Talk:Omar Bradley/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Comment

Since I was asked to look at this article, I would like to say it looks good. Informative and neutral. I would be interested to know a little more about the relationship between Bradley and Patton, especially when Bradley became Patton's commander rather than vica versa. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) you should read his autobiography I did it will tell you why it is 632 pgs

Top Image

It's too bad, we don't have a colored photo of Bradley as a 'General of the Army' (five-star). The 'four star' is cool, but it's not the pinnacle (rank wise) of his Army career. GoodDay 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I met General Bradley in 1971 while I was in the Air Force as a Medic working at the March Air Force Base Hospital. He was having surgery. He was most warm and friendly and barring the fact that I was an airman in rank (the bottom of the barrel) and he a "General". Of course when he saw my name tag said 'Bradley' probaly broke the ice, when He spoke first saying, "Good morning Airmen Bradley, How are you young man?" and I said," Fine Sir". Our conversation continued for the next half hour as though I was talking to my grandfather.

In the time of war [compasion] is an element that is sorely missed. I know to this day that Omar was that balance struck to temper Patton and his exccessive aggresiveness.

                                                                    Sgt. Bradley USAF     21 Feb 09

Bradley Patton Relationship

Bradley and Patton were never friends or knew each other before WW II but they got along fine during the war because both hid their real feelings.

As shown by his diaries, Patton thought he was better man and general than Bradley. To his face, however, Patton was the loyal subordinate. The same is true of Bradley. He never criticised Patton during WWII for conduct of the Sicily campaign.

Its only after Patton's death and his publication of his papers/diaries that Bradley went public with his feelings.

As for true feelings. Bradley thought Patton while willing to take risks, great at pursuit, and a "thruster" was a sloppy administrator and adverse to detailed planning. Further, he thought Patton was too interested in public publicity. Patton, OTOH, thought Bradley had no vision or imagination, feel for the enemy, and was unwilling to take risks.

IMO, the men worked best when Patton was boss. Bradley could temper Patton recklessness, and was able to perform the detailed planning neccessary to implement his ideas.

Further, Bradley was an example of the peter principle. He natural ceiling in my opinion was Army Commander. He no ability to "feel" the enemy or understanding of what an enemy could do or couldn't do. For example:

1) Prior to D-day he thought that the landings would be easy, the tough part would be stopping the enemy counterattack ala Salerno or Anzio. Completely wrong.

2) He completely missed the significance of the Hedgerows on military operations.

3) After the breakout he contantly reined Patton in, and forced him to provide flank guards, completely misreading the ability of the Germans to counterattack. The failure to close the gap at Falsaise is his fault.

4) Having overestimated the germans during the Normandy breakout, he went the other extreme and considered the war won in late August and early September. Advancing on a broad front, he threw away any chance of reaching the Rhine.

5) He continued to underestimate the Germans throuhout Sept-Dec 1994. Launching penny packet attacks all along the front, he incurred thousands of casualities while accomplishing nothing. He was taken surprise during the Battle of the Bulge because he thought the German could never counterattack.

6) After the Bulge, he went back to Overestimating the Germans. Demanding that the ENTIRE Rhine west back be occupied before any further advance. Holding up Patton. Demanding the Ruhr pocket be elminated before any further advance into Germany, etc.

7) Finally, it should be noted that Bradley was against Patton's landing in Sicily, even though this was correct strategy and hastened the germans withdrawl. The only thing wrong with them, if fact, was that weren't done sooner and in bigger strenght. But Bradley didn't like to take risks.

xxxxx

As per (7) above, Patton's plan for separate landings wasn't adopted. Patton, at Montgmery's insistence, was made to land in the Gulf of Gela alongside Monty's Eighth Army, because otherwise the risk of the piecemeal defeat of the Allied armies was too great (IMO probably rightly, however it may look in hindsight or in a wargame, in real life Ike and Alex couldn't afford the risk of such a disaster). Bradley may well have disapproved of Patton's subsequent thrust via Palermo to Messina, which probably did speed up the German withdrawal.

Some responses:

::::1) Prior to D-day he thought that the landings would be easy, the tough part would be stopping the enemy counterattack ala Salerno or Anzio. Completely wrong.

