What do you think?
Rate this book
Through the Wheat: The U.S. Marines in World War I
U.S. Marine participation in World War I is known as a defining moment in the Marine Corps' great history. It is a story of exceptional heroism and significant operational achievements, along with lessons learned the hard way. The Marines entered World War I as a small force of seagoing light infantry that had rarely faced a well-armed enemy. On a single June day, in their initial assault 'through the wheat' on Belleau Wood against German machine-guns and poison gas shells, the Marines suffered more casualties than they had experienced in all their previous 142 years. Yet at Belleau Wood, Soissons, Blanc Mont, St. Mihiel, and the Meuse-Argonne the Marines proved themselves to be hard-nosed diehards with an affinity for close combat. Nearly a century later Belleau Wood still resonates as a touchstone battle of the Corps.
Two retired Marines, well known for their achievements both in uniform and with the pen, have recorded this rich history in a way that only insiders can. Brig. Gen. Edwin H. Simmons and Col. Joseph H. Alexander recount events and colorful personalities in telling detail, capturing the spirit that earned the 4th Marine Brigade three awards of the French Croix de Guerre and launched the first pioneering detachments of 'Flying Leathernecks.' Here, hand-to-hand combat seen through the lenses of a gas mask is accompanied by thought-provoking assessments of the war's impact on the Marine Corps.
Two retired Marines, well known for their achievements both in uniform and with the pen, have recorded this rich history in a way that only insiders can. Brig. Gen. Edwin H. Simmons and Col. Joseph H. Alexander recount events and colorful personalities in telling detail, capturing the spirit that earned the 4th Marine Brigade three awards of the French Croix de Guerre and launched the first pioneering detachments of 'Flying Leathernecks.' Here, hand-to-hand combat seen through the lenses of a gas mask is accompanied by thought-provoking assessments of the war's impact on the Marine Corps.
296 pages, Hardcover
First published June 4, 2008
10 people are currently reading
50 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 21, 2021
This is rather technical but still a good read and if you are a fan of the United States Marines it is a must have. The book seems to have been a career long labor of love that one of the Old Breed never quite published and the project was picked up by a few younger Marine officers.
We associate Quantico, VA, San Diego, and Paris Island with the United States Marine Corp but all three training camps came into being to support the US Marines in their effort to field a force First To Fight . Prior to WW1, the Marines had never put more than 5000 men in the field.
Through the Wheat talks about the two Regiments and after training in the trenches of Verdun were used to stop cold a German offensive on open ground at Les Meres Farms in France. The French were being routed by the Ludendorff offensives. The Allies were throwing Frenchmen in the breach and they were being overwhelmed. The French XXI Corp commander General Dougette wanted to throw the Marines in too. But Marine ColonelBrown demurred. The Marines were tired from an all night March. Their machines guns were not up. Colonel Brown suggested a defensive line to form in the French rear with a counterattack to follow. General Dougette reluctantly to a line astride the Paris road just east of Compru but remained doubtful. “Could the Americans hold?”
“General,” promised Colonel Brown, “these are American regulars. In 150 years they have never been beaten. They will hold!” This is how the 9th US infantry and the 6th Marines entered the battle which became Les Mares Farms.
Next was the offensive at Belleau Woods. The three week struggle for Belleau Woods ranks as one of the greatest battles of the twentieth century for the U.S. Marines, a touchstone that compares with Iwo Jima in 1945 and the Chosin Reservoir in 1950.
On June 6, 1918, the moment they launched their first assault on the dark woodland, the Marines abruptly left behind 14 decades of small scale skirmishes with insurgents, pirates, and light infantry regiments and entered the industrialized world of massive fire power and wholesale slaughter. Costly mistakes in command, intelligence, and communications reflected their difficult transition. In the end, the Marines’ stubborn pride and affinity for close combat- the same diehard aggressiveness that had characterized their old ship-to-ship boarding parties - helped them to prevail over a veteran foe surprising the Germans and bolstering the flagging morale of the French at a crucial moment of the war.
The Germans had chosen the ground well. The sprawling hardwood forest was a labyrinth of underbrush, fallen logs, rock ledges ravines, and ideal for a defense dominated by maxim machine guns and trench mortars. The woods occupied more than a square mile of terrain, deep enough to absorb several battalions fighting each other at extremely close ranges and convoluted enough to confuse their commanders for days at a time. Indeed fighting for small bitterly defended Belleau Wood would presage future Marine landings on such bloody Pacific islets as Tuligi, Gavutu, Betis, and Engebi. The similarities between the Marines advancing through the fire swept wheat fields towards Belleau Woods and the next generation of Leathernecks wading ashore under the heavy fire at Tarawa are haunting.
The battle for Belleau Wood was not well fought . It was a confused crisscrossing of battalions and companies suffering horrendous losses from German machine guns and filed artillery. The Marines would lose almost half their men, but they would beat the best the Germans had to offer.
The book also covers the Soissons, St. Mihiel, Blanc Mont, Meuse-Argonne, crossing the Meuse and marching to the Rhine. A lot of good information here for the rebirth of the Marine Corp and how they became the First to Fight! There is a story about Marines using OO buck in the trenches and the Germans said this violated laws of war and protested. The Germans said that they would execute any Marine with a shotgun. The Marines said Germany is a country that introduced poison gas and the flamethrower. Nothing doing. Any Marine executed will be carried out in kind. I devoured it.
Enjoy
We associate Quantico, VA, San Diego, and Paris Island with the United States Marine Corp but all three training camps came into being to support the US Marines in their effort to field a force First To Fight . Prior to WW1, the Marines had never put more than 5000 men in the field.
Through the Wheat talks about the two Regiments and after training in the trenches of Verdun were used to stop cold a German offensive on open ground at Les Meres Farms in France. The French were being routed by the Ludendorff offensives. The Allies were throwing Frenchmen in the breach and they were being overwhelmed. The French XXI Corp commander General Dougette wanted to throw the Marines in too. But Marine ColonelBrown demurred. The Marines were tired from an all night March. Their machines guns were not up. Colonel Brown suggested a defensive line to form in the French rear with a counterattack to follow. General Dougette reluctantly to a line astride the Paris road just east of Compru but remained doubtful. “Could the Americans hold?”
“General,” promised Colonel Brown, “these are American regulars. In 150 years they have never been beaten. They will hold!” This is how the 9th US infantry and the 6th Marines entered the battle which became Les Mares Farms.
Next was the offensive at Belleau Woods. The three week struggle for Belleau Woods ranks as one of the greatest battles of the twentieth century for the U.S. Marines, a touchstone that compares with Iwo Jima in 1945 and the Chosin Reservoir in 1950.
On June 6, 1918, the moment they launched their first assault on the dark woodland, the Marines abruptly left behind 14 decades of small scale skirmishes with insurgents, pirates, and light infantry regiments and entered the industrialized world of massive fire power and wholesale slaughter. Costly mistakes in command, intelligence, and communications reflected their difficult transition. In the end, the Marines’ stubborn pride and affinity for close combat- the same diehard aggressiveness that had characterized their old ship-to-ship boarding parties - helped them to prevail over a veteran foe surprising the Germans and bolstering the flagging morale of the French at a crucial moment of the war.
The Germans had chosen the ground well. The sprawling hardwood forest was a labyrinth of underbrush, fallen logs, rock ledges ravines, and ideal for a defense dominated by maxim machine guns and trench mortars. The woods occupied more than a square mile of terrain, deep enough to absorb several battalions fighting each other at extremely close ranges and convoluted enough to confuse their commanders for days at a time. Indeed fighting for small bitterly defended Belleau Wood would presage future Marine landings on such bloody Pacific islets as Tuligi, Gavutu, Betis, and Engebi. The similarities between the Marines advancing through the fire swept wheat fields towards Belleau Woods and the next generation of Leathernecks wading ashore under the heavy fire at Tarawa are haunting.
The battle for Belleau Wood was not well fought . It was a confused crisscrossing of battalions and companies suffering horrendous losses from German machine guns and filed artillery. The Marines would lose almost half their men, but they would beat the best the Germans had to offer.
The book also covers the Soissons, St. Mihiel, Blanc Mont, Meuse-Argonne, crossing the Meuse and marching to the Rhine. A lot of good information here for the rebirth of the Marine Corp and how they became the First to Fight! There is a story about Marines using OO buck in the trenches and the Germans said this violated laws of war and protested. The Germans said that they would execute any Marine with a shotgun. The Marines said Germany is a country that introduced poison gas and the flamethrower. Nothing doing. Any Marine executed will be carried out in kind. I devoured it.
