Betrayal at Little Gibraltar: A German Fortress, a Treacherous American General, and the Battle to End World War I

by William T. Walker

The work of a lifetime: A vivid, thrilling, and impeccably researched account of America’s bloodiest foreign battle ever—World War I’s Meuse-Argonne Offensive—and the 100-year-old shocking cover-up at its heart.

The year is 1918. German engineers have fortified Montfaucon, a rocky butte in northern France, with bunkers, trenches, and giant guns. Following a number of bloody, unsuccessful attacks, the French deem Montfaucon impregnable and dub it the Little Gibraltar of the Western Front. Capturing it requires 1.2 million American soldiers, and 122,000 American casualties. But at the heart of the victory is a betrayal of Americans by Americans. Now William T. Walker tells the full story in his masterful Betrayal at Little Gibraltar.

In the assault on Montfaucon, American forces became strangely bogged down, a delay that cost untold thousands of lives as the Germans defended their position with no mercy. Years of archival research demonstrate that the actual cause of the failure was the disobedience of a senior American officer, Lieutenant General Robert E. Lee Bullard, who subverted orders to assist the US 79th Division, under the command of General John J. Pershing. The result was unnecessary slaughter of American doughboys. Although several officers discovered the circumstances, Pershing protected Bullard—an old friend from West Point days—and covered up the story. The true account of the battle was almost lost to time.

Betrayal at Little Gibraltar tells vivid human stories of the soldiers who fought to capture the giant fortress and push the American advance. Using unpublished first-person accounts—and featuring photographs, documents, and maps that place you in the action—Walker describes the horrors of World War I combat, the sacrifices of the doughboys, and the determined efforts of two participants to pierce the cover-up and to solve the mystery of Montfaucon. Like Stephen Ambrose and S.C. Gwynne, Walker is writing popular history at its best.

Genres: History, World War I, War, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, American History, European History

447 pages, Hardcover

First published May 10, 2016

Reviews

[Betsy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The U.S. entered the Great War in 1917 with a great deal to learn. Early on they had to rely on their allies for much of their supplies because they weren't able to provide their own. What they could provide were men, men who frequently had little training, but were eager to do their part. This book looks at some of those men, and those who led them in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.

John Pershing, the commander of the AEF, wanted the men to fight as as an American army, not scattered throughout the British or French armies. After several successful operations such as Belleau Wood and Chateau-Thierry, the Americans, in the fall of 1918, were given their chance to take on the Hindenburg Line, but first it was necessary to take on Montfaucon, a hill with an observatory on top. Chosen to take the hill by those in command was the 79th Division (V Corps), men who were lacking in training but not in fighting spirit. This book deals with the ordeal they went through on the battlefield, and the machinations of those who were supposed to support them.

The author believes that the commander of III Corps, Robert Bullard, disobeyed his orders to turn the right flank so that this would enable the 79th to take its objective. The 79th eventually did take Montfaucon, but a day and a half late, which caused severe problems in the effort to break through to the 'Kriemhilde Stellung'.

Walker spends considerable time on the battle, but he also concentrates on the post-war years as some of the officers try to get justice for the 79th, and all those who sacrificed their lives in the futile attempt to take Montfaucon on September 26, 1918. It is a complicated story, which offers a dark look at men who seemed to care little for the men they were supposed to lead.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr Walker's detailed and highly researched volume on a critical battle at the end of WWI is a fast-paced, highly readable and well argued position that disobeyed orders by top brass resulted in thousands of unnecessary casualties and a prolongation of the the war.

It is often said that history is written by the winners, and General Pershing had every opportunity to present his view of the war, which has become the most-publicized view of WWI for American readers over the past almost 100 years, including identification of heroes and less-than-heroic military leaders in the conflict. Dr Walker's research has led him to believe that that view is the result of a well-organized coverup - one that the American public let happen, mostly from a combination of the victory plus dramatic war weariness followed by the euphoria of the roaring 20's and then the depth of the great depression.

I think his argument makes a lot of sense - but now, the gauntlet has been thrown, and it is time to hear from the proponents of the conventional view of the war - the "other side" - i.e., if Dr Walker is mistaken in his argument, then why so?

Meanwhile, Dr Walker's writing highlights many personal stories of more-or-less unsung soldiers in the Argonne in the closing months of the war, largely volunteers responding to their country's call, or in some cases, drafted, "ordinary" men from all walks of life, whose lives were severely altered by the war to end all wars.

Congratulations, Dr Walker, on a well-told story - we need to continue our skepticism about the "conventional wisdom".

[Alex Black]

I have rarely felt so accomplished upon completing a book. This was an absolute struggle for me, but very worthwhile in the end.

I'm leaving this unrated because I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to judge this book. I normally rate based on enjoyment, but I enjoyed this book very little. If I were rating just on that, this would probably rank around one or two stars. That didn't feel right because it's nonfiction, and in particular, nonfiction about a topic I in general have no interest in. I knew going in this book wasn't for me, but I read it anyway in order to gain something from it.

I also can't judge it based on merit or how well it discussed the Meuse Argonne Offensive because I really have no idea. I couldn't have told you which war that came from before reading this book, and I'm honestly not even sure I'd heard of it before. Is it a good account of it? Possibly. I couldn't say.

But I got a lot out of it. Not as much as the book had to offer, but I learned so much about this particular offensive, WW1 in general, and a lot of key players of the time. It was worthwhile in that way. I learned a lot. I did struggle following the description military action (which was pretty much all of the book, and I was kind of expecting a little more history surrounding it, rather than just a play by play), but I'm so glad I picked it up and struggled my way through.

I definitely couldn't appreciate to the full extent, though. I couldn't really discuss any of the points from this book in greater detail. But I learned a lot and pushed myself out of my comfort zone, which was the goal.

[Terri Wangard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was not the easiest book to read. It was maddening. The American generals—Pershing, Bullard, Kuhn, others—didn’t care about their men. Their only concern appeared to be for their own reputations. Take the battle at any cost. Just don’t make me look bad.

Yes, Bullard was guilty of treason. An army commander spot was open. The likely candidates were General Cameron and himself. So he started a bad-mouthing campaign. He took pride in being insubordinate, and tried to deflect notice by complaining that Cameron’s army wasn’t doing its job. If he had done the turning maneuver as ordered, Cameron would have gotten the credit, and the glory, and Bullard refused to share the laurels with him.

Pershing should not have been in command of the American armies. He let the French bully him into battles the Americans were unprepared for. He ordered advances, ignorant of the battlefield conditions. And always, without regard to cost.

He was against having American troops fill into the British or French armies, insistent on keeping all-American units under his command. And yet the Americans were ignorant of modern battle techniques. After four years of horrendous war, the allies had adapted. It would likely have been better for the American doughboys to be spread around. That, of course, wouldn’t have netted Pershing any glory.

After the war, he quashed anyone trying to investigate the fiasco of the Meuse-Argonne battle. And he expected to become President because that’s what winning generals did. He was no match for Washington or Grant.

Betrayal at Little Gibraltar is enlightening. I was confused as to the timeframe. It wasn’t immediately apparent to me that the Meuse-Argonne campaign came at the end of the war. Going back after I’d finished, I did see the date: September 1918. I’d missed that. From comments in chapter one, it sounded like this was the beginning of American involvement. Reading from a kindle, it’s not possible to flip through pages for a quick look back.

Regardless, this is a fabulous book.

I received a free copy from Netgalley for my honest review.

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a brutal, no holds barred look at World War I’s Meuse-Argonne Offensive. Walker takes you right in the trenches for the battle, as well as out of them for a closer look at the General in charge. Extremely well written and researched, I think this is a must for any history fan, especially if you love WW1. Highly recommended.

**I received this copy via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review**

[Triumphal Reads · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 out of 5 stars - Full review can be found at - https://triumphalreads.com/betrayal-a...

Cons - Only that the author has an axe to grind, but he defends his argument well. (Really, this isn't strictly a con, but may be for some people.)
Pros - Well researched
- Great use of primary source material
- Great narrative of the 79th through the Meuse-Argonne Offensive
- Cultural and personal vignettes are presented
- The cover-up is documented thoroughly

[Blake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intwesting, vewwwy intwesting. Love me a good war book. This was dense with military jargon and tough to follow some of the battle plans, but I liked and moved through it faster than expected. Would recommend if you’re into things like treachery and vivid descriptions of the hell that was WWI.

[Chuck · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well researched book about the Meuse Argonne Offensive late in WW1 which was crucial to the German collapse. The Meuse Argonne Offensive resulted in over 25,000 US dead and over 95,000 wounded. The Montfaucon assault is one part of the offensive and arguably the worst.

