If You Ever Go to France

[CMJ]

Don't just check out Normandy. Powerful stuff in NYT travel section.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/travel/100-years-of-gratitude.html

Edited August 24, 2014 by CMJ

[CaribbeanGreen]

I'll watch my slingbox on a sweater. I know that much. #france

[TheWestie]

I went to Verdun in 2001.

It was sobering. We went to Fort de Douaumont where the ground is still uneven from the craters and there is still unexploded ordinance in the dirt. We then went to the Ossuary at the main cemetery there. Seeing the stacks and stacks of bones and the rows and rows or graves was... it was something else. When traveling on the highway on the way to Metz we saw fields full of crops that had big dark lines crossing them at weird angles. The lines were where trenches had been and there was still a depression in the ground.

[CMJ]

I went to Verdun in 2001.

It was sobering. We went to Fort de Douaumont where the ground is still uneven from the craters and there is still unexploded ordinance in the dirt. We then went to the Ossuary at the main cemetery there. Seeing the stacks and stacks of bones and the rows and rows or graves was... it was something else. When traveling on the highway on the way to Metz we saw fields full of crops that had big dark lines crossing them at weird angles. The lines were where trenches had been and there was still a depression in the ground.

I know in Messines, the crater is so big from the mine explosions the British set off under the German line, that there's like a freaking lake there now.

[TheWestie]

I know in Messines, the crater is so big from the mine explosions the British set off under the German line, that there's like a freaking lake there now.

There's a pretty good Australian-made movie on Netflix about that battle and the mine bomb called "Beneath Hill 60". It was pretty good, but it was no "Paths of glory". Not enough World War I movies out there though.

[UNT90]

There's a pretty good Australian-made movie on Netflix about that battle and the mine bomb called "Beneath Hill 60". It was pretty good, but it was no "Paths of glory". Not enough World War I movies out there though.

I guess trench warfare just isn't sexy enough for Hollywood.

[CMJ]

I guess trench warfare just isn't sexy enough for Hollywood.

It's probably more like we only really were engaged in the war for about six months (we had a division or two before that and a few Americans who fought in the French Foreign Legion, but mostly we fought from May to November in 1918)), , and Hollywood doesn't feel we'd see movies where Americans weren't the main characters involved (and looking at box office receipts in the past, that's sadly pretty accurate).

Of course, even with our limited time in - numerous stories remain I could see a film made about.

Edited August 24, 2014 by CMJ

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- I have been in France several times .. One lasting memory I had in 1989 was on a Rhine River ship and this guy saw we were Americans and yelled "Any Texans here?" ... I answered and he ( a Frenchman) did a quick fake gunfighter draw on me and then started talking ... Apparently his town had been liberated by a Texas unit in WWII and he was very appreciative and said he really liked them.. I've never had a bad experience with them... some Americans do but I think it is mostly the American's fault by having a bad or superior attitude .. No one likes that especially in their own country. If at Normandy... another cemetery that is impressive is the British one.... those tombstones all have a personal message from their family on them.. It is quite different and has a section of Germans also .... remember the Germans were retreating and were unable to bury their dead. The allies had to.. Never been in WWI sector looking around.

--I can remember one rude waitress there... but I have had a few here too..... big deal.!!

--I agree French have never fared very well against German armies in past 100+ years... but neither has Russians, Polish, British, and many other ones including us at times. We would not have won at Yorktown if the French navy had not been offshore keeping the British from being resupplied or evacuated... ... and they gave us the Statue of Liberty as well. A French/Texas pirate furnished New Orleans with cannons at the Battle of New Orleans as well ( it had been a French town until Napoleon sold it to us 10 years earlier) ... and the pirates manned them killing hundreds of British with grape-shot, nails, chains, and cannonballs (war is not pretty) .... They had warned us the British were offshore and about to attack. (Jean Lafitte) Jackson gets credit over a pirate but he had a lot of help... I have no French heritage... German heritage.

Edited August 27, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

One of the greatest documentaries on WWI I've ever seen is the one currently running on the Military Channel called "Apocalypse:WWI". It started out with possibly the best timeline explanation in great, methodic detail as to the events that led up to the Great War and includes video I had never seen before, including several minutes of Nicholas' family, weapons used never heard of before and several videos of the underground detonations y'all mentioned above.

If this series is ever offered for sale I'm all over it.

Rick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---- The two largest reason wars are won are "numbers and weapons (technology) ... Russians turned the Germans back by losing millions of people (numbers) which they had more of. Germans in both wars started with an extreme advantage in weapons... In WWI Germans had many more machine guns in the beginning and even uniforms that we not bright colors which the French and British used in the beginning.,[ their crazy thinking was red did not show blood] Even in WWII German tanks had a 9 to 1 "kill rate against American Sherman tanks in tank warfare.. which ours were not well suited to tank warfare but good for only troop support... Theirs had thicker amour, more powerful guns, and ran on diesel and not gasoline... ours were often refered to as "Ronson lighters" after a cigarette lighter commercial that stated they lit up every time... because of using gasoline ours blew up easily... Also interesting their machine guns had barrels that could be removed quickly and replaced in seconds if they melted due to to excessive rapid fire, ours took about 30 minutes... Not good in combat, ours became useless quickly. Our planes at the start were very inferior ... but with time we caught up and exceeded them (in numbers as well). Tanks in WWI and planes when improved made trench warfare obsolete ... Technology again... and WWII ended with a couple of nukes (technology) which one else had.. They made the end come much more quickly and with less of lives on both sides which an invasion would have created. The fact that the British had newly developed radar (which Germany didn't realize existed) kept Britain from losing the "The Battle of Britain" because they always had their planes in the air when the Germans were arriving and not sitting on the ground to be destroyed.

--A lot of these programs are very interesting and informative. ... and points WHY certain countries win and how.... . Just be thankful Germany did not wait to start WWII when they had better jets, better rockets, and even nuke weapons ... all of which they were working on then.

Even in the American Revolution we were using long rifles which were accurate at distances the British muskets couldn't hit anything. Technology wins when numbers are not excessively slanted. Remembering a military quote I read once .. "90% of our military development budget is making our weapons 10% better'. Better wins .. even in western gunfight..10% faster/better usually wins.

Edited August 28, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[CMJ]

One of the greatest documentaries on WWI I've ever seen is the one currently running on the Military Channel called "Apocalypse:WWI". It started out with possibly the best timeline explanation in great, methodic detail as to the events that led up to the Great War and includes video I had never seen before, including several minutes of Nicholas' family, weapons used never heard of before and several videos of the underground detonations y'all mentioned above.

If this series is ever offered for sale I'm all over it.

Rick

It was decent (also the channel is now The American Heroes Channel), but I much prefer the 1964 epic (and I do mean epic at 26 episodes) BBC one titled The Great War.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxK-qR14pVg&list=PLdEBPyoq11-7H07u7iwGM_3l-_QfxFj9B

It played the war straight. Apocalypse: WWI has way too much sermonizing for my taste. Also, they claimed that the Messines mine explosions happened at the Battle of the Somme...and that they didn't kill anyone or effect the battle (10K Germans were killed in the initial explosion).

[The Great War gives perhaps a tiny bit too much credit to the British (it's the BBC, not unexpected), but they give all of the key players a ton of air time. Episode 16, Right is more precious than Peace is just about the most patriotic film for the US I have ever seen...and it was made by the Brits. The way the final lines are delivered is just inspiring, "No conquering army could have had a more rapturous welcome from its own people than France gave to this handful of inexperienced, untried, but vigorous and cheerful American soldiers. As yet, their fighting value was almost nothing, but their moral effect was everything. To the onlookers in the streets of Paris, it was one of the most poignant moments in history. The new world was coming to redress the balance of the old."]

Edited August 28, 2014 by CMJ

[Cerebus]

I highly recommend John Keegan's The First World War.

The First World War created the modern world. A conflict of unprecedented ferocity, it abruptly ended the relative peace and prosperity of the Victorian era, unleashing such demons of the twentieth century as mechanized warfare and mass death. It also helped to usher in the ideas that have shaped our times--modernism in the arts, new approaches to psychology and medicine, radical thoughts about economics and society--and in so doing shattered the faith in rationalism and liberalism that had prevailed in Europe since the Enlightenment. With The First World War, John Keegan, one of our most eminent military historians, fulfills a lifelong ambition to write the definitive account of the Great War for our generation.

Probing the mystery of how a civilization at the height of its achievement could have propelled itself into such a ruinous conflict, Keegan takes us behind the scenes of the negotiations among Europe's crowned heads (all of them related to one another by blood) and ministers, and their doomed efforts to defuse the crisis. He reveals how, by an astonishing failure of diplomacy and communication, a bilateral dispute grew to engulf an entire continent.

But the heart of Keegan's superb narrative is, of course, his analysis of the military conflict. With unequalled authority and insight, he recreates the nightmarish engagements whose names have become legend--Verdun, the Somme and Gallipoli among them--and sheds new light on the strategies and tactics employed, particularly the contributions of geography and technology. No less central to Keegan's account is the human aspect. He acquaints us with the thoughts of the intriguing personalities who oversaw the tragically unnecessary catastrophe--from heads of state like Russia's hapless tsar, Nicholas II, to renowned warmakers such as Haig, Hindenburg and Joffre. But Keegan reserves his most affecting personal sympathy for those whose individual efforts history has not recorded--"the anonymous millions, indistinguishably drab, undifferentially deprived of any scrap of the glories that by tradition made the life of the man-at-arms tolerable."

By the end of the war, three great empires--the Austro-Hungarian, the Russian and the Ottoman--had collapsed. But as Keegan shows, the devastation ex-tended over the entirety of Europe, and still profoundly informs the politics and culture of the continent today. His brilliant, panoramic account of this vast and terrible conflict is destined to take its place among the classics of world history.

I recommend any of Keegan's books, but this is the best WWI history IMHO. He does a masterful job of showing how each nation was in effect trapped and rushed into the war. No one really wanted it, but because of new technologies they each knew that to delay would give the enemy an enormous advantage. Unwillingness to give away the advantage lead to a rush to mobilization, mobilization lead to someone having to take the first strike before their enemy was stronger than them.

Once the was starts, he is great at showing how leadership did not understand the modern battlefield, and how men were sent to slaughter by the village load. It's harrowing. Who needs to horror fantasy when you can just recount far worse realities?

Edited August 28, 2014 by Cerebus

[UNT90]

---- The two largest reason wars are won are "numbers and weapons (technology) ... Russians turned the Germans back by losing millions of people (numbers) which they had more of. Germans in both wars started with an extreme advantage in weapons... In WWI Germans had many more machine guns in the beginning and even uniforms that we not bright colors which the French and British used in the beginning.,[ their crazy thinking was red did not show blood] Even in WWII German tanks had a 9 to 1 "kill rate against American Sherman tanks in tank warfare.. which ours were not well suited to tank warfare but good for only troop support... Theirs had thicker amour, more powerful guns, and ran on diesel and not gasoline... ours were often refered to as "Ronson lighters" after a cigarette lighter commercial that stated they lit up every time... because of using gasoline ours blew up easily... Also interesting their machine guns had barrels that could be removed quickly and replaced in seconds if they melted due to to excessive rapid fire, ours took about 30 minutes... Not good in combat, ours became useless quickly. Our planes at the start were very inferior ... but with time we caught up and exceeded them (in numbers as well). Tanks in WWI and planes when improved made trench warfare obsolete ... Technology again... and WWII ended with a couple of nukes (technology) which one else had.. They made the end come much more quickly and with less of lives on both sides which an invasion would have created. The fact that the British had newly developed radar (which Germany didn't realize existed) kept Britain from losing the "The Battle of Britain" because they always had their planes in the air when the Germans were arriving and not sitting on the ground to be destroyed.

--A lot of these programs are very interesting and informative. ... and points WHY certain countries win and how.... . Just be thankful Germany did not wait to start WWII when they had better jets, better rockets, and even nuke weapons ... all of which they were working on then.

Even in the American Revolution we were using long rifles which were accurate at distances the British muskets couldn't hit anything. Technology wins when numbers are not excessively slanted. Remembering a military quote I read once .. "90% of our military development budget is making our weapons 10% better'. Better wins .. even in western gunfight..10% faster/better usually wins.

You left out one very important reason wars are won, especially in this day and age.

Will.

The will to fight. The will to completely crush your enemy. The will to suffer massive casualties while doing so.

The Vietcong understood this very well and were much more committed to the cause and willing to suffer much greater casualties than the US. And they won the war.

Will. I wonder often if the US or it's NATO allies has such a thing anymore.

[CMJ]

You left out one very important reason wars are won, especially in this day and age.

Will.

The will to fight. The will to completely crush your enemy. The will to suffer massive casualties while doing so.

The Vietcong understood this very well and were much more committed to the cause and willing to suffer much greater casualties than the US. And they won the war.

Will. I wonder often if the US or it's NATO allies has such a thing anymore.

I think it was General Pershing (to take it back to a WWI figure, even though he was discussing the Philippines at the time) that said something along the lines of the harder wars to win are the small ones, because you aren't fighting armies. That's the problem with engagements like Afghanistan. There are no divisions to fight - your opponent can just bleed away somewhere else and reform. It makes it almost impossible to ever have a "victory."

[MeanGreenMarine]

Or go to Belleau Wood. Its where the Marines beat the dog piss out of the German's and its where the term "Teufel Hunden" ("devil dogs") came from. We ended up saving the French and Paris from getting their nuts smashed in by the German offensive.

Semper Fi

[CMJ]

Or go to Belleau Wood. Its where the Marines beat the dog piss out of the German's and its where the term "Teufel Hunden" ("devil dogs") came from. We ended up saving the French and Paris from getting their nuts smashed in by the German offensive.

Semper Fi

I believe the article pointed out several places you can go. I wasn't suggesting any above the others. It's just usually Americans visit Normandy and not any of the WWI memorials.

[MeanGreenMarine]

I know. I was just trying to share some morning motivation.

[CMJ]

For a local DFW WWI connection, this story was on Channel 11 last month. So for any of you that live in Fort Worth and didn't know - now you do.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/07/28/thousands-pass-by-forgotten-wwi-memorial-everyday/

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

You left out one very important reason wars are won, especially in this day and age.

Will.

The will to fight. The will to completely crush your enemy. The will to suffer massive casualties while doing so.

The Vietcong understood this very well and were much more committed to the cause and willing to suffer much greater casualties than the US. And they won the war.

Will. I wonder often if the US or it's NATO allies has such a thing anymore.

.

---I will not disagree with you ...... wars on someones home turf is very difficult to completely win.... You can defeat their army as such. .... with superior weapons and numbers.... but can't control the citizens/locals who will fight back.... Same happened in Iraq somewhat .. note all the roadside bombs that occurred after their army was defeated and gone. ...

.

--- Never is the will to win of those who invade is as strong as those whose homeland has been invaded... especially true in today's world of weapons that don't require you to be face to face as in older times. The countries we "invaded" in WWII and also Kuwait wanted the other invaders out... so we were welcome and succeeded...

--Part of the reason Germany had no fond memories of the Nazi is because Eisenhower forced people who lived near concentration camps to enter and personally to clean up the bodies, see the terrible conditions of living people, and mess that was there... They then realized how evil their government had been first hand. .. plus they had lost millions of citizens and their homeland was now a wreak due to their government's actions... they lost all will to fight for that government..... I knew one former German guy in my town that said he was the oldest living male in his entire family.. the rest were dead... he was 14. The will to fight was gone.... and not everyone there supported that government anyway or that non-stop propaganda about being superior or against people of a different religion that they were told...

Edited August 29, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

.

---I will not disagree with you ...... wars on someones home turf is very difficult to completely win.... You can defeat their army as such. .... with superior weapons and numbers.... but can't control the citizens/locals who will fight back.... Same happened in Iraq somewhat .. note all the roadside bombs that occurred after their army was defeated and gone. ...

.

--- Never is the will to win of those who invade is as strong as those whose homeland has been invaded... especially true in today's world of weapons that don't require you to be face to face as in older times. The countries we "invaded" in WWII and also Kuwait wanted the other invaders out... so we were welcome and succeeded...

--Part of the reason Germany had no fond memories of the Nazi is because Eisenhower forced people who lived near concentration camps to enter and personally to clean up the bodies, see the terrible conditions of living people, and mess that was there... They then realized how evil their government had been first hand. .. plus they had lost millions of citizens and their homeland was now a wreak due to their government's actions... they lost all will to fight for that government..... I knew one former German guy in my town that said he was the oldest living male in his entire family.. the rest were dead... he was 14. The will to fight was gone.... and not everyone there supported that government anyway or that non-stop propaganda about being superior or against people of a different religion that they were told...

The USSR disagrees with your occupation theory. They were successful for decades because they had the will to do whatever was necessary to crush opposition.

If they even thought you were plotting against them, you vanished from the face of the earth.

Again, Will. What are governments and people's willing to do.

Obviously, we aren't Russia, and would never attempt to forcibly occupy a country for decades.

The majority of Iraqi's wanted us there. The slim minority chose roadside bombs as their only way of fighting back, because they obviously couldn't do it through winning free and fair elections. So please stop saying the Iraqi people caused us to "lose" a war.

I believe we, as a people, have lost the stomach to fight for what we believe in and support those who do. Everyone will give lip service to the military, but a lot of the time, that's all it is. Are we willing to go to war and lose 500,000 lives to protect what we have?

Sadly, I don't think so.

[CMJ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/travel/in-france-artifacts-of-americas-role-in-world-war-i.html?_r=2

Another moving New York Times piece.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/travel/in-france-artifacts-of-americas-role-in-world-war-i.html?_r=2

Another moving New York Times piece.

. .

Those who "slam" France should read it. They don't always do what we want and I am sure we don't always do what they want (Invading Iraq was one of them) ....but they appreciate what we have done for them in the past.. Today's newspaper is reporting they are also bombing ISIS positions in Iraq... A lot of other European countries aren't doing much if anything to help...

Also remember our Statue of Liberty was a gift from them about 1876 (100 yrs after our independence)... not anyone else.... They have a smaller version in Paris.

Edited September 19, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[CMJ]

“Lafayette, nous ici!”

[CMJ]

I typed this up for the World War One Centennial Commission's Website. My Great Grandfather was in the 36th Division (which I didn't even know till a few weeks ago), which is the reason for my interest in this engagement. I used as my main resources the Doughboy Center and the online book that was posted here about the 36th.

******************

The Battle for Blanc Mont Ridge might be the most forgotten major engagement that the AEF took part in World War One. The Champagne region of France had been held by Germany since the “race to the sea” after the First Battle of the Marne. The linchpin of this defense was Blanc Mont. From the ridge, enemy artillery could shower advancing Frenchmen with fire. After repeated attempts to take the position in 1915 failed, the French gave up on occupying the castle like stronghold. Champagne would stay in German hands for the better part of four years. It was only during the Hundred Days Offensive that the Allies endeavored to reduce the location again. The Champagne was a key part in the French sector of advance. If Blonc Mont held, France's drive would founder.

The war weary French once more tried, and failed, to move the Germans off the heights. Their command pleaded with General Pershing for two American Divisions to spearhead a renewed assault. The thinking was, this operation needed spirited troops to make the charge, and her own were too broken down by the repeated sacrifices she had made to overcome the hell that awaited the action. Pershing, who was always reticent to give up troops to fight under other flags, agreed. He gave the French Fourth army the well-seasoned 2nd (most famous for the Battle of Belleau Wood) as well as the green 36th Division for the project.

On October 3rd, the 2nd Division attacked and took the ridge. However, they advanced far beyond the supporting French Divisions, and were vulnerable to many counter attacks on their flanks. Despite heavy losses, the 2nd held their ground and pushed on to the town of St. Etienne. They were then relieved by the 36th Division. The new troops, who had never seen combat before, were immediately engaged in a series of attacks and counter attacks that eventually secured the town. Numerous machine guns had to be knocked out at a high cost and while the Germans were on the retreat, they had every intention of making it as bloody as possible for the advancing infantry. The 36th eventually pushed the German forces all the way to the River Aisne, finally removing all resistance in a terrific surprise attack at Forest Farm on October 27th.

In the 24 days of the operation, over 7800 Americans were killed or wounded to liberate the Champagne from the Germans. Marshal Pétain (then the hero of Verdun, before his collaboration with the Vichy government in WWII) called it the greatest single achievement of the 1918 campaign. The majestic Sommepy Monument pays tribute to the 2nd and 36th, as well as the 42nd (who stopped an advance in the region in July) and the 93rd (who liberated the nearby town of Ripont). Unfortunately, this monument and the AEF soldiers who fought for the French in this region are largely forgotten, even by WWI buffs.

Edited October 1, 2014 by CMJ

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

36th Division.... known as T-patch division which has a patch with a T inside of an arrowhead..... because it was made up mostly of Texans and Oklahomans .. which was also true in WWII at the beginning. It is now the Texas National guard (or reserve) I believe.... . US highway 36 through Texas honors them with several signs and a monument appears on the state capital grounds and in Brownwood where they trained (at Camp Bowie) in WWII.

This unit was also the first American unit to land on European soil in WWII at Salerno, Italy.. near Naples seaport and then move up toward Rome.... They landed in Italy 9 months before D-day or the Normandy invasion...... They later invaded France near Marseilles, France (southern part) . Audie Murphy (Texas kid, that was the most decorated WWII soldier) was in another mostly Texas division that fought near them much of the time.

____

I knew a man whose flyer brother escaped from an Italian POW camp with a buddy... they stole Italian clothes from a clothes line and also a hoe and shovel .... they then walked 100's of miles south acting like farmers working in fields when German convoys came near them.... they lived off of fruit on trees and taking food from cellars... They met the 36th Division coming toward them from the south... and rejoined the fight and flew again.. The man (the brother) I knew was in the 36th Division and also taken prisoner but for only about a month before the war ended. .

Edited October 1, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66