View Full Version : Picking on WW2 Veterans 70 years later
I wanted to get your opinions on a discussion I had recently with a historian and author who has as far back as 2012 gone back to challenge and question the memories and credibility of an Australian Z-Force commando in a book he wrote about his exploits in Borneo during 1944-1945.
The book was written very late into his life is called "Blood on Borneo."
A website was created to remember him I believe by his son: http://www.jackwongsue.com/about
However, a "respected" author decided after doing "research" to go after him 6 months after he passed away and to question his memories and his claims he was in specific places in 1944 in Borneo.
My question is this; is this right, for a historian or author to go after a decorated war veteran, 6 months after his death and to slander him and his reputation, giving him no opportunity to reply back to accusations?
Link: https://lynettesilver.com/investigations/fraudulent-military-service/
Does stuff like this happen in the States with WW2 vets or would this be a very isolated instance of an Australian historian going after a fellow Aussie war veteran?
I was of the opinion this should be left alone and the fella's past be respected and his service honoured...not slandered or for him to have mud thrown at him after he has died.
Opinions on this?
Which version is the truth?
Which version is the truth?
I really don't know. A bit hard sometimes trying to piece things together 70 years later I think. Dates/reports aren't always 100% accurate. Menories fade over the years maybe?
The "facts" documented by anyone are always subject to challenge.
The key points, to me,
Is there a valid reason to challenge?
Does the challenger have verifiable proof the facts were recorded incorrectly?
Who gains by the challenge?
In the last 40+yrs, I have seen/read many VN stories by true American Heroes. Some have been challenged by fellow warriors and found to be different, based on point of view. Some were different because of memory loss. Some have ended up in court, most were settled over a beer.
Your statement: "The book was written very late into his life is called..." suggests that there may have been some memory errors? Did the son ghost the book based on conversations with dad?
Additionally: "respected" author decided after doing "research" Suggests the author may have good reason to question the book,, OR is looking for some free PR
The original author's son needs the assistance of a 2L to proceed if he thinks it's justified.
1stindoor
08-21-2019, 14:44
I have a saying that was passed down to me many years ago, "Nothing ruins a good war story like an eyewitness." In this case, I would ask the same questions since he wasn't there...what is there to gain, and who would profit from the retelling? Like everything else, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
WarriorDiplomat
08-21-2019, 20:02
My experiences in the military hearing stories and knowing some of the people telling them is I don't believe there isn't such a thing of a war story without embellishment....the stories I have heard whooooo
One of the things I have learned about the military awards is the difference between a ARCOM V and a DSC is the skill of the author in his story telling and the folks deciding on what they will accept for what award....remember the Silver Star team from 3rd group? I still think that that point was the culmination of the code being cracked on what higher wanted to see and hear to approve awards...after that it seemed more and more higher awards were getting approved on a regular basis and retro award upgrades came after. I listen and read every war story and citation with a grain of salt and a healthy perhaps almost unhealthy sense of skepticism....from what I can see it becomes unit politics.
The "facts" documented by anyone are always subject to challenge.
The key points, to me,
Is there a valid reason to challenge?
Does the challenger have verifiable proof the facts were recorded incorrectly?
Who gains by the challenge?
In the last 40+yrs, I have seen/read many VN stories by true American Heroes. Some have been challenged by fellow warriors and found to be different, based on point of view. Some were different because of memory loss. Some have ended up in court, most were settled over a beer.
Your statement: "The book was written very late into his life is called..." suggests that there may have been some memory errors? Did the son ghost the book based on conversations with dad?
Additionally: "respected" author decided after doing "research" Suggests the author may have good reason to question the book,, OR is looking for some free PR
The original author's son needs the assistance of a 2L to proceed if he thinks it's justified.
I had to go back to re-read what he wrote in his book and then to look into the allegations and accusations made by this historian today.
My observations:
1-He apologizes in the introduction of his book "Blood on Borneo" in which he states he may have gotten some things wrong in the names, places and (I believe the dates) due to his age and the fact he had suffered a stroke and was into his late 70s when he wrote the book (I stand to be corrected on this).
2-The accusations lay in his claim he saw remenants or prisoners from the Borneo Death March being herded across a 250 kilometer route in which he and his Z-Force team were operating in.
4-This has been challenged by this historian who claims she has facts that prove he was not in the area of combat at that time due to serious battle injuries.
5-This allegations has been challenged by other Z-Force members who have written afftidavits to support this veteran in that a) he was there b) he actually saved the life of another Z-Force member c) that the records may have mixed up dates and times and places as this was common at the time and mistakes could have happened as far as record keeping is concerned
I have NOT seen these afftidavits in person but have been shown copies of them via watsapp.
6-Said historian came back to say she was referring to his diary and has facts he was not in the area and has now put him on some sort of stolen valour wall or some wall of "military fakes."
Further to that, she has now made allegations that one of the only 6 prisoners to have escaped captivity and survived the Borneo Death March in 1945 allegedly killed a fellow prisoner during/after their escape. She is basing this on heresay and some story about being close to a guard in a completely different camp somewhere else having had a conversation with someone who heard something or something along those lines.
She has written a LONG report on this.
I mean, its been 70 years. A lot of people did cruel and horrible things at the time to survive the prison camps and were down to animalistic nature to survive. Why dig up all this now and cause all this controversy? I don't get this....
I will lost that report here if anyone cares to read it:
It starts with this: http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read/3096/did-one-australian-pow-kill-another-/
An author replies to her with this: http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read/3115/finding-fault-has-to-stop/
And then the historian releases this a week later: http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read/3135/accounts-point-at-sticpewich-s-role-in-pow-s-death/?fbclid=IwAR04r8jecJrGOGgaJp_Hl7U830KuOaL7GtcC-w1ldgzNqIyZdmCFiM4BEWE
I don't know what digging old stories is going to do for anyone...is this a marketing ploy to sell tour packages or what but...I feel very uncomfortable with what I have read with regards to what this historian is doing and publishing.
Do historians do this in the states? Anything of this nature?