1918

[RodB]

This is basically about how and why the war ended. I'm up to page 63 and a few things are coming out :-

The author believes Woodrow Wilson is living in a political fantasyland i.e. his vision of a new world order postwar doesn't match the messy reality of Europe on the ground.

The author believes Pershing is a military imbecile i.e. refuses to take advice or cooperate strategically, and wastes thousands of lives while contributing zilch militarily to the grand plan which Foche and Haig are finally getting to work.

So.. my questions are :-

Does anybody know this Gregor Dallas - how much street cred does he have ?

Let's assume that you don't become a President or your country's military commmander by being a dreamer or an idiot. So the US political and military agenda to me looks as if it was being driven by different forces than that of the "allies" : the US needed to just put an end to the war because it was messing up the world trade system : "victory" was not its aim, and it had to remain aloof from the allies and their agenda - which was by this time to neutralize Germany for years to come. Typical of this "different agenda" was Wilson's demand for freedom of the seas, which Britain rejected. In a nutshell, it looks to me like the US was taking a World view whereas the "allies" were still locked into their Eurocentric view.

Any of the Americans out there care to comment ?

[Andrew Hesketh]

I've not read the book nor am I American. However, whilst I wouldn't go so far as believing Pershing to be a military imbecile, I would broadly agree with the rest of the interpretations on offer.

Woodrow Wilson is certainly ripe for a historical reappraisement. He was both a fantasist and, from what I've been reading, a white supremacist.

[andigger]

a white supremacist

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't want to get into the particulars, but there is a difference between white supremacist and segregationist. Although it may be shades of grey, I am certain that Wilson never advocated violence against blacks which is more common amongst supremacists.

Andy

[Guest karequah]

I struggled through the book a few months ago, mainly because I was looking for a decent account of the Spartacists in Germany immediately after the war. To be honest, I didn't get much else out of it, though other parts of it do look interesting.

I can say that (surprise, surprise) Americans can get quite "uppity" if anyone minimizes their contribution to the Great War. In fact, they more likely had a psychological effect which hastened (not brought about) the end of the war than an actual military one. I agree with Dallas on that and that, while the troops fought bravely they were slaughtered as most other nations' troops were on the Western Front.

[Guest karequah]

Andrew,

Woodrow Wilson was certainly a product of his times, but I would think it unfair to broadly label him a "white supremacist." I do agree that he was unquestionably an idealist whose rigid adherance to his beliefs ended up costing him quite dearly.

I've not read the book nor am I American. However, whilst I wouldn't go so far as believing Pershing to be a military imbecile, I would broadly agree with the rest of the interpretations on offer.

Woodrow Wilson is certainly ripe for a historical reappraisement. He was both a fantasist and, from what I've been reading, a white supremacist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Neil Burns]

As an American I agree that Pershing's performance was less than stellar, however I think his treatment at the hands of his 'Allies' led him to be dissmissive and suspicious of their opinions. It's always been a mystery to me why the French and British promised Italy the moon to get them involved yet gave the Americans the run-around (breaking up US units, we have/don't have shipping available depending on what you have to ship etc.) at every turn. To give Pershing his due, he was smart enough to see the French & British conduct of the war wasn't exactly the best use of resources but, his rather hare-brained grasp of offensive spirit and marksmanship overcoming material simply repeated the mistakes of 1914.

Beating up on Wilson is the new national pasttime surpassing beating up on FDR. Wilson saw the 1914-18 war as an extension of the balance of power policies that dominated Europe since 1815. To cynics one should have returned to this policy as it worked pretty effectively for most of the 19th century, to Wilson he hoped to replace a system that led to the World War. Was he a fool for trying or brave man trying to break the mold for a better future? Tough to say, but the world seems to have come around to his ideas of collective security, which is why I think he is vilified by those who disagree with collective security today.

Just my take.

Whoops edited to add you would be hard-pressed to find many people in the US or Europe who weren't white-supremacists at the time.

Edited 11 August , 2005 by Neil Burns

[Guest karequah]

I agree, Andy.

[andigger]

I am American and can offer my opinion, and I am sure others will offer other views....

Pershing was getting his direction from Wilson, with specific directions to coordinate with Allies only so far as it conforms with US policy. There is also an American streak that we have to do it our way (and pay the consequences) rather than take the advice of those who have been there before. Perhaps its pride.

