What do you think?
Rate this book
With Their Bare Hands: General Pershing, the 79th Division, and the battle for Montfaucon
With Their Bare Hands traces the fate of the US 79th Division--men drafted off the streets of Baltimore, Washington, and Philadelphia--from their training camp in Maryland through the final years of World War I, focusing on their most famous engagement: the attack on Montfaucon, the most heavily fortified part of the German Line, during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in 1918.
Using the 79th as a window into the American Army as a whole, Gene Fax examines its mistakes and triumphs, the tactics of the AEF Commander-in-Chief General John J. Pershing, and how the lessons it learned during the Great War helped it to fight World War II. Fax makes some startling judgments, on the role of future Army Chief-of-Staff, Colonel George C. Marshall; whether the Montfaucon battle--had it followed the plan--could have shortened the war; and if Pershing was justified in ordering his troops to attack right up to the moment of the Armistice.
Drawing upon original documents, including orders, field messages, and the letters and memoirs of the soldiers themselves, some of which have never been used before, Fax tells the engrossing story of the 79th Division's bloody involvement in the final months of World War I.
Using the 79th as a window into the American Army as a whole, Gene Fax examines its mistakes and triumphs, the tactics of the AEF Commander-in-Chief General John J. Pershing, and how the lessons it learned during the Great War helped it to fight World War II. Fax makes some startling judgments, on the role of future Army Chief-of-Staff, Colonel George C. Marshall; whether the Montfaucon battle--had it followed the plan--could have shortened the war; and if Pershing was justified in ordering his troops to attack right up to the moment of the Armistice.
Drawing upon original documents, including orders, field messages, and the letters and memoirs of the soldiers themselves, some of which have never been used before, Fax tells the engrossing story of the 79th Division's bloody involvement in the final months of World War I.
496 pages, Paperback
Published June 19, 2018
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
June 7, 2017
An informative and readable book about the Battle of Montfaucon with a focus on the 79th Division. I have recently read another book on this battle and the chaos that the division was forced to endure. This book gives much more detail about the division and its lack of training. It also has information about the aftermath of the battle and its service right up to November 11. In fact, the last man to die from the AEF at 10:59 AM was from the 79th.
The author points out many of the mistakes made by First Army in trying to prove to their allies that they should serve only as an American army. Pershing's desire for 'open maneuvers' did not always result in as much ground gained. Incorrect formations also caused problems, but the inexperience of the troops, the lack of artillery support, and jammed support roads tended to keep the 79th behind the other divisions since they had been assigned to the most difficult task--taking Montfaucon and its observatory.
This book is well-worth reading. It has excellent maps, and brings to light much information about this costly battle.
The author points out many of the mistakes made by First Army in trying to prove to their allies that they should serve only as an American army. Pershing's desire for 'open maneuvers' did not always result in as much ground gained. Incorrect formations also caused problems, but the inexperience of the troops, the lack of artillery support, and jammed support roads tended to keep the 79th behind the other divisions since they had been assigned to the most difficult task--taking Montfaucon and its observatory.
This book is well-worth reading. It has excellent maps, and brings to light much information about this costly battle.
March 20, 2017
This is a very griping book about the Meuse- Argonne campaign during the First World War. The author takes you from the beginning of the 79th and through their training and then to their arrival at the front. The author takes you through the difficulties that were experienced by this unit in losing so many men to other units and replaced by men that were not trained properly. This lack of fore thought by the higher were just one of many that would follow this unit. Another would be the artillery unit they trained with was changed to an entirely different unit once they got to the front. The author leads you through to the attack that they were to lead on a place named Montfaucon or little Gibraltar. This part of the story is sad to read because of the amount of lives that are lost, not just from this unit but by other AEF as well. You are shown the bravery by the men leaving the trenches and having to cover open ground to take the Germans who have been dunged in for four years with machines guns, and artillery. The Germans are also at an elevated position with aerial support and artillery, something the Americans did not have. This would add to the casualties for the Americans and the days it would take to capture Montfaucon. The men would do this without machine-gun fire, or artillery support, and also without food and water for days. This was the part of the story that makes me always upset when I have read WWI or any war books in how the leaders can order their men to attack and days later when they are still fighting not working on getting food and water to them. Especially when you have some generals from the civil war who always made sure they had supply lines in place. These men were running out of ammo, with no help in site yet they continued to fight. Yes by capturing this mountain would hasten the end of the war, these problems of how to attack a stronger opponent would be done differently when WWII would begin. Overall this was a very good in book in honoring the men who fought in WWI. A good book. I got this book from Netgalley.com I gave it 5 stars. Follow us at www.1rad-readerreviews.com
December 21, 2023
Over the years, I've read about 300-plus books relating to the Great War, and this is one of the better studies that I've encountered. Fax's goal is to take one typical division of the American Expeditionary Force, and see what its collective experience tells us about American military performance during the war. What might be unique about the 79th is that there has been some modern second-guessing about its performance during the opening days of the Meuse-Argonne offensive, with one William Walker, in "Betrayal at Little Gibraltar," claiming that professional jealousy led to a great opportunity being thrown away.
