Talk:Charles Durning

Everwood on the WB / medical problems?

I was watching Everwood this evening, and I saw Mr. Durning on it. He looks VERY different than he did since O Brother, Where Art Thou?...has he had some sort of stroke or heart attack or some kind of palsy that's affected his speech? --65.190.163.190 02:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WWII

I have known of Charles Durning as an accomplished actor for many years. However, I just recently found out about his heroism during WWII which included being in the first wave on Omaha Beach at Normandy, being one of the few survivors of the Malmedy Massacre and being awarded the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. Mr. Durning, my gratitude and utmost respect go out to you.

I wish we had a good source for his WWII exploits: unit, rank, etc. Beanbatch 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. How likely is it for a rifleman in the 1st Infantry Division on Omaha Beach to later be reassigned to an artillery oberservation battalion (which comprised the victims of the Malmedy massacre)?Michael Dorosh 06:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Very. This is a well known fact, written about several books including one written by the Naval Institute Press reviewed here. Try doing a google if you don't believe me. --rogerd 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in that link you provided shows any evidence whatsoever that the claims made are true. Do you have a copy of the book? I'd be interested in knowing what cites/footnotes the author provides. As for your comment "very", I have a hard time believing you understood the implication of the question. I would suggest that the odds of a rifleman in the 1st Infanty Division surviving Omaha Beach and "just missing" the Malmedy Massacre are extremely slim. I stand to be corrected by actual documentary evidence.Michael Dorosh 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My father also served in WWII. Can I point you to a URL that documents what units and when he served with each? No. How do I know he wasn't lying? Because he told me and I believed him. Durning has talked about all of this in interviews that I have seen. I believe him. I am sure that if you search the internet or your local public library enough, you will find what you are looking for. I don't need to. --rogerd 20:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In order for you to post it on wikipedia, um, yes, you do need to. See Brian Dennehy. Michael Dorosh 20:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put it there. It was there before I first saw this article. Go ahead and remove the material about his WWII service if you feel you must dishonor an American hero. There is a heck of a lot of other unreferenced material on wikipedia, most of it a lot more questionable than this, so it sounds like you have a lot of work to do. --rogerd 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wiser just for you to go ahead and post a source for the material? Be careful with that "hero" word - Dennehy claimed to be one, too. I'll be delighted to see that the claims are true - and fully referenced. Looking forward to your contributions.Michael Dorosh 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I added some other references. I am sure they won't be good enough for you either. Sorry to disappoint you, but not all Americans are liars and cheats. Also, what exactly is your issue with his Broadway credits? That can be easily verified on IBDB.com or TonyAwards.com. --rogerd 21:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and use civility. I read the references and they state specifically he was not in the infantry on D-Day, but was already in the artillery. The Infantry Regiment he was drafted into was not part of the 1st Division. I've changed the article accordingly. Good work finding sources.

So one of the sources specifically states "The recipient of three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star, Durning was a U.S Army Ranger during WWII". Was this also true? Seems not to be confirmed by the other sources. Hmm, as well, none of the units actually listed for him seem to have been components of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division - "3d Army Support Troops" indicate just that - Army troops. I can believe that he landed on Omaha Beach but have to believe he was not among the "first troops to land" on D-Day itself - though it is possible as an artilleryman he came ashore on June 6, making him one of the first troops to land in the overall Battle of Normandy.

Another "source" states he was a combat engineer on D-Day. A google search of Malmedy and Durning shows that almost every reference to Durning and his link to the massacre is based on this very wikipedia article. Frightening. I just pulled out my copy of MALMEDY MASSACRE by Richard Gallagher (1964) and didn't see his name, but there is no definitive list of survivors in the book and few victims or survivors are actually mentioned by name in any event. Would still like to see a creditable source cited for his involvement there. There is apparently a book called "Stars in Khaki: Movie Actors in the Army and Air Services" that seems to have the goods on this, but I don't have access to a copy. I've written an email to Scott Baron, the writer of the GIJobs article, to ask about the sources he consulted. It seems on the face of it that he too may have used wikipedia as a source, based on the incorrect statement he made about James Doohan being in the RCAF - a "fact" that was part of the wikipedia article for many months until I corrected it recently. Michael Dorosh 02:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I added this piece of information: War Hero on Walk of Fame by Solvej Schou (Associated Press). Asteriks (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the story of the Malmedy massacre because no reliable source, i.e. authors who have written about this incident, mentions Durning as one of the survivors. The names of the survivors are very well known. The lists of the survivors can be found in most of the the recent books thant contain accurate information about this massacre. I have recently read "Jens Westemeier, Joachim Peiper, a biography of Himmler’s SS Commander, 2007, Schiffer Military History", that contains an appendix with all these names and Durning is nowhere to be found in this list. And the same goes for others books containing information on the Malmedy massacre. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement from the French Consul, made in April 2008 during the ceremony in which Charles Durning was awarded the Legion of Honor, stated unequivocably that Charles Durning WAS at Malmedy. Three questions...

1) Is it in ANY way possible that the previous lists of survivors published in reference books are not fully comprehensive? (bear in mind the possibility that there may only be one list that has been used as the basis for all others)

2) Given that Durning himself avoided speaking of his wartime service for decades, could this be a reason why there is a historical lack of information on this point?

3) One presumes that the French Consulate would have checked all the facts before presenting one of their most prestigious awards. Why should their statement on Durning's wartime service be viewed in any way as less factually correct than that of the military historians? IMO military history revises itself with an alarming frequency.David T Tokyo (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for answering my own questions but an essay by General Michael Reynolds on Malmedy makes it a lot clearer. http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3030591.html

1) Yes. Reynolds discredits accounts of the Malmedy massacre saying that "Few of these accounts are based on fact, and most are embellished and inaccurate."

2) Who knows?

3) Unlike 1) There is nothing in the French Consuls Statement {http://bhcnp.org/article.php?articleid=5) that is at odds with the facts as presented in Reynolds essay. Even if there were, Reynolds himself is cautious, saying that "It is unlikely that we shall ever know the precise sequence of events" and that his account "gets closer to the truth".

Unless anyone can provide compelling evidence to the contrary, the French Consulate’s reference to Durning’s involvement at Malmedy should now be viewed as definitive. I will leave it for a few days for alternative arguments before including a reference to Malmedy within the main article on Charles Durning. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to cast any doubt on Mr. Durning's service, but the details are so vague and contradictory that they bear some examination.

1) He was supposedly "drafted at age 21"; since he was born 28 Feb 1923, that means the earliest he could have entered the Army was 28 Feb 1944 - or just 3 moths before D-Day. Very unlikely.

2) He supposedly started as a rifleman in the 398th Inf Regt. The 398th was training at Bragg during this period, so it is possible he was there.

3) In the months leading up to Normandy, thousand of fillers were combed from stateside units and prepositioned in replacement depots in England. Only soldiers who had completed the full training program were deemed qualified for overseas deployment in this group.

4) If Mr. Durning was levied out of the 398th as an infantry filler for the 1st Division before the invasion, he would have had to deploy to a replacement depot in England by mid-May (latest), which meant he would have had to depart his unit by the last week of April - at the latest (based on my father's experience in this pipeline at that same time).

5) This would have given him just two months of initial training, which would not have permitted him to be qualified for overseas deployment.

6) If Mr. Durning had been switched to FA or AAA during this period, he would have been even less qualified for deployment, but for argument's sake, let's consider. Each division had an AAA battalion attached to it. When the 1st Division landed on Omaha Beach, the assault regiment (16th RCT) had attached to it elements of the 103rd AAA AW battalion, which theoretically would have landed as early as H+30. So, again theoretically, he could have been there as an AAA guy - if you ignore the overseas qualification problem.

7) He was supposed to have been wounded at Les Mare des Mares on 15 June. Can't find a spot of that name within the beachhead as of that date, but there is a Les Mares (or Le Mara). Unfortunately, that village was within the 29th Inf Div's sector that date. Which raises the possibility that he actually was attached to the 29th Div for D-Day; the 29th Div's 116th and 115th RCTs were attached to the 1st Inf Div for the D-Day assault (and not returned to 29th control till 1700 on the 7th. So, he could have landed with the 1st Div and not have been assigned to it. The 116th RCT included elements of the 467th AAA AW battalion in the assault waves.

8) He was supposedly evacuated by the 499th Medical Collection Company to the 24th Evacuation Hospital. Both units were in the beachhead during this period servicing the V Corps - so this fits.

9) His recuperation in England is puzzling. Theater evacuation policy required patients needing more than 90 days medical treatment/recovery, were to be shipped stateside, yet he was in England for almost 5 months (declared fit for duty 6 Dec 1944).

10) It almost defies belief that he could have then reentered the replacement system and ended up back in a unit in time to be caught up in the Malmedy Massacre (17 December 1944). If he'd been returned to duty 2 weeks later - when replacements were a crisis - it would have been possible - but certainly not before the Bulge began.

11) And of course, the whole Third Army reference is strange. The Third Army was not involved in the Omaha landing, nor was it anywhere near Malmedy when that happened.

12) Have been unable to find anything on the 386th AAA Battalion. Found info on the 385th and 387th. Even found the 486th AAA Battalion. But nothing on 386th. It appears this was one of the unit numbers reserved under the intitial plans for 811 AAA batallions, but no unit was activated under this number. It certainly wasn't in the ETO. There must be some confusion about this number.

13) And perhaps most obviously, you seldom hear of a man receiving a Silver Star and not getting promoted beyond Private First Class. In fact, I've never heard of it.

Again, am reluctant to cast aspersions, but not many men advertise their valor awards, but refuse to clearly state what units they served in. It's a shame he is not more forthcoming; such vagueness merely arouses suspicion. 67.181.14.236 (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get your information from - the majority of what you've listed is at odds with the French Consuls statement detailing Charles Durning's service record. For example, Durning was inducted into the US Army in January 1943 (not 28 Feb 1944), he landed on Omaha Beach as part of a US Army Ranger Batallion (and not as a rifleman in the 398th Inf Regiment). I'd be grateful if you could provide a reference as to where you have sourced your information from. Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This very Wiki article states both his age at drafting and his date of birth. The math from there is quite simple. Now, if that info was wrong, well, then the article needs clean-up. However, the French Consul - with all due respect (and I mean that sincerely) is not an authoritative source for US military service details. Nor can we assume his research can be relied on. We're talking "make-nice" diplomatic gestures with celebraties, not rigorous history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.14.236 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware, there were many servicemen in WW2 who enlisted before their time - who's to say that Durning wasn't one of them? He left home early so as not to be a burden on his parents, I would have thought he more than fitted the likely profile of someone enlisting early. Anyway - conjecture. You're free to say whatever you like about the French Consulate's citation but - I repeat - the facts as you've persented them are demonstrably at odds with what they said. So, where ARE you getting your information about Durning from? David T Tokyo (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, had to sign off before I finished the last entry. To continue . . . Durning himself confuses things by stating he voluntarily enlisted (as opposed to being drafted) either at 17 or 18 (see the War Hero Walk of Fame reference). Since parental signatures were required only for those under 18, and he says he forged his mother's signature so he could enlist, then he'd have to have been 17 at enlistment. In that case, he would have had to have joined prior to Feb 28, 1941 (when he turned 18), which was at the very least 10 months before Pearl Harbor and US entry into the war. So he certainly didn't "go to war at 17" as claimed. Futher driving a nail in the lid of this coffin, the 398th Inf Regt wasn't activated until 15 Dec 1942, or at least 21 months after Durning's supposed enlisment. Where was he, to what unit was he assigned and what was he doing in the interim?

As for being a Ranger, apparently not. He is not listed in the "US Army Rangers in WWII" database. He is conspicuously absent from the Ranger Association and its Hall of Fame. Neither the 2nd nor 5th Ranger Battalions claim him as a member. He is not listed as a member of either Ranger Battalion in any post-war history or reunion site I could find.

The 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions remained attached to the 116th RCT (29th Div)for the weeks following D-Day, and on 15 June - the day of Durning's wounding - the site of his wounding was within the 29th Div's sector. It was however, well into the divisions rear (the 116th was on the front lines and Les Mares was even to the rear of the 115th RCT's position in division reserve). This location would make more sense if Durning were assigned to either a field artillery or AA artillery unit. It makes little sense that he was wounded 10 km to the rear of where his suppposed Ranger unit was fighting at the time.

The bio provide by the French Consul moves Durning's service with the 398th Inf Regt to after D-Day and the Bulge - as opposed to the first unit he was supposed to have been assigned to. Complicating this, the 398th Inf Regt's list of WIA in WWII does not list Durning, even though that was supposedly his unit when he received his last wound and was sent stateside. Nor does the 398th's list of Silver Star awardees include Durning. (Since Durning remains silent as to which unit he was assigned to during the period he won the Silver Star, you can't read too much into this, but it does narrow the possibilities down). And of course, the French Consul would not have researched this bio. He would have taken it from Durning's press agent.

Any one of the above discrepancies could be explained away given the chaos of combat. It is completely beyond reason to explain all of them away. His Zelig-like claims to have been at so many key points in such a different variety of units, all performed without leaving any record of his presence, is just too much to credit. The idea that such a movie star is not claimed by any of the many units he supposedly beonged to is astounding. There is something wrong with his supposed military service record, and his own brief comments only further the situation. Given the preponderance of evidence that calls his story(ies) into question, it is incumbent on him to provide proof - or for this Wiki article to note the problems with credibility and sources. Arguing over the third hand stories presented by a foreign diplomat as a party is pointless. Where are the original service documents? 67.181.14.236 (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that says he enlisted under his birth name? David T Tokyo (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

PTSD

I've removed this from the article after his admission of nightmares: "which is common among veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress"

Unless the person that added this is a medical doctor with Mr. Durning under his care (and has consent to post it to the internet!) I don't see this as accurate or fair. Nightmares are indeed an indicator of PTSD, but not everyone who has experienced stress or has nightmares is suffering from a "disorder". Unless there is a source that indicates Mr. Durning has a disorder, suggesting he has one simply because he admits to nightmares is false and misleading. Michael Dorosh 14:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of lying about his record

An editor made this edit that accuses Durning of exaggerating his military record. This record will need to be linked on this talk page so that other editors can verify this before we can allow this kind of character assassination. The charge of exaggerating one's military record is a very serious one (see Jeremy Michael Boorda), and needs to be backed up by evidence. --rogerd 12:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, rogerd, I just read your note at User talk:Calgarytanks, and your exchange with Kaspazes -- after having read all of the other discussion on this issue -- and I can't help wondering if User:Calgarytanks might be the same person as Michael Dorosh, who says on his user page that he served in the Calgary Highlanders, and whom you had a major argument with a few months back re the same basic issues.

Although the article doesn't actually accuse Durning himself of making false claims, I think a lot of people would read it that way -- so I tend to share your stated concerns on that issue. Also, if service records aren't available online where anybody can verify their contents, how are they regarded in terms of being Original Research? This seems a bit murky to me.

I sure as hell don't know what the real facts are re Durning's military history, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to argue it out in the text of the article. There has got to be a better way to handle this -- perhaps by stating those facts which are not in dispute, and then stating that other details are unclear due to contradictory accounts (possibly including a very brief summary).

Cgingold 14:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I will put an {{NPOV}} template at the top of the page. I do belive that the edit should stand, however. I have put some editing only text above the section warning editors not to edit that area. Does anyone think that we should request the page to be locked? Kaspazes ^talk 13:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence about you contentions, just vague references to his service record and World Book Encyclopedia that you haven't shared with us on this page. The information about Durning being at Normandy and Malmedy is referenced by multiple sources. Durning's record has been well known for 60 years, and now your original research, that you won't show us proves him to be a liar? I don't think so. --rogerd 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New assertions

User:Monkeyzpop has made an edit to this article about some statement that Burt Reynolds supposedly made on a TV show, that he is disputing. There is no reference to the Reynolds quote, so it is not really relevant to the article. Just because someone else makes a statement about the subject of this article, doesn't mean that it deserves mention here. Also, the alleged false statement was the Durning was the 2nd most decorated soldier of WWII, which Monkeyzpop disputes. If such a trivial thing deserves mention (which IMO it doesn't), then you would need to provide a reference that someone else is the 2nd most decorated soldier of WWII. But then again, Reynolds is hardly an authority on military history, so what he says about Charles Durning's war record is very trivial, even if the editor could find a reference. --rogerd (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

At the 2008 Screen Actors Guild Awards, watched by some 35,000,000 people, Burt Reynolds broadcast to the world that Charles Durning, a decorated soldier (1 Silver Star and 3 Purple Hearts), was actually the "second most decorated soldier of World War II." Since that time, the internet has been rife with discussions about whether that was true. Many of those discussions have mentioned Durning's Wikipedia article, saying that they searched there for an answer but found nothing one way or the other. It seems to me that something broadcast in error to millions of people and THEN argued about on many websites should well have the truth told about it on the appropriate Wikipedia page, rather than have Wikipedia be just one more place people CAN'T find the answer. I do not know how to cite a reliable source that Durning was NOT the second most decorated soldier of World War II, because there ARE no sources or lists of people who are NOT the second most decorated soldier. No one seems to really know who the second most decorated soldier was, and therefore no citation of the actual person can be made. But the one undisputed fact is that Durning won 1 Silver Star and 3 Purple Hearts, which is not remotely enough decorations to make him the "second most decorated." I think Durning was a hero and deserves to be recognized as such. But not by allowing untruths to stand. Burt Reynolds made a mistake, but he made it to millions of people, many of whom are now trying to learn the truth. Wikipedia ought to be a place they can learn it. A Google search of "Charles Durning" "most decorated" will turn up many conversations among people who'd like to know if Reynolds spoke the truth. A number of those conversations state that Wikipedia was no help. I'm trying to provide that help. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what "most decorated" means. If soldier A got 3 Bronze Stars and soldier B got a Silver Star and a Purple Heart and soldier C got a Medal of Honor, that would mean the A had three decorations, B had two and C had one. Would that mean that A is "more decorated" than B or C? I don't think so. I don't think there is an established standard for determining what medals make a serviceman "more decorated" than another. It is often said that Audie Murphy was the most decorated serviceman of WWII, which can probably be established regardless of the standard, but it gets tricky after that. --rogerd (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you make an excellent point. I'm supposing that Audie Murphy had more different combat decorations than any other soldier (the 3 Bronze Stars you mention as example would be 3 decorations), but it's very hard to sort out after that. A soldier might well get a handful of theatre and campaign ribbons simply by being transferred a lot during the war, but that hardly makes him "more decorated" than someone who "only" got the Silver Star. There seems to be this need in human nature to separate things in a best-next best-third best sort of way, but I think it's a short trip to disservice down that path. There also seems to be a need to pump up the war record of celebrities as if to shore up their "specialness." Hence Burt Reynolds calling Durning the "second most decorated soldier" when he could have made quite the legitimate point by saying Durning won a Silver Star and 3 Purple Hearts. The debate over whether Reynolds inadvertently inflated Durning's record diminishes the importance of the actual facts. As a combat veteran myself, I wouldn't want people arguing over whether I was second, third, or 345th most decorated. That, it seems to me, would miss the point. Monkeyzpop (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I had the priviledge and honor to meet Charles Durning some years ago, when I was on The Los Angeles St. Patrick's Day Committee, and we made him "Grand Marshall" for the parade in Hollywood. At that time,in my pre-understanding of conversations I had with his spouse, Mr. Durning did not like to discuss his involvement in the landing at Omaha Beach that fateful day with The 1st. Division. What I know now, was and is still a missed opportunity for us to discuss this event, because like Mr. Durning, my Grandfather, Brigadier General, Norman Cota was an assistant Commander of the 29th. Division, and a former Chief of Staff for the 1st. Division. He was one of the military masterminds of The Invasion of Normandy that also landed at Omaha Beach. Being a fellow member of The Screen Actors Guild with Mr. Durning, I hope one day to meet with him again. Alfred "Ed Moch" Cota. Aedwardmoch (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There are different ways to calculate "most decorated" and it's exacerbated by the fact that some awards are delayed by decades. But, there is no way Durning is the second most decorated hero of WWII, see Audie Murphy and Matt Urban. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

i'm confused because it seems that three purple hearts are claimed, but only two instances of being wounded are cited. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.70.124 (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Legion of Honor

