|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 17, 2006 18:32:25 GMT -6
Here's an entry from "the WEB" so you can read it. It tells the tale of how after the captain was the last off the Yorktown, after making a personal tour of the ship, and leaving, two wounded (or did they leave unwounded aboard as well?) had to fire off a machine gun to get rescued later. ( www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv05-yorktown/cv05-yorktown.html). I'll get the citation from Lord to boot. The money quote from the url I provide here (which works) is: "Yorktown, as it turned out, floated through the night; two men were still alive on board her — one attracted attention by firing a machine gun that was heard by the sole attending destroyer, USS Hughes. The escort picked up the men, one of whom later died." Must have been wounded. And apparently, there were others as well, discovered when the salvage crew went aboard. Too badly wounded to do anything with. Regardless, you cannot claim all the wounded were removed. Lord's book, published in the 1967, sold the vast majority of its copies (probably 99%) before Amazon was thought about. Amazon, as most children know, is telling you how many it's selling. You understand? It's like saying because The Da Vinci Code has more Amazon sales, it's bigger than, you know, the Bible. Still in print, I think, if still as high as number 12. Huh. It's really quite simple, and 95% of those here understand me easily enough, 4.5% mostly understand but pretend they don't to be childish pains. The remaining .5% follow baseball and find it "interesting" and "a sport." Enough said. But again: Militaries are bureaucracies and organically defend themselves by predictable and repetitive methods. "Lying through their teeth" is a common tool. They "lied" about Tilman. They "lied" about the Indianapolis, and apparently some still lie about the Yorktown if they deny that live wounded were still on board after the Captain left. It's hardly surprising or damning in those circumstances. But don't lie about it.
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Jul 17, 2006 19:24:22 GMT -6
Oh, OK. Let me see if I can understand you. You say my citation off the web was a sailors mothers story, but yours is a most true and excellent citation. The wounded left aboard fired off a machinegun attracted attention and were rescued. How does that compare with your original contention that the wounded were left in CV-5's Sick Bay to perish? I think you are becoming more confused dc. Your original position was the wounded were abandoned twice and left to drown, perhaps you don't remember. Now you reverse your position and claim two were rescued. You cannot have it both ways. I have seen some people who get lost in discussions and school debates but none compare to yourself. You are now going to furnish a website to me to prove part of what I have been telling you? Tell me are you drinking while putting up these posts? In actuality CV-5 survived the Japanese air attacks and was floating for two days afterward. Salvage crews were pumping her out and she was begining to right herself. Destroyers and other craft were close by. Now try to listen, all the wounded were evacuated. Just as it looked like they could start towing her to Hawaii a Japanese sub fired a torpedo into her side. There was so much debris in the water the destroyers had been unable to detect the sub's approach. At that point the salvage crews knew she was lost and a destroyer evacuated the last living members from the ship. This is not tough material, nor is it hidden. Dozens of books, articles and film have documented it, contrary to your original contention all the wounded in sick bay went down with the ship. Since you now seem to have discovered two sailors rescued, I have no idea what you are contending the lost wounded are now. Lords book was a best seller in 1967, is that what you are now saying. Well, I would have no doubt. But that is not what you originally asserted.
"If there was any contradiction of Lord's book - by far the best seller on Midway - you'd think some vet would have brought it up. No one seems to have. That he's a good writer doesn't make him less believable than actual inarticulate garbage written by bitter old men, does it?"
These are your words. "By far the best seller on Midway". It does not appear so. You seem to think you can continually re-write your position. You cannot. Why don't you simply be honest and say you made a mistake?
Actually I am just trying to advise you of a problem you have in posting. I do not think everyone understands your posts anywhere as well as you think they do. Your litany on hero's merely shows your misunderstanding of the subject. Why do you need to use slights and insults in gentlemanly discussions?
"It's really quite simple, and 95% of those here understand me easily enough, 4.5% mostly understand but pretend they don't to be childish pains. The remaining .5% follow baseball and find it "interesting" and "a sport." Enough said." You think 4.5% pretend to not understand you? How in the world did you arrive at that number? Is there a formula you use? What facts do you use? Is there a multiplication involved? And the remaining half percent like baseball so they are really ignorant you imply? I simply do not understand what you are saying and how you arrive at such disparate reasoning.
You now say the military are liars. How do you know this? Have they lied to you? How many times? About what? Have you worked in the Pentagon as a press officer? Were you a Officer? How did you find this out. Can you give me citations on their lies? Did they lie about LBH? Did they lie about Custer? Who lied? About what? I would like to know about these things and document them for some of the writers on this board. I believe this could be valuable information if you are sincere and really know about many documented lies the military has been telling us. I do not lie and I assume you do not. But you do seem somewhat confused about several subjects here. Do not change your position without explaining. Please provide documentation on the military lying. I think everyone is interested in specifics here.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 17, 2006 20:04:05 GMT -6
DC---in the past you have excused Reno for abandoning troopers when he retreated. Your excuse for Reno, I believe, (and I may be confusing your comments with Warlord, or One Tin Soldier, or q, you are all so very similar,) was some one always doesn't get the word. No kidding? Reno had perhaps 130 soldiers. Have you any idea how many served on a WWII CVA? Have you the least idea without looking it up? Have you any idea of the procedure for abandoning ship? Any idea whatsoever? If you do not know it to the point where you can dot the eyes and cross the tees good sense suggests you keep your mouth shut.
One comment I'd like you to explain, if you can. What, exactly, did you mean by "The remaining .5% follow baseball and find it "interesting" and "a sport." Enough said." Will you explain and defend that comment? Can you?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 17, 2006 20:50:30 GMT -6
You're missing the point, utterly, Harris.
I absolutely would find it preposterous to think a captain on a 35k ton carrier can take a last look about in less than about eight hours, and that's on a ship not sinking, about to capsize, and on fire. I'm offended we're expected to believe it and take it as fact. So all the assurances from the Navy and the Captain and everyone, including senior medical officers, that everyone worth saving was off doesn't mean much. They were leaving regardless, as common sense would dictate.
I cannot and do not think they were lazy or cruel. They made decisions and left some aboard for whom they thought it was not worth the risk. As it happens, they were wrong in at least two cases, weren't they. I'd bet that happens a fair amount in war, and I don't blame them. It's just one of a zillion crappy things they have on their shoulders they have to decide in split seconds. I'm not surprised, I do not condemn.......them.
But to pretend this doesn't happen because of manual or procedure or unpleasantness is absurd. A new ID for an old participant claims the tale of the Yorktown was wrong. It wasn't.
I don't blame Reno all that much for those left behind, and I'd bet on any surprise move like that some don't get the memo. I'd think bugle calls would alert the Sioux to something about to happen to worse result, but maybe he wasn't thinking that. We don't know, and I'm not more likely to blame a man in combat leading the way to unknown result or welcome any more than the Yorktown crew, who no doubt did all to their best judgment. It's just wrong to pretend there was no downside to it, and to call people liars for revisiting the facts. To say Reno's actions or the circumstances on Reno Hill and the decisions before him were in any sense unique and generally handled better by others at other times isn't really true, is it?
And for heaven's sake, of course I'm kidding with the percentages, given there's absolutely no way to know. I have to say that? Baseball is generally as boring as soccer since television commercial time mandated it be stretched out, though.
Tally up the number of books Lord's book on Midway has sold since 1967 and tell me which books outsold him on the same subject to date. Amazon only knows how many it alone has sold in less than a decade, and thirty to forty year old books tend to sell less than newer ones. You don't seem to get that.
And yes, the military lies when it feels it has to and can get away with it. It is lying as we speak trying to pat their various stories about Tilman's death together. You can't deny that. They lied about My Lai, at first, as well. And they've never settled the Indianapolis issue.
MacArthur, whose combined Philippine and American commands with 24 hours notice since Pearl Harbor were totally surprised and destroyed with planes wing to wing, would probably have been shot, given that Short and Kimmell were put in the dock for less. Somehow, he became the hero and left ALL the Americans and Filipinos to the Japanese as he escaped. Are all the dead in that included in MacArthur's casualty count? No, they start with the offensive, but he'd been in the war longer than that. Wainwright gets the exclusive pan. Reno to MacArthur's Custer in the Philippine disaster, more damaging than Pearl Harbor in some regards.
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Jul 17, 2006 22:20:01 GMT -6
DC: You are mistaken about so many things it is indeed hard to believe. First you are the one with a stange tale about CV-5. No one else seems to know anything about it. Your story flies in the face of protocol and orders. Did you ever decide how many wounded went down with the ship after you discovered two rescued? Stange you would believe that and not that the rest were rescued. Lets see now you are claiming Reno deliberately left men behind on purpose. Man you are a fellow of odd opinion. What would be the thinking in that? Maybe he just did not like people on chesnuts? Your opinions you are certainly entitled to, but some are so strange. You were kidding about the percentages? Well, you certainly had me fooled I thought you were dead serious. If you came up with a formula I would have believed you. Boy, thats a good one. However, I enjoy both baseball and soccer and do not understand your prejudice against them. You tally up the books since you are so interested. I have already supplied the best seller lists, and guess what? You were wrong. What a surprise. Of couse a continual good seller over forty years would sell more copies than a best seller a couple of years old, sooooooo!
The military lying thingie. Please provide facts and citations then we could have a good discussion. Hearsay counts for nothing. I notice you are not falling all over yourself to provide this.
General MacArthur, one of the many great American Army hero's. His personal accounts of the Phillipine fighting should be required reading. You should be ashamed for attempting to malign him here. Get your facts straight. He was not surprised and did the best he could with what he had. He had intended to die with his troops. Roosevelt and Eisenhower used every trick and device they could to get him out even promising a non-existent army in Australia so he could retake the peninsula. Your worst problem, dc, is you have not studied about what you talk about. In this case it really is flagarant. I get the impression you want to attack any American hero just to see if you can get people to denegrate them with you. Tough luck.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 17, 2006 22:42:28 GMT -6
I almost wrote this earlier tonight but decided to wait a while. I should have written it earlier. analyst, move on! I'm sure you know how to contact DC, so challenge him line-by-line elsewhere, please. This is getting old. Unfortunately, once again, what started out as an excellent thread has been ruined. Thanks a lot. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DIRT?
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 18, 2006 1:06:03 GMT -6
I didn't miss the point, MacLeod. You are attempting to establish a moral equivaklency between what happened on the Yorktown and Reno's conduct in leaving the woods. There is none. Reno abandoned his wounded and 10% of his fighting force. Of course they didn't get the memo, or the word, because the word wasn't passed. Somehow, Irather doubt the Captain of the Yorktown did not sound abandon ship, and for certain he wasn't the first man over the side. Again, there is no moral equivalency.
There seems to be an attempt on your part to calcify a little wishful thinking of your own.
Agree, baseball is not a TV sport. TV cannot capture the subtleties of the game. But boring? Maybe it is a question of the game being too subtle.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 18, 2006 7:40:31 GMT -6
D.O., I have only read the first couple of pages of this thread but offer a question in reply to your question regarding Wolf Tooth (or whatever). Wasn't another Cheyenne interviewed in either Hardorff's Cheyenne Memories or Michno's Lakota Noon who stated that he and two or three others slipped past the camp guards and joined a group (presumably led by Who Shot Virginia Wolf) who were going to raid a soldier camp? If possible, I will try to dig it out today but I only returned home last night from practically two weeks in NC and today have to dial into work to collect two weeks' worth of company email...that should be pretty damned humorous in itself.
Or again, I may just clean out the rental car and then find a good book and sit in the recliner all day!
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 18, 2006 7:48:47 GMT -6
D.O. regarding the dirt. I, being D.C.'s stooge (a personal insult handed me by one of my favorite idiots), also recollect that Brust, etc., did not think that the top of LSH had been lowered that much. However (and you may have touched this without my seeing it), what happened to the dirt from the footing dug to support the monument? My best guess is that the excess was piled around the monument itself after it's erection. There should be some kind of records from the Engineering/Quartermaster regarding any construction details.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 18, 2006 8:02:27 GMT -6
Those who have not served in combat can't begin to understand the necessity of protecting the wounded, of coming to the aid of a fallen comrade. These men become your brothers, your family. Stop and think for a moment, would you run away to save your life and sacrifice your family? Now, this is brought up over and over because people understand this necessity. Arm chair soldiers will never understand it. So, let it go and accept the fact that the dead were abandoned only reluctantly and where possible the wounded were never deserted. Its was as much a part of the military culture then as it is today. This attitude applied to every soldier, including Custer, and its why Benteen beat himself up until his very death. It is not a "romantic" notion, except in the mind of those who can not know or begin to understand. You have to live it to understand it. Greenpheon Walt, I agree almost whole-heartedly with you. Another thing which may put this in context is the abandonment of two? wounded troopers during Reynold's retreat in March, 1876. Sorry if the month is wrong but I have not been doing much reading on this period for a couple of weeks. Anyway, Bourke and others made much of this as an example of Reynold's incompetence. But, to somewhat counter your primary argument; after the Fetterman battle, the only officer who wanted to retrieve the bodies of the dead was Col. Carrington. Granted, that is from his recollections but I have not read anything counter to it, even from Powell. I will have to go through the Special Commission transcripts to see if any other officer mentions it. Later, Billy
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 18, 2006 8:03:26 GMT -6
Billy--
I think you're absolutely correct ... this "dirt" isssue is touched upon in Where Custer Fell during the discussions towards the back of the book. What would be rather bizarre is if some of that "sacred" dirt was used (granted, without knowledge) to bury the Fetterman dead when they were aligned/reburied near LSH.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 18, 2006 8:30:53 GMT -6
Re Yorktown and abandonment of sailors.
No direct knowledge of it on my part, however, during WWII, it was common practice to leave sailors in the water rather than stop a ship to pick them up. The economics of war were simple: A valuable destroyer, freighter, etc. with a full complement of crew vs. one or a hundred men. Heart-rending but necessary. Somewhere I have read of hopelessly wounded being abandoned in a sinking ship, whether in Last Stand of the Tin-Can Sailors (an excellent read if interested in WWII) or something else. As I recall, they were given large shots of morphine to ease their passage.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 18, 2006 10:22:36 GMT -6
I was in no way going for "moral equivilancy," although I might have had I thought of it.
My only point - and again, based on my contention that Custer is given every doubt's benefit, Reno none - is that Reno is condemned for purported actions and proposed actions as if they were outlandish suggestions and the product of a diseased mind (This, for those who've missed the heavy breathing attempts to prove Reno died of syphilis). I used the Yorktown (and there are others) solely because it occured to me while writing and because it shows there is a long history of this sort of thing. Wounded were left behind. This is morally better/less than what Reno proposed?
Note, please: I'm not condemning ANYone, but pointing out that facts establish awful decisions are made, and inevitably some are wrong. Either way, battle command must be god awful to bear.
I think the difference between how MacArthur and Short/Kimmel were treated is instructive (and rather depressing).
Just saying that those who crow about the high ideals and actions of the military while damning Reno ought to be 1.)honest, and 2.) ......well, a LOT more honest. Reno's actions and offered scenarios to Benteen were not unique by a long shot.
And Smithers.....er, Markland, your Stooginess has been falling off lately, and I demand your write another 5k words to the Vatican to get my canonization off the ground. Now. Snap to, as of course you always have.............
Baseball fans..........
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 18, 2006 10:38:52 GMT -6
DC, I think the majority of the horror about Reno addressing the option of leaving the wounded lies in the sure knowledge that any wounded would be treated barbariously, unlike the European Theater of Operations during WWII where Axis and Allied could be somewhat reassured that their wounded would receive medical aid from the captor (unlike the Russian front).
As far as my 5,000 word essay to the Vatican is concerned, after driving 5,200 miles in two weeks and dealing with the various dumb-a**es on the interstates (and using wholly inappropriate language in the presence of a child), I may have to write several essays just to assure that my presence in a chuch does not cause it go up in flames. After that driving, I am convinced that, at a minimum, 60% of all passenger vehicle operators need to be restricted to mass transit!
But, to brighten up your day, Cookesville, Tennessee now has a Starbucks!
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 18, 2006 10:58:46 GMT -6
I don't think even the Japanese pretend that their WWII prisoners were treated remotely adequately, at least anymore. MacArthur escaped and left the Philippines (he was the Field Marshall) and his American troops to them. The Navy did not want the Yorktown towed to Tokyo with whatever it contained.
Tennessee has electricity now? They drink coffee? I have to get out more. Still, you make it about you. Sacrifice yourself in a church run by that idiot preacher and his family condemning war dead there in Kansas. Greater good, and eventually you'll be forgiven your exclamations in front of children inured to such these days.
|
|