Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MARTIAL MONK; swmobuffalo

I understand, I did read the article it states sometime in the future we will tell you how we came about these numbers.
I put a bit more faith in the people that were there at the time counting than I do academics in libraries counting 60 years later. We can disagree. Either way, even if it was 2499 that is a somewhat low number given the tasks. And we will probably also agree, whatever the number, they were each and every one a great unselfish sacrifice.


65 posted on 06/06/2009 7:21:59 AM PDT by Jolla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: Jolla
Not arguing the point but the records from the beachhead were a jumbled mess. Units were split and some units just didn't exist anymore. Survivors attached themselves to whoever was moving inland and some of these were killed later. Preliminary reporsts of the number of missing were staggering. They were sorted out and categorized later.

I read an account about the gal who was researching this and it was impressive. She pieced together from reports and firsthand accounts the names and units of those killed. I understand that the new figures include Rangers and others who died the first day further inland, something that the old numbers didn't.

66 posted on 06/06/2009 7:37:24 AM PDT by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson