The G.I. Bill was signed into law on June 22, 1944.
But WW2 didn't end until May 8, 1945 (VE Day) and August 14, 1945 (VJ Day).
Does that mean that even though the G.I. Bill was effective 6/22/44, no one serving in WW2 actually went to college under the G.I. Bill until after 8/14/45?
No.
Some of the people who served prior to the end of the war were medically discharged and could use the benefits. Some of the people who were still in the service could also use the benefits.
Some of the people who served prior to the end of the war were medically discharged and could use the benefits.
That's the key for my novel. The hero didn't get discharged because of his injury, but as the war was winding down maybe they discharged people like him from the training facilities he was assigned to.
Thanks.
If he was enlisted - here is the WW2 Army manual for discharge procedures.https://www.goldenarrowresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WWII-Discharge-Procedures-1945.pdf
Officers and maybe enlisted were not "discharged" from the service but "separated" and discharged from active duty. The officers (at least) were placed in the reserve.
For example my father received an actual discharge paper from the field artillery as an enlisted man and from the AAF as a flight student. At the end of the war he was issued a DD214 and a "certificate of service" but didn't receive a discharge paper.
The G.I. bill history actually started in concept to help WW I veterans.
The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944—commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights—nearly stalled in Congress as members of the House and Senate debated provisions of the controversial bill.
Some shunned the idea of paying unemployed Veterans $20 a week because they thought it diminished their incentive to look for work. Others questioned the concept of sending battle-hardened Veterans to colleges and universities, a privilege then reserved for the rich.
Despite their differences, all agreed something must be done to help Veterans assimilate into civilian life.
Much of the urgency stemmed from a desire to avoid the missteps following World War I, when discharged Veterans got little more than a $60 allowance and a train ticket home.
During the Great Depression, some Veterans found it difficult to make a living. Congress tried to intervene by passing the World War Adjusted Act of 1924, commonly known as the Bonus Act. The law provided a bonus based on the number of days served. But there was a catch: most Veterans wouldn't see a dime for 20 years.
A group of Veterans marched on Washington, D.C., in the summer of 1932 to demand full payment of their bonuses. When they didn't get it, most went home. But some decided to stick around until they got paid. They were later kicked out of town following a bitter standoff with U.S. troops. The incident marked one of the greatest periods of unrest in the USA nation's capital had ever known.
The return of millions of Veterans from World War II gave Congress a chance at redemption. The Veterans Administration (VA) was responsible for carrying out the law's key provisions: education and training, loan guaranty for homes, farms or businesses, and unemployment pay.
Before the war, college and homeownership were, for the most part, unreachable dreams for the average American. Thanks to the GI Bill, millions who would have flooded the job market instead opted for education. In the peak year of 1947, Veterans accounted for 49 percent of college admissions. By the time the original GI Bill ended on July 25, 1956, 7.8 million of 16 million World War II Veterans had participated in an education or training program.
Millions also took advantage of the GI Bill's home loan guaranty. From 1944 to 1952, VA backed nearly 2.4 million home loans for World War II Veterans.
While Veterans embraced the education and home loan benefits, few collected on one of the bill's most controversial provisions—the unemployment pay. Less than 20 percent of funds set aside for this were used.
The incident marked one of the greatest periods of unrest in the USA nation's capital had ever known.
It also led the government to basically ignore the second amendment for the first time, and with the help of unscrupulous prosecutors convinced SCOTUS to ignore the fact that they'd passed a law infringing what the amendment acknowledged as a preexisting fundamental right of all beings.
The politicians really worried what could've happened had the Bonus Army actually been both armed and aggressive, rather than mostly unarmed and peaceful.
The politicians really worried what could've happened had the Bonus Army actually been both armed and aggressive, rather than mostly unarmed and peaceful.
The politicians in Athens, Tennessee, found that out in 1946.
So true... although 'righteously indignant' rather than 'aggressive' would be more appropriate.
During the Great Depression, some Veterans found it difficult to make a living. Congress tried to intervene by passing the World War Adjusted Act of 1924, commonly known as the Bonus Act. The law provided a bonus based on the number of days served. But there was a catch: most Veterans wouldn't see a dime for 20 years.
