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

Thursday, February 16, 2023

Turkey's Çataldere Martyrs' Monument and Cemetery at Gallipoli


Top Down View from the Entrance


In  May 1915—less than a month after the initial Allied landings—Turkish commanders concentrated 40,000 men along the series of high ridges that would constitute the front line of the Anzac sector for the entire Gallipoli campaign. The hope was to push the invaders into the sea before they could be further reinforced.  The attack, however, was well anticipated by the defenders and the assault tactics were primitive, similar to the "human-wave" methods of the Korean War.  An estimated 3,000 Johnny Turks died on 19 May—they would be described as "martyrs" in Turkish accounts.   


Entrance Memorial


Their bodies, and those of a much smaller number of defenders, were left in no-man's-land, where they decomposed rapidly. With the environment becoming unendurable for the troops, commanders on both sides were open to a cease-fire to clear the fallen from the battlefield.  A 24-hour truce was   agreed to for 24 May 1915.


Aerial View from Google Maps


The smaller number of Australian and New Zealand casualties were manageable and easily removed to temporary cemeteries down toward Anzac Cove. The Turks, however, had a massive problem to deal with in a very short time. They selected a deep ravine a few hundred yards behind their trenches for the initial burial of their martyrs. After the war, the decision was made not to re-inter the bodies, but to turn the ravine into a shrine. This resulted in a truly unique, impressively engineered cemetery and monument. It is now the final resting place of 2,835 of Turkey's martyrs. 


View from the Lower Section


The topside entrance, which features several commemorative elements, opens to the stone steps that allow the visitor an easy walk down the the steep slope to the two main cemetery sections. Each is composed of several long rectangular mass graves. The names of the martyrs for each tomb are engraved.

I hope these photos give readers a sense of its beauty and remarkable design.



Wednesday, February 15, 2023

Churchill's Failed Gambit at the Siege of Antwerp


First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill Inspects the
New Royal Naval Division

By Tony Langley

In mid-August of 1914, Winston Churchill created the Royal Naval Division, a new formation consisting initially of some 3,500 naval reservists, later enlarged to around 8,000 effectives. In the excitement of the early days of the war, with patriotic sentiments running high and expectations of an early end to hostilities, there was a clamor to join what might possibly turn out to be a distinguished unit. The prime minister's son, Arthur Asquith, joined up, as did relatives of future prime minister Bonar Law. Yet, the Naval Division was a hurriedly thrown-together unit with little military training and inadequate supplies. Some men received as little as two day's training, ammunition was in short supply, as were medical supplies.

Churchill, always the grand strategist, had already realized the importance of holding Antwerp. It was after all the proverbial "pistol pointed at the heart of England" in the perhaps apocryphal, but still true, comment attributed to Napoleon. On 7 September he stressed to Edward Grey that the city must be held. But at that time the British government felt the danger of the city falling to be vastly exaggerated. It was, after all, protected by three concentric rings of fortifications, one of which was of the very latest design and construction. The Belgian Army consisted of anything between 175,000 and 200,000 effectives, granted not of first-line quality or up to British military standards, but still far more in numbers than the mere 60,000 German troops facing the city.

When the German attack began and it became apparent that despite the favorable odds for the defenders, with the introduction of German and Austrian heavy artillery that outranged anything the Belgians had to counter with, it would be only a matter of time before the fortifications were reduced and Antwerp taken. Foreign Minister Edward Grey received a telegram from the Belgian government on 2 October, signaling their intention to evacuate the city and relocate the government to Ostend the next day. This prompted Churchill to immediately leave for Antwerp, which he reached by noon on 3 October after traveling by steamer and motor car. Upon his arrival, he checked into the city's most elegant and exclusive hotel, the Saint Antoine. The Belgian government and military command, however, heaved a sigh of relief and settled in to hold the line until the British arrived.


Royal Marines Landing at Ostend

An advance detachment of the Naval Division mustered at Dover on 4 October. Mindful of the advantages of dissemination of false information, Churchill had tipped off journalists to their arrival at Ostend. As the men disembarked on the quays to cheers and flags a-waving, they were marched by back streets back onto the quays several times, thus creating the impression of being a far greater force than in actuality. The men traveled by motor transport along the cobblestone roads of the Belgian countryside, often in colorful London double-tier omnibuses still outfitted with advertisements for British whisky and other products. Driving through cities and towns such as Gent or St Nicolaas, photographers were at hand to record their advance. The transports reached the western approaches to the city and crossed over the main pontoon bridge into the city proper on the 5th. With the British in on the game, people took heart.

The British units were brought up to the front lines around Lier to bear the brunt of the German attack. They dug in, constructing very photogenic trenches, once again in the presence of the press, and participated in the defense of the line. On 5 and 6 October, a further 6,000 men of the Naval Division arrived in Antwerp. They too were rushed up to the front lines, taking positions chosen by Churchill himself. Churchill was meanwhile touring the defenses, giving advice, and, according to many of his critics, doing not much more than indulging himself in playing soldier.

However, the additional defenders were nowhere near sufficient. Further British or French reinforcements never reached the city. General Rawlinson arrived in Antwerp, unaccompanied by troops, on the 6th, his men still assembling in Dunkirk and along the Channel ports. He took command of the British forces in Antwerp and thus deprived Churchill of any excuse to remain in the city. Reluctantly, Churchill left for London and arrived the next day, 7 October, just in time for the birth of his daughter Sarah.


RND Troops Along the Nethe River


On the evening of the 8th, the British commander in place, General Paris, decided that all further resistance was futile and ordered the evacuation of all British troops at Antwerp. Shortly afterward, the Belgian military commander, General Deguise, decided to take a similarly prudent course of action. He ordered all units to retreat across the river westward. All second-line fortifications were abandoned with the exception of two forts that were to provide diversionary fire during the evacuation of the front line. Small units of garrison artillery units remained at their posts until the next day, when they too left their positions to make it over the river after nightfall as best they could.

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

Faith in Conflict: The Impact of the Great War on the Faith of the People of Britain


By Stuart Bell
Helion & Company, 2017
Jim Gallen, Reviewer




The Great War impacted all facets of societies. Many volumes chronicle the battles, the mounds of dead, the armies of invalids, altered topography and ecology, and the economic and social outcomes. Faith in Conflict examines the effects of the Great War on the British peoples’ Christian faith, primarily within the Protestant Churches.

The early Glossary of Ecclesiastical and Military Terms is a helpful reference. The photos put names to faces. The cover, reproduced among the other photos, of the Bishop of London addressing reclining troops in France is uniquely powerful. The chapters are topically arranged. The first chapter sets the scene of the Churches, the nature of religious practice, and local jurisdictions, primarily through excerpts from diaries and letters and the ubiquity of hymnody.

I find the second chapter, “A Holy War and Favored Nation,” to be very interesting, to me at least, primarily for its parallel to the tradition of American Exceptionalism. Reports of German soldiers brutalizing Belgian civilians alleviated doubt that “it was a just war, a righteous war, and, if carried out in the spirit of our Christianity, it was a holy war” (p.41). The characterization of Britain as “A Favored Nation” and that its empire was divinely ordained for the benefit of the less privileged, struck this Irish-American as presumptuous, but to the Archdeacon of Montreal “Britain is the elect nation of the world today” (p. 46).

Chapter Three documents the use of such terms as “God of Battles”, God of Hosts” and “ God of Peace” in hymns, sermons, poetry, rhetoric and literature from before the war to the Armistice. Chapter Four examines the seeming contradiction between an omnipotent and providential God and the horror of war. One officer “doubts as to the existence of God, or, if He exists, doubts as to his power to interfere with the world-order” (p. 79), while another could believe that even slipping down “was an act of Providence” (p. 78).

The fifth chapter, “Sacrifice and Memorialisation,” studies several themes. Is supreme sacrifice human or Christian? Does one achieve salvation through sacrifice? Is a combat fatality “a martyr for his nation?” How should the fallen individually be commemorated? One change associated with the war was the extension of offering of prayers for the dead beyond Catholicism and Anglo-Catholicism to other congregations.

Probably the most intensely theological chapter is the Sixth “Beyond Sacrifice to a Suffering God." In it the author draws heavily on the writings of Western Front Chaplain Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy. Kennedy rejected the understanding that God willed the war and could have stopped it and posited instead a God of sorrow who shares His world’s sufferings. Adopted by a few other quoted theologians, the doctrine of a suffering God is presented as having crests and ebbs in following, but I still detect echoes in orations about a God saddened by our sin.

The seventh chapter sports a familiar term, “Ecumenism,” with a Great War perspective. As the war forced chaplains from competing denominations into military cooperation, questions of exchange of pulpits and consolidation of prayer books and hymnals led to discussion of reunion of churches. Although reforms continued for a few years after the war, their enduring power was limited.

The ultimate chapter, “Faith at the Front”, consists of quotes and analysis of writings of five Western Front soldiers reflecting their own religious views. Jack Titterton of the 200th Siege Battery wondered: Is there no Justice for this hoary world? No “God” above to pity those beneath? The 200,000-word diary published in 1964 of James Jack of the Scottish Rifles also provides insights into thoughts from the front: “I was in poor spirits most of this time. The War…loss of friends and other matters, rudely shook one’s Faith”.

Faith in Conflict is for some, but not all, Roads readers. Author Stuart Bell has crafted an intensely researched investigation of the interaction between the war and religion in Britain during the Great War. Each chapter is largely independent. This work provides insights into the religious environment of early 20th-century Britain. The reader who opens it pages should be ready to think and reflect. He will be challenged to compare his own religiosity with that of a century ago. It poses questions both contemporary and historic: “Are we to have peace at any price and allow a maniac to dominate this country and the whole of Europe?” We study history to learn how our world came to be. Faith in Conflict delivers.

Jim Gallen

Monday, February 13, 2023

Armistice + 1: General Pershing's General Order 203

G.H.Q.

American Expeditionary Forces, 

France,  Nov. 12, 1918, 

General Orders No. 203



The enemy has capitulated. It is fitting that I address myself in thanks directly to the officers and soldiers of the American Expeditionary Forces who by their heroic efforts have made possible this glorious result. Our armies, hurriedly raised and hastily trained, met a veteran enemy, and by courage, discipline and skill always defeated him. Without a complaint you have endured incessant toil, privation and danger. You have seen many of your comrades make the supreme sacrifice that freedom may live. I thank you for the patience and courage with which you have endured. I congratulate you upon the splendid fruits of victory which your heroism and the blood of our gallant dead are now presenting to our nation. Your deeds will live forever on the most glorious pages of America’s history.


Aftermath: General Pershing and Party Visiting Montfaucon


Those things you have done. There remains now a harder task which will test your soldierly qualities to the utmost. Succeed in this, and little note will be taken and few praises will be sung; fail, and the light of your glorious achievements of the past will sadly be dimmed. But you will not fail. Every natural tendency may urge towards relaxation in discipline, in conduct, in appearance, in everything that marks the soldier. Yet you will remember that each officer and each soldier is the representative in Europe of his people and that his brilliant deeds of yesterday permit no action of today to pass unnoticed by friend or foe. You will meet this test as gallantly as you have met the tests of the battlefield. Sustained by your high ideals and inspired by the heroic part you have played, you will carry back to our people the proud consciousness of a new Americanism born of sacrifice. Whether you stand on hostile territory or on the friendly soil of France, you will so bear yourself in discipline, appearance and respect for all civil rights that you will confirm for all time the pride and love which every American feels for your uniform and for you.

John J. Pershing, 
General, Commander in Chief


Sunday, February 12, 2023

Prince Leopold: Hindenburg & Ludendorff's Forgotten, Yet Triumphant Successor on the Eastern Front




In August 1916, when Paul von Hindenburg was named Germany's chief of the Great General Staff, his command position for the Eastern Front, Oberbefehlshaber Ost, was assigned to 70-year-old Prince Leopold of Bavaria (1846–1930). Commissioned as a lieutenant at age 15, he saw he his first service during the Austro-Prussian War in 1866, where he commanded an artillery battery at Kissingen and Rossbrunn. Serving with distinction throughout the 19th century, Leopold was promoted to field marshal in 1905. He retired from active duty in 1913 to give greater opportunities for command to Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria.

He was still in retirement when the First World War began but nevertheless re-emerged and served with the German Army for the duration of the war. As an army and army group commander, he had been responsible for the capture of Warsaw and helping reverse the early successes of the Brusilov Offensive. With the aid of his brilliant chief of staff, Max Hoffman, he would bring the campaign in the east to a victorious conclusion. 


Prince Leopold Signs the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk


Leopold chose retirement for the second time in the wake of the successful (for Germany) Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, during which negotiations he was thoroughly dominated by his Chief of Staff Max Hoffmann.  The war was in any event over on the Eastern Front.

Sources: Encyclopedia 1914-1918; HistoryNet, 11 April 2017

Saturday, February 11, 2023

The Aussie's Underground City at Naours


Entrance Naours Caves, Picardy, France



The underground portion of Naours began as a quarry in antiquity that was steadily enlarged over successive centuries. The empty subterranean chambers gave area residents a convenient place to store goods and take shelter from the elements, and to hide from raiders and roving armies looking for supplies. By the 17th century, thanks to the rampant destruction of the Thirty Years’ War, the underground city had a large and fairly well-settled contingent of residents. As Western Europe stabilized and hiding in caves for long periods of time became less necessary, the existence of this underground complex was forgotten until it was rediscovered in 1887.


Tunnels







Graffiti



Henry Holloway (left) and his mate, John Castree (right) of the 15th Battalion AIF left their marks before heading along to the Pozieres sector. 

Sources:  Agence Somme Tourisme; Explore France; Atlas Obscura; Monash Centre


Friday, February 10, 2023

Action on the Isonzo Front — A Roads Collection


Sectors 1 and 2 are Along the Isonzo (Soca) River


Note:  Our numerous articles on the Battle of Caporetto and its impact are not included here.  They will be the subject of a future special Friday feature.  If this is your spicific interest, just type "Caporetto" in the search box, upper left on this page. MH


Articles


The SoÅ¡ka fronta/Isonzo Front 1915–1917—A Slovenian Perspective


Map Series #6: The Isonzo Sector of the Italian Front


The Worst Battlefield of the Italian Front: The Carso Plateau (Video)


23 June 1915: The First Battle of the Isonzo


End of the First Year on the Italian Front


Gorizia: Strategic City on the Italian Front


1916 on the Isonzo, Italy's Most Successful Advance


Austro-Hungarian Defenders on the Carso


What Happened on the Bainsizza Plateau in 1917?


Sveta Gora: Holy Site Destroyed in the Great War


The Tenth Battle of the Isonzo Winds Down


Colle Sant' Elia, Remembrance Park at Redipuglia


Scenic Battlefield: The Isonzo Sector of the Italian Front — Part 1, the North


Scenic Battlefield: The Isonzo Sector of the Italian Front — Part 2, the South


Austria-Hungary's Bravest of the Brave


View from Monte San Michele, Carso Plateau


Reviews


The Isonzo, Forgotten Sacrifice of the Great War


Ungaretti of the Carso

__________________


A Reminder: This is a representative listing, not inclusive of all the articles we have published on this topic in Roads to the Great War.  To search our archives for other articles on this topic, or to explore other World War One interests of yours, take advantage of the site search engine at the top left corner of every page on Roads to the Great War. MH

Thursday, February 9, 2023

The Doughboys' Rifles of the Great War


Gary Cooper Was Armed with a Springfield 03,
But Alvin York Carried a Model 1917 "American Enfield"

By Len Shurtleff

When America entered the Great War in April 1917, it was short of just about everything upon which a modern army depends. Not the least of these shortages was that of small arms, or individual weapons: the rifles and pistols carried by the foot soldiers. The story of how the U.S. Army grappled with this shortfall and the confusion about which rifles were issued to which units are part of the reason why the movie makers had Cooper carrying the wrong rifle—the famous Springfield 03—(and the wrong pistol, as well) when he portrayed Medal of Honor recipient Alvin York in the 1940 classic film Sergeant York. It is also the story of "the other rifle" carried by the vast majority of Doughboys who fought in World War One.

The British Enfield Rifles. The story starts in August of 1910 in Great Britain. The War Office was undertaking a number of basic reforms as the result of experience in the Boer War in South Africa, and as a consequence of informal staff talks with the French Army. Among these was the design of a new rifle to replace the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) rifle chambered for the .303 inch rimmed cartridge.


SMLE Lee-Enfield


The Small Arms Committee charged by the British War Office with drawing up requirements for the new rifle agreed on the following specifications, among others:

  • Length, weight and recoil as near as possible to the Short Lee-Enfield
  • The rifle should fire rimless cartridges from a 10-round detachable magazine (later reduced to five rounds)
  • The breech should be of the Mauser type
  • And, the sighting system should be of the aperture backsight variety.

