testtest

Triumph and Tragedy: The USS Indianapolis

The USS Indianapolis Memorial is the brainchild of the ship's survivors.

In 1960, some gathered 15 years after the war's end for their first reunion. A suggestion arose to create a memorial to honor and remember their lost shipmates during their gathering. The idea resonated and then simmered.
The subject of a memorial resurfaced at the 1965 reunion. This time the discussion generated momentum. An exploratory committee began to look further into the possibility of building a memorial. Initially, the biggest hurdle was finding a suitable piece of property in Indianapolis for the monument. Good news finally came in 1990 when the Mayor of Indianapolis, William H. Hudnut III, announced his intent to donate to the survivor's organization prime property along the water canal that ran through downtown Indianapolis.

From the beginning, challenges existed in raising money for the memorial. The first was its growing cost. The projected estimate was initially $500,000. By the time the memorial was completed in 1995 - 3 years later than projected - the total expenses had risen to 1 million dollars.



IMG_1950-scaled.jpeg



 
Reading this story, I think if I had google back in 1969, I may not have joined the Navy. A whole lot of incompetence regarding ship crews in sinkings.

I was stationed aboard the USS Juneau, LPD-10, but it's namesake the USS Juneau CL-52, known for being sunk while crewed with the 5 Sullivan brothers, ends up being even more tragic than the USS Indianapolis. Where with a crew of over 600 ... Navy incompetence resulted in only 10 survivors.

A great book chronicling the USS Juneau CL-52, sinking and life lost is "Left to Die, The Tragedy of the USS Juneau". Being stationed on the 3rd ship to carry the name ... the story has more impact (reminded by this story), and as a plank owner ... (stationed on board for it's commissioning), and present for it's 2008 decommissioning ... one of perhaps the last of the 10 survivors was present to speak of the tragedy that befell it.
 
I was listening to a history podcast last night.
That oldest Sullivan was alive after Juneau sank.
He swam around looking for his brothers.
And then of course he died sometime there.

The podcast is well done and called The Unauthorised History of the Pacific War.
One of the guys is retired skipper of the fast attack submarine Indianapolis and Retired Admiral. Bill Toti Todi? I might be messing up his name. (Shame on my memory)
They do have a thing on the Indy but I haven't gotten that far yet.
 
I was listening to a history podcast last night.
That oldest Sullivan was alive after Juneau sank.
He swam around looking for his brothers.
And then of course he died sometime there.

The podcast is well done and called The Unauthorised History of the Pacific War.
One of the guys is retired skipper of the fast attack submarine Indianapolis and Retired Admiral. Bill Toti Todi? I might be messing up his name. (Shame on my memory)
They do have a thing on the Indy but I haven't gotten that far yet.
It has been a few years since I read the book, but I believe that only two of the Sullivan brothers went down with the ship, and three were alive ... but all succumbed to sharks or the elements ... so none survived. The book is really good, and actually recommended by the survivor who talked to us at the decommissioning of my ship, the newer Juneau.
 
Isn't this the case where the Imperial Japanese Commander testified regarding the US ship's movements in a US military court? If so, and warranted or not, bringing in an enemy to testify is a disgusting display.
 
Isn't this the case where the Imperial Japanese Commander testified regarding the US ship's movements in a US military court? If so, and warranted or not, bringing in an enemy to testify is a disgusting display.
I've never heard that ... any real blame of this incident went to the Navy. The Juneau had been injured so the ships that it was following, while heading to safety, were unable to stay the slow pace ... more or less leaving the Juneau behind, as a threat appeared, a Japanese submarine ... which also was injured, but easily caught up to the Juneau, and sank her. The Navy was at fault, for not leaving her behind, (as that allowed other ships to get safely away) but they basically forgot about the Juneau and it's crew, not wondering what happened to her or following up. So the sailors that survived losing their ship, were afloat, and ignored in the open sea.
 
I've never heard that ... any real blame of this incident went to the Navy. The Juneau had been injured so the ships that it was following, while heading to safety, were unable to stay the slow pace ... more or less leaving the Juneau behind, as a threat appeared, a Japanese submarine ... which also was injured, but easily caught up to the Juneau, and sank her. The Navy was at fault, for not leaving her behind, (as that allowed other ships to get safely away) but they basically forgot about the Juneau and it's crew, not wondering what happened to her or following up. So the sailors that survived losing their ship, were afloat, and ignored in the open sea.
I found it.

Japanese Submarine Commander Mochitsura Hashimoto testified on December 13, 1945, at the Washington Navy Yard during the court-martial of Captain Charles B. McVay III, who commanded the USS Indianapolis. This was the first time an officer from an enemy nation testified against a US Navy officer in a court-martial.
NHHC (.mil)
NHHC (.mil) +2
Key Details of the Testimony:
  • The Case: McVay was charged with failing to zig-zag his ship, leading to its sinking by Hashimoto's submarine, I-58, in July 1945.
  • The Testimony: Hashimoto stated that even if the Indianapolis had been zigzagging, it "would have made no difference to the success of his submarine's attack".
  • Significance: While designed to help convict McVay, Hashimoto's testimony ultimately supported the view that the failure was not entirely on the American captain, and in later years, Hashimoto supported the efforts to exonerate him.
 
I found it.

Japanese Submarine Commander Mochitsura Hashimoto testified on December 13, 1945, at the Washington Navy Yard during the court-martial of Captain Charles B. McVay III, who commanded the USS Indianapolis. This was the first time an officer from an enemy nation testified against a US Navy officer in a court-martial.
View attachment 108763NHHC (.mil) +2
Key Details of the Testimony:
  • The Case: McVay was charged with failing to zig-zag his ship, leading to its sinking by Hashimoto's submarine, I-58, in July 1945.
  • The Testimony: Hashimoto stated that even if the Indianapolis had been zigzagging, it "would have made no difference to the success of his submarine's attack".
  • Significance: While designed to help convict McVay, Hashimoto's testimony ultimately supported the view that the failure was not entirely on the American captain, and in later years, Hashimoto supported the efforts to exonerate him.
Sorry ... I was talking about the Juneau ... I really have only the article knowledge of the USS Indianapolis ...
 
Back
Top