Navajo Code Talkers - update

[a425couple]

From:
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/article_cecf4a96-d25b-52c6-9b5b-39ac7bcefe0c.html

"On Thursday, the Navajo Code Talkers won another round
when the New Mexico State Organization of the Daughters of
the American Revolution paid homage to their legacy by unveiling
the Navajo Code Talker Monument in the Santa Fe National Cemetery.
Three Code Talkers - Hawthorne, Bill Toledo and Chester Nez - attended,
as did members of their families and several local dignitaries --"
Elsewhere I saw a picture of the three.

And more information,
"But as the Navajo's Diné language was unwritten - and few
non-Navajos knew it - code strategists decided to create a
200-plus-word code using Diné words and translated by trained
Navajo Marines. The Japanese were baffled - as was anyone else
listening in. Navajos not versed in the code didn't know what was
going on, either.

Today, somewhere between 23 and 40 of the Code Talkers are still living,
according to most historians. Among them is 92-year-old Nez, a New
Mexican who recalled joining up at the age of 18."

[w***@aol.com]

From:http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/article_cecf4a96-d25...
"....the Navajo Code Talkers won another round
when...the Daughters of the American
Revolution paid homage to their legacy by
unveiling the Navajo Code Talker Monument in
the Santa Fe National Cemetery. Three Code
Talkers - Hawthorne, Bill Toledo and Chester
Nez attended..."

At which time Hawthorne is quoted as having said:
"It tells us that there are people who are really
sincere in their appreciation of what we have done...
We were successful in turning the tide of
the war in the Pacific."

Of course there are still a few who say that the battle of
Midway may also have had something to do with that.

WJH

[a425couple]

Post by w***@aol.com

"....the Navajo Code Talkers ---

"It tells us that there are people who are really
sincere in their appreciation of what we have done...
We were successful in turning the tide of
the war in the Pacific."
Of course there are still a few who say that the battle of
Midway may also have had something to do with that.

I understand your point.
But IMHO, proper behavior, courtesy & respect often
should cause us to keep silent, and let the old vets talk,
and happily remember their contribution & sacrifices.

By a similar token, almost every year we attend a local
Marine Corps Birthday celebration. We still (!!)
have 3 vets who landed on Iwo Jima there
(2 of 3 looking each year, unlikely to make it to next).
I do not mention to them, that Max Hastings has some
thoughts that Iwo was an unnecessary battle.

And thus, Max Hastings has doubts about the worth
of any of the actions the "Code Talkers" were involved in.
Oh, well, nobody can know the future.

[news]

I understand your point. But IMHO, proper behavior, courtesy & respect
often should cause us to keep silent, and let the old vets talk, and
happily remember their contribution & sacrifices.
By a similar token, almost every year we attend a local Marine Corps
Birthday celebration. We still (!!) have 3 vets who landed on Iwo Jima
there (2 of 3 looking each year, unlikely to make it to next). I do not
mention to them, that Max Hastings has some thoughts that Iwo was an
unnecessary battle.
And thus, Max Hastings has doubts about the worth of any of the actions
the "Code Talkers" were involved in. Oh, well, nobody can know the future.

Our WWII vets are dying off. I am a boomer, and when I was a kid almost
all of fathers had been involved in the war. My father was in the air
force, had been shot down over occupied Denmark and successfully escaped
to neutral Sweden, and then back to England. His older brother had been
rejected because of colour blindness but spent the war years doing
research on radar, and his younger brother enlisted and was training as
a tanker, but the war ended before he was sent overseas. My aunt's
first husband was in the air force and was killed on his first
operational flight. Her second husband had been in the army and fought
his way through North Africa, Sicily and Italy. He was the first Allied
soldier to cross the Hitler Line at Ponto Cuervo. Another aunt's husband
had been in the navy.

One friend's father had fought in Hong Kong and spent close to 4 years
in a Japanese POW camp. My best friend's father was a pilot in the
Luftwaffe. He spent most of the war years in a POW camp in Canada.

And then there are some of my other friends, one a Czech, and another
who was Dutch, whose parents had lived under German occupation.


My wife told me about going for dinner with friends of her father.
Escargot was on the menu and the special of the day and she declined,
saying that she had had enough snails at camp. My wife was envious of
her having gone to a summer camp that served snails, until she realized
that it was not a summer camp but a concentration camp where they had
to catch and eat snails to supplement a starvation diet.







My father in law was much older, and he had fought in WWI in the
American Army. He is the only person I ever knew who had seen action in
that war and he had a lot of interesting stories about his experiences
on the front.

[w***@aol.com]

....Hawthorne is quoted as having
said....:.".We were successful in turning
the tide of the war in the Pacific."
Of course there are still a few who say
that the battle of Midway may also have
had something to do with that.

...IMHO, proper behavior, courtesy &
respect often should cause us to keep
silent, and let the old vets talk, and
happily remember their contribution &
sacrifices.

That's nice, but, as an old WWII vet myself,
I consider it somewhat condescending.
It is true that some of us may tend to
forget details and perhaps exaggerate wartime
experiences, however, I don't believe too many
of us who are still alive like to be patiently
listened to as if we were children, or, as if
senility was well advanced.
It is my view that In a forum such as this,
discussion should be confined as much as
possible to the historical record (about which we
can certainly argue and do) and that we should
try to avoid the hype which often seems to be
associated with some wartime activities, particular
those which involve the actions of those in the
armed forces who were members of a racial
minority group such as the Navajos, the
Japanese-American 100/442d, the African-American
"red tails." All of those groups performed admirably,
but so did many other groups and individuals among
the some 14 million Americans who served. It is no
favor to those Americans who were members of one
of the minorities to exaggerate their exploits or falsify
their war record even when such is done by one of their
own, either by accident or intent.
How often do we hear about the heroism among
our non-minority POWs of the Japanese who suffered
unspeakable horrors in the Japanese death camps? Or
the exploits of the 32nd Infantry Division. During the
bloody battle at Buna in New Guinea? In that action the
32nd Division earned 100 DSC's and 2 MOH for a ratio
of 1 to 50.
Compare that with the recent year 2000
politically-initiated upgrades from DSC to MOH because
of "alleged wartime discrimination" given 55 years after
WWII had ended to Japanese-Americans in the 442nd
RCT. The ratio then became 23 MOH to 30 DSC's, or 1
to 1.3.
Lt.Colonel Lee Allen, himself a prisoner of the
Japanese during WWII, has this comment in his website,
"Internment Archives at
http://www.internmentarchives.com/archives.php
"For decades prior to the (year 2000) MOH upgrades it
was claimed that the 442nd was the most highly decorated
unit in the history of the army, or words to that or similar
effect. One must wonder how the unit achieved this widely
publicized acclaim if there had been discrimination in
awarding medals for valor. Exaggerated and fabricated
claims of service and achievement are common to
Japanese-Americans in World War II..."
And, in the words of Army historian McNaughton:
"Even in segregated units such as the 100th Infantry
Battalion and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team (RCT),
white officers made sure that their Japanese American
soldiers received full recognition for valor."
There were 11,260,000 total (U.S.) Army personnel
serving in World War II. Of that number, there were,
according to the Army Command History Office, 145,000
Asian-Americans, including 100,000 Filipinos who served
under U.S. command. Accordingly, the ratio of
Asian-Americans to others who served was 0.0128 or just
over 1%. Total DSC's awarded for valor in WW II Army
service was 4,434. Total Asian-American DSC winners
were 104. The Asian-American DSC award ratio was thus
0.0234 of all Army DSC awards. Representing only 1% of
the troops, the Asian-Americans received 2% of the
Distinguished Service Cross awards. Where was the
discrimination? If anything the number of DSC's awarded
Asian-Americans reveals just the opposite - they received
more than their proportionate number in the award process....
Twenty of the of the 22 recent upgrades went to
members of the 100/442nd RCT. If, as seems clear, the
proponents of the recent upgrades believe that the
Asian-Americans should have received "Affirmative Action
" Medals of Honor in proportion to the number of their DSC's
awarded, and inasmuch as Asian-Americans in the 100/442nd
received 47 DSC's or 1% of all DSC's awarded by the Army
in WW II, a consistent conclusion would be that the 100/442nd,
which received only 1 Medal of Honor, should have received
3, or 1% of the 301 total of Army Medals of Honor awarded.
But instead of 2 additional, 21 additional Medals of Honor were
awarded to the 100/442nd RCT by the upgrade. Again we see
Asian-Americans, who had already been awarded a
proportionately larger number of DSC's, now receiving 10 times
the number of Medals of Honor as would be justified under their
DSC award ratio. Were the heroes of the 100/442nd ten times
more deserving of Medals of Honor for bravery as those in other
combat regiments? That would seem unlikely.
As Lt.Colonel Allen observes:
"Curious, as in other fabricated claims of achievement by
Japanese-Americans in World War II, is the utter absence of
voices in dissent. There seems to be no shame when credit is
claimed for the achievement of others, when false claims are
made or when accomplishments are exaggerated."
Is this because, as "a425 couples" tells us, "...proper behavior,
courtesy & respect often should cause us to keep silent, and let
the old vets talk, and happily remember their contribution &
sacrifices?"

I don't think so.

<UTF16-2028>WJH

[a425couple]

Post by w***@aol.com

....Hawthorne is quoted as having
said....:.".We were successful in turning
the tide of the war in the Pacific."
Of course there are still a few who say
that the battle of Midway may also have
had something to do with that.

...IMHO, proper behavior, courtesy &
respect often should cause us to keep
silent, and let the old vets talk, and
happily remember their contribution &
sacrifices.

That's nice, but, as an old WWII vet myself,
I consider it somewhat condescending.

(BIG SNIP about possibly undeserved medals)

Post by w***@aol.com
Is this because, as "a425 couples" tells us, "...proper behavior,
courtesy & respect often should cause us to keep silent, and let
the old vets talk, and happily remember their contribution &
sacrifices?"

A monument was unveiled.
A reporter there, got a vet, one of the honorees, to chat.
He made a comment (perhaps not well thought out,
and certainly unclear as to who he is including, in "We").
You wish to make a mountain out of that molehill.

And then, when I'm not upset by it, you liken it to my
being ok with others who make false statements to improperly
get undeserved medals.
I'm pretty sure, that is not what I said, or was saying.

I hope you have fun attending your reunions and
correcting every statement made by your 'friends',
that you think is not totally correct.


(more or less an aside, to fill space for 50%,
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker
"At the Battle of Iwo Jima, Major Howard Connor, 5th Marine
Division signal officer, had six Navajo code talkers working ----.
Connor later stated, "Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines
would never have taken Iwo Jima."
Is Maj. Connor right or wrong?
I'm not caring to waste words about it, one way or the other!)

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by a425couple
"At the Battle of Iwo Jima, Major Howard Connor, 5th Marine
Division signal officer, had six Navajo code talkers working ----.
Connor later stated, "Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines
would never have taken Iwo Jima."
Is Maj. Connor right or wrong?

Wrong. The U.S. had overwhelming force at Iwo Jima.

The 'code talkers' were helpful - but how much radio
monitoring could the Japanese defenders do? How many
timely opportunities were seized by the Marines
thanks to faster communications?

In either category - some, but not enough to change
the outcome. The 'code talkers' made the Marines
more effective, and thus saved many lives. But they
weren't necessary to win the battle.

[a425couple]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by a425couple
"At the Battle of Iwo Jima, Major Howard Connor, 5th Marine
Division signal officer, had six Navajo code talkers working ----.
Connor later stated, "Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines
would never have taken Iwo Jima."
Is Maj. Connor right or wrong?

(Wishing I had used a few more words, so my point
might have been clearer, and not waste more time----)

Post by Rich Rostrom
Wrong. The U.S. had overwhelming force at Iwo Jima.
The 'code talkers' were helpful -

That is correct Rich.
My point being, that when you have a Major make a
statement like that to & about junior enlisted men,,,

--- and then years later, these men at a reunion
talk about it (and GASP! maybe even believe it!),
seems tough to me to to want to belittle them for repeating it.
And THAT, is what I felt Hopwood wants to do.
(YES, perhaps I do have a personal point of view,
I'd like Marine enlisted men to believe what Marine
Officers say!!)

Or, by a similar token, when General Patton, in person,
tells a Tank Battalion that "You are the best",
we could certainly have doubts about the accuracy of that opinion,
or debate that,, but I would not criticise one of them over 60 years
later at a reunion, for repeating it.

Sure, if one of these men were writting a letter claiming
a MOH, then it could properly be disputed here or elsewhere.
But ISTM, going out of one's way to criticise other's
thoughts of themselves, is not a worthwhile game.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Rich Rostrom

".....Major Howard Connor....later stated,
"Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines
would never have taken Iwo Jima."
Is Maj. Connor right or wrong?

Wrong. The U.S. had overwhelming force
at Iwo Jima.....

That is correct Rich. My point being, that
when you have a Major make a statement
like that to & about junior enlisted men,,,
...I would not criticise one of them over 60
years later at a reunion, for repeating it.
....seems tough to me to to want to
belittle them for repeating it. And THAT, is
what I felt Hopwood wants to do.

Well, let's put this in the proper sequence.
It was the claim by one of the Navajo veterans
that the Navajo's "...were successful in turning
the tide of the war in the Pacific..." that initiated
my reference to the fact that it had been the
Battle of Midway which was considered by
others as having turned the tide of war in the
Pacific.
My observation apparently rubbed "425"
the wrong way and called for a lecture by him
on proper behavior when dealing with "old vets"
of whom I happen to be one. That rubbed me
the wrong way. Sorry if we have such trouble
understanding each other. Perhaps it's the
"generation gap."
As for the marine Major whose exuberant
remark referring to the six Navajos under him
about whom, he said "were it not for the Navajos,
the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jimo,"
that was also an obvious exaggeration.
When such obvious false claims are made,
not in the pleasamt atmosphere of a reunion some
half a century later, but in a historical venue such
as this, and without qualification, I don't think it
serves any useful purpose to gloss over them
in a condescending manner with such romantic
notions about it being poor behavior if we don't
just humor the "old vets" who make such claims.
To point out such false claims and exaggerations
is not being unreasonably critical. It's an effort to
maintain historical accuracy.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Rich Rostrom

".....Major Howard Connor....later stated,
"Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines
would never have taken Iwo Jima."
Is Maj. Connor right or wrong?

Wrong. The U.S. had overwhelming force
at Iwo Jima.....

That is correct Rich. My point being, that
when you have a Major make a statement
like that to & about junior enlisted men,,,
...I would not criticise one of them over 60
years later at a reunion, for repeating it.
....seems tough to me to to want to
belittle them for repeating it. And THAT, is
what I felt Hopwood wants to do.

Well, let's put this in the proper sequence.
It was the claim by one of the Navajo veterans
that the Navajo's "...were successful in turning
the tide of the war in the Pacific..." that initiated

The proper sequence is that he posted an article about a monument to the
code talkers. He merely presented that information as a matter of interest.

It was YOU who interjected the statement from Hawthorne; he did no
such thing.

Post by w***@aol.com
Battle of Midway which was considered by
others as having turned the tide of war in the
Pacific.

Whereas more intelligent people point to Pearl Harbor as having been the
beginning of the fall of the Japanese Empire.

I would, however, denigrate the contributions of those who served at
Midway.

Post by w***@aol.com
My observation apparently rubbed "425"
the wrong way and called for a lecture by him
on proper behavior when dealing with "old vets"
of whom I happen to be one. That rubbed me

Yet not a combat veteran.

Post by w***@aol.com
the wrong way. Sorry if we have such trouble
understanding each other. Perhaps it's the
"generation gap."

No, you simply look to take offense where none is intended.

Post by w***@aol.com
As for the marine Major whose exuberant
remark referring to the six Navajos under him
about whom, he said "were it not for the Navajos,
the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jimo,"
that was also an obvious exaggeration.

As a self-professed "WWII vet", it's odd that you can't understand a
commander's pride in his men.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I would, however, denigrate the contributions of those who served at
Midway.

ITYM "_not_ denigrate"

Right?

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I would, however, denigrate the contributions of those who served at
Midway.

ITYM "_not_ denigrate"
Right?

Yep; sorta kinda the whole point, but I HATE it when I do that :-)

It seems to me there's more than enough credit to go around for winning the war
that people shouldn't be 'offended' by someone else's accolades.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

.... Battle of Midway which was considered by
others as having turned the tide of war in the
Pacific.

...more intelligent people point to Pearl Harbor
as having been the beginning of the fall
of the Japanese Empire.

Wasn't historian Samuel Eliot Morrison's view.
intelligent enough for you? In his "The Two Ocean
War" he wrote: "The Japanese knew very well that
they were beaten. Midway thrust the war lords back
on their heels...(it) changed the whole course of the
Pacific War."

I would, however, denigrate the contributions of
those who served at Midway.

Yes, I'm not surprised that you would.

As for the marine Major whose exuberant
remark referring to the six Navajos.. was...
an obvious exaggeration.

As a self-professed "WWII vet" ....

Despite your insinuations, also professed by
my Statement of Credible Service showing
Reserve entry date on 16 August 1940, Active
Duty USN 22 March 1941 through 16 November
Active duty 27 June 1950---27 July 1953.
Reserve until retirement 1 November
1963.

.... it's odd that you can't understand a
commander's pride in his men.

I can. But also a commander's tendency
to exhibit "irrational exuberance" in showing
such pride which then gets picked up as gospel
by an admiring media and also by some in
forums such as this one and gets repeated
as gospel ad infinitum until it becomes the
conventional wisdom.

WJH

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by w***@aol.com

.... Battle of Midway which was considered by
others as having turned the tide of war in the
Pacific.

...more intelligent people point to Pearl Harbor
as having been the beginning of the fall
of the Japanese Empire.

Wasn't historian Samuel Eliot Morrison's view.
intelligent enough for you? In his "The Two Ocean
War" he wrote: "The Japanese knew very well that
they were beaten. Midway thrust the war lords back
on their heels...(it) changed the whole course of the
Pacific War."

Had the Japanese been successful at Midway, obviously the course of the
Pacific war would have unfolded differently.

The ultimate outcome would have been the same.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by w***@aol.com
Wasn't historian Samuel Eliot Morrison's view.
intelligent enough for you? In his "The Two Ocean
War" he wrote: "The Japanese knew very well that
they were beaten. Midway thrust the war lords back
on their heels...(it) changed the whole course of the
Pacific War."

Had the Japanese been successful at Midway, obviously the course of the
Pacific war would have unfolded differently.
The ultimate outcome would have been the same.

I've made the claim several times on soc.history.what-if that even if
the Japanese had been successful in destroying every single American
and Allied ship in the Pacific by the end of the Midway battle, the
surviving American fleet in the Atlantic plus the ships that the
United States built in the 18 months AFTER Midway would be sufficient
to win the war no more than six months after the United States
actually did.

At one point I had the full list of what was built through the end of
1943 and I now believe that's a bit of an exaggeration (i.e. that
Japan could be beaten by 03/1946 with nothing more than what was
historically available by 12/1943) it is almost certainly true based
on US production by the end of 1944.

Assuming such a catastrophic outcome (ha!) and neglecting the
casualties that the 1942 US Pacific Fleet would surely inflict given
its "demise" it seems likely the main loss it would suffer would be
the experienced manpower than went down with the Pacific fleet.

Certainly Morrison and others I've read have suggested that while the
losses in materiel suffered at Midway were a backbreaker for Japan the
loss of experienced aircrews - who were considered some of the best in
the world at that time - made it doubly so.

My whole point is that even with advantages Japan would never have,
they still get beaten and not that much later than August 1945. The
main outcome of all this would be 3-5 million fewer surviving Japanese
since the 1945 Japanese rice crop was catastrophic and it was only
massive food aid from America that prevented starvation in the early
days of the occupation. There would not of course be any aid if the
Japanese were still resisting.

[Michael Emrys]

Post by The Horny Goat
Certainly Morrison and others I've read have suggested that while
the losses in materiel suffered at Midway were a backbreaker for
Japan the loss of experienced aircrews - who were considered some of
the best in the world at that time - made it doubly so.

Recent historians have pointed out that Japanese aircrew losses at
Midway were not all that heavy, certainly not decisively so. Where the
carrier aircrew got annihilated was in flying off of land bases during
the Solomons campaign, some months later. That created losses of
experienced aircrew that were never fully replaced.

Michael

[Dave Anderer]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by The Horny Goat
Certainly Morrison and others I've read have suggested that while
the losses in materiel suffered at Midway were a backbreaker for
Japan the loss of experienced aircrews - who were considered some of
the best in the world at that time - made it doubly so.

Recent historians have pointed out that Japanese aircrew losses at
Midway were not all that heavy, certainly not decisively so. Where the
carrier aircrew got annihilated was in flying off of land bases during
the Solomons campaign, some months later. That created losses of
experienced aircrew that were never fully replaced.

Personaly I don't consider Morrison that useful a reference anymore.
He wrote 50-60 years ago, and not that long after the end of WWII.

There has been a *lot* of new reasearch, and newly availably
information, since then.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Dave Anderer
Personaly I don't consider Morrison that useful a
reference anymore. He wrote 50-60 years ago,
and not that long after the end of WWII.

Which was when the history was fresh and many
people of leadership still available to confirm
his research. Morison was a distinguished
historian, not a hack. In his wartime capacity as an
active-duty officer, he served on 11 ships while
spending more than half of his time at sea, earning
seven battle stars, and rising to the rank of Captain.
He was personally selected by FDR to be the
Official Navy Historian of the war and as such was
privy to much that later historians had to get
second-hand or not at all.

Post by Dave Anderer
There has been a *lot* of new reasearch, and
newly availably information, since then.

That's true, but unfortunately among it has been
considerable opinionated hype and revisionist history,
much of it resulting from changes in social values
in the intervening years.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Dave Anderer
Personaly I don't consider Morrison that useful a
reference anymore. He wrote 50-60 years ago,
and not that long after the end of WWII.

Which was when the history was fresh and many
people of leadership still available to confirm
his research. Morison was a distinguished
historian, not a hack. In his wartime capacity as an
active-duty officer, he served on 11 ships while
spending more than half of his time at sea, earning
seven battle stars, and rising to the rank of Captain.
He was personally selected by FDR to be the
Official Navy Historian of the war and as such was
privy to much that later historians had to get
second-hand or not at all.

And where in that history does he claim the Japanese might have won their
war if not for the draw at Midway?

Mike

[Dave Anderer]

Good grief.

I'm not going to get sucked into a pointless debate here. It seems
that on most things you wish our information, values, and judgements
were frozen 50 years in the past. The world has never worked that way.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Dave Anderer
Personaly I don't consider Morrison that useful a
reference anymore. He wrote 50-60 years ago,
and not that long after the end of WWII.

Which was when the history was fresh and many
people of leadership still available to confirm
his research. Morison was a distinguished
historian, not a hack. In his wartime capacity as an
active-duty officer, he served on 11 ships while
spending more than half of his time at sea, earning
seven battle stars, and rising to the rank of Captain.
He was personally selected by FDR to be the
Official Navy Historian of the war and as such was
privy to much that later historians had to get
second-hand or not at all.

Post by Dave Anderer
There has been a *lot* of new reasearch, and
newly availably information, since then.

That's true, but unfortunately among it has been
considerable opinionated hype and revisionist history,
much of it resulting from changes in social values
in the intervening years.
WJH

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Dave Anderer
Good grief.
I'm not going to get sucked into a pointless debate here

Good idea. You don't seem very well prepared for one,
psychologically or otherwise.

Post by Dave Anderer
It seems that on most things you wish our information,
values, and judgements were frozen 50 years in the past.

Could be. But I believe you missed a point. We could
use a little more accuracy about what happened in the
past and why.

Post by Dave Anderer
The world has never worked that way.

I know, and that's a shame. That's why what happens in
the world now so often seems like "de vu all over again."

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Dave Anderer
Good grief.
I'm not going to get sucked into a pointless debate here

Good idea. You don't seem very well prepared for one,
psychologically or otherwise.

Um, so you present yourself as someone well prepared for "pointless debate"?

Not sure that's a selling point...

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Dave Anderer
It seems that on most things you wish our information,
values, and judgements were frozen 50 years in the past.

Could be. But I believe you missed a point. We could
use a little more accuracy about what happened in the
past and why.

Did you mean "accuracy" as in not using the word "concentration camps" for
the Nisei camps because of "modern association with the nazi death camps"? Or
is there a different use of the word "accuracy" you had in mind?

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Dave Anderer
The world has never worked that way.

I know, and that's a shame. That's why what happens in
the world now so often seems like "de vu all over again."

So, because the world is constantly changing, it's the same?

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by w***@aol.com
That's true, but unfortunately among it has been
considerable opinionated hype and revisionist history,
much of it resulting from changes in social values
in the intervening years.

And much of the history written immediately after the
war was opinionated hype and political propaganda.
Memoirs were written by people who wanted to inflate
their reputations or justify their actions.

One of the most widely read and quoted histories of
the war was that of Winston Churchill - who said
"HIstory will be kind to me - for I intend to write
it."

Research into and revelations about the war will
continue for decades, perhaps _centuries_.

I do not exaggerate. A friend of mine is a publisher
specializing in Napoleonic history. Maybe 15 years
ago, he published a book (by an amateur historian) on
the battle of Waterloo. Working from original records
still held in French and British archives, the author
showed that a very basic, universally accepted "fact"
about the battle was seriously wrong. This was over
180 years later.

[w***@aol.com]

....much of the history written immediately after the
war was opinionated hype and political propaganda.

Some was, but much of it was also accurate, Gives us
something to argue about here.

Memoirs were written by people who wanted to inflate
their reputations or justify their actions.

Could be, but that's a rather broad accusation. Do
you have anyone specific in mind? Here are a few
authors from the WWII era together with their subject
matter. I'm curious as to whether you would include
any of these in the category you mention above:
Brackman (Tokyo War Crime Trials) Boyd (MAGIC
intercepts Berlin/Tokyo), Churchill (his post-war series
starting with "The Gathering Storm") Daws (Prisoners
of the Japanese) Duus (Unlkely Liberators), Faragp
(Operation MAGIC), Gannon (U-Boat attacks on East
Coast), Krammer (Internments of German-American
and Italians), Kahn (The Codebreakers), Lee (Marching
Orders and Pearl Harbor Final Judgement), Lowman
(MAGIC intercepts). Morison (History of USN in WWII),
Prange (Pearl Harbor), Prados (Combined Fleet Decoded),
Smith (Evacuation of Japanese from West Coast), Stephan
(Hawaii Under the Rising Sun), Zaharias (Intelligence
assignments, pre-war Japan).

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

....much of the history written immediately after the
war was opinionated hype and political propaganda.

Some was, but much of it was also accurate, Gives us
something to argue about here.

Memoirs were written by people who wanted to inflate
their reputations or justify their actions.

Could be, but that's a rather broad accusation. Do
you have anyone specific in mind? Here are a few
authors from the WWII era together with their subject
matter.

Here's another, writing AT THE TIME. You seem to disagree with him, but
then he was a combat veteran.

"No combat unit in the Army could exceed [them] in loyalty, hard work,
courage and sacrifice. Hardly a man of them hasn't been decorated at
least twice, and their casualty lists were appalling.... A lot of us
in Italy used to scratch our heads and wonder how we would feel if we
were wearing the uniform of a country that mistreated our families. Most
of us came to the conclusion that we would be pretty damn sulky about
it, and we marveled at those guys who didn't sulk ... and showed more
character and guts per man than any 10 of the rest of us ... . We were
proud to be wearing the same uniform."

Bill Mauldin.

He apparently learned from the war, as well

http://hnn.us/node/50199

"It infuriated him when he saw discrimination. He first thought about
it when he saw Japanese-American soldiers from the 442nd Regiment
fight with valor in Italy -- the most highly decorated unit in American
military history -- and he saw them return to the United States and be
denied access to restaurants, bars and home ownership. That infuriated
him. When he heard anti-Semitism from Southern senators after the war,
that infuriated him. Black soldiers returning to segregated schools and
neighborhoods outraged him."

Oddly, you have a different view of the time.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by w***@aol.com

....much of the history written immediately after the
war was opinionated hype and political propaganda.

Some was, but much of it was also accurate, Gives us
something to argue about here.

No one is claiming that history written
immediately after the war was entirely
worthless.

However, there have been claims that
history written then is superior because
history written later has all been
corrupted.

Post by w***@aol.com

Memoirs were written by people who wanted to inflate
their reputations or justify their actions.

Could be, but that's a rather broad accusation. Do
you have anyone specific in mind?

Churchill, Montgomery, Manstein, Speer.

When Churchill produced his history of WW II,
he was at the time the leader of the British
Conservative Party, and expected to lead the
Conservatives in a general election within a
few years.

Also, he was still a responsible statesman,
which restrained him from being frank about
foreign countries and figures which Britain
needed to have good relations with.

Post by w***@aol.com
Here are a few authors from the WWII era...

????

How are these "from the WW II era"?

Post by w***@aol.com
Kahn (The Codebreakers)

1967 (1st edition); Issued in a revisef edition in 1996.
It's a classic example of a book which has become
outdated, as it had no information whatever on Enigma
and ULTRA.

Post by w***@aol.com
Lee (Marching Orders and Pearl Harbor Final Judgement)

1995 and 1992

Post by w***@aol.com
Prange (Pearl Harbor)

1981

Post by w***@aol.com
Prados (Combined Fleet Decoded)

1995

Post by w***@aol.com
Stephan (Hawaii Under the Rising Sun)

1984

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by w***@aol.com
Here are a few authors from the WWII
era...

How are these "from the WW II era"?
Kahn...1967, Lee ....1995 and 1992,
Prange...1981, Prados...1995,
Stephan...1984

All were living in WWii. Their dates of
publication don't matter. The important
thing is the accuracy of their work.
To the best of my knowledge all have
received favorable historic reviews for their
work for which they all had to have done
lengthy advance research before writing
a word. Kahn, for instance starting working
on his book early in the 1950s.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Kahn (The Codebreakers)--1967
.....a classic example of a book which
has become outdated, as it had no
information whatever on Enigma and
ULTRA.

Sorry but you're mistaken. Apparently you
didn't read the book-- or forgot what is says
if you did.
"The Codebreakers" is over 1100 pages.
Kahn not only covers the development and
use of Enigma in considerable detail but also
explains how ULTRA evolved into becoming
a code-word for intelligence obtained from
any enemy intercepts in any cypher or coded
form by the UK or the U.S. For security
reasons, such information was first
sanitized, then sent out under the label,
ULTRA to protect the source.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by w***@aol.com
Here are a few authors from the WWII
era...

How are these "from the WW II era"?
Kahn...1967, Lee ....1995 and 1992,
Prange...1981, Prados...1995,
Stephan...1984

All were living in WWii.

Prados was born in 1951.

Gavan Daws would have been 12 when the war was over.

Duus would have been 7, and probably doesn't see eye-to-eye with you on
most things.

Krammer would have been about 3-4, considering he got his BS in 1963
Stephen is about the same age.

Post by w***@aol.com
Their dates of
publication don't matter. The important
thing is the accuracy of their work.

Right. Tell me, what of their work is out of sync with what you call "modern
sensibilities"?

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by w***@aol.com
Kahn, for instance starting working
on his book early in the 1950s.

Kahn was contracted to write a book on
cryptography in 1961.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Rich Rostrom
Kahn (The Codebreakers)--1967
.....a classic example of a book which has become
outdated, as it had no information whatever on
Enigma and ULTRA.

Sorry but you're mistaken...
"The Codebreakers" is over 1100 pages.
Kahn not only covers the development and use of
Enigma in considerable detail but also explains how
ULTRA evolved into becoming a code-word for
intelligence...

Not the 1967 edition. All the material
about breaking Enigma, and the generation,
distribution, and use of ULTRA intelligence
is in the last chapter - which was added
for the _1996_ edition.

The 1967 edition had none of that.

As Kahn himself wrote in the Preface to the
Revised Edition:

"The need to revise this book existed even before
it was published. I had written what I hoped would
be the definitive history of the subject.
*I did not know at the time of such great matters
as the Polish-British-American mastery of the German
Enigma cipher machine, which had such great effects
on World War II...*"

(emphasis added)

As a matter of fact, I have not read _The
Codebreakers_. But since I knew it was published
in 1967, I knew it could not have anything about
Enigma or ULTRA.

The revised edition is more authoritative, because
it has the benefit of three decades of additional
research and disclosures.

The same is true for many other WW II related
subjects. More recent books (or more recent editions
of books) generally have better, more authoritative
information.

This contradicts the suggestion that older scholarship
is better, because all more recent scholarship is
corrupted by "political correctness".

[Mario]

Post by Rich Rostrom
As a matter of fact, I have not read _The
Codebreakers_. But since I knew it was published
in 1967, I knew it could not have anything about
Enigma or ULTRA.

I read it and there was nothing on Enigma/ULTRA.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Mario

....I have not read _The Codebreakers_...it was
published... in 1967...it could not have anything
about Enigma or ULTRA.

I read it and there was nothing on Enigma/ULTRA.

How did you both manage to miss pages 6,18,
421,422,423, 425,459,461,510,601,602, and
619 ??

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Mario

....I have not read _The Codebreakers_...it was
published... in 1967...it could not have anything
about Enigma or ULTRA.

I read it and there was nothing on Enigma/ULTRA.

How did you both manage to miss pages 6,18,
421,422,423, 425,459,461,510,601,602, and
619 ??

So, if most of Enigma was declassified in the 1970s, how much was
disclosed in the 1967 edition? And how would that be BETTER than the
1996 edition, published after said declassification?

And please explain how the 1967 book would be superior to a recent book
on the Tunny system?

Clearly, there are things long after the war that absolutely cannot be
published in the recent aftermath of a war. I'm at a loss to understand
how you can be so stupidly stubborn about that point.

However, as I've said, you are the best refutation of your own arguments.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Mario

....I have not read _The Codebreakers_...it was
published... in 1967...it could not have anything
about Enigma or ULTRA.

I read it and there was nothing on Enigma/ULTRA.

How did you both manage to miss pages 6,18,
421,422,423, 425,459,461,510,601,602, and
619 ??

Those references are in the _1996_ edition.

In the _1967_ edition, there was nothing.

As _Kahn_ _himself_ wrote (in 1996)

"I did not know at the time of such great matters
as the Polish-British-American mastery of the German
Enigma cipher machine..."

Therefore he couldn't (and didn't) write anything
about it then. He could (and did) write about it
later, and this later writing was incorporated into a
revised edition of _The Codebreakers_.

If you have a _1967_ edition of _The Codebreakers_
which has references to Enigma and ULTRA, then
you've got something really special.

All of which merely reinforces the obvious truth
that the work of history is a continuing process,
with new research revealing new information.
History which incorporates new information (or
discards wrong and or unsupported facts) is
better history.

Progress is not always continuous. Sometimes
mistaken or tendetious history gets into the
canon for a while.

But anyone who claims that all recently done
history is corrupted because it says things
he dislikes is reasoning from conclusions to
evidence, i.e. backwards.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Rich Rostrom
Kahn (The Codebreakers)--1967
.....had no information whatever on
Enigma and ULTRA.

Sorry...you're mistaken..."The Codebreakers"
...covers the development and use of Enigma.
but also explains...ULTRA ..

Not the 1967 edition. the material about breaking
Enigma, and the use of ULTRA...was added
for the _1996_ edition.

Yes, the 1967 edition.

As a matter of fact, I have not read _The
Codebreakers_. But since I knew it was
published in 1967, I knew it could not have
anything about Enigma or ULTRA.

Well, then you have been misinformed.
As I said in a previous post, the 1967
edition refers to Enigma and to a lesser
degree to Ultra on the following psges:
6,18, 421,422,423, 425,459,461,
510,601,602, and 619.

The revised edition is more authoritative,
because it has the benefit of three decades
additional research and disclosures.

Although the newer edition has added Chapter
27, which contains information about other
world situations in which the U.S. has been
involved since WWII, and how technology
has advanced leading up to the computer
age, I see nothing really "earthshaking"
to change the WWII history contained in
the earlier edition.
As you say, the new edition does
contain a passage about the extraordinary
work done at Bletchley Park with the Enigma
decrypts which had not been available when
the earlier edition appeared.
However, in my view you have, in
your own mind, exaggerated the
importance of that new information being
missing from the earlier edition. That It
does not contain the new info does nothing
to diminish the overall historical value of
the earlier edition of the book.
Furthermore, I see nothing new
about ULTRA in the 1996 edition that the
earlier edition hadn't already told us.
It was not until the 1970s that the
details of the extraordinary activities
in breaking the Enigma cyphers
by the UK at Bletchley Park were made
public. What Kahn's new Chapter 27
tells us had already been detailed in an
excellent book 3 years earlier, titled
"Codebreakers" edited by F.H.Hinsley
and Alan Tripp (the title not to be confused
with Kahn's book) which detailed the
code-breaking activities at Bletchly Park.
In the Hinsley/Stripp book the editors
confirmed what Kahn had already said
in his 1967 edition about the link between
ULTRA and MAGIC, i.e., that they were both
merely "code names" used for the purpose
of hidfing the source of the intelligence
obtained from the decryption of enemy
cypher messages. It was never a term
exclusively related to the Enigma decrypts
alone, as you seem to imply.
Also, Bradley F. Smith wrote in his
1993 book, "The Ultra-Magic Deals," that
the term ULTRA was not a word confined to
the distribution of info obtained only from
enemy intercepts decrypted by the British
at Bletchley Park. Smith noted that in order
to avoid confusion, U.S. Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Ernest J. King, issued
an order that the term Ultra was also to be
used by the U.S. to describe intelligence
distributed by the U.S. without regard to how
the information had been obtained---whether
by the British (from Enigma) or by the U.S.
(from (MAGIC).
Although the update to Kahn's 1967
edition is historically helpful, I don't believe
the new information contained therein is
either that new or that "earthshaking" to
deserve your relegation of the earlier edition
to the dump as "...a classic example of a book
which has become outdated."

P.S.

If you have a _1967_ edition of _The
Codebreakers_which has references to Enigma
and ULTRA, then you've got something really
special.

Well, then, I have something really special.

.... History which incorporates new information (or
discards wrong and or unsupported facts) is
better history.

Agreed, but new information which does not
conflict with or contradict the old, provides no
legitimate reason to dismiss the old information
as superfluous, false, or outdated.

WJH

[Michael Emrys]

Also, Bradley F. Smith wrote in his 1993 book, "The Ultra-Magic
Deals," that the term ULTRA was not a word confined to the
distribution of info obtained only from enemy intercepts decrypted by
the British at Bletchley Park. Smith noted that in order to avoid
confusion, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Ernest J. King,
issued an order that the term Ultra was also to be used by the U.S.
to describe intelligence distributed by the U.S. without regard to
how the information had been obtained---whether by the British (from
Enigma) or by the U.S. (from (MAGIC).

I must admit that I believe in this paragraph Hopwood is on to
something. In several accounts written by former submarine skippers
after the '70s, they refer to Ultra-secret dispatches received from
Pearl concerning Japanese shipping movements in their area of
operations. These would of course have been derived from decrypts of the
relevant Japanese naval codes and had nothing to do with either Enigma
or Bletchley.

Michael

[w***@aol.com]

.... In several accounts written by former submarine skippers
after the '70s, they refer to Ultra-secret dispatches...from
Pearl concerning Japanese shipping movements...These...
....from decrypts of...Japanese naval codes and had nothing
to do with either Enigma or Bletchley.

Exactly. An excellent book covering this and much more about
U.S, communications intelligence (Comint) in the Pacific was
written by a veteran submariner, Captain W.J.Holmes, USN,
titled "Double-Edged Secrets."
Holmes was assigned to the Combat Intelligence Unit at
Pearl where he was privy to the work of code-breaking done by
"Hypo" the Comint unit charged with decypting intercepted
Japanese naval messages and distributing them under the
code-name "Ultra." In his book, Holmes defined "ULTRA" as
any "intelligence obtained from decryption."
As Mr. Emrys notes above, the work done at Pearl by
"Hypo" had nothing to do with either Enigma or MAGIC.
Holmes' book is a very good read. Below are excerpts from
a review of it at "Google Books":

"DOUBLE-EDGED SECRETS" U.S. Naval Intelligence
Operations in the Pacific during World War II. By W. J.
Holmes..... From the author of the great World War II
submarine book, "Undersea Victory" comes, "Double-Edged
Secrets." ....Find out how and when the top-secret 'ULTRA"
....was conceived. Every U.S. submarine in the Pacific fleet
received....ULTRA but only the skipper could de-code the
covert messages....(Emphasis Mine)

WJH

[Rich Rostrom]

Well, then you have been misinformed. As I said in a
previous post, the 1967 edition refers to Enigma and
6,18, 421,422,423, 425,459,461, 510,601,602, and 619.

I have not been able to locate a 1967
edition. It's difficult, because the
1996 edition refers to both publication
dates, and some libraries list it as
a 1967 book.

I will continue to search for a 1967
edition, and see what it actually says.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Rich Rostrom

.... the 1967 edition refers to Enigma and
to a lesser degree to Ultra on the following
psges: 6,18, 421,422,423, 425,459,461,
510,601,602, and 619.

I have not been able to locate a 1967
edition....

Try going to Google Books and search
for "The Codebreakers" by Kahn. You
will find the 1996 edition which is
the same as the original 1967
edition except for an extra Preface
and an added Chapter 27 at the end.
Between those two brief addendums
is the book just as it was written in 1967.
The website lets you preview a few
pages including pages 6 and 18 (which
are on my list you quote above). You
will see that both of those pages contain
a reference to Enigma, just as I said
they did.
The web won't let you preview the
other pages I listed, but I can assure you
the reference to Enigma and Ultra are
still where I said they were in the
1967 (now 1996) edition..

Post by Rich Rostrom
I will continue to search for a 1967
edition, and see what it actually says.

Be my guest. But I believe our
disagreement here is over what each of
us means by what we say. When I
say that the 1967 edition mentions Enigma
and Ultra, I mean exactly that.
But when you say there is "NOTHING"
about either Enigma or Ultra in the 1967
edition, I think you are really trying to say
that there is nothing about the Bletchley
Park decrypts in the 1967 edition. Of
course, I never said there was.

WJH

[Mario]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Mario

....I have not read _The Codebreakers_...it was
published... in 1967...it could not have anything
about Enigma or ULTRA.

I read it and there was nothing on Enigma/ULTRA.

How did you both manage to miss pages 6,18,
421,422,423, 425,459,461,510,601,602, and
619 ??
WJH

I stand corrected.

In my Italian edition, 1969, (could be a reduced version, 675
pages) I found a reference to the Enigma coding machine at page
300, in the Axis chapter.

I have not found ULTRA, though.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Rich Rostrom
How are these "from the WW II era"?
Kahn...1967, Lee ....1995 and 1992,
Prange...1981, Prados...1995,
Stephan...1984

All were living in WWii. Their dates of
publication don't matter. The important
thing is the accuracy of their work.

You sure about Prados? I can't find his birthdate online but am pretty
sure he was one of James Dunnigan's wargame designers back in the
early 70s and he was at most 25 years old when I finished high school
which would make him born in the immediate post WW2 period.>> Kahn
(The Codebreakers)--1967

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Rich Rostrom
.....a classic example of a book which
has become outdated, as it had no
information whatever on Enigma and
ULTRA.

Sorry but you're mistaken. Apparently you
didn't read the book-- or forgot what is says
if you did.
"The Codebreakers" is over 1100 pages.
Kahn not only covers the development and
use of Enigma in considerable detail but also
explains how ULTRA evolved into becoming
a code-word for intelligence obtained from
any enemy intercepts in any cypher or coded
form by the UK or the U.S. For security
reasons, such information was first
sanitized, then sent out under the label,
ULTRA to protect the source.

