( 37 reviews )
-
Posted: Jul 9 2009
The first third of the books is a non-stop anti-American tirade. For the author, every vice of the Japanese imperial militarist culture is directly inherited from America and learned from American "imperialist" actions in the Pacific (even though the US lacked any concession in China, and had no Pacific territory until after 1898). According to him, the Japanese were only imitating the Americans when it came to brutality, torture, and territory hungry imperialism. His implication is the Japanese can't be held responsible for their atrocities, because they were taught to do it by the Americans (despite the fact the British and Germans primarily trained the Japanese militarily as they leapt into the industrial age). The author specifically singles out (over 40 pages) US activities in the Philippines as proof of the favored Yankee pastime of bayoneting babies. Of course, there is some context missing; he only refers to isolated incidents on Samar during which atrocities were committed on both sides over a very short time. He conveniently ignores thousands of counter examples over five years where US forces took extreme pains and great additional risk to minimize civilian casualties, not to mention all the humanitarian efforts on other islands. Perhaps the Japanese militarists, who the author implies wouldn't hurt a fly until they learned brutality from Americans, only read about the battles in Samar. Another truly bizarre and absurd aspect of the book is the author's attempt to outline a chain of events demonstrating the US government always sought to acquire Chichi Jima (the island that is supposed to be the subject of the book), and the Japanese were therefore totally justified in being particularly defensive of American presence on the island. To support this fantastic allegation, he points to obscure legislation in congress which sought to establish a coaling station at numerous locations throughout the world, including Chichi Jima. While that never became law, I guess he assumes the Japanese had their "man in Washington" following the threatening bill, during the Meiji reign, and every Japanese soldier to through 1945 was taught about this effrontery...yeah, right. He then points out that various US ships in the late 19th Century stopped and used the island for shelter, while it was otherwise uninhabited. Apart from not even rising to the level of circumstantial `evidence' to support his accusation, he never provides any support to show the Japanese were aware of these events, or more importantly that their opinion and actions were changed by them. ...but wasn't the book supposed to be about how some US flyers were made prisoners and treated toward the end of the war on a remote island? Yeah, I thought so too...apparently the author became lost during his early rant. He does manage to get to that...eventually. One disturbing window into the author's method is shown in the photos of him with former President GHW Bush (41). The caption and juxtaposition of the photos clearly suggest President Bush was involved in the research and supports the author's conclusion. In fact, this is simply not true...neither are most of the "facts" used to support his opinions as expressed in the book. The point is, while Bradley might be a gifted writer (his prose is certainly readable), he is a frustrated American-hating revisionist embittered by his father's experiences and perceived injustices. He is not a historian and is clearly incapable of scholarly research or serious historical analysis, choosing to selectively take from discredited politically correct revisionist texts that support his preconceived notions, while ignoring libraries full of legitimate sources.
-
Posted: Jun 26 2009
This guy is obviously a peacenik who regards both sides in a war as equally guilty of crimes. He would probably regard Hitler to be morally equivalent to Churchill or Roosevelt. He clearly has no military experience and copies experiences from other sources. An example of his many glaring erros: in chapter 12 he refers to the, "flight deck ... was an incredibly dangerous place" with, "volatile jet fuel that could burst into flames..." Funny, he never mentions the WWII jet planes in use on Navy ships. Aviation fuel is extremely volatile while jet fuel is basically kerosene and not nearly as volatile. I further find the term "Flyboys" as annoying and condecending to these flyers who were men.
-
Posted: Jun 12 2009
I bought and read this book after reading a recommendation by Bill Whittle ([...]), a very erudite blogger, who writes incredible essays. He wrote one after Jon Stewart called Truman a war criminal, and his source for much of his essay was this book. While I find that the parts of the book that discuss the technical aspects of becoming a flyboy, and their experiences flying, etc., very well written and moving, I kept running into comments by Bradley that made no sense. How can someone write a book that describes the horrors of what the Japanese did to just about every other Asian country, and POW's, and then turn around a body slam the US? OMG, what horrors. I had to put the book down at times when reading what they did to men, women, and children in that war. We're not perfect, but the two topics do not mix well, and one has NOTHING To do with the other, Bradley's justification for Japanese behavior is incredibly thin. The fly boys discussed in that book ended up dead, and not just dead, but horribly desecrated after death. And this author has blame America comments throughout? Reading those parts of the book made me so angry. I would say it's somewhat recommended, only because those brave young men need to be remembered and honored for their service. Bradley isn't fit to shine their shoes.
