The lost battalion

[Vincent Petty]

Paul, please allow me to suggest "The Doughboys" by Gary Mead, who goes into these topics very well and offers another perspective. I found the book to be well balanced. He will criticise the AEF, British and French when they should be and commends them when appropriate too.

Vince

[paul guthrie]

Vince the earlier Doughboys by Lawrence Stallings who lost a foot at Belleau Wood is easily the best written book by an American participant, wonderful. He has lots of great human interest things as well as fair analysis. He too is not universally condemning or praising of anything.

I do like the Meade book. The one I think ridicilous is The Myth of the Great War by Mosier, it's a joke, 1st Marne was a German victory for instance as was Verdun.

In December 1917 Secretary of War Newton Baker cabled Pershing he was free to use his men in co-operation with the Allies as he saw fit.

[Neil Burns]

Hi Paul,

Had Pershing allowed US troops to fight under foreign command there's little doubt in my mind he would have found himself out of a job. US popular opinion would have never supported the use of US troops as replacements. Just think of the political fallout from Irish Catholic Americans if US troops had to serve under British command. Keep in mind not just Irish Catholics were Anti-British the monument to Colonel Andre (of Benedict Arnold fame) located near the New York/New Jersey border had literally been blown up numerous times. The cordial relationship between the US and Great Britain was not what it is today.

Again no other ally's troops were broken up to serve with foreign commanders why should the Americans have been?

Take care,

Neil

[DrB]

I offer not a red herring, because General Alexander was mentioned previously. My books on the US participation in WWI mention several times that he was a kind man and a gentleman, a "soldiers" leader and not at all like the unfeeling character in the tv movie. I guess the screenwriters had to blame someone for the Yanks enthusiasm. (By the way, I am a Yank)

I won't even begin to touch on the "who won the war" spat as that is a real bag of worms. I do believe that it was not due to the effect or efforts of any one nationality. An octopus uses all his tentacles in his performance.

DrB

[paul guthrie]

Neil if you read my article on this you will see I agree that Pershing would have been pilloried had he put substantial US troops under foreign command but his orders unquestionably permitted it which is contrary to the belief of many. 27 & 30 Divs did fight with the British from the start, do not think he could have done much more.

It is arguable US troops could have meant more if they had been used under foreign command since larger #s could have seen action sooner. But not politically possible.

[Neil Burns]

Hi Paul,

I had read your article in the past but didn't recall you'd made this point. Seemed from your posts you felt Pershing could have broken up the AEF, my misunderstanding.

Sorry,

Neil

[Vincent Petty]

I liked Stallings "Doughboys", it was one of the first books I read on WW1. As for films, Stallings also wrote the story for the film "The Big Parade" which I think is one of the better WW1 films. It was a silent film produced in 1927.

Vince

[paul guthrie]

Hi Paul,

I had read your article in the past but didn't recall you'd made this point. Seemed from your posts you felt Pershing could have broken up the AEF, my misunderstanding.

Sorry,

Neil

No need to apologize Neil, looking back at what I wrote, " I must say in Pershing's defense the vast majority of the American public supported his decision."

The piece was pretty long & written to be spoken at a 3 day WFA meeting I organized here in lexington, I did not want to say more but believed in addition what logically follows if vast majority supported, it would have been politically impossibe to do otherwise. I also said he knew much better than US public how desperate things were but it's really too much to have expected him to do otherwise though I think it would have shortened the war.

British & French had complete staffs & logistics, we really never developed the latter, Paul Braim believed had ourt force increased & war gone into 1919, we would have had a logistical collapse & I do mean collapse.

I don't think at all he could have broken up AEF. His ass would have been gone!

[Guest stevenbec]

Mate,

I agree that US troops should not have been broken up singlely but why not use them at Regt/Bde Strenght particularly during the days of hard fighting when any troops were needed.

Australia allowed her Divison's to be broken up to plug gaps in the line during this time. Single Brigades were used for limited periods to hold the line and in some cases to launch attacks to slow the German offencive.

Why did they (Monash) allow it was because they were needed and this tactic worked and by July/August we were back onto the Attack.

By the time US divison's were allowed to hold the line the Main German Offencives had finished. Your attacks at B Wood and others the Germans had finish or were retiring anyway.

S.B

[telaw]

Allied Powers Cost in Dollars in 1914-18

United States 22,625,253,000

Great Britain 35,334,012,000

France 24,265,583,000

Russia 22,293,950,000

Italy 12,413,998,000

Belgium 1,154,468,000

Romania 1,600,000,000

Japan 40,000,000

Serbia 399,400,000

Greece 270,000,000

Canada 1,665,576,000

Australia 1,423,208,000

New Zealand 378,750,000

India 601,279,000

South Africa 300,000,000

British Colonies 125,000,000

Others 500,000,000

Total of all Costs 125,690,477,000

The Americans paid through the nose for their short involvement.

[bkristof]

Waw the Aussies were cheap!

[Neil Burns]

Mate,

I agree that US troops should not have been broken up singlely but why not use them at Regt/Bde Strenght particularly during the days of hard fighting when any troops were needed.

Australia allowed her Divison's to be broken up to plug gaps in the line during this time. Single Brigades were used for limited periods to hold the line and in some cases to launch attacks to slow the German offencive.

Why did they (Monash) allow it was because they were needed and this tactic worked and by July/August we were back onto the Attack.

By the time US divison's were allowed to hold the line the Main German Offencives had finished. Your attacks at B Wood and others the Germans had finish or were retiring anyway.

S.B

Hi Steve,

Australia volunteered to assist the Empire, totally different scenario than a Sovreign nation entering the war. I understand your point but I think Australia or Canada (both of which griped about not serving under 'their' commanders) aren't very good examples. Pershing also released divisions at the Marne and accelerated entering units into quiet sectors to free up veteran Allied troops.

Take care,

Neil

By the way thaks for the figures Telaw, really brings home the economic impact I'm figuring those figures don't include costs to rebuild!

[Guest stevenbec]

Neil,

I agree with all you said and make my point.

Australia unlike Canada were not allowed there own Corps intill late in the war.

But when we were needed in 1918 (as our Divison's were fresh) they were prepard to do what was needed to do the job.

Yes the US Divison were only allowed to take over sectors that there was no action or little chance of it to allow french troops to fight.

I am sure US soldiers wanted to get into it as I have read in US sources but were not allowed to by there head's (Higher command).

If you read the soldiers coments when attached to the Austailians at Hamel shows they were willing to do the job only they couldn't.

My whole argument is not against the men but US command that hid the US Army untill most of the fighting was done then brought them out for the Parade. (Sorry Yanks, I went to far but I hope you understand my point) or should I say "The killer punch".

S.B

[Neil Burns]

I am sure US soldiers wanted to get into it as I have read in US sources but were not allowed to by there head's (Higher command).

If you read the soldiers coments when attached to the Austailians at Hamel shows they were willing to do the job only they couldn't.

Hi Steve,

Good point Hamel is certainly an example of Pershing being difficult to the point of absurdity.

However I think Pershing's decision (insistance really) of attacking in the Meuse-Argonne contradicts the 'brought them out for the parade'. If anything Pershing went out of his way to use hastily trained troops to attack in one of the more difficult sectors of the Western Front.

The campaign was poorly planned and needlessly costly but it did what Pershing wanted it 'blooded' the AEF. If Pershing was looking for an easy contribution he certainly wasn't going to find it in the Argonne forest! The difficulties of the AEF in the Meuse-Argonne I think were more from poor planning and a reckless disregard for his men than attempts to preserve them.

This in no way diminishes the contributions of the Australians, CEF BEF, French etc.

Take care,

Neil

[paul guthrie]

Once again I highly recommend The Test of Battle by my late friend Retired Col. & Ph.D Paul Braim, it's the account of the MA battle & it's the AEF warts and all. I did an interview with him which was published in Stand To! a few years ago which makes his main points but it's no substitute for the book.

The Yanks won the war crowd do not like this book, think he is not sufficienty pro USA, well his father was in this battle, he was highly decorated from WW2 Korea, 4 tours RVN.

[Kiwiwriter]

My father's family is American and my mother's British, so my views are split somewhat.

However, I feel the Americans played a major role in winning the war at its end, but not in fighting the war from start to finish. I feel the British Expeditionary Force did a good job of stomping the Germans in 1918.

As far as the "Lost Battalion" movie goes, I'm not expert enough on tactics or uniforms to judge those aspects, but it was a fairly good war picture. Whittlesey was a pre-war socialist and pacifist (I think in Stallings' book), and he was one of many Americans (and Britons for that matter) who cheerfully went to war to win the "War to End All Wars." As he and many others discovered, it didn't work that way.

I've read a few assessments of the US Army in WW1, and one point repeats itself: the American Q work (quartermaster) was pretty poor. The Americans pretty much went over only with their uniforms and Springfield rifles. Their artillery, trucks, tanks, and planes seem to have been all French and British manufacture. The problems they had with logistics had a big impact on one of their planning officers, George C. Marshall, and he made sure that didn't happen the second time around. The next time, the Americans provided all their own weaponry, and vast quantities to their allies, as well.

Their tactics were also overly aggressive, befitting their energy, youth, and short time in the trenches. I agree with John Keegan's assessment that their biggest impact on their German foe was on morale: after four years of tench war, lousy rations, mud, Spanish flu, and so on, the German soldaten and musketiers were suddenly confronted with these enormous, well-equipped, young, energetic, and ferocious men who sprang from nowhere in vast numbers.

[Dee]

Hi Kristov

Both my husband and I thought the film was very good. My husband recently found a website which stated that Major Whittlesea was a pall bearer for the unknown American Soldier.

Have you seen The Trench released a few years ago? I also personally thought that was very good (it was when I was just starting my research into WW1) and the ending has me in floods of tears every time.

Regards

Dee

[Guest AmericanDoughboy]

Dee,

I have heard of the film "The Trench", however I have heard some nasty rumors about it that it was an awful movie. I do not know if this is true but it seems that you have thoroughly enjoyed it. I supposed I shall purchase a copy and see what it is like.

I have seen that many of you have been talking about that the Lost Battalion TV Movie was very tactical, well the reason of that was simply because the actual event wasn't. They were completely cut off with support from the rear and the French had retreated without notice. It was a romantic event in the Battle of the Meuse-Argonne but it was complete unpreventable and somewhat unheard of slaughter.

-Doughboy

[Dee]

I have heard of the film "The Trench", however I have heard some nasty rumors about it that it was an awful movie. I do not know if this is true but it seems that you have thoroughly enjoyed it. I supposed I shall purchase a copy and see what it is like.

Doughboy

I suppose everyone has a different perspective of things as I also heard some people say it was awful (and I can definitely say that about Death Watch) and really I believe it is all down to personal perception. However, as it was really my first introduction to WW1 I was so saddened and horrified by what was portrayed (having never really seen anything like it before) it hit me quite hard.

Up until that time I was a WW1 virgin (not sure if that is the right phrase but i'm having trouble finding the right words at times), then I met my hubby who was heavily into WW1 and realised that my granddad also fought during this time.

I'm probably just a very sentimental person

[Guest AmericanDoughboy]

Dee,

I'll make sure to place it upon my "to-buy" list of Great War Films. Including Paths of Glory, as I have only seen it many times of television I hope to purchase it on DVD.

Any so, moving back to the subject of the so called 'Lost Battalion'. When visiting the Charlevaux Mill area you are still able to see various fox holes dug into the ground where various soldiers of the 77th Division stayed in shelter, if anyone is interested.

-Doughboy

[paul guthrie]

There is a marker on the road above where they were identifying the units involved. The hill is ungodly steep to the creek below the road and the rest of the hill above where Germans were, best to walk up the creek from Charlevaux Mill. The pond there is post war.