) in 1878 by business rivals which ignited the Lincoln County War here in New Mexico. Not many remember Tunstall but they do remember Billy the Kid who avenged his death.

Most of the cowboys themselves were recent arrivals. Lots of English, Irish, Scotish, Mexican, African and German cowboys. It wasn't nearly so glamorous as John Wayne made it out to be. Hard work (always outdoors in extreme conditions), lonliness, low pay and sudden death (from accident.....very few gunfights actually).

Cheers, Bill

[DrB]

The big Red One, mentioned at the top of the thread, refers to the First American Division, known as the "Big Red One" from their shoulder patch.

The American forces were not trained well as the British and French wanted to stress trench warfare, contrasting to Pershings idea of training for open warfare. His experience was the Spanish-American war and the border war against the Mexican revolutionaries. Hence an improper amalgamation of both/neither.

I see that remarks abound regarding weither or not the Americans should have been fed into the British or French armies. Don't forget,friends, D.H. had the same problems with the French, in regards to overall command.

In my reading of U.S. involvement, logistics problems occur again and again, coupled with poor staff work. That, sports fans, is a universal problem found in all armies when involved in OJT. The Allies had their own teething problems in 1914-15. Unfeeling leadership (not U.S.) was the primary cause of a mutiny in 1916.

War sucks and shortages occur. I used the "Stars and Stripes" newspaper more then once when the toliet paper ship failed to appear in DaNang harbor. When Johnson was telling the American people that we had no shortages in Viet Nam, I cursed because we also didn't have any 60 mm mortar illumination rounds. Poor staff work, in 1967? S**t happens.

In regard to 11-11-11, medals and "good position" were the reasons the PBI died. I might say that ego was the primary mover there.

The states had some good senior officers and some poor ones, like any other army involved in this war. You had the South African War, Boxer rebellion et. al. and we had the Spanish-American one plus the Phillipines, plus the Mexican excursion. That left us with a few experienced senior officers and NCOs, so we were not exactly pure novices anymore than you folks were. One thing we didn't lack was guts, just like you folks, but the OJT was tough.

Bottom line, having read "The Doughboys" "Duffy's War" "11-11-11" "Devil Dogs"and others, I believe that Pershing was not unhinged, but stubborn and very much like Haig.

[Pete1052]

In reality, the 369th (serving as part of the French 161st Division) did not fight in the Argonne, but in the eastern part of the Champagne. [The villages captured by the 369th - Ripont, Fontaine-en-Dormois, and Sechault - all are in the Champagne, and there is a monument to the 369th in Sechault.] Since the 369th's attacks occurred during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, I guess that people assumed that the the Harlem Hellfighters were in the Argonne.

Ripont, Fontaine-en-Dormois and Sechault are not far from the Argonne Forest and the AEF's Meuse-Argonne sector was in Champagne and Lorraine. I don't know which French corps and army the French 161st Division was assigned to but the French were on the western flank of the AEF during the Meuse-Argonne offensive.

[4thGordons]

My response to a rather inflammatory post that did appear as no 96 in this thread also deleted {see Andy's comment below} in order to preserve this interesting thread.

I prefer Stan Laurel's version " you can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Edited 18 December , 2008 by 4thGordons

[River97]

Chris,

I had an answer for that post as well and when I pressed the add reply button I noticed that the post by Kutenay had been deleted, so I did the same to mine.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it use a fork!

Cheers Andy.

[Jim Clay]

...Britian had exhausted her foreign exchange...Britian didn't have the readies (or credit) to continue purchasing ...

Hi Bill

Thanks to Dave for opening a fascinating thread, and thanks to you and others for thoughtful contributions. But if you continue to call my country 'Britian' I'll have to consider renaming our best ally 'The Untied States of Amercia'. You have been warned.

Jim

British citizen of Great Britain

[dutchbarge]

The predictable responses to my earlier comments are SO characteristicly American and are exactly what I meant by stating that their contribution is often overstated, as it is. This is also true of WWII and the cowardice of the tough-talking Yanks in North Africa, Italy and The Rhineland has been commented on by their own historians,

The money-grubbing big business of the U.S.A. certainly DID take EVERY opportunity to profit from the enormous sacrifice of the men and some women of the British Empire in WWI and this is NOT quite the same thing as the Canadian blood that won through on every battle we fought as a consolidated unit. I get REAL tired of hearing how Yanks "saved Britain twice" and the "A.E.F. stands for after England failed" and so on and so forth.

All of the charts and obviously biased interpretation notwithstanding, the Americans, their arrogant bungledgeneral and their incompetent and boastful troops DID NOT make a major contribution to the British victory in WWI. Canada's contribution was FAR greater and from a population less than 1/10 of the U.S.A.s The war was won by courage and blood, not by profiteering and braggadocio.

Before you get too carried away, you might consider that Canadian business interests also did rather well off the war. You might also pause to consider that Canadians, as British subjects, had no choice but to fight for the British Empire. We on the other hand, having had nothing but grief from the British Empire and having gone our own way, were free to do as we pleased. Perhaps we didn't 'save' Britain. But at the very least we gave them a much needed boost at a very awkward moment. Twice. My personal opinion (one shared by many Americans) is that we should have stayed home in 1917. To have shed the blood of Americans (mostly drafted) in a squabble between the inbred dynasties of Europe was a National scandal. Probably why we don't think much about the Great War. We shed a great deal more blood 25 years later AND floated the Marshall Plan to keep Europe from starving, two things we ARE proud of. If you don't see it that way that's fine. But to imply that the US soldiers who died in both wars were tough talking cowards is really the limit. Are you a troll or just a clown?

Definately not Cheers, Bill