A year ago, while trying to slam on retired General Wesley Clark, Bill O’Reilly tried to argue that Abu Ghraib is nothing new, citing to the massacre at Malmedy. Numerous rumblings were made at the time, with people giving O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he had simply been mistaken.
Last week, when interviewing Clark again, O’Reilly repeated his mistake (this time in discussing the events at Haditha) and went so far as to describe how terrible it was for the American soldiers to have gunned down SS troops at Malmedy: “In Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed, and they shot them down. You know that. It’s on the record, been documented.” The mistake of last October wasn’t just a mistake – it was yet another of O’Reilly’s “facts”.
In reality, the SS under Joachim Peiper gunned down U.S. troops and left them in a field – more than half had been shot in the head. O’Reilly faced more heat on this, but his reaction was to claim falsely that his point was that the Germans who did the massacre at Malmedy were later on executed by Americans. Fox News then scrubbed its transcripts and had O’Reilly stating tha it was “Normandy” before changing it back to “Malmedy” again. This leaves some questions:
Why is Bill O’Reilly, the favorite poster boy for all good Republicans, claiming that the 84 dead Americans (the guys who were murdered by Germans) are war criminals? Not once but twice he made this claim. These guys cannot defend themselves from O’Reilly’s slanders, so it’s up to Olbermann and others to call O’Reilly out on this.
Why is GOP favorite Bill O’Reilly then claiming that his point is that his outrage is actually aimed at the supposed execution of SS troops involved in the Malmedy massacre? (I suppose O’Reilly thinks it is a tragedy that Nazis war criminals might face execution, but of course from the actual text of what O’Reilly has said it is clear he was talking about Americans murdering SS POWs at Malmedy.)
Why is this guy who’s so determined to slam dead American servicemen (once could be a mistake, twice not) still on the air?
Why can’t O’Reilly (or other Republicans), when caught in an out-and-out whopper ever just sit back and say “sorry,” “my ooops,” etc.?
Why not sign a petition if Fox News cannot do the right thing and get this America-hating jackass off the air?
Looks like even O’Reilly’s excuse that he was “actually” referring to the killing of German SS soldiers after the Malmedy killings doesn’t even hold water. Here’s an excerpt of one helpful article summarizing the post-Malmedy trials of SS soldiers tied to the murders of U.S. servicemen:
The SS soldiers were basically released with, at worst, a 10-year sentence for their murders. Why on earth does Fox let O’Reilly: 1) twice label the victims falsely as killers in the situation; and 2) falsely claim as an “explanation” his outrage that the SS murderers were ultimately executed.
For a more complete account of the murdered U.S. servicemen that O’Reilly has twice falsely accused of war crimes, check out the full article.
This goes a long way towards explaining why the Republicans can’t stand the idea of American troops getting armored vehicles or adequate body armor … and shows a very typical example of how Republicans can never admit any mistake ever.
This from someone who defends Carter as a president? as an ex-president? :loco:[/quote]
Now, that is a classic example of a “spookism” if ever there was.
And of course, who was the prime defender of the SS? Why, that icon of conservatism , Joe McCarthy- I mean, what’s wrong with murdering US POWs in cold blood, as long as it’s done by fellow-righties?
[quote]Cavuto: Media biased if they cover Iraqi insurgency, biased if they don’t
Summary: On Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto complained that "the media is all over" the alleged Haditha killings but that there has been "virtually no coverage of the daily savage attacks by insurgents on Iraqi civilians and our troops." Onscreen text during the segment read: "Blatant Bias?" But Cavuto has previously alleged that "all you see in the media out of Iraq are the insurgent activity, our soldiers getting killed or hurt." In fact, he recently asked if "beheadings and roadside bombs, suicide attacks" in Iraq are "being blown out of proportion by the media." Onscreen text during this segment read: "Media Bias?"[/quote]
The preferred Fox news story from Iraq is “and today, in Baghdad- WE INTERRUPT THIS STORY TO REPORT FROM MASSACHUSETTS THAT TWO GUYS NAME STEVE ARE GETTING MARRIED- followed up with a fair and balanced round table featuring James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to explain why this is all Bill Clinton’s fault.”
