Posted on 03/04/2007 2:53:43 AM PST by LibWhacker
Appreciated.
Apparently the guy in your link discovered the hidden truth that a great many Japanese were willing to surrender, if as Lindbergh contended, they were merely allowed to.
Stay tuned, I'm getting ready to post some of what I read tonight.
Many of the accounts have the same rationalization as I've seen on this thread. That the Japs were evil, so it was OK for us to do whatever we wanted with them. The following is by no means all of the things Lindbergh witnessed. But as you can see from the page numbers and dates, there were many days that he spent flying in combat where he witnessed no crimes. He flew an amazing number of combat missions in P-38s, P-47s, and Marine Corsairs.
[Wednesday June 21, 1944 visiting General Paul B. Wurtsmith. Page 853]]
General’s account of killing a Japanese soldier: A technical sergeant in an advanced area some weeks ago complained that he had been with combat forces in the Pacific for over two years and never had a chance to do any fighting himself – that he would like the chance to kill at least one Jap before he went home. He was invited to go out on a patrol into enemy territory.
The seargeant saw no Jap to shoot, but members of the patrol took a prisoner. The Jap prisoner was brought to the sergeant with the statement that here was his opportunity to kill a Jap.
“But I can’t kill that man! He’s a prisoner. He’s defenseless.”
“Hell, this is war. We’ll show you how to kill the son of a bitch.”
One of the patrol members offered the Jap a cigarette and a light, and as he started to smoke an arm was thrown around his head and his throat “slit from ear to ear.” The entire procedure was thoroughly approved by the general giving the account. I was regarded with an attitude of tolerant scorn and pity when I objected to the method and said that if we had to kill a prisoner I thought we ought to do it in a decent and civilized way. “The sons of bitches do it to us. It’s the only way to handle them.” ……………..
[June 26, 1944 (page 856) visiting the 475th fighter group, spending the night with Colonel Charles H. MacDonald. Spent evening talking about the war with several officers.]
There were three silk Japanese flags hanging on one wall of the hut we were in,k taken from the bodies of Japanese soldiers. The souvenir value of one of these flags was about [$33.00 US], one of the officers told me. Someone who has a Japanese officer’s sword is asking [about $1000 US] for it. The talk drifted to prisoners of war and the small percentage of Japanese soldiers taken prisoner. “Oh, we could take more if we wanted to.” One of the officers replied. “But our boys don’t like to take prisoners.”
“We had a couple of thousand down at [deleted], but only a hundred or two were turned in. They had an accident with the rest. It doesn’t encourage the rest to surrender when they hear of their buddies being marched out on the flying field and machine guns turned loose on them.”
“Or after a couple of them get shot with their hands up in the air,” another officer chimed in.
“Well, take the [deleted]__th. They found one of their men pretty badly mutilated. After that, you can bet they didn’t capture very many Japs.” …………..
[Wednesday, June 28 still with the 475th, page 859] Supper and evening with the 475th officers. Talk again turned to war, prisoners, and souvenirs. I am shocked at the attitude of our American troops. They have no respect for death, the courage of an enemy soldier, or many of the ordinary decencies of life. They think nothing whatever of robbing the body of a dead Jap and call him a “son of a bitch” while they do so. I said during a discussion that regardless of what the Japs did, I did not see how we could gain anything or claim that we represented a civilized state if we killed them by torture. “Well, some of our boys do kick their teeth in, but they usually kill them first,” one of the officers said in half apology.
Later in the evening, as I was getting ready for bed, another officer showed me his souvenirs. Several Japanese soldiers had walked into the camp at about two hours after midnight. (There was argument among the officers as to whether the Japs had come to steal food or to surrender.) The officer who was showing me the souvenirs woke, saw the Japanese, grabbed his .45, and shot two of them. Another officer accounted for a third.
I don’t blame them for what the did. After all, one can hardly afford to ask questions when he sees Japanese soldiers in camp during the darkest hours of morning. What I do blame them for is the attitude with which they kill and their complete lack of respect for the dignity of death. The souvenirs consisted of a silk Japanese flag containing the usual characters, a number of Japanese bills, including invasion money, a name stamp, a postal savings book, a number of postal cards already written and addressed, several other articles, and a photograph of several Japanese soldiers, including the one from whose body the “souvenirs” were taken – a young boy of about fifteen to seventeen years of age. ……………
[Thursday, July 13, 1944. In Australia to discuss his status flying as a civilian with the army. Saw Generals Kenney and MacArthur. Page 875] Supper with Phil La Follette, Phil cooked supper. We discussed the war, old times, and the political situation back home [Roosevelt had just announced his run for a fourth term]. At one point, the conversation turned to the atrocitites committed by the Japanese and by our own men. It was freely admitted that some of our soldiers tortured Jap prisoners and were as cruel and barbaric at times as the Japs themselves. Our men think nothing of shooting a Japanese prisoner or a soldier attempting to surrender. They treat the Jap with less respect than they would give to an animal, and these acts are condoned by almost everyone. We claim to be fighting for civilization, but the more I see of this war in the Pacific the less right I think we have to claim to be civilized. In fact, I am not sure that our record in this respect stands so very much higher than the Japs’. ……………
[With Major {Claude} Stubbs and several other officers, drove in Jeep over to the Mokmer west caves. Monday, July 24, 1944 Page 883]
At the center and far end of the cave the Japs had set up huts similar to those in the first cave we entered, but in better condition, since they were far enough in to escape the flame thrower. One of them had apparently been used for a hospital. One of the bodies on the floor was still lying, partially covered, on a stretcher. This is the cave where the Japs reportedly tried to surrender and were told by our troops to “get the hell back in and fight it out.” The far end of the cave opened into a second pit, also littered with dead bodies.l We could stand it no longer and turned back to our jeep. Drove to the shore and bathed in the cool and clear water of a small spring, which the Japs in those caves had probably used only a few weeks previously. ………….
[Flying as flight leader with the 433rd. Friday August 11, 1944. Non flying day to inspect the aircraft (P-38s) Page 902]
Sitting on boxes and the edge of bunks in the rather poorly lighted tent, we discuss the question of Japanese prisoners. I said I felt it was a mistake not to accept surrender whenever it could be obtained; that by doing so, our advance would be more rapid and many American lives would be saved. If the Japanese think they will be killed anyway when they surrender, they, naturally, are going to hold on and fight to the last – and kill American troops they capture whenever they get the chance. Most of the officers agree (not very enthusiastically) but say that our infantry [doesn’t] look on it that way.
“Take the 41st, for example; they just don’t take prisoners. The men boast about it.”
“The officers wanted some prisoners to question but couldn’t get any until they offered two weeks’ leave in Sydney for each one turned in, Then they got more than they could handle.”
“But when they cut out giving leave, the prisoners stopped coming in, The boys just said they couldn’t catch any.”
“The Aussies are still worse. You remember the time they had to take those prisoners south by plane? One of the pilots told me they just pushed them out over the mountains and reported that the Japs committed hara-kiri on the way.”
“Well, you remember when our troops captured that Jap hospital? There wasn’t anyone alive in it when they got through.” “The Nips did it to us, though.”
[On Tarawa island, Wednesday, August 30 1944 on jeep tour with an officer]
The officer I was with, who came in soon after the first landing, told me that our Marines seldom accepted surrender of the Japanese troops on the island. It had been a bitter fight; our men had lost heavily; the general desire was to kill and not take prisoners. Even when prisoners were taken, the naval officer said, they were lined up and asked which ones could speak English. Those who were able to speak English were taken for questioning. The other “simply weren’t taken.” ………….
[Apparently on Roi island, Monday Sept 4, 1944] One of the doctors on the island tells me that some of the Marines dug up Japanese bodies to get gold-filled teeth for souvenirs. ………….
[Apparently still on Roi island, Saturday, September 9, 1944 page 919]
Before the bodies in the hollow were “bulldozed over,” the officer said, a number of our Marines went in among them, searching through their pockets and prodding around in the mouths for gold-filled teeth. Some of the Marines, he said, had a little sack in which they collected teeth with gold fillings. The officer said he had seen a number of Japanese bodies from which an ear or a nose had been cut off. “Our boys cut them off to show their friends in fun, or to dry and take back to the States when they go. We found one Marine with a Japanese head. He was trying to get the ants to clean the flesh off the skull, but the odor got so bad we had to take it away from him.” It is the same story everywhere I go. ………….
[Arriving at Oahu Hawaii, September 14 1944 page 923] Colonel [John S.E.] Young and several Marine officers happened to be at the NATS station when I arrived. He invited me to spend the night with him at Ewa. Cleared customs and we drove out to the base. (The customs officer asked me if I had any bones in my baggage. He said they had to ask everyone that question because they had found a large number of men taking Japanese bones home for souvenirs. He said he had found one man with two “green” Jap skulls in his baggage.) ………………
Post 264 is for you.
.... not around to defend their honor against the 'diary' of one solitary man who didn't believe in their cause.
In researching and typing post #264, I saw dozens of combat missions under fire flown by someone who "didn't believe in" America's cause.
You might not want to read it, because it might puncture your own fantasy of what history was really like.
And where exactly in your post, is Lindbergh an eyewitness to the torture and/or murder of Japanese soldiers?
The bottom line is, that what you have here, amounts to nothing more than hearsay...like it or not.
I had the opportunity about a year and a half ago to speak at length with a veteran of several of the island battles in the Pacific, stemming from my mentioning to him in passing that I'd read EB Sledge's "With the Old Breed". If you've never read the book, I highly recommend it.
As horrific as that book was, it was nothing compared to seeing the look in that veteran's eyes as he recounted some of his experiences to me. Sixty years had not erased the horrors that he witnessed and his disbelief at the atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese. He described the terror he felt that he'd be captured and 'skinned alive' by them. He also detailed the ruthless efficiency and heroism of the men who drove the Japanese from the caves in what for many were inevitably suicide missions. None of it is for the squeamish. And I would be loathe to judge anyone for their wartime actions based on his account alone.
After enduring the candy-cane view of Charles Lindbergh that one receives in public school in this country, I grew up and expanded my horizons a bit.
Prior to the US entry into WWII, Lindbergh was what one might call his era's Cindy Sheehan (Jimmy Stewart's portrayal notwithstanding). He went out of his way to prevent the US from aiding the Brits or preparing our defense, and nearly cost them - and us- everything
Personally I wouldn't be offended if the guy had simply STFU in 1928.
You make me see Cindy Sheehan in a whole new light.
Lindbergh was isolationist, as his father, a US Senator, had been in WWI. His opinion was the majority opinion, which was why FDR was petrified that Lindbergh might run for President, and could possibly win. As the son of a US Senator, that possibility was very real.
There are those that claim FDR engineered Pearl Harbor in order to get us into the war in Europe. That might be a bit far fetched, but he did bait the Japanese with trade policies, and once Pearl Harbor got us into the war, FDR spent the first part of it agressively going after Germany, not Japan.
Back to Cindy Sheehan. Could you ever imagine Cindy Sheehan flying a fighter aircraft, strafing a Japanese barge with 20mm and .50 caliber machine guns? Could you imagine her dive bombing in a Corsar at 500mph with several thousand lbs of bombs that are aimed at killing people?
I don't think so.
Comparing Lindbergh to Cindy Sheehan doesn't quite cut it.
If Lindberghs second hand account is true. Then we didn't execute 9 Japanese prisoners, but more like 2000, machine gunned on an airstrip. That was the one account where he deleted the name of the location and unit, apparently to protect the perpetrators. That's the one incident that rises above personal conduct to the level of genuine war crime.
The other surprising thing are the numerous discussions with senior officers Lindbergh had where they apparently ratify the "no prisoners" concept. They pass the buck that the enlisted war fighters just won't take prisoners. Lindberghs argument was not only that we were being barbaric, but that it was bad tactics as well. Had we spent the two years between Dec 7, 1941 and the summer of 1944 training a few Japanese speakers, then maybe we would have had thousands of Guy Gabaldons. Perhaps it would not have been as bloody on Iwo Jima, had we had a few trained people to talk the Japs from the caves as Gabaldon did by the hundreds. 800 prisoners on a single day, captured by one man! These are the fanatic Japanese that fight to the death? I think it much more probable that our policy of taking no prisoners created the situation where Japanese troops held out in the mountains for months, pining down our people and preventing them from being moved on to the next island. It was a stupid policy, as well as barbaric.
The original article in this post is about a Japanese doctor that killed a handful of innocent people while he was under orders. He spent the rest of his life trying to make up for it, and fully confessed to what he had done. In contrast, our troops apparently committed barbarities of their own, without direct orders to do so (one reported incident I didn't type in last night was a Japanese found tied to a post, apparently tortured to death). But I see no equivalent confessions by our people that these things happened. Instead I hear the story, "the japs refused to surrender, the japs refused to surrender, the japs refused to surrender", without the explanation offered that they did so because we wouldn't allow it.
Lindbergh published his diaries in 1970. There were plenty of veterans alive when it came out. Had Lindbergh been inventing stories, an innocent group of people, having their honor trashed would have called Lindbergh a liar. Lindbergh wouldn't be known as the guy who accepted a tin medal from the Germans in the days when he was attempting to head off war Europe, but would instead be the goon that trashed the honor of thousands of heros in battle. But that didn't happen. Instead his diaries were ignored, I think because he told the truth, and people with guilty consciences didn't want to admit their involvement. By staying silent, they allowed the fantasy that Americans were good, but the Japanese were evil, to continue. I'll accept that perhaps the Japanese were "more" barbaric, but I don't want to hear the preening that Americans were full of virtue while Japanese like the guy in the article at the top of the thread is not. The true story just isn't that black and white. Akira Makino admitted his guilt. The fact that there are no Americans that I've heard of admit to any improprieties at all is telling. I prefer Japanese honesty to American silence.
History, and truth, is not limited to what is acceptable in a court of law.
Lindbergh's diary came out in 1970, when plenty of veterans were alive to protest any inaccuracies. The fact that there were not thousands of veterans protesting the publication, enraged that their sacred honor was being trashed by Lindbergh, speaks volumes.
Obviously Lindbergh was telling the truth, and the veterans of the South Pacific new it.
new it = knew it
Lindbergh was isolationist, as his father, a US Senator, had been in WWI. His opinion was the majority opinion, which was why FDR was petrified that Lindbergh might run for President, and could possibly win. As the son of a US Senator, that possibility was very real.
Isolationism is great for things like 'Peace in Our Time'. Lindbergh was a dandy pilot, but a moral failure. We could pretend just about anything and speculate as to the outcome; Lindbergh as president would not have averted US entry into the war- it almost certainly would have made it worse. You overstate the sentiment against the war-- it was not so widespread that FDR couldn't push through things like Lend-Lease, no thanks to Linbergh. Lindberg and his ilk prolonged the inevitable with their handwringing and dissembling. One wonders what Churchill would say about your reading of history.
There are those that claim FDR engineered Pearl Harbor in order to get us into the war in Europe.
Yes, and they watch Michael Moore movies in slow-mo and trade 9-11 conspiracy theories over at DailyKos.
That might be a bit far fetched, but he did bait the Japanese with trade policies, and once Pearl Harbor got us into the war, FDR spent the first part of it agressively going after Germany, not Japan.
Nonsense. FDR watched the tightening noose that Japan held in the Pacific (ask the survivors of Japanese atrocities if FDR was baiting the Japanese) and played all diplomatic hands first. The allied consensus was that Europe was the most pressing and that Japan could- and would- wait. Even so, the US racked up solid victories and had Japan backed up to her own shores by VE day
Back to Cindy Sheehan. Could you ever imagine Cindy Sheehan flying a fighter aircraft, strafing a Japanese barge with 20mm and .50 caliber machine guns? Could you imagine her dive bombing in a Corsar at 500mph with several thousand lbs of bombs that are aimed at killing people?
Only if it harmed US troops.
Your comparison is like saying that Ted Kennedy ably served all of his constituents except Mary Jo Kopechne. Lindbergh was wrong, and he used his position as a celebrity before, during and after the war to harm US interests (presaging the Liberals of the VietNam era and the kook left of the modern era).
Maybe in some future generation he will be remembered for what he did. But not until the passions have gone out of this thing. Not until all the veterans of the South Pacific are dead, and their children who hold their memory sacred are gone too.
Was that while he was strafing houses, and barges in Japanese occupied areas? Or perhaps while he was helping that other Nazi, Henry Ford, produce more heavy bombers than Boeing?
We were not ready for total war when the Brits and French declared against Germany. Lindbergh helped that effort more than he hurt by over reporting the strength of the Luftwaffe (he had been decieved by the Germans), giving data to those who were trying to get arms bills through Congress.
I'll have to re-read the early parts of his diaries, but I seem to remember that his emotional argument for staying out of war in Europe was isolationism, but his logical argument was that we would lose because we weren't not armed.
Also, how did his going on active duty around 1940 (before America First) with the job of helping gear up aircraft production for war damage our ability to fight it once it began? Some peacenick.
And you would presume to know the nature of truth?
Tell me, what is the difference between a soldier who kills on the battlefield, and a criminal who murders their neighbor, and by what immutable moral principle do you distinguish the two.
Absent context, History and truth are meaningless, abstract concepts, and contingent to what we are discussing here, it certainly is limited to what is acceptable in a court of law.
Lindbergh's diary came out in 1970, when plenty of veterans were alive to protest any inaccuracies. The fact that there were not thousands of veterans protesting the publication, enraged that their sacred honor was being trashed by Lindbergh, speaks volumes.
And one person's deductive inference is another persons logical fallacy. As I said before, for someone who is so interested in the truth, you have an odd way of showing it.......
Ah. So veterans like it when stories are fabricated about them. Either that, or they knew that the best way to make the story go away was to just keep quiet. Guilty consciences work that way naturally.
for someone who is so interested in the truth, you have an odd way of showing it.......
If by "truth" you mean finding creative ways of describing Americans good, Japanese bad, then no, I'm not into that. If by "truth" you mean "truth", then I'm interested.
Lindbergh said right in his diaries that the Japanese were more barbaric than the Americans apparently were. But that didn't change the "truth" that Americans often were very barbaric, and were obviously intent on killing japs, not in achieving victory in the most expeditious manner.
Guy Gabaldon figured out all by himself how to achieve victory in the most expeditious manner, and with little loss of life on either side. From the web site:
His routine previous to July 8 had been simple but effective; carefully approach a cave, shoot any guards outside, move off to one side of the cave and yell "You're surrounded and have no choice but to surrender. Come out, and you will not be killed! I assure you will be well treated. We do not want to kill you!" At this point, anyone running out with a weapon would be immediately shot, but anyone coming out slowly would be talked into returning to the cave and bringing out others.
On his first sortie Guy captured seven prisoners using this method, only to be told by his commander that if he deserted his post again he would be court-marshalled. The next morning Guy returned from another unauthorized trip, this time with 50 Japanese prisoners. From that moment Guy was granted the envious privilege of "lone wolf" operator. He could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. The perfect task for a tough Chicano kid from the East Los Angeles barrios.
On July 6, Guy left on another of his evening patrols and entered an area near Saipan's northern cliffs. It seemed fairly deserted at the time, but before daybreak he realized that hundreds of enemy infantry were moving onto the flats and gathering for an assault. By this time he was cut off from any path of retreat and any attempt to show himself would have resulted in a quick and noisy death. He remained under cover and listened as thousands of Japanese troops and some civilians drank sake and loudly prepared for the largest banzai charge of the campaign. This tragic and unsuccessful charge ended late that evening, with most of the remaining Japanese returning to their cliff-side positions.
The next morning, Guy crept to the edge of the cliffs, where he quickly captured two guards. It was then that he embarked on the most dangerous of his many ventures. After talking to the two men he convinced one of them to return to the caves below. This was a personal moment of truth for both of them. If the soldiers below were still too agitated, then everyone involved would face immediate death and a disgraceful one at that for the two guards. Shortly afterward a Japanese officer and some of his men walked slowly up from the caves and sat down in front of Gabaldon. Within an hour hundreds of Japanese infantry accompanied by civilians began surrendering en-masse; the gamble had paid off.
This climactic morning did not end Guy's prisoner-taking days. By the time he was machine-gunned in an ambush, he single-handedly captured over 1,500 soldiers and civilians from the most fanatically inclined army in the world. Decades later stories of the "Pied Piper of Saipan" continued to be told and retold within the Marine Corps, although they were considered by many to be some of the great fish stories of World War Two.
If Guy Gabaldon had brought in some prisoners on one occasion, then I might think his experience was a fluke. But obviously the Japs in the caves were desperate (obviously). Gabaldon convinced them they would not be harmed, and they surrendered in droves, on multiple occasions. To honor him now would put the lie to the mantra that "the japs refused to surrender". So Gabaldon has been forgotten, just like Lindbergh's diary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.