Skip to main content

September 2, 1918: Don Martin sees ruins of Soissons

Don Martin diary entry for Monday, September 2, 1918: 
Went to the 32nd division with [Edwin] James [New York Times]. Brought [Caroll] McNutt [Colliers] back in our car. Came back through Soissons which is in ruins. Only front wall of the cathedral is standing. While we were there about 50 guns in and around Soissons began a barrage to blaze a way for the advance by the Moroccans who have gone in the line in place of the Americans. Wrote cable for N.Y.
     Published in the New York Herald on Tuesday, September 3, 1918.
AMERICANS HURL GERMANS NORTH FROM JUVIGNY
Whole Countryside Behind Hun Lines Ablaze with Burning Munition Dumps
By DON MARTIN
Special Correspondent of the Herald with the American Armies in France
(Special Cable to the Herald)
WITH THE AMERICAN ARMIES IN FRANCE, Monday
           In a splendid dash forward the American forces operating north of Soissons have pushed away ahead of Juvigny and have captured many prisoners. They have started the Huns on their probably retreat to the Chemin des Dames.
         Our stalwart troops drove everything ahead of them, despite the fact that the Germans pitted their crack troops. The Huns are everywhere unable to check our victorious onrush.
           The sky to-night is lit up with fires caused by the enemy burning his ammunition dumps and supplies as he retreats northward.

           Our losses are small. Many Germans were killed.
        This illustration, published in the Paris Herald on September 1, gives a graphic image of what the fighting was like.

Comments

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