It was considered as happening right after WWI. The Great Depression started in late 1929.The US had a history of paying bonuses when soldiers (originally militiamen) were sent home. After WWI, Congress said, "We'll be real generous, but a later Congress has to pay the bill."
Most veterans were highly dubious that a later Congresswould actually do that.
Many people don't know that the officer in charge of removing the Veterans from their camp in D.C. was General Douglas MacArthur. I have less than a high opinion for his military prowess; I have even less for his moral compass. His greatest achievement was a monumental PR campaign.
His greatest achievement was a monumental PR campaign.
Also, he never did realise if you bomb the supports on the northern end of a bridge the whole bridge is useless.
Also, he never did realise if you bomb the supports on the northern end of a bridge the whole bridge is useless.
To what are you referring?
The closest thing I can find on-line is that MacArthur wanted to bomb the bridges along the Korea/China border but Truman wouldn't let him do it.
To what are you referring?
When MacArthur wanted to bomb the bridges along the Korean / China border Truman told him he could bomb them as long as no bombs landed on the southern half of the bridge or in China. In response MacArthur threw a hissy fit and made a very public statement about never having learned how to bomb half a bridge. All he needed to do was to ensure that he used dive bombers to hit the northern edge of the bridge and it was not really useable.
When MacArthur wanted to bomb the bridges along the Korean / China border Truman told him he could bomb them as long as no bombs landed on the southern half of the bridge or in China.
Do you have a cite for that. The way the source I found on-line that described that incident made it sound like Truman flat out said no to bombing the bridges on the Korea/China border.
Do you have a cite for that.
I read it in a book back in the 1970s, it was a biography of his military life written by someone who served on his staff during the Korean War. After the Wake Island Conference MacArthur was talking to his staff and was asked what Truman said, to which MacArthur said (I hope I remembered this right) "In all my years of military service I have NEVER learned how to bomb half a bridge. He told me I MAY bomb the Korean half of the bridges but not the Chinese half." (The 'he' mentioned was Truman) The scene was later used in a film about MacArthur's life with Gregory Peck and has him saying, "In my all my fifty years of military service, I have never learned how to bomb HALF a bridge!"
Since the situation was in a private setting it wasn't that widely disseminated at the time or since. I suspect that biography and the film may be the only places it's been quoted.
the few things we know, for sure, about Truman and MacArthur and the bridges is that they were discussed at the Wake Island Conference and no minutes or recordings were made of what they spoke about. We only have some later accounts of what other said they said.
I read it in a book back in the 1970s, it was a biography of his military life written by someone who served on his staff during the Korean War.
Actually, that is entirely apocryphal and never happened.
When the General asked for permission to bomb the bridges, it was in fact denied. He requested multiple times, first with atomic weapons, then later with conventional ones.
And the President refused every time, afraid it would escalate the conflict. They were worried about the bombs landing in China or Manchuria, and unequivocally told him no. That is what led to the escalation that ultimately led to his removal.
However, in the 1977 movie staring Gregory Peck, it was changed for dramatic purposes. That movie is what created this legend, and I have never heard it from any other sources.
In the movie, when he requested permission to bomb the bridges, he was given permission. But only if he could bomb the southern half of the bridges and not the northern half. Which is why in the movie he said "In my 50 years of military service, I have never learned how to bomb half a bridge."
Which is ironic, as we now know that China was already amassing a large army, in preparation of joining the war even without the bombing.
In the movie, when he requested permission to bomb the bridges, he was given permission. But only if he could bomb the southern half of the bridges and not the northern half. Which is why in the movie he said "In my 50 years of military service, I have never learned how to bomb half a bridge."
With modern GPS guided munitions, that might actually be possible.
With modern GPS guided munitions, that might actually be possible.
Hell, a couple teams and a good supply of Semtex and it would be easy. (The bombing part. Getting them there, and emplacing the charges and waiting nearby (hopefully until the bridge is almost fully loaded with Chinese troops) before detonating... not as easy.
ell, a couple teams and a good supply of Semtex and it would be easy. (The bombing part. Getting them there, and emplacing the charges and waiting nearby (hopefully until the bridge is almost fully loaded with Chinese troops) before detonating... not as easy.
1. The point of bombing half the bridge is to keep China out of it(we haven't attacked Chinese territory). Using a demolitions team to blow the bridge with Chinese troops already on the bridge is an attack on China itself.
2. Extracting the teams after they blow up bridges on the Korea/China border...impossible.
1. The point of bombing half the bridge is to keep China out of it(we haven't attacked Chinese territory). Using a demolitions team to blow the bridge with Chinese troops already on the bridge is an attack on China itself.
It was actually mostly to stop the North Koreans from fleeing into China. Mac wanted to trap them against the river, and force them to capitulate. Because he knew that once they got into China, they would regroup and attack yet again.
It was actually mostly to stop the North Koreans from fleeing into China.
That was why MacArthur wanted to blow the bridges.
In terms of EB's story about blowing up half the bridge, the point of only allowing MacArthur to blow the Korean half of the bridge was to keep China out of the Korean War.
In terms of EB's story about blowing up half the bridge, the point of only allowing MacArthur to blow the Korean half of the bridge was to keep China out of the Korean War.
Just that, a story.
China had already made the decision to enter the war as soon as UN forces passed the 38th Parallel, but was giving all indication that they would not enter the war unless UN forces crossed into their territory.
That is one advantage of looking at history rationally through what is known later. But even then, it was not believed they would get significantly involved unless actively provoked.
It must be remembered, the Chinese Civil War had only ended a month before the start of the Korean War. And they were still involved in scattered fighting and skirmishes with the Republic of China forces. Specifically, the battles over the Wanshan Islands, which concluded only 2 months before they entered the Korean War.
There was absolutely no concern that China would have gotten involved, unless directly provoked. And this is proven as UN forces had only touched the Yalu river and were still involved in fierce fighting with NK forces when China entered the war.
Which caught the UN completely by surprise, as it had none of the normal stages involved in such an attack in the modern era. No large amounts of artillery, no aviation assets moved to the area, no tanks to speak of.
Only the People's Volunteer Army, a force of around 250,000 that was almost entirely infantry. Technically, China never actually got involved in the conflict.
Just that, a story.
Yes, and part of the problem with that story is that reliably taking out half a bridge wouldn't have been possible with bombs that were available during the Korean War.
But it would probably be doable with modern GPS guided bombs.
The point of bombing half the bridge is to keep China out of it(we haven't attacked Chinese territory).
Yeah, Truman was a useless pussy.
With modern GPS guided munitions, that might actually be possible.
Didn't need GPS munitions, decent dive bombers or good low level bombers could handle the task with ease, as was shown during WW2 in numerous incidents. They could've asked the Brits for a Mosquito Squadron to handle the task as they had a good reputation for pinpoint low level bombing to take out specific buildings in cities or walls in prisons during WW2.
They could've asked the Brits for a Mosquito Squadron to handle the task as they had a good reputation for pinpoint low level bombing to take out specific buildings in cities or walls in prisons during WW2.
Even dive bombing was highly inaccurate and could not be trusted to hit a relatively small target. Not to mention that, given the bomb load, dive bombers would need multiple strikes on the target to achieve the objective. All the while anti-aircraft would be shooting them down.
Even dive bombing was highly inaccurate and could not be trusted to hit a relatively small target. Not to mention that, given the bomb load, dive bombers would need multiple strikes on the target to achieve the objective. All the while anti-aircraft would be shooting them down.
And add into this that it was the Korean War.
The era of the MiG-15, the B-47 Stratojet, F-94 Starfire, and the Gloster Meteor.
And some want us to throw in Mosquitos? The thing is, there actually were not many of those left in the inventory by that time. The UK had already gotten rid of theirs, they were especially loved by the Nationalist side in the Chinese Civil War for use against CCP naval forces.
And those that were left had already been relegated for use as essentially a lightly armored small transport. It at least had a decent chance of arriving at a contested airfield and leaving again, something a Dakota really could not do.
Divebombing. Once again I largely just shake my head. By 1950, the idea of divebombing had already pretty much faded away again. About the only place that was even still seen was in naval engagements, as surface to air missiles really had not yet become a thing yet for ship defense.
But for land based targets? Nope. First they have to get to their target, through skies full of MiG-15 Fagot's. Then all the ground fire, and then get back to base.
And as you said, rinse and repeat a dozen or more times, because even precision dive bombing is nothing like a PGM.
Although, I have to admit that most of the times like this when the topics turn military, it can be funny reading. Hell, why not throw over the LZ 54 while we are at it? It could literally hover over the bridge and dump a ton and a half on the thing from a stand still.
Hell, why not throw over the LZ 54 while we are at it? It could literally hover over the bridge and dump a ton and a half on the thing from a stand still.
Against jet interceptors? It might as well be a stationary target. Good luck getting it anywhere behind enemy lines.
Against jet interceptors? It might as well be a stationary target. Good luck getting it anywhere behind enemy lines.
In other words, about the same odds as a Mosquito.
Why bring a slow, 2 engine light bomber that can drop 2 tons of bombs, when you can use a 6 engine B-47, which is 50% faster and hauls 7 tons of bombs?
I did not drag in the Mosquito, I am only pointing out how stupid trying to bring it into the debate was. And it is as silly as my mentioning the LZ 54.
Which believe it or not might even have a better chance. As if constructed with RADAR in mind, they can be almost completely invisible to most RADAR systems. And by operating low and slow, would likely not even be detected until they are almost at their target.
However, please do not think I would ever endorse such a silly idea.
I suggest you go back and read the whole thread. The Mosquito was mentioned as an accurate low level bomber with examples of accurate low level bombing. Any low level bomber or dive bomber could have been used. Also, the Mosquito was not retired from active service until 1963, a decade after the end of the Korean War.
Israeli flown Mosquitos saw action in the Suez Crisis of 1956 with Migs on the other side.
Also, the Mosquito was not retired from active service until 1963, a decade after the end of the Korean War.
Yea, but not as a bomber. By that time, it was not even good for a recon or cargo aircraft, and it was used as a tug to tow targets for ground to air gunnery. That was their final role, from 1953, until 1963 when the final ones were retired.
Just because an aircraft is still in service, that does not mean it is good for combat. By the time of the Korean War, the craft had been almost entirely retired from combat units, as the Canberra was already undergoing trials.
That is why all those from WWII were rapidly farmed out. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand got most of those, the next major country that got them was the Nationalist Chinese Government.
But the UK? By 1947, they had already been reduced to performing as a reconnaissance aircraft, in addition to previously mentioned as essentially a fortified cargo plane.
Not a light bomber.
And yea, Israel used them. They also used the Panzer II and Panzer III. As well as the Me Bf 109, dating to 1936. Israel would at that time have used any equipment they could get their hands on, so that means absolutely nothing.
And right, low level bombing. Of bridges, where both sides are held by enemy forces. Maybe you have heard of this little battle for a bridge called Remagen. US forces held the bridge, Germany wanted it destroyed. And in a battle that took over 10 days, the Germans hit it with everything they had. Including over 360 aircraft. Of which they lost almost half of them to the anti-air defenses.
And you really think they could have done better than the Germans, who failed at the exact same thing? Oh, and one of the aircraft used against the bridge was the AR 234, the first operational jet bomber in the world.
Here is the thing, I do not really need to read the entire thread (although I have), to see when something is a really bad idea militarily. And there is a big difference between just reading off some data, and actually understanding what that data means, and what of it is relevant and what is not.
Fact, the US still uses a sail powered ship that was captured as a war prize, and it remains in active duty to this day. But this does not mean that such vessels are a good idea to use in combat in the modern era.
Even more trivia, that ship was used by the country it was captured from as an anti-aircraft platform and port defense during WWII. Yea, I can actually pull out an amazing amount of trivia, but it is just that. Like the Mosquito still being in service in 1963.
Kinda like knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but also knowing it is not something you put into a fruit salad.
Also, he never did realise if you bomb the supports on the northern end of a bridge the whole bridge is useless.
Unless you blow up key points just blowing up on side or piece does not mean the bridge will fail or collapse.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1957827/arkansas-bridge-miraculously-stays-standing-after-implosion-doesnt-go-as-planned/
One of many different times blowing up something failed to do as expected.
Unless you blow up key points just blowing up on side or piece does not mean the bridge will fail or collapse.
It depends on if you plan it properly or not. There were many cases during WW2 where multi pier bridges were rendered unuseable because the entire road deck between 2 piers was taken out. And if it's a bridge with piers at each end only, then taking out the piers at one end will see it go, but just taking out the road deck for fifteen to twenty feet at one end makes it unuseable until after they lay new decking. Repeat bombing of the road decking keeps it closed.
They were later kicked out of town following a bitter standoff with U.S. troops. The incident marked one of the greatest periods of unrest in the USA nation's capital had ever known.
Kicked out of town with fixed bayonets and vomiting gas. Seems to be pretty excessive force for getting a peaceful group to move along.
Kicked out of town with fixed bayonets and vomiting gas. Seems to be pretty excessive force for getting a peaceful group to move along.
But that is the thing, it was not entirely peaceful.
In the weeks leading to that confrontation, even skirmishes and vandalism that were almost to the point of becoming riots. And this was not actually by the Bonus Army itself, but Communist agitators that had infiltrated their ranks and were trying to increase it to the point it became larger and more violent.
The Bonus Army were trying to take steps to keep them out. Insisting that every member prove they were a qualifying Veteran, but they could not stop all of those that tried to hijack their movement.
G.I. may have started as "galvanized iron" in WW1, but has since developed into "government issue". Typically military personal were G I Joes. However If their name was William, they could be a G I Bill. How the G I Bill was passed by the Congress has been discussed earlier in this forum.
GI also could refer to "gastrointestinal."
"The gastrointestinal tract (also called the GI tract) is a series of hollow organs that form a long continuous passage from our mouth to our anus. The organs that make up our GI tract are our mouth, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, and anus." There is a wreckedum (rectum?) in there too. Because of it you can be accused accurately of being full of shit.
"The gastrointestinal tract (also called the GI tract) is a series of hollow organs that form a long continuous passage from our mouth to our anus. The organs that make up our GI tract are our mouth, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, and anus." There is a wreckedum (rectum?) in there too. Because of it you can be accused accurately of being full of shit.
An accurate description of the US legislative process.
GI also could refer to "gastrointestinal."
I remember hearing it described the recruits - generally idiots that couldn't make it as Marines.
(Oddly enough, yeah, it was a Marine that was the source of that.)
I remember hearing it described the recruits - generally idiots that couldn't make it as Marines.
What ever happened to General Infantry?
What ever happened to General Infantry?
He was demoted, and replaced by another General. I think it was Motors?
He was demoted, and replaced by another General. I think it was Motors?
Funny, but that's General(as in not Pacific) Infantry.
Also, some service members were released after a term of service. for example, the Army Air Corps bomber crews in Europe were returned to the US after 25 missions. Many but not all of them were then released from the service. Some stayed on as trainers or served in other duties
Also, some service members were released after a term of service. for example, the Army Air Corps bomber crews in Europe were returned to the US after 25 missions.
That's not what I read. I read they didn't get out until the war ended.
Between October 1944 and the end of the war my father flew 39 missions as a bombardier-navigator on a B-26. With 3 crash landings that took him out of action for a week or two each. Then he was stuck in Europe until July when he was finally able to get on a flight home as a crew member.
Also, some service members were released after a term of service. for example, the Army Air Corps bomber crews in Europe were returned to the US after 25 missions.
It did not stay at 25 for long. It soon increased to 30, 35, then 50 (hence the phrase "50 mission crush"). And even then all that got you was rotated to other flight duties, as there was a lack of qualified pilots for most of the war.
After doing your set missions, you might find yourself planning missions, debriefing pilots, or even flying recon or pathfinder flights. Or even dropping mines in the Atlantic. Technically not "combat", as you were not dropping bombs but still needed.
It took until May 1943 for the first crew to survive their "25 missions", and even then, their combat did not stop. They were simply rotated to the Pacific.
Robert Morgan was the pilot of the B-17 Memphis Belle. After his 25 missions over Europe, he then flew another 26 in the Pacific Theater in the B-29.
Yes, after 25 (or more) missions they returned home. But they did not get out or stay there. Most were retrained to fly newer bombers, then sent to the Pacific. That mission limit only applied to those in the 8th Air Force, as that was the deadliest unit to be in of the war.