Black Jack Pershing (1 Viewer)

[Currahee Chris]

I've been reading a biography of Pershing which chronicles his time as General of the Armies of the AEF- 1917-18. There is some sparse info at the end- bid for presidency, illicit love affair, etc. Really putting the man in a new light for me.

It's been interesting to see how many individuals he directly influenced- MacArthur, Patton and Marshall. He seemed to be flawed in the fact that he had made himself involved in every facet of the American Army mobilization at the time. Something I think Ike was able to step learn from in that he let his subordinates do their job.

The other interesting thing to observe is the relationship he had with Newton Baker, the Secretary of War. Sec Baker really gave him free reign to make decisions- he gave broad guidelines reflecting American policy at the time but let Gen Pershing do his job. I believe I read that Sec Baker even went out near or at the frontlines (quiet sector I believe). Anyone have any information on that- seemed pretty gutsy for a poliitician- I think I may have some old pics with Baker at the front. It seems like since the end of WW2, the political arm and military arm of the US has grown more distant and even adversarial.

Anyway, I really cannot imagine two years (1917-18) that were more influential in shaping the modern US army than that time period. We went from a largely domestic fighting force- ACW, Westward expansion, to being able to project ourselves globally. The battlefield went 3D, armor was in it's infancy and of course, while far less glamorous, the American logistics arm was beginning to evolve and take form.

A really interesting time led by an interesting American. Anyone else got opinions on Pershing?

 

[lancer]

I've been reading a biography of Pershing which chronicles his time as General of the Armies of the AEF- 1917-18. There is some sparse info at the end- bid for presidency, illicit love affair, etc. Really putting the man in a new light for me.

It's been interesting to see how many individuals he directly influenced- MacArthur, Patton and Marshall. He seemed to be flawed in the fact that he had made himself involved in every facet of the American Army mobilization at the time. Something I think Ike was able to step learn from in that he let his subordinates do their job.

The other interesting thing to observe is the relationship he had with Newton Baker, the Secretary of War. Sec Baker really gave him free reign to make decisions- he gave broad guidelines reflecting American policy at the time but let Gen Pershing do his job. I believe I read that Sec Baker even went out near or at the frontlines (quiet sector I believe). Anyone have any information on that- seemed pretty gutsy for a poliitician- I think I may have some old pics with Baker at the front. It seems like since the end of WW2, the political arm and military arm of the US has grown more distant and even adversarial.

Anyway, I really cannot imagine two years (1917-18) that were more influential in shaping the modern US army than that time period. We went from a largely domestic fighting force- ACW, Westward expansion, to being able to project ourselves globally. The battlefield went 3D, armor was in it's infancy and of course, while far less glamorous, the American logistics arm was beginning to evolve and take form.

A really interesting time led by an interesting American. Anyone else got opinions on Pershing?

Pershing was a great General for the time and place. He is in the shadows today because of later wars and bigger personalities, but as you point out, he was the man on the job when the US Armed Forces went big time. IMO his greatest accomplishment was in resisting the pressure to subordinate the US Army to the control of the Allies in WW 1. He insisted on, fought for, and succeeded in keeping the US Army a complete force, under US command, within the structure of the Allied forces. Allowing the US Army to be broken up and fed into French and British armies as reinforcements would have been a major error, both for national identity and for the war effort. Pershing deserves to be remembered on a much larger scale. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

He also deserves to be remembered for the needless deaths of 3,500 US soldiers ordered by him to continue fighting after the Armistice was signed. In my book, that makes him nothing more than a murderer, just on a larger scale.

 

[Currahee Chris]

and so the fun begins.{sm3}{sm4}

 

[jazzeum]

You have to take the good with the bad and that was pretty bad.

 

[Currahee Chris]

You have to take the good with the bad and that was pretty bad.

Agreed. Will be interesting to see what the author has to say about that. The book is somewhat dated, I believe initially published in 89. I also believe Pershing was involved with some massacre in the West- wounded knee?? earlier in his careers as well.

@ Al- couldn't agree more- that entire subject, along with logistics, seems to be the meat of the 1917 section of the book.