Enjoy
December 31, 2016
I read this book in conjunction with George B. Clark’s “Devil Dogs: Fighting Marines of World War I” Devil Dogs Fighting Marines of World War I and I did this initially to balance the Battle of Bois de Belleau. What I came away with in both this book and that of Mr. Clark’s was a much broader view of the First World War but one in which I appreciate more fully the extent of exhaustion of the British and French Expeditionary Forces had endured prior to the late arrival of the AEF under General John J. “Black Jack” Pershing. This book also provided an interesting introductory to the foundations of Marine Aviation; Colonel Alexander has written extensively on the subject so I must admit it was refreshing to see this inserted to this historical time frame. Marine Aviation is by no means in heavy detail within but there is enough for Air enthusiasts to begin in earnest to learn of the struggles and complications of inter-service rivalries. It is apparent through U.S. Marine History that battles have always raged politically between the Marine Corps and Navy or the Marine Corps and Army. General Pershing was quite the bipolar professional when it came to the Marines. He provided many compliments openly on many occasions; however, he made many attempts to thwart the Marine success in official memoranda – the more I read of him the more I am on the fence about his overall existence as a career military officer. One day I will read a definitive biography of him in my attempt to gain a better understanding for the diametrical oppositions he held personally – I doubt this was only related to the U.S. Marine Corps in his personality. This said, my review of this book is not a criticism of Pershing – but a mere observation.
The active voice of Colonel Alexander is prevalent in this work – this is not a bad thing – I have seen Colonel Alexander on the History, Military History, and other channels over the past 10 years or so; he is a Veteran who served his country well and who makes every effort to attempt to educate those who are interested and discuss with those who are more seasoned than the average person. Brigadier General Simmons – this was in effect his last contribution in writing to History. A Veteran of the Second World War, Korea, and Vietnam – he was a committed person (by all accounts) to his family as well as his peers. I am certain he took good care of the lower ranking Marines in his charge over the years of his career. This final work of his is a testament to the dedication he held for all important things to him personally. This is nothing more than my opinion of what I perceive from having read this work. For both General Simmons and Colonel Alexander the work here was well done and easy to read.
As stated in the opening of my review it was the Battle of Bois de Belleau that peaked my interest and desire to learn more detail. The famed Battle of Bois de Belleau has been well covered and written of now for nearly 100 years. The Battle of Blanc Mont has a good description provided within this section of the book. The historical battle event as took place in comparison to that of Mr. George Clark’s “Devil Dogs” had told the same story only in a slightly different manner – Blanc Mont had a slightly different and less detailed approach here than did Mr. Clark’s but I found the accounting and insight from slightly different perspectives an added benefit to what Mr. Clark wrote in his book. Complimentary in other words and Mr. Clark’s work in “Devil Dogs” was referenced here along with many other U.S. Marine Historical accounts both official and personal of the First World War. I was rather disappointed to not have seen a specific index for Major George W. Hamilton in this work within the index pages of the book; Major Hamilton is referenced periodically throughout the book and especially toward the end of the book. Rather perplexed why such an important player in the early and final days of the war would be unintentionally omitted. A German Protest was briefly referenced on page 205 during the early stages of the Blanc Mont battle – I decided to do independent reviewing of the same and have provided at the end of this review a brief for anyone interested in reading beyond my description of “Maps” and “Photos”.
Maps – this book is not a book for map followers as I was slightly disappointed in this; however, this was not that sort of work either. There is no effect on my final and personal rating of this book due to the lack of maps of various battle lines. The overview maps that were provided within showed locations generally speaking and managed this reader to follow in my own mind the paths followed for objectives that had to be reached based on the orders that were provided at the time.
Photos – this book will be a delight for any person who enjoys a good military photo within the pages of what they are reading. The “usual suspects” show up in photos but so too a few surprises. I keep looking for a photo of “Lizzie Ford” – how that thing kept running is beyond me but now I have read stories in several books about that car provided to Colonel Albertus Catlin as a gift for his Marines prior to departing the U.S. for France. The “Lizzie Ford” served several important functions – even when it lost the top and was pot marked with various bullet holes and shrapnel holes.
