Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I

by John S.D. Eisenhower, Joanne Thompson Eisenhower

Fought far from home, World War I was nonetheless a stirring American adventure. The achievements of the United States during that war, often underrated by military historians, were in fact remarkable, and they turned the tide of the conflict. So says John S. D. Eisenhower, one of today's most acclaimed military historians, in his sweeping history of the Great War and the men who won it: the Yanks of the American Expeditionary Force.

Their men dying in droves on the stalemated Western Front, British and French generals complained that America was giving too little, too late. John Eisenhower shows why they were wrong. The European Allies wished to plug the much-needed U.S. troops into their armies in order to fill the gaps in the line. But General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, the indomitable commander of the AEF, determined that its troops would fight together, as a whole, in a truly American army. Only this force, he argued -- not bolstered French or British units -- could convince Germany that it was hopeless to fight on.

Pershing's often-criticized decision led to the beginning of the end of World War I -- and the beginning of the U.S. Army as it is known today. The United States started the war with 200,000 troops, including the National Guard as well as regulars. They were men principally trained to fight Indians and Mexicans. Just nineteen months later the Army had mobilized, trained, and equipped four million men and shipped two million of them to France. It was the greatest mobilization of military forces the New World had yet seen.

For the men it was a baptism of fire. Throughout Yanks Eisenhower focuses on the small but expert cadre of officers who directed our effort: not only Pershing, but also the men who would win their lasting fame in a later war -- MacArthur, Patton, and Marshall. But the author has mined diaries, memoirs, and after-action reports to resurrect as well the doughboys in the trenches, the unknown soldiers who made every advance possible and suffered most for every defeat. He brings vividly to life those men who achieved prominence as the AEF and its allies drove the Germans back into their homeland -- the irreverent diarist Maury Maverick, Charles W. Whittlesey and his famous "lost battalion," the colorful Colonel Ulysses Grant McAlexander, and Sergeant Alvin C. York, who became an instant celebrity by singlehandedly taking 132 Germans as prisoners.

From outposts in dusty, inglorious American backwaters to the final bloody drive across Europe, Yanks illuminates America's Great War as though for the first time. In the AEF, General John J. Pershing created the Army that would make ours the American age; in Yanks that Army has at last found a storyteller worthy of its deeds.

Genres: History, Military History, World War I, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, American History, American

368 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

John Sheldon Doud Eisenhower was a United States Army officer, diplomat, and military historian. He was the son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and First Lady Mamie Eisenhower. His military career spanned from before, during, and after his father's presidency, and he left active duty in 1963 and then retired in 1974. From 1969 to 1971, Eisenhower served as United States Ambassador to Belgium during the administration of President Richard Nixon, who was previously his father's vice president and also his daughter-in-law's father.

As a military historian, Eisenhower wrote several books, including The Bitter Woods, a study of the Battle of the Bulge, So Far from God, a history of the Mexican–American War and Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I .

Reviews

[Dimitri · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent primer on the AEF.

As epic as the story may be, Eisenhower Jr. wasn't afraid to take the "America won the war" crowd down a notch. The biggest achievement of the AEF lay not in its martial feats, but in its very conception & logistical support. To be exact, he refuses to answer the measure of its 'contribution' to victory in the Great War and focuses instead on the unquestionable merit.

The creation of a vast Supply Services network stretching from designated Channel ports to the eastern end of the Western Front made the U.S. Army minimally reliant upon its allies, all though the French railways never completely relinquished control. A respectful cooperation with civilian experts made a smooth alternative. This accomplishment owed little to the War Department in Washington and its long-entrenched bureaus.

It also taught George Marshall by virtual providence his future job as Chief of Staff... but "How did WWI shape MacArthur, Patton and the other big names of WWII ?" is another debate [wisely] avoided.

