Pershing and Foch shaking hands in 1918, as Pershing was departing to return to the United States.
And they didn't resolve their dispute either.
The dispute was about a planned upcoming American offensive. Following Soissons, the U.S. First Army was formed which gave the US an independent army in the field, must like the British Expeditionary Force. The US, in other words, was ready to fight on its own.
And it had planned an offensive which contemplated the strategic situation at the time planning commenced. The problem was, however, that it no longer did, and Foch, the Supreme Allied Commander, knew it.
Pershing's plan, developed before the recent Allied advances had become so successful, called for the U.S. First Army to advance straight north from its positions on a broad front towards Sedan. In other words, truly straight north, towards Belgium. It made sense when first conceived of.
Foch, on the other hand, wanted to scrap that and have the U.S. Army, with a French contingent, close a salient sought of Verdun and take a hard right towards the German city of Metz, and take it. Foch would have had the U.S. Army swing right.
Foch was right.
That would have meant, however, that the U.S. Army would not have been operating fully independent. Pershing wouldn't have that.
The argument was not resolved. It was heated. Most American historians give Pershing credit for sticking to his guns and thereby making certain that the U.S. Army would be an independent one.
But, in reality, the proposed line of advance that Pershing wanted was now obsolete due to the spectacular recent advances of the British Expeditionary Force. Foch's plan, however, was strategically dynamic and would have put the Allies right into a German city.
Foch was right.
On the same day, in spite of the argument, the American 1st Army took over the St. Mihiel Sector.
No comments:
Post a Comment