Ring Lardner's Armistice Day Column

Apparently, Ring Lardner did not consider the Armistice the world-shaking event that everyone else did.  MH

CHICAGO TRIBUNE, NOVEMBER 12, 1918

Friend Harvey:

Well, Harvey, I come in the office this A.M. and everybody had a leer on their face and I was the only one that wasn’t grinning and the day city editor ask me what the hell so I said everybody in the world only me is getting a day off but I have to write something just like any other day. So he says what have you got to write something for? So I said I have got to write my regular stuff for the sporting page. So he said and who and the hell is going to read the sporting page tomorrow morning and you certainly are flattering yourself. Because in the 1st. place the people that’s still able to read yet tomorrow morning will be tray few and those that is will never get past Page 1 without falling asleep. Further and more if you think you have got a tough job how would you like to be a traffic policeman?

So after all, Harvey, it looks like I had a cinch and as long as they won’t nobody only you read this what is the difference what I write but still and all I know you want the page filled up with something so I will write out a few verses that have come to me without no effort on my part.

 

I suppose the crown prince feels miserable today,

Both him and his pop,

But how would you like to be

A Chicago traffic cop?

I am glad I am an American,

But I wouldn’t mind being a Frenchman or wop,

But I certainly would feel miserable

If I were a Chicago traffic cop.

Usually when they blow two whistles

The north and south traffic will stop,

But on a day like this they can blow their heads off

And nobody pays any attention to

The Chicago traffic cop.

R. W. L.

Kaiser Wilhelm's Fantasy Made Fact: The High Seas Fleet, Part II

Kaiser Wilhelm II, Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, andGeneral Helmuth von Moltke 

Part I of this two-part series can be read HERE. 

II.  Building the High Seas Fleet

In June 1897, Tirpitz was appointed to the new position of secretary of state of the Imperial Naval office and given the job of challenging the Royal Navy's dominance. He immediately got to work, raised a staff, appointed committees and set them to work—exploring the latest in ship design, gunnery and shells, examining training programs, studying docks, shipyards, and the Kiel Canal. Maybe most important, he began a huge public relations campaign to win public support for the coming financial investment to build the fleet. He cultivated the press, organized public events, and funded a naval propaganda team that had a team of authors turning out novels, pamphlets, and school presentations. In just six months, Tirpitz put together a first-phase building program and had both the Reichstag and public opinion primed to support it.

Tirpitz gained authorization and financing for a series of Naval Laws he presented to the Reichstag:

1898

The First German Naval Law, a construction program to enable the new German Navy to oppose the French and Russian navies. Nineteen battleships, eight armored cruisers, 12 large and 30 light cruisers to be completed by 1904.

1900

Second German Naval Law to challenge Royal Navy. Fleet to be doubled to 38 battleships, 20 armored cruisers, and 38 light cruisers.

Battle Flag of the Commander of the High Seas Fleet

1906

Third Naval Law (six battleships) proposed by Reichsmarinemt. These, the Deutschland-class, 13,990t, 4–11in, were the last pre-dreadnoughts to be built. Meanwhile, the revolutionary British all-big-gun battleship Dreadnought was launched and soon completed, superseding all existing capital ships and thus dislocating the German building program. This led to the First Amendment of 1900 Naval Law (5 + 1 armored cruisers) instead of the six battleships of the 3rd Law which would have to be uprated to the Dreadnought concept. This would have been too expensive for the Reichstag at that time.

1907

Germany's High Seas Fleet comes into being. It consists of two 8-ship squadrons of pre-dreadnought battleships. A third squadron would be added in 1914.

1908

Second Amendment of 1900 Law (six Dreadnoughts at the rate of two each fiscal year, plus submarine construction). Admiral Tirpitz, as head of Reichsmarine was subordinate to the Imperial Chancellor but at this time was, in effect, steering much German foreign policy.

High Seas Fleet, c. 1910

1912 

Third Naval Amendment—to build three capital ships each year, building up to an active fleet strength in German waters of one fleet flagship, three squadrons of eight battleships, eight battlecruisers, 18 light cruisers. Tirpitz's domination of other branches of the navy, though still strong, was for the first time under serious attack by U-boat and preparedness advocates. Funding was not available for the navy to respond to Britain's new Queen Elizabeth-class of super-dreadnoughts. 

By 1912, however, the naval arms race was abating. Tirpitz publicly stated that 1912 was his “last” amendment to the navy law. His influence waning, he apprehended the fleet he had built would enter any near-term conflict still significantly inferior to Britain's.

Sources: Hale, Wesley R., "The SMS Ostfriesland: A Warship at the Crossroads of Military Technology"; The Dreadnoughts, Time-Life Books.

Not Completely Unprepared—The U.S. Military before World War I

"America was completely unprepared for the war." You've probably seen some form of this statement in your readings. The statistics seem to fully support this. On  1 April 1917, the U.S. had 5,791 officers and 121,797 enlisted men in the regulars, supplemented by 80,446 National Guard on Federal service and 101,174 guardsmen still under state control. The Marine Corps had 462 commissioned officers, 49 warrant officers, and 13,214 enlisted men on active duty. The total available manpower of 323,133 certainly seems inadequate for getting involved in a global war in which all the other contenders were fully mobilized by the millions. Also,  many of the 300,000+ were already tied up in deployments overseas and on the still active Mexican border. The U.S. Navy seemed readier with 36 new and old battleships, about 100 cruisers and destroyers, and 52 submarines, but in retrospect were lacking sealift capability for moving troops and supplies to Europe. So the statistical case for "completely unprepared" for hostilities seems quite solid.

Yet, the works that dwell the unpreparedness factor seem all to imply that what happened over the next 19 months, when the United States had mobilized 4 million of its citizens and had already deployed half of them to the war's key theater, where they would decisively shift the balance of power on the battlefield, was either accidental or magical. Or—the authors remain silent on the point.

My long-held view is that America was no more "completely unprepared" for this rapid mobilization and deployment than that the achievement was simply sleight-of-hand. In 2017,  I was invited to present my views during  the Burdick Military History Symposium at San Jose State University. In this article, I'm going to let the slides I prepared for the program make the case for me. All of them can be enlarged by clicking on them. Please share your views in the comments below.  MH

WWI: When Agatha Christie Learned the Poisoner's Art

Poirot Suspects Poison

Agatha Christie used poison to kill her characters more often than any other crime fiction writer. How did she know all of this? The answer is that her knowledge came from direct experience with poisons and a lifelong interest in the subject, though not in the criminal sense. In the First World War, Christie volunteered as a nurse at her local hospital in Torquay. She enjoyed the work, but when a new dispensary opened at the hospital, it was suggested that she might work there. Her new role required further training, and Christie also needed to pass examinations to qualify as an apothecary’s assistant, or dispenser, which she did in 1917. Then and for many years afterward, doctors’ prescriptions were made up by hand in a chemist’s shop or hospital dispensary. Poisons and dangerous drugs were carefully weighed out and checked by colleagues before being dispensed. Innocuous ingredients such as coloring or flavoring could then be added according to personal taste. As Christie explained in her autobiography, this resulted in many people returning to the pharmacy to complain that their medicine didn’t look right, or didn’t taste as it usually did.

By 1917, Christie had written some poems and short stories, a few of which had been published. Then, after reading The Mystery of the Yellow Room by Gaston Leroux, Christie thought she would try to write a detective novel herself and said as much to her sister, Madge. Madge, a more successful writer than Agatha at the time, stated that it would be very difficult, and bet her that she wouldn’t be able to do it. It was not a formal bet, but it spurred Christie to write. It was while working as a dispenser that she found she had the time to think about the plot and her characters, and, being surrounded by poison bottles, she decided that poison would be the means of murder. 

Agatha and Her First Novel

The resulting novel was The Mysterious Affair at Styles, in which a certain Belgian refugee and policeman named Hercule Poirot was introduced to the world. Christie demonstrated her detailed knowledge of strychnine throughout the book. However, she had to wait a few years and try a number of publishing houses before the novel was  finally accepted in 1920. After publication Christie received her most cherished compliment when it was reviewed in The Pharmaceutical Journal. "This novel has the rare merit  of  being correctly written," the reviewer stated. He believed the author must have had pharmaceutical training or had called in an expert.

Inspired by Agatha fan, my beloved Donna Gaye.

