Subject: WWII-L Digest - 19 Jan 1995 to 20 Jan 1995

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 00:01:34 -0500

There are 49 messages totalling 1825 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Micro Nations in World War II
  2. 22d Hurtgen Epilogue (5)
  3. Mailing List
  4. BOOKS REVIEWS SOUGHT
  5. GEN Re: Query: Swastika
  6. Belgium during the War
  7. INF: USN Chronology 01-20-95
  8. [INF] USAAF 20 JAN 45
  9. INF: 50 Years Ago - 21-JAN-1945
 10. Farewell BB's (2)
 11. Ref: Locations: Lobenhausen, Melsorsen, Kassel, Germany (3)
 12. WEAP: Japanese Aerial Torpedoes of WWII
 13. GEN: KILLING OF GERMAN PRISONERS? (3)
 14. 50TH: NIGHT RIVER CROSSING
 15. MEDIA:Japanese Vets
 16. WEAP: German Aerial Torpedoes of WWII (2)
 17. Weap: Faulty Torpedos
 18. MEDIA:Auschwitz
 19. MEDIA:Smithsonian Exhibit (2)
 20. Micro-states
 21. REF: Whenthe Odds Were Even (was Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue) (2)
 22. WEAP: Anti-tank guns, 1940 (3)
 23. Camoflage on ships (2)
 24. Burial at Sea Prayer?
 25. Replacements (was Hurtgen)
 26. Collaboration trial to be reopened
 27. Enola Gay at the Smithsonian. AGAIN!
 28. P-51s to Russia?
 29. BuOrd Torpedo\polics
 30. Smithsonian/Legion/Bomb!
 31. INF: Churchill speech - 18Jan45
 32. Research: Nazis and Mexican Relations
 33. ENOLA GAY AT THE S
 34. MEDIA:JAPANESE VETS

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

Date:    Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:45:08 -0500
From:    Erik Kosberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Micro Nations in World War II

    I'm aware of Luxembourg's invasion and incorporation into Gross
Deutschland and of San Marino's nominal neutrality followed by German and the
British control but I'd like to get information about Andorra, Liechtenstein
and Monaco during the war years.
    Andorra: The bishop of Urgel and the French chief of state are co-princes
of Andorra. Did Petain of the Vichy government assume the office of
co-prince? If so, did he ever visit Andorra during the war or did he appoint
a representative? Was there a fascist government in Andorra (surrounded by
Vichy and Franco's Spain, this seems to me a likely possibility)? I know
nothing about the spanish bishop of the time but doubt that his half of the
"regency?" would have been unfriendly to the Falangists or Vichy.
    Liechtenstein: I'd guess that since L had been part of the Swiss customs
union since 1924, it escaped German occupation (L had been part of the
Hapsburg CU until 1918). Switzerland granted refuge to some of those fleeing
the Nazis, did Liechtenstein do the same?
    Monaco: Was Monaco able to maintain nominal independence during the Vichy
years? Did the Germans establish a puppet government (I doubt this) after
their occupation of southern France or rely on military government? Were Jews
deported from Monaco (as they were from Vichy proper) during the Vichy years?
[There probably would have been at least a handful of Jews in M before the
war, but I have no information about this].
    A related question about enclaves: there is a tiny bit of Spain inside of
France, Belgium inside of the Netherlands, and Germany and Italy inside of
Switzerland--were there any peculiarities about their administrations during
the war?
    Thanks in advance for your time.
Erik Kosberg <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:52:15 EST
From:    "SGM Robert S. Rush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue

Ken, and others on the list with info on the German Army. (re Good
research topic I don't have time to delve into.)

Earlier I did a study on organization of German divisions from 1934
through 1943 and their combat effectiveness on the battlefield (short
pieces from intelligence accounts) that showed for the most part
that German divisions organized prior to 1939 were more effective
than those organized afterwards.  All of the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier
divisions evolved from Reichwehr divisions which were in turn built
around one Reichwehr regiment when the German army expanded in 1934.

The German army in Poland and France were just as inexperienced and
wasteful of manpower as the US forces landing on Normandy.  When
Germany invaded Russia, many of the units participating in the
invasion had been newly organized, and it showed.  More German
officers were killed during the first six months of the Russian
campaign than during any other six month period during the war.  This
was also a period of almost continual offense, which kills off a
much higher percentage of leaders than the defense (Follow me)
This doesn't mean that leaders became less brave, but more battle-
savvy, and probably most importantly, there were fewer leaders to
kill.  Germany ran out of small unit leaders.  By 1941 most German
rifle platoons were commanded by NCOs, most companies by lieutenants,
most battalions by captains and majors.

The American army on the other hand had a continual flow of officers
to man platoons, and those who survived commanded the companies and
battalions.  Many officers landing on D Day as captains and surviving
ended the war as lieutenant colonels and battalion commanders.

I wish I could tie this all up.  I feel that someone is on the verge
of 'breaking the code' and figuring out what really went on at
the below division level for both armies.

Hope I've confused everyone-- to include myself :)
       Rob Rush

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 00:13:25 -0600
From:    Misty Dauwalder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Mailing List

Suscribe

*===================================================================*
* Misty A. Dauwalder                 "Lest We Forget to             *
* Email:[email-masked]              Remember When..."             *
*===================================================================*

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

Date:    Thu, 19 Jan 1995 22:46:10 -0800
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: BOOKS REVIEWS SOUGHT

Ben Frank...
        There are some other "problems" in Craig Cameron's book about
the USMC -- AMERICAN SAMURAI.

Have you read what he says about the Corps?  Your comments?

Sidney.

--

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 16:25:58 +0800
From:    Choy Chee Meh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GEN Re: Query: Swastika

On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Jim Bowman wrote:

> In my family is a blue stone makeup box from India purchased in the 1920's.
>  It bears a swastika type cross.
>

Since it was bought from India, my  guess is the swastika could be that
used as a symbol for Buddhism. Similar to the one used by Nazi Germany
but it is in the opposite direction.

Regards

Meh

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:18:34 +0000
From:    Nechama Cox <[email-masked]>
Subject: Belgium during the War

At  8:45 PM 1/19/95 -0500, Erik Kosberg wrote:

>    A related question about enclaves: there is a tiny bit of Spain inside of
>France, Belgium inside of the Netherlands, and Germany and Italy inside of
>Switzerland--were there any peculiarities about their administrations during
>the war?

I am not sure where this fits into the "peculiarities" but the Belgian
goverment (without King Leopold) went into exile, first to France and then
on to London, where they stayed for the rest of the war.  They were
recognized in London as the official Belgian goverenment, and they went
back immediately after the war.  Leopold, who had been taken prisoner, did
not return immediately, and eventually had to abdicate the throne in favor
of his son.

Hope this answers at least a part of the question.

Nechama Cox
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 04:00:18 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 01-20-95

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

1945
01/20 Sat. Submarine Nautilus (SS-168) lands supplies on south coast
           of Mindanao, P. I.
           Naval Technical Mission in Europe (Commodore H. A Schade)
           is established with headquarters in Paris, France.
           Hungary surrenders to the Allies.
           Aircraft from fast carrier task force (Vice Adm. J. S.
           McCain) attack enemy shipping and airfields in Formosa,
           and Pescadores Islands, and Sakashima Gunto and Okinawa in
           the Ryukyu Islands. Japanese aircraft make concerted
           counterattacks on the task force ships.
            United States naval vessels damaged, Formosa-Ryukyu
             Islands area:
             Carrier TICONDEROGA (CV-14), by suicide plane,
              22 d. 40'N., 122 d. 57'E.
             Carrier HANCOCK (CV-19), by accidental explosion,
              22 d. 40'N., 122 d. 30'E.
             Light carrier LANGLEY (CVL-27), by suicide plane,
              22 d. 40'N., 122 d. 51'E.
             Destroyer MADDOX (DD-731), by suicide plane,
              23 d. 06'N., 122 d. 43'E.
            Japanese naval vessels sunk:
             Transport NO. 101, by carrier-based aircraft, Formosa
              area,
              22 d. 37'N., 120 d. 15'E.
             Transport NO. 102, by carrier-based aircraft, Philippine
              Islands area,
              11 d. 03'N., 123 d. 05'E.

