The Argonne.

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The Argonne.

#46

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Oct 2018, 03:10

Plain Old Dave wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 02:51
Terry Duncan wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 02:36
Plain Old Dave wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 02:35
Go ahead.

I still think the forum is ust not prepared to admit the British and French were losing the war before the Navy and AEF arrived.
Go ahead and what? You still have not replied.
What three questions?

And I think you're looking for me to admit the AEF made a negligible contribution. I will never do that because it's not true.
So is von Kluck reliable on the advance to the Marne and retreat to the Aisne?

Is Bulow reliable on the same subject?

Is the first-hand account by French of the meeting between Kitchener and French before the counterattack at the Marne reliable (Kitchener died and left no record of the meeting from his side and only the two were in the room), so should we accept French's word for what took place?

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: The Argonne.

#47

Post by Plain Old Dave » 02 Oct 2018, 04:14

They were actually there, No?


User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The Argonne.

#48

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Oct 2018, 05:19

Plain Old Dave wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 04:14
They were actually there, No?
Yes, all there were in direct command of their respective armies, 1st German Army, 2nd German Army, and BEF.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: The Argonne.

#49

Post by Plain Old Dave » 02 Oct 2018, 05:54

Well, I would prioritize them over any peer reviewed academia then.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: The Argonne.

#50

Post by pugsville » 02 Oct 2018, 06:40

Plain Old Dave wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 05:54
Well, I would prioritize them over any peer reviewed academia then.
I think it has clearly been shown that Generals accounts of their campaigns is generally one of boasting, blame laying and myth making rather than decent history,

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: The Argonne.

#51

Post by Sheldrake » 02 Oct 2018, 10:10

All written sources have a bias of some sort. This is obvious in the case of the memoirs of some embittered failed general, but not so obvious in other works. The memoirs are worth reading, especially from different sides, to obtain balance.

Part of the value of peer reviewed academic works is that they usually include a review of the literature and have some guarantee of objectivity.

Douglas V Mastriano wrote the section on the Meuse Argonne for the British Army's Battlefield Guide to the Western Front. In addition to his own book, "Thunder in the Argonne" he recommends Mott's memoirs of Marshal Foch, Pershing's memoirs: "My experiences in the world war" and Grotlueschen's "The AEF Way of War"

I would add the ABMC "American battles and Monuments in France"

Recently I took a descendant of a Doughboy to the places his grandfather served in St Mihel and the Argonne as a gunner in one of the Field Artillery Regiments of the 55th Field Artillery Brigade. This was the orphaned artillery brigade from the 50th Tennessee Division, whose infantry served with the BEF. I was staggered by the mismanagement of the artillery regiment. Its horses were mistreated throughout the last three weeks of September such that the unit was immobilised by the end of September. I( find it amazing that a unit recruited from countrymen, initially intended as a cavalry should fail to keep its's horses healthy enough to function. Was this another manifestation of Pershing's ethos? Or was it an organisational failure at a lower level? BTW here are some holiday snaps from the trip we did.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/FRVti2YDLGI[/youtube]

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The Argonne.

#52

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Oct 2018, 11:56

Plain Old Dave wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 05:54
Well, I would prioritize them over any peer reviewed academia then.
This is where you may find a problem with your method then. With regards to the German 1st and 2nd Armies, Kluck and Bulow respectively, they famously blamed each other for almost everything that could be said to have gone wrong, each making out they were just about to win a crushing victory when the other snatched it away from them. Obviously both cannot be correct. Sir John French was one of, if the THE, most unprincipled liar ever to have held the rank field marshall in the British armed forces of the 20thC. Prior to the Marne he insisted the BEF needed months to refit and replenish its losses and had no option but to sit out of any fighting until that was complete. This led to Kitchener visiting him, in full field marshalls uniform, and in a meeting with just the two present we are expected to believe that French not only made clear he was unappreciative of Kitchener appearing in uniform in front of him (despite Kitchener outranking him as the senior holder of the office, not to mention being minister of war too!) and that after a frank exchange, Kitchener had accepted French's assessment of the situation. However, the problem with this version of events is that French turned his forces around and did exactly as Kitchener had gone to France to intruct him to do, with no more heard about how impossible it was for the BEF to fight again. He later went on to have his senior general (Smith-Dorien, who he had despised for years due to having replaced him at the Aldershot command and not placed such a high value on cavalry) removed and his reputation smeered despite all other generals present insisting French's version of events had never happened.

Finally, the most notable example of this sort of problem I can think of is the famous 'Jutland Controversy' where Beatty, the BCF commander who had done next to nothing to win the battle, been confused enough to steam in a complete circle while 'chasing' the enemy, and who had been forced to send his ships for gunnery practice, was by the time of the writing of the 'Official History' then the head of the navy as First Sea Lord. When he saw the account written up by Harper (including his 'circle') demanded it be rewritten to place his ships in the main role and to diminish the efect of the main fleet under Jellicoe. Fortunately, once Harper retired (although Vice Admirals do not retire as such he left the serving list) he published his account 'The Truth About Jutland' to expose the lies Beatty had built much of his later career and reputation off of. Beatty had instructed him that the circle must be explained as 'two successive 180 degree turns' with no order between the first and second turn, so it looked as though he had known what he was doing to the causal reader. A nice neutral link to a outline of this here;

https://navalinstitute.com.au/the-jutla ... ea-battle/

So, as is easily demonstrated, memoirs and official histories are not really too reliable at all. This becomes more notable with time as more details become available to people with far less of an agenda to secure their reputation, often many decades later. Harper's account of Jutland has since proven instrumental in finding the wreck of Beatty's first loss of Jutland (his own charts and version of events being miles off) within a mile or two of where Harper stated the loss had taken place, and in the condition he stated too (the stern destroyed by an explosion not mentioned in most accounts since)! Look up every example I have cited in this post, all are memoirs that are known to be highly unreliable!

Finally, the all important outbreak of WWI was covered by publications from almost every nation involved within weeks of the war begining. These are the 'coloured books' that have become quite infamous, as all are official versions of events and full of lies or notable for omitting anything even slightly unfavourable to their own side! Historians are also not always reliable, but as their reputation rests on peer review well into the future, those who lied in one way or other, find nobody cites their work anymore or even worse, people in forums laugh about them. Like Mosier.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The Argonne.

#53

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Oct 2018, 12:03

Sheldrake wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 10:10
I was staggered by the mismanagement of the artillery regiment. Its horses were mistreated throughout the last three weeks of September such that the unit was immobilised by the end of September. I( find it amazing that a unit recruited from countrymen, initially intended as a cavalry should fail to keep its's horses healthy enough to function.
Oddly enough this was something French cavalry seems to have had a problem with to some degree, as their cavalry at the time of Napoleon were not always overly good at horse care, and iirc Sordet's cavalry in the opening of WWI had problems with some units failing to remove saddles causing people to say you could smell the sores this caused. The US were the only element in the Peeking Legations siege that refused to eat horse meat, as they felt the horse was a noble friend, but it is possible the people in the artillery unit in question had not been overly familiar with horses prior to being conscripted.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The Argonne.

#54

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Oct 2018, 13:32

A trolling post from Plain Old Dave was removed by this moderator. Any similar posts will be removed without further warning.

Plain Old Dave.

If you are unwilling to learn and unable to hold a civil and productive conversation with people here, please feel free to cease posting at your convenience. Maybe you should consider your attitude towards others, trolling and avoiding giving an answer are not appreciated and against the forum rules.

T. Duncan

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The Argonne.

#55

Post by MarkN » 02 Oct 2018, 14:49

Terry Duncan wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 11:56
So, as is easily demonstrated, memoirs and official histories are not really too reliable at all. This becomes more notable with time as more details become available to people with far less of an agenda to secure their reputation, often many decades later.
When reading the memoirs or 'history' by one of the key (decision-making) particpants, I take the approach that it is a record or what that person thought had happened, modified by their own hindsight, and an attempt to portray themselves in the best light possible. In effect, the record can be up to three steps from reality. In other words, at best, they are likely to be a personal view of a (slightly) rose-tinted history rather than a true historical record.

Official histories are often a great resource in that the authors have generally had access to the primary documentation that often remains unavailable to others for many years to come. But, being the official history, they almost always veer towards a national bias.

For anybody to read consider either as 'gospel' is naivety in the extreme.

To dismiss anything that contradicts these works as "fake news" is just plain daft.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The Argonne.

#56

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Oct 2018, 15:04

MarkN wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 14:49
Terry Duncan wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 11:56
So, as is easily demonstrated, memoirs and official histories are not really too reliable at all. This becomes more notable with time as more details become available to people with far less of an agenda to secure their reputation, often many decades later.
When reading the memoirs or 'history' by one of the key (decision-making) particpants, I take the approach that it is a record or what that person thought had happened, modified by their own hindsight, and an attempt to portray themselves in the best light possible. In effect, the record can be up to three steps from reality. In other words, at best, they are likely to be a personal view of a (slightly) rose-tinted history rather than a true historical record.

Official histories are often a great resource in that the authors have generally had access to the primary documentation that often remains unavailable to others for many years to come. But, being the official history, they almost always veer towards a national bias.

For anybody to read consider either as 'gospel' is naivety in the extreme.

To dismiss anything that contradicts these works as "fake news" is just plain daft.
This is what I have been trying to get across, but apparently there is no chance Sims could ever be wrong - despite all the evidence to suggest he was exactly that. I suppose many years ago people believing Lloyd-George et al set the tone, we are still catering with the results today!

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The Argonne.

#57

Post by MarkN » 02 Oct 2018, 15:30

Terry Duncan wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 15:04
MarkN wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 14:49
Terry Duncan wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 11:56
So, as is easily demonstrated, memoirs and official histories are not really too reliable at all. This becomes more notable with time as more details become available to people with far less of an agenda to secure their reputation, often many decades later.
When reading the memoirs or 'history' by one of the key (decision-making) particpants, I take the approach that it is a record or what that person thought had happened, modified by their own hindsight, and an attempt to portray themselves in the best light possible. In effect, the record can be up to three steps from reality. In other words, at best, they are likely to be a personal view of a (slightly) rose-tinted history rather than a true historical record.

Official histories are often a great resource in that the authors have generally had access to the primary documentation that often remains unavailable to others for many years to come. But, being the official history, they almost always veer towards a national bias.

For anybody to read consider either as 'gospel' is naivety in the extreme.

To dismiss anything that contradicts these works as "fake news" is just plain daft.
This is what I have been trying to get across, but apparently there is no chance Sims could ever be wrong - despite all the evidence to suggest he was exactly that. I suppose many years ago people believing Lloyd-George et al set the tone, we are still catering with his results today!
I know Terry Duncan; your posts have been quite clear in their intent and purpose.

However, what I've detected is that POD also understands this equally as well as you and I. His repeated slippery one liners confirm (not deny) just that. He has the intelligence and understanding to grasp the degree of credibility of the written words he reads.

The issue is not, as I see it, about trying to encourage him to see reason and common sense but that he is deliberately trying to promote and disseminate a false counterfactual history. That cannot be 'moderated' through respectful discussion and evidence based thought. POD knows that Sims is wrong in certain areas, but cannot say so as that would undermine his core beliefs. The extremist, expecially those following a false prophet, cannot be reasoned with. You cannot convince an jihadist that god (insert Sims) and Muhammed/Jesus/Abraham/Moses (insert Mosier) did not preach infallibly. Their world is inside-out compared to ours. Historical facts are fake news; discredit narratives are the holy gospel. To them, saying different just proves blasphemy.

Different types of trolls require different approaches to 'moderation'. Intelligent discussion is not a cap that fits all.

MarkNote: I must stop using POD. Brings back memories of Mike Jackson (General Sir).....

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The Argonne.

#58

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Oct 2018, 16:29

A further pointless post that contributed nothing from Plain Old Dave was removed by this moderator.

Plain Old Dave.

Further posts that avoid answering directly asked questions, contribute nothing, or where you simply repeat yourself, will be removed without warning. It is not an option to ignore forum staff here, the senior admins take a very dim view of such an attitude, so please follow the rules or you will likely find yourself having some time to reflect on your attitude when the senior staff review your behaviour.

T Duncan.

Latze
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 08 May 2010, 17:55

Re: The Argonne.

#59

Post by Latze » 04 Oct 2018, 00:36

"When we were attacking over that field I hadn't thought much about the men we were losing. You never do. You can't see everything and you you're thinking mostly about where and how many are the Jerries ahead of you. You mostly don't see your men get hit and when you count up and report afterward that you're short three or a dozen it's just figures. And the most important figures are how many rifles and automatics do you have left for the next push or to hold what you've got? Bit this time going back along the trace of the platoon advance we got a real good look at what it meant. They were dotted all over here and there, twenty-two good men down in that area where the barrage had hit us. About half were in the open, dead. The heads in sight were those of the wounded who could crawl to a shell hole. And there was a shell hole within easy crawling distance of everyone in the area. I found Manning, looked like he'd taken a 77-mm. instant-fused shell in his right hip. The only way I could be sure it was Manning was the beauty pin that was fastening the legging tape on the remains leg which was tenuously attached to the faceless torso. And two of his men in a nearby hole, a lung shot and a foot off, were saying, «Try to get stretcher men up for us, sarge.» I knew that the stretcher bearers were probably two days behind schedule right now but of course I told them, «Sure, first stretcher men we'll see we'll get them right up here. Take it easy.» In a case like this you know that they're both dead, not from wounds, from exposure and pneumonia. Sure took all the fun out of the war."

William S. Triplet " A Youth in the Meuse-Argonne. A Memoir, 1917-1918", edited by Robert H. Ferrell, University of Missouri Press, 2000

I am certainly not well versed in the autobiographical literature of members of the AEF. Still, I would recommend this volume to everybody interested in the American experience of the Great War. I stumbled upon this book after reading Triplet's 2nd World War memoir "A colonel in the Armored Divisions". Also a great and enlightening read. Discovered and published by an academic historian. 'nuff said.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: The Argonne.

#60

Post by Andy H » 07 Oct 2018, 01:34

pugsville wrote:
30 Sep 2018, 09:11
Plain Old Dave wrote:
26 Sep 2018, 12:35
People here keep saying that the AEF was "ignorant" of modern warfare.
Mainly because that's the actual facts,

They were badly trained, badly organized, badly coordinated and badly led,

Aside from that they were good. The training and organization in the USA of the AEF was abysmally bad. Their officers were barely trained, the NCO''s basically the guys who arrived on Monday for the soldiers who arrived trues day, Some of that was rectified with the training in France, but the AEF was an army with almost zero experience, with barely adequate training in a confused tactical doctrine, with a green inexperience and badly trained leadership.

It's performance was modest Success was achieved at a high cost against a beaten enemy. the Actual impact of the AEF as a fighting force was minimal.
It's moral effect and it's existence definitely had large effects on the strategic planning and outlook of both sides,
Hi

Wawro for whom it seems for Plain Old Dave can write no wrong, wrote this about the Argonne battle, when doing a review for the Association of the United States Army about Douglas Mastriano's new book on the matter "In this, the centennial year of the great battles that decided World War I on the Western Front, Douglas V. Mastriano’s Thunder in the Argonne arrives as a solid, concise analysis of the crucial, decisive and deeply flawed American offensive in the Meuse-Argonne, France" and "Thunder in the Argonne recreates the confusion bordering on madness of the seven-week battle as Gen. John J. Pershing, flailed by Allied criticism of his operations, forced his generals to launch hopeless offensives against German artillery and machine guns. The casualties were predictably monstrous"

So whilst you may vex over whether the AEF was ignorant of the facts, they were clearly ignorant of their application and efficacy.

Regards

Andy H

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”