Charles Durning was presented with the French Legion of Honor on April 22, 2008 (last week). The ceremony took place in Los Angeles and the presenter was Philippe Larrieu, Consul General of France. Both his war record and his acting career were mentioned. 68.124.153.86 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Gerard

I've cited a copy of the speech given as the source for the Bronze Star and World War II Victory Medal. He should have been entitled to the latter according to the requirements in the article. What about other "service awards", like the American Campaign Medal and European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, which it seems that he should have also qualified for? What about unit awards (if we can get a clearer list of which units he was in)? Of course, a pic in dress uniform would help. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Pre 1973

Other than his wartime experiences, the article makes no mention of Charles Durning's career pre 1973. I'd be interested to learn how he came into show business - his turn in "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" shows him to be a gifted dancer. Anyone have any further information ??? David T Tokyo (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He also appeared in That Championship Season on Broadway and that was arguably as big a boost to his career as The Sting. This article definitely is deficient in chronicling his career, with major gaps. It's great that his war record is chronicled, and it is certainly interesting, but it seems overweighted. He is mainly known as an actor, not as a soldier. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that his stage career is largely overlooked here. Also, an important film role was 1979's North Dallas Forty, where he was billed 3rd, behind Nick Nolte and Mac Davis. --rogerd (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a major hole in the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP issue re PTSD claims

I realize it's no shame to have post traumatic stress disorder, but I think that any such assertions in an article must be sourced, as per BLP. Same for passage saying he was hospitalized for physical and "mental" wounds. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Malmedy survivor?

There was some discussion a few months ago about whether or not Durning was a survivor of the Malmedy massacre. I wonder whether it might be able to get some rock solid sources on this. The French government apparently issued a statement mentioning Malmedy, but the closest I can come is this[1]. But then I found a book in Google Books on actors serving in the military (Duty, Honor, Applause) that talks about Durning's service in the Rangers, says some of his fellow rangers were killed at Malmedy but says nothing about his escaping.[2]. Further thoughts on this would be helpful. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The comments at the bottom of the bhcnp article would indicate that this is disputed by others. Is it possible that he isn't even aware that some are attributing this to him? I can't imagine that he would be fibbing about this. --rogerd (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason some people are disputing it appears to be linked to the fact that reference books on Malmedy do not mention Charles Durning as a survivor. However, these same reference books are discredited (see above in the section on WW2) in General Reynolds essay on Malmedy.

It is now a fact that Charles Durning's war record - including his involvement at Malmedy - has been publicly detailed by the French Consul. Given that the statement was made when they were presenting him with the Legion of Honor - one of France's highest awards - one can regard this summary of his military service as coming from a highly authoritative source. Any views contrary to this now need to be backed up with compelling evidence. In other words, until such point as we know for a fact otherwise, Charles Durning WAS at Malmedy David T Tokyo (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I re-read the article, and I can't imagine the French government making this kind of statement without being certain of the facts. --rogerd (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly is the French government above making a mistake or repeating something someone found on French Wikipedia or something like that? The Malmedy incident was in Belgium, not France. I'm not saying Durning was not a survivor of Malmedy, but that the French government in some proclamation saying so isn't the same as research or primary sources. Now the interesting situation I have is that a close friend of mine is a very close friend of Durning, and I could easily get him to ask Durning. But I'm not sure how I could use that in WP, since only published sources can be used as citations, and a direct statement from Durning would be OP. Wouldn't it? Monkeyzpop (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"The French government in some proclamation saying so isn't the same as research or primary sources". No. It's much better - this time it's a matter of official record.

At the risk of repeating myself continuously let me once again quote General Michael Reynolds in his detailed essay (2003) on Malmedy. His first paragraph highlights the reason why he's even writing the essay. "*Nazis Turned Machine Guns on GI POWs* wrote Hal Boyle in his January 1945 Stars and Stripes article, and from that first graphic account sprung a plethora of books and articles about the so-called Malmédy Massacre. Few of these accounts are based on fact, and most are embellished and inaccurate."

Looking back through Wikipedia, there are three main reasons that exist in the argument that Charles Durning could NOT have been at Malmedy.

1) The first was that there was no official statement/record that placed Durning at Malmedy. Indeed, for a while it was thought that it was a rumour that had been made up on Wikipedia. Now, following the statement from the French Consul, we DO have an official statement, from a very high source, that Durning was indeed at Malmedy. Therefore this reason no longer applies.

2) The second reason was that other documents on Malmedy, including lists of survivors, failed to identify Durning. I've already dealt with this - Gen. Reynolds essay not only discredits these accounts, but does so in a remarkably withering fashion. Here we have a senior member of the forces telling us, in his opening statement - his first breath, if you like - NOT to believe what we've been reading. Therefore this reason also no longer applies.

3) The third reason revolves around how Durning came to be at Malmedy in the first place. Michael Dorosh (16/6 2006 above) puts it best - "How likely is it for a rifleman in the 1st Infantry Division on Omaha Beach to later be reassigned to an artillery observation battalion (which comprised the victims of the Malmedy massacre)?". There are two parts to this - the units Durning served in during WW2 and the process by which he came to be at Malmedy.

a) The French Consul tells us that Durning served "with the US Army Rangers, with a Field Artillery unit and with the 398th Infantry Regiment." He was never with the the 1st Infantry Division but only served alongside them. This would also have been the case when he was with the Field Artillery Unit. Some have questioned how Durning came to be with so many different units of the US Army. The reason (as it always is) is remarkably simple - the US Army had a policy of not returning wounded to their own units (Durning was seriously injured three times in WW2).

b) The French Consul also says that: "On December 16th his unit was overrun and captured in Belgium by an SS Panzer Unit that was taking no prisoners. PFC Durning was one of only a few soldiers to escape and survive the subsequent notorious Malmedy [ed note: Dec 17th] massacre." In other words, Durning wasn't a member of the artillery observation battalion - he was a POW, brought in by the SS Panzer Unit. The AOB weren't the only members of the Allied forces at Malmedy - a point made quite clearly in Gen. Reynolds account when he talks about the SS Panzer unit arriving at Malmedy with prisoners. We now have the background as to how Durning came to be Malmedy - and therefore this reason equally no longer applies.

What occurred at Malmedy has been the subject of an intense amount of speculation and research and I fully understand the questions (and eyebrows) that have been raised concerning Durning's involvement. More than fifty years after the massacre at the Baugnez crossroads we suddenly have a new name being mentioned. On the face of it, it seems inconceivable. However, once again I find myself turning to General Reynolds and his assessment that what we have been reading is "inaccurate". I cannot over-emphasise how important that phrase is.

Some have questioned the authority, and validity, of the French consuls statement (even going so far as to infer they might have copied it from Wikipedia). Some have said that the statement itself can be ignored as Malmedy is in Belgium, not in France (correct, but it is also part of the French community of Belgium). These questions and issues are, at best, speculative and, if they are ever to be taken seriously, have to be supported by evidence that directly challenges the French Consuls statement.

The bottom line is this: We have an official statement from the French Consul that places Charles Durning at Malmedy. Irrespective of any other accounts, this is THE most public statement regarding Durning and Malmedy. It is now a matter of public record and Wikipedia needs to recognise that.David T Tokyo (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think everybody's raised good points. I tend to agree with David T Tokyo, but I'd feel better if the declaration appeared in a better source than the one we have, preferably an official one. I've posted on this in the Military History WikiProject in the hope that maybe some better sourcing can be found. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guys, remember, stay cool, alright? Also, if you can't agree on whether he did or not, why not have the sentence "There are accounts that Durning managed to escape the massacre, but no sources can be found that explicitly confirm or disprove this." (or something like that). Then, use a note explaining the situation of French govt. vs. no reference books that confirm it, and maybe something about the added problem of speculation about the battle(?). Would this be a satisfactory compromise? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading through all the comments again, it seems to me that this is basically a WP:RS issue. If bhcnp.org is a reliable source for the text of the French declaration, then I would suggest that we view the French statement as definitive and use it as necessary within the article. If the French are wrong, that is their problem not ours. I would not add anything to detract from the French declaration unless a reliable source specifically does so. I was hoping that we get a better source, so why don't we wait a few days to see if anyone from the MilHist project has a suggestion. There's no rush. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Harry - let's wait and see.

Part of the problem here is that timing is also involved. The French statement is less than a year old, postdating virtually all of the reference material. Durning himself never spoke about his service record for 60 years (question: does that also mean he chose to keep it hidden?) and that could well be part of the reason why there's so much confusion on this issue.

While I feel that the French statement must be accepted, I also think that it is important to solve the riddle of how Charles Durning's name suddenly appears on the list of survivors after more than sixty years of research on Malmedy. For me the question is not "Was Charles Durning at Malmedy?", the question is "How can one of the most documented incidents of WW2 have missed placing Charles Durning at Malmedy?" It would be a good one for a Military Historian to look into - my suspicion is that the question cannot be answered with existing research material. David T Tokyo (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's perhaps illusionary, but we could ask the SS-veterans for information(they're organized and slowly dying out). They will possibly not know their former enemy by name, but they might know what kind of soldiers they made prisoners and killed. This could be turned into a minor release for the media which we can in turn use as a source. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems a bit too much like original research. Since there is no better sourcing, the question now boils down to whether bhcnp.org is a reliable source for the text of the French declaration. If so, the mention of Malmedy should go in. The only thing holding this up now, from where I sit, is whether this website can be used as a source in a BLP on something quite as sensitive as this. One thing that may help is that I believe there is a video of Durning talking about his war experiences. If he mentions Malmedy, that resolves the issue as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I suggest inserting a reference to him as a Malmedy survivor based on bhcnp.org. One possible explanation for his not being mentioned on this, or vocal generally on World War II, is that I found him listed in Halliwell's Filmgoers Companion as born in 1933. This may have been a mistake or perhaps not, but it would explain why an actor, in an age sensitive business, would not want to publicize a World War II war record. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stetsonharry. No objections at all - I think there's been more than enough time for people to put forward other views for this. By way of interest I have some more references on the French Consul's award.

http://westlaonline.com/wcnp_article.php?articleid=5

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-today/25135-they-also-served-celebrities-uniform-ww2.html

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/04/france_honors_charles_dur.php

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1401379.php/France_says_Viva_Charles_Durning_actor_and_war_hero

BTW - 1933 is obviously wrong. He would only have been 11! —Preceding unsigned comment added by David T Tokyo (talk • contribs) 05:27, February 23, 2009

I would agree. This looks like something that is now well sourced. I don't think a reasonable person could argue that he wasn't at Malmedy now. --rogerd (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would say that a reasonable person could still argue that he might not have been at Malmedy, but that there are a number of apparently reliable sources that state that he was. That's not quite the same thing. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't know where that number came from. If from Mr. Durning, no shame in it at all (a common practice) it would explain why we haven't heard about his war record until recently.

As for Malmedy, let's go ahead. But remember that, wonderful as his war record is, what makes him notable is his role as a Broadway and Hollywood character actor. The performing arts aspect of this article needs to built up and we mustn't give undue weight to his war record. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the age thing was probably just a misprint. Why not use the exact same text regarding Malmedy as occurred in the FC's statement? That's short and definitive. Thanks for your help with this. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Yes, that suggestion re Malmedy is a good idea. Meanwhile, I want to go back and see if I can get more substance to his performing arts career. He began on the stage and became well known through his work on a play called That Championship Season, which needs to be mentioned.Stetsonharry (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I should maybe have taken part earlier to this discussion. I must acknowledge that several websites clearly state that durning was at the Baugnez crossroad when the massacre occured. This seems even to have publicly said by the French consul in LA during an official ceremony that took place a few years ago. And yet I am still very far from being convinced. Not because I wuld think that Mr. Durning did not do his duty during the war. But simply because I am interested in the Malmedy massacre for several years, which means I have spend much time on the question and read a lot of books. Never has Mr. Durning's name been quoted in any single book I have read. Furthermore one should keep in mind that all survivors to the massacre, i.e. the men who were in the pasture and who managed to escape the slaughter are all identified and have been interrogated by the US Army as their testimonies where the first material on which the judges would rely during the process. Again, Charles Durning is nowhere to be found among these men. In that respect I would draw you attention to the fact that one should make a distinction between the survivors, i.e. the men in the pasture, and the other men who escaped the massacre because for one or other reason they were not at the crossroads when and where they were supposed to be when the massacre occured (I think for instance to a man the artillery observer battalion who had been left in Malmedy because he suddenly fell ill: he escaped the massacre but is not a survivor). Other men could probably have the same luck. They are not survivors although they escaped the massacre.

Earlier in the discussion somebody (rightfully) pointed out General Reynold's sentence "Few of these accounts are based on fact, and most are embellished and inaccurate". I would however draw you attention to the fact that this sentence merely concerns the way the event has been related in many books, i.e. the relation of the facts, how things happened. One one side they are based on the testimonies made by the American survivors, which must been seen as relations made by guys who had escaped to an almost promissed death, who were under shock, often wounded and who had some difficulties to make a coherent relation of the facts. On the other side there are based on what the Germans say (at least those who are ready to admit they actually were there: curiously if you listen at the men of Peiper, almost all were miles away from that particular place a that particular time): most of the times, this is presented as an unfortunate accident due to the fact that some US PoWs had tried to escape. Of course all those who have writen on that massacre have emphasised one or other point of view according to their preference: som tried to whitewash the Germans others of course have pointed out how bestial they have been. The statement of Reynolds does however not mean that the name of the survivors are wrong or unknown. I really think that this aspect of the massacre is well documented and available to every historian.

Finally, this story about Durning present at the crossroad is running on several websites since many years. I furthermore noticed that these websites often copy that material from one to the other (which means nobody actually checks the accuracy of that information). The fact is mentioned, but a reliable source (e.g. a book writen by an historian, for instance) is never goven by these websites. I realize that one will oppose the statement of the French consul. Frankly speaking I have doubts about this. Has he really said this. I could find no trace of this on the website of the French consulate. But it should be possible to ask them whether they have kept a record of this speach. On the other hand I am far from being convinced that the fact this would have been said by the French consul (if it was the case) make it the revealed truth. Can we really exclude that the speach could have writen by a lazzy (or gullible) employee who could simply have made a copy/paste of what he had found on a website without making any check?

In conclusion I still have strong doubts about this story and I think that one should check for more reliable sources before writing that Mr. Durning is a Malmedy massacre survivor. --Lebob-BE (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said. This is exactly the point I was making earlier--not that the French consul made a disingenuous statement, but that we don't know how that statement was arrived at. For WP purposes, any published citation is sufficient, but I think we'd all agree that we'd rather have the right information than the wrong information properly cited. I have not had a chance to exploit my connection to Durning, but hope to be able to soon. OR, of course, but it might help us decide what sources to seek for citation. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks as always to everyone for their contributions. I appreciate this is not an easy one...

The issue for me is this:

1) Up until April 2008 there was no official statement that placed Charles Durning at Malmedy. People, quite rightly, pointed out that as long as this was the case the story could never be accepted as fact (and understandably many viewed it as a myth).

2) In April 2008 an official statement was made that DID place Durning at Malmedy.

3) The statement didn’t come from Durning himself, nor did it come from a speculative source, but from a senior French Government Official as part of a very public and prominent award-giving ceremony.

4) The statement has been quoted, in part and in full, on several websites.

5) This statement takes precedence over everything that came before it. Right or wrong, it IS official.

We have no knowledge of how the French Statement was put together. It may, as has been suggested, have been put together by a lazy employee but we cannot reject the statement on the possibility that might have been the case. We have to prove, not surmise, that a lazy employee was involved. An official statement is exactly that – official.

(For those who believe in the under-researched / lazy employee theory, I should point out that there is a there is a HUGE organisation involved in the Legion d’Honneur, the award Durning received. For details see http://www.legiondhonneur.fr/shared/fr/ordresdecorations/fhist.html. Click on the Institution link at the top and then the La Grande Chancellerie - Organisation link on the left).

There is concern that no definitive version of the French Statement exists. This is incorrect – the bhcnp site lists the statement in full, as does the West LA online site. LA observed and M&C both quote extracts from it (with M&C paraphrasing occasionally). The fact that these statements are identical, all published within a few hours of each other, can be taken as corroborating evidence.

I fully appreciate that this statement runs at odds with what was previously known about the survivors at Malmedy. I have already said that this needs to be looked into. (“For me the question is not "Was Charles Durning at Malmedy?", the question is "How can one of the most documented incidents of WW2 have missed placing Charles Durning at Malmedy?"). It is a question for military researchers and historians.

Until such time as someone can prove (not speculate – prove) he wasn’t, Charles Durning WAS at Malmedy. It is now a matter of official record. David T Tokyo (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have read again the part of the speach of the French consul and to say the least, it contains many inaccuracies[3]. I copy the part of this speach that interesses us: "Charles landed at Omaha Beach on D-Day 1944 early in the day as part of an Army Ranger Battalion, alongside the 1st Infantry Division. Although his unit suffered severe casualties he managed to reach safety. In late June 1944, Charles was seriously wounded by a mine at Les Mare des Mares, France and spent almost 6 months recovering. When the German Ardennes offensive broke out in December 1944, he was rushed to the front lines and suffered severe bayonet wounds in hand to hand combat. On December 16th his unit was overrun and captured in Belgium by an SS Panzer Unit that was taking no prisoners. PFC Durning was one of only a few soldiers to escape and survive the subsequent notorious Malmedy massacre". First of all we learn that in late June 1944 he was wounded by a mine (in the Wikipedia article the date is 15 June, but OK) and that he spend almost 6 month recovering. End of June + six month would make end of December. However Day 1 of the German offensive through the Ardennes was 16 December. Let's assume that he had recovered shortly before the German breakout and was on the frontline or close to it. The speach indeed says that when the offensive broke out, i.e. the 16th December, he was rushed to the frontline. If I remember well, no US reinforcement troop reached the frontline on December 16. However, the speach is drafted as Durning would have been enroled in such a reinforcement troop and not already on the front. The same day, still the 16 December, he suffers severe bayonet wounds in hand to hand combat. Well, if this is true, why is he not sent back to the rear to a military hospital? Furthermore, according to the account of the French consul, the same day his unit is overrun and cpatured in Belgium by an SS Panzer Unit that was taking no prisoners. Do you not think that this is many things for one single half day? Rushed to the front (the offensive began at 5 p.m. with a German artillery fire), enduring severe bayonet wounds and finally taken prisoners by the SS Unit who would later on mow down its prisoners with machine guns (the massacre happened around 2 p.m.). in fact there is already one huge mistake in the account of the French consul. The 16th December 1944 at nightfall, the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, which is the division to which the Kampfgruppe Peiper - which perpetrated the massacre - belonged was still kilometers behind the frontline. The Kampfrgruppe Peiper did not break out before the early hours of 17 December. And the massacre occured on 17 December and not on the 16th. If the speach of the French consul proves something, it is that Reynold's sentence "few of these accounts are based on fact, and most are embellished and inaccurate" is right, not that Durning was there. If Durning would have been in the pasture, with severe bayonet wounds, there is no doubt that one at least of the survivors would have noticed the fact and tell about this later on. And one can also guess that some of the German SS would have noticed as well. I have never read one single sentence about such a fact. Furthermore, I have the regret to say that the way in which the facts are presented makes me think that this part of Charles Durning's life has not been writen by an employee of the French consultate after thorough researches but rather by a Hollywood scriptwriter who had gathered some material found here and there on websites. As the story is presented it does simply not make sense. This speach simply proves nothing but that a rumor spread over the web can end up in an official speach given by a French consul in the United States. --Lebob-BE (talk)

12:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In which case, Lebob-E, you need to take this up directly with the French Consulate - not here. However, I would caution you to look very carefully at what you're saying as there is a great deal of supposition and theorising in your reply. However, if you are convinced and wish to see the French Statement retracted or corrected, it's up to you to try and achieve that. Until then, the French Consuls statement remains official. David T Tokyo (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It remains of course official and thus officialy contains awful mistakes and inaccuracies. By the way, there is not much supposition or theory in my reply. I have just put forward several statements of the speach that were against all logic and showed a very poor knowledge of the Battle of the bulge and the Malmedy massacre. No surprise here: the French are known for being quickly lost once having to deal with foreign history and geography. There is a lots of historical reliable sources relating to the Malmedy massacre. None of these has ever cited the name of Durning. The oldest occurence of Durning being at Malmedy that I could find on the web is this one, where no formal evidence of Durning being a survivor is given. This the same absence of evidence, reference or reliable source for all websites that say Durning was at the crossrads, despite all the books that have been written on this topic. Many others websites you can find on the web are only mirrors of the Wikipedia article on the Malmedy massacre in an earlier version, which makes me think that I should have removed any reference to Durning from this article in early 2007 when I have translated into English the French featured articule on the same topic. I have nothing against Charles Durning but I simply think there is no reason to make him a Malmedy survivor if he is not. And it is not the speach of a French diplomat that will change my mind on this point. --Lebob-BE (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat - take it up directly with the French Consulate. If you're as convinced as you seem to be, you shouldn't have any problem getting them to change the statement (although I would strongly advise that you don't repeat your line about the French being "lost") Until then, your version of what you believe happened at Malmedy is exactly that - YOUR version of what you BELIEVE. And that, Lebob-BE, is a long, long way from being either factual or official. David T Tokyo (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of believing. As a matter of fact Durning's name can't be found in the hundreds of books that have been written on the battle of the bulge and/or the Malmedy massacre. Almost 60 years after the facts his name suddenly pops up on a website as being a survivor but not document supporting that theory can be viewed or found. It is very obvious that this story got its own life until the moment were it was "officialised" through a speach of a French official. Everybody knows that official statement doesn't necessarily mean truth. Mistakes occurs and I don't even speak about voluntary lies. Finally I have no beliefs about what happened at Malmedy. I have read enought material on this topic to know what happened and also to know that Durning's name appears nowhere in the numberous relations and reports that have been writen to this event. And that's still the key point. --Lebob-BE (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

<Everybody knows that official statement doesn't necessarily mean truth.>

I'm afraid that's where your argument runs out of steam. On that basis everything ever quoted is potentially false - a ridiculous proposition.

I repeat one last time, if you "know" - as you insist you do - why don't you contact the French Embassy and get them to retract the statement? I can't understand why you're so emphatic here, but so unwilling to prove your case in public. Go for it - its obviously a field of study that you enjoy and you have the chance to make your name. Set the record straight and, once you have, we can revise it here. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry I will do it. This being said, I do not think my arguments are running out of steam. Since the speach itself contains some factual mistakes (fro instance saying that Durning was captured by the men belonging to the Kampfgruppe Peiper on 16 December while it is very clear that this was impossible) or that no other external reliable source confirms the content of the speach is already enough to question its accuracy on Durning's presence in Malmedy. I am usually ready to believe statements made by officials, but when in a particular statement I realize that there are factual mistakes on things that one would expect are well known, I think I am entitled to express some douts about the accuracy of the whole statement. No more no less. You know, yesterday morning the Turkish Minister of transport was telling that nobody died in the plane crash in Amsterdam while in the meantime the Dutch TV was showing first aid workers removing body bags from the plane. Well those who have heard or read that statement while watching the TV were (rightfully) entitled to have doubts with respect to the accuracy of that statement. And so am I with respect to the speach of the French consul. By the way, this document which is the activity report of the 398th infantry regiment in which Durning is supposed to have served shows that the regiment was in Alsace on 17 December, thus 400 kilometers away from Baugnez crossroads. --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to read the press statement again. It says that his time with the 398th Infantry division was AFTER Malmedy. He was with a Field Artillery Unit at the time of Malmedy. See how easy it is to get things wrong?

And, with respect, there is a huge amount of difference between a press statement made as events are unfolding (the Turkish Air Disaster) and a press Statement made after months of planning (the Legion d'Honneur) David T Tokyo (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well just have a look at this webforum where one of the poster writes that his father, John A. O'Connell was a survivor of the massacre but never said anything about Durning. Futhermore in this [very extensive document http://stephane.delogu.free.fr/hs12-07.pdf] on the massacre (it's in French sorry), you will see O'Connell's name appear several time (first occurence p. 11), but never the name of Charles Durning. As to the press statement made after months of planning, let's say that I have serious doubts about this "planning" when I read that on put on 16 December an event that occured on 17 December. As to the unit in which he was enroled. I have read that he would have been in the Big Red One, or in ranger unit, then in an Field Artillery Unit (which one? he was certainly in the 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion, this would have been known since long time) or in the 386th Anti-aircraft Artillery Battalion (which has never been present in the region at that time if I am well informed). In fact there is not even a possibility to find accurate and proven information telling us in which unit of the US army was Charles Durning on 16 and 17 December 1944. On pages 58 and 59 of the French document you can find a list of the victims with the units to which they were belonging: no trace of one of the unity in which Durning would have been enroled during the war. As you have writen, "Some have questioned the authority, and validity, of the French consuls statement (even going so far as to infer they might have copied it from Wikipedia). Some have said that the statement itself can be ignored as Malmedy is in Belgium, not in France (correct, but it is also part of the French community of Belgium). These questions and issues are, at best, speculative and, if they are ever to be taken seriously, have to be supported by evidence that directly challenges the French Consuls statement". Well I think that I have raised several points that seriously and directly challenge he French Consuls statements. --Lebob-BE (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, with respect, your last "point" turned out to be invalid.

However, you're misunderstanding this. Raising "points" as you call it, is not the same as providing evidence. You're putting your faith in a bunch of historical documents that have been discredited by General Reynolds ("Few of these accounts are based on fact, and most are embellished and inaccurate.").

History revises itself on a continuous basis as new information is found or becomes available. With regard to this particular incident, General Reynolds was revising what happened at Malmedy nearly 60 years after the massacre occurred. The French Consul has given us further information with regard to one particular participant who, for over sixty years, never, ever discussed his wartime activities. This is new information and to dismiss it, you have to tackle it head on. You have to prove - with evidence - that Charles Durning was NOT at Malmedy. You can't dismiss it by referring to the past because - I say again - this is NEW evidence which the past never even knew about.

Can I make a suggestion? I'm happy to continue this conversation but I don't think it's right to it here. I've been reluctant to reply in detail to the points you raise simply because this page is already getting way too long and you and I are obviously some distance from consensus. If you'd like to use my own talk page to carry this conversation on - let's do that. What do you think?

Whatever, it'll have to be tomorrow, I'm signing off for today. Ciao. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article of Reynolds has been published in 2003. A part of the material I am relying on has been published after 2003. This is notably the case for the document in French. And for the documents published before Reynolds article, my main source is the book of Charles McDonald on the battle of the bulge. I cannot understand how one could think that a speach (full of mistakes, as I have clearly shown it) made by a consul is a new historical evidence. No serious historian would take this as an evidence that Durning was at the crossroads if there are no other documents evidencing this.

There is no reason to continue this discussion on your talkpage. This is the talkpage associated to the article on Charles Durning. As such it is the most suited page to have this discussion. --Lebob-BE (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then Lebob-BE we will have to agree to disagree. I'm not prepared to waste any more time talking to you if your only position is to dismiss the French Consul's statement on the basis that you "know" it is riddled with errors. Finally, please don't lecture me about "serious historians" - to be part of that fraternity you need, among other things, an open mind. You might want to think about that. David T Tokyo (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not only an open mind, but also a critical approach and a stringent judgement. And with respect to the statement, I "know" it is riddled with errors because it contains inaccuracies that any person having basic knowledge of the battle of the bulges can see at first reading, like "on December 16th his unit was overrun and captured in Belgium by an SS Panzer Unit that was taking no prisoners". The outbreak of the Kampfgruppe Peiper is one of the most important events of this battle. It is a well known and undisputed fact that it did not happen before 17 December 1944. This has thus nothing to do with the description of the massacre and the sentence of General Reynolds to which you constantly refer has thus nothing to do with this. The logical consequence of the fact that the Kampfgruppe Peiper was trampling on in the trafic jams on the rear of the German front on 16 December is that it could of course not make Durning prisoner the same day. If the statement is clearly inaccurate on such an important point, one can at least raise the question about the other parts of the same statement. And certainly when a critical reading of this statement shows that beside this inaccuracy, there are also other element that do not seem logic. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the re-assignment of soldiers - while it is common knowledge that the replacement system funneled troops from unit to unit after being wounded, they were still moved to units with respect to their training. The question of why a trained rifleman (if that is what he was on D-Day) would suddenly end up in a field artillery observation battalion (if that is what happened) on 17 December is still pertinent. It is possible that a riflemen might be reclassified as a driver due to the extent of his injuries and be given limited duties in a FAOB, so it is not inconceivable, but the point here is that there needs to be some reliable evidence. The French document being discussed is not. Not only has no text been provided from this document, but it sounds like the entire thing was cribbed from this very article. The suggestion that it should now be considered "definitive" is laughable, given that its origins are completely spurious.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to the French document have already been provided to enable users such as yourself to read it. Clearly you haven't done that and, instead, prefer to pass judgment on how it "sounds like". Forgive me, therefore, if I don't take your post all that seriously. If you want to get involved in this issue, the very least you should do is to read through all the detail before passing comment.

Aside from referring to the previous post, I have refrained from further comment on this issue as it is almost impossible to resolve as things currently stand. I don't believe for one minute in a "Wiki-cribbed version" of events as it implies complicity on the parts of all at the medal ceremony (Durning, friends/associates and the French LA Consulate). Equally, I cannot ignore the existing backlog of historical evidence of what occurred at Malmedy - none of which mentions Charles Durning. These two sit at opposite ends of the board, with no apparent link between them. It is a mystery waiting to be resolved. I wish it would be, I fear it won't. David T Tokyo (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Some insight (OR) This information isn't currently usable in the article itself, since I'm not aware of a published source that can be cited. But while I don't know Durning and have only met him once, he is close with several close friends of mine, and I asked them to ask him about the Malmedy thing. Durning does not claim to have been a Malmedy survivor. He describes in detail being captured by Germans and escaping, but NOT as part of the Malmedy events--not even at the same period of time. Unfortunately, Durning is very frail and his conversation is a bit wandering and imprecise. But he definitely does not claim to be a Malmedy survivor. I hope to get some kind of interview with him that can be published in order to cite these things, but with his current condition, I'm not sure it can be accomplished. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Al Pacino

we all have watched the cuban crime rags to ritches film with al pacino , i am personnely convinced that charles durning done a voice over for an emigration officer at the early stages of the film watch the start and the questions about the tattoo ,,,,if this is not charles durning voice then im an aardvaark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.160.21 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about Serpico. And yes, Durning was the voice of the Immigration Officer. He's uncredited but the details are all there on IMDB. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars

Every time I watch Star Wars episode IV (1977), I am certain I see Charles Durning as a foot soldier, Trying to defend the ship as Princess Leia records her message to Obi Wan in R2D2. It's right at the beginning of the movie. Is it him, or someone who really looks like him? He is not credited for being in Star Wars at IMDB. Wedinm (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not him. Binabik80 (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Survived massacre"

Regarding the lengthy Malmedy survivor? discussion above, today's AP story on Mr. Durning's death says he was "captured in the Battle of the Bulge and survived a massacre of prisoners." See: http://news.yahoo.com/durning-king-character-actors-dies-nyc-075353360.html

Sca (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this shows that with (or because) Internet nowadays wrong stories, rumors and legends are almost impossible to kill. They have their own life and re-surface regularly. I am therefore not surprised to see this story coming upfront again. The list of survivors of the Malmedy massacre is very well known and Durning's name does not appear in it. This does however not mean that he did not do his duty during WWII. --Lebob (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note, however, that the Malmedy Massacre was not the only massacre of prisoners to take place in World War II. While the Malmedy story does not seem to have much traction, it is possible that he survived a similar event elsewhere on the front during the Ardennes offensive. They were not unheard of where Waffen-SS units were operating; for example similar events happened during the Normandy fighting vis a vis 12th SS Panzer Division who murdered several dozen Canadian POWs in a number of separate instances.68.144.172.8 (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Third Army

Hi,

While the article notes there appears to be some confusion at Durning's war record (which unit he was with at any particular moment etc), I think the Third Army [art needs to be clarified. Durning stated he took part in the D-Day landings, and the article notes he was with 1st Infantry. The American D-Day beach landings were under the command of US 1st Army, and the 1st Infantry was part of the First Army until - afaik - until the end of the war in Europe. So when was he a member of Third Army, during or after the war?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Silver Star Citation

It seems to me we should be able to track down (and then link to) Durning's Silver Star citation, which would provide date, circumstances and probably unit of assignment at the time. But some quick Google searches, including this database of citations: http://www.homeofheroes.com/members/04_SS/2_WWII/indexes/army/Army-D.html does not contain the name Charles Durning. The rest of the Wikipedia article on World War II service is, as others have noted here, quite inconsistent. I'm beginning to wonder about the veracity of Mr Durning's World War II story.