Staying neutral to the Nov 11th issue, Pershing did overstep his authority and I believe his intentions were good, though disastrously misguided. He felt that the Germans knew they weren't defeated and we would be going to war again, which proved correct. Say the armistice wasn't as well received as it was, could the US and the allies have pushed to Berlin in 1919 and defeated the "Hun" as Pershing was hoping to achieve? If Berlin fell to the allies in 1919 could the calamity of WW2 have taken place in Europe or was that ultimately irrelevant and WW2 was bound to happen anyway.

Sound off!! {sm0}
CC

 

[marco55]

I read a bio of Pershing in his earlier years in the Philippines.
Mark

 

[Louis Badolato]

Agreed. Will be interesting to see what the author has to say about that. The book is somewhat dated, I believe initially published in 89. I also believe Pershing was involved with some massacre in the West- wounded knee?? earlier in his careers as well.

@ Al- couldn't agree more- that entire subject, along with logistics, seems to be the meat of the 1917 section of the book.

Staying neutral to the Nov 11th issue, Pershing did overstep his authority and I believe his intentions were good, though disastrously misguided. He felt that the Germans knew they weren't defeated and we would be going to war again, which proved correct. Say the armistice wasn't as well received as it was, could the US and the allies have pushed to Berlin in 1919 and defeated the "Hun" as Pershing was hoping to achieve? If Berlin fell to the allies in 1919 could the calamity of WW2 have taken place in Europe or was that ultimately irrelevant and WW2 was bound to happen anyway.

Sound off!! {sm0}
CC

I'm with Brad on this one, Chris. From what I read, the reason he ordered the post-armistace attacks was to let his officers get some more action so they would have a better chance for promotion in the post war years. In my eyes, that makes it murderous. Up to that point, I had always respected what Black Jack had done in refusing to let our troops be used as replacements for the British and French.

By the way, did the book mention how he got his nick name? He commanded Buffalo Soldiers, so other officers called him Black Jack as an insult.

 

[W T Allison II]

For a different view of Black Jack Pershing, look at "Colonel Roosevelt" by Edmund Morris. It starts with 1910 and Roosevelt's trip to Africa and his grand tour of Europe. Roosevelt could see that war was coming between Germany, France and England then. After Woodrow Wilson was elected, he stayed on him about military preparedness since our army was the 60th largest in the world. Pershing's unsuccessful campaign in Mexico is discussed. When the war started, Pershing found places immediately for the four Roosevelt sons who distinguished themselves in the war. Quenton the youngest, was shot down and killed. Pershing kept his father updated until Quenton's body was located. Getting America prepared to fight was an incredible undertaking and if our troops had not arrived when they did and committed by Pershing, France would probably have had to surrender.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

One of the things I find interesting is how we toss around terms like murderer and other labels for Generals who were doing what they did at some battle in the past. The big thing that Pershing was doing on Nov 11th was what all the other Allies were doing. Pushing the Enemy back to continue the gains and improve our tactical position because the Armistance was merley that an Armistance or Temporary Cease Fire used to get the Germans to the table in order to eventually extract a lasting Peace Treaty from them in the near future. (1919 was when the Treaty of Versailles was Signed) In total the Allies took nearly 11000 Casualties that morning because every unit was maintaining the pressure on the Germans. Our Artillery kept up its barrage on German positions so it wouldnt have to repack ammo. Pershing was also one of the only Generals who felt we needed to push the Germans harder so they would surrender unconditionally I think he was right about that but thats neither here nor there. However I can find no documentation that he continued fighting one second past 11am on the 11th. So in my opinion he was doing what he was susposed to do up until the cease fire was ordered, fighting the enemy.

Dave

 

[jazzeum]

Hi Guys,

One of the things I find interesting is how we toss around terms like murderer and other labels for Generals who were doing what they did at some battle in the past. The big thing that Pershing was doing on Nov 11th was what all the other Allies were doing. Pushing the Enemy back to continue the gains and improve our tactical position because the Armistance was merley that an Armistance or Temporary Cease Fire used to get the Germans to the table in order to eventually extract a lasting Peace Treaty from them in the near future. (1919 was when the Treaty of Versailles was Signed) In total the Allies took nearly 11000 Casualties that morning because every unit was maintaining the pressure on the Germans. Our Artillery kept up its barrage on German positions so it wouldnt have to repack ammo. Pershing was also one of the only Generals who felt we needed to push the Germans harder so they would surrender unconditionally I think he was right about that but thats neither here nor there. However I can find no documentation that he continued fighting one second past 11am on the 11th. So in my opinion he was doing what he was susposed to do up until the cease fire was ordered, fighting the enemy.

Dave

This post is so laughable it's not worth commenting on. However, the phrase "lasting peace" jumps out at me and you have to shake your head in wonder when you read a statement like that. The anger I feel for wasted lives by one whose acts were nothing short of murder can't be expressed too strongly. The only thing you can say is that Haig, Ludendorff and von Hindenburg made him look like a rank amateur.

This article is rather interesting on the topic,
http://www.historynet.com/world-war-i-wasted-lives-on-armistice-day.htm

 

[Currahee Chris]

This post is so laughable it's not worth commenting on.

This is the kind of comment I would expect from someone like myself, not someone who has carried himself with a lot of class and maturity through the years, especially as a former moderator- someone that I have always respected. You know better Brad. I believe you should pm Dave and square up with him.

For what it's worth, I fully understand where Dave is coming from and was unaware that no aggressive actions were taken past 1100 hours. There have been several commanders on the American side of the coin who over the years have slacked when engagements become "quiet" only to there troops destroyed- the Bulge comes to mind immediatey- one could contend that gross negligence could be as bad as murder.

Either way, apparently there are some strong feelings on this- Pat, sorry for stirring the pot here. Probably best to pull this thread.

 

[jazzeum]

Perhaps laughable is a tad too strong. I will amend it to say it's just not worth commenting upon and leave it at that. You also need to bear in mind that not only the German Army was in a state of collapse but the entire country; the Kaiser had abdicated, much of the country was on the verge of starvation and the country was in a revolutionary situation. No one really remembers today how bad it was in 1918.

Chris, I'm honored to be in your company :smile2:

 

[Northgate Woods]

Gentlemen,
Enough is enough. Let he who has not pulled on the uniform of his country or served under fire cast the first stone. Many things that should not happen, do so in War because of stress, pressure from a Higher Command and the wanting to do your best for your Country.
I think like Chris stated. This thread should END.
Howard

 

[maddadicus]

This is the kind of comment I would expect from someone like myself, not someone who has carried himself with a lot of class and maturity through the years, especially as a former moderator- someone that I have always respected. You know better Brad. I believe you should pm Dave and square up with him.

For what it's worth, I fully understand where Dave is coming from and was unaware that no aggressive actions were taken past 1100 hours. There have been several commanders on the American side of the coin who over the years have slacked when engagements become "quiet" only to there troops destroyed- the Bulge comes to mind immediatey- one could contend that gross negligence could be as bad as murder.

Either way, apparently there are some strong feelings on this- Pat, sorry for stirring the pot here. Probably best to pull this thread.

Nothing wrong with the topic, but with those who in all knowing hindsight and self righteousness ,fail to view history in the vacuum of its time period, strategic intelligence at that moment and even accepted social and moral code of all its' participants. The " all generals must be bad " crowd have the freedom to read about it without having to live that moment or using the standards of that day , make a instant decision about what they would do, if facing that moment. The more we seem to read about past history, written yet another year later, the less we are educated about the conditions at that time, as the new historians are all about preaching and not about teaching. Wars and soldiers will always be necessary so that the safe can tell all who will listen, how they are not...Lee had it right when he stated after Fredericksburg ,"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.", but he knew in his heart that war was a necessary evil. Michael

 

[Louis Badolato]

Gentlemen,

While I happen to strongly agree with Brad on the actions in question - to me ordering attacks when the opponent has surrendered and an armistace signed is tantamount to murder, especially when there is no question that the other side has sued for peace (and in fact would be force fed the Treaty of Versailles, one of the mose inequitable treaties in the history of warfare), so there is absolutely reason to continue to attack - I do think we need to self-police out comments. If you look immediately prior to Brad's post, you will see I deleted one of my own, because I felt it was potentially inflammatory. We are all friends here, and we need to treat each other with respect.

Further, I think Howard's point is well taken - those of us who have never heard a shot fired in anger should be respectfull of the opinions of those who actually have led troops in combat. Dave, Howard and Chris are veterans, and frankly, having been in the position to both give and receive orders, in some cases in combat (at least in Howards case, I can't speak to Chris and Dave's experiences), their opinion on Pershing's actions is substantially more educated than mine.

That being said, Howard, you've been there. Suppose the North Vietnamese had surrendered, effective in a few hours, and your commander ordered you to attack the North Vietnamese until the exact momment the cease fire on the surrender is to come into effect. Would you have carried out the attack?

 

[jazzeum]

Although I don't believe you should analyze decisions from your time period rather than the one in which it was made, that doesn't mean decisions made by generals because they are generals are immune from criticism. In later conflicts that has gotten societies into trouble and fortunately that is not the mindset anymore. A bad decision is a bad decision. Interestingly, in WW II Monty, having lived through the experience of WW I, was concerned about not exposing his men to needless sacrifice.

 

[wadepat]

Gentle Friends,

Oh, my! How an interesting and intellectual topic can somehow make one's passionate blood boil! Please, fellows, tone down the forcefulness of your verbal exchanges. This topic has merit and can be a very interesting one to visit. However, should the blood continue to boil, it may be necessary to conclude this discussion and I think that would be shame.

Warmest personal regards,

Pat

 

[Currahee Chris]

Feel like I am tip toeing into a minefield here.{sm4}{sm4}

Brad and Louis- I for one certainly do appreciate your positions- especially as an American Army vet myself- I absolutely agree that on one should ever be above question or criticism and it is nice to see my fellow countrymen get upset about what they see as a grave injustice. I think the American public at the time agreed with you as well as there was a Congressional inquiry into the actions on Nov 11th. I believe that the lives of those men were not wasted if at all we learned how to handle a "standdown" position effectively in later conflicts- I think that is seen to some degree in Band of Brothers when Maj Winters essentially falsifies an after action report because he didn't want to send his men on a mission he felt would result in needless casualties. Lot's of new technologies in WW1 like armor, machine guns and airplanes. No one seems to mention the Armistice, while not a technology, did represent something "new" in which our military handling of that process unfortunately led to casualties.

By the way- last night I cheated and jumped several chapters ahead to the Nov 11th issue. The author states that the Germans hadn't acutally signed till like midnight and that the French were sort of dragging their feet on the signing. Sounds like there was a lot of confusion up till that final moment- even the German delegation was defiant- hard to look your troops in the eye and tell them "we lost" when they are occupying half of the opponents country. :wink2:

Well, anyway, just curious if anyone wants to tackle my "what if" question- could the allies have said the heck with the armistice and drove to Berlin in 1919? Might Russia appeared a tempting target in 1920-21? There are a lot of what-ifs to events after 1918 that I think are more interesting than those in 1945/6.

 

[jazzeum]

Chris,

The second question first. What I know about the Russian Civil War, which is not extensive, was that the Allies did support the mensheviks (the Whites) against the Bolsheviks and I seem to recall that troops and support were sent through Vladivastok but that in the end they lost.

First question, as I mentioned the Germans were in no position to resist the Allies (at least the leadership, who had abdicated responsibility, although they still had sizable armies) so it's conceivably possible. However, I don't know if the English and French could have convinced the armies of the necessity. From what I have read there had been mutinies in their armies (which were suppressed) and civilian and military leadership was concerned about the Communist influence so perhaps that this is something for which there was little appetite, not to mention territorially Germany was punished (but punished in a way that only guaranteed WW II).

The early post WW I period in Germany is a fascinating period to study.