|
Post by beirutvet on Jul 9, 2014 21:22:37 GMT 8
I have a thought hear that may be a factor in why Corregidor does not command the respect that it obviously deserves. The fall of Bataan and Corregidor where seen as very low points for the allies at the beginning of the war that most people, looking for positive developments, wanted to forget what was felt as a shameful defeat. The Japanese were rampaging all over the far east and seemed invincible. The nation was desperate for some good news and were soon given what they needed in Doolittle's raid and the battle of Midway. It was not until after the war, looking at internal Japanese archives that it was realized just how significant the siege was in halting the Japanese onslaught. But by then the die was cast, most wanted to forget about the largest American force to ever surrender to the enemy and focus on the very tangible successes that followed.
|
|
|
Post by okla on Jul 10, 2014 6:58:30 GMT 8
Hey All....I have always felt that one of the reasons that The Bataan/Corregidor Campaign has received so little coverage in Documentaries is the scarcity of film coverage of actual operations. If such footage existed, as it does for Iwo Jima, D-Day, etc, things might be entirely different. Of course, Documentaries using color film of re-enactments, etc might suffice, but there is nothing like having and utilizing those old, gritty, grainy, black and white images of the "real thing" to bring home the sense of the actual story. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Jul 10, 2014 12:26:52 GMT 8
This isn't a direct parallel, but seeing "almost" parallels in history does concern me. Recently we have lived through what happened when four men were declared expendable in Benghazi, and could not be saved for all the power of the United States. Recall the criticism and blame-calling which followed upon that incident - that the State Department had placed its Ambassador and three others in harms way, and left them hung out to dry. Imagine, if you will, the government-shaking magnitude of criticism which would attach were an entire Army defeated in the field, surrendered and led into captivity. Isn't that something Washington, with all its newspaper and media influence, would tend to pull every string it could to spin, to obfuscate, and to misdirect the country's attention elsewhere? Even 72 years later?
|
|
|
Post by beirutvet on Aug 11, 2014 23:53:16 GMT 8
Hello Registrar
Yours is exactly the point I was trying to make. At the time it was seen as a humiliating defeat and highlighted the "hung out to dry" status of the Pacific theater as opposed to European theater. So the administration was anxious to sweep it under the rug as quickly as possible. And even the public, supporting the war as they did back then, wanted to forget the humiliation, so it probably didn't require much spin. Just put it behind us and focus forward was what was probably on every ones mind.
|
|