Was S.L.A Marshall Full Of B.S.?

[Vern Humphrey]

When discussing Viet Nam, it always helps to understand that most of the troops there did not see combat, other than an occasional stray shot or mortar shell. However, those who did see combat, saw a lot of it. James Dunnegan in Myths of the Vietnam War points out that the average infantryman in Viet Nam saw more combat in his year in country than the average infantryman in WWII. Casualties in the Marine Corps were actually higher in Viet Nam than in WWII -- although the ratio of killed to wounded was lower in Viet Nam, thanks to better evacuation and treatment (i.e., more Marines died in WWII, but the total of killed and wounded was higher in Viet Nam.)

The idea that troops will not fire in combat is simply a myth. It can be checked by looking at supply rates -- if no one is shooting, where is all that ammunition going?

 

[Dr.Rob]

I've read Hackworth and SLA Marshall... it certainly 'feels' like Marshall didn't take his notes at the front, rather doing his research in 'after action' reports.

Hackworth went from a Hawk to a Dove, a lot of people curse him for that. Thing that I was hoping he would explain in 'About Face' was why... and you know I think he spent 3-5 sentences on the matter.

Historians before WW2 spent most of their effort talking to the generals and not the grunts doing the work. The 'common man' approach to history was very much in the minds of the military and political brass. All you have to do is look at the reading material made for 'the public' like 'Look' and 'Life' vs. the stuff produced for the GI's like 'Yank'. 'Look' and 'Life' spent more time with the generals, 'Yank' did far more stories about average joes.

SLA Marshall seems like he was trying to write for both markets/audiences. I think he's been widely 'discredited' in the sense that he didn't have the academic chops of most contemporary historians. Still, he had the official title and with that came some priveldges like access to top line brass and soldiers recommended for commendations--that other simple 'war correspondents' didn't.

You have to read ALL history with a skeptic's eyes.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

SLA Marshall seems like he was trying to write for both markets/audiences. I think he's been widely 'discredited' in the sense that he didn't have the academic chops of most contemporary historians.

Marshall has been discredited because it has been clearly shown that he made up his data.

 

[TEDDY]

hackworth

I think he got discontentment with the upper echalon,and there poor leadership.he seemed to have the abilaty to conduct winning battles to no avail.his diswnchant ment made him bitter.remember he was harased very badly,untill he retired.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I didn't know Hackworth personally, but I have several friends who served with him. None of them have a high opinion of him.

His writing was full of errors -- in fact, another friend once emailed him on a rather egregious error he made. My friend saved the reply, which was to the effect that Hackworth was "too busy" to check facts.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Folks,

'Thread necromancy' is frowned on here- if a dead thread has been buried for more than a year or so, please let it lie and start a new one on the topic. A link to the thread that piqued your interest will suffice to establish the background if necessary...

Thanks,

lpl