Source: A is for Arsenic: The Poisons of Agatha Christie, by Kathryn Harkup, ORDER HERE

All the World at War: People & Places 1914–1918

Relief on Turkish Martyr's Memorial, Gallipoli

James Charles Roy 

Pen and Sword Military, 2025 

Reviewed by Ron Drees

As the title implies, All the World at War is not about the war, battles, campaigns, etc., but about the leaders of the war and the places where the war was fought. From Victoria to Versailles, Roy devotes a chapter to major players such as the Kaiser, von Schlieffen, Haig, and catastrophic events, including Tannenberg, Gallipoli, Verdun, and Berlin. He also delves into those people and places that are famous but not significant, such as the Halifax explosion, Ireland and the Easter uprising, T.E. Lawrence, and von Richthofen.  

The book begins with the descendants of Queen Victoria, discusses German strategy, recounts several major battles and the personalities involved, recounts Versailles, while remembering the war through monuments, known and unknown soldiers, “after-war” remembrances and an analysis of responsibilities. Be advised: 611 pages, 3 lbs., but it is an easy book to read.

While All the World at War has many illustrations, several in color, there are only a few maps and no index as to which geographic areas are depicted. Maps of Gallipoli or Russia would have been useful. The endpapers are a photograph furnishing an aerial view of Ypres after the war with many vacant lots and missing roofs.

A unique feature of this book is a discussion of Tannenberg, where Hindenburg and Ludendorff command together for the first time. They annihilate Russian armies due to German thoroughness of preparation and Russia’s lack of everything—secure communications, food, and decent leadership.  

The AEF, Pershing, and Wilson did not rate their own chapters but are discussed tersely throughout the book. Roy is deprecating about Pershing and Wilson, but then he does not have many kind words for anyone in this text. In the Postscripts chapter, Pershing rates less than two pages, while Lawrence has six pages. Apparently, T.E. was just more interesting. Nor is the author impressed by the U.S. contribution to WWI.

Order HERE

Do not read All the World at War expecting to find statistics of battle casualties or army divisions; read it as a foundation for interpreting other commentaries on Great War events. By the nature of a few specific topics, this is an excellent primer for someone starting to read about the Great War. Roy delves into the personalities of several leaders, exploring strengths and weaknesses, and how these contributed to victories, defeats, and disasters. His discussions of terrain explain much about Gallipoli and Verdun and the part that German mindsets played in making Verdun a mutual catastrophe. A good basic (and lengthy) read!

Ron Drees

Fort Hancock, New Jersey vs. U-117 — Did It Happen?

The Batteries of Fort Hancock Today

By James Patton

At the tail end of my army service, since I was a short-timer, the army couldn’t send me where they needed me so they agreed to send me where I wanted to go, which was Fort Hamilton, NY. This sleepy former coast artillery and Nike missile base, along with its sub-posts, Fort Hancock, Tilden, and Wadsworth, had once bristled with heavy artillery. Part of the lore of the command was that Fort Hancock’s batteries had traded fire with a U-boat in 1918. 

The furious naval arms race that began in the late 19th century was regarded with apprehension by the U.S. War Department. Coastal defenses were beefed up everywhere, but nowhere more than New York City, where a veritable battle fleet of heavy artillery was lodged in protected positions in seven sites on both the Atlantic and the Long Island Sound approaches. 

By the World War I era, Fort Hancock‘s defenses consisted of an array of concrete gun batteries, designed to blend into the seashore environment for protection and camouflage.

Counterweights lifted the guns up over the parapets to fire armor-piercing projectiles as far as seven miles. After firing, the gun platforms moved down for reloading—the guns "disappeared" from the enemy’s view.

New York Harbor Defenses
Fort Hancock at the Sandy Hook Unit

Located on New Jersey’s Sandy Hook Peninsula, Fort Hancock boasted nine of these gun batteries, mounting a total of 22 12-inch guns mounted in five of the batteries, five 10-inch guns in two batteries, one 8-inch and one 6-inch, each of the latter in its own small battery. For close-in defense there were pedestal-mounted guns, including two 6-inch and ten 3-inch "quick firers" emplaced across four batteries. Altogether, more guns than three battleships, and the killing zone overlapped with Fort Wadsworth’s, too.

Fort Hancock also had America’s first heavy mortar battery. Completed in 1894, it mounted 16 12-inch breech-loading rifled mortars, which were divided equally in four massive concrete and earth-covered “firing pits.” In 1918, one of these mortars was moved to the new Fort Tilden on Long Island. These mortars fired 1,000-lb. projectiles in high arcs to deliver bombardment from above.

