Pearl Harbor 68 year anniversary

Here is a photo of the beginning of the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor 68 years ago this morning. The photo depicts the plumes of water from torpedoes exploding as they hit U.S. battleships near Ford Island. The plumes in this photo appear to be rising near the West Virginia and the Oklahoma, both of which would sink relatively quickly that morning.

December 7, 1941



The photo was captured from the Japanese at the close of the war. I got it from Navsource.org.







Previous - a chilling story on board the West Virginia.

USS West Virginia; Clifford Olds; Ronald Endicott, Louis "Buddy" Costin; Ted Kennedy

One of the most chilling and horrifying stories I have ever read is a true story.

We all know what happened on December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor. We know the story of the Arizona. We have seen photos of the Arizona Memorial. We have seen movies dedicated to the loss of the Arizona and the other ships that day. But what you may not have heard is the story of Clifford Olds and his shipmates on board the USS West Virginia. That story is told on the pages of USSWestVirginia.org. Briefly, Clifford Olds and two of his shipmates were trapped in the lower decks of the battleship West Virginia ("WeeVee") when the attack started. The West Virginia was hit by numerous Japanese torpedoes and sank quickly:

The choicest of targets, she took 9 torpedo hits December 7, 1941. Her port side was literally blasted off. The USS Oklahoma, just ahead of the WV, suffered similar wounds and immediately capsized, but BB48 was of a more advanced water-tight construction. The fast thinking of Lt. Claude Ricketts (THE hero of this ship) prevented the Battleship from turning over. Instead, she settled in the mud on an even keel. This was accomplished by closing all hatch compartments and counter-flooding the starboard side of the ship in a procedure called "set zed". Every sailor knew fate could place them in a doomed area to be drowned like rats. Old Timers would tell 17 and 18 year old "boots" that if that time came "just inhale water quickly and get it over". This, the "grizzled Ones" claimed, was preferable to a slow death in a pitch-black void. For Clifford Olds(20), Ronald Endicott(18), and Louis "Buddy" Costin(21), this would tragically come to pass. Trapped in the forward fresh water pumping station known as area A-111, their fate was sealed when "set zed" was announced after the first Japanese torpedo struck shortly before 8am. Sinking straight down rather than "turning Turtle" enabled hundreds to escape. Those in the lower compartments were drowned, but Olds, Endicott and Costin were alive and well in their air-tight compartment at the bottom of the ship. They did not know what had happened, nor the extent of the carnage above them. Above deck, the Captain was disemboweled by a bomb blast and the Arizona's explosion 50 yards aft rained "Dante's Inferno" onto the WeeVee.

Over 100 died in every way possible. BB48 sank into the Harbor amid burning oil. She burned for 30 hours. When her fires were extinguished late Monday Dec. 8, Guards were posted on the shoreline of Ford Island, next to "Battleship Row". Jittery over rumors of invasion, Sentries at first didn't hear the noise. WeeVee Marine Bugler Dick Fiske recalls: "When it was quiet you could hear it...bang, bang, then stop. Then bang, bang, pause. At first I thought it was a loose piece of rigging slapping against the hull". Then I realized men were making that sound-taking turns making noise". After that night, no one wanted guard duty, but someone had to do it. Bang, bang. It went on for 16 days, slowing in frequency until Christmas Eve. Then silence. The adjacent Oklahoma was upside down and holes were drilled in her bottom to allow a precious few to escape their coffin. The pressure of water inside the hull, pushing up on air pockets, meant as soon as the hull was breached, little time was left before remaining air escaped. Shipmates often drowned in front of rescuers eyes before a hole could be made large enough for escape. Cutting torches ignited trapped gasses and exploded, killing more. Jack-hammers jammed and men drowned while looking at a small hole of light. Knowledgeable Mates quickly learned to "rip open" hull plates fast to insure victims survival. A macabre Naval "C-section" with the same purpose.

Olds, Endicott and Costin were sitting on the harbor floor completely surrounded by water, 40 feet down. Cutting through the side of the hull for rescue was out of the question. The smallest of holes in a pressurized compartment would cause a "blow-out", something Submariners knew well. Besides, considering the destruction and carnage above, the problems of three men didn't amount to a "hill of beans" to busy Navy Brass. All Sailors know they are expendable after "set zed". Concerned Shipmates pin-pointed their banging as coming from the bow section, but could do nothing. Clifford Olds' friend Jack Miller had a sinking feeling Olds was trapped. He knew the pump station well, as Cliff would often invite him there for "bull sessions". It was so air-tight, they often closed the hatch and dared people to hear them cursing wildly inside.

Late spring 1942 found Navy salvage teams finally getting to work on the WV. An Inventive series of tremic cement patches were fitted to her port side, and enough water pumped out to partially float the once grand ship. BB48 was nudged across the Harbor into drydock and the grim task of finding bodies began. For Commander Paul Dice, compartment A-111 was expected to be like the rest: Put on gas masks, place some goo into a bodybag and let the Medical boys worry about identification. They had seen it all, but this compartment was different. Dice first noticed the interior was dry and flashlight batteries and empty ration cans littered the floor. A manhole cover to a fresh water supply was opened. Then he saw the calendar. It was 12"x14" and marked with big red Xs that ended December 23. Hardened salvage workers wept uncontrollably as they realized the fate of these men. Word quickly spread among salvage crews: Three men had lived for 16 days to suffer the most agonizing deaths among the 2800 victims at Pearl Harbor.

emphasis added

The point is, these three men lived in an airtime room for 16 days underwater, while those above could not get to them. It would take months, as recounted above, for the salvage and rescue workers to raise the ship and reach their level. Read the whole thing.

USS West Virginia with crew members trapped below in the dark


Why do I write of this now? Why not wait until the next anniversary of Pearl Harbor? Because I cannot sit still while network hagiographers wax eloquent over Ted Kennedy and Republican apologists minimize the issues as mere "philosophical differences." Ted Kennedy's most famous crime, Chappaquiddick, was not a mere "philosophical difference." After reading of the "slow death in a pitch-black void" sufferred by the three young sailors barely younger than Mary Jo Kopechne, one cannot help but wonder about the person who would willingly subject someone to this fate.

Yes, it was an accident that the car went off the bridge. But it was no accident that Kennedy refused to demand help from every home in the vicinity while there was a chance to save the woman who most likely lived in an air pocket for hours. It was no accident. It was pure political calculation. Ted Kennedy calculated his political future and his ability to avoid blame while Mary Jo Kopechne slowly suffocated in a dark cramped space.

After Pearl Harbor, we did not rest until every Japanese ship that took part in the attack was sunk and the empire of Japan lay in ruins. Millions would die before we made peace. But for Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick, life continued on as before. He retained his power and his freedom. He is now an icon of the leftist establishment in this country.

As Kennedy's worst actions are dismissed as mere "disagreements," we must remember what is at stake. Kennedy advocates socialist/totalitarian policies. His policies infringe on our very core freedoms. We would not mourn the passing of a third world dictator. We should not do so merely because the totalitarian happens to have been born in the United States and is supported by a well funded totalitarian movement.

Ted Kennedy's fate is between Kennedy and God. I wish him the best in that regard. But we are under no obligation to pretend that the past did not happen. We must not create an idol where evil existed. History must not change because the establishment wills it. The king cannot compel a lie.

An Obama administration - surrender; Neville Chamberlain; Peace in Our Time

Go here to find the speech Neville Chamberlain presented to Parliament upon his return from England after surrendering to Hitler at Munich. This speech will give us a preview of the method Obama will use to explain the surrender of Iraq to Iran or some other ally to some other enemy. He will focus on the need for international control of the process as opposed to the pros and cons of losing an ally:

To those who dislike an ultimatum, but who were anxious for a reasonable and orderly procedure, every one of [the] modifications [of the Godesberg Memorandum by the Munich Agreement] is a step in the right direction. It is no longer an ultimatum, but is a method which is carried out largely under the supervision of an international body.

Nowhere does Chamberlain defend the occupation of a portion of Checkoslvakia by Germany. He simply focuses throughout his speech on the best way to accomplish that goal without the risk of "extremists" provoking a fight. We will hear more of this kind of talk over the next few years. Obama's main goal will be to pacify the rest of us while surrendering our strategic positions abroad and placing anti-American countries in positions of strength.

War of the World, Part II; Niall Ferguson; PBS; George Bernard Shaw; North Star; Kursk;

Click here for my notes on Part I of Niall Ferguson's PBS documentary, "War of the World." The documentary has drawn much crticism from conservatives because Ferguson is critical of various aspects of Western participation in the war.

PBS presented Part II of this documentary a few hours ago.

Part II does allege that some American soldiers shot wounded Japanese prisoners in retaliation for Japanese atrocities against Americans. Ferguson supports this charge with some film and eyewitness accounts of Charles Lindbergh. Ferguson partially blames these incidents for lengthening the war. He believes the Japanese fought with greater ferocity and refused to surrender on Okinawa because the Japanese believed they would be killed even if they surrendered.

Ferguson also sites allied bombing of civilian populations in Hamburg and Dresden. These incidents have been documented in books such as Advance to Barbarism (which I have not read).



But far more important than this aspect of Part II (which didn't show up until the second half of this evening's show) was Ferguson's treatment of Soviet Russia and its dealings with the West.

Conservatives have long maintained that Stalin's Soviet Union was protected and kept alive by western governments and western liberals since its inception, including time periods long before World War II (as well as during the war). Ferguson provides a rare discussion of only some of these facts. Ferguson shows film of leftist icon George Bernard Shaw (a founder of the modern socialist movement and all that the Western left considers holy) traveling to Stalin's Russia in 1931. While Ferguson does not mention the forced famine in the Ukraine at that time, he discusses much of the brutality that Stalin practiced. (Part I was also unkind to the Soviet Union in this fashion.) Ferguson states that Shaw checked his usual "cynicism" at the door when he entered Soviet Russia. Ferguson quotes Shaw's praise of Stalin.
























It is enjoyable to watch the true colors revealed on one of the left's favorite icons. Rather than criticize this documentary, conservatives should relish this part at least. We always knew leftist judgment to be impaired. Here we have a concrete example of a leftist being duped. More importantly, the left's veneration of this dupe calls into question the entire foundation of the modern leftist movement (as if we needed another reason to deride the leftists). George Bernard Shaw is as important to leftists of our era as Karl Marx or the New Deal. Learning of Shaw's admiration of Stalin is equivalent to discovering Barack Hussein Obama's co-dependant relationship with racists, terrorists and other assorted enemies of the U.S.

Ferguson goes on to describe only a small part of the military aid that the U.S. provided to the Soviet Union during the war. For years, the standard MSM/DNC line has been that the Russians won the war because they were patriotic and brave and they pulled together to defend their workers' paradise. Most history texts downplay the American contribution to the war relative the Soviet effort. In fact, millions of Russian soldiers surrendered to the Germans in the early part of the German invasion. Ferguson describes the Russian defeats in mid-1941 as the worst disaster in military history.

In contrast, the Western version of the war has always dovetailed with the pro-Soviet propaganda film The North Star. But for the first time that I have noticed, a mainstream source has showed the significant role played by United States "capital" in saving the Soviet Union.

More of the story of American capital saving the Soviet War effort has been known to conservatives through such books as "From Major Jordan's Diaries" for decades.



But now, Americans who have been misled by the Soviet-loving left can learn the truth also. Specifically, Ferguson shows how American military aid provided the crucial difference for the Soviets in the pivotal battle at Kursk.

American P-39 tank killer painted with Soviet insignia for use at Kursk

While most histories of WWII focus mainly on Nazi brutality (which Ferguson does also with gusto), "War of the World" focuses equally on Stalin's brutality against his own people and Soviet complicity in the start of war. Ferguson details the Soviet-Nazi deal to carve up Poland with Hitler and the resulting brutality on the Soviet side of the new Polish dividing line. Ferguson quotes Solzhenitsyn (usually forbidden in the MSM/DNC) as having characterized Stalin as paranoid to the point where he trusted only one person in his entire life - and that person was Hitler in the 1939 deal to carve up Poland. I would have liked to hear about the effect on the Western leftist movement of the announcement of the Hitler-Stalin pact, but it was only a one hour documentary.

Most important was the conclusion, in which Ferguson questioned who really won World War II. Given the Soviet's conquest of Eastern Europe at the end of the war and the communist conquest of China, it is clear the Soviets were the largest beneficiary of the war - a war that led directly to what we know as the Cold War. The Soviets had been pursuing the "Cold War" since the Bolshevik Revolution. Our own perspective on World War II has missed the point for 60 years. For the people of China (inter alia) 1945 was only a beginning - a beginning of more than a half century of totalitarian rule that may yet erupt into another major shooting war.

The War of the World presents a unique perspective on the 20th century (and even the 21st) that connects the dots and allows us to see the roots of the present crises.
-------------------------------------------
Part III.
--------------------------------
Visit counter added July 15, 2008

The War of the World; Niall Ferguson; PBS; The 100 years war.

The PBS documentary "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century" has generated some controversy this week, as conservatives have been critical that the documentary has attacked American war efforts in WWII. The documentary has been criticized for attacking America's alliance with Stalin.

I saw the first part of this series last night. Part I did not include most of World War II. Part I takes the viewer from the beginning of the 20th century through the beginning of WWII.

So far, the documentary has been somewhat instructive. The documentary was critical of the Bolshevik revolution, especially the brutality of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. The documentary pointed out that the Bolsheviks did not control the territory outside of the Russian cities for some time after the Bolshevik revolution. The narrator indicated that opposition forces were on the verge of deposing the Bolsheviks when the Bolsheviks reversed the course of the war by using "terrorist" tactics on their own people, including soldiers and farmers.

This harsh treatment of the Bolshevik revolution would never have been allowed in the western MSM/DNC when the Soviets still controlled Russia. I had heard of some of these facts, but never in a television documentary.

The documentary also spent a great deal of time on the Turkish persecution of Armenians and Greeks in the immediate aftermath of World War I. While the documentary did not explicitly point out that this persecution constituted muslim persecution of Christians, the existence of this story on PBS is new and significant.

The main point of Part I was the length of the wars of the 20th century. "The War of the World" views the 20th century wars as a 100 year war. The narrator deals with these wars as a continuation of the same war. For too long, we have tried to analyze these wars separately. In doing so, we miss the real causes of the wars. Authors analyze the pros and cons of World War II in a vacuum, thereby missing the real culprits, such as the rise of totalitarianism worldwide over a 20+ year period prior to the War and continuing well beyond the War's official "end." I have always believed that World War II was the hottest part of the Cold War, during which (and immediately afterward) the Soviets made their biggest territorial gains. We will see how the documentary treats that subject in Parts II and III.

The documentary analyzes the 20th century wars as part of a continuing battle between East and West. Will Durant's eleven volume series on the history of civilization does the same thing - and even traces the East vs. West conflict back to the Trojan War (circa 1100 B.C.). By using the East vs. West analysis, the currect conflict involving Islam (as well as issues relating to China) make more sense. The Cold War makes more sense when we see that its roots go back to World War I - instead of merely to the Berlin Wall or Korea.

Part I was deficient in that the author appeared to be too rooted in socialism, including fawning attention to H.G Wells. But this is to be expected on PBS (and almost all television in general).

The author also could have easily tied WWI to the financial crises of the 1920's and 1930's. The connections definitely exist and would prove the author's point even more strongly. The timeline runs basically as follows: (1) World War I and the financial bubble that paid for it led utlimately to the financial collapse in the West that we refer to as the Great Depression (1929 - ?) (the collapse began earlier in Europe). (2) The economic upheaval of the 1920's and 1930's in Europe and the West led to the rise of Hitler and Japanese expansion, which the remaining powers did not have the will to resist (due to the economic upheaval) until it was too late to avert another war. When combined with the rise of Soviet Russia (a direct result of WWI), the perfect storm was created.

For more on the effect of the bubble and its roots in WWI and its consequences in the Great Depression, see Garet Garrett's "The Bubble that Broke the World."



See "America's Great Depression" for a detailed discussion of how the bubble led to our own depression.



Both of these books hold implications for our current economic situation.

While the PBS documentary misses that point, the pros outweigh the cons thus far. "The War of the World" can be a beginning point for a greater understanding of the past 100 years.
----------------------------------------
visit counter added July 1, 2008
----------------------------------------



-------------------------------------------------
Part II of War of the World

New York Times on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising

Thanks to "Death by 1000 Papercuts" for alerting me to The People's Cube version of a hypothetical New York Times front page from the Warsaw ghetto uprising during World War II.


My question is, why didn't the New York Times actually use these headlines in 1943? We know that the Times writes today's stories that way - equating good with evil, blaming both sides, accusing those who defend themselves of overreacting, siding with U.S. enemies, etc. etc.

The accepted version of media history is that organizations such as the New York Times were patriotic during World War II and became "skeptical" of the government during Vietnam and Watergate. Establishment historians note the general supportive attitude of newspapers during WWII. The same historians note rising "skepticism" over the following two decades on the part of the media and attribute such skepticism to misconduct on the part of the American government.

In fact, the New York Times has been part of the fifth column since before World War II. But there was a very good reason that the Times (and others) did not oppose official U.S. interests during WWII. The New York Times' version of the ghetto uprising would have been just as bad as it is depicted on the above graphic had the uprising occurred two years earlier.

Prior to June 1941, Germany was allied with the Soviet Union. In June 1941, the Germans invaded the Soviet Union and threatened the workers paradise so admired by the left. The New York Times turned against Germany not out of a sense of patriotism or a lack of "skepticism," but out of loyalty to the Soviet Union. The Times and other media outlets saw a threat to their real ally. The U.S. just happened to be on the same side - thus making the Times appear patriotic.

Had Germany and the Soviet Union remained allied during the entire war, the Times' coverage of the war would have been very different. The graphic above is a good example. Leftist historians would today refer to WWII as a boondogle, where America learned the "limits of imperialism." Today, we would constantly hear warnings about not getting into "another WWII."

There is no real difference between the NY Times of Walter Duranty's day and the New York Times of today. The war coverage seems different because today we don't have the Soviet Union on our side to keep our newspapers loyal.