In William Triplet’s Footsteps During the Meuse-Argonne Offensive

 

It wasn’t a natural double hill. It had been a single-topped, normally rounded hill,
but at some time a whopping big mine had been exploded under
the near center and the whole top center had been blown out.

Sgt. William Triplet, 35th Division

John Swift

The indelible shadow of the First World War still blankets the world we live in today. Although not reflected upon in study or teaching as much as other conflicts, there is no doubt it established a violent introduction to the century that followed. The tangible residue of that time has mostly dissipated as has those who lived through those climatic events have departed this mortal world. However, the men who entered into that crucible have left us the enduring need to give their sacrifice meaning. 

It is with this core belief that many of us still visit the fields and forests where the battles seared the annals of history. With dear comrades, it is a privilege to share an annual pilgrimage to pay homage. This year I was blessed to share the travels with Mike Cunha and others as we visited the Meuse-Argonne. Several memoirs whose vivid first person accounts of the survivor’s tortuous experiences were selected to guide our journey. These accounts provided enough detail that we were ultimately able to template their footsteps across the same terrain recounted by their own words. One such day was spent with Sergeant William S. Triplet, a platoon sergeant in Company D, First Battalion, 140th Infantry Regiment, 35th Division.

Sgt. Triplet's War Account Is Still Available HERE
On the Right Is the Postwar Sgt. Triplet When He Was a West Point Cadet

 

As a seventeen year old high school junior, Triplet enlisted into the Kansas/Missouri National Guard with a tinge of patriotism and the false aspirations of a high school diploma. The Missouri Guard was quickly mobilized into federal service as the 35th Division where its combat record in the Great War would meet with much scrutiny. Triplet’s physical size and self-discipline earned him an NCO’s rank that eventually seems to have placed him as an acting platoon commander during the 35th Divisions’ trials of the Meuse-Argonne. The historical record is honored to have had Triplet’s memoir assembled into the book A Youth in the Meuse-Argonne: A Memoir 1917-18 as edited by Robert Ferrell and printed by the University of Missouri Press in 2019. It is notable that his memoir offers enough detail to literally trace his footsteps by the narrative of his experience and emotions as he advanced and fought for the five fateful days that saw the 35th Division dissolve. 

His battle started with the Division’s opening attack to gain its initial decisive point upon Vauquois Hill (1). William’s vivid memory recounts his becoming lost while leading his platoon over the summit with an ethereal recollection of seeing a color guard actually carrying flags into the assault as if it were a battle from a prior century. Thereafter he notes becoming disoriented by the conditions of the terrain and weather while German prisoners move to the rear past him. Vauquois Hill remains the most poignant testament to the industrial proportions of destruction the war witnessed. To place Triplet here is profound while understanding further that he simply walks over the hill’s crest through sporadic rifle fire. His recalling those events does little to appreciate how the war evolved into that mist saturated moment. For four years the French and Germans had trenched, tunneled and mined the hill into what today is a monument to man’s cruelty. The remains of the butte physically place an emotional weight upon the onlooker that is impossible to describe. The cratered surface and its depths hide an agony that still overwhelms the senses.

Key Sites Mentioned in Article
1. Vauquois, 2. Cheppy, 3. Montrebeau Wood, 4. Sgt Triplet Wounded

Triplet marched on to the town of Cheppy (2) that was delineated by the division order as the Division’s second decisive point. My comrades and I took a short drive north to a crossroads where we parked in front of the Missouri Monument. I have often reflected that this rural nondescript crossroads witnessed several soon to be notable historical figures and valorous actions that belie its pastoral setting. From this spot, on 26 September 1918, one could have observed a Captain Truman ordering his battery into position to the southwest and doing so without orders. A Lieutenant Colonel Patton would be running in the foreground ruthlessly ordering his tanks forward into the village before receiving a near mortal wound. One would have hardly been able to imagine the series of valorous acts that were also unfolding on a ridgeline only a few hundred meters from where this memorial now stands. Where a row of bushes now grow, Captain Skinker and Private Wold would have captured and destroyed several German machine gun positions that were preventing a regimental advance into Cheppy. Both would have their life’s blood flow onto the hill as our nation would recognize them posthumously with the Medal of Honor. Here at this crossroads before a small stream entering into Cheppy, one feels the weight of great deeds with extreme sacrifice.

Triplet and his platoon ultimately sprint through the village late in the day and he again describes how the weather and lack of food overcome any thoughts of the enemy and fear. The next day he continues with the Division’s attack towards the fateful Montrebeau Wood (3). While traversing the hills towards them, his unit is painfully stopped by a wall of machine gun fire being placed by Germans dug along the “Roman Road” to their front. It is interesting that I had read this account numerous times without realizing I had driven that exact road countless times. This “Roman Road” still exists as the main road from Romagne to Varennes. Any visitor to the Argonne will likely drive this road and yet on a hill to its south, only a few hundred yards away, is the spot where Sergeant Triplet and his platoon fought viciously for survival. Walking onto that hill, our group was privileged to read the actual account Triplet left us of his being flattened into the ground to survive the barrage of machine gun fire while the veteran mortar platoon commander ambled up to him and coolly asked for him to denote a target of choice. The account is dark humor but reflects something we often lose when studying battles. At the lowest level of armed conflict with the infantryman, training and skill allow survival. The 35th Division’s combat record is certainly questionable but here on this hill, at the company level, the Division showed its adept training and the true character of its company level leadership. Triplet leaves us an account that must be read to understand the skills necessary to survive combat in the Meuse-Argonne. The hill and Roman Road remain today as stark reminders of how close the men were in their mortal struggles.

Village of Cheppy Captured by the 35th Division in the Opening of the Offensive

Finally, as Triplet’s memoir led us, we traveled into Montrebeau Wood (3). A place where the 35th Division would attack from and impale itself before the village of Exermont. The same woods from where the division ultimately crawled out of after being fragmented. Triplet’s memoir recounts the specifics of his platoon entering the woods and holding back a German counterattack. Thereafter, he is ordered to attack into the village of Exermont. While sprinting forward he would be wounded before the attack had entered into the village itself. Walking through these woods is always a solemn experience and its stillness is heavy like many of the wooded areas in the Argonne. However, this wood is more poignant to me for many reasons. While sharing Triplet’s account and showing Mike the location of where Triplet set up his chauchat gunners, we easily followed the memoir’s description of the wood. Therein, as he described, Mike and I stood before a series of fighting positions still clearly engraved upon the forest floor. The power of Triplet’s account became real and an indescribable sense of the past became tangible. We could look north and see where Triplet was wounded in front of Exermont (4) and then turn south to follow the route he would have taken to the shelter of the valley where Chaudrun Farm then and now sits. There on that ridge, the 35th Division regrouped and the weight of battle was lifted from their pained muscles. All this can be seen but equally felt following in Triplet’s footsteps. We honor these men’s deeds by our memory. We can not forget nor let others. We need to retell their stories and share the fact that walking in their footsteps a hundred years later still offers a tangible connection to their enduring presence. 

I finish this in the words of Sergeant Triplet’s regimental chaplain who after the war wrote in their regimental history the following:

More than half the regiment was missing. But worn out and dirty, there was a strange dignity and strength felt in the regiment. It had met the test. It had passed through fire and blood. Iron had entered its soul.

Some of Our 2026 Group Exploring the Tunnels Under Vauquois

 

Our contributors, Mike Cunha and John Swift of Battles of the First World War Tours, conduct summer visits to the battlefields of the Western Front. In 2027 they will be leading groups to the Meuse-Argonne battlefield, 1-7 July and the Aisne-Marne sector 7-13 July. For more information on their upcoming tours, please check out the Battles of the First World War Podcast website at https://www.firstworldwarpodcast.com/, or contact Mike at verdunpodcast@gmail.com. 

What Happened to Alexander Kerensky after the October Revolution?

 

The Masterful, Charismatic (Temporary) Leader of Revolutionary Russia
Alexander Kerensky

Aleksandr Fyodorovich Kerensky (1881-1970)  was a prominent Russian lawyer and moderate social revolutionary who served as the Prime Minister of the Russian Provisional Government and the short-lived Russian Republic starting in July 1917. He won the office through his skill at bridging the gaps among the multiplicity of revolutionary factions that had opposed the Tsar.  Kerensky's short-lived administration faced persistent challenges from every direction. His ultimate downfall was driven by his continued support for fighting the war and his mismanagement of the "Kornilov Coup" attempt during which he armed the Bolsheviks—his deadliest enemies—in order to protect the capital.

Back in 1917, when the Bolsheviks came to power, you would not have bet a lot of money on the survival of the leader of the government they had violently deposed  leading a long life.  Yet Kerensky would, first escaping to Paris in 1918 and in 1940—next fleeing the Nazis—making it to America, the Land of Opportunity.  When I was doing some research in the 1980s at Stanford's Hoover Institution, there was one curator named Agnes Peterson, who was very supportive of me, who spoke fondly about working with Kerensky.  She did, however, hint that he came equipped with a demanding and eccentric personality, with a flair for the dramatic. 

