"Was the AEF a mistake?" Topic

Historian Geoffrey Wawro describes how the Allied commanders (Foch and Haig) wanted to "amalgamate" the fresh American troops into British and French units, so that combat experience could be shared and lessons learned.

Pershing, however, was skeptical. He saw Allied tactics as "cautious" and "prescribed," and persuaded President Wilson that the American Expeditionary Force "…was so different from the Europeans that it could not be 'amalgameted' with them."

Would it have been wiser to amalgamate American soldiers into experienced French and British units?

so that combat experience could be shared and lessons learned.

Haha, that's what they outwardly said, but what they actually meant was "so that American troops could be fed into the meat-grinder by British and French generals."

I had a great-uncle who fought in WW1 and told different things to his family and others. Of course, he was in constant pain because he had lost part of his stomach to gas affects.

The rush to volunteer in WW1 was lacking in some areas men just waited to see if they were drafted. While unit composition was very regional, some historians regard the war as a unifying the American identity Thus healing some scars from the civil war.

What does "amalgamate" mean? Brigading American regiments in British or French Divisions or dissolve American regiments entirely and disperse the men into allied regiments? Some American troops, the black regiments that some in the United States army didn't want anything to do with, served with the French army and seemed to have performed with credit to themselves.

Would it have been wiser to amalgamate American soldiers into experienced French and British units?

If so … not for long … Pershing made the right decision, IMO. It was the American Army. Not replacements for the Brits and French. And as noted the Allies before the AEF became operational, the Brits, French, etc., took some heavy losses. If the US was going to take losses, let them be under US command.

Yes, the US Black units that served with the French did quite well, e.g. "The Harlem Hellfighters". And I don't doubt that a bit. But you have to remember the era. And the status of race relations in the USA at that time. Not that it justifies the racism but tries to explain it. However, we all know that racism, etc. was wrong … totally !

No, Pershing made the right decision.

I would suggest you read My Experiences in the World War by John J. Pershing and General Fox Conner, Pershing's Chief of Operations and Eisenhower's Mentor by Steven Rabalais for some insight on the arguments against "amalgamation."

It was more about just losing control of American units inside the sea of British and French. It was also about having an "equal" seat at the peace table after the fighting was over.

Jim

IMHO (and not being very knowledgeable, admittedly) I am glad Pershing made the decisions he did. I feel the Americans had more of an effect on the war than they would have otherwise.

I have to agree with both of those posts …

What happened with the colored units (integration at the corps level) wasn't what Foch had in mind. He wanted to shove individual Americans into French units as replacements (and stiffeners, the causes of the 1917 mutinies hadn't gone away). Considering how few of the doughboys spoke French, it would have been a disaster.

Also, French combat methods weren't all that effective, as proved at Belleau Wood. The Marines had been trained in French methods, and when they tried to use them, they suffered heavy casualties and were pinned down. When the veteran NCO's reverted to the fire-and-movement tactics they'd found effective in the Banana Wars, they recovered the initiative and routed the German defenders.

Wilson's whole "War to Save the British Empire "was a mistake. FDR and Churchill, both heads of their respective navies at the time, conspired to drag the US into the war by illegally shipping munitions on the Lusitania and then tipping off the Germans. Just like they did two decades later to involve the US in Churchill's war against Germany.

It's a completely idiotic question.

The US Army had no concept of warfare on the scale of WW1.

The political considerations, despite the US Army's incompetence at that level of warfare, required an AEF like organization.

Pershing was a strategic maestro, even if he was an operational idiot, as defined by the US Army's Command and General Staff College's definition of the operational level of the art of war.

My two shillings, after MUCH reading on the US Army in WW1, but YMMV. And no, I have no intention on writing or publishing my thoughts, evaluations, or whatever on Pershing, the US Army in WW1 or the 28 ID or the 26 ID, my areas of concentration.

Nor on the 35,612 Americans who served in the Canadian Army in WW1, which was the start of my research…

Eric

They did amalgamate at the Battle of Hamel. Four US Infantry companies were intermixed with Australian Infantry battalions to gain combat experience. It was the first time in history that US troops were trained and commanded in the field by non-US officers. The US took 142 casualties during the battle, and 14 US soldiers were awarded various British Empire valour medals. And the battle was historic for other reasons as it was first use of combined arms warfare using artillery, air power, tanks and infantry to successfully take an objective. General John Monash was knighted in the field after the action. That's not poor leadership as described in the original post.

Also, French combat methods weren't all that effective, as proved at Belleau Wood. The Marines had been trained in French methods, and when they tried to use them, they suffered heavy casualties and were pinned down. When the veteran NCO's reverted to the fire-and-movement tactics they'd found effective in the Banana Wars, they recovered the initiative and routed the German defenders.

Very true …

And the battle was historic for other reasons as it was first use of combined arms warfare using artillery, air power, tanks and infantry to successfully take an objective.

And it probably would still have been with or without US troops being attached to the ANZACs.

A similar event happened at the beginning of SEATO's War in Vietnam. ANZACs were attached to the US 173d Airborne Bde. I.e 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and the 161st Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery. And was quite successful . Before the ANZACs sent large units there. And then they operate on their own or in conjunction with larger units, etc.

It was Wilson's last order to Pershing before he left. Keep the Army intact and under American command. In my opinion the right call.

As reports started to come home of thousands of American soldiers being killed while serving in French and British units, what do you think the reaction would have been in the U.S.? U.S. forces serving in their own divisions and then in their own army was the price paid for the hundreds of thousands of American troops entering combat during 1918, plus the others who would have joined them if the war continued into 1919.