text:
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)

 * The VA says he was at Malmedy
 * https://news.va.gov/98192/veteranoftheday-army-veteran-charles-durning/
 * Montalban (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2024 (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 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. —[  Alan M 1  (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. 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.. 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)

 * 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. 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)

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.
 * Here's evidence that Durning was not at Malmedy on Dec 17, 1944. -John A. O'Connell Jr.

Morning reports dated December 18th 1944 (see http://m.web2carz.com/article/article.php?articleId=2097) have since surfaced showing Durning assigned to the 12th Replacement Depot in England. The Malmedy Massacre took place on December 17, 1944 in Belgium. According to official documents he was in the following outfits after returning to duty.

12th Repl. Depot/ Repl. Co. X176A...Dec. 18, 1944 - Dec. 31, 1945 9th Repl. Depot/Det. #42 .................Dec. 31, 1944 - Jan.9, 1945 (France) 385th AAA Bn. Battery A .................Jan. 9, 1945 - Feb. 13, 1945 (Belgium) - Only C and D batteries received battle credit for the Bulge. 16th Repl. Depot / 88th Det................Feb. 13, 1945 - April 8, 1945 - Durning trained to become an MP and Qualified for the M-1 Rifle, on March 5, 1945.

17th Repl. Depot - April 8, 1945. 6991 Guard Company. Durning's unit guarded German POW's in Krippe, Germany until after VE Day, June 23, 1945. 159th Regiment. Durning was temporarily assigned to the Special Services (entertaining troops) before shipping home with the 398th Regiment in January, 1946.

 * 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)

 * Third Army didn't even exist on the continent until 1 August 1944 when it was activated under command of General Patton.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:8C44:3737:EB9F:C8D4 (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2023 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deemery (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

 * The article states that Burt Reynolds said he landed in Normandy on a Glider. He could not have landed on Omaha Beach and landed in a Glider.  Everything I have seen and heard otherwise says he landed at Omaha Beach.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcoach00 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

 * On the news this morning, reporting his death, it showed a clip of Charles Durning stating he landed on the beaches. To paraphrase the clip somewhat, he stated he was the second out of his landing craft and the first and third men were killed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The news report can be found here on Youtube. The report by CBS, shows him at the 2007 National memorial day concert, briefly, narrating what his experience was like.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally, here is Charles Durning talking himself at the 2007 National Memorial Day concert. The video, by PBS, can be foundhere. He makes no mention of a glider landing, however Durning narrates his beach landing. experience. Intrestinly, Tom Hanks states he was a ranger, not an infantryman with the 1st Infantry.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to question the man's word, however there does seem to be quite some confusion in regards to what he did and what unit he served with. This forum notes that several books contain rosters of who were in the ranger units and Durning's name does not appear in them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The silver star list does say it's probably only 80% complete, though I agree that the contradictions in the story are kind of bothersome. I hope it's mostly true, but it sounds like at least some of the stories circulating are doubtful. Tarchon (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

''In 1943 you joined the army, enlisting as an Army Ranger. Following your training period in 1943, you were sent to England in February of the following year. On D-Day, you took part in the invasion at Omaha Beach, landing early in the day with a battalion of Rangers, alongside the First Infantry Division.'' (No mention made of service with an antiaircraft unit)
 * There seems to be serious problems over Charles Durning's World War II exploits (Ranger, Infantry rifleman, anti aircraft artilleryman AND landing by glider in France) that I hope is seriously investigated, perhaps as a separate Wikipedia article . One possibility for the fact that Mr Durning's name is not found on the roster of those awarded a Silver Star Medal is that there are two versions of "Silver Star". One is the well known American military decoration, the other is a term for 5 bronze stars, for example if an American soldier was in four campaigns his records would read "Theatre Campaign Medal with 4 Bronze Stars" had he been in five it would have read "Theater Campaign Medal with Silver Star".
 * Reading the remarks by the French Consul General (no doubt prepared by a careless researcher using limited references to accomplish the job in a rapid period) only mentions
 * As pointed out, there is no official record of Mr Durning listed on any roll of a Ranger unit and in my knowledge elements of the Provisional Ranger Force were landed besides the 29th Infantry Division rather than the First Infantry Division. Can anyone track what year was the first claim that Mr Durning claimed to be a Ranger? I don't seem to recall it being used when he first came to prominance.Foofbun (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Frances Durning
In populating the Infobox, I made the assumption that Frances is Charles' sister because of the spelling of the name (instead of Francis), based on my experience (admittedly OR) and "Frances is a human name, the feminine version of Francis." at Frances (disambiguation). Now, the Early life section has been written in a way that claims Frances is a brother, though the cited source (IMDb) does not specify. Unless someone has a contradictory source, or different experience with the Frances/Francis spelling/gender distinction, I believe the section should assume she is a sister. —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 23:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC) (Edited 23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC))

Some information for your consideration

 * 1. The only troops to use gliders on D-Day were units of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions.
 * 2. 398th Infantry Regiment; part of the 100th Infantry Division
 * Activated 15 Nov 42 at Ft. Jackson, SC
 * Transferred 18 Jan 44 to Ft Bragg, NC
 * Staged 30 Sep 44 at Camp Kilmer, NJ
 * Embarked overseas movement 6 Oct 44 New York City, NY
 * Debarked (unopposed) 20 Oct 44 Marseille, France; unloaded dockside
 * Campaigns: Rhineland, Ardennes-Alsace, Central Europe; did not participate in the Battle of the Bulge-majority of the regiment’s combat occurred in the Vosges Mountains.
 * Assigned (at various times) to VI, XV, and XXI Corps of 7th Army
 * The Roll of Honor in the regiment’s history does not list Durning as a recipient of the Silver Star.

 * 3. 386th Anti Aircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion (semi-mobile)
 * Activated 10 Jan 43 at Camp Edwards, MA as 386th Separate Coast Artillery Battalion
 * Redesignated 30 Apr 43 as 386th AAA AW Battalion (semi-mobile)
 * Embarked overseas movement 29 Jan 44 at New York City, NY
 * Debarked 5 Feb 44 England
 * Embarked 10 Jul 44 (?) England
 * Debarked (unopposed) 11 Jul 44 France
 * Campaigns: Ardennes-Alsace, Central Europe, Normandy, Northern France, Rhineland, Central Europe
 * Largely confined to rear area duties – at one point it was one of the AA units defending Eisenhower’s headquarters. Later assigned to troops directly under command of Third Army (this explains the Third Army troops reference). Supported Third Army operations in the Battle of the Bulge on the southern shoulder of the Bulge. Did not engage any SS troops. The Malmedy Massacre occurred on the northern shoulder of the Bulge.
 * The Roll of Honor in the battalion’s history does not list Durning as a recipient of the Silver Star.

Oldbubblehead (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4. The Malmedy Massacre was exhaustingly investigated by the First Army. Durning does not appear in either the muster reports or morning reports of any of the units involved. He does not appear in the list of survivors. He does not appear in the list of survivors who were brought back to the massacre site. He was not a witness at the war crimes trial and he is not mentioned in any of the first person accounts of any of the survivors.
 * 5. The policy of not returning “recovered from wounds” soldiers to their original units was not a hard fast rule. It had much to do with the nature of the wounds, and the length and location of hospitalization. In any case, recovered soldiers were returned to units of their original branch. For example, tankers were returned to armored units, specialist troops (rangers, paratroops, etc.) were returned to those kinds of units, infantrymen were returned to infantry units.
 * 6. “Stars in Khaki” by Wise and Wilderson provides little information. It is apparently based on a June 1993 interview the source of which is not listed. The piece on Durning does not refer to any military units, does not claim that he landed in Normandy on D-Day and credits him only with a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. It does say that he was a survivor of the Malmedy Massacre. It also states that Durning was drafted in 1943 at the age of nineteens shortly before his twentieth birthday. The book contains a bibliography but no footnotes or citations within the text to explain sources.
 * 7. Whether true or not, the statements of the French Consul would not be admissible in any U.S. civilian or military court since they do not satisfy either the “Best Evidence” rule or the “Hearsay” rule.
 * 8. “Rangers in World War II” by Robert W. Black contains a complete roster of all Rangers who served during World War II. Durning is not listed. Black’s later book, “The Battalion: The Dramatic Story of the 2nd Ranger Battalion” goes into more detail about the 2nd Ranger Battalion. It contains a roster, list of decorations awarded, and some information on landing craft assignments. Again, Durning is not listed.

Durning's Military Service
I have received a copy of Durning's military records from the National Archives. Before I make any changes to his page, I have asked for some clarification from the Wikipedia powers that be. Wikipedia says no primary sources and the military record is a primary source. Unfortunatley, the secondary sources have most of his info wrong. Oldbubblehead (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Excellent. Since they are public records, can you post them here so we can see what we're talking about? Did you file just a single request for his record, or were they part of a larger collection that was released? I asked the NARA about making a bulk dump available to us as a resource but did not get a response. —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 07:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I filed an FOIA request with the National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records) which is a branch of the Nationa Archives and Records Administration specifically for Durning's records. Most of Durning's records (according to NPRC) were destroyed in the big 1973 fire. What I have are some thirty pages which include his medical records and his discharge papers. This is enough to follow his entire military history with only a few short gaps. Unfortunately, we don't know the reason behind some events, we don't know anything about his training, and we don't know the circumstances regarding the award of his Silver Star which he did in fact receive. Briefly, he served in two organizations, the 386th AAA AW Battalion (at the time he served it was part of 3rd Army Troops) and Company C, 1st Battalion, 398th Infantry Regiment, 100th Infantry Division. He did not land in Normandy on D-Day (he came ashore later in a replacement draft and was wounded before being assigned onward) and was nowhere near the Battle of the Bulge. He received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star (based on his having earned the Combat Infantryman Badge), the Purple Heart (one award), and several campaign awards. He was hospitalized three times: once for being wounded, once for evaluation of a possible hernia, and once for treatment of a minor illness. His final Army Branch of Service was with the Military Police.Oldbubblehead (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Interesting. Would it be possible to upload the lot to Commons? In any case I would have thought it reasonable to use the primary source as a basis for brief factual comments, to be followed by reportage from the secondary sources. For example, "Durning landed in Normandy on (date), x days after D-Day.(ref to primary source) In episode "S03E09" of the television program Dinner for Five, which also included Burt Reynolds, Dom DeLuise and Charles Nelson Reilly, Reynolds spoke about Durning's service career for him, as Durning did not like to talk about it much. Reynolds revealed that Durning was in a group of gliders who overshot their landing zone and that he had to fight alone all the way back to the beach. Reynolds also stated that his own father was there fighting about 15 yards away and that Durning was probably the most decorated veteran (then) still alive from World War II..."
 * Under the circumstances I might use words that don't endorse the secondary sources, perhaps "said" for "reveal", "claimed" for "stated". And so on for other incidents. I hope my thoughts are helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The records obtainable through a FOIA request are, of course, not the entire personnel file, which can only be obtained by the veteran and his/her next of kin. I wonder if at least some of the apparent inconsistencies might not be cleared up if the entire file were available (which may, of course, not be possible due to the fire). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, in the case of deceased "persons of exceptional prominence" an exception is made to the next of kin policy. I was told that they provided me everything that was available. This would seem to be true since nothing is more personal than medical records and they sent me those. If you accept that his military record is the gold standard then what is available turns some of the inconsistencies into impossibilities. For example, all the gliders landed in the Utah Beach area. All the medical units Durning passed through on June 15th were located in the Omaha Beach area. The gliders landed on D-Day. Durning was in a replacement draft. The earliest a replacement might have appeared was June 8th. Durning's medical evacuation tag lists his replacement unit as his parent unit. Had he come ashore on D-Day, the tag would have listed one of those units as the source. Also, his discharge papers would have listed another unit(s) besides the two they do list. I think we can conclude from this that Burt Reynold's statements (and many others as well) are "misinformed." Mr. Keatinge has indeed made a valuable suggestion. My goal is to prevent the information present in his military record. I will leave it to others to reconcile the record with subsequent versions. I will post some of what I have on "commons" once I figure out how to do that. Most of the documents are not going to scan well. I am willing to furnish copies by mail (provided there aren't a large number of requests and the requesters are willing to pay for the postage). Of course, anyone can contact St. Louis, pay their $30 and receive the same package I did. I will tie all my findings up in a neat bundle and present them here as a strawman just as soon as I can.Oldbubblehead (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to Oldbubblehead for excellent original source efforts! The "confusion" regarding Mr. Durning's service is far more extensive than has been touched on here. A few additional points.

- Mr. During supposedly told a close friend that the reason he was transferred to the Rangers was because he hit an officer, and was therefore given the choice of either Leavenworth or the Rangers. Given the scores of thousands of trained infantry replacements prepositioned in Britain in anticipation of D-Day casualties (over 88,000 replacements of all types had been 'stockpiled' in the UK by 7 Jun 44), it defies belief that the Rangers would accept a last minute replacement who was not even infantry qualified. And the Rangers were not a dumping ground for disciplinary problems.

