Truth? Yeah, It Matters.
I’m probably going to catch some grief for what follows. No matter. Some things are worth saying, popular or not.
Jonn wrote an article the other day concerning the famous Joe Rosenthal Iwo Jima flag raising photo. The bottom line: one of the individuals identified 7+ decades ago as being part of the “flag raising” – PhM2c John Bradly, USN – was recently determined by the USMC not to have actually been in that photo.
Predictably, since it concerned an icon this caused consternation – and accusations. Some commenters indicated that to them it “didn’t matter”. Others indicated a belief that it was part of some Leftist attempt to “smear” a hero.
It’s a free country, so to each his own. But I have a different point of view.
The photo is also part of US history. And accurately recording that history is damned important. We owe that much to future generations.
We also owe that to those who are now gone. We need to get their story as close to correct as we can – even when sometimes that’s painful.
What follows is a bit longish. Read or not as you desire.
. . .
Flags and Iwo Jima
It turns out that “flag raising at Iwo Jima” is actually a quite complex subject. In truth, the famous and iconic flag raising photo on which the USMC Monument outside Arlington National Cemetery is modeled is only one of multiple different “flag photos” taken atop Mount Suribachi on 23 February 1945 – three of which have some degree of publicity. All three of those published photos are very different. Two of them were taken by Joe Rosenthal; the third was taken by SSgt Louis R. Lowery, USMC. There’s also newsreel footage corresponding to one of the three – Rosenthal’s famous photo – which was taken by yet a third photographer: SSgt. Bill Genaust, USMC.
It gets even more complex. There were actually two different “flag raisings” on the summit of Mount Surabachi on 23 February 1945. The photos Joe Rosenthal took – two different photographs, one of which became world-famous – were photographs of the SECOND flag raising that day. The first flag raising and its photos, though not completely unknown, are nowhere near as well known as the second. They are only rarely seen or discussed.
Two of the three famous photos taken that day were candid. One was indeed staged – and no, it wasn’t Rosenthal’s famous photo, which in turn means that the newsreel footage taken that day was also candid.
And to make the situation even more convoluted: Bradley does indeed appear in two of the three publicly-known flag raising photographs taken that day atop Mount Suribachi. However, per the latest USMC investigation announced last week he does not appear in Rosenthal’s iconic photograph.
Given the complexity of the situation and the fact that it occurred in combat, it’s perhaps understandable if not inevitable that errors were initially made in identifying the participants. But such errors can often be corrected – and if they can be corrected, they should be.
The Flag Raisings and the Photos
The first flag raising photo on Iwo Jima is not particularly well known. It was taken by SSgt. Louis R. Lowery, a USMC photographer. It is a photograph taken shortly after the first flag raising atop Mount Suribachi. (Lowery apparently took multiple photographs at the time; this is the most well-known one of the batch.) John Bradley appears in this photo; he’s the individual near the center of the group, standing and wearing a helmet, with his hand holding the flagstaff.
Historical accounts indicate that three Marines raised this first US flag on Mount Suribachi: 1stLt Harold G. Schrier, who led the patrol that took the flag to the top of the mountain; PltSgt Ernest Thomas, his Platoon Sergeant; and Sgt Hank Hansen. None of the three participated in the second, iconic flag raising photographed by Rosenthal.
So, why was there a second flag-raising at all? Well, it seems that a high Navy Department official – SECNAV James Forrestal, to be precise – had accompanied the landing force to Iwo Jima. On seeing the first flag raised on the summit of Mount Suribachi, Forrestal indicated he wanted that flag.
That order was in turn relayed to LtCol Chandler Johnson, the Battalion Commander of 2nd Bn, 28th Marine Regiment, 5th Marine Div, whose forces had topped Suribachi and erected that flag. Johnson’s exact words on receiving this order are recorded as being, “To hell with that!” He then ordered his subordinates to obtain a second flag and raise it – “And make it a bigger one.” A team of four Marines – led by Sgt Michael Strank and including Cpl. Harlon Block, Pfc Franklin R. Sousley, and Pfc Ira H. Hayes – was given the mission of raising the second flag.