Montfaucon was captured by the Germans early in WW1. Atop a ridge which dominates the local countryside, Montfaucon was used as an artillery observation post to deadly effect during the Battle of Verdun and any other battle in the area. By 1918, Montfaucon was heavily fortified and defended by a German Army with fours years of experience defending trenches. Every part of the battlefield was pre sited with machine guns and artillery.

The 79th Division was slated to attack this crucial point in the German line. The 4th Division was to attack on the right of the 79th, move forward, then encircle Montfaucon from the flank and rear. Capturing Montfaucon was essential for two reasons. First, the US needed to take this artillery observation point. Second, taking Montfaucon might have, just might have, allowed the long sought after break through on the Western Front to get the Allies past the German trenches and to capture rail lines essential to supplying the German forces.

Although the 4th Division was a veteran division, the 79th was a green unit which had not even had the benefit of completing its basic training! The 79th was, at times, still using 19th century massed formation assault tactics. Think Pickett's Charge against concrete bunkers and machine guns.

The 4th Division advanced but never attacked Montfaucon from the flank and rear as ordered by Gen. Pershing. This book examines the battle, the reasons why the 4th never conducted a flank attack, and the post war investigation into these events.

Montfaucon and the 79th deserve more recognition and notoriety in US military history. Excellent book.

[Jack H. · Rating 5 out of 5]

General Sherman famously said: “War is hell.” Facing machine guns and artillery on the slopes of Montfaucon, an impregnable German fortress overlooking the Meuse Valley in France in autumn 1918, one American doughboy turned to another and quipped, “Sherman wasn’t emphatic enough, was he, old cookie?” The inferno, horror and tragedy of war--in particular, World War I--is the recurring theme of "Betrayal at Little Gibraltar," written by William Walker.

American history has far too many examples of battles won or lost under exceeding desperate circumstances, later found to have been needless or preventable. Custer’s Last Stand is the prime example. The 2011 fight for COP Keating in Afghanistan, commemorated in Clinton Romesha’s "Red Platoon," is a more recent case. But, 99 years ago, American troops were assigned to crack one of the toughest nuts on the Western Front: the fortified hilltop of Montfaucon. This assault would launch the Meuse-Argonne offensive, intended to end the war in one fell swoop after four blood-soaked years.

With very good reason, French troops, years before the doughboys' arrival in fall 1918, dubbed the looming, rocky mass “Little Gibraltar.” Montfaucon was the key to a major portion of the Kaiser’s Hindenburg Line; its capture could shorten the war by weeks or months. Machine-gun bunkers, barbed-wire webs, and hidden artillery positions studded its slopes.

To top it off, Kaiser Wilhelm’s son, the Crown Prince, built a secret observatory with a gigantic armored periscope that could see the Allies’ positions for over 25 miles and rain down deadly accurate artillery fire. In "The Lord of the Rings," J.R.R. Tolkein wrote of a malevolent, all-seeing eye atop a tower by a mountain ringed by fire. Montfaucon was Tolkein’s fable come to life--and it took the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers, in a matter of days, in September 1918.

The product of 20 years of research, Walker‘s book is well written, impeccably researched, and lavishly illustrated. It sets a gripping pace and makes a compelling case that the slaughter at Montfaucon was not only preventable: it was the result of--in one word--ego. One man emerges as the prime candidate. In an army riven, in the midst of a titanic struggle, with unexpected challenges and chaotic demands, this general was enough of a careerist not to lose sight of the goal of advancing his own career over that of his fellow officers. It gives away nothing of Walker’s masterful account to say that the general officer in question set in motion a chain that led to the slaughter of masses of U.S. troops at Montfaucon.

To call this general’s actions a dereliction of duty might be understatement; Walker would choose a more telling and pungent word: murder. The poignant images of doughboys silencing German machine guns by human-wave attacks are a searing indictment of the direct consequences of one senior officer's egotism. Montfaucon might be seen as an American version of the Charge of the Light Brigade, but the truths of what happened there were shrouded for years. Two former officers doggedly documented “the reason why” but, as Walker makes plain, those truths were ignored or suppressed.

"Betrayal at Little Gibraltar" goes far to right an almost-forgotten wrong that took place almost one hundred years ago. It reminds a modern generation of the truth of the Roman adage, “War consumes all”--and its first casualty, as has been said, is often the truth.

