Utah USA Goes to War

145th (Utah National Guard) Field Artillery Monument,
Salt Lake City

After the United States entered the war on 6 April 1917, many Utahns were directly affected as relatives and friends joined the armed services or were drafted. Approximately 21,000 Utahns saw military service; of these, 665 died and 864 were wounded. Of the 665 deaths, 219 were killed on the battlefield or died from wounds received in action; 32 died of accidental causes; the remaining 414 died from disease and illness. Of the 10 percent (2,156) of the Utahns who served were of foreign birth or were members of U.S. ethnic or racial minorities. A number of Utah women, including 80 registered nurses, served during the war as nurses, ambulance drivers, clerical, and canteen workers.

In the summer of 1914, most Utahns were little concerned with the rumblings of war in Europe. Most felt that the fight had little to do with United States interests, advocated a strict policy of neutrality, and insisted that the United States not become embroiled in a European conflict. There were exceptions, of course, primarily among the Utah immigrant groups including the South Slavs, Germans, Greeks, Italians whose homelands had been caught up in the Great War. Utah German-Americans openly demonstrated their sympathy for Germany, held rallies, collected money for the German Red Cross, complained of the virulent anti-German propaganda in most English-language newspapers, and, in some cases, returned to Germany to fight.

New Army Recruits from Price, Utah, Heading Off to War

As the war continued, and America's position as a neutral became continually more difficult, especially with the loss of 124 American lives when the passenger ship Lusitania was sunk off the coast of Ireland in May 1915. After the outcry against Germany over the sinking of the Lusitania, Germany complied with American demands that ships carrying neutral passengers and cargo be allowed to sail without attack. By 1917, German strategists concluded that there best hope for victory was to resume unrestricted submarine warfare to keep essential war material from reaching the French and English, launch an offensive along the Western Front designed to end the nearly three years of stalemate, and to seek a secret alliance with Mexico which would restore to that nation the territory (including Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and California) lost to the United States in 1848. Faced with these events, President Woodrow Wilson saw no other option than to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Germany, which was passed on 6 April 1917.

Even before war was officially declared, Governor Simon Bamberger issued a proclamation on 24 March 1917 calling for Utahns to enlist in the Utah National Guard. Four months after war was declared, the Utah National Guard was drafted into Federal Service on 5 August 1917, sent to California, and then on to Europe where Utahns saw action along in the Argonne Forest, at Chateau Thierry, Champagne, Soissons, St. Mihiel, Verdun, and other locations on the Western front.

Three Utahns Who Served

Guy Empey of Ogden Served with the British Army (top left)
Hackett-Lowther Ambulance Driver Maud Fitch of Eureka, Utah (right)
George Grimshaw of Beaver, Utah,  13th Field Artillery, 4th Div. (lower left)

On the Home Front

Following the declaration, many Utahns became caught up in the fervor of wartime. Some people seemed to believe that German spies, saboteurs, and aircraft could be found almost everywhere. When it was reported that 800 sheep had been poisoned, the Utah Council of Defense contacted nearly every farmer and rancher in the state warning them to be on the lookout for suspicious individuals. Particular concern was expressed about members of the Industrial Workers of the World, who planned to use muratic acid, nitric acid, concentrated lye, and roach powder to kill cattle and hogs. State Chemist Herman Harms, responding to a nationwide rumor that German agents were lacing processed foods with ground glass or undefined forms of poison, examined 150 individual samples and found very little evidence of deliberate poisoning.

 Arthur W. Stevens, of the U.S. Forest Service in Utah, recalled:

Life became different. A sort of war-hysteria took over. Strange lights were seen in the sky at night, always at some other town. In time it was quite generally accepted that the Germans had a landing field down in Mexico, that they had super-pilots who could navigate at night and super-planes that could carry enough fuel to fly from Mexico into the United States and back again. . .

World War I helped bring Utah into the mainstream of American life as much as anything during the first two decades of the 20th century. As part of the national war effort, Utahns planted "victory gardens," preserved food, volunteered for work in the beet fields and on Utah's fruit farms, purchased Liberty Bonds, gave "Four-Minute patriotic speeches, collected money for the Red Cross, used meat and sugar substitutes, observed meatless days, knitted socks, afghans, and shoulder wraps, wove rugs for soldiers' hospitals, made posters, prohibited the teaching of the German language in some schools, and cultivated patriotism at every opportunity.

Children Working a Utah Sugar Beet Field During the War 

As United States rallied for a total war effort, the government called upon Utahns, like all Americans, to support the war effort by producing more, consuming less, purchasing war bonds, serving, and supporting those who entered the armed forces. States and counties established councils of defense to help organize men, women, and children, as well as businesses and organizations, in their wartime activities. Utah's economy prospered as wartime demands for farm and orchard produce, sugar, beef, coal, and copper placed a demand on production far beyond peacetime conditions. Particular emphasis was given to increasing the output of sugar beets and their processing at Utah’s 24 sugar factories.

No produce was wasted, as women were encouraged to bottle all available fruits and vegetables. Many Utah communities held canning demonstrations, and a cellar or pantry full of canned goods judiciously consumed over the winter was a tangible expression of a family’s patriotism. Citizens were encouraged to become members of the Red Cross and participate in its activities in direct support of the war. For many women, work with the Red Cross was of particular importance as a concrete demonstration of their involvement in the war effort, and Red Cross chapters were organized throughout the state.  

The launching of war bond drives was usually accompanied by celebrations, extensive newspaper articles, and when necessary, the strong arm of intimidation. Authorities used Family War Cards to record the names and demographic information about the members of a household—including their nationality and citizenship status; the amount they had paid for Liberty Bond drives and War Savings Stamps; and whether they belonged and donated to the Red Cross. Local newspapers often printed lists of subscribers. This could add up to an atmosphere of social coercion. All told, Utah surpassed the quota set for it and raised a total of $80,854,840 for the war effort. 

German Prisoners of War at Fort Douglas

Fort Douglas was an important military facility during the war. Thousands of recruits were trained at the fort and a prison was set up at the fort to house 870 enemy aliens, who had expressed pro-German sentiments or were considered dangerous, and as well as draft resisters from all states west of the Mississippi. An adjacent but separate part of the prison housed 686 German naval prisoners of war, who were sent to Utah after their ships were seized by American forces in Guam and Hawaii.

Aftermath

“This is the greatest event in the history of the world,” proclaimed a jubilant Simon Bamberger, the governor of Utah, of the 11 November 1918 Armistice that ended World War I (WWI). A hundred years later, Governor Bamberger’s proclamation may be debated, but without question the signing of the Armistice was one of the most important events of the 20th century and one whose consequences still resound today.

Railroad workers at the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Depot Celebrating the World War I Armistice

Most Utah servicemen returned home early in 1919 to cheering crowds, impressive parades, enthusiastic celebrations, and generous parties even though the influenza epidemic necessitated some precautions. Many joined the American Legion as posts were established in most Utah cities and towns. They were honored when the nation proclaimed 11 November as Armistice Day, a national holiday, and were moved when "Memory Grove," located along City Creek at the mouth of City Creek Canyon just north of the downtown Salt Lake City, was dedicated on 27 June 1924, as a permanent memorial to the soldiers killed during the war.

Like many other Americans, Utahns became disillusioned with the formal peace treaty ending the war. They were also divided over Woodrow Wilson's primary objective, the establishment of the League of Nations. Heber J. Grant, who became president of the LDS church in 1918, was an advocate of the League of Nations, while Reed Smoot, an LDS apostle and Utah's senior senator in Washington D.C. was an outspoken critic of the league. The war was something that many seemed to never really understand, a situation that hampered international cooperation and understanding and led to increased tensions and another war within a generation.

Veterans Parade in Ogden, 1919

From one of our readers about the above photo:  According to the Ogden Standard of 24 April 1919, the tank shown in the next-to-last photo arrived in Ogden the evening of the 23rd, and on the 24th "Shortly after 10 o'clock the tank had been unloaded from the [railroad] car and was coughing its way up Twenty-fourth street to the First National Bank, where it greeted Charles Barton, chairman of the Victory loan for the northern district of Utah. [paragraph] A great crowd gathered to see the battle-scarred little giant of destruction, which is in charge of Corporal Frank Fowles and Private C. [Clifford] A. Pillsbury, who fought with the tank in the Argonne where its performance sent many a Hun scampering on a mad flight toward the Rhine, and others in great haste to eternity." A Professor Frank Driggs gave a speech from atop the Renault, which then the crew gave a demonstration at the high school, then the junior high school and the state school for the deaf & blind before heading back downtown. Fowles and his unit, 329th Tank Bn., didn't depart the US aboard Orontes until 25 September, while Pillsbury's unit, the 330th Bn., had steamed from NYC aboard Harrisburg on 30 August. Neither battalion received tanks or saw combat.

____________________________

President Woodrow Wilson visited Salt Lake City on 23 September 1919, to advocate for ratification of the Treaty of Versailles by the United States Senate and its provision for the United States joining the League of Nations. Wilson spoke to an overflow audience in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, asking the questions, “Shall we guarantee civilization or shall we abandon it?” Two days later, in Pueblo, Colorado, Wilson collapsed while giving a speech and later suffered a massive stroke. 

Less than four months after Wilson’s memorable visit to Salt Lake City, General John J. Pershing, the Commander of the American Expeditionary Forces in Europe during the war, came to Utah. After a welcome at the Union Pacific Railroad Station, Pershing and his staff joined in a parade downtown. Following an inspection tour of Fort Douglas, Pershing spoke at a patriotic program held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. The visits by Wilson in September 1919 and Pershing in January 1920 recalled the previous joyous celebrations on 11 November  1918 and the return of Utah soldiers in early 1919. In one sense, the visits were an acknowledgement of Utah’s contribution to the victory and verified that Utah’s loyalty to the nation was recognized at the highest levels.

World War I Pagoda Memorial Listing Utah's
Fallen in the War, Salt Lake City

Sources: Utah History Encyclopedia; Utah Historical Society; Utah Historical Quarterly, 2018 #3; Utah's World War I Monuments

Consummate Diplomat and Patriotic Poet: Sir Cecil A. Spring Rice, Wartime Ambassador to Washington

By James Patton

Sir Cecil A. Spring Rice GCMG GCVO PC (1859–1918) was born into a prominent blue-blooded Anglo-Irish family and educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford. He began his long career with the Foreign Office as a clerk in 1882; his first diplomatic posting was to Washington from 1887 to 1892, with a second stint there during 1893–1895. Following were short stays in Japan, Germany, and the Middle East; then he was off to Russia, where he was the chargé d'affaires. During the Russo-Japanese War he corresponded at length with President Theodore Roosevelt as the American mediation effort progressed and led to the subsequent treaty. As a result, in 1905 he was designated as the Foreign Office's special representative to the U.S. president. In 1906 he was rose to an ambassadorship, first to Persia then later to Sweden. He was also knighted. 

His biographer, Stephen Gwynn, says that Spring Rice’s ambition was always to be the ambassador in Washington. Throughout his career he had voiced his desire to "improve relations between the two great English-speaking powers." Early in his career he became such a great friend with Theodore Roosevelt that he was asked to be best man when future president married his second wife, Edith, in London in 1886.  Due to his long association with Roosevelt, Spring Rice had unrivaled influence in Washington, and ultimately, in 1912 he became the ambassador to the U.S. It was later said that his "whole career seems to have been a preparation for the final struggle in Washington." He would serve in that capacity for almost the entire Wilson Administration and duration of the Great War.

The Roosevelts' London Wedding in London, 1886

With the start of the war, Spring Rice’s principal job became finessing American neutrality. The United States was the Allies largest foreign source of munitions, arms and food.  ARTICLE

However, in 1914, most Americans favored neutrality, and there were strong anti-British and non-interventionist sentiments as well. His frequent opposite number, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925) was a pacifist. It was a tribute to Spring Rice’s tact that the two became close friends. He also had to defend British policies and activities that violated American neutrality, such as the cutting of cables, reading mail and telegrams, the search and even seizure of ships at sea, and the dubious deeds of British agents.

Furthermore, his German counterparts were also courting American public opinion. Of particular concern was their involvement with ethnic German and Irish groups, and the embassy also monitored activities of anti-British agents and sought to identify their contacts and sources.

In January 1915, Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour (1848–1930), prime minister from 1902 to 1905 and in  1917 the author of the Balfour Declaration, was dispatched to Washington to smooth over differences and assure the U.S. Congress of Britain's undying fidelity. Spring Rice and his staff were excluded from these meetings. Even so, Spring Rice’s friend J.P. Morgan Jr.’s firm was appointed as the sole purchasing agent for Britain in the U.S. 

Henceforth, Spring Rice was regarded as Morgan’s man, as the latter became deeply involved in lending funds to the Allies. 

Spring Rice became very concerned about the rapid growth of sub rosa purchasing deals. He warned Whitehall that payments made in gold would seriously undermine the British banks, but he was largely ignored, likely because of his relationship with Morgan. 

Spring Rice and his staff increasingly assumed an advisory role as many British special missions were sent to secure the support of the U.S. government. One of these was the 1915 Anglo-French Financial Commission, led by Rufus Isaacs, Earl of Reading (1860–1935), which resulted in a line of credit being issued to the British in the amount of $500 million, underwritten by Morgan & Co. and a consortium of about 2,200 U.S banks. 

Spring Rice was unable to control the large number of private brokers and agents, both with and without official authority, who were operating in America on behalf of British business interests. Stymied, he demanded that the War Office provide him with an official list of their accredited agents, which request was only reluctantly complied with.

Spring Rice also had to control the anti-British influence on U.S. policy towards the Indian and Irish independence movements. The U.S. government was reluctant to quash these sentiments. British intelligence uncovered a conspiracy in the U.S. between German agents and Indian nationals planning an armed rebellion against British rule. Likewise, after the Easter Uprising in Ireland, Spring Rice was asked to request clemency for the rebel leaders, including Sir Roger Casement, which he did, knowing that while this raised his standing with some Americans, it had the opposite effect in Whitehall.  

Spring Rice (second from left) Signing the
Third U.S. War Loan to Britain in 1917

In January 1917, Spring Rice was authorized to sign the third U.S. War Loan agreement on behalf of His Majesty’s government. However, in  January 1918, following a disagreement with the media mogul  Albert, Viscount Northcliffe (1865–1922), the head of yet another British special mission to America, Spring Rice was abruptly recalled to London by a one-line telegram. 

On his way home, he stopped off in Ottawa, Ontario, to visit with the Governor General of Canada, the Duke of Devonshire, who was Spring Rice’s wife’s cousin. He died there suddenly on 14 February 1918.  

Gravestone, Vanier, Ontario

His death left his widow (who lived on until 1961), herself an ambassador’s daughter, to raise her two young children with no home or pension. He was buried in the Canadian National Military Cemetery, located at Vanier, Ontario. “Ambassadors were expected to have family money,” a descendant says. “She never talked about him; she never talked about life in embassies. People like her didn’t talk about being short of money.” American friends, led by Morgan, raised money for the family’s support and the children’s education. Spring Rice created a small endowment to fund scholarships for future diplomats at Balliol College, Oxford. 

In the day, many tributes were forthcoming. In 1919, a peak in British Columbia was named for him. In 1931 a small bridge in the Lakes District was dedicated to him. 

He was called a consummate diplomat, able to find and befriend the persons of real importance. He could also placate difficult personalities and egos. Robert Cecil, Viscount of Chetwood (1864–1958), said of Spring Rice: “No ambassador has ever had to discharge duties of greater delicacy or of more far reaching importance than fell to his lot. Nor has any ambassador ever fulfilled his task with more unwearied vigilance, conspicuous ability and ultimate success.” 

The Poet

A hundred years on, Spring Rice’s legacy now rests not with his distinguished diplomatic service or his connections with famous figures like Roosevelt, Morgan, and Bryan. Like most educated persons of his era, Spring Rice dabbled in poetry. Fluent in Farsi, he translated Persian poetry into English. He also wrote poems. His complete collection, entitled Poems of Today was published in 1922. Of particular importance is his poem "Urbs Dei (The City of God) or the Two Father Lands." This is the original version: 

I heard my country calling, away across the sea,

Across the waste of waters, she calls and calls to me.

Her sword is girded at her side, her helmet on her head,  

And around her feet are lying the dying and the dead;

I hear the noise of battle, the thunder of her guns;

I haste to thee, my mother, a son among thy sons.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago

Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know

We may not count her armies, we may not see her king

Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering

And soul by soul, and silently her shining bounds increase

And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace

The final line of the second stanza echoes Proverbs 3:17, "Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace," although in the Bible the pronoun "her" refers to "wisdom," whereas Spring Rice is using it for "heaven." Spring Rice rewrote the first stanza in 1918 shortly before his death. It is thought that he felt that the original did not emphasize the magnitude of the tragedy that was the Great War:

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above

Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love

The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test

That lays upon the altar, the dearest and the best

The love that never falters, the love that pays the price

The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

His second stanza remained unchanged. In 1921 the words of the revised version of the poem were set to music by Gustav Holst (1874–1934), using tune of "Jupiter, from his suite The Planets. Ralph Vaughan Williams (1872–1958) then included Holst’s harmonized version in the 1926 Church of England hymnal "Songs of Praise." Known by its first line, the hymn has become a staple at Remembrance Day ceremonies and especially state funerals, including those of Sir Winston Churchill; Diana, Princess of Wales; Margaret, Baroness Thatcher; and Queen Elizabeth II.

The hymn has become controversial in recent times, accused of being nationalistic, even heretical, for suggesting that allegiance to country should come before allegiance to God, as well as "obscene" for urging unquestioned obedience when asked to kill others. 

Also, on 7 June 2013 the inscription  “And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago, most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know" was added to Spring Rice’s refurbished grave marker,  courtesy of the Toronto branch of the Honourable Company of Freemen of the City of London.

Battle of Gavrelle Windmill—Worst Casualties in a Single Day for the Royal Marines

Royal Marines of the 63rd Royal Naval Division

Virtually forgotten in the never ending saga of the First World War, Gavrelle, a small North Eastern French village positioned at the eastern end of the Arras battlefield was the scene of some of the most vicious fighting of the 1917 Arras Offensive. The village was captured by the 63rd Royal Naval Division (RND) on 24 April 1917 and was the site of a subsequent action known as the Battle of Gavrelle Windmill on 28–29 April. This second action at Gavrelle saw the highest number of Royal Marine casualties in a single day in the history of the corps, with 846 recorded as killed, missing, or wounded. The dead Marines totaled 335.

How Did This Come About?

At the start of the Arras Offensive, Gavrelle had been a fortified village in the third line of forward defenses of the Hindenburg Line and had lain some miles behind the fighting line. However, by the third week of April 1917, it became a prominent target for the British Army because of its importance as part of the Arleux Loop defensive line. In addition, if Gavrelle and the high ground to the north of the village could be taken, then the British Army would have had excellent observation of practically the whole of the Douai Plain beyond.

Operations Around Gavrelle
Arrow at Top Indicates 28–29 April Attack
Note Location of Windmill

The task of capturing the village had eventually been given to the men of the Royal Naval Division, who, despite sleet, snow, and bitter fighting, captured Gavrelle on St George’s Day,  23 April 1917.  Soon, however, the division found it was in a pronounced salient. Furthermore, during the days after the 23rd,  the German artillery  became "very active" by continuously pouring fire into the RND and their newly won possessions. However, by Saturday 28 April, a second attack around the village was ready. The objectives were the capture of the village’s ruined windmill and the high ground to the northeast, which had been barring any advance out of and threatening the British hold on Gavrelle. 

The attack was assigned to the 188th Brigade of the RND, which consisted of the 1st and 2nd Battalions of Royal Marines Light Infantry, supported by the 1st Battalion of the Honourable Artillery Company from the Division’s 190th Brigade. 1st Royal Marines had been required to form a defensive flank for the 2nd Division on its left, thus protecting the 2nd Division’s right flank.  Once these tasks were completed, the unit was then to send fighting patrols out and link up with units from the Second Division in the north and 2nd Royal Marines to the south.

The second part of the plan was to be carried out by 2nd Royal Marines. They were to advance out of Gavrelle and move down the Fresnes road to a depth of 700 yards. Starting from within the village the unit had two separate objectives, the capture of the windmill on the high ground to the northeast, and a section of unfinished trenches to the south of the Gavrelle to Izel road, where, once the supporting artillery barrage had passed over, they had been ordered to  consolidate the trenches, and  link up with 1st Royal Marines to the north and the division’s Anson Battalion to the south. It was obvious that the 2nd Battalion would have both flanks in the air at the commencement of the attack, leaving the men in a precarious position.

Gavrelle Windmill Before the War

The Attack and Counterattacks

At 0425 hours on 28 April, the two Marine Battalions launched their very separate attacks. The 1st Battalion were to all intents and purposes never heard of again. They had advanced headlong into a strongpoint (where the German trench system crossed the railway line) and although some of them managed to fight their way through, the flanking units never made contact with them. The only form of news was from the few wounded who managed to get back to their own lines. For the actions in resisting the enemy's counterattacks for nearly 30 hours, two lieutenants of the Honourable Artillery Company, Reginald Haine and Alfred Pollard, would be awarded the Victoria Cross. [Note: It's unclear from their citations whether these efforts were in support of the 1st or 2nd Royal Marines.]

The 2nd Battalion RMLI managed to gain some territory, including the all-important windmill but by the evening the captured ground was back in the hands of the Germans with the exception of a small garrison who were hanging on to the  death at the windmill. A strong German counterattack was launched against Gavrelle itself, and this was repulsed only by the timely arrival of the 14th Bn Worcestershire Regiment, the divisional pioneers, who had been ordered forward at short notice. Toward the village center, the communal cemetery on the immediate right and an adjacent street was the defensive line held by the pioneers. The battle raged through the night and an attempt by the division's Anson Battalion to take the German position outside the village failed completely. 

Two Who Fought Gallantly at Gavrelle

(L) Lt. Reginald Haine (1896–1982), Hon. Artillery Comp.
Victoria Cross
(R) Corp. Wm. Mardsen (1882–1917) 2nd Royal Marine L.I.,
Military Medal (Died from Wounds)

The German counterattack was held off by the steady firing of the pioneers. By the evening of 29 April, the  village was solidly in the hands of the RND and the Windmill defenders were holding out. The following day the 31st Division took over the line.  Gavrelle would be secure for almost a year, when it was abandoned during the German spring offensive. The capture, defense and holding of the Windmill was described as a “very brilliant operation” which significantly strengthened the hold of the division on Gavrelle. However, the strength and determination of the Germans had been underestimated, and both Royal Marine Battalions paid the cost, suffering disastrous losses.

Sources: RoyalMarinesHistory.com; Imperial War Museum Volunteer London Blog entry by Tim Mansfield; Scarborough Maritime Heritage Center

Botha, Smuts and the Great War

Click HERE to Purchase This Book

By Antonio Garcia & Ian Van Der Waag

Helion & Company, 2023

Reviewed by Jim Gallen

The United States' slow and meandering road to the Great War is familiar to many Roads readers. Less well known is the path the Union of South Africa followed to the Great War.  These two USAs shared some factors. Protected by thousands of miles of ocean, both had strong British influences countervailed by anti-British ethnics: German and Irish in America, Dutch Boer in Africa. Either could have sat out the war without much disruption to their lives and in each the decision to go to war was politically divisive. Botha, Smuts and the Great War is the saga of South Africa's road to and through the Great War and the men who led it.

The background to South Africa's entry into the Great War was unique. The interior of the tip of Africa was settled by Dutch who migrated inland from the Cape of Good Hope to escape pressure from arriving British. Boer isolation lasted until gold and diamonds were discovered in their republics. After British conquest during the Boer War, a segment of Boer political and military leadership hitched their wagons to the empire’s star and became a dominant force in the political life of the Union. Louis Botha and Jan Smuts, both prominent officers in the Transvaal Republic Army, became leaders of the new dominion within the empire. It was they who fought as empire soldiers against the foe and worked as nation builders during and through the war.

South African participation in the Great War was driven and limited by its tradition and geography. Its Union Defense Force (UDF), a blend of Boer commandos (comparable to American militia) and a faint copy of British forces, was better equipped for cavalry campaigns in Africa than in the trenches of the Western Front. There was, however, one exception to this policy. A volunteer infantry brigade was organized and sent to Egypt and then on to the Western Front. These Springboks, as they called themselves, fought notably on the Somme in 1916 and the further British campaigns of 1917–1918.

Bordering on German Southwest Africa and within striking distance of German East Africa, its best opportunity to contribute to the Allied cause was to neutralize German colonies while freeing British troops for the European Theatre.  Germany’s goal was to hold as many troops in Africa as long as possible. Moreover, the German wireless station in Windhoek was an Axis asset the Allies could not be allowed to capture.

Success in Southwest Africa

South Africa participated in two major campaigns from September 1914 through July 1915, initially taking German Southwest Africa. Southwest Africa was significant, both for the threat it posed to the Union and for information transmitted from its wireless station in Windhoek.  After an initial rebuff on 26 September 1914 at Sandfontein, the prime minister and General Botha designed a three-pronged attack to subdue the German forces. Botha commanded the  northern force invading from Walvis Bay, a South African enclave midway on the SWA coast, while Smuts landed a central force at the German naval base at Luderitz and joined with UDF’s Eastern and Southern forces. This led to the unconditional surrender of SWA on 9 July  1915. Having achieved peace in the west, Botha returned to Pretoria to face a Boer revolt and political opposition over government policies while Smuts moved to the east.   

Fighting in German East Africa was a much more drawn out, less organized campaign spreading over German East Africa, British Northern Rhodesia, Portuguese Mozambique, and the Belgian Congo. In contrast to the desert of Southwest Africa, the terrain, thick vegetation and disease ecology made the East Africa Theatre less conducive to the sweeping movements of mounted troops on which Botha and Smuts had built their success.  Commissioned to lead a polyglot army drawn from South Africa, East and West Africa, the Belgian Congo, Lusophone (Portuguese speaking) Africa, Britain, and India, Smuts took on the respected German commander, Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. From the beginning to the end of 1916, Smuts built a reputation for success of which the Allies otherwise had little. Though his German and African forces were outnumbered, Lettow-Vorbeck’s German and native troops used interior lines and initiative to keep the campaign active until news arrived of the armistice of 11 November 1918.

Jan Smuts (Detail), by John Singer Sargent,
National Portrait Gallery

Smuts was too talented a character to be left in African jungles. On 12 March 1917, he arrived in London to public adulation and as South Africa’s representative to the Imperial War Conference and, at Lloyd George’s request, joined the War Cabinet. Though plans to grant Smuts a military command were stymied by British unwillingness to share rank with a colonial who so recently had been an enemy, Smuts was a convenient handyman, carrying out missions to the United States, North Africa, the Middle East and Italy, playing a part in the settlement of labor strikes in South Wales involving police and coal miners, and the establishment of the Royal Air Force. He would be a significant figure in the Versailles Peace Conference, advocating for the League of Nations and his vision for southern Africa. 

Roads readers appreciate the multi-faceted impacts of the Great War. This 311-page volume sheds light on theatres rarely illuminated. Its description of African campaigns, supplemented by photos and maps, describe types of warfare not normally associated with the Great War, but shown to be related to the whole. The war that destroyed empires and spawned nations is shown to have molded South Africa. Amidst the turmoil of war, South Africa’s choice of the path to apartheid, which still influences our world, is documented on these pages. Authors Antonio Garcia and Ian Van Der Waag have crafted a valuable addition to Great War literature in this book. 

Jim Gallen

Lest We Forget: The Royal Albert Hall Festival of Remembrance

London's Royal Albert Hall

Opened in 1871, the Royal Albert Hall is now possibly the world’s most famous stage.  During the Great War, it was the scene of regular concerts dedicated to the war effort and those serving overseas. Original music was sometimes created for these events. In November 1917 four of England’s greatest living composers–Sir Edward Elgar, Sir Hubert Parry, Sir Frederick Bridge, and Charles Villiers Stanford–set poetry to music during a Royal Choral Society concert. The most famous of these was, The Spirit of England written by English poet Laurence Binyon in September 1914 just after Britain had suffered its first heavy losses on the Western Front. It is still used in the annual Remembrance Day services today. These wartime concerts culminated with a victory and welcome home to the troops program in 1919.

However, the tragedy of the war was not quickly forgotten. On 8 July 1923, a Great Concert in aid of the Somme Battlefields Memorial was held at the Royal Albert Hall. This concert was organized to raise funds for the Inter-Allied War Memorial outside Amiens, France. This event apparently rekindled memories of the war that were so strong there seems to have been an impulse to annualize a commemoration,  and Armistice Day was only four months in the future.

The 1923 Program

A Festival of Remembrance, held in honor of those who have given their lives in the service of their country, has been marked at the Royal Albert Hall annually since 1923. The very first Festival of Remembrance was called "In Memory 1914–1918–A Cenotaph In Sound," in aid of the British Legion, Field Marshal Earl Haig’s Appeal for Ex-Service Men of all Ranks, and was held on 11 November 1923. A royal delegation including HRH The Prince of Wales, who had served in the war, was in attendance to hear John Foulds’s new composition, A World Requiem: A Cenotaph in Sound, performed by a chorus and orchestra.

What It Looked Like Back Then

In 1927 the concert was simply renamed the Remembrance Festival and featured popular wartime songs including "Pack up Your Troubles," "Take Me Back to Dear Old Blighty," and "Tipperary." The event ended with a service that has now become familiar, featuring "The Last Post" and ending in "God Save the King." The annual event quickly expanded to feature performances  from all three military services that included complex marching drills, weapons maneuvers, music, and combat skills demonstrations.

The 2015 Event

It was not until 1971 that the British Legion were permitted to use the title "royal," following a Royal Charter bestowed to the organisation on 29 May 1971. The festival was promptly renamed Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance. Although the festival was originally only intended to honour those who died in the First World War, it now includes tributes to the war dead from more recent conflicts. The ceremonies include a release of poppy petals from the roof and a two minute silence to commemorate and honour all those who have lost their lives in conflicts.

The Festival has been broadcast on BBC radio since 1927 and has become a popular televised event on BBC One each year.

Sources:  Royal Albert Hall website; Wikipedia; Getty Images

U-boat Assault on America: The Cruise of U-156

U-155, Class Sister of U-156, on Display in London
Postwar. Note Twin Deck Guns and Wide Hull to Carry
Cargo or Supplies

In earlier articles on Roads we have discussed the 1917–1918 U-boat assault on America during the First World War, HERE and HERE.  Our source article for these two articles focused on three U-boats that were active off the Atlantic Coast  (U-117, U-140, and U-151).  These boats were quite successful sinking or disabling over 50 Allied vessels during their time on station off of Canada and the U.S. They inflicted the damage via surface and torpedo attacks, by laying mines, or destroying vessels by various means after forcing their crews to stop and abandon ship. 

There was, however, a fourth U-boat, the U-156—specially designed for long-range operations—that also wrecked similar destruction and has also been officially credited by the U.S. Navy with sinking—by minelaying—one of the two U.S. Navy combat vessels lost during the war, the 13,680 ton armored cruiser USS San Diego.  [A little personal note here. The USS San Diego—originally the USS California—was built at San Francisco's Union Iron Works while my grandfather Tom Stack was working there.]

USS San Diego,  Lost 19 July 2018

The initial investigation on the sinking of the cruiser concluded a mine had caused its sinking. Over the years, however, other theories emerged involving a torpedo attack or sabotage.  These suggestions raised enough doubts to trigger another very well resourced study a century after the San Diego was lost.  The online Smithsonian magazine of 14 December 2018 summarized the results:

. . . A team of investigators from 10 government agencies and academic institutions spent the past two years researching to find the conclusive answer. Using archival documents, as well as 3D scans of the shipwreck, the team was able to create sophisticated models of how the ship flooded and how the explosion impacted its hull. Ken Nahshon, research engineer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, tells Niiler that the results are consistent with hitting a mine. The flooding model also shows that the design of the ship’s coal storage compartments probably led to its quick sinking, not mistakes by the crew.

This story of the USS San Diego's sinking, as well as the story of the subsequent rampage by the U-156 has been somewhat neglected over the years. For the cruiser, this might have been because the loss of life for the ship was relatively low for the sinking of a large warship—six killed and six injured—or because it was late in the war when the nation's eyes were focused on the Western Front. As for U-156, its subsequent operations mainly focused on an odd, undramatic selection of targets (discussed below), and it was mysteriously lost at sea, and hardly anyone noticed it was gone at the time.

The U-156 and Its North American Mission

U-156 Commander, Kapitänleutnant Richard Feldt

U-156 was launched in April 1917 at the Atlas Werke in Bremen. It conducted two patrols during the war, the last under the command of Kapitänleutnant Richard Feldt to the coast of North America.  It subsequently was lost with all hands (77 men) on 25 September 1918. Like USS San Diego, it is believed that U-156 was destroyed by a mine.

As for  U-156’s activities the following is known. En route to the East Coast of America,  Skipper Richard Feldt stumbled across several targets of opportunity. Northwest of Scotland his U-boat stumbled across the unlucky 4,000 ton steamer Tortuguero and sank it. Later on, two iron-hull sailing vessels, the Marosa and the Manx King, met the same fate, but the main mission involved hunting along the Canadian and American coast. After arriving on station, the mines that sank the San Diego were laid apparently.   

U-156's subsequent record of sinkings seems to reflect a strategy of starving out America by attacking  the mostly small vessels of its coastal trading and fishing fleets. This period of warfare involved the sinkings of five vessels that most people would consider "ships" (four small freighters and one tanker).  The U-boats remaining list of  sinkings include one tugboat, six small cutters or barges, and 19 fishing boats and trawlers. This might have pleased the captain and crew and resulted in a lot of decals added to the conning tower, but the large number of sinkings seems more a tribute to the industriousness of Kapitänleutnant Feldt.  Committing one of Germany's most technologically advanced vessels to hunt fishing boats seems a misdirection of resources. It was, though, something of humanitarian accomplishment by Feldt that he managed to sink over 30 vessels while inflicting only six casualties among all their crews.

Fishing Sloop E.B.Walters, Sunk by U-156,
25 August 1918

Such was the mission and fate of the last World War I U-boat to attack the American coast in World War I. Its successors would return in the next war, however, seeking juicier targets and making a much bigger impact in 1942.

Sources: "The U.S.S. San Diego and the California Naval Militia," California Center for Military History; U-Boat Net; "We Finally Know What Sank the U.S.S. San Diego During World War I," Smithsonian, 14 December 2018

Thanks to WWI Centennial Commissioner Jack Monahan for suggesting this article.

National WWI Memorial — A Soldier's Journey: First Illumination Ceremony (Video)

Forward This to Someone Who Cares About America 

Why Were They Called Doughboys? — A Roads Classic

With today's completion of America's National World War One Memorial, I though it was a good time to bring back this one from the archives. MH

By Michael Hanlon (Your Editor/Publisher)

A. The Origins of Doughboy

For us today, and maybe for all Americans who will follow, the Doughboys were the men America sent to France in the Great War, who licked Kaiser Bill and fought to make the world safe for democracy. 

The expression Doughboy, though, was in wide circulation a century before the First World War in both Britain and America, albeit with some very different connotations. Horatio Nelson's sailors and Wellington's soldiers in Spain, for instance, were both familiar with fried flour dumplings called doughboys, the predecessor of the modern doughnut that both we and the Doughboys of World War I came to love. Because of the occasional contact of the two nations' armed forces and transatlantic migration, it seems likely that this usage was known to the members of the U.S. Army by the early 19th century. 

Independently, however, in the former colonies, the term had come to be applied to baker's young apprentices, i.e. dough-boys. Again, American soldiers probably were familiar with this usage, but were also possibly inclined to use it in a mocking fashion. The New World version of Doughboy was a linguistic cousin to "dough-head", a colloquialism for stupidity in 19th-century America. Judith Kerman, Professor of English at Saginaw Valley State University, points out that, in Moby Dick (Ch. 34ff), Melville nicknames the timorous cabin steward "Doughboy." This important 19th-century literary usage suggests a negative comparison of the steward's pale face to the darker faces of the sunburned whalers and "savage" harpooners. When Doughboy was finally to find a home with the U.S. Army it initially had a similar disparaging connotation, used most often by cavalrymen looking down [quite literally] on the foot-bound infantry. 

In examining the evolution of Doughboy these pre-existing streams of application need to be kept in mind. There is, however, an absence of literary citations clearly connecting either to the American military. Doughboy as applied to the infantry of the U.S. Army first appears, without any precedent that can be documented, in accounts of the Mexican-American War of 1846–47. 

B. The Doughboy as  an American Infantryman

The First Doughboys Capture Monterrey, Mexico

The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang cites several sources from the war with Mexico showing Doughboy to be a nickname for infantrymen including: 

We "doughboys" had to wait for the artillery to get their carriages over. 

     N.J.T. Dana [An infantryman] 

No man of any spirit and ambition would join the "Doughboys" and go afoot. 

     Samuel Chamberlain [A Dragoon] 

Sources like these clearly put to rest both the oft-stated proposition that Doughboy as we mean it here was first applied in the Civil War and also the wilder suggestion that the usage was somehow a creation of the noted "Cavalry Couple", General and Mrs. George Armstrong Custer. Both the Civil War and the Custers did help in spreading the use of Doughboy. Clearly from the number of Civil War citations that can be identified, the term became known to a much wider audience because of the size and scope of the later conflict. The Custers, being the shameless self-promoters they were, probably can be credited for popularizing it as well because of its appearance in their published letters. 

Somewhere, however, on the march back from Mexico's Halls of Montezuma, any definitive evidence explaining the new use of Doughboy was waylaid. For the next 150 years, lexicographers from H.L. Mencken in The American Language to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary would speculate on the reasons for the labeling of U.S. infantrymen as Doughboys. Despite their distinguished credentials, these authoritative sources, all have the same dual problem as the present writer: there are just  not a lot of reliable primary sources from that period and, of course, none of us were there. Absent the discovery of new material from the 1840s, an exploration into the origins of Doughboy has but one way to proceed—looking at the pros and cons of the plausible theories and weighing the evidence. There are four such explanations each with their school of advocates, each with weaknesses in either evidence or logic. 

U.S.  Infantry and Cavalry of the
Mexican-American War

The Baked Goods Theory: One suggestion is that Doughboys were named such because of their method of cooking their rations. Meals were often doughy flour and rice concoctions either baked in the ashes of a camp fire or shaped around a bayonet and cooked over the flames. This interpretation also suggests the baker's helper tradition of Doughboy. Samuel Chamberlain [quoted above] adhered to this theory in his memoir My Confessions. This has to be taken with some reservations, however. His memoir was written after the war in the 1850s and reworked by later editors. 

The weakness of the "Baked Goods" theory lies in the question as to why this would come to only apply to the infantry. Did artillery gunners and quartermasters prepare their food differently? Were the infantry the only soldiers who had to cook their own food in the field? 