Fort Hancock was manned by 12 Coast Artillery  companies: 3rd, 48th, 56th, 76th, 98th, 113th, 123rd, 178th , 206th, and 207th, who were augmented by New Jersey Guardsmen.  

By August of 1918, the tide of war was turning against the Central Powers,  but the U-boats sill prowled along the east coast and ships were still being sunk.

U-117 at War's End

So it was that on 12 August 1918, at 8:00 a.m., the armed Norwegian steamer SS Sommerstadt was sunk by a torpedo 25 miles southeast of Fire Island, New York. On the following day, 13 August 1918, at 6:10 p.m., the SS Frederick R. Kellogg, an American tanker, was torpedoed and sunk ten miles off Barnegat Light, New Jersey, about 100 miles from where the Sommerstadt was attacked.

German records show that the U-boat responsible was U-117, commanded by K-lt. Otto Dröscher (1884–1954), a veteran who had skippered five other boats before this one. It was a Type UE-2 mine layer, mounting fore-and-aft 5.9-inch guns with 494 rounds, and carrying up to 14 torpedoes and 42 mines.  

It was capable of 17 mph (14.7 knots) on the surface with a range of 16,000 miles but half of that if operated at top speed. Likely due to shortages, U-117 probably wasn’t fully fueled as it subsequently required three fuel transfers and a tow to get home.  

So what was  U-117 doing during the 34 hours in between the sinkings of the Sommerstadt and the Kellogg?

Meanwhile, things were happening back at Fort Hancock. The local newspaper, the Asbury Park Press, published a report that said: 

Residents along the shore yesterday afternoon heard the great guns at Sandy Hook firing, and in addition to the rumble of the giant discharges, thought they could distinguish between the burst of shells. Between 3 and 4 o’clock, apparently off to sea to the northeast, came the sound of what seemed to be bursts of firing, from three to six shots being heard, repeated at intervals of 10 to 15 minutes. The firing caused little comment, it being presumed it was the often heard practice firing at Fort Hancock.

One of Fort Hancock's Disappearing Guns

Later, on 18 November, the Press ran a front-page follow-up story that claimed a U-boat had fired 16 shots at Fort Hancock, but did no damage. According to “confidential advises, which the end of war now releases,” the Press stated that:

…the shells dropped near the extreme end of the Hook, near the Coast Guard station. One of the shells is said to have landed within 50 feet of the guard station.  Lookouts swept the waters with their most powerful glasses but the fog bank was impenetrable.

And the Press concluded that the bombardment that was heard by local residents in August must have involved a U-boat, although nobody ever said that they saw one, and no other report has been found in other newspapers. There was no official U.S. Army incident report (the Press had a confidential source, a.k.a. a leak) , and no German report exists in the available records.

If the Press’s conclusion is correct, this is probably the only occasion where a U-boat engaged in combat with land-based artillery during World War I, because this wasn’t a smart thing to do. A month before, in July 1918, U-156 fired three shells that hit a beach on Cape Cod, but they were overshoots aimed at a tugboat that was towing a barge.  U-117 had been sent on this cruise to destroy shipping and it was very successful, sinking a total of 17 ships and damaging another three. Her minefields later claimed three more ships and damaged the pre-dreadnought battleship USS Minnesota. U-117 wasn’t sent to shell shore installations, but if it had been there would have been many easier targets, such as lighthouses, bridges or oil storage tanks.

Was Dröscher mistaken? Did he intend to shell the Sandy Hook light without knowing that Fort Hancock was right next door? Due to the camouflaging,  a U-boat approaching Sandy Hook might not have been able to spot the gun batteries there, especially on a foggy day, but it’s inconceivable that the German charts did not include the coast  defenses, which weren’t secret.  Whether Dröscher could see the guns or not, he must have known that there wasn’t just a defenseless lighthouse on this shore. He would be seriously out-gunned and out-ranged. If he did fire it wasn’t just a mistake, it was suicidal.

So, while the witness accounts seem credible, the question still remains: WHY?  

Plotting Station at Fort Hancock

Another problem with the Press account is that the timing is only barely plausible. Fire Island is approximately 50 miles from Sandy Hook. The Sommerstadt was sunk about 25 miles off Fire Island, so U-117 was three to six hours from Sandy Hook, depending on the running speed. The U-boat would get to Sandy Hook anywhere from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.  So far, so good. The Kellogg was sunk approximately ten miles off Barnegat Light, which is about 50 miles south of Sandy Hook, so U-117 would have needed the same amount of time to travel another 50 miles on the surface, but the Kellogg was attacked at 6:10 p.m., so if we are trying to make this timeline work, the U-boat must have left Sandy Hook no later than 3:10 p.m. and ran at top speed. Surely Dröscher was aware that his boat  was short on fuel, and  he certainly didn’t have any reason to have run at top speed to keep a chance encounter at 6:10 p.m. 

All of these times, ship locations, and distances, are approximate. The time window for these three events to have happened when the witnesses say they did is too tight. Were the witnesses mistaken about the time of the artillery barrage?

Because  U-117 was most definitely in the vicinity of Sandy Hook on the day in question, it can’t be said for certain that this event didn’t happen.

As the Press stories make clear, residents were used to hearing the guns of Fort Hancock firing. It’s believable that the locals could recognize the unique sounds that the different mortar and gun batteries made when fired. So we can believe that something did happen on that day. Other possible explanations include:

• Another U-boat fired the shots. Others were operating along the coast, but no German records support this theory.

• An armed merchant vessel may have seen U-117 off Sandy Hook and fired shells that overshot the target. Fort Hancock’s guns briefly returned the fire but stopped because no target could be confirmed, due to poor visibility. Again, no records exist.

• Test firings were frequent at Fort Hancock. In the first Press reports, residents assumed that what they had heard was normal artillery practice. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one: they were right.

Did Fort Hancock engage a U-boat on that August afternoon in 1918? You can decide for yourself.

Preserved Officer Housing of Fort Hancock

Postscript: U-117 was claimed as a war prize by the U.S. Navy in 1919 and later sunk as a target by Army and Navy bombers in 1921. Fort Hancock soldiered on through World War II. Most of the artillery was eventually  removed, although two 6-inch pedestal-mounted guns remain; one is in firing condition. The 1950s Nike missile battery remains as well. Decommissioned in 1974, the fort then became a part of the Gateway National Recreation Area, which is managed from Fort Wadsworth, NY.

Sources include: The Defenses of Sandy Hook. (2021). Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground National Historic Landmark. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and the website https://monmouthtimeline.org/    

Tsar Nicholas II As War Lord – Video

The Times of London Holds Forth on America's Avian Hero Cher Ami

It is a tale of feathered fearlessness. In October 1918, American infantrymen were trapped behind enemy lines in the forest of Argonne in north-eastern France. They found themselves in the terrifying position of being shelled by their own artillery.

Though cut off from their flanking divisions, they managed to communicate by sending messages via pigeon post. Seven homing pigeons were sent with messages attached. The last bird, named Cher Ami, carried an urgent message giving the soldiers’ position and pleading for the incoming friendly fire to stop.

The bird was taken to America after the war, and its body has been displayed for the past century at the Smithsonian museum. Its successful mission has been celebrated ever since in military lore and popular culture. And one mystery of its protagonist’s adventure has now been settled by DNA analysis. No one knew for certain Cher Ami’s sex, but scientists have now concluded definitively that it was a male pigeon, not a female.

Why does it matter? Because heroic figures deserve to be known and celebrated, and this finding adds information about the preeminent pigeon of the modern era.

Cher Ami bears the posthumous reputation of having arrived at its loft with its message tube hanging from its shattered right leg and with a hole in its chest. Its wounds were presumably sustained from enemy fire, yet it persevered in its mission, and the surviving soldiers were rescued shortly afterward.

Monuments at the Lost Battalion Site

Pigeon corps are no longer found in modern soldiering, but for a period between the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and the Second World War this ancient military tradition was revived.

For our gallant U.S. allies, it worked. It is no objection that Cher Ami didn’t, and couldn’t, conceive of the concept of heroism. It did its duty, and the known facts of its life are now expanded.

Published 26 July 2021

Kaiser Wilhelm's Fantasy Made Fact: The High Seas Fleet, Part I

High Seas Fleet on Prewar Maneuvers

I had a peculiar passion for the navy. It sprang to no small extent from my English blood. When I was a little boy. . .I admired the proud British ships. There awoke in me the will to build ships of my own like these someday, and when I was grown up to possess a fine navy as the English.

