It's easy to justify that whole different set of rules isn't it?

So why then, did we accept the surrender of thousands of POWs?

It was up to the individual as to whether he would hold fire, or fire to kill. Some killed. Some accepted the prisoners. So, your set of circumstances do not apply across the board. You can justify it, while another soldier would not. Your acceptance of those circumstances as being justification, only illustrates which direction you would undoubtedly go if you had the Garand and the unarmed Japs were squirting out of the bunker in front of you.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't judge you and would probably do the same.

I'm sure Askins was a real "expletive," but I'm also sure he wasn't a real "expletive" to everyone. He selected his friends and I'd bet his personal code forbade him from harming them. Everyone else was an enemy. I believe he loved family above all else, at least no one has any rumors of his killing his relatives for schitz and grins.

He was a "hardcase." Sort of a Doc Holliday or Wes Hardin in the 20th Century. He didn't fit in. But, given another time and place and we'd be writing his history in a different light.

Dan




"It's a source of great pride, that when I google my name, I find book titles and not mug shots." Daniel C. Chamberlain