|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 15:22:55 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 12, 2011 15:22:55 GMT -6
In defense of Pershing, he had to fight off demands that the Americans be fed into existing British and French units and so kept the concept of an American Army alive, which was to the good. He did have to put some American units under French command during the German offensive in 1918. The French and Brits were so exhausted and desperate they probably were not the sanest allies ever.
What land was held by who when the armistice kicked in and post war borders might have been an issue. He also thought the armistace was an error and that the allies ought to plow into Germany. He was right, since the Nazis later claimed Germany was never defeated on land or sea but betrayed, and since no foreign soldiers crossed the border, the citizens could believe it. Winning the war technically is of dubious value if the defeated aren't aware of it and allowed to carry on with no indication of their defeat in the field.
That's not to say it wasn't pure ego, but there are other alternatives.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 15:24:15 GMT -6
Post by markland on Jun 12, 2011 15:24:15 GMT -6
So, By the way, after having read the aforementioned book, my formerly very positive opinion of Pershing was revised downward. Billy Markland, Billy, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "Black Jack" Pershing knew that an armistice had been signed and the war would be over at 2300 hrs that night. But ordered an attack that day. How many young American and German men were only hours away from going home but were killed because of someones ego Come to think of it , I'm reminded of someone else. Be Well Dan Dan, I'm going strictly on memories of prior reading but I believe that Pershing had instructed his subordinates to maintain pressure. The river crossing assault was ordered by the divsional commander, whose name escapes me, despite protests from his regimental commanders if I correctly recall. I'll try to look it up but right now I'm on a fiction binge to clear my head of details about Guadalcanal, kamakazis, biblical archaeology and Nazi art thefts. Billy
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 15:31:44 GMT -6
Post by markland on Jun 12, 2011 15:31:44 GMT -6
In defense of Pershing, he had to fight off demands that the Americans be fed into existing British and French units and so kept the concept of an American Army alive, which was to the good. He did have to put some American units under French command during the German offensive in 1918. The French and Brits were so exhausted and desperate they probably were not the sanest allies ever. What land was held by who when the armistice kicked in and post war borders might have been an issue. He also thought the armistace was an error and that the allies ought to plow into Germany. He was right, since the Nazis later claimed Germany was never defeated on land or sea but betrayed, and since no foreign soldiers crossed the border, the citizens could believe it. Winning the war technically is of dubious value if the defeated aren't aware of it and allowed to carry on with no indication of their defeat in the field. That's not to say it wasn't pure ego, but there are other alternatives. Regarding feeding the American troops into the British & French armies, Pershing is to be honored. However, as an operational commander, he left a lot to be desired. His forte seemed to be at the strategic level. Billy
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 16:20:27 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2011 16:20:27 GMT -6
Billy: Give me the division and I will give you the name of the commander.
You know it seems so off of the original topic but it is not. Look at a list of the senior RA officers in WWI and where they come from and Williams original post is right back on track, and everything that we have talked about for the last three pages, except old hussar butt, is directly attributable to the fact that during the 19th century, for the most part, the United States Army was a hunting and fishing club in blue.
LINEAGE TRIVIA:
Speaking of hunting and fishing clubs I could ask what unit of the United States Army started out as a fishing club. The unit still exists today and if you read the other board you would know that it is Troop A, 1st Squadron, 104th Cavalry (First City Troop of Philadelphia) SO I WONT ASK THAT QUESTION. INSTEAD
What unit of the United States Army still existant started out as a volunteer fire company?
First prize gets to pay Wild's fine for destroying U S Currency.
Richard: FIGHT EXTRADITION. I'm in your corner buddy.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 17:02:31 GMT -6
Post by markland on Jun 12, 2011 17:02:31 GMT -6
Quin, I dimly remember it was a New York City organization. Some of the minutae from the other board sort of flows through me like a Taco Bell burrito.
Hmmmm, per William, no more Hussars.
Excuse me while I Thank God for the preservation of lives.
Billy
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 17:04:37 GMT -6
Post by markland on Jun 12, 2011 17:04:37 GMT -6
And regarding the division which made the river assault on the day before the Armistice, I'll have to look it up. I think there was a book written about it but I'm not sure. I'll check the local bookstore at the National WWI Museum here in KC to see.
Billy
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 17:16:09 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2011 17:16:09 GMT -6
Billy: The only New York City Division was the 77th (Statue of Liberty) Division, famous for the Lost Battalion. The commander in November 1918 was Major General Robert Alexander.
The other New York Division (New York at large) was the 27th (Orion later Empire) Division, commanded by Major General John F. O'Ryan
The 42nd (Rainbow) division had a New York City regiment, the 165th Infantry (69th NY) commanded in November 1918 by none other than Brigadier General Douglas MacArthur
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 18:29:56 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 12, 2011 18:29:56 GMT -6
The French and Brits were so exhausted and desperate they probably were not the sanest allies ever. They might have been allies but they were not America's allies.
Cathal I have some Confederate notes.Would the Fed accept those as recompense do you think.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 18:40:46 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2011 18:40:46 GMT -6
Wild: I don't think they would see the humor in it. However one never knows.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 18:45:41 GMT -6
Post by benteen on Jun 12, 2011 18:45:41 GMT -6
[quote author=darkcloud board=theories thread=3951 post=72386 time=1307913775 ]In defense of Pershing, he had to fight off demands that the Americans be fed into existing British and French units and so kept the concept of an American Army alive, which was to the good. What land was held by who when the armistice kicked in and post war borders might have been an issue. He also thought the armistice was an error and that the allies ought to plow into Germany. He was right, since the Nazis later claimed Germany was never defeated on land or sea but betrayed, and since no foreign soldiers crossed the border, the citizens could believe it. Winning the war technically is of dubious value if the defeated aren't aware of it and allowed to carry on with no indication of their defeat in the field. That's not to say it wasn't pure ego, but there are other alternatives. [/quote] Darkcloud, Your counterpoint to my criticism of Pershing is a good one and well taken. He did indeed want American troops under the command of American officers and should be commended for that. Your second point is also a good one, certainly it is desirable to have total victory and let an enemy know that they had better not try it again.However , not as an argument but as another thought.Remember we got in this war at the end, England and France had been fighting for years, millions of their young men had been killed in this slaughter house and their countries were near bankrupt. Perhaps they just wanted it over. Just a thought Billy You sound like you have your plate full.But take time for a cocktail, thats the most important. Remember if it weren't for whiskey, Ireland would have ruled the world Be well gentlemen Dan
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 19:34:20 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 12, 2011 19:34:20 GMT -6
If it weren't for the Irish,whiskey would have ruled the world.
Sláinte
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 20:05:13 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2011 20:05:13 GMT -6
I don't know about the world but Bushmills rules my booz cabinet.
Dan: I am going to look into the Pershing thing a little more. There may be no connection to the subject of the thread, but it looks interesting as to the whys
DC: I looked up a few divisions today in the WWI Order of Battle. Most of the divisions I checked did a lot of time stateside, average 8 months. A few went over very quickly. The Big Red One was activated on the docks of New York and went over in Summer 1917. So there appears to be a rather mixed bag. Let you know.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 20:08:11 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 12, 2011 20:08:11 GMT -6
The French and British were drooling for blood and compensation under Lloyd George and Clemenceau, and entirely broke, but don't forget it was Wilson's theories of how peace could be achieved and defined that was ruling back then. Everybody just cool off and it would be civilized again.
He thought it would be like the CW, with Lee saying it was God's verdict and the south should just deal with it and be good citizens, and people like Lincoln advocating compassion and letting them up easy. It was the one war he knew, second hand, but knew. He grew up in the defeated South.
This was an insane template to bring to Europe for the Versailles gathering, but what the French wanted was NO Germany and all of it divided up. Hard to say what was worse. Hitler wasn't remotely envisioned; they feared communists.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 13, 2011 10:35:48 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 13, 2011 10:35:48 GMT -6
DC: Here is some information on the 29th Infantry Divisions WWI service. Having reviewed about 15 histories I find this one typical of the period.
Constituted 18 July 1917 and organized 25 August 1917 at Camp MacClellan, Alabama. Deployed to France during June and July 1918. Entered combat in September 1918.
So I would feel safe in saying that this division completed its basic training and some of its unit training at MacClellan, then upon arrival in France underwent further unit training and adaptation to existing local conditions before it went to combat.
It is interesting to note that this particular division went into combat with only its infantry brigades (57 & 58) and not the artillery brigade (54). Checking the records the brigade components (110th - 111th and 112th Field Artillery Regiments) do not have battle honors for WWI, with the exception of WWI Streamer without inscription, indicating they were in theater but did not participate in combat. So this leave us with the impression that these three units were not yet equiped and proficient with their 75's and 155's in time to participate in the Meuse Argonne Campaign.
Of further interest in line with the topic, the division was commander by Major General Charles Gould Morton, an 1883 graduate of USMA, who had combat experience in the Philipines. He was an Army War College graduate in the Class of 1905, which would make him in the secord or third classes of the college.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 13, 2011 11:06:54 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 13, 2011 11:06:54 GMT -6
Could well be. Suppose it comes down to how many "many" is in Massie's eyes. I felt safe with "some."
Since the draftees didn't report till September, constituted and organized would be paper work. The date of interest would be when all the men were actually there and in training. That they weren't fit for France for 9 months might be due to any number of things. I don't know what Basic in 1917 would consist of. Or any year, actually.
Like you, suspect their artillery was notional till trained in the French weapons.....which may not have existed when they got there.
All in all, this must be the bad dream our brass fear every night: brave talk and nuttin' behind it unless the enemy gives a time out for us to catch up or because they can't attack us at all, which was the case in 1917.
Virtually nothing in Montana, Mexico or the Philippines was real life prep for the Western Front, but that was the training and experience of the brass by 1917. They must have had to get British instructors or English speaking French to prep the guys. Or, so I hope.
|
|