Forrest Gump on Ypres

[dutchbarge]

And not all of them worked. Are we due a refund?

Just as soon as you pay off your WW1 debt. You defaulted on it in the 1930s and at last count, without interest, unadjusted for inflation, still owe Uncle Sam over US$ 12 billion. Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

That was unworthy Bill. I was rather under the impression that every shell that was shipped over was paid for. US forces did of course play a part in the last year of the war, and we appreciate and respect their contribution.

Keith

Sorry, I guess US humor doesn't cross the pond very well. Yes, in the beginning you paid, but when you ran out of cash we carried you thru until the end (France, Belgium and Russia too).

Cheers, BIll

[George Armstrong Custer]

Sorry, I guess US humor doesn't cross the pond very well. Yes, in the beginning you paid, but when you ran out of cash we carried you thru until the end (France, Belgium and Russia too).

Cheers, BIll

Ah, so it was just a joke! Not the first time you've put the boot into the UK based on very questionable assertions though, is it Bill? I seem to remember some stuff from you not too long ago about how it was perfidious Albion which was the primary warmonger in bringing about the Great War, whilst Wilhelm II was a most reasonable individual.

ciao,

GAC

[dutchbarge]

You're a clown, Bill.

ciao,

GAC

Oh come on, lighten up! I know its a bit over simplified and jingoistic, but it's fun to spout of once in a while. Cheerio, Bill

[George Armstrong Custer]

Once in a while?

[truthergw]

.............. we carried you thru until the end (France, Belgium and Russia too).

Cheers, BIll

Which side were you carrying in Russia?

[dutchbarge]

Ah, so it was just a joke! Not the first time you've put the boot into the UK based on very questionable assertions though, is it Bill? I seem to remember some stuff from you not too long ago about how it was perfidious Albion which was the primary warmonger in bringing about the Great War, whilst Wilhelm II was a most reasonable individual.

ciao,

GAC

Perhaps the view from this side of the pond is different. I don't wish to put the boot to the UK. I really rather like what I have seen of it in the years I lived there. However, I think that many of the beliefs, so popular to certain segments of the British society, of why the war was fought, how it was conducted, whose contribution weighed most, let alone the consequences, do not stand up to scrutiny once the jingoism and war time propaganda are stripped away. It bothers me that many of the Forum members have difficultly seperating WW1 and WW2, painting the Kaiser (no hero by the way) with the same brush as Hitler. It also troubles me that the moment anyone challenges the righteousness of Britain's cause (or her leadership) one is immediately shouted down as being disrespectful to the memory of her dead. (or misinformed, or a neo-nazi, clown, etc.) I have no difficulty in reconsiling the fact that men can be courageous and noble even if they are fighting under a misaprehension or bad leadership. Do you? It took years for the 'angels of Mons' myth to end. Perhaps with time other 'truths' will also be moderated or changed. Perhaps not. But isn't that one of the purposes of this Form? A deeper understand of the Great War? Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

Which side were you carrying in Russia?

Actually, the US, particularly Wilson, initially had high hopes for what we thought was the dawn of a new era of democracy in Russia. Goes to show what how wrong we can all be. Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

I would not mind if anything you wrote actually had some basis of truth.

The losses Haig accepted for the results he achieved would not have been tolerated in the US.

Sure, the Brits (and French and Belgians) thwarted the Schlieffen Plan, but up until the time they had defeated Russia, and the US entered the war, the Germans, once the front lines had stabilized, adopted a defensive strategy on the Western Front only fighting battles for local tactical advantage. Through all of 1915, 1916 and 1917 Haig was unable effect the breakout he so desired, much less inflict any mortal blow on the Germans. And during all this time Germany WAS denied by blockade the steady flow of war material and basic necessities enjoyed by Britain. She WAS an upstart, only 45 years old. And she WAS fighting a two front war, actively trouncing Russia, and successfully holding the UK and France at bay until she could wrap up Russia and bring her forces to bear on the WF. It must have been very humiliating for Haig to have spent so many men over so many years to push back the German line every so slightly in the Somme salient only to see what he believed was a defeated Germany rise up and take back all of those gains and more in mere weeks.

If a US Army wasn't needed to win the war, why then were the British so tantalized at the prospect of America joining the Allied cause and exercised about her not joining sooner? The argument that it was 2 million fresh Yanks marching to battle that finally made up Germany's mind to quit is hard to ignore.

Cheers, Bill

[Pete1052]

The review of the book from the San Francisco Chronicle states that Groom does not pass judgement on Haig's ability as a general. As best I can tell Steve Morse was making an ironic comment and Keith Roberts is the only person in this thread who has actually read the book.

[dutchbarge]

The review of the book from the San Francisco Chronicle states that Groom does not pass judgement on Haig's ability as a general. As best I can tell Steve Morse was making an ironic comment and Keith Roberts is the only person in this thread who has actually read the book.

Despite what the SFC says, and even though Groom goes out of his way not to ruffle any feathers, it's hard to finish the book and not take away the feeling that Haig was'nt much more than a crude butcher (Groom's notion of tactics devolving to "killing for killing's sake")

The book was a bit thin but as Groom states his main purpose was to give an idea to an American audience what it was like to have fought in Flanders. The most interesting quote in the book I think was Groom's fear of an American even writing a book about Flanders, "I am also aware that in certain quarters in Great Britain, Americans and other foreigners are sometimes greeted with skepticism if they write about the First World War." Infact parts of his introduction tend to be an apology to the Brits for even daring to write a book about the Great War as if they alone own its memory. "I beg forgiveness for any presumption..." This reticence is baffling to me. Afterall the US was a fully paid up participant in WW1 and we deserve our own opinions whether or not the Brits agree with them.

I still have a tough time differentiating between British humor, irony and insult. I'm sure have they same frustrations with us. I'd like to think that all of us are here to gain a deeper understanding of the Great War. Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

Once in a while?

Ok. More than once in a while. Sorry. Cheers, Bill

[IanA]

Afterall the US was a fully paid up participant in WW1

Sorry Aak,

We refer to it as the 14-18 war. What do you call it?

Ian

[George Armstrong Custer]

The review of the book from the San Francisco Chronicle states that Groom does not pass judgement on Haig's ability as a general.

Perhaps. But the reviewer sure as hell does - and he seems to think that the Denis Winter school of thought on Haig is still a credible one.

Keith Roberts is the only person in this thread who has actually read the book.

Quite so. However my purpose in starting this thread was not to critique Groom's book so much as to express surprise that, in the interview linked to, he reveals such little grasp of the Great War after he had supposedly researched and written it. Apparently his tenuous and one dimensional hold on the subject is shared by many of his countrymen who also claim to have done some research. The Americans may routinely produce dumbed down history for the domestic market, but that's no reason for us to applaud it on this side of the pond - nor to accept its (increasing) insidious influences creeping into works produced here.

ciao,

GAC

[dutchbarge]

Sorry Aak,

We refer to it as the 14-18 war. What do you call it?

Ian

You won't like the answer. The prevalent view here is that WW1 was the first of two times we had to stop what we were doing and sort out the Europeans. Cheers, Bill

[Pete1052]

My previous message was in response to an earlier version of Dutchbarge's Post No. 34, which explicitly stated that the Groom book is critical of Haig's generalship. I pointed out that that is not what the Chronicle reviewer said about the book. Since then Dutchbarge appears to have edited that statement about the book out of his message. It is silly for us to debate the merits of a book that we have not read or to pass judgement on it based upon that interview. It is also quite a stretch to use the interview as the basis for making sweeping generalizations about the caliber of American scholarship. Groom does not come across as being particularly articulate in the interview but to me he doesn't seem to be seriously ill-informed either.

[dutchbarge]

The Americans may routinely produce dumbed down history for the domestic market....

ciao,

GAC

Seeing as I'm another dumbed down American perhaps you'll indulge my curiosity. Why did you chose for your moniker the name of an American general of German descent? Is it a penchant for losers or just British irony? Cheers, Bill

[stevem49]

I actually read the book some time ago and though shallow, it was OK as a holiday read.

I have US and French friends but as nations I find them difficult to comprehend

Some also seem to have a strange grasp on History.

I did not realise that they dropped everything in WW2 to help us. I presume Pearl Harbour and the Japanese had nothing to do with it then.

On the US versus British losses point. I think that the gung Ho attitude of the US forces cost them many casualties.

Does anyone know which Country made money out of both Wars?

[truthergw]

You say that Americans deserve to hold their own opinions on the Great War, That is self evidently true. So are citizens of countries with no involvement. On a forum which studies the war it is expected that a contributor will show some evidence of having done the same. We are always on the lookout for fresh insight and interpretation providing it is backed up by evidence which we can consult. Perverse and unfounded opinions or provocative remarks which are aired in one post and then described as ironic in another, sail very close to the troll wind for my liking. To turn to the short time in which the Americans were fighting. The US Army provided men. No artillery and precious little equipment. Cannon fodder if you will. They were offered assistance in training from commanders with 3 years experience but for a mixture of reasons refused the chance to merge these raw troops with experienced fighters. This caused very heavy unnecessary casualties which the US citizenry accepted. I'm not sure how any electorate can refuse to accept casualties or limit their numbers. They give command to the President when they elect him and relinquish all control to him for the duration of his presidency. The men fought very well and were extremely brave and very quick to learn. They were let down by their senior officers. That much can be gleaned from reading Haig's and Foch's comments. This is a Great War forum but as regards WW2, to pretend that America got involved to save the Allies is total nonsense.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I did not realise that they dropped everything in WW2 to help us. I presume Pearl Harbour and the Japanese had nothing to do with it then.

Even after Pearl Harbour the US response was one of self interest against Japan - it was Germany's declaration of war against the US which involved them in the European theatre. And whilst that must be seen by those already confronting Nazi Germany in the field as a fortuitous bad move by Hitler, let's not pretend that the US bailed anybody out through any sense of altruism. Further, had the UK not held out alone in 1940 there would have been no launch pad from which to launch D-Day and cracking Nazi European hegemony would have been that much more difficult and costly.

ciao,

GAC

[Grovetown]

American general of German descent?

German and English descent if you don't mind! His mother's people originated in County Durham.

Best wishes,

GT.

[George Armstrong Custer]

German and English descent if you don't mind! His mother's people originated in County Durham.

Best wishes,

GT.

And Custer himself went to his death under the impression that his ancestors originated in the Orkney Islands. From New York in the spring of 1876, less than three months before the famous 'Last Stand', he wrote to his wife that he had received a letter from another gentleman bearing the name of Custer who lived in the Orkneys and believed they were from the same family, whose roots he had traced back to 1647 through the variants of Cusiter, Cursider and Cursetter.

In reality Custer's patronymic is as likely to be Dutch as German - the earliest usage has been traced back to Laurens Coster, a printer in Haarlem, Holland, who died in 1440.

ciao,

GAC

[dutchbarge]

Some British members of the Great War Frourm have consistently provided convincing evidence to back up their contention that it was the malevolent Prussians who were soley responsible for the war, that British politicians entered the war for purely altruist reasons, that British generals did an exceptional job under trying circumstances and that it was Britain, standing alone after the Russians had surrendered and the French had lost her offensive will, who deserves the lion's share of the credit for beating the Germans. They also have provided evidence to prove that the Americans were gauche johnny-come-latelies, that they were militarily incompetent, not much better than cannon fodder, made obscene profits from the war and while for the sake of appearance some grudging appreciation must be shown them, their contribution to victory was relatively minor.

My problem with all this is that if nobel Britain was such a glowing success at war and real-politik, Germany wicked to a fault, and America a foul-up, why is it that America, not Britain, emerged from the war as the pre-eminent world power, and that today, even after a second world war, wicked Germany, not Britain, plays Europe's leading role.

If all the evidence you present IS valid, if Britain WAS as you imply the better nation, the bitter irony of how it all worked out in the end must be an awful burden! Is there not the slightest glimmer of posibility that Britain misplayed her hand? That like the rest of us she was sometimes too cocky, too greedy or just too thick to see what was coming?

Cheers, Bill

[George Armstrong Custer]

why is it that America, not Britain, emerged from the war as the pre-eminent world power

From the Great War? The US was the pre-eminent world power in 1919? Are you sure about that Bill?

If all the evidence you present IS valid, if Britain WAS as you imply the better nation, the bitter irony of how it all worked out in the end must be an awful burden! Is there not the slightest glimmer of posibility that Britain misplayed her hand?

The US economy made a fortune out of the UK before and after the US itself entered the Second World War. And US policy in the postwar world was geared to apply pressure to speed up the dismantling of Britain's empire. For example: In the Far East the US was determined that Hong Kong, when liberated from the Japanese, should be handed over to their Chinese ally Chian Kai-shek. The State Department considered that the US had 'special interests' in China and the end of the British Empire in China became US policy. In 1941 it was suggested that Britain should sell the colony to the Chinese - the cost being borne by the US Treasury. In 1943 Roosevelt told Churchill that Britain should give it up as "a gesture of good will," before going on to suggest to Uncle Joe Stalin at Yalta that it might be internationalised as a free port.

Britain was broken economically by the burdens she shouldered in two world wars. The US - which was not a major military player by any means in 1939 - succeeded post-1945 in exploiting the economic weakness of the British Empire and by overtly and covertly encouraging the nationalist causes in much of the Empire which were accelerated by WWII to economically supplant the British Empire with her own economic and military 'spheres of interest.' At the same time, of course, the US's role as a military power was supreme due to the development of the atomic bomb and the experience of the mobilisation of her huge citizen army post 1941. The long nineteenth century was the British Century. The long twentieth century has been the American Century. I believe we are starting to see that fray around the edges as we move further into the 21st century. So I wouldn't be too cocky yourself, Bill.

ciao,

GAC

[dutchbarge]

Even after Pearl Harbour the US response was one of self interest against Japan - it was Germany's declaration of war against the US which involved them in the European theatre. And whilst that must be seen by those already confronting Nazi Germany in the field as a fortuitous bad move by Hitler, let's not pretend that the US bailed anybody out through any sense of altruism. Further, had the UK not held out alone in 1940 there would have been no launch pad from which to launch D-Day and cracking Nazi European hegemony would have been that much more difficult and costly.

ciao,

GAC

I regret to agree that America is every bit as self interested as any other nation. But happy to agree with you about Britain holding out alone in 1940. It was indeed your finest hour! And the free world owes you a debt of gratitude. Cheers, Bill