Posted on 06/05/2016 8:36:05 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
With the conclusion of WW II the years of bloodshed and mind-numbing violence finally ended. But a massive demobilization of servicemen began, the purpose to slash military spending. Liberal Democrats supported an effort to completely abolish the Marine Corps, first established under Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Language of Liberty
This effort was supported by the Doolittle Board, created by the Truman Administration and headed by none other than Army General Jimmy Doolittle himself. The Board called for the Marine Corps to be disbanded as a separate military outfit and unified with Army units.
As you can imagine, this didn’t go over well with Marines who had sacrificed so much to the war effort and distinguished themselves for valor and bravery against all odds, often over and above the call of duty during those brutal years. Several enterprising Marines with Hollywood connections thought a movie built around the famous Joe Rosenthal photo of the Mount Suribachi flag raising on Iwo Jima would help secure public support of the Corps.
The Marine veterans brought the idea to Hollywood director Allan Dwan who saw the merit in it and wanted to be involved in the project. The movie was to be called “The Sands of Iwo Jima” and everyone agreed the only big name Hollywood star fit to play the role of hero Sgt. John Stryker was John Wayne.
Wayne read the script, didn’t like the adaptation and turned it down. Never ones to back down from a fight, the Marines had Marine Corps Commandant, General Clifton B. Cates board a flight from Washington to California to personally explain to Wayne what was at stake – the very existence of...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
Relax. The “enemies of freedom” wanted to consolidate the Army and Marine Corps because maintaining two separate bureaucracies to fulfill the same basic mission costs us a ton of money.
Jimmy Doolittle was an enemy of freedom? Yeah, right.
Harry Truman once said, “No one has a better PR operation than the US Marine Corps.
thank you very much for this post. thank God for the great man John Wayne.
The Marines were meant to be our quick response units from the very first ,with the Navy providing transport.
The Army for larger and prolonged wars.
Doolittle was an Army Air Corps man,the Air Force didn’t become a separate entity until post WW2.Naturally the Army man wanted the Marines absorbed. The urge to consolidate is strong,despite consolidation NOT being the correct solution to every problem.
I am not sure how accurate this is. The Defense act of 1947 pretty much established the force structure. This is when the USAF was created.
The Movie was released in 1949. And the Doolittle board was not focused on reorganizing the force structure, it was nearly solely focused on officer/enlisted relations and was known as a board to sort through GI complaints about service in WWII.
It’s documented that Cates did send someone to ask Wayne to make the film. But the conclusion of the piece here is a little far fetched.
Director Allan Dwan went back to the very beginnings of the movie industry. I’d forgotten it was he who helmed “Sands of Iwo Jima.”
The U.S. Army and U.S. Marines have different doctrines. How the Marine Corps has been used as an occupying force, which is standard for the U.S. Army, since the beginning of GWOT was the decision of our government, not by doctrine.
You are correct. The fight over the Marine Corps occurred between 1945 and 1947, along with many other turf battles that culminated in the Defense Act of 1947 that preserved the Marine Corps. However, it was essentially reduced to its pre World War II size. The Korean War changed all of that. With the Army was trying to defend South Korea with understrength, untrained draftee occupation troops from Japan, the 1st Marine Division, reinforced by Marine World War II veterans arrived in Korea well equipped, well led, and well overstrength. That proved to be the winning formula and the Marines solidified their popular reputation.
The Chowder Society won the political fight, the Marines who fought in Korea ensured that the Marines would never be threatened with elimination or subject to drastic reductions.
The movie didn’t hurt.
I don’t particularly agree with the article. Hollywood might have played a small role in saving the future of the Marine Corps, but we learned that it was actually the taking of Mt. Suribachi that “guaranteed a Marine Corps for the next 500 years”, as said by then SecNav Mr. James Forrestal.
The Army is not big enough to handle their traditional mission by themselves. It will always require the Marine Corps as well. Plus, the services will always argue to include their units in every commitment worldwide.
The Marine Corps does augment the U.S. Army quite well.
The Marine Corps does augment the U.S. Army quite well.
Wow. Thanks for that
I’ve always liked John Wayne and saw a lot of his films first run in the old big screen movie houses. Now have a lot of them on DVD. Must watched “The Sands of Iwo Jima” 50 or 60 times.
Both services have worked well together over the past ten years. That was not always true.
Forrestal was an early anti-communist. Therefore, he was defenstrated.
He also said the Marine Corp had a propaganda organization that Joe Stalin would be proud of.
Fabulous movie that one.
L
Same thing at MCRD San Diego.
Semper Fi.
L
Actually the concept of Marines was to maintain discipline aboard ships of the United States Navy. They provided the Captain of a Naval vessel, a small security force capable of putting down a mutiny. The shipboard marines also schooled the sailors in the use of small arms, guarded the captains quarters, guarded the powder magazines, and small arms lockers. In battle they were used as snipers from the top platforms and were part of boarding parties if required.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.