Before one gets to that point, Fax takes the reader from the start, as he makes no assumptions that his readership is particularly conversant with World War I and the United States. This means he leads the general reader through the political circumstances that finally forced Wilson to enter the war in 1917, after great exertions to avoid that decision, inter-allied arguments over just what the American contribution was to be, and the conflicts over the creation of a great American field army. On the whole, the British and French leadership would have preferred to just have American manpower to reinforce their own units; which would have never flown with the American body politic.
It's at this point that the 79th enters the actual narrative, as Fax takes you from its creation as an organized entity, its deployment to France, and the thousand screaming agonies it took to get this half-baked formation onto the point of departure by September 26, 1918. A great question is why one of the rawest units in the American army was given a part in the hardest task of the day, the taking of the hill at Montfaucon, and there are no great answers; the extant documentation doesn't allow for that. What is known is that after four days of hell, the 79th took that position basically "with their bare hands," a commentary on the lack of artillery support they received in the effort, and did about as well as any participating division in the assault, before logistical collapse brought the whole operation to a standstill. The 79th's commander, Joseph E. Kuhn, expected to be sacked for non-performance; that he was not suggests that he was regarded as something of a miracle worker for what he did accomplish.
From there, Fax is mostly traces the accelerated evolution of the AEF, and how in two months it went from being a half-baked organization to a fighting force with a respectable degree of efficiency; though every man who served in 1918 who went on to serve during the Second World War were determined to make at least new mistakes.
As for the argument that cooperation by the 4th Division on the 79th's flank on the first day of the operation could have led to a great breakthrough, but was foiled by professional jealousy displayed by Robert Bullard (commander of US III Corps), Fax finds little to justify William Walker's argument. Fax concludes that a poorly written operational plan, which did allow for cross-corps cooperation, was short circuited by the chief of staff of US III Corps, one Alfred Bjornstad, a man possessed of an authoritarian temperament who liked his battlefields tidy, and a man who was quietly sacked for being an embarrassment; the AEF liked to bury their mistakes rather than air out their dirty laundry. Again, there was never a great breakthrough victory to be had; all Great War offensives tended to collapse of their own weight due to logistical weaknesses.
In the end, I think this is a great book, but perhaps a little bit more than the general reader really wants to know.
Before one gets to that point, Fax takes the reader from the start, as he makes no assumptions that his readership is particularly conversant with World War I and the United States. This means he leads the general reader through the political circumstances that finally forced Wilson to enter the war in 1917, after great exertions to avoid that decision, inter-allied arguments over just what the American contribution was to be, and the conflicts over the creation of a great American field army. On the whole, the British and French leadership would have preferred to just have American manpower to reinforce their own units; which would have never flown with the American body politic.
It's at this point that the 79th enters the actual narrative, as Fax takes you from its creation as an organized entity, its deployment to France, and the thousand screaming agonies it took to get this half-baked formation onto the point of departure by September 26, 1918. A great question is why one of the rawest units in the American army was given a part in the hardest task of the day, the taking of the hill at Montfaucon, and there are no great answers; the extant documentation doesn't allow for that. What is known is that after four days of hell, the 79th took that position basically "with their bare hands," a commentary on the lack of artillery support they received in the effort, and did about as well as any participating division in the assault, before logistical collapse brought the whole operation to a standstill. The 79th's commander, Joseph E. Kuhn, expected to be sacked for non-performance; that he was not suggests that he was regarded as something of a miracle worker for what he did accomplish.
From there, Fax is mostly traces the accelerated evolution of the AEF, and how in two months it went from being a half-baked organization to a fighting force with a respectable degree of efficiency; though every man who served in 1918 who went on to serve during the Second World War were determined to make at least new mistakes.
As for the argument that cooperation by the 4th Division on the 79th's flank on the first day of the operation could have led to a great breakthrough, but was foiled by professional jealousy displayed by Robert Bullard (commander of US III Corps), Fax finds little to justify William Walker's argument. Fax concludes that a poorly written operational plan, which did allow for cross-corps cooperation, was short circuited by the chief of staff of US III Corps, one Alfred Bjornstad, a man possessed of an authoritarian temperament who liked his battlefields tidy, and a man who was quietly sacked for being an embarrassment; the AEF liked to bury their mistakes rather than air out their dirty laundry. Again, there was never a great breakthrough victory to be had; all Great War offensives tended to collapse of their own weight due to logistical weaknesses.
In the end, I think this is a great book, but perhaps a little bit more than the general reader really wants to know.
February 27, 2017
Reading about the First World War can be so depressing. The American Expeditionary Force went into the Meuse-Argonne battle untrained and mismanaged, which led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.
General Pershing assumed he knew better than the British or French because they’d been at it for four years while he’d been successful in the Philippines and Mexico. His insistence on open warfare (rather than trench warfare) cost American lives. Infantry alone was no match for machine guns, but the Americans had never trained with artillery or tanks, so got little help there. Add to that virtually no battlefield communications.
If the German army hadn’t been so depleted after four years of war and the flu epidemic, many more American lives would have been lost in a longer war. The chief American contribution to the Allied victory was making clear to the exhausted Germans they couldn’t hope to win a war of attrition.
Gene Fax concludes that the American legacy of World War I was the experience enabled the government and military to mobilize for WWII and fight effectively.
January 23, 2019
World War I had always been a mystery to me. I have some knowledge only as it has related to other various interests i.e Winston Churchill or the lead up to World War II. This book covers the American mobilization and a minor (for someone not involved in the shooting) battle. The Montfaucon action took place from Sept 28, 1918 thru Oct 2, 1918 and the armistice was Nov 11, 1918. Yes, the battle hastened the end of the war but was not the cause. What Montfaucon showed was the ineptitude of a very green army not accustomed to a modern war. That is not to say that the commanders did not learn from the campaign but only diagnosing most wars they were stuck in their previous battle experience whether that was the Boxer Rebellion, the Spanish American war or even the Civil War. The book bogs down in the minutiae of the battle and rarely give an overview to the everything together. The perspective is from the high command standpoint and very little from the doughboy's point of view. Casualties are thrown like stat sheets with little regard to how each company was affected until an officer commented about how under manned he was. I guess my main criticism is that the book was ponderous and confusing.
September 26, 2017
I really enjoyed this work, which focused on the broader American effort in WWI, while also telling the story of the 79th Division and its brutal fight to take Montfaucon and later along the heights of the Meuse. I found it telling on many levels, and in some ways one of the more useful works I've read in a long time. It shows the difficulties in creating and training an Army, which is something I think about daily in my own work. It shows the terrible price paid in blood by poorly trained, poorly equipped soldiers who often suffered for the pride of their commanders, who were wedded to outmoded theories of warfare and who couldn't adapt quickly to modern combat. Gene Fax has written an excellent study that I will keep in my office as a reminder of what happens when we get it wrong.
On a personal note, it adds a great deal of perspective to the time I spent walking the battlefields of France, including. Montfaucon, which left such strong visual images with me.
On a personal note, it adds a great deal of perspective to the time I spent walking the battlefields of France, including. Montfaucon, which left such strong visual images with me.
November 14, 2020
Since I've always been curious about how American soldiers performed during World War I, I was drawn to Gene Fax's "With Their Bare Hands: General Pershing, the 79th Division, and the Battle for Montfaucon." Although not a professional historian, Fax does a superb job of covering the 79th Division's creation, its deployment to France, its combat performance, and its return to peacetime and demobilization. The unit's participation in the Battle of Montfaucon is the main focus of the book, with Fax describing the transformation of an infantry division from untested troops to seasoned veterans. Fax also uses the exploits of the 79th Division to look at how the brutal lessons learned by the American Expeditionary Force influenced American military development. If you have an interest in American involvement in World War I, give this book a look.
May 9, 2025
A really well written divisional history of ww1. I appreciated that it set the stage for the war before the us entered. The only complaint I have is that it is a bit technical at times with unit movements but that’s expected of a divisional study. Good anecdotes, and I appreciate the inclusion of a rehabilitation of Pershing. Pershing gets a lot of flak for what he did and the author goes to great lengths to explain the why. I also appreciate how the author explains the impact of the battle of Montfaucon and ww1 on society at large. I really enjoyed this book and would recommend it for ww1 nerds. It is a great look at an average American division and is therefor a good representation of the challenges the US faced and their character in ww1.
February 5, 2023
This book really deserves a 3.5 star rating in my opinion. I found it to be a bit unfocused, especially in the beginning. The writing improved (or maybe I just became used to it) as the book continued. I found it difficult to follow along with what was going on with the various military units. The decision making, the improvement of the American army's performance and the strategic overview were well done. The maps are OK. The growth of how the army improved in tactics, deployments and logistics proves the adage that there is no substitute for experience.
October 31, 2019
Scholarly report
I appreciated the straightforward, scholarly approach to an under recognized division in the Meuse Argonne operation. The research was detailed and evident in the footnotes and in the text. A pleasant read for a military historian.
I appreciated the straightforward, scholarly approach to an under recognized division in the Meuse Argonne operation. The research was detailed and evident in the footnotes and in the text. A pleasant read for a military historian.
August 13, 2017
I am a history buff so I loved this book. The detail is awesome and the story told through soldier's letters is touching and revealing.
May 21, 2017
Book received from NetGalley.
I am really just starting to read more about World War I history and I have to admit I had never heard of this battle prior to receiving this book. The author does well at showing how things were for the first American forces to enter World War I. I thought it was a great book on a part of American history that I had not studied before.
I am really just starting to read more about World War I history and I have to admit I had never heard of this battle prior to receiving this book. The author does well at showing how things were for the first American forces to enter World War I. I thought it was a great book on a part of American history that I had not studied before.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews