The Story of the Great War, Volume 6 / History of the European War from Official Sources

by Unknown

CHAPTER LII

GATHERING CLOUDS

The conduct of the country's foreign policy became hampered by the presidential campaign. President Wilson was frankly uncertain of reelection and embarrassed by the feeling that any determination he made of a policy toward Germany might be overturned by his successful opponent. So American domestic politics perceptibly intruded at this stage in the country's foreign policy.

In fact, that policy was practically in suspension. Germany eagerly availed herself of the hiatus, and, satisfying herself that President Wilson would be defeated, and that his successor would adopt a different attitude to her (she had no real ground for this supposition), embarked upon a submarine activity that was in strange contrast to the moderation which the German Chancellor had stubbornly fought for in its conduct.

The point to be remembered was that Germany's pledge to President Wilson was the only curb on frightfulness. Germany rashly assumed that the defeat of President Wilson would nullify it. At any rate, his uncertain outlook in the preelection period opened the way for a submarine outbreak which would be extended with impunity owing to the Administration's hesitation in taking action that might not be sustained by the President's presumed successor, on the theory that Mr. Wilson's defeat would be tantamount to a popular repudiation of his policies.

Light was thrown on the German submarine policy by a Berlin dispatch, dated October 26, 1916, which indicated that the submarines were at least placating the extremists:

"While the silence of the German press and public on the subject of sharpened submarine warfare may be attributed in some measure to the stand of Hindenburg and Ludendorff against it, much more significant is the growing popular realization that sharpened submarine warfare is actually in force. And the public is beginning to regard it as efficient and highly satisfactory. The fact is that it is successful as never before, for it is sharpened not qualitatively, but quantitatively."

The British admiralty later reported that between May 4 (the date of the German pledge) and November 8, 1916, thirty-three vessels had been sunk by German submarines without warning, resulting in the loss of 140 lives. In the same period 107 ships, all of British registry, had been sunk and "the lives of the crews and passengers imperiled through their being forced to take to the sea in open boats while their ships were a target for the enemy's guns."

President Wilson's success at the polls, which hung in the balance several days after the election, was the signal for a change of attitude on Germany's part. The Berlin Government realized that his foreign policy had received the indorsement of a majority of American citizens, and the assurance was communicated that the German admiralty was again on its good behavior.

But many depredations had been committed which Germany would be hard put to explain satisfactorily. No less than ten pressing American inquiries regarding sunk ships were sent to the Berlin Foreign Office as soon as the President, assured that his tenure of office was no longer in doubt, returned to the consideration of foreign affairs. The submarine outbreak showed an undoubted disposition on Germany's part to violate her pledge, and if the Administration was satisfied that she had done so, its expressed attitude was that no more protests would be sent. The American answer to Germany's defiance could only be the dismissal of Count von Bernstorff from Washington and the recall of Ambassador Gerard from Berlin.

The outstanding cases on which the United States called for an adequate defense from Germany were:

The Rowanmore, British freighter, bound from Baltimore to Liverpool, sunk off Cape Clear on October 25, 1916. Two Americans and five Filipinos were on board. No lives were lost.

The Marina, a British horse carrier, bound from Glasgow to Newport News, sunk without warning off the southwest coast of Ireland on October 29, 1916. She carried a mixed crew of British and Americans. Six Americans lost their lives.

The Arabia, a Peninsular and Oriental passenger liner, sunk in the Mediterranean without warning on November 6, 1916. One American was on board. No lives were lost.

The Columbian, an American steamer, sunk off the Spanish coast on November 8, 1916, after being held up for two days under surveillance by the submarine during a storm.

Germany charged that the Rowanmore attempted to escape on being ordered to stop. Her steering gear was shot away after an hour's chase, when the captain hove to and lifeboats were lowered. The crew complained that the submarine shelled the boats after they had cleared the ship. This the commander denied. The flight of the Rowanmore appeared to deprive her of the consideration due to an unresisting vessel under cruiser warfare.

The Marina carried a defensive gun, as did the Arabia. This fact alone, Germany contended, entitled her submarines to sink both vessels without warning, in addition to the commander's belief in each case that the vessel was a transport in the service of the British admiralty. The American Government was satisfied that neither vessel was engaged in transport service on the voyage in question. In the Arabia's case, 450 passengers were on board, including women and children, who were only saved because the Administration had already held that the gun's presence on a vessel did not deprive her of the right to proper warning before being sunk. Germany admitted liability for sinking the Columbian and agreed to pay for the value of the vessel and the contraband cargo she carried.

The Marina case stood out, in the view of the State Department, as a "clear-cut" violation of Germany's pledges to the United States. Her gun was not used, and no opportunity was afforded for using it. The "presumption" on the part of a German submarine commander that a vessel was a transport was a favorite defense of Germany's and disregarded the American ruling on armed merchantmen, which held that "the determination of warlike character must rest in no case upon presumption, but upon conclusive evidence."

Berlin was looking for trouble. A period of complications in American-German relations was frankly predicted. The Administration was plainly concerned by the situation; but no decision to take action was forthcoming. Its hesitation appeared to be due to the apparent need for a further note to dispose of new interpretations Germany had ingeniously woven in her various excuses by way of evading the letter and spirit of the Sussex agreement. One view of her submarine "rights" which Germany insisted on upholding was that armed merchantmen were not legally immune from attack on sight.

Herr Zimmermann, the German Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, defined anew his Government's attitude:

"As the armament of several British ships has been used for attack, and has therefore endangered the lives of crew and passengers, of course armed ships cannot be considered as peaceful trade boats."

The cases of the Marina and Arabia put the German pledges to a test. Neither vessel attempted to escape nor offered resistance, though armed with a solitary gun. The issue therefore resolved itself into these considerations:

First. Since the German submarine commanders have pleaded extenuating circumstances on which they based their presumption that the Marina and Arabia, were transports, and not passenger vessels, were these circumstances sufficient to have justified the commanders in mistaking the two steamers for transports?

Second. If there were such extenuating circumstances, were they such as to warrant the commanders in departing from the general rule laid down by the American Government in the Sussex note, calling forth the pledges given by Germany in May, 1916, in which it was guaranteed that "in accordance with the general principles of visit and search and destruction of merchant vessels recognized by international law, such vessels, both within and without the area declared as naval war zone, shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance?"

Whatever intimation was made to Germany by the United States did not become public. By December, 1916, the whole question appeared to have been suddenly shelved by the peace proposals Germany hurled at the Allies in loud tones of victory, coupled with an invitation to the United States to interpose as a mediator. Peace, of course, would dispose of further friction with the United States. While the proposals were pending, moreover, American action on German violations of her submarine agreement was suspended. What was the use of a diplomatic rupture with Germany on the eve of peace? But Germany knew that her official "peace kite" was making an abortive flight. Peace she really did not expect, knowing it was not within reach; but she was anxious to preserve friendly relations with the United States, although daily flouting it in her conduct of the submarine war. Her peace move was therefore shown to have had a double edge. It postponed, but did not avert, a final crisis with the United States, and that, indeed, might well have been its initial aim in view of the foredoomed futility of its ostensible object. Certainly President Wilson espoused the peace proposal for the same reason; but, as shown in the following chapter, the efforts of both were in vain. The real climax was to come after all.[Back to Contents]

CHAPTER LIII

RUPTURE WITH GERMANY

The movement for peace was at its crest, and President Wilson was apparently sanguine that his efforts in furthering it were on the eve of bearing fruit, when Great Britain planned to extend her blockade of the German coast in the North Sea. She enlarged the dangerous area which hitherto only barred the entry of German naval forces south into the Straits of Dover and the English Channel by cutting off the German North Sea coast altogether, in order to prevent the egress and ingress of German sea raiders by the northward route and to curtail the chances of the kaiser's warships making successful forays on the English coast. The significance of this action was not seen until it became known that Great Britain had discovered that Germany, while seemingly occupied with peace, was preparing a warning to neutrals of her intention to establish a deep-sea blockade of the entire British and French coasts. By extending the mined area round the German coast Great Britain sought to counteract and anticipate the new German project, the aim of which was to starve the British Isles by a bitter and unrestrained submarine war on all ships. The British warning of the extended dangerous area came on January 27, 1917. Germany announced her new policy four days later, proclaiming that it was in retaliation of Great Britain's latest attempt to tighten her strangle hold on German food supplies. But there was overwhelming evidence—the German Chancellor himself provided it—that the German plan had been matured long in advance of Great Britain's course, and that the peace overtures had really been made by Germany in order that their certain rejection could be seized upon as a justification for the ruthless sea warfare projected.

The Wilson Administration, round whose horizon mirages of peace still appeared to linger, was not prepared for the blow when it came. The President could scarcely credit the news brought by a note from Germany on January 31, 1917, that she had withdrawn her pledges to the United States not to sink ships without warning. But the situation had to be faced that a crisis confronted the country in its relations with the German Empire.

Germany found occasion in her note of renunciation to link its purport with that of the President's address delivered to the Senate nine days previously. (See Part VI, Chapter LVIII, "Peace Without Victory.") In its exalted sentiments she gave a perfunctory and manifestly insincere acquiescence by way of prefacing familiar reproaches to the Allies for refusing to accept her peace overtures. In rejecting them, she said, the Allies had disclosed their real aims, which were to "dismember and dishonor Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria."

Germany was poignantly grieved by the continuance of the war, not solely because of fear of this supposititious dismemberment, but because "British tyranny mercilessly increases the sufferings of the world, indifferent to the laws of humanity, indifferent to the protests of the neutrals whom they severely harm, indifferent even to the silent longing for peace among England's own allies. Each day of the terrible struggle causes new destruction, new sufferings. Each day shortening the war will, on both sides, preserve the lives of thousands of brave soldiers and be a benefit to mankind."

