The Test of Battle: The American Expeditionary Forces in the Meuse-Argonne Campaign

Rating:
Summary: Excellent reference, fair reading
Review: This book is an excellent historical reference on American participation on the Western Front. It provides ample politico-military information, as well as illuminating the reader on other scholarship in the field. However, it does suffer a bit on what I would describe as inferior editing. Basically, I would recommend this book for a serious historian looking for a good entry into American involvement on the ground in WW1. Once you have it and read it, it ought to stay on your bookshelf to help you find and work with other texts. If you are just a buff interested in a little light reading on WW1, go elsewhere.

Rating:
Summary: Could Have Been Great..Terrible Editing!
Review: When compared with the American Civil War and World War II, the historical literature dealing with America's role in World War I, is noticeable lacking. Although recent publications have added to the diluted historiography that once consisted primarily of memoirs, this crucial period is a potential gold mine of unwritten scholarship that could shed light on American military policy. In _The Test of Battle: The American Expeditionary Forces in the Meuse Argonne Campaign_, Paul F. Braim evaluates the American performance and combat effectiveness during this, the American Expeditionary Force's (AEF) largest and most significant campaign. Dr. Braim, a veteran of three wars, represents the delicate blending of the academic historian and their brethren in uniform that bring a high level of technical military expertise to the profession. That combination has some drawbacks here, however.The author does not grade the AEF's performance too highly. Among the weaknesses the author mentions are: poor leadership, inadequate training, and inexperience of the American units and command structure. Unpreparedness, a lingering malady of American "citizen soldiers" is the underlying theme here. Unfortunately, Braim devotes only seventy-five pages to the actual Meuse-Argonne Campaign. In the process, one gets the impression that he is placing the Meuse-Argonne Campaign under a microscope applying all the stored technical knowledge and jargon inherent in a modern day military professional. Braim dissects the Meuse-Argonne as if he were refereeing a recent exercise held at Fort Benning, Georgia. The author incorporates way too much hindsight for my taste. The majority of the book, is nothing more than a diluted political overview and massive military buildup that mirrors the work of other historians. Nearly half of its 245-pages is a series of appendices containing graphs and tables reproduced from an original record titled: "Final Reports of Assistant Chief of Staff ... to Commander-in-Chief, American Expeditionary Forces." Most interesting, however, is the table indicating the "Responses of 728 Veterans of the Meuse-Argonne Campaign..." conducted by the U.S. Army Military History Institute at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. It is this unique perspective of veterans that adds originality to a study of this type. Generous maps and battlefield photographs taken after the war are faithfully duplicated within these pages. Yet a book cannot be judged by cosmetic make-overs alone. Braim cites poor leadership wracked the Meuse-Argonne Campaign, with particular finger-pointing at Pershing. The author suggests Pershing was afflicted with a myopia which could be called "Battlefield Fixation," and compares this preoccupation to the symptoms of Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg. Braim has consulted an adequate collection of published and unpublished sources. According to the results of the questionnaire, the veterans agree with Braim concerning inadequate training, due to "lack of time." The veterans disagree with Braim, however, on leadership. Of the 503 responses to the 'leadership" criterion, 467 veterans thought the leadership in the AEF was "good" noting that the "leaders cared" for the American soldier. It is also noteworthy to mention that Braim sent out queries to a group of the most highly respected military historians in the field to ask their views on this topic. They could not rescue Braim's bout with acute bad prose, however. The author's account is, for the most part, fluid, but contains annoying peculiarities. For instance, Braim repeatedly refers to himself throughout the text as "this author" and sprinkles his prose with contractions and the anachronistic exclamation point. Quoting a well known historian of the period, Braim exclaims, "That's the sum of it! This author wishes he'd said that." When confronted with a debate over leadership, Brain once again blurts out: "If fired upon on this matter, this author will retreat!" This reader had to retreat for some fresh air or get sick. This book had all the makings of a great study. A qualified editor would have made all the difference.