Maréchal Foch Does America

First Major Event: General Jacques, General Diaz, Marshal Foch, General Pershing, and Admiral Beatty,
1 November 1921, at the Dedication of the Liberty Memorial

In 1921, Maréchal Ferdinand Foch, generalissimo the of Allied Armies in WWI, toured the United States as a guest of the American Legion, visiting major cities like New York, Kansas City, and San Francisco on a seven-week grand tour featuring parades, speeches praising America's war role, and dedication ceremonies for memorials, including the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, the Indiana World War Memorial, and the Unknown Soldier. He experienced American culture like the Yale-Princeton football game, a car race at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, an Indian pow-wow in North Dakota, and a banquet featuring the finest New Orleans cuisine.

 

In New Orleans, Oysters à la Foch Were Served for
the First Time (Recipe)

At San Francisoc's Palace of the Legion of Honor, Foch
Signs the Roster of California's Fallen of the War

On a personal, human scale, the tour gave Americans the opportunity to thank the maréchal for his leadership in the decisive moments of the war and gave the distinguished representative of France to join in honoring the fallen of the war.

 Sioux Chief Red Tomahawk  Honors 
Maréchal "Charging Thunder" 

The highly covered newsworthy trip was diplomatic in substance as well. Everywhere he spoke, Foch hit three key points:

France's appreciation for America's sacrifices:  

"By your heroism you have secured victory and enabled our governments to achieve the peace which they desired."

A call for continued collaboration between France and the United States: 

"Let us remain united as we were on the battlefield, in order that this peace may be consolidated and extended."

Subtle pleas for America to avoid becoming isolationist: 

"It  is  now  for  us  to  maintain  the peace,  and  if  we  desire  the  formula  for  that,  it  is the  same  as  for  winning  the  war."

Reviewing the Cadets at West Point

A Special Coin Struck for the Maréchal's Visit to Yale

During his extensive, coast-to-coast  tour, Foch received more than 30 honorary degrees and awards, reinforcing the strong alliance and gratitude between France and the United States after WWI. He returned to Europe on 14 December 1921.

Visiting Mount Vernon to Lay a Wreath at
George Washington's Grave

Conscientious Objector Bertrand Russell's Letters from Brixton Prison

Augustus John’s Portrait of Bertrand Russell

During the First World War, the noted mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell was prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Act for an editorial written for the weekly paper of the pacifist organization with which he was closely involved. The offending passage was hardly the most provocative, defiant, or impassioned statement of protest about the First World War, which Russell’s “whole nature was involved” in opposing for more than four years. A century later, it's hard to see why the government responded so vigorously to a few sentences from a longer piece. Possibly, because he had alluded to the presumed traditions of Britain's  newly arriving and essential "Associated Power," the United States of America.

The American garrison which will by that time be occupying England and France, whether or not they will prove efficient against the Germans, will no doubt be capable of intimidating strikers, an occupation to which the American army is accustomed when at home. I do not say that these thoughts are in the mind of the Government. All the evidence is that there are no thoughts whatsoever in their mind, and that they live from hand to mouth consoling themselves with ignorance and sentimental twaddle.

Nevertheless, Lloyd George's government was very upset and prosecuted Russell for his naughty words. In February 1918 a London magistrate found Russell guilty of the trumped-up charge and sentenced him to six months in Brixton Prison. Russell, however,  was spared from the strict discipline, petty cruelties, and arduous labour of the second division. He was allowed to furnish his cell, wear civilian clothes, purchase catered food, and most important, be exempted from prison work while he pursued his profession as an author. Russell quickly formulated an exacting programme of philosophical writing for the months ahead. His productivity included one nearly completed manuscript, Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, and full notes for another, The Analysis of Mind.

In four and a half months, Russell also wrote at least 104 prison letters. These Brixton letters are of enormous historical interest, and recipients attested immediately to their literary quality. Some passages have become almost famous. Russell was not the first distinguished thinker to produce writing of lasting value under conditions of some duress. He was conscious of his place in that unhappy but venerable tradition of political persecution. His letters provide revealing autobiographical insights and illuminate a state of mind that veers from boundless hope about his future intellectual and personal life to listless anguish and jealous recriminations.

43 Years Later, Russell Would Be Sentenced to Another
Visit to Brixton Prison for This Anti-Nuclear Protest

Russell's letters are long rambling affairs filled with personal messages for the principal recipient to pass on,  his personal financial matters, observations about life in prison, status reports on his daily writings, and much about the progress of the hated war. Here are some excerpts from his 3 June 1918 letter to his brother Frank that I found interesting.

. . . In writing to Lady C[onstance Malleson], please thank her for biscuits which are a solace. — Tell C.A. [Clifford Allen]  he must come South to see me — tell him my moral condition is parlous and needs a sermon from him. 

. . . my income, apart from earnings,  after deducting income tax and life insurance, is very little over £100 a year. . . Is there any possibility that those who wish me to do philosophy could establish a research fellowship for me? This would also have the advantage of being something definite to put before [Minister for National Service Sir Auckland] Geddes. If this is impossible, could you inquire as to ways of earning £200 a year which would leave some leisure for philosophy?

. . . Existence here is not disagreeable, but for the fact that one can’t see one’s friends. That one fact does make it, to me, very disagreeable — but if I were devoid of affection, like many middle aged men, I should find nothing to dislike. One has no responsibilities, and infinite leisure. My time passes very fruitfully. In a normal day, I do 4 hours philosophical writing, 4 hours philosophical reading, and 4 hours general reading – so you can understand my wanting a lot of books.

. . . I have been reading [French Revolutionary] Madame Roland’s memoirs and have come to the conclusion that she was a very over-rated woman: snobbish, vain, sentimental, envious — rather a German type. Her last days before her execution were spent in chronicling petty social snubs or triumphs of many years back. 

. . . I have given up the bad habit of imagining the war may be over some day. One must compare the time with that of the Barbarian invasion. . . For the next 1000 years people will look back to the time before 1914 as they did in the Dark Ages to the time before the Goths sacked Rome. Queer animal, Man!

Your loving brother

Bertrand Russell.

The full collection of letters courtesy of the Bertrand Russell Research Centre at McMaster University can be found online HERE The Centre's website was the main resource for this article.

Gibraltar at War

A Naval Bastion

Even after the passing of the Age of Sail, tiny Gibraltar (2.6 sq.miles) remained vital to the British Empire and a thorn in the side of its enemies. In both world wars it guarded Britain’s lifeline through the Suez Canal to Asia. In the late 19th century, Great Britain, viewing the strategic value of Gibraltar as a naval base, had greatly expanded and modernized its harbor.  Under the reforming leadership of First Sea Lord, Admiral John "Jacky" Fisher, Gibraltar became the base for the Atlantic Fleet. At this time, Malta was also built up as an advance base and both locations would prove invaluable in supporting the Gallipoli and Egypt/Palestine campaigns when a world war came.

About the Rock

The Rock is not Gibraltar but a big part of it. Gibraltar is a roughly 2.6-square-mile peninsula protruding from the southeast coast of the much larger Iberian Peninsula, of which, the Rock covers about 40 percent. The peninsula is not quite the southernmost point of Iberia, nor does it guard the narrowest point of waterborne passage, though its tip ends just 14 miles from the coast of North Africa. But it is the Rock that gives the peninsula its military significance. Planted squarely on the peninsula, it slopes upward 1,400 feet on its steep eastern face, making it seem custom-built to resist invasion by land. 

The peninsula’s settled area (population18,000 at the time of the war), such as it is, nestles safely below the Rock’s western face. Seaward to the south, the approach is not so daunting and there are tiny landing strips available to soldiers; still, a protracted campaign to capture Gibraltar from this direction would require constant support from the sea. In the Age of Sail and to a somewhat lesser extent in the 20th century, control of Gibraltar required total and prolonged naval dominance of the western Mediterranean. The maintenance of naval supremacy depended in turn on control of Gibraltar.

A British Cemetery at the Foot of the Rock

The Coming of War

As anticipated, during the Great War, the Strait of Gibraltar was a key location. The influential American naval historian Captain Dudley W. Knox succinctly noted that “Gibraltar was “the ‘gateway’ for more traffic than any other position in the world. Gibraltar was the focus for the great routes to and from the east through the Mediterranean, and from it extended the communications for the armies in Italy, Saloniki, Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia.”

Besides the missions of  supplying and repairing Allied shipping, the forces based at Gibraltar were initially concerned with several threats to Allied maritime traffic:

1. Approaching and departing the Straits of Gibraltar to and from the Azores, France, and the British isles;

2. In the immediate danger zone from German submarines in and around the Straits; and

3. Departing and approaching the Straits to and from North Africa, Italy, Malta, and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The U-boat Menace

The Imperial German Navy had begun to deploy submarines to the Mediterranean as early as April 1915, at the same time as the British and French were involved in the Dardanelles campaign. Soon, the Central Powers began to put into operation prefabricated submarines assembled at the Austro-Hungarian base at Pola in Istria in the northern Adriatic.

These boats began the submarine warfare campaign against allies shipping in the Mediterranean. This appearance of U-boats in the Mediterranean in 1915 found the British unprepared. The kaiser’s submarines passed through the straits and below the Rock with impunity, going on to raid Allied shipping. The British garrison looked on in frustration but could do nothing to stop them. In order to try to control this threat in the Mediterranean, British, French, and Italian warships attempted various types of anti-submarine operations. Without an organized allied naval command and effective methods, the efforts were mostly ineffective. Sinkings increased month to month. In 1916, the Allies lost 415 ships.

Things began to change, however, when the convoy system was implemented in 1917.  Gibraltar became the main site for assembling the convoys traveling through the Mediterranean and the main base for escort ships. Nonetheless, while the convoyed ships were better protected, U-boat commanders continued feasting on un-escorted ships almost to the end of the war.  Records indicated 325 ships were lost in 1918 in the theater.

Scout Cruiser USS Birmingham (CL-2) was the flagship for the U.S. Atlantic Fleet Patrol Force operating from Gibraltar

The American Contribution

Once the United States entered the war it began building a significant naval presence at Gibraltar. Eventually, the U.S. Navy at Gibraltar comprised 41 vessels — mainly small vessels such as gunboats, revenue cutters, antiquated destroyers, and steam-powered yachts brought into naval service— manned by a force of officers and men that averaged 314 officers and 4,660 sailors. During July and August, 1918, the Patrol Force escorted 25 percent of all Mediterranean convoys to French ports, and 70 percent of all convoys to English ports from the vicinity of Gibraltar.  Today, a beautiful memorial honoring this American contribution stands on the west side of the peninsula. (Article HERE.)

The Contributions of Gibraltarians

Unlike the Second World War, the good people of Gibraltar did not experience any enemy attacks during the Great War. The civilian population suffered some displacements due to the large influx of military personnel and many individuals served in voluntary service and medical units. Thirteen of its citizens, however, were killed serving with Allied forces during hostilities.  

Sources:  Putting Cargoes Through: The U.S Navy at Gibraltar during the First World War, 1917-1919; "The Rock of Legend: Gibraltar," Edward Lengel, Historynet, 1917.

The Siege of Maryland's Peace Cross

The Memorial

The Peace Cross is a war memorial located in the three-way junction of Bladensburg Road, Baltimore Avenue, and Annapolis Road in Bladensburg, Maryland. It is a large cross, 40 feet (12 m) in height, made of tan concrete with exposed pink granite aggregate. The arms of the cross are supported by unadorned concrete arches. It was designed by John J. Earley and placed in 1919–1925 in commemoration of the town's World War I war casualties. The memorial was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2015. The Snyder-Farmer post of the American Legion erected the 40-foot cross of cement and marble to recall the 49 men of Prince George’s County who died in World War I. The cross was dedicated on 13 July 1925, by the Legion. A bronze tablet at the base of the monument contains the unforgettable words of Woodrow Wilson: “The right is more precious than the peace; we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts; to such a task we dedicate ourselves.” At the base of the monument are the words, “Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion.” At its heart, the cross bears a great gold star. In 1985 the government rededicated the cross as a memorial to honor all U.S. veterans of all wars.

The Assault

The memorial stood for almost 90 years without objection until the American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit in February 2014 alleging the cross-shaped memorial was unconstitutional and demanding it be demolished, altered, or removed.  The association argued that the public ownership, maintenance, and display of the memorial violated the Establishment Clause.  On their website, they outline their rationale for taking legal action:

The American Humanist Association is challenging this cross because we want the government to honor all veterans regardless of their religion. Equal sacrifices deserve equal honor. Veterans of all religious backgrounds and none sacrificed for our country—the AHA is attempting to ensure that the government honors them all.

The county can easily honor veterans without maintaining and displaying a Christian cross. Since the American Revolution, thousands of government-owned war memorials have been dedicated, and most do not use any religious iconography. These memorials are constitutional and inclusive, recognizing the service of all veterans regardless of their faith.

In October 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that publicly funded maintenance of the cross was unconstitutional because it "excessively entangles the government in religion because the cross is the core symbol of Christianity and breaches the wall separating church and state."

Victory

First Liberty Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to religious freedom,  and the law firm Jones Day defended the memorial at the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Bladensburg memorial in a 7–2 decision.  With this important decision, the justices reaffirmed that the First Amendment allows people to use religious symbols and images in public. In his opinion for the majority,  Justice Alito addressed close association of the cross with the First World War:

The cross is a symbol closely linked to World War I. The United States adopted it as part of its military honors, establishing the Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross in 1918 and 1919, respectively. And the fallen soldiers’ final resting places abroad were  marked by white crosses or Stars of David, a solemn image that became inextricably linked with and symbolic of the ultimate price paid by 116,000 soldiers. This relationship between the cross and the war may not have been the sole or dominant motivation for the design of the many war memorials that sprang up across the Nation, but that is all but impossible to determine today. . . 

Memorials took the place of gravestones for those parents and other relatives who lacked the means to travel to Europe to visit the graves of their war dead and for those soldiers whose bodies were never recovered. . . The image of the simple wooden cross that originally marked the graves of American soldiers killed in World War I became a symbol of their sacrifice, and the design of the Bladensburg Cross must be understood in light of that background. 

Sources: AmericanLegion.org; FirstLiberty.org; American Legion et al. v. American Humanist Association et al., October 1918

The All-Masonic Unit of the AEF: The 364th Ambulance Company

By Adam Kendall

Originally presented in the June/July 2015 issue of California Freemason 

Although the United States was officially neutral during the early years of World War I, groups of young men eager to assist in the Allied effort were informally organized by American universities and sponsored by the American Red Cross. Patriotism at this time was infectious, and a number of Masons became interested in the idea of serving in the United States Army, where brothers could stand together. 

t the Stewart Hotel in San Francisco,  on 12 May 1917, a Masonic committee determined that one way to achieve this goal was to form a Masonic Ambulance Corps that would allow brothers to enter the service together through the Red Cross. Financial resources were quickly mobilized with the assistance of the Masonic Club of San Francisco, which raised $15,000 for the National Red Cross Service. This same committee was also charged with providing rare comforts to the men who would go to war, including magazines and books. “Foster” mothers and fathers in the Masonic family assisted by “adopting” an individual member of the corps as a “foster son,” for whom they would provide welcome moral support in the form of mail and other gifts. 

By late 1917, following the United States government’s declaration of war, these volunteer groups were forbidden and the committee’s plan was revised to supply the U.S. Army with a full complement of men and officers for one of its ambulance companies. On 4 August 1917, the Masonic Ambulance Corps took the official designation of the 364th Ambulance Co., 316th Sanitary Train, 91st Division, United States Army, and left San Francisco for training at Camp Lewis in Washington. Charles Cole, a member of the Corps, recalled,

The Masonic Ambulance Corps assembled in front of the San Francisco City Hall and the mayor of the city presented to the company a large American flag, which we carried in the parade along Market Street, accompanied by the Shrine Band. The flag was extra large and although Hereford, carrying it, was quite tall, the end still dragged on the ground, and I, acting as color guard, found it necessary to carry it over my arm. With the Shrine band playing ‘Onward Christian Soldiers,’ this was a thrilling day for us as we entrained for Camp Lewis.

1917 Postcard of the Masonic Ambulance Corps
during roll call in Camp Lewis, WA

The company, one of four such units in the 316th Sanitary Train of the 91st Division, consisted of a captain, four lieutenants, 12 sergeants, 20 chauffeurs and 87 privates. Nearly every member was a California Master Mason, although there were a few men from other Masonic jurisdictions. Once at Camp Lewis, in addition to the usual training and duties, the men assisted with vaccinating incoming troops, as well as providing ambulance service throughout the encampment.

Following eight days of additional training at Camp Merritt in New Jersey, the Corps boarded the steamer Olympic and sailed first to Southampton, England, and then to Cherbourg, France. By the end of August, the company was serving on the front lines and participating in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive and the Battle of the Lys during the final phase of the war.

The diary of Private William Nielsen offers a glimpse into the experiences of the Masonic Ambulance Corp members as they traversed a war-torn countryside in the last days of the war.

Friday, October 25, 1918: Struck tents about 8 o’clock; at 9 on our way. This time seeing Belgium on foot as we did in France. Our march took us across no-man’s land. Saw the graves of a million men. At Langemark we crossed what was the German front line. Many ruins. Nothing left of towns, tanks, etc… About dusk we arrived in Roulers …Salvage blankets at field hospital. Pass dead man in hall on stretcher.

Monday, November 11, 1918: Up at 5. Load of rations for 364th to Audenarde across river. All say war fini at 11. Bum lunch. Firing increasing as it nears the last few minutes – and then silence! Parked machine in old Hun hospital. Bed at 7 p.m.

Tuesday, November 12, 1918: Cleaned up car. Took detail out to find dead. Found seven unlucky soldiers killed the last day by shell fire. That’s what I call hard luck! Dug two up, one with mustache (ask Johnny). Left alone digging. One a “traveler”…

[Note: In the last sentence in Nielson’s diary, above, the reference to one of the deceased soldier as a “traveler” implies that through some means, Nielson was able to identify this man as a Mason.]

With the 11 November armistice holding, the 364th Ambulance Company left France on 7 April 1919 aboard the steamer Virginian and arrived in New York on 20 April. On 2 May, the members of the company left for their respective demobilization centers, and those destined for the San Francisco Presidio arrived there on 9 May. Four days later, they were discharged from the U.S. Army.

The Real T. E. Lawrence: His Life and Legacy

 

By Andrew Norman

Pen and Sword, 2005

Reviewed by David F. Beer

Lawrence and Lowell Thomas

The 44 chapters of this book are interesting, informative, and short—each chapter averaging about two pages. Yet these pages provide an amazing amount of information on Lawrence as he lived his life before and after his legendary adventures in WWI Arabia. Author Andrew Norman states the overriding purpose of his book is to investigate two specific aspects of Lawrence’s life: why after achieving international fame from his desert exploits did he adamantly live his life in public obscurity, and second, what was the truth about his sexuality? 

In attempting to answer these questions the author inevitably touches on many other aspects of Lawrence’s life. We learn much about his early childhood and the emotional affects his mother Sarah Lawrence had upon him. We follow his prewar travels to Syria and Lebanon and to the influence of Doctor Hogarth and, particularly, of a handsome young Muslim boy named Dahoum, who was a mixture of Hittite and Arab and who was a good wrestler. He and Lawrence became extremely close. One day the two visited a remote ruin,

 …the clay of which had, originally, been kneaded of the oils of flowers whose aroma had persisted right up to the present time. The guides led Lawrence from room to room, saying, ‘this is jessamine, this violet, this rose,’ when suddenly Dahoum said, ‘Come smell the very sweetest scent of all!’ It was the desert, which they ‘drank with open mouths.  (pp.24-25).

As is well known, victory in the Great War was for Lawrence a defeat since he saw all his efforts and hopes betrayed by the final terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Thus a question the author explores is to what extent did the betrayal of the Arabs influence Lawrence’s social choices after the war?  Moreover, did the sexual degradation Lawrence suffered at the hands of the Turks during his brief captivity in Deraa reflect or influence his own sexuality?

In these chapters we meet numerous figures Lawrence came to know and who had various and sometimes subtle effects on both his psyche and social activities. Many are more fully described elsewhere, especially in his classic Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which, Winston Churchill claimed, “ranks with the greatest books ever written in the English language” (p. 63). In Norman’s book we get short but relevant glimpses of Gertude Bell, Emir Abdullah, Sherif Hussein, George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Hardy, Robert Graves, E. M. Forster, and several others. Rumors and uncertain episodes are recited as such and will probably never be determined—so much about “the real T. E. Lawrence,” including the working of his mind and his true sexuality, will perhaps remain an intriguing mystery.

The final six chapters focus on the tragic end of Lawrence’s life. We all know he died “in a motorcycle accident,” motorcycles having been a life-long interest of his. Several black-and-white photos of the scene are included. Even here some cloudiness and legend persist, but as the author points out, the sadly tragic facts are there. Also, and I didn’t know this, his death was the beginning of a serious social concern about the wearing of safety helmets.

Order HERE

This is not a difficult book to read, and it is packed with details and intrigues, including a focus on his younger life and later service in the RAF.  If you are a T. E. Lawrence follower, as I am, you will enjoy it.

David F. Beer

It All Depends on Your Point of View—America's Interest in the War c. 1914

Minnesotan Frank Naughton presents two arguments revealing American interests in seeing the European war continue in his three-panel editorial cartoon, which he drew for the Duluth News Tribune weeks after the war's start.

Click on Cartoon to Enlarge

Duluth, where immigrants made up more than a quarter of its population, was one of the largest shipping ports in the United States and stood to profit from wartime production.

Source: Library of Congress

Lloyd Georges' Growing Distrust of Field Marshal Haig

The Most Famous Photo of Haig and Lloyd George in Which
the General Seems to Be Telling the Not-Yet Prime Minister What's What

From Ian Beckett's  The British Army and the First World War

Battered by the Third Battle of Ypres and shocked by the reversal at  Cambrai, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and its commander were under considerable strain by the dawn of 1918. The BEF had played an increasingly large role in the war since the Somme battle of 1916 and had suffered great losses in terms of men and materiel, but nowhere in France or Flanders was there a clear and consistent sign that its sacrifices had weakened the Germans beyond recovery. This lack of evidence created the conditions for the wholesale re-examination of British strategy so desired by Lloyd George and others sceptical that the Western Front offered the potential for decisive victory. Desperate to impose civilian and, more particularly, his own authority over the shape of British strategy, Lloyd George used the lack of success in the battles of Ypres and Cambrai against Haig and Robertson. For Lloyd George, the moment had come to curb the influence of the British Army’s two most important generals in order to ensure a comprehensive reappraisal of Britain’s position and the state of the war. Unfortunately for the BEF, Lloyd George’s review came at a moment when the significance of the Western Front was greater than ever. With Ludendorff determined to wage a final, decisive campaign in the west, the men of the BEF required clarity of thought from their political and military masters. Unused to the concept of the strategic defensive, the BEF needed careful preparation, mental and physical, for the role. It could not afford the luxury of a protracted debate over its mission in France and Flanders. 

Although Haig was aware of Lloyd George’s increasing disquiet over the lack of progress in the Third Ypres campaign, it was the failure of  Cambrai that precipitated the crisis in the relationship between Lloyd George and the Haig-Robertson partnership. Lloyd George was particularly angry at the success of the German counterattack at Cambrai, for it had been claimed that the Germans had no surplus manpower after being severely stretched at Passchendaele. It was compounded by the fact that intelligence reports suggested that the Germans had not yet transferred much in the way of manpower from the Eastern Front. With British civil–military relations now very much strained, Lloyd George hoped to use the Cambrai debacle to oust both Robertson and Haig while at the same time outflanking them by using the new Supreme War Council established at Versailles as an alternative focus for strategic discussion, advice and planning. The Secretary of State for War, Lord Derby, was not willing to play a role in such a move, but he was prepared to remove some of Haig’s General Headquarters (GHQ) staff. As Lloyd George realised that he was unable easily to topple Haig, the option of purging his closest associates at GHQ seemed the best way of curbing his power. Indeed, while Lloyd George canvassed names of potential successors to Haig in January 1918, the South African statesman sitting in the War Cabinet, Jan Smuts, and its secretary, Maurice Hankey, could only suggest Lieutenant-General Claud Jacob of II Corps, although Plumer and Rawlinson were also mentioned.

It was against this background that Byng completed his preliminary report on the Cambrai reverse. He stated that Third Army HQ had been expecting a German counter-attack and put the blame for failure onto his front-line soldiers: ‘I attribute the reason for the local success on the part of the enemy to one cause and one alone, namely – lack of training on the part of junior officers and NCOs and men.’ 

Despite Byng’s reluctance to accept that any of the higher commanders were to blame, over the next three months all three corps commanders involved were removed from their posts (Snow, Woollcombe and Pulteney). For all his many strengths as a commander, Byng’s actions rather tarnish his reputation, as it seems unfair and inaccurate to blame the men under his authority for failures  he and his own staff could have avoided through more effective action. 

But it can be argued that the real problem was at GHQ. Once again, Haig’s intelligence chief, Charteris, had totally misunderstood the strength and intentions of the Germans on this section of the front  and therefore provided no kind of advance warning. He deliberately  suppressed evidence of the arrival of a German division before the battle, apparently so as not to deter Haig from his intention to attack. This failure of interpretation and effective communication was a hallmark of Charteris’ relationship with Haig. Rumours of this unbalanced and inefficient collaboration had spread widely, and it made Charteris vulnerable to a Prime Minister increasingly irate at the perceived weaknesses of GHQ. 

Charteris was duly removed and replaced by Sir Herbert Lawrence, formerly the commander of 66th (East Lancashire) Division. A second high-profile casualty was the Quartermaster-General, Sir Ronald Maxwell, who had long since lost the confidence of those familiar with the BEF’s earlier logistics problems, if not that of Haig. Maxwell’s poor health was used as an excuse to remove him, and Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Travers Clarke replaced him. Other important new appointments were the able Brigadier-General John Dill as Director of Military Operations and Major-General Guy Dawnay as Head of the Staff Duties Section. 

Generals Charteris and Kiggell

The final adjustment was the replacement of Launcelot Kiggell, Haig’s Chief of Staff. Somewhat ironically, Kiggell fell just at the moment when he had become a convert to the methodical, step-by-step battle under the guidance of his colleague, ‘Tavish’ Davidson, Dill’s predecessor as Director of Military Operations at GHQ. This had caused him to doubt Gough’s approach at Third Ypres and make efforts to contain the visions of the Fifth Army commander. However, he had never been particularly robust in his dealings with Haig and by December 1917 was clearly in a state of poor health. Derby warned Haig about Kiggell’s condition, but he seemed reluctant to take this hint. When Haig finally relented, he indicated that he would like to promote Butler, Kiggell’s deputy, but Derby refused to accept this idea doubtless because Butler was regarded as an equally malleable replacement. The need to replace Kiggell then caused further disruption at GHQ, for the newly appointed Lawrence was regarded as thebest man for the job. He therefore left his position as Intelligence Chief to be replaced by Brigadier-General Edgar Cox, who was Deputy Head of Intelligence at the War Office. The extremely capable Cox was to suffer enormous strain during the German spring offensives and drowned while swimming alone off Berck Plage on 26 August 1918. He was replaced in mid-September by Sidney Clive.  

Whether this new staff team was the powerhouse that stabilised the BEF in the crisis moments of the German spring offensive and brought it  to victory during the Hundred Days can be debated, but it certainly fulfilled Lloyd George’s desire to bring greater rigour to Haig’s GHQ relationships. This was particularly true in the case of Sir Herbert Lawrence. Son of a Viceroy of India and a former cavalryman, Lawrence had resigned from the army in 1903 over his lack of promotion and subsequently became a highly successful businessman. He re-joined the army in 1914 and gained a good reputation as a commander before proceeding to GHQ. These attributes gave him the self-confidence to engage with Haig more robustly than his predecessor.

Verdun: A Diversion from the German Way of War?

By John Beatty

The Plan

Erich von Falkenhayn's Western Front offensive of 1916 aimed directly at the traditional invasion route between the Rhine and Paris. The French had fortified the area called the Heights of the Meuse heavily over the years. These fortifications culminated in a series of forts that, at the very least, allowed them to observe the entire Meuse-Rhine Plain for artillery. 

The German plan was simple: take the forts, make the French commit their strategic reserves protecting the route to Paris, build up behind the bulge, press on to Paris in the summer months until France gave up so Germany could march home in triumph before fall. The strategic motivations, however, were far more complex. Losing manpower hurt German agriculture, which was also sorely affected by the British blockade—much more than Germany could withstand. Though Germany had suffered less than had Britain and France on the battlefields, combined the Allies had far more manpower than did the Central Powers. Germany, the most powerful of the Powers, was in the second year of a war she had expected would last two months.

French Troops Marching Out of Verdun to the Battlefield

Knocking France out of the war was the key to Germany's survival.

On 21 February 1916, the Germans unleashed their Fifth Army on the French Second Army manning the nineteen fortresses of the Verdun complex. The first French fort to fall three days later was Douaumont, the largest and highest of the outer ring forts, by a small German raiding party. Even though the bastion had been unoccupied for months, the French public was scandalized, and in a Gallic rage the French Army threw more and more men into the maw of the German offensive.

German Artillery Hammering Verdun

This was a diversion from the German way of war.

While most scholars feel that this was the German intention all along, German military theory and doctrine never, ever had an attritional battle in mind. Prussia/Brandenburg, the font of Imperial German military tradition with the largest WWI armies, never had the numbers nor the temperament for a drawn-out brawl with anyone, and always preferred maneuver—preferably to encirclement—to merely adding up casualties. Tannenberg, the August 1914 double-envelopment of the Russian Second Army in East Prussia, was far more to the Prussian/German liking than was the long slog of Verdun. It is likely that post-Verdun German commentators merely claimed that lengthy attrition was the German plan all along, when in truth the French defense, orchestrated by Robert Nivelle, was more persistent and successful than they had imagined was possible.

German Infantry at Verdun

Verdun would rage on unabated until 18 December—ten months.

It would consume the lives of some 300,000 men on the French front alone, out of the million committed, and occupying the full attention of over a hundred divisions. To the north, another bloodbath started by the British on the Somme on 1 July to ease German pressure on the French would rage inconclusively until 18 November and consume another million lives. For these millions, was the German diversion from her way of war worth the cost?

Destroyed German Artillery Position at Verdun

It was impossible for the rest of the world not to notice.

The Americans looked on in horror and in contemplation at the specter of the 2,300 French and German casualties (about a regiment) every day on the Verdun front alone. President Woodrow Wilson had forbidden American military men to prepare contingency plans, but that did not prevent preparedness plans from being put into action with some urgency. The Plattsburg Movement, a civilian-driven, military favored program of camps that trained young collegians around the country, had finally come to fruition in the National Defense Act of 1916, which also created the Army Reserve. While the effect wasn’t immediate, it made the Americans just a little more prepared when America joined the war in 1917.

John Beatty is the author of the novel Steele's Battalion, which takes place after the Verdun/Somme slaughterfest, but depicts its own horrors on the Western Front from 1917 to 1918. Steele's Battalion is available from your favorite bookseller or autographed by the author by becoming a PAID subscriber his Substack HERE.

Was the U.S. Military Intervention in the First World War Worth the Cost? — Video

Summary

As the centennial of U.S. entry into WWI approaches, Bradford Lee, Emeritus Philip A. Crowl Professor of Comparative Strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, performs a Clausewitzian critical analysis of how the U.S. waged war and negotiated peace from 1917 to 1919 and whether the value of victory was worth the costs of achieving it.

Who were Pip, Squeak, and Wilfred?

By James Patton

The British Empire service medal group pictured above, consisting of (Left) the 1914 Star (informally the "Mons Star") , or the similar 1914–15 Star, (Center) the British War Medal, and (Right) the Victory Medal, was irreverently dubbed by the veterans as “Pip, Squeak, and Wilfred.” 

These three names were taken from cartoon characters in a very successful comic strip that ran in the British tabloid The Daily Mirror from 1919 to 1940 and again from 1947 to 1955. Originally the work of Bertram J. Lamb (1887–1938), who was the children’s editor of the paper and illustrator, Austin B. Payne (1876–1959), this charming and witty work featured the mongrel dog Pip, a South African penguin (Spheniscus demersus) named Squeak that had escaped from the zoo, and later on an infant long-eared European hare (Lepus europaeus) whom they called “Wilfred”, who only says "gug" and "nunc." When Wilfred joined the group, Pip assumed the paternal role and Squeak the maternal, even accessorizing with a red purse. The strip emphasized companionship, and the three characters were always depicted together.,

The strip was innovative. These three ‘toons were among the first anthropomorphic animal characters in the comics. In 1921 several five-minute animated films featured them, predating Walt Disney’s Steamboat Willie by seven years. Starting in 1923, there was produced an annual book which featured all of the daily strips from the previous year, a practice which continues to the present day with many daily comic strips. The use of the term "lovely" to indicate approval or agreement was started by Squeak and has long since passed into every-day UK English. 

Squeak — Pip — Wilfred

Why did the Tommies name the service medals after these characters? Likely because the grouping was as ubiquitous as the comic strip. The officers, posh types and  heroes got fancy medals, such as the DSO, DSM, DCM, or even the MC, but Tommy Atkins only got Pip, Squeak, and Wilfred.  

Why were the medals regarded as common? Everyone who served honorably received them, no matter who they were, where they served or what they did. The trio set was awarded to about 2.35 million persons, and the duo set of the War Medal and the Victory Medal was bestowed upon an additional 4.5 million persons whose service was after 1915. Today an authentic three-medal set sells for prices starting at US $750 on eBay and appear to be rather rare. Three individual medals can be had for about £100 at dealers, and exact replica sets go for US $49.99 on Etsy.    

You can read more about the story of the cartoon strip by clicking HERE.

100 Years Ago: 1925 Was a Big Year for Peacemakers

As the new year of 1926 approached, there were a lot of congratulations being passed between the various diplomatic ministries of the participants in the recent World War.  Various actions seemed to have secured a long lasting peace. We know in hindsight that none of those statesmen saw the worldwide Great Depression  a few years in the future or the next big war.  Nevertheless, the accomplishments of the various statesmen and politicians of those days are worth remembering and admiring.

As representatives for all the many individuals determined to see the catastrophe of 1914–1918 not be repeated, I've chosen here to present the Nobel Peace Prize recipients for c. 1925.  There were so many worthy recipients during this period that the Nobel Peace Prizes for achievements in 1925 were spread over three years.

I think it's fitting to remember the peacemakers of a century past, all honored in their time with the Nobel Peace Prize.

• Charles Gates Dawes, United States

Nobel Peace Prize 1925

Charles Dawes received the Peace Prize for 1925 for having contributed to reducing the tension between Germany and France after the First World War.

Dawes's background was as a lawyer and businessman. He came into politics when he headed the presidential election campaign of the Republican candidate William McKinley in 1896. McKinley won but was shot in 1901, and Dawes returned to business life. Dawes did not return to public life until the USA entered World War I in 1917. He was sent to Europe as an officer, and was put in charge of all supplies to the Allies at the front. He was elected vice president of the United States in 1924.

After the war, the Germans resented France's occupation of parts of the country, intended to force them to pay reparations. Tension between the two countries rose. Dawes headed an international committee set up to assess Germany's situation. In 1924, the committee presented the Dawes Plan. Germany was granted American loans enabling it to pay indemnity. In return, France ceased its occupation.

• Sir Austen Chamberlain, United Kingdom

Nobel Peace Prize 1925

Austen Chamberlain shared the Peace Prize for 1925 with the American Charles Dawes. Austen Chamberlain grew up in a family of well-known British politicians. His father, Joseph, was a member of several governments and an eager “empire builder.” His half-brother, Neville, was prime minister when Hitler started World War II in 1939.

Austen Chamberlain studied in France and Germany before entering politics in the Conservative Party. He joined the government in World War I and took part in the peace negotiations at Versailles in 1919. Chamberlain became foreign secretary in 1924 and gave Britain's support when the German foreign minister Gustav Stresemann initiated negotiations in the Swiss town of Locarno aimed at Franco-German reconciliation.

• Aristide Briand, France

Nobel Peace Prize 1926

The French foreign minister Aristide Briand shared the Peace Prize for 1926 with the German foreign minister Gustav Stresemann. They were awarded the prize for reconciliation between Germany and France after World War I.

Aristide Briand pursued a career in the French Socialist Party after having read law at the Sorbonne. He entered the government in 1906 and spearheaded the devolution of France's state church. From 1909 on, he was prime minister for various periods, including during the war.

The war convinced Briand that a peace treaty must not lay the foundations for a revanchist war. He accordingly opposed the harsh treatment meted out to Germany after the war. Briand was also critical of the French occupation of parts of Germany as a means of obtaining war indemnity. In 1925 he signed a reconciliation agreement with Germany in the Swiss town of Locarno. Briand later made unsuccessful attempts to persuade the USA to guarantee France's security.

• Gustav Stresemann, Germany

Nobel Peace Prize 1926

The German foreign minister Gustav Stresemann shared the Peace Prize for 1926 with the French foreign minister Aristide Briand. They were honored for having signed an agreement of reconciliation between their two countries in the Swiss town of Locarno in 1925.

Before entering politics and becoming foreign minister, Stresemann had studied literature, history and economics and worked in business. In 1907 he was elected to the German Reichstag. In the field of foreign policy, he stood out as an eager imperialist who demanded “a place in the sun” for Germany.

During World War I, he supported Germany's annexation of territories from neighboring countries. But with the war going badly, he believed that Germany should sue for peace. He was shocked at the harsh terms accorded Germany at the peace negotiations in 1919 but opposed the idea that Germany should sabotage the peace treaty. Stresemann was prime minister for a short time in 1923, before as foreign minister initiating reconciliation with France.

• Ferdinand Buisson, France

Nobel Peace Prize 1927

Ferdinand Buisson grew up under the nineteenth-century dictatorship of Emperor Napoleon III. He studied philosophy and pedagogy, and moved to Switzerland so as to be able to work, think, and write freely. All his life he was committed to the advancement of democracy and human rights.

After the Franco-German war (1870–71) and the Emperor's fall, Buisson returned to France, where he became professor of pedagogy at the Sorbonne. He took a stand against the anti-Semitism in French society, and in 1902 he was elected to the Chamber of Deputies for the Radical Socialists. There he also became a spokesman for women's suffrage.

In World War I, Buisson denounced Germany as the aggressor but was strongly opposed to the harsh treatment to which it was subjected after the war. He feared it would lay the foundations for a revanchist war on Germany's part and arranged meetings aimed at Franco-German reconciliation. This work gained him the Peace Prize together with the German Ludwig Quidde.

• Ludwig Quidde, Germany

Nobel Peace Prize 1927

Ludwig Quidde was awarded the Peace Prize in 1927 for his lifelong work in the cause of peace. He shared the prize with the Frenchman Ferdinand Buisson.

Quidde had a doctorate in history but received no official appointments because of his opposition to the German Kaiser. He became a member of the International Peace Bureau and endeavored to reduce the hostility between Germany and France after the Franco-German war.

In 1907 he was elected to the German Reichstag, and later became president of the German Peace Society. During World War I, he spoke against Germany's annexation of territory from neighboring countries, and as a result he was placed under political surveillance. Quidde was disappointed at the harsh treatment of Germany after the war, but continued to work against rearmament and German revanchism. When Hitler came to power, he fled to Switzerland, where he lived for the rest of his life.

Interestingly, no Nobel Peace Prizes were awarded in 1928. Possibly,  it was sensed or detected that movement had started toward another world war.  Although, on the other hand, an award was made in 1930 to U.S. secretary of state Frank Kellogg for having been one of the initiators of the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928, prohibiting wars of aggression. While it failed to prevent another world war, it did establish a legal rationale for prosecution of war instigators.

Sources: All the material above was found at the various websites of the Nobel Prize Committee