Talk:45th Infantry Division (United States)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 45th Infantry Division (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

45th Infantry Division (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 23, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
August 3, 2009	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
September 3, 2009	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
February 14, 2010	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
August 14, 2012	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
Current status: Good article

Military history: North America / United States / World War II A‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

A

This article has been rated as A-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Oklahoma Mid‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Note

I forgot to login and performed a few edits under IP 67.118.17.3. — FJ | Talk 18:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Korean War

There is nothing here on the Korean War. Only two National Guard Divisions were called up for Korea and the 45th was one. The other was the 40th from California. This needs to be described and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.151.62 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source for war crimes claim?

Hello, 217.82.36.172. Please provide a source for your May 1 claims:

In Sicily the division committed some of the worst war crimes of the allied forces, murdering hundreds of German and Italian prisoners of war.

and

...on April 29, 1945...murdering 520 of their surrendered German and Hungarian guards.

Here's a comparison of edits. — FJ | hello 16:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) I went ahead and removed the first claim and edited the second claim to highlight its allegation status. The only source I have for the claim of 520 Waffen-SS soldiers who were allegedly killed at Dachau does not insist on the accuracy of the figure or indeed of the events. I think this is probably justification for adding a special section to this article devoted to all of this. There is quite a lot of detail on this site for example but I am not sure where they got their information. — FJ | hello 12:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this whole section to link to the relevant Wiki pages. There is no need to get into detailed discussion of this here, it is more efficient to discuss it on the page focussed on the crime. Andreas 10:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Day of Battle" by R. Atkinson has a detailed describtion of the three POW killings during the first days of the invasion of Sicily and the cover-up that followed.Markus Becker02 13:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a reliable source for one of this division's massacres. This is from Antony Beevor's "The Second World War", pages 597-8:

"...both Bradley and Patton faced a potential scandal. In Bradley's 45th Infantry Division, a National Guard formation which Patton had encouraged before the invasion to make itself known as the 'killer division', a sergeant and a captain massacred more than seventy unarmed prisoners. Patton's initial reaction was that the murdered soldiers should be described as snipers or as prisoners shot while attempting to escape. The military authorities decided to hush up the whole affair on the grounds that the Germans might take reprisals against Allied prisoners."

Source

"Dachau, Hour of the Avenger" by Howard Buechner (who was a medical officer of the division in question). Also I've understood that the official U.S. Army documents about the happenings are no longer classified.

Buechner makes this claim, but I would like to see what he bases it on, since it is at odds with the other descriptions of the event. The original US Army Report does not give a number of casualties. Andreas 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were no gas chambers at Dachau. A sign was erected post liberation for a propaganda photoshoot, but all authorities concur that there were no homicidal chambers at this campGaptech (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Swastika insignia

There is no reason to remove the insignia, unless it is historically not correct. It was the official shoulder patch prior to 1939, and as such should be shown. Before attempting to remove it again, please outline the reasons for the edit here. Andreas 15:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is incorrect. The 45th division swastika was left-facing, the mirror of the right-facing nazi swastika. I do not know how to fix this but the image is definitely incorrect. 18 July 2010

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:45th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm quite interested in reviewing this and will read it and submit a review in the next couple of days. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is fantastic. It's pretty well written, well referenced and quite detailed. There are only a few niggles that I've listed below, but I suspect it would only take a half hours work to make this GA.

1. Writing. There are only a few places where the article could perhaps be rejigged. In particular:

In the lead, the start of the second para is a little awkward, making quite a leap from the 19th Century to WWII. Could the bit about its lineage be added to the first para? BTW, I assume it should be 19 and not 18th Century?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could the lead perhaps be expanded a little to cover the fact the division participated in 4 amphibious assaults in WWII? At the moment it only appears to suggest 3 actual assaults.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History para 2 - Can the short 2nd sentence be incorporated into the text a little better?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History para 3 - mentions the word swastika 3 times in quick succession.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Sicily, para 2, could you wikilink to the battle itself? Perhaps rather than "conducted an amphibious assault" it could say, something like "the division was one of the leading units in the amphibious assault...." to recognise its role.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just an idea, but seeing as the Salerno and Anzio campaigns are neatly broken into 2 paragraphs, perhaps the sub heading could be split too?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Korean War, para 2 - it might be worth wikilinking to this section of the Korean War article so that readers can quickly understand why, how and where the front had stabilized. It helps make the general situation clearer for the rest of the article.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually Accurate and Verifiable

