Subject: WWII-L Digest - 18 Nov 1994 to 19 Nov 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 00:00:58 -0500

There are 38 messages totalling 1400 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. WHAT-IF YAMAMOTO (3)
  2. WW 2 Reproductions needed!
  3. AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN T
  4. African-Americans in the Marine Corps
  5. 22D INFANTRY HURTG
  6. ENOLA GAY AGAIN (5)
  7. Game
  8. ACES: (3)
  9. INF: USN Chronology 11-19-94
 10. INF: 50 Years Ago - 20-NOV-1944
 11. 50TH: GERMAN WAR GAMES
 12. GEN: HOLLYWOOD AT WAR-JOHN WAYNE (3)
 13. 50TH: HUERTGEN FOREST CONTINUED
 14. 50TH: COVERAGE OF PACIFIC WAR
 15. Hirohito Surrender Speach?
 16. Enola Gay Again (5)
 17. Eighth Air Force (2)
 18. Medals
 19. Aces
 20. Eighth
 21. ENOLA GAY (2)
 22. B-17 Flying Fortress computer game

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:52:00 GMT+1
From:    SYSTEM OPERATOR <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WHAT-IF YAMAMOTO

Ludwig Goller <[email-masked]> writes:

> AFAIK, the evil thing about Pearl Harbour was, that the attack occurred
> _before_ an official declaration of war. Yamamotos plan was to declare
> war and _then_ to attack PH, giving the US such a heavy blow that they
> would be demoralized. Unfortunately for Y., the declaration was delayed
> and the result was the adverse of what Y. had anticipated.

If I am correct the Japanese plan was to declare war to the U.S. just a few
hours before the attack, thus leaving them no time to react and protect
Pearl, while maintaining the illusion of legality.
Personally I see little difference between this method, and declaring war
afterwards. The essential is that you have stabbed somebody without leaving
him time to defend himself. This is exactly what Nelson did at Copenhagen in
1807.

Arnaud.

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 18 Nov 1994 22:50:34 -0500
From:    "Arthur D. Venzin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WW 2 Reproductions needed!

Jesse, try the U.S. Calvary catalog in Fort Knox area. Hope that helps

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 00:46:06 -0500
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN T

African-Americans were enlisted in the Marine Corps first in 1943, I believe,
and were trained at Montford Point, Jacksonville, NC, within the Camp Lejeune
area. The black Marines were put in all-black units, the 51st and 52d Defense
Battalions, to name two. They also comprise the Ammunition Companies. The
Marine Corps Historical Center has published Henry I. Shaw, Jr., and Ralph
Donnelly's "A History of Blacks in the Marine Corps." Interestingly enough, the
muster rolls of the Continental Marines show that Orange, a black, (which is
how the muster rolls list him) served with the Continental Marines. Further
information about him can be found in Charles R. Smith's "Marines in the
Revolution," again published by the Marine Corps Historical Center and
available (both are) from GPO. Ben Frank.

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 18 Nov 1994 22:53:15 -0500
From:    "Arthur D. Venzin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: African-Americans in the Marine Corps

Tim, there were some units in the Battle of the Bulge that really made a name
for themselves.  I want to say 718th Tank destroyer Bat. but not sure.
Try looking into this area and I know you'll be surprised.

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 00:46:17 -0500
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 22D INFANTRY HURTG

SgtMaj Ross, I congratulate you on your Huertgen Forest series. Each individual
post is well written and tells me more about the battle than I have previously
known. I look forward to each new chapter. Ben Frank

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 00:46:23 -0500
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: ENOLA GAY AGAIN

Well, for those of you who didn't see it on TV or read about it in the papers,
the Enola Gay exhibit is under attack again, but this time from revisionist
"historians and academics," according to the Washington Post. It seems that the
Air and Space Museum people have retreated too far, according to the
enlighteners of the truth for students, and the dropping of the bomb was
racially inspired and not all that many Americans would have died in the
invasion. These bloody people also did not take into consideration how many
Japanese civilians would have died had we invaded Japan. By the way, I have
reviewed the most recent script (#5) and it is a considerable improvement over
its predecessors and in fact I am not unhappy about it. Ben Frank

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 00:06:02 -0500
From:    Scott C Stathis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Game

Hi
    Jesse

       If your looking for a good B17 game I'd try Lucasfilm arts

"Secret Weapons of the Luffawaffe" or Microprose "B17 Flyfortress"

but SWOTL will also give you many more plans than the Microprose. The planes

you can fly are as follows: U.S.A, P-51, P-47, B17, (P-38, P-80) Germany,

Me-109, Fw190, Me-163, Me-262, Go-229(this is a great plane to fly I know

I have.), (He-162, Do-335) the partheness are for aircraft that will either

be in a add-on program, 8-( or with the game. 8-) These only apply to SWOTL

B17 is only a B17.

Finally, "Aces over Europe" is a great game with many different planes and

their variants but I recommend running it on a 386SX 33 or higher. I've got

a 25Mhz machine and its a little choppy.

Hope this helps.
                8-)

Scott Stathis
Umass-Amherst

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 00:29:38 -0500
From:    chris garcia <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACES:

An interesting note about Erich Hartmann.  His opportunityto fly an Me262
came at theend of the war when Galland asked him to join his free lance
jet fighter squadron JagdVerband 44.  Galland was working the phones
calling up all the Luftwaffe's top aces to join in.  Many were so eager
to work with their revered General, they left hospital beds to get t
Brandenburg.  He asked Hartmann to leave JG54 on the eastern front and
join him, but Hartmann declined, preferring to stick it out with his old
group.  He was captured by the russians and lost ten years of his life in
the Gulag.  After he was released Galland liked to point out to him that
if he had taken his offer, his life might have been different.  Hartmann
later on went on to fly jets for the new Luftwaffe.  He is alive somewhere
in Germany today.

On Fri, 18 Nov 1994, Mike Yaklich wrote:

> BTW, everything I've seen gives Hartmann 352 "kills."  Also, he flew
> Me-109K late in the war and qualified (but did not fly in combat) on Me-262.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike Yaklich
>

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 02:16:34 EST
From:    "Niraj Agarwalla, UMass-Lowell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ENOLA GAY AGAIN

What the hell is going on?  What is it with these "revisionists"?  Where
did they crawl out from?  To say that the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki as racially motivated is pure crap.

This is what I think about the issue.  As the Americans retook the Pacific,
piecemeal-by-piecemal, they suffered horrendous casualties.  Literally
thousands died just to retake a few miles of useless land.  The Japanese
put up fierce resistence wherever the Americans encountred them.  To put it
succintly, it was a meat-grinder; and no one knew how many more soldiers
would die to defeat the Japanese.

When the Americans were on the verge to invade Japan, they realized how many
casualties they would have to suffer--thousands and thousands would die.
Add to that millions of Japanese citizens and you have a bloody mess on your
hands.  To use the bomb was a monumental decisions with severe repercussions
to be received later.  Was it the right decision?  I will let someone else
more qualified to discuss it.  But it was dropped, and it was dropped for a
reason:  to avoid unnecessary death, both civilian and military.  Know one
knew what would of happend if Japan didn't surrender at that time--it would
be pure speculation on anybody's mind.

Now the plane that carried the bomb, the venerable ENOLA GAY and her historic
mission, is under attack by these politically-correct, revisionist "historians"
How dare they accuse the US of racism.  How dare they accuse of killing
innocent people?  What about the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor, without
the official declaration of war?  What about the deaths of over 2,000 people
at Pearl Harbor?  These
revisionist fail to bring the Japanese rascism in this matter.  Their
superiority over all races in the Pacific.  What about their disregard
for POW rights in POW camps?  Remember the baatan death march?
Why are we being singled out?

I have read about WWII since I was thirteen, and I believe the dropping
of the bomb was one of the most defining moments in the world.  The
bombing was justified, after all it was war.  In war, sometimes we
humans must commit the most unhuman acts.  Why do you feel guilty?
What is your agenda?  What are you hiding?

I'm sick of them peddling thier leftist agenda on us.  No americans
should be ashamed of this.  Stand proud and be counted or fall to the
wayside.

my two-cents,
niraj agarwalla
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 04:00:14 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 11-19-94

UNITED STATES NAVY CHRONOLOGY
from:
//byrd.mu.wvnet.edu/pub/history/military/wwii/naval_chronology/chr4(4,5).txt

1944
11/19 Sun. Aircraft from fast carrier task force (Vice Adm. J,
           S. McCain) strike Japanese shipping and aircraft in
           the Luzon area, P.  I.
           Units of the Seventh Amphibious Force land Army
           troops on Asia Island off the northwest coast of New
           Guinea.
            Japanese submarine sunk:
             I-177, by destroyer escorts CONKLIN (DE-439) and
             MCCOY REYNOLDS (DE-440), Palau Islands area,
             08 d. 07'N., 134 d. 16'E.

Information compiled by U.S. Navy Historians.  For more information,
contact the Naval Historical Center at (202) 433-3940.
Archived by: Larry Jewell <[email-masked]>
Posted by:
Theron P. Keller
Logicon, Inc.
Dahlgren, VA  22448 USA
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 04:15:32 -0800
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 20-NOV-1944

On 20-NOV-1944, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - In the British 2nd Army sector, the XII Corps continues
advancing towards the Maas. In the US 9th Army sector, the 29th Division
attacks Aldenhoven. In the US 3rd Army sector, the 5th and 95th Divisions
continue the battle with German rearguard forces. The 80th Division reaches
the Nied at Falquemont. In the US 7th Army sector, the 3rd Division crosses
the Meurthe and captures a large bridgehead. The 100th Division begins an
offensive eastwards from the Raon-l'Etape area. The 103rd Division is
advancing towards St Die after crossing the Meurthe. In the French 1st Army
sector, the 2nd Moroccan Division and 5th Armoured Division enter Belfort.
Units of the French 1st Armoured Division reach Mulhouse.

Italian Front - Castiglione is captured by the British 8th Army.

Philippines (Leyte) - The Japanese are successfully withstanding the
American offensive towards Ormoc.

Indian Ocean - Two carriers of the British Eastern Fleet attack airfields
at Sabang and oil installation on Sumatra.

Burma - On the Salween river front, the Chinese 11th Army Group captures
Manshih.

The Homefront
-------------
War Production Lags - Lt. Gen. Brehon Somervell, chief of the Army Service
Forces, reports that arms and equipment production is lagging by about
forty percent of what is needed. The most important needs are heavy
artillery, mortars, ammunition and trucks.

Short-Kimmel Trial Delayed Again - In Washington, it is reported that the
trials of Maj. Gen. Walter Short and Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel in
connection with the Pearl Harbor attack was dimmed today when the Senate
Judiciary Committee approved unanimously a resolution to extend from Dec. 7
for another six monts the satute of limitations in the case.

=============================================================================

Sources: "2194 Days of War" by Cesare Salmaggi and Alfredo Pallavisimi, "The
World Almanac Book Of WW II" by Peter Young, "Facts On File Yearbook 1944,
Person's Index Of World Events" edited by R.L. Lapica and "Time" magazine.

Previous articles are archived at ftp.webcom.com in directory /pub/jbd/www
and can be accessed via the WWW by URL: http://www.webcom.com/~jbd/ww2.html.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Davis     [email-masked]
Cary, N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 08:26:17 +0100
From:    JOHN AUSLAND <[email-masked]>
Subject: 50TH: GERMAN WAR GAMES

  While the German game on the Huertgen Forest evidently was not helpful to us,
I might remind everyone that another German game was.  When we landed in
Normandy on June 6, a number of German commanders were preoccupied with a
landing game in Rennes.  Coupled with Rommel's absence to be present on his
wife's birthday and to see Hitler, this coincidence gave us a break.
  For Joe Barone and Cassady Craft, the Military History Quarterly is not
available in any Norwegian library.  However, I find Eisenhower's Lieutenants is
in the Nobel Institute library, and I plan to get it on Monday.  Thanks for the
tips.
  Regards, John Ausland/Oslo Norway

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 09:12:28 +0100
From:    JOHN AUSLAND <[email-masked]>
Subject: GEN: HOLLYWOOD AT WAR-JOHN WAYNE

  With all the discussion of Hollywood and the war, I would like to ask again if
anyone knows why John Wayne was not in the military.  I am sure there was a good
reason but am just curious as to what it was.
  Regards, John Ausland/Oslo Norway

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 10:16:41 +0100
From:    JOHN AUSLAND <[email-masked]>
Subject: 50TH: HUERTGEN FOREST CONTINUED

  It took only a couple of days after the 4th launched its attack for us to
understand that we were up against a determined and skillful defense.  During a
brief pause, I wrote a short letter home.  Here it is, along with excerpts from
LETTERS HOME that may give you a little idea of how the fighting went.  (This is
based on my recollections, reinforced by research in official records at the
National Archives.)

          Dear Folks, Somewhere in Germany, November 20, 1944

          All goes well. Read your newspapers.

          Love, John

          I imagine the purpose of this letter was to let my family
          know that I was still alive, since they would have been
          reading in the press about the fighting.

          Before we got to the Huertgen, Lt. Col. Cyril J. Letzelter had
          replaced Jack Meyer as Commander of the First Battalion.
          He had commanded it for a short while in Normandy but
          was wounded. Although a likable person, other officers I
          have talked to while writing this book have agreed there was
          something lacking. In the Huertgen, he would return at
          night to the battalion's rear command post. Capt. Ralph
          Thomas, the battalion S-3, and I would plan the next day's
          attack. He would prepare orders to the company
          commanders, and I would arrange any artillery preparation.
          Early in the morning Letzelter would return to our forward
          command post, and the attack would begin. If the
          companies ran into trouble during the day, their
          commanders would get together and decide how to deal with
          it.

          One day an awkward situation arose, when regiment decided
          to have tanks attack along a road. The tank commander
          was clearly unenthusiastic about moving through the forest,
          since the Germans had anti-tank guns and the hand held
          panzer faust. About the same time as the tank commander
          showed up, so did Col. Richard G. McKee, who had replaced
          Col. Rodwell as commander of the 8th Regiment. The tank
          commander put increasingly difficult questions to Letzelter,
          which he had difficulty answering. Finally, Col. McKee
          intervened and the tanks set off down the road. A short
          time later a commander of one of the tanks showed up,
          sobbing. A German shell had hit the tank, and his best
          friend had had his face blown off.

          There was another pause, and the Germans took advantage
          of it to move reinforcements into the forest opposite us. At
          this point, however, Col. McKee ordered the Second
          Battalion to make a big demonstration, with artillery, smoke,
          and the lot. It then remained in place, while the First
          Battalion moved forward with no artillery or mortar
          preparation. This worked well. The Germans fired their
          artillery and mortars at the demonstrating battalion, which
          remained in covered dugouts. The First moved forward
          without resistance until it reached the regimental objective,
          a monastery in the forest at Gut Schwarzenbroich. There,
          however, it ran into German resistance. (It was during this
          action that Corp. James R. Flannigan earned his DSC, but
          more on this later.)

          On November 25, eight days after the attack began, General
          Barton ordered the 8th and 22nd to consolidate, while the
          12th moved between them. This gave each regiment a more
          reasonable front to cover. It was, however, too late. All the
          units had suffered so many casualties, particularly in
          company officers, that they were hollow shells. Joe Gude's
          C Company for example, had only forty-four men. Before
          replacements could get to where he was, many were
          wounded or killed by artillery or mortar fire.  END

          Copyright 1993, John C. Ausland

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 08:51:11 +0100
From:    JOHN AUSLAND <[email-masked]>
Subject: 50TH: COVERAGE OF PACIFIC WAR

  November 19, 1994
  There has been some discussion of the European campaign overshadowing the
Pacific fighting, which is certainly regrettable.  My guess is that Iwo Jima will
get attention, if only because of that picture of the flag raising.
  What seems to me most important is that Okinawa get as much attention as
possible.  It is not only that it was a terrible battle, but it is essential the
public understand what happened there if it is to comprehend why the decision
was made to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
  I realize there is a debate going on about this reasons for this decision, but
surely no one would claim that what happened at Okinawa played no role at all.
  My thought is not to reactivate the discussion of Hiroshima but to urge those
with media contacts to concentrate on getting coverage of Okinawa.
  Regards, John Ausland/Oslo Norway

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 07:45:22 -0500
From:    Michael Andrew Turton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WHAT-IF YAMAMOTO

There is a wonderful book by a Japanese scholar who at one point
contrasts the behavior of the Americans with the crack Kwangtung
Army in the Phillipines in '44.  He says that the Japanese troops
were both astonished and envious at thbe Americans, who conducted
the war as though it were a day job.  Launch attacks at nine,
breaking off at five, getting plenty of food and entertainment
at night.  I wish I could remember the name of the book.......

Mike Turton
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 08:40:10 -0500
From:    Lee Windsor u <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ENOLA GAY AGAIN

Hello all,

I've been recieving info from the list for several weeks now, but this is
my first post.

I would like to respond to the criticism that has been directed
towards "revisionist historians" in the last few days.

I would just like to say that, perhaps revisionist historians are not all
bad.  I myself, would probably be classed as one in that I often
challenge common assumptions regarding the Second World War.  I believe
that it is healthy to be constantly rethinking the way we look at the
war.  Even though historians often make errors, sometimes major ones, the
idea of re-evaluating what we know of the past, is a noble one.

