The Mistaken Assumption Behind the "Blank Check"

The July Crisis

Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans!

Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, 1888

By Editor Mike Hanlon

On 5 July 1914, Alexander Hoyos, a leading hawk in the Austrian Foreign Ministry, and Count Ladislaus von Szögyény (1841-1916), the Habsburg ambassador to Berlin, met Wilhelm II, German Emperor and Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, the German chancellor. The following morning, Bethmann Hollweg gave Szögyény this assurance the following morning:  

Concerning Austria’s relations with Serbia the German government believes that Vienna has to judge what has to be done to clarify this relationship; in this undertaking it can count safely on Germany’s support of the monarchy as ally and friend – whatever its decision.

This is the infamous "Blank Check" that encouraged Austria-Hungary to proceed with the punitive measures it was contemplating against Serbia but had feared the intervention of Russia, Serbia's fellow-Slavic protector.  The Dual Empire did indeed subsequently feel empowered to proceed with their plans.  Russian diplomats and intelligence operatives, meanwhile, picked up signs that Vienna was planning an aggressive move with this backing from Berlin. Petrograd had major stakes in such a game, viewing the Balkans as a vital sphere of influence and believed any losses there would signal weakness to its French and British allies.

Bismarck by von Lenbach
Understood Russia and the Balkans Better Than His Successors

This failure to anticipate Russia's response to subsequent Austro-Hungarian actions (chart above) led to Russia mobilizing and her allies eventually joining the war, thus turning a local European conflict into a Pan-European war, that quickly became a world-wide war.  The "Complete Catastrophe" in other words resulted from the mistaken assumption that Russia would stand-by and let the two Germanic empires have their way with a friendly Slavic state.  How could such a monumental error in judgment come about?  Below are some of the explanatory theories that historians have advanced of the years.

Amnesia

Those gentlemen who met in Berlin the first week of July 1914 had plenty of warning about being very  careful in the Balkans and with the Russian Bear, in particular, from Germany's greatest statesman Otto von Bismarck.  The former chancellor had based his mostly successful approach to European diplomacy on "making a good treaty with Russia", pronouncing for all to hear  that all the Balkans were “not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier” and that if a major war came to Europe it would start because of "some damned foolish thing in the Balkans."  This outbreak of amnesia apparently afflicted all the  top German decision-makers, who largely concurred on offering unconditional support to Austria-Hungary during the July Crisis of 1914.  One minor exception might be the German Ambassador in Vienna, Heinrich von Tschirschky, who is considered the most cautious of Germany's senior officials, although he still facilitated the messaging and conveyed that Berlin expected a firm response. 

Kaiser Wilhelm II and Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg
1916 Commemorative Medal

The Kaiser's Hand  

Kaiser Wilhelm II was inclined to believe that Russia would not intervene by his own predispositions, reinforced by his military and diplomatic circles (such as reports from Count Friedrich Pourtalès, the German ambassador to Russia). He also seems to have convinced himself that  his cousin (Dear Nicky)  Tsar Nicholas II—as a fellow conservative absolute monarch—would never align himself with or defend a nation of "regicides" (i.e. the Serbs responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand).

Misreading the Opposition

The consensus ascendent among Berlin's insiders was a belief (or hope) that giving Austria-Hungary unconditional backing would scare Russia into staying neutral, allowing Austria-Hungary to crush Serbia quickly in a localized conflict without triggering a broader European war.  On the diplomatic / ideological front, however, Russia had clearly and overtly used Pan-Slavism to justify aggressive geopolitical moves and territorial ambitions directed against the Ottoman Empire. Abandoning Slavic Serbia would be inconsistent with that policy and undermine it. The ability to reflect realistically on Russia's interests appears lacking in reports on the discussions.

Gamesmanship

German planners believed Russia's military was still unrecovered and unready from the disastrous Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 and had not yet fully implemented army reforms. They assumed Russia would be too weak to fight and would back down if faced with the combined might of Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg viewed an Austria-Hungary against Serbia war in July 1914 as a "calculated risk" to break up the Triple Entente or secure a localized diplomatic victory for the Central Powers. This latter point came from treating the crisis as an opportunity.

Combining All of the Above: There was An Epidemic of Wishful Thinking (My Opinion for What It's Worth)

Caesar by Rubens

Eschewed Wishful Thinking

What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also. 

Julius Caesar, Commentaries

How did the leadership of an influential world power make the tragically dangerous assumption that a competing power would stay passive when a major conflict—in which it had a big stake—unfolded on its doorstep?  Putting this article together reminded me a bit of what I've read about the attack on Pearl Harbor and how it surprised all of America's civilian and military leadership when so much information was available to them. (We've lost track of the Japanese carriers!  They couldn't be headed for Honolulu, could they? Nah.)  In both cases it the most senior decision makers acted like some infectious agent carrying the wishful thinking pathogen was in the air.

History is filled with all sorts of episodes of groups of people collectively acting out in  irrational or destructive ways: the Dutch Tulip Craze, the Rwandan Genocide, and my favorite, The Strasbourg Dancing Plague of 1518, are examples.  The first of these examples is something of a definitive clinical case of  an epidemic of wishful thinking.  According to a study by University of Amsterdam (where they well-remember the tulips),  wishful thinking becomes an epidemic when high stress, uncertainty, and emotional stakes combine with social reinforcement and information overload, causing cognitive biases to spread across groups.  

What about in Berlin in 1914?  Were German statesmen captured by this phenomena? The pre-conditions described above certainly match the pressure chamber that Germany's statesmen found themselves in the midst of the July Crisis.  The assembled collectively wished away the greatest danger to their nation in making their decision.  The world war that followed, in my view, seems to have been caused by an epidemic of wishful thinking at a decisive moment.

Sources: "TWE Remembers: Austria-Hungary Issues an Ultimatum to Serbia ",   The Council of Foreign Relation; "The illusion of limited war: chancellor Bethmann Hollweg's calculated risk, July 1914 ", Leibniz-Institut Repository; "Making the future too bright: how wishful thinking can point us in the wrong direction," Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2024.

Weapons of War: Forging the Giant Cannons (Video)

Thanks to our friend and long-time contributor Robin Clayton of Walnut, Mississippi, for discovering this video

Liberating the Somme: The 1918 Battle of Chuignes

The slaughter of the enemy in the tangled valleys was considerable, for our Infantry are always vigorous bayonet fighters. They received much assistance from the tanks in disposing of the numerous machine gun detachments which held their ground to the last. — Monash

The Amiens Gun Captured During the Battle

Chuignes is the name of a rural village (population 152) and commune in the Somme department of the Hauts-de-France region in northern France about 20 miles east of Amiens. Despite its size, today Chuignes has its own tiny WWI museum because on 23 August 1918, the Australian Corps of the British Army won a strategic victory there that unhinged the primary German defensive line forward of the Somme River, forcing a broad German retreat and permanently safeguarding the critical logistics hub of Amiens. The next stops for the Allied forces were the Somme battlefield and the Hindenburg Line.

Lieutenant-General Sir John Monash, Commander of the Australian Corps at the battle at Chuignes later wrote about the successes of that day: 

On 23 August, the Australian Corps—now composed of the five Australian divisions plus the 32nd British  Division—stood ten miles from the “line of the Somme,” marked by the great bend of the river to the south at Péronne. However, in between there was but one place in the river valley where German forces could concentrate and shelter sufficient artillery to make a stand against the advancing British Fourth Army.

The great attack by the First Division supported by the 32nd Division, which has come to be known as the Battle of Chuignes, was launched at dawn on August 23rd and was an unqualified success. 

The main valley of the Somme in this region is flanked by a number of tributary valleys, which run generally in a north and south direction, extending back from the river four or five miles. They are broad, with heavily wooded sides, and harbour a number of villages, such as Proyart, Chuignolles, Herleville, and Chuignes, which cluster on their slopes.

One such valley, larger and longer than any of those which, in our previous advances, we had yet crossed, lay before our front line of that morning, and square across our path. It ran from Herleville, northwards, past Chuignes, to join the Somme in the Bray bend. It was the most easterly of all the tributary valleys to which I have referred, and it was also the last piece of habitable country before the devastated area of 1916 was reached, just a mile to the east of it.

The valley afforded excellent cover for the enemy's guns, and the expectation was that some of them would be overrun by our attack. It was also ideal country for machine-gun defense, for the numerous woods, hedges, and copses afforded excellent cover, and had in all probability been amply fortified with barbed wire. It was a formidable proposition to attack such a position on such a frontage with only two Brigades.

The 2nd Brigade (Heane) attacked on the right, the 1st Brigade (Mackay) on the left, and the first phase was completed to time-table, with the green objective line, located on the east side of the long valley, in our possession. The only temporary hitch in the advance along the whole front was at Robert Wood, where the enemy held out and had to be completely enveloped from both flanks before surrendering.

Then came the second phase, and no difficulty was experienced in advancing our line 1,000 yards east of the green line, nor in establishing there a firm line of outposts for the night.

The third phase presented a great deal more difficulty than I had anticipated. It was to have been undertaken by the 3rd Brigade (Bennett) pushing without delay through the 1st Brigade, and advancing in open warfare formation north-easterly towards Cappy, for the seizure of Hill 90, overlooking that village and on the south-west of it, and terminating at its northern extremity in the high bluff of Froissy Beacon.

There was, however, some unexplained delay in the initiation of this advance, and it was not until about 2 o'clock that the 3rd Brigade moved forward to the assault of the long slope of the Chuignes Valley, which still lay before them in this part of the field. The enemy, under the impression that our attack had spent itself, had occupied the plateau in great strength, and at first little progress could be made.

 

Disabled Mark V During the Fighting

Mobile artillery was, however, promptly pushed up, and this proved of great assistance to the infantry. Garenne Wood, on the top of the plateau, into which large numbers of the enemy had withdrawn, proved a difficult obstacle, and incapable of capture by frontal attack. It, too, was conquered by enveloping tactics,  and with its fall the resistance of the enemy rapidly subsided, and the 3rd Brigade had the satisfaction of hunting the fugitives clean off the plateau into the Cappy Valley.

The whole of this phase of the battle was an especially fine piece of work on the part of the Regimental Officers. It was open warfare of the most complete character, and the victory was won by excellent battle control on the part of the Battalion Commanders, by splendid co-operation between the four Battalions of the Brigade, and by intelligent and gallant leadership on the part of the Company and Platoon Commanders. 

Beset as I had been by many anxieties during the early afternoon as to how the Third Brigade would fare in the difficult task which had been given it, rendered more difficult by the delay of which I have spoken, I had the satisfaction that night of contemplating a victory far greater than I had calculated upon.

A Junction of the River Somme (L) and the Somme Canal (R)
Captured During the Fighting

 

For the 32nd Division had successfully captured Herleville, and the First Division had seized the whole country for a depth of 1½ miles up to a line extending from Herleville to the western edge of Cappy. The whole Chuignes Valley was ours. By its capture, the enemy had been despoiled of all habitable areas and had been relegated to a waste of broken and ruined country between us and the line of the Somme.

One notable tactical achievement of the fighting was the capture of the famous "Amiens gun." Troops from the Australian 3rd Battalion secured a massive, 500-plus ton German 15-inch naval/railway gun hidden in Arcy Wood. Known affectionately as the "Amiens Gun" (or Chuignes Big Bertha), this weapon had been terrorizing the vital Allied logistics hub of Amiens from nearly 30 kilometers away.

We took that day 21 guns and over 3,100 prisoners from ten different regiments. It was a smashing blow and far exceeded in its results any previous record in my  experience, having regard to the number of troops engaged. Its immediate result, the same night, was the capture of Bray by the Third Division, north of the river, thus completing the work of that Division which the failure of the 47th Division on their left the day before had compelled them to leave unfinished. The 40th Battalion took 200 prisoners, with trifling loss to themselves.

A more remote result, which made itself apparent in the next few days, was that it compelled the enemy to abandon all hope of retaining a hold of any country west of the line of the Somme; it impelled him at last to an evacuation of the great bend of the river, a process which he began in a very few days.

 

German Prisoners from the Battle Being Marched to the Rear

ANZAC Portal, a site maintained by the Australian Government and the Monash Centre at Fouilly on the Somme battlefield, point out some additional important points about the battle:

Australians at the Battle of Chuignes in the final Hundred Days used a more sophisticated creeping barrage. Artillery delivered a mix of high explosive, shrapnel and smoke shells to maximise protection for the infantry. The Allies' barrage included up to 10% smoke shells to screen their advancing troops from the enemy.

The seasoned diggers of the 1st Division and the newer Mark V tanks each with its own infantry scout were protected by this barrage. Carrier tanks were also employed to ensure timely supply of the advancing troops. Tanks had been much improved since their failure at Bullecourt where they had lost the confidence of the infantry.

Outstanding acts of bravery were undertaken during the course of the battle by the Australian and British troops, with two Australians being awarded the Victoria Cross. Lieutenant Lawrence McCarthy an orphan from Perth, Western Australia displayed outstanding leadership and personal bravery which resulted in the killing of 20 German soldiers, the capture of over 40 prisoners and the seizure of 500 yards of German frontline. Charles Bean, the official Australian war correspondent believed McCarthy’s actions in winning his Victoria Cross to be one of the most outstanding feats of individual fighting in the history of the A.I.F.. Bean also believed McCarthy’s effort to be equal to that of Gallipoli V.C. winner Lieutenant Jacka who went on to win Military Cross at Pozières. Lieutenant William Joynt also won a Victoria Cross for his outstanding bravery during the battle for Chuignes. 

Source: The Australian Victories in France in 1918; Over the Top, August 2018; ANZAC Portal; The Sir John Monash Centre

Everything Is Still Up-to-Date in Kansas City

 

The National WWI Museum in Kansas City Missouri has chosen a unique and creative way to honor the Memorial's 100th anniversary and the Nation's 250th. Begun at the end of September, every weekend evening (Fri–Sun) and the six days leading up to Veterans Day the Memorial will be transformed into a canvas of light, sound, and motion.  Three acclaimed artists each bring the Memorial's inscribed virtues—Honor, Courage, Sacrifice, and Patriotism—to life across an eight-to-ten-minute visual and auditory experience—Liberty's Beacon—shown throughout the evening. Below are some of the artists' creations. (Without the sound, though.)

The Venue in Daylight

The public is invited to gather on the North Lawn. Bring a picnic or a blanket and visit at your convenience. Return throughout the season to view all three installations. Each eight-to-ten-minute installation starts at 7:30 p.m. and repeats every 15 minutes (:00, :15, :30 and :45) until the last showing begins at 10:30 p.m.

Go HERE for frequently asked questions, and information about the artists.

The Kaiser and the Tsar's Peculiar 1907 Summit

The Tsar in German Naval Uniform—The Kaiser in Russian Naval Uniform

A naval review and imperial summit took place at the German spa town of  Swinemünde (modern-day Świnoujście, Poland) at the mouth of the Oder River from 3 to 6 August 1907. It was a highly publicized diplomatic and naval event featuring meetings between Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia during a naval review. Unlike a 1905 meeting in which the two principals met alone to the consternation of many, this time, meetings were conducted with advisors and government ministers present, including German Imperial Chancellor Prince Bernhard von Bülow and Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Izvolsky.

The affair occurred on the Baltic coast, where the two monarchs anchored and exchanged visits aboard their imperial yachts, the SMY Hohenzollern and the Tsar's magnificent Standart. The German Navy's newly designated High Seas Fleet composed of pre-dreadnought battleships provided the naval presence. The two emperors inspected the assembled ships from the flagship SMS Deutschland.

 Imperial Yacht Standart

The meeting had about much on the Kaiser's initiative. During a period of chilly German-Russian relations, Wilhelm II—who was on a Scandinavian cruise about his royal yacht Hohenzollern—received a message from his third cousin Tsar Nicholas II that he was coming to Swinemünde for three days at the beginning of August 1907 and would be willing to meet with the Kaiser. Wilhelm agreed enthusiastically and began extensive spur-of-the-moment preparations. For the Germans, the principal item on the agenda would be to broaden the defensive treaty of alliance between Germany and Russia executed in 1905. A more subtle objective was that the Kaiser planned to showcase the advanced methods of the German fleet to influence the Tsar to remodel the rebuilding Russian Navy on German standards, subtly trying to pull Russia away from British influence. The memories of Tsushima and the dismal performance of their ships were still a bitter memory for Russians. Also, to be addressed were an upcoming international conference at the Hague and the differences between the two nations over Germany's plans to build a Berlin to Baghdad railway, which the Tsar's advisors viewed as a threat to the empire.

SMY Hohenzollern II 

Regardless of the Kaiser's expectations for his meeting with the Tsar, nothing substantial was accomplished. The Tsar did respond to him in public with a friendly personal familiarity and  expressed a vision for some sort of brotherhood for monarchs. The social elements were apparently a fairly jolly affair.

The episode remains, however,  remembered most for the odd decision by the two emperors to publicly  dress entirely in each other’s naval uniforms.  It was later claimed that this practice was a traditional courtesy intended to show deep respect and shared alliance between royal families. In hindsight it seems part of what's been called  the "Willy-Nicky Dynamic." The two cousins, famously, frequently corresponded in English (given they both were closely connected by family ties with Queen Victoria). In their private letters and telegrams, they addressed each other by the affectionate nicknames "Willy" and "Nicky."  Their affable correspondence and periodic meetings, however, would fail—seven years later—to  keep their nations from waging war.

The Ribbon of Life: The 1920 Diary of a French War Nurse’s Visit to America

 

By Suzanne Henri Raguin 

Edited by Jane and Ron West.  Third Edition

Reviewed by David F. Beer

A Ward on the U.S. Army Hospital at Blois, France
Nurse Suzanne Raguin Worked Here

Jane and Ron West have done a marvelous job of putting together and editing the travel diary of a French nurse, Suzanne Raguin, who during WW1 served on the staff of the US Army’s Emory Base Hospital 43 in Blois, France. She was adored by many of her soldier patients and eventually wrote a detailed diary of her visit to America in 1920 to see many of them. The history, editing, and final publication of this diary is an extraordinary accomplishment which is fully described in an introduction plus additional information and photographs provided by the editors.

Madame Suzanne Henri Raguin was a young married woman when war broke out. She had already experienced crushing tragedy in 1913 when her beautiful 15-year-old daughter Marcelle suddenly died of meningitis. In this book an inscription beneath a photograph of Marcelle written by her mother reads: “In the hope that service to others would ease my aching heart and fill its emptiness, I bent all my energies to alleviating the pain of wounded soldiers far from their own anxious mothers” (p. 15). A sad incentive, but one that she developed meaningfully in nursing wounded American soldiers and in forming a strong link with many of them after the war.

Having trained in advanced nursing, including the Carrel-Dakin treatment of wounds and the Ambrine treatment of burns, she was a valued asset to the hospital and above all to the soldier patients, who called her “Little Mother.” The bond was so strong that in June 1920 she responded to numerous requests and traveled to some of the United States to visit the homes of many returned soldiers, meeting their families and seeing the lasting impact of her work. She also visited families whose son(s) had never returned. 

Eventually, in 1938, she put together this detailed memoir of her travels, The Ribbon of Life,  in the form of a diary in French and English. In some 400 pages she describes her myriad experiences with her American friends and at one point sums it up by stating: “…no Queen has ever received more royalty than I…I’ve been feted and spoiled everywhere” (p. 300). The detailed accounts of her travels in the U.S. and of the friends she stayed with vividly support this.

Order HERE

One of her former patients (featured on the cover) was Lt Robert Fletcher, who lost both legs in combat in France and who is perhaps an archetype of the pain, heroism, and gratitude that Nurse Raguin came to know so well. He was also the father of Jane Fletcher West, who helped research and edit this book. Tragedy occurs in peacetime as in war, and Lt Fletcher was killed in a car accident shortly before Jane’s birth. As we learn from this book, he was a significant part of Nurse Raguin’s both war and peace experiences

The innumerable military, political, tactical, and strategic aspects of the war make for fine and valuable study, yet if we want to enter the minds, hearts, and passions of those who were there, it’s not through the causes, events, and outcomes of the war but through the memoirs, diaries, and poetry that came from those living through the catastrophe. After reading The Ribbon of Life, I feel I have truly come to know some of these people.

David Beer

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 17-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 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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 (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 October 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 and 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 War, 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—apply not just 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 home front. Recognizing the changing spatial dimensions of modern war and the 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 home front." 

• "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. 

Col 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 and 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. Seventy thousand 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 two 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 I of the Belgians 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