My Colored Battalion

by Warner A. Ross

That would indicate an advance of one km. on Nov. 11th. I don’t care to discuss that further than to say that it is incorrect. The final battle line shows as the northern edge of Bois Frehaut. The Division report says, “the attack was renewed on the morning of the 11th the lines being advanced to the northern edge of Bois Frehaut, a distance of three and one-half km. from an original line.” Since, as clearly shown, the line was never advanced beyond the northern edge of Bois Frehaut where was that advance made? Speaking of this mysterious advance of the 11th the Brigade report says, “Our liaison with troops west of the river was thereby greatly improved,” indicating that the said unexplainable and vague “advance” was near the river—hence on my front.

General Pershing says that “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.” How could he say that we took the Bois Frehaut on Nov. 10th if there was a km. (which is almost a mile) remaining of it to be taken on Nov. 11th? Of the advance of the 11th he says, “advanced a short distance but had retired to cover.”

This same Brigade report shows that at 10 a. m., Nov. 10th, a message was received showing that the 2nd Bn. 365th Inf. had almost reached the northern edge of Bois Frehaut, and that at 11:15, Nov. 10th a message was received showing the Bois Frehaut was completely occupied. The quotation above from the same report says that the re-entrant was wiped out by advancing our lines on the east bank of the Moselle on November 10th and that the advance thus made was held against heavy artillery and machine gun fire, etc. The Brigade order for the attack on November 11th—the order from which Gen. Pershing quoted, plainly shows that that attack was to be launched from the northern edge of Bois Frehaut—our front line.

It is too bad to have to spend time correcting such a discrepancy as that, but that’s the way it reads in Dr. Scott’s book and I have no reason to think that the Brigade and Division reports are erroneously printed in that book. It might give a wrong impression to a casual reader. Some might not take the trouble to see that no advance was made and held on the 11th of November. The line was advanced to the northern edge of Bois Frehaut on November 10th and never receded so much as one foot for a single instant. Few enough colored battalions had the opportunity to prove their true worth. I do not propose to leave a single cloud on the record of the glorious success and achievements of one colored battalion. This does not in the least detract from the glory of other units but will add greatly to the prestige and standing of colored soldiers as a whole.

In another place the report of the general commanding our Brigade says, page 154, Dr. Scott’s book: “The commanding officers of units making the attack, and also of the artillery, were constantly stating that they were hurried into these movements without proper preparation. Had they been familiar with such operations, the time allowed would have been sufficient.” The Major General, commanding the 92nd Division who made the Division report on the operations of November 10th and 11th says, page 162, same book: “The attack was made on very brief preparation, too brief in view of the strength of the enemy positions, which were very strongly held.”

I told in the lecture what the Second Battalion of the Three Hundred and Sixth-fifth Infantry had undergone in the Marbache Sector and how we worked all of the night preceding the attack on things that had to be done regardless of familiarity with anything. I do not remember that I made any complaints about the shortness of time for preparation. Possibly I did, for I was at all times doing anything and everything to insure success against the enemy. But whether the time was too short or too long I again call your attention to the fact that this battalion accomplished its mission, fully, completely, magnificently, under the guns of Metz.

Lieutenant Colonel A. E. Deitsch, a veteran of the Regular Army, who was my immediate superior and was in command of our Regiment during that drive, and who, before coming to our Regiment, had served in other Divisions in the battle line, said in a letter to me: “The handling of your battalion during the ninth, tenth and morning of November eleventh, 1918, (which lead to the capture of Bois Frehaut) could not, I believe, have been conducted any better. As you well know the capture of this position is credited to you and your battalion.”

On page 154, same book, the Brigade report, speaking of the work of the Brigade as a whole, says: “There is no doubt that some details of the operation were not carried out as well as might have been done by more experienced troops. These were the results of mistaken judgment due to lack of experience rather than to lack of offensive spirit.”

This is true of the Brigade as a whole and the report from which it is copied is a very general statement of the work of the entire Brigade in that series of operations. I say and have shown and am ready to prove more exhaustively if necessary that the above statement does not concern one of the six infantry battalions of that Brigade, namely, the Second Battalion, Three Hundred and Sixty-fifth.

Suppose I should admit or should say that the battalion that captured this seemingly impregnable position and held it continuously under the defenses of Metz, was only a very mediocre battalion, or suppose I should admit or should say, “Oh, yes, the men were anxious enough and after they got going fought savagely with razors or knives or bayonets, but the colored officers had no judgment and could not handle their men and it was a pretty poor battalion.” What then could be said, what would have to be said of the other units of the Ninety-second Division and of units engaged of the Seventh Division that failed utterly to accomplish their missions during the same attack?