Talk:Leslie Groves

Presence at famous MacArthur speech?

In Douglas MacArthur's famous Duty, Honor, Country speech at West Point in 1962, MacArthur begins the speech with:

"General Westmoreland, General Groves, distinguished guests, and gentlemen of the Corps."

William Westmoreland was Superintendent of West Point, but does "General Groves" refer to Leslie Groves? He would have been retired by then, but might have been invited as a distinguished alumnus of West Point. As far as I can tell from Groves' bio, he never served directly with MacArthur, so it seems improbable that they had a personal relationship. Does anyone have any info on this? --rogerd 19:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Groves was deeply involved in West Point's alumni affairs, according to Arlington Cemetery - MacArthur certainly knew that Japan surrendered because of Grove's project, and that due to its success war plans for an island-hopping conquest of Japan itself (and the casualty calculations) could be discarded. Metarhyme 12:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Leslie Groves was not only present(he appears in some pictures alongside MacArthur at this event), he was the president of the Association of Graduates in 1962, and presented the Sylvanus Thayer Award to MacArthur, which was the occasion for the speech. As to a personal relationship, I don't know, but Groves served in the Office of the Chief of Engineers in the early 1930's, while MacArthur was Army Chief of Staff, so both men were in Washington, D.C. at the same time. Given the small size of the Army in those days, and the fact that MacArthur began his career in the engineers, it seems logical they had at least a passing acquaintance. Beau Martin dubeaux@yahoo.com

If you know of any images of the event which are public domain, it would be nice to include them in MacArthur's article or perhaps the West Point, Grove's or Westmoreland's. If you have the url of a PD source, it would be appreciated. --rogerd 13:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

article mentions he graduated 4th in class, omits fact he FAILED entrance exams first time he took it Juror1 (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it does mention that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What?

In the biography section, someone included the following: "By this time, Groves had developed a reputation as an officer of high intelligence, tremendous drive and energy, and great organizational and administrative ability, as well as considerable ruthlessness, arroganceItalic text, and self-confidence."

While it may be true, it sounds like a personal slam, to me. Furthermore, self-confidence, for those who've earned it, is little more than knowing who you are, what you can do, what you can't do, and being sure of both. As for the "ruthlessness" and "arrogance" accusations, that's debatable, as is whether those two qualities are somehow negative in general officers during times of war. For that matter, a man who knows who he is, what he's capable of, what his men are capable of, what the enemy is capable of, where the rubber meets the road might indeed be arrogant. He may also simply be smart, well-trained, well-informed, above average, and may simply come across to those who aren't as smart, well-trained, well-informed, or above average as "arrogant" when in fact they're not.

Tell you what - Let's ask General Groves. If he's all history has cracked him up to be, he'll tell you whether he's arrogant or not, he'll tell you the truth, and he'll be right. Generally speaking, that's why people like him are the one's who become generals.

His ruthlessness and arrogance were considered by his admirers and detractors to be extremely important. Kenneth Nichols, his right-hand man, describes Groves in his book as so:

First, General Groves is the biggest S.O.B. I have ever worked for. He is most demanding. He is most critical. He is always a driver, never a praiser. He is abrasive and sarcastic. He disregards all normal organizational channels. He is extremely intelligent. He has the guts to make timely, difficult decisions. He is the most egotistical man I know. He knows he is right and so sticks by his decision. ... He ruthlessly protected the overall project from other government agency interferences... And in summary, if I had to do my part of the atomic bomb project over again and had the privilege of picking my boss I would pick General Groves.

(Emphasis added by me.) I am sure General Groves would have agreed with Nichols' assessment and would have been flattered by it. He did not see himself as an easy guy to work with. He just wanted to get the job done. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually Groves went round asking people; "Did he really say I was an S.O.B.?" See Nichols book for details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

• Citation 40, with the third paragraph of Post-War Section, is entirely Original Research and unsuited for a wikipedia article.
  •  Done
• Popular culture mentions are only cited to IMDB, an unreliable source, and seem to be almost random in their selection. Breaches WP: Trivia and would recommend removing.
  • I've never had a problem with using the IMDB but I have no attachment to popular culture bits. Removed and see if someone else complains.
• The pictures seem a tad big, and shrinking them would help sandwich the text less and make the article easier to read. Skinny87 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality paperback

Yes, they misspelt his middle initial on his own book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Date format

Why is this article in the international (dmy) date format? He was a US general, wasn't he? I'm aware that military operations and such use the dmy format (as well as the 2400 format for time), but this is a biography, not a military operation. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles on the modern American military use the American military date format per WP:STRONGNAT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that goes for bios too? I'm (almost) sure most American military bios I've seen use the mdy format. The wording is "articles on the modern US military use day before month" – how do you define "US military"? It might as well be defined as the US armed forces as a power, its barracks, vessels, operations, battles, etc, without necessarily including the individuals. Judging from the word "modern", it seems to me that this is the case. You wouldn't call Groves a "modern US military", wouldn't you? And if it applied to people too, what about those that switch between military and civilian careers? Maybe there is some ambiguity to the guidelines. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I randomly picked the top entry of each of the three columns over several pages of the Category:United States Army generals, and all turned out to use the mdy format, regardless of era. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Dept of Defense uses the 24 hr clock in all settings - not just for ops. This is why the 24 hr clock is also called "military time". As an aside, they also commonly use the international/European date scheme in which the date comes before the month (i.e 19 July, 2013) rather than the American style which is the reverse. Ckruschke (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sure, I don't doubt that, as you might have seen further up, but you're not answering the questions. Besides, this was about date format, not time format. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry: English, Welsh & French

Groves: My grandfather did not live too long. I do not know just when he died. I never knew any of my grandparents, either my grandmothers either. He was Welsh, born in Remsen, New York, shortly after his family got there. My mother’s mother was born in Wales. And she had some very well-to-do Canadian cousins who ran a flour mill at Guelph, Canada, that has now been amalgamated with various other things.

Groueff: So you are half Welsh?

Groves: Yes, half Welsh. All the other ancestry is English straight through, excepting for the original French. Well, there may have been a little here and there, but none that we know about.

http://manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories/general-leslie-grovess-interview-part-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombadil USA (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leslie Groves. 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/20150911070321/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-bombtest/ to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-bombtest/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No section on Groves' Personal Life

Why not? Don't most articles about notable people include a section about their personal lives? It seems like an omission, possibly on purpose. Certainly he had a personal life outside of the Army. Was he married? Did he have children? What was his orientation? I know I certainly would like to know, and I'm sure other readers would as well. Why all the secrecy? 98.194.39.86 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

His marriage and family are covered in the Between the Wars section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Work of the Fixed Costs Division

I want to learn about the work of the Fixed Costs Division. We hear all of the time about governmental cost overruns (such as on the Pentagon construction, referenced in the article.) How did the Fixed Costs Division manage to avoid overruns, and stay on time and within budget. For example, was their work a subject of the Truman Committee?

Groves' unit supervised the construction/enlargement/renovation/modernization of thousands of buildings, after all. Its work led to his appointment at Los Alamos. Because the Fixed Costs Division was responsible for c. 80% of the wartime construction by the U. S. Military, perhaps those knowledgeable on the subject should identify more of their largest/most important projects (beyond discussion of the construction of the Pentagon, which might merit its own article), and how they managed to stay on time and within appropriated budgets, if they did.

Which military bases did they build? Describe their work at existing bases. Discuss the construction of the Japanese internment centers for which they were primarily responsible. The controversy, and eventual rejection, of, and apology for, the political decision to inter Americans of Japanese origin solely because of their race, belongs in another place; we are here discussing only the construction itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.66.103 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No mention of the reason for his demotion to Lt Colonel

His listing for date of rank shows he was demoted two grades from Brig General to Lt Colonel in Dec 1942 but no discussion in the text.

Then, he was promoted again to Maj General in March 1944, demoted to Brig General in Dec 1945.

It gets even odder; it says he was promoted back to Maj General on Leap Day 1948, then promoted again to Lt General the month prior.

You lost me. Any historians that can explain?

He wasn't demoted. He held rank in both the Regular Army and in the Army of the United States, which was the wartime force. In the Regular Army, he was promoted to major on 1 July 1940, to lieutenant colonel on 1 December 1942, brigadier general on 6 December 1945, and major general on 29 February 1948. Meanwhile in the Army of the United States he had become a colonel on 14 November 1940, brigadier general on 6 September 1942 and major general on 9 March 1944. Few people were actually demoted during the war, but some reverted back to their substantive rank when there was no longer an assignment for them in the Army of the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Potential missing information about radiation cover-up

This New York Times article, published today, remarks on Groves' attempts to hide the radiation produced by atomic bombs:

In his article, Mr. Loeb told of a press tour of Hiroshima that had crossed paths with a military investigation of the atomic victims by American scientists and doctors. The study had been ordered by Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves of the U.S. Army, who directed the making of the bomb, and led by his deputy, Brig. Gen. Thomas F. Farrell. One scientist was surprised to hear General Farrell tell the investigative team in an early briefing that its mission was to “prove there was no radioactivity.”

General Groves, historians say, wanted the bomb to be seen as a deadly form of traditional warfare rather than a new, inhumane type. An international treaty in 1925 had banned the use of germ and chemical weapons. The head of the Manhattan Project wanted no depiction of atom bombs as uniquely terrible, no public discussion of what became known as radiological warfare.

Historians say General Groves understood the radiation issue as early as 1943 but kept it so compartmentalized that it was poorly known by top American officials, including Harry S. Truman. At the time he authorized the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman, scholars say, knew almost nothing of the bomb’s radiation effects. Later, he spoke of regrets.

[...]

General Groves and his aides, it turns out, were telling only half the story, as Mr. Loeb came to detail in his reporting.

[...]

General Groves and his aides, during press tours in New Mexico and Japan of the atomic detonation points, directed attention to the low readings of Geiger counters as evidence of little or no radiation danger.

“You could live there forever,” Mr. Laurence of The Times quoted the general as saying of Hiroshima.

He also described death by atomic bombs as "a very pleasant way to die." The primary reference used for all this appears to be: Malloy, Sean L. (June 2012). ""A Very Pleasant Way to Die": Radiation Effects and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb against Japan". Diplomatic History. 36 (3): 515–545. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.2012.01042.x. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a beat up to me. Groves was responding to exaggerated claims. Radiation is still very poorly understood by the general public today. Also, people are living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Groves certainly saw the atomic bomb to be seen as a deadly form of traditional warfare rather than a new, inhumane type. How it came to be viewed as a taboo is another story. (see Tannenwald, Nina (Spring 2005). "Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo". International Security. 29 (4): 5–49. JSTOR 4137496. ) Someone wrote a book about how planning throughout the 1950s ignored radiation and concentrated on blast effects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Adjacent links

This article does have a lot of adjacent links which ought to be fixed. Despite what Hawkeye7 says, almost all of my changes dealt with adjacent links. The fact that the article is featured is meaningless. Featured articles do have flaws and can be improved. Kornatice (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed a series of links to address your concerns. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

External Links & Other Information

Hello All! In reviewing this article, I saw several errors which I wanted to correct. In the text, it showed him being promoted to Colonel, and then seemingly demoted to Lieutenant Colonel. I also added the Second Lieutenant rank insignia, which was new in 1918, as well as updated the rank titles, as each word is capitalized. Also, I found an article written by the Chicago Daily News Company with newspaper images uploaded to 'rootsweb'. Slimgin (talk) Slimgin (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Covert10 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Covert10 (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)