Anything to end the war, was Germany's slogan. Because of the sufferings of the German people "a new situation" had been created which forced her to "new decisions." Because of the sufferings of other nations, and the Entente Powers' refusal to make peace at her bidding, she thus announced her resolve: "... The Imperial Government, in order to serve the welfare of mankind in a higher sense and not to wrong its own people, is now compelled to continue the fight for existence, again forced upon it, with the full employment of all the weapons which are at its disposal."

The Imperial Government furthermore hoped that the United States would "view the new situation from the lofty heights of impartiality, and assist on their part to prevent further misery and unavoidable sacrifice of human life."

New German Submarine War Zone of February 1, 1917.

The "new situation" as presented to the United States was that within a barred zone Germany had drawn round the British and French coasts, extending from the Shetlands as far south as Cape Finisterre, and to the west some 700 miles into the Atlantic, and also in the Mediterranean, all sea traffic would be stopped on and after February 1, 1917, and that neutral vessels navigating the proscribed waters would do so at their own risk. The only exception made was a "safety lane" permitted for one American vessel a week with identifiable markings to sail to and from Falmouth through the Atlantic zone (the United States Government to guarantee that it did not carry contraband) and another safety lane admitting sea traffic through the Mediterranean to Athens. All other vessels would be sunk without regard to the pledges Germany made to the United States. Germany thus practically shut off American traffic with Europe in pursuance of her new sea warfare against her enemies.

The edict was extended to hospital ships on the charge that the Allies used them for the transportation of munitions and troops. The charge was denied by the British and French Governments; but frightfulness admitted of no truth nor acceptance of denials of German charges, obviously made deliberately to justify barbarities, and so hospital ships, with their medical and nursing staffs and wounded, were to be sunk whenever found by submarines.

The real attitude of Germany toward her withdrawn pledges to the United States was betrayed by the German Chancellor in addressing the Reichstag Committee on Ways and Means. He revealed that the pledges were merely a temporary expedient, made to fill up a gap until more submarines were available. It appeared that in March, May (when Germany surrendered to the American demands), and in September, 1916, the question of unrestricted warfare was not considered ripe for decision—that is, Germany was not ready to defy the United States. Dr. von Bethmann-Hollweg thus defined the situation:

"I have always proceeded from the standpoint of whether U-boat war would bring us nearer victorious peace or not. Every means, I said in March, that was calculated to shorten the war constitutes the most humane policy to follow. When the most ruthless methods are considered best calculated to lead us to victory, and swift victory, I said then they must be employed. This moment has now arrived.... The moment has come when, with the greatest prospect of success, we can undertake the enterprise."

What changes, he asked, had come into the situation? A firm basis for success had been established by a considerable increase in submarines; poor harvests confronted England, France, and Italy, who would find their difficulties unbearable by an unrestricted submarine war; France and Italy also lacked coal, and the submarines would increase its dearth; England lacked ore and timber, her supplies of which would be diminished by the same means; and all the Entente Powers were suffering from a shrinkage in cargo space due to the submarines. With the bright prospect of success afforded by the supposed plight of the Allied Powers, Germany, he indicated, was prepared to accept all the consequences that would flow from the unrestricted submarine warfare decided upon.

So was President Wilson. The German Chancellor made it clear that after Germany gave her solemn pledge on May 4, 1916, not to sink ships without warning, she had occupied the intervening months in feverish preparations to break it and to tear up the pledge like a scrap of paper and throw it to the winds. On the Chancellor's own words Germany had been convicted of a breach of faith.

The President considered the crisis for three days. There was no question of the United States tolerating Germany's disavowal of her unlawful blockade of American trade with the belligerent countries. The only questions to be decided were whether to warn Germany that a rupture would follow her first act hurtful to American life or property; to demand the withdrawal of her decree by an ultimatum; to wait until she committed some "overt act" before taking action; or whether to cease diplomatic relations without any parley at all.

The last-named course was determined upon. On February 3, 1917, President Wilson addressed the two Houses of Congress in joint session, informing them that the United States had severed its relations with Germany. The President reviewed the circumstances which led to the giving of the German undertaking to the United States following the sinking of the Sussex on March 24, 1916, without warning. He reminded Congress that on the April 18 following the Administration informed the German Government that unless it "should now immediately declare and effect an abandonment of its present methods of submarine warfare against passenger and freight-carrying vessels, the Government of the United States can have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with the German Empire altogether." The German Government consented to do so with reservations. These the United States brushed aside, and committed Germany to the plain pledge that no ships should be sunk without warning unless they attempted to escape or offered resistance. In view of Germany's new declaration deliberately withdrawing her solemn assurance without prior intimation, the President told Congress that the Government had no alternative consistent with the dignity and honor of the United States but to hand Count von Bernstorff, the German Ambassador, his passports, and to recall Ambassador Gerard from Berlin. But the President refused to believe that the German authorities intended to carry out the decree.

"I cannot bring myself to believe," he said, "that they will indeed pay no regard to the ancient friendship between their people and our own or to the solemn obligations which have been exchanged between them and destroy American ships and take the lives of American citizens in the willful prosecution of the ruthless naval program they have announced their intention to adopt. Only actual overt acts on their part can make me believe it even now."

But in the event of such overt acts the duty of the United States was clear:

"If this inveterate confidence on my part in the sobriety and prudent foresight of their purpose should unhappily prove unfounded, if American ships and American lives should in fact be sacrificed by their naval commanders in a heedless contravention of the just and reasonable understanding of international law and the obvious dictates of humanity, I shall take the liberty of coming again before the Congress to ask that authority be given me to use any means that may be necessary for the protection of our seamen and our people in the prosecution of their peaceful and legitimate errands on the high seas. I can do nothing less. I take it for granted that all neutral governments will take the same course."

Should Germany compel the United States to declare war, the President repudiated that any aggressive attitude would dictate such a course:

"We do not desire any hostile conflict with the Imperial German Government. We are the sincere friends of the German people, and earnestly desire to remain at peace with the Government which speaks for them. We shall not believe that they are hostile to us unless and until we are obliged to believe it, and we purpose nothing more than the reasonable defense of the undoubted rights of our people. We wish to serve no selfish ends. We seek merely to stand true alike in thought and in action to the immemorial principles of our people which I have sought to express in my address to the Senate only two weeks ago—seek merely to vindicate our right to liberty and justice and an unmolested life. These are the bases of peace, not war. God grant that we may not be challenged to defend them by acts of willful injustice on the part of the Government of Germany!"

War was apparently inevitable. Submarine warfare on Atlantic shipping made certain some "overt act" offensive to the United States. The German attitude was that the new decree would be remorselessly acted upon; it could not and would not be modified; it was absolute and final; and the only security for American shipping was to avoid the prohibited zone by abandoning its trade with Europe.

Germany frankly discounted the effect of the entrance of the United States, as a belligerent opposed to her. Measuring her estimated gains from the pursuit of an unbridled sea war, she decided that they would more than outweigh the disadvantage of American hostility.[Back to Contents]

CHAPTER LIV

NOTHING SETTLED

With the Allied Powers the American Government's relations continued to be friendly under certain diplomatic difficulties, due to a group of unadjusted issues relating to the blockade of German ports, mail seizures, and the blacklist. Popularly, overwhelming pro-Ally sympathies and an enormous trade due directly to the war more than offset commercial irritation arising from Allied infractions of American rights; but while they continued they intruded as obstacles to the preservation of official amity. If the Administration was content to enter its protests and then let matters rest, its inaction merely meant that the Allies' sins were magnanimously tolerated, not condoned. The Allies, on the other hand, maintained that they were not sinning at all, that they were only doing what the United States itself had done when engaged in war and would do again if it ever became a belligerent. Diplomacy failed to reconcile the differences, and so nothing was settled.

Great Britain, as the chief offender in trampling roughshod over American privileges of trade in war time, added to her manifold transgressions, in August, 1916, by placing further curbs on neutral trade with the Netherland Overseas Trust. Under a scheme to ration the neutral countries of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland—that is, restricting their imports to their estimated domestic needs—further licenses granted to British exporters to trade with these countries were discontinued. Here was a check on British exports for fear of the surplus reaching Germany through neutral channels. A check on American exports followed by Great Britain forbidding the Overseas Trust to accept further consignments of certain commodities from the United States for Holland, and by her refusal to grant letters of assurance safeguarding the delivery of American shipments destined for the three other countries. By these devices Great Britain controlled supplies to these countries at the source. The effect was that certain American consignments predestined for Holland were stopped altogether, while the shipping companies trading between the United States and Scandinavia could not take cargoes without British assurances of safe discharge at their ports of destination. The British official view was that excessive exports from Great Britain to these countries could not very well be forbidden while permitting them from the United States and other neutral sources. The veto had to be general to be effective.

One measure passed by Congress, providing for the creation of a Shipping Board, empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to forbid clearance to any vessel whose owner or agents refused to accept consignments offered for transport abroad by an American citizen for reasons other than lack of space or inadaptability of the vessel to carry the cargo offered. Another measure, the Omnibus Revenue Law, made similar provisions in a more drastic form, aiming specifically at retaliation for the Allies' blacklist of German-American firms, and the various blockades and embargoes in operation against American products. It provided that the owners or agents of vessels affiliated with a belligerent engaged in a war to which the United States was not a party must neither discriminate in favor of nor against any citizen, product, or locality of the United States in accepting or refusing consignments on pain of clearance being refused.

The same penalty attached to vessels of any belligerent which denied to American ships and citizens the same privileges of commerce which the offending belligerent accorded to its own vessels or to those of any other nationality. An alternative penalty, to be exercised by the President in his discretion, denied to such offending belligerents' ships and citizens the privileges of commerce with the United States until reciprocal liberty of trade was restored. A third provision aimed at penalizing a belligerent who prohibited the importation at its ports of any American product, not injurious to health or morals, by barring importation into the United States from the offending country similar or other articles.

