This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
March 1922 Proceedings—Clear-eyed seekers of wisdom and truth, always sorting out the lessons of the last war, ought to consider reprinting the speech, “Military Conservatism, ” given to the graduating class of the Naval War College by its president, Rear Admiral William S. Sims, in 1921. Sims’s critics, who often included Alfred Thayer Mahan, might say that the speech contained equal parts of sour grapes and spilt milk. But Sims’s admirers, who always included patron Teddy Roosevelt, felt he was justified in repeating what he had told a Senate subcommittee in 1920. The Canadian-born admiral, who commanded U.S. forces in Europe in World War I, told the senators there had been “grave errors by the Navy Department in carrying out the wartime naval program” and “reluctance to accept new ideas . . . [had] been responsible for defeat in battle, and sometimes for national disaster.”
Like the “father of naval gunnery” he is acknowledged to be, Sims hits every target he spots. To the delight of his young audience, he urges his old- fud contemporaries to heed the young studs and their bright ideas. Otherwise, “the things that were known before” are all anyone will ever know.
March 1942 Proceedings—In “American Naval Slang A Hundred Years Ago, ” Mr. A. Grove Day, a Fellow in Literature at Stanford, writes “The Navy has always been noted for conservatism . . . and hence it is not surprising that many survivals from the days of sail may be found in the sea- talk of the American Navy today. ” He disagrees with Ambrose Bierce, who feels that “Slang is the speech of him who robs the literary garbage cans on the way to the dumps.”
Day says that slang is a nickname for alternate words or phrases that came into being because the old-time sailor was “at every minute of his day under the surveillance of vigilant and sometimes iron-handed authorities.” He wanted to be free to speak his mind without fear of angering his officers.
And to rebellion and secrecy was added the motive of pride: he wanted to sound like a “shellback” rather than an inexperienced “pollywog”—so he coined expressive nicknames for everything and everybody and when he went ashore he used them more often, not less.
Thus, the confused landlubber who overheard the word “bone-polisher” in a bar might ask if he had heard correctly. “Aye,” he’d be told politely by the seafarer. “He’s one of our chaps who wields the cat-o’-nine tails.”
March 1962 Proceedings—Admiral Ben Moreell occupies a unique place in U.S. naval history; nobody else is as qualified as the “King Bee” to salute the work of “The Seabees in World War II.” In 1941, Big Ben organized the first naval construction battalion which, by V-J Day, had grown to 258,872 officers and men, of whom 83% were serving overseas. They had quickly caught the fancy of their countrymen by referring to themselves as “Confused Bastards” or—more accurately—as “a soldier in a sailor’s uniform, with Marine training, doing civilian work at WPA wages.” Until the outbreak of war, naval construction overseas was handled by contractors, using skilled civilian labor from the United States or unskilled labor obtained locally. The “weapons” of these laborers, however, were limited to fists, knees, and elbows.
Pearl Harbor forged an unlikely partnership: according to legend, the Marines taught the Seabees how to fight and asked only that they be waiting on the beach with hot coffee and cold showers ready when the Leathernecks landed. When the war was over, each outfit thought the two had so melded that their own motto applied alike to the “First-to-Fight” Seabees and the “Can-Do” Marines.
Clay Barrow
nents of the naval effort.
This is the first single book to examine naval air, surface, coastal, riverine, and special forces operations at every level and then place them in the context of the overall war effort.
Commander Schreadley is both a Vietnam veteran and an experienced newspaperman, having been a longtime editor of The News & Courier/Evening Post in Charleston, South Carolina. His behind- the-scenes look at political and diplomatic decision-making and his discussion of such controversial issues as the Tonkin Gulf incident make fascinating reading. Of all the books available on the Vietnam War, this one is unmatched in scope, balance, and readability.
Another fine book available this month for the first time is Bering Sea Escort: Life Aboard a Coast Guard Cutter in World War II by Robert Erwin Johnson.
Naval Institute members who enjoyed Professor Johnson’s award-winning history of the Coast Guard, Guardians of the Sea, will also appreciate this memoir of his experiences as an enlisted sailor assigned to the Haida in 1941. It provides a unique look at the Coast Guard of the era and the coming of age of an intelligent young man.
Naval History 1991—the quarterly issues of Naval History magazine bound into a sturdy and convenient volume— becomes available this month as well. A special attraction in this volume is the widely praised and highly popular 50th Anniversary commemorative issue on Pearl Harbor.
The recent publication of the fifth edition of Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy by Norman Polmar is proving to be particularly timely during a period of uncertainty and unrest among the naval-military establishment of the former Soviet Union.
An Associated Press review calls it “an indispensable tool of reference with which to measure the former USSR navy’s progress or stagnation, unity or fragmentation, and to chart the destiny of individual ships.”
Proceedings / March 1992