Back to 1917: Kerensky escaped the Bolsheviks just after they had seized power and fled to Russia's backcountry, where he rallied some loyal troops for an attempt to retake Petrograd. His supporters managed to capture Tsarskoye Selo but were soon beaten back. Kerensky narrowly escaped, and he spent the next few months in hiding before fleeing the country in May 1918. With the help of French and British operatives (including Sidney Reilly) he departed in disguise through the port of Murmansk, never to return. He stopped in England briefly and eventually settled in Paris, living among the fractious White émigré community for the next two decades.

In Exile in the 1950s

Although there is no evidence he met Woodrow Wilson while both were in Paris, some sources suggest he influenced Wilson on Russian matters during the peace conference. During the Russian Civil, he refused to support either side, as he opposed both the Bolshevik regime and the White Movement. He actively sought to  discredit Alexander Kolchak in Western eyes, telling American diplomats that if Kolchak succeeded, he would "inaugurate a regime hardly less sanguinary and repressive than that of the Bolshevists." 

For the next half-century, he earned his living in exile primarily by writing books, editing émigré Russian newspapers and journals, lecturing at universities, and working as a research scholar and librarian. Stalin and the Soviet leadership considered Kerensky so minor and toothless after the October Revolution that, unlike Trotsky or other prominent opponents, Kerensky was never targeted for assassination and was left alone to live out his long life in Western Europe and the United States.

Forced to leave Paris in 1940 to stay ahead of the Nazis, Alexander Kerensky moved to the United States, where he continued working as a lecturer and writer focusing on the Russian Revolution. During the Cold War, Kerensky, who was gradually going blind, began a decade of work at Stanford's Hoover Institution.  He helped with research on the Provisional Government, gathered material for his memoir, Russia and History's Turning Point, did some lecturing in the political science department, and also taught several seminars. 

Kerensky's Grave

Alexander Kerensky died from cancer in New York on 11 June 1970, at the age of 89. Both the local Russian and Serbian Orthodox churches refused his body due to his Freemasonry, and because they saw him as largely responsible for the Bolshevik seizure of power. Eventually, his body was flown to London and buried in the non-sectarian Putney Vale Cemetery.

Sources: EBSCO; Wikipedia; The Independent (7 Nov. 2017); Spartacus Educational; History Today

Let's Check Out Your World War One Knowledge

OK Troops!  At ease and listen up!

It's time to test your level of WWI knowledge!

 

A score of 10 on this test, plus the Bonus Question, earns you an "Intermediate Level" rating.  Future tests will evaluate for the "Advanced" and "Expert" Levels.   

Answers below, but NO PEEKING!

1. British Intelligence intercepted this diplomatic communiqué that would alarm the United States.

2. The longest battle of World War I would commence here in  1916. 

3. 1915 marked a failed naval assault at this body of water that in-turn led to an ill-fated land campaign.

4. This secret agreement, resulted in Italy entering the war on the side of the Entente.

5. U.S. troops were sent to plug a gap in Allied lines at this French city in late May 1918.

6. The British 1917 campaign in Flanders opened with this successful mining operation in June.

7. Considered the most successful Russian operation of the war—despite over 1,000,000 Russian casualties—this offensive bears the name of its principal commander.  Name him.

8. The "Black Day of the German Army" occurred  during this battle.

 

9. This new weapon saw its first battle action on the Somme battlefield in September 1916. 

10. The last of the Central Powers to enter the war.

11. This 1915 defeat of an Anglo-Indian force near Baghdad set the stage for an even more disastrous defeat at Kut. 

12. Admiral Graf Maximilian von Spee lost his fleet, and his own life, in this  naval action in the south Atlantic. 

Bonus:  These two events happened exactly five years apart on 28 June.

Answers

1 -  The Zimmerman Telegram

2 -  Verdun

3 -  The Dardanelles

4 -  The Treaty of London

5 -  Château-Thierry

6 - The Battle of Messines

7 -  Alexei Brusilov

8 - The Battle of Amiens

9 - Tanks

10 - Bulgaria

11 - The Battle of Ctesiphon

12 - The Battle of the Falklands

Bonus Question: The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1914) and the signing of the Versailles Treaty (1919) were five years apart to the day.

Chance and Chaos in War

Chaos umpire sits. 

And by decision more embroils the fury 

By which he reigns: next him high arbiter 

Chance governs all. 

John Milton,  Paradise Lost

American Soldiers on the March in Siberia
"The intervention in Siberia offers an example of perhaps the most complex of
 military operations — military operations other than war."

