|
Letters
Omission of Savo Island in the publication, "The Navy" Dear Sirs, I have just seen your quite magnificent publication The Navy. During WW2 I was an executive officer in the Royal Australian Navy having joined the Of course we were set upon by Vice Admiral Mikawa's surface force, and had to be sunk when the Allied invading surface force withdrew later that day. Alongside us, your US heavy cruisers Quincy, Astoria and Vincennes were all sunk, and some 1,000 US sailors died that night. Savo was the worst blue water defeat suffered to date by the United States Navy. But, not a word is mentioned about this battle in your book, I could not believe it when I perused the index looking for a report about this significent naval battle. Was it left out because it was such a defeat ? I cannot believe that was the reason, your proiect editor surely was not that subjective. We don't all win, all of the time! This publication is superb, but as a work sponsored by the Naval Historical Foundation, it is, I submit, flawed by this major ommission. I look forward to your response with interest. With best wishes from Australia. Mackenzie Gregory.
We are pleased that you found "The Navy" to be a rewarding and interesting book. As a survivor, your disappointment in failing to find a reference to the Battle of Savo Sound where HMAS Canberra was lot is understandable. In my defense, I plead that our intent in this book was not to provide a complete or definitive history of the United States Navy but rather a sense of that history with highlights from it. Each author chose his own way of describing or discussing the various aspects of history or capabilities in his section. In World War Two, Paul Stillwell chose to relate the aspects of that war in terms of individuals' experiences. Obviously there was no way in 40 pages that he could describe every action and there was no direct mention in the text of Savo Island. There is one mention in a caption of the photo of Gunners Mate Charles Hanson on page 106 that states:
In a book of this size and scope the needs of brevity have aroused some strong passions among those veterans who consider their forces, actions or comrades slighted. I regret that but contend that I did the best I could given the limit of the medium. I hope you will find this explanation honest even if, from your point of view, not entirely satisfactory. Thank you again for your kind approbation. Sincerely yours, W.J.Holland, Jr.
Don, A response from the Editor in chief of The Navy. I still think that the worst US Naval defeat as was Savo, would have qualified as a highlight or perhaps as a low light of any book about the US Navy, and would give a sense of that History. But I guess To each his own. At least I elicited a response with my comments. Don't know how Rear Admiral Holland gets Gordon from Gregory. All the best,
Rodney asked for the address of the Naval Historical Foundation, having read my correspondence with Rear Admiral Holland about the omission of Savo from their USN history. Mac.
Mac: Thank you for the address. I have good news and bad news for you. The bad news comes first. The Naval Historical Foundation is a small historical, non-profit foundation founded in 1926 with the Mission of preserving and promoting the full range of Naval history. Examination of the Foundation's Financial Statement dated 31 Dec 2002 reveals Total Assets of 2.9 million USD and Total Liabilities of 0 USD resulting in a Net Worth of 2.9 million USD. Gross Income totals 481 thousand USD centered mainly in museum sales, photographic reproductions and the largest account being Royalties of 161 thousand USD based upon sales of it's calendar. My point is this organization is a small and volunteer based organization that manages itself on an ineffective budget resulting in ineffective results. The organization is not directly connected nor sanctioned in any manner with the United States Navy. The list of the Board of Directors contains names of retired naval admirals of which I have no knowledge or awareness of and they certainly do not appear to be actively engaged naval historians. It is not, a large, historical, credible repository of U.S. Naval History. The Editor you exchanged correspondence with also sits as a member of the Board of directors. I have not been able to confirm his credentials. The language in his correspondence to you had the tilt of Marketing in it with a hint of arrogant condescension as justification for their lack of historical completeness, regardless of any credibility you might possess and further, reflects the abject absence of any knowledge of you. It is my expectation that any individual who holds themselves up to be an authority in the public arena to provide disclosure of their credentials supporting their position. I am, offended as a historian and embarrassed as a Veteran by the tone of the response you received. It is simply, outragous. The good news? The organization lacks a serious commitment to historical completeness. The Board of Directors and Editors have lost sight of the Mission of their organization. Best of all, they appear to not care. Thus, though your comments express your favorable impression of article or book, which I have not read, the Naval Historical Foundation are not, based upon the statement of W.J.Holland, Jr, Rear Admiral, USN (Ret), Editor-in-Chief, "The Navy" and likely an importer of Navaho rugs and insurance sales, concerned with completeness. Therefore, rising up in most serious researchers evaluations of The Naval Historical Foundation is, "fuggetaboutem" (New York City slang), and thus, not a credible historical authority to be taken seriously. It is not my desire to advise you on how to conduct your business. I would not presume to counsel you on how to conduct your affairs as I am your sheer junior and certainly, you've conducted your life very well without my input. HOWEVER, I will say, this organization and any publications emanating from them may only be considered to be flawed and their credibility ought not to be assumed based upon their Editorial position, as stated by Mr. Holland which certainly reflects his comittment to the concept of historical completness. The Naval Historical Foundation is not and should not be confused with Naval Historical Center. The Naval Historical Center ( http://www.history.navy.mil/index.html ) advises readers - NOTICE: This is an official U.S. Navy web site. In the end, I'm certain that Mr. Holland has performed valuable service of some sort to his country. At least he has not accused of any gross crimes but I've been unable to discover anything about him. Lacking evidence to quantify him as stupid, I can certainly conclude that he is not completely as he appears. Perhaps highly decorated, for "efficiency," but I would not how. I don't brag about my Good Conduct Medal either. Regards, Rod Badger
Thank you for your comments, I was, and am of the opinion that in any purported history of the USN, to omit the Battle of Savo Island is to dismiss a major battle, that was in fact, the worst Blue Water defeat of the US Navy in their history up to that date. As I indicated to Rear Admiral Holland, we do not win all of our battles all of the time, our defeats as well as our victories are all part of the patchwork that goes to make up the richness of our Naval Heritage, and the recording of it for future generations. To argue that Savo did get a mention, because a sailor from USS Vincennes, one of the US 8 inch cruisers sunk along with my own HMAS Canberra, had a tattoo on his shoulder, to remember Savo, is to both beg the question and trivialise the loss of 84 sailors from my own ship, and 1,000 US sailors from Quincy, Astoria, and Vincennes. I believe I made my view clear by indicating this purported history was accordingly flawed. Holland's response was not in my opinion worthy of any further correspondence. I do appreciate your support, thank you again. Regards, Mac.
PS: Another measure of this organization's acedemic comittment to historical completness is the following;
Let's see, two dozen is 24 interviews, plus 30 more potential interviews since 1997 on a group of Veterans well into 70s going on 80s. Glareingly, is the abscence of urgancy. Yes, unfortunately, I'm insulted. |