For example, for many years, former Wehrmacht officers were the primary
source of info on the Eastern Front.  The idea developed that the Soviet
Army was of poor quality and it was largely Hitler's
interference in the affairs of his marshals, that caused the German
defeat.  We know now that this assumption is largely incorrect, and that
the Soviet Army developed into an extremely powerful force, capable of
beating the Germans at their own game.

Would anyone care to comment.
Thank you all, I enjoy your posts very much.

Semper Fi

Cpl. Lee A. Windsor
8th Canadian Hussars
Grad Student
Wilfred Laurier Univ.

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 08:48:09 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GEN: HOLLYWOOD AT WAR-JOHN WAYNE

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: GEN: HOLLYWOOD AT WAR-JOHN WAYNE
Author:  World War II Discussion List <[email-masked]> at TWLAN-SMTP
Date:    11/19/94 7:28 AM

>With all the discussion of Hollywood and the war, I would like to ask
>again if anyone knows why John Wayne was not in the military.  I am sure
>there was a good reason but am just curious as to what it was.
  Regards, John Ausland/Oslo Norway

  John,

  I'm not sure, but I suspect that Wayne was above draft age, and felt that
  he could do more for the war effort as an actor, you know, patriotic films,
  War Bonds drives, USO shows. I don't know if JW, like Ronald Reagan, did
  any training films (Reagan, as an over eager P-40 pilot is a real scream).

  As a personal note, my father still has the John Wayne autograph he got
  during a USO show somewhere in the Pacific.

  Steve New

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 10:14:09 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Hirohito Surrender Speach?

I can't be certain, in the context of the overall document
retrieved from BYRD, but this may also be the text of the Hirohito
surrender speech.

Steve New

(7) Translation of Emperor Hirohito's Receipt of the Surrender
documents

P R O C L A M A T I O N

Accepting the terms set forth in the Declaration issued by the
heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain,
and China on July 26th, 1945 at Potsdam and subsequently adhered
to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, We have commanded
the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial
General Headquarters to sign on Our behalf the Instrument of
Surrender presented by the Supreme Commander for the Allied
Powers and to issue General Orders to the Military and Naval
Forces in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Commander
for the Allied Powers.  We command all Our people forthwith to
cease hostilities, to lay down their arms and faithfully to
carry out all the provisions of Instrument of Surrender and the
General Orders issued by the Japanese  Imperial General
Headquarters hereunder.

This second day of the ninth month of the twentieth year of
Showa

|  Seal  of   |
|    the      |    Signed:   H I R O H I T O
|  Emperor    |
!!

Countersigned:  Naruhiko-o
Prime Minister

Mamoru Shigemitsu
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Iwao Yamazaki
Minister of Home Affairs

Juichi Tsushima
Minister of Finance

Sadamu Shimomura
Minister of War

Mitsumasa Yonai
Minister of Navy

Chuzo Iwata
Minister of Justice

Tamon Maeda
Minister of Education

Kenzo Matsumura
Minister of Welfare

Kotaro Sengoku
Minister of Agriculture and Forestry

Chikuhei Nakajima
Minister of Commerce and Industry

Naoto Kobiyama
Minister of Transportation

Fumimaro Konoe
Minister without Portfolio

Taketora Ogata
Minister without Portfolio

Binshiro Obata
Minister without Portfolio

----------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by Monty "Doc" White (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa201)
Distributed by the Cybercasting Services Division of the
National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN).

Permission is hereby granted to download, reprint, and/or
otherwise redistribute this file, provided appropriate point of
origin credit is given to the preparer(s) and the National
Public Telecomputing Network.

Reformatted, edit, indexed, and additional documents provided by
Larry W. Jewell
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 09:28:09 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Enola Gay Again

Text deleted

> I would just like to say that, perhaps revisionist historians are
> not all bad.  I myself, would probably be classed as one in that I
> often challenge common assumptions regarding the Second World
> War. I believe that it is healthy to be constantly rethinking the
> way we look at the war.

Text deleted

> Would anyone care to comment.  Thank you all, I enjoy your posts
> very much.

> Semper Fi

> Cpl. Lee A. Windsor
> 8th Canadian Hussars
> Grad Student
> Wilfred Laurier Univ.

      As most of the people on this list know quite well, history
is a living, not dead, craft.  New research is constantly revealing
"facts", previously unknown, that force us to reinterpret our
beliefs of the past.  This is true in all aspects of history, even
those that don't appear to be amenable to new data.  I can still
picture the looks that must have been on the faces of my college
art history instructors when that Japanese team cleaned the ceiling
of the Sistine Chapel to discover that Michelangelo used all those
brilliant colors.  I wonder what's been done to all those books
that praised the symbolism in the solemn tones of those paintings?

      You will notice that I emphasized the word facts.  What we
have been beating up on this list are the so called historians who
attempt to rewrite history based not on fact, but on the
re-interpretation of fact based solely on current "politically
correct" dogma.

      You can not properly interpret the actions of Yamamoto,
Marshall, Churchill, Stalin etc. by filtering them through a Bill
Clinton mind set.  Rewriting history based on what people currently
believe to be right and wrong is no different than what NAZI and
Soviet historians did.

      I don't consider the term "revisionist historian" to apply to
an individual who's ideas stem from newly discovered factual
information.  In my mind it's reserved for those unprofessional
types who want to force people to fit into their own mind-sets.
That direction leads to censorship and book burning, and it is a
direction that I refuse to follow.

Steve New

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 09:52:25 -0600
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ENOLA GAY AGAIN

In message <[email-masked]> World War II Discussion
List writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been recieving info from the list for several weeks now, but this is
> my first post.
>
> I would like to respond to the criticism that has been directed
> towards "revisionist historians" in the last few days.
>
> I would just like to say that, perhaps revisionist historians are not all
> bad.  I myself, would probably be classed as one in that I often
> challenge common assumptions regarding the Second World War.  I believe
> that it is healthy to be constantly rethinking the way we look at the
> war.  Even though historians often make errors, sometimes major ones, the
> idea of re-evaluating what we know of the past, is a noble one.
>
> For example, for many years, former Wehrmacht officers were the primary
> source of info on the Eastern Front.  The idea developed that the Soviet
> Army was of poor quality and it was largely Hitler's
> interference in the affairs of his marshals, that caused the German
> defeat.  We know now that this assumption is largely incorrect, and that
> the Soviet Army developed into an extremely powerful force, capable of
> beating the Germans at their own game.
>
> Would anyone care to comment.
> Thank you all, I enjoy your posts very much.

There is a large difference between revisionism and continued research.

There is nothing wrong with adjusting history based on new and learned
information, but there is a lot wrong with adjusting history based on your
personal beliefs or even the attitudes of the present time.

There are many reasons people want to revise history.  Some of them are
actually good, but these are people we call researchers.  Every year I run
across people who strongly "encourage" the warbird community to eliminate
all nose art which "objectify" women.  To do so would be to destroy, not
preserve, an important part of history -- whether you agree with it or not.

The revisionism of the atomic bomb doesn't have any basis in historical fact
or preservation.  Nearly all of the revisionism deals with the nuclear
agenda of several different groups.  Whether your beliefs agree with those
agendas or not doesn't alter the facts.

If the facts support a position, then "revision" of the historical facts is
good and important.  If the revision is based solely on beliefs and an
unrelated agenda, then it's the worst thing that can be done to history.

We are always learning new things as we keep going through the documents and
personal accounts.  But when everything for the past 50 years supports the
printed history, I find it hard to believe that any part of the revisionist
approach has any basis in reality.

--
Robert J. Granvin
Southern Minnesota Wing Confederate Air Force

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:36:48 -0500
From:    Lee Windsor u <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Enola Gay Again

Wow!

I have to say that I did not expect to get such a response.  I was happy
to have so much feedback.

I think perhaps I may have been misunderstood.  My understanding of the
term "revisionist" is different from the generally accepted view.  I had
no idea the term had such negative connotations.

If a revisionist has a political agenda, then I guess I am not a
revisionist historian.  I am currently training to study operational
military history, focusing on tactics at the battalion level and below.
My particular area of interest is the Italian campaign.  Although most of
my work has involved I Canadian Corps and 8 Army, I am trying to find out
more about 5 Army operations under Gen. Clark.

I am of the opinion that battles are often(but not always) decided by a
series of mini, brigade sized, self-contained, engagements.  My proposed
thesis topic will involve a study of the 4 or 5 key single battalion
fights within the Canadian Corps sector, that helped crack open the
Gothic Line in Sept-Oct 1944.  My research will be based primarily on
unit war diaries and after-action reports, plus the odd interview.

Does anyone have any suggestions, or interest in the D-Day Dodgers as well?

I thank you all again for your response to my first post.

Semper Fi

Lee A. Windsor

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:56:17 -0500
From:    Michael Andrew Turton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Enola Gay Again

I believe the revisionist claim is based on individual facts,
such as problems and misnterpretations regarding US peace
initiatives during mid-1945.

Plus the revisioninsts are trying to fit the Bomb into a larger
postwar history of constant, unremitting lying, distortion,
propaganda and misinformation regarding the nuclear weapons,
biological weapons and other programs as well as the secret
bombings of Vietnam and so forth.  Given that the government
tested bioweapons on unsuspecting American cities, sprayed
them with cancerous chemicals, conducted illegal and unethical
radiation tests on its own citizens and so on, isn't it likely,
the revisionists say, that the nuclear destruction of concentrations
of civilians had something more going for it than mere
finishing the war with Japan?

That said, I don't agree with revisionist history on this point.
Was there any exploration of alternatives to the Bomb and to
invasion?  Say blockade, quarantine, coupled with round-the-clock
bombing....?

Mike Turton
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 10:56:03 -0600
From:    Cheryl Kaye Bryant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GEN: HOLLYWOOD AT WAR-JOHN WAYNE

On Sat, 19 Nov 1994, JOHN AUSLAND wrote:

>   With all the discussion of Hollywood and the war, I would like to ask again if
> anyone knows why John Wayne was not in the military.  I am sure there was a good
> reason but am just curious as to what it was.

John

John Wayne was 4-F and it seems that I read somewhere that it was - you
won't believe this - flat feet.  Can someone confirm this?

C.K. Bryant

*******************************************************************
"The Riskier the road, the greater the profit."    / C.K. Bryant
        The 62nd Rule of Acquisition               / W.I.U. English
*******************************************************************

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:35:13 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ENOLA GAY AGAIN

Hi Lee,

Your post has several points to which I would like to respond:

>I've been recieving info from the list for several weeks now, but this
>is my first post.

First, I would really encourage you to pull down the list archive
files and read the Enola Gay posts from the beginning.  You don't say
when you first subscribed, but this thread has been going off and on
since about the third week in June.  (At least that's when *I* first
picked up on it).  If you decide to do this, to help, some of the
key words in the subject headings were: Enola Gay; Politics
Smithsonian; Viewpoints of war; Invasion of Japan; A-bomb/Smithsonian;
To (b)omb or not to (b)omb; Truman/Atom Bomb; Nagasaki bomb; PC at
the Smithsonian; and several on the Invasion of the USA by Japan.
This is not a complete list, but will get you started.

>I would just like to say that, perhaps revisionist historians are not
>all bad.  I myself, would probably be classed as one in that I often
>challenge common assumptions regarding the Second World War.  I
>believe that it is healthy to be constantly rethinking the way we
>look at the war.  Even though historians often make errors, sometimes
>major ones, the idea of re-evaluating what we know of the past, is a
>noble one.

>For example, for many years, former Wehrmacht officers were the
>primary source of info on the Eastern Front.  The idea developed that
>the Soviet Army was of poor quality and it was largely Hitler's
>interference in the affairs of his marshals, that caused the German
>defeat.  We know now that this assumption is largely incorrect, and
>that the Soviet Army developed into an extremely powerful force,
>capable of beating the Germans at their own game.

In my opinion, you are using a slightly different definition of
"revisionist" here than most people on this list are using.  My
opinion is supported by your example.  You seem to view a revisionist
as someone who is always searching out new, better, or more reliable
facts which may or may not neccessarily support the "common
understanding" of a particular historical event.  I would venture to
say that most "anti-revisionist" list members would tend to support
this sort of endeavor.  What competent historian would *reject* newer,
better or more reliable facts, as long as they were substantiated,
just because they didn't mesh with the currently held versions of
history?  In fact, this is what I have always thought historians were
*supposed* to do.

However, most anti-revisionists have a very serious problem when
historians, using facts and opinions which exist *today*, try to judge
historical figures for their actions which were taken based only on
facts and opinions *they* had to work with at the time.

To sum up this whole Enola Gay exhibit, the Smithsonian was trying to
put on a display showing how bad we (the US) were for doing this
horrendous thing, and causing 50 years of nuclear terror, while NOT
showing WHY we had to do it.  This one sided story is a prime example
of what "revisionist" means around here.  One of the many reasons this
sort of thing doesn't fly here is that there ARE still veterans around
who were there, and can tell us FIRST HAND exactly what a bunch of
hogwash that is.  Pro-bomb people tell us there would have been a
million casualties in an invasion of Japan.  Anti-bomb people say
that's greatly exaggerated.  My point would be that one American
casualty to stop the war would be too many.  Try telling otherwise to
Ben Frank or John Ausland, who surely would have been there.

War *is* hell.  Probably a good reason *not* to start one!

>Would anyone care to comment.   Thank you all, I
>enjoy your posts very much.

>Cpl. Lee A. Windsor

There's my comment.  Next!

Theron P. Keller
Logicon, Inc.
Dahlgren, VA 22448 USA
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 10:14:24 MST
From:    Eric Pass <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACES:

For the top Canadian ace, I thought "Buzz" Beurling had around 40 victories.
I believe most of them came when he was playing Spitfires from Malta.
Again, off the top of my head, I seem to remember he died in action there.

Eric ([email-masked])

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:20:57 -0600
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Enola Gay Again

In message <[email-masked]> World War II Discussion
List writes:
> I believe the revisionist claim is based on individual facts,
> such as problems and misnterpretations regarding US peace
> initiatives during mid-1945.
>
> Plus the revisioninsts are trying to fit the Bomb into a larger
> postwar history of constant, unremitting lying, distortion,
> propaganda and misinformation regarding the nuclear weapons,
> biological weapons and other programs as well as the secret
> bombings of Vietnam and so forth.  Given that the government
> tested bioweapons on unsuspecting American cities, sprayed
> them with cancerous chemicals, conducted illegal and unethical
> radiation tests on its own citizens and so on, isn't it likely,
> the revisionists say, that the nuclear destruction of concentrations
> of civilians had something more going for it than mere
> finishing the war with Japan?

The point that the revisionists tend to forget (conveniently or otherwise)
is that you can't just past actions on present knowledge.

The spraying of chemicals, simply as an example (known well here since it
happened here) was considered safe at the time. There was no published medical
evidence that the particulates sprayed into the air had any cancer causing
properties.  All the records recovered (to date) re-enforce that belief.
Whether it was right or wrong is a debate for the philosophers, but it is
improper to judge past action on present knowledge.

These were the days when everyone, including the entire medical community,
was promoting the use of high-output UV lamps for all the health benefits
it provided.  Smoking was considered a source of some problems, but the
positive effects of nicotine outweighed the problems.  Patients were implanted
pure radioactive materials in a hope or belief that they would attack
cancerous tumors.

This is the world that the post-war nuclear environment _started_ in.  Nuclear
energy, power and radiation was seen with all sorts of positive benefits...
Today, we are much more aware of the dangers associated with it.  No one was
in 1945 or for some time after.

In more recent times, butter became taboo because of all the fat content.
Margarine was believed to be healthier... It is only now that long-term
evidence is showing that belief to be way off the mark.  More and more medical
research and long-term monitoring is showing that moderate alcohol use may
actually be beneficial.  Freon and chlorofluorocarbons were always considered
relatively inert and completely safe... etc. etc. etc.

It's easy to condemn when you have the information at hand.  But you can only
condemn or judge based on what was available at the time.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out the fallacies and what has been
learned since then, but that's different from knowing full well all the
effects and ignoring them.

This is one of my major problems with revisionists.

>
> That said, I don't agree with revisionist history on this point.
> Was there any exploration of alternatives to the Bomb and to
> invasion?  Say blockade, quarantine, coupled with round-the-clock
> bombing....?

There was an awful lot of alternative plannings.  The Atomic Bomb was in no
way guaranteed to even work, much less force a surrender; and if it didn't
cause the desired effect by the second use, it would be a long, long time
before another could be constructed.

Plans for the invasion of Japan predate the attack on Pearl Harbor (heck,
we even had plans for the invasion of Mexico, Canada and Britain.  :-).
Blockade, I believe, was not seriously considered because of the Japanese
willingness to sacrifice all including their own lives for the sake of a
priciple.  Blockades wouldn't actually accomplish much and would take a very
long time before it would have any desired effect (other than solidifying
their determination even more).  Plus, at least on the Allied side, with the
war nearly over except for the Japanese home islands, round-the-clock bombing
would probably not be tolerated by the population for very long.

However, a lot of alternatives were undoubtedly considered.  What those
details are, of course, are better known to the historians.

--
Robert J. Granvin
Southern Minnesota Wing Confederate Air Force

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 14:08:44 EST
From:    Mary Hricko <[email-masked]>
Subject: Eighth Air Force

  Hello everyone,
       I am very interested in finding out some details about the crews in
  following Squadrons:
       1. Bomb Group 93rd - Squadron 409
       2. Bomb Group 492nd - Squadron 858

  Does anyone know anything about the 409's involvement in Ploesti?

  Does anyone know how I can go about finding current biographical
  information on specific crew members?

  Finally, does anyone know whether or not these squadrons have had or
  will be holding reunions?

  Any details you can supply will be helpful.

  Take care and best wishes,

                            Mary

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 14:41:58 EST
From:    Mary Hricko <[email-masked]>
Subject: Medals

Hello again everyone,

    To make a long story short, I have come across a box of World War II
medals. Could someone give me a brief breakdown on the criteria for
awarding specific medals? For example, how was it determined who would
receive a Distinguished Flying Cross? or a Purple Heart?

A while back, my father told me that some airmen who were wounded did not
always receive their Purple Hearts. Supposedly, records of these matters
were not always kept. Is this true?

Is there any way of obtaining the merit documents for the awarding of a
specific medal?

If anyone knows who I can contact for this information, please let me
know.

     Mary

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 13:12:09 -0800
From:    John Riegsecker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Aces

Steve,

Thanks for sending out that list of aces.  I take it this is someones
idea of the best pilots and is not necessarily based on planes shot
down.

I recently finished _Death Squadron_, Grover C. Hall, a book about the
4th fighter group.  It has a list of top scoring members at the back of
the book.  Given that the numbers might change, only a few are in that
list.  When they are, the numbers seem to be close to those given in the
book.

One other interesting thing I noted is that John Godfrey is listed as
being from Great Britain while that book says he was from Woonsocket RI.
He first joined up with the RCAF and then transferred to the AAF.  Don
Gentile also first joined the RAF and then transferred to the AAF and he
is listed as US.  This distinction is odd since Godgrey was Gentile's
wingman, at least according to this book.  Just curious.

John Riegsecker
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
University of Puget Sound

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 16:42:16 -0500
From:    Scott C Stathis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Eighth

Hi
  Mary  8-)

          According to "The Military History of WWII" put out by

The Military Press. The 93rd Bomber Group never made it to Ploesti

they were following the 376th which got lost and were nearly to Bucharest

when they realized the error. Because of this only 6 B-24 from the 376th

dropped on their targets the rest including the 93rd dropped on targets of

opportunity, all most all of which had been assigned to other groups.

    Sorry, but there is no info. in this book on the 492nd. I'll try to get

you more info. tomorrow.

                                  Bye  8-))

Scott Stathis
Umass-Amherst

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 13:53:58 -0800
From:    Jim Curry <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACES:

The famous Italian flier and Fascist leader Italo Balbo may be the person
referred to in the earlier post.  Shortly after arriving in Libya with
an appointment as Governor General, he was shot down by Italian flak.
While not an "ace" in the strict sense,he was well-known in aviation
circles worldwide.  In the '30's Balbo led a formation of flying boats
westward nonstop across the Atlantic.  Thereafter a large group of planes
was often called a "balbo."
There are stories that Balbo's death may not have been an accident.
      ssolini regarde

On Fri, 18 Nov 1994, Mike Yaklich wrote:

>         I hadn't heard of the Italians losing a top ace to their own AA fire.
> Visconti (26 "kills," 19 with RA and 7 with ANR) was shot by partisans in April
> '45, Martinoli (22 kills, all RA) is listed as "flying accident" in June '44,
> Lucchino and Ferulli (both 21 WW2 RA victories-- Lucchino was also an ace in
> Spain, where Ferulli recorded one victory)) were both killed in combat
> against Allied aircraft over Sicily in July '43, Bordoni-Bisleri (19 RA
> victories) and Gorini (15 RA plus 4 ANR "kills") both survived the war, and
> Visentini (17 RA) died in a crash caused by bad weather in East Africa in Feb
> '41.  What ace are you referring to?? (could this be the answer to my questions
> about Martinoli-- please see my other posts of earlier today, which were for
> some reason rather delayed reaching the list).
>
>         I'd be interested in hearing an elaboration.
>
>         Thanks
>
>         Mike Yaklich
>

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 17:00:48 -0500
From:    Scott C Stathis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ENOLA GAY

Whoa!!
        Niraj  8-))

   I have to agree with your statements about war( Sherman always said "War

is  Hell!") and saving lives,

remember war is as much political as military. My point is that Truman at

least in part based his decision to dropping the bomb on the prospect of the

Russians getting in to the act and carving up the Orient for themselves,

which is what they did with Europe at the end of the war. Remember East and

West Germany. How about North and South Japan.

                                   A fellow Umasser

                                        Go Minutemen!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scott
Umass-Amherst

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 23:46:00 UTC
From:    "Edward S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WHAT-IF YAMAMOTO

  Scott Stathis's innocent question, "What if Yamamoto had lived," drew a
hail of responses.  There is broad consensus on this list as to campaigns
and battles-- the outcome would have been little different.  Some of us say
a little worse for Japan, some say a little better.
  There is disagreement about whether he would/wouldn't have been tried as a
war criminal.
  A few of us tentatively supposed he might have shortened the war by
nudging the army or government toward peace.  But nobody has shown that he
was thinking that way before his death.
  The major disputes involve his role =before= his death in April 1943.
There is agreement that he mucked up at Midway, and that the Guadalcanal
attrition campaign was unwise, although maybe he was drawn in by the army.
At Pearl Harbor he is criticized for not striking the base and oil tanks.
Was that due to Nagumo's lack of initiative, or were his orders to hit the
fleet and run?  After all, board games had indicated a loss of one-third of
the attack force.
  But the big heat concerns Yamamoto's supposed understanding of U.S.
industrial might. I argued that provoking the sleeping giant so harshly cost
Japan the war on the first day.  Others reminded us that Yamamoto's strategy
was to gain the southern oil and defense perimeter quickly by knocking out
the US fleet so that Japan could fight longer, which did indeed happen.
  The main unresolved question is Yamamoto's misjudgment of the US will to
fight to a finish.  Of course nearly all Axis leaders shared this
misjudgment, but how can we credit Yamamoto with unique insight into America
if he didn't foresee its reaction?  He does bear the responsibilty for Pearl
Harbor.  He (or his staff) conceived the idea, and he threatened to resign
when more cautious admirals  objected. Yamamoto had enough political clout
to force a stroke of overarching political importance. One cannot imagine
his nominal counterparts, Kimmel or later Nimitz, forcing such a decision.
  To frame the question more broadly, why did Axis leaders think the U.S.
lacked willpower for total war?  Our greatest one, the Civil War, was fought
to the bitter end.  We threw our energies whole-heartedly into the First
World War.  In my opinion (and aside from race-based stupidities of the
Nazis) they extrapolated prewar isolationist sentiment for avoiding war into
a lack of enthusiasm to finish the job once we began to fight.
  So, could Japan have won?  (I'll ignore scenarios of German victory
forcing us to compromise.)  Maybe, just maybe, if they had attacked only
Singapore and the Indies, gambled on bypassing the Philippines, avoided
atrocities, and let us eventually declare war on our own terms.  We might
eventually have opted a compromise peace, say, letting them keep north China
and some colonies via puppet regimes.
  In the modern era it is seen that he who provokes American sensibilities
regrets it (Saddam Hussein).  He who does not incite a clear call to arms
may succeed (Ho Chi Minh).