Interesting thing is that O’Reilly would not be the first to try to scream that it was the SS who were the “victims” of Malmedy. In the post-World War II era, there were investigations based on wild allegations that the confessions obtained in the 1946 war crimes trials were obtained from “Jewish prosecutors” who supposedly tortured the SS vets into admitting an imagined Malmedy massacre. Joe McCarthy jumped on this bandwagon for a while (Wisconsin having a large German-American population) and tried to run investigations until it became clear that the anti-semitic allegations were false.
O’Reilly’s views would also be highly consistent with those of other Republican mainstays in hating our nation – popular and influential (among Republicans) conservative radio host Hal Turner has been very supportive of skinheads gunning down our judges, David Duke of course, G. Gordon Liddy (the “G” is for the G-men he wants to have shot in the head), and Ann “McVeigh did nothing wrong” Coulter.
To see a further examination of the issue with an update, check out this video
Knowing that O’Reilly had already twice falsely stated that it was U.S. soldiers who had killed SS prisoners of war at Malmedy, knowing that he had lied subsequently about the actual content of his statements, knowing that Fox had temporarily scrubbed “Malmedy” from show transcripts and replaced it with “Normandy”, I felt this needed a bit of a closer look.
A review of the 11th Armored’s after-action reports shows no unusual activity, and a search has found no substantiation of these claims. During the period after which the Malmedy bodies were found (Feb-April 1945), the 11th Armored’s records indicate mass desertions and surrenders from the German Army with fairly minimal dead on both sides. During the period before, nothing out of the ordinary was reported. So, what on earth is O’Reilly doing here? Using his column to libel American vets to paint them as murderers of German POWs? But let’s read on…
There was a reason for that. The Japanese didn’t let themselves be taken prisoner – saving their last bullets for themselves, clustering tightly around their final grenades, making futile final bayonet charges, and so on. Beyond the Bushido Code concepts of dishonor, the Japanese soldiers had years of being told what horrible things the U.S. soldiers would do if they were captured. While this ensured that nearly no POWs were ever taken at the end of each battle, those few that were captured (usually by having been knocked unconsious) had no idea of how to behave once captured, often resulting in their instant collaboration with efforts to pinpoint strongholds, propaganda broadcasts, etc. Getting back to the point, O’Reilly here implies few Japanese prisoners were taken because U.S. soldiers killed them. The inconvenient truth for O’Reilly is that the Japanese soldiers took their own deaths into their own hands.
The folks back home probably never heard about these things because O’Reilly is again making stuff up.
Actually, I think it fair to say that among the Australian soldiers at least, knocking off Japanese POWs was par for the course. Statistically a very small number of Japanese captured at the front ever made it back to the rear. This is one of the very few possible measures of this sort of thing and it’s loud and clear - x number caught, x number received at rear bases. Sorry, I have seen these figures in articles before but that was pre-internet and I’d have no idea where to find them now.
It was also explained to me that given the relatively poor logistics available to a small and fluid force like the Australains were forced to field in the likes of New Guinea and Borneo, POWs were an unnecessary burden. The Australians were also aware of the treatment of their POWs by the Japanese. Add to this the heavy role of racism in spurring on the war effort and I’m afraid love of thy fellow human left the scene rather quickly.
I have also heard claims the Australians were well known for knocking off POWs in WWI. Indeed my grandfather told a truly brutal tale regarding the fate of a group of Turks captured after the Charge on Bersheeba.
In my brief stint in the Australian military it was explained to me that while we do take prisoners on excersise, in real life this might not be practical.
Well actually Tigerman, I was also going to mention the fact that while the Australian army didn’t shoot deserters, the practice of soldiers shooting soldiers that endangered the lives of others through inability was also widespread - not in a formal execution sense, but rather offing them when the bullets started flying. If you think about it, if they were willing to shoot their own, what chance a Japanese?
More on killing Japanese POWs, it is a fairly standard sub-theme in Australian films about WWII, which to me indicates how widespread this is known.
You guys have got it all wrong. War is great. It’s good for business, keeps the country united, and anyway, most of these “victims” were having a crap time anyway, and are delighted to be liberated. Plus, what do people in the army expect? If you don’t want to be sent far away and shot at, then don’t join the army.
Well, I’ve gotten from them an interesting view of what Aussies did while they fought mopping-up actions in the islands the USMC had already leapfrogged. However, it’s still a strange thing that O’Reilly wants to keep making false claims about our WWII troops, basically trying to sully them when they’re round about 80+ years old and perhaps not easily able to defend themselves.