Great book I recommend it highly though to be sure - 1100 pages is
quite a read.. As I recall I only got as far as page 700 before it had
to go back to the library but no question it was a great book.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Rich Rostrom
How are these "from the WW II era"?
Kahn...1967, Lee ....1995 and 1992,
Prange...1981, Prados...1995,
Stephan...1984

All were living in WWii. Their dates of
publication don't matter. The important
thing is the accuracy of their work.

You sure about Prados? I can't find his birthdate online but am pretty

1951.

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by w***@aol.com
"The Codebreakers" is over 1100 pages.

Great book I recommend it highly though to be sure - 1100 pages is
quite a read.. As I recall I only got as far as page 700 before it had
to go back to the library but no question it was a great book.

1967 version, or 1996 version?

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by The Horny Goat
You sure about Prados? I can't find his birthdate
online.... but am pretty sure he was...at most 25
years old when I finished high school...

You could be right. I listed over a dozen authors
and should have said "most" instead of "all" were
living during WWII.

Post by The Horny Goat
Great book I recommend it highly though to be sure
- 1100 pages is quite a read.. As I recall I only got
as far as page 700 before it had to go back to the
library but no question it was a great book.

Yes, it is a classic. Mr. Rostrom and I have a
disagreement on a very small portion of its content
but I think the issue between us centers more
on concept than on fact. Whereas he contends that
the original 1967 edition does not contain ANYTHING
about Enigma and Ultra, I am trying to convince him
that it contains plenty about those subjects but not
what he considers as important as what Kahn added
in the later edition. That's a matter of opinion.

WJH

[Dave Anderer]

Post by w***@aol.com

....much of the history written immediately after the
war was opinionated hype and political propaganda.

Some was, but much of it was also accurate, Gives us
something to argue about here.

Memoirs were written by people who wanted to inflate
their reputations or justify their actions.

Could be, but that's a rather broad accusation. Do
you have anyone specific in mind?

Fuchida is an obvious example.

Post by w***@aol.com
Here are a few
authors from the WWII era together with their subject
matter. I'm curious as to whether you would include
Brackman (Tokyo War Crime Trials) Boyd (MAGIC
intercepts Berlin/Tokyo), Churchill (his post-war series
starting with "The Gathering Storm") Daws (Prisoners
of the Japanese) Duus (Unlkely Liberators), Faragp
(Operation MAGIC), Gannon (U-Boat attacks on East
Coast), Krammer (Internments of German-American
and Italians), Kahn (The Codebreakers), Lee (Marching
Orders and Pearl Harbor Final Judgement), Lowman
(MAGIC intercepts). Morison (History of USN in WWII),
Prange (Pearl Harbor), Prados (Combined Fleet Decoded),
Smith (Evacuation of Japanese from West Coast), Stephan
(Hawaii Under the Rising Sun), Zaharias (Intelligence
assignments, pre-war Japan).
WJH

..and Prange seems to have bought into Fuchida's BS hook, line, and sinker.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Dave Anderer

.....Do you have anyone specific in mind?

Fuchida is an obvious example.
..and Prange seems to have bought into
Fuchida's BS hook, line, and sinker.

A chap named Jonathon Parshall agrees with you
and wrote a devastating article about Fuchida three
years ago in the USN War College Review. Was
it on the basis of his article that you based your
opinion?
http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/2010---Spring/Reflecting-on-Fuchida,-or--A-Tale-of-Three-Whopper.aspx

But then along came another chap named Bennett
who, in the same publication, rebutted all the points
made by Parshall here:
http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/292914a3-bbf7-4418-bc52-2b482f6466db/Book-Reviews.

How would you respond to Bennett?

WJH

[Dave Anderer]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Dave Anderer

.....Do you have anyone specific in mind?

Fuchida is an obvious example.
..and Prange seems to have bought into
Fuchida's BS hook, line, and sinker.

A chap named Jonathon Parshall agrees with you
and wrote a devastating article about Fuchida three
years ago in the USN War College Review. Was
it on the basis of his article that you based your
opinion?
http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/2010---Spring/Reflecting-on-Fuchida,-or--A-Tale-of-Three-Whopper.aspx

But

Post by w***@aol.com
then along came another chap named Bennett
who, in the same publication, rebutted all the points
http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/292914a3-bbf7-4418-bc52-2b482f6466db/Book-Reviews.

How

Post by w***@aol.com
would you respond to Bennett?
WJH

I'd be happy to do as able a job of responding as Parshall did here:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/BennettRebuttal.htm

[Roman W]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:11:29 -0400, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
I do not exaggerate. A friend of mine is a publisher
specializing in Napoleonic history. Maybe 15 years
ago, he published a book (by an amateur historian) on
the battle of Waterloo. Working from original records
still held in French and British archives, the author
showed that a very basic, universally accepted "fact"
about the battle was seriously wrong. This was over
180 years later.

I know it's massively off-topic, but please, please please give more
details on that...

RW

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

.... Battle of Midway which was considered by
others as having turned the tide of war in the
Pacific.

...more intelligent people point to Pearl Harbor
as having been the beginning of the fall
of the Japanese Empire.

Wasn't historian Samuel Eliot Morrison's view.

It was Yamamoto's view, and he actually planned the attack.

Post by w***@aol.com
intelligent enough for you? In his "The Two Ocean

Not that you understand what he wrote...

Post by w***@aol.com
War" he wrote: "The Japanese knew very well that
they were beaten. Midway thrust the war lords back
on their heels...(it) changed the whole course of the
Pacific War."

I am unaware of any of Morrison's works which indicate the Japanese had any
chance, once they declared war. Unless you can show something like that
I'm going to repeat that you probably don't understand him.

Post by w***@aol.com

I would, however, denigrate the contributions of
those who served at Midway.

Yes, I'm not surprised that you would.

Actually, Mr Rostrum already caught on to the typo by the time you posted...

Post by w***@aol.com

As for the marine Major whose exuberant
remark referring to the six Navajos.. was...
an obvious exaggeration.

As a self-professed "WWII vet" ....

Despite your insinuations, also professed by
my Statement of Credible Service showing
Reserve entry date on 16 August 1940, Active
Duty USN 22 March 1941 through 16 November
Active duty 27 June 1950---27 July 1953.
Reserve until retirement 1 November
1963.

Fascinating; not a bit of combat in there, which only PARTIALLY explains how
you seem to out-of-touch with your "fellow" WWII veterans. It would be better
to refer to yourself as a "WWII era veteran".

Again, I've met actual combat vets, Mr Hopwood, in all branches of the US
military (and some in other militaries.) Not a single one has felt the need
to belittle the accomplishments of other veterans.

Perhaps they have more pride in their own accomplishments, and thus do not
need the

Post by w***@aol.com

.... it's odd that you can't understand a
commander's pride in his men.

I can.

Apparently not; the man was clearly praising his own men, and not belittling
anyone else's.

As you are apparently unaware, this is not uncommon in many walks of life; bosses
may refer to their team as "the best in the company", etc...

Post by w***@aol.com
by an admiring media and also by some in

So, commanding officers are "admiring media"?

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I am unaware of any of Morrison's works
which indicate the Japanese had any
chance, once they declared war. Unless
you can show something like that
I'm going to repeat that you probably
don't understand him.

If you were as aware of Morrison's works
as you infer, you would know that he clearly
outlined the war plan which Japan adopted in a
meeting of the Japanese Supreme War Council
on 6 September 1941.
Morrison wrote that in that plan, the Japanese
"warlords" had the following blueprint for successs:
(1) Prior to a declaration of war, destroy
the U.S. Pacific Fleet and the British and American
air forces on the Malay peninsula and Luzon....
(2) Perform a quick conquest of the Phillipines,
Guam, Wake, Hong Kong, Borneo, British Malaya,
and Sumatra,...
(3)Convergence of Japanese amphibious forces
on Java.
(4) Develop the natural resources of the
aforementioned areas and establish a defense
perimeter from the Kurile Islands to the Burmese-Indian
border, thus cutting all lines of communication between
Australia, New Zealand, and the Anglo-American powers
'WHICH WOULD THEN BE FORCED TO SUE FOR
PEACE." [Emphasis mine].
That hardly sounds in line with your analysis
that the Japanese expected to lose the war before they
started it, does it?
As Morrison wrote: "This scheme of
conquest was the most enticing, ambitious, and
far-reaching in modern history....It almost worked and
might well have succeeded but for the United States
Navy." ["The Two Ocean War"--Chapter 2, Section 3"
Samuel Eliot Morrison]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
... you seem to out-of-touch with your "fellow" WWII
veterans. It would be better to refer to yourself as a
"WWII era veteran"
I've met actual combat vets military (and some (in
other militaries.)....

Sadly, as can be seen, your principal forte in these
discussions is a scarcity of truth along with a resort to
malicious distortion and the personal insult.
Inasmuch as you've set the personal tone here,
perhaps in the interest of full disclosure you might wish
to share with us a little more about yourself. Things which
have influenced your own POV.
Military service in WWII? Military service post WWII?
Personal connection and/or relationships with other countries
and/ or people therefrom, particularly countries with which we
were once at war? That sort of thing. How about it?

WJH

[Michael Emrys]

That hardly sounds in line with your analysis that the Japanese
expected to lose the war before they started it, does it?

The claim was not that the Japanese expected to lose the war, but that
victory was not a realistic outcome. Strange that you should miss that.

Michael

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Michael Emrys

That hardly sounds in line with your analysis that the Japanese
expected to lose the war before they started it, does it?

The claim was not that the Japanese expected to lose the war, but that
victory was not a realistic outcome. Strange that you should miss that.

Take another look. The claim to which i was responding
was this one:
" I am unaware of any of Morrison's works which indicate
the Japanese had any chance, once they declared war."

It was In response to that claim that I quoted a lengthy
passage from Morrison which included a sentence in which
Morrison said that the Japanese expected the U.S. to "SUE
FOR PEACE" at the conclusion of their War Plan which
Morrison had detailed. You seem to have missed that.

WJH

[Michael Emrys]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michael Emrys

That hardly sounds in line with your analysis that the Japanese
expected to lose the war before they started it, does it?

The claim was not that the Japanese expected to lose the war, but that
victory was not a realistic outcome. Strange that you should miss that.

Take another look. The claim to which i was responding
" I am unaware of any of Morrison's works which indicate
the Japanese had any chance, once they declared war."

Well, they didn't. They just didn't know that they didn't. Can't you
grasp the distinction?

Michael

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by w***@aol.com
Take another look. The claim to which i was responding
" I am unaware of any of Morrison's works which indicate
the Japanese had any chance, once they declared war."

Well, they didn't. They just didn't know that they didn't. Can't you
grasp the distinction?

That wasn't the point. The subject of the exchange
was what Morison wrote, not what the Japanese
believed. As you say, it's true that Japan didn't have
a chance but didn't know it, but that's now confirmed
only by the wisdom of hindsight. As Morison pointed
out, at the beginning the Japanese navy was superior
to that of the U.S. in almost all respects, and the
Japanese war plan was far-reaching, ambitious,
"almost worked," and "could have succeeded,"
as he put it. But when the war started no one on
either side could predict with certainty how everything
would turn out in the end.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by w***@aol.com
Take another look. The claim to which i was responding
" I am unaware of any of Morrison's works which indicate
the Japanese had any chance, once they declared war."

Well, they didn't. They just didn't know that they didn't. Can't you
grasp the distinction?

That wasn't the point. The subject of the exchange
was what Morison wrote, not what the Japanese
believed.

No, the point was that
"more intelligent people point to Pearl Harbor
as having been the beginning of the fall
of the Japanese Empire."

*YOU* are claiming

"Wasn't historian Samuel Eliot Morrison's view."

So, simply show us where Morrison said the Japanese were going to win until
Midway, and you will have made your point.

Unless you wish to claim that Japanese who planned the war were "more
intelligent people"...

Post by w***@aol.com
As you say, it's true that Japan didn't have
a chance but didn't know it, but that's now confirmed

Well, no, Yamamoto knew it.

Post by w***@aol.com
only by the wisdom of hindsight.

Well, no, it wasn't. In fact, FDR relegated the war to a holding action,
feeling they could deal with the Japanese later, after Germany was defeated.

And then, there's Yamamoto...

Post by w***@aol.com
As Morison pointed
out, at the beginning the Japanese navy was superior
to that of the U.S. in almost all respects, and the

More ships? More carriers? More planes? More subs? More transports?

Post by w***@aol.com
Japanese war plan was far-reaching, ambitious,
"almost worked," and "could have succeeded,"
as he put it. But when the war started no one on
either side could predict with certainty how everything
would turn out in the end.

And yet FDR pursued the war plans as if he could predict the outcome of the
Pacific War...

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

As Morison pointed out, at the beginning
the Japanese navy was superior to that
of the U.S. in almost all respects....

More ships? More carriers? More planes?
More subs? More transports?

From "The Two Ocean War"---
:"In contrast to the United States Pacific
Fleet, the Japanese Combined Fleet was well
balanced, thoroughly trained and spoiling for
a fight. Owing to the operation of the 5:3:3
ratio, and to Japan's kicking over even that
in 1936 and embarking on an intensive
building program, the Japanese Navy was
more powerful in combatant ships than the
United States Navy in the Pacific; more
powerful even if one added the British and
Dutch warships in that ocean. It had plenty
of freighters convertible to transports, fleet
oilers, or other auxiliaries, it was rugged from
annual maneuvers in rought northern waters,
Japanese gunnery and navigation were
excellent; their torpedoes were far more
speedy, accurate, and destructive than those
of any other navy, and their carrier planes
were superior in the fighter and torpedo-
bomber categories."

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

As Morison pointed out, at the beginning
the Japanese navy was superior to that
of the U.S. in almost all respects....

More ships? More carriers? More planes?
More subs? More transports?

From "The Two Ocean War"---
:"In contrast to the United States Pacific
Fleet, the Japanese Combined Fleet was well
balanced, thoroughly trained and spoiling for
a fight.

And was on the defensive inside of 6 months.

Mike

[Duwop]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

As Morison pointed out, at the beginning
the Japanese navy was superior to that
of the U.S. in almost all respects....

More ships? More carriers? More planes?
More subs? More transports?

From "The Two Ocean War"---
:"In contrast to the United States Pacific
Fleet, the Japanese Combined Fleet was well
balanced, thoroughly trained and spoiling for
a fight.

Since when is "spoiling for a fight" a qualitative or quantitative
thing?
A TF can be well balanced, doesn't say anything about it's adversary.
It's odd seeing Mr. Hopwood praise Japanese, of any nationality. We
should enjoy the moment.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
And was on the defensive inside of 6 months.

Which was pretty much the plan: Go on the offensive, grab a bunch of
territory, defend from interior lines.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michael Emrys

That hardly sounds in line with your analysis that the Japanese
expected to lose the war before they started it, does it?

The claim was not that the Japanese expected to lose the war, but that
victory was not a realistic outcome. Strange that you should miss that.

Take another look. The claim to which i was responding
" I am unaware of any of Morrison's works which indicate
the Japanese had any chance, once they declared war."
It was In response to that claim that I quoted a lengthy
passage from Morrison which included a sentence in which
Morrison said that the Japanese expected the U.S. to "SUE
FOR PEACE" at the conclusion of their War Plan which
Morrison had detailed. You seem to have missed that.

Or perhaps he suffers from being a native speaker of English. You see
"The Japanese expected" != "Morrison believed".

Not a subtle distinction, but it seems to elude you.

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by w***@aol.com
Take another look. The claim to which i was responding
" I am unaware of any of Morrison's works which indicate
the Japanese had any chance, once they declared war."
It was In response to that claim that I quoted a lengthy
passage from Morrison which included a sentence in which
Morrison said that the Japanese expected the U.S. to "SUE
FOR PEACE" at the conclusion of their War Plan which
Morrison had detailed. You seem to have missed that.

In other words that the Japanese themselves thought they had a chance
for victory - not that Morrison believed for a moment that their plan
was feasible.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I am unaware of any of Morrison's works
which indicate the Japanese had any
chance, once they declared war. Unless
you can show something like that
I'm going to repeat that you probably
don't understand him.

If you were as aware of Morrison's works
as you infer, you would know that he clearly
outlined the war plan which Japan adopted in a
meeting of the Japanese Supreme War Council
on 6 September 1941.

All absolutely FASCINATING stuff, Mr Hopwood, but as I see several others
have already done, the issue is NOT what the Japanese thought. It's what
the actual situation was. And Morrison does NOT claim Japan could have
won the war.

Post by w***@aol.com
that the Japanese expected to lose the war before they
started it, does it?

Were you to, perhaps, in your copious spare time, actually read some
people who work with primarily Japanese sources, you will find instances
of some of them believing they could still win the war in 1945. Perhaps
you've heard of Hirota? Do look him up.

However, intelligent people (ask around; perhaps you will find one)
will note the war was lost as soon as they started it.

Post by w***@aol.com
As Morrison wrote: "This scheme of
conquest was the most enticing, ambitious, and
far-reaching in modern history....It almost worked and
might well have succeeded but for the United States
Navy."

Uh, you DO realize that he's NOT claiming that had the US lost at Midway
they would have the war.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
... you seem to out-of-touch with your "fellow" WWII
veterans. It would be better to refer to yourself as a
"WWII era veteran"
I've met actual combat vets military (and some (in
other militaries.)....

Sadly, as can be seen, your principal forte in these
discussions is a scarcity of truth along with a resort to

Really? Tell me again about that "statute of limitations" on Medals
of Honor...

Post by w***@aol.com
Inasmuch as you've set the personal tone here,
perhaps in the interest of full disclosure you might wish
to share with us a little more about yourself. Things which
have influenced your own POV.

Well, there are the previously mentioned encounters with service men, etc.

Post by w***@aol.com
Military service in WWII? Military service post WWII?
Personal connection and/or relationships with other countries
and/ or people therefrom, particularly countries with which we
were once at war? That sort of thing. How about it?

No problem; never served. I've read a lot about wars, which is why you won't
find me criticizing a combat veteran's awards (unless they committed a war
crime.) I do believe I mentioned the previous combat vets of WWII. I have
friends whose fathers served in Korea, some in combat. One of my neighbors
actually fought against the US in that war (he's Chinese.) I know people
who've served in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. A co-worker lost a son
in that war.

BTW, Vietnam-era vets are careful to distinguish between "Vietnam War
veteran" and "Vietnam-ERA Veteran".

Just so you know what the young people call these things...

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
BTW, Vietnam-era vets are careful to distinguish
between "Vietnam War veteran" and "Vietnam-ERA
Veteran".

That distinction has to be made because during the
Vietnam War, only a part of the U.S. Armed Forces
were engaged in the war or efforts supporting the
war. The rest (in fact most) were engaged and
deployed for potential wars that didn't happen
(or supporting those deployments).

There is an obvious difference between those deployed
in South East Asia, who participated in that active
war, and those who were deployed in Europe, or Korea,
or with the U.S. Navy in the Atlantic or Mediterranean,
or with the Air Force in NORAD. All these others faced
potential enemies that during this period never fired
a shot.

This was not the case during WW II. The U.S. had
no potential enemies, only active enemies (the
Axis), and no U.S. forces were deployed "on watch".
There were forces deployed to defend areas that
were never attacked, but were under nevertheless
under potential threat from the Axis.

During both wars, a lot of people served in support
functions - training, logistics, planning, procurement,
intelligence - who never left CONUS. The WW II ones
were all part of the war effort against the Axis; but
many (most?) of the Vietnam Era ones were not part of
the Vietnam war effort.

No one would say that General Marshall was not a
WW II veteran, though he spent nearly the entire
war in CONUS; no one would say that Eisenhower was
not a WW I veteran, though he never left CONUS.

Then there were people in training for deployment,
who never went overseas, because the war ended.
They are included for WW II, but not for Vietnam,
because they could (and probably were) sent
elsewhere, whereas anyone in training during WW II
was destined for the front (or support of the front).

One could attempt to distinguish between those
deployed in combat zones and others, but that gets
very tricky. For example, ground crew for aircraft.

The planes and aircrews went into action, but the
ground crews stayed behind, and in many cases were
"as safe as houses". There were aircraft flying
ASW patrols from CONUS - a necessary and arduous
duty, and even dangerous, due to weather and
accidents.

But what of the ground crew? Do they count only as
"Era Veterans"?

I think trying to make any such distinction is
impossible, and the effort is invidious.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
BTW, Vietnam-era vets are careful to distinguish
between "Vietnam War veteran" and "Vietnam-ERA
Veteran".

- snip -

Post by Rich Rostrom
One could attempt to distinguish between those
deployed in combat zones and others, but that gets
very tricky. For example, ground crew for aircraft.

Which is rather the exact basis on which the military distinguishes. If
they served in the combat zone, they're awarded the Vietnam Service
Medal, if they didn't, they weren't.

Ground crews on Guam didn't get the medal, ground crews at Tan Son Nhut did.

Aircrew, overflying the combat zone, were eligible regardless of where
they took off from.

Post by Rich Rostrom
The planes and aircrews went into action, but the
ground crews stayed behind, and in many cases were
"as safe as houses". There were aircraft flying
ASW patrols from CONUS - a necessary and arduous
duty, and even dangerous, due to weather and
accidents.
But what of the ground crew? Do they count only as
"Era Veterans"?
I think trying to make any such distinction is
impossible, and the effort is invidious.

The military makes the distinction for us. If they were awarded the
Vietnam Service Medal(1), they're Vietnam veterans. If they weren't,
they're not.

(1) Or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for service in Vietnam
before 1965.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Rich Rostrom
I think trying to make any such distinction is
impossible, and the effort is invidious.

The military makes the distinction for us. If they were awarded the
Vietnam Service Medal(1), they're Vietnam veterans. If they weren't,
they're not.

For Vietnam era service personnel.

The question is whether a similar distinction
should be applied to WW II era personnel.

The Vietnam distinction (one was on or over
the territory of Vietnam (or Laos or Cambodia)
or one was not) is easy and effective because
the enemy's reach was strictly confined to
that area.

In WW II, the enemy's reach was far broader,
but in some ways narrower.

For instance, the distinction between ground
crew at bases in Vietnam, and bases outside
Indochina, but supporting missions against
Indochina.

The latter were outside the enemy's reach,
so excluded.

Compare to ground crews servicing 8th AF
planes in Britain. Comparable to being on
Guam? But there were occasional intruder
raids on bases in Britain as late as 1945.

Staff personnel in London were at risk from
V-weapons. Navy personnel at sea _anywhere_
were at risk of submarine attack on their
vessels.

OTOH, WW II was not a guerrilla war, with
enemy infiltrators striking far behind the
front lines. Forward air bases in France
and Italy were no more dangerous than in
Britain.

ISTM that such distinctions are far harder
to make in WW II, and not useful.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom
OTOH, WW II was not a guerrilla war, with
enemy infiltrators striking far behind the
front lines. Forward air bases in France
and Italy were no more dangerous than in
Britain.
ISTM that such distinctions are far harder
to make in WW II, and not useful.

Another guy I knew was stationed in London during WWII. Even with the occassional
V-missile attack on the islands, he never considered himself to have come under
fire. Never bothered him; he had a lot of stories about bars and the "fair
sex", and he was happy to do whatever they asked him to do.

Mike

[Bill]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Another guy I knew was stationed in London during WWII. Even with the occassional
V-missile attack on the islands, he never considered himself to have come under
fire. Never bothered him; he had a lot of stories about bars and the "fair
sex", and he was happy to do whatever they asked him to do.

I'll bet the people in the London Blitz considered they'd been on
active service...

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Bill

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Another guy I knew was stationed in London during WWII. Even with the occassional
V-missile attack on the islands, he never considered himself to have come under
fire. Never bothered him; he had a lot of stories about bars and the "fair
sex", and he was happy to do whatever they asked him to do.

I'll bet the people in the London Blitz considered they'd been on
active service...

Undoubtedly. But he (an American) wasn't in London in 1940-41.

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:19:37 -0400, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
The planes and aircrews went into action, but the
ground crews stayed behind, and in many cases were
"as safe as houses". There were aircraft flying
ASW patrols from CONUS - a necessary and arduous
duty, and even dangerous, due to weather and
accidents.
But what of the ground crew? Do they count only as
"Era Veterans"?
I think trying to make any such distinction is
impossible, and the effort is invidious.

OK - in your eyes would John George Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of
Canada 1957-63 be considered a veteran? He volunteered for active duty
in the Canadian Army and was invalided out due to injuries suffering
while undergoing training in the UK in 1915 and was returned to
Canada.

He definitely served overseas but a veteran? I think not though not by
his own choice.

(Any Canadian soldier who made it to England in WW1 had volunteered to
get there. This was almost entirely true in WW2 as well though you get
odd exceptions like my high school math teacher who had been a
Mackenzie-Papineau International Brigader in Spain, was discharged in
early 1939, bummed around Europe until September, and after September
3rd but before September 10th when Canada declared war presented his
discharge papers at the Canadian High Commission in London and
volunteered for duty - never having returned to Canada in the interim
- he was placed in a British regiment and transferred to a Canadian
regiment as soon as there were enough in the UK to warrant it and
served through 1945 - he never would say whether the bullet scar above
his eye was received in Spain or elsewhere)

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
OK - in your eyes would John George Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of
Canada 1957-63 be considered a veteran? He volunteered for active duty
in the Canadian Army and was invalided out due to injuries suffering
while undergoing training in the UK in 1915 and was returned to
Canada.

Suppose he had been killed in training?

Would his name be recorded on the local memorial
along with the KIA?

WI he drowned after his troopship was sunk?

Or suppose his training injury left him permanently
handicapped?

He served and he was a veteran.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
BTW, Vietnam-era vets are careful to distinguish between "Vietnam War
veteran" and "Vietnam-ERA Veteran".
Just so you know what the young people call these things...

My late uncle was drafted by the USAF during the Korean War and ended
up spending 4 years in Alaska. He did not of course choose his theatre
of service and by the end of his four years the Korean War was over
and did not re-enlist.

No way will I denigrate his service - he did what he was ordered where
and when Uncle Sam put him there for as long as his services were
required - but no way will I claim battle honours for him he didn't
earn either.

(And yes I do say "honours" rather than "honors" as my father after
college graduation in Seattle was offered a job in Canada where I was
born in 1955 - I well remember the day Dad got his 5-E notice. My
mother's grandfather was a Royal Navy officer in WW1 and her father
had lost 3 fingers in the early 30s and was medically disqualified in
1939)

[w***@aol.com]

My late uncle was drafted...during the Korean
War....did what he was ordered where and
when Uncle Sam put him there for as long as
his services were required - but no way will I
claim battle honours for him he didn't earn
either.

A few observations: What heppened to
your uncle seems typical of what happened
to most who served in the Korean war, in
WWII, and, who can say, perhaps most
wars, before and after.
Individuals are drafted or volunteer.
They are inducted, get some training, and
go where sent. They do whst they are
ordered, move when told, go through what
comes there way, and those who are lucky
go home when its over.
All things considered, it seems a wonder
that so little happens to so many who serve
but so much happens to so few. .
A look at U.S. WWII statistics seem to
bear this out. Department of Defense records
reveal that 16,112,566 Americans served in
WWII. Of that number, there were 291,557
battle deaths (2%). Other deaths (injuries,
illness) accounted for 113,842 (.007%), and
671,846 (4%) were wounded but not fatally.
Altogether this indicates that over 93% of those
who served in WWii returned home safe and
sound and without ever receiving a scratch.

WJH

[w***@aol.com]

......Inasmuch as you've set the personal
tone here, .....share with us ...more about
yourself

...never served....I have friends whose fathers
served in Korea... I know people who've served
in Vietnam,

Wow! That makes you a double "non-vet", right?
"Korean-era non-vet," and a Viet Nam-era non
vet." But isn't there more? How about Japan
which you claim to know so much about? Been
there? Had or have connections there---relatives,
or friends? Any who planned to resist a U.S. invasion
of that country with spears, pitchforks, etc?


WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

......Inasmuch as you've set the personal
tone here, .....share with us ...more about
yourself

...never served....I have friends whose fathers
served in Korea... I know people who've served
in Vietnam,

Wow! That makes you a double "non-vet", right?

No, it makes me a non-vet; not sure what's difficult about for you.

Post by w***@aol.com
"Korean-era non-vet,"

So, you're a WWI non-vet? Spanish-American War non-vet? Civil War non-vet?

Cool.

Post by w***@aol.com
and a Viet Nam-era non
vet." But isn't there more? How about Japan
which you claim to know so much about?

Uh, how about it?

Post by w***@aol.com
Been there?

I used to live there. Go there often. Speak the language, though less well than
I used to.

Since this has all been posted before, not sure how it slips your mind...

Post by w***@aol.com
Had or have connections there---relatives,
or friends? Any who planned to resist a U.S. invasion
of that country with spears, pitchforks, etc?

Oh, that's a good point. My mother-in-law was a 4th grader who was trained
by "special instructors" to resist the US invasion (not sure where you come
up with pitchforks).

And she DID come under fire, survived a fire-bombing, saw people strafed, and
exitted a building through a window when, after trying to go out the door, found
it blocked by an unexploded bomb.

Making that 4th grade girl more of a combat veteran of WWII than you, Mr Hopwood.

Thanks for asking.

Mike

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com
That's nice, but, as an old WWII vet myself,
I consider it somewhat condescending.

You appear to believe it "condescending" when virtues attributed to non-white
soldiers are pointed out, somehow being convinced this denigrates the
contributions of others.

Post by w***@aol.com
It is true that some of us may tend to
forget details and perhaps exaggerate wartime
experiences, however, I don't believe too many
of us who are still alive like to be patiently
listened to as if we were children, or, as if
senility was well advanced.

You should probably not preface your "rebuttals" with phrases like "as an
old WWII vet myself", then.

Post by w***@aol.com
It is my view that In a forum such as this,
discussion should be confined as much as
possible to the historical record (about which we
can certainly argue and do) and that we should

He did; it was you who dug deeper into the article, in order to find
something that offends your delicate sensibilities. He merely presented
a story about a monument to the Navajo, in New Mexico.

Post by w***@aol.com
try to avoid the hype which often seems to be
associated with some wartime activities, particular

Perhaps you can regale us with your tales of time under fire. I would
happy to allow those soldiers to "hype" their experience a bit.
c

Post by w***@aol.com
those which involve the actions of those in the
armed forces who were members of a racial
minority group such as the Navajos, the
Japanese-American 100/442d, the African-American
"red tails." All of those groups performed admirably,

And yet you scurry to denigrate their accomplishments whenever they're brought
up.

Post by w***@aol.com
but so did many other groups and individuals among
the some 14 million Americans who served. It is no
favor to those Americans who were members of one
of the minorities to exaggerate their exploits or falsify
their war record even when such is done by one of their
own, either by accident or intent.

You know, it's odd; I've met numerous WWII vets, including combat vets. I
had a professor who was a tail-gunner on a B-24 who flew missions over
Ploesti. My grad school advisor served in the navy throughout the war, and
was on a destroyer during Okinawa, and off the coast of Kyushu just as
the war ended. My best friend's father was part of the force that took
and defended Guadalcanal. My great uncle was in the OSS, operating in
Burma and the Philippines. The father of another friend was a white
member of the 442.

Not one of them showed even the slightest hesitation in praising ANY of
the troops of any color who fought in WWII. You alone seem intent on
showing how the contributions of those who were discriminated against
BY LAW during their time.

Post by w***@aol.com
How often do we hear about the heroism among
our non-minority POWs of the Japanese who suffered
unspeakable horrors in the Japanese death camps? Or

Feel free to describe them; this is, after all, a forum to discuss things
WWII. But again, why the qualifiers? Why are you only concerned about stories
of "non-minority" POWs? Why not just POWs, full-stop?

Post by w***@aol.com
the exploits of the 32nd Infantry Division. During the
bloody battle at Buna in New Guinea? In that action the
32nd Division earned 100 DSC's and 2 MOH for a ratio
of 1 to 50.

Again, why don't you simply start a thread on it? Whining is unbecoming a
self-professed "WWII vet".

Post by w***@aol.com
Compare that with the recent year 2000
politically-initiated upgrades from DSC to MOH because
of "alleged wartime discrimination" given 55 years after
WWII had ended to Japanese-Americans in the 442nd

You seem to be offended that non-whites had awards "upgraded", but you seem
tellingly silent when it happens to white soldiers.

Again, that says more about you than you'd care to admit.

Post by w***@aol.com
Lt.Colonel Lee Allen, himself a prisoner of the
Japanese during WWII, has this comment in his website,
"Internment Archives at
http://www.internmentarchives.com/archives.php
"For decades prior to the (year 2000) MOH upgrades it
was claimed that the 442nd was the most highly decorated
unit in the history of the army, or words to that or similar
effect. One must wonder how the unit achieved this widely
publicized acclaim if there had been discrimination in
awarding medals for valor. Exaggerated and fabricated
claims of service and achievement are common to
Japanese-Americans in World War II..."

Hmm, to buttress your claim that you don't wish to denigrate the accomplishment
of non-white soldiers, you quote a man who claims that accounts of service
and acheivements of Japanese-Americans were commonly "Exaggerated and
fabricated".

As for why the 442 is so well remembered, perhaps their actions during
the war might have something to do with that. Eisenhower, no doubt with
and eye to appealling to future politically correct factions, rather than
trying to win a war, apparently wanted them for the Battle of the Bulge.
Well, he obviously didn't possess your ability to see through the hype.

Post by w***@aol.com
Distinguished Service Cross awards. Where was the
discrimination?

Oh, THAT. Well, you CLAIM to have been there "at the time". Surely, you
remember Jim Crow? Locking up people based on race? Disallowing immigration
and naturalization because of RACE? Ring any bells? How about miscegynation
laws? "Seperate but equal"? Oh, literacy tests aimed at minorities?

That's where the discrimination was for your generation; the laws of the
land.

Post by w***@aol.com
If anything the number of DSC's awarded
Asian-Americans reveals just the opposite - they received
more than their proportionate number in the award process....

Well, there are those who point out that many of them were at the
business end of the blade.

Post by w***@aol.com
"Curious, as in other fabricated claims of achievement by
Japanese-Americans in World War II, is the utter absence of
voices in dissent.

There's you, and the scholarly Michelle Malkin, of course...

Those are, to be sure, voices of unreason, but voices none-the-less.

Post by w***@aol.com
Is this because, as "a425 couples" tells us, "...proper behavior,
courtesy & respect often should cause us to keep silent, and let
the old vets talk, and happily remember their contribution &
sacrifices?"

In other words, simple courtesy to allow people to speak freely among
themselves.

Post by w***@aol.com
I don't think so.

Noboby ever accused you of being courteous.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

...discussion should be confined as
much as possible to the historical record

He did; it was you who dug deeper into
the article...

No, if you were paying attention you
would have seen that "425" had provided a
link which invited readers to a site, where,
without "digging" I saw the statement made
by one of the Navajos that he and the others
"were successful in turning the tide of the war
in the Pacific,"

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

... the Navajos...Japanese-American
100/442d...African-American
"red tails." All..performed admirably,

And yet you scurry to denigrate their
accomplishments....

No. Not their accomplishments---just
excess credit given to them by others for
"accomplishments" which were not real
but imagined.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
.......You alone seem intent on
showing how the contributions of
those who were discriminated against
BY LAW during their time.

How what? You didn't finish the sentence.
Let me guess. Perhaps you are trying to
say that to make up for being discriminated
against in pre-war civilian life, after the war
they should be entitled to extra credit above
and beyond that given to others for similar
accomplishments. That would seem to fit
your psychological profile, such as it is.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

How often do we hear about the
heroism among our non-minority
POWs of the Japanese who suffered
unspeakable horrors in the Japanese
death camps?

...why the qualifiers? Why are you only
concerned about stories of "non-minority"
POWs? Why not just POWs, full-stop?

If I missed any "minorities" among the POWs
in the Japanese death camps, I apologize.
I've never seen or heard reference to any.
Perhaps you might care to enlighten us as
to how many and which minority group
members were among the U.S. POWs in the
Japanese death camps. If any, I include them
in my request that their heroism be duly
recognized along with the caucasian POWs
of the Japanese and to the same degree as
that attributed to the ... the Navajos...
Japanese-American 100/442d, and the
African-American "red tails."

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
You seem to be offended that non-whites
had awards "upgraded", but you seem
tellingly silent when it happens to white
soldiers. Again, that says more about
you than you'd care to admit.

On the contrary. It bares your own
disingenuousness for all to see. As you
well know the upgrade review I mentioned
pertained only to "Asian-Americans." The
legislation authorizing the review specifically
EXCLUDED any white soldiers. So what
white soldier upgrades are you referring to?

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Lt.Colonel Lee Allen, himself a prisoner
of the Japanese during WWII, has this
comment in his website, "Internment
Archives at
http://www.internmentarchives.com/archives.php
....Exaggerated and fabricated
claims of service and achievement are
common to Japanese-Americans in
World War II..."

.....Eisenhower...apparently wanted them
for the Battle of the Bulge...

Interesting if true. Credible source for that, please.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

...discussion should be confined as
much as possible to the historical record

He did; it was you who dug deeper into
the article...

No, if you were paying attention you

I was, in fact, paying attention.

He posted a particularly innocuous article about a monument to the Navajo
code-talkers being unveiled in New Mexico.

YOU scuttled madly to the article, dug something to which you could pretend
to take offense, and turned it into some silly polemic against them, the
442, the Red Tails, etc.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
And yet you scurry to denigrate their
accomplishments....

No. Not their accomplishments---just

Yes, their accomplishments. You provided a source, who claimed that many of
their deeds were "Exaggerated and fabricated".

Post by w***@aol.com
"accomplishments" which were not real
but imagined.

Specifically, what were their imagined accomplishments?

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
.......You alone seem intent on
showing how the contributions of
those who were discriminated against
BY LAW during their time.

How what? You didn't finish the sentence.
Let me guess.

Don't; you'll embarrass yourself.

Post by w***@aol.com
say that to make up for being discriminated
against in pre-war civilian life, after the war
they should be entitled to extra credit above
and beyond that given to others for similar
accomplishments. That would seem to fit
your psychological profile, such as it is.

Well, they don't pay you for analysis. Nor for your ability to complete a sentence,
it seems.

Nope, just pointing out that you alone seem intent on denigrating the
accomplishments of those who were discriminated against by law.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

POWs of the Japanese who suffered
unspeakable horrors in the Japanese
death camps?

...why the qualifiers? Why are you only
concerned about stories of "non-minority"
POWs? Why not just POWs, full-stop?

If I missed any "minorities" among the POWs
in the Japanese death camps, I apologize.
I've never seen or heard reference to any.

Well, you really don't pay much attention to the group, do you, Mr Hopwood? Or
perhaps you slept through the war?

Now, MOST of us have heard of the Bataan Death March. You should look it up.
Hundreds of Americans died in it, on their way those death camps.

THOUSANDS of Filippinos died in that same march, on their way to similar camps.
In fact, more Filippinos died in camps than did US soldiers.

Ever heard of "Korea"? Or "China"? Yeah, a lot more of those people died in
these camps than did Americans. Indochina?

But you've never heard of them.

Of course, you'll try to wiggle out, and claim you meant solely "minorities
of the US". Still leaves the Filippinos (the PI being a US colony and all,
at the time) that you've never heard of.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
You seem to be offended that non-whites
had awards "upgraded", but you seem
tellingly silent when it happens to white
soldiers. Again, that says more about
you than you'd care to admit.

On the contrary.

No, it's pretty clear; you get offended when non-whites get their awards upgraded,
and claim it is for "politically correct" reasons, but make no mention of this
when white soldiers get their awards upgraded.

But again, perhaps you can point out specifically WHICH MOH were undeserved by
the Nisei. Surely you must have done some research on this, otherwise, you're
just blowing smoke. So please, which specific MOH awards were undeserved?

Post by w***@aol.com
pertained only to "Asian-Americans." The
legislation authorizing the review specifically
EXCLUDED any white soldiers.

Seriously, you need to stop claiming you were in the military; awards are
reviewed all the time, sometimes decades after the fact.

Post by w***@aol.com
So what white soldier upgrades are you referring to?

Well, again, if you could be bothered to remember, what do you think of
Theodore Roosevelt's upgrade?

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Lt.Colonel Lee Allen, himself a prisoner
of the Japanese during WWII, has this
comment in his website, "Internment
Archives at
http://www.internmentarchives.com/archives.php
....Exaggerated and fabricated
claims of service and achievement are
common to Japanese-Americans in
World War II..."

.....Eisenhower...apparently wanted them
for the Battle of the Bulge...

Interesting if true. Credible source for that, please.

Shirey, _Americans: The Story of the 442d Combat Team. Others appear around
the net from time-to-time.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

....about....the Navajo code-
talkers...Specifically, what were their
imagined accomplishments?

One of the Navajos , Hawthorne, is
quoted as having said:
"...We were successful in turning the
tide of the war in the Pacific."
Specific enough for you, or do you
believe that the Navajos did turn the tide
of the war in the Pacific?

....just pointing out that you alone seem
intent on denigrating the
accomplishments of those who were
discriminated against by law.

No. In the interest of historical accuracy I
think it only fair to point out the discrepancy
when someone takes credit for an
accomplishment not their own.

.....perhaps you slept through the
war?.... the Bataan Death March....
THOUSANDS of Filippinos died
Of course, you'll try to wiggle out,
and claim you meant solely
"minorities of the US".

I believe most would agree that the
Filipinos were hardly a minority group
in the Philippines. Of course I meant
minorities from the U.S. That was
quite clear or you wouldn't try to
pretend it wasn't.

....it's pretty clear; you get offended
when non-whites get their awards
upgraded, and claim it is for "politically
correct" reasons,,

You bet I do when it's done by politicians
who suspend the statute of limitations and
specify that the upgrades apply only to
persons of Asian or Pacific Islander heritage.
Yes, I claim it's done for "politically correct
reasons." How would you explain
it? On second thought, never mind. I
think we know.

.....but make no mention of this when
white soldiers get their awards upgraded.

That's because no white soldiers were
considered for upgrade in the review I just
finished telling you about above.

But again, perhaps you can point out
specifically WHICH MOH were
undeserved by the Nisei."

That's beside the point. It is the blatant
race-based upgrade procedure used in this
particular case that was so obnoxious. Let
others be the judge of whether or not
upgrades from DSC to MOH were deserved
or undeserved when given as a result
of a review which suspended the statute of
limitations and excluded any and all DSC
winners who were not of Asian or Pacific
Island heritage. I think it easy to assume
where you would stand

Seriously, you need to stop claiming you
were in the military; awards are reviewed
all the time, sometimes decades after the
fact.

Not this way. This was a 'first."

.... if you could be bothered to remember,
what do you think of Theodore
Roosevelt's upgrade?

Tell us about it. Was it because of his race?

BTW. You claimed that Eisenhower ...apparently
wanted the 100/442d for the Battle of the Bulge
...and I asked for your source.

Shirey, _Americans: The Story of the
442d Combat Team.

Which chapter in Shirey?. Perhaps I missed it but
I can't seem to find it anywhere in my copy.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

....about....the Navajo code-
talkers...Specifically, what were their
imagined accomplishments?

Well, that's a typical "cut-and-paste" bit on your part. You really need
to at least try to stifle your dishonest tendencies.

The abve was in reference to your Col Allen's quote that the achievements
of the Nisei fabricated, as in
"Curious, as in other fabricated claims of achievement by
Japanese-Americans in World War II, is the utter absence of
voices in dissent. There seems to be no shame when credit is
claimed for the achievement of others, when false claims are
made or when accomplishments are exaggerated."

That's clear from the context. So, you refuse to ansewr it? OK, we'll take
that as a lost point on your part.

Post by w***@aol.com
One of the Navajos , Hawthorne, is
"...We were successful in turning the
tide of the war in the Pacific."
Specific enough for you, or do you

Well, you COULD have followed the thread. Would save you some embarassment.

However, to address your nonsense, you cite a commander's praise for his men
as support for their accomplishments being "imagined". That's pretty feeble,
even for you.

Post by w***@aol.com

....just pointing out that you alone seem
intent on denigrating the
accomplishments of those who were
discriminated against by law.

No. In the interest of historical accuracy I

You have no interest in historical accuracy. You have refused to admit that
the nisei were thrown into what were called "concentration camps" at the
time they were incarcerated.

But more disturbing, you refuse to explain how a commander's praise distorts
the historical record, in that nobody else seems to take it as anything more
than simple praise.

Oh, and we continue to note you aren't defending Col Allen's crap.

Post by w***@aol.com

.....perhaps you slept through the
war?.... the Bataan Death March....
THOUSANDS of Filippinos died
Of course, you'll try to wiggle out,
and claim you meant solely
"minorities of the US".

I believe most would agree that the
Filipinos were hardly a minority group
in the Philippines.

Well, the PI were a US colony, and thus under US jurisdiction, and served
in the US army. So yeah, they qualify as a minority. If you wish to play
your sophistry games, then you have heard quite a bit about the mistreatment
of the white "minority" in the PI, and have been guilty of greatly "exaggerating"
their suffering with respect to that of the majority.

Doesn't seem to bother you. In fact, while you are quick to bring up accounts
of WHITE PoWs, you have yet to bring up accounts of non-white PoWs of
the Japanese, despite their much GREATER death toll and suffering.

Pretty pathetic for someone claiming to be solely interested in the "historical
record".

Post by w***@aol.com

....it's pretty clear; you get offended
when non-whites get their awards
upgraded, and claim it is for "politically
correct" reasons,,

You bet I do when it's done by politicians

Well, then you well and truly don't understand the Medal of Honor, do you
Mr Hopwood? Not surprising. It's called the CONGRESSIONAL Medal of Honor, is
it not? You *DO* understand that Congressmen are, after all, politicians?

Post by w***@aol.com
who suspend the statute of limitations and

Really? You seriously believe there's a "statute of limitations"
on this? This was almost worth wading through your whole nonsensical
thread for.

What exactly is that "statute of limitations"? Is it in years, number of
wars, or in fortnights? How did the nisei get theirs AFTER this "statute
of limitations" expired, but Roosevelt got his before? Did you not think
this through? Or are simply ignorant?

Was Leslie Sabo's after the statute of limitations? After all, his
award was granted in 2012. Well, he was white, so the statute must not
apply.What about Leslie Svehla's? After all, the Korean War's been over
awhile, and his was awarded in 2011. Richard Etchberger, Woodrow Keeble,
or Bruce Crandall? Oh, here's one even YOU can be expected to remember;
Chaplain Emil Kapaun, awarded his Korean War era MoH just a few days
ago. Just before you posted your nonsense.

But somehow, you have never heard of this. And still you expect to be taken
seriously.

Post by w***@aol.com
Yes, I claim it's done for "politically correct
reasons." How would you explain
it?

Easy; you're stupid and don't understand the process. Never have.

Post by w***@aol.com

.....but make no mention of this when
white soldiers get their awards upgraded.

That's because no white soldiers were
considered for upgrade in the review I just
finished telling you about above.

And you were dead wrong in public.

Soldiers of all races are always considered for upgrades.

Post by w***@aol.com

But again, perhaps you can point out
specifically WHICH MOH were
undeserved by the Nisei."

That's beside the point.

Well, no, it isn't.

Which awards are undeserved?

Post by w***@aol.com
particular case that was so obnoxious. Let
others be the judge of whether or not
upgrades from DSC to MOH were deserved
or undeserved when given as a result
of a review which suspended the statute of
limitations

Again, how many years is that statute?

And why didn't it apply to, oh, Roosevelt?

Post by w***@aol.com
and excluded any and all DSC
winners who were not of Asian or Pacific
Island heritage. I think it easy to assume

Vernon Baker?

Post by w***@aol.com
where you would stand

Yeah, I stand on the side that states you have no idea what you're
talking about, and that this won't slow you up a bit.

Post by w***@aol.com

Seriously, you need to stop claiming you
were in the military; awards are reviewed
all the time, sometimes decades after the
fact.

Not this way. This was a 'first."

Sorry, but you'll understand if you don't seem to know what you're
talking about.

Post by w***@aol.com

.... if you could be bothered to remember,
what do you think of Theodore
Roosevelt's upgrade?

Tell us about it. Was it because of his race?

I would say, no.

But then, I never claimed ANYONE's awards were race-based; YOU did.

So, I would state it's YOUR job to back that up.

Post by w***@aol.com
BTW. You claimed that Eisenhower ...apparently
wanted the 100/442d for the Battle of the Bulge
...and I asked for your source.

Why yes, I did give you that.

Post by w***@aol.com

Shirey, _Americans: The Story of the
442d Combat Team.

Which chapter in Shirey?. Perhaps I missed it but
I can't seem to find it anywhere in my copy.

Yet you find a statute of limitations for Medals of Honor... just a helpful
bit of advice, but you might ask for adult help in these things.

Well, try pages 249-250

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by w***@aol.com
I believe most would agree that the
Filipinos were hardly a minority group
in the Philippines.

....served in the US army. So yeah, they
qualify as a minority.

Nope. From National Archives:
"The Philippine Commonwealth Army was
created by (a) Philippine Commonwealth Act ...
approved December 21, 1935. With the threat of
war with Japan imminent, on July 26, 1941, a new
command in the Far East was created, known as
the United States Army Forces Far East (USAFFE)....
(This) ....., did not order all the military forces of the
Philippine government into the service of the United
States Armed Forces.
Only those units and personnel indicated in
orders issued by a general officer of the United States
Army were mobilized and made an integral part of the
United States Army Forces Far East (USAFFE). Only
those members of a unit who physically reported for
duty were inducted. (Inductions were not automatic,
nor were personnel inducted into the Army of the
United States).

...you well and truly don't understand the Medal
of Honor, do you Mr Hopwood? You seriously
believe there's a "statute of limitations"...Is it in
years...?

Yes, it's a time limit of 3 years from the date of the
action for which the nomination is being made in, a
time frame which assures that the facts sre still fresh
and corroborating witnesses alive and on hand to verify
them.

....you're stupid and don't understand the process. Never
have.

That shoe is on your foot. Why don't you give up on
your pretense of knowing anything about this subject.
The time limit was specifically
suspended to allow for the upgrade of the
Japanese Americans to MOH from DSC.
Here is the special law that did so:
"Public Law 104-106k Title V Subtitle C
Section 524 February 19,1996
REVIEW REGARDING UPGRADING
OF DISTINGUISHED CROSSES AWARDED
TO ASIAN-AMERICANS AND NATIVE
PACIFIC ISLANDERS FOR WORLD WAR
II SERVICE....
(b) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS
A Medal of Honor may be awarded
...without regard to (2) any regulation
or other administrative restriction on
the time for awarding the Medal of
Honor or (B) the awarding of the Medal
of Honor for service which
a Distinguished Service Cross or Navy
Cross has been awarded..."..

Soldiers of all races are always
considered for upgrades.

Not like this upgrade which was strictly
specified to be a blanket review
based only the race of those to be
reviewed. .

Post by w***@aol.com
BTW. You claimed that Eisenhower ...
apparently wanted the 100/442d for
the Battle of the Bulge
...and I asked for your source.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Shirey, _Americans: The Story of the
442d Combat Team.

Which chapter in Shirey?.

Well, try pages 249-250

Those pages don't exist. The book has less
than 170 pages. Why don't you just give up
on that?

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Only have time for this one part now; I'll get to the rest later.

Post by w***@aol.com
Yes, it's a time limit of 3 years from the date of the

Nope; you misread it. It can be reviewed by the president at any time.

Post by w***@aol.com

....you're stupid and don't understand the process. Never
have.

That shoe is on your foot.

Actually, it's seems to be in your mouth.

Post by w***@aol.com
your pretense of knowing anything about this subject.

I already posted numerous exceptions; as you are dense, I'll repost them.

You will ignore them, of course.

Post by w***@aol.com

Soldiers of all races are always
considered for upgrades.

Not like this upgrade which was strictly

Sorry, you are speaking of one upgrade among many upgrades.

You are wrong.


Again, a very quick check showed that on April 11, 2013, Kapaun received
a MoH for actions ion 1951. That's 62, not 3 years.

Leslie Sabo, awarded in 2012, for actions in 1970. 42 years. Not 3.

Anthony Kaho'ohanohano, awarded 2011, for actions in 1951. 60 years, not 3.

Richard Etchberger, awarded 2010, actions in 1968. 42 years, not 3.

Keeble Woodrow, awarded 2008, actions in 1951. 57 years, not 3.

Bruce Crandall, actions 1965, awarded in 2007. 42 years, not 3.

Vernon Baker, actions 1945, award in 1997. 52 years, not 3.

And, of course, Teddy Roosevelt, awarded in 2001 for actions in 1898. 103
years, not 3.

You don't understand the process; you misread the restrictions on the
statute of limitations. There is none.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Yes, it's a time limit of 3 years .....

Nope; you misread it. It can be reviewed
by the president at any time.....
....you misread the restrictions on the
statute of limitations. There is none.

Why do you continue to make such an ass
of yourself over this? Here are the time
restrictions. Only Congressional action

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
From DOD Manual of Military Decorations

and Awards---
Procefures involving current recommendations
for the Medal of Honor:

"1. The Secretary concerned shall establish
procedures for processing recommendations
for the award of the Medal of Honor within his
or her department. However, as a minimum,
these recommendations shall contain the
endorsement of the subordinate Unified
Commander or Joint Task Force Commander,
if involved; the Unified or Specified Commander
concerned; and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. After endorsement by the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the recommendation
shall be referred to the Secretary concerned for
appropriate action.

"2. Except as provided in 10 U.S.C. 3744 or 8744
...,recommendation for the Army and Air Force Medal
of Honor must be entered formally into official
channels within 2 years of the act warranting the
recommendation, and awarded within 3 years.
Recommendations of the Navy-Marine Corps Medal
of Honor, except as provided in Section 6248,,,,, must
be formally entered into official channels within 3 years
of the act warranting the recommendation, and awarded
within 5 years."

WJH

[Stephen Graham]

Post by w***@aol.com
"2. Except as provided in 10 U.S.C. 3744 or 8744
...,recommendation for the Army and Air Force Medal
of Honor must be entered formally into official
channels within 2 years of the act warranting the
recommendation, and awarded within 3 years.
Recommendations of the Navy-Marine Corps Medal
of Honor, except as provided in Section 6248,,,,, must
be formally entered into official channels within 3 years
of the act warranting the recommendation, and awarded
within 5 years."

If we look at 10 USC 3744, it says:

(d) If the Secretary of the Army determines that--
(1) a statement setting forth the distinguished service and recommending
official recognition of it was made and supported by sufficient evidence
within two years after the distinguished service; and
(2) no award was made, because the statement was lost or through
inadvertence the recommendation was not acted on;
a medal of honor, distinguished-service cross, distinguished-service
medal, or device in place thereof, as the case may be, may be awarded to
the person concerned within two years after the date of that determination.

10 USC 8744 substitutes Air Force for Army; 10 USC 6248 gives an
equivalent for the Navy and Marine Corps.

[w***@aol.com]

(d) If ...(1) a statement setting forth the distinguished
service...supported by sufficient evidence within two
years after the distinguished service; and (2) no award
was made, because the statement was lost or through
inadvertence...not acted on; a medal of honor....may be
awarded...within two years after the date of that
determination.....

Interesting but irrelevant vis-a-vis the argument by
Fester that there is no time restriction with regard
making recommendations for a MOH award.
Under the existing regulation (which you
copied in your post) there clearly is a time restriction.
USC 10 only provides authorization to waive that
original restriction under the extenuating circumstances
you listed, none of which applied in the case of the
upgrades given to the 21 Japanese-Americans.
In addition, the Congressional Act which authorized
the racial review under which the JAs were upgraded,
specifically provided for the suspension of any applicable
time limitations.
My argument from the beginning has been that a
review based solely on the race of those being reviewed
and eliminating those of other races who were similarly
situated, is abhorrent. The elimination of the time restriction
was a secondary accentuation of that.

WJH

[Stephen Graham]

Post by w***@aol.com
Interesting but irrelevant vis-a-vis the argument by
Fester that there is no time restriction with regard
making recommendations for a MOH award.

It appears relevant, as it waives one part of the time restriction at
the discretion of the appropriate Secretary.

Post by w***@aol.com
Under the existing regulation (which you
copied in your post) there clearly is a time restriction.
USC 10 only provides authorization to waive that
original restriction under the extenuating circumstances
you listed, none of which applied in the case of the
upgrades given to the 21 Japanese-Americans.

I think there's a more fundamental mistake on your part: Congress can
award the Medal of Honor to whomsoever it wishes and has done so
repeatedly. That you disagree with a particular set of choices is your
right and about as relevant as whether or not I think Alonzo Cushing
should be awarded the MoH.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by w***@aol.com
Interesting but irrelevant vis-a-vis the argument by
Fester that there is no time restriction with regard
making recommendations for a MOH award.

It appears relevant, as it waives one part of the time
restriction at the discretion of the appropriate Secretary.

Not really. The part you quoted doesn't say at the
"discretion" of rhe Secretary. That's your word which
implies that there are no restrictions on the Secretary's
authority to "waive part of the time restriction."
Actually, the governing criteria under provision (d)
is that a recommendation for award has to have been
"made" before the Secretary can make a determination,
and then only if the original recommendation statement
was either "lost" or "inadvertently not acted on."

Post by Stephen Graham
Congress can award the Medal of Honor to whomsoever it
wishes and has done so repeatedly.

ITYM Congress can "waive restrictions" against the DOD
recommending to the President the award of the MOH
to whomever DOD wishes. Of course DOD is always
mindful of the appropriation club wielded by Congress,
and acts accordingly when it comes to Congress'
political intent.
To the best of my knowledge, however, not
since the tightening of limitations on the award of
the MOH following the great "purge" of 1917 (at which
time 911 of such medals were rescinded) has there been
such an "en masse" upgrade to MOH strictly on a racial
basis (including even the earlier upgrade of 7 WWII African
-Americans) as was the upgrade of 22 Japanese-Americns
in year 2000.

Post by Stephen Graham
That you disagree with a particular set of choices is your
right and about as relevant as whether or not I think
Alonzo Cushing should be awarded the MoH.

It is relevant. Alonzo Cushing's case, seems to be a good
example of the fact that under U.S.C. 10-Sec. 3744, even if
Congress passes legislation calling for an award review and
a waiver of award time restrictions, unless there had been
a statement made with regard to Cushing's distinguished
service within 2 years of the distinguished act "setting forth the
distinuguished service and recommending official recognition
thereof" and said statement supported by sufficient evidence, he
only qualifies for award consideration if said statement was
"lost" or "inadvertently not acted upon," and only then if so
"determined" by the Secretary of War.

Which brings up another point. By that standard, how do you
justify the Japanese-American upgrades? None of the
critria of U.S.C 10 section 3744 appears to have been met.
The upgrade review revealed that no statements recommending
the MOH were made at the time, let alone "lost" or "inadvertently
not acted on." I'm curious as to whether or not it your view that
"racially based" awards should merely be considered with a wink
and a nod because of past non-related societal discrimination
which may have existed against members of the awardees"
race?

WJH

[Stephen Graham]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Stephen Graham
It appears relevant, as it waives one part of the time
restriction at the discretion of the appropriate Secretary.

Actually, the governing criteria under provision (d)
is that a recommendation for award has to have been
"made" before the Secretary can make a determination,
and then only if the original recommendation statement
was either "lost" or "inadvertently not acted on."

As the original specification you cited made clear, there are two
different time restriction: the original recommendation and the action
on that recommendation. The latter time restriction is what is waived
when the Secretary so determines. Given the very broad nature of the
conditions specified, it really is at the discretion of the Secretary.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Stephen Graham
Congress can award the Medal of Honor to whomsoever it
wishes and has done so repeatedly.

ITYM Congress can "waive restrictions" against the DOD
recommending to the President the award of the MOH
to whomever DOD wishes.

It's pretty clear that Congress isn't bound by any restrictions. Why do
you think they are?

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by w***@aol.com

....Congress can award the Medal of Honor to
whomsoever it wishes and has done so
repeatedly.

ITYM Congress can "waive restrictions" against the
DOD recommending to the President the award of
the MOH to whomever DOD wishes.

It's pretty clear that Congress isn't bound by any
restrictions. Why do you think they are?

I don't think we basically disagree but we do appear to
have a problem with semantics. Let me try to provide
more clarity to what I was trying to say above.
You said Congress "can award" the MOH, which,
strictly speaking, is not correct. Under the current
rules Congress actually doesn't "award" anything.
What it can do is pass legislation to override existing
restrictions which stand in the way of the DOD being
able to recommend that an award be made.
This, not literally but in effect, becomes an informal
directive to DOD to recommend any award or awards
which Congress wishes to see made. DOD, which
depends on Congress for its funds, dutifully jumps
through that hoop and makes such a "recommendation."
That recommendation is then passed to the appropriate
Secretary who, particularly if he is of the same
political party as the Congressional majority responsible
for the enabling legislation, rubber-stamps the
recommendation. It then goes to the President for final
approval after which the award becomes official.

WJH

[Stephen Graham]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Stephen Graham
It's pretty clear that Congress isn't bound by any
restrictions. Why do you think they are?

I don't think we basically disagree but we do appear to
have a problem with semantics. Let me try to provide
more clarity to what I was trying to say above.
You said Congress "can award" the MOH, which,
strictly speaking, is not correct. Under the current
rules Congress actually doesn't "award" anything.

You've confused what Congress normally does and what it can do. Congress
can and has directed the President to award specific Medals of Honor.
See, for instance, PL 98-301.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Stephen Graham

.....You said Congress "can award" the MOH,
which, strictly speaking, is not correct. Under
the current rules Congress actually doesn't
"award" anything.

You've confused what Congress normally does
and what it can do. Congress can and has
directed the President to award specific Medals
of Honor. See, for instance, PL 98-301.

OK. Whose confused? Let's take a look at PL98-301:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That the President MAY
(emphasis mine) award, and present in the name of
Congress, the Medal of Honor to the unknown
American who lost his life while serving in Southeast
Asia during the Vietnam era as a member of the
Armed Forces of the United States and who has been
selected to lie buried in the Memorial Amphitheater
of the National Cemetery at Arlington, Virginia, as
authorized by section 9 of the National Cemeteries
87 Stat. 88. Act of 1973 (PL 93-43)"

I think it would be helpful if you paid closer attention
to the meaning of words. At least in this post you do
acknowledge that Congress did not "award" the MOH
as you previously claimed it had done "repeatedly" in
the past. But her you claim that Congress "directed"
the President when you should have noted that it
"authorized" the President to "award" the MOH. As
noted below, it was a symbolic gesture inasmuch as
the "award' was made to an unidentified soldier to
symbolize the sacrifices made by ALL who had lost
their lives in the Viet Nam war:

"The tombs typically contain the remains of a dead
soldier who is unidentified (or "known but to God") ... so
that he might serve as a symbol for all of the unknown
dead wherever they fell. The anonymity of the entombed
soldier is key to the symbolism of the monument...it could
theoretically be the tomb of anyone who fell in service of
the nation....and therefore serves as a monument to all
of their sacrifices." [Wikepedia]

WJH

[Stephen Graham]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Stephen Graham

.....You said Congress "can award" the MOH,
which, strictly speaking, is not correct. Under
the current rules Congress actually doesn't
"award" anything.

You've confused what Congress normally does
and what it can do. Congress can and has
directed the President to award specific Medals
of Honor. See, for instance, PL 98-301.

OK. Whose confused?

The Army, apparently. http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/citations28.html

"That the President is hereby authorized and directed to award, in the
name of the Congress, a Medal of Honor...."

What specifically do you think prevents Congress from awarding a Medal
of Honor if it so chose?

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by w***@aol.com
OK. Whose confused?

//www.army.mil/medalofhonor/citations28.html
"That the President is hereby authorized and
directed to award, in the name of the Congress,
a Medal of Honor...."

Yes, sometimes Congress gets carried away
and says "authorized and directed" but we
have the little matter of "separation of powers"
and Congress can't "direct" POTUS. It is
DOD which makes the recommendations but
ultimately it is the President, not the Congress,
who makes the awards.
http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/index.html

Post by Stephen Graham
What specifically do you think prevents
Congress from awarding a Medal
of Honor if it so chose?

The existing law. Although Congress hasn't
yet tried to repeal it completely, it has, in the
past passed amendments which temporarily
suspend certain restrictions involving military
awards in the process of specifying certain
specific individuals or groups to be given
special consideedration by the DOD for
MOH recommendations. However, it is only
the President who holds the ultimate veto
power over the award(s) themselves. The
existing legislative process precludes Congress
itself from directly making the awards. It can
only attempt to influence them through its
politcal muscle which it doesn't hesitate to
use through its appropriation power over
DOD.

WJH

.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Stephen Graham
What specifically do you think prevents
Congress from awarding a Medal
of Honor if it so chose?

The existing law.

Which Congress passed and Congress can change when it chooses, as it has
done several times since the passage of "An Act to further promote the
Efficiency of the Navy".

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

(d) If ...(1) a statement setting forth the distinguished
service...supported by sufficient evidence within two
years after the distinguished service; and (2) no award
was made, because the statement was lost or through
inadvertence...not acted on; a medal of honor....may be
awarded...within two years after the date of that
determination.....

Interesting but irrelevant vis-a-vis the argument by
Fester that there is no time restriction with regard
making recommendations for a MOH award.

Sorry, you really don't speak English well; I said there was no time limit
for GETTING the award.

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by w***@aol.com

....about....the Navajo code-
talkers...Specifically, what were their
imagined accomplishments?

One of the Navajos , Hawthorne, is
"...We were successful in turning the
tide of the war in the Pacific."
Specific enough for you, or do you
believe that the Navajos did turn the tide
of the war in the Pacific?

No question they were extremely useful.

Equally no question the war would have still been won without them.

With the greatest of respect to Mr. Hawthorne "we were successful in
turning the tide..." is a gross exaggeration.

[a425couple]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Why are you only
concerned about stories of "non-minority"
POWs? Why not just POWs, full-stop?

If I missed any "minorities" among the POWs
in the Japanese death camps, I apologize.
I've never seen or heard reference to any.

Is Hopwood really serious here in trying to
say he is not aware of any "minorities" among
the Allied POWs in the Japanese camps?? !!

[w***@aol.com]

Post by a425couple
Is Hopwood really serious here in trying to
say he is not aware of any "minorities" among
the Allied POWs in the Japanese camps??

My reference did not include "Allied" POWs
and I thought I made that clear but I'm sorry
if it wasn't.
Of course there were many Filippinos
taken prisoner but they were hardly
a minority group in the Philippines.
The "Bible" on POWs is a book titled
"Prisoners of the Japanaese" by Gavan
Daws. IIRC he didn't emphasize the
existence of any significant number of
of U.S. POWs who were black, hispanic,
native American, or any other group
commonly associated with minorities in the
U.S. at the time.
Perhaps if you believe there were a
significant number of such members of U.S.
minorities among the U.S.POWs of the
Japanese, mahbe you can tell us how many
and from which groups they came.

WJH

WJH

[a425couple]

<***@aol.com> wrote in message...

Are you intentionally sniping to distort,
or hide your prior errors?
In your post of 4/13/3:28 PM, you seemed to say that
you were not aware of "any"!
Now you are preparing to back off that.

Retrieve.

Post by w***@aol.com
If I missed any "minorities" among the POWs
in the Japanese death camps, I apologize.
I've never seen or heard reference to any.

Post by a425couple
Is Hopwood really serious here in trying to
say he is not aware of any "minorities" among
the Allied POWs in the Japanese camps??

My reference did not include "Allied" POWs
and I thought I made that clear but I'm sorry
if it wasn't.
Of course there were many Filippinos
taken prisoner but they were hardly
a minority group in the Philippines.
The "Bible" on POWs is a book titled
"Prisoners of the Japanaese" by Gavan
Daws.

Yes, very good book.
Are you still capable of reading it for yourself,
or do I need to specify names of racial minority US military
and pages they are mentioned on?

What do you think of someone who indicates they read
a book, but somehow pretends to know nothing of some
of the more 'gripping' stories?

Is dementia really setting in?
Or is it stubburn refusal to accept facts?

Post by w***@aol.com
IIRC he didn't emphasize the
existence of any significant number of
of U.S. POWs who were black, hispanic,
native American, or any other group
commonly associated with minorities in the
U.S. at the time.

Well, if I start giving you names and page numbers,
I'll have done all the work, and your "mistake"
would have been a good try at a bluff, and not cost you
a thing.

Listen Hopwood, you go back and start reading
Daws' book, and tell us of the first two you find.
(they are within the first 40 pages of text!)

[w***@aol.com]

....The "Bible" on POWs is a book titled
"Prisoners of the Japanaese" by Gavan
Daws.

A very good book.
Are you still capable of reading it for yourself
Is dementia really setting in?

Tsk, Tsk. Not your finest hour, I can see.

Be that as it may, here are some quotes
from Daws' book with reference to U.S.
POWs you seem to have overlooked:
"They were white men *
*The Japanese also captured large
numbers of Asian troops fighting with Allied
forces...of those surviving the great majority
were released within months. This book is
about the POWs held for the duration of the
war, whites, plus Eurasian Dutch...who were
treated as white....
"I chose Americans to follow in detail
...they were the only white Allied troops
captured in the Philippines...it is through
their eyes that we see the other national
POW tribes."

Listen Hopwood, you go back and start reading
Daws' book, and tell us of the first two you find.
(they are within the first 40 pages of text!)

I did, and you've got to be kidding. Of the U.S.
National Guard unit Daws described, he said
there were no blacks, only a "sprinkling" of
Spanish-sounding surnames, one with a Chinese
last name and one half-Japanese whom Daws
says was the only U.S. POW with a Jspanese
surname and a Texas accent in the whole Pacific
war. Some minority group.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

....The "Bible" on POWs is a book titled
"Prisoners of the Japanaese" by Gavan
Daws.

A very good book.
Are you still capable of reading it for yourself
Is dementia really setting in?

"They were white men *
*The Japanese also captured large
numbers of Asian troops fighting with Allied
forces...of those surviving the great majority
were released within months. This book is

Actually, more Filippinos died in camps than did Americans.

And more Koreans.

And more Chinese.

And more Indonesians.

Post by w***@aol.com
"I chose Americans to follow in detail
...they were the only white Allied troops
captured in the Philippines...it is through
their eyes that we see the other national
POW tribes."

Listen Hopwood, you go back and start reading
Daws' book, and tell us of the first two you find.
(they are within the first 40 pages of text!)

I did, and you've got to be kidding. Of the U.S.
National Guard unit Daws described, he said
there were no blacks, only a "sprinkling" of
Spanish-sounding surnames, one with a Chinese
last name and one half-Japanese whom Daws
says was the only U.S. POW with a Jspanese
surname and a Texas accent in the whole Pacific
war. Some minority group.

So, even by your restricted definitions, you know of minority PoWs of the
Japanese, yet claim you do not know of minority PoWs of the Japanese.

Pretty dumb, Hopwood.

Mike

Post by w***@aol.com
WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by a425couple
Is Hopwood really serious here in trying to
say he is not aware of any "minorities" among
the Allied POWs in the Japanese camps??

My reference did not include "Allied" POWs
and I thought I made that clear but I'm sorry
if it wasn't.
Of course there were many Filippinos
taken prisoner but they were hardly
a minority group in the Philippines.

They were a minority in the US Army, though, were they not?

or did you mean you think the white soldiers were the minority, in which case
your argument holds even less water.

Mike

[news]

Post by a425couple
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/article_cecf4a96-d25b-52c6-9b5b-39ac7bcefe0c.html
"On Thursday, the Navajo Code Talkers won another round
when the New Mexico State Organization of the Daughters of
the American Revolution paid homage to their legacy by unveiling
the Navajo Code Talker Monument in the Santa Fe National Cemetery.
Three Code Talkers - Hawthorne, Bill Toledo and Chester Nez - attended,
as did members of their families and several local dignitaries --"
Elsewhere I saw a picture of the three.
And more information,
"But as the Navajo's Diné language was unwritten - and few
non-Navajos knew it - code strategists decided to create a
200-plus-word code using Diné words and translated by trained
Navajo Marines. The Japanese were baffled - as was anyone else
listening in. Navajos not versed in the code didn't know what was
going on, either.
Today, somewhere between 23 and 40 of the Code Talkers are still living,
according to most historians. Among them is 92-year-old Nez, a New
Mexican who recalled joining up at the age of 18."

I am part way through the book. It very well written, very interesting.

[a425couple]

Post by news

"On Thursday, the Navajo Code Talkers --

I am part way through the book. It very well written, very interesting.

Neat!
Is that Nez's "Code Talker: The First and Only Memoir by One of
the Original Navajo Code Talkers of WWII." ?
Also from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker
"Johnston staged tests under simulated combat conditions which
demonstrated that Navajos could encode, transmit, and decode
a three-line English message in 20 seconds, versus the 30 minutes
required by machines at that time."