Matthew Temkin
Member
http://www.newsweek.com/id/7699Fire...the war) and he just snorted and said, "B.S."
Last edited:
Was S.L.A Marshall Full Of B.S.?
- Thread starter Matthew Temkin
- Start date
- Status
While there is much debate about Marshall's methodology, there seem to be quite a bit of evidence to support his conclusions. "Men Against Fire" was one of the prime factors in the US Army adopting operant conditioning, and after action analysis clearly showed that in Vietnam, more than 95% of all infantrymen engaged in combat.
spwenger
Member
Three Points
1. In David Hackworth's book About Face, there is a section about the time he was assigned to accompany "SLAM" Marshall on a tour of Vietnam, during our involvement there. SLAM comes out smelling more like the manure than the rose it was supposed to nurture.
2. In July 1998, I was invited to attend a symposium for firearms instructors hosted by California POST. Two of the speakers, Bruce Siddle and Dave Grossman, praised SLAM's book Men Against Fire effusively. As a result, I spent something like $60 to purchase a rare copy of this out-of-print book. The most valuable part to me was the photograph on the rear of the dust jacket. SLAM, still wearing the eagles of a full colonel, is seated at a desk, wearing an 82nd Airborne patch on his right shoulder and a Combat Infantryman Badge over his left breast.
SLAM was assigned to the Office of the Chief of Military History during WWII, which had no slots for infantrymen. While he may have chosen to publicize the actions of the 82nd Airborne during Operation Overlord ("D-Day"), he was never assigned to that unit. The CIB is only supposed to be issued to those who have been exposed to hostile fire while serving in an infantry MOS. I brought these disparities to the attention of Dave Grossman, figuring that, as a former Ranger, he would appreciate these disparities. I don't recall if I even got a response to that e-mail.
3. While he himself was partially discredited for plagiarism, the late Stephen Ambrose (in the introduction to Band of Brothers, as I recall) points out that SLAM latched onto the 82nd Airborne, which made him a fair amount of money in book royalties, and totally ignored what Ambrose considered the very heroic actions of the 101st Airborne. Ambrose commented that he felt that the true historian of the WWII Office of the Chief of Military History was Forrest Pogue, who only attained the rank of master sergeant but had a Ph.D. in history and was asked by Chief of Staff General Geroge Marshall to write Marshall's authorized biography.
1. In David Hackworth's book About Face, there is a section about the time he was assigned to accompany "SLAM" Marshall on a tour of Vietnam, during our involvement there. SLAM comes out smelling more like the manure than the rose it was supposed to nurture.
2. In July 1998, I was invited to attend a symposium for firearms instructors hosted by California POST. Two of the speakers, Bruce Siddle and Dave Grossman, praised SLAM's book Men Against Fire effusively. As a result, I spent something like $60 to purchase a rare copy of this out-of-print book. The most valuable part to me was the photograph on the rear of the dust jacket. SLAM, still wearing the eagles of a full colonel, is seated at a desk, wearing an 82nd Airborne patch on his right shoulder and a Combat Infantryman Badge over his left breast.
SLAM was assigned to the Office of the Chief of Military History during WWII, which had no slots for infantrymen. While he may have chosen to publicize the actions of the 82nd Airborne during Operation Overlord ("D-Day"), he was never assigned to that unit. The CIB is only supposed to be issued to those who have been exposed to hostile fire while serving in an infantry MOS. I brought these disparities to the attention of Dave Grossman, figuring that, as a former Ranger, he would appreciate these disparities. I don't recall if I even got a response to that e-mail.
3. While he himself was partially discredited for plagiarism, the late Stephen Ambrose (in the introduction to Band of Brothers, as I recall) points out that SLAM latched onto the 82nd Airborne, which made him a fair amount of money in book royalties, and totally ignored what Ambrose considered the very heroic actions of the 101st Airborne. Ambrose commented that he felt that the true historian of the WWII Office of the Chief of Military History was Forrest Pogue, who only attained the rank of master sergeant but had a Ph.D. in history and was asked by Chief of Staff General Geroge Marshall to write Marshall's authorized biography.
another okie
Member
People who don't like his conclusions often attack him personally. People whose own experience was different assume he was wrong. He may have overgeneralized. He was there and we weren't. That's how life works.
TEDDY
Member
Marshall
Hackworth was korea and vietnam and highly decorated.
Hackworth was korea and vietnam and highly decorated.
Jeff22
Member
S.L.A. Marshall?
the point is, S.L.A. Marshall was NOT there!! He DID NOT conduct all those interviews that he allegedly based "Men Against Fire" on!
S.L.A. Marshall's conclusion that most soldiers in combat never fired at the enemy is controversial, especially since there appear to be significant questions about the validity of his scholarship and research.
For an alternative evaluation of the World War II combat experience, I recommend THE DEADLY BROTHERHOOD by John C. McManus (Presidio Press, 2000). In one of the chapters McManus debunks many of Marshall's conclusions about the behavior of soldiers in combat.
(Robert Bateman also did a brief article on S.L.A. Marshall in the January 2007 issue of MILITARY HISTORY magazine)
the point is, S.L.A. Marshall was NOT there!! He DID NOT conduct all those interviews that he allegedly based "Men Against Fire" on!
S.L.A. Marshall's conclusion that most soldiers in combat never fired at the enemy is controversial, especially since there appear to be significant questions about the validity of his scholarship and research.
For an alternative evaluation of the World War II combat experience, I recommend THE DEADLY BROTHERHOOD by John C. McManus (Presidio Press, 2000). In one of the chapters McManus debunks many of Marshall's conclusions about the behavior of soldiers in combat.
(Robert Bateman also did a brief article on S.L.A. Marshall in the January 2007 issue of MILITARY HISTORY magazine)
Elmer Fudd
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 118
I have read a couple of accounts of people who were interviewed by SLAM. They didn't seem to think much of the experience as I remember. The sense I get is that he used material selectively to support his own theories. Kind of like most journalism today.
another okie
Member
I have also read an account (I will name my source - Doing Battle, by Paul Fussell) by a combat soldier of the interview process. Naturally he was disgusted at being interviewed and generalized about by a non-combat soldier with a clean uniform.
That doesn't mean Marshall's conclusions were wrong. They may have been. But I have also read many combat accounts of both WWI and WWII and of other armies that support his conclusions. He did do the interviews. It seems to me that most of the attacks I've read on his book have been by people who haven't read his book.
That doesn't mean Marshall's conclusions were wrong. They may have been. But I have also read many combat accounts of both WWI and WWII and of other armies that support his conclusions. He did do the interviews. It seems to me that most of the attacks I've read on his book have been by people who haven't read his book.
OP
OP
Matthew Temkin
Member
Good point, Jeff 22, and the Deadly Brotherhood is an excellent book.
I first heard of S.L.A. Marshall in 1971 when I was doing some browsing at our local library.
Quite frankly I was shocked--but, then again, my combat experience came from the hit show COMBAT and a host of WW2 movies.
I asked my dad about this ( he had been a ranger in WW2) and just replied, "Not in the Rangers,"
In the mini series, "Band Of Brothers" S.L.A. is seen interviewing the officers of E company about their part in taking out the guns that were firing at Utah beach on D Day.
Apparently when writing up his report S.L.A. decided not to give the proper credit to the men who actually did it. ( This was in the book)
I first heard of S.L.A. Marshall in 1971 when I was doing some browsing at our local library.
Quite frankly I was shocked--but, then again, my combat experience came from the hit show COMBAT and a host of WW2 movies.
I asked my dad about this ( he had been a ranger in WW2) and just replied, "Not in the Rangers,"
In the mini series, "Band Of Brothers" S.L.A. is seen interviewing the officers of E company about their part in taking out the guns that were firing at Utah beach on D Day.
Apparently when writing up his report S.L.A. decided not to give the proper credit to the men who actually did it. ( This was in the book)
Elmer Fudd
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 118
Beware the strange creature in an organization who gains fame and power doing some administrative function that is completely tangential to the purpose of the organization.
Like a uniformed military historian.
Like a uniformed military historian.
SLA Marshall
From the preponderance of evidence, he may be bogus.
I know for a fact he should not be wearing CIB if he was not in combat the authorized time, nor should he wear 82nd Airborne shoulder patch if not assigned to unit. He sounds more like an actor than a soldier.
If he faked the fruit salad, he likely faked the data. He may have been the forerunner of the modern journalist we have today.
From the preponderance of evidence, he may be bogus.
I know for a fact he should not be wearing CIB if he was not in combat the authorized time, nor should he wear 82nd Airborne shoulder patch if not assigned to unit. He sounds more like an actor than a soldier.
If he faked the fruit salad, he likely faked the data. He may have been the forerunner of the modern journalist we have today.
Slugless
Member
That's my take. I'm sure there were units in our enormous conscript army where most guys didn't shoot most of the time. Heck, the Germans liked to stereotype us as "the Amis get close, exchange a few shots, pull back & call in artillery."
SLAM's book "The River & The Gauntlet" is a really good read. It read to me like he captured an essence of the initial combat with the Chinese & jibes well with memoirs of the Marines fighting the initial Chinese onslaught near Choisin.
All that said, in retrospect it seems clear that the guy was sloppy in his interviews, cherry picked his data & made some stuff up.
Fudd - don't give up on uniformed military historians! The other historian who's initials are SM - Samuel Eliot Morison - wrote a fantastic history of the United States Naval Operations in WWII. Anyone who's serious about reading WWII history should read his works. His writing style is clear and charming.
"...Morison spent more than half his time at sea [during WWII], with active duty on 11 different ships, emerging a Captian with seven battle stars on his service ribbons." A historian who has been under kamikaze attack can give a better description of the hair raising terror than an armchair historian.
alsaqr
Member
Anyone who accuses SLA Marshall of not serving in combat is dead wrong. During WWI he served with the 90th Infantry Division in France. Marshall fought at St Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne.
Cosmoline
Member
I've always found SLAM's methodology and the "killology" psuedo-science of Grossman et al. to be highly questionable. It flies in the face not only of scientific method, but all that I've read of front line combat of my own experience with non-combat killings. I know people who have used deadly force, and none of them went through any special training. Nor did the vast majority of people who have taken human life, legally or otherwise. One fellow I know is a mild little 7th Day Adventist who won't even eat meat, but he pumped six slugs into a would be robber. There may be some initial resistance to taking life for some people, but it's easy enough to get beyond in the right circumstances, as ten thousand years of human history has shown.
Which ones? The accounts I've read are that even front line soldiers in active combat zones almost never got a good bead on an enemy soldier in WWII, because for the most part people knew to use cover and concealment. When they did see the enemy, they fired. Sometimes it wasn't even the enemy, but they killed the person anyway. If they didn't see the enemy or have a fair bead on where he might be, they would not fire. That doesn't mean they hesitated at a critical moment, it means they knew they only had x number of rounds and didn't want to waste it. In fact just this weekend I was watching a documentary from "The World at War" people where the interviewed soliders talked about how oddly boring it could be on the front line in WWII, even in what was a pitched battle. The actual action might only be taking place in one part of the line and only for a few moments. Otherwise it was a matter of waiting. So certainly most of the line in such a case was NOT firing their weapons, and might not ever have a target to shoot at. But that takes nothing from their courage or their willingness to fire if required or ordered to do so. I don't know any evidence that they were deliberately pulling shots or hestitating to fire for fear of hurting some squareheaded b-****. In many instances our guys had to be restrained from doing very bad things to the enemy troops. In some cases this restraint failed, as with the SS men who were executed on the spot. Hesitation to fire? Give me a break.
As far as WWI, the advancing troops were gunned down in their MILLIONS, which pretty much proves SOMEBODY was pulling the triggers on them.
Which ones? The accounts I've read are that even front line soldiers in active combat zones almost never got a good bead on an enemy soldier in WWII, because for the most part people knew to use cover and concealment. When they did see the enemy, they fired. Sometimes it wasn't even the enemy, but they killed the person anyway. If they didn't see the enemy or have a fair bead on where he might be, they would not fire. That doesn't mean they hesitated at a critical moment, it means they knew they only had x number of rounds and didn't want to waste it. In fact just this weekend I was watching a documentary from "The World at War" people where the interviewed soliders talked about how oddly boring it could be on the front line in WWII, even in what was a pitched battle. The actual action might only be taking place in one part of the line and only for a few moments. Otherwise it was a matter of waiting. So certainly most of the line in such a case was NOT firing their weapons, and might not ever have a target to shoot at. But that takes nothing from their courage or their willingness to fire if required or ordered to do so. I don't know any evidence that they were deliberately pulling shots or hestitating to fire for fear of hurting some squareheaded b-****. In many instances our guys had to be restrained from doing very bad things to the enemy troops. In some cases this restraint failed, as with the SS men who were executed on the spot. Hesitation to fire? Give me a break.
As far as WWI, the advancing troops were gunned down in their MILLIONS, which pretty much proves SOMEBODY was pulling the triggers on them.
alsaqr
Member
"What about him wearing insignia of 82nd Airborne and CIB, which weren't created till WWII?"
There was evidently some provision in Army regulations that allowed WWI soldiers to wear the CIB. i was stationed at Ft. Bragg from 1959-62. There were 8-10 WWI vets on Ft. Bragg at that time, including "Pop" Steele who went to Airborne school at age 55 when Airborne was first founded. I often talked with a M/Sgt. who had WWI service. He wore the CIB although he did not fight in WWII.
Every picture i have seen of Marshall in uniform has him wearing the 90th Infantry Division patch. This one:
http://www.90thdivisionassoc.org/
There was evidently some provision in Army regulations that allowed WWI soldiers to wear the CIB. i was stationed at Ft. Bragg from 1959-62. There were 8-10 WWI vets on Ft. Bragg at that time, including "Pop" Steele who went to Airborne school at age 55 when Airborne was first founded. I often talked with a M/Sgt. who had WWI service. He wore the CIB although he did not fight in WWII.
Every picture i have seen of Marshall in uniform has him wearing the 90th Infantry Division patch. This one:
http://www.90thdivisionassoc.org/
Cosmoline
Member
Where are you getting that figure?
Elmer Fudd
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 118
Not making a judgement about all military historians, but when a guy like SLAM gets so well known and has so many brass kissing his butt and he appears so full of himself, then serious questions are raised about his methodology and conclusions, that just looks extremely flaky to me. When more people probably know of SLAM than Audie Murphy, that's a problem for me. Not to mention having a weird gung-ho type of acronym for a nickname.
Read this for more info on SLAM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall
Makes him look like a wannabe who made it up as he went along.
I have never been in the military. That said, EVERYTHING I have ever read about combat soldiers indicates that they fight first for their buddies. To accept SLAM's thesis, one would have to accept that men value the enemies lives MORE than their buddies. I do not buy this.
Gator
Member
At best SLA Marshall was a very shoddy researcher, at worse he fabricated his "history".
Elmer Fudd
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 118
The more I have read about SLAM the more I think he might have been, perhaps subconsciously, projecting his own failures or inadequacies onto the broadest possible number of soldiers through his 'research.' If you're a coward or a marginal soldier yourself, it probably helps to feel you are in the majority.
Thin Black Line
Member
How an individual reacts in a civilian self-defense situation where the personal
threat to life and limb is immediate and how individuals in a group act where
there may be the opportunity to "lay low" are two different things.
Like the the civilian work environment where a small percentage of people
actually do most of the work for a company, a very small percentage of
soldiers do most of the killing in combat.
I'm not a major cheerleader for SLAM but how many have exactly read what he says and how many are just basing their knowledge on what others have repeated? I think SLAM didn't fully research his info and even then didn't take into account exactly what he was seeing. What he said was an infantry company on an average day's action only 15%-25% actually fired a weapon. Full scale assaults where full companies were thrown into battle were not an average day's action. An average day's action would have amounted to small unit tactics where one side bumped into another at platoon but most likely squad or fire team levels. So out of a full company (about 200 men +/-) for 30 to 50 actually being engaged and firing would probably not be unusual. Even if a full company was enaged it's not like everyone is going to be positioned where they'll be in firing positions but could hold back platoons for reenforcement, protecting flanks, etc.
spwenger
Member
While I Do Not Have Them All Readily At Hand...
...I have read numerous of SLAM's writings, including (but no limited to) Men Against Fire, The Anvil Chorus, Bringing Up the Rear (his autobiography) and several of his "war stories" intended for the general public.
Elmer Fudd
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 118
From what I have read that is true, however in combat there can be relatively few opportunities for the rifleman to actually see and engage the enemy. They usually don't stand exposed waiting for you to shoot them. One of the best books on combat I have read was Herbert McBride's "A Rifleman Went to War" about combat in WWI. He criticized the overwrought stuff a that had been written about WWI like 'All Quiet on the Western Front' and I don't remember him ever mentioning soldiers shirking or not doing their duty. Frontline infantrymen rarely stuck their heads above the parapet because of snipers. Outside of mass assaults, the killing was done by machine guns, snipers, and artillery. The infantryman was simply not in a position to see or engage the enemy most of the time. Occasionally they got lucky when artillery blew up a section of an enemy redoubt or parapet that exposed several enemy soldiers. Then they poured in the rifle fire, but the opportunity was only momentary.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
