Subject: Honor to those who came forward
From: Cecil Turner
Date: 7/4/03 6:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:
Sunny wrote:
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
snip
Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's hear
what
you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?
Have you always been so full of your own importance?
Haven't you realised yet, that most veterans don't talk about themselves,
but do talk about their mates.
Well, I was going to stay out of this, but since it appears it'll go on
forever, might
as well throw two cents in.
First, ISTM Art has some points and deserves a fair reading. The stuff
written about
the concept of combat vets vs first-timers fills libraries--the "seen the
elephant"
thing. IMO it is a pertinent comment, and explaining it is difficult. As to
ground
crews not having the same camaraderie, it certainly is the case today, and
has nothing
to do with rank--it's the shared risk thing. Those who expose themselves to
enemy fire
do not have the same regard for those who don't. (There is a peculiar
derision in the
term "REMF"--and I've never met a front-line vet that doesn't get it, while
almost no
non-vets do.) It's "for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my
brother" . .
. not "he who feeds the horses but stays behind."
On the "cowardice" thing: in my very limited experience, folks react
differently. Some
can't take it. Some can take it but won't do anything. Some aren't scared.
The latter
make me most nervous, but all are hazardous to your health. And once you
have to make
allowances for someone, you never look at them the same . . . and you watch
them. Guys
who refuse to perform and force someone else to greater risk in their place
get
ostracized. As, to a lesser degree, do guys whose performance is suspect.
The labels
don't matter all that much.
Second, if my limited understanding of this netiquette thing is right, the
line is
generally drawn at ad hominems. It's perfectly okay to heap scorn on the
statement,
personal remarks about the author are bad form. (The pithy little car sex
thing was a
good example of the former, and witty, too.) I think we (and know I) would
enjoy this
more if we could keep the personalities out of it.
rgds,
KTF
This one is for you Cecil. (s)
Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges
Railroad bridges were brutally defended. Knock out a RR bridge and you have cut
transport for possibly hundreds of miles . And while repairing track took only
a few hours. rebulding a RR bridge over a river or chasm might take weeks. We
had some of our heaviest losses over these bridges. On the 13th of February
1945 we attacked the RR Bridge at Euskirchen. We lost two aircraft over the
target. We lost Yeager and his crew and Williams (one chute seen to open) and
his crew. The very next day we hit the Engers RR bridge and we lost 5 aircraft
over the target. Brennen,Holms, Jones, Nelson and Meppen and crews were lost
but three chutes were seen you open. Two bridges,two days, seven crews lost. A
lot of empty bunks at the 344th. And the war was almost over. What a time to
die.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer