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
Time would have been required to enable us to develop and complete the
operation; but the prospects of gaining the necessary time, by the use
of cavalry in the manner outlined above, were in my opinion good enough
to justify the attempt to execute the plan. I am of opinion that on Nov.
20 and 21 we went very near to a success sufficiently complete to bring
the realization of our full program within our power.
The reasons for my decision to continue the fight after Nov. 21 have
already been explained. Though in the event no advantage was gained
thereby, I still consider that, as the problem presented itself at the
time, the more cautious course would have been difficult to justify. It
must be remembered that it was not a question of remaining where we
stood, but of abandoning tactical positions of value, gained with great
gallantry, the retention of which seemed not only to be within our
power, but likely even yet to lead to further success.
Whatever may be the final decision on this point, as well as on the
original decision to undertake the enterprise at all with the forces
available, the continuation of our efforts against Fontaine-notre-Dame
gave rise to severe fighting, in which our troops more than held their
own.
Risks Voluntarily Accepted
On Nov. 30 risks were accepted by us at some points in order to increase
our strength at others. Our fresh reserves had been thrown in on the
Bourlon front, where the enemy brought against us a total force of seven
divisions to three and failed. I do not consider that it would have been
justifiable on the indications to have allotted a smaller garrison to
this front.
Between Masnières and Vendhuille the enemy's superiority in infantry
over our divisions in line was in the proportion of about four to three,
and we were sufficiently provided with artillery. That his attack was
partially successful may tend to show that the garrison allotted to this
front was insufficient, either owing to want of numbers, lack of
training, or exhaustion from previous fighting.
Captured maps and orders have made it clear that the enemy aimed at far
more considerable results than were actually achieved by him. Three
convergent attacks were to be made on the salient formed by our advance;
two of them delivered approximately simultaneously about Gonnelieu and
Masnières, followed later by a still more powerful attack on the Bourlon
front. The objectives of these attacks extended to the high ground at
Beaucamp and Trescault, and the enemy's hope was to capture and destroy
the whole of the British forces in the Cambrai salient.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account