Why was Pershing famed during WW1?

Answer 1

As xamanator implies, Pershing’s performance as commander of America’s army in WW1 was far from perfect. But I disagree with xamanator’s conclusion that Pershing’s fine reputation was merely a product of “ballyhoo” (= public relations BS). Pershing deserved the leadership position he had been given; and he did as well as could be expected under exceptionally difficult circumstances.

However, before I say why I think that Pershing deserves his fame, I should state where I think he made BAD decisions. America’s two major operations in WW1 were at St. Mihiel and at Meuse-Argonne.

[a] The St. Mihiel operation was completely successful. But it was also unnecessary: an attack on a salient that the Germans were in any case evacuating; and along an axis of advance that was of no strategic interest. The Allied Supremo, Foch, tried to persuade Pershing not to attack at St Mihiel, because it was irrelevant to the imminent broad scale French-British-American combined offensive. But Pershing insisted on proceeding, because he was determined to demonstrate what his new American armies could do. The result was a complete local success --- but also an inevitable disruption to preparations for the truly important forthcoming offensive at Meuse-Argonne.

[b] Foch had also recognized that the inexperience of the American armies did not bode well for them in attacking through the Argonne forest, whose tangled terrain was perfect for the German defense. Foch proposed allotting this sector to (much more skillful) French forces, and switching the Americans to easier ground to the west of the Argonne Forest. Again, Pershing refused. Actually, having insisted on his St Mihiel attack, Pershing had to stick with the Argonne as his next sector, because his armies could not then have been deployed, on time, any further away than the Argonne. So one mistake led to another.

[c] And American performance at Meuse-Argonne was indeed poor. This is not at all a reflection on the valor of the American troops: they were outstandingly brave. But their level of training; and, in particular, the inexperience of their divisional and lesser officers; meant that too often they went as lambs to the slaughter --- just as had so many British, for the same reasons, at the Somme two years before. Pershing’s response to failure to win immediate objectives in the offensive was to pile in more and more divisions, leading to a chaotic tangle of supply and reinforcement columns on the sparse road network behind his front lines. Foch had been right: the Meuse-Argonne sector was a really bad choice of ground for America’s inexperienced fighting divisions and staff organization.

- - - - -

But now for the GOOD that Pershing did: -

No American general had ever been called upon to do what Pershing did.

[1] When America declared war on Germany in spring 1917, it was entirely unprepared for war: -
The regular army consisted of just 25,000 men, scattered around in Regiment-size packets, with no Divisional structure.
The back-up National Guard, controlled by individual States, amounted mainly to scattered Companies that appear never to have trained together in combination.
The officer corps was jammed with senior-in-rank but utterly inexperienced-in-war men.
There was no war staff, and virtually no training for staff officers.
Sophisticated modern equipment (and therefore the possibility of training with that equipment) was almost entirely lacking: no modern machine guns; no modern artillery; no tanks; no combat airplanes; no mortars; no flamethrowers; no gas; no grenades; no knowledge of trenches and barbed wire; not even any helmets. Nothing, in fact, except rifles and pistols.

[2] From that essentially zero base, Pershing had to train, organize and lead a modern army – and do it in a hurry. And, in many respects, he was perfect for the task. He was a man of action: built in the same mold as his mentor and sponsor, Teddy Roosevelt; and of his subordinate from Pancho Villa days, George Patton. Pershing got things done in a hurry and was absolutely clear in his priorities.

[3] Just 34 days after America’s declaration of war, Pershing sailed for France with the nucleus of a General Staff that he had gathered around him. The hastily organized 1st Division, made up mainly of long-serving regulars, also began to trickle into France and had assembled there by the end of July 1917.

[4] On arriving in France, Pershing quickly discovered that the French and British leaders did not really want an American army to fight alongside them. They wanted men to replace battle losses in their own armies. Given the inexperience of his raw recruits and his complete lack of modern weapons beyond rifles, Pershing faced a difficult decision; because America’s soldiers would become more quickly useful if he allowed them to be taken over and used by the French and the British. His refusal to allow this - even though it would eventually cost more American lives; and even though it prolonged the period before they could join the fight – was the right one. Because, without independent American armies fighting under American flags, America’s place at the Peace Conference would have been insignificant.

[5] The methods and training programs that Pershing inaugurated early in 1917 enabled him able to produce an integrated fighting force of two million men in 18 months, and to lead it as field commander in the last few months of the war.

[6] Moreover, that same structure and methodology provided a starting blueprint for a later American mobilization and training plan: one that would create a top world-class military in 1941-45.

- - - - -

My conclusion is that, although Pershing made some costly mistakes, his great achievements far outweighed his errors. He deserves the high regard in which his men held him, and the tributes that flowed to him in his later years. A truly outstanding American soldier and leader.

Answer 2

General Pershing was the commander of the US Expeditionary Force during WWI. He was (and still is) the highest ranking US officer.

While there have been other 5-star generals and admirals, Congress made a new rank for Generals Pershing and Washington called General of the Armies of the United States (note that the present highest rank is General of the Army and nobody holds it).

Gen. Pershing was an exceptional strategist of the time and had experience in the "wild west" as a Cavalry officer, during the Spanish-American War, during the Philippine War, and as an observer during the Russo-Japanese war.

Gen George Patton (of WWII) was one of Gen Pershing's aides during the Mexican Expedition of 1916-17.

During WWI, several of the later WWII famous generals served under Gen. Pershing. This includes Generals MacArthur and Marshall.

Answer 3

He was a General of the Armies for American forces in France during WW1, and he refused to subordinate US troops to either the French or the British - he wanted them to act as an independent force. This was essential to prevent his army being fed piece-meal into the butchery of the Western Front., where it would have been chopped to bits without any discernible gain.

He also recognized and promoted talent from the ranks. Many of his personal subordinates rose to higher rank in the following years.

He was much admired and respected by US troops.

Answer 4

He was the American general and thus the recipient of all the US ballyhoo. The war ended too soon for people to see what a cock up he made of the Argonne offensive.