US attitude to casualty numbers

[PhilB]

A recent re-reading of the American doings in WW1 gave me an early impression that the US commanders were somewhat disdainful initially of the numbers of casualties that the Allied commanders were prepared to accept. It seems that after a few battles, their attitude had changed completely and that they were just as prepared to accept large casualty lists as we were. Would US members agree? If so, to what would they attribute the quick change? Phil B

[AndyHollinger]

My initial thought - with no evidence - would be the typical American view of "ANYTHING you do, I can do better ..." Then, reality hit.

[steve fuller]

Think it mirrors the attitude other nations had when entering the war myself. "Over before Xmas" & all that seems to be the prevailing attitude of politicians, officers, & the Other Ranks UNTIL the nations in question understood the reality of warfare involving sending flesh & blood up against technology....

And such basic errors / superior attitudes are mirrored throughout history, again and again and again and ....

Yet we still dont learn!

[jdajd]

I am not sure that there really was a change in attitude in terms of casualties, rather one with leadership. In the early days of the US involvement there were obviously not enough men to make any significant impact. So obviously the earlier you look at the less the casualties will be based on inaction. As the US gets more involved their casualty rates go up as well.

Additionally, US leaders were unwilling to feed their forces into the French and British meat grinders piece meal. When the US fought it would be under the flag of the United States and not as replacement cannon fodder. This is not to say that US were less willing then other nations to use their men in this way, just that they were going to be the ones who ordered it. If you look at any US engagement where they played a significant independent role I do not think that you would find low casualty rates. In fact I think the opposite would be true because the Americans were frequently unwilling to take advice from people who knew more. You must remember that the US did not have their own Loos, Somme, Chemin de Dames to learn from so they repeated the mistakes of the early years. I would think that US casualties would drop as they became more adept at the realities of trench warfare.

[PhilB]

I think we`re almost saying the same thing. The US battle casualties quickly rose, despite their commanders having an initially disdainful attitude towards high losses. I think Belleau Wood was a good early example? I`m not sure what the current US orthodoxy is on these battles! Phil B

[jdajd]

Almost, but I do not think they were disdainful of high casualties at any point per se. Tthey were unwilling to accept them under foreign command. I think if in June (I cannot remember when the first troop ship landed) Pershing had enough men to make a real army, not just one in name he would have been perfectly willing to sacrifice them, but it would be under a US flag.

As to American attitude now, ask anyone what they know about Belleau Wood, or Meuse Argonne, or WWI in general and you will get a balnk stare. Its sad that because the US played such a small part in terms of time it is quickly becoming a forgotten war or the one that comes between the Civil War and WWII on book shelves.

[terryewalker]

When I mentioned, I was doing a screenplay to an American writer about the Great War his answer was "what great war would that be".

[paul guthrie]

It may well be aprophycal but all of us in the US with strong interest in WW1 have heard of a person saying, " The only reason I knew there was a WW1 is because there is WW2."

Public knowledge of history in general though is appalling, one in seven or so say, when given some choices on who Joan of Arc was believe think Noah's wife.

[robbie]

It may well be aprophycal but all of us in the US with strong interest in WW1 have heard of a person saying, " The only reason I knew there was a WW1 is because there is WW2."

Public knowledge of history in general though is appalling, one in seven or so say, when given some choices on who Joan of Arc was believe think Noah's wife.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same probably could be said of other nations, too, e.g., AUstralia.

When I was at school in the Middle Ages, the only history we were taught was AUstralian history - rather a one-eyed view to put it mildly.

Robbie

[andigger]

Actually a history teacher friend of mine told me one time a student of his asked which part of England was new. Asking for further clarification, the student mentioned that her boyfriend's parents were from New England and she wasn't sure what part of England that was.

I always get a chuckle out of that one.

Andy