- According to another source, Durning and 12 others were levied out of C/386 AAA/AW on 23 May 44, just two weeks before D-Day and assigned to the 17th Replacement Depot; he arrived in Normandy still assigned to a detachment of that Depot (as Old bubblehead noted). It isn't clear if he were a replacement en route to a line unit, or a member of the replacement detachment's cadre when he was wounded in Normandy on 15 Jun (the initial replacement detachments were displacing to operate from Normandy during this same week).

- Should note that at the time Mr. Durning would have served with the 386th AAA (AW) Bn (he joined the unit while still stateside and he was levied out on 23 May 44 . . . before D-Day), it and the Third Army were still in England, not yet having been in combat.

- After being wounded in Normandy, Mr. Durning was declared fit for duty on 6 Dec and transferred to the 10th Replacement Depot (in England) on 12 Dec 44. The Battle of the Bulge started on 16 Dec 44, and the Malmedy massacre happened on 17 Dec 44. So,
 * 1) The Battle of the Bulge did not break out the day he got out of the hospital, as he claimed; nor did the casualties from the Bulge result in his being rushed to the front as he claimed;
 * 2) He would have to have arrived in a unit by 16 Dec to be present for the Malmedy massacre the next day, but no one at higher commands realized the magnitude of the offensive on 16 Dec, much less been able to expedite replacements from England to arrive that very same day in forward units;
 * 3) The grossly incompetent personnel replacement system could not possibly have moved him to the front as quickly as his timeline claims. Even during the Bulge, it typically took replacements a month to process through from England to forward units.  [For what it is worth, at the height of the Bulge, my father - an infantry replacement - and a couple hundred other replacements spent 5 days stuck in a 40 & 8, travelling 120 miles just to get to Paris.  It took him 3 more weeks to get from Paris forward to an infantry regiment.  That's how bad the system was during the very same time Mr. Durning claims to have made it from the Replacement Depot to a unit in only 4 days!]

There is a significant question as to who he served with upon returning to the Continent.

- Are we supposed to believe - as some accounts hold - that after being levied out of the 386th AAA (AW) Bn, after being sent to Normandy as a replacement, after being wounded and after spending five months in a hospital recovering, that Mr. Durning returned back to the very same 386th AAA (AW) Bn he joined in '43? Of all the thousands of units in the ETO? Bubblehead, do Mr. Durning's record throw any light on this point?

- On the other hand, if he were assigned to the 398th Inf Regt upon discharge from the hospital - as most accounts reflect - that raises even more serious questions. They were fighting at Bitche, France, 200+ kilometers from Malmedy at the time of the Massacre. Worse, the 398th's own regimental history of its participation in WWII has a list of all its medal awardees; Mr. Durning is not listed as earning any medal of any kind with that unit. Not even a Bronze Star, much less a Silver Star.

- At least one account says he was assigned to the 159th Infantry Regiment. The problem here is that this regiment arrived in the ETO very late (mid-March 45), and was plugged into the then-reconstituting 106th Infantry Division to replace one of the two regiments destroyed during the Bulge. By the time the 106th was ready to resume combat operations (25 April 45) the war was winding down (VE Day was just two weeks later) and the division was relegated to running POW camps rather than fighting as an infantry division. It is hard to see where Mr. Durning would have earned a Silver Star with this unit.

- While many individual service records were indeed destroyed by fire, the General Orders which issued Silver Stars were stored at other locations - such as in the unit files - that have been archived at other facilities. The inability of anyone, to include his family, to produce these General Orders, or even cite the GO#, must arouse curiosity, to put it mildly. While Oldbubblehead's research apparently verifies the Silver Star, the issue will not be put to bed until the GO (with its citation extract) can be located. After all, few PFCs who earn the Silver Star remain as PFCs for long.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Mr. Durning's 'war record' merely consists of his own assertions (which varied greatly over the years) or retellings of his assertions, as understood or embellished by others. There are no original sources, official documents or corroborating accounts by those he served with that validate his stories. And there's the weakness in Wiki; the burden of proof should be on those making assertions of fact; instead, Wiki gives credence to unsubstantiated, possibly self-serving claims made by individuals, that are only bolstered by second and third hand retellings of that same man's stories. I would hope that the editors of this page would at least mention that there is controversy surrounding the many versions of his wartime service and that official records are at odds with many points. That at least would acknowledge the elephant in the room. We don't have to resolve the discrepancies, but we should at least note them. The current article, which avoids all discussion of these questions of fact, appears dedicated to burnishing and protecting his image, which seems a POV violation. I'd also hope that other identified incorrect entries be removed from the article, such as earning 3 Puprple Hearts (he earned just one); serving with the 1st Division (he did not) and receiving campaign credit for the Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes Campaign - which, again, he did not); Oldbubblehead's research has proven those elements invalid. Again, kudos to Oldbubblehead. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comments are well reasoned. The General Orders, as you mention, are available at the National Archives. There are a lot of them and it will take some hardy researcher a good while to slog through them. Unit rosters also exist but to access those you have to visit the Military Personnel Records Center in St.Louis in person! They don't make it easy. Alan M has offered to scan the documents and to make them available via an appropriate venue. I will be mailing them to him this week. Durning's records show that aside from his period of hospitalization he was only assigned to two units: the 386th AAA in Massachusetts (at that time part of Third Army troops - prior to the Third Army's departure for Europe) and the 398th Infantry Regiment in Europe sometime after December 1944. Were there others, his discharge papers would have listed them. Also, Durning's signature on his discharge papers attests that he agreed with their accuracy. Oddly, I have found one award which Durning earned and has not been credited to him. The German Occupation Medal was created after Durning mustered out. The award was made retroactive to early 1945 and was given to everyone in the 100th Infantry Division.Oldbubblehead (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Oldbubblehead. Do the records you have indicate the date and circumstances of his joining the Army?  He claimed he forged his mother's signature so he could join the Army while he was still 17 . . .  but that means he would have had to have joined by 28 Feb 1937841 (when he would have turned 18).  Of course that was nine or ten months before Pearl harbor, at the very least, so it makes no sense.  If you have it, I'd be interested in knowing his date of joining and whether he was drafted or enlisted.  If it isn't obvious from his records, I can use his service number to figure out the draft/volunteer angle, so I'd appreciate it if you can pass that along as well.  Many, many thanks.  98.255.89.22 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Durning was drafted Jan 20, 1943 into the Army of the United States; went on active duty Jan 27, 1943. Army Svc Nr: 32 726 378. Final Army Branch: Military Police; Final arm of service: Army Ground Forces-F [I don't know what the "F" stands for].Oldbubblehead (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Excellent, sir. Greatly appreciate your fine work. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oldbubblehead. Don't know whether you have seen this discussion of Mr. Durning's service: http://nmisscommentor.com/random-firings/charles-durning-obit-in-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-126171

Steve Karras - who wrote the web2carz article - joined the discussion and provided additional data from his research. He noted that 1) It appears Durning did not leave the replacement system till March 44 (well after Malmedy); 2) Durning was nominally assigned to the 159th Inf Regt, then transferred to the 398th Inf Regt when the former was shipped stateside in the Fall of 45; 3)Although he was nominally assigned to those infantry regiments, he actually was on temporary duty with the 20th Special Services Bn (an entertainment unit); and 5) Mr. Karras says he knows for a fact that Arlington has cut a new headstone for Durning which omits the Bronze Star medal and two of his supposed Purple Hearts.

He also points out that During's records only mention Silver Star, not Silever Star Medal. As you know, that is a critical difference. The Service Stars (or campaign stars or battle stars) came in bronze or silver. That can cause a number of types of confusion. In the past I've seen folks read an entry that said 'Bronze SS'and interpret it as the man earned both a Bronze Star Medal and a Silver Star Medal, when in fact it just denoted a single bronze Service Star for a campaign ribbon.98.255.89.22 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had not seen the NY Times commentary - interesting - it appears that the story is gaining traction. I would like to know where the 20th Special Services Battalion and 159th Infantry Regiment information came from. I would also like to know where his reporting date to the 398th came from. Durning's "Enlisted Record and Report of Separation-Honorable Discharge" block 33, lists his decorations and citations as follows: " American Service Medal, European African Middle Eastern Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Purple Heart, Silver Star, World War II Victory Medal." Note that the Purple Heart and Silver Star are not followed by the word "medal." Usually a silver start denoting five awards of a decoration or award is appended after the medal in question by use of the word "with.". My guess is that the typist omitted the word medal from Silver Star and Purple Heart because of a lack of space. The Silver Star Registry is not an official government site. Their records are derived from information received from veterans and researchers. They admit that it is not complete and is a work in progress. Awards of the Bronze Star Medal based on the Combat Infantryman Badge were not made by name. The authorization was given by a War Department General Order. It was up to the company clerks to hand out the Bronze Star to anyone in the unit who had the CIB. Durning's National Archives Form 13164 (Information Releasable Under the Freedom of Information Act" summarizes his decorations and awards as follows: "Expert Badge with Rifle Bar, American Campaign Medal, European African Middle Eastern Service Medal with one bronze star, Good Conduct Medal, Purple Heart Medal, Silver Star Medal, World War II Victory Medal, World War II Service Lapel Button." The cover letter I received from St.Louis states "The Bronze Star Medal is based on the award of the Combat Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medical Badge." I have to go with the records, according to which, Durning earned one Purple Heart Medal, one Bronze Star Medal, and one Silver Star Medal. This is certainly a far cry from purported awards of muliple Bronze Star and Purple Heart Medals. As I mentioned before, Durning's medical records say he was wounded once. The stories of being bayonetted are thus fabrications. Durning says he was treated for "psychological trauma" referred to in those days as "shell shock." None of that shows up in his medical records. That is not to say though that he didn't receive such treatment post war. Anonymous user 98.255.89.22: I have enabled email. Email and we can discuss some other avenues of research. Oldbubblehead (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Oldbubblehead. Good info; thanks yet again.  Steve Karras had hired a researcher to delve into Mr. Durning's files, and it was the researcher's efforts that turned up the additional info.  In addition to the documents that St. Louis sent you, this researcher apparently accessed unit rosters and morning reports, which probably accounts for the additional information beyond what you have turned up. You might want to contact Mr. Karras to see if he can fill you in.
 * Understand and agree that the Silver Star Registry is not complete. I relied on the 398th's own unit history, which did not list Mr. Durning in its Silver Star list.  Now that we know Mr. Durning was also in the 159th, that opens another line of investigation . . .  though it saw no combat, so it seems extremely unlikely he had an opportunity to earn such an award there.
 * Not having seen either the records you have or those of Mr. Karras, I can't really add anything on the curious Silver Star Medal. With no indication when or where he possibly could have earned such an award, and the apparent absence of supporting General Orders, I just remain a doubter.
 * The Bronze Star Medal, as a complement to the CIB/CMB, was not authorized till 1947, so there would be no wartime record of such an award for Mr. Durning. Mr. Durning would have had to apply for it after the war, if he deserved it.  It is important to note that this retroactive award of the Bronze Star Medal required that the serviceman's meritorious actions had been confirmed by documents executed prior to 1 July 1947.  For these purposes, the award of the CIB or CMB are considered 'citations in orders' and proof of meritorious conduct (AR 600-8-22).  That's because awards of these badges had be approved at the regimental level (or above) and published in orders.  As far as I know, there is no record of Mr. Durning earning either a CIB or CMB, and his service with the 159th would not have given him the opportunity for such an award; the unit was granted NO campaign credit in the ETO.  The search of unit records and morning reports apparently did not disclose orders for the CIB or CMB.  (Come to think of it, there's no indication he ever even held the Infantry MOS, is there?)  If I read your summary of his discharge papers correctly, neither a CIB nor CMB were listed there (and they should have been).  (The "Expert Badge with Rifle Bar" of course is a marksmanship badge, not CIB.)  So . . . apparently there is no indication, or reason to believe, he was awarded a 'vanilla' Bronze Star.  If Mr. Karras' assertion is correct that ANC has cut a new headstone for Mr. Durning's grave, and that the new headstone no longer reflects the Bronze Star Medal or two of the three Purple Hearts, it would seem to settle the Bronze Star question at least.
 * Ref the Army of Occupation Medal. It wasn't established till April 46; Mr. Durning was discharged 24 Jan 46, so he probably never bothered to apply for credit.  Either that, or (far less likely) his European-African-Middle Eastern Medal was awarded only for service on or after 9 May 45, in which case the Army of Occupation Medal was not authorized. I can come up with a scenario for that, but the likelihood for it is so small it is not worth considering.
 * Appreciate your enabling email. Unfortunately, not being a registered contributor, I don't think I can access that email.  Unless my old, feeble infantry brains have missed something . . . 98.255.89.22 (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed something I should have mentioned. His discharge papers do not mention either the Bronze Star Medal or the CIB. His discharge papers list his occupational speciality as "745 Rifleman" and lists his Battles and Campaigns as "NORMANDY CO WC 45 AS AMENDED." Well, we know he was in Normandy anywhere from six hours to seven days. But judging from the discharge papers he didn't serve in any other area or battle which would have earned him more than the one campaign star. Durning himself requested a copy of his records in 2008 and was told by the NRPC "The record needed to answer you inquiry is not in our files." This reply states that he was authorized the SS, BS, PH, GCM, ACM, EAMCM with 1 bronze star, WWIIVM, and CIB based on "documents you provided and/or official documents." It also states that the BS was based on the award of the CIB. So it appears that after April 2008 During knew exactly what he was and was not entitled to. I wonder what he was looking for. I don't think the NRPC would have told him he was entitled to decorations and awards to which he wasn't. Another point, his "hernia" turned up just before he was scheduled to leave the recuperation center. You will never prove anything with that but thirty years of dealing with sailors has taught me a few things. I'm also interested in finding out how he finished up as an MP? Constabulary duties with the 100th ID? How can Mr. Karras be contacted?Oldbubblehead (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I think the best way to contact Mr. Karras would be through the nmisscomentator thread where he now has a couple posts on this subject. Either that or through his web2carz.com page.
 * I'm guessing Block 30 is where 'Rifleman 745' was entered? Can you tell me where/how does the form also indicate he was an MP?  By the way, there was an MP MOS (677) and an MP, Occupied Territory MOS (669).  Interesting that neither of these were noted, or his earlier AAA MOS.
 * In Block 31 he should have had the CIB listed, along with any marksmanship badges. As of 10 Jun 44, the CIB had a $10 a month bonus attached to it.  A private's pay was $50 a month, a PFC's was $54.  So the $10 bump may seem trivial today, but was a BIG deal back then.  The idea that he didn't bother to have his CIB recorded - and hence passed up a 20% pay raise - is pretty absurd, especially given that he grew up in poverty and his mother back home was struggling as a laundry woman to raise the family as the sole earner.  My opinion - for whatever it is worth - is that if the CIB were not on his record at time of discharge, then there is no way he had earned it.
 * Block 4 (Arm or Service): CMP; Block 6(Organization): 398th INF REGT; Block 21(Civilian Occupation and No.: STUDENT X-02; More importantly, his "Final Payment - Work Sheet" which carries him from Nov 30, 1945 to his discharge has no entries for combat pay, expert infantry pay, or pay for awards.Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If in 2008 he had provided NPRC added documents showing he had earned the CIB, and hence vanilla Bronze Star Medal, then shouldn't they have released those documents to you? They were, at that point part of his NPRC file, after all.  Curiouser and curiouser.
 * The letter says "and/or"; he might not have submitted anything.Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My experience with the NPRC is that they no longer push the issue for 'the Greatest Generation' when it comes to vanilla Bronze Star Medals. You claim it, you'll usually get it, even if you don't have documentation.  Unless there's an inquiry challenging the justification, NPRC just goes with it.  Were you an infantryman?  Assigned (at least nominally) to an infantry unit in the ETO?  Then the assumption is that you got the CIB and earned the BSM.  They don't bother to find out whether the 159th Inf Regt ever made it into combat, or whether the veteran can still find his CIB orders.  A lot of guys who didn't qualify to get the BSM then are sneaking through now.  Least that's my experience with a number of these cases.
 * You see this alot with veteran's health issues. They award disability for PTSD without much investigation. Think you were exposed to Agent Orange? You got it. Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * His campaign notes for the EAME Medal is also curiously incomplete. You cited it as "NORMANDY CO WC 45 AS AMENDED." The format for that should read "GO xx WD 45 as amended" or in full English, "General Orders xx War Department 1945".  The GO number would refer to the specific order authorizing the campaign criteria and - sometimes - credit for individual units.  Again, it is curious that the GO # has been omitted.  That definitely is unusual.  It would/should have cited GO 33 for the Normandy Campaign (if that were the cited campaign), GO 40 for the Rhineland and Ardennes or GO 116 for the Central Europe Campaign.  As you concluded, there is no justification for a service star for anything covered in GOs 40 and 116.  The only justification for a service star would be Normandy; even though he was in a 'casual' status (normally you have to be in a 'regular duty position' to merit a service star), the fact that he received a combat decoration (Purple Heart) would qualify him for the service star.
 * My Mistake: Block 32 - GO 33 WC 45 AS AMENDED.Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of General Orders, it is surprising that they aren't listed for his decorations, as well. His discharge form 'should' read something like this in Block 33 for his Purple Heart:  "Purple Heart GO#9 82d Airborne Division" (or similar language for the unit he was assigned to)) to provide authority for the award.  His Silver Star Medal should have a similar notation.
 * There is not a lot of room in Block 33. Perhaps the clerk was too lazy to prepare a continuation page. I've seen that happen.Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All in all, Mr. Durning's Discharge Form appears to be a very, very curious document. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've received the docs from Oldbubblehead (tnx!) and will get the relevant/readable pages uploaded ASAP. WRT the EIB/CIB, block 31 says "M1 Rifle Ex 165 5 Mar 45". Can someone decode this?
 * He qualified Expert in marksmanship with the M1 rifle on the date shown.Oldbubblehead (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, in block 55, "ASR Score (2 Sep 45) 61"?
 * Advanced Service Rating Score - his point total for return to the States.Oldbubblehead (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Total mustering out pay was $300 – $100 was paid at the time. The worksheet shows (additionally) Foreign Service Pay of $128.43 for the period 1 Dec 45 to 24 or 26 Jan 46 – $70–72/month depending on how it was pro-rated.

Block 36 shows arrival in the ETO on 19 Feb 44 and departure 8 Jan 46. It also shows wounded 29 Jun 44, which is incorrect in comparison with all the med records.
 * June 29th is the day he was awarded the Purple Heart.Oldbubblehead (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the manual, handwritten nature of documentation at the time, and the huge growth of forces, it's not at all surprising to me that administrative paperwork was less than accurate. Thinking about how veterans of that era typically talk about the Army with regard to administrative matters only confirms this feeling that such records may be largely inaccurate. It's entirely possible that Durning (or someone on his behalf) asked for (and obtained) corrections to the original records in the time since his discharge, explaining the additional awards in the 2002 summary and the letter from 2008. I'm guessing the latter was in response to Durning wanting to clarify things in the time leading up to his award from the French on 22 April. Perhaps we can look forward one day to the family releasing some of his personal correspondence that may shed further light. —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 12:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversy
I am proposing the following as a new section on the Charles Durning page: "Controversy Surrounding Military Service - Charles Durning served his country with honor and with great personal sacrifice. We owe him a debt of gratitude as we do the many other World War II veterans who served alongside him. Sadly, Durning made a number of statements during his lifetime and was present when statements were made about his military service which cannot be reconciled with the undisputed facts in his military records. Mr. Steve Karras, among other researchers, has accessed primary sources such as Durning’s discharge papers, his medical records, unit personnel rosters and morning reports, Army General Orders, and other records, as well as secondary sources such as unit official histories, to assemble an accurate record of Durning’s military experiences. Arlington National Cemetery has acknowledged some of these discrepancies and is in the process of re-cutting Durning’s headstone. [Ref: http://www.web2carz.com/people/who-you-know/2097/charles-durnings-war-heroism-exaggeration-fabrication]."Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Personally I would remove, as un-encyclopaedic (who are "we" for example?) and unreferenced, the bits I've struck out above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 * There is a photo of a new headstone at the Arlington map app. It now shows Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart, the difference being that the last line used to say "PH & 2 OLC". So, they removed the extra 2 Purple Hearts.

Docs
I've uploaded the following scans of relevant docs: (still researching correct license and category tagging). —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 00:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Durning5355-1946Jan.PNG
 * File:Durning5355-1946JunCopy.PNG
 * File:DurningNARA2002.PNG
 * File:DurningNPRC2008.PNG
 * File:DurningPmtWorksheet-1946Jan.PNG

Update
More Durning documents have turned up. A report from the 12th Replacement Depot has him in England on December 20th, 1944. This is four days after the start of the Battle of the Bulge and three days after the Malmedy Massacre.Oldbubblehead (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Durning. 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/20071201183644/http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1%2C1002%2C271%7C91918%7C1%7C10%2C00.html to http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1%2C1002%2C271%7C91918%7C1%7C10%2C00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No need to display the medals.
There's no reason to display the medals or decorations he is said to have received. There are links to articles on the medals with pictures of them there. --Chuck Baggett (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Durning. 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/20060625095909/http://www.army.mil/soldiers/apr1999/news/index.html to http://www.army.mil/Soldiers/apr1999/news/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recent edits have removed a reference while asserting a claim "from IMDb" about Mr Durning's ancestry. IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source since it is mainly user-edited - just like Wikipedia. Let's discuss the editing here please. Shearonink (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

German ancestry?...
Not so far as I can tell, information does not appear in cited souces. Discuss here please. Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The VA says he was at Malmedy
The VA says he was at Malmedy

"During the Battle of the Bulge, Germans captured Durning. He was one of only a few soldiers to survive the Malmedy massacre when German soldiers opened fire on nearly 90 prisoners of war. For his injuries, Durning received his second Purple Heart." https://news.va.gov/98192/veteranoftheday-army-veteran-charles-durning/

Montalban (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Durning