This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Hello, I'm Steve Greene, the cited author from the National Archives' "The Unwritten Record" blog entry from 2014. Happy to help improve this article anyway I can, but I suspect the prohibition on original research may interfere. Ask me anything! Sgreene820 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a Soviet archive might have the full 100-minute Allied Leaders Edition? More importantly, what if anything is a good source on that bc it might should be a standalone article.
I don't think any films are really "missing". Those of us in the archival trade think of this more like "hiding on the shelves", without sufficient description to identify all of its provenance. If you search the NARA catalog, there are plenty of entries for Coast Guard color footage (16mm Kodachrome) of D-Day operations. Many have slates that reference the OSS. They shot lots of 35mm black and white on Eyemo as well. Some of that footage was optically blown up to 35mm B&W and used in the four reeler. I don't know about the 500 Eyemo reels comes from. The 16mm kodachrome would have been shot on Bell & Howell Filmos, which were the comparable 16mm camera. Was the number from John Ford?
Regarding the 100 minute duration, the early documents I found at the National Archives reference only a 33 minute cut, which is apparently what the four reeler is. This may well be an instance of John Ford's "legend building" at work. I have a personal archive of related documents that I'd be happy to share, if someone wants to sent me an upload link.
I've tried to make contact with the Russian State film archives, but perhaps the current climate makes it unlikely that I'll see a reply anytime soon. I know the Library of Congress also has a copy with the donated George Stevens films.
Regarding the mission to Stalin, my trove of documents includes memos related to the trip of Colonel Anton Litvak (another Hollywood filmmaker, born in Ukraine) to Moscow after D-Day, and mentions showing films with a good reaction from the Russians. One American reaction was that it was missing a lot of the American landing action, which totally fits, since we know that a lot of the film shot on June 6th ended up in the English Channel. Sgreene820 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was following this at one point, but I haven't heard of any new developments. Sgreene820 (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.Sgreene820 well now I'm just awed by your expertise and also terrified. And also, wait, is the "dropped in the English Channel" thing real?! I thought for sure fake! say more. Anyway, if you feel bold enough to tangle with Wikimedia Commons you can upload to your heart's content. I created a commons:Category:Field Photo Unit. Main upload link is here:
You'll either find it self-explanatory and easy or totally bewildering. LOL Ping me if you get stuck. Thanks for all you do. jengod (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done! This document was converted to PDF from files captured by my camera in the research room at Archives 2 at the National Archives, it shows some compression artifacts and it has not been OCR'ed so it isn't searchable. It covers a lot of ground and answers several important questions. Pages related to Litvak's mission to Moscow appear at page 112. These are all "U.S. Government works" and therefore are uncopyrightable. Sgreene820 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wild stuff. We live in such a fascinating world. I'll take a look and I'm definitely going to prune down the article. In the meantime I'm adding a link to the PDF as an external link at the bottom of the article. I'll make a Field Photo stub as well when I have a chance. jengod (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Tell the people who do stuff to please put the 16mm-Kodachrome USCG color footage of D-Day on the Interwebs. (Or send to Spielberg outfit?) I'm sure that's easy and they have lots of free time and no other outstanding projects. anyway, above all, THANK YOU. jengod (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added new images from an OSS Field Photo project ledger found at the National Archives. Documents describe both the filming the OSS was directly responsible and the film project on behalf of SHAEF. First independent verification that the SHAEF film was intended for distribution to Allied leaders. Sgreene820 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Document pages now in Wikimedia. Sgreene820 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page from OSS Field Photo project ledger.Sgreene820 (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Sgreene820. Good stuff! I'll take a look and update later. Also I'm sure you saw but I wrote a bio for William A. Ulman whose unexplained presence in the story was annoying me. LOL. jengod (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness @Sgreene820: I finally had time to find my spectacles and sit down to read cursive. What an absolutely stunning find. Very very nicely done, Steward of the Commons. I'll transcribe and add to the article shortly. jengod (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have Ullman's military personnel file somewhere here. I'll upload it if you think it would be helpful, but it included some personal detail that might be a step too far: messy divorce and debt problems. Sgreene820 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a family history online written by a British cousin of one of his wives that says as much. I glossed all of that in the personal life section of the bio bc not my circus not my monkeys...
Some outstanding questions that have come to mind, although of course not for us, because original research is verboten and we would never.
Backstory on "Lt. M. E. Armistead of the Field Photographic Branch"?
Armistead seemingly installed the automated Eyemo cameras. Who unloaded them? Ulman...or?
Are there any photos of a camera installed on a D-Day landing craft?
What was the casualty rate for cameras on swamped duck boats, etc?
Which CG photographers were where on what days? Per that amazing Charles Herrick guest blogging on Photocritic International, Ruley and Capa were there on D-Day. Anyone else?
Could there a "first edition" copy of the Allied-leaders edit hidden away at a Presidential museum, Churchill museum, Canadian film archive, or Soviet/Russian film archive?
What does the CIA have in their OSS loot box? CIA archivists if you are reading this please look the 1944 file cabinet under D for D-Day we're looking for 500 little boxes that say Kodak/Eyemo/Normandy thx
Last but not least, "Anacostia." The specificity of that in the Ford interview is intriguing. Was it just a good detail of verbal "creative writing"? Did the writer mishear or mistranscribe? Otherwise, what entities owned/leased/rented storage space in the Anacostia neighborhood of D.C. in 1964? It's not clear to me if they were all prohibited from talking about anything forever or what, but I feel like John Ford would the one most willing/able to toe the line on violating classifiedness and maybe publicly nudge the powers that be to release what they had.
Anacostia would be a reference to the Navy Photographic Center film lab (and associated vault) at the Anacostia Naval Air Station. When Ford was interviewed in 1964, the film may have still been in the custody of the US Navy. Also, I just got a copy of Frederick Spencer's personnel file, which includes a bio that has a section on June 1944 that re-confirms the OSS project log and provides further detail that FDR saw the film on D-Day plus 8 which would have been June 14th. There is a folder I'm looking at in the NARA RR that appears to detail the installation of the cameras. Initial plans were to equip lots of landing craft and vehicles with "bombsight" model Eyemos, which were previously modified to allow powering by 20v motors. They were to be mounted to plates designed to be welded to the hull. Sgreene820 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Frederick Spencer file is now on my user page at wikimedia. Sgreene820 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm a FORMER NARA Archivist. Now a free-lance archival media researcher. My website/blog is at https://historicity.co. Sgreene820 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm so glad you said something @Sgreene820. I updated all the photo credits with your current affiliation and URL. keep up the great work jengod (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sgreene820: - just wanted to say that, in my view at least, you're clear to stop worrying about the original research policy. There *are certainly cases where examining and contextualizing primary sources could be original research. On the other hand, Wikipedia is both the everything machine and strives to be inclusive of content that have not traditionally been encyclopedia topics, including current events and obscure biographies. Which is to say that it would be great if there were 15 articles on JSTOR for everything we wanted to cover but very often there is not, and yet many such topics that still qualify as encyclopedic under our Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, so it's primary sources or nothing. I think so long as the work is within the Wikipedia:Five pillars, anything you see fit to add to or edit about this article or others is probably copacetic. Worst-case scenario is someone complains at some point and we talk about it. If anyone beefs with you, send them to this comment and tell them I led you astray LOL. You're doing important scholarship on works of historical significance that are legally in the public domain. I say have at it! You've been surfacing very wonderful important stuff, IMHO, so also thank you. All that said, I'm still here and more than happy to help work on this article via any system that suits you. Cheers. jengod (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Very few of the popular biographies of Ford and his contemporaries that went to war have proved willing to do the heavy lifting in U.S. Government archives that are needed to fully understand their sacrifices and their contributions. To my mind the "original research" rubric should exclude primary source materials that are available to the general public in a government archive. Sgreene820 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! Anyway, I'm hovering in the background to support with formatting and tools and so forth, and please hit up my talk page if you have questions. best, jengod (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to alert you. Hope this doesn't complicate things. Sgreene820 (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary it simplifies things quite a lot and I think it's a win-win. Updated w links. keep 'em coming jengod (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is considered unacceptable, so be it. Perfectly willing to hand over the reins if need be.
In the meantime, we (collectively) are marked a "Start-Class" article. I'd like to move past that. Apparently citations are one of our issues. There were structural issues, too. I'll be reading up on the standards for wikipedia.org, but if anyone wants to enlighten me, that would be fine, too. Sgreene820 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgreene820: (1) Don't sweat the grades too much. They're mostly based on vibes when a human categorizer (or in some cases, like MilHist, a bot) cruises through; and they're in many cases relics of a long-past version of an article. It is, however, of course frustrating to have an article you think is pretty solid marked otherwise but it is also possibly a secret plot to motivate us.
(2) To increase grade you'll want to draw attention to the article at maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Film or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History, which are, luckily, both fairly active. That said, like everything on Wikipedia, grading and categorizing is done on a "if some random person volunteers to do it" basis so there's no guarantee that a prompt will even result in action. However, it would likely result in at least a couple
more eyes on the page, which is always for the good.
(3) You probably want to look at Wikipedia:Good articles for quality guidelines and/or eventually submit it there for a "good article review" which I've never personally done but I gather is as close as we've got to an editorial/peer review process. But also I don't really know the policies over there; I usually limit myself to the occasional Wikipedia:Did You Know submission, for which this article does not qualify for various timing reasons. (Our only entry point for that would be the "5x enlarged" option which if you want to go for, you would want to rewrite the whole thing in under cover at User:Sgreene820/DDayfilm, make sure the page-size 5x requirement is met, and then replace it wholesale when it's ready. You can check the current page size under the Page Information menu in the sidebar.) And then wade into the DYK nomination process; let me know if you go that way and I can hopefully be of help.
(4) Yes also read up on Wikipedia policies and create a user page for yourself so you have an "identity" and generally become a Wikipediaholic. It's not the worst way to waste time online LOL. jengod (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
