Now all roads lead to France and heavy is the tread
Of the living; but the dead returning lightly dance.
Edward Thomas, Roads

Sunday, July 23, 2017

An Earlier Contribution of the AEF: Doctors and Nurses for the Allies



There was an unexpected windfall for the Allies when America joined the war—help with the enormous load of casualties in the 1917 campaign. The first American military installation in France during World War I was Base Hospital No.4 (Cleveland), which arrived to cheering French crowds on 25 May 1917, 19 days ahead of General Pershing and the nucleus of his American Expeditionary Force staff. Also known as the Lakeside Unit, the Cleveland unit served at Rouen throughout the war. American physicians, nurses, and enlisted men such as these would be the earliest AEF participants to face the possibility of death and destruction—actually months before the first American soldiers would see combat. 

The British relied heavily on these American units. By 1917 their Medical Department was having trouble handling the massive numbers of casualties. The numbers of casualties treated by the American base hospitals with the British demonstrates the heavy load of patients. 



Base Hospital No.4 treated 82,179; No. 10 treated 47,811; and No. 21 treated about 60,000. These numbers do not include the numbers of patients the Americans treated at the Casualty Clearing Stations or while working with British units. Overall, a daily average of approximately 800 officers, 600 nurses, and 1,100 soldiers was serving with the British. 

One of the hazards they faced was German night bomber raids, which attacked hospitals despite the Red Cross markings. Tragedy struck 4 September 1917, when the Germans bombed Base Hospital No. 5 at Camiers, killing Lieutenant William T. Fitzsimmons and Privates Oscar C. Tugo, Rudolph Rubino, Jr., and Leslie G. Woods, who became the first AEF casualties by enemy action..

Sources: U.S. Army Surgeon General Reports and Official History

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Chinese Labor Battalions on the Western Front

The Chinese Labor Corps (CLC) was a force of workers recruited by the British government in World War I to free troops for frontline duty by performing support work and manual labor. The French government also recruited a significant number of Chinese laborers, and although those laborers working for the French were recruited separately and not part of the CLC, they are often considered to be so. In all, some 140,000 men served for both British and French forces before the war ended, and most of the men were repatriated to China between 1918 and 1920. Below is an example of how an unnamed British war correspondent described his first encounter with these men.

CLC Workers on the Boulogne Docks


From: War Illustrated, 27 July 1918


Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet

The thought embodied in this hackneyed line of Kipling is but one of many accepted conventions which the Great War has challenged. They who talked rather vaguely at first about a "world war" have long since been able to talk definitely. In a way which they could not dimly have visioned, during the earlier months of the struggle, it has truly developed into a world war, wherein East and West have been fated to "meet."

On my first war-time crossing of the Channel, among the ships of the convoy were two steamers from whose upper decks multitudes of strange folk looked across at us. They were all dressed alike in long, loose-fitting cloaks of ruddy brown material, and they wore little caps with cat-flaps not unlike those donned by our airmen when aloft. Their hair was jet black, their strange, expressionless' faces berry brown. They were Manchurians nearing the land of war to give their labor to the cause of Britain – for a sound, commercial consideration be it premised. Figure what it means to sign a contract for three years' work at a place over six thousand miles away from your home! And those Chinamen, when I first saw them at a Channel port, might have been on a day's outing, if one could have judged by the unruffled calm of their faces.

CLC Workers at a Tank Repair Yard

At that time one had heard vaguely about "Chinese labor," but here was its embodiment in these two shiploads of grinning Orientals, who looked so curiously alike that one seemed to see the same man a hundred times over.  It is a success – one of our real war successes. These Chinamen can and do, work well, and thus augmenting the labor power behind the lines, release men for the fighting-front. They are not all mere unskilled laborers. Many of them are craftsmen, and these are carefully sorted out and put to superior work, receiving special pay. Most of all these Chinamen interested me. I felt that East and West had met, and, working as they were to a common end, though differently impelled, there would be some interfusion of thought which would in a future day help towards a kinship of humanity where Kipling saw only a cleavage.

Source: Wikipedia, Relevance

Friday, July 21, 2017

The Great War's 101 Defining Events: Numbers 81–90


81–90

(click on image to enlarge)

This series will run every Friday on Roads to the Great War through its completion.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Tolkien's Unique View of the War

We recently re-watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy at home thanks to Netflix. It was a most rewarding experience and it reminded me of a piece that O'Brien Browne contributed to the journal Relevance when I was editing it back then. Here is the pertinent section:

The popular image of WWI "war literature" is exemplified by the sarcastic irony of writers like Siegfried Sassoon, or the tragic compassion of Wilfred Owen. Paul Fussell's powerful and immensely influential, brilliantly crystallized these themes. Fussell's subtle, multi-layered arguments have been grossly misconstrued by academics, modern novelists, and even film makers, but his ultimate point is that the romantic epic suffered a fatal wound in the "stupid" and "senseless" First World War.

J.R.R. Tolkien During the War
Tolkien, however, shows us that this is a misconception. In stark contrast to the disillusionment and anti-war sentiment of the post-war period, Tolkien unabashedly kept alive the tradition of war as a noble and romantic ideal. He not only rejected modernism but also revived the heroic epic along with concepts of Faërie and pastoral romanticism in English literature. In so doing, Tolkien—one of the most interesting and influential writers of the 20th century—has sold millions of copies of his books around the world, and he is easily the most widely read writer to emerge from the inferno of WWI. Despite what the poets and academics tell us, the romantic epic lives on with vigor and dash in Tolkien's cavalry charges, beautiful princesses, lush green vistas, and shimmering enchanted forests.

But creativity has its costs. Like many ex-soldiers, Tolkien downplayed, suppressed, ignored, and even outright denied the effects of the war on him. "One War is enough for any man," he told his son. Yet its affects stayed with him all his long life. In 1940, writing to his son Michael, who had volunteered to fight in WWII, Tolkien hinted at the things he had lost in the First War, "I was pitched into it all, just when I was full of stuff to write, and of things to learn; and never picked it all up again." There is no real happy ending in Tolkien. His characters are put to great ordeals from which they emerge transformed. Frodo, for instance, is physically and mentally scarred, his life forever altered by what he has gone through, the things he has lost. 

He is one of the walking wounded. By not killing off Frodo, ex-soldier Tolkien is telling us that the pain of death is momentary, but the pain of life is long-lasting and cuts deep. The trick is not merely survival, then, but how one survives. Tolkien had experienced pain all his life—the early deaths of his parents, financial hardships, the war; his memories must have been awful at times. Thus, like many of us, he retreated into his mind and found there a land of heroes, beauty and great deeds. And when war came to his four Hobbit heroes, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, Tolkien could not bring himself to let them die; he had lost friends in a real war and he wasn't about to lose any more in a fictional one. But still, the memories remained. "I can see clearly now in my mind's eye," Tolkien recalled as an old man, "the old trenches and the squalid houses and the long roads of Artois, and I would visit them again if I could…" He never did, except in his books.

The war changed Tolkien. It injected loss and sadness and pain into his writing. It made his descriptions more poignant, more real. Mordor could not have existed had Tolkien not experienced it firsthand on the Somme. But the war taught him to value positive things as well, such as pity, heroism, loyalty, and the meaning of friendship—themes which run throughout all of his works. "May God bless you, my dear John Ronald," Rob Gilson had written Tolkien from the trenches shortly before he was killed, "and may you say the things I have tried to say long after I am not there to say them." Tolkien said them, and through his memories and through his words he paid homage to his little group of dreamy, ambitious friends who had gone off to fight in the Great War of their times. And his books have enriched all of our lives.

Source:  Relevance, Fall 2009

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

A Raptor Pilot on the 21st-Century Relevance of Boelcke's Dicta

Today at Langley AFB, Virginia, the 1st Fighter Wing of the U.S. Air Force operates and maintains the F-22A Raptor and F-15 Eagle. The wing is organized into two groups: an Operations Group and a Maintenance Group. Of three fighter squadrons in the Operations Group, the two that fly the state-of-the-art F-22 Raptor both distinguished themselves in the Great War: the 27th Fighter Squadron (FS), now known as the Fightin' Eagles, and the 94th FS, now known as the Hat-in-the-Ring Gang.

The Wing is a direct descendant of the famed 1st Pursuit Group from the war with both Raptor squadrons sharing that lineage. In World War I, when it was originally known as the 1st Pursuit Organization and Training Center, the Wing scored the first aerial victories of the U.S. Air Service in France by Lts. Alan Winslow (over an Albatros D.V) and Douglas Campbell (Pfalz D.III) from the 94th Aero Squadron. By the time the war ended, the unit's name had been changed to the 1st Pursuit Group and it had earned 202 confirmed kills. Its roster of pilots included Medal of Honor recipients Frank Luke and Eddie Rickenbacker.


In 2010 I had the opportunity to interview Major David "Zeke" Skalicky who then flew the Raptor demonstration missions for the Wing.  I was curious if modern fighter pilots, flying 5th generation aircraft consider Oswald Boelcke's rules of aerial combat–Boelcke's Dicta–still relevant. His answer's were surprising and interesting.

MH: The German aviator Oswald Boelcke developed a set of rules for fighter pilots known as Dicta Boelcke. Richthofen, for instance, swore by them. Are they still valid? Are there new rules for 21st-century fighter pilots?

DS: F-22 tactics are written in classified manuals known as TTP (tactics, techniques, and procedures). They provide general and specific guidance for how to effectively employ the aircraft in a wide variety of scenarios. While I can't discuss any Raptor specific details in this forum, I can comment on Boelcke's principles in general. Most of Boelcke's principles are still valid in modern
aerial combat. Let's step through them:

1: Try to secure advantages before attacking. If possible keep the sun behind you.

Absolutely! For the Raptor, stealth helps secure the advantage of surprise before attacking. Putting the sun at your back can make it hard for an enemy to find you with his eyes or infrared sensors.

2: Always carry through an attack when you started it.

At close range, in general, I'd say that's true. Aborting an attack at close range can potentially leave you defenseless to the enemy's weapons. Most attacks nowadays. however, start at very long range with beyond-visual-range (BVR) weapons. You may start an attack on an enemy who appears to be making a run at your territory but abort it if he turns around or doesn't show hostile intent (such as a defector).

3: Fire only at close range and only when your opponent is properly in your sights.

Caveat: The gun was the only aerial weapon when Boelcke was flying. Shot range depends on an infinite number of variables; the type of adversary, his capabilities, your weapons available, number of follow-on enemies, proximity to friendly forces, etc. Only taking valid missiles and/or gun shots, however, is universally a good idea.

4: Always keep your eye on your opponent and never let yourself be deceived by ruses.

There isn't a single fighter pilot alive today that hasn't heard, "…can't fight what you can't see" and "…lose sight, lose the fight". They remain as true today as they were back then. Stealth gives the Raptor a huge advantage in this area.

5: In any form of attack it is essential to assail your opponent from behind.

Agreed, the most stable gun shot is from the opponent's six o'clock. However, modern aerial weapons mean it is not always essential you attack from behind your opponent.

6: If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught but fly to meet him.

In a visual engagement, absolutely! Meet him head on and may the best man win. Turning to run will most likely leave you defensive from a diving opponent with more energy.

7: When over the enemy's line never forget your own line of retreat.

Always leave yourself an out. Getting outflanked or putting yourself into a situation where your only option is to continue attacking in one direction makes you very predictable and an easier target.

8: For the Squadron: Attack on principle in groups of four or six. When the fight breaks up into a series of single combats take care that several do not go for one opponent.

To me, this addresses the concept of proportionality. Proportionality is a key concept for an aerial mission commander to consider. In Richthofen's era, a single attacker was proportional and effective against a single enemy. Today a single attacker may be effective against one, two, or ten enemies, depending on the type of adversary and capabilities of the weapons system. A mission commander must consider that sending four attackers against a single enemy is probably not an efficient use of his resources. He must also consider that dividing his forces into "raging singletons" may reduce their mutual support for one another and decrease survivability and effectiveness. An updated wording may be "commit forces in a proportional manner to the threat posed by your opponent."

MH:  Thank you, Major Skalicky

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

The American Experience: The Great War
Reviewed by Clark Shilling


The American Experience: The Great War

Presented by PBS Television
10–12 April 2017

This documentary, premiering on 10 April on PBS, consists of three two-hour episodes. It follows the standard documentary format of showing period photos and film footage presented by a narrator, in this case Oliver Platt. Actors portray participants through voice-overs, and historians add their perspectives to carry forward the narrative.

Heading for France

The first episode covers the period from the start of the war in August 1914, down to the American declaration of war in April 1917. Woodrow Wilson is the central character of this episode, which traces the arc of Wilson's evolution from a neutral leader to an ambitious peace broker, to finally a reluctant belligerent. One of the key themes of this episode, and indeed the entire series, is how the United States in the early 20th century was such a diverse and divided nation. Due to several decades of high immigration from Europe, one third of the American population in 1917 was either foreign-born or first-generation American. Germans were the largest ethnic group. Other ethnic groups such as Jewish Americans and Irish Americans were very much against aid to the Allies due to their hostility to Russia and Britain. At the same time, many young men chose to go to France to fight or to otherwise help the French cause. There was a strong anti-war movement, and one of the largest was led by Jane Addams of settlement house fame. The biggest song hit of 1915 was "I Didn't Raise My Son to be a Solider."

The major story of Episode 2 is the mobilization of the United States both in terms of getting Americans to support the war at home and in organizing and training of the American Expeditionary Forces. Wilson is replaced as the central figure by General John Pershing. America, starting almost from scratch, drafted an army and began training it to fight on the Western Front. African Americans as well as immigrants were included, both groups hoping to gain respect and acceptance in return for their service. As Pershing went to France in the summer of 1917 to prepare the way for his American Army, George Creel built a government public relations empire designed to sell Americans on the war. On the home front, Creel was successful, but support for the war soon grew beyond enthusiasm into repression, acts of vigilantism and an anti-German hysteria. Episode 2 ends as American soldiers join the fight in the summer of 1918 to stop the last desperate German offensive designed to capture Paris.

Episode 3 opens with the Meuse Argonne Offensive and ends with the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles in the U.S. Senate at the end of 1919. Wilson again becomes the central figure for most of this episode. In terms of the fighting, much time is given to the story of the Lost Battalion. Harry Truman, Alvin York, and Eddie Rickenbacker are some of the more famous participants whose war experiences are featured. Some new names are introduced as well. Solomon Lewis and his seven fellow Choctaw Doughboys became the first Indian code talkers. It is ironic that these men, who as children had their mouths washed out with soap when they spoke Choctaw, were called on to used their native language to confuse Germans who were tapping American phone lines. Back in the states, the Spanish Flu epidemic, the activity of suffragettes, as well as increasing repression are the major stories. When the war ended, Wilson was at the height of his influence, said to be the only Allied leader offering the promise of a better world. Most of the last quarter of this episode is spent retelling how Wilson failed in his attempt to make the U.S. the dominant power in the postwar world. His efforts resulted in his physical collapse and his single-minded stubbornness is blamed for killing the treaty and America's participation in the League of Nations.

War Protesters

In all, I enjoyed this program, but I have to give it a mixed review. On the positive side, it presents several stories that have not been told as well before. I have already mentioned the Choctaw code talkers. In addition, I thought they did a remarkable job presenting the African American experience during the war and after, highlighting the exploits of the Harlem Hell Fighters and then going on to described the brutal treatment of black Americans at the hands of white mobs during the Red Summer of 1919. Other very good vignettes include those on the Suffragettes and the Spanish Flu pandemic. For me, the best parts of the documentary are the interviews with various historians, including David M. Kennedy, Richard Slotkin, A. Scott Berg, Jay Winter, and around 20 more. While Kennedy and Winter represent an older generation of historians, the others are historians who, in the last decade, have written new and valuable books on various aspects of America's participation in the war. Much of this documentary appears to have been based on their work. The second time I watched this documentary I jotted down each of their names and then researched what they had written. As a result, I have what I believe is an excellent list of books on World War I for future reading.

Another positive is the visual quality of the documentary. I assume they must have spent time repairing and restoring old photos and film footage, because the detail and clarity of some of the images are stunning in HD. On the negative side, many aspects of the war are not covered in any detail, such as the mobilization of the economy, training and tactics of the AEF and the growth of government. Pershing, Truman, Whittlesey, and Rickenbacker are the only officers of the AEF to get any mention. The military narrative skips the period between the 2nd Battle of the Marne in July, and the start of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in late September.

One of the biggest gripes I had was that in spite of all the resources behind this production, there are many errors in the use of film and photos. For example, while describing fighting on the Western Front in 1914 and 1915, film clips are used showing soldiers wearing steel helmets and gas masks that were not put into service until 1916. In the last episode, describing the final days on the Western front in 1918, footage shows German troops wearing 1914-era Picklehauben, the spiked helmet which was replaced by the iconic Stahlhelm in 1916. Their worst error in my opinion takes place during an otherwise excellent segment about Eddie Rickenbacker and the growth of American air power, when a film clip is used of a squadron of British Hawker Hart biplanes from the 1930s. I really think they should have had someone on the payroll familiar enough with these things to catch any errors.

I'm sure this program will be shown on PBS again as we pass through the last year of the Centennial of World War I. The program can be purchased on DVD from PBS and Amazon, and it can be streamed on Amazon as well. It's well worth watching.

Clark Shilling

Monday, July 17, 2017

100 Years Ago: The British Royal Family Changes Its Name (A Roads Classic)



"I MAY BE UNINSPIRING, BUT I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'M ALIEN."

~ King George V, in response to H. G. Wells's criticism of his "alien” 
[i.e. German-descended] and uninspiring court



Contributed by Assistant Editor Kimball Worcester

Today in 1917 the British royal family changed its surname to Windsor from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The intertwining of the European royal families at the outbreak of war linked just about every one of them to Queen Victoria through her numerous progeny. Her grandchildren were consorts or rulers in five of the combatant countries — Russia, Germany, Rumania, Greece, and Great Britain — and numerous other princes and aristocrats throughout Europe were closely related. This proved especially difficult for the Empress of Russia (née a princess of Hesse-Darmstadt), who, in spite of her neuroses, was always a devout Russian patriot and had a true loathing for the Kaiser, her cousin. She became a natural target for discontent with the regime for this reason of her national origin alone.

Anti-German virulence in Great Britain had its own sad story, with long-naturalized German (or perceived as German) shopkeepers and tradesmen hounded from business and even dachshunds being attacked and vilified. Not a shining moment for a country defending liberty on the Continent. The British royal family itself bore a German name—Saxe [Sachsen]-Coburg-Gotha—the legacy of the marriage of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in 1840. Of course, the royal family was “German” well before the surname became a triple threat; the Hanoverians became British sovereigns in the early 18th century when the last Protestant descendant of the Stuart dynasty died childless (Queen Anne) and the succession jumped sideways to the Protestant Hanoverian descendants of Elizabeth of Bohemia, daughter of King James I of Great Britain. 

George V and his queen, Mary of Teck, ruled Great Britain during the Great War and were faced personally with the increasing anti-German atmosphere. By 1917 it was clear that a strong message had to be proclaimed as to the patriotism of his court and family, and after some internal debate, the king’s private secretary Lord Stamfordham came up with “Windsor”, after the ancient English royal residence used since the 12th century—a stroke of marketing brilliance. In addition, Queen Mary’s family name was changed to Cambridge (and Athlone) and the Battenbergs (who joined the family through Queen Victoria’s daughter Princess Beatrice’s marriage) became the illustrious Mountbattens.

[Note that upon the birth in June 1894 of the future Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor, Queen Victoria wrote to the baby's father, the future George V, that "this will be the Coburg line, like formerly the Plantegenet, the Tudor,...Stewart (sic), & the Brunswicks," always promoting the legacy of Prince Albert. Not to be.]*

Prince Louis of Battenberg, Soon to Become Mountbatten

One Battenberg suffered this xenophobia particularly strongly. Prince Louis of Battenberg was a German-born prince but also a naturalized British subject and career British naval officer who rose to the rank of First Sea Lord in 1912. His wife was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. But anti-German pressure early in the war pushed him to resign his post—a blow to the dedicated officer—and in 1917 he became the 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, relinquishing all German titles as well. His son, Lord Louis Mountbatten, became Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, and, among other things, the last viceroy of India as well as the granduncle and mentor of the present Prince of Wales. He vindicated his father's resignation as First Sea Lord by acquiring the post himself from 1954 to 1959.   

In spite of all this maneuvering to substantiate public Englishness for the royals, George V himself could not have lived or acted more English, as he himself alludes to in his response to Mr. Wells’s assessment. He was the epitome of the stolid English family man; he loved his career in the Royal Navy and would have been content to remain there in relative obscurity had his older brother Prince Arthur not died and catapulted George into the direct succession. He had no problem with being uninspiring. Alien, however, was deeply unjust.


*James Pope-Hennessey, Queen Mary, 1867–1953, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1959. p. 301

Sunday, July 16, 2017

The Loss of USS Jacob Jones



USS Jacob Jones

The first of three U.S. Navy ships named after Barbary Coast War Commodore Jacob Jones, Destroyer DD-61 was laid down 3 August 1914 by New York Shipbuilding Corp.. Camden, N.J. Launched on 29 May 1916, it was sponsored by Mrs. Jerome Parker Crittendon, great-granddaughter of Jacob Jones, and commissioned on 10 February 1917. It was destined to be the first American destroyer lost to enemy fire.

After shakedown, Jacob Jones and her crew of 102 officers and men began training exercises off the New England coast until entering the Philadelphia Navy Yard for repairs. Upon the outbreak of war between the United States and Germany on 6 April 1917, Jacob Jones patrolled off the Virginia coast before departing Boston for Europe on 7 May.

Arriving at Queenstown, Ireland, on 17 May, she immediately began patrol and convoy escort duty in waters of the United Kingdom. On 8 July she picked up 44 survivors of the British steamship Valetta, the victim of a German U-boat. Two weeks later, while escorting British steamship Dafila, Jacob Jones sighted a periscope, but the steamship was torpedoed before an attack on the submarine could be launched. Once again a rescue ship, Jacob Jones took on board 25 survivors of the stricken Dafila.  Throughout the summer the destroyer escorted supply laden convoys and continued rescue operations in submarine-infested waters. On 19 October she picked up 305 survivors of torpedoed British cruiser Orama

U-53 on an Earlier Visit to Newport, Rhode Island

After special escort duty between Ireland and France, she departed Brest, France, on 6 December on her return run to Queenstown. At 1621, as she steamed independently in the vicinity of the Isles of Scilly, her watch sighted a torpedo wake about a thousand yards distant. Although the destroyer maneuvered to escape, the high-speed torpedo struck her starboard side, rupturing her fuel oil tank. The crew worked courageously to save the ship, but as the stern sank, her depth charges exploded. Realizing the situation was hopeless, Comdr. Bagley reluctantly ordered the ship abandoned. Eight minutes after being torpedoed, Jacob Jones sank with 64 men still on board.

Survivors of the Sinking After Rescue

The 38 survivors huddled together on rafts and boats in frigid Atlantic waters off the southwest coast of England. Two of her crew were taken prisoner by attacking submarine U-53 commanded by Kapitän Hans Rose, who had visited America earlier in the war. In a humanitarian gesture rare in modern war, Rose radioed the American base at Queenstown the approximate location and drift of the survivors. He also took two severely injured American sailors aboard. Throughout the night of 6 to 7 December British sloop-of-war Camellia and British liner Catalina conducted rescue operations. By 0830 the following morning HMS Insolent picked up the last survivors of Jacob Jones

Photos:  NAVSource

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Centennial Event: The Doughboys Return to Paris, 14 July 2017


100 Years Ago: 4 July 1917


On 4 July 1917 to Mark the Arrival of American Troops in France the 16th Infantry of the First Division Was Invited to Parade in Paris. Yesterday to Mark the Centennial of that Event and Commemorate the 100th Anniversary of America's Joining the War, the Doughboys Were Invited to Lead France's Annual Bastille Day Parade.



Yesterday: 14 July 2017


The U.S. Color Guard from the 1st Division in Period Uniforms
The Division's Flag and WWI Battle Streamers Displayed


All U.S. Services Were Represented at the Parade


The Parade Advances Down the Champs-Élysées


Flanked by First Lady Melania Trump and 
French President  Emmanuel Macron,
President Donald Trump Salutes the Colors


The USAF Thunderbirds Participated in the Flyover  (Rehearsal Photo)


The American Contingent

Photos from: AP, Breitbart, and Stars and Stripes

Friday, July 14, 2017

The Great War's 101 Defining Events: Numbers 71–80


71–80

(click on image to enlarge)

This series will run every Friday on Roads to the Great War through its completion.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Remembering a Veteran: Elsie Janis, Doughboy Entertainer


In our monthly newsletter the St. Mihiel Trip-Wire, we have been running a monthly contest asking readers to identify a World War I veteran.  This month's entry was Broadway performer Elsie Janis. She spent six months touring the Western Front after America entered the war entertaining the troops. 


In a typical show Elsie would perform her standards and then invite some of the Doughboys on stage with her for a duet. The shows concluded with a group sing-along. The boys loved it all. She became known as the "Sweetheart of the AEF." Her shows became the model for the USO shows of the Second World War.


Less known about Elsie is that after the war she maintained her commitment to the fighting men. Charles Dillingham agreed to produce "Elsie Janis and Her Gang", a revue she created for out-of-work veterans, some of whom she had entertained during the war. Even though most of America didn't want to hear about the war anymore, "Her Gang" was a big success. She wrote about her wartime experiences in The Big Show: My Six Months with the American Expeditionary Forces and recreated them in a 1926 Vitaphone musical short, "Behind the Lines". She recorded the song “It’s A Long, Long Way to Tipperary,” making it her signature piece and helping popularize the tune in America.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

The Kingston Centenary Project–100 Years of Sopwith and Hawker Aviation

By Kimball Worcester

The talented team of Sir Tommy Sopwith, Fred Sigrist, and Harry Hawker contributed significant planes to the British effort in the Great War. Their superior designs and innovations contributed to aviation progress for decades afterwards, into the present day. The Sopwith factory at Kingston on Thames produced the stellar fighter airplanes we all know so well from the Great War: the Pup, the 1 1/2 Strutter, the Camel, the Snipe, the Dolphin, the Salamander, to name some of the most noteworthy. 

In celebration of the 1917–2017 centenary of this contribution to military aviation history, Kingston Aviation is presenting an exhibition on 9 and 10 September at the Great Richmond Road factory, Ham. For us Great War students they will be featuring the Snipe, Dolphin, and Salamander of the later war years. 

For more information see http://www.kingstonaviation.org



In addition ~ please look into the daily newsletter researched and written by David Hassard at the Kingston Aviation Heritage Project http://www.kingstonaviation.org/100-years-ago/1917.html.

The newsletter is an exceptional, thorough, and detailed source for scholars of the Sopwith wartime production. David has been a great help in my research, and I urge you to sign up for his fascinating newsletter on the Kingston site.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Wars Without End, Battles Without Winners
Reviewed by David Beer


Wars Without End, Battles Without Winners: France to Petrograd March 1918-December 1920

by Michael Kihntopf
Outskirts Press, Inc., 2017

Not long ago I was leafing through a list of books and noticed that one title was followed by this subtitle: A Novel/History. It seems the author wanted to make sure prospective readers were in no doubt they would be reading historical fiction. No such specification is needed for Michael Kihntopf's latest novel. His book is unambiguous in its title and provides in considerable detail the ongoing politics and fighting in the Baltic states and Russia in the years preceding and immediately following the Armistice. If you're unsure, as I was, about these tragic years in Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Russia and in towns such as Bialystok, Liegnitz, Libau, Mitau, Riga, and Narva, you will certainly gain some insights as you read this book. You'll also appreciate why Winston Churchill, in his noted history The World Crisis, titled the volume on this theater of combat "The Unknown War."

Freikorps Unit Support by a Captured British Mark-Series Tank

Four main German characters tie the novel together. One is Max von Kemper, a lieutenant in the Kaiser's infantry who has already survived some three years of fighting on the Eastern and Western Fronts. Kemper is a penniless remnant of a once aristocratic Junker family from East Prussia. Two machine gunners, Michael Boehm and his chum Otto Faltz, are hard-bitten "front line hogs" who easily become soldiers of fortune in the evolving Baltic wars once the Great War ends. The fourth person is Teresa Strumpf, an orphan from Essen who was a waitress in a beer hall before taking to nursing the wounded as a Sister of Mercy. Her one hope is to find a slightly wounded but wealthy patient who will fall in love and marry her.

We meet these four early in the novel as they awake in quite different places. Kemper has found "There is no place that is more comfortable than the bed of a professional prostitute." The two pals Boehm and Faltz painfully regain consciousness after an uproariously drunken night, Boehm finding himself sprawled over a table and Faltz "in the middle of the billiard table curled into a fetal ball." Only Teresa Strumpf awakens to a flickering candle and the cold reality of war as she prepares to go on her shift at two in the morning. Surprisingly, she has become an efficient—if disappointed—Sister of Mercy. The story hinges on the chance ways the four come together during varied peregrinations and crises, and their encounters are surrounded by considerable description of the military movements, brutal weather and murderous nature of the civil wars in northern Europe from 1918 to 1920.

The author is well versed in the complicated political and military involvements of the Baltic lands during these years. It's hard to remember that many of the combatants were volunteers, fighting more for rewards than convictions. Military units were fairly arbitrary and often changing. The Freikorps were part of the Bischoff Iron Brigade and were aided by the Hanoverians in fighting the Red Army, among whom is "the dreaded Latvian Corps." The men fighting in these units and sub-units form a motley band, dressed in various garb from various armies and quite prepared to plunder and kill wounded enemies. The conditions they tolerate, especially subfreezing cold and absence of food and supplies, are awful. If they do get paid, it might be in any one of numerous questionable currencies that seem to be available.

We learn all this and much more from Michael Kihntopf's novel, which in some ways is a chronicle of "The Unknown War." Sometimes I felt history trumped fiction in the plot, but our characters stayed true. Faltz is killed, "dying an inch at a time from gangrene and cold," but Kemper and Boehm, like Strumpf, in the end decide to move on in their mercenary ways to Constantinople, where they hope to get jobs in the ongoing war between the Whites and the Reds. As the final words of the book state, "The wandering continues."

David Beer

Monday, July 10, 2017

Remembering the Founders of the Jewish Legion


Cap Badge of the Jewish Legion. Widely
displayed but not authorized for Royal
Fusiliers uniforms until 1919. The motto is
קדימה Kadima (forward).

By James Patton


Vladimir Ze-ev Jabotinsky
Royal Fusiliers Officer
The story of the Jewish Legion begins with two Russian-born Zionists, Vladimir Ze-ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940) and Josef Trumpledor (1880-1920).  Jabotinsky was one of the leading Zionists in Russia, a delegate to the World Zionist Congress, a lecturer, a journalist, and what we call today a community organizer. In December 1914 he went to Alexandria as a war correspondent for the Moscow liberal daily Russkiya Vedomosti

He found in Egypt thousands of foreign-born Jews deported from Palestine by the Ottoman government. In particular he met Josef Trumpeldor, a decorated (Cross of St. George) Russian veteran of the siege of Port Arthur where he lost an arm and was imprisoned by the Japanese.  In March 1915, a delegation led by these two was received by Gen. Sir John G. Maxwell, where they presented a plan to raise an infantry unit from these deportees to fight the Ottomans in Palestine and the Levant. 

This was a problematic request. British Army rules at the time prohibited service in the Army by persons  not Crown subjects, like Jabotinsky and Trumpeldor.  Moreover, even though there were some British Jews in the mix, the government opposed the use of Zionists in the campaign in Palestine because the liberation of Eretz Yisrael from Muslim rule was not a diplomatic goal. 

Josef Trumpeldor
(Zionist Mule Corps Kit)
The Gallipoli campaign provided a solution:  service against the Ottomans on a different battlefront. It was proposed to Jabotinsky and Trumpeldor that their men form into an irregular supply unit to serve with the Indian Army Mule Corps. Trumpeldor agreed to this, Jabotinsky did not. So the Zion Mule Corps was formed, commanded by Lt. Col. John H. Patterson, DSO, a Zionist sympathizer, old East Africa hand and Boer War veteran recalled to duty. Trumpeldor was the second in charge and called "Captain". As irregulars, the men were supplied and paid by the British and wore British kit but without insignia.

Landing on April 27th after only four weeks of training and travel, 562 men served with distinction on the Cape Helles front, mostly hauling water. A Distinguished Conduct Medal was awarded to Pvt. M. Groushkowsky, who under heavy bombardment near Krithia on May 5th kept his mules from stampeding and despite being wounded in both arms, delivered the load. On a different occasion Trumpeldor was shot through the shoulder but refused to leave the field. Lt. Col. Patterson later wrote: "Many of the Zionists whom I thought somewhat lacking in courage showed themselves fearless to a degree when under heavy fire, while Capt. Trumpeldor actually reveled in it, and the hotter it became the more he liked it ..."

The Zionist Mule Corps were at Gallipoli until the end, returning to Alexandria on 10 January 1916. The unit was officially disbanded on 26 May. 

Lt. Col. Patterson
Meanwhile, Jabotinsky had gone to the UK to lobby the Jewish community for help with raising his fighting unit. The rule against foreigners serving was relaxed in late 1916 so Jabotinsky and about 120 of his followers, some of whom were Zionist Mule Corps veterans, were enlisted into the 2/20th (County of London) Battalion (Blackheath & Woolwich), which was being reinforced prior to redeployment to the east. Again there were objections to Zionist soldiers and Jabotinsky’s contingent was held in Home Service when the 2/20th sailed. 

Although the World Zionist Congress had proclaimed neutrality in 1914 (Jews were serving in many armies), Jabotinsky eventually convinced the renowned chemist and British Zionist leader Dr. Chaim Weizmann of the value of his plan. Weizmann had the ear of top British leaders due to his important contributions to munitions production, and in August 1917 the 38th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers (City of London) was authorized (hereafter ‘38/RF’), which was popularly called "The Jewish Legion". Over a thousand volunteered, including Jabotinsky’s group plus many Russians living in the UK.  Lt. Col. Patterson was again appointed the CO and Jabotinsky was made a staff lieutenant.

Once the Zionist movement was behind the plan, it gained momentum quickly. Another unit was raised in Canada, and in January 1918 it was designated as 39/RF, with a deployed strength of 1,720 (more than twice the size of a serving battalion) and most were Americans. The CO was Maj. J.A. de Rothschild, DCM, from the banking family, a French-born naturalized Canadian. 

And it didn’t stop there. A third unit was created in Egypt for Zionist deportees plus non-Palestinian Ottoman Jewish POWs, and over 1,000 were recruited again. This was designated as 40/RF, and still forming in November 1918 were 41/RF and 42/RF. After the war, Jabotinsky wrote of the 5,000 or so men who served in 38/RF, 39/RF and 40/RF: 34 percent were from the U.S., 30 percent were from Palestine, 28 percent were from England, 6 percent were from Canada, 1 percent were Ottoman Jewish POWs, and 1  percent were from Argentina. 

London, 4 February 1918, 38/RF on Parade, Col. Patterson Mounted at Left

Public reaction in the UK to the formation of 38/RF was mixed. Prejudice reared its ugly head as newspapers referred to the unit as "the Royal Jewsiliers" or "The King’s Own Tailors". To counter this disparagement, 38/RF was granted the "freedom" to parade with fixed bayonets in the City of London on 4 February 1918. Led by the band of the Coldstream Guards, they marched over eight miles past tens of thousands of cheering onlookers, were saluted by the Lord Mayor, and ended in Stepney where numerous dignitaries received them.  

In June 1918, 38/RF arrived in Palestine with the 31st Brigade, 10th (Irish) Division. They were immediately deployed to the Jordan Valley north of Jerusalem to oppose Ottoman counter-attacks.

In July 38/RF and the newly-arrived 39/RF were attached to Chaytor’s Force, commanded by the New Zealander Maj. Gen. Sir E.W.C. Chaytor and consisting otherwise of the Anzac Mounted Division, the 20th Indian Infantry Brigade and two battalions of the British West Indies Regiment, in total 11,000 men.  Besides various skirmishes, the Force participated in the Battle of Megiddo in mid-September 1918, widely considered one of the decisive victories on the Ottoman front. The objective of 38/RF and 39/RF was to capture the Jisr ed Damieh bridge and fords in a pincer movement to sever the line of communication between the Ottoman forces on the west bank and the Fourth Army at Es Salt, so that the Force could capture Es Salt and Amman. 

David Ben-Gurion
For his actions at the bridgehead, Lt. Jabotinsky was Mentioned in Despatches (he also received an MBE in 1919), and Maj. Gen. Chaytor later told the Jewish troops, “By forcing the Jordan fords, you helped in no small measure to win the great victory gained at Damascus.” 

Among the members of the Jewish Legion who would later become prominent Israelis were David Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister (1948-54, 1955-63), Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, President (1952-63) and Levi Eshkol, Prime Minister (1963-69). 

On 4 December 2014 the cremains of Lt. Col. Patterson were re-buried at Avihayli in Israel. PM Netanyahu said of Patterson and the Jewish Legion: "the first Jewish fighting force in nearly two millennia. And as such, he can be called the godfather of the Israeli army." 

Sources include: The Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/index.html, and The Jewish Magazine, http://www.jewishmag.com/148mag/jewish_legion/jewish_legion.htm 


Sunday, July 9, 2017

WW I Art Exhibit at the Smithsonian’s Air & Space Museum


By Tom Boltz

Our Contributor, Tom Boltz, Admires  Work by AEF Artist Harvey Dunn

The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum and the National Museum of American History are jointly exhibiting a collection of WW I paintings and other artifacts at the Air and Space Museum on the Mall in Washington, DC. Anyone interested in WW I and traveling to Washington, DC, in the next year will find a visit to this exhibit a rewarding experience. After last being displayed in the 1920s, the vast majority of this art collection has not been seen by the public since then. The exhibit opened on 6 April 2017 and closes on 11 November 2018, which corresponds to the official period of the United States involvement in the Great War 100 years ago.

The paintings were made by eight professional illustrators commissioned as U.S. Army officers and allowed to roam the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) areas of operation. Their mission was to illustrate the various activities, including combat, of the AEF. The paintings were then to be used to help the people back home understand the war experiences of the American soldier.  


Other exhibits contain examples of the WW I U.S. Army
military equipment and weapons seen in the paintings.

Also included in the exhibit are photos of limestone carvings made by
American soldiers on the walls of limestone quarries where they were stationed.

The Smithsonian’s WW I art exhibit will remain on display until 11 November 2018.

Saturday, July 8, 2017

Remembering a Veteran: Lt. Levi Lamb, 9th Inf., 2nd Div., AEF


Lt. Levi Lamb
Prior to the Great War,  Levi Lamb was a star heavyweight wrestler, football lineman, and  track letterman for the Penn State Nittany Lions. Athletically, he is today best remembered as a starting tackle on the undefeated 1912 football squad.  After a few years as a teacher and athletic coach, he volunteered for the Reserve Officers Training Corps at Fort Snelling, MN, and earned a commission as an infantry officer.

Assigned to the 9th Infantry Regiment of the 2nd Division, he fought at Château-Thierry in June and July 1918. He was killed  in action near Soissons  leading his men onward, 18 July 1918,  the opening day of the offensive stage of the Second Battle of the Marne.  In August 1921, at his family's request, Levi Lamb's remains were returned home from France and buried at the Buck Valley Methodist Church Cemetery  in Fulton County, PA.

After the war, Levi Lamb's commanding officer, Col. John Samuel, wrote of him: "The regiment lost a courageous and gallant officer beloved alike by his fellow officers and men. His conduct during the battle, as in former engagements with his regiment, has been of the highest order and an inspiration to all about him."

He has been honored since 1952 as the namesake of Levi Lamb Fund athletic scholarship endowment at his alma mater. 


The 1912 Undefeated Penn State Squad; Levi Lamb, 3rd from left, Middle Row   
Teammate James "Red" Bebout, 5th from Left, Was Also Killed in the War While Serving with the 4th Division in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive

Friday, July 7, 2017

The Great War's 101 Defining Events: Numbers 61–70


61–70

(click on image to enlarge)

This series will run every Friday on Roads to the Great War through its completion.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

The Case for Attrition from Aeon


Wars Are Not Won by Military Genius or Decisive Battles

By Cathal J. Nolan


British Gas Casualties, April 1918  [Wikipedia]

War is the most complex, physically, and morally demanding enterprise we undertake. No great art or music, no cathedral or temple or mosque, no intercontinental transport net or particle collider or space programme, no research for a cure for a mass-killing disease receives a fraction of the resources and effort we devote to making war, or to recovery from war and preparations for future wars invested over years, even decades, of tentative peace. War is thus far more than a strung-together tale of key battles. Yet, traditional military history presented battles as fulcrum moments where empires rose or fell in a day, and most people still think that wars are won that way, in an hour or an afternoon of blood and bone, or perhaps two or three. We must understand the deeper game, not look only to the scoring. That is hard to do because battles are so seductive.

War evokes our fascination with spectacle, and there is no greater stage or more dramatic players than on a battlefield. We are drawn to battles by a lust of the eye, thrilled by a blast from a brass horn as Roman legionaries advance in glinting armor or when a king’s wave releases mounted knights in a heavy cavalry charge. Grand battles are open theater with a cast of many tens of thousands: samurai under signal kites, mahouts mounted on elephants, Zulu impi rushing over lush grass toward a redcoat firing line. Battles open with armies dressed in red, blue, or white, flags fluttering, fife and drums beating the advance; or with the billowing canvas of a line of fighting sail, white pufferies erupting in broadside volleys; or a wedge of tanks hard-charging over the Russian steppe. What comes next is harder to comprehend.

The idea of the "decisive battle" as the hinge of war, and wars as the gates of history, speaks to our naive desire to view modern war in heroic terms. Popular histories are written still in a drums-and-trumpets style, with vivid depictions of combat divorced from harder logistics, daily suffering, and a critical look at the societies and cultures that produced mass armies and sent them off to fight in faraway fields for causes about which the average soldier knew nothing.

Visual media especially play on what the public wants to see—raw courage and red days, the thrill of vicarious violence and spectacle. This is the world of war as callow entertainment, of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds (2009) or Brad Pitt in Fury (2014). It’s not the world of real Nazis or real war.

Battles also entice generals and statesmen with the idea that a hard red day can be decisive, and allow us to avoid attrition, which we all despise as morally vulgar and without redemptive heroism. We fear to find only indecision and tragedy without uplift or morality in trench mud, or roll calls of dead accumulating over years of effort and endurance. Instead, we raise battles to summits of heroism and generals to levels of genius that history cannot support. Though some historians might try, celebrating even failed campaigns as glorious. Prussia is wrecked, yet Frederick is the greatest of Germans. France is beaten and an age is named for Louis XIV, another for Napoleon. Europe lies in ruin, but German generals displayed genius with Panzers.

Whether or not we agree that some wars were necessary and just, we should look straight at the grim reality that victory was most often achieved in the biggest and most important wars by attrition and mass slaughter—not by soldierly heroics or the genius of command. Winning at war is harder than that. Cannae, Tours, Leuthen, Austerlitz, Tannenberg, Kharkov—all recall sharp images in a word. Yet winning such lopsided battles did not ensure victory in war. Hannibal won at Cannae, Napoleon at Austerlitz, Hitler at Sedan and Kiev. All lost in the end, catastrophically.

There is heroism in battle but there are no geniuses in war. War is too complex for genius to control. To say otherwise is no more than armchair idolatry, divorced from real explanation of victory and defeat, both of which come from long-term preparation for war and waging war with deep national resources, bureaucracy, and endurance. Only then can courage and sound generalship meet with chance in battle and prevail, joining weight of materiel to strength of will to endure terrible losses yet win long wars. Claims to genius distance our understanding from war’s immense complexity and contingency, which are its greater truths.

Modern wars are won by grinding, not by genius. Strategic depth and resolve is always more important than any commander. We saw such depth and resilience in Tsarist Russia in 1812, in France and Britain in the First World War, in the Soviet Union and the United States during the Second World War, but not in Carthage or overstretched Nazi Germany or overreaching Imperial Japan. The ability to absorb initial defeats and fight on surpassed any decision made or battle fought by Hannibal or Scipio, Lee or Grant, Manstein or Montgomery. Yes, even Napoleon was elevated as the model of battle genius by Clausewitz and in military theory ever since, despite his losing by attrition in Spain, and in the calamity of the Grand Armée’s 1812 campaign in Russia. Waterloo was not the moment of his decisive defeat, which came a year earlier. It was his anticlimax.

Losers of most major wars in modern history lost because they overestimated operational dexterity and failed to overcome the enemy’s strategic depth and capacity for endurance. Winners absorbed defeat after defeat yet kept fighting, overcoming initial surprise, terrible setbacks and the dash and daring of command "genius." Celebration of genius generals encourages the delusion that modern wars will be short and won quickly, when they are most often long wars of attrition. Most people believe attrition is immoral. Yet it’s how most major wars are won, aggressors defeated, the world remade time and again. We might better accept attrition at the start, explain that to those we send to fight, and only choose to fight the wars worth that awful price. Instead, we grow restless with attrition and complain that it’s tragic and wasteful, even though it was how the Union Army defeated slavery in America, and Allied and Soviet armies defeated Nazism.

With humility and full moral awareness of its terrible costs, if we decide that a war is worth fighting, we should praise attrition more and battle less. There is as much room for courage and character in a war of attrition as in a battle. There was character aplenty and courage on all sides at Verdun and Iwo Jima, in the Hürtgen Forest, in Korea. Character counts in combat. Sacrifice by soldiers at Shiloh or the Marne or Kharkov or Juno Beach or the Ia Drang or Korengal Valley were not mean, small, or morally useless acts. Victory or defeat by attrition, by high explosive and machine gun over time, does not annihilate all moral and human meaning.Aeon counter – do not remove

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.