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

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 07:39:00 EST
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: [INF] USAAF 20 JAN 45

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
SATURDAY, 20 JANUARY 1945
FTP SITES
  1. ftp.rutgers.edu in directory pub/wwii/usaf
  2. byrd.mu.wvnet.edu (129.71.32.152) in pub/history/military/airforce/
     wwii_chronology

AIRCRAFT MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT:
  A-20, Douglas Havoc
  B-17, Boeing Flying Fortress
  B-24, Consolidated Liberator
  B-25, North American Mitchell
  UC-64, Noorduyn Norseman
  L-5, Stinson Sentinel
  P-38, Lockheed Lightning
  P-40, Curtiss
  P-51, North American Mustang

NOTE: A number in parenthesis after a target name indicates the number of
bombers attacking.

AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  ALASKA (Eleventh Air Force): 4 B-24s bomb the Kataoka area on Shimushu
Island, Kurile Islands.

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA THEATER

  CHINA THEATER (Fourteenth Air Force): 4 B-25s hit a bridge and railroad
cars near Hanoi, French Indochina. In China, 3 B-25s attack targets of
opportunity W of Hengshan, 2 hit a troop compound and other targets at
Chaling and Anjen, and 1 damages a small freighter in the E China Sea; 32
P-51s pound airfields in the Shanghai area, claiming 22 aircraft destroyed;
200+ P-40s, P-51s, and P-38s on armed reconnaissance over vast S China and N
French Indochina areas attack bridges, town areas, rail, road and river
traffic, and other targets of opportunity at numerous points. The detachment
of the 22d Bombardment Squadron (Medium), 341st Bombardment Group (Medium),
operating from Yunnani, China with B-25s, returns to base at Yangkai.

  HQ AAF (Twentieth Air Force): Brigadier General Roger M Ramey officially
becomes Commanding General XX Bomber Command.

  INDIA-BURMA THEATER (Tenth Air Force): In Burma, 16 fighter-bombers support
ground forces along the Irrawaddy River near Mabein, Shadaw, and Myitson; 8
others hit an ammunition dump at Namhkai and a supply dump at Kutkai; also
hit are troop concentrations, supply areas and targets of opportunity at
Kyaunghkam, Panghung, Kawnglom, Namhsan, Loi-kang, and in the Hsenwi area.
482 transport sorties are flown to advanced bases and battle sectors. HQ 80th
Fighter Group moves from Tingkawk Sakan to Myitkyina, Burma. In India, the
127th Liaison Squadron (Commando), 2d Air Commando Group, based at Kalaikunda
with UC-64s and L-5s, sends a detachment to operate from Cox's Bazar (first
mission is today).

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 801: 772 bombers and 455
fighters are dispatched to hit synthetic oil plants at Sterkrade and rail
targets and bridges in W Germany using H2X radar; they claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe
aircraft; 4 bombers and 3 fighters are lost:
  1. 36 of 309 B-17s hit the Holten oil plant at Sterkrade; 225 hit the
secondary target, the marshalling yard at Rheine; 1 B-17 is lost, 2 damaged
beyond repair and 68 damaged; 8 airmen are KIA, 33 WIA and 61 MIA. Escorting
are 189 of 199 P-51s; 1 P-51 is lost (pilot MIA).
  2. 187 of 223 B-17s hit the Heilbronn marshalling yard; 8 hit the
secondary, the Pforzheim marshalling yard and 2 hit a target of opportunity;
2 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair and 18 damaged. Escort is provided
by 39 of 48 P-51s without loss.
  3. 170 of 230 B-17s hit the Mannheim marshalling yard and rail bridge;
targets of opportunity are Stuttgart (24), Mannheim (21) and other (1); 1
B-17 is lost, 4 damaged beyond repair and 29 damaged. The escort is 130 of
137 P-51s; they claim 1-0-0 aircraft; 1 P-51 is lost (pilot MIA).
  4. 36 of 39 P-51s fly a fighter sweep in the Frankfurt area; 1 P-51 is lost
(pilot MIA).
  5. 16 of 16 P-51s fly a sweep in the St Vith/Duren area without loss.
  6. 16 of 16 P-51s fly a scouting mission without loss.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): Bomber operations are cancelled due
to weather; fighters fly armed reconnaissance, alerts, and night patrol; the
IX Tactical Air Command also supports the 7th Armored Division on the Dutch-
German boundary.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Fifteenth Air Force): The tactical organization of
the Fifteenth AF becomes fully developed when a supply-dropping group, the
15th Special Group (Provisional), organized on 18 Jan, is given control of
the 859th (B-24) and 885th (B-17) Bombardment Squadrons (Heavy) which drop
supplies in France, Italy, and Yugoslavia. [In Mar, the 15th Group will be
redesignated the the 2641st Special Group (Provisional) and with its units
attached to the Twelfth AF for operational control, the Fifteenth retaining
administrative control].
  345 B-17s and B-24s attack N and S main marshalling yards and station
sidings at Linz, Austria, marshalling yards at Salzburg, Austria and
Rosenheim, Germany, and oil storage at Regensburg, Germany; fighters escort
the bombers and fly reconnaissance and reconnaissance escort missions.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy, medium bombers destroy 1
and damage another bridge near San Michele all'Adige, and score good coverage
on the Trento marshalling yard; the XXII Tactical Air Command fighter-bombers
very successfully blast communications and fuel and ammunition dumps in the
Po Valley.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA)

  AAFPOA (Seventh Air Force): 12 Guam Island-based B-24s bomb airfields on
Iwo Jima Island; 5 from Saipan Island hit the town of Okimura on Chichi Jima
Island; during the night of 20/21 Jan, 10 B-24s from Guam fly separate
snooper strikes against Iwo Jima airfields.
    The 163d Liaison Squadron, AAFPOA (attached to Tenth Army) arrives at
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii from the US with L-5s.

  HQ AAF (Twentieth Air Force): Major General Curtis Emerson LeMay takes
command of the XXI Bomber Command.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA [SWPA, Far East Air Force (FEAF)]: B-24s pound Fabrica
Airfield on Negros Island and bomb underground storage area at Bamban on
Luzon Island. On Luzon, A-20s and B-25s hit railroads and trains near the
Bicol River and between Calauag and Legaspi; other A-20s and fighter-bombers
hit Aparri-Laoag and Tubang Airfields, hit artillery positions W of Bong Bong
and destroy railroad bridge at Aloneros. HQ 35th Fighter Group moves from
Morotai Island to Mangaldan, Luzon Island. The 2d Bombardment Squadron
(Heavy), 22d Bombardment Group (Heavy), moves from Angaur Island, Palau
Islands to Samar Island, Philippine Islands with B-24s. The 82d and 110th
Tactical Reconnaissance Squadrons, 71st Tactical Reconnaissance Group, arrive
at Lingayen, Luzon from Morotai Island and Dulag, Leyte respectively with
F-6s and P-40s (82d) and P-40s (110th).

SOURCES:
AIR FORCE COMBAT UNITS OF WORLD WAR II, Office of Air Force History,
  Headquarters USAF, 1961, ISBN 0-912799-02-1
COMBAT SQUADRONS OF THE AIR FORCE, WORLD WAR II, Office of Air Force
  History, Headquarters USAF 1982
THE ARMY AIR FORCES IN WORLD WAR II: COMBAT CHRONOLOGY, 1941-1945 by the
  Office of Air Force History, Headquarters USAF, 1973
THE MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR DIARY by Roger A. Freeman, ISBN 1-85409-071-2

Jack McKillop
USAF (Airways and Air Communications Service)
1955-59

-------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Jack McKillop         |  Those who have long enjoyed such      |
|  Bellcore              |  privileges as we enjoy forget in      |
|  Piscataway, NJ USA    |  time that men have died to win them.  |
|  [email-masked]  |                       FDR              |
-------------------------------------------------------------------

20/1237Z JAN

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 04:44:33 -0800
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 21-JAN-1945

On 21-JAN-1945, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - In the British 2nd Army sector, the 52nd Division clears
Hontem and Selsent and moves into Braunsrath without opposition. The 43rd
Division clears Schierwaldenrath. In the U.S. 1st Army sector, the VII
Corps prepares for an offensive in the Gouvy-Beho region, between
Houffalize and St Vith. The 75th Division finishes clearing Grand Bois. The
7th Armoured Division overcomes house-to-house resistance in Born. In the
3rd Army sector, the 17th Airborne Division continues advancing northeast
of Tavigny. The 6th Armoured Division clears Crendal, Troine, Baraques de
Trone, Lullange, Hoffelt and Hachiville. The 90th Division takes Derenbach
and Boevange-les-Clervaux. The 4th Division captures Longsdorf. The 5th
Division secures Landscheid and Lipperscheid. The 94th Division halts its
attack on Orscholz because of heavy casualties.

Eastern Front - Fanning out from Tilsit, in northeast East Prussia, the 3rd
White Russian Front reaches Kurisch Sound and takes Gumbinnen. The 2nd
White Russian Front presses steadily north toward East Prussia on a wide
front and takes Tannenberg. The 1st White Russian Front and 1st Ukraine
Front continue west in Poland and crosses into Silesia in Germany.

Philippines - The XIV Corps drives beyond its objectives for the day and
are ordered to continue on toward Clark Field, despite an exposed east
flank. The 40th Division takes Tarlac without opposition; elements push on
to San Miguel. Units of the 37th Division reach the vicinity of La Paz.

Formosa-Ryukyus-Pescadores - TF 38 makes powerful air attacks on shipping
and airfields on Formosa, Sakishima Gunto, Okinawa and the Pescadores.
About 10 oilers and freighters are sunk as well as some 100 grounded
planes. Japanese kamikazes make a determined attack on the warships,
severely damaging the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga.

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

Sources: "United States Army in World War II, Chronology 1941-1945" compiled
by Mary H. Williams, Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of
the Army, "2194 Days of War" by Cesare Salmaggi and Alfredo Pallavisimi,
"Facts On File Yearbook 1945, Person's Index Of World Events" edited by R.L.
Lapica.

Copyright 1995 by John B Davis, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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                Cary, North Carolina                 [email-masked]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 07:53:00 EST
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Farewell BB's

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navy News Service - NAVNEWS BY EMAIL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAVY NEWS SERVICE - 18 JAN 95 - NAVNEWS 003/95
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NAVNEWS 003/95
                                  -USN-
NNS042.  Last Battleships Stricken from Navy Register
     WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy struck its last four Iowa-class
battleships from the Naval Vessel Register Jan. 12, saying the cost
of operating the ships outweighed their value to the fleet.
     The four ships: Iowa (BB 61), New Jersey (BB 62), Missouri (BB
63) and Wisconsin (BB 64) had all been decommissioned, but were
maintained as part of the Navy's "mothball" fleet -- ships removed
from service but maintained so they could be restored to
operability if the need arose.
     The Navy will dispose of the ships in accordance with existing
law, which allows private organizations and municipalities who
qualify to obtain the vessels as memorials and museums.  Several
groups have already asked the Navy to consider them for this
privilege.
(This story appeared on Navy Wire Service as NWSA141)
                                  -USN-

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 14:17:00 +0100
From:    Alexander Brehm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ref: Locations: Lobenhausen, Melsorsen, Kassel, Germany

>I've been trying to locate these towns but without luck.  Believe they were
>located in Prussia (west or east?) and may be part of Poland today.  Also I
>wonder if their names have changed with the Soviet occupation and since their
>withdrawl.
>
>I had family that came from those towns and was curious as to what happened to
>them.
>
>I feel Kassel may be the port city where submarines were kept, but not sure and
>was it part of Prussia.
>
>Can anyone tell me where I might find a map of Germany prior to WWII, say 1939,
>1870, or even 1830.
>
>Thanks for any assistance and for get off the subject a wee bit.
>
>Chip
>[email-masked]

Chip,

I don't know about the other two cities you mention but I can
give you some info on Kassel.
Kassel is located in Hessen, about 200 km north of Frankfurt a. M.
It was part of West Germany. Kassel is nowhere near the sea and
doesn't have a seaport.

Hope this helps.

Alexander
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:21:46 EST
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue

On Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:52:15 EST SGM Robert S. Rush said:
>Germany ran out of small unit leaders.  By 1941 most German
>rifle platoons were commanded by NCOs, most companies by lieutenants,
>most battalions by captains and majors.

Of course, being commanded by an NCO is not necessarily a disaster--
prob'ly a lot of NCOs figure they are really commanding the outfit, faced
with a green-as-grass newbie 2nd. lt. (-:

One measure you might also adopt in looking at this would be to look at
the numbers of commanders who got relieved during different parts of the
war for each army.  I know Dunnigan did this for division & corps
commanders for wwi/ii, but in principle if one were willing to do an
awful lot of scutwork, one could do it for more junior officers as well.

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 07:28:39 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Japanese Aerial Torpedoes of WWII

Hello, Thomas!

Will see what I can find.

More later.

Terry

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:22:12 -0600
From:    Cooper Addison <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue

It has to a degree as I understand it.  Rob Rush would be the one to
explain how though.  My knowledge of the active army is pretty limited.

Cooper

On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Robert T. Moore wrote:

> Hello, Cooper!
>
> Thank you for responding to my addendum. You would think that the
> Army would have addressed this problem at the time, knowing full well
> that the current system at the time ignored the fact that a soldier
> would be more effective in combat, if he were more familar with his
> unit and staff. Do you know if this system has been amended with
> taking this into account at this time?
>
> Thanks, again, Cooper, and all the best.
>
> Terry
>

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:57:54 -0500
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GEN: KILLING OF GERMAN PRISONERS?

Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]> writes:
>         Not quite the same, but related, is the fact that two prominent
> German aces met their deaths when they were strafed by US planes while on the
> ground after exiting crash-landed aircraft.  Adolf Galland also had a narrow
> escape from a similar fate after his final mission of the war, if I recall
> correctly (its in "The First and the Last").  In my mind, this is pretty much
> akin to machinegunning a bailed-out pilot while hanging in his chute, which is
> usually portrayed as an atrocity (and which, BTW, Luftwaffe fighter pilots also
> claimed was something not infrequently done by US fighter pilots).  I can dig
> for the names if anyone's interested (this comes from the bio section of a
> book called "Messerschmidt Aces"--again, I forget the author).

        According to the book I am currently reading, _The Italian Navy in
World War II_, the British were notorious for doing this to Italian pilots.
In fact, many British kills were of Italian float planes trying to recover
downed pilots in the Med, even when the downed pilot was *British*.  This
practice seemed quite prevalent considering the numerous complaints that
Italy filed with the Red Cross.  British pilots also delighted in bombing
clearly marked Italian hospital ships.
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
What's he want a yacht for?  There ain't no money in yachts...

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:12:29 EST
From:    "SGM Robert S. Rush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue

>It has to a degree as I understand it.  Rob Rush would be the one to
>explain how though.  My knowledge of the active army is pretty limited.

>Cooper

>On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Robert T. Moore wrote:

> Hello, Cooper!
>
> Thank you for responding to my addendum. You would think that the
> Army would have addressed this problem at the time, knowing full well
> that the current system at the time ignored the fact that a soldier
> would be more effective in combat, if he were more familar with his
> unit and staff. Do you know if this system has been amended with
> taking this into account at this time?
>
> Thanks, again, Cooper, and all the best.
>
> Terry
>
The short answer to the above question is yes.  The experience in WWII,
Korea and Vietnam in regards to replacements has not been forgotten.  In
fact the army went to a system of COHORT (where soldiers at levels up
to battalion served together for three years) with additional soldiers
arriving every year to take the place of those who could not make the
grade or were assigned out of the organization.  I had the privilege of
being the sergeant major for the 1st Battalion 22d Infantry, and have
never seen better soldiers in twenty five years, and that includes
service with the 1st Ranger Battalion.  The system works-- in peacetime.
I have my doubts about heavy combat.  Like WWII we do not have enough
units to rotate in and out of combat for reconstitution (although that
is the plan) Replacement tank platoons who have trained together need
to be committed together, or at a minimum two tanks (wingmen).  Rifle
squads should be the minimum size committed.  But when you have heavy
losses in a veteran outfit and get three squads of replacements do you
consolidate the veterans into squads so that the replacements are together
(and have to go through an initial blooding process until they learn
the ropes) or do you break them up among the veteran squads so every
one learns from earlier experiences.  That's the dilemma I believe
we are faced with.

Hope this answers your question somewhat.  The comments above are my
own.