Wilson had a very religious upbringing, and I think this affected his view of the war and many other things. It can be argued that he saw himself and the US as the warrior who was going to save the world from destruction of war, almost by divine intervention. I also think the US did have different aims and visions than the Europeans (of all sides). I am not sure that it was a 'global' view so much as an opportunity to step onto the world stage to impose what we saw as justice. Of course as a capitalist nation there were also opportunities to invest dollars in reconstruction.

I don't want to divert into modern politics, but I think the current president Bush is much like Wilson in his approach to the world.

Just my two cents....

Andy

[Guest karequah]

Andy,

Very insightful. I hadn't thought of that, but it's actually quite true! They're certainly both equally divisive, even if they were on different ends of the U.S. political spectrum.

I am American and can offer my opinion, and I am sure others will offer other views....

Pershing was getting his direction from Wilson, with specific directions to coordinate with Allies only so far as it conforms with US policy.  There is also an American streak that we have to do it our way (and pay the consequences) rather than take the advice of those who have been there before.  Perhaps its pride.

Wilson had a very religious upbringing, and I think this affected his view of the war and many other things.  It can be argued that he saw himself and the US as the warrior who was going to save the world from destruction of war, almost by divine intervention.  I also think the US did have different aims and visions than the Europeans (of all sides).  I am not sure that it was a 'global' view so much as an opportunity to step onto the world stage to impose what we saw as justice.  Of course as a capitalist nation there were also opportunities to invest dollars in reconstruction.

I don't want to divert into modern politics, but I think the current president Bush is much like Wilson in his approach to the world. 

Just my two cents....

Andy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[andigger]

It's always been a mystery to me why the French and British promised Italy the moon to get them involved yet gave the Americans the run-around (breaking up US units, we have/don't have shipping available depending on what you have to ship etc.) at every turn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to hijack the thread, but that is a very interesting thought.

Maybe because in 1915 hopes were still high, Italy is in Europe, and America is thousands of miles away.

By 1917 the allies were desperate for anyone and they really didn't have anything left to offer.

Andy

[paul guthrie]

Well bringing Bush into the discussion can quickly lead to moderation, in comparing the two I will say Wilson, while flawed, was intelligent...

He was also a racist but that's not surprising for the time... as for Pershing, he is near the top of my bad general list, completely ignoring the experience of our allies, depending upon frontal assaults, a martinet, unable to delegate, at one time commanded AEF, Services of Supply , maybe 1st Army too though I think by time it was formed Harbord commanded it. Just terrible..

[andigger]

as for Pershing, he is near the top of my bad general list, completely ignoring the experience of our allies,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but how much of what he did was because of Wilson being too involved and not leaving military leadership and direction to the generals?

Andy

[Neil Burns]

Hi Andy,

I'm inclined to side with Paul here. Wilson supported Pershing's push for an independent army but really didn't interfere. In fact the Allies tried to drag him in to go over Perhsing's head, whihc he wouldn't do.

Pershing wanted to attack in the Meuse-Argonne over Allied objections (although Foch eventually supported the decision) even though it was possibly the best defended spot in the German lines.

Pershing felt that marksmanship (that old mythical American Rifleman from the Revolution) as well as 'open warfare' (which he never really defined) would beat material. this had really been discredited in 1914.

Funnelling over a million men into the Meuse-Argonne was a logistical disaster, a trained commander should have known better.

Although I don't blame Pershing for the poor level of training for US troops , he did foolishly give some very inexperienced units vital roles in the offensive.

I don't really think Wilson shares much blame for these decisions, besides the general blame of being his boss!

Take care,

Neil

PS I'll suggest it before Paul does, check out The Test of Battle by Paul Braim (?).

[paul guthrie]

Yes Neil, my late friend Paul Braim wrote the definitive work on Muese Argonne available in print, the version out now is easier on Pershing than earlier one but quite critical.

It's myth that Pershing was forbidden to amalgamte, early orders from Newton Baker, Payton March were suggestive of that but he was explicitly told he could do so if necessary.

My interview with Paul Braim. a much decorated 3 war soldier, appeared in Stand To!, can't tell you #.

[Andrew Hesketh]

I don't really want to get into an argument over the semantics of racist v white supremacist. But if white supremacy simply means what it says on the tin then Wilson was a white supremacist. Whether or not he advocated violence is immaterial.

Quote from Woodrow Wilson's History of the American People, "The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation ... until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country."

Quote: "He was an outspoken white supremacist--his wife was even worse--and told "darky" stories in cabinet meetings" Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me, p.27

Quote: "Movies were becoming popular, and D.W. Griffith became a

pioneer in the industry. Dixon met with and convinced Griffith to make

a movie of his play. Birth of a Nation was the result. It glorified and

romanticized the Klan and treated Klansmen as chivalrous knights. It

became a twelve-reel epic, and both the public and scholars generally

accepted its premise. When the NAACP tried to prevent its being

shown, Griffith turned to President Woodrow Wilson for support.

Wilson, a noted racist, gave his endorsement. Favorable reviews

resulted. Only a very few challenged the movie for being filled with

distortions and lies." 'Ku Klux Klan, Montgomery County Public Schools, Melissa N. Matusevich, January, 1998

And you may wish to read some of the things online -

Quote, Walter Russell Mead, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003 in a review of Woodrow Wilson. H. W. Brands. New York: Times Books, 2003: "Like most post-Civil War Southern whites, Wilson embraced the Democratic Party with its unbending support of white supremacy, segregation, and lynch law. The first Southern president since the Civil War, Wilson not only gave the pro-Klan Birth of a Nation a White House screening, he imposed Jim Crow policy in the District of Columbia and blocked a Japanese effort to include a declaration on racial equality in the League of Nations charter."

You may wish to read this: http://reason.com/links/links121802.shtml

[Neil Burns]

I think pretty much the entire world view of Europe and the US was based on white supremacy at the time. The entire colonial system was based on white supremacy, I think Wilson was very much a man of his times.

[Dolphin]

Going back to the book under review, I read it a couple of years ago, and was surprised by some of the statements that really should have been detected and corrected prior to publication. Three howlers stand out:

The claim that mutinous elements of the High Seas Fleet at Kiel commandeered a Naval Zeppelin and flew it to Berlin, bedecked in red flags. Strangely, this spectacular episode doesn't appear in the standard works on the German Naval Air Service. The account leaves the reader wondering how the sailors concerned managed to organise the large trained ground handling party that would have been required to facilitate the airship's arrival. It all reads like an scene from a 1930s Soviet propaganda film, rather than history.

Later, we are given a startling insight into the history of the Polish troops in 'Haller's Army' which "in 1917, had fought its way to the Baltic and from there had been carried in British vessels to the Western Front". If this happened, with a British Fleet sneaking past the High Seas Fleet to enter the Baltic and then, even better, sneaking (or perhaps fighting their way) past the Germans again on the return trip, it would be one of the greatest maritime feats of the War! Other sources indicate that 'Haller's Army' was actually raised in the USA and Canada.

On the other side of the equator is the remark that Australia had territorial desires on Timor. In 1918 Timor was divided between the Netherlands (neutral) and Portugal (an ally) so it certainly wasn't available. The author's probable intent was to refer to former German New Guinea (Kaiserwilhelmsland). If so, it's careless writing and/or proof-reading.

Given the above, I found the reliability of the book somewhat questionable.

Gareth

[Neil Burns]

Dolphin,

You are correct that account of Haller's Army coming from Poland is totally false. So at odds with fact it boogles the mind as to his source.

I don't think I'll be picking up this title!

Thanks,

Neil

[RodB]

The feedback seems to say "avoid this book". I got it out of my university library (Macquarie, Sydney) and I normally work on the assumption that whoever ordered it knew what they were doing. But there seems to be a trend where historians think "I must do WWI" and churn something out, cliches and all (I'm heartily sick of hearing about Frieda Lawrence being a cousin of the RedBaron, when in fact the family branched in the 1600s. etc.

I wish former commanders themselves would take more interest in writing history - they would presumably be better placed to examine decisions which at this distance may appear strange but to somebody who has had similar responsibiltie may be analysible.

[AndyHollinger]

Andy,

Very insightful.  I hadn't thought of that, but it's actually quite true!  They're certainly both equally divisive, even if they were on different ends of the U.S. political spectrum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is fair to say WW was a white supremacist - but not in the modern "kill'em all" sense ... he was a Victorian Virginian and a Bourbon at that ... bad enough ... remember also he watched Union Cavalry ride through Staunton ...

Pershing was both good and bad ... he was a perfect general in that he understood his command and his instructions and did not cross political lines ... Mexico, if nothing else, shows that ... Good news in France because he was not an Ally but an Assoicated Power ... bad news is that he was responsible for the Nov 11 useless killing of American troops ...

The book is interesting in that series of books highlighting a specific year sort of way ... My thought was it was meant for an audience that thought "what the heck happened in 1918" sort of way.

[RodB]

Beating up on Wilson is the new national pasttime surpassing beating up on FDR. Wilson saw the 1914-18 war as an extension of the balance of power policies that dominated Europe since 1815. To cynics one should have returned to this policy as it worked pretty effectively for most of the 19th century, to Wilson he hoped to replace a system that led to the World War. Was he a fool for trying or brave man trying to break the mold for a better future? Tough to say, but the world seems to have come around to his ideas of collective security, which is why I think he is vilified by those who disagree with collective security today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't help comparing Wilson's idealism with George Bush Snr's vision for some sort of New World Order after the 1991 Iraq war, and feeling that both men had a decent compassionate desire to use US power and influence to achieve needed improvements in the world security system. For George Bush snr, the collapse of the USSR bloc (and hence the Cold War balance of power) had left what looked like a dangerous potential power vacuum in the world's trouble spots; for Wilson Europe may have looked like a similar power (hence security) vacuum. And with similar results, a score of 4/10 from the electorate. What came out was that you can't separate the foreign policy of a major power from its domestic policy, which it seems both presidents did. Which complicates the whole historical analysis question enourmously, for me : if a viable foreign policy expresses domestic policy, we have to study the domestic issues first to uderstand why the country considers war viable : what was in it for the average American and how could exporting democracy help with exporting wheat (or in Bush senior's case, cars), or whatever.

The electorate is unsympathetic - Wilson ended a world war at minimal cost (compared to others) which ended with the US as last man standing and hence the real winner ; Bush helped with Gorbachev to end the Cold War with 0 casualties; neither was allowed a mandate to safeguard world peace for the future.

[andigger]

I'm up to page 63

Ironically that is where I am in the book now, so I thought I would bring this back up.

Actually there is one tremendous factually inaccuracy in the book that I am surprised the editors didn't catch, and is almost enough for me to put it down just as I am starting it.

Top of page 61 "Why should even General John 'Black Jack' Pershing, from Missouri, worry himself with the shape of tiny Europe's plains? The critical issue for him, as it was for the crusading President from Georgia, was the maintenance of an independent American Army."

GEORGIA! I don't think so. Although spending part of his childhood in Georgia, Wilson is from Virginia, born in Staunton in 1856. New Jersey might have some claim on him - he was president of Princeton, and governor of the state, but never once did they say he was 'from' there. Wilson was from Virginia, and a historian who is going to write about Wilson's roots should know that.

Andy

[AndyHollinger]

A1 Are you always bringing dead stuff back up? Stephen King of the forum?

A couple of things ... I'm here because I missed yeasterday correcting tests ... Define and describe the differences between Vietnam and Korea X 204 ... oh gad. I read this entire thread and work up enough bile and find I've already written some ...

Editing for facts is something you will find done less and less. Editing is something done less and less. Editing costs somewhere between .01 and .005 cents a word and many traditional publishing houses outsource the work to the un and under employed Liberal Arts people out there. Works aimed at the general audience will not be read by historians. Also remember that reviews are almost always written by the publisher and then worked over by the traditional press to save time and money in that the "book editor" is also a part-timer. This is especially true in small newspapers or chain magazines.

Wilson from Georgia ... oh boy.

As to the arguments in the thread ... Wilson was a white supremist and a segregationist ... in fact he REsegregated much of the US Gov. That said, he was a nice man - meaning he was a product of the new south.

We could go on and on ...

[andigger]

Yes.. this is the re resurrection of a beaten, dead horse thread. However I think it has come to the point where I need to put this poorly researched book in the trash pile.

Today's argument, which any US historian would be able to shoot down with a cap gun, was that as a result of the elections of 1918 the US was left with a minority gov't. WRONG.

In US politics its impossible to have a minority gov't, with only two viable parties someone has to be in the majority, even with a 50/50 tie there are privisions to tip the balance if ever so slightly. The correct term for a US Congress - which is not 'the gov't' in the British sense of the word - where the majority has lost its status as a result of the last election, but the new members have not yet been sworn in is a lame duck Congress.

Having studied at UC Berkeley, obvious not much of the US political experience rubbed off on Dallas.

Andy

I'll try to make this the last time I bring this thread up. Its just this book is so far off the mark on its facts!

Andy