The rifle developed from these specifications by the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield came to be known as the Pattern 1914 Enfield. It was chambered for a new .276 rimless cartridge presaging the later trend toward smaller bore, higher-velocity infantry assault weapons which culminated in the M-16 and the AK-47. The new .276 round had a muzzle velocity of 2,785 feet per second versus the .303's 2,440 feet per second. Consequently, it had a longer range and flatter trajectory than the .303. The Pattern 1914 rifle was stronger overall than the SMLE and simpler in that it had fewer parts and could be field-stripped without tools, another requirement set by the War Office.

When England entered the war against Germany in mid-1914, it abandoned the idea of introducing a new cartridge let alone retooling assembly lines for a totally new infantry rifle. The British had to avoid disrupting vital small arms production and complicating ammunition supply at a time of extreme national emergency and explosive growth of the armed forces. So, they retained the flanged, or rimmed .303 cartridge, and rapidly expanded domestic production of the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) while farming-out production of the new Pattern 1914 rifle in .303 caliber to overseas manufacturers specifically Winchester, Remington, and Midvale Steel in the United States.

Now, the British Tommy was not necessarily displeased with this turn of events. The Pattern 1914 Enfield was some two inches longer and a pound heavier than the Lee-Enfield. So, many Tommies preferred their beloved SMLE. It was easy to handle, held 10 rounds instead of five in the new Pattern '14 and its bolt action was smooth and reliable if less robust than the Pattern 1914's. So fast could experienced British riflemen handle their weapon that German frontline troops thought they were facing massed machine gun fire in the opening battles of 1914. The Pattern 1914 Enfield was relegated to a role as the sniper's rifle for the British Army and was still in use in the early days of WWII. By 1916, the British were turning out sufficient rifles, with modifications and improvements to the SMLE, in their own factories. So, they canceled the U.S. contracts for the Pattern 1914 Enfield. On the existence of these lapsed contracts hangs part of our tale.


American Rifles


Springfield 03


The American Springfield Rifle, Model 1903,  was a direct outgrowth of the Spanish-American War of 1898. U.S. ordnance experts recognized the superiority of the German-designed Mauser magazine rifles with which the Spanish were armed and studied them carefully. Over a period of time, a new design, the Model 1903 patterned unabashedly on the Mauser, was developed at the U. S. government's Springfield Arsenal in Massachusetts. (The U.S. government paid Germany for the use of certain Mauser design components.) It was issued to American troops beginning in 1904. This rifle had a 24-inch barrel, some six inches shorter than the 1898 Krag (also known as the Krag-Jorgensen after its Norwegian inventors)—the U.S. Army's first bolt action, smokeless powder rifle—which it replaced. The real improvements in the Springfield over the Krag were in the quality of the ammunition and in the ease of loading the new Springfield. 

The Model 1903 was loaded from a single five-round stripper clip rather than by dropping five separate loose rounds into the magazine as in the Krag. The ammunition was also modified from the round-nosed Krag and early Springfield .30-40 caliber cartridge with a rounded 220-grain bullet to a pointed 150-grain round known as the .30-'06 (thirty-ought-six) patterned again after the German-designed spitzer—or pointed—bullet. The "ought six" in the cartridge's name refers to the year the new round was adopted: 1906. The rimless .30-'06 cartridge survived as the standard in the U. S. Army through the Korean War. The Springfield was replaced as the standard infantry rifle in 1936 by the semiautomatic Garand firing the same caliber round. But, the highly-accurate .30-'06 Springfield rifle Model 1903 with various modifications was in limited use in WWII (as a sniper rifle) and a generation later even in Vietnam.


Marines Issued with Springfield Rifles


The Crisis of 1917 

When war was declared in 1917, America was entirely unprepared. The presidential election of the previous year was fought and won by Thomas Woodrow Wilson (his second term) on the platform "He Kept Us Out of War." Sentiment in Congress and among the electorate did not favor intervention. Millions of Americans traced their ancestry back to Germany. Another major ethnic group, the Irish, had no love for Great Britain. And powerful pacifist, populist, and Progressive legislators blocked any arms buildup save that for a larger "defensive" navy. A majority of voters in the Midwestern states from Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and Indiana south into Kansas and Oklahoma were no more than lukewarm warm to America's entry into the war and many outside the northeast and California were opposed. So politically volatile was the issue of preparedness that the U. S. Army staff was specifically instructed by the Secretary of War not to plan for a European intervention, or even for wartime military and industrial mobilization.

Moreover, in 1917 there was almost no excess industrial capacity to support mobilization and expanded war production. The American economy was going full tilt. U.S. factories, foundries, mills, and shipyards were running at 94 to 96% of capacity as a result of heavy wartime demands from England and France. American farmers were working overtime to produce wheat, corn and livestock (including horses and mules) needed to feed Allied armies and civilians. Rural and urban unemployment was, as a result, practically nonexistent. Moreover, the flood of immigration from Europe, which had provided the ready source of cheap, willing labor that fueled the massive post-Civil War economic expansion, had dried up as a result of the war. Thus, both labor and industrial capacity were already stretched to the utmost. There was no excess capacity available as there was to be in 1939 and 1940 at the outset of World War II, when America was emerging from a long, hard, and cruel economic depression to retool as the Arsenal of Democracy, to use the term coined by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.


The Rock Island Arsenal Produce 114,000
Springfield Rifles During the War


When war did come to America in April 1917, the Army in particular was woefully unprepared. Everything had to be done at once. Recruiting, housing, training, arming and transporting an army to Europe was a monumental task almost beyond the talents and capacity of America's tiny professional military officer corps and a minuscule Federal bureaucracy. Small arms were a number-one priority. But, only two government-owned factories—the Springfield and the Rock Island (Illinois) Arsenals, were producing the army's Springfield Model 1903 rifles. Army planners correctly judged that production at these arsenals could probably not be increased significantly, and certainly not fast enough to arm the four million men the army envisaged mobilizing.

And America was under tremendous pressure. The French and the British were desperate for American troop reinforcements to meet expected German reinforcements moving to the Western Front from Russia, which was out of the war. They demanded we mobilize faster and send raw drafts for training in England and France and incorporation into their own army formations. Wilson, backed by his Secretary of War Newton Baker and by General John Pershing, refused. American troops would fight under American command, and they would be trained and armed under American direction. For this, the army needed infantry weapons, and they needed them fast.


The Army had only three choices for getting these weapons:

  • Increase current production
  • Issue obsolete rifles from current stocks
  • Or, obtain rifles from the Allies.

Out of necessity, they chose all three options.


Finding Another Rifle

In looking for Allied rifles, their eyes immediately fell on American factories which had been producing the Enfield Pattern 1914 rifle in .303 caliber for Great Britain. The U. S. bought out British interest in the Remington and Winchester plants for some 900 thousand dollars, far less than the two million dollars England spent to acquire and equip these facilities. Of course, the factories had to be retooled to produce rifles firing the standard U. S. .30-'06 rimless cartridge. Fortunately, this meant only relatively minor modifications to the machinery producing rifle barrels, receivers and magazines. Less minor were persistent labor problems of workforce turnover as scarce skilled workers migrated from one firm to another seeking ever higher wages, as well as shortages of such key items as high-quality steel for rifle barrels and receivers, and seasoned hardwood for rifle stocks. Eventually, the raw material and labor problems were resolved, and production of the American Enfield reached 10,000 rifles per day by the end of the war. Nonetheless, thousands of American Doughboys were sent overseas without basic musketry training. Some significant number never even fired a rifle before being sent to the trenches in France, or Belgium.


US Model 1917 Rifle — the  "American Enfield"


Model 1917


What about this other rifle called "The American Enfield"? The Model 1917, or The American Enfield, as it was popularly called, was two inches longer and nine tenths of a pound heavier than the Model 1903 Springfield rifle. But it was exceptionally strong. Some said it was the most rugged bolt action rifle ever manufactured. And, it remained in U. S. inventories until World War II when over a quarter of a million American Enfields were shipped to our allies under the Lead Lease Act.