Rob Rush

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:12:53 +0100
From:    JOHN AUSLAND <[email-masked]>
Subject: 50TH: NIGHT RIVER CROSSING

  John Davis, in his 50 years ago for January 19, refers to the 4th
Infantry Division fighting north of the Sauer River in Luxembourg.  I
alluded to this briefly in my letter to my family about my visit to
Luxembourg City, which recently appeared here.
  Making a river crossing at night in the winter is no fun, but it
went off remarkably well.  It was only when we reached the high ground
on the other side of the river that we ran into trouble.  The Germans
had dug in just beyond the crest of a hill that fell off sharply on
the other side.  My artillery shells, therefore, did no good, since
they simply fell short or went on into the valley beyond.  It
took mortars, therefore, to dig the Germans out.
  I revisited this area not too long ago, and you could not tell that
anything unusual had ever happened there.
  When I was looking for the spot at which we crossed the river, I
encountered a man on a bicycle.  After trying with my poor French and
his poor English to get across what I was looking for, he said, "As I
understand it, you would like to rent a boat."  At this point, I gave
up and thanked him for his help.
  During a visit to the museum at Diekirch, my mouth fell open when I
saw one of the exhibits.  It was a highly realistic recreation of the
river crossing, with men in white clothing moving a boat forward.
It is difficult to describe the effect of seeing an event in which
you participated portrayed in a museum, but this moved me so much that
tears came to my eyes.
  Fortunately, I took several pictures of the exhibit, which are now
in my album related to travel in connection with LETTERS HOME.
  Regards, John Ausland/Oslo Norway

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:54:44 -0500
From:    James E Irwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: MEDIA:Japanese Vets

>From the DoD Newswire 20 January 1995

:JAPANESE WAR VETERANS DONATE FUNDS IN BURMA

    RANGOON, Jan 19  - A 16-member group of Japanese World War
Two veterans have donated $30,000 worth of medicines and medical
equipment to Burma's Red Cross Society, state newspapers reported on
Thursday.
     The group, led by old soldier Kotara Honda, said the donation was
a gesture of gratitude to the people of Burma.
     The newspapers quoted Honda as saying at the handover on
Wednesday that he and his comrades were treated with compassion and
kindness during the Japanese army's retreat from Burma towards the end
of the war.
     Japan invaded and occupied Burma, then a British colony, in late
1941, sending ill-prepared British forces into retreat to India.
     During the Japanese occupation, 100,000 Asian labourers,
including many Burmese, and 15,000 Allied prisoners of war died
building a railway line linking Thailand and Burma.
     The "Death Railway," as the prisoners called it, was intended for
resupplying Japanese forces in Burma ahead of a planned invasion of
British-ruled India.
     British forces re-entered Burma from the north and retook the
country in early 1945.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 James E. Irwin (Jim)                  Internet address:
 Defense Personnel Support Center        [email-masked]
 2800 S. 20th Street                   215-737-3678
 Philadelphia PA  19101-8419           Autovon 444-3678

                     "Never in the field of human conflict
                     was so much owed by so many to so few."
                               Winston S. Churchill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:21:10 -0600
From:    "Tim J. Watts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: German Aerial Torpedoes of WWII

Can't remember the source, but I believe the Germans were so impressed with
the Italian aerial torpedoes, their related equipment, and tactics that
they traded Ju-87's for equipment and training at the Italian torpedo
school.

Tim J. Watts
Valparaiso University

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:02:20 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Weap: Faulty Torpedos

>        Had a simple live fire test been conducted at any time during the
>     program this flaw would have made itself readily apparent.
>     Unfortunately for our submarine crews valid tests weren't performed
>     until months of wartime complaints by sub commanders finally convinced
>     Washington that something might be wrong.

I understand that a major contributor to the re-test was a captured
Japanese Submarine Officer who , when asked if the Japanese had problems
with premature detonation of there torpedoes , smiled and said "No, but you
do"... I am sure he regreted this slip later. Admiral Lockwood got a
synopsis of the interragation and, with this and other inputs, ordered
tests over the objection of BuOrd, sanctioned by Nimitz...BuOrd was *very*
upset that there stuff be questioned by non-technical line officers and was
more upset at the findings... it went all the way to CNO level and of
course by that point BuOrd was swimming upstream against "proof" and lost.

>        This same scenario has been played out many times since.  There are
>     many cases where weapons have been introduced into the US inventory
>     after passing tests cooked up by a program manager to show the weapon
>     in its best light.  It was only in the 1980s that the congress passed
>     legislation that requires new weapons to be live tested by an
>     independent agency before they can be adopted for service use.

And still we buy things that don't work as advertised... as an old Test and
Eval Officer, don't get me started...

Jim O'Neil      They don't pay me enough to fight fair!

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:44:41 -0500
From:    James E Irwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: MEDIA:Auschwitz

>From the DoD Newswire 20 January 1995

:GENERAL RECALLS AUSCHWITZ

   MOSCOW  -- When Soviet troops advanced on the town of
Oswiecim in southern Poland 50 years ago, they were on the verge of
a ghastly discovery.
   Josef Stalin and his inner circle in Moscow knew there was a huge
German concentration camp where Jews were being slaughtered in the
town -- which the Nazis called Auschwitz. But they didn't tell
Soviet commanders.
   Vasily Petrenko, 83, remembers the horrifying discovery vividly.
   "I first learned about the camp from the commander of the 100th
division, who told me they had found a ghastly place, where
thousands of people had been murdered," the retired general told The
Associated Press.
   Petrenko, a young colonel in charge of an infantry division at
the time, thought he was immune to the outrages of war.
   "I had seen a lot of terrible scenes while fighting on the front
lines. I saw my comrades dying, I saw signs of German atrocities in
the territories we freed -- dozens of people hanged by the Germans,
women and children shot to death," Petrenko said, shuddering at the
memory.
   "What I saw in the camp was beyond any comparison."
   What Petrenko encountered on Jan. 28, 1945, the day after the
liberation of Auschwitz, would nauseate even the most hardened
soldier.
   "I saw 82 children, from three to 14 years old, wracked by
criminal medical experiments.
   "I saw women and children who resembled skeletons, who couldn't
even smile in a human manner. They had tears in their eyes, but they
couldn't even sob.
   "I saw bags filled with women's hair. They told me there were
seven tons of hair there.
   "How many women did they have to kill to get such an amount of
hair?" Petrenko asked, still shaken by what he saw.
   Petrenko said 27,000 people were still in the camp as the Soviets
approached on Jan. 24, and the Nazis tried to kill them all to
silence witnesses to their atrocities.
   "When our troops moved in, the Nazis saw they did not have time
to gas the remaining prisoners. So they started shooting them,
spraying the barracks with machine gun fire," he said. "When I came
there, I saw thousands of dead bodies. The barracks were flooded
with blood."
   Only 7,000 to 10,000 inmates survived the slaughter.
   Petrenko said the liberation of Auschwitz was not the goal of the
campaign in southern Poland, and planners in Moscow did not bother
to inform generals in the field of its existence.
   "Neither Stalin, nor the top military commanders mentioned the
camp," said Petrenko, who has researched the operation in military
archives. "I was a colonel of a rifle division. I did not know
anything about any camp and neither did Marshal (Ivan) Konev," one
of the officers in charge of the operation.
   He said the archives showed Stalin had learned of the camp's
existence from intelligence sources as well as from President
Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Britain.
   "Stalin and his inner circle were not eager to to protest the
killing of Jews because they were anti-Semites," Petrenko said.
Soviet prisoners of war were also in Auschwitz and they were
considered traitors for being captured.
   "That is why the Soviet leadership paid no attention to the
camps," Petrenko said. Their goal was to take Katowice, an
industrial city about 25 miles to the northwest.
   Auschwitz was just a town to take along the way, they thought.
   "It had no military or economic value from a military viewpoint.
No interest at all," Petrenko remembered. "The people who planned
the military operation ignored the fact of the camp."
   When the Soviet troops learned of the camp's existence from
Germans taken prisoner on Jan. 26, they immediately ordered
artillery attacks on the retreating Nazis halted to avoid shelling
the camp.
   "When they became aware of the camp, they did everything
necessary to liberate the camp and not allow prisoners to die,"
Petrenko said.
   Petrenko still has a military bearing, and proudly wears the gold
star of a Hero of the Soviet Union above eight rows of campaign
ribbons.
   He wants the world to remember Auschwitz, and he traveled to
Israel this month for a reunion of survivors of the camp, wearing
his medals on his suit jacket.
   "I'm just an old soldier," he said. "But as one of the few
remaining participants alive, I want to establish an international
day of commemoration for those who became victims of Nazi prison
camps or gave their lives to liberate them."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 James E. Irwin (Jim)                  Internet address:
 Defense Personnel Support Center        [email-masked]
 2800 S. 20th Street                   215-737-3678
 Philadelphia PA  19101-8419           Autovon 444-3678

                     "Never in the field of human conflict
                     was so much owed by so many to so few."
                               Winston S. Churchill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:00:06 -0500
From:    James E Irwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: MEDIA:Smithsonian Exhibit

>From the DoD Newswire 20 January 1995

As someone has previously said, this is getting old!!!

