100 Years Ago: The Canadians Recapture Mont Sorrel, Ypres Salient

Canadian Troops in a Reserve Trench  Before the Action

The Battlefield

About three miles east of Ypres there is a series of nubs (generously refered to as Mont Sorrel) running south from Hooge on the Menin Road and just east of famous Sanctuary Wood for a little over a mile. The three nubs are known as Tor Top or Hill 62, Hill 61, and the highest, Mont Sorrel.   Despite my quibbles about their designation, as the photo below – taken from the monument on Hill 62 looking toward Ypres – shows, the position commands the countryside around it.

One hundred years ago the Canadian Corps was in control of the this property, with its 3rd Division defending the area between Hooge and Mont Sorrel proper. The neighboring German army decided it wanted to assume ownership of the land with its excellent views of the Ypres Salient.

View Toward Ypres from Hill 62 (Forget About the Trees)

German Bombardment and Mining

The 3rd Canadian Division, which had been formed in December 1915, was the target of a crushing German bombardment on the morning of 2 June. The barrage devastated the forward Canadian positions and killed hundreds, including the division commander, Major-General Malcolm Mercer. German infantry then swept forward, capturing Canadian positions at Mount Sorrel and on two surrounding hills. A hastily organized counterattack on 3 June failed. Three days later, the Germans exploded four mines under the Canadian positions and captured the village of Hooge.

Canadian Troops Advancing on 13 June 1916

Success After Initial Losses

The Canadian Corps commander, Sir Julian Byng, was determined to retake the lost ground and attacked, after a heavy artillery bombardment, during the early hours of 13 June. In this major set-piece battle, the Canadians drove back the Germans and recaptured much of the lost ground.

Final Line Shown in Blue

The Battle of Mont Sorrel lasted for almost two weeks and cost the Canadians over 8,000 casualties. Having lost the first two phases of the battle, the Canadians achieved victory in the final operation. Careful planning and concentrated artillery bombardments had begun to tip the balance on the First World War battlefields in favor of attackers over entrenched defenders.

Sources: Canadian War Museum Website, Regina Rifles Regimental History

100 Years Ago: The Incident of the Tranchée des Baionnettes

At the Tranchée des Baionnettes (aka the Bayonet Trench) history intermingles with legend. On 12 June 1916, this entrenched position – part of a bigger trench complex known as the "Checkerboard" was a part of the terrain forming a salient on the upper slope of a gully known aptly as the "Ravine of Death" southwest of Fort Douaumont. The Germans wanted to secure the area before launching their renewed offensive in the Verdun "Hot Zone." 

The Original Trench of 3rd Company, 137th Infantry

Two battalions of the 137th Infantry Regiment, deployed at the front since 10 June, were the object of appalling shelling and very soon found themselves cut off. The regiment's 3rd Company had lost 94 of its 164 men by the night of the 11th. The remainder had been placed in row of exposed trenches directly observable by German artillery spotters. The artillery fire on the position increased in the early morning hours, and the remainder of 137th Regiment was annihilated almost to a man.  

Author Alistair Horne tells what subsequently transpired.

It was not until after the war that French teams exploring the battlefield provided a clue as to the fate of 3 Company. The trench it had occupied was discovered completely filled in, but from a part of it at regular intervals protruded rifles, with bayonets still fixed to their twisted and rusty muzzles, On excavation, a corpse was found beneath each rifle. From that plus the testimony of survivors from nearby units, it was deduced that 3 Company had placed its rifles on the parapet ready to repel any attack and — rather than abandon their trench — had been buried alive to a man there by the German bombardment. When the story of the Tranchée des Baionnettes was told it caught the world's imagination.

The Colonel's Original Marker

The Present Monument Alone on the Devastated Battlefield
Sometime After December 1920

Colonel De Bonnefoy, Commander of the 137th, had a small wooden monument erected there in January 1919. A generous American patron, Mr. G.F. Rand, funded the present-day trench covering with a paved path ending at the nearest road. This monument was opened by Alexandre Millerand, president of the Republic, in the presence of the ambassador of the United States, on 8 December 1920. 

Entrance

Massive Canopy Over the Trench

The Trench Today:
The Bayonets Have All Disappeared Over the Years

It was the earliest major monument at Verdun and became the "must see" site of the battlefield up to the Second World War. Other theories have evolved over the years about the fate of the last men of the 3rd Company. Gas or concussion from exploding shells are alternative explanations of the mass deaths of the men. This may have been followed by Germans overrunning the position and hurriedly filling in the mass grave, which would explain their unique interment, but the exact details are beside the point. 

As Horne points out, the legend persists because whatever happened was an epic display of gallantry and sacrifice by the Poilus and a vivid documentation of the intensity of the fighting at Verdun. The Tranchée des Baionnettes symbolizes what makes Verdun a singular event in military history.

The Horne quote is from his book The Price of Glory.

Remember the Titanic's Rescue Ship RMS Carpathia?

The Titanic's rescue ship RMS Carpathia has some interesting connections to the Great War.

RMS Carpathia

Captain Arthur Rostron of the Carpathia during the Titanic rescue, and later captained the Lusitania. As an officer in the Royal Naval Reserve, when war broke out he was called to service and commanded the troopship Aulania at Gallipoli. He subsequently commanded a number of naval transports.

The Legendary "Unsinkable Molly Brown" Presenting
an Appreciation Cup for the Rescue

Sadly, Carpathia was lost in service during the war. On 15 July 1918, Carpathia departed Liverpool in a convoy bound for Boston. On the summer morning of 17 July she was torpedoed, at 9:15, in the Celtic Sea by the German submarine U-55. Of the two torpedoes initially fired at the ship, one hit the port side while the other penetrated the engine room, killing two firemen and three trimmers. As Carpathia began to settle by the head and list to port, Captain William Prothero gave the order to abandon ship. All 57 passengers (36 saloon class and 21 steerage) and 218 surviving crew members boarded the lifeboats as the vessel sank.  

RMS Carpathia Goes Under, 17 July 1918

U-55 surfaced and fired a third torpedo into the ship and was approaching the lifeboats when the Azalea-class sloop HMS Snowdrop arrived on the scene and drove away the submarine with gunfire before picking up the survivors from Carpathia. America's Last Doughboy, Frank Buckles, had sailed for England on an earlier voyage of the Carpathia.

Images of California at War, 1917–1918

Guarding the Golden Gate
Disappearing 12-inch Gun, Ft. Winfield Scott, Presidio

Blouse of 91st Wild West Division Veteran

117th Engineers, 42nd Rainbow Division in France
(The Regiment Included the 1st California Engineers)

40th Division Recruit Cutting Onions
During K.P. at Camp Kearney, CA

Flight Line, Naval Air Station, San Diego

1 January 1918

Future U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren
363rd Infantry, 91st Division

Sleeping Arrangements to Prevent Influenza
Yerba Buena Naval Station, San Francisco Bay

Market Street, San Francisco, at the Time of the Armistice

Found at the California Military History Facebook Page:  (Link)

Recommended: The Long Arm of Otto von Bismarck

Recently, I discovered that an apparently inactive site called THE CORNER (not the site of the same name by National Review magazine) has what is simply the clearest summary I've seen of the alliance system that developed after the Franco-Prussian War.  At the center of the juggling act is, of course, German chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Here is the opening section that covers the "marriage" of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, an important and maybe critical factor in European politics right up to the July Crisis of 1914:

The League of the Three Emperors (1872)

Bismarck's aim for forming this league was to isolate France by making friends with Austria and Russia. The partners were Kaiser William I of Germany, Tsar Alexander II of Russia, and Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria. These three rulers agreed: (i) to maintain the existing territorial arrangements in Europe; (ii) to resist the spread of revolutionary (e.g. socialist) movements; and (iii) to consult one another if any international difficulties arose.

France was being diplomatically isolated, but the underlying weakness of this personal understanding between the three emperors was the rivalry between Austria and Russia over the Balkan Peninsula. Both sought to dominate the Balkans. It was difficult for Bismarck to keep them in the same camp.

Dual Alliance 1879

The Congress of Berlin 1878

Rivalry between Austria and Russia in the Balkans came to a head in 1877–78. In 1875, five Balkan states revolted against Turkish rule. Russia supported the Balkan states and defeated Turkey. On 8 March 1878, Turkey was forced to sign the Treaty of San Stefano, in which an independent, big Bulgaria was created. Seeing that this Bulgaria would be a Russian puppet, Austria intervened, backed up by Britain, the traditional rival of Russia in the eastern Mediterranean. Bismarck volunteered to act as an "honest broker" and called the Congress of Berlin to settle the Balkan problems. At this Congress, Germany sided with Austria and Britain. Russia had to give up the Treaty of San Stefano and sign the Treaty of Berlin. The Treaty split Bulgaria into three parts (Bulgaria proper was to be independent, Eastern Rumelia and Macedonia were to be ruled under Turkish sovereignty.) and brought Bosnia and Herzegovina under Austrian military occupation (but not annexation). Russia felt diplomatically humiliated. The anger of Russia turned against Bismarck because he chaired the Congress.

Germany sided with Austria

Unable to maintain friendly relations with both Austria and Russia, Bismarck chose Austria to be his ally because, first, Germany preferred a weaker partner that could be more easily controlled; second, alliance with Austria would throw open the Danube valley to German trade; third, Austria had ethnic ties with Germany; fourth, such an alliance would enable Germany to exercise influence in the Balkans; and fifth, alliance with Russia would antagonize Britain, since Britain did not like her colonial rival to be supported by a strong power.

The terms of the Dual Alliance

On 7 October 1879 Bismarck made the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary. The terms were: (i) each would support the other militarily until the end of the war if attacked by Russia or by Russia and another power; and (ii) each agreed to remain neutral if her ally was attacked by a power other than Russia.

Consequence

The Dual Alliance gave Germany a firm military ally but committed her more to the support of Austrian interests in the Balkans. In the meantime, however, Bismarck still wanted to keep the friendship of Russia for fear that Russia would turn to the side of France, in which case Germany would face an enemy on both east and west. 

Tsar Alexander III (r. 1881–1894)

The Second Three Emperors' League (1881)

Bismarck still wanted to keep Russian friendship after the signing of Dual Alliance (1879) with Austria. The year 1881 was particularly favorable for the restoration of the league of the three conservative emperors. In that year, Tsar Alexander III ascended the Russian throne after the assassination of Alexander II. The fate of his father made Alexander III ready for a renewal of the Three Emperors' League of 1872, which promised to suppress the revolutionary movements.

The terms of the league were: ( i ) the Balkans was to be divided into two spheres of influence — the western Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina) belonged to Austria and the eastern Balkans (Bulgaria) belonged to Russia; (ii) the three emperors agreed to consult one another if there was another Balkan crisis, and (iii) the three emperors agreed to preserve benevolent neutrality if any one of them found himself at war with a fourth power. The league could not last long because Austria and Russia would soon rival over the Balkan Peninsula again.

Read the Full Article at:

http://www.funfront.net/hist/wwi/alliance.htm

100 Years Ago: Fort Vaux Falls

German Troops Atop Fort Vaux, June 1916

Yesterday was a big anniversary for the Battle of Verdun. On 7 June 1916 Fort Vaux – IMHO one of the two most valuable fortifications for the French Army during the great battle – finally fell to the German Army.

Outside the Fort Today

After mighty Fort Douaumont had fallen primarily through negligence on the fifth day of the struggle, Vaux, the smallest of the Verdun Forts, held out for three and a half months stopping cold the left flank of the enemy's offensive.  It beat back two major efforts to capture it in April and May. By June, however, the French infantry had been driven from all the supporting positions and – due to the steep slopes north and east of the fort – German assault troops were able to approach the fort blind to the artillery protecting Fort Vaux.

Atop the Fort Looking Northwest and Over the Main Defensive Ditch

Nonetheless, it took the four battalions committed to the attack a week to fulfill their mission, taking over 2,700 casualties. Despite getting inside the fort through a weak spot at the latrines and getting into its passageways, where war was waged with gas, flamethrower, and grenade, the immediate cause of the surrender was the lack of water for the defenders.

Inside the Fort at a Calmer Moment

Fort Vaux's loss was a morale blow for the French, and it allowed the Germans to proceed with their advance on the next major obstacle on their left, Fort Souville.

Atop the Fort Looking West to the Woevre Plain, Occupied Entirely by German Forces

The siege of Fort Vaux, however, provided a notable addition to France's pantheon of war heroes. Major Sylvain Eugène Raynal was already twice wounded in the war when he volunteered for a command position in the Verdun fortress zone.  Arriving at Fort Vaux on 21 May 1916, he proved an industrious and inspiring leader for his  troops.  When he surrendered he informed his captors that it was only thirst that had defeated his troops. The Crown Prince later personally congratulated him on his leadership of the defense of the fort.

Major Raynal and an Aide in Custody after the Surrender

Thanks to regular contributor Steve Miller and several of my traveling mates for the photos here

Betrayal at Little Gibraltar reviewed by Peter Belmonte

Betrayal at Little Gibraltar: A German Fortress, a Treacherous American General, and the Battle to End World War I

by William Walker

Scribner, 2016

Most students of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive know that General John Pershing's objective for the first day's advance, some nine miles in the case of the center V Corps commanded by General George H. Cameron, was wildly optimistic. Cameron's right flank division, the inexperienced and undertrained 79th Division, was slated to advance against the heavily fortified Montfaucon, the most difficult assignment given to any division for that day. In the event, the 79th could not take Montfaucon the first day, and it was terribly bloodied in the attempt. Most historians have attributed this failure to the division's lack of training, inexperienced officers and staff, and the American Expeditionary Forces' (AEF) faulty tactics. But perhaps more was at play.

Montfaucon – First Day Objective of the 79th Division

A chance discovery of marginalia and notes written long ago in an old book housed on a dusty library shelf propelled author William Walker on a two-decade quest to uncover the truth behind a shocking accusation. The notes, written in the 1930s by Major Harry Parkin, commander of the 1st Battalion, 316th Infantry Regiment, 79th Division, during the battle, blamed the 79th Division's failure on deliberate misinterpretation and disobedience of orders by III Corps commander, General Robert L. Bullard. The accusation, and Walker's thesis, is that Bullard ignored orders to have his left flank division, the veteran 4th, conduct a flanking movement to its left to assist the 79th Division in taking Montfaucon. This, according to Walker, amounted to nothing short of murder. This book seeks to prove his strong assertion.

General Robert Bullard

Walker's opening chapters summarize neatly the course of the war up to 1918 and the events that directly served to push the US into the war. Part I of the book, 126 pages, is devoted to setting the stage prior to the first shots of the battle. Part II is devoted to the action of the 79th Division from the start of the campaign until the end of the war. It is, basically, a combat history of the division. For this, Walker uses unit histories and memoirs, both published and unpublished, to paint a vivid picture of the 79th Division's struggle. I have studied and written about the Meuse-Argonne Offensive; the grueling ordeal and casualties recorded in Part II did not surprise me. What never ceases to surprise me, however, is that men were willing to carry on under such terrible conditions.

Central to Walker's claim is the First Army attack order, part of which is quoted in the book and is admittedly open to interpretation. The order directed III Corps to cooperate with V Corps to its left by "turn[ing] Montfaucon and the section of the hostile second position within the zone of action of the V Corps, thereby assisting in the capture of the hostile second position west of Montfaucon [p. 64]." In other words, III Corps was ordered to use its left flank division (the 4th) to attack Montfaucon from the flank and rear in V Corps zone. This would also allow an envelopment from the opposite flank by the V Corps center division (the 37th), and finally permit the taking of Montfaucon by the 79th Division. Bullard's final III Corps order, however, fails to mention or allow this flanking operation.

Part III is the meat of the book regarding the author's thesis. Here Walker discusses the evidence that shows Bullard's intentional disobedience of orders, despite the original First Army attack order, and despite a request from General John Hines, commander of the 4th Division, to go to the aid of the neighboring 79th Division late on 26 September. In Part III, the author presents and weighs the evidence, including Major Parkin's detailed memoir and an extensive postwar report written by General Ewing Booth. Booth, a brigade commander in the 4th Division, had proposed that during the first day of the attack he move upon Montfaucon from the flank, basically in accordance with original Army orders. Although his division commander, Hines, initially approved the action, the decision was countermanded before it could be put into effect.

Order Now

After the war, Booth spent twenty years researching the cause of this action, which he felt warranted censure on someone's part. In addition, Walker examines statements by General Alfred Bjornstad, 4th Division chief of staff. According to the author, Bullard intentionally disobeyed the original First Army order, and here Walker outlines his evidence and tells us much more about these men and their proclivities. In the end, the reader will decide for himself whether Walker's facts, as put forth here, justify his conclusions.

Bullard was abrasive and hard driving, and he held mid-19th-century racial views, but during the war and afterward his faults were overlooked in favor of his units' results. Walker's work, however, serves to place a blemish, at the very least, on Bullard's reputation. I am, by nature, skeptical of such sensational, if not revisionist, claims as Walker puts forth, and although there can be differing interpretations of the evidence that Walker has presented, I am convinced that he has come to the correct conclusions. This is one of the best new AEF books I've read. I highly recommend it.

Peter Belmonte

Battlefield Recon: The Mines of Messines

Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography.

Attributed to General Hubert Plumer, 6 June 1917

The Battle of Messines, which opened 99 years ago tomorrow on 7 June 1917 with the explosion of 19 mines over a ten-mile long sector of the front, was the successful and historic prelude to the otherwise disastrous Passchendaele campaign. The story of the battle is told in many sources. We reflect here, instead, on the second part of  the comment quoted above, which was made the night before the battle. The mines, indubitably, changed the local geography. The enormous explosions created lasting eyesores, fishing ponds, habitats, and some beautiful naturalistic war memorials. Here are five examples.

Hill 60A Mine

The northern-most mine was blown under the grim battlefield of Hill 60, a man-made elevation constructed with the debris from the construction of an adjacent railroad cut. The hill remains perturbed and irregular with gross war wounds and, today, is so rugged-looking and overgrown that we could not find a current-day photo clearly delineating the 1917 crater, which lies close to the rail line. The post-explosion image above is from the Australian War Memorial archives. To visualize now, imagine grass and 90(plus)-year-old trees overlaying this scene. The mine was dug by an Australian company, whose story is told in the recent movie Hill 60. This mine and 60B below were the subject of the excellent Australian film Beneath Hill 60.

Caterpillar Mine, AKA Hill 60B Mine

On the opposite side of the railroad cut lies a second, rather elongated artificial hill, known as the "Caterpillar" from the shape of its contours on trench maps, which was created from the same kind of remnants as Hill 60. It was the location one of the most "successful" mines of the operation, over 600 German soldiers perished here. However, unlike the crater on Hill 60, which is drained by the web of tunnels under the hill, this site retains rainwater and so the 100-foot-wide and 60-foot-deep crater fills, rising and falling with the rainfall. Off the beaten track yet accessible, it is a lovely and somber destination for Western Front explorers.

Spanbroekmolen Mine

Further south, near the village of Messines, is the Spanbroekmolen Mine Crater, also known as Lone Tree Crater, site one of the largest of the 7 June mines. This water-filled crater was purchased by Lord Wakefield in the 1920s to be preserved as a memorial site on the Ypres Salient battlefields. The mine crater has subsequently been named the "Pool of Peace" and is today the property of Toc H (the Talbot House) in Poperinghe.

Kruisstraat Mine #2

This is one of three mines immediately south of Spanbroekmolen. Created by over 40 tons of explosives, it was sited at the end of a 700m tunnel, well into the German lines in the path of the attacking 36th (Ulster) Division. It is said to be a popular fishing hole today.

Trench 122 Mine

One of the four southern-most mines all dug by the Canadian 3rd Tunneling Company. It is on private land just north of "Plug Street" wood and close, as well, to one of the major sites of the 1914 Christmas Truce.

100 Years Ago: The Arab Revolt Begins

Ten Things to Remember About the Arab Revolt 

Faisal After the Capture of Aqaba, Lawrence to His Left

1.  The Arab Revolt started in June of 1916 with an attack on the Ottoman garrison at Medina. It was instigated by Emir Hussein bin Ali of the Hejaz, the Hejaz being a region of west-central Arabia. Hussein was the spiritual guardian of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. 

2.  Long-term discontent with their position in the Ottoman Empire and the upheavals surrounding the rise of the Young Turks had led to the strengthening of Arab secret societies, which were particularly strong in Syria. Their goals were to secure independence from the Ottoman Turks and create a united Arab kingdom from Syria to Yemen. In the Damascus Protocol of May 1915, the secret societies had declared they would support Hussein's revolt against the Ottoman Empire if the demands in the protocol were submitted to the British.  Then followed an exchange of letters between Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner for Egypt, and Hussein. In the letters, while excluding areas of interest to the French and the Basra oil basin, Britain agreed to recognize Arab independence after WWI "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca." McMahon's promises were seen by the Arabs as a formal agreement between them and the United Kingdom.

Sherif Hussein

3. This was a very important alliance for the British to make because it inoculated them against the call for Jihad by the Ottoman sultan and charges raised by the Turks and by the Germans that they were coming into the Middle East as Christian crusaders. To have an alliance with Hussein very much protected them from that and helped secure the main operating base in Egypt.

4.  Initially, Hussein's forces, mainly led by his four sons, who were the battlefield commanders, seized Mecca and the Red Sea port of Jeddah. They had caught the Turks by surprise, so in the early days they took a couple of objectives, but the revolt then foundered.

