Former POWs now eligible for posthumous Purple Hearts

[soccermark23]

Former POWs now eligible for posthumous Purple Hearts
by Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

10/8/2008 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- A policy change to expand eligibility for the Purple Heart award to prisoners of war who died in captivity represents the right decision that recognizes their sacrifice, a senior defense official said.

Pentagon officials announced the new policy Oct. 6 that will extend criteria for receiving Purple Hearts to prisoners of war who have died in captivity since the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

"The Purple Heart is an award worn with great pride and recognizes that the servicemember has been wounded or killed as a result of enemy action," said Samuel Reterford, the Pentagon's deputy director of officer personnel management.

The revision maintains the integrity of the award while allowing a reasonable presumption that servicemembers who die in captivity did so as a result of enemy action or complicity, he said.

Mr. Reterford noted that the conditions and circumstances of capture and captivity are difficult to document. But unless compelling evidence indicates otherwise, the policy assumes that the death resulted from enemy action or from wounds incurred as a result of enemy action during capture.

The new policy will allow retroactive award of the Purple Heart to qualifying POWs since World War II. This will cover the large number of American POWs who died in captivity during that war, Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said.

Extension of the Purple Heart to these POWs does not constitute dual recognition for the same act or service, Ms. Lainez emphasized.

"The POW Medal recognizes honorable service for members who endure the trials and tribulations associated with being a POW," she said. "The Purple Heart recognizes servicemembers who are wounded or killed in action with the enemy or as a result of enemy action."

Each military department will publish application procedures for retroactive Purple Heart awards. Family members with questions may contact the services directly: Air Force, 800-616-3775; Army, 703-325-8700; Navy, 314-592-1150; Marine Corps, 703-784-9340.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123118859

I found this article on the Air Force web site and thought it to be very appropriate for our little forum. I have to say that I agree with the decision and the reasoning behind extending the award to those who died in POW Camps. No, we will never know all of the exact circumstances for each and every service-member who died in these scenarios, but I believe, more often then not, that their deaths could be directly linked to actions of their captors.

[FeelinFroggy]

I found this article on the Air Force web site and thought it to be very appropriate for our little forum. I have to say that I agree with the decision and the reasoning behind extending the award to those who died in POW Camps. No, we will never know all of the exact circumstances for each and every service-member who died in these scenarios, but I believe, more often then not, that their deaths could be directly linked to actions of their captors. I agree. Like you said, we may not know the circumstances under which caused their deaths, but they died for their country nonetheless.

[SlightlyCatholic]

It's an unfortunate fact that we can rely on other nations to not play by the rules when it comes to treating our captured military members in a humane way. Those who died in POW camps simply weren't treated well and were subjected to violence, and that should be enough to earn them Purple Hearts. It's good to see them awarded.

[HairyEyeball]

It's an unfortunate fact that we can rely on other nations to not play by the rules when it comes to treating our captured military members in a humane way. Those who died in POW camps simply weren't treated well and were subjected to violence, and that should be enough to earn them Purple Hearts. It's good to see them awarded.

On precisely what do you base this broad generalization? There was a world of difference, for example, between WW II German and Japanese prison camps - one example (from Stalag XII-B) being the fact that the although the 'guests of the Bohemian paperhanger' may have received slim rations, they were not all that different from those of the guards, and the only reported 'violence' was during a 'mission' to clear a bombed city, when a teenaged guard struck a POW's steel helmet as the individual picked up the twisted remains of a rifle from the rubble...which may be understandable, under the circumstances.

Many of the senior officers in charge of German POW camps were professional soldiers with the same standards of conduct and honor we expect from our own officers, and, especially late in the war, most of the guards teenagers and soldiers invalidated out of combat. There was - literally - a world of difference between concentration camps and POW camps. Please do not confuse the two. Obviously, the same 'western' standards did not apply to Japan, Korea or Vietnam, nor do they apply to terrorists of the factions we are at currently at war with.

[SGM]

On precisely what do you base this broad generalization? There was a world of difference, for example, between WW II German and Japanese prison camps - one example (from Stalag XII-B) being the fact that the although the 'guests of the Bohemian paperhanger' may have received slim rations, they were not all that different from those of the guards, and the only reported 'violence' was during a 'mission' to clear a bombed city, when a teenaged guard struck a POW's steel helmet as the individual picked up the twisted remains of a rifle from the rubble...which may be understandable, under the circumstances.

Many of the senior officers in charge of German POW camps were professional soldiers with the same standards of conduct and honor we expect from our own officers, and, especially late in the war, most of the guards teenagers and soldiers invalidated out of combat. There was - literally - a world of difference between concentration camps and POW camps. Please do not confuse the two. Obviously, the same 'western' standards did not apply to Japan, Korea or Vietnam, nor do they apply to terrorists of the factions we are at currently at war with.

Valid points made. I don't think a broad blanket can be thrown over the POW situation or then it just makes the PH another blanket covering medal.

[SlightlyCatholic]

On precisely what do you base this broad generalization? There was a world of difference, for example, between WW II German and Japanese prison camps - one example (from Stalag XII-B) being the fact that the although the 'guests of the Bohemian paperhanger' may have received slim rations, they were not all that different from those of the guards, and the only reported 'violence' was during a 'mission' to clear a bombed city, when a teenaged guard struck a POW's steel helmet as the individual picked up the twisted remains of a rifle from the rubble...which may be understandable, under the circumstances.

Many of the senior officers in charge of German POW camps were professional soldiers with the same standards of conduct and honor we expect from our own officers, and, especially late in the war, most of the guards teenagers and soldiers invalidated out of combat. There was - literally - a world of difference between concentration camps and POW camps. Please do not confuse the two. Obviously, the same 'western' standards did not apply to Japan, Korea or Vietnam, nor do they apply to terrorists of the factions we are at currently at war with.

I was simply asserting that there have existed and do exist nations that don't treat POWs the way they should. I'm not saying every POW camp is like that, or that every officer that runs a POW camp is the spawn of Satan. If a Prisoner of War dies in a prisoner of war camp, it's fairly reasonable to assume that it's because they weren't treated as they should have been. Proper medical care would have curbed most illnesses and injuries, unless those services were cut off to captured military personnel.

The active ignorance of someone's pain is the same as shooting them, and that is my rationale for asserting that someone who dies in a POW camp should receive a Purple Heart. A wound is a wound, whether the wounding is active or passive.

[HairyEyeball]

You're still missing the point.

What you may have thought you were 'asserting' is not what you wrote, and very few here read minds. You are also compounding the felony by assuming anything: People in POW camps are as likely to die of 'natural causes' as people in the comfort of their own homes - they do so every day; not all POW deaths are directly attributable to 'intent' or lack of proper medical care.

Yes, there are nations and ideologies alien to ours, which have merited the title 'barbaric', but your blanket 'rationale' reeks of sophomoric arrogance...and you still have not provided a basis for such.

[SlightlyCatholic]

What you may have thought you were 'asserting' is not what you wrote, and very few here read minds.

You have a valid point. I should have been more clear the first time, my apologies.

You are also compounding the felony by assuming anything: People in POW camps are as likely to die of 'natural causes' as people in the comfort of their own homes - they do so every day; not all POW deaths are directly attributable to 'intent' or lack of proper medical care.

Could you please cite your information? I'm not being a smart ass, I just need to see facts to back this up. Also, since the military has its own age limits and physical/medical excellence standards, I doubt anybody captured behind enemy lines would die of natural causes. Again, if you can give facts here to prove me wrong, then by all means do so.

Yes, there are nations and ideologies alien to ours, which have merited the title 'barbaric', but your blanket 'rationale' reeks of sophomoric arrogance...and you still have not provided a basis for such.

I don't see where I'm being arrogant. I realize I haven't BTDT, and I've never been to a POW camp. With that said, I just think that if POW camps don't do everything in their power to provide for the health of their captives, then they're doing a human disservice to them. Again, I see that on the same level as actively harming someone. Will there be pre-existing issues present that may cause some people to die anyway? Sure, but that's not dying from "natural causes."

[PhilK]

Could you please cite your information? I'm not being a smart ass, I just need to see facts to back this up. Also, since the military has its own age limits and physical/medical excellence standards, I doubt anybody captured behind enemy lines would die of natural causes. Again, if you can give facts here to prove me wrong, then by all means do so.


I've never been in a POW camp, but I know of numerous Soldiers who have died suddenly due to heart attacks. One was even in my Troop as we prepared for a deployment. We had gone through two physical exams, he was over 40 so he had gotten an "extra" exam, but that didn't detect his heart condition.

I released the Troop for a 48 hour pass and the next morning his Platoon Leader was calling me telling me he had died that night.

We had been doing PT, training and everything else that normal Soldiers do. He was not overweight, and as far as I know did not have a history of hear conditions in his family, but that didn't stop his heart from giving out.

That is the one, and hopefully only, time that I have to give a flag to a weeping family member.

[HairyEyeball]

You have a valid point. I should have been more clear the first time, my apologies.

Could you please cite your information?

I went to the source: My late father, the cited 'guest of the Bohemian paper hanger', and members of his Key Chapter, American Ex-Prisoners of War. I was honored to attend many of their functions, and on other occasions spoke with these former POWs of their experiences in German, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese camps. Where did you get your 'information'?

I don't see where I'm being arrogant.

You wouldn't.

I realize I haven't BTDT...

But many of us have, and understand the arrogance of youth and ignorance. As you gain in knowledge and experience, and possibly wisdom, you may eventually see the you of now from that perspective.

[wukong]

One aspect of this discussion that needs to be addressed is that the PH is awarded for wounds due to combat action and not environmental effects. Many of the soldiers at Battle of the Bulge suffered grievously from the environment, however these "wounds" were not grounds for the award of a PH. Neither should the environment of a POW camp be the source of a PH.

[SlightlyCatholic]

If a POW developes malaria while in captivity and the captors withhold essential medication and he dies from it, how is that any different that them going up to the prisoner in question and shooting him in the head? They're both ways of the enemy getting the better of the prisoner of war and wounding him. Also, what defines combat action? Can a prisoner of war who refuses to answer questions be considered to be "combatting" the enemy?

[FeelinFroggy]

3. Criteria: a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force who, while serving with the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded;

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States;

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged;

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party;

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces;

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force;

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the department concerned, or jointly by the Secretaries of the departments concerned if persons from more than one department are wounded in the attack; or,

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations, while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

(8) After 7 December 1941, by weapon fire while directly engaged in armed conflict, regardless of the fire causing the wound.

(9) While held as a prisoner of war or while being taken captive.

b. A wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer. So you see, there are many ways one could earn the PH.

Please note number (9) While held as a prisoner of war or while being taken captive

My source is http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ph.shtml

[FeelinFroggy]

This site may also answer some questions:
http://www.purpleheart.org/Membership/Public/BecomeAMember/Eligibility.aspx

[HairyEyeball]

Tim, you're hypothesizing clearly defined, controlled situations in full 'what if' mode, and such rarely exist in the real world. The parameters quoted for the award are fairly comprehensive, but in point of fact are influenced by a plenitude of 'external' factors. The key, however, is 'wounds or death attributable to enemy action' - not, as you posit, 'inaction'. If such were to exist, one might have to consider if such treatment was available, and to what extent: Should the disease exist, and there is a shortage of drugs, is the camp administration to be faulted for treating its own troops, or as many of them as possible, first? You also posit from a nation that has not known the shortages imposed on less bountiful ones, and cannot comprehend the circumstances in a nation at war - especially one facing massive shortages of basic human needs and certain defeat.

Curiosity is a fine thing, and the key to knowledge, but you might find more 'profit' - certainly more knowledge - pursuing more practical (and less abstruse) lines of questioning.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Tim, you're hypothesizing clearly defined, controlled situations in full 'what if' mode, and such rarely exist in the real world.

Unless we all plan on taking a field trip to a POW camp sometime soon, I think all we can do is deal with hypothetical situations (unless you can provide a real life example regarding this topic). The real world hasn't afforded anyone here the unpleasant experience of being a POW, so we have to speculate.

The key, however, is 'wounds or death attributable to enemy action' - not, as you posit, 'inaction'.

I understand that. What I'm arguing for is that inaction is in itself an action, in the case that the enemy makes an assertive decision not to provide for the well being of the prisoner. I'm not looking at extenuating circumstances, and I don't think that's needed. All I want to know is why, in a situation where captors have full access to care for prisoners and DON'T, that's not considered the same as actively harming the prisoners.

[FeelinFroggy]

On the topic of the environment causing wounds/death, I interpret the criteria to mean that ONLY if the environment is used directly as a weapon by the captors can one achieve The Purple Heart. By using the environment as a weapon I mean instances where the captors intentionally put the captives in surroundings that they KNOW will cause them harm.

[wukong]

So you see, there are many ways one could earn the PH.

Please note number (9) While held as a prisoner of war or while being taken captive

My source is http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ph.shtml

What has been conveniently omitted is:

(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

(b) Heat stroke.

(c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

(e) Battle fatigue.

(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.

(i) Post traumatic stressdisorders.

(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action.

(6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria. Note the following examples:

(a) In a case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down by enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made.

(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.

(c) Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.

www.americal.org/awards/ph.htm

From a historical aspect, Washington did not award PH to those who died or were injured aboard English prison ships. The current list is very liberal in the award of a PH. When one attempts to expand the list, a Pandora's Box of convenient exceptions will appear. I believe the consensus of those of us who have been around for a while in the business is that this award should be left alone.

[FeelinFroggy]

Nothing was omitted, the second link I posted had the full criteria. The key words in the criteria you quoted are "NOT CAUSED BY ENEMY ACTION". If an enemy force puts you in a freezer in the hopes that you die or get wounded, and you end up getting severe frost bite, I consider that direct action from the enemy. The environment can, sometimes, be more efficient a weapon than any firearm, depending on the circumstances.

I believe the consensus of those of us who have been around for a while in the business is that this award should be left alone. I've been "around for a while" and don't agree.

[StarLifter]

Also, a back-up to what was stated regarding natural cause deaths while in POW camps:

People do die of heart attacks at any age. I have a friend who was in the AF, and discharged after having a heart attack in which the only reason she's still alive is because another member of her unit was there to start CPR and start that chain of survival. That friend happens to be a whole 20 years old.

AAAs, or abdominal aortic aneurisms, happen on a stressed body without warning, bleed out in less than 5 minutes, and nothing short of a surgical team on the patient within 2 minutes will save said patient.

Strokes can happen at any age, especially with smokers.

Cancer is a natural killer that isn't detected unless searched for.

There are dozens of bugs, viruses, bacteria, etc that might not affect the local populace but would affect someone not from the area. Because they might not affect the local populace, the locals might not have medicines to treat diseases they are not likely to have -- much the same reason we stopped looking for treatments to polio after it ceased to exist in the US.

There are many, many ways that a person can die and it not be the result of enemy action or, for that matter, inaction.

-- StarLifter

[SlightlyCatholic]

An example from a report on the Bataan Death March:

From the beginning, the captured American and Filipino soldiers experienced no compassion from the Japanese. The soldiers were already weakened by disease and lack of food. Anyone who fell to the side of the road because of dehydration or disease was either shot or bayoneted. The men received little or no food for several days. Even more important was the fact that they were deprived of water, despite its ready availability in artesian wells along the route. Source: http://www.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/25/bataan.htm

The ones that died from dehydration...do they deserve posthumous Purple Hearts? I realize what the regulations about the award say, and this question is posited from an ethical standpoint. The lack of water is itself used as a weapon to wound the captives, and is just as deadly as a bayonet or rifle.

[Javelin66]

This places us on a slippery slope. Do we now have to consider cases in which the presence of the enemy prevented someone from getting medical attention, or prevented supplies from getting through which in turn led to deaths due to illness and malnutrition?

[SlightlyCatholic]

This places us on a slippery slope. Do we now have to consider cases in which the presence of the enemy prevented someone from getting medical attention, or prevented supplies from getting through which in turn led to deaths due to illness and malnutrition?

What's being described here is a war crime. The very fact that we consider them crimes means that there are victims, and that these victims are harmed by the person or persons who commit such crimes. If one examines the situation from that perspective, the POW camp is a microcosm of that and prisoners denied proper treatment are definately wounded persons from a crime committed by the enemy. It's not a steel blade or a rifle round, but they are being injured. What's the harm in recognizing that fact by awarding a Purple Heart?

[Javelin66]

I am not describing a situation in a POW camp. I am posing a hypothetical military situation, where the enemy controls or disrupts supply lines and prevents reinforcements. In this case, there could be deaths or serious permanent physical damage that is directly attributable to the enemy, but is not due to any specific action on their part. I am thinking of the Marines and Soldiers at Chosin, or the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. What about survivors of the USS Indianapolis?

[SlightlyCatholic]

I see what you're saying. The harm being done is indirect.

I guess with the Indianapolis, you'd have to decide whether the individual sailor can be seen as "the ship" or as a sailor who was on the ship. If you go with the first option, the sailor is wounded by the fact that the ship is sunk. If you go with the second option, the ship is nothing more than a floating platform. The torpedo was meant to eliminate the platform and if anybody gets hurt in the process of that platform sinking, then that's a bonus. The torpedoes, however, directly killed only a small percentage of the crew by the initial impact. The rest would have died from conditions resulting from being the water, not having food, burns from resulting fires, etc. I guess you'd have to know of the intent of the enemy in firing the torpedo as well. Were they trying to simply cripple the ship or did they want the whole crew dead?

[63Bravo]

You know, I have learned a lot in the 14 years I have been in the military, and one of those things is this; "We who do not write the rules, are the very ones who must live or die by them, regardless of whether or not we agree with or understand them."

No matter what your thoughts on the matter are, the rules of awarding the Purple Heart have been laid out quite clearly already, and as such, thats where the discussion should end. Postulating about it is not going to change this fact, and at the very least it will cause some to have hard feelings on the matter.

[HairyEyeball]

I see what you're saying. The harm being done is indirect.

I guess with the Indianapolis, you'd have to decide whether the individual sailor can be seen as "the ship" or as a sailor who was on the ship. If you go with the first option, the sailor is wounded by the fact that the ship is sunk. If you go with the second option, the ship is nothing more than a floating platform. The torpedo was meant to eliminate the platform and if anybody gets hurt in the process of that platform sinking, then that's a bonus. The torpedoes, however, directly killed only a small percentage of the crew by the initial impact. The rest would have died from conditions resulting from being the water, not having food, burns from resulting fires, etc. I guess you'd have to know of the intent of the enemy in firing the torpedo as well. Were they trying to simply cripple the ship or did they want the whole crew dead?

You have just demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension on multiple levels. The Japanese did not 'intend' to 'cripple' ships, especially warships - their intent was to sink them and their crews. There are no 'options' here: The Japanese in this instance were sinking a warship, not a 'platform', and in many cases, possibly including this, stood by and machine-gunned survivors. Their intent - as is (or once was) ours - is to kill the enemy - it's how wars are won.

And before you bring up the Indianapolis, have you done any research to determine what decorations the survivors may have received, or considered the fact that all casualties resulted from the direct and indirect actions of an enemy in combat? Or the fact that the incident is documented so that the deceased did, in fact (not 'would have') died in the explosions, from wounds sustained by the torpedoing, from exposure, drowning, 'etc.'?

It is all well and good to ask questions in the quest for knowledge, but it is generally more productive to at least begin with some basic knowledge of the subject of your inquiries.

[SlightlyCatholic]

You know, I have learned a lot in the 14 years I have been in the military, and one of those things is this; "We who do not write the rules, are the very ones who must live or die by them, regardless of whether or not we agree with or understand them."

No matter what your thoughts on the matter are, the rules of awarding the Purple Heart have been laid out quite clearly already, and as such, thats where the discussion should end. Postulating about it is not going to change this fact, and at the very least it will cause some to have hard feelings on the matter.

I understand that, and perhaps it's not my place to question military award regulations. After all, I have that luxury and most of you don't. If the mods want to end the discussion here, go for it. My intent was to better understand that parameters of the award by using situations to illustrate when the Purple Heart is given and when it is not. I realize there are clearly defined regulations on the matter, and that no amount of griping by any one servicemember will change them. However, as someone who values philosophy, I am not in the habit of simply taking things on face value without having a thorough understanding of the logic behind them. Again, I have that luxury...I am one of the few who do on Grunt's. So do what you want with the thread, but please know that my intentions aren't malicious and I never intended to cause any hard feelings.
Hairy,

And before you bring up the Indianapolis, have you done any research to determine what decorations the survivors may have received, or considered the fact that all casualties resulted from the direct and indirect actions of an enemy in combat? Or the fact that the incident is documented so that the deceased did, in fact (not 'would have') died in the explosions, from wounds sustained by the torpedoing, from exposure, drowning, 'etc.'?

I didn't bring up the Indianapolis, Javelin did. Refer to the post before the one you quoted.

You have just demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension on multiple levels. The Japanese did not 'intend' to 'cripple' ships, especially warships - their intent was to sink them and their crews. There are no 'options' here: The Japanese in this instance were sinking a warship, not a 'platform', and in many cases, possibly including this, stood by and machine-gunned survivors. Their intent - as is (or once was) ours - is to kill the enemy - it's how wars are won.

Could you please cite your research on this topic? An academic website or military history organization? I'm assuming you weren't on the Indianapolis (since your dogtag doesn't say "Navy" on it), so you'd probably need to do some research on the topic as well. No disrespect, I just need to see where you got your information from.

[HairyEyeball]

My apologies for misleading terminology. Before you speculate on the Indianapolis...

[SlightlyCatholic]

No apology necessary. I just wasn't sure if you were confused about who actually brought up the topic first.

Could you please address my concern regarding your sources? You've got some great information, I'd love to see where you got it.

Anyway, this topic should probably be brought back on track.

[HairyEyeball]

Sources regarding? The history of the Indianapolis have been painstakingly documented and are available through any library, and the philosophy and practices of the Japanese have been cited in numerous volumes I formerly owned, none of which survived my move to Arizona (and with the incarceration of the movers for other thefts, details and recovery were impossible).

Documentation on the current guidelines for the Medal for Military Merit (aka Purple Heart) have been posted, and until such are formally altered - which is the root of this discussion after all - cases such as my father's (100% disability directly attributable to his incarceration from the Battle of the Bulge to liberation in 1945), do not qualify.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Sources regarding? The history of the Indianapolis have been painstakingly documented and are available through any library, and the philosophy and practices of the Japanese have been cited in numerous volumes I formerly owned, none of which survived my move to Arizona (and with the incarceration of the movers for other thefts, details and recovery were impossible).

Correct. I guess what I'm asking is if you could cite for us the information used to formulate your statements regarding the history of the Indianapolis. I realize they're easily found at libraries, but since you must have used specific sources to formulate your arguments, I'd like to see what citations formed the basis for your arguments...a book, article, specific historical document, scholarly journal, etc.

I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but unless I'm able to see exactly where you got the information for this post (see below),

You have just demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension on multiple levels. The Japanese did not 'intend' to 'cripple' ships, especially warships - their intent was to sink them and their crews. There are no 'options' here: The Japanese in this instance were sinking a warship, not a 'platform', and in many cases, possibly including this, stood by and machine-gunned survivors. Their intent - as is (or once was) ours - is to kill the enemy - it's how wars are won.

And before you bring up the Indianapolis, have you done any research to determine what decorations the survivors may have received, or considered the fact that all casualties resulted from the direct and indirect actions of an enemy in combat? Or the fact that the incident is documented so that the deceased did, in fact (not 'would have') died in the explosions, from wounds sustained by the torpedoing, from exposure, drowning, 'etc.'?

It is all well and good to ask questions in the quest for knowledge, but it is generally more productive to at least begin with some basic knowledge of the subject of your inquiries.

I have to assume it's an opinion as opposed to a factual argument. While I don't mean to question your integrity, anyone can say that they went to a library or owned books that contain information about a topic. So, if you could specifically cite your sources (what books you owned, for example), I think it would be beneficial to everyone to see exactly what information you used and where it came from.

[HairyEyeball]

And were I you, I would actually go through the 'effort' of a simple search on the Indianapolis or Japanese military atrocities and war crimes - 'questioning my integrity' is exactly what you're doing, and an apology is in order.

For the former, you might try "In Harm's Way" by Doug Stanton or "Fatal Voyage: The Sinking of the USS Indianapolis" by Dan Kurzman. Information on the latter is - again - readily available online: The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal is readily accessable; published sources would include Sterling and Peggy Seagrave's "Gold Warriors", "Medical Experiments on POWs" by Sheldon H. Harris or "Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes In World War II" by Yuki Tanaka...for a start.

[SlightlyCatholic]

And were I you, I would actually go through the 'effort' of a simple search on the Indianapolis or Japanese military atrocities and war crimes - 'questioning my integrity' is exactly what you're doing, and an apology is in order.

For the former, you might try "In Harm's Way" by Doug Stanton or "Fatal Voyage: The Sinking of the USS Indianapolis" by Dan Kurzman. Information on the latter is - again - readily available online: The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal is readily accessable; published sources would include Sterling and Peggy Seagrave's "Gold Warriors", "Medical Experiments on POWs" by Sheldon H. Harris or "Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes In World War II" by Yuki Tanaka...for a start.


I thank you for listing those sources.

In regards to questioning your integrity...

Anyone here who doesn't adequately support their arguments can and should be questioned. You told me that I had a misunderstanding regarding the history of the Indianapolis and Japanese war tactics. You then proceeded to give me your version. What that means is that either you're going to provide me with better sources or with a better argument (or preferably both). What you gave me was neither. The obligation to provide sources to back up one's argument is the responsibility of the one making the argument. It is not my job or anyone else's to hunt down specific evidence/premises for YOUR conclusions. What you provided is an opinion, and will remain as such until the information you supposedly based your opinion off of can be adequately cited.

The cadets have been told on several occasions that they need to cite sources, so I don't think it's too much to ask to do it here. All I asked for was what essentially amounts to a bibliography.

So no, your integrity isn't being questioned, but your argument and lack of supporting evidence are. The fact that you know of libraries who have information on the topic or the fact that at one time you owned books on the topic are not sufficient for proving that your post is more correct than mine. I don't know why you think you're above being questioned. You weren't on the Indianapolis, nor do you hold a Ph.D in History (which means that you cannot rely on your own words as a de facto expert on the subject). Therefore, you need to use specific facts to prove to me why your words are correct in evaluating the USS Indianapolis and Japanese warfare and why my previous evaluation was not. Your posts are subject to the same scrutiny as anyone else on this forum, regardless of title or former military service. I have respect for you as a Moderator and former United States Marine, but arguments need to be backed up with specific citations of specific literary works with specific page numbers and/or specific website pages. Period.

Here is my apology:

I am sorry that private disagreements are being placed in a public arena for the second time, and I am sorry for this topic being derailed so badly. Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone here, please know that. However, I will neither be publicly disrespected nor made to accept a conclusion of any poster here simply because "they said so". I respect the opinions of everyone here, but I refuse to recognize arguments from anyone without specific evidence or direct experience of the topic in question. I don't think that should be a problem. I ask anyone else who feels I owe them an apology to kindly send me a Private Message.

[HairyEyeball]

This is a classic example of what was once called the 'generation gap'. Many of us here, including myself, come from a generation where a man's word was his bond - if he told you something or shook your hand on an agreement, you could literally 'take it to the bank'. Your generation tends to take even the most carefully crafted, 'ironclad' contract as little more than 'mere words on paper'. You do not know better, that is excusable - once.

And as a point of information, a 'former' (or 'ex') Marine is a rare individual indeed - a John Murtha would be a prime example. Most of us consider that we earned the title (and continue 'earning' it daily). It would be more correct to say "...as a Marine" or (perhaps more accurately, if awkwardly) a 'NoLOAD (no longer on active duty)' Marine.

I still maintain, having had the experience, that you are, indeed, possessed of a youthful arrogance that you are either unaware of or believe is somehow 'justified', and should you gain the experience, knowledge and wisdom to recognize it, you will find it as distasteful in generations succeeding yours.

[SlightlyCatholic]

This is a classic example of what was once called the 'generation gap'. Many of us here, including myself, come from a generation where a man's word was his bond - if he told you something or shook your hand on an agreement, you could literally 'take it to the bank'. Your generation tends to take even the most carefully crafted, 'ironclad' contract as little more than 'mere words on paper'. You do not know better, that is excusable - once.

So you don't have to cite specific sources because you're in a different generation than I am? Do you use that answer with people who challenge your policies as a candidate for the Arizona State House of Representatives? If a candidate for Congress ever gave that answer in response to a challenge from a young person at a debate, they'd either be booed or laughed out of the venue. What you posted (in an attempt to correct my view of the USS Indianapolis) is hearsay, and hearsay gets thrown out in court. There are reasons for that, one of which being that in the legal field, one's word is nothing without proof to back it up. I fail to see how that doesn't apply here. Again, if you're going to make the cadets properly cite sources, you should be doing it too.

I still maintain, having had the experience, that you are, indeed, possessed of a youthful arrogance that you are either unaware of or believe is somehow 'justified', and should you gain the experience, knowledge and wisdom to recognize it, you will find it as distasteful in generations succeeding yours.

Again, age is not a "get out of citing sources" free card. It applies to all, regardless of age or title. Third graders doing book reports and forty-five year olds writing their doctoral dissertations both have to cite specific sources. Knowledge and wisdom should come with time, but there is no causal link between the two. You have three options for supporting an argument: A) speaking as an expert on the subject (with proper credentials to speak as such), B) having first hand knowledge of the topic (through personal experience), or C) citing specific, credible sources as evidence. Please do not think you are good enough to avoid doing all three while still having your argument regarded as valid. Your opinions are open to scrutiny just as anyone here, and I am saddened that YOU do not know better.

I will say it again...I respect you as a Moderator and United States Marine. However, your claim to validity on a particular body of fabricated information means nothing without proper evidence (as listed above) and your posts are not special or somehow impervious to speculation because they originate from your keyboard. I am a very nice person but I will speak up if I see something unacceptable or personally offensive.

[HairyEyeball]

Now you grow tiresome, intentionally misrepresenting a statement of fact (and ignoring yet another attempt to discuss perception via PM). What was expressed was the differences, in areas such as personal integrity and veracity between two generations: Mine, in which the presumption was that a statement was verifiable unless and until proven otherwise (excluding politicians, of course) and the current one, in which heresay goes unquestioned but facts outside one's purview must, pro forma be 'substantiated' by a(n often questionable) source. Apparently, historians and participants are 'unreliable', and the sources cited 'unreliable'.

As an aside, your 'point a)' raises the question as to whose determination qualifies one as an 'expert', and the inclusion of 'proper' documentation in an age where colleges regularly graduate athletes who cannot read their diplomas (or in some cases their varsity letters) raises the question of 'documentation' v actual research, experience and knowledge. You obviously fail to realize that what you deem 'acceptable' has as much value in the real world as unprocessed, recycled toilet tissue to anyone but yourself, while some members have established 'credibility' over the three prior iterations of this forum in the years it has existed.

It has also obviously escaped your notice that no matter what opinions you posit, no matter how offensive your position may be, no matter how you mischaracterize the statements of others, neither I nor any other Moderator has censored or interfered with your freedom to express such, nor has the thread been locked.

And since you are either not receiving or not acknowledging PMs, to repeat what I included in my second, I thought you showed promise, should the arrogance protecting how little you actually know crack enough to allow you to learn. BTDT, too.

[Javelin66]

Okay, back to the discussion...

My point in bringing up those three situations was to highlight the fact that this is the nature of warfare. The Purple Heart is intended to recognize those injured or killed due to direct enemy action, not due to the effects of the battlefield.

There are some fine points to consider. Basically, if your vehicle (airplane, boat, truck, car) is attacked and you are injured as a result, this would generally be considered to be due to enemy action. Soldiers at Bastogne or Chosin would not be awarded the Purple Heart for their frostbite.

The case of the Indianapolis is different. First, if they were injured in the actual attack they would be eligible. Secondly, at the point they hit the water the Japanese navy incurred a responsibility to safeguard them- and failed to do so (this is why they often machine gunned survivors, both to kill the sailors and prevent them from fighting again, but also to eliminate the burden of caring for survivors who were technically POWs at that point).

My unit had a case in which a guy was hit in the face by a piece of his vehicle (a machine gun bullet struck his cupola and sprayed splinters of the machine gun mount into his eyes). He was awarded the Purple Heart.

My First Sergeant broke his pelvis jumping into Panama with the Rangers. He was not initially awarded the Purple Heart, but it was eventually determined that he was injured due to a combination of factors, all due to enemy action (they jumped lower than normal, at a higher speed than normal, and he was unable to slip away from an obstacle on the ground due to heavy enemy fire). By the way, paratroopers are legal targets, while escaping aircrew parachuting from their stricken aircraft are not.)

Conversely, the first time I was in Iraq one of our convoys got hit by a (un)lucky volley of Katyusha rockets. The guys in the lead vehicle were all hit,and were awarded Purple Hearts. The driver and occupants of the second vehicle were not hit, but swerved to avoid the wreckage, hit a T- Wall, and suffered concussions and broken bones. No PH.

[SlightlyCatholic]

It has also obviously escaped your notice that no matter what opinions you posit, no matter how offensive your position may be, no matter how you mischaracterize the statements of others, neither I nor any other Moderator has censored or interfered with your freedom to express such, nor has the thread been locked.

In fact, I have noticed. You could have easily abused your power as Moderator by censoring my words and you have not. So for that, I thank you.

And since you are either not receiving or not acknowledging PMs, to repeat what I included in my second, I thought you showed promise, should the arrogance protecting how little you actually know crack enough to allow you to learn. BTDT, too.

Your PMs are not being received because of some error in my account. It will be put in the "Questions and Comments About The Forum" section and hopefully resolved. I am not ignoring you. I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion in what is defined as arrogance. I think it arrogant that you think you don't need to answer to a nineteen year old civilian in regards to your method of posting, and you think it arrogant that a nineteen year old civilian is questioning your knowledge of a topic in which you feel you have expertise.

I would love to be a Catholic priest and I would love to serve our troops as a military chaplain. Every day I try to act more and more in the person of Jesus Christ, and I want to apologize if I have appeared insensitive, arrogant, or disrespectful. I argued for my position vehemently, and I think we just have to agree to disagree. This is the last you'll hear on the topic from me.

By the way, I've been posting frequently because I've been recovering from surgery since May and I've been restricted to my house since that time (along with having to take a medical leave from college for the semester). The forum is one way to eliminate the ensuing boredom.

Let's get back on topic.

[soccermark23]

My First Sergeant broke his pelvis jumping into Panama with the Rangers. He was not initially awarded the Purple Heart, but it was eventually determined that he was injured due to a combination of factors, all due to enemy action (they jumped lower than normal, at a higher speed than normal, and he was unable to slip away from an obstacle on the ground due to heavy enemy fire). By the way, paratroopers are legal targets, while escaping aircrew parachuting from their stricken aircraft are not.)

This goes along with my thinking. If a soldier is in a POW Camp and is deprived of medical attention and forced to work in horrific conditions, which in turn leads to his death, is he deserving of the Purple Heart?

[StarLifter]

http://www.ussindianapolis.org/ -- Survivor's Site

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq30-1.htm -- Navy Info Site

http://www.indianahistory.org/Library/manuscripts/collection_guides/m0645.html -- Another piece on the Indianapolis, compiled by a historian employed by the state of Indiana.

Google is a wonderful tool.

-- StarLifter

[Javelin66]

Actually, no one was trying to make a point that relied on detailed information on the fate of the Indianapolis and her crew or debate whether or not they received, did not receive, deserved, or did not deserve the PH.

It was simply cited (along with others) as a well known incident of combatants being injured or killed, not necessarily due to direct enemy action, but rather the harsh battlefield conditions.

[HairyEyeball]

Sounds like a plan...and yes, unfortunately in too many cases perception is reality.

I have some opinions on 'where you are now vice where you plan on going', but being neither Catholic nor desirous of a discussion on comparative religions, they'll remain just that, private opinions.

Regarding the topic, soccermark posted a good example: His 'Field First' sustained what might be classified a 'service-connected but non-combat' injury, but since it was directly attributable to enemy action, even though not inflicted by the enemy, the decoration was awarded.

There is another aspect that has not been discussed here: On occasion, an individual sustaining 'qualified' wounds in direct combat has refused the award. I know of a few cases, such as the door gunner in my squadron in Nam who came back from a supply run with most of his MG ammo expended and a neat 7.62mm 'punctuation mark' that kept him eating standing up and sleeping on his stomach. His rationale - aside from 'it wasn't serious enough to merit it' - was that there were Marines out there who 'deserved' it - his wound was merely a fluke. Another was the Marine who told the Corpsman filling out the forms as another plucked shrapnel from his hands and arms "Just give me a couple of aspirin, Doc, I already have two Purple Hearts".

The military, as some of us have discovered and others will, has its own systems, reasons and rationales for what it does, and an appalling lack of 'standardization' not only between branches, but within each - what might 'rate' the MoH one day, in one unit, might only be awarded a Silver Star in another on another day, and 'upgrades' or even initial awards have been made a half-century after the fact. In the end, the regulations may appear clear and specific, but are ultimately 'interpreted'. When and if the proposal to cover POW deaths occuring due to POW camp 'conditions', nothing will change but the number awarded.

[HairyEyeball]

Therein lies a question: Was the torpedoing not 'direct enemy action'? And did those who succumbed to wounds sustained as a direct result of the 'action' any more or less 'deserving' of the award than those killed instantly, or those killed instantly any more or less 'deserving' than those drowned when the ship went down? Are those who died of exposure directly attributable to their ship being torpedoed any less deserving than those who died of their wounds? None of which has much bearing on the original question regarding PQWs, except to point out the difficulty of determining who 'qualifies'.

Considering the cluster**** made by 'interpreting' the Constitution over the years, the 'interpretation' of the parameters for the award can be unsettlingly broad, and relaxing even one stricture can well lead to the complete dilution of its import.

[Javelin66]

"Just give me the aspirin. I already got a Purple Heart."
-Bill Mauldin, Stars and Stripes

[HairyEyeball]

Never claimed the speaker originated the remark, nor that he was familiar with Mauldin - merely reporting a personal observation, circa 1968. I knew the Marine pretty well, but not his reading habits.

[Javelin66]

Not implying that, just love the cartoon