[Buck Edwards · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like those readers before me, I can only agree that 'Betrayal' is tough to stomach. As a veteran of the Vietnam war, and a combat journalist there for the 101st Airborne, I learned much about the deception of how wars are portrayed. As is often the case, an entire public can be swayed by a steady misrepresentation of the facts.
It is shocking sometimes to realize the severe rivalry between upper echelon officers, and their often disregard for the actual fighting ranks and their junior officers. It is they, on the bottom rung, that do the fighting, and the winning or losing of battles, and often from poor planning from the top. The common soldier rarely has a voice. William Walker, thank God, has given them one, albeit, 100 years too late.
I have read scores of books on WWI, but 'Betrayal at Little Gibraltar' fills in so many cracks with truths that remain hard to bear. Black Jack Pershing emerges as a traitor to his men, and to the nation's memory of that war, as I have long suspected. My thanks to William Walker. At least for me, my conscience is clear--I wrote feature stories about the many heroes of the Vietnam war, something overlooked by those from the civilian media I had the added chore of escorting through our battlegrounds. If Vietnam really was a lost war, it was lost by the planners and the press, not the warriors.

[Joe Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book covering the controversy over the assault on Montfaucon on the open day at Meuse Argonne offensive in the Great War. The first quarter or so of the book deals with how the author came to discover this controversy and the cover-up of it by General Pershing, plus the history of the key individuals involved, and the history of the 79th Division prior to the battle. The next 50% of the book covers the battle at Montfaucon and up to the end of the war. The final 25% goes into the post-war investigation & cover-up, the effects on the men, and what happen to the key individuals in the post-war life.

It really is a moving story of honor denied to the men of the 79th that they were made it to scapegoats for the failure to seize Montfaucon on the first day of battle when it clear that the flanking Corps commander deliberately disobeyed orders to do a flanking assault which might have lead to the captured of Montfaucon on the first day and could have broken the German defenses for that Corps commander's personal glory and because he had a personal grudge against the Corps commander that the 79th was under.

Definitely a read if you have any interest in the American Army in the Great War.

[Gina Lynette · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible. -- Edwin Land, creator of the Polaroid

While the above quote could apply to the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, I believe it to be a decent assessment of Bill Walker's approach to researching and writing this book. It took him some 20 years to complete this project and the effort shows in the thoroughness of his coverage of the topic as well as his compelling telling of the story in his always-careful prose.

Full disclosure: I'm Bill's cousin and adore him. I wouldn't have picked up this book -- much less finished it -- unless that were the case. I'm not one to read a whole lot about battle tactics or the gruesome reality that was World War I. That said, it's a brilliant, if infuriating, work.

"The Meuse-Argonne Offensive remains the largest and bloodiest battle in US military history. Although the forty-seven-day campaign never attained its objective of cutting the rail lines between Sedan and Mézières, it involved 1.2 million American troops, of whom 26,277 died and 95,786 were wounded. These totals far surpass those of the World War II battles at Normandy and the Bulge." (from the book)

100 years later, I can't help but mourn the Doughboy lives lost because a callous man wanted an extra star pinned on his shoulder. Thanks, Bill, for relitigating this history and telling their stories.

[Joseph Hamilton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I only wish the author had stepped back a few paces and elaborated on the war in the adjacent sectors of the battlefield. I was left with the unsubstantiated impression that the entire Meuse-Argonne offensive - the largest in U.S. history - revolved around the German strongpoint at Montfaucon. How the central character, Major Parkin, went from being pinned down before Montfaucon in the opening two days of the campaign to advancing further than any other American could have also benefitted from a big picture perspective.

[David Vernon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have tended to avoid histories about US involvement in WWI written by American authors as they tend to be jingoistic. However, this book was level-headed, detailed, intriguing and gave an excellent overview of the later part of WWI and the US involvement. While it was clear that the author had an axe to grind, he was transparent about this and compellingly buttressed his arguments. For a gripping read about military incompetence, this is an excellent read.

[Al Berry · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting look as some particulars of the Meuse Argonne offense, specifically General Robert Lee Bullard’s failure to take Montfaucon on the first day of battle. It was merely an okay book, nothing bad but nothing great about it, I’d recommend it if your interested in American military involvement of WW 1, otherwise pass.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good book about an important battle between American and German forces in WWI. The book skewers some of the American officers responsible for the debacle, painting them as self-serving careerists. It is an unvarnished look at those who failed and the petty self-interested reasons for doing so.

[Rick Westenkirchner · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent picture of what happened in the trenches and what was happening behind the scenes of World War I

[Paul Strickler · Rating 5 out of 5]

A riveting account of the heroism and horror of the AEF in WW1 and the lessons that they had to learn quickly and bloodily.

[David Barnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting perspective on WWI

[Eric Loos · Rating 5 out of 5]

The 79th division was done dirty. Rest in Piss, General Bullard.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disclosure: I received a review copy of this book from NetGalley.

In the late summer of 1918, the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) attempted a logistical feat by breaking off one battle, moving to the other side of the French fortress city of Verdun, and attacking again. In order to have forces in place to step off in time, the AEF had to bring into line units which were not properly acclimated to France. One of these units, the 79th Infantry Division, is the subject of William T. Walker's book Betrayal at Little Gibraltar. The 79ID was thrown into a battle it was not prepared for, and then, as Walker argues, made a scapegoat for the lack of progress in the early campaign.

Walker describes the genesis of this book with a story. In the early 1990s, he was an administrator at Gettysburg College and was reading a book on WWI in the college library. In the margins and at the back of the book were notes from an American major from the 79ID, repudiating points made in the book. Sometime later, Walker set out to prove the repudiation correct. In doing so, he verges on the polemic, but he is very plain about his point. He is not writing to objectively describe the past: he is making an argument about culpability and judgment.

To do this, Walker begins by setting the stage. The significance of "Little Gibraltar", the hill village of Montfaucon, in the Argonne region of France, is explained, as well as the challenge taking it would entail. But he quickly moves into his argument. The 79ID was formed from draftees and was nearly fully trained when it was broken up and most of the division was transferred away. The remaining force was reinforced with fresh conscripts and sent to France. This, Walker argues, is the first step in setting up the 79ID for slaughter. In France, the standard was to acclimate new divisions in stages, And these were skipped when the Meuse-Argonne offensive was planned.

What Walker doesn't investigate is if the 79ID was originally intended to be a depot division--the AEF handled replacements by moving them through training as part of a numbered division whose only role was to bring incoming soldiers up to a training standard before transferring them on to combat divisions. For instance, the 32nd Infantry Division was originally intended to be a depot division, but its commander convinced Pershing to put them on the line. Did the commander of the 79ID have a role in putting his men up front so quickly? That could have been an important point going forward.

Walker makes a convincing argument for how the offensive plan was intended to play out, and for how it went wrong. A neighboring unit was supposed to flank the Germans out of their strong positions as the 79ID attacked their front. The turning movement never happened, and the 79ID had to slog forward anyway. Walker implies this is a betrayal, and in the opinion of this reviewer that argument is naive. To be blunt: war sucks, and let's not use hindsight to press conclusions which ignore culture. You can't expect the AEF to bleed a veteran unit dry in the frontal attack, and the failure of the turning movement to materialize is understandable given the Army's internal culture. However, a legitimate betrayal occurs following the attack.

The Meuse-Argonne offensive originally failed. The 79ID was cut up, the Keystone Division was stopped cold, other divisions were thrown back to their original lines. Successful attacks were few and far between. In the wake of this, the 79ID was treated differently. Its leaders were condemned, embarrassed, pushed harder. In official histories, it was castigated while other units which also failed to achieve success were not. The reasons for this treatment are various and well-explored by Walker. This, in my opinion, is the meat of the book, and where it shines.

Going into this book, I rolled by eyes at the dramatic title. But, in fairness, Walker has pretty much convinced me that the 79ID got the short end. It's an impressive first book, and definitely worth a read. Walker is not a trained historian, but, as a retired college administrator and one-time English professor, he is no stranger to argumentation. And he argues forcefully with carefully chosen evidence, but also does not ignore contrary views. Instead, he attacks them. As mentioned before, it verges on being polemical. Read the book, but be aware that the writer is presenting an argument to you.

[Elite Group · Rating 4 out of 5]

AN AMERICAN TRUE LIFE HORROR STORY FROM WORLD WAR 1

The title alone can be a little misleading. This is not a book about Gibraltar on the southern tip of Spain, but about a redoubt, Montfaucon, held by the Germans for most of the war situated on the Meuse river in north eastern France.


Mr Walker has done meticulous research for the book, and introduces the histories of the main participants. His backgrounds include the American Civil War, the Spanish-American War and the Philippines and show how the character of these participants was formed. He takes us from the landing of the U.S. Expeditionary Force in France in 1917 through to the storming of Montfaucon.

The first part of the book gives us the build up to the attack, with cameos of the German position, the relationship between the French and U.S. commanders, and the state of the men on the ground, the “dough-boys”. He then moves on to describe the storming of the German position. Finally, we reach the aftermath of the operation. Here is where we learn of the political and military establishment cover-ups, the egos and the anger of the various participants (The Betrayal).

All said, a very interesting and well written history. It does help to have some knowledge of the period as some things were touched on briefly (e.g. The Schlieffen Plan). It was also a revelation, to me at least, how fiercely the Germans were prepared to fight and how organised they were still, after four years of stalemate, and within six weeks of the capitulation of Imperial Germany. A deserved 4-star rating for uncovering the sordid tale in a readable manner, and unfolding the sheer horror of the war and the almost disposable use of soldiers as machine-gun fodder in the grim quest for territorial advancement.

Mr Bumblebee


Breakaway Reviewers received a copy of the book to review.

[JerryDeanHalleck · Rating 2 out of 5]

Telling of a little known incident during the Battle of the Meuse-Argonne. Dr. Walker has done his research and makes you realize how vicious and bloody the fighting was, and how brave "The Doughboys" were in tackling an unending line of machine gun nests and fortifications with nothing more then bayonets and rifles.

Unfortunately, he overdoes the "Gen Bullard was a villain" trope. If every battle commander who made a mistake or missed an opportunity to out-flank the enemy was a criminal, then every other US General would been imprisoned. Everyone's natural inclination is to look after their troops first, and accomplish *their* mission, and help "the other guy" second. Of course, having villains and heroes makes it an interesting read. People rarely want to read the dull "grey" truth.

In any case, Pershing was the man at fault. If Montfaucon was truly the key to the whole battle, then Bullard's orders should *clearly* have stated that. But they didn't. In any case, it was taken on the 2nd day. IMO, the Meuse-Argonne battle should never have been fought. Pershing either completely underestimated the Germans, or wimped out and accepted an impossible task from Foch. The Meuse-Argonne was the worst place to fight on the Western Front, and to attack it with an inexperienced Army was madness.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review originally posted at Book of Bogan

Betrayal at Little Gibraltar is a gritty, down-in-the-mud look at one of the lesser-known (at least to me) battles of World War 1. It follows the men and officers of the 79th Division in their bloody stalemate battle against the fortress of Montfaucon.

It seems to me from reading quite a number of historical books about the war that it is some sort of miracle that any nation won the first world war. It is difficult to countenance the endless bloodshed which occurred in the battle for this particular strong point.

I realise that the author has set out to make an argument in this book - the eponymous 'betrayal' - but to be honest, he lost me somewhere along the way. I don't believe that it is the first instance of betrayal - either through wilful action, or sheer incompetence - which occurred in the First World War.

I received a copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

I note the above in the position in this review for a particular reason. While I found it to be an interesting enough read, and believe that it adds to the quantum of the literature on the First World War, I don't think that is a book which would immediately leap off the shelves for me.

[Ken Ransom · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Meuse-Argonne Offensive remains the largest and bloodiest battle in US military history and it has largely been forgotten. BETRAYAL AT LITTLE GIBRALTAR recounts this tale of deliberate misinterpretation of orders and an army cover-up afterward. It's a story of selfish glory-hungry self-interest set against the courage of those 1.2 million American troops, of whom 26,277 died, and 95,786 were wounded during the forty-seven-day campaign with the never attained objective of cutting the rail lines between Sedan and Mszieres.

[Bill Baar · Rating 5 out of 5]

The chapters on the aftermath and post war spin the bests parts. I haven't read much on the American battle experience in WW1, and this is one I'll be referencing. A great read on how small people in big jobs can create disasters and successfully cover them up for years.

[Steve Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful combination of “in the trenches” and big picture perspectives, Walker’s book is the one work I would recommend to anyone wanting to know about the American Expeditionary Force’s experience in World War I. Of the books I’ve read so far on the conflict, this is among the best.

[Sharon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read, well researched. Different perspective on Pershing. for the WWI buffs lots of battle details