During the description of the Battle of Blanc Mont, and located on page 205 is a brief paragraph on the Protest by Germany on the American use of sawed-off shotguns and of how the use of such weaponry was “inhumane” – I decided to dig a bit further on my own and the following is what I discovered:
German Protest on the AEF use of sawed-off shotguns: The Combat Shotgun raised two issues with regard to its legality. First, does a weapon capable of inflicting multiple wounds upon a single enemy combatant cause superfluous injury, as prohibited by Article 23(e) of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907? Second, does the No. 00 buckshot projectile, or other smaller buckshot projectiles, expand or flatten easily, in violation of the Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets of 29 July 1899?
On 19 September 1918, the Government of Switzerland, representing German interests in the United States, presented to the U.S. Secretary of State a cablegram received by the Swiss Foreign Office containing the following diplomatic protest by the Government of Germany and read as follows:
“The German Government protests against the use of shotguns by the American Army and calls attention to the fact that according to the law of war (Kriegsrecht) every [U.S.] prisoner [of war] found to have in his possession such guns or ammunition belonging thereto forfeits his life. This protest is based upon article 23(e) of The Hague convention [sic] respecting the laws and customs of war on land. Reply by cable is required before October 1, 1918.”
The German protest was precipitated in part by the capture in the Baccarat Sector (Lorraine) of France, on 21 July 1918, of a U.S. soldier from the 307th Infantry Regiment, 154th Infantry Brigade, 77th Division, AEF, who was armed with a 12-gauge Winchester Model 97 repeating trench (shot) gun, and a second, similarly-armed AEF soldier from the 6th Infantry Regiment, 10th Infantry Brigade, 5th Division, on 11 September 1918 in the Villers-en-Haye Sector. Each presumably possessed issue ammunition, which was the Winchester “Repeater” shell, containing nine No. 00 buckshot.
The German protest was forwarded by the Department of State to the War Department, which sought the advice of The Judge Advocate General of the Army. Brigadier General Samuel T. Ansell, Acting Judge Advocate General, responded by lengthy memorandum dated 26 September 1918. Addressing the German protest, General Ansell stated:
“Article 23(e) simply calls for comparison between the injury or suffering caused and the necessities of warfare. It is legitimate to kill the enemy and as many of them, and as quickly, as possible . . . . It is to be condemned only when it wounds, or does not kill immediately, in such a way as to produce suffering that has no reasonable relation to the killing or placing the man out of action for an effective period.
The shotgun, although an ancient weapon, finds its class or analogy, as to purpose and effect, in many modern weapons. The dispersion of the shotgun [pellets] . . . is adapted to the necessary purpose of putting out of action more than one of the charging enemy with each shot of the gun; and in this respect it is exactly analogous to shrapnel shell discharging a multitude of small [fragments] or a machine gun discharging a spray of . . . bullets.
The diameter of the bullet is scarcely greater than that of a rifle or machine gun. The weight of it is very much less. And, in both size and weight, it is less than the . . . [fragments] of a shrapnel shell . . . . Obviously a pellet the size of a .32-caliber bullet, weighing only enough to be effective at short ranges, does not exceed the limit necessary for putting a man immediately hors de combat.
The only instances even where a shotgun projectile causes more injury to any one enemy soldier than would a hit by a rifle bullet are instances where the enemy soldier has approached so close to the shooter that he is struck by more than one of the nine . . . [No. 00 buckshot projectiles] contained in the cartridge. This, like the effect of the dispersing of . . . [fragments] from a shrapnel shell, is permissible either in behalf of greater effectiveness or as an unavoidable incident of the use of small scattering projectiles for the necessary purpose of increasing [the] likelihood of killing a number of enemies.” General Ansell concluded his memorandum with the statement that “The protest is without legal merit.”
Acting Secretary of War Benedict Crowell endorsed General Ansell’s memorandum of law and forwarded it to the Secretary of State that same day. Secretary of State Robert Lansing provided the following reply to the Government of Germany two days later:
“[T]he . . . provision of the Hague convention, cited in the protest, does not . . . forbid the use of this . . . weapon . . . . [I]n view of the history of the shotgun as a weapon of warfare, and in view of the well-known effects of its present use, and in the light of a comparison of it with other weapons approved in warfare, the shotgun . . . cannot be the subject of legitimate or reasonable protest.”