[Editor's note:  I found this excerpt in a study titled  "Adapting to Chaos: American Soldiers in Siberia, 1918-1920" by Col. G.Scott Gorman, USAF, ret. Col. Gorman is the Director of the Advanced Strategic Leadership Studies Program (ASLSP) and Deputy Director for Academics. at the U.S. Army's  School of Advanced Military Studies.  His observations presented here—I believe—don't just apply to World War I, but to all wars, including the ones going on right now. His paper, by the way, was presented in 1999, but his findings don't seem at all out of date.]

Like [a] forest, the military system is both complex and chaotic.'' The military system is made up of hierarchically-nested components, each dynamically interacting with one another to produce chaotic effects.  As an open system, the military system is subject to additional complexity as the result of interactions with the outside environment. The weather, the enemy, political relationships, and other external factors provide inputs that change both the qualities and the output of the military system.

Owing to these interactions, the military system is non-linear; the outcome of military operations is not necessarily proportional to the inputs to the system. Massive inputs are not always required to produce proportionally extensive results. Uncertainty is not only an initial condition in war, but is also a product of its dynamic action.  Not only is there uncertainty of information, but also uncertainty of effects. This uncertainty and unpredictability, a result or the complexity of interactions within and upon the military system, is inherently characteristic of military operations.  Traditional reductionist models inadequately account for the unavoidable uncertainty of complex military operations.

The dynamic nature of modern war adds to the complexity of military systems. Changing environments, changing missions, and changing opponents contribute to the chaos of current and future military operations. The environment of military operations continues to change temporally, spatially, and mechanically. Temporally, command and control conducted at the speed of light and weapons delivered at the speed of sound have contributed to the increased tempo of military operations. Spatially, the expanse of the battlefield has grown to cover the globe; in the future, there may be little distinction between the battlefield and the homefront. Recognizing the changing spatial dimensions of modern war and thc expanding array of possible military environments, military theorists and doctrine writers have replaced the word "battlefield" with the more inclusive "battlespace". 

Mechanically, technological innovations have produced quicker, deadlier, and more destructive ways of interacting within the military environment. The diversification of military missions has created additional complexity by adding both to the details (increasing the number of parts) and dynamics (increasing the number of interactions between agents) of the military system. Military agents must be familiar not only with more tools, but also with new and innovative ways of using these tools. As the system changes, so too does that of possible opponents. The "systems" opposing future military operations will consist not only of conventional military forces, but also of terrorists, computer hackers, economic: criminals, and even Mother Nature. Changes inherent in modern war have greatly increased the complexity of the military operating environment. . . Small changes in input result in dramatic and unpredictable changes in output. 

Col. Gorman included some interesting observations on a category of military operations called  Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW), which we have seen a lot of since he wrote this article.  Three of his points jumped off the page for me:

• "In the future, there may be little distinction between the battlefield and the homefront." 

• "The identity of belligerents may be uncertain and the relationship between a specific operation and a campaign plan may be more difficult to define than would normally be the case in war."

• The failure to adapt to complexity leads to systemic failure in competitive environments. 

Then Major Gorman's 1999 66-page monograph on America's Siberian Expedition can be accessed HERE.

Folkestone, England, at War

Idyllic Folkestone

Located on the coast of southeast England overlooking the English Channel, Folkestone is today a pleasant resort with a population of 50,000, or so. The town proper is strung out along 2 miles of Dover's cliffs. Below, accessible by a steep road is the town's harbor.  In 1629,  with its location on the narrowest part of the English Channel, the local inhabitants obtained a royal license to build a port. From the beginning of the railway age, Folkestone developed both as a passenger port across the English Channel—Boulogne, France, lies just 26 miles  away—and as a high-class seaside resort. It has a long roster of celebrity visitors, including King Edward VII & Mrs. Keppel, and authors H.G. Wells, Charles Dickens, and Agatha Christie. Its port and location, though, would eventually guarantee that the town would play major role in the First World War, and its tourist trade put in abeyance.

During the summer of 1914, Folkestone would still have been bustling with holiday-makers promenading.   Since the extension of the railway, and the building of the Foord Valley Viaduct, Folkestone had become a popular holiday resort for the Victorians and Edwardians. When war came, the general feeling in the country was that a war would be over by Christmas and life would not be excessively disrupted. 

Commemorative Painting of the Arrival of First Belgian Refugees

Folkestone, however, would learn sooner than most of the nation that this was not to be the case. The town’s first connection with what was happening on European soil was on 20  August 1914, when the first of thousands of refugees from recently invaded Belgian  arrived in Britain via Folkestone.   By 5 September it was estimated that as many as 18,000 refugees had arrived at Folkestone Harbour,

Folkestone eventually welcomed over 65,000 Belgian visitors, and residents willingly took mon of them in, keen to be doing something for the war effort.  Around the town today can be seen evidence of the Belgian’s stay with streets and squares named after the new arrivals.  Middelburg Square sits at the heart of the town centre; Ingles Road and the surname Inglebrecht all stem from Belgian origins. The government helped share the refugees over the south of England, reserving The Grand Hotel to house members of the Belgian Royal Family.   After the war, many of these refugees returned home if they hadn’t married and settled in their host country.  

WWI Troopship Departing Folkestone

By the end of August 1914, Folkestone saw the first wounded soldiers returning from the Battle of Mons in Belgium.  70,000 British soldiers had faced a German army of over twice that size.  There were heavy casualties.  A report from the Folkestone Herald talked of the soldiers’ arrival causing great interest and excitement “The soldiers were conveyed in motor cars through the town to the camp, being enthusiastically greeted by the crowds in the streets.  Most of the men appeared to be slightly wounded and were able to walk with assistance.  They displayed great cheerfulness.”

These were the earliest of an estimated 10 million passengers who passed through Folkestone Harbour on route to or returning from Boulogne and the continent.  Many were soldiers, but also nurses and other staff to support the war.  Folkestone would gain fame as the primary "gateway to the trenches" for Britain during World War I.   A great percentage of these numbers were British Tommies departing for the Western Front and returning for their brief leaves home from the battlefields and back again.  The perilous trip—U-boats and mines were the principal dangers—took about 2 hours, one-way.   

Leave Troops Assembling for Their Return to France

Folkestone and its citizens were targeted by the enemy in both world wars.   On 25 May 1917, German Gotha heavy bombers carried out a devastating daylight raid on the town.The  A direct hit on Tontine Street—where civilians were queuing for holiday groceries—killed around 70 to 95 people and injured nearly 200, making it one of the deadliest single bombing events on the British home front during the war.

After the Armistice,  King Albert 1 of Belgium sent a message to Folkestone

Folkestone had earned the admiration not only of the Belgians, but also of the whole world: yes, the whole civilised world knew how the town of Folkestone had received them with such cordiality which would never be forgotten.

Aerial View of the Folkestone Harbour Today

In the Second World War— because occupied France was only about 22 miles away—the town experienced frequent long-range artillery shelling from enemy big guns, alongside high-explosive bomb drops and parachute mines that destroyed local shops, houses, and the town's gasworks.  Later, the town was targeted by dozens of V-1 buzz bombs.

Sources: Folkestone History Group; Kentonline; Disused-stations.org; Folkstonehistory.org

Chief of Staff Peyton March's Wartime Tragedy

 

The Son: Peyton March, Jr, (1897–1918)
As a Lafayette College Baseball Player

 

Army Chief of Staff General Peyton C. March was the most prominent active member of the American military to lose a son during the Great War. His second son, Second Lieutenant Peyton C. March Jr, still an undergraduate at Lafayette College, enlisted in the Aviation Section of the Signal Corps. Lt. March was killed in a military airplane training crash at Hicks Field in Texas on 13 February 1918. March Field (now March Air Reserve Base) in California was named in his honor the following month. He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery (Section 30, Site 1476). 

The Father: General Peyton March (1864–1955)
Army Chief of Staff

On 4 March 1918, General March assumed the position of Acting Chief of Staff of the Army and despite his undiplomatic managerial style, performed outstandingly for the duration of the war. Theodore Roosevelt wrote to General March—shortly before his own son Quentin was killed in France—“You have already drunk of the waters of bitterness; I suppose I shall soon have to drink of them; but whatever befalls, you and I hold our heads high when we think of our sons.”

Sources: Lafayette College Magazine,  Find a Grave, History.net

Jutland: World War I’s Greatest Naval Battle

 

Edited by Michael Epkenhans, Jörg Hillmann, and Frank Nägler

The University Press of Kentucky, 2015

Jon Tetsuro Sumida, Reviewer

Second Division at Jutland

Review originally presented in First World War Studies, 2018

This book presents 11 papers given by British/Australian and German scholars at a conference held in 2006 organized by the Militär Geschichtliches Forschungsamt (MGFA, now reconfigured as the Zentrum für Militärgeschichte und Sozialwissenschaften der Bundeswehr, ZMSBw) in partnership with the Otto-von-Bismarck Stiftung and Oxford University. It was first published in 2009, republished after revision in 2011 and the revised version published again in 2015–presumably to take advantage of the centennial of the battle that is its subject. The purpose of the collection, according to the preface, is "not only [to] take into account historical policy and diplomacy, historical strategy and operations, but … also attempt to approach the subject “from underneath” – that is, to take into account the politics of memory of the event …".

The articles can be divided into four groups: the Anglo-German naval rivalry (N.A.M. Rodger) and German operational and strategic planning (Frank Nägler) before the First World War; British (James Goldrick and Andrew Lambert) and German (Michael Epkenhans) operations and planning after the outbreak of war up to May 1916; the battle of Jutland described and analyzed from the German (Werner Rahn) and British (John Brooks) points of view; and the battle of Jutland remembered in Britain (Eric Grove), Germany (Jörg Hillmann, Jan Kindler) and more generally (Michael Salewski). The number of British and German contributors is roughly even (five to six). In terms of the article length, on the other hand, the balance is very heavily weighted in favor of the German contributions—248 pages to 83 or a ratio of three to one. 

The heavy emphasis on the German side of the ledger is understandable given the nationality of the primary conference sponsor (MGFA) and the three conference volume editors. Furthermore, much of the material offered on the German side is both interesting and will be new to English-language readers. Nägler and Epkenhans assess German operational assumptions based on comprehensive consideration of official documents. Rahn’s long narrative offers explanations of critical decisions by the German senior commanders during the battle—such as Hipper’s alteration of course to the south after sighting the British battle cruiser force and Scheer’s turning his fleet back toward the British battle line from which it had just escaped by desperate maneuver. In addition, Rahn’s documents include revealing after-action reports: Scheer’s "Tactical Lessons from the Battle of Jutland", and Hipper’s "Tactical Experiences of the Commanders of the Reconnaissance Ships", as well as personal narratives such as "Eyewitness Account by Johannes Karl Groth, Artillery Leader on board the Battlecruiser Lützow". Hillman and Kindler explore the German remembrance of Jutland productively. Regrettably, however, Salewski’s attempt to find greater meaning—or the lack thereof—in the happenings of the battle falls short of enlightening.

The British/Australian contributions cover what for English-language readers is for the most part familiar ground. Rodgers provides a recapitulation of the Anglo-German naval rivalry that takes into account new scholarship (up to 2009). Goldrick’s chapter provides a critical analysis of  British naval operations before Jutland. Brooks’s representation of the British narrative is largely confined to the activity of the battle cruisers and the tactical mistakes of Beatty, the commander of the main battle cruiser force. Andrew Lambert advances provocative views on the prominence of the Baltic in British naval strategic thought in what is by far the longest article by a British author, while Eric Grove offers a bare sketch of the protracted and indeed enduring controversy over Jutland in Britain in the shortest article in the book. Attentive readers of these articles will detect the survival of old controversies and the emergence of new ones even though the volume’s introduction avoids discussing the current state of the Jutland literature, which is attributable perhaps to prudence rather than dereliction.

Order HERE

Despite the efforts of the volume’s authors and their legion of predecessors, Jutland remains an enigma. To a degree this state of affairs is inherent to a battle that had been expected and from which so much was anticipated but also one which resulted in heavy losses on both sides and an inconclusive outcome. There is, however, a great deal that has yet to be learned about important things. The archival material known to exist for both the British and German navies is more than enough to fuel productive inquiry into technical and related tactical questions that bear directly on the mind-sets of the opposing commanders and their strategic, operational, and tactical motivation. More disciplined examination of the particulars that determined the basic narrative, not contemplation of secondary matters and the meta-historical, should be the order of the day for naval historians with serious intentions about their subject and their craft. Resolution of much of the mystery of Jutland is a difficult challenge to be sure but not an impossible one.

Jon Tetsuro Sumida

How Much Did Rommel Apply His World War I Book in World War II?

Lt. Erwin Rommel in the Early Days of World War I

I.  WWI and Infantry Attacks

Erwin Rommel (1891–1944) served as an aggressive and highly decorated German infantry lieutenant during World War I, earning Germany's highest military honor, the Pour le Mérite. He saw combat on the Western Front in France, in Romania, and on the Italian Front. We have earlier presented a number of articles about his Great Service on Roads to the Great War and they can be accessed HERE. 

In 1937, then Lt. Col. Rommel, an instructor at the Potsdam Military Academy, saw published his quasi-war memoir, written in the form of tactical case studies titled Infantry Attacks (German: Infanterie greift an). Its professed purpose was to share his lessons from the Great War and to be adopted as training resource for junior officers. It turned out to be—whether intended or not—a masterpiece of self-promotion. Coming from neither a traditional military family nor the Prussian aristocracy, he was not an army insider tabbed for high office.  Rommel's clear, direct writing style were perfect for his targeted readership, and his emphasis on aggressive leadership, speed, deception, terrain utilization, and shock troops was a perfect formula for erasing the dismal memories of trench warfare. The book became a bestseller that attracted numerous well-placed admirers, particularly Adolf Hitler, with whom he had crossed paths earlier. It's no accident that Rommel's first command in the Second World War was of Hitler's personal headquarters security.

In Africa

II. WWII Commands

While never quite achieving the zenith of leadership for the German Army, Rommel held an impressive string of commands, before accepting the poison pills of Hitler's henchmen.

• Hitler's Headquarters (1939–1940): Commanded the Fuhrer Headquarters security troops during the invasion of Poland.

• 7th Panzer Division (1940–1941): The invasion of France.

• Afrika Corps (1941–1942).

• Operation in Northern Italy (1943–1944).

• Commanded Defenses Along the Atlantic War (1944)

III.  How He Applied His Own Lessons in WWII

Infantry Attacks was a book about tactics, written through the eyes of a junior infantry officer. It does not address strategy or "big picture" issues like logistics, large-scale force maneuvering, supply, or combined arms operations. Consequently, there seems to be a noticeable correlation between the advice of Infantry Attacks and Rommel's most notable and legendary achievements during the Second World War. On the tactical level there were some notable achievements. However, on the larger scale, the results were not as impressive.

Rommel: The Desert Fox

Leading from the Front: Just as he commanded small infantry units at the point of main effort (Schwerpunkt) in WWI, Rommel constantly operated out of forward command vehicles or reconnaissance planes in WWII—earning his 7th Panzer Division the moniker "Ghost Division" because even his own high command often did not know his exact location or intentions. Later, as commander of the Atlantic Wall, Rommel was initially a "whirling dervish", rapidly energizing construction, touring the coasts, and motivating troops and French laborers.

Speed and Surprise: His infantry shock tactics (Stoßtruppen) relied on deep, rapid penetrations to disorient defenders and induce surrender rather than engaging in slow slugfests. He translated this tempo to armor highly successfully during the 1940 French campaign and the North African desert campaigns. His crossing of the Meuse River,  for example, will always, be an object of study at military colleges.  His later execution of the occupation of Italy in 1943 was remarkable as he quickly captured critical alpine passes and secured his communication lines, while disarming over one million Italian soldiers.

Psychological Warfare and Deception: Rommel routinely used feints, reconnaissance in force, aggressive positioning, and displays of overwhelming localized pressure to deceive enemies about his actual strength and make them feel surrounded or outflanked. While not especially admirable, he did show considerable insights into partisan resistance tactics and utter ruthlessness in suppressing them in Italy and the Balkans. In his final assignment, he was not listened to when he advised that the Allied invasion had to be stopped on the beaches within the first 24 hours, because the enemy's naval and air power would paralyze any deep-inland counterattacks.

Late Photo of Rommel with His Family

Rommel: The Limitations

Neglecting Logistics: Applying a junior officer's hyper-aggressive, fast-moving infantry mindset to entire Panzer armies caused severe logistical blind spots. Rommel frequently outran his supply lines and fuel trucks in North Africa because he prioritized operational momentum over administrative sustainability.

Command and Control Breakdown: His personal, decentralized style worked for a company or battalion, but at the division and army level, it often resulted in a reckless disregard for broader coordination and higher command directives. The "Ghost Division" nickname was not always meant as complimentary. His most notable failure in this regard occurred in the November 1942 Second Battle of ElAlamein, when his forward headquarters lost all contact with  his frontline units.

His Pessimism: Rommel grew progressively pessimistic about Germany's prospects in the war. This trait is totally absent in Infantry Attacks, which ends with the post-Caporetto operations in Italy, when Germany still seemed in a position to win the war. [Rommel served the entirety of 1918, when things turned bad for Germany, in a staff position.]  

Rommel’s pessimism began to manifest during the later stages of the North Africa Campaign. Hitler famously confided to Albert Speer that “Rommel has lost his nerve; he's become a pessimist." After the Normandy breakout by the Allies, he became almost openly defeatist and possibly a supporter of the 20 July assassination attempt. This cost him his life.

The Editor's Call:  

How closely did Rommel apply his First World War lessons?  From my readings of various sources, its seems like he did apply many of those lessons to the battlefields of the Second World War, possibly to a fault, and he did seem to have some blind spots. However, I remember a speaker at some long ago military conference who claimed that of all the notable generals of WWII, Rommel did "the mostest with the leastest."

Sources: Military History; HistoryNet; Military Strategy Magazine; Infantry Attacks by Erwin Rommel (highly recommended and can be ordered HERE.)

The Vauthier Borne Markers

Dedication of Marker #1 at Château-Thierry 
November, 1921

In our recent Lonesome Memorials #27 article (HERE) We mentioned that located across the road from the memorial is one of the demarcation stones that indicate Germany's deepest penetration in to France in WWI. One of our readers asked for more information on these markers, so this is what I discovered. By the way, the particular marker we referred to in the original article has a unique story.

These Vauthier Borne Markers (known in French as Bornes Vauthier or Bornes du Front) map out the Allied front line on 18 July 1918, marking the maximum German army advance before the final Allied counter-offensives. This network of landmarks was conceived in 1920 by French sculptor and war veteran Paul Moreau-Vauthier, who had served as a machine gunner and was wounded at Verdun. It gained sponsorship of the Touring Club de France.

Fort de la Pompelle (#50), Reims, Champagne

After a brief enemy occupation in August 1914, French forces, and later Russian, reoccupied the fort, protecting Reims for the entirety of the war.

The stones identify the army (Belgian, British, or French) that held that sector in 1918 and are engraved with the text "Here the invader was brought to a standstill 1918" in English, Dutch, and French. The stones were placed at locations selected by Marshal Petain and his staff and often occupy prominent positions usually on roadsides. Collectively, they delineate the line of 18 July 1918, the day French and American forces launched the first of the Allies 1918 victory offensives. The German Army gained no additional territory along the Western Front for the remainder of the war.  Needless to say, not all the markers were precisely located, especially where the front line experienced a series of attacks and counterattacks.  Moreau-Vauthier died in 1936 in a car accident at Ruffigny near Niort in Deux-Sèvres, and is buried in Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris.

 Stuivekenskerke (#11), Diksmuide, West Flanders

Site of an Important Belgian Army Observation Tower

Some Details:

Quantity: Originally, 240 markers were planned to stretch roughly 650 km along the Western Front from Nieuwpoort, Belgium to the Franco-Swiss border. Ultimately, 118 markers  were erected between 1921 and 1930 (96 in France and 22 in Belgium). Today, 93 survive after suffering damage during World War II.

Material & Size: Carved out of distinctive pink Alsace granite, standing about 1.3 meters (3.3 feet) tall.

Gear Engravings: The sides of each stone feature bas-relief carvings of standard infantry equipment, including a gas mask case, a water bottle, and hand grenades.

Design Elements: Each stone is topped with a military helmet resting on a laurel wreath. The helmet type varies depending on which Allied forces held that specific sector:

• French sector: Adrian helmet

• Belgian sector: Belgian Adrian helmet

• British/Commonwealth sector: Brodie helmet

At least two of the markers are particularly linked to the American War effort: 

Château-Thierry (#1)

On the banks of the Marne River, it signifies a major turning point during the Second Battle of the Marne. Located at the intersection of Avenue de Soissons and Avenue Jules. On 30 May 1918, machine gunners of the Third U.S. Division arrived on the opposite shore and prevented a crossing of the Marne River that would have threatened Paris. 

Flirey Marker (#68)
U.S. 89th Division Launched an Attack Here, 12 September 1918

This unique marker located in the Lorraine, on the south face of what was the St. Mihiel Salient. It stands .75 miles north of the village on D904. It is designated "Georges Washington" in recognition of the American service in the area. In the village proper is the Monument de la Lorraine à la Gloire des États-Unis symbolizing enduring Franco-American friendship.

I have thus far been unable to discover a comprehensive listing of the markers or a map.  If you know of such a resource, please post it in the comments below. 

1 October 2026 Update:

Reader ML has shared the url for an interactive map showing the location of all the markers including those no longer surviving.  It seems to be associated with the Dorman's memorial.  Thanks ML.

http://memorialdormans.free.fr/BornesVauthier.htm

Sources: American War Memorials Overseas,  Bassin de Pont-a-Mousson Tourisme; Wikipedia

A Dozen Photographs of Russia at War in 1916

Click on Images to Enlarge

The Dukhovshchinsky Regiment at a Performance at the Regimental Theater

A Hospital Nurse

Military Hospital Ward

 

Officers and Soldiers Leaving for the Front

In Memory of Military Service (Subject Unknown)

Captured Austrian Machine Gun

Transfer to the Southern Front

"At a Dugout. Wearing Gas Masks"

Rasputin's Corpse

Factory of the Russian Society for the Manufacture of Ammunition and Military Supplies

Tsar Nicholas II With His Family at the Train Station in Mogilëv 

Commander-in-Chief General Alexei Brusilov

Source: The Multimedia Art Museum, Moscow