Doughboy Meets World: The American Soldier and the Europeans 1917-1918 - Richard S. Faulkner

World War I marked the first-time vast numbers of Americans came into close contact with peoples and cultures in foreign lands. By the time of the Armistice, over two million Doughboys were serving in France and Britain and several thousand of these soldiers went on to serve in the Army of Occupation in the German Rhineland. This lecture will examine the Doughboys' interactions with, and opinions of, the European soldiers and civilians that they encountered while serving in the American Expeditionary Forces. It will also explore how these interactions shaped the Doughboys' perceptions of being Americans.
Richard S. Faulkner, General William H. Stofft Chair of Military History of the United States Army Command and General Staff College
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org

[@rosesprog1722]

How interesting, the twist at the end with African Americans going home with new ideas about freedom, that one was totally unexpected but so very nice, I've seen a new angle.

[@Paeoniarosa]

Very interesting, Thank you.

[@magr7424]

A highly interesting topic

[@lamalama9717]

I wonder how German-American doughboys felt? I know the last American casualty of the war was a German guy who had originally been sceptical, made Sergent, got busted down then charged a machine gun on Nov 11 1918 to prove himself. Sounds internally conflicted. Was that typical?

[@Eriugena8]

haha, I'm from KS, and "the nasty carnival ride that goes to Lansing, Kansas", is rich... I'm gonna use that.

[@cowboy6591]

Still doesn't explain why they call who "Dough" boys, where did that name come from?

[@jacobhamselv]

Theres no clear answer. One theory revolves around the rations, where they had pastry that would later become the donut. Another theory I heard, comes from the fact that the Americans joined so late in the war, and had eaten better for 3 years prior to jumping into the trenches.

[@pigmanobvious]

It came from our incursion into Mexico. The Adobe huts and the resulting dust from the dry climate.

[@PMMagro]

"Overrated, overpaid and over here". Frankly the French ALWAYS liked Americans (compare with the French-British). Even today my French relatives compre with the US or Americans things not UK/British or worse Germany/German. Don't tell anyone but we secrtly admire the Germans... Thank God for the British still making us very proud in comparison.

[@finallyfriday.]

The Brits make everyone look good.

[@bobylapointe8784]

I didn't understand what you mean. But it looks quite unfair. During WW2, americans were very popular among french population, and not english, because of Mers El Kebir, because of their politic before the war, because of old antagonism. But when you check, American government (not population) had very close relationship with Vichy, tried to maintain them in charge and to eliminate De Gaulle, and Roosevelt had ideas about cuting french territory in different parts. (for being completely honnest, some people in american government disagree with their president and tell that to De Gaulle, so he can prevented it. And George Marshall helped also.) On the opposite, it's incredible how every english man from top to bottom helped the Free French forces. Even Spears (De Gaulle hated him at the end of the war because of Syria) helped France a lot. It was not only material, but moral and spiritual help, what we lack may be the most at that time, and what Americans since did'nt give much - more the oppositie, with the "french cowardice" mème. So, long live Britain !

[@Eriugena8]

tower of babel? ⬆️🗣️

[@SSNewberry]

Anglo-Saxon was prevalent in the American Civil War see The Pro-Slavery Argument - a text on the racial profiles of the American South.

[@Jackiezyon]

I always thought that the myths concerning French started with America. The British already had their xenophobic feelings added to it. WW1 was where the myth of French “ cowardice” started which is odd because the French was the best army in WW1.

[@jasonjason6525]

Best Army? You are kidding right?

[@seppijessup9563]

France had a great Army but they also had poor leadership and bad tactics..

[@bobylapointe8784]

@@jasonjason6525 Would the french army have been as resilient, as creative, as efficient than the allies... Germany would have won. No offense here (really no), but even if everybody contributed (British, Russians, Serbians, Americans, greeks, etc.), french army was the main contributor to the defeat of Germany, no doubt. During battle of Somme, main german casualties were due to the french, main allies casualties were british casualties, just an exemple. By equipment, tactics, doctrine, the best army in 1918, victorious in every front (western and oriental)

[@bobylapointe8784]

@@seppijessup9563 In the beginning of the war in 1914, may be. It was a war where mistakes could turn to disaster and they did. But at the end, France had good leaders : Clemenceau, Poincarré (political leaders), Foch, Pétain, Franchet d'Espèrey (for the military) Even Joffre was not so bad. He won the Marne. Compare with Haig, or Peshing : french leaders were better.

[@mikeFolco]

@@jasonjason6525 100% the best. Definitely better than the USA.

[@user-ml3rb7mv1g]

Nonsense that the British (who banned slavery years before the US) supported the South. People starved before supporting the Confederacy in what was known as the Cotten Famine. You really should know this basic stuff instead of going for humorous flippantly. Ian Dee.

[@sportsfan94x]

The British supported the South as evident on the label of their Enfield rifle-muskets. It isn't hard to ascertain that the British (wanting their colonies back in some capacity or greater influence) would support a states rights driven society that's federally decentralized. Sentiments would have sounded like why divide and conquer when they're doing it themselves? Also, these rifles are selling like hotcakes!