The Button Theory: Adherents of this theory hold that U.S. infantrymen wore coats with unique, globular brass buttons. These buttons are said to reminiscent of the doughboy dumplings eaten by the soldiers and sailors of earlier days and which possibly had become part of American cuisine. In another variation, drawing additionally on the Baked Goods Theory, it is said that the product of the infantrymen's cooking efforts came to resemble the buttons on their uniforms. When I originally published this article, I could find no photos or illustration clearly showing the buttons on U.S. infantry uniforms, c. 1840s.

In February 2002, however, I was contacted by a museum which displays military uniforms, informing me that U.S. infantry uniforms of the period did, indeed, have globular buttons. I am still awaiting a confirming photos. Even if the claims about uniform buttons are validated, there is still a lack of primary evidence backing up the usage of Doughboy in accordance with this line of thinking. 

The Pipe Clay Theory: During the 19th century American enlisted men used a fine whitish clay called pipe clay to give "polish" to their uniforms and belts. It was a less than perfect appearance enhancer, however; in rainy weather the saturated clay came to look "doughy." Infantrymen would be more vulnerable to this effect as their comrades kicked up mud and dirty water from the many puddles they would march through. One reader has offered a variation on this from the memoirs of General Tasker Bliss. The general writes that flour [dough?] was used for this whitening function by the infantrymen along the Texas border from where the invasion of Mexico was launched. 

The Pipe Clay theory, championed in the 20th century by Mr. Henry Mencken, has plausibility, but lacks documentation. [General Bliss's variation is a singular report that might have been subject to distortion over time, so it also needs corroboration.] On the main point, shouldn't there be some description of troops marching in the rain, looking "doughy," to support this? Besides, the routes the infantry took in Mexico tended to be dry and dusty rather than wet and muddy and this leads us to the final of the four theories. 

The Adobe Theory: In a nutshell—in marching over the parched terrain of the deserts of Northern Mexico the infantry stirred up so much dust that they took on the look of the adobe buildings of the region—hence, [after a few phonetic adjustments] Doughboys. The cavalrymen who rode horses, the artillerists who rode caissons, and the quartermasters who rode wagons were all mounted above the worst of the dust cloud. It is also easy to visualize them collectively indulging in a little disparagement at the expense of their suffering colleagues. 

Americans Marching in Northern Mexico

This theory has possibly the best "fit" to the facts of the campaign in Mexico as known, yet it has no backing from the historical record. It appears to be the product strictly of 20th-century speculation. Nevertheless, it is the favorite theory of Doughboy chronicler Laurence Stallings and of this writer as well. The modern day Oxford English Dictionary Supplement takes a reverse slant and suggests that the marching infantry pounded their dirt pathways into dough, but that does not quite ring true to anyone who has visited Mexico. In the northern parts, if it's not paved, it's dusty. 

C. From Chapultepec to the Rhine

For the next 70 years following General Scott's capture of Mexico City, Doughboy, despite its uncertain origins, was used—sometimes mockingly—as a nickname for the American infantryman. It appears in firsthand accounts from the Civil War, the campaigns on the frontier and the Philippine Insurrection. "Doughboy Drill" became synonymous with close-order infantry drill and supplies of prophylactics for soldiers on pass became euphemistically  known as "Doughboy Kits." 

Doughboys of the Great War

Yet when the Great War and America's entry into it came, the usage of Doughboy changed dramatically and we are left with some additional Doughboy mysteries. In a mere 19 months, Doughboy became the universally popular nickname of all the American troops sent to Europe pushing "Yanks" [recall that in the hit song "Over There" it was the "Yanks" who were coming...] and the newspaper publisher's inspiration of the moment, "Sammies", [after Uncle Sam] to the sideline. 

Most interestingly, in World War I, Doughboy became generalized in application, no longer limited to the infantry. All the army combat branches, aviators, logistical support troops and even the U.S. Marines [to their chagrin] were individually and collectively labeled Doughboys. 

It seems to have been a bottoms up movement. In their letters home and their diaries volunteers, draftees and national guardsmen of every specialty just began referring to themselves as Doughboys. Their overseas newspaper, Stars & Stripes, freely used and advocated the term as well. I was also once shown a quote indicating that General William Siebert, influential first commander of the 1st Division (which was the first large unit "over there") and later chief of the Chemical Warfare Service, strongly encouraged the usage of Doughboy. 

And there is one final puzzle or maybe a bit of magic about the use of Doughboy from the Great War up to today. Doughboy has come to belong exclusively to the 4.7 million Americans who served in the Great War. The Army continued using some of the slang terms like "Doughboy Drill," but the troops of the 1920s and '30s, for the most part, did not use the term to describe themselves, nor did the public. In the Second World War, the Doughboys' sons, called to arms in stupendous numbers, would be alternately known as the Yanks and GIs. Possibly the sad Bonus Marcher incident of the early 1930s [the veterans were all former Doughboys] played a role in de-popularizing the usage, but maybe America just decided the name "belonged" to the boys of the First World War. 

Eleven years after I wrote the original version of this article I was asked to be the master-of-ceremonies at an event at the National World War I Memorial in Kansas City honoring Mr. Frank Buckles, who was the lasting surviving American to serve in the military in  World War I. It was a very moving experience for me and a real honor. Mr. Buckles, wasn't present for the ceremony, though, as he was unable to travel by then. His family, however, was well represented.  I was very pleased to hear from them that Mr. Buckles always referred to himself as a Doughboy.

Sources and thanks: This article originally appeared in my website The Doughboy Center in 1998. It has been updated numerous times since then. A special thanks to the 200+ people who have written me over the years with constructive suggestions for the article and the thousands who have thanked me for making this material available. This article is cited in a number of books and websites (often without attribution, but that's OK). Also, I must remember a Great War Society Member, the late Gerry Devereux, who kept asking me why Doughboy became so darn popular in the First World War, forcing me to write the original piece.  MH