Kaiser Wilhelm II, My Early Life

In the extra-large fantasy department of Kaiser Wilhelm's mind, he could muse over a fleet so magnificent and elegant his British cousins would turn emerald green with envy at the semi-annual naval review while doing their gentlemanly best to hide their crushed self-importance behind stiff upper lips. I doubt, though, that he ever imagined that they would view his naval build-up as a threat to their national survival. Oddly, when the British Admiralty responded determinedly with its own building program and innovative ship design, that didn't seem to puncture the illusions of the Kaiser or his expert, Admiral Tirpitz, whose grandiosity reminds me a bit of a building-czar Robert Moses. They kept building until they ran out of money. In this article, we tell the sad tale of the creation of Wilhelm's pretty "luxury" fleet, doomed to be scuttled one day.   MH

An 1894 Cruiser Design by Kaiser Wilhelm II

II. Seeking the Bubble Prestige

A recent thesis by Wesley R. Hale at the University of Rhode Island nicely summarizes how Kaiser Wilhelm II was inspired (seduced?) into building his huge, but eventually inadequate and doomed, battle fleet.

At the beginning of the 20th century, England possessed the largest navy in the world, having established in 1889 a Naval Defense Act that formalized the "Two Power Standard" of parity with the next two naval powers, France and Russia." Kaiser Wilhelm II sought to earn prestige as a monarch by elevating Germany to a maritime power in the same manner his grandfather Wilhelm I had transformed the Prussian Army to unify Germany under one flag. Unlike his grandfather, whose reorganization efforts benefited from a long history of military institution, where the Prussian army was a fixture of society, Wilhelm II faced the challenge of developing a formidable navy in a country lacking a cohesive naval tradition.

Kaiser Wilhelm and his admirals envisioned [a battle fleet] elevating Germany to a maritime power in line with A.T. Mahan's notion of military strength. First published in 1890, Mahan's book, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783, argued that numerical superiority accounted for much of the maritime success of the major world powers against their enemies. While he highlighted several naval battles throughout history, Nelson's victories at the Battle of the Nile and Trafalgar were both particularly important to this argument and still relatively recent history. To that end, Mahan begins his introduction with a discussion of the basic tactics of those battles, which were "to choose that part of the enemy's order which can least easily be helped, and to attack it with superior forces." Mahan's work became one of the most influential geopolitical pieces of its time, eventually becoming recommended reading for every major world leader with global ambitions, including Theodore Roosevelt and Wilhelm II. His book became a manual that set the naval standard to which all major powers subscribed and to which Imperial Germany aspired.

Over the next half-decade, Wilhelm—being Wilhelm—fantasized, talked, consulted industrialists, pressured ministers, and gave endless pep talks to his family and entourage about the necessity for a world-class German fleet. As the illustration at the top of this article shows, he was even designing his own ships. His by-word was "The Trident Must Be in Our Fist." However, at the time Wilhelm's "trident" consisted of a navy of only 68 ships, compared to the Royal Navy's 330.

The Four Battleships of the Brandenburg-Class Were
the First Seaworthy German Capital Ships

To turn his dream into a reality, he needed a naval man of great skill to lead the effort to get the fleet built. He found his man in a brilliant and politically savvy admiral named Alfred von Tirpitz. Born in 1848, Tirpitz enlisted in the navy as a midshipman at age 16 and quickly showed aptitudes for tactics and engineering. He rose through the ranks rapidly, becoming a rear admiral by 1895. The following year he was assigned to command a squadron of cruisers in the Far East when he caught the Kaiser's eye. For several years he had been writing memoranda for navy on the importance of building the nation's navy. An adherent of Mahan, the admiral's writings showed a clear understanding of the connection of political, economic, and sea power. Further, he pointed out, "If we intend to go out into the world and strengthen ourselves commercially then if we do not provide ourselves simultaneously with a certain measure of sea power, we shall be erecting a perfectly hollow structure." The Kaiser had found an admiral whose thinking and vision perfectly meshed with his.

In part to be published next Friday, we will address how the Kaiser and Tirpitz got their fleet built.

Sources: Hale, Wesley R., "The SMS Ostfriesland: A Warship at the Crossroads of Military Technology"; The Dreadnoughts, Time-Life Books.

Some Dandy World War One British Pub Signs

Britain has a unique heritage in its signage: a record of its history and the people who made it. Inn signs depict everything, from battles to inventions, from sporting heroes to royalty. The naming of inns and pubs became common by the 12th century. With pub names came pub signs–as the majority of the population could not read or write. In 1393, King Richard II passed an act making it compulsory for pubs and inns to have a sign (his own emblem the "White Hart" in London) in order to identify them to the official Ale Taster. Ever since then, inn names and signs have reflected, and followed, British life.  Naturally,  the Great War made a colossal impact on British life, so there are still a number of pubs that have names and signs that reflect that history. Below are a half dozen I've found online. I'm sure that there are more.  If you know of one, please leave the details (name, town, address, if possible) and I'll track it down and add it to the article.  MH

The Rifleman
64th Cross Road
Twickenham, UK

The Old Contemptibles
Livery Street
Birmingham, UK

The Edith Cavell
6 Tombland
Norwich, UK

Mr. Grundy's
Ashbound Road
Derby, UK

The Old Bill
Sint Jacobstraat
Ypres, Belgium

The Old Star (Mons Star)
66 Broadway
Westminster, London

When Germany Accepted the 14 Points

By  Professor A.C. Umbreit, Marquette University

By the fall of 1918, the five victory offensives Ludendorff directed in the  first half of 1918 had failed, and Germany's resources were lacking to mount another. Fresh American troops were arriving in an avalanche. The Allies had gained the initiative with successful counteroffensives during the  summer in the Marne and Somme sectors. Then over a  few days toward the end of September, multiple disasters struck the German Army. The Hindenburg  Line north of Paris was breached. Pershing's forces surprisingly mounted their second major offensive in  two weeks, and in the Balkans—Ludendorff would later claim this was the real back-breaker—Bulgaria's  army was shattered and led its government to seek an  immediate armistice, leaving the southern flank of  their Austro-Hungarian allies defenseless.  

This confluence of disasters led to some kind of  tantrum or psychological collapse for General  Ludendorff on 28 September, with some witnesses reporting his writhing on the floor. In any case, he  recovered, calling Hindenburg, demanding an  immediate armistice. The next day Ludendorff  presented Kaiser Wilhelm and the German foreign  minister, Paul von Hintz, with the same recommendations, stating that an armistice would allow German forces to withdraw to the Rhine, where they could  regroup and defend the homeland. Shortly afterward,  Ludendorff shared the same message with the senior  army staff.  It was over these few days that the Kaiser,  Germany's political leadership, and its generals were  forced to face the inevitability of defeat. A consensus  was quickly reached to seek a peace based on President Wilson's Fourteen Points. A new government, headed by the moderate Prince Maximilian of Baden,  was brought in to negotiate with the Allies and  reshape Germany into a parliamentary system with a  constitutional monarch. The new chancellor went  right to work. 

Prince Max von Baden

On 7 October, a note (dated 3 October) was received from Chancellor Maximilian of Germany wherein the  president of the United States was requested to take a hand in the restoration of peace, to acquaint all belligerent states of this request, and to invite them to send plenipotentiaries for the purpose of negotiation. 

It was also stated that the German government  accepted the program set forth by the president in his  message to Congress on 8 January 1918 [when the 14 Points where enunciated] and in his  speech of 27 September. This meant the acceptance by Germany of the well-known fourteen propositions the president had announced as necessary conditions precedent to any peace negotiations. This note also requested a conclusion of an armistice on land and sea. 

On 8 October, the reply of the president was forwarded to the German government. In this reply it was stated that before answering the note of the chancellor, the president felt it necessary to assure himself of the meaning of Germany's note on these two points: 

First—Does acceptance of the terms of the message of  8 January and of the subsequent addresses of the  president mean an unconditional acceptance, and will  the object of entering into a discussion be only to  agree upon the practical details of the application of  the fourteen propositions? 

Second—Is the chancellor speaking merely for the constituted authorities of the empire that so far have  conducted the war or is he also speaking for the German people? 

This reply also emphasized the fact that an armistice  was out of the question as long as German armies were on the soil of the nations associated with the United States in this war, and that good faith must be shown by the Central Powers in immediately withdrawing their forces everywhere from invaded territory. 

Post-Armistice: German Troops Marching Home from France

On 12 October, the German chancellor answered this reply of the president, his answer containing, in  substance, these statements: 

I. The German government accepts the terms of the message of 8 January  and the object in entering into a discussion will be to agree upon the practical application of these terms. 

2. Germany agrees to evacuation and suggests that a mixed commission be appointed to make the necessary arrangements therefor. 

3. The government making this proposal has been formed by conferences in agreement with the great  majority of the Reichstag. 

4. The chancellor speaks in accordance with the will of this majority and in the name of the German government and of the German people.

No one would have believed, previous to July 1918, that Germany would accede to these drastic propositions as a foundation for international peace. So, to accede meant that she would surrender all of the advantages she had gained, up to the time mentioned, by force of her seemingly unconquerable military machine. Yet, it will be noted that in the first note of Chancellor Maximilian it was stated that the German government accepted these fourteen propositions. 

Source: Over the Top: Magazine of the World War One Centennial, November 1918.

George Sherston's Stay at a Convalescent Hospital

Siegfried Sassoon's Sketch of His Hospital Ward
from His Diary

In 1917, Siegfried Sassoon's alter ego in Memoirs of an Infantry Officer was wounded when a piece of shrapnel shell passed through his lung after he incautiously sticks his head over the parapet at the Battle of Arras. After many stops along the British Army medical network he found himself in a London Hotel converted to a wartime convalescent hospital.

A Selection from: Memoirs of an Infantry Officer

By Siegfried Sassoon

With an apology for my persistent specifyings of chronology, I must relate that on May 9th I was moved onto a Railway Terminus Hotel which had been commandeered for the accommodation of convalescent officers. My longing to get away from London made me intolerant of the GreatCentral Hotel, which was being directed by a mind more military than therapeutic. The Commandant was a noncombatant Brigadier-General, and the convalescents grumbled a good deal about his methods, although they could usually get leave to go out in the evenings. 

Many of them were waiting to be invalided out of the Army, and the daily routine-orders contained incongruous elements. We were required to attend lectures on, among other things, Trench Warfare. At my first lecture I was astonished to see several officers on crutches, with legs amputated, and at least one man had lost that necessary faculty for trench warfare, his eyesight. They appeared to be accepting the absurd situation stoically ; they were allowed to smoke. The Staff Officer who was drawing diagrams on a blackboard was obviously desirous of imparting information about the lesson which had been learnt from the Battle of Neuve Chapelle or some equally obsolete engagement. 

But I noticed several faces in the audience which showed signs of tortured nerves, and it was unlikely that their efficiency was improved by the lecturer, who concluded by reminding us of the paramount importance of obtaining offensive ascendancy in No Man's Land.

In the afternoon I had an interview with the doctor who was empowered to decide how soon I went to the country. One of the men with whom I shared a room had warned me that this uniformed doctor was a queer customer. ‘The blighter seems to take a punitive pleasure in tormenting  people,' he remarked, adding, 'He'll probably tell you that you'll have to stay here till you're passed fit for duty.'  But I had contrived to obtain a letter from the Countess of Somewhere recommending me for one of the country houses in her organization; so I felt fairly secure. (At the period of the War  people with large houses received convalescent officers as guests.)

The doctor, a youngish man dressed as a temporary Captain, began by behaving quite pleasantly. After he'd examined me and the document which outlined my insignificant medical history, he asked what I proposed to do now. I said that I was hoping to get sent to some place in the country for a few weeks. He replied that I was totally mistaken if I thought any such thing. An expression, which I can only call cruel, overspread his face. ‘You’ll stay here; and when you leave here, you’ll find yourself back at the front in double quick time. How do you like that that’ In order to encourage him, I pretended to be upset by his severity; but he seemed to recognize that I wasn't satisfactory material for his peculiar methods, and I departed without having contested the question of going to the country. I was told afterwards that officers had been known to leave this doctor’s room in tears. But it must not be supposed that I regard his behaviour as an example of army brutality. I prefer to think of him as a man who craved power over his fellow men. And though his power over the visiting patients was brief and episodic, he must have derived extraordinary (and perhaps sadistic) satisfaction from the spectacle of young officers sobbing and begging not to be sent back to the front.

Order HERE

I never saw the supposedly sadistic doctor again; but I hope that someone gave him a black eye, and that he afterwards satisfied his desire for power over his fellow men in a more public-spirited manner. Next morning I handed the letter of the Countess to a slightly higher authority, with the result that I only spent three nights in the Great Central Hotel, and late on a fine Saturday afternoon I travelled down to Sussex to stay with Lord and Lady Asterisk.