Talk:George C. Marshall

Retirement vs. resignation

Is the article it reads: "Marshall resigned his post of Chief of Staff in 1945, but did not retire, as regulations stipulate that Generals of the Army remain on active duty for life." but I can't find that supported anywhere. Can someone cite a reference for the "active-duty for life" factoid? The public law that enacted the 5-star rank talks about people retiring as a 5-star: http://www.nightscribe.com/military/public_law_482.htm so I can't see that they are required to remain active-duty. The marshall foundation lists him as retiring in 1945: http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about/chronology.html His bio on the Nobelprize.org says the same, but the Army history site http://www.history.army.mil/faq/marshall.htm says he retired in 1947.

Can anyone clarify better? Thanks. --Ylevardi (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It can't be referenced because it's not so. The law making the rank permanent in 1946 stipulated "full pay and benefits for those on the retired list". Prior to that (a period of about 16 months) the rank was temporary but anyone retiring was eligible for 3/4 pay and benefits. The rank was "permanent for life", but the rest is a myth. Marshall and Hap Arnold, both 5-stars, had a five-dollar bet over who would retire first, made in August 1945.--Reedmalloy (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

His name is George C. Marshall not George Marshall

I have never in 40 years of reading history seen George C. Marshall referred to as just plain George Marshall until I came across this Wikipedia article looking for the skinny on George Marshall, the movie director. Please change it to George C. Marshall! It's like calling Joe E. Brown "Joe Brown." It's just not done.

Well, now: I've run that one up the flag pole. Anyone care to salute it?Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he is refered to as both George C. Marshall and George Marshall. For example [1]. However, I would agree with you 100 percent that he is more commonly refered to as George C. Marshall. This article should reflect that. Wallie (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Marshall and McCarthy

I don't have textbooks/biographies in front of me but I believe severa statements in the following are incorrect:

"Shortly after Senator Joseph McCarthy denounced him for making decisions that "aided the Communist drive for world domination", Marshall "retired" in November 1945 and was named Secretary of State in 1947. As such, he designed the European Recovery Plan, which became known as the Marshall Plan, for which he was named Time Man of the Year in 1948 and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953. In 1949 he resigned from the State Department and was named president of the American National Red Cross. He was Secretary of Defense 1953-54."

1. I'm not sure McCarthy was even in Congress in 1945 - weren't his accusations circa 1953? A: "America's Retreat from Victory" is from 1952 and Marshall's resignation is just a few months later, I just can't believe that that was a coincidence. https://www.google.com/books/edition/America_s_Retreat_From_Victory_The_Story/HkdvCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&kptab=overview

2. He most definitely was not Secy of Defense under Eisenhower (53-54). He was Sec. of Defense under Truman during the Korean War - circa 1951.

Who wrote this article?

Both of the aforementioned corrections are accurate. McCarthy attacked Marshall when he was Sec. of State, and that was in 50-51, not 53-54. In the future, feel free to research any potential corrections and make them. SpeakerFTD

Marshall & MacArthur

It has been alleged that, when MacArthur was Chief of Staff, he wrote an efficiency report on Marshall which suggested that Marshall was "not fit for command of anything larger than a regiment"...like, ouch. If true, it makes one look at MacArthur's relief in a slightly different light.

Uniontown

I am once again adding the location of Uniontown to the article. Uniontown is and has been for at least 30 years a suburb of Pittsburgh, to find the site today of countless memorials to George Marshall one would need to fly into the Pittsburgh International Airport drive past the burial ground of Gen. Braddock and Ft. Neccessity both results of the Battle for Pittsburgh in the 1750s and arrive very close to Fallingwater, the country home of a Pittsburgh industrialist, since of course Uniontown is in the "Pittsburgh countryside" at least to civic leaders and industrialists from the 1920s and 1930s. Interesting in hearing other views on this, I am not aware of any others than several Pgh industrialists, Neilsen media market definitions and the U.S. Census Bureau metro definitions.Hholt01 07:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Move of Pronazi Views on the Eve of World War II to talk page

I'm moving this section to the talk page. 2 problems - 1. it uses weasel words from only one source. The section seems to attack the individual instead of present the topic from a NPOV. (See my personal policy on unwarranted criticism sections. 2. Considering the neutrality topic at hand, we'll need peer reviewed or similar sources here.

Pronazi Views on the Eve of World War II

{{Weasel section}} {{Primarysources|date=January 2007}} The preeminent expert on the history of racism and anti-Semitism in the U.S. military, Professor Joseph W. Bendersky of Virginia Commonwealth University, has written The 'Jewish Threat': Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army; Basic Books, 2002) in which he assess that Marshall called his African-American soldiers "darkey" and was "hostile to integrating the army, warn[ing] that such proposals were pushed by the Communists".(pp.309-310) He also gave orders for a national speaking tour of U. S. military personnel made by Major Percy Black; This speaking tour was intended to spread a benevolent image of nazi Germany and deny any report of atrocities form them (pp.276-278) Marshall was also a devoted follower of General George Van Horn Moseley who publicly tried to organize a national U.S. branch of the worldwide nazi/fascist movement; Marshall continued to give Top Secret data to Moseley until at least 1940 (pp.249-255, 309) The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, 2005 http://www.wymaninstitute.org/letters/2003-11-13-wp.php

---

Chupper 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Bendersky is a professor at a 3rd rate institution and hardly the "preeminent" expert on anything. More to the point, the inclusion of this section violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight guidelines in regard to minority opinions. --Strothra 15:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

While pro German and isolationist elements may have wished to see General Moseley oppose FDR in the 1940 presidential election, there is no evidence by Bendersky or anyone else that Moseley, himself, "tried to organize a national U.S. branch of the worldwide nazi/fascist movement." Hmose (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

USS George C Marshall

I think this article should have a link to the USS George C. Marshall article, but I'm not sure where the best place to put it would be. JNW2 15:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the "See also" section where related Wikilinks generally go.--Strothra 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird Sentence and Combat Record

A strange sentence, after the description of his death: "Like Eisenhower, he is recognized as a great American soldier despite never actually seeing combat."

He was in France during WWI. What exactly does "never actually seeing combat" mean? If you were in a leadership position in the Army in France during WWI, what exactly would be required for you to have "actually seen combat"? Would you have to be wounded to "actually see combat"? Or would it be sufficient to serve as an officer in a platoon at the front? A company? A regiment? A division? Would you have to actually see somebody being bayonetted to "actually see combat"? Or would it be sufficient to see an artillery barrage?

Carl Gusler 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Marshall had to have seen combat, he was awarded the Silver Star which is only rewarded as a result of combat actions --71.61.169.70 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/marshall.htm He saw combat, I'm going to remove that sentence --71.61.169.70 (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Silver Star was not issued until 1932 as I recall, when Doug McArthur instituted it. Before that, a small silver star was put on the campaign ribbon, which was later upgraded to the full medal in 1932. Silver Stars are political--President Lyndon Baines Johnson received a Silver Star in WWII for being a passenger on an airplane, for instance. Marshall may have got his small silver star in the Phillipines, later had it upgraded, or maybe he got it in WWI. Does anybody know just exactly what he received his Silver Star for? 50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

McCarthy's attack

What about my edit earlier today referencing Henry Stimson's regard for and Truman's vigorous defense of Marshall? These statements reflected the POV of those parties and were sourced accurately. Was this a robot that reverted my edit? I would like to include this information somehow.Russell Abbott 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

family

george catlet marshall had a big family whith the bensens who owned half of san antionio and a dariy farm he had a big family the marshalls today have a ehe lectrision servie called marsxhall 2008 next owner will be in 2015 name thomas c marshall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.183.132.19 (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What Was His Religion and Should it be Included in the Infobox?

Does anyone know what his religious beliefs were and should they be included in his infobox as religion is sometimes included in biographies? Invmog (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares what McCarthy thinks

To qualify, I am an expert on neither Marshall nor McCarthy, and I am a Wikipedia noob.

As a casual reader of this page, I was startled to see the reference to McCarthy's criticism of Marshall. I am certain that a great many people have said a great many things about Marshall, and I do not see why McCarthy, who is a very risky source of truths regarding the competence or loyalties of any person, gets his particular say on this page.

I question whether it is even NPOV to insert McCarthy's opinion on this page. Why should a respected figure have to have a section on his page reminding us of some politically motivated attack by a man who has been thoroughly discredited? The presence of the comment on the page is much more about McCarthy, and McCarthyism, than it is about Marshall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucemo (talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

sure it's NPOV. McCarthy deserves to have his opinions and criticism aired as much as others, perhaps more so given how high profile a guy he was at the time. IMHO it's unfortunate that the article does not incorporate criticism from other people as well. It reads too adulatory to my taste, almost like hagiography. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not his signature

The signature appearing under his picture does not appear to be his, but that of an actor named George E Marshall. The link given on the image page certainly suggests this, and it looks more like an E than a C when you look closely at the signature--RedMe (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Joint Committee On Pearl Harbor - Report Concluded errors made but Marshall did what what was possible as soon as possible

Cgersten has added and reverted correction to his statement on Marshall being criticized by the committee. This appears to be politically driven and not factually accurate or based on fact. He should read the referenced committee report and it's conclusions. All biographies and the committee report itself do not fault and blame Marshall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corregere (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Corregere (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC) ==

From the Joint Committee On Pearl Harbor Report

http://www.archive.org/stream/pearlharborattac39unit/pearlharborattac39unit_djvu.txt

9. Chief of Staff

Responsibility for organization and operation of War Department ; failure to delegate authority ; responsibility to keep General Short advised of international situation ; delay in sending message on December 6 and 7 : no action on Short's report of measures taken; and lack of knowledge of conditions of readiness in Hawaii November 8 to December 7, 1941.tuco_bad 05:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

---

There are 25,000 pages of documents and hearing papers in the Joint Committee report. This includes 9 different investigations and reports. See: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html .

Cgersten - you are extracting from documents within the report (Roberts and Naval reports from years earlier.) The conclusions of the committee are here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_5.html including the following which did not single out and scapegoat Marshall, but indicated he passed the information on as soon as he received it. See paragraph 7. This material more deservedly belongs in Pearl Harbor controversy not here, but I'll try to reconcile our two perspectives in my upcoming edit.

"11. The Intelligence and War Plans Divisions of the War and Navy Departments failed:

(a) To give careful and thoughtful consideration to the intercepted messages from Tokyo to Honolulu of September 24, November 15, and November 20 (the harbor berthing plan and related dispatches) and to raise a question as to their significance. Since they indicated a particular interest in the Pacific Fleet's base this intelligence should have been appreciated and supplied the Hawaiian commanders for their assistance, along with other information available to them, in making their estimate of the situation. (b) To be properly on the qui vive to receive the "one o'clock" intercept and to recognize in the message the fact that some Japanese military action would very possibly occur somewhere at 1 p. m., December 7. If properly appreciated, this intelligence should have suggested a dispatch to all Pacific outpost commanders supplying this information, as General Marshall attempted to do immediately upon seeing it.

12. Notwithstanding the fact that there were officers on twenty-four hour watch, the Committee believes that under all of the evidence the War and Navy Departments were not sufficiently alerted on December 6 and 7, 1941, in view of the imminence of war.

" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corregere (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Corregere:

Yes, other people besides Marshall share the blame on Pearl Harbor. Your statement in George Marshall’s biography is a bit too political correct. Remember that George Marshall was one of the most powerful people in the United States in 1946, and one had to be cautious about criticizing Marshall, so enough members of the committee, to write even what they did (closer reading indicates harsher criticism), must have felt very strongly that Marshall’s role in the Pearl Harbor attack failed the American people.

I would suggest you modify your statement in Marshall’s biography for the following: “early report criticizing” to “a report criticizing”

Eliminate: “as General Marshall attempted to do immediately upon seeing it." (It is well documented that Marshall did not give the intelligence that he was aware of on December 6 and 7 any great urgency.) tuco_bad 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

--- Hi Cgersten, Ok - I've altered it eliminating the "early", and modified/eliminated the quote, although it was from what appeared to be a 1942 report. I agree, tragic errors both locally and in Hawaii. From what I read in a Marshall biography or two though, they indicated he had thought he had made the request to the highest level of alert clear. But he used a "number", not the word high, and Short, I believe, had reversed the number sequence just weeks earlier. And I also have to strongly agree, that he likely didn't give the information he had earlier the urgency required. When Marshall did finally get the too slowly decrypted document delivered to him out of the office, reports were that he was quite upset at not receiving them hours earlier, which could have made some difference. As far as "powerful" perhaps, but that usually implies significant political aspirations, and he seemed to have none. He certainly was widely admired. But criticized by some for not wanting to do everything MacArthur had wanted to do, both then and later. Hope this edit feels better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corregere (talk • contribs) 16:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Corregere:

Thanks for the changes. When I have time I will write up something about the Nov. 27 warning to Kimmel and Short; how a poorly worded dispatch could affect high-level decisions. Regards. tuco_bad 17:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

-Hi Cgersten, When I first read of that I recall that I also thought it was something that there should have been oral communication and no doubt left about what they meant. But we should think of moving a continuing discussion over to Attack on Pearl Harbor or Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate and we'd probably agree on much. Corregere (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ERP / Marshall Plan: The link to this site (ref#28, currently) does not work any more.

The site seems to be down for good, and since I don't know how to use WayBackMachine or something, I can't access that exact same file or data. But I found an audio of the speech on YouTube (CC-BY license) and an official OECD transscript of the speech given (i.e., not the script he used to hold the speech) here. As I am not certain how exactly standards are within this Wiki project, feel free to make the necessary corrections to the article with these Links (or better ones). Glad to help (if so...! ^__= ); Regards, --Klingon83 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Orson Wells name needs to be linked

sorry if there's something I don't understand about links Benvhoff (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

His first wife's family name was "COLES," not "COLE"

Hi, couldn't help noticing that this page has listed "Elizabeth Carter Cole" as Marshall's first wife's name (both in the background side-blurb under "Spouse" as well as in the "Family" section.) However, if you utilize the picture provided of Marshall's own grave and tombstone, you will find this his wife's correct name as well as her mother's name (both buried together with George) is listed as "ColeS," not "Cole." Therefore, please remedy this error as I am not registered to do so. Thanks!114.158.149.78 (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of Pearl Harbor intelligence failure

Among these documents was a report critical of Marshall for his delay in sending General Walter
Short, the Army commander in Hawaii, important information concerning a possible attack on
December 6 and 7.

and

The report noted that once General Marshall received information about the impending attack,
he immediately passed it on.

Don't these two sentences, in the same paragraph, contradict each other? If the first is regarding input and the second refers to a conclusion, it might be clearer if the first were worded "...a report unfairly critical..." or "...a report mistakenly critical..." ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Years of Service

I have started a discussion at Talk:Omar Bradley#Years of Service suggesting that the "years of service" in the InfoBox for Gen. Bradley (and as its a similar case, Gen. Marshall) reflect the time they were in their rolls as military officers and not effectively retired but still receiving their active duty pay. Please join the conversation there if you have thoughts on the matter (best to have the comments in one place). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Marshall. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.georgecmarshall.org/learn/index.asp?L=17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 18:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:George C. Marshall/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Any article which omits GCMs role in the attack on Pearl Harbor is worse than worthless. As a relatively minor quibble, what I learned from reading a biography (by Leonard Mosley) is that GCM was so great because he was so great. (This is my opinion, not the author's.) His primary contribution to the Marshall plan was to follow Truman's order to announce it. (His qualification for the Nobel Peace prize seems to be in the class of Henry Kissinger's; Kissinger decided that Vietnam was to small for that war so he expanded it into Laos and Cambodia.) My biggest issue is the article's ignorance of Pearl Harbor. Robert Stinnett, in his book Day of Deceipt:... revealed that all the top civilian and military commanders in the US conspired to incite and aid the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, for the purpose of thwarting the will of the US populace, which was overwhelmingly against adding to the war. All accounts acknowledge he was nowhere to be found during the attacks, riding his horse in close proximity of Army headquarters. Finally, as Army chief of staff, Marshall had command responsibility for a strategy that called for mass murder of foreign civilians, not so much as a mission byproduct but as the primary goal. At least 4 attacks killed ~100,000 or more, making 9/11 seem like a minor incident in comparison, and it established a policy of US first use of nuclear weapons in warfare, endangering the entire world. Some details of my statement may be wrong, I think not substantially. Not addressing controversies associated with Marshall is irresponsible. The article Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate at least recognizes alternative viewpoints. 71.108.176.73 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Richard Pietrasz, Rancho Cucamonga CA [email protected]

Last edited at 00:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Marshall. 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/20131110010123/http://www.nymasons.org/about-freemasonry/famous-masons-i.html to http://www.nymasons.org/about-freemasonry/famous-masons-i.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723055434/http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/goldMedal.aspx to http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/goldmedal.aspx

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) 03:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Marshall. 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/20090425043331/http://www.jackson.army.mil/IRR/TFM.htm to http://www.jackson.army.mil/IRR/TFM.htm

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) 20:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

== Orson Welles

Multiple referencing styles

Probably as a result of the efforts of diverse editors over the years, this article has multiple referencing styles. I would like to standardize them, if no one objects. Please note that lack of standardization is certainly a roadblock to FA and perhaps also for MILHIST A-class... In particular, I would alter the format to rely on {{sfn}} to link to the references. Would resemble the referencing on Bengal famine of 1943. I will not advocate or argue for any particular format, but would only convert in that manner (since it's the one I know)... Will check back in about ten days for replies. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lingzhi.Random: Thanks for taking this on.

Billmckern (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. After/during that, I'll try to pitch in with more general help too. Over time, probably. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That would be a far better format imo, and a total chore - good luck! (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Working offline. Hope to post in a few days or a week. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) Making progress! 95% done. Went ahead and moved it here. Will fix the last probs as time permits. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Done, I think. You can see if I mangled anything... If you're gonna take this to a higher level, it needs work. Several sources do not seem very WP:RS to me, such as the three links to the National Portrait Gallery... Someone just added a template to the lede... and so on. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

General George Marshall (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks for your work on the citations. Some of the formatting was changed, but I'm keeping an eye out for that and editing it as needed.

• Mmm, it looks like I messed something up on the paragraph breaks. I didn't notice it, because the templates atop the page looked OK... I will look into it too, maybe later today. Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I have attempted to nominate this page for B-class military history, however, the article is missing many citations. The first three paragraphs have no citations whatsoever, so I would appreciate some help in adding more citations! Thanks all! User:Billmckern General George Marshall (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

//////////////////////////////////////// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.185.149 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

World War II could have ended earlier

I've moved this sentence here from the article for discussion. An anonymous editor (104.247.235.40) added the comment in the article itself (also removed from the article). Do we have more authors? Do we have source for the "utter failure" part?

104.247.235.40 says: Some authors think that World War II could have ended earlier if Marshall had had his way; others think that such an invasion would have meant utter failure.

The article had: "The link provided is to 1 author, not authors plural. It also doesn't seem to mention anything specific about an early D-Day meeting ending in diaster. Please investigate and revise this sentence."

--John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC) --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Distinguished Service Medal citation

I would like to raise a few quesitons about Marshall's DSM citation under the section "World War I":

1. The source ("militarytimes.com") doesn't seem too reliable. 2. Typographical errors: In the section listing Marshall's postings, following "Chief of Staff of the 8th Army" the dates read "20 November 1918 to 15 January 1918" which is obviously impossible. 3. When Marshall was awarded the medal in 1919 there was no World War II yet, therefore making the use of "World War I" in the citation unlikely. 4. Isn't the battle usually written as "Saint-Mihiel" instead of "St. Mihiel"?

I'd be grateful if someone could clarify. Edwardtsai05 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)