Not sure about that but, if true, it is completely consistent both with German defensive doctrine and Allied experience so far in the war. The best predictor of the future is the immediate past.

::::2) He completely missed the significance of the Hedgerows on military operations.''

As did every single other Allied commander. How is this a particular fault of Bradley?

::::3) After the breakout he contantly reined Patton in, and forced him to provide flank guards, completely misreading the ability of the Germans to counterattack. The failure to close the gap at Falsaise is his fault.

This is a sweeping judgment, but again I think this is a fault shared by several commanders. Bradley was wrong at Falaise but so was Monty and Eisenhower.

::::4) Having overestimated the germans during the Normandy breakout, he went the other extreme and considered the war won in late August and early September. Advancing on a broad front, he threw away any chance of reaching the Rhine.

Again, this is a fault of most of the Allied command structure, not Bradley in particular.

::::7) Finally, it should be noted that Bradley was against Patton's landing in Sicily, even though this was correct strategy and hastened the germans withdrawl. The only thing wrong with them, if fact, was that weren't done sooner and in bigger strenght. But Bradley didn't like to take risks.

xxxxx

::::As per (7) above, Patton's plan for separate landings wasn't adopted. Patton, at Montgmery's insistence, was made to land in the Gulf of Gela alongside Monty's Eighth Army, because otherwise the risk of the piecemeal defeat of the Allied armies was too great (IMO probably rightly, however it may look in hindsight or in a wargame, in real life Ike and Alex couldn't afford the risk of such a disaster). Bradley may well have disapproved of Patton's subsequent thrust via Palermo to Messina, which probably did speed up the German withdrawal.

Hard to say. The drive to Palermo and then Messina had a lot of prestige and morale value to the US Army, which had been badly tarnished at Kasserine. But the drive northwest didn't make a lot of sense in any other terms. If you are referring above to Patton's battalion-sized flanking landings along the north coast of Sicily, Bradley was indeed generally right. DMorpheus 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

This article does not mention his first wife, Mary, or second wife, Esther. Both are shown on the headstone. Nor does the article mention whether he had any children. The German version of the article at least mentions Esther "Kitty" Buhler. Group29 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

He had one daughter. With his first wife, his firstborn was a son, but was stillborn and unnamed. DMorpheus (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Placement exams

ANB says he was appointed an alternate for his congressional district, but the man directly appointed failed his qualifying exam, which is not the same story. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

Why Omar? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See first discussion above.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did Bradley have an Arabic given name?

I've always wondered why one of America's most famous generals held an Arabic first name. I always figured he was of Arabic ancestry, but this does not seem to be the case. Does anyone have a reliable source saying why his parents chose to give him the Arabic name "Omar"? —Gabbe 08:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gabbe, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_name#Modern_and_regional_variations. I guess his parents simply thought it to be a good name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.148.0.59 (talk • contribs) January 30, 2006

It says "Sometimes Muslim names are used by people who are not Muslims" and lists Omar Bradley as an example. Not much of an answer to my question... Obviously his parents thought it was a good name, but I wonder if anyone can confirm or deny that there is anything more to it than just that. —Gabbe 07:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

i would guess his parents were a fan of Omar Khayyam's poetry. Apparently there is an Omar in the bible too, though.--Calm 06:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the Omar disambiguation page, Omar is a German name as well. I think this sounds more plausible. --Inahet 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative, I am a German living in Germany and I can assure you Omar is not a German name. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this: "An English name of Biblical origin; it was particularly popular among the American Puritans." Ciobanica (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And some Hispanic people, (Omar Rodriguez-Lopez & Omar Bravo) have the name too.--Greasysteve13 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

According to his autobiography he was named for Omar D. Gray a local newspaper editor his father admired. Jackfork (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Concern about German Civilian Casualties

General Bradley wrote how he had to vigorously insist on being given Heavy Bomber support during operations against German Panzer Tanks. He said; 'the command seemed to think they could win the war simply by bombing Germany into the ground. They never stopped to consider the effect this was having on German civilians. Churchill wanted the V rockets attacks stopped on London. Bombing alone could not snuff out the V Rockets, we had to have control of the ground they were fired from'. General Bradley got the Air Support he needed and his strategy against the Panzer's was an outstanding success, without any German Civilian losses.Johnwrd (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Bath

I removed the post nominal letters KCB, referring to his honorary status as Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, from the introduction of this article as Mr. Bradley was not closely associated with the United Kingdom in the sense required by the Manual of Style for biographies. The full style guidelines for the use of post nominal letters can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Post-nominal_initials. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE INFO ON HIM

You're welcome to add (in small caps!) anything you know. :) Atorpen 00:04 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

You mean in proper case. Small caps just means smaller capitals... aka, quieter yelling. 99.245.62.92 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the story with him being made General of the Army after World War II ?

I think that when he was made Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Douglas McArthur was still on active duty, so they wanted to give him the same rank.--Rogerd 04:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Demotion to Colonel in 1943

The "dates of rank" table at the bottom lists him going from Lt. General in 1943, to Colonel in November 1943, to full General in 1945. What's up with the demotion? Is this an error, or? It doesn't seem to be a post-war demotion, given the date of November 43. Perhaps it should be explained somewhere if this actually correct. The text seems to emphasize the fact this was "regular army", but the war wasn't over. Is this some post-war demotion that is incorrectly dated (and ordered), or something else?

Warthog32 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I noticed this as well, and combing both this page, discussion, and the internet, I can't find anything on it. 99.245.62.92 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

During WWII, officers actually had multiple ranks, usually different ones; the permanent usually lower rank in the Regular Army (United States) and the temporary usually higher rank in the Army of the United States. So the change of rank to colonel in 1943 in the Regular Army really was a promotion from his lieutenant colonel rank from 1936. In the meantime, he was functioning in his temporary general ranks in terms of responsibilities and commands. — MrDolomite • Talk 21:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

without precedent in modern warfare

In a move without precedent in modern warfare, the US 3rd Army under George Patton disengaged from their combat in the Saarland, moved 90 miles to the battlefront

What about the redeployment of General Rokossovsky's 2nd Belorussian Front (A whole army group) in April 1945? It disengaged from fighting the remnants of Army Group North in East Prussia, crossed Poland and redeployed north of General Georgy Zhukov 1st Belorussian Front on the Oder in two weeks, ready for the start of the Battle for Berlin. Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Third Army took a Corps that was still in contact with the enemy, broke off, turned 90 degrees north, and attacked with two divisions all within 72 hours. DMorpheus 15:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the action by Patton took place in December 1944. RadManCF (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please look up what "unprecedented" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.199.4 (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"He drove the Germans and Italians out of Sicily"

This is an exaggeration and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.199.4 (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can prove that there are any Germans in Sicily, go ahead... . I think what's meant to be said is the German Wehrmacht and the Italian Fascists were driven out of Sicily, which is a true statement. Unless you can find Wehrmacht and Fascist soldiers there. In all seriousness, the Italians were sick of the war already, and the Germans knew they had to defend Germany. What did they care about Italy? The war had turned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Colonel

A recent edit suggested Bradley skipped the rank of Colonel. The following, from [1], p. 199 would seem to contradict. (Note: Ward is called Lt. Col.)

...as indicated by a notation marked with the initials of Col. (later Gen.) Omar N. Bradley who then was in the General Staff secretariat. Even this draft was not used, because (as noted long afterward)31 the rush of draft legislation which soon came about rendered it out of date. An accompanying memorandum of that same day, 19 June 1940, bearing the initials of Lt. Col. (later Maj. Gen.) Orlando Ward...

--John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing further evidence supporting the "skip" on the web. Will restore and see if I can find an "official" date-in-rank listing to confirm. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 07:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Navy Distinguished Service Medal

The Wiki page on the Navy Distinguished Service Medal says that Omar was issued one. Should this be added to awards or explaned how a Army Man gets a Navy medal?

