Long forgotten war vets......

A nice breezy sunday evening. I thought I'd visit the cemetary where my mom, grandmother, grandfather, and great grandparents are.

As I did my rounds and visited, I took a closer look at a grave that is behind my great grandparents.

This young soldier. Born in 1925 and killed in the Battle of Manila, 1945. Such a brief 20 year life.

On such a calm, quiet evening, I found myself thinking of this young lad's life in the service.

The Pacific war does not get near the attention that the European/Soviet theatre receives. Me, being a WWII history buff study mostly the eastern front and desert campaigns.

However, I do know how terrible the Pacific Island battles were. I know Manila was one of the bloodiest, most horrible battles of the war--on scale of Stalingrad with devistation, but with further perverted carnage caused by the retreating "Emperor's" army.

Just seeing footage of this battle is quite horrible. As I stood nearby this kid's grave, a lowly private, I can loosely imagine what he had seen. Absolute horror. I do not know how long he had served. I did google his division and regiment. They did see some of the worst of the war.

I know this plot, with this Army Private's parents burried next to him (I do not know if his body was returned, I am guessing not), is not visited or attended to by loved ones. Probably all are gone or not around. It is trimmed, with a proper cemetary plaque and flag.

Quite moving--wherever this soldier's soul is, I spent some time recognizing his efforts.

So very sad, I hate wars. My Uncle Ken was killed in WW11, he was in his early twenties. He was a bomb aimer and my mum said he died doing what he loved (flying not killing people!). I have the papers that were delivered to my grandparents telling me their son had gone down somewhere over France I believe. I would love to have met him, it's so tragic.

Wasn't it in the Pacific theatre that they had the barbaric death marches? Even the nurses were included in it. It was the Bataan Death March. (sorry, I'm writing out my thought process...) When I've read about it it is inconceivable that anyone survived and also the inhumanity involved.

I sometimes wander through local cemeteries and wonder about peoples lives. I was in one town that almost every grave was from the 1918 flu epidemic. Entire families wiped out.

My Dad and Uncles fought during WWII. The older I got the more I learned and respected them all - especially Dad. In their 20's, life full in front of them, and there they are ... one uncle was in a parachute division - dropping behind enemy lines in Europe. Another was skilled in personnel issues and stayed in admin work. Another commanded Navy vessels in the Pacific. My Dad flew Hellcat tiny planes off the USS Langley aircraft carrier.

None of them was ever forthcoming about theri experiences until the final months of their lives ... through the years Dad dropped snippets. He once told me that not a single day passes he does not remember and think about the boys who died serving along side him.

When I consider the horrible things my Dad was brave enough to do in the Pacific ... the dog fights in the air, the straffing and "softening up" the enemy ... both military and civilian - my heart stands in awe of him and all those brave men and women. He fought the war and come home. My Mom, to this day, hates the Japanese with a passion ... though the passion dims each year. She says it is one thing to be in a fight and quite another to know that a nation is trying its best to shoot at and kill the man you love. Both my parents and my grandparents fought that war - each in his/her own way. but my Dad's service humbles me.

Thanks for remembering that soldier, Marc. And thanks for posting. We all owe these brave men and women of the Allies remembrance at the very least.

There's a movie about the Pacific theater from the Japanese point of view. I can't remember the name of it but it was really good. Does anyone know which one I mean?

My father was in an engineering division making bridges in Europe. He saw England, France and Germany. I wish I was interested when he would talk about his experiences. He's been gone now for almost 21 years and I'll never get to ask him about them now.

The reason no one is taking care of that grave, Marc, is because that young soldier didn't have a family of his own. His parents are gone and so is he. So many lives that were never fulfilled.

I think we have discussed this before but I'll repeat myself. If it wasn't for WWII, I would not be here. My father and mother were "introduced" by a man my father served with in the war. He gave my Dad my Mom's address and they were pen pals before ever meeting.

So, the young man in that grave never married nor had any children because of the war. And my sister and I are here because of the war. That's something to think about.

Interesting topic guys. For all of you that have relatives/family that have served, thanks. I think if we all trace back enough, we can trace back to long lost relatives that served for the Axis powers as well.

Clint Eastwood produced "Flags of our Fathers," the Japanese view. Some interesting special effects, but it really portrayed the Japanese footsoldier in a very sympathetic light--which may be true in many circumstances of those who fought in wars on both sides.

I think the only movie that shows some real Japanese atrocities recently was the movie with Benjamin Bratt--can't remember it but a group liberates a prison camp. And yes, the Bataan Death Marches and other forced labor was quite bad. Not to mention what had been done in Eastern Asia (China, Korea, etc.) by the Japanese.

Manila, however was horrrible. I know some old timers that hold severe grudges against the Axis powers--they have every right to. They were there, not me.

This seems to be a general rule of war vets that's been passed to me. They don't talk. They never tell stories of what they've seen or done. Maybe in their older years some may come out--otherwise they downplay their role. My dad had a relative that served in the now day CIA (Office of Strategic Services) as an undercover operative in Europe before the U.S. invasion. He was entirely changed from the war.

True Les, of how the war changes a lot of lives. No doubt world population due to the war has forever changed. Compounded with the losses from WWI, Europe & Russia will never ever regain a population level of where it should be. The U.S. population too has changed.

Interesting parts of our history, but one life at a time.

Different war, different theatre, but I remember how moved I was in HS when I read "All Quiet on the Western Front" and looking at war through the eyes of the "enemy". It's one of the few books I re-read. Remarque had his books burned in Hitlers Nazi era for showing the Germans in a weak light. Pacifism was not tolerated and as a result was censured.

lesherb wrote:There's a movie about the Pacific theater from the Japanese point of view. I can't remember the name of it but it was really good. Does anyone know which one I mean?

Leslie,
There is the recent one that Marc talked about. There is a much older one, Tora, Tora. Tora. You might have been thinking about that one. Excellent flying scenes! It's an old enough film that there were still a fair amount of WWII planes around. NO computer graphics and few aircraft models. REAL, full sized aircraft. It's a very well done film. It stand up well even today. It is in my collection of flying films. Oh, they used American T-6s for Japanese Zeros. T-6s were advanced WWII "trainers" although they could be outfitted with guns. There are amazingly, still a fair number of them around and flying.

I was fortunate enough to be a passenger in a T-6 piloted by a real WWII Navy pilot. What a super thrill!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Chris

Just as I was about to post a fairly long comment, somehow the computer erased my reply! Grr! So rather than go into all those details again, I thought I'd just mention one fact that you may not have heard.

You probably have how Japan still refuses to acknowledge its atrocities and war crimes. They kidnapped women from China and Korea and made them prostitutes, often serving 15-20 men a day! They also refused to let the people speak their native tongue (at least in Korea and Taiwan; I'm not sure about China). So my Taiwanese sister's grandmothers grew up speaking Japanese as their first language. They would use Taiwanese, the local dialect, secretly at home. They don't speak any Mandarin, which is the national language of Taiwan. Japan focuses mainly on Hiroshima and how terrible the Allies were to detonate a nuclear bomb. It doesn't talk about Pearl Harbor or anything else.

Whether we should have dropped the bomb is a big debate, and with aftersight, knowing more about how severe the consequences were, it's not as good. But with the knowledge they had at the time, it probably was the best option they could forsee. One problem was the morale of the Allied soldiers because the Japanese had been taught that the Americans would eat them and that it was a disgrace on their family to be captured. So when the Allies would take over an island held by Japanese, the women would throw their children off the cliffs and then throw themselves down. You can imagine what that did to the psyche of the American soldiers! If they had gone into Japan itself, the fighting would have been really terrible. And I have read that the Allies actually killed more Japanese and destroyed more of their cities with napalm, firebombs which we associate with Vietnam. They don't talk about that as much because it wasn't as spectacularly devastating and new as the nuclear bomb.

But the point I was going to make and got sidetracked is how the Soviets taught their students about the war. My best friend is from Mongolia, which was under Soviet control, although its own country during the Cold War. And after she saw Saving Private Ryan, she asked me why the filmmakers would remake the war so much as to put the Americans into it. She had been taught that World War II was of the Soviets saving the world from the Nazis singlehandedly. They greatly honored their war dead and veterans because it brought glory to the Soviet Union, and they did honestly have a very difficult fight and lost many, many lives. But they weren't the only ones fighting the Axis. My friend from Armenia, which was part of the U.S.S.R. until it broke up, also was taught that World War II was a war of the Soviets against the Nazis. It wasn't until after Armenia became its own country that they began to teach their students that other countries were involved in it too.

I have always found World War II fascinating. My mom, a history major and former junior high history teacher who could easily have gotten a Ph.D. if not for her migraines, is much more intersted in World War I because it involved a lot of political intrigue and secret treaties. But I think the Second World War was really interesting.

Ah, crt, the T6.....awesome. One was on ebay recently--might still be up. I don't think I'll be flying anything more than an RC Plane anytime soon!

Vicki...you've touched on one of the most heated debates of WWII--who helped who win.

The Soviets took the overwhelming death toll. The Nazis were good at what they did with a few exceptions. The Soviets did not care about losses, and the German war machine could pump out enough munitions during the war to destroy Soviet units. The Soviets never really divulged how many they lost--specifically Stalingrad. I've read up to 1.2-1.5 million.

If the Soviets and their teachings want to chest-pound, they are correct--but could they have one without the U.S.? That is strong a no IMO. Could the U.S. stomach the casualties inflicted by the Germans? I will venture a no on that as well. And definitely the Germans couldn't hold up against the Soviet masses without it's firepower.

Here's a couple things that can line this up (and take the war outside of propaganda).

-Since the Japanese started the Pacific war and really stirred up the U.S., they had a huge enemy to fight despite the allied powers deciding to defeat the Nazis first.

-Japan signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union before Pearl Harbor. However the Soviets were leary that the Japanese would attack through Manchuria/China. The Soviets had to keep many key fresh divisions in the far east to prevent the Japanese from attacking the eastern USSR. The U.S. put so much force into the Pacific, that Japan could not attack the Soviets to give the Soviets the dreaded 2 front war. If the Japanese did attack the USSR, Germany would have had an easier go and pushed the communists east of the Volga to the Urals.

-The U.S., Canada, Great Britain (and it's affiliates) aided the Soviet Union significantly with everything. This helped them get through the most difficult 1942-1943 aspects of the war. The North Atlantic convoys that were attacked incessantly by U-Boats kept a stream of supplies going to the Soviets. In 1945, the western front operations decimated the Wehrmacht--if those troops were available in the east, the Soviets would have had a tougher time.

-The Allies massive air campaign destroyed the German manufacturing machine significantly enough, along with their ability to procure and supply oil that the Germans were hampered on the Eastern Front. However, the Germans began to optimise their production in 44-45 which provided them with tools of battle--but not enough hands to fight.

These are details that many historians and armchair generals discuss to infinity about the war. It's obvious that the Soviets used bodies not brains to fight the war hence the massive casualty figures. The U.S. used technical and manufacturing know-how and its military effectively but not entirely without problem or failure.

One aspect of the war that any thinking historian or armchair general is the Battle of the Bulge. It seriously tested the U.S Army. If one compares how well the Wehrmacht fought against the Soviets on a fighting retreat, it calls into question U.S. ability--especially with depleted supply.

It's a symbiotic relationship. I don't think the Soviets would have won without U.S./Allied help, and I think the Allies would have fought to contain rather conquer Germany. Italy and Rumania were so weak they don't even fit into a valid discussion of wining or losing. The Italy was never taken in WWII--even near the end, the U.S. was losing ~4,000 troops a day fighting the Germans.

But depending on what a person's interests or what they feel, this entire war can be hashed into who saved who's bacon.

Japan, however, would not have stood under U.S. power. We did not want to lose 1 million to take Japan, but if push came to shove, we would have. At that time, wars were fought differently--and politically correct"ness" didn't manage the way war is waged.

just my .02

Both of my Grandfathers were in WW I.

One flew Curtis Jennys, which were open-cockpit, bi-planes. Some of his time was spent stationed at Kelly Field near San Antonio, Texas.

The other was in the Signal Corps (I think), at least he was an infantryman. Despite having earned marksmanship medals during training, when he got to France he laid his rifle down, and depended on God to keep him safe. He had semaphore flags, and carried messages between units. Eventually, a piece of shrapnel wounded his arm, sending him to a field hospital, and earning him a Purple Heart.

My Father served in WW II, and later was recalled for the Korean Conflict. During WW II he was on a ship bound for Japan, through the North Pacific. On the far horizon they saw the mushroom cloud; thus aborting their suicide mission. In the Philippines he pulled General McArthur out of a latrine pit, that the General had fallen into.

Mule Kick, since I don't like MacArthur, I love the image of his having fallen into a latrine!

Marc, you are very correct about how both sides were needed to do their own part to win the war. I don't think it would have been won without Germany's having to fight on two different fronts.

As for the U.S.'s being willing to lose 1 million lives if necessary to defeat Japan, I think that besides the political correctness issue, a couple other factors come into play. First, this war was particularly one that was seen as trying to defeat evil. The way that both Germany and Japan treated its enemies and captured people was so terrible that it clearly seemed to be a war of good vs. evil, not just country vs. country.

Also, the reporting on the war was very different. There was no TV to show the up-to-date images of what was going on and to upset the American public. That didn't really happen until Vietnam, which, not coincidentally, was the first that was really protested very strongly by the American population. During the war, there was also a lot of censorship, not just to make sure that they didn't give away locations and other secrets, but to make sure that the public didn't realize just how terrible the war really was.

An interesting fact is that during World War I, they censored all the reporters' writing and the soldiers' letters, but the one thing they did not censor, unless perhaps, it was to make sure it didn't give away secrets, was poetry because that was art. This is how we were able to get some poems as "Rendezvous with Death" by Alan Seger and "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen, who died the week of the Armistice. The latter is particularly gruesome, in describing a gas attack and someone's drowning in the gas. But it made it through the censors because it was "art."

One of my mom's favorite stories about the Battle of the Bulge is about the group of Americans (sorry, but I temporarily forgot the name of the unit) who got particularly surrounded. They were down to their last ammunition and were asked to surrender. The commander's response? (Sorry, but once again, I forgot who the commander was!) "Nuts!" It took a while before the Germans figured out the colloquialism, and by then, the unit was rescued, but they always maintained that they didn't need to be rescued because they could have fought themselves out of it.

One thing that got erased in my earlier post was about the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! That was extremely fascinating, showing all the details of both sides in the lead-up to the Pearl Harbor attack and the attack itself. The name comes from the code that was used to give the signal to attack.

I remember when the fairly recent movie Pearl Harbor came out how much worse that movie was than the earlier Tora! Tora! Tora! Yet I read that the producers of that movie said they didn't want to make a boring movie like Tora! Tora! Tora! was; they wanted something that people would be willing to watch. The only redeeming thing about that movie was that it showed the Dewey raid.

When I was a kid, my mom would always wake me up on December 7 by saying, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" So I got to learn that bit of history quite fast!

Tora! Tora! Tora! boring? Not hardly. But then I'm more impressed with real planes than flashy, computerized, special effects.

Chris