# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed your initial review of WWI that is a great view point and something that I can agree with. Pershing was a great General and accomplishment many things throughout his tenure. Did you know that Pershing also lead a battle in Cuba and San Juan Hill during the Spanish American war?

# data[].attributes.body
Colby Evatt
5/21/2023
HS315

# data[].attributes.body
When the U.S. declared war on Germany our military was minuscule. Pershing was literally put in charge of our military and it's involvement in the first world war. He was able to raise an army, and supply it in an extremely short time period. He had a law degree and sought formal education through WestPoint. I think his education helped him gain his appointment that he would receive during world war I. I also think that his law degree would help him navigate between different political parties, and different commanders of foreign armies (the French and British) in such a way as to allow him to maintain his position.

# data[].attributes.body
In my eyes the best thing Pershing done was put the right people in the right place. He was able to appoint subordinates in such a way that made a massive operation efficient enough to fight. From our book " An example of Pershing’s ability to select the right man for the right job was the case of Charles Dawes" (Gabel,Willbanks 2012). I have studied Dawes some and I think he deserves significant praise for his contributions.  Pershing had also proved himself to be brave and intelligent in his military duties leading up to world war I. He was harsh and fair, both prior to and during world war I.
He was also capable of listening to criticism, and learning from it. Our reading material makes not of him listening to his subordinate's critiques and taken it into consideration. He was also known to be level headed, and to not let his personal emotions influence his decision.

The bad:
The worst I can say about Pershing is that he thought his battle ideas for fighting in world war I were superior to what the allies had learned in the previous years. This cost the Americans unnecessary casualties. I do wonder if he and President Wilson wanted so badly to have a seat at the victor's table that they were okay with wasting lives. Maybe they thought that some significant casualty count would counter act the millions lost by the allies and bring them some credibility in having a say during peace talks. I could not find it but somewhere in this week's material it alludes to Pershing and Grant wasting lives because they could. They had more men than their enemy. Pershing's battle plans for the last offensive were lacking, but his redemption came when he removed himself and was allowed to take a step back and see the big picture.

# data[].attributes.body
John J. Pershing's largest success came from him being able to raise such a large army in such a short time. He also made contributions to the military that would benefit the U.S. in World War II. And he was victorious. The U.S. did contribute, and maybe be a huge part of the allies winning world war I.  He also did all of this while maintaining our military has it's own individual fighting force, for the most part the Americans did not integrate in with the British or the French (although when we did we were more successful).

The most significant negatives of Pershing was that he did not listen to foreign combat experienced generals, he cost the U.S. an excessive amount of lives. In his race to be involved in the war he sent untrained soldiers into combat with inadequate leaders. In the final weeks of the war he is responsible for needless sacrifice of American troops.

# data[].attributes.body
John J. Pershing is relevant to study in our world today because this is the first glimpse into a military figure who is required to lead in such a way that it can be transferred over to the corporate world. He is responsible for our presence in Europe during world war one. Pretty much all of our presence which include: our supplies, men, weapons, food, munitions, etc. He was tasked with a huge responsibility, to "throw America into the fight" and he did it. He knew how to play the political game. He also knew how to appoint good leadership under him. He also heavily influenced many of the leaders that would serve gallantly in World War II.

# data[].attributes.body
John J. Pershing deserves to be listed as a Great Commander for his involvement in bringing America into modern warfare. While he did not do everything right, he did do an excellent job at enough things to help win the war, and he did that in such a way as to show the world that America during world war I was a fighting force to be respected. He did have failures, in battle and in supply chains, however he learned from these lessons and was able to help the U.S. learn valuable lessons that would be used in World War II. I think it would be a stretch to say we could find someone better for the job, and I think that appointing anyone other than Pershing for such a monumental task could have been absolutely devastating.

# data[].attributes.body
Zabecki, D. T. (2018). Racing Headlong. Military History, 35(1), 30–39.

Christopher R. Gabel, James H Willbanks 2012 Great Commanders "John J. Pershing" https://content.grantham.edu/academics/GU_HS315/Great_Commanders_Textbook.pdf