"Argonne Forest: "Misguided Glory?"" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Early 20th Century Discussion Message Board
Action Log
11 Apr 2020 12:26 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board
Areas of InterestWorld War One
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Editor in Chief Bill | 30 Mar 2019 1:42 p.m. PST |
Historian Geoffrey Wawro has written: "The massive American offensive into the Argonne Forest in September 1918 certainly displayed this American exceptionalism in all its misguided glory." Was the U.S. wrong to conduct an offensive in a 'quiet' sector dominated by a deep, hilly forest and a deep river that could not be forded? |
ColCampbell | 30 Mar 2019 2:13 p.m. PST |
In actuality, Pershing wanted to continue his St. Michael offensive to sever the German lateral rail communications and punch deep into the German rear. But Foch was so adamant about the Meuse-Argonne offensive that Pershing was forced to acquiesce and limit the St. Michael offensive. Otherwise he would have lost the large French artillery and air support upon which the AEF depended. So, in effect, the Meuse-Argonne area was not the place to attack. See link for a good overview. And see Pershing's My Experiences in the World War and Rabalais' General Fox Conner, Pershing's Chief of Operations and Eisenhower's Mentor for more detailed and personal views. It is my opinion that Foch (Allied Supreme Commander), and the French and British supreme commands did not want to see the "upstart" [my wording] American army be the key to unlocking the "frozen" Western front and bring about the German collapse. In addition, the British and French were so tired of fighting that all they wanted was to have the war ended. Pershing (and Conner) were set on the complete defeat of the German field army and opposed a truce to end the fighting. Jim |
ColCampbell | 30 Mar 2019 2:21 p.m. PST |
Bill, You've "quoted" Geoffrey Wawro a couple of times now in reference to the American experience in WW1. From which book of his did you get these prognostications? I've read his book on the Franco-Prussian War and thought it was good. But I'd like to read whatever he wrote about WW1 to develop a more informed opinion of his position(s). Thanks, Jim |
Nick B | 30 Mar 2019 2:26 p.m. PST |
Oh dear – the familiar mantra – it's always someone elses fault. LOL Amazing that both Pershing and his Chief of Operations didn't want to take the blame in their own memoirs………. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 30 Mar 2019 2:46 p.m. PST |
From which book of his did you get these prognostications? When a friend died, I received the gift of some older magazines. This is from Wawro's Argonne article in History Channel Zine, July/August 2007. |
Heisler | 30 Mar 2019 4:28 p.m. PST |
Again I would highly recommend the book Thunder in the Argonne by Douglas Mastriano which highlights both the battle and some of the politics behind it and why Pershing was not even a good tactician. |
oldnorthstate | 30 Mar 2019 4:28 p.m. PST |
Col Campbell is correct that Foch forced Pershing to scale back and then stop prematurely the St. Michel offensive in order to shift forces to the Argonne campaign. Pershing knew that the capture of Metz would cripple German war production by cutting off coal supplies. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 30 Mar 2019 8:15 p.m. PST |
|
|