One of the battalion’s runners (messengers) – Pfc Rene Gagnon, who also ended up participating in the second flag raising – ended up in possession of this the larger flag (historical accounts differ on precisely where that larger flag was obtained and who obtained it). He took it to SGT Strank’s team atop Mount Suribachi.
The flag and flagpole used in the second flag raising were quite heavy, weighing together well over 100lbs; there was also considerable wind. When Gagnon arrived with the flag, Sgt Strank ordered Gagnon and another individual already on the summit to help. Strank and his team – augmented by Gagnon and the other individual – raised the second flag. (Bradley was apparently also on or very near the summit at the time, as he’s known to have assisted in stringing and securing the rope installed shortly afterwards used to stabilize the makeshift flagpole after erection.) The original flag was lowered and returned to the Battalion’s command group.
This second flag-raising was captured in-progress on both still film and newsreel footage. Joe Rosenthal took the iconic still photo; he damn near missed it, as he was piling rocks to stand on for a better vantage point when the Marines involved started to raise the flag and had to shoot hurriedly. SSgt Bill Genaust, USMC, took the newsreel footage while standing about 3 feet away from Rosenthal. Below is Rosenthal’s original photo; the more famous version is a cropped version of this one.
Genaust’s newsreel footage of the 2nd flag raising is found beginning at approximately 1:30 in the video below.
Rosenthal later had a largish group of Marines from the unit pose for a second, “gung-ho” photo with the second flag atop Mount Suribachi. This was the third Iwo Jima flag photo taken that day. Three of those who participated in the second flag-raising (Hayes, Strank, and Sousley) appear in this photo as well. Bradley also appears in this photo.
Of the six men who raised the flag in Rosenberg’s iconic photo, three (Strank, Block, and Sousley) were later KIA on Iwo Jima – as was the photographer who took the newsreel footage, Genaust. The other three in the iconic photo survived the war.
To recap: Bradley was indeed on the summit of Mount Suribachi during or very shortly after each flag raising on 23 February 1945. He was not one of the three that raised the first flag on Mount Suribachi, but does appear in both Lowery’s first Iwo Jima flag photo and in Rosenthal’s “gung-ho” posed version relating to the second flag. Per the recently-concluded USMC investigation, he was not in Rosenthal’s iconic photograph of the second flag raising; another individual was in that photograph and was afterwards erroneously identified as having been Bradley. Bradley did assist immediately afterwards in placing rope used to stabilize the newly-erected second flag. However, he does not appear to have personally and directly participated in the act of raising either flag.
Prior Controversies
As you can see from the above, the circumstances surrounding the Iwo Jima “flag photos” are complex and somewhat confusing. There were two different flag raisings that day; none of the personnel who raised in the first flag participated in the second flag raising. There are also three different flag photos – but there is personnel overlap among those photos. There is also newsreel film of one flag raising (the famous one). And this all occurred during combat, where things are often of necessity not neatly organized or accurately recorded at the time.
As a result, there has been much confusion and multiple controversies concerning the events.
Initially, Hayes didn’t want to be identified as being one of the “flag raisers”; he wanted to remain anonymous. He secured a promise from Gagnon, who knew Hayes had participated in the second flag raising, not to reveal his identity. It took an order – and a blunt reminder that refusal to obey orders was a crime subject to prosecution – before Gagnon identified Hayes as being one of the six in the photo.
At the time and afterwards, there were accusations concerning Rosenthal’s iconic photo that “the photo was staged”. And indeed, one of the photos taken that day was staged. But the “staged photo” wasn’t the iconic photo taken by Rosenthal; it was his second photograph, which is very obviously not a candid shot. Confusion on this point has led to numerous arguments over the years.
There have also been previous errors concerning the identities of those in Rosenthal’s iconic photo. Originally, there was another error in identifying the participants. Cpl. Harlan Block was not identified as being one of the six in that iconic photo; Sgt. Hank Hansen, one of the three individuals involved in raising the first flag to be raised on Mount Suribachi, was mistakenly identified as being in the photo in Block’s place (at the base of the makeshift flagpole). It took two years and a Congressional investigation to sort that out. Indeed, had Pfc. Ira Hayes – one of the six individuals in the Rosenthal photo – not come forward and spoken up regarding the misidentification, that error would likely never have been corrected.
“At this point, what difference does it make?”
Well, I guess that depends. And yes, the choice of language above was intentional – and was done to make a point.
IMO whether it matters or not depends on what you think is more important: truth, or appearances.
If you think appearances are more important, well, I guess then it doesn’t really matter who’s in Rosenthal’s iconic photo. That photo – regardless of who’s actually in it – is uplifting, stirring, and heroic. It projects the image of the heroic American fighting man quite well.
In that case, I guess it also doesn’t really matter if it was staged. Or if it was even taken in combat or on Mount Suribachi at all. Or if it was created out of whole cloth by an artist, for that matter.
In short, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. The image is still effective, and it supports the cause.
If that’s your point of view, well, have at it. But I can’t buy that.
I can’t buy that, because truth matters. The event indeed really happened. It was iconic, and special. Real people did that, in a real war. It’s part of US history.
The people involved are also part of US history. And they deserve to be remembered – accurately.
And I also can’t buy it because of what happened next.
The surviving “flag raisers” were turned into celebrities. They were pulled from combat duty; they were used to headline a War Bond drive. In at least one individual’s case, it was done very much against their will.
In short, they too became a part of US history. So yeah, IMO “getting it right” here matters – a great deal.
It matters because history is what really happened. If an account is known not to be accurate, it’s not history; it’s at best fiction, and at worst propaganda. And when an account is known to be inaccurate, but is nonetheless provided as a description of what actually happened, well . . . that’s called a lie.
As I said before: to each his own. To me, truth matters. One helluva lot.
YMMV.
Truth Is . . . Truth
There are some who might say that this doesn’t matter for a different reason: because John Bradley was a hero, and this is just an example of “someone trying to tear down a hero”. I can’t say I agree with that, either.
John Bradley was indeed a true battlefield hero; his Navy Cross Citation speaks for itself on that score. He deserves credit and honor for his heroism; for that he has my respect.
But regardless, facts are facts – even when they’re troubling. Bradley was indeed in two of the famous Iwo Jima flag photos – but it now appears he was not in Rosenthal’s iconic photo. He didn’t help raise either flag atop Mount Suribachi. And try as I might, I simply cannot see any way around one conclusion: that John Bradley knew – full well – that he didn’t participate in raising the flag in Rosenthal’s photo.
Yet he kept silent.
I can perhaps understand why he kept his mouth shut while he was in uniform. Hell, I suspect he may have been ordered to do so.
But he was discharged from the Navy in late 1945. After that, he could speak his mind. Ira Hayes certainly did to correct the record regarding Block.
Bradley didn’t. He kept his mouth shut for almost 49 years.
Still: truth is . . . truth. It doesn’t change because we don’t like it – or because we don’t like what the truth implies.
. . .
Coda
There’s also one final thing to consider. Or, more precisely – one other individual.
I have to wonder how the real sixth “flag raiser” in Rosenthal’s photo – now determined to have been Pfc Harold H. Schultz, USMC – felt about how this situation and its aftermath. Because IMO if anyone got the short end of the stick here, it seems to me that he did. Bigtime.
Schultz was a legitimate part of US history. He was the one in the photo. He deserved recognition and remembrance for what he did, even if it was done while simply obeying orders. His actions merited being recorded for posterity; he deserved to be remembered.
But he wasn’t.
By all accounts, after World War II Schultz lived a full and apparently good life. But he had to live the rest of that life knowing someone else got the credit for what he’d done at Iwo Jima – and as a result, became famous.
Think about that for a moment. Schultz had participated in something iconic and had played a central role. He was someone who had literally made history – history that would be remembered for decades if not centuries. By that act he’d achieved some small measure of immortality. People would remember what he’d done – and his name – long after he was gone.
Then, afterwards, his rightful place in history was taken from him and given to someone else. The other man was remembered; he was forgotten.
Maybe Schultz was OK with that; maybe it p!ssed him off daily. I never met him, so I can’t say.
But what Schultz did certainly deserved then and deserves now to be acknowledged. And now, after 71+ years, it has been.
There’s just one small problem. The wrong done to Schultz can never be fully righted.
You see, Harold H. Schultz died on 16 May 1995 – more than 21 years ago. He went to his grave never receiving his due. And he died knowing someone else still was receiving credit for doing what he’d done.
He died knowing someone else had been given his rightful place in history. He never knew that his role in history had been acknowledged.
And that . . . is a shame. A damn shame.
(Multiple sources were used in preparing this article. However, the Wikipedia article entitled Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a good – and as far as I can tell, accurate – rundown on this somewhat complex and confusing subject.)
Category: Historical, Who knows
I can’t wait to read the comments on this thread.
Hondo, as a Marine I want to thank you for this clear and concise breakdown of the events on Iwo Jima that day! I have recommended all of my Marine friends to save this for future reference. I was able to meet Chuck Lindberg at the 50th anniversary on Iwo Jima and he was part of that first flag raising but was denied any of the glory for decades by the Marine Corps so they could keep the second flag raising as the only memory of that day. A lot of research when into this and you did a great job compiling all the information, thank you for your tremendous effort Semper Fi taco
Well written, and I concur fully. Truth is truth. Thanks for the followup.
I think in one respect, Hondo, maybe Mr. Schultz DIDN’T want the attention. He knew full well what happened to Gagnon and Hayes, and how it affected their lives–and not for the better.
And as for Bradley went through, perhaps there was some guilt in there, or like a lot of guys did, just wanted to forget about the war and move on.
I agree that there are no real winners here, given everyone involved has passed on, but I don’t believe this would rise to what you or I would call Stolen Valor. YMMV.
I’m with you on this SEA… I wouldn’t call it Stolen Valor on Bradley’s part (it seems like he just lived his life after the war).
Something to consider – the second flag raising photo was used for the seventh War Bonds Drive (a subject brought up in “Flags of our Fathers”). Could Bradley have been accidentally identified as a flag raiser due to confusion by the survivors? Or, maybe it was done as a PR move by the “higher ups” to show that it was a Navy-Marine Corps team that made it happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bond#United_States_2
Schultz should be recognized for being there… and Bradley is a hero and was recognized for it.
No argument, Hondo, with your central premise that history can only be portrayed accurately when it is truthfully told.
This is one of those situations which will always and forever confound us to tell the story accurately. For many reasons. You itemized many of those reasons quite well.
The historian within me is really only concerned about the original raising of the first flag, whether or not it is documented. That is what encouraged those who were there. The fact that there were recreations staged later for public consumption is irrelevant – to me.
My angst about all this is that real heroes died that day and that others were forced into participating in publicity events against their will, to their ultimate detriment. Those men were not allowed to opt out. That some others may have seen an opportunity to ignore it and get on with their lives just doesn’t bother me all that much, especially for staged pics which only symbolized what went on that day. (An important symbol, to be sure.)
Yeah, the question of how it should and could be remembered is interesting to ponder, but is not something we can resolve satisfactorily.
Agree 100%. I just have a hard time believing James Bradley never had a suspicion about whether his father was in the photo. I don’t fault the father because from what I know he didn’t want the attention the book would’ve given him while he was alive. In all of the research he did for the book this had to have come up.
Here’s an interesting take on the same topic, from a former USAF Spook. I recommend following his weblog in general.
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2016/06/correcting-history.html
Very good article. I highly recommend that all of you read it.
He nails it.
…Superb article. FWIW, I spoke with my dad (USMC ’53-’60)about this yesterday. He was trained and led by men who had marched across the Pacific,taken that miserable little island and so many others,throttled the Japanese Empire, and walked out of Chosin – and he knew a remarkable few who had done ALL of those things. His take on this was interesting – he feels that given as how Bradley was a corpsman and seriously wounded to boot, given what we understand now about combat fatigue and PTSD it’s entirely possible Mr. Bradley truly didn’t remember much of the fight. Takes nothing away from the bravery he and thousands of others showed during those awful days.
Mike
I can certainly find Schultz not wanting recognition plausible. It could even be that he felt Bradley was doing him a favor. Might have even been something they agreed on. I don’t know, obviously, but it’s plausible. My own Grandfather was a WWII Navy vet who often told stories about his wartime experiences, and several of them were about another Sailor, who on several occasions, both in combat and in shipboard emergencies, stepped up and did something that saved lives at great risk to his own. It was always about “This guy, I forget his name.” Grandpa always said that he saw it happen, but was too scared to do anything himself. After he passed away, my Dad (Grandpa’s son-in-law) found an old box in the back of his closet containing all of his papers from the Navy, including citations for several medals. Turns out, according to the Navy, “this guy, I forget his name” was Grandpa. He hadn’t kept the medals, the citations were stuffed in the box with his other paperwork, and he always insisted that it was somebody else who did what he did. My Grandma didn’t even know about it, as Grandpa never wore the medals or ribbons on his uniform, and never put his uniform on again after he was discharged in 1945. He didn’t want recognition. Perhaps Mr. Schultz was cut from the same cloth. He might not have wanted anything to do with the circus that erupted around that picture. Ira Hayes certainly didn’t, and it ruined his life (what was left of it). John Bradley was no self-aggrandizer. By all accounts, he hardly ever spoke about the war at all, never told people that he was (allegedly) a flagraiser, and never tried to make any kind of gain from it. After the massive dog&pony of the war bond tour and the mess of trying to set the record straight regarding the Hansen/Block misidentification, it appears he just wanted it to be over and done with. Evidently he and Schultz both said, “Screw it,” and let it go. It’s good for the record… Read more »
^^this is probably the closest we’ll get to an accurate explanation of why someone wouldn’t come forward about what exactly happened. My grandfather was the same way about his service in WWII and Korea, he never talked about it until the day of Grandma’s funeral because talking about the wars he was in was easier for him than anything else that day, and that should say something about the level of pain talking about the war was for someone like him. He never talked about his service other than to say, “yes, I was there, yes I broke my ankle while there, yes I cooked while I was there” (he was damned good army cook and went on to be head chief at many restaurants) No details, just that he was there.
To put it in perspective I guess it would be like having a picture taken in the middle of the most horrify 30 days of your life and having people constantly waving it in front of you and asking about it.
Well put, JAOD. I’ll bet that I ain’t the only one here who, when some folks find out I’d served, has been asked if I’d shot/killed/tortured/mutilated anybody. I don’t want to forget what I did do, nor the guys with whom I did it, ’cause there ain’t that many left.
History should only be the truth, not what’s socially/politically correct.
In honor of Gary Louie, 4th/47th,9thID RVN ’68 and best man at my wedding 45 years ago today.
I concur with you Hondo. Thank you for the research and thread. I also want to thank Harold H. Schultz. A good and honorable man by all accounts who did his duty as a Marine and sought no notoriety, even for what he knew to be the truth. I am left with a nagging thought though, of what Mr. Schultz thought of the truth he knew and what he would have said, had it been revealed in his lifetime.
IMHO….the older we Marines get, the less we care about recognition.
After Desert Storm almost every veteran in my county went to the local newspaper to discuss what a hero they were. I chose to remain silent. I don’t care how others feel about me. I care how I feel about me.
Well said Chip. Only two beings that I ultimately have to answer to: the Man upstairs and the man in the mirror…
nbc….One of the better points seen in years. Thanks for sharing.
Hondo, as far as setting the official historical record straight, I’m in agreement with you. However, I do not believe that we know enough about the facts on the ground at the time, or in the period that followed when Bradley was MADE a hero by his country to enhance to purchase of war bonds, to make any attempt to fault him for his failure to correct that official record.
Had Schultz come forward and challenged the official accounting of events and Bradley then tried to defend the incorrect record, that would have been a different story and indeed, Stolen Valor. But since that never happened and Bradley never made any attempt to capitalize on his role, I’m opposed to trying to inject any form of moral judgment as to whether or not Bradley’s behavior constitutes any form of Stolen Valor.
