Help support TMP


"A Question of Leadership: The 5th Army in Italy" Topic


9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

Chaos in Carpathia


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Orisek's Tank Trap

A walk down memory lane - do you remember the Tank Trap?


Featured Profile Article


Featured Book Review


Featured Movie Review


469 hits since 26 May 2024
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP26 May 2024 5:09 p.m. PST

Ask a citizen of the ‘90's who commanded the World War II American 5th Army in Italy and chances are he or she won't know. Except to students at the Citadel in South Carolina and certain angry veterans of the 36th Division in Texas, the name of Mark Clark, if it registers at all, may ring up only dim recollections of a bygone war.


But to the soldiers in Italy, the name of Lieutenant General Mark W.Clark was that of a remote, all-powerful figure whom most of us never saw but who we were painfully aware had the power to thrust us into exceedingly hazardous and extremely uncomfortable situations. Actually, those are conditions the combat soldier learns to take as his natural milieu. But he has the right to expect that orders sending him into such actions have well-thoughtout reasons and the likelihood of achieving worthwhile results. In Italy, we had the feeling that units as large as divisions and even corps were often sent into attacks with little or no planning and with the top commanders having no idea what conditions were like on the battlefield…"

Main page


link


Armand

Nine pound round26 May 2024 7:42 p.m. PST

Clark is hard to defend, but this is not exactly a brilliant takedown, and it has a few howlers. When you find yourself writing the words, "I know of only one (general who died in WWII)… For more than a century American generals have fought their wars from the warm comforts of headquarters far behind the lines, often, for example, from luxurious French chateaux," it's time to pause and ask the question, "have I done all my research?" You might also ask, "if they were so incompetent, how did we win?"

But that would interfere with the axe-grinding business he is intent on.

TimePortal27 May 2024 8:33 a.m. PST

Clark was disliked so much that both senators from Texas voted against him getting an additional star at the end of the war.

Most folks do not know that he was a commander in Korea as well.

Nine pound round27 May 2024 1:36 p.m. PST

The author alludes to it, rather than discussing it, but he ended up as President of The Citadel. I no longer have the reference handy, but I remember reading that he strongly encouraged the amping-up of hazing as a potential preventive to misbehavior in captivity, as a result of his experiences in Korea.

There are some obvious differences between the character "General Durrell" in Pat Conroy's "The Lords of Discipline" and Clark, but Clark was President during Conroy's time there, so I wouldn't be too surprised if Conroy's characterization was influenced by his experience of Clark.

As I said, not an easy man to defend.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP27 May 2024 3:26 p.m. PST

Thanks

Armand

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP01 Jun 2024 2:25 p.m. PST

"I know of only one general who died in WWII"???? Uh, there were quite a few on all sides.

Mark 1 Supporting Member of TMP04 Jun 2024 12:38 p.m. PST

>>Uh, there were quite a few on all sides.

Context, man, context.

As the topic is largely criticizing an author for painting US Army leadership with too broad of a brush (even though "Mark Clark is hard to defend"), on first reading I assume that reference is exclusively about US Army generals.

Even so, I would agree with the sentiment I infer from both NPR and SW … that it's a WIDE miss. After all of 1 minute of research I came up with a list of 32 US Army generals who died in WW2, although perhaps 5 – 8 were not killed by enemy action (a range, as some were MIA later declared dead, but with no clarity of exactly how they died). Still no way saying "I know of only one" can be justified if you present yourself as being worthy of listening to (or reading).

You (the author in the link) know of only one because you DON'T CARE ENOUGH to look into the question. And your opinion on matters you obviously know nothing about should matter to me because … ?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP04 Jun 2024 3:19 p.m. PST

Glup!…


Armand

Nine pound round04 Jun 2024 7:19 p.m. PST

Equally annoying: the anachronistic "chateau general" taunt, which wasn't really true when it was invented by revisionist historians in the years after WWI, and certainly wasn't true of (or even meant to be applied to) the US Army of WWII.

Clark never gets easier to defend, but "chateau general" was an inapt epithet for those to whom it was originally applied, and if you don't believe me, read Anthony Farrar-Hockley's biography of Hubert Gough.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.