Yes, it needs to be explained. The criteria of the medal would seem to exclude Bradley, who was never in the Navy or Marines. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the Navy DSM can be awarded to "any" service member who served in "any" capacity with the Navy or Marines. But we'd have to find a source that clarifies that in greater detail. In Eddie Rickenbacker's autobiography ("Rickenbacker", Fawcett Crest, 1967) on page 397 Rickenbacker describes how 20 American Distinguished Service Medals were awarded to members of the Russian Air Force and 20 American Navy Crosses were awarded to members of the Russian Navy during a special awards presentation in WWII. Maybe the rules were different back then. 71.139.247.247 (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Was Incompetent

I cannot understand how Bradley ever made 5 star General. The disaster at the Falaise Pocket, when Bradley let so many Germans escape, and more pointedly the Hurtgen Forest campaign which is considered to be an American defeat and is also the single longest battle in the history of the US Army, clearly indicate ineptitude. I find Bradley to be pedestrian and mediocre. He interfered with Patton, who was one of the best generals of the war. If I was Eisenhower I would have relieved Bradley of command. Does anyone know why Bradley was given command responsibility when he clearly lacked the genius that was required? Was it politics? Did he manipulate people? Was he a boot licker? Was he a back stabber? Have any psychological studies been made of him? Any books been written on this matter? How did such an inept commander rise to such importance? History is replete with accounts of incompetent generals who obtained rank through politics and personal connections, was Bradley one of these? What were his political connections? Few people know about the Hurtgen Forest disaster, I can think of only one movie made about it--"When Trumpets Fade" (an excellent movie, by the way, much better than that clown cartoon "Saving Private Ryan"). You can view "When Trumpets Fade" on Youtube, by the way. Was the Hurtgen Forest debacle covered up? I think a section dealing with this matter would clarify things, illuminate who Bradley really was and improve the article. 71.139.247.247 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic, but this is not what a talk page is about. If you can find reliable sources that make support your views, you can include them in the article if you reference them --rogerd (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I was re-reading my post and it seems harsh. I have great respect for our country's veterans and don't mean to be derogatory in any way. I'm just wondering how Bradley got so much responsibility when he seemed um, "less" than qualified shall we put it? Maybe he was just a team player. Any Bradley experts out there? 71.139.247.247 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Serious Bias

Reading this lead me to believe someone who had a Historical Ax to grind against Bradly has edited this article. There is a lot of dialog between editors apparent in the article and that classic point counter point my facts trump your facts style here. It really fails to be objective, although it doesn't seem to have a voice. Is there truly the need to constantly compare Bradly to Patton here at every step, and how is the invasion of Sicily just left out? I haven't the time to fix this, but articles like this are seriously what makes Wikipedia so easy to attack. I really abhor people who want to flame historical figures with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.145.4 (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

S. L. A. Marshall

The article contains quotes by S. L. A. Marshall. Given revelations about his "research methods," is he considered reliable?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

yes he is widely used by historians. The issue has to do with his statistical analysis showing he advanced the claim that fewer than a quarter of American infantrymen actually fired their weapons in any given action. He may well have garbled his statistics -- it was a rather complicated statistical problem that he did not fully understand. That has nothing to do with his evaluation of Bradley. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment

This is a good write up, however I think there is a discrepancy with the dates of Gen. Bradleys rank. In this article, Gen. Bradley held the rank of Brig. General prior to COL. This is not possible as a COL (06) is lower ranking than a 1 star. In addition, according to this article, Gen. Bradley held two officer ranks COL 1943, and Lieutenant General 1943, this is also not possible ABN96B (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Was Omar Bradley born into LDS

Was Omar Bradley's father a Mormon and was he born into the Church of LDS? I have heard this but can't confim it.Tricolour1789 (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Bradley's Louisiana Maneuvers home

I reverted the insertion of the link to the web image of Bradley's home (headquarters?). There was no accompanying text establishing the facts.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Error?

Can someone with access to the source confirm the Dates of Rank? Specifically, "Colonel, Regular Army: October 1, 1943", followed by "Brigadier general, Regular Army: September 1, 1943", doesn't make sense. - ^theWOLFchild 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Promotions came fast in WW II. I think this has been addressed in a possibly archived discussion.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Promotions did come fast in WWII but promotion to Brigadier General one month before promotion to Colonel? That is what does not make sense. This confirms the Sept 43 date for BG but does not mention Col at all. -- GB fan 01:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I misread the dates and "armies" in the original question. this register (search for omar instead of bradley) is a muddle of scanned text but I think it supports the dates above. It still doesn't sound right. If someone has a printed copy of the register (doesn't appear to be available online), it would help.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly what you were looking for, but two sources that could account for our current version are:

http://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=57 (Colonel Nov 43, no Brig. General)

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/brad_bio.htm (no Colonel, temp Brig. General Feb 41, perm Brig. General Sep 43

I don't feel qualified to judge the relative reliability of the two sources, but they might add some background. 2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The first one is the same one that I linked to above and it is reliable, the second one says that it uses Wikipedia as a source so it is not reliable as we would be referencing our article with our article. -- GB fan 11:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The discrepancy is due to an edit made by Colputt on Jan 3rd of this year. Perhaps he could re-check his "source" on this... ? - ^theWOLFchild 13:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the link to that source. Official Army Register, 1946 (page 76). Colputt (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like Bradley's date of rank for permanent Brigadier General really was earlier than his date of rank for permanent Colonel. This fact is related in Omar Bradley: General at War by Jim DeFelice. (pages 184-185). His date of rank as Colonel (October 1, 1943) can be verified in U.S. Senate Executive Calendar for November 12, 1943. His date of rank for Brigadier General (September 1, 1943) can be verified in Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States, Volume 86 (1944), page 249.

Billmckern (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Normally I would readily accept such sources (and thanks for that btw), but there is such a glaring discrepancy, that we shouldn't accept any sources "verifying" this, unless there is some kind of accompanying explanation. - ^theWOLFchild 05:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like it had to do with seniority. Prior to June of 1943, Bradley was notified that he would be promoted to Colonel in the Regular Army, with a postdated date of rank of October 1, 1943. In June of 1943, while he was a Lieutenant General in the National Army, he was notified that he would be promoted to Brigadier General. General Marshall apparently arranged the dates of rank for Brigadier General like an Order of Merit List, so that seniority would benefit those at the top of the list. There had been a moratorium on promotions to permanent Brigadier General and Major General. When Regular Army promotions to those grades were again authorized, Marshall and Eisenhower discussed the candidates, the dates of rank and the order of the promotions. Bradley was second -- after Joseph T. McNarney and before Thomas T. Handy. So it seems that Bradley's date of rank for permanent Brigadier General came before his date of rank for permanent Colonel based on where Marshall and Eisenhower wanted Bradley to be placed in terms of seniority. Verification can be found if you Google the George C. Marshall Foundation for "To General Dwight D. Eisenhower, September 1, 1943 Radio No. 6595, Washington, D.C. Secret." See footnote 5 of that message.

Billmckern (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then there would be no need for a date of promotion on his record for Colonel. He could've skipped the rank altogether, just like Ike, who went from Lt Col to Brig Gen in the Regular Army. Something is still off here. - ^theWOLFchild 00:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

But the issue of whether to make Bradley a permanent Brigadier General, and if so with what date of rank, didn't arise until AFTER he'd already been promoted to permanent Colonel, because of the moratorium on promotions to permanent BG and MG. Eisenhower had waivers to the policy so he could be confirmed as a permanent Brigadier General and permanent Major General, so there was no need to promote him to Colonel.

The footnote to which I referred earlier reads in part: "At the president’s behest, promotions to Regular Army brigadier and major general had been withheld—except for the cases of former Hawaiian Department commander Delos C. Emmons, Arnold, and now Eisenhower—for more than two years “with a view to utilizing such vacancies as a special recognition of outstanding efficiency in positions of great responsibility in the present emergency. In a memorandum written for Secretary Stimson’s signature, Marshall asserted that the time had come “to recognize the services of a limited group of officers who have emerged from the mass of our Officer Corps as proven leaders.”

Billmckern (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

But, according to the dates in the table, Bradley was made a permanent Brigadier General in the regular army BEFORE he was made a permanent Colonel in the regular army. I'm looking for a clear reason as to why. What you posts her doesn't explain that. Do you have any sources that clearly explain this? - ^theWOLFchild 00:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I've explained this pretty well, presuming that I understand the references I provided. When Bradley was a permanent Lieutenant Colonel and temporary Lieutenant General, there was a hold on promotions to permanent Brigadier General and permanent Major General. He was notified in 1943 that he would be promoted to permanent Colonel with a POSTDATED effective date of 1 October.

AFTER he was notified of the promotion to Colonel, the moratorium on promotions to permanent BG and MG was lifted. Eisenhower and Marshall discussed who to promote and what the effective dates would be, based on criteria like current temporary rank, current assignment, and where they wanted the promoted officers to line up in terms of seniority. Those criteria led to Bradley being the second one promoted to permanent BG following the lifting of the hold, with a POSTDATED effective date of 1 September.

Eisenhower too was a permanent Lieutenant Colonel when he entered the ranks of the temporary generals, but the hold on promotions was waived for him, so he was confirmed as a permanent BG and MG, and there was no need to promote him to permanent Colonel.

I suppose that the Army could have adjusted Bradley's postdated date of rank for permanent Colonel once it was known that he would be promoted to permanent BG, but it would have been a moot point, because once he made permanent BG, he was never going to revert to permanent Colonel.

Billmckern (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We need a reference that explains it - or adjust the article to reflect what has been explained, even if incomplete. Have US explain it is original research. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe we're talking about original research here. The DeFelice book makes clear that yes, the date of rank for permanent Colonel really did come after the date of rank for permanent Brigadier General. The date of rank for permanent Colonel is explicit in one reference, and the date of rank for permanent Brigadier General is explicit in another. In the fourth reference, the communication between Marshall and Eisenhower, the text of the communication and the footnote explain how Bradley's date of rank for permanent Colonel came after his date of rank for permanent Brigadier General. I don't think that's original research. That's one statement of fact, two references that verify the statement of fact, and one reference that explains how that fact came to be.

But honestly, I'm just about done with this. Someone posed the question, and I appear to be the only one who answered it. Instead of sharpshooting me, maybe someone else should take a shot at either verifying my answer or explaining why it's not right.

Billmckern (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll even take a stab at writing the passage to explain the dates of promotion. In the section on World War II, after the mention of his front line command and promotion to temporary Lieutenant General:

In early 1943 Bradley was notified that he would be promoted to permanent Colonel with a postdated effective date of October 1. (DeFelice reference) (U.S. Senate executive Calendar reference) Later that year, the War Department lifted a moratorium on promotions to permanent Brigadier General and permanent Major General. After consultation with Eisenhower, Marshall determined who would receive promotion and in what order, based on current temporary rank, current assignment, and where Marshall and Eisenhower determined that the candidates should be ranked in seniority. Bradley was the second to be promoted to permanent Brigadier General, with a postdated effective date of September 1 (before the effective date of his promotion to permanent Colonel). (Marshall/Eisenhower communication reference) (Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States)

I don't believe that's original research. That's four sentences, with references, which factually and accurately explains something relevant in Bradley's career.

Billmckern (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded snarky. Didn't mean to. It seemed most of the discussion here was explanation piecing together the original lists. I DID see the one reference that seemed to explain it and would expect (as you have now, I think) that used as the source of the explanation or there be a discussion of the suitability of the source. I didn't dig in enough to get beyond that. I think your suggested wording is good. Sorry if I added to your aggravation. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if anyone else offers an opinion or an alternative. If everyone seems to be OK with it, I'll make the edit.

Billmckern (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with adding a simple asterisk or note, stating that one of the dates is backdated. We can simply add "see talk page" is you guys think something more is needed. Thanks for the follow-up comments Bill, once you mentioned "backdated" and "postdated", things began to make sense. - ^theWOLFchild 05:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems like we've achieved consensus on this point. I'll make a comment in the article along the lines that you suggested.

Billmckern (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Having the reference in the talk page is not a good idea. It will likely get archived and it should be easier to access. Besides, the discussion is useful is showing what special regard he was held and therefore pertinent to the article. What is the problem of a having a paragraph describing the anomalies. Shall I have a shot? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Years of Service

I notice a quickly reverted edit changed the years of service in the info box to 1915–1953 from 1915-1981. I understand arguments on both sides of this. "years of service" can cover "years paid as a soldier" or it could mean "years actively soldiering." To me, the second is more useful in the info box. That he was getting paid until his death seems less useful to describe there - and the footnote could still explain "he retired in 1953, but as a GA continued to receive his full salary until his death in 1981." Thoughts? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. 1951 was the end of his active career. That he continued to receive his full salary as a retired General of the Army does not mean that he was still carrying on an active career.

Billmckern (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've referred this discussion to the community at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Years of service and asked for comments.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW The infobox for George Marshall also lists his years of service as ending with his death. This includes periods when he served as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. I don't believe that he would have been permitted to continue to draw his military pay at the same time he was paid as a Cabinet Secretary, so in his case, the dates don't represent getting paid. I also think that there is more than getting paid -- aide de camps (or aides de camp) are assigned and other perks associated with active duty but not retirement are afforded. The source for the continuation on active duty is the same in both articles and seems a little odd to me (an Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War). The page link provided is either dead or nonexistent and the book link is just to a Google Books site. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ernest King, Chester Nimitz and William Leahy's infoboxes include service until death and cites to the same flaky source.

Dwight D. Eisenhower's infobox years of service also extend to his death but exclude his years as president and have a different source for continuing his years of service, one that expressly notes he "reenter[d] the Armed Forces after leaving the office of President."

Bull Halsey and Hap Arnold's infoboxes do not list years of service --Lineagegeek (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There's this in a news piece about George Marshall.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And this, although it's more convoluted.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Clay, Devers and Hodges all retired in 1949. Handy replaced Clay in Europe, and Clark replaced Devers as head of Army Field Forces. The sailors did succeed in getting Congress to grant them an extension. This was passed in July 1948, and allowed Hewitt and Kinkaid to remain at four-star rank until they retired in 1950. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest General Marshall's infobox be changed in the same way - I've left a note there inviting interested parties here so all the discussion is in one place. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(For consistency, what we decide should be reflected for all five modern 5 stars (Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Arnold, Bradley). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that it should end at retirement and not at death, and that all other articles should be similarly adjusted. When not actively serving in duties, they would not then be actually performing duties, and the infobox should indicate the period when they were performing their duties. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Eisenhower retired in 1948, but was recalled to active duty in 1950. He resigned his commission when he became president. It was subsequently restored by act of Congress after he left office. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

See my additions to my FWIW for additional coverage of US 5 stars. First, the source cited for continuation in rank until death for all but Eisenhower seems to me not to meet RS criteria. Second, there seems to be no information concerning what "retire" means in this context. Hap Arnold's article lists one date as the day he retired, but gives another date as the effective date of retirement. It's not clear to me just what retire means in this context. --Lineagegeek (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I plan to update all the 5-star ranks to consistently have the "years in service" listed in the info box end when they "retired" - i.e. stopped "going to the office" - rather than their death (when they stopped getting paid) and have a footnote explaining the pay situation. Gives more information (the box already has the date of death!). Let me know if you have objections (I don't see any above). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As others have said, I too can see both sides of the argument. For most of these officers, it's clear-cut as after their "retirement" their continued involvement with the military was relatively minimal. But with others, ie Nimitz it's less clear as they continue to have a role and serve. The lay reader would be looking for the classical definition of "Retire", but with these lifetime appointments, where they continue to hold a commission, it doesn't really meet the lay definition of "retire". Therefore should this encyclopedia use the lay-definition most readers would be expecting, albeit at the risk of accusations of "duming-it-down"? Gecko G (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

From the Talk:George Marshall page, it appears that it is "full pay and benefits for those on the retired list," so they are "retired." But I will look for any ambiguity on the pages and either leave the death date or explain in the footnote. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Pub.L. 78-482 doesn't seem to provide for "never retiring."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Gaarmyvet- that publaw link is helpful, thank you. I notice in both that and the one creating General of the Armies, both seem to be making a distinction (in section 5 in both cases) between "retirement" and "reversion to the retired list" - or is that simply refering to the two source-pools of candidates whom the president can choose from? I think we need a formal definition of retired list to untangle this.

Jwy- I don't believe they get full pay on the retired list (and the specific act's in section 4's) only mention pay while active.

Gecko G (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Command style

Paragraph on Funnies is informative but overlong, and hard to read. Anyone feel like condensing it? Notreallydavid (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Marlene Dietrich

The rumor is that he had an affair with Dietrich. Should this be a part of this article, or, in the absence of citations, is it to be disregarded? Seems pretty important to me.173.62.11.254 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Dates of Rank

Can someone with more knowledge of the subject and Wikipedia's guidelines correct the footnote on the issue of dates of rank? Using an archived talk page as the reference is quite confusing.

Take a look at this section now and see if you think it's any better. Over the last couple of months I've worked to provide additional details and numerous references.

Billmckern (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)