Pershing Lecture Series: The AEF in Battle: September to November 1918 - Richard S. Faulkner

[@andymoody8363]

Great presenter, I'd go to one of his lectures in a heartbeat.

[@metalbent9078]

I really enjoy listening to this guy - He is very objective and seems to have really great knowledge on WW1 in general. Thanks for the upload!

[@AS-zk6hz]

My great uncle was also at chateau Thierry. Saw his medals in 1970. My grandmother had them she was very sad when she showed them to me and his tiny bent metal bible that he held when being shelled I believe he was 77th division his platoon was ground up except him wounded and a few others by German artillery Wounded 2 times came home all he did was drink. Fell down a Chicago gangways hit his head in 1926 died very young. She said he came home but the war killed him anyway An empty shell Could see the love and sadness in her eyes so many years later. As she showed me the mementos. Which she had treasured all those years.

[@markb8468]

Thanks for sharing this.

[@vegasstang1]

My Great Uncle was in the 320th infantry 80th division and was killed in action on the first day of this campaign.

[@coreyjackson5403]

Love this dude!

[@nateemond197]

Best presenter according to an amateur historian

[@christianfournier6862]

Absolutely fascinating lecture, brilliantly researched and flawlessly delivered. The part about the battle-hardened French division moving cautiously & slowly ahead reminded me of the WW.II battle for Caen (after D-Day), where the cautiousness & slowness of the British & Canadian troops exasperated the US commanders in Normandy who were much more willing to sustain losses: same causes, same outcomes. One amusing detail : the lecturer (Dr Shawn Faulkner) has trouble mastering the correct pronunciation for the name of the Meuse river. He oscillates between (at the beginning) an imaginative "Mews" - which a Frenchman has real trouble to recognize - and (towards the end) something approaching the correct pronunciation, which would be [møz]. And lastly, the French equivalent of “Going Bloiey" is: "être Limogé", which remains to this day a recognized expression in the language. __ .

[@mmcd8199]

The "cautiousness and slowness" (driven by a combined population of around a third of the U.S.A.'s) that meant there were no German reserves to interfere with the American operations...

[@ralphcorsi741]

This guy was excellent.

[@gls600]

American commanders fought the war as if their prime objective was to catch up with the causulty counts of other combatant nations.

[@southernmankeepinghishead1009]

Do you not have video on the US 30th and 27th Divisions? These 2 Divisions always get overlooked because Pershing agreed to let these Divisions remain with the British in Flanders. These 2 Divisions too outrageous casualties in horrible conditions!

[@southernmankeepinghishead1009]

They broke the Hindenburg Line in the Flanders area.

[@ejdotw1]

excellent

[@GallifreyanGunner]

1:00:47 "Distinctive American way of war..." as used by the Canadians, under Currie, and the Aussies, under Monash, before the US had even entered the war. The big takeaway from all this is that: had Pershing done what Foch had asked; and had listened to the experienced Allied general staff instead of assuming they'd learned nothing in 3 years of war and let his own pride get in the way; the AEF would have had greater success with fewer casualties.

[@hoosiered471]

Could imagine those type of casualties in present-day America?!!! Thank God we don't fight wars like that anymore!

[@cdnredneck99]

just imagine how many u could have saved if u listened to the british, canadians and french when u finally got there ;)

[@CJ87317]

Actually, I am not sure we would have. The most single day casualties for an American regiment was under British Command.

[@platinumk17]

Verdun and the somme were slaughter with little reason behind it

[@markb8468]

Similar warfare in Ukraine now. Unbelievably

[@shane9723]

The presentation starts at 6:40

[@paulcasey5204]

"Distinctly American way of war"? Umm, so how was this different from what Monash did at Le Hamel (with 4 companies of US troops included) way back on 4 July 2018?

[@jonathangray9870]

Pershing probably saw and read the reports from the 4 July action organised by Gen Sir John Monash and adopted accordingly. Americans are fast learners

[@christophercoupe5006]

The Canadian Corps under general Currie used all these and more combined methods to knock the Germans off Vimy Ridge in April 1917! Something the French and British couldn't do. Pershing no doubt learned from the Canadians as well.

[@docholiday7975]

Try listening to the context, it's meant in the sense of American doctrine, in particular material superiority, through the 20th C as opposed to American warfare prior.

[@jasonhuggins7440]

Not a bad lecture BUT...his perspective is off a lot. Everytime the Americans do anything right he prefaced it with they "got lucky"...never once because of their own merit (defies statistical probability at this rate). Says Americans couldn't get their supply situation right but doesn't account for Foch giving them 10 days to shift the entire 1stArmy 40 miles north for a totally new offensive (of course there will be issues). And casualties by our standards today would be considered "monumental" but they weren't much more than the Allies and better than the Allies when they were learning how to fight this new war in 1914 and 1915. After all, this didn't turn into a Somme or Verdun. Unbalanced and perspective was off.

[@docholiday7975]

Faulkner gives credit where it's due like with Hunter Liggett, the problem is the AEF has problems from head to toe to the point of sending conscripts into battle who don't know how to use their firearm. The supply example was already covered when he talked about the move north towards the start of the video, giving credit for being able to wrangle just the move in 15 days, but that still doesn't mean the supply side wasn't fubar. The problem with the casualties question is that the Americans were engaging a far smaller sector than either of the others despite the clear success elsewhere during the 100 days offensive, not turning such a small offensive into "a Somme or Verdun" is a low bar to clear with this going on and the general state of the German army on top of having available (but ignored) hard lessons learnt by other forces this far into the war.

[@AS-zk6hz]

This was perhaps the most awful war ever fought Killer weapons with dated tactics. Charge a machine gun. It was suicidal we had 600000 troops American army and marines in the Meuse argon offensive. We lost a lot of people but it broke the stale mate. We broke the German will to continue resulting in the end. 11-11-18. I have a photo of my great uncle George in his uniform. He was American army wounded in this offensive from Chicago on wounded list reported 12-27-18. Pershing was a New York lawyer he was a tough cookie. He said Americans fight as a united independent army. The lost battalion commanded by another lawyer named I think Whittlesey went on the attack and the French on the left and right of them ran away leaving them to hold their position which they did all by themselves.with no help.

[@AhmetwithaT]

You say dated tactics but what else was there? This was what they had.

[@seanlander9321]

Incorrect. The breakthrough, described by Ludendorff as ‘the blackest day’ of the German Army was the August 1918 attack by the Australians. The Australian forces captured more ground and guns than any allied army. In their breakthrough the Canadians followed, then the British and after them the French. The Americans did not mount any attacks that had any effect beyond harassment of the German line. Remember earlier at Hamel, almost all the Americans ran away rather than fight, they simply weren’t up to standard required to be a force to be noticed and were poorly equipped.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

@@seanlander9321 "poorly" equipped? The 50,000 US troops that served alongside the ANZAC and Canadian troops were armed with BRITISH rifles and machine guns to reduce logistics issues. All green troops have issues but they learned and grew. Or are you just angry that it was the Amricans that saved Australia in 1942-43?

[@jimsilvey5432]

It is surprising, in light of the sacrifices during this campaign, that both the Japanese and the Germans thought (prior to World War II) that Americans were soft and not to be considered good fighters.

[@shanebrown2009]

Which was exactly correct.

[@DMU386]

The Germans and Japanese were way more worried about Americas ability to provide the west with vast amounts of war resources than its Army. In both wars thats what the Axis was worries about.

[@cadennorris960]

@@shanebrown2009 Bad bait

[@seanlander9321]

Any review on the cowardice of Pershing to withdraw his troops from the start line of the Battle of Hamel? After Hamel, Foch put on a thank you dinner for Haig and Pershing, who contributed nothing, where the three generals snubbed the Australians who had planned, fought and financed a victory that was meticulously carried out in the first use of combined arms.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

You really are blinded here. The British retained a US corps of two divisions, 50,000 troops in the line with the ANZAC and Canadians. They refused to release these divisions to Pershing. Why was that if they were so bad? BTW, US troops serving with Haig were armed with British equipment and weapons, such as the SMLE, Lewis and Vickers MGs, 18pdr and 60pdr guns, 4.5", 6" and 8" howitzers and 9.2" heavy artillery, some of which was evacuated back to the APG in 1919, to reduce log issues.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

Those two US divisions were the equivalent of four British, ANZAC or Canadian divisions in troops and five division of MGs and artillery.

[@Key_highway]

@@michaelsnyder3871interesting, how so, in terms of troop numbers ?

[@booradley6832]

I really dislike Pershing as a professional officer in just about all capacities. He's got all the bravado of the two other famous American blowhard generals- Patton and MacArthur- who likewise were carried by always fighting exhausted, undersupplied and overstretched enemies, having complete naval and air supremacy, with excellent logistics officers managing to make their harebrained schemes and poor command control actually smooth over until the difference in quality of troops made the outcome inevitable. All three were constantly willing to endanger men, materiel and missions for personal glory. They also dont tend to care about their troops' having the setup to do the best job with the least difficulties. 20,000 Lewis Guns sat on the docks of France, unused, unclaimed. Britain said the US could take them and a few million rounds of ammo and Pershing refused, instead our boys got stuck with the 1917 US CSRG "chauchat .30-06" that couldnt even extract, load and fire a second round after the first one. It's speculated because he didnt want to add another cartridge to the supply train but I dont buy it- you can see from how he treated Marshall's task as so trivial that he did not care about logistics at all. He wanted Americans using American equipment, and if it cant be our own guns it can be our cartridges. Unfortunately this decision ended up with a lot more cartridges being loaded, the kind made of out wood and filled with a human for insertion into the ground. Pershing does however get credit for being the odd man out, he was not a war criminal and attempted traitor(who is trying to dictate foreign policy and start yet another great war by overruling their chief of staff) like the other two. As far as I know Pershing never asked his men to murder captives, abandon international convention protocol or personally assault men who were suffering from PTSD. He did not ignore orders to personally attack veterans who were peacefully demonstrating. I guess thats why Patton was murdered, MacArthur humiliated but Pershing was just quietly left to retire. Because at the end of the day he wasnt a terrible human being, just a very strong test case for the Dunning-Kruger Effect and Peter Principle. Pershing however does get some sincere respect for how he treated the greatest hero of the American forces in the Great War. He made time to personally see Cher Ami off at the port on her journey back to the US. That is a gesture that I will forever honor him for doing, regardless of my less than stellar impression of him otherwise. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with me, is irrelevant. I do hope that Richard can do a talk about William Crozier though. He is infamously inept and would give a lot of the US difficulties with equipment some depth and understandability. C&Rsenal does a video about every small arm of the war and he is extensively covered in the Lewis Gun episode, the man is just a walking testament to nepotism, awarding contracts via favoritism and contacts and absolute inflexibility or ability to recognize, adopt and adapt to changing battlefield and technological realities. Also his eyebrows look stupid.

[@shanemedlin9400]

This is, of course, also an American-centric presentation, duh, because it's about the AEF 1918 experience between September and November. The Americans did pretty damned well, green as they were. American casualties during the Argonne offensive were 70 percent. But they took the forest anyway.

[@mu99ins]

I have an inkling of this poor training. In 1971, was drafted into the U.S. Army and did my basic training and AIT at Ft. Ord, CA. After a bank of aptitude tests, they put me in the mechanized infantry. I understood that Vietnam was my destiny. During both Basic and AIT, I shot the M16 one time at the firing range. I was not trained how to clean the weapon. Never cleaned it. I was not trained to sight it in, although I understand that few if any soldiers are trained to sight in their rifle. I was not trained what to do if it jammed. I was not trained about the sighting mechanism. We lined up to shoot the m1911 pistol, and we were allotted one magazine, and I was told I made sharpshooter. I told the sergeant that I didn't see any holes in the target. He told me don't worry about it, the pistols were worn out. It wasn't a complete fail in the training program because I threw a live grenade and shot the M79 once. I shot the M60 machine gun once. I drove the armored personnel carrier one time. At the end of training, I was in much better physical shape than when I was inducted. By great good luck, I was stationed stateside after AIT. I'm hoping the army trains better, nowadays.

[@booradley6832]

Dr Faulkner I must say I am extremely disappointed. Any time someone mentions the Lost Battalion without mentioning Cher Ami, something is very, very wrong.

[@FlynnWells-x8c]

Orn Mill

[@FastBrook-m6p]

Georgiana Keys

[@maryannedouglas]

just quickly; 1500 guns over an 8km front = one gun per 5.33m. Better, much better than the one gun per 20km claimed here, but still woefully short of British or French standards in 1917-1918. Just saying...

[@raymondhorvath2406]

The American were lucky the Germans were very week and only weeks off surrendering. If the Americans were in the war at the Germans strength in 1914-1917 it would have been difficult for them. But with there numbers it would have really helped the Allies and maybe not as many would have died.

[@shanebrown2009]

Sounds like the American army was a joke in WW1.