Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times, May 1918: Vol. VIII, Part I, No. 2 — John Shaqi
Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times, May 1918: Vol. VIII, Part I, No. 2Various
History
Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times, May 1918: Vol. VIII, Part I, No. 2
Various
World War, 1914-1918
After such a disaster, it was found necessary to abandon a great amount
of terrain to maintain a junction between the two British armies.
Péronne and Bapaume were soon captured by the Germans, and on March 27
the Germans reported the occupation of Albert. On the same day Roye and
Noyon were taken. On the next day the Germans had pushed as far west as
Pierrepont and taken possession of Montdidier. As was to be expected in
such a retreat, there soon was a large toll of British guns and
prisoners. On March 29 the Germans claimed 1,100 guns and 70,000
prisoners. They had also captured great quantities of material and 100
tanks.
These were heavy losses, but such losses were not the really serious
element in the situation. A study of the map will show that, as the 5th
Army retreated toward the west, there was left an increasingly long
sector south of Noyon and curving north, west of Montdidier to the Avre
River--and it was necessary that this dangerous opening should be
protected by the French reserves. With extraordinary rapidity and
efficiency French troops were rushed to this region, and the almost
impossible task was accomplished of repairing the defense. But the drain
on the French reserves had been heavy, and the necessity to use them for
this purpose had neutralized a force that had been prepared for a
different object against such a German drive.
That these reserves were being held as a mobile army was so generally
known that, it will be remembered, there was daily expectation of a
counterattack by this force. There is no need to point out how great
might have been the results of an assault upon an enemy exhausted by
days of fighting; but any such plan was rendered impossible at the time
by the need to use these troops to defend the new line, which was nearly
as long as the original battle line at the time of the attacks on March
21.
FOCH MADE GENERALISSIMO
Yet, on the other hand, from this battle's costly object lesson in the
weakness of divided commands, came at last the appointment of the French
General, Foch, (March 28,) to absolute command over all the armies of
the Allies on the western front. For a long time a single command has
been the one great need to insure military efficiency, and obtaining
this is an offset against the losses in the battle which brought such a
command into being.
Throughout the war the great outstanding element of failure for the
Allies has been lack of co-ordination. The varying aims of the different
nations in the war have accounted for this to a great degree, but on the
battlefields of France there should have been no delay in giving the
command to the chosen General of the nation which had everything at
stake. All the influence of the United States had been exerted for a
long time in favor of a single command, and at once the unrestricted use
of the American force in France was offered to General Foch.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account