PC At Its Best - The Chesty Puller Dedication Stone Brouhaha...by R.W. Gaines
March 16 2007 at 10:53 AM No score for this post
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 71.1.225.28
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PC At Its Best - The Chesty Puller Dedication Stone Brouhaha...by Dick Gaines
This one involves brouhaha by individual Marines--mostlly former Marines, etc. over a dedication stone in Puller Park in Virginia.
This involves the late LtGen Lewis B. Puller USMC, probably the most beloved general officer of the Marine Corps. Briefly, the supposed problem is over the words engraved on the stone, and the use of the word "soldier" thereon. Obviously, many Marines are ignorant of our own Marine Corps history, and our traditions.
As I said at the time..." Despite the greatness of the Corps, individual Marines are indeed among the foremost liars, braggarts, and vain ignoramuses of the world. Again, I'm on the other side of this argument, as usual."
The plaque in question very clearly indicates LtGen Puller to be a Marine; in addition, there are words to indicate that he was a Patriot, Soldier, etc. Nothing wrong w/that in the context it was used..."
There is no dishonor--quite the contrary-- in the use of the name "Soldier" for a Marine. In the Old Corps many knowledgeable Marines referred to both themselves and other Marines as Soldiers, and took pride in doing so.
See my own Gunny G website on this subject..."Are Marines Soldiers?"
(from the above...)
" Later that day I complained to the MC CO
about the base commander referring to me as a
"Soldier." My CO got a real chuckle out of my
complaint, and told me that instead of the
Captain demeaning me, he had instead paid me the
highest compliment possible. My CO was LtCol
Louis Nathaniel King, and had been a white hat in
1936 when he passed the exam for the Naval
Academy, graduated from there, and chose to enter
the MC. Of course, he, unlike myself, was steeped
in Naval traditions and knew all about the use of
the term "Soldier." On occasion I've referred to
other Marines as "Soldiers," always explaining
that was the highest compliment that I could call
them with our "Soldiers of the sea" origins."
(and, also from above...)
" Please note that I
always capitalize "Soldiers," "Sailors," and
"Airmen." In my book they deserve the same
respect that I pay to my beloved Marines.
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 71.1.225.28
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following is an e-mail from Ben Frank that I received back in 1999.
This is just one of the things that set me on the path of discovering a long line of myths, erroneous legends, and just plain BS.
The news on Ben jiggled a memory of this 1999 e-mail from him in my old mind-housing-group, and this time I actually found the e-mail that I had ratholed at the time.
BTW, have y'all changed yer clocks?
What? That was last week? Too late now--well that's what they (gub-mint) want you to believe.
They control everything including the time; the "time change" is just their check on things, to see that nobody balks at their orders (bitchin' doesn't count). God help the USA--and God help our enemies if we ever get a Leader!
Anyway, God bless you, Ben--and Semper Fidelis, Marine!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From : Ben Frank <ben.frank@tcs.wap.org>
Sent : Tuesday, November 9, 1999 8:52 PM
Subject : Re: NCO blood stripe
The statement that the red stripe on dress blue trousers was a
"blood" stripe commemorating the Marines killed in the battle for
Chapultepec in Mexico City in 1847 is a long-perpetuated myth passed
on to generations of boots by their DIs. It simply is not true. To
quote LtCol Charlie Cureton in "The Marines," the wearing of stripes
on trousers began in 1834, following the Army's practice of having
trouser stripes the color of the facings of uniform jackets. Colonel
Commandant Archibald Henderson prescribed buff-white stripes for
officers and sergeants. When, in 1839, the uniform changed to dark
blue coats faced red, officers' trousers' stripes became dark blue
edged in red. Ten years later the stripes changed to red, and over
the years, there were variations. Finally, in 1904, the simple red
stripe was adopted.
BMF
<ben.frank@tcs.wap.org> Benis M. Frank
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Benis Frank; Marine Corps Historian And Veteran
Thursday, March 15, 2007; B08
Benis M. Frank, 82, a Marine Corps chief historian who started the military branch's oral history program, died March 10 at Prince George's Hospital Center. He had congestive heart failure.
Mr. Frank, a Bowie resident, was a Marine Corps veteran of World War II and the Korean War and rose to the rank of captain in the Marine Corps Reserve.
After a career in sales and teaching, he joined the Marine Corps as a civilian in 1961. He worked in the History and Museums Division at headquarters and started its oral history section in the early 1960s. He was chief historian from 1991 until retiring in 1997.
Among his books were "A Brief History of the 3d Marines" (1962), "Okinawa: Touchstone to Victory" (1970), "Halsey" (1973) and "U.S. Marines in Lebanon, 1982-1984" (1987).
Of the last book, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote it was an "extremely enlightening and useful history of the corps' 18-month experience in Lebanon -- as the marines themselves saw it. . . . It is not only a valuable short history, but also a gold mine of raw material for anyone who might want to write about this misadventure."
Mr. Frank was general editor of the History and Museums Division's World War II 50th anniversary series of commemorative monographs. He also contributed to the Simon and Schuster Encyclopedia of World War II, the Dictionary of American Biography, the Oxford Companion to American Military History and other reference works.
He was a recipient of the Navy's Distinguished Civilian Service Medal.
Benis Morton Frank was born in Amsterdam, N.Y., and grew up in Stamford, Conn. He was a 1949 history graduate of the University of Connecticut and did graduate work in international relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.
He participated in the invasions of Peleliu and Okinawa during World War II and returned to active duty in the Korean War, serving as a battalion intelligence officer.
He was a fellow and former governor of the Company of Military Historians and former managing editor of its quarterly publication, the Military Collector & Historian.
He was a member of the Military Order of the Carabao and a founding member and president of the Virginia Scottish Games Association.
Survivors include his wife of 46 years, Marylouise Swatowicz Frank of Bowie; three children, Karen Beck of Annapolis, Jennifer Raymond of Bowie and Victor Frank of Silver Spring; a brother; five grandchildren; and a great-granddaughter.
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Your washingtonpost.com User ID will be displayed with your comment.
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 76.5.52.85
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I have found that many writers, in many publications, writing about Carlson, have made the observation that the words Gung Ho have lost much of their original meaning. Also, it has been pointed out that the translation of the words themselves from the Chinese produces even more room for confusion, as there may be multiple definitions or interpretations, just as many American words have more that one dictionary meaning. And, too, many have noted that "Gung Ho!" has been "bastardized" to the point that it is now, to many, just a slogan, a battle cry, or just a word denoting a goodMarine Gung Ho was not something simple to understand, even for Carlson and his Raider Marines--it had to be worked on and lived!
In an article titled "The Legacy of Evans Carlson," by Robert J. Dalton (LtCol USMC Ret.) in the August 1987 Marine Corps Gazette, the author states, "...Ironically, the term 'gung ho' has come to mean almost the opposite of how it was originally used. Today, the term has an aggressive, Prussianistic connotation. It has little of the 'ethical'meaning for which it was originally used...."
Well, then, what was the intention of the originator of the now famous term, "Gung Ho?"
Ref http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/gungho.html
Gung Ho According To Evans F. Carlson--Ethical Indoctrination...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 76.5.52.85
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Marine, What's YOUR Opinion On OohRah???
Up until several years ago there was no explanation as to what OohRah was or where it came from. There were, however, plenty of opinions as to its origin and history, so forth. Some of the opinions were downright dumb; others were humorous, and others went off in many directions of fantasy.
Finally, after a few years of sending out e-mail inquiries on this, and posting this topic on my own websites and others, I received some information that appeared to be a sound reasonable explanation for OohRah. I had always felt that the answer would be found in the responses to my inquiries from old time Marines who had been on the scene and knew its origin and the history and evolution of it (OohRah). Well that's exactly what happened.
former recon Marines responded that it had come from the sound of the old Klaxton horn used aboard the submarines that recon Marines had trained on, beginning back around the late 1940s or so. Apparently that sound (arrruuuugha!) had been adopted by these Marines as they did their routine morning runs. Later, this practice found its way to the recruit depots. Apparently, latter-day Marines were still practicing the Arrruugha, but it had evolved into OohRah--the newer Marines lacking direct knowledge of its origin and prior use.
Please see the article from the force recon association webpage on this...
Now, it appears that the riddled has been solved, but there are still those out there who still scoff at the above information. It seems that once something has been repeatedly chanted for so long, that individuals prefer what they see as "tradition" vice the facts. Whatever, everybody to their own kick. Generally, it is my observation that most olf time Marines look with disfavor upon "OohRah;" whereas most boots think it is the greatest thing since SOS! (does the old Corps still have SOS?)
Anyway, for those of you who would like to state your opinion on OohRah--you may speak your piece at the following GyG forum... http://www.network54.com/Forum/169291/
Semper Fidelis
R.W. Gaines
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 76.5.52.85
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For all the flak that Wikipedia gets, it is yet the only reference I have discovered which provides the full list of other names used by the troops. (C-Cap, PC, etc.) This alone ensures Wikipedia a place in my heart!
S/Fidelis
Dick G
aka: GyG
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CLICK-BELOW!!!!! http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=17343746 http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=17343746
February 25 2007 at 10:48 AM No score for this post
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 76.5.52.85
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joseph Kobylski < jkobylski@comcast.net>
Date: Feb 24, 2007 9:49 PM
Subject: Lester Tenney
To: MAJUSMCRET@aol.com, jpagespann@aol.com, gunnyg@gmail.com
Reference is made to Mr. Lester Tenney's experience with the Japanese during WW II. The Japanese soldiers that were on Iwo were the same as those who maltreated our POW at Bataan and in Japan except they did not have the same opportunity to do the same to our troops on Iwo. It's good to hear the truth from Mr.Tenney.
There is no substitute for truth.
It seems that Hollywood often has permeated the mind of our society with untruths. In August 2005 I called the business manager for Eastwood/Spielberg and said that I wanted to alert him to the fact that the book "Flags of Our Fathers" errs in many different aspects and that the flag raisers in Joe Rosenthals photo were named by the Marine Corps in findings that are uncertain and erroneous and are parroted in the book. I said that I thought that they would want the movie to be historically correct. I offered to send him the backup material by mail. He said he did not want the material and would not accept it.
The first flag raised boosted the morale of the servicemen at Iwo, the second more famous flag boosted the morale of our Nation at a time when it was needed. Both happenings were magnificent.
The down side came when an effort was made in April 1945 to identify the flag raisers in the Rosenthal photo because FDR wanted them to lead the bond tour. When the book came out in 2000 Private Larry Ryan, who claimed to be one of the flag raisers in the Rosenthal photo, offered the media, including the History Channel, to take a polygraph test to support his claim and to provide information, including the fact that Navy medic John Bradley was not the person immediately behind the Marine inserting the flagpole into the ground, but Ryan was stonewalled. He had been saying that for decades at reunions also.
Lou Lowery, a Leatherneck magazine photographer, took photos atop Mt. Suribachi that show medic John Bradley wearing large medical pouches on each hip and canteens hanging on his backside. That is standard wear of a WW II medic. Furthermore, his pant cuffs are rolled up showing his leggings. That is not John Bradley in the Rosenthal photo showing a collapsed water canteen pouch on his hip. Medics don't wear water canteens on their hips.That is someone else.
Then who is it? As a flag raiser John Bradley then would have to replace either Michael Strank or Rene Gagnon, who are said to be in those positions barely visible behind the front four in the photo. Who did Bradley displace and where is that displaced person then in the photo? This alone shatters the credibility of who the flag raisers were and the positions that they occupied in the photo. We Marine grunts don't need falsehoods to enhance our image, we have proven our worth on the battlefield. This falsehood, and there are others, results in dishonoring the 7,000 young men who gave their lives for our Country on that Island.
There is more to this story, but I'll end here. I have been trying for seven years to help Larry Ryan tell this story to the public, he had been trying for decades. Maybe the media doesn't like to cover an individual's comments on important matters, it pays to stick with the big boys, which they consistently have done on this matter.
I hope that Mr. Tenney sees this e-mail. I admire his bravery.
Joe Kobylski
JKobylski@comcast.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re Lester Tenney... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1785617/posts
Ref http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=16967024
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: RAYMOND JACOBS <ray1jacobs@msn.com>
To: Chuck Tatum <tatum@inreach.com>, GunnyG <GunnyG@gmail.com>, Roger Rabbit < jay5644@comcast.net>, greg latino <gclatino@yahoo.com>, Ray Fornof <doc666usmc1@aol.com>, Tom Farrell < tomfarrell@cox.net>
Date: Dec 31, 2005 4:44 PM
Subject: Fw: Iwo Jima flag raisers
R
Interesting.I'm not sure where to go with this.Larry Ryan was with F Company.I can't recall a face to go with the name.I just don't remember him or why he would be there.Semper Fi,Ray.
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Kobylski
To: John Kelly
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:14 PM
Subject: Iwo Jima flag raisers
Dear Mr. Kelly,
Reference is made to your e-mail of June 14 saying that the material that I sent you about the subject had been misplaced and asking me to comment by e-mail about what is local about the story I sent and to sketch out the details in an e-mail. Here goes.
I am local. I have lived in the Hyattsville, MD, area for more than 50 years and have worked as an auditor in the U.S. General Accounting Office headquarter's in D.C. for 30 years. What is local also is my extensive effort to attract media attention to Private Larry Ryan, from Wisconsin, who claimed to be and was not credited as one of the Iwo flag raisers in the famous photo by Joe Rosenthal that boosted our Nation's morale during WWII. In addition, the Iwo Jima Memorial of the flag raising and Marine Corps Headquarters are in the metro area.
Many years ago Mr. Ryan contacted the Marine Corps historian about his role and that of others who were said to have been the flag raisers. He also contacted Col. Dave Severance, who led E Company on Iwo and whose members were said to be the flag raisers. Larry was with F Company. Both belittled and disregarded his claim. Then in October 1998 James Bradley, son of flag raiser John Bradley, was the main speaker at a reunion of Iwo veterans in Peoria, Ill., and was in the process of gathering material for a book about his father and the other flag raisers. It appears that James Bradley left no stone unturned in his quest, except one, Private Ryan. Larry Ryan called him and said that he was with his father at the time that the flag was raised and an arrangement was made for an interview. But Bradley did not show up even though he stayed in a hotel room only a few doors away from Larry's room. Imagine, a man whose father told him nothing about the battle for Iwo Jima chose not to interview a Marine who associated with his father at the time of the flag raising. Unbelievable! Obviously, Larry was disappointed again. James Bradley went on to write his book, "Flags of Our Fathers", and it became a best seller that was issued in May 2000.
In February 2000 I was able to get an article published in the Post about the bravery of a fellow Marine. Buoyed by that success I asked Larry if he wanted me to try to get his story known. He said "sure." Larry's background was one of being a hard working brick layer and was not into writing letters to support his claim. I prepared a draft of what he told me, presented information about the circumstances in naming the flag raisers by the Marine Corps and others, and said that Bradley's book was in error. Larry was pleased after his review and suggested a few minor changes. I sent the letter to numerous major newspapers in the Country as well as other rmedia sources, including the History Channel and other TV outlets, requesting that they interview Mr. Ryan and that he was willing to take a polygraph test to validate his claim. How many others who named the flag raisers offered to do the same? I venture to say - none. Its sad to say not one responded. This was on only concerted effort made on Larry's behalf. It is disconcerting to find that people will listen to someone like author Bradley, who wasn't even born at that time, and no one cares to talk to someone like Private Ryan who was at the site at the time of the flag raising, a significant historical event.
I contacted History Channel and asked that it interview Private Ryan about two months before it aired a story about the flag raising. It failed to do so, but James Bradley was prominantly interviewed on the TV program.
Why not. James Bradley was the author of a bestselling book while Larry Ryan was just a grunt at the flag raising site. The History Channel's program did no serve history very well. But then again, there's no business like show business.
The Marine Corps management paid virtually no attention to the raisers of the second flag, which replaced a smaller flag that flew for a few hours. Their interest seemed to have been with the first and much less known flag. Yet they had plenty of time to identify the flag raisers in a timely manner because our Regiment was in reserve for about a week before it swung north into battle. The flags were raised on the fifth day of the battle, which lasted for thirty six days. After the battle resumed, three of the six flag raisers were killed in action, not knowing of their celebrity.
An effort was made in Hawaii to identify the flag raisers about sixty days after the flag raising, where our Division trained for the invasion of Japan. I was told that the interest arose because Preslident Roosevelt took an interest in the flag raising and that there was a saving bonds tour that was upcoming.
At a Iwo veterans reunion in Washington D.C. in February 2000 I spoke with General Fred Haynes, who ran the reunion. General Haynes was a Captain in our Regiment on Iwo. I asked questions about the identification of the flag raisers and said that it must have been difficult to name them. He said it was very difficult because the photograph was like an "unknown soldiers photograph" in that only one face was shown, and that one only partially so. That particular Marine was said to be John Bradley. General Haynes it was difficult to identify that figure as John Bradley. Larry Ryan, who was with Bradley at the time, said emphatically that Bradley, who was in fact one of the flag raisers, was not in that position in the photograph.
In a book by an Iwo veterain, flagraiser Franklin Sousley is described as the second figure from the left in the Rosenthal photo and it states that he landed on the beach as a B.A.R. man. (Browning Automatic Rifle, a rather cumbersome weapon to carry.) Yet that person shown in the photo which was taken only a few days later was carrying an M1 Garand Rifle, standard fare for riflemen on Iwo, and not a B.A.R. Has the Marine Corps ever explained this apparent discrepancy? This is not to say Sousley was not one of the flag raisers. Franklin Sousley may very well have been one but in another position in that group. Larry Ryan contended the it is he, Ryan, who is carrying the M1 rifle.
I am proud to have served in the Marine Corps. But truth is infinately more important to me than image. Truth, like free speech, is one of the great ideals for which our Nation stands.
Now we have Clint Eastwood, Oscar-winning movie director, whose next project is to begin filming "Flags of Our Fathers" later this year, based on James Bradley's book. I sure would like to send him the same packet of materials that I am sending to you again but by certified mail in the hope that it will not get lost. Perusal of the material should answer other questions that you may have and it adds other interesting details about the story. If Clintwood's movie adheres to James Bradley's book it may repeat the same errors cited above. Moreover, he and his staff should be aware of the circumstances under which the flag raisers were named, which were greatly prone to error and uncertainty. How can I reach him and his writers so that they would avoid some myths about a significant historical event? I will gladly send the same packet of materials to anyone who has the means or method to publicize Private Ryan's story. All they have to do is send me a request by e-mail.
Mr. Kelly, I know that you are a very busy person, but I surely hope that you will write a column about Mr. Ryan, who I believe without reservation. Given the extensive distribution of The Washington Post, that would go a long way for Mr. Ryan to leave a deserving legacy to his family and grandchildren.
Joseph Kobylski <jkobylski@comcast.net>
to MAJUSMCRET,
jpagespann,
me
9:49 pm (10 hours ago)
Reference is made to Mr. Lester Tenney's experience with the Japanese during WW II. The Japanese soldiers that were on Iwo were the same as those who maltreated our POW at Bataan and in Japan except they did not have the same opportunity to do the same to our troops on Iwo. It's good to hear the truth from Mr.Tenney. There is no substitute for truth.
It seems that Hollywood often has permeated the mind of our society with untruths. In August 2005 I called the business manager for Eastwood/Spielberg and said that I wanted to alert him to the fact that the book "Flags of Our Fathers" errs in many different aspects and that the flag raisers in Joe Rosenthals photo were named by the Marine Corps in findings that are uncertain and erroneous and are parroted in the book. I said that I thought that they would want the movie to be historically correct. I offered to send him the backup material by mail. He said he did not want the material and would not accept it.
The first flag raised boosted the morale of the servicemen at Iwo, the second more famous flag boosted the morale of our Nation at a time when it was needed. Both happenings were magnificent.
The down side came when an effort was made in April 1945 to identify the flag raisers in the Rosenthal photo because FDR wanted them to lead the bond tour. When the book came out in 2000 Private Larry Ryan, who claimed to be one of the flag raisers in the Rosenthal photo, offered the media, including the History Channel, to take a polygraph test to support his claim and to provide information, including the fact that Navy medic John Bradley was not the person immediately behind the Marine inserting the flagpole into the ground, but Ryan was stonewalled. He had been saying that for decades at reunions also.
Lou Lowery, a Leatherneck magazine photographer, took photos atop Mt. Suribachi that show medic John Bradley wearing large medical pouches on each hip and canteens hanging on his backside. That is standard wear of a WW II medic. Furthermore, his pant cuffs are rolled up showing his leggings. That is not John Bradley in the Rosenthal photo showing a collapsed water canteen pouch on his hip. Medics don't wear water canteens on their hips.That is someone else. Then who is it? As a flag raiser John Bradley then would have to replace either Michael Strank or Rene Gagnon, who are said to be in those positions barely visible behind the front four in the photo. Who did Bradley displace and where is that displaced person then in the photo? This alone shatters the credibility of who the flag raisers were and the positions that they occupied in the photo. We Marine grunts don't need falsehoods to enhance our image, we have proven our worth on the battlefield. This falsehood, and there are others, results in dishonoring the 7,000 young men who gave their lives for our Country on that Island.
There is more to this story, but I'll end here. I have been trying for seven years to help Larry Ryan tell this story to the public, he had been trying for decades. Maybe the media doesn't like to cover an individual's comments on important matters, it pays to stick with the big boys, which they consistently have done on this matter.
I hope that Mr. Tenney sees this e-mail. I admire his bravery.
Joe Kobylski
jkobylski@comcast.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, February 19, 2007
Did John Wilkes Booth survive?
Theory is that Lincoln's killer had escaped to Tennessee
By Dick Cook Staff Writer
SEWANEE, Tenn. — A signature in the Franklin County Courthouse and a mummy last seen in 1975 convinced two Tennessee men that John Wilkes Booth, the killer of Abraham Lincoln, escaped capture, traveled South and lived into the 20th century.
Now one of those men is hoping to use DNA evidence to prove it.
The other man, Arthur Ben Chitty, a historiographer at the University of the South who died in 2002, spent 40 years amassing anecdotal evidence that Mr. Booth married a Sewanee woman and lived there for a time, said his daughter Em Turner Chitty.
And there was one piece of physical evidence: the signature of "Jno. W. Booth" and his bride, Louisa J. Payne, recorded Feb. 24, 1872, in the marriage license records office of the Franklin County Courthouse.
"What passes for history is good public relations — that's my dad's main thesis," said Ms. Turner, an English teacher at Pellissippi State College in Knoxville. "The thing that got him most seriously interested (in Booth) was the signature."
BLAME KEN BURNS
In Memphis, Ken Hawkes got hooked on the Booth mystery in the early 1990s, when everybody in his office was following Ken Burns' documentary on the Civil War.
Mr. Hawkes was an autopsy technician for the Shelby County medical examiner's office. He said that after the episode dealing with President Lincoln's assassination, a coworker told him a mummy that was purported to be Mr. Booth was toted around the Midwest in carnivals during the 1930s.
"I thought it was nonsense," Mr. Hawkes said last week. "Everybody knows Booth was killed in Virginia two weeks after the assassination."
But then a doctor in the office showed him a story from a magazine about the Booth mummy.
The doctor said that using forensic medicine, "if we could find the remains, we could show one way or the other if it could be John Wilkes Booth," he said.
Two weeks later, Mr. Hawkes said, he began to think maybe he ought to find the mummy and do DNA testing.
"I started looking for it and looked and looked and looked," he said.
The history books state that Mr. Booth shot President Lincoln the day before Easter 1865 at Ford's Theater. Mr. Booth and a group of conspirators escaped Washington, D.C., and were cornered in Richard Garrett's barn in Bowling Green, Va., 12 days later.
The barn was set afire, and Mr. Booth was shot and died within hours. Several Union soldiers who were acquainted with him identified his body. He was buried in Green Mount Cemetery in Baltimore. SEWANEE CONNECTION
On the third floor in the back of the Jessie Ball duPont Library at the University of the South, archivist Annie Armour points to shelves filled with documents and books that Mr. Chitty, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the school, amassed related to Booth.
Opening a box of newspaper clippings, legal documents, letters and audio recordings of interviews, Ms. Armour said, "I don't see anything that proves or disproves."
But, she added, "There are a couple of people around here who swore that (Booth) lived here for a while."
Ms. Chitty said that in 1956, her father met with a man named James. H. Rees. Mr. Rees told Mr. Chitty that when he was a boy he knew McCager Payne, the son of Louisa Payne and stepson of her husband, John St. Helen.
According to Mr. Chitty's interviews with relatives, Louisa Payne learned after she married that "St. Helen" wasn't her husband's real name. Family lore says she insisted they remarry under his given name. That's when the signature of "Jno. W. Booth" was made in Franklin County.
Mr. Chitty acquired Mr. Rees' material on Mr. Booth in the 1980s. The trove included a 1926 interview with McCager Payne in the Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle, Ms. Chitty said.
Mr. Payne told the interviewer he had overheard his stepfather tell his mother about "knots on his left leg" and admit that he was Mr. Booth.
Mr. Payne said his stepfather saw the boy had overheard and said, "If you ever tell what you heard me say, I'll rip your throat from ear to ear," according to the Leaf-Chronicle.
Several months later the three went to Memphis where Mr. St. Helen/Booth left the boy and his mother and headed to Texas. He told them he would be back but never returned, Ms. Chitty said.
Ms. Chitty said her father's archives show Louisa Payne and her son returned to Sewanee.
"The story goes that (Louisa) became pregnant only a few months after the marriage," Ms. Chitty said. "She returned to Payne's Cove and had the baby, (Laura) Ida Booth. Strangely enough, she became an actress."
Ms. Chitty said she reviewed her father's collection of Booth material in 1988.
"There was so much evidence that he gathered, eyewitness evidence, documentary evidence. This story, when you first heard it, was crazy," Ms. Chitty said.
"But there was a lot of evidence," she said.
THE MUMMY
Mr. Hawkes has been trying to find what he says may be Mr. Booth's mummified remains.
In 1903, a dying, alcoholic house painter named David E. George told a minister in Enid, Okla., that he was John Wilkes Booth, Mr. Hawkes said.
Finis Bates, a Tennessee lawyer who decades before knew Mr. St. Helen/Booth, traveled to Oklahoma and determined that the body was that of the man he had known. Mr. Bates acquired the body and had it preserved, Mr. Hawkes said.
At some point, Mr. Bates' widow sold it to a carnival where the mummy became a major attraction in shows like Jay Gould's Million Dollar Spectacle, he said.
Mr. Hawkes said he contacted every carnival, sideshow and circus he could find searching for Mr. Booth's mummy.
News accounts from a Life magazine article in 1931 show that six doctors in Chicago examined and X-rayed the mummy. They found it had a shorter left leg, a distorted right thumb and a scar on its neck, all consistent with physical characteristics of Booth.
Mr. Hawkes said the last documented sighting was in Philadelphia in the early 1960s. But he has a 1991 letter from a man who says he saw the mummy in Pennsylvania in 1975 at a carnival.
"The clincher for me was the man said X-rays were with the mummy that the doctors made in Chicago," he said.
Mr. Hawkes said the Pennsylvania man told him that the carnival promoter was asking everyone who came in to look at the mummy if they wanted to buy it.
"I do believe the mummy still exists," he said. "I think it's in a private collection."
GyG #16 Marine Vignettes - Captain J. A. House II USMC
February 14 2007 at 9:41 AM No score for this post
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 76.5.48.36
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marine Vignettes by Gunny G
#16
Captain J. A. House II USMC
By Dick Gaines
January 15, 1998
*
In July 1965 I had just completed a tour with 1st Marine Air Wing (Iwakuni, Atsugi, and DaNang, RVN). I rejoined my wife and family in Triangle, Virginia and proceeded to move to North Carolina as I had orders for 2nd Marine Division.
We moved our mobile home into a mobile home park close to Camp Lejeune. Our next-door neighbors were a young Marine and his wife. I took him to be about 19 or 20 years old and a LCpl, maybe. It turned out he was a few years older, and a first lieutenant, a pilot at the nearby MCAF, New River.
Jack always had a big smile on his face. He was the kind of guy everybody liked. If somebody's car would not start he would be there, or if you came home with more groceries than you could carry, he would help.
He owned a red Jeep pickup with a white camper shell on it. He and my oldest son, Mike who was about 11 at the time, became friends and would go fishing together.
One Sunday afternoon, I heard the sound of a small plane circling around. The noise soon became louder and I went outside to see what was going on. It seemed like the plane was diving right at us! But, it got worse. The engine was stalling, and the plane would spiral down right at us with the pilot screaming in terror from the open cockpit. Then, the engine would restart and he would fly away, only to return for more of the same. Somebody phoned the sheriff, but they would only respond if the park owner requested it; and they cared even less about the air space over the park.
Then I noticed Jack looking upward with his hands cupped over his eyes to shield them from the sun. He was laughing and obviously enjoying the show!
Then it dawned on me. This was one of Jack's buddies! Out on a lark to harass Jack by buzzing his place. Just some "Great Santini" stuff. I went back to my TV.
About June 1967, Jack, now a captain, got his orders for Nam. If it seemed he'd only been gone a few days, it was because it had only been a few days when his wife (still living next-door) was notified that Jack had been killed. He was 28.
I have often thought about Jack these last thirty years. My older kids still remember him too. A few weeks ago, a long time friend of mine, Mike Adelt added a MIA/KIA page to his website, "Gunny Mike's Salute" (see my links listing). He had an article there regarding a young recon Marine who had been killed in a helicopter crash in VietNam in 1967. As I read on I got a strange feeling and I knew this was about Jack's CH46A which he was flying when he was killed. It was.
Gunny Mike has since done some research and sent me additional information from Project Homecoming II with details of Jack's death , i.e. names, dates, other data involving the crash. The CH46A had been hit by small arms fire, exploded, and crashed. Although there were some survivors, Jack's body and others were never recovered, and they were declared KIA.
Jack's death had hit those of us who knew him pretty close to home. To me, he is not just a name on a casualty list or a name on a bracelet. He was a good Marine, and a helluva guy. And this vignette is dedicated to him, from what little I know of John Alexander House II..
I still wonder though, how many of our people are still out there somewhere. Do they still, after all these years, lie awake in the pre-dawn hours listening for the distant roar of engines bringing us in to finally take them home?
Here's to you, Jack--for that drink we never had together.
February 14 2007 at 8:12 AM No score for this post
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 76.5.48.36
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:30:02 -0500
From: "Scott Hendrix" <hendsn1@GMAIL.COM> Add to Address Book Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Query: Rising Sun Over Suribachi?
To: H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU
To: "'H-NET Military History Discussion List'"
<
H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU
>
Subject: Rising Sun Over Suribachi?
------------------
Clint Eastwood's movies about the Battle of Iwo
Jima have spurred quite a
bit of interest here in
Japan. Likewise, they've
rekindled my interest in
the battle and I've thus tried to fit into my
schedule some reading of
Japanese accounts of it. The most recent such
account by a veteran (and
perhaps the last) is _Juunana-sai no Ioutou [A
Seventeen-year-old's Iwo
Jima]_ (Bungei shunju, 2006) by Akikusa Tsuruji,
who served as a 17 year-old
member of a naval communications unit, was
wounded and, eventually, taken
prisoner. According to his book, upon returning
to Japan from a US POW camp
he wrote his experiences down, but then set the
notebooks aside for years
before putting his recollections into book form.
The final product was
published in December.
The reason I bring this to the list's attention
is that, about halfway
through the book, Akikusa writes that between 23
and 25 February there were
pitched battles for control of Mt. Suribachi in
which the US flag was
replaced twice by the Japanese flag before the
Marines put the Stars and
Stripes up for good; naturally, I was more than a
wee bit surprised by this
particular recollection, since I've read more
than a couple of accounts of
the battle and have never run across any inkling
of such happenings. While
taking, losing, and then retaking hills was not
at all unusual in the
bitterly contested campaigns in the Pacific and,
indeed, happened in the
fight for other high ground on Iwo, my
understanding of the patrol that put
up the first flag on Suribachi is that, although
they expected serious
resistance, what ultimately happened is that they
received a sharp but short
response from some outraged Japanese soldiers,
who were quickly dealt with;
these events were followed shortly by the second
larger flag going up
without incident. After that, the destruction of
Japanese fortifications and
their defenders on and around Suribachi continued
(and many Japanese
soldiers were killed trying to make their way
north); I've never run across
any reference to further fighting for the summit
of the mountain. In fact, I
can't recall having read anything much at all
about the summit in the
immediate wake of the flag-raisings.
In sum, and to be charitable, all I can do is
assume that the memories of an
old veteran about a very bitter experience have
become, shall we say,
confused. However, I also know there are members
of this group who possess
far more knowledge about the operational history
of the Pacific campaigns
than I do, so I thought I would run this by the
list and see if anyone has
any idea what Akikusa might be talking about.
Cheers,
Roger Brown, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Japanese History
Saitama
University
email: rhbrown@oregano.ocn.ne.jp
January 21 2007 at 10:03 AM No score for this post
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 68.184.88.13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Boston Globe
January 21, 2007
The Failure Of An All-Volunteer Military
By Andrew J. Bacevich
"WAR IS the great auditor of institutions," the British historian Corelli Barnett has observed. In Iraq, the United States has undergone such an audit and been found wanting. The defects of basic US national security institutions stand exposed. Failure to correct those defects will only invite more Iraqs -- unnecessary wars that once begun prove unwinnable.
The essential guarantor of US national security is the all-volunteer force. In its hey day -- the 1990s -- the all-volunteer force underwrote America's claim to global preeminence. Its invincibility taken for granted, the volunteer force seemed a great bargain to boot. Maintaining the world's most powerful military establishment imposed a negligible burden on the average citizen. No wonder Americans viewed the volunteer military as the most successful federal reform program of the postwar era. What was there not to like?
In fact, questions of efficacy or economy did not figure significantly in the decision to create the all-volunteer force. Back in the early 1970s, the object of the exercise had been quite simple: to terminate an increasingly illegitimate reliance on conscription. During the Vietnam War, thanks in no small part to the draft, the armed services had become estranged from American society. The all-volunteer force creation severed relations altogether.
This divorce had large implications. After Vietnam, citizenship no longer included an obligation to contribute to the nation's defense. Military service became a matter of personal preference, devoid of political or moral significance. Although providing for the common defense remained a primary function of government, federal officials no longer possessed the authority to command citizens to bear arms. Henceforth, they could only encourage young Americans to enlist, offering inducements to sweeten the invitation.
Historically, Americans had viewed a "standing army" with suspicion. After Vietnam they embraced the idea. By 1991 they were celebrating it. After Operation Desert Storm -- with its illusion of a cheap, easy victory -- soldiers like General Colin Powell persuaded themselves that "the people fell in love with us again."
If love, it was a peculiar version, neither possessive nor signifying a desire to be one with the beloved. For the vast majority of Americans, Desert Storm affirmed the wisdom of contracting out nation al security. Cheering the troops on did not imply any interest in joining their ranks. Especially among the affluent and well-educated, the notion took hold that national defense was something "they" did, just as "they" bus ed tables, collected trash, and mowed lawns. The stalemated war in Iraq has revealed two problems with this arrangement.
The first is that "we" have forfeited any say in where "they" get sent to fight. When it came to invading Iraq, President Bush paid little attention to what voters of the First District of Massachusetts or the 50th District of California thought. The people had long since forfeited any ownership of the army. Even today, although a clear majority of Americans want the Iraq war shut down, their opposition counts for next to nothing: the will of the commander-in-chief prevails.
The second problem stems from the first. If "they" -- the soldiers we contract to defend us -- get in trouble, "we" feel little or no obligation to bail them out. All Americans support the troops, yet support does not imply sacrifice. Yellow-ribbon decals displayed on the back of gas-guzzlers will suffice, thank you.
Stipulate for the sake of argument that President Bush is correct in saying that failure in Iraq is not an option. Then why limit the "surge" to a measly 21,500 additional troops? Why not 50,000? With the population of the United States having now surpassed 300 million, why not send 100,000 reinforcements to Iraq?
The question answers itself: There are not an additional 100,000 Americans willing to commit their lives to the cause. Even offering up 21,500 finds the Pentagon scraping the bottom of the barrel, extending the tours of soldiers already in the combat zone while accelerating the deployment of those heading back for a second or third tour of duty.
After the Cold War, Americans came to see war as something other than a human enterprise; the secret of military superiority ostensibly lay in the microchip. The truth is that the sinews of military power lie among the people, who legitimate war and sustain it.
For the United States to remain a great military power will require a genuine reconciliation of the military and American society. But this implies the people exercising a greater say in deciding when and where American soldiers fight. And it also implies reviving the tradition of the citizen-soldier so that all share in the burden of national defense.
Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 68.184.88.13
BS! Cite me an official directive/reference that there are no ex-Marines!
WW II and Korean War Marines, and for some time thereafter have proudly referred to themselves and other Marines as ex-Marines.
Long thereafter some numbnutz boot came up w/the "no ex-Marines bs!--and other numbnutz boots likewise followed suit, especially w/the coming of the Internet.
Now, even some old salt Marines who have been exposed to bullying by new age marines (numbnutz boots) on internet messageboards, forums, etc.
Opinions are like********and more and more numbnutz boot marines have them.
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 68.184.88.13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
121st "CB" Veteran i met with yesterday told me this Story!
By
Jonathon17PIM@aol.com
"D" Day on Saipan was hell. Artillery fire was intense for two days. We sustained approximately 2,000 casualties for the first day. We were strafed, sniper fired, booby trapped etc. On the first night 6/15/44, Lt Robert Fiske picked up nine of us to go on patrol. Counter-attacks by Japanese were coming through gaps in our lines. Fiske told me to remove my two canteens, so as not to make noise while crawling. I removed one, the other, I had trouble getting off. A few moments passed, I still couldn't get it off, so I went on the trail of the patrol with Lenny Delunas. I did not see the rest of the men who were going on the patrol. I crawled approximately two hundred yards, not knowing where I was going. I started to smell pungent body odor and i heard Japanese voices. My buddy Lenny started to shake and mumble. I grabbed his lips and punched his thighs, and softly said, don't make a sound, don't even breath hard. We backed up slowly turned supposedly 180 degrees crawled back, and crawled all the way back, there we were challenged by Marines.
Who goes there? I said joe Garafolo, 3/20 Marines! Where do you come from? I reply Bronx NY Whats in the Bronx? I reply Yankee Stadium, Bronx Park.
The Marines let us go by. Lenny and i reported this incident to Lt. Fiske and told him of Japanese activities about 200 yards away. He stated that they cancelled the Patrol because the terrain was too difficult and the star shells would give our position away, etc. Within the hour 200 Japs were mowed down in the counter-attack. Incidentally the men who were assigned to the patrol were awarded the Bronze Star. Lenny and I were recommended for the award. The recommendation is on our discharge, but as of yet we have never received it.
Pemanent/Temporary Rank, Designations, AUS, RA, USMC SS, Etc.
January 17 2007 at 11:58 AM No score for this post
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 69.180.8.232
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most Marines are quite familiar with abbreviations used such as, USMC, USMCR, etc. Fewer are aware of earlier designations such as USMC SS used for selective service (draftee) Marines during the Korean War Era. In fact I recall that during the Korean era that Marines' MSN (military service numbers) were prefixed with a K, not the MSN itself actually, but on official orders, administrative records, etc., to designate those who had served a tour in Korea.
Even lesser known to Marines--and, apparently, even some newer members of other services--are certain older abbreviations and designations for both officer and enlisted personnel of the U.S. Army, e.g., AUS for Army of the United States, etc. This information is becoming less and less known these days, and should be of some general interest to all hands.
Myself, I have often seen retired Army officers with "AUS Ret." after their names--several things of this nature and satisfactory explanations for them have previously eluded me. Hopefully, the following links provided below will shine some light on this area of interest that have also aroused the curiosity of others who may find some answers here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Rank: Eisenhower had outranked Patton during war, having been appointed Supreme Commander. At the end of the war Patton was in fact the highest ranking officer in the US Military. In peacetime the Armed Forces would fall under the authority of Patton. Eisenhower didn't relish having Patton giving him orders. There was widespread talk at home of Patton for President. This was bad news for the Democrats, because they had no comparable opponent. It was not good news for the Republicans though, because Patton was considered too stubborn and iron-willed to take orders from Wall Street and professional politicians.
GyG (Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 68.184.88.13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 January 2007
MILINET: 1917 AARs
Note that some of the advice given in 1917 is still applicable today. The more things change the more they remain the same.
Subject: 1917 AAR's
The following safety tips from Daedalian Foundation
are excerpts from Royal Flying Corps monthly report of December 1917.
The report was signed C. St. John-Culbertson, Royal Flying Corps Colonel
and was dated 21 December, 1917.
INTRODUCTION
Another good month. In all, a total of 35 accidents were reported, only
six of which were avoidable. These represented a marked improvement over
the month of November during which 84 accidents occurred, of which 23
were avoidable. This improvement, no doubt, is the result of experienced
pilots with over 100 hours in the air forming the backbone of all the
units.
RESUME OF ACCIDENTS
Avoidable Accidents
1. There were six avoidable accidents this last month.
a. The pilot of a Shorthorn, with over 7 hours of experience, seriously
damaged the undercarriage on landing. He had failed to land at as fast a
speed as possible as recommended in the Aviation Pocket Handbook
b. A B.E.2 stalled and crashed during an artillery exercise. The pilot
had been struck on the head by the semaphore of his observer who was
signaling to the gunners.
c. Another pilot in a B.E.2 failed to get airborne, by an error of
judgement, he was attempting to fly at mid-day instead of at the
recommended best lift periods, which are just after dawn and just before
sunset.
d. A Longhorn pilot lost control and crashed in a bog near
Chipping-Sedbury. An error of skill on the part of the pilot in not
being able to control a machine with a wide speed band of 10 MPH between
top speed and stalling speed.
e. While low flying in a Shorthorn the pilot crashed into the top deck
of a horse drawn bus near Stonehenge.
f. A B.E.2 pilot was seen to be attempting a banked turn at a constant
height before he crashed. A grave error by an experienced pilot.
Unavoidable Accidents
2. There were 29 unavoidable accidents from which the following are
selected:
a. The top wing of a Camel fell off due to fatigue failure! of the flying
wires. A successful emergency landing was carried out.
b. Sixteen B.E.2's and 9 Shorthorns had complete engine failures. A
marked improvement over November's fatigue.
c. Pigeons destroyed a Camel and 2 Longhorns after mid-air strikes.
COST OF ACCIDENTS
Accidents during the last three months of 1917 cost 317 pounds, 10
shillings sixpence, money down the drain and sufficient to buy new
gaiters and spurs for each and every pilot observer in the Service.
ACCIDENT BRIEFS
No. 1 Brief
No. 912 Squadron, 3 December 1917
Aircraft type B.E.2C, No. KY678, Total Solo - - 4.20 Pilot Lt. J.
Smyth-Worthington, Solo in type - - 1.10
The pilot of this flying machine attempted to maintain his altitude in a
turn at 2,500 feet. This resulted in the airplane entering an
unprecedented maneuver, entailing a considerable loss of height. Even
with full power applied and the control column fully back, the pilot was
unable to regain control. However, upon climbing from the cockpit onto
the lower mainplane, the pilot managed to correct the machi! nes ;altitude,
and by skillful manipulation of the flying wires successfully
side-slipped into a nearby meadow.
Remarks: Although, through inexperience, this pilot allowed his
aeroplane to enter an unusual attitude, his resourcefulness in
eventually landing without damage has earned him a unit citation.
R.F.C. Lundsford-Magnus is investigating the strange behaviour of this
aircraft.
No. 2 Brief
No. 847 Squadron 19 December 1917
Aircraft Type Spotter Balloon J17983, total solo 107.00 Pilot Capt. ***,
Solo in type 32.10
Capt * of the Hussars, a balloon observer, unfortunately allowed
the spike of his full-dress helmet to impinge against the envelope of
his balloon. There was a violent explosion and the balloon carried out a
series of fantastic and uncontrollable maneuvers, while rapidly emptying
itself of gas. The pilot was thrown clear and escaped injury as he was
lucky enough to land on his head.
Remarks This pilot was flying in full-dress uniform because he was the
Officer of the Day. In consequence it has been recommended that pilots
will not ! ;fly&nbs p;during periods of duty as Officer of the Day.
Captain* has requested an exchange posting to the Patroville Alps, a
well known mule unit of the Basques
No 3 Brief
Summary of No. 3 Brief dated October 1917
Major W. de Kitkag-Watney'Major W. de Kitkag-Watney'<wbr>s Neuport Scou
it failed to become airborne.
The original court of Inquiry found that the primary cause of the
accident was carelessness and poor airmanship on the part of a very
experienced pilot.
The Commandant General, however, not being wholly convinced that Major
de Kitkag-Watney could be guilty of so culpable a mistake ordered that
the court should be re-convened
After extensive inquiries and lengthy discussions with the Meteorlogical
Officer and Astronomer Royal, the Court came to the conclusion that the
pilot unfortunately was authorized to fly his aircraft on a day when
here was absolutely no lift in the air and could not be held responsible
for the accident.
The Court wishes to take this opportunity to extend congratulations to
Major de Kitkag-Watney on&n! bsp;his& nbsp;reprieve and also on his engagement to
the Commandant Gereral's daughter, which was announced shortly before
the accident
FLYING SAFETY TIPS
Horizontal Turns
To take a turn the pilot should always remember to sit upright,
otherwise he will increase the banking of the aeroplane. He should never
lean over.
Crash Precautions
Every pilot should understand the serious consequences of trying to turn
with the engine off. It is much safer to crash into a house when going
forward than to sideslip or stall a machine with engine trouble.
Passengers should always use safety belts, as the pilot may start
stunting without warning. Never release the belt while in the air, or
when nosed down to land.
Engine Noises
Upon the detection of a knock, grind, rattle or squeak, the engine
should be at once stopped. Knocking or grinding accompanied by a squeak
indicates binding and a lack of lubricant.
WATCH THAT FIRST STEP
The First Marine Air Wing had this write up in their safety publication,
Wing Tips of an AAR board's&n! bsp;comments some 40 years ago:
It was conceded by all that the pilot had accomplished a brilliant piece
of work in landing his disabled machine without damage under the
circumstances. It is not with intent to reflect less credit upon his
airmanship, but it must be noted that he is a well experienced aviator
with over 40 total hours in the air, embracing a wide variety of
machines, and this was his seventh forced landing due to complete
failure of the engine.
It was doubly unfortunate that upon alighting from his machine he missed
the catwalk on the lower airfoil and plunged both legs through the
fabric, straddling a rib, from which he received a grievous personal injury.
Some thought should be devoted to a means of identifying
wing-traversing catwalks to assist aviators in disembarking from their
various machines.
The Colonial War Against Islam
By Andrew Walden
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 5, 2007
America has been fighting Islamists for longer than many realize. Even before independence was declared, American ships were pirated and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"—an Ottoman Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. When the colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American ships lost Royal Navy protection. A Revolutionary War-era alliance with France offered French protection to US ships, but it expired in 1783. Immediately, U.S. ships came under attack and in October 1784 the American trader "Betsey" was taken by Moroccan forces. This was followed with Algerians and Libyans (Tripolitans) capturing two more U.S. ships in 1785.
Lacking the ability to project U.S. naval force in the Mediterranean, America tried appeasement. In 1784, Congress agreed to fund tributes and ransoms in order to rescue U.S. ships and buy the freedom of enslaved American sailors.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet , that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Sound familiar?
In this 1790 satirical piece, his last published letter , Ben Franklin, in the midst of a Congressional debate on slavery, compares the arguments of pro-slavery Southerners ("Mr. Jackson", a South Carolina delegate) to the arguments of a hypothetical Algerian Muslim "Mussulmen" pirate, Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim. The rationalizations, justifications and excuses of Franklin's "Sidi" are almost word-for-word those of the Georgia and South Carolina Congressional delegates. The Algerian Islamic "Erika" sect was an allegory to members of the American Christian "Quaker" sect who in 1790 unsuccessfully petitioned Congress, with Franklin's support, for an end to the importation of slaves from Africa. (Text and link below.)
Ben Franklin died on April 17, 1790, just 25 days after his letter was published.
Congress in 1790 did not come up with a means to end the slave trade, much less slavery itself. This is largely because representatives of South Carolina and Georgia threatened secession, which could have led to war or complete or partial dissolution of the Union. As with any appeasement of evil, the problem continued and festered, growing worse until finally a much larger war--the Civil War-- broke out 71 years later causing 600,000 American casualties. Also killed by appeasement were untold numbers of African slaves during the Atlantic crossing or during enslavement.
And the Muslims? By 1800, the annual tribute and ransom payments first agreed in the mid-1780s amounted to about $1 million--20% of the federal budget. (For fiscal year 2007, 20 percent of U.S. revenues would equal $560 billion.) In May, 1801 Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha of Tripoli, declared war on America by chopping down the flagpole in front of the U.S. Consulate. Seventeen years after appeasement and tribute payments had begun, President Thomas Jefferson led America into the First Barbary War.
From May of 1801 to June 10, 1805, sailors and Marines of the young American nation fought battles immortalized in a line of the Marine Hymn: "to the shores of Tripoli." As American forces approached Tripoli on land threatening to capture it, Karamanli suddenly became interested in negotiations. The war ended with a treaty exchanging prisoners, Americans giving Karamanli another $60,000 in ransom and an agreement from the Muslims to cease attacks on U.S. ships.
But for a Muslim to keep his word to an infidel at the expense of opportunities to expand Islamic power is the Islamic equivalent of a mortal sin. In 1807, Muslim pirate attacks on American ships began anew. As a result Americans led by President James Madison fought Algerians in the Second Barbary War in 1815, leading to another treaty under which the Muslims paid American $10,000 for damages. The Algerian ruler almost immediately repudiated the new treaty after the U.S. departure and again began piracy and the enslavement of captured Christian sailors necessitating an 1816 Anglo-Dutch shelling of Algiers and ultimately the colonization of Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881 by France and Libya in 1911 by Italy. By then most of the Islamic world was under Christian domination. With the Ottoman Empire defeated in WW1, secularist Turkish rebels in 1923 overthrew the last Islamic Caliphate , destroying the pinnacle of Islamist power and ending a line of succession allegedly reaching back to Mohammed.
The trend of Muslim defeat began to reverse after the Second World War even though many Muslim leaders had backed Hitler's Third Reich. Most Islamic countries became independent of Christian colonial rule between 1946 when Jordan achieved independence and 1971 when Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE finally became independent of Britain. The next year, Muslim terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes and one German police officer at the Olympic Games in what became known as the Munich massacre, an attack which some see as opening the current war between Islam and the West. In an echo of the Barbary Pirates, an airliner was hijacked in October 1972 causing Germany to release to Libya the two terrorists being held for trial in the attack.
And the Quakers? Today the Quaker " American Friends Service Committee" no longer demands resolute action against slavery. They are on the other side – serving the modern equivalents of Franklin's allegorical Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim by demanding that America once again appease the Islamists. Their demand for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan in the face of Islamist attacks aimed to re-enslave the populations of those countries will get America into a much larger war a lot sooner than the 17 years to took for appeasement to lead to war at the end of the 18th Century.
Ben Franklin's use of an imaginary Algerian pirate to satirize a pro-slavery Congressman shows his clear understanding of the danger posed by Islamism. Modern day Americans would do well to consider the lessons of the War with Islamism fought by Thomas Jefferson and again by James Madison and this alternate meaning in Franklin's final words of warning.
**************
Full Text of Ben Franklin's last letter :
On the Slave-Trade
To the Editor of the Federal Gazette
March 23d, 1790
Sir,
Reading last night in your excellent Paper the speech of Mr. Jackson in Congress against their meddling with the Affair of Slavery, or attempting to mend the Condition of the Slaves, it put me in mind of a similar One made about 100 Years since by Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the Divan of Algiers, which may be seen in Martin's Account of his Consulship, anno 1687. It was against granting the Petition of the Sect called Erika, or Purists who pray'd for the Abolition of Piracy and Slavery as being unjust. Mr. Jackson does not quote it; perhaps he has not seen it. If, therefore, some of its Reasonings are to be found in his eloquent Speech, it may only show that men's Interests and Intellects operate and are operated on with surprising similarity in all Countries and Climates, when under similar Circumstances. The African's Speech, as translated, is as follows.
"Allah Bismillah,&c. God is great, and Mahomet is his Prophet."
"Have these Erika considered the Consequences of granting their Petition? If we cease our Cruises against the Christians, how shall we be furnished with the Commodities their Countries produce, and which are so necessary for us? If we forbear to make Slaves of their People, who in this hot Climate are to cultivate our Lands? Who are to perform the common Labours of our City, and in our Families? Must we not then be our own Slaves? And is there not more Compassion and more Favour due to us as Mussulmen, than to these Christian Dogs? We have now about 50,000 Slaves in and near Algiers. This Number, if not kept up by fresh Supplies, will soon diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If we then cease taking and plundering the Infidel Ships, and making Slaves of the Seamen and Passengers, our Lands will become of no Value for want of Cultivation; the Rents of Houses in the City will sink one half; and the Revenues of Government arising from its Share of Prizes be totally destroy'd! And for what? To gratify the whims of a whimsical Sect, who would have us, not only forbear making more Slaves, but even to manumit those we have.
"But who is to indemnify their Masters for the Loss? Will the State do it? Is our Treasury sufficient? Will the Erika do it? Can they do it? Or would they, to do what they think Justice to the Slaves, do a greater Injustice to the Owners? And it we set our Slaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their Countries; they know too well the great Hardships they must there be subject to; they will not embrace our holy Religion; they will not adopt our Manners; our People will not pollute themselves by intermarrying with them. Must we maintain them as Beggars in our Streets, or suffer our Properties to be the Prey of their Pillage? For men long accustom'd to Slavery will not work for a Livelihood when not compell'd. And what is there so pitiable in their present Condition? Were they not Slaves in their own Countries?
"Are not Spain, Portugal, France, and the Italian states govern'd by Despots, who hold all their Subjects in Slavery, without Exception? Even England treats its Sailors as Slaves; for they are, whenever the Government pleases, seiz'd, and confin'd in Ships of War, condemn'd not only to work, but to fight, for small Wages, or a mere Subsistence, not better than our Slaves are allow'd by us. Is their Condition then made worse by their falling into our Hands? No; they have only exchanged one Slavery for another, and I may say a better; for here they are brought into a land where the Sun of Islamism gives forth its Light, and shines in full Splendor, and they have an Opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the true Doctrine, and thereby saving their immortal Souls. Those who remain at home have not that Happiness. Sending the Slaves home then would be sending them out of Light into Darkness.
"I repeat the Question, What is to be done with them? I have heard it suggested, that they may be planted in the Wilderness, where there is plenty of Land for them to subsist on, and where they may flourish as a free State; but they are, I doubt, to little dispos'd to labour without Compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish a good government, and the wild Arabs would soon molest and destroy or again enslave them. While serving us, we take care to provide them with every thing, and they are treated with Humanity. The Labourers in their own Country are, as I am well informed, worse fed, lodged, and cloathed. The Condition of most of them is therefore already mended, and requires no further Improvement. Here their Lives are in Safety. They are not liable to be impress'd for Soldiers, and forc'd to cut one another's Christian throats, as in the Wars of their own Countries. If some of the religious mad Bigots, who now teaze us with their silly Petitions, have in a Fit of blind Zeal freed their Slaves, it was not Generosity, it was not Humanity, that mov'd them to the Action; it was from the conscious Burthen of a Load of Sins, and Hope, from the supposed Merits of so good a Work, to be excus'd Damnation.
"How grossly are they mistaken in imagining Slavery to be disallow'd by the Alcoran? Are not the two Precepts, to quote no more, 'Masters, treat your Slaves with kindness; Slaves, serve your Masters with Cheerfulness and Fidelity,' clear Proofs to the contrary? Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it. Let us then hear no more of this detestable Proposition, the Manumission of Christian Slaves, the Adoption of which would, by depreciating our Lands and Houses, and thereby depriving so many good Citizens of their Properties, create universal Discontent, and provoke Insurrections, to the endangering of Government and producing general Confusion. I have therefore no doubt, but this wise Council will prefer the Comfort and Happiness of a whole Nation of true Believers to the Whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their Petition."
The Result was, as Martin tells us, that the Divan came to this Resolution; "The Doctrine, that Plundering and Enslaving the Christians is unjust, is at best problematical; but that it is the Interest of this State to continue the Practice, is clear; therefore let the Petition be rejected."
And it was rejected accordingly.
And since like Motives are apt to produce in the Minds of Men like Opinions and Resolutions, may we not, Mr. Brown, venture to predict, from this Account, that the Petitions to the Parliament of England for abolishing the Slave-Trade, to say nothing of other Legislatures, and the Debates upon them, will have a similar Conclusion? I am, Sir, your constant Reader and humble Servant,
The following is the INTRODUCTION to the book, Cheers and Tears by
December 31 2006 at 7:05 PM No score for this post
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 68.184.88.13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following is the INTRODUCTION to the book, Cheers and Tears by
Lt.Gen. Charles Cooper, USMC (Ret.). This chapter was provided by Lt. Gen.
Cooper for posting .
INTRODUCTION
The Day It Became the Longest War
"The President will see you at two o'clock."
It was a beautiful fall day in November of 1965, early in the Vietnam
War-too beautiful a day to be what many of us, anticipating it, had Been
calling "the day of reckoning." We didn't know how accurate that label
would be.
The Pentagon is a busy place. Its workday starts early-especially if, As
the expression goes, "there's a war on." By seven o'clock, the staff Of
Admiral David L. McDonald, the Navy's senior admiral and Chief of Naval
Operations, had started to work. Shortly after seven, Admiral McDonald
arrived and began making final preparations for a meeting with President
Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The Vietnam War was in its first year, and its uncertain direction troubled
Admiral McDonald and the other service chiefs. They'd had a number of
disagreements with Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara about strategy,
and had finally requested a private meeting with the Commander in Chief-a
perfectly legitimate procedure. Now, after many delays, the Joint Chiefs
were finally to have that meeting. They hoped it would determine whether
the US military would continue its seemingly directionless buildup to fight
a protracted ground war, or take bold measures that would bring the war to
an early and victorious end. The bold measures they would propose were to
apply massive air power to the head of the enemy, Hanoi, and to close North
Vietnam's harbors by mining them.
The situation was not a simple one, and for several reasons. The most
important reason was that North Vietnam's neighbor to the north was
communist China. Only 12 years had passed since the Korean War had ended in
stalemate. The aggressors in that war had been the North Koreans. When the
North Koreans' defeat had appeared to be inevitable, communist China had
sent hundreds of thousands of its Peoples' Liberation Army "volunteers" to
the rescue.
Now, in this new war, the North Vietnamese aggressor had the logistic
support of the Soviet Union and, more to the point, of neighboring communist
China. Although we had the air and naval forces with which to paralyze
North Vietnam, we had to consider the possible reactions of the Chinese and
the Russians.
Both China and the Soviet Union had pledged to support North Vietnam In the
"war of national liberation" it was fighting to reunite the divided country,
and both had the wherewithal to cause major problems. An important unknown
was what the Russians would do if prevented from delivering goods to their
communist protege in Hanoi. A more important question concerned communist
China, next-door neighbor to North Vietnam. How would the Chinese react to
a massive pummeling of their ally? More specifically, would they enter the
war as they had done in North Korea? Or would they let the Vietnamese, for
centuries a traditional enemy, fend for themselves? The service chiefs had
considered these and similar questions, and had also asked the Central
Intelligence Agency for answers and estimates.
The CIA was of little help, although it produced reams of text, executive
summaries of the texts, and briefs of the executive summaries-all top
secret, all extremely sensitive, and all of little use. The principal
conclusion was that it was impossible to predict with any accuracy what the
Chinese or Russians might do.
Despite the lack of a clear-cut intelligence estimate, Admiral McDonald and
the other Joint Chiefs did what they were paid to do and reached a
conclusion. They decided unanimously that the risk of the Chinese or
Soviets reacting to massive US measures taken in North Viet¬nam was
acceptably low, but only if we acted without delay. Unfortunately, the
Secretary of Defense and his coterie of civilian "whiz kids" did not agree
with the Joint Chiefs, and McNamara and his people were the ones who were
actually steering military strategy. In the view of the Joint Chiefs, the
United States was piling on forces in Vietnam without understanding the
consequences. In the view of McNamara and his civilian team, we were doing
the right thing. This was the fundamental dispute that had caused the
Chiefs to request the seldom-used private audience with the Commander in
Chief in order to present their military recommendations directly to him.
McNamara had finally granted their request.
The 1965 Joint Chiefs of Staff had ample combat experience. Each was
serving in his third war. The Chairman was General Earle Wheeler, US Army,
highly regarded by the other members.
General Harold Johnson was the Army Chief of Staff. A World War II prisoner
of the Japanese, he was a soft-spoken, even-tempered, deeply religious man.
General John P. McConnell, Air Force Chief of Staff, was a native of
Arkansas and a 1932 graduate of West Point.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps was General Wallace M. Greene, Jr., A
slim, short, all-business Marine. General Greene was a Naval Academy
graduate and a zealous protector of the Marine Corps concept of controlling
its own air resources as part of an in¬tegrated air-ground team.
Last and by no means least was Admiral McDonald, a Georgia minister's son,
also a Naval Academy graduate, and a naval aviator. While Admiral McDonald
was a most capable leader, he was also a reluctant warrior. He did not like
what he saw emerging as a national commitment. He did not really want the
US to get involved with land warfare, believing as he did that the Navy
could apply sea power against North Vietnam very effectively by mining,
blockading, and assisting in a bombing cam¬paign, and in this way help to
bring the war to a swift and satisfactory conclusion.
The Joint Chiefs intended that the prime topics of the meeting with the
President would be naval matters-the mining and blockading of the port Of
Haiphong and naval support of a bombing campaign aimed at Hanoi. For that
reason, the Navy was to furnish a briefing map, and that became my
responsibility. We mounted a suitable map on a large piece of plywood, then
coated it with clear acetate so that the chiefs could mark on it with
grease pencils during the discussion. The whole thing weighed about 30
pounds.
The Military Office at the White House agreed to set up an easel in the Oval
Office to hold the map. I would accompany Admiral McDonald to the White
House with the map, put the map in place when the meeting started, then get
out. There would be no trap-hangers at the military summit meeting with
Lyndon Johnson.
The map and I joined Admiral McDonald in his staff car for the short drive
to the White House, a drive that was memorable only because of the silence.
My admiral was totally preoccupied.
The chiefs' appointment with the President was for two o'clock, and Admiral
McDonald and I arrived about 20 minutes early. The chiefs were ushered into
a fairly large room across the hall from the Oval Office. I propped the map
board on the arms of a fancy chair where all could view it, left two of the
grease pencils in the tray attached to the bottom of the board, and stepped
out into the corridor. One of the chiefs shut the door, and they conferred
in private until someone on the White House staff interrupted them about
fifteen minutes later. As they came out, I retrieved the map, then joined
them in the corridor outside the President's office.
Precisely at two o'clock President Johnson emerged from the Oval Office and
greeted the chiefs. He was all charm. He was also big; at three or more
inches over six feet tall and something on the order of 250 pounds, he was
bigger than any of the chiefs. He personally ushered them into his office,
all the while delivering gracious and solicitous comments with a Texas
accent far more pronounced than the one that came through when he spoke on
television. Holding the map board as the chiefs entered, I peered between
them, trying to find the easel. There was none. The President looked at me,
grasped the situation at once, and invited me in, adding, "You can stand
right over here." I had become an easel-one with eyes and ears.
To the right of the door, not far inside the office, large windows Framed
evergreen bushes growing in a nearby garden. The President's desk and
several chairs were farther in, diagonally across the room from the windows.
The President positioned me near the windows, then arranged the chiefs in a
semicircle in front of the map and its human easel. He did not offer them
seats: they stood, with those who were to speak- Wheeler, McDonald, and
McConnell-standing nearest the President. Paradoxically, the two whose
services were most affected by continuation of the ground buildup in
Vietnam-Generals Johnson and Greene-stood farthest from the President.
President Johnson stood nearest the door, about five feet from the map.
In retrospect, the setup-the failure to have an easel in place, the
positioning of the chiefs on the outer fringe of the office, the lack of
seating-did not augur well. The chiefs had expected the meeting to be a
short one, and it met that expectation. They also expected it to be of
momentous import, and it met that expectation, too. Unfortunately, it also
proved to be a meeting that was critical to the proper pursuit of what was
to become the longest, most divisive, and least conclusive war in our
nation's history-a war that almost tore the nation apart. As General Wheeler
started talking, President Johnson peered at the map. In five minutes or so,
the general summarized our entry into Vietnam, the current status of forces,
and the purpose of the meeting. Then he thanked the President for having
given his senior military advisers the opportunity to present their
opinions and recommendations. Finally, he noted that although Secretary
McNamara didn't subscribe to their views, he did agree that a presidential
level decision was required. President Johnson, arms crossed, seemed to be
listening carefully.
The essence of General Wheeler's presentation was that we had come to An
early moment of truth in our ever increasing Vietnam involvement. We had
to start using our principal strengths-air and naval power-to punish the
North Vietnamese, or we would risk becoming involved in another protracted
Asian ground war with no prospects of a satisfactory solution. Speaking for
the chiefs, General Wheeler offered a bold course of action that would avoid
protracted land warfare. He proposed that we isolate the major port of
Haiphong through naval mining, blockade the rest of the North Vietnamese
coastline, and simultaneously start bombing Hanoi with B-52's. General
Wheeler then asked Admiral McDonald to describe how the Navy and Air Force
would combine forces to mine the waters off Haiphong and establish a naval
blockade. When Admiral McDonald finished, General McConnell added that
speed of execution would be essential, and that we would have to make the
North Vietnamese believe that we would increase the level of punishment if
they did not sue for peace.
Normally, time dims our memories-but it hasn't dimmed this one. My memory
of Lyndon Johnson on that day remains crystal clear. While General Wheeler,
Admiral McDonald, and General McConnell spoke, he Seemed to be listening
closely, communicating only with an occasional nod. When General McConnell
finished, General Wheeler asked the President if he had any questions.
Johnson waited a moment or so, then turned to Generals Johnson and Greene,
who had remained silent during the briefing, and asked, "Do you fully
support these ideas?" He followed with the thought that it was they who
were providing the ground troops, in effect acknowledging that the Army and
the Marines were the services that had most to gain or lose as a result of
this discussion. Both generals indicated their agreement with the proposal.
Seemingly deep in thought, President Johnson turned his back on them for a
minute or so, then suddenly discarding the calm, patient demeanor he had
maintained throughout the meeting, whirled to face them and exploded.
I almost dropped the map. He screamed obscenities, he cursed them
personally, he ridiculed them for coming to his office with their "military
advice". Noting that it was he who was carrying the weight Of the free
world on his shoulders, he called them filthy names-****heads, dumb ****s,
pompous *******s-and used "the F- word" as an adjective more freely than a
Marine in boot camp would use it. He then accused them of trying to pass
the buck for World War III to him. It was unnerving, degrading.
After the tantrum, he resumed the calm, relaxed manner he had displayed
earlier and again folded his arms. It was as though he had punished them,
cowed them, and would now control them. Using soft-spoken profanities, he
said something to the effect that they all knew now that he did not care
about their military advice. After disparaging their abilities, he added
that he did expect their help.
He suggested that each one of them change places with him and assume That
five incompetents had just made these "military recommendations". He told
them that he was going to let them go through what he had to go through when
idiots gave him stupid advice, adding that he had the whole damn world to
worry about, and it was time to "see what kind of guts you have ". He
paused, as if to let it sink in. The silence was like a palpable solid, the
tension like that in a drumhead. After thirty or forty seconds of this, he
turned to General Wheeler and demanded that Wheeler say what he would do if
he were the President of the United States.
General Wheeler took a deep breath before answering. He was not an Easy man
to shake: his calm response set the tone for the others. He had known
coming in, as had the others, that Lyndon Johnson was an exceptionally
strong personality, and a venal and vindictive man as well. He had known
that the stakes were high, and now realized that McNamara had prepared
Johnson carefully for this meeting, which had Been a charade.
Looking President Johnson squarely in the eye, General Wheeler told him that
he understood the tremendous pressure and sense of responsibility Johnson
felt. He added that probably no other President in history had had to make
a decision of this importance, and further cushioned his remarks by saying
that no matter how much about the presidency he did understand, there were
many things about it that only one human being could ever understand.
General Wheeler closed his remarks by saying something very close to this:
"You, Mr. President, are that one human being. I cannot take your place,
think your thoughts, know all you know, and tell you what I would do if I
were you. I can't do it, Mr. President. No man can honestly do it.
Respectfully, sir, it is your decision and yours alone."
Apparently unmoved, Johnson asked each of the other Chiefs the same
question. One at a time, they supported General Wheeler and his rationale.
By now, my arms felt as though they were about to break. The map seemed to
weigh a ton, but the end appeared to be near. General Greene was the last to
speak.
When General Greene finished, President Johnson, who was nothing if not A
skilled actor, looked sad for a moment, then suddenly erupted again, yelling
and cursing, again using language that even a Marine seldom hears. He told
them he was disgusted with their naive approach, and that he was not going
to let some military idiots talk him into World War III. He ended the
conference by shouting "Get the hell out of my office!"
The Joint Chiefs of Staff had done their duty. They knew that the Nation
was making a strategic military error, and despite the rebuffs of their
civilian masters in the Pentagon, they had insisted on presenting the
problem as they saw it to the highest authority and recommending solutions.
They had done so, and they had been rebuffed.
That authority had not only rejected their solutions, but had also insulted
and demeaned them. As Admiral McDonald and I drove back to the Pentagon, he
turned to me and said that he had known tough days in his life, and sad ones
as well, but ". . . this has got to have been the worst experience I could
ever imagine."
The US involvement in Vietnam lasted another ten years. The irony is that
it began to end only when President Richard Nixon, after some backstage
maneuvering on the international scene, did precisely what the Joint Chiefs
of Staff had recommended to President Johnson in 1965. Why had Johnson not
only dismissed their recommendations, but also Ridiculed them? It must have
been that Johnson had lacked something. Maybe it was foresight or boldness.
Maybe it was the sophistication and understanding it took to deal with
complex international issues. Or, since he was clearly a bully, maybe what
he lacked was courage. We will never know. But had General Wheeler and the
others received a fair hearing, and had their recommendations received
serious study, the United States may well have saved the lives of most of
its more than 55,000 sons who died in a war that its major architect, Robert
Strange McNamara, now considers to have been a tragic mistake.
MARINE OFFICER UNIFORMS HARD TO TELL FROM ENLISTED, ETC.,
December 30 2006 at 10:00 AM No score for this post
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 68.184.88.13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MARINE OFFICER UNIFORMS HARD TO TELL FROM ENLISTED, ETC., by R.W. Gaines GySgt USMC (Ret.)
by Dick Gaines Dick Gaines (Login Dick Gaines)
Forum OwnerAd: Help Network54 find missing children
I have long known that the Marine dress blues were redesigned in 1947, but I was not aware of the reasons behind this. But alas, there is a story here too. Myself, I have always thought that the old blues blouse w/o the pockets looked better than the new version. I have mentioned this before on my sites and forums, and received a few responses from old salts stating that they had been issued old style blues after 1947, and most disagreed with my opinion preferring the appearance of the new blouse w/pockets.
Once again, a few facts related to the above have come to my attention from the writings of Colonel Robert Debs Heinl USMC (Ret.), deceased.
Col Heinl writes in his book, Soldiers Of The Sea, that in the years immediately following World War II, and during that period the :unification battle" where the Marine Corps was threatened with being legislated out of existence and/or being absorbed into the army, the War department had convened a board to survey the post-war lot of the enlisted man. The recommendation of this board, which Col Heinl describes as "mischievous and insofar as the regular forces were concerned." It called for an almost complete leveling between officers and enlisted men, with a concomitant abandonment of disciplinary traditions proven in peace and war. Saluting was to be 'deemphasized; officer and enlisted uniforms were to be made alike; badges of rank made small and inconspicuous; officer and NCO priviliges slashed. "From the "egaltarian tenor of the Doolittle report, one had the impressions of the peasants and workers remolding the Tsarist armies of the 1917. Everything was there but political commissars and comrades."
Col Heinl goes on to say that Marine uniforms were then made to make it difficult to tell officers from enlisted men,; officer-style pockets were put on redesigned enlisted blues; enlisted chevrons were kept small, and; the salty and distinctive barracks cap was abolished in favor of a more conservative one like the officers.
The Corps was almost forced to accept the Army ranks of master sergeant, technical sergeant, and staff sergeant, but accept them we did. It had been recommended that the rank titles of chief sergeant, sergeant ist, 2d, and 3d class be adopted, and this nearly came to be. No wonder the CMC accepted the Army rank titles as a compromise.
"That this stroke created a new Corps without gunnery sergeants and abolished rank titles in some cases going back to 1798 (such as quartermaster sergeant) was seemingly overlooked."
I take note here that the Marine Corps had indeed used the rank titles of M/Sgt, T/Sgt, and S/Sgt (among many others) for some years, but all of these mentioned were originally Army ranks. It was the Marine Corps who combined two of these previously Army ranks to create the Marine Master Technical Sergeant. And, of course the Master Gunnery Sergeant was a variation of both the uniquely Marine gunnery sergeant rank which dates to 1898, and the (Army) master sergeant rank.
-RWG
Surprising it is that these cases of political correctness, or just plain bullsh1t, depending upon your personal perception and choice of terms, seems to appear not only without end, but also almost without beginning--unless you would go back to the Garden of Eden.
Semper Fidelis
R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"From Marine Corps Book Of Lists...by Albert A. Nofi, Combined Publishing, 1999...
Two Presidents Who Were "Sort Of" Marines
1. John Adams. Appointed Minister to France, Adams was a passenger aboard the 24-gun frigate USS Boston en rote to France 15 February -31March 1778. During the voyage, the frigate came across a British mercantman. Boston's skipper decided to seize the British vessel. As the frigate cleared for action, her Marines were mustered on the deck. Adams fell in beside them with a musket in hand, but was ordered below by thecommanding officer. The British vessel shortly struck her colors without a shot having been fired."