Edward Miller  [email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 20:12:48 EST
From:    William Lippert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: B-17 Flying Fortress computer game

On Fri, 18 Nov 1994 09:29:48 CST Jesse Carnes said:
>Guys on the net ;
>
>Also, how good is "Ace over Europe"?  Specs. on this one?
>
>Jesse Carnes
>[email-masked]
>LSU
>Baton Rouge, LA

     Aces Over Europe is a good game.  It is, one must remember, a year or
so old so that it isn't up to current gaming standards.  There is a new
game coming out, "Overlord" that is supposed to be much better in terms of
graphics.
    I have AOE and it has given me many hours of fun and homework put off
or not done.  It does not have any bomber simulations (B-17, B-29, etc.)
but the fighters are decent.  I enjoy flying for the Germans because the
Me262 is cool and also because there are so many Allies to shoot down.
I recommend it, but also recommend waiting for newer games.

Good luck with your gaming.

William Lippert
The American University

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Nov 1994 09:03:06 +0700
From:    "Peter E. Beal" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Enola Gay Again

On Sat, 19 Nov 1994, Michael Andrew Turton wrote:

> I believe the revisionist claim is based on individual facts,
> such as problems and misnterpretations regarding US peace
> initiatives during mid-1945.
>
> Plus the revisioninsts are trying to fit the Bomb into a larger
> postwar history of constant, unremitting lying, distortion,
> propaganda and misinformation regarding the nuclear weapons,
> biological weapons and other programs as well as the secret
> bombings of Vietnam and so forth.  Given that the government
> tested bioweapons on unsuspecting American cities, sprayed
> them with cancerous chemicals, conducted illegal and unethical
> radiation tests on its own citizens and so on, isn't it likely,
> the revisionists say, that the nuclear destruction of concentrations
> of civilians had something more going for it than mere
> finishing the war with Japan?
>
I don't recall hearing before the accusations of your last sentence,
above.  Please tell us more, e.g. details, sources, etc.

> That said, I don't agree with revisionist history on this point.
> Was there any exploration of alternatives to the Bomb and to
> invasion?  Say blockade, quarantine, coupled with round-the-clock
> bombing....?

Blockade and quarantine are interesting alternatives although they would
have had the disadvantages of taking a long time, perhaps years, to take
effect and, in the end, causing more deaths (through starvation, lack of
pharmaceuticals or the raw materials to make them) than the two atomic
bombs dropped on Japan.  Round-the-clock bombing?  Surely, you jest!  I
am sure somebody on this list can provide the statistics, but my failing
memory tells me that more people died in one (and certainly all) the fire
bombings of Tokyo.  What would have been the lose of life if that had
been kept up for months?

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Nov 1994 09:15:12 +0700
From:    "Peter E. Beal" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ENOLA GAY

On Sat, 19 Nov 1994, Scott C Stathis wrote:

> Whoa!!
>         Niraj  8-))
>
>
>    I have to agree with your statements about war( Sherman always said "War
> is  Hell!") and saving lives,
> remember war is as much political as military. My point is that Truman at
> least in part based his decision to dropping the bomb on the prospect of the
> Russians getting in to the act and carving up the Orient for themselves,
> which is what they did with Europe at the end of the war. Remember East and
> West Germany. How about North and South Japan.
>
I just finished McCollough's biography of Truman and, while favorable and
thus there remains a possibility that he would omit something that would
put Truman in an unfavorable light such as having a cynical reason for
using the atomic bomb, there is no mention in this book of any other
consideration in Truman's decision to use the bomb other than to end the war
quickly.

Your point about North and South Japan is well taken- we have a North and
South Korea.  However, the Russians were not going to get troops into
Japan without the agreement of the U.S. and their suggestion that they
participate in the occupation of Japan was brushed aside by MacArthur.

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 19 Nov 1994 23:38:04 -0500
From:    chris garcia <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Eighth Air Force

Mary;

I'm not sure about the specific squadrons, but there is a B-17 vet on
America Online, and if you email him he might know something.  He's
[email-masked]

Good luck.

On Sat, 19 Nov 1994, Mary Hricko wrote:

>   Hello everyone,
>        I am very interested in finding out some details about the crews in
>   following Squadrons:
>        1. Bomb Group 93rd - Squadron 409
>        2. Bomb Group 492nd - Squadron 858
>
>   Does anyone know anything about the 409's involvement in Ploesti?
>
>   Does anyone know how I can go about finding current biographical
>   information on specific crew members?
>
>   Finally, does anyone know whether or not these squadrons have had or
>   will be holding reunions?
>
>   Any details you can supply will be helpful.
>
>   Take care and best wishes,
>
>                             Mary
>

------------------------------

End of WWII-L Digest - 18 Nov 1994 to 19 Nov 1994
*************************************************