Skip to main content

September 25, 1918: War correspondents move to Bar le Duc as American offensive begins

           The time had come for Marshal Foch to launch his grand counteroffensive, the battle to break the Hindenberg line – three, and in places four, lines of fortifications, named after characters in Richard Wagner’s Ring Cycle: Hunding, Brunhilde, Kriemhilde, Giselher. In preparation, over ten days, some 428,000 men, 90,000 horses and mules, 3,980 guns, and 900,000 tons of supplies and ammunition were moved from the St. Mihiel sector to the Meuse-Argonne sector. All that was to be accomplished in secrecy. On September 21 General Pershing moved his headquarters to Souilly to be closer to the front. The war correspondents waiting in Nancy didn't know about all that.
          The American army was to attack on a twenty-mile front about twenty miles north of Verdun in the difficult Meuse-Argonne sector, where for three years the Germans had ben improving the defenses. General James Harbord referred to these as ”the most comprehensive system of leisurely prepared field defense known to history.” Pershing massed three corps in the American sector: I Corps under Hunter Ligett, III Corps under Robert Lee Bullard, and V Corps, first under George H. Cameron, subsequently under Charles P. Summerall. Pershing’s plan was bold and overly optimistic. He hoped to plow through the first three German lines, about ten miles, in one leap.
On September 25, the war correspondents were moved from Nancy to Bar Le Duc. Don Martin stayed the first night at the simple Rose d'Or hotel. Under a new policy, a comprehensive briefing was given to the American correspondents on the Meuse-Argonne offensive “in a small store up a cobbled side street” by Captain Arthur E. Hartzell and Major General Fox Connor.
     Starting with a three-hour bombardment at 11:30 p.m. on September 25, on September 26 French and American forces attacked between the Suippe and Meuse Rivers. The infantry began their attack at a walk one hundred meters behind a rolling artillery barrage. From the start, there was confusion. Fog and a smoke screen obscured the field and it was nearly impossible to coordinate the movements of the assaulting infantry. Nevertheless, the troops initially made good progress. The III Corps plunged ahead five miles. The V Corps was halted by the elaborate defenses of Montfaucon, a 300-meter high elevation. They managed to take Montfaucon the second day but were cut off for three days. Over the first few days, American troops drove forward and penetrated from three to seven miles and captured some 10,000 prisoners. 

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