Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's (1964) The Slow Build 5 5

[Prince Namor]

Sgt Fury 22 (Sept 1965)

 

[Prince Namor]

On 8/16/2023 at 2:45 AM, bc said:

So now you are quibbling about their means of transport?

Okay, he took a boat. What does that validate?

-bc

It's bait.

There is no argument. THIS is what Kirby claimed:

"I was in the combat infantry. I went to Liverpool first. Then they shipped us to Southampton, which is the port of embarkation for Normandy. I got to Normandy 10 days after the invasion."

For even More detail from Kirby:

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

In January of 1963, Marvel released 10 titles to the newsstand - 2 Western, 2 Romance/Humor, and 6 Superhero.

In January of 1964, Marvel released 11 titles to the newsstand - 1 Western, 1 Romance/Humor, and 9 Superhero.

The change was underway...

[sfcityduck]

On 8/15/2023 at 9:07 PM, Prince Namor said:

When I speak of Lee's military record, I base it on facts vs what he said... which in Stan's case always makes it a bit suspect. 

The researchers I hang with are even more focused on proof than I can ever imagine. I'll get out to those archives one day...

 

From Facebook:

 

Lee wasn't in Queens for very long before he was moved to North Carolina.

Here's what I was able to come up with on Stan Lee's military service. This is better and more accurate information than I've seen previously. The source is the Twitter account of the St. Louis Military Records Archive.

https://twitter.com/stlouisarc.../status/1062472964166311936

I had the idea the account might say something about Lee after Lee passed away and sure enough they did.

1. Is Stan Lee's enlistment form. You can see Lee enlisted on Nov. 9, 1942. Lee's occupation is listed as: Editor-Art Director. He was living with his mother and father at the time. Lee claims to have four years of high school and one year of college. (NOTE: I believe this may be a lie… there is no evidence whatsoever that Lee ever went to college) I don't recall ever seeing any previous mention of Lee attending college. Lee was first assigned to Camp Upton (not Fort Monmouth) on Long Island which was being used as an internment camp for Japanese Americans.

2. Is a letter dated Nov. 27, 1943 asking that Lee be transferred from Duke University, where the Signal Corps had a training film operation to Long Island City, New York. The letter stats an acute shortage of camera men, film editors, sound men, writers and projectionists.

3. Is the reply from Lee's CO saying that Lee had been transferred to Duke in July of 1943 and at the time of the letter was the only writer on duty and was working on a film which was four weeks from completion. If the production time frame was typical it suggests Lee perhaps wrote 4-5 training films between July and December.

4. Is a pay log from Lee's assignment at Fort Benjamin Harrison in Indiana which covers July 1944-August 31, 1945 at which time Lee was discharged. For some reason Lee's MM rifle score of 156 from 12/22/42 is mentioned.

5. Lee's discharge paper from Sept. 29, 1945. Lee did achieve the rank of Sergeant, was honorably discharged. The only decoration or citation Lee was awarded was a Good Conduct Medal.

6. Page two of a document which lists Lee and another soldier as 288 "screen writers."

As I indicated in my previous post there is no indication Lee wrote more than a handful of pages for Timely during the 2 years, 10 months and 21 days he was in the service.

 

There is no evidence that Stan Lee was ever classified as a ‘playwright’ in the US Military. It specifically states he was the only writer on duty, so the story about being asked to ‘slow down’ because he was making everyone else look bad, is most obviously a lie.

 

Stan learned propaganda in the military. And it ended up suiting him well.

 

So much wrong here:

You state: "When I speak of Lee's military record, I base it on facts vs what he said... which in Stan's case always makes it a bit suspect." 

Reality: You have already incorrectly asserted that Stan was not a Sgt. in the U.S. Army.  That's false. It also betrays you lack understanding of the structure of the U.S. Army at the time period in question. Moreover, the docs you cite support that Stan was an honorably discharged U.S. Army Sgt. Which makes your attempt to cast shade on Stan's service inexplicable. 

You state: "From Facebook:"

Question: Whose Facebook? Is this from one of those anti-Stan Facebook groups?  Which one? It doesn't seem accurate. You need better sources.

Examples of problems with your anonymous FB source:

FB states: "Lee was first assigned to Camp Upton (not Fort Monmouth) on Long Island which was being used as an internment camp for Japanese Americans."

Reality: Camp Upton was not part of the WRA internment operation targeting Japanese-Americans on the West Coast (Japanese Americans outside of the West Coast were not imprisoned in internment camps). To my knowledge the Signal Corp was not involved in the internment of Japanese-Americans even on the West Coast. Camp Upton did hold some Japanese citizens who were in NYC, but mainly German and Italian citizens, all of whom who were deemed enemy aliens (which the internees of the WRA were not - in fact, many Japanese American internees voluntered for U.S. Military service and joined the Army during WWII). Potentially relevant to Stan, Camp Upton was also used early in the war as a US Army induction center, which would have been a logical reason for Stan to pass through. Camp Upton ceased to be a camp holding enemy aliens by March of 1943, just a few short months after Stan was inducted into the Army. So I'm not at all sure what your confused FB source is trying to imply.

FB states: "Page two of a document which lists Lee and another soldier as 288 'screen writers.' ... There is no evidence that Stan Lee was ever classified as a ‘playwright’ in the US Military."

Reality: Your FB researcher is again deeply confused.  Lee was correct in calling himself a "playwright" and he would have been correct in calling himself a "screenwriter." They are both correct descriptions of classification code 288. The entry from Technical Manual 12-427, Military Occupational Classification of Enlisted Personnel, dated 1944, describes formal Military Occupation Classification, code 288,as follows:

“Writes scenarios and scripts for theatrical, radio, or motion picture productions for entertainment or instruction of military personnel, or for publicity purposes. Creates plots and sequences with instructional narrative, or adapts fictional, nonfictional, or historical material to dramatic form. Bears in mind the characteristics of the medium for which he is writing and forms his presentation and ---script accordingly. Indicates desired camera procedure, method of presentation, sound effects, and backgrounds. Civilian experience in writing or adapting scripts or scenarios for radio, stage, or motion pictures required.”

This Military Occupation Classification was commonly known as "playwright" or "screenwriter" which are, after all, largely synomous. Your FB "researcher" is proving the opposite of what he is contending.

These kind of errors destroy the credibility of your anonymous FB "researcher".  You really need to quote better sources.

I could go on, but I think the point is made.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 8/15/2023 at 9:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

It's bait.

There is no argument. THIS is what Kirby claimed:

"I was in the combat infantry. I went to Liverpool first. Then they shipped us to Southampton, which is the port of embarkation for Normandy. I got to Normandy 10 days after the invasion."

 

Reality: Kirby landed on Omaha Beach in Normandy on August 23, 1944, 2.5 months after D-Day, not the "ten days" or even "some days or maybe weeks" after that as Kirby's faulty reminiscences would cause him to claim.  This is just another piece of evidence establishing that Kirby's "recollections" are often flawed. 

I do not understand why you slight Stan for truthful statements while lauding Kirby based on his faulty recollections. A more balanced and academic approach would lead to a more accurate presentation.

Edited August 16, 2023 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 8/15/2023 at 9:42 PM, Prince Namor said:

Sgt Fury 22 (Sept 1965)

 

Cool panels! Stan could take it and it’s funny! Here's a pic of Sgt. Lee showing Ayers got the visual right.

Edited August 16, 2023 by sfcityduck

[shadroch]

On 8/15/2023 at 9:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

It's bait.

There is no argument. THIS is what Kirby claimed:

"I was in the combat infantry. I went to Liverpool first. Then they shipped us to Southampton, which is the port of embarkation for Normandy. I got to Normandy 10 days after the invasion."

For even More detail from Kirby:

Ten days after the invasion would have been June 16th, not August 16th.  

[sfcityduck]

On 8/15/2023 at 3:48 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

Dees anyone else on this thread think it's bad form to malign someone who left their family and flew halfway around the world to get shot at?

I 100% agree that no one should be maligning folks like Stan Lee and Jack Kirby who either volunteered to serve in (as Stan did in 1942) or were drafted into (as Jack was in 1943) the US Armed Forces during WWII whether they were shot at or not. WWII was a massive undertaking that depended upon stateside citizens working in various jobs and industries, stateside government and military workers providing support to the foreign forces, rear echelon soldiers overseas, and frontline soldiers to succeed. All of them deserve appreciation and not aspersions.

An example: My mom had three uncles serving WWII. Two of them were in the combat infantry (one was in D-Day) and a third was an aerial photographer. The photographer probably had the most dangerous job as he participated in many bombing missions. Back stateside, my mom's father, a chemist, spent the war working to maximize California agriculture and keep food supplies steady. His best friend was also a chemist. That friend spent a few years working on the development of the atomic bomb. Ironically, it may well be my mom's father (my grandfather but he died long before I was born) may have had the most direct impact on keeping the country safe due to the import of agriculture during WWII (this was the time period of "victory gardens" and numerous government posters addressing food supplies because of the necessity to feed not just our own country's citizens here but the many soldiers in foreign locals) even though his personal risk was likely the lowest of that group of men.

No one here is maligning Jack Kirby for his service. I have noted that some of the stories he's told about his service are inaccurate as to dates. But that goes to the quality of his recollections and is not a claim he didn't serve his country in the US Army - he did. So did Stan. No doubt they served in different roles with different degrees of personal risk. But, the OP for this thread was wrong to imply that Stan was making statements that amounted to stolen valor when Stan was accurately stating he was a Sgt. in the US Army. Here's a link to the records of the National Archives with Stan's US Army serial number and enlistment verification: https://aad.archives.gov/aad/record-detail.jsp?dt=893&mtch=1&cat=WR26&tf=F&sc=24994,24995,24996,24998,24997,24993,24981,24983&bc=,sl,fd&txt_24994=12184201&op_24994=0&nfo_24994=V,8,1900&rpp=10&pg=1&rid=603043

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by sfcityduck

[Zonker]

I don't think it is really material how many days (10 or "some days") or weeks ("maybe weeks" or actually 12) after D-Day Kirby arrived in Normandy, and I don't think (certainly hope not) anyone here is belittling Kirby's actual combat service later on during the Battle of Normandy.  It's not like Kirby ever claimed he stormed the beaches on June 6th. 

But it does suggest that Kirby occasionally indulged in hyperbole or got the long-ago details not quite right, whether it is about the creation of the Spider-Man costume, or "Stan Lee and I never collaborated on anything!" or "Nobody ever wrote a story for me."

[shadroch]

On 8/16/2023 at 9:05 AM, Zonker said:

I don't think it is really material how many days (10 or "some days") or weeks ("maybe weeks" or actually 12) after D-Day Kirby arrived in Normandy, and I don't think (certainly hope not) anyone here is belittling Kirby's actual combat service later on during the Battle of Normandy.  It's not like Kirby ever claimed he stormed the beaches on June 6th. 

But it does suggest that Kirby occasionally indulged in hyperbole or got the long-ago details not quite right, whether it is about the creation of the Spider-Man costume, or "Stan Lee and I never collaborated on anything!" or "Nobody ever wrote a story for me."

I use his quotes only to show his memories may be faulty.  While Kirby missed most of the fighting in Normandy,  he and his units certainly saw combat in France between August 1944 and Jan. 1945. I'm sure Kirby earned the  Combat Infantry Badge he received.

Both Jack and Stan went into the service as Privates, with the lowest pay grade.  Stan received several promotions and reached the pay grade of a E4/E5, pay grades equal to a  Sergeant.

Mr. Kirby was discharged as a Private First Class, the second lowest pay grade. 

Stan Lee was the VA's Veteran of the Day in November of 2018, and the citation says he was one of only nine people given the Playwriter designation. Perhaps they are mistaken.

Joe Simon, Kirby's partner, enlisted. Jack Kirby got drafted. I can't find if Stan Lee enlisted or if he was drafted. It doesn't really matter. All three answered the Call of Duty and the military assigned them where they thought they'd be most effective.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/15/2023 at 11:38 PM, sfcityduck said:

 

FB states: "Page two of a document which lists Lee and another soldier as 288 'screen writers.' ... There is no evidence that Stan Lee was ever classified as a ‘playwright’ in the US Military."

Reality: Your FB researcher is again deeply confused.  Lee was correct in calling himself a "playwright" and he would have been correct in calling himself a "screenwriter." They are both correct descriptions of classification code 288. The entry from Technical Manual 12-427, Military Occupational Classification of Enlisted Personnel, dated 1944, describes formal Military Occupation Classification, code 288,as follows:

“Writes scenarios and scripts for theatrical, radio, or motion picture productions for entertainment or instruction of military personnel, or for publicity purposes. Creates plots and sequences with instructional narrative, or adapts fictional, nonfictional, or historical material to dramatic form. Bears in mind the characteristics of the medium for which he is writing and forms his presentation and -----script accordingly. Indicates desired camera procedure, method of presentation, sound effects, and backgrounds. Civilian experience in writing or adapting scripts or scenarios for radio, stage, or motion pictures required.”

This Military Occupation Classification was commonly known as "playwright" or "screenwriter" which are, after all, largely synomous. Your FB "researcher" is proving the opposite of what he is contending.

These kind of errors destroy the credibility of your anonymous FB "researcher".  You really need to quote better sources.

I could go on, but I think the point is made.

 

Stan was more correct than me. According to the manual, classification 288 was indeed officially referred to as "playwright." Here's the relevant page:

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by sfcityduck

[shadroch]

If you only examine one end of something, you might think an elephant is a snake.

[The humble Watcher lurking]

Going back to Avengers 4. The reaction of Steve Roger`s face when he thinks he sees Bucky. That to me is cinematic magic by Kirby! Still effective almost 60 years later.

Edited August 16, 2023 by The humble Watcher lurking

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

X-Men #6 - 'Sensational -script' by Stan Lee (uh, no) Dynamic Drawings by Jack Kirby Imaginative Inking by Paul Reinman Legible Lettering by Art Simek

Kirby only did the first 11 issues of X-Men, so of course that's where we get the most creative streak of their Silver Age adventures. Here we get the first appearances of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, as a part of Magneto's Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. 

Part ONE

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

X-Men #6 -

Part TWO

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

X-Men #6 -

Part THREE

[sfcityduck]

On 8/16/2023 at 8:50 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

X-Men #6 - 'Sensational ---script' by Stan Lee (uh, no) Dynamic Drawings by Jack Kirby Imaginative Inking by Paul Reinman Legible Lettering by Art Simek

Kirby only did the first 11 issues of X-Men, so of course that's where we get the most creative streak of their Silver Age adventures. Here we get the first appearances of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, as a part of Magneto's Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. 

 

Kirby really hit his stride in the SA and was starting to enter his peak in 1964 or so. Far better than his GA work.  Those early X-Men issues built a solid foundation. BUT, asserting that X-Men 1-11 were the most creative streak in the X-Men's SA adventures?  No. 

It was a bit haphazard and included some hokeyness and followed some formulas. For me, X-Men 14-16 and 56-59 presented one of the most compelling arcs in SA comics. Also 28 & 64 gave us two founding members of the New X-Men and the 1968-1969 issues gave us so many cool developments - new costumes, Polaris, Havok, and the Adams run which for me is the best old X-Men run and is only slightly surpassed by the Byrne/Austin run due to its longer duration.

Edited August 17, 2023 by sfcityduck

[shadroch]

I'd put the Adams run at the top of my personal favorites.  I do recall being scared silly by the Juggernaut, and also by the Sentinels.  In fact, I had a bad dream about a giant Russian ripping our 6th floor ceiling off that was right out of an X-Men story. 

I'll agree the X-Men, for the most part, weren't very good after Kirby left.

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

Amazing Spider-man #11 - This is considered a two part story, even though realistically it's the first of two separate Doc Ock stories. 

Part ONE:

Edited August 18, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

Amazing Spider-man #11 - 

Part TWO: