Amiens to the Armistice

[George Armstrong Custer]

I came across this review by Brian Bond of Amiens to the Armistice in the English Historical Review Volume 115, Number 460 p. 244 (2000). On the strength of it I've ordered up a copy. It doesn't seem to have received a full review here on the forum, though it has been referenced positively in a number of threads. Anyone read it and have an opinion on it? In the meantime, here's Brian Bond's brief review for those who are interested:

The campaign of the 'Hundred Days' between 8 August and 11 November 1918 was, in terms of sheer scale, the greatest in British military history up to that time. It was also, Dr J. P. Harris suggests, in Amiens to the Armistice ( London/Washington: Batsford, 1998; pp. xiii+345. £25), the campaign in which ground forces under British command exercised the greatest influence internationally in the twentieth century. Yet in comparison with the ill-famed Somme and Third Ypres campaigns and the near-fatal setback in March 1918, this final victorious advance is relatively little known.

Dr Harris, with the collaboration of his Sandhurst colleague, Niall Barr, has used a wider range of sources than other recent historians of these dramatic events such as Barrie Pitt, Hubert Essame and John Terraine. He takes the reader systematically through the series of Allied offensives which began with spectacular success east of Amiens on 8 August, broke the Hindenburg Line at the end of September and thereafter steadily pushed the Germans back towards their own frontier. While not ignoring the wider political and strategic contexts, Harris is primarily concerned to describe and evaluate military operations on both sides. He argues that these operations marked the peak of the British Army's 'learning curve' in tactical sophistication and infantry-artillery-air co-operation, but he maintains that tanks were no more than a useful auxiliary weapons system. Even with considerable numerical and technological superiority, Harris shows that the Allies experienced diminishing returns after the initial day of each offensive and could only maintain momentum for a few days.

Sir Douglas Haig is praised for his positive leadership, but much of the credit for setting limited objectives is given to the Army commanders and their senior subordinates. Harris is puzzled by Haig's sudden loss of optimism in mid-October about the imminence of victory, but this was surely due to reports that enemy resistance was stiffening and might well lead to a prolongation of the war unless moderate armistice terms were offered. Whether this careful, detailed narrative and positive evaluation of the British and Dominions forces' achievement in 1918 will secure many converts from the 'butchers and bunglers' school may be doubted, but Harris and Barr have made a timely contribution to the continuing debate among military historians about the significance of the final phase in assessing Allied operational skills and generalship.

BRIAN BOND

King's College London

ciao,

GAC

[charlesmessenger]

GAC

I have a copy and would thoroughly recommend it. It is a pity that it did not get more exposure when it was published, but then the 100 Days was and still is not very fashionable in some quarters.

Charles M

[paul guthrie]

I have an excellent account of this action Amiens 1918 by McWilliams & Steel published a few years ago, there is another coming June 08 by McCluskey

[ejcmartin]

I just recently finished the book. I found the topic fascinating the writing so-so. All in all a good read though. As Charles M says in his post this part of the war does not get much press. Perhaps this year there might be a good book coming on the shelves.