It gave the two million men who crossed the Atlantic the means to fight, from the first truck to the last mule. That crossing was made in either American or British ships. The allocation debate can fill a book by itself. The (un) restricted German blockade of the Home Isles made food imports a priority as much as more hardcore war materials. The rebirth of the Spanish treasure fleet convoy system was enforced on the U.S. merchant fleet by the simple rule "Confirm or you cross on your own. We’ve seen how well that works out.". The manpower crisis brought on by the German spring offensives rekindled the Anglo-French desire to incorporate American infantry ad hoc into their depleted units, with shipping priority for riflemen and machine-gunners over the support troops that framed the huge square U.S. divisions.

This political bone keeps being picked throughout the narrative. The European allies saw America foremost as an inexhaustible supply of able-bodied men as they scraped the bottom of their pool from the greyest Poilu to the most juvenile Bantam. Wilson & Pershing’s main political agenda was the creation of an independent U.S. Army (they ended with Two) that would give the country parity in the post-war settlements. While they wished no geostrategic gains, a permanent political influence was desired. Eisenhower doesn’t have the space to analyze this post-isolationist trend in detail; the extent to which a dominant U.S.A. within the League of Nations would’ve hastened the post-WWII world remains intriguing.

To be fair, a mere few hundred French and British officers did teach the teachers the art of trench warfare… to an extent. While Belleau Wood’s “Retreat, Hell! We just got here!” has entered Marine Corps mythology, there is no denying that the first American attacks turned in a lackluster performance. They learned the hard way that artillery, not bayonets, was the key to the resumption of their cherished mobile warfare. St. Michiel, even at 7.000 casualties on day 1, was ‘easy’ because the Germans made it easy for them.

The Argonne offensive has gained prominence exactly because here the Doughboys fought long, hard and well. The 1st Division (Big Red One) and 42th National Guard Division (Rainbow) resonate because these seasoned troops were called upon again and again until the last day of the war to …what? As the armistice comes into view, Pershing’s drive to prove the worth of his army to his allies for political ends takes on a very callous, almost obsessed tone.

[Checkman · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Eisenhower was a prolific military historian during his lifetime. He made something of a specialty covering America's lesser known military involvements such as The Mexican-American War and our ground troop commitment to the Western Front during World War One.

Mr. Eisenhower's writing was professional, well researched and easy to read. He was a solid middle of the road historian who examined the events and wrote about them. He was not a historian with an ideological agenda to push.

There are not that many books about the American Expeditionary Force (AEF). The American involvement in WWI has been overshadowed by WWII and the veterans of WWI have been forgotten. They say Korea is the Forgotten War, but I would argue that one can make a stronger case that WWI is the United State's "Forgotten War".

The AEF was really only involved in the last five months of fighting (May - November 11, 1918), but those last months were as violent and hard fought as the earlier years of the war. The United States lost approximately 112,000 men; of whom approximately 58,000 were killed in combat. The rest were lost to accidents and disease - in particular the so-called "Spanish Flu". Now 58,000 doesn't seem like much when compared to the British and French casualties, but consider this. That is approximately the same number of men we lost in three years of combat in Korea and approximately eight years in Vietnam. In just under six months 58,000 (give or take a few thousand) Americans lost their lives on the Western Front. That's a lot, but most brush it off as if it were nothing. It wasn't and Mr. Eisenhower shows just how hard of a fight it was that the Doughboys had to go through.

"Yanks" is not a long read so if you are hoping to find detailed accounts of the various actions that the Army and Marines engaged in then you will be disappointed. Mr. Eisenhower covers just a couple of the battles, but those that are examined are done so competently. He also gives coverage to the political scene and the strategy of the Allies. As I stated earlier Mr. Eisenhower was a good solid historian. He did not try to break new ground or argue new theories. He wasn't that type of historian. He was of the school of historian who wanted to educate and ensure that those men and women who served in overlooked and forgotten conflicts received their just due. This was his objective (or so it seems to me) and he served the Doughboys well with "Yanks".

[Little Timmy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well written and researched history book. I enjoyed the fact it dealt more with the main players on both the allied and central powers instead of just the battles. Very recommended

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was over a century ago--World War I, and how many wars have there been since then? World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria---America's entry into the war against Germany placed America front and center on the world stage and its involvement in the war proved decisive in bringing about the defeat of the Germans. Just getting an army to the frontlines was an enormous achievement. In 1917, at the beginning of the war for the Americans, the US Army numbered 200,000 officers and men--regulars and National Guard. Nineteen months later, the Army had mobilized, trained and equipped 4 million men and had shipped 2 million of them to France. The war ended suddenly with the Armistice of November 11, 1918, as the great weight of American numbers began to be felt--by an almost totally exhausted Germany. This was most fortunate for my grandfather who was in the Army. The war ended before he was shipped overseas.
Eisenhower (son of Dwight D. Eisenhower) writes about all the actions the American Army participated in--Cantigny, Belleau Wood, Chateau Thierry, St. Mihiel, and the biggest of all the battles for the Yanks--the Meuse-Argonne. All were terrible and costly battles in which the American soldiers showed a fighting spirit that would not accept defeat--no matter the cost. It was too much for the battle-hardened veterans of the German Army, who were stretched to the limit. They gave up before they had to face the full power of the Americans, which would have continued to build up into 1919, with ever-increasing numbers of tanks and airplanes.. The price the Yanks paid was high--for less than a year of combat--53,500 men from battle deaths, over 63,000 more deaths from disease and other causes and 204,000 wounded. While the American losses were heavy, they were light compared to those of the allies. The British suffered 900,000 men killed, the French about 1.35 million, Russia, 1,750,000. Germany and Austria lost nearly 3 million dead.
The greatest tragedy of all was that they would do it all over again, in a second world war.

[☄ · Rating 4 out of 5]

good! very good! military history is taxing in the extreme, but i enjoyed the novelty of it all and this was probably one of the more engaging histories of the maneuvers of the aef. also – me being the social historian i am, i was totally enamored of the cover photograph! (how many times did i settle into bed with this book, go "hey what's up guys" to the boys on the front, and only then proceed to start reading? at least a thousand, probably more...) i can't find any identification as to who these gentlemen are, which is extraordinarily remiss in my opinion, or maybe i'm still just obsessed with paul fussell's dedication to the boy on the cover of the inimitable great war and modern memory... anyway. always cite your sources <3 these were real people who suffered and likely died in the war and have almost certainly been lost to history <3 the least you can do is name them <3

[Dave Hoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

IKE's son John wrote a powerful book telling of American's involvement in World War One. From 1917 til end of 1918 Gen. Pershing not only directed fighting the Germans, but politically the British & the French. He was no politician, but contrary to Allied wishes, he insisted Americans fight as an American Army. Good military history of tactics & infighting among allies. Basically it was the classroom for future generals of WW2.

[Michael DeBruyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great look into the lives and stories of the American men who helped win WW1. Yanks provides a deep dive into the battles, generals, and narratives of the First World War. This book provides a non-politcally correct/ no-nonsense look into history's most crucial turning point.

[Keith W · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting book, although it was not quite what I expected. The book dwells more on logistics and organization of the American Expeditionary Force and less on actual front-line fighting than I thought it would but, in reading it, I realized that, given the circumstances of the U.S. Army when Congress authorized the declaration of war in April 1917, these were paramount concerns. Until the Army could get organized and equipped for a massive effort, it could not put effective troops in the field in numbers that would make a difference. Therefore, a fair portion of the book deals with what I call “gearing up.” However, that material proved to be very interesting and gave me a highly favorable impression of Secretary of War Newton Baker, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Tasker Bliss and, of course, Gen. Pershing. The book provides extensive information on the efforts by the French and British governments and military commands to integrate American forces into their existing armies and Gen. Pershing’s steadfast insistence on keeping the AEF separate and intact as a truly American Army. The way the fighting evolved in 1918, I think Pres. Wilson and Gen. Pershing made the right decision and certainly the author, a West Point graduate and son of Pres. Dwight David Eisenhower, thinks so. My primary complaint about this book is the scarcity of accounts about actual fighting, which is told more from the perspective of units and generals than from that of the doughboys on the front lines. There are some first-hand accounts of living conditions and fighting but I would have preferred reading more. Nevertheless, “Yanks” is in my opinion an excellent, clearly written account of the Army’s preparation for and participation in the fighting on the Western Front in 1917 and 1918. I may even read it again some day.

[Audrey Knutson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too academic for my taste.

There is no doubt Eisenhower is knowledgeable about everything America WWI. I just don't need a play-by-play of x division/infantry/corps went to hill x to outflank y who outflanked z in forest n who outflanked w; it was too in the weeds, especially since the provided maps were few and far between and were not in this level of detail to allow me to keep up. This read more like a battle textbook with a few lines given here and there to the commanders' life story, which is interesting bc one of it's selling points is that it has so many first person perspectives. I would have much rather preferred a grunt's eye view of the American WWI battle experience and an overview of the broad picture.

Other than that, Eisenhower does make America's entry into the war easy to follow and one does not have to be knowledgeable of anything going on from 1915-17 to be able to understand. However, he does assume the reader has a knowledge of how the army is organized (staff, armor, artillery, infantry, logistics, etc.) and what a battalion, division, corps, army, etc. is.

I feel like this book is a must read for those interested in America in WWI but I'm praying there are better books out there that are easier and more enjoyable to read.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear writing and follows the American armed forces involvement in the Western Front. Detailed understanding of the political dimension of American military actions. The writing is well-paced and keeps the reader engaged while weaving together elements of the story. My second book focused on the war and my first focused on the Americans in the war - I came away with a much clearer picture of the action, the heroism, and the amazing feat of the American fighting force. It seems a bit cliche that in almost every instance the right man for the job was always selected but the author renders that plausible in the telling of the story. Certainly would recommend it to anyone who wants to understand just what Americans meant to the war and how the war shaped the American fighting forces.

[Roger · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book focused primarily on the role of the AEF, the US military that fought in WWI. The war started in 1914, but the preliminary US troops didn’t arrive till late 1917 and mostly fought only from June till November, 1918. They were a key force in Germany’s surrender, even though the US wasn’t prepared to hit full power till 1919.

The AEF established the groundwork for the modern Army that later fought in WWII. Without the AEF, Germany would likely have won WWI and maybe there never would have been a WWII.

[Erik Tolvstad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very readable overview history of US Army in France during WW1. It has a number of decent maps, but like many war histories, it could use many more.

Eisenhower does a good job of explaining the tremendous pressure between the European military and political leaders and Pershing, from before the first American landed, right up into the final days of the War. Pershing spent more brain cycles dealing with that antipathy than he did on the battle field.

[Ietrio · Rating 2 out of 5]

A rather poor written text that does quite a lot of damage by the uninspired word choice. But this is the son of a powerful general and than president so he must be qualified, right? And his wife too. In fact this is more like an attempt to cash in the name and drum in some patriotism at the same time.

[Thad Zajdowicz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent history of the American Expeditionary Force during World War I. My sole complaint is that Eisenhower does not explore the effect of influenza on the struggle in the fall of 1918. Still, well worth the read and be sure to follow the footnotes -- they are also interesting in their own right.

[Justin Holman · Rating 1 out of 5]

This reads like an ingredient list on the back of a cereal box. It was awful. Boring, wordy and lacked any really story. Hundreds of paragraphs throughout the book that didn’t contain anything but names. If you’re curious about US involvement in WWI, go read about it on Wikipedia or find another book.

[Robert Sparrenberger · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s a little dry and detailed hence the three star rating. A complete look at the American forces during world war 1.

A little slow.

[Wayne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative, but details about military units and unfamiliar places keep it from being a pleasant read.

[Max Zappe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book succinctly and satisfyingly covers American actions in ww1. Deep analysis and insight weren't really present, but it serves as a competent summary of American action in France during ww1.

[Max Zappe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was the most concise summary of American involvement in WW1 that I've been able to find, and it did a very good job of relaying the events in competent fashion.

[J.S. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I enjoy reading war histories, I have no romantic illusions about war or the life of a soldier. And once in a while I stumble across books that really emphasize - whether deliberately or not - that war is hell. Yes, there is bravery and heroism, but sometimes it's just death and destruction. The First World War was especially one of those odd contrasts: whitewashed at the time with plenty of romanticism, and yet the reality was so much pointless devastation both of people and the land.

Yanks : The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I is one of those that emphasizes the waste and recurrent futility, although I think it was unintentional. It was written by John S. D. Eisenhower, whose father was later the president, but served under General Pershing after the war as head of the commission for war memorials. As a child, John tagged along with his father visiting the battle sites and he brings this knowledge to the book, but as an Army Reserve general himself, he also brings a general's tactical eye, and this book reads more like a topographical overview of troop movements and battle skirmishes. The focus here is on America's role in the war and he attempts to mix in personal information from ordinary soldiers, but it's minimal and all it does is serve to emphasize the low value placed on human life when it's reduced to numbers, especially by those who fight wars behind the front lines. That's not to say it isn't interesting, and it really gave me a better idea of what was going on. After all, the personal experience of the soldiers only tells one of the stories of the war, and the bigger picture is another of those stories.

[Gerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book’s full title is Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I (as an aside, How does one punctuate the second line in a title [“The Epic…” here]?). The operative word here is “story.” This is a narrative history of, mainly, the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), 1917-1919, and it’s a pleasant and easy enough read. This year, 2017, is the centennial of the United States’ active participation and this book serves as a fine introduction to its subject, without getting too deeply into international politics, strategy, and tactics. Those who wind up interested will be able to find other books with more detail merely by using the above Search Books function or the author’s bibliography. Eisenhower covers how we got involved, how the AEF was organized and trained, and its battles, with glimpses of our generals and some of our junior soldiers. The larger war is covered when what was going on impacted our actions. If you are already a “subject matter expert,” you will likely not find much that is new.

[Jay · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent book about the American involvement in World War I. I found it most interesting to read about the lives of some of the great generals of World War II and how they became respected warriors in the military through tough fighting and rough conditions in the Great War. Marshall, Patton, and Macarthur are just a few mentioned with great detail. I was kind of surprised at how "little" the American involvement really was, but the author shows how in that small time frame how the war was ultimately won by the Allies. A good American history book that supplements other World War I books like "The Guns of August" which is fantastic book, but it focuses on the entire war from the beginnings instead.

[Matt Howard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very well written book that covered the American experience in WWI very well. This is not a subject that I knew much about before reading this book, and came away from it feeling much more informed about what happened during the war, why the US became in involved, and actually what kind of involvement the American Expeditionary Force had in the war. It was easy to read without being overly boring.

[Pat · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good concise overview of the formation of an American army and all the modern processes such as a Chief of Staff that carried through to WW2 and onward.
Does get into some detail on the particular division movements for each battle that the American forces were involved in particularly in 1917/1918. Overall a good intro to the next level of understanding American military participation in WW1. Also gets into the personalities and interactions of the commanding officers.

[Donald · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the hardback. This book is a great starting off point for someone wanting to learn more about WWI. Rather than trying to absorb the whole war, its political causes, intrigue, etc., "Yanks" concentrates only on the building of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF). It gives the beginner and manageable piece of the war to digest and learn.

[Joe Macdonald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great story of the coordination of France Great Britain and the U.S. Pershing fights to keep his troops under indepedant leadership. long on the brass tacks lacking a bit on the personal touch. maps are always my pet peeve with history novels this story needed better maps. military purists will enjoy

[thos. · Rating 3 out of 5]

it looks like i am the only person who has read this book. it also appears that the americans didn't do jack during world war one.

the details and maps of the battles are some of the most informative i've seen.

[Michael Wasco]

Few writers have delved into WWI for the Americans quite like this book. Well-writen, moving swiftly, with good insights into the military minds of the generals, this book brings the AEF to life in WWI. Belleau Wood may be a famous name but why? This book will begin to provide those answers.

[Carl Bailey · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the better WWI books to be found.