General Pershing's HQ in France.

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10578
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

General Pershing's HQ in France.

#1

Post by tigre » 12 Jun 2016, 22:04

Hello to all :D; a little story on this............................

General Pershing and his Headquarters in France

In June 1917, General Pershing, as commander in chief, accompanied by the nucleus of a staff, went via England to France. General Headquarters was at first established in Paris. Since its first duty was the preparation of basic plans for the organization of the troops which were to follow and for their shelter, supply, training, and ultimate use against the enemy, it was a great convenience to locate our general headquarters in Paris near the French War Ministry whence came most of the information upon which these plans had to be based. But when these broad and fundamental plans had been outlined and a probable sector of the front had been selected for ultimate occupation by the American forces, a location for the headquarters became desirable somewhere behind the center of that sector, away from the enticing diversions of Paris, not so accessible to visiting dignitaries, somewhat removed from the French authorities who early manifested a desire to control every American action, and in some city where adequate office and billeting space for the rapidly expanding sections and departments of the headquarters could be more easily obtained. After reconnaissance and consideration of several suggested cities, Chaumont was selected and headquarters moved there about 1 September 1917.

At first the headquarters was organized into the three general staff sections and the several administrative and technical staffs then contemplated by our Field Service Regulations. As early reorganized and continued to the end, the general staff was divided into five sections whose broad functions were: The First Section for administration, welfare and handling of personnel; the Second Section for intelligence of the enemy, espionage and counter-espionage; the Third Section for the organization of troops and for operations against the enemy; the Fourth Section for supply and construction of all kinds; and the Fifth Section for the schooling of officers and training of troops.

Soon after reaching Chaumont it was realized that the total staff was becoming too large and unwieldy. Decentralization of functions and a smaller staff with the commander in chief had become a necessity. Accordingly, within a few months after the headquarters had been established at Chaumont the drastic step was taken of sending back all of the technical and supply departments from the general headquarters to Tours to report to and to be subordinate to the commanding general of the Service of Supply, the S. O. S. There remained at Chaumont, the General Staff, the order section of the Adjutant General's Office, the Inspector General and the Judge Advocate General. To the S. O. S. went the greater part of the Adjutant General's office, the chiefs of the Quartermaster, Ordnance, Signal, Medical, Engineer, Chemical Warfare and Air Services.

All work at the headquarters was done in the most informal and expeditious manner. There was almost no time-consuming passing of formal memoranda from section to section for concurrence as is the practice in many of our headquarters. Matters of broad policy and the great problems which required the decision of General Pershing had to receive exhaustive preparation and consideration.

The problems requiring solution by the headquarters were many and most pressing. Not only was an army, or armies, to be organized and fought against an enemy whose efficient armies stood out in a continent of nations vastly superior to their own in total numbers; but the American divisions had to be transported, supplied and fed in a foreign country whose language was unfamiliar and whose business and working customs were very different from our own and all had to be accomplished thousands of miles from our base of supplies at home.

In the solution of our problems, the American headquarters had the interested and valuable assistance of the French and the British. Both were glad to tell us of their experiences, of their difficulties and of the manner in which they had met them. In the early stages of the work in France this assistance was invaluable.

But when the American organization became strong enough to stand by itself, our association with the French and British ceased to be a help and became a hindrance because of several fundamental differences of opinion as to how the war should be conducted and as to how our troops should be trained. Our Allies believed that in many respects we were ignoring their experience and were training in directions which would impede the production of suitable troops.

General Staff of the A.E. F. (AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES) on November 01, 1918.

CiC: General Pershing; Chief of Staff: General McAndrew; Deputy Chief of Staff: General Eltinge; G-1: General Andrews; G-2: General Nolan; G-3: General Conner; G-4: General Moseley; G-5: General Fiske; Adjutant General: General Davis.

Source: MAJOR GENERAL H. B. FISKE, U. S. Army, Retired. September, 1940, Quarterly Review of Military Literature Vol. XX, No. 78.

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3749
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#2

Post by Sheldrake » 13 Jun 2016, 00:09

I have set up a website to promote interest in the US Army in France in 1918
http://americanvictory1918.weebly.com/


User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10578
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#3

Post by tigre » 13 Jun 2016, 01:21

Thanks for sharing the link here :wink:. All the best in your enterprise. Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10578
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#4

Post by tigre » 18 Jun 2016, 14:00

Hello to all :D; a little more, what follows below represent juicy views on the contribution of the United States to win the war .......................

