Talk:Edward Almond

Recent additions

The last few additions added by the anon user while appearing like vandalism are actually not. They do not conform to MoS and are not sourced as they were added but I know they are coming from David Halberstam's The Coldest Winter. I was actually going to update this page as it is way too glowing about Almond without mentioning some of his many flaws like being MacArthur's lackey and almost getting the 1st Marine Division (not to mention X Corps) wiped off the map due to arrogance and recklessness in the winter of 1950. I have just not gotten around to it yet.--07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article is hardly "glowing" about Almond, indeed it reeks of hostile POV. It should be revised to present the facts and let them speak for themselves. 12.214.62.215 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that Edward Almond wasn't the greatest general in the history of the U. S. Army, the statements against him in this article need more citations to back them up at the very least. Cranston Lamont (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusations of racism at least need some kind of source, because they make him seem like a complete satan, especially by modern standards. The only one provided is this link at JStor, which is defunct. Google only returns 57 results for "edward almond racist", "racism" etc, most of which seem to be sourced from Wikipedia's article. I assume the accusations come from The Coldest Winter, which makes up the rest of the returns, but they still need citations. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A new 2009 book "The Last Stand of Fox Company" by Bob Drury/Tom Clavin (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Fox-Company-Marines/dp/0871139936) delves a bit into the unpleasant relationship that the US Marines had with Almond. The best significant incident being when Almond briefly flew in to Chosin on Nov 28th (2nd day of the Chinese offensive) to angrily complain about why the US offensive to the Yalu River had faltered (and had already taken about 33% casualties). He pointedly denied that there was any Chinese intervention. "That's impossible. There aren't two Chinese Divisions in the whole of North Korea. The enemy delaying you is nothing more than remnants fleeing north. We're still attacking, and we're going all the way to the Yalu. Don't let a bunch of goddamn Chinese laundrymen stop you." (Pg. 146) It wasn't until MacArthur changed his mind about the reality of the Chinese intervention that Almond then suddenly now agreed with the intelligence reports that his division commanders had been giving him for over a week. Fortunately, the Marines had already pointedly disobeyed Almond's direct orders and were orchestrating their successful withdrawal from Chosin, saving most of their men. Overall, there is very little positive that can be said about Almond... history has not been very kind to him (rightly so). He very definitely was a lapdog for MacArthur. Acmaddocks (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An even newer book "For Country and Corp, The Life of General Oliver P. Smith," Naval Institute Press, covers General Smith's entire life. It is written by Gail Shisler, General Smith's granddaughter; and she had access to his private papers. It sheds light on the complex interactions between Almond and Smith. I recommend it for those interested in seeing another POV regarding General Almond from a man who is well known for his restraint, even criticized by many for that restraint and gravitas. From page 129, Ms. Shisler is discussing Smith's perceived command style, "But Smith's approach was exactly what the division needed. A 'screamer' could not possibly have instilled the sense of calm he brought to what even he called an 'administrative maelstrom.' " This one quote sheds some light on the situation and this book bears some study for those interested in learning more about this complex period of time in our military history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orovalleydude (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

By many accounts General Almond was quite personable with writers who interviewed him after his retirement as admitted by the novelist WEB Griffin. This bias seems to have pervaded to gloss over his less than stellar performance. From many sources I have read, I see the majority as depicting him as an average officer who was promoted above his competency. I think that prevailing racial attitudes in the army during and after WWII allowed him to get away with blaming his troops for "poor performance." I think this articles scant mention of detractors and the overwhelmingly positive slant of it in Almond's favor make it biased. I think there should be more mention of his detractors on his 92nd tour and his Korean tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.137.100 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 ^^^^  eh i think you have a bias against him because of his "racial views" which were 

also mentioned further down in the WP page. he "got away with blaming his troops (92nd infantry) for "poor performance", lol. whoever wrote that line gives no evidence to support those claims or to refute his assertions. was the 92nd infantry subpar? idk but provide some evidence one way or the other.

then in the "In Popular Culture" section there is this silly line:

In the novel series The Corps, General Almond is mentioned in the last two books: Under Fire and Retreat Hell! Almond is portrayed by the author (who served under Almond in Korea) in a positive light, with no reference made to his racial views.

whoever added this seems again obsessed with race. someone has an agenda. Almond seemed an average to below avg officer at best but there's too much of a racial slant to this article without much evidence to back it up. 107.37.207.53 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the most persuasive (at the time, anyway) arguments that Almond was a racist was contained in the book "America's Tenth Legion: 10th Corps in Korea" by Shelby Stanton. Stanton documents carefully Almond's actions in Italy, which were borderline incompetent, and his attempts to blame the poor performance of his troops on the fact the enlisted men were all black. He also was pretty critical of Almond's attitude in Korea, having a Puerto Rican National Guard regiment in X Corps which wasn't segregated. Even though the unit supposedly performed well, Almond was suspicious of it, and denigrated it regularly. The difficult with this is that Stanton himself has been pretty thoroughly discredited, having "improved" his own resume in order to gain credibility. Outside of that criticism of him, however, I don't know if his research should be completely discounted. Regardless, it's generally agreed that Almond was only a borderline officer, and *never* should have been allowed to serve as MacArthur's Chief of Staff, and commander of X Corps at the same time. This put him in the weird position of being Chief of Staff to a general, and subordinate to his chief subordinate. If Walton Walker (commander of 8th Army in Korea) wanted to complain about Almond, he had to go through Almond himself to get to MacArthur. This was clearly unworkable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.62.254 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ned Almond

This page does not convey the true incompetence of Ned Almond. He was, by many measures, one of the worst men ever to reach the rank of Lieutenant General. Halberstam's account is only one of many that show Almond in a very unfavorable light. Racist, a lackey, overbearing, overconfident, and incompetent are all adjectives that belong in this article. Those are supported by the historical record. Think of it this way: is it a "hostile POV" to say that a certain German leader was evil and inhumane? Sometimes the truth is brutal and harsh. Ned Almond earned his reputation with the loss of so many men under his command due to his poor performance. If not for O.P. Smith, it would have been far worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.220.26 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

History Bears Witness to Almond's Criminal Incompetence!!!

Having read about the 92nd Division in Italy and Almond's shotty performance in Korea, it really sheds light on one of history's most clownish examples of a field commander. He was very lucky to have been an American general during World War II. If he'd been under Stalin, he'd been placed in front of a firing squad and shot! He was a disgrace!! If he'd commanded the 92nd Infantry Division like a worthy general, he'd never would've quarterbacked blame in his soldiers. No commander that is worth anything does that!! He was a racist and also a stupid racist!!!! The Chosin Reservoir Campaign in 1950 shows how he almost led the 1st Marine Division to obliteration!!! Read Breakout by Martin Russ on the Chosin Reservoir Campaign to get further insight!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldierofchicago (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Supporting Material on Almond's Racism

In his account of the Italian Campaign of World War II, Rick Atkinson describes Almond as someone who "would oppose integration of the armed forces until his dying day" (383). Atkinson quotes Almond as follows, "The white man ... is willing to die for patriotic reasons. The Negro is not." And "No white man wants to be accused of leaving the battle line. The Negro doesn't care .... People think that, being from the south we don't like Negroes. Not at all. But we understand his capabilities. And we don't want to sit at the table with them" (383). Atkinson writes that "[i]n a top secret report after the war, Almond asserted that black officers lacked 'pride, aggressiveness, [and] a sense of responsibility'" (383). Atkinson, Rick. The Day of Battle. Holt Paperbacks, New York: 2007. Jlaroe (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)jlaroe