"The AEF - Not a Mistake!" Topic

You were asked to decide – TMP link

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?

80% said "the AEF was the right choice"
9% said "the AEF was a mistake"

Yes it would have been the right choice, Except that they would Never be under American command again.

I wish I could remember the title of the book, written by a US infantry Major (or Colonel?) about his adventures during and after a JRTC rotation. (Joint Readiness Training Center – battalion sized wargames at Fort Polk against 'local forces').

One of his "adventures" after that training was in Haiti (I think), where they were part of UN forces trying to maintain order. Basically a squad of US soldiers did what a platoon of non-US forces would not do: wade into a crowd on the verge of riot and "calm things down".

Not sure how relevant that is to WWI, but US forces seem to tend to be willing to take more risks and be more aggressive than other forces. Putting soldiers like that under 'cautious' commanders might not have been a good call.

And yes, those are some pretty general and apocryphal statements. It's an observation, not a scientific study.

Also important to note that it was President Wilson who set the policy, not Pershing.

Trivia note: Pershing outranked the other Allied commanders by Date of Rank

@Stryderg. The Canadians and Anzacs were WWI corps that were not under the control of cautious commanders. The commanders and soldiers from these corps were extremely aggressive, and most importantly battle hardened and smart.

Please don't take my comments above to be denigrating any of the other forces. I was just pointing out that if you put one style of soldiers under a different style of leadership, it probably won't work well.

Pretty irrelevant to the outcome of WW1 but doing it all for themselves was probably crucial to their rapid expansion when forced into WW2.

If you think that the American Army was irrelevant to the outcome of WWI, I suggest that you read the book that Bill is referencing in the OP. The author goes into the strategic situation in significant detail.

The allies would not have won the war without the American Army. They might have been able to fight to a draw, but they would not have won.