There is only 1 ref for the entire first para of the Alleged War crimes section. I'd have said another ref may be needed to clarify the second sentence.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the ref for the 300 massacred Germans, it only says neutralized which doesn't necessarily imply killed, and definitely not massacred. Reading the article on the Dachau massacre it does seem that there is some confusion about exactly how many men were killed. Could this section be expanded a little to cover the subject in a bit more detail (at least the question of how many died), or alternatively simplify it by removing numbers all together?
- Agreed. The number is best left out. —Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broadness One article that links here refers to the Division as the "Thunderbirds" as if it is a nickname. Aside from the mention of the insignia this isn't otherwise covered in the article. Do you know anymore about it?

The infobox clarifies this, and it also provides a ref for the division nickname. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral No probs.

5. Stable Would certainly appear to be.

6. Images All good. More photos would always be welcome but I appreciate they probably aren't too easy to come by.

I'm going to reread this later to just see if I've missed anything, but I'm fairly sure it'll only be small points. All in all a great little article and another example of wikipedia working! I'll hold the article while we work through the improvements. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all of the things you have pointed out to this point. Thank you for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed two wikilinks. The only other thing I'd suggest is a wikilink to here. Also, I notice that there are refs for every notable member of the division, except Bill Mauldin. I don't think its enough to hold this article any longer though, but if you could "complete the set" as it were it would probably look better. Cheers for a good read, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

Neither Mark Clark nor Raymond S. McLain ever commanded the 45th Infantry Division. Clark was the Fifth Army commander, which was the senior command for the 45th ID, but Clark never commanded the division itself.

Raymond S. McLain was the 45th DivArty Commander, but never the Division Commander. (GregJackP (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Dated 18/02/2010.

I was disgusted when I realised that this Division is still in existence even after the massacre at Dachau. The American were always quick to criticise the The UK about how we tried to stop IRA terrorists funded by collections on American streets. I was in The Corps of Royal Marines and proud to serve in an honourable Corps. What really sickened me was SS Fighting Troops were killed, they had nothing to do with the camp, and they were very very brave MEN and Great Fighters there's no denying that, not like the cowards who shot them. When everybody said the guards deserved it, put yourself in their position, if you don't guard that CAMP, you and your relatives are next in the ovens !!!, what would you do, yes protest and do it. No I am afraid the only shoulder Flash I would put on the Division is a Large White Feather.

Ex 42 Commando RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lochee785 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Waffen-SS were political soldiers, special fanatical volunteers not even part of the regular Wehrmacht army, and no, the Nazis did not put Germans in the crematoria, so the Waffen-SS didn't have to worry about THAT.

Swastika (a different explanation)

Although I think it was clearly an Indian badge, there is a different explanation for the Swastika: before becoming the 'Thunderbird Division', the Oklahoma National Guard's original nickname was 'Sooner Soldiers'. The swastika was a stylized SS (the short for 'Sooner Soldiers', nothing to do with the Nazi SS). A 'Sooner' was a white settler from Oklahoma, that was an Indian territory until c.1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 45th division swastika was left-facing, the mirror of the right-facing nazi swastika. I do not know how to fix this but the image is definitely incorrect. The left-facing swastika also looks less like two S's.

If you look online everything shows a right facing swastika, including the 45ths museums webpage. Also for sources that say that the swastika was a native american symbol we can look at the swastika wikipedia page and see this source at the bottom "Dottie Indyke. "The History of an Ancient Human Symbol." April 4, 2005. originally from The Wingspread Collector's Guide to Santa Fe, Taos and Albuquerque, Volume 15." http://www.collectorsguide.com/fa/fa086.shtml which itself includes 3 sources. Sorry I don't know how to add sources but there it is. 70.184.254.248 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Tulsa[reply]

Fixed the Swastika directions to match the definitions used in main Swastika article. 208.115.153.106 (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Reorganization

Currently, the article states: "During this time the division was also reorganized and as a part of this process the 157th Infantry was removed from the division's order of battle and replaced with the 279th Infantry Regiment.[89]" The cite is Varhola's Fire and Ice, history of the Korean War. Either Varhola has this wrong, or the reference has been misunderstood (I don't have a copy of this book to check). The reorganization that replaced the 157th with the 279th occurred in 1946. This is supported by the Lineage and Honors of each regiment, reproduced on the respective regiments' pages: 157th & 279th RTO Trainer (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]