Ask any historian about their education in the practice of history and you will likely hear about the various schools or approach to the study of history (ie longue duree, social, political, etc), and there are the specific fields within each (don't get me started on having to read EP Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class while in grad school).
For this post, I'm looking specifically at the field of military history and it's approach to history focusing on the "great man" aspect of writing biographical military history.
Go to any book store and you're likely to find books on the "great men" of military history--Napoleon, George Washington, Ulysses Grant; drilling deeper in Marine Corps history you'll find books on Puller, Butler, Lejeune, etc.
I've always been a proponent of the micro version of military history, small unit actions, the minutiae history that is overlooked (insignia for example) and individual Marines that generally don't have books about them. It's these individual Marines that I believe are the backbone of the Corps. I've been often heard saying, "You know the Latin root of Corps, right?" One cannot have a Marine Corps without bodies. I am NOT a "Great Man" historian.
As I've been compiling a list of Marines involved in the various polar expeditions and operations (1840-1956), I've come across some fascinating individuals, who collectively contributed to a very unique aspect of the Marine Corps' history.
Some of these Marines I've already written about, Downey, but most haven't seen the light of day just yet; lots of work to do still. But here's a run down of a few. For those who served in the 20th century (no I'm not ignoring the 1840's Marines), most were veterans of World War II; some went on to serve in Korea as well, and only a very few have service in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Several are Mustangs--going from enlisted to commissioned officers via the warrant officer route. At least three were cited for valor in combat with Silver Stars and Bronze Stars. One was even a prisoner of war in Korea, survived and wrote a book about his experience.
Ferranto Book
One of the questions I'm attempting to answer is why each Marine was chosen for the duty, and their MOS history gives us the clues. There were amphibian tractor and tank mechanics, electricians, construction engineers, shore party experts, combat correspondents, radio operators, pilots and aircraft mechanics. Even with their useful MOS employed, their experiences are varied to include duty with the parachute Marines, Raiders, service as recruiters, ships detachments, and one that was one of the first Embassy Marines from the time just after the MOU between the USMC and State Department was signed in 1948. One Marine was even a patent holder for his inventions.
These Marines, at least the ones I've researched thus far (more than 60 on the list so far, so not quite done) demonstrate the cumulative effects of various backgrounds and experiences that came together to contribute to the successful polar expeditions and operations.
Are the contributions of individual Marines, such as these, more important than the contributions of a single 'great man'? I'm not arguing that those deemed "great" men of the Corps, Lejeune for instance, aren't 'great'. Lejeune's impact on the history of the Corps cannot be overstated or overlooked; in fact I believe that Lejeune is an aberration in the collective history of the Corps simply because his impact was so significant that is unique unto itself. I am arguing that the collective impact of all the individual Marine (man and woman) not deemed "great" is far more significant that the few 'great men' overall.
Go back to my question regarding the root of the word corps. The Marine Corps is a collection of bodies (male and female) and it is those bodies that combine to create the singular Corps of Marines. It is the corps of individuals contributing their various skills and experiences that make the Corps' impactful history. To demonstrate this, let's look at Lewis Puller. For all of Chesty's Navy Crosses, how many have been awarded to other Marines for individual acts of bravery? Cumulatively these other Marines total far more than Chesty's five Navy Crosses. 
Meme from https://www.military.com/marine-corps/5-reasons-why-chesty-puller-marine-corps-legend.html
Don't get me wrong, five by one person is nothing to sneeze at, and I'm not trying to denigrate his acts, rather to demonstrate that the unknown Marines have contributed more as a whole than the one man with a colorful nickname.
It is through the tales of these lesser known (or unknown) Marines that I choose to view the history of the Corps. If it were possible to know every man and woman who served in the Marine Corps, good or bad, and to have information on each one for all to read, I would. I guess this latest project is just my attempt to ensure that these Marines and their service is not overshadowed, let alone forgotten.
(sorry for the funky formatting; I haven't yet figured out the issue or how to fix it)
No comments:
Post a Comment