:ENOLA GAY DISPLAY STIRS DEBATE

   WASHINGTON  -- The American Legion demanded Thursday that the
Smithsonian Institution cancel an exhibit of the plane that dropped
the atomic bomb on Japan, charging that despite five revisions it
still portrayed the United States as the aggressor.
   The Smithsonian had no comment. A spokesman declined to say if
the first public exhibit of the B-29, the Enola Gay, might be
canceled.
   Legion Commander William M. Detweiler wrote President Clinton
that officials of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum
insisted on including "highly debatable information which calls into
question the morality and motives of President Truman's decision to
end World War II quickly and decisively by using the atomic bomb."
   "The hundreds of thousands of American boys whose lives were thus
spared and who lived to celebrate the 50th anniversary of their
historic achievement are, by this exhibit, now to be told their
lives were purchased at the price of treachery and revenge,"
Detweiler wrote. He asked Clinton to do what he could to call off
the exhibit.
   Detweiler pressed his case at a meeting with a few congressmen.
   Rep. Peter Blute, R-Mass., later said he understood the House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee would conduct a hearing.
Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, called for the resignation of Martin
Harwit, director of the Air and Space Museum.
   The exhibit would commemorate the 50th anniversary of the bombing
of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which claimed 210,000 lives.
   It was to have opened in May at the Air and Space Museum, one of
the most popular tourist stops in Washington.
   The Smithsonian has been caught in a dispute between the
3.1-million-member veterans group on one side and historians and
religious and peace groups on the other.
   At issue was whether the exhibit suggested, as the Legion
contended, that the bombing was an immoral act, not crucial to bring
about Japan's surrender without an enormous loss of American lives.
   Over a period of months, the Legion negotiated line-by-line
changes in the 500-page script. The anti-bomb groups then charged
that the Smithsonian had associated itself "with a transparent
attempt at historical cleansing."
   The immediate dispute, this week, was a Smithsonian decision to
lower the exhibit's estimate of the number of Americans who would
have perished in an invasion of Japan.
   Historian Barton Bernstein of Stanford University told the
Smithsonian he had restudied a World War II commander's contemporary
diary of casualty estimates and concluded the figure should be
63,000, not the 229,000 he originally thought.
   The Smithsonian advised the Legion that the text would be
changed.
   But "that's just the last thing," Detweiler said. "This was a
script that was originally written for the purpose of making an
anti-atomic war statement, hooked around the Enola Gay. We tried to
work to remove the bias. They said no."
   He added: "The exhibit still says in essence that we were the
aggressors and the Japanese were the victims."
   The demand for cancellation of the exhibit followed a terse
10-minute meeting Wednesday between Detweiler, a Vietnam veteran,
and the new Smithsonian secretary, Ira Michael Heyman, an ex-Marine
who was chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley.
   Detweiler said Heyman mentioned "his potential difficulties with
the academic community." The Legion commander said he replied "that
without the suffering and sacrifice of those who fought in World War
II there would be no such community for him to be concerned about."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 James E. Irwin (Jim)                  Internet address:
 Defense Personnel Support Center        [email-masked]
 2800 S. 20th Street                   215-737-3678
 Philadelphia PA  19101-8419           Autovon 444-3678

                     "Never in the field of human conflict
                     was so much owed by so many to so few."
                               Winston S. Churchill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:19:15 -0800
From:    David Alvarez <[email-masked]>
Subject: Micro-states

Erik

One micro-state you did not mention was Vatican City.  This tiny,
independent city-state in the heart of Rome was surrounded first by
Italian fascists and then by the Germans when the latter occupied Rome in
the fall of 1943.  There are several good books on the diplomatic and
espionage aspects of the Vatican's experience during the war.

David Alvarez

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 11:21:33 -0500
From:    "Mr. Scott Hannon" <[email-masked]>
Subject: REF: Whenthe Odds Were Even (was Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue)

Ken Koester writes:

re: the Germans keeping divs on the frontline until cadres

> Seemed to me the Germans were doing this as of the winter of '41,

Yes, this situation certainly occured before mid-'44, but I don't think
it was the usual practice until after the enormous disasters of mid-'44
made it perhaps the only realistic option.

>  Certainly they were sending divisions to France by '43 for a
>complete rest/refit, right?

Yes. A good place to refit/rebuild...not much chance of combat but still
guarding France and freeing up (maybe) for duty elsewhere other units that
had been on garrison duty there. But AFAIK this was not how the typical
German infantry division took on replacements. The units sent to France
were disproportionately the Pz and PG or other elite divisions in need of
a refit/replacements/training, or infantry divisions in need of extensive
rebuilding & training.

re: Keith Bonn's _When the Odds Were Even_
>>a campaign where "the odds were even" to build his case that the US
>>Army effectiveness was better than the Germans).

>Interesting.  Dupuy, I'm sure I remember reading, comes to the opposite
>conclusion.  What sort of methodology does Bonn use?

Trevor Depuy of the Quantified Judgement Model fame?. Bonn is impressed
with the work he puts into his models, but sees the QJM model and it's
parameters as suffering from logical errors and artificial parameters.
[pg 7 & 8] "...trying to tie temporal sequence to causal relation" and
"...built in fudge factors...".

Moving on to van Creveld [pg 8]: "Other studies, one of which is often
cited by well-intentioned but uninformed admirers, are limited by even
more basic flaws. These works, which frequently cite each other, contain
gross historical inaccuracies, and represent the worst kind of revisionist
history. The most notorious of these is Martin van Creveld's _Fighting
Power_. So many factual flaws regarding the U.S. Army exist in this book
that it is impossible to list them all here." He then gives one example
that didn't much impress me given the harshness of the above quote.

Bonn is far more impressed by Millet,Murray,et al's 3 vol. _Military
Effectiveness_ books. But that book (vol 3) doesn't analyze the campaign
in the Vosges, which is the focus of Bonn's study. That is pretty much all
Bonn says about...a bit of a cop-out IMO given that I got the impression
Bonn was hinting his overall conclusion (that US combat effectiveness
and ways of doing things was better than the Germans in Vosges campaign)
might apply to campaigns outside the Vosges as well.

One of the military history journals recently reviewed this 3 vol set.
Rather late, given that the books were published maybe 5-6 years ago!
Anyway, reviewer was overall pleased. The main points of concern was
that the series was parcelled out to multiple researchers, each of
whom covered one (or more) country's forces. Not only does the quality
of the writting/research/insight vary across country, but having
different researchers do the individual ratings makes intercomparison
of conclusions/ratings a bit dangerous.

But back to Ken's question regarding methodolody. Overall it's seems to
me to be a somewhat "scholarly" approach...much primarly source material
with footnotes/references for most of what Bonn says. He tends to rely
on numbers quite often to make a point, but he doen't ignores other
non-quantifable (unless you're Dupuy? :-) factors. But unlike many
scholarly books, it reads fairly well (that is if you don't look up the
footnotes) and held my interest from start to end.

Bonn doesn't go into a lot of in deep detail, but he does spend about 35
pages discussing US and German: tactics & doctrine, organization & TOEs,
and training (all as described in the field manuals and as actually
practiced in late '44). He describes the battleground and some of the
historical background of previous campaigns in that area of France. Bonn
then spends the bulk of the book (about 145 pages) discussing the
late Oct. '44 - early Jan. '45 campaign in the high and low Vosges.
He provides some evidence this campaign is esspecially worthy of study
for those interested in the combat effectiveness question as this
campaign probably comes closest to an "even" fight as any the US Army
fought against the Germans. And finally 17 pages of summary and
conclusions.

Scott.
Scott Hannon, Fri Jan 20 1995 ([email-masked])

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:34:56 -0600
From:    "Tim J. Watts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: Anti-tank guns, 1940

Does anyone have any readily available information about the French 25 mm
anti-tank gun, apparently the standard gun for 1940?  How did it compare
to its contemporaries, i.e., the British 2 pounder and the German 37 mm?
Doughty, in THE BREAKING POINT: SEDAN 1940 AND THE FALL OF FRANCE,
talks about some of the limitations of the 25 mm (such as outranged by
the German tank guns), but I wonder if there were better weapons out there.

(BTW, I highly recommend THE BREAKING POINT, if you haven't read it.
Interesting information about how the French managed to do about everything
wrong and the Germans had incredible luck, as well as superior training,
tactics, and theory.  Confirms the importance of infantry as the decisive
element in battle.)

Tim J. Watts
Valparaiso University

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 11:46:40 EST
From:    "Thomas L. Townsend" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Camoflage on ships

I remember seeing some pictures and reading about ships being painted with
polygonal shapes of grays and black to help break up their silhouettes when
viewed at sea (esp. from periscopes). So anyone have any more information on
these ships? Do designed the camo? how effective it was?

Thanks

T

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Townsend                    6th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Co. A.
[email-masked]
         In the future I plan to be present in the past.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:01:18 -0600
From:    Cheryl Kaye Bryant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Burial at Sea Prayer?

On Thu, 19 Jan 1995 [email-masked] wrote:

>      Additionally, could someone pass along the correct name of the 'Navy
>      Hymn' that is played at funerals.
>
>      Many thanks!

I might be able to help you with that.  These are the words to "The Navy
Hymn" that was played at my Grandfather's funeral two years ago.  Hope
this is what you were after.

C.K. Bryant

                        The Navy Hymn

                Eternal Father, strong to save,
                Whose arm has bound the restless wave,
                Who bids the mighty ocean deep
                Its own appointed limits keep:
                O hear us when we cry to thee
                For Those in Peril on the Sea.

                O Christ, the Lord of hill and plain
                O'er which our traffic runs amain
                By mountain pass or valley low;
                Where ever, Lord, thy brethern go,
                Protect them by thy guarding hand
                From every peril on the land.

                O Spirit whom the Father sent
                To spread abroad the firmament;
                O Wind of heaven, by thy might
                Save all who dare the eagle's flight,
                And keep them by thy watchful care
                From every peril in the air.

                O Trinity of love and power,
                Our brethern shield in danger's hour;
                From rock and tempest, fire and foe,
                Protect them where-so-e'er they go;
                Thus evermore shall rise to thee
                Glad praise from air and land and sea.
                                                Amen.

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

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 12:46:17 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: German Aerial Torpedoes of WWII

        The aircraft torpedoes used by the Germans at the start of the war were
originally developed by the Norwegians.  In 1937 the Italian Navy
bought the rights to this weapon and perfected it at their facility in the
northern Adriatic (at Monfalcone, I believe).  In 1939 it was probably as good
as any generally available in Europe, technically speaking.  However, the
Italian Navy had no air force of its own, hence the torpedoes would be used by
the Regia Aeronautica.  When the licensing contract for the torpedoes came up
for renewal, the Navy then suggested that the Air Force take over the financial
responsibility for their production.  But the Air Force, after testing the
torpedo, declared that they wanted a model that could be dropped from higher
altitudes, by planes flying at higher speeds (no doubt having the safety of
their aircraft in mind).  They refused to pick up the tab, and began
development of their own version.  With war imminent, the Luftwaffe found
itself short of modern aircraft torpedoes, and offered to purchase the 300 or
so already built from the Italian Navy.  The Regia Marina, with no use for a
torpedo the Regia Aeronautica had rejected, gladly acquiesced.  Another effect
of this decision is that, when Italy joined the war in June 1940, although they
possessed what was arguably (at that time) the world's best torpedo bomber in
the SM-79, and as we have seen had developed a perfectly adequate torpedo
several years previously, the Regia Aeronautica did not have a single
combat-ready torpedo squadron!!  All this despite the extremely favorable
conditions for use of the torpedo bomber in the Mediterranean.  Italian
shipping attack tactics in the summer of 1940 consisted primarily of level
bombing runs from an altitude of about 10,000 feet, which usually produced a
lot of spectacular near misses but very few actual hits (about the only ship I
know of that was actually sunk by Italian planes using this method was the
British destroyer JUNO off Crete in May 1941).  The first Italian torpedo
bomber squadron went operational in August 1940, and by mid-September these
aircraft had registered their first major success, severely damaging the
British heavy cruiser KENT, which was attempting a nocturnal bombardment of
Bardia.

(sorry, had to get my $.02 in when an Italian reference came up)

Regards

Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 11:05:55 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Replacements (was Hurtgen)

>Thank you for responding to my addendum. You would think that the
>Army would have addressed this problem at the time, knowing full well
>that the current system at the time ignored the fact that a soldier
>would be more effective in combat, if he were more familar with his
>unit and staff. Do you know if this system has been amended with
>taking this into account at this time?
>
Orally, Yes; In Fact, NO! We still send replacements in piecemeal- did it
in Viet-Nam and did it in Desert Breeze...we practice it daily in the Army
even now, despite the talk and "lip Service". The reason is that it's
easier.

Jim O'Neil      They don't pay me enough to fight fair!

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 11:06:04 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Collaboration trial to be reopened

>Today, the court of appeal in Ghent has begun debating whether are
>revision of the trial of Irma Laplasse, shot in '45 after found guilty of
>collaboration, is justified. If the court concludes that there is
>sufficient new evidence --- it is argued that a key witness committed
>perjury --- the trial will be reopened at the court-martial in Brussels.
>
>The state is in favour of a revision, so it is likely that, 50 years after
>the execution, Irma Laplasse will be cleared of the charges against her...
>
Better they should retract the bullets and restore the 50 years... Maybe
they should discredit all who railroaded her, shoot the living and
dis-enter the dead to be dumped in a land fill somewhere as an example for
the future folks who want to make a name for themselves...
 We have a similar problem here with Adm Kimmel and General Short taking
the blame for Pearl Harbor, when in fact Gen. George C Marshall and Adm
Stark should own that distinction.

Jim O'Neil      They don't pay me enough to fight fair!

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 11:06:24 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue

>Of course, being commanded by an NCO is not necessarily a disaster--
>prob'ly a lot of NCOs figure they are really commanding the outfit, faced
>with a green-as-grass newbie 2nd. lt. (-:
>
Many of the US Army NCOs were not much more experianced! They too were
promoted to fill "Vacancies"... with no additional training.If there was an
"old Army NCO" w/ experiance, he was probably the last one to get a "Twoie
Looie". Experiance is usually more helpful than training in small unit
tactics, but both is *much* more desirable.

>One measure you might also adopt in looking at this would be to look at
>the numbers of commanders who got relieved during different parts of the
>war for each army.  I know Dunnigan did this for division & corps
>commanders for wwi/ii, but in principle if one were willing to do an
>awful lot of scutwork, one could do it for more junior officers as well.
>
Junior Officers are reassigned more easily and with less paperwork...trying
to figure out if they were putting a dud someplace where he couldn't hurt
much or filling a need is not so easy...especially as there may be
injuries/illness involved as well.

Jim O'Neil      They don't pay me enough to fight fair!

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:15:42 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GEN: KILLING OF GERMAN PRISONERS?

        Okay, Joe, I know there's always at least one more person on the list
willing to speak up for the Italians.  The British had demonstrated their
willingness to attack air-sea rescue craft during the Battle of Britain.
Initially the Germans had a very efficient service set up, using He-59
seaplanes which were painted white with prominent red crosses.  The British
started attacking these planes in early July '40, during the "Kanalkampf" phase
of the Battle, with authorization that went straight up to Churchill.  Soon the
Germans adapted by painting the planes in camouflage colors, adding defensive
armament (I forgot to mention they were originally unarmed), and providing
fighter escort whenever possible, but still the scope of their rescue service
was reduced.  As far as attacking hospital ships, one of the few vessels
British air attacks managed to sink in the heavily-defended port of Valona
(known as the "death hole" to British pilots due to the strong AA and fighter
defenses) during the Greek campaign was the hospital ship that Mussolini's own
daughter, Count Ciano's wife, was serving on.  She survived but not before a
nocturnal swim in Valona harbor.  There are other examples of British actions
toward the Italians that, if the Axis or the Godless Communists had done them,
would be considered war crimes or atrocities, but that's straying from the
original question about US shooting of German prisoners.  I think it was Hitler
who said the victors write the history books.

PS:  Joe, my apologies, I keep forgetting to reply to your offer to download
those photos of your father and his comrades from the war.  To be honest,
although I'm sure they would be interesting, as described by you I don't think
their value to me would be worth the trouble it would take for you to send
them.  Now, if your dad or his buddies told you any stories about their
experiences that you'd like to transcribe to me or the list, hey, that's
first-person personal history and always of interest...

Regards

Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:16:53 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GEN: KILLING OF GERMAN PRISONERS?

        PS: Joe, I'm glad you posted that bit from Sadkovich's book, it
reminded me I've got to read it!!!  I'll get the interlibrary loan people here
working on it today!!  Thanks.

        Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:57:10 EST
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: REF: Whenthe Odds Were Even (was Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue)

Thanx a bundle Scott; you've given me a good starting point for such time
as I can look at this for myself.

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 11:29:06 -0800
From:    Jim Benn <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ref: Locations: Lobenhausen, Melsorsen, Kassel, Germany

Kassel in in the central German province of Hessen, north of Frankfurt am
Main, and not anywhere near eastern Germany or any ports.  It's the city
where the Pied Piper is supposedly from.

On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Charles Mattocks wrote:

> I've been trying to locate these towns but without luck.  Believe they were
> located in Prussia (west or east?) and may be part of Poland today.  Also I
> wonder if their names have changed with the Soviet occupation and since their
> withdrawl.
>
> I had family that came from those towns and was curious as to what happened to
> them.
>
> I feel Kassel may be the port city where submarines were kept, but not sure and
> was it part of Prussia.
>
> Can anyone tell me where I might find a map of Germany prior to WWII, say 1939,
> 1870, or even 1830.
>
> Thanks for any assistance and for get off the subject a wee bit.
>
> Chip
> [email-masked]
>

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 11:52:30 -0800
From:    Jim Curry <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Enola Gay at the Smithsonian. AGAIN!

Hello, Thomas!
Barton Bernstein is a historian of the "Cold War revisionist "school.
These people blame the Cold War on the policies of the US in general
and Harry Truman in particular.  They were most in vogue in the Vietnam
era.  Many have abandoned or modified their old positions; Bernstein
apparently hasn't.  (He also has an article in the current issue of
Foreign Affairs).
Jim Curry

On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Thoams Wildenberg wrote:

> RE Post Article, ya I read it too.
>
> Does anyone new who Barton Bernstein is and what exactly he did or didn't do?
>

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:08:59 MST
From:    Eric Pass <[email-masked]>
Subject: P-51s to Russia?

Hi all,

Was the P-51 Mustang in any of its versions ever delivered to Russia
under Lend-Lease either directly from the US or via Britain as
Mustang Mk I's or II's?

Thanks,
  Eric ([email-masked])

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:05:00 -0500
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Anti-tank guns, 1940

>
> Does anyone have any readily available information about the French 25 mm
> anti-tank gun, apparently the standard gun for 1940?  How did it compare
> to its contemporaries, i.e., the British 2 pounder and the German 37 mm?
> Doughty, in THE BREAKING POINT: SEDAN 1940 AND THE FALL OF FRANCE,
> talks about some of the limitations of the 25 mm (such as outranged by
> the German tank guns), but I wonder if there were better weapons out there.

There weren't many guns NOT better.  Most of the light anti-tank guns were
virtually identical, including I believe, the German, U.S., and Soviet guns.
The Japanese 47mm was better than the others.

> (BTW, I highly recommend THE BREAKING POINT, if you haven't read it.
> Interesting information about how the French managed to do about everything
> wrong and the Germans had incredible luck, as well as superior training,
> tactics, and theory.  Confirms the importance of infantry as the decisive
> element in battle.)

The French were a study in how to emphasize one's weaknesses while
minimizing the effects of one's advantages....

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:26:30 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Camoflage on ships

>I remember seeing some pictures and reading about ships being painted with
>polygonal shapes of grays and black to help break up their silhouettes when
>viewed at sea (esp. from periscopes). So anyone have any more information on
>these ships? Do designed the camo? how effective it was?
>
>Thanks
>
>T
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tom Townsend                    6th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Co. A.
>[email-masked]
>           In the future I plan to be present in the past.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know as much as you'd like, but I've read that one of the primary, if
not the only reason for the strange polygon shapes was that it became
exceedingly difficult for a submariner to judge the "angle on the bow" from a
periscope observation.

In the target tracking process, one of the most important parts of the equation
is the target ship's course.  This was obtained using two pieces of information.
The bearing of the target from your own position, plus the "angle on the bow" of
the target ship.  This is the angle formed between the dead ahead direction of
travel of the target and the direct line of "sight" to the submarine.  For
example, if the target was coming straight toward the sub, the angle on the bow
would be zero degrees.  If the target were directly broadside, the angle on the
bow would be 90 degrees starboard, or port, depending on which way the target
was going (the reference being to which side of the target ship the sub was on).
If the target was headed directly away, then it would be 180 degrees.

The polygon shapes were visually distorting enough to throw off these angle
judgments (which were obviously very rarely an easy zero, 90 or 180) enough to
cause the observer difficulty in determining the course of a target.

The submariners "game" if you will, was to calculate where the target ship would
be at a period of time sufficiently later to allow a torpedo to run the distance
to the target, and aim the torpedo along a course that would put it and the
target at the same place at the same time.  If the angle on the bow judgment was
off by only 5 or 10 degrees this could expand into hundreds of feet or yards by
which a torpedo would miss the target.

Hope this was of interest!

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

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:01:42 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ref: Locations: Lobenhausen, Melsorsen, Kassel, Germany

Hello, Alexander!

I think I can answer your questions.

 Also I
> >wonder if their names have changed with the Soviet occupation and since their
> >withdrawl.

    Yes. This was quite common. The spelling may have been different,
but it was a spelling based on their alphabet. The same can be said
of the Poles who occupied areas formerly occupied by the Russians who
pulled out and left the Poles. The spelling changed again.
> >
> >I had family that came from those towns and was curious as to what happened to
> >them.

    Wish you much luck. No problem to try and locate them, if you
know where they were.

 > >
> >I feel Kassel may be the port city where submarines were kept, but not sure and
> >was it part of Prussia.

    True enough from the post below. Kassel used to be located right
on the border between East and West Germany. But no more.

> >Can anyone tell me where I might find a map of Germany prior to WWII, say 1939,
> >1870, or even 1830.

    No problem. Consult any history book that deals with pre-war
Germany. You should have no problem finding one. For maps of Germany
before 1900, contact any high school or college. They will have one
available.
 > >
> >Thanks for any assistance and for get off the subject a wee bit.

    No problem. All the best, and hope this has been of help.

    Terry

> >
> >Chip
> >[email-masked]
>
>
> Chip,
>
> I don't know about the other two cities you mention but I can
> give you some info on Kassel.
> Kassel is located in Hessen, about 200 km north of Frankfurt a. M.
> It was part of West Germany. Kassel is nowhere near the sea and
> doesn't have a seaport.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Alexander
> [email-masked]
>

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 16:20:15 EST
From:    Mike Fetters <[email-masked]>
Subject: MEDIA:Smithsonian Exhibit

Yesterday evening, the Smithsonian Institution released the following
statement:

SECRETARY'S STATEMENT: We discussed the Enola Gay controversy today at a
regularly scheduled meeting of the Smithsonian Board of Regent's
Executive Committee. We had a very healthy and productive discussion.
This issue clearly matters to Congress and it matters to a great many
Americans, which is why the full Board of Regents has agreed to take up
this issue at its next meeting on Monday, January 30. It makes good
sense to wait until that discussion before publically addressing this
issue again." I.Michael Heyman, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution

Posted by Mike Fetters.

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:42:49 -0500
From:    Thoams Wildenberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: BuOrd Torpedo\polics

On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Sonnenschein Nath and Rosenthal wrote:

>         I agree with Steve New that BuOrd cannot be blamed totally for
> the failure of the magnetic detonator on the Mk.14; budget constraints,
> peacetime apathy, and technological tooth-cutting all conspired against
> the development of reliable ordnance.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THE LAST SENTENCE AT ALL :-(  During the interwar
period BuOrd developed some of the best naval ordnance and fire control
systems produced by any Navy !! e.g. 5"38 cal dual purpose, hydraulically
remote
controlled, automatically directed gun with Mark 37 director.  DONT
FORGET, USN'S INTEREST IN RADAR STARTED FOR MEASURING RANGES, e.g its
stands for Radio Direction and Ranging.  Just rember that BuOrd was run by
the Gun Club, egro the lack of interest in torpedoes.

Tom Wildenberg

>         However, I do hold the BuOrd largely responsible for issuing the
> Mk.14 to the fleet with, at the minimum, 3 major design flaws, each of
> which was capable of rendering the torpedo impotent. Furthermore, as
> discussed earlier, the magnetic detonator was shrouded from all but a
> select few until a few months before the war started. Submariners were
> forced to fight with a weapon which they did not understand, know how to
> service, or understand malfunctions. When they did question the BuOrd
> after months of frustrating, fruitless combat, they were alternately
> berated and/or ignored.
>         Numerous authors and especially former submariners have
> characterized this debacle as criminal. How many months were added to the
> war because our torpedoes were failing 70% of the time for the first 18
> months of the campaign? How many lives were lost to "friendly torpedoes"?
>         Geez...sorry to rant and rave there. Am I overboard on this? It
> was wartime and ulgy things happen in war, but this chapter really stinks.
>
> Doug Shireman
>

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:47:08 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Anti-tank guns, 1940

Tim,
>Does anyone have any readily available information about the French 25 mm
>anti-tank gun, apparently the standard gun for 1940?  How did it compare
>to its contemporaries, i.e., the British 2 pounder and the German 37 mm?
>Doughty, in THE BREAKING POINT: SEDAN 1940 AND THE FALL OF FRANCE,
>talks about some of the limitations of the 25 mm (such as outranged by
>the German tank guns), but I wonder if there were better weapons out there.
>
I've got some. There were two 25 mm weapons, one was very light and tended
to be flimsy; but both compared OK in penetrative performance with both of
the mentioned ATGs. The Brits used some [220] too. The French also had a
decent 47 mm atg that the Germans put to use [they didn't bother w/ the 25
mm; they had enough weak guns. The point about being "out ranged" is
misleading . The ATG relies on Velocity and mass to penetrate the tank, so
closer is more powerful! Shooting at ranges over 400 meters would be dumb,
since the chance of a kill is low. The German tanks [most probably the
Mk-IVs w/ their 75 mm, as they were the support tanks at this point] could
fire HE & smoke out to 1200 meters, which does not rely on velocity or mass
so much as it's filler to do damage...so yes, the tanks have the advantage
*when they know where the ATG is*.

SA-34/25 mm/Hotchkiss Made/ 1,100 lbs

SA-37/25 mm/L'atelier de Puteaux made/700 lbs -the flimsey one

Performance for both: Penetrates 40 mm of [unspecified type] armor at 0
degrees slope at a range of 400 meters; this should have given them a shot
at any German tank out to 5-600 meters (most had 30 mm Face Hardened armor
at close to vertical)
No HE or smoke shells, and I don't know if it had an AP cap (important
against FH armor)

the SA-37/ 47 mm/ Maker ??/ 2,130 lbs/ effective at 1,000 meters!
MV = 855 MPS; AP = 1.726 Kg Pen = 50 mm [unspecified armor] at 500 meters,
no slope specified or 35 mm at 30 degrees at 400 meters.This does have HE
ammo.
I think [no proof] that this data is for the shorter tank gun (34 calibers,
rather than 50 calibers for the ATG) since it is much too close to the 25
mm performance.
Sorry I can't do better; if you get better info would you please forward it?
Thanks

Jim O'Neil      They don't pay me enough to fight fair!

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 19:13:12 -0500
From:    Dan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Smithsonian/Legion/Bomb!

My wife, who likes to think of herself as the Lady from Philadelphia,
poses this question:

If the Manhattan Project cost $2 billion and yielded 3 bombs, that was a
cost of roughly $700 million per bomb.

In current dollars, then, which cost more: the Hiroshima bomb or the NASM
exhibit about it?

                 - Dan    <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 18:28:01 EST
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: Churchill speech - 18Jan45

Before the House of Commons, January 18, 1945,... Churchill said:

  I have seen it suggested that the terrific battle which has been
proceeding since December 16 on the American front is an Anglo-American
battle. Infact, however, the United States troops have done almost all
the fighting and have suffered almost all the losses. They have suffered
losses almost equal to those of both sides at the Battle of Gettysburg.
... The Americans have engaged 30-40 men for every one we have engaged
and have lost 60-80 men to every one of ours. That is a point I wish to
make.

  Care must be taken in telling our proud tale not to claim for the
British armies undue share of what is undoubtedly the greatest American
battle of the war and will, I believe, be regarded as an ever-famous
American victory. I have never hesitated to stand up for our own
soldiers when their achievements have been cold-shouldered or neglected
or over-shadowed, as they sometimes are, but we must not forget that it
is to American homes that telegrams of personal loss and anxiety have
been coming during the past month and that there has been a hard and
severe ordeal during these weeks for our brave and cherished ally. . . .

  Our armies are under the supreme command of General Eisenhower and we
march with discipline wherever we are told to go. According to
professional advice which I have at my disposal, what was done to meet
von Rundstedt's counterstroke was resolute, wise, and militarily
correct. The gap was torn open as a gap can always be torn open in a
line hundreds of miles long. General Eisenhower at once gave command to
the North of the gap to Field Marshal Montgomery and to the South of it
to General Omar Bradley. Many other consequential movements were made
and rightly made.

  Judging by the result, both these highly skilled commanders handled very
large forces at their disposal in a manner which I think I can say without
exaggeration may become a model for military students in the future.

  Field Marshal Montgomery, at the earliest moment, acting with
extraordinary promptitude, concentrated powerful British reserves at
decisive strategic points; and, having been placed in command as he was
by General Eisenhower of the American forces larger than those he holds
from the British Government or from the Canadian, larger than those he
holds from the 21st Army Group, he fell unceasingly upon the enemy in
the North and faught the battle all the time from that part of the
assailed front. The United States First Army, which was one of a group
of Armies under General Bradley, was severed by inroads.

  It was reinforced with extraordinary military efficiency from the Metz
area by General Patton's Army, who hurled themselves on those intruders
from outside of Bastogne. All movements of commanders would have futile
but for the bravery of the troops. Gerneral Omar Bradley was commanding
the American forces and so was Field Marshal Montgomery. All these troops
faught in magnificent fashion and General Eisenhower, balancing the
situation between his two commanders, gave them both the fairest
opportunity to realize their full strength and qualities.

  Let no one lend themselves to the shouting of mischief makers when
issues of this momentous consequence are being successfully decided by
sword.

********* Reprinted from _A Soldier's Story_,... typos are mine.

Alan Wild, Sr. Prog/Analyst
ACC - Lippitt - URI
Kingston, RI  02881

I am the NRA.

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 19:30:22 EST
From:    William Lippert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Research: Nazis and Mexican Relations

Hello all,

    I am doing a research paper on Mexican-German relations and diplomatic
history, 1933 to 1942.  This is for my Senior Seminar on Latin America.
For those who don't know, and I don't know too much, the Mexicans nationalized
the US oil fields.  In retaliation, the US cut trade on all oil refining
products such as drilling equipment and processing equipment.  Additionally,
the general atmosphere of US-Mexican relations became somewhat negative.
The Mexicans, in need of tools, turned to Hitler, who, in turn, needed
oil.  The US, one can imagine, became wary about the Nazis gaining a
foothold in the south.  As a result, the US eventually agreed to accept
a payment of ten cents for each dollar in the oil fields.
    I hope to chronicle the various discussions, decisions, and conflicts
that composed this little episode in US-Mexican diplomatic history.
Thanks for any help.

William Lippert
The American University

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 23:18:00 UTC
From:    "Edward S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Farewell BB's

  > The Navy struck its last four Iowa-class  battleships from the Naval
  > Vessel Register Jan. 12, saying the cost  of operating the ships
  > outweighed their value to the fleet.

In the Gulf War the Navy lauded the BB as a great platform for the Tomahawk
missile.  What happened?  Is the decision purely budgetary?  Or a belated
admission that the dinosaur is extinct?

Ed Miller   [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 23:21:20 -0500
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ENOLA GAY AT THE S

I read the Post article this morning as I had my coffee. Martin Harwit is
certainly under siege, as are other people at the Air and Space Museum.
However, I would second Mike Fetter's statement and request that we wait until
he posts what the official answers are to the recent attacks. I have read and
reviewed the fifth and latest script, and found very little to criticize except
for some niddling changes which might be made. I have also reviewed the script
for the "War in the Pacific" exhibit which will be set up just before the Enola
Gay exhibit. I found it accurate and effective, and answers some of the
criticisms about not portraying the Japanese as the ruthless rapists and
whatever else you want to call them, that they were. The exhibit brouhaha is
not over yet, unfortunately. Ben Frank

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 23:51:03 -0500
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: MEDIA:JAPANESE VETS

As an interesting sidelight to the story of the Death Railway, when I was
researching material for the Marine POWs section of my "Victory and
Occupation," I came across some debriefings of Houston Marines who were on the
detail of building the RR. If you recall in the movie, "The Bridge Over the
River Kwai," Sesue Hayakawa, as the camp commander, tells the POWs to "be happy
in your work," and that there is no escape into the jungle, etc. According to
the debriefs the speech in the movie was an exact recreation of what the
Marines said was told to them by the real camp commander. An instance of where
art imitates real life. Ben Frank

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 19 Jan 1995 to 20 Jan 1995
*************************************************