O’Reilly wants to trash-talk the 11th Armored vets? Considering he’s been asserting as a “documented fact” that the U.S. soldiers were killing his beloved unarmed SS troopers at Malmedy, I don’t believe him. He said it twice, then lied about what he said, and now is trying to throw new mud on our vets.
He wants to trash-talk our troops serving in the Pacific? Screw O’Reilly. At the end of each battle on those Pacific-island dots, there were caves and foxholes filled with the bodies of suicided Japanese troops, beaches littered with the bodies of last-ditch bayonet charges by half-starved Japanese troops, and hardly any POWs.
Funny thing is that O’Reilly just wells up with sympathy for those poor, wittle SS troops (who actually killed our boys at Malmedy) and those poor, wittle Japanese troops (who starved, beat, bayoneted and experimented upon American POWs in camps all over Asia), that he’s been willing to lie his ass off about our vets. In O’Reilly’s bizarre world, what the Japanese and Nazis did to our troops is equivalent to his imagined ideas about what the U.S. troops may have done in the heat/fog of battle … and that the abuses of Abu Ghraib are a natural extension of what the U.S. has “always done”.
Surrendering of individual soldiers on a battlefield is always highly risky – it’s not like raising your hands is going to magically stop the bullets in mid-flight or stop anybody’s itchy trigger fingers. However, if anyone is really are determined to join O’Reilly in crapping on our WWII vets in some imagined support for the GOP, then I guess they won’t be deterred by facts.
[quote]By contrast, a sense of despair seemed to spread among the defenders. They had shot down the Marines at every turn, but with every fallen Marine, another would appear, rifle blazing, well supported by artillery and naval guns. The great Yogaki plan seemed a bust. Only a few aircraft attacked the island each night; the transports were never seriously threatened. The Japanese fleet never materialized. Increasingly Japanese troops began committing suicide rather than risk capture.
Of the Japanese, the groups of approximately 15 seamen posted as lookouts on East and West Island in the Tarawa Atoll were killed during the enemy’s landing on the 21st. Nearly all of the 4,700 Men on the atoll died in action or committed suicide. Only 146 men, predominantly Korean laborers attached to the construction unit, fell prisoner.
Of the 146 that surrendered included were one officer (Kamae, mentioned above) two were known members of the 3d Special Base Force Seaman Tadao Onnuki and PO2c Aado Onoki. Onnuki who was captured while dazed.
(Col. Joseph Alexander’s notes on the Battle of Tarawa)[/quote]
Perhaps O’Reilly can vent on this guy as well.
However, for those O’Reilly fans who really hate our aging vets (as these guys are probably “inconvenient” from the standpoint of social security statistics or GOP efforts to slash VA hospital budgets), here’s an entire book dedicated to the subject:
[quote]Japan’s no-surrender policy did not permit becoming a POW. Sakamaki and his fellow soldiers and sailors had been indoctrinated to choose between victory and a heroic death. While his comrades had perished, he had survived. By avoiding glorious death and becoming a prisoner of war, Sakamaki believed he had brought shame and dishonor on himself, his family, his community, and his nation, in effect relinquishing his citizenship. Sakamaki fell into despair and, like so many Japanese POWs, begged his captors to kill him.
Based on the author’s interviews with dozens of former Japanese POWs along with memoirs only recently coming to light, The Anguish of Surrender tells one of the great unknown stories of World War II. Beginning with an examination of Japan’s prewar ultranationalist climate and the harsh code that precluded the possibility of capture, the author investigates the circumstances of surrender and capture of men like Sakamaki and their experiences in POW camps.
Many POWs, ill and starving after days wandering in the jungles or hiding out in caves, were astonished at the superior quality of food and medical treatment they received. Contrary to expectations, most Japanese POWs, psychologically unprepared to deal with interrogations, provided information to their captors. Trained Allied linguists, especially Japanese Americans, learned how to extract intelligence by treating the POWs humanely. Allied intelligence personnel took advantage of lax Japanese security precautions to gain extensive information from captured documents. A few POWs, recognizing Japan’s certain defeat, even assisted the Allied war effort to shorten the war. Far larger numbers staged uprisings in an effort to commit suicide. Most sought to survive, suffered mental anguish, and feared what awaited them in their homeland. The Anguish of Surrender: Japanese POWs in World War II[/quote]
Yeah, go ahead… let’s just see O’Reilly and his fans keep thrashing about trying to pretend our WWII vets were no better than thugs. Shame on O’Reilly.
:loco: