www.MG42.us

a new find
nic booklet 16 pages

Congratulations on beating me on the auction. This is a British HMSO SS book and clearly made its way to the USA!
Mark

Interesting book, notice the date April 1917, the US "officially" entered the Great War on April 6, 1917 (Good Friday that year) yet within that month we have a book out for the military describing our new enemy's machine gun.

Goes along with the hundreds of scholarly articles showing president Wilson deceptively (against popular American opinion) lying his way into war so that he could spring it as soon as he won the election of 1916.

Pat Buchanan nailed it again just a few days ago:
http://buchanan.org/blog/behind-sinking-lusitania-6935

www.Prussia.us wrote:Interesting book, notice the date April 1917, the US "officially" entered the Great War on April 6, 1917 (Good Friday that year) yet within that month we have a book out for the military describing our new enemy's machine gun.

Goes along with the hundreds of scholarly articles showing president Wilson deceptively (against popular American opinion) lying his way into war so that he could spring it as soon as he won the election of 1916.

Pat Buchanan nailed it again just a few days ago:
http://buchanan.org/blog/behind-sinking-lusitania-6935

While I wholeheartedly agree that the taxing communist wilson got us into that war with lies and deception this book has nothing to do with that. Any country who doesn't prepare their soldiers for possible future encounters is screwed. They(we) were doing studies and printing manuals and information about all sorts of stuff from 1912 on and not just on the German weapons but also brit and french. In addition to weapons there were manuals showing military maneuvers and procedures used by all the foreign military establishments. Its just simple preparation and not a conspiracy.

Frank

Well Frank good point, that era is so darn sketchy regarding our civil rights (especially the 1st Amendment) let alone the conspiracy of the international interests to get the USA into the war. As a historian, I look at everything with a jaundice eye, "The Illusion of Victory" by Dr. Thomas Fleming covering that era should be required reading for every American, otherwise they do not know jack about the true motives and what went on.

Whilst I am enjoying your US politics discussion, could I just remind you this is a British book! Not US published or printed. One thing we can agree on is that fortunately the USA was either preparing itself before 1917, or the postal system was rather good then. Personally I would have been keen to have the US involved MUCH much sooner.
and under British command. maybe just maybe the US casualties would have been less.
Mark

MarkFinneran wrote:Personally I would have been keen to have the US involved MUCH much sooner.
and under British command. maybe just maybe the US casualties would have been less.
Mark

British command I highly doubt looking at the examples of the Somme and Gallipoli that fewer US casualties would have been the result. The British would have used US troops as cannon fodder if they would have been allowed command of them.

Some interesting points, but although off MG08 topic it is worth correcting some mistakes. As are the British often today, under command of US or NATO, there is still a process of communication. IF the US were under command from mid 1917 onwards, there were still mechanisms were US leadership would have discussed/declined.
Ref gallipoli the plan was brilliant, but failed to recognise the tenacity of the Turks. As for the Somme, the plan was brilliant, but failed to recognise the tenacity of the Germans ( machine gunners) and their underground infrastructure, poor British munition production and the limitations of communication technology at that time....And a few other things too. However 1917 was a different world, and sadly expensive lessons had been learned by all, especially the British. This is really the point, the US ignored those costly lessons and learned unfortunately the hard way. I don't think this has ever been disputed. The US actions of 1918 were as gallant as those by the Commonwealth up to 1917. It could have been different, and just look at the Allied successes 1917 onwards. I would never dispute the US entry into the war made all the difference, however I do suggest that the the time bewteen the US entering WWI and their first action could have been much shorter, and arguably more beneficial under British command. These are the facts and if I do understand correctly the US maintaining command was not through fear of British military abuse. Either way I am grateful for the eventual US entry into WWI and all their supporting activities before then, but I do feel it was an opportunity missed to lessen the sacrifice of those brave American men and women. And reinforced the fact that At least some good could be extracted from Allied loses beforehand.

MarkFinneran wrote:Personally I would have been keen to have the US involved MUCH much sooner.

Yeah but the question for us would have been which side to join? Going by our history we found two wars against the British, one about a 100 years before where they came and burned our capital and tried to burn my city. Lucky for us, we are not a bunch of Government pushovers and fought the RedCoats off not so many miles from where I am now. We had nothing against Germany early war. Actually we had a huge influx of German immigrants to the point where the German Ancestry probably out numbered the British Ancestry. So at the time... I don't think its correct to assume we were coming in on your side of things

Ref gallipoli the plan was brilliant, but failed ... Somme, the plan was brilliant, ...

I guess Communism was brilliant to but failed since it failed to account for human nature... To me part of being Brilliant is that it works. All Bank Robbers have Brilliant plans unless they get caught, then they were stupid!

This is really the point, the US ignored those costly lessons and learned unfortunately the hard way. I don't think this has ever been disputed. The US actions of 1918 were as gallant as those by the Commonwealth up to 1917. It could have been different, and just look at the Allied successes 1917 onwards.

Yes I see your point and without control of their own fate, they could not repeat the mistakes the Brits had already made. However if we are just taking orders, then we really have not learned anything. Frankly the success was minimal. Tanks helped a bit. However it was really the economic war and America's seeming unlimited resource potential that really caused the Germans to self destruct.

Either way I am grateful for the eventual US entry into WWI and all their supporting activities before then, but I do feel it was an opportunity missed to lessen the sacrifice of those brave American men and women. And reinforced the fact that At least some good could be extracted from Allied loses beforehand.

I think one thing that is being more and more understood is that both German and the British lost WWI. The British never had Military Victory, only political victory. However the cost to the British Empire was terminal. 20 years later they, without US aide, were little match for the rebuilt German Army. Only their aging fleet with lots of US aide and supplies saved them. In the end, the Victory over Germany cost them their Empire and superpower status. The British entered WWI the most powerful nation in the world and came out of WWII as a second tier military and gave up the empire to survive. German and France of course were crushed. However what really happened was European suicide! The only Western Nation to gain at all would be the US and I would argue that even, as I think many of those gains would have come in time anyway! I think one could argue that without the prospect of American support, the allies and German may have been able to settle things in WWI without a German defeat as they should have done around 1915 or 1916 as the war grew more and more out of control and less and less about the Serbian/Austria issue.

As for US involvement, the American's immediately did not consider it a Victory. We had for the first time clearly step away from the Monroe doctrine and we were not happy about it. We kicked Wilson out of office and refused to join his league of nations, for which he had given up all American interests for. The only Victors of WWI were the Communist and the American gun Collectors. Now at least we have tons of German Maxims to collect!

In time, I think WWI and so WWII will be seen as Civil wars... much like those between Athens and Sparta of old.

The British command's "superior" knowledge and tactics all but killed off a generation, not something to really be all that proud of. Tactics that resulted in failure time after time only to be continually repeated. Nothing they did justified the British command structure being put in charge of US troops. Those same British commanders that butchered their own troops would have gladly done the same with US troops.

MarkFinneran wrote:Some interesting points, but although off MG08 topic it is worth correcting some mistakes. As are the British often today, under command of US or NATO, there is still a process of communication. IF the US were under command from mid 1917 onwards, there were still mechanisms were US leadership would have discussed/declined.
Ref gallipoli the plan was brilliant, but failed to recognise the tenacity of the Turks. As for the Somme, the plan was brilliant, but failed to recognise the tenacity of the Germans ( machine gunners) and their underground infrastructure, poor British munition production and the limitations of communication technology at that time....And a few other things too. However 1917 was a different world, and sadly expensive lessons had been learned by all, especially the British. This is really the point, the US ignored those costly lessons and learned unfortunately the hard way. I don't think this has ever been disputed. The US actions of 1918 were as gallant as those by the Commonwealth up to 1917. It could have been different, and just look at the Allied successes 1917 onwards. I would never dispute the US entry into the war made all the difference, however I do suggest that the the time bewteen the US entering WWI and their first action could have been much shorter, and arguably more beneficial under British command. These are the facts and if I do understand correctly the US maintaining command was not through fear of British military abuse. Either way I am grateful for the eventual US entry into WWI and all their supporting activities before then, but I do feel it was an opportunity missed to lessen the sacrifice of those brave American men and women. And reinforced the fact that At least some good could be extracted from Allied loses beforehand.

Roscoeturner wrote:The British command's "superior" knowledge and tactics all but killed off a generation, not something to really be all that proud of. Tactics that resulted in failure time after time only to be continually repeated. Nothing they did justified the British command structure being put in charge of US troops. Those same British commanders that butchered their own troops would have gladly done the same with US troops....

To be fair, no one was doing any better. The French had walking fire, which failed to be the break through. The Germans had the storm troopers which worked better than most things but still failed to really turn the war. The Brits had their tanks with was one of the best battlefield advantages. Now the Germans were getting ready to counter with their 13mm Maxim which would probably have destroyed those tanks... however the Brits were no worse than any side. American's basically repeated many of the mistakes the Brits had already learned from. It cost many American lives to for the US command to learn what not to do. Mark is saying they could have avoided that with British command which is a fair point. I still would not have done it, but fair point!

I do love the fact we are all taught history from differing perspectives. I am also glad the moderator has not bumped us off.
I have to reply though on a few general points and we must all remember people thought differently then, AND we have hindsight, AND we have been fed many differing views over time and absorbed them as fact. We cannot apply our thinking to how they thought then, we know too much!
It is however a proven fact that the British leadership were not butchers. I mentioned comms on the Somme, the plan was brilliant and highly workable, andin parts ingenious, the mines,the bombardment, all cutting edge at thetime but no plan survives contact. Once the boys crossed the start line that was it - there was no control and comms were prehistoric by our standards, but it was the best theyhad. As for attrition yes I agree pretty awful, but the German losses were greater.
Secondly I go back to the wiser British Army of 1917. A nasty education but nevertheless wiser, and the US could have, should have taken advantage of that. Maybe a good question is why did Mr Pershing not do so? If I understand correctly he had many military and political pressures/reasons. Just like the British forced to conduct the Somme in haste by the French. I can understand in a way why he did not want parts of the US Army fragmented into smaller elements and absorbed into British Battalions or in gaps in the line, but what a great education that would have been.
Anyway all history now and may I remind Matt that the British departure from the US was a tactical withdrawal just think how great the USA would be now if it had remained fully British


Ps Germany was starving from the British naval blockade before US arrival into the Great War, hence the urgency of the March 1918 offensive. But impending arrival of the US made a massive difference. And please please understand I in no way belittle the US contribution and sacrifice in all our conflicts, but there are so many misunderstandings about WWI reinforced over time by all sorts of historians and perceptions. I am no expert but reading both Commonwealth and Imperial German accounts of the Somme in particular, the common perception of that battle is not correct.
mark

MarkFinneran wrote:I do love the fact we are all taught history from differing perspectives. I am also glad the moderator has not bumped us off.

Its all talk among friends and has kept nice... so I don't think they should. Maybe a little OT.... but... as long as the OP does not care...

It is however a proven fact that the British leadership were not butchers.....

Well it all depends now on how you look at it. I would argue that all sides had butchers in leadership. Otherwise they would have stopped this war over nothing before killing off a generation of their kids... This was fighting among Christian Monarchs, over a cause no one cared about and with no territory conflicts. Why? Because two countries wanted to fight each other and with alliances dragged everyone else in... Suicidal butchers might be a good term for all the leadership and those most guilty are the strongest... being French, Germans and Brits.

Secondly I go back to the wiser British Army of 1917. A nasty education but nevertheless wiser, and the US could have, should have taken advantage of that. Maybe a good question is why did Mr Pershing not do so? If I understand correctly he had many military and political pressures/reasons. Just like the British forced to conduct the Somme in haste by the French. I can understand in a way why he did not want parts of the US Army fragmented into smaller elements and absorbed into British Battalions or in gaps in the line, but what a great education that would have been.

As an American, I don't think we should ever be fighting under anothers flag. I know we do it now under UN...etc. but if I was President, there would be only American's in charge and American flags flown when land was taken. Now why the US did not put in more observers with the Brits... who knows. They Europeans were smart enough to do so in our Civil war 50 years before where you really first saw trench warfare in the modern sense. So could we have learned more from the Brits... sure. However I am also glad we did not allow our army to become replacements. Better a fresh start under an American leadership, even if that means more casualties.

Anyway all history now and may I remind Matt that the British departure from the US was a tactical withdrawal

Call it what you will... but the results were the same with England losing a colony and us with Independence.

Makes me wonder. Do you use "Britain" and "England" interchangeably? We do. I guess Scottland and Wales get discriminated against!

just think how great the USA would be now if it remained fully British

Actually its gotten back to something very much like British Rule. Tyrannical Government taxing us to death while taking our God given rights while sending our Army all over the world to protect the Empire.

Well lets see, going by stereotypes, we would be better musicians with worse teeth, drinking tea instead of beer! Since there would not likely have been emigrants from other European states, we would not be as good at building things but be a little less stubborn without the German blood. We would be missing an entire food group and have no mafia without the Italian blood. We would be better at screwing in light bulbs without the Polish blood... the list goes on. Worst of all, we would all be driving on the wrong side of the road and using the stupid Metric system! On the good side our money would be worth twice as much and I doubt even the British could tax more of it! Sound about right?

Very good, and very funny Matt. Now i am going to agree with you on some things, and not comment on the rest!
Mark

Mark,

I look at it like this, I am a big fan of British culture especially their metal (Iron Maiden, Venom, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, etc..) and you are a cool cat, but the Germans have been able to be chemotherapy for a Western European culture that had overrun the rest of the world on a quest for cupidity and resources that did not belong to them. The British Empire did many terrible things under the doctrine of Imperialism, true atrocities:
1) Queen Victoria's wars,
2) Irish oppression,
3) invention of the "concentration camp" during the Boer War,
4) the post-Armistice blockade that kept killing German civilians well after November 11, 1918,
5) Churchill's planned famine in India during WW2, killing 2-3 million,
6) the legal claims from the post-WW2 Mau Mau "uprising" are finally making its way through your courts,
that just scratches the surface.

The Belgians in 1914 were fresh off from murdering 10 million human beings in the Congo, that is more than would die during the entire war in Europe, Americans were not angels during the Spanish American War and treated minorities with great contempt--despite our "Bill of Rights."

To be fair the Germans were late to the party of colonialism, and would have likely been as callous as the: Dutch, English, French, Spanish, and Belgians in extracting/stealing resources of smaller countries. The Germans in 1914 merely dished out karma to the very countries that were exploiting natives on other continents.

I am not naive, the world has not been purged of senseless killing and hatred, but at least after the world wars the once powerful nations had to take a step back and decide what is humane and what is just.

Let us agree on this, one of the the greater tragedies of 19th century European statecraft was the death of Friederich III in 1888 before his time after less than 100 days on the throne, leaving a young Wilhelm II too ill-equipped to lead. Friederich III was the closest king Germany had since Prussia's Friederich the Great, England and Germany would not have been rivals but allies, technology would have boomed, the potential for joint scientific advancement, research, and inventions was lost for almost three generations.

Funny only us history-nuts realize how lucky we are to live in these times, compared to former times

No one can dispute the facts so great post.
I hope Fritz doesn't buy another book if this is what happens!!
Mark

alpencorps wrote:a new find
nic booklet 16 pages

Very cool find Alpenkorps! I would love a copy of that if you get a chance!!!