VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1 SUMMER 2019
INVESTIGATING IWO

The Flag Raisings in Myth, Memory, & Esprit de Corps

Contributing editor Breanne Robertson, PhD

On 23 February 1945, Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal snapped a photograph of six Marines raising the American 

flag during the Battle of Iwo Jima. The moment has been a subject of intense popular interest and scholarly debate. How many 

flags did the Marines plant that day? Where did the flags come 

from, and why did they swap them out? What qualifies an individual as a flag raiser? And what does our continuing fascination with the raising say about our identity, our values, and our 

evolving relationship with the past? Representing years of accumulated research across a range of academic and professional disciplines, Investigating Iwo: The 

Flag-Raisings in Myth, Memory, & Esprit de Corps presents a collection of 14 essays that permit us 

to fundamentally reconsider the impact of Rosenthal’s iconic image on American culture both at 

the time of conflict and in the years since. Precipitated by the 2016 Huly Panel and 2019 Bowers 

Board investigations, the Marine Corps History Division partnered with military historians, 

archivists, curators, and independent researchers in this important undertaking.

8.5 x 11 | 400 pp | September 2019

Email history.division@usmcu.edu for a print or digital copy.

STORY TO TELL

Marine Corps History is accepting article and book review submissions for 2020.

Marine Corps History publishes twice a year, and the editors are currently looking for new articles and book reviews on all topics within the long history of the Corps: Civil War, SpanishAmerican War, Banana Wars, WWI, WWII, Korea, Cold War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, 

and women and minorities in the military. We are particularly interested in masters and PhD 

students who are ready to venture into scholarly publishing. Articles must be at least 4,000 

words, footnoted according to Chicago Manual of Style, and focus on some 

aspect of the Corps either directly or indirectly, including foreign marines 

and joint operations.

For more information about submission guidelines or history books available for 

review, please contact the managing editor at stephani.miller@usmcu.edu.
SUMMER 2019 1

PRESIDENT

Marine Corps University

Brigadier General Jay M. Bargeron

...

DIRECTOR

History Division

Dr. Edward T. Nevgloski

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Paul J. Weber

EXECUTIVE ASSISANT

Cassandra Bennett

...

HISTORIES BRANCH

Dr. Fred Allison (acting Branch Head), 

Paul W. Westermeyer, Dr. Breanne 

Robertson, Dr. Seth Givens 

...

HISTORICAL REFERENCE BRANCH

Annette D. Amerman (Branch Head)

Kara R. Newcomer, Mike Westermeier, 

Dr. Jordan Malfoy

...

ARCHIVES BRANCH

Alisa Whitley (Branch Head)

Steve Coode, John Lyles, Nancy Whitfield, 

Alyson Mazzone, Dominic Amaral

...

EDITING AND DESIGN BRANCH

Angela J. Anderson (Branch Head) 

Jason Gosnell, Robert A. Kocher, Stephani L. Miller, Christopher Blaker, Jeffrey 

Moravetz, Jose Esquilin

...

MARINE CORPS

HISTORY DIVISION

2044 Broadway Street

Quantico, Virginia 22134

Telephone (703) 432-4877

www.usmcu.edu/HDPublishing

...

COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS

Department of the Navy

Headquarters Marine Corps

3000 Marine Corps Pentagon 

Room 2B253

Washington, DC 20530-3000

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PCN 10600011300

ISSN 2381-375X

Director’s Foreword 3

Edward T. Nevgloski, PhD

ARTICLES

Lineage of Marine Corps History Division 5

Directors of Marine Corps History Division 6

Beyond McClellan and Metcalf: 8

Staff History in the U.S. Marine Corps

Charles D. Melson

Documenting Marine Corps History through the Spoken Word 18

Fred H. Allison, PhD

The History Division and Change in the Marine Corps: 27

A Historiography

Seth Givens, PhD

An Archive for the Marine Corps 41

James Ginther, PhD

Keepers of Odd Knowledge: History and Functions 46

of the Historical Reference Branch

Annette Amerman

“Record the Things that Were Well Done”: The Creation of American 51

Service Branch History Offices in the Wake of the Great War

Colonel Douglas E. Nash Sr. (USA)

“Why Shouldn’t the Marine Corps Have a Museum of Its Own?” 64

Robert J. Sullivan

Portal to Marine Corps History: 77

Observations of a Civilian Historian 

Gregory J. Urwin, PhD

IN MEMORIAM

Oscar Edward Gilbert Jr. 85

Kenneth W. Estes and Romain Cansière 

Second Lieutenant Elwood Ray Bailey, VMF-223 87

Geoffrey W. Roecker

 Volume 5, Number 1 Summer 2019

Cover art: War Dog, Iwo Jima,

by Col Charles H. Waterhouse, USMCR.

Art Collection, National Museum

of the Marine Corps
Scholarly Debate

Marine Corps History is a peer-reviewed, scholarly publication, and in that tradition we recognize that the articles published here are not the official or final 

word on any topic, merely the beginning of a conversation. If you think an author missed the target or failed to deliver, please join the debate by submitting an article for consideration. Email the managing editor at stephani.miller@

usmcu.edu for deadlines and author guidelines.

Address Changes

Do not miss a single volume of Marine Corps History because you have moved. 

Send a change of address request to mcu_press@usmcu.edu to update your subscription.

REVIEW ESSAY

Palestine: The Ottoman Campaigns of 1914–1918; The Battle of the Somme; 95

Thunder and Flames: Americans in the Crucible of Combat, 1917–1918; and Written 

in Blood: The Battles for Fortress Przemyśl in World War I

Reviewed by Major Timothy Heck, USMCR

BOOK REVIEWS

Empowering Revolution: America, Poland, and the End of the Cold War 100

Reviewed by Andrew Harrison Baker

The Dead March: A History of the Mexican-American War 102

Reviewed by Evan C. Rothera

Huế 1968: A Turning Point of the American War in Vietnam 104

Reviewed by Robert J. Kodosky, PhD

The City becomes a Symbol: The U.S. Army in the Occupation 106

of Berlin, 1945–1949 

Reviewed by Keith D. Dickson, PhD

American Amphibious Warfare: The Roots of Tradition to 1865 110

Reviewed by First Lieutenant Walker D. Mills

Combat Talons in Vietnam: Recovering a Covert Special Ops Crew 112

Reviewed by Fred H. Allison, PhD

Yesterday There Was Glory: With the 4th Division, A.E.F., in World War I 114

Reviewed by Commander Larry A. Grant, USN (Ret)

We Were Going to Win, or Die There: 117

With the Marines at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Saipan

Reviewed by Constance Wallace

 Volume 5, Number 1 Summer 2019

2

NOW AVAIL ABLE

The Legacy of American 

Naval Power

Reinvigorating Maritime 

Strategic Thought

AN ANTHOLOGY

The United States has always been 

a maritime power, but with that 

power comes a responsibility that 

its application be properly directed 

in support of national policy. Maritime strategy thus poses complex 

questions that in recent decades 

have become only more complicated 

through rapid technological change 

epitomized by the development of 

submarines, aircraft, sonar, radar, 

missiles, atomic weapons, nuclear 

power, satellites, and the dawn of 

the digital era. This volume, The 

Legacy of American Naval Power: Reinvigorating Maritime Strategic Thought, 

examines the development and practice of American maritime strategic 

thought from its flowering in the 

late nineteenth century to the present day.

8.5 x 11 | 428 pp | May 2019
Dr. Edward T. Nevgloski is the 28th director of the Marine Corps History Division and chief of Marine Corps History. He retired from the 

Marine Corps on 30 September 2017 at the rank of lieutenant colonel 

and with more than 28 years of service to the nation. His civilian education includes a bachelor’s degree in history from East Carolina University in Greenville, NC; a master of arts in military history from 

Norwich University in Northfield, VT; and a doctor of philosophy in 

war studies from King’s College, London. Dr. Nevgloski is also a graduate of the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Warfare School, Command and 

Staff College, and School of Advanced Warfighting.

FOREWORD

DIRECTOR’S

On the warm afternoon of 8 September 

1919 in the Bronx, New York, a young Boston Red Sox outfielder and pitcher named 

George Herman “Babe” Ruth hit his 26th home run 

of the year off New York Yankees right-hander Jack 

Quinn. The Babe was just beginning to make his mark 

on America’s pastime and changed the way the game 

is played. Roughly 215 miles to the south of the Bronx 

on that same afternoon, the 12th Commandant of 

the Marine Corps, Major General George Barnett, 

released Marine Corps Order Number 53 establishing 

the Historical Section of the Department of the Adjutant and Inspector at Headquarters Marine Corps in 

Washington, DC. In the 100 years since, while much 

has changed in the game of baseball and the Marine 

Corps Historical Section’s structure has changed several times over, its mission to preserve, promote, and 

publish the history of the U.S. Marine Corps has not.

For a century now, the Marine Corps History 

Division has supported 18 presidents and 27 Commandants and recorded the story of the Corps from 

the Great War to ongoing operations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. From its meager offices in the 

Washington Navy Yard to the new and spacious Brigadier General Edwin H. Simmons Marine Corps History Center at Marine Corps University, located in 

Quantico, Virginia, the division serves Marines and 

the American people through many tried and trusted 

means and looks to continue to do the same through 

new and unique methods thanks to technological 

advances. Looking forward to the next century, the 

division will continue to embrace change and evolve 

to support the expectations and demands of Marines 

and researchers around the globe. 

A focus on education through the Service’s institutional history is one such change. Simply telling the 

Corps’ story is no longer enough. Answering the question “so what?” is as important—if not more—as delivering the facts of history, particularly as the Corps 

again faces questions about its relevance and mission, 

while preparing for the most challenging battlefields 

and unthinkable threats.

The articles featured in this, the 2019 summer 

edition of Marine Corps History, shine a spotlight on 

the 100-year history of Marine Corps History Division. Former chief historian of the division, Charles 

D. Melson, recounts the Corps’ efforts at recording 

staff history since 1919 and charts the evolution of 

these efforts into the current historical program. The 

3

Edward T. Nevgloski, PhD
4 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

head of the Oral History Section, Fred H. Allison, 

discusses the history of the program and the inherent 

value of documenting first-person accounts of operations and of capturing the experiences and perspectives of Marines and preserving them for posterity. 

Allison offers several excerpts of notable oral histories 

that demonstrate the program’s value. Historian Seth 

Givens’s historiography of the History Division not 

only traces its evolution through the works it has produced, it also explicates how those works serve a vital 

role in forming a historical basis for the decision makers responsible for determining the Corps’ future. A 

piece by archivist James Ginther relates the original 

proposition of an archival program by Major Henry 

Ball Tyler as a means to support administrative reform; the founding of the first program to collect and 

preserve key documents and records; and its development from the nineteenth century to the current 

period’s Archives Branch. Historian Douglas E. Nash 

Sr. offers a concise history of other Services’ historical 

offices, and curator Robert Sullivan gives an account 

of the creation of the National Museum of the Marine 

Corps in Quantico, Virginia. Finally, Gregory J. Urwin provides a visiting researcher’s perspective of History Division and the history of the Corps, reflecting 

on the many ways in which the division’s historians 

welcomed and took him under their collective wing, 

counter to common perceptions of Marine historians.

As you will see, with each passing war and conflict, each major change to institutional character, 

and new demands placed on every Commandant 

since Commandant Barnett, the division strove to 

remain relevant regardless of its higher headquarters, organizational structure, and even its name. The 

ability to embrace change and evolve is the mark of 

a professional organization that is able to maintain 

its relevance through the decades. History Division 

fits that description and then some. Going forward, I 

anticipate much of the same in the next century and 

am confident the division will meet every expectation 

and demand head-on and will succeed. That is all it 

has ever done.

Semper Fidelis, 

Edward T. Nevgloski, PhD

Director

Marine Corps History Division

and Gray Research Center 

• 1775 •
Lineage of Marine Corps History Division
Directors of Marine Corps 

History Division

On 8 September 1919, the Historical Section 

of the Marine Corps was established. Major 

Edwin N. McClellan was a natural choice to 

be the first official historian of the Corps based on 

his experience as the Marine Corps’ representative to 

the Historical Section of the American Expeditionary 

Forces. He spent five months in France collecting information, documents, and oral histories to capture 

the Marine experience. His efforts in France live on in 

today’s History Division.

Each director has left an impact on the Corps and 

the historical program in their time. Though a captain 

at the time, Harry A. Ellsworth continues to inform 

and guide Marine Corps historians, researchers, and 

scholars through his creation of the ELLS-DRAN filing system. The ELLS-DRAN system derives its name 

from the first four letters of his last name (Ellsworth) 

and the acronym that comes from the phrase direct reference, alphabetical, numerical. This system is still used 

by patrons of the National Archives in Washington, 

DC. Captain Philips D. Carleton, an acting head for a 

short period in 1944, was a combat historian with the 

V Amphibious Corps in World War II. Some directors 

came to the division with valuable combat experience 

and decorations, such as Major Alphonse DeCarre, 

Colonel Howard N. Kenyon, Lieutenant Colonel Gordon D. Gayle, Colonel Frank C. Caldwell, and Colonel 

John W. Ripley Jr., all of whom were recipients of the 

Navy Cross. 

Below is a chronological list of all former directors. The ranks at the time do not necessarily reflect 

their final rank in service. 

Name Dates of Service

Maj Edwin N. McClellan 8 September 1919–31 May 1925

Maj Edward W. Sturdevant 1 June 1925–15 August 1928

Capt Lucian Burnham 16 August 1928–31 July 1929

Mr. James C. Jenkins 1 August 1929–26 September 1929

Capt Jonas H. Platt 27 September 1929–19 June 1930

Maj Edwin N. McClellan 20 June 1930–2 March 1933

Capt Harry A. Ellsworth 3 March 1933–30 August 1934

Maj Alphonse DeCarre 31 August 1934–5 February 1935

Maj/LtCol Clyde H. Metcalf 6 February 1935–31 December 1938

Mr. James C. Jenkins 1 January 1939–4 October 1942

Col Clyde H. Metcalf 5 October 1942–15 April 1944

6
SUMMER 2019 7

Name Dates of Service

Capt Philips D. Carleton (acting) 16 April 1944–2 May 1944

Col John Potts 3 May 1944–2 January 1946

Col Howard N. Kenyon 3 January 1946–15 October 1946

LtCol Ellsworth N. Murray 16 October 1946–20 December 1946

LtCol Robert D. Heinl 21 December 1946–12 June 1949

LtCol Gordon D. Gayle 13 June 1949–13 August 1951

LtCol Francis O. Hough 14 August 1951–8 June 1952

LtCol Harry W. Edwards 9 June 1952–17 July 1955

Col Charles W. Harrison 18 July 1955–24 July 1959

Maj Hubard D. Kuokka 25 July 1959–17 August 1959

Maj Gerald Fink 18 August 1959–7 January 1960

Col William M. Miller 8 January 1960–31 July 1961

Col Thomas G. Roe 1 August 1961–30 June 1962

Maj John H. Johnstone 1 July 1962–8 November 1962

Col Joseph F. Wagner Jr. 9 November 1962–31 August 1963

LtCol Richard J. Schening 1 September 1963–14 November 1963

LtCol/Col Frank C. Caldwell 15 November 1963–30 November 1971

BGen Edwin H. Simmons 1 December 1971–1 July 1978

BGen Edwin H. Simmons (Ret) October 1978–3 January 1996

Col Michael F. Monigan 4 January 1996–11 July 1999

Col John W. Ripley Jr. (Ret) 12 July 1999–31 August 2005

Maj Charles D. Melson (Ret; acting) 1 September 2005–8 January 2006

Col Richard D. Camp Jr. (Ret; acting) 9 January 2006–10 December 2006

Dr. Charles P. Neimeyer 11 December 2006–21 December 2017

LtCol Paul J. Weber (Ret; acting) 22 December 2017–6 January 2019

Mr. Jay Hatton (acting) 7 January 2019–14 April 2019

Dr. Edward T. Nevgloski 15 April 2019–present 
Beyond McClellan 

and Metcalf

STAFF HISTORY IN THE U.S. MARINE CORPS 

Charles D. Melson1

American Marines have maintained some type 

of formal staff history effort since 1919 and 

continue to do so to date.2 Its history and 

museums organization developed over time along 

with the Washington, DC, headquarters and the base 

at Quantico, Virginia. What sort of evolution has occurred during the last 100 years to create the modern 

historical program? How have placement, structure, 

1

 Charles D. Melson is the former chief historian of Marine Corps 

History Division. His experience included serving as a staff historian for various Marine units; as a joint historian with the U.S. 

Central and Special Operations Commands; and as a Headquarters action officer for historical matters as a writer and member 

of the uniform board. His experience spans the Vietnam War, the 

Gulf War, and the Global War on Terrorism.

2

 A broader approach can be found in John B. Hattendorf, “The 

Uses of Maritime History in the for the Navy,” Naval War College Review 56, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 13–39; and John B. Hattendorf, “The State of American Naval History in 2010,” Historically 

Speaking 11, no. 4 (September 2010): 16–18. For the evolution of 

the Marine Corps staff, see Allan R. Millett and Jack Shulimson, 

eds., Commandants of the Marine Corps (Annapolis: Naval Institute 

Press, 2004); Kenneth W. Condit, Maj John H. Johnstone, and 

Ella W. Nargele, A Brief History of Headquarters Marine Corps Staff 

Organization (Washington, DC: Historical Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1971); Kenneth J. Clifford, Progress and Purpose: A Developmental History of the U.S. Marine Corps, 1900–1970

(Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters 

Marine Corps, 1973); LtCol Charles A. Fleming, Capt Robin A. 

Austin, and Capt Charles A. Braley III, Quantico: Crossroads of the 

Marine Corps (Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, 

Headquarters Marine Corps, 1978); and C. A. Gregson, “CMC 

Moves to Pentagon: Most of HQMC to Follow,” Marine Corps 

Gazette 80, no. 8 (August 1996): 59. 

and wars impacted the ability of official historians to 

provide value to the Service and its members? What 

efforts have been temporal and which were of lasting 

value? These are timely questions, as often history to 

the Marines becomes all things to all people. This article will provide a history of history in the Corps. The 

current mission of the Marine Corps History Division 

is “to provide knowledge of the Marine Corps’ past 

to ensure an understanding of its present and future 

for the Marine Corps and the American people by 

making its hard-earned experience and official history 

available for practical study and use.”3 

The value of a systematic study of past events has 

long been recognized in Western classical liberal education. Well-known nineteenth-century soldier and 

military strategist Antoine-Henri Jomini (1779–1869) 

wrote after the Napoleonic Wars: “Military history, 

accompanied by sound criticism, is indeed the true 

school of war.”4

 His contemporary, Prussian general 

and military strategist Carl von Clausewitz (1780–

1831), observed as well: “Only the study of military history is capable of giving those who have no experience 

of their own a clear picture of what I have just called 

the friction of the whole machine.” Clausewitz also 

provided the basis for the modern case study when 

3

 “Mission,” Marine Corps Order (MCO) 5750.1H, Manual for the Marine 

Corps Historical Program (Washington, DC: Headquarters Marine Corps, 

13 February 2009).

4

 Robert D. Heinl, ed., Dictionary of Military and Naval Quotations (Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute, 1966), 147.

8
SUMMER 2019 9

he advocated the use of examples in his theory of war: 

“Examples from history make everything clear, and 

in addition they afford the most convincing kind of 

proof in the empirical fields.”5 This was well before the 

case study method of modern business schools. 

As early as 1843, the Marine Corps showed interest in the systematic study of its profession by creating a library “for the use of the officers of the Marine 

Corps at Head Quarters [sic].”6 This followed an established U.S. Navy practice of having a collection of 

books provided for both yards and vessels of war. Of 

note were titles of history and biography along with 

administrative and technical works. Commandant 

Brevet Brigadier General Archibald Henderson’s own 

views were more to the point when he wrote in 1848 

that commissioned and noncommissioned officers of 

the Corps should contribute in writing to the record 

of their active service in the U.S. Mexican War: “It is 

considered incumbent on the officers of the Marine 

Corps to have a faithful and impartial history written 

of the services of that portion of the Corps which has 

been on active duty with the Army and the Navy during the existing war with Mexico. Justice alone to the 

Corps, particularly to that part engaged in this arduous service, would require a record of this.”7

 

Seventy-one years later, after World War I, the 

Progressive secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, 

directed both the Navy and Marine Corps to document the experience from that conflict. As a result, 

on 8 September 1919 the Historical Section, Adjutant 

and Inspector’s Department, was established at Headquarters by Commandant Major General George Barnett. Duties specified were establishing a historical 

5

 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, bk. 2 (New York: Everyman’s Library, 

1993), chapter 6, 199–204. 

6

 Navy Department to BGen A. Henderson, 2 October 1843, History of 

History Division file, Historical Reference Branch, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA. This unique and eclectic collection existed 

for approximately 162 years before absorption into the Education Command’s James Carson Breckinridge Professional Library in September 

2005. See Evelyn A. Englander, personal communication, 19 November 

2013, Charles Melson History of History Division (HD) files, History 

Division Staff Research Material, COLL/5786, Archives Branch, Marine 

Corps History Division, Quantico, VA. This collection will hereafter be 

referred to as Charles Melson History of HD files.

7

 Headquarters, Adjutant and Inspector’s Office, order, 6 April 1848, 

Charles Melson History of HD files.

archive from records no longer needed in service, to 

prepare a narrative of the Marines in World War I, 

and to revise and update the history of the Marine 

Corps.8 In this endeavor, officers and enlisted were to 

assist in matters of “historical interest.”9

How did the Marine Corps develop an organizational interest in history at the headquarters level? 

Beginning with General Barnett’s Marine Corps Order 

(MCO) 53, the location and command relations of the 

Historical or History Division have varied over time, 

as Headquarters itself has evolved. Of note is that the 

Marine Corps Manual of 1921 (the basis for Service orders and directives) did not mention history as such, 

nor was military history considered in the promotion 

examinations of that era. What was detailed was how 

to record events for the Commandant in accordance 

with naval regulations while on expeditionary, advanced base, or campaign duty and the disposition 

of records forwarded or destroyed with the approval 

of the Headquarters adjutant and inspector. In this 

author’s opinion, a start was established with Commandant Major General John A. Lejeune’s birthday 

message to Marines, published in the 1921 Marine Corps 

Manual, observing the founding of the Corps each 10 

November. The first officer in charge of the Historical Section, Major Edwin N. McClellan, who wrote 

the message, justified this annual commemoration 

by stating: “It is the one day in which every Marine 

should have impressed upon him that he is an important integral part of an ancient and honorable organization.” With it, Marines were obliged to observe the 

founding of the Corps by “calling to mind the glories 

of its long and illustrious history.”10 

8

 LtCol Shawn P. Callahan, “The Gilded Age Foundations of the U.S. 

Marine Corps’ Historical Narrative” (panel paper, 2011 McMullen Naval 

History Symposium, Annapolis, MD, 15 September 2011).

9 Marine Corps Order (MCO) 53, Washington, DC: Headquarters Marine 

Corps, 8 September 1919, History of History Division file, Historical 

Reference Branch, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA.

10 Maj E. N. McClellan to MajGen J. A. Lejeune, 21 October 1921, Charles 

Melson History of HD files.
10 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Historical Section, Adjutant 

and Inspector’s Department, 

Headquarters

Located at Marine Barracks, Washington, DC, from 8 

September 1919, until moving to the Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia, on 30 April 1943. 

Along with Major McClellan, initial participation in 

the development of a historical program was by Chief 

Clerk James F. Jenkins. His assistant, Joel D. Thacker, 

researched personnel data and obtained the transfer 

of the records of Marine units with the American Expeditionary Forces in France to Marine Corps control 

from the War Department (the National Archives 

and Records Administration was not established until 

1934, and earlier collections were kept by the Library 

of Congress). The first staff or operational histories 

were also written and published. Beginning with McClellan’s narrative of the Marines in World War I, 

some four volumes of official history were produced 

during this period. McClellan’s history of the Marine 

Corps remained in mimeograph form, a project completed by Lieutenant Colonel Clyde H. Metcalf with 

the History of the United States Marine Corps (1939). 

Published in part by subscription, for economy the associated documentation was not included.11 

Commandant Major General Thomas Holcomb 

established a Marine Corps Museum with a circular 

letter on 2 October 1940. Lieutenant Colonel Metcalf was designated its curator and it was located at 

Marine Corps Barracks Quantico, Virginia, “where as 

many as possible of the officers and enlisted of the 

Corps can have access to it.”12 Its first location was in 

the old base headquarters at Potomac Avenue and 

Broadway Street in the town of Quantico. The exhibit 

and museum effort was separate from the Historical Section in the sense that its supervision was split 

between Marine Corps Base Quantico and later the 

Corps’ chief of staff. 

Henry I. Shaw Jr., the longtime chief historian, 

11 The search for the missing notes became the Holy Grail of Marine 

historians ever since the history’s publication.

12 MajGen Commandant to All Officers, Circular Letter No. 390, 2 

October 1940, History of History Division file, Historical Reference 

Branch, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA.

summarized that the historical office of the 1920s and 

’30s was, as with the Corps, charged “with a multitude 

of tasks to be performed by a modicum of people.” He 

went on to say, “In the 1940s, with enormous expansion of the Corps beyond most people’s dreams, four 

years of combat actions across the whole range of the 

Pacific, and stunning and rapid demobilization, the 

historical office had done little more than cope with 

its own expansion and contraction to suit the times.”13

The Historical Division’s mission had remained the 

same for a quarter of a century, but the demands of 

World War II brought major changes.14 

Historical Division, 

Personnel Department, Headquarters

Located at Navy Annex and Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia, 1 May 1943–31 October 1946. 

By March 1944, some five million records were transferred to the division for retention. Commandant 

General Alexander A. Vandegrift confirmed the results of the Navy Manpower Survey Board that assigned the division responsibility for collecting war 

records and reports; using these same records to answer inquiries; compile data from these to prepare 

monographs, articles, and histories of Marine organizations; and to edit these and other assigned projects 

for historical accuracy.15 But Headquarters appeared 

at a loss as to what to do with the historical staff during relocation and restructuring, as seen by the shift 

from personnel to public affairs, along with combat 

photographers and artists. Approximately 10 unit or 

campaign histories were prepared and published under these conditions. 

Historical Section, Division 

of Public Information, Headquarters

Located at Navy Annex and Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia, 1 November 1946–16 June 1949. 

Throughout the war the Marine Corps Manual estab13 Henry I. Shaw Jr., “The Marine Corps Historical Program: A Brief History,” Fortitudine 19, no. 3 (Winter 1989–90): 5–7. 14 “Archives of World War II,” Marine Corps Gazette 27, no. 3 (July 1943): 

48–49.

15 Director of Naval History to CMC, Marine Corps Administrative History, 26 August 1947, Charles Melson History of HD files.
SUMMER 2019 11

lished “record of events,” war diaries, and after action 

reports as the main means of transmitting narrative 

information as part of the five million records transferred to the historical office. But, according to naval 

historian Fletcher Pratt, “the purpose of a special action report is to create the impression that the operation proceeded according to plan.”16 Only the Iwo 

Jima and Okinawa campaigns had a Marine historian 

deployed to the field during the fighting. Later writers 

questioned the value of low-level field interviews as 

providing too much detail for use in creating a narrative.17 These campaigns also witnessed the use of 

field recording equipment by correspondents rather 

than historians. The officer in charge of the Historical 

Section in 1947, Major Robert D. Heinl Jr., felt that 

based on the example of the German Wehrmacht’s 

well-organized “historical spot-reporting,” there was 

the need for “a wartime historical program for the 

Marine Corps settled in advance, providing for a paper organization within the Fleet Marine Force and 

approximately 100 reservists including men who actually make their living by writing, studying, or teaching history.”18 The writers were seen as the ones who 

ensured uniform editing of historical works rather 

than delegating this as a clerical function to others.19

The first “standard usage in historical monographs,” or 

style guide, was established and these same standards 

remained in use through 2004.20 Of note is that the 

World War II story of the six Marine divisions and 

Marine Air were written by either Marine correspondents or civilian journalists and published using unit 

recreational funds. In addition, some six unit or campaign histories were prepared and published as well. 

16 As quoted in Maj Robert D. Heinl Jr., “Combat Historians?,” Marine 

Corps Gazette 31, no. 9 (September 1947): 10. 17 Verle E. Ludwig, A Brief History of the Marine Corps Historical Program, 27 June 1957, Charles Melson History of HD files. 

18 Heinl, “Combat Historians?,” 10, 12.

19 Henry I. Shaw, “The Base Line in Writing and Editing Marine Corps 

History,” Marine Corps Historical Center Writing Guide (Washington, DC: 

History and Museums Division, 1981); and Marine Corps Historical Center 

Writing Guide, rev. ed. (Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, 

2004). 

20 Historical Section Memorandum 3-47, 26 September 1947, Charles 

Melson History of HD files.

Historical Division, Headquarters

Located at Navy Annex and Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia, 17 June 1949–14 February 1952. 

From the experience of World War II, Lieutenant 

Colonel Heinl articulated the primary functions of 

the historical program in a March 1950 Marine Corps 

Gazette article: 

1. Maintenance of historical archives.

2. Preparation and publication of definite 

[sic] official narratives.

3. Operation of a working reference-collection.

4. Applied research to provide answers to 

historical questions which originate either 

within the service or the general public.

5. Encouragement of semi-official or private 

historical research of military value.

6. Arrangements for collection, preservation 

and display of historical objects.

7. Establishment of a specialist reserve historical component.21

By organizing to accomplish these functions, 

the division then consisted of an administration and 

production branch, records (archives) and research 

(library) branch, and a writer’s branch that expanded 

with an applied studies branch at the start of the Korean War.22 Heinl’s bid for a rational program was carried on by his successor, Lieutenant Colonel Gordon 

D. Gayle. They deserve credit for the modern historical program that has since been in effect. Shaw recalled, “Both possessed the drive and peer recognition 

necessary to win the Historical Division a respected 

place in the HQMC hierarchy. And both recognized 

that the jobs that needed to be done had to be done 

by professionals and that couldn’t be done on a shoestring budget with a skeleton staff.”23

21 LtCol Robert D. Heinl Jr., “Marine Corps History—Report to the 

Stockholders,” Marine Corps Gazette 34, no. 3 (March 1950): 47. The status 

of the functions was confirmed by Director of Marine Corps History to 

Director of Plans and Polices, Historical Division, Mission of, 1 March 

1951, Charles Melson History of HD files. 

22 Headquarters Marine Corps, History of the Archives and Library of 

the Records and Research Section, Historical Branch, G-3, July 1952, 

Charles Melson History of HD files.

23 Shaw, “The Marine Corps Historical Program,” 5–7.
12 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Concurrent with the effort to document World 

War II was the outbreak of fighting in Korea that 

saw a simultaneous endeavor to publicize the Marine 

participation using both military and civilian historians. Journalist Lynn Montross was hired to assume 

these duties. The 1st Provisional Historical Platoon 

(now the 1st Provisional History Platoon) was fielded 

in August 1950 with teams to Korea in an effort to 

document events, but it disbanded by July 1952. Platoon members commented, “It of course would help 

all hands if all officers and men in the Marine Corps 

would become more history-conscious, so that those 

who are interviewed after an operation could be more 

helpful.”24 Seven unit or campaign histories were prepared and published. 

Historical Branch, G-3 Division, 

Headquarters

Located at Navy Annex and Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia, 15 February 1952–31 October 1969. 

The branch was now organized under a colonel with 

three sections: writing under a lieutenant colonel, records and research under Thacker, and administration 

and production under a captain.25 In 1957, it consisted 

of a mix of regular, Reserve, and civilian staff for a total of five officers and 13 civilians. At the time, the custodian of the Marine Corps, Lieutenant Colonel John 

H. Magruder III, and the Quantico museum fell under 

the branch for supervision with its one officer, three 

enlisted, and three civilians. It was located in Building 

1019, the new base headquarters, in 1960.26 An updated 

history of the Marine Corps was published in 1962 by 

the U.S. Naval Institute, Heinl’s Soldiers of the Sea.

In November 1963, chief of staff of the Marine 

Corps Lieutenant General Wallace M. Greene Jr., 

24 Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, General Order No. 114, 25 July 1952, Charles 

Melson History of HD files.

25 TSgt Allen G. Mainard, “They Chronicle the Corps,” Leatherneck 39, 

no. 11, November 1956, 51–53, 93.

26 Notes on the Work of the Historical Branch, G-3, 17 August 1956, 

Charles Melson History of HD files; and Verle E. Ludwig, A Brief History of the Marine Corps Historical Program, 27 June 1957, Charles Melson History of HD files. The museum had an on-again/off-again relationship with the Historical Branch, reporting directly to the chief of staff 

of the Marine Corps for a time, brought on by its location at Quantico, 

VA, rather than Headquarters Marine Corps.

fended off a bid for control of the Historical Branch 

by Marine Corps Schools at Quantico due to conflicting findings (the move was apparently motivated 

more by manpower ceilings and space problems than 

functions), but he directed the matter be studied further.27 The resulting study was a model of staff work 

addressing both the Historical Branch and Marine 

Corps Museum, including comparisons with the 

other Services. As a result, it was decided “that for 

reasons of more efficient operation of the historical 

program and greater personnel stability,” the Historical Branch would remain where it was in the nation’s 

capital.28

In July 1964, now as Commandant, General 

Greene established an advisory committee on Marine 

Corps history. Its first members were Brigadier Generals Keith B. McCutcheon, Gordon G. Gayle, and 

Donn J. Robertson. This was the culmination of General Greene’s long-held concern for history seen previously with his efforts in operations and plans, and 

then as the chief of staff. The committee’s precepts or 

charter included: 1) advising the Commandant on the 

“scope, content, and direction” of the historical program; 2) recommending priorities for major projects; 

3) encouraging the study and exploitation of historical 

assets; and 4) fostering the acquisition of private papers and material of significance to the Marine Corps. 

It became a standing committee that met once a year 

until disbanded in 1979.29 

In 1965, a proposal was again made to move the 

functions of the Historical Branch and the Marine 

Corps Museums from the G-3 Division to the Marine Corps Schools. It was said by Colonel Frank C. 

27 CMC to MCS, Location of Functions of the Historical Branch, AC/S, 

G-3, Headquarters Marine Corps, 7 November 1963, Charles Melson 

History of HD files; and Col R. E. Cushman to Chief of Staff, memorandum, 26 December 1963, Charles Melson History of HD files.

28 HQMC, G-3 Division, Decentralization of Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, study, 31 January 1964, History of 

History Division file, Historical Reference Branch, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA.

29 HQO 5750.5, Establishment of the Commandant’s Advisory Committee on 

Marine Corps History, 29 September 1966, HD: Historical Center file, 

Historical Reference Branch, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA; and HQO 5420.22B, Commandant’s Advisory Committee on Marine 

Corps History, 17 March 1972, HD: Historical Center file, Historical Reference Branch, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA.
SUMMER 2019 13

Caldwell, director of the Historical Branch, that the 

writers and reference staff would do everything but 

history in the demands for education, doctrine, and 

development that existed at Quantico.30 The director 

of Marine Corps Museums stated this proposal had 

been raised every two or three years since 1947. Behind 

this was Colonel Magruder’s desire to retain the museum under the chief of staff of the Marine Corps because of the previous lack of support by Marine Corps 

Schools between 1942 and 1954. In 1967, proposal for 

a Corps museum on the grounds of the Marine Corps 

Memorial in Arlington, Virginia, was made to General Greene, who responded “you are aware of the type 

of effort required to study, design, fund and build a 

project of this magnitude.”31

The modern historical program was well in place 

and under the leadership of Colonel Caldwell when 

the war in Vietnam began. This was expanded by Fleet 

Marine Force, Pacific and III Marine Amphibious 

Force historical and documentation efforts. Current 

command chronology and oral history programs started with the publication of MCO 5750.1, Duties of the 

Marine Field Historian, in May 1965, which mandated 

a historical program for the first time beyond the Marine Corps Manual containing both headquarters functions and a writing guide. Routine (semiannual in 

garrison, monthly while in combat for battalion- and 

squadron-size units or larger) command chronologies 

were called for in July 1965 and oral histories solicited 

in October of the same year.32 The leading advocate 

of oral history at headquarters was Benis M. Frank, 

30 Director, Marine Corps Museums, Proposal to Assign Historical 

Branch to CMCS, memorandum, 29 December 1965, History of History 

Division file, Historical Reference Branch, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA.

31 CMC Green Letter No. 18-67, 3 November 1967, HD: Historical Center file, Historical Reference Branch, Marine Corps History Division, 

Quantico, VA. Emphasis original.

32 Col Frank C. Caldwell, “Every Marine an [sic] Historian,” Marine Corps 

Gazette 50, no. 3 (March 1966): 33–38; and Jack Shulimson, “Vietnam Historical Data,” Marine Corps Gazette 53, no. 2 (February 1969): 43–45. The 

experience of classified history chronologies and writing was somewhat 

less successful due to the problems of writing about current events. Gen 

Simmons overcame this by using FMFPac’s more readable narrative accounts, the “Krulak Fables.”

beginning with a career interview of General Greene.33

Headquarters instituted an interview program for 

Vietnam returnees through major base commands. 

The purpose was to obtain narratives of noteworthy 

professional value and to preserve transcripts of interviews for future use in writing the official history 

of participation in the war in Vietnam (roughly 6,500 

interviews were collected).34 In 1969, the head of the 

Vietnam unit of the historical branch, Dr. Jack Shulimson, posited that professional Marines as well as 

professional historians must use the historical record 

of the ongoing Southeast Asia conflict: “The Vietnam 

historical data base already exists; it only remains to 

be exploited.”35 

In regards to writing, there was a reversal of 

roles from military (albeit reservists with history 

backgrounds) to civilian writers who had previously 

been research assistants. The head of the writing section and chief historian from 1965 was Henry I. Shaw 

Jr. rather than a Marine officer. Some shifting of priorities occurred from long-term historical projects to 

address short-term current events.36 Accounts of the 

battle of Khe Sanh and the Combined Action Program were produced as exceptions to the general publication trends. Approximately 71 unit or campaign 

histories were prepared and published on World War 

II and Korea. These ranged from reference pamphlets 

to bound multivolumes of definitive history. 

Historical Division, Headquarters

Located at Navy Annex and Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia, 1 November 1969–14 October 1973. 

In November of 1971, Chief of Staff Lieutenant General John R. Chaisson recommended to Commandant 

General Leonard E. Chapman Jr. that the museum 

program should be formally placed under the Historical Division along with the combat art program. The 

33 R. B. Morrisey, “To Make That Report,” Marine Corps Gazette (June 

1960): 53; as early as this time a bid was made for oral history reporting 

of events.

34 MCO 5750.3, Historical Interview Program for Vietnam Returnees (Washington, DC: Headquarters Marine Corps, 16 October 1965).

35 Shulimson, “Vietnam Historical Data,” 45.

36 Background on the Writing of Marine Corps Official Histories, memorandum, 5 May 1966, Charles Melson History of HD files.
14 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

resulting organization would be under an active duty 

general officer. The Commandant agreed and assigned 

Brigadier General Edwin H. Simmons to head the new 

organization in December 1971, with colonels heading 

the both the history and museum branches.

The field historian and combat artist effort also 

continued in 1971, evolving into a number of Marine 

Reserve volunteer training units, and finally a mobilization-training unit was established as the basis for the 

current field history program. Marine Corps museum 

and combat art programs were integrated in 1973 and 

Fortitudine, the bulletin of the Marine Corps historical program, was first produced. General Simmons’s 

The United States Marines: A History was published by 

the U.S. Naval Institute in 1974 (continuing in a third 

edition through 1998). Twenty-six unit or campaign 

histories were prepared and published.

History and Museums Division, 

Headquarters

Located at Navy Annex and Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia, until moving in 1977 to the Washington 

Navy Yard, Washington, DC, 15 October 1973–30 September 2002. 

The Marine Corps Museum under Colonel F. Brooke 

Nihart was established at Building 58 at the Washington Navy Yard in 1978, as well the Marine Corps AirGround Museum at Brown Field at Quantico (local 

base museums existed at Parris Island, South Carolina; 

Camp Pendleton, California; and San Diego, California). In 1979, the Marine Corps Historical Foundation 

was founded to preserve and promote Marine Corps 

history and tradition as a nongovernmental nonprofit 

organization (renamed the Marine Corps Heritage 

Foundation). Dr. Allan R. Millett’s Semper Fidelis: The 

History of the United States Marine Corps (1980) was published, combining both the Service and academic approaches.37 During this period, editing and design staff 

were added to the division and tasked with responsibility for preparing the division’s written products 

37 A variety of other tabletop or commercial publications have appeared, 

with journalist J. Robert Moskin claiming his 1977 The U.S. Marine Corps 

Story as the first not written by a Marine. BGen Edwin H. Simmons, “A 

History of the Marine Corps History,” Naval History 17, no. 1 (February 

2003): 34–37. 

for publication. About 148 unit or campaign histories 

were prepared and published, including those documenting the Vietnam War and the Gulf War.

This was the most stable, and one could say most 

fruitful, period for the historical program, while others felt the institution had become resistant to new 

challenges. In these two and a half decades, a number 

of orders and regulations institutionalized the management of the program. These included:

Marine Corps Manual: “Objectives of the Marine 

Corps Historical Program are:

a. To make the historical experience of the 

Marine Corps available for practical study 

and exploitation.

b. To preserve a record of Marine Corps activities and tradition by collecting and 

maintaining papers and articles of lasting 

historical interest to the Marine Corps.

c. To achieve a generally accepted realization 

within the Marine Corps that military 

history is a basic source of knowledge for 

solving problems and attaining advances 

in the theory and practice of military 

science.”38

MCO P5400.45, Headquarters Marine Corps Organizational Manual: “The Director, Marine Corps History 

and Museums are the Commandant’s principal staff 

officer for historical matters. As such, the Director 

conducts the operations of the Division; supervises the 

operations of assigned field historical activities; and 

has staff cognizance over the general execution of the 

historical program throughout the Marine Corps.”39

Table of Organization 5164, History/Museum Division (HD): 

The Director of Marine Corps History 

and Museums is responsible for coordinating the planning of the Marine Corps 

Historical Program; making the historical 

experiences of the Marine Corps available 

38 Marine Corps Manual (Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, 

Headquarters Marine Corps, 1980), section E, paragraph 1402, 1-35.

39 MCO P5400.45, Headquarters Marine Corps Organizational Manual (Washington, DC: Headquarters Marine Corps, 15 May 1989), 12-1–12-22.
SUMMER 2019 15

for practical study and exploitation to 

preserve a record of Marine Corps accomplishments by collecting and maintaining 

printed and written documents and oral 

history tapes of lasting historical and sentimental value to the Marine Corps in 

order to ensure effective planning for the 

future through evaluation of the past; ensuring that historical facts are presented in 

clear, reliable and academically reputable 

form; determining the eligibility of Marine 

Corps units for unit awards, campaign, 

and service streamers; and coordinating 

the efforts of the Marine Corps Museum in 

preserving, collecting, exhibiting, and exploitation of objects, memorabilia, Marine 

Corps art, and personal papers of lasting 

historical and traditional value to the Marine Corps.40

And finally, the MCO P5750.1G, Manual for the Marine Corps Historical Program, was in its eighth edition 

as the program authority.41 From this and the other 

references it can be stated that by then the program’s 

mission was accomplished through four interrelated 

branch functional areas: historical, museums, support, 

and field operations. But none of these documents 

ensured adequate funding levels for personnel, operations, and management. A comparison with other 

Service history and museums agencies indicated the 

history and museum program had always done more 

with fewer resources.

In August 1990, Major Charles D. Melson reported as a joint historian to the U.S. Central Command 

for the Gulf War. He was followed by approximately 

eight regular, Reserve, and recalled officers as field 

historians.42 Combat artists came from the regular 

40 Table of Organization 5164, History/Museum Division, 14 November 

1989, Charles Melson History of HD files.

41 MCO P5750.1G, Manual for the Marine Corps Historical Program (Washington, DC: Headquarters Marine Corps, 28 February 1992).

42 In Kuwait, this included Col Charles J. Quilter II, LtCols Charles H. 

Cureton, Dennis P. Mroczkowski, and Ronald J. Brown. Maj Charles D. 

Melson remained at headquarters as the coordinator of the collection 

effort.

and Reserve establishments as well. A Reserve field 

historian and combat artist Field History Branch of 

individual mobilization augmentees was organized in 

1994. Subsequent deployments took place to Somalia, 

Liberia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The coming Global War 

on Terrorism would be well served by this prior experience.43 Along with these events, the planning for the 

National Museum of the Marine Corps began in 1995. 

At least three separate design phases were conducted 

before a final construction contract went out for bid.

History Division, 

Training and Education Command/

Marine Corps University

Located at the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, 

DC, until moving to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, 1 October 2002 to present. 

With the director, Colonel John W. Ripley (Ret), and 

deputy director, Colonel Jon T. Hoffman, focused on a 

museum to be located at Quantico, their initial effort 

for the History Division and Museums Division was 

to move it into the General Alfred M. Gray Marine 

Corps Research Center of Marine Corps University. 

The commanding generals of Training and Education 

Command pushed back on this and felt the move from 

the Navy Yard would not occur until a purpose-built 

facility was constructed. A shift from Washington, 

DC, to Quantico, Virginia, was precipitated as much 

as anything else by the reduction of headquarters staff 

prior to its shift to the Pentagon, the elimination for 

a time of the Marine Corps Staff director as a general officer billet, and the base closing and realignment process. The Marine Corps Heritage Foundation 

and its museum planning cell were already located at 

Quantico. 

This changed dramatically when the president of 

Marine Corps University, Major General Donald R. 

Gardner (Ret), gave notice in the fall of 2004 that the 

museums branch would be a separate division as of 

43 In Afghanistan and Iraq, this was with Cols Nicholas R. Reynolds, 

Reed Bonadonna, Gary W. Montgomery, and Michael D. Visconage; LtCols Nathan Lowery, David A. Benhoff, and Kurtis P. Wheeler; Majs 

Melissa D. Mihocko, Theodore R. McKeldin, John P. Piedmont, Christopher Warnke, and Joseph Winslow; and CWO4 Timothy S. McWilliams. 
16 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

July 2005 and the entire History and Museums Division would be in Quantico no later than 1 September 

2005. These structural and personnel changes were 

challenged by both a Headquarters-mandated implementation planning team and a subsequent March 

2006 review board chaired by General Carl E. Mundy 

Jr. (Ret).44 That this move allowed a run on History 

Division personnel resources and was unfunded and 

poorly executed was an effect but not the cause of the 

shift.45 Departing at the same time were the director 

and deputy director, as well as the majority of the editing and design, support, library, and archives staff. 

After this disruption, further unbalancing occurred 

with the arrival of a new acting director, Colonel 

Richard Camp (Ret), along with a sudden infusion of 

a half-dozen Marine Reserve officers with no previous History Division affiliations or loyalties. All of 

this created a wave of attention on short-term goals 

at the expense of long-term vision. As new employees arrived, no regard was taken of previously established procedures or experience that had evolved into 

the historical program from the 1971 founding of the 

History and Museums Division. There was one particular achievement of note during all of this: the National Museum of the Marine Corps was successfully 

opened at Quantico on 10 November 2006 by President George W. Bush. At the event, Corporal Jason 

L. Dunham posthumously received a Medal of Honor, 

who was killed in action in Iraq, emphasizing the continued relevance of history to today’s Marines.46

Marine Corps Order 5750 and Table of Organization 5164 were all modified with needed revisions that 

resulted from the move to Marine Corps Base Quantico.47 Authored and staffed by longtime senior historian Charles R. Smith, the 2009 update to the order, 

MCO 5750.1H, did much to ensure the historical pro44 The author participated in the various planning teams and Mundy 

board.

45 This included the destruction of the unique library collection.

46 Col Patricia Saint, “Museum Dedication: From Design to Dedication, 

A Project Management View,” Fortitudine 32, no. 2, 2007, 4–6. 47 Col Jon T. Hoffman, USMCR (Ret), “It Was the Best of Times, It Was 

the Worst of Times” (panel paper, 2011 McMullen Naval History Symposium, Annapolis, MD, 15 September 2011).

gram survived.48 But significantly, History Division’s 

director, Dr. Charles P. Neimeyer, and deputy director, 

Paul Weber, also had to take on the responsibility for 

the Gray Research Center in 2012 and then the 2015–

16 move to the Brigadier General Edwin H. Simmons 

Marine Corps History Center.49 The purpose-built 

facility promised for more than a decade previously 

finally came to pass, but as this article shows, significant changes to the program have already occurred.50 

Conclusion

In summation, much has changed in the period discussed from 1919 through 2019, but much has not. In 

the broadest sense, the program continues to document the Marine Corps in times of conflict for the 

American people.51 The historical program has accomplished this with narrative histories and writing, 

museums and exhibits, and other heritage efforts (e.g., 

lineage and honors, commemorative naming) as part 

of the military staff process. These are with historical products (i.e., general support) rather than services (i.e., direct support) for the use of Headquarters, 

commands, and other knowledge-based functions. 

The subtleties between academic and applied history 

seems to defy program managers, most of whom are 

not interested in the liberal arts. The historical program does not accomplish this for public affairs and 

community relations, lessons and operational analysis, doctrine and developmental support, or professional military education and instructional supports, 

because each of these functions has its own programs, 

48 MCO 5750.1H, Manual for the Marine Corps Historical Program (Washington, DC: Headquarters Marine Corps, 13 February 2009).

49 Dir, HD to CG, EdCom, Decision Paper, 20 September 2012, Charles 

Melson History of HD files.

50 In the prophetic words of the late Col Heinl, “Few projects within the 

Marine Corps have been subjected to the winds of chance, the vagaries 

of personality, and just plain misunderstanding and general ignorance, 

as has the Marine Corps historical program, together with its long-suffering executor, the Historical Division.” See Heinl, “Marine Corps History—Report to the Stockholders,” 46.

51 “At the conclusion of the operations analysis phase it is equally important that this documentation be made available to the Director of Naval 

History and the Director of Marine Corps history so that official histories and historical analyses can be prepared and made available to the 

public.” Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5212.5D, Navy and Marine Corps 

Records Disposition Manual (Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, 

22 April 1998), part 5, Records of Armed Conflict.
SUMMER 2019 17

personnel, and budgets that far exceed that dedicated 

to the history effort. These disciplines also benefit 

more from a social sciences rather than a historical 

approach. 

Derived from public law and a variety of Department of Defense and Service regulations, the current 

authority and responsibilities of the History Division 

to provide continued value to the institution in the 

critical efforts for: 1) the maintenance of permanently valuable records in compliance with U.S. Codes, 

primarily 5 and 10; 2) to provide a resource for command decision making; and 3) to serve as a resource 

for educating and training Marines.52 This had been 

accomplished as a separate special staff section with 

the ability to engage in operational reporting and 

deployments, and the ability to run its own facilities 

and programs. From 1919, this was with Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps in Arlington, Virginia; but 

52 Annette Amerman, “Every Marine an Historian: A Sequel,” Marine 

Corps Gazette 96, no. 3 (March 2012): 77–79. This article dealt with a basic 

and perennial source of concern.

from 2002 on, the division became part of the Marine 

Corps Education Command and Marine Corps University at Quantico, an organization whose mission is 

professional military education for resident and nonresident students having a continual turnover on an 

annual basis. 

More than a decade ago, the author stood before 

the U.S. Naval Academy’s McMullen Naval History 

Symposium and predicted the need for staff or operational history for the twenty-first century, based 

on the efforts to document the Gulf War.53 Since the 

transition to the current History Division at Marine 

Corps University, roughly 50 or more monographs 

and campaign histories have been prepared and published, including those documenting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As a result, some of what this author 

proposed during that symposium has come to pass.54

• 1775 •

53 Randy Carol Balano and Craig L. Symonds, eds., New Interpretations in 

Naval History: selected papers from the Fourteenth Naval History Symposium, 

held at Annapolis, Maryland, 23–25 September 1999 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2001), 424–31.

54 2011 McMullen Naval History Symposium (Panel: History in the Marine Corps), 14–16 September 2011, chaired by Dr. Charles P. Neimeyer, 

with papers by Col Jon T. Hoffman, LtCol Shawn P. Callahan, and 

Charles D. Melson.
Documenting Marine 

Corps History Through 

the Spoken Word

By Fred H. Allison, PhD1

What good is oral history? Many argue that 

it is a questionable means by which to 

document history. After all, memory can 

be faulty and people are prone to exaggeration and 

subject to outside influence, cultural norms, political 

considerations, personal promotion, self-interest, and 

more. But then again, people write official reports and 

are likewise influenced by the above motivations that 

might show up in their writing. The Marine Corps has 

maintained an oral history program since 1966, when 

Marines became extensively involved in Vietnam. 

The Corps’ investment in collecting and preserving 

the recorded voices of Marines is significant. It not 

only indicates a desire to more thoroughly document 

Marine Corps operations for the sake of history, but 

beyond that, it is proof of the Corps’ belief that every 

Marine plays an important role in accomplishing missions. Marine experiences and perspectives are worthy 

of retention for the sake of history and for the benefit 

of future Marines.

Marine historian Benis M. Frank pioneered the 

Marine Corps Oral History Program. Beginning in 

1965, it was an element of the overall historical program. Its mission was to provide yet another source 

of information about the Vietnam War as well as the 

recent past history of the Corps. Oral or spoken histo1

 Dr. Fred H. Allison has managed the Marine Corps’ Oral History Section since 2000. He is a retired Marine major, a native of Texas, and 

earned his PhD in history from Texas Tech University in 2003.

ry was just emerging as a means of collecting primary 

source material, a concept originated by Professor Allan Nevins of Columbia University. 

Commandant of the Marine Corps General Wallace M. Greene Jr. saw the utility of oral history and 

considered it a form of living history. He believed that 

the “tape-recorded voices of Marines who had seen 

service in Vietnam would serve to obtain a vast collection of lessons learned.”2

 Lieutenant General Victor 

H. Krulak, the commanding general of Fleet Marine 

Force Pacific, supported the Commandant’s initiative. 

Krulak wrote, “The personal comments of the key individuals participating should prove invaluable in amplification of the written SitRep [situation reports].”3

Generals Greene and Krulak were right. Oral history 

has the unique capability to capture the thoughts, experiences, and perspectives of individual Marines and 

thereby provide context and a deeper understanding 

of operations. 

An aggressive oral history collection effort in 

Vietnam followed. Marines of all ranks and military 

occupational specialties (MOSs) were interviewed 

and the program captured a broad spectrum of experiences and perspectives. During the 10-year span of 

2

 Benis M. Frank, “Living History,” Marine Corps Gazette 54, no. 11 (November 1970): 47. 

3

 LtGen Victor H. Krulak letter to Gen Wallace M. Greene, 25 June 1966, 

History of the Oral History Program folder, Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA. 

18
SUMMER 2019 19

the Vietnam War, some 15,000-plus interviews were 

collected, many in the field but others at continental 

U.S. bases with recent returnees. This is an incredibly 

rich repository of information on the Vietnam War. 

This set the pattern for the Oral History Program and operational interviews remain the top priority. Since Vietnam, Marine Corps oral historians 

have collected interviews with Marines at important 

areas of operations. Nearly 25,000 operational interviews are now in the Oral History Collection. 

Oral Histories from the Field

Operational interviews are a unique and valuable asset. Because they are often conducted in the field and 

on-site, they provide immediacy, detail, and accuracy 

that are often lacking in interviews with veterans conducted years after the event. They are a window to the 

real world of Marine Corps deployments, operations, 

and often combat. The events discussed in operational 

interviews are not yet history but will eventually become history. For instance, the Marines at Khe Sanh 

under siege in 1968 did not necessarily regard what 

they were experiencing as historic; they were merely 

doing their duty and trying to survive. Now, 40 years 

later, we know that Khe Sanh was a monumental Marine Corps battle. The interviews collected there are 

in essence an oral snapshot of that historical event 

(imagine interviews with troops in the field at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania). The same can be said of operations today in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Ultimately, the great utility of operational oral 

histories is that they supplement the command chronologies that units are required to submit to History Division. They provide the human perspectives 

and experiences that cannot be captured by a concise 

report. When historians gather to write history, operational oral histories are a vital ingredient and a primary source that supports the official Marine Corps 

version of combat operations. 

The vast majority of operational interviews done 

since the early 1990s have been conducted by Marine 

reservists serving as part of a specially focused unit. 

The Mobilization Training Unit (MTU) was originally founded in 1978 with the mission to deploy trained 

field historians and combat artists with all Fleet Marine Forces commands. The MTU’s first full deployment as a unit was in 1983 to Operation Urgent Fury 

(Grenada). Subsequent deployments in the early 1990s 

included Operation Desert Storm (Kuwait), Operation Provide Comfort (Kurdistan), Operation Safe 

Harbor (Guantánamo Bay), Operation Able Manner 

(Haiti), and Operation Restore Hope (Somalia). 

In 1994, the MTU transformed into an Individual Mobilization Augmentee Detachment (IMA Det) 

and deployed field historians to Haiti, Bosnia, and 

Kosovo. By the decade’s end, nearly 2,000 oral history 

interviews had been collected. With the advent of the 

Global War on Terrorism, IMA Marine reservists have 

conducted more than 7,000 oral history interviews 

during Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, 

and others dealing with terrorist organizations. 

The IMA field historians are successful Marines in their primary MOSs and most have extensive deployment histories, so they are able to gain the 

trust and confidence of unit commanders and their 

Marines. Many of the Marine reservists are history 

professors and authors in their civilian careers, and 

most possess a master’s degree or PhD. Presently, this 

small group of field historians (around 12 in total) visit 

forward deployed units in combat zones and during 

major field exercises and occasionally even catch rides 

aboard amphibious ships returning home to collect 

interviews. The field historians then draft detailed 

summaries of each interview to support research. The 

interviews and associated documents are digitized 

and stored in the Oral History Collection. 

Issue-related interviews are a type of operational oral history, but instead of combat the focus 

is on innovations in technology, doctrine, tactics, or 

procedures. An example of this was the author’s 2005 

visit to Marine Operation and Evaluation Squadron 

22 (VMX-22), the squadron testing and evaluating the 

Boeing MV-22 Osprey, during which interviews with 

aviators and maintainers were conducted. Other topics that issue-related interviews document include 

humanitarian operations, contingency deployments, 

and important training exercises—essentially anything 

that could be construed as historically significant. 
20 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Career Oral Histories

The distinguished Marine/career interview project is 

another important aspect of the Oral History Program. This part of the program began in 1966, when 

Major General Ford O. Rogers, a pioneer Marine 

aviator, was interviewed by Benis Frank. Since then, 

about 300 career interviews with prominent Marine 

officers have been conducted to include most of the 

post–World War II Commandants, with the exception 

of Generals Randolph M. Pate, Greene, and P. X. Kelley. The first Commandant to provide a career interview was General Clifton B. Cates. In most cases, the 

interviews with the Commandants began within a few 

years of retirement. 

These interviews are in-depth, detailed, and 

cover the prominent officer’s entire career. These individuals can provide valuable insights and perspectives 

on changes in the Marine Corps and bear witness to 

important operations in which they have participated. The career interviews are fully transcribed, edited, 

and indexed by oral history staff. The finished transcript, often with photographs and supporting documents added, is copied, bound, and distributed with 

copies going to other military research facilities and 

appropriate civilian libraries. These transcripts see a 

lot of use, both because of the authority with which 

the interviewee speaks and because the polished transcript is easy to use.

Veterans’ Oral Histories

A third type of oral history maintained by the Oral 

History Section records the stories of veterans. This 

type of oral history has grown in stature of late as a 

means of historical documentation and to note veterans’ service. Recognizing this, but limited by resources and manpower, initiatives were undertaken 

by the Oral History Section to support or facilitate 

efforts by individuals or organizations to capture the 

experiences of former Marines. These initiatives include a volunteer program, a self-memoir program, 

joint oral history projects with veterans’ organizations, and partnerships with other servicemember 

organizations. 

One organization in particular is the Witness to 

War Foundation, which conducts professional-quality 

video interviews of combat veterans. Lieutenant General Ron Christmas (Ret), who serves on Witness to 

War’s board of directors, linked the Oral History Section with the organization for a collaboration that has 

resulted in the donation of a number of quality video 

interviews. 

Another example is the Women Marines Association (WMA). Led by Colonel Elizabeth M. Wilson 

(Ret), WMA members interviewed a number of women Marine veterans extending back to World War II. 

The interviews were subsequently donated to History 

Division’s Oral History Collection. The WMA project exemplifies what veterans’ organizations can do to 

preserve their history and traditions as well as support 

Marine Corps history. The WMA has donated more 

than 100 oral histories into the collection. 

Collection Digitization Efforts

Since its inception in 1966, the Oral History Collection has grown to include more than 30,000 interviews. 

Interviews are conducted digitally now and due to an 

aggressive digitization effort, more than 80 percent of 

the collection has been digitized and stored on CDs. 

This digitization effort is the result of a collaborative 

project with the Naval Historical Foundation. In addition, a state-of-the-art database stores information on 

each interview, and the sound recordings and associated interview summary sheets or transcripts can also 

be accessed through the database. The work of professionally processing an interview is the biggest chore 

involved in building and maintaining oral history collections; it is time-consuming and tedious. Nevertheless, it must be done, because without it the interview 

has little use. The Oral History Section is responsible 

for ensuring proper processing and archiving of each 

interview. Digitization and databasing, however, has 

done a lot to streamline this work. 

The Rewards of Oral History 

With all this great material and easy accessibility, we 

must ask: What is it for and who uses it? First and 
SUMMER 2019 21

foremost, oral histories are collected, like command 

chronologies, to support the official Marine Corps 

writing program. A lot of official and unofficial written Marine Corps history is undergirded by oral history interviews, including very prominent commercially 

published books on the Marine Corps. Mainly, however, like the rest of the History Division, the Oral 

History Section exists to support the Marine Corps 

itself by assisting units and individuals in need of historical information. Oral histories are available for 

use by Marines for their research, especially the large 

number of Marines attending the various schools at 

Quantico. Finally, being a public archive, the Oral 

History Collection is available for use by outside researchers, scholars, media, and the general public. A 

substantial number of oral history products, averaging 

about 1,250 each year, are provided to researchers and 

others on request. Among those making requests are 

notable authors, historians, and producers of broadcast historical programs. 

While oral history is not the best way to establish 

facts, however, it is the best way to understand what it 

was like to be on the ground during significant events. 

Oral history records eyewitness viewpoints—personal 

experiences—along with the context and conditions 

under which historic events occurred. In this way, the 

voices of past Marines can make a direct connection 

to Marines of today. This information can be gained 

by no other method than by talking and recording 

personal experiences. 

For example, the victory of Marines at Guadalcanal would have much less meaning and value if we did 

not know just how bad the weather was, how hungry 

the troops were, or the effects of Japanese shelling. We 

know these things from the spoken word. Marines of 

today can understand and connect with Marines of 

the past through these human voices and through this 

tangible connection, Marine traditions, ethos, and esprit de corps are carried forward. 

The personal accounts of Marines can tell us 

about combat and what it was like to be at some 

of the Corps’ iconic battles. 

BELLEAU WOOD

Then came June 7 when we went into Belleau Wood. . . . 

They [Germans] had gotten in there and very fast had organized into interlocking machine gun nests . . . they shot on 

sound, not sight. They didn’t see us and we didn’t see them 

at first. They opened up with those Maxims at crossfire as 

soon as we made a sound. . . . The woods didn’t seem to stop 

the bullets one bit. It was a big battle, and it really roared. 

At first machine guns and rifles, then some mortars, and 

later on some artillery. We were in the open and they were 

concealed, and they were Prussian Guards and didn’t give 

up easily. We’d have gone into anything, we didn’t care how 

much it was, never stopped at all until we were just decimated, and we just couldn’t go any further. The only thing 

our officers knew was, “Go ahead! Fight ’em and kill ’em, 

damn it! Straight ahead, what are you waiting for?!” It was 

a pretty bad business. It did have the effect on the Marine 

Corps: it showed us up as being very stubborn fighters and 

we got a lot of respect we could never have gotten otherwise 

from the Germans.4

TARAWA

As we’re coming in every once in a while somebody would 

step into a hole and somebody near him would grab a 

pack strap and pull him up. Sometimes we could actually see the coral under us and sometimes not, it just depended on how many shells were landing and whether or 

not there was blood in the water and so forth. A lot of 

times you were just wading blind. When we reached the 

beach, I saw where [Major Henry P. “Jim”] Crowe was. It 

turns out I landed almost directly behind where he was. 

. . . The beach area was very, very narrow. At high tide in 

some places, the water came all the way to the sea wall. 

In other places, you’d have maybe three or four or five 

yards of dry sand. There were already bodies floating in 

the water when we reached the beach. There were also 

wounded Marines lying in the area. There were some that 

weren’t, but Crowe was very good about making sure that 

everybody went over the sea wall. So the sea wall where 

4

 General Alfred H. Noble, interview with Benis Frank, May 1968, transcript (Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, 

VA).
22 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

we landed was anywhere from three to five feet and there 

were already casualties on the beach and there was one 

Japanese officer’s body there. He had his pistol in his hand. 

You could tell he had fired all his rounds because the slide 

was back. I had laid the law down for my platoon that 

there wouldn’t be any souvenir hunting. I would have 

liked to have picked the pistol up but I didn’t do it because 

I was going to abide by my own rule. Crowe had told 

me, and he told me again, get over the sea wall and start 

swinging in and swing to the left. We had to physically 

lift these thousand pound guns over the wall and I’m sure 

we got some help from troops that were there. When we 

went over the wall, then we had to pull the guns by hand 

across the sand. That first night, I probably was not more 

than 50 yards inland. It’s hard to describe how much fire 

was taking place. The place was just roaring with every 

kind of weapon. The Marines were shooting, the Japanese 

were shooting. Gunfire was coming from all directions because the island was essentially flat. Everything was either burning or in wreckage. I don’t remember seeing a 

single building still standing. So there were fires burning 

everywhere.5

CHOSIN RESERVOIR 

I hadn’t been sleeping about a half an hour when I awoke 

to a sound in the trees behind us, “phhfft, phhffft,” almost 

a whisper sound. I asked Ray, a seasoned veteran of the 

Pusan Perimeter, what that was. He said, “Bullets.” I asked 

him why the hell he didn’t wake me up. He said, “They were 

too far to do anything—I would’ve woken you when it was 

time.” Out to the front of us was a rice field, it was totally 

quiet—cold and dark. All along the line there was no firing, 

disciplined. There was a building in a V of two mountains 

beyond the field. Our platoon sergeant had bazookas fire 

and hit that building. You never saw so much movement; 

they were loading up to attack. Then we fired a flare and 

when that flare lit and those bazookas went off that whole 

field like it stood up and started running toward us. Then 

you talk about bells, whistles and horns and clanging and 

banging and screaming, “Marine you die tonight, you die 

tonight!” And they came at us. We just kinda leveled in and 

5

 LtCol Roy H. Elrod, interview with Fred H. Allison, May 2013, transcript (Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, 

VA). 

let them have it. It was just continuous then until daylight. 

Just as daylight started lighting up on the eastern horizon, 

here came the [F4U] Corsairs. And when they heard those 

Corsairs, it was just like somebody turned off the noise machine.6

VIETNAM

We were rushing north in the middle of the night to try 

to rescue 2/3 [2d Battalion, 3d Marines] which had been 

overrun, literally overrun. Everybody in the whole CP 

[command post] group, except one guy, [Major Robert F.] 

Sheridan, had been killed. He was badly wounded. He had 

holed-up under a tank. We were trying to get to him. As we 

were going up the old French road, here comes a [Boeing] 

B-52 [Stratofortress] strike. We could hear the aircraft but 

we couldn’t see them and all of a sudden you see the most 

incredible sight in the world—these huge flames like the big 

storms you see on the rim of the sun, big, curling flames, 

just roaring up in the air. I’d never seen anything like this 

in my life. In the daytime you don’t see any fire, you just 

see a blast. 

When Con Thien became such a conflagration they 

moved dangerously close to 1,500 yards [for a B-52 strike]. 

In order to get through this damn thing, not only did you 

have to be under cover, serious cover, you had to fix yourself in such a way that you wouldn’t bounce. It was one 

thing to be in a bunker, but the damn ground would throw 

you around like a damn pinball if you weren’t really seriously stretched out. What we’d do is we’d face one side of 

the trench—you never sat down in the trench—and put your 

back on the backside of it and you just shove and so you’re 

suspended. You could see the aircraft. They were phenomenal. These things were low. We could see them come over 

the Tonkin Gulf and you could actually see the doggone 

doors open. Everybody could see that too and the minute 

they’d see that, they got their feet up and push like hell. You 

would just strain your whole body like that and most of my 

Marines would put a battle dressing or sock in their mouth. 

My socks were so dirty I never did that because you couldn’t 

wash the damn things. And just grip that damn thing the 

6

 John Cole, interview with Fred H. Allison, May 2007, transcript (Oral 

History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA). Cole 

was a rifleman in Company I, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines, at the Chosin Reservoir. Here, he recalls the initial Chinese attack on Marines at 

Yudam-ni that occurred the night of 27 November 1950. 
SUMMER 2019 23

best you could and you better have your chin strap buckled 

and I mean tight. So, you’re straining like hell. You could see 

them pickle that load and the last bomb hadn’t come out of 

that airplane before that first one hit. And boy, there were 

three [aircraft] in a row just a single column. . . . I’ll tell you, 

it would throw you around. You better be taking a strain 

because they would pop you right out of the damn trench. I 

mean it would blow you—[laughs] I felt sorry for who was 

tired or who didn’t want to strain anymore. You see these 

guys fly through the air and pick up and dust himself off 

and get back in the hole where you—it was just unbelievable.7

HIGHWAY OF DEATH, 

DESERT STORM

It was like, if you could, put your head inside a Weber grill 

with the coals red and glowing. We’re punching through the 

clouds at night, using our radar to guide on the target until 

we’re clear underneath, then [we] sweeten the dive using the 

FLIR; outside its incredible, hellish, red, orange glow off the 

fires . . . a ribbon or road, cars and vehicles on both sides, 

on fire, you could see movement, people scattering. Oil well 

smoke created an overcast, you dropped all your bombs then 

climbed above the clouds heading home. It was clear, cool 

and quiet, behind you the clouds were glowing red.8

Leadership is another topic of high importance 

to Marines. Again, an oral history interview can 

provide examples of leadership. 

 

THE TROOPS GO FIRST

The 4th Marines had landed and we were going to move 

around and give them support. General [Lemuel] Shepherd 

came up to my squad and was sitting there and his aide 

7

 Col John W. Ripley, interview with Fred H. Allison, May 2001, transcript (Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, 

VA). 

8

 LtCol Michael Parkyn, interview with Fred H. Allison, May 2014, transcript (Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, 

VA). LtCol Parkyn was an Grumman A-6E Intruder pilot with Marine 

All- Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 224 (VMA[AW]-224). This is a 

description of an air strike on the Iraqi convoy outside Kuwait City. The 

convoy was so large and the devastation wreaked upon it by Coalition 

aircraft so extensive that it became known as the Highway of Death. 

FLIR = forward looking infrared; this technology detects thermal energy 

and is used in aircraft, tanks, ships, and other vehicles. 

brought him up a box and in that box there was a lemon 

pie and a jug of tea, hot tea. I have always liked hot tea, 

always liked tea and I had always loved lemon pie—and 

without even opening it he gave it to me and said, “This is 

for your boys.” He gave us that. I cut it in eight pieces with 

a K-bar and shared the tea—most of them did not want the 

tea; they would rather have coffee—and we did not, and I 

was the senior man as the squad leader, I did not offer my 

commanding general a piece of that pie. The eight of us ate 

it. And he did not say a word. He just sat there and was 

glad we enjoyed it and did that for us. And I would remind 

him of it a hundred times.9

CONNECTING 

WITH THE TROOPS

I will give thanks for the rest of my life that I had the platoon commanders that I had in Hotel Company. I had one 

staff sergeant named Copeland, who retired as a master sergeant, and he’s now teaching the NROTC [Naval Reserve 

Officer Training Corps] unit at Naples High School, and 

who is probably one of the most effective natural leaders 

I’ve seen in my life. Very fortunately, he was a black Marine, about six feet five, about 230 pounds, chiseled, and 

nobody, nobody wanted to fool with Staff Sergeant Copeland. He was my best friend. I mean between the two of us 

we licked the race thing. We licked the alcohol thing. We 

licked the drug thing, because nobody wanted to pay the 

consequence. I’m not talking about maltreatment here. I’m 

talking about telling people what Marines were going to be 

in this company, what the standard was, and if you didn’t 

meet the standard you were going to pay a price, and there 

are a lot of innovative ways you can do that.

On base the idea of having the base gym, where white 

Marines just did not go there, was really troubling to me. 

The first thing I did was attack that, and one way to break 

the ice with the company—and this is definitely a troubled 

company. I mean we had deep divisions in it. I mean I saw 

it. I felt it. It was palpable. I marched them down to the 

gym in PT gear with their basketball shoes. I reserved the 

gym, which I could do. I sat them down in the bleachers and 

9

 MajGen James L. Day, interview with Benis M. Frank, October 1989, 

transcript (Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, 

Quantico, VA). Day recalls a time when he was a corporal and squad 

leader in the 2d Battalion, 22d Marines, 6th Marine Division, during the 

battle of Okinawa. 
24 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

I got out in front of the company and I had a basketball 

in my hand. I asked the company to produce who was the 

best basketball player in the company and they all pointed 

to this young Marine who was about six three/six four; a 

strapping young Marine who happened to be black, and we 

got out in front of the company and he and I played one on 

one to ten baskets and I gave him the ball first. No warm 

up shots. He and I traded misses for the first two and then 

I beat him ten to six or something like that. I gave him the 

ball back and said, okay, sit down. I could see there that 

the thing changed between the company commander and 

the company because this predominately black company—

they’re very heavy on minorities—hadn’t seen anyone who 

would come in and come down and play their game on their 

level and do it better. I had just happened to have been playing basketball a long time in my life and I was still in good 

shape. I played on the AWS [Amphibious Warfare School] 

team. Basketball is something I did a lot of. Then I divided 

the company up, took all the baskets, and made different 

teams and we all played basketball. All played basketball. 

Not just one group. Not just another group. We did that a 

lot, and based on that athletic competition, that permeated 

to other sports. And then the colonel had a big field day I 

remember, on New Year’s Day, 1 January 1975. We had the 

battalion field meet out there at Camp Schwab and it was 

one of the best run field meets I’ve ever seen. They had the 

right mixture of athletics and professional military skills 

and Hotel Company won that field meet and the morale of 

the company just kind of [shot up]—they’d been down for so 

long. They’d been told they were bad for so long.10

Some interviews are unique in that they put you 

in a place of great historical significance. 

7 DECEMBER 1941—

PEARL HARBOR

At exactly 0755 Sunday morning I awoke to sounds of low10 Gen James L. Jones, interview with Dr. Gary Solis, 2002, transcript 

(Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA). 

This occurred during Gen Jones’ command of an infantry company on 

Okinawa in 1974. This time was a bottoming-out period for the Marine 

Corps as the disillusionment of Vietnam and widespread social protests 

had manifested itself in poor troop morale and discipline. Gen Jones 

characterized this assignment as the “hardest job he ever had.” 

flying aircraft and the sounds of machine gun firing. My 

first thought was that the U.S. Army Air Corps was playing games by disturbing their Marine buddies on a Sunday morning. That thought lasted about two minutes, as I 

could hear our aircraft on the flight line exploding. I dressed 

quickly in my liberty khakis which I had removed a few 

hours earlier, grabbed my rifle, and ran outside. (I even put 

on my khaki cap because Marines do not go outside uncovered). What I saw was fighter airplanes with big red balls 

on their wings passing in what seemed all directions and 

firing their guns. They were flying so low I could actually 

see the pilots who appeared to be laughing. I was completely 

terrified. My terror lasted only a few moments and was replaced with anger I had never experienced. I immediately 

headed for the nearest shelter, which so happened to be the 

freshly laid cement foundation for our new swimming pool 

still under construction. From there, along with several other Marines, we began shooting at the enemy aircraft—just 

like I was taught in boot camp. . . . [We] actually shot one, 

perhaps two, Japanese aircraft down. During the last attack 

my rifle was shot out of my hands . . . the enemy bullet had 

either ricocheted or hit my sight direct . . . it missed me by 

about six inches. The Marines that day made every possible 

effort in defending their base and in spite of the confusion, 

and un-readiness, displayed undaunted courage in the face 

of direct enemy fire.11 

11 SEPTEMBER 2001—

THE PENTAGON 

Where the smoke was, was where we knew people, we assumed, would be injured. We made it down to ground level 

in between the D and C rings and . . . just took turns 

crawling into the hole, a big hole inside the Pentagon that 

was all filled with smoke and fire . . . looking for bodies, 

people alive, or people injured. The smoke was so thick, 

you’d have to come out to catch your breath, sort of like in 

the gas chamber. . . . I took my camouflage blouse off, and 

cut it in half, or ripped it in half and gave the other half 

11 Col Albert A. Grasselli, interview with Fred Allison, 2002, transcript 

(Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA). 

Grasselli was a private at the time and an air traffic controller for the 

airfield. The Marine Corps Air Station at Ewa, Oahu, where Marine 

Aircraft Group 21 was based, was one of the first targets the Japanese 

raiders hit. 
SUMMER 2019 25

to somebody and I used my half for my face so we could 

go in there and actually breathe. . . . It was terrible. We 

were pulling people out and their skin is melting off . . . 

people with their hair just burnt up, the toxic fumes from 

the wires and everything else burning. The hardest part of 

all was when you would get in there and you could only go 

so far until you couldn’t breathe anymore or see anymore. 

You don’t want yourself to become a casualty . . . you had 

to turn around and you could still hear them saying, “Help 

me, somebody help!”12 

Then there are interviews that give you a unique 

perspective of historical events. 

A GUAMANIAN CIVILIAN, 

BATTLE OF GUAM, 1944

My father got a couple of fresh eggs, cooked them, and 

brought them to a Marine that was sitting there eating. The 

Marine didn’t want to take the eggs. He says, “I can’t take 

this, I can tell that these are probably the only eggs you 

have.” My father said, “Lieutenant, we saved them for you.” 

He ate them, but you could tell that he really didn’t think 

he should, but he ate them and was very grateful. But my 

father was very grateful, we were grateful. What came out 

of that was the sensitivity of the lieutenant, realizing instantly—he was just a young guy—realizing instantly that, 

“Hey listen, I don’t want to take this.” We were eating rice 

and soy sauce, and he was eating these fried eggs, he noted 

it. But my father had said, “We’re going to give him something that they didn’t have.” My father knew they didn’t 

have fresh eggs in the Marine division; they had these powdered eggs, not fresh eggs, so he went and looked for these 

eggs and found these two eggs and said, “This is the best 

treat we can give this guy.” This is a very minor story, but 

I think it made me realize what special people these guys 

were. They would be so tough in fighting and so gentle when 

12 LCpls Dustin Schuetz and Michael Vera, interview with Fred Allison, 13 and 20 September 2011, transcripts (Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA). The comments here are a 

blend of both Marines’ statements. LCpls Schuetz and Vera’s office was 

near Ground Zero, the terrorist-flown airliner’s impact point. Schuetz 

recalled that after the jet slammed into the building he and Vera first 

ensured their office was cleared of personnel. Then, instead of evacuating themselves, they went the other way.

they were not, that they would refuse a gift because they 

knew it was so precious. But he took it because he knew that 

it was intended for him.13

Oral history interviews can also relay first-hand 

accounts of important social changes. 

MONTFORD POINT—

BOOT CAMP, SECOND DAY

Well, I remember very well, about the second day we was 

in training my drill instructor, his name was Corporal 

Cheek, broke us out one night and he told us we might as 

well pack up your bags and, leave quietly because there 

had not been any Negroes in the Marine Corps for so 

many years, and whatever made you people feel that you 

can be Marines. He said, “If you want to escape this thing 

the best thing to do is to just leave quietly and shove the 

hell on off home.” And in that case quite a few of the 

members of my platoon started packing their gear, sleeping bags, not sleeping bags but the suitcases and so forth, 

getting ready to leave. And so I remember very well I 

had a friend of mine, later, he came from Birmingham, 

Alabama, his name was Cooper, and so Cooper and I got 

together and we told them right there, in my hut, don’t 

nobody leave. We said that’s what they wanted us to do. 

But I left home to join the Marine Corps and when I 

joined the Marine Corps and got to Montford Point I had 

25 cents in my pocket, that’s all I had and my last suit I 

had it on. I came into the Marine Corps to stay and so I 

intended to stay in the Marine Corps until I went home 

in a pine box. And I explained to them that nobody was 

going to drive me from nowhere. If they could be Marines, I thought I could too and they could too. I finally 

convinced them not to leave. And so the next morning 

when the DI came he broke us out, we fell out, he went 

through and counted noses, about twice, three times, and 

said, “Well, I see you are still here.” He said, “Well, I’m 

going to make you wish you had never joined this damn 

13 BGen Vincente Blaz, interview with Fred Allison, 2013, transcript 

(Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA). 

A native of Guam, Blaz joined the Marine Corps in 1951. As a youth, he 

and his family endured the occupation of Guam by the Japanese. A primary reason he joined the Marines was due to the impression Marines 

had upon him during this battle. 
26 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Marine Corps.” And so we started training that day. And 

I assure you, it was training.14

Finally, there are interviews that relay to the listener (or reader) the unique character of the Marine Corps, its esprit de corps. 

LEAVE NO MARINE BEHIND

We lost practically no Marines who surrendered to the enemy. We not only brought our wounded out, we brought 

our dead out. I can see our trucks returning from the [Chosin] Reservoir now, piled high with dead and wounded men 

who were roped to the running boards of all of our trucks 

and other vehicles. And the examples set by the individual 

Marines, bringing out their dead and wounded from the 

Chosin Reservoir is outstanding. . . . Anything up there, 

they learned it. [The same thing happened] in Haiti and 

Nicaragua and Santo Domingo they didn’t leave a g——m 

soul up there. All the Marines that were left in Korea, [were] 

where the men had fallen in crevices and that kind of stuff, 

and nobody knew they were there and couldn’t see them. 

But when a column was coming out there and a man was 

14 SgtMaj Edgar R. Huff, interview with Henry I. Shaw Jr., June 1972, 

transcript (Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA). SgtMaj Huff was among the first group of African Americans 

to attend boot camp at Montford Point. He enlisted in September 1942.

wounded, you could see the body, the column halted and 

they put this man aboard; and if they couldn’t get him on a 

truck, g——m it, they carried him. You could see a 130-pound 

Marine out there carrying 175-pound man. Every Marine 

knew that he could trust the man on his right and left . . . 

when the true history is written of the 1st Division’s conduct 

in Korea it will go down as the greatest thing that’s ever 

happened in the United States of America; because nothing 

has ever happened like it before, especially the love of man 

for his brother.15

The Oral History Section of Marine Corps History Division has the mission of collecting, processing, and archiving the interviews of Marines. Through 

these interviews, Marines learn the history of the Marine Corps, not from a book but from the voice of a 

Marine who lived and experienced that history. In this 

way, a tremendous amount of Marine Corps history is 

collected, generations of Marines become connected, 

and esprit de corps—that essential element that makes 

the Marine Corps unique—is fostered.

• 1775 •

15 LtGen Louis B. “Chesty” Puller, interview with Colonel John H. 

Magruder III, 1961, transcript (Oral History Section, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA).
The History Division and 

Change in the Marine Corps

A HISTORIOGRAPHY

by Seth Givens, PhD1

The Marine Corps History Division was born 

only one month after the last troops returned 

home from occupation duty in Germany in 

1919. The Marine Corps that came back from World 

War I was different than the one that had left the 

year before, its combat record in modern warfare 

paving the way for a more assertive role in national 

defense.2 At the apex of this transformational shift, 

Headquarters Marines Corps constituted the Historical Section, as it was first known. Since, the successors 

of the Historical Section, including today’s History 

Division, have played a role in the subsequent eras 

of change in the Marine Corps.3 The division’s importance is not in chronicling what has already been, 

though that history is an important component of 

Marine culture.4 More crucial is its role in producing 

works that inform those responsible for making decisions that will shape the future of the Service. As a 

result, the division’s publications are historical documents in and of themselves, illustrative of what the 

leadership has deemed important enough to study at a 

1

 Dr. Seth Givens is a historian in the Histories Branch of the Marine 

Corps History Division. He received his PhD from Ohio University in 

2018. He currently is preparing the official history of the Marine Corps 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

2

 Allan R. Millett, Semper Fidelis: The History of the United States Marine 

Corps, 2d ed. (New York: Free Press, 1991), 317–18. 3

 Hereafter, all iterations of this office will be referred to as History 

Division.

4

 See Aaron O’Connell, Underdogs: The Making of the Modern Marine Corps

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014). 

given moment. To analyze them is to understand how 

the Marine Corps has evolved institutionally, doctrinally, and philosophically. 

This article is a historiography of History Division publications from 1919 to present. It charts how 

the office reacted to and sometimes took part in contemporaneous debates and transformations inside 

the Marine Corps. It is neither a strict accounting of 

the division’s entire publishing record nor a survey of 

publication types—indeed, staff writers and contributors have published more than 250 titles to date, from 

the limited scope of pamphlets and occasional papers 

to the expansive monographs and multivolume definitive histories. It is instead a work that illustrates 

cause and effect in official histories, an examination of 

how History Division writers have acted as more than 

chroniclers; they also have contributed to discussions 

inside the Marine Corps about the Service’s future. As 

such, this article uses the major events of the Marine 

Corps since 1919 as a framework, and charts how the 

History Division reacted to those discussions with the 

works that they produced. 

The Marine Corps is a learning institution. It 

uses its history to make informed decisions about contemporary challenges. Its History Division, in fulfillment of its mission to record the official institutional 

and operational history of the Corps, has contributed 

to that process for 100 years. 

27
28 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Early Works, 1919–40

When Commandant Major General George Barnett 

established what would become the History Division 

within Headquarters Marine Corps, he tasked the 

first officer in charge, Major Edwin N. McClellan, 

with producing a history of Marines in World War I. 

He did so on the orders of Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, who directed both the Marine Corps 

and Navy to record their wartime experience for the 

sake of propriety and future study. It was a good opportunity for Barnett, who had fought hard to ensure 

that his Marines were involved in the ground war.5 By 

most measures, the Marine Corps flourished in the 

war, expanding from a strength of 13,725 in April 1917 

to a peak of 75,101 a year and a half later.6

 The Service 

also occupied a new place in public consciousness, 

capturing the imaginations of Americans who read 

about Marines’ performance at places like Belleau 

Wood, France.7

McClellan handed his manuscript to Barnett on 

26 November 1919. The United States Marine Corps in 

the World War reads more like a historical report than 

a history. McClellan’s handling of operations is less 

vivid than one may be accustomed to when it comes 

to World War I, owing to a lack of narrative. What 

the volume lacks in storytelling, though, is made up 

in usefulness. McClellan charts how units were organized, trained, and deployed, providing ample facts 

and figures in several charts. The latter stages of his 

book switch from chronological to topical, and he 

covers everything from aviation and casualties to rifle 

practice. All of this underscores an important point 

about McClellan’s intended audience. The History 

Division today attempts to produce historical works 

that are applicable to Marines but appeal to other 

Federal agencies, scholars, and a general audience. By 

contrast, McClellan’s purpose was to report to the 

Commandant and secretary of the Navy on the lessons 

the Corps learned during World War I, with perhaps 

5

 Millett, Semper Fidelis, 287–96. 6

 Maj Edwin N. McClellan, The United States Marine Corps in the World 

War, 4th ed. (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps History Division, 2017), 6–7. 7

 Peter F. Owen, To the Limit of Endurance: A Battalion of Marines in the 

Great War (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007).

an eye toward how they might be applied in future 

conflicts. 

McClellan’s second project was an ambitious 

seven-volume history of the Marine Corps since its inception, which falls in line with today’s History Division mission of writing to multiple audiences. While 

he had completed his World War I volume in mere 

months, he found it difficult to work on a large institutional history. He was forced to put aside the history 

of the Marine Corps when Headquarters transferred 

him out of the Historical Section in July 1925, placing him in a variety of staff roles during the next six 

years in Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Nicaragua.8

He returned to his old billet in the Historical Section 

in June 1931, but the project still floundered. McClellan spent so much time in exhaustive research and 

meticulous writing that he simply ran out of time to 

complete the planned work. He finished two volumes, 

both of which are sprawling, if not meandering—in 

1,700 pages, he only made it to the War of 1812. The 

8

 Owen, To the Limit of Endurance, xvii. 

Official U.S. Marine Corps photo

Maj Edwin N. McClellan.
SUMMER 2019 29

two rough-around-the-edges volumes were published 

in 1931 as History of the United States Marine Corps in 

mimeographed form. While this first attempt at an 

official history of the Marine Corps was stillborn, a 

later director of History Division, Lieutenant Colonel 

Clyde H. Metcalf, picked up where McClellan left off, 

basing some chapters of his own work on McClellan’s 

research, and publishing A History of the United States 

Marine Corps with a commercial press in 1939 to become the unofficial history of the Service.9

The nascent works of the History Division’s predecessor reflected a Marine Corps at a crossroads. 

With the expansion of American territorial holdings 

overseas after the Spanish-American War came an increase in the U.S. Navy’s strategic duties. To support 

overseas territorial holdings as well as a fleet that was 

9

 LtCol Clyde H. Metcalf, A History of the United States Marine Corps

(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Son, 1939). 

now responsible for hundreds of thousands of square 

miles of ocean, coaling stations at advanced bases were 

required in the Pacific and Caribbean. After first resisting, the Corps responded with a concept in 1913 to 

defend these areas. The Advanced Base Force expanded the Marines’ traditional role as ships’ guards and 

an expeditionary force. By 1920, Headquarters Marine 

Corps was staffed with leading thinkers such as Major 

Earl H. Ellis, who theorized how advanced base operations would work in practice. While Ellis was writing 

two seminal studies in the Division of Operations and 

Training, McClellan was producing his institutional 

histories in the Historical Section, which were, in 

essence, attempts to explain how the Service of the 

1920s came to be.10 In History of the United States Marine Corps, McClellan goes to great pains to illustrate 

how Marines are part of a long tradition of soldiers 

of the sea. Indeed, it takes 300 pages to get to the creation of the Marine Corps. Yet, he finds that they are 

a force capable of adaptation and change.

McClellan’s successor continued this theme. In 

1934, Captain Harry A. Ellsworth wrote One Hundred 

Eighty Landings of United States Marines.

11 More than 

a compilation of landings between 1800 and 1934, 

the work once again reflected the historical basis for 

contemporary discussions. Months prior, the Marine 

Corps replaced the Advanced Base Force with Fleet 

Marine Force, a more mobile, offensive concept. The 

emphasis was now on amphibious assault rather than 

seizing and defending naval bases. Ellsworth’s book 

appeared alongside a study that a group at the Field 

Officers School had been working on since 1931, Tentative Manual for Landing Operations, which established 

the principles of amphibious warfare doctrine for the 

Fleet Marine Force and had considerable influence on 

the students who passed through Quantico for the next 

decade.12 While the authors of the manual looked for10 Naval Bases: Location, Resources, Denial, and Security, Fleet Marine Force 

Reference Publication (FMFRP) 12-45 (Washington, DC: Headquarters, 

Marine Corps, 1992); and Advanced Base Force Operations in Micronesia, 

FMFRP 12-46 (Washington, DC: Headquarters, Marine Corps, 1992). 

11 Capt Harry Allanson Ellsworth, One Hundred Eighty Landings of United 

States Marines, 1800–1934 (Washington, DC: Historical Section, U.S. Marine Corps, 1934).

12 Millet, Semper Fidelis, 330–31. 

Official U.S. Marine Corps photo

Maj Clyde H. Metcalf in 1934.
30 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

ward, Ellsworth looked backward. There was, in fact, 

an evolution in Marine Corps amphibious warfare development prior to 1934, though it did not progress 

linearly. The first landing occurred in 1800, during the 

Quasi-War with France, when a detachment of Marines from the USS Constitution stole a French cutter 

at Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic, and then spiked 

the batteries protecting the harbor. In the following 

decades, Marines mounted landings almost once a 

year, though none of the lessons were translated to 

doctrine specific to the Corps. That information instead was conserved in a series of U.S. Navy manuals, 

the first of which appeared in the 1866 edition of the 

Navy Department’s primer for sailors and Marines, 

Instructions in Relation to the Preparation of Vessels of 

War for Battle to the Duties of Officers and Others when at 

Quarters; and to Ordnance and Ordnance Stores. Twenty 

years later, the Marine Corps received its own manual, 

The Naval Brigade and Operations Ashore: A Hand-Book 

for Field Service, but still published under the auspices 

of the Navy. 

Though Ellsworth’s historical study does not 

connect the forward-looking Tentative Manual for 

Landing Operations to its doctrinal predecessors, he 

does find that landings had been done for four basic 

reasons: political intervention, punitive actions, security of diplomatic missions and nationals, and humanitarianism. He argues that the Marine Corps has 

been employed for armed intervention in the past by 

virtue of its organization and training, and, according to experts, because the president is not required 

to seek a declaration of war from Congress for their 

use.13

McClellan and Ellsworth outlined several concepts that became themes in the early works of the 

division and continue today. The first is the Marine 

Corps’ ability to adapt and change. The second is the 

transformation that the ability to adapt beget, specifically the transformation into an amphibious force. On 

13 Ellsworth, One Hundred Eighty Landings, vi. See also Allan R. Millet, 

“Assault from the Sea: The Development of Amphibious Warfare Between the Wars—the American, British, and Japanese Experiences,” in 

Military Innovation in the Interwar Period, eds. Williamson Murray and 

Alan R. Millet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

the eve of World War II, that concept would be put 

to the test, but not before General Thomas Holcomb, 

the Commandant at the time, navigated budget constraints to adopt important technological developments and expand manpower requirements.14

Making the Mold, 1941–60

The 1940s was a growth decade for the History Division, though only the latter half. The Marine Corps’ 

requirements for the war effort meant that the office, 

despite being larger than it had been for the first 20 

years of its existence, went through frequent staff expansions and contractions, making it difficult to produce histories and studies of the recent campaigns, 

operations, and battles. In the final months of the war, 

however, the division began publishing unit histories, 

the first of many in the years to come. The booklets 

were intended for veterans as well as a general audience and were written in the vein of the work published by the U.S. Army’s Information and Education 

Division in Paris at the time. The initial histories—two 

of which First Lieutenant John C. Chapin wrote when 

he was assigned to the division while recovering from 

wounds received on Saipan—covered the formation, 

14 David J. Ulbrich, Preparing for Victory: Thomas Holcomb and the Making 

of the Modern Marine Corps, 1936–1943 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 

2011).

Official U.S. Marine Corps photo, 515293

The 5th Marine Regiment landing at Culebra, Puerto Rico, during fleet 

maneuvers in winter 1923–24.
SUMMER 2019 31

training, and combat experiences of the 4th, 5th, and 

6th Marine Divisions.15

The unit histories were a new addition to 

the type of publications the office produced, as were 

what followed, the first large-scale, concerted effort 

to produce a book series. In 1947, decorated combat 

veteran and director of the division at the time Lieutenant Colonel Robert D. Heinl Jr. wrote The Defense 

of Wake.

16 During the next eight years, he and his 

successors oversaw the writing and publishing of 15 

monographs that charted the Marine Corps’ operational history in World War II. Book-length studies of 

campaigns and operations, monographs have become 

the most common History Division publication and 

can range anywhere from 15,000 to 150,000 words. 

These World War II volumes set the standard for 

what would follow. With the aid of official records, 

the authors produced works that were comprehensive 

in their coverage of operations, giving readers everything from the context of discussions that occurred at 

Admiral Ernest J. King’s headquarters to the heroics 

of Marines landing on beaches throughout the Pacific. 

The authors, all of whom were field-grade officers, are 

critical where warranted. Captain James Stockman 

argues that Tarawa showed there needed to be better 

flexibility in ship-to-shore movement, thereby allowing the landing force the ability to control supply and 

reinforcements to fit the situation on the beaches.17

Major Frank O. Hough, among other authors, was 

critical of naval gunfire, contending that it was so insufficient on Peleliu that the enemy was able to inflict 

casualties on the assault forces and hamper the first 

day’s operations.18 The criticism was constructive as 

15 See BGen E. H. Simmons’s foreword in 1stLt John C. Chapin, The 

4th Marine Division in World War II, 3d ed. (Washington, DC: History 

and Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1976); Lt John C. 

Chapin, The Fifth Marine Division in World War II (Washington, DC: Historical Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1945); and Capt James R. 

Stockman, The Sixth Marine Division (Washington, DC: Historical Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1946).

16 LtCol R. D. Heinl Jr., The Defense of Wake (Washington, DC: Historical 

Section, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1947). 

17 Capt James R. Stockman, The Battle for Tarawa (Washington, DC: Historical Section, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1947), 68. 

18 Maj Frank O. Hough, The Assault on Peleliu (Washington, DC: Historical Section, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1950), 181. 

much as it was academic, providing planners lessons 

from the last war that might be applied to the next.

While the History Division was recording operations in World War II and evaluating successes and 

mistakes, the Marine Corps was atrophying. On V-J 

Day, there were 485,000 Marines in uniform.19 Five 

years later, there were 74,279.20 In between, the Marine 

Corps fought an important battle in Washington, DC. 

The National Security Act of 1947 had wide-ranging 

effects on the military, chief among which was the establishment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the creation of the Department of Defense two years later. 

The reorganization of the national military establishment brought to the fore inter-Service competition 

for funding. The Marine Corps, part of the Department of the Navy and without a permanent seat on 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fought a rearguard action 

between 1948 and 1950 against those in Congress and 

the Pentagon who made the case for eroding its role 

as a force in readiness. Marine leaders and their allies 

pointed to the Service’s World War II successes and 

defended the Corps’ capabilities and missions to avoid 

being subsumed into the other Services.21 Though unintended, the History Division monographs made the 

case for the Marine Corps as an independent branch.22

Soon after the unification storm died down, the 

North Korean People’s Army crossed the 38th Parallel 

on 25 June 1950 in a bid to reunify the Korean peninsula under the Communist flag. Two weeks later, the 

1st Marine Division formed the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade with troops scraped together from posts 

throughout the United States. In the coming months, 

reservists replenished the depleted division. It was 

these feats of mobilization that the History Division 

recorded in their first work on the Korean War. In 

19 Millett, Semper Fidelis, 447. 20 Ernest H. Giusti, Mobilization of the Marine Corps Reserve in the Korean 

Conflict, 1950–1951, 2d ed. (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1967), 2. 

21 Michael J. Hogan, A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of 

the National Security State, 1945–1954 (Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press, 1998). See also Steven L. Rearden, History of the Office of the Secretary of Defense: The Formative Years, 1947–1950, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: 

Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1984), 385–422. 

22 Millett, Semper Fidelis, 456–74. 
32 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

1951, the office produced a pamphlet from Captain 

Ernest H. Giusti, titled Mobilization of the Marine Corps 

Reserve in the Korean Conflict, a not insignificant topic 

given that the Organized Reserve and Volunteer Reserve made up the lion’s share of the Marine Corps 

forces that arrived in Korea early in the war. In June 

1950, reservists outnumbered active duty troops two 

to one.23 Even by March 1951, after active duty strength 

was tripled, the Reserves still comprised 45 percent of 

the Marine Corps.24 As a pamphlet, Giusti’s work was 

intended for internal reference. The primary audience 

was staff officers, who were to learn lessons in how 

to mobilize, important for a Service that boasted the 

ability to react to situations around the globe. He argued that the Corps’ reserve program was sound and 

the experience in Korea justified it as a concept.25 No 

doubt the reservists’ prior experience added to their 

effectiveness, as 99 percent of officers in the Volunteer 

Reserve and 75 percent of its enlisted men were World 

War II veterans.26

The Korean War provided the History Division 

with an opportunity to employ field historians attached to the office. The new concept was Heinl’s; his 

experience writing the World War II monographs led 

him to conclude that the Marine Corps needed a better way of recording events for later use. He studied 

the U.S. Army’s historical program, which included a 

mobilization plan for reservists who were professional 

historians. Finding merit in the concept, Heinl established a Marine Corps version, creating the 1st Provisional Historical Platoon, which was activated in late 

1950 and operated until July 1952.27

The History Division began publishing the first 

draft of the official history of the Korean War as early 

as June 1951, a direct result of hiring civilian historians with advanced degrees.28 A series of articles from 

23 Capt Ernest H. Giusti, “Minute Men—1950 Model: The Reserves in 

Action,” in Our First Year in Korea: Accounts by the Historical Branch, G-3, 

Headquarters Marine Corps (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps Gazette, 1954), 25. 24 Giusti, Mobilization of the Marine Corps Reserve, 1. 25 Giusti, Mobilization of the Marine Corps Reserve, 6. 26 Millett, Semper Fidelis, 481. 27 Benis M. Frank, “The Korean War’s ‘Fighting’ 1st Provisional Historical 

Platoon,” Fortitudine 19, no. 1 (Summer 1989): 17–18. 28 Henry I. Shaw Jr., “The Marine Corps Historical Program—A Brief 

History,” Fortitudine 19, no. 3 (Winter 1989–1990): 5–7 

the division’s historians appeared in the Marine Corps 

Gazette and were published in 1954 as a compilation titled Our First Year in Korea.

29 Most of the articles were 

from Lynn Montross, an already established writer 

and author of a hefty overview of military history 

called War Through the Ages that became a textbook of 

sorts on college campuses mid-century.30 It was these 

articles that formed the basis for the most important 

undertaking of the History Division to that point. In 

1954, the division published The Pusan Perimeter, the 

first book in a five-volume series of definitive histories 

titled U.S. Marine Operations in Korea, 1950–1953. Montross was the primary author of the series, coauthoring 

four of the five volumes, three of them with Captain 

Nicholas A. Canzona, who had been awarded the Silver Star for destroying bridges at Hagaru-ri, protecting the retreating Marines’ flank when breaking out 

from the Chosin Reservoir. The volumes of U.S. Marine 

29 Our First Year in Korea. 30 Lynn Montross, War Through the Ages (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944). 

Official U.S. Marine Corps photo

Robert D. Heinl Jr. during naval gunfire training in Hawaii when he 

was an officer on Gen Holland M. Smith’s staff.
SUMMER 2019 33

Operations in Korea were written in the vein of the U.S. 

Army’s vaunted World War II definitive histories, the 

“Green Books,” which Army historians had begun in 

1946. Relying on official documents and providing a 

detailed narrative, Montross and the series’s other authors focus on aspects that resemble the World War II 

monographs, with emphasis on planning and operations, from the highest reaches of Headquarters down 

to the experiences of individual troops.31 The difference, however, is size and scope. Definitive histories 

range from 110,000 to 600,000 words, compared to 

the more modest 15,000 to 150,000 words for mono31 Lynn Montross and Capt Nicholas A. Canzona, U.S. Marine Operations 

in Korea, 1950–1953, vol. 1, The Pusan Perimeter (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1954); Lynn Montross and 

Capt Nicholas A. Canzona, U.S. Marine Operations in Korea, 1950–1953, vol. 

2, The Inchon-Seoul Operation (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3, 

Headquarters Marine Corps, 1955); Lynn Montross and Capt Nicholas 

A. Canzona, U.S. Marine Operations in Korea, 1950–1953, vol. 3, The Chosin 

Reservoir Campaign (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1957); Lynn Montross et al., U.S. Marine Operations in 

Korea, 1950–1953, vol. 4, The East-Central Front (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1962); and LtCol Pat Meid 

and Maj James M. Yingling, U.S. Marine Operations in Korea, 1950–1953, 

vol. 5, Operations in West Korea (Washington, DC: Historical Division, 

Headquarters Marine Corps, 1972). 

graphs, and are the most comprehensive and detailed 

accounting of Marine Corps operations during a major conflict. As they were the first, the Korean War 

“Blue Books” set the model for History Division definitive histories. 

While the office was still completing its largest 

project to date, it began yet another ambitious series, 

one for which it is best known. In 1958, it published 

Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal, the first of five volumes 

that would make up the History of U.S. Marine Corps 

Operations in World War II definitive histories.32 The 

monographs that the division produced between 1947 

and 1955 served as the foundation upon which the series was built. Henry I. Shaw Jr., chief historian of the 

division, oversaw and cowrote the series. The volumes 

are arranged chronologically, and the first chapter on 

the creation of amphibious war concepts in the 1920s 

sets the tone. These are works that evangelize the virtues of amphibious warfare. Unlike the Army or Navy, 

whose roles as land and sea powers have never been 

challenged, the Marine Corps has not considered itself impervious. World War II was the purest illustration of its role and capabilities, as well as the bravery 

of those who served. U.S. Marine Corps Operations in 

World War II covers aspects that are therefore important to the identity of the Service. This significance 

and the quality of research and writing of the “Red 

Books,” as they are referred to, ensures that even today 

they remain an invaluable resource for scholarship on 

operations.

Concurrent with the writing of the World War 

II and Korea definitive histories, the division continued producing booklets and pamphlets that informed 

discussions occurring inside the Marine Corps. The 

Service had survived the post–World War II drawdowns and then proved itself once again in combat. 

After Korea, leaders strived to convince national security decision makers that the Fleet Marine Force was 

an important component of the U.S. defense strategy 

for the Cold War. The Marine Corps had to navigate 

the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration’s “New 

32 LtCol Frank O. Hough et al., History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in 

World War II: Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal (Washington, DC: Historical 

Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1958).

Official U.S. Marine Corps photo, Frank Farkas Collection (COLL/4463), 

Archives Branch, Marine Corps History Division

Fox Company, 2d Battalion, 1st Marines, head toward Inchon, Korea, 

15 September 1950.
34 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Look” national security policy carefully, however, as 

it emphasized nuclear deterrence through massive 

retaliation. By contrast, the Corps’ identity was as a 

conventional force, small, mobile, and amphibious. To 

maintain its force in readiness mission and prepare for 

a wide range of contingencies, all while not alienating 

itself from the other Services, it undertook a series of 

doctrinal studies and development programs in the 

mid- and late-1950s to assess its roles and missions.33

Out of this came the idea for the Marine Air-Ground 

Task Force (MAGTF), General Lemuel C. Shepherd’s 

attempt to build a flexible expeditionary combined 

arms concept. Technology was the enabling but also 

limiting factor for such doctrinal innovations. Helicopters gave the Marine Corps maneuverability, but 

there was a lag in modifying and procuring ships from 

which to operate. Until then, and until senior Marines 

could agree on mission, composition, and size, the 

MAGTF would be a concept and not doctrine. The 

maxims of Marines going to war with four elements—

command, ground, aviation, and logistics—and that 

the size of the task would dictate the size of the force 

did not come until December 1962.34

The History Division publications from the latter half of the 1950s reflected this broadening of attention in the Corps. The office produced a range of 

studies that looked as much to the future of the Service as its past, covering conflicts (The United States 

Marines in the War with Spain) and institutional changes (Marine Corps Ground Training in World War II).35

The prolific staff historian Bernard C. Nalty almost 

single-handedly did much of the work in a historical reference series, covering myriad aspects of Marine Corps heritage, from the Civil War (The United 

States Marines in the Civil War), Marines’ role in the 

Caribbean (The United States Marines in Nicaragua), 

33 Millett, Semper Fidelis, 518–28. 34 See Col Douglas E. Nash Sr., USA (Ret), “The ‘Afloat-Ready Battalion’: 

The Development of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious Ready 

Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit, 1898–1978,” Marine Corps History 3, 

no. 1 (Summer 2017): 62–88. 

35 Bernard C. Nalty, The United States Marines in the War with Spain 

(Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1959); and Kenneth W. Condit et al., Marine Corps Ground 

Training in World War II (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1956). 

and China (The Barrier Forts: A Battle, a Monument, and 

a Mythical Marine), to installations (A Brief History of 

the Marine Corps Base and Recruit Depot, Parris Island, 

South Carolina, 1891–1956; A Brief History of the Marine 

Corps Base and Recruit Depot, San Diego, California), the 

traditional role of Marines as diplomatic guards (The 

Diplomatic Mission to Abyssinia, 1903), and officer selection since 1775 (A Brief History of Marine Corps Officer 

Procurement).36

Vietnam and the Search 

for Historical Lessons, 1960–75

The Marines found an ally in the John F. Kennedy administration. In contrast to Eisenhower, Kennedy deemphasized nuclear weapons in his national security 

strategy. He preferred flexible response to massive retaliation, and illustrated early into his presidency that 

he was prepared to use special operations and small, 

conventional forces to achieve objectives, believing 

that an incremental approach to using military power 

was more credible to deterring Soviet encroachments 

than threatening nuclear war. There was apprehension 

from senior leaders about counterinsurgency, however. With the exception of Major General Victor H. 

Krulak, who embraced the role, most were dismissive 

of the mission.37 All the same, the History Division 

began producing works that underscored the Corps’ 

36 Bernard C. Nalty, The United States Marines in the Civil War (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 

1959); Bernard C. Nalty, The United States Marines in Nicaragua (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine 

Corps, 1958); Bernard C. Nalty, The Barrier Forts: A Battle, a Monument, 

and a Mythical Marine (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1959); Elmore A. Champie, A Brief 

History of the Marine Corps Base and Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South 

Carolina, 1891–1956 (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, 

Headquarters Marine Corps, 1958); Elmore A. Champie, A Brief History 

of the Marine Corps Base and Recruit Depot, San Diego, California (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine 

Corps, 1958); Bernard C. Nalty, The Diplomatic Mission to Abyssinia, 1903 

(Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1958); and Bernard C. Nalty, A Brief History of Marine Corps 

Officer Procurement (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, 

Headquarters Marine Corps, 1958).

37 Victor H. Krulak, First to Fight: An Inside View of the U.S. Marine Corps

(Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1984), 180–81. See also Nicholas J. 

Schlosser, ed., The Greene Papers: General Wallace M. Greene Jr. and the Escalation of the Vietnam War, January 1964–March 1965 (Quantico, VA: Marine 

Corps History Division, 2015). 
SUMMER 2019 35

global reach historically. Henry I. Shaw Jr. published 

The United States Marines in North China, 1945–1949, outlining III Amphibious Corps’ skirmishes with communists and their support of the Chinese nationalists 

while repatriating 600,000 Japanese and Koreans during Operation Beleaguer.38 Two annotated bibliographies followed in 1961, both calling upon the Corps’ 

prior experience in irregular warfare.39 Major Marvin 

L. Brown Jr.’s The United States Marines in Iceland, 1941–

1942 a few years later was meant to illustrate how the 

Marines operated in short-of-war operations.40 Jack 

Shulimson’s Marines in Lebanon, 1958 outlined Task 

Force 62’s role in the July–October 1958 U.S. military 

intervention in Lebanon to protect the pro-Western 

government there, though its publishing was an attempt to show the effectiveness of the Marine Corps 

carrying out American foreign policy through a show 

of force.41 A group of authors made these points more 

explicit in A History of Marine Corps Roles and Missions, 

1776–1962, a reference pamphlet that outlined how 

flexible the Marines had been historically.42 This was 

the second time that such discussions had taken place 

inside the Corps. The first began in the 1920s, when individuals began studying the Banana Wars, culminating in the now-classic Small Wars Manual, published in 

revised form in 1940 and codifying the lessons troops 

learned waging irregular warfare.43 Understaffed and 

too preoccupied to take part in the earlier discussions, the History Division made sure that it stud38 Henry I. Shaw Jr., The United States Marines in North China, 1945–1949 

(Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1960). 

39 Maj John H. Johnstone, comp., An Annotated Bibliography of the United States Marines in Guerrilla-Type Action (Washington, DC: Historical 

Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1961); D. Michael 

O’Quinlivan, An Annotated Bibliography of the United States Marines in 

the Boxer Rebellion (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, 

Headquarters Marine Corps, 1961).

40 Maj Marvin L. Brown Jr., The United States Marines in Iceland, 1941–1942 

(Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1962). 

41 See preface in Jack Shulimson, Marines in Lebanon, 1958 (Washington, 

DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1966).

42 Col Thomas G. Roe et al., A History of Marine Corps Roles and Missions, 

1776–1962 (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1962). 

43 Keith B. Bickel, Mars Learning: The Marine Corps’ Development of Small 

Wars Doctrine, 1915–1940 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001). 

ied operations short of war the second time around.

After Battalion Landing Team, 3d Battalion, 9th 

Marine Regiment, came ashore north of Da Nang 

on 8 March 1965, beginning the Corps’ involvement 

in Vietnam, such discussions ended and the History 

Division followed a pattern it had begun during Korea. The office published the first work on the war in 

1967 with one audience in mind: Small Unit Action in 

Vietnam, Summer 1966 was intended to keep troops incountry and those about to deploy informed about 

lessons learned in combat and civic action. The project had its origins in a concept from the assistant chief 

of staff, G-3, Major General William R. Collins, who 

wanted to produce readable but accurate works for 

the benefit of enlisted Marines and junior officers. 

The author, Captain Francis J. West Jr., would go on 

later to become an analyst for the Rand Corporation, 

assistant secretary of defense for International Security Affairs during the Ronald W. Reagan administration, and a leading commentator on Operation Iraqi 

Freedom (OIF).44 Another lessons-learned book, a 

companion piece to West’s work, followed two years 

later, U.S. Marine Corps Civic Action Effort in Vietnam, 

March 1965–March 1966.

45

By 1969, Marine operational history of Vietnam 

began to appear. The first was Captain Moyers S. 

Shore’s The Battle for Khe Sanh, with a foreword from 

General William C. Westmoreland.46 As with the 

World War II monographs, the work is comprehensive for its size. Shore focuses not just on the siege of 

Khe Sanh but also on Marine Corps operations in the 

area leading up to the battle and four months afterward, stressing that the isolated outpost was part of 

the three-pronged strategy for I Corps: pacification, 

counterguerrilla, and large unit offensive actions. 

Despite Shore’s work, the History Division did 

44 See, for example, Bing West, The Village (New York: Harper and Row, 

1972); Bing West and MajGen Ray L. Smith, The March Up: Taking Baghdad with the 1st Marine Division (New York: Bantam, 2003); and Bing 

West, No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah (New 

York: Bantam, 2005). 

45 Capt Russel H. Stolfi, U.S. Marine Corps Civic Action Effort in Vietnam, 

March 1965–March 1966 (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1968).

46 Capt Moyers S. Shore II, The Battle for Khe Sanh (Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1969). 
36 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

not create a monograph series for Vietnam as they 

had for World War II. Instead, it produced the larger definitive histories, nine volumes under the series 

name U.S. Marines in Vietnam, with staff historian 

Jack Shulimson as the lead for the project.47 The first,

The Advisory and Combat Assistance Era, 1954–1964, was 

published in 1977. The division released new volumes 

every two years, the most popular of which, The Defining Year, 1968, was the last published in the series 

and came in at a thorough 800 pages.48 Playing a crucial role in establishing the vision for the definitive 

histories was Brigadier General Edwin H. Simmons, 

director of the History Division from 1971 to 1996 and 

namesake of the building where the division resides 

today at Marine Corps University. Under his direction, the division expanded and thrived, making him 

perhaps the most important director of Marine Corps 

history next to McClellan. Simmons insisted on accuracy and readability, mirroring the World War II Red 

Books and the Korea definitive Blue Book histories. 

The Vietnam volumes followed their predecessor’s 

operational history model, but they also acknowledged the difficulties the Marines faced, such as the 

frustrations of pacification, the effect of the draft on 

the Corps, and problems with discipline and morale, 

all reflecting that Vietnam was indeed a different war 

than World War II and Korea.

History Division and 

Modern Warfare, 1975–Present

While the History Division published its definitive 

histories, the Marine Corps struggled to find its place 

in a post–Vietnam defense landscape. As early as 1971, 

the leadership urged Marines to move on. “We got defeated and thrown out,” then-Commandant General 

Leonard F. Chapman Jr. said. “[T]he best thing we can 

do is forget it.”49 Since some viewed Vietnam as an ab47 Shulimson was a scholar on the Marine Corps in the nineteenth century. See Jack Shulimson, The Marine Corps’ Search for a Mission, 1880–1898 

(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993).

48 Jack Shulimson et al., U.S. Marines in Vietnam: The Defining Year, 1968

(Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1997).

49 Quoted in Michael A. Hennessy, Strategy in Vietnam: The Marines and 

Revolutionary Warfare in I Corps, 1965–72 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997), 

181.

erration, it was fitting perhaps that, in some ways, the 

Marine Corps’ experience from the New Look era was 

repeated in the late 1970s and into the 1980s, as the 

Service was buffeted by the storm of budget cuts and 

critics who claimed there was no role for an amphibious force vulnerable in nuclear war that operated primarily outside of Europe. The Corps reaffirmed its 

belief in maritime supremacy and the importance of 

amphibious forces in providing a forward collective 

defense in Asia and Europe.50 Organization and doctrine changed to reflect this new role, updating the 

MAGTF, once again due to technology. In 1976, the 

Navy commissioned the first Tarawa-class amphibious 

assault ship, which gave the Marine Corps the ability 

to land a battalion of troops either via helicopters or, 

owing to a well deck, amphibious craft. 

Though the Marine Corps preferred to put Vietnam behind it, the History Division ran in the opposite direction, continuing to produce a range of 

volumes on Vietnam, from a spate of works on avia50 See Terry Terriff, “ ‘Innovate or Die’: Organizational Culture and 

the Origins of Maneuver Warfare in the United States Marine Corps,” 

Journal of Strategic Studies 29, no. 3 (June 2006): 475–503, https://doi.

org/10.1080/01402390600765892.

Official U.S. Marine Corps photo

Chief Historian Henry I. Shaw presenting the first copy of the third 

volume in the History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II series to Gen Wallace M. Greene Jr., Commandant of the Marine Corps, 

June 1967. 
SUMMER 2019 37

tion to monographs on chaplains and military law.51

This is the first discernible moment in the division’s 

history where it diverged from discussions occurring 

inside Headquarters and the schools at Quantico, due 

to Simmons’ vision and direction. In addition to the 

Vietnam works, the office tackled studies on multiple 

conflicts, both commemorating foundational periods in the Corps’ history as well as recording recent 

events. In the former category was Charles Smith’s 

definitive history, Marines in the Revolution, which coincided with the bicentennial of the Marine Corps’ 

founding in 1775.52 In the latter was Ronald Spector’s 

U.S. Marines in Grenada, 1983, a work that Spector, a 

Reserve Marine officer and an established scholar, 

called “an experiment in the writing of contemporary 

51 LtCol William R. Fails, Marines and Helicopters, 1962–1973 (Washington, 

DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1978); 

Maj William J. Sambito, A History of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 232

(Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1978); Cdr Herbert L. Bergsma, USN, Chaplains with Marines 

in Vietnam, 1962–1971 (Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, 

Headquarters Marine Corps, 1985); and LtCol Gary D. Solis, Marines 

and Military Law in Vietnam: Trial by Fire (Washington, DC: History and 

Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1989).

52 Charles R. Smith, Marines in the Revolution: A History of the Continental 

Marines in the American Revolution, 1775–1783 (Washington, DC: History 

and Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1975). 

military history.”53 In reality, the division had been doing just that for a decade already, and would continue 

the model into the next several wars. 

When the 1990s dawned and the Soviet Union 

survived to see just two short years of it, thus ending the post–Vietnam discussion about the Marines’ 

capabilities on a Cold War battlefield, the office began publishing commemorative histories. Commemoratives emphasize a readable narrative intended for a 

general audience and have since become a staple of the 

division. The first, by former Chief Historian Henry 

I. Shaw Jr., was published in 1991, observing the 50-

year anniversary of America’s entry into World War 

II. Opening Moves: Marines Gear Up for War was the inaugural work in a 25-volume commemorative series on 

World War II, with the last published in 1997, and all 

of which were truncated versions of the monographs 

written between 1947 and 1955. Since, the division has 

published commemoratives on World War I, Korea, 

and Vietnam. 

The U.S. military’s response to Saddam Hussein’s 

invasion of Kuwait tested the Fleet Marine Force that 

leaders such as Lieutenant General Alfred M. Gray Jr. 

had overhauled in the 1980s.54 A modernized and reequipped Marine Corps performed well in the Gulf 

War, first deploying to the region with impressive 

speed and then opening a breach and racing to Kuwait 

City with the 1st and 2d Marine Divisions. In short 

order, the History Division planned seven full-length 

volumes about the Gulf War in a return to how the office recorded operations after World War II. In 1992, 

the division published U.S. Marines in the Persian Gulf, 

1990–1991: Anthology and Annotated Bibliography.

55 This 

followed in the footsteps of the Vietnam series, which 

also was preceded by an anthology with the intent 

of providing a collection of articles and documents 

that served as an interim reference until the division 

53 See Ronald H. Spector, Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with 

Japan (New York: Free Press, 1985); and LtCol Ronald H. Spector, U.S. 

Marines in Grenada, 1983 (Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1987), iii. 

54 Millett, Semper Fidelis, 631–35. 55 Maj Charles D. Melson et al., U.S. Marines in the Persian Gulf, 1990–1991: 

Anthology and Annotated Bibliography (Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1992).

Official U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl R. R. Keene, Jonathan F. Abel 

Collection (COLL/3611), Archives Branch, Marine Corps History Division

1st Battalion, 4th Marines, board a Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter from Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 165 for operations 

northwest of Phu Bai, 1967.
38 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

could complete the official histories. The first monograph in the series appeared in 1993: Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Cureton’s With the 1st Marine Division 

in Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

56 Twenty-one years 

later, staff historian Paul Westermeyer published the 

single-volume definitive history of the war, U.S. Marines in the Gulf War, 1990–1991: Liberating Kuwait, as 

the comprehensive work on the subject.57 The division 

was able to write such detailed history soon after the 

event because of historical document collection that 

occurred during the war. Like their predecessors had 

done during the Korean War, five officers from the 

Mobilization Training Unit (History) deployed to the 

gulf and assembled notes and documents and conducted oral history interviews.

The Marine Corps formalized this model in the 

wake of the Gulf War, creating today’s Field History 

Branch within the History Division. This meant a shift 

away from the Mobilization Training Unit system, 

which tasks a unit to support operational requirements when needed, to the Individual Mobilization 

Augmentee Detachment (IMA Det) program, which 

places skilled individuals within an existing unit. The 

IMA Det allowed the History Division to expand in 

short order—as it did during operations in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo—and augment its staff with historically trained reservist Marines, who do an excellent 

job not only collecting historical materials but also 

authoring occasional papers, battle studies, and monographs. The expansion of the History Division during 

the 1990s with IMA Det personnel led to a dual-track 

approach in publishing, split between Desert Storm 

monographs and World War II commemoratives.

Despite the changes to History Division’s organization, it approached the task much as it had before 

when Marines deployed to the gulf once again in 2003 

for Operation Iraqi Freedom: field historians mobilized and deployed to collect materials and interviews, 

the division published an anthology first as a stopgap, 

56 Col Charles J. Quilter II, U.S. Marines in the Persian Gulf, 1990–1991: 

With the I Marine Division in Desert Shield and Desert Storm (Washington, 

DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1993). 

57 Paul W. Westermeyer, U.S. Marines in the Gulf War, 1990–1991: Liberating 

Kuwait (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps History Division, 2014).

and writers produced a series of monographs.58 The 

first of the monographs came from Colonel Nicholas 

E. Reynolds, commander of the Field History Detachment. Published in 2007, U.S. Marines in Iraq, 2003: 

Basrah, Baghdad and Beyond covered the march up during the combat phase of OIF.59 Its counterpart, U.S. 

Marines in Iraq, 2004–2005: Into the Fray, was published 

four years later.60 In between, the History Division 

published battle studies, calling back on the World 

War II monographs on operations, yet on a smaller 

58 Maj Christopher M. Kennedy et al., U.S. Marines in Iraq, 2003: Anthology 

and Annotated Bibliography—U.S. Marines in the Global War on Terrorism 

(Washington, DC: Marine Corps History Division, 2006). See also LtCol 

Nathan S. Lowrey, Marine History Operations in Iraq (Washington, DC: 

Marine Corps History Division, 2005).

59 Col Nicholas E. Reynolds, U.S. Marines in Iraq, 2003: Basrah, Baghdad 

and Beyond—U.S. Marines in the Global War on Terrorism (Washington, 

DC: Marine Corps History Division, 2007).

60 LtCol Kenneth W. Estes, U.S. Marines in Iraq, 2004–2005: Into the Fray

(Washington, DC: Marine Corps History Division, 2011).

Official U.S. Marine Corps photo, A708141

BGen Edwin H. Simmons in 1980.
SUMMER 2019 39

scale. This new series, called U.S. Marines in Battle, 

started in 2008 with a volume on the Gulf War engagement at al-Khafji.61 Two OIF battle studies in the 

series followed the next year with Francis Kozlowski’s 

examination of an-Najaf and Colonel John Andrew 

Jr.’s on an-Nasiriyah.62

Staff historian Dr. Nicholas J. Schlosser became 

the division’s OIF expert, recording what Marine units 

had done in Iraq with battle studies on al-Qaim and 

Fallujah while also participating in discussions within and without the Service about the U.S. military’s 

prior experience with counterinsurgency.63 His monograph U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare Training and 

Education: 2000–2010 answered how the Marine Corps 

adapted to fight the Global War on Terrorism, calling 

on its history with insurgencies to modify its mod61 Paul W. Westermeyer, U.S. Marines in Battle: Al-Khafji, 21 January–1 February 1991 (Washington, DC: Marine Corps History Division, 2008). 62 Francis X. Kozlowski, U.S. Marines in Battle: An-Najaf, August 2004 

(Washington, DC: Marine Corps History Division, 2009); and Col John 

R. Andrew Jr., U.S. Marines in Battle: An-Nasiriyah, 23 March–2 April 2003 

(Washington, DC: Marine Corps History Division, 2009).

63 Nicholas J. Schlosser, U.S. Marines in Battle: Al-Qaim September 2005–

March 2006 (Washington, DC: Marine Corps History Division, 2013); and 

CWO4 Timothy S. McWilliams with Nicholas J. Schlosser, U.S. Marines 

in Battle: Fallujah, November–December 2004 (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps 

History Division, 2014).

ern warfighting philosophy.64 The volume he edited 

with James Caiella from papers presented at Marine 

Corps University’s 2009 symposium “Counterinsurgency Leadership in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Beyond” 

is a good companion to his monograph and an important successor to Colonel Stephen S. Evans’s 2006 anthology U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898–2007.

65

Compared with the work that has been completed on 

the Marines in Iraq, there is still ground to cover on 

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). To date, there 

have been three works on Afghanistan, two anthologies, and Colonel Nathan S. Lowrey’s monograph U.S. 

Marines in Afghanistan, 2001–2002: From the Sea on operations during the first year.66

As it has from its inception, History Division 

continues to reflect debates occurring in the wider 

Marine Corps. Today, the division’s support of Marine 

Corps University (MCU), where it moved in 2006, is 

the most direct way that it contributes to these discussions. This was seen recently in the anthology The 

Legacy of American Naval Power: Reinvigorating Maritime 

Strategic Thought, which serves as a companion to a 

lecture series from MCU president Brigadier General 

William J. Bowers called “Reinvigorating Maritime 

Strategic Thought: The Future of Naval Expeditionary Force.”67 The History Division’s place on the MCU 

campus ensures that its writers will be part of such 

discussions for years to come. The office’s mission of 

informing the public of the Marine Corps’ role in na64 Dr. Nicholas J. Schlosser, U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare Training 

and Education, 2000–2010 (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps History Division, 

2015).

65 Nicholas J. Schlosser and James M. Caiella, Counterinsurgency Leadership in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Beyond (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University Press, 2011); and Col Stephen S. Evans, comp., U.S. Marines and 

Irregular Warfare, 1898–2007: Anthology and Selected Biography (Quantico, 

VA: Marine Corps University Press, 2008). 

66 Maj David W. Kummer, comp., U.S. Marines in Afghanistan, 2001–2009: 

Anthology and Annotated Bibliography—U.S. Marines in the Global War on 

Terrorism (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps History Division, 2014); Paul 

W. Westermeyer with Christopher N. Blaker, comps., U.S. Marines in Afghanistan, 2010–2014: Anthology and Annotated Bibliography—U.S. Marines 

in the Global War on Terrorism (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps History 

Division, 2017); and Col Nathan S. Lowrey, U.S. Marines in Afghanistan, 

2001–2002: From the Sea (Washington, DC: Marine Corps History Division, 2011).

67 Paul Westermeyer and Breanne Robertson, eds., The Legacy of American Naval Power: Reinvigorating Maritime Strategic Thought (Quantico, VA: 

Marine Corps History Division, 2019). 

Official U.S. Navy photo by PhoM Tom Daily

USS Tarawa (LHA 1) leads the landing helicopter assault ships (LHA) 

and landing helicopter dock ships (LHD) of Task Force 51 in the Persian Gulf on 20 April 2003, one month after Operation Iraqi Freedom 

began. The task force was the largest amphibious force assembled since 

Inchon.
40 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

tional defense by preserving, presenting, and promoting the Service’s history also continues. Work on the 

Vietnam and World War I commemoratives is ongoing. The first of this series was released in 2014: Colonel George R. Hofmann’s The Path to War: U.S. Marine 

Corps Operations in Southeast Asia, 1961–1965.

68 The office 

is in the research stage for a definitive history series 

on OIF, following in the footsteps of the authors who 

68 Col George R. Hofmann Jr., The Path to War: U.S. Marine Corps Operations in Southeast Asia, 1961–1965 (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps History 

Division, 2014). See Paul Westermeyer, ed., The Legacy of Belleau Wood: 100 

Years of Making Marines and Winning Battles—An Anthology (Quantico, VA: 

Marine Corps History Division, 2018). 

wrote the World War II and Korea volumes. There are 

also works in various stages of completion on Marines 

in the Frigate Navy, an edited volume on the cultural 

implications of the Iwo Jima flag raisings, and operational histories of OEF. The staff, historically minded 

people who live in the present and commanded by 

people who look to the future, continue the mission.

• 1775 •

Photo by Col Kurt Wheeler, USMCR

Col Kurt Wheeler, a field historian deployed to Iraq, interviews a gunnery sergeant at Camp Ramadi, 2006.
An Archive 

for the Marine Corps

by James Ginther, PhD1

I

n September 2017, the U.S. Marine Corps opened 

its first purpose-built facility for its History Division. This facility at Marine Corps Base Quantico, 

Virginia, houses the historians and archivists, publishing staff, and support facilities that make up the 

division. Though the division was established in the 

adjutant and inspector’s office on 8 September 1919, 

the concept of a purpose-built facility for preserving 

the historical documents of the Marine Corps is much 

older.2 Such a facility was first proposed back in the 

era of Commandant Archibald Henderson’s Marine 

Corps (1820–1959), and like the current Archives, it 

was tied to attempts to improve education and professionalization in the Marine Corps.

The idea was first proposed by Major Henry Ball 

Tyler in the 1850s. At that time, Tyler was serving as 

adjutant and inspector of the Marine Corps, a position that placed him second only to Brevet Brigadier 

General Archibald Henderson. Tyler is one of the 

more interesting and much-neglected characters of 

the era. He entered the Marine Corps in 1823 with a 

commission as a second lieutenant from Prince William County, Virginia, after an unsuccessful stint at 

West Point—a mere generation away from the rees1

 Dr. James Ginther was formerly an archivist in the Archives Branch, 

Marine Corps History Division.

2 Marine Corps Order (MCO) 53, Establishment of the Historical Department, 

Adjutant and Inspector’s Division, Headquarters, Marine Corps (Series 1919) 

(Washington, DC: Headquarters Marine Corps, 8 September 1919), copy 

held by Historical Reference Branch, Marine Corps History Division, 

Quantico, VA.

tablishment of the Corps under Marine Corps Commandant Colonel William Ward Burrows (1798–1805) 

during the administration of President John Adams. 

Tyler entered a Corps that had emerged from the War 

of 1812 with a solid reputation yet suffered from dissension among its officers. The controversy over the 

dismissal of Commandant Anthony Gale set off a 

competition among rivals that culminated in the promotion of Archibald Henderson, a dark-horse candidate, to succeed him. The upheaval created factions, 

brought to light irregularities in management, and 

raised questions about the direction of the Marine 

Corps that plagued the officer corps during Tyler’s entire 38-year career with the Corps.3

 As a result, Tyler 

would serve in one of the more colorful and revered 

periods of Marine Corps history and served under 

only two Commandants—Archibald Henderson and 

John Harris—both of whom he would come to loathe 

for what he perceived as their lack of willingness to 

act to improve the Corps’ situation.

Throughout the first 20 years of his service, Tyler 

saw a rotation of long periods of sea service, barracks 

duty, and assignments in Washington that allowed him 

3

 Alan R. Millett, Semper Fidelis: The History of the United States Marine 

Corps, rev. ed, (New York: Free Press, 1991), 53–56. The charges and specifications against Gale, the reaction of the officer corps, and the resultant 

elevation of Henderson are documented in the Correspondence of the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps, Record Group (RG) 127, National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Washington, DC. See, 

in particular, correspondence of Samuel Miller with Anthony Gale and 

Archibald Henderson, same collection. 

41
42 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

to experience the Marine Corps from multiple points 

of view. He also seems to have spent an inordinately 

large amount of time assigned to duty on courts-martial. His only extended period of field service was as 

regimental adjutant during the Creek War in 1836.4

In June 1857, Tyler led a platoon of Marines to quell 

riots that had broken out in Washington, DC. Tyler’s 

Marines were disciplined and able to get the situation under control, but not without difficulty, causing 

Tyler to question the preparedness of the Navy Yard 

Marines for a military crisis. The experience seems to 

have been the tipping point in his thinking about the 

preparedness of the Corps to face potential emergencies and its overall efficiency and accountability. After 

this, he would lobby hard for reforms he felt would 

strengthen the training and efficiency of the Corps. 

Through these experiences, Tyler became convinced 

that if the Marine Corps was going to be a viable part 

of the nation’s military structure, it would need reform with more focused training, better recruiting, 

and stricter accountability to the of Congress.5

 Tyler 

carried these convictions with him when he assumed 

the duties of the adjutant and inspector of the Marine 

Corps (1857–61). They would eventually cause him to 

run afoul of Henderson (1820–59) and later Henderson’s successor, Colonel John Harris (1859–64), and 

may have ultimately led to his decision to leave the 

Service altogether.6

It was this last assignment as adjutant and inspector that would convince Tyler of the need for a 

facility dedicated to the collection, preservation, and 

accessibility of Marine Corps records. Early in his tenure, Tyler clashed with Henderson about his actual 

duties. His predecessor, Brevet Lieutenant Colonel 

4

 “Summary of Service Henry Ball Tyler, late Major USMC,” box 16, folder 9, Ralph W. Donnelly Papers, Archives Branch, Marine Corps History 

Division, Simmons History Center, Quantico, VA.

5

 See Henry B. Tyler letter to Josiah Watson, 17 October 1860; Henry 

B. Tyler letter to Isaac Toucey, 26 August 1859; Henry B. Tyler letter to 

Isaac Toucey, 30 November 1860; Henry B. Tyler letter to Isaac Toucey, 

27 September 1858, all RG 127, Records of the United States Marine 

Corps: Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Adjutant and Inspector’s 

Department, General Records, Correspondence, Letters Sent, August 

1855–October 1861, NARA. 

6

 Michael Edward Krivdo, “What Are Marines For?: The United States 

Marine Corps in the Civil War” (doctoral diss., Texas A&M University, 

2011), 161.

Parke G. Howle, had been in ill health for a number 

of years and was rarely present at Headquarters. Tyler assumed the position upon Howle’s death in 1857. 

As he began settling in, he discovered irregularities 

that caused him concern. It would be difficult to 

say with certainty that Tyler’s motivations in raising 

these issues were wholly altruistic, but he recognized 

that part of accomplishing the reforms he sought to 

implement in the Marine Corps meant stricter inspection of units and preservation of key documentation at Headquarters.7

 Both would provide him with 

the information necessary to confirm that the Corps 

was operating within the law and remained a viable 

fighting force in the nation’s defense structure, particularly in the face of the growing sectional crisis in 

the country. 

Tyler reported some of his concerns in a letter 

addressed to the secretary of the Navy on 22 September 1858 outlining evidence of “maladministration of 

the Marine Corps,” which Tyler stated was “traceable 

to an absence of military regulations.” These irregularities, Tyler contended, were rooted in the usurpation 

of the duties of adjutant and inspector by the Commandant of the Marine Corps, demonstrable from 

evidence in the records (or lack thereof) maintained 

by the adjutant and inspector’s office. Among the irregularities cited by Tyler were: violations of legally 

mandated recruiting standards; recruiting beyond legal limits set by Congress; recruiting and paying for 

7

 Like most people, Tyler seems to have had a mixture of motivations for 

leaving the Service. His experience with the riot convinced him that the 

Marine Corps was unprepared to face a real military emergency and so 

he instituted programs to better train and equip Marines that the chain 

of command did little to endorse or expand. He routinely came into 

conflict with Henderson and Harris on the duties and responsibilities of 

the adjutant and inspector and had in the past come into conflict with 

them over the authority that could be properly exercised over Marine 

officers by naval officers. His correspondence regarding irregular expenditures and discharge practices fell on deaf ears. See Krivdo, “What Are 

Marines For?,” 162–63; Henry B. Tyler letter to Josiah B. Watson 17 October 1860, RG 127, Records of the United States Marine Corps: Headquarters, U. S. Marine Corps, Adjutant and Inspector’s Department, 

General Records, Correspondence, Letters Sent, August 1855–October 

1861, NARA; “Court Martial,” Evening Star (Washington, DC), first edition, 11 March 1856, 2, Library of Congress; Henry B. Tyler Sr. letter to 

Toucey, HQMC, 26 August 1859 and 1 December 1860, RG 80, Entry 14, 

NARA; and Toucey letter to Tyler Sr., Navy Dept., Washington, DC, 31 

December 1860, RG 80, Entry 1: “Letters Sent, 1798–1884,” NARA. Several other examples of these exchanges exist within this source.
SUMMER 2019 43

a Marine Corps Band in violation of Congressionally 

authorized manpower limits; illegally authorizing Service bounty lands for deserters; appointing and paying the Commandant’s son as an aide de camp; and 

the retention of the rank and privileges of brevet brigadier general in violation of the provisions of the law 

establishing that rank.8

As the means of redressing these irregularities, 

Tyler lobbied for three main remedies: adoption of U.S. 

Army regulations to define the duties and responsibilities of the Marine Corps staff; a stronger definition of 

the duties of the office of the adjutant and inspector; 

and the construction of a purpose-built repository to 

hold, protect, and make available the Corps’ records.9

The reason for this last recommendation stems from 

a conviction that the Marine Corps records needed to 

be maintained as vital evidence for the adjutant and 

inspector to evaluate the Corps’ progress toward reform, its professionalization, and its fulfillment of its 

legal obligations. On 7 September 1857, to Secretary of 

the Navy Isaac Toucey, Tyler wrote:

Sir:

I have the honor to submit to you for 

your inspection and recommendation, 

and through you to the Hon: the Secretary of the Navy a drawing designed 

8 Service bounty lands refers to land grants given by Congress as a reward 

to those who had served honorably in the military forces of the United 

States as an incentive to enlistment. Tyler’s motivations are unclear. 

Certainly, he did have the best interests of the Corps in mind, however, 

Tyler stood to gain considerably in power and influence over the Corps 

at the expense of his rivals, giving him a chance to enhance his own prestige and potential for promotion. Tyler continued to doggedly pursue 

reform of the management and training of the Marine Corps long after 

Henderson and Harris or Secretary of the Navy Toucey showed any sign 

of willingness to act on his complaints. Henry B. Tyler letter to Isaac 

Toucey, 22 September 1858, RG 80, General Records of the Department 

of the Navy, Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, General 

Records, Letters Received, Letters from the Commandant and Other 

Officers of the Marine Corps, NARA. Tyler follows this letter with several like it during the succeeding two years, all contained in the source 

cited; Krivdo, “What Are Marines For?,” 346.

9

 For example, see Henry B. Tyler letter to Isaac Toucey, 29 July 1857; 

Henry B. Tyler letter to Isaac Toucey, 7 September 1857, hereafter Tyler 

letter, 7 September 1857; Henry B. Tyler letter to Isaac Toucey, 1 June 

1858; Henry B. Tyler letter to Isaac Toucey, 22 September 1858, all in 

RG 80, General Records of the Department of the Navy, Records of the 

Office of the Secretary of the Navy: General Records, Letters Received, 

Letters from the Commandant and Other Officers of the Marine Corps, 

NARA.

as a plan of an office for the Adjutant 

and Inspector of the Marine Corps. 

This plan with the estimated cost of 

the building was made by Mr. Clark, 

the architect of the Patent and Gen’l 

[General] Post Office Building. You 

will perceive that the building is to 

be fire proof, one story high, and to 

contain two rooms, with a passage or 

Hall between them. There has never 

been an office built for the Adjutant 

and Inspector of the Marine Corps. 

He at present occupies for that purpose two of the Barrack rooms (mens 

[sic] Quarters) these [sic] rooms have 

the Garrison cook room on one side 

and the Bake House on the other, it 

is apparent from their locations that 

they are liable at any moment to take 

fire and should the building catch fire 

on either side, these rooms with the 

records of this office would be consumed in the general conflagration. 

These rooms are moreover too damp 

for the preservation of papers and too 

dusty for an office; if the papers are 

not removed to another building, they 

will in a short time become damaged 

by the dampness of the rooms; and in 

the event of fire, their destruction is 

inevitable.10

In this recommendation, Tyler was very forwardthinking for his time. Codification of archival theory 

in the United States dates back to Theodore Roosevelt 

Schellenberg’s seminal work beginning in the 1930s 

and culminating in the publication of Modern Archives: 

Principles and Techniques in 1956. Yet, in his proposal, 

Tyler shows consideration for many of the principles 

we consider essential to modern archival practice. Tyler’s proposal is steeped in the belief in the evidential 

value of records and their usefulness in documenting, evaluating, and analyzing how the Marine Corps 

10 Tyler letter, 7 September 1857.
44 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

carried out its duties. This documentation would be 

invaluable in measuring progress toward professionalization as well as proving the Corps was following 

through on its obligations. It also demonstrates a concern for safeguarding those records from theft and 

damage and a cognizance that the conditions under 

which the records were kept were detrimental to the 

survival of the information they contained. The building design reflects consideration for the basic functions of a modern archive: accession, access, reference, 

preservation, and security of the records. 

Furthermore, Tyler’s building would be purposebuilt to modern architectural standards and designed 

in such a way as to consider in its construction the 

long-term preservation and accessibility to the records of the Corps. For instance, Tyler’s insistence on 

a free-standing brick structure and a central hallway 

significantly reduce the threat to the records posed by 

fire, humidity, and dust in the current environment. 

The provision for a room dedicated to records storage showed Tyler understood the need to secure them, 

both for their preservation and for accountability. It 

also demonstrated an understanding of the irreplaceable nature and value of the evidence they contained. 

The separate office allowed controlled access to the 

records, which made them readily available while protecting their integrity and security. Finally, creating 

a freestanding brick building for housing the Marine 

Corps’ records showed an understanding of environmental factors that might shorten a record’s useful 

life. All these ideas are central to modern archival 

theory and document preservation.11 

In the end, many of Tyler’s critiques and ideas 

for reform would go unheeded. His frustrations eventually would lead him to resign his commission and 

take a commission in the Confederate States Marine Corps (CSMC), along with many of his reformminded brethren with combat experience. Tyler was 

commissioned a lieutenant colonel, the second ranking officer in the CSMC. He trained and led a CSMC 

battalion in Pensacola, Florida, and later served as 

a brigade commander in the Army of Pensacola un11 T. R. Schellenberger, Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2003), 8, 10, 15–16, 162–64.

til January 1862, when he was dismissed by General 

Braxton Bragg for negligence. His military history is 

checkered after that. He did staff duty sitting on various courts martial and then seems to have been banished—for reasons unknown—to Lynchburg, Virginia, 

where he was paroled in 1865, claiming to have taken 

no further part in the war after leaving Pensacola.12

Tyler fell on hard times after the war. He had 

lost substantial wealth during the war when the federal government confiscated and resold the land he 

owned in the District of Columbia under the provisions of the Confiscation Act of 1863. He would later 

enlist the help of friends to help him to try and regain citizenship and regain this property through the 

courts. These efforts failed. To improve his fortunes, 

Tyler bought and operated the Union Hotel in Fairfax, Virginia. He died at his home in Fairfax County 

on 17 December 1879.13 

However, Tyler’s dream for a purpose-built archival facility for the Marine Corps remained alive. 

The first steps toward this were taken in the creation 

of the Historical Branch within the Office of the Adjutant and Inspector of the Marine Corps in 1919. 

The goal was to preserve and make accessible the historical records of the Marine Corps and to help get 

its story before the public. After World War II, the 

older records held by that office were transferred to 

the National Archives and Records Administration 

to become the basis of Record Group 127 to preserve 

them for future generations. Efforts to expand Marine Corps archival holdings outside the records of 

Headquarters began in the 1950s with the creation of 

12 Krivdo, “What Are Marines For?,” 166–68; and David M. Sullivan, The 

United States Marines in the Civil War: The Final Year (Shippensburg, PA: 

White Mane Books, 2000), 260–61.

13 See Correspondence in Henry B. Tyler Case File, Case Files of Applications of Former Confederates for Presidential Pardons (Amnesty 

Papers), 1865–1867, RG 94, microfilm roll 70, National Archives and 

Records Administration, Washington, DC; “Local Matters—Important 

Action in the United States Circuit Court—Quashing of Indictments 

for Treason—Mr. Davis Free at Last,” Richmond (VA) Dispatch, 12 February 1869, 1; “Letter from Fairfax,” Alexandria (VA) Gazette, 8 December 

1866, 1; “Local News—Legality of the Confiscation Act,” Alexandria Gazette, 6 March 1867, 3; “Confiscation of Property in the U.S. Capital and 

in Alexandria, Va.,” Abingdon (VA) Virginian, 14 August 1863, 1; “Local 

News—In the U.S. Supreme Court,” Alexandria Gazette, 30 March 1870, 

3; Washington Post, 20 December 1879, 4.
SUMMER 2019 45

the Marine Corps Personal Papers Collection. Then 

Colonel (later lieutenant general) Victor H. Krulak 

created the Historical Amphibious Files in the James 

Carson Breckinridge Professional Library of the Marine Corps Schools (which later grew into the current 

Marine Corps University Research Library branch of 

the Library of the Marine Corps) to document Marine 

Corps innovation in amphibious warfare in the post–

Korean War era. 

In 1965, Commandant Wallace M. Greene Jr. 

created the Commandant’s Advisory Committee on 

Marine Corps History. The committee’s work created 

the Marine Corps Museum with an archival component at Marine Corps Base Quantico and ultimately 

the Marine Corps Historical Division with its archive 

in 1971, which until 2005 resided in the Washington 

Navy Yard. Under the guidance of this committee, the 

Marine Corps further developed its cache of historical 

resources, including the Command Chronology Program, the Oral History Program, and Historical Reference Branch. In 1992, as part of the vision for Marine 

Corps University, the Marine Corps Research Center 

(now the Alfred M. Gray Research Center) opened 

with an archival component that would make historical materials available for the students of the Marine 

Corps schools. These two archives were merged in 

2005 within the Gray Research Center aboard Quantico. Four years later, the staff of the Archives Branch, 

Library of the Marine Corps Quantico, and Marine 

Corps Historical Division began planning to build, 

for the first time, a dedicated facility for historical 

research and publication, and the collection, preservation, and access to historical resources of the Marine 

Corps, thereby laying the ground work to fulfill Tyler’s vision of a purpose-built facility to provide for 

the collection and longer term preservation of Marine 

Corps historical resources.14

14 For more on the expansion of Marine Corps historical and archival 

resources in the post–World War II period, see Col Frank C. Caldwell, 

“Every Marine an Historian,” Marine Corps Gazette 50, no. 3 (March 1966): 

33–38; Annette Amerman, “Every Marine an Historian: The Sequel,” Marine Corps Gazette 96, no. 3 (March 2012): 77–79; and Kara Newcomer, 

“History Division on the World Wide Web,” Fortitudine 34 no, 5, 2009. 

These two publications are treasure troves of information on the developments in the Marine Corps historical program.

Tyler’s vision for a purpose-built archive for the 

Marine Corps was finally realized in 2017 with the 

opening of the Brigadier General Edwin H. Simmons 

Marine Corps History Center aboard Quantico. This 

facility now houses the Archives Branch of the Marine Corps History Division and was built to National 

Archives standards to house historical records of continuing value to the Marine Corps, and its operational, training, and educational programs.

Today, the Archives Branch maintains more 

than 5,800 personal papers collections representing 

the experiences of individual Marines of all ranks and 

military occupational specialties serving in all climes 

throughout the history of the Marine Corps. In addition, it maintains significant research collections related to the activities and campaigns of Marine Corps 

units, the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, the Training and Education Command, and the 

Marine Corps Systems Command. It is also home to 

thousands of films and photographs. Archives serves a 

broad and varied patron base from Headquarters Marine Corps to the Marine Corps schools, the Corps’ 

operating forces and commands, academic researchers from universities around the country, and federal 

agencies like the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The archive replies to nearly 4,000 requests for information per year and another 1,500 requests per year 

from the Veterans Administration alone.

Tyler’s vision for an archive for the Marine Corps 

has been realized. Day to day, it serves Marines, veterans, academics, government agencies, and researchers 

around the world. The archive provides an accessible 

link to the past for the Fleet Marine Force, Headquarters, and the students of Marine Corps University 

and the Training and Education Command. It is an 

invaluable resource for documenting the activities of 

the Corps, serving as a source for accountability, and 

a reference point for the developmental, educational, 

and training needs of the Marine Corps. As such it 

will continue to fulfill the need envisioned by Tyler 

more than a century ago well into the future.

• 1775 •
Keepers of Odd Knowledge

HISTORY AND FUNCTIONS 

OF THE HISTORICAL REFERENCE BRANCH

by Annette Amerman1

Housing compact shelves filled with files, History Division’s Historical Reference Branch may look like an archive, but it is not.2 The 

term reference may conjure images of a library, yet 

the Historical Reference Branch is much more. It 

is staffed not with archivists or librarians, but with 

historians—yet these historians are not tasked with 

writing monographs like the other historians of the 

division. These facts make the Historical Reference 

Branch something of an enigma within the division. 

This piece seeks to provide clarity on how the Historical Reference Branch came into being and how it fits 

into the larger mission of the History Division, its current role and responsibilities, and its future. 

Origins of the Branch

When discussing the Historical Reference Branch, 

one must also discuss its founding father, Joel Davis Thacker. In 1931, Headquarters Marine Corps 

(HQMC) hired Thacker, a decorated U.S. Army veteran of World War I, to organize and review the muster rolls of the Marines that served in the war. His 

skill, knowledge, and creation of better procedures 

1

 Annette Amerman is the head of the Historical Reference Branch, Marine Corps History Division. She started with the History Division in 

1995 as an intern, and later as a research assistant. She returned to the 

division in 2003 and was promoted to branch head in November 2017.

2

 Today’s Historical Reference Branch has undergone many name changes in the course of its history; for ease of reading, it will simply be referred to as Reference or the branch throughout.

for completing this task led to a special mission of 

conducting research in medical and other records of 

the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps concerning Corps 

personnel in the Great War. As a result of this work, 

hundreds of Marines were awarded long-delayed medals and monetary benefits authorized by law. While 

carrying out his special mission, Thacker was in close 

and continual contact with the Historical Division of 

the Marine Corps by assisting in the preparation of 

numerous historical materials and by organizing and 

adding valuable materials to the Corps’ archives. In 

June 1942, Thacker transferred permanently to the 

Historical Division where he was dubbed the resident “answer man” as he quickly became the historian 

who handled all inquiries from Marines and the general public.3

 As Thacker’s career progressed within the 

division, he collected documents, papers, clippings, 

and more so he could answer more questions. These 

were the first steps in the creation of what is today 

the working files collection of the Historical Reference Branch. 

For all his work, Thacker was designated as historical advisor to the Corps in 1951, for his rapid, 

professional and historically accurate response to requests from across the Marine Corps, including the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps. Thacker’s official 

title was the head of the Records and Research Section, which was devoted to the combined functions 

3

 Bill Kreh, “The Marines’ Answer Man,” Sunday Star, 29 June 1952.

46
SUMMER 2019 47

of the archives and historians conducting research 

in response to requests. This section held a variety of 

materials, such as official records, published works 

(books, magazines, and newspapers), and the working 

files established by Thacker. Eventually, the section’s 

activities expanded beyond its original scope, with its 

historians fielding increasing numbers of requests for 

information. Conducting research into those records 

and printed materials in order to answer inquiries dramatically degraded their ability to achieve their primary missions. In 1957, after decades of military and 

civilian service, Thacker retired, leaving behind a distinguished career and an office capable of handling the 

varied and multiple requests for information received.4

By 1966, the old Records and Research Section 

was reorganized into three separate sections: Archives, 

Library, and Historical Reference sections. This separation allowed the historians in Reference to strictly 

focus on the historical requests for information that 

did not fall under the other two sections while enabling the archivists and librarians to focus on their 

tasks. The archivists were charged with the collection, 

arrangement, preservation, and access to the official 

records. Similarly, the librarians were charged with 

the maintenance of information in published format 

and with providing access to them. 

In answering questions, the Reference historians 

provided context to the bare facts of history as well 

as advice regarding other resources, helped shape the 

product the patron was attempting to create (dissertation, article, book, etc.), and assisted the layman to 

understand the Corps’ history. For instance, when the 

patron did not have a clear focus to their final project, 

the historians of the branch could act as a sounding 

board and offer suggestions to assist in the project’s 

development. When family members needed to understand elements of their Marine’s service—whether 

a service record, the history of a unit, or general historical context—the historians of the branch helped 

that family. This primary function of Reference remains today. 

4

 Joel D. Thacker biography, Biographical File, Historical Reference 

Branch, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA.

Expansion of Roles and Mission

Since the separation of the three sections, the historians in Reference have remained focused on answering a broad spectrum of inquiries. To respond rapidly 

to requests, Reference still uses Thacker’s system of 

working files. Originally housed in black vertical filing 

cabinets, the branch’s working files now are housed in 

a compact shelving unit that is 19 feet long and 11 feet 

tall. The working files are organized into four groups: 

biographical, subject, unit, and photographic. 

The biographical files are organized by name 

and contain information on prominent, famous, and 

infamous Marines of the past, such as former Commandants of the Marine Corps, Medal of Honor 

recipients, Lee Marvin (famous), and Lee Harvey 

Oswald (infamous). The files may contain copies of 

newspaper articles, brief biographies (usually less 

than 10 pages), copies of portions of the individual’s 

official military personnel file (OMPF), or even copies of their own correspondence and notes created by 

branch historians. 

The subject files contain subcollections on a variety of topics from abbreviations to youth programs 

and can contain copies of extracts from official records, newspaper clippings, articles, brief histories, 

reports, and correspondence from branch historians 

relevant to the topic. 

The unit files are the fastest growing working file 

group, as the files as the Corps’ force structure changes, units continue to deploy, and historians continually update units’ lineages and honors. These files can 

contain copies of records, listings of commanding officers, brief histories, and research materials collected 

by the historians for lineages and honors, among other 

documents that may be helpful in future efforts. 

The photographic files are printed copies of photos held by the National Archives and Records Administration, but are strictly Marine Corps related. 

The collection was created when prints were made in 

support of the Marine Corps Museum, then located in 

Building 58 at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC, and 

to support historical manuscripts published by the division. As use of digital imagery increased, the need to 

obtain prints from the National Archives decreased, 
48 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

so Reference’s collection ends around the time of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. 

As the Corps continues to create history, Reference adds to its working files to assist in fulfilling future requests. As the bulk of the files contain copied 

materials, either from newspapers, official records, 

reports, and products created by the historians in 

the branch, they do not fall under the Department of 

the Navy’s or the Marine Corps’ records management 

manuals for retirement to the National Archives.5 The 

files are unique in their singular focus on the Marine 

Corps and their wide range of coverage, and they may 

include information covered by the Privacy Act of 

1974. For these reasons, they are noncirculating and 

individuals outside of the branch are granted access 

only in the branch researcher room, much in the way 

a library does not allow borrowing of its reference 

books.6

While answering requests was how the branch 

came to fruition, the mission has grown in the years 

since Thacker’s departure. As an extension of the mission to provide assistance to researchers, the section 

compiled and published chronologies covering the 

periods “1935–1946 and 1947–1963, bibliographies, and 

various reference publications.”7 In 1968, the Marine 

Corps created the Lineage and Honors Program to 

track the administrative and operational histories and 

cumulative battle honors of eligible Marine Corps 

units, mirroring the program of the Army.8 Since its 

5 The Department of the Navy’s (DON) Records Management Manual, 

SecNav M-5210.1, and the Marine Corps Records Management Manual, 

MCO 5210.11F, establish policies and procedures for lifecycle management (creation, maintenance, use, and disposition) of DON and Marine 

Corps records. The manuals provide guidelines and procedures for the 

proper administration of a records management program. Both contain 

all DON and Corps records disposition schedules approved by the National Archives.

6

 The Privacy Act of 1974, broadly stated, is to balance the government’s 

need to maintain information about individuals with the rights of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasions of their privacy 

stemming from federal agencies’ collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information about them. 

7

 Col Frank C. Caldwell, “Every Marine an [sic] Historian,” Marine Corps 

Gazette 50, no. 3 (March 1966): 37. 8

 Annette D. Amerman, “A Milestone Anniversary: The Marine Corps’ 

Lineage and Honors Program,” Fortitudine 34, no. 3 (2009): 13.

inception, the Lineage and Honors Program has been 

administered by the historians of Reference. At the 

outset, the program issued certificates only to the 

fighting regiments; today, the list of eligible units has 

expanded to nearly 450. Having the responsibility for 

the program expands the historians’ knowledge of the 

general history of Marine Corps units and enhances 

their research skills in the official records held by the 

division. The last major expansion of responsibilities 

for the branch came in 1976, when the Commemorative Naming Program was transferred to the Historical Division from the Logistics Division and assigned 

to Reference.9 The knowledge of prominent and famous Marines of the past held by the branch makes it 

easy for the historians to vet naming candidates and 

even offer suggestions of potential candidates. 

Changes to Mission

The number of requests received by the branch 

reached a peak of around 8,000 per year in the early 

1990s, fueled particularly by requests for assistance regarding the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and coinciding with commemorations of the 50th anniversary 

of World War II. In the years since, the number of requests received has decreased, largely due to the availability of information on the internet. However, the 

complexity and level of effort and time needed to respond has increased dramatically. Many questions are 

received from HQMC offices, such as the Commandant’s Staff Group, the Strategic Initiatives Group, 

and Plans, Policies and Operations, requesting speech 

support, fact checking, preparation for overseas visits to battlefields, and planning for the future of the 

Corps’ force structure. One of the more interesting examples of recent HQMC requests was regarding force 

structure and history of Marine Corps combat service 

support since World War II and the historic roles and 

missions of the Marine Corps since the end of World 

War II. 

Requests from family members of Marine veter9

 LtCol Robert B. Newlin, “This High Name,” Marine Corps Gazette 70, 

no. 11 (November 1986): 82.
SUMMER 2019 49

ans often require considerable time and patience to 

explain that which Marine Corps historians take for 

granted, such as deployment patterns, ranks, command structure and general information on specific 

battles or wars. Families of Marine veterans have become more interested in the minute details of their 

relatives’ service than just the overview provided in a 

military service record. Branch historians work with 

them to understand the context of their relatives’ service. 

In decades past, it was primarily the general public who submitted requests, but today it is the Marines 

of the operating forces that comprise the largest part 

of the branch’s patron base. On average, the bulk of 

the requests are received from three groups—35 percent from Marine Corps units around the globe, 30 

percent from the general public (including veterans 

and their families), and 15 percent from other staff 

within the division; the remaining 20 percent come 

from external academics and professional historians, 

HQMC, the Department of the Navy, and other government agencies. The overwhelming majority of the 

requests received come in by email (75 percent), followed by telephone requests (20 percent), with the 

rest from in-person visitors.

The Lineage and Honors Program remains one 

of the most time-consuming aspects of the branch’s 

responsibilities. More than 450 units are issued certificates that give a snapshot of their histories and 

list their cumulative battle honors earned. To compile this overview, a historian must comb through the 

command chronologies submitted by the unit and any 

other official record of the unit’s activities since the 

last certificates were issued. This process requires close 

coordination with the unit to ensure all operational 

deployments are captured accurately, as well as with 

HQMC’s Military Awards Branch to confirm all unit 

awards are corroborated and legitimate. Researching, 

reviewing awards, drafting, editing, and preparing lineage and honors certificates can take upward of 8–10 

hours to complete per set. 

Over the past 15 years, there has been a dramatic 

increase in requests for digital responses from branch 

patrons. However, at least 97 percent of the working 

files within Reference remain in their original, nondigital state. To meet this demand, there have been 

attempts to digitize the working files, beginning in 

2005; however, none have been enough to digitize the 

entire collection. When possible, using outside contractors, a portion of the files have been digitized and 

are available upon request, such as the biographical 

files, casualty cards (wounded, killed, and missing 

from WWII to Korea), and lineal lists (lists of Marine 

officers in order of precedence). The members of the 

branch are also digitizing materials on demand in response to requests. To move forward with digitization 

and online access to the branch’s materials, a historian 

is now designated as the collection and online content 

manager in addition to their regular duties; this historian is creating file inventories and research aids to 

better assist patrons and branch historians alike. 

In addition to the established responsibilities, 

the branch historians are increasingly providing presentations and short lectures to civic organizations, 

Marine Corps units, and academic conferences on a 

variety of topics such as Belleau Wood, World War I 

aviation, Navajo code talkers, Tarawa, the Combined 

Action Program, and prominent Marines of the past, 

just to name a few from the past year. While many 

presentations can be recycled and tailored to the specific audience, each presentation is designed for the 

specific audience and the theme of their event.

Moving Forward

The branch is committed to providing sound historical information in a timely manner to its patrons. If 

the historians of the branch do not know the answer 

to a question, they endeavor to find out—not just because it was asked but because it expands their knowledge and abilities for future requests. Therefore, the 

collective corporate memory of the branch is critical. 

To give patrons more information, the branch is 

considering reengaging in publishing products such 

as topical anthologies, annotated bibliographies, and 

other research-centric works, as well as updating brief 

unit histories. Such published products are within the 
50 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

scope of the branch’s mission to help researchers understand the history of the Corps. It is true that the 

Historical Reference Branch does not fit into any predefined mold. However, the functions that the branch 

fulfills are essential to the overall mission of the History Division to serve Marines, scholars, the general 

public, veterans, and their families alike. 

• 1775 •
“Record the Things 

that Were Well Done”

THE CREATION OF AMERICAN SERVICE BRANCH 

HISTORY OFFICES IN THE WAKE OF THE GREAT WAR

by Colonel Douglas E. Nash Sr., USA (Ret)1

I

n many ways, World War I represents a watershed 

event for the Marine Corps. In preparation for 

the war, the Corps studied new kinds of tactics, 

weapons, and organizations, learning how to wage a 

large-scale land war as part of a combined arms force. 

During the bloody struggles for Belleau Wood and 

Mont Blanc, Marines fought a first-class opponent 

equipped with modern weapons and learned the cost 

of victory. The Corps also realized the importance of 

recording and maintaining records of its own history 

and publishing written accounts for posterity. 

Although it still relied on Major Richard S. 

Collum’s informal history of the Marine Corps, first 

written in 1874 and last updated in 1903, the Corps 

found itself after the “war to end all wars” with no 

official historian of its own to update Collum’s work 

and write about its participation in that conflict. To 

correct this shortcoming, Edwin N. McClellan, then 

a major and freshly returned from the fighting in 

France, was formally appointed historian of the Marine Corps in 1919 and charged by the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps, Major General George Barnett, 

with writing the Corps’ official account. Tasked at 

first with writing a pamphlet, McClellan’s efforts ex1

 Col Douglas E. Nash Sr., USA (Ret), served as head of Histories 

Branch, Marine Corps History Division, since 2016. In addition to his 

six commercially published books on various topics of military history, 

a number of his articles and book reviews have been published in Marine 

Corps History, Fortitudine, Army History, Armchair General, and World War 

II magazines. He has also appeared as a commentator on the History 

Channel and “Ollie North’s War Stories” on the Fox Network. 

panded to encompass nearly every aspect of the Marine Corps’ involvement in that war, including charts, 

statistics, tables, and an index.2 The Corps was to be 

the first Armed Service to offer its official history of 

World War I.

When The United State Marine Corps in the World 

War was first published in 1920 by the Government 

Printing Office, McClellan’s account contained 109 

pages of densely packed text. Reprinted several times 

and augmented with photographs and additional 

text since, it remains the Corps’ definitive history of 

that conflict, with the recent 2014 edition totaling 

228 pages.3 To write his manuscript, McClellan’s office was augmented by three enlisted men, who acted 

as research assistants and editors. Shortly thereafter, 

he began work on what was to be the definitive official history of the Marine Corps, which he envisioned 

would encompass seven volumes. He never finished 

it before he retired in 1935, but by then, the Marine 

Corps Historical Section was an accepted institution. 

Just as the Marine Corps considered the creation 

of a history office after the war, so too were the other 

Armed Services—which at that time meant the U.S. 

Army, represented by the War Department, and the 

Department of the Navy—began considering creating 

their own history offices during the same period. The 

2

 Edwin H. Simmons, “A History of Marine Corps Histories,” Naval History 17, no. 1 (February 2003): 34. 3

 Maj Edwin N. McClellan, The United States Marine Corps in the World 

War (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps History Division, 2014).

51
52 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

U.S. Air Force did not officially exist until 1948, but 

its accomplishments during World War I were duly 

recorded by the Army, from which it derived. The 

U.S. Coast Guard, which until 1915 was known as the 

Revenue Cutter Service, also participated in the war 

and took steps to create such an office as well. These 

various Service history offices evolved in a manner 

similar to that of the Marine Corps—not in a straight 

line, never funded sufficiently, and even temporarily 

dissolved at one time or another—but they have survived and adapted to become the organizations that 

the Marine Corps History Division works with today. 

The U.S. Navy’s Historical Office

The U.S. Navy’s history office traces its roots back to 

the creation of the Navy Department Library in 1794, 

which focused its efforts on collecting records, maps, 

books, and other relevant naval documents at its location in the Philadelphia Navy Yard. However, it was 

not involved in drafting and publishing any works of 

a historical nature. After 1800, it also began acquiring 

naval artifacts and various trophies of war, including 

cannon from captured enemy vessels. In 1814, the 

library moved to the Washington Navy Yard in the 

District of Columbia, though it still functioned as 

a repository for books, documents, maps, and various artifacts rather than an office formally charged 

with the preservation and publication of the Navy’s 

history. 

In 1879, 14 years after the Civil War had ended, 

the Navy Department Library was moved to the same 

building on 17th Street occupied by the State, War, 

and Navy Departments. For administrative purposes, 

it was placed under the Navy’s Bureau of Navigation 

Official U.S. Navy photo, NH 79199

Maj Richard S. Collum, 1905.

Official Marine Corps photo

LtCol Edwin N. McClellan, 1934.
SUMMER 2019 53

as part of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The U.S. 

Congress officially recognized the Navy Library in 

1882, when that body voted to authorize funds for 

the library and its staff. The legislation also directed 

that the Navy Department Library and the Naval War 

Records Office be combined under one directorship, 

an action that resulted in a new name: the Office of 

Naval Records and Library, which made the Navy the 

first Service with a permanent office dedicated to the 

preservation and study, though not writing, of military history.4

 

Using the funds allocated, the new history office 

began work in 1884 drafting and publishing the Navy’s 

official history of the Civil War, under the leadership 

of the project’s superintendent, Professor James Russell Soley. Soley was also the first professional historian to serve in that capacity, having had a career as 

a naval officer, U.S. Naval Academy instructor, and 

international lawyer and as a prolific author of a number of articles on past and contemporary naval history. 

While work on the Navy’s Civil War volumes continued apace, Soley was appointed in October 1889 to 

become assistant secretary of the Navy. Prior to his 

4

 “Origins of the Naval History and Heritage Command,” Naval History 

and Heritage Command website, accessed 28 November 2018.

departure, he selected Lieutenant Commander Frederick M. Wise to serve as the new librarian in charge 

of not only the library, but all naval war records as 

well. With the drafting of the various volumes of its 

Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in 

the War of the Rebellion completed by 1894, Congress 

authorized funds to print the first volumes in the series. By the time the project was completed in 1927, 31 

volumes had been printed.

When the United States declared war against 

the Central Powers of Europe in 1917, further work 

on the Civil War history project was suspended until 

the end of hostilities. In the meantime, the secretary 

of the Navy declared on 18 August 1918 that the Navy 

needed to formally establish a permanent historical 

section separate from the Office of Naval Records and 

Library that would operate under the direction of the 

Chief of Naval Operations.5

 This new office, officially 

titled Historical Section, was tasked with recording 

and publishing the Navy’s history beginning with its 

inception, and thus the Navy’s first history office dedicated to writing official histories was created. Tasked 

with writing not only the history of the war that had 

been underway for nearly a year, the office was also 

instructed to gather relevant historical material on 

foreign navies as well. 

As the war neared its end, Admiral William S. 

Sims, who commanded all U.S. Navy forces operating in European waters, appointed Captain Dudley W. 

Knox to write the official account of the Navy’s participation in the European theater of war against the 

Central Powers. This office would operate separately 

from the newly established Historical Section at the 

Washington Navy Yard, and to carry out his assignment, Knox was assigned 20 officers and 50 enlisted 

men to gather documents, conduct research, and begin the task of writing from an office in London. This 

project was cancelled shortly after it started when the 

war ended unexpectedly on 11 November 1918. But 

Knox’s efforts to preserve the historical records of that 

war were not forgotten.6

5

 “Origins of the Naval History and Heritage Command.”

6

 “Origins of the Naval History and Heritage Command.”

Official U.S. Navy photo, NH 45022

Prof James R. Soley, assistant secretary of the Navy, 1890–93.
54 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

A year later, the Navy’s Historical Section and 

the Office of Naval Records and Library were both 

placed under a single command, though not merged. 

On 14 July 1921, Captain Knox was abruptly plucked 

from his fleet assignment and appointed the director 

of both the naval records and the library offices and 

tasked with writing the official history of World War 

I, a project that he estimated would require several 

years. Although seven monographs about certain aspects of the war were published in the years that followed, the Navy’s official history of World War I was 

never completed due to a variety of factors, such as 

lack of people and money, a challenge that the Army, 

Navy, and Marine Corps’ history offices were all facing at this time. Knox’s tenure as the curator for the 

Navy Department, responsible for both the Historical 

Section and the Office of Naval Records and Library, 

was to last 25 years and would leave a lasting mark on 

that institution. 

In 1927, the embryonic Historical Section was 

absorbed by the Office of Naval Records and Library, 

becoming a single organization.7

 In 1930, an attempt 

to create a Navy museum was undertaken, as the Navy 

had amassed an impressive amount of relics and monuments; however despite now-commodore Knox’s 

best efforts, this initial attempt did not succeed. Most 

of these relics, known as the Dahlgren Collection after 

the officer who created it, Rear Admiral John A. Dahlgren, continued to be maintained at the Washington 

Navy Yard, while the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis preserved its own collection of Navy artifacts. 

Interrupted by the onset of World War II, the Office of Naval Records and Library’s Historical Section 

was tasked with gathering and compiling the official 

record of that war, an overwhelming task for which it 

was not well suited because the majority of its writers 

7

 William James Morgan and Joye L. Leonhart, A History of the Dudley 

Knox Center for Naval History (Washington, DC: Dudley Knox Center for 

Naval History, Department of the Navy, 1981), 6.

Official U.S. Navy photo, NH 63299

Capt Frederick M. Wise, USN, ca. 1865.

Official U.S. Navy photo, NH 48462

Capt Dudley W. Knox, USN, taken while he was officer in charge of the 

Office of Naval Records and the Navy Department Library.
SUMMER 2019 55

were civilians based in Washington, DC, who could 

not sail with the fleet. This obstacle was partly overcome by Knox when he sought out noted historians 

such as Dr. Samuel Eliot Morison, a Reserve naval officer who volunteered for active duty and served in a 

variety of naval theaters during the war. Though he 

was not officially assigned to the Historical Section, 

his work resulted in the definitive 15-volume History 

of the United States Naval Operations in World War II.

8

During the war, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal also created the Office of Naval History in 1944 

“to coordinate the preparation of all histories and narratives of the current wartime activities in the naval 

establishment in order to assure adequate coverage 

to serve present and future needs and effectively to 

eliminate non-essential and overlapping effort.” Admiral Edward C. Kalbfuss (Ret) was named to head 

the newly established office as its director. As established, it was not part of the Office of Naval Records 

and Library, even though Captain Knox served as Kalbfuss’ deputy director. This new office greatly assisted 

Knox with his efforts to collect historical data from 

the ongoing conflict, particularly since all ships and 

naval units at sea or ashore were required to submit 

periodic histories to the Office of Naval History. Following the war, both offices were merged into one in 

1949, with the new title being the Naval Records and 

History Division.9

Finally, the U.S. Naval History Division was 

activated in 1952 and formally established at the 

Washington Navy Yard, replacing its predecessor. It 

was charged not only with maintaining the Navy library and historical records and with publishing official histories, but also with storing and cataloging 

the growing collection of Navy art, photographs, and 

oral history. Meanwhile, the Naval Historical Display 

Center was designated as the successor to the Dahlgren Collection in 1961 and was renamed the National 

Museum of the Navy, which opened in a new building 

8

 Morgan and Leonhart, A History of the Dudley Knox Center for Naval History, 8; and Samuel Eliot Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, 15 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1947–62).  9

 Morgan and Leonhart, A History of the Dudley Knox Center for Naval 

History, 8–9.

at the Washington Navy Yard in 1963. The museum 

and Naval History Division were finally merged into 

one organization in 1971, bringing all Navy historical 

offices under one roof in the newly formed Naval Historical Center.10

In 1991, the Naval Historical Center assumed 

responsibility for the Naval History Detachment 

Boston, which maintained and operated the USS 

Constitution, the oldest commissioned warship in the 

Navy’s inventory. Its most recent addition was the 

creation of the Underwater Archeology Branch in 

1996, which is responsible for protecting and studying 

the Navy’s submerged cultural resources and protecting the status of sunken U.S. warships as war graves. 

The oldest of the Services’ history offices, the Naval 

History and Heritage Command (its new name since 

2008) continues to serve as the nation’s repository for 

official Navy history and as custodian of its naval artifacts, working in close cooperation with the Marine 

Corps History Division.

The U.S. Army’s Center 

of Military History

Although it has been in existence since 1775, the U.S. 

Army did not establish a permanent military history 

office until August 1943. Until that point, the secretary of war, as head of the War Department, would 

appoint officers to form committees to write the official accounts of its campaigns. In 1877, the Army 

began work on the multivolume Official Records of 

the War of the Rebellion, which became known as the 

“monumental history of the Civil War.”11 Working as 

the head of the newly established War Records Section of the War Department’s Publications Office, 

Captain Robert N. Scott (later brevet lieutenant colonel) worked diligently to collect thousands of official 

records and to hire a team of writers, who labored for 

20 years to produce 128 books in 70 volumes between 

10 Morgan and Leonhart, A History of the Dudley Knox Center for Naval 

History, 10. 11 “The US Army Center of Military History: An Overview,” U.S. Army 

Center of Military History website, accessed 28 November 2018.
56 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

1880 and 1901.12 When Scott died from pneumonia in 

1887, he was replaced by Colonel Henry M. Lazelle, 

who relied heavily on his civilian compiler or editor 

Joseph W. Kirkley to complete the series. The office 

was disbanded with the publication of its last volume 

in 1901.13

In the immediate aftermath of World War I, the 

Army, still lacking its own historical office, was directed by its chief of staff, General Tasker H. Bliss, to 

establish a historical office as a section under his direct supervision. Bliss made his intent clearly known 

at the outset, stating that the purpose of such an office was to “record the things that were well done, for 

future imitation . . . [and] the errors as shown by experience, for future avoidance.”14 Before General Bliss 

could ensure that his intent for the Historical Section 

was met, he was transferred to France on 23 January 

1918 to serve as the American permanent representative to the Allied Supreme War Council.15 

Bliss’s successor, acting Chief of Staff General 

Peyton C. Marsh (subsequently confirmed as chief 

of staff on 20 May 1918), believed that the needs of 

the Army would be better served by having the historical office located within the General Staff rather 

than directly under his supervision. Consequently, 

War Department General Order No. 41, dated 9 February 1918, was issued, directing that a Historical 

Branch be established as an element of the Army’s 

General Staff War Planning Division at the Army 

War College. The following month, it was activated 

under the leadership of Lieutenant Colonel Charles 

W. Weeks with seven officers, fifteen enlisted men, 

and five civilian employees at Washington Barracks 

12 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union 

and Confederate Armies, 70 vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office, 1880–1901).

13 “Guide to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies 

in the War of the Rebellion,” Civil War Digital website, accessed 15 May 

2019.

14 United States Army in the World War, 1917–1919: Organization of the American Expeditionary Forces, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Historical Division, Department of the Army, 1948), vii.

15 Biography of Tasker H. Bliss, “Finding Aid: Tasker H. Bliss—An Inventory of His Collection,” Collection of Tasker H. Bliss, Manuscript Collection, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle, PA, 3.

(now Fort McNair) in the District of Columbia.16

Shortly after its activation, a team of eight, including stenographers and translators, was dispatched 

to the headquarters of General John J. Pershing’s 

American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) in France, 

where it collected and organized copies of orders, 

memoranda, and other official correspondence. Here, 

it remained until October 1918, when it was transferred to the AEF secretary of the General Staff. Before the war ended on 11 November 1918, the Army’s 

Historical Branch, including the section in France and 

the main office at Washington Barracks, had grown to 

comprise 81 soldiers and civilians and much work had 

been done obtaining historical records as well as drafting and publishing two historical monographs. However, funding and manpower constraints that arose in 

the wake of the massive demobilization meant that 

the Historical Branch had shrunk to 14 officers, warrant officers, and civilian employees by 1920. 

General Bliss had envisioned that the Historical 

Branch would prepare a “complete history of our participation in the World War,” including volumes on 

mobilization; economic, financial and industrial mobilization; diplomatic relations; military operations; 

and a photographic history.17 Unfortunately, these 

plans were scrapped in the wake of the drawdown, 

which shrank the Army from a wartime strength of 

nearly four million men to its prewar strength of 

slightly more than 100,000 in less than two years. The 

Historical Branch then outlined a more realistic plan 

that would concentrate on four main areas: the classification of all historical records received, the publication of sets of documents as rapidly as possible, the 

preparation of monographs on both operations and 

services of supply, and the publication of an American 

order of battle in the war.

Even then, this less-ambitious plan would be 

16 Robert S. Thomas, History of the Historical Section, Army War College

(Washington, DC: Historical Section, U.S. Army War College, 1941), 

1. The Army War College was temporarily shut down in 1940, only to 

be opened up 10 years later at Fort Leavenworth, KS, then a year after 

that at Carlisle Barracks, PA. Carlisle Barracks and the Army War College 

(Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Center for Social and Urban 

Research, 2018), 2.

17 Thomas, History of the Historical Section, Army War College, 1.
SUMMER 2019 57

hard to implement. Funds were disappearing, as were 

the people needed to carry out these tasks. Now reduced to a combined strength of three officers and 

nine civilian clerks under the supervision of Colonel 

Oliver L. Spaulding, the Historical Branch struggled 

to carry out its mission.18 Surprisingly, its authors 

and editors did manage to write and publish nine historical monographs, ranging from a study of German 

tactics to describing how best to organize tactical formation for battle, as well as what became volume one 

of the Allied Expeditionary Force Order of Battle. 

On 16 August 1921, the Historical Branch was 

18 Harry P. Ball, Of Responsible Command: A History of the U.S. Army War 

College, rev. ed. (Carlisle, PA: Alumni Association of the U.S. Army War 

College, 1994), 177.

transferred from the General Staff to the faculty of 

the U.S. Army War College and renamed the Historical Section, where it experienced an increase in prestige and received, for most of the following decade, 

the necessary means to fulfill its mandated responsibilities, which included the addition of more academically qualified historians. Another attempt was 

made in 1925 to draft and publish a comprehensive 

four-part study of the war, encompassing 57 volumes, 

but after the first volume was published in 1928, the 

commandant of the Army War College, Major General William D. Connor, shortly afterward ordered all 

work to stop and distribution of the existing volume 

to be suppressed. This was due in part to his sense that 

the Historical Section had exceeded its mandate by 

embarking on an analysis of political and economic 

factors that he believed were beyond the purview of 

the military profession. With the onset of the Great 

Depression, the Historical Section was reduced in size 

even more, but the ban on further work was lifted in 

1938.19

Instead of focusing on writing more monographs, 

the commandant of the Army War College directed 

the Historical Section on 14 August 1929 to complete 

a report on World War I that would unfold in three 

phases, beginning with searching the files and classifying all World War I documents of historical value, 

followed by compiling volumes of these documents, 

and ending with writing the synopses of facts from 

the complete records of armies, corps, and division 

and corresponding units.20 This report, which would 

eventually total 18 volumes of selectively edited AEF 

records, was eventually titled The United States Army in 

the World War, 1917–1919. Cited as a “widely representative selection of the records . . . believed to be essential 

to a study of the history of that war,” the series included some of the most illustrative documents about 

the war, culled from the large mass of paper generated 

both overseas and within the various Army posts and 

headquarters throughout the United States.21 

19 Ball, Of Responsible Command, 3.

20 Ball, Of Responsible Command, 4. 21 United States Army in the World War, 1917–1919: Organization of the American Expeditionary Forces, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1988), xi.

Library of Congress photo, CPH3A36601

Gen Tasker H. Bliss, chief of staff, USA, ca. 1918 during World War I.
58 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

During the 20-year period encompassing 1919 

to 1939, the Historical Section at the Army War College was engaged in collating and editing this primary 

source material, both American and foreign, including captured German records, and deciding which 

ones should be included in this massive first pass at 

its World War I history. Once this initial stage was 

completed, the group moved on to the next phase, 

which included putting the material into a readily accessible format so it could be used both by Army War 

College students and the public for future study. No 

monographs or separate studies would be included. 

During these two decades, Army officers and civilians 

assigned to the project would first concentrate on indexing the vast amounts of tactical and technical information contained in the official records, followed 

by determining which of the thousands of selected individual documents to include and agreeing upon the 

theme of each volume, which would guide the placement of the selected material. 

This task was laid aside in 1939 when, with war 

clouds gathering, the Army took tentative steps toward mobilization. One of the backward steps the 

Army made was its 1940 decision to reduce the size 

of the Historical Section, which had an immediate 

negative impact on the production of the World War 

I official history. The adjutant general of the Army, 

Major General Emory S. Adams, halted all further 

work on the war’s history and also suspended classes 

at the Army War College that same year, echoing the 

same quaint sentiments of the former secretary of 

war, Newton D. Baker, who stated in 1919 that 

such a history would be incomplete 

unless it undertook to discuss economic, political and diplomatic questions, and the discussion of such 

questions by military men would necessarily be controversial, and many of 

the questions . . . would be impolitic 

and indiscreet for treatment by the 

War Department.22

22 Bell I. Wiley, Historical Program of the U.S. Army 1939 to Present (Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History, War Department, 

1945), 3.

Further interrupted by the bombing of Pearl 

Harbor and the entry into World War II on 7 December 1941, work on the collection of World War I manuscripts languished for four years. Publication did not 

finally begin until the end of the Second World War, 

almost 30 years after the first had ended. 

After overcoming initial resistance from within 

the Army Staff, on 3 August 1943 the War Department, 

influenced by General Spaulding’s arguments in favor 

of bringing back an organizational history office, authorized the creation of a historical division within 

the Army G-2 Staff Section. Its first director beginning in 1943 was Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kemper, 

Official U.S. Army photo, 104633

Col Oliver L. Spaulding, first director of the Army War College’s Historical Branch, 1919.
SUMMER 2019 59

a Columbia graduate with a master of arts degree in 

history, whose office was established in Room 5B773 

in the Pentagon.23 His focus, naturally, was recording 

and writing the official history of World War II, an effort that resulted in the publication of the Army’s famous Green Book series, titled The U.S. Army in World 

War II. This monumental endeavor, which ended with 

the publication of its 78th volume in 1992, still stands 

today as the benchmark for evaluating official Service 

23 “The U.S. Army Center of Military History: An Overview”; and Wiley, 

Historical Program of the U.S. Army 1939 to Present, 27–28.

history.24 It would not be circumscribed by prewar restrictions on content, which fortunately allowed its 

authors to freely write about the political, economic, 

and grand strategic aspects of the war, unlike the authors of the First World War study.

Kemper also ensured that the World War I official history started in 1919 by the War College Historical Section would finally be completed and made 

available to the public. He oversaw the merging of the 

Army War College Historical Section into the Army 

Historical Section in 1947. This became the Historical Section’s World War I Branch, which would finally 

sever all ties with the newly reinstated Army War 

College three years later in 1950. Shortly after merging 

with the Historical Section, the World War I Branch 

sent its work to printers, beginning with the first volume on 23 April 1948.25 The World War I series was 

so successful that a full reprint of the entire collection, with a new foreword and introductory chapter, 

was authorized in 1988. After serving as the chief of 

the Historical Section for five years, Kemper departed 

shortly thereafter to become the headmaster of the 

Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, a position he held until his death in 1971.

Since the creation of the Army’s historical office 

in 1943, it has undergone several name changes. Now 

the Army Center of Military History, it carries on 

with its original mission, which is to provide historical support to the Army Secretariat and Staff from its 

office at Fort McNair, Washington, DC. Included in 

the Center of Military History’s mission is contributing historical background information needed to 

assist decision makers, writing official histories such 

as the series on the Vietnam War, facilitating staff 

actions within the Army Staff, supporting various 

command information programs at all levels, and providing historical background information for public 

24 This appraisal is widely documentable, but most recently in Edward J. 

Drea, “Change Becomes Continuity: The Start of the U.S. Army’s ‘Green 

Book’ Series,” in Jeffrey Grey, ed., The Last Word: Essays on Official History 

in the United States and British Commonwealth (Westport, CT: Praeger, 

2003), chapter 5; and James Jay Carafano, “The Last Word?: Essays on 

Official History in the United States and British Commonwealth,” Joint 

Force Quarterly 39, no. 4 (Fourth Quarter 2005), 115–16. 25 Ball, Of Responsible Command, 241.

U.S. Military Academy photo

LtCol John M. Kemper, first director of the Army’s Historical Section, 

1943 (shown here as a West Point cadet).
60 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

statements made by Army officials. Along the way, it 

has taken on the additional mission of managing the 

Army’s museum system, collecting works of art, and 

providing support to military schools. It also fulfills 

the function of assisting with the development of the 

official Department of Defense names for land campaigns and battles, a task originally fulfilled by the 

War Department’s Office of the Adjutant General beginning in 1866.

The U.S. Air Force 

History and Museums Program

Interestingly, the Army Air Corps—which in 1948 

became a separate Service, the U.S. Air Force—had 

already recognized the need to officially record its 

own history and was directed by General Henry H. 

Arnold, chief of the Army Air Corps, to establish the 

Army Air Forces Historical Division in 1942. Under 

the administration of its first director, Brigadier General Laurence S. Kuter, the office operated under his 

dictum that “it is important that our history be recorded while it is hot and that personnel be selected 

and an agency set up for a clear historian’s job without 

axe to grind or defense to prepare.”26 Although some 

accounts of the fledgling Air Corps’ deeds had already 

been recorded by the Army in its official World War 

I volumes, the Army Air Forces Historical Division 

more than made up for the lack of any previous official histories of its formative years by publishing 

numerous accounts of its role in that war, including 

squadron histories, histories of various aircraft, and 

other aviation-related topics. In 1969, the Historical 

Division was renamed the Office of Air Force History, 

which reported to the Air Force Chief of Staff.

The Office of Air Force History printed a fourvolume series about its role in World War I, beginning 

in 1978 with the publication of The U.S. Air Service in 

World War I: The Final Report and a Tactical History.

27

Compiled by a team of scholars and researchers and 

edited by Air Force historian Maurer Maurer, the 

26 Jacob Neufeld, “History Makes You Smart—Heritage Makes You 

Proud,” Air Power History 57, no. 1 (Spring 2010), 44. 27 Maurer Maurer, comp. and ed., The U.S. Air Service in World War I, 4 

vols. (Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1978–79).

bulk of the edited volumes consists of original reports 

from the front lines, as well as reports about logistical challenges faced by a fledgling force engaged in 

aerial battle for the first time. Much of this information had lain unused since the World War I, when the 

Army War College Historical Section decided to gloss 

over most of the material in favor of covering ground 

campaigns and battles. This work was preceded by the 

Air Force’s official history of the Second World War, 

a seven-volume work that appeared in 1983, titled The 

Army Air Forces in World War II and edited by noted 

historians Wesley F. Craven and James L. Cate, which 

rivaled the Army’s Green Book series in detail and 

completeness.28

In 1991, the Office of Air Force History was reorganized and renamed the Air Force History and 

Museums Program, consisting of several branches 

that operate independently of one another, though 

all report to the program’s office in the Pentagon, 

which provides policy, guidance, and advocacy for the 

worldwide program. These branches encompass the 

Air Force Field History Offices located worldwide, 

the Air Force Historical Research Agency located at 

Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, the Air Force 

Historical Studies Office at Bolling Air Force Base 

(at Joint Base Anacostia–Bolling) in Washington, DC, 

and the Air Force Museums System, which includes 

the massive National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.29 

The U.S. Coast Guard 

Historian’s Office

The U.S. Coast Guard, established in 1789 as the U.S. 

Revenue Cutter Service, was not originally envisioned 

as a branch of the military, but rather as a law enforcement organization operating under the aegis of 

the Treasury Department. Rather than controlling 

the seas, it concentrated on patrolling the nation’s 

coastal waters, operating lighthouses along the coast, 

and rescuing those in peril at sea. On 28 January 1915, 

28 Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate, eds., The Army Air Forces in 

World War II, vols. 1–7 (Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 

1983).

29 Neufeld, “History Makes You Smart—Heritage Makes You Proud,” 

45–6.
SUMMER 2019 61

it merged with the U.S. Life-Saving Service and was 

renamed the U.S. Coast Guard. That same year, it assumed a military role under the control of the U.S. 

Navy. During the First World War, it protected Atlantic overseas convoys against the German submarine 

threat. It has served in every major war since as one of 

the nation’s five Armed Services.30

Though a history of the U.S. Revenue Cutter 

Service was written and published in 1905 by Captain Horatio D. Smith covering the period from 

1789 to 1846, no official U.S. Coast Guard history 

was prepared until after World War I, when Commander Charles Johnson began writing an account 

30 Connie Terrell, “Coast Guard History 2016: How the Coast Guard 

Became a Military Service,” Coast Guard Compass (blog), 1 August 2016; 

and “U.S. Coast Guard History Program,” United States Coast Guard 

Historian’s Office (website), accessed 28 November 2018.

of the now-renamed Service’s participation in that 

war after hostilities had ceased. When Johnson died 

prematurely, his position as Coast Guard historian 

was filled on 15 June 1921 by Commander Richard 

O. Crisp, who completed the work that Johnson began. For reasons still unknown, Crisp’s four-volume 

manuscript, titled A History of the Coast Guard in the 

World War, was never officially published, though it 

is available to researchers at the current U.S. Coast 

Guard Historian’s Office.31 The first history of the 

Coast Guard, The United States Coast Guard 1790–1915: 

A Definitive History, written by Stephen Hadley Evans, was published by the Naval Institute Press in 

1949, but it did not treat with the junior sea Service’s 

history of World War I, focusing instead on the 125 

years preceding its establishment when it was still 

titled the Revenue Cutter Service.32 

Shortly afterward, Crisp’s office was eliminated 

in the general postwar reduction in force, following 

the model of the early Army and Navy history offices. 

It was not reestablished until World War II, when 

in 1942 Coast Guard Lieutenant Commander Frank 

R. Eldridge assembled a team of 17 officers, enlisted 

men, and SPARS (officially known as the U.S. Coast 

Guard Women’s Reserve) to write the official history 

of the Coast Guard’s participation in the war under 

the umbrella of the Coast Guard Headquarters’ Public 

Information Division. This 30-volume effort, officially 

titled The Coast Guard at War, concluded with the publication of its final volume on 1 January 1954.33 Their 

work completed, the Coast Guard Historian’s Office 

was once again disbanded that year, though a onevolume work by one of its team members, Malcolm 

F. Willoughby, was published and used as a standard 

31 Connie Braesch, “Coast Guard History Day,” Coast Guard Compass

(blog), 11 June 2009.

32 Stephen Hadley Evans, The United States Coast Guard, 1790–1915: A Definitive History (Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute, 1949). A postscript 

was written in 1950 that covered the years between 1915 and the outbreak of the Korean War, but while Capt Evans was an actively serving 

Coast Guard officer at the time, he did not write it as that Service’s official historian. He later served as the superintendent of the Coast Guard 

Academy and retired in 1962.

33 The Coast Guard at War, 30 vols. (Washington, DC: Historical Section, 

Public Information Division, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 1944–54). 

Official U.S. Air Force photo

Gen Laurence S. Kuter, USAF, 1962.
62 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

historical text at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.34

The Coast Guard’s Historian’s Office was not 

reestablished as a permanent institution until 27 

November 1970, shortly before the end of the Vietnam War, but in the intervening years its historians 

have worked diligently to make up for the gaps and 

shortfalls in its history, including adding an extensive library and building an impressive collection of 

artwork and photographs. After 1993, the Historian’s 

Office also assumed responsibility for operating the 

Coast Guard Museum in New London, Connecticut, located on the grounds of the U.S. Coast Guard 

34 Malcolm F. Willoughby, The U.S. Coast Guard in World War II (Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute, 1957).

Official U.S. Coast Guard photo, 113544

Capt Horatio D. Smith, U.S. Revenue Cutter Service, 1904.

Academy.35 Along with the rest of the Coast Guard, 

the Historian’s Office was transferred from the control of the Treasury Department to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2002. Now located in 

Washington, DC, it is led by a U.S. civil service chief 

historian supported by a staff of six historians (two 

of whom operate the Coast Guard Museum) and two 

area historians. The Coast Guard Historian’s Office, 

though the smallest of all the Armed Services, pursues 

an ambitious program of not only publishing official 

histories chronicling its past accomplishments but 

also capturing contemporary events shortly after they 

unfold, including the Coast Guard’s response to Hurricane Katrina. 

35 Braesch, “Coast Guard History Day.”

Official U.S. Coast Guard photo, 113544

Coast Guard Cdr Richard O. Crisp shown here as a midshipman in 

1883 prior to World War I.
SUMMER 2019 63

Other Military History Offices

Two other U.S. government military history offices 

were created in the wake of World War II: Historical Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

in 1949 and the Joint History Office for the Office of 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1955. Both 

had their genesis in the National Security Act of 1947, 

when their parent organizations, the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were established by 

law, replacing the former War and Naval Departments 

and consolidating them under one secretariat.36 The 

first office was created to document the history of the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense since its inception 

in 1949, while the other served to do the same with the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since neither historical organization can trace its origins back to World War I or the 

immediate post–World War I era, this article will not 

go into further detail, though readers are encouraged 

to visit their respective websites if they wish to learn 

more.37

36 Benjamin Franklin Cooling, “History Programs in the Department of 

Defense,” Public Historian 12, no. 4 (Autumn 1990): 58–59, https://doi.

org/10.2307/3378784.

37 For additional information, visit the Historical Office, Office of the 

Secretary of Defense’s website (www.history.defense.gov) or Joint History Office, Joint Chiefs of Staff’s website (www.jcs.mil/about/jointstaff-history/).

Conclusion

While each of the Armed Services’ history offices have 

followed a winding path since World War I, all have 

secured solid budgetary and organizational footing in 

the years since. Influenced by funding and legislative 

challenges, personnel cuts, and conflicting philosophies about the proper role of military history in the 

modern era, they have seen the size of their organizations ebb and flow depending on the conflicts that 

the nation has experienced during the past century. 

Initially possessing relatively thin academic and institutional credentials to pursue their missions, all of 

these history offices have raised the bar and now enjoy far more professional respect and credibility than 

their predecessors. Most importantly, they have not 

lost sight of their true missions: to preserve the histories of the Services in the defense of their nation. This 

they continue to do, recording the things that were 

done well, the things that were not done well, and everything in between.

• 1775 •
“Why Shouldn’t the 

Marine Corps Have 

a Museum of Its Own?”

by Robert J. Sullivan1

First Lieutenant Carl Gardner, editor of Leatherneck, asked in an editorial in March 1927, “Why shouldn’t the Marine Corps Have a Museum of its own?” He argued that the Marine Corps 

had existed for 150 years but had no place to exhibit 

the material objects that told the Corps’ story. Flags, 

weapons, ordnance, uniforms, and pictures, among 

other trophies, were scattered across the posts of the 

Corps or in the hands of individuals where few people 

saw them. If gathered together in one place, the objects could tell the Service’s story to a greater audience, Gardner reasoned. He had a point. The efforts 

by the Marine Corps to establish a quality museum of 

its own is a story of an evolving process through trial 

and error and incremental progress for six decades. In 

the mid-1990s, the process adopted a revolutionary 

approach that culminated in 2006 with the opening of 

the National Museum of the Marine Corps (NMMC). 

For much of the past 85 years, Marine Corps historians played significant roles in these efforts.2

The other military Services had established museums during the nineteenth century, but due to the 

size of the Corps and operational activities, Marines 

1

 Robert Sullivan served as a Marine from 1974 to 2002 and retired as a 

lieutenant colonel. He joined the museum staff in 1997 as the head of 

the Museums Branch, History and Museums Division, then transitioned 

to a curator position at his retirement and remains on the NMMC staff. 

His current duty is curator of museum design, with a focus on the final 

phase gallery project.

2

 A Marine Corps Museum!,” Leatherneck 10, no. 3, March 1927, 22.

showed no real interest in following suit.3 The U.S. 

Army established a museum at West Point, New York, 

in 1854, though a collection of historical objects had 

commenced years earlier.4 The U.S. Naval Academy 

had exhibited a collection of flags since 1849.5 Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy’s museum at the Washington 

Navy Yard had been in operation since 1865.6 Other 

organizations borrowed artifacts from the Marine 

Corps for exhibitions. Marine objects from World 

War I were exhibited at the Smithsonian Institution 

in 1921 and in Philadelphia at the 1926 Sesquicentennial Exposition, but it was not until the 1930s that 

Marine leaders acted to start the process of creating

a museum at Quantico and a few other locations to 

exhibit their material heritage.7 

In 1933, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, 

Major General Ben H. Fuller, issued Circular Letter 

No. 133 directing the commanding general of Marine 

Barracks Quantico, to establish a trophy room to exhibit historical objects and photographs. At the same 

time, the commanding officer of Marine Barracks 

Washington, DC, borrowed objects from the Histori3

 Col Brooke Nihart (Ret), “History of the Marine Corps Museums, Part 

I, Imperfect Solutions,” Fortitudine 21, no. 4 (Spring 1992): 14. 4

 R. Cody Phillips, The Guide to U.S. Army Museums (Washington, DC: 

Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 2005), 90.

5

 “History,” U.S. Naval Academy Museum website, accessed 15 January 

2019.

6

 “National Museum of the U.S. Navy History,” Naval History and 

Heritage Command website, updated 25 January 2019.

7

 “Exhibit at the Sesquicentennial,” Leatherneck 9, no. 9, June 1926, 30.

64
SUMMER 2019 65

cal Branch at Headquarters Marine Corps to exhibit 

artifacts in the Sousa Band Hall.8 In December 1933, 

General Fuller responded to a request from the commandant of the Washington Navy Yard for Marine 

Corps trophies to be included in a future Navy Yard 

Museum, stating that any trophies in excess of the 

needs of the two existing Marine museums at Quantico and Marine Barracks Washington, DC, would be 

available for loan to the Navy Yard Museum; however, 

no objects were loaned.9 Later, a writer at the Marine 

Corps Gazette recommended a museum be built at 

Quantico based on the design of Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, similar to the exhibit at the 1926 Philadelphia 

Exposition, but nothing came of this idea.10

An organized museum came to life at Quantico in 1940. On 2 October 1940, Commandant Major 

General Thomas Holcomb issued Circular Letter No. 

391, ordering that a museum be established at Quantico on the second floor of the newly constructed 

Quantico Recreation Building (now Little Hall). The 

museum was intended to foster esprit de corps, build 

and maintain traditions, and preserve objects of lasting historical and sentimental interest to the Marine 

Corps, words similar to those included in the mission 

statement of the NMMC today. Holcomb assigned 

Marine Corps historian Lieutenant Colonel Clyde H. 

Metcalf to be the museum’s curator. Holcomb’s letter contained much more detail and thought regarding historical objects and museum operations for the 

time than had Circular Letter No. 133.11 Large cases 

exhibited flags, weapons, trophies, medals, and equipment, and mannequins wearing original uniforms. 

Exhibits were rotated to retain interest, objects not 

on exhibit were secured in steel lockers, and donors 

were required to contact the curator before sending 

8

 Nihart, “History of the Marine Corps Museums, Part I, Imperfect 

Solutions,” 14.

9

 B. H. Fuller letter to the Commandant, Navy Yard, Washington, DC, 

18 December 1933, copy in the author’s possession. 

10 “Tun Tavern Museum,” Marine Corps Gazette 19, no. 1 (May 1934): 42.

Legend says that Tun Tavern was the original Marine recruiting site in 

Philadelphia in 1775.

11 T. Holcomb Circular Letter No. 391, “To All Officers, Active and 

Retired, Reserve Officers of the Rank of Captain and Above, Former 

Officers, and Relatives of Well-known Deceased Officers,” 2 October 

1940.

objects, all procedures still used by the NMMC staff 

today. Unfortunately, the museum’s initial success did 

not last long.12

Metcalf was transferred overseas in late 1942 and 

the custodial responsibility of the museum fell to the 

post recreation officer. By 1945, the head of the Historical Division, Colonel John Potts, wrote a memo 

to Commandant General Alexander Archer Vandegrift addressing a number of museum concerns, two 

of which were that Quantico was the wrong location 

for a museum due to the lack of public access and his 

recommendation to assign an older noncommissioned 

officer or warrant officer to oversee preservation, inventory, and care of the objects. The Commandant approved the appointment of First Sergeant Lowrey A. 

Weed to curate the museum. Weed made headway in 

the stewardship of the collection by using the Smithsonian Institution’s recordkeeping process, until he 

transferred in 1946. The post recreation officer once 

again became the custodian. Nothing came of the issue of public access to the Quantico museum location, 

though ease of access played a part in the selection of 

the site of the new NMMC.13 John Elliott, a young Marine who reported to Quantico in 1946, remarked that 

when he visited the museum, there were few Marines 

in sight, though the exhibits looked impressive.14

The museum’s story took a turn for the better 

in the early 1950s, when Commandant General Lemuel C. Shepherd Jr. reached out to Marine Reservist 

John H. Magruder III to return to active duty and 

oversee the Quantico museum. Magruder recruited 

two active duty assistants to his staff, historian Major David E. Schwulst as curator and Master Sergeant 

George McGarry, an ordnance expert and jack of all 

trades. Magruder had experience organizing exhibits 

about Marines at the Smithsonian Institution’s Hall 

of Naval History. Magruder’s staff was small in num12 Nihart, “History of the Marine Corps Museums, Part I, Imperfect 

Solutions,” 15; and “The New Quantico,” Leatherneck 24, no. 7, July 1941, 

14–27. 

13 Nihart, “History of the Marine Corps Museums, Part I, Imperfect 

Solutions,” 15–16.

14 Maj John Elliott (Ret), in discussions with the author, 25 January and 22 

February 2019. Elliott, now age 95, is a volunteer at the NMMC, a retired 

Marine, and former Smithsonian curator of aviation who worked with 

Col John Magruder in the 1960s.
66 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

ber—approximately five people to handle the curatorial, administrative, exhibits, and any other tasks that 

needed to be accomplished.15 

In 1960, Magruder moved the museum to Building 1019, adjacent to Little Hall. The new museum 

building was small but their own, and the staff were 

proud of their work. In January 1962, Magruder wrote 

a memorandum to the head of the Historical Branch, 

G-3, that during a visit to the Marine Corps Museum 

by two U.S. Army general officers the previous December, the visitors stated that the West Point Museum 

could learn something from the Marines. Magruder 

continued: “The thing that gives me particular satisfaction is the knowledge that West Point spent several 

million dollars renovating their Museum about four 

15 Col Brooke Nihart (Ret), “History of the Marine Corps Museums, Part 

2, Major Magruder Sought First Full-Scale Marine Museum,” Fortitudine

22, no. 4 (Spring 1993): 27–30.

years ago while we have operated on a mere fraction 

of their budget and with a staff that is considerably 

smaller.”16

Magruder’s accomplishments during his tenure 

as director of the museum were many, including his 

work to open additional buildings to exhibit the aviation history of the Corps and future plans to exhibit 

the stories of Marines in Vietnam; his comments on 

a draft of Marine Corps Order 4010 on the preservation 

of historical material; increasing and diversifying the 

museum staff; and designing the windows in the Marine Memorial Chapel at Quantico and the Marine 

window at the Arlington Cemetery Chapel. Three 

other initiatives that were considered on Magruder’s 

watch but never materialized include Magruder lead16 Director, Marine Corps Museums letter to Head, Historical Branch, 

G-3, subject: Marine Corps Museum, 8 January 1962, copy in author’s 

files.

Marine Corps Combat Art Collection, 2012.1027.11

MSgt John C. DeGrasse (Ret), former art director for Leatherneck 

magazine, sketched this scene of Building 1019, the Marine Corps Museum, with the bronze statue “Iron Mike” in front in 1973.

Photo by NMMC staff 

Artifacts on exhibit in Building 1019, August 1965.
SUMMER 2019 67

ing a Smithsonian Institution effort to plan and build 

an Armed Forces Museum in 1965 near Washington, 

DC, Magruder’s plan for a fortress-like museum on the 

parade field near Lejeune Hall in 1966, and Felix de 

Weldon’s proposal to the Commandant to construct 

a Marine museum near the Iwo Jima War Memorial 

in 1967.17

Magruder retired from the Marine Corps in 1969 

and died in 1972. He was a fierce proponent of the 

museum program while he was on active duty and in 

retirement and he continued to comment on museum 

affairs. He put the museum program on firm ground 

that included a larger and more professional staff than 

before, additional funding, greater visibility of the 

museum program, and influence on regulations that 

pertained to historical property.18

Magruder’s momentum in advancing the museum program continued, and major changes to the 

17 Col R. D. Heinl to LtCol John H. Magruder III, memo, Proposed 

Marine Corps Order of 27 September 1957 with undated draft of Marine 

Corps Order 4010, subject: Historical Material, preservation of, copy 

in author’s possession. Heinl’s intent was to resolve issues related to 

preserving material for historical purposes by defining the procedures 

within a regulation. Today, the museum section of Marine Corps Order 

5750, The Manual for the Marine Corps Historical Program, specifies 

the NMMC’s mission, billets, responsibilities, services, collections 

management, collections stewardship, and staff training. Both History 

Division and NMMC staffs review this consolidated document on a 

regular basis to ensure the historical program of the Corps is relevant 

to the needs of the Corps. A number of other regulations at the 

federal level provide guidance on stewardship, disposition of historical 

property, gifts and donations, and ethics, among other topics. Col R. 

D. Heinl Jr., “John Magruder: In Memoriam,” Marine Corps Gazette 56, 

no. 11 (November 1972): 16–17; A Study Relating to the Establishment of A 

National Armed Forces Museum (Washington, DC: National Armed Forces 

Museum Advisory Board, Smithsonian Institution, 1965); Director, 

Marine Corps Museums letter to Commandant of the Marine Corps, 

subject: Permanent Marine Corps Museum Building, with enclosures, 

1 November 1966; and Wallace M. Green, Green Letter No. 18-67, 

“Proposed Marine Corps Museum, Arlington, Virginia, with enclosure,” 

3 November 1967, copy in author’s file. Magruder was a member of the 

National Armed Forces Museum Advisory Board. He was in favor of 

a museum at Quantico or in the Washington, DC, area. The author 

believes that all three museum initiatives failed due to lack of available 

resources, service objections, and the timing during the Vietnam War.

18 Nihart, “History of the Marine Corps Museums, Part 2, Major 

Magruder Sought First Full-Scale Marine Museum”; and Magruder letter 

to Commandant Gen Leonard F. Chapman, 14 April 1969. Magruder 

requested retirement in this letter and did so with mixed emotions. 

Magruder letter to LtGen Raymond Davis, 14 July 1970. In the letter, 

Magruder strongly pushed for the separation of the museum and history 

programs.

museum and historical program occurred during the 

1970s through the 1990s. This time was a period of 

growth in museum staff and reorganization, movement of museum activities, acquisition of additional 

buildings, and the establishment of a key partner that 

supported the history and museums program. 

Prior to 1973, there were two Marine Corps historical activities, the Historical Branch of the G-3 

(Operations) at Headquarters Marine Corps and 

the Marine Corps Museum at Quantico functioning 

under the Commandant’s office. The Commandant 

formed the Commandant’s Advisory Committee on 

Marine Corps History during the 1960s that provided 

oversight to both activities. The committee was composed of distinguished historians and retired senior 

Marines who had a deep interest in the Corps’ history. 

The committee met annually, reviewed the programs 

of both the museum and historical branch and provided a report to the Commandant. Brigadier General 

Edwin H. Simmons, recently appointed as the director of Marine Corps History and a Marine Corps historian, proposed to the Commandant that the History 

Division and museum activities be combined into one 

organization. This consolidation was effective October 1973 and the division was renamed as the History 

and Museums Division (HD) and was headquartered 

at Building 198 at the Washington Navy Yard.19 

In 1973, the museum acquired the 1920s-era 

brig at Quantico, Building 2014, for the collections 

and museum staff offices.20 In 1976, the museum in 

Building 1019 closed and the art and artifacts and a 

19 “Marine Museum Chronicles Our Glorious Past,” News (Marine 

Corps Historical Foundation), Spring 1990, 5. The Commandant’s 

Advisory Committee was abolished during the James E. “Jimmy” Carter 

administration in an effort to streamline government. Later, HD 

moved into Building 58 and remained there until the division moved to 

Quantico in 2005.

20 NMMC staff reside in the building today. The “old brig,” as Building 

2014 is called, has had its share of facility problems. During the 1990s, 

Quantico Facilities completed a plan for improvements, Project QU 

9630M, which included adding an elevator, fire sprinkler system, office 

spaces, restrooms, etc., but the project was not funded. Over the years, 

some of these improvements have been completed. The museum’s 

collections continued to grow and the older buildings on Quantico 

that housed the artifacts and some staff became obsolete. In 2016, the 

NMMC leased a commercial building a short distance from the museum 

that houses much of the collection, curator offices, and restoration work 

spaces. 
68 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

few museum staff were moved to the Washington 

Navy Yard, where a second Marine museum opened. 

This museum, called the Marine Corps Museum, left 

Quantico with neither a museum nor trophy room for 

four decades, but this was not to last. The remaining 

Quantico museum staff, reorganized as the Museums 

Branch of HD, had been working on another museum 

activity since Magruder’s tenure that was originally an 

extension of the museum in Building 1019. This additional museum activity would be located in two older 

hangars on Brown Field near the present-day Officer 

Candidate School. This museum activity formally 

opened as the Aviation Museum in 1978.21 The exhibits showed the role of Marine aviation in World War 

II using a number of restored aircraft. Future plans 

included a Korean War hangar and an Early Years hangar depicting pre–World War II aviation history.22

In 1979, friends of the Corps and retired Marines 

established the Marine Corps Historical Foundation 

(MCHF), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the 

purpose of supporting the official historical effort 

of the Corps. The foundation supported HD at the 

Navy Yard commencing in 1983, maintained offices in 

Building 58, and filled some of the void left by the 

abolishment of the Commandant’s Advisory Committee on Marine Corps History. The foundation would 

prove to be critical to the museum program in the 

years ahead.23

In 1985, Brigadier General Simmons ordered 

21 Bruce Martin, “Aviation Museum,” Leatherneck 61, no. 7, July 1978; 

and Ken Smith-Christmas, email to author, 22 January and 9 May 2019, 

hereafter Smith-Christmas notes. Smith-Christmas stated that the bulk 

of the Museums Branch activities—Personal Papers, Special Projects, and 

Photographs—shifted to the Navy Yard. The staff remaining at Quantico 

were designated as the Marine Corps Branch Activities, Quantico, and 

included the deputy director of Museums Branch Col Tom M. D’Andrea, 

the aviation and ordnance collections, and Restorations Section in 

Larson Gymnasium. Smith-Christmas started working at Marine Corps 

Museum at the Washington Navy Yard in 1976, permanently relocated 

to Quantico in 1986, and served in various capacities in the Museums 

Branch until his departure in 2005 to the Planning Office for the 

National Museum of the U.S. Army.

22 Herb Richardson, “Birds of Prey on Display,” Leatherneck 62, no. 5, May 

1979, 34–39.

23 “Events at the Center,” Fortitudine 8, no. 4 (Spring 1979): 22; and “A 

Symbiotic Relationship: Foundation, Historical Events at the Center,” 

News (Marine Corps Historical Foundation), Spring 1990, 5. The 

foundation changed its name to the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation 

in 1998.

that the Aviation Museum be renamed the Marine 

Corps Air-Ground Museum (MCAGM) and the aviation-focused exhibits were reworked to show the operations of the air-ground team in combat. A number 

of museum staff relocated from the Navy Yard to the 

MCAGM.24 The unheated and unair-conditioned hangars never attracted more than 25,000 visitors each 

year during the eight-month open season. The Restorations Section, consisting of Marines, civil servants, 

and volunteers, occupied a portion of Larson Gymnasium and worked wonders in keeping the aircraft and 

rolling stock in good condition for exhibition. 

The structural condition of the three hangars of 

the MCAGM were a continued source of comment 

since the early 1980s. In the spring of 1984, General 

Simmons suggested to Colonel Brooke Nihart (Ret), 

deputy director for museums, to speak with MCHF 

about including a new museum in the foundation’s 

long-range plan. During the ninth annual meeting 

of MCHF in November 1987, the president of the 

foundation, Lieutenant General George C. Axtell 

(Ret), stated that one foundation initiative was to 

erect a suitable structure at Quantico to house what 

has grown into a significant monument to the Marine Air-Ground Team. In December 1988, Simmons 

reported to the MCHF that marginal repairs were 

made to the hangars to include painting and reskinning the roofs.25 By 1992, the foundation and HD 

were considering the construction of an additional 

structure at the MCAGM to tell the Vietnam story. The concept was not adopted, however, in favor 

24 Nancy Lee White, “Marine Corps Air-Ground Museum,” Leatherneck 

69, no. 5, May 1986, 55–59; and Smith-Christmas notes.

25 The MCAGM closed in 2002. The three hangars are still used by the 

NMMC as large artifact storage. In 2004, Smith-Christmas was asked to 

accompany the then-assistant Commandant, Gen Michael J. Williams, 

on a trip to the Beech Hill Hotel Museum, Londonderry, Northern 

Ireland, where the World War II Londonderry Marines resided. A 

conversation at the hotel between Williams and Smith-Christmas 

included the facility issues of the hangars and soon thereafter funding 

was provided for the improvements. The structures were painted again, 

insulated, and outfitted with climate control systems.
SUMMER 2019 69

of a radical heritage center concept at Quantico.26

The museum staff increased gradually during the 

1970s through the 1990s. A total of 12 civilian museum 

staff were on the rolls of HD during the mid-1970s as 

curators, administrators, exhibitors, and restorations 

specialists to operate and maintain both museums at 

the Navy Yard and at Quantico.27 In January 2000, the 

Museums Branch roster at Quantico included 12 ac26 Action memo, HDM: CAW 3.1.3, “Museums Committee Meeting, 6 

April 1984,” 18 April 1984; “President’s Remarks at AGM,” News (Marine 

Corps Historical Foundation), November 1987, 5; “Status Report: 

Marine Corps Historical Program,” News-Notes (Marine Corps Historical 

Foundation), December 1988, 5; and “Extension of Foundation’s 

Air-Ground Museum is Planned,” News (Marine Corps Historical 

Foundation), Fall 1992, 3. Simmons readdressed the idea for a new 

museum at Quantico that had been raised previously. The Commandant’s 

Advisory Committee recommended to the Commandant in its annual 

report of July 1966 that plans be initiated for a permanent, modern, and 

expanded museum to house the rich assets held by the Corps. Magruder 

subsequently submitted his proposal for a permanent museum sited on 

the parade field near Lejeune Hall in November 1966. The commandant 

of the Marine Corps Schools endorsed Magruder’s proposal, but moved 

the recommended location of the museum from the parade deck facing 

Lejeune Hall to across the street where the current Clubs of Quantico 

is located.

27 Smith-Christmas notes. The authorized strength of federal employees 

for the museum at Quantico in 1990 was nine. Gen Simmons remarked 

in his report to MCHF in late 1991 (News, Winter 1991) that with the 

downsizing of the Corps, he expected a reduction in civilian employee 

strength of 20–25 percent within the following two to three years. This 

loss necessitated a reorganization of HD, though the Quantico museum 

gained two additional civilian staff to total 11.

tive duty Marines and 10 federal employees.28 The Museums Branch civilian personnel strength continued 

to increase with an approved table of organization for 

the NMMC. Marines provided security, were guides 

for visitors, and were a living bridge connecting the 

exhibits of the past to the present Corps. Active duty 

Marines serve today at the NMMC in similar roles. 

The Revolution Begins 

and Continues

By 1995, the concept of a new heritage center at Quantico was taking center stage at MCHF meetings rather 

than discussing the expansion of the MCAGM. The 

foundation and two professional exhibits firms studied the concept of a heritage center campus containing a world-class museum at Quantico to improve 

stewardship of the MCAGM collections, reach a wid28 “Organization, Mission, and Functions” (briefing paper, History and 

Museums Division, 12 February 1996); and Museums Branch Recall 

Roster, 3 January 2000. During the 1990s, the junior enlisted Marines 

assigned by the Headquarters special assignments monitor to the 

Quantico museum were drops from the Marine Security Guard School 

(wrote a bad check, unqualified with service weapon, or academic 

failure were some reasons). Later, the infantry monitor assigned the 

enlisted Marines to the museum. One of the two officers assigned was 

in administration. The officer-in-charge billet specified an officer in 

an aviation specialty, a holdover from the Aviation Museum’s table of 

organization. The author had an artillery occupational specialty and the 

ground and aviation monitors coordinated the billet fill. 

Photo by NMMC staff 

Col John Magruder’s Quantico Museum building concept was based on 

the nineteenth-century fortress-style layout of the Marine barracks in 

Pensacola, FL. The distinctive entrance gate provides the central motif 

for Magruder’s museum.

Photo by NMMC staff 

Goodyear FG-1 Corsair still on exhibit in 2003 in the then-closed Marine Corps Air Ground Museum’s World War II hangar.
70 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

er audience, and instill in the visitor an understanding of the contributions that the Marine Corps had 

made throughout our nation’s history and continues 

to do so.29 The museum program took a major leap forward when in 1999, the foundation and HD formally 

launched a capital campaign in support of a Marine 

Corps Heritage Center colocated with a National Museum at Quantico.30 

The task at hand was complex. Few members of 

the foundation, History and Museums Division, and 

the U.S. Navy’s facilities construction office, Engineering Field Activities Chesapeake (EFACHES), had ever 

designed a museum with unique requirements from 

the ground up. The building design was to support the 

galleries and artifacts on display using privately raised 

funds on forested land that the federal government 

did not own at the time. This project included a cast

of hundreds from many professions working together 

throughout the multiyear project while continuously 

coordinating their efforts.31 The degree of cooperation 

was high and the learning curve was steep.

EFACHES assumed the role of managing the 

numerous multimillion dollar government contracts, 

including hiring the architectural and exhibits design 

and installation firms and conducting the environment impact study.The contracted architects, Fentress 

Bradburn Architects of Denver, Colorado, and exhibit 

designers, Christopher Chadbourne and Associates of 

Boston, Massachusetts, studied and experienced the 

history of the Corps. Their winning building and ex29 LtGen George Christmas (Ret), “Strategic Planning Review, National 

Museum of the Marine Corps” (briefing slides, Marine Corps Heritage 

Center, Quantico, VA, 18–19 October 2001). LtGen Christmas, the 

foundation’s president, worked tirelessly to garner support for the 

heritage center and was very successful. “President’s Notes,” News 

(Marine Corps Historical Foundation), Summer 1995, 2; and “America’s 

Own,” Visitor Experience Concept Development, draft submission, the 

Prentice Company, Ames, Iowa, April 1997.

30 “Presidents Notes,” Sentinel (Marine Corps Heritage Foundation),

Summer 1999, 2, 12. Commandant Gen Charles C. Krulak approved the 

project by stating in April 1999, “The Marine Corps Heritage Center is 

envisioned as a multi-use complex of buildings and outdoor facilities. It 

will be devoted to the presentation of Marine Corps history, professional 

military educational opportunities, and unique military events. This 

complex with its varied capabilities will be the showcase for our Marine 

Corps heritage.” Marine Corps Heritage Center brochure, ca. 2000.

31 BGen Gerald L. McKay (Ret), email to author, 16 May 2019. McKay 

was the foundation’s chief operating officer during the project. 

hibits design reflected their focus. They walked the 

German trenches and wheat fields of Belleau Wood, 

entered Japanese tunnels and gun emplacements on 

Guam, Saipan, and Tinian, and stood atop Mount 

Suribachi on the exact spot where the famous flag 

raisings took place during World War II. They participated in boot camp activities and lived for a few days 

on board ship.32

The firms designing the museum translated their 

experiences into a distinctive structure and innovative exhibits. A second exhibits firm, Design and Production Inc. of Lorton, Virginia, turned the exhibit 

designs and drawings into reality. A gleaming central 

mast reaching 210 feet in the air at an angle reminiscent of Joseph Rosenthal’s famous photograph of 

the Iwo Jima flag raising, topped by a cone of glass, 

and encircled at its base by exhibits evokes history 

through the eyes of Marines. Groundbreaking for the 

new museum commenced in 2003 on 135 acres outside 

the main gate of Marine Corps Base Quantico. Locating the museum outside the base made public access 

easier. The museum sits astride the King’s Highway, a

Colonial-era road that saw commerce, famous personalities, and military units move over it during the past 

three centuries.33

The project became a full-time duty for many 

in the History and Museums Division. The historians 

and Museum Branch staff joined contracted exhibits 

and architectural representatives on working groups. 

Major tasks included developing the storyline and 

exhibits, reviewing text, architectural and exhibit designs, selecting and preparing objects for the galleries, 

determining the size of the NMMC staff, projecting 

future budgets, drafting position descriptions and 

32 Lin Ezell, comp., National Museum of the Marine Corps (Lawrenceburg, 

IN: Creative Company, 2010); and Design Development Drawings, 

National Museum of the Marine Corps, Christopher Chadbourne and 

Associates, Boston, MA, 2003. The three original selected sites were on 

the base, but were found unsuitable for various reasons. A fourth site 

not on the base was identified during the public comment portion of the 

study and was selected. Prince William County, VA, offered to transfer 

the site back to the federal government. This is the present location of 

the heritage center.

33 Ezell, National Museum of the Marine Corps; and Col Joseph C. Long 

(Ret), “The Competition,” in Portal to the Corps: Chronicling the National 

Museum of the Marine Corps, ed. Jessica H. del Pilar (Victoria, Australia: 

Images Publishing Group, 2007), 21–23.
SUMMER 2019 71

selecting candidates, reviewing videos and selecting 

hundreds of still photographs, participating on committees to award contracts, travelling to scheduled 

meetings, training the museum volunteers, and recommending opportunities in the galleries for foundation 

fundraising. Retired Marine and historian Colonel Joseph H. Alexander was contracted to be the principal 

historical writer for the Phase I text. Foundation and 

HD staff briefed the Assistant Commandant and senior generals of the Corps on progress and issues in a 

monthly executive steering committee.34

Funding was split between MCHF and the Marine Corps. The foundation raised the funds needed to 

build the circular structure and to oversee construction of the planned initial construction of 120,000 

square feet at a cost of $60 million, hiring Jacobs Fa34 “National Museum of the Marine Corps Project Workload,” 

Information Paper, History and Museums Division, 5 February 2003. Col 

Long was selected by a Headquarters search committee to be the project 

manager to coordinate the activities among the major organizations and 

to organize the monthly executive steering committee meetings with the 

Assistant Commandant.

cilities Inc. to assist them and commissioning Balfour 

Beatty to build the structure. The foundation operated all revenue-generating activities in the museum 

to include a museum store, rifle range, a tavern, and 

a restaurant. Costs to the Marine Corps totaled $42 

million for funding design, exhibitions, start-up, restoration/conservation of artifacts, and NMMC staff 

labor. Other spaces in the NMMC include a 95-seat 

theater, maintenance facilities, and offices for a portion of both the NMMC and foundation staffs.35

The NMMC opened on 10 November 2006 to 

fanfare that included President George W. Bush as the 

guest speaker and an estimated 10,000 attendees. In 

2008, a playground was added to the grounds and a 

nondenominational chapel opened in 2009. The Marine Corps Heritage Foundation continues to support 

programs at the NMMC, including paid internships, 

special assistants, docent needs, and the purchase of 

art and artifacts for the museum collections.36

Museum Reorganization

In 2002, the Commandant directed that the History 

and Museums Division be moved to Quantico and assigned to Marine Corps University (MCU). This transition included a major reorganization of the history 

and museums program. The elements of the division—

the Historical, Support, and Museums branches—were 

separated. The branches at the Navy Yard shifted to 

Quantico by September 2005.37 In 2005, the NMMC 

expanded the staff of the Museums Branch and reorganized as a division within MCU. The first museum 

director, Lin Ezell, a curator with many years at the 

Smithsonian Institution, took the museum’s helm in 

35 2017 Staff Briefing, National Museum of the Marine Corps, November 

2017. Outside the NMMC, heritage paths within Semper Fi Park on the 

Heritage Center campus overseen by MCHF provided opportunities for 

reunion groups to erect memorials to their units and fallen comrades 

and for people to purchase a brick to be placed on the paths in memory 

of a loved one or comrade. In 2005, to mark the 230th anniversary of the 

Marine Corps, the U.S. Mint struck a commemorative silver dollar that 

raised $6 million. 

36 2017 Staff Briefing; “Art Purchased for Corps Museum,” News (Marine 

Corps Historical Foundation), Fall 1991, 6, 8; and “President Reports 

Past Accomplishments, Future Goals,” News (Marine Corps Historical 

Foundation), Spring 1992, 1–2.

37 See Charles D. Melson’s “Beyond McClellan and Metcalf: Staff History 

in the U.S. Marine Corps,” 8.

Photo by Gwenn Adams, NMMC public affairs officer

The NMMC as seen from one of the heritage paths near the chapel on 

the Heritage Center grounds.
72 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

2005 and immediately immersed herself in the project. 

The museum located in Building 58 of the division’s 

headquarters at the Navy Yard was closed, and the art 

collection and all museum employees moved to Quantico.38 

In June 2006, the NMMC staff consisted of 21 

federal employees, 9 Marines, and approximately 

150 volunteers, and in December 2006 soon after the 

grand opening, the staff increased to 30 civilians and 

10 Marines. By July 2009, the staff grew to 41 federal 

employees and 18 Marines organized into nine sections: Directorate, Operations/Facilities, Curatorial 

Services, Art, Registrar, Restorations, Exhibits, Education, and Visitor Services.39

An Overview of the NMMC 

The NMMC is the crown jewel of the Marine Corps’ 

museum program, which includes three command 

museums (one each at the Marine Corps Recruit Depots in San Diego, California, and Parris Island, South 

Carolina, and an aviation-themed museum at the Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, California) and 

numerous historical displays at Camp Pendleton, California. The NMMC was constructed during a number 

of years in two phases.

Phase I Concept

The exhibit space for the NMMC, which was planned 

to open in 2006, is organized into seven themed galleries arrayed chronologically from 1775 through 1975, 

a central gallery (Leatherneck), and a Legacy Walk 

that total more than 60,000 square feet. Due to fis38 A committee to examine the organization and functions of the 

historical program, headed by retired Commandant Gen Carl E. Mundy 

Jr., was convened on 20 March 2006. The details of the committee’s report 

and endorsement by retired MajGen Donald R. Gardner, president of 

Marine Corps University, reflected a focus on the historical portion of 

the former History and Museums Division than on the museum. The 

committee was impressed with the direction and leadership of the 

NMMC. 

39 Lin Ezell, “NMMC Staff Phone Roster,” 16 June 2006; NMMC MyersBriggs Roster, 26 December 2006; and Lin Ezell, “NMMC Staff Phone 

Roster,” 7 July 2009. Contracted security and maintenance crews 

assisted the Operations/Facilities Section. The collections totaled 

40,000 historical objects and art. The staff included both retired military 

and nonmilitary, many holding graduate degrees in their chosen fields 

and having years of museum experience before joining the NMMC.

cal issues, three themed galleries of the original seven, 

1775 through World War I, were delayed in opening 

until June 2010 (commonly called Phase 1A). The strategic approach to the design of the museum and exhibit presentation is guided by 11 core messages for 

the staff and visitors. The designers approached the 

visitor experience with a layered, complex, and engaging presentation for a wide audience of retired and 

active duty military and families and those who never 

served. The Marine Corps story is told through highquality exhibits, some immersive, containing approximately 2,000 artifacts, videos, still imagery, audio, cast 

figures, and hands-on interactions. Scheduled public 

programming events and educational outreach activities within the gallery spaces provide additional 

impact to the story.40 The Assistant Commandant selected the initial galleries to be opened in 2006 for the 

living veterans who served in World War II, Korea, 

and Vietnam.

Leatherneck Gallery: the museum experience 

commences when the visitor first enters the NMMC. 

Leatherneck Gallery, the central gallery, evokes bearing and resolve, but also permanence and innovation. 

The artifacts, vignettes, testimonials, and images in 

this space honor the contributions of every Marine 

and highlight the core messages of the NMMC. Aircraft are suspended above visitors, vignettes show 

Marines in combat, and the multicolored terrazzo 

floor represents the expeditionary nature of the Marines.41

Making Marines Gallery: all Marines remember 

their boot camp or officer candidate experience. Visitors step inside the process used by drill instructors to 

40 Design Development Drawings, National Museum of the Marine 

Corps; and Design Development Exhibit Design Package, National 

Museum of the Marine Corps, Christopher Chadbourne and Associates, 

Fentress Bradburn Architects Ltd., and Col Joseph H. Alexander (Ret), 

16 July 2003. The 70 cast figures that populate the Phase I galleries add 

realism to scenes. Most of the cast figures were modelled on active duty 

Marines and sailors. 

41 Ezell, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 2–3; Design Development 

Exhibit Design Package, sheets 01.01–01.08; Final Text, National Museum 

of the Marine Corps, Christopher Chadbourne and Associates, Fentress 

Bradburn Architects Ltd., and Col Joseph H. Alexander (Ret), March 

2005. Leatherneck Gallery has hosted retirements, commissionings, 

promotions, reunions, family days, educational activities, concerts, 

formal dinners, proms, and presentations.
SUMMER 2019 73

transform young men and women into Marines. From 

the hometown recruiting station to graduation, visitors are immersed in the memorable experiences that 

forge recruits and officer candidates into privates and 

lieutenants. They get up close and personal with their 

own drill instructor by entering a sound booth, stepping on the yellow footprints, and trying their marksmanship skills at the M16 laser rifle range modeled on 

the Quantico ranges.42

Legacy Walk: this is the main hallway through 

the space from which visitors enter the themed galleries. On one side, the hallway contains a timeline 

of significant dates in U.S., world, and Marine Corps 

history from 1775 through 2006. More than 50 artifacts 

populate small exhibit cases. On the other side of the 

hallway, exhibit cases contain iconic artifacts of the 

Marines such as General Lejeune’s overseas cap worn 

in World War I and a three-war K-bar knife. Kiosks 

present narrated topical videos.43 

Themed Galleries: themed galleries provide a 

more detailed study to a period in history for the visitor. Wall murals, photographs, oral history interviews, 

and dioramas deliver stories about combat operations, 

significant contributions to the war, individual Marines, special units, morale, and air support. The first 

gallery—Uncommon Valor: Marines in World War II—

recalls the Marines in battle in the Pacific and holds 

the most important artifact in the museum’s collection: the Iwo Jima flag. Exhibits in the World War II 

Gallery highlight innovation in tactics, equipment, 

women Marines, a Montford Point exhibit focusing 

on racial issues, the Code Talkers, and Navy Hospital 

Corpsmen.44

The second themed gallery that opened in 2006 

is titled Send in the Marines: The Korean War. The 

exhibits in this gallery include the significant Marine 

amphibious assault at Inchon, the subsequent fighting in urban areas and hills, an immersive exhibit at 

Toktong Pass during the Chosin Reservoir fighting (in 

42 Ezell, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 6–7; Design Development 

Exhibit Design Package, sheets 04.01–04.17; and Final Text, 8–42. 43 Design Development Exhibit Design Package, sheets 05.1–05.19; and 

Final Text, 43–76.

44 Ezell, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 20–25; Design Development 

Exhibit Design Package, sheets 010.1–10.24; and Final Text, 77–185.

CORE MESSAGES 

OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM 

OF THE MARINE CORPS

1. The Marine Corps is a global force of expeditionary readiness.

2. The Marine Corps operates from the sea 

in partnership with the Navy.

3. The Marine Corps fights as a self-sufficient combined arms team including aviation and logistics support.

4. Tough training and shared hardship 

forged the Marine Corps spirit/camaraderie.

5. Every Marine is a rifleman.

6. The Marine Corps traditions of rapid deployment and assault from the sea require 

constant innovation.

7. In the Marine Corps, uncommon valor is 

a common virtue.

8. Marines instill leadership by example.

9. Semper fidelis epitomizes honor, courage, 

and commitment.

10. Marines are “no better friend, no worse 

enemy.”

11. The Marine Corps strives to represent the 

cultural diversity of the nation’s people.

Core messages 10 and 11 were added during the planning 

for Phase II.

which visitors feel a chill while walking through the 

scene), POWs, and weapons and vehicles used by the 

combatants.45

In the Air, on Land, and Sea: The War in Vietnam is the last themed gallery of the 2006 opening. Focusing on one of the longest wars in Marine 

Corps history, the Vietnam War story tells of the 

experiences of Marines and their allies fighting insurgents and North Vietnamese troops in both urban and rural areas. A Bell UH-1 Iroquois helicopter 

represents the air war. This aircraft is the helicopter piloted by Marine Captain Stephen W. Pless in 

action against the enemy in 1967, for which he was 

45 Ezell, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 26–29; Design Development 

Exhibit Design Package, sheets 11.1–11.23; and Final Text, 186–233.
74 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

awarded the Medal of Honor for valor. Visitors see 

Marines fighting at Hue City and walk through a 

Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter into an 

immersive exhibit of Marines at Hill 881 South near 

Khe Sanh in 1968.46

Defending the New Republic was one of three 

galleries that opened in 2010. More than 90 years of almost continuous warfare are portrayed here, from the 

birth of the Corps in 1775 through America’s costly 

Civil War in 1865. The museum’s oldest artifact—an 

engraved powder horn used by a Marine in 1776—is 

exhibited here. In one scene, Corporal John F. Mackie 

fires on Confederate positions from a gun port on the 

USS Galena (1862), recreating the action that resulted 

in his being awarded the Medal of Honor, the first for 

a Marine.47

In the second gallery that opened in 2010, Global 

Expeditionary Force, visitors first see Sergeant Daniel J. Daly fighting a Chinese “Boxer” atop the Tartar 

46 Ezell, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 30–33; Design Development 

Exhibit Design Package, sheets 12.01–12.20; and Final Text, 234–300.

47 Ezell, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 8–11; Design Development 

Exhibit Design Package, sheets 06.01–06.18; Draft Text, Phase 1A, 

National Museum of the Marine Corps, Christopher Chadbourne 

and Associates, Fentress Bradburn Architects Ltd., and Col Joseph H. 

Alexander (Ret), January 2007, 1–198.

Wall of Peking in 1900 above his exhibited two Medals of Honor. The gallery takes visitors to all points 

of the compass and travels from 1866 to 1916. Various 

artifacts are displayed that tell the stories of Marines 

who lived during these times in both combat and at 

home. The shotguns and childhood violin of Marine 

bandleader John Philip Sousa, the “March King,” are 

on exhibit.48

The third gallery that opened in 2010, Marines 

in World War I focuses on the Marines in France 

and that war’s innovations in tactics and weapons. 

A short film of the famous battle at Belleau Wood in 

June 1918 is included in the immersive space of the 

fight that contains cast figures, weapons, and other 

objects from the period. A Thomas-Morse S-4B aircraft flies overhead and a Liberty truck, restored by 

the NMMC staff, stands ready to take provisions to 

the front.49 

48 Ezell, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 12–15; Design Development 

Exhibit Design Package, sheets 07.01–07.25; and Draft Text, 199–348. 49 Ezell, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 16–19; Design Development 

Exhibit Design Package, sheets 08.01–08.19; and Draft Text, 349–467.

Courtesy of Anthony Espree, NMMC Exhibits Branch

Recent view of Leatherneck Gallery from the second deck overlook of 

the NMMC.

Courtesy of Eric Long, Smithsonian Institution

U.S. Marine tank and infantry assault on North Korean position in the 

South Korean capital of Seoul, September 1950.
SUMMER 2019 75

Final Phase–Phase II

In October 2012, the museum staff commenced 

their work on the final phase expansion. This phase 

adds another 117,000 square feet to the building 

and includes a 350-seat giant screen theater with 

signature film, galleries to tell the Marine story for 

the years 1976 to the present, the Interwar Years, 

an art gallery, education and staff spaces, a children’s gallery, two themed galleries—From the Sea, 

depicting the Marine story from 1976 to 2001 and 

Afghanistan and Iraq, exhibiting the history 2001 

to the present—a large changing/temporary exhibit 

gallery, the Hall of Valor, and a sports gallery. The 

MCHF funded $69 million for the vertical construction and the Marine Corps $34.3 million for the exhibits. Groundbreaking occurred in 2015, and two 

galleries opened in 2017. The remaining galleries 

will open between 2019 and 2026. The architectural 

firm for the first phase, Fentress, returned to complete the museum’s structural design, Balfour Beatty returned to build the structure, and Eisterhold 

Associates of Kansas City designed the galleries.50

With Phase I lessons learned in hand, the staff 

reached out to the stakeholders for input—veterans, 

families, wounded warriors, units, active duty Marines, Headquarters staffs, senior leaders, and formal 

school faculty who lived the history or supported the 

warfighter. Objects and stories will link the new galleries to the current ones to provide visitors with a 

50 Lin Ezell, “Final Phase Executive Brief” (PowerPoint brief, National 

Museum of the Marine Corps, Quantico, VA, 1 October 2013); Final 

Phase Exhibit Galleries: Concept Design Draft, National Museum of 

the Marine Corps, Eisterhold Associates Inc., October 2014; Children’s 

Gallery Design Development, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 

Eisterhold Associates Inc., 11 March 2015; Ezell, National Museum of 

the Marine Corps, 34–35; Ezell, “Final Phase Executive Brief”; Design 

Development Exhibit Design Package, sheets 09.01–09.12; Col Joe 

Alexander (Ret), “Small Wars Draft Text and Selected Images” (working 

paper, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 2005); and Draft Text, 

468–587. Smaller exhibit spaces include themes such as transforming the 

Corps, no better friend, service and sacrifice, the events of 9/11, Marine 

families, and enduring missions. Images, videos, cast figures, and oral 

histories will enhance the story text.

Exhibits Branch, NMMC

This graphic shows the final phase gallery layout. From left, the chronology starts in 1976 and ends with Operation Iraqi Freedom on the right.
76 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

means to connect the threads of a theme through history, including hands-on stations that present realworld decision-forcing situations faced by Marines as 

part of their ethical and leadership challenges.51

Conclusion

Lieutenant Gardner did not live to see the answer 

to his question, but if he had, the NMMC exceeds 

his expectations. The process to achieve a world class 

museum is not complete, as a living history museum 

is never finished. The staff works hard to maintain 

the high standard set in 2006 and continues to be 

relevant to the Corps. The NMMC is the first museum in the Marine Corps built to support the story 

within. The director is by position the curator of the 

Marine Corps and the Commandant’s subject matter expert on museum stewardship within the Corps. 

The staff members are seasoned professionals and experts in their own disciplines. Today, the NMMC is 

a destination for the public with 5.85 million visitors 

as of mid-May 2019. An average of 50,000 schoolchildren visit the museum annually and they are greeted 

by staff members from the corps of volunteers and 

educators. The museum continues to maintain its 

close professional relationship with the History Division.

Within six years of the museum’s opening, the 

American Alliance of Museums awarded NMMC its 

certification of accreditation, an honor awarded to 

approximately 1,000 of an estimated 33,000 museums 

in the United States. To attain this goal, the staff 

underwent a rigorous multiyear evaluation, by both 

internal and external evaluators in all aspects of museum operations, all while preparing to open three 

51 A large number of people with first-hand experience and respected 

opinions assisted the museum staff in this second phase. The NMMC 

organized a panel consisting of four retired Marine general officers, a 

retired sergeant major of the Marine Corps, and one university professor 

to guide the staff on exhibits and messaging. Approximately 50 writers 

supported the tasks of writing text, coordinated by the author, which 

included NMMC staff, Reserve Marines from the Field History Branch 

of History Division, historians, university educators, volunteers, interns, 

active duty and retired Marines, and naval personnel. A historian from 

History Division was included in the writing pool both to draft text and 

to review the drafts and selected maps from the other writers. 

additional galleries in 2010 and to plan for seven more 

in the years ahead.52

The acclaim bestowed on the NMMC is a result of the dedication by Marine leaders, Marines, 

civil servants, volunteers, contractors, and friends 

of the Corps during the last 80 years. These include 

the Commandants who provided the official support 

since the 1930s; the Marine historians and the heads of 

the museums through the years—Metcalf, Magruder, 

Nihart, Simmons, and recently Ezell—whose passion 

and visions of a museum advanced the professionalism of the staffs, programs, stewardship, and exhibitions; the civil servants and volunteers who are the 

“life and soul” of the museum; the designers and contractors who throughout the Heritage Center project 

were exceptional in their expertise and cooperation; 

and finally the friends of the Corps, the Marine Corps 

Heritage Foundation, whose partnership with the 

History and Museums Division for 40 years has been 

critical for success. All have had a hand in the accomplishments of the museum program today.53

• 1775 •

52 A number of other awards received for the NMMC project included: 

2006, Pyramid Award, Associated Builders and Contractors and 

Platinum Award for Engineering Excellence (with Centex, now Balfour 

Beatty), American Council of Engineering Companies of New York; 

2008, American Architecture Award Chicago Athenaeum/Metropolitan 

Arts Press, Innovative Design and Excellence in Architecture using 

Steel; 2009, the Themed Entertainment Association recognized the 

NMMC for outstanding achievement in exhibits. The Marine Corps 

League of the Washington, DC, area awarded its Dickey Chapelle award 

to Director Lin Ezell for outstanding contributions to the morale, 

welfare, and well-being of the officers and enlisted Marines of the 

Corps, and the secretary of the Navy presented an award of merit for 

group achievement. In 2011, the South Eastern Museums Conference 

awarded its Gold Award to the NMMC in its annual publications 

competition, gallery guide category. The award-winning architectural 

design incorporated many sustainability features, such as a green roof 

system, bioretention facilities, and the use of highly recycled materials. 

The author has a complete list of awards from the building design 

courtesy of Brian Chaffee, lead architect at Fentress on the NMMC 

project.

53 Edward P. Alexander, Museum Masters: Their Museums and Their 

Influence (London: AltaMira Press, 1995), 16. The museum website www.

usmcmuseum.org includes a virtual tour and other information of 

interest to the visitor.
Portal to 

Marine Corps History

OBSERVATIONS OF A CIVILIAN HISTORIAN

by Gregory J. W. Urwin1

Although the U.S. Marine Corps is considerably smaller than the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, it occupies a disproportionately 

broad space in the American public’s consciousness.

The Corps and its exploits have inspired scores of 

filmmakers, novelists, artists, journalists, and popular historians, and these works tend to underline the 

claim that Marines embody their country’s best qualities. Yet, despite the leatherneck’s prominence in popular culture, few members of the academy have chosen 

to specialize in Marine Corps history. For professional 

military historians who might be tempted to change 

course and study the soldiers of the sea, the Marine 

Corps History Division offers a convenient means 

of access. This article draws on the author’s personal 

experiences to emphasize the division’s utility to the 

historical community.

For more than a century, the Marine Corps has 

enjoyed folkloric status in America’s imagination. 

As the twentieth century opened, various far-flung 

Marine detachments thrilled the public with their 

defense of Beijing’s Legation District from Chinese 

Boxers and equally daring exploits in the Philippines, 

1

 Dr. Gregory J. W. Urwin is a professor of history at Temple University 

and a former president of the Society for Military History. A fellow 

with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Company of Military Historians, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, he has served 20 

years as the founding general editor of the Campaigns and Commanders 

Series at the University of Oklahoma Press. His current book project is 

tentatively titled, When Freedom Wore a Red Coat: The British Invasions of 

Virginia, 1781 (forthcoming).

Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. The 

press depicted Marines as a sort of sea-going foreign 

legion ideally suited for defending American interests 

around the developing world. Then came World War 

I, and the Corps’ image underwent a revolutionary 

change. The all-leatherneck 4th Brigade in the U.S. 

Army’s 2d Infantry Division lost 112 officers and 4,598 

men when it cleared veteran German troops out of 

Belleau Wood in June 1918, but all that bloodletting 

vindicated Marines’ claims that they constituted a 

corps d’elite. Their countrymen heralded them as the 

world’s most indomitable assault troops, and Marines 

proudly appropriated a nickname bestowed, according to legend, by their enemies, die Teufehlhünden—the 

Devil Dogs.2

World War II not only provided the Marine 

Corps with the opportunity to mobilize a recordbreaking six divisions, but also to earn an equally outsized reputation as arguably America’s most fearsome 

2

 While many historians have written on this piece of Marine Corps lore, 

nothing has been found to indicate that the Germans, in fact, used the 

term devil dogs in their official reports. Allan R. Millett, Semper Fidelis:

The History of the United States Marine Corps, rev. ed. (New York: Free 

Press, 1991) remains the best single-volume overview of Marine Corps 

history. Robert B. Asprey, At Belleau Wood, 2d ed. (New York: Putnam, 

1965; Denton: University of North Texas Press, 1996) is a classic account 

of that battle and its impact on the Corps’ image. Also useful are Dennis E. Showalter, “Evolution of the U.S. Marine Corps as a Military 

Elite,” Marine Corps Gazette 63, no. 11 (November 1979): 44–58; Merrill 

L. Bartlett, Lejeune: A Marine’s Life, 1867–1942 (Columbia: University of 

South Carolina Press, 1991); and Hans Schmidt, Maverick Marine: General 

Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1987).

77
78 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

and respected fighting force. The first Japanese thrusts 

in the Pacific left the U.S. Navy and Army scrambling 

to rationalize the Pearl Harbor disaster and the loss 

of the Philippines, respectively, while a few hundred 

Marines produced a slew of morale-lifting headlines 

with their two-week defense of Wake Island, a stand 

that resulted in their country’s first tactical victory 

of the war and reaffirmed Americans’ confidence in 

the potency of their armed forces.3 Just three months 

after Corregidor fell to the Japanese, the 1st Marine 

Division spearheaded the first American offensive of 

the Pacific war by landing at Guadalcanal. The division’s dogged defense of the ground it took seemed to 

eclipse everything else about the six months of attrition that demonstrated the United States possessed 

the material resources and the moral strength to prevail over Japan. In the wake of that turning point, Marines delivered a series of bloody amphibious assaults 

that turned such strange-sounding places as Tarawa, 

Peleliu, Bougainville, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa into 

household words on the home front. Although the 

Army provided nearly four times as many divisions 

to the Pacific and conducted that theater’s largest 

land campaign in the Philippines, many Americans 

considered the fighting in the world’s widest ocean as 

quintessentially a Marine Corps show. Joseph Rosenthal’s stirring photograph of the second raising of the 

American flag over Iwo Jima validated that perception in the eyes of millions, and it persists to this day, 

as witnessed by the 2010 HBO miniseries, The Pacific.

4

3

 The fight for Wake Island and what it meant to the American public 

are recounted in Gregory J. W. Urwin, Facing Fearful Odds: The Siege of 

Wake Island (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), and Gregory 

J. W. Urwin, “ ‘An Epic that Should Give Every American Hope’: The 

Media and the Birth of the Wake Island Legend,” Marine Corps Gazette

80, no. 12 (December 1996): 64–69.

4

 Though handicapped by insufficient research and a somewhat narrow 

perspective, Aaron B. O’Connell succeeds in describing how the Marine 

Corps of World War II endeared itself to the American public in Underdogs: The Making of the Modern Marine Corps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press, 2012). A much more satisfying treatment of what Iwo 

Jima and its myths meant to the Marine Corps comes from Robert S. 

Burrell, The Ghosts of Iwo Jima (College Station: Texas A&M University 

Press, 2006). Six years after the end of World War II, Jeter A. Isely and 

Philip A. Crowl, The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War: Its Theory, and Its 

Practice in the Pacific (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951) 

credited the Marine Corps with raising amphibious warfare to a fine art 

during that conflict.

The Cold War, with its emphasis on nuclear 

deterrence, seemed to offer Marines few chances to 

shine again, but the Corps carved out a strategic role 

for itself as what Allan R. Millett called “the nation’s 

principal ‘force in readiness.’ ”5 With the outbreak of 

the Korean War, the Provisional Marine Brigade hastened across the Pacific to help shore up the Pusan 

Perimeter. For most Americans, the most memorable 

incident in that frustrating conflict was the 1st Marine Division’s fighting retreat from the Chosin Reservoir. The ability of those beleaguered leathernecks 

to check repeated thrusts from units of the Chinese 

People’s Liberation Army reassured their fellow citizens that the United States possessed the spirit and 

wherewithal to prevail in a hostile world.6

 More than 

a decade later, the 3,500 men from the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade who splashed ashore at Da Nang 

on 9 March 1965 unknowingly kicked off the Americanization of the Vietnam War. Among the most 

vivid memories Americans retain of that ultimately 

unsuccessful conflict are the defense of Khe Sahn by 

two Marine regiments from 21 January to 9 July 1968 

and the role that three Marine battalions played in recapturing the old imperial capital of Hue around the 

same time at the height of the Tet offensive.7

Since 11 September 2001, Navy Seals and the 

Army’s Delta Force have encroached on the Marines’ 

preserve as America’s most glamorized warriors, but 

the Corps stands ready should any situation arise that 

requires larger numbers of crack troops for more conventional operations. Young men and women still vie 

to prove themselves the toughest Americans of their 

5

 Millett, Semper Fidelis, xvii. 6

 Millett produced the definitive history of the first year of American 

military operations in the Korean War with The War for Korea, 1950–1951: 

They Came from the North (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2010). 

See also Kenneth W. Estes, Into the Breach at Pusan: The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade in the Korean War (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

2012); and Robert Debs Heinl Jr., Victory at High Tide: The Inchon-Seoul 

Campaign (Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott, 1968), a triumphalist account 

of the Marines’ revival of their amphibious skills that turned the tables 

on the North Korean People’s Army.

7

 Philip Caputo, then a Marine lieutenant, recalled the early days at Da 

Nang in his widely read Vietnam memoir, A Rumor of War (New York: 

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1977). The Marine experience throughout 

the Vietnam War is admirably captured in Otto J. Lehrack, No Shining 

Armor: The Marines at War in Vietnam—An Oral History (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas), 1992.
SUMMER 2019 79

generation by earning the privilege to wear the eagle, 

globe, and anchor.

One would think that an institution with such 

a storied past and universal brand recognition would 

inspire more innovative scholarly histories. A lot has 

been written about the Marine Corps, to be sure. Most 

of these works, however, focus on the Corps’ battles 

and campaigns. While they ably relate what Marines 

do, they fall short of explaining just who Marines are 

and how they got to be that way. We also have far to go 

in understanding how the Corps evolved from a miniscule and oft-neglected scattering of ships’ detachments and guards at naval yards into an institutionally 

complex and self-conscious elite whose adaptability 

and determination to serve national interests enable 

it to project American power to the most distant 

corners of the globe. Although the past two decades 

have witnessed noticeable progress on that front, professional historians have yet to reveal what made the 

Marine Corps tick at crucial points throughout its development.8

Why, one may well ask, does the historiography 

on the Marine Corps have yet to exhibit the same 

scope and level of sophistication as the monographic 

literature devoted to the U.S. Army? True, the Corps 

has always been dwarfed by the other armed forces, 

but bigger does not necessarily translate into better in choosing viable topics for historical research. 

Indeed, the fact that there have been comparatively 

fewer soldiers of the sea makes it easier to collect the 

data required to generalize reliably about them. With 

cultural studies all the rage in the historical profession 

these days, one would think that scholars would be 

clamoring to probe the inner working of an organization as distinctive and conspicuous as the Marine 

Corps.

The fact of the matter is that some historians 

view Marine Corps history as a minefield that they enter at their peril. The Corps is what military journalist Thomas E. Ricks describes as “a culture apart,” and 

8

 Millett, Semper Fidelis, 649–51. The author first offered this critique (in 

much less measured language) in “United States: Armed Forces, Marine 

Corps,” in Charles Messenger, ed., Reader’s Guide to Military History (London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2001), 606–8.

that can intimidate academics. Furthermore, a considerable number of Marine Corps histories are penned 

by Marines or Marine veterans, and many of them are 

unapologetically celebratory. That leads scholars who 

never wore a Marine uniform to fear that any contributions to this field that take a critical bent would 

not be warmly received.9 Colonel Robert Debs Heinl 

Jr., the officer in charge of the Historical Section in 

the Marine Corps Division of Public Information 

who oversaw the production of the first generation 

of Marine monographs on World War II, personified 

his Service’s intellectual tribalism at its most virulent. 

Two years before Heinl’s death, he wrote Commandant Louis H. Wilson Jr. to denounce the employment 

of civilians by the Marine history program:

I doubt if you have much experience 

with the breed of civil-service military 

historians; to know them, as I do, is 

not to love them. They are a seedy, 

self-serving crew, many unemployable 

at anything like their Government pay 

in academia. They shift back and forth 

from service to service, wherever the 

grade increases lead them in the civil 

service game. There are exceptions 

to all generalizations including the 

above. But, if you ever want a sample 

of civil-service military history at its 

worst, just look at our own dull, unimaginative, poorly written History 

of Marine Corps Operations in World 

War II, which was the result of an era 

in which deadhead colonels routinely 

dozed over the old Historical Branch 

and the civilians ran it.10

Graduate students still shiver over the fate of 

the late professor Craig M. Cameron of Old Dominion University. Cameron cooked up a bold departure from Marine Corps studies with his 1994 book, 

9

 Thomas E. Ricks, Making the Corps (New York: Scribner, 1997), 19. 10 R. D. Heinl Jr. to Louis H. Wilson Jr., 14 August 1977, Robert Debs 

Heinl Jr., Papers, Personal Papers Collection, Archives Branch, Marine 

Corps History Division, Quantico, VA.
80 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

American Samurai: Myth, Imagination, and the Conduct 

of Battle in the First Marine Division, 1941–1951. Instead of 

writing a traditional chronicle of the 1st Marine Division’s combat record, Cameron focused on the myths 

and cultural imagination that shaped how Marines 

viewed themselves during World War II and the early 

years of the Cold War. Cameron’s approach impressed 

the historical profession and resulted in his receiving 

the 1997 Distinguished Book Award from the Society 

for Military History. Nevertheless, he infuriated Marine readers by likening Marine training and attitudes 

to those adopted by the Waffen-SS and other killer 

elites. Cameron also raised hackles by identifying certain aspects of Marine culture as homoerotic, something that might seem less shocking today than it did 

a quarter of a century ago. American Samurai’s page on 

Amazon.com still displays reviews that echo the hate 

mail that inundated Cameron. One critic, apparently 

unaware that Cameron had served as a Marine officer 

from 1980 to 1984, fumed that people like him “are not 

fit to utter the phrase ‘Marine Corps,’ let alone offer 

an opinion of its war fighting preeminence. Tens of 

thousands of voices long dead shout them down.”11

Speaking as a non-Marine who has published on 

Marine Corps history, I would say that I have never 

found the field to be unwelcoming. The perception 

that the Corps cannot tolerate critical scrutiny is false. 

Indeed, openness to what the past may teach is essential to that Service’s continuing health. Allan Millett, 

a Marine who also arguably ranks as the leading military historian of his generation, put it in these words: 

“In the continual struggle to match performance with 

elitist rhetoric, in the daily challenge to separate organizational mythology from relevant military doctrine, 

the Corps must understand its own past without excessive self-congratulation.”12

11 Craig M. Cameron, American Samurai: Myth and Imagination in the Conduct of Battle in the First Marine Division, 1941–1951 (New York: Cambridge 

University Press, 1994); “Craig McNeil Cameron,” Chicago Tribune, Obituaries, 16 January 2005; “American Samurai: Myth and Imagination in 

the Conduct of Battle in the First Marine Division,” Amazon, accessed 

21 November 2018; and Gregory J. W. Urwin, “World War II: Armed 

Forces, United States, Marine Corps,” in Messenger, Reader’s Guide to 

Military History, 758. 12 Millett, Semper Fidelis, xviii.

The official histories produced by the Marine 

Corps History Division play an indispensable part 

in the process Millett outlined. Those titles operate 

as the first draft on subjects that interest historians 

who toil outside of the Corps, and their footnotes and 

bibliographies provide leads to sources for continuing 

research. As I learned through my career, the division 

also functions as a readymade portal to help initiate 

civilian historians into the mysteries of Marine Corps 

history.

My involvement with Marine studies owes more 

to accident than design. After I earned my bachelor’s 

degree in 1977, I decided—with a young man’s characteristic hubris—that I was too educated to ever work 

again with my hands. I therefore started writing historical articles for pulp magazines like Air Classics. 

I began by churning out biographies of World War 

I flying aces, but most Air Classics readers preferred 

World War II. The editor accordingly blackmailed me 

by threatening to publish my World War I material 

only if I wrote some pieces on the subsequent global 

conflict. Momentarily stumped, I then remembered 

the 1942 Paramount film, Wake Island, which I had 

seen on television as a boy. The “last stand” character 

of that dramatization had always been appealing, and 

I remembered that the Marines who defended Wake 

and their Japanese foes had both used airplanes.13

Consequently, I conducted a quickie research job 

and wrote a pot-boiler called “The Wildcats of Wake 

Island” about Marine Fighting Squadron 211 (VMF-211) 

and the 12 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat fighter planes it 

flew in a desperate attempt to defend the atoll. Under 

the article’s title, the editor added this florid teaser: 

“In their planes or without them, the men of VMF-211 

proved that U.S. Marines could fight anywhere with 

anything and hit their enemy hard.”14

The article appeared in the September 1977 issue 

of Air Classics. About a month later, the editor for13 The author’s obsession with last stands led to his first book: Gregory 

J. W. Urwin, Custer Victorious: The Civil War Battles of General George 

Armstrong Custer (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 

1983; Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990).

14 Gregory J. W. Urwin, “The Wildcats of Wake Island,” Air Classics, September 1977, 78–82, 94–95.
SUMMER 2019 81

warded me a letter from a reader that bore the signature of John F. Kinney, “Brig General U.S. Marine 

Corps (Ret).” That must have made my eyes bug out. 

Nearly 36 years earlier in December 1941, Second Lieutenant Kinney had distinguished himself in Wake’s defense as VMF-211’s engineering officer. In May 1945, he 

and four other American officers successfully escaped 

from the Japanese in China. Much to my delight, General Kinney asked me if I was interested “in writing 

the whole story of WAKE.”15

Although I had majored in history while an un15 John F. Kinney to Gregory J. W. Urwin, 24 January 1978, author’s collection.

dergrad, the idea that one could interrogate living 

sources was something that had never occurred to 

me, and I jumped at General Kinney’s invitation. As 

our relationship grew, the general introduced me to 

other American veterans of the Wake Island Campaign. Many of those men were reaching retirement 

age, which left them more willing to talk about their 

wartime experiences. One was Charles A. Holmes, a 

former warrant officer with an antiaircraft artillery 

battery on Wake who served as the historian of the 

Defenders of Wake Island, the garrison’s veterans association. Holmes took me under his wing and became 

my chief promoter, encouraging his comrades to speak 

or correspond with me. As I gathered first-hand testimony, I initially intended to write a more accurate 

article about Wake’s defense. It soon dawned on me 

that I was accumulating the kind of data that would 

permit me to write the history of a small American 

battle from the bottom up—something along the lines 

of John Keegan’s The Face of Battle.

16 I accordingly chose 

Wake Island as the topic for my doctoral dissertation 

at the University of Notre Dame, whose graduate program I entered in 1979.

Although my oral history work uncovered a lot 

of interesting information, I realized that I could not 

test the reliability of what my interview subjects related unless I researched the Wake Island campaign from 

the top down. In order to understand why Wake’s defenders could hold their Japanese opponents at bay 

for 16 days, I also needed to familiarize myself with 

Marine culture and the state of the Corps on the eve 

of World War II. That necessitated spending a month 

or more plumbing the Marine Corps Historical Archives, which then resided in the Marine Corps Historical Center at the Washington Navy Yard. The 

archives housed after action reports and other unpublished materials of potential use in unraveling the 

Wake Island story. A generous Marine Corps Historical Program research grant provided the funding required for an extended research trip, and I headed off 

to our nation’s capital in early January 1982.

In those days, what eventually became the Marine Corps History Division was a component of the 

16 John Keegan, The Face of Battle (New York: Penguin Books, 1976).

Author’s collection

2dLt John F. Kinney, VMF-211, at the Ewa Marine airfield on Oahu, 

Hawaii, in November 1941, shortly before his transfer to Wake Island. 

Retiring from the Marine Corps as a brigadier general, Kinney was the 

first Wake veteran to reach out to the author.
82 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. 

Marine Corps. It shared space with the Marine Corps 

Historical Archives, Marine Corps Historical Library, 

and Marine Corps Oral History Collection, which 

were housed on the second deck of the Marine Corps 

Historical Center, a sturdy old building of whitewashed brick.

I remember the day I reported to the Historical Center, anxious to start accumulating some archival dust under my fingernails. After I registered with 

security, an enlisted man conducted me to the office 

of retired Brigadier General Edwin H. Simmons, who 

had just completed his 10th year as director of the History and Museums Division. The general was a veteran 

of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. He possessed a 

master of arts in journalism from Ohio State University and had established his bona fides as a historian 

by publishing a popular history marking the Marine 

Corps’ bicentennial.17 Simmons was an immaculately 

dressed and groomed man with a movie star’s good 

looks and a diplomat’s polished manners. He received 

me graciously and provided a concise briefing on the 

available research facilities and the general procedures 

to be followed.

Following that interview, General Simmons entrusted my handling to his subordinates, and a young 

historian could not have asked for a better set of mentors. Instead of mixing with the “seedy, self-serving 

crew” derided by Colonel Heinl, I found myself privileged to become the pampered guest of a community 

of scholars and civil servants whose knowledge of Marine Corps history was equaled by their professionalism, dedication, and commitment to my making 

optimal use of the time spent among them. Several 

historians from the History and Museums Division 

interrupted their own work to offer advice. Jack Shulimson was busy writing an official history on Marines 

in the Vietnam War, but he generously shared insights 

gleaned from his personal research to school me on 

the origins of professionalism in the Marine officer 

17 See Edwin H. Simmons, The United States Marines: The First Two Hundred Years, 1775–1975 (New York: Viking, 1976).

corps.18 I enjoyed equally fruitful conversations with 

Henry I. Shaw Jr. and Benis M. Frank, who had both 

worked on the magisterial History of U.S. Marine Corps 

Operations in World War II, also known as the “Red 

Books,” which had superseded the monographs produced under Colonel Heinl’s auspices in the late 1940s. 

Shaw and Frank knew the sources on Wake Island and 

the prisoner of war (POW) experiences of its garri18 Much of what Jack Shulimson taught the author appeared in Shulimson’s groundbreaking book, The Marine Corps’ Search for a Mission, 

1880–1898 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993).

Author’s collection

TSgt Charles A. Holmes, seen here in Honolulu, Hawaii, in November 

1941, served in Battery E, Wake Island Detachment, 1st Defense Battalion. As the historian of the Defenders of Wake Island, he assisted the 

author in scheduling interviews with veterans of the 16-day-siege of the 

atoll. Holmes’ papers now reside in the Archives Branch, Marine Corps 

History Division.
SUMMER 2019 83

son, and they pointed me in the right direction more 

than once.19 Frank also acted as director of the Marine 

Corps Oral History Collection, and he helped me locate the transcripts of interviews with retired officers 

whose experiences would deepen my appreciation of 

the “old Corps” of the 1920s and 1930s. The ebullient 

Richard A. Long lent me the transcribed interviews 

that he conducted for a history of the 4th Marines, the 

regiment that transferred from Shanghai, China, on 

the eve of the Pacific war—only to endure combat and 

capture in the Philippines. This generous gesture also 

contributed to my broader knowledge of the Service 

culture that produced the Wake Island Marines.

I spent an inordinate amount of my time in the 

History and Museums Division’s Reference Section, 

which turned out to be a storehouse of information 

19 The two volumes from the Red Series most useful to the author’s research were Frank O. Hough et al., History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations 

in World War II, vol. 1, Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal (Washington, DC: 

Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1958); and 

Benis M. Frank and Henry I. Shaw Jr., History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II, vol. 5, Victory and Occupation (Washington, DC: 

Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, 1968).

on Marine units, bases, and battles, along with detailed biographical data on the Marine officers who 

figured in my research. I shall never forget how much 

I owed Danny J. Crawford, Robert V. Aquilina, and 

their colleagues for assisting me in navigating their innumerable files to find what I needed. 

Armed with the photostat copies and notes that I 

gathered at the Marine Corps Historical Center, along 

with treasures uncovered at the National Archives and 

other repositories, I managed to write and defend my 

dissertation, a 515-page monster titled “The Defenders 

of Wake Island: Their Two Wars, 1941–1945,” within 

two years. A revised version of the first half of that 

opus was published as Facing Fearful Odds: The Siege of 

Wake Island in 1997. That book won the 1998 General 

Wallace M. Greene Jr. Award, which proved instrumental in obtaining a position at Temple University. 

Following a second visit in 1998 to the Marine Corps 

History Center at the Washington Navy Yard before 

it transferred its archival holdings to Quantico, Virginia, I completed my last book-length contribution 

to Marine Corps history, Victory in Defeat: The Wake 

Island Defenders in Captivity, 1941–1945, which Naval Institute Press released in 2010.

Since my arrival at Temple in 1999, I have directed two dissertations devoted to Marine Corps history. 

The students who produced them, David J. Ulbrich 

and Earl J. Catangus Jr., both received dissertation 

research fellowships from the Marine Corps Heritage 

Foundation, which permitted them to interact with 

a reorganized Marine Corps History Division at its 

current location in Quantico. Ulbrich and Catangus 

received the same kind of solicitous care from the 

Marine history program that I enjoyed decades earlier. Ulbrich published his dissertation with Naval 

Institute Press in 2011 as Preparing for Victory: Thomas 

Holcomb and the Making of the Modern Marine Corps, 

1936–1943, and it won the 2012 General Wallace M. 

Greene Jr. Book Prize. Catangus is currently revising 

his 2016 dissertation, “ ‘Getting Rid of the Line’: Toward an American Infantry Way of Battle, 1918–1945,” 

for publication, and it should result in an equally fine 

book. 

Serious military history has undergone a revoAuthor’s collection

From left to right: PFCs Clifton H. Lewis, LeRoy N. Schneider, and 

John E. Pearsall of the Wake Island Detachment, 1st Defense Battalion. 

These three young Marines survived the fight for Wake and three-anda-half years as prisoners of war under the Japanese. Pearsall’s POW diary and notes now belong to the Archives Branch, Marine Corps History Division.
84 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

lution during the past four decades. While its practitioners still write about commanders and military 

operations, they have enriched their work by tapping 

the approaches of social, cultural, ethnic, gender, political, diplomatic, business, and environmental history.20 Applying the methodologies developed by those 

subfields to Marine Corps history will produce numerous insights into what makes Marines so unique 

and their interactions with American society and the 

societies they have impacted during their many years 

of global service. Those revelations will complement 

the traditional narrative of what Marines do on the 

battlefield. 

Based on my personal experience as a student, 

historian, and teacher, I consider the Marine Corps 

History Division as an indispensable ally for any civilian academics who aspire to write about America’s 

soldiers of the sea. Such a relationship will inevitably 

contribute to the ongoing maturation of the history of 

an organization that tells us so much about this country’s character. 

• 1775 •

20 See Tami Davis Biddle and Robert M. Citino, Society for Military History white paper, “The Role of Military History in the Contemporary 

Academy,” 30 November 2014.

Author’s collection

David J. Ulbrich (left) and Gregory J. W. Urwin (right) claim Wake 

Island for Temple University in August 2002 while shooting a two-hour 

documentary special there for the History Channel based on Urwin’s 

Facing Fearful Odds: The Siege of Wake Island.
IN MEMORIAM

Oscar Edward Gilbert Jr.

10 DECEMBER 1946–10 FEBRUARY 2019

by Kenneth W. Estes and Romain Cansière

Oscar Edward Gilbert Jr. was born in Birmingham, Alabama, to Oscar E. Gilbert Sr. and Elsie Mae Kendrick Gilbert. He grew 

up in a small, unincorporated suburb called Green 

Acres, where his parents and extended family members owned small farms. Although he lived in a typical 

small American town, he spent a lot of time at his uncles’ farms in rural Shelby County, Alabama, and his 

father owned a small farm where he hoped to someday 

retire. Gilbert also hunted and fished a lot. He spent 

his entire youth there, graduating from Jones Valley 

High School in 1964. As a teenager, he worked in landscaping and in fence construction. He then attended 

and graduated from the University of Alabama with 

a bachelor of science in geology in 1969 and a master 

of science in 1974; he later earned his doctorate at the 

University of Tennessee in 1981. While a student in 

Alabama, Gilbert met Catherine Rittman; they were 

married in 1971. 

After obtaining his doctorate, he worked for a 

state geological survey in uranium exploration and 

taught at Auburn University (he liked to tell Auburn 

jokes to his captive audience). Gilbert spent most of 

his geological and geophysical career at a succession of 

oil and gas companies in both domestic and international exploration and production. His early ambition 

was to work the length of the Appalachian Mountains; instead, he got to work in and visit numerous 

countries. He retired in 2009.

Gilbert also served in the Marine Corps Reserve 

as an artilleryman and noncommissioned officer instructor from 26 June 1969 to 25 June 1975. He taught 

the required annual refresher courses on a number of 

subjects, including the history of the Marine Corps.

In his later years, Gilbert became a military 

Photo by Dave Pena

Gilbert with late Col Edward L. Bale Jr., who died in December 2017 

and to whose “In Memoriam” piece Gilbert contributed in the Winter 

2017 issue of Marine Corps History.

85
86 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

history enthusiast. One day, as he was complaining 

about contradictions and factual errors in a book he 

was reading, his wife Catherine retorted, “If you’re 

so smart, why don’t you write your own book?” Gilbert reached out to a friend who was a retired master 

gunnery sergeant, who helped him contact surviving 

veterans from World War II for his first book: Marine 

Tank Battles in the Pacific (2001). 

He began his research for that book in August 

2000, attending the annual meeting and reunion of 

the USMC Tankers Association, held that year at 

Coos Bay, Oregon. In what would become a characteristic method of Gilbert’s, he spent many hours interviewing the veteran tankers and quickly gained their 

confidence and friendship. He relished getting close 

to history through living witnesses and their photographs and documents that they shared with him. He 

Photo by Carole Dowd

Oscar Edward Gilbert Jr. and his wife Catherine on the day he received 

the 2016 Gen Wallace M. Greene Jr. Award for outstanding nonfiction.

showed equal intensity working in various archives, 

museums, and collections around the United States.

Gilbert never accepted anything as the final 

word on a subject. He liked to reexamine history and 

if at all possible to tour the old battlefields, not just 

recycle previous accounts. 

In his work, he aimed to understand military 

history from the bottom up, with a particular interest in the personal experiences of the men who were 

actually there. In doing so, he proved that many of 

the accepted common-knowledge accounts of the role 

of the tank in the Marine Corps were erroneous and 

underestimated, as were several other elements of the 

actions he studied.

Gilbert liked teaching and it showed in his published works and correspondence with his friends. His 

well-crafted books made history accessible to all. His 

series of books on Marine Corps tank battles will remain a definitive reference to all readers, professionals and students alike. 

In all, Gilbert authored 18 books on the subject 

and (thanks to his wife Cathy) on the American War of 

Independence. His book Tanks in Hell: A Marine Corps 

Tank Company on Tarawa (coauthored by Romain Cansière; 2015) was awarded the 2016 General Wallace M. 

Greene Jr. Award for outstanding nonfiction.

As a military historian, Gilbert wrote for veteran, historical, and hobby magazines, and he served as a 

technical and historical advisor on film and television 

projects. He appeared on CNN and several episodes of 

the cable television series Greatest Tank Battles. Yet, despite his evident talent and skills in military history, 

he never considered himself an expert. 

Oscar Edward Gilbert Jr. died 10 February 2019 

from metastatic melanoma at home in Katy, Texas. He 

is survived by numerous relatives but primarily the 

members of his immediate family: wife Catherine, son 

Oscar III and spouse Lauren Nicole, daughter Elizabeth Jordan Gilbert-Hillier and spouse Adam Hillier, 

daughter Elana Jillian Gilbert, and grandchildren Oscar IV, Levi, and Lilly Gilbert.

• 1775 •
IN MEMORIAM

Second Lieutenant Elwood 

Ray Bailey

MARINE ATTACK SQUADRON 223

18 AUGUST 1920—24 AUGUST 1942

by Geoffrey W. Roecker1

Elwood Ray Bailey was born on 18 August 

1920 to Michigan farmers Ray and Lula Livesay Bailey. He grew up on the family farm in 

Sandstone Township and attended schools and social 

events in nearby Parma. Photographs from Bailey’s 

childhood show an outdoorsy boy rowing with his dog 

and fishing with his older sister, Helen Virginia, at 

McCormick Lake in the northern part of the state. He 

applied himself well in school and, after graduating 

from Parma High in 1938, he was accepted to Jackson 

Junior College in Jackson, Michigan.

There were two great loves in Bailey’s young life. 

The first was his sweetheart. He noticed Daisy Eunice 

Roberts while attending Parma High, or maybe she 

noticed him first; he was good looking, athletic, and “a 

hell of a nice guy.”2

 Their class was so small they could 

scarcely have missed each other. Bailey and Roberts 

started dating, and by graduation were all but insepa1

 Geoffrey Roecker is the founder of MissingMarines, an initiative focused on the recovery and repatriation of U.S. Marine Corps personnel 

who remain unaccounted for from World War II. He runs two research 

websites (www.missingmarines.com and www.1stbattalion24thmarines.

com) and has written numerous articles and profiles for both projects. 

Roecker is the author of the forthcoming book Leaving Mac Behind: The 

Lost Marines of Guadalcanal (December 2019). A version of this article 

that appeared on MissingMarines.com in October 2018 received the 2019 

Gen Roy S. Geiger Award by the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation.

2

 Wayne Tompkins, email to author, 9 January 2018.

rable. Bailey’s second love was flying. Jackson Junior 

College was an early adopter of the Civilian Pilot 

Training Program and flying classes were offered as 

Courtesy Wayne Tompkins

Elwood Bailey’s acid-etched identification tag was recovered from the 

wreck of his Grumman F4F Wildcat fighter and returned to his family.

87
88 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

part of the curriculum. The chance for thrills mixed 

with practical instruction was a popular draw for students, and as Europe descended into war, both the 

headstrong and the realists concluded that the United 

States might one day follow. A civilian pilot’s license 

might someday translate into a military commission.

Then, too, there was the simple joy of flying—

still a novel experience in 1939 and 1940. Bailey was 

so enamored with the air that he pooled some of his 

savings with his buddies and bought a single-engine 

Piper Cub. Bailey, Zenneth A. Pond, and William 

“Bill” Maher spent hours behind the controls of their 

little plane practicing maneuvers and stunts. On the 

ground, they must have talked about the prospect of 

war and what they would do if America got involved 

in the global conflict. All three decided to beat the 

draft and earn the gold wings of naval aviators. 

Pond could not wait. He dropped out of Jackson 

Junior College, entered the Navy in May 1941, and was 

soon earning honors in training at Naval Air Station 

Grosse Ile, Michigan.3

 Bailey followed a month later 

on 26 June—he wanted to graduate before joining—

and easily passed the rigorous screening. Their friend, 

Bill Maher, was not so lucky; the Navy uncovered a 

medical issue that was deemed disqualifying.4 After 

several weeks of elimination training, Seaman Second 

Class Bailey bade farewell to his family and set out on 

the journey from Jackson to Jacksonville, Florida, and 

the newly commissioned Naval Air Station where he 

would train as a cadet.5 Roberts was not quite ready to 

let Bailey go and made the trip down with him. 

Cadet Bailey was in Jacksonville on 7 December 

1941. His exact reaction to the news of Pearl Harbor 

is not known, but one might assume that practicing 

maintenance, maneuvers, and mock dogfights sud3

 “58 at Grosse Ile Base Earn Advanced Training in Aviation,” Detroit (MI) 

Free Press, 13 July 1941. According to Navy muster rolls, Pond enlisted on 

31 May 1941. He was the youngest cadet in his class and earned the top 

spot by winning the Knudsen Trophy.

4

 Maher later joined the Army Air Corps and spent the wartime years 

flying “The Hump”—a notoriously difficult transport route over the Himalayas into China. He went on to have a distinguished career as a civilian pilot.

5

 Muster rolls for NAS Jacksonville indicate that Bailey was appointed 

an aviation cadet on 13 November 1941.

denly took on a new level of seriousness for every man 

in his class. Instructors bore down harder than ever, 

and the training grew more intense—solo navigation 

problems, night flights, and learning to fly on instruments alone. It was a far cry from doodling over Jackson in a Piper Cub.

Finally, on 22 April 1942, Bailey received the 

coveted “Wings of Gold” that proclaimed him a fully 

qualified naval aviator. At some point, he made the 

decision to become a Marine—possibly as early as enlistment; the Corps did not have a separate aviation 

training program—and traded in his white Navy ensign’s uniform for the forest green of a Marine second 

lieutenant. His commission was effected in Miami on 

Courtesy Wayne Tompkins

Elwood Bailey and Eunice Roberts were high-school sweethearts. They 

married just before Bailey departed for overseas duty.
SUMMER 2019 89

15 May 1942, 10.5 months after he enlisted at Grosse 

Ile, and he was presented with orders instructing him 

to report to San Diego, California.

In California, Second Lieutenant Bailey was assigned to the newly formed 2d Marine Aircraft Wing. 

He must have been delighted to find his old buddy, 

now Second Lieutenant Pond, assigned to the same 

unit. Pond had completed his aviation training at 

Corpus Christi, Texas, and was commissioned only a 

few days before Bailey. The two friends were both assigned to a new squadron that was forming in Oahu, 

Hawaii. With only a few days before shipping out, the 

new pilots scrambled to put their affairs in order. Bailey had one thought in mind. Roberts joined him in 

San Diego and the long-time sweethearts were married, allowing them to spend one final day together. 

On 26 June 1942, Bailey and Pond boarded the USS

Hilo (AGP 2) and sailed for Pearl Harbor. Nine days 

later, they reported for duty with Marine Fighting 

Squadron 223 (VMF-223)—the “Rainbow Squadron” or 

“Fighting 23”—at Ewa Field, along with Second Lieutenants Noyes McLennan and Kenneth D. Frazier.6

“If any military man in Hawaii last June [1942] 

had told a colleague that Marine Fighting Squadron 

223 was made of the stuff of heroes,” wrote LIFE reporter Richard Wilcox, “he would have been laughed 

out of the islands. It would take months for a bunch 

of kids, most of them straight from flying school and 

just learning to navigate, shoot, and maneuver their 

Grumman F4F Wildcats, normally to be able to fly together as a squadron.”7

 Since being commissioned on 1 

May 1942, VMF-223 was racing toward a state of combat readiness under the leadership of Captain John 

Lucian Smith, “a hard-jawed, hazel-eyed Marine” all of 

27 years old. He had a formidable task ahead of him. 

Only four of his pilots had more than a year’s service; 

the rest were young second lieutenants. Three of the 

latter were veterans of Midway and painted grim pictures of the abilities of Japanese pilots and the shortcomings of the Brewster F2A Buffalo fighters with 

which the squadron was equipped. Smith “begged 

and borrowed planes for his green pilots”—eventually 

replacing the hated Buffaloes with more advanced 

Grumman F4F Wildcats—and formed the squadron 

through a combination of hard work and sheer willpower. “All he could do was to double and redouble 

flying schedules, keep pounding technical knowledge 

into the heads of his enlisted men in the hope that 

the transformation from farm hand and store clerk 

to aircraft radioman and mechanic would be rapid 

and halfway thorough,” Wilcox wrote. “And he could 

pray that when the time came for the attack on the 

Solomons, VMF-223 would be prepared to fight.”8 The 

6

 The squadron nickname would later change to the more familiar “Bulldogs.”

7

 Richard Wilcox, “Captain Smith and His Fighting 223,” LIFE, 7 December 1942, 120.

8

 Wilcox, “Captain Smith and His Fighting 223,” 120.

Courtesy Wayne Tompkins

Elwood Bailey at home in Michigan, ca. 1941.
90 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

training regimen cost the life of one pilot a few days 

after Bailey joined the squadron.

Though Smith’s pilots anticipated change every 

day, the arrival of deployment orders was shockingly 

sudden. “The order came on a Sunday to be on the carrier Tuesday morning,” wrote Wilcox. “That left two 

days for a few final drinks in Honolulu, some movies 

and a last telephone call back to the States for sweethearts and wives. . . . [The] order was countermanded. 

VMF-223 had to be aboard in three hours. In the feverish haste of packing and last-minute plane checkovers, the squadron left Hawaii before it had time to 

make its farewells.”9 Nineteen officers and 65 enlisted 

men hurried aboard the escort carrier USS Long Island

(ACV 1) on 2 August 1942 and were at sea bound for 

“destination secret” by nightfall.10

It took 15 days to reach their next port of call, 

which turned out to be Efate in the New Hebrides 

Islands. During that time, Bailey and his comrades 

were kept busy by the ever-energetic Smith. Second 

Lieutenant Roy A. Corry Jr., one of the Midway veterans and the squadron’s gunnery officer, wheeled each 

of the squadron’s planes to the carrier’s side and fired 

bursts of tracers, fine-tuning each of the .50-caliber 

guns. McLennan dreamed up new dogfighting maneuvers, and Second Lieutenant Charles Kendrick 

became the squadron’s self-taught and self-appointed 

weatherman. In their downtime, the men argued tactics, war news, rumors, and gripes. And sometimes 

they talked just to talk. Richard Wilcox listened in 

on their conversations. Corry “brooded about being 

killed.” Kendrick and McLennan argued about the 

virtues of Harvard and Yale. Frazier and Pond made 

loud bets about how many Zeroes they were going to 

9

 Wilcox, “Captain Smith and His Fighting 223,” 121.

10 War Diary, VMF-223, August 1942, Record Group (RG) 38, Records of 

the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 1875–2006, Series: World 

War II diaries/other records and histories, ca. 1/1/1942—ca. 6/1/1946, 

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Washington, 

DC. The remainder of the squadron sailed aboard the USS William Ward 

Burrows (AP 6) several days later. The Long Island’s history is somewhat 

long and complicated. It was converted to an aircraft carrier and initially designated APV 1 but then redesignated and commissioned as AVG 1. 

It was reclassified as an auxiliary aircraft carrier and redesignated ACV 

1 on 20 August 1942. A year later, the Long Island was reclassified as an 

escort carrier and redesignated CVE 1 on 15 July 1943.

shoot down.11 “All hard, clean-cut members of the new 

breed of fighting men,” proclaimed Wilcox, yet also 

“average Americans, some light-hearted, some solemn, 

some emotional.” He also spoke often to Bailey, “who 

thought of the wife with whom he had lived for only a 

day before being sent into the Pacific.”12

The squadron spent a single day at Port Vila, Vanuatu, which Smith used to exchange a handful of his 

pilots for more experienced flyers from VMF-212. By 

19 August, they were at sea again. This time, the destination was well known: Guadalcanal in the Solomon 

Islands, where Marine ground forces were desperately 

hanging on against determined Japanese attacks on 

land, sea, and air. The little USS Long Island took on 

outsized importance as one of the few operable carriers in the South Pacific, and rather than risk the ship, 

it was decided to launch VMF-223 some 200 miles out 

at sea. On the morning on 20 August 1942, the first of 

their Wildcats roared down the flight deck and wobbled into the air. It was a hair-raising challenge for the 

young aviators, few of whom had had the chance to 

qualify on carriers.13 Captain Marion E. Carl, one of 

the more experienced pilots, recalled “a tedious process with only one catapult and a crowded deck. Our 

formation was led by Lt. Col. Charles [L.] Fike, executive officer of [Marine Aircraft Group] MAG-23. . . . 

We watched Fike manage a shaky launch”—from the 

worryingly short flight deck—and “everybody else got 

off safely,” followed by the dive-bombers of Marine 

Scout Bombing Squadron 232 (VMSB-232).14 Elwood 

Bailey joined the formation circling above the Long Island and, at around 1330 hours, the flight departed in 

the direction of Guadalcanal.

The infamous island “looked green and peaceful 

in the morning air,” Wilcox wrote. “As they brought 

their planes over the airfield which had been captured 

from the Japs, all of [the] Fighting 23 [VMF-223] felt 

11 Mitsubishi A6M Zero long-range fighter aircraft, operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy.

12 Wilcox, “Captain Smith and His Fighting 223,” 121.

13 John B. Lundstrom, First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign: Naval 

Fighter Combat from August to November 1942 (Annapolis: Naval Institute 

Press, 1994), 118.

14 MajGen Marion E. Carl with Barrett Tillman, Pushing the Envelope: The 

Career of Fighter Ace and Test Pilot Marion Carl (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1994).
SUMMER 2019 91

that this was going to be fun.”15 They landed to a hero’s 

welcome. Overjoyed Marines, some with tears in their 

eyes, poured out of the jungle and swarmed around 

the aircraft, shaking hands and slapping backs. Until then, they had had no ground-based air support. 

Bailey and his buddies spent the balance of the day 

nervously critiquing the Navy servicing detachment—

who “although willing and intelligent had, for the 

most part, less than four months service” and “required the closest supervision.”16 They also solicited 

advice from the infantry: “Never go off in the jungle 

alone. Eat and sleep every chance you get. Duck when 

you hear a big one coming over.”17 That night, they lay 

15 Wilcox, “Captain Smith and His Fighting 223,” 122.

16 War Diary, Marine Air Group (MAG) 23, August 1942, RG 38, Records 

of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 1875–2006, Series: World 

War II diaries/other records and histories, ca. 1/1/1942—ca. 6/1/1946, 

NARA.

17 Wilcox, “Captain Smith and His Fighting 223,” 124.

under captured Japanese tents and mosquito netting 

and listened to the Battle of the Tenaru blazing a few 

hundred yards away.

Patrols began the next day. Noon was already established as “Tojo Time”—most likely for a Japanese 

raid—and a four-plane flight of VMF-223 Rainbows 

tangled with six Japanese Zeroes. The squadron’s first 

combat resulted in a kill credited to Major Smith and 

four Wildcats shot full of holes. Bailey likely made 

several flights in the days that followed. An ordinary 

combat patrol was about two hours long, and the 

Marines also flew air cover for damaged ships taking 

cover near Tulagi off the Solomon Islands. Reports of 

a Japanese naval task force sent excitement rippling 

through the “Cactus Air Force” on the afternoon of 

23 August, and a strike group was assembled and sent 

to investigate, but bad weather forced them to return 

without making contact. Much later that night, a Japanese submarine sent some shells into the perimeter, a 

belated riposte to the aborted strike.18

Wilcox reported: 

In a few days, the picnic atmosphere 

of life on Guadalcanal was dispelled. 

Life became a deadly, never-ceasing 

struggle. Fighting 23 was in the air 

every day. . . . At about 9:30 AM, the 

pilots of Fighting 23 would get an allplane scramble as a flag was run up 

in front of the aircraft operations office. The pilots would sprint for their 

dispersed planes, then climb to meet 

the Japs coming in from the sea. They 

would get up into the sun and wait 

for the enemy to come, in their precise V-of-V’s. Then Smith would give 

the signal and they would scream 

down as bombers and Zeros [sic] fell 

like burning leaves from the Jap formation. Sometimes, along with them, 

one of Fighting 23’s Grummans would 

plummet crazily down and crash into 

18 Guadalcanal was code-named was “Cactus”; the American air forces 

operating out of Guadalcanal were sometimes referred to as the Cactus 

Air Force. 

Courtesy Wayne Tompkins

Cadet Bailey during his training to become a naval aviator. After receiving his wings, he elected to join the Marine Corps as a second lieutenant.
92 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

the hills or in the sea around Guadalcanal.19

On 24 August 1942, VMF-223 encountered their 

first major air raid of 12 Zeroes and 15 bombers in a 

two-wave formation. Fourteen Wildcats—VMF-223 

and their attached buddies from VMF-212—went to 

intercept. As Marion Carl’s four-plane flight entered 

the fray, Bailey and Pond were either racing for their 

Wildcats or, if they were on alert status, were already 

in the cockpits and making frantic preparations to 

take off. A fully-laden Wildcat could take up to 45 

minutes to reach attack altitude, and there was no 

time to waste. The Japanese fighters obliged by coming down to the deck, strafing the last VMF-223 pilots 

as they took off and wrecking one of the Wildcats.

In attempting to piece together the dogfight 

that followed, aviation historian John Lundstrom 

admits “confusion as to the details of the fight pretty 

much set the tone for this immensely perplexing air 

battle.” As proof, he cites an interaction between 

correspondent Richard Tregaskis and Ken Frazier: 

“He [Frazier] could not say how many enemy bombers there had been or whether they were one or two 

motored craft.”20 Carl remembered that “this fight 

was very confusing.” He had good reason to remember it; when he landed, he was the first ace in Marine 

Corps history.21 The VMF-223 war diary claimed 15 

enemy aircraft shot down and three more probably 

destroyed. Pond personally accounted for two bombers and a Zero; a few days later, he would be an ace. 

The bombers inflicted no damage. It was a great victory for VMF-223.

The elation was tempered by the sudden realization that not all of the Americans had returned. Second Lieutenant Robert Read, who had been caught on 

takeoff by the strafing Zeroes, managed to ditch near 

Florida Island. He returned safely after a few days. 

The Wildcat flown by Second Lieutenant Lawrence 

19 Wilcox, “Captain Smith and His Fighting 223,” 124.

20 Lundstrom, First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign, 144. 21 Carl and Tillman, Pushing the Envelope. The term ace is not an official 

designation but generally is applied to pilots who shoot down five enemy aircraft.

Taylor, one of the VMF-212 pilots, fell in flames after 

shooting up a bomber. 

The F4F-4 Wildcat Bureau Number 02095 flown 

by Bailey did not return at all. “The first to go was Bailey, the boy who had been married the day before he 

left to join the squadron,” wrote Wilcox. “On Aug. 24 

he flamed into the sea after shooting down two Zeros 

attacking Henderson Field.”22 Lundstrom described 

“a low-level running fight” over the island of Malaita 

that pitted a pair of Wildcats and three Army Bell 

P-400 Airacobras against six seasoned Japanese Navy 

pilots. One of those veterans shot up Bailey’s plane, 

and “although seen to bail out over Tulagi, [Bailey] 

never came back.”23 Group and squadron war diaries 

simply recorded that Bailey failed to return and, after 

a month with no news, he was dropped from the rolls 

of VMF-223 and taken up by the Prisoners of War and 

Missing Persons Detachment at Headquarters Marine 

Corps. He was far from the last. One by one, VMF-223 

pilots fell from the sky: Corry, Kendrick, McLennan, 

and even Pond, who took off to intercept a bombing 

strike on 10 September and never returned.24

News of Bailey’s disappearance reached Jackson, 

Michigan, a few weeks later, and in the year of uncertainty that followed, his loved ones tried to keep 

their spirits up. Eunice Bailey moved in with Ray and 

Lula Bailey while attending the W. A. Foote Memorial 

School of Nursing in Jackson. On 7 December 1942, the 

first anniversary of Pearl Harbor, LIFE hit the newsstands with a photograph of Major John Smith—now 

a famous flier—on the cover. The senior Baileys bought 

a copy of Richard Wilcox’s story, and his description 

of Elwood Bailey’s fighter falling in flames to the sea 

must have been terrible to read. The New Year came; 

the anniversaries of his graduation, enlistment, commission, and marriage came and went. On 25 August 

1943, the secretary of the Navy declared that Elwood 

Ray Bailey was officially dead. They could not even be 

sure they would have a body to bury.

His family tried to move on. In 1947, Eunice 

22 Wilcox, “Captain Smith and His Fighting 223,” 124

23 Lundstrom, First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign, 143. 24 Pond received the Navy Cross for valor in the air over Guadalcanal. As 

of this publication, his remains have not been recovered.
SUMMER 2019 93

went to Ray and Lula requesting their permission to 

remarry; her intended was a wounded soldier she had 

been treating in the VA hospital in Dearborn, Michigan. The Baileys agreed. Importantly, this meant that 

Ray became the primary next of kin and contact point 

for a final attempt to recover Elwood Bailey’s remains. 

Between 1947 and 1949, teams from the 604th Quartermaster Graves Registration Company traveled the 

Pacific in search of thousands of missing or unrecovered Americans who fell between 1941 and 1945. 

The Baileys might have read a newspaper item about 

Charles Kendrick Sr., a wealthy businessman who personally traveled to Guadalcanal to search for the body 

of his son, Elwood’s squadron mate Second Lieutenant 

Charles Kendrick. The elder Kendrick beat the odds; 

his boy was found. The Baileys were not wealthy or 

well-connected, however; they could not make such a 

journey, and the search teams had no more luck. With 

hundreds of square miles to cover in the Solomon Islands alone, and with no specific idea of where Bailey’s aircraft had disappeared, they could only make 

the most general search. The Wilcox story seemed to 

be confirmed: Elwood Bailey must have gone down at 

sea, and there was no hope of his recovery.

The Baileys could not bury their son, so they 

buried the mention of him for the next generation. 

“I think the subject of his death left such a scar on everyone that it was just too painful a subject for them 

to discuss,” recalled Elwood’s nephew, Wayne Tompkins.25 His mother, the former Helen Bailey, rarely 

talked about her younger brother. “We knew that he 

had died heroically in aerial combat in Guadalcanal,” 

said Tompkins. “The unfortunate reality is [his family] 

died not really knowing for sure what had happened 

to him. . . . The fact that the circumstances of his death 

were unknown created a real sense of anguish.”26 While 

details about Elwood Bailey’s early life faded into obscurity, the family continued to treasure his memory. 

The LIFE magazine issue became an heirloom. Eunice 

told her children “glowing stories” about her first husband, and Tompkins’s son also became a naval aviator, 

following in Bailey’s footsteps.

Seventy years passed.

In 2012, Clay Chulao was exploring in the jungles near his home in Mbarana Village, Guadalcanal, 

when he stumbled across the rusting wreckage of an 

American fighter plane. He managed to pry loose a 

wing, which he sold to the proprietor of a museum 

in Honiara, Solomon Islands. The buyer alerted the 

Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC), and 

a search team was dispatched in 2013. The site had 

been picked over, but significant debris remained—including the tail assembly, weather-bleached and rustspotted, with the number 02095 still plainly visible.

Elwood Bailey’s plane had not gone down at sea 

at all. Instead, it had crashed to earth in the foothills of 

Mount Austen, significantly inland from Henderson 

Field. One mystery was solved, but the whereabouts of 

25 Tompkins email.

26 Taylor DesOrmeau, “Remains of Michigan WWII Pilot Found, Coming Home for Burial,” MLIVE.com, 10 October 2018.

Courtesy Wayne Tompkins

2dLt Bailey earned his pilot’s wings at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, 

FL, in April 1942. Family painting.
94 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

the pilot were still unknown. Had he bailed out, leaving the fighter to crash unmanned? Had the official 

records mistaken which plane he flew on the day he 

disappeared? Had he perhaps survived the crash only 

to become lost in the jungles or caught by a Japanese 

patrol? Or were his remains somewhere nearby, hidden by years of jungle growth and disturbed by scavengers? The JPAC team recovered debris from the 

site, but nothing that could be identified as human 

remains.

Three more years passed before Chulao entered 

the picture once again. He had more items from the 

crash site: a pistol; an identification tag bent and 

folded nearly in half as if hit by something hard; and, 

in the cautious language of the newly formed Defense 

POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA), “possible 

human remains.”27 The tag, though damaged, was still 

plainly legible. It was of the early war style, acid etched 

27 In January 2015, the Department of Defense reorganized its missing 

personnel recovery and identification efforts. The Joint POW/MIA 

Accounting Command and the Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office were consolidated, forming the Defense POW/MIA Accounting 

Agency. Department of Defense, “Statement from Secretary of Defense 

Chuck Hagel on Personnel Accounting Reorganization,” news release, 9 

January 2015; Department of Defense, “Defense POW/MIA Accounting 

Agency Becomes Operational,” news release, 30 January 2015; 

instead of stamped, and bore the inscription “E. R. 

BAILEY 2d Lt. USMCR.” With a reasonable association thus confirmed, the DPAA contacted Bailey’s 

family.

On 5 September 2017, just days after the 72d 

anniversary of his death, Elwood Ray Bailey was officially accounted for. His life and his friendship with 

Pond and Maher became the subject of a documentary 

film produced by students at his alma mater, and on 

13 October 2018, his remains were laid to rest beside 

his parents. “It’s nice to finally think that their souls 

will be a little more at peace, knowing this whole 

thing had been brought to a conclusion,” commented 

Wayne Tompkins.28

Sadly, Eunice passed away in October 2015, after Elwood’s plane was found, but before his official 

recovery.

• 1775 •

28 DesOrmeau, “Remains of Michigan WWII Pilot Found, Coming 

Home for Burial.”
REVIEW ESSAY

by Major Timothy Heck, USMCR1

Palestine: The Ottoman Campaigns of 1914–1918. By Edward J. Erickson. (Barnsley, UK: Pen and Sword, 2016. Pp. 230. 

£19.99 cloth; £8.00 e-book.)

The Battle of the Somme. Edited by Mathias Strohn. (Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2016. Pp. 272. $35.00 cloth; 

$24.50 e-book.)

Thunder and Flames: Americans in the Crucible of Combat, 1917–1918. By Edward G. Lengel. (Lawrence: University 

Press of Kansas, 2015. Pp. 470. $39.95 cloth.)

Written in Blood: The Battles for Fortress Przemyśl in World War I. By Graydon A. Tunstall. (Bloomington: Indiana 

University Press, 2016. Pp. 408. $45.00 cloth; $9.99 e-book.)

The Great War of 1914–18 was a global war 

and its fronts were integrated and interdependent. . . . Modern scholarship rightly 

rejects the use of words like “sideshow” or 

“indirect approach” to capture what was 

going on in Italy, Salonika, the Middle 

East or Africa—let alone in Russia, the 

war’s other major front. (Strohn, p. 15)

The centenary of the First World War has unleashed 

a library’s worth of new books about the conflict. 

Aimed at both scholarly and popular audiences, recent 

scholarship has helped expand our understanding of 

the conflict and its impacts, costs, and consequences. 

Many new works look beyond the traditional studies 

of combat operations on the western front to include 

an increased focus on operations in the Middle East 

and the eastern front. This expanded scholarship allows for a more nuanced and insightful comprehension of history. Of the four books reviewed here, all 

deepen our understanding of the conflict. Two focus 

on fronts outside of France. One focuses on a single 

battle and another on a single nation’s army. 

Though the war started over the assassination 

1

 Maj Timothy Heck, USMCR, is a field artillery officer by training. 

He is currently working on an analysis of Soviet military art during the 

Great Patriotic War.

of an Austro-Hungarian archduke, very few Englishlanguage works since have analyzed the performance 

of the Austro-Hungarian Army or its Russian opponent. Norman Stone’s 1975 classic work, The Eastern 

Front, 1914–1917, remains the definitive text. More recent titles such as David R. Stone’s The Russian Army 

in the Great War: The Eastern Front, 1914–1917 (2015) 

have broadened our comprehension and appreciation 

for this often-overlooked theater. Graydon Tunstall’s 

Written in Blood: The Battles for Fortress Przemyśl in WW1

analyzes Austro-Hungarian and Russian performance 

around the crucial Fortress Przemyśl in the war’s 

opening months. 

Prior to the outbreak of war, the fortress was 

“an isolated and basically unknown garrison . . . only 

twenty-eight kilometers from the Galician frontier, 

that slowly assumed a pivotal role in Hapsburg eastern front military strategy” (Tunstall, p. 2). The obsolete fortress played an outsized role as “the expansive 

nine-hundred-kilometer eastern front, [was] too vast 

for available German, Austro-Hungarian or even 

Russian troops to defend” (Tunstall, p. 16). Due to 

Habsburg incompetence, within months of the war’s 

start its army had already “expended a catastrophic 

amount of professional and reserve soldiers” (Tunstall, p. 45). These losses became increasingly difficult 

to replace, further limiting the effectiveness of Aus95
96 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

tro-Hungarian armies. The fortress stood as a place of 

strength and refuge but, ultimately, an albatross for 

the Austro-Hungarians as they poured more and more 

resources into it.

By the end of September 1914, “nine Russian infantry divisions and two cavalry divisions blockaded 

the fortress; thus the citadel fulfilled its mission of 

binding significant enemy forces” (Tunstall, p. 65). 

Resupplying and attempting to liberate the besieged 

fortress, however, cost the Austro-Hungarians greatly. The result of weak Habsburg commanders and an 

overreliance on Fortress Przemyśl was that “hundreds 

of thousands of lives would be sacrificed on both sides 

of the battlefield in futile rescue attempts” (Tunstall, 

p. 138). Despite the assistance of their German allies 

against the Russians on other areas of the eastern 

front, the Habsburg army never formulated a strong 

and cohesive strategy, and Fortress Przemyśl continued to sap strength from other operations. After the 

German defeat at the Marne and the resulting collapse of the Schlieffen Plan, it became “obvious that 

the Austro-Hungarian army desperately required assistance to prevent its collapse” (Tunstall, p. 76). 

Another previously under-covered area, the 

Middle East, has also seen a resurgence of Great War 

scholarship in the recent past. Traditionally, works on 

the Middle East covered the failed Allied operation 

at Gallipoli, British operations in Mesopotamia, or 

the exploits of Lawrence of Arabia. The war, however, expanded well beyond those well-trod events and 

reminded the reader of the global scale and impact 

of the war. Ultimately, the war’s imperial impact is 

perhaps no more clearly felt than in the Middle East 

where, despite an incredible cost, the British Empire 

lived on while the Russian and Ottoman empires collapsed. The impact of the Great War, especially in Palestine, continues to play out in current geopolitics.

Palestine: The Ottoman Campaigns of 1914–1918 by 

Edward J. Erickson (a former professor of military 

history at Marine Corps University), presents an Ottoman perspective on the Palestinian campaign. The 

book is “intended to be a corrective to the Anglocentric historiography [and] is not designed to be 

a comprehensive history that tells the entire story 

from both sides” (Erickson, p. 1). Regardless of the 

disclaimer, Erickson presents a balanced view of British and Ottoman objectives, actions, and outcomes. 

Erickson’s writing reminds us that war is not fought 

against a stationary or unthinking enemy, and thus his 

analysis of both Ottoman and British operational art, 

logistics, and tactics are elucidating.

The war in Palestine, Erickson claims, differed 

from the traditional images of World War I. While 

machine guns, trenches, aircraft, and poison gas ruled 

the western front and our collective memory, these elements of an industrialized war of materiel did not 

play such a large role in Palestine. 

It may be argued that the war in Palestine was, in fact, the last nineteenthcentury war. In fact, the very signatures 

of the First World War were absent in 

the Palestine theatre. There were few 

continuous lines of trenches and the 

battles in Palestine were never battles 

of materiel, involving large numbers of 

crew-served weapons and huge expenditures of munitions. (Erickson, p. 4)

Rather, as he explains, Palestine was largely a war 

of maneuver for the underresourced armies facing off 

across vast swaths of desert.

By 1917, the British forces still had not defeated the weaker Ottoman military, which found itself 

spread between the Arabian Peninsula, Mesopotamia, 

and the eastern Caucasus. Despite spending much of 

1916 strengthening and expanding their base of operations in Egypt, British commanders failed to heed 

the lessons of other operations during the First and 

Second Battles of Gaza (March and April 1917, respectively). Here, Erickson pulls no punches:

The defeat at [First] Gaza seemed to 

indicate that the British Army fighting the Ottomans failed to learn and 

adapt to the demands of modern war . 

. . almost two full years after Gallipoli, 

co-ordination between the infantry 

and the artillery continued to remain 

very weak. (Erickson, p. 82)
SUMMER 2019 97

And, at the Second Battle of Gaza,

Once again, two years after Gallipoli, 

the British demonstrated a lack of 

understanding concerning the characteristics of the Ottoman Army. In 

particular, the British artillery was 

very ineffective. (Erickson, p. 86)

The lack of learning by British commanders allowed 

Ottoman forces to continue to hold what should otherwise have been nearly untenable positions at the 

end of very weak lines of communications. 

The arrival of British General Edmund H. H. Allenby in late June 1917, however, significantly changed 

Ottoman fortunes and the scope of the war. Following 

his assumption of command, the war in Palestine “was 

characterized by tactical and operational manoeuvre 

that had not been seen previously in that theatre” 

(Erickson, p. 124). As a result, the Ottomans never 

regained momentum, nor were they able to do more 

than temporarily halt British advances. The military 

collapse of the Ottoman Army in 1918 thus triggered 

the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and a redrawing 

of the Middle East’s maps.

Both authors use a variety of hard-to-access 

sources to create and support their narratives. Tunstall’s use of Austro-Hungarian archives allows him to 

explain the problems faced by commanders on both 

sides at Fortress Przemyśl while giving voice to the 

participants. Erickson’s Ottoman sources reveal an 

army unprepared for conflict because it was spread so 

thinly and was riven with political intrigue. By incorporating these previously underaccessed sources, both 

authors present well-argued and balanced analyses of 

their subjects.

Matthias Strohn’s The Battle of the Somme is a collection of essays written by military historians who 

dissect one of World War I’s seminal battles from a 

variety of perspectives. Strohn’s work and that of his 

essayists is not to portray the battle in a cohesive narrative format but rather to delve into various elements 

of the battle and its impacts. All but one of the essays are written with a focus on a singular combatant 

or element of the battle. This multinational approach 

leads to an academically rewarding analysis of the 

battle and reflects the battle’s varied objectives and 

outcomes. Professor Lothar Höbelt, an Austrian historian, writes that it was ultimately unclear as to who 

won the battle, making the Somme “a perfect symbol 

of what was widely seen as the futility and the senseless slaughter of the Great War. It reinforces the image 

of the war in 1916 as one characterized by stalemate” 

(Höbelt, p. 23). 

Chapters on the German, French, and British 

strategies open the book, reminding the reader that 

the Somme was not a strategic or even operational 

blunder. The Allies had clear strategic and operational 

objectives but, despite these, “[at] the tactical level, 

the offensive was nevertheless ill-conceived, despite 

the considerable effort put into its preparation and 

the Allies’ material superiority” (Soutu, p. 71).

Dr. Stuart Mitchell’s chapter on British Army 

operations and U.S. Army War College Professor Michael Neiberg’s chapter on French generalship help 

flesh out Allied operations and the “learning curve” 

theories behind the Allied leadership during the war. 

Popularized by Professor Gary Sheffield, the learning 

curve theory helps remove the characterization of Allied leaders as heartless dullards who callously sacrificed their troops because they failed to understand 

the changing nature of war. This theory, however, does 

not excuse the horrific casualties and limited results 

on the Somme but rather reminds the reader that war 

ultimately is a human struggle led, supported, and carried out by people, with all their strengths and flaws. 

Dr. Christian Stachelbeck’s essay on Germany’s 

land warfare tactics should sound familiar to modern 

maneuver warfare armies. German combined arms 

warfare tactics empowered junior leaders to make decisions based on tactical situations. While the Somme 

was not the debut of these tactics, the cultural shift 

and adaptation by the German Army meant that “responsibility for the conduct of combined arms combat was transferred down from the corps commands 

to the division level” (Stachelbeck, p. 151). The creation 

of defense-in-depth models and reliance on increasing 

numbers of machine guns signaled a change at the tactical level. This change in tactics also meant a change 
98 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

at the operational level, with newly installed Chief of 

the General Staff General Paul von Hindenburg using the phrase “Erschöpfungskrieg (war of attrition)” in 

memoranda at the operational level (Stachelbeck, pp. 

155–56). Chapters on French and British tactics, the 

experience of one German division, and a postmortem on the impact of the battle in modern memory 

round out this well-written and well-curated book.

Edward Lengel’s Thunder and Flames: Americans 

in the Crucible of Combat, 1917–1918 seeks to explain 

why Americans, having witnessed nearly three years 

of war in Europe, struggled so much as combatants. 

After all, American junior infantry leaders, the 1915 

class of West Point, did their staff ride at Gettysburg, 

Pennsylvania, instead of looking at the battles in Europe. Lengel creates a history at the tactical level with 

the intent of providing “a broader and deeper understanding of how the [American Expeditionary Forces] 

AEF developed between its landing in France and the 

opening of the Saint-Mihiel offensive” (Lengel, p. 7). 

This period included early combat and, most importantly to Marines, the Battle of Belleau Wood.

While soldiers in the ranks might have remarked 

that the AEF actually stood for “After England Failed,” 

the critical analysis provided here shows something 

decidedly different. Focusing on American units that 

were partnered with the French, Lengel successfully 

explains just why the Americans suffered so much. 

He echoes familiar problems: poor and insufficient 

equipment, inadequate and inappropriate doctrine, 

poor training, unprepared officers, and inexperienced 

troops. As the commander is ultimately responsible, 

here too, they were looking at the wrong war: “Illtrained officers were fixated on fighting conflicts like 

those against decrepit Spanish troops or Filipino and 

Mexican guerrillas” (Lengel, p. 11). 

Lengel effectively argues that the learning curve 

for American commanders was neither uniform nor 

was it particularly rapid. Relationships between 

Americans and their French counterparts were tense. 

European commanders wanted to employ the AEF as 

replacement units to fill holes in British and French 

formations. American commanders, understandably, 

wanted to retain command of the AEF as a unified 

body. The predominant conflict was over the American focus on training for open warfare, while French 

leadership insisted on training for trench warfare. Partially as a result of this disconnect, only the 26th Infantry Division (a.k.a. “Yankee” Division) of the New 

England National Guard received the French training 

en masse.2

Thunder and Flames gives no quarter to the 2d 

Infantry Division, Marines included, at the Battle 

of Belleau Wood. While ultimately a victory for the 

Americans and a cornerstone of modern Marine 

Corps identity, Lengel writes that American and 

French generals “failed a splendid group of marines 

and soldiers” through a lack of planning and coordination (Lengel, p. 206). As Americans plodded through 

the wheat fields without adequate artillery cover, they 

were slaughtered by the astonished German defenders. Fighting in the woods, too, exacted a heavy price 

on Marines and soldiers. Here, Lengel identifies by 

name commanders who failed to plan, prepare, or 

support the fighting units. The six chapters he dedicates to the battle, nearly 40 percent of the book, 

are both eye-opening and disheartening. The lessons 

French and British armies had learned about the need 

for artillery support and coordination seem to have 

gone unheeded, resulting in the needless deaths of 

hundreds of Americans. Ultimately, the engagement 

was catastrophic for the 2d Division, which “was so 

badly handled in Belleau Wood that it never fully recovered” (Lengel, p. 205). 

U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark A. Milley remarked on the 100th anniversary of America’s 

declaration of war: 

It’s appropriate on the 100th anniversary of the United States’ commitment 

into World War I for us to reflect. Are 

we better at decision making today? 

Are there similarities in the structure 

or rising powers? Are there similarities and interconnectedness where no2

 For more on the Yankee Division’s efforts, see Terrence J. Finnegan, “A 

Delicate Affair” on the Western Front: America Learns How to Fight a Modern 

War in the Woëvre Trenches (Stroud, UK: History Press, 2015).
SUMMER 2019 99

body can fathom or imagine or believe 

conflicts of this size and scope and levels of violence could ever happen? Are 

we that much smarter than those who 

came before us 100 years ago today?3

The books reviewed here seek to answer some 

3

 As quoted in Shannon Collins, “100 Years Ago Today, America Fought 

in WWI,” News, U.S. Department of Defense (website), 6 April 2017.

of those questions. By looking at a variety of theaters 

and combatants, no longer mere sideshows to the war 

in Flanders, these books all offer valuable lessons for 

those studying the conflict as a historical event and 

those studying it in an attempt to answer General 

Milley’s questions.

• 1775 •
BOOK REVIEWS

Andrew Harrison Baker1

Empowering Revolution: America, Poland, and the End of the Cold War. By Gregory F. Domber. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2014. Pp. 416. $27.95 paperback; $19.99 e-book.) 

In an influential article on the American civil rights 

movement, Charles W. Eagles highlighted the similarity between movement historiography and histories of the Cold War. Citing the influential Cold War 

scholar John Lewis Gaddis, Eagles noted that historians in both fields struggled to maintain scholarly detachment while their respective struggles continued. 

Gaddis argued that time would permit scholars of the 

Cold War to more objectively assess the conflict.2

 Although the Soviet Union collapsed more than a quarter of a century ago, the nature of its collapse remains 

controversial among historians and participants. The 

role of the Ronald W. Reagan administration in facilitating a Soviet collapse has been a particular point of 

contention. At one extreme, a “triumphalist” school 

aided by the memoirs of former Reagan administration officials argues that the president and his advisors won the Cold War. Other scholars contend that 

Reagan deserves little to no credit for the end of the 

Cold War. Fittingly, given its long history of recurrent 

warfare and occupation, Poland is central to the historiographical debate. 

In Empowering Revolution, Gregory Domber provides a well-researched and balanced account of Communist Poland’s final years that provides a middle 

ground between the competing perspectives. Domber 

uses Polish-American relations in 1981–89 to assess the 

role played by the United States in Poland’s transition 

from Communism to democracy and in larger changes 

1

 Andrew Harrison Baker is a doctoral student in the Department of 

History at Auburn University in Auburn, AL. The focus of his research 

and teaching is the twentieth-century United States.

2

 Charles W. Eagles, “Toward New Histories of the Civil Rights Era,” 

Journal of Southern History 66, no. 4 (November 2000): 815.

within Eastern Europe. He moves beyond a bilateral 

framework. Empowering Revolution complicates the 

traditional narrative by highlighting the role of Polish actors, other European states, American nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the Catholic 

Church alongside Reagan administration and Soviet 

officials.

Domber’s overarching argument is that the United States played an important, if not decisive, role in 

the demise of Poland’s Communist government. As 

Domber contends, the United States sustained and 

empowered Polish reformers who “deserve ultimate 

credit for transforming Eastern Europe in 1989” (p. 3). 

This transformation was aided by American money, 

trade goods, and rhetoric. 

Empowering Revolution opens with the Polish 

government’s declaration of martial law in December 

1981, which Domber argues reflected the government’s 

need to placate Soviet unease over the Solidarity 

movement. He contends that, despite initial vacillation, the Reagan administration’s hard response was 

in line with the president’s early views on Communism: “The president decided at that moment to take 

a stand, seeing himself like [Franklin D.] Roosevelt 

standing up to the Nazis” (p. 46). The result of these 

choices created a half decade of tension and distrust 

between the Reagan administration and Poland’s ruling Polish United Workers’ Party (PUWP). 

This early misunderstanding serves as a good 

metaphor for Polish-American relations throughout much of the decade. Domber argues, “Poland’s 

transformation and American policy did not follow a 

straight trajectory” (p. 87). The issue of political prisoners is particularly instructive. American policy makers 

100
SUMMER 2019 101

felt betrayed by prisoner release deals that were not 

honored in the longer term, while the PUWP disliked 

the unwillingness of the United States to offer larger 

rewards in exchange for policy changes. Domber contends that relations between the PUWP and the United States improved after a total and lasting amnesty 

was granted to Polish political prisoners in September 

1986. In his estimation, amnesty and other reforms 

were driven more by internal issues in Poland than by 

American policy.

Domber, however, argues that the combination 

of Western European and American sanctions exacerbated Poland’s economic woes and contributed to 

revolution. In the final stanza, Polish activists took advantage of mounting difficulties and effectively overthrew the Communist government in 1989. Domber 

contends that American policy was most successful in 

this period when the George H. W. Bush administration sought to manage change in Poland. 

The most revelatory side of Empowering Revolution relates to the American use of soft power. Domber 

convincingly argues humanitarian aid and monies 

directed to the support of activists played an important role in fostering an appreciation for the United 

States among ordinary Poles and in sustaining Polish revolutionaries. The actions of Americans such 

as U.S. charge d’affaires to Poland John R. Davis Jr. 

and his wife Helen, who held gatherings for Polish 

intellectuals and activists, might be termed another 

form of soft power. These actions worked in concert 

with American hard power.

3

 Domber argues the end result was “empowering a subset of the indigenous Polish opposition that deserves credit for overthrowing 

the Communist system” (p. 282).

In Empowering Revolution, Domber successfully 

complicates the traditional narrative of the American 

role in Poland’s revolution. He should be commended 

for demonstrating how Americans succeeded in influencing the revolution while also acknowledging the 

limitations of American influence. Domber’s most 

impressive achievement, however, is methodological. 

Empowering Revolution draws from an impressive array 

of sources that diplomatic historians have not always 

utilized well. The inclusion of records from NGOs, 

such as Catholic Relief Services and labor organizations, including the AFL-CIO, are particularly useful. 

An appendix of National Endowment for Democracy 

funds is also helpful. Oral histories from important 

actors in Poland and the United States provide an effective supplement to these records. Until currently 

closed records from the Reagan and Bush administrations are made public, there is little to add to Domber’s 

account. Empowering Revolution is an excellent choice 

for professional reading. 

• 1775 •

3

 Hard power is the use of economic or military strength to influence 

behavior; soft power entails the use of culture, values, and ideas to influence behavior without coercion.
102 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Evan C. Rothera4

The Dead March: A History of the Mexican-American War. By Peter Guardino. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press, 2017. Pp. 512. $39.95 cloth.)

unity, defeated Mexico, and Guardino chides scholars 

for overemphasizing political factors and underemphasizing economic ones.

This is not a narrative history focused solely on 

the military aspects of the conflict. While Guardino 

has an excellent command of the military history of 

the war and does justice to the battles, readers desiring this type of history would be better advised to look 

elsewhere. This is nothing less than a “social and cultural history of the 1846–1848 war that focuses on the 

experiences and attitudes of ordinary Mexicans and 

Americans, both soldiers and civilians” (p. 4). In other 

words, this is military history as it should be written: 

in conversation with social, cultural, economic, and 

political history and attentive to the common soldier 

as well as to elites. Comparing the United States and 

Mexico allows him to demonstrate how the differences between the two countries have been overemphasized, although he sometimes overstates his case. 

U.S. politicians such as Andrew Jackson and James K. 

Polk were as unscrupulous as many Mexican politicians. However, the United States was, on the whole, 

more stable at the federal level. While Guardino is 

right that some differences have been overstated, others are not as exaggerated as he suggests. As a historian 

of Mexico who has written two books on nineteenthcentury Mexican history, Guardino has mastered its 

historiography and has extensive experience working 

in Mexican archives. However, at times, he seems less 

familiar with U.S. historiography. 

After offering a brief background sketch of the 

conflict, he analyzes the men in Zachary Taylor’s army. 

Many U.S. soldiers were recent immigrants, although 

their service to the nation did not shield them from 

The U.S. war with Mexico (1846–48) sometimes seems 

like a forgotten war in U.S. history, at least when 

compared to the American Revolution, the U.S. Civil 

War, and World War II. Nevertheless, scholars such 

as Justin H. Smith, John S. D. Eisenhower, Timothy 

J. Henderson, Amy S. Greenberg, Ernesto Chávez, 

Richard Bruce Winders, Paul Foos, and Josefina Zoraida Vázquez, among many others, have written 

book-length studies of the conflict. Many of these 

studies, although certainly not all, emphasize U.S. 

successes and Mexican failures. Given the outcome of 

the conflict, this is perhaps not surprising. Furthermore, one common, and often-cited, explanation for 

the outcome of this war concerns political differences. 

Namely, “Mexicans were divided and lacked commitment to their newly formed country, while Americans 

were more united and more nationalistic” (p. 5).

Peter Guardino’s deeply researched, well-written, and compellingly argued The Dead March: A History of the Mexican-American War questions both these 

tendencies. As he observes, although Mexico lost the 

war, emphasizing U.S. successes masks both impressive Mexican logistical feats as well as how, on more 

than one occasion, Mexican armies came within a 

whisker of defeating U.S. forces. Furthermore, he offers a powerful critique of the “Mexico lost because 

of a deficiency of nationalism” thesis. As he demonstrates, Mexicans had plenty of nationalism. They had 

no problem envisioning the nation and their relationship to it. U.S. prosperity, rather than alleged U.S. 

4

 Evan C. Rothera is a postdoctoral teaching fellow in the Department 

of History at The Pennsylvania State University. He is currently revising 

his dissertation, which examines civil wars and reconstructions in the 

United States, Mexico, and Argentina, for publication.
SUMMER 2019 103

virulent criticism by nativists. In general, this discussion of the U.S. Army illustrates a point scholars have 

made before: many people considered service in the 

Army disreputable. Some of this was due to conceptions of masculinity. Men, after all, “were supposed 

to be autonomous citizens, not subject to arbitrary 

authority” (p. 40). The soldiers Taylor’s men faced at 

Matamoros, like their U.S. counterparts, were also 

seen as engaged in disreputable service. Local authorities usually did not send the best men to the Army 

because they wanted to preserve the labor supply and 

protect families. In addition, unlike the U.S. force, 

Mexican women played a more prominent role in the 

army as soldaderas. Interestingly, “both Mexicans and 

Americans judged the military effectiveness of Mexican regular troops to be very high” (p. 65).

President James K. Polk was more than willing 

to fight a short war with Mexico. He believed any war 

between the two countries would conclude quickly because of the nature of Mexican domestic politics. However, Polk, like many scholars, underestimated Mexican 

nationalism. Despite Mexico’s poverty and political 

instability, the country “was well on its way to becoming a national state in which loyalty to the nation was 

the paramount political identity” (pp. 75–76). Taylor’s 

victories at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma (both 

near modern-day Brownsville, Texas) demonstrated 

that U.S. economic might, not a lack of nationalism, 

put Mexico at a disadvantage. These victories generated enthusiasm in the United States. Interestingly, U.S. 

volunteers had more in common with regular officers 

than regular enlisted men. The undisciplined behavior 

of the volunteers became notorious, and volunteers 

routinely committed crimes against Mexican civilians. 

Indeed, “the social composition and beliefs of American volunteer units led directly to guerrilla warfare 

between Americans and Mexicans in northern Mexico” (p. 123). U.S. volunteers “found themselves locked 

in a sordid and bloody cycle of ambush, revenge, 

and atrocity” (p. 132). As with the United States, 

Mexico also mobilized citizen soldiers. The records 

for the citizen soldiers of both countries are mixed.

Although he was not a good battlefield commander, Antonio López de Santa Anna excelled when 

it came to logistics. He staged and equipped an army 

in the city of San Luis Potosí and marched it to confront Taylor. This was a prodigious feat that came very 

close to defeating the U.S. forces at Buena Vista (near 

Monterrey). Guardino uses this episode to demonstrate how “expressions of nationalism abounded in 

San Luis Potosí, and many people there made an enormous effort to construct and supply this army” (p. 143). 

In other words, the nation was not an abstraction. Efforts to collect donations drew people into the war effort and reinforced Mexican identity. In addition, the 

people of Mexico City offered fierce resistance when 

General Winfield Scott’s army arrived. That so many 

Mexicans took to the streets illustrates how they envisioned the nation. Furthermore, if nationalism ran 

stronger in Mexico than historians have realized, the 

United States was not free of divisions. Antiwar sentiment occurred frequently among Whigs. The defection of the San Patricios highlighted another set of 

divisions among U.S. soldiers.

Guardino crafts a well-defined and provocative 

argument that he sustains throughout the book. As 

he notes, “the widespread view that Mexico lost the 

war because it was not a nation and therefore many 

people were not willing to defend it does not withstand sustained scrutiny” (p. 356). He contends that 

the archives are filled with thousands of expressions 

of nationalism and that the lack of nationalism thesis is based on an insufficient understanding of the 

term. He makes the compelling case that Mexico lost 

the war because it was poor, not because it was not 

a nation. Scholars, even if they disagree, will have to 

think very carefully about the ramifications of this argument. It may well have an influence in reshaping 

people’s analysis of the Constitution of 1857, which 

was long given much credit for facilitating the emergence of the Mexican nation.

Guardino has produced a very compelling analysis of the U.S. war with Mexico. While there are some 

minor problems throughout the volume, they are 

vastly outweighed by the book’s strengths. The Dead 

March will work well in upper-division undergraduate 

classes and graduate seminars and will appeal to both 

an academic and a general audience.
104 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Robert J. Kodosky, PhD5

Huế 1968: A Turning Point of the American War in Vietnam. By Mark Bowden. (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 

2017. Pp. 610. $30.00 cloth and e-book; $20.00 paperback.) 

tainly, they resonate as more macabre then any fiction 

might yield.

This includes the exploits of Marine First Lieutenant Allen W. Courtney, who Bowden identifies as 

“the kind of man for whom war seemed invented” (p. 

362). Following a firefight in which the Marines under 

Courtney’s command fought off an attack, a search 

began for a particular casualty suffered by the enemy, 

likely a Chinese advisor. 

The Marines found the corpse where Courtney 

placed it—on a bridge, on a chair, legs crossed with 

a cigar in his mouth and a copy of Playboy magazine 

draped across his lap. Courtney’s superiors decided 

that bringing out visiting journalist Walter Cronkite 

for a look around was “ill-advised” and called for a 

court-martial. Courtney’s men, however, “loved him” 

(p. 363).

Bowden is not one-sided in chronicling the battle’s many atrocities. There exists “blame enough for 

both sides” (p. 455). Viet Cong soldiers, for example, 

targeted the city’s Vietnamese-American toddlers, 

identifying them as future imperialists. They terminated these young lives by swinging their tiny bodies 

by the heels and crushing their heads against walls. 

Terror dictated perversity as an acceptable response. Bowden describes American soldiers who shot 

at a dog that had fallen in the river. They strove not to 

kill it but to prolong its suffering by “keeping it from 

reaching the bank” (p. 456). 

These actions exacted an enormous toll. Nguyen 

Dac Xuan, a Communist poet who joined the fighting in Huế wrote of being “overjoyed,” though he 

grew increasingly “sore and spent” from digging graves 

(p. 457). Meanwhile, it became “not uncommon” for 

War is hell, and “hell sucks.” Vietnam War correspondent Michael Herr observed this in 1968. Mark 

Bowden, the author of Black Hawk Down, confirms it 

in Huế 1968: A Turning Point of the American War in Vietnam. He also does something else: he reveals the hell 

that Huế became resulted largely from decisions made 

by American and Vietnamese officials. 

Delusion drove policies and this made them 

lethal. The Battle of Huế extinguished thousands of 

lives. From the perspective of “nearly half a century,” 

however, this appears as a “tragic and meaningless 

waste” (p. 526). Bowden contends that it should elicit “permanent caution” about war for any but “the 

most immediate, direct, and vital national interest” 

(p. 526).

The case is compelling, and Huế 1968 offers a riveting read. It possesses the urgency of a novel even as 

it shatters the “conspiracy of denial” around the battle 

(p. 520). It does this by drawing on a variety of American and Vietnamese perspectives that Bowden sought 

out. He interviewed numerous participants on all 

sides, both in the United States and in Vietnam. 

Bowden puts these, along with reports from the 

time, to good use. He ably chronicles the battle’s details while demonstrating how Americans and others 

perceived them in real time. “Modern war,” he suggests, “is as much about perception as about reality” 

(p. 543). The insight informs Bowden’s approach and 

renders the horrors of Huế as incomprehensible. Cer5

 Dr. Robert J. Kodosky earned his PhD at Temple University and is 

the author of Psychological Operations American Style: The Joint United 

States Public Affairs Office, Vietnam and Beyond (2007). He currently chairs 

the history department at West Chester University, West Chester, PA, 

where he also serves as faculty advisor to the Student Veterans Group.
SUMMER 2019 105

American soldiers to “reach their hands up during a 

mortar barrage” (p. 380). They sought an escape from 

hell.

Some struggled long to find it. Bowden follows 

two men who returned to Pennsylvania, where they 

hardly found heaven. Corporal Richard Leflar, a young 

Philadelphian who ended up in Vietnam as an alternative to juvenile detention, saw the worst of what the 

war offered. He witnessed a gang rape and murder by 

his own squad. He morphed from a terrified teenager 

into an enthusiastic killer. He spoke to Bowden about 

all of this with great “remorse,” working to “reconcile 

himself to the things he did in Vietnam, and the kind 

of man he became” (p. 530).

Fellow Pennsylvanian William D. Ehrhart, 

wounded in Huế, returned home changed. In high 

school, he supported the war and enlisted when he 

turned 17. After his service ended, he became a prominent antiwar activist and teacher, displaying in his 

classroom enlarged photographs he took from a Vietnamese adversary whom he killed. 

Bowden’s aim is not sensationalism, rather, it is 

to use the Battle for Huế as an entry point to the “entire Vietnam War” (p. 541). This stands as unprecedented. Works previously published in the United States 

consider the Battle for Huế in isolation. They cite it 

as a victory, extolling the valor of American combatants.6

 These are studies in tactics. Their celebration of 

American heroism is not unwarranted. There existed 

much of that in Huế, and Bowden does not neglect it. 

That is only part of the story, though.

Views contrary to Communist propaganda that 

situates Huế as a great victory are only now emerging.7

As Bowden recalls from his trips to Vietnam in 2015 

and 2016 to conduct interviews, it all proved “tricky.” 

His Vietnamese hosts saw him as “revisiting a heroic 

chapter in the national struggle” while also “reopening old wounds.” Many remained reluctant “to speak 

candidly” (p. 528).

Yet, Bowden persisted and found those willing 

to talk on all sides. The resulting insights are invaluable—and not only regarding Vietnam. Bowden makes 

it clear that U.S. policy stood as “misguided and 

doomed” (p. 526). He also shows that in taking Huế, 

a similar hubris consumed Hanoi—it “hugely overreached” (p. 524). 

None of this alleviates the hell experienced by 

those who participated in the Battle of Huế. It might 

provide a lesson, though; one that enables a similar 

descent. Bowden instructs, “Beware” of ones “with theories that explain everything” and trust “those who approach the world with humility and cautious insight” 

(p. 526). A worthy lesson, indeed.

• 1775 •

6

 Examples include: Eric Hammel, Fire in the Streets: The Battle for Hue, Tet 

1968 (New York: Random House, 1992); Keith William Nolan, Battle for 

Hue: Tet, 1968 (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1983); and George W. Smith, 

The Siege at Hue (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999). 7

 See Nha Ca and Olga Dror, trans., Mourning Headband for Hue: An Account of the Battle for Hue, 1968 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 

2014).
106 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Keith D. Dickson, PhD8

The City becomes a Symbol: The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Berlin, 1945–1949. By William Stivers and Donald A. 

Carter. (Washington, DC: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 2017. Pp. 346. $44.00, cloth.)

gic areas, disarming German troops, maintaining law 

and order, and repatriating Allied prisoners and displaced civilians. Although France was later added to 

the occupying powers after the Yalta Conference, the 

Western allies essentially accepted the Soviet proposals for administration and occupation of Berlin. This 

exceptional historical summary is a valuable contribution to understanding the background to the actions 

of SHAEF after November 1944, clearly indicating 

that there was no intent to drive to Berlin ahead of the 

Soviets. This was confirmed in February 1945 when a 

key planning assumption for future planning indicated that the Soviets would occupy Berlin first. 

Another valuable contribution is the detailed 

account of the role a civil affairs detachment played 

in forming a military government for Berlin at the 

conclusion of hostilities. In October 1944, the detachment began studying German politics, history, social 

structure, language, and the details of public utilities 

and the city’s administrative organization. Guidance 

from higher headquarters was limited, focusing on the 

elimination of Nazis in government and emphasizing 

the treatment of Germany as a defeated country; at 

the same time, U.S. forces were to institute an indirect rule, implying that the de-Nazified German civil 

and government institutions could function on their 

own. The detachment commander, U.S. Army Colonel Frank L. Howley, an artist-scholar and shameless 

self-promoter and propagandist, emerges as one of 

the significant actors in the American occupation. He 

became instrumental in shaping the public narrative 

of Soviet recalcitrance and duplicity and contributed 

significantly to the eventual breakdown in U.S.-Soviet 

relations.

The book’s title leads the reader to expect a standard 

unit-based history, which the Center of Military History is justifiably famous for producing. Donald A. 

Carter’s preface, however, indicates that although the 

book has a focus on the U.S. Army’s involvement in 

the occupation of Berlin, a different perspective based 

on “the nature of events in Berlin” was required (p. 

xvi). This is a two-fold perspective: first, it is intended 

to provide the story of soldier-diplomats who, Carter 

claims, established the basis of U.S.-Soviet relations 

for the next 50 years. Second, it provides the story 

of the citizens of West Berlin, who became agents of 

their own political destiny. These two perspectives 

appear to compete against each other in the chapters 

that follow. There is a heavy emphasis on the interplay 

of personalities and often ephemeral political-social 

issues within Berlin that certainly add a sense of immediacy to the narrative, and while the soldiers and 

units are dutifully presented, they are a nearly invisible backdrop to the effort to present what the authors 

believe is a larger, more compelling story. 

One of the most useful and historically significant parts of this book is the account of the actions 

of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary 

Force (SHAEF) in the months before Germany’s surrender to Allied powers. Even as the breakout in Normandy proceeded, SHAEF planners accepted a Soviet 

plan for the physical occupation of Berlin, dividing 

the city into British, American, and Soviet zones. The 

planners focused on tasks related to occupying strate8

 Dr. Keith D. Dickson is a professor of military studies at the Joint 

Advanced Warfighting School, Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, 

VA, National Defense University. His most recent book is No Surrender: 

Asymmetric Warfare in the Reconstruction South, 1868–1877 (2017).
SUMMER 2019 107

With the German surrender, SHAEF eventually 

settled on an experienced Army staff officer, Major 

General Floyd L. Parks, to command the 25,000 U.S. 

troops that would serve as the first occupation forces 

in Berlin. These included the 2d Armored Division, 

later replaced by the 82d Airborne Division. The coordination between the Soviets and U.S. leaders was 

cordial and professional. The Americans, taking over 

control of their zone after 10 weeks of total Soviet 

control, found a population traumatized by Soviet excesses of rape and pillage but also found a basic functioning infrastructure. With the arrival of occupation 

forces and a large headquarters element, the Americans at first acted more like conquerors than occupiers, seizing prime real estate and displacing occupants. 

Priority efforts went to establishing camps for tens of 

thousands of displaced persons, including Polish Jews, 

and providing adequate food and fuel to support the 

city’s population quickly became a primary topic of 

concern. Civilian labor was conscripted and military 

tribunals imposed heavy fines and imprisonment for 

black market activity, assault, murder, rape, theft, and 

destruction of property. The German civilian administrators had no choice but to carry out American dictates. German publications were heavily controlled, 

and nonfraternization rules were strictly enforced. 

The Kommandatura (military government headquarters), composed of the Allied commanders responsible for their occupation zone, served as the 

joint governing body for Berlin. The military governors of the occupation zones became the Allied 

Control Council with responsibility for policy and 

guidance on city administration as well as representing the interests of their respective nations. The authors place Army Lieutenant General Lucius D. Clay, 

the U.S. military governor of Berlin, as the main actor 

in their story. Clay, an engineer, bureaucrat, New Deal 

project manager, and military overseer, is portrayed as 

a pragmatist who made the quadripartite administration process function effectively. Although the significant contribution of the U.S. military administration 

to restore civilian government control in West Berlin 

cannot be discounted, the authors emphasize that the 

organizations and social forces that had defined Berlin 

decades before the Second World War played a major, 

and perhaps dominant, role in building the support of 

the people for the American-designed postwar democratic order. 

Between January and September 1946, the 14,000 

tactical soldiers and 2,600 other soldiers assigned to 

support the military government had declined by 

more than 5,000 men. There was a corresponding decline in discipline and morale. The authors characterize this with a rather laconic statement: “For the 

bulk of the troops, those making up the security force, 

primary duties consisted mostly of roving patrols and 

static sentry positions” (p. 127). The authors conclude 

that although the small American force was never a 

realistic deterrent, it provided “enough of a military 

presence to make [a Soviet military incursion] unacceptable” (p. 295). While this certainly can be inferred, 

there is unfortunately not enough evidence from unit 

records to support this statement. 

Between 1946 and 1948, as it became more obvious 

that Berliners posed no threat to the occupation forces 

or facilities, German city leaders were increasingly encouraged to become more independent. In addition, 

cooperation between U.S. and Soviet units remained 

good. American families were soon allowed in theater, 

and U.S. units rotated in and out of Berlin rapidly, 

becoming smaller and reorganized for more specific 

roles. The 82d Airborne was replaced by the 78th Infantry Division, which was replaced by the 3d Infantry 

Regiment and the 16th Constabulary Squadron; the 3d 

Infantry was replaced by 3d Battalion, 16th Infantry 

Regiment, of the 1st Infantry Division. This battalion, 

along with the 16th Constabulary Squadron, totaled 

about 1,650 officers and men and became the force 

that was in place as tensions with the Soviets escalated. This transition to a constabulary force comprising 

light mobile groups trained in policing skills, including raids and searches, was largely intended to respond 

to emergencies, assist Berlin city law enforcement, 

and where necessary, coordinate with Soviet forces. 

With the exception of a training survey report 

for two battalions of the 3d Infantry Regiment in 

1946, there is very little information on unit training of the U.S. units in Berlin. Within this account of 
108 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

change in units and organization there is no indication as to how commanders analyzed their unit’s mission, how they organized training, or what the units 

did day to day. It would seem that as time went on 

and tensions with the Soviets grew, there would be a 

change in training and readiness, increased coordination and cooperation with French and British forces, 

or staff planning for crisis scenarios. None of these 

activities is indicated. Instead, much detail is given 

to minor activities related to morale and welfare 

and support to families. Although the authors consulted the official records of the U.S. Army elements 

involved in the occupation, these records appear to 

have yielded little other than rather bland details of 

administration and mundane training. Apparently, 

these records did not include unit standard operating 

procedures or orders, the daily patrol reports of the 

constabulary, intelligence reports, or incident reports. 

These certainly would have brought to life the nature 

of the challenges soldiers faced during this four-year 

period, and perhaps they might have provided some 

insights into U.S.-Soviet relations and what protocols, 

both formal and informal, emerged. While there are 

references to the challenges of occupation duty (e.g., 

boredom, criminal activities, poor discipline), there is 

nothing to indicate how American units dealt with 

the Soviet, French, and British occupation units or 

how the individual U.S. Army soldier performed their 

role as a soldier-diplomat.

The authors point to American efforts to return 

Berlin to self-government through free and open elections as a source of tensions. The American military 

began backing specific German political parties in an 

attempt to forestall perceived Communist subversion 

and infiltration. Soviet-American relations focused 

on political interests instead of neutral administrative 

issues. The larger strategic intent to remake West Germany into a single independent economic entity with 

its own trade, finance, and communications policies 

ran afoul of the Soviets and created a crisis in the Allied Control Council. The Soviets used the Kommandatura meetings to denounce U.S. policy and accused 

the United States of attempting to undermine Soviet 

authority in its occupation zone. 

The Americans in Berlin, sitting 125 miles inside 

the Soviet zone, recognized their vulnerability to isolation, yet the American leadership in the city also 

recognized Berlin’s new role as a symbol of Western 

resolve, and they had become something more than 

military-political administrators of a capital city that 

no longer represented Germany. The authors do not 

elaborate on Clay’s assessment in late 1947 that Berlin 

could hold on “for some time” (p. 209). What exactly 

was Clay’s assessment based on? What plans existed, 

or were being contemplated? What role would U.S. 

forces play in such a situation? These very interesting 

questions are not addressed, outside of Clay’s broadly expressed concerns to Army Chief of Staff Omar 

Bradley about potential crisis scenarios. Bradley is 

revealed as almost inert, focused entirely on the indefensibility of Berlin as Clay pressed for more aggressive actions to assert U.S. interests. While the reader 

gains some valuable insights into the perspectives of 

two senior leaders, none of this dialogue apparently 

was translated into any guidance to American units 

that certainly should have influenced unit readiness 

and planning. 

The Berlin blockade caught Clay off guard, despite his concerns that the Soviets might attempt 

some action to threaten Berlin. Unable to gain support for any aggressive countermove, Clay took action 

on a British proposal to supply the city by air. The authors’ account of the Berlin blockade, which has been 

thoroughly covered in a number of other monographs, 

intentionally moves out of Berlin to Washington and 

London. The understanding between Clay and Harry 

S. Truman that the loss of Berlin would be a defeat 

that would negate everything the Western allies had 

been fighting for since 1939 is the critical decision that 

shaped the entire direction of the Cold War. The authors do an admirable job of highlighting Clay’s significant and decisive role in shaping the president’s 

decision to support Berlin.

The authors also provide some details on the actions of the 3d Battalion, 16th Infantry, and the 16th 

Constabulary Squadron in supporting the airlift, consisting of a general outline of the process of unloading 

and transporting cargo. Although there are some in-
SUMMER 2019 109

teresting details, more thorough coverage of their contribution would have been welcome. Unfortunately, 

the extraordinary efforts of U.S. military engineers to 

build a second and third runway at Tempelhof airport 

with masses of German civilian labor receive only a 

brief mention. Interestingly, the authors conclude 

that the crisis had little or no effect on Americans 

in the city, who were “neither diverted from their accustomed tasks nor disturbed in their comforts” (p. 

240). While German citizens had electricity and food 

rationed, Americans suffered few privations.

The authors make it clear that the crisis over Berlin never transpired into a crisis within Berlin. Both 

sides refrained from any actions that would lead to 

confrontations. It was this tacit agreement that served 

as the real basis for the security of American soldiers 

and civilians in Berlin (p. 244). In fact, the western 

sectors of Berlin were not closed, allowing individuals 

to purchase goods in East Berlin as well as in the countryside outside of the city. The Soviets also provided 

Berliners in the western sector bordering the Soviet 

zone free access to food and fuel rations. 

The book provides a unique understanding of 

the Army’s role in the occupation of Berlin, but its 

intent to provide a different perspective is less than 

satisfactory and downplays a more significant presentation and analysis of the Army in Berlin as an emerging instrument of national policy that culminated in 

the Berlin airlift. 

• 1775 •
110 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

First Lieutenant Walker D. Mills 9

American Amphibious Warfare: The Roots of Tradition to 1865. By Gary J. Ohls. (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 

2017. Pp. 320. $39.95 cloth.)

covered were chosen. The book has an entire chapter 

devoted to the War of 1812 but only features British 

amphibious operations. It also covers the battles of 

Trenton and Princeton, New Jersey, during the American Revolution, despite recognizing that they were 

only amphibious because the Continental Army had 

to cross the Delaware River en route to the battlefield. 

He details the Battle of Brandywine Creek during the 

Revolutionary War and the Battle of San Pasqual during the conquest of Mexico, despite both taking place 

well inland. Conversely, Ohls does not include any 

of the action that was part of the Mississippi River 

campaign during the Civil War, including the siege of 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, perhaps the best example of 

combined operations of that war.

Though comprehensive, American Amphibious 

Warfare is monotonous. Both the prose and the organization of the content conspire against the reader. Ohls’s 

narration carries the reader through history without 

assistance from contemporary voices or documents, 

much like a grade-school text book. His exhaustive research is only on display in the extensive bibliography 

and notes, not in his text, which is almost entirely free 

of primary sources and quotes. A sprinkling of maps 

helps the reader understand the operations described, 

but more would be helpful. Several black-and-white 

portraits of the key leaders mentioned are interesting 

but unhelpful in aiding the reader’s understanding of 

the operations.

Ohls cuts his work critically short without explanation, using only one case study from the Civil 

War, the Battle of Fort Fisher, North Carolina, in 

1865. Ohls ignores all of the Mississippi River battles 

and the Battle of New Orleans. He does not cover the 

Amphibious warfare conjures up images of beaches 

raked with fire and strewn with bodies and of boats 

unloading soldiers and Marines into the surf. It brings 

to mind places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, 

and Tarawa. In his new book American Amphibious 

Warfare: The Roots of Tradition to 1865, Gary J. Ohls 

challenges these perceptions and details the much older history of amphibious warfare in North America. 

His book chronicles battles and operations from the 

Revolutionary War through the American Civil War 

and compares them with current amphibious doctrine 

and tactics. Ohls covers nearly a hundred years of intermittent operations seeking to ground twentiethcentury operations in their historical antecedents. 

Ohls organizes his work chronologically, with 

each war or conflict a chapter. He includes chapters 

on the American Revolution, the Barbary Wars, the 

War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War. Ohls draws on his time as a professor at the 

Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, 

where he taught classes on joint maritime operations. 

Each chapter ends with an overview of the lessons a 

contemporary reader can take from amphibious operations in the past by sprinkling in today’s amphibious 

buzzwords, such as littoral, combined arms maneuver, 

task organization, and combined and joint commands, 

terms he understands from 36 years in the Marine 

Corps, from which he retired as a colonel. Without 

a clear definition of what Ohls considers “American 

amphibious warfare,” it is difficult to discern a pattern in the actions covered, or even how the actions 

9

 1stLt Mills is a rifle platoon commander with 2d Battalion, 1st Marines, 

and is currently pursuing a master of arts in international relations and 

contemporary war at King’s College, London.
SUMMER 2019 111

Spanish-American War or the following PhilippineAmerican War, which is significantly more important 

to the development of American amphibious warfare in the Second World War than the minor landings and waterborne movements that he details from 

the revolution or the exclusively British actions from 

the War of 1812. This gap in the chronology makes it 

much more difficult to see contemporary American 

amphibious warfare as having a lineage that stretches 

back to George Washington.

Ultimately, American Amphibious Warfare falls 

short of expectations. Ohls is an extremely qualified 

researcher who has mastered his subject matter and 

brings an array of sources to bear in his synthesis, but 

the work suffers from two critical flaws: uninspired 

prose and the lack of a strong central argument to organize his history. The argument that current American amphibious doctrine and tactics have roots in 

American wars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a provoking thesis that certainly merits examination, but Ohls presents a chronologically organized 

series of case studies rather than a cogent argument. 

However, Ohls recounts the facts and chronology 

without a strong argument. American Amphibious Warfare is a book only for readers who have a strong or 

developed interest in eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury amphibious operations and have exhausted 

other sources. Jeremy Black recently published a more 

diachronic survey of amphibious warfare: Combined 

Operations: A Global History of Amphibious and Airborne 

Warfare (2017).

• 1775 •
112 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Fred H. Allison, PhD10

Combat Talons in Vietnam: Recovering a Covert Special Ops Crew. By John Gargus. (College Station: Texas A&M 

University Press, 2017. Pp. 288. $35.00, cloth.) 

picted in the 1968 movie Green Berets). The person or 

package on the end would be yanked airborne and 

reeled into the back of the MC-130E. The Combat Talons were painted with a special dark green paint that 

reduced their radar signature, thus earning them the 

nickname “Blackbirds.”

The next chapters provide a detailed look at operations by Combat Talons in Vietnam. Their mission was top secret and involved supporting SOG 

with airlift and resupply. Fascinating information is 

given in these chapters, formerly highly classified of 

course. The author also gives us engaging details on 

life at Nha Trang, South Vietnam, the home base for 

Combat Talons of Detachment 1, nicknamed, “Stray 

Goose.” Detachment 1 was part of the 314th Tactical 

Airlift Wing (later renamed the 15th Air Commando 

Squadron and finally the 90th Special Operations 

Squadron). His details include daily life conditions of 

billeting, dining and food, and off duty activities. He 

also details events at Nha Trang during the Tet offensive when Communist fighters attacked throughout 

the city.

Most compelling is his in-depth account of the 

last flight of the only Air Force MC-130E Combat 

Talon 1 lost in combat; this crash also represented the 

largest single aircraft loss of life of the war, and efforts, 

years later, to locate the crash site and the crew’s remains. This aircraft crashed on a night mission deep in 

North Vietnam on 28–29 December 1967. Gargus takes 

the reader through the entire flight, from planning 

the mission (in which he participated) to efforts he 

and other veterans of the Combat Talon community, 

years later, made to determine what happened on the 

flight and the location of the remains of the aircraft 

Colonel John Gargus, U.S. Air Force aviator, has done 

an excellent job of describing the little-known operations of Air Force’s Lockheed Martin MC-130E Combat Talons in Vietnam. These aircraft flew missions in 

North Vietnam in support of the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam’s highly secret Studies and 

Observation Group (SOG). Gargus was an air-planner 

and navigator who flew with the Combat Talons in 

1967–68. While his account of squadron life and operations is justification enough to read the book, his 

account of the mysterious crash of an MC-130E in 

North Vietnam (the only Combat Talon aircraft lost 

in combat), and the recovery of its wreckage and human remains, makes this book doubly interesting and 

valuable as a historical resource.

The opening chapters provide an illuminating 

overview and background of Air Force special operations, details on training, and operations in Vietnam. 

He gives an interesting and detailed account of the 

Combat Talon MC-130E’s special equipment. The heart 

of the Combat Talon 1 aircraft—what made a C-130E 

an MC-130E—was its special equipment. This included 

terrain-following radar, a forward-looking infrared 

system, and sophisticated electronic countermeasures 

equipment. Most unique was the Fulton Recovery System (FRS), which enabled the recovery of personnel 

or packages in hostile territory. A 500-foot lift line 

connected to the person or package was suspended in 

the air by a helium balloon. The FRS-equipped MC130E flew under the balloon and snagged the line with 

special pincher arms on the aircraft’s nose (this is de10 Dr. Fred H. Allison has managed the Marine Corps History Division’s Oral History Section since 2000. He is a retired Marine major and 

earned his PhD in history from Texas Tech University in 2003.
SUMMER 2019 113

and crew. The crash site, a rocky mountaintop, was 

not discovered and officially investigated until 1992.

Gargus gives the reader an education on the 

agencies, bureaucracy, and process by which the crash 

sites are investigated, remains recovered and identified, and the bureaucracy by which families are notified, bodies are identified, and then buried with all 

due honor. It is an impressive exposition of the great 

lengths that the U.S. takes to recover and properly 

honor every American lost in war. 

This book is a solid introduction to the world of 

U.S. Air Force special operations, written by a veteran 

of those missions and an accomplished author. Gargus 

also wrote the well-received The Son Tay Raid: American POWs in Vietnam Were Not Forgotten (2007). Any 

serious scholar of aviation history, Vietnam War history, or special operations history would benefit from 

reading this book. 

• 1775 •
114 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

Commander Larry A. Grant, USN (Ret)11

Yesterday There Was Glory: With the 4th Division, A.E.F., in World War I. By Gerald Andrew Howell. Edited by Jeffrey 

L. Patrick. (Denton: University of North Texas Press, 2017. Pp. 464. $29.95 cloth.)

yon’s characters speak with the accents and the slang 

found in the streets, not in the drawing room. The 

dialogue figures prominently in his stories as a kind 

of poetry and as a device that creates depth and individuality for his characters. Women are dolls or birds

(or, given a Brooklynese pronunciation, “boids”) and 

almost every character has a heart of gold, though it 

may not be obvious at first. 

Similarly, in Howell’s story, the members of his 

squad speak with the accents and the slang of the common doughboy, not in the accents of the officers’ mess. 

An example of what might be Runyon’s influence appears in the following representative sample of the 

dialogue included in Howell’s book.

“Geeze! Ain’t these French chariots 

rough ridin’ though?” says O’Hara 

with profound disgust.

“Yeah! The old hay rick, and the 

runaway team of sorrel mares back 

home in Indiany, was heaven compared to these Paris busses,” says Stevens.

“Git yer damn foot out of my eye, 

will ya!” exclaims Belkin to O’Hara. . . .

“What ya squawkin’ about, rookie? When I gits on terra firma again, 

I’ll put both my hobs right through yer 

‘sophagus,” replies O’Hara. (p. 136)

Dialogue of this sort is also reminiscent, more 

appropriately given the Army cast and setting, of the 

conversations between William H. Mauldin’s two cartoon GIs from World War II, Willie and Joe. One favorite shows Willie and Joe climbing down a boarding 

Gerald Andrew Howell, a veteran of the 39th Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, served as a “buck private” 

from 1917 through several important American battles 

in France during the First World War, including the 

Meuse-Argonne. Following the Armistice on 11 November 1918, he marched with his regiment through 

Luxembourg into the German Rhineland as part 

of the U.S. Third Army occupation force. There, he 

served among the Germans for several months into 

1919 as the Allied leaders negotiated the terms of the 

peace at the Versailles Peace Conference. A native of 

New York, he seems to have spent much of his life 

outside the Army working in manufacturing, either 

as an electrician, a sales engineer, or as an inspector. 

He died in 1948 at the fairly young age of 58. Yesterday 

There Was Glory is his account of his service in the First 

World War.

If one word had to be used to describe Howell’s 

writing style, it would be Runyonesque. This distinctive 

style bears the name of Damon Runyon, an American 

author best known for the humorous stories he wrote 

about the colorful hustlers, gangsters, gamblers, and 

other characters who lived along Broadway in his particular version of Prohibition-era New York City. In 

addition to his Broadway stories, Runyon worked as 

a New York-based newspaperman. It seems very likely 

that he would have been well-known to a native New 

Yorker like Howell, who might have found Runyon’s 

writing style an appealing model for his own. Run11 Cdr Larry A. Grant, USN (Ret), is an adjunct professor of history at 

The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. He is the editor of 

Caissons Go Rolling Along: A Memoir of America in Post–World War I Germany by MajGen Johnson Hagood (2012) and author of “Meuse-Argonne 

Logistics” in A Companion to the Meuse-Argonne Campaign (2014).
SUMMER 2019 115

net into a landing craft, vehicle, personnel. Joe calls to 

Willie above him, “When ya hit the water, swish yer 

feet around. They kin use it.” This sort of dialogue is 

seldom used in modern writing. Even when it is employed, it rarely appears in more than a few passages, 

since overuse of dialect and accent interferes with an 

author’s more serious purpose of telling the story in 

a way that does not create unnecessary hardships for 

the reader.

Howell uses it throughout Yesterday There Was 

Glory, at least in part, it seems, to draw a sharp line between “the lowly, uneducated, unrefined, dumb, foulmouthed, crap shoot-in doughboy” without whom 

“the generals could never have succeeded in a single 

battle or [have brought] an arrogant militarocracy to 

its knees, nor have made the world safe for the international bankers” (p. 31). As editor Jeffrey L. Patrick 

sums up in an accompanying footnote, “Howell was 

obviously displaying an American enlisted man’s disdain for officers, particularly generals” (p. 31n1).

Howell’s account of experiences in France in 

1917–18 is not a standard history or even a typical 

memoir. He planned to tell the story of World War I 

from the typical mud “sojer’s” point of view, and not 

from the exalted view of generals, lieutenants, and sergeants. Others have tried to tell that story, but Howell uses his cast of characters to emphasize the point: 

“All the characters comprising the company squad are 

but prototypes of what were the actual living soldiers. 

While some of the names given them in this narrative 

are similar to those who were in the original squad, 

the words they speak, or the episodes described, are 

not actually those that the originals participated in.” 

Despite those liberties, Patrick continues, “These pages contain a true account of the exploits of the ‘Forgotten Fourth Division’ ” (p. 29).

Another writing choice that Howell made was 

the use of mixed tenses in the narrative. He frequently 

jumps from present tense to past tense and back. The 

present tense can be used to create a sense of immediacy in a passage, but it is difficult to use well for an 

entire book. Howell did not do it well, and the reader 

may wish he had stuck with a more consistent use of 

the past tense that is common in this sort of work.

Yesterday There Was Glory is arranged in 17 chronological chapters that follow Howell and his unit from 

their stateside training camp, across the Atlantic, 

throughout their French actions, into Germany after 

the Armistice, and finally back to the United States 

for demobilization. In addition to the body of the 

manuscript, Howell included four appendices. The 

first two include short unit histories of the 4th Division in World Wars I and II and of the 39th Regiment. 

The third contains the lyrics from the songs “Mademoiselle from Armentieres” and “Oh! How I Hate 

to Get up (In the Morning),” and the fourth lists the 

stations occupied by Howell’s company for most of 

1918. The book also includes almost four dozen contemporary photographs from the National Archives’ 

U.S. Signal Corps Collection selected by Howell to illustrate his text. Editor Patrick has provided a lengthy 

introduction that includes Howell’s biography and a 

more complete regimental history of the 39th in addition to many helpful annotations to the text.

In comparison with World War I memoirs and 

literature such as Robert Graves’ Good-Bye to All That, 

Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front, 

or Ernst Jünger’s Storm of Steel, Howell’s text is uneven. There is no question, however, that it is a passionate statement of a veteran’s view of his service, of 

the brass, of the Army, and even of his fellow (noncombatant) Americans. In a passage describing the 

voyage home, Howell refers to a “misguided upper 

crust female, a society war worker with a superiority complex, [who] was standing on the bridge deck 

one day with a half-baked ‘shavetail’ lieutenant. She 

happened to notice the rough looking doughboys laying around, sunning themselves on the decks below 

and was very contemptuous of the soldiery. Within 

earshot of the ship’s captain, she remarked, ‘Look at 

those dirty pigs down there! All of them might better 

have been killed in France!’.” According to Howell, 

she was “immediately arrested and confined under 

guard for the rest of the voyage” (p. 312). If this scenario seems unlikely, and Howell does not claim to 

have been a witness, it was the sort of just desserts a 
116 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

combat soldier like Howell would have appreciated 

being dealt out to someone with an undeserved “superiority complex.”

Howell’s Yesterday There Was Glory: With the 4th 

Division, A.E.F., in World War I is an interesting and 

entertaining story worthy of the attention of students 

of the First World War.

• 1775 •

NEW FROM THE JOINT HISTORY OFFICE

The Mayaguez Crisis, Mission Command, 

and Civil-Military Relations

Christopher J. Lamb

cloth • 7 x 10 • xxiv + 284 pp.

President Gerald R. Ford’s 1975 decision to use force against Cambodia after 

it seized the SS Mayaguez merchant ship is one of the best documented but 

least understood crises in U.S. history. 

Drawing upon newly declassified material, Christopher Lamb’s The 

Mayaguez Crisis, Mission Command, and Civil-Military Relations dispels popular 

misconceptions about U.S. motives and behavior during the crisis. He then 

extracts lessons for such current issues as mission command philosophy, civilmilitary relations, and national security reform. In closing he makes the argument that the incredible sacrifices made by American servicemen during 

the crisis—including the U.S. Marines who lost their lives or were wounded—

might have been avoided but were not in vain.

Free digital version at http://www.jcs.mil/About/Joint-Staff-History/

Print version available for purchase in the GPO Bookstore.
SUMMER 2019 117

Constance Wallace12

We Were Going to Win, or Die there: With the Marines at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Saipan. By Roy H. Elrod. Edited 

by Fred H. Allison. (Denton: University of North Texas Press, 2017. Pp. 320. $29.95 cloth.)

While there has been some controversy about using oral history and memory as a source for historical inquiry, the story of Roy H. Elrod is certainly a 

valued addition to the narrative of the Marines and 

their service in certain Pacific campaigns of the Second World War. Fred H. Allison has helped create a 

superior memoir of Elrod, and his experiences and 

recollections of the battles at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, 

and Saipan make the reader feel as if they walk in Elrod’s shoes with him. Allison noted that “about thirty 

hours of interviews were recorded and transcribed” 

and this is certainly evident by the inclusion of tiny 

details that may seem inconsequential to the greater 

story of the battles, but are important to the narrative 

of the man involved in them (p. viii). Roy Elrod’s individual narrative in the greater context of the history 

of the Marines in World War II lends value because it 

“carries a historical authenticity” that readers may not 

discover in other memoirs (p. ix). 

This authenticity is evident in Allison’s editing 

of the oral testimony. By providing contextual information at the beginning of each chapter, every reader 

will be able to comprehend Elrod’s narrative. Allison 

also “selected pertinent parts of his large collection of 

letters” to intertwine in several of the chapters, and 

noted that these letters were used as a catalyst for 

prodding memory (p. viii). While the letters provide 

no germane information, as most letters written in 

12 Constance Wallace is a PhD candidate at the University of North 

Texas. Currently she is editing several letter collections from the First 

World War. Her most recent article, “Flirtation by Postage Stamp: Using Digital Tools to Analyze the Space of Letter Writing and Sexuality in Sam Riggins’ WWI Correspondence,” was published in the 2016 

South Carolina Historical Association’s Annual Meeting Minutes. 

war were censored or constructed in such a way as to 

protect loved ones, having them provides a connection for the reader to understand the disparity between the actual events of war and how servicemen 

(or women) portray the horror of conflict to those 

back on the home front. 

Within the memoir, Allison provides annotated 

footnoting of certain terms that may be vague to those 

who do not understand the military jargon of Marines. 

This element is certainly an attribute of the volume. 

Allison also uses footnoting to provide additional details, such as relevant information that support the 

memories of the author. He “checked dates, locations 

and names” against the Marine Corps records, Allison notes (p. viii). This connection to Marine records 

lends creditability to Elrod’s individual narrative and 

his recollection of battle details. The use of primary 

sources includes not only Elrod’s oral history but also 

that of other key people, such as Colonel Henry P. 

Crowe. Indexing is provided in the back of the book 

to provide the reader with quick access to elements of 

special interest. 

The first chapter, “Muleshoe to Texas A&M: 

Growing up in Texas, 1920s and 1930s,” is the introduction to Roy Elrod, offering a unique glimpse at his 

childhood. It is here that Elrod’s personal story begins 

and the reader quickly identifies where his strength 

and tenacity were built as he recalls the guidance of 

a mother who “shot the necks” off bottles with a rifle 

and a father who gave examples of how “a real man 

handled his problems” (pp. 8–9). It is in this chapter 

where Elrod’s personality becomes evident; he remarks about his education that because he received 

high marks in military science at Texas A&M Univer-
118 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 5, NO. 1

sity, he “had an inclination for the military” (p. 19). 

In the second chapter, “The Old Corps: USMC Boot 

Camp, 1940–1941,” Elrod describes his experiences at 

the Marine Corps base in San Diego, California, having enlisted after college. “When I joined the Marine 

Corps, it was not much more than 20,000. Someone 

said it was smaller than the New York City police 

force at that time” (p. 31). Elrod stated that by the time 

his basic training was over, there were tents stretched 

beyond sight. During his time at the rifle range at the 

end of his basic training, his boyhood experiences 

with his mother helped him to achieve the expert level 

at the rifle qualifications: “I had no trouble at all in 

shooting expert with the rifle. I’d been firing a rifle 

since I was a very small boy” (p. 39). It is at graduation that Elrod meets a very famous Marine, Marine 

Gunner Henry Pierson, who became a mentor to him: 

“We were lined up not knowing what to expect. This 

very impressive marine officer came walking by[,] and 

he had the hardest blue eyes I think I had ever seen” 

(pp. 39–40). Crowe was making his selection of certain 

men in the group, and Elrod remembers that Crowe 

stopped in front of him and tapped him on the chest 

with his finger. This moment becomes a catalyst for 

the direction of Elrod’s military career. 

In “Eighth Marines: Preparing to Fight,” the editor notes that as Elrod completed boot camp he had 

been assigned to the 8th Marines, which had been 

reactivated in April 1940 as a part of the 2d Marine 

Division (p. 43). Following this assignment, Elrod was 

moved to train at Camp Elliott, north of San Diego. 

“When we arrived at Camp Elliot, I joined the [R]egimental Headquarters and Service Company and was 

assigned to the anti-tank platoon” (p. 45). 

Elrod’s narrative of his duty continues with “Exotic Samoa: Defending the Southern Lifeline.” After 

the attack on Pearl Harbor it became paramount to 

support the Pacific areas against the advance of the 

Japanese. The lines of communication between Australia, as well as American interests in the Samoan 

and other Pacific islands, sparked a movement with 

the American military for the defense of these locations. Elrod was promoted to second lieutenant during the nine months the 8th Marines were in Samoa. 

While there was not any invasion from the Japanese, 

it did give the 8th Marines a chance to gain needed 

training and the cohesiveness of a unit, before being 

transferred to Guadalcanal and their first combat.

Next, the narrative focuses on Elrod’s personal 

experiences in the battle that was fought between 

August 1942 and February of the following year. Elrod stated that he “heard once that once we [the 8th 

Marines] arrived, it was the first time that there were 

enough marines to make a solid perimeter defense 

around the airfield. The entire operation at Guadalcanal was for the protection and operation of that 

airfield” (p. 105). To him, what was more destructive 

to the platoon was the living conditions. “We were 

living really like animals,” he recalled (p. 110). After 

the intense fighting in the Battle of Guadalcanal, the 

8th Marines were moved to rest, which is the focus of 

chapter six, “New Zealand: Paradise Found.”

The next phase of fighting for Elrod occurred 

at Tarawa, and he emphasized the “harsh test of Marine Corps amphibious doctrine” (p. 159). Because of 

Elrod’s preemptive steps in constructing apparatuses 

to move his platoon’s 37-mm guns, he was successful 

in getting them to the island from the ships. There 

were reefs that the boats could not maneuver around, 

and Elrod had been advised of this back in New Zealand: “I had decided that the only way we were going 

to get our guns ashore was to pull them ourselves, and 

we had made rope slings for every member of the gun 

squad. I had also made special preparation to carry 

as much ammunition as possible” (p. 162). It was Elrod’s belief that his preparedness was what enabled 

his guns to be the only ones to make it ashore during 

the battle at Tarawa. “The attitude of the marines was 

that we were going to win. We never thought that we 

weren’t winning. There were more Japanese bodies lying around than ours” (p. 175). In the photograph section of the book, an image is shown that was taken by 

a news correspondent of Elrod and a fellow Marine 

that appeared in newspapers back home. The editor 

includes a letter written by Elrod to his mother explaining the photo. 

The rest and recovery from the battle at Tarawa 

Atoll is documented in “Hawaii: Recovery and Prepar-
SUMMER 2019 119

ing for the Next Show.” During this period of healing, 

Elrod said that the 8th Marines received a Presidential 

Unit Citation in recognition of their performance at 

the battles at Guadalcanal and Tarawa. 

Elrod also tells about the strategy for capturing 

the Mariana Islands, which would put Allied forces 

in proximity to Japan and bring them within bombing range of its shores. Elrod’s memories in this chapter include the famed Navaho code talkers, Crowe’s 

wounding in the battle, and his own injury. Just before the Marines handed control of the island over to 

the Army, Elrod recounts, “It felt like I had been hit 

across the back with a baseball bat or a two-by-four. 

. . . I had no sensation of my left leg, and I thought it 

had probably been blown off” (p. 237). His recovery is 

documented in the final chapter—a bittersweet end, 

as it also prevented his participation in future battles. 

The editor ends this wonderful narration with a 

small epilogue, which relates the rest of Elrod’s life. He 

married his sweetheart, Malda, and became an instructor to Navy officers, teaching them the “intricacies of 

naval gunfire in support of troops fighting ashore” (p. 

261). Elrod served many tours of duty at Marine Corps 

Base Quantico, Virginia, where he eventually retired. 

Elrod’s recollections are fascinating and give an individual perspective to the history of the campaigns he 

participated in by allowing the reader to experience 

the sensory aspect of these memories. Allison did an 

excellent job of organizing the oral interviews, and I 

would recommend this book as an additional read to 

those studying the Pacific campaigns of the Second 

World War. 

• 1775 •

The Journal of Military History 

A quarterly publication of the Society for Military History

The Society for Military History

George C. Marshall Library

Virginia Military Institute

Lexington, Virginia USA 24450

www.smh-hq.org jmhsmh@vmi.edu

Individual Subscription: $70

Institutional Subscription: $120

Add $10 for postage outside

the U.S. and Canada

Student online access: $25/year
NEW IN THE SERIES

COMING SOON

MORE IN THE

Marines in the Vietnam War

COMMEMORATIVE SERIES

MORE IN THE

U.S. Marines in World War I Centennial

COMMEMORATIVE SERIES

MARINE CORPS HISTORY DIVISION’S

New Releases

Email history.division@usmcu.edu for a print or 

digital copy.

Email history.division@usmcu.edu for a print or 

digital copy.
Marine Corps History

Issues of Marine Corps History can be found on the History Division 

website at www.usmcu.edu/HDPublishing.