General Pershing and his Headquarters in France

The most serious difficulty came from the strenuous and determined efforts of the British and the French, acting independently of each other, to secure first the incorporation of American individuals in French and British divisions, and, when it became clear that this idea of obtaining American drafts for foreign commands had no chance of success, then to secure at least the incorporation of American companies or battalions in Allied divisions. This proposal was first made by the Joffre mission in Washington before Pershing sailed for France.

In France, Generals Foch, Pétain and Haig, at different times and in different ways urged it upon Pershing, as did the Prime Ministers, Lloyd George and Clemenceau. When they could not budge Pershing, the premiers through Colonel House, then through their embassies in Washington and finally through special envoys, worked directly on the President and the Secretary of War to the same purpose. The Allied Missions at the American headquarters were continually renewing the proposition, and all of these presented the same idea to General Bliss and the Supreme War Council. And the effort continued to the day of the Armistice.

Their main argument usually was: that the divisions of both Allied armies possessed thoroughly trained and war experienced commanders, staffs, and artillery, but were running so low in their infantry that, failing American infantry replacements, many of these veteran divisions must be broken up; that since all of the Allied and associated powers had only one object in view, that of winning the war, the natural and logical thing to do was to pool all resources by combining the quickly trained American individuals or small units of infantry in the Allied war-seasoned divisions; and further, that the growing menace of the great German offensive of 1918 did not give time for the slower process of training American large units, divisions and army corps, to take their places in an American army.

But the fact is the war could not have been won in this way. For the fact is that by the time of the appearance of our troops in France the Allied troops had largely lost their aggressive spirit as the result of their enormous losses. The dispersion of small groups of our aggressive men among their discouraged troops would not have brought about any very great elevation of Allied morale and would certainly have lowered our own.

But winning the war depended first of all on depressing the enemy morale; and the Germans could not have been convinced, and were not convinced that they had lost the war, until a homogeneous American army, fighting successfully under American command in the brilliant and decisive offensives of St. Mihiel and the Argonne, gave a demonstration of the power and might of their new enemy, the United States, which could be interpreted by them as nothing less than the end of their hopes.

Between the summers of 1917 and 1918 both French and British really abandoned the idea of a great offensive which should smash the German lines and bring about a decisive victory. Their hope seemed only by defensive action to tire out the Germans and to obtain some sort of negotiated peace. Such a stalemate the American headquarters declined to accept and therefore declined to agree with the Allied desire that our troops should train only for trench warfare and chiefly for the defensive.

Notwithstanding this attitude of our Allies, General Pershing from the beginning insisted that the training of our divisions should be primarily in the attack and the offensive, and much of that training in the rapidly changing incidents of socalled open warfare.

Towards the end of 1917, Allied attacks were only on narrow fronts, with limited objectives and usually only for the improvement of some local situation. But the American headquarters had little use for, or belief in such limited attacks, and on the contrary thought only of a great and unlimited advance on all fronts, and believed such to be possible. The event proved the correctness of the American view. The German lines ultimately were broken by great and unlimited attacks, and our divisions did profit on the other side of the German trenches by their knowledge of warfare in the open to destroy the German divisions beyond.

Source: MAJOR GENERAL H. B. FISKE, U. S. Army, Retired. September, 1940, Quarterly Review of Military Literature Vol. XX, No. 78.

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10578
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#5

Post by tigre » 25 Jun 2016, 14:01

Hello to all :D; a little more.......................

General Pershing and his Headquarters in France

We disagreed also with our Allies as to the value of the rifle. Both French and British said that we spent entirely too much time training our infantry to accurate shooting, particularly at ranges beyond three hundred yards which they said were never used in trench warfare. But traditionally the American is a rifleman; he likes the weapon and takes naturally to training in its use; and his confidence in it adds greatly to the courage and resolute self-reliance of the individual infantryman.

Still another fundamental difference of doctrine was the question of the paramount arm. French doctrine made of the infantry only an arm to clean up and hold ground from which a powerful artillery had blasted the enemy. The American headquarters did not believe that decisive results could be obtained by this necessarily slow and cautious advance with an infantry always tied back to its artillery; it insisted that great results could only be obtained by basing the attack upon a self-reliant infantry as the controlling arm, trained itis true, to work in close cooperation with its artillery as long as the artillery could keep up, but when artillery support could no longer keep up, trained then to rely on its own weapons and to drive on.

