Colin’s Comments (group member since Dec 16, 2012)

Colin’s comments from the THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP group.

This is such a widely ignored part of WW II history, glad to see it. I always liked the film "Farewell to the King" with Nick Nolte and Nigel Havers.

Both of these look really good.

You may like my book "Occupation and Insurgency" which deals with war crimes/holocaust issues. Plenty of interview material as well. Go to my website at www.heatonlewisbooks.com and go to the page titled "The Buchenwald Story."

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I've just started Adam Makos' lastest book and it has been pretty good so far.

[book:Spe..."

I proof read Adam's manuscript, as I have all of his books. He is getting better, and he is fortunate to have the funds to travel and get the stories. He is also a good friend along with his family.

After reading the above discussion, I agree that Iraq was a bad call. But having been working in the J2 section and JCS/SECDEF in the Pentagon for four years in the late 80s and 90s, Bush went on the best info he had. that data came from the UK and Israeli intel sources, with some French thrown in for good measure.

When Bob Baer and hans Blix were thrown out of Iraq by Saddam in 1996 because he was locating too many WMD's such as chemicals and bio weapons, the intel went dark. What we do know is that Saddam shipped his remaining WMD's to Syria (yes that was where Assad got those). Blix's team managed to destroy a lot of the stockpiles, but not all of them.

The great fear was less that Saddam would use them on his own people again, but that he may sell them to anyone for hard currency given the embargoes placed upon Iraq. When Clinto failed to uphold the United Nations intervention protocol after Saddam violated the ceasefire agreement by violating the no fly zones 113 times, and his cousin, Chemical Ali hit Kirkuk with gas killing hundreds, and with no UN or US reprisal, Saddam became bolder. The embargo also made him desperate.

I know that in Bush's mind (and I have friends who know him) he was concerned about the weapons, hence the invasion. It was not that Iraq did not have the WMD's, they just got rid of the rest of them before the Allies invaded.

You must also remember that the majority of Iraqi's are Shiite, ruled for decades by minority Sunnis, and with brutality. Iran was also a consideration regarding the possibility of it fomenting internal discontent among the Shiite population. Should there have been a revolution or civil war, and had other parties obtained those WMD's, things may have been much different.

I am not defending the invasion of Iraq by Bush, I am condemning the weak minded Clinton for not going back in to finally remove him and hold is court jesters accountable after the years of violations on his watch.

You also have to remember that Osama Bin Laden was a wanted man under Clinton and he was offered two opportunities to grab him in Sudan, but he declined. This failure allowed OBL to set up shop full tilt in Afghanistan later.

Another factor in determining Truman's decision to drop both bombs (and the Japanese government was warned officially prior to both drops) was the knowledge that once any invasion started, Allied POW's would be executed on Tojo's (hence with Hirohito's knowledge). This was learned through code breaking. The faster the war was over, better the chance of saving their lives. Personally, I have no problem with using the bombs. Yes, it did give Stalin a wake up call, and that was not a bad thing. I spoke with Chuck Sweeney and Paul Tibbets who both dropped the bombs. they felt it was the right thing to do. More important, I spoke with American POW's who were grateful as hell for the bombings.

Hirohito was kept in power at MacArthur's request. It was believed that the Japanese occupation and conversion to western political ideals would be smoother if the national leader were maintained. Otherwise, according to Gen. Matthew Ridgeway and Gen Curtis Lemay, the Japanese may find solace in the Communist sphere, hence threatening the entire Asian hegemony.

It did work, but it was a double edged sword. As a result, the Japanese maintained their love for the Chrysanthemum Throne, and felt more inclined to follow American methods due to the national honor they maintained.

One result is that the Japs as a nation were never held accountable for their war crimes, and to this day they (unlike the Germans and former Soviets) have never admitted to any violations of Geneva or Hague.

I response, by the time Mclean got there, Tito had already started changing his ways, and Maclean was a devout Tito follower, not exactly an objective observer. The key factor in Tito's NOT being a true partisan leader was his not fighting to support the legitimate national government in exile, and assisting their return. That is the greatest issue. The French also had the same problem, with the Communist Maquisard being the most effective and reliable, according to OSS officer Aaron Bank (another interview) and Pierre Deshayes (also an interview)

According to Pamela Harriman (interview) that was the one thing that gave Churchill the most consternation. Mihailovic did accept truces with the Germans, at their request. By 1944 the German occupation forces were already downsizing and starting to pull their forces out of the country.

Anyone who thinks Tito was not ruthless against his own countrymen early in the war, should read the SOE and OSS reports from 1941-44. The German documents from the Abwehr are also worth reading on that subject. I have nothing against Tito, I just place him in the context of a man who wanted to be 'king' and he knew how to go about it. He corrected his ways, with exception to the Muslims in Bosnia of course. Not even Mihailovic got along with them.

Both RAF especially Bomber Command and the US Army Air Corps (mostly bombers) had the highest loss rates percentage wise of any Allied groups in WW II. The Luftwaffe was in the same boat, only surpassed in losses by the U-Boat service.

The greatest reason why Mihailovic fought against Tito was part of my creating the definitions and distinctions b/w partisans and guerrillas. In the case of Yugoslavia, this was what I wrote:

Guerrillas (Titoists)- Fighting the indigenous or foreign enemy in order to establish a new government or political methodology at the expense of the accepted government under threat or in exile (Karajorjevic monarchy)

Partisan-Fighting the foreign or indigenous enemy to liberate the nation and preserve or restore the nation and its leadership under threat or in exile.

Clearly, Tito was not fighting the Germans to restore the monarchy in exile and liberate the nation for free elections, even under a constitutional monarchy.

Mihailovic was in fact following his orders from the king in London, and he was actually quite effective at killing Germans. The problem was that the civil war between the two Yugoslav factions weakened the nation and limited the collective ability to fight the Germans.

This was especially true after Himmler created the 13th SS Division and threw the the SS Division Prinz Eugen and mountain troops into the fray. It was in fact the Germans who came to Mihailovic, asked for a ceasefire, and said they would not hinder Chetnik forces from killing Communists, if the Chetniks would stop killing Germans.

Another factor that is often overlooked was that Tito's fighters were ruthless towards their own countrymen, stealing property, food, livestock without compensation, even rape and murder. Mihailovic paid for what his men needed, with money from London, and his men were well received.

Tito, at the request of Djilas (who I interviewed) along with Maclean, told Tito "...to stop that rubbish." Tito changed his ways, rebuilt the churches that had been destroyed (many by his own forces), and adopted the Chetnik methods in order to fall in with the Western Allies concept of a good ally.

I interviewed a few Waffen SS men who served in Yugoslavia, as well as a Chetnik, named Milorad Krstovic. His unit specialized in saving Allied air crews who were shot down and getting them to Allied safety. His brother Rado was captured and beheaded on Tito's orders.

Djilas admitted that Tito started out as a true Stalinist, blood and all, but the realities of the war forced him to change. In Tito's defense, he was the only post war Communist leader to basically tell Stalin to go to hell, and he had a more National Socialist method of government, with limited free market capitalism, as opposed to a true Communist method of rule.

My friend Jon Guttman is the world's foremost authority on WW I aviation, check some of his books out.

I spoke with Victoria Maclean, his widow, and I interviewed Milovan Djilas, Tito's Foreign Minister. Good stories. I did get into some trouble in the UK when I wrote and successfully defended the fact that Tito was NOT the partisan leader of Yugoslavia. Not according to the now accepted and yet to be effectively challenged legal terminologies I created during my thesis research. Mihailovic WAS the true partisan leader, Tito was a Communist guerrilla leader. It was Churchill who labeled Tito the partisan resistance leader in order to secure support from Parliament and the Allies in providing him support during the war.

Ben is a great detail oriented historian, good man, and his research is very solid.

I knew Jack Lucas, we spent some quality time together once. He really was a funny guys, great sense of humor.

All of the Steinhoff material in that book I gave to Adam when he was writing it, and I was proofing the manuscript. I was writing my book The Star of Africa at the same time, so I had a lot of material that was overlapping.

Yes, Adam and I discussed this manuscript for the last four years. He had a devil of a time getting through it, with the pressures of finishing Devotion on schedule
and his other commitments.

I knew Herbert, he was one of over a dozen Uboat interviews I conducted. He was a very interesting, intelligent man and a deep thinker.

I interviewed several people who were in the bunker, and after comparing their stories to the actual film, I was surprised at the accuracy in the portrayal. Ganz was indeed a lesser known version of Max Schell.

I met Admiral Fluckey many years ago. He was a great guy, great sense of humor. When I asked him about blowing up the train and why, he said "because the Japs did not have enough decency run rail across the water, which I thought was very inconsiderate of them."

I knew US Senator Daniel Inouye (D) Nisei from Hawaii, MOH recipient. I interviewed him and Sen. Robert Dole (R), who was also wounded in the mountain fights as they were assisting the 442nd. I compared their stories with those interviews I conducted with the German paratroops they fought against, especially near Monte Cassino. Good stories indeed.