Talk:William Westmoreland

Concern about the impartiality of this page

The writing on this page seems jingoistic. Can it be reviewed with a less partial pen? Hu Gadarn 04:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fourteen years after the above comment, this page is still jingoistic. That the war was fought was the responsibility of politicians. But the way it was fought was the responsibility of the generals, especially Westmoreland. Under his leadership, civilian casualties were enormous, war crimes were routine, and ignoring war crimes was also routine. Westmoreland personally congratulated the unit responsible for the horrifying Mỹ Lai massacre of hundreds of defenseless civilians (he backtracked later after the cover-up failed). Westmoreland's attitudes survive in some Americans to this day, and that's the most serious problem the country has. Longitude2 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence to back up the claim that "NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap orchestrated negative media coverage[citation needed] shook public confidence in Westmoreland's previous assurances about the state of the war." The Tet offensive, as disastrous as it was for the NVA and NLF in military terms, did undercut Westmoreland's optimism. The media came to its own conclusions, and was not orchestrated by Giap or anyone else. Entenman (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)entenman

General

Westmoreland was named "Man of the Year by Time magazine in 1965; this should really be mentioned.

---

Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the NVs and Viet Cong, not for the US troops on the ground and the ARVN - so I'm not sure what they mean by "disasterous Tet Offensive," as the Tet Offensive was actually begun by the Communists.

- K

As far as I know, it was "disastrous" to the U.S. war effort, inasmuch as it sapped public support for the war. —thames 15:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It probably should be put in that context explicitly, then. Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a victory for the US - as Westmoreland himself stated, the US didn't lose the war. They merely packed up and went home.

After all, this is a biography of a military man....

- K

Define victory and losing. We could have continued to feed that meat grinder for another 20 years easily. Westy was following orders from a corrupt administration. As a soldier he was good. As a commander ,I feel, he did not fight enough for his troops. The ROE in the SE Asia theater were very constricting. In a war you either fight to win or it's worthless. In Westy's position I would have resigned rather than have my name attached to that quagmire. The last great General we had is MacArthur. He was not afraid to tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may. If Westy had been more like this perhaps we would have wasted a few thousand less young American lives.OZ 11:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How many kids did he have??

The article currently says: "They had three children: Katherine, Margaret, Julie and James Ripley." I count 4, although who "James Ripley" is, is a bit of a question mark. Why does he get a middle name when the daughters don't? Or is Ripley a surname? In which case, is James Ripley his wife's son from a previous marriage, or something like that? In any event, as it stands it is confusing and ambiguous. Does anybody know the truth? The truth is out there. JackofOz 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Three, according to all obituaries I have checked. "Julie" is a figment of someone's imagination, added by the IP 65.35.229.53 without giving a source. His children are Kathryn, Margaret, and James Ripley (seems to be a middle name). Or maybe the anon meant that Margaret was called "Margaret Julie"? Anyway, out she goes. Lupo 11:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Katherine is actually his wife and not a daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steps67 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

very intriguing man

Though I never knew him, my family talked about him quite often. I always admired his accomplishments in the military and have studied him thoroughly. I was devastated to hear of his death last year, he will always hold a place in my heart. Here's to the Westmoreland tradition!

Sarah Westmoreland Louisville, KY

- What is his military accomplishments in Vietnam? He was defeated badly by those men he thought they were inferior to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.158.109 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah referred to 'his accomplishments in the military', not his military accomplishments in Vietnam. They are two separate things. 2A0A:EF40:36C:1101:AC6B:422C:3522:87E4 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

encounter with Westmoreland

This text was added to the article space by User:Hardy Parkerson and has been moved here by --rogerd 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This person says, "I saw a large man in a business suit... ." Westmoreland was not "large" by anyone's standards. Lean, medium build, and certainly shorter than 5'10 or 5'11' So her encounter cannot be taken as fact. (May 20, 2006)

Addendum:

In the early 1980s I saw a large man in a business suit standing beside a taxi-cab on Canal Street in New Orleans in front of the Marriot Hotel. I asked him if I and my traveling companion could share a cab with him to the Airport. He took one look at my traveling companion who was a beautiful woman and promptly said, "Jump in!" So she and I both got into the back seat of the cab and waited for the tall, impressive-looking man to get in himself. I noticed that many likewise impressive looking people were shaking his hand and seeing off from in front of the Marriot on Canal Street; and when he finally got into the cab, he got into the passenger side of the front seat of the cab. As the cab pulled out, he reached over the back of the front seat and offered his hand and said, "I am General Westmoreland." As the cab continued to the airport, in order to keep him talking I said, "Sir, you mean you don't travel with body guards?" He abruptly said, "No and I don't want any!" Still to keep him talking, I said, "Sir, isn't it wonderful that Haig has just been appointed Secretary of State?" to which he gruffly responded, "Yeah! Yeah! Haig was one of my field commanders in Viet Nam. Nixon called him back to Washington and promoted him from the rank of Colonel to Four Star General in the matter of about two years. Made a lot of the career Army officers angry!" I knew I had said the wrong thing. Next I said, "Sir, I just finished reading Nguyen Kao Ky's book," to which he again gruffly responded, "Yeah! Yeah! That was a bunch of baloney! He made the Diem Family look bad. Those were fine people!" Again, I knew I had said the wrong thing. He then asked me, "Have your read my book?" To which I responded that I did not know he had written one. I asked him the title of it and he told me that the title of it was A SOLDIER REPORTS. To which I told him that I would have to get it and read it. He said, "Give me your card, and I will send you a copy! It will be the paper-back edition. Now if you want the hard-back edition, you will have to buy it yourself at the local bookstore." I gave him my card, and sure enough, he sent me an autographed paperback copy of his book. To keep him talking, I asked him, "Sir, who were some of the great leaders that you have known and dealt with during your career?" He started off by telling me that it was General John J. Pershing had been the one who pinned his second lieutenant bar on him. Then he talked about President Nixon. He said that he had dealt with President Nixon during the Viet Nam War, and--exact words--"If Nixon had listened to me, we would have won that war!" I told him that I was a Lieutenant in the Louisiana Army National Guard, and he wanted to know the name of my unit, for he wanted to mention it when he autographed the book he was to send to me. Then, again, to keep him talking, I said, "We have a general from Lake Charles, General Leonard Pauley." To which he promptly said, "Yes, I know Pauley!" Then he said, "You had another one from Lake Charles, General Eddleman." He probably called his first name, I don't recall. Since I had never heard of General Eddleman before, when I got back to Lake Charles, I mentioned this General Eddleman to my wife's grand-mother who was born in 1904 and had lived in Lake Charles most all of her adult life; and she advised me that she remembered him well. (A GOOGLE search shows the grave marker of a General Clyde David Eddleman, who is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.) I did my best to keep him talking, and I did a pretty good job of it; but I do not recall much more that he said. When we got to the airport, he would not let me pay the fare for the cab for the three of us, insisting that he pay it himself, which he did. Kinda hard to argue with a Four Star General! When he sent me the autographed paper-back edition of his book, he had a nice letter with it in which he referred to my traveling companion as "your lovely wife." He had noticed too, for she was indeed a beautiful woman. I found it amazing, and my friend did too, that ones so insignificant as us, particularly while we both were still in our 30's, would have such an interesting experience and be able to ride along and talk with such a great American military leader. That was an experience that I shall never forget. When I got home, I went across the street from my house to visit with my neighbor who was a ranking Army officer and Viet Nam veteran to tell him about this experience; and when I told him about saying to General Westmoreland, "Sir, isn't it great that Haig has been appointed Secretary of State?" before I could even report what General Westmoreland had responded, my neighbor, the ranking Army officer, immediately responded, "Boy, that was the wrong thing to have said!" To which I immediatly responded, "And so I promptly learned!" This is a true story, as true as my memory recalls it these twenty-five or so years later. -Hardy Parkerson, Atty. - Lake Charles, LA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardy Parkerson (talk • contribs) 01:46, March 20, 2006 (UTC)

---

I have added the weasel tag to the first paragraph.Bharatveer 07:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the "Quotation" absolutely necessary?

While it is essential to show general views of the man, I being an Asian/Indian, find this quote to be positively offensive and deriding. I am sure I speak for many others like me. I hope it is clear by now to the "we won/we lost" contributors to this page, that we Orientals do place the same value to human life as any other human being. This quote is prominently displayed, as if it is a great musing, without any explanations given. It immediately brings to mind the horror that was Vietnam, almost a justifications for the 7 million tons of bombs dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanksinha (talk • contribs) 03:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree delete his sorry *ss loser pathetic quote. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote is necessary. We must never forget the past. We must never forget Vietnam, Nazi Germany, slavery and so on. Uncle Tom's Cabin will offend anyone today. For blacks it's a personal insult. But it is even worse to pretend it never happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry *ss quote

Don't make this loser a hero by listing all his excuses. Everyone has excuses when he loses the fight. Delete that quotation, which is an excuse for a loser general generally bitter for his loss. Take the defeat like a man, just for reference in the future. Lose like you won it. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, we should include his excuses to show how flawed his perspective was. 2A0A:EF40:36C:1101:AC6B:422C:3522:87E4 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal

The quotation section discussed above was removed on 08:47, 31 August 2008 by 71.237.70.49. The sourced quotation in question is: "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient." -- ToE 02:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Dates of rank

What is the distinction between "temporary" and "permanent"? The page lists him as earning "permanent" ranks of Lieutenant General in July 1963 and Major General in August 1965; this is incorrect as Lieutenant General is a higher rank (O-9) than Major General (O-8). Both the obituary in The Independent and his papers, state he was promoted to Lt. Gen. in 1963 and that he was the youngest Maj. Gen. before that; his papers say he became Maj. Gen. in '56 and the Washington Post obituary says he was age 42. We need individual sources for each of these dates. Brlancer (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Permanent" refers to the date when the rank was granted in the Regular Army. An officer of "temporary" rank can always revert to permanent rank at the convenience of the government. I believe when an officer retires, it is at the highest "permanent" rank attained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.119.130 (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I too am confused, was he demoted at some point? I see he dropped from Major Gen. to Colonel back to Brigadier Gen.? Does this have something to do with the temporary/permanent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.239.251 (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Saxon vs. Spartanburg

According to Spartanburg, South Carolina, Saxon is a neighborhood of Spartanburg. Saxon, South Carolina is described as a "census designated place", not necessarily a town in its own right. So I'm guessing that either Saxon or Spartanburg would be correct.--Father Goose (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the official boundary of Spartanburg seems to not encompass Saxon: [1].--Father Goose (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Never lost a battle

The statement that under Westmoreland, the U.S. never lost a battle is nothing more than a lie. Check the Vietnam War battle pages.Canpark (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed - restored

I restored {Citation needed} tags, removed earier without adressing the problem. As far as I was able to find out, Westmoreland commanded 34th Field Artillery Battalion of the US 9th Infantry Division during the World War II and he was never serving with the 82nd Airborne in WWII. If his battalion's fire was ever assigned to support the 82nd Airborne, this should be correctly clarified and referenced. Thanks.78.128.177.162 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Other tags removal

I also restored some other {Citation needed} removed earlier without adressing the issues raised (which I realized later on). "Where unessary" (?) claim certainly does not deal with the correct sourcing of the article claims.-78.128.177.162 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal

Does anyone know what age his wife was when they married? As the article reads right now, it sounds like he was courting a nine year old, which I kind of doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HacksawPC (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hacksaw: That struck me as funny as well. As it turns out, they were married in May 1947, when he was 33 and Kitsy was 19 or so. I found a 1967 Milwaukee newspaper article that explains the marital situation and have adjusted the article text and references accordingly. Interestingly, Kitsy states in the aforementioned article that she was indeed all of nine years old when she met the then 23-year-old Westmoreland. They "re-met" when she was a college student and that's when they began a courtship that led to their marriage. Kfranco (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Korean war service?

According to Westmorelands awards he served in the Korean war, yet I cant find anything about the subject in the article. Fred26 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahem---VERY INCOMPLETE ARTICLE.

WASN'T Westmoreland a candidate for the US Senate in North Carolina in 1974??? Also, wasn't he a Commandant of the US Military Academy at West Point???Johncheverlyjohncheverly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "very" incomplete but there's certainly more information available - see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6LR-UJsYRc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.184.216 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know if General Westmoreland had any biological siblings? If so, their names?

Does anybody know if General Westmoreland had any biological siblings? If so, their names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.182.82 (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Twitter account in opening line

I've tried editing it out but some guy decided to upload is twitter account link in the middle of the first sentence under "Early Life" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanrock29 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarify, please

Westmoreland’s strategy, based on artillery and air power, was tactically successful but politically allowed the enemy to destroy the American public's support for the war.

First statement is debatable (I thought the tunnels defeated those tactics). Second statement needs explanation. Valetude (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The way the lead was written before these changes were made contained some factual inaccuracies, and also bordered on a POV (not this section in question specifically). Westmoreland's tactics left the communists largely depleted of manpower and firepower after several major engagements. But several allied commanders were displeased with Westmoreland's desired timeframe and intent to take the war across borders. Westmoreland, in essence, wanted a longer war. He felt justified since in a tactical setting he had proved superior to the enemy in several engagements and believed if he continued with his strategy the war would have been won (a view many historians hold today). However, the lengthy war, coupled with the panic inspired by the Tet Offensive (which, to be clear, was an American victory. But the news media had only filmed the bombed US embassy, leading the American public to view the war as a lost cause). Hence, his strategies were tactically successful, but allowed the enemy to destroy America's support for the war. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that it's not clear that it was even a "tactical victory." Also "many historians" think a lot of things about the Vietnam War, you can get the full gamut of opinions there. SnowFire (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This statement by Valetude is absolutely correct. That sentence that his plan was "tactically successful but politically allowed the enemy to destroy the American public's support for the war" is highly misleading and should be changed. First, "tactically successful" does not win wars and is a very poor way for a leader of the entire war to run a war. It also isn't true. Historian Lewis Sorley in his book and YouTube video Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam makes it clear it is a myth that politics caused the failures of the US during Westmoreland's time in command. Westmoreland waged big battles with large groups and artillery in a counter-insurgency war. He ignored the reality on the ground and the villages. He failed to understand the enemy and waged his war based on the idea the enemy would co-operate with his plans. His failures and lies while commanding (and afterword) were a big factor in losing the American public's support, not the other way around. Fanra (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Related to Cian Westmoreland?

Cian has been in the news relating to his opposition to the use of drones in warfare, a job he did in the US military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.97.242 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on William Westmoreland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060114140124/http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/William_Westmoreland.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/William_Westmoreland.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920021014/http://photo.citadel.edu/pao/newsclips/archive20042005/5687.html to http://photo.citadel.edu/pao/newsclips/archive20042005/5687.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525061904/http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/12175354.htm to http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/12175354.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William Westmoreland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050721080305/http://www.vvi.org/Content/vvi2.asp to http://www.vvi.org/Content/vvi2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050724014901/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0720-20.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0720-20.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

he "Considered Nuclear Response in Vietnam War, Cables Show"

nytimes.com 6 October 2018

I'm no native speaker (if I were, I would add this to the article). Is there a fellow wikipedian to add it to the article ? thanks in advance, --Neun-x (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

SuperWIKI, I went through the text LemonJuice added. Found a source for some of it, removed duplications, made an educated guess about stuff that might be true, will look for sources another time. Let me know if you see something I missed. Calling it quits for today. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)