Talk:General of the Army (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

General of the Army of the United States

General of the Army of the United States is the full title of the military rank for Generals Ulysses S Grant, William T Sherman and Philip H Sheridan.

The Congress of the United States, by Act of 25 July 1866, appointed Grant to the office of General under the title of "General of the Army of the United States. Sherman succeded General Grant in the grade of General of the Army of the United States on 4 March 1869. By the Act of 1 June 1888 Sheridan was appointed General of the Army of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.183.130 (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Modern usage

What is this talk about possibly apointing Colin Powell to a Five Star rank. What would be the point? Wouldn't it be essentially honorary. It would also go against the idea of the Chairman being first among equals, and would have one single individual with 5 stars, outranking all others, something not seen since the Civil War. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew238 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"In 1994 and 1995 there was some consideration by President Bill Clinton and his senior staff of nominating Colin Powell for the rank of General of the Army, but they decided against it because . . . Powell was then viewed as a possible Republican presidential canidate in the 1998 election."

I'm confused. There was no presidential election in 1998. Is this referring to the 1996 presidential election, or the 1998 congressional elections? 68.41.122.213 00:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"In 1994 and 1995 there was some consideration by President Bill Clinton and his senior staff of nominating Colin Powell for the rank of General of the Army, but they decided against it because could not guarantee it would pass Congress and (probably more importantly) because General Powell was then viewed as a possible Republican presidential candidate in the 1996 election."

The nomination was considered mainly as a reward for his contributions in desert storm as well as for what's become known as the powell doctrine. George Stephanopoulos confirms that this was considered and rejected for the stated reasons in his memoir "All Too Human: A Political Education." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.10.175 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a 5-Star assignment is the same problem with confiring the same rank on the individual Chiefs of Staff. For your information, the Chief of Staff job has NEVER been made the absolute final assignment of the person who holds the job. Indeed, before World War II, most Chiefs of Staff went on to other assignments after the end of their statutary term of office. For example, McArthur was Chief of Staff in the 1930's, and went on to his Philippino assignments and his World War II and Korean War assignments. Pershing was the first Army Chief of Staff who retired from the job. Imagine someone today becoming Chief of Staff, or Chairman, getting promoted to GA, and then having to be demoted to GEN when he moves on to another assignment. Likewise, traditionally, the holder of the Chief Of Staff has been a holder of the rank of GEN prior to his appointment, but Army Regs state that any officer can hold a position that requires a rank superior to the one he holds if he is judged "promotable" to that rank. Several of the early Chiefs Of Staff were only Brigadier or Major Generals until they were appointed to the job, and then were promoted to Lieutenant General, or General when that became permanent. Since it is not Congress' intention to make GA a permanent rank, it would be hard to use it for a general temporary rank. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not argueing with your standpoint at all, I'm merely relating what I've read in Clinton Memoirs. AndyinMN 21:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Omar Bradley

Why was Bradley promoted to General of the Army in 1950? Was it kind of an honorary thing, or was it done because of the Korean War? Everyone else was promoted during WWII.Isaac Crumm 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Bradley was promoted when he replaced MacArthur in Korea. //67.183.110.58 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bradley didn't replace MacArthur, that was Matthew Ridgway. Bradley was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Technically, MacArthur was answerable to him, so it made sense for Bradley to get a fifth star. Ridgway continued with four stars. J.T. Broderick 02:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Even after the fifth star was given to Bradley (so that MacArthur would not outrank him), MacArthur was still the senior of the two officers, as his fifth star was awarded before Bradley's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.86.187 (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Basic Grammar: Do NOT capitalize ranks unless necessary!

Someone needs to go back to middle school and learn some basics here. I have corrected it before and it keeps getting switched back. Perhaps they need to read a simple AR on proper use of rank as well. Grades are NOT capitalized unless used as a title. For instance, "General Smith is coming," or "Colonel Smith ranks below Brigadier General Williams." Compare this to "The general is coming," or "The rank above colonel is brigadier general." Notice that ranks are only capitalized when used immediately before a name.

This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalga (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

General of the Army

Well, remember that technically the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has no command authority. So this "first among equals" argument is baseless since he cannot exercise command. Remember, we did not have a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during or before WWII. Only when the Department of Defense was created did this come about.

As for this retirement issue, yes, many early chiefs of staff went on to other jobs. But in recent decades, all chiefs of staff and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have retired. None has gone on to other military assignments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalga (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Civilian presidents

It is impossible that

the office of president cannot legally be filled by an active duty U.S. military officer

bcz nothing but a constitutional amendment can add any requirement for becoming president beyond those of the Constitution#Clause 5: Qualifications for office. What the article should say in General of the Army (United States)#Modern usage, is that the law requires the inactivation of any active duty U.S. military officer who becomes president (and perhaps other offices?) and forbids calling the president to active duty -- in wording that reflects the relevant statute's specific provisions. (And that statute should be cited.)
--Jerzy•t 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed this unless someone can cite the actual regulation...

Regulations concerning the rank of General of the Army state that any officer holding the position will remain on active duty for life. It was for this reason that Dwight Eisenhower resigned his commission to serve as President of the United States, since the president cannot legally serve as an active duty U.S. military officer. Roadrunner 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the cite http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/quick_links/military/ranks.html Not sure if it was because of "permanent active duty", but he definitely resigned in 1952 and was subsequently reinstated by JFK in 1961. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Second highest rank"

This article describes General of the Army as the second-highest rank, implying that General of the Armies is higher, ie. a "six-star" rank. However there is no evidence that the GoArmies rank is a really a six-star rank (see the discussion in that article, and in its talk page for details). Should the ranks be regarded as being equal, but they just have different names, being created by different acts of Congress? (Pershing and Washington would still outrank everyone else because of seniority by date of appointment). I suggest the opening sentence of this article should be changed to reflect that, but I want to get a consensus first to avoid an edit war. Richard75 18:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have since changed my mind -- see Army vs Armies? below. Richard75 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Army vs Armies?

Ok, based on this, I'm all confused about if they are really one rank with different names, or actualy different ranks.

As will be seen from the above, the office of general was first created in 1799 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States" - that it was revived in 1866 as "General of the Army of the United States," and that it was again revived in 1919 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States." That it is one and the same office, that of general, is unquestioned. Whether the plural was used in 1799 because of the prospects of war with armies operating in several theatres, the singular in 1866 after the close of the Civil War and with a view to a small regular army operating in time of peace in the continental limits of the United States, and the plural in 1919 because of the technical state of war, the expansion of the Regular Army and the existence of units thereof at far distant stations beyond the limits of the United States, would be fruitless to inquire. from http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/armyorank/blgoa.htm

 — MrDolomite | Talk 05:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What the article seems to be saying is that Washington, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and Pershing were all the same rank, and that the 5-star generals of WW2 were of a different rank:

It will be further noted that the temporary grade of General of the Army (five-star) established by Public Law 481, 78th Congress, approved 14 December 1944 and made permanent by Public Law 333, 79th Congress, approved 23 March 1946, did not revive any prior such grade and, therefore, the generals appointed under the provisions of these acts are in a separate category from Generals Washington, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Pershing.

It then goes on to say that the Army intended that the WW2 generals should not outrank Pershing and the others:

It appears the intent of the Army was to make the General of the Armies senior in grade to the General of the Army. In a press conference during September 1944, Secretary of War Henry Stimson commented: "I have advised Congress that the War Department concurs in such proposed action. This concurrence, however, is contingent on the understanding that a distinction will be made between the title conferred by the newly advanced rank and the title now accompanying the higher rank of General of the Armies held by General John J. Pershing." It is also interesting to not that Army Regulation 600-15 dated January 1945, and not rescinded until August 1945, listed the three top "grades of rank" in the descending order of General of the Armies, General of the Army, and General.

The 1944 Act of Congress, which you can read here, says that it does not affect the 1919 Act that promoted Pershing, or any other law relating to the rank of General of the Armies.

Then the 1976 congression resolution authorising President Ford to promote Washington to General of the Armies said: the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present.

If I read all this right, then the List of United States military leaders by rank should have the Civil War generals above the WW2 generals. I still think that we should try to avoid using the term "six-star general," though, because no such insignia has ever been officially approved, and the term seems to attract such disdain from people who have actually served in the military (see above).Richard75 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just said that, even the US State Department and the National Archives websites call it a six-star rank, so maybe it's okay. Richard75 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Article recreated from redirect

I have undone the revision which merely redirected this article to General (United States). They are NOT the same rank. And there is no problem leaving them as separate articles. If that was the case, then all military rank articles throughout should be merged into a single article. Um, no. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that they are currently the same rank. The General (United States) article explains very clearly that the ranks are currently different. So it's not as if covering them both on the same article will cause people to think they're currently the same rank. But the history of the ranks is intertwined. The General (United States) article already covers all the information that is included in this article, so there's no need to have separate articles. Overlap should be minimized. This is not the same as saying that all military rank articles should be merged into a single article, because the history of all military ranks are not intertwined. It's just these few. For further discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. - Shaheenjim 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

"This rank is only used in time of war where the commanding officer must be equal or of higher rank than those commanding forces from other nations. The last officers to hold this rank served during and immediately following World War II"

Both of these sentences are untrue as Bradley got his fifth star in 1950. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.222.30 (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Korean War was going on when Bradley got his star. And that was closely following World War 2, which had only ended about five years before that. So I think it's ok, but I'll defer to other people about this. - Shaheenjim 01:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Official rank names

Is there a difference between the rank "General of the Army of the United States" and the rank "General of the Army"? Was Grant's rank officially called "General of the Army of the United States" or just "General of the Army"? And was Eisenhower's rank officially called "General of the Army of the United States" or just "General of the Army"?

I'm sure that some people often use the two terms interchangeably, but I'm not sure that's correct. I think Grant's rank could only be given to one person at a time, and Eisenhower's rank could be given to multiple people at one time. I wonder if that difference was reflected by different titles? - Shaheenjim 05:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the Eisenhower-era rank, it is officially "General of the Army", per s:Public_Law_78-482 which enacted it. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. But is the difference in rank names significant? Is it really supposed to reflect a difference in the meaning of the rank? Or am I just making something out of nothing? - Shaheenjim 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote from William Gardner Bell, 'Commanding Generals and Chiefs of Staff 1775-2010. Portraits & Biographical Sketches of the United States Army' Senior Officer', Center of Military History United States Army, Washington D.C., 2010, page 181, note 2: Lack of uniformity in upper-level military rank and title throughout the Army history negates attempts to draw comprehensive comparisons and establish true seniority. In early years high rank was bestowed temporarily upon individuals rather than permanently through the grade structure. Variations in title and organization make it difficult to equate individuals and positions of one generation with those of another, and there has often been confusion between title and rank. From 1775 to 1783 George Washington was general and commander in chief of the Continental Army. When he was recalled in 1798, the Congress passed the legislation that would have made him General of the Armies of the United States, but his services were not required in the field and the appointment was not made until the Bicentennial in 1976, when it was bestowed posthumously as a commemorative honor. After the Civil War Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and Philip H. Sheridan all held the grade of general, specified as General of the Army of the United States; but, unlike the more modern practice, the world General represented grade while the rest of the phrase denoted title - a style that extended to lowe levels in similar titles of lieutenant general of the Army and, earlier, major general of the Army. In 1919 the rank of General of the Armies of the United States was given to John J. Pershing, who chose, however, to continue wearing four stars. Present-day formality entered the picture in 1944, when the temporary grade of General of the Army, identified by five stars and limited to four recipients, was established. It was made permanent for those holding in 1946: George C. Marshal, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Henry Arnold. The subsequent transfer of General of the Army Arnold to the Air Force opened the way for the promotion of the General Omar N. Bradley to the vacated space.'

The outline is mine. It results that the General of the Army of 1866-1888 should be equated with the General grade reestablished in 1917 (4 stars), as proved by the same rank insignia, not with the General of the Army established in 1944 (5 stars). The General of the Army of 1866 was a TITLE not a RANK. The rank was simply general. The General of the Army of 1944 was a rank and, moreover, a higher one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radu Urloiu (talk • contribs) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Reason for not Adopting the rank of Field Marshal

Ignoring the unlikely General Marshall story, stating that Field Marshal was seen as a "European Rank" is clearly speculative and without any logical foundation in the first place. Every other officer rank name existed in Europe first and it is more likely that equality would be sought as it had been by adopting the previuosly avoided rank of Admiral in the nineteenth century US Navy. It seems clear from records, and the posthumous promotions in grade, that the intent is that no general officer should outrank "General" George Washington hence would it not seem more plausible that this was the principle reason (although perhaps not the only one)? Dainamo (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The General Marshal story doesn't seem that unlikely to me. I wouldn't want to be called Marshal Marshal. It sounds dumb.

Also, the other officer rank names also came from Europe, but most of them have been in use for the entire history of the US. The fact that the US went for hundreds of years without a Field Marshal would explain why it would be seen as a European rank. It may be true that didn't stop them from adopting the Admiral rank, so they'd be inconsistent there, but the government is inconsistent about a lot of things, so that's not really all that surprising.

Also, even if they didn't want anyone to outrank Washington, they could've just posthumously promoted Washington to Field Marshal.

In any case, you might be right that the reason was related to Washington. But could you cite the records that say that? - Shaheenjim (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No I cannot cite records and was not making claim to it being a fact, I was simply thinking laterally hence my use of the "?". As far as Marshal Marshal goes, my uncle amusingly served in the army under a Captain Major who was later promoted to Major. Had he not been an officer he would have been a Segeant Major he actually was one. Go figure! As for the later text claiming that Marshal was not used as it was already a position outside the military, in Britain when Field Marshal was intoroduced there were Marshals in other contexts so this is not a reason unless records for this can be cited Dainamo (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower

The article implies that Kennedy made Eisenhower a General of the Army. Perhaps this is inadvertent. Eisenhower actually attained the rank during World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact Check (Colin Powell)

Disagreement over whether sources cited support assertion that there has been discussion on awarding a five star rank in modern times. Related disagreement on removing the 'disputed' tag in the "Modern use" section. 22:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a citation needed tag after 'At one time, before his tenure as Secretary of State, there had been some talk of promoting General Colin Powell, who had served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War, to that rank.' While I personally was well aware of some discussion in the media and in the word of the street, as it were, I am not aware of any 'official' talk about this. If someone has a reference to anyone in Congress or the Administration discussing this, could they please cite? Snideology (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section below, as it seems this was simply an urban legend, promulgated by a lot of junior recruits in the Army being told this story so as to learn the various General ranks. I hate to say it, since I introduced the material long ago, but this simple seems to be false. -OberRanks (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Defense gave indication that the office of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would possibly one day be a position worthy of five-star rank.[Citation needed|date=September 2008] At the time of Omar Bradley’s promotion it was specifically emphasized that the promotion was done in recognition of his World War II and post-war service, not as a result of his appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At one time, before his tenure as Secretary of State, there had been some talk of promoting General Colin Powell, who had served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War, to that rank. [Citation needed|date=May 2010]. As recently as January 2011, in consideration of the War on Terror as the longest-running war in United States history [Citation needed|date=February 2011], some[who|date=January 2011] have proposed General David Petraeus be promoted to the rank of General of the Army.

Looks like it got re-added with sources. The Colin Powell/David Petraeus info I think is actually false. We should take a close look at those sources and see if they actually support what is being stated. -OberRanks (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

I'd like to remove the disputed tag from the Modern Use section. I haven't seen additional sources cited to contradict the ones I added. Objections? Infoman99 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The "sources" provided do not really support the assertions that there has been an actual effort by the United States military to support a five star rank. The sources provided appear to be opinion articles focusing on the belief that there might have been such discussion. This entire section really should be removed - it simply is false that there was ever a modern day effort to promote five star officers. With Bradley's death, the rank effectively died too. -OberRanks (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important that the article reflect the wide array of discussion about the fifth star in modern times. These sources show:

• scholarly discussion about awarding a fifth star
• an effort in Congress to grant a fifth star
• widely reported discussion by an incoming President's staff against creating a fifth star
• public advocacy in a major news publication for a fifth star.

These reflect the extensive public discussion on the topic. While these may not constitute official military policy, a Wikipedia discussion of the topic is not limited to official U.S. military thought.

And, in fact, given that the rank is conferred by Congress and the President, the political/legislative policy discussion is important to a complete understanding. - Infoman99 (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The main issue here is that the article is stating that there WAS an effort to promote 5 star officers in the modern age. It should be made clear that there have been proponents to revive the rank, but the rank itself has not been seriously considered by the military since Bradley. The Colin Powell story is also simply an Army bed-time story. Powell himself has stated in interviews he was never considered for 5 star promotion. As for General P., I'm sure the media has advocated his promotion, but it is for absolute certainyy that in the War on Terror, with the way the military is set up today, a 5 star in the mix just wouldnt work and would never be approved by Congress.

So, there is no doubt people have had this idea, but to stay that it wsa an actually initiative should be avoided - hence the disputed tag. We should probably also get this up on some of the noticeboards to get other editors looking at it. -OberRanks (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree about bringing more eyes to this topic.

Here's a possible solution -- add the following sentence before the paragraph on the academic circles:

"Since Bradley's time, there have been a range of unofficial proposals and discussions of awarding a fifth star to particular individuals or military leaders by elected officials, military academics, and advocacy groups."

To rebut some of your points:

• The sources cited do point to multiple instances of discussion on promoting 5 star officers in the modern age. Although these efforts were not official DOD policy, Members of Congress, the President-elect's staff, WSJ op-eds, and various military academic documents (clearly labeled as such) that have agitated for/against modern five stars establish that there is an ongoing discussion.

• Again, proposals don't need to be official in order to be relevant to this article.

• Specifically as far as the Naval War College and JFQ sources, the article says only that "there were proposals in U.S. Department of Defense academic circles" and "some commentators". The sources cited back up those limited assertions. Although these were not official DOD proposals, they constitute an important stream of thought from significant DOD educational institutions.

• The sources cited about Colin Powell show that Members of Congress and the President-elect's team seriously considered Powell for a fifth star. While military brass may not have been seriously involved, Congress and the President award the rank.

• The quotations in media sources about Colin Powell show that efforts to award him the fifth star were legitimate and advocated for/against by elected officials. I believe this removes it from the realm of merely being an "Army bed-time story." Infoman99 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated previously, other editor opinions are needed. I agree with some of the points here, but just the two of us talking doesn't qualify for consensus. Posting this matter on military topic noticeboards might help. There are several around on Wikipedia. -OberRanks (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll weigh in on this to get a third party involved. It's well-established by the references that there was talk about giving the fifth start to both Powell and Petraeus. The question is how far up the chain this talk went, which leads directly to answering whether or not it was just idle speculation/wishing, or if this had any real chance of every happening. Frankly, I don't think an op-ed in a civilian newspaper warrants any more mention of Petraeus than is already in the article. As for Powell, even though he has said no, I'm not inclined to believe him, because either he didn't know, or he won't admit to something publicly that would embarass himself and Clinton. I think there is some weight behind it, because members of Congress were pushing for it and a presidential administration was considering it (and the subsequent denial with political motivations). Even if you were right, Ober, about the "bed-time story" (for sake of argument), I think it would merit mention because it was extremely prevalent. If there was some discussion at the highest levels of the military, we wouldn't know, because the big brass keeps those kinds of discussions secret most of the time; maybe we will see it mentioned in some memiors in the coming decades, but probably not, since whatever reasons they had to keep it quiet then are still valid today (maybe they couldn't agree on it amongst themselves). But like Infoman said, a fifth star is a political promotion, so the brass didn't really have much influence on the descision anyway.
I think the wording of teh article currently is a little more specific than it needs to be to be neutral. Better to say that there was discussion, and let the reader decide for him or herself how credible they were. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag

I removed a tag dated march 2011 from the section Modern use disputing the factual accuracy of the article. One discussion is very old and a newer discussion, in the section Disputed, list the reason for the tag, "So, there is no doubt people have had this idea, but to stay that it wsa an actually initiative should be avoided - hence the disputed.". This was reworded with no following discussion. If there is still a reason for the tag then it can be added back but please leave a comment on the talk page. Otr500 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military_terms

See the very first section on this page from 2005 or before ("Basic Grammar: Do NOT capitalize ranks unless necessary!") Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military_terms is completely clear on this subject (ie "a general", but "General Smith"). Reverting my edits suggests you didn't bother to even read the link in the edit summary first.

It does not matter what the US Army do (in fact militaries tend to capitalise every other word, in my experience). The house style is clearly articulated after long discussion, and if you wish to go against it, you would need to gain a consensus first - not just revert because you don't like the look of it. Shem (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

See discussion thread on Talk:General of the Armies and also this primary Congressional source which clearly shows these special titles as capitalized. There are also hundreds of other military sources which back this up. -OberRanks (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree on one thing - we'll keep the discussion at Talk:General of the Armies. Shem (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it really a Rank?

I wanted to post my comment here in order to respect the purpose of wikipedia. I think that somewhere in the article, it should be noted that General of the Army, and other equivalent 5 star military post are not true "ranks". The Wikipedia article defines rank as "Military ranks are a system of hierarchical relationships in armed forces,[1] police,[2] intelligence agencies or other institutions organized along military lines." However, the article states it is only issued as a wartime honor. If it is only awarded as a wartime honor, then it is in fact no more a rank in the correct sense of the word then a purple heart or a Medal of Honor would be. Freesoler01 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course they are ranks. They were appointed by Congress as General officer ranks and, in the case of the five star position, have very clearly defined retirement and pay structures. General of the Armies was only held by two people and is recognized in several established professional publications as "the highest military rank of the United States armed forces". -O.R.^Comms 20:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on General of the Army (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070612213156/http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/quick_links/eisenhower_FAQ/Eisenhower_resigns_as_general_of_the_army.html to http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/Quick_links/Eisenhower_FAQ/Eisenhower_resigns_as_General_of_the_Army.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General of the Army (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013212055/http://history.navy.mil:80/faqs/faq36-6.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-6.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576076270514563178.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1