American Expeditionary Forces
Office of the Commander-in-Chief
March 1, 1920.
My dear Mr. Wood:
I regret that my absence from Washington has delayed this reply to your letter of January 17th enclosing a letter of January 12th from Major Ross.
Major Ross quotes a paragraph from a letter written by me as published in the “Indianapolis Star” and objects to this paragraph as unjust in so far as his battalion (2nd Battalion, 365th Infantry) is concerned. As quoted by Major Ross the paragraph to which he objects reads as follows:
“The 92nd Division, astride the Moselle, attacked at 7 a. m., November 10th and at 5 a. m., November 11th, advanced a short distance, but the troops had retired to cover in the face of repeated heavy fire when the commander of the attacking Brigade received information at 7:18 a. m. that an armistice would be effective at 11 a. m. The Brigade Commander reports that he ordered all firing stopped by 10:45 a. m. and that the firing was so stopped.”
The above quotation is incorrect. The paragraph as actually written in my letter of November 21st was as follows:
“The 92nd Division, astride the Moselle, attacked at 7 a. m., November 10th and at 5 a. m., November 11th, renewed the attack. The renewed attack started at 5 a. m., November 11th, advanced a short distance, but the troops had retired to cover in the face of reported heavy fire when the commander of the attacking Brigade received information at 7:18 a. m. that an armistice would be effective at 11 a. m. The Brigade Commander reports that he ordered all firing stopped by 10:45 a. m. and that the firing was so stopped.”
You will note that in the correct paragraph the reference to the retirement of troops relates solely to the renewed attack started at 5 a. m., November 11th and does not concern the attack of November 10th. I think a careful examination of Major Ross’s letter shows that his statements as to the work of his battalion do not assert that any advance was made by the 2nd Battalion on November 11th. Examination of the records shows that the 2nd Battalion did take the Bois Frehaut on November 10th and that this battalion held this position until the armistice went into effect.
The orders issued by the 183rd Brigade on the evening of November 10th for the operation of November 11th contemplated putting the 1st Battalion of the 365th into position in the western part of Bois Frehaut and—“the 2nd Battalion, 365th Infantry will be held in support in its present position in the Bois Frehaut.” This clearly shows that the 2nd Battalion, 365th Infantry, was not expected to attack on November 11th; and taken with other evidence shows that the 2nd Battalion, 365th Infantry, held, on November 11th, the positions which it had gained on November 10th.
The actual statements made by me in my letter of November 21st were correct, based on the reports of the several commanders, and I think that Major Ross will agree that there is nothing in what I have said that reflects in any way upon the work of the 2nd Battalion, 365th Infantry. That battalion appears to have done what was expected of it on November 10th and on November 11th. As shown in the quotation I have given above from the order issued November 10th for the operation of November 11th, the 2nd Battalion was in support and was not in the attacking line on the morning of November 11th.
I am enclosing herewith the papers enclosed with your letter of January 17th.
Very sincerely,
(Signed) John J. Pershing.The Honorable Will R. Wood,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
In view of the general opinion prevailing among American forces in France, and the impression of the American public at large relative to the Ninety-second Division’s drive toward Metz also relative to its experience in the Argonne as represented by the Three Hundred and Sixty-eighth Infantry in the attacking line, it seemed to me advisable to state what the result was of work done by attacking units, other than the Second Battalion of the Three Hundred and Sixty-fifth Infantry, in the advance on Metz fortifications on November 10th and 11th. It is especially well that I mentioned them since General Pershing says in effect (and the General knows and is regarded as an authority) that the Second Battalion, Three Hundred and Sixty-fifth Infantry fully accomplished its mission, and also that attacks made on the 11th “advanced a short distance, but had retired to cover....”
No doubt, before reading my lecture, some were of the opinion that the Ninety-second Division was rushing with irresistible force past and over strong points, regardless of all defenses, sweeping all before it and was only prevented from battering down the walls of the city of Metz itself by the armistice. As nearly every soldier, from General Pershing down, knows and as the final battle line as compared with the line on November 9th clearly proves, such was not the case. Had I indulged in glittering generalities to that effect, had I even inferred it, or had I left an impression that all units concerned, accomplished their missions, that is, succeeded in carrying out their orders, I would lay myself open to serious and just criticism, for as leader of the attack on the key position, which was the central position, it was my business to know what happened on my front and on my flanks. I would be considered untruthful or at least an exaggerator, and all that I have said, if it has any effect at all, would detract from rather than add to the credit due the American colored soldier.
“Scott’s Official History of the American Negro in the World War,” written and compiled by Emmett J. Scott, special assistant to the Secretary of War, contains the general reports, less appendices and details, of the Commander of the Ninety-second Division and of the Commander of the One Hundred and Eighty-third Brigade relative to operations of November 10th and 11th. For your convenience I shall cite pages in Dr. Scott’s work.
I said something to the effect that the battalion of the white division on the left of the 367th’s front attacked, lost about 156 men in a few minutes and retired. I also said that the 367th Infantry on our left—just across the Moselle failed to accomplish its mission.
Page 151, Brigade Report, “At 10:30 a. m. a message from the Division was received that the attack of the 367th Infantry, 184th Brigade had been repulsed (on our left), but that two companies were being sent forward to reinforce their attack.”
Page 159, Division Report, “10 Nov. 9:30 hr.—Attack by 367th Infantry west of Moselle not prosecuted because of failure of 56th Infantry, 7th Division, to capture Preny. The report of the C. O., 367th Infantry at pages 2 and 3 shows the facts and reasons.”
Page 160, Division report, “Inasmuch as the 367th Infantry west of the Moselle made no advance due to the fact that it was necessary that the 7th Division should first capture Preny before an advance was practicable, no report is made here of enemy units engaged west of the Moselle.”