100 Years Ago - Murder of general Dukhonin

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/register/failure-of-a-great-plan-b27s9n55s

december 5, 1917

Failure of a great plan

There have in these last few days been times of anxiety, and all credit must be given to the Germans for the formidable plan of their attack. They massed their troops, consisting of not less than six divisions on each side of our salient, quickly and secretly. They had no need to proclaim their presence by a preliminary artillery bombardment, because we had in our new positions no defensive works to destroy or wire to cut. The enemy could attack when he pleased. He chose for the first attack on the weakest point on the south side of the salient, the early morning hour, when our daybreak patrols would have come back reporting all quiet. Then he struck with all his weight. Two hours later, he flung in a second attack, with no fewer men, in even denser masses, against the north.

On the north the attacks were checked, with appalling losses. On the south, by the first surprise the Germans made gains, but only a small portion of what they aimed at. After two days’ interval they again flung against the south side, on an even wider base than before, an attack no less heavy and no less determined. Though the first shot had missed, it was still not too late, by winning a great success, to attain some measure of the original plan. Our victory might still have been so far neutralized as to be made to bear some resemblance to defeat. That attack has made even less gain than the first, and its cost has been as heavy. The Germans came on in dense waves, such as we never dream of using, over open ground, without concealment, and they paid a terrible price.
One gets astounding pictures of the fighting from men who were in it through those amazing hours of strain. One hears of machine-gunners working their guns till they got too hot and jammed, or till all the ammunition was used up, and then seizing rifles and turning in to shoot, shoot, shoot, till the rifles, too, were hot. One hears of men firing steadily hour after hour, using three or four rifles in the course of the day, till dusk came on and the strain relaxed, and they put their heads down on their rifle-butts and sobbed. One hears of field guns firing as fast as they could at point-blank range into the masses as they came on, until wave after wave of the enemy melted and disappeared.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2017-12-04/register/the-german-counter-thrust-rc8bczj6v

december 4, 1917

The German counter-thrust

The first organized attempt of the Germans to recover the great salient torn out of their line before Cambrai was made on Friday. The attack was formidable, but though it has led to the loss of a portion of the salient it failed in its broader purpose. The bulk of the ground won by Sir Julian Byng is still in our possession, and we continue to hold the height crowned by the Bourlon Wood. The onslaught of the enemy was repulsed by our troops with the greatest heroism; perhaps they have never fought with more courage than on Friday and again on Saturday.
It was not, of course, to be expected that the Germans would sit down lightly under their defeat on November 20 and the subsequent days. They had been hurrying up reinforcements and guns to the Cambrai battlefield, and an order by General von der Marwitz, found upon a prisoner, discloses the plan they followed. They aimed at delivering “an encircling counter-attack”, but their greatest strength was thrown at the two flanks of the salient, where it joined our old line. There Sir Douglas Haig remarks they tried “to break through our defences by weight of numbers”.

The British line was rallied with commendable vigour. The Guards marched on Gouzeaucourt in two columns, aided by dismounted cavalry and by Tanks. The enemy had managed to get a large number of machine-guns into Gouzeaucourt, and they operated a withering fire. But the Guards would not be denied, and all accounts suggest that their recovery of the village was one of the finest exploits of the war. Some of the Germans ran, but others fought stoutly, and the place had to be cleaned house by house.
The battle is now raging only at the southern end of the salient. Our special correspondent warns us that it has assumed immense proportions and that the enemy are now employing two hundred thousand infantry in their efforts to deprive Sir Julian Byng of his victory. It is even said that Hindenburg himself has hurried to the scene, accompanied by the faithful Ludendorff. Captured plans indicate the magnitude of the original German aims, and also the extent to which they have so far failed. It seems that one of the greatest battles of the war is developing, and that the enemy are staking much upon the issue.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2017-12-02/register/first-us-graves-in-france-7vmwzhn2v

december 2, 1917

First US graves in France

Directly behind the front line trenches took place on November 4 the funeral of three American soldiers, the first to give their lives for the cause of right. The scene, under a grey sky and with rain falling, was impressive. Three companies of infantry from the battalion to which the dead had belonged, American artillery detachments, and French infantry and artillery formed a hollow square round the three graves. At the head of each grave a small silk American flag flew in the wind, and during the entire ceremony salutes were fired — not the ordinary salute, but shell aimed at and landing in enemy lines at one-minute intervals. After the coffins had been lowered into the graves the general commanding the French division under which the American troops are being trained delivered an address:

In the name of the -th Division, in the name of the French Army, and in the name of France, I bid farewell to Corporal Gresham, Private Enright, and Private Hay, of the 16th Infantry, United States Army. Of their own free will they had left their happy and prosperous country to come to France. They had taken their place by the side of France, and they have fallen facing the foe in a desperate hand-to-hand fight. Honour to them! Men! These graves, the first to be dug in our soil of France, at but a short distance from the enemy, are a mark of the mighty hand of our Allies, confirming the will of the people and the Army of the United States to fight with us to a finish. Therefore the death of this humble corporal and these two private soldiers appears to us in extraordinary grandeur. We ask that the mortal remains of these young men be left here, left for ever to France. We will, in the fullness of peace, inscribe indelibly upon their tombs: “Here lie the first soldiers of the Republic of the United States to fall upon the soil of France in the cause of justice and liberty.” And the passer-by will stop and uncover his head. Travellers from every Allied nation, from the United States, who, in reverence and heart, come to visit these battlefields of France, will go out of their way to visit these graves, and bring the tribute of respect and gratitude. Corporal Gresham. Private Enright, Private Hay, in the name of France, thank you. God receive your souls. Adieu.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2017-12-01/register/lord-lansdownes-letter-0hzwtj29g

december 1, 1917

Lord Lansdowne’s letter

A semi-official communiqué states explicitly that Lord Lansdowne’s letter does not in any way represent the views of the Government, whose policy remains unchanged. It has, however, produced a very unfortunate impression abroad. While in Germany it is hailed with general satisfaction, it has created a feeling of pained surprise in France and the United States, where it is regarded as disastrously inopportune and hurtful to the Allied cause. Mr Bonar Law described it as a national misfortune, and as suggesting a basis of peace which would really be a defeat for the Allies.
The following is the view of his Majesty’s Government with regard to Lord Lansdowne’s letter: Lord Lansdowne in his letter spoke only for himself. Before writing it he did not consult, nor, indeed, has he been in communication with any member of the Government, his Majesty’s Ministers reading it with as much surprise as did everybody else. The views expressed in the letter do not in any way represent the views of his Majesty’s Government, nor do they indicate in the slightest degree that there is any change or modification in the war policy of this country. This is still what it has always been described to be by the Prime Minister, Mr Asquith, Mr Bonar Law, and Mr Balfour. This war policy has been spoken of in different words, but perhaps is best summed up in the recent utterance of M Clemenceau, “The war aims for which we are fighting are victory.”

Although there was never any doubt of British opinion towards Lord Lansdowne’s letter, there was a decided hardening of tone yesterday against his intervention on the side of a peace by compromise. There was no division on the necessity of discouraging talk of peace until a peace based on victory is assured. As many ridiculous conclusions have been based on a misunderstanding of Lord Lansdowne’s position in the Unionist Party, it may be well to explain how the matter stands. For some years Lord Lansdowne and Mr Bonar Law were joint leaders. This continued until the break-up of the Coalition Government last year. Lord Lansdowne then retired from Ministerial life and also from the joint leadership of the party. Since then Mr Bonar Law has been the leader of the Unionist Party as well as Leader of the House of Commons.