The prevailing view was that the exercise of such reprisals by the President would virtually mean nonintercourse in trade and involve serious international complications. An isolated English impression, only of moment because it placed the aspects of the legislation in a nutshell, recognized that while it might be merely a "flourish" having a special virtue on the eve of a presidential election, the reprisals were aimed at the Allies, primarily against Great Britain, and were popular in the United States as a commercial club that could be wielded instead of having recourse to the threats that brought Germany to respect American demands. But the British official attitude as taken by Lord Robert Cecil was unmoved. "It is not likely," he said, "that Great Britain will change her blacklist policy at the request of the United States. The idea that Great Britain is adopting a deliberate policy with which to injure American trade is the purest moonshine, since outside of our own dominions our trade with the United States is the most important. Of course, natural trade rivalry exists, but no responsible statesman in this country would dream of proposing an insane measure designed to injure American commerce."

The blacklist was the last straw which provoked the retaliatory legislation. But, alone of the seemingly unadjustable disputes pending between the United States and Great Britain, it was on the blacklist issue that the latter had an unanswerable defense. The British stand left official Washington's complaint bereft of foundation under international law. The only ground on which the American protest could be justified was by contending that the blacklist violated international comity. In other words, if it was not illegal—there was no doubt of its legality—it was an incivility.

There had been the usual diplomatic exchange between the two governments on the subject prefacing a lengthy communication sent by Lord Grey—the new title of the British Foreign Secretary upon his promotion to the peerage—on October 10, 1916. Therein he repeated that the blacklist was promulgated in pursuance of the Trading with the Enemy Act (a war measure explained in a previous volume), and was a piece of purely municipal legislation. Moreover, the American Government was assured, "the Government of Great Britain neither purport nor claim to impose any disabilities or penalties upon neutral individuals or upon neutral commerce. The measure is simply one which enjoins those who owe allegiance to Great Britain to cease having trade relations with persons who are found to be assisting or rendering service to the enemy."

Nor were the steps taken confined to the United States:

"With the full consent of the Allied Governments, firms even in Allied countries are being placed on the statutory list, if they are firms with whom it is necessary to prevent British subjects from trading. These considerations may, perhaps, serve to convince the Government of the United States that the measures now being taken are not directed against neutral trade in general. Still less are they directed against American trade in particular; they are part of the general belligerent operations designed to weaken the enemy's resources."

The burden of the note was that Great Britain maintained the right, which in the existing crisis she also deemed a duty, to withhold British facilities from those who conducted their trade for the benefit of her foes. This right Lord Grey characterized as so obvious that he could not believe the United States Government seriously contested the inherent privilege of a sovereign state to exercise it except under a misconception of the scope and intent of the measures taken. It would appear that the American Government gracefully surrendered, by default, its earlier contention that Great Britain had no right to forbid her subjects from trading with American firms having Teutonic affiliations.

The American objections to detentions and censorship of mails by the Allied Powers, which were bent on preventing German sympathizers from using the postal service to neutral countries as a channel for transmitting money, correspondence, and goods for the Central Powers, brought a further communication from Lord Grey on October 12, 1916. It threw no new light on the subject, the bearings of which were dealt with in a previous volume. The American contentions, so far from being conceded, were themselves attacked in an argument intended to refute them. The Allied governments were only prepared to give assurances that they would continue to lessen the annoyances caused by the practice and were "ready to settle responsibility therefor in accordance with the principles of law and justice, which it never was and is not now their intention to evade."

Lord Grey thus defined the Allied position:

"The practice of the Germans to make improper use of neutral mails and forward hostile correspondence, even official communications, dealing with hostilities, under cover of apparently unoffensive envelopes, mailed by neutrals to neutrals, made it necessary to examine mails from or to countries neighboring Germany under the same conditions as mails from or to Germany itself; but as a matter of course mails from neutrals to neutrals that do not cover such improper uses have nothing to fear."

Germany's treatment of mails, Lord Grey pointed out, went much further than mere interception:

"As regards the proceedings of the German Empire toward postal correspondence during the present war, the Allied governments have informed the Government of the United States of the names of some of the mail steamers whose mail bags have been not examined, to be sure, but purely and simply destroyed at sea by the German naval authorities. Other names could very easily be added. The very recent case of the mail steamer Hudikswall (Swedish), carrying 670 mail bags, may be cited."

The discussion was as profitless as that arising from the blacklist. As to the blockade issue, involving interference with American commerce on the high seas, both sides appeared to epistolarily bolt, and the question remained in suspended animation. The blacklist and mail disputes acquired a similar status.[Back to Contents]

PART VII—WESTERN FRONT

CHAPTER LV

THE GERMAN RETREAT ON THE ANCRE

In January, 1917, the British forces in France captured 1,228 Germans, of whom twenty-seven were officers. The first month of the new year passed unmarked by any striking gains for either side. The Allies had maintained and strengthened their old positions, made slight advances at some points, and continued to harass and destroy the enemy in trench raids, artillery duels, and in battles in the air.

Some record of the principal minor operations in France and Belgium at this time is necessary, as every offensive movement had a set purpose and was a part of the Germans' or Allies' plans.

On February 1, 1917, in the neighborhood of Wytschaete, parties of Germans dressed in white attempted two surprise assaults on British trenches, but were rolled back with severe losses before they could get within striking distance. In these encounters the British took prisoners without losing a man or incurring the slightest casualty.

On the same date the French were engaged in lively artillery actions at Hartmannsweilerkopf and east of Metzeral. Around Altkirch and to the east of Rheims they were successful in spirited encounters with enemy patrols. In Lorraine during the night the Germans attacked trenches south of Leintrey, but were shattered by French fire. In the sector of St. Georges in Belgium a surprise attack also failed.

On the British front in the course of the same night a dashing raid was carried out against German trenches northeast of Guèdecourt (Somme sector) in which two officers and fifty-six men were taken prisoners.

The British carried out another successful operation on February 3, 1917, north of the Ancre, pushing forward their line east of Beaucourt some 500 yards on a front of about three-quarters of a mile. Over a hundred prisoners and three machine guns were captured. On the same night southeast of Souchez German trenches were penetrated and twenty-one prisoners and some guns were taken. Several dugouts containing Germans were bombed and an enemy shaft was destroyed.

While the British continued to make slight gains and to harass the enemy, the French were engaged in minor operations no less successful. A surprise attack in the region of Moulin-sous-Toutvent resulted in the capture of a dozen prisoners. A similar operation in the region of Tracy-le-Val between the Oise and the Aisne was also a victory for French arms. The Germans fought with determination, but were unable to make any headway against the indomitable French spirit. The number of casualties incurred by the Germans was not known, but the French took twenty-two prisoners.

During February 4, 1917, the Germans displayed intense activity, as if determined to retrieve their frequent failures since the month opened.

Three hostile raids were attempted by strong German forces during the night and early morning of February 4-5, 1917, on the British lines on the Somme front. The Germans in each attack were thrown back in disorder, leaving a number of prisoners in British hands.

Northeast of Guèdecourt during the night of the 4th the British occupied 500 yards of a German trench, capturing a machine gun and seventy prisoners, including two officers.

In the space of twenty-four hours (February 4-5, 1917) the Germans made four successful counterattacks against the new British front east of Beaucourt. The British continued the work of consolidating their new positions undisturbed by the frantic efforts of the Germans to oust them, and in raids and counterattacks captured forty prisoners, including one officer.

British airmen registered a number of victories during February 4, 1917. Three German machines were destroyed and six others driven to earth seriously damaged. Only one British machine was counted missing.

During the evening on this date the French south of the Somme defeated a German raid near Barleux, inflicting heavy casualties and taking some prisoners. Incursions into German lines in Alsace and the Chambrette and Pont-à-Mousson sectors were carried out with satisfactory results. They captured a considerable amount of war material and brought back one officer and a number of prisoners.

The British on the Somme front were now determined to push on to the capture of Grandcourt. On February 6, 1917, they occupied 1,000 yards of German trench in the neighborhood of that place. Artillery activity on both sides of the Somme front and in the Ypres sector continued during the day and night. The British brought down ten German machines in aerial battles and lost two of their own flyers.

On February 5-6, 1917, the French continued to raid German lines with good results. In Alsace near Anspach they penetrated three German positions, wrecking enemy works and bombing shelters and returned to their own lines without losing a man.

The continuous pressure which the British brought to bear on both sides of the Ancre River forced the Germans to evacuate Grandcourt on February 6, 1917. The capture of the village was regarded as important, marking a notable advance for the British on the forts of Miraumont and Grandcourt, which covered Bapaume from the west.

In Lorraine on this date the Germans succeeded in piercing a salient in the French lines, but were driven out by a spirited counterattack. Three German planes were brought down during the night, Lieutenant Huerteaux scoring his twentieth victory.

The Entire Western Front, August 1, 1917.

The British followed up their success in capturing Grandcourt by advances on both sides of the Ancre. On the morning of February 8, 1917, they drove the Germans out of a position of importance on the highest point of Sailly-Saillisel hill, gaining all their objectives and capturing seventy-eight prisoners, of whom two were officers. In the operations along the Ancre a German officer and eighty-two men were made prisoner.

South of Dixmude a strong German raiding party attempted to attack a Belgian outpost. They were received by such a hurricane of infantry and machine-gun fire that the field was strewn with dead, and few of the raiders succeeded in making their escape.

During February 9-10, 1917, the French and British continued to register minor successes in daring raids, bombarding enemy positions and capturing in one way or another several hundred prisoners.

An advance worthy of special note was made by British troops in the night of February 10, 1917, when they captured a strong system of German trenches on a front of more than three-quarters of a mile in the Somme line. This was on the southern front just north of Serre Hill. The German prisoners taken during this operation numbered 215, including some officers.

On the same date French raiders penetrated German trenches in the Forest of Apremont, destroying defenses and capturing prisoners. In the neighborhood of Verdun a German plane was shot down, and in other sectors French aviators during fiercely fought combats in the air brought down in flames two other machines.

North of the Ancre the British continued to make progress, occupying without difficulty a German trench some 600 yards long and taking a good number of prisoners. The Germans tried to force the British out of their recently won positions south of Serre Hill, but, caught in artillery barrage and machine-gun fire, were driven off with serious losses. On this date also the French carried out successful raids during the night on the Verdun front in the neighborhood of the famous Hill 304, and another in the Argonne which resulted in the destruction of enemy works and the capture of a number of prisoners.

The small gains made by the French and British during the first weeks of February, 1917, were not especially important in themselves, but each slight advance brought the Allies nearer to important German positions. The daily trench raids served to harass and bewilder the common enemy, and while the number of prisoners taken were few in each instance, in the aggregate the number was impressive. The British and French were not disposed to squander lives recklessly in these minor exploits, and it was only when they were within striking distance of an important objective that they operated with strong forces and the most powerful guns at their command.

The Canadians, who always displayed a special liking for trench raids, and were uncommonly successful in such operations, engaged in one on the morning of February 13, 1917, which merits description in some detail. The attack was made on a 600-yard front between Souchez and Givenchy. The Germans under the shell storm that shattered their trenches had retreated to the depths of their dugouts, and while it lasted few ventured forth to oppose the raiders. The British bombardment had been so effective that the German machine-gun emplacements must have been destroyed or were buried under débris, for only a few guns spoke out as the Canadians "went over." The Germans in the dugouts could not be coaxed out. Explosives thrown into their hiding places must have produced appalling consequences. The sturdy Canadians did not relish this kind of work, but there was no alternative. For an hour they searched the mine shafts and galleries around Givenchy and destroyed them. Some Germans in the depths were killed before they could explode certain mines they had prepared under British positions. About fifty prisoners of the Eleventh Bavarian Regiment were captured who had fought in Russia, at Verdun, and on the Somme.

Five hours later the same Canadian troops, unwearied by this strenuous experience, were carrying out another raid farther south, where they obtained good results.

On this date, February 14, 1917, the steady pressure maintained by the British forced the Germans to abandon advanced positions between Serre and the Somme and to fall back on their main fighting position.

One of the strange armoured automobiles or "tanks" with which the British surprised the Germans in September, 1916. Their caterpillar trucks and peculiar form make it possible for them to advance easily over obstructions and trenches.

On the following day, February 15, 1917, the troops of the German Crown Prince achieved a success of some importance. After intense artillery fire they stormed four French lines south of Ripont in the Champagne, on a front of about a mile and a half, gaining ground to a depth of half a mile. They captured twenty-one officers and 837 men of other ranks, and a considerable quantity of war material. On the same date the British carried out a successful raid southeast of Souchez, penetrating enemy positions and taking prisoners. In air combats in different sectors British airmen disposed of nine German machines and lost four of their own.

The British made important gains on both banks of the Ancre when in the morning of February 17, 1917, they attacked German positions opposite the villages of Miraumont and Petit Miraumont on a front of about two miles. North of the river a commanding German position on high ground north of Baillescourt Farm was carried on a front of about 1,000 yards. In these operations along the Ancre the British captured 761 prisoners, including twelve officers.

During the preliminary bombardment of the German positions a British artillery sergeant slipped out of the trenches with a telephone, and, establishing himself in a shell hole in a forward position, directed the gunfire which shattered the German barbed-wire defenses.

The Germans made a courageous attempt to oust the British from their newly won positions on the spur above Baillescourt Farm in the morning of February 18, 1917. Their infantry, advancing in three waves with bodies of supporting troops in the rear, were swept by the concentrated fire of the British artillery. The storm of fire shattered the attack and the German forces were rolled back in confusion. At no point were they able to reach the British lines.

During the night the British carried out four successful raids on German positions southwest and northwest of Arras, south of Fauquissart and north of Ypres, during which nineteen prisoners were taken and great damage was wrought to hostile defenses.

The British continued their successful minor operations during the succeeding days. On February 20, 1917, New Zealand troops penetrated German lines south of Armentières to a depth of 300 yards, where they wrecked dugouts and trench works. The intense preliminary bombardment which preceded the raid had proved so destructive that the New Zealanders found the German support lines filled with dead. The raid resulted in the capture of forty-four prisoners. In an attack southeast of Ypres the British, advancing on a front of 500 yards, reached the German support line after desperate fighting. They destroyed dugouts and mine shafts and took 114 prisoners, including an officer and a number of machine guns.

The steady pressure of the British on the German positions along the Ancre since the beginning of the month brought results that surpassed Field Marshal Haig's most sanguine expectations. The Germans were forced to abandon their front on the Ancre, escaping to a new line of defenses along the Bapaume ridge. Their retreat covered about three miles and the British were able to occupy a number of German strongholds which they expected to win by hard fighting. Serre, the two Miraumonts, and Pys were occupied without a struggle. The Germans succeeded in saving their guns during the retirement, but were forced to destroy ammunition dumps and military stores. In the night of February 24, 1917, British troops, advancing south of Irles and toward Warlencourt, occupied the famous butte which had been the scene of intense fighting in the previous month.

The foggy, misty weather which prevailed at the time in this region had greatly facilitated the German retreat, as the keen eyes of the British airmen were unable to study their movements. It was surmised that some important operation was under way owing to the reckless expenditure of shells which had been going on for some days. The Germans were shooting up stores of ammunition which they found impossible to take with them in their retreat.

During February 25-26, 1917, the British continued to harass the retiring Germans, pressing forward over the newly yielded ground and forcing back the rear guards of the enemy. In these actions the Germans depended chiefly on their heavy guns mounted on railway trucks, which in case of necessity could be rushed away at the last moment.

Early in the morning of February 26, 1917, heavy explosions were heard in the direction of Bapaume, where the Germans were engaged in destructive work to prevent the British entry. Along their lines of retreat large trees had been felled across the roads, forming lofty barriers, on the other side of which great mine craters had been opened up.

Despite desperate rear-guard actions, and the strenuous efforts made by the Germans to hinder the advance, the British continued to press forward. The village of Ligny about a mile and a half west of Bapaume was occupied, as well as the village of Le Barque. North of the Ancre the western and northern defenses of Puisieux were wrested from the Germans.

On February 27, 1917, the British pushed forward all along the eleven-mile line stretching from south of Gommecourt to west of Le Transloy. The British objective at this time was a crest overlooking the high ground running between Achiet-le-Petit and Bapaume. At every stage of the British advance fresh evidences were found of the German destructive methods before retiring. The carefully built dugouts which they had so long occupied had been reduced by explosives to heaps of rubbish.

The Germans had left certain bodies of men behind with machine guns to hinder the British pursuit. As they had carefully chosen their positions they were enabled to work considerable damage. The British had encounters with some of these outposts on the 27th in the neighborhood of Box and Rossignol Woods. The Germans, having found that their machine-gun fire did not restrain the advance, tried a shrapnel barrage which proved more effective, but only delayed the pursuers for a short time.

The British troops were so elated over the fact that the Germans were retreating that they made light of the ingenious obstacles thrown in their way. The great advance continued, the British occupying Rossignol Wood, Rossignol Trench, and considerable ground to the northeast of Puisieux. The latter place was partly occupied by Germans who fought as if determined that the British should pay a high cost for possession of the village. The British had worked their way into a corner of the line, and other parties were engaged in driving out the defenders, who fought from house to house.

Southeast of the village the British line was being pushed out above Miraumont and Beauregard Dovecote. The Germans in the Gommecourt salient shelled Miraumont and bombarded the neighborhood with high explosives in reckless fashion as if eager to consume their supplies.

During the night of February 27, 1917, the German troops abandoned Gommecourt and the British took possession. Here on July 1, 1916, the Londoners had fought with desperate valor in assaulting an almost impregnable position, and in the storm of massed gunfire were threatened with annihilation.

To the northeast of Gommecourt the British advanced their line more than half a mile, and also captured the villages of Thilloy and Puisieux-le-Mont. A successful raid carried out in the night by the British in the neighborhood of Cléry resulted in the capture of twenty-two prisoners.

There was sharp fighting among the ruins of Puisieux, where the Germans had to be hunted from their hiding places. After this clearing-out process the British line now ran well beyond Gommecourt on the left and down to Irles on the right. The Germans concentrated heavy shell fire on Irles, and showered high explosives on Miraumont and upon other places on the front from which they had withdrawn. The British were now less than a mile from Bapaume, in the rear of which the German guns on railway mountings were firing incessantly on British positions.

On March 1, 1917, British headquarters in France, summarizing the operations during February, stated that the British had captured 2,133 German prisoners and occupied either by capture or the withdrawal of the Germans eleven villages. Some of the positions captured were of the highest importance, to which the Germans had clung as long as they could with desperate energy, and from which the British had tried vainly to conquer. The Germans had retired on the Ancre on a front of twelve miles to a depth of two miles.

The first stage of the German retirement plan was completed on March 2, 1917, when they made a definite stand, their line now running from Essarts through Achiet-le-Petit to about 1,000 yards southeast of Bapaume. The Loupart Wood occupying high ground along this line had been transformed into a strong field fortress after German methods, and here it was evident every preparation was made for a stiff defense.

The British had an enormous task before them in building roads through the recovered ground. The Germans had carefully timed their retirement when the ground was hard, but now owing to a week's thaw most of the Somme and Ancre area was transformed into liquid mud. In addition to the difficulties presented by the terrain, the British patrols in the evacuated territory constantly encountered isolated bodies of German defensive troops who, obedient to their instructions, fought bravely to hold the positions they had been assigned to. Everything that cunning could devise was resorted to to delay the British advance. An Australian patrol discovered in one place a chain stretched across a ravine which was connected with a mine at either end.[Back to Contents]