Skip to main content

June 10, 1918 - Don Martin moves with war correspondents to Meaux

Don Martin diary entry for Monday, June 10, 1918: 
Went to Meaux with [Edwin] James [New York Times] and took rooms at the Hotel Sirene. Sent a short cable to New York and wrote a story for Paris. The censors have moved out here and we have courier service to Paris.
      Don Martin wrote a letter to his daughter Dorothy dated June 10 as he was about to leave Paris for Meaux:
The big battle going on has made some rather abrupt changes in the arrangements of the correspondents. First we all came in from Neufchateau, expecting to have our headquarters here, and go each day in automobiles to the important places along the front. Today we get word that we must all go to a place some distance from Paris and stay there. We don’t like it but that makes no difference, we must go anyhow.
      For the next three months, Don Martin was housed with the war correspondents in Meaux, a town 34 miles (54 kilometers) from Paris. It was possible to go to Paris on the train, and he and the other war correspondents took advantage of that. Don Martin stayed overnight in Paris or made day trips to Paris ten times in this three-month period.
       Getting to the front line from Meaux required a long daily journey by motorcar, although it was shorter than from Neufchateau. This was an active period when Don Martin wrote that he got to see “many of the horrors” of the war “at close range.” – the dead and wounded, the prisoners, the “scores of wrecked villages” -- and he was often in the midst of shelling including with gas. 
        “Got a story!” was the main theme of his diary entries in these months, in which he recorded that he cabled 64,000 words (and many more were not enumerated). And what stories he was getting! His stories about the doughboys at the front in the major battles  were eagerly read back home. 

        During this “Meaux” period, the AEF were engaged in three battles: the battle for Belleau Wood; the second battle of the Marne, and the Marne counteroffensive.
          The fight for the Bois de Belleau continued. In the morning of June 10, Major Hughes' 1st Battalion, 6th Marines—together with elements of the 6th Machine Gun Battalion—attacked north into the wood. It was stopped by machine gun fire. The Germans used great quantities of mustard gas. 
     Next, Wise's 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines was ordered to attack the woods from the west, while Hughes continued his advance from the south. At 04:00 a.m. on June 11, Wise's men advanced through a thick morning mist towards Belleau Wood, supported by the 23rd and 77th companies of the 6th Machine Gun Battalion, and elements of the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Engineers and were cut to pieces by heavy fire. Platoons were isolated and destroyed by interlocked machine gun fire. It was discovered that the battalion had advanced in the wrong direction. Rather than moving northeast, they had moved directly across the wood's narrow waist. However, they smashed the German southern defensive lines. A German private, whose company had 30 men left out of 120, wrote "We have Americans opposite us who are terribly reckless fellows."
        Overall, the woods were attacked by the Marines a total of six times before they could successfully expel the Germans. They fought off parts of five divisions of Germans, often reduced to using only their bayonets or fists in hand-to-hand combat.

Comments

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.

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...

‘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’...