5.  British intelligence officer Captain T.E. Lawrence first went to Arabia in October 1916 to accompany a friend who was going over to see if there was some way to restart the revolt. After meeting all four of Hussein's sons, he concluded that the best war commander for the Arab cause would be Hussein's third son, Faisal. Lawrence returned to Cairo to report, but very quickly he was sent back over to act as temporary liaison to Faisal. Contrary to what you might have seen in the David Lean movie, at this time, Lawrence already knew of the Sykes-Picot agreement of May 1916, which divided the postwar Middle East amongst the Allied Powers, and within a few months or returning shared its existence with Faisal.

6.  The movie, however, does properly place Aqaba at the center of the story. The capture of the Red Sea port, opened a British-Arab supply line, gave Lawrence great credibility with the new British commander in the region, General Allenby, and provided the Arab forces something of a running start on their advance to Syria.

7.  The military value of Lawrence's work with Arab irregulars, most notably the raiding of the Hajez railroad and the guarding of the right flank of Allenby's forces on their advance to Damascus, is still debated. However, for better or worse, he has proven a worldwide model commander of guerrilla forces.  As one historian describes his skill set: "First, as a teacher he taught his guerrillas basic tactical skills of the attack. Second, as a designer he crafted plans and concepts that were skillfully executed within the overall strategic guidance handed down by Gen. Edmund Allenby. Finally, as a steward Lawrence conserved and preserved the combat power of his lethal yet fragile force."

8.  The great neglected figure of the Arab Revolt is Ibn Saud, the future first King of Saudia Arabia, who played his cards magnificently during this period. In 1914, before the war, Ibn Saud allied himself with the Turks, agreeing that he should have relations with no other foreign power and be committed to joining Turkish forces in resisting any aggression. When war came, Saud opted for neutrality but kept his options open. Then – at the perfect moment – he allied himself with the British, even before his territorial rival, the Hashemite family of Hussein. (How he played the British during this time is a story yet to be told fully. Principals in the drama include spy Kim Philby's father and Queen of the Desert Gertrude Bell.) After the war he would finally defeat the Rashids in Kuwait and later drove the Hashemites from Medina and Mecca. Building on his successes he eventually declared himself King of Saudia Arabia in 1932.

Arab Irregulars on the Move

9.  The post-WWI Lawrence of Arabia was possibly the most "high profile" enlisted man in military history. Under official sanction, Lawrence enlisted in the RAF under the pseudonym John Hume Ross. Press publicity, however, made it impossible for the RAF to retain "Aircraftman Ross." He subsequently enlisted in the tank corps as T.E. Shaw. Returning Lawrence to the RAF was a major project requiring support from John Buchan, George Bernard Shaw, and General Hugh Trenchard. Continuing press attention would plague his days as an enlisted man.

10. Despite the McMahon deal and success of the Arab Revolt, Hussein was sidelined in the postwar carve-up of the Middle East. He was forced to abdicate as caliph of the Hejaz in 1924 by Ibn Saud, founder of Saudi Arabia. Hussein's sons Faisal and Abdullah, however, fared better. Faisal was set up as king of Iraq, gained independence in 1932, and his family ruled (with British support) until ousted in a coup in 1958. Abdullah was on his way to support Faisal's hold in Syria and got as far as Amman, when the British split their Palestine mandate, creating Transjordan and instituting Abdullah as king. Hussein’s great-grandson, Abdullah II, is the current king of Jordan.

Postscript:  What the Arab Revolt and its immediate aftermath meant for the present-day situation in the Middle East is, of course, far beyond anything we could present here.

Sources:  T.E. Lawrence Society, Wikipedia, Over the Top magazine, Global Security, D-P History.

100 Years Ago: The Brusilov Offensive Launched

Russian Infantry Advancing After an Initial Success Against an Austrian Position

Where:    Galicia on the Southwestern Eastern Front, Part of Present Day-Poland & Ukraine

When:     4 June – 20 September 1916

Initial Participants:

• Russian: Four Armies of Southwestern Front: 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th  [Brusilov]

• Central Powers:

Austro-Hungarian: Five Armies — 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th; Combined

        German/Austrian South  [Conrad, Bothmer] Germany: Army Group Lingsingen

Reinforcements:

• Additional Russian armies were committed, as well as Romanian divisions for the Entente.

• German Divisions were shifted from other sections including the Western Front; Austro-Hungarian Divisions from the Trentino.    

U.S. Army Map

Casualties: (Estimates Vary Greatly)

• Central Powers:  1.4 million [Killed, Wounded, Captured] 

• Russian, Romanian:  1.0 +/- million [Killed, Wounded, Captured]

Memorable Aspects:

General Brusilov

• Most successful and competently executed Russian offensive of World War I. 

• Succeeded in forcing the Central Powers to divert divisions from the Western and Italian Fronts diminishing pressure on Verdun and the Trentino.

• General Brusilov's deceptions, innovative artillery, and breakthrough tactics, which were precursors of the methods of 1918. 

• Initial Russian successes brought Romania into the war with the Entente.

• High Russian Army casualties and stresses on civilian population contributed to the Revolutions of 1917.

 Summary

In the spring of 1916 the Central Powers gained the strategic initiative over the Entente.  Verdun, was indeed "bleeding" the French Army – and the German attacking force, as well – and in May the Austro-Hungarian command had launched a strategically daring assault from the Trentino in an effort to surround the Italian Armies deployed farther north along the Isonzo River and in the Carnic Alps.  Once again Russia was asked to help her allies by marshaling an attack speedily.  

After the catastrophic losses of 1915, few Russian generals were interested in commanding another offensive, though. The exception was Alexei Brusilov, who led a group of four armies deployed from the Romanian border in the south north to the Pripet Marshes. Aiming for Galicia, he chose the distant cities of Lublin and Lemberg as specific objectives. His intention, however, was to administer  a devastating defeat using a new approach for attacking the entrenched forces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire deployed against him. He chose to mount an assault over an extremely broad front of 300 miles to preclude any countering of his successes by reinforcements quickly shifted via rail and to eschew concentrating on one or two breakthrough points, rather seeking many penetrations to utterly splinter the enemy. Instead of a long, widespread preliminary artillery barrage, one of his artillery experts, Lt. Col. V.F. Kirey devised a plan emphasizing short, intense, and irregular local barrages to keep the opposing forces, which were heavily concentrated near the front, in place and underground. Lightning assaults by specially trained infantry were to follow to break into the rear.

Russian Cavalry Advancing

The initial attacks could not have been more successful.  Austrian frontline troops were pounded in place and those farther back were encircled and captured in great numbers during the first stage advance — almost 50 miles in some sectors.  This initial triumph marked the high point, however, for Russia and Brusilov in the First World War. The battle then turned — probably inevitably — into another massive exercise in attrition.  A number of factors contributed to this.   Brusilov did not receive support from the adjacent Russian commanders he needed, particularly on his northern flank from General Alexei Evert, who was late in launching a second major offensive, which fizzled when it finally began. The superior rail network of the Central Powers gave them a great advantage in delivering timely reinforcements and supplies. New troops supported the nearly [but not fully] shattered Austro-Hungarian forces from as far as Turkey, Italy, and the Western Front. The Austrian/German South Army under Count Felix von Bothmer fought an effective fighting retreat despite the disintegrating situation around them. The Hindenburg-Ludendorff team assumed full command of the Eastern Front and were able to organize a concerted holding action.   

Casualties mounted on both over the summer as Brusilov fought off counterattacks and tried several different approaches for regaining the initiative, but he began running low of both ammunition and manpower. Romania joined the Entente in August and contributed fresh troops in Brusilov's most southern sector in September, but their military effectiveness was limited and they became another liability for Russia. The great offensive had clearly ground to a halt by late September, the original strategic objectives of Lublin and Lemberg never achieved.  Yet another offensive designed to destroy the enemy's army had succeeded in part, but also yielded nearly equivalent damage on the instigator. Revolution and a new government would come to Russia before she would be able to launch another offensive, which would once again be commanded by Brusilov — but much less successfully.

Check Out Our New St. Mihiel Trip-Wire

Our monthly newsletter to learn about the events of 1914–1918 in-depth, the St. Mihiel Trip-Wire, is now available online at:

http://www.worldwar1.com/tripwire/smtw.htm

Partial Image of This Issue

Here are the Discover World War I features in this issue

• Memorial Day 2016
• General Pershing as You Have Never Seen Him
• The June 1916 Deaths of Kitchener and Moltke
• Coming WWI Events
• British Shell Failure at Jutland
• Next Issue of  Over the Top
• The Centennial Ticker
• Bless Those Reenactors
• 100 Years Ago: The Incredible 32 Days of June 1916
• Battlefield Tours: The Somme, Flanders 1917, Caporetto, and the Italian Front
• WWI News Stories from the 21st Century
• Recommended Books to Prepare for the 100th Anniversary of the Battle of the Somme
• Was There a Coal Gap Between the WWI Navies?
• The Importance of Aviation in Breaking the Trench Stalemate

Friedrich Adler: Getting Away with Assassination

Friedrich Wolfgang Adler (9 July 1879 – 2 January 1960) was an Austrian politician, lobbyist, and revolutionary. He is perhaps best known for his murder of Count Karl von Stürgkh in 1916 and getting away with it. Adler was born in Vienna, the son of social democratic politician Victor Adler. He studied chemistry, physics, and mathematics in Zurich. In 1897 he became a member of the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) and from 1907 was editor of the magazine Der Kampf. He was a good friend of Albert Einstein.

Friedrich Adler

In 1909–1910, while established in the University of Zurich, Adler was being considered to chair the physics department, but he deferred to Einstein's superior expertise and lobbied for Einstein's appointment instead.

Adler was engaged in the international trade union movement and in 1911 he gave up his scientific activities to become the secretary general of the SPÖ in Vienna, an office he held until 1914. He became the spokesperson of the left wing of the party, and after the start of the First World War he agitated particularly against the SPÖ's policy of supporting the war.

Count Karl von Stürgkh

In his fight against the war policy of Austria-Hungary Adler resorted to drastic measures. On 21 October 1916, in the dining room of the Viennese hotel Meißl und Schadn, he shot the minister-president of Austria Count Karl von Stürgkh three times with a pistol, killing him. For his crime Adler was sentenced to death, pardoned by Emperor Charles I and finally amnestied after the war.

After the outbreak of the revolution of 1918 he was released and played a significant role as the leader of the Arbeiterräte (workers' councils) and as a member of the National Council of Austria. From the mid-1920s he was primarily active in the Socialist International, serving as secretary general for over 15 years.

After the outbreak of the Second World War Adler fled to the United States. In 1946 he retired from politics and edited his father Victor's exchange of letters with August Bebel and Karl Kautsky.

Adler died on 2 January 1960 in Zurich.

World Heritage Encyclopedia

The Ultimate War Poem of Sacrifice and Remembrance

England's Saints
1914 – 1917

Who shall name them, this numberless army? we  know not their number or name. 
But we know from the sign on their foreheads through great tribulation they came; 
No calendar blazons their triumph with service of vigil or feast, 
And he that was greatest among them is even as he that was least;
They were men in the might of their manhood, or boys in the beauty of youth, 
But they held ail as dust in the balance to battling for freedom and truth. 

We shall see them no more to our sorrow, they are rapt from the sphere of our pain. 
And the sword and the fire and the bullet shall sear not nor slay them again; 
Priest and poet, clerk, scholar and craftsman, sea-toilers or sons of the sod — 
From earth, air, and ocean up-gathered, they rest in the garden of God. 

Their shrines stand in city and highway, whose lamps of remembrance abide 
Fed with love from the heart-springs of England, and lit from the torch of her pride; 
Upon hill-slope, by hamlet or homestead, they shine through the darkness undimmed, 
Morn and eve, 'neath the Christ bowed above them, the glimmering cressets are trimmed 
By their angels, who pass unbeholden — so close hangs the curtain between 
Veiling heaven ; for the things that we see not are more than the things that are seen. 

  Now, Lord, for the nation's uplifting — since this is the noblest we know, 
In Thy name to the help of the helpless, through death and through darkness to go — 
For our country who spared not her children, for mother, love, sister, and wife, 
Who endured what is deeper than death-wound, who gave what was dearer than life, 
For the pure and the wise and the godlike, who flocked to Thy banner unfurled, 
For the sinful — Thy saints in the making — we deemed but the waste of the world, 
For the builders of wood, hay and stubble — the foolish, the faithless, the cold. 
Whose dross Thou hast purged in the furnace, and touched them, and turned them to gold, 
For the fearless of heart, and the fearful who trembled but came at Thy call. 
We bless Thee, we thank Thee, we laud Thee, we love Thee, O Father of all! 

James Rhoades

Note:

James Rhoades (1841–1923), a schoolmaster by training, was labelled "a conventional poet who wrote of imperial war in a conservative idiom and a grandiloquent style" in a recent work on World War I poetry. However, if you are looking for an antidote to the more highly praised late war poems of  futility and betrayal "England's Saints" certainly fits the bill.