Posted on 06/04/2006 9:52:53 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Everyone has heard of the “killings at Haditha,” even though the military investigation of what happened there is still underway. Has anyone heard of the “killings at St. Lo” in July, 1944? A comparison of the New York Times coverage of those two events is instructive.
A Google News search of Haditha + killings + New York Times yields 891 hits as of Sunday noon. The articles on this subject in the Times are driving the national and international news in all media on this subject. The Times and its reporters are cited in most of these articles.
But what did the Times run about the killings at St. Lo in July, 1944?
It ran no stories, front page or otherwise, on St. Lo when it occurred. (Operation Cobra was intensive bombing by the US Air Force, in support of the effort to break out of St. Lo, and move against the Germans across France.)
The COBRA strikes killed slightly over 100 GIs and wounded about 500. Without a doubt, the strikes were badly executed, and serious command errors were made..... Finally, a formation of five medium bombers from the Ninth Air Force dropped seven miles north of the target, amid the 30th Infantry Division. This latter strike inflicted the heaviest casualties--25 killed and 131 wounded--on the first day that COBRA was attempted.
Lt. Gen. Leslie J. McNair, former Commander of Army Ground Forces and currently the "commander" of the fictional "1st Army Group," was killed in his foxhole by a direct bomb hit as he waited to observe the follow-up ground attack
No mention is made of French civilian casualties is made in this Air Force account of the “friendly fire” bombings around St. Lo, but surely there were many of those, also. Was the New York Times aware of this mass killing of American, British and Canadian troops, and of French civilians, a month after D-Day? How could it not be aware of an incident of this magnitude?
But what did the Times publish during the war about the killings at St. Lo? Nothing.
Why? Most likely because the then Editors of the Times realized that publishing that story then would have harmed the war effort. And defeating the Nazis was more important than revealing, then, the tragic mistakes that led to these killing. (BTW, the Air Force concluded that the off-target bombings were the fault of the weather, and mistakes made by certain pilots and officers in targeting, but no one was convicted in any Court Martial of any offense.)
What conclusion follows from the Times’ relentless coverage of Haditha, where the facts are not yet known, compared to its non-coverage of the huge military and civilian death toll at St. Lo? The logical conclusion is this is not your grandfather’s New York Times. That newspaper today is incapable of holding back a story that will get people killed. It is incapable, even, of holding the story until the facts are known.
The conclusion is that today’s Times is a willing participant in the effort to paint the entire American military as murderers. It should know better. Events like these happen in wartime, and non-combatants are killed, and Americans, along with a number of the enemy. The editorial policies of the Times today will certainly lead to the killing of more Americans. That was not the editorial policy of the Times during WW II.
Source for events at St. Lo: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-H-DDay/ This is an Air Force historian’s account of the use of air power for the D-Day invasion and beyond. The causes of the killings at St. Lo are described on pages 24-25.
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
John / Billybob
But what did the Times run about the killings at St. Lo in July, 1944?
It ran no stories, front page or otherwise, on St. Lo when it occurred. (Operation Cobra was intensive bombing by the US Air Force, in support of the effort to break out of St. Lo, and move against the Germans across France.)
__________________________________________________________
The US Air Force did not exist until September of 1947. Do you mean the Army Air Corp?
A lot of things were kept quiet in WWII. It had nothing to do with trying to fool the people. It had everything to do with achieving victory.
Not long ago I read about Rupert Murdochs father reporting during WWI at Gallipoli. Generals sat on ships off the coast drinking brandy as they sent wave after wave of men to die for an unattainable goal. Murdoch wrote his story but he didn't hand it to his newspaper, he gave it to military brass and kept his mouth shut untill the war was over.
Lesley McNair was responsible for one of the key aspects of US WWII forces:
In response to early German use of tanks in mass, he developed the concept of Tank Destroyers. These tank destroyers got first call on the larger, and more effective weapons. They had to support an attacking force, but but their tactical doctrine was largely defensive. Most had no coaxial or hull mounted machineguns.
McNair was adamant that tanks should not have larger tank killing weapons, but rather should have general purpose high explosive weapons useful for exploitation. If enemy tanks counterattacked, they US tanks were to fall back behind the tank destroyers.
Only after McNair died, were US Shermans provided with 76mm guns, and issued the more effective tungsten carbide armor penetration rounds that had been previously reserved for the tank destroyers.
I am not religious, but there is a case for special providence in the death of General McNair.
I don't want to have this misinterpreted. McNair's development of the Tank Destroyer force was crucial to US success in North Africa. The 75mm gun armed tank destroyer half track was the key element to US success in North Africa, one of the last German "mass tank" attacks. After that, the German counterattacks were mostly shorter, and had more infantry.
The German counteroffensive in the Ardennes was a key turning point in the west. Tank Destroyers were crucial to the delays in the Assault at St. Vith, Vielsalm, and Bastogne. US artillery had just recovered from congressional meddeling ("too much" 105 and 155 artillery in north africa led to cutbacks which affected Italy and Normandy.)
Outstanding... as usual! I hope you sent this to the Times.
I read this and wonder what I would have done in an area surrounded by enemies. Once maybe nothing, but again and again, I could have done the same thing. It would be like killing mosquitos, kill them all and not try to identify the one that bit you.
These guys are put into an impossible situation. Boots on the ground where boots are of no benefit. God Bless them and keep them.
Sorry, but this is operative issue. There is currently no war effort outside of the US military. WWII was completely different and the comparison was absurd.
It seems there are a lot of Freepers around trying to make this issue about the media and not about the incident. It might make you feel better, but it isn't going to change anything. The reality is that, indeed, these things happen in war. Civilian deaths happen in war. War crimes happen in war.
The incident needs to be fully vetted. The men accused are innocent until proven guilty, but the issue is the one at hand and not the media.
If you are a conservative who prides him/herself on calling things like they are, you will certainly recognize that this article is just a load of crap that is attempting to change the subject and does so with an incredibly lousy analogy.
"Insurgents in Haditha executed 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen in a sports stadium."
Our Marines did not kill these people.
The terrorists did.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005321.htm
I don't see how reporting on Haditha is treasonous behaviour.
I also stand by my original statement that comparing Iraq to WWII is absurd and incorrect in almost every manner save that both can be considered to have included combat zones.
Prior to WW2, it was called the U S Army Air Corps. Later in the war, it became the U S Army Air Forces.
Who wrote your tagline? Al Gore?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.