USS Wahoo

[JerM]

hey

kinda of topic but I thought it might be interesting for you submariners out there.

http://www.warfish.com/gazette.html

[AJ!]

Wow interesting read, Thanks ;)

[Sailor Steve]

Though it has been discussed on the General Topics board, I don't think it's OT here. I've read several articles, but not that one. Thanks from me too.:ping:

[Bungo_Pete]

Mush morton was a war criminal.:down:

[Sailor Steve]

You've said that before. Even if we agree, does that mean we should condemn the rest of the crew, or dishonor their memory?

[Bungo_Pete]

You've said that before. Even if we agree, does that mean we should condemn the rest of the crew, or dishonor their memory?
Actually I just read it today in book that I bought on amazon,"called black may" just started the book wow it's gonna be a good read really liking this book so far and it's 500+ pages:cool:.But needless to say when I read that entry he was also reffering to eck's execution I was shocked.I knew that aussies an american pilots straffed japanese soldiers in the water when i read a book about the battle of the bismarck sea,still saddened to read about that.

[_Seth_]

Its good reading; makes you reflect.:hmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Actually I just read it today...
Sorry, my mistake. Others have said it before. I agree, it was not the right thing to do. Some make allowances for the fact that it was soldiers or sailors who were killed, not civilians; the idea being that enemy combatants should be taken prisoner. I'm sure that Morton and others believed that since they couldn't take prisoners, and the survivors would one day return to combat and kill Americans. I once heard an American pilot say that the only time he heard of anyone shooting an enemy in his parachute was when he did it himself. Seems the German pilot had put up such a good fight that the Yank imagined him coming back the next day and killing one of his buddies, so he shot the enemy as he was climbing out of his cockpit. Or maybe Morton and some others just hated the Japanese so much they agreed with the saying by Admiral William "Bull" Halsey: "Before we're done with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell!"
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/before_we-re_done_with_them-the_japanese_language/334103.html

Or the famous sign at Tulagi:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/g259446a.jpg

[JSF]

Mush morton was a war criminal.:down:

Just out of curiosity have you been playing SH3 very long? And if so, how do you like it?

[martxyz]

Mush morton was a war criminal.:down:
Just out of curiosity have you been playing SH3 very long? And if so, how do you like it?

Not really relevant is it? I have SHIII, but really just dropped in almost by accident, out of interest in SHIV. Morton's actions are notorious, though the shooting of prisoners was pretty common in the pacific. There came a time when field intelligence would pay a bounty for a live Japanese prisoner. I didn't read it in a book. I saw it on a DVD coming out of the mouths of the men that did the shooting. Morton's behaviour is inexcusable. As for the other occasions of allied atrocities that occurred in more heated situations, I don't feel fit to judge the moral state of a man's mind, so I won't.

As regards shooting parachuting pilots, when I was a boy there were always stories about the air battles that occurred over britain and the "terrible germans" shooting our brave boys as they parachuted. I'm 52, so I'm only talking about the culture of my youth. Since then I have read, quite a few times, that the situation of the Germans, and the UK-based pilots (including all the Polish, Canadians, Aussies, French etc) were quite different. Although the germans had a system for recovering pilots in the English Channel, the basic logic of the situation was that a german pilot parachuting onto british soil was soon to be a prisoner. A british pilot bailing out over british soil could be back in another fighter plane within a number of hours, particularly as the shortage was men, and not planes. Technically, to shoot a parachuting german was to shoot a prisoner of war. To shoot a parachuting brit was to shoot someone who was still very much in the war, and definitely a combatant.

As regards dear old "mush" morton, no amount of playing Silent Hunter is likely to rehabiltate him from the majority belief that he was a highly-decorated and brave man, though still a war-criminal. We will never know if he had a some strange and obscure humanitarian motive for his behaviour, as he took his motives with him to the depths, when his sub was sunk, under the normal rules of engagement. As regards the reputatations of his crew, I think we'd have to apply the same criteria to the incident as would apply to any similar situation where atrocities are committed under the authority of a commander who might prove difficult to disobey, and when some or most, by definition, could not even be present . Somebody obviously had the guts to speak out, and I'd prefer to think well of the crew. Their guilt, such as it is, lies with the navy, who chose not to prosecute Morton. Some may feel that this failure to prosecute was understandable given the situation at the time, but then the same criteria would need to be applied to all war-criminals, which it isn't, and rightly so.

[edjcox]

Those that survived Mush's attack were rescued and no doubt continued to serve the Japanese Armed forces...

Did some go on to reciprocate by committing atrocities on civilians and captured allied POW's?

We'll never know. War is butchery and as inhuman as man can get.

But I still love the game...


:dead:

[TheSatyr]

Some of the men that were killed during that incident were POWs from India being transported to a forced labor site...so don't tell me it's ok cause they were all enemy combatants...cause they weren't. And killing enemies who are helpless is morally reprehensible...no matter who does it...and no matter their justifications for it. Especially when it appears that some of the men they killed were attempting to surrender.

There is alot I could say about some of the things we did in that war that I consider to have been nothing more than acts of terrorism...but I'll just leave it at that.

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, first of all there's no need to take such an antagonistic, argumentative tone. I said it was wrong at the start; I was simply presenting a case for why THEY may have felt it was justified.

I agree with you completely.

On the other hand, I can't guarantee I wouldn't have done the same thing, given the level of intensity involved. When you're angry and full of hate it's easy to just pull the trigger and worry about the consequences later.

[tycho102]

I swear, that sign is hilarious.

the survivors would one day return to combat and kill Americans This is my reasoning on that particular issue. It's also the muslim's reasoning. It was the reasoning of the Great Khan and General Sherman.
The civilian population supports the war effort -- defend your population. Something that has been lost in the combat reckoning of today's liberal pacifists. It will take a defeat to set us "right" again.



On a lighter note:
@ Bungo_Pete: Your mother was a war criminal last night.

[JSF]

The initiatives which Capt. Morton pioneered along with his exploits were the stuff of which legends are made.

I have read in this forum the nonsensical ravings by individuals who are illinformed about issues arising out of circumstances which they have never had to face. From a time and era long before most of us were twinkles in our parents eyes. Pontificating thier venom in this forum about heroic people who were thrust into a living hell by no deeds of thier own. And you judge them war criminals. You should be ashamed of yourselves. For all of the good that actually came from people like Capt. Morton and those that followed....you should be thankful for the freedoms they protected and the power they projected...irregardless which side of the ocean you live.

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Some of the men that were killed during that incident were POWs from India being transported to a forced labor site...so don't tell me it's ok cause they were all enemy combatants...cause they weren't. And killing enemies who are helpless is morally reprehensible...no matter who does it...and no matter their justifications for it. Especially when it appears that some of the men they killed were attempting to surrender.

There is alot I could say about some of the things we did in that war that I consider to have been nothing more than acts of terrorism...but I'll just leave it at that.

It's also 'morally reprehensible' to sneak attack a country at the same time as your ambassadors are talking peace. It's also 'morally reprehensible' to strafe struggling men in the water as their sneak-attacked ships are burning and sinking about them. It's also 'morally reprehensible' to strafe damage-control parties fighting to extinguish their blazing ships and rescue their comrades . . .

You do remember a little thing called 'Pearl Harbor', don't you?

I'm sure you do. As do I. But, for us, it's history. A story. Dark and grim and compelling, but a story nonetheless.

For Captain Morton it was not. He lived at that time. Probably knew friends and associates that died during the attack. Almost definitely saw the havok wreaked at Pearl. Saw the ships still sunk. The Arizona and Oklahoma still leaking fuel from their ruptured bunkers.

Do I excuse the gunning down of helpless victims of a torpedoed ship? Objectively, no, I don't.

But I can certainly understand the fierce angry passion that drove many of our military at that point in time, fueled both by the barbaric acts of the enemy --Pearl, Bataan, the list is long and tragic-- and by the pointed, fire-driven rhetoric of the US' own propaganda mills.

[nikimcbee]

Mush morton was a war criminal.:down:

No he wasn't. I assume you're talking about the "survivors" he shot at. Read Dick O'Cane's account of the encounter. The soldiers in the life boats were shooting at the Wahoo. The Wahoo had enough time to make one pass at the life boats, then they had to get the heck outta there.:arrgh!:

[bookworm_020]

The machine dunning of survivors in the Bismark Sea was due to the knowledge that they were close enough to land that many would swim ashore and be able to join the fight (even if they weren't equiped for it, they could use the weaponary of the exsiting troops who were not in a state to fight)
The Australians and American Commanders knew if they did get ashore, they could turn the battle in favour of the Japanese, or at the very least, bring it to a stalemate.

It's a tough choice to make, but if you have to choose between on the death of enemy troops or your own, and there is no way you can take prisioners, what would have you've done??:hmm:

[martxyz]

There seems to be a good deal of rationalisation going on about Morton. On the site that relates to the Wahoo, there is a very confused argument relating to the likelihood that most of the survivors were probabliy Indian POWs. The argument is a bit confused. The other defence given for his behaviour was that he was probably "outraged" by Pearl Harbour, just as people were after the bombing of the World Trade Centre. But that is not an excuse. There was and still is also is a world outside of America. About 2000 people died at Pearl Harbour. On that same day, thousands upon thousands were dying in ocupied China, in Western Europe, Africa, and just massively in Eastern Europe. The holocaust was getting into full-swing. Pearl Harbour's main significance, historically (for the rest of the world), was that it brought the US into a war (or wars) that it had previously watched from the sidelines (exceptions being the atlantic convoys). Being outraged that someone would attack you without any prior warning (which is not a complete reflection of the state of affairs - and it had, after all, happened previously during WW2) and that America was not used to being attacked on its own soil, is no excuse for a war-crime. There are some reports that the likes of Churchill (and probably half the world if we're honest) practically rejoiced when Pearl Harbour got hit, knowing that it would bring the US into the war, and that's even before you get onto other theories about the whole mess.

I appreciate the bravery of the men of the Wahoo, and of Morton. I do though think his memory would be so much better served if he was seen as a whole person. His behaviour was obviously known about. There are many good men, who culpably do bad things, and that should be acknowledged, and they should be tried, just as others are tried. But even in the case of a war-crime, a man is more than his failings. In many cases the crime is so grave as to overshadow other aspects of a person's life. If this is the case for Morton, I can never possibly know. The best memorial people could give him would be to stop defending his behaviour during that incident. It tarnishes his reputation more than it rehabilitates it.

Should I be accused of being completely naive on the subject, I think that the vast literature on WW2 is there for all to read carefully and form their own judgements on who did what when, all over the world. Personally, I have been in the professional position of helping someone negotiate the aftermath of his own illegal behaviour during the gulf war. Infringements such as his were common, but decent men have to live with the trauma of their own behaviour. That's why so many veterans need counselling (though frequently don't get it). I had more respect for this man, than if he had hidden or denied his actions. Several years later, I remember him fondly, and know that he still suffers, 16 years later, as do his lovely family.

Why don't people just let Morton be the man he actually was, and not create a false person, by denying his actions and forever leaving the legacy that he was a man whose illegal action was supported, to the last, by a movement of denial. History will judge him, in any event, whatever excuses people might chose to come up with.

[Sailor Steve]

Well said.

Welcome aboard, and I look forward to reading more of your posts.

[JSF]

There seems to be a good deal of rationalisation going on about Morton. On the site that relates to the Wahoo, there is a very confused argument relating to the likelihood that most of the survivors were probabliy Indian POWs. The argument is a bit confused. The other defence given for his behaviour was that he was probably "outraged" by Pearl Harbour, just as people were after the bombing of the World Trade Centre. But that is not an excuse. There was and still is also is a world outside of America. About 2000 people died at Pearl Harbour. On that same day, thousands upon thousands were dying in ocupied China, in Western Europe, Africa, and just massively in Eastern Europe. The holocaust was getting into full-swing. Pearl Harbour's main significance, historically (for the rest of the world), was that it brought the US into a war (or wars) that it had previously watched from the sidelines (exceptions being the atlantic convoys). Being outraged that someone would attack you without any prior warning (which is not a complete reflection of the state of affairs - and it had, after all, happened previously during WW2) and that America was not used to being attacked on its own soil, is no excuse for a war-crime. There are some reports that the likes of Churchill (and probably half the world if we're honest) practically rejoiced when Pearl Harbour got hit, knowing that it would bring the US into the war, and that's even before you get onto other theories about the whole mess.

I appreciate the bravery of the men of the Wahoo, and of Morton. I do though think his memory would be so much better served if he was seen as a whole person. His behaviour was obviously known about. There are many good men, who culpably do bad things, and that should be acknowledged, and they should be tried, just as others are tried. But even in the case of a war-crime, a man is more than his failings. In many cases the crime is so grave as to overshadow other aspects of a person's life. If this is the case for Morton, I can never possibly know. The best memorial people could give him would be to stop defending his behaviour during that incident. It tarnishes his reputation more than it rehabilitates it.

Should I be accused of being completely naive on the subject, I think that the vast literature on WW2 is there for all to read carefully and form their own judgements on who did what when, all over the world. Personally, I have been in the professional position of helping someone negotiate the aftermath of his own illegal behaviour during the gulf war. Infringements such as his were common, but decent men have to live with the trauma of their own behaviour. That's why so many veterans need counselling (though frequently don't get it). I had more respect for this man, than if he had hidden or denied his actions. Several years later, I remember him fondly, and know that he still suffers, 16 years later, as do his lovely family.

Why don't people just let Morton be the man he actually was, and not create a false person, by denying his actions and forever leaving the legacy that he was a man whose illegal action was supported, to the last, by a movement of denial. History will judge him, in any event, whatever excuses people might chose to come up with.

You appear to be somewhat weak thru your deliberate attempts to impune the character of LCdr Morton. Go back and read the article at warfish again. There is no confusion about the way in which the article is writen or read for that matter. Practically everything you have stated in this post is an imbellishment of the facts rewriten to suit your twisted view of the events. For the record, the entire war was illegal. Don't hate Morton...let it go...you don't have to worry...big bad mean ole Morton can't hurt you.......

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

There seems to be a good deal of rationalisation going on about Morton. On the site that relates to the Wahoo, there is a very confused argument relating to the likelihood that most of the survivors were probabliy Indian POWs. The argument is a bit confused. The other defence given for his behaviour was that he was probably "outraged" by Pearl Harbour, just as people were after the bombing of the World Trade Centre. But that is not an excuse. There was and still is also is a world outside of America. About 2000 people died at Pearl Harbour. On that same day, thousands upon thousands were dying in ocupied China, in Western Europe, Africa, and just massively in Eastern Europe. The holocaust was getting into full-swing. Pearl Harbour's main significance, historically (for the rest of the world), was that it brought the US into a war (or wars) that it had previously watched from the sidelines (exceptions being the atlantic convoys). Being outraged that someone would attack you without any prior warning (which is not a complete reflection of the state of affairs - and it had, after all, happened previously during WW2) and that America was not used to being attacked on its own soil, is no excuse for a war-crime. There are some reports that the likes of Churchill (and probably half the world if we're honest) practically rejoiced when Pearl Harbour got hit, knowing that it would bring the US into the war, and that's even before you get onto other theories about the whole mess.

I appreciate the bravery of the men of the Wahoo, and of Morton. I do though think his memory would be so much better served if he was seen as a whole person. His behaviour was obviously known about. There are many good men, who culpably do bad things, and that should be acknowledged, and they should be tried, just as others are tried. But even in the case of a war-crime, a man is more than his failings. In many cases the crime is so grave as to overshadow other aspects of a person's life. If this is the case for Morton, I can never possibly know. The best memorial people could give him would be to stop defending his behaviour during that incident. It tarnishes his reputation more than it rehabilitates it.

Should I be accused of being completely naive on the subject, I think that the vast literature on WW2 is there for all to read carefully and form their own judgements on who did what when, all over the world. Personally, I have been in the professional position of helping someone negotiate the aftermath of his own illegal behaviour during the gulf war. Infringements such as his were common, but decent men have to live with the trauma of their own behaviour. That's why so many veterans need counselling (though frequently don't get it). I had more respect for this man, than if he had hidden or denied his actions. Several years later, I remember him fondly, and know that he still suffers, 16 years later, as do his lovely family.

Why don't people just let Morton be the man he actually was, and not create a false person, by denying his actions and forever leaving the legacy that he was a man whose illegal action was supported, to the last, by a movement of denial. History will judge him, in any event, whatever excuses people might chose to come up with.

You appear to be somewhat weak thru your deliberate attempts to impune the character of LCdr Morton. Go back and read the article at warfish again. There is no confusion about the way in which the article is writen or read for that matter. Practically everything you have stated in this post is an imbellishment of the facts rewriten to suit your twisted view of the events. For the record, the entire war was illegal. Don't hate Morton...let it go...you don't have to worry...big bad mean ole Morton can't hurt you.......

What coloured glasses are you reading his post through?

I don't see anything with his post that is twisting it in the least. A personal opinion, yes, but not an intentional misrepresentation of facts. From what I see, the point trying to be made is that a person shouldn't necessarily have their entire life and history judged by any single action, for good or ill, but rather have their entire life speak for itself. And glossing over, spin-doctoring or otherwise tampering with facts only serves to 'create' a legacy that is false.

I don't see, by anything martxyz posted, that he hates Morton. I do see, based upon your post, that you're rude, insulting and don't play well with others.

[JSF]

What color glasses......tri color....red, white, and blue. Read entire thread. Rude and insulting.....its called direct.

[gmuno]

It's also called "Ignorant of other opinions"

With threads like this, i'm thanking god that i'm a German.:nope:

[Cpt. Stewker]

The vast majority of people that call others ignorant are themselves ignorant for that very reason. They can't understand that those people that are "ignorant" also have their own views.

[_Seth_]

Ease up and relax, guys... Its just a few weeks until christmas.. Remember: Santa knows whos bad and whos not....:up:

[Jeffg]

Does anyone know if any of the Wahoo crew who did not sail on the last patrol is still alive?I also wanted to find out their reaction to the pictures of the Wahoo on the bottom when she was found?
Jeff

[mookiemookie]

There seems to be a good deal of rationalisation going on about Morton....{snip}History will judge him, in any event, whatever excuses people might chose to come up with.

Excellent post. *golf clap*

I will say no more, for fear of fanning the flames of disagreement on exactly what eyes we should view history through.