Estimates differ on how many rifles of what type were produced by America during World War One. The latest available figures indicate that some 379,000 Springfield Model 1903 and nearly 2.2 million Model 1917 American Enfields were produced in 1917 and 1918. Over 1.1 million Enfields were made my Midvale Steel at Eddystone, Pennsylvania, the largest single maker. The rest were produced by Remington Arms at its Olean, New York plant and by Winchester in New Haven, Connecticut. The Springfields were all produced at the U.S. Government's Rock Island and Springfield Arsenals.



Doughboys Equipped with Model 1917 Rifles
Demonstrating Its Grenade Launching Capability


Only the first United States infantry and Marine units (mainly the First and Second Divisions) arriving in France were equipped with the Model 1903 Springfield rifle. Almost all the rest, the vast majority, carried the Model 1917 American Enfield, but some, particularly engineer and pioneer infantry units, were armed with the obsolete Model 1896 or 1898 Krag. One entire division (the 27th, which fought under British and Australian command throughout the war) was equipped with British .303 Lee-Enfield rifles (the SMLE), as were other independent and detached artillery, engineer, and infantry units serving with British and Commonwealth forces.

Three Negro National Guard infantry regiments (the 369th, 370th and 372nd) and one National Army infantry regiment (the 371st) made up of Black American draftees sent to France to make up the 93rd Infantry Division were assigned, instead, to the French Army. These segregated regiments were entirely armed with French Model 07/15 rifles, French helmets and other French gear with the exception of their uniforms. They fought under French divisional command throughout the war.

Corporal York's Rifle. What about Sergeant York (or Corporal York, as he was at the time)? The classic 1940 film starring Gary Cooper and directed by Howard Hawks, (himself a World War I U.S. Army flying instructor) depicts York as using a Springfield Model 1903 to pick off the enemy one by one. This is the deed that earned Alvin York of Tennessee the Medal of Honor, America's highest award for valor. The only problem with the scene in the film is that York did not use the Springfield rifle on 8 October 1918 in the Argonne. Rather he used the other rifle, the Model 1917 American Enfield that was issued to the men of his division, the 82nd. York, a non-commissioned officer, is correctly depicted as carrying and firing a sidearm. 

In the movie, it's a P-08 Luger 9mm German semiautomatic pistol. In the Argonne Campaign, York actually carried a Model 1911 .45 caliber APC semi-automatic pistol, the same one those who served in the U.S. Army or Marines remember firing in training. The problem was that Hawks could not find any .45 caliber APC blank ammunition when it came time to film the battle scenes for Sergeant York. So Gary Cooper used the 9mm Luger instead.


No, the Doughboys Were Not Issued German Lugers


Still, despite these minor lapses in authenticity, it's a great movie and a great true story about a genuine American hero—even if he did carry a British-designed rifle.

Source:  This is an slightly updated version of an article the late Len Shurtleff wrote for the Doughboy Center website.

Tuesday, February 7, 2023

Little Italy in the Great War: Philadelphia’s Italians in the Battlefield and Home Front


Both Flags Fly at a Wartime Event in Philadelphia's Little Italy


By Richard N. Juliani
Temple University Pres, 2022
Peter L. Belmonte, Reviewer

Somewhere around twenty to twenty-five percent of the United States armed forces during World War I were immigrants to this nation. Immigrants from Italy probably made up the largest national immigrant group represented in the U.S. military. Little Italy in the Great War: Philadelphia’s Italians in the Battlefield and Home Front looks at one specific Italian immigrant group and how they adapted to wartime in America. Author Richard N. Juliani, Professor of Sociology, Emeritus, at Villanova University, has written extensively about the Italian immigrant experience, specializing in Philadelphia’s Italian population. In this book, Juliani “seeks to examine the impact of the war on men who served in the ranks of the military and civilians who defended the nation in industrial and civic roles on the home front” (p. 5). In doing so, Juliani points out the nuanced differences from previous works on immigrants showing their successful assimilation during the war.

Juliani’s survey of the community is vast. He discusses the origins of the war and the call from Italy for her army reservists to return for service in the war in 1915. This occasioned a deep interest in the war in the Italian community. Juliani discusses how the various sources of information and misinformation impacted the community. This, of course, is a microcosm of how the war was “marketed” to the American public in general during those years.

Juliani’s lengthy discussion of Italian immigrants in the U.S. military is thorough and helpful in understanding how these men served and how they viewed their service. The author also discusses various means of “Americanizing” immigrant soldiers of all nationalities, hundreds of thousands of whom enlisted or were drafted into the military. He provides plenty of examples and vignettes of those who served, including those who served stateside and those who served in combat. Final chapters cover the home front and the soldiers’ return to Philadelphia. A concluding chapter discusses the overall effects of the war on the veterans and the community in general.

In the end, Juliani concludes that while Philadelphia’s Italians had demonstrated their loyalty during the war, subsequent (1924) immigration quotas impacted the renewal of their prewar life and language. Reformers’ efforts at assimilation were, according to Juliani, “made unnecessary alongside the inherent and inevitable results of daily life in America” (p. 260). Thus, Juliani sees the war as one step in the slower process of “Americanization” or assimilation that impacted individuals in different ways.

Juliani consulted a wide array of primary sources to bring us this important work that sheds light on a little-studied aspect of the war and American society. Little Italy in the Great War is a thorough analysis of how World War I impacted Philadelphia’s Italian community. It is a fine synthesis of military, social, urban, and immigration history. Our understanding of America's war effort would benefit from similar analyses of other immigrant communities. This book is highly recommended to anyone interested in Italian American history, as well as those interested in how American immigrants adapted to wartime in their new home country.

Peter L. Belmonte

Monday, February 6, 2023

The Saddest Farewell Story You Will Ever Hear


An Earlier Photo of the Future Sgt. Major Cavan


A First World War soldier who was called to the Western Front at short notice made a desperate bid to say goodbye to his family by scribbling a note in a matchbox and throwing it from a moving train.

Sergeant Major George Cavan hurled the message onto the platform of Carluke train station in South Lanarkshire, Scotland, and shouted to an onlooker [probably known to him]  to give it to his wife, Jean.


Dearest wife and bairns, off to France, love to you all, Daddy


The serviceman and his unit were suddenly called to fight in the Ludendorff Offensive—Germany's last major effort to win the war—from their base in Glasgow, but didn't have time to tell loved ones.

Just 15 days after penciling the note, Sgt Maj Cavan died after being wounded in the battle, though his body was never found.

The note, which read "Dearest wife and bairns, off to France — love to you all, Daddy," was eventually given to his wife, Jean Cavan.


George Cavan's wife, Jean, and their three children
(L-R) Lucy, Jean, and Georgina


She kept the letter and matchbox for the rest of her life and handed it to her daughter Lucy who in turn left it to her daughter, Maureen Rogers. Mrs Rogers, [then] 72, said: "The matchbox and letter were treasured by my grandmother for the rest of her life.  My grandfather must have thought "How on Earth am I going to let my family know I am going to war?"



Sources: Article  –  Daily Mail, 26 February 2015; Photos – Private  Collection of Maureen Rogers

Sunday, February 5, 2023

Battlefield Survivor:  Verdun's  Caverne du Douaumont aka Abri 320


Interior View Today

Abri 320 is an underground  brick and concrete shelter  for soldiers who might be fighting in the  sector. Built between 1889 and 1891, after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870–71. It was also to serve as a dressing station and a command post. The shelter dates from the same time than the defense forts of Douaumont, Vaux, Froideterre and Souville. The shelter is located  at 334 meters above sea level, at the foot of the Douaumont National Cemetery and Ossuary.


Position on the Battlefield




Topside View:  Note Position of the Two Chimneys


The structure, covered by 12 feet of earth, consists of a 60-meter-long main gallery, capable of holding 300 men, with two lateral entrance tunnels. Ventilation was provided by two massive concrete metal chimneys which are still visible today.


Schematic Plan: The Entrances Are on the Backside of
the Above Photo

Abri 320 was deactivated in 1915, during the phase of disarmament of the surrounding forts. However, the  great German offensive of February 1916 forced the government to reopen it and it became the main command post for the Thiamont sector of the battle.  In June, the Germans first forced its evacuation, after which its possession went back and forth until the French drove the enemy back to Fort Douaumont and secured it for good.


Partially Filled Entrance




Both Chimneys Survived All the Bombardments of the Battle

Abri 320 was bombarded by both sides through the battle, but it's structural integrity was never compromised. The ground located above and around the shelter has been left in its wartime condition, although the terrain has been softened somewhat by time and the weather.


The Terrain Around Abri 320, a Century Later


Source: De la Fortification Séré de Rivières