the war in the Philippine Islands

I didn't see "No man is an island " 1962 LOL

"George Tweed is an American Sailor from Minneapolis stationed on Pre-war Guam at a radio relay station. As the Japanese invade, he and his mates attempt to evade. They are befriended by some of the islanders and assist them in traveling to a secure location. The others are captured and executed. A romantic relationship develops between Tweed and the daughter of his benefactor. He remains in hiding there until the US Navy returns. As an American destroyer approaches he contacts them to warn them of shore artillery and is taken aboard ship. "

 

Excellent post, Philscout! My grandfather died in the Death March, but my dad won't talk about it. I don't blame him. Nice to get some info.

 

Phrogfixer163,

Was your Grandfather with the 4th marines in Bataan? These are their stories that should be documented and made know to the new generation, as the kids today have no clue what happened during WWII except what they see in the movies.

I just hope that with the mini series on the Marines this will open up more interest by the public on the sacrifices of all the allies in the pacific.

Philip

 

Wow, I have forgotten about the movie "They Were Expendable".
dgmitchell, good of you to share that list. I have the "Expendable" on CD and I think it's about time I get around to seeing this movie again.

I think the reason why there's not much on the Philippines about World War II in the current media is because the bulk of the activity involved guerrilla operations and many were run by locals, who were at that time considered by the US government as US nationals.
However, after World War II and with the Philippines regaining independence from the US, the Philippines fell into twilight. The attitude I perceive (and correct me please if I am wrong) about this is this: why would popular US media consider paying any attention to the WWII history of a foreign country?
What has been forgotten in the passing years is that Filipinos who fought side by side with Americans against the Japanese were taught by American teachers during their childhood in the 1920s US history and to revere the US anthem and flag by heart. I think this is where the term "Little Brown Brother" came from. Some of my younger countrymen think of this term as racist. Personally, I disagree because I see a touch of sentimentality in it because from the term itself, it implies a kinship, a sort of relationship.
Here I share a quote from the late Philippine Commonwealth President Manuel L. Quezon: "Why is the US helping his European cousin first when his daughter the Philippines is being raped?" I hope I wrote the quote correctly but Quezon's statement accurately shows the sentiment of a majority of Filipinos during World War II. It also shows why Douglas Macarthur has a special place in Philippine history books.

 

My grandfather fought with the guerrilla's. Problem is, my dad didn't talk about it much. Next time I see him i'll poke and prod and see if he's now comfortable enough to talk about it and i'll post.

 

Lt. Edwin Ramsey. Commander of the last USA cavalry charge.

Edwin Price Ramsey - Official Website

Phrogfixer .... just before Bataan collapsed, Gen MacArthur told Lt. Ramsey to take the remains of his contingent and head for the hills. He fought a guerilla action near the Mt. Pinatubo area till the US returned.

 

Phrogfixer,

I'm a little confused. Do you mean your grandfather died on the Death March and your father fought with the guerrillas? My understanding was that men who went on the Death March were solely those regular troops who surrendered on Bataan on April 9, 1942.

 

That would be a little difficult. MacArthur left Corregidor on March 11, 1942, almost a full month before Bataan fell on April 9, 1942. After MacArthur left the Philippines, General Wainwright commanded all US forces in the Philippines. General Edward King commanded the forces on Bataan when it fell. I have Ramsey's book, "Lieutenant Ramsey's War" and in it, he claims his decision to to hold out and not surrender was a personal decision, and that General King ordered everybody to surrender, but Ramsey and some others defied the order and sought to escape and conduct a guerrilla campaign.

 

OK, General Wainwright was involved. Doesn't change much does it?

 

What is your source? Ramsey says in his book that his decision to evade surrender and take up guerrilla warfare was a personal choice.

Yes, it does change something. It changes history, MacArthur wasn't there. Maybe you don't care about historical accuracy, but I do. I don't believe Wainwright gave any such orders either, as he wasn't there, he was on Corregidor. General King was the senior commander on Bataan and the officer who surrendered the forces of which Ramsey was a member. If General King gave such orders, Ramsey is lying in his book.

 

Col Edwin Ramsey's story is one which should made into a film. It is sad that the few rare times I have met him, his story will never be brought on the big screen while he is still with us.

The early stages of the Bataan Campaign, Battle for Abucay, the battle of the points, the failed Japanese landings in Bataan, the Japanese forces were beaten back several times. Like so many other heroic stories in the early stages of America's first ground war have all been forgotten.

Philip

 

Devils, sorry about the minor inaccuracies. I heard them from his son Edwin (who was my boss for many years). I was going by memory from the stories he told to me almost a decade ago.

Perhaps you should do a complete in depth analysis of why my getting Gen MacArthur and Gen Wainwright switched is a such a massive transgression in historical accuracy for a relatively minor event, the whole rationale for my existence on this planet is in question.

 

I can understand getting mixed up when relying on memory to recall events which were related to you secondhand some years ago. And no one is calling your "rationale for existence on this planet" into question, so you can drop the sarcasm, I'm just trying to get at the correct historical record.

If you don't share my enthusiasm for accuracy on historical issues, that's fine, but it does not matter whether it is a minor event or not, inaccuracies can introduce error and doubt for later students of history. If you don't like being correct when in error, you should try not to make the errors in the first place.

 

DA, I see your seething eyes latched on to another target (LOL). I've been under DA's sights and it can be quite an interesting experience.

Oh, here's another site I found on Ramsey. It's a Q&A interview from http://www.militarymuseum.org/Ramsey.html

 

Falcon Jun,

I don't mean to be a "hall monitor" in this forum, but it bothers me when history is mangled by inaccurate assertions, especially when it's obvious to any informed person that the alleged event could not possibly have taken place as described. Some people have claimed I'm obsessing over "minor details", but what serious historian would countenance placing MacArthur on Bataan almost a month after he had arrived in Australia? I think it's important to preserve history as accurately as possible for future generations. To me, if it's worth posting, it's worth getting it right. I compare it to reading a book that's poorly edited and full of those annoying little errors that make you wonder if you can take at face value anything the author writes.

Regards,
Devilsadvocate

 

What personal insults?

I can detect none at all in any post in this thread. Sarcasm, yes, but no name-calling nor any other personal reference that need upset anyone. And I feel certain Falcon Jun did not intend anything except a little mild teasing for my tendency to correct what some may believe are minor details. I certainly took no offense.

 

DA, I have a pm for you.
To make things clear, I actually like it when DA disagrees with a point raised because it allows all of us to explore other paths that we may not have considered. And from those discussions, we all learn a thing or two.
And since I'm not really good at teasing, I guess I'll leave that up to experts. But that won't stop me from trying to learn from the experts.

Now back to topic, Philscout is right about how the 26th Cavalry acted as a mobile fire brigade for the beleaguered North Luzon Force. This unit more than held their own. Tragically, the overall situation was against them and no matter how they performed, one unit alone can't do it alone.
I saw in Corregidor several memorials about Air Corps units that lost their aircraft and were pressed into action as infantry. Has there been a movie made about them?
The closest thing that's related to them, I think, is the the WWII-era movie Air Force, which was about a B-17 crew that took cannibalized parts from wrecked B17's to repair their own bomber. The movie shows this crew escaping on their repaired bomber just as the Japanese were about to overrun their base.

 

I think the movie was called "The Bombardiers."

 

1943 film - "Airforce" -The Mary Ann, a B-17 Flying Fortress, takes off from California for Hawaii on a routine training flight on December 6, 1941. En route, they learn of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Subsequently the crew mans the Mary Ann through action at Wake Island, the Philippines, and the Battle of the Coral Sea.