Talk:Edward Almond

Recent additions

The last few additions added by the anon user while appearing like vandalism are actually not. They do not conform to MoS and are not sourced as they were added but I know they are coming from David Halberstam's The Coldest Winter. I was actually going to update this page as it is way too glowing about Almond without mentioning some of his many flaws like being MacArthur's lackey and almost getting the 1st Marine Division (not to mention X Corps) wiped off the map due to arrogance and recklessness in the winter of 1950. I have just not gotten around to it yet.--07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article is hardly "glowing" about Almond, indeed it reeks of hostile POV. It should be revised to present the facts and let them speak for themselves. 12.214.62.215 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that Edward Almond wasn't the greatest general in the history of the U. S. Army, the statements against him in this article need more citations to back them up at the very least. Cranston Lamont (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusations of racism at least need some kind of source, because they make him seem like a complete satan, especially by modern standards. The only one provided is this link at JStor, which is defunct. Google only returns 57 results for "edward almond racist", "racism" etc, most of which seem to be sourced from Wikipedia's article. I assume the accusations come from The Coldest Winter, which makes up the rest of the returns, but they still need citations. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A new 2009 book "The Last Stand of Fox Company" by Bob Drury/Tom Clavin (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Fox-Company-Marines/dp/0871139936) delves a bit into the unpleasant relationship that the US Marines had with Almond. The best significant incident being when Almond briefly flew in to Chosin on Nov 28th (2nd day of the Chinese offensive) to angrily complain about why the US offensive to the Yalu River had faltered (and had already taken about 33% casualties). He pointedly denied that there was any Chinese intervention. "That's impossible. There aren't two Chinese Divisions in the whole of North Korea. The enemy delaying you is nothing more than remnants fleeing north. We're still attacking, and we're going all the way to the Yalu. Don't let a bunch of goddamn Chinese laundrymen stop you." (Pg. 146) It wasn't until MacArthur changed his mind about the reality of the Chinese intervention that Almond then suddenly now agreed with the intelligence reports that his division commanders had been giving him for over a week. Fortunately, the Marines had already pointedly disobeyed Almond's direct orders and were orchestrating their successful withdrawal from Chosin, saving most of their men. Overall, there is very little positive that can be said about Almond... history has not been very kind to him (rightly so). He very definitely was a lapdog for MacArthur. Acmaddocks (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An even newer book "For Country and Corp, The Life of General Oliver P. Smith," Naval Institute Press, covers General Smith's entire life. It is written by Gail Shisler, General Smith's granddaughter; and she had access to his private papers. It sheds light on the complex interactions between Almond and Smith. I recommend it for those interested in seeing another POV regarding General Almond from a man who is well known for his restraint, even criticized by many for that restraint and gravitas. From page 129, Ms. Shisler is discussing Smith's perceived command style, "But Smith's approach was exactly what the division needed. A 'screamer' could not possibly have instilled the sense of calm he brought to what even he called an 'administrative maelstrom.' " This one quote sheds some light on the situation and this book bears some study for those interested in learning more about this complex period of time in our military history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orovalleydude (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

By many accounts General Almond was quite personable with writers who interviewed him after his retirement as admitted by the novelist WEB Griffin. This bias seems to have pervaded to gloss over his less than stellar performance. From many sources I have read, I see the majority as depicting him as an average officer who was promoted above his competency. I think that prevailing racial attitudes in the army during and after WWII allowed him to get away with blaming his troops for "poor performance." I think this articles scant mention of detractors and the overwhelmingly positive slant of it in Almond's favor make it biased. I think there should be more mention of his detractors on his 92nd tour and his Korean tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.137.100 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 ^^^^  eh i think you have a bias against him because of his "racial views" which were 

also mentioned further down in the WP page. he "got away with blaming his troops (92nd infantry) for "poor performance", lol. whoever wrote that line gives no evidence to support those claims or to refute his assertions. was the 92nd infantry subpar? idk but provide some evidence one way or the other.

then in the "In Popular Culture" section there is this silly line:

In the novel series The Corps, General Almond is mentioned in the last two books: Under Fire and Retreat Hell! Almond is portrayed by the author (who served under Almond in Korea) in a positive light, with no reference made to his racial views.

whoever added this seems again obsessed with race. someone has an agenda. Almond seemed an average to below avg officer at best but there's too much of a racial slant to this article without much evidence to back it up. 107.37.207.53 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the most persuasive (at the time, anyway) arguments that Almond was a racist was contained in the book "America's Tenth Legion: 10th Corps in Korea" by Shelby Stanton. Stanton documents carefully Almond's actions in Italy, which were borderline incompetent, and his attempts to blame the poor performance of his troops on the fact the enlisted men were all black. He also was pretty critical of Almond's attitude in Korea, having a Puerto Rican National Guard regiment in X Corps which wasn't segregated. Even though the unit supposedly performed well, Almond was suspicious of it, and denigrated it regularly. The difficult with this is that Stanton himself has been pretty thoroughly discredited, having "improved" his own resume in order to gain credibility. Outside of that criticism of him, however, I don't know if his research should be completely discounted. Regardless, it's generally agreed that Almond was only a borderline officer, and *never* should have been allowed to serve as MacArthur's Chief of Staff, and commander of X Corps at the same time. This put him in the weird position of being Chief of Staff to a general, and subordinate to his chief subordinate. If Walton Walker (commander of 8th Army in Korea) wanted to complain about Almond, he had to go through Almond himself to get to MacArthur. This was clearly unworkable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.62.254 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The unsigned comment in this article makes the false statement that "The difficult (sic) with this is that Stanton himself has been pretty thoroughly discredited, having "improved" his own resume in order to gain credibility." In fact, the author Shelby Stanton is a well-known and respected military historian. He is author of the landmark reference works World War II Order of Battle and Vietnam Order of Battle. Stanton is an attorney and author of a number of critically acclaimed histories including Rise and Fall of an American Army, Green Berets at War and America's Tenth Legion, as well as authoritative uniform series of books. During the Vietnam war, Captain Shelby L. Stanton, U.S. Army Special Forces (Retired) served as an infantry officer in Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos.. He graduated from the Infantry, Airborne, Ranger, and Special Forces courses during his U.S. Army service. He is a recipient of the Purple Heart and numerous other decorations. Furthermore, Shelby Stanton has a Bachelor, Masters and Juris Doctor degree (B.S., M.Ed., J.D.). from Louisiana State University and became a member of both the Texas and Louisiana State Bar associates. He is not discredited except by those envious of his works, political assessments of military operations, or religious birthright (thereby falsely accusing him of thinking himself Jesus Christ) in a self-published book of unsupported defamation. Captain Stanton never improperly "improved" his own resume in order to gain credibility. He has credibility by the virtue of his accomplishments. A fair and unbiased Wikipedia article is needed on Shelby Stanton because of his importance as a military author and commentator.

In relation to the above unsigned comment left by Militaryartist, I note that Stanton has been suspected of "Stolen Valor" issues and of removing files from official archives. Any article on Stanton would need to discuss these issues in order provide balance to his war service, alleged or otherwise, and his written work. Zawed (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Shelby Stanton is totally innocent of the issues and removal complaints cited above. which are based on gossip. In contrast to New Zealand perhaps, a person is considered innocent in the United States unless convicted at trial. There is no evidence Stanton conducted such acts, and he has never been charged nor convicted. The censorship of Shelby Stanton from an article on Edward Almond based on suspicions cast in a self-published book without documented sources as to its specific accusations (i.e., what exact "stolen valor issues" or what proof of improperly removed documents) is unacceptable professional bias. A reasonable and objective standard for historians is expected, not participation in a media mob lynching based on emotionally-driven and fabricated premises.Militaryartist (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Most democratic countries have a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Besides, you miss the point. The allegations look to be widely reported and therefore would need to be discussed in an article on Shelby Stanton, irrespective whether you think the allegations are false, since that also contributes to his notability. Contrary opinions that have been reported in reliable sources can also be included in the article. In the meantime, the material that was cited to Stanton has been cited to another source, more recent source. Stanton doesn't add anything over and above that. Zawed (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact remains that Stanton's authoritative book, America's Tenth Legion, is actually being censored from Wikipedia because of your initially stated opinion that the author is problematic. You should read this book because it contains much valuable historical information not contained in other works, especially regarding General Almond's command of the 92d Infantry Division in World War II and X Corps in Korea. It is quoted in the sources and footnotes of many books and articles regarding Almond. The fact that it was published in 1989 is not a timed handicap, because the same list of references refer to Clay Blair's 1987 The Forgotten War and T. R. Fehrenbach's 1963 classic This Kind of War, both of which are "dated" and certainly not full books devoted to Almond -- unlike Stanton's critically acclaimed book on the general. Therefore, the purposeful deletion of Stanton's book serves no purpose except to deprive the readership of a solidly researched and scholarly accepted book about General Almond, his motivations and his actions -- which was published long before (and must have certainly made later authors aware) of the controversy surrounding this American general. Additionally, Stanton's book is quoted in sources and footnotes to many books about Almond. As far as Stanton being problematic, I am sure that Galileo was considered problematic to the Catholic Church for many centuries. Wikipedia exists, in my belief, to spread knowledge and not suppress it. Useful books adding to the field of any endeavor should be added and not dismissed based on "reported" misinformation about an author. As far as an article on Shelby Stanton, it is probably fear of controversy by Wikipedia that prohibits such a feature, especially when so much has already been invested in touting Stolen Valor (both author and singular self-published book articles, when that diatribe is certainly problematic). My real fear is that Wikipedia censors Stanton out of concern about U.S. retaliation because of Stolen Valor author FBI connection (sources the illegally transmitted FBI investigation of Stanton as a footnote), just as the international ICC court is currently threatened by sanctions against its officials by the United States government for pursuit of war crimes in Afghanistan. National destruction of authorship by any country is extremely dangerous, and I am fearful Wikipedia is censoring Stanton as problematic -- without evidence or trial, or any formal judicial complaint -- because he writes such outstanding volumes that it provokes the professional jealousy and resentment of official government historians (when awarded the army contract to write the U.S. Army Order of Battle for the Korean conflict), coupled with the prisoner fantasies of billionaire Ross Perot as well as dislike of the Korean Moonie-controlled newspaper Washington Times which first broadcast the false stolen valor and removal issues you raised.Militaryartist (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

In looking through the histories of this article, in 2009 there were only 3 books of the Korean War (none of Almond) listed as references when Stanton's book is first praised in Talk as a reference on Edward Almond but questions Stanton's authorship without specifics or valid source. It obviously demonstrates his book, America's Tenth Legion, would have been listed as a reference except for this prejudice. This clearly explained circumstance started our discussion regarding the worth of Stanton's 1989 book, and is at the heart of the censorship exercised against Stanton in this article. Again, it is unjustified censorship which raises my concerns that outside national forces are pressurizing Wikipedia to conform to American FBI dictates, regardless of the facts and lack of trial or evidence as to that opinion. In the same sense, a Wikipedia of 1938 would have deferred to Hitler's version of artwork or race relations by disapproved German authors. Unless a larger controlling force is involved, such biased censorship of Shelby Stanton without proof, whether in regard to a referenced book or independent article, is a puzzling disservice to Wikipedia and its users.Militaryartist (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you toning down your comments from your original response. Referring to some sort of conspiracy isn't helping your cause and neither is making accusations of professional jealousy. In fact, this suggests some sort of connection between you and Stanton since it seems a highly personal viewpoint. If so, I would refer you to WP:COI. Regardless, another source has been used for the section where Stanton was previously relied upon. As noted above, it doesn't add anything extra. Regards, Zawed (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ned Almond

This page does not convey the true incompetence of Ned Almond. He was, by many measures, one of the worst men ever to reach the rank of Lieutenant General. Halberstam's account is only one of many that show Almond in a very unfavorable light. Racist, a lackey, overbearing, overconfident, and incompetent are all adjectives that belong in this article. Those are supported by the historical record. Think of it this way: is it a "hostile POV" to say that a certain German leader was evil and inhumane? Sometimes the truth is brutal and harsh. Ned Almond earned his reputation with the loss of so many men under his command due to his poor performance. If not for O.P. Smith, it would have been far worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.220.26 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

History Bears Witness to Almond's Criminal Incompetence!!!

Having read about the 92nd Division in Italy and Almond's shotty performance in Korea, it really sheds light on one of history's most clownish examples of a field commander. He was very lucky to have been an American general during World War II. If he'd been under Stalin, he'd been placed in front of a firing squad and shot! He was a disgrace!! If he'd commanded the 92nd Infantry Division like a worthy general, he'd never would've quarterbacked blame in his soldiers. No commander that is worth anything does that!! He was a racist and also a stupid racist!!!! The Chosin Reservoir Campaign in 1950 shows how he almost led the 1st Marine Division to obliteration!!! Read Breakout by Martin Russ on the Chosin Reservoir Campaign to get further insight!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldierofchicago (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Supporting Material on Almond's Racism

In his account of the Italian Campaign of World War II, Rick Atkinson describes Almond as someone who "would oppose integration of the armed forces until his dying day" (383).

Atkinson quotes Almond as follows, "The white man ... is willing to die for patriotic reasons. The Negro is not." And "No white man wants to be accused of leaving the battle line. The Negro doesn't care .... People think that, being from the south we don't like Negroes. Not at all. But we understand his capabilities. And we don't want to sit at the table with them" (383).

Atkinson writes that "[i]n a top secret report after the war, Almond asserted that black officers lacked 'pride, aggressiveness, [and] a sense of responsibility'" (383). Atkinson, Rick. The Day of Battle. Holt Paperbacks, New York: 2007. Jlaroe (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)jlaroe

¶ I spent an afternoon with a vet of the 92nd who had very keen memories of Almond's racial antipathies. Almond assumed that his black troops were low quality in terms of brains, skill and teamwork, so his primary activity for them was staging nearly suicidal charges up hillsides at German pillboxes. Edward Brooke, later a US Senator, was one of his captains and suggested that, since these suicide missions were taken at night, probably the Germans were sleeping during the day, and suggested very stealthy advance up the side of the hill to get above the pillboxes; Almond rejected that suggestion out of hand, believing his black troops were incapable of doing it, so Brooke, on his own initiative, took a mere company of men up the hillside - and when they started shooting the pillboxes from above, the Germans believed it was the entire regiment attacking them and surrendered quickly. And, naturally, Almond took credit for this innovative strategy. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found an updated link to the information page for the "Journal of Military History" article and put it in "External links". However, this link includes only citation information and the first page of the article. RobDuch (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Arlington National Cemetery

I just added a "citation needed" by the note in the mainspace stating that he was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Using the mapping program on the ANC website only yields a result for Edward Mallory Almond, Jr. who died in 1945. Bob305 (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I added a reference, to eh ANC's unofficial website, which has an article on him that describes his burial there, alongside his son. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have formatted your citation, Thank you. I also submitted a question on the official ANC website as to whether father is in the same plot as son. Bob305 (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent--nice working with you, albeit briefly! :) LHM^{ask me a question} 01:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations for Gen. Almond's errors in the early Korean War

Most, perhaps all, of the statements tagged for citations needed, are covered in Hampton Sides' new book on the Korean War. I'll try to add citations before my library copy comes due. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The removal of Shelby Stanton's book about Edward Almond, America's X Corps in Korea, is unjustified. The book is not "problematic" but instead a well-documented and researched history with excellent reviews that was published in 1989. It is an important historical source confirming and adding to the background and character of General Almond, containing material not covered in other books and predating many of the most recent studies,Militaryartist (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) which adds veracity to the conclusions given in this article.