Secretary of State Lansing’s reply went on:
“The Government of the United States notes the threat of the German Government to execute every prisoner of war found to have in his possession shotguns or shotgun ammunition. In as much as the weapon is lawful and may be rightfully used, its use will not be abandoned by the American Army . . . [I]f the German Government should carry out its threat in a single instance, it will be the right and duty of the . . . United States to make such reprisals as will best protect the American forces, and notice is hereby given of the intention of the . . . United States to make such reprisals.” The war ended some 6 weeks after the protest was filed and there is no reply on record from German Government following the Secretary of State reply.
The British and French Forces found no use for the sawed off shotgun during the First World War; AEF Forces found them at times to be effective in Trench Warfare – either way war is a nasty business but on the whole a protest of this nature coming from the same belligerent forces that developed the flame thrower and the introduction and use of various gasses had to have been a major eye rolling event for those officials required to respond. This whole event in my mind is similar in fashion to the British Government being forced to pay for the Krupp Armament rounds it fired during the course of the war. For sake of space I won’t dive into this here as I have on other books I have read whereby I inserted detail – The British Government negotiated a much lower rate on the expense per round, but the lunacy in keeping to such terms is simply preposterous. This one area of argument the French didn’t have to fight the Germans in the immediacy of the Post WW I legal front. The French made their own artillery pieces and thereby produced their own artillery rounds. The British who purchased and then modeled their artillery pieces from Krupp were unfortunately stuck in a different situation.
The active voice of Colonel Alexander is prevalent in this work – this is not a bad thing – I have seen Colonel Alexander on the History, Military History, and other channels over the past 10 years or so; he is a Veteran who served his country well and who makes every effort to attempt to educate those who are interested and discuss with those who are more seasoned than the average person. Brigadier General Simmons – this was in effect his last contribution in writing to History. A Veteran of the Second World War, Korea, and Vietnam – he was a committed person (by all accounts) to his family as well as his peers. I am certain he took good care of the lower ranking Marines in his charge over the years of his career. This final work of his is a testament to the dedication he held for all important things to him personally. This is nothing more than my opinion of what I perceive from having read this work. For both General Simmons and Colonel Alexander the work here was well done and easy to read.
As stated in the opening of my review it was the Battle of Bois de Belleau that peaked my interest and desire to learn more detail. The famed Battle of Bois de Belleau has been well covered and written of now for nearly 100 years. The Battle of Blanc Mont has a good description provided within this section of the book. The historical battle event as took place in comparison to that of Mr. George Clark’s “Devil Dogs” had told the same story only in a slightly different manner – Blanc Mont had a slightly different and less detailed approach here than did Mr. Clark’s but I found the accounting and insight from slightly different perspectives an added benefit to what Mr. Clark wrote in his book. Complimentary in other words and Mr. Clark’s work in “Devil Dogs” was referenced here along with many other U.S. Marine Historical accounts both official and personal of the First World War. I was rather disappointed to not have seen a specific index for Major George W. Hamilton in this work within the index pages of the book; Major Hamilton is referenced periodically throughout the book and especially toward the end of the book. Rather perplexed why such an important player in the early and final days of the war would be unintentionally omitted. A German Protest was briefly referenced on page 205 during the early stages of the Blanc Mont battle – I decided to do independent reviewing of the same and have provided at the end of this review a brief for anyone interested in reading beyond my description of “Maps” and “Photos”.
Maps – this book is not a book for map followers as I was slightly disappointed in this; however, this was not that sort of work either. There is no effect on my final and personal rating of this book due to the lack of maps of various battle lines. The overview maps that were provided within showed locations generally speaking and managed this reader to follow in my own mind the paths followed for objectives that had to be reached based on the orders that were provided at the time.
Photos – this book will be a delight for any person who enjoys a good military photo within the pages of what they are reading. The “usual suspects” show up in photos but so too a few surprises. I keep looking for a photo of “Lizzie Ford” – how that thing kept running is beyond me but now I have read stories in several books about that car provided to Colonel Albertus Catlin as a gift for his Marines prior to departing the U.S. for France. The “Lizzie Ford” served several important functions – even when it lost the top and was pot marked with various bullet holes and shrapnel holes.
