Skip to main content

April 14, 1918 - Don Martin spent the day in Paris with other war correspondents

Don Martin dairy entry for Sunday, April 14, 1918: 
Having decided not to leave Paris till tomorrow, took it easy. Went for long walk through Tuilleries, meeting Bingham of N.Y. on way back. At 12:30 went to [New York] World office and met Martin Green, Joe Griggs and some others and then went to the New York bar where we sat for three hours with Percival Gibbons, war correspondent of the London Chronicle and Myrtle Williams of Colliers. Gibbons, one of the best English correspondents, told many good stories. Went from there (alone) to the Chatham Grill and had a good steak. Then to the hotel. Have decided to go back to Neufchateau. 
German drive against British continues serious. Good many persons pessimistic now but I’m not. It is pitiable though how helpless U.S. is. France is the only formidable ally.

Weather cold and rain.

       'Percival Gibbons' of the 'London Chronicle' is a mystery; no information was found about such a person. The famous war correspondent named 'Percival' was the American Percival Phillips, working for the London Express, but who had been hired by Commodore Bennett to cover the British front for the New York Herald as 'Special Correspondent of the Herald with the British Forces in France'. His bylined dispatches were appearing on page 1 (Second Section) frequently, and Don Martin should have known that. This would have been Don Martin’s first meeting with Phillips; could he have accidentally mixed up the last name with Floyd Gibbons, Chicago Tribune, and got the London newspaper wrong?

Comments

  1. Vintage DudeApril 14, 2018 at 7:38 PM

    I find it strange that Don does not refer or mention Percival earlier as he got connected to the London office. It is unclear how he made his decision to go back to Neufchâtel . He shows concern about the British losses but recognizes the ability of the French while the Americans are not heavily involved. What does he expect to achieve going back to “N”?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...
Post a Comment
Read more