At worst, it would be Stolen Valor by silent omission. I wonder how many holders of our nation’s highest awards for valor feel, deep in their hearts, that some of the events depicted in their citations for those awards are pure hyperbole on the part of the citation writers? Should they all come forward to correct the official record? Would any of us?
This is truly a case where the often misused term, fog of war, justifies its application.
James Bradley says his father never claimed to have participated in the flag raising. FWIW
I have a decidedly different take on this but I will not beat it to death. What was accomplished by the Marines on Iwo Jima is to be remembered. Indeed, the famous words, “Uncommon valor was a common virtue” are inscribed on the Memorial that depicts the flag raising. What isn’t inscribed on it are the names of the Marines who raised that flag. I do not wonder why.
Did you know that the flag raising occurred on day five of the two-month battle? Did you know that 22 Medals of Honor were issued to Marines for action on Iwo Jima and that 50% of the medals were issued posthumously? The Marines in Joe Rosenthal’s photo represent every Marine who ever served and will ever serve. That’s the import of the photo and may explain why Rosenthal didn’t say, “Okay, boys, let’s do that again, but this time, look at the camera and, if you want to, smile.”
Regarding the weight of flagpole used in the iconic photo, large flagpoles were not an item that Marines would have on hand in combat. It is my understanding from other accounts that the Marines on Mount Suribachi were able to scrounge up a piece of scrap Japanese water pipe to fashion a makeshift flagpole. That was certainly a stroke of luck.
As for Harold Schultz getting the short end of the stick. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and he was silent until the end. Maybe he was perfectly comfortable with staying out of the spotlight and considered himself fortunate. He really got what was important: “the years to be of work, joy, and that unhoped serene men call age.”
I don’t think there is any reason to wonder about the moral makeup of either Schultz or Bradley. Both were good Marines. They were told what to say about the whole photo situation and both followed their orders to the end.
Thank you, Hondo, for a well-written article that said what needed to be said. The first article, and especially the comments, just didn’t sit right with me.
Here’s this about that. None of us where there. Anything being reported or said is pure speculation and conjecture on the part of the person saying it. None of us can say what went on in the hearts of the Marines and Sailors that went up that mountain and lived to tell about it. It was a time we can only imagine in our worst nightmares. Nobody here is qualified to determine the right or wrong of these Marines actions. Semper Fi
I’m normally far from a ‘fan’ of modern war movies (call it from WW2 onward). Films like ‘Waterloo’ from the ’70s are all good.
I liked ‘Flags of our Fathers’, especially for the in-depth treatment of Ira Hayes and the others.
And since I’ve seen it, when some well-meaning but uneducated individual asks me ‘what’s a Corpsman’ I use that movie as an example.
One would be foolish to say the winner of the Navy Cross ‘stole valor’, but it is hard to imagine that Bradly could have looked at then picture and seen the statue and never noticed that the figure in question was not euipped as a corpsman. Bradly made a point of not talking about the incident but his annoyance at being asked about it can now be interpreted as either a modest man or as a man trying to not get himself in any deeper into a bad situation.
Bradly’s family might have done better to respect his wishes to not speak about the flag raising.
How and why error occured is hard to say. The idea that adding in a Navy man made for better bond sales is not out of the relm of possibility. The simple fact that we now have access to more information than the usmc had access tonin 1945 sounds odd but is largely true. We can post pictures and consult world class experts in an email. A general at the Pentagon would not have seen mordernn fully equipped corpsman and would have to have photos mailed over or grainy faxes sent. Once bradly and hayes and gagnon became flag raisers, it was a hard designation to get rid of.
Thanks for a great article.
Pretty much stopped reading at the phrase “winner of the Navy Cross.” Had to work at reading the rest of your comments.
Awards, especially those for personal valor, are not won or lost. Awards may be earned, but never won. It’s not a game.
That said, your points following are not all that bad, but your credibility and opinion are diminished by your offensive wording concerning military honors.