McAdams on Garrison

[Greg Parker]

Greg - Should I take your failure to reply as tacit acknowledgment you were wrong about the death toll at Darwin being covered up?

If so can you cite any examples of large conspiracies being covered up for decades?

I have already.

Let's quote what you cite and then look at what the government now admits:

Your cite: "The Melbourne Herald's report appeared on page 3 under the headline, 240 killed in First Raid on Darwin - Shipping Losses Also Given in Report. It would have taken a keen-eyed reader to spot the 3 paragraph story..."

The report mentioned is the Lowe Report - and as I alluded to in my original post, it could be regarded as our Warren Report in that it followed the official line by giving it's stamp of approval to official figures. The censors then forced the press to downplay even those official figures, as the Herald story shows with it's placement and brevity.

Here is what the government now admits:

From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships. Many military and civilian facilities were destroyed. The Japanese lost about 131 aircraft in total during the attacks.

At the time, there were many rumours alluding to the Australian Government's suppression of information about the bombings - it was thought that reports of casualties were intentionally diminished to maintain national morale.

Local sources estimated that between 900 and 1100 people were killed. For many years, government censorship limited coverage of the event to protect public morale in the southern states of Australia.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/art.../darwinbombing/

Since we know fatalities were light in the latter raids, we must conclude that the original official figure on the first raid was severely fudged, even going by the conservative grand total now admitted to.

The onus is on you to acknowledge you were wrong, not me.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Greg - Should I take your failure to reply as tacit acknowledgment you were wrong about the death toll at Darwin being covered up?

If so can you cite any examples of large conspiracies being covered up for decades?

Len, perhaps you're both right. Just because ONE paper printed the correct total five weeks later does not mean it became common knowledge... Cover-ups are rarely one hundred percent successful...but they don't need to be. As far as Greg's basic point--that governments cover-up and lie to protect politicians and that it sometimes takes decades to uncover the truth, how can you argue?

Pat,

thanks for trying to be conciliatory, but no need. Len is wrong. His superficial research is no different than quoting the Dallas Morning Herald quoting the Warren Report that Oswald acted alone.

I'll give you my favorite example. The vast majority of Americans STILL believe the United States HAD to drop the bomb on Japan, because the Japanese military had vowed to fight to the last man. Virtually no one knows that Japanese leaders had been trying to negotiate a surrender with Allen Dulles and others in Europe for months before the bomb was dropped. Virtually no one knows that Douglas MacArthur, of all people, said that the battle of Iwo Jima was totally unnecessary. We continued fighting and dropped the bomb because we wanted to assure Japan's UNCONDITIONAL surrender (and perhaps just perhaps send a message to the Russians). But how many Americans knew this? How many soldiers fighting at Iwo Jima were told that the Japanese had already agreed to surrender, and give up all the gains they'd made in the war, but were fighting on because they didn't want us to occupy their homeland? Probably zero. The American people were sold the war under the premise the Germans and Japanese were out to conquer the world; they were not sold the war on the premise we needed to conquer Germany and Japan and rebuild them to suit or economic interests. And so the lie was repeated after the war was over. And repeated and repeated and repeated. Until it became doctrine.

[Len Colby]

Here is what the government now admits:

From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships. Many military and civilian facilities were destroyed. The Japanese lost about 131 aircraft in total during the attacks.

At the time, there were many rumours alluding to the Australian Government's suppression of information about the bombings - it was thought that reports of casualties were intentionally diminished to maintain national morale.

Local sources estimated that between 900 and 1100 people were killed. For many years, government censorship limited coverage of the event to protect public morale in the southern states of Australia.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/art.../darwinbombing/

Since we know fatalities were light in the latter raids, we must conclude that the original official figure on the first raid was severely fudged, even going by the conservative grand total now admitted to.

The onus is on you to acknowledge you were wrong, not me.

Apparently you didn’t read the page you quoted very carefully:

During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.

[…]

The Japanese first attacked Darwin on the morning of 19 February 1942… This first attack (and the one that was to follow later that day) was planned and led by Mitsuo Fuchida…The first attack lasted approximately forty minutes… The second attack began an hour after the first ended…

The two raids killed at least 243 Australians and allies

.

[…]

Two weeks after the Darwin bombing, on 3 March 1942, the Western Australian town of Broome suffered Australia's second-worst air raid. The attack killed seventy people.

So according to your own source there were 97 raids which killed “about 900 people” but “local sources” say the number might be as high as “1100 people”. The first two, both on Darwin February 19, 1942 killed “at least 243”, let’s say 270, and the next most serious killed 70 for a total of 340. The fatalities from the other 94 raids was not given but comes out to an average of 6 – 8 per raid if “900 – 1100 people were killed”.

Ironic that you accuse me of “superficial research ” "The onus is on you to acknowledge you were wrong, not me"

Note to Pat:

According to the author “The government’s final announcement of the numbers killed was issued on 30 March 1942, immediately after Curtin received the secret report of the Lowe Commission…Newspapers printed the story in two or three paragraphs on inside pages”

So the government initially gave the casualty figures being fed to it, then for a few weeks suppressed higher numbers then shortly after it received a report with numbers close to those now accepted made an official announcement which was carried in several papers though it was down played. But even IF the story had only appeared in one paper Greg’s analogy wouldn’t fit, can you point to any legitimate newspapers which ever printed any articles on any page of someone ‘spilling the beans’ about the assassination?

[Greg Parker]

Apparently you didn’t read the page you quoted very carefully:

During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.

[…]

The Japanese first attacked Darwin on the morning of 19 February 1942… This first attack (and the one that was to follow later that day) was planned and led by Mitsuo Fuchida…The first attack lasted approximately forty minutes… The second attack began an hour after the first ended… The two raids killed at least 243 Australians and allies.

[…]

Two weeks after the Darwin bombing, on 3 March 1942, the Western Australian town of Broome suffered Australia's second-worst air raid. The attack killed seventy people.

So according to your own source there were 97 raids which killed “about 900 people” but “local sources” say the number might be as high as “1100 people”. The first two, both on Darwin February 19, 1942 killed “at least 243”, let’s say 270, and the next most serious killed 70 for a total of 340. The fatalities from the other 94 raids was not given but comes out to an average of 6 – 8 per raid if “900 – 1100 people were killed”.

Well, Len you've managed to garble things again.

Ironic that you accuse me of “superficial research ” "The onus is on you to acknowledge you were wrong, not me"

Yep. And you've proved it again with this post.

The local estimate of 900 to 1100 was for the FIRST TWO raids - not an estimate for all 64 raids. The official figure of 900 for the entire 64 is just as I described it - conservative (to say the least!)

And by the way... a little tip... Broome is nowhere near Darwin. That's like picking a city on the US east coast and lumping it in with a mid west city for whatever dubious purpose you might want to do that...

HOW MANY WERE KILLED IN DARWIN ON 19 FEBRUARY 1942?

Modern history seems to record that there were 243 deaths in Darwin on the 19 February 1942 after two major air raids by Japanese aircraft. Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest there were many more deaths than this. Many of the servicemen that were in Darwin that day believe that more than 243 were killed.

The Australian Government initially announced that 15 people had been killed and 24 wounded. It took many weeks before the public in the other main cities of Australia became aware that hundreds had actually died.

One soldier based in Darwin at the time of these major Japanese raids says the he saw barges of tangled bodies towed out to sea after the attacks.

The Mayor of Darwin at the time said that about 900 people had been killed.

Rex Ruwoldt who had been based at Lee Point, received their news bulletin over the filed telephone from their field Headquarters a few days after the raid. It mentioned an estimate of 1100 deaths which had been based on estimates from Army Intelligence.

Rex believes that a large number of those killed were part of the 2,000 or so itinerant works in Darwin at the time of the attacks. They would have been caught by surprise and would not have had access to slit trenches.

Darwin Historian Peter Forrest believe the death toll was somewhere between 400 to 500. At the time of the attacks, there would have been significant numbers of evacuees from Java and Ambon. How many of these people were killed?

Adelaide Historian John Bradford believes the figure is about 250 killed. He had been told a story by one person that he had been a member of burial party that had buried 1,500 people on a Darwin beach.

Ross Dack was a member of a burial team at Mindil Beach. He said that there were lots of bodies which were shoved in a large hole dug by a bulldozer. Nobody counted the bodies. They were all black, covered in oil. Ross believes that the bodies were later exhumed and relocated to Adelaide River War Cemetery.

Unfortunately there is no documentary evidence to support these memories from many years ago. If there were that many, who were they all? The Australian War Memorial Roll of Honour database shows only 18 deaths for Military personnel killed in Darwin on 19 February 1942.

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/darwin02.htm

Note to Pat:

According to the author “The government’s final announcement of the numbers killed was issued on 30 March 1942, immediately after Curtin received the secret report of the Lowe Commission…Newspapers printed the story in two or three paragraphs on inside pages”

So the government initially gave the casualty figures being fed to it, then for a few weeks suppressed higher numbers then shortly after it received a report with numbers close to those now accepted made an official announcement which was carried in several papers though it was down played. But even IF the story had only appeared in one paper Greg’s analogy wouldn’t fit, can you point to any legitimate newspapers which ever printed any articles on any page of someone ‘spilling the beans’ about the assassination?

Now we're full circle. One the points I made originally with this was that the Lowe Commission (LC) was LBJ's inspiration for the Warren Commission as a tool to quell dissent over a probable government cover-up. LBJ was in Australia at the time, and since some US personnel had been killed in the raids, it's more than possible - nay likely that our US allies were made privy to the real purpose of the LC.

Any time you're ready for that acknowledgement, Len, don't be shy...

[Greg Parker]

Len - Should I take your failure to reply as tacit acknowledgement you were wrong about the death toll at Darwin not being covered up?

greg

[Len Colby]

Apparently you didn’t read the page you quoted very carefully:

During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.

[…]

The Japanese first attacked Darwin on the morning of 19 February 1942… This first attack (and the one that was to follow later that day) was planned and led by Mitsuo Fuchida…The first attack lasted approximately forty minutes… The second attack began an hour after the first ended… The two raids killed at least 243 Australians and allies.

[…]

Two weeks after the Darwin bombing, on 3 March 1942, the Western Australian town of Broome suffered Australia's second-worst air raid. The attack killed seventy people.

So according to your own source there were 97 raids which killed “about 900 people” but “local sources” say the number might be as high as “1100 people”. The first two, both on Darwin February 19, 1942 killed “at least 243”, let’s say 270, and the next most serious killed 70 for a total of 340. The fatalities from the other 94 raids was not given but comes out to an average of 6 – 8 per raid if “900 – 1100 people were killed”.

Well, Len you've managed to garble things again.

Ironic that you accuse me of “superficial research ” "The onus is on you to acknowledge you were wrong, not me"

Yep. And you've proved it again with this post.

The local estimate of 900 to 1100 was for the FIRST TWO raids - not an estimate for all 64 raids. The official figure of 900 for the entire 64 is just as I described it - conservative (to say the least!)

You are correct in the sense that the link leads to an unsubtatianted claim by a Sydney artist who spent a few months in Darwin in 1991 making a painting about the attacks that locals make such an estimate. However the original text as written indicated that was the estimate for all 97 raids and that’s how you interpreted it yourself in your previous post. So you claim that I am guilty of “superficial research ” for coming to the same conclusion you did, this after you cited the same page which you obviously had not read in its entirety (because you failed to notice it contradicted you), and based on your comment about Broome, still haven’t read carefully, words fail me.

And by the way... a little tip... Broome is nowhere near Darwin. That's like picking a city on the US east coast and lumping it in with a mid west city for whatever dubious purpose you might want to do that...

Before getting snotty and sarcastic you should make sure you know what you are talking about. I never indicated Broome was near Darwin. The title of the article is “The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia”, its first sentence is “During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.” And indeed if one looks at a map of your country they will see that Broome is in the northern 6th of it. It is 2200 kilometres (1400 miles) north of Perth the only major city in western Australia and well north of Brisbane the northern most major city in the country. So by any reasonable standard it is in “northern Australia”. Try reading for comprehension.

HOW MANY WERE KILLED IN DARWIN ON 19 FEBRUARY 1942?

Modern history seems to record that there were 243 deaths in Darwin on the 19 February 1942 after two major air raids by Japanese aircraft. Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest there were many more deaths than this. Many of the servicemen that were in Darwin that day believe that more than 243 were killed.

The Australian Government initially announced that 15 people had been killed and 24 wounded. It took many weeks before the public in the other main cities of Australia became aware that hundreds had actually died.

One soldier based in Darwin at the time of these major Japanese raids says the he saw barges of tangled bodies towed out to sea after the attacks.

The Mayor of Darwin at the time said that about 900 people had been killed.

Rex Ruwoldt who had been based at Lee Point, received their news bulletin over the filed telephone from their field Headquarters a few days after the raid. It mentioned an estimate of 1100 deaths which had been based on estimates from Army Intelligence.

Rex believes that a large number of those killed were part of the 2,000 or so itinerant works in Darwin at the time of the attacks. They would have been caught by surprise and would not have had access to slit trenches.

Darwin Historian Peter Forrest believe the death toll was somewhere between 400 to 500. At the time of the attacks, there would have been significant numbers of evacuees from Java and Ambon. How many of these people were killed?

Adelaide Historian John Bradford believes the figure is about 250 killed. He had been told a story by one person that he had been a member of burial party that had buried 1,500 people on a Darwin beach.

Ross Dack was a member of a burial team at Mindil Beach. He said that there were lots of bodies which were shoved in a large hole dug by a bulldozer. Nobody counted the bodies. They were all black, covered in oil. Ross believes that the bodies were later exhumed and relocated to Adelaide River War Cemetery.

Unfortunately there is no documentary evidence to support these memories from many years ago. If there were that many, who were they all? The Australian War Memorial Roll of Honour database shows only 18 deaths for Military personnel killed in Darwin on 19 February 1942.

[/color]

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/darwin02.htm

Talking about coming full circle in your previous post you claimed that the government now agreed that the number was far higher that acknowledged in 1942. You indicated in your original post that this was undisputed but now you resort to citing a personal web page, without proper citations, whose author admits and asks, “there is no documentary evidence to support these memories from many years ago. If there were that many, who were they all?”.

Let’s examine the totals cited by historians and official sources:

Numerous Australian government sources including the Darwin City Council still use the 243 figure though they often use qualifiers like ‘over’, ‘more than’, ‘at least’

or ‘about’.

http://tiny.cc/darwin243

John Bradford, who wrote a book about the raids, one of only two historians among the 7 people your author cited thinks the figure is “about 250” close to the official one. He spoke to a witness who claimed the numbers were much higher but obviously concluded that the witness was not credible.

Bradford, is not alone on the 60th anniversary of the bombing Dr. Peter Stanley, then the Australian War Memorial’s Principal Historian came to a similar conclusion. He said “The two raids killed about 250 people in and around Darwin. The official historians, writing in the 1950s, went to some trouble to determine a firm figure. They concluded that 'about 243' had died. Later research has revised this figure upwards. No one can know the actual number because the crews of some of the merchant ships were not fully known. It was certainly not the 1,024 claimed recently in unsubstantiated reports.” He repeated the 250 estimate in November 2006

http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering194.../transcript.asp

http://www.awm.gov.au/events/talks/oration2006.asp

Before you go an about Stanley being employed by the government makes him unlikely to accuse the government of lying during WWII, in 2005 he “released a paper that claims Japan never planned to invade Australia and the "myth" was promoted by Prime Minister John Curtin as a "motivational device".”

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/15122.html

In a speech before the Senate this year, Victoria Sen. David Feeney said the total was “251”

http://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/senate/dailys/ds110209.pdf pgs 59 – 60

Peter Grose an Australian born journalist and historian wrote one of the few books about the bombings, he interviewed many witnesses and examined many official documents. He looked into the controversy over the number of people killed and concluded “the full death toll is likely to be a little over 300, perhaps as many as 310 or 320” and that “numbers such as 1100 are fancifully high” [see more complete version below. Based the amount or research he put into it his estimate is probably the most definitive of those cited in this post.

In 2000 Peter Forrest the historian mentioned above said ‘the first Japanese air raids on Darwin probably killed more than double the official figure of 243’ (paraphrase). In 2001 he gave a similar estimate, “very reliable witnesses that I've spoken to estimate that the death toll could have been anything between 500 and perhaps 1200 people”. He “was commissioned…to publish a history of the war in northern Australia before the anniversary of the two raids on Darwin”. Though the book wasn’t published by its due date he backed off his earlier assessments a bit:

“I'm completely satisfied, from talking to people who survived, that the death toll could have been anything up to double that 243.

On the other hand, I have spoken to people who were here and they reckon it could have been anything up to 1,500.”

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-38718802.html

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s248595.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s485505.htm

Note that though the top end estimate of his witnesses went up, his own estimate went down. Like Grose and Stanley while he had heard reports of 1000 plus dead he concluded that the total was much lower. Several sources, including Grose, claim Darwin mayor Jack Burton estimated 900 people were killed but none provide a direct quote, citations or even indicate when or where he supposedly said this making the claim impossible to verify and difficult to access. Did he really say it? Did he say so at the time or long afterwards? What did he base the estimate on?

To sum things up we have the following estimates of those killed from official sources and historians

Lowe Commission -243 (still cited by many sources)

John Bradford – “about 250”

Dr. Peter Stanley -“about 250”

Sen. Feeney – 251

Northern Territory Administration – 292

Peter Grose “a little over 300”

Peter Forrest – “up to” 486

Mayor Jack Burton – about 900 ???

As for the supposed “Army Intelligence” estimate of 1100 killed Grose described it as “rumored” (pg 188) as far as I can tell the only source for this is Rex Ruwoldt who seeming first said this about 60 years after the fact when he would have been in his mid 70’s to early 80’s. He was an 18 year-old machine gunner at the time* so I’m not sure what he would have been doing on a “field telephone” getting news reports from “field Headquarters a few days after the raid”. I wonder why if there was conspiracy to cover up the number of deaths why was military intelligence giving out such information?

* http://www.australiansatwar.gov.au/stories...=W2_id=210.html

As Peter Grose asked “If so many died, who were they?” (pg 191) There are lists of the Australian civilian and military casualties (Stanley 2002 – link above) and presumably the Americans and British would have a better idea of how many of their personnel were killed than the Australians. Thus to a certain degree Ruwoldt’s speculation that ‘a large number of those killed were part of the 2,000 or so itinerant works in Darwin at the time’ makes sense. Many weren’t even Australian and thus wouldn’t be missed.

But on the other hand it doesn’t make sense. If the Japanese objective was to knock out Darwin as a transport/logistics hub why would they waste time and munitions killing defenseless farm workers? Why would the government cover up the cold blooded murder of innocent civilians? Most/all of the known victims were in military installations or legitimate (by 1942 standards) civilian targets like the wharf, telegraph office and post office. The norm of war time propaganda is to invent / exaggerate such incidents committed by the enemy not cover them up.

And additional problem is if the number of killed was vastly undercounted why didn’t anyone from the Liberal or other opposition parties find out about it? Since it was the territorial capital presumably current or former Liberal office holders lived there. Or if they did why didn’t they bring this up? PM Curtin died in 1945 and was replaced by his Treasurer (finance minister). All of his 1942 cabinet were senators or MP’s most held the same positions at the time of the 1943 and even the 1946 elections but it does not seem to have been an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Curtin_Ministry

So it is still very much up for debate how many people were killed, the consensus among historians (other than Forrest) is 250 – 320. But it makes little sense to blame an undercount of (at most) 20 – 25% on a conspiracy rather than fog or war even Forrest only believes that the active cover up ended during the war. He said:

“The events of that day in Darwin were suppressed at the time and then I think later when they did more accurately emerge the nation was overwhelmed with other business later in the war”

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s248595.htm

So your first task is to come up with convincing evidence the death toll was much higher than reported, your second one is to show the truth was actively suppressed for decades and that many people were “in on it”, or at least knew the truth and kept their mouths shut.

Now we're full circle. One the points I made originally with this was that the Lowe Commission (LC) was LBJ's inspiration for the Warren Commission as a tool to quell dissent over a probable government cover-up. LBJ was in Australia at the time,

Wrong again! The Lowe Commission was in place March 3 – 30, 1942. “For four months beginning at the end of December [1941] he [LBJ] spent most of his time traveling in Texas, California, and the state of Washington, trying to assess the labor needs of war production plants and to suggest answers to their problems” (Dallek - pg 49) he didn’t get to Australia till May 17 or so (pg 50).

http://books.google.com/books?id=pOgzGGRKJ...p;q=&f=true

and since some US personnel had been killed in the raids, it's more than possible - nay likely that our US allies were made privy to the real purpose of the LC.

Since:

The main objectives of LBJ’s month in the country were to: a)boost McArthur and his staff’s moral, help his political careeer and c)assess “front line conditions”

- The LC was secret and issued its report about 7 weeks before he got there,

- Melbourne about 400 miles (700 kilometers) away seems to have been the closest he got to Canberra during his month or so in your country.

- The US would have a better idea that the Australians how many people they lost

It is unlikely he would have been informed about any shenanigans IF they had been committed. Your analogy false apart on the secret nature of the LC, why fake a report that was only meant to be seen by people who knew it was a lie?

Any time you're ready for that acknowledgement, Len, don't be shy...

Uuuh, the irony!!!

Peter Grose on the number of people killed in the 1st two bombings of Darwin

Page 188

The question of how many died in Darwin as a result of the two raids is still controversial. Jack Burton a former mayor who was in town 19 February 1942 estimated the number killed at ‘about 900’. Some have put the numbers as high as 1100 -echoing a rumoured early estimate by Army Intelligence.

Page 191

“I can only agree with Edgar Harrison [the officer in charge of Darwin’s air raid protection – Len] that the final total will never be known. While the official figure of 243 can be proved to be low, numbers such as 1100 are fancifully high. If so many died, who were they? Any claim that large numbers of people died but were not counted rests on the fact that bodies may have drifted out to sea, got lost in the mangroves, If so, the victims must have come from the ships or the wharf. Survivors from ships in the harbour, particularly military ships, had a pretty fair idea of how many were aboard when the raid took place. They would be unlikely to underestimate the death toll by hundreds. And if 900 or 1100 died, why were the numbers of injured so low? The count of the injured is more accurate, because they were treated in hospital or shipped out aboard the Manunda. The hospitals and Manunda noted names and numbers of those they treated. The Lowe Commission put the number of injured 'between 300 and 400', and there is …It is implausible that the number of killed would be three to four times greater than the number injured. Some wharfies remain unaccounted for

Page 192

The most accurate 'official' figure to date appears on a plaque unveiled in 2001 on The Esplanade, near Government House. Placed by the Northern Territory's Administration to mark the centenary of Federation… Its final total is 292 dead”.

It gave the totals for various locations “Killed on Darwin Wharf 22 Killed in the town area 17 MV Neptuna 45 USS Peary 91 SS Zealandia 3 SS British Motorist 2 SS Maun” Grose only disputed one of those totals “it…lists William B. Preston's fatalities as 10, rather than the correct 15” which indicates a total of 297

Page 193

“With the William B. Preston total corrected to 15, a figure of 297 known dead is the best count anyone is likely to achieve*If we then accept Edgar Harrison's view that an unknown number of bodies drifted out to sea or were caught up in the mangroves or taken by sharks or crocodiles… and temper that view by saying the number unaccounted for is bound to be low, the full death toll is likely to be a little over 300, perhaps as many as 310 or 320. Does this make the Darwin raid Australia's worst disaster? The only challenge comes from Cyclone Mahina, which struck Bathurst Bay, near Cape Melville on the far north-east coast of Queensland

Len - Should I take your failure to reply as tacit acknowledgement you were wrong about the death toll at Darwin not being covered up?

Don't you wish!

EDIT - Formatting

Edited October 22, 2009 by Len Colby

[Greg Parker]

Len in italics

However the original text as written indicated that was the estimate for all 97 raids

This was the first quote I gave mention the total figure covering all raids:

From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people,

and that’s how you interpreted it yourself in your previous post.

Correct. It says quite plainly that the grand total was about 900.

That is a separate issue to the estimates of 900 to 1100 given for the first 2 raids by in order, the Mayor of Darwin and Army intelligence.

You got yourself confused because of the 900 figure appearing in those separate estimates which clearly cover 2 different time periods. Your confusion is... your confusion. Stop projecting.

Before getting snotty and sarcastic you should make sure you know what you are talking about. I never indicated Broome was near Darwin. The title of the article is “The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia”, its first sentence is “During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.”

I know what I'm talking about. Let me spell it out. Broome has nothing to do with it. The fact that Broome was mentioned in the heading of anything is irrelevant -- UNLESS you're trying to cover the growing body count for the Darwin bombings by trying to slip in Broome's list of fatalities. That might work if Broome was in close proximity, but it's not even in the same state/territory. This is about Darwin and its loss of life. Focus.

Talking about coming full circle in your previous post you claimed that the government now agreed that the number was far higher that acknowledged in 1942. You indicated in your original post that this was undisputed but now you resort to citing a personal web page, without proper citations, whose author admits and asks, “there is no documentary evidence to support these memories from many years ago. If there were that many, who were they all?”.

Darwin was a frontier town nowhere near any other major town or center. You had refugees, itinerant workers and local Aboriginals all outside any census data that existed. The oral history cannot be ignored on that count alone, and it has it that to quote on soldier, "barges of tangled bodies towed out to sea after the attacks." I note that none of the historians you cite mention these hidden populations, or the bodies taken to sea.

Lowe Commission -243 (still cited by many sources)

Wrong. It said approximately 250.

Wrong again! The Lowe Commission was in place March 3 – 30, 1942. “For four months beginning at the end of December [1941] he [LBJ] spent most of his time traveling in Texas, California, and the state of Washington, trying to assess the labor needs of war production plants and to suggest answers to their problems” (Dallek - pg 49) he didn’t get to Australia till May 17 or so (pg 50).

Lyndon Johnson had been appointed as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Naval Reserve on 21 June 1940. He reported for active service on 9 December 1941, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. He was initially assigned to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department, Washington, D.C. After completing his training in Washington, Johnson transferred to the Headquarters of the Twelfth Naval District, San Francisco, California for inspection duty in the Pacific area. While stationed in New Zealand and Australia, he worked as an observer on bomber missions.

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/tow9.htm

Lowe handed in a supplemental report on April 9, but according to the National Archives, it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945.

Darwin air raids – report by Mr Justice Lowe 1942–45 MP1185/8, 1806/2/31

http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publication...eets/fs195.aspx

[Len Colby]

Len in italics

However the original text as written indicated that was the estimate for all 97 raids

This was the first quote I gave mention the total figure covering all raids:

From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people,

and that’s how you interpreted it yourself in your previous post.

Correct. It says quite plainly that the grand total was about 900.

That is a separate issue to the estimates of 900 to 1100 given for the first 2 raids by in order, the Mayor of Darwin and Army intelligence.

You got yourself confused because of the 900 figure appearing in those separate estimates which clearly cover 2 different time periods. Your confusion is... your confusion. Stop projecting.

Here’s the cited passage:

From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships. Many military and civilian facilities were destroyed. The Japanese lost about 131 aircraft in total during the attacks.

At the time, there were many rumours alluding to the Australian Government's suppression of information about the bombings - it was thought that reports of casualties were intentionally diminished to maintain national morale.

Local sources estimated that between 900 and 1100 people were killed. For many years, government censorship limited coverage of the event to protect public morale in the southern states of Australia.

Since there was no mention of Darwin between the 900 figure for all 97 raids and the estimate by locals “that between 900 and 1100 people were killed” the obvious inference was that this was their estimate for the 97 raids and that’s how you initially interpreted it as your earlier post made apparent. The Mayor and Army intelligence were not mentioned in that article.

Before getting snotty and sarcastic you should make sure you know what you are talking about. I never indicated Broome was near Darwin. The title of the article is “The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia”, its first sentence is “During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.”

I know what I'm talking about. Let me spell it out. Broome has nothing to do with it. The fact that Broome was mentioned in the heading of anything is irrelevant -- UNLESS you're trying to cover the growing body count for the Darwin bombings by trying to slip in Broome's list of fatalities. That might work if Broome was in close proximity, but it's not even in the same state/territory. This is about Darwin and its loss of life. Focus.

You still don’t get it. The article was about the raids in NORTHERN Australia, Broome is NORTHERN Australia. You wrote

"Since we know fatalities were light in the latter raids, we must conclude that the original official figure on the first raid was severely fudged, even going by the conservative grand total now admitted to."

Your argument was that with the government admitting 900 killed in all raids the total for the 1st two had to be much more than 243 because “we know fatalities were light in the latter raids”.

But by actually doing the math i.e. adding the total estimates for Broome (70) and the 1st two raids on Darwin (250 to 270), subtracting that (340) from the total for all of NORTHERN Australia (900) and dividing the result (560) by 94 I came up with an average of 6 per raid, in other words ‘light’ fatalities.

Ergo you were wrong. Focus!

Talking about coming full circle in your previous post you claimed that the government now agreed that the number was far higher that acknowledged in 1942. You indicated in your original post that this was undisputed but now you resort to citing a personal web page, without proper citations, whose author admits and asks, “there is no documentary evidence to support these memories from many years ago. If there were that many, who were they all?”.

Darwin was a frontier town nowhere near any other major town or center. You had refugees, itinerant workers and local Aboriginals all outside any census data that existed. The oral history cannot be ignored on that count alone, and it has it that to quote on soldier, "barges of tangled bodies towed out to sea after the attacks." I note that none of the historians you cite mention these hidden populations, or the bodies taken to sea.

Forrest took several oral histories but still concluded that “the death toll could have been anything up to double that 243” i.e. 486 tops, the other historians were aware of such oral histories as well but concluded that the toll was 250 – 320 none the less. Witness testimony is known to be unreliable, that would be especially true for elderly men recounting traumatic events that had taken place about 60 years earlier. To come to any sort of conclusion based on them you would need to see (or conduct) more interviews. It’s beyond arrogant of you to conclude you know better than 4 historians, 2 of who wrote books about the attacks just because you’ve spent a few minutes Googleerching the subject.

I haven’t seen any accounts of the Japanese attacking anything but the wharf, town center, ships and military installations thus it makes little sense to assume large numbers of “itinerant workers and local Aboriginals” were killed – there would be no reason for the Japanese to target them anyway. Evacuees were military personnel and it doesn’t make sense to assume hundreds could go missing without being noticed. I have not seen any mention of there being large numbers of civilian refugees in Darwin at the time. In any case 4 historians concluded the total was 250 – 320 and a fifth up to 486, none I have heard of backs anything close to 900 – 1100. Only Forrest says there was a cover up and he believes it ended during the war.

As for the bodies supposedly taken out to sea, can you find any substantiation or is there only the one witness?

Lowe Commission -243 (still cited by many sources)

Wrong. It said approximately 250.

Actually we're both right, but you were closer to the truth. Here what the Lowe wrote: {I added the numbers in brackets [ ], they are the numbers from the 2001 plaque in Darwin if different.- Len}

LOSS OF LIFE.

The extent of the casualties incurred in the raids has been investigated for me with great thoroughness by Mr. Alderman, and I adopt the conclusions which he has arrived at in his inquiry. It is impossible to speak with certainty of the number of people who lost their lives, but I am satisfied that

the number is approximately 250

, and I doubt whether any further investigation will result in ascertaining a more precise figure.

Mr. Alderman concluded that the following were, as nearly as he could ascertain, the correct particulars of the deaths:

Neptuna 45

Zealandia 3

British Motorist 2

Manunda 12

Swan 4 [3]

Karakara 5 [2]

Gunbower 1

Peary 80 [91]

Meigs 2 – [1]

Port Mar 1

Maunaloa 5

The Army 2 [3]

The Air Force 6 [7]

United States of America Army and Air Force 7

Civilians in the town. . 14 [17]

Civilians on the wharf 39 – [22]

This gives a total of 228, but there must, I think, be added a further fifteen in respect to the deaths on the Don Isidro, the Florence Dee, and the Catalina flying boat destroyed between Bathurst Island and Darwin.

There was some suggestion in evidence of bodies still remaining in the mangrove swamps which border the harbour, which bodies it had not been possible to recover.

The second total 243 (228 + 15) is the one normally cited by the government and media as being the “official” one. Note that for several locations the calculated death toll was lower.

Lowe guesstimated the total from three locations was 15, the plaque said it was 18

MV Don Isidro, 14

MV Florence Dee, 3

PATWING 10 Catalina 1

The plaque list four locations not mentioned by Lowe, the number in brackets is the correct total for the Preston according to Grose (pgs 188, 192)*. Grose discusses the failure to cite them but the page (188) is not part of the preview, perhaps you can find it in the library. The totals from the plaque are as quoted by Grose pg. 192

HMAS Kangaroo 1

USS William B. Preston 10 [15]

Died of wounds on Manunda 19

Various civilians and seamen 22

Note that about half the increase was from American and Filipino ships perhaps the US gave Lowe inaccurate data.

* The USN said “Eleven men were killed, two missing, and three wounded by the bomb hit aft” and mentioned “Lt. Conidr. Grant, who had been blown out of a motorboat while returning to the ship”. The ship was at sea at the time of the attack and went to a different port afterwards perhaps that’s what its fatalities were not counted in 1942.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:lErgEw...m_b_preston.htm

Wrong again! The Lowe Commission was in place March 3 – 30, 1942. “For four months beginning at the end of December [1941] he [LBJ] spent most of his time traveling in Texas, California, and the state of Washington, trying to assess the labor needs of war production plants and to suggest answers to their problems” (Dallek - pg 49) he didn’t get to Australia till May 17 or so (pg 50).

Lyndon Johnson had been appointed as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Naval Reserve on 21 June 1940. He reported for active service on 9 December 1941, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. He was initially assigned to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department, Washington, D.C. After completing his training in Washington, Johnson transferred to the Headquarters of the Twelfth Naval District, San Francisco, California for inspection duty in the Pacific area. While stationed in New Zealand and Australia, he worked as an observer on bomber missions.

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/tow9.htm

I’m not sure why you posted this, it in no way contradicts anything I said in my previous post because it doesn’t say specifically when he got to Australia. Even if you think it is implicit, specific info from a published biography by a well known history professor trumps inference drawn from a personal webpage.

.

Lowe handed in a supplemental report on April 9, but according to the National Archives, it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945.

Darwin air raids – report by Mr Justice Lowe 1942–45 MP1185/8, 1806/2/31

http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publication...eets/fs195.aspx

Once again you make the mistake of citing a page without having read all of it carefully, what is that the 2nd or 3rd time this thread? From your own source

The exodus south (which later became known as 'The Adelaide River stakes'), and the looting and disorder which subsequently occurred, led the government to hurriedly appoint a Commission of Inquiry led by Mr Justice Lowe which

issued two reports, one on 27 March and the other on 9 April 1942

.

[…]

The Lowe Commission of Inquiry

National Archives, Canberra

Transcript of evidence, Darwin air raid inquiry*1942 A816, 37/301/293

Air raid on Darwin –

final report

of Commission of Inquiry*

1942

A816, 37/301/310

Bombing of Darwin – report by Mr Justice Lowe* 1942–49 A431, 1949/687

National Archives, Melbourne

Darwin air raid inquiry before Lowe J as Commissioner1942MP401/1, CL14687

Darwin air raids – report by Mr Justice Lowe 1942–45 MP1185/8, 1806/2/31

Darwin air raid inquiry – exhibits (includes seven photographs)1942MP401/1, CL14687

The key phrases were (emphasis added)

“a Commission of Inquiry led by Mr Justice Lowe which issued two reports, one on 27 March and the other on 9 April 1942.”

AND

Air raid on Darwin – FINAL report of Commission of Inquiry*1942

This is confirmed by other sources

“The Lowe Commission examined its last witness on 25 March 1942, less than five weeks after the raid. So while the witnesses might not all have told the truth what they did tell was fresh in their memory…” Grose 240

“Investigation of the disaster indicated some first class bungling by military authorities at Darwin. Published parts of the 1942 “Lowe Report” on the Darwin attack prepared by Justice Lowe – asserted that warning of the approaching Japanese was ignored ” UPI – March 29, 1972

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1291...pg=7018,3277067

(LOWE REPORT, 1942 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS, 1945/46 VOL.IV)

http://www.battleforaustralia.org.au/2901/...Bombing_Darwin/

If you still have any doubts the reports can be found on the page linked below. The 1st ends on page 18 and is dated “27th March, 1942”, the second ends on page 24 and is dated “9th April, 1942”, pages 24 – 43 are various documents dated April 11 – 24, 1942 relating to the raids most (all?) of which refer to the completed report. All of this was published by parliament in 1945 after Curtin died, I assume that’s what the 1945 reference was to. I’m not sure about the 1949 reference; perhaps some related / supporting documents were released that year. You can ask to have copies of those documents sent to you or if you are near Melbourne or Canberra take a look yourself. In any case the commission had closed up shop almost 2 months before LBJ arrived.

http://www.territorystories.nt.gov.au/bits....pdf?sequence=1

Back to the meat of the subject, even if you continue to insist on the 900 – 1100 figure you need to present evidence that Lowe intentionally covered up the death toll and that many people knew about this but kept quite.

EDIT - Formatting and minor changes

Edited September 22, 2009 by Len Colby

[Greg Parker]

Since there was no mention of Darwin between the 900 figure for all 97 raids and the estimate by locals “that between 900 and 1100 people were killed” the obvious inference was that this was their estimate for the 97 raids and that’s how you initially interpreted it as your earlier post made apparent. The Mayor and Army intelligence were not mentioned in that article.

The USS Houston convoy departed

Darwin

on 15 February 1942, followed by a Japanese flying boat which later engaged in an air strike. The USS Peary returned to

Darwin

on 19 February after an encounter with a possible Japanese submarine. On 19 February 1942 there were 46 ships packed into

Darwin Harbour

.

From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships. Many military and civilian facilities were destroyed. The Japanese lost about 131 aircraft in total during the attacks.

And where was the raid on 19 Feb 1942? Darwin. And where was the raid on 12 Nov 1943? Darwin.

In context, the figure of 900 related solely to Darwin. Again - get over it.

I haven’t seen any accounts of the Japanese attacking anything but the wharf, town center, ships and military installations thus it makes little sense to assume large numbers of “itinerant workers and local Aboriginals” were killed – there would be no reason for the Japanese to target them anyway. Evacuees were military personnel and it doesn’t make sense to assume hundreds could go missing without being noticed. I have not seen any mention of there being large numbers of civilian refugees in Darwin at the time. In any case 4 historians concluded the total was 250 – 320 and a fifth up to 486, none I have heard of backs anything close to 900 – 1100. Only Forrest says there was a cover up and he believes it ended during the war.

I can't help what you have or haven't seen. Darwin is and was a compact town. Destroy the town center and you've got a great proportion of the population.

You probably won't see reference to the refugees in much of the reference material because they were never officially counted. Does that mean they were not there? Does the fact that Aborigines were not counted on census data mean they did not exist?

Forrest is wrong as to when the cover up ended. The Lowe report was redacted when it was entered into the parliamentary records, and at least 30 years later, those redactions still existed, and much of the supporting evidence was also still sealed.

As for the bodies supposedly taken out to sea, can you find any substantiation or is there only the one witness?

More than one. But how many do you need before you cease being a contrarian?

I’m not sure why you posted this, it in no way contradicts anything I said in my previous post because it doesn’t say specifically when he got to Australia. Even if you think it is implicit, specific info from a published biography by a well known history professor trumps inference drawn from a personal webpage.

It does contradict your previous post in regard to what Johnson was doing. You can put the source down as "a personal web page" but he himself has used credible sources.

Your own source uses a qualifier on when Johnson got here "May 17 or so" What was his difficulty in pinning down the exact date, I wonder? If such a well known history professor cannot check the military records of his subject, I wouldn't put too much faith in him...

Once again you make the mistake of citing a page without having read all of it carefully, what is that the 2nd or 3rd time this thread?

Nonsense. You claimed that the Lowe Commission put out a final report at the end of March and wound up at that time. I have now dragged the admission from you that a further report was issued on April 9.

It was placed into the records at the end of the war. There is nothing to indicate it wound up when you say it did. The FBI report on the assassination was completed prior to the formation of the WC. Did it stop investigating after filing it's "final" report?

You want to tie this up in endless debate. Bad luck. It's not happening.

Here's the bottom line.

Darwin was savagely bombed. Reports on the ground had the death toll at 900 to 1100. Exact figures were impossible due to the nature of Darwin.

The government tried to cover up the true extent of the deaths. It succeeded with the help of a "blue ribbon commission"

LBJ was here during the most intense period of the cover up, and was cozied up to by the powerful and wealthy. He would later himself use "a blue ribbon commission" to make unpalatable truths disappear.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Greg Parker

[Len Colby]

Since there was no mention of Darwin between the 900 figure for all 97 raids and the estimate by locals “that between 900 and 1100 people were killed” the obvious inference was that this was their estimate for the 97 raids and that’s how you initially interpreted it as your earlier post made apparent. The Mayor and Army intelligence were not mentioned in that article.

In context, the figure of 900 related solely to Darwin. Again - get over it.

The USS Houston convoy departed

Darwin

on 15 February 1942, followed by a Japanese flying boat which later engaged in an air strike. The USS Peary returned to

Darwin

on 19 February after an encounter with a possible Japanese submarine. On 19 February 1942 there were 46 ships packed into

Darwin Harbour

.

From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships. Many military and civilian facilities were destroyed. The Japanese lost about 131 aircraft in total during the attacks.

And where was the raid on 19 Feb 1942? Darwin. And where was the raid on 12 Nov 1943? Darwin.

In context, the figure of 900 related solely to Darwin. Again - get over it.

Since:

the 12 Nov 1943 raid was the last one of the war (2/3 of the raids were there) and the author only told the reader that it was there in the last paragraph of the article.

And

The 1st sentence was “During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.”

AND

The title was The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia

The obvious inference to “From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships” is that this was the total for all 97 raids on northern Australia, but even if we accept your reasoning 900 – 270 = 630, 630 / 62 = 10.2 averages fatalities for the subsequent raids, “light” fatalities as per your demand.

All the above however is largely irrelevant because it relates an assumption you made in an earlier post because you missed the sentence that said, “The two raids killed at least 243 Australians and allies”, due to not having read the entire article.

I haven’t seen any accounts of the Japanese attacking anything but the wharf, town center, ships and military installations thus it makes little sense to assume large numbers of “itinerant workers and local Aboriginals” were killed – there would be no reason for the Japanese to target them anyway. Evacuees were military personnel and it doesn’t make sense to assume hundreds could go missing without being noticed. I have not seen any mention of there being large numbers of civilian refugees in Darwin at the time. In any case 4 historians concluded the total was 250 – 320 and a fifth up to 486, none I have heard of backs anything close to 900 – 1100. Only Forrest says there was a cover up and he believes it ended during the war.

I can't help what you have or haven't seen. Darwin is and was a compact town. Destroy the town center and you've got a great proportion of the population.

Of course you CAN “help what I have or haven't seen” you are posting on this thread and you haven’t posted any such accounts. “Itinerant workers” are normally agricultural workers and Rumwoldt being paraphrased as saying “they would have been caught by surprise and would not have had access to slit trenches” also indicates people outside the town center. So once again I have seen no reports that the Japanese wasted time and munitions killing farm workers.

"You probably won't see reference to the refugees in much of the reference material because they were never officially counted. Does that mean they were not there? Does the fact that Aborigines were not counted on census data mean they did not exist?"

Whether they were counted in the census or not has no bearing on whether they were counted among the casualties. You haven’t produced any evidence there were any there, where did these supposed refugees come from? Grose made no mention of refugees in his book

Another problem with such high death tolls is that the were barely that many people in town. the Battle for Australia Commemoration National Council, Grose (pg 2), Legacy Publishers /HowStuffWorks.com and Wikipedia said only 2000 or so civilians were in the town because the most women and children and some men (about 3800) had been evacuated. The former indicated this included “most white and Asian women and children” though “little though seems to have been given to the large Aboriginal population”. Although it does not say what the population was on the day of the attacks a page from the Darwin city website confirms that on “December 12” there was an “Order to evacuate Darwin; civilian population then about 5,800”.

http://www.battleforaustralia.org.au/2901/...Bombing_Darwin/

http://history.howstuffworks.com/world-war...hilippines9.htm

http://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/aboutdarwin/hi...ts/unit_one.pdf pg 6

"Forrest is wrong as to when the cover up ended. The Lowe report was redacted when it was entered into the records parliamentary records, and at least 30 years later, those redactions still existed, and much of the supporting evidence was also still sealed."

Who says parts of it were redacted? Did you just make that up? The version available online, a PDF scan of the 1945 version seems complete. In what way did the supposed redactions and sealing of “much of the supporting evidence” equate a cover up of the death toll? Once again you arrogantly assume to know more than a historian who researched a book on the subject

It is common an investigative panel’s records to be sealed for a certain number of years and that seems to be the case with the LR

“A Defense Department spokesman said last night that successive governments had refused to make public the transcript of inquiry evidence on the advice of Mr Justice Lowe, who said people had given evidence on the understanding that it was to be in camera”

The Sydney Morning Herald. - Jan 17, 1972, pg 10 (pg 6 of the link)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301...pg=4033,5588866

As for the bodies supposedly taken out to sea, can you find any substantiation or is there only the one witness?

More than one. But how many do you need before you cease being a contrarian?

I cited several Australian historians one of who lives in Darwin and researched (but never published) a book about the attacks and two who published books about them, ‘but how many do you need before you cease being a contrarian?’

Please cite the other witnesses who supposedly saw this and consider again the credibility of 80 year old men recounting events had taken place 60 years earlier.

I’m not sure why you posted this, it in no way contradicts anything I said in my previous post because it doesn’t say specifically when he got to Australia. Even if you think it is implicit, specific info from a published biography by a well known history professor trumps inference drawn from a personal webpage.

It does contradict your previous post in regard to what Johnson was doing. You can put the source down as "a personal web page" but he himself has used credible sources.

-There is no real difference between what I said (based on Dallek’s bio) and what your source said “in regard to what Johnson was doing”

-The author cited no sources for that part of the page

"Your own source uses a qualifier on when Johnson got here "May 17 or so" What was his difficulty in pinning down the exact date, I wonder? If such a well known history professor cannot check the military records of his subject, I wouldn't put too much faith in him..."

Since you:

- failed to notice that part wasn’t in quotes and thus it was me not Dallek who used the “qualifier” AND

-didn’t bother to look at the link to answer your own question “I wouldn't put too much faith in” you.

Dallek gave the date LBJ left Washington and said it took X days to get from A to B and then he spent Y days there before flying to C for 3 different legs of the journey, the uncertainty was mine not his.

Once again you make the mistake of citing a page without having read all of it carefully, what is that the 2nd or 3rd time this thread?

Nonsense. You claimed that the Lowe Commission put out a final report at the end of March and wound up at that time. I have now dragged the admission from you that a further report was issued on April 9.

BS – In your previous post you claimed the commission ran until 1945, it held its last hearing March 25, 1942 and released its principle report that (among other things) gave an accounting of the casualties. The “Further and Final Report” (April 9) did not go into the number of fatalities. March 25, March 27 or April 9? It doesn’t make a difference LBJ didn’t get to Australia till mid May.

Technically I was off by 9 days, you were off by 3 years.

Either you were sloppy or your were intentionally deceptive because your cited a page which said the commission ended in 1942 in support of your claim it ended in 1945. I think it was the former but if want to insist otherwise...

It was placed into the records at the end of the war. There is nothing to indicate it wound up when you say it did. The FBI report on the assassination was completed prior to the formation of the WC. Did it stop investigating after filing it's "final" report?

Nonsense, it held its last hearing in March 1942, it issued both of its reports in March – April 1942, the last sentence of the 2nd was “This Report completes my survey of the evidence and of the matters upon which I have been asked to report, and I return herewith my commission”. In 1945 newspapers reported that it had ended in 1942 (see 1972 article linked above) every source except you says it ended in 1942. Rather "there is nothing to indicate" it continued after April 9, 1942.

The FBI and WC were separate bodies, saying the LC was “a work in progress between 1942 and 1945” would be like saying the WC was “a work in progress between 1964 and 1967”

Once again you refuse to admit error despite being shown to be completely and irrefutably wrong.

You want to tie this up in endless debate. Bad luck. It's not happening.

"Here's the bottom line.

Darwin was savagely bombed. Reports on the ground had the death toll at 900 to 1100. Exact figures were impossible due to the nature of Darwin."

With the possible exception of the supposed mayor’s estimate of 900* these were all rumored contemporary reports or accounts given by old men many decades after the fact, report which no historian it seems believes.

* Please show me a direct quote and/or a source that says when and to whom he said this.

"The government tried to cover up the true extent of the deaths. It succeeded with the help of a "blue ribbon commission""

You have failed to establish the death toll was much higher than the 250 estimated by the LR, let alone that he, his commission or the government (after 1942) intentionally under counted it.

"LBJ was here during the most intense period of the cover up,"

Incontrovertibly wrong again. He arrived in Australia 5 – 8 weeks after the LC ended and went back to the US after about one month part of which he was going to from New Guinea.

"and was cozied up to by the powerful and wealthy."

Citation? The only “powerful” I have read about him having contact with then were other US military officers.

"He would later himself use "a blue ribbon commission" to make unpalatable truths disappear."

Well at least we agree on something

If want to pontificate any further on this you should read An Awkward Truth by Grose, "In the Highest Traditions ... RAN heroism Darwin 19 February 1942"by John Bradford and Australia's Pearl Harbour by Douglas Wright Lockwood one of only 3 journalist in Darwin at the time(Grose 178). He “interviewed Japanese and American as well as Australian veterans of the air assault” for the book published in 1966 and except for 3 years in London and Melbourne lived in Darwin 1946 – 68*. These books are of course not available in any libraries or books stores near me but I’m read as much of the former as is available on Google.

* http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A150140b.htm

It appears I was wrong about the author of An Awkward Truth despite sharing an uncommon name, being approximately the same age and both having written books about mid-twentieth century history, he and the Peter Grose who was an editor for the NY Times and Foreign Affairs are not the same person.

Interesting side note: The pilot of the Catalina “Flying Boat” which was forced to crash land during one of the raids was Lt. Thomas Moorer . Decades later as commander of the Atlantic Fleet he approved the McCain Commission report on the USS Liberty incident then after he retired said it was a cover up.

[Len Colby]

The LBJ Library Staff confirm Robert Dallek’s account of what LBJ was doing during the first 6 months of 1942:

"On June 21, 1940, Lyndon Johnson was appointed Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve (USNR). Reporting for active duty on December 10, 1941, three days after Pearl Harbor, he was ordered to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department, Washington, D. C., for instruction. He began working on production and manpower problems that were slowing the production of ships and planes, and he traveled in Texas, California, and Washington, assessing labor needs in war production plants.

In May 1942, he proceeded to Headquarters, Twelfth Naval District, San Francisco, California, for inspection duty in the Pacific. Stationed in New Zealand and Australia

, he participated as an observer on a number of bomber missions in the South Pacific."

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/Johnson/archi...ry/military.asp

[Greg Parker]

Since:

the 12 Nov 1943 raid was the last one of the war (2/3 of the raids were there) and the author only told the reader that it was there in the last paragraph of the article.

And

The 1st sentence was “During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.”

AND

The title was The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia

The obvious inference to “From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships” is that this was the total for all 97 raids on northern Australia, but even if we accept your reasoning 900 – 270 = 630, 630 / 62 = 10.2 averages fatalities for the subsequent raids, “light” fatalities as per your demand.

All the above however is largely irrelevant because it relates an assumption you made in an earlier post because you missed the sentence that said, “The two raids killed at least 243 Australians and allies”, due to not having read the entire article.

I made no such assumption. Take a deep breathe and let it sink in. You got yourself confused over the 900 figure. What a shock.

Of course you CAN “help what I have or haven't seen” you are posting on this thread and you haven’t posted any such accounts. “Itinerant workers” are normally agricultural workers and

Itinerant workers are simply workers who travel from place to place. You presumably don’t know Darwin. I lived there for 10 years. It is still full of itinerant workers and even that small percentage who are indeed agricultural workers, mostly live in Darwin and work outside the city – being bussed to and from.

Rumwoldt being paraphrased as saying “they would have been caught by surprise and would not have had access to slit trenches” also indicates people outside the town center. So once again I have seen no reports that the Japanese wasted time and munitions killing farm workers.

The Japanese would later claim the raids were hastily arranged and based on faulty intelligence. In those circumstances, and given what a small area of land Darwin sits on, lopsided “collateral damage” was always likely.

Whether they were counted in the census [refugees and Aborigines] or not has no bearing on whether they were counted among the casualties. You haven’t produced any evidence there were any there, where did these supposed refugees come from? Grose made no mention of refugees in his book

The refugees were fleeing the Japanese. How hard is that to grasp?

“Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies…”

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/airraid.html

Another problem with such high death tolls is that the were barely that many people in town. the Battle for Australia Commemoration National Council, Grose (pg 2), Legacy Publishers /HowStuffWorks.com and Wikipedia said only 2000 or so civilians were in the town because the most women and children and some men (about 3800) had been evacuated. The former indicated this included “most white and Asian women and children” though “little though seems to have been given to the large Aboriginal population”. Although it does not say what the population was on the day of the attacks a page from the Darwin city website confirms that on “December 12” there was an “Order to evacuate Darwin; civilian population then about 5,800”.

http://www.battleforaustralia.org.au/2901/...Bombing_Darwin/

http://history.howstuffworks.com/world-war...hilippines9.htm

http://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/aboutdarwin/hi...ts/unit_one.pdf pg 6

You just don’t get it, do you? “Little thought seems to have been given to the LARGE Aboriginal population…” Do you think for a spilt second any evacuation order applied to Aboriginals? Do you think for a split second any Aboriginals would take the slightest notice of any such order, even if it applied to them? Do you think for a split second that in that situation, the “Aboriginal Protector” or whatever other pompously silly title he held, would bother using force on those people, for their own safety? You are clueless.

Who says parts of it [the Loew Report] were redacted? Did you just make that up?

Since this thinly veiled accusation got past the censors, I think I have the right to reply in the following manner: How xxxxing dare you.

From the Melbourne Age, October 23, 1972:

“118 of the 911 single-spaced, typed, foolscap pages of the Lowe Commission transcript have been censored and a number of other relevant documents are still withheld.”

The version available online, a PDF scan of the 1945 version seems complete. In what way did the supposed redactions and sealing of “much of the supporting evidence” equate a cover up of the death toll? Once again you arrogantly assume to know more than a historian who researched a book on the subject

No. Once again, I merely point out the facts.

It is common an investigative panel’s records to be sealed for a certain number of years and that seems to be the case with the LR

Oh, so I lied about redactions, but wait… oh no… redacted and sealed documents are the norm… sheesh.

“A Defense Department spokesman said last night that successive governments had refused to make public the transcript of inquiry evidence on the advice of Mr Justice Lowe, who said people had given evidence on the understanding that it was to be in camera”

The Sydney Morning Herald. - Jan 17, 1972, pg 10 (pg 6 of the link)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301...pg=4033,5588866

Which is a phurphy (a phony excuse). As with the WC, Royal Commissions have the power to subpoena witnesses. Using promises that the testimony would be in camera as a reason to keep documents of historical importance secret, especially when there was no need for such promises in the first place, is prima facie, a cover up.

I cited several Australian historians one of who lives in Darwin and researched (but never published) a book about the attacks and two who published books about them, ‘but how many do you need before you cease being a contrarian?’

Please cite the other witnesses who supposedly saw this and consider again the credibility of 80 year old men recounting events had taken place 60 years earlier.

Not playing that game with you any more. Your repeated demands are just a smokescreen to confuse, dilute and distort.

They’re out there and they have their own stories. You have already indicated you find people who were not there more credible than the ordinary folk who were… which includes those who helped pull burned bodies from the harbor, watched the barges tow other bodies out to sea and witnessed so much else that scarred them for life. Why would I subject such people to your blathering “cynicism” and impugning of their memories, if not their honesty?

-There is no real difference between what I said (based on Dallek’s bio) and what your source said “in regard to what Johnson was doing”

-The author cited no sources for that part of the page

You cited no original sources either. Big deal.

Since you:

- failed to notice that part wasn’t in quotes and thus it was me not Dallek who used the “qualifier” AND

-didn’t bother to look at the link to answer your own question “I wouldn't put too much faith in” you.

Dallek gave the date LBJ left Washington and said it took X days to get from A to B and then he spent Y days there before flying to C for 3 different legs of the journey, the uncertainty was mine not his.

You would not know that from what you wrote.

"he didn’t get to Australia till May 17 or so (pg 50)". And before you object - the quote marks are mine since I am quoting what you wrote...

Any reasonable person would take this as a paraphrasing of what appears on pg 50 of Dalek’s book. In other words, the way you’ve written it, does indeed suggest the uncertainty was Dalek’s.

BS – In your previous post you claimed the commission ran until 1945, it held its last hearing March 25, 1942 and released its principle report that (among other things) gave an accounting of the casualties. The “Further and Final Report” (April 9) did not go into the number of fatalities. March 25, March 27 or April 9? It doesn’t make a difference LBJ didn’t get to Australia till mid May.

I made no such claim. Another “error” on your part. I said “ it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945.” And that appearance remains true, even if incorrect – due to not tabling the report for 3 years which s highly unusual.

Technically I was off by 9 days, you were off by 3 years.

I was not “off” by any margin, since I offered none.

Either you were sloppy or your were intentionally deceptive because your cited a page which said the commission ended in 1942 in support of your claim it ended in 1945. I think it was the former but if want to insist otherwise...

You’re a piece of work, aren’t you? Turning what was a qualified statement ie one that was not definitive, and claiming that it was in fact definitive - and therefore deceptive - is part of your usual arsenal of debating techniques.

Nonsense, it [the LC] held its last hearing in March 1942, it issued both of its reports in March – April 1942, the last sentence of the 2nd was “This Report completes my survey of the evidence and of the matters upon which I have been asked to report, and I return herewith my commission”. In 1945 newspapers reported that it had ended in 1942 (see 1972 article linked above) every source except you says it ended in 1942. Rather "there is nothing to indicate" it continued after April 9, 1942.

The fact that it was not tabled in parliament for 3 years suggests it was a work in progress for that period. That is an inference which is easily taken. That does not mean it’s true and nor did I say it was. Lowe’s commission, I dare say, had certainly ended by the ‘70s – yet he was still advising the government on the matter at that time.

The FBI and WC were separate bodies, saying the LC was “a work in progress between 1942 and 1945” would be like saying the WC was “a work in progress between 1964 and 1967”

Not at all. The WC was published immediately. That clearly signals a finality. The redacted version of the LC was not even available to politicians until 1945.

Once again you refuse to admit error despite being shown to be completely and irrefutably wrong.

Only because such “errors” seem to be in your imagination – though in at least two cases, the errors were yours.

With the possible exception of the supposed mayor’s estimate of 900* these were all rumored contemporary reports or accounts given by old men many decades after the fact, report which no historian it seems believes.

Your continued appeals to authority are noted.

* Please show me a direct quote and/or a source that says when and to whom he said this.

Why? You don’t believe old men – unless they’re historians who weren’t there. In any event, don’t the historians accept that the mayor did in fact give this estimate?

This is just you wanting to tie this up in endless debate and waste my time finding quotes you ultimately will reject on whatever spurious grounds you can think up. I told you already – it’s not happening.

You have failed to establish the death toll was much higher than the 250 estimated by the LR, let alone that he, his commission or the government (after 1942) intentionally under counted it.

"LBJ was here during the most intense period of the cover up,"

Incontrovertibly wrong again. He arrived in Australia 5 – 8 weeks after the LC ended and went back to the US after about one month part of which he was going to from New Guinea.

I accept my original statement was wrong that he was here during the time the Commission Hearings were taking place. Does that change the argument? Not one iota. Do you think while those raids were continuing, that it was not a subject of interest to someone whose mission has been deduced to be boosting US morale, especially given that US ships and men were lost by the same Japanese squadrons that hit Pearl Harbor – an attack which led to his being to Australia in the first place?

"and was cozied up to by the powerful and wealthy."

Citation? The only “powerful” I have read about him having contact with then were other US military officers.

Well. It didn’t come from one of your historians who wasn’t here. LBJ was put up in a mansion in Melbourne and feted by those who had their own political ambitions – hoping to bask in the limelight of someone earmarked for big things in the biggest pond on the planet. Political favors to pay or pay back. Johnson requested his post here because he knew it would boost his political stocks. It is naïve to think that he was not kept abreast of the LC and it’s true nature by those who thought LBJ would one day remember…and repay in kind…

"He would later himself use "a blue ribbon commission" to make unpalatable truths disappear."

Well at least we agree on something

I have found myself occasionally agreeing with comments made by you in other threads. It means nothing.

This was my final reply to you in this thread. I know how much you need to have the last say, so please do.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Greg Parker

[Len Colby]

Since:

the 12 Nov 1943 raid was the last one of the war (2/3 of the raids were there) and the author only told the reader that it was there in the last paragraph of the article.

And

The 1st sentence was “During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.”

AND

The title was The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia

The obvious inference to “From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships” is that this was the total for all 97 raids on northern Australia, but even if we accept your reasoning 900 – 270 = 630, 630 / 62 = 10.2 averages fatalities for the subsequent raids, “light” fatalities as per your demand.

All the above however is largely irrelevant because it relates an assumption you made in an earlier post because you missed the sentence that said, “The two raids killed at least 243 Australians and allies”, due to not having read the entire article.

I made no such assumption. Take a deep breathe and let it sink in. You got yourself confused over the 900 figure. What a shock.

Of course you made “such assumption” when you claimed “we must conclude that the original official figure on the first raid was severely fudged” because the government said 900 people were killed in the 64 raids because “we know fatalities were light in the latter raids”.

Two problems with that assumption:

1) you didn’t bother to do the math and even assuming you are correct that the 900 killed estimate only applied to Darwin there is no contradiction between that and “the original official figure on the first [two] raid”

2) you failed to point out that your own source repeated the “at least 243 estimate”, either you were sloppy and hadn’t read the whole page or were intentionally deceptive. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the former.

Of course you CAN “help what I have or haven't seen” you are posting on this thread and you haven’t posted any such accounts. “Itinerant workers” are normally agricultural workers and

Itinerant workers are simply workers who travel from place to place. You presumably don’t know Darwin. I lived there for 10 years. It is still full of itinerant workers and even that small percentage who are indeed agricultural workers, mostly live in Darwin and work outside the city – being bussed to and from.

Rumwoldt being paraphrased as saying “they would have been caught by surprise and would not have had access to slit trenches” also indicates people outside the town center. So once again I have seen no reports that the Japanese wasted time and munitions killing farm workers.

Since Darwin was attacked during working hours where people slept is irrelevant. What kind of work do you think “itinerant workers” would be doing in Darwin in Feb. 1942? You ignored the part about your only witness saying they wouldn’t have access to slit trenches which places them out of the town center.

"The Japanese would later claim the raids were hastily arranged and based on faulty intelligence. In those circumstances, and given what a small area of land Darwin sits on, lopsided “collateral damage” was always likely."

The only locations I seen reports of them attacking are military facilities the telegraph/post office, police station and wharf. So where were these supposed 600 – 800 extra fatalities?

"The refugees were fleeing the Japanese. How hard is that to grasp? "

The concept is easy “to grasp”, what’s lacking is evidence that it was the case. I imagine that most of the people fleeing the Japanese were colonial authorities (from Europe) and members of the local elite. Problem is the Japanese had not yet overrun major population centers near Darwin. India was closer to Britain’s colonies in SE Asia.

“Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies…”

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/airraid.html

OMG! You’ve gotten in to trouble a few times on this thread because you cited pages before you read then in their entirety now in your haste to reply you didn’t bother to read the being of the PARAGRAGH you drew that quote from, the “Dutch refugees” were in BROOME! Remember going on about how it was virtually on a different planet then Darwin?

The full paragraph was:

“Other areas of northern Australia also suffered attacks at various times. The next most devastating was on 3 March 1942 at Broome. Again without warning, Japanese aircraft swept in low, bombing and strafing Broome’s harbour, township and airfield. Dozens of people were killed or wounded and 24 aircraft were destroyed. Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies (modern Indonesia) whose flying boats were sitting defenceless on the harbour.”

I imagine you will claim that you weren’t sloppy (or deceptive) and what you meant all along was that if they were “Dutch refugees” in Broome there must have been ones in Darwin as well but the article had 10 paragraphs, 8 about Darwin, 1 about “the north-east coast of Australia” and 1 about Broome. Only the latter made any mention of refugees. The only refugees mentioned in Grose’s book are the Australians who fled Darwin after the raids. None of the webpages I’ve seen nor any of the ones you’ve linked said anything about any refugees being in Darwin.

So why would there have been “many…Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies” with “flying boats” (e.g. seaplanes) in Broome on March 3 but few (if any) Dutch people in Darwin on Feb. 19? Two reasons:

1) Simple geography Broome was closer to Jakarta (then called Batavia) and the other major towns in the Netherlands East Indies (modern day Indonesia). According to the author of the book cited below Darwin was out of range from Java (pg 148).

2) The Allies suffered major setbacks in the area between the attacks. Batavia and most other large towns were on the island of Java. The 1st (Feb 27) and 2nd (March 1) Battle of the Java Sea and the Battle of Sunda Strait (2/28 – 3/1) were decisive Japanese victories and made way for landings on the island starting Feb 28. Before bombing Broome the Japanese captured strategic towns like Serang, Merak and Buitenzorg in eastern Java as well as Leuwiliang and Rangkasbitung 25 miles west / 40 miles southwest (respectively) of Batavia which fell the day after the attack on Broome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Java_%281942%29

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source...098633&z=10

Indeed the book, The Dutch Naval Air Force against Japan: the Defense of the Netherlands East Indies 1941-42, mentions Broome on 23 pages several of which are references to the Dutch evacuating there and their casualties during the attack. A few examples:

“There they [some Dutch seaplanes] would refuel and fly on to Broome, Australia”

[PG 131 this happened on March 1]

EVACUATION

As Japanese troops poured ashore on Java, the Allies began to evacuate the island.

[…]

Admiral Helfrich and his staff were not the only ones leaving Java, as a general evacuation of MLD [“MLD The Marine Luchtvaart Dienst (MLD), or…Dutch Naval Air Service”] aircraft was now under way. All planes with sufficient range were ordered to make for either Australia or Ceylon. The ports of Broome and China Bay, respectively, were their primary destinations

[PG 132]

On March 3 a disaster of epic proportions took place at the port of Broome on the northwest coast of Australia. As the fighting on Java came to a head , this previously isolated port quickly became the primary evacuation point for evacuees from Java. The first planes coming out of Java were Empire flying boats, DC-3s and B-17s which began arriving on February 25. Within days, they were making nonstop evacuation flights between Java and Broome

They were soon joined by MLD and ML transport planes, which were also carrying out evacuation flights from airfields and auxiliary seaplane bases all over Java…Broome was poorly equipped to handle the sudden influx of military personnel and civilian evacuees, many of whom could not be adequately fed or housed

[PGs 135-6]

Darwin was mentioned but on only 10 pages. The Feb 19 raid was discussed on pages 115-6 and it turns out that two PBY “flying boats” from the Dutch military flight school at Morokrembangan had been transferred to the USN PATWING (patrol wing) 10 for maintenance and were destroyed there. Page 116 is not part of the preview and its not clear if the Dutch crews were in town. Though the author said “almost before their crew knew what hit them three Zeros from Hiryu set all the PBYs ablaze” he made no mention of any injuries let alone fatalities and made no mention of the Dutch presence in an essay he wrote about the Darwin raids. According to his research the casualties were “262 killed and 311 wounded”. Other than the two aforementioned PBY’s he said nothing about other Dutch planes (or people) going to Darwin before the raids.

I have no idea what the size of the flight crews were but even IF they were all killed it would still only amount to at best 2% of the 600 – 800 plus extra fatalities you claiming. Since 67 years later there is no word of any Dutch military casualties in the attacks, it safe to conclude none died.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7TuV9nGAW...oome&f=true

http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Special_darwin.htm

Another problem with such high death tolls is that the were barely that many people in town. the Battle for Australia Commemoration National Council, Grose (pg 2), Legacy Publishers /HowStuffWorks.com and Wikipedia said only 2000 or so civilians were in the town because the most women and children and some men (about 3800) had been evacuated. The former indicated this included “most white and Asian women and children” though “little though seems to have been given to the large Aboriginal population”. Although it does not say what the population was on the day of the attacks a page from the Darwin city website confirms that on “December 12” there was an “Order to evacuate Darwin; civilian population then about 5,800”.

http://www.battleforaustralia.org.au/2901/...Bombing_Darwin/

http://history.howstuffworks.com/world-war...hilippines9.htm

http://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/aboutdarwin/hi...ts/unit_one.pdf pg 6

You just don’t get it, do you? “Little thought seems to have been given to the LARGE Aboriginal population…” Do you think for a spilt second any evacuation order applied to Aboriginals? Do you think for a split second any Aboriginals would take the slightest notice of any such order, even if it applied to them? Do you think for a split second that in that situation, the “Aboriginal Protector” or whatever other pompously silly title he held, would bother using force on those people, for their own safety? You are clueless.

I haven’t seen anyone besides you suggest there was a large number of Aboriginals were killed or even that a large number remained in town after the evacuation. If they were anything like modern day Native Brazilians (i.e. “Indians”) they maintained contact with their relatives in their home villages and frequently moved back and forth between the two. If there was little work for them to do and they knew of the danger of attack I imagine they would have simply “gone home”.

Who says parts of it [the Loew Report] were redacted? Did you just make that up?

Since this thinly veiled accusation got past the censors, I think I have the right to reply in the following manner: How xxxxing dare you.

From the Melbourne Age, October 23, 1972:

“118 of the 911 single-spaced, typed, foolscap pages of the Lowe Commission transcript have been censored and a number of other relevant documents are still withheld.”

The version available online, a PDF scan of the 1945 version seems complete. In what way did the supposed redactions and sealing of “much of the supporting evidence” equate a cover up of the death toll? Once again you arrogantly assume to know more than a historian who researched a book on the subject

No. Once again, I merely point out the facts.

No, once again you confuse the facts! Your original claim and my question referred to redactions of the report itself not the transcript and other supporting documentation. So my question still stands and your use of obscenity unwarranted. Try again, what evidence is there that “The Lowe report was redacted when it was entered into the records parliamentary records, and at least 30 years later, those redactions still existed”?

"Oh, so I lied about redactions, but wait… oh no… redacted and sealed documents are the norm… sheesh."

Calm down, no one said you lied, but you conflated redaction of the supporting documentation with redaction of the report proper. As I suspected there was no basis for your claim.

“A Defense Department spokesman said last night that successive governments had refused to make public the transcript of inquiry evidence on the advice of Mr Justice Lowe, who said people had given evidence on the understanding that it was to be in camera”

The Sydney Morning Herald. - Jan 17, 1972, pg 10 (pg 6 of the link)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301...pg=4033,5588866

Which is a phurphy (a phony excuse). As with the WC, Royal Commissions have the power to subpoena witnesses. Using promises that the testimony would be in camera as a reason to keep documents of historical importance secret, especially when there was no need for such promises in the first place, is prima facie, a cover up.

Testimony given willingly is a lot more useful than that which is coerced. That’s one of the criticisms of using torture. Though the NTSB has subpoena power testimony given to it can’t be used by courts, the rational is similar, they want to encourage people to be as forthright as possible.

I cited several Australian historians one of who lives in Darwin and researched (but never published) a book about the attacks and two who published books about them, ‘but how many do you need before you cease being a contrarian?’

Please cite the other witnesses who supposedly saw this and consider again the credibility of 80 year old men recounting events had taken place 60 years earlier.

Not playing that game with you any more. Your repeated demands are just a smokescreen to confuse, dilute and distort.

An obvious excuse because you can’t find anybody else saying this.

"They’re out there and they have their own stories. You have already indicated you find people who were not there more credible than the ordinary folk who were"

Historian and journalist normally write about events they didn’t witness. Exceptions are especially rare with the former. Cops, journalist and historians are dubious of witness accounts conflict with the known facts. That would be especially true with octogenarian witnesses recounting traumatic events that took place 6 decade earlier.

“Both PTSD and dissociation have also been associated with increased false-memory rates. Concerns about false memories are particularly relevant to forensic settings, because false memories for traumatic experiences could potentially result in mistaken accusations”

ROBIN S. EDELSTEIN, KRISTEN WEEDE ALEXANDER, GAIL S. GOODMAN AND JEREMY W. NEWTON, “EMOTION AND EYEWITNESS MEMORY” in Memory and Emotion, pg 324 Oxford Univ. Press

http://books.google.com/books?id=TemvZpgA6...;q=&f=false

In another thread I posted an article about a scientific study which “found that about one out of four [of “a group of adults with an average age of 75 years”] had managed to avoid the memory declines so common in older adults." In other words “about” ¾ suffered from “memory declines”. The problem they tested for was “the creation of false memories”. The scientists admitted their test group was higher functioning then the general population and thus a more random group would have performed less well. Additionally they only tested the participants’ ability to remember events that had occurred shortly beforehand*. I can’t point to any studies saying that false memories are more common for events further in the past but I think we all know from personal experience this is the case**.

* http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/...30811070612.htm

** I imagine setting up such a study would be near impossible because the researchers would not be able to set up a controlled experiment to test participants’ ability to remember events from before they were selected.

I doubt it is a coincidence that 6 out 6* of the researchers who looked into this rejected numbers over 486 and only one of them believes the total was over 320..

I’d be more impressed if you could find more contemporaneous testimony. Memory is mutable, the longer the time between the event and the recollection and the older the witness the less reliable the account. That’s why I suggested you pick up the Lockwood book at the library, He was in Darwin when it was attacked and lived there for many years. It was published in 1966 so the witness accounts would be fresher. The book is not available in my city, the only libraries that MIGHT have it in Brazil are in cities thousands of kilometers from where I live. I’m sure it can be found at several libraries in Sydney and perhaps other cities in NSW.

* Grose, Bradford, Stanley, Womack, Forrest and the person (or people) who provided the totals for the 2001 plaque, 7 out of 7 if you count the LC.

"You would not know that from what you wrote.

"he didn’t get to Australia till May 17 or so (pg 50)". And before you object - the quote marks are mine since I am quoting what you wrote...

Any reasonable person would take this as a paraphrasing of what appears on pg 50 of Dalek’s book. In other words, the way you’ve written it, does indeed suggest the uncertainty was Dalek’s. "

I’m content to let anyone following this look back at my post (#21) and decide for themselves if I “suggest[ed] the uncertainty was Dalek’s”. Even if that were the case it l doesn’t explain you being too sloppy actually look at the cited page.

But enough of the side show as you now admit you were wrong and LBJ only got to your country well after the LC finished its work.

BS – In your previous post you claimed the commission ran until 1945, it held its last hearing March 25, 1942 and released its principle report that (among other things) gave an accounting of the casualties. The “Further and Final Report” (April 9) did not go into the number of fatalities. March 25, March 27 or April 9? It doesn’t make a difference LBJ didn’t get to Australia till mid May.

I made no such claim. Another “error” on your part. I said “ it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945.” And that appearance remains true, even if incorrect – due to not tabling the report for 3 years which s highly unusual.

Technically I was off by 9 days, you were off by 3 years.

I was not “off” by any margin, since I offered none.

Either you were sloppy or your were intentionally deceptive because your cited a page which said the commission ended in 1942 in support of your claim it ended in 1945. I think it was the former but if want to insist otherwise…

You’re a piece of work, aren’t you? Turning what was a qualified statement ie one that was not definitive, and claiming that it was in fact definitive - and therefore deceptive - is part of your usual arsenal of debating techniques.

Nonsense, it [the LC] held its last hearing in March 1942, it issued both of its reports in March – April 1942, the last sentence of the 2nd was “This Report completes my survey of the evidence and of the matters upon which I have been asked to report, and I return herewith my commission”. In 1945 newspapers reported that it had ended in 1942 (see 1972 article linked above) every source except you says it ended in 1942. Rather "there is nothing to indicate" it continued after April 9, 1942.

The fact that it was not tabled in parliament for 3 years suggests it was a work in progress for that period. That is an inference which is easily taken. That does not mean it’s true and nor did I say it was. Lowe’s commission, I dare say, had certainly ended by the ‘70s – yet he was still advising the government on the matter at that time.

So you want to get off on your use of the weasel word “appears”? That won’t wash because you also declared “There is nothing to indicate it wound up when you say it did” Yeah, nothing but the page you cited and the report itself among other sources. It only ‘appeared’ that way because you’d failed to do your homework all you had to do was carefully read the page you cited and/or take a quick look at the report

saying the LC was “a work in progress between 1942 and 1945” would be like saying the WC was “a work in progress between 1964 and 1967”

Not at all. The WC was published immediately. That clearly signals a finality. The redacted version of the LC was not even available to politicians until 1945.

LR was available to the PM and presumably select members of his cabinet and other people he and the high command saw fit.

Are you really unable to figure out why the WCR is not a valid comparison? I’ll give you two clues, the Roberts Report about Pearl Harbor was only released after the Japanese surrendered and the Dardanelles Commission’s reports (about the disaster at Gallipoli) were submitted in 1917 but only published in 1919.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,776061,00.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKYk_hAuw...917&f=false pgs 27 and 46

* Please show me a direct quote and/or a source that says when and to whom he [the mayor of Darwin] said this [that 900 people were killed].

Why? You don’t believe old men – unless they’re historians who weren’t there. In any event, don’t the historians accept that the mayor did in fact give this estimate?

I’ll take that as an indication either a) you can’t find it or you did and he only said this long after the fact as well

"I accept my original statement was wrong that he was here during the time the Commission Hearings were taking place. Does that change the argument? Not one iota. Do you think while those raids were continuing, that it was not a subject of interest to someone whose mission has been deduced to be boosting US morale, especially given that US ships and men were lost by the same Japanese squadrons that hit Pearl Harbor – an attack which led to his being to Australia in the first place?"

It makes your already speculative argument that much more speculative. Did he know about the attacks? --- Almost certainly.

Did he know about the secret commission which ended almost 2 months before he got to the country? ---Unlikely.

IF there really were 900 plus casualties and they had intentionally covered it up would anyone have told LBJ? ---- Even less likely

"and was cozied up to by the powerful and wealthy."

Citation? The only “powerful” I have read about him having contact with then were other US military officers.

Well. It didn’t come from one of your historians who wasn’t here. LBJ was put up in a mansion in Melbourne and feted by those who had their own political …

You have repeatedly either through sloppiness or dishonesty (probably the former) misrepresented the facts on pages for which you supplied citations, sorry I’m not going to take your say so when you cant pride a single citation. Your snide remark not only “walks and talks like” a lame excuse but smells like one too!

"This was my final reply to you in this thread."

My cynical side suspects you knew what a crock of BS your reply was and knew you'd get caught and wrote that as an excuse to not explain your "errors".