View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Jim, that's fascinating research. Thanks to you for your efforts!
Jim, that's fascinating research. Thanks to you for your efforts!
Phillip McGregor (OFC)
"I am neither a fire arms nor a ballistics expert, but I was a combat infantry officer in the Great War, and I absolutely know that the bullet from an infantry rifle has to be able to shoot through things." General Douglas MacArthur
I went back and read some of York's comments. From what I read, York tried to tell the Army that the others deserved credit for their actions, but the Army needed a big hero, and it was the Army who was at fault (this from both sides of the issue). If you read York's statements, HE gave credit to them for their actions. The makers of the movie originally wanted to hire one of the other survivors as a technical adviser at the salary of $250,000, but that man said he wanted the actual events to appear in the movie, so the movie guys hired York for $500,000, a small fortune at the time. So the movie guys exacerbated the issue for the sake of a more interesting movie (York single handedly killing 26 men and taking 132 prisoners). In my eyes, that severely diminishes York's technical input in the movie, since I believe, left to York, he would have had the movie filmed to portray the actual events (remember that York agreed with the others that they deserved more credit). If York had so little say so in the making of the movie, the fact that Cooper used a 1903 in the movie means absolutely nothing.
York stated: "I do not wish any article to stand without comment which implies any sponsorship on my part of the 'singlehandedly' legend or the 'one man' Army." Unfortunately, he did not include "movies".
The controversy started when York originally reported the action (his two surviving superiors, Early and Merrithew, were both seriously wounded and had been sent to the hospital, so as the remaining superior in command, York made the report). In his report, you will see he gave equal credit to his fellow soldiers (who were at that time guarding the 132 prisoners). I see no fault on the part of Alvin York, as it appears the Army command was at fault in the controversy. Sgt. Early (seventeen wounds by one account) walked out of the woods with a hole in his back so large that his kidney was exposed, and Merrithew had a serious shoulder wound. Early would spend a year in the hospital in France before he was shipped home for even more hospital time. Early would receive the DSC shortly after York received his MOH. The original medal recommendation, by Col. J. R. Lindsey, specified all the surviving members for medals. I tried to copy this document, but was not allowed.
What a mess. All the other men deserved better than they received from the Army. Sad. That does not diminish York's actions as he reported them.
jt
Last edited by Marine A5 Sniper; 04-23-2012 at 06:00.
Wow, this just gets more and more interesting. I'm learning more than the news papers of the time reported of the incident!. Sure appreciate the enlightening info! I cant think of anywhere else I learned of all this! Hey, Ive been wondering about something. Does anyone know whether or not there is a telltale forensic difference in an extractor claw on a 1917 Enfield and 1903? Just wondering. Nobody get emotional now. I'm just wondering because I sure don't know. I figure somebody here knows. I would think that there is. About 1917 versus 1903 in combat, I would rather have an American (1917) Enfield in combat than the Sprinfield. The Enfield's sights don't automatically adjust for drift, but heck, at the distance most engagements took place, would that even come into play?
This may be the main reason why York never wanted to talk much about his exploits. Caught between embelishments for the sake of national morale and the truth.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Never quite as old as the other old farts
Obama. A lifetime of affirmative action gone wrong.
It sure looks that way.
boy oh boy, what an interesting read on one of my favorite americans. thanks to all who posted.
Maybe he took his old cap and ball with him? It shot purty good in the movie picture.
Maw wants ya Alvin. My favorite line.
Hehe. I will say that this has been a very entertaining thread. Seems that there are a lot of "facts" being shared, though, with very little in the way of verifiable attribution. Probably just my age showing but for me, unless it can be tied to a credible published work, "I read it on the internet" is about as convincing as "Some guy in a bar told me . . . ". Great fun though, what?
Now I'm curious . . if every man in York's unit was supposedly carrying a 1917, how was it that the wounded comrade who "killed several charging Germans" was armed with a Chauchat?
We confide in our strength without boasting of it; we respect that of others, without fearing it.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1793
The Chauchat was the French automatic rifle the AEF was given in exchange for their Lewis guns. It was carried by the Autoriflemen in each Section, and all the riflemen carried M1917's. As for the dissenters' material being available, it has been repeatedly published in newspapers and magazines since 1920. It has also been entered into the Congressional Record. They even started a website (their descendents). I keep telling everyone that if they would only read the regimental history, you would understand, or is it not "credible"?Originally Posted by IditarodJoe
Hehe. I will say that this has been a very entertaining thread. Seems that there are a lot of "facts" being shared, though, with very little in the way of verifiable attribution. Probably just my age showing but for me, unless it can be tied to a credible published work, "I read it on the internet" is about as convincing as "Some guy in a bar told me . . . ". Great fun though, what?
Now I'm curious . . if every man in York's unit was supposedly carrying a 1917, how was it that the wounded comrade who "killed several charging Germans" was armed with a Chauchat?
What do you consider a "credible" published work? Who can accredit the information other than those who were there? You would believe some speculative individual over those who fought the battle? Everyone who fought the battle is in agreement, including York.
Jim
Marine A5, just as aside, when I was in Viet Nam and was on dragon mountain as a sergeant of the guard, one of the other sergeants had a cut down M2 carbine that he carried. Never did see him with an M16. Also saw a Model 29 smith as one gentlemans constant companion. ( in addition to his M16 ). A lot of things take place in combat, that don't 'officially' happen.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
