Sign here, you know you can trust us.

Why dont we have entire female units ? Because they dont want the job, they want to run barefoot through all the boys, tee-hee ! What sex mad young woman wouldnt want her choice of fit, healthy young men ? About 10:1 is rather good odds. They are known as ground sheets because they are there to lie on.

Kay Summersby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Kay Summersby
1908 (1908) " 20 January 1975 (1975-01-21)
Place of birth County Cork, Ireland
Place of death Southampton, New York
Allegiance United Kingdom
United States
Service/branch Mechanised Transport Corps (UK)
Women's Army Corps (USA)
Years of service 1939"1947
Rank Captain
Battles/wars World War II
Awards Legion of Merit
Women's Army Corps Service Medal
European Campaign Medal
World War Two Victory Medal
Army of Occupation Medal
Kay Summersby (1908"20 January 1975[1]) was a member of the British Mechanised Transport Corps during World War II, who served as chauffeur to Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force Dwight D. Eisenhower, later as his secretary and, it is alleged, his mistress.

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 Relationship with Eisenhower
3 References
4 Further reading
5 External links


[edit] Biography
Summersby was born Kathleen Helen McCarthy-Morrogh in County Cork, Ireland[2]. She described her father, a retired Lt. Colonel of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, as black Irish and her mother as English. As a young woman she moved to London where she worked as a film studio extra, dabbled in photography and eventually became a fashion model. She was married and divorced, retaining the name of her ex-husband[2].

When Britain entered the Second World War in 1939, Summersby joined the British Mechanised Transport Corps (MTC). She drove an ambulance throughout The Blitz in 1940 and 1941[2]. When the United States joined the Allies after the German declaration of war in December 1941, Summersby was one of many MTC drivers assigned as chauffeurs to high ranking American military officers. She was assigned to drive Major General Dwight Eisenhower when he arrived in London in May, 1942. Though there was a brief interruption of several weeks due to Eisenhower's short return to the U.S., Summersby drove Ike and later became his secretary until November, 1945. During this time Eisenhower rose in rank to a 5 star General of the Army and Commander of the European Theatre, and Kay, with his help, became a U.S. citizen and a commissioned officer in the U.S. Women's Army Corps (WACs), ultimately leaving the service as a captain in 1947. Captain Summersby's military awards included the Legion of Merit, Women's Army Corps Service Medal, European Campaign Medal, World War Two Victory Medal and the Army of Occupation Medal with "Germany" clasp.

Summersby married the Wall Street stockbroker Reginald H. Morgan in 1952[3]. She died at her home in Southampton, Long Island, of cancer, on 20 January 1975[4].

[edit] Relationship with Eisenhower
Summersby has maintained a marginal place in history due to her rumored romance with Eisenhower during the 1942-1945 period. Eisenhower Was My Boss, her 1948 memoir of the war years, made no mention of any such affair. However, her 1975 autobiography, Past Forgetting: My Love Affair with Dwight D. Eisenhower, was explicitly about the romance. This second book, written after Eisenhower had died in 1969, was presented as a sort of deathbed statement from Summersby to set the record straight. She stated in "Past Forgetting" that she did not mention anything about the affair in her original memoir due to her concern for Eisenhower's privacy.

The "autobiography" was ghostwritten by Barbara Wyden while Summersby was dying of cancer[5]. Those who dispute the claim of an affair maintain that the second book's description of the relationship (which by the book's account consisted, sexually, of two unsuccessful attempts to have intercourse) was simply made up, presumably by the ghostwriter.

It is true, however, that Summersby began the war as a British citizen and the equivalent of a private in the British forces and ended the war as a U.S. citizen and a Captain in the U.S. Army WACs, and that all of this came about through the direct efforts of General Eisenhower. Whatever the case, it is generally agreed that Kay and Ike were extremely close, were seen together in many press photographs during the war (as shown in the two books and other literature) and (as evidenced by letters between the two), Summersby was not well liked by Eisenhower's wife (who was alive when the second book was published). Summersby was married and divorced prior to meeting Ike and remarried Morgan some time after her discharge from the Army. There was an engagement to marry a U.S. Army officer that overlapped her initial period with Eisenhower; however, this was ended by the death of her fiance, (Major Richard "Dick" Arnold), during the North Africa campaign[6].

Former President Harry S. Truman reportedly told author Merle Miller that in 1945, Eisenhower asked permission from General George Marshall to divorce his wife to marry Summersby, but permission was refused. Truman also allegedly said he had the correspondence between Marshall and Eisenhower retrieved from the Army archives and destroyed[7]. But this aspect of the Summersby controversy has been widely disputed. Some historians say Truman misremembered, and emphasize that Eisenhower had asked permission to bring his wife to England. Others have speculated that Truman lied about Eisenhower because of animosity between the two men that intensified during the Eisenhower presidency (Truman stated that Eisenhower did not invite him back to the White House during his administration.).[citation needed]. Historian Robert Ferrell has alleged that Miller fabricated some of the quotes in his interviews with Truman, which were published after Truman's death, such that Miller is a source who should be viewed with great skepticism. In any case, Miller's book contains numerous inaccuracies that mar its credibility.

[edit] References
Notes
^ Find-a-grave (Which gives her year of birth as 1910)
^ a b c Wyden, Barbara, Papers, 1944-1945, Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, Kansas
^ Announcement of marriage, Time, Monday, December 01, 1952
^ Announcement of death, Time, Monday, February 03, 1975
^ Lester, David & Irene David (1981). Ike & Mamie, The Story of the General and his Lady. Academic Press. ISBN 0-399-12644-9.
^ Korda, Michael (September 2007). Ike: An American Hero. harpercollins. p. 385. ISBN 978-0-06-075665-9.
^ Miller, Merle, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (1974) Putnam Publishing Group. ISBN 0-399-11261-8.
Bibliography
Barbara Wyden Papers 1944-1945
[edit] Further reading
Ambrose, Stephen E., Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect 1890-1952 (1983).
Miller, Merle, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (1974) Putnam Publishing Group. ISBN 0-399-11261-8. London: Gollancz Ltd. (1974) ISBN 0-575-01841-0 ;Reprint (2005) by Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. ISBN 1-57912-437-2
David, Lester & Irene David, Ike & Mamie, The Story of the General and his Lady (1981) Academic Press. ISBN 0-399-12644-9
Morgan, Kay Summersby, Past Forgetting: My Love Affair with Dwight D. Eisenhower. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1976.
Summersby, Kay, Eisenhower Was My Boss (1948) New York: Prentice Hall; (1949) Dell mapback
Korda, Michael, "Ike, An American Hero" HarperCollins, 2007
Perry, Mark, Partners in Command, Penguin Press (2007) New York
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,775637,00.html It's nice getting back Time, May 28, 1945 (Ike danced with Kay).
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,780022,00.html Kay's War Time, September 27, 1948
http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2002/nr02-09.html Summersby's wartime diaries
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/trumanl.htm Oral History Interview with General Louis W. Truman, President's cousin, confirming the Truman Eisenhower letter about Summersby

Thanks Sglass, an interesting read. Do you think they had an affair ? I think in the balance of probability they did.

But describing how these men wouldn't do their job when the bullets fly is not a reason to deny women access to the military.

T
K
O

Iwas a bit confused by your reply. The whole purpose of having a military is for when the bullets fly. If women interfere with men doing their job then of course they shouldnt be in the military. What other solution are you proposing ? Assuming you want a solution and are not prepared to pay with lives so some women can have the employment of their choice. Many wives of servicemen dont want them there. Many servicemen dont want them there. It is a clumsy effort by politicians to get votes.

Are you aware the vast majority of women dont want a male mid-wife ?

I think he's related to BillR.

I get the impression your opinion is based on what you MUST believe without thinking it through. Start off with a lovely idea - everyone is equal - ignore the practical implications, they are someone else's problem. The main thing is you cant be criticised for disagreeing with the herd.

I take it you dont like Bill and you think you have insulted me by saying I am related to another human being ? What happened to your belief in equality ? Is it disposable depending on the occasion ?

You described a theoretical situation where a woman's presence is given the blame for what actions the men in the group take or do not take. That is the men's problem, not hers, and it's not her's to resolve for them.

You example is no different than a situation in a corporate environment. Should we not let women in other workplaces too? I work with plenty of men and women and they keep it professional, do you want to say that the military is less professional?

And if men interfere with a woman doing her job?


Solution? I don't see a unique problem in having women soldiers.


Many husbands of servicewomen don't want male soldiers there. Should we send the men home?

Do you think men are superior to women?


Or it could be a pragmatic way to get more people in the military who have a wide range of skills. By excluding half of the population, you shrink the pool in half when you are looking for special technicians and linguists, etc.


Private verses pubic concern.

Midwives are private citizens offering a service. Soldiers are government employees.

T
K
O

Would you reread what you wrote and look at the bias : ... the women only have a presence; the men have actions; pitiful women arent responsible like adults for who they have sex with. If women behave in a non-professional manner that causes conflict within the group, of course women are responsible. One woman having sex with half the unit causes conflict.
If you cant see the difference between the military and a corporate environment then I dont know what to say that would help you see the difference.
Exactly how would they do that ? By getting her pregnant ?
This is based on your political beliefs or experience ?

I explained that all women units was the answer some posts back but women dont want that. They want the men. Yes, I think men are superior to women, and I think women are superior to men...it all depends on the task. There is far greater variation in the sexes then there is in individuals. I dont live in a PC world where the official line must be swallowed hook line and sinker.
Correct. But I said that for the small number of women their cost is greater than their benefit. Half the population are not going to join the military. Part of my argument is that the ones who do are interested in the men as much as a career. Can I take it that you approve of conscripting women if we conscript men ? After all, half the population...
What happened to the military and corporate environment being the same...have you changed your mind ? Are you saying women are superior to men ? The military are not just government employees. How many clerks have a paper cut that takes a leg off, or a liquid paper bottle that explodes into shrapnel ?

Ha, Ionus, going from the ridiculous to the sublime. The US should should send a battalion of 20,000 naked female virgins into battle and all the Moslems would throw down their weapons thinking they had died and gone to heaven.

Good point> I volunteer to serve in a nekkid vergun battalion. I have experience at being nekkid and being a vergun.

When it comes to taking a bullet who performs best?

Some women do want sex with half the unit/department some dont.
Some men want as many conquests as possible, some men dont.
Some men go out and get blind drunk any chance they get, some men dont.
The reality is that they are all people. Just people with differences and samenesses.
Your attempts to lump ALL women into one basket bretrays your biases.

The whole idea is not to take a bullet but through efficiency and professionalism to kill the enemy.
Perhaps you could help select the ones that dont because at the moment the military is doing a lousey job of it. I cant think of a single woman regardless of rank who did not have sex with another soldier, and many were during work hours. Perhaps you read about the the sailors who faced disciplinary action for keeping a book on who could have sex with the most females whilst they were at sea ? You got extra points for an female officer.
Another good reason to keep sex out of a unit.
This is a seperate issue.
I thought it was based on my experience of 24 yrs in the army not some ideological world. But if you can see something wrong arent you allowed to be biased against it ? Or is it more PC to ignore it ? Your bias is simple. Women cant do any wrong and should be allowed any where they want. If it doesnt work then it is the fault of the men.

proved to be a hoax so i recall. perpetrated by some individuals to discredit other individuals so i read.

What says that women aren't responsible like adults for who they have sex with. That's crap. The situation that is going on here in reality, not in your made up scenario is one where the guy is nowhere to be found.


I see the difference, but your argument is in no way confined to the military. If a woman can disrupt a military unit, then she can disrupt any type of work group. Your logic doesn't work because it requires us to believe that while women function perfectly normal and don't **** half of their sales team, they would do exactly that in there unit.


In any way. Open up the aperture dude. If a man was harassing a female radio specialist, I guess she invited the harassment, and the military's real concern should be with the fact that she was there to tempt the man that harasses her? You seem very eager to blame women here.


Both. I find it unethical to bar women from military jobs, and I know female soldiers. I also work directly with the military and work with many female officers.


You're peaking beyond your qualifications here. You can't speak for what women want and do not want. This has nothing to do with political correctness. I still think that soldiers should find their jobs by their skills. this may mean that some women will fail certain tests, it may mean that they accelerate at others. Either way, I'm not going to strip them of the opportunity to take the test.


50% of the women don't have to apply, but if you ban women, then you get 0%. 50% of men don't apply either.


You introduced midwives into this. It's your red herring, and you are driving. I only was addressing the difference, and I never stated the corporate environment was the same, only that your argument make no distinction.


The military are just government employees. Government employees are not all desk clerks. For that matter, the military has LOTS and LOTS of desk clerks.

You seem to be caught up in the "civy" meme, where you think that others live in some less enlightened world than you because you were in the military. You are just another person.

Newsflash! There are plenty of ex-military people here on A2K. If you were under some romanced notion that you'd arrive and tell the civies how 'your world' is, and that you'd be the token military guy, you're wrong.

T
K
O

My attitude is based on many years experience with both women and men.
women sometimes act wrongly Sometimes men act wrongly (more often than women where sex is concerned if you believe the media reports) but not all. If it doesnt work is not a reason to exclude half the population from getting shot at.

You do. I will point it out again. You say women have a presence, men have actions. You are downplaying the role of women by the words you choose.
I have given several scenarios, none of which are made up and all of them have many men in them. That is the problem.
Correct and they do. They left the home and wanted the protection that it affords to go with them to the workplace. Men never had that protection.
You really dont get it do you ? We take some of our best women and men, put them in the ratio of 1:10, put them in a stressful environment and away from home for months on end. How is that applicable to a sales team ? How many women joined the sales team because they thought it would be good to get lots of sex because that is what I am suggesting is a main motive for women joining the defence forces.
You have fabricated this bullshit and you know it.
You seem very eager to defend women here. Are they helpless ? I blame women for introducing sex to the military. The solution is simple. They shouldnt be there. You have offered no other solution apart from denying there is a problem.
How many months have you been deployed with them ?

Do you approve of all women units ?

Yes, you did....

I am sorry you think this is about your ego. It is about saving lives by producing the most efficient combat teams possible. If I draw on my experience, I dont expect to be met with a "Oh yeah, I can top that." I expect reason, not ego.
You have only made one point any where near relevant and that was the military can draw on more manpower by recruiting women. But for your one point I have made many as to why it is not working. But you dont want to fix it, you want to deny it is broken. You have repeated your mantra, "women must be in the military because they must be" without stopping to ask am I right. You have been brainwashed in political correctness.

It is not how many or who or what sex is being shot at, it is how many of our side are being killed compared to the enemy. The only thing known to hold men together in combat is the man beside him and the "Band of Brothers" bonding they have formed together. Men will not fight cohesively if some have had sex with others and some havent. The Spartans only allowed sex within the small unit. Everyone was equal and sex worked to improve bonding, not destroy it. The reason they didnt allow sex with outsiders is because of what I have been describing. A female member choosing to have sex with one but not another is ostracising the one denied. Simple solution, female members have sex with everyone or no-one. Or they do not serve in the military. The same holds for gays.

This is some ridiculous nonsense.
K
O