Question for Greg Parker

[Len Colby]

Evan subscribes to the Australian Navy’s “Military History discussion folder” (e-mail list) and someone else asked about photos of the Darwin bombing so he asked the fatalities. I’m posting this with his permission. Lieutenant Commander Tom Lewis is the author of A War at Home, Tall Stories, 1999 - about the Japanese attacks on Darwin and the article “Myths concerning the number of deaths in the first Japanese attacks on Darwin in February 1942” in Wartime magazine, May 2003. He received an OAM (the Order of Australia Medal) for services to naval history.

From: Burton, Evan LEUT

Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 10:08

To: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Subject: RE: Defence of Darwin [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Sir,

Not part of the thread but a friend of mine is interested in the casualties from the 1942 bombing, specifically the cover-up at the time of the true number of killed. If you have any material that would help, it would be much appreciated.

Evan Burton

From: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 11:59

To: Burton, Evan LEUT

Subject: RE: Defence of Darwin [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Certainly do.

In my book "A War Home" (2nd edition onwards - now in 3rd edition) there is a chapter about the "myths and legends" of the Darwin raids.

Basically it's 251 confirmed KIA [Killed In Action – Len], which can be moved upwards around 30 or so - the book came out in 1999 and there have been some other people's analysis since then. But the claims of "thousands" dead is silly and unsubstantiated.

There was a cover-up in that the numbers dead and the damage done was under-reported at the time, and therefore you had headlines in the southern papers about "attack repulsed." But that's pretty normal in wartime for morale.

Hope this helps,

Tom

From: Burton, Evan LEUT

Sent: Monday, 30 November 2009 06:01

To: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Subject: Darwin bombing [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Sir,

A further question from my friend regarding the 1942 Darwin bombings:

In 2001 the NTA erected a commemorative plaque in Darwin totaling 292 killed, however it only listed 10 dead from the USS William B. Preston while the USN says 13 died* and author Peter Grose said 15 which would give us a total of 295 or 297 a bit above your upper limit. Do you think it might be overstating the fatalities?

* 11 killed and 2 "missing"

Thanks!

Evan Burton

From: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Sent: Monday, 30 November 2009 10:37

To: Burton, Evan LEUT

Subject: RE: Darwin bombing [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Evan:

I had the original Preston log - somewhere at home now - from which I got those stats. it was written immediately afterwards so could have been adjusted later.

I think anything up to 300 is possible but would be wary of going beyond that. In particular the claims of "1000" or so are wildly generalised.

Tom

EDIT - Formatting error corrected

Edited November 30, 2009 by Len Colby

[Greg Parker]

Evan subscribes to the Australian Navy’s “Military History discussion folder” (e-mail list) and someone else asked about photos of the Darwin bombing so he asked the fatalities. I’m posting this with his permission. Lieutenant Commander Tom Lewis is the author of A War at Home, Tall Stories, 1999 - about the Japanese attacks on Darwin and the article “Myths concerning the number of deaths in the first Japanese attacks on Darwin in February 1942” in Wartime magazine, May 2003. He received an OAM (the Order of Australia Medal) for services to naval history.

LBJ received the Silver Star for flying a mission in Papua New Guinea. Trouble is, it was all stage-managed for his personal political gain. He wore that unearned medal during his (un-necessary) inauguration aboard AFI. Fitting really.

From: Burton, Evan LEUT

Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 10:08

To: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Subject: RE: Defence of Darwin [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Sir,

Not part of the thread but a friend of mine is interested in the casualties from the 1942 bombing, specifically the cover-up at the time of the true number of killed. If you have any material that would help, it would be much appreciated.

Evan Burton

From: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 11:59

To: Burton, Evan LEUT

Subject: RE: Defence of Darwin [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Certainly do.

In my book "A War Home" (2nd edition onwards - now in 3rd edition) there is a chapter about the "myths and legends" of the Darwin raids.

Basically it's 251 confirmed KIA [Killed In Action – Len], which can be moved upwards around 30 or so - the book came out in 1999 and there have been some other people's analysis since then. But the claims of "thousands" dead is silly and unsubstantiated.

Well, it would be silly and unsubstantiated if anyone actually claimed it was thousands. I have found no one claiming that.

There was a cover-up in that the numbers dead and the damage done was under-reported at the time, and therefore you had headlines in the southern papers about "attack repulsed." But that's pretty normal in wartime for morale.

Lying to the population is normal at any time. It is escusable at no time.

Hope this helps,

Tom

From: Burton, Evan LEUT

Sent: Monday, 30 November 2009 06:01

To: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Subject: Darwin bombing [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Sir,

A further question from my friend regarding the 1942 Darwin bombings:

In 2001 the NTA erected a commemorative plaque in Darwin totaling 292 killed, however it only listed 10 dead from the USS William B. Preston while the USN says 13 died* and author Peter Grose said 15 which would give us a total of 295 or 297 a bit above your upper limit. Do you think it might be overstating the fatalities?

* 11 killed and 2 "missing"

Thanks!

Evan Burton

From: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Sent: Monday, 30 November 2009 10:37

To: Burton, Evan LEUT

Subject: RE: Darwin bombing [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Evan:

I had the original Preston log - somewhere at home now - from which I got those stats. it was written immediately afterwards so could have been adjusted later.

I think anything up to 300 is possible but would be wary of going beyond that. In particular the claims of "1000" or so are wildly generalised.

Interesting turn of phrase, "wildly generalised".

One definition of "Generalised" - to infer or form (a general principle, opinion, conclusion, etc.) from only a few facts, examples, or the like.

I have to conclude that it is historians who have "wildly generalised" in that they have used only some of the available data

to come up with their conservative figures. What did they ignore without proper explanation as to why? Eye witness accounts.

Tom

EDIT - Formatting error corrected

[Greg Parker]

So Greg, have you forsaken your fallacy fueled furtive falatities fantasy or are further replies forthcoming?

No Len, I have nixed the need to nourish a naysaying nutter with nifty nibbles of nutricious numbers.

[Len Colby]

If splitting hairs and logical fallacies is the best you can due it’s time to give up.

Evan subscribes to the Australian Navy’s “Military History discussion folder” (e-mail list) and someone else asked about photos of the Darwin bombing so he asked the fatalities. I’m posting this with his permission. Lieutenant Commander Tom Lewis is the author of A War at Home, Tall Stories, 1999 - about the Japanese attacks on Darwin and the article “Myths concerning the number of deaths in the first Japanese attacks on Darwin in February 1942” in Wartime magazine, May 2003. He received an OAM (the Order of Australia Medal) for services to naval history.

LBJ received the Silver Star for flying a mission in Papua New Guinea. Trouble is, it was all stage-managed for his personal political gain. He wore that unearned medal during his (un-necessary) inauguration aboard AFI. Fitting really.

That makes a lot of sense you’re suggesting that since LBJ’s medal was undeserved so might Lewis’ the problem is that one was issued by the US military in 1942 and the other by civilians in the Australian government 62 years later. By your “logic” all medals/awards are suspect. It makes more sense then to question JFK’s and Kerry’s medals since they were also issued by the USN and closer in time (especially in JFK’s case) to LBJ’s. Sorry Lewis is an esteemed historian who has written a few books about the attacks including a chapter as well as a magazine article about the death toll. And just like every other historian who has taken a look at this disagrees with you. Speaking of which I’ve found another Paul Rosenzweig, is an Australian military historian in 1995 he published “Darwin 1942 : a reassessment of the first raid casualties” in the Military history journal. I’ve asked Evan for help in getting a hold of Lewis’ and Rosenzweig’s books and articles but if you were so interested in the truth you could try and get them as well, they are available in a few libraries in NSW.

From: Burton, Evan LEUT

Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 10:08

To: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Subject: RE: Defence of Darwin [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Sir,

Not part of the thread but a friend of mine is interested in the casualties from the 1942 bombing, specifically the cover-up at the time of the true number of killed. If you have any material that would help, it would be much appreciated.

Evan Burton

From: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 11:59

To: Burton, Evan LEUT

Subject: RE: Defence of Darwin [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Certainly do.

In my book "A War Home" (2nd edition onwards - now in 3rd edition) there is a chapter about the "myths and legends" of the Darwin raids.

Basically it's 251 confirmed KIA [Killed In Action – Len], which can be moved upwards around 30 or so - the book came out in 1999 and there have been some other people's analysis since then. But the claims of "thousands" dead is silly and unsubstantiated.

Well, it would be silly and unsubstantiated if anyone actually claimed it was thousands. I have found no one claiming that.

If Peter* Parker could pick nits, how many nits would Peter* Parker pick?

He obviously meant around a thousand as he stated below, you’ve continuously pushed the notion 900 – 1100 were killed.

* "artistic" license

There was a cover-up in that the numbers dead and the damage done was under-reported at the time, and therefore you had headlines in the southern papers about "attack repulsed." But that's pretty normal in wartime for morale.

Lying to the population is normal at any time. It is escusable at no time.

This cover-up he spoke of only lasted a few weeks

From: Burton, Evan LEUT

Sent: Monday, 30 November 2009 06:01

To: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Subject: Darwin bombing [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Sir,

A further question from my friend regarding the 1942 Darwin bombings:

In 2001 the NTA erected a commemorative plaque in Darwin totaling 292 killed, however it only listed 10 dead from the USS William B. Preston while the USN says 13 died* and author Peter Grose said 15 which would give us a total of 295 or 297 a bit above your upper limit. Do you think it might be overstating the fatalities?

* 11 killed and 2 "missing"

Thanks!

Evan Burton

From: Lewis, Tom LCDR

Sent: Monday, 30 November 2009 10:37

To: Burton, Evan LEUT

Subject: RE: Darwin bombing [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Evan:

I had the original Preston log - somewhere at home now - from which I got those stats. it was written immediately afterwards so could have been adjusted later.

I think anything up to 300 is possible but would be wary of going beyond that. In particular the claims of "1000" or so are wildly generalised.

Interesting turn of phrase, "wildly generalised".

One definition of "Generalised" - to infer or form (a general principle, opinion, conclusion, etc.) from only a few facts, examples, or the like.

I have to conclude that it is historians who have "wildly generalised" in that they have used only some of the available data to come up with their conservative figures. What did they ignore without proper explanation as to why? Eye witness accounts.

The irony of you making such a statement without even having read what Lewis (let alone Rosenzweig) wrote is stunning even by your standards - to top it off, as posted in this thread, Grose and Forrest gave their reasons but you chose to ignore this. I also gave reasons why such numbers are dubious but you ignore that as well. Did you even try contacting Stanley or Bradford to find out why they rejected such numbers or asking Grose or Forrest for clarification? Of course not! You didn’t even bother to get a hold of the Lockwood book.

To make things worse you haven’t even presented any evidence there is/was a consensus among survivors that the death toll was in the ballpark you put them in, let alone that there was a cover up. Peter Forrest is the only historian who puts the total much over 300; but even he puts the max under 500 and thinks the total is around 400. He said he based this on witness accounts, thus I’d assume these are the estimates most of the people he spoke to made. Unlike you he has actually spoken to survivors of the raid, quite a few apparently. But you arrogantly presume to know better than him based on having read a handful of accounts (some 2nd/3rd hand) of the 10,000 – 20,000 people who were there. As for your theory there was a post Lowe Report cover-up no one else,not even Forrest seems to agree with you and the only witness you can cite is a woman recounting a 2nd hand story and even then (based on Evan’s comments) gave no indication of any steps taken after February 19,1942 to hide the truth.

[Len Colby]

Bumped for Greg.

[Greg Parker]

Bumped for Greg.

Thanks Len!

Next you'll be telling us that the Banana Massacre wasn't suppressed by the Colombian Government!

BTW, when I put the figure at 900 to 1100 and you state I've been saying "thousands" - it is NOT spitting hairs to point out that my figure is not what you claim.

For logical fallacies, I'd refer you to the likes of Lifton and Von Pein.

[Len Colby]

Bumped for Greg.

Thanks Len!

Next you'll be telling us that the Banana Massacre wasn't suppressed by the Colombian Government!

I don’t know anything about the incident or any attempts to cover it up, it is not relevant to our discusion

BTW, when I put the figure at 900 to 1100 and you state I've been saying "thousands" - it is NOT spitting hairs to point out that my figure is not what you claim.

Now since Mike Stapleton has left you are the forum’s undisputed ‘Strawman from Oz” I never claimed you put the casualties that high. It was Lt. Commander Tom Lewis, an award winning naval historian who wrote a book about the attacks and an article about the casualty number controversy, who used the plural term in an e-mail to Evan. It seems to have a slight bit of hyperbole but technically accurate because some have said 1100 to over 1500 died. Since he thinks the total is around 250 Lewis obviously rejects 900 - 1100 as well. I have identified about a dozen historians/journalists/gov’t agencies that have tried to calculate the number of those killed all but one put the total between 250 and 320. The one exception put the total under 486, but even he thinks the discrepancy between that and the original official toll of about 250 was due to fog of war rather than cover-up. Your original thesis was based on the presumption that it was undisputed fact the death toll had been suppressed, that was clearly false.

For logical fallacies, I'd refer you to the likes of Lifton and Von Pein.

You emulate them well and seem to have taken lessons from Fetzer as well!

[Greg Parker]

Bumped for Greg.

Thanks Len!

Next you'll be telling us that the Banana Massacre wasn't suppressed by the Colombian Government!

I don't know anything about the incident or any attempts to cover it up, it is not relevant to our discusion

Why? Because you don't know anything about it? It is another example of a successful government-led cover-up of the number of people killed. And to this day, 83 years later, no one knows the exact figure, with estimates ranging from as low as 13 to a high in the thousands. The reason for the wide discrepancy can be put down to one thing: the original quelching of the facts as they played out.

BTW, when I put the figure at 900 to 1100 and you state I've been saying "thousands" - it is NOT spitting hairs to point out that my figure is not what you claim.

Now since Mike Stapleton has left you are the forum's undisputed 'Strawman from Oz"

I met Mark once. Nice guy despite his idiosyncratic focus on Israel.

I never claimed you put the casualties that high. It was Lt. Commander Tom Lewis, an award winning naval historian who wrote a book about the attacks and an article about the casualty number controversy, who used the plural term in an e-mail to Evan.

"Award winning"! Classic! Do you think he would have been "award winning" if he had ever said anything "controversial" that bucked the official government line?

It seems to have a slight bit of hyperbole but technically accurate because some have said 1100 to over 1500 died. Since he thinks the total is around 250 Lewis obviously rejects 900 - 1100 as well. I have identified about a dozen historians/journalists/gov't agencies that have tried to calculate the number of those killed all but one put the total between 250 and 320. The one exception put the total under 486, but even he thinks the discrepancy between that and the original official toll of about 250 was due to fog of war rather than cover-up. Your original thesis was based on the presumption that it was undisputed fact the death toll had been suppressed, that was clearly false.

Look, Len, It doesn't matter that YOU didn't say it. By publishing it and claiming I was splitting hairs by denying I'd ever used a figure that high, you were agreeing with him.

For logical fallacies, I'd refer you to the likes of Lifton and Von Pein.

You emulate them well and seem to have taken lessons from Fetzer as well!

Ah, if only I had their charm, as well, I could die a happy man...

[Len Colby]

Bumped for Greg.

Thanks Len!

Next you'll be telling us that the Banana Massacre wasn't suppressed by the Colombian Government!

I don't know anything about the incident or any attempts to cover it up, it is not relevant to our discussion

Why? Because you don't know anything about it? It is another example of a successful government-led cover-up of the number of people killed. And to this day, 83 years later, no one knows the exact figure, with estimates ranging from as low as 13 to a high in the thousands. The reason for the wide discrepancy can be put down to one thing: the original quelching of the facts as they played out.

It’s not relevant because it was an unrelated very different incident that took place over a decade earlier on a different continent and apparently none of the people involved in one were involved in the other. Whether or not there was a cover up in one incident does not strengthen or weaken the case there was one in the other.

====================================================

BTW, when I put the figure at 900 to 1100 and you state I've been saying "thousands" - it is NOT spitting hairs to point out that my figure is not what you claim.

Now since Mike Stapleton has left you are the forum's undisputed 'Strawman from Oz"

I met Mark once. Nice guy despite his idiosyncratic focus on Israel.

I never claimed you put the casualties that high. It was Lt. Commander Tom Lewis, an award winning naval historian who wrote a book about the attacks and an article about the casualty number controversy, who used the plural term in an e-mail to Evan.

"Award winning"! Classic! Do you think he would have been "award winning" if he had ever said anything "controversial" that bucked the official government line?

I have no idea which other authors or film makers etc. have won Order of Australia honors, do you? In any case I’m sure lots of Australian historians and journalists who have not “bucked the official government line” but have not won the OAM. None of the dozen or so historians or journalists who have made their views known back your view that includes the one who thinks the total toll might be up to double the original estimate.

========================================================================

It seems to have a slight bit of hyperbole but technically accurate because some have said 1100 to over 1500 died. Since he thinks the total is around 250 Lewis obviously rejects 900 - 1100 as well. I have identified about a dozen historians/journalists/gov't agencies that have tried to calculate the number of those killed all but one put the total between 250 and 320. The one exception put the total under 486, but even he thinks the discrepancy between that and the original official toll of about 250 was due to fog of war rather than cover-up. Your original thesis was based on the presumption that it was undisputed fact the death toll had been suppressed, that was clearly false.

Look, Len, It doesn't matter that YOU didn't say it. By publishing it and claiming I was splitting hairs by denying I'd ever used a figure that high, you were agreeing with him.

Of course it matters that I “didn’t say it” because you falsely claimed I did, the hair splitting question of whether or not estimates of 1100 – 1500 can be classified as “thousands” aside in a later e-mail Lewis rejected “1000”.

Nitpicking aside like everyone else that has looked into this he rejects the theory you back. And he was not referring to you specifically, I doubt he even knows who you are.

===================================================================

For logical fallacies, I'd refer you to the likes of Lifton and Von Pein.

You emulate them well and seem to have taken lessons from Fetzer as well!

Ah, if only I had their charm, as well, I could die a happy man...

Yes, you are almost as charming as Fetzer!!

Edited July 27, 2011 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Bumped for Greg (again).

[Greg Parker]

Bumped for Greg (again).

Thank's again, Len!

You said:

It’s [the Banana Massacre] not relevant because it was an unrelated very different incident that took place over a decade earlier on a different continent and apparently none of the people involved in one were involved in the other. Whether or not there was a cover up in one incident does not strengthen or weaken the case there was one in the other.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't one of your basic beliefs go along the lines that government is incapable of suppressing anything - let alone something of this magnitude?

Showing it occurred in Colombia demonstrates that it could happen practically anywhere, but particularly in isolated parts of the world.

The fact that there is such a huge divergence in estimates of the number of deaths in both cases so many many years later, is a direct consequence of government secrecy and a compliant news media.

[Len Colby]

Bumped for Greg (again).

Thank's again, Len!

You said:

It’s [the Banana Massacre] not relevant because it was an unrelated very different incident that took place over a decade earlier on a different continent and apparently none of the people involved in one were involved in the other. Whether or not there was a cover up in one incident does not strengthen or weaken the case there was one in the other.

"Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't one of your basic beliefs go along the lines that government is incapable of suppressing anything - let alone something of this magnitude?"

I never said that “government is incapable of suppressing anything” but have argued that plots involving hundreds or more conspirators (such as SOME 9/11 and JFK theories) are unrealistic. I don’t remember making such an argument in this case, but our “debate” has dragged on for several years

"Showing it occurred in Colombia demonstrates that it could happen practically anywhere, but particularly in isolated parts of the world."

Huuh? “Showing it occurred in [a small isolated town in a corrupt 3rd world country] demonstrates that it could happen practically anywhere”???

"The fact that there is such a huge divergence in estimates of the number of deaths in both cases so many many years later, is a direct consequence of government secrecy and a compliant news media."

In the Darwin case there is very little divergence in the death tolls estimated by historians, journalists or government commissions. One calculated "anything up to double that 243", the others between “approximately 250" and “a little over 300, perhaps as many as 310 or 320”. You have failed to show that:

• the death toll in the Colombian incident was as closely studied as it was in the Australian one.

• the government attempted to cover up the Darwin death toll except in the 1st few days after the attacks. Even the only historian who put the death toll much over 300 said that wasn’t the case.

• The Colombian government tried to cover-up the 1928 death toll

• the “news media” failed to live up to its responsibilities in either case especially the latter one.

That said the Colombian government obviously had a lot more motive to cover-up the total, if indeed it was much over 50 than the Australian one did/does if it was much over 300

So a researcher writing about the massacre “put together the various estimates given by contemporaries and historians, ranging from 47 to 2,000” but how reliable were those estimates? Initial estimates of the WTC collapse death toll were in the tens of thousands and that was in the media center of the world in 2001 as opposed to a remote outpost of a 3rd World country in 1928. How reliable were the top end estimates? Do historians take them seriously? Did they stem from sources linked to the opposition party? The book in which the estimates were assemble is available on Google Book but only through “Snippet View”. The 1st 4 gave estimates of 47 – 50, the 5th 100 and 6th 200, the 7th 400, the 8th and 9th 1000, the 10th 1400, the 11th and 12th 1500, the 13th 2000 and 14th apparently 410. But how reliable were these sources what did they base their estimates on? If you click on the links below you’ll see the cited sources, time for you to do some research, habla espanhol?

http://books.google.com.br/books?ei=fwU-Tvn3GIG3tgeW3uTEBw&ct=result&id=kcpiAAAAMAAJ&q=47#search_anchor

http://books.google.com.br/books?ei=fwU-Tvn3GIG3tgeW3uTEBw&ct=result&id=kcpiAAAAMAAJ&q=200#search_anchor

http://books.google.com.br/books?ei=fwU-Tvn3GIG3tgeW3uTEBw&ct=result&id=kcpiAAAAMAAJ&q=2000#search_anchor

FWIW most of the sources cited on the Wikipedia discussion page put the death toll between 50 and 80 though apparently the local US Consul estimated 1500 and strike leaders said 2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santa_Marta_Massacre#The_Death_Toll

But this page cites a local union leader who said 207 were killed

http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2008/12/96369.php

But lets try to return our focus to the supposed cover-up of the Darwin death toll.