For some three months after the Armistice our troops went through a program of intensive training which was bitterly criticized at the time and has been by many ever since. But it must be remembered that the political situation was decidedly uncertain. The Armistice was not necessarily a prelude to peace. It was essential therefore that the negotiations of our Government with the enemy governments should have the physical backing of a strong and efficient body of troops.

The American First Army was constituted 10 August 1918. From then to 12 October, that is during the St. Mihiel offensive and a great part of the Meuse Argonne, General Pershing served in a dual capacity as the immediate commander of the First Army and as the commander in chief of the whole Expeditionary Force. When the Second Army was formed in October and placed under General Bullard, General Pershing relinquished the First Army to General Liggett, and from then on commanded the group of American armies and the entire Expeditionary Force. His staff for the First Army was entirely separate from his staff for the Expeditionary Force.

The American Expeditionary Force had two splendid chiefs of staff, in succession General Harbord, then General McAndrew, and then again at the last General Harbord. But neither of them commanded the Expeditionary Forces. There never was any doubt in anyone's mind over there that Pershing was the dominating and controlling personality.

Source: MAJOR GENERAL H. B. FISKE, U. S. Army, Retired. September, 1940, Quarterly Review of Military Literature Vol. XX, No. 78.

It's all folks. Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 02:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#6

Post by The Ibis » 27 Jun 2016, 21:47

tigre wrote:Hello to all :D; a little more, what follows below represent juicy views on the contribution of the United States to win the war .......................

General Pershing and his Headquarters in France

The most serious difficulty came from the strenuous and determined efforts of the British and the French, acting independently of each other, to secure first the incorporation of American individuals in French and British divisions, and, when it became clear that this idea of obtaining American drafts for foreign commands had no chance of success, then to secure at least the incorporation of American companies or battalions in Allied divisions. This proposal was first made by the Joffre mission in Washington before Pershing sailed for France.
Hi,
Fiske was oversimplifying the matter and the bolded statement is wrong. Elizabeth Greenhalgh's article The Viviani-Joffre Mission to the United States, April–May 1917: A Reassessment (French Historical Studies 35(4):627-659, September 2012), offers a very good summary of the French mission, as well as the competing Balfour Mission sent by the UK a few days earlier in mid-April, 1917. The suggestion for sending specialists and untrained US troops to be drafted by the British and French actually came from General Tom Bridges, the British military representative to the Balfour Mission. The official French Army view was roughly the same, even at that time. However, the French government didn't give Joffre the memo, so (pages 646-647):
In a series of talks in the US Army War College, at the White House, and with Baker between April 25 and May 2, Joffre did not press for amalgamation of American troops into French or British units on the western front, as Bridges had suggested.71 Although Joffre emphasized, like the British, that men were needed to bolster the faltering Entente armies, he knew that the Americans would never accept amalgamation. He had already spent two years dealing with the British ally and its army, and so it is not surprising that he should have realized so speedily what the Americans would or would not accept. His solution was an offer to provide all the necessary arms for a single US division, in order to speed several thousand fresh troops across the Atlantic to France.72 When President Wilson told Joffre during their May 2 interview that the American army lacked artillery, Joffre was explicit: “France can supply all you need for the first division, from field guns (58 and 75 mm) to the heavy artillery that you lack.”74 If this offer is less spontaneous than is sometimes claimed, since it reflects both Logan’s studies made in Paris and Painlevé's telegram, nonetheless it was an offer not easily retracted. Wilson accepted. He wrote to Baker the next day that he “allowed General Joffre to take it for granted” that an expeditionary force would be sent to France as soon as possible.75
Greenhalgh goes on to write (pages 654):
Nor was Joffre’s other promise—autonomy for the American army—welcome, even though it was known that the Americans would never accept anything less than total autonomy. (Pershing’s instructions—cooperation but independence—are similar to those given to the British commander in chief.)111 Soon after his return, Joffre had to defend his actions in conference with Generals Pétain and Foch, now commander in chief and chief of staff of the army, respectively. Pétain wanted to enroll volunteers into French units, although accepting autonomy as “le but final” (the ultimate goal), but Joffre rejected this. Foch had already told Joffre that the latter’s role was that of “haut conseiller” but that the French ministry would take the decisions and ensure their execution, despite Joffe’s protest that he could not accept such a backseat role.112 Even Tardieu in Washington tried to change the bases of the arrangement that Joffre had concluded. Soon after his arrival Tardieu wrote to Ribot suggesting that “other forms of military collaboration” should be used in addition to the Joffre scheme. Because the number of available ships would never be sufficient to transport to France all the men who would be conscripted (and shipping was indeed the major problem in 1917), Americans might be enrolled as volunteers in French units. Tardieu admitted that such a procedure could not have been requested straight off, but eventually it might become acceptable. Again, Joffre defended his decision. If such enrollments were permitted, there was no reason why Americans would not join British units (after all, they spoke the same language), thereby depriving France of “la tutelle et le contrôle” (supervision and inspection) over the American army’s development.113 Indeed, the question of amalgamating American manpower into Allied units never disappeared; Pétain made strong representations about the question in the winter of 1917-18.114 Even the principle of using French instructors to train American troops became more and more contentious.115
Therefore, to the extent that amalgamation was ever on the table (and it most likely never was), Joffre helped ensure the idea would be stillborn, rather than the reverse.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10578
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#7

Post by tigre » 27 Jun 2016, 22:37

Thanks for sharing that point of view on this subject :wink:. Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

User avatar
Prosper Vandenbroucke
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 08 Feb 2005, 16:52
Location: Braine le Comte - Belgium
Contact:

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#8

Post by Prosper Vandenbroucke » 27 Jun 2016, 22:51

Hello to all,
I think that the first headquarters of General Pershing when he arrived in France in 1917 were located in Paris in a building dated of the XVIII th century known actually as "Pershing Hall" :
http://americancenterfrance.org/front/i ... =110&pos=3
In September 1917 his second headquarters werre transferred to Chaumont sur Marne (Haute-Marne)
Image
http://leslivresdejt.canalblog.com/arch ... 44891.html
The third and definitively Headquaters were located in the Damrémont barracks
Image
http://ricain-du-52.skyrock.com/3173241 ... nt-52.html
http://ricain-du-52.skyrock.com/3173163 ... SERNE.html

Kindly regards from Belgium and sorry for my poor english knowledge.
Prosper :wink: :wink:

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10578
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#9

Post by tigre » 28 Jun 2016, 04:26

Thanks for sharing those pictures Prosper :wink:. Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10578
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#10

Post by tigre » 19 Jan 2021, 00:58

Hello to all :D; a little more.......................

General Pershing and his Headquarters in France

Source: Military Review. Sep 1940.

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
Attachments
image084.jpg
(Reading from left to right) Front row: General Fiske, G-5; General McAndrew, Chief of Staff; General Pershing; General Conner, G-3; General Moseley, G-4.
Back row: General Andrews, G-1; General Eltinge, Deputy Chief of Staff; General Nolan, G-2; General Davis, Adjutant General.
November 1, 1918...............................
image084.jpg (55.78 KiB) Viewed 1087 times

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10063
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#11

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 20 Jan 2021, 07:55

Would the 'General Connor, G3' be Fox Connor who Eisenhowers biographers refer to as a important influence on Ike?

User avatar
Glenn2438
Host - Austria-Hungary section
Posts: 3174
Joined: 17 Mar 2002, 17:24
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#12

Post by Glenn2438 » 21 Jan 2021, 12:41

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 07:55
Would the 'General Connor, G3' be Fox Connor who Eisenhowers biographers refer to as a important influence on Ike?
yes

regards
Glenn

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10063
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#13

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 21 Jan 2021, 17:41

Ah yes. There is the same photo in Fox Connors biographies. Thanks

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#14

Post by daveshoup2MD » 15 Mar 2021, 08:06

tigre wrote:
12 Jun 2016, 22:04
Hello to all :D; a little story on this............................

General Pershing and his Headquarters in France

(snip)

General Staff of the A.E. F. (AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES) on November 01, 1918.

CiC: General Pershing; Chief of Staff: General McAndrew; Deputy Chief of Staff: General Eltinge; G-1: General Andrews; G-2: General Nolan; G-3: General Conner; G-4: General Moseley; G-5: General Fiske; Adjutant General: General Davis.

Source: MAJOR GENERAL H. B. FISKE, U. S. Army, Retired. September, 1940, Quarterly Review of Military Literature Vol. XX, No. 78.

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
Thanks for posting; very interesting posts/thread, and helps in illuminating why coalition warfare is never simple.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10578
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: General Pershing's HQ in France.

#15

Post by tigre » 27 Mar 2021, 12:27

You're welcome :wink:. Raúl M 8-).

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”