During the description of the Battle of Blanc Mont, and located on page 205 is a brief paragraph on the Protest by Germany on the American use of sawed-off shotguns and of how the use of such weaponry was “inhumane” – I decided to dig a bit further on my own and the following is what I discovered:
German Protest on the AEF use of sawed-off shotguns: The Combat Shotgun raised two issues with regard to its legality. First, does a weapon capable of inflicting multiple wounds upon a single enemy combatant cause superfluous injury, as prohibited by Article 23(e) of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907? Second, does the No. 00 buckshot projectile, or other smaller buckshot projectiles, expand or flatten easily, in violation of the Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets of 29 July 1899?
On 19 September 1918, the Government of Switzerland, representing German interests in the United States, presented to the U.S. Secretary of State a cablegram received by the Swiss Foreign Office containing the following diplomatic protest by the Government of Germany and read as follows:
“The German Government protests against the use of shotguns by the American Army and calls attention to the fact that according to the law of war (Kriegsrecht) every [U.S.] prisoner [of war] found to have in his possession such guns or ammunition belonging thereto forfeits his life. This protest is based upon article 23(e) of The Hague convention [sic] respecting the laws and customs of war on land. Reply by cable is required before October 1, 1918.”
The German protest was precipitated in part by the capture in the Baccarat Sector (Lorraine) of France, on 21 July 1918, of a U.S. soldier from the 307th Infantry Regiment, 154th Infantry Brigade, 77th Division, AEF, who was armed with a 12-gauge Winchester Model 97 repeating trench (shot) gun, and a second, similarly-armed AEF soldier from the 6th Infantry Regiment, 10th Infantry Brigade, 5th Division, on 11 September 1918 in the Villers-en-Haye Sector. Each presumably possessed issue ammunition, which was the Winchester “Repeater” shell, containing nine No. 00 buckshot.
The German protest was forwarded by the Department of State to the War Department, which sought the advice of The Judge Advocate General of the Army. Brigadier General Samuel T. Ansell, Acting Judge Advocate General, responded by lengthy memorandum dated 26 September 1918. Addressing the German protest, General Ansell stated:
“Article 23(e) simply calls for comparison between the injury or suffering caused and the necessities of warfare. It is legitimate to kill the enemy and as many of them, and as quickly, as possible . . . . It is to be condemned only when it wounds, or does not kill immediately, in such a way as to produce suffering that has no reasonable relation to the killing or placing the man out of action for an effective period.
The shotgun, although an ancient weapon, finds its class or analogy, as to purpose and effect, in many modern weapons. The dispersion of the shotgun [pellets] . . . is adapted to the necessary purpose of putting out of action more than one of the charging enemy with each shot of the gun; and in this respect it is exactly analogous to shrapnel shell discharging a multitude of small [fragments] or a machine gun discharging a spray of . . . bullets.
The diameter of the bullet is scarcely greater than that of a rifle or machine gun. The weight of it is very much less. And, in both size and weight, it is less than the . . . [fragments] of a shrapnel shell . . . . Obviously a pellet the size of a .32-caliber bullet, weighing only enough to be effective at short ranges, does not exceed the limit necessary for putting a man immediately hors de combat.
The only instances even where a shotgun projectile causes more injury to any one enemy soldier than would a hit by a rifle bullet are instances where the enemy soldier has approached so close to the shooter that he is struck by more than one of the nine . . . [No. 00 buckshot projectiles] contained in the cartridge. This, like the effect of the dispersing of . . . [fragments] from a shrapnel shell, is permissible either in behalf of greater effectiveness or as an unavoidable incident of the use of small scattering projectiles for the necessary purpose of increasing [the] likelihood of killing a number of enemies.” General Ansell concluded his memorandum with the statement that “The protest is without legal merit.”
Acting Secretary of War Benedict Crowell endorsed General Ansell’s memorandum of law and forwarded it to the Secretary of State that same day. Secretary of State Robert Lansing provided the following reply to the Government of Germany two days later:
“[T]he . . . provision of the Hague convention, cited in the protest, does not . . . forbid the use of this . . . weapon . . . . [I]n view of the history of the shotgun as a weapon of warfare, and in view of the well-known effects of its present use, and in the light of a comparison of it with other weapons approved in warfare, the shotgun . . . cannot be the subject of legitimate or reasonable protest.”
Secretary of State Lansing’s reply went on:
“The Government of the United States notes the threat of the German Government to execute every prisoner of war found to have in his possession shotguns or shotgun ammunition. In as much as the weapon is lawful and may be rightfully used, its use will not be abandoned by the American Army . . . [I]f the German Government should carry out its threat in a single instance, it will be the right and duty of the . . . United States to make such reprisals as will best protect the American forces, and notice is hereby given of the intention of the . . . United States to make such reprisals.” The war ended some 6 weeks after the protest was filed and there is no reply on record from German Government following the Secretary of State reply.
The British and French Forces found no use for the sawed off shotgun during the First World War; AEF Forces found them at times to be effective in Trench Warfare – either way war is a nasty business but on the whole a protest of this nature coming from the same belligerent forces that developed the flame thrower and the introduction and use of various gasses had to have been a major eye rolling event for those officials required to respond. This whole event in my mind is similar in fashion to the British Government being forced to pay for the Krupp Armament rounds it fired during the course of the war. For sake of space I won’t dive into this here as I have on other books I have read whereby I inserted detail – The British Government negotiated a much lower rate on the expense per round, but the lunacy in keeping to such terms is simply preposterous. This one area of argument the French didn’t have to fight the Germans in the immediacy of the Post WW I legal front. The French made their own artillery pieces and thereby produced their own artillery rounds. The British who purchased and then modeled their artillery pieces from Krupp were unfortunately stuck in a different situation.
May 6, 2018
This touches briefly on the service of Marines in other places--afloat, flying reconnaissance out of the Azores--but the bulk of it is on the great battles in France: Belleau Wood, Soissons, St. Mihiel, Blanc Mont, and Meuse-Argonne. We can hardly comprehend the bloodiness of these battles, or the bravery of those who kept fighting after 50% casualties. For all we lament them, losses in current battles are nothing like this.
When the war started, the Marine Corps had no plans for fighting major campaign against a peer competitor. Their mission was providing security details for the Navy, fighting some low-level counterinsurgencies in the Caribbean, and in a major war seizing forward naval bases. But when America entered the Great War, they knew they would have no large role to play, despite their boast of being "First to Fight." So they offered two regiments of experienced infantry to serve in the trenches, and the Army was glad to get them when it was still in the slow business of mobilizing for a major war, though the Marines had no brigade or higher organization. At the start of American fighting the Marines were 20% of the US troops deployed; as more soldiers arrived their proportion dwindled to 2% or so.
When the war started, the Marine Corps had no plans for fighting major campaign against a peer competitor. Their mission was providing security details for the Navy, fighting some low-level counterinsurgencies in the Caribbean, and in a major war seizing forward naval bases. But when America entered the Great War, they knew they would have no large role to play, despite their boast of being "First to Fight." So they offered two regiments of experienced infantry to serve in the trenches, and the Army was glad to get them when it was still in the slow business of mobilizing for a major war, though the Marines had no brigade or higher organization. At the start of American fighting the Marines were 20% of the US troops deployed; as more soldiers arrived their proportion dwindled to 2% or so.
August 21, 2011
History of the Marines during World War I in France, especially at Beleau Woods and the Argonne Forest. Details how European powers came to consider U.S. Marines as shock troops. It was in this setting that the Marines earned their nickname "Devil Dogs".
April 30, 2021
The semi-official history of the Marine Corps in World War I, written by the former head of Marine Corps History Division, Edwin Simmons, and military author, Joe Alexander. I never met Simmons, but knew Alexander when we were both stationed at Headquarters Fleet Marine Forces Atlantic in 1979-1980 - I was a 1st Lieutenant and he was a Lieutenant Colonel. My only complaint with the book is that I would have liked better maps.
December 12, 2008
I really wanted to like this book as it had received very good recommndations from some of the Blogs on Consimworld. While I did learn many things that I did not know about the USMC in WWI, I found the narritive to be disjointed and hard to follow. It improved later in the book when the author focused on the battles the Marines participated including Soissons and The Meuse-Argonne. this book is more of an oral history of the USMC in WWI.
March 10, 2014
